JESUS IS NOT YHWH

[onewithhim]

Jesus prayed to YHWH, the Father, not to himself. (E.g., Matthew 26:39,42; John 11:41,42; John 17:1-26.) Would he have been praying to himself?

He continually referred to himself as "God's SON," not YHWH Himself. (John 5:19; John 8:28,29; John 10:36; John 17:1.) Even the Jews who hated him recognized that fact (John 19:7). Can he be his own Son?

He applied Isaiah 61:1,2 to himself, at Luke 4:17-21, showing that he was the one anointed BY YHWH, and sent BY YHWH. There are incontrovertibly two Persons mentioned in the passage, and YHWH is the One calling the shots. The anointed one does what YHWH wants. How could they be the same Person?

Psalm 110 is also applied to Jesus at Acts 2:34,35. He is the "Lord," or Messiah, that YHWH speaks to. Was YHWH talking to Himself?


I think that just these few points would show plainly that Jesus is not YHWH. Can anyone explain how THESE REFERENCES, ABOVE, can possibly agree with the premise that Jesus is YHWH? I'm not asking for other Scriptures to be brought in without commenting ON the verses I am asking about. Please give me your reasoning concerning these particular Scriptures. Thank you.

[JehovahsWitness]

for 1st c. Jews [... ]where the covenantal name YHWH appears, we have the Greek Kurios [LORD]

... we do not have manuscripts of the LXX dating to 1st c.;

Emphasis MINE

LXX = code for the Greek Septuagint

(1) LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters in the following places: De 18:5, 5, 7, 15, 16; De 19:8, 14; De 20:4, 13, 18; De 21:1, 8; De 23:5; De 24:4, 9; De 25:15, 16; De 26:2, 7, 8, 14; De 27:2, 3, 7, 10, 15; De 28:1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 61, 62, 64, 65; De 29:4, 10, 20, 29; De 30:9, 20; De 31:3, 26, 27, 29; De 32:3, 6, 19. Therefore, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs 49 times in identified places in Deuteronomy. In addition, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs three times in unidentified fragments, namely, in fragments 116, 117 and 123. This papyrus, found in Egypt, was dated to the first century B.C.E.

In 1944 a fragment of this papyrus was published by W. G. Waddell in JTS, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. In 1948, in Cairo, Egypt, two Gilead-trained missionaries of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society obtained photographs of 18 fragments of this papyrus and permission to publish them. Subsequently, 12 of these fragments were published in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, pp. 13, 14. Based on the photographs in this publication, the following three studies were produced: (1) A. Vaccari, Papiro Fuad, Inv. 266. Analisi critica dei Frammenti pubblicati in: New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Brooklyn (N. Y.) 1950 p. 13s., published in Studia Patristica, Vol. I, Part I, edited by Kurt Aland and F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1957, pp. 339-342; (2) W. Baars, Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266, published in the Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. XIII, Wageningen, 1959, pp. 442-446; (3) George Howard, The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy, published in the Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XLII, Cincinnati, 1971, pp. 125-131.

Commenting on this papyrus, Paul Kahle wrote in Studia Evangelica, edited by Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld and W. C. van Unnik, Berlin, 1959, p. 614: Further pieces of the same papyrus were reproduced from a photo of the papyrus by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the introduction to an English translation of the New Testament, Brooklyn, New York, 1950. A characteristic of the papyrus is the fact that the name of God is rendered by the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters. An examination of the published fragments of the papyrus undertaken at my request by Pater Vaccari resulted in his concluding that the papyrus, which must have been written about 400 years earlier than Codex B, contains perhaps the most perfect Septuagint text of Deuteronomy that has come down to us.

(2) LXXVTS 10a renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: Jon 4:2; Mic 1:1, 3; Mic 4:4, 5, 7; Mic 5:4, 4; Hab 2:14, 16, 20; Hab 3:9; Zep 1:3, 14; Zep 2:10; Zec 1:3, 3, 4; Zec 3:5, 6, 7. This leather scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Naal ever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. The fragments of this scroll were published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, Leiden, 1963, pp. 170-178.

(3) LXXIEJ 12 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in Jon 3:3. This shred of parchment, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. It was published in Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 12, 1962, p. 203.

(4) LXXVTS 10b renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: Zec 8:20; 9:1, 1, 4. This parchment scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Naal ever, was dated to the middle of the first century C.E. It was published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, 1963, p. 178.

