JW Insider

I really liked him. That's because back when I was just 21, he gave me an assignment to help set up the pre-press, typesetting, and "art" department at the branch in Athens in 1978. This was right in the middle of a vacation which I would spend traveling with a member of the GB and his family for the first few weeks through London, Paris, Barcelona, Nice, and Rome. Then this assignment in Athens (which I honestly didn't deserve) and the last few weeks traveling in 7 additional countries, staying with Witness families and at the Branches. I was born in California but grew up mostly in Missouri, so this was more than I could have hoped for. Because of the extra assignments, I ended up with a 6-week "vacation" after only earning a 3-week vacation. Everyone said Songer was educated as an engineer, and I liked him for his sense of humor. (Most engineers have one as a prerequisite to getting along in their future jobs.) He reminded me of my father, an electrical engineer with a similar sense of humor. Good times!

I agree, which is why I made the comment that it was not necessarily even unscriptural. It just "sounds" even more wrong when juxtaposed with so many other Matthew 24 interpretations he made. Of course, I can't explain why he troubled himself to say that this also made it appropriate to apply to himself and others of the "high calling" additional titles such as "Eternal Father" and "The Prophet Greater than Moses." And it seems to diminish the sacrifice that Jesus made when men such as Russell would claim to be a necessary part of that great propitiatory sacrifice. Very few members of that class that we identify as the modern anointed remnant since the late 1800's, including Russell, have ever "sacrificed" even a tiny fraction compared to what Jesus sacrificed. The most well-known of that class among us in more recent decades have spent the greater part of their life in the comfort of an organizational bureaucracy.

Harumph!! [can't find the appropriate emoji ?]

I agree. The influence of Henry Grew on Russell is clear, even if some of it came indirectly through others. There are a lot of parallels and several probable dependencies in Russell's writings to those of Grew although I don't recall if Russell ever quotes him directly. George Stetson was also anti-Trinitarian, and even George Storrs appears to be non-Trinitarian or at least neutral. Russell was probably non-Trinitarian or neutral in a way similar to George Storrs up until sometime prior to 1882 when Russell writes his own article defending against the Trinity. This was almost immediately after Paton left, so it's likely his mind was clearly made up well before 1882. *** jv chap. 28 p. 620 Testing and Sifting From Within *** Two years later, [1881] Paton, who was then serving as a traveling representative of the Watch Tower, also began to turn away, thereafter publishing a book (his second one entitled Day Dawn) . . . [It's the only mention of Day Dawn in the Proclaimers book, and therefore implies that it was only published after Paton left the Watch Tower.]

