Is "Lord" a mistranslation of YHWH?

[Rob Bowman]

In another thread, NonTrinitarian wrote:

And thus far you have in no way proven any errors or mistranslations. I've got about 7,000 right off the bat on every translation accept the New Jerusalem Bible as they don't translate God's Name. Any one else interested in a discussion?
I'm game.

Well over 200 times, the Greek New Testament quotes the OT and uses the Greek word for "Lord" (KURIOS) or "God" (QEOS) in place of the Hebrew divine name YHWH. But I don't consider that a mistranslation. :wink:

Of course, your answer will have to be that the Greek NT manuscripts represent a corrupted tradition and that the original Greek NT writings contained some consonantally parallel representation of the divine name. But there is no manuscript evidence for this claim. It is sheer speculation, contradicted by the fact that we have a variety of manuscript families or text-types for the Greek NT, all of which use the surrogates KURIOS and QEOS in place of the divine name (except in the "Hallelujah" texts in Revelation 19:1-6).

Consider this question: How much manuscript evidence do we have for the hypothesis that the Hebrew Old Testament originally used ADONAI some 7,000 times and that later Hebrew scribes replaced it with the Tetragrammaton? The answer is: The same amount of evidence that we have for the JW theory that the Greek NT originally contained the Tetragrammaton!

To anticipate another argument, you will contend that the NT writers would have used the divine name because the few manuscripts we have of the Old Testament in Greek translation from the first century and before contain representations of the divine name. But this doesn't prove that the NT writers did the same, because (1) the evidence we have for the Greek OT prior to the NT is too meager, and in any case (2) the NT writers did not always follow their Greek OT and might not have done so in this matter.

[NonTrinitarian]

In another thread, NonTrinitarian wrote:


I'm game.

Well over 200 times, the Greek New Testament quotes the OT and uses the Greek word for "Lord" (KURIOS) or "God" (QEOS) in place of the Hebrew divine name YHWH. But I don't consider that a mistranslation. :wink:

Of course, your answer will have to be that the Greek NT manuscripts represent a corrupted tradition and that the original Greek NT writings contained some consonantally parallel representation of the divine name. But there is no manuscript evidence for this claim. It is sheer speculation, contradicted by the fact that we have a variety of manuscript families or text-types for the Greek NT, all of which use the surrogates KURIOS and QEOS in place of the divine name (except in the "Hallelujah" texts in Revelation 19:1-6). And 50+ years ago you would have proudly bolstered that there were no copies of the LXX with the Divine name in them either. You would have asked me the same questions and then sat down thinking you had undeniably proved your point. Then some peasant boy discovered some clay jars and your argument would have fallen to pieces. So much for speculation.

Consider this question: How much manuscript evidence do we have for the hypothesis that the Hebrew Old Testament originally used ADONAI some 7,000 times and that later Hebrew scribes replaced it with the Tetragrammaton? The answer is: The same amount of evidence that we have for the JW theory that the Greek NT originally contained the Tetragrammaton! Uh, no. And that you even suggest this puts a question mark on your scholarly abilities. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts we have include the Divine name. Can that be said of the Septuagint? Yes. But then later we are introduced with NEWER copies with the Divine name missing. Hmm. So the older ones have it but the newer ones don't. That's curious. Is that the case with the Hebrew manuscripts? Do the older ones have the name missing and the newer ones include it? Why no, you say? Doesn't sound like the same amount of evidence to me, Rob.

The oldest Hebrew MS and the oldest LXX contain the Divine name. The newer LXX doesn't. So if we can't find the oldest NT MS and all we have are later date ones, do you really think you have an argument here? Just as 50+ years ago you would have proudly stuck out your chest like a rooster saying no LXX MS contained the Divine name, only to pull it back in under ambarrasement later, I predict one day older NT MS will be found and you will eat your words like so many "scholars" before you did regarding the LXX.

To anticipate another argument, you will contend that the NT writers would have used the divine name because the few manuscripts we have of the Old Testament in Greek translation from the first century and before contain representations of the divine name. But this doesn't prove that the NT writers did the same, because (1) the evidence we have for the Greek OT prior to the NT is too meager, and in any case (2) the NT writers did not always follow their Greek OT and might not have done so in this matter.
"Too meager"? Please. "Might not have done so?" Sounds like arguments we heard 50+ years ago. The facts speak loud and clear, Rob. The oldest of both the Hebrew and LXX MS have the divine name. Only when we move further into the apostasy do we see the Name mysteriously disappear.

[Rob Bowman]

NonTrinitarian,

You wrote:

And 50+ years ago you would have proudly bolstered that there were no copies of the LXX with the Divine name in them either. You would have asked me the same questions and then sat down thinking you had undeniably proved your point. Then some peasant boy discovered some clay jars and your argument would have fallen to pieces. So much for speculation.
"Speculation"? Prior to the discoveries to which you refer, it is a fact that we did not have any copies of the LXX with the divine name in them. Saying so would not have been speculation. Saying that such manuscripts would never be found would have been speculation. On the other hand, saying that such manuscripts would be found would also at that time have been speculation.

Prior to the twentieth century, our oldest copies of Old Testament texts dated from a millennium or more after the close of the OT era. Overnight, that gap shrank hundreds of years. With a millennium-long gap, it would have been highly speculative to have guessed what we would find in older Greek translations of a Hebrew original. (The fact that a translation is the subject is significant, since translations exhibit a greater degree of verbal variance from one another than copies in the same language do from one another.) Guessing that we would, or that we would not, find some copies containing a form of the divine name would have been speculation.

The situation with the New Testament is not the same. We are not talking about translations of the original language texts into other languages, and we are not talking about a millennium-long gap. We have manuscripts of the NT in the original language dating from as little as 25 years from the close of the NT era. We have manuscripts of virtually the entire NT dating from a century after the NT was finished. We also have a paper trail of writers quoting from those NT writings throughout the intervening century; these writers confirm the evidence of the NT manuscripts that no change in the text was made.

You wrote:

The oldest Hebrew manuscripts we have include the Divine name. Can that be said of the Septuagint? Yes. But then later we are introduced with NEWER copies with the Divine name missing. Hmm. So the older ones have it but the newer ones don't. That's curious. Is that the case with the Hebrew manuscripts? Do the older ones have the name missing and the newer ones include it? Why no, you say? Doesn't sound like the same amount of evidence to me, Rob.
You're right, but you're comparing the wrong two situations. I agree that the evidence for the LXX having a form of the divine name prior to its not having it is greater than the evidence for the Hebrew OT originally missing the divine name and later having it put in place of something else. Of course! But that is a different comparison than the one I made. The point of my comparison had to do with the claim that the New Testament originally contained the divine name. Your sentences above about the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT may be repeated almost exactly for the NT:

"Is that the case with the Greek manuscripts? Do the older ones have the name included and the newer ones are missing it? Why no, you say?"

You see? I'm making the same argument against the claim that the NT originally contained the divine name as you would against a claim (which of course I am not making) that the OT originally did not contain the divine name. Both claims are groundless speculation for which no evidence exists and against which there is substantial evidence.

You wrote:

And that you even suggest this puts a question mark on your scholarly abilities.
Perhaps you should not be so quick to make such judgments and just stick to reasoned discussion of the issues.

You wrote:

The oldest Hebrew MS and the oldest LXX contain the Divine name. The newer LXX doesn't. So if we can't find the oldest NT MS and all we have are later date ones, do you really think you have an argument here? Just as 50+ years ago you would have proudly stuck out your chest like a rooster saying no LXX MS contained the Divine name, only to pull it back in under ambarrasement later, I predict one day older NT MS will be found and you will eat your words like so many "scholars" before you did regarding the LXX.
For some reason, the arguments and evidence are not enough for you; you seem to find it necessary to attribute attitudes toward me as part of your polemic against my position. Doing so only makes your own case seem weaker.

The argument you present here is essentially an instance of the fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance: Because I don't know that still earlier copies of the NT won't someday be found that prove you right, I can't dispute your position. By such reasoning one may defend beliefs in unicorns, dragons, extraterrestrials, and the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

As I explained above, the evidence we have that the NT originally did not contain the divine name is of an entirely different order than the evidence we had with respect to the original Septuagint prior to the discoveries of the twentieth century. In the case of the LXX, we are talking about Greek translations--not a single translation; the idea that there was one and only one Greek version of the OT, even in the first century AD, is a myth--of a Hebrew original. And we are talking about a gap of hundreds of years that was closed by those discoveries. In the case of the NT, we are talking about Greek copies of a Greek original, and the gap that potentially remains to be closed is only about one century long--and actually we do have a paper trail of evidence that fills in that gap somewhat already.

There are other reasons to deny that the NT originally contained the divine name, but perhaps we can get to those as we go along. But I would ask you to refrain from further personal attacks if you wish to keep me as a discussion partner.

[dizzle]

I am enjoying this discussion.

[NonTrinitarian]

Rob,

First of all, I owe you an apology. It was late at night when I wrote that and I get grumpy when I’m tired. I will attempt to do better.

