This truly is a happifying report, vivacious and efficacious, and in no way vexatious.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
12
Excellent use of language in comments on this site compared with WT publications
by Deltawave ini think it's great.
when i read posts on here i have to use a dictionary because of the high level of intellectual words yet, when i read a wtbts publication, i have to ignore all the bad grammar and punctuation!
.
-
-
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
slimboyfat
I agree with lots of what you say. Just now and again you throw in a comment like "there are no Christian copies of the LXX" which throws me. And certainly there are Greek versions of the OT that are not LXX. Any book of textual criticism makes this clear.
In particular I agree we shouldn't lose sight of the big picture and the main issue of whether JWs have misrepresented the history and significance of the divine name.
I only intended to interject two main points in the discussion with my initial post:
1) I think there is something unique about the Tetragrammaton compared to the other names used of God in the Hebrew Bible. You say unique is not the right word, that it is holy. Okay then it is holy. Whichever word we use there was something special about it, I would suggest.
2) the earliest fragments of the LXX that survive and preserve parts of the text with the divine name use various forms of the divine name. None of the earliest fragments use KYRIOS. The earliest copies that use KYRIOS (or in fact the nomina sacra form KS) are from the second century CE.
You might say that, these facts notwithstanding, JWs are still wrong in various ways about the divine name. It's a discussion we could have. Personally I think there is a much stronger claim for the divine name in the original NT than many allow for. But since we can't even agree on the basic facts such as the two I made initially, and repeated above, there's not much point moving on to the wider discussion.
I respect your faith and your experience and obvious knowledge of the subject.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
slimboyfat
From this I gathered you were saying that the PR 458 is the fragment “that leaves spaces...from the third century, probably Christian.” My mistake if I didn’t understand you, but the only copy of the Septuagint “that leaves spaces” for YHWH is PR 458. PR 458 contains only portions of Deuteronomy, not Genesis, and originates from about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
I was talking about PBerlin 17213 which is a copy of the LXX from the third century CE that leaves spaces where the divine name should appear. There is not agreement among scholars whether this is a fragment of a Jewish or Christian manuscript.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Berlin_17213
As far as I know this is the only copy of the LXX that deliberately leaves spaces where the divine name should stand. (And here Tov disputes this example, arguing the space is just a break in the text) I think there are examples of blank spaces instead of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew of the DSS, but not in the LXX.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
slimboyfat
You write that “the earliest copies of the LXX used various forms of YHWH” though you nowagree that the earliest example in the Rylands fragment does not.
What I am saying (as the scholars have said, and the photograph shows) is that PRylands 458 does not contain either YHWH or KYRIOS because the manuscript is not extant in that part of the text where the divine name appears.
Jewish fragments of the LXX can be divided into three groups with respect to the divine name:
1) fragments of the LXX that do not preserve parts of the text with the divine name.
2) fragments of the LXX that do preserve examples of the divine name in various forms.
3) fragments of the LXX that preserve KYRIOS in place of the divine name.
There are many fragments that fall into category 1) and PRylands 458 is one of those. There are around 7 fragments that fall into category 2) including the famous Fouad 266, the Minor Prophets scroll(s) and others. There are no fragments that fall into category 3) because there are no Jewish copies of the LXX that substitute KYRIOS for the divine name.
I don't know what more to say about your claim that Christian copies of the LXX don't exist. It's not how scholars present the data, including Jewish scholars such as Emanuel Tov and Robert Kraft. For example Robert Kraft's whole website is based on the notion of comparing Jewish and Christian scribal practices in their copies of the LXX. If you were correct that there are no Christian copies of the LXX then his whole project would not make sense. Or the many textbooks that discuss Christian copies of the LXX.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//earlylxx/jewishpap.html#jewishmss
It is true that Jews translated and circulated the LXX. But the text as it comes down to us was preserved through Christian scribes. The modern text of the LXX and translations of it are based on the Christian copies of the fourth century and later. There are no complete Jewish copies of the LXX extant. There are only fragments, such as PRylands 458 and others we have been discussing.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
slimboyfat
There are no Christian copies of the Septuagint.
What is codex Sainiticus then, and the many many other Christian copies of the LXX? This is so demonstrably false, maybe you mistyped or meant to say something else?
Christians did not produce the LXX, and the earliest copies predate the first century CE.
This is what I am saying. And none of those pre-Christian copies use KYRIOS. All of them use forms of the divine name.
Papyrus Rylands 458 contains only verses from Deuteronomy, and contrary to your claim, it covers verses in which the Divine Name is supposed to occur, namely...
Deuteronomy 28:17-19 and 27:15 and 28:2.I did not say the verses did not contain the divine name. I said there are lacunae in the manuscript where the divine name or a substitute would appear. You can see this in the picture posted above, or read it in comments from scholars such as Howard, Pietersma, Tov and others.
Your claims that this is a product of the Christian era and covers no verse where the Divine Name should appear are quite incorrect.
I have nowhere said PRylands 458 is Christian. It is from the second century BCE so it cannot be Christian.
Please post any reference anywhere that says PRylands 458 has dots or spaces in place of the divine name.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
slimboyfat
I respect your experience and the fact you are Jewish. It doesn't alter the facts. PRylands 458 doesn't contain any instances of the divine name or its substitutes, on this the various experts, and the photographs agree. If you are correct there are dots in this manuscript where the divine name should occur (I have never seen this stated in relation to this manuscript) then it would significantly alter scholarship on the manuscript. Have you got any reference to back this up? All the scholars I have read agree the text is not extant in the places where the divine name or its substitutes would appear.
Your claim that the LXX is a Christian work...
I have not said this and I am at a loss where you get this idea.
What I have said is that all the LXX fragments earlier than then second century CE use forms of the divine name. None of them use KYRIOS in this early period.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
slimboyfat
Actually Papyrus Rylans 458 has lacunae where either YHWH or KYRIOS would be found. The Wikipedia entry for this is clumsily written, if that is what you are relying upon:
The manuscript has been used in discussions about the Tetragrammaton, although there are actually blank spaces in the places where some scholars such as C. H. Roberts believe that it contained letters.[3] According to Paul E. Kahle, the Tetragrammaton must have been written in the manuscript where these breaks or blank spaces appear.[4]
The text is not extant in the places where the divine name would appear, so experts have divided over what would have originally stood there. Paul Kahle for example was confident that the Tetragrammaton was used in the text. In truth the text simply doesn't survive where it would need to in order to tell us one way or the other. See section 1 here that explains:
http://digidownload.libero.it/domingo7/howard.pdf
You can examine the whole thing to see that neither YHWH or KYRIOS is part of the preserved text:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Rylands_458#/media/File%3AP._Rylands_458.jpg
The author of the Wikipedia entry apparently equates "blank spaces" with lacunae, which is confusing for people familiar with the later manuscript of Genesis (PBerlin 17213) that reportedly has blank spaces where the divine name should appear. (Although this is disputed by Emanuel Tov) This manuscript dates from the third century CE and represents a relatively late development in the treatment of the divine name.
All the earliest extant copies of the LXX used either YHWH or IAW. Copies using substitutes do not appear until the second century CE. The fragments of the LXX from the first century and earlier use YHWH or IAW. There are no fragments from this early period that use KYRIOS. Or if there are could you point them out?
-
16
IBM CEO Sends Letter to President-elect Donald Trump
by Heaven inlink to the letter.. has anyone ever heard or seen this happen before?
for those of you who can't go to the site, here is the content: .
ibm ceo ginni rometty's letter to the u.s. president-elect.
-
-
slimboyfat
Too long.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
slimboyfat
While it's true God had various names in the Hebrew Bible, the name YHWH has a distinct claim. As Philo says, it was the name of God written on the headband of the high priest. The fact that it became set apart as the unpronounceable name of God among Jews shows that it was considered unique.
The earliest copies of the LXX used various forms of YHWH or the Greek transliteration IAW. (There are about 7 such examples) None of the Jewish fragments that survive show KYRIOS instead of the divine name. The earliest Christian copies using KYRIOS date no earlier than late second century AD. The fragment of Genesis that leaves spaces for either YHWH or KYRIOS is quite late, from the third century, and probably Christian. It is probably indicative of the transition from using YHWH to KYRIOS in Christian practice.
-
25
Watchtower's "New Light" re Babylonish Captivity, November 2016 WT
by Room 215 inhas anyone noticed the wt's most recent shell-game revisionism in the november study tractazine, relating to the shifting of its "babylonish captivity" doctrine, from a 3 1/2-year period around the ww 1 years, to a period now spanning about 16 centuries, or from the 4th century (constantine's legal recognition of christianity) to 1919?.
-
-
slimboyfat
The change makes sort of sense, if you take these things seriously. It's like the old dragnet teaching, before they changed that too. Nothing stays the same in JW land.
