traditions regarding tetragrammaton?
GregStffrd at aol.com
GregStffrd at aol.com
Sat Aug 25 11:36:38 EDT 2001
In a message dated 08/24/2001 8:04:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dan.wagner at netzero.net writes:
<< Thanks for this post. This is extremely interesting and surprising. Has
anybody who has studied the evidence disagreed with you (re: modification of
LXX from original tetragrammaton)? >>
I have studied the same material, for both the LXX and NT, and agree with
Rolf's views. Of course, some might be inclined the think that this is due to
my religious affiliation, but I present the facts to speak for themselves.
Religion can always be thought to account for someone's view of a matter, but
ultimately the facts either support or deny the view advanced.
I am working on a second book which will be out this October and which also
contains information on this subject. But I believe the evidence is strongly
in favor of the belief that the pre-second century CE LXX and NT mss
contained a form of the divine name. It is interesting to note that the time
during which any removal of the divine name would have (assuming it did)
taken place, would have occurred during the same period of time that the
divine name was removed from the LXX, namely, near the end of the first
century or the beginning of the second.
Also, it should be remembered that the LXX was considered inspired Scripture,
on par with the Hebrew text, and that the NT docs did not come to be
considered as part of the inspired canon (at least not as we know it today)
until well into or sometime after the second century. So, it should not
surprise us to find that those who felt comfortable in changing the LXX had
no reservations about similarly treating the NT (assuming that they did so).
Still, the LXX mss. evidence shows that all pre-first century CE mss.
contained a form of the divine name. We can therefore argue based on this
mss. evidence that where the NT authors quoted the OT they either quoted the
divine-name containing Hebrew text or LXX versions. Whichever they quoted,
the divine name would have been part of that quotation per the mss. evidence
we have to date for the source material. For more, I suggest you consider
Rolf's book and my books: http://www.elihubooks.com.
More information about the b-hebrew