Jump to content

Jack Ryan

Did Jewish Scribes Remove the Name of God from the Greek New Testament Manuscripts?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jack Ryan -
HollyW -
32
1245

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

I have a question I was hoping someone here could answer. I know JW's say that Jewish scribes removed the name of God from the Greek New Testament manuscripts, but I have not seen any documented evidence from reputable scholars to substantiate that claim. In fact, today I was reading through the Watchtower edition #4 under the section titled "The Bible Survived Attempts to Alter Its Message" and I found an interesting quote there. Basically, it makes the argument that due to the strict standard involved in copying the manuscripts, the sheer volume of Greek manuscripts available, and the availability of early manuscripts as early as the second century, we can be confident that the Greek manuscripts read nearly exactly as the originals.
So, if that is true, and I agree it is, how can the claim be made on one hand that the Bible has been accurately transmitted through the centuries, and on the other hand say that Jewish scholars took the name of God out of all 27 books of the New Testament? Either one believes the integrity of the Bible has been preserved through the centuries, or one doesn't. If the name of God has truly been omitted, how can we trust many other things haven't been omitted or changed?
Below is the quote from the Watchtower article.i would be interested to see the sources from credible scholars that show evidence that the name of God has been omitted.
______
A member of the editorial team of the Dead Sea Scrolls concluded that one scroll “provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful.”
The Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland, features a collection of papyri that represents nearly every book of the Christian Greek Scriptures, including manuscripts dating from the second century C.E.—only about 100 years after the Bible was completed. “Although the Papyri supply a wealth of new information on textual detail,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary observes, “they also demonstrate remarkable stability in the transmission history of the biblical text.”
“It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted”
THE RESULT: Rather than corrupting the Bible text, the age and multitude of Bible manuscripts have actually improved it. “No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text,” wrote Sir Frederic Kenyon about the Christian Greek Scriptures, “and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.” And regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William Henry Green stated: *****“It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”*****

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jay Witness said:

A member of the editorial team of the Dead Sea Scrolls concluded that one scroll “provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful.”

He was referring to the Isaiah Scroll, which is a very long scroll that is often quoted as being 99.9% faithful to the original. In fact, it also shows that literally hundreds of changes occurred over just 12 centuries, but that most of them appear accidental and they were of only minor importance to the overall text. What makes your question even more interesting is the fact that the name YHWH was never removed from those texts over that thousand year period. We only claim that the YHWH (or some Hebrew/Greek/hybrid form of it) was removed from Greek texts. Hebrew texts remained intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jay Witness said:

I have a question I was hoping someone here could answer. I know JW's say that Jewish scribes removed the name of God from the Greek New Testament manuscripts, but I have not seen any documented evidence from reputable scholars to substantiate that claim. In fact, today I was reading through the Watchtower edition #4 under the section titled "The Bible Survived Attempts to Alter Its Message" and I found an interesting quote there. Basically, it makes the argument that due to the strict standard involved in copying the manuscripts, the sheer volume of Greek manuscripts available, and the availability of early manuscripts as early as the second century, we can be confident that the Greek manuscripts read nearly exactly as the originals.
So, if that is true, and I agree it is, how can the claim be made on one hand that the Bible has been accurately transmitted through the centuries, and on the other hand say that Jewish scholars took the name of God out of all 27 books of the New Testament? Either one believes the integrity of the Bible has been preserved through the centuries, or one doesn't. If the name of God has truly been omitted, how can we trust many other things haven't been omitted or changed?
Below is the quote from the Watchtower article.i would be interested to see the sources from credible scholars that show evidence that the name of God has been omitted.
______
A member of the editorial team of the Dead Sea Scrolls concluded that one scroll “provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful.”
The Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland, features a collection of papyri that represents nearly every book of the Christian Greek Scriptures, including manuscripts dating from the second century C.E.—only about 100 years after the Bible was completed. “Although the Papyri supply a wealth of new information on textual detail,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary observes, “they also demonstrate remarkable stability in the transmission history of the biblical text.”
“It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted”
THE RESULT: Rather than corrupting the Bible text, the age and multitude of Bible manuscripts have actually improved it. “No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text,” wrote Sir Frederic Kenyon about the Christian Greek Scriptures, “and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.” And regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William Henry Green stated: *****“It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”*****

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

 

The WTS has two opposing views on the Bible’s reliability.