NT- And 50+ years ago you would have proudly bolstered that there were no copies of the LXX with the Divine name in them either. You would have asked me the same questions and then sat down thinking you had undeniably proved your point. Then some peasant boy discovered some clay jars and your argument would have fallen to pieces. So much for speculation.



RB-"Speculation"? Prior to the discoveries to which you refer, it is a fact that we did not have any copies of the LXX with the divine name in them. Saying so would not have been speculation. Saying that such manuscripts would never be found would have been speculation. On the other hand, saying that such manuscripts would be found would also at that time have been speculation.

Prior to the twentieth century, our oldest copies of Old Testament texts dated from a millennium or more after the close of the OT era. Overnight, that gap shrank hundreds of years. With a millennium-long gap, it would have been highly speculative to have guessed what we would find in older Greek translations of a Hebrew original. (The fact that a translation is the subject is significant, since translations exhibit a greater degree of verbal variance from one another than copies in the same language do from one another.) Guessing that we would, or that we would not, find some copies containing a form of the divine name would have been speculation. Speculation wasn’t a good word to use. Let me restate the point of mentioning this. For years people were so certain that the LXX did not have the divine name in it. However, even without evidence of the name in the LXX (until the DSS were found) they should have reasoned on the amount of emphasis God put in His name in the OT. They should have recognized that there was a gap where the name could have been and while maybe not going all the way and saying it was there, they should have at least recognized the possibility it having been there and not been so dogmatic that it never was. However, due to prejudice or whatever, they never even considered the gap or the prominence God put on His name as a potential that somewhere along the way it was removed. The dogmatics were merely shown to not be so dogmatic in the face of a lack of evidence regarding something. However, after being embarrassed over their insistence that it was never there, they simply pick up the argument and continue it with the NT, again totally dogmatic and possibly setting themselves up for another failure.

The situation with the New Testament is not the same. We are not talking about translations of the original language texts into other languages, and we are not talking about a millennium-long gap. We have manuscripts of the NT in the original language dating from as little as 25 years from the close of the NT era. We have manuscripts of virtually the entire NT dating from a century after the NT was finished. We also have a paper trail of writers quoting from those NT writings throughout the intervening century; these writers confirm the evidence of the NT manuscripts that no change in the text was made. A hundred years is along time, Rob. Even 25 years. We see church Fathers using terminology regarding Jesus that was nowhere near the terminology used by Paul and the other apostles. (See Murray Harris’ Jesus as God) I don’t want this discussion to turn into a debate on the apostasy. I’m sure we both agree it happened, we simply date it differently and over different subjects. But I do believe Jesus used his Father’s name and I do believe it was in the NT. Can I prove it? No. Do I have basis for believing it was there. Of course. You’ve read all the arguments. You know why we think it was there. But can we prove it? Of course, not. Not anymore than we could have proved it was in the LXX in 1920. But does the fact that we can’t prove it mean it is definite it wasn’t? I think the LXX and the DSS answer that.



You're right, but you're comparing the wrong two situations. I agree that the evidence for the LXX having a form of the divine name prior to its not having it is greater than the evidence for the Hebrew OT originally missing the divine name and later having it put in place of something else. Of course! But that is a different comparison than the one I made. The point of my comparison had to do with the claim that the New Testament originally contained the divine name. Your sentences above about the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT may be repeated almost exactly for the NT:

"Is that the case with the Greek manuscripts? Do the older ones have the name included and the newer ones are missing it? Why no, you say?"

You see? I'm making the same argument against the claim that the NT originally contained the divine name as you would against a claim (which of course I am not making) that the OT originally did not contain the divine name. Both claims are groundless speculation for which no evidence exists and against which there is substantial evidence. You’re right. I see your point. Though it’s not totally apples to apples because we have a pattern of using the Name before the NT. If we had different writings before the OT that were inspired (but somehow not part of the OT) that didn’t use the Name or maybe used a different name, then the Name appeared in the OT, then we might be able to make the argument that there was a change in the Name or its use. However, such is not the case. There is a huge difference in "substantial evidence" between the hypothetical scenario of the Name not being used in the OT at first and then later added versus the argument regarding the NT. We know for a fact God’s servants used His Name freely before the writing of the NT. We don’t know of God’s servants not using his name before the OT. Not the same thing, even from a hypothetical standpoint.

The argument you present here is essentially an instance of the fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance: Because I don't know that still earlier copies of the NT won't someday be found that prove you right, I can't dispute your position. By such reasoning one may defend beliefs in unicorns, dragons, extraterrestrials, and the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

As I explained above, the evidence we have that the NT originally did not contain the divine name is of an entirely different order than the evidence we had with respect to the original Septuagint prior to the discoveries of the twentieth century. In the case of the LXX, we are talking about Greek translations--not a single translation; the idea that there was one and only one Greek version of the OT, even in the first century AD, is a myth--of a Hebrew original. And we are talking about a gap of hundreds of years that was closed by those discoveries. In the case of the NT, we are talking about Greek copies of a Greek original, and the gap that potentially remains to be closed is only about one century long--and actually we do have a paper trail of evidence that fills in that gap somewhat already.No Rob, you misunderstood my argument. I am not saying that the lack of the original NT MSS is proof it did contain the Name. I am not even trying to "prove" the Name was in the NT. What I am saying is that you cannot, or at least should not dogmatically claim that since we don’t have the Name in the NT MSS we posses, the name was not in the originals. The DSS and the LXX should teach all dogmatics that lesson. So can I prove that the NT had the Name? No. But your evidence for proving it was not there (that being that we don’t currently possess it) is not acceptable to me. In fact, it’s already been demonstrated that this method of basing your arguments can be faulted with the throw of a rock by a shepherd boy.

[Rob Bowman]

NonTrinitarian,

You wrote:

First of all, I owe you an apology. It was late at night when I wrote that and I get grumpy when I’m tired. I will attempt to do better.

Apology accepted; thank you.

You wrote:

Speculation wasn’t a good word to use. Let me restate the point of mentioning this. For years people were so certain that the LXX did not have the divine name in it. However, even without evidence of the name in the LXX (until the DSS were found) they should have reasoned on the amount of emphasis God put in His name in the OT. They should have recognized that there was a gap where the name could have been and while maybe not going all the way and saying it was there, they should have at least recognized the possibility it having been there and not been so dogmatic that it never was. However, due to prejudice or whatever, they never even considered the gap or the prominence God put on His name as a potential that somewhere along the way it was removed. The dogmatics were merely shown to not be so dogmatic in the face of a lack of evidence regarding something. However, after being embarrassed over their insistence that it was never there, they simply pick up the argument and continue it with the NT, again totally dogmatic and possibly setting themselves up for another failure.

The possibility of failure, or of discovering we were wrong, is part of the human condition. It applies to evangelicals and JWs and to everyone else, regardless of the position they take on an issue.

Up to now, I have not challenged your premise—that Christian scholars prior to the twentieth century dogmatically claimed that the LXX never had a form of the divine name in it. And maybe you’re right. But you wouldn’t mind telling me how you know this, would you? It might be worth verifying.

The other side of the coin is that overstatement or dogmatism is heard from the JW side as well. JWs often claim that we now know that the LXX originally contained the divine name, that the copies of the LXX used by the apostles had the divine name, and even that the apostles themselves used the divine name. We know no such thing, and you seem to recognize that we don’t, or at least that we can’t prove any of this. Scholarship tends to round off some of our sharp dogmatic corners.

I’d like to point out something about your argument. You suggest that dogmatically claiming that the LXX never contained the divine name was foolish in light of the emphasis on that name in the Hebrew OT. I’m not sure this follows; the emphasis on the name in the Hebrew OT does not seem to imply that the LXX translators would necessarily have used a form of the name. But let’s say you’re right. It would appear, even looking at the NWT, that this “emphasis” fades considerably in the NT. By my count “Jehovah” appears one-eighth as often (page for page, if you will) in the NWTCGS as it does in the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures. And even if we allow that the NWT translators were being conservative in where they put “Jehovah” in place of KURIOS or QEOS, it does not appear possible to argue that the NT originally used the divine name with a frequency even close to that of the OT.

Again, the comparative shortness of the gap between the writing of the NT and our earliest copies (see below), together with the fact that with the NT we are talking about copies and not copies of translations (a point you did not address), makes your argument by analogy here too weak to be anything except at most a caution against excessive dogmatism—a caution I accept but would suggest needs to be heard by JWs as well.

Regarding the short gap between the writing of the NT and our earliest copies, you wrote:

A hundred years is along time, Rob. Even 25 years. We see church Fathers using terminology regarding Jesus that was nowhere near the terminology used by Paul and the other apostles. (See Murray Harris’ Jesus as God)

Such reasoning is self-defeating. How do we know what terminology Paul and the other apostles used? Why, we can only know what terminology they used from the extant manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament—manuscripts that you are contending are significantly compromised.

I agree that the second-century church fathers’ terminology differs somewhat from that of the NT writers, though not as much as you may think. (I disagree with some of Harris’s analysis, by the way.) But with regards to the use of the surrogate “Lord” for the divine name, the church fathers from the second century forward stand in perfect continuity with the extant NT manuscripts. Thus all of the available evidence supports the conclusion that the NT writers did not use the divine name; and this evidence spans the gap between the writing of the NT books and our earliest manuscripts.

