| Home |
We occasionally receive emails from readers presenting evidence that the Tetragrammaton was used during the first two centuries of the Common Era (CE). This information is usually given as evidence that the name "Jehovah" should be included in the Christian Scriptures.
Let's look at one individual's comments. We have no objection to his evidence that the Tetragrammaton was used during this period of time. Consequently, for argument's sake, let's say that his evidence is correct in every respect, allowing us to verify that the Tetragrammaton was used in other religious writing during this period of time. This is the information he sent:
Within a week of the time this page was posted, we received a second similar comment. We will incorporate the second query into this page inasmuch as some addition manuscript evidence is given. Again, there is no reason why we would dispute the accuracy of the manuscript evidence.
|
These sources tell you the divine name was removed! Now it's no longer possible to show direct Biblical manuscript proof, so we go by what ancient texts say about this subject instead. I think if you don't believe those texts and what modern scholars say on the subject, you'll always search in vain and draw the wrong conclusions on this subject. Due to these sources we know for a fact it was in the NT. Have a look at the recommended books which talk about this issue too if you want.
To be it's crystal clear the name was used by early Christians and would have used it in their texts. ... As the tetragrammaton was removed from the NT, they would have no choice but to use a Greek transliteration of the divine name. Greek/Hebrew characters for JHVH -- what difference would it make? The issue is whether they used the divine name at all and they obviously did. Direct NT evidence is no longer possible. But those sources prove it was there. Could all those sources be untruthful? I think that would be unreasonable to conclude that. Do you have any information on this And what are your thoughts ? Over the past several decades many fragments of ancient Greek versions of the Hebrew Scriptures have been discovered wherein the divine name was found written, usually in Hebrew letters. This indicates that the divine name was used in Greek versions until well into the ninth century C.E. Here are ten manuscripts that contain the divine name, along with pertinent information. (I put the original post at the end...)
These ten manuscript fragments indicate that the translators of the Hebrew text into Greek used the divine name where it occurred in the Hebrew text. Moreover, the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in Zec 9:4 corroborates the claim that the Jewish Sopherim replaced the Tetragrammaton with 'Adho.nai' (Sovereign Lord) in the Hebrew text in 134 places. Here is the original post:
|
However, there is not a single use of the Tetragrammaton in any of the more than 5,000 Christian Greek Scripture manuscripts from which any version of the Christian Scriptures or "New Testaments" are translated. (The absence of manuscript and historical evidence supporting the Tetragrammaton in the autographs—the original Greek manuscripts written by the Christian Scripture writers—is the topic of our books and this website. Please refer to other pages on this website for that information.) In the absence of being able to cite any ancient Greek manuscript evidence showing the exact location of the presumed Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, the above writer does not seem to realize that his own argument introduces five realities which create substantial difficulty for him.
Reality #1
If you insist that the Tetragrammaton was used in the autographs, then you must claim that your evidence comes from a higher authority than the best preserved Greek manuscripts. Your new authority would then be saying that the Tetragrammaton should be used in the Greek Scriptures even when more than 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts leave no trace of the Tetragrammaton having been used. (Revelation 19 does not prove that the Tetragrammaton was used in the autographs. Rather, it shows clearly that the divine name was used in a compound Greek word. The only evidence remaining today is that the word "alleluia" was written in Greek. Further, there is no manuscript evidence that Αλληλομιά [alleluia] even used a Greek surrogate [abbreviation] of the Tetragrammaton in Greek letters such as ιο [io], ιαο [iao], or ΠΙΠΙ [PIPI] to become Αλληλομιο, Αλληλομιαο, or ΑλληλομΠΙΠΙ.)
To introduce a higher authority than the best manuscript evidence creates a very complex dilemma for you as a Witness. It means your New World Translation Greek Scriptures are based on something aside from recognized Bible manuscripts. Even if you state that there are only 237 words in dispute, you have still appealed to a higher authority than the Word of Jehovah. However, just as you might criticize the book of Mormon as the product of a sect which has appealed to Joseph Smith as a higher authority than the inspired word of Jehovah, now others can criticize the Watch Tower Society for exactly the same error.
You have introduced a harsh reality that you would not want to defend. You would be saying that you have adopted a higher authority than Scripture itself in order to alter the known wording of Scripture so that you can defend a unique theological position.
Reality #2
You then may argue that Hebrew versions give guidance in determining where the Tetragrammaton should be used in the Greek Scriptures. Yet, you may not be aware that there are approximately 307 occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in various Greek Scripture passages within these Hebrew versions. (For this comment, we are not concerned with the exact accuracy of the number 307.) Using the argument that the Tetragrammaton should be brought back to the Christian Scriptures because of its use in Hebrew versions opens the door to each of these Tetragrammaton passages in Hebrew versions being translated as "Jehovah." Look at the following list compiled from just the book of Acts. Many of these Tetragrammaton passages refer to Jesus. (One verse would also identify the Holy Spirit as being Jehovah.) How many additional Tetragrammaton passages in these Hebrew versions might be found throughout the remaining books of the Greek Scriptures which would further complicate your argument that Jesus and Jehovah are distinct?
