Hiding the Divine Name - The WT Society and Hebrew Versions of the NT

by cabasilas 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cabasilas

  In the Spring of 1980, I was re-investigating my beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness and this led me to discussions with some people who had done a bit of research on the New World Translation. One of the questions that was disturbing me was the apparent ease the New Testament writers quoted Old Testament passages about Jehovah and applied them to Christ. I knew I couldn't get away with that at the Kingdom Hall, but why did Paul, Peter and other disciples do this?
  
  One person I met showed me photocopies he had made of some Hebrew New Testament versions which the Watchtower Society had cited in support of "restoring" the name Jehovah to the New Testament. These were referred to in the forewords and footnotes of various editions of the NWT as J7 and J8. These Hebrew versions used the Hebrew name for God ("Yahweh" or "Jehovah") in passages that were applied to Christ. He showed me, for example, the photocopy he had of Hebrews 1:10 from J8 which, in speaking of Christ, translated the Greek text into Hebrew this way: "You at the beginning, YHWH, laid the foundations of the earth itself…" He also showed me the photocopy of 1 Peter 3:15 from J7. This Hebrew version translated the Greek text as: "Sanctify YHWH God who is the Messiah [ YHWH Elohim ha Mashiach] in your hearts." These were the very passages I had been struggling with. Did these Hebrew versions the Watchtower Society had cited to support "restoring" the name "Jehovah" to the NT actually apply that name to Jesus also?

  I remembered that the foreword of the original edition of the NWT had claimed to give all the places where these Hebrew texts used YHWH:

  "From the 14th century A.D. onward, translations of parts or all the Christian Greek Scriptures [New Testament] have been made into the ancient classical Hebrew….All together, the appearances of the sacred Tetragrammaton [YHWH] in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences. These have thus restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Scriptures." Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures , (1969 edition), p. 18. See also the forewords for the 1950, 1951 and 1963 editions of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

  The NWT only adopted 237 of these "307 distinct occurrences" of YHWH in these 19 Hebrew versions. Most they thought were warranted. Some they did not. But here were others not mentioned by the NWT even though they claimed to list all of the occurrences. My friend showed me more photocopies of other verses. None of these were mentioned either. Why not? Apparently, because they identified Jesus with Yahweh. (As it turns out, further research has shown there are scores of places where these Hebrew versions use YHWH for Christ.)

  So I wrote the Watchtower Society about this sending copies of these photocopies from the Hebrew versions. Did these J-versions actually use the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in these places? Why did the NWT not refer to these when it claimed to give us the total occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in the J-versions? It took a few months for a reply. They wrote in care of the Presiding Overseer of the Congregation and I was not allowed to make a copy of the letter. They briefly admitted that the Hebrew versions of the NT did use YHWH in other places than the ones the NWT cited. The rest of their reply explained why they had chosen not to "restore" the name at those verses. (Both the 1984 NWT Reference Bible and the 1985 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear later completely re-worked the use of the Hebrew versions of the NT and no longer claim to list a total of all the occurrences of YHWH in the NT.)

  My trust in the scholarly integrity of the New World Translation was shaken. But, I had to place it in a larger context. Was it even necessary to "restore" the name "Jehovah" to the New Testament? To "restore" the name Jehovah implies that the name was there to begin with. Yet, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and not one has "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in either Greek or Hebrew letters. Some of these manuscripts can be dated to within one generation of the original texts and they use the Greek words for "Lord" and "God," not YHWH. The Hebrew translations cited by the Watchtower Society are actually later translations from Greek or Latin into Hebrew. They are not original texts and date from much later--from the 14 th century onwards.

  To admit that the New Testament did not contain the name "Jehovah" would mean to admit that the first Christians did not emphasize that name. Yet, emphasizing and using the name "Jehovah" is one of the chief characteristics of Jehovah's Witnesses. I remembered from reading the Gospels that, even in the NWT, Jesus never uttered the name "Jehovah" in any of his many prayers. (Witnesses make much of Jesus' reference to "Your Name" in his prayers--a Hebraism for God's holy character and person--but in actual fact Jesus never uses "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in his prayers.) In fact, in almost all the places where the NWT has Jesus using "Jehovah," they are quotations from the Old Testament passages. In his everyday speech Jesus normally spoke of God as "Father," even in the NWT.

