steve2 I wrote the latest comment above days ago. It made more sense when I wrote it than the context where it now appears abrupt and irrelevant.
jwfacts you write:
In addition, you are misrepresenting Howard at least, who is not dogmatic that the Divine name was in the NT, but suggests it as a possibility.
Which is a bit odd since on page 4 I wrote:
much has been made of the fact George Howard presented his idea as a "theory". It's true he wasn't dogmatic, he didn't need to be. He wasn't a JW and his faith didn't depend on it. But did he believe he was correct about the divine name in the NT? Well obviously he did or else why make the argument and assemble all the evidence to make his case?
Other than agreeing with you explicitly that Howard was not dogmatic, how could I state in any clearer terms that Howard was not dogmatic?
You also say:
such as Watchtower'a beloved BeDuhn, do not support the Divine name in the NT. You have cherry picked the couple you agree with.
Again an odd statement since my opening post explicitly mentioned BeDuhn's opposition since I thought it was fair to do so:
2003 - Manichaean scholar Jason BeDuhn praises the NWT as the most accurate modern translation in his book Truth in Translation but argues that the inclusion of the divine name in the NT is a mistake
Did you actually read my post before accusing me of cherry picking?
steve2 what I am trying to point out is that most scholars are of the view that Kyrios stood in the original NT autographs. But it's certainly worth pointing out thaf this too involves a significant conjecture, since the earliest NT manuscripts do not use Kyrios but rather the nomina sacra abbreviated form KS.
Which is important because some evangelical polemicists state that they straightforwardly accept the earliest manuscript evidence whereas JWs do not. But in fact the earliest manuscripts don't use YHWH, IAW, or Kyrios. Rather they use KS, which no one seems to argue was original.
So the question becomes, not whether the treatment of divine names changed between the NT autographs and the earliest manuscripts witnesses, but how it changed. Evangelicals and JWs are actually in the same boat in the sense that, what appears in the earliest manuscripts is assumed, by both sides, not to match what stood in the original.