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

by NWT@Cutlip.Org 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Earnest wrote:

    For example, the J7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org replied:

    Is that the original count or the revised count? Undoubtedly, you know that a major rework of the footnotes was done in 1984. For example, for forty years (one generation) the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of John (listed as J19) was in the footnotes as support for "Jehovah" in Luke 4:8, Luke 4:12, Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19.

    Interestingly:

    Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our version, there are only two instances where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly supported by the context and by related texts in rendering the divine name. -- 1969 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.19.
    Thus, out of the 237 times that we have restored Jehovah's name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely at 1 Corinthians 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support restoring the divine name. -- 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.12.

    Too bad they misplaced the support they used to have for 1 Corinthians 7:17!

    --

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    There is no credible source for the earliest text of the NT containing the Tetragrammaton...expecially as much as the NWT uses it.

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist

    JWs make big deal out of discovering that early versions of the greek septuigent contained the YHWH name for God in hebrew characters...and indicate this is proof that it was removed from the NT...but one thing they overlook... were it not for superstitions already making the name too holy to pronounce and commonly use, it would have been found in greek letters not hebrew.

    that they kept it in hebrew letters already indicated that the jews felt the name too sacred for common usage by the time the sep was made.

    so the likelihood of the NT writers using it is much less than JWs would wish...indicating that the inventors of the Jesus myth were truly not concerned with the divine name as the hebrew authors apparently were... which of course fits with the theory that the Jesus myth was just a rework of many older pagan myths put together by gnostic greek/jews of the time...not inspired by the OT god as advertized.

  • Earnest
    Earnest
    Earnest : For example, the J 7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts. - 08-Jul-04 03:42 GMT
    NWT@Cutlip.Org : Is that the original count or the revised count? - 08-Jul-04 21:53 GMT

    Does it matter ? It was just an example to show that the J-Documents are not always in agreement. There are some differences in the list of J-Documents in various NWT editions but J 7 consistently refers to the Polyglott New Testament, 1599, by Elias Hutter, and so there is no "revised count" in my example.

    For example, for forty years (one generation) the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of John (listed as J19) was in the footnotes as support for "Jehovah" in Luke 4:8, Luke 4:12, Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19.

    That is because for "forty years" J 19 referred to John in Hebrew (1930, British Jews Society of Haifa) arranged by T.C. Horton. In the NWT revised edition of 1984, which included "a complete updating and revision of the footnote apparatus", J 19 referred to John in Hebrew (1957, Denver, Colorado) by Moshe I. Ben Maeir. I am surprised it did not occur to you to simply check the references in the front of the Bible.

    Too bad they misplaced the support they used to have for 1 Corinthians 7:17!

    This was an easy mistake to make. Prior to the 1984 revision the footnote cited J 7,8 as support for using 'Jehovah' in this verse. In fact, J 7,8 do support the use of 'Jehovah' in this verse but not in the instance considered warranted by the NWT translators. Here is the verse in question :

    Only, as ho kyrios has given each one a portion, let each one so walk as ho theos has called him. And thus I ordain in all the congregations.

    Although there is strong textual support for this, the textual tradition is not unanimous. The Majority text (primarily the Byzantine manuscripts) and the Syriac Harclean version have ho theos in the first instance and ho kyrios in the second. This is reflected in the KJV and other translations prior to the Greek text of Westcott & Hort. A few Latin Vulgate mss have theos in both cases. Anyway, the NWT translators consider that the context and related texts support replacing ho kyrios with 'Jehovah', while J 7,8 replace ho theos with the tetragrammaton. As a guess I expect those responsible for the footnotes simply checked which J-Documents used the tetragrammaton in this verse and slipped up in this case.

    Whether or not it was a mistake, in my opinion it is quite unimportant whether or not some Hebrew translations concur with the use of God's name in the NT. Just as it is unimportant that translations in other languages use God's name. It is a matter of interest, no more.

