Tuesday, 18 May 2010

StandFirm Continues to Wilfully Miss the Point on 237.

StandFirm has replied to my questions on his justification of the Governing Body adding Jehovah 237 times to the Greek scriptures;
No need to justify what is accepted practice.

By 'Hebrew Translations' I was referring to translations of the New Testament from Greek into Hebrew, and I have clarified the original post.

My entire point is that what we did is standard practice. Are you willing to admit that the New World Translation is not 'apostate' for doing this? Are you?
So let me understand this, the basis for inserting YHWH (transliterated into the erroneous Jehovah) is by looking at Hebrew versions of the Greek manuscripts, rather than looking at the actual extant Greek manuscripts themselves?

In other words, the Greek manuscripts (from which the New Testament is translated into, let's say, English) don't contain YHWH, but the Hebrew translations of the Greek do? Therefore by referencing translations of the original manuscripts, the NWT is somehow accurate?

Can you cite these Hebrew translations of the Greek scriptures, please? Are you sure you aren't confusing them with the Jesuit translations into Hebrew of the Greek scriptures, translations that date from around the 1300s?

If these Hebrew translations added YHWH where it isn't found in the extant Greek manuscripts then, yes, they are apostate. And so is the NWT for relying on them.

The rest of your argument is one big red herring, I'm afraid; the issue is whether the name Jehovah (I'll even grant you the possible full YHWH) is found in the extant Greek manuscripts, not whether other versions of the Bible add Jehovah to the Hebrew scriptures or use paraphrasing rather than word-for-word translation techniques.

I have to say, I'm really disappointed that this is your justification for the Governing Body sanctioning the insertion of a false name for God 237 times into the Christian Greek scriptures.

It seems that StandFirm is of the opinion that many other Bible translations have added Jehovah into the Christian Greek scriptures. Yet, he fails to cite one example of this taking place. And even if he were to have such an example (or examples), would its (their) existence suddenly make the practise of adding words to the extant Greek manuscripts justified?

1 comment:

  1. What's amazing about this whole "controversy" is that 1 John 5:7 has a better manuscript tradition than any of the places in the Christian Scriptures where the divine name is added. In other words, the textual tradition for 1 John 5:7 is extremely late and scant (and hardly something I would ever defend). But to the contrary the textual tradition for the divine name in the Christian Scriptures is zero and completely barren.

    And this is why no textual critic worth his salt would ever defend the NWT, except maybe the lone George Howard.

    I would also have to disagree that "Jehovah" is erroneous. Since Greek and Hebrew names (Like Jeremiah or Jesus) are always transliterated, I don't think there is anything that would demand that the Tetragrammaton should be the exception to this.