B
BibleSteve
Guest
Have you read the book or are you simply another critic who complains about something he hasn’t read?
- Status
C
cascherman
Guest
Steve, I am not impressed with this statement from you. Usually you attempt to be accurate to the best of your ability, as far as I can see. But, to say that the Bible’s canon was knowingly defined a long time before the Catholic Church existed is not good history. First off, even many protestant theologians and apologists have admitted that the Catholic Church is the oldest established Christian faith dating as early as 110 and secondly, have you never read about Revelations being challenged as not canonical much later than the apostles lived (a book that the JW organization takes a serious amount of their theology from).
S
SerenaHC
Guest
Now Steve, play fair.
The Catholic Church was started by Jesus and the books of the New Testament weren’t written until after his death, so your reasoning is somewhat flawed.
There is no perfect translation of the Bible out there. Including the NWT. But some are better than others. Are you seriously suggestig the NWT isn’t biased?
Like I said before, me thinks thou dost protest too much.
I’ll sponsor you in RCIA. You know you probably visit this board so that you can have good, deep, theological discussions, which would be difficult to have with other JWs. C’mon, join us in the one, true, holy, Catholic, and apostolic faith. I bet you’d make a great catechist someday.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
If you had read the book you would realize the foolishness of your statement. The book wasn’t written to defend the NWT.
The book reviews 9 modern translations and lays out specific evidence anyone can see for themselves of the bias that has crept into all of the translations.
I personally take time to read books outside my religious affiliation.
You might consider doing it sometime too.
C
cascherman
Guest
Wow, pretty high and mighty there. You assume I don’t. I actually have a What the Bible Really teaches published by the JW organization at work, and I have read a good portion of it.
And secondly, fine, I should not have said:
I should have said:
This little omission of mine doesn’t mean you can dismiss my question as answered, you caught me on a technicality, you hardly answered the question.
edit- oh and I’m not worried about the bias of the other translations at this moment. I’m worried about the Lord, Jehovah, YHWH, Christ liberty taken by the NWT.
C
cascherman
Guest
I am not talking about the book, I am talking about the problem I see with the NWT.
edited due to unnecessary sarcasm
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Chris,
We’re not talking about “What Does the Bible Really Teach”, we’re talking about BeDuhn’s book.
You are criticizing a book you haven’t read.
You’re complaining about the BeDuhn and his book because of Jehovah’s name being used in the New Testament.
If you had read the book, you’d know that BeDuhn had similar criticism about the point.
But since you haven’t read the book, you wouldn’t know that and are dismissing BeDuhn without consideration of his well documented points about 9 modern translations.
The only reason you’re criticizing BeDuhn is because he actually has some positive things to say about the NWT which goes contrary to the belief system you want to hold about the NWT.
It’s really pretty silly to criticize a book you haven’t read.
I wouldn’t do it.
But, I guess there are plenty here that don’t have a problem with it.
C
cascherman
Guest
Steve,
Come on bud, you know my argument has very little to do with the author or his book.
As I said before, my issue is the problem I see with the NWT, and while we are defending our Catholic Bibles, I just want to hear some defense from you on the JW Bible.
You still have yet to even touch on my point.
If it makes you feel better, you are right, I haven’t read the book and I assumed he supported all of it (the NWT). But, as you say, he did not, so: 1 point Steve, 0 points Chris.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Dear Chris,
I don’t care about gaining points or winning an argument with you.
I’m simply trying to provide some very accurate and valuable information for anyone who values knowing the truth more than trying to win an argument.
If you tracked down BeDuhn’s book at the library or bookstore you would see you really have far more to be concerned with your current translation than the NWT. But, until you take the effort to do so, you will be oblivious to the major issues with your own translation.
You are concerned that the NWT has decided to use “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament text because that seems inaccurate to you.
However, I haven’t heard any concern from you about the 6,000+ occurances where the Divine name has been removed from other translations… Where’s your concern of that inaccuracy?