  The NWT had "restored" the name "Jehovah" 237 times to the NT (with no real evidence it had been removed from the original Greek text). Yet, the name the NT emphasizes is not Jehovah. What name is emphasized in the NT? The name "Jesus" occurs over 900 times in the NT of the NWT. This emphasis of "Jesus" goes beyond the Gospels. In the book of Acts there is particular emphasis of the name of Jesus. I took the Watchtower Society's Exhaustive Concordance of the New World Translation and looked up the word "name" in the book of Acts. Over and over again the Name the early Christian church emphasized was the name of Jesus! At Acts 3:6 Peter healed the lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. In Acts 4:7,10,12,17,18 I read about the first disciples defending themselves before the Sanhedrin, proclaiming their use of the name of Jesus. In Chapter 5 they are back before the Jewish high court. For whose name did they suffer? Acts 5:41 tells us: "These, therefore, went their way from before the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be dishonored in behalf of his name." They suffered for the name of Jesus! Space does not permit us to look at all the relevant verses. Consider these few: Acts 8:12; 9:13-16,27,28; 15:26; 16:18; 19:17; 21:13; 26:9. In Acts the Name that is emphasized is the name of Jesus Christ.
  
  Later on, I wrote a tract entitled "Hiding the Divine Name" which detailed how the Watchtower Society has hidden the occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament Hebrew versions that refer to Jesus while claiming they support the idea of "restoring" the name Jehovah to the New Testament. Recently, I put all the documentation into a PDF file with much better copies of the passages from the Hebrew versions that the Watchtower Society ignores.
  
  For those interested, the PDF file (just under 1 MB) can be downloaded from:
  
  http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=4699923a5423dc2612c09ff038824ce0
  
  
• 

  Atlantis

  Cabasilas:

  Thank you cabasilas! An excellent example of research that blows up in the Watchtower's face when they are questioned.

  Cheers! Atlantis-
• 

  slimboyfat

  That's interesting. How did you distribute the leaflet?

  Have you read David Trobisch on the divine name in the NT? What do you make of that?

  I think there is some evidence for the use of the divine name in early Christian literature including the NT.

  Slim
• 

  cabasilas

  Thanks, Atlantis!

  Slim,

  The original leaflet was published back in 1986 and was distributed by Alpha and Omega Ministries. It had an initial distribution of a few thousand and then was not circulated much for about 12 or 13 years. I haven't read Trobisch. Could you point me to a specific text? Thanks!

  My take is that people knew what the Tetragrammaton was as it existed in the Hebrew text of the OT. I think the evidence shows that it was not in general use by the time of Christ, however. Josephus (just a little bit later) records the name was not in use:

  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=840&letter=A

  True, there are those handful of LXX texts which have the Tetragrammaton in old Hebrew letters in the Greek text. Those actually argue against the idea that people were using the Divine Name at that time. If so, one would expect to see a form of the Divine Name in Greek in those texts. The fact it appears in an old Hebrew script in amongst the Greek LXX text is evidence, I think, that the name YHWH was viewed as untranslatable--too sacred to translate into Greek.

  When we come to the NT, the evidence is clear. That is, if we accept the NT text the way it is. No NT Greek manuscript has YHWH in it.
• 

  VM44

  "They wrote in care of the Presiding Overseer of the Congregation and I was not allowed to make a copy of the letter."

  It is interesting that the Watchtower sent their reply to your letter to the PO. You were the one who wrote the letter, not him!

  The letter contained essentially their admission of their lack of integrity , and so they could not have such a letter floating around. Who knows who might see it!

  Thanks for making your research available for downloading Cabasilas.

  --VM44
• 

  cabasilas

  In fact, the WT's letter to the Presiding Overseer even added that they were writing to him (and not me--I was not a Ministerial Servant or Elder at the time so I could not be verified to be a JW) because sometimes letters from the WT Society "end up in publications of opposers." They evidently didn't want that to happen with this letter.

  Interestingly, by the time the WT did respond to the Presiding Overseer I had already diassociated myself. But, this was before the Sept 15, 1981 WT that equated disassocation with disfellowshipping. The PO contacted me and asked if I wanted to read the response. (I think part of the reason he did so was because he and I had talked about this question before I resigned and also my wife was still in the Organization at the time.) I went to his home to read it. He let me make notes from the letter and I actually did basically copy longhand a couple of the paragraphs.

  A side note. A few weeks later I sent out letters to my old JW friends explaining my reasons for disassociation. Some of these went to friends at Brooklyn and WT Farms. Soon afterwards, it was announced that I was now disfellowshipped even though the local congregation had previously announced I was disassociated. The local elders were uncomfortable telling me about this and even asked my wife (who was still going to meetings) to tell me what they had done. She refused. They finally sent a letter explaining that the committee had "found it necessary to disfellowship" me. (The PO privately told me later that they disfellowshipped me because Brooklyn sent a letter to the local congregation telling them to do so...even though all my letters to friends at Bethel had contained a copy of my letter of disassociation.) I raised quite a ruckus ("how can you fire someone who you agreed had already quit weeks before?") and they eventually announced that my disfellowshipping was in error (after an "appeal" to the Governing Body) since I had already resigned. About 6 weeks later the September 15, 1981 WT came out equating disassociation with disfellowshipping...so they got the last word!
• 

  slimboyfat

  Cabasilas,

  Do you know James White? Among anti-Witness Evangelicals he is not my favourite. I prefer Rob Bowman.

