"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 72 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aqwsed12345

  You're missing the point... the Watchtower emphasizes that God's word is intact, the available copies and manuscripts are authentic and reliable. This is what they assert, see the links above! Then, when it comes to the alleged "erasing" of "Jehovah" from the New Testament, are these very same manuscripts no longer reliable? Since there is no evidence for this theory (only speculation), this is both a conspiracy theory and undermines the credibility of the New Testament: if the text was falsified in this respect, how do we know that it was only in this respect?

  The WTS quotes Kurt Aland, obviously agreeing with it: "the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero".
  

  And no, not "the early Septuagint did use the divine name", but there was also such a textual tradition, which was probably prepared by smaller, heterodox groups, since the main branch of Judaism centered in Jerusalem, as well as Hellenized Judaism, had already avoided and prohibited the "use" of the name YHHW.

  The Watchtower is
• 

  slimboyfat

  I get your point, that there is a tension between the competing claims that the NT was accurately preserved on the one hand, and that the divine name has been removed on the other. That makes a certain amount of sense and is a viable criticism from a faith perspective. It is a well known problem that JWs have never directly addressed in the Watchtower.

  Purely as a matter history, however, theological considerations don’t detract from the historical reasons for thinking that the original NT contained the divine name. The scholars who argue that the original NT contained the divine name have various faith backgrounds that don’t seem to impinge on the matter one way or another. George Howard, Lloyd Gaston, David Trobisch and others argue for the divine name in the divine name in the original NT on historical rather than religious grounds. They would probably agree that the text has been corrupted in various ways because they are not committed to upholding the overall integrity of the NT text.

  I do think there is also a religious defence JWs could make, although they do not do so explicitly. They could argue that in general the NT text was preserved while the divine name in particular was removed, perhaps partly under the influence of Satan. But that Jehovah has played a hand in restoring the divine name in the last days by preserving crucial LXX fragments with his name and by bring in these to the attention of his named people Jehovah's Witnesses, who restored the divine name to the NT.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Of course there are many secular scholars who argue in favor of the unreliability of the New Testament texts, however, if we approach the question from a Christian religious perspective, this idea is unacceptable.

  The fact is that, especially in recent centuries, thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts have been found, and not a single one contains any indication that "Jehovah" ever appeared in the texts. There is also no secondary source, not a single early author who hints at a possible theological problem related to this. At the same time, textual researchers of the New Testament (such as Bruce Metzger and the Alands) emphasize that the text of the New Testament can be supported better than any other ancient text, since there are thousands of manuscripts available that are relatively close in time to the original authorship, and although there are various textual variants, these are mostly smaller spelling differences, or theologically insignificant differences. And the Watchtower Society cites these researchers in unison.

  For such a decision to remove the name YHWH from all NT manuscripts would have required at least a central church decision, and of course, if the early Christian consensus had attributed this to be a substantial matter of faith, there would have been protests against this tendencies, etc. But there is no such thing, and especially in the light of the fact that the Watchtower Society - adopting the classical Protestant position - claims that there was no indisputable central church authority (like the in the first centuries. (Then, of course, when their "Governing Body" has to be verified, they are arguing te opposite, even though the so-called Apostolic Council mentioned in the Acts 15 was not a permanent body, but an ad hoc apostolic assembly, a council/synod in modern terms ).

  "They could argue that in general the NT text was preserved while the divine name in particular was removed, perhaps partly under the influence of Satan."

  This position fails precisely because the Holy Scriptures expressly state at many points that God takes care of the intact preservation of His Word, and if the central question of religion is the identity of God, then according to this, God did not take care of the preservation of a content of such fundamental importance.

  Because the inclusion of the name "Jehovah" in the NT is not an issue like the verses that were included in the Textus Receptus, but rejected by the newer textual criticism (they are theologically indifferent, or the teachings of the Christian denominations can be supported even in the absence of them), but according to the WTS theology without it, the identity of God based on the existing New Testament text is wrong, or at least confusing, and misleading. Furthermore, according to them, God's people should be named after "Jehovah", so without this, the identity of the Christian congreation itself cannot be supported.

