The thing that makes the NWT superior, in my opinion, is that it is consistent, in that it generally translates the original language words the same way. Other translations don't show that same integrity. / You Know
The Name Jehovah
by ruffian 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Francois
Actually, my research indicates that the YAH part of YAH VEY, when understood as a reflexed ablative with transgendered hiatal romulation, is pronounced OY.
Thus, God's name is acutally pronounced Oy Vey.
These little insights go so far in a thorough understanding of things don't you think?
Francois
Where it is a duty to worship the Sun you can be sure that a study of the laws of heat is a crime.
-
Dogpatch
part of the file up at:
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/jehovah.htmAncient Textual Discoveries
The main Watchtower arguments:Some very old fragments of the Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus' day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God appeared in them. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by Kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the Old Testament in the first centuries A.D." Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name.
Thus, Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., made this comment: "When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations." (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14) What authority would they have had to do otherwise? - The Divine Name, p. 24
Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Kyrios, "Lord" or Theos, "God."
Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for New Testament studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name . . . was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate [abbreviation for Kyrios, `Lord']. This removal of the Tetragrammaton, in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the `Lord God' and the `Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."
We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a `theory,' rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts. - Appendix, Reference Edition of the New World Translation, 1984, p. 1564
In answer to these statements, first we must consider that the portions of the Septuagint found which contain the tetragram are Jewish, and none may be of Christian origin. We are not so much concerned with what the Jews did, but what the apostolic Christians did in their translations. C. H. Roberts, in his book, Society, Manuscript and Belief in Early Egyptian Christianity (p. 77) states:
"Extant versions of the Septuagint coming to us from Jewish sources contain the tetragrammaton whereas only two Septuagint copies that contain the tetragrammaton may have possibly be of a Christian source." Roberts describes these two Christian sources as "a Jewish form of Christianity (which) persisted in Oxyhynchus, and a possible explanation of these two eccentric texts would be that they were the work of Jewish-Christian scribes." (p. 34, 57)
One of these earliest manuscripts that the Watchtower and the New International Dictionary are referring to is the translation done by Aquila, an apostate from Christianity. Aquila rendered passages so as to counter the Christian's arguments, but his style was the exception, rather than the rule. (see Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by Kenyon, p. 56) Aquila was included in the "later Jewish translators" referred to in the New International Dictionary.
Certainly, Jesus and his disciples came across the tetragram occasionally in their reading, but when and how often is anyone's guess. An effective argument cannot be made from speculation on this, though the Watchtower has tried.
Regarding Professor Howard, his thesis is simply a theory, and he admits it as such. He does not even begin to suggest that the tetragram be restored to the text of the New Testament in any of his writings. Such tampering cannot be done by an honest translator, since there are simply no ancient manuscripts with the tetragram to translate from.
When the Watchtower asks "What authority would they have to do otherwise," meaning how could they NOT copy the tetragram, they ignore the fact that there were no "rules" that the early church had to follow. They simply didn't think it that important to preserve the tetragram. Evidence from the first century Christian writings reveal that the Christians themselves replaced the tetragram with their own form of abbreviations, called "nomina sacra" by language scholars. These symbols may have been produced by the Jerusalem church before 70 A.D., or at the latest by the year 100. (Remember, the Bible as we know it was not even canonized until much later!)
Scholars also tell us that there is no connection between the "nomina sacra" and the practice of translating the tetragram as KYRIOS or THEOS. It was not due to superstition or tradition, but was rather a convenience used by the early church. The "nomina sacra" were not used on just the tetragrammaton, either, but also on the names "Christ" and "Jesus." This was done by the apostolic church itself, rather than in the "second or third century," as the Watchtower dogmatically asserts. *3
In summary: Early Christian manuscripts used abbreviated forms of sacred names, while some Jewish manuscripts of the LXX retained the tetragram. And since the NT is written by Christians for Christians, the Watchtower's use of Jewish manuscripts is irrelevant.
Missing the Point
Eventually, as we saw earlier, the name was restored to many translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. But what about the Greek Scriptures? Well, Bible translators and students without God's name, some parts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are very difficult to understand properly. Restoring the name is a big help in increasing the clarity and comprehensibility of this portion of the inspired Bible.For example, consider the words of Paul to the Romans, as they appear in the Authorized Version: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13) Whose name do we have to call on to be saved? Since Jesus is often spoken of as "Lord," and one scripture even says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," should we conclude that Paul was here speaking about Jesus?Acts 16:31, AV.
