What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 263 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  From a religious standpoint of someone that would consider the writings to be sacred and "inspired", the implications are greater.

  A theological argument can be made for the JW perspective in the following way. When the church turned apostate in the second century it began to misrepresent Jehovah in various ways, including the demotion of his name, misrepresentation of Jesus as ‘God the Son’, the emerging Trinity doctrine, and so on. This infiltration of false teachings prevailed until the truth was revived by modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although false Christians altered the text of the Bible in various ways, Jehovah ensured there was enough evidence for sincere seekers of the truth to derive truth from the Bible about God, Jesus and God’s name. Further to that, the discovery of the LXX fragments with divine name, from the 1940s onwards, prompted JWs to restore the divine name to the New Testament. The discovery of the Fouad Exodus fragments in particular arrived just in time when the New World Translation was being prepared. Subsequent decades brought more and more evidence for the continued use of the divine name, and a number of scholars came to the same conclusion as JWs about the divine name in the New Testament. Those who opposed the implications of the new evidence about the divine name were predictably Trinitarian scholars who resist the idea that Jesus is distinct and subordinate to Jehovah and that Jehovah’s name continues to be important for Christinas.
• 

  Sanchy

  A theological argument can be made for the JW perspective in the following way.

  Indeed, the argument you put forth is similar to what WT writes

  The Skeptic might think: If God wanted everyone to know him and use his name, why would he allow such an important alteration to occur in the first place? As a result of God's inaction, his name nearly vanished for millennia; and as such now, at this critical junction in time, most still fail to use his name and understandably so, a very costly and fatal mistake, according to JW theology.

  It seems to me there are a few separate but related points in this thread:

  1) Did the first Christians use YHWH at all? There is some evidence that they might have, at least when reading from their own OT manuscripts.

  2) Assuming they did occasionally use the name for YHWH, did they pronounce the name for Jesus more or less often?

  If we were to compare the writings of those first Christians to WT publications, how would the frequency for the use of YHWH compare? Even if we were to use the NWT's version of the NT, which claims to have restored the use of the name, it's still evident to me that JWs emphasize the name YHWH much more so than did those early faithful, and I'd add it occurs in an inverse correlation to the name Jesus
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  @Slim

  I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude without reasonable doubt that Trinitarian Christians in the second century conspired to remove the divine name from both the New Testament and the Septuagint....and that they were completely successful in their NT manuscript alterations and partially successful when it came to their efforts to excise the divine name from the Septuagint.

  Further I don't see how the inclusion of the divine name 237 times on the New Testament would challenge the full deity of Christ...unless of course one uses these alleged conspiracies to demonstrate the unreliability of the New Testament itself. Then of course we can readily argue for Bultmann's "historical Jesus".
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Regarding calling something a conspiracy theory or saying that shadowy figures did a conspiracy, such shouldn't always be considered derogatory statements or dismissals. That is because we know that some conspiracies did in fact happen. For some examples of such consider the following.
  

  We know from archaeology that the inscriptions of the names of some ancient rulers have been removed from stone inscriptions and that names of other rulers have been inscribed in their place. Similarly, consider what is said in the book called Negating the Image: Case Studies in Iconoclasm . It mentions that inscriptions of the name of queen Maruaten were replaced with the name of her eldest daughter. Consider also what happened to the name of ancient Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten after he died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten says "Akhenaten's monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from lists of rulers compiled by later pharaohs." https://www.worldhistory.org/Amarna_Period_of_Egypt/ says the following.

  'Horemheb razed Akhetaten and dumped the ruins of the monuments and stelae into pits as fill for his own monuments. So thorough was Horemheb's work that Akhenaten was wiped from Egyptian history. His name was never mentioned again in any kind of records, and where his reign needed to be cited, he was referred to only as "the heretic of Akhetaten". ...

  Akhenaten's name was lost to history until the 19th century CE when the Rosetta Stone was deciphered by Jean-Francois Champollion in 1824 CE. Excavations in Egypt had unearthed the ruins of Akhenaten's monuments used as fill, and the site of Akhetaten had been mapped and drawn early in the 18th century CE. The discovery of the Amarna Letters, along with these other finds, told the story of the ancient 'heretic king' of Egypt in the modern age where monotheism has become accepted as a natural, and desirable, evolution in religious understanding.'

