drew sagan: How can they honestly defend putting the name Jehovah in the NT?
You will find their "defense", such as it is, in two places which only actually comprise a "defense" when combined. The first part of the puzzle is in Appendix 1D of the NWT Reference Bible. They list all "237 places where the name Jehovah occurs in the main text of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures." These "renderings" (which really cannot be classed as renderings at all, since no actual translation of the Greek occurred) are based on various sources classed as "J" references.
These "J" references are from "translations" from Greek into Hebrew spanning many years. But even in these cases, it is patently clear that the Hebrew from Greek was mistranslated if the name YHWH was inserted into the Hebrew, as it could not possibly have appeared in the Greek from which translation was supposedly occurring. For myself, this argument logically nullifies any appeal to the authority of the "J" references on this point.
However, there is a further nullification line of reasoning. In the Introduction of the Rbi8-E (the NWT Reference Bible) we find the Bbliography for the "J" references. Herein, we discover that the oldest "J" reference used as an authority is J2 and is dated to 1385. This is many years into what the WTS calls the "Great Apostasy", but according to them, the plainly incorrect translation from Greek into Hebrew completed in the year 1385 should be used as an authority for imitating the mistranslation. This is completely illogical on many levels.
Closer examination of Appendix 1D reveals that manuscripts J1, J2, and J4 are ONLY used with Matthew. J3 is ONLY used with Matthew and Hebrews. J5 and J6 are ONLY used with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Which leaves only ONE "J" reference as primary support for most of the remaining mistranslations. J7, Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremburg, 1599. I say "most of the remaining" because sole reference for some of these instances comes from "translation" work done in the 1800s.
In the case of Colossians 3:13, the mistranslation is supported solely by J23, a work published in 1975 (the year the world should have ended, again). In Colossians 3:22, the support for the mistranslation comes from J18 (1981) and J22 (1942). Colossians 3:9 is supported by J18 (1981) and J23 (1975).
Ephesians 6:8 is supported only by J22 (1942) and J24 (1863).
By far the majority of mistranslations have no older support than J7 (1599), which itself, in turn, served as an authority for the translators of most (if not all) of the other "translations" into Hebrew.
There is no logical defense for the WTS' position on this blatant mistranslation of Greek into English. Especially in the case of 1 Corinthians 7:17, where they admittedly served as their own authority in deciding to mistranslate the Greek text into English (see Appendix 1D). But, there is an illogical defense. As usual.
Another example of an illogical defense is the "it only makes sense" defense we saw in this thread in favor of JW prebaptismal requirements. It doesn't "only make sense", it also directly contradicts what the Bible says. Which means, they created rules that are not only unsupported by the Bible, but which the Bible flatly rejects. Not simply by omission, but by plainly stating the extent of the requirements for baptism on direct questioning.