"Jehovah" in the NWT OT

by Doug Mason 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

Doug Mason

Once more I look to the “JWD brains trust” for assistance and information.
Over the years, much has been discussed and written on the WTS’s use of the “Jehovah” in its NWT translation of the “Christian Greek Scriptures” (New Testament, or NT). However, I have not seen a similarly exhaustive treatment of the WTS’s use of “Jehovah” in its NWT translation of the “Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures” (Old Testament, OT).
I am interested in locating an analysis of the procedures and reasons used by the translator at the key instances where the NWT OT has “Jehovah”.
On the surface, it would appear to be a straightforward task for the translator to write “Jehovah” in place of YHWH from the Masoretic Text (MT) and for Adonai from the Septuagint (LXX).
The following excerpt indicates the nature of the information I seek. It is from a 1956 article by Walter E. Stuermann (A Journal of Bible and Theology, The Bible and Modern Religions, III. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Vol 10, 1956, pages 323 to 346).
At that time of the article, the NWT had released Volumes I (Genesis- Ruth) and II (I Samuel – Esther).
Stuermann wrote that he “tried to be sympathetic and understanding” and that he tried to avoid assuming an attitude of “depreciation toward them” (page 324). Writing of the publication of the NWT, Stuermann said “The New World Society deserves commendation for its efforts”. (page 339)
Following the passage from Stuermann, I list some of my questions:
---------------------------------
[page 343] The divine name Jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton and in some one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation. …
The main Hebrew text employed in making the version was the Masoretic text found in the seventh edition of Rudolph Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. Auxiliary texts such as that of C. D. Ginsburg were employed. The Leningrad manuscript of the Hebrew Bible and the Cairo manu-script of the Prophets apparently have been consulted. Reference is made to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, the Targums, the Syriac Peshitta, the Vulgate, and the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. As an indication of the extent of their use of textual evidence, the frequencies of the citations of LXX, Vg., Syr., Sam., Pent., Targums, and O. L. in the Book of Genesis are, respectively, III, 86, 43, 15, 5, and I. No description is given of the principles observed in weighing the manuscript evidence, either here or in the case of the New Testament volume. …
[page 344] The shift in divine names (Elohim to Yahweh) in the middle of Genesis 2:4 is not for them a clue to a change in documentary sources. The whole verse is taken as a conclusion to the account of the creative process in Genesis 1:1-2:3. By this device as well as others, they intend to maintain the essential continuity of the two accounts of the creation. How they cope with the problem created by the two accounts of the creation of man (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:7) and other dual accounts is obscure. The plural form, Elohim, they explain, is a plural of excellence or majesty and does not signify a plurality in nature or personality. This comment is very interesting. First, it is one of the forms of the fallacy of figure of speech—arguing from a linguistic form to the nature of things. Second, if it is motivated by the thought that the theologians of the tradition would found the doctrine of the trinity on this plural form (Watchtower, September 1, 1953, p. 536), it is a case of the fallacy of arguing from a hypothesis contrary to fact. The translators would have served their own cause better had they carefully restricted the notes to purely textual matters. In Genesis 18:3 is found the first of the one hundred and thirty-four cases where the translators restore the tetragrammaton in place of what they consider to be a scribal emendation of Adonai. In Exodus 3:14, responding to Moses' request for the divine name, God designates him-self as "I shall prove to be" (RSV: "I am."). At Exodus 6:3 their text reads: "And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them." Their note on this passage says that the last clause can be construed as a question, "also as respects my name Jehovah did I not make myself known to them?" No justification is given for this and it appears to be an attempt to revise the passage to fit their belief that God was known by the elect under his name Jehovah from the earliest times. Throughout the Octateuch care is taken to make note of all the uses of the various forms of the divine names, Yahweh, Adonai, El, Elohim. The readings of the Septuagint and Vulgate are cited at these points.
-------------
1. Are OT translations normally based on the MT or on the LXX?
2. Stuermann writes: “The divine name Jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton.” Is he speaking of just the 2 Volumes that had been released at the time he wrote his article?
3. He also writes of “one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation”. Pardon my ignorance, but what is an “emendation”? Secondly, is there a list of these “emendations”? What do these tell us about the translator of the NWT OT?
4. Stuermann writes: “In Genesis 18:3 is found the first of the one hundred and thirty-four cases where the translators restore the tetragrammaton in place of what they consider to be a scribal emendation of Adonai.” Was the NWT OT translator justified at this instance? (I thought Adonai would come from the LXX. I am perplexed.)
5. Does the MT at Exodus 3:14 contain YHWH? Is the translator justified in having “Jehovah” at this verse?
6. Is it possible to determine whether the NWT OT translator has been consistently correct with every use of “Jehovah”?
7. Conversely, is it possible to show that the translator has allowed theological prejudice influence appearances of “Jehovah”?
Finally, I would note that I have a copy of the article in JBL 24/1905 “The Divine Name in Exodus iii.14”, pages 107—165 by William Arnold, but I find it difficult to read Hebrew. Maybe someone could comment on Arnold’s article for me and tell me if it is relevant to the NWT OT.
Doug
Narkissos