    Incidentally, do you think there is any significance in the fact that there are many instances where the textual tradition is quite undecided whether theos or kyrios is the correct reading ? George Howard referred to this (but not this particular verse) in an article The Tetragram and the New Testament ( Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, #1, March 1977, pp. 63-83) :

    The removal of the Tetragram in the NT of the Gentile church obviously affected the appearance of the NT text and no doubt influenced the theological outlook of second century Gentile Christianity; just how much we may never know. But if we permit our mind's eye to compare the original OT quotations in the NT with the way they appeared after the Tetragram was removed, we can imagine that the theological change was significant. In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable ambiguity .

    It is interesting to note that the confusion that emerged from such passages in the second century is reflected in the MS [manuscript] tradition of the NT. A large number of variants in the NT MS tradition involve the word theos

    [God], kyrios [Lord], Iesous [Jesus], Christos [Christ], uios [son] and combinations of them. The theory we suggest to explain the origin of many of these variants (though, of course, not all) is that the removal of the Tetragram from the OT quotations in the NT created a confusion in the minds of scribes as to which person was referred to in the discussion surrounding the quotation. Once the confusion was caused by the change in the divine name in the quotations, the same confusion spread to other parts of the NT where quotations were not involved at all. In other words once the names of God and Christ were confused in the vicinity of quotations, the names were generally confused elsewhere.

    Earnest

  • Earnest
  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org
    Earnest : For example, the J 7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts. - 08-Jul-04 03:42 GMT
    NWT@Cutlip.Org : Is that the original count or the revised count? - 08-Jul-04 21:53 GMT

    Earnest: Does it matter ? It was just an example to show that the J-Documents are not always in agreement. There are some differences in the list of J-Documents in various NWT editions but J 7 consistently refers to the Polyglott New Testament, 1599, by Elias Hutter, and so there is no "revised count" in my example.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org :

    Does it matter? Yes, it does. At least, the WTS and average JW thinks it does. "These [307 distincnt occurrences of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew versions] have thus restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Scriptures." KIT 69 p. 19. This WT argument is one of the links in their chain of evidence. A broken link.

    You said, "J7 ... supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts." You did not give a list as Firpo Carr does on p.92 of The Divine Name Controversy. But his list has 49 of 52 supported. Did someone chance the text of J7 between 1949 and 1984? Or, is it just that the WT can't get it's story straight? First they say one thing; then they say another. What's the name for that? Bearing false Witness?

    Shall we start a pool on the number of "Jehovahs" the next revision of NWT will claim for Acts? How is Joe Average to know? Obviously, we can't take the Watchtower's word for it.

    Tell us straight out. Are you saying that these J-Documents are worthless as proof that the divine name should be in the NT?

    --

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org : For example, for forty years (one generation) the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of John (listed as J19) was in the footnotes as support for "Jehovah" in Luke 4:8, Luke 4:12, Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19.

    Earnest: That is because for "forty years" J 19 referred to John in Hebrew (1930, British Jews Society of Haifa) arranged by T.C. Horton. In the NWT revised edition of 1984, which included "a complete updating and revision of the footnote apparatus", J 19 referred to John in Hebrew (1957, Denver, Colorado) by Moshe I. Ben Maeir. I am surprised it did not occur to you to simply check the references in the front of the Bible.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org :

    I am surprised how you can totally miss a point in discussion. J19 is the Gospel of John -- only the Gospel of John -- Luke is no part of it. Because Luke is no part of it, J19 could not offer support for four passages in Luke. Yet the footnotes say it does. Can't you see this? If every word in J19 (the Gospel of John) was a tetragrammaton, it would not prove Luke used the tetragrammaton.

    About the kindest thing that can be said about the WT use of the J-Documents is to call it "slipshod." That would only apply if one assumes (as I do not) they were not intentionally deceptive but merely incompetent researchers. Which is it?

    --

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    The removal of the Tetragram in the NT of the Gentile church obviously affected the appearance of the NT text and no doubt influenced the theological outlook of second century Gentile Christianity; just how much we may never know. But if we permit our mind's eye to compare the original OT quotations in the NT with the way they appeared after the Tetragram was removed, we can imagine that the theological change was significant.

