Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

slimboyfat

While scholars like Tov and Skehan argue for the originality of the Tetragrammaton their views are far from universally accepted. Their conclusions rely heavily on the limited evidence of fragments like P. Fouad 266.
Emanuel Tov and Patrick Skehan argued that Yaho was the original form of the divine name in the LXX, not YHWH or kyrios. They argued this on the basis of the good Septuagintal quality of the fragment containing Yaho in Leviticus (not P. Fouad 266) and the widespread use of Yaho in onomastica. To this can be added references to the normative use of Yaho among Jews and Christians by early Christian and Roman authors. You are correct there is evidence of diversity in the early LXX as argued by Frank Shaw and now also Anthony Meyer and others. Nevertheless, Tov and Skehan argued that Yaho was original and kyrios was a later form and Larry Hurtado latterly supported the view that kyrios only appeared in the LXX from the second century CE onwards.
Philo does refer to the divine name on the forehead of the high priest, knowledge of which some have argued he derived from copies of the LXX text.
There is evidence in the NT text of disruption around the use of the divine name in the high number of textual variants for kyrios and theos where the divine name originally appeared. This formed a key part of George Howard’s argument for the divine name in the NT, which other scholars such as Lloyd Gaston, David Trobisch, Frank Shaw, Luise Schottroff, and John McRay have supported. If the divine name did not appear in the original NT then is there an alternative explanation for the number of variants? The removal of the divine name also introduced ambiguity around the meaning of kyrios in texts such as Acts 1.24, 1 Cor 2.16 and Jude 5. Thus the original use of the divine name in the NT text resolves a number of problems including the persistent references to Yaho in various sources, textual variants in the NT text, and extraneous ambiguity surrounding the use of kyrios in various passages.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
While it is true that manuscripts containing paleo-Hebrew or ΙΑΩ for the divine name exist, the evidence is not exclusively against κύριος. Pietersma hypothesizes that the earliest Greek translators used κύριος to render YHWH as a standard translation, primarily due to linguistic and religious constraints. The translators were adapting the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jewish communities. This aligns with Jewish avoidance of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton and substituting it orally with "Adonai" (Lord)—a practice which naturally influenced written translations. While fragments of pre-Christian LXX manuscripts (e.g., from Qumran or Naḥal Ḥever) show variations in how the Tetragrammaton is rendered (e.g., ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew script), there is no conclusive evidence that the use of κύριος was absent. The Dead Sea Scrolls show a variety of practices, including the use of ΙΑΩ and paleo-Hebrew YHWH, indicating diversity rather than uniformity in rendering the divine name. The Kaige Recension is critical here. Anneli Aejmelaeus highlights that revisions such as Kaige aimed for extreme literalism and fidelity to the proto-Masoretic text. This revision likely replaced or revised earlier Greek renderings, including where κύριος had been standard. Therefore, the absence of κύριος in select texts does not prove it was never used; it merely points to alternative strategies of transmission.
Critics often argue that the development of contracted forms (κύριος → ΚΣ) is a distinct Christian phenomenon. However, this does not imply that κύριος was not the original Greek rendering. The transition to the contracted forms was a later scribal practice designed to reverence sacred terms, building on earlier traditions. The absence of an "uncontracted κύριος" from specific third to second-century BCE manuscripts is an argument from silence. Such a conclusion does not negate the plausible use of κύριος in the earliest Septuagint traditions. A critical point is that the Greek Old Testament tradition as we have it overwhelmingly uses κύριος. As Martin Rösel notes, the Septuagint translators appear to have adopted κύριος to denote the unique sovereignty of God over all creation, distinguishing Him from pagan gods.
The claim that the Septuagint did not originally use κύριος oversimplifies the situation. The textual history of the Greek Bible reveals diverse strategies for handling the divine name. The Kaige recension, highlighted in Anneli Aejmelaeus' analysis, was an effort to revise Greek translations to align more closely with the Hebrew proto-Masoretic text. This revision evidences a deliberate attempt to "correct" earlier renderings. As Angelini and Nagel note, manuscripts display ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH, and dots or blanks. This diversity supports the conclusion that there was no single strategy across all Jewish communities during the pre-Christian period. However, this does not disprove the early adoption of κύριος by certain Jewish translators in Alexandria. Later revisions, including Theodotion’s work, retained and standardized κύριος where older Greek texts may have exhibited alternatives. Traces of this standardization appear even in New Testament quotations, suggesting a pre-Christian precedent for using κύριος.
Theological objections to equating Jesus with YHWH (κύριος) appear to influence modern critiques. However the Septuagint translators' use of κύριος reflected Jewish reverence for YHWH, avoiding its direct pronunciation. This theological choice aligns with the oral practice of substituting "Adonai." The New Testament authors' identification of Jesus as κύριος draws on this pre-existing LXX tradition. The deliberate choice to attribute YHWH's titles to Jesus demonstrates the continuity of κύριος as a divine title rooted in Greek translations. Rösel highlights that the LXX's use of κύριος reflects a theological universalism, portraying God as the Κύριος tēs oikoumenēs (Lord of the whole world). This broader significance aligns with the emerging universalistic monotheism of Hellenistic Judaism.
Claim: ΙΑΩ was the original form of the divine name in the Septuagint (LXX), supported by fragments of Leviticus and its use in onomastica (name lists).
While ΙΑΩ does appear in some Greek manuscripts and onomastica (lists of transliterations of divine names), its limited textual presence does not make it the original or standard practice for the Old Greek (OG) translation of the LXX. These were transliterations of the divine name for specific purposes, often for Jewish and pagan magical contexts, not translations. Their usage reflects how the name sounded phonetically (transliteration of YHWH into Greek), but it does not indicate widespread adoption in scriptural texts. These fragments are isolated occurrences and likely represent either a regional textual tradition (such as in Egypt, where Jewish magical texts were common), or a liturgical revision to preserve the divine name for reverence. Crucially, the majority of extant LXX manuscripts and all post-Christian LXX texts uniformly use κύριος to render YHWH. If ΙΑΩ were the original, we would expect to see its widespread transmission in Greek biblical texts, yet this is absent. Pietersma's hypothesis explains this better: κύριος was the standard and earliest choice for translating YHWH, while isolated transliterations like ΙΑΩ emerged later as part of recensional efforts or regional variants.
Claim: The fragment of Leviticus with ΙΑΩ is of "good Septuagintal quality," indicating that ΙΑΩ was original.
Textual "quality" (?) does not necessarily determine originality; it indicates how faithfully a manuscript reflects its Vorlage (source text). A well-translated fragment containing ΙΑΩ could still be part of a later revisionist tradition. The Kaige recension and other textual corrections were efforts to bring the LXX closer to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). The reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton or transliterations like ΙΑΩ reflects this revisionist tendency. Pietersma and Emanuel Tov elsewhere emphasize that textual witnesses with ΙΑΩ are not definitive proof of its universal use. Instead, they indicate textual diversity, which arose over time. For example, Papyrus Fouad 266 (1st century BCE) contains the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew amidst Greek text. This demonstrates reverence but also suggests later liturgical insertions rather than original translation practice. Thus, while ΙΑΩ has a role in the textual tradition, it is better understood as a regional variant or scribal revision.
Claim: Κύριος was introduced only in the 2nd century CE.
This claim is speculative and lacks textual support. The Christian adoption of κύριος does not mean that it originated with Christians. The use of κύριος as the Greek equivalent of "Adonai" predates Christianity. Jewish reverence for the Tetragrammaton led to oral substitution with Adonai, which the Greek-speaking Jewish translators rendered as κύριος. Philo of Alexandria (1st century CE) confirms this. He avoids writing the Tetragrammaton but refers to it symbolically and reverentially, indicating the accepted Jewish practice of substituting κύριος. The nomina sacra (contracted forms of κύριος and θεός) emerged among Christians, but these reflect a later scribal tradition, not the original translation. By the time of the New Testament (1st century CE), κύριος was already the standard LXX equivalent for YHWH. NT authors consistently quote the LXX using κύριος where the Hebrew MT has YHWH. In conclusion, κύριος predates Christianity and reflects a long-established Jewish translation practice.
Claim: Textual variants between κύριος and θεός in the NT suggest the original presence of the divine name.
The textual variants cited (e.g., Acts 1:24, 1 Cor 2:16, Jude 5) reflect scribal harmonization and theological interpretation, not the removal of the divine name. Early NT manuscripts consistently use κύριος and θεός, which aligns with the LXX tradition of rendering YHWH as κύριος. There is no evidence of ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH in NT manuscripts. George Howard’s argument that the divine name was originally present in NT quotations lacks manuscript evidence. The NT’s consistent use of κύριος reflects its reliance on the LXX. For example, in Philippians 2:11, Paul applies Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) to Jesus: "Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), to the glory of God the Father." Here, κύριος is clearly understood in the YHWH sense, reflecting the LXX tradition. The textual variants cited are secondary developments and not indicative of an earlier presence of the Tetragrammaton.
Claim: Philo refers to the divine name, which some argue he derived from LXX copies containing the Tetragrammaton.
Philo's symbolic references to the divine name are consistent with Jewish tradition to avoid pronouncing YHWH. He does not quote the LXX using ΙΑΩ; instead, his writings reflect the substitution practice of κύριος. If Philo were familiar with a Greek Bible containing ΙΑΩ or YHWH, it is striking that he never explicitly refers to it.
Conclusion
1. The use of ΙΑΩ in select fragments and onomastica reflects regional revisions or transliterations for specific purposes. It does not prove ΙΑΩ was the original rendering of YHWH in the LXX.
2. The Kaige recension and manuscript diversity indicate that Jewish scribes occasionally reinserted the divine name to align with Hebrew liturgical practices.
3. Κύριος is attested in the Jewish tradition prior to the Christian era and aligns with the oral substitution of "Adonai" for YHWH.
4. The NT authors relied on the LXX tradition of using κύριος, applying it to Jesus in a way that equated Him with YHWH.
Emanuel Tov, Patrick Skehan, and others may argue for ΙΑΩ, but the overwhelming manuscript evidence, textual consistency, and historical context support κύριος as the standard and original Greek rendering of YHWH.
The JW argument is self-defeating because it fails to identify a plausible or consistent agent for the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton from the NT. If Jews were responsible, the argument collapses under its own weight. The Jewish authorities, already hostile toward Christianity, would not have had control over Christian manuscripts. More importantly, if Christians were using the Tetragrammaton to call upon the God of Israel, it would have caused massive controversy. Instead, Jewish criticism of Christians focused on their worship of Jesus as God (e.g., Pliny and Talmudic polemics). As you noted, Pliny the Younger, in his famous letter (ca. 112 CE), writes that Christians sang hymns “to Christ as God”. If Christians were proclaiming the divine name “YHWH” in this context, it would have been a far greater scandal to Jewish ears and Roman authorities alike—yet there is no evidence of such accusations.
Was It the Christians? If Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton, why did they replace it with Kyrios—a term already used for Jesus throughout the NT? This substitution only reinforces the NT’s high Christology, where Jesus is identified with the Lord of the OT (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). Furthermore, early Christian manuscripts are overwhelmingly consistent in using Kyrios or Theos in OT quotations. If a theological conspiracy to remove the Tetragrammaton occurred, we would expect transitional manuscripts showing inconsistency or remnants of the divine name—but no such evidence exists. I repeat: There is no written record within early Christianity indicating that the Church ever instructed copyists or translators to eliminate YHWH.
Fear of Jewish Retaliation? The idea that Christians removed the Tetragrammaton to avoid persecution from Jews is weak and ahistorical. By the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, Jewish-Christian relations had already fractured significantly (e.g., the Birkat ha-Minim curse). Christians were being persecuted for proclaiming Jesus as divine, not for misusing the Tetragrammaton. The Jewish rejection of the Septuagint itself (ca. 2nd century) demonstrates that it was not Christians but Jews who distanced themselves from the LXX because Christians were using it to argue for Jesus’ Messiahship and divinity. If anything, the Christian use of Kyrios solidified the LXX as a distinctly Christian scripture.
Who made the decision on this? Where is the “smoking gun?”
slimboyfat