Could you give a reference for this one please. Sure. The most pro-Trinitarian writing promoted by the Watch Tower Society actually came from the WT's assistant editor, Paton in 1880. Paton's writings in the Watch Tower supported the Trinity, and a book he authored, "The Day Dawn" was clearly Trinitarian although its main focus was to prepare the faithful for the prophecies pointing to 1881. Paton had also been Barbour's assistant editor until 1879 and both Barbour and Paton were unquestionably Trinitarian. Trinitarian-friendly wording even shows up in "Three Worlds" (the early collaboration between Russell and Barbour). It criticized the Christadelphians for not believing the Holy Spirit was a Person. Since the Proclaimers book distances the WTS from the "Day Dawn" I'll include just a bit of info about the book from before that publication, including this from the June 1880 WT. (emphasis mine.) "The Day Dawn, or the Gospel in Type and Prophecy." The first copy of this work has just been received from the printer, and the entire edition of 4,000 copies will be ready for delivery by the time this paper reaches you. It is a more exhaustive and elaborate work than we had at first expected; more so by far than anything ever presented on the above topics, from our standpoint. It contains 334 pages in clear and distinct type. To give an idea of its size, we would say that it contains about three times as much matter as the "Three Worlds," a book familiar to most of our readers, now out of print. . . . we should say it is a work which will do an inestimable amount of good, and to many, will be an instructor second only to the Word of God. . . . the subject is made so beautifully plain and clear, that many, we believe, will bless God for having been permitted to read it. It is divided into twenty-nine chapters, and like God's book, contains things "both new and old." "Price of Day Dawn, in paper covers, 50 cts. " " " " cloth " 75 " . . . We hope that every reader of the WATCH TOWER will avail himself at once of these liberal terms. The time arguments alone, clearly and plainly stated, should do you fifty dollars worth of good if not more. Those who can afford to do so, should keep a dozen copies on their loan list. WT articles are seen promoting the book well into the year 1881. In fact, the oft-quoted article from 1881 "Wanted 1,000 Preachers" was part of a campaign to sell "Day Dawn" books and WT subscriptions. Note this quote from that article in April 1881: . . . as a work of kindness and love to them, endeavor to sell them the "Day Dawn," or to take their subscription for the "Watch Tower," *** w55 2/1 p. 76 Part 3—Expanding the Organization *** While the Society had been circulating a bound book entitled “Day Dawn,” written by an early associate, J. H. Paton, it was decided for Russell to become writer of a new book to be called “Millennial Dawn,” which after many difficulties appeared in 1886 as Volume 1 of a promised series. In one point, the Day Dawn book stated (p.225): The work of the Holy Spirit is one of the most important elements in the plan of revelation and salvation. He is always spoken of by the Saviour as a Person, and is called the "Spirit of truth." He inspired men to write or speak the truth; and second, He enables men to understand it. By comparing this with 1 Pet. 1:11, it will be seen that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably. The March 1880, WT had said: There is and ever has been but one Christ. A change of nature does not change identity. Whether as the pre-existent One, as the Word made flesh, or as the High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, He still is Lord, and as such we worship Him. "Ye call me Lord and Master," said He on earth, "and ye do well, for so I am. . . . to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong, for when He bringeth the first Begotten into the world, He sayeth, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And Again, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Of course, the idea that it was proper to worship Jesus Christ remained in the WT much longer and was even part of the amended corporate charter of 1944, and was explicitly a part of our teachings until 1953. (See, Make Sure of All Things, under the heading "Christ to be Worshipped as a Glorious Spirit") But this is not technically a support of the Trinity. Combining this, however, with arguments in favor of seeing the Holy Spirit as a Person, would be supportive of the Trinity.

Of course, that was part of the point. Just as we think some must have thought it disconcerting for Russell to be making the claim.