  For another example see https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/hatshepsut_01.shtml . It says the following.

  "Soon after her death in 1457 BC, Hatshepsut's monuments were attacked, her statues dragged down and smashed and her image and titles defaced. The female king vanished from Egyptian history. She would remain lost until, almost three thousand years later, modern Egyptologists reconstructed her damaged inscriptions and restored her to her rightful dynastic place."

  The USA government also even committed conspiracies. Note that https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/192461943?redirectedFrom=fulltext mentions a book published by Oxford Academic which lists "... the revelation of real government conspiracies, notably CIA assassination plots, the Watergate scandal, and the Iran–-Contra affair."
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Regarding the idea that YHWH was present in some copies of the Greek Septuagint (and/or other Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures OT) in time of the influential theologian named Origen, the WT correctly said that Origin said he had seen the name in some copies of the Septuagint and the best (most accurate) copies of the Septuagint contained the name. Note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton confirms this by saying the following.

  'Origen (Commentary on Psalms 2.2) said that in the most accurate manuscripts the name was written in an older form of the Hebrew characters, the paleo-Hebrew letters, not the square: "In the more accurate exemplars the (divine) name is written in Hebrew characters; not, however, in the current script, but in the most ancient." While Pietersma interprets this statement as referring to the Septuagint,[79] Wilkinson says one might assume that Origen refers specifically to the version of Aquila of Sinope, which follows the Hebrew text very closely, but he may perhaps refer to Greek versions in general.[94] [95] '
  

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen says Origen of Alexandria was a Christian scholar who lived from c. 185 – c. 253. It also says the following. "... Origen was a subordinationist,[207][206][208][209] meaning he believed that the Father was superior to the Son and the Son was superior to the Holy Spirit .... At one point Origen suggests that the Son was created by the Father .... At the time when Origen was alive, orthodox views on the Trinity had not yet been formulated[216][219] and subordinationism was not yet considered heretical.[216][219] In fact, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent.[219] ... Origen is often seen as the first major Christian theologian.[221] ... Origen deeply influenced Arius of Alexandria and later followers of Arianism.[234][220][235][236] Although the extent of the relationship between the two is debated,[237] in antiquity, many orthodox Christians believed that Origen was the true and ultimate source of the Arian heresy.[237][238] "

  Note that at a time, during the later 2nd century CE to the early (and possibly the mid) 3rd century CE, when some copies of the Greek Septuagint were known to have the Name (YHWH) in Hebrew script, it was not yet considered heretical for a Christian to believe that God the Father was superior to Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was created by God the Father. When Origen wrote, perhaps some copies of the NT then in still existence had the name YHWH in it and perhaps Origen knew of such. Also note that Origen's writings influenced Arius and that Arius' writings for a period time influenced a great many Christians to believing in Arianism. The WT, in regards to the idea of whether or not Christ is God (or a god), believes in Arianism. Though Arianism is now often considered a heresy, for period of time it was widely believed in Christianity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism . It says the following.

  'Arianism (Koinē Greek: Ἀρειανισμός, Areianismós)[1] is a Christological doctrine first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336),[1][2][3] a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt.[1] Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,[4][a][5][b] who was begotten by God the Father[2] with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father, therefore Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.[2]

  Arius' trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form by Aetius and his disciple Eunomius and called anomoean ("dissimilar"), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father.[6] Arianism holds that the Son is distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to him.[3] '
  

  Regarding how widespread that teaching was for a period of time, note that the same article says the following.

  " Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family. Two Roman emperors, Constantius II and Valens, became Arians or Semi-Arians, as did prominent Gothic, Vandal, and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Such a deep controversy within the early Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.[13] "

  In our time period (1800 to the present year) it is common for authors to revised their books and publishers to produce those revised editions. It is also common for publishers to revise books after copyrights have expired and after the authors have died. it thus shouldn't be surprising that some early Christians in many copies of the NT made some revisions to it, to suit their purposes. They might have felt they were justified to use the word Kyrios in place of the the Hebrew characters of "YHWH" to avoid confusion to Greek records and out of reverence they might have been afraid to attempt to transliterate the Hebrew letters of "YHWH" into Greek letters. Furthermore since some erroneous (due to copyist errors) of Greek transliterations of YHWH in the Septuagint into Greek as PIPI (something which does not mean YHWH, but which looks a lot like the Hebrew letters of "YHWH"), they might have decided it was best to translate it as "Lord" instead. There also existed variant transliterations of YHWH into Greek letters and the Christian copyists of the NT might have thus decided to standardize on the word "Lord" to avoid confusion and to provide consistency.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  That’s reasonable. There is no certainty either way.

  I would point out a couple of things though. Scholars have offered other explanations than Christology and nascent Trinitarianism for the disappearance of the divine name. Kahle pointed to the wish to differentiate Christianity from Judaism. Trobisch points out the desire for an agreed upon edition of both the OT and the NT in the second century. Shaw pointed out that the cosmopolitan appeal of Christianity coincided with moving away from the distinctive Jewish name of God. Howard, Gaston and Trobisch do indicate that the higher Christology in the second century, compared with the first, was a motivation for no longer using the divine name.

  It is not a matter of Christians removing the divine name more completely from the LXX than from the NT. The point is that there are fragments of the LXX from the first and second centuries so we know that it used the divine name in that period. There are no fragments of the NT that are certain to date from earlier than 200 CE. So there is no direct evidence for how the divine name was presented in that period as there is with the LXX. It’s not a matter of anyone “removing” the name from the text as such, in the sense of going around with a sponge and wiping it out. What it involved is new copies of the LXX and NT being made that replaced the divine name with “Lord” and older copies of the LXX and NT that used the divine name falling into disuse. A few fragments of the LXX survive from before the second century when the change occurred and no copies of the NT survive from that period.

  We do know that the early Christians made many doctrinal alterations to the NT because some of these have been identified and corrected. Famous ones include 1 Tim 3:16, 1 John 5:7-8 and many other arguable cases. There can be no certainty that all the alterations were caught because some could have been made at too early a stage to be represented in the extant manuscripts. In fact given how early many of these alterations occurred it seems likely that there are cases where the true reading has not survived. See The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman and No Longer Written by Ryan Wettlaufer.

  Plus there are perhaps traces of the divine name in the early NT text that survive in the manuscript tradition. For example the Diatessaron was possibly compiled at such an early stage that the NT still contained the divine name. This could explain why manuscripts of the NT Syriac appear to treat loci of the divine name differently than ordinary occurrences of Lord and God. Shedinger has suggested that if the divine name was not present in the texts used for the Diatessaron then we would need to find some other explanation for the way the divine name is treated in the Syriac. Plus some argue that Hebrew versions of Matthew reflect the text at an early period when the divine name was still used and that is why they use the designation “the name” in places where the divine name was used.

  One of the reasons the presence of the divine name matters for Christology is the fact that the most frequently quoted OT text in the NT makes such a clear distinction between Jesus and Jehovah, when it quotes the Psalms: “Jehovah said to my Lord, sit at my right hand”. This distinction is obscured when the divine name is replaced and it appears as if Lord is speaking to Lord instead. Another great example is 1 Cor 2:16 where the earliest NT text said that we don’t know the mind of Jehovah but, because he was a human, we can understand the mind of Christ. The later text obscured and confused this distinction by appearing to apply both statements to Jesus. There are many such examples of NT texts that make much better sense when the distinction between Jesus and Jehovah is preserved by restoration of the divine name. But frankly the status of Jesus as God’s first creation and designation ruler of God’s kingdom is clear in the NT text with or without the restoration of the divine name. There is no room for a fourth century Christology in the NT.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Furthermore, the Christian scribes of the 2nd century CE might have thought it was fine to use the word "Lord" since Jews at the time avoided pronouncing the name "YHWH" (Yahweh), and often substituted the word meaning "my Lord" instead when reading the scriptures out loud where the Divine Name appears in the Hebrew Scriptures.