Who made the decision on this? Where is the “smoking gun?”
The people who are responsible for introducing nomina sacra into the text are likely the same ones who discontinued using the divine name.
When I mentioned the quality of the Leviticus fragment with Yaho, what I had in mind was Peitersma’s comment that “the Septuagintal credentials of [the manuscript] are well nigh impeccable”. I quote that from memory and I think that’s the exact phrase he used.
More importantly, if Christians were using the Tetragrammaton to call upon the God of Israel, it would have caused massive controversy.
There is a lot of evidence that ordinary use of the divine name in the form Yaho was widespread among ordinary Jews in the first century. See the many sources that indicate this in Frank Shaw’s book The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of IAW (2014).
Was It the Christians? If Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton, why did they replace it with Kyrios—a term already used for Jesus throughout the NT? This substitution only reinforces the NT’s high Christology, where Jesus is identified with the Lord of the OT (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32).
Yes, because their theology had moved on from the monotheism of the NT toward a Trinitarian reading that incorporated Jesus in a triune God. Howard and Trobisch both explain this factor as important in the disappearance of the divine name from Christian texts. Here is Howard’s explanation:
Is there any way for us, at this late date, to calculate the effect which this change in the Bible had on the second century church? It is of course impossible to know with certainty, but the effect must have been significant. First, a number of passages must have taken on an ambiguity which the original lacked. For example, the second century church read, “The Lord said to my Lord” (Matthew 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42), a reading which is as ambiguous as it is imprecise. The first century church probably read, “YHWH said to my Lord.”
To the second century church, “Prepare the way of the Lord” (Mark 1:3) must have meant one thing, since it immediately followed the words: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” But to the First Century Church it must have meant something else since they read, “Prepare the way of YHWH.”
The second century church read 1 Corinthians 1:31, “The one who boasts, let him boast in the Lord,” which was probably considered a reference to Christ mentioned in verse 30. But to the first century church, it probably referred to God mentioned in verse 29 since they read, “The one who boasts let him boast in YHWH.”
These examples are sufficient to suggest 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, and in many passages made it impossible to tell which one was meant. This is supported by the fact that in a number of places where Old Testament quotations are cited, there is a confusion in the manuscript tradition whether to read God or Christ in the discussion surrounding the quotation. Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate “Lord”, scribes were unsure whether “Lord” meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries.
See the rest of his article here.
https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/the-name-of-god-in-the-new-testament/
Trobisch argues similarly in his book, focussing on 2 Cor 3.14–18 as his example, and Luise Schottroff focuses on 1 Cor 2.16 to make a similar point.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Claim: The introduction of nomina sacra into Christian manuscripts aligns with the alleged decision to discontinue the use of the Tetragrammaton.
The nomina sacra (e.g., ΚΣ for κύριος, ΘΣ for θεός) may be a Christian scribal innovation, intended to show reverence for sacred names in scripture. However, this does not support the idea that κύριος replaced YHWH at that time. By the time nomina sacra were used, the LXX tradition already rendered YHWH as κύριος. The uniform Christian use of κύριος in LXX manuscripts is strong evidence that it was the earlier, standard translation. There is no transitional manuscript showing a removal of the Tetragrammaton and its replacement with κύριος. If this were a deliberate change, such a transition would leave clear traces, yet no such evidence exists. Furthermore Pietersma and Tov argue that early manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton appears (e.g., in paleo-Hebrew) reflect later Jewish recensional activities, not the original Old Greek translation. The Kaige recension supports this: It was an effort by Jewish scribes to revise Greek texts to align with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, including the reinsertion of the divine name. So even the introduction of nomina sacra is chronologically and textually distinct from the use of κύριος as a rendering for YHWH. The lack of any transitional evidence undermines the claim of a systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton.
And by the way, if it was the Christians, why does the Watchtower cite Shabbat 116a from the Talmud, suggesting that it was done by the Jews?
Claim: Frank Shaw argues in The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of IAW (2014) that ΙΑΩ was widely used among ordinary Jews in the 1st century.
While Shaw’s work highlights that ΙΑΩ was known and used in certain Jewish contexts, this evidence does not prove it was the original or predominant rendering of YHWH in the LXX. The use of ΙΑΩ is largely regional (especially in Egypt) and primarily appears in Jewish magical texts and onomastica (lists of divine names). These sources are distinct from the formal translation tradition of the LXX. Transliteration of YHWH as ΙΑΩ served a different function, particularly in mystical and magical contexts. Manuscripts using ΙΑΩ are isolated and fragmentary. They represent regional or liturgical variants, not the broader Greek Jewish tradition. In contrast, the majority of surviving LXX manuscripts and Christian quotations consistently use κύριος. Philo (1st century CE), a prominent Hellenistic Jew, does not use ΙΑΩ in his works. Instead, he adheres to the reverence for the divine name by substituting it symbolically or with κύριος. If ΙΑΩ were widespread among Jews as Shaw suggests, it is notable that Philo does not reference or use it. So Shaw’s assertion for ΙΑΩ as “widespread” among ordinary Jews fails to account for its contextual and regional limitations. It does not challenge the evidence that κύριος was the standard and dominant Greek rendering of YHWH in the LXX tradition.
Claim: Howard and Trobisch argue that the removal of the Tetragrammaton and its replacement with κύριος contributed to Christological "ambiguities", paving the way for Trinitarian theology.
This claim is speculative and ignores key historical and textual evidence. The translation of YHWH as κύριος in the LXX occurred before the emergence of Christianity. Jewish translators rendered YHWH as κύριος because it was the Greek equivalent of "Adonai," which Jews substituted orally for YHWH. This Jewish practice, rooted in reverence for the divine name, directly influenced the LXX. The New Testament authors inherited the LXX tradition where YHWH was consistently rendered as κύριος. The high Christology of the NT arises not from confusion but from a deliberate identification of Jesus with YHWH. For example Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32, applying "whoever calls on the name of YHWH" to Jesus as κύριος; Philippians 2:11 declares that every tongue will confess Jesus as κύριος, echoing Isaiah 45:23, where κύριος refers to YHWH. If the Tetragrammaton had been systematically removed to accommodate evolving Christology, we would expect transitional manuscripts or explicit evidence of such a decision. None exists. Early Christian manuscripts uniformly use κύριος, reflecting the inherited LXX tradition. There is no evidence that Christians replaced the Tetragrammaton; they simply adopted the Greek text as it stood. The alleged ambiguity between “Lord God” and “Lord Christ” is a theological interpretation, not a textual fact. The NT authors intentionally identified Jesus as κύριος (YHWH), not out of confusion but as a bold theological assertion. Jewish criticisms of early Christians (e.g., accusations of idolatry) focused on their worship of Jesus, not on their supposed misuse of the divine name. The same word was used to refer to Jesus ("the Lord," κύριος) and even the Holy Spirit (e.g., 2 Corinthians 3:17). There is no rule or reference in the New Testament suggesting that κύριος had one meaning for YHWH and a separate meaning for Jesus. If the use of the nomina sacra means that YHWH or ΙΑΩ originally stood in place of ΚΣ, that does not support your theological agenda either, since Christ is called ΚΣ the same way in the earliest MSS, but on what basis could you claim that YHWH or ΙΑΩ only appeared where God the Father is called ΚΣ? Based on these facts, we have only three options:
1. If the NT authors did not consider the possibility that readers might “confuse” YHWH with Jesus, they wrote with a level of carelessness that fundamentally undermines the inspiration and sacredness of their writings.
2. If the NT authors aimed to deceive intentionally, then the entire issue would be meaningless.
3. If the NT authors wrote carefully and conscientiously without intending to mislead, the logical conclusion based on the evidence is that they also affirmed Jesus' deity.
If the writers adhered to Watchtower theology, why were they not concerned about someone "confusing" Jesus with the Lord?
The Smoking Gun?
You cannot give a satisfactory answer to the question: Who made the decision to replace YHWH (or ΙΑΩ) with κύριος? Even more specifically: Who was the “Caliph Uthman” of the “apostate” (=proto-orthodox) Christianity who ordered the standardization of the NT and, under this heading, the falsification of the text?
The answer lies not in a conspiracy but in the Jewish translation process itself. The Jewish translators of the LXX rendered YHWH as κύριος because it reflected the Jewish oral practice of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH, and it was a theological choice to preserve reverence for the divine name. There was no systematic removal: The use of alternatives like ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH reflects later recensional efforts to reintroduce the divine name in specific Jewish contexts. Christians inherited the LXX as it stood, with κύριος already in place. There is no evidence of tampering or conspiracy to replace the Tetragrammaton.
So there is no “smoking gun” simply because there was no conspiracy. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that κύριος was the original and standard Greek rendering of YHWH, rooted in Jewish translation practices.
Earnest