(5) 4Q LXX Levb renders the divine name in Greek letters (IAO) in Le 3:12; 4:27. This papyrus manuscript, found in Qumran Cave 4, was dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 390 by JehovahsWitness]

Is our debate over existing manuscripts? Very well, you win, we have a septuangintial manuscript dating to the 1st c.

Is our debate over whether the LXX never used the tetragrammaton? I don't recall ever saying this. My position was that where the tetragrammaton was translated into Greek, the preferred Greek term was Kurios.

Is our debate over whether Paul employed a Greek O.T. which used Kurios for the TetraG? No.

Is our debate over whether Paul used Kurios for YHWH when quoting Scripture. Yes. At least that is what I think the most relevant question given the title of this thread.

Whatever inadvertence I have made, they are tangential to the main topic.

Paul refers to Jesus as Kurios in Phil. 2. Given the proximity of Isaiah, and the thematic congruence, for Paul, what lies behind the Greek Kurios is the TetraG. He does this maneuver not infrequently.


May I suggest we drop the academic and trivial intimidation and stick to what is relevant?

[JehovahsWitness]

... we do not have manuscripts of the LXX dating to 1st c.;

Emphasis MINE

LXX = code for the Greek Septuagint

(1) LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters in the following places: De 18:5, 5, 7, 15, 16; De 19:8, 14; De 20:4, 13, 18; De 21:1, 8; De 23:5; De 24:4, 9; De 25:15, 16; De 26:2, 7, 8, 14; De 27:2, 3, 7, 10, 15; De 28:1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 61, 62, 64, 65; De 29:4, 10, 20, 29; De 30:9, 20; De 31:3, 26, 27, 29; De 32:3, 6, 19. Therefore, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs 49 times in identified places in Deuteronomy. In addition, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs three times in unidentified fragments, namely, in fragments 116, 117 and 123. This papyrus, found in Egypt, was dated to the first century B.C.E.

In 1944 a fragment of this papyrus was published by W. G. Waddell in JTS, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. In 1948, in Cairo, Egypt, two Gilead-trained missionaries of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society obtained photographs of 18 fragments of this papyrus and permission to publish them. Subsequently, 12 of these fragments were published in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, pp. 13, 14. Based on the photographs in this publication, the following three studies were produced: (1) A. Vaccari, Papiro Fuad, Inv. 266. Analisi critica dei Frammenti pubblicati in: New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Brooklyn (N. Y.) 1950 p. 13s., published in Studia Patristica, Vol. I, Part I, edited by Kurt Aland and F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1957, pp. 339-342; (2) W. Baars, Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266, published in the Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. XIII, Wageningen, 1959, pp. 442-446; (3) George Howard, The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy, published in the Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XLII, Cincinnati, 1971, pp. 125-131.

Commenting on this papyrus, Paul Kahle wrote in Studia Evangelica, edited by Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld and W. C. van Unnik, Berlin, 1959, p. 614: Further pieces of the same papyrus were reproduced from a photo of the papyrus by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the introduction to an English translation of the New Testament, Brooklyn, New York, 1950. A characteristic of the papyrus is the fact that the name of God is rendered by the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters. An examination of the published fragments of the papyrus undertaken at my request by Pater Vaccari resulted in his concluding that the papyrus, which must have been written about 400 years earlier than Codex B, contains perhaps the most perfect Septuagint text of Deuteronomy that has come down to us.

(2) LXXVTS 10a renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: Jon 4:2; Mic 1:1, 3; Mic 4:4, 5, 7; Mic 5:4, 4; Hab 2:14, 16, 20; Hab 3:9; Zep 1:3, 14; Zep 2:10; Zec 1:3, 3, 4; Zec 3:5, 6, 7. This leather scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Naal ever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. The fragments of this scroll were published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, Leiden, 1963, pp. 170-178.

(3) LXXIEJ 12 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in Jon 3:3. This shred of parchment, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. It was published in Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 12, 1962, p. 203.

(4) LXXVTS 10b renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters in the following places: Zec 8:20; 9:1, 1, 4. This parchment scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Naal ever, was dated to the middle of the first century C.E. It was published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, 1963, p. 178.

(5) 4Q LXX Levb renders the divine name in Greek letters (IAO) in Le 3:12; 4:27. This papyrus manuscript, found in Qumran Cave 4, was dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157.