While on the one hand they maintain that the Bible manuscripts have unquestionably come down to us exactly as God had inspired them to be written; on the other hand they say the NT manuscripts have been tampered with in “one of the saddest and most reprehensible” ways, by removing “Jehovah” from them……which might make them wonder what other parts were tampered with. 

Bible reliability:
 

 
Awake, 6/11/1972: Almighty God himself has unquestionably had a hand in seeing that his Word has been preserved so faithfully all these years. Any way one looks at it, the overall reliability of the Bible text is beyond question.

Road to Paradise tract, pg. 3: HAS NOT THE HOLY BIBLE BEEN TAMPERED WITH? Almighty God could by no means allow such a thing……... When our present-day Bible is compared with such old manuscripts, it becomes quite clear that the text we have today is the same as that which God inspired his ancient servants to write.

Insight-1 p.321: Copies—Hebrew or Greek—Soon after the originals were written, manuscript copies began to be produced. The copyists exercised great care to transmit the text accurately; the Masoretes counted even the letters that they copied. 

Insight-1 p.448: The available evidence convincingly demonstrates the remarkable accuracy and care that distinguished the copying of the Bible books, resulting in the preservation of their internal integrity. 

Insight-2 p.313: What assurance is there that the Bible has not been changed? Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions.

NWT introduction: Since the Bible sets for the sacred will of the Sovereign Lord of the universe, it would be a great indignity, indeed an affront to his majesty and authority, to omit or hide his unique divine name.

Bible tampered with:
 

 
Close to Jehovah, p.8: God’s personal name has been removed from countless Bible translations and replaced with titles, such as “Lord” and “God”. This is one of the saddest and most reprehensible things that has been done in the name of religion.

Insight-2 p.10: Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky′ri·os and The·os′. 

Insight-1 p.324: Eventually, in most translations of the Bible the divine name was completely replaced by expressions such as “Lord” and “God.” It is noteworthy that only the most vital name of all—Jehovah—was tampered with; other Bible names were not.

Watchtower 10/1/1997 p.20: Show discernment in the selection of the Bible you use. (Proverbs 19:8) If a translation is not honest about the identity of God himself—removing his name from his inspired Word on whatever pretext—might the translators also have tampered with other parts of the Bible text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the NT lack of YHWH, they blame what they call "brother Christians":

[w10 7/1 p.6-7] When brother Christians made copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures, they evidently took Jehovah’s personal name out of the text and substituted Ky′ri·os, the Greek word for “Lord.” The Hebrew Scriptures did not fare any better. No longer reading God’s name aloud, brother Jewish scribes replaced the divine name in their Scriptures with ʼAdho·nai′ more than 130 times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jay Witness, I do not know if this will help you any, but I would be remiss if not sharing with you. The articles are rather long, so I am posting the links to the info.,plus what I thought interesting

 

Quote

A few

    Hello guest!
do use
    Hello guest!
in the New Testament. For example,
    Hello guest!
, in what is sometimes known as "Archbishop Newcome's new translation", has the name Jehovah a few times where the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament, such as Matthew 22:24.
    Hello guest!
The first complete Bible printed in America
    Hello guest!
by
    Hello guest!
, although not in English, frequently uses "Jehovah" in the New Testament.
    Hello guest!

Quote
Main article:
    Hello guest!

Over the centuries, various translators have inserted the Tetragrammaton into

    Hello guest!
. One of the earliest
    Hello guest!
is mixed in with the 1385 critical commentary of
    Hello guest!
. He includes the Tetragrammaton written out or abbreviated 19 times, while occasionally including the appellative
    Hello guest!
(השם, meaning "The Name").
    Hello guest!

Quote

 

Laurence Schiffman

    Hello guest!
views this as a discussion of whether to rescue section of the sifre minim (Hebrew language texts of
    Hello guest!
) containing the tetragrammata from a house fire. Another interpretation suggests this is a reference to
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
and not the
    Hello guest!
.
    Hello guest!

Although none of the extant

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
contain the Tetragrammaton, scholar
    Hello guest!
has suggested that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original New Testament
    Hello guest!
,
    Hello guest!
and that "the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates
    Hello guest!
and
    Hello guest!
blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ."
    Hello guest!
In the
    Hello guest!
, Howard states: "There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the OT quotations in the NT when the NT documents were first penned."
    Hello guest!
:392

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAMMY said:

@Jay Witness, I do not know if this will help you any, but I would be remiss if not sharing with you. The articles are rather long, so I am posting the links to the info.,plus what I thought interesting

 

 

George Howard's theory that YHWH was in the OT quotes that are in the NT covers just a small portion of the 237 times the NWT has "Jehovah" in its NT.  There's also the question about how it was actually read, if it did indeed appear there, since it is also stated that Jews read YHWH as "Lord".

