YHWH in the LXX
GregStffrd at aol.com
GregStffrd at aol.com
Sat Oct 7 01:05:12 EDT 2000
Yes, I opened it just fine. My comments are as follows:
GregStffrd at aol.com
To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: [b-greek] Re: New Testament Jehovah Quotes
In a message dated 09/15/2000 2:53:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dd-1 at juno.com
writes:
I've heard that there is ms evidence that the LXX at one time had YHWH. I
checked my copy of Brenton at a few places, and all the references came up
KURIOS. Does anyone have any info on this?
Thanks!
[Greg Stafford] Yes. In fact, all pre-second century CE LXX manuscripts that
preserve a translated portion of the Hebrew text where the divine name
occurs, also use a form of the divine name.
[Doug Mason] "LXX" is a term covering a range of Greek translations of our
OT. Those Greek versions of the OT which include the tetragram in Hebrew
letters are produced by Jewish sources, but the Hebrew tetragram does not
appear in any LXX sources from Christian origins. >>>
Which LXX manuscripts would the Bible writers have used, Jewish or Christian?
Also, your observation has nothing to do with my point above. Again, "all
pre-second century CE LXX manuscripts that preserve a translated portion of
the Hebrew text where the divine name occurs, also use a form of the divine
name." There is no mss. evidence to the contrary, to suggest that they used
an LXX version that did not also use the divine name.
[DOUG] When we come to the NT, we are concerned with the actions taken by
these same Christian sources.
The NT documents were written by Jewish Christians, who also used the Jewish
Scriptures to prove their points and teach doctrine. This hardly counteracts
what I have writen, and what is established fact, concerning the LXX's use of
the divine name prior to the end of the first century CE. So, why offer the
point in response to my own, in the first place?
<<<What do you mean by "a form of the divine name"? >>>
Please don't take offence, Doug, but have you actually studied this issue in
depth? By "form" mean what one who is familiar with the mss. in question
would see by reading them, namley, paleo-Hebrew forms, square script Aramaic
forms, and Greek forms.
<<< The actual form used by the early Christian writers (by the end of the
first century CE) is a system we call the Nomina Sacra, a system which does
not owe its origin to any Jewish system. >>>
Yes, in post-first century CE LXX mss. this practice was undertaken. Why do
you offer this well-known point in response to what spoke about in reference
to all pre-first century CE LXX mss.?
<<< [Greg Stafford] Thus, there is a very strong likelihood that the
original NT docs also used a form of the divine name, as the evidence we have
shows that all sources used by the NT authors when quoting the OT contained
some form of the divine name.
[Doug Mason] There was an enormous range of (OT) sources available to and
used by the NT writers, some of which no longer exist. It is not true that
"all sources" quoted by a NT writer contained the tetragram. >>>
Since my point was again, apparently, unclear, I will repeat with emphasis:
"there is a very strong likelihood that the original NT docs also used a form
of the divine name, as the evidence we have shows that all sources used by
the NT authors *when quoting the OT* contained some form of the divine name."
This, of course, is in reference to OT texts containing the divine name,
quoted in the NT.
<<<We would have to prove that the particular (OT) source referred to by a
(NT) writer actually contained the tetragram, and we would be limited to only
those situations where the NT writer is making an actual verbatim copy (a
direct quotation) of that (OT) text. This precludes including the tetragram
in places which are allusions, references, expressions, words uttered by
people, etc. >>>
Yes, of course. Did you not read my book? I make this point very clear there.
<<<A "strong likelihood" is insufficient evidence to justify tinkering with
the text of the NT, lest we be tempted to impose our own theological
prejudices upon the text. >>>
I am not basing my claim on the claim of a "strong liklelihood," but the
"strong likelihood" on the accumulated MASS of evidence, which you have
thoroughly ignored, or missed. Let me simply matters: All available evidence
points to the conclusion that the only LXX mss. available to the NT writers
contained some form of the divine name. They quoted the LXX and Hebrew text
many times where the divine name exists, so either they "tampered with the
text," as you put it, or they did not. Well, what do you say?
[Greg Stafford] Of course, the later Christian LXX mss. do not use the
divine name, so it is really no surprise to find later NT mss. similarly
without use of the divine name.
There are actually NO NT mss in existence that contain the tetragram, whether
early or very early.>>>>
And that is simply because we do not have ANY very earlier mss. containing a
quoted OT text with the divine name. The oldest of such texts that we do
have, but which do not use the divine name, are P46 and P66, both of which
are dated to about 200 CE, considerably long after the writing of the
original document, which could have easily been altered JUST AS the LXX mss.
were. Not a hard theory to accept, at all.
[Greg Stafford] The question we have to ask is, if they removed the divine
name from what was considered inspired Scripture (the LXX), then what would
keep these same persons from doing the same thing to NT docs, many of which
were not placed on equal footing with the LXX?
[Doug Mason] If this is so, then at what points do we "return" YHWH (in
Hebrew letters) into the text of the NT? Only at direct quotations? >>>
"If this is so"? So you concede the possibility, if not the "strong
likelihood"? If you want to know at what points we would then use the name,
see my B-Greek post on this very subject (how did you miss that one?). Or,
simply read my book.
<<>>
I am not concerned about what English translations do. Why are you?
<<<Neither do I know of an English translation of the NT that limits the
tetragram to places where the NT writer is quoting directly an OT source
which definitely contains the tetragram. >>>
Again, your point is?
<<>>>
I am not sure, but if you mean the NWT then your characterization is out of
place, and not founded upon a solid foundation. You are entitled to your
opinion, of course, concerning the NWT's potentially selective use of the
divine name, and I agree that the Name should not be in all the places it is
in the NWT, but how does that relate to my points as expressed in my post to
B-Greek? Why go after NWT, and not stay focussed on *me*?
<<<Do you want a copy of my study, at no cost or obligation? Ask me:
dmason39 at hotmail.com
Regards,
Doug >>>
Well, not really. I can see from what you have written already that you do
indeed have an interest in the subject, but are lacking considerably in
essential information concerning the topic, and hence I prefer to stick with
the actual sources in question and evaluate their importance, as I do in my
book.
Thanks for your input, though!
Best regards,
Greg Stafford
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list