Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?

by hamilcarr 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hamilcarr

  This is the title of an article from the August 1st issue of the Watchtower (public edition).

  It can be downloaded from http://www.jw.org/index.xjp?option=QrYQZRQVNZNT but is not yet available in print.

  The absence of the divine name in NT manuscripts is vaguely described so as not to confuse the average JW reader. The opening paragraph even gives the uninformed reader the impression that some of those nasty non-JW translators deliberately chose to omit the divine name.

  Bible scholars acknowledge that God's personal name appears in the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts of the so-called New Testament. What happens then if a writer of the New Testament quotes passages from the Old Testament in which the Tetragrammaton appears? In these instances they use the word Lord rather than God's personal name. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures doesn't follow that common practice. It uses the name Jehovah 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament.

  But even Rolf Furuli admits in his book Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation (ElihuBooks, 1999: 152) that the situation isn't as simple as the WT wants its readers to believe :

  Countess has a much stronger case .... in his criticism of the 237 occurences of "Jehovah" in the NT text of NWT, because no Greek NT manuscript has a single occurence of a complete form of the divine name YHWH. Therefore, the legitimate place of the divine name in the NT certainly can be questioned.

  No single occurence? This means the remaining manuscripts must have been corrupted, an argument very similar to the one used by Islamic apologists and atheists/agnostics in their rejecting the accuracy of the NT.

  The manuscripts of the NT that we possess today are not the originals. The original manuscripts written by John, Matthew, Paul and others were well-used and no doubt they quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made and when they wore out, further copies were made. Of the thousands of copies of the NT in existence today most were made almost two centuries after the originals were penned. It appears by that time those copying the manuscripts, either replaced the Tetragrammaton with kurios, the Greek word for Lord or copied from manuscripts where this had been done. Knowing this, a translator must determine whether there is reasonable evidence that the TG did in fact appear in the original Greek manuscripts. Is there such proof?

  Or, as Furuli put it (pg. 155)

  At the outset, therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility suggested by the NWT that, as regards the divine name, the text has been changed. Footnote: Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox corruption of scripture; The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford, University Press, 1993) has amply demonstrated how words in different NT manuscripts from the second century onward were corrupted because of doctrinal views.

  How then can we still believe Paul's well-known words in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 if God wasn't able to prevent his sacred word from getting changed with regards to such an important issue, namely his own name? Can we still embrace a "sola scriptura" theology if such huge corruptions as recorded by Bart Ehrman in his numerous publications are acknowledged?

  To conclude this post, some of the "proofs" provided by the article to support the appearance of Jehovah in the NWT:

  -When Jesus quoted the OT or read from it, he used the divine name (Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint)

  -The etymology of Jesus' name (Jehovah is salvation)

  -The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Greek Scriptures (Rev 19)

  -Early Jewish writings indicate that early Christians used the divine name in their writings.

  -Other modern translations do the same as the NWT.

  Any input more than welcome.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Bible scholars acknowledge that God's personal name appears in the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts of the so-called New Testament. What happens then if a writer of the New Testament quotes passages from the Old Testament in which the Tetragrammaton appears? In these instances they use the word Lord rather than God's personal name. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures doesn't follow that common practice. It uses the name Jehovah 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament.

  Hmm they didn't do this at hebrew 1:10-12 which is a quote of Ps 102:25-27 and bears the Divine name in Psalms
• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  Where's oompa? This is his favorite subject... The article in the WT must be an answer to his "prayers"...

  A@G
• 

  Earnest

  When Jesus quoted the OT or read from it, he used the divine name (Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint)

  As no extant copies of the NT contain the tetragrammaton in full then this cannot be certain, although I believe it to be likely.

  How then can we still believe Paul's well-known words in 2 Timothy 3:16,17

  "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..." When Paul wrote those words (without quibbling whether or not it was Paul that wrote them) he was almost certainly referring to the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets. In his day, not only had the canon not been fixed (apart from a universal acceptance of the Torah) but there were certainly many textual variants, especially of the Septuagint, so in that respect the principle of what he said is no different in our day than it was in his.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  What happens then if a writer of the New Testament quotes passages from the Old Testament in which the Tetragrammaton appears? In these instances [most translators] (this is what the article said- not "they" as you have typed) use the word Lord rather than God's personal name. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures doesn't follow that common practice. It uses the name Jehovah 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament.

  I don't know the names of the different logic flaws or argument types.
  Here, though, is the problem with the above statement.

  "A writer" uses the word LORD rather than God's personal name.
  "Most translators" translate. They don't change the chosen words.
  "The New World Translation..." doesn't follow that common practice.

  We are led to believe that it was the translator who followed a common practice.
  Are we supposed to forget that God supposedly INSPIRED the words of the original
  writer, then the translator simply translated it instead of trying to decide what the
  writer should have said? It's God's choice to follow the common practise. NWT
  goes against God's practice and decides for itself.

  However, many feel that it did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts of the so-called New Testament.

