Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Augustin

  Dear Earnest,

  You wrote

  "The fact that this corruption of scripture took place, and was so widespread, helped me realise that it was quite feasible for the replacement of God's name with kurios to have taken place once the Church became gentile. Other phenomena like the nomina sacra and the universal use of codex instead of scrolls convinced me further that the copying of scripture in the post-Apostolic church was both well organised and controlled."

  Now, if it was possible for the "apostate" Church to remove the name of God without any trace... perhaps there is much more in the NT that has been tampered with. Perhaps we just cannot trust the NT at all. Eventually, liberals will argue that. And that's ok. (I'm a liberal myself!) But I do not accept a double standard. Thus, I do not believe that what is in harmony with the teachings of the Watchtower is the genuine Word of God, but what is not, is the result of tampering... See my point? Either we have a reliable NT or we do not. All the "corruptions" mentioned in Ehrman's book are documented. The alleged change from "YHWH" to "kurios" or "theos" is not!

  What we do know, based on hard evidence, are:

  (1) Some, perhaps all, LXX (or LXX'ish) versions around ca. 50 (B)CE had "YHWH" or "IAW". It is possible that some had "kurios" (cf. the "qere"), which many septuagintalists (like e.g. Pietersma) tink was the original rendering of the Divine Name in (at least some parts of the LXX ).

  (2) When Jews quoted from the LXX they could write "kurios" instead of "YHWH" / "IAW".

  (3) There is no real trace of "YHWH" / "IAW" in the copies / fragments of the NT known to us. No ancient document mentions that "YHWH" / "IAW" was replaced by "kurios".

  (4) At least Rom 10:9-13 demonstrates that Paul originally wrote "kurios" as "YHWH" would not make sense here.

  (5) So-called "Nomina sacra" are abbreviations, not new forms. Abbreviations do not prove a change from "YHWH" > "kurios".

  I have to conclude that I find little or no real support for Howard's theory. I think it's obvious that the Watchtower has rendered "kurios" as "Jehovah" based on theological bias rather than textual evidence. If the "apostate" Church was able to make alterations in the NT without any trace, then how can we trust the NT?

  Regards

  - Augustin -
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Augustin,

  From what you wrote I completely agree with your approach.

  Another element I already mentioned is that the NT authors probably almost never quoted from a full LXX manuscript (such mss were quite rare and expensive). They rather quoted either from memory or from Christian testimonia (lists of excerpts, as indicated by a similar combination of OT verses in several NT texts), in which the qere' (i.e. the usual substitution for the divine name, be it kurios [Lord] or theos [God]) would naturally have priority over a supposed mysterious Tetragrammaton in Hebrew or its Greek transcription (Iaô).

  I would also ask the following question: who, in the NT authors, would find any theological interest in including the divine name? Remember that the name Yhwh, as a vestige of polytheism, was quite an embarrassing heritage for monotheism of every kind. It had to be explained away (as it is already in Exodus 3), not put to the fore, especially for monotheist Jews engaged in dialogue with Gentiles. Any Jewish-Christian author who would use it while addressing Gentiles would need to provide an explicit explanation for it. And such an explanation is obviously absent from the NT...
• 

  Earnest

  I could just as easily conclude that based upon Erhman's work exposing the theological corruption evidenced in the existing mss, I feel encouraged in my opinion that Jesus was a woman.

  peacefulpete:

  You could conclude that if you wished but I don't agree there is no support for the conclusion that the corruption of scripture included the removal of God's name. Let us leave aside the NT for the moment just for the sake of argument.

  Now, we know that the survivng fragments of the LXX and LXX recensions prior to the second century contained God's name in Hebrew or in Greek form. And we know that copies of the LXX after the first century did not contain God's name. We also know that the LXX had largely been surrendered to the Christians as their Bible by the Jews because of their frequent use of it for Christological purposes. So whether you wish to call it a conspiracy or not, we clearly have a case for the universal removal of God's name from scripture by the Christians without any record outside of the LXX copies themselves that such a procedure had taken place. It is a very small leap to believe they did the same to their own writings.

  Augustin:

  Have you read Furuli's book? If so, what do you make of his use of 8HevXIIgr as proof against Pietersma. Any real scholar knows that 8HevXIIgr is a kaige version, not an example of the LXX. Thus, Furuli's argument is not compelling. A problem with many of the so-called LXX fragments is that they are fragments of a revised version of the LXX (OG).

  I have read Furuli's book but alas I gave it away some months ago so cannot comment on his use of 8HevXIIgr at present. Apart from the LXX fragments, another indication that the LXX contained the tetragram is the translation into Syriac by Paul of Tella, executed at Alexandria in 616-17 and known as the Syro-Hexaplar. This translation contains the divine name as a marginal note throughout the translation wherever 'Lord' (or sometimes 'God') occurs which probably means that the text he was translating (the LXX column of Origen's Hexapla) had the divine name either in the main text or the margins.