aqwsed12345 : In the same unfair way, you now want to reverse the burden of proof, so that ... I have to present the LXX manuscripts with Kyrios.
Was it not you (aqwsed) who said "the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, including those from the first century CE, use Kyrios" and "the widespread use of "Kyrios" in surviving LXX manuscripts, including pre-Christian ones, suggests that it was an established practice among Greek-speaking Jews". It is not unreasonable to ask you which manuscripts you have in mind when you make these claims. Perhaps you were using a bit of hyperbole and exaggerated the evidence but then I would at least expect you to own up to it, not to come up with a host of reasons that the pre-Christian LXX would contain kyrios if only we could find the manuscripts.
The manuscripts we already have are (1st Century BCE) 4Q120, P. Fouad 266, (1st Century CE) P. Oxy 3522, the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, (1st to 2nd Century) P. Oxy 5101. You posited that if a NT manuscript from the first century was found and it contained God's name in some form, that would prove nothing. Maybe so. But if a number of fragments in different locations were found, all dating to the first century and all containing some form of God's name, that would be strong evidence for general use. Yet that is what we have for the LXX. In discussing 4Q119 and 4Q120 (both 1st century BCE), Emanuel Tov says (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p.132) :
These are probably closer to the Old Greek than to the later uncials, which had been revised towards the Masoretic Text. 4Q119 contains a slightly freer translation than that found in the uncial manuscripts. This scroll presumably reflects the Old Greek, revised toward the Masoretic Text in the uncials. In 4Q120 Lev 3:12, 4:27, Iaw for LXX kurios probably reflects the original pre-Christian rendering of the Tetragrammaton, preceding kurios of LXX. The translation vocabulary of both Qumran scrolls was not yet standardised as it was in the later uncials.
There are two (among many) objections you raise to the idea that early Christians read and used God's name.
The first is that all existing manuscripts of what became the NT do not contain God's name. But all the manuscripts we have which might have contained God's name date to the second century and beyond, and we have already seen that kyrios had replaced God's name by that time so you would not really expect to find anything else.
The other objection you raised is that Philo does not use God's name, but that is ignoring Philo's theology. Along with the normal epithets for God, such as "eternal", "unchanging" and "imperishable", Philo produces others for which he is our earliest authority. At On Dreams 1.67, for example, God is described as "unnameable" (akatonomastos) and "unspeakable" (arrhetos), and "incomprehensible under any form", none of which terms are applied to God before Philo's time in any surviving source. So quite clearly, Philo would not use a name for God because his philosophy is that God is unnameable. I do remember reading a suggestion that possibly it was Philo himself who endorsed the replacement of God's name with kyrios, but that was years ago and I don't remember the source now. I wouldn't put it beyond him but I don't think his influence was sufficiently great.
slimboyfat
While Shaw’s work highlights that ΙΑΩ was known and used in certain Jewish contexts, this evidence does not prove it was the original or predominant rendering of YHWH in the LXX.
Neither did I claim that it does. You are not reading what I wrote. Shaw’s work shows that use of the divine name Yaho was widespread among ordinary Jews. This refutes the idea that use of the divine name would not have been familiar for first century Jews when the early Christians used it. On the subject of what was written in the LXX, as I understand it, Shaw’s view is that there was diversity of forms from early in the LXX.
If the NT authors did not consider the possibility that readers might “confuse” YHWH with Jesus, they wrote with a level of carelessness that fundamentally undermines the inspiration and sacredness of their writings.
The NT authors went out of their way to show that Jesus is Lord in a completely different sense than God. For example, Psalm 110.1 is the most quoted OT text in the NT, precisely because it makes the distinction between Jehovah God and Jesus as messianic Lord crystal clear. It says:
Jehovah declared to my Lord:“Sit at my right handUntil I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
Notice here that “Jehovah” (YHWH) is speaking to the messiah as “Lord” (adonai) and that the messianic Lord is clearly subordinate to God. That is how the early Christians distinguished between God and Jesus and is why this text fitted their purpose so well. This careful distinction is also maintained in Phil 2 where Jesus is given the title Lord “to the glory of God the Father.” God himself is not Lord “to the glory of another”. God is almighty in his own glory. Again this text clearly distinguishes Jesus from God and subordinates him to God.
In what sense is Jesus Lord? The NT itself says that Jesus is our Lord because he died and bought us with his blood. That makes Jesus our “owner” which is what his Lordship means in this context. This is spelled out in 2 Peter 2.1 and Jude 4. It is also the basis for the distinction between the honour due to God in Revelation 4 and the honour due to Jesus in Revelation 5. In Revelation 4 God is worthy of honour and glory because he is the one who lives forever, who created all things and because of his will they exist and were created. In chapter 5 Jesus, the lamb of God, is worthy of honour and glory because he died and gave his life that he might buy back humans from sin and death. So again, clearly, Jesus as the owner and Lord of saved humans is Lord in a very different sense from Jehovah who is the ever living God of creation.
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
Claim: Manuscripts such as 4Q120, P. Fouad 266, and Naḥal Ḥever proves that ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH predated the use of κύριος in the LXX.