I had written:

The argument you present here is essentially an instance of the fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance: Because I don't know that still earlier copies of the NT won't someday be found that prove you right, I can't dispute your position. By such reasoning one may defend beliefs in unicorns, dragons, extraterrestrials, and the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

As I explained above, the evidence we have that the NT originally did not contain the divine name is of an entirely different order than the evidence we had with respect to the original Septuagint prior to the discoveries of the twentieth century. In the case of the LXX, we are talking about Greek translations--not a single translation; the idea that there was one and only one Greek version of the OT, even in the first century AD, is a myth--of a Hebrew original. And we are talking about a gap of hundreds of years that was closed by those discoveries. In the case of the NT, we are talking about Greek copies of a Greek original, and the gap that potentially remains to be closed is only about one century long--and actually we do have a paper trail of evidence that fills in that gap somewhat already.

You replied:

No Rob, you misunderstood my argument. I am not saying that the lack of the original NT MSS is proof it did contain the Name. I am not even trying to "prove" the Name was in the NT.

No, I did not misunderstand your argument. I didn’t claim that you were using this argument to prove the NT contained the divine name. Read again how I paraphrased your argument: “Because I don't know that still earlier copies of the NT won't someday be found that prove you right, I can't dispute your position.” Not, your position is true or proved correct, but that I can’t dispute it, because (and here’s the fallacious appeal to ignorance) I can’t produce absolute proof to the contrary.

You wrote:

What I am saying is that you cannot, or at least should not dogmatically claim that since we don’t have the Name in the NT MSS we posses, the name was not in the originals.

I can and do say that the evidence uniformly and overwhelmingly supports that conclusion, so that unless and until contrary evidence counterbalancing the existing evidence is found, the reasonable position to take is that the divine name was not originally used in the NT. In other words, even though the manuscript evidence does not provide absolute, mathematically certain proof that your position is impossible, the best explanation of the evidence we have is that your position is incorrect.

[dizzle]

]I can and do say that the evidence uniformly and overwhelmingly supports that conclusion, so that unless and until contrary evidence counterbalancing the existing evidence is found, the reasonable position to take is that the divine name was not originally used in the NT. In other words, even though the manuscript evidence does not provide absolute, mathematically certain proof that your position is impossible, the best explanation of the evidence we have is that your position is incorrect.

Very well said. What do you think of that pamphlet that Alpha and Omega Ministries has that shows in the late manuscripts that are relied upon by the Watchtower for inserting the divine name that there are passages in which the divine is inserted in which it clearly refers to Jesus, yet the Watchtower ignores those? Have you seen that material? If not I may be able to scan it or somehow reproduce the pertinent argument here.

[Rob Bowman]

Dee Dee,

Nice to hear from you. You asked:

What do you think of that pamphlet that Alpha and Omega Ministries has that shows in the late manuscripts that are relied upon by the Watchtower for inserting the divine name that there are passages in which the divine is inserted in which it clearly refers to Jesus, yet the Watchtower ignores those? Have you seen that material? If not I may be able to scan it or somehow reproduce the pertinent argument here.
I have heard this argument before. Frankly, because I consider medieval Hebrew translations of the NT to be valueless as witnesses to the original reading, I simply ignore them. The point you make may illustrate selective use of evidence on the part of the Watchtower, but that's about all.

Thanks for the encouragement!

[NonTrinitarian]

Rob,
I don't have much time until Thursday but I will get back with you. In the meantime, if you can tell me how you feel about the dozens of translations that do not translate the Divine Name in the OT where there is no debate that it is there, it may help me get a better understanding of yor viewpoint regarding God's Name. (I don't care about pronuciation so Yahweh, Jehovah or Yahvew or any other way you prefer but how do you feel about these translations not including the name?)

[dizzle]

Dee Dee,

Nice to hear from you. You asked:


I have heard this argument before. Frankly, because I consider medieval Hebrew translations of the NT to be valueless as witnesses to the original reading, I simply ignore them. The point you make may illustrate selective use of evidence on the part of the Watchtower, but that's about all.

Thanks for the encouragement!

Yes it was for evidence of the selectice use of evidence. It is quite powerful for that.

[NonTrinitarian]

Up to now, I have not challenged your premise—that Christian scholars prior to the twentieth century dogmatically claimed that the LXX never had a form of the divine name in it. And maybe you’re right. But you wouldn’t mind telling me how you know this, would you? It might be worth verifying. You have Stafford’s book as well as Furuli’s where they quote different scholars who even try to contest the divine name being in the LXX even after the DSS were found so I’m not wasting time on that. Even with me not bothering to type these out it shouldn’t require too much imagination to envision the argument that the Divine name was not in the LXX was quite popular until after MSS were found with it in them. Look no further than your own argument for why it should not be in the NWT.

The other side of the coin is that overstatement or dogmatism is heard from the JW side as well. JWs often claim that we now know that the LXX originally contained the divine name, that the copies of the LXX used by the apostles had the divine name, and even that the apostles themselves used the divine name. We know no such thing, and you seem to recognize that we don’t, or at least that we can’t prove any of this. Scholarship tends to round off some of our sharp dogmatic corners.Agreed, and I can’t nor won’t attempt to defend those who are dogmatic about it. As I said, I cannot prove it was in the NT but I do believe it is a reasonable conclusion.

I’d like to point out something about your argument. You suggest that dogmatically claiming that the LXX never contained the divine name was foolish in light of the emphasis on that name in the Hebrew OT. I’m not sure this follows; the emphasis on the name in the Hebrew OT does not seem to imply that the LXX translators would necessarily have used a form of the name. But let’s say you’re right. It would appear, even looking at the NWT, that this "emphasis" fades considerably in the NT. By my count "Jehovah" appears one-eighth as often (page for page, if you will) in the NWTCGS as it does in the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures. And even if we allow that the NWT translators were being conservative in where they put "Jehovah" in place of KURIOS or QEOS, it does not appear possible to argue that the NT originally used the divine name with a frequency even close to that of the OT.I think it is quite important to notice the attention and emphasis both God and His servants put on his name in the OT. I didn’t say the emphasis in the OT would "prove" the LXX had the name. I simply said it should have been a point of caution for emphatically saying it wasn’t in the LXX since no known MSS had it at the time. Additionally, the drop off in the NT is not an issue for me any more than the fact that some books in the OT don’t have the name at all. It depends on the context. By far the NT is focused on Jesus and his sacrifice so by percentages there would have to be a drop in the use of the divine name.

Again, the comparative shortness of the gap between the writing of the NT and our earliest copies (see below), together with the fact that with the NT we are talking about copies and not copies of translations (a point you did not address), makes your argument by analogy here too weak to be anything except at most a caution against excessive dogmatism—a caution I accept but would suggest needs to be heard by JWs as well.Those JW’s who are dogmatic should use caution. However, in regards to the gap; How long of a gap one needs to corrupt a text is at question. I don’t think the LXX slowly got rid of the Divine name. Ie, the first century they removed 25% of the names, then the next century removed 25%, then the third removed 25% until it was gone all together. Rather, the change could have happened almost immediately. The gentile immergence into the Church could have easily and quickly pushed out the "Jewish" God. The LXX MSS that have the divine name removed are post-Christian. To me it appears reasonable that the same people that removed it from the LXX did so from the NT as well. The problem is that the LXX had many more copies around which enabled us to find the pre-Christian copies. The NT had far less circulation and copies and thus it is understandable how it would be easier to stamp out any reference to a Jewish God and how it would be far more difficult to find one with a reference to the Divine name.

As I explained above, the evidence we have that the NT originally did not contain the divine name is of an entirely different order than the evidence we had with respect to the original Septuagint prior to the discoveries of the twentieth century. In the case of the LXX, we are talking about Greek translations--not a single translation; the idea that there was one and only one Greek version of the OT, even in the first century AD, is a myth--of a Hebrew original. And we are talking about a gap of hundreds of years that was closed by those discoveries. In the case of the NT, we are talking about Greek copies of a Greek original, and the gap that potentially remains to be closed is only about one century long--and actually we do have a paper trail of evidence that fills in that gap somewhat already. I never argued for one Greek version of the LXX and the smaller gap is not as big an issue as you think per what I answered earlier in this post.



I can and do say that the evidence uniformly and overwhelmingly supports that conclusion, so that unless and until contrary evidence counterbalancing the existing evidence is found, the reasonable position to take is that the divine name was not originally used in the NT. In other words, even though the manuscript evidence does not provide absolute, mathematically certain proof that your position is impossible, the best explanation of the evidence we have is that your position is incorrect. And thus we have the same argument we did with the LXX 70 years ago. Only to be demonstrated as faulty later.

Rob, I would still like to know your position on the divine name in the OT and your feelings about the mis-translations with many different versions. Are you really interested in God’s Word being translated as it originally was or are you simply wanting to argue with JW’s? Because if you don’t really have a problem with them ‘taking away’ from God’s Word nearly 7,000 times in the OT then what’s your problem with ‘adding to’ God’s Word 237 times in the NT? Personally I see most people who argue against the NWT NT as hypocrites who are not really interested in the translation of the Bible as they are with grinding an axe with JW’s. I have not put you in the category yet but I would like to know if you have a double standard. After all, if you don’t think the Name should be translated where there is NO DOUBT it appears then I see no reason to waste my time trying to convince it may have been where it doesn’t appear today.