One of the articles in your references refers to the use of "Jehovah" by the Aramaic Bible in Plain English.  I wonder if Howard would agree with it's translation of  1 Corinthians 12:3 Because I inform you of this: there is no man who speaks by The Spirit of God and says, “Yeshua is damned”, neither can a man say, “Yeshua is THE LORD JEHOVAH”, except by The Spirit of Holiness.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, HollyW said:

And for the NT lack of YHWH, they blame what they call "brother Christians":

One of the administrators/moderators must have used the "dirty-word-filter" and used it to change the word "a-p-o s-t-a-t-e" to "brother." The original Watchtower article calls them "APO"+"STATE" Christians, NOT "brother Christians."

Don't know if the punctuation I just used will get around the filter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2016 at 1:05 PM, HollyW said:

[w10 7/1 p.6-7] When apo-state Christians made copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures, they evidently took Jehovah’s personal name out of the text and substituted Ky′ri·os, the Greek word for “Lord.” The Hebrew Scriptures did not fare any better. No longer reading God’s name aloud, apo-state scribes replaced the divine name in their Scriptures with ʼAdho·nai′ more than 130 times.

Technically, there is still no evidence that Christian scribes took Jehovah's personal name out of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, so it is probably not fair to judge these persons as "apo-state" since they are technically imaginary, so far.

Also, we shouldn't say that the Hebrew Scriptures did not fare any better. They fared much better in this regard, if we are correct about what we imagine might have happened to the Greek texts. Those Hebrew texts contain the divine name nearly 7,000 times, and only in about 130 places does it appear that the divine name was replaced with "Lord." That means that between 98% and 99% of those occurrences fared perfectly well. But we believe that at least 237 out of 237 cases in the Greek texts were removed. To review, then, the score is:

  • Greek texts: 0%
  • Hebrew texts 98%

There is no reason, then, to say that the Hebrew Scriptures did not fare any better than the Greek. That was a mistake. Also, the Masoretes left a recognizable pattern which helps us understand the reasoning behind the removal in a lot of these cases. I'm not sure why we would praise these same scribes for their faithfulness on the one hand and then judge them as apo-states in 2010.

We should take this subject very seriously because if we have done the wrong thing here we have actually removed the word Lord 237 times from the text of the Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Jehovah. In most of these cases there is NOT a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a couple of cases where it IS a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name was used, we do NOT use the divine name, but leave it as Lord.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

One of the administrators/moderators must have used the "dirty-word-filter" and used it to change the word "a-p-o s-t-a-t-e" to "brother." The original Watchtower article calls them "APO"+"STATE" Christians, NOT "brother Christians."

Don't know if the punctuation I just used will get around the filter. 

Good to know.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 We should take this subject very seriously because if we have done the wrong thing here we have actually removed the word Lord 237 times from the text of the Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Jehovah. In most of these cases there is NOT a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a couple of cases where it IS a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name was used, we do NOT use the divine name, but leave it as Lord.

 

That's interesting.....which scriptures are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, HollyW said:

That's interesting.....which scriptures are you referring to?

Happy to get to that soon. Let's say:

Category #1 would be cases where the NWT uses the name "Jehovah" when the NT (GS) is NOT quoting from the OT (HS). There are over 100 of these cases.

Category #2, then, would be rare cases where the NT (GS) quotes or references the OT (HS) in places where "Jehovah" was used in the OT but the NWT chooses NOT to translate the name "Jehovah."

That means I left out a couple of important categories:They might seem minor at first but one of them, we'll call it "Category #3" turns out to be important in the way they show the reliance on the LXX in the NT (GS) instead of the Hebrew in quotes of the OT (HS).

Category #3, then, contains the few instances where the Hebrew was known to contain the Divine Name but the LXX did not replace it with the usual "kyrios" (Lord) but instead replaced it with "God."

Category #4 could be the many cases where the "J" texts use the name Jehovah, but the NWT does NOT choose to translate "Jehovah" in those locations.

