The Divine Name in the NT: Some Reflections

by Let go of fear 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Let go of fear

  @FayeDunaway: No, I do not believe that Jesus is/was "God," as in Yahweh/Jehovah. That is all I really care to say on the subject.

  @: Yes! I completely agree, and this is what the NWT should have done, in order to avoid the problems it runs into by rendering Kyrios as Jehovah. It could have also place footnotes saying something like "The translators believe that "lord" here refers to Jehovah." (see Darby's translation, he actually does this in the NT). Are you (or anyone else participating in this topic) aware of any translation that consistently uses Jehovah (or Yahweh) in the OT AND used LORD in all caps in the NT when the NT writer is quoting divine name containing scripture? That is a translation I would like to get a hold of, because every translation I've come across, it's either no divine name or divine name where it doesn't belong!
• 

  FayeDunaway

  I don't believe that Jesus is Yahweh either. Yahweh is the father.

  But moving right along, you might try the Holman Christian standard bible, which often uses Yahweh in the Old Testament, especially when God's NAME features prominently in the scripture. Here is a quote from the introduction:

  the HCSB OT uses Yahweh, the personal name of God in Hebrew, when a biblical text emphasizes Yahweh as a name: "His name is Yahweh" (Ps 68:4). Yahweh is also used in places of His self identification as in "I am Yahweh" (Is 42:8). Yahweh is used more often in the HCSB than in most Bible translations because the word LORD in English is a title of God and does not accurately convey to modern readers the emphasis on God's personal name in the original Hebrew.

  (and this is why I bought a copy of the HCSB for myself). It probably has the name Yahweh hundreds of times as opposed to thousands, and never in the NT, since there is no solid evidence it should be there.

  For a study version though I like the NKJV Nelson's Study Bible.
• 

  Island Man

  Here's something to think about:

  We know the name existed in the OT even though there are manuscripts with it removed and replaced with the Hebrew version of Lord. But the OT is a lot older than the NT. There was thus a lot more opportunity to thoroughly remove YHWH from the OT copies without leaving a trace . . . and yet we have OT manuscripts containing YHWH!

  Is it reasonable to believe that copyists of the NT succeeded in thoroughly removing YHWH from the NT while failing to do the same for the much older OT? How likely is it that copyists would succeed in totally removing all occurrences of YHWH from all NT copies without so much as one surviving with YHWH? That seems highly improbable. It is far more reasonable to conclude that the name was never in the NT to begin with.

  By the time of the NT's writing, it was already the culturally accepted norm to substitute YHWH with Lord. All of the Jewish culture was doing it and all the early christians who initially came from a Jewish background grew up doing it. Even the copies of the septuagint in use at that time had already replaced YHWH with kyrios - never mind the fact that there may have been a minority of copies with YHWH. It certainly was not the norm. So even the argument about NT writers quoting the OT where YHWH is mentioned, is flawed! Why? Because the NT writers were likely quoting from later copies of the septuagint which already had the name replaced with kyrios! It is only natural then, to expect that early Jewish christians - the writers of the NT - would continue the tradition they grew up knowing and practicing, in their NT writings. Remember too that it was considered blasphemous to use the name.

  Why would christians go out of their way to use the name and bring persecution on themselves when the bible does not mandate the use of the name? Consider too that the majority of the books of the NT are letters that were read out loud at church meetings. Do you think the authors would write YHWH in them and have the reader at the church meeting accused of blasphemy by some unbelieving Jew who happened to be visiting the meeting?

  I think the most logical and objective conclusion that one can arrive at in view of the total absence of any NT manuscripts with YHWH, is that the name was never in the NT to begin with. It is only because of theological bias - their over-fixation on the need to use "Jehovah" - that JWs want to believe that it must have been there. They cannot believe that early christians did not share their unhinged fixation on the name "Jehovah".
  
  
• 

  Let go of fear

  @FayeDunaway: Thank you for the clarification. The last thing I want to do is misrepresent anyone's beliefs. I am somewhat familiar with the HCSB, but does it actually use LORD in all caps in the NT when quoting the OT? That's what I am after: a translation that is faithful to the Hebrew text (by using some form of YHWH), while also making some attempt in the NT to clarify the "lords" by designating YHWH with LORD in all caps (but clearly avoiding the trappings of using Jehovah/Yahweh). I know many translations that render YHWH faithfully in the OT, and a few that use LORD (again, all caps) in the NT, but NONE that combine the two (the one that comes closest to this that I am familiar with is Darby's translation, which uses Jehovah consistently in the OT, but uses it only in footnotes in NT passages where he feels YHWH applies-the main text still uses undistinguished "lords")

  @Island Man: You make some very good points that are worth some serious consideration. I have also wondered at times if the NT writers purposely avoided using YHWH (except in abbreviated form-see Rev. 19) in order to avoid needless persecution. That would actually work with my theory that YHWH was there in the originals, but due to Jewish custom, was not only not translated but also not pronounced. However, I feel compelled to point out that you are not correct in stating that the LXX the NT writers were quoting from were later versions that only represented the name with "kyrios." Although they are not many, all LXX fragments dated prior to and INCLUDING the first century AD either use YHWH in Hebrew characters or use the Greek form "IAO" Even many versions discovered after the 1st century (all of which were probably produced by copyists who were Jews or Jewish proselytes) continue this pattern. Still, as you pointed out, it is entirely possible that it was the Christians, beginning with the NT writers themselves, that used Kyrios to represent in writing God's name in order to avoid further persecution. That being said, keep in mind--and I think this is an important point--it appears quite clear that ABBREVIATED forms of the name (such as Jah, and possibly IAO) were acceptable in both speech and writing. For example, it is interesting to note that even in the Greek versions that substitute YHWH with Kyrios, the expression "Alleluia" (Paise Jah) is never removed; it is even included in all manuscripts of Revelation, as well as all LXX MS. Just some food for thought : )
  
• 

  jhine

  Hi everyone , well my last post certainly caused some discussion !