For your reference, DeBuhn includes an entire appendix about the issue of using Jehovah in the NT. He discusses the detailed reasons behind the NWT’s decision to do so, his criticism for the decision, and his criticism for the other translations in removing the Divine name in the Old Testament.
I don’t care about gaining points or winning an argument with you.
I’m simply trying to provide some very accurate and valuable information for anyone who values knowing the truth more than trying to win an argument.
If you tracked down BeDuhn’s book at the library or bookstore you would see you really have far more to be concerned with your current translation than the NWT. But, until you take the effort to do so, you will be oblivious to the major issues with your own translation.
You are concerned that the NWT has decided to use “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament text because that seems inaccurate to you.
However, I haven’t heard any concern from you about the 6,000+ occurances where the Divine name has been removed from other translations… Where’s your concern of that inaccuracy?
For your reference, DeBuhn includes an entire appendix about the issue of using Jehovah in the NT. He discusses the detailed reasons behind the NWT’s decision to do so, his criticism for the decision, and his criticism for the other translations in removing the Divine name in the Old Testament.
S
SerenaHC
Guest
BibleSteve,
Here is a quote from beDuhn’s book
“Accurate, unbiased translations are based on (1) linguistic content, (2) literary context, and (3) historical and cultural environment. (pp. xiii-xvi)”
One cannot have an unbiased translation unless the translators are fluent in linguistics, literary context, and versed in the historical and cultural context of the writings. Thus, even this man you’re championing, who is very well educated, BTW, promotes the need for an impeccable education to translate the Bible.
Read this entire review of beDuhn’s book, if you wish, it’s very interesting:
tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm
Cheers and good night,
Here is a quote from beDuhn’s book
“Accurate, unbiased translations are based on (1) linguistic content, (2) literary context, and (3) historical and cultural environment. (pp. xiii-xvi)”
One cannot have an unbiased translation unless the translators are fluent in linguistics, literary context, and versed in the historical and cultural context of the writings. Thus, even this man you’re championing, who is very well educated, BTW, promotes the need for an impeccable education to translate the Bible.
Read this entire review of beDuhn’s book, if you wish, it’s very interesting:
tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm
Cheers and good night,
B
BibleSteve
Guest
From beDuhn’s concluding comments:
“I could only consider a small number of samples in this book. Another set of samples might yield some different configuration of results. But the selection of passages has not been arbitrary. It has been driven mostly by an idea of where one is most likely to find bias, namely, those passages which are frequently cited as having great theological importance, the verses that are claimed as key foundations for the commitments of belief held by the very people making the translations. Choosing precisely those passages where theology has most at stake might seem deliberately provocative and controversial. But that is exactly where bias is most likely to interfere with translation. Biblical passages that make statements about the nature and character of Jesus or the Holy Spirit are much more likely to have beliefs read into them than are passages that mention what Jesus and his disciples had for lunch.”
If you are a person who cherishes to know the truth about Jesus, then study these key passages very carefully.
“I could only consider a small number of samples in this book. Another set of samples might yield some different configuration of results. But the selection of passages has not been arbitrary. It has been driven mostly by an idea of where one is most likely to find bias, namely, those passages which are frequently cited as having great theological importance, the verses that are claimed as key foundations for the commitments of belief held by the very people making the translations. Choosing precisely those passages where theology has most at stake might seem deliberately provocative and controversial. But that is exactly where bias is most likely to interfere with translation. Biblical passages that make statements about the nature and character of Jesus or the Holy Spirit are much more likely to have beliefs read into them than are passages that mention what Jesus and his disciples had for lunch.”
If you are a person who cherishes to know the truth about Jesus, then study these key passages very carefully.
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
Luke was a physician
C
cascherman
Guest
First off, the removal of the divine name in scripture was from before Christianity back when Judaism was the ONLY religion created by our God. In those times, Judaism was the only true religion, Christianity is only a fulfillment of the promises made to the Jews.
