JW`s Lie about Christendom hiding the Name Jehovah.or its equivalent Yahweh

by smiddy 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ruby456

  so sorry jhine about my mistake and I don't know why your Professor said that - was he trying to refute Jehovah's witnesses and it may have slipped his mind that the divine name in its form IAO is attested in the dead sea scrolls.

  witnesses must have had some basis for adding the name. I think their basis is that extant manuscripts have changed what was practiced in an earlier period of Christianity. This is true so they are following something that has a basis in truth. However as Earnest has argued early Christianity was very diverse and it is possible to take up any number of threads to stake a claim for one's beliefs and ideas. However, we cannot argue that JWs are wrong in using the name as they are taking up an early quite prominent use of the divine name. this is attested in material culture and in magical incantations. Elites who rely on written textual sources tend to disdain such sources.
• 

  jhine

  Hi Ruby 456 , the Prof wasn't trying to refute JW teaching that wasn't anything to do with the lecture , simply at the end when he asked for questions l asked " is there any evidence for the Tetragrammaton in the NEW TESTAMENT ? " He had no idea why l was asking , l had no wish to hijack his evening ! The answer is that there is no evidence for that , not even in the Dead Sea Scrolls . The WT just arbitrarily adds it as it sees fit .

  l still maintain that the adding of Jehovah into the NT is to do with their refutation of the Divinity of Jesus . As l have said before it can be seen that some quotes from the OT originally about Jahweh are used about Jesus , Kurios / Lord . lf they allow that then their teaching is undermined . They don't do anything without a reason .
• 

  Ruby456

  thanks jhine. I agree with you about Jesus and their pov is that Jesus is elevated too much. JWs take their line from Arius and others. It is Paul who gives Jesus such a huge mystical slant. The gospel writers not so much.wiki has a

  edit:nice discussion of where the divine name can be found in ancient papyrus that have survived

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
  
• 

  Earnest

  jhine : the WT still went ahead and added Jehovah where they THOUGHT it appropriate , with no basis for doing that

  Ruby456 : witnesses must have had some basis for adding the name.

  The Foreword of the 1950 NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures spends 15 pages (pp.10-25) discussing the basis for their use of the divine name in the New Testament. In part, they say :

  RESTORING THE NAME: What is the modern translator to do? Is he justified, yes, authorized, to enter the divine name into a translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Every Greek reader must confess that in the LXX the Greek words kyrios and theos have been used to crowd out the distinctive name of the Supreme Deity. Every comprehensive Greek-English dictionary states that these two Greek words have been used as equivalents of the divine name. Hence the modern translator is warranted in using the divine name as an equivalent of those two Greek words, that is, at places where Matthew, etc., quote verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs.

  From the 14th century A.D. forward, translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek Scriptures have been made into the ancient classical Hebrew. The Shem Tob version of Matthew into Hebrew was made about A.D. 1385. When coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Name appeared, the translators into Hebrew had no other recourse than to render kyrios or theos back into its original tetragrammaton form. Thus in that early Shem Tob version of Matthew the tetragrammaton occurs 16 times. All together, the appearances of the sacred tetragrammaton 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.

  How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words kyrios and theos into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to kyrios and theos and he can then clothe them with personality.

  Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek Scriptures. To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have tried to be most cautious about rendering the divine name, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures. We have looked for some agreement with us by the Hebrew versions we consulted to confirm our own rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our version, there are only two instances where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely, Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly supported by the context and by related texts in rendering the divine name. The notes in our lower margin show the support we have for our renderings from the Hebrew versions and other authorities.

  Not in all cases where the divine name is shown in the lower margin have we rendered it in the main body of our version. Thus there are 72 instances where the divine name is shown in the margin alone, but not incorporated into the text, the warrant not being strong enough.

  ... We do not claim ours to be the first version to introduce it into the English translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Our list on page 33 shows that an American version of 1864 [The Emphatic Diaglott] preceded us, but only on a limited scale; it rendered the name "Jehovah" 18 times from Matthew to Acts...But we may be the first to render the name consistently throughout the 237 times in the main body of our text. However, many English readers will be surprised to learn that further support of our rendering of the Name comes from many non-Hebrew missionary sources.