I'm glad you found it thought provoking. That was the intent. What I like about a forum such as this is that a person can share the types of things that that have provoked one's own thoughts and then hear whether others have thought about the same, or if others agree or disagree with the thoughts. In the congregational setting, not all thought-provoking thoughts can be shared, or else they must be shared with great care, especially when one considers the counsel of Jesus to avoid stumbling others. However, in a discussion forum such as this, a sincere person can ask any question, even one that might not have been asked in a congregational setting for fear of stumbling others. There is nothing new in this topic, of course. Although it's something that's little known among most Witnesses. The primary source is Watchtower publications, in this case. So back to the idea of the content and style (or should we say "the object and manner") of the religious movement under Russell's leadership. Yes, one of the points is that Russell would most assuredly have stumbled many persons who tried to follow his leadership if they took him as seriously as he took himself. But, as you say, it also shows, as we often say, that the work he was doing was blessed sometimes in spite of his efforts, rather than just because of his efforts. It's an expression you will still hear among the brothers in modern times, too, referring to how things still often work out for the best in spite of us apparently getting in the way of ourselves. The idea that this religious movement could therefore be expected to "falter" and yet greatly succeeded is quite true. Of course, we realistically should also learn from the fact that it really did falter many times, with many great times of stumbling, sifting, false prophetic predictions, even teaching twisted private interpretations as doctrines, etc. Looking at the likely proportion of gains and losses among the brothers is infomative. Barbour and Russell knew that there could easily be as many as 50,000 Second Adventists who could be receptive to Barbour's eschatology. Barbour apparently was building up to a readership aiming at such a number when when his own 1874 "Disappointment" knocked his expectation from near 30,000 back to a readership of less than 5,000. Russell went straight for the 50,000 again when he initially teamed with Barbour in 1877, but another 1878 "Disappointment" put his expectation for his own paper (Zion's Watch Tower) at less than 8,000 when it started in late 1879. Membership built up again slowly, but specific doctrinal challenges evidently produced schisms linked to those doctrines. For comparison, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists both came out of the same time period and built from the same "Burnt Over District" milieu as a foundation, and steadily gained converts on par with the Bible Students, and even passing them. Today, there are more active JWs than Mormons. (Mormons count 14.5 million, but only about 30% actively attend meetings.) SDA has grown to at least 25 million, 3 times the size of the Watchtower/Bible_Student/JW movement, perhaps even with a larger number actively attending meetings and joining in church activities. Yet JWs are successful in promoting an even greater level of weekly and monthly congregational and ministerial activity, even with only one-third the members. Again, I mention all this unnecessary background because I wouldn't start counting the "success" back in Russell's time. The Watchtower often points to 1919 as a truer beginning of our current movement (after Russell died). I would put it just 15 years later, in 1934/5. Since then, the progress has been steady, and the doctrinal changes have been overwhelmingly positive. The movement since about 1934 has very few points of recognizable comparison to the movement under Russell. That said, I was not saying that Russell's "I am the Christ" claim, which he would share with others of the "high calling" was even Biblically incorrect. I don't fault it as a crazy doctrine. His basis was rational. It would have been easier for a more hesitant person to be concerned with what others might think of them for making such a claim, but he chose this interpretation over any fear of backlash because he must have thought it was right. This reminds me of another idea Russell had that we might think is crazy now, but it showed a real faith in the outworking of God's "divine plan." Russell thought that he might be a ghost. That's how outsiders might interpret his idea that it was possible that he might wake up some morning in or after 1881, and actually be a spirit in the way that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after his resurrection, able to eat and drink and even show his old scars. Russell apparently mused that he might not even know exactly when the "change" from flesh to a spirit creature had happened, if the anointed of the high calling were changed, but did not immediately ascend to heaven. It was a very odd view of how the rapture might work, athough a more traditional view of the rapture had been held in 1878 and 1881, and this expectation was finally put off until 1914 and then 1915. Others can look at all these and just focus on the apparent "craziness" of it all. But we can also look at it with the idea that Russell must have had a solid, strong faith in the expectation surrounding the "fact" that Jesus really was present in 1874 and ready to act on behalf of the faithful. If he was some kind of charlatan building a religion to gain followers he would not have stuck his neck out. He would have been more concerned with consequences of being wrong. The same could be said for Rutherford's biggest mistake in predicting 1925. He must have had a real and strong faith in this particular interpretation of prophecy.

Not yet. [Pas encore]

A few weeks ago, I mentioned another case, still in progress, where it was a 16-year-old female and about a 25-year-old brother. In this case the congregation is in legal trouble for having asked the girl to claim it was consensual, but the 25-year-old went on to abuse again. I don't know for sure, but I don't think in this case, there is an attempt to go after the elders, based on the assumption that the directive came from HQ.

Another perspective that I think is worth considering is this from a couple months ago: https://daniellazare.com/2018/05/03/americans-want-an-end-to-gun-violence-but-the-constitution-says-no/ Daniel Lazare's article for Harper's magazine was saying the same thing back in 1999: https://harpers.org/archive/1999/10/your-constitution-is-killing-you/

I always loved that song. Haunting and apparently based on a true story. It's on one of only three albums I ever bought for myself. What's interesting about the song, is that even after it was canonized in the album, Lightfoot looked into new evidence that had come to light, and which made Lightfoot's foot path grow brighter and brighter. He realized it was not necessarily human error that caused the sinking, so he humbly changed the words of the song for all future performances. Here's how it was stated at: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/2010/03/25/gordon_lightfoot_changes_edmund_fitzgerald_lyrics.html “He’s not re-recording the song, but he has already changed a line for live performances,” a spokesperson for Lightfoot said Thursday. “He was pretty impressed by what he saw in the film, new evidence that unsecured hatch covers didn’t cause the ship to sink.” The traditional verse goes: “When supper time came the old cook came on deck /Saying ‘Fellows it’s too rough to feed ya’ /At 7 p.m. a main hatchway caved in /He said, ‘Fellas it's been good to know ya.” Lightfoot’s lyrics have now been changed to: “When supper time came the old cook came on deck /Saying ‘Fellows it’s too rough to feed ya’ /At 7 p.m. it grew dark, it was then/He said, ‘Fellas it's been good to know ya’,” Lightfoot’s spokesperson said.