While these manuscripts are significant for understanding the textual history of the LXX, they do not prove that κύριος was not the original translation for YHWH, because these manuscripts reflects revision, not originality:
1. P. Fouad 266: This fragment preserves the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script embedded within the Greek text. However, as Emanuel Tov and others acknowledge, this reflects a revisionist tendency to reinsert the Hebrew name for liturgical or theological reasons. The Greek translation preceding this insertion likely used κύριος, consistent with Jewish oral substitution of “Adonai.”
2. 4Q120 (Leviticus, 1st Century BCE): The use of ΙΑΩ is a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton and is not a translation. It reflects how YHWH was pronounced phonetically but does not represent a standardized rendering. ΙΑΩ appears sporadically and is limited to a handful of texts. Its presence does not demonstrate widespread adoption in the Septuagint tradition but instead reflects regional or sectarian preferences. As Anneli Aejmelaeus points out, the translation vocabulary of early LXX manuscripts was not yet standardized, and revisions like the Kaige recension aimed to align Greek texts with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. This indicates diversity in early textual traditions but does not negate the predominance of κύριος.
3. 8HevXII gr: This scroll also uses the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton within the Greek text, aligning with the same revisionist tendencies seen in P. Fouad 266. Importantly, this reversion to the Hebrew form reflects a Jewish attempt to preserve the Tetragrammaton in opposition to the Christian use of κύριος.
The presence of ΙΑΩ or the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in these manuscripts must be understood as variants or later revisions, not as evidence that they were the original translation practice of the LXX. The widespread use of κύριος in the majority of extant manuscripts, including Christian copies of the LXX, strongly suggests that it was the standard rendering from the outset. In conclusion, manuscripts like 4Q120 and P. Fouad 266 reflect revisionist efforts to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton, not the original Septuagint translation practice.