No, we should not. A marginal reference to Romans 10:13 in the Authorized Version points us to Joel 2:32 in the Hebrew Scriptures. If you check that reference, you will find that Paul was actually quoting the words of Joel in his letter to the Romans; and what Joel said in the original Hebrew was: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe." (New World Translation) Yes, Paul meant here that we should call on the name of Jehovah. Hence, while we have to believe in Jesus, our salvation is closely linked with a proper appreciation of God's name.
This example demonstrates how the removal of the name of God from the Greek Scriptures contributed to confusing Jesus and Jehovah in the minds of many. Undoubtedly, it contributed greatly to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity! - The Divine Name, p. 26
The "Bible translators" and "students" mentioned by the Watchtower that had difficulty in understanding the NT are apparently none other than Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. If you realize as did the inspired NT writers that Jesus shares the nature of his Father and his Name, there is no problem. On the other hand, if you believe that Jesus is a creature, an angel, there are serious "discrepancies" that must be translated out of the Bible to retain your theology. When an apostle quotes an OT passage about Jehovah and is obviously applying it to Jesus (such as Romans 10:13), you must perform gymnastics in translation or interpretation to retain your view, and this is what the Watchtower has done. How sad that they miss the point of the transition between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Note the words of Herman Bavinck in his book, Our Reasonable Faith: (p. 313)
The use and significance of the name in the Old Testament is carried over to Christ in the New. The Name of the Lord, or the Name alone, was in the Old Testament the denomination of the revealed glory of God. In the days of the New Testament that glory has appeared in the person of Jesus Christ; and thus the strength of the church now stands in His name. . . . the name of Jesus Christ was a sort of compendium of the confession of the church, the strength of its faith, and the anchor of its hope. Just as Israel in ancient times gloried in the name of Jehovah, so the church of the New Testament finds its strength in the name of Jesus Christ. In this name the name of Jehovah has come into its full revelation.
This is the main point that the Watchtower has missed--far overshadowing inconsistencies in the churches. Like the Pharisees in Jesus' day, they missed out on the real Messiah!Is the Watchtower Honest?
Would a translator have any right to restore the name, in view of the fact that existing manuscripts do not have it? Yes, he would have that right. Most Greek lexicons recognize that often the word "Lord" in the Bible refers to Jehovah. For example, in its section under the Greek word Kyrios, Robinson's A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament says that it means "God as the Supreme Lord and sovereign of the universe, usually in Septuagint for Hebrew Jehovah." Hence, in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote the earlier Hebrew Scriptures, the translator has the right to render the word Kyrios as "Jehovah" wherever the divine name appeared in the Hebrew original. - The Divine Name, p. 26, 27One translation that boldly restores God's name with good authority is the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This version, currently available in 11 modern languages, including English, has restored God's name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures. Altogether, the name appears with a sound basis 237 times in that translation of the Greek Scriptures.
The Divine Name, p. 27As to whether a translator has the right to introduce something into the New Testament which cannot be found in any available ancient documents, simply on the basis of theological bias, I will let another translator answer. Stephen T. Byington translated The Bible in Living English, and the Watchtower Society purchased the rights to print and distribute this version of the Bible due to its use of the name "Jehovah" in the Old Testament (but not in the New). Byington himself said this in review of the Watchtower's "Christian Greek Scriptures":
If we need to argue the point of translating "the Lord" where the Greek says "the Lord", my argument would be that when Jesus and the apostles and their friends spoke an Old Testament text aloud, they said "the Lord" for "Jehovah" even in so careful a quotation as Mark 12:29 (the newly found manuscript of Isaiah may be cited as fresh evidence that the custom of saying "the Lord" began before the time of Christ, for it has cases of wavering between the readings "Jehovah" and "the Lord", and the explanation of such wavering is that the two were pronounced alike), and we cannot presume that the apostles wrote otherwise than they spoke. And it is a translator's business to reproduce his original. *4
The Watchtower would do well to heed the words of one that they so admire for putting the name "Jehovah" into his own Old Testament translation. But they bridge the gap between presumptuousness and outright dishonesty when they make the statement that they have "restored God's name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures." The Watchtower did not translate "Jehovah" into 1 Peter 3:15 and Acts 2:21, though the OT passages that they are quoted from contain the tetragram there. To do such would be admitting that somehow Jesus is referred to as "Jehovah" in the OT.In Conclusion. There is simply no scholarly justification for introducing the tetragram (let alone the less accurate "Jehovah") into the text of the NT. The absence of the tetragram in any NT manuscript, out of over 13,000 available, demolishes their case. If God was so concerned about the preservation of his covenant name, one wonders why there is no evidence that the apostles perpetuated it in their writings. Further, to imply that the name "Jehovah" is the primary name we are to be concerned with contradicts the continual emphasis on the name of Jesus, as has been established. While the tetragram is not to be found in any NT manuscripts, the name of Jesus is found over 900 times.
