B
b_justb
Guest
JW’s - Please tell us what is the Greek word for Jehovah.
Thank you,
Thank you,
- Status
Q
QuietTimes
Guest
HI B no takers yet, I see.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Recent evidence shows the tetragrammaton (YHWH) was there in the Greek but later removed and replaced with other words like kyrios and theos…
Here’s an article in a Catholic magazine:
jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm
And here’s some more reading on the topic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament
“Some scholars think that these abbreviations were not part of the autographs and thus were added some time later,[1] concluding that YHWH was present in NT manuscripts.[2]
An article by George Howard in the March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review set forth a theory that YHWH appeared in the New Testament and that “the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ.”[3]”
Here’s an article in a Catholic magazine:
jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm
And here’s some more reading on the topic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament
“Some scholars think that these abbreviations were not part of the autographs and thus were added some time later,[1] concluding that YHWH was present in NT manuscripts.[2]
An article by George Howard in the March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review set forth a theory that YHWH appeared in the New Testament and that “the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ.”[3]”
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Steve is correct in pointing out that a few, very few, people have made the claim that the word Yahweh was originally present in the New Testament autographs. It is possible, but the overwhelming weight of historical evidence from all possible angles, is against this theory. If it was present, it was only present in those particular cases where the scripture writers were quoting old testament passages which contained YHWH in them. There is no evidence, zero, that Jesus went around pronouncing the Divine Name or encouraging people to use it.
Now, in Jesus’s day, the people did NOT pronounce the Divine Name. It is therefore interesting that there is not recorded anywhere in the New Testament any occasion at all where Jesus criticizes the people or their leaders for NOT USING the name Yahweh in their speech and prayers. He had golden opportunity to do so, yet there is not even one recorded instance in the Gospels of Jesus doing so. This is a glaring omission if Jesus was as adamant about people using the name Yahweh or Jehovah as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are.
Having said that, Steve and the JWs are not “wrong” for reverencing the Old Testament name for the Deity, Yahweh, or it’s Latin translation “Jehovah.” It is perfectly fine and good to refer to God by this name as this is the original name the Lord gave himself to Moses at the burning bush and was used many, many, many times by the writers of the Old Testament, some 6000 times in the OT alone. It is a glorious name and there is no need or warrant to hide it or deliberately avoid using it.
It might interest Steve to know that we Catholics DO use the name YAHWEH. Not as frequently as the JWs do, but still we DO know that Yahweh is the name of our God and we DO worship Yahweh as God Almighty. Some of our hymns contain the name Yahweh, such as “Yahweh, I know you are near, standing always at my side…”. My own priest uses the name YAHWEH in some of his sermons. It appears in Catholic literature. Some of our Catholic Bible translations use it 6000 times in the Old Testament. We are not ashamed of the name Yahweh nor are we afraid of using it. The Jewish fear of using that name carries no real weight with us. In fact, some Jews are so fearful of offending God that they will not even spell
out the word, GOD !!! Instead, they will write “G-D” or “G-d” instead of “God.” I really believe that that is excessive and an unnecessary servile fear. True, we should not use “God” or “Yahweh” in a common or profane way, but using both words respectfully is no sin.
God bless to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Now, in Jesus’s day, the people did NOT pronounce the Divine Name. It is therefore interesting that there is not recorded anywhere in the New Testament any occasion at all where Jesus criticizes the people or their leaders for NOT USING the name Yahweh in their speech and prayers. He had golden opportunity to do so, yet there is not even one recorded instance in the Gospels of Jesus doing so. This is a glaring omission if Jesus was as adamant about people using the name Yahweh or Jehovah as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are.
Having said that, Steve and the JWs are not “wrong” for reverencing the Old Testament name for the Deity, Yahweh, or it’s Latin translation “Jehovah.” It is perfectly fine and good to refer to God by this name as this is the original name the Lord gave himself to Moses at the burning bush and was used many, many, many times by the writers of the Old Testament, some 6000 times in the OT alone. It is a glorious name and there is no need or warrant to hide it or deliberately avoid using it.
It might interest Steve to know that we Catholics DO use the name YAHWEH. Not as frequently as the JWs do, but still we DO know that Yahweh is the name of our God and we DO worship Yahweh as God Almighty. Some of our hymns contain the name Yahweh, such as “Yahweh, I know you are near, standing always at my side…”. My own priest uses the name YAHWEH in some of his sermons. It appears in Catholic literature. Some of our Catholic Bible translations use it 6000 times in the Old Testament. We are not ashamed of the name Yahweh nor are we afraid of using it. The Jewish fear of using that name carries no real weight with us. In fact, some Jews are so fearful of offending God that they will not even spell
out the word, GOD !!! Instead, they will write “G-D” or “G-d” instead of “God.” I really believe that that is excessive and an unnecessary servile fear. True, we should not use “God” or “Yahweh” in a common or profane way, but using both words respectfully is no sin.
God bless to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Bible: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
2 Thessalonians 2:1-17
1 However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.
If you look in the Kingdom Interlinear, you will see that the greek word for Jehovah is kyrious in verse 2. Now, if you look at verse 1, you will see that the same word kyrious is used for the word “Lord” too, thus the correct interpretation or translation of the text would be “our Jehovah Jesus Christ”. It is the same grammar in both verses.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-17
1 However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.
If you look in the Kingdom Interlinear, you will see that the greek word for Jehovah is kyrious in verse 2. Now, if you look at verse 1, you will see that the same word kyrious is used for the word “Lord” too, thus the correct interpretation or translation of the text would be “our Jehovah Jesus Christ”. It is the same grammar in both verses.
B
b_justb
Guest
So … What is the Greek word for Jehovah? Or are you saying that you think the Tetragrammaton was used in the original Greek manuscripts whenever the inspired authors used The Name of God? But now it is not there. Is it now speculation on the part of any translator or exegete to place “Jehovah” where “Kyrios” and “Theos” (Lord and God, respectively) are when using Greek mss to translate from? Is that what you’re saying?
The reason I pointed on this issue is because of the emphasis the JW’s place on:
- Using the Name “Jehovah” as the personal Name of God
- Sound and correct Biblical exegesis
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Research shows that the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters (הוהי) was used in both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint. Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. In the synagogue at Nazareth, when Jesus rose and accepted the book of Isaiah and read 61:1, 2 where the Tetragrammaton occurs twice, he pronounced the divine name. This was in accordance with his determination to make Jehovah’s name known as can be seen from his prayer to his Father: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. ... I have made your name known to them and will make it known.”—Joh 17:6, 26.
There is evidence that Jesus’ disciples used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. In his work De viris inlustribus [Concerning Illustrious Men], chapter III, Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote the following: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.” (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Vol. 14, Leipzig, 1896, pp.*8, 9.)
Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.
Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.
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 Ky′ri·os, “Lord” or The·os′, “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 N[ew] T[estament] 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, הוהי (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate ? [abbreviation for Ky′ri·os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], 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.”
There is evidence that Jesus’ disciples used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. In his work De viris inlustribus [Concerning Illustrious Men], chapter III, Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote the following: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.” (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Vol. 14, Leipzig, 1896, pp.*8, 9.)
Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.
Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.
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 Ky′ri·os, “Lord” or The·os′, “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 N[ew] T[estament] 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, הוהי (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate ? [abbreviation for Ky′ri·os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], 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.”
M
mkarzon
Guest
One question I have is, if the divine name or tetragram was removed from NT scriptures early in the Christian era, where is the evidence of “true Christian” objection to the removal? Or is it just conspiracy theory like the Mormon Great Apostacy?
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
**One question I have is, if the divine name or tetragram was removed from NT scriptures early in the Christian era, where is the evidence of “true Christian” objection to the removal? **
That is a superb question.
If the early Christians really were Jehovah’s Witness type christians, there would have been a sustained furious reaction throughout the entire Church at this daring removal of the name of Yahweh from the New Testament on purpose. It would have been as big a scandal as the Arian movement, and both sides of the issue would have fought each other tooth and nail over it, and we would have plenty of evidence to the fact that such occured, including the writings of those who approved of and justified the removal.
What do we have? Utter silence. Not a jot, not a tittle
of any evidence of any such thing ever, ever, ever taking place.
Those Christians were being thrown to the lions for their Faith in those years. They were NOT the type of people to tamper with the Word of God. They were extremely CONSERVATIVE, not innovative.
The Watchtower’s claim is pure, unadulterated SPECULATION with not a jot or tittle of EVIDENCE in support of it.
We have written evidence of EVERY OTHER CONTROVERSY within the early Christian Church, so why no evidence of this alleged deliberate tampering with the word of God, which would have provoked such furious sustained reactions? Simple.
It never occured. Period.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
That is a superb question.
If the early Christians really were Jehovah’s Witness type christians, there would have been a sustained furious reaction throughout the entire Church at this daring removal of the name of Yahweh from the New Testament on purpose. It would have been as big a scandal as the Arian movement, and both sides of the issue would have fought each other tooth and nail over it, and we would have plenty of evidence to the fact that such occured, including the writings of those who approved of and justified the removal.