  But evidence at hand demonstrates that he could have written Gr. "kurios" even if he saw Hebr. "YHWH" when he made his quotes from the so-called OT. Thus, having "YHWH" or "IAW" in the LXX does not demand "YHWH" or "IAW" in quotes from the OT.

  Of course without the actual manuscripts / papyri we cannot demand Paul (or Matthew) wrote "YHWH" or IAW" in quotes from the OT. We can only speak about probability and that can be a very subjective decision.

  Earnest
• 

  Augustin

  Dear Earnest,

  You wrote:

  "So whether you wish to call it a conspiracy or not, we clearly have a case for the universal removal of God's name from scripture by the Christians without any record outside of the LXX copies themselves that such a procedure had taken place. It is a very small leap to believe they did the same to their own writings."

  This LXX analogy will not work, I think, for the following reason: we do have external evidence for the LXX rendering the Divine Name as YHWH (with Hebrew letters) rather than Greek "kurios". No such evidence exists for the tetragrammaton ever being in the so-called NT. I think this is very important.

  If we stick to the "hard evidence", the following two scenarios seem likely: either (a) the Christians started to write the "qere" (i.e. "kurios") when copying the LXX because they found the "qere" in the OT quotations of the NT; or (b) the Christians used "pre-kaige" versions of the LXX with "kurios", not the tetragrammaton. (Note: Howard too thinks that Greek speaking Jews/Christains uttered "kurios" when they saw "YHWH".) As we have at least two possible scenarios supported by the evidence, why opt for an unsupported theory -- if not according to some theological bias?

  One should also note that it is not always possible to distinguish Christian and Jewish copies/versions of the LXX/OG. There are scholars, more distinguished than Howard, who would argue that some Jews also had "kurios" instead of "YHWH" in the LXX.

  Regards

  - Augustin -
• 

  Augustin

  Narkissos,

  You are right about "kurios" being the "qere" (for Greek speaking Jews/Christians). And we do know that it would be possible for a Jew to write the "qere" when quoting the LXX (with "YHWH"). We also know, from Qumran, that even Aramaic speaking Jews used "Lord" instead of YHWH in the last century BCE. Of course, there were other ways of avoiding a pronunciation of the Divine Name -- the use of various circumlocutions, which is also attested in the so-called NT.

  In the first century CE, the only group with a great interest in the Divine Name as such seems to have been the Gnostics...

  - Augustin -
• 

  Narkissos

  For an Alexandrine (as the original LXX, different from the Palestinian kaigè recension) contemporary theological view of the subject, cf. Philo, De mutatione nominum ("On the change of names"):

  (11) It was, therefore, quite consistent with reason that no proper name could with propriety be assigned to him who is in truth the living God. Do you not see that to the prophet who is really desirous of making an honest inquiry after the truth, and who asks what answer he is to give to those who question him as to the name of him who has sent him, he says, "I am that I Am,"{6}{#ex 3:14.} which is equivalent to saying, "It is my nature to be, not to be described by name:" (12) but in order that the human race may not be wholly destitute of any appellation which they may give to the most excellent of beings, I allow you to use the word Lord as a name; the Lord God of three natures--of instruction, and of holiness, and of the practice of virtue; of which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob are recorded as the symbols. For this, says he, is the everlasting name, as if it has been investigated and discerned in time as it exists in reference to us, and not in that time which was before all time; and it is also a memorial not placed beyond recollection or intelligence, and again it is addressed to persons who have been born, not to uncreated natures. (13) For these men have need of the complete use of the divine name who come to a created or mortal generation, in order that, if they cannot attain to the best thing, they may at least arrive at the best possible name, and arrange themselves in accordance with that; and the sacred oracle which is delivered as from the mouth of the Ruler of the universe, speaks of the proper name of God never having been revealed to any one, when God is represented as saying, "For I have not shown them my Name;"{7}{#ex 6:3.} for by a slight change in the figure of speech here used, the meaning of what is said would be something of this kind: "My proper name I have not revealed to them," but only that which is commonly used, though with some misapplication, because of the reasons abovementioned. (14) And, indeed, the living God is so completely indescribable, that even those powers which minister unto him do not announce his proper name to us. At all events, after the wrestling match in which the practicer of virtue wrestled for the sake of the acquisition of virtue, he says to the invisible Master, "Tell me thy Name;"{8}{#ge 32:29.} but he said, "Why askest thou me my name?" And he does not tell him his peculiar and proper name, for says he, it is sufficient for thee to be taught my ordinary explanations. But as for names which are the symbols of created things, do not seek to find them among immortal natures.