This topic has been touched upon before, but I didn't take it as far as I had hoped. For me, this was largely because this was a new area of study for me which I undertook briefly, mostly for about 10 days in May 2017 and only touched on it afterwards when related topics came up on this forum. For myself, that might have been mostly my fault because I was very unsure of the strength of evidence for basing anything on Ιαω. @bruceq, a member or former member of this forum collects reference materials on the Divine Name and pointed out some related links by Pavlos Vasileiadis, which I read at that time. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pavlos_Vasileiadis/publication/323357897_The_god_Iao_and_his_connection_with_the_Biblical_God_with_special_emphasis_on_the_manuscript_4QpapLXXLevb/links/5a8fe40da6fdccecff0075fa/The-god-Iao-and-his-connection-with-the-Biblical-God-with-special-emphasis-on-the-manuscript-4QpapLXXLevb.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273185850_Aspects_of_rendering_the_sacred_Tetragrammaton_in_Greek I'm sure you know of these resources. Most of the related topics already discussed on this forum were sidetracked or abandoned. But there have been a couple strong attempts to get somewhere on this and we have even started discussing George Howard, Nehemiah Gordon, and the Gertoux/Furuli collaboration with Fritz Poppenberg. I have access to a large library of scholarly journals through a university account, but I'm out of the country for most of July (Paris) and will still be here another week. I don't want to try logging in from here because of a potential security flag that might require a complete reset. I had hoped to discuss George Howard, of course, but that discussion never really started: (HOWARD, Biblical Archaeology Review Vol IV, No. 1). http://www.jstor.org/stable/3265328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents The posts at https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47810-the-name-of-god-documentary-by-fritz-poppenberg/?page=7 took too many twists and turns to be of much use to review for reference material. The topic/thread that came closest to discussing the value of IAO in the LXX is here, https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/35287-what-gives-them-the-right-to-insert-yhwh-so-that-the-the-scriptures-are-manipulated-to-suit-the-their-doctrine/?page=2and might be worth a quick look. I know that my own research on the topic was just beginning at that point, and I had quickly come to the conclusion that IAO was a problematic route that didn't require much more attention due to a supposed permanent relationship with paganism, an Egyptian god, magic, etc. But I realize a couple of points now that I hadn't really seen clearly. One is that IAO was NOT really a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH (as the NWT Appendix states). And the other is that IAO was the only LXX Divine Name that was meant to be pronounceable. The work by Shaw appears to be important, and I would have looked up his ideas anyway, just based on his excellent critique of Wilkinson. [And, or course, Furuli had mentioned his book in "Bias in Translation."] Although as I mentioned above, I have limited access to my "armchair" resources at the moment. When I get back home, I'll see if Shaw is affordable, or get the NYPL to find me a copy.