What do we have? Utter silence. Not a jot, not a tittle
of any evidence of any such thing ever, ever, ever taking place.
Those Christians were being thrown to the lions for their Faith in those years. They were NOT the type of people to tamper with the Word of God. They were extremely CONSERVATIVE, not innovative.
The Watchtower’s claim is pure, unadulterated SPECULATION with not a jot or tittle of EVIDENCE in support of it.
We have written evidence of EVERY OTHER CONTROVERSY within the early Christian Church, so why no evidence of this alleged deliberate tampering with the word of God, which would have provoked such furious sustained reactions? Simple.
It never occured. Period.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
W
Wildkit
Guest
But how does one get attention drawn to them if they don’t make a fuss about some insignificant item? Do you have to make things happen??
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
You have to realize that copies of the New Testament scriptures, hundreds and hundreds of them, existed all over the Roman Empire in every diocese and practically every congregation.
And not just the Roman Empire, but also Africa, Arabia, and even in India where Thomas evangelized. Such a removal would have involved a giant conspiracy with every presbyter and bishop consenting to it all over the world in order for it to have happened silently. But such unanimity would not have greeted such a deliberate endeavor to tamper with the New Testament. The early Christians JEALOUSLY guarded and revered those NT scriptures.
Had people started tampering with them, systematically removing things, there would have been a church-wide UPROAR over this, with furious infighting between those who SUPPORTED the tampering and those who OPPOSED it, and we would have records of that. There is no way this could have happened silently.
As for the removal of YHWH from the Hebrew Masoretic text, everyone knows that the Jewish people had become highly superstitious about pronouncing the Divine Name and every Jew knew that the Masoretes had put the vowel points of the word ADONAY between the consonants of YHWH to indicate that people should pronounce YHWH as LORD instead. That was no secret.
This notion of the Christian Church bastardizing it’s own scriptures, church-wide, deliberately, is simply outlandish and is pure speculation with, again, not a single jot or tittle of EVIDENCE to support that any such thing EVER took place.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
And not just the Roman Empire, but also Africa, Arabia, and even in India where Thomas evangelized. Such a removal would have involved a giant conspiracy with every presbyter and bishop consenting to it all over the world in order for it to have happened silently. But such unanimity would not have greeted such a deliberate endeavor to tamper with the New Testament. The early Christians JEALOUSLY guarded and revered those NT scriptures.
Had people started tampering with them, systematically removing things, there would have been a church-wide UPROAR over this, with furious infighting between those who SUPPORTED the tampering and those who OPPOSED it, and we would have records of that. There is no way this could have happened silently.
As for the removal of YHWH from the Hebrew Masoretic text, everyone knows that the Jewish people had become highly superstitious about pronouncing the Divine Name and every Jew knew that the Masoretes had put the vowel points of the word ADONAY between the consonants of YHWH to indicate that people should pronounce YHWH as LORD instead. That was no secret.
This notion of the Christian Church bastardizing it’s own scriptures, church-wide, deliberately, is simply outlandish and is pure speculation with, again, not a single jot or tittle of EVIDENCE to support that any such thing EVER took place.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
B
b_justb
Guest
I hate to be picky but since we’re discussing correct exegetical research your rendition of the Tetragrammaton is backwards. Yod should be to the right not the left.
This is speculative at best. At the time Jesus tabernacled among men, the use of The Name was forbidden. It was uttered once a year by the High Priest before the Mercy Seat on Rosh Hashanah (Day of Atonement).
This quote, while being well referenced, does absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim. No where does Jerome make the assertions you are making.
I do not take your word for it. You have not made your argument. I have studied this point quiet extensively and find your theories lacking in evidential merit.
Dt 18:15 from the LXX:
…θεος = Theos, God.
Again that’s backwards. Is that you doing that or are you copying that and pasting it? If you copied it, your source stinks really bad.
BibleSteve said:
A cursory search for George Howard of the University of Georgia in 1977 comes up empty. I’m not suggesting the quote isn’t accurate; I am merely pointing out that I have yet to see who this person is in relation to many other scholars I have read about this matter.
continued …
B
b_justb
Guest
Bible Steve (I was going to use your initials but feared you may take offense - I don’t want that),
I know it takes effort and time to lay out arguments in any form, especially with references like you have done so here. I can appreciate that. On this particular issue however I spent 2 years studying, researching and laying out my arguments against these ideas of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to one of it’s elders in written form. I debated with him for about 6 months on this one topic. He would not see the overwhelming evidence that the JW’s have inserted The Name into the Greek Text where it simply did not exist. The fact that an organization would do this makes me question anything else they have to say about any other matter.