Claim: The absence of God’s name in NT manuscripts is due to their late date (2nd century CE and beyond), by which time κύριος had already replaced the Tetragrammaton.

If the NT authors originally used the Tetragrammaton (e.g., ΙΑΩ or YHWH), we would expect to see transitional evidence—manuscripts or fragments showing a gradual replacement of the name with κύριος. However, no such transitional manuscripts exist. The NT manuscripts we have (2nd century and later) consistently use κύριος or θεός in OT quotations. If a widespread conspiracy or systematic replacement occurred, it would leave textual or historical traces—but none are found. Christians inherited the LXX as their authoritative Scripture, and they quoted it extensively in the NT. The consistent use of κύριος in these quotations reflects the tradition as it existed in the LXX manuscripts available to them. Early Christians saw no need to alter the text because κύριος was already established as the equivalent of YHWH. If Philo’s writings avoided the Tetragrammaton due to his theological beliefs, what about other contemporary Jewish authors? There is no evidence that ΙΑΩ or YHWH was widely used in Greek Scriptures of the time. The absence of God’s name in NT manuscripts aligns with the established practice of using κύριος in the LXX. The lack of transitional evidence further weakens the claim that the Tetragrammaton was systematically replaced.

Claim: Philo’s avoidance of God’s name is irrelevant because it stems from his belief that God is “unnameable” (akatonomastos).

Philo’s avoidance of the Tetragrammaton actually strengthens the argument that κύριος was used as a substitute for YHWH. Philo’s reverence for God as “unnameable” aligns with the Jewish practice of avoiding the pronunciation of YHWH. Instead, Jews orally substituted “Adonai” for the Tetragrammaton. In Greek, this practice naturally led to the substitution of κύριος, which means "Lord." If ΙΑΩ were widely used in Greek Scriptures during Philo’s time, it is remarkable that he never mentions it. His complete silence suggests that ΙΑΩ was not standard or widely accepted in Greek-speaking Jewish communities. Philo’s writings confirm that Jews of his era avoided pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, which aligns with the LXX translators' choice to render YHWH as κύριος. Philo’s influence is irrelevant to the broader Jewish tradition of substituting κύριος for YHWH, because his avoidance of the Tetragrammaton simply aligns with the general Jewish practice of substituting κύριος for YHWH and further weakens the case for ΙΑΩ as the original rendering.

The uniform use of κύριος in Christian LXX manuscripts and NT quotations provides strong evidence that it was the established Greek equivalent for YHWH, rooted in Jewish tradition and adopted by early Christians.

@slimboyfat
Claim: Shaw’s work shows the name "Yaho" (ΙΑΩ) was familiar and widespread among ordinary Jews, challenging the claim that early Christians avoided using the divine name.
While Shaw highlights that ΙΑΩ appears in magical texts, onomastica (name lists), and select Jewish papyri, this evidence does not demonstrate widespread liturgical or scriptural usage of ΙΑΩ among Jews in the 1st century CE. The contexts in which ΙΑΩ appears—magical amulets, Jewish incantations, and niche transliterations—are fundamentally different from the formal translation of Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The Septuagint translators were producing a canonical and liturgical text for the Jewish community in Alexandria, not magical or mystical documents. ΙΑΩ reflects a transliteration, not a translation. It preserved the phonetic sound of YHWH for specific uses but does not indicate that it was the dominant rendering in the Septuagint.
The Jewish practice of avoiding pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton and substituting it with "Adonai" (Lord) was already established by the Hellenistic period. This reverence strongly influenced the Greek translators, who adopted κύριος as the functional and respectful equivalent of YHWH. This substitution was not merely a practical decision but reflected Jewish theological sensitivities. Evidence from Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria confirms this. Philo symbolically refers to the divine name and never uses ΙΑΩ, despite living in the same cultural and historical context.
The diversity in rendering the Tetragrammaton (e.g., ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH) reflects later textual developments and recensional efforts, not the original translation of the LXX. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Emanuel Tov emphasize that manuscripts with ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH are likely part of Jewish revisions (e.g., the Kaige recension), aimed at aligning Greek texts more closely with the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The absence of ΙΑΩ in the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts and the uniform use of κύριος in Christian LXX traditions suggests that κύριος was the original and standard choice.
Shaw’s evidence for ΙΑΩ does not disprove Pietersma’s hypothesis. The appearance of ΙΑΩ in regional or magical contexts reflects diversity and revisionist tendencies, not the original Septuagint practice. The Jewish avoidance of pronouncing YHWH and the substitution of "Adonai" in oral recitation provide a consistent explanation for the use of κύριος in the earliest Greek translations.
Claim: Psalm 110:1 and other NT passages clearly distinguish between Jehovah (YHWH) and Jesus, presenting Jesus’ lordship as subordinate to God.
Actually title Κύριος as applied to Jesus operates on two levels:
- A) Divine Lordship: The NT writers use Κύριος to directly identify Jesus with YHWH. This is evident in OT quotations where Κύριος (YHWH) is applied to Jesus. For example Romans 10:9-13 connects confessing Jesus as Κύριος with calling on the name of YHWH (Joel 2:32).
- B) Messianic Lordship: As Messiah, Jesus is also “Lord” in the sense of being the promised Davidic King who reigns with divine authority (cf. Psalm 110:1). This does not exclude His divine nature but fulfills God’s promise to establish a ruler whose kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:32-33).
Jesus’ divine Lordship is eternal, whereas His messianic Lordship is revealed and recognized in time through the Incarnation and Resurrection. While Psalm 110:1 distinguishes between YHWH and the messianic Lord (Adonai), the NT intentionally applies this passage to Jesus (e.g., Matthew 22:44; Acts 2:34-36). By identifying Jesus as the one who fulfills this psalm, the NT writers elevate Jesus to the divine throne, a position of supreme authority and honor.
Acts 2:36 refers to Jesus’ human nature being glorified through the resurrection and ascension. The statement “God has made Him Lord” does not deny Christ’s eternal divine nature. Rather, it emphasizes that Jesus, as fully human, has been exalted to sit at the right hand of the Father. This is consistent with Philippians 2:9-11, which describes Jesus’ exaltation following His humility and obedience to death. The title Κύριος is given to Jesus as the culmination of His salvific work, not as something newly conferred upon Him in essence. Jesus has always been Lord by virtue of His divine nature. What is “made” or conferred is the manifestation of His Lordship in His human nature after the resurrection. This does not conflict with His eternal divine identity as the Son.
Philippians 2:9-11 intentionally echoes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH declares: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” Paul applies this passage directly to Jesus, declaring: “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), to the glory of God the Father.” The NT authors do not view this as a diminishing of God’s glory. Instead, Jesus’ exaltation as κύριος participates in and reflects the divine glory. The NT authors’ use of κύριος for Jesus reflects their understanding of his divine identity. In Romans 10:13 Paul quotes Joel 2:32: “Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH) will be saved.” He applies this to Jesus, affirming that Jesus is the Lord (κύριος) who saves. NT writers consistently apply OT passages about YHWH to Jesus (e.g., Hebrews 1:10 quoting Psalm 102:25-27). This would be blasphemous unless they understood Jesus as sharing in YHWH’s divine nature.
The assertion that Jesus' lordship in the New Testament merely derives from His sacrifice as "owner" of redeemed humans while being different in nature from Jehovah's eternal lordship neglects the deeper Christological truths revealed throughout Scripture, particularly in Revelation 4 and 5. In Revelation 5:13, all creation praises both "Him who sits on the throne" (God) and the Lamb (Jesus) together. The Greek text highlights that the same blessing, honor, glory, and dominion (τὴν εὐλογίαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὸ κράτος) are given equally to both. Worship of Jesus is not lesser or "different" but identical to the worship of God. The use of articles (τὴν) before each term makes the praises specific and unambiguous; no relative or lesser worship is implied. The universal scope (all creatures in heaven, earth, and under the earth) reflects the magnitude of this worship.
In this Old Testament passage, homage to David is "civil reverence," whereas praise to God remains religious worship. Revelation 5 differs because Jesus is explicitly given the same religious adoration as God in the heavenly throne room. If Jesus were a mere creature, it would constitute idolatry to worship Him alongside God.
The distinction between creation (those who worship) and God and the Lamb (those who are worshipped) demonstrates that Jesus is not part of creation but shares in the divine nature. Revelation 5:13 specifically says that "every created thing" worships God and the Lamb. If Jesus were created, He would fall into the category of "every created thing" and could not simultaneously be worshipped as God. This echoes Philippians 2:10-11, where Jesus is given the name above every name, and every knee bows to Him in the same way Isaiah 45:23 describes allegiance to YHWH alone In Revelation 22:3, God and the Lamb receive "sacred service" (latreuo), a form of worship explicitly reserved for God in both the Old and New Testaments (cf. Matthew 4:10, Deuteronomy 6:13). This shows that the Lamb is not worshipped through God or relatively, but directly as God.
The fact that Jesus redeemed humanity with His blood (Revelation 5:9) demonstrates His role as Savior, but this act does not define or limit His lordship. Jesus was already "Lord of all creation" before the Incarnation (Colossians 1:16-17). His redemptive act affirms His divine prerogative to rule and judge all things (Revelation 19:16). Worship of the Lamb is not “different” but complementary to the worship of God. They share one divine essence and are worshipped as one God. The joint worship of God and the Lamb underscores Jesus’ equality with God, not ontological subordination.
aqwsed12345