I agree that John 17:26 must have been one of the literal ways in which John 1:19 was fulfilled. With the Hebrew Scriptures as the entire foundation upon which Jewish faith should have come to include faith in Jesus Christ, there were constant references to OT fulfillments that were known to have contained the Divine Name. Hundreds of references to the OT are found in the NT and it would have still been common knowledge that these included direct references to the Divine Name, even for those who would not themselves pronounce it (assuming that kyrios and theos, etc., were already contained in some of the first century manuscripts of the LXX from which Jesus may have read.) But we can't forget that one of the arguments some scholars will throw back at us is the idea that goes in reverse of the above: that John 17:26 was fulfilled by John 1:19. In other words, that the term "your name" with reference to God was just another way to reference God. (So that Jesus made God's name known by making God known.) We already use the argument ourselves that "name" can mean the person, or the person's reputation, or the person's representation, when we come across verses like: (John 17:6-12) 6 “I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. . . . 8 because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me. . . . Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me. . . (John 16:23, 24) . . .Most truly I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything, he will give it to you in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for a single thing in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (Matthew 28:19) . . .Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and [in the name] of the Son and [in the name] of the holy spirit, (Acts 3:15, 16) . . .the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. 16 And through his name, and by our faith in his name, this man whom you see and know has been made strong.. . . We don't have faith in the pronunciation of the consonants and vowels of the name "J-E-S-U-S" but we have faith in the person, the representation, and the reputation of Jesus. With reference to God, this argument could be doubled as God himself was already known as "The NAME" (Ha-Shem) even prior to the first century. See a possible Biblical example in Lev 24:11. (Leviticus 24:11) The son of the Israelite woman began to abuse the Name and to curse it. And of course, this idea might have a bearing on our understanding of the following: (Acts 4:6-18) . . ., 7 and they stood them in their midst and began to inquire: “By what power or in whose name did YOU do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with holy spirit, said to them: “ . . .10 in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·reneʹ, . . . whom God raised up from the dead, by this one [footnote shows that the Greek actually says "by this name"] does this man stand here sound in front of YOU. 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” . . . 17 Nevertheless, in order that it may not be spread abroad further among the people, let us tell them with threats not to speak anymore upon the basis of this name to any man at all.” 18 With that they called them and charged them, nowhere to make any utterance or to teach upon the basis of the name of Jesus. (Acts 8:14-17) . . .they dispatched Peter and John to them; 15 and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit. 16 For it had not yet fallen upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they went laying their hands upon them, and they began to receive holy spirit. (Acts 9:14-21) 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” [Jesus] 15 But the Lord [Jesus] said to him: “Be on your way, because this man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16 For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.” [Jesus] 17 So An·a·niʹas went off and entered into the house, and he laid his hands upon him and said: “Saul, brother, the Lord, the Jesus that appeared to you on the road over which you were coming, has sent me forth, in order that you may recover sight and be filled with holy spirit.” . . . 20 and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God. 21 But all those hearing him gave way to astonishment and would say: “Is this not the man that ravaged those in Jerusalem who call upon this name, and that had come here for this very purpose. . . And of course: (Ephesians 1:20, 21) . . .in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. (Philippians 2:9-11) . . .For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, [Greek just says "the name above every name"] 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. . . (2 Thessalonians 1:12) 12 in order that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in YOU, . . . (Hebrews 1:4) . . .So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. (Revelation 2:17) . . .and I will give him a white pebble, and upon the pebble a new name written which no one knows except the one receiving it.’ (Revelation 3:12) “‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine. There are plenty of other and better examples showing that "name" clearly means "reputation" (Revelation 3:1, etc) but I wanted to include especially those that would become difficult to explain about "the name of Jesus" if it were literally the term "Jesus" (or a variation) that was meant. To be consistent, then, some of the references to the "name of Jehovah" in both OT and NT cannot simply mean the term "Jehovah" or another variation of it.

And in this particular case there could even have been a lack of knowing the correct consonants. Although this problem is mostly solvable, but not easily, and not with 100% confidence. Of course, this has nothing to do with the difference in J, or Y, or I when used as the initial consonant, nor anything to do with the difference between W or V. I would consider initial I,J,Y to be completely equivalent, and W and V to be completely equivalent, too. Jahve, Jahweh, Yahwe, Yahveh, Yahweh are all exactly the same word for purposes of this discussion (imo), just as Yehowah and Jehovah would be exactly the same word. In truth, there would have been correct and proper differences in the pronunciations of vowels, too, even among Hebrew speakers in the first century. For example, a Galilean's accent (NWT fn) would give him away in Jerusalem. (Matthew 26:73) 73 After a little while, those standing around came up and said to Peter: “Certainly you are also one of them, for in fact, your [ACCENT] dialect gives you away.”