What would we expect to happen in the case of a Category #3? The NWT is based on the "Masoretic" texts (MT) from more than 1,000 years after the time of Jesus. That's because we have very few full texts of Hebrew Bible books (in Hebrew) from any earlier. (The Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS] weren't published in time to affect the NWT, but full books are rarely covered.) In cases where the MT and other texts including available DSS use the Divine Name, the LXX usually replaces with the word "Lord." if the NT (GS) quotes from one of those places, would we expect the MT and/or DSS or would be expect the LXX version of the OT verse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Happy to get to that soon. Let's say:

Category #1 would be cases where the NWT uses the name "Jehovah" when the NT (GS) is NOT quoting from the OT (HS). There are over 100 of these cases.

Category #2, then, would be rare cases where the NT (GS) quotes or references the OT (HS) in places where "Jehovah" was used in the OT but the NWT chooses NOT to translate the name "Jehovah."

That means I left out a couple of important categories:They might seem minor at first but one of them, we'll call it "Category #3" turns out to be important in the way they show the reliance on the LXX in the NT (GS) instead of the Hebrew in quotes of the OT (HS).

Category #3, then, contains the few instances where the Hebrew was known to contain the Divine Name but the LXX did not replace it with the usual "kyrios" (Lord) but instead replaced it with "God."

Category #4 could be the many cases where the "J" texts use the name Jehovah, but the NWT does NOT choose to translate "Jehovah" in those locations.

What would we expect to happen in the case of a Category #3? The NWT is based on the "Masoretic" texts (MT) from more than 1,000 years after the time of Jesus. That's because we have very few full texts of Hebrew Bible books (in Hebrew) from any earlier. (The Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS] weren't published in time to affect the NWT, but full books are rarely covered.) In cases where the MT and other texts including available DSS use the Divine Name, the LXX usually replaces with the word "Lord." if the NT (GS) quotes from one of those places, would we expect the MT and/or DSS or would be expect the LXX version of the OT verse?

If the NWT is using the Hebrew OT as its guide for translating the Greek "kyrios" as "Jehovah", it would follow that regardless of what the LXX has, any Category #3 verses would rely on the OT and use "Jehovah".  Are Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:9-11 instances of this?

Regarding the J docs of Category #4, the NWT translation committee appears to have not followed them exactly because there are a number of instances in them when "Jehovah" is used but the NWT does not.  1 Cor. 12:3 and 2 Timothy 1:18 are some examples of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2016 at 3:21 PM, HollyW said:

Regarding the J docs of Category #4, the NWT translation committee appears to have not followed them exactly because there are a number of instances in them when "Jehovah" is used but the NWT does not.  1 Cor. 12:3 and 2 Timothy 1:18 are some examples of this.

There is a lot of readily available research on this topic already online. As I began to join in, I also realized that I might be repeating information that has already come up in other questions and topics on this forum.

I'll start with the J docs that I arbitrarily assigned to Category #4. ,

The J Docs initially referred to about 19 different Hebrew translations (from Greek to "modern" Hebrew) numbered J1, J2, J3, etc, up to J19. A few more have now been added to the 1985 Reference NWT, but these include even more modern non-Hebrew translations that use a form of "Jehovah" in the NT.

From the standpoint of how the Greek Scriptures (NT) should be translated into English (or any other language) the "J Docs" are meaningless. I think that several of us have misinterpreted their importance. These have nothing to do with what the ancient Greek texts said or meant. They are not old texts from the viewpoint of the Scriptures. They are "modern" texts. (J2 is the oldest from about 100 years before Columbus and the next oldest J7 is from about 100 years after Columbus. The rest are mostly from the 1800s through the late 1900's).

They are modern Hebrew translations of the New Testament. They were sometimes simply the work of biased Trinitarian missionaries who wanted to create a Christian ministry to Jewish speakers of Hebrew. They added the divine name in the places in the NT where they thought these verses should show a direct connection between the God/Lord of the OT and the God/Lord of the NT. They referred to God as YHWH even in cases where the NT was not quoting the OT. The problem is that the Trinitarian bias allowed these "translators" to pick several cases where even Jesus as Lord is directly connected to Jehovah as Lord.

Note this information about J18The 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation says:

J18
Greek Scriptures in Hebrew. In London, England, in 1885, a new Hebrew translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was published. This new translation was commenced by Isaac Salkinson and completed after his death by Christian David Ginsburg. Our oldest copy is of the third edition published in 1891. This has been compared with the small edition published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England, in 1939, and also with the Hebrew-English New Testament published in 1941 by the same Society (page 29).