[Rob Bowman]

NonTrinitarian,

I had written:

Up to now, I have not challenged your premise—that Christian scholars prior to the twentieth century dogmatically claimed that the LXX never had a form of the divine name in it. And maybe you’re right. But you wouldn’t mind telling me how you know this, would you? It might be worth verifying.

You replied:

You have Stafford’s book as well as Furuli’s where they quote different scholars who even try to contest the divine name being in the LXX even after the DSS were found so I’m not wasting time on that.

Well, I wasted my time reviewing those sections in Stafford’s and Furuli’s books and came up empty. Neither book quoted one scholar who contested that the divine name was in the LXX. Both quoted one scholar (Albert Pietersma) who argued that the evidence did not prove that the LXX originally contained the divine name. Oddly enough, Stafford conceded the point, insisting that it didn’t matter what the LXX originally said as long as the LXX or Greek OT used by the NT writers contained the divine name. In other words, Stafford suggested a scenario in which the LXX originally used surrogates for the divine name, after which versions of the LXX or Greek OT were produced that contained the divine name (in time for the NT writers to use), and then after the NT was written surrogates were used in Christian versions of the LXX. But if the Greek OT had been that fluid with respect to the use or nonuse of the divine name, then it would be quite possible and even likely that one or more versions of the Greek OT accessible to the NT writers would have used surrogates in place of the divine name. In other words, under the scenario that Stafford suggests, no inference could be drawn regarding the use of the divine name in the NT from the evidence of the differing versions of the Greek OT.

You wrote:

<< Even with me not bothering to type these out it shouldn’t require too much imagination to envision the argument that the Divine name was not in the LXX was quite popular until after MSS were found with it in them. Look no further than your own argument for why it should not be in the NWT. >>

I only argued that it should not be in the NWTCGS, and I gave reasons that distinguished the rationale for that conclusion from the argument you “envision” people having used prior to the twentieth-century discoveries of the divine name in the LXX.

You wrote:

Additionally, the drop off in the NT is not an issue for me any more than the fact that some books in the OT don’t have the name at all. It depends on the context.

I could (and have) said the very same thing. But then, why not extend this fine reasoning one step further? Why not take the position that the omission of the divine name in the NT is no more of a problem than its omission in some books in the OT? After all, the manuscript evidence for the one is the same as for the other!

I had written:

As I explained above, the evidence we have that the NT originally did not contain the divine name is of an entirely different order than the evidence we had with respect to the original Septuagint prior to the discoveries of the twentieth century. In the case of the LXX, we are talking about Greek translations—not a single translation; the idea that there was one and only one Greek version of the OT, even in the first century AD, is a myth—of a Hebrew original. And we are talking about a gap of hundreds of years that was closed by those discoveries. In the case of the NT, we are talking about Greek copies of a Greek original, and the gap that potentially remains to be closed is only about one century long—and actually we do have a paper trail of evidence that fills in that gap somewhat already.

In your response, you focused entirely on the issue of the gap between the originals and the earliest extant copies. In doing so, you missed the force of the argument.

Look, before we had any manuscript evidence for the inclusion of the divine name in the LXX, it would have been problematic to justify a translation of the LXX into, say, English that used “Jehovah” selectively in place of KURIOS. You could have speculated that some Greek versions of the OT available to the apostles had contained the divine name, but you would not have had any solid evidence to support that speculation. Now that manuscript evidence has surfaced for the inclusion of the divine name in some versions of the LXX, you have a solid evidentiary basis for what would have been speculation a century ago.

Are you in the same position today regarding the divine name in the NT that you would have been a century ago regarding the divine name in the LXX? No, as I have explained, but let’s suppose you are. Then the reasonable thing to do is to refrain from translating the NT with “Jehovah” because at present there isn’t any solid evidence to support it. You can speculate that the NT might have contained the divine name at one time, but that’s it—and that’s even conceding the analogy with the LXX.

But as I have said repeatedly, the situation is not similar for the NT. There are three factors I mentioned in the paragraph quoted above that must be taken cumulatively if the force of the argument is to be appreciated. The first is the comparatively short gap in time between the originals and the earliest extant copies. Your response is to argue that the transition from NT documents containing the divine name to copies using surrogates might have been accomplished in a very short time. Well, almost anything is possible, but the shorter time span does make it less likely. But in any case this is only one of three reasons for questioning the analogy. The second reason is that we have, as I put it, a paper trail that bridges much of that already short gap in time. That is, we have the writings of early Christian writers from the late first century down throughout the second century and into the early third century. These writings show us that at no time in the period in question did Christians have a version of the NT containing a form of the divine name (other than in Revelation 19:1-6).

The third weakness in your analogy is the most serious: when we talk about the LXX we are really talking about a family of Greek translations of the OT, not about straightforward copies of the original Hebrew OT. Your analogy compares the transmission of the Greek NT to the transmission of differing Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. This is a weak analogy because copies in the same language as the original tend to stay closer to the original than translations in one language based on a text in another language. The possibility of new translations produced as revisions of earlier translations muddies the waters further. We may set out the difference like this:

Hebrew OT > Greek OT(1) > copies of Greek OT(1)
Hebrew OT > Greek OT(2) > copies of Greek OT(2)

Hebrew OT > Greek OT(1) > Greek OT(3) > copies of Greek OT(3)

Greek NT > copies of Greek NT

We should not be surprised to see significant and even systemic differences in wording among the Greek OT versions—what I labeled Greek OT(1), (2), and (3). However, the differences among copies of any one of these, say copies of Greek OT(1), will be relatively minor compared to the differences between copies of Greek OT(1) and Greek OT(2). Likewise, the differences among copies of the Greek NT may be expected to be relatively minor compared to the differences among Latin versions of the NT, or modern English versions of the NT, for that matter.

It should not surprise us, for example, to find different English renderings for EKKLHSIA in the different English versions (church, congregation, assembly, or even the transliterated ecclesia). Nor should it surprise us to see some versions using more than one of these. But it would be strange to infer from these variations that the Greek NT may have originally contained the Hebrew word QAHAL (Hebrew for congregation or assembly)!

In short, as I said before, your analogy simply cannot justify inserting “Jehovah” into the NT. It can give you a small glimmer of hope that one day you will be justified in doing so—but not now. As it stands, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that the NT originally contained a form of the divine name where our extant copies now have KURIOS or QEOS. It is not dogmatic for me to say so.

You wrote:

Rob, I would still like to know your position on the divine name in the OT and your feelings about the mis-translations with many different versions. Are you really interested in God’s Word being translated as it originally was or are you simply wanting to argue with JW’s? Because if you don’t really have a problem with them ‘taking away’ from God’s Word nearly 7,000 times in the OT then what’s your problem with ‘adding to’ God’s Word 237 times in the NT? Personally I see most people who argue against the NWT NT as hypocrites who are not really interested in the translation of the Bible as they are with grinding an axe with JW’s. I have not put you in the category yet but I would like to know if you have a double standard. After all, if you don’t think the Name should be translated where there is NO DOUBT it appears then I see no reason to waste my time trying to convince it may have been where it doesn’t appear today.

I consider translations of the OT that use Yahweh or Jehovah to render YHWH to be legitimate, and I also consider translations of the OT that use “Lord” (or “LORD”) to render YHWH to be legitimate. There is nothing hypocritical about me taking this position; I have valid reasons for taking it. Versions like the ASV are seeking to translate the Hebrew text “as is” with respect to the divine name. Versions like the NASB are seeking to translate the Hebrew text in light of the NT, which consistently uses KURIOS or QEOS in place of the divine name when quoting the OT.

What makes the use of “Jehovah” in the NT so objectionable is really not the word itself but the selective way in which it is introduced. One of the stated purposes of the NWT for inserting “Jehovah” into the NT text is to distinguish “the Lord” Jesus from “Jehovah” God. In short, the NWT principle is a theological a priori. The translation committee and the Watchtower Society publications have admitted that the Greek NT as it stands in the extant manuscripts equates the Lord Jesus with the Lord God (=Jehovah). Their purpose in inserting the name Jehovah in some places is to change the doctrine of the extant Greek NT. That is ultimately my “problem” with the NWT in this matter.

[NonTrinitarian]

I could (and have) said the very same thing. But then, why not extend this fine reasoning one step further? Why not take the position that the omission of the divine name in the NT is no more of a problem than its omission in some books in the OT? After all, the manuscript evidence for the one is the same as for the other! There is a difference between, say Song of Solomon not having the Name and the total NT not having the name. We have books of the Bible written before and after it that have and freely use the Name. We know that its omission was not based on any apparent desire to remove it as elsewhere the author uses the Name freely. (IE., Proverbs) We don’t know of any Jewish superstition that may have tried to stamp it out at that period of time and there wasn’t any Gentile movement at that time among God’s servants who may have wanted to stamp it out. However, I believe the evidence for just that situation does exists in regards to the NT. The Gentile turning of Jesus from the Son of God to God Himself. The LXX evidence that shows that sometime after the NT was written the Name was removed. It seems reasonable that the same people who tried to remove it from the LXX would remove it from the NT. It is an obstacle to Jesus being God when he quotes Ps 110:1 and says that Jehovah spoke to him or when he quotes Deut. and says that Jehovah is one and there is no other than he.


