Did Jewish Scribes Remove the Name of God from the Greek New Testament Manuscripts?

[HollyW]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I agree. This is exactly the same as what I said. And it sounds like you can agree up to this point, too.

In English we have a similar use of the definite article "the". We do use it in front of Lord when we mean "God" but this is likely a historical artifact for distinguishing it from other lords and masters on earth. ("House of Lords," etc). We don't need it in front of "God" because this word usually refers to one person alone. I can say, "I am going to pray to the God," but I would only say that if the context required me to distinguish from other gods. It's the same in Greek if Lord is clearly understood in the immediate context to be only the true God."  In the verses shown, most of them show from immediate context that only one person is spoken of. Micah 4:13 is a parallel [poetic] construction where "the Lord of all the Earth" stands in its own stanza/phrase. 

Exodus 23:17 is a perfect example of why the LXX would NOT require the definite article to correctly translate the sense of the Hebrew. Note: " Exodus 23:17  τρεῖς καιροὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὀφθήσεται πᾶν ἀρσενικόν σου ἐνώπιον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου " Note that it ends "enopion kuriou tou theou sou" referring to appearing before [literally] "lord the God of you." The original Hebrew had said: "appear before the Lord Jehovah." So the "THE" was translated into the Greek LXX, but used in front of God, rather than Lord, where God replaced YHWH in the LXX, not specifically "Lord" which was more typical. Similar reasons account for the LXX translation choice in the other verses, too:  Exodus 34:23  τρεῖς καιροὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὀφθήσεται πᾶν ἀρσενικόν σου ἐνώπιον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ Ισραηλ. It's almost the same here, where the Hebrew originally said: "the Lord Jehovah, God of Israel. The LXX put the "the" in front of "God" and dropped "Jehovah" ending up with "before Lord, the God of Israel." So "the" does still appear properly, just not attached to "kuriou" but to "theou" instead.

 

Well, I agree that's the WTS viewpoint but I don't agree with it because their criteria isn't consistent.

[HollyW]

On 8/2/2016 at 10:22 PM, JW Insider said:

From the standpoint of how the Greek Scriptures (NT) should be translated into English (or any other language) the "J Docs" are meaningless. I think that several of us have misinterpreted their importance. These have nothing to do with what the ancient Greek texts said or meant. They are not old texts from the viewpoint of the Scriptures. They are "modern" texts. (J² is the oldest from about 100 years before Columbus and the next oldest J⁷ is from about 100 years after Columbus. The rest are mostly from the 1800s through the late 1900's).

JWs interpret the importance of the J Docs by the importance the WTS has put on them, and that is to supposedly correct the inspired text of the Greek NT mss, claiming those Greek mss were tampered with in 127 places where "Jehovah" was removed from them by those they call "apostate Christians".  By claiming this, the WTS has called into question the reliability of the NT.

[HollyW]

On 7/30/2016 at 10:59 AM, JAMMY said:

A few English translations of the Bible do use Jehovah in the New Testament. For example, William Newcome, in what is sometimes known as "Archbishop Newcome's new translation", has the name Jehovah a few times where the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament, such as Matthew 22:24.^[20]

Hi Jammy, thanks for this information.  In looking at this translation at Google books, most of the times Jehovah is used in it are in footnotes.  As to the OT quotes that have Jehovah in the actual text of this translation, there apparently is only one, which is Psalm 110:1 each of the three times it is quoted: Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:36; Acts 2:34.

The other times are all in these footnotes:

Mark 12:29 footnote:  Gussetius, Dr. Clarke, and the of Ben Mordecai, render, “Jehovah, is one.”

Mark 12:32 footnote:  For there is one God.] If we omit ‘theos’, for which omission see the authorities, we must render, “for he is one.” That is, “he is one Lord:” or, “Jehovah is one.”

John 1:1 footnote:  The Word.] See 1 John i.1. Rev. xix 13. Jesus, the Son of God, is so called because God revealed himself, or his word, by him.  The Chaldee paraphrases often have Imimra Jehovah, vebum Jehovae, for Jehovah; God, as revealing himself to his people, being called the word of God.  The Son was the Revealer of his Father’s will under the Old Covenant. “No man hath seen God at any time:” v. 18: but the Son was his [Greek ] the declarer of his will, and his Image and Representative.”

John 8:58 footnote:  58. I am.]……our Lord, having been the visible Jehovah under the dispensations preceding the evangelical…

John 12:41 footnote:  41. His glory.] As the representative of Jehovah. Isai. vi. I, etc.

Acts 7:38 footnote:  38. The angel.]  The angel of the covenant, the Representative of Jehovah.

Acts 7:41 footnote:  41. Rejoiced in the works of their own hands.] They feasted and danced before the idol which they had made; instead of confining their religious joy to Jehovah their God.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LjATAAAAQAAJ&pg=116&Ipg=PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Shiwiii]

My question, which answers the original question, is this: 

Why would an all powerful God not be able to preserve His words to mankind and need a small group of men to fix it for Him? Could God not take care of this on His own?

Psalms 138:2 "  I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. "

If, as this Psalm states, God magnifies His word above His name, shouldn't He have been able to keep the Bible intact and correct? Of course He can, and did. That is the simple answer. It is only men who want to rewrite it to fit their need. 

[HollyW]

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

My question, which answers the original question, is this: 

Why would an all powerful God not be able to preserve His words to mankind and need a small group of men to fix it for Him? Could God not take care of this on His own?

Psalms 138:2 "  I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. "

If, as this Psalm states, God magnifies His word above His name, shouldn't He have been able to keep the Bible intact and correct? Of course He can, and did. That is the simple answer. It is only men who want to rewrite it to fit their need. 

It's ironic that on the one hand the WTS does say God kept the Bible intact and correct, but then they contradict themselves by saying the NT Greek texts we base our translations on were tampered with in a what they characterize as "one of the addest and most reprehensible" ways by removing God's name from every NT Greek mss in all of 127 places.

What the WTS seems to be using the J Docs for is to "correct" the inspired Greek mss.  Does that seem right to you, to use uninspired translations done hundreds of years after the Bible canon closed, to emend the texts God actually inspired?  It sure doesn't seem right to me.

[Shiwiii]

No it doesn't seem right, it seems pretty dishonest really. Just write your own bible like the Mormons did if you want ti to say something else. I find it strange that JWs cannot accept that the organization changes words to suit their agenda, all with the backing of uninspired texts and ignoring the fact that even the oldest manuscripts do not include YHWH in the NT. 

[HollyW]

Just now, Shiwiii said:

No it doesn't seem right, it seems pretty dishonest really. Just write your own bible like the Mormons did if you want ti to say something else. I find it strange that JWs cannot accept that the organization changes words to suit their agenda, all with the backing of uninspired texts and ignoring the fact that even the oldest manuscripts do not include YHWH in the NT. 

None of the Greek mss of the NT have YHWH in them.  The WTS knows this and has even acknowledged it.  But then they round up the J Docs (from what? the 1500's and later) and use them to put "Jehovah" where they want to and ignore the other places the J Docs have Jehovah.

 

[HollyW]

On 7/30/2016 at 10:59 AM, JAMMY said:

The first complete Bible printed in America^[21] by John Eliot, although not in English, frequently uses "Jehovah" in the New Testament.^[22]

Jammy, this translation by John Eliot is very interesting.  At first I thought it was in German, but a little more research shows that it was in Algonkian (Algonquin) because he was spreading the gospel to the Native Americans here in North America.  

I think I'd view this the same as the J Docs, that it would not be sufficient to support correcting the NT Greek mss.  Would you?