Our old NWT Bibles (1950, 1951, 1963) used to include a statement about them altogether like this:

All together, the appearances of the sacred Tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences."

But we didn't count all of the "distinct occurrences." There are over 100 additional distinct occurrences that we didn't count because we couldn't use them. Just a few examples will show why. This has already been started on other sites that I copy from below. They include HollyW's examples:

1 Corinth. 12:3 in J14

"...no one can say "Jesus is Lord (יהוה), except by the Holy Spirit."

1 Thess. 4:16,17 in J7,8,13,14,24

"For the Lord (יהוה) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord (יהוה) in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord (יהוה)."

2 Timothy 1:18 in J7,8,13,14,16,17,18,22,23,24

"The Lord (יהוה) grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord (יהוה) in that day..."

Hebrews 1:10 in J8 in which Jehovah addresses the Son using the Divine Name.

"Thou, Lord (יהוה), in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of thy hands."

1 Peter 2:3 in J13, J14

"If you have tasted the kindness of the Lord (יהוה)"

1 Peter 3:15 in J7

"but sanctify Christ as Lord (יהוה) in your hearts..."

J7 and J8 also adds "ha Mashiach" (the Messiah) or (the Christ) making this read: "Jehovah God, who is Christ." The 1985 KIT mentions the "J" versions in a footnote, but not that both J7 and J8 read "Sanctify Jehovah God (who is Christ) in your hearts." This is a quotation from Isaiah 8:12,13. Both the LXX and KIT Greek are nearly identical.

J20 (Concordance to the Greek Testament) cites יהוה at both 1 Peter 2:3 and 1 Peter 3:15.

Revelation 16:5 in J7,8,13,14,16

"Thou art righteous, O Lord (יהוה), which art, and wast, and shalt be,"

Romans 10:9 in J12-14, 16-18, 22

"For if you publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth' that Jesus is (haAdohn), and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved."

These "J" Documents contain the phrase "Ha Adohn" which means the only true God--JEHOVAH. In Appendix 1H - p.1568, the New World Translation Reference Edition states: "The use of the definite article 'ha' before the title 'Adohn' limits the application of this title exclusively to Jehovah God." Yet, without any explanation in the footnote at Romans 10:9, the New World Bible Translation Committee states "Not Jehovah."

Acts 26:14,15 in J17,J18

"'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' But I said, 'Who are you Lord?" And the Lord (haAdohn - Jehovah God) said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.'"

[Several places in the J Docs even name the Holy Spirit as YHWH.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There is a lot of readily available research on this topic already online. As I began to join in, I also realized that I might be repeating information that has already come up in other questions and topics on this forum.

I'll start with the J docs that I arbitrarily assigned to Category #4. ,

The J Docs initially referred to about 19 different Hebrew translations (from Greek to "modern" Hebrew) numbered J1, J2, J3, etc, up to J19. A few more have now been added to the 1985 Reference NWT, but these include even more modern non-Hebrew translations that use a form of "Jehovah" in the NT.

From the standpoint of how the Greek Scriptures (NT) should be translated into English (or any other language) the "J Docs" are meaningless. I think that several of us have misinterpreted their importance. These have nothing to do with what the ancient Greek texts said or meant. They are not old texts from the viewpoint of the Scriptures. They are "modern" texts. (J2 is the oldest from about 100 years before Columbus and the next oldest J7 is from about 100 years after Columbus. The rest are mostly from the 1800s through the late 1900's).

They are modern Hebrew translations of the New Testament. They were sometimes simply the work of biased Trinitarian missionaries who wanted to create a Christian ministry to Jewish speakers of Hebrew. They added the divine name in the places in the NT where they thought these verses should show a direct connection between the God/Lord of the OT and the God/Lord of the NT. They referred to God as YHWH even in cases where the NT was not quoting the OT. The problem is that the Trinitarian bias allowed these "translators" to pick several cases where even Jesus as Lord is directly connected to Jehovah as Lord.

Note this information about J18The 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation says:

J18
Greek Scriptures in Hebrew. In London, England, in 1885, a new Hebrew translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was published. This new translation was commenced by Isaac Salkinson and completed after his death by Christian David Ginsburg. Our oldest copy is of the third edition published in 1891. This has been compared with the small edition published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England, in 1939, and also with the Hebrew-English New Testament published in 1941 by the same Society (page 29).

Our old NWT Bibles (1950, 1951, 1963) used to include a statement about them altogether like this:

All together, the appearances of the sacred Tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences."

But we didn't count all of the "distinct occurrences." There are over 100 additional distinct occurrences that we didn't count because we couldn't use them. Just a few examples will show why. This has already been started on other sites that I copy from below. They include HollyW's examples:

1 Corinth. 12:3 in J14

"...no one can say "Jesus is Lord (יהוה), except by the Holy Spirit."

1 Thess. 4:16,17 in J7,8,13,14,24

"For the Lord (יהוה) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord (יהוה) in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord (יהוה)."

2 Timothy 1:18 in J7,8,13,14,16,17,18,22,23,24

"The Lord (יהוה) grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord (יהוה) in that day..."

Hebrews 1:10 in J8 in which Jehovah addresses the Son using the Divine Name.

"Thou, Lord (יהוה), in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of thy hands."

1 Peter 2:3 in J13, J14

"If you have tasted the kindness of the Lord (יהוה)"

1 Peter 3:15 in J7

"but sanctify Christ as Lord (יהוה) in your hearts..."

J7 and J8 also adds "ha Mashiach" (the Messiah) or (the Christ) making this read: "Jehovah God, who is Christ." The 1985 KIT mentions the "J" versions in a footnote, but not that both J7 and J8 read "Sanctify Jehovah God (who is Christ) in your hearts." This is a quotation from Isaiah 8:12,13. Both the LXX and KIT Greek are nearly identical.

J20 (Concordance to the Greek Testament) cites יהוה at both 1 Peter 2:3 and 1 Peter 3:15.

Revelation 16:5 in J7,8,13,14,16

"Thou art righteous, O Lord (יהוה), which art, and wast, and shalt be,"

Romans 10:9 in J12-14, 16-18, 22

"For if you publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth' that Jesus is (haAdohn), and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved."

These "J" Documents contain the phrase "Ha Adohn" which means the only true God--JEHOVAH. In Appendix 1H - p.1568, the New World Translation Reference Edition states: "The use of the definite article 'ha' before the title 'Adohn' limits the application of this title exclusively to Jehovah God." Yet, without any explanation in the footnote at Romans 10:9, the New World Bible Translation Committee states "Not Jehovah."

Acts 26:14,15 in J17,J18

"'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' But I said, 'Who are you Lord?" And the Lord (haAdohn - Jehovah God) said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.'"

[Several places in the J Docs even name the Holy Spirit as YHWH.]

 

Thank you, JW Insider, for your comprehensive research and for bringing up haAdohn in Romans 10:9.  The WTS reference about haAdohn shows that Jesus is Jehovah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, HollyW said:

Thank you, JW Insider, for your comprehensive research and for bringing up haAdohn in Romans 10:9.  The WTS reference about haAdohn shows that Jesus is Jehovah.

At this point it only shows that some modern translators of Romans 10:9 thought that Jesus is Jehovah. Romans 10:9 does not say the equivalent of haAdohn (THE Lord) in the Greek text. I am bringing these up to show that it is a mistake to rely on the "J Docs" (Hebrew versions) without recognizing what they are. They were produced for missionary purposes. In other words, they were produced for teaching the concept that the NT and OT could be connected in a way that Jewish readers should be able to see more clearly if the terms for Lord and God were replaced with "YHWH" or "the Name" or "Jehovah" etc.

When early missionaries went to the Native American tribes ("Indians") many of them in the 1600's and 1700's also had the concept that they would more easily understand the concept of the Lord Jesus of the NT being the same as the Lord Jehovah.of the OT. In fact, America was still seen as a "Promised Land" with native Americans thought of as related to the "lost tribes of Israel." This was not just a Mormon concept, but was also believed by many of the Puritans (pilgrims) who landed on Plymouth Rock. It's not surprising then that early native American translations also added in the term "Jehovah" to the NT. Note:

Choctaw version translated in 1949 by Cyrus Byington, a missionary from Massachusetts, says at John 20:28:

Chan [John] 20:28 Toma [Thomas] said to him "My Lord and My Chihowa! [Jehowa]"

A Mohawk translation says the following in John 1:1: 

"The Logos was with Yehovah. In fact, the Logos was Yehovah."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2016 at 1:59 PM, JAMMY said:

The first complete Bible printed in America

    Hello guest!
by
    Hello guest!
, although not in English, frequently uses "Jehovah" in the New Testament.
    Hello guest!

Jammy,

I have checked every portion I could from this NT (in the Massachusett language), and I don't think it's correct to say that it uses "Jehovah" frequently. You can find each book here:

    Hello guest!

There was only one book I couldn't open, but it appears that only Matthew contains the name Jehovah, and only 3 times where it's a direct quote. Are there more instances that I missed? I think the choice of only placing the name "Jehovah" in Matthew and only at three of the more obvious direct quotations from the OT was intended to provide a "teaching" link back to the OT. The translators may have been considered that Matthew was the closest book to the OT, and there were also some who believed that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen anyone mention the 'Master' copies of the Bible.  These are copies that were made by scholars who compared the "extant" manuscripts, vellums, papyri and codices of the bible and made footnotes regarding any variations or alterations in the various extant texts.  This is how we know that the Bible has come down to us accurately because the variations are few and the alterations are verified by comparing extant documents. The Greek scriptures of the New World Translation was originally done from the reputable Master copy of "Westcott and Hort."   Read more about the comparison of extant documents here:

    Hello guest!
   

Read more about the Paleography:

    Hello guest!
.   

I must add: when one studies the internal logic of the core message of the bible and the fact that Israel was the first nation to serve a monotheistic god (while the rest of the world were polytheists) then one comes to the natural conclusion that this YHWH is a remarkable god and he has been working on a project which eventually will resolve all of mankind's problems.  He has allowed man to rule the earth to prove that we cannot rule successfully without his moral direction.  Adam and Eve chose independence from his right to choose "good and bad" for us.  Look, the nations at present more divided than ever and they will not cooperate together to get our problems resolved. The final outcome of what happens to this earth and the life on it, is closely tied up with the name God chose for himself: JHWH - I shall prove to be / he causes to become.   The new world translation 2013 has the name inserted in the new testament in a few places not indicated in ancient documents but in the talk the brothers made when they presented this new bible to us they gave the reasons why they did this.  Go and research this for yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2016 at 1:59 PM, JAMMY said:

The first complete Bible printed in America

    Hello guest!
by
    Hello guest!
, although not in English, frequently uses "Jehovah" in the New Testament.
    Hello guest!

Apparently, John Eliot himself was also one of those persons who believed that the "Indian" tribes might have actually been Jews (lost Israelite tribes) which might add another reason why missionaries to "Indians" added the divine name to their translations of the NT in the same way that missionaries to the Jews added the divine name to modern Jewish translations. Note this from

    Hello guest!
:

25.  Thomas Thorowgood. Ievves [Jewes] in America, or, Probabilities that the Americans are of that race.  London : W[illiam]. H[unt]. for Thomas Slater, 1650.

Here, Thomas Thorowgood joins the argument, drawing much from the writings of Menasseh ben Israel.  The possible rediscovery of “lost Jews” interested Thorowgood and others in a millennial context, and he also drew on the writings of the Puritan missionary John Eliot, who had spent time among the Indians at Roxbury, Massachusetts, outside Boston.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I have not seen anyone mention the 'Master' copies of the Bible.  These are copies that were made by scholars who compared the "extant" manuscripts, vellums, papyri and codices of the bible and made footnotes regarding any variations or alterations in the various extant texts.  This is how we know that the Bible has come down to us accurately because the variations are few and the alterations are verified by comparing extant documents. The Greek scriptures of the New World Translation was originally done from the reputable Master copy of "Westcott and Hort." 

You are correct about the "Master" copies of the Bible such as the Westcott and Hort (WH) text along with the partial "critical apparatus" prepared by them to explain how they decided which were the best readings from among the choices. But it's this is actually the crux of the problem. The Westcott and Hort text is one of those "Master" texts that shows that there is still not one single bit of evidence for the divine name in any Greek texts ever discovered over the past nearly 2,000 years.

(This is NOT an argument that we should not use the divine name, only that we should be careful when we imply that texts like the WH text of the NT provide an indication that the NWT committee might have discovered evidence for putting the divine name in the NT. The Westcott and Hort text only provides additional evidence that neither the divine name, nor anything like it, has ever been found in any Bible text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, aka, New Testament).

This does not mean that it was never there, only that there is still no evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

I must add: when one studies the internal logic of the core message of the bible and the fact that Israel was the first nation to serve a monotheistic god (while the rest of the world were polytheists) then one comes to the natural conclusion that this YHWH is a remarkable god and he has been working on a project which eventually will resolve all of mankind's problems.  He has allowed man to rule the earth to prove that we cannot rule successfully without his moral direction.  Adam and Eve chose independence from his right to choose "good and bad" for us.  Look, the nations at present more divided than ever and they will not cooperate together to get our problems resolved. The final outcome of what happens to this earth and the life on it, is closely tied up with the name God chose for himself: JHWH - I shall prove to be / he causes to become.

This is profoundly true, and I liked the way you worded it, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By indagator
      I see there has not been much discussion at this forum of the NT translation that appeared in 2017 by David Bentley Hart (Yale University Press).
      Bro. Rando mentioned Hart's translation last year when he quoted his rendering of John 1:1c, "the Logos was god" here:
      https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/55859-the-trinity-and-it’s-false-theology/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-91897
      There is much more of value to be learned from Hart's work. First, just who is is important. He is a research scholar (= no teaching, just research and publication, what all good scholars dream of) at Notre Dame. He has several books out on theism, believing in God, and defending the faith before critics and philosophers. Although he himself is Eastern Orthodox, his books are highly valued by Evangelicals because Hart is quite intelligent and is well-read in the more difficult aspects of philosophy. Thus he can dialogue with the best from the latter group and hold his own against them. He is famous for doing so.
      Hart's translation contains multiple insights. Gehenna is "Hinnom's Vale of fire." He transliterates Hades, and his taking κόλασις at Matt. 25:46 as "chastening" is noteworthy. He sometimes has substantial footnotes that are informative, as he does in this passage. They cut through the controversies and get to the point, but interestingly, without citing scholarship by anyone's name.
      His take on the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ at Rom. 5:12 is fascinating. Instead of understanding this as "because" he takes it more literally, as "upon the basis of which fact," though I wish he'd been more literal in his rendering in this instance.
      His notes, pp. 533ff., are also loaded with interesting info, including the admission that the oft-hated "a" at John 1:1c is legit.
      One of the things I found fascinating is Hart's description of what the earliest Christians were like. This is on pp. xxiv-xxv of his introduction. It sounds very much like the brothers! That alone is worth a read, so when I can get to a scanner, I'll included a scan later in this thread for readers' pleasure.
      Here too are some online reviews and comments, including an interview/note from Hart himself on his work. First, some D. B. Hart NT reviews:
      https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-new-testament-a-translation-david-bentley-hart/546551/
      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hippieheretic/2017/12/new-testament-translation-david-bentley-hart-review.html
      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/11/the-gospel-according-to-david-bentley
      http://thecresset.org/2017/Advent/Beasley_A17.html

      Conservative (?) reaction to Hart:
      the translation:
      http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/10/23/4754124.htm
      the man:
      https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/public-theology-in-retreat/#!
      bio & interviews:
      https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/david-bentley-hart/profile?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6fq_se3y2AIVCI1pCh2iDAJmEAMYASAAEgKn8PD_BwE
      Hart's own account
      https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/christs-rabble
      Enjoy!
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      *** w74 6/15 p. 376 par. 8 Serve with Eternity in View ***
      8 This kingdom, the means by which eternal life is possible for us, is a heavenly government. Jesus himself is the chief Ruler, and he is to have 144,000 corulers who have been chosen from mankind and called by God to heavenly life. (Rom. 8:16, 17; Luke 22:29; Rev. 5:9, 10; 14:1) The paramount importance of this kingdom is seen in the emphasis that God put on it in the Bible. It was the chief subject of Jesus’ preaching. (Matt. 4:23) Also, it is to the spirit-anointed Christians who will rule in that kingdom that most of the Christian Greek Scriptures is directed, including the promises of everlasting life.
      *** w06 6/1 p. 24 par. 12 Jehovah Tells “From the Beginning the Finale” ***
      12 The foreordination of the 144,000 does not mean that certain individuals were predestined to serve God faithfully in this way. Indeed, the admonition in the Christian Greek Scriptures was written primarily to guide and strengthen anointed ones to maintain integrity and keep themselves worthy of their heavenly calling. (Philippians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:5, 11; 2 Peter 1:10, 11) Jehovah knows in advance that 144,000 individuals will qualify to serve his purpose. Who they prove to be depends on how those invited individually choose to live their life, a decision that each one of them must make personally.—Matthew 24:13.
  • Forum Statistics

    59,436
    Total Topics
    105,202
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    15,935
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    lisaagalvn
    Newest Member
    lisaagalvn
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.