In your response, you focused entirely on the issue of the gap between the originals and the earliest extant copies. In doing so, you missed the force of the argument.

Look, before we had any manuscript evidence for the inclusion of the divine name in the LXX, it would have been problematic to justify a translation of the LXX into, say, English that used "Jehovah" selectively in place of KURIOS. You could have speculated that some Greek versions of the OT available to the apostles had contained the divine name, but you would not have had any solid evidence to support that speculation. Now that manuscript evidence has surfaced for the inclusion of the divine name in some versions of the LXX, you have a solid evidentiary basis for what would have been speculation a century ago.

Are you in the same position today regarding the divine name in the NT that you would have been a century ago regarding the divine name in the LXX? No, as I have explained, but let’s suppose you are. Then the reasonable thing to do is to refrain from translating the NT with "Jehovah" because at present there isn’t any solid evidence to support it. You can speculate that the NT might have contained the divine name at one time, but that’s it—and that’s even conceding the analogy with the LXX.And this is where the hang up is, Rob. I disagree with what you wrote above. I’ve already said I don’t have "solid" evidence to "prove" the Name was in the NT. And I am not condemning other translations for not including the name (though I severely criticize their removal in the OT which I believe is due to their a priori of Jesus being God). In fact, there are a few places in the NWTCGS that I don’t understand why they put Jehovah instead of Lord. But my argument all along has been that you cannot prove that the Name was not in the NT based on our experience with the LXX. And I certainly would not be dogmatic enough to say that there was no way the Name did not appear in the NT. And I do believe that when Jesus quoted the OT where the Name appeared, he did say the Name. Why would he not? Would he have let Jewish superstition rule him? He didn’t elsewhere.

But as I have said repeatedly, the situation is not similar for the NT. There are three factors I mentioned in the paragraph quoted above that must be taken cumulatively if the force of the argument is to be appreciated. The first is the comparatively short gap in time between the originals and the earliest extant copies. Your response is to argue that the transition from NT documents containing the divine name to copies using surrogates might have been accomplished in a very short time. Well, almost anything is possible, but the shorter time span does make it less likely. I disagree. I think if there was a push to remove the Name due to an incorrect view of Jesus it would have happened very quickly.

But in any case this is only one of three reasons for questioning the analogy. The second reason is that we have, as I put it, a paper trail that bridges much of that already short gap in time. That is, we have the writings of early Christian writers from the late first century down throughout the second century and into the early third century. These writings show us that at no time in the period in question did Christians have a version of the NT containing a form of the divine name (other than in Revelation 19:1-6).But these are the same men that speak of Jesus in very different vocabulary than that of Paul or Peter. (barring the few verses we would disagree on)

The third weakness in your analogy is the most serious: when we talk about the LXX we are really talking about a family of Greek translations of the OT, not about straightforward copies of the original Hebrew OT. Your analogy compares the transmission of the Greek NT to the transmission of differing Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. This is a weak analogy because copies in the same language as the original tend to stay closer to the original than translations in one language based on a text in another language. The possibility of new translations produced as revisions of earlier translations muddies the waters further. We may set out the difference like this:

Hebrew OT > Greek OT(1) > copies of Greek OT(1)
Hebrew OT > Greek OT(2) > copies of Greek OT(2)

Hebrew OT > Greek OT(1) > Greek OT(3) > copies of Greek OT(3)

Greek NT > copies of Greek NT

We should not be surprised to see significant and even systemic differences in wording among the Greek OT versions—what I labeled Greek OT(1), (2), and (3). However, the differences among copies of any one of these, say copies of Greek OT(1), will be relatively minor compared to the differences between copies of Greek OT(1) and Greek OT(2). Likewise, the differences among copies of the Greek NT may be expected to be relatively minor compared to the differences among Latin versions of the NT, or modern English versions of the NT, for that matter.

It should not surprise us, for example, to find different English renderings for EKKLHSIA in the different English versions (church, congregation, assembly, or even the transliterated ecclesia). Nor should it surprise us to see some versions using more than one of these. But it would be strange to infer from these variations that the Greek NT may have originally contained the Hebrew word QAHAL (Hebrew for congregation or assembly)!
This point has no bearing on my argument. Your argument is based on assuming there would be errors in the translation or slight changes due to going from one language to another. And you’re correct in what you say. But that is not what I am saying happened to the Name in the NT. I am not saying it was errors or mistranslations due to wording. I am saying it was purposefully taken out. I am saying that it was in the LXX and then later removed. Why? What made them remove it and could this same reason be why it was removed from the NT? Who removed it in the first place? I’m not asking you to answer these questions but understand that this is what is in my head. We KNOW someone removed the Name from the many copies of the LXX. It didn’t get lost in translation and it wasn’t an "error", it was intentionally removed. And if the LXX during Jesus’ time had the Name in it, I see no reason to think Christ didn’t use it.


I consider translations of the OT that use Yahweh or Jehovah to render YHWH to be legitimate, and I also consider translations of the OT that use "Lord" (or "LORD") to render YHWH to be legitimate. There is nothing hypocritical about me taking this position; I have valid reasons for taking it. Versions like the ASV are seeking to translate the Hebrew text "as is" with respect to the divine name. Versions like the NASB are seeking to translate the Hebrew text in light of the NT, which consistently uses KURIOS or QEOS in place of the divine name when quoting the OT.

What makes the use of "Jehovah" in the NT so objectionable is really not the word itself but the selective way in which it is introduced. One of the stated purposes of the NWT for inserting "Jehovah" into the NT text is to distinguish "the Lord" Jesus from "Jehovah" God. In short, the NWT principle is a theological a priori. The translation committee and the Watchtower Society publications have admitted that the Greek NT as it stands in the extant manuscripts equates the Lord Jesus with the Lord God (=Jehovah). Their purpose in inserting the name Jehovah in some places is to change the doctrine of the extant Greek NT. That is ultimately my "problem" with the NWT in this matter. What is interesting is that we are both using the same argument. I believe the Name was removed to better equate Jesus with Jehovah just as it was stamped out of later versions of the LXX. For now you have the available manuscripts on your side. All I can offer is the LXX had it in there when Jesus was on the Earth but then later was removed by someone who didn’t value the Name. That Jesus quoted the OT and it seems odd that he would not have quoted either the OT or LXX accurately. That he held God’s Name in high honor, even praying that it be made hallowed. And that he repeatedly referred to himself as someone other than Jehovah. To me the evidence stacks up to at least justify including it where it was quoted in the OT. We already have proof that someone removed it from the LXX. I don’t think we need too much imagination to envision this same person(s) would also try to remove it from the NT.

[NonTrinitarian]

I am enjoying this discussion.Hey, I was too. Where did everybody go? Oh well, here is some selected information from an on-line book on this subject. The book has a lot of good information but I selected these two points because of my discussion with Rob Bowman.

Rob mentions the writings of the Church Fathers and how they didn’t use the Divine Name in them as support for it never being there. I contend that the name was most likely in there but it was removed by Gentiles who were trying to get away from the Jewish God. Now I wonder who might have had a part in this? Let’s see…

Aristides (c. 125, E) 9.264 "God has no name, for everything that has a name is related to created things."
Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.165 "He has many virtues as are distinctive to a God who is called by no proper name."
Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190 "To the Father of all, there is no name given"
Justin Martyr (c. 160, E) 1.183 "As to the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe,... if anyone dares to say that there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness."
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E) 2.464 "If we name Him, we do not do so properly."
Tertullian (c. 198, W) 3.682 "The name of God the Father had been published to no one."
Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W) 4.183 "Neither must we ask for a name of God. God is His name. We have no need of names when a multitude are to be separated into individuals...To God, who is alone, the name "God" is the whole."
Origen, 4.653 "Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names that divine scriptures applies to God."
Novatian, 5.615 "God's own name also cannot be declared, for He cannot be conceived....For the name is the significance of whatever thing can be comprehended from a name."
Cyprian 5.467 "Neither must you ask the name of God. God is His name. Where a multitude is to be distinguished by the appropriate characteristics of names, there is a need of names. However, to God -who alone is - belongs the whole name of God." I think we might have a case here for someone or group of people who would have a strong motive for removing it. After all, we KNOW the NAME appeared in the LXX in the earliest copies. Then the latter copies all of sudden don’t have it anymore. Hmm? Someone took it out. Could that same someone whom we KNOW removed it from the LXX also have removed it from the NT? We may never know but I have a hunch for some suspects.