Interesting excerpt.
1. Are OT translations normally based on the MT or on the LXX? MT.
2. Stuermann writes: “The divine name Jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton.” Is he speaking of just the 2 Volumes that had been released at the time he wrote his article? Probably not. The figure corresponds roughly to the total of OT occurrences.
3. He also writes of “one hundred and thirty-four other cases of emendation”. Pardon my ignorance, but what is an “emendation”? Secondly, is there a list of these “emendations”? What do these tell us about the translator of the NWT OT? In that case, the "emendations" are modifications introduced to the text by the Jewish scribes (sopherim) as remembered by the scribal tradition (tiqqune sopherim) and indicated in the margin of the Masoretic manuscripts (masorah). As regards the Tetragrammaton, substitutions in the text could occur where the context was perceived as particularly offensive. Whether the tradition is correct (the text was actually modified) or not is to be assessed on a case by case basis.
4. Stuermann writes: “In Genesis 18:3 is found the first of the one hundred and thirty-four cases where the translators restore the tetragrammaton in place of what they consider to be a scribal emendation of Adonai.” Was the NWT OT translator justified at this instance? (I thought Adonai would come from the LXX. I am perplexed.) He may have been right. The MT has 'dny, 'adonay (LXX kurie), which may replace an older Yhwh (addressing the three men, or one of them, as "Yhwh" may have been perceived as offensive). Otoh, it is also possible that 'dny is original and to be understood as a simple plural, "my lords" -- but what follows is in the singular (in the MT).
5. Does the MT at Exodus 3:14 contain YHWH? Is the translator justified in having “Jehovah” at this verse? Neither the MT has Yhwh nor the NWT has Jehovah in v. 14. In v. 15, yes, but it's correct (leaving aside the transliteration issue).
6. Is it possible to determine whether the NWT OT translator has been consistently correct with every use of “Jehovah”? That would require examining the whole list in context...
7. Conversely, is it possible to show that the translator has allowed theological prejudice influence appearances of “Jehovah”? Idem. As to Genesis 18:3, it is hardly the case as popular apologetics sometimes use this verse to back up the Trinity -- and I don't think the NW Translators were particularly eager to have the three men called "Jehovah" instead of "lord(s)".
I can't access the article you are referring to quickly, but unless nobody else has it available you can send me a scan of it. In that case I'll pm you my e-mail address.
abbagail

Well, studious friend, you're over my head with most of your Qs, but I might can help with #2:

"2. Stuermann writes: “The divine name Jehovah is used at the 6,823 places of the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton.” Is he speaking of just the 2 Volumes that had been released at the time he wrote his article?"

I don't think so, because I still have my old JW bible, and in the front I had written (from obviously learning this at meetings on in WT mags), that in the completed NWT (OT and NT in their entirety), they used "Jehovah":

6,962 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT)

--and--

237 times in the Greek (NT).

For a total of 7,199 times in the entire NWT (I believe this copy of the NWT I have is a 1970's-something version).

-------------------------

As for your Q #5:

"5. Does the MT at Exodus 3:14 contain YHWH? Is the translator justified in having “Jehovah” at this verse?"

The KJV used the MT, so we could start from there:

"The translators of the King James Version used the Masoretic text of the Hebrew for the translation of the OT, and Erasmus' Greek text called the Textus Receptus for the translation of the NT." http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/bibhistory.htm

Also in that same NWT I have here, I had written in the front pages that the KJV uses Jehovah at:

Ex. 6:3
Ps. 83:18
Isa. 12:2 and
Isa. 26:4

No mention (by the WT) of the KJV using Jehovah at Ex. 3:14.

