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