Thus, you have introduced a second harsh reality which you would certainly not wish to defend. Many instances of the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew versions actually support Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) as Jehovah.
Reality #3
If the best Greek manuscripts—of which there are over 5,000—are so corrupted that a feature as important as the Tetragrammaton could be lost in less than two hundred years after they were written, these remaining inferior manuscripts must be regarded as being so corrupted in every other way that they are worthless as anything but ancient literature. If a feature as important as the divine name could be lost from the very Word of Jehovah without leaving either manuscript or historical evidence, then there is nothing in that same manuscript evidence which merits allegiance to its veracity.
An outsider could criticize you by saying that your Bible uses corrupted manuscript evidence which produces a translation without credence.
You have now introduced a third harsh reality which you would not want to defend. Your claim implies that the ancient Greek manuscripts on which your New World Translation Christian Scriptures are based are so unreliable that they cannot be trusted.
Reality #4
You have introduced a fourth reality which would be quite embarrassing to you as ones of Jehovah's Witnesses. Realizing that there are a large number of Tetragrammaton passages in Hebrew versions, you must permit an editorial committee to select which of the total 307 references you will use in your Bible. How then does this committee choose the 237 occurrences of Jehovah used in the New World Translation Christian Scriptures? What if there were actually 238 allowable Tetragrammaton references since both Romans 14:11 (For it is written: "'As I live,' says Jehovah, 'to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.'") and Philippians 2:10-11 (So that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord [it could read "Jehovah"] to the glory of God the Father.) use the words of Isaiah 45:21-24? Or should it be 239 occurrences of Jehovah because some Hebrew versions use the Tetragrammaton at Acts 26:14-15 (But I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' [it says "Jehovah" in at least one Hebrew version] And the Lord [it says "Jehovah" in at least one Hebrew version] said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.)? On the other hand, maybe it should it be 240 occurrences of Jehovah because other Hebrew versions use the Tetragrammaton at 1 Peter 3:15 (But sanctify the Christ as Lord [it says "Jehovah" in some Hebrew versions] in YOUR hearts.)? No, you have allowed this committee to select only 237 possibilities in order to prevent the problems you would encounter if any of these additional verses were translated with the name "Jehovah."
It must be obvious that had another committee for a "Trinitarian" New Testament translation used all 307 Hebrew version Tetragrammaton references, they could produce a translation which conclusively proved that Jesus was Jehovah.
You must now face a fourth harsh reality. After all that your own translators said about the sectarian faults of other Bible translations, you must now admit that you have permitted a committee to select only 237 of the total 307 Tetragrammaton occurrences in order to produce a Christian Scripture in your own New World Translation which agrees with your theology.
Reality #5
Others have written to us saying that the selection of the Tetragrammaton was not based solely on Hebrew versions, yet they have left it unclear as to the basis on which these 237 passages were selected. Without manuscript evidence to give direction, they have left the New World Bible Translation Committee with the responsibility of determining which passages will use the Tetragrammaton and translate the passage into English as "Jehovah"—and which passages will render the translation with "Lord" as found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation.
Notice another underlying bias in this writers comments when he says,
These sources tell you the divine name was removed! Now it's no longer possible to show direct Biblical manuscript proof, so we go by what ancient texts say about this subject instead.
To be it's crystal clear the name was used by early Christians and would have used it in their texts. ... As the tetragrammaton was removed from the NT, they would have no choice but to use a Greek transliteration of the divine name. Greek/Hebrew characters for JHVH -- what difference would it make? The issue is whether they used the divine name at all and they obviously did.
Direct NT evidence is no longer possible. But those sources prove it was there. Could all those sources be untruthful? I think that would be unreasonable to conclude that.
There is a clear bias in this writer's comments which state what the autograph writers must have said, rather than allowing them to say what they wanted to say as determined by what they wrote. Very simply, if the original writers understood Jesus to be fully identified as having the prerogatives and attributes of Jehovah, they could have conveyed that idea clearly to their readers by using the Septuagint word Kurios (Lord) for both Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus as Lord of the Christian Scriptures. Had the original writers used this one word to alternately identify both Jehovah and Jesus, it would have conveyed a very strong message to the first century readers.
If we want our Christian Scriptures to be free of bias, we must not permit translators to bring their own theology to the text. Freedom from translation bias will demand that the translators report exactly what was written according to the best manuscripts available. On the other hand, when translators bring a pre-conceived theological position to their translation task which says "Jehovah's name must be used in the Christian Scriptures." and "Jesus cannot be identified as having the attributes of Jehovah."—and then when they proceed in their translation task to support that position irrespective of what the original authors wrote, we may fairly say that the translation is biased.
The only way we can determine what the original authors intended to say is to read the text exactly as they wrote it. In the absence of any manuscript or historic evidence that the Christian Scripture autographs used the Tetragrammaton, we must insist that our translators tell us exactly what those writers said without altering their intended message because of a theological bias.
To define what the original writers must say, muzzles them, preventing them from communicating to us today what Jehovah intended to teach us through his Word.