------------

But let's look up Ex. 3:14 at this scripture search engine:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm?help=strongs

I chose KJV with definitions for each Hebrew word...

(KJV with def window) Exodus 3:14
And God said ---- unto Moses , I AM ---- THAT I AM ---- : and he said ---- , Thus shalt thou say ---- unto the children of Israel , I AM hath sent ---- me unto you.

Definitions for the first and second instances of "I AM" in Ex. 3:14...

Old Testament Hebrew for ', I AM '

01961 hayah {haw-yaw}
a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT - 491; v
AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become,
pertained, better for thee; 75
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
(strong's number 1961)

----------------------

Definition for the third instance of "I AM"..

Old Testament Hebrew for ', I AM hath sent '

07971 shalach {shaw-lakh'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2394; v
AV - send 566, go 73, (send, put,...) forth 54, send away 48, lay 14,
send out 12, put 10, put away 7, cast out 7, stretch out 5,
cast 5, set 5, put out 4, depart 4, soweth 3, loose 3, misc 22; 847
(strong's number 7971)

-------------------------------------------

This is a process of deduction, since I'm no scholar.... But in the first/second definitions for I AM = haw-yaw. Maybe the WT figures haw-yaw is a form of YHWH-?

The definition includes "COME TO PASS" and "BECOME" and that is one of the things the WT taught, that Jehovah's name means "HE CAUSES TO BECOME" (ie, He will be whatever he chooses to be)...

----------------

FWIW, I just learned in the recent past what it REALLY means is that He will BECOME More and More REVEALED to Mankind (all the way to the last book in the Bible, the REVELATION. SO God has been continually REVEALING himself through the ages, and in the end He will be completely revealed to mankind. Of course we are talking about Jesus IS JEHOVAH, but that's a whole 'nother story).

---------------------------------------------------

OK, I'm getting outta here because I know I am way over my head. Hope some of the brains pipe in to help you out.

/ag
moggy lover

All the oldest and best MSS of the Hebrew Bible have, on every page, beside the actual text of Scripture, which is usually arranged in two or more columns, a varying number of lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. This smaller writing is called the "Massorah" There are two types of Massorah. Those on the upper and lower margins are called the Massorah Magna or "Great Massorah" and those in between the columns are called the "Massorah Parva" or "Lesser Massorah".
Evidently this word "Massorah" is derived from a Hebrew root word "Mas'ar" meaning "To deliver something into the hand of another" so as to commit it to that person's trust. the implication being that the information contained in these two "Massorahs" contained information necessary to those who were entrusted with preserving the text of Scripture through the process of copying. Most of these notes, or Massorah placed in and around the text were textual in nature, sometimes even counting the number of times a certain letter occured in the text, so that a future copyist may allign the text exactly according to the source material he was using.
Sometimes, as Narkissos has said these notes were doctrinal in nature when it was perceived that the text, in its original may have implied some degree of disrespect to Yahweh. There are 134 passages where the ancient copyists of the Sacred Text, the Sopherim, said that they emmended the text to replace the Tetragrammaton with "Adonai" because they felt that the original reading threathened the integrity of Yahweh's soverignity.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr David Ginsburg, who was born in 1831 in Poland, and who emigrated to the UK in 1841, after his conversion to Christianity from Judaism for his tremendous labour over the ancient Hebrew text. Although he died in 1914, he is still regarded in the UK, at least, as the greatest scholar on the Massorah ever. It is he who listed all the 134 occurences of the Sopherim Emmendations.
If you take a look at the Hebrew text as we have it today, at Josh 7:8, it would read, in English as "O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned [their] backs before their enemies" [NASV] this is because the text says "Adonai" but the Massorah, in the upper margin will have a note saying: "This is one of the emmendations of the Sofferim" thus suggesting that the original reading may have been "YHWH" at this verse. Assuming the emmendation to be correct, the NWT in contrast, has "Excuse me, Jehovah" I rather suspect that it was precisely because of such applaing translation skills, that the Sopherim may have removed the Tetragramm from here. They hated the idea of such human familiarity with the Deity.
It is not possible to determine the extent of the ancient copyists accuracy in their emmendations, and Ginsburg himself made no comment on such veracity, as a result, all translators feel that the text should be rendered as to how it has been preserved till today. That is why translators today say "Lord" not LORD at Josh 7:8. There is one edition of the KJV, however, published in the late 19th C by a renegade extreme Dispensationalist, named Ethelbert Bullinger, whose edition reads like a Massorah, considering his notes, which actually reads as "LORD" here. The similarity in quotations between Bullinger's edition and the NWT makes it certain the Franz had this volume before him.
It is beyond the scope of this limited post, to list all the 134 emmendations, but here are some:
Num 14:17, Josh 7:8, Jud 6:15, 13:8, 1K 3:10, 3:15, 22:6, 2K 7:6, 19:23, Isaiah 3:17, 3:18, 4:4, 6:1, 6:8, 6:11, 7:14, 7:20, 8:7, 9:8, 9:17, 10:12, 11:11, 21:6, 21:8, 21:16, 28:2, 29:13, 30:20, 37:24, 38:14, 38:16, 49:14 etc. The complete list of 134 emmendations is available in the NWT with References, pg 1563. If you dont have acess to this volume, pm me and I'll send you the complete list. You will have to promise your wife that you'll wash the dishes for at least a week though!
In addition to emmending the text from YHWH to Adonai in 134 places, Ginsburg found 8 additional places where the ancient copyists emmended the text from YHWH to "Elohim" These were at: Ps 14:1,2,5; 53:1,2,4,5,6. Most translators will read "God" here but Franz "restored" the Tetramgamm making these texts read "jehovah"
To be frank, I don't know why Franz bothered bringing out an interlinear NT, when his argument would best have been served by bringing out an interlinear OT. He could have had a field day with his copious notes justifying his renderings, rather than relying on special pleading as he had to resort to in his NT.
Cheers
FireNBandits