  So if God did not actually ensure that His Word would remain intact and authentic, then what is the Bible worth as a religious book? How do we know what else was falsified in it then? This is indeed a slippery slope that WTS theology cannot deal with. According to this, God himself allowed Christianity to fall into astray for nearly two millennia, and in fact, He did not take care of the satisfactory settlement of this issue even today.
  

  "But that Jehovah has played a hand in restoring the divine name in the last days by preserving crucial LXX fragments with his name"

  Oh, and then why didn't God preserve the same New Testament text copies, if the issue here was not YHWH's inclusion in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament? Furthermore, such Septuagint copies do not indicate that they were in use either by the main branch of the pre-Christian Judaism or by the original "pre-Great-Apostasy" mainstream of the early Christian church, or that this was theologically that relevant as for the present-day JWs.
  

  Let's not forget that according to WTS theology, the Last Judgment has been "very close" (even on a human scale) since 1914, of course more than a hundred years have passed since then, wouldn't it be about time to finally find such a New Testament manuscript?
  

  I note that according to Hebrews 1:2, the "end times", or "last days" simply means the era of the New Testament revelation, the New Testament age, not the years or decades immediately preceding the second coming.

  In addition, the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 3:2 that God "entrusted his words" to the Jews (Protestants also derive from this verse that the Jewish canon is authoritative the matter of the Old Testament canon). Question: based on this, to whom did he entrust his New Testament words?
  
• 

  pizzahut2023

  The scholars who argue that the original NT contained the divine name have various faith backgrounds that don’t seem to impinge on the matter one way or another. George Howard, Lloyd Gaston, David Trobisch and others argue for the divine name in the divine name in the original NT on historical rather than religious grounds. They would probably agree that the text has been corrupted in various ways because they are not committed to upholding the overall integrity of the NT text.

  
  
  Whether your position is right or it is wrong, the Witnesses lose.
  
  If your position is right, then there is absolutely no basis at all to believe any word in the entire Bible. The NT was promptly and so thoroughly corrupted that a central point of belief, the nature of God, was changed and forever changed the history of the church.

  5000 manuscripts, the most well attested of ancient texts... means nothing. It still was corrupted within 50 years.
  
  If your position is wrong, then the Witnesses changed the Bible to fit their ideology, and are therefore condemned by the Bible itself.
  
  From a purely historical viewpoint, and given the historical evidence available to us, I think that the NT autographs did NOT contain the Tetragrammaton.

  Up till 2018 when it was finally published and analyzed, there were tantalizing news of a possible First Century Mark.
  
  Then it was published and lo and behold, it had Nomina Sacra. And it was 3rd Century.
  
  If it had been 1st century, the Watchtower would have probably then argued that we need more 1st Century manuscripts to confirm either way, whereas 99.9% of NT textual critics would have said "This pretty much clinches it. It shows that the Tetragrammaton was never there."
  
  They have been moving the goalposts since the 1980's...
  
  In the 1980's the corruption happened in the 4th century.
  
  In the October 2018 JW Broadcasting, they said that we needed 1st century manuscripts to prove this either way.
  
• 

  Anony Mous

  Again, the divine name was NOT used in the Septuagint. There is a transcription of what MAY be the divine name in Paleo-Hebrew, that made it into SOME translations, a language contemporary Jews would not know how to read or pronounce. The fact it was not transliterated into Greek unlike EVERY other name in the scripture points that there was something mystical or unknown or forbidden about the name and its use.

  The use of this Paleo-Hebrew string of characters into translations is not consistent over the ages, people without education into the Jewish belief system wouldn’t know why the characters were there, hence it did not get taken over into every translation and it was often replaced with what the translator thought it meant (El or Elohim from the Canaanite god “Yahweh” was built upon, Lord, God etc) based upon the person or family the translation was intended for.

  There is no conspiracy theory, the original name and its pronouncement, if it ever existed, was adapted over time and lost to history. Some contemporary references claim that only the High Priest had access to this secret knowledge but even that isn’t well founded. You’re claiming that for 1500+ years the “name” survived in general parlance and then was completely eradicated in 200 years on behalf of a small sect of Jews (Christians) because one of their factions (Catholics) had a conspiracy to introduce a trinity 100 years later.