Additionally, Rob and others give the NWT a lot of flack over translating the kurios as "Jehovah" in select scriptures where we feel the context is referring to Jehovah. They argue we should translate it just as the MSS reads. But do their Bibles do the same? Note this point:



One method a translator might use to make the Bible clear for us is to help us understand who is the subject of a verse. With regard to the name Jesus, many translators have inserted the name Jesus into the English text of the NT where there is no manuscript support. Figure 2 evaluates 16 Bibles on their use of Jesus in the NT. As you can see by the numbers, the name varies by over 1000 occurrences from the ASV to the NCV. These translators obviously inserted the name Jesus where a pronoun or something similar occurred to make the passage clearer; they inserted the name to indicate he was the

one being referred to. Is this an acceptable translation method? It has been accepted for over 100 years.

Evaluation of 16 Bibles on the use of Jesus’ Name

NIV Jesus = 1226 Christ = 499

KJV Jesus = 943 Christ = 522

NASB Jesus = 947 Christ = 493

NRSV Jesus = 960 Christ = 450

RSV Jesus = 891 Christ = 534

Darby Bible Jesus = 904 Christ = 507

Young's Literal Version Jesus = 932 Christ = 529

Wesley N.T. Jesus = 951 Christ = 497

God's Word Jesus = 1504 Christ = 516

New Living Translation Jesus = 1404 Christ = 536

Douay Jesus = 932 Christ = 534

ASV Jesus = 883 Christ = 501

Bible in Basic English Jesus = 905 Christ = 496

TEV Jesus = 1543 Christ = 502

New Century Version Jesus = 1846 Christ = 604

NKJV Jesus = 941 Christ = 530

The evaluation information is taken mostly from the website www.crosswalk.com (http://www.crosswalk.com/)

How do we get from 883 occurrences of the name "Jesus" (American Standard Version) to 1846 in the NCV?I wonder if Mr. Bowman and a slew of other Trinitarians have written against these Bibles for translating the word kurios with "Jesus"? I think we all know the answer to that question.

You can read the whole book here:

http://www.geocities.com/hrm98_98/Tetragram.pdf

[barryrob]

The reason for using "Jehovah" is not based on old manuscripts on the Christian Greek texts (N.T.) but on existing manuscripts of the Hebrew Texts (O.T.). Hope you do not mind me having some input?
barryrob

[NonTrinitarian]

The reason for using "Jehovah" is not based on old manuscripts on the Christian Greek texts (N.T.) but on existing manuscripts of the Hebrew Texts (O.T.). Hope you do not mind me having some input?
barryrob
Hi and thanks for the input. JW's never argued that the Divine Name was based on old Greek texts of the NT. There are not any known Greek NT texts with Divine Name in it.

[Rob Bowman]

NonTrinitarian,

The bottom line in your post is that you hold that the early Gentile church, apparently in the second century, conspired to remove the name YHWH from the Greek NT and replace it with either KURIOS (“Lord”) or QEOS (“God”) in order to support their belief in Jesus as God. “Conspired” is the right word here, because evidently they accomplished this massive undertaking in secret. Somehow, in less than a generation, these apostate church officials managed to destroy all manuscripts of the NT that contained the divine name (or at least so many of them that not one has surfaced in hundreds of years of archaeological digs); and they even managed to hush it up.

You try to make out a case for this conspiracy, but it isn’t very impressive. Frankly, the Roswell UFO conspiracy story has more going for it (which isn’t saying much).

For some reason, you suggest two rather contrary sources for the move to suppress the name: a superstitious Jewish practice of using surrogates for the name YHWH and a heretical Gentile teaching that sought to “get away from the Jewish God” and that insincerely equated Jesus with YHWH. (It would have to have been insincerely held, at least by those who sought to “remove God’s name” from the NT.) These can’t both be behind the alleged conspiracy to remove God’s name.

It is true that at some point in time versions of the LXX appeared that did not contain the divine name. However, there was no conspiracy in this regard. Neither the Jews nor the Christians of the second century tried to suppress the existence of the name YHWH or to hide its presence in earlier versions of the LXX (let alone in the Hebrew OT). If there was no conspiracy involved in the development of the use of surrogates for the name YHWH in versions of the OT, why should we believe that the same folks engaged in a cloak-and-dagger conspiracy to use surrogates for the name in the NT?

The task of suppressing all knowledge of the presence of the name YHWH in the NT would have been a logistical nightmare for the second-century church. This was a period of both rapid expansion and increasing persecution. Christians copied and re-copied the various NT books in numerous locations all over the Mediterranean world. No centralized authority existed in second-century Christianity; during that century the monarchical episcopate arose (one bishop with administrative rule over a city or district), but the bishops operated more or less independently. The first council of Christian bishops from all over the Roman Empire took place two centuries later. The diversity among the extant manuscripts dating from the end of the second century and later testifies to the fact that no tight controls governed the process of copying the NT writings.

It is true that many Christian writers from the second century and later took the position that God does not properly speaking have a name. You think this is evidence of a motive, at least, for the removal of the name YHWH from the Bible. But you are not understanding these Christians in context. They recognize that the Bible contains names or designations for God, including YHWH. They are addressing the belief in paganism that every god had a “name” that a worshipper could use to manipulate that deity into granting his requests. Pagans believed that each god had a name that designated his “turf” or “beat,” the area over which he had divine control. In order to get a god to help you, or to get a god to stop harassing you, you had to get his name exactly right—kind of like needing to know an exact email address in order to send someone a message. The point that the early Christians made was that God doesn’t have a name like that. He is not a god that has only limited authority within a certain domain. Rather, he is the Creator of all things, the one who possesses universal sovereignty, the only true God.

Finally, the quote you presented (where did you get it?) about the use of the name “Jesus” in different versions of the NT is completely irrelevant. The name “Jesus” indisputably appears hundreds of times in the NT. When a translator uses “Jesus” in place of a pronoun for the sake of clarity, he is not putting a name into the NT that is not there. He is not replacing the name “Peter” with the name “Jesus,” for example. They do not substitute the name “Jesus” for the Greek KURIOS, as you falsely alleged.

[NonTrinitarian]

The bottom line in your post is that you hold that the early Gentile church, apparently in the second century, conspired to remove the name YHWH from the Greek NT and replace it with either KURIOS ("Lord") or QEOS ("God") in order to support their belief in Jesus as God. "Conspired" is the right word here, because evidently they accomplished this massive undertaking in secret. Somehow, in less than a generation, these apostate church officials managed to destroy all manuscripts of the NT that contained the divine name (or at least so many of them that not one has surfaced in hundreds of years of archaeological digs); and they even managed to hush it up.

You try to make out a case for this conspiracy, but it isn’t very impressive. Frankly, the Roswell UFO conspiracy story has more going for it (which isn’t saying much).Okay Rob, let’s put your argument to the test and see if this conspiracy theory is about equivalent to the UFO theory. Take your same paragraph up there and replace "Greek NT" with "Greek Septuagint." Does your attempt to make my points senseless hold? No. We know for a fact that the name was in the LXX up into the 1st century of the Christian era, assuming their dating methods are accurate. We have MSS from the 2nd and 3rd centuries with the name magically gone. Are there all kinds of writings on why this changed happen? No. So they apparently did a good job at ‘hushing it up.’ And apparently this shift in the LXX happened within a generation or so if their dating is accurate. And…up until the 1940’s, for all practical purposes, these ‘apostate church officials’ did manage to destroy all the LXX that contained the name in them. Of course, we know now they didn’t but until the 40’s it did appear they had succeeded.

So let’s just stop write here. You have tried to make it appear foolish to even suggest a conspiracy happened with the Greek NT and yet everything you implied would be nearly impossible to happen DID happen with the LXX, which had a far greater circulation, which will be touched on again below.

For some reason, you suggest two rather contrary sources for the move to suppress the name: a superstitious Jewish practice of using surrogates for the name YHWH and a heretical Gentile teaching that sought to "get away from the Jewish God" and that insincerely equated Jesus with YHWH. (It would have to have been insincerely held, at least by those who sought to "remove God’s name" from the NT.) These can’t both be behind the alleged conspiracy to remove God’s name.Why couldn’t both be behind it Rob? Because you said so? Are you proposing some kind of mathematical improbability study by a statitician that supports your assertion? Because that’s all that paragraph is, assertion. It’s not assertion on my half that the name was removed. That’s a fact. Was it BOTH Jews and Christians? I am asserting as much but I can’t be dogmatic about it. Not like you dogmatically said both couldn’t have been involved. Do the Jews use the name today? No. Is it because of christendom that that don’t use it? No. Does Christendom use the name? For the most part, no. Is it because of the Jews today that they don't use it? I’ve never heard any professed Christian argue as much. So two groups, neither of which use the name today. Two groups that allowed the name to go out of their writings, approximately in the 2nd century. I think I have a pretty good case.

