What are the "Hebrew versions" of the Christian Greek Scriptures referred to in Appendix 1 of the New World Translation?

by yadda yadda 2 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    Appendix 1 of the New World Translation is entitled "The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Christian Greek Scriptures "Jehovah." - Hebrew (YHWH or JHVH)"

    It says in part: "To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from available Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures to confirm our rendering."

    I'm quite familiar with the Watchtower Society's rationale for inserting the name Jehovah into the CGS 237 times, having read Ray Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom in depth (I am currently re-reading chapter 14 - "A People for His Name) and other commentaries on the subject, and I realise that that Society's above claim of being cautious and not overstepping the bounds of a translator is questionable at best since there is not a single extant copy of the CGS that contain the tetragrammaton, but I am curious to know exactly what 'Hebrew versions' they have relied on in deciding to insert the divine name in the CGS where they have?

    (I seem to recall reading once about some dark ages Hebrew version they have particularly relied on. Perhaps their book "All Scripture is Inspired" has more on the subject, which I will dig out.)

    Can anyone help with this?

    Thanks

  • InterestedOne
    InterestedOne

    The introduction in the NWT reference bible has a list of the "J" references, and some of them are Hebrew translations of the Greek scriptures. For example J^7 through J^19. Also, J^22, 23, and 26.

  • xelder
    xelder
  • possible-san
    possible-san

    yadda yadda 2.

    Possibly, the following website may have the information which you need.
    http://www.tetragrammaton.org/tetrapdxa.html#appendix

    http://www.tetragrammaton.org/hvs.html
    http://www.tetragrammaton.org/

    Well, personally, I recognize the importance of the Hebrew NT having the Tetragrammaton/YHWH.
    My website:
    http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link03.html
    http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link05.html

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/219463/1/Hebraic-Roots-Bible-PDF-and-e-Sword-module

    But the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton/YHWH is "Adonai."
    (IMO, probably Jesus also pronounced so. Therefore, there is no Divine Name in the NT. They did write it as "Kyrios.")
    Therefore, Bible translators should not render it as "Jehovah" like the NWT, IMO.
    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/218456/1/MP3-Hebrew-New-Testament-1995-Bible-Society-in-Israel

    Possibly, in the NT, the "Tetragrammaton/YHWH" was replaced with the name of "Jesus."
    That is, the leading part in the NT is "Jesus."
    Or, Jesus may be Yahweh (I AM).

    possible

  • sir82
    sir82

    There were several translations of the New Testament into Hebrew from the 14th thru the 20th centuries.

    In those Hebrew translations of the original Greek manuscripts, the translators occasionally used "YHWH" in place of the Greek "Kyrios" (Lord).

    This is the principal justification for the Society's insertion of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times.

    Yes, it is their principal justifcation, despite the facts that:

    -- These Hebrew translations were made 1000+ years after the oldest known manuscripts of the New Testament;

    -- They were made 1300+ years after the original (now lost) manuscripts were written;

    -- Those translations were made by "apostate Jews" who don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah

    In the latest elders' school, a big hoo-doo was made about all those "J" translations of the Bible, and "SEE? We aren't the only ones to put 'Jehovah' in there!!!"

    Believe it or not the facts I cited above were not mentioned at all.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    This is the principal justification for the Society's insertion of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times.

    No it's not. The justification given is that the Septuagint of the NT period used YHWH and that NT writers would have followed the same practice. (Bible scholar David Trobisch makes the same argument) The Hebrew versions are primarily referenced to show where they agree about where the divine name should be restored to the NT rather than the fact the it should be restored in the first place.

    An exception is the Shem Tob version of Matthew which the Watchtower argues may reflect an original Hebrew version of the gospel and therefore adds independent weight to the argument for the divine name in the original NT.

  • sir82
    sir82

    Point taken - you are correct, just had a brain hiccup.

    However - it is still a principal justification, and a point of pride, that "other people besides us put 'Jehovah' in their translations of the NT"

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Thanks Sir.

    I have never quite understood why they relied in particular on Hebrew versions. There are plenty of other translations of the NT into different languages that sporadically use the divine name. It is almost as if they thought, or wished to create the impression that, there is something mysteriously significant about a translation of the NT into Hebrew that uses the divine name that somehow gives it extra authority.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    "To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from available Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures to confirm our rendering."

    Those "Hebrew Versions" are more than a thousand years after the fact.

    BTS

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    What I didn't like is that the J references were cited in the 1984 NWT alongside P 46, etc. ABDVg, etc. in the footnotes as if they were textual witnesses.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit