Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member
21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

it is different from the Watchtower's conclusions.

Sorry to be a pain but could you (briefly) outline the differences between WT conclusions and Gerard's conclusions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.5k
  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming. A quick word on

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material)

I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion.

Posted Images

  • Member
10 minutes ago, Anna said:

but I was wondering why the pronunciation should be so important...

For me it isn't. Not the exact pronunciation that was used. The question for me is whether a pronunciation was used (or intended) by the writers of the Greek Scriptures (NT) or even the translators of the Greek Scriptures (OT/LXX). So it's in that sense that the "pronunciation" is important to me personally. And it's that particular evidence, which is often considered to be only "side evidence," that I was hoping to help bring to the fore in this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
30 minutes ago, Anna said:

Sorry to be a pain but could you (briefly) outline the differences between WT conclusions and Gerard's conclusions?

I think you already helped out on this one with your quote above. The WT conclusion is almost exactly like the one you quoted:

41 minutes ago, Anna said:

"Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right." Dennio argued that the form "Jehovah" is not a barbarism, but is the best English form available, being that it has for centuries gathered the necessary connotations and associations for valid use in English".

In other words, the WT says that even though Yahweh was much more likely closer to the original pronunciation of the Hebrew, that Jehovah is the best English form available for the reasons just quoted. Gertoux actually comes close to stating the opposite, that while Yahweh is such a common scholarly form to represent the pronunciation, that the evidence is that "Jehovah" is a much closer form that comes close to the more probable original pronunciation.

(This is an oversimplification intended to drive home the primary difference in direction. But in fact, Gertoux finds evidence, he says, that the Tetragram is based more on vowels than on consonants. This is a different argument than, say, claiming that Jahveh is better than Yahweh, or vice versa, because those two are perfectly acceptable as "equivalents.")

Personally, that is not the main reason why I thought the evidence should get a second look and that his conclusions should be critiqued on their merit. I am interested in the value of the evidence itself and the background material surrounding this evidence for the purpose of understanding how the confusion came about in the first place, and whether it can help us understand the best way to treat the issue in the Greek Scriptures. That same "side evidence" can come from other sources, too. But Gertoux's known association with "Watchtower scholarship," and his collaboration with one or two others involved in "Watchtower scholarship" made him a best "first choice" in my opinion. Also, I happen to agree with some of his conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 7/13/2018 at 8:48 PM, Anna said:

"Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu.

Actually, there is a good argument that shows that this is a misleading statement. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The reason is that there is already a Greek equivalent, based on transliteration, for using a pronunciation closer to Jeremiah instead of the Hebrew Yirmeyahu. If we didn't know how Hebrew was pronounced for this particular name, we have an ancient record of how it got translated into Greek, where we have much more evidence of the rules of pronunciation. It's in the Greek LXX of the OT. The example of Jesus is used in the same way, rather than something like Yehoshua or Yeshua. But we have the Greek NT which already gives us the form Iesous. (Jesous).

We don't have this for YHWH because the LXX either didn't transliterate it, opting instead to continue putting the YHWH into the text, or else they put a different word in it's place: "kyrios" which is nothing like YHWH, and doesn't help us pronounce it. So even the LXX manuscripts that opted to use YHWH are also giving evidence that the word was being treated in a special way, with a certain "holiness" or superstition about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

At any rate, you say that what finally came out of this, whether fake news or real, was "Yahwe" which of course was already one of the 12th century AD versions of the name that was sometimes printed as "Jahve" (and still is in some language translations: Dutch, German, etc.) If you have any links with evidence referring to any follow-up on this, then I will stop believing that "realnewsrightnow" is anything more than a fake news outlet which was likely intended by the author to show how gullible people are.

That would be the point between this blogger's fake news and some of Gerard Gertoux claims, that can be considered fake news as well. As you stated, no one should be “gullible” when presentations are given without substantial research. A JW shouldn’t be surprised by all the academic research that has been done by the Watchtower, and continually, expands on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

alvi languore insanabili, "with an incurable disease of the belly" (2 Chron. 21:18, Vulgate) posted on his/her response to the OP a pic of the cover of Robert Wilkinson's 2015 book on the Tetragrammaton. Readers here might be interested in Shaw's review of that book. It appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies in Oct. 2016. It's uploaded here:

jts-shaw-rev.-wilkinson.pdf

Another by Resnick appeared in the Medieval Review of 2016, here:

resnick-rev.-of-wilkinson.pdf

A third by Soulen in the Journal of Jesuit Studies in 2015, here:

soulen-review-wilkinson.pdf

Happy reading, all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 7/13/2018 at 9:55 PM, alvi languore insanabili said:

That would be the point between this blogger's fake news and some of Gerard Gertoux claims, that can be considered fake news as well. As you stated, no one should be “gullible” when presentations are given without substantial research.

"ALvi LanguorE iNsanabili: From the very first sentence, right up to the last one, you have reminded me of Allen. I would not have said anything except that the most famous member named Allen has also hinted that he may not have much time for this world due to serious health concerns. I hoped that the Latin was not a commentary on your condition.

At any rate, what you have repeatedly done here, so far, is exactly what I was hoping no one would do here. You keep claiming things like "some of Gerard Gertoux's claims can be considered fake news" without any examples or any evidence. With several opportunities to provide something substantial, making claims without evidence can "backfire" and even make it appear (to some readers) that Gertoux's position, in this case, might seem even stronger and more reliable than it really is. I'm sure that this is not your intent, but unsubstantiated claims come across just as empty as the ad hominem.

On the issue of "peer review" Gertoux has stated to me that scholars in this field refused to express their personal convictions on this topic, fearing reprisals due to the fact that religious institutions often fund their research and can therefore control the ability to get published. Gertoux himself says he was personally attacked and had to defend himself in the French courts.  ( https://univ-lyon2.academia.edu/GerardGERTOUX/CurriculumVitae ). Via email, he says this is why he has "become extremely careful and [will] only publish in peer-reviewed journals." Note his last article, for example:  http://www.peeters-leuven.be/toc/9789042937130.pdf .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, indagator said:

Another by Resnick appeared in the Medieval Review of 2016, here:

resnick-rev.-of-wilkinson.pdf

Thanks for the reviews. I read them and appreciated that they not only reviewed his book in detail, but both reviews also offer insight into the complexities and, by highlighting the gaps in Wilkinson's work, provide some key elements for discussion here.

I could not get the above Resnick link to work, but I believe the content is also represented here at this link:

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/21174

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

The review sources for Wilkinson provided by @indagator indicate that the book has serious flaws, and per one review, it brings nothing new to the table. (To another reviewer, what is new is hidden by poor organization.) There are serious mistakes especially because his expertise is in the later medieval and Rennaisance periods and NOT the period that is especially important to the topic -- the earlier period. But it would still have great value for us non-scholars who will likely find this very long book full of much that is new to us.

One of the first things that Wilkinson's book does, is put in perspective the iconic uses of the name YHWH and Jehovah found in Renaissance churches and writings. This is an important point for Witnesses in that it correctly diminishes the philological value of the Tetragrammaton and versions that look like IEHOVA or JEHOVAH. These are more related to iconic imagery, even something akin to Trinitarian "idols" rather than telling us anything about the way in which the name was used, not used, and misused historically.

Another thing that I believe Wilkison's book does correctly is put a date on the "eclipse" of the Divine Name. Gertoux has good reason to point to the year 130-160 AD as a turning point in the customs with respect to the pronunciation of YHWH, as he did in that "packed" first sentence of the areopage.net link in the OP:

  • In the first place, as he strongly denounced human traditions which annulled divine dictates (Mt 15:3), it seems unlikely that he complied with this unbiblical custom of not pronouncing the Name, which appeared only around 130-160 CE, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101a 10:1), with Rabbi Abba Saul who prohibited the pronunciation of the tetragram (YHWH in Hebrew יהוה ) according to its letters, warning that those transgressing this command would forfeit their portion in the world to come.

While this date is important, especially with respect to the question of whether first-century Christians pronounced or wrote the name, it can be misleading. This is because, as Wilkinson traces, the process of "eclipsing" the Divine Name can be dated to as early as 300 BCE. That's nearly half a millennium earlier. From what I've seen, I'd have to agree.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Wilkinson's biggest problem, especially for Witnesses, would be that he minimizes the importance of the evidence that most early LXX manuscripts use the Hebrew letters, YHWH, (or similar-looking Greek letters in some examples). It was especially the later manuscripts that used a pronouncable "kyrios" (Lord) in the text. This was just pointed out by @Gone Away in a very clear explanation of the JW position on this subject here:

Of course a problem with the JW position is that the use of a Hebrew YHWH in the middle of a Greek manuscript is an indication that it was not to be pronouced. Even the use of a Greek-looking "PiPi" in the place of the Tetragram would likely have struck the reader as an indication that he had come across a very non-Greek-sounding and therefore would give pause to anyone trying to pronounce it. This alone places the eclipsing of the Divine Name back to the 300's BCE. Even the use of the Greek abbreviations with a line over them (for references to God and Lord in NT manuscripts) might show that special care was to be taken over pronouncing divine names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the process of "eclipsing" the Divine Name can be dated to as early as 300 BCE

What is the earliest non-theoretical date for the existence of vowel pointing in the Hebrew Scripture text? By earliest, I mean something for which there is sound evidence, not a theory based on what Jesus meant by "one jot or one tittle" (KJV Matt.5:18).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

GA, perhaps by your ref. to Mt 5:18 you have in mind the well traveled—on the net anyway—article by Thomas Ross. But you request something more tangible. You might try looking at the article here and consider the works mentioned in notes 9 and 10.

https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=675

I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.