New Testament Jehovah Quotes
Jan Groenveld
jan.groenveld at uq.net.au
Fri Sep 15 23:35:44 EDT 2000
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 GregStffrd at aol.com wrote:
> 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. 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.
>
> 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. 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?
>
Greg, some would disagree with you here:
"The Septuagint (LXX) contained the Tetragrammaton"
The WTS wishes to give the impression that the LXX used by the Christian Church
regularly contained the Tetragram. However, the LXX copies come from Jewish
sources, apart from two LXX copies that come from a source of doubtful origin,
possibly Jewish, or of a Jewish form of Christianity.
Extant versions of the Septuagint coming to us from Jewish sources contain the
Tetragrammaton in ancient script whereas only two Septuagint copies that contain
the Tetragrammaton may have possibly been of a Christian source.[4] But these
"Christian" sources were of:
"a Jewish form of Christianity (that) persisted in Oxyrhynchus, and a
possible explanation of these two eccentric texts would be that they
were the work of Jewish-Christian scribes." [5]
The Codex P. Oxy. vii, 1007, referred to in the Foreword of the Kingdom
Interlinear on page 15, provides no evidence to support the WTS, since it cannot
definitely be established that it is from a Christian source. Paul Kahle, in his
work CAIRO GENIZA, page 247, reckons it to be Jewish, although C.R. Roberts is a
little more conciliatory, saying that it has "a claim to be regarded either as
Christian or Jewish". Its origin must be considered, according Roberts, to be
"puzzling". [6]
Other material mentioned in the Foreword is most definitely of Jewish and not of
Christian origin. These include:
- P. Fouad Inv. 266 (KIT Foreword, pages 12-14, Roberts, p. 75)
- P.Oxy. iv. 656 (KIT Foreword, page 15, footnote "C". Roberts, p. 76-77
states: "The text has a number of unique readings which may point to a revision
of the LXX".)
The WTS omits to mention "another text in the same category...P.Oxy.ix. 1166".
In this papyrus roll of Genesis "KURIOS and THEOS are abbreviated in the usual
way It is more likely to be Christian than Jewish". [7]
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list