Your questions have already been more than adequately addressed, so I will add something new to the mix. The NT writers, when they quote the OT, mainly do so from the LXX, the Septuagint. A majority of the OT quotations in the NT are in fact from the Septuagint, only a minority from Hebrew. When the NT writers do use a Hebrew text it generally isn’t the Masoretic text, but another form of the Hebrew text. The LXX was the “Bible” used by Christ and the apostles, as well as the early Church, and this includes the so-called deuterocanonicals, or “second canon” which evangelicals and fundamentalists disparage as “apocrypha.” (My response to these people is, “If it was good enough fer Jesus well then by-cracky it’s good enough fer me!”) It was the Christian reliance on the LXX that led the Jewish people to repudiate the LXX and rely on Hebrew texts. The Christian Church had such success in evangelizing Jews using such books as The Wisdom of Solomon that the Jewish people repudiated the “second canon” and closed their canon, accepting only the thirty nine books that protestants use today.

In other words, protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists are not following Christ and the apostles, but the Jews, in their selection of OT text. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the NT is in fact inspired by God in the manner and extent that evangelicals and fundamentalists claim that it is. Why, then, do these groups insist on using the Masoretic text in clear opposition to Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the other NT authors, and the early Christian Church? (The Roman Catholic Church eventually embraced the Latin Vulgate, but the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church continued using the LXX just as Jesus and the apostles did, right up to the present day.) If you believe the NT is inspired by God and is “inerrant and infallible in the original languages and manuscripts” then that means that Jesus, the Apostles, and the other NT writers WERE INSPIRED BY GOD--INERRANTLY AND INFALLIBLY--IN PREFERRING THE LXX OVER THE HEBREW TEXT!

Why aren’t you following suit? Do you know better than God? Than Jesus, the apostles, and the NT writers?If you’re interested, you can download the Apostolic Bible for free. It’s to be found here (Thank you for the link Leolaia):

http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/

One of the interesting features of the LXX is that it's noticeably more “Messianic” than the Masoretic text. By that I mean the LXX is worded in such a way that more of the OT can be taken in a Messianic way than can the Hebrew text. This is one of the reasons (not the ONLY reason) why the early Christians much preferred it to the Hebrew text, and apparently God Himself concurred as He inspired the NT writers and Jesus Himself to rely mainly on the LXX!

A well known example of the LXX being more “Messianic” than the Masoretic text is the use of the Greek word “parthenos” (virgin) rather than the Hebrew word “almah” (maiden or young woman) when quoting Isaiah, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive…” etc. The NT writer quoted th LXX, not the Hebrew text.
Another example is the LXX of Psalm 2:11-12: “Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way.” The Masoretic Hebrew text merely says: “Do obeisance to purity lest He be angry and you perish.”

These are just two examples. I’m sure Leo and Narkissos can give more, as well as take this argument into the stratosphere.