Christians are to make the name of the Father known, as Jesus emphasized (Mt. 6:9; John 17:26). How do they do that? By recognizing that Jesus Christ was chosen by the Father to embody all the glory and reputation surrounding that Name (Phil. 2:11), and that to fail to identify with the name of Jesus will cause our loss of life (Acts 4:12).
The motive of the Governing Body, as it always has been and will be, is to make themselves stand out as being separate and distinct from the churches. Whether the issue be the cross, holidays, the word "church," or the name "Jehovah," the primary issue always revolves around their sectarian spirit. When you pin them down on any of these issues and refute them step by step, they concede that the issue is not really that important, but then switch to another exclusive doctrine as proof of their being God's chosen people. Fortunately, many even in the organization see through the scholastic dishonesty and are finding out that the supreme manifestation of Jehovah is in His Son, Jesus Christ. Even the Pharisees revered the name Yahweh greatly, but failed to use the real key to life - the name of JESUS (John 5:37-40).
Footnotes:
#1 Since then, as pointed out profusely in the Watchtower booklet, churches all over the world used variations of "Jehovah" and decorated their churches and statues, and writings with it. Strangely, it does not seem to bother them that this practice was first instituted by Christendom (their object of attack) and is used in many Christian churches all over the world to this day.#2 The Watchtower's own Kingdom Interlinear translation says, on page 18 of the foreword:
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.
#3 [see Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Egyptian Christianity, C. H. Roberts, p.26-29]
#4 [The Christian Century, May 9, 1951; p.589]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
ianao
bjc2012:
Hey TWMC Lady.
Could you please go away and get mds to come back and tackle AGuest, You Know? I know kes152 blew away his "scapegoat arrangement" teaching, but I want to see how he fairs with them.
No offense intended, but it comes better from the horses mouth instead of a lackie.
Thanks.
-ianao
-
Yerusalyim
You Know,
You said,
The thing that makes the NWT superior, in my opinion, is that it is consistent, in that it generally translates the original language words the same way. Other translations don't show that same integrity. / You Know
I will agree the NWT is a consistent translation, it's a consistently bad and unscholarly translation. Robert, remember, translation is not about word for word, but translating ideas.
Yeru
YERUSALYIM
God is truth, and light his shadow.Plato
-
You Know
I will agree the NWT is a consistent translation, it's a consistently bad and unscholarly translation. Robert, remember,
translation is not about word for word, but translating ideas.That's where translators get into trouble in assuming that they know the intent of the writer. / You Know
-
Yerusalyim
ROBERT,
you said,That's where translators get into trouble in assuming that they know the intent of the writer. / You Know
Sooooo, is that why the WT boys added so many words, or gave them the most obscure meaning? Were they truly consisitent, as you propose, in translating words the same at all times? Why is it that in John 8:58 they translate the greek as "I existed" yet every other time I see these greek words appearing they translate that as "I am"? Is this the consistency you spoke of? Robert, part of translation is to take into account context and culture. Thus translating "starous" as stake is incorrect because it does not take culture into account. My first question for the so called translation committee is, if starous always only refers to a simple stake and not a CROSS, what word did the greeks use when refering to the implement of death that was shaped like a "T"? Just as "kleenex" has come to mean any facial tissue, so too was "starous" used generically for all "torture stakes" T shaped or otherwise. This usage also does not take into account history. The Romans LOVED their crucifixions, made an ART of it. Used it as a deterrent. They wanted it to be seen. They did it regularly. Joshephus attests to the fact that the Romans had a regular site for crucifixion outside Jerusalem, and had a permenant fixture of "scaffolding" upon which the cross beam carried by the condemned was affixed. The Romans wanted the crucifix to be seen from a distance. Now an upright stake with no cross beam, might look like MANY things from a distance. But a T shaped cross was NOT mistaken for anything else from a distance. Ceaser, when he was still in his teens, had crucified over 500 pirates at once, and he made each man fashion his own cross WITH cross beam.
Another example of the fallacy of your agrugment about the translation committee being consistent is in rendering THIS IS MY BODY as THIS MEANS MY BODY. Yes the greek word used there can indeed be translated MEANS, but it is one of the most obscure applications, and not consistent with other usage of the word in the rest of their so called translation.Just a few observations, sorry about the "Cross" tangent, just one of my personal peeves.
Yeru
YERUSALYIM
God is truth, and light his shadow.Plato