  "Many feel." That is loaded language to say that they just "feel" that way but are wrong.
  WTS feels the opposite, according to their theology. But they want you to "feel" that
  they are right and "many" are wrong. How "many" ? Why? What is the entire issue?
  We should look that up on our own, but WTS has already insisted in the past that we
  don't do so. Just read what "they" tell us about it, nothing more.
  
  (Why was I so ignorant about this for so long?)

  "It appears by that time (2 centuries after the original manuscripts were recorded), those copying
  the manuscripts either replaced the tetragrammaton with KYRIOS, the Greek word for LORD,
  or copied from manuscripts where this had been done."

  So the most likely scenario is not even mentioned? It appears that God protected HIS WORD
  (as WTS says in other places that He did) so the tetragrammaton was NEVER there. God
  protected HIS WORD, so copies are as accurate as the originals OR God did not protect
  the Bible, it is not HIS WORD, so errors got in. You cannot have it both ways (unless you
  mind-control your followers).

  Sure they go on to discuss "proof" of the above quote, but first they insist that only the two
  possibilities exist. That allows the reader to be molded to accept their "proof."

  Even "so-called New Testament" is loaded language. They call it the Christian Greek
  Scriptures. Big whoopty-do. But they want to belittle anyone outside with little phrases
  like "so-called."
• 

  Narkissos

  What happens then if a writer of the New Testament quotes passages from the Old Testament in which the Tetragrammaton appears? In these instances they use the word Lord rather than God's personal name.

  This phrasing is incredibly dishonest. It omits the fact that there is a Greek text for the quotation in the NT text itself, which generally differs from the Hebrew Masoretic text (and sometimes from the Greek LXX as well) in many ways beside the "divine name". The NWT follows this (NT Greek) text for the OT quotations, except for the "divine name".

  Of course, as has already been pointed out, the WT actually holds diametrically opposite arguments on two different issues (probably assuming distinct "audiences" that will never meet). To those who think the NT texts have been tampered with, they affirm that ordinary textual criticism allows to restore the original text on the basis of the extant Greek mss. To those who remark that the "divine name" is absent from all extant Greek mss, they affirm those mss have all been corrupted. If those two opposite arguments happen to clash in their own mind, they must assume that God has preserved the transmission of the NT Greek text except on one single issue, the "all-important" divine name.

  they didn't do this at hebrew 1:10-12 which is a quote of Ps 102:25-27 and bears the Divine name in Psalms

  Actually there is no "Yhwh" in the MT of Psalm 102. Hebrews quotes from the LXX (101:26, su kurie, you, Lord). Which illustrates my first point above: the NT quotations of the OT cannot be translated from the Hebrew MT, because in many cases they would not make any sense in the NT context (and wouldn't have been quoted in the first place)... The NWT, here, obviously doesn't translate the Hebrew text where there is no "Lord" either.
• 

  bennyk

  narkissos writes:

  The NWT follows this (NT Greek) text for the OT quotations, except for the "divine name".

  (Largely, but not always true.)

  The Watch Tower Society admitted to altering the New Testament. The Foreword of the 1981 Englisch Edition of the New World Translation states on page 6:

  "An effort was put forth to bring about even greater consistency in the renderings of the related parts of the Holy Scriptures, such as in harmonizing with the original Hebrew readings the readings of quotations made in the Christian Greek Scriptures."

  The NWT policy exists despite the fact that such quotations are often demonstrably taken verbatim from the Septuaginta -- NOT from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
• 

  Narkissos

  Interesting.

  My suspicion is that this (fairly idiotic) "policy" is mainly if not only stated to "cover" the introduction of "Jehovah" into the NT (presenting it as one particular application of a more general "rule").

  Now I'm not aware that the NWT has ever substituted a translation of the Hebrew MT to the actual translation of the (NT) Greek quotations, beside the particular issue of the "divine name" (but I have seldom read the NWT in the last 20 + years). Have you got any example?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Here is the comprehensive, exhaustive dismantlement of the use of Jehovah in the NT:

  http://www.tetragrammaton.org/copybooks.htm

  It was one of the things that got me turning away from the JWs.

  BTS
• 

  hamilcarr

  It omits the fact that there is a Greek text for the quotation in the NT text itself, which generally differs from the Hebrew Masoretic text (and sometimes from the Greek LXX as well) in many ways beside the "divine name". The NWT follows this (NT Greek) text for the OT quotations, except for the "divine name".

  Furuli argues that none of the Septuagint manuscripts before the second century CE contain kurios as a substitute for the TG.

  An effort was put forth to bring about even greater consistency in the renderings of the related parts of the Holy Scriptures, such as in harmonizing with the original Hebrew readings the readings of quotations made in the Christian Greek Scriptures. "

  Consistency, harmonizing, ... This quote is very helpful to get a better understanding of the JW perspective on biblical hermeneutics. It's pretty close to the 'sola scriptura' principle (to a certain context and actually from my perspective this can also be described as a "fairly idiotic policy"), but is perhaps even more radical.

  How to debunk this hermeneutics from within a JW perspective? Any suggestions?