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.

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.

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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

]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?)

[Dee Dee Warren]

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

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