Has this new article in the WT been discussed here yet? If so I missed it. Anyway here are some selected quotes with my own thoughts.
Bible scholars acknowledge that God's personal name appears in the Old Testament, or Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts of the so-called New Testament.
As far as I have been able to gather there are only two scholars who have published in support of the Tetragrammaton being original to the New Testament: George Howard and David Trobisch. Howard argued tentatively that positing the Tetragram's use in the early NT could help explain certain textual and theological problems surrounding the extant text. Howard has since distanced himself from the use Jehovah's Witnesses have made of his articles on the subject. Watchtower writers seem to be unaware of Trobisch's support for their position, or at least they have not yet made reference to it. How can this Watchtower writer who is likely only aware of a single scholar who supports their view state that: "many feel that it did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts of the so-called New Testament"? Should it not rather read: "all but one or possibly two scholars..."? Notice also the pejorative use of the word "feel". Who really is relying on "feelings" and who on the evidence in this instance?
The manuscripts of the New Testament that we possess today are not the originals. The original manuscripts written by Matthew, John, Paul, and others were well used, and no doubt they quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made. Of the thousands of copies of the New Testament in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were penned. It appears that by that time those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammton with Kurios or Kyrios, the Greek word for "Lord," or copied from manuscrips where this had been done.
The vast majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced many centuries later in fact. This is how the whole Majority Text debate arises. However substantial portions of the NT survive in fragments dating from around 200 CE, and possibly slightly earlier. Watchtower writers are aware of this and make frequent mention of the Chester Beatty papyri and Bodmer papyri when their purpose is to argue for the reliability of the NT text. Of course the phrase "It appears that by that time those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton..." is a deliciously classic example of the Watchtower writer assuming from the start that which he has promised to prove, namely that the Tetragram was there in the NT text to start with.
The writer offers four proofs that the original NT contained the Tetragram:
When Jesus quoted the Old Testament or read from it, he used the divine name.
The writer is correct there is good evidence for the use the Tetragram in early copies of the Septuagint to which Jesus would have had access. This evidence is not conclusive, but a good case can be made. However in reading a Greek text that used the Tetragram how would Jesus have pronounced it? There is evidence that where the Tetragram survived in texts it was replaced by a substitute when read out loud. And in recording Jesus' words many years later would Gospel writers necessarily have used the Tetragram in their texts?
Jesus used God's name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26)
If those texts mean to imply that the actual use of a certain name for the deity was important in Jesus' ministry, then it is odd that they fail to mention the fact. These scriptures are often cited by Watchtower writers, but I have yet to see the case being made that Jesus or the Gospel writers felt that using a certain form of the divine name in speech or in writing was integral to 'making God's name known'.
The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Greek Scriptures.
Why the fact that the Greek form Alleluia appears in Revelation should be evidence that the Tetragram was used elsewhere in the NT is not clear. The Watchtower writer does not explain the connection here.
Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws completed about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: "The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from the fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are,... they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.
This is an interesting reference that the WT uses from time to time. I would like to know more about the background to this. From what I have read it is not agreed that the reference is necessarily to Christians, or if they were they may have been the Ebionites who were ostracised by the wider church. If the Ebionites used the Tetragram in their texts this is not necessarily an argument in favour of the Tetragram being in the original New Testament.
Is the New World Translation the only Bible that restored God's name when translating the Greek Scriptures? No. Based upon the above evidence, many Bible translators have felt that the divine name should restored when they translate the New Testament.
Other translations do indeed use forms of the divine name in the New Testament, however it is misleading to state that they do so on the basis of the same evidence that the WT draws upon. Other translations that use forms of the divine name do so for reasons altogether unrelated to the WT's idiosyncratic textual and theological arguments. The vast majority of translations that use variants of Jehovah and Yahweh were produced by missionaries for use in Africa, America and Asia. They used a personal name for God in the New Testament because they believed the cultures they were transmitting the message to would welcome the use of a personal name for God. It was never intended as a statement about any supposed evidence for originality of the Tetragram in the NT.
Other versions such as J.W.C. Wand's translation of the New Testament letters use Jehovah apparently for stylistic reasons rather than because they agree with the WT view that the Tetragram was in the original NT.
Like a judge who is called to decide a court case for which there are no living eyewitnesses, the New World Bible Translation Committee carefully weighed all the relevant evidence. Based on the facts, they decided to include Jehovah's name in their translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Note two compelling reasns why they did so.
(1) The translators believed that since the Christians Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah's name from the text seemed inconsistent.
This is a theological rather than a textual argument. It seems to me this is a basically more honest presentation of the reasons behind their inclusion of Jehovah in the New Testament. Of course it excludes the possibility that the sacred texts are simply inconsistent on this matter. As Evangelicals have pointed out, some of the Psalms are reproductions of earlier Psalms with the divine name removed. So it is not without precedent within the Hebrew Bible itself that Bible writers removed Jehovah and replaced it with God and Lord.
(2) When copies of the Septuagint were discovered that used the divine name rather than Kyrios (Lord), it became evident to the translators that in Jesus' day copies of the earlier Scriptures in Greek - and of course in Hebrew - did contain the divine name. Apparently, the God-dishonouring tradition of removing the divine name from Greek manuscripts developed only later. What do you think? Would Jesus and his apostles have promoted such a tradition? - Matthew 15:6-9.
Again this is a theological argument. The Watchtower writer and the NWT translators before him are using their theology to determine what the text should say rather than relying upon the best reconstructed text to inform their theology.
Really, the Scriptures themselves act as a conclusive "eyewitness" statement that early Christians did in fact use Jehovah's name in their writings, especially when they quoted passages from the Old Testament that contain that name. Without a doubt, then, the New World Translation has a clear basis for restoring the divine name Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The writer does seem to have got caught up in his own rhetoric here: "conclusive 'eyewitness' statement" and "without a doubt"? The Watchtower writer also slips in at the end the phrase: "especially when they quoted passages from the Old Testament". Apart from the theological arguments toward the end of the article, the evidence cited related entirely to the use of the divine name within OT quotes.