  Think of what this implies as to (1) the reading of the original (pre-kaige) LXX and (2) the theological "atmosphere" in the Hellenistic diaspora, from which essentially derives what we now call Christianity.

  I don't say some Judeo-Christian (Nazorene?) groups could not have been interested in the use of the Tetragrammaton as introduced into the LXX copies under Palestinian influence. However the history and theology of such groups have precisely not found their way into the NT.
• 

  Augustin

  Narkissos,

  To what you say in your last message: Bon!

  I would like to add that Jewish sacred writings from the 3-1 century BCE -- like Wisd, 1-2 Macc, Sir -- do not have the tetragrammaton. Thus, again we have a case for the non-use of the Divine Name in "sacred scriptures". One could also mention the Book of Daniel; however, as the date of this book is a highly complicated matter, it seems wise to leave it be -- at least for now.

  Is it possible that IAW (IAO) was a "qere" for YHWH, much like "Adonay"?

  - Augustin -
• 

  Narkissos

  I would like to add that Jewish sacred writings from the 3-1 century BCE -- like Wisd, 1-2 Macc, Sir -- do not have the tetragrammaton. Thus, again we have a case for the non-use of the Divine Name in "sacred scriptures".

  Right. And when you think of the book of Wisdom, for instance, as a central reference for the Gospels Passion narratives, that is a very relevant element as far as theological kinship is concerned. Which makes all the more unlikely that the Gospel writers would have any interest in the Tetragrammaton per se.

  One could also mention the Book of Daniel; however, as the date of this book is a highly complicated matter, it seems wise to leave it be -- at least for now.

  Until you said that I had not realized that the Tetragrammaton appears only in the typical literary confession of Daniel 9 (cf. Nehemiah 9 etc.).

  One could also mention the Elohistic revision of a large part of the Psalter (Psalms 46ff) as early evidence of substitution. But very late Hebrew books such as Jonah could also use the Tetragrammaton freely as a literary device (very similar, I guess, to Daniel 9).

  Is it possible that IAW (IAO) was a "qere" for YHWH, much like "Adonay"?

  Of course when we use the word qere' we are making a somewhat anachronistic use of a Masoretic technical term. However it finely suits the very ancient practice of substituting adonay or elohim to the Tetragrammaton in public reading and translation (which will be formalized by the Masoretes as "perpetual qere'").

  Whatever the case, I guess Iaô is not exactly a qere' (even in this broader sense) but rather the actual Egyptian pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, since it corresponds to the Hebrew form yhw which is the main one in Elephantine (it is also found in Kuntillet 'Ajrud, but there the pronunciation it stands for is more debated).

  Edited to add another question to Augustin:

  In the first century CE, the only group with a great interest in the Divine Name as such seems to have been the Gnostics...

  Have you got any reference on this? As I said before the closest thing I can think of in the NT is the Christological use of egô eimi in the Fourth Gospel (which can clearly be labeled as proto-Gnostic). Of course it is a reference, not to the Tetragrammaton itself, but to its (late) explanation in Exodus 3 (and perhaps the 'ani hu' of Deutero-Isaiah)...
• 

  Earnest

  NWTetc (13-Jul-04 07:54 GMT) : I should have had that entire booklet xeroxed while I was there. But at that time they were charging me twenty-five cents a copy and I was so poor I skipped lunch. If you have a contact at ABS, that contact could xerox the entire thing and mail it to you for a couple of dollars or so. I've been planning to write and ask just that. Why don't you talk to your contact and have two copies made -- one for each of us. I will pay the cost for both. Deal?

  Deal. Twenty-seven years later they are still charging 25 cents per page (+ shipping) and if you are happy with that I will arrange for a copy to be sent to both of us and the invoice to be enclosed with your copy. And just to show I'm not a complete cheapskate I will donate an equivalent amount to JWD for the upkeep of the site.

  NWTetc (13-Jul-04 07:54 GMT) : Perhaps a JW in good standing (hint, hint) might be able to get the WT HQ to xerox a copy of the new J19, and we can figure out what the situation is.

  That begs the question as to whether or not I am a JW in good standing, but if an examination of the old J19 does show there is no support for the tetragrammaton in Luke I will certainly make enquiries about the new J19.

  Earnest
• 

  Augustin

  Dear Narkissos,

  I think you make many fine observations. As to your question, I don't have any reference at hand. But I'm sure that one has found the trigramm IAW ("IAO") especially on magic amulets etc. I think one has related these artefacts to some kind of Gnosticism.

  I have found the following book very useful:

  Sean M. McDonough: YHWH at Patmos: Rev 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. (WUNT 2/107) Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.

  McDonough covers most if not all relevant points. He make interesting comments on IAW too.

  Of course he rejects Howard's thesis.

  (Regarding the Book of Daniel; I think the tetragrammaton is a relic from the original version.)

  Regards

  - Augustin -