So, if the Jews had a reverence for the divine name and decided not to even try to pronounce it, instead of presuming a pronunciation, which would actually be wrong since we have no way of knowing how to pronounce it, that is their prerogative as the true religion of that time.
Secondly, you diverting my attention to my own Bible’s problems is not going to answer my question and it is not going to distract me. We do not have the divine name #1- because we don’t know how to pronounce it and #2- because the Jews had/have a special reverence for it and have passed that reverence on to us (in the OT).
You STILL have not even tried to help me see the reasoning as to why the translators assumed the NT had the name when manuscripts as early as the second century have no record of the tetragrammaton.
So, I would rather continue a tradition passed on by the previous true religion than assume a name and insert it where one’s theology deems appropriate.
It seems you may have an animosity toward ancient Judaism which is entirely inappropriate since Judaism was the true religion, no if, ands, or buts about it.
G
goofyjim
Guest
What about the Isaiah prophecy of Prince of Peace and Eternal Father? What about Jesus reciting the psalms on the cross? These things clearly show His presence in the Old Testament as well as the New. And this points out His presence with God the Father eternally.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Yes.
“Their perogative as the true religion”? You think everything the Jews did is just fine because “they were the true religion”? This group made and were allowed to make many catastrophic errors.
The removal of the Divine name was one of the greatest errors that has lead to much confusion about the identity of Jehovah and Jesus.
That aside, if you are now arguing for a Bible translations that conveys the most accurate rendering of the original…then, I must ask you how did YHWH inspire the original writers to write? With or without His Divine name?
Since you are arguing about what is most accurate in a translation, what is more true to the original… to replace the YHWH with LORD? or to leave it in? The fact that we don’t know how it is pronounced is a completely different subject. We know how it was spelled… and we seem to have no problem translating all the other Bible characters names that are based on YHWH’s name
Perhaps you’ll remember I provided you this information before but you disappeared without comment after I did so.
Actually I was holding a discussion with Serena about BeDuhn’s book and the general lack of accuracy of most modern translations. I was encouraging her to look into the book when you joined the conversation criticizing BeDuhn’s opinion about the NWT being the most accurate since the NWT used the Divine name in the NT.
It took multiple posts for me to get you to admit you hadn’t even read BeDuhn’s book… so I still can’t understand criticizing someone’s point of view with even reviewing his reasonings in the first place.
If you’re really interested in accuracy of translation, go to the library or buy the book. Your concern about the use of the Divine Name in the NT is completely discussed and you will also learn that this concern is completely eclipsed by the more significant inaccuracies of the Bible you are using right now.
From what I’ve seen in my discussions with you, I don’t think you’re really that interested in searching for the most accurate translation…
You’d rather follow the tradition of a group of people who were rejected by YHWH than stick with the original accurate translation? And then at the same time argue about the NWT’s use of the tetragrammaton without putting forth any effort to learn the rational?
I have no animosity against Judaism.
There were promises made to them and there was a covenant established with them “if” they adhered to their part of the covenant. They didn’t uphold their part and their behavior was so bad they were rejected by Jehovah.
If you’re really interested in looking for the most accurate translation of the original text, show me by actually doing something other than trying to argue with me.
For starters, go investigate Beduhn’s book. You don’t have to agree with it. But expend some effort
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Dear Cascherman,
I will go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really are interested in finding and using the most accurate, originals. You’ll do some more study and realize the use of YHWH’s name in the Old Testament really is the most accurate method.
So, what about the use in the NT… How do people reason that out?
Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky´ri•os or The•os´ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”
As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton *, in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.” In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: “The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a•nek•pho´ne•ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI].”—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.
The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.—2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1.
Used by Jesus and his disciples. Thus, in the days of Jesus and his disciples the divine name very definitely appeared in copies of the Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts. Did Jesus and his disciples use the divine name in speech and in writing? In view of Jesus’ condemnation of Pharisaic traditions (Mt 15:1-9), it would be highly unreasonable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples let Pharisaic ideas (such as are recorded in the Mishnah) govern them in this matter. Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” He stated: “I have come in the name of my Father” (Joh 5:43); he taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified” (Mt 6:9); his works, he said, were done “in the name of my Father” (Joh 10:25); and, in prayer on the night of his death, he said he had made his Father’s name manifest to his disciples and asked, “Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name” (Joh 17:6, 11, 12, 26). In view of all of this, when Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures or read from them he certainly used the divine name, Jehovah. (Compare Mt 4:4, 7, 10 with De 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; also Mt 22:37 with De 6:5; and Mt 22:44 with Ps 110:1; as well as Lu 4:16-21 with Isa 61:1, 2.) Logically, Jesus’ disciples, including the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, would follow his example in this.
Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky´ri•os and The•os´. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
**Restoration of the divine name in translation. **Recognizing that this must have been the case, some translators have included the name Jehovah in their renderings of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ’E´ven bo´chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence. Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice.
As to the properness of this course, note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. He said: “If that [Septuagint] version had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N. T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm, instead of saying, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord,’ might have said, ‘Jehovah said unto Adoni.’”
Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: “Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Κύριος occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N. T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, wherever the expression ‘the angel of the Lord’ occurs, we know that the word Lord represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression ‘the word of the Lord’ would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title ‘the Lord of Hosts.’ Wherever, on the contrary, the expression ‘My Lord’ or ‘Our Lord’ occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used.” (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name Jehovah have proceeded.*
I will go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really are interested in finding and using the most accurate, originals. You’ll do some more study and realize the use of YHWH’s name in the Old Testament really is the most accurate method.
So, what about the use in the NT… How do people reason that out?
Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky´ri•os or The•os´ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”
As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton *, in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.” In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: “The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a•nek•pho´ne•ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI].”—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.
The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.—2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1.
Used by Jesus and his disciples. Thus, in the days of Jesus and his disciples the divine name very definitely appeared in copies of the Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts. Did Jesus and his disciples use the divine name in speech and in writing? In view of Jesus’ condemnation of Pharisaic traditions (Mt 15:1-9), it would be highly unreasonable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples let Pharisaic ideas (such as are recorded in the Mishnah) govern them in this matter. Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” He stated: “I have come in the name of my Father” (Joh 5:43); he taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified” (Mt 6:9); his works, he said, were done “in the name of my Father” (Joh 10:25); and, in prayer on the night of his death, he said he had made his Father’s name manifest to his disciples and asked, “Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name” (Joh 17:6, 11, 12, 26). In view of all of this, when Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures or read from them he certainly used the divine name, Jehovah. (Compare Mt 4:4, 7, 10 with De 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; also Mt 22:37 with De 6:5; and Mt 22:44 with Ps 110:1; as well as Lu 4:16-21 with Isa 61:1, 2.) Logically, Jesus’ disciples, including the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, would follow his example in this.
Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky´ri•os and The•os´. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
**Restoration of the divine name in translation. **Recognizing that this must have been the case, some translators have included the name Jehovah in their renderings of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ’E´ven bo´chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence. Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice.
As to the properness of this course, note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. He said: “If that [Septuagint] version had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N. T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm, instead of saying, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord,’ might have said, ‘Jehovah said unto Adoni.’”
Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: “Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Κύριος occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N. T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, wherever the expression ‘the angel of the Lord’ occurs, we know that the word Lord represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression ‘the word of the Lord’ would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title ‘the Lord of Hosts.’ Wherever, on the contrary, the expression ‘My Lord’ or ‘Our Lord’ occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used.” (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name Jehovah have proceeded.*
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “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.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6,*26.
In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write יהוה within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. ... Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. ... But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76,*77.
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “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.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6,*26.