It is true that at some point in time versions of the LXX appeared that did not contain the divine name. However, there was no conspiracy in this regard. Neither the Jews nor the Christians of the second century tried to suppress the existence of the name YHWH or to hide its presence in earlier versions of the LXX (let alone in the Hebrew OT). If there was no conspiracy involved in the development of the use of surrogates for the name YHWH in versions of the OT, why should we believe that the same folks engaged in a cloak-and-dagger conspiracy to use surrogates for the name in the NT?This is just bad arguing. First you assert your point and then, assuming it’s correct, develop your conclusion based off it. It’s bordering on circular reasoning. We have proof that somewhere between the 1st and 3rd centuries the name disappeared from the LXX. You assert, not offer any proof, just assert that "there was no conspiracy in this regard. Neither the Jews nor the Christians of the second century tried to suppress the existence of the name YHWH or to hide its presence in earlier versions of the LXX." (And yet we had zero copies of these earlier LXX until almost 2000 years later) This argument flies in the face of the most glaring observation that SOMEONE removed the name. And since these two parties didn’t get along with each other, they probably did it independently of each other. But I won’t be dogmatic on that point. Then, after thinking you somehow proved something, or even offered an argument for your assertion (which you didn’t), you continue on to your conclusion of ‘if there was no conspiracy there then there was no conspiracy here.’ But if this is what you are basing your conclusion on then you have nothing because you haven’t proven anything regarding there not being a conspiracy with the LXX. Where did the older LXX go? Why were they all lost accept for a few we found hidden in a cave? How did the scores of MSS from the 1st century BCE through 1st century CE disappear but we have several from a time period of a century or so later? Why do the OT and NT talk about God’s Name, granting you that they didn’t actually mention it in the NT, but then we get church fathers a hundreds years later talking about not needing the name? Are these men speaking in agreement with the scriptures? The evidence is very clearly lined up for an intentional removal of the name in the LXX and it happened in a short period of time and fooled everyone until 60 years ago.

The task of suppressing all knowledge of the presence of the name YHWH in the NT would have been a logistical nightmare for the second-century church. This was a period of both rapid expansion and increasing persecution. Christians copied and re-copied the various NT books in numerous locations all over the Mediterranean world. No centralized authority existed in second-century Christianity; during that century the monarchical episcopate arose (one bishop with administrative rule over a city or district), but the bishops operated more or less independently. The first council of Christian bishops from all over the Roman Empire took place two centuries later. The diversity among the extant manuscripts dating from the end of the second century and later testifies to the fact that no tight controls governed the process of copying the NT writings.I’m not going to get into a discussion on whether each church was independent, etc. I believe Act 15 shows they were not. But that’s neither here nor there. Again, replace the "NT" with "LXX" and reread your paragraph above. I am pretty confident there were more LXX MSS roaming around than NT MSS. And now recall the same points that you seem to imply were impossible with the NT and apply them to the even more well spread LXX MSS and address this subject again. What you imply was so impossible was accomplished up until 60 years ago with a circulation of LXX MSS that were more numerous than the NT MSS in the first two centuries.

It is true that many Christian writers from the second century and later took the position that God does not properly speaking have a name. You think this is evidence of a motive, at least, for the removal of the name YHWH from the Bible. But you are not understanding these Christians in context. They recognize that the Bible contains names or designations for God, including YHWH. They are addressing the belief in paganism that every god had a "name" that a worshipper could use to manipulate that deity into granting his requests. Pagans believed that each god had a name that designated his "turf" or "beat," the area over which he had divine control. In order to get a god to help you, or to get a god to stop harassing you, you had to get his name exactly right—kind of like needing to know an exact email address in order to send someone a message. The point that the early Christians made was that God doesn’t have a name like that. He is not a god that has only limited authority within a certain domain. Rather, he is the Creator of all things, the one who possesses universal sovereignty, the only true God.If I gave you the impression that I thought these men didn’t know God’s name, that was not my intention. But it is obvious from their writings that 1.) they didn’t think it was important to use God’s name (YHYH) and 2.) they didn’t use His name. So no, they weren’t just arguing like you say they were with the pagan names. It is obvious they did not respect God’s Name, did not feel it was important to use and in fact, they did not use it, period. The case against its removal in the 2nd century is, in my mind, quite difficult to overcome.

Finally, the quote you presented (where did you get it?) about the use of the name "Jesus" in different versions of the NT is completely irrelevant. The name "Jesus" indisputably appears hundreds of times in the NT. When a translator uses "Jesus" in place of a pronoun for the sake of clarity, he is not putting a name into the NT that is not there. He is not replacing the name "Peter" with the name "Jesus," for example. They do not substitute the name "Jesus" for the Greek KURIOS, as you falsely alleged.I put the link where I got that information in the post. Please go back and review it. Additionally, it is not "irrelevant" as you say. You present yourself as concerned about putting God’s Name where it is not but the double-standard you use is glaring. You’re not concerned about accurate translation of the Greek NT. You’re concerned about anything that detracts from your triune god and belief that Jesus is God. You argue it is okay to put Jesus’ name wherever for the sake of clarity. Well Rob, if that’s your position, tell me what your problem is with the NWT at Matthew 22:44? Do you find that verse acceptable? Is it not clear that Jesus is the 2nd Lord in the verse? And so what is the harm in putting YHWH for the first term of Lord? It’s okay to put "Jesus" where it does not appear but if you put "YHWH" there you’re untrue to the text? You have a glaring double-standard. Further more, the NWT doesn’t replace the name "Jesus" with "YHWH", which pretty much debunks your example of replacing "Peter" with "Jesus" that you attempted to use to prove your point. The NWT replaces Kurios with YHWH in certain verses where, as you would say, clarity requires it in order to know who is being referenced. Furthermore, have you gone through these different translations and reviewed these instances where the extra "Jesus" are found and verified they were not replacing a "kurios" with "Jesus"? I’m sure the answer is no.

[Jaltus]

A quick point you two both seem to be overlooking in the understanding of the LXX issue:

The DJDs also show not only an LXX different from anything we had seen prior, but they also showed a different Hebrew text than anything we had seen prior. The likely issue is not one of a difference between the LXX versions, it is a likely difference between the Hebrew texts from which they were translated. The Hebrew texts found at Qumran were from two different textual streams. This means there was Hebrew Text 1 and Hebrew Text 2 which gave rise to Greek Text 1 and Greek Text 2.

[barryrob]

Hi and thanks for the input. JW's never argued that the Divine Name was based on old Greek texts of the NT. There are not any known Greek NT texts with Divine Name in it.

But there is with the LXX:-

From N.W.T. Appendix 1C

The Divine Name in Ancient Greek Versions (LXX) of the Bible

LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266, first century B.C.E., retained the divine name in the Greek translation in Deut 32:3, 6.

Codex Alexandrinus (A), fifth century C.E., replaced the divine name with abbreviated forms of Kyrios in the Greek translation in De 32:3, 6.

The Aleppo Codex (Al), tenth century C.E., in Hebrew, preserved the divine name that appeared in the early Hebrew text in Deut 32:3, 6.

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. We are presenting ten manuscripts that contain the divine name, along with pertinent information.

(1) LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters (+, ) in the following places: Deut 18:5, 5, 7, 15, 16; 19:8, 14; 20:4, 13, 18; 21:1, 8; 23:5; 24:4, 9; 25:15, 16; 26:2, 7, 8, 14; 27:2, 3, 7, 10, 15; 28:1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 61, 62, 64, 65; 29:4, 10, 20, 29; 30:9, 20; 31:3, 26, 27, 29; 32:3, 6, 19. Therefore, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs 49 times in identified places in Deuteronomy. In addition, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs three times in unidentified fragments, namely, in fragments 116, 117 and 123. This papyrus, found in Egypt, was dated to the first century B.C.E.

In 1944 a fragment of this papyrus was published by W. G. Waddell in JTS, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. In 1948, in Cairo, Egypt, two Gilead-trained missionaries of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society obtained photographs of 18 fragments of this papyrus and permission to publish them. Subsequently, 12 of these fragments were published in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, pp. 13, 14. Based on the photographs in this publication, the following three studies were produced: (1) A. Vaccari, "Papiro Fuad, Inv. 266. Analisi critica dei Frammenti pubblicati in: 'New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.' Brooklyn (N. Y.) 1950 p. 13s.," published in Studia Patristica, Vol. I, Part I, edited by Kurt Aland and F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1957, pp. 339-342; (2) W. Baars, "Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266," published in the Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. XIII, Wageningen, 1959, pp. 442-446; (3) George Howard, "The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy," published in the Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XLII, Cincinnati, 1971, pp. 125-131.

Commenting on this papyrus, Paul Kahle wrote in Studia Evangelica, edited by Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld and W. C. van Unnik, Berlin, 1959, p. 614: "Further pieces of the same papyrus were reproduced from a photo of the papyrus by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the introduction to an English translation of the New Testament, Brooklyn, New York, 1950. A characteristic of the papyrus is the fact that the name of God is rendered by the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters. An examination of the published fragments of the papyrus undertaken at my request by Pater Vaccari resulted in his concluding that the papyrus, which must have been written about 400 years earlier than Codex B, contains perhaps the most perfect Septuagint text of Deuteronomy that has come down to us."

A total of 117 fragments of LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266 were published in Études de Papyrologie, Vol. 9, Cairo, 1971, pp. 81-150, 227, 228. A photographic edition of all the fragments of this papyrus was published by Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen under the title Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, in the series "Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen," Vol. 27, Bonn, 1980.