    That's quite a statement considering there is not any evidence whatsoever that suggests that the NT ever contained the name Yahweh.

    You would probably enjoy Bart Erhman's, "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". He deals extensively with textual variation and the then current debates that motivated the adjustments.

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Dear Earnest,

    I found the following statement by you very, very interesting. You said:

    Anyway, the NWT translators consider that the context and related texts support replacing ho kyrios with 'Jehovah', while J7,8 replace ho theos with the tetragrammaton. As a guess I expect those responsible for the footnotes simply checked which J-Documents used the tetragrammaton in this verse and slipped up in this case .

    As it turns out 1 Corinthians (like Acts) was a book I did run through somewhat quickly in J7 while in NYC on the aforementioned research trip. I didn't read every word (my Hebrew skill was far too poor for that), but I did skim through looking for extra tetrragrammaton. As you know the NWT located 15 (or 17 counting those religated to footnotes) instances of the tetragrammaton. Me, well, I located 16 more than they did. But I was working alone -- under time restraints. So I may have missed some. They had a hugh research staff working on a major project (NWT Bible translation) and wanted to be as accurate and careful as possible, so, no doubt they checked and double checked and rechecked their findings!

    As I'm sure you can guess many of the 16 extra tetragrammaton I found refer to Jehovah Jesus. I'm also sure you don't want me to list them. So I won't. I will say that my research notes (now 27+ years old) tell me that I checked 1 Corinthians 7:17 and it did contain a tetragrammaton in place of kurios (at the beginning) and did not contain a tetragrammaton in place of theos (at the end) as you asserted. So, according to my notes, the WT got it right the first time. Maybe I "slipped up" as you claim they did. I can't recall that detail now. I can only rely on my notes. However, I hope to have a microfiche copy of J7 in the next month. So, I can check it again.

    Which brings me around to why I found your explanation very, very interesting. My guess is that you have never seen a J-Docuement. So, someone else fed you that paragraph. What was your source? I want to know this very, very much.

    I'm far from perfect, but when I am hunting for the WT to mess up (as I was in 1 Corinthians of J7), I usually look pretty close. So, if my notes say they got that one right, they probably did. I was expecting to finds mistakes, and I did not spot that one (if you are right). So please inform me of your source. I'm going to learn something (I hope).

    Praying you remain Earnest, NWT@Cutlip.Org

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    NWTetc :

    You said, "J7 ... supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts." You did not give a list as Firpo Carr does on p.92 of The Divine Name Controversy. But his list has 49 of 52 supported. Did someone chance the text of J7 between 1949 and 1984?

    It is quite irrelevant how many occurrences of 'Jehovah' in NWT of Acts are supported by J 7 or any other J-Document. These are just translations of the Bible and some (cited in NWT 1984 Reference Edition) were only printed in the second half of the 20th century. The fact that they were translated into Hebrew doesn't give them anymore authority than a translation into English. Their only significance (with the possible exception of J 2 ) is that the translation principles that they followed allowed them to use the tetragrammaton in the NT, and that the NWT translators concurred in some cases.

    But let me indulge you. I counted 39 occurrences listed in the appendix A ('J' Reference Sources) to The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures by Lynn Lundquist. This is online so you can check his list yourself. The only difference in the references to J 7 between 1949 and 1984 is that in the earlier editions it was not cited in support of Acts 14:23, so where Firpo Carr got an extra ten occurrences I have no idea. As you seem to have access to his publication you may care to enlighten us.

    Tell us straight out. Are you saying that these J-Documents are worthless as proof that the divine name should be in the NT?

    What do you not understand about my previous post where I wrote:

    ...in my opinion it is quite unimportant whether or not some Hebrew translations concur with the use of God's name in the NT. Just as it is unimportant that translations in other languages use God's name. It is a matter of interest, no more.

    In your post of 09-Jul-04 04:34 GMT you said :

    I am surprised how you can totally miss a point in discussion. J19 is the Gospel of John -- only the Gospel of John -- Luke is no part of it. Because Luke is no part of it, J19 could not offer support for four passages in Luke. Yet the footnotes say it does.

    I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT would know the difference between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John to accept that they would not mistake the two. Unfortunately I have had some difficulty in obtaining a copy of this rather obscure translation (published by the British Jews Society of Haifa in 1930) but have contacted the American Bible Society as they may still have it in their library. I will certainly relay their observations if they do, but it is not unusual for translations of the Gospels to show the parallel readings in the other Gospels. Unless you have examined this translation yourself, and your knowledge of Hebrew allowed you to form a judgement, I think it is a bit premature to describe the footnote as slipshod and incompetent.

    Earnest

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    peacefulpete :

    "The removal of the Tetragram in the NT of the Gentile church obviously affected the appearance of the NT text..." - George Howard, JBL, Vol.96, p.77

    That's quite a statement considering there is not any evidence whatsoever that suggests that the NT ever contained the name Yahweh. - peacefulpete

    It's true there's not any concrete evidence, no extant copies of the NT with the tetragram, but until the twentieth century there was no evidence to suggest that the LXX contained the name Yahweh. And no manuscripts or papyri containing NT texts have yet been discovered which are as old as the copies of the LXX which do contain the tetragram (prior to and including first century C.E.). Furuli gives an example of an ancient aqueduct crossing a valley, in his book Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. He says that even though only half the aqueduct remains we have no doubt that sometime in the past it stretched the width of the valley. Likewise, we have textual evidence that the tetragram was in early copies of the LXX and so we would expect that to be true of NT writings in the same period. Nevertheless, I must admit I am uncomfortable myself in including 'Jehovah' in the main text without direct textual support. I think it would have been better practice to have kept it as a footnote.

    George Howard gave several examples where the textual tradition was undecided whether theos or kyrios is the correct reading (which confusion he attributes to the earlier writings containing the tetragrammaton).

    Romans 10:16,17

    Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: "[Lord / Jehovah], who has believed our report ?" So faith follows the thing heard. In turn the thing heard is through the word about [Christ / God].

    The words: "Lord, who has believed our report" (v.16), are shown to be a genuine quotation (Isa.53:1) by the introductory formula: "For Isaiah says." B.M. Metzger, commenting on the Greek NT of the United Bible Societies, accepts Christou as original in v.17 because: (a) it is strongly attested by early and diverse witnesses; and (b) the expression rema christou [word about Christ] occurs only here in the NT while rema theou [word about God] is more common (Luke 3:2; John 3:34; Eph 6:17; Heb 6:5; 11:3). The omission of the name altogether in several Western witnesses he ascribes to carelessness.

    Without doubting the judgement of the committee in regard to the textual principles under which it worked, we now may have other criteria by which to analyze the variants. If we assume that the original lemma employed the Tetragram, the quotations would have appeared to the first-century church as: [tetragram] tis episteusen te akoe emon [Jehovah, who has believed our report ?]. It can be argued from this that theou in the following comment is the original reading, not Christou, since it corresponds to the Jewish practice of using the Tetragram in the quotation and the word for "God" in the comment. Christou would have arisen from a confusion in the mind of later scribes as to which person kurie referred, once it had replaced the Tetragram in the lemma. This confusion would have been encouraged by the ambiguity of kurios in early Christian times; thus the shift from theou to Christou, scribally speaking, would have been quite insignificant. The omission of both theou and Christou in some Western witnesses, on the other hand, may go back to a time before the Tetragram was removed. Some Gentile scribe, totally bewildered by the Hebrew word, failed to recognize it as the antecedent to the word theou. By eliminating the word "God" in the comment (and perhaps even the Tetragram itself in the lemma, though we have no evidence for it) the problem of antecedence was solved.

    Romans 14:10,11

    But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of [God / Christ]

    ; for it is written: " 'As I live,' says [the Lord / Jehovah], 'to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.' "

    Again we are assured that v.11 (a combination of Isa 49:18 and 45:23) is a genuine quotation because of the introductory formula [for it is written]. It corresponds closely to the wording of the LXX. The Tetragram appears in Isa 49:18, and we can presume that it did so in the Greek copy of the text with which Paul was familiar. The UBS committee accepts the reading of theou as the original text in v.10. Metzger, speaking for the committee, suggests that Christou probably appeared as an influence from 2 Cor 5:10, which speaks of the "judgement seat of Christ." This is perhaps offset, however, by the fact that in Rom 3:6 Paul speaks of God judging the world. The concept of the judgement seat of God, therefore, lies within the range of Pauline thought in the Roman letter. Moreover, another explanation is possible if we assume that the Tetragram stood in the original lemma of v.11. At an early time a confusion could have arisen over which person kurios represented, once it had replaced the Tetragram. A shift from the indefinite kurios to Christou, therefore, could have happened without problem. This means that the judgement of the committee is probably right, but for a different reason than it states.

    1 Corinthians 2:16

    For "who has come to know the mind of [the Lord / Jehovah], that he may instruct him?" But we do have the mind of [the Lord / Christ].

    Here it is not quite as clear that we have a genuine quotation. However, gar [For] forms a type of introduction, and since the text corresponds roughly with both the LXX and the MT of Isa 40:13 (see Rom 11:34), we can be relatively safe in viewing it as a free quotation. The Tetragram appears in the MT and is, therefore, possible here. A. Robertson and A. Plummer prefer the reading of Christou in Paul's comment because "Christou would be likely to be altered to conform with the previous kuriou." If, however, the Tetragram stood in the original lemma, this explanation would be invalid. The most likely explanation for the variant is that Paul originally wrote: "For who has known the mind of Yhwh...but we have the mind of the Lord." Kuriou is an appropriate word according to early practice for a secondary reference to Yhwh, but not "Christ." Later, when the Tetragram of the lemma was replaced with kuriou, it was little trouble for the second kuriou to be changed to the more definite Christou.

    1 Peter 3:14,15

    But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But sanctify the [Christ / God] as

    [Lord / Jehovah] in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.

    The passage contains an allusion to the LXX of Isa 8:12,13 in spite of its lack of a more formal introduction than de [But]. The best NT witnesses read Christon; the Textus Receptus with the later uncials KLP and many minuscules read theon. The reading Christon, though better attested, is probably secondary, if we suppose that the Tetragram stood in the original citation. In that case the original text would have read [tetragram] de ton theon agiasate [But sanctify God as Jehovah]. The author would hardly have written Christon since that would have identified Christ with Yhwh. In v.18 he distinguishes the two when he says that Christos died in order to bring man to theo [to God], and in v.22 he says that Christ is at the right hand of theou. Once the Tetragram had been replaced with kurion, however, this obstacle vanished and the way was cleared for Christon.

    These examples support the theory that the removal of the Tetragram from the NT quotations of the Greek OT created confusion in the minds of early scribes which resulted in scribal alterations designed to clarify the text.

    Earnest

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Earnest wrote:

    Furuli gives an example of an ancient aqueduct crossing a valley, in his book Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. He says that even though only half the aqueduct remains we have no doubt that sometime in the past it stretched the width of the valley.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org responded:

    I love this. When I first read it in Furuli's book I couldn't help but think how stupid it was. The world is so full of unfinished major building projects. Some of the pyramids were never finished. Do a little research and you will discover that some of the Roman aqueducts were never finiished. This brought to mind the major intersection of Interstate Highway 10 near my house. This is freeway country. We have some roads with six lanes each way (12 total). Between Indio, California and Phoenix, Arizona the land is so flat and so empty you can pretty much survey the site for a road by laying down a straighedge on a map and drawing a straight line for more than 200 miles.

    In the late 1950s when the Interstate was still a dream, construction began at several points. Near my house was to be the major junction of I-10 and I-17. I-10 was to run six or eight lanes out to the west. And it did from about 1960 to 1985 or so. The road coming in from California was supposed to connect to it. In the meantime politics came into play. The original route was empty and cheap. So, the people in power decided to reroute the freeway and in the 1970s built a new intersection two miles north of the original one so the road from California would run through residential areas and cost 20 times the original plan. (Too much detail.)

    Had you visited my home from Great Britain during the 25 or 30 years the original intersection was there you would have seen it running off due west across the Valley of the Sun. Not knowing the the true situation you would have no doubt that sometime in the past it stretched the width of the valley. And, you would be wrong. It was never there. It just ran off to the middle of nowhere and ended. Fifteen or twenty years ago several million more tax dollars went into reworking it so it no longer looks so much like an unused intersection. (They called it an "eyesore.") Come on by, I'll show it to you.

    In a Logic 101 (beginning) class they would call Furuli's example "false analogy."

    --

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Earnest wrote:

    Likewise, we have textual evidence that the tetragram was in early copies of the LXX and so we would expect that to be true of NT writings in the same period.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org responded:

    (1) "Likewise" refers to nothing and I would have put "..." but you get upset everytime I do that so I left it.

    (2) I know of a few scraps of fragments of LXX written long before the NT writings; I know of not written "in the same period."

    (3) Interestingly, in the few scraps of fragments of the LXX that you mentioned, the tetragram is written in ancient Hebrew letters inserted in the Greek text. [Please stop and think about this. In the past you have zipped right through things I've written and failed to get my points. No doubt, this is because I'm not a very good communicator. So, take up the slack for me. Ready? Here goes:] Those scraps of pre-NT LXX had the tetragram in them in ancient Hebrew letters. They did not have a "translation" into Greek. Obviously, the original translators did not want the Name spoken aloud. Any Greek reading those texts would come to that spot and see "chicken scratchings." Likewise, why would a translator into English put in "Jehovah" or any other word in modern English typeface? Shouldn't a modern translator put in the tetragram -- a real tetragram in Ancient Hebrew letters -- at those places? That's the way the first translators from Hebrew did it! Don't tell me it can't be done. It already has been done. At least three Bibles are on the market now that do exactly that. One is online as either The Sacred Name King James Bible or The Holy Name King James Bible -- I forget exactly which. You can Google it. Two others sell online, but only give sample pages online, not the whole thing like the Sacred/Holy Name KJV does.

    To repeat: Shouldn't a modern translator put in the tetragram -- a real tetragram in Ancient Hebrew letters -- at those places where the name appears in the OT? That way a modern reader can say the chicken scratchings as "Jehovah" "Yahweh" "Yehovah" "L ORD " or "G OD " as the reader understands what God wants done.

    --

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Earnest, (for a JW) you have a lotta guts to say this in public. Good for you! Keep thinking!

    It's true there's not any concrete evidence, no extant copies of the NT with the tetragram, but until the twentieth century there was no evidence to suggest that the LXX contained the name Yahweh. ... Nevertheless, I must admit I am uncomfortable myself in including 'Jehovah' in the main text without direct textual support. I think it would have been better practice to have kept it as a footnote.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Dear Earnest,

    Your first Scripture, Romans 10:16-17, needs to be viewed in the context of Romans 10 as a whole. In keeping with his usual practice of calling the Father "God" and and calling the Son "Lord" (1 Corinthians 8:6), it is probably wisest to understand all references in Romans 10 to "Lord" as references to the Son. Despite the fact that people like George Howard speak of "two Lords" Paul affirms, "To us ... there is One L ORD ."

    Romans 10:9 says that salvation is predicated on the confession that Jesus is L ORD . Notice the WT footnote and what it tells you by not telling you. See the footnote to Romans 10:13 where they list J7 and J8 in support of "Jehovah" in the text. However, at Romans 10:9 they say nothing about J7, J8, (and J9). Do you suppose that they know those J-Documents say "Jesus is Jehovah," and they don't want you to know it? Also, J23 is conspicuous by it's absence. I have not checked it, but knowing WT footnotes the way I do, it's a safe bet it also says "Jesus is Jehvoah." Why else would they go to the trouble to list all the ones that do not say "Jehovah" -- except to cover up those that do.

    Romans 10:11 quotes the OT refering to "faith in him" -- who is that? In Isaiah 28:16, "him" is the Stone of the Lord יהוה -- Jesus Christ [more about this Stone will be said at 1 Peter 3:15]. The main topic in Romans 10:9 is Jesus Christ. The main topic of Romans 10:11 is Jesus Christ. Likewise, the main topic of Roamns 10:13 is Jesus Christ.

    Romans 10:13 is yet another OT quotation referring the divine name to Jesus Christ. As Romans 10:11 urges faith in the L ORD Jesus Christ, Romans 10:13 urges calling on the Name of the L ORD (Jesus Christ) -- the same L ORD believed on in 10:11 and confessed in 10:9. Then comes Romans 10:16.

    Romans 10:16 quotes Isaiah (one more time) calling on the Name (as per 10:13) of the L ORD Jesus. So, the "Lord" throughout Romans 10 is the same "One Lord" all Christians worship and call on in prayer -- the L ORD Jesus Christ.

    --

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Dear Earnest,

    Your second Scripture, Romans 14:10-11, needs to be viewed in the context of Romans 14 as a whole. In keeping with his usual practice of calling the Father "God" and and calling the Son "Lord" (1 Corinthians 8:6), it is probably wisest to understand all references in Romans 14 to "Lord" as references to the Son. Despite the fact that people like George Howard speak of "two Lords" Paul affirms, "To us ... there is One L ORD ."

    Thologically, this should give you no real problem, except, of course, where Paul applies an OT quotation about the L ORD to the L ORD Jesus Christ. As you are fully aware, in Philippians 2:9 Paul say Christ was raised to the ultimate position and given the Name Above Every Name. In our culture, father's pass their name on to their children; our heavenly Father is no exception. He passed on his Name to his Son.That is why Paul again quotes this same passage in the words:

    Every knee shall bow ...
    Every tongue confess ...
    Jesus is L ORD -- or, if you prefer -- יהוה
    And glorify God the Father by doing so.

    --

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Dear Earnest,

    Your third Scripture, 1 Corinthians 2:16 , needs to be viewed in the context of 1 Corinthians 2 as a whole. In keeping with his usual practice of calling the Father "God" and and calling the Son "Lord" (1 Corinthians 8:6), it is probably wisest to understand all references in 1 Corinthians 2 to "Lord" as references to the Son. Despite the fact that people like George Howard speak of "two Lords" Paul affirms, "To us ... there is One L ORD ."

    The "Glorious L ORD " of 2:8 is the same L ORD whose mind we have in 2:16 and in whom we boast in 1:31. No problem exists as long as you don't come to the Scripture with a prejudice and bias that Jesus can't be called L ORD . If you start with that notion, then you have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics like the WT does. If you just let the Scriptures speak for themselves, you will probably not go too far wrong.

    Different NT authors have different vocabularies. John likes to talk about Father and Son. Paul prefers God and Lord. Other NT writers have other ways of expressing themselves. Don't expect Paul to talk like John, or John to talk like Paul. In the Gospels, "Lord" probably means the Father a huge majority of the time. Notice Paul's vocabulary: "gifts ... Same Spirit -/- ministries ... Same Lord -/- operations... Same God." That's Paul's way of expressing what you wish he didn't believe. John's way of expressing the same thing is different. See John 14--16.

    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    --

  • Augustin
    Augustin

    Earnest wrote:

    " It's true there's not any concrete evidence, no extant copies of the NT with the tetragram, but until the twentieth century there was no evidence to suggest that the LXX contained the name Yahweh."

    This seems to be a misunderstanding. As pointed out by Pietersma, basically the findings of old LXX fragments with YHWH did not bring us any thing new. But they they did confirm what Origen had written re: his Hexapla. If we find some evidence, like a) fragments with (Hebrew/Aramaic) YHWH or (Greek) IAW or b) an ancient source (like Origen) testifying that the tetragrammaton originally was in the NT, I will be more than happy to reconsider Howard's theory... to the present day his idea re: the tetragrammaton and the NT remains speculative.

    - Augustin -

  • NWT@Cutlip.Org
    NWT@Cutlip.Org

    Dear Earnest,

    Your fourth Scripture, 1 Peter 3:14-15, needs to be viewed in the context of 1 Peter as a whole. Get out your W&H -- the real one, not the KIT. Look at 1 Peter 2:3 where W&H clearly marks this OT quotation from Psalm 34:8. They also list it in the back. Likewise you can check J20 which is Moulton's concordance available at a library near you. It will have both the Hebrew MT and the Greek LXX (numbering is 33:9 in LXX). Another interesting source is Old Testament Quotaitons in the New Testament: A Complete Survey by Gleason L. Archer & C.C. Chirichigno (Moody Bible Institute: Chicago, 1983) ISBN: 0-8024-0236-4, which on page 66-67 lists this as quotation #150 giving the MT, LXX, Gk NT, and English comments in a handy form for comparison. The WT relies on W&H and J20 al the time. So, if they agree this is a quotation and they are further supported by another book specializing in just that one thing, it's very likely a quotation. Even WT champion, Furuli admits, "[I]t is indiputable that the one referred to in 1 Peter 2:3 and 3:15 is Jesus Christ" page 197.

    No only is 1 Peter 2:3 a quotation, I, myself, with my own eyes, saw the tetragram in this verse in J7, J8, J13, J14, and J20.(As a rule J9 agrees with J7 and J8, but I didn't list it because I neglected to consult it.) For sure, five J-Documents have a tetragram here. Interestingly, the marvelous research staff from the WTS missed each and every one of them. No hint of any footnote appears at 1 Peter 2:3. Why? You know why! This is but another of the many NT verses that call Jesus Christ L ORD (or if you prefer, "Jehovah"). The L ORD of 2:3 is the Stone of 2:4 which is Jesus Christ. In an attempt at obfuscation, the WT introduced a paragraph break here which does not occur in W&H (of course, in KIT it does!) or any of the dozen English translations I spot checked (some enterprising young JW may be able to locate one if they look hard enough). In W&H, UBS, and NA Greek texts and most English translations no paragraph break appears and the thought flows right into frrom 2:3 to 2:4 -- the L ORD is the Stone.

    In 1 Peter 2:7 the Stone metaphor continues with more OT quotations: "the Stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." To use Furuli's language, "it is indisputable" that this Stone is Jesus Christ. Yet, in 2:8 this "identical Stone" is "a Stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense" -- a quotation speaking of none other than the L ORD of the OT in Isaiah 8:12-14 but spoke of the L ORD Jesus Christ twice in 1 Peter. (See W&H page 607.) So, the L ORD is the Stone and the Stone is the L ORD .

    Twice? Twice! Now look at 1 Peter 3:14-15. Again Peter quotes from Isaiah 8:12-14 to call Jesus Christ L ORD (or "Jehovah").

    But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But sanctify the Christ as Jehovah in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.

    Isaiah wrote:

    However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But Jehovah, himself, you must sanctify.

    Peter took up his quill and copied this line word for word from the LXX as it appears above. Then, to make sure his point was not missed, he took up his quill again and replaced one word.

    However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But Jehovah, himself, you must sanctify.
    However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But Jehovah (Christ) you must sanctify.
    J7 and J8 clearly say, "You must sanctify Christ as Jehovah God in your hearts." (Other J-Documents my as well.) The KIT note chops the full quotation.

    May good things come from God to you, NWT@Cutlip.Org

    --

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Welcome to the board as a poster, Augustin. Are you related to the Augustine whose Confessions I am currently reading ?

    You are quite right to point out that there has been evidence long before the twentieth century to suggest that early copies of the LXX contained the tetragrammaton (e.g. Origen, Jerome). I meant that there was no concrete evidence, no extant copies of the LXX containing the tetragrammaton, prior to the twentieth century.

    I agree that Howard's theory is speculative, it is one of a number of theories in determining why there are textual variants and thereby getting closer to what the original text read. I do not know of anything written by the early Church "fathers" regarding God's name in the NT, but there are a number of rabbinical references in the Talmud which say that the writings of the Nazarenes (which almost certainly refers to the Christians) contain the divine name.

    Earnest

Share with others