Posts by slimboyfat

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

Conspiracy theory? That seems to be the go to, discrediting label these days, doesn’t it?

The divine name was removed from the LXX by Christians in the first couple of centuries CE - the pattern of its use and subsequent removal shows this. There are no New Testament manuscripts from the earliest period when the divine name was intact in the LXX. Since we know the divine name was removed from the LXX in that very period, it makes sense that the same process took place in the New Testament by the same people responsible for transmitting both texts. On top of that we have many verses in the New Testament that simply make much better sense on the assumption that the divine name was in the original. Plus there are all the variants conspicuously around ambiguous instances of “Lord”. Use of the divine name in the early New Testament is the most reasonable inference from the available evidence. So, if we must speak about “conspiracy”, then the conspiracy is among the scholars who have ignored or downplayed these facts for decades. In fact Lord Gaston describes the “discovery” as being “strangely neglected”.

He further described the implications of the removal of the divine name from the New Testament this way:

“G. Howard points out that in none of the now considerable LXX texts from the first century is kyrios used for the tetragrammaton, which is written in Hebrew letters. He concludes that the use of kyrios was begun by Christian scribes in the second century, who applied it also to New Testament texts. This means that Old Testament citations in the New Testament manuscripts originally contained the tetragrammaton. It will be seen that this makes a considerable difference in the interpretation of many texts.” Paul and the Torah, pp. 117, 118.

Let’s be clear, the reason why Trinitarians want to avoid the evidence for the divine name in the New Testament is because it undermines their theology. Because when the divine name is restored to the text then the distinction between Jesus and Jehovah becomes even clearer than it already is. The removal of the divine name went hand in hand with the elevation of Jesus to supreme deity, and the Trinity teaching. That’s why many will continue to ignore, downplay, or mischaracterise they evidence at all costs.

How can Jesus possibly be “emphasised” more than Jehovah? His very name means “Jehovah is salvation”. So every occurrence of the name Jesus points to Jehovah as the source of salvation. It’s literally as daft as saying “Jehovah is salvation” is emphasised more than “Jehovah”. The early Christians knew what Jesus’ name meant and they knew it’s implications in pointing to Jehovah as the source of salvation. (See Matt 1:21)

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

The early copies of the LXX do is the divine name. Unfortunately we do not have copies of the New Testament that are as early as those LXX manuscripts. If we did then we would know for sure whether the early New Testament used the divine name. In the absence of NT copies the safest assumption is that the same practice of using the divine name was followed in the New Testament as in the LXX.

Those who insist that the NT manuscripts must be followed despite the fact that they date from a later period should bear in mind that those manuscripts don’t use “Lord” in full either, they all use abbreviations for Lord: KC. Those forms arose sometimes between the composition and the earliest manuscripts we have. So whatever way you look at it, none of event the earliest New Testament manuscripts preserve the original presentation of the divine name in those documents, they all contain a later modification.

This is the book where Lloyd Gaston agrees with George Howard that the New Testament contained the divine name and uses it in his translation of Paul’s letters.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paul-Torah-Lloyd-Gaston/dp/1597525383/

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

There are no New Testament manuscripts that are definitely older than 200 CE, which was after the change had been made. The early Septuagint used the divine name but Christians replaced it with “Lord” in the second century. So Trobisch argues that it’s not only plausible that the same replacement of the divine name took place in the New Testament as took place in the Septuagint, it’s in fact the most likely explanation.

What the early New Testament manuscripts do display is an unusually high number of variants in texts using “Lord”, which the removal of the divine name, and subsequent confusion over the identity of the “Lord” neatly explains. Otherwise what gave rise to the high number of “Lord” variants in the New Testament texts?

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

David Trobisch argues that the New Testament shows signs of being editorialised in the second century because of the common features that early manuscripts share: use of codex; use of nomina sacra; order of the books; titles of the books; specific parts written by the editors (such as John 21); and even the name itself “New Testament”.

Interesting as that argument is, his related point about the original New Testament documents containing the divine name is established on independent grounds. As with George Howard, Lloyd Gaston, John McRay and Frank Shaw, Trobisch points out that the Jews used the divine name in their texts in the period when the New Testament was written and therefore the New Testament writers would have done the same. In particular he says that “it is not very likely that Paul would have avoided using the tetragram to please his Gentile audience”. He further argues that Paul and other New Testament writers made a careful distinction between YHWH and Jesus that was lost when scribes replaced the divine name with “Lord”. He cites the example of “Jehovah said to my lord, sit at my right hand”, which was clear in meaning for the original readers, to the somewhat confusing “the Lord says to my Lord, sit at my right hand”, once the divine name had been replaced with “Lord”.

This is only part of his argument. It’s worth reading his book if you can get a hold of it.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

Why do you think someone or some group would want to eradicate the name of God from the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament?

David Trobisch says that it was because the second century editors of the New Testament wanted to blur the lines between Jesus and Jehovah. He writes:

”The editors did not mind this misrepresentation of Paul. The effect on Christian readers–that Jesus and YHWH become synonymous–was probably intended.” The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford University Press: 2000), page 67.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

Vanderhovan7 how do you know that the name of God isn’t on the lips of Jesus? What we do know is that Greek copies of the Bible used the name Yaho in Jesus’ time. We know that Roman authors said the Jews in the period called their God Yaho. Plus we know that Christians continued to refer to their God as Yaho for centuries in their dictionaries. The simplest conclusion would be that Jesus and his followers used God’s name in the form Yaho because that was Jewish practice in that period.

On top of that we have a lot of internal evidence in the NT that Jesus made God’s name known, Jesus sits at the right hand of Jehovah in early Christian conception, and that the early Christians were associated closely with God’s name as in Acts 15. Textual scholar David Trobisch, Jewish scholar Lloyd Gaston, evangelical John McRay, and classicist Frank Shaw have joined George Howard in arguing that contemporary scribal practice, and variants in the NT manuscripts indicate that the divine name was used in the early NT just as it was used in the early LXX.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

I don’t find anything in the NT that says Jesus and the early Christians didn’t use God’s name. The most popular OT quote in the NT is the Psalm that says: “Jehovah said to my Lord, sit at my right hand”. A pretty odd verse for early Christians to use if the text and recitation of it didn’t still preserve the distinction between “Jehovah” and the messianic “Lord” at that time.

The early LXX used Yaho. Roman authors say first century Jews called their God Yaho. Early Christian dictionaries spelled God’s name Yaho. The gospels say Jesus made God’s name known. Jesus’ own name includes the divine name within it. What grounds are there for saying Jesus and the early Christians didn’t use God’s name?

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

How do you explain verses such as Rev 3:12 on that view, Vanderhoven7?

Plus how can Jesus’ name be “more important” Jehovah’s name, when Jesus’ name itself points to Jehovah as the source of salvation? Every bit of importance that is attached to the name Jesus is “to the glory of God the Father”. (Phil 2:11)

It’s like you’ve got a king and the king’s ambassador. Then you look at a set of documents, count 40 occurrences of “king’s ambassador” and only 10 occurrences of “king” and therefore include that the “king’s ambassador” must be more important than the “king”. That’s a pretty odd conclusion come to.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

I wish the remaining (declining band of) Patreon supporters would read KitKat’s post and offer any kind of explanation why they haven’t removed their funding yet.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

How do you know what God wants? “He would want it like this. He wouldn’t want that.” Where does that come from? Maybe he is happy with his name being used in somewhat different forms in hundreds of languages as JWs do. For all we know. Why not? Other than your say so.

Another issue is the meaning of the name. JWs have leaned in pretty heavily on the meaning of the name coming from the root verb “to be”, and that it signifies that Jehovah becomes whatever he needs to become in order accomplish his purpose. That’s a pretty interesting and distinctive theological position, in my view, and presents a more compelling understanding of God’s interaction with humans than an austere Calvinist, predestinarian view.

If JWs are 1) right that God still wants people to use him name 2) they’ve got the meaning of the name right, and 3) the implications it has for his character and interactions with humans in accomplishing his purpose: that’s a pretty interesting and distinctive set of things for a religious group to have correct. On top of that you can’t actually say for sure that Jehovah, or more likely the German Jehova, is not fortuitously close to ancient pronunciation, because even scholars who promote Yahweh will most often admit that it isn’t certain either. As I indicated earlier, the idea of a correct original pronunciation is problematic anyway, because it seems highly likely that it changed over time, and Isaiah, Nehemiah, Jesus and others would all have said it differently from each other anyway.