  I was not trying to tell anyone what to believe , just to encourage people to think long and hard about why the WT goes out of it's way to alter the Bible when it talks about Jesus and twist quotes in the " Should you believe in the Trinity " booklet to give the impression that the Early Church Fathers did not teach a Trinitarian doctrine .

  I know that the thread is about the Tetragrammaton in the NT , but I truly believe that this cannot be looked at in isolation . The WT insistence that it was removed by some apostate conspiracy when Trinitarian doctrine came into the Church smacks of desperation .

  The WT says let scripture interpret scripture and so I think that we have to look at the other ways in which they have altered the Bible and see the pattern . That the alterations and additions are all about Jesus and who He is .

  So all I'm saying is that when people mentally , at least , leave the WT and realise the deception practised by them in all areas , their history is another example , perhaps they could ponder the issue of the alteration of the Bible particularly in reference to Christ .

  Jan
• 

  FayeDunaway

  Jan that is what I found too...the NWT is very close to other translations EXCEPT where the role of Jesus is concerned. It was a very deliberate attempt to skew people's understanding of him, always to make him appear less prominent, less important, less God, than he is in the original Greek. It struck me as something almost demonic.

  Lgof, the HCSB uses Yahweh in the OT 485 times (wikipedia!). I checked out the NT, and no, when it is quoting the OT there is no all caps 'LORD', however, whenever the NT quotes the OT, the complete quote is in bold print, so it is easy to tell the lord is referring to YHWH. This is something that really bothers me about the NWT, because there are many passages where the original text says 'lord' but is not quoting from the OT, and the NWT actually chooses to insert Jehovah wherever it WANTS to, which is a blatant changing of the Bible, and this is another way they found to minimize the roll of Jesus. Disgusting.
• 

  Let go of fear

  @jhine and FayeDunaway: I know I'm going to sound like a cheerleader for "The Society," but how does the NWT in any way minimize the role of Jesus? I have copies of many translations and I fail to see how the NWT does what you are suggesting. I agree the divine name is overused in the NT, and have suggested a solution to this that I believe addresses the need to clarify (as much as possible) the meaning of "Kyrios" while at the same time not overstepping the proper boundaries of a translator (as the WT arguably has with many uses of "Jehovah"). But with that being said, is there a single instance in the NWT of the Greek word for "Jesus" being removed and replaced with Jehovah??? I guess my point is that we should not let our grievances toward the WT cloud our objectivity and through the baby out with the bathwater. Jason BeDuhn, for example, is a translation scholar (not in any way affiliated with JWs) that agrees with us that the name "Jehovah" is definitely used in many places beyond just OT citations, and that this is inappropriate. Nevertheless, he still believe the NWT is overall a very accurate and reliable translation, compared to many of the more popular translations on the market.
• 

  Island Man

  "I know I'm going to sound like a cheerleader for "The Society," but how does the NWT in any way minimize the role of Jesus? I have copies of many translations and I fail to see how the NWT does what you are suggesting."

  Here's a blatant example of Watchtower replacing "kyrios" with "Jehovah" even though the writer was not quoting from the OT. Worse yet, the replacement corrupts the true meaning of the text for the text is using "kyrios" to refer to Jesus. But Watchtower's Jehovarization of the text changes it to refer to Jehovah and makes it illogical. The text is Romans 14:8, which in the NWT, reads (NWT):

  "None of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only, and no one dies with regard to himself only; 8 for both if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. Therefore both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah. 9 For to this end Christ died and came to life again, that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living."

  The use of Jehovah in Romans 14:8 is inconsistent with the context of Romans 14:9 which clearly identifies the "kyrios" of Romans 14:8 as being Christ. You see, Romans 14:9 gives the justification for why we belong to kyrios whether we live or die - because that kyrios became kyrios of dead and the living by dying a sacrificial death. Romans 14:8 is supposed to flow logically into Romans 14:9 where the kyrios is identified as being Christ. But in the NWT this definite logical flow is shattered by replacing kyrios with Jehovah thereby corrupting Romans 14:9 in the NWT to being an illogical non-sequitur.

  Now notice how the text makes more logical sense in KJ21 when "kyrios" is consistently and accurately rendered as "Lord":

  7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and arose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living."
• 

  jhine

  Hi folks , eating my breakfast reading your posts and just about to get ready to go out . For Christmas I was given some vouchers for a pedicure and facial so I am off to be pampered this morning Later on , looking 20 years younger ! I'll come back to you on this .

  Jan
• 

  Phizzy

  Before and after Pics please Jan ! LOL.

  Back on Topic, thanks Island Man, for your thoughtful post, it makes sense to me, the Name was never in the N.T.