However, one of the principles of Textual Criticism is that one takes as authentic the reading that best explains the genesis of the variant readings. So, to determine which reading is authentic, we must ask ourselves, Does it make more sense that Psalm 2:11-12 originally read “Kiss the Son” in Hebrew, but because of the Christian church the Jews altered it to “Do obeisance to purity” OR does it make more sense that it originally read “Do obeisance to purity” and the Jews altered it to “Kiss the Son” when they made the LXX? The second scenario does not make much sense at all, whereas the first scenario makes a lot of sense. So, I propose that the LXX better reflects the earliest Hebrew text in this instance. The Masoretic Hebrew text does not. Plus, God Himself concurs with me! I have proof because the Holy Spirit inspired the use of the LXX over and above the Hebrew text!
So, I leave the argument there, but encourage all of you to familiarize yourself with the LXX, the Bible of Jesus, the Apostles, the other NT writers, and the early Christian Church. (In fact, as I said, the LXX has always been the OT of the Christian East.)

As to the deuterocaonicals, they were universally accepted in the Christian Church, east and west, until Martin Luther (and other "reformers") decided these books needed to be excised from the Bible. Luther alos excised the book of James, which he labeled “an epistle of straw.” Why aren’t you fundamentalists and evangelicals following the early Church as to the deuterocanonicals but are instead following Martin Luther? (BTW Luther was also a rabid anti-Semite and his ravings served as one of the inspirations of Adolph Hitler, who quoted Luther quite often as justification for his treatment of the Jews.)

If one objects to the deuterocanonicals because they aren’t quoted in the NT, well, neither are Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon. Does that make those books uninspired? If not, then neither does it make the deuterocanonicals uninspired. Ya'll cain't have yer cake and eat it too!

Neener neener neener. -Saint Martin of Detroit
Leolaia

Narkissos has given a solid answer to this question. There may be room for bias in the NWT for preferring "Jehovah" over "Lord" in the emendations (as I would suspect that Franz wanted the total number of instances of "Jehovah" to be as high as possible for bragging rights), but this is pure speculation on my part...I would have to see exactly how many emendations they accepted and the contextual grounds for each.
The main problem with the OT is the huge time gap between the oldest MT manuscripts and the times of composition (mostly between the seventh and the third century BC). While the gap in the NT may be a matter of decades or a century or two, in the OT it is a matter of many hundreds of years -- over a millennium at least. In that time, many variant editions came out of the individual OT books. The MT is just one such stream, tho it came to be the standard text.
*lost*

bumped
Band on the Run

This is slightly off-topic. Such a discussion would be grounds for disfellowship. Israel sent part of the Dead Sea Scrolls on tour to the United States. I was surprised at how many of the hotly debated and important scrolls were allowed out of the country. I cried and had goose bumps when I was in the exhibit.
The commentary annoyed me b/c it was written for a bland, Protestant audience. I wish true scholars had a place in the exhibit. An interesting part for me was to see actual part of the Isaiah scroll. A literal translation was available, then a translation that the international committee agreed upon as accurate. To my shock, so much was supplied by the translators. It fascinated me that most scriptures' translations were agreed upon by a unanimous committee. Other scriptures, though, remain hotly debated as to a correct translation.
Before I saw the Dead Sea scrolls, I thought that excellent command of Hebrew would be enough. So much context is involved. It stunned me.
When I was in college, we had a guest lecturer from Union Theological who actually was one of the first to open the scrolls. His arrogance was unbelievable. He talked of major disputes within committees. It was funny b/c a video played in the exhibit that showed how these famous academics did more damage to the scrolls in a few weeks than centuries in the desert did. They smoked, did not wear gloves, and had open windows.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are but a portion of the OT. If there is so much discussion and debate with modern technology and studies, how likely is it that Freddie Franz translated correctly? I respect that alternate visions presented themselves. Debate was encouraged. This is reality. My parents knew others on the committee for the NWT. I believe they had mediocre skills at best.
bsmart

I remember when the green bible was released and the gossip was the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed all the new changes in it. Years after I walked away I did a little research. We accepted so much on faith!
EndofMysteries

Here is an interlinear of the hebrew scriptures, YHWH is there, a more accurate translations would be Yahweh but anyway it's in the OT unlike the NT. In the NT, when it quotes the OT, that can be a safe assumption but when not quoting the OT, whenever they insert Jehovah is shaky.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

"Jehovah" in the NWT OT

Share this