In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write יהוה within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. ... Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. ... But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76,*77.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Wolfgang Feneberg comments in the Jesuit magazine Entschluss/Offen (April1985): “He [Jesus] did not withhold his father’s name YHWH from us, but he entrusted us with it. It is otherwise inexplicable why the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer should read: ‘May your name be sanctified!’” Feneberg further notes that “in pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God’s name was not paraphrased with kýrios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in Hebrew or archaic Hebrew characters. ..*
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Did the Early Christians Use God’s Name?
THE name of God appears thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures, where it is represented by the four consonants( יהוה YHWH, the Tetragrammaton). Archaeological finds suggest that in preexilic Israel, before 607*B.C.E., the name was in common use, and in the postexilic Bible books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Malachi, it appears frequently. Gradually, though, as the time for the appearance of the Messiah drew closer, Jews became superstitiously reluctant to use the name.
Did Jesus’ disciples use God’s name (normally rendered “Jehovah,” or “Yahweh” in English)? The evidence says yes. Jesus taught his followers to pray to God: “Let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) And at the end of his earthly ministry, he himself prayed to his heavenly Father: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world.” (John 17:6) Besides, early copies of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus’ disciples, contained God’s name in the form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.
What about the Gospels and the rest of the Christian Greek Scriptures (the “New Testament”)? It has been reasoned that since God’s name appeared in the Septuagint, it would also have appeared in the earliest copies of these Scriptures—at least where the Septuagint was quoted. Thus, the name Jehovah appears more than 200 times in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some have criticized this as unwarranted. However, there seems to be support for the New World Translation in an unlikely source: the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part of this Jewish religious work is entitled Shabbath (Sabbath) and contains an immense body of rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. In one section, there is a discussion as to whether it is proper to save Bible manuscripts from a fire on the Sabbath, and then the following passage appears: “It was stated in the text: The blank spaces [gil·yoh·nim′] and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R.*Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R.*Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand.”—Translation by Dr.*H.*Freedman.
Who were the mi·nim′? The word means “sectarians” and could refer to the Sadducees or the Samaritans. But according to Dr.*Freedman, in this passage it most likely refers to Jewish Christians. So, what were the gil·yoh·nim′, translated “blank spaces” according to Dr.*Freedman? There are two possible meanings. They could be the blank margins of a scroll or even blank scrolls. Or—in an ironic application of the word—they could be the writings of the mi·nim′, as if to say that these writings are as worthless as blank scrolls. In dictionaries this second meaning is given as “Gospels.” In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above-quoted portion reads: “The Books of Minim are like blank spaces [gil·yoh·nim′].”
Accordingly, in the book Who Was a Jew? by Lawrence H.*Schiffman, the above-quoted portion of the Talmud is translated as follows: “We do not save from a fire (on the Sabbath) the Gospels and the books of the minim (‘heretics’). Rather, they are burned in their place, they and their Tetragrammata. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: During the week, one should cut out their Tetragrammata and hide them away and burn the remainder. Said Rabbi Tarfon: May I bury my sons! If (these books) would come into my hand, I would burn them along with their Tetragrammata.” Dr.*Schiffman goes on to argue that the mi·nim′ here are Jewish Christians.
Is this portion of the Talmud really speaking about the early Jewish Christians? If so, then it is strong evidence that the Christians did include God’s name, the Tetragrammaton, in their Gospels and writings. And it is extremely likely that the Talmud is discussing Jewish Christians here. There is scholastic support for such a view, and in the Talmud the context appears to add further support. The section following the above quote from Shabbath relates a story involving Gamaliel and a Christian judge in which parts of the Sermon on the Mount are alluded to.
It was only later, when Christianity deviated from the simple teachings of Jesus, that God’s name ceased to be used by professing Christians and was even removed from copies of the Septuagint and from the Gospels and other Bible books.
THE name of God appears thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures, where it is represented by the four consonants( יהוה YHWH, the Tetragrammaton). Archaeological finds suggest that in preexilic Israel, before 607*B.C.E., the name was in common use, and in the postexilic Bible books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Malachi, it appears frequently. Gradually, though, as the time for the appearance of the Messiah drew closer, Jews became superstitiously reluctant to use the name.
Did Jesus’ disciples use God’s name (normally rendered “Jehovah,” or “Yahweh” in English)? The evidence says yes. Jesus taught his followers to pray to God: “Let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) And at the end of his earthly ministry, he himself prayed to his heavenly Father: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world.” (John 17:6) Besides, early copies of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus’ disciples, contained God’s name in the form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.
What about the Gospels and the rest of the Christian Greek Scriptures (the “New Testament”)? It has been reasoned that since God’s name appeared in the Septuagint, it would also have appeared in the earliest copies of these Scriptures—at least where the Septuagint was quoted. Thus, the name Jehovah appears more than 200 times in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some have criticized this as unwarranted. However, there seems to be support for the New World Translation in an unlikely source: the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part of this Jewish religious work is entitled Shabbath (Sabbath) and contains an immense body of rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. In one section, there is a discussion as to whether it is proper to save Bible manuscripts from a fire on the Sabbath, and then the following passage appears: “It was stated in the text: The blank spaces [gil·yoh·nim′] and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R.*Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R.*Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand.”—Translation by Dr.*H.*Freedman.
Who were the mi·nim′? The word means “sectarians” and could refer to the Sadducees or the Samaritans. But according to Dr.*Freedman, in this passage it most likely refers to Jewish Christians. So, what were the gil·yoh·nim′, translated “blank spaces” according to Dr.*Freedman? There are two possible meanings. They could be the blank margins of a scroll or even blank scrolls. Or—in an ironic application of the word—they could be the writings of the mi·nim′, as if to say that these writings are as worthless as blank scrolls. In dictionaries this second meaning is given as “Gospels.” In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above-quoted portion reads: “The Books of Minim are like blank spaces [gil·yoh·nim′].”
Accordingly, in the book Who Was a Jew? by Lawrence H.*Schiffman, the above-quoted portion of the Talmud is translated as follows: “We do not save from a fire (on the Sabbath) the Gospels and the books of the minim (‘heretics’). Rather, they are burned in their place, they and their Tetragrammata. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: During the week, one should cut out their Tetragrammata and hide them away and burn the remainder. Said Rabbi Tarfon: May I bury my sons! If (these books) would come into my hand, I would burn them along with their Tetragrammata.” Dr.*Schiffman goes on to argue that the mi·nim′ here are Jewish Christians.
Is this portion of the Talmud really speaking about the early Jewish Christians? If so, then it is strong evidence that the Christians did include God’s name, the Tetragrammaton, in their Gospels and writings. And it is extremely likely that the Talmud is discussing Jewish Christians here. There is scholastic support for such a view, and in the Talmud the context appears to add further support. The section following the above quote from Shabbath relates a story involving Gamaliel and a Christian judge in which parts of the Sermon on the Mount are alluded to.
It was only later, when Christianity deviated from the simple teachings of Jesus, that God’s name ceased to be used by professing Christians and was even removed from copies of the Septuagint and from the Gospels and other Bible books.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
A few of the many translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures that have included the divine name
Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, translated by Elias Hutter (Hebrew section); published in Nuremburg; 1599; Ephesians 5:17
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated by John Eliot (Massachuset language); published in Cambridge, Mass.; 1661; Matthew 21:9
A Literal Translation of the New Testament ... From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter; published in London; 1863; Mark 12:29,*30
Sämtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments, translated by Johann Jakob Stolz (German); published in Zurich; 1781-1782; Romans 15:11
Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, translated by Elias Hutter (Hebrew section); published in Nuremburg; 1599; Ephesians 5:17
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated by John Eliot (Massachuset language); published in Cambridge, Mass.; 1661; Matthew 21:9
A Literal Translation of the New Testament ... From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter; published in London; 1863; Mark 12:29,*30
Sämtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments, translated by Johann Jakob Stolz (German); published in Zurich; 1781-1782; Romans 15:11
- Status