Very well, you win, we have a septuangintial manuscript dating to the 1st c.

My position was that where the tetragrammaton was translated into Greek, the preferred Greek term was Kurios.

Where the LXX substitutes a Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH, it predominantly uses the Greek Kurios.

(5) 4Q LXX Levb renders the divine name in Greek letters (IAO) in Le 3:12; 4:27. This papyrus manuscript, found in Qumran Cave 4, was dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157.

• COMMENT: To the best of my knowledge there are only two, early (pre-second century CE) Jewish LXX manuscript which translate a passages where The Divine Name would have appeared in the original (The(The Papyrus Fouad 266 and 4QLXXLev). Only one, the latter, "substitutes a Greek word" for the Hebrew YHWH and it uses the Greek majuscule letters IAW which is arguably a transliteration, not Adonay but of YHWH (see above).

Where the LXX substitutes a Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH, it predominantly uses the Greek Kurios.

CONCLUSION: We have no first century copies/fragments of the Septuagint (LXX) that support the theory that the Hebrew YHWH was "predominently" substituted with the Greek KURIOS; on the contrary, it seems the only available first century manuscript that does change the Tetragrammaton to Greek, uses a transliteration of YHWH rather than a substitution.

RELATED POSTS

Why are first centurty Greek copies of the "bible" relevant?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 296#906296

[JehovahsWitness]

May I suggest we drop the academic [...] intimidation?

What do you mean by "the academic ...intimidation"?

• Do you mean : "I suggest we stop referring to academic papers to support any aguments being made?
• Do you mean: "I suggest we stop referring to the first century source documents (1st century manuscripts and first century Septuagint manuscripts) that Paul and other first century writers may have used?
• Do you mean: ""I suggest we stop referring to the Septuagint LXX entirely"?
• Do you mean: "I suggest we stop referring to ANY historical evidence"?
• Do you mean: Please cease and desist from making any reference to expert opinion or peer reviewed academic studies on the subject?
• Do you mean: I suggest we stop producing physical and verifiable evidence that supports the argument being made?

I shall certainly consider your request once I understand specifically what it is referring to (see list above).


JW

May I suggest we drop the academic [...] intimidation?

I know Greek and Hebrew. [...] Where the LXX substitutes a Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH, it predominantly uses the Greek Kurios.

Emphasis MINE

[onewithhim]

Some verification of Liams claim is in the preface of the NKJ bible. Under explainations of format. ...."in this edition the capitalized form God or Lord is also used whenever the covenant name is quoted in the new Testament"...

That must mean that wherever a scripture is quoted that had originally contained the Tetragrammaton, in the Hebrew Scriptures, then "God" or "Lord" would be capitalized in the New Testament. Interesting. That would be supporting JWs' position.

Actually, it means wherever the YHWH appeared, God or Lord was substistuted. And it was not Jehovah(in the script), a 13th century RCC creation. For me to go any further, I would need to understand Cornea Greek, which I don't. But , maybe one day.

That's what I actually said, that someone substituted "Lord" or "God" for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), deliberately effacing God's personal name from the text.

I agree there. It only supports the YHWH was changed, not that it was Jehovah. It could be.(but not likely, due to the late appearance of J) What would be interesting to know is when the NT refers to the Son of man and when God.(Kurios, Theos, Logos) It seems purposefully clouded.

In fact, there must be great truth to these writings we hold to ourselves. Because, thru translations and misnomers, we all know its out there. We just have to hope we rightly divide the Word.
I must get a NWT, now. Just to divide.

Good idea, and compare many versions. Look at an Interlinear Bible as well, and you can see where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text.

Wherever "Yod-He-Waw-He" (the Tetragrammaton) appears, that is God's name. It appears 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.

"Jehovah" is the most common pronunciation. That is why Jehovah's Witnesses use it. Originally the King James translators rendered the Tetragrammaton with an "I" instead of the "J"---"Iehovah." But later the "J" came into use, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if we use the "I" or the "J." (The pronunciation of "Jesus" was only a relatively recent development. The original 1611 KJV presented the name of God's Son as "Iesus." Should we all forget "Jesus" and say "Iesus"?)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 378 by JehovahsWitness]

Hmmm....

Sorry, I don't see how your response has any weight here. We have manuscripts from Paul himself, quoting Scripture, using Kurios where YHWH is used.

I am perfectly fine admitting that we do not have manuscripts of the LXX dating to 1st c.; just as I am perfectly fine admitting we do not have the original manuscripts of Paul. All of that is irrelevant. We have enough data to reconstruct Paul's manuscripts, and all the evidence points to the fact that when Paul quotes an O.T. passage in Greek, a passage that contains the Hebrew for YHWH, Paul uses Kurios. I find it unlikely that Paul was being innovative here; thus I take it that there was a floating Greek manuscript of the O.T., known to Palestine. Whether it was made official is irrelevant here. Paul probably had a Greek bible which he consulted, which I call the LXX. And from this bible he had no problems identifying Jesus with YHWH.


I am guessing that your last attempt was a bit of a maneuver; trying to nit pick on a very minor detail. The major detail is whether Paul uses Kurios when translating his O.T.

I wasn't aware that we have manuscripts from Paul himself!! This is news to me. Would you share them with us please?

Your "probably" doesn't hold water.

Paul would have quoted the Hebrew text as he saw it, and God's name was in those Hebrew scriptures 7,000 times.

Hmmm....not sure what you are attempting here.

We have multiple manuscripts of the Pauline corpus. In these, Paul writes in Greek. In these, he quotes from the O.T. These quotes are, no surprise, in Greek; obviously, since he is writing to Greeks who do not know Hebrew. The O.T. passages he is translating contain the Hebrew YHWH; where this term occurs, he uses the Greek kurios to translate.

This isn't really up for debate. Even wiki will support this.

What are the dates on those manuscripts of the Pauline corpus?

Paul himself would not substitute "Kurios" for the Divine Name.

You either don't understand what Wiki is saying or they are wrong.

Please answer my question. What are the dates of those manuscripts that you claim Paul himself wrote?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 378 by JehovahsWitness]

Hmmm....

Sorry, I don't see how your response has any weight here. We have manuscripts from Paul himself, quoting Scripture, using Kurios where YHWH is used.

I am perfectly fine admitting that we do not have manuscripts of the LXX dating to 1st c.; just as I am perfectly fine admitting we do not have the original manuscripts of Paul. All of that is irrelevant. We have enough data to reconstruct Paul's manuscripts, and all the evidence points to the fact that when Paul quotes an O.T. passage in Greek, a passage that contains the Hebrew for YHWH, Paul uses Kurios. I find it unlikely that Paul was being innovative here; thus I take it that there was a floating Greek manuscript of the O.T., known to Palestine. Whether it was made official is irrelevant here. Paul probably had a Greek bible which he consulted, which I call the LXX. And from this bible he had no problems identifying Jesus with YHWH.


I am guessing that your last attempt was a bit of a maneuver; trying to nit pick on a very minor detail. The major detail is whether Paul uses Kurios when translating his O.T.

I wasn't aware that we have manuscripts from Paul himself!! This is news to me. Would you share them with us please?

Your "probably" doesn't hold water.

Paul would have quoted the Hebrew text as he saw it, and God's name was in those Hebrew scriptures 7,000 times.

Hmmm....not sure what you are attempting here.

We have multiple manuscripts of the Pauline corpus. In these, Paul writes in Greek. In these, he quotes from the O.T. These quotes are, no surprise, in Greek; obviously, since he is writing to Greeks who do not know Hebrew. The O.T. passages he is translating contain the Hebrew YHWH; where this term occurs, he uses the Greek kurios to translate.

This isn't really up for debate. Even wiki will support this.

What are the dates on those manuscripts of the Pauline corpus?

Paul himself would not substitute "Kurios" for the Divine Name.

You either don't understand what Wiki is saying or they are wrong.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 376 by JehovahsWitness]

I see your issue now. Actually, I do not need to show early manuscripts of the LXX, since we are dealing not with tendencies in general but specifically Paul's. And it is quite clear that when Paul quotes a Hebrew text in Greek, he uses Kurios for YHWH.

Hence Ro 10:13 where he quotes Joel 2.32:

32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered." What lies behind LORD is YHWH, as I am sure you will not dispute. Paul translates this:

- .
(Rom 10:13 BGT).