Nor, do we need evidence that the Tetragrammaton was used in the first century. It was. Of all people, the Christian Scripture writers would certainly have known the divine name and would have been capable of writing it in Hebrew letters had they wanted.
Consequently, the last harsh reality you face is that you must now defend an unenviable and blatant reality that your own translation is just as much the product of sectarian bias as any other New Testament translation.
My closing comment to the reader who sent the material above is simply this: proofs that the Tetragrammaton was used during the first two hundred years of the Common Era has little bearing on its proper place in the Christian Scriptures. In fact, it can be easily verified that the Tetragrammaton was used in Hebrew and occult religious writings during that time period. The only evidence that would be conclusive in showing where the divine name should be included in the Christian Scriptures would be ancient Greek Christian Scripture manuscripts showing the exact location of the Tetragrammaton in specific verses.
Without that evidence, you have introduced the dilemma for yourself which would show that:
the New World Translation is unreliable because you must appeal to a higher authority than the best available Greek manuscripts in order to insert the word "Jehovah"
if all Tetragrammaton references in Hebrew versions were used, then Jesus would clearly be identified as Jehovah
according to your claims, your translation is based on unreliable manuscripts
your committee selected only 237 of a possible 307 Tetragrammaton references, and—by selecting some Tetragrammaton references and rejecting others—that your own New World Translation is just as biased as any "Trinitarian" Bible translation.
Every group runs a similar risk when using a specialized argument to defend a treasured position. Because everyone within that group agrees with the logic of their own argument, few take the time to evaluate the faulty implications of their own argument. On the other hand, that same argument which seems so logical to those "inside" may present realities arguing even more strongly against that same position to an observer on the outside. I am afraid that your argument that the Tetragrammaton was used in the first two centuries of the Common Era may present just that kind of dilemma for you in the five areas I have listed above.
My comments to the second writer are similar, though he is dealing exclusively with Greek versions of the Hebrew Scriptures slightly before and after Jesus' time.
Yet, this writer also opens a terrible logic problem for himself. The more he can prove that the Tetragrammaton would have been read by the original Christian Scripture writers, the more difficult his explanation becomes as to why they did not include it in their own writings. Consequently, the argument that the original authors were clearly intending to identify the attributes of Jesus and Jehovah becomes even that much more foreceful.
This second writer will also face the same predicament as our original writer. If all of these arguments could be marshaled to prove that the Tetragrammaton should be included in the Christian Scriptures even though there is no manuscript evidence to indicate where the insertions should be made, it will become a terribly sectarian debate. Should the Tetragrammaton be inserted 307 times as suggested above, or every time the word Kurios is speaking of Jesus? If we cannot follow an accurate Greek text to determine the wording, what kind of committee do we choose to make that determination?
Those defending the New World Translation's use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures often feel that their primary objective will be reached when they can establish that the Tetragrammaton was verifiably used in the first two centuries of the Common Era. Far from it. What they don't realize is how strongly conservative Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic schools of thought demand manuscript evidence for the words of Scripture. None of these groups would allow a suggestion that the Christian Scriptures could be changed on such a sectarian notion as that presented by the Watch Tower Bible Society.
Except, that is, in the exact same way in which the Protestant Bible makes an identical error in their removal of the divine name in the Old Testament. (See our comments on this topic in our Open Letters section.)
The first writer posted a rebuttal on http://jehovah.125mb.com. I will let him speak for himself and let you decide the merit of his arguments. I will only make this one additional observation:
I need to be very clear on what I mean by higher (or highest) authority. It is simply this: if a translator is translating a Greek phrase which uses the Greek word Kurios and he translates it into English as Lord, he has used the Greek text as the highest authority. If he translates Kurios as Jehovah, then he has used something else as a higher authority than the Greek text. He may have used a Hebrew version as his higher authority for this one word, or he may have used his understanding of history and a presumed heresy in the second century as a higher authority, or he may have even used his own theological position as the higher authority. Yet, if this translator has not translated the Greek text with the exact meaning of the Greek text, then he has appealed to a higher authority than the Greek text itself.
In many instances, there has been uncertainty as to the correct Greek word because of manuscript corruption. In this case, the translator will rely on the work of textual critics who have studied the 5,000 available Greek manuscripts to determine which word possibilities are most probable. When the translator selects the word which textual critics have determined to be the most probable word used the by original writer, he is again appealing to the highest authority. In all cases, however, the highest authority is always the most probable word used by the original author as verified by the best manuscript evidence.
We all want to claim that Scripture is our highest authority. But we simply cannot make our words mean something new simply to avoid being in an awkward position. Either the best established Greek text is the highest authority, or something else is. But no translator can claim that he is using the Greek text as his highest authority when he does not follow the meaning found in that text.
We only delude ourselves when we say that Scripture is our highest authority, and yet allow our translators to change its words to satisfy our own theological bias.
This is true when the translators of the New World Translation change the Greek word Kurios to "Jehovah."
It is just as true that the translators of Protestant Old Testaments have appealed to a higher authority than Scripture itself when they translate the word יהוה as LORD.
In both cases, the original writers have been prevented from communicating to the English readers their intended message.