By John W. Adey

© First printing July 2001
© First Internet printing September 2002

Email: j.adey@ntlworld.com

The booklet "The Divine Name That will Endure Forever" [hereafter: TDNTWEF], produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, advances the view that God's name was in the original Greek New Testament [NT], although it is not found in copies of it today. On this belief, they have inserted "Jehovah" ¹ 237 times into the NT section of their New World Translation. Their booklet, used especially to enlighten would be converts, presents and promotes (their) belief on the matter. However, the 'Foreword' to their New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures, published in 1950, includes a formal statement devoted to establishing this case:

• In the booklet the Jehovah's Witnesses appear more concessive (tolerant) towards the Hebrew form of God's name as 'Yahweh' [Heb. hwhy] than they used to be when insisting on 'Jehovah' because of their sect's self-appointed name.
• This may result from their more thorough research, as evidenced in their booklet [TDNTWEF].
• Resorting to scholarship in TDNTWEF to give credence to their view of 'Jehovah' in the NT is tactical rather than a significant instance of objectivity, since what they cite (the work of Prof. George Howard. 1977) ³ agrees with what they want to believe.
• English OT versions with LORD, GOD, or The Eternal, instead of 'Yahweh' simply follow tradition, or translators' inconsistent policies. JWs opposition to this is consistent.
• JWs are right about 'Yah' [Hebrew: hy], a shortened form of God's name hwhy, being in the New Testament in Rev. 19:1,3,4,6, in the Hebrew transliterated into Greek, then into English word: alleluia [Gk. ~Allhloui?a, ] meaning 'Praise Yah[weh]!'