True. Although I never heard anyone specifically argue that the divine name would have been unpronounceable due to lack of written vowels. Most people learn to pronounce a language almost perfectly before they learn to read and spell most of the words in that language. Therefore pronunciation is possible not only without vowels, but even without consonants. I think we are dealing with an argument that a specific word, the Divine Name, might have become unpronounceable through edict and superstitious practice. When a name is made holy, to some this would mean it is not touched. Just as holy ground was not to be touched. Just as a mundane use or function of the body would make Jewish individuals unsanctified to be near the presence of holiness. This idea is repeated often: (Exodus 19:21-23) . . .Jehovah now said to Moses: “Go down and warn the people not to try to force their way through to look at Jehovah, or many of them will perish. 22 And let the priests who regularly come near to Jehovah sanctify themselves, so that Jehovah may not strike them.” 23 Moses then said to Jehovah: “The people are not able to come up to Mount Siʹnai because you already warned us, saying, ‘Set boundaries around the mountain, and make it sacred.’” The following was still the proper practice of the Jewish rituals even in Jesus' day: (Leviticus 22:2, 3) 2 “Tell Aaron and his sons that they should be careful how they handle the holy things of the Israelites and not profane my holy name regarding the things they are sanctifying to me. I am Jehovah. 3 Say to them, ‘Throughout your generations, any of your offspring who, while he is unclean, comes near to the holy things that the Israelites sanctify to Jehovah, that person will be cut off from before me. . . . If this general idea were ever combined with the idea that the Name YHWH was a holy thing, not to be profaned, then it could be understood why such a superstition arose. (Exodus 20:7) 7 “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave unpunished the one who takes up His name in a worthless way. So, I'd think that, as you already know, the timing of this superstition and practice would still be very important to the claim that a lack of controversy argues that Jesus used the name. Your argument could end up with "circular" overtones, in some circles: Of course, you already deal with the idea that the complete prohibition must post date this period of Jesus' ministry. I am also counting on the fact that it did. But it would be good to lay out the evidence that this is true, else the argument doesn't work very well. What complicates the question even more is the fact that while Masoretic vowel pointing didn't really come into existence until perhaps 600 CE, it wasn't necessarily accurate for a period that was half-a-millennium prior to that. We hardly pronounce English the same as Shakespeare would have in any English-speaking country, and the wide variations exist in spite of many written rules about English since 1600, inter-generationally connected populations, and a lot of scribes and a high percentage of literate people in these countries. Hebrew, after every Jewish diaspora, had strikes against stable pronunciation at every turn. (As the Shibboleth incident points out, there were striking pronunciation differences between at least a couple of Israel's tribes just a few short years after they settled the land together?!?!?!) But there was a kind of vowel pointing that had already been in use prior to the earliest of any extant Hebrew manuscript (DSS), and that's the vowel pointing that was done with added consonants (consonants reused to represent vowels). And those dual-use consonants were primarily Y,H,W. Another area of inconsistency that had already developed prior to any of our extant manuscripts is the final H sound. Therefore, it looks like one could reasonably argue that if one had to recreate a lost or unknown pronunciation, that one of the most ambiguous of such words in the entire Hebrew would be YHW-H. Still there is hope. Gertoux, for example, deals directly with the fact that these could all represent vowels, not consonants. He, and others, also deal with the earliest possible history of comments about the Name after the NT Bible manuscripts themselves. And, although I never heard anyone make a point of it, we know that several priests and even Pharisees became believers in the first century. If anyone would know how the name was pronounced, it would have been people from this group, even if there already was a superstition about pronunciation by the average Joseph on the street.