Here is an interesting and thought-provoking quote:
“Christianity, unlike Islam, did not enjoy the protection of the civil authority for its first four centuries. During this time, Christian books—including copies of the New Testament—were destroyed during the “Great Persecution” under the emperor Diocletian in the early fourth century. This may partially explain the scarcity of early New Testament manuscripts from that time. Another reason for the paucity of manuscript evidence from the first four centuries is the fragile nature of the papyri upon which the first copies of the New Testament were written. Later developments, such as the use of parchment, allowed for the production of copies that were far more resilient, thousands of which have survived to the present day. Nevertheless, a significant amount of manuscript evidence from these early centuries remains, which helps us trace the history of the New Testament’s transmission during this period.
Unlike the systematic destruction of divergent manuscripts in the Qur’ān’s history under Caliph Uthman, early Christians did not organize to eliminate manuscripts with variant readings. For example, among Church Fathers like Jermone, Irenaeus, and Augustine, Origen (c. 185–254) acknowledged textual variations in New Testament manuscripts and explored the causes of textual corruption. The presence of variants in the Greek New Testament manuscripts has long been a source of criticism from Islamic apologists and embarrassment for some Christians. However, viewed differently, these variants provide a wealth of data for scholars about the history of the text and turn out to be a net positive for the reliability and stability of the New Testament. These variants were not always seen as a liability for the New Testament by scholars and Christian leaders, and for good reason.
There are as many as 500,000 textual variants among Greek New Testament manuscripts, which might seem to suggest instability. However, the large number of extant manuscripts provides numerous data points, enabling scholars to identify meaningful variants and reconstruct the autographical text with high probability, tracing the history of its transmission over two millennia with greater confidence. One might even say that the textual variants are a providential feature of the tradition rather than a bug.
In contrast, the homogeneity of the Qur’ān’s text, achieved by Uthman’s destruction of variant manuscripts, gives an appearance of stability but presents significant challenges for text-critical study. Keith Small notes that:
“Without textual criticism being done on early manuscripts of the Qur’ān, claims for the preservation of the Qur’ān are challenging to evaluate and in some respects are both unverifiable and unfalsifiable; that is, they can’t be proven to be either reliably or unreliably transmitted.”
The destruction or loss of early Qur’ānic witnesses during Uthman’s standardization campaign leaves scholars with fewer resources to reconstruct the early textual history of the Qur’ān, making the task of textual criticism even more difficult.
In comparison, the rich and complex tapestry of the New Testament’s transmission allows scholars to examine multiple streams of textual evidence. This diversity ensures that Christians today can have confidence that the New Testament they read is what the early Church received. If, hypothetically, only the Byzantine textform (also known as the Majority Text) of the New Testament had survived, we would doubtless have a good and largely accurate text. Still, in lacking access to the fuller range of textual streams in the tradition, it would be impossible to detect potential errors that might have entered unnoticed. We could never be sure if the more homogeneous text of the Byzantine tradition went back to the autographs or not. Fortunately, because multiple textual streams have survived, we can have confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament text—a level of certainty that the Qur’ān’s transmission history does not provide. What is remarkable about the New Testament tradition is that despite the shockingly high number of extant variants, the story of Jesus and his gospel are preserved throughout the tradition’s different textual streams of every leaf of every manuscript, as is the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ and the meaning of his life, death, and resurrection.
These differences highlight why the New Testament’s text and history are more accessible to scholars than the Qur’ān’s and why the historical realities of the manuscript tradition, far from being an embarrassment to Christians, should be a source of encouragement. They allow us to conduct the historical research necessary to show its stability and reliability going back to the beginnings of Christianity. Unfortunately, the Qur’ān’s textual tradition, due to its intentional early homogenization, leaves far less room for such investigation.”
Source: The Qur’ān, Textual Criticism, and the New Testament
aqwsed12345
Jehovah’s Witnesses Terminology: A Critical Analysis of Apostasy and Misuse of the Concept
The terminology employed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (commonly known as Jehovah’s Witnesses) reflects not only their theological position but also their deep-seated anti-Catholic bias. This article critically examines their usage of the term apostasy, juxtaposes it with its traditional Christian, especially Catholic, understanding, and contrasts it with heresy. Furthermore, it explores the misuse of the term apostate by Jehovah’s Witnesses, drawing parallels to the takfiri rhetoric in radical Islam, and how this undermines their claim to intellectual and theological legitimacy. Jehovah’s Witnesses categorize all non-Witness Christian denominations as part of the "Great Apostasy," equating them with spiritual defection. This view, while internally consistent with their theological worldview, highlight their exclusivist rhetoric and offer a clear basis for evaluating their terminology.
The Christian Understanding of Apostasy and Heresy
In traditional Christian theology, the term apostasy refers to the complete renunciation of the Christian faith by someone who was previously a believer. It is derived from the Greek word apostasia, meaning “to stand away from” or “defection.” Apostasy is a significant act of rebellion against God, marked by a deliberate abandonment of the Christian identity. For instance, a baptized Christian converting to Islam, Buddhism, or atheism is considered an apostate.
Heresy, on the other hand, refers to the denial or distortion of specific tenets of Christian doctrine while maintaining an overall Christian identity. Historically, figures like Arius or Pelagius were labeled heretics for their doctrinal deviations, yet they never renounced Christianity outright. The Catholic Church, while condemning heresies, did not consider heretics as apostates unless they formally renounced the Christian faith altogether.
This distinction underscores the nuanced understanding of theological errors within Christianity: apostasy represents a complete departure, while heresy is a deviation from orthodoxy.
Jehovah’s Witnesses Misuse of Apostasy
Jehovah’s Witnesses use the term apostasy far more broadly and indiscriminately. They apply it not only to individuals who leave their movement but also to all other Christian denominations. This is evident in their literature, where the “Great Apostasy” is described as the supposed “corruption” of Christianity that began right after the apostolic age, culminating in the establishment of "Christendom" (a term they use pejoratively to refer to all non-Witness Christian groups).
By conflating apostasy with heresy, Jehovah’s Witnesses make a fundamental theological error. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians who profess belief in Christ and adhere to core Christian doctrines, even if differing in interpretation, are not apostates under the traditional definition. Labeling them as such is not only terminologically incorrect but also polemically divisive. It disregards centuries of Christian theological discourse and creates an exclusivist narrative where only Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered true Christians.