• Both extant manuscript evidence and theological reasons oppose their view that God's name in some Hebraic form existed in the original NT writings, and that it has subsequently been replaced by the Greek for 'Lord' [Gk. ku,rioj kurios ].
• Their thesis is falsified by the strength of its antithesis that they choose to ignore. I present key aspects of that antithesis, here.
• To have deliberately blanked out God's name from the NT, after the NT documents were composed by inspired writers, would have been a historic instance of scribal malpractice.
• We have no evidence of such a practice in the public domain of history as far as the NT texts are concerned. For example, everyone knows, or can soon discover, why 'Yahweh' is blanked out by 'LORD' (etc.) in OT translations, but no such circumstance, or case, can be made out for this presumption of the JWs about the NT writings.
• Inevitably, JWs have to judge that our NT copies are not representative of the inspired autographs. Professing to honour God's name by their claims instead take away from, and add to, the Word which the Psalmist said God has "magnified above all [his] name" (Psalm 138:2).
• Jesus would have read from the Hebrew scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue. Luke gives a shortened version of the reading, whose mode of presentation complies with not using God's name in the Greek NT. It is likely that Jesus would have pronounced 'adony Yahweh (Lord Yahweh) and Yahweh of Isa. 61:1, but this is represented in reduced form, simply by 'the Lord' (kurios) and 'he' in Luke 4:18. This distinction is important to note.
• It became common practice long ago not to transliterate all OT instances of God's name into a receiving language. 'LORD' (or 'GOD') is adopted in a large number of English translations of the Hebrew Bible, or our Old Testament [OT]. But, although this has obscured the presence of 'Yahweh' in the OT text, reducing a reader's awareness of it, this is not the same as tampering with an original inspired text, or rather a copy of it. JWs contend that the original NT text, when being copied was tampered with and the Divine name overlaid with (mainly) the Greek form: kurios ('Lord').
• They claim that this happened at the same time that the Septuagint [LXX] translation replaced God's name by kurios ('Lord'). They cite, and extend, Prof. George Howard's view, which he applied to NT quotations of the OT. (See below.)
• However, copyists (that is, not translators) approached their copying of an original inspired writing with meticulous devotion. An original document, or subsequent generations of it, would be regarded as sacrosanct and (to be) faithfully copied. Slips there might occasionally be, but JWs are talking about a deliberate change replacing God's name. Yet, if the virtues of scribal practices apply in Christian as well as Jewish domains, then God's name would meet with the utmost veneration. For example, if God's name was written in a worn-out Hebrew Bible scroll, or even a religious text, observant Jews would not destroy them. Instead, they would hide them away in dump-rooms (e.g., Genizahs).
• Cambridge University is the Genizah collection capital of the world and contains recovered evidence for this view. (For a general overview of careful ancient scribal practices see: A.R. Millard, 'In Praise of Ancient Scribes' (Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 45, No. 3. Summer 1982): pp. 143-153.)
• Our NT manuscripts are copies, descended from an inspired original. This being so, if God's name occurred in the original NT Greek (Christian) Scriptures it would have been faithfully copied. There is no way an alternative scribal or religious policy of blanking out God's name would have been conceived of. The NT text, original or copied, was (held to be) the inspired authority. God found the means to preserve His word!
• Thousands of Greek NT manuscripts exist, in part or whole, dating from at least as early as the second century (e.g., the second century Rylands' papyrus fragment of John's Gospel). [Thiede's suggested dating of the Magdalen (Oxford) fragments (three scraps of Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31, and 32-33 in Greek) "towards a first century date"⁴ he claims mid-first century, is against "the consensus dating at about 200"⁵ and has not found general acceptance. But, 'Lord' (Greek: Kurie) of Jesus, though not of God, occurs in the fragments. 'Lord' is part of the dual function of 'Lordship' found in the NT applied to God and Jesus. This dual applicability of 'Lord' to both Father and Son in Scripture preserves the subordination of the Son, unlike trinitarianism. (See below re. Matthew in Hebrew.)]
• NOT ONE of the thousands of surviving NT Greek manuscripts (copies) has God's full name in any Hebraic (transliterated, Graecised-Hebrew) form.
• We have no evidence that these manuscripts do not represent the original autographs.
• Lundquist's⁶ work provides exhaustive surveillance of Greek NT manuscripts, listing them to answer the question: "Did the original inspired Christian writers use the Tetragrammaton in 237 instances while writing the Christian Greek Scriptures?" Lundquist proves textually that the answer in 'No'.
• JWs want to believe without manuscript proof that this was the case. They cannot present even one fragment of inspired 'Christian Scripture' (that is the NT, not the LXX) that contains the Tetragrammaton [ Heb. hwhy ] in either Hebrew, or, in fact, in Greek letters.
• Lunquist had contact with JWs, and an elder with whom he discussed the book. However, in his book the author published his letters (dated June & July 1997) appealing to JW elders to meet and discuss, to correct or repudiate his research. This met with no response, only avoidance, so he felt justified in publicly publishing his findings.
• Lundquist's research is regarded as the most "comprehensive study of the Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures (the New Testament) available today...it is a study of early Greek manuscripts and related historical documents." ⁷ He shows that all the evidence points to a term like kurios ('Lord') being used in the original Greek NT and not God's name. Kurios is, of course, not God's name. So, there is no evidence of textual manipulation available for JWs to cite on this matter.
• 'Yahweh' [Heb: hwhy] occurs in the OT, or Hebrew Bible, nearly 7000 times. In the Masoretic Hebrew Bible vowel points, not original to the consonantal nature of the text, were added to assist pronunciation at a time when Diaspora Jews did not speak Hebrew as their native language. Probably during this period, perhaps from superstitious awe, or misguided reverence, the Jews decided not to pronounce the Divine Name. It remained in the text but the vowel points attached to it alerted them to read 'adonai (Hebrew: ynwda) 'Lord', instead of 'Yahweh'.
• There is only one early instance of 'adonai (or its consonantal form 'dwny) being deliberately inserted in a Hebrew scroll, and even this does not replace 'Yahweh'. At Qumran, where the Hebrew scrolls are too early to have the Masoretic vowel points, in one copy of DSS Isaiah scroll,ynwda ('Lord') is written above 'Yhwh' in Isa. 30:15.
• My point in citing this single case is to show, with the foregoing, just how carefully the main text of a Bible manuscript was handled. Respecting its rights was a priority.
• The presence of 'Lord' above 'Yhwh' in this single extant case does not help the JW's case. It may indicate a development like avoiding, or replacing, the Divine name, but this is only speculation. In itself, it is insufficient to answer questions about why it is there.