I know it takes effort and time to lay out arguments in any form, especially with references like you have done so here. I can appreciate that. On this particular issue however I spent 2 years studying, researching and laying out my arguments against these ideas of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to one of it’s elders in written form. I debated with him for about 6 months on this one topic. He would not see the overwhelming evidence that the JW’s have inserted The Name into the Greek Text where it simply did not exist. The fact that an organization would do this makes me question anything else they have to say about any other matter.
B
b_justb
Guest
Well now here is something on Dr. George Howard:
forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm
George Howard’s theory has been rejected (The Name in hebrew was used in the NT in its Hebraic form) by most - if not all - modern Biblical and Textual scholars. In any case, his theory is that the New Testament authors retained the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted verses from the Old Testament that contained it. His theory thus has no relevance to most of the 237 instances where the NWT translators inserted “Jehovah” into their “Christian Greek Scriptures.”
Professor Howard wrote two letters that have been made public which clarify his position:
More on Howard’s research here, (by Terragrammaton.org no less).
forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm
George Howard’s theory has been rejected (The Name in hebrew was used in the NT in its Hebraic form) by most - if not all - modern Biblical and Textual scholars. In any case, his theory is that the New Testament authors retained the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted verses from the Old Testament that contained it. His theory thus has no relevance to most of the 237 instances where the NWT translators inserted “Jehovah” into their “Christian Greek Scriptures.”
Professor Howard wrote two letters that have been made public which clarify his position:
and
Well now that is interesting, isn’t it?
More on Howard’s research here, (by Terragrammaton.org no less).
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Excellent post. I love this type of discussion.
I’ll comment back soon.
Steve
I’ll comment back soon.
Steve
C
Claude_Kenneson
Guest
That Jehovah’s Witnesses have the name “Jehovah” today, they can thank a Catholic Spanish monk by the name of Raymundo Martini. The first recorded use of the LATINIZED form “Jehova” was first published in 1278 in his book "Pugio Fidei ("Dagger of Faith). It is this word which was adopted into some English versions of the Bible. It is not a revelation from the Watchtower Society or Jehovah’s Witnesses at all.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Personally, I have no problem with either Yahweh OR Jehovah.
Jehovah is derived from the Latin, that’s all. No big deal.
In fact, one of my all time favorite Christian hymns is
“Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah !!” and now that I have that song’s melody in my head, I’m going to share the song with you all, so here goes:
**Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah !
pilgrim through this barren land.
I am weak, but Thou art Mighty,
Hold me with Thy powerful hand.
Bread of heaven, Bread of Heaven,
Feed me till I want no more.
Feed me till I want no more.
Open wide the Crystal Fountain
where the healing streams do flow.
Let the fire and cloudy pillar
guide me all my journey through.
Strong deliverer, Strong deliverer,
Be Thou still my strength and shield !!
Be Thou still my strength and shield !!
When I tread the verge of Jordan,
bid my anxious fears subside.
Death of death, and sin’s destruction,
land me safe on Canaan’s side.
Songs of Praises, Songs of praises,
I will ever give to Thee !!
I will ever give to Thee !!**
That’s one of my favorite hymns. Some of you ex Presbyterians
may be especially familiar with it. It’s very soul-stirring.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Jehovah is derived from the Latin, that’s all. No big deal.
In fact, one of my all time favorite Christian hymns is
“Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah !!” and now that I have that song’s melody in my head, I’m going to share the song with you all, so here goes:
**Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah !
pilgrim through this barren land.
I am weak, but Thou art Mighty,
Hold me with Thy powerful hand.
Bread of heaven, Bread of Heaven,
Feed me till I want no more.
Feed me till I want no more.
Open wide the Crystal Fountain
where the healing streams do flow.
Let the fire and cloudy pillar
guide me all my journey through.
Strong deliverer, Strong deliverer,
Be Thou still my strength and shield !!
Be Thou still my strength and shield !!
When I tread the verge of Jordan,
bid my anxious fears subside.
Death of death, and sin’s destruction,
land me safe on Canaan’s side.
Songs of Praises, Songs of praises,
I will ever give to Thee !!
I will ever give to Thee !!**
That’s one of my favorite hymns. Some of you ex Presbyterians
may be especially familiar with it. It’s very soul-stirring.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
So another big question is if the name was removed and replaced in the NT…HOW do you know WHEN it is warranted to translate it from “Lord” and when to leave the word “Lord”? As far as I can tell there is no way to know, and thus unwarranted…
The problem with making such a claim that the name was removed means the text was corrupt, and once you go down that street (ie who knows what else was corrupted) you lose any credibility among non believers.