Great article! I agree completely with the author of the article. At first it never occurred to me that Hebrew students should not to learn these rules, and I had often heard that the Masoretes were so superstitiously careful about the copying of texts that not a letter would be lost from text to text due to letter counting and the care given to every 'jot and tittle.' So they seemed sacrosanct. One point struck me as incomplete: 6) Once again, the Tiberian pointing in the MT is only one of three pointing systems (which indicates that there was disagreement over what was the "correct" pronunciation). Just because it happened to win broad acceptance does not mean that it should be uncritically accepted as authoritative.[21] There were disagreements about pronunciation, but without more information about the interactions between the proponents of the three pointing systems, you could hardly say that the existence of three shows there were disagreements. You can have three systems that all look different but are just three different ways to say the same thing. And for various historical reasons, the three pointing systems could have all naturally evolved at about the same time, semi-independently, not strictly because there was disagreement over the correct pronunciation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ Reagan's words were as Republican Governor of California in 1967. He was definitely in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill repealing gun rights. The problem was that the framers of the U.S. constitution thought of guns not as an item that all people should have, not especially for hunting and protecting their homes/family/property from just anyone, although that would be their primary use. The constitution only addressed the right for all citizens to carry guns in order to form militias in the event that tyranny reared its ugly head, within US Government agencies. But the real problem is that there really were forms of tyranny that had been rearing their head in America for many years against blacks, American "Indians" and poor whites who could not pay their debts. The most violent tyranny was against the native American "Indians" but the most insidious was against blacks. And then after the constitution allowed more than just land-owners to become citizens they allowed blacks to become citizens, while they were still being tyrannized by tyrants in their own government. That created a problem for the hypocrites running the US Government. A group of black citizens began watching some of the most tyrannical agents of the US government, the white-sponsored police in economically abandoned urban centers. What they were doing was called "copwatchting." But they were watching while armed with guns and, what's even worse for some, cameras. See Mulford Act in Wikipedia, for example. Organized copwatching groups emerged as early as the 1960s in urban areas in the United States when the Black Panthers famously patrolled city streets with firearms and cameras, and other civil rights organizations conducted unarmed patrols in groups. Obviously, Reagan, a rather dullard hypocrite, realized he didn't really believe in the constitution. In this situation it was easy to get both Democratic and Republican support. (Especially "Dixie Democrats" [in the Southern United States], most of whom would later become Republicans as soon as Northern Democrats began to associate the "Democratic" agenda with civil rights toward blacks.)

I doubt seriously that this is the ONLY issue where you agree with the philosophy of Karl Marx. He was a brilliant economist who supported the theories of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), considered to be one of the most important capitalist economists of his time. More of Karl Marx advances on such theories have withstood the test of time and produced more predictable results. Most anti-Marxists have never read Marx's works. (What's even worse is that most most PRO-Marxists and Marx experts have never read his works either.) People who think they are anti-Marx often merely associate him with things they have heard they shouldn't believe in.

Wilkinson's biggest problem, especially for Witnesses, would be that he minimizes the importance of the evidence that most early LXX manuscripts use the Hebrew letters, YHWH, (or similar-looking Greek letters in some examples). It was especially the later manuscripts that used a pronouncable "kyrios" (Lord) in the text. This was just pointed out by @Gone Away in a very clear explanation of the JW position on this subject here: Of course a problem with the JW position is that the use of a Hebrew YHWH in the middle of a Greek manuscript is an indication that it was not to be pronouced. Even the use of a Greek-looking "PiPi" in the place of the Tetragram would likely have struck the reader as an indication that he had come across a very non-Greek-sounding and therefore would give pause to anyone trying to pronounce it. This alone places the eclipsing of the Divine Name back to the 300's BCE. Even the use of the Greek abbreviations with a line over them (for references to God and Lord in NT manuscripts) might show that special care was to be taken over pronouncing divine names.

The review sources for Wilkinson provided by @indagator indicate that the book has serious flaws, and per one review, it brings nothing new to the table. (To another reviewer, what is new is hidden by poor organization.) There are serious mistakes especially because his expertise is in the later medieval and Rennaisance periods and NOT the period that is especially important to the topic -- the earlier period. But it would still have great value for us non-scholars who will likely find this very long book full of much that is new to us. One of the first things that Wilkinson's book does, is put in perspective the iconic uses of the name YHWH and Jehovah found in Renaissance churches and writings. This is an important point for Witnesses in that it correctly diminishes the philological value of the Tetragrammaton and versions that look like IEHOVA or JEHOVAH. These are more related to iconic imagery, even something akin to Trinitarian "idols" rather than telling us anything about the way in which the name was used, not used, and misused historically. Another thing that I believe Wilkison's book does correctly is put a date on the "eclipse" of the Divine Name. Gertoux has good reason to point to the year 130-160 AD as a turning point in the customs with respect to the pronunciation of YHWH, as he did in that "packed" first sentence of the areopage.net link in the OP: In the first place, as he strongly denounced human traditions which annulled divine dictates (Mt 15:3), it seems unlikely that he complied with this unbiblical custom of not pronouncing the Name, which appeared only around 130-160 CE, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101a 10:1), with Rabbi Abba Saul who prohibited the pronunciation of the tetragram (YHWH in Hebrew יהוה ) according to its letters, warning that those transgressing this command would forfeit their portion in the world to come. While this date is important, especially with respect to the question of whether first-century Christians pronounced or wrote the name, it can be misleading. This is because, as Wilkinson traces, the process of "eclipsing" the Divine Name can be dated to as early as 300 BCE. That's nearly half a millennium earlier. From what I've seen, I'd have to agree.

Thanks for the reviews. I read them and appreciated that they not only reviewed his book in detail, but both reviews also offer insight into the complexities and, by highlighting the gaps in Wilkinson's work, provide some key elements for discussion here. I could not get the above Resnick link to work, but I believe the content is also represented here at this link: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/21174

"ALvi LanguorE iNsanabili: From the very first sentence, right up to the last one, you have reminded me of Allen. I would not have said anything except that the most famous member named Allen has also hinted that he may not have much time for this world due to serious health concerns. I hoped that the Latin was not a commentary on your condition. At any rate, what you have repeatedly done here, so far, is exactly what I was hoping no one would do here. You keep claiming things like "some of Gerard Gertoux's claims can be considered fake news" without any examples or any evidence. With several opportunities to provide something substantial, making claims without evidence can "backfire" and even make it appear (to some readers) that Gertoux's position, in this case, might seem even stronger and more reliable than it really is. I'm sure that this is not your intent, but unsubstantiated claims come across just as empty as the ad hominem. On the issue of "peer review" Gertoux has stated to me that scholars in this field refused to express their personal convictions on this topic, fearing reprisals due to the fact that religious institutions often fund their research and can therefore control the ability to get published. Gertoux himself says he was personally attacked and had to defend himself in the French courts. ( https://univ-lyon2.academia.edu/GerardGERTOUX/CurriculumVitae ). Via email, he says this is why he has "become extremely careful and [will] only publish in peer-reviewed journals." Note his last article, for example: http://www.peeters-leuven.be/toc/9789042937130.pdf .

Possibly fake, but even if it is, it recreates real experiences children have had with teachers.

Actually, there is a good argument that shows that this is a misleading statement. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The reason is that there is already a Greek equivalent, based on transliteration, for using a pronunciation closer to Jeremiah instead of the Hebrew Yirmeyahu. If we didn't know how Hebrew was pronounced for this particular name, we have an ancient record of how it got translated into Greek, where we have much more evidence of the rules of pronunciation. It's in the Greek LXX of the OT. The example of Jesus is used in the same way, rather than something like Yehoshua or Yeshua. But we have the Greek NT which already gives us the form Iesous. (Jesous). We don't have this for YHWH because the LXX either didn't transliterate it, opting instead to continue putting the YHWH into the text, or else they put a different word in it's place: "kyrios" which is nothing like YHWH, and doesn't help us pronounce it. So even the LXX manuscripts that opted to use YHWH are also giving evidence that the word was being treated in a special way, with a certain "holiness" or superstition about it.

I think you already helped out on this one with your quote above. The WT conclusion is almost exactly like the one you quoted: In other words, the WT says that even though Yahweh was much more likely closer to the original pronunciation of the Hebrew, that Jehovah is the best English form available for the reasons just quoted. Gertoux actually comes close to stating the opposite, that while Yahweh is such a common scholarly form to represent the pronunciation, that the evidence is that "Jehovah" is a much closer form that comes close to the more probable original pronunciation. (This is an oversimplification intended to drive home the primary difference in direction. But in fact, Gertoux finds evidence, he says, that the Tetragram is based more on vowels than on consonants. This is a different argument than, say, claiming that Jahveh is better than Yahweh, or vice versa, because those two are perfectly acceptable as "equivalents.") Personally, that is not the main reason why I thought the evidence should get a second look and that his conclusions should be critiqued on their merit. I am interested in the value of the evidence itself and the background material surrounding this evidence for the purpose of understanding how the confusion came about in the first place, and whether it can help us understand the best way to treat the issue in the Greek Scriptures. That same "side evidence" can come from other sources, too. But Gertoux's known association with "Watchtower scholarship," and his collaboration with one or two others involved in "Watchtower scholarship" made him a best "first choice" in my opinion. Also, I happen to agree with some of his conclusions.