Dogon, welcome, and that is a good question. It was removed out of the old testament, most copies of the OT when translated into the Greek Septuagint used Lord instead of Jehovah. It is likely for that reason that the New Testament does not contain Jehovah, as they were quoting from these OT Septuagint versions. However, there were Septuagint versions that still exist where the name Jehovah does still appear. So it does not seem that they was the "global conspiracy" to remove Jehovah that the Watchtower attempts to imply.
"Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?" WT Aug 1st 2008
by slimboyfat 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
My personal view (now) is that God's name is NOT 'Jehovah', but a name lost in ancient Hebrew. If 'Jehovah' ever appeared in the NT, then what is the Greek translation?
The JWs insist that 'Christendom' removed the name to mislead the people, yet it was a Catholic monk who 'invented' Jehovah and presumably the Catholics inserted it into the OT. If the JWs were so pedantic about getting God's name right, they would surely adopt something closer to the original pronounciation than a Catholic monk's invention.
I (now) believe that JWs break the Commandment, ''I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..." ...because they have invented one in HIS place.
-
dozy
Good analysis Slim. Helpful & interesting.
-
minimus
The Watchtower basically admits that the manuscripts were tampered with. So, since they can't be trusted, I'd say the real point is, no one can really know what else has been effected. Maybe the other books hidden, shouldn't be considered "apochraphal". Maybe someone in the NWT added an "a" in John 1:1.
When the Watchtowe tries to suggest that the scriptures have been tampered with, then the whole Bible is suspect, wouldn't you say???
-
Mr. Kim
LOL !
"What's in a name, you ask? Everything— that is, if the name happens to be the personal Name of God. While scholars may debate the exact pronunciation of YHWH until the world ends, the simple fact of scripture remains: The biblical deity whom we call Jehovah in English, emphatically states in his word that he will have his personal name declared in all the earth and that he will produce a people who not only call on his name but who themselves are called by his distinctive name. "
Different scholars have different ideas about how the name YHWH was originally pronounced.
"In The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., page 74, Dr. M. Reisel said that the "vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been Y e HuàH or YaHuàH."
Canon D. D. Williams of Cambridge held that the "evidence indicates, nay almost proves, that Jahwéh was not the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton . . . The Name itself was probably JAHÔH."—Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Periodical for Old Testament Knowledge), 1936, Volume 54, page 269.
In the glossary of the French Revised Segond Version, page 9, the following comment is made: "The pronunciation Yahvé used in some recent translations is based on a few ancient witnesses, but they are not conclusive. If one takes into account personal names that include the divine name, such as the Hebrew name of the prophet Elijah (Eliyahou) the pronunciation might just as well be Yaho or Yahou."
In 1749 the German Bible scholar Teller told of some different pronunciations of God's name he had read: "Diodorus from Sicily, Macrobius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Saint Jerome and Origenes wrote Jao; the Samaritans, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Jahe, or Jave; Ludwig Cappel reads Javoh; Drusius, Jahve; Hottinger, Jehva; Mercerus, Jehovah; Castellio, Jovah; and le Clerc, Jawoh, or Javoh."
Thus it is evident that the original pronunciation of God's name is no longer known. Nor is it really important. If it were, then God himself would have made sure that it was preserved for us to use. The important thing is to use God's name according to its conventional pronunciation in our own language.
John W. Davis, a missionary in China during the 19th century, explained why he believed that God's name should be in the Bible: "If the Holy Ghost says Jehovah in any given place in the Hebrew, why does the translator not say Jehovah in English or Chinese? What right has he to say, I will use Jehovah in this place and a substitute for it in that? . . . If any one should say that there are cases in which the use of Jehovah would be wrong, let him show the reason why; the onus probandi [burden of proof] rests upon him. He will find the task a hard one, for he must answer this simple question,—If in any given case it is wrong to use Jehovah in the translation then why did the inspired writer use it in the original?"—The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, Volume VII, Shanghai, 1876."
Why use the name Jehovah?
"As you no doubt are aware, God’s name was originally written in the Hebrew Scriptures in the form on an abbreviation using the four letters YHWH called the Tetragrammaton. No doubt back when the Bible writers used the YHWH they knew how it ought to be pronounced.