Jehovah’s Witnesses define apostasy broadly to encompass any deviation from what they consider "true worship." Their Insight on the Scriptures explains apostasy as a "rebellion against Jehovah God and a departure from true worship." (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 126) This definition sets the stage for their labeling of all other Christian groups as apostates, even those who maintain their belief in Christ and the Bible.
Jehovah’s Witnesses consider all of "Christendom"—not just certain groups or movements—part of apostasy. According ot the Jehovah’s Witnesses, right after the death of Christ’s apostles, a "Great Apostasy" took root. It flourished in the form of "Christendom", which "adopted" "pagan "beliefs and practices, creating what the according to them Bible calls 'Babylon the Great.' For them every branch of Christianity outside the Witnesses’ organization is considered part of an overarching apostasy
By claiming that "true Christianity" was effectively dormant for centuries until the emergence of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the organization positions itself as the sole custodian of authentic Christian worship. This leaves no room for recognizing the faith of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Protestants, all of whom are lumped together under the banner of "apostasy".
A critical linguistic distinction in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rhetoric is their use of "Christendom" instead of Christianity. In their publications, "Christendom" is consistently used to refer to all Christian denominations outside of their organization, emphasizing their deviation from what Jehovah’s Witnesses define as true Christianity. This distinction is strategic, as it enables them to delegitimize other denominations without engaging directly with their theological claims. They claim that the "true Christians" are separate from "Christendom", which is steeped in "apostasy" and "false worship", and emphasise that "Christendom’s" practices are not just errors; they are "rebellion" against God. By framing other denominations as part of "Christendom," they subtly assert that these groups are fundamentally distinct from "true Christians," who are, by their definition, only Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Anti-Catholic Bias in the Misuse of Apostasy
The Watchtower Society’s anti-Catholic rhetoric plays a significant role in their misuse of apostasy. By using apostate instead of heretic, they aim to evoke stronger negative connotations, tapping into the broader cultural disdain for traitors. This is especially ironic considering that the Catholic Church, often accused of dogmatism, does not go as far as to call non-Catholic Christians apostates. Instead, the Church acknowledges them as separated brethren, albeit with theological disagreements.
Jehovah’s Witnesses reserve special criticism for the Catholic Church, often portraying it as the epicenter of apostasy. This antagonistic stance is rooted in their interpretation of Revelation, where "Babylon the Great" is equated with all "false religion", with "Christendom"—and particularly the Catholic Church—at its heart. By depicting "Christendom" as corrupt and "apostate", Jehovah’s Witnesses make it clear that their denunciation of other Christian groups goes far beyond doctrinal differences; it is an outright rejection of their legitimacy as Christians.
Jehovah’s Witnesses' refusal to use heresy is strategic. The term heresy is historically associated with the Catholic Inquisition, a period often mischaracterized in anti-Catholic propaganda (cf. Black Legend). Avoiding this term allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to appear more inclusive and exploratory, even as they perpetuate a deeply exclusionary theology.
The Original Meaning of “Christendom”
The term Christendom originated as an Anglo-Saxon word, crīstendōm, coined in the 9th century to describe the cultural, political, and religious unity of Christian-majority regions under the influence of the Christian faith. It referred to the “dominion or sovereignty of Christianity,” encompassing territories where Christianity was the dominant religion. Initially, it signified a universal Christian community bound by faith and a shared identity, shaped significantly by the political and religious dynamics of the Roman Empire and later medieval Europe.
Historically, Christendom evolved as a concept to denote the collective Christian civilization that emerged through the integration of secular power and Christian religious authority. The term encapsulates the profound influence of Christianity on law, education, art, philosophy, and governance, particularly in the Western world. It also embodies the idea of a united Christian polity that extended across Europe, manifesting as a socio-political entity grounded in Christian values.
The Watchtower Society’s Distortion of “Christendom”
In contrast to its historical and theological roots, the Watchtower Society employs the term "Christendom" with a distinctly pejorative undertone. Within their literature, "Christendom" is used not to celebrate the cultural and historical achievements of Christianity but to critique and delegitimize all forms of organized Christianity outside of their movement. This usage reflects their anti-Catholic and anti-mainstream Christian bias.
The Watchtower Society distinguishes between Christianity—a label they reserve exclusively for their own beliefs—and "Christendom", which they use to describe what they consider to be apostate, hypocritical, or corrupted forms of Christianity. In their rhetoric, "Christendom" becomes synonymous with false religion, encompassing all other Christian denominations, which they accuse of betraying the teachings of Jesus by compromising with political and cultural systems.
Why the Watchtower’s Usage is Problematic
1. Historical Inaccuracy: The Watchtower Society's definition of "Christendom" as a derogatory term ignores the historical significance and complexity of the term. "Christendom" historically encompassed the development of Christian civilization, including its moral and intellectual contributions to the world. By reducing it to a symbol of apostasy, the Society erases centuries of Christian history and culture.
2. Theological Exclusivism: By reserving the term Christianity for themselves, Jehovah’s Witnesses delegitimize the Christian identity of billions of believers worldwide. This exclusivist attitude contrasts sharply with the Catholic Church’s more inclusive view, which recognizes all who are baptized in the name of the Trinity as Christians.
3. Conflation with Apostasy: The Society's use of "Christendom" conflates it with their concept of a “Great Apostasy.” They label historical Christian institutions as apostate for integrating with political systems or adopting practices they deem unbiblical. This overlooks the nuanced theological and historical reasons behind the evolution of Christian doctrines and practices.
The Islamic Concept of Apostasy and the Takfiri Parallel
In Islamic theology, apostasy (irtidad) similarly refers to the act of leaving Islam, often punishable by death in traditional interpretations of Sharia law. A radical subset of Islam, known as takfiri, extends this concept by declaring fellow Muslims apostates for perceived doctrinal or behavioral deviations. Groups like ISIS have exploited this ideology, justifying violence against Muslims who do not conform to their interpretation of Islam.
This takfiri approach parallels the rhetoric of Jehovah’s Witnesses in unsettling ways. Like the takfiris, Jehovah’s Witnesses declare all other Christians to be "apostates", effectively excommunicating everyone of "Christendom". While Jehovah’s Witnesses do not advocate violence, the underlying logic of exclusion and the delegitimization of others’ faiths mirror the exclusivism of radical Islam.
The rhetoric used by Jehovah’s Witnesses bears an unsettling resemblance to the takfiri doctrine in radical Islam, where fellow Muslims are declared kafir (unbelievers) for not adhering to a purist interpretation of Islam. Both approaches revolve around exclusivism: a binary worldview in which only one group holds the truth, while all others are considered rebellious or illegitimate.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ denunciation of all other Christians as apostates mirrors the takfiri methodology of declaring mainstream Muslims apostates for failing to adhere to specific doctrines. The implications are similarly divisive: instead of fostering dialogue or understanding, such rhetoric alienates and demonizes those with differing beliefs.

