The above translation is that of William Newcome's New Testament 1796
For more Divine Name books go to 200 Books on the Divine Name Jehovah on DVDrom (Yahweh, Tetragrammaton, YHWH) and Divine Name Controversy & Mysteries - 50 Books on CD
For a list of all of my disks and digital books (PDF and Amazon) click here
The use of the Divine Name in the New Testament may have stronger support than many may admit.
Historical: We know that all of the earliest extant manuscripts of the OT contained some for of the Divine Name. We also know that abbreviations and surrogates began to be used after a while by Christian scribes.
Inclusive: It is now realized that the Bible uses much more inclusive language than earlier realized, and many Bibles have followed suit, some too far for my own tastes. But I do notice that in such an atmosphere, the male-oriented "LORD" is still used. This is odd to me, and uneven. You would think the use of the Divine Name in both the Greek and Hebrew would be applauded to appease promoters of inclusive language Bibles.
Meaning Based: In an era when meaning based or dynamic equivalent translations are all the rage, the Divine Name as used in the NT would be embraced.
Lexical evidence: Vine's Dictionary of Bible Words:
"<A-1,Noun,2962,kurios>
(g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25."
McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible under the heading, "Lord:"
"The use of kyrios in the Synoptic Gospels...is also a designation of God in quotations from the LXX or as a substitute for the name of God, and in the common profane sense of owner or master." p. 517
"In the New Testament, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, by J. Parkhurst, revised ed. of 1845, p. 347
A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by J.H. Thayer, 1889 ed., p.365 says inder Kurios: "c. This title is given a. to God, the ruler of the universe (so the Sept. for adonai, eloah, elohim, Jehovah and Jah)."
A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddel and Scott, 1968 ed., on p. 1013, under Kurios: "B....4. O KURIOS, = Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. II. 5, al."
Internal evidence and harmony: To not use the Divine Name introduces a break in the harmony of the Bible. For me, to go from Malachi to Matthew in the Bible and be hit with a change in the designation of a name considered so important at one time requires too much faith to be believed.
All Bibles have to make corrections as it is. This is reasoned eclecticism, it is common sense. When we read at Matthew 1:7-8 "Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat" how many of us realize that ASA is not in the Greek text that we use? The Westcott and Hort, Nestle Aland and UBS texts all use "Asaph" here, but most Bibles, realizing that this is incorrect and breaks with the internal evidence and harmony of the Bible, correct the reading.
Since this is so, why is it so difficult to imagine that we have erred in regards to the Divine Name in the New Testament?
Historical: We know that all of the earliest extant manuscripts of the OT contained some for of the Divine Name. We also know that abbreviations and surrogates began to be used after a while by Christian scribes.
Inclusive: It is now realized that the Bible uses much more inclusive language than earlier realized, and many Bibles have followed suit, some too far for my own tastes. But I do notice that in such an atmosphere, the male-oriented "LORD" is still used. This is odd to me, and uneven. You would think the use of the Divine Name in both the Greek and Hebrew would be applauded to appease promoters of inclusive language Bibles.
Meaning Based: In an era when meaning based or dynamic equivalent translations are all the rage, the Divine Name as used in the NT would be embraced.
Lexical evidence: Vine's Dictionary of Bible Words:
"<A-1,Noun,2962,kurios>
(g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25."
McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible under the heading, "Lord:"
"The use of kyrios in the Synoptic Gospels...is also a designation of God in quotations from the LXX or as a substitute for the name of God, and in the common profane sense of owner or master." p. 517
"In the New Testament, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, by J. Parkhurst, revised ed. of 1845, p. 347
A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by J.H. Thayer, 1889 ed., p.365 says inder Kurios: "c. This title is given a. to God, the ruler of the universe (so the Sept. for adonai, eloah, elohim, Jehovah and Jah)."
A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddel and Scott, 1968 ed., on p. 1013, under Kurios: "B....4. O KURIOS, = Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. II. 5, al."
Internal evidence and harmony: To not use the Divine Name introduces a break in the harmony of the Bible. For me, to go from Malachi to Matthew in the Bible and be hit with a change in the designation of a name considered so important at one time requires too much faith to be believed.
All Bibles have to make corrections as it is. This is reasoned eclecticism, it is common sense. When we read at Matthew 1:7-8 "Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat" how many of us realize that ASA is not in the Greek text that we use? The Westcott and Hort, Nestle Aland and UBS texts all use "Asaph" here, but most Bibles, realizing that this is incorrect and breaks with the internal evidence and harmony of the Bible, correct the reading.
Since this is so, why is it so difficult to imagine that we have erred in regards to the Divine Name in the New Testament?
For a list of all of my disks and digital books click here
No comments:
Post a Comment