Unfortunately, over the ages the true pronunciation has been lost due to the fact that no one can say with certainty which vowels ought to be inserted into YHWH. We may be sure, though, that the name “Jehovah” is not the Hebrew way of pronouncing the Divine name. The reason being, obviously, that the YHWH does not contain a “J.” . How did it come about that YHWH came to have a J-sound? . Under the topic of Tetragrammaton Wikipedia says: “The "J" in "Jehovah" is a result of Martin Luther's rendering of the Biblical Hebrew name ??????? in his German translation of the Masoretic Text first published in 1534. Due to the fluid position of the letters J and I in English before the 17th century Luther's convention fit with earlier English transcriptions and thus was retained in early English translations. The Encyclopedia Americana states: The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J,l) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.” So, evidently the English invention of the letter “J” originally had a “Y” sound, but gradually it changed. That’s the nature of languages – they change over time. But, the argument could be made that keeping the “J” spelling of Jehovah is consistent with the fact that all proper Hebrew names that were originally spelled with a “Y” are spelled with a “J” in English. Names like Jeremiah, Joshua, and Jehoshaphat and so on, were written in Hebrew with a “Y.” As for the name Yah-weh, there are reasons to object to that pronunciation. True, the “Y” is in keeping with the original consonant of the Tetragrammaton, but it falls short in not reflecting the fact that YHWH probably was pronounced using three syllables – not two. The same Wikipedia article goes on to point out that the 1st century Jewish historian, Josephus, stated that YHWH was pronounced with four vowels. But, there are valid reasons to believe that it was three, and the middle syllable had an “O” sound. This is reflected in the many Hebrew names that incorporated parts of the Divine name either as a prefix or suffix. Proper Hebrew names like Je-ho-ram, Je-hoi-da, Je-hoi-a-chin, Je-hoi-a-kim, Je-hon-a-than and others, apparently incorporated the first two syllabic sounds of YHWH, which indicates that the middle vowel sound was “HO.” The pronunciation of “Jehovah” is in keeping with the pronunciation of numerous derivatives of the Divine name. Yahweh is lacking in that regard. . In my opinion, what's important is not so much trying to imitate an unknowable Hebrew pronunciation, but rather, using a form of the name that is consistent with the way other biblical Hebrew names are pronounced in English. The name "Jehovah" fits that criteria. " Nuff Said! But of course, some of you already know this don't you? LMAO!
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Very good thread!!!
SlimBoyFat said:
"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."
Good point! In fact, I would think that this would be a good argument against the Watchtower's theory that "apostates" removed the Divine Name from the New Testament. If they did that, why would the "apostates" have left the Divine Name inside of Revelation?
There is a very informative webpage on Wikipedia about this topic of the Divine Name in the New Testament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament
Here is one quote from that Wikipedia page:
"At least some, but not necessarily all, of the copies [of the Septuagint] available at that time still contained the Tetragrammaton. It is not possible to determine whether or not the writers of the New Testament made use of copies that included the Tetragrammaton."
That same Wikipedia page also has this to say:
An article by George Howard in the March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review set forth this thesis 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." His position was included in his article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, where he stated: "There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the OT quotations in the NT when the NT documents were first penned."
This thesis has not found wide acceptance, and Howard has qualified it: "my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief."
jwfacts said:When the Watchtower is attempting to make a JW feel the Bible is inerrant - the perfect word of God - they have a very different message.
Great point! Take a look at this Watchtower quote from the "Live Forever on a Paradise Earth" book, pages 52-53:
But you may ask: ‘How can we be sure that our Bibles today have the same information that the Bible writers received from God?’ With the copying and recopying of the Bible books over hundreds and even thousands of years, have not mistakes crept in? Yes, but these mistakes have been discovered and corrected in modern translations of the Bible. Today the information is the same as God provided to those who first wrote it down. What proof is there of this?
[...] there are thousands of very old copies of the Greek Scriptures, some of which copies date back nearly to the time of Jesus and his apostles. Thus, as Sir Frederic Kenyon said: “The last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”—The Bible and Archaeology, pages 288, 289.
[...] So anyone who says that the Bible does not contain the same information as when it was originally written simply does not know the facts. Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today.—Psalm 12:6, 7; Daniel 12:4; 1 Peter 1:24, 25; Revelation 22:18, 19.
Minimus said:
When the Watchtower tries to suggest that the scriptures have been tampered with, then the whole Bible is suspect, wouldn't you say???
Exactly! I think one of the best questions to ask any JW is: "If God has protected His Word, why would He allow His Name to be removed from the New Testament?" Or, "If God allowed His own sacred Name to be removed by apostates, then how do we know that the rest of the New Testament is accurate and not tampered with?"