• The 237 instances of 'Jehovah' in the NWT hardly compare with the number of occurrences of the Divine Name in the OT if it is also supposed to have meaning for the NT. On the other hand, the 983 occurrences of the name Jesus' in the NT dominate comparably with OT 'Yahweh'. Further, this presence of 'Jesus' can be compared, or the OT use of 'Yahweh' contrasted, with the abundant references to God in the NT, as 'my father', 'your father', 'father', or 'my God', etc. Such features make for a significant theological and revelatory difference between the two testaments. Hence, it is consistent with this perspective to find kurios ('Lord') featuring as an inspired replacement for 'Yahweh' both in NT quotations of the OT and the NT as a whole; for God's name to be absent in the presence of (or 'in') His son's name.
• Further support for this perspective arises in Rom. 9:29 and Jas. 5:4 where reference to God occurs as 'Lord of Sabaoth' [Gk. ku,rioj Sabaw.q / kurios sabaōth]. In the Hebrew of the OT this is 'Yahweh Sabaōth' [Heb. twabx hwhy ] as is confirmed by checking Rom. 9:29 with Isa. 1:9 which Paul is quoting. What does this tell us? It shows that Paul and James could have transliterated 'Yahweh' / hwhy into the equivalent Greek letters, just as they have transliterated 'Sabaōth' from the Hebrew, but they did not. Clearly, these two NT passages show that kurios can be insisted upon as the inspired replacement for the name 'Yahweh.' That NT transliteration practice, or policy, does not extend to the Tetragrammaton, God's full name. However, the NT does transliterate the shortened form of God's name 'Yah', as mentioned above.
• From these data, plus the absence of any paleographical evidence to support the 237 instances of 'Jehovah' adopted by the JWs in their NWT, or argued for in their booklet, they have created a textual fiction. They have ignored such data, or its relevant scope for deciding against what they claim, or practice.
• It is true that "some very old fragments of the Septuagint (sic) Version that actually existed in Jesus' day have survived to our day...[and] the personal name of God appears in them" (TDNTWEF). However, this is not a sound basis for asserting that the original NT manuscripts would have had God's name, or that this would especially be true where quotes from the OT containing 'Yahweh' occurred.
• Whatever case is made for the Septuagint's relation to the NT, as the supposed source for some NT quotations, this Greek OT translation of the Hebrew Bible is not an inspired work. (Augustine and others may have wanted their contemporaries, or would want us to believe it was inspired. The Greek Church does still hold this view as it is their OT text. Yet, this Greek OT translation has no claim to Divine authority. Further it has been subject to textual updating (recensions, etc.) in its transmission history, culminating in the Christian codices of the fourth and fifth centuries AD, like Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.
• For their argument to hold that the NT contains God's name, NT manuscript evidence comparable with what has come to light with regard to the LXX tradition and God's name, would be needed. That is, they would need at least one NT mss containing a Hebrew, or a Greek, transliterated form of 'Yahweh'. This requirement should apply to the thesis of a Biblical scholar whom the JWs rely on:
• Professor George Howard's article in Biblical Archaeology Review (March 1978, p.14) ⁸, warmly adopted by JWs, does not have the strength of proof or evidence. His reasoning shows what is the case for the (so-called) LXX, but contrary to what JWs want to believe, neither he nor they can validly apply this to the Greek NT. His presentation contains rhetorical argument and assumption not supported by empirical data for the NT. Lundquist analyses Howard's argument and exposes its weaknesses.
• Even if Matthew did write his Gospel in Hebrew, JWs cannot realistically be certain of what they state: "we can be sure that the apostle Matthew included God's name in the Gospel" (TDNTWEF, p.24). How strong is their 'sure'? It is not strong, because they are dependent on argument that lacks evidence: "Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the 'Old Testament' that contained the name (TDNTWEF, p.24). 'Inconceivable' is what they want to imagine is the case. Their case is no stronger than that.
• "...Matthew's Gospel was eventually translated into Greek."(TDNTWEF, p.24). They ask rhetorically: "Would God's name have appeared in these Greek writings (that is, the Septuagint and the NT)?" They want to encourage a 'Yes' answer, for both the Septuagint and the NT. They want to connect these two quite different writings, particularly because both are written in Greek and were accessible to the Hellenic world. But this confuses issues to do with available evidence, textual (or authorial) intentions, as well as belief about the inerrancy of inspired texts.
• What applied in earlier times to a translation (what in the secondary century AD became known as 'the Septuagint'), or to other uninspired Greek OT translations (of which there were several), cannot be assumed to apply to an inspired NT original. To infer across categories in this way is fallacious, and a category error.
• Consistently, no extant Greek NT manuscript has God's name. Hence, as the extant Greek Gospel of Matthew complies with the NT in not including God's name, even in quotations of the OT, it cannot be used to 'retrovert' [translate back] to a Hebrew Matthew's Gospel with God's name in. If Matthew's Gospel in Greek was translated from a projected Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew, and there is no proof that it was, the case is stronger for the Hebrew Matthew being consistent with the NT. That is, given the advent of Jesus Christ, Matthew in Hebrew would not have 'Yahweh' since both in his work and in his own name 'Jesus', the Son manifested his Father's (family - Eph. 3:15) name. As mentioned above, Jesus' name is to the NT what his Father's is to the OT: "My Father worketh hitherto and I work" (Jno. 5:17). This theological perspective needs due consideration. [Note: 'Je(sus)' = 'Yah(sus)', cf. 'Joshua'.]
• Instances of kurios ('Lord') in Greek OT translations, where God's name would be in the Hebrew, are not earlier than circa. 200 AD. ⁹ In a Greek translation, usually of Jewish origin before that date, 'Yahweh' might be transcribed in Hebrew characters, in paleo-Hebrew, or sometimes transliterated in Greek characters just as: IAW (IAO.) These devices showed the translators' veneration (or perhaps superstitious awe) for the Name.
• Some residual institutional resistance, trying to maintain that kurios was in the original 250 BCE LXX and that the NT complied with this LXX use of kurios, is losing ground in the face of the paleographical evidence just mentioned, above. It is now difficult not to believe that Christian scribes on the authority of the NT updated the LXX translation of the Hebrew (OT) with kurios ('Lord'). In other words, the NT led the way in this. The NT has kurios instead of 'Yahweh', so the Greek OT translation, being (only) a translation, followed this precedent.
• Thus the form of the Septuagint that is cited today containing kurios, e.g. Vaticanus (as reflected in Bagster) is a 'Christian' production, and not an exact, unedited, copy of an inter-testamental (BCE era) work.
• As Septuagintalists affirm, "there is really no such thing as 'the' Septuagint" (Jobes and Silva, 2000) ¹⁰. What came to be called 'the Septuagint' in the Second Century C.E. was a compilation of on-going Greek translations of the Hebrew Text that were also subject to editorial reworking over a period of hundreds of years. ¹¹