The clear referent of kurios in this passage is Jesus; thus Paul has identified Jesus with the LORD of Joel 2.32

It is the same in the following:

1 Cor. 1.31; 1 Cor. 2.16; 1 Cor. 10.26; 2 Cor. 10.17; Ro 14.11.

So then, Paul prefers Kurios for YHWH, and uses Kurios of Jesus.

Paul himself did not substitute "Lord" for the Tetragrammaton. Scholars say that this happened sometime in the 3rd century.

For a scholar to "say this" we would obviously need manuscripts from Paul where he he used something else. And this alone would be strange as he was writing to Greeks who did not now Hebrew.

So far, the manuscript evidence is on my side.

Not quite. There IS evidence that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the Greek text before the 3rd century. In fact, I think that JehovahsWitness has presented material that adequately answers your objections to using the Tetragrammaton.

I am waiting for the dates of the manuscripts that you say show Paul's actual writings.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 390 by JehovahsWitness]

Is our debate over existing manuscripts? Very well, you win, we have a septuangintial manuscript dating to the 1st c.

Is our debate over whether the LXX never used the tetragrammaton? I don't recall ever saying this. My position was that where the tetragrammaton was translated into Greek, the preferred Greek term was Kurios.

Is our debate over whether Paul employed a Greek O.T. which used Kurios for the TetraG? No.

Is our debate over whether Paul used Kurios for YHWH when quoting Scripture. Yes. At least that is what I think the most relevant question given the title of this thread.

Whatever inadvertence I have made, they are tangential to the main topic.

Paul refers to Jesus as Kurios in Phil. 2. Given the proximity of Isaiah, and the thematic congruence, for Paul, what lies behind the Greek Kurios is the TetraG. He does this maneuver not infrequently.


May I suggest we drop the academic and trivial intimidation and stick to what is relevant?

I'm sorry, but you are wrong about Paul using "Kurios" whenever he encountered the Tetragrammaton. He very much appreciated the DIFFERENCE between God and Jesus. This is evident in all of his writings. Both JW and I, as well as some others, have pointed out myriad places where Paul differentiates between God (the Father) and Jesus. ONLY the Father is "God." Jesus is clearly separate.

I'm sure Paul appreciated the fact that it would cause great confusion to obliterate God's name and replace it with "Lord." No one would know the difference between the two "Lords." Sadly, this has happened, thanks to copyists from the 3rd century.

[brianbbs67]

Some verification of Liams claim is in the preface of the NKJ bible. Under explainations of format. ...."in this edition the capitalized form God or Lord is also used whenever the covenant name is quoted in the new Testament"...

That must mean that wherever a scripture is quoted that had originally contained the Tetragrammaton, in the Hebrew Scriptures, then "God" or "Lord" would be capitalized in the New Testament. Interesting. That would be supporting JWs' position.

Actually, it means wherever the YHWH appeared, God or Lord was substistuted. And it was not Jehovah(in the script), a 13th century RCC creation. For me to go any further, I would need to understand Cornea Greek, which I don't. But , maybe one day.

That's what I actually said, that someone substituted "Lord" or "God" for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), deliberately effacing God's personal name from the text.

I agree there. It only supports the YHWH was changed, not that it was Jehovah. It could be.(but not likely, due to the late appearance of J) What would be interesting to know is when the NT refers to the Son of man and when God.(Kurios, Theos, Logos) It seems purposefully clouded.

In fact, there must be great truth to these writings we hold to ourselves. Because, thru translations and misnomers, we all know its out there. We just have to hope we rightly divide the Word.
I must get a NWT, now. Just to divide.

Good idea, and compare many versions. Look at an Interlinear Bible as well, and you can see where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text.

Wherever "Yod-He-Waw-He" (the Tetragrammaton) appears, that is God's name. It appears 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.

"Jehovah" is the most common pronunciation. That is why Jehovah's Witnesses use it. Originally the King James translators rendered the Tetragrammaton with an "I" instead of the "J"---"Iehovah." But later the "J" came into use, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if we use the "I" or the "J." (The pronunciation of "Jesus" was only a relatively recent development. The original 1611 KJV presented the name of God's Son as "Iesus." Should we all forget "Jesus" and say "Iesus"?)

I don't think the pronunciation matters either. I just want people to know there are these things you describe. And also, that for someone to claim God's only proper name is .....blank...., is false also. He seems to name Himself by His works, as i believe we will be. He is Elohim when he judges and Jehovah when He comforts..