The problem with making such a claim that the name was removed means the text was corrupt, and once you go down that street (ie who knows what else was corrupted) you lose any credibility among non believers.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Before we get into a discussion about YHWH in the NT, will you please critique this information about YHWH in the OT? I’d appreciate knowing what we all agree/disagree with before we get into the New Testament discussion… My apologies for the length, but I’d really like some constructive critique on these views…Thanks…Steve
(Je•ho´vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha•wah´ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].
The personal name of God. (Isa 42:8; 54:5) Though Scripturally designated by such descriptive titles as “God,” “Sovereign Lord,” “Creator,” “Father,” “the Almighty,” and “the Most High,” his personality and attributes—who and what he is—are fully summed up and expressed only in this personal name.—Ps 83:18.
Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name. “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te•tra-, meaning “four,” and gram´ma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH).
The Hebrew consonants of the name are therefore known. The question is, Which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. (See HEBREW, II [Hebrew Alphabet and Script].) Furthermore, because of a religious superstition that had begun centuries earlier, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts does not provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name.
Superstition hides the name. At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.
Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it. However, Jehovah himself said that he would ‘have his name declared in all the earth’ (Ex 9:16; compare 1Ch 16:23, 24; Ps 113:3; Mal 1:11, 14), to be known even by his adversaries. (Isa 64:2) The name was in fact known and used by pagan nations both in pre-Common Era times and in the early centuries of the Common Era. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. XII, p. 119) Another claim is that the purpose was to protect the name from use in magical rites. If so, this was poor reasoning, as it is obvious that the more mysterious the name became through disuse the more it would suit the purposes of practicers of magic.
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold. Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile (607-537 B.C.E.). This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.
(continued)
(Je•ho´vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha•wah´ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].
The personal name of God. (Isa 42:8; 54:5) Though Scripturally designated by such descriptive titles as “God,” “Sovereign Lord,” “Creator,” “Father,” “the Almighty,” and “the Most High,” his personality and attributes—who and what he is—are fully summed up and expressed only in this personal name.—Ps 83:18.
Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name. “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te•tra-, meaning “four,” and gram´ma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH).
The Hebrew consonants of the name are therefore known. The question is, Which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. (See HEBREW, II [Hebrew Alphabet and Script].) Furthermore, because of a religious superstition that had begun centuries earlier, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts does not provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name.
Superstition hides the name. At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.
Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it. However, Jehovah himself said that he would ‘have his name declared in all the earth’ (Ex 9:16; compare 1Ch 16:23, 24; Ps 113:3; Mal 1:11, 14), to be known even by his adversaries. (Isa 64:2) The name was in fact known and used by pagan nations both in pre-Common Era times and in the early centuries of the Common Era. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. XII, p. 119) Another claim is that the purpose was to protect the name from use in magical rites. If so, this was poor reasoning, as it is obvious that the more mysterious the name became through disuse the more it would suit the purposes of practicers of magic.
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold. Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile (607-537 B.C.E.). This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.
(continued)
B
BibleSteve
Guest
(continued)
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky´ri•os (Lord) or The•os´ (God) for the Tetragrammaton.
But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name.
One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 326) It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.—See NW appendix, pp. 1562-1564.
When did the Jews in general actually stop pronouncing the personal name of God?
So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B.C.E. period. In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God’s revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: “Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men’s ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.” (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus’ statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.
The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: “It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah.
The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party . . .—these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage.” (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:
In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby’s translation of the Mishnah states: “And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’” (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: “In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.” Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty ‘unless he pronounced the Name,’ and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to ‘say expressly what he had heard,’ presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those “that have no share in the world to come,” states: “Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters.” Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that “a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God],” the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited.—Berakhot 9:5.
(continued)
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky´ri•os (Lord) or The•os´ (God) for the Tetragrammaton.
But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name.
One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 326) It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.—See NW appendix, pp. 1562-1564.
When did the Jews in general actually stop pronouncing the personal name of God?
So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B.C.E. period. In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God’s revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: “Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men’s ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.” (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus’ statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.
The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: “It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah.
The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party . . .—these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage.” (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:
In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby’s translation of the Mishnah states: “And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’” (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: “In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.” Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty ‘unless he pronounced the Name,’ and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to ‘say expressly what he had heard,’ presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those “that have no share in the world to come,” states: “Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters.” Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that “a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God],” the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited.—Berakhot 9:5.
(continued)
- Status