  Parts of the Holy Bible have already been translated into more than 1,100 languages and dialects. From the 18th century forwards the non-Hebrew translators have in many cases found no proper equivalent in the languages into which they were translating the Christian Greek Scriptures, and hence they have used the divine name in suitable native spelling...There can be no real objection for these translations to do so provided they reproduce the divine name at places where the Hebrew Scriptures show the background and validity for it. For corresponding reasons no reasonable mind can find Scriptural objection to our doing so in this English version. Rather, as our readers familiarize themselves with this version, they will rejoice over the added clearness it imparts to many scriptures not distinctly discerned before.

  While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yahweh" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.
  
• 

  Ruby456

  thanks Earnest that was very helpful. The translation committee do come across as careful honest scholars when we go back to the evidence of what was actually said/written. This is not to deny the evidence from the experience of Jesus as God or as part of a trinity as I know this can be very powerful and ennobling. Such qualities are given solely to Jehovah by witnesses and the emphasis here, I think, is on the group receiving the power and nobility rather than the individual.
• 

  smiddy

  {While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yahweh" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.}

  Doesnt that contradict their claim that Christendom hides the name from people ?

  And while they admit "Yahweh" is more the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton they omit YHWH as representing those four letters.

  They claim to be his people for his name but dont care if it is not the most likely correct pronunciation of his name.?

  The word for word translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures into English published by the WTB&TS The "Kingdom Interlinear" ,does not contain the tetragrammaton ,so the name Jehovah or Yahweh should not appear in the New World Translation of The Christian Greek Scriptures.published by the WTB&TS
• 

  jhine

  l take your point Earnest , but the fact remains that the Gospel writers and Paul did not use the Divine name and they must have had their reasons . Do the WT translators think that they know better than the writers of the NT ?Clearly they think that they do .

  Jan
• 

  Ruby456

  smiddy your expressions of faith and belief are welcome on this site as are yours jhine. I can just feel your outrage at Jehovah's witnesses' use of the divine name in their bible. I wonder if this fuelled the passion of early Christians too in their expressions of faith and belie,f in their desire to carve out a strong identity for themselves and to distance themselves from the use of the divine name in favour of Jesus Christ as a God more worth of honour and worship? I am transported back to early christianity when so many groups were tussling for attention!!!
• 

  Earnest

  smiddy And while they admit "Yahweh" is more the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton they omit YHWH as representing those four letters.

  You need to keep in mind that the tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew, not in Latin or English which alphabets came later. So, when translating from one alphabet to another you sometimes have a choice of letters to use to give the equivalent sound.
  

  The first letter of the tetragrammaton is the Hebrew yod, and gave rise to the Greek iota and the Latin I/J. When Jesus said (in Matthew 5:18 AV) that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law", the word jot referred to the Hebrew yod which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Likewise, the third letter of the tetragrammaton is the Hebrew waw, which can be represented in English as the first letter/sound in vote or wall.

  Furthermore, while it may be that Yahweh is an approximation of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, we are reading an English translation and when the Bible was first translated into English by Tyndale he used the name Iehouah, probably based on the Latin although he may have come up with it himself as an English equivalent.
  

  jhine the fact remains that the Gospel writers and Paul did not use the Divine name and they must have had their reasons .

  Perhaps. I have been convinced that in some cases that is true of Paul. Basically, the argument is that there are no NT manuscripts earlier than the second century and that all copies of the LXX which contain the tetragrammaton or Greek equivalent are earlier than the second century. So, for some reason which is open to debate the name of God was removed from the Christian LXX and it is reasoned that the same happened to copies made of the Gospels and Paul's letters.

  Also, slimboyfat has made the point that the NT mss that we do have present Lord (kyrios) and God (theos) as sacred names, so just the first and last letters of the name, e.g. KY for kyrios, which some have suggested arose when God's name was replaced. The evidence is not compelling but this together with the changes in the LXX do make a good case.

  Further, as far as translation goes, provided the reader is told why 'Jehovah' is included, he can make his own judgements when reading the text. In my opinion, it is far more pernicious to replace God's name throughout the Bible with 'Lord' because that is what orthodox Jews read when they see the name.
  
  
• 

  jhine

  Earnest , there is no evidence of the Tetrag. ever being in the NT . The removal of the Divine name in all of the copies made and sent all over the place would have had to have been a huge undertaking . Paul's letters would have been copied and distributed again and again as with the Gospels . Who would be able to co-ordinate the removal of the Tegrag. from all of the copies , a logistical nightmare ? Surely Jewish converts wouldn't have agreed to the removal . No it makes more sense that it was never there in the first place .

  l haven't said that the WT does not have a reason for putting it in , l have explained what l think that reason is , l just don't think that it is a justified reason .

  Jan