This parallel casts Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rhetoric in a troubling light. While they do not advocate violence, their spiritual condemnation of others perpetuates an "us vs. them" mentality, fostering isolationism and intellectual rigidity. For an organization that professes to champion love and truth, this resemblance to radical exclusivism damages their credibility.
The Watchtower Society's dismissal of all other Christians as part of "Christendom" bears unsettling similarities to the rhetoric of takfiri movements in radical Islam. Takfiri ideology involves declaring fellow Muslims apostates for deviating from specific interpretations of Islamic law. Similarly, Jehovah’s Witnesses denounce all other Christian denominations as part of a corrupted, false religious system.
This parallel is significant and concerning for several reasons:
- Sectarianism: Both ideologies foster division by denying the legitimacy of other faith communities within their broader religious tradition.
- Rhetorical Extremism: Labeling entire groups as apostates or false Christians creates an “us vs. them” dichotomy that stifles dialogue and mutual understanding.
- Negative Associations: The comparison to takfiri rhetoric risks aligning Jehovah’s Witnesses with the sectarian extremism seen in radical Islam, casting a shadow over their claims of being a peaceful, truth-seeking organization.
A More Respectful Alternative
If the Watchtower Society were to label other Christian denominations as heretical rather than apostate, they would align more closely with historical Christian terminology. Heresy denotes doctrinal error within the faith, while apostasy involves a complete rejection of the faith. Acknowledging this distinction would demonstrate a greater respect for the shared Christian identity of other groups, even amidst theological disagreements.
Such a shift would not only improve the Society’s credibility but also mitigate the alienation and offense caused by their current rhetoric. It would allow for a more constructive critique of other denominations without resorting to exclusivist and inflammatory language.
The Theological and Ethical Implications
The implications of this parallel are troubling. By adopting a terminology that resembles takfiri rhetoric, Jehovah’s Witnesses align themselves with one of the most divisive and destructive forms of religious discourse. This not only alienates them from broader Christian ecumenism but also casts a shadow over their claims to moral and theological superiority.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses were to use heresy instead of apostasy, they would be engaging in a more accurate and respectful dialogue with other Christian groups. Such a shift would acknowledge the shared Christian identity of others while still allowing for doctrinal critique. However, their insistence on apostasy reflects an underlying exclusivist agenda that prioritizes sectarian identity over theological precision or mutual respect.
Conclusion
The misuse of apostasy by Jehovah’s Witnesses exemplifies their theological isolationism and anti-Catholic bias. By conflating apostasy with heresy, they distort established Christian terminology to delegitimize all other denominations. This approach not only disrespects the shared heritage of Christian faith but also mirrors the divisive rhetoric of radical Islamic takfiri ideology. For an organization claiming to uphold truth and justice, such a stance is both intellectually and ethically indefensible. A more accurate and respectful approach to theological differences would benefit not only their relations with other Christians but also their credibility as a religious movement.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ misuse of the term "apostasy" to describe all other Christian denominations reflects both a theological misunderstanding and a polemical strategy. By conflating heresy with apostasy, they delegitimize centuries of Christian faith and dialogue. Their anti-Catholic rhetoric and their binary distinction between "true Christianity" (themselves) and "Christendom" (everyone else) parallel the exclusivist takfiri ideology of radical Islam, raising serious ethical and theological questions about their approach.
The term Christendom has a rich historical and cultural meaning that reflects the development of Christian civilization. The Watchtower Society's misuse of the term as a synonym for apostasy distorts its significance and reinforces their theological isolationism. By adopting a rhetoric reminiscent of takfiri extremism, they risk alienating themselves further from the broader Christian community and damaging their moral credibility. A more accurate and respectful use of theological terminology would foster greater understanding and dialogue, aligning with the values of truth and humility they claim to uphold.

Such rhetoric not only undermines their claims to inclusivity and truth but also risks alienating them further from the global Christian community. A re-examination of their terminology and a more respectful approach to other faiths would benefit their credibility and contribute to a more meaningful interfaith dialogue.
slimboyfat

While Shaw highlights that ΙΑΩ appears in magical texts, onomastica (name lists), and select Jewish papyri, this evidence does not demonstrate widespread liturgical or scriptural usage of ΙΑΩ among Jews in the 1st century CE.
That’s not what Shaw’s book says at all. Have you read it?

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

The Original Meaning of “Christendom”

The Watchtower Society’s Distortion of “Christendom”

Why the Watchtower’s Usage is Problematic

A More Respectful Alternative

Share this