(2) LXX VTS 10a renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( -. ) in the following places: Jon 4:2; Mic 1:1, 3; 4:4, 5, 7; 5:4, 4; Hab 2:14, 16, 20; 3:9; Zep 1:3, 14; 2:10; Zec 1:3, 3, 4; 3:5, 6, 7. This leather scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. The fragments of this scroll were published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, Leiden, 1963, pp. 170-178.

(3) LXX IEJ 12 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( -. ) in Jon 3:3. This shred of parchment, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. It was published in Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 12, 1962, p. 203.

(4) LXX VTS 10b renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( /0 ) in the following places: Zec 8:20; 9:1, 1, 4. This parchment scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the middle of the first century C.E. It was published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, 1963, p. 178.

(5) 4Q LXX Lev b renders the divine name in Greek letters 1 (IAO) in Lev 3:12; 4:27. This papyrus manuscript, found in Qumran Cave 4, was dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157.

(6) LXX P. Oxy. VII.1007 renders the divine name by abbreviating the Tetragrammaton in the form of a double ( 23 ) Yohdh in Gen 2:8, 18. This vellum leaf, dated to the third century C.E., was published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part VII, edited with translations and notes by Arthur S. Hunt, London, 1910, pp. 1, 2.

(7) Aq Burkitt renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( 45 ) in the following places: 1Ki 20:13, 13, 14; 2Ki 23:12, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27. These fragments of the Greek text of the version of Aquila were published by F. Crawford Burkitt in his work Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila, Cambridge, 1898, pp. 3-8. These palimpsest fragments of the books of Kings were found in the synagogue genizah in Cairo, Egypt. They were dated to the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth century C.E.

(8) Aq Taylor renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( 67 ) in the following places: Ps 91:2, 9; 92:1, 4, 5, 8, 9; 96:7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13; 97:1, 5, 9, 10, 12; 102:15, 16, 19, 21; 103:1, 2, 6, 8. These fragments of the Greek text of the version of Aquila were published by C. Taylor in his work Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, Cambridge, 1900, pp. 54-65. These fragments were dated after the middle of the fifth century C.E., but not later than the beginning of the sixth century C.E.

(9) Sym P. Vindob. G. 39777 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in archaic Hebrew characters ( 89 or :; ) in the following places: Ps 69:13, 30, 31. This fragment of a parchment roll with part of Ps 69 in Symmachus (68 in LXX), kept in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, was dated to the third or fourth century C.E. It was published by Dr. Carl Wessely in Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, Vol. XI., Leipzig, 1911, p. 171.

Here [in printed edition] we reproduce the fragment of this papyrus containing the divine name.

(10) Ambrosian O 39 sup. renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters ( <= ) in all five columns in the following places: Ps 18:30, 31, 41, 46; 28:6, 7, 8; 29:1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3; 30:1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 10, 12; 31:1, 5, 6, 9, 21, 23, 23, 24; 32:10, 11; 35:1, 22, 24, 27; 36:Sup, 5; 46:7, 8, 11; 89:49 (in columns 1, 2 and 4), 51, 52. This codex, dated to the end of the ninth century C.E., has five columns. The first column contains a transliteration of the Hebrew text into Greek, the second column has the Greek version of Aquila, the third column has the Greek version of Symmachus, the fourth column contains the LXX and the fifth column contains the Greek version of Quinta. A facsimile edition of this palimpsest, together with a transcript of the text, was published in Rome in 1958 by Giovanni Mercati under the title Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae ... Pars prima. Codex Rescriptus Bybliothecae Ambrosianae O 39 sup. Phototypice Expressus et Transcriptus.

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 'Adhonai (Sovereign Lord) in the Hebrew text in 134 places.-See N.W.T. App 1B.


Just thought that you may find it intresting.
Barryrob

[francke]

Non-Trinitarian,
the charge that some "translations" inserted the name of Jesus for Kurios is sort of a red herring. First of all, many of those listed are very loose paraphrases. No one is claiming their word-for-word accuracy.

Secondly, I must presume you know also that a number of those are favoring different Greek families of manuscripts, and the substitution of "Lord" or "Christ" for Jesus is one of the most common inherent differences in those families of Greek text. Thus, you may have a difference between the translated text of a KJV (which favors the Byzantine family) and the NASB (which favors the Alexandian or critical text) yet both sets of translators are remaining faithful to the MSS they are translating.

I've got a bit to say on the NWT and the 237 insertions of the tetragrammaton sometime when I get a minute. I've been studying with JW's for a couple of years. To me, it represents the best example of a group painting themselves into a corner. But, that is for another day.

[PioneerSDA]

In another thread, NonTrinitarian wrote:


I'm game.

Well over 200 times, the Greek New Testament quotes the OT and uses the Greek word for "Lord" (KURIOS) or "God" (QEOS) in place of the Hebrew divine name YHWH. But I don't consider that a mistranslation. :wink:

Of course, your answer will have to be that the Greek NT manuscripts represent a corrupted tradition and that the original Greek NT writings contained some consonantally parallel representation of the divine name. But there is no manuscript evidence for this claim. It is sheer speculation, contradicted by the fact that we have a variety of manuscript families or text-types for the Greek NT, all of which use the surrogates KURIOS and QEOS in place of the divine name (except in the "Hallelujah" texts in Revelation 19:1-6).

Consider this question: How much manuscript evidence do we have for the hypothesis that the Hebrew Old Testament originally used ADONAI some 7,000 times and that later Hebrew scribes replaced it with the Tetragrammaton? The answer is: The same amount of evidence that we have for the JW theory that the Greek NT originally contained the Tetragrammaton!

To anticipate another argument, you will contend that the NT writers would have used the divine name because the few manuscripts we have of the Old Testament in Greek translation from the first century and before contain representations of the divine name. But this doesn't prove that the NT writers did the same, because (1) the evidence we have for the Greek OT prior to the NT is too meager, and in any case (2) the NT writers did not always follow their Greek OT and might not have done so in this matter.

"Well over 200 times, the Greek New Testament quotes the OT..."
Dear Rob Bowman,
I'd be really interested into seeing where the G.N.T. quotes the O.T. over 200 hundred times. Do you have a website where I could go to see this. Maybe there is a table or something. I am fascinated with O.T. quotes in the N.T.

"... and uses the Greek word for "Lord" (KURIOS) or "God" (QEOS) in place of the Hebrew divine name YHWH. But I don't consider that a mistranslation."

Why wouldn't you consider it a mistranslation? I would consider it a mistranslation because...

The Hebrew word for "Lord"(Adonai) correctly translates into the Greek word for "Lord" (Kurios).
We know this is a correct translation because both Adonai and Kurios have the same definition.

The Hebrew word for "God"(Elohim)correctly translates into the Greek word for "God" (Theos).
We know this is a correct translation because both Elohim and Theos have the same definition.

How ever Yahweh or YHWH which is the Hebrew word for "The Existing One" according to Strong's # 03068 does not correctly translate into Kurios or Theos because neither of these Greek words have these definitions. Maybe somebody who knows Greek can tell us how to say "The Existing One" in Greek but I have a hunch it is nowhere close to Theos or Kurios since they already have Hebrew equivalents.

I believe like Non Trinitarian that God's Divine name was taken out of the N.T. but I don't believe that Jesus is a created being (even though I don't believe in the Trinity either) I believe He is God's only born Son and is equally divine with Him.

So we have something in common that we both believe in the Divinity of the Messiah and I think that will help us answer this question. "How could have N.T writers believed both Lord and God was a correct translation for Yahweh when Lord and God don't even mean the same thing?"

Do you believe that Lord and God have the same meaning? When you want to prove the Divinity of Christ do you turn to the passages of where Christ is called God or do you turn to where Christ is called Lord? Of course you turn to where Christ is called God because Lord is such a common term in the Bible (even Sarah calls her husband lord in the N.T.) but Christ being called God affirms His Divinity that He has all the nature of God which no created angels are ever called God in the N.T. and Jehovah's Witness hate this by the way.

To Summarize 1) Lord and God can not be a correct translation of Yahweh because neither of these words has the same definition of Yahweh. 2) N.T. Writers did not even believe that Lord and God meant the same thing so both of these words cannot both be a correct translation for Yahweh.

[MuggleOrSquib]

According to the LXX for Deuteronomy 6:4, here transliterated, 'ho On' is the equivalent for 'ehyeh asher ehyeh'/'I am that (which) I am'
'ho' here is the masculine definite article ('the')
'On' [Omega Nu] is the masculine present participle of the verb 'Einai'/'to be' (in the dictionary entry - 'eimi'/'I am', since Greek dictionaries tend to organize verbs based on 1st person singular).
One could translate 'ho On' as 'the one Be-ing'.

I tend to accept the idea that the tetragrammaton is a causative form, meaning 'he causes to be'.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[Goose]

The Hebrew word "adon" is what should be translated to "lord/master" in english.

[MuggleOrSquib]

The Hebrew word "adon" is what should be translated to "lord/master" in english.
While the above is lexically correct, the title 'Adonai', which literally means 'my lords' (and is so used in either Kings or Chronicals), is used as a divine title, translated as KYPIOC (kyrios) in the LXX. I don't know about how either Philo of Alexandria or Josephus handle this.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin