The Divine Name in the New Testament with proof

[Laurelix]

Before we get to the main proof let’s actually look at wether there were any mentions that the divine name was written in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, . . . they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.� This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.� Thus, there is strong evidence that the Jews living in the second century C.E. believed that Christians used The Divine name in their writings.

After all the NT does quote a lot of the OT which contained Yahweh.

Now to the real discovery the not even the WatchTower Society knows about. With this new finding I went through the New World Translation and in their New Testament the divine name is over spammed. They have roughly 234 tines when it should appear only around 150 times. So in many passages it appeared where it originally wasn’t and then it’s missing the divine name in certain places like Ephesians 6:1,4,10,21 so it’s missing the divine there but then in verse 7 where it should be Lord, they have the divine name there.

How do I know this? Well When the practice took place of replacing the divine name with Kyrios in OT, the same rule was later applied for NT also. The original writings that wore out and had to be copied no longer exist with us which had the divine name but only the copies are available to us which already applied the removal of the divine name and using Kyrios instead. This is why Heresies like Seballianism and of similar things started erupting in late 2nd and 3rd century and even 4th. The removal of the divine name caused chaos because you have 2 Lords being called the same.

Let’s Take a Look at the Interlinear for Luke 3:4 which is quoting the OT which has Yahweh in the Passage.

γέγ�απται �ν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἠσαίου τοῦ π�οφήτου Φωνὴ Voice βοῶντος �ν τῇ ��ήμῳ Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν �δὸν Κυ�ίου, ε�θείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τ�ίβους α�τοῦ.

as it has been written in book of words of Isaiah the prophet Voice of calling out in the desolate [place] Make YOU ready the way, of Lord, straight be YOU making the roads.

In Greek you have 2 types of sentences. Some sentences have no articles at all this nothing has to have an article. But if a sentence has an article everything such as title must have an article before it but not if it’s a name.

So let’s look closely...

“as it has been written in book of words of Isaiah� - No Article Before Name

“the prophet Voice of calling out in the desolate [place] Make YOU ready the way,� —- Articles being used without fail before Prophet (title), desolate, way

“of Lord, straight be YOU making the roads.� - We see still see article before roads but there is an error here, there is no article before Lord (Title) in an sentence which has articles... even in the Interlinear version on bible hub they had to insert (the) in brackets because it’s missing.

However if we were to insert the Divine Name there, the grammatical error would be fixed because articles do not go before before a name. In this same manner if there is an article before Kyrios you know that in that place the divine name wasn’t used. In sentences which do not use articles you can’t identify this grammatical issue. When the Divine Name was tampered with and replaced it left these traces behind. This never pc ours when Lord is used for Jesus but only in places where Yahweh has been substituted.

Using this Same rule let’s see what Luke 2:22-24 would look like
“Also, when the time came for purifying them according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the LORD, just as it is written in Jehovah’s Law: “Every firstborn male must be called holy to the LORD.� And they offered a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of Jehovah: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.�

[Difflugia]

But if a sentence has an article everything such as title must have an article before it but not if it’s a name.

I don't think that's true (or I don't understand what you mean), but we'll assume it is for the moment.

Let’s Take a Look at the Interlinear for Luke 3:4 which is quoting the OT which has Yahweh in the Passage.

γέγ�απται �ν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἠσαίου τοῦ π�οφήτου Φωνὴ βοῶντος �ν τῇ ��ήμῳ Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν �δὸν Κυ�ίου, ε�θείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τ�ίβους α�τοῦ.

“of Lord, straight be YOU making the roads.� - We see still see article before roads but there is an error here, there is no article before Lord (Title) in an sentence which has articles... even in the Interlinear version on bible hub they had to insert (the) in brackets because it’s missing.

The grammar matches the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40:3 and was copied verbatim by Luke:

Φωνὴ βοῶντος �ν τῇ ��ήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν �δὸν Κυ�ίου. ε�θείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τ�ίβους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.

Using this Same rule let’s see what Luke 2:22-24 would look like

The phrase �ν νόμῳ Κυ�ίου appears multiple times in the Septuagint to translate the phrase "in the law of Yahweh," including Psalm 119 (in our Bible; Psalm 118 in the Septuagint). I see nothing implausible or unlikely about Luke copying verbatim a phrase with liturgical meaning, even if the rest of the sentence differs grammatically.

[brianbbs67]

So, the article missing before god in John 1:1c means it was YHVH? Just wondering, I don't believe so, yet.

[historia]

The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, . . . they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.� This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.�

We just went over this topic in a recent thread. But I didn't have a chance to respond to this particular piece of evidence there. So allow me to do so here.

As I understand it, this statement is preserved in the Tosefta, and incorporated into both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, and literally says:

• "The gilyonim and the scrolls of minim one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names."

Gilyonim essentially means "margins," referring to the part of a scroll that has no writing on it, and is often rendered as "blank spaces" or "blank folios" in English translations of the Talmud. Looking at the full context of the statement in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 106a) makes that clear:

Come and hear: The blank spaces above and below, between the sections, between the columns, at the beginning and at the end of the Scroll, defile one's hands. It may be that [when they are] together with the Scroll of the Law they are different.

Come and hear: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them.

Now surely it means the blank portions of a Scroll of the Law?
No: the blank spaces in the Books of Minim.

Seeing that we may not save the Books of Minim themselves, need their blank spaces be stated?
This is its meaning: And the Books of Minim are like blank spaces.

Clearly, gilyonim here cannot mean "books of the Evangelists" as it was rendered in the OP, as the immediate context and the follow-up questions about the statement are explicitly about blank spaces in scrolls. This is why most translations render this as "the blank spaces and the Books of the Minim."

A later verse in this same section of the Babylonian Talmud refers to a different group of books as aven gilyon ("wicked folio") or avon gilyon ("sinful folio"), which appears to be a pun on the Greek evangelion ("gospels"). But that verse doesn't appear in either the Tosefta or the Jerusalem Talmud, and so clearly comes from a later tradition. It appears the source being referenced in the OP (the NWT?) has read these later references back into this earlier verse in the Tosefta, but that is almost certainly dubious.

Likewise, minim is typically translated as "sectarians" or "heretics," and can refer to any Jewish group the Rabbis considered unorthodox, from Sadducees and Samaritans on the one hand, to Gnostics and Jewish Christians on the other.

The texts being referenced here as "the books of the minim" could be Samaritan Torah scrolls or Jewish Christian texts written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We just don't know. Certainly, it is far from clear that this is a reference to the Greek New Testament, which, as we saw in the other thread, unlikely ever contained the divine name.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 4 by historia]

Thanks for the history of this.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Laurelix]

What is your purpose in shooting down the New World Translation? It is fine in its attempt to put the Divine Name where it belongs and also where it most likely belongs. In fact, it is the only scholarly work where the Divine Name is put back into the Christian Greek Scriptures. And you admit yourself that it should be in there over 100 times. What do you get from criticizIng the NWT?



.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 1 by Laurelix]

OP by Laurelix:

"However if we were to insert the Divine Name there, the grammatical error would be fixed because articles do not go before before a name."

Personal names such as “Jesus,� “Abraham,� “Mary,� etc. should not be included as evidence for the use of the definite article since they may take a definite article in NT Greek or may not according to the whim of the writer and yet in English are always translated without the definite article.

Wallace, Harner, and Colwell all properly exclude them as examples for their 'rules' which they claim make John 1:1c read "God." It is obvious that this is also a proper exception because proper names take the definite article with such irregularity that no rule (including Colwell’s and Sharp’s “Rules�) which is based on article usage (or non-usage) can properly use them as evidence.

Great irregularity of article usage with proper names has also been noted by most other recognized NT Greek scholars: “WITH PROPER NAMES. Here the article is used or not at the will of the writer.� - A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791.

Here are some examples from the NT Greek text in the first chapters of the Gospel of John:

1:45 – _Philip found the Nathanael
1:46 - _Nathanael said to him
1:47 – Jesus saw the Nathanael
1:48 – _Nathanael said to him
1:48 - _Jesus answered
1:49 - _Nathanael answered
1:50 - _Jesus said
2:2 - The Jesus and the disciples
2:4 – The Jesus said
2:7 – The Jesus said
2:11 – The Jesus did this as the beginning
2:17 – The Jesus went up
2:19 _Jesus answered
2:24 – But _Jesus himself
3:3 - _Jesus answered
3:4 - The Nicodemus
3:5 - The Jesus answered
3:9 - _Nicodemus answered
3:10 - _Jesus answered
3:14 - _Moses lifted up
3:22 – The Jesus and the disciples
3:23 – The John
3:24 - _John had not yet been thrown
4:7 - The Jesus said to her
4:10 - _Jesus answered and said

Proper Names may or may not take the article!

Furthermore, words which are modified by prepositions or genitive nouns ('to Lord,' 'of Lord,' 'Lord of...,' etc.) also may or may not take the article, the translator must decide from context. - See A. T. Robertson, pp. 781, 790, 791.

And C. F. D. Moule, p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

And “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.� - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

"A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

And other trinitarian Grammarians also.

As for Isaiah 40:3, The ancient Hebrew text uses the name of God (YHWH)! And the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah agrees!

Yes, 'Jehovah' (or 'Yehowah,' etc. if you prefer) must be returned to this scripture, in spite of your new 'rule.'

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 7 by tigger2]

I think it should be said, too, that when a name or title HAS the definite article, that person or thing is THE ONLY ONE. Like "the Nicodemus." That Nicodemus is the only Nicodemus that is the Nicodemus mentioned. "The god" is the only one. It is not like the next "god" that has no article, either.



.

[tigger2]

OP by Laurelix:

Using this Same rule let’s see what Luke 2:22-24 would look like

“Also, when the time came for purifying them according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the LORD, just as it is written in Jehovah’s Law: 'Every firstborn male must be called holy to the LORD.' And they offered a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of Jehovah: 'a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.'�

First, it is important to understand that there is no 'LORD' (all capitals). Yes, it is found in most Bibles which do not properly transliterate the only name of God as 'Jehovah,' 'Yahweh,' 'Yehowah,' etc. (see Ps. 83:18 KJV).

Some of these Bibles actually admit in their introduction that they have changed God's only personal name to an entirely different title and show that by capitalizing it ('LORD').

For a better idea of where God's personal name is actually used in the OT manuscripts, see the ASV ('Jehovah') and Jerusalem Bible ('Yahweh'). So your translation above is actually saying that the two places where you have 'LORD' are really also saying (in code) 'Jehovah.'

Second, as posted above, the use of the article is uncertain/ambiguous in every instance of 'Jehovah' and 'LORD' in this scripture because of prepositions and genitives modifying each of them.

[onewithhim]

There is strong evidence that the Divine Name was in the Septuagint version that Jesus and his disciples used.

There is a fragment, kept in Cairo, from the first century B.C. which was available in Jesus' day and which includes the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) throughout the New Testament.