2 Corinthians 3:17

Posted on by ProBible
ι have decided to lock this thread so that it doesn't serve as bait. Specific questions about the use of Greek words and phrases, the wording of Greek manuscripts, and other topics within the purview of are welcome in separate threads. These threads should not debate individual groups or translations. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — January 7th, 2014, 4:49 pm
Warning: Please stay away from textual criticism, translations, theology, speculation, discussing whether specific groups are right or wrong, etc. ι may delete posts or lock this thread if we can't stay in bounds.
Scott Lawson wrote: The first definition in βδαγ for κυριος is the more common definition of lord, master or owner but the second one notes that κυριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton. It also points out that κυριος is used in connection with Jesus and that it is also nearly equivalent of a personal name.
ι think this goes beyond what βδαγ actually says and inserts your interpretation. ι don't think that βδαγ says κυριος "is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton", it says that it frequently replaces the Tetragrammaton in the λχχ. It might be interesting to start a thread on Adonai, κυριος, the Tetragrammaton, the λχχ, and New Testament quotations from the λχχ to explore this. ι would prefer to do that in a thread that does not mention specific groups by name. βδαγ definitely says κυριος is used in connection with Jesus, ι don't see that it says it is nearly equivalent to a personal name. And it can refer to various human beings, God, Jesus, etc., βδαγ also notes some passages where it is not clear whether κυριος refers to Jesus or to God, a name would have made that distinction clear.
Scott Lawson wrote: It seems to me that just translating every instance of κυριος in the critical text of the ντ conveniently ignores a a difficult issue and is easy and it doesn't address the instances individually nor take into account the murky history of how and why κυριος became a substitute for יהוה. Is translating every instance κυριος as lord in the critical text of the ντ the best scholarly approach? As ι have pointed out βδαγ seems to allow us to at least consider that κυριος is a substitute for יהוה. Though the critical text compares texts and attempts to come up with an "original" text it does not address the possibility that due to some bias there was a concerted effort to remove the divine name from the holy writings. Does that idea seem so far fetched in the face of the admitted fact that κυριος is a substitute for יהוה? This substitution can create unusual readings as has been noted on this very site: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=432&p=9056&hilit=Κυριος#p9056
The γντ and many λχχ manuscripts clearly did say κυριος, we have no early manuscripts of the γντ that use the Tetragrammaton. You can speculate that this reflects a "concerted effort to remove the divine name from the holy writings", but that kind of speculation really steps outside the proper boundaries of . We don't do translation or textual criticism here, we don't speculate on how the texts we have came to be, but we do discuss what those texts say. ι don't agree with your conclusion that " κυριος became a substitute for יהוה ", and ι don't think that's quite what βδαγ says either. ι think it is more accurate to say that both words can refer to the same thing within a given frame of reference, as can αυτος. It's also true that many λχχ manuscripts and the γντ use the word κυριος where the Masoretic Text uses יהוה. But κυριος can designate many individuals that יהוה cannot designate. The two words do not mean the same thing. Why wouldn't a Bible translation that truly wants to be accurate and honor the God who has revealed himself to us by his name as יהוה (with nearly 7,000 occurrences) not take up this important issue? Did God reveal his name to us just so that it could later be ignored? Is this not one reason that Jesus came; to glorify God's name and make it known?
We have no early manuscripts of the γντ that use the Tetragrammaton. Speculating about why we have no such manuscripts is clearly outside the scope of . We can certainly discuss the use of phrases like ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου and what those phrases mean, preferably in specific passages, in separate threads that are not linked to the names of specific groups. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — January 7th, 2014, 3:53 pm The first definition in βδαγ for κυριος is the more common definition of lord, master or owner but the second one notes that κυριος is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton. It also points out that κυριος is used in connection with Jesus and that it is also nearly equivalent of a personal name. It seems to me that just translating every instance of κυριος in the critical text of the ντ conveniently ignores a a difficult issue and is easy and it doesn't address the instances individually nor take into account the murky history of how and why κυριος became a substitute for יהוה. Is translating every instance κυριος as lord in the critical text of the ντ the best scholarly approach? As ι have pointed out βδαγ seems to allow us to at least consider that κυριος is a substitute for יהוה. Why wouldn't a Bible translation that truly wants to be accurate and honor the God who has revealed himself to us by his name as יהוה (with nearly 7,000 occurrences) not take up this important issue? Did God reveal his name to us just so that it could later be ignored? Is this not one reason that Jesus came; to glorify God's name and make it known? Statistics: Posted by Scott Lawson — January 7th, 2014, 2:58 pm  
Barry Hofstetter wrote: Stephen has some very valuable things to say in his response, ι think he's given a bit too much credit to the methodology he assumes must have been used by the νωτ revisionists. The official Jehovah's Witness explanation is that the tetragrammaton was present in the original autographs, but later was expunged, and they see themselves as restoring it to the text where it rightfully belongs.
ι was unaware of these facts, and ι'm sorry about that. If ι had have had this information, ι would not have contextualise both the Complete Jewish Version and the New World Translation in to the same theoretical context. ι believe that any and every theoretical basis can be considered as a valid starting point to criticise a work of literature (as indeed a translation is), and the best one that ι have at hand to criticise (critique) this translation is the semiotics that ι have used. The ξψβ is never-the-less, a great exercise in achieving what it does - and ι'm glad ι had the chance to praise it publicly. But, as Barry has said, it was wrong of me to assume that work was itself produced within the theoretical context that ι should have merely used to criticise (analyse) it, and for that ι apologise to the Watch Tower Society and their translation commitee. ι was wrong for assuming that this aspect of their translation fitted into that schoarly context that ι described. ι recognise now that the basis for the translation is a tenet held within their faith community. ι think that in some cases the beliefs and understandings of a faith community mould the way that they understand, read and translate the Greek. The Watch Tower society's interlinear Greek New Testament itself didn't have the personal name of God יהוה in their Greek text when ι was shown it back in the late 1980's. According to wikipedia at least, the text that the νωτ is based on that of Westcott and Hort text, which also doesn't have that any Hebrew in it. α translation committee would still have to make a value judgement about which instances of the word Κύριος were referrring to the tetragrammaton יהוה and then mentally (at least) resore them before translating. Not all instances of Κύριος are talking about Jesus or the Father. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — December 24th, 2013, 11:52 am
cwconrad wrote: ι think that the replies have probably overstepped the lines Jonathan intended to draw, but he allowed the question, and ι don't see how it could have been answered without the kinds of explanation that have been offered by Stephen and Barry.
Yes, ι apologize. William did ask a legitimate question about the underlying text, ι tried accepting it with a warning. Items of this nature are charged with varying levels of intense personal commitment, favorable or adverse; any one person's "objective" accounting may well seem "heavily biased' to another. Barry speaks (rightly, ι think) of "theologically motivated rendering" in this instance. It's perilous, however, to raise this issue, since it is a charge that can be cast, rightly or wrongly, regarding several Biblical texts in one version or another. This forum neither endorses nor opposes any particular variety of orthodoxy. Participants in the forum range across a broad spectrum of belief and non-belief. Over the years we have endeavored to keep discussion focused upon issues in the Greek text that can be resolved by clear evidence and generally accepted grammatical criteria and to steer as clear as possible away from interpretive issues that are governed by faith-based assumptions brought to bear upon the text.