  Regarding the erroneous transliteration of YHWH into Greek as PIPI note the following from https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4373/ . "When reading scrolls that contained the Paleo-Hebrew script, a Greek reader had little opportunity to blunder, because the script looked like indecipherable scribble; however, when a Greek reader encountered YHVH written in the more modern square script, the chance for error increased substantially. According to Jerome, those who were unfamiliar with Jewish customs tried to pronounce the Hebrew letters as if they were Greek letters. The result was quite a howler: they pronounced YHVH as PIPI![3] "

  Correction: The first three sentences of the last paragraph of my prior post should have said the following. "In our time period (1800 to the present year) it is common for authors to revise their books and for publishers to produce those revised editions. It is also common for publishers to revise books after copyrights have expired and after the authors have died. It thus shouldn't be surprising that some early Christians in making copies of the NT made some revisions to the NT, to suit their purposes."
  
• 

  GodBeliever

  "Therefore my people shall know my name on that day, that it is I who speaks: Here I am!"
  Isaiah 52:6
  
  "And my holy name will I make known in the midst of my people Israel; neither will I suffer my holy name to be profaned any more: and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, the Holy One in Israel. Behold, it cometh, and it shall be done, saith the Lord Jehovah; this is the day whereof I have spoken."
  Ezekiel 39:7‭-‬8

  "I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else."
  Isaiah 45:5‭-‬6
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  "I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else."
  Isaiah 45:5‭-‬6

  GB,

  There you go again trying to win an argument that Christians don't make. It is the WT that accuses Christians of not recognizing that Jehovah is God. It is a lying false accusation and you know it. Just as the Apostle John did, we worship the father as we worship the Son because they are one and the same. They share the same essence in spirit. God is a spirit. A person has to shut off part of their brain or at least throw away much of the bible to believe the uneducated ignorant WT teachers.

  In the scriptures you quote, John 12 makes it clear that Isaiah was talking about JESUS!

  But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him [Jesus]

  42Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 43For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
  

  In Isaiah, Jehovah declares that he will not give his praise to another. That is because Jehovah is Jesus:
  

  Is. 42: 8

  I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another

  
  

  Yet, Jesus is declared to be the Lord of Glory in the NT:

  
  

  We declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:7-8 NIV)
  

  You are in darkness GB because you refuse to believe scripture. You simply are not willing to pay the price of belief:

  Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

  Jesus is the light of Jehovah whom you claim you serve even though you listen to teachers that tell you that the bible doesn't apply to you. This is why you keep trying to win an argument that no one is trying to make. You take it as truth what the WT says about Christians: that they don't worship Jehovah. It is insanity.

  Hebrews 1:3

  And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

  John 11:40 - Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

  You cannot see the glory of Jehovah in Jesus because you don't believe him.

  2 Corinthians 4:4-6 - in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

  Do you see why you will never win an argument with a Christian? The scriptures don't apply to you, just as I quoted to you the official WT teaching on this. You follow a different bible. It is a bible where you can pick and choose which scripture to quote and which one to ignore .... and not feel the slightest bit of embarrassment over it.

  The WT makes it clear that the word of God doesn't belong to you, and so it doesn't.

  This is the bible that your WT masters have given you:

  Watchtower December 15, 2008, pg. 28 – “Our
  

  coming to know „the truth‟ - the entire body of

  Christian teachings that has become part of the

  Bible - and adhering to it are essential for our

  salvation”.
• 

  GodBeliever

  "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds." Matthew 16:27
  
  "But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man death came, by a Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all."
  1 Corinthians 15:20‭-‬28
  
  "who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
  Philippians 2:6‭-‬11
  "Jesus replied to him, “It is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’ ”Luke 4:8

  "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of people in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; And no one takes the honor for himself, but receives it when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was. So too Christ did not glorify Himself in becoming a high priest, but it was He who said to Him, “You are My Son, Today I have fathered You”; just as He also says in another passage, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey Him, being designated by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek."

  Hebrews 5:1‭, ‬4‭-‬6‭, ‬8‭-‬10 N

  
  SB what argument should I win because what you support doesn't make sense! Why God will worship to Himself, pray to Himself and subject to Himself? Jehovah never called Jesus My God, whereas Jesus call His Father " My God".