  David Trobisch argues for the divine name in the original NT. Here is the reference:

  David Trobisch. The First Edition of the New Testament. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). (Especially pages 66-68.)

  Another interesting source arguing for the continued importance of the divine name in the NT and beyond is an article by Charles Gieschen written from a Trinitarian perspective:

  Charles A Gieschen. "The Divine Name in Ante-Nicene Christology". Vigiliae Christianae 57 (2003) 115-158.

  I think the evidence shows that it was not in general use by the time of Christ, however.

  The early LXX fragments seem good evidence that the tetragram was used in the Jewish Greek OT in the first century. There is less evidence that the divine name was still pronounced. But there are some Gnostic texts that put the divine name in Jesus' mouth. There is also the Leviticus fragment from the 1st century BC with a Greek transliteration of the divine name (IAO) apparently indicating that those using the scroll verbalised the divine name in that way. Philo appears to have rejected the divine name for philosophical reasons. He was highly influenced by Platonic philosophy and perhaps not a good indication for how a Jew from a more traditional background, as Paul was for instance, would have handled the divine name.

  True, there are those handful of LXX texts which have the Tetragrammaton in old Hebrew letters in the Greek text.

  Or, stated a different way: all the fragments of the LXX available from the first century and earlier use some form of the divine name.

  Those actually argue against the idea that people were using the Divine Name at that time.

  They are evidence that the name was used in written form in the OT in Greek at least. The Leviticus fragment I mentioned earlier has a transliterated form of the divine name (IAO) which can hardly be explained other than by inference that it was intended to be so pronounced.

  If so, one would expect to see a form of the Divine Name in Greek in those texts. The fact it appears in an old Hebrew script in amongst the Greek LXX text is evidence, I think, that the name YHWH was viewed as untranslatable--too sacred to translate into Greek.

  Well there is in the Leviticus fragment as I mentioned. There is also a fragment of Genesis from the third century AD with the divine name in the form of a double yodh. How that was pronounced is not clear, but its resemblance to the Christian nomina sacra form of contraction has been noted. Those contracted forms were pronounced when read. Greek forms of the divine name were also in use in Gnostic circles for centuries.

  When we come to the NT, the evidence is clear. That is, if we accept the NT text the way it is. No NT Greek manuscript has YHWH in it.

  No Greek NT manuscript has the divine name, that is clear. It also has to be acknowledged that there are no NT manuscripts from the first century. The LXX fragments from that period do contain the divine name. I don't know who you have in mind who accepts the NT text "the way it is". The form the the text is highly contested.

  Slim
• 

  Augustin

  According to Pietersma and Rösel, the evidence at hand suggests that "kurios", not IAW/YHWH, was the original rendering of the Divine Name in the LXX. It should also be noted that the ancient Greek OT fragmenst with YHWH are revisions (so-called kaige versions of the LXX). This may indicate that YHWH was not original in the LXX after all. It should also be noted that parts of the NT do not make any sense with "Jehovah" instead of "Lord".

  Hope this helps!

  -- Augustin --
• 

  slimboyfat

  Augustin,

  As you state, Pietersma's article relates to whether the tetragram was used in the original LXX. He did not dispute that the tetragram was used in first century LXX texts. Also his method and findings as regards the originality of kyrios in the LXX from internal evidence has been contested by Emanuel Tov. Pietersma also does not discuss the Leviticus fragment (with IAO instead of the tetragram) which represents a pure LXX text.

  Since Pietersma's article an additional early pure LXX fragment (of Job) has been identified which has the tetragram in Hebrew letters, adding further external evidence for the originality of the tetragram in the LXX.

  It has been argued that some texts make little sense with the divine name *removed*: "The Lord said to my lord..." Trobisch and Howard both present examples where the NT text makes better sense if we assume the original contained the tetragram.

  Slim
• 

  Augustin

  Slim,

  I know that it is possible that the NT text known to us today is unreliable (because it has been tampered with, etc.). The main question, however, is whether the NT author used "kaige" versions of the LXX or a more "pure" LXX text. Furthermore, as even the Watchtower will realise, the NT authors did not quote verbatim from a given OT text. The qere was "kurios" for Greek speaking Jews. This is more or less certain. The very idea that the "original" NT texts did have "YHWH" is based on pure speculation. As demonstrated by both Fitzmyer and Rösel (see his book "Why the Lord is called 'Adonay'"), the Jews did call God "Adonay" long before the NT era. There is no evidence supporting that the NT authors did pronounce the Divine Name; and as the NT texts were read by lectors in the church, even "YHWH" (in Hebrew) in a Pauline epistle would have been pronounced "kurios" (Lord). So, Trobisch & Howard have no case. See Hurtado on the "nomina sacra" etc.

  Hope this helps!

  -- Augustin --