Posted by Gary [GLamotta] on March 30, 1999 at 04:27:15 {.Oe37V.qjQMSSTtTA17sboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: *Divine Name in New Testament posted by J.H. on March 29, 1999 at 13:04:06:
Well, what do you know, for once I completely agree with Jan, Doug and AF! Brilliant men, all of them! (smile)
I have nothing further to add other than
focussing on the special use of the "divine
name" by the Hebrews. They had a
very sacred
pronunciation of this name. Therefore, it would
especially contraindicated, it would seem to me,
that they would have even supposed to attempt
to translate the equivalent of the name into
Greek!
That's why it
wasn't translated into the Greek
NT. It set a subtle precedent of exception
for the "divine name" when it came to translating
that name into a different language.
Besides that, what the "name" represented is
more important.
Thus the appropriate use of
"Lord" and "God" and "Father" were quite
appropriate.
In addition, I don't buy into the whole overly
neurotic concept that the reason "Elohim" and
"Adonay" were substituted for the divine
name
in certain texts wasn't legitimized. That is,
it may have been considered appropriate for
certain translations and thus the apostles,
even when quoting from the OT where the
tetragrammaton appeared simply and
purposely
substituted "Lord" or "God".
Thus in this way, the divine name and it's
divine pronunciation remained holy.
The alternative is that the name would be
inappropriately pronounced and thus become
unholy. So by not
translating the divine
name into other languages, its sacred sound,
meaning and concept as originally given to
the Jews in Hebrew was preserved.
And, of course, there is absolutely no
foundation outside of actual
manuscripts
to change the text, especially in such a
sacred work.
And on a technical note, apparently the one
fragment found was not of a NT document but
of "Leviticus".
Thanks, Jan, Doug and AF. Clearly there is
nothing new here but one person's Johnny-come-
lately misguided enthusiasm.
Gary