http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/eva358021.shtml
It's a question I've often wondered, and if what Professor Evans says is true, then this could, as he says, quite easily bridge the gap between when the autographs and the earliest copies we have available for study today, (though I'm not sure if it's even correct to talk of each "book of the Bible" as having only one autograph [original which was then copied]).
The practical importance of this is in relation to the Accursed Bible of Jehovah's Witnesses--474 times cursed because in defiance of Rev. 22:19 they have 237 times removed the word "Lord" from the New Testament and 237 times inserted the word "Jehovah" in defiance of 22:18. They do this without a scrap--a shred--a shadow of manuscript evidence. I don't remember the exact number of New Testament manuscripts and quotations--five or ten thousand from all over the Roman world--but not ONE of them uses Jehovah instead of Lord in the NT. Their defense is that some Septuagint manuscripts show the word "Jehovah." Well and good--but no New Testament MS does, not even the very earliest. They assert (without proof) that persecution forced removal of these references, but there is no mention of such persecution and no decree anywhere. In other words, while some build their houses on sand and others build theirs on bedrock, the billion-dollar Watchtower corporation is founded on hot air.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. It is interesting to note that the New Testament writers DID choose to CONSISTENTLY translate YHWH as κυριος, following the pattern of the Septuagint, instead of transliterating or using some other scheme.
ReplyDelete