  The Jews today, perhaps even the Muslims would have some surviving references over the years like they do with everything else, the Talmud and Quran was written around the time you indicate this change would’ve happened in Christianity, yet neither of those also do not pronounce the name today and do not make claim to knowledge about the name or its disappearance at that time and throughout time the Talmud consistently translates the Tetragrammaton as Lord or God and consistently tells the Jews not to try and pronounce the name and it consistently condemns those who tried to.
  
• 

  Phizzy

  "5000 manuscripts," Is bandied about, and means to mislead, NONE of those are early ! so prove nothing.

  I really don't think it matters much the question "was the Name in or not", but there is a real slippery slope when people like J.W org change what the best MSS say, once you start doing that, where do you stop ? Why not write whole new N.T ? (They are some way down the road to doing that).

  I think Slimboy made a good point, the Name may have been removed for devious reasons, as the Trinity Doctrine developed. But that is no justification for what J.W Org has done.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Phizzy

  "the Name may have been removed for devious reasons, as the Trinity Doctrine developed."

  This theory fails on the fact that the manuscripts made long before the Council of Nicaea do NOT contain the divine name YHWH either.

  It is no coincidence that the Watchtower stands on the same platform with conspiracy-believing, anti-Christian authors who believe that "Constantine founded the Church and rewrote the Bible", in opposition to the position of Christians who believe in the intact preservation of the New Testament scriptures. In this matter they are on the same platform with e.g. Dan Brown or Bart Ehrman.

  Furthermore, why did the Arians not refer to the alleged New Testament presence of the divine name YHWH and its importance in refuting Nicene theology? So even the trends considered heretical by the Church never referred to an alleged falsification or mistranslation of the Bible. At that time, the Alexandrian Library and the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima (of Eusebius) still existed, where many early manuscripts, which have since been destroyed, were kept. Yet no one has ever mentioned a manuscript tradition that is significantly different from the one known today!

  Nor does Wulfila's Gothic translation suggest anything of the sort.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  If it was Polycarp and his associates who removed the divine name from the Greek Old and New Testaments around 140 AD, then we have no NT manuscripts or even fragments that definitely go back as far as that. Brent Nongbri in his book God’s Library has argued that we can’t be sure any of the NT fragments date to earlier than third century. Even the fourth century uncials might not actually be from the fourth century but slightly later. The early manuscripts could be tested with radiocarbon dating but the institutions that hold them are reluctant to allow it.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  slimboyfat
  

  Are there any contemporary sources that claim that "Polycarp and his associates" did anything to the text of the New Testament, let alone such a theologically significant change? The Watchtower does not say this about Polycarp, nor does it slander him as an "apostate", in fact, they describe him as a positive figure in their publications.

  By then, Christianity had already reached the borders of the Roman Empire, far from the relevant episcopal seats and any kind of control. In the second century, the New Testament was already translated into several languages, Syriac, Latin (Vetus Latina), Coptic, etc. And of course they don't contain any traces for "Jehovah" either.

  No ecclesiastical center had either the ability or the influence to carry through such a theologically significant change without a trace, and to erase all versions of the text that are different from this alleged "apostate" one.

  It was difficult for Christians to accept even theologically insignificant translation changes (for example, the changing of the Latin term used for 'qiqayon' (likely castor oil plant) in Jonah 4:6 from 'cucurbita' (“gourd”) to 'hedera' (“ivy”), and a bishop had caused a great disturbance just by reading aloud it, and had nearly lost his flock), which is why it took centuries until Jerome's Vulgate replaced the Vetus Latina in Western Christianity. Don't you not that the doctrine of God's being himself would have passed without a word, without it being noticed by any one, and causing considerable rebellion?
• 

  slimboyfat

  David Trobisch proposed that Polycarp presided over the editing of the New Testament based on the tradition that Polycarp knew the apostle John and the suggestion that John chapter 21 was added by an editor who vouched that the information in the gospel came from John and was trustworthy. The chapter also includes an explanation why the widespread expectation that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the apostle Peter was mistaken.

  You can read Trobisch’s explanation here.

  http://trobisch.com/david/wb/media/articles/20071226%20FreeInquiry%20Who%20Published%20Christian%20Bible%20BW.pdf
  

  Whether he is correct about Polycarp or not, his broader point about the New Testament being the product of a deliberate second century recension has a broader base of evidence.