Since I'm sure you'll read the comments under this post, let me begin the dialogue by apologizing to you. I characterized your behavior as being comparable to that of an internet troll, but since then I've stumbled upon a post by someone named Terence (or Terrence?), who said that you are on the spectrum. Honestly, the internet is overrun with trolls, which is why that's what I assumed, but given the full character of your behavior, and learning that you're on the spectrum, that seems to be a better explanation for the behavior I found annoying.
I would recommend that you try not to assume that those you argue with are ignorant. Edgar, other people who post here, and I are all research junkies, and we've seen the sorts of arguments you offer many times before (Edgar and I for decades). It isn't that we haven't encountered the sorts of arguments you present, it's that we don't find them compelling, and I, for one, find them hopelessly anachronistic, presuppositional, and non-falsifiable, as I've said before. I just don't think that viewing the Bible through the lens of Trinitarianism is helpful, as the writers of those books were not Trinitarians. I want to ponder what THEY had to say sans the later prism.
You once wondered why I found your responses intolerable. Well, it's not that they're intolerable, but that I don't come HERE for THAT sort of dialogue. This blog is owned by a JW, and I, a JW, come here to keep up with Edgar's theological reflections, and to engage in *brief* and friendly dialogue. But I can hardly say anything without having you drown the conversation in a sea of verbiage!
That said, I hope you are well, and that you find fulfillment in this life. What will you do when Edgar's blog is locked? Will you take a break from the apologetics, or will you look for other places to engage in such activities?
The presence of the Tetragrammaton or its transliterations (e.g., ΙΑΩ) in some pre-Christian LXX fragments does not prove it was universal or even normative in the original LXX. P. Fouad 266 contains the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script, but scholars note that this reflects a Jewish revisionist tendency to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton for liturgical reasons, not evidence of its original use. The presence of ΙΑΩ in 4Q120 is limited and does not demonstrate a consistent practice across all books or traditions of the LXX. Other MSS from the same period, such as 8HevXIIgr, show a variety of scribal practices. This diversity undermines the claim of a uniform pre-Christian tradition of using the Tetragrammaton.
The absence of extant pre-Christian MSS of the LXX that use κύριος does not prove the absence of such a tradition. The surviving MS evidence is fragmentary and reflects only a small sample of the diverse textual traditions of the time. The claim that "no MS evidence to the contrary" exists ignores the fact that many early MSS simply have not survived or were lost. As a result, the argument from silence is speculative and cannot establish certainty about the original translation practice. By the Second Temple era, Jews had largely abandoned the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in favor of Adonai. The translation of YHWH as κύριος in the LXX aligns with this oral tradition and reflects a theological and liturgical decision consistent with Jewish reverence for the divine name.
Epstein acknowledges that the original LXX remains an open question. This uncertainty undermines any attempt to dogmatically assert that the Tetragrammaton must have been the original rendering. Instead, the scholarly consensus acknowledges the possibility of multiple traditions, with κύριος likely being a standard rendering by the time the LXX was widely used in Jewish and early Christian communities. The early Christians inherited the LXX as their Scripture, and all extant Christian copies of the LXX uniformly use κύριος. This points to a tradition that predates Christian usage, as Christians would have been unlikely to replace the Tetragrammaton with κύριος without leaving evidence of such a transition.
If the original LXX contained the Tetragrammaton, it would be expected that early Christian MSS would preserve this, especially since they often quoted the LXX. However, no NT MS contains the Tetragrammaton. Instead, κύριος is used consistently in places where YHWH appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. If early Christians replaced the Tetragrammaton with κύριος, there would likely be transitional MSS showing both forms, yet none exist. The argument that removing the Tetragrammaton "blurred the distinction" between YHWH and Jesus reflects a theological bias rather than evidence-based scholarship. The NT writers frequently identify Jesus with YHWH by applying NT passages about YHWH directly to Jesus (e.g., Phil. 2:9-11 citing Isa. 45:23, Rom. 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). This reflects their belief in Jesus’ divinity rather than a confusion introduced by later scribes.
Pietersma’s argument about the improbability of the Tetragrammaton being systematically retained in the original LXX is grounded in evidence from the diversity of textual traditions and the consistency of κύριος in Christian MSS. Epstein’s critique does not address the broader historical and theological context, which supports κύριος as the normative LXX rendering of YHWH. While the original LXX remains an open question, the weight of evidence supports the view that κύριος was the standard rendering of YHWH by the time of its adoption by the early Church. The occasional use of the Tetragrammaton or transliterations like ΙΑΩ reflects later Jewish revisions rather than the original translation practice. The burden of proof lies with those who claim the Tetragrammaton was consistently used in the original LXX. The lack of evidence for this claim and the consistent use of κύριος in both the NT and early Christian MSS strongly argue against the hypothesis.
Since we are talking about the Tetragrammaton. I was looking at Mark 12:29 and Jesus says, The first is, "Hear. O Israel" Now do you really think he said the Lord our God? The way he say "Hear, O Israel" tells me it is a direct quote. It's going to say YHWH our God is one Jehovah." We can tell by the way it is directly quoted he would have to use the Tetragrammaton. Also it was one of the scribes he was talking to who undoubtedly knew Hebrew would expect the Tetragrammaton as found in the Torah at Deut. 6:4,5. In English it would definitely be alright to use Jehovah here.
@ Philip Fletcher That's an important line of reasoning.
@Nincs, What is your personal view on this? OT quotes from Christian writers aside, when Jesus actually quoted the shema, and soon after the prophecy of Ps 110:1 (Mark 12:36) presumably in Hebrew or Aramaic (a whole 'nother debate!) do you believe he would have used a surrogate such as HA SHEM, ADONAI etc? Or would he have pronounced the supposed "ineffable" name in public?
By the Second Temple period, it was customary for Jews to avoid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) out of reverence. Instead, they substituted Adonai ("Lord") or HaShem ("The Name") when reading Scripture aloud. This practice is well-documented in rabbinic writings and aligns with the broader trend of Jewish reverence for God's name. Philo explicitly notes that God's name was considered ineffable and was not spoken publicly. According to the Mishnah (m. Sotah 7:6), the high priest pronounced the Tetragrammaton *only* on Yom Kippur and only in the Temple. Outside this context, it was not uttered. Given this context, it is highly unlikely that Jesus, addressing a Jewish audience, would have broken with established tradition by pronouncing YHWH.
Jesus frequently challenged those man-made traditions that contradicted the intent of God’s law (e.g., Matthew 15:3-9). However, there is no evidence that He opposed the Jewish practice of substituting Adonai for YHWH. In fact, Jesus often affirmed Jewish scriptural practices and quoted the Scriptures in a manner consistent with the Jewish traditions of His time. If Jesus had used the Tetragrammaton publicly, it would likely have caused significant controversy, yet there is no record in the Gospels or other historical writings of Jesus being criticized for pronouncing YHWH. This silence strongly suggests that He followed the established practice of substituting Adonai or HaShem.
The NT consistently uses κύριος ("Lord") in Greek translations of OT passages that include the Tetragrammaton. For instance, in Mark 12:29, the phrase "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" uses κύριος in place of YHWH. This reflects the Greek LXX tradition, which was widely used by Jews and early Christians. If Jesus had deliberately used the Tetragrammaton, one would expect at least some textual tradition or commentary to preserve this unique practice. However, there is no MS evidence or early Christian writings indicating that Jesus ever pronounced YHWH. Instead, the consistent use of κύριος in NT texts aligns with Jewish practice and the LXX tradition.
In Mark 12:29, Jesus quotes the Shema (Deut. 6:4), a foundational Jewish prayer. The Shema was recited daily by Jews, including Jesus, and its pronunciation adhered to traditional Jewish customs. It is highly improbable that Jesus would have deviated from these customs during a public discussion with a scribe, as doing so would have been seen as irreverent and disruptive. Similarly, in Mark 12:36, Jesus references Psalm 110:1, which uses Adonai to distinguish between "the LORD" (YHWH) and "my Lord" (David's Lord). The substitution of Adonai here aligns with the Jewish tradition of not vocalizing the Tetragrammaton, and there is no indication that Jesus deviated from this norm.
The LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, replaced YHWH with κύριος ("Lord"). This translation was widely used in the Hellenistic Jewish world and formed the basis for many OT quotations in the NT. Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the LXX, further supporting the view that κύριος was the accepted substitute for YHWH. Even if Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, His quotes would likely have reflected the Jewish practice of using Adonai or HaShem rather than pronouncing the Tetragrammaton directly.
If Jesus had used the Tetragrammaton, it would not only have deviated from Jewish tradition but also created confusion about His identity. The NT emphasizes that Jesus is Lord (κύριος) in the sense of sharing in the divine identity of YHWH (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11, Romans 10:13). However, this identification is presented through the framework of existing Jewish and Christian linguistic practices, not through the explicit vocalization of YHWH.
I can see I might have made an error in my judgement on Ninc (I might have been a fool not to take Terrence more seriously) I do have two questions tho: Why when asked to stop posting long messages did they (Ninc) not do as was requested? A paste bin link would have been far more acceptable and I would have been far more willing to read the opinions if there was mutual respect (again that DOES NOT water down my horrible part)
If I am wrong, I will once again say: Ninc, I am sorry for doubting you, you very clearly know how to set me off (not alot of people can) and annoy me to large extent That is meant as a compliment btw I take back alot of what I have said.
for context: I have lived with Autism (My brother) and partially am myself(I have a diagnosis I can provide privately if wanted as evidence to prove I'm not lying or making rubbish up or jumping on a "bandwagon" as long as I can provide it privately, I want no sympathy) My reasoning simply being I know alot of autistic people (I teach a class of about 30(give or take, it fluctuates)) and not one exhibits what I have seen Ninc do in the past.. more akin to what I have described Ninc as "theologically motivated" (see Shamounian or Mike Winger for examples of similar behaviour, Shamouninans LONG blog posts and insistence he is right ALL the time, Mike Winger exhibits similar but in video form... tho has been proven wrong multiple times) and a "troll" (see literally any Online forum: Reddit especially, and other JW forums online) tho now saying this it loud it does sound kinda stupid.. and makes me look rather dumb.
The only one I will stick by (I dont think its an insult, more a trait I wish would go away) is accusing of "selectiveness to suit a belief" this I hate, because I am one that already struggles to do research and get answers as is - I'm one who wants balanced information from all sides (hence my asking for help - i dont know where to look, and don't have access to alot of resources) Too me it SEEMS disingenuous to omit what an early church father says word-for-word SEEMINGLY because it doesn't suit your belief. But I will acknowledge this is more a me problem rather than a Ninc problem
& as my answer to Philip - depends if it was from the LXX or Hebrew. if Hebrew then yes most definitely if LXX: he may have used one the shortened versions rather than the elongated version... simply put they had no issue with the shortened versions in names being pronounced - as they didn't change the shortened version when they stopped pronouncing the name. Also it is clear they didn't think the form "Jah" or "hallelujah" was of any "importance" see the lxx version of where these versions appear, from memory (mine is bad, due to other reasons I'm not getting into in a public forum) the only one that is rendered "Kurios" is the full tetragrammaton. & as the original post says EVERY pre-christian LXX has the name in it in one form or another.... It is likely Paul atleast quoted from a pre-christian version making even littler sense why not atleast SOME form appeared in his writings. The only reason I can think & I have 0 evidence for this, is the Jews hid their versions of the NT with the divine name and it was simply never found. OR the Divine name scrolls were burned... like arius' writings.. if Atha and Gregory didnt reference them, they wouldn't exist either (if they have referenced them accurately that is - Atha cant even reference the NT correctly in some places, ill provide citations later) Edit: Nevermind: Stafford does my job for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWOmsAWWdbE
I don't know if he covers my exact ones, but none the less you will get my point.
(OT was in mosaic law right up until the NT when Jesus died, it would simply make no sense for the name to phase out or become "irrelevent" for any other reason than the Jews took the law in Lev far too literally.)
see also: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/writing-pronouncing-the-divine-name-in-second-temple-jewish-tradition/
Lastly: I will also give Edgar a massive apology if I have caused him any issue in my rather blatant frustration over more of what is going on in my personal life, and my own lack of ability to research topics
Edgar, I want to say thank you for this blog, to me it was educational and it helped me see other perspectives or view points. I can actually communicate with others better because I am able to listen to their spiritual viewpoints more readily. Stop and listen, but here on the blog we have to read. Still I like the education a lot. Thanks again.
The claim that Jesus must have pronuanced the Tetragrammaton in Mark 12:29 because he was quoting directly from Deut. 6:4 fails to account for historical and textual realities. By the Second Temple period, Jews commonly substituted Adonai (Lord) when reading the Hebrew Scriptures aloud instead of pronouncing YHWH. This practice is attested in ancient Jewish writings (e.g., the Mishnah, 1QS, and Philo). The LXX, the Greek translation of the OT widely used by Jews in the Hellenistic world, consistently translates YHWH as Kyrios. Early Christians inherited this usage. Jesus often spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew, but the Gospel writers rendered his teachings in Greek. In this case, Mark preserves the Greek term Kyrios in line with the LXX tradition, which was already established among Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians. There is no MS evidence suggesting that Jesus’ quotation in Mark 12:29 originally contained YHWH. All extant MSS use Kyrios, reflecting the oral tradition of the time. The argument that Jesus would have used YHWH because the scribe “undoubtedly knew Hebrew” is speculative. The scribe’s knowledge of Hebrew is irrelevant, as Jesus’ audience would have been familiar with the oral substitution of Adonai or Kyrios. Quoting Kyrios would have been entirely natural in this context.
It is worth recalling the scene from the Gospel of Luke, which mentions Jesus reading a messianic passage from the book of Isaiah (61:1-2) in the synagogue. The JWs usually only refers to the story up to Lk 4:21, but let's look at what follows. Jesus comments on the read passage with a single sentence: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (21). After this, Luke tells us how the audience reacted to the reading: "ALL spoke WELL of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth..." (22). Thus, the audience agreed with the read text, and they had no objections even to Jesus's explanation. But let's pause for a moment! In Isa. 61:1-2, there is the Tetragrammaton. However, the Jews did not pronounce God's name, but referred to it with titles like Adonai (or Ha-Shem, Adoshem). Moreover, they also fiercely resisted the desecration and use of the Name. Only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, could the high priest legally pronounce it. Given that Jews strictly avoided pronouncing the Name, it is quite dubious that Jesus would have pronounced the Tetragrammaton in the synagogue. If he had, the audience would have been outraged and tried to kill him. However, remember what we read in the story: "ALL spoke WELL of him..." This comment would have been inconceivable if Jesus acted against one of their strictest religious traditions and pronounced the divine name. (In the story, there's no mention of an attempt to kill him until he confronts their unbelief.) Thus, the assertion that Jesus pronounced the Name at this time is pure speculation, unsupported by Jewish tradition or the biblical text itself.
The argument that the Jews "hid their versions of the NT with the divine name" or that "scrolls with the divine name were burned" is speculative and unsupported by evidence. The consistent use of Kyrios in the NT reflects a natural evolution of Jewish and Christian scribal practices, not a systematic removal of YHWH. The NT authors consistently use Kyrios to refer to both YHWH and Jesus, showing no concern about potential confusion. This reflects their belief that Jesus shares in the divine identity. If the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation were correct, the NT authors would have been careful to distinguish between Kyrios as applied to YHWH and as applied to Jesus. Instead, they seamlessly apply the title to both, affirming Jesus’ deity.
The NWT inserts “Jehovah” into the NT 237 times, despite the absence of the Tetragrammaton in any Greek MS. This practice violates their own principle of “literal translation” and imposes a theological bias on the text. For example, in 1 Pet. 2:3, the NWT avoids using “Jehovah” even though the verse quotes Ps. 34:8, where the Tetragrammaton appears. The reason is clear: the passage refers to Jesus, and inserting “Jehovah” would blur the distinction between Jesus and God—a distinction that is essential to Jehovah’s Witness theology
You quote Larry Hurtado extensively but misrepresent his conclusions. Hurtado’s research actually strengthens the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus as Kyrios. Hurtado acknowledges that Jews used substitutes like Adonai or Kyrios for YHWH in oral readings of Scripture. This practice influenced the LXX translators, who rendered YHWH as Kyrios. Hurtado also highlights Philo’s use of Kyrios as a title for God, showing that this was a well-established practice in Hellenistic Judaism, and rejects the idea that Jesus’ status as Kyrios resulted from scribal confusion or later textual alterations. Instead, it reflects the early Christian conviction that Jesus shares in the divine identity.
Regarding the Stafford video:
Stafford accuses Athanasius of using an inaccurate analogy of light and the sun to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, this analogy, widely used in early Christian theology, is not intended as a scientific explanation but a theological metaphor. Athanasius is not claiming the analogy scientifically proves eternal generation but uses it to illustrate the inseparable unity and eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. Dismissing the analogy based on modern physics misses the theological intent. The analogy reflects the inseparability of the source (the Father) and the radiance (the Son) without implying temporal precedence. Athanasius’s use of metaphors aligns with common patristic methodology, which interprets natural phenomena to explain divine mysteries.
Stafford suggests that Athanasius contradicts himself by affirming the sufficiency of Scripture while referencing other writings. However, Athanasius does not undermine Scripture's sufficiency; instead, he acknowledges the value of supplementary explanations by teachers to aid understanding. Athanasius’s position mirrors the historical Christian understanding that Scripture is divinely inspired and authoritative but that its interpretation often requires teaching and commentary, as seen in Acts 8:30-31 (Philip explaining Scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch).
Stafford accuses Athanasius of fabricating the idea that the Garden of Eden was figurative and misrepresenting the account of Adam and Eve. While Athanasius does interpret elements of the garden symbolically, this aligns with patristic traditions that viewed Eden as both literal and symbolic of humanity's spiritual state. Allegorizing parts of the Genesis narrative does not equate to denying its historicity. Many Church Fathers, including Origen and Augustine, interpreted biblical accounts symbolically to convey deeper theological truths.
Stafford asserts that Athanasius’s theology leads to an “irrational” doctrine of the Trinity and that his analogy of light and the sun imposes non-biblical ideas, also misinterprets Trinitarian doctrine as teaching three gods. Athanasius was a staunch defender of the biblical doctrine of one God in three persons, rooted in passages like Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1-14. Stafford fails to engage with his arguments against Arianism, which emphasize the Son’s consubstantiality (homoousios) with the Father. The critique also overlooks the biblical basis for Trinitarian theology, such as the Shema's reinterpretation in light of Christ (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:6).
Stafford focuses on Athanasius’s critique of idolatry, claiming it reflects misogyny due to his negative view of female deities. However, this argument is a misunderstanding of the cultural and theological context of his writings. Athanasius critiques idolatry based on the biblical prohibition of worshipping created things (Exod. 20:4-5; Rom. 1:23). His condemnation of deified female figures, such as Isis, is consistent with his critique of male idols like Zeus and Poseidon. Stafford's claim of misogyny is unfounded and anachronistic.
Stafford accuses Athanasius of failing to distinguish between abstract and substantive evil. However, Athanasius accurately reflects the Christian understanding that evil is a privation of good (Augustine's privatio boni), not a substance or independent entity. But Athanasius’s view aligns with biblical teaching (Gen. 1:31; James 1:13-14). Evil originates from the misuse of free will by created beings, such as Satan and humanity, not from God's direct creation. Stafford conflates Athanasius’s philosophical reasoning with a denial of the biblical narrative.
Throughout the critique, Stafford repeatedly attributes errors and falsehoods to Athanasius without engaging his actual theological arguments. For example, it dismisses his Christological insights and conflates his defense of the Trinity with alleged "false doctrines" about creation and the soul. Athanasius’s works, including Against the Heathen, are foundational to Christian theology. His Christological and Trinitarian teachings are firmly rooted in Scripture and aim to refute paganism and Arianism. Mischaracterizing his writings as "misogynistic" or "scientifically inaccurate" undermines serious engagement with his profound theological contributions.
Philip, thanks for all your support through the years and I appreciate your contributions to the discussions here. Glad to hear the blog has imparted some benefit.
Simply one question: what surviving NT manuscripts do we have that are original? None so what is written Iuke now may not be what was in the original.. and Luke may not have recorded the Tetragrammaton orally
I’m afraid for literally hundreds of reasons and highly disagree with your conclusions
“The claim that Jesus must have pronuanced the Tetragrammaton in Mark 12:29 because he was quoting directly from Deut. 6:4 fails to account for historical and textual realities. ” - read my comment again please, this misrepresents what I stated ( partially what annoys me)
While we do not possess the autographs (original apostolic MSS) of the NT, we have thousands of MSS spanning centuries, including some very early copies (e.g., 𝔓46, 𝔓52, 𝔓75).The discipline of textual criticism demonstrates that the NT text is remarkably well-preserved. Variants exist, but they overwhelmingly concern minor details (e.g., spelling) and do not affect major theological doctrines, including the consistent use of KYRIOS. There is no textual evidence, early or otherwise, suggesting that the Tetragrammaton ever appeared in the NT. This absence is consistent across all extant MSS. The claim that the original MSS could have contained the Tetragrammaton is speculative. Without evidence, this assertion cannot outweigh the overwhelming MS evidence that consistently uses KYRIOS. The burden of proof lies on those who argue for the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the original text. They must demonstrate evidence that the Tetragrammaton was present in early NT MSS, *AND* a deliberate removal occurred across all MS traditions—a claim unsupported by any historical or textual evidence.
The original argument suggested that Jesus, when quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 in Mark 12:29, would have used the Tetragrammaton because the scribe he was addressing would have expected it. By the Second Temple period, it was standard practice for Jews to orally substitute “Adonai” (Lord) or “HaShem” (“the Name”) for YHWH when reading Scripture aloud. Jesus, addressing a Jewish audience, would have followed this custom. It is improbable that he would have deviated from it, especially in a public setting. Mark, writing in Greek for a primarily Gentile audience, uses KYRIOS in place of YHWH, consistent with the LXX and early Christian practice. There is no evidence that Mark's Gospel originally included YHWH. All extant MSS of Mark use KYRIOS. The scribe in the dialogue would have been familiar with Jewish oral substitution practices. There is no reason to assume that he would have expected Jesus to pronounce YHWH in this context. The vague assertion that there are "hundreds of reasons" to disagree with the conclusions does not constitute a valid argument. Without specific evidence or examples, this statement cannot be addressed meaningfully.
The suggestion that "Luke may not have recorded the Tetragrammaton orally" is speculative and lacks evidence. In both his Gospel and Acts, Luke consistently uses KYRIOS for YHWH when quoting the OT. This aligns with the LXX tradition and reflects the established practice of the early Christian community. There is no MS evidence suggesting that Luke’s writings ever contained the Tetragrammaton. If the original NT MSS contained YHWH, we would expect to see some transitional evidence: MSS or textual traditions showing a gradual replacement of YHWH with KYRIOS. No such evidence exists. The uniformity of KYRIOS across all extant NT MSS strongly suggests that it was the original term used by the authors.
The NT authors' consistent use of KYRIOS for both YHWH and Jesus reflects their belief in Jesus’ divine status. This has several theological implications. Passages like Philippians 2:9-11 and Romans 10:13 apply OT texts about YHWH to Jesus, affirming his divine identity. The use of KYRIOS for both YHWH and Jesus is not confusing but intentional, reflecting the early Christian belief in Jesus’ exalted status. The NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT lacks MS support and imposes a theological bias on the text. The early Christian use of KYRIOS demonstrates continuity with Jewish tradition and affirms the deity of Christ, contrary to JW theology.
Your claim that the Tetragrammaton was still being written in the 2nd century and used or pronounced during Jesus’ time warrants a nuanced response. While the discovery of ancient manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton is indeed significant, it does not provide conclusive evidence that the divine name was being regularly pronounced or widely used in first-century Jewish and Christian contexts.
The article mentions the discovery of ancient Dead Sea Scroll fragments, including texts from the Minor Prophets such as Zechariah and Nahum, which contain the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew script. This is an important archaeological finding that reaffirms what is already well-documented: certain Jewish scribal traditions preserved the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script within Greek texts, such as in the Dead Sea Scrolls or texts like 4Q120.
By the Second Temple period (6th century BCE–70 CE), the oral substitution of YHWH with "Adonai" (Lord) was already a widespread practice in Jewish liturgy. This was rooted in reverence and the prohibition against taking God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7). The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in manuscripts, especially those associated with sectarian communities like the Essenes, does not indicate it was regularly pronounced in daily life or worship. Instead, it reflects an effort to preserve its sacredness in written form.
The claim that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced during Jesus’ time is problematic for several reasons. Jewish reverence for the divine name led to its avoidance in speech. Instead, Adonai (Lord) or HaShem (The Name) was used when reading Scripture aloud. Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–50 CE), a contemporary of Jesus, explicitly states that the divine name was considered "unspeakable" (ἀκατανόμαστος) due to its sacredness. This aligns with the tradition of not vocalizing the Tetragrammaton.
In the New Testament, the Greek word κύριος (Kyrios, meaning "Lord") is consistently used in Old Testament quotations where YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. This reflects the established Jewish practice of substituting the divine name with Adonai, which was translated as κύριος in the Greek Septuagint (LXX). There is no evidence that Jesus or the New Testament authors pronounced YHWH. Instead, they followed the tradition of using κύριος to refer to both God the Father and Jesus Christ.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (including the fragments mentioned in the article) are invaluable for understanding Jewish scribal practices, but they must be interpreted within their historical and sectarian contexts. The use of the Tetragrammaton in some scrolls reflects the sectarian practices of groups like the Essenes, who sought to distinguish themselves from mainstream Judaism. These practices were not representative of the broader Jewish community.While the Scrolls preserve the Tetragrammaton in written form, there is no evidence that this practice extended to oral usage, especially within synagogues or among ordinary Jews during Jesus’ time.
Early Christians inherited the Septuagint as their primary scripture, in which κύριος was already established as the Greek equivalent of YHWH. This usage was consistent with Jewish oral tradition and was not a Christian innovation. The consistent use of κύριος in New Testament writings, including OT quotations, reflects this continuity. There is no indication that the Tetragrammaton was ever used in New Testament manuscripts.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the New Testament and replaced with κύριος. However, no manuscript evidence supports this claim. All extant Greek New Testament manuscripts uniformly use κύριος or θεός (God) in places where YHWH appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. The claim that the Tetragrammaton was "restored" in translations like the New World Translation is based on theological presuppositions, not textual evidence.
Gordon argues that the divine name (YHWH) was pronounced by Jews during the Second Temple period and early Christianity, citing textual evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and Greek transcriptions. However, his assertion overlooks significant Jewish traditions and evidence to the contrary. By the Second Temple period, it was common practice among Jews to avoid pronouncing the divine name out of reverence, substituting it with titles like “Adonai” or “Elohim.” This is supported by historical sources, such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, who do not provide the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton but instead refer to it as the "ineffable name." While some DSS include the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script or transliterations, this does not confirm it was spoken aloud regularly. These texts often reflect scribal practices, not liturgical usage, and there is no evidence that the sacred name was used casually in worship or everyday speech during this period. The Mishnah (Tamid 7:2) states that the high priest pronounced the divine name only on Yom Kippur within the Holy of Holies. This exceptional context underscores that the name was not used in ordinary liturgical or public settings.
The 2008 directive from Pope Benedict XVI aligns with ancient Christian practice. Early Christians, following Jewish tradition, adopted the Greek “Kyrios” in place of the Tetragrammaton in Scripture and worship. This can be observed in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the early Church. The directive does not "ban the name of God" but upholds a theological tradition of emphasizing God's transcendence and unity in worship. In Christian theology, the title “Kyrios” signifies both the God of Israel and Jesus Christ as the divine Lord, consistent with passages like Phil. 2:11. The Tetragrammaton’s exact pronunciation remains uncertain. Variants like "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" are modern reconstructions, and the Church avoids endorsing one speculative pronunciation over another.
Gordon implies that the use of “Kyrios” for Jesus diminishes the Father. This misunderstands Trinitarian theology, which affirms the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the one divine essence. The use of “Kyrios” for Jesus in no way "strips" the Father of His identity. Early Christians reinterpreted the Shema (Deut. 6:4) to include Jesus within the divine identity (1 Cor. 8:6). This affirms that calling Jesus “Kyrios” is a reflection of His unity with the Father, not a replacement of the Father.
Gordon’s claim that early Christians regularly used the Tetragrammaton is not supported by historical evidence. The NT consistently uses “Kyrios” for both the Tetragrammaton and for Jesus. There are no manuscript variants suggesting the Tetragrammaton was originally present in the Greek text. The early Church adopted the Septuagint’s use of “Kyrios,” emphasizing continuity with Jewish tradition and the universal accessibility of the Scriptures to Greek-speaking audiences.
Gordon cites Exodus 3:15 to argue that the Tetragrammaton should be spoken perpetually. However, this overlooks the broader theological context. The divine name signifies God’s eternal nature and covenant faithfulness, not necessarily the requirement to pronounce it audibly in all contexts. In Christian theology, the name and identity of God are fully revealed in Jesus Christ (John 17:6). This fulfills, rather than negates, the significance of God’s name in the OT.
Gordon equates Pope Benedict XVI’s directive with Roman oppression and conflates Catholicism with ancient Roman persecution. This is historically inaccurate. The martyrdom of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion for pronouncing the divine name was a result of Roman suppression of Jewish practices, not an act of Christian authorities. The Catholic Church did not originate the practice of substituting “Kyrios” for the Tetragrammaton; this was inherited from Jewish tradition and upheld by the early Church.
You said: “The NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT lacks MS support and imposes a theological bias on the text”. Did you know the anonymous NWT Translation Committee personally? How do you know what motivated them? Trinitarians, Binitarians and Modalists all boast that they can find their respective doctrines using the NWT’s use of Jehovah in the NT, so it’s can’t just be a matter of theology can it…? We are all free to question whether a translation decision is accurate or best suits the context etc but… Be careful not to judge. Matt 7:1.
Your argument sidesteps the central issue: the lack of MS support for inserting "Jehovah" into the NT. Whether or not the exact motivations of the anonymous committee are known is irrelevant to the textual evidence, which shows no instances of the Tetragrammaton in any extant NT MSS. The NT consistently uses Kyrios (Κύριος, Lord) in all quotations of OT passages containing YHWH. This is true across all known NT MSS, including the earliest and most reliable witnesses (e.g., 𝔓46, 𝔓75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus). If the original NT authors had used "Jehovah," we would expect at least some evidence of this in the MS tradition. No such evidence exists. The NWT's use of "Jehovah" in the NT relies on the assumption that the Tetragrammaton was present in the original NT autographs. However, this assumption is unsupported by any textual evidence and contradicts the established Jewish and Christian practices of substituting Kyrios for YHWH in Greek translations, such as the LXX. Even if the exact motivations of the NWT committee are unknown, their decision to insert "Jehovah" into the NT text must be evaluated against the evidence. Since there is no MS basis for this insertion, it reflects an interpretive choice rather than a faithful representation of the original text.
Your point also conflates doctrinal interpretations with textual accuracy. The fact that various theological groups interpret the NWT differently does not validate the insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT. The central issue is not how different groups interpret the text but whether the translation accurately reflects the original MSS. The consistent use of Kyrios in all extant NT MSS indicates that this term, not "Jehovah," was used by the NT authors. Inserting "Jehovah" into the NT, regardless of theological implications, introduces a term that lacks MS support. The NWT’s insertion of "Jehovah" reflects a specific theological agenda aligned with the JW doctrines. This is evident in how "Jehovah" is selectively inserted in certain NT passages while omitted in others where it would undermine JW theology (e.g., 1 Peter 2:3, where the "Lord" is clearly Jesus). Such selectivity demonstrates that the insertion is not neutral but theologically motivated.
Quoting Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged") in this context misunderstands the verse and its application. Critiquing the NWT’s translation choices is not "judging" in the moral sense Jesus warned against in Matthew 7:1. Instead, it is a necessary part of textual scholarship and translation studies. Translators have a responsibility to faithfully represent the original text, and readers have a right to evaluate whether this has been done. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:1 addresses hypocritical or self-righteous judgment, not the objective evaluation of evidence or actions. Pointing out the lack of MS support for the NWT’s insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT is not a moral judgment but an evidence-based critique.
The translation decisions themselves reveal a clear and consistent theological agenda, which is evident in the final product of the NWT, the insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT demonstrates selective application of a theological framework rather than a commitment to faithfully represent the underlying Greek MSS. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 places in the NT, even though no extant Greek MS contains the Tetragrammaton. If the translators were motivated purely by textual fidelity, they would have consistently followed the Greek MSS, which uniformly use Κύριος. Instead, they inserted "Jehovah" selectively, often in ways that align with Jehovah's Witness theology, such as emphasizing a strict distinction between God the Father and Jesus. This is where the specific JW terminology "Jehovah AND Jesus" comes from, even though the NT never puts it that way.
For example, in 1 Peter 2:3, where the "Lord" is clearly identified as Jesus, the NWT avoids inserting "Jehovah," despite quoting from a Psalm that uses the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text. This inconsistency reflects a theological preference rather than a textual basis. By the Second Temple period, Jewish tradition had firmly established the oral substitution of “Adonai” (Lord) or “HaShem” (the Name) for YHWH. This practice carried into Greek translations like LXX, which consistently uses Κύριος. The NWT’s decision to "restore" the divine name in the NT disregards this historical context and projects a modern theological agenda onto ancient texts.
Even if one does not know the personal motivations of the anonymous NWTTC members through talking to them personally, the results of their work clearly reflect their theological agenda. This can be demonstrated primarily by the alignment with JW doctrine. The NWT translation decisions consistently align with JW theology, particularly their denial of the Trinity and rejection of Jesus' divine equality with God. For example, in passages like John 1:1, the NWT translates "the Word was God" as "the Word was a god," reflecting JW theology but contradicting established Greek grammar and the broader context of John’s prologue. By "fully divine" I mean the identity of the quiddity with that of the Father: what is the Father, is the same as the Son. The rendering "a god" is precisely the explicit denial of this identity of the quiddity: "it's kind of godlike, but it's not really that, it’s not a big deal, you know, just like Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1." And the Greek text does not make this denial, on the contrary, it affirms it.
The insertion of "Jehovah" reinforces a strict separation between the Father and the Son, which aligns with JW beliefs but lacks MS support. The NWTTC claims to "restore" the divine name based on its presence in OT quotations. However, this approach introduces an interpretive framework rather than adhering to the textual evidence. If the NT authors had intended to use the Tetragrammaton, we would expect to find it in at least some early Greek MSS, yet none exist.
You argue that the motivations of the NWTTC cannot be known, but this does not absolve the translation from critique. Theological bias is not determined by personal intentions but by observable patterns in the translation itself. The selective and inconsistent application of "Jehovah" in the NT strongly suggests a theological motivation. The lack of MS support for this insertion underscores that it is not a neutral or evidence-based decision. The alignment with JW doctrine in key theological areas, such as Christology, highlights the interpretive framework underlying the NWT. Pointing out theological bias in a translation is not about "judging" the translators personally but about assessing whether the translation faithfully represents the original texts. The NWT fails this test because its decisions are driven more by JW doctrine than by textual evidence.
@ Nincs See https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/bi12/books/1-peter/2/#fn81440261 and footnote.
The reason I take your comments as judgmental is the transparency of the translators themselves. The original NWTTC and the Revised Committee openly state their reasons for using Jehovah in the NT. None of their stated reasons for doing so posit a pre-supposed theological commitment. Why don't you take them on their word? Do you view them as insincere? Why?
While the NWTTC claims transparency in their translation decisions, the stated reasons do not align with the MS evidence. There is no extant NT MS, whether from the 1st century or later, that contains the Tetragrammaton or its transliterations (e.g., ΙΑΩ). All NT MSS, including the earliest and most reliable (e.g., 𝔓46, 𝔓75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus), uniformly use κύριος or θεός in quotations of OT passages where YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. The substitution of YHWH with κύριος in the LXX predates Christianity and reflects Jewish scribal practices. The NT authors inherited this tradition and consistently used κύριος when quoting the OT. The claim that the NT authors originally used the Tetragrammaton lacks any transitional MS evidence. If "Jehovah" had been replaced with κύριος, we would expect to find MSS showing a mix of the two terms or transitional evidence. No such evidence exists.
The footnote on 1 Pete,r 2:3 in the NWT (claims justification for inserting "Jehovah" into NT quotations of the OT. However, even in the example of 1 Pet. 2:3, the NWT fails to follow its stated principle consistently. 1 Pet. 2:3 quotes Ps. 34:8, where the Hebrew text uses YHWH. Yet, in the NWT, "Jehovah" is omitted because the context clearly identifies Jesus as the "Lord." This selective omission exposes a theological bias in avoiding an identification of Jesus with YHWH, contradicting the claim that the NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" is based solely on textual fidelity.
The NWTTC claims that their use of "Jehovah" in the NT is based on the assumption that the divine name appeared in the original autographs. However, this assumption is unsupported by any textual evidence and aligns conveniently with Jehovah's Witness theology, which emphasizes a strict distinction between “Jehovah” and Jesus. The translation choices reflect this bias. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 NT passages, often in OT quotations, but omits it in others where it would undermine their theological framework. For example, In 1 Pet. 2:3, where "the Lord" refers to Jesus, "Jehovah" is omitted despite the OT quotation using YHWH. In contrast, the NWT inserts "Jehovah" in places like Matt. 1:22 and Rom. 10:13, even though no NT MS supports this.
The claim that the NWTTC’s motives are not theological cannot be taken at face value because their translation choices consistently align with JW theology. Transparency does not equate to correctness or impartiality. Even if the NWTTC sincerely believes in their decisions, sincerity does not negate the observable bias in their work.
The NT authors’ consistent use of κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus is not confusing but intentional, reflecting their belief in Jesus’ divine status. This theological conviction is evident in passages like Phil. 2:9-11 or, Rom. 10:13, which demonstrate that the NT authors viewed Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH. The use of κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus aligns with the Jewish practice of substituting Adonai for YHWH in oral readings and reflects continuity with Jewish tradition rather than a departure from it.
The NWT’s insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT lacks MS support, historical precedent, and consistency. The arguments presented in the cited footnote and JW.org appendix fail to address the central issue: there is no evidence that the NT authors ever used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. Instead, the NT consistently uses κύριος in all extant MSS, reflecting the Jewish and Christian tradition of substituting Adonai for YHWH. The NWT’s selective insertion of "Jehovah" reflects a theological agenda aligned with JW doctrine rather than a faithful representation of the original text. This bias is evident in the inconsistent application of "Jehovah" and the alignment of translation choices with JW theology. Textual scholarship must prioritize evidence over theological presuppositions, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that κύριος was the original and consistent Greek rendering of YHWH in both the LXX and the NT.
@ Nincs re: biases and agenda... I've inserted ** for emphasis...
"The NT authors’ consistent use of κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus is not confusing but *intentional*, reflecting *their belief* in Jesus’ divine status. This theological conviction is evident in passages like Phil. 2:9-11 or, Rom. 10:13, which demonstrate that *the NT authors viewed Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH.*"
Sorry friend, but Kettle... Pot... Black...Much?
Let's leave it there. This perpetual wheel spinning is an exercise in futility.
28 comments:
Ninc,
Since I'm sure you'll read the comments under this post, let me begin the dialogue by apologizing to you. I characterized your behavior as being comparable to that of an internet troll, but since then I've stumbled upon a post by someone named Terence (or Terrence?), who said that you are on the spectrum. Honestly, the internet is overrun with trolls, which is why that's what I assumed, but given the full character of your behavior, and learning that you're on the spectrum, that seems to be a better explanation for the behavior I found annoying.
I would recommend that you try not to assume that those you argue with are ignorant. Edgar, other people who post here, and I are all research junkies, and we've seen the sorts of arguments you offer many times before (Edgar and I for decades). It isn't that we haven't encountered the sorts of arguments you present, it's that we don't find them compelling, and I, for one, find them hopelessly anachronistic, presuppositional, and non-falsifiable, as I've said before. I just don't think that viewing the Bible through the lens of Trinitarianism is helpful, as the writers of those books were not Trinitarians. I want to ponder what THEY had to say sans the later prism.
You once wondered why I found your responses intolerable. Well, it's not that they're intolerable, but that I don't come HERE for THAT sort of dialogue. This blog is owned by a JW, and I, a JW, come here to keep up with Edgar's theological reflections, and to engage in *brief* and friendly dialogue. But I can hardly say anything without having you drown the conversation in a sea of verbiage!
That said, I hope you are well, and that you find fulfillment in this life. What will you do when Edgar's blog is locked? Will you take a break from the apologetics, or will you look for other places to engage in such activities?
Take care,
~Sean
The presence of the Tetragrammaton or its transliterations (e.g., ΙΑΩ) in some pre-Christian LXX fragments does not prove it was universal or even normative in the original LXX. P. Fouad 266 contains the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script, but scholars note that this reflects a Jewish revisionist tendency to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton for liturgical reasons, not evidence of its original use. The presence of ΙΑΩ in 4Q120 is limited and does not demonstrate a consistent practice across all books or traditions of the LXX. Other MSS from the same period, such as 8HevXIIgr, show a variety of scribal practices. This diversity undermines the claim of a uniform pre-Christian tradition of using the Tetragrammaton.
The absence of extant pre-Christian MSS of the LXX that use κύριος does not prove the absence of such a tradition. The surviving MS evidence is fragmentary and reflects only a small sample of the diverse textual traditions of the time. The claim that "no MS evidence to the contrary" exists ignores the fact that many early MSS simply have not survived or were lost. As a result, the argument from silence is speculative and cannot establish certainty about the original translation practice. By the Second Temple era, Jews had largely abandoned the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in favor of Adonai. The translation of YHWH as κύριος in the LXX aligns with this oral tradition and reflects a theological and liturgical decision consistent with Jewish reverence for the divine name.
Epstein acknowledges that the original LXX remains an open question. This uncertainty undermines any attempt to dogmatically assert that the Tetragrammaton must have been the original rendering. Instead, the scholarly consensus acknowledges the possibility of multiple traditions, with κύριος likely being a standard rendering by the time the LXX was widely used in Jewish and early Christian communities. The early Christians inherited the LXX as their Scripture, and all extant Christian copies of the LXX uniformly use κύριος. This points to a tradition that predates Christian usage, as Christians would have been unlikely to replace the Tetragrammaton with κύριος without leaving evidence of such a transition.
If the original LXX contained the Tetragrammaton, it would be expected that early Christian MSS would preserve this, especially since they often quoted the LXX. However, no NT MS contains the Tetragrammaton. Instead, κύριος is used consistently in places where YHWH appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. If early Christians replaced the Tetragrammaton with κύριος, there would likely be transitional MSS showing both forms, yet none exist. The argument that removing the Tetragrammaton "blurred the distinction" between YHWH and Jesus reflects a theological bias rather than evidence-based scholarship. The NT writers frequently identify Jesus with YHWH by applying NT passages about YHWH directly to Jesus (e.g., Phil. 2:9-11 citing Isa. 45:23, Rom. 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). This reflects their belief in Jesus’ divinity rather than a confusion introduced by later scribes.
Pietersma’s argument about the improbability of the Tetragrammaton being systematically retained in the original LXX is grounded in evidence from the diversity of textual traditions and the consistency of κύριος in Christian MSS. Epstein’s critique does not address the broader historical and theological context, which supports κύριος as the normative LXX rendering of YHWH. While the original LXX remains an open question, the weight of evidence supports the view that κύριος was the standard rendering of YHWH by the time of its adoption by the early Church. The occasional use of the Tetragrammaton or transliterations like ΙΑΩ reflects later Jewish revisions rather than the original translation practice. The burden of proof lies with those who claim the Tetragrammaton was consistently used in the original LXX. The lack of evidence for this claim and the consistent use of κύριος in both the NT and early Christian MSS strongly argue against the hypothesis.
Ninc,
"According to one of my critics, I write like a 'concrete wall' that is good for banging your head against."
That's funny:-) I wouldn't want you to leave, and now I understand why Edgar hasn't wanted to, either.
Since we are talking about the Tetragrammaton.
I was looking at Mark 12:29 and Jesus says, The first is, "Hear. O Israel" Now do you really think he said the Lord our God? The way he say "Hear, O Israel" tells me it is a direct quote.
It's going to say YHWH our God is one Jehovah."
We can tell by the way it is directly quoted he would have to use the Tetragrammaton. Also it was one of the scribes he was talking to who undoubtedly knew Hebrew would expect the Tetragrammaton as found in the Torah at Deut. 6:4,5. In English it would definitely be alright to use Jehovah here.
@ Philip Fletcher
That's an important line of reasoning.
@Nincs,
What is your personal view on this? OT quotes from Christian writers aside, when Jesus actually quoted the shema, and soon after the prophecy of Ps 110:1 (Mark 12:36) presumably in Hebrew or Aramaic (a whole 'nother debate!) do you believe he would have used a surrogate such as HA SHEM, ADONAI etc? Or would he have pronounced the supposed "ineffable" name in public?
By the Second Temple period, it was customary for Jews to avoid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) out of reverence. Instead, they substituted Adonai ("Lord") or HaShem ("The Name") when reading Scripture aloud. This practice is well-documented in rabbinic writings and aligns with the broader trend of Jewish reverence for God's name. Philo explicitly notes that God's name was considered ineffable and was not spoken publicly. According to the Mishnah (m. Sotah 7:6), the high priest pronounced the Tetragrammaton *only* on Yom Kippur and only in the Temple. Outside this context, it was not uttered. Given this context, it is highly unlikely that Jesus, addressing a Jewish audience, would have broken with established tradition by pronouncing YHWH.
Jesus frequently challenged those man-made traditions that contradicted the intent of God’s law (e.g., Matthew 15:3-9). However, there is no evidence that He opposed the Jewish practice of substituting Adonai for YHWH. In fact, Jesus often affirmed Jewish scriptural practices and quoted the Scriptures in a manner consistent with the Jewish traditions of His time. If Jesus had used the Tetragrammaton publicly, it would likely have caused significant controversy, yet there is no record in the Gospels or other historical writings of Jesus being criticized for pronouncing YHWH. This silence strongly suggests that He followed the established practice of substituting Adonai or HaShem.
The NT consistently uses κύριος ("Lord") in Greek translations of OT passages that include the Tetragrammaton. For instance, in Mark 12:29, the phrase "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" uses κύριος in place of YHWH. This reflects the Greek LXX tradition, which was widely used by Jews and early Christians. If Jesus had deliberately used the Tetragrammaton, one would expect at least some textual tradition or commentary to preserve this unique practice. However, there is no MS evidence or early Christian writings indicating that Jesus ever pronounced YHWH. Instead, the consistent use of κύριος in NT texts aligns with Jewish practice and the LXX tradition.
In Mark 12:29, Jesus quotes the Shema (Deut. 6:4), a foundational Jewish prayer. The Shema was recited daily by Jews, including Jesus, and its pronunciation adhered to traditional Jewish customs. It is highly improbable that Jesus would have deviated from these customs during a public discussion with a scribe, as doing so would have been seen as irreverent and disruptive. Similarly, in Mark 12:36, Jesus references Psalm 110:1, which uses Adonai to distinguish between "the LORD" (YHWH) and "my Lord" (David's Lord). The substitution of Adonai here aligns with the Jewish tradition of not vocalizing the Tetragrammaton, and there is no indication that Jesus deviated from this norm.
The LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, replaced YHWH with κύριος ("Lord"). This translation was widely used in the Hellenistic Jewish world and formed the basis for many OT quotations in the NT. Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the LXX, further supporting the view that κύριος was the accepted substitute for YHWH. Even if Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, His quotes would likely have reflected the Jewish practice of using Adonai or HaShem rather than pronouncing the Tetragrammaton directly.
If Jesus had used the Tetragrammaton, it would not only have deviated from Jewish tradition but also created confusion about His identity. The NT emphasizes that Jesus is Lord (κύριος) in the sense of sharing in the divine identity of YHWH (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11, Romans 10:13). However, this identification is presented through the framework of existing Jewish and Christian linguistic practices, not through the explicit vocalization of YHWH.
I can see I might have made an error in my judgement on Ninc (I might have been a fool not to take Terrence more seriously)
I do have two questions tho: Why when asked to stop posting long messages did they (Ninc) not do as was requested?
A paste bin link would have been far more acceptable and I would have been far more willing to read the opinions if there was mutual respect (again that DOES NOT water down my horrible part)
If I am wrong, I will once again say: Ninc, I am sorry for doubting you, you very clearly know how to set me off (not alot of people can) and annoy me to large extent
That is meant as a compliment btw
I take back alot of what I have said.
for context: I have lived with Autism (My brother) and partially am myself(I have a diagnosis I can provide privately if wanted as evidence to prove I'm not lying or making rubbish up or jumping on a "bandwagon" as long as I can provide it privately, I want no sympathy)
My reasoning simply being I know alot of autistic people (I teach a class of about 30(give or take, it fluctuates)) and not one exhibits what I have seen Ninc do in the past.. more akin to what I have described Ninc as "theologically motivated" (see Shamounian or Mike Winger for examples of similar behaviour, Shamouninans LONG blog posts and insistence he is right ALL the time, Mike Winger exhibits similar but in video form... tho has been proven wrong multiple times) and a "troll" (see literally any Online forum: Reddit especially, and other JW forums online)
tho now saying this it loud it does sound kinda stupid.. and makes me look rather dumb.
The only one I will stick by (I dont think its an insult, more a trait I wish would go away) is accusing of "selectiveness to suit a belief" this I hate, because I am one that already struggles to do research and get answers as is - I'm one who wants balanced information from all sides (hence my asking for help - i dont know where to look, and don't have access to alot of resources) Too me it SEEMS disingenuous to omit what an early church father says word-for-word SEEMINGLY because it doesn't suit your belief.
But I will acknowledge this is more a me problem rather than a Ninc problem
& as my answer to Philip - depends if it was from the LXX or Hebrew.
if Hebrew then yes most definitely
if LXX: he may have used one the shortened versions rather than the elongated version... simply put they had no issue with the shortened versions in names being pronounced - as they didn't change the shortened version when they stopped pronouncing the name.
Also it is clear they didn't think the form "Jah" or "hallelujah" was of any "importance" see the lxx version of where these versions appear, from memory (mine is bad, due to other reasons I'm not getting into in a public forum) the only one that is rendered "Kurios" is the full tetragrammaton.
& as the original post says EVERY pre-christian LXX has the name in it in one form or another.... It is likely Paul atleast quoted from a pre-christian version making even littler sense why not atleast SOME form appeared in his writings. The only reason I can think & I have 0 evidence for this, is the Jews hid their versions of the NT with the divine name and it was simply never found. OR the Divine name scrolls were burned... like arius' writings.. if Atha and Gregory didnt reference them, they wouldn't exist either (if they have referenced them accurately that is - Atha cant even reference the NT correctly in some places, ill provide citations later)
Edit: Nevermind: Stafford does my job for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWOmsAWWdbE
I don't know if he covers my exact ones, but none the less you will get my point.
(OT was in mosaic law right up until the NT when Jesus died, it would simply make no sense for the name to phase out or become "irrelevent" for any other reason than the Jews took the law in Lev far too literally.)
see also: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/writing-pronouncing-the-divine-name-in-second-temple-jewish-tradition/
Lastly: I will also give Edgar a massive apology if I have caused him any issue in my rather blatant frustration over more of what is going on in my personal life, and my own lack of ability to research topics
Edgar,
I want to say thank you for this blog, to me it was educational and it helped me see other perspectives or view points. I can actually communicate with others better because I am able to listen to their spiritual viewpoints more readily. Stop and listen, but here on the blog we have to read. Still I like the education a lot. Thanks again.
@Anonymous
Look at my comments here: https://t.ly/mt9TP
The claim that Jesus must have pronuanced the Tetragrammaton in Mark 12:29 because he was quoting directly from Deut. 6:4 fails to account for historical and textual realities. By the Second Temple period, Jews commonly substituted Adonai (Lord) when reading the Hebrew Scriptures aloud instead of pronouncing YHWH. This practice is attested in ancient Jewish writings (e.g., the Mishnah, 1QS, and Philo). The LXX, the Greek translation of the OT widely used by Jews in the Hellenistic world, consistently translates YHWH as Kyrios. Early Christians inherited this usage. Jesus often spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew, but the Gospel writers rendered his teachings in Greek. In this case, Mark preserves the Greek term Kyrios in line with the LXX tradition, which was already established among Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians. There is no MS evidence suggesting that Jesus’ quotation in Mark 12:29 originally contained YHWH. All extant MSS use Kyrios, reflecting the oral tradition of the time. The argument that Jesus would have used YHWH because the scribe “undoubtedly knew Hebrew” is speculative. The scribe’s knowledge of Hebrew is irrelevant, as Jesus’ audience would have been familiar with the oral substitution of Adonai or Kyrios. Quoting Kyrios would have been entirely natural in this context.
It is worth recalling the scene from the Gospel of Luke, which mentions Jesus reading a messianic passage from the book of Isaiah (61:1-2) in the synagogue. The JWs usually only refers to the story up to Lk 4:21, but let's look at what follows. Jesus comments on the read passage with a single sentence: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (21). After this, Luke tells us how the audience reacted to the reading: "ALL spoke WELL of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth..." (22). Thus, the audience agreed with the read text, and they had no objections even to Jesus's explanation. But let's pause for a moment! In Isa. 61:1-2, there is the Tetragrammaton. However, the Jews did not pronounce God's name, but referred to it with titles like Adonai (or Ha-Shem, Adoshem). Moreover, they also fiercely resisted the desecration and use of the Name. Only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, could the high priest legally pronounce it. Given that Jews strictly avoided pronouncing the Name, it is quite dubious that Jesus would have pronounced the Tetragrammaton in the synagogue. If he had, the audience would have been outraged and tried to kill him. However, remember what we read in the story: "ALL spoke WELL of him..." This comment would have been inconceivable if Jesus acted against one of their strictest religious traditions and pronounced the divine name. (In the story, there's no mention of an attempt to kill him until he confronts their unbelief.) Thus, the assertion that Jesus pronounced the Name at this time is pure speculation, unsupported by Jewish tradition or the biblical text itself.
(1/3)
(2/3)
The argument that the Jews "hid their versions of the NT with the divine name" or that "scrolls with the divine name were burned" is speculative and unsupported by evidence. The consistent use of Kyrios in the NT reflects a natural evolution of Jewish and Christian scribal practices, not a systematic removal of YHWH. The NT authors consistently use Kyrios to refer to both YHWH and Jesus, showing no concern about potential confusion. This reflects their belief that Jesus shares in the divine identity. If the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation were correct, the NT authors would have been careful to distinguish between Kyrios as applied to YHWH and as applied to Jesus. Instead, they seamlessly apply the title to both, affirming Jesus’ deity.
The NWT inserts “Jehovah” into the NT 237 times, despite the absence of the Tetragrammaton in any Greek MS. This practice violates their own principle of “literal translation” and imposes a theological bias on the text. For example, in 1 Pet. 2:3, the NWT avoids using “Jehovah” even though the verse quotes Ps. 34:8, where the Tetragrammaton appears. The reason is clear: the passage refers to Jesus, and inserting “Jehovah” would blur the distinction between Jesus and God—a distinction that is essential to Jehovah’s Witness theology
You quote Larry Hurtado extensively but misrepresent his conclusions. Hurtado’s research actually strengthens the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus as Kyrios. Hurtado acknowledges that Jews used substitutes like Adonai or Kyrios for YHWH in oral readings of Scripture. This practice influenced the LXX translators, who rendered YHWH as Kyrios. Hurtado also highlights Philo’s use of Kyrios as a title for God, showing that this was a well-established practice in Hellenistic Judaism, and rejects the idea that Jesus’ status as Kyrios resulted from scribal confusion or later textual alterations. Instead, it reflects the early Christian conviction that Jesus shares in the divine identity.
Regarding the Stafford video:
Stafford accuses Athanasius of using an inaccurate analogy of light and the sun to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, this analogy, widely used in early Christian theology, is not intended as a scientific explanation but a theological metaphor. Athanasius is not claiming the analogy scientifically proves eternal generation but uses it to illustrate the inseparable unity and eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. Dismissing the analogy based on modern physics misses the theological intent. The analogy reflects the inseparability of the source (the Father) and the radiance (the Son) without implying temporal precedence. Athanasius’s use of metaphors aligns with common patristic methodology, which interprets natural phenomena to explain divine mysteries.
Stafford suggests that Athanasius contradicts himself by affirming the sufficiency of Scripture while referencing other writings. However, Athanasius does not undermine Scripture's sufficiency; instead, he acknowledges the value of supplementary explanations by teachers to aid understanding. Athanasius’s position mirrors the historical Christian understanding that Scripture is divinely inspired and authoritative but that its interpretation often requires teaching and commentary, as seen in Acts 8:30-31 (Philip explaining Scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch).
(2/3)
(3/3)
Stafford accuses Athanasius of fabricating the idea that the Garden of Eden was figurative and misrepresenting the account of Adam and Eve. While Athanasius does interpret elements of the garden symbolically, this aligns with patristic traditions that viewed Eden as both literal and symbolic of humanity's spiritual state. Allegorizing parts of the Genesis narrative does not equate to denying its historicity. Many Church Fathers, including Origen and Augustine, interpreted biblical accounts symbolically to convey deeper theological truths.
Stafford asserts that Athanasius’s theology leads to an “irrational” doctrine of the Trinity and that his analogy of light and the sun imposes non-biblical ideas, also misinterprets Trinitarian doctrine as teaching three gods. Athanasius was a staunch defender of the biblical doctrine of one God in three persons, rooted in passages like Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1-14. Stafford fails to engage with his arguments against Arianism, which emphasize the Son’s consubstantiality (homoousios) with the Father. The critique also overlooks the biblical basis for Trinitarian theology, such as the Shema's reinterpretation in light of Christ (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:6).
Stafford focuses on Athanasius’s critique of idolatry, claiming it reflects misogyny due to his negative view of female deities. However, this argument is a misunderstanding of the cultural and theological context of his writings. Athanasius critiques idolatry based on the biblical prohibition of worshipping created things (Exod. 20:4-5; Rom. 1:23). His condemnation of deified female figures, such as Isis, is consistent with his critique of male idols like Zeus and Poseidon. Stafford's claim of misogyny is unfounded and anachronistic.
Stafford accuses Athanasius of failing to distinguish between abstract and substantive evil. However, Athanasius accurately reflects the Christian understanding that evil is a privation of good (Augustine's privatio boni), not a substance or independent entity. But Athanasius’s view aligns with biblical teaching (Gen. 1:31; James 1:13-14). Evil originates from the misuse of free will by created beings, such as Satan and humanity, not from God's direct creation. Stafford conflates Athanasius’s philosophical reasoning with a denial of the biblical narrative.
Throughout the critique, Stafford repeatedly attributes errors and falsehoods to Athanasius without engaging his actual theological arguments. For example, it dismisses his Christological insights and conflates his defense of the Trinity with alleged "false doctrines" about creation and the soul. Athanasius’s works, including Against the Heathen, are foundational to Christian theology. His Christological and Trinitarian teachings are firmly rooted in Scripture and aim to refute paganism and Arianism. Mischaracterizing his writings as "misogynistic" or "scientifically inaccurate" undermines serious engagement with his profound theological contributions.
Philip, thanks for all your support through the years and I appreciate your contributions to the discussions here. Glad to hear the blog has imparted some benefit.
Simply one question: what surviving NT manuscripts do we have that are original?
None so what is written Iuke now may not be what was in the original..
and Luke may not have recorded the Tetragrammaton orally
I’m afraid for literally hundreds of reasons and highly disagree with your conclusions
“The claim that Jesus must have pronuanced the Tetragrammaton in Mark 12:29 because he was quoting directly from Deut. 6:4 fails to account for historical and textual realities. ” - read my comment again please, this misrepresents what I stated
( partially what annoys me)
@Anonymous
While we do not possess the autographs (original apostolic MSS) of the NT, we have thousands of MSS spanning centuries, including some very early copies (e.g., 𝔓46, 𝔓52, 𝔓75).The discipline of textual criticism demonstrates that the NT text is remarkably well-preserved. Variants exist, but they overwhelmingly concern minor details (e.g., spelling) and do not affect major theological doctrines, including the consistent use of KYRIOS. There is no textual evidence, early or otherwise, suggesting that the Tetragrammaton ever appeared in the NT. This absence is consistent across all extant MSS. The claim that the original MSS could have contained the Tetragrammaton is speculative. Without evidence, this assertion cannot outweigh the overwhelming MS evidence that consistently uses KYRIOS. The burden of proof lies on those who argue for the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the original text. They must demonstrate evidence that the Tetragrammaton was present in early NT MSS, *AND* a deliberate removal occurred across all MS traditions—a claim unsupported by any historical or textual evidence.
The original argument suggested that Jesus, when quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 in Mark 12:29, would have used the Tetragrammaton because the scribe he was addressing would have expected it. By the Second Temple period, it was standard practice for Jews to orally substitute “Adonai” (Lord) or “HaShem” (“the Name”) for YHWH when reading Scripture aloud. Jesus, addressing a Jewish audience, would have followed this custom. It is improbable that he would have deviated from it, especially in a public setting. Mark, writing in Greek for a primarily Gentile audience, uses KYRIOS in place of YHWH, consistent with the LXX and early Christian practice. There is no evidence that Mark's Gospel originally included YHWH. All extant MSS of Mark use KYRIOS. The scribe in the dialogue would have been familiar with Jewish oral substitution practices. There is no reason to assume that he would have expected Jesus to pronounce YHWH in this context. The vague assertion that there are "hundreds of reasons" to disagree with the conclusions does not constitute a valid argument. Without specific evidence or examples, this statement cannot be addressed meaningfully.
The suggestion that "Luke may not have recorded the Tetragrammaton orally" is speculative and lacks evidence. In both his Gospel and Acts, Luke consistently uses KYRIOS for YHWH when quoting the OT. This aligns with the LXX tradition and reflects the established practice of the early Christian community. There is no MS evidence suggesting that Luke’s writings ever contained the Tetragrammaton. If the original NT MSS contained YHWH, we would expect to see some transitional evidence: MSS or textual traditions showing a gradual replacement of YHWH with KYRIOS. No such evidence exists. The uniformity of KYRIOS across all extant NT MSS strongly suggests that it was the original term used by the authors.
The NT authors' consistent use of KYRIOS for both YHWH and Jesus reflects their belief in Jesus’ divine status. This has several theological implications. Passages like Philippians 2:9-11 and Romans 10:13 apply OT texts about YHWH to Jesus, affirming his divine identity. The use of KYRIOS for both YHWH and Jesus is not confusing but intentional, reflecting the early Christian belief in Jesus’ exalted status. The NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT lacks MS support and imposes a theological bias on the text. The early Christian use of KYRIOS demonstrates continuity with Jewish tradition and affirms the deity of Christ, contrary to JW theology.
The Tetragrammaton was still being written in 2nd Century. This can be seen from this article.
https://amp.dw.com/en/israeli-experts-discover-2000-year-old-dead-sea-scrolls/a-56883382
That means some were still using it and pronouncing it in Jesus day.
I suggest you research the work of Biblical Scholar Nehemiah Gordon PhD. He shows the Tetragrammaton was still being pronounced in the 1st Century.
https://youtu.be/Xh5vwAa1Aec?si=7gykNIBxkUbR7fM5
@T
Your claim that the Tetragrammaton was still being written in the 2nd century and used or pronounced during Jesus’ time warrants a nuanced response. While the discovery of ancient manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton is indeed significant, it does not provide conclusive evidence that the divine name was being regularly pronounced or widely used in first-century Jewish and Christian contexts.
The article mentions the discovery of ancient Dead Sea Scroll fragments, including texts from the Minor Prophets such as Zechariah and Nahum, which contain the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew script. This is an important archaeological finding that reaffirms what is already well-documented: certain Jewish scribal traditions preserved the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script within Greek texts, such as in the Dead Sea Scrolls or texts like 4Q120.
By the Second Temple period (6th century BCE–70 CE), the oral substitution of YHWH with "Adonai" (Lord) was already a widespread practice in Jewish liturgy. This was rooted in reverence and the prohibition against taking God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7). The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in manuscripts, especially those associated with sectarian communities like the Essenes, does not indicate it was regularly pronounced in daily life or worship. Instead, it reflects an effort to preserve its sacredness in written form.
The claim that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced during Jesus’ time is problematic for several reasons. Jewish reverence for the divine name led to its avoidance in speech. Instead, Adonai (Lord) or HaShem (The Name) was used when reading Scripture aloud. Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–50 CE), a contemporary of Jesus, explicitly states that the divine name was considered "unspeakable" (ἀκατανόμαστος) due to its sacredness. This aligns with the tradition of not vocalizing the Tetragrammaton.
In the New Testament, the Greek word κύριος (Kyrios, meaning "Lord") is consistently used in Old Testament quotations where YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. This reflects the established Jewish practice of substituting the divine name with Adonai, which was translated as κύριος in the Greek Septuagint (LXX). There is no evidence that Jesus or the New Testament authors pronounced YHWH. Instead, they followed the tradition of using κύριος to refer to both God the Father and Jesus Christ.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (including the fragments mentioned in the article) are invaluable for understanding Jewish scribal practices, but they must be interpreted within their historical and sectarian contexts. The use of the Tetragrammaton in some scrolls reflects the sectarian practices of groups like the Essenes, who sought to distinguish themselves from mainstream Judaism. These practices were not representative of the broader Jewish community.While the Scrolls preserve the Tetragrammaton in written form, there is no evidence that this practice extended to oral usage, especially within synagogues or among ordinary Jews during Jesus’ time.
Early Christians inherited the Septuagint as their primary scripture, in which κύριος was already established as the Greek equivalent of YHWH. This usage was consistent with Jewish oral tradition and was not a Christian innovation. The consistent use of κύριος in New Testament writings, including OT quotations, reflects this continuity. There is no indication that the Tetragrammaton was ever used in New Testament manuscripts.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the New Testament and replaced with κύριος. However, no manuscript evidence supports this claim. All extant Greek New Testament manuscripts uniformly use κύριος or θεός (God) in places where YHWH appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. The claim that the Tetragrammaton was "restored" in translations like the New World Translation is based on theological presuppositions, not textual evidence.
@Anonymous
Gordon argues that the divine name (YHWH) was pronounced by Jews during the Second Temple period and early Christianity, citing textual evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and Greek transcriptions. However, his assertion overlooks significant Jewish traditions and evidence to the contrary. By the Second Temple period, it was common practice among Jews to avoid pronouncing the divine name out of reverence, substituting it with titles like “Adonai” or “Elohim.” This is supported by historical sources, such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, who do not provide the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton but instead refer to it as the "ineffable name." While some DSS include the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script or transliterations, this does not confirm it was spoken aloud regularly. These texts often reflect scribal practices, not liturgical usage, and there is no evidence that the sacred name was used casually in worship or everyday speech during this period. The Mishnah (Tamid 7:2) states that the high priest pronounced the divine name only on Yom Kippur within the Holy of Holies. This exceptional context underscores that the name was not used in ordinary liturgical or public settings.
The 2008 directive from Pope Benedict XVI aligns with ancient Christian practice. Early Christians, following Jewish tradition, adopted the Greek “Kyrios” in place of the Tetragrammaton in Scripture and worship. This can be observed in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the early Church. The directive does not "ban the name of God" but upholds a theological tradition of emphasizing God's transcendence and unity in worship. In Christian theology, the title “Kyrios” signifies both the God of Israel and Jesus Christ as the divine Lord, consistent with passages like Phil. 2:11. The Tetragrammaton’s exact pronunciation remains uncertain. Variants like "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" are modern reconstructions, and the Church avoids endorsing one speculative pronunciation over another.
Gordon implies that the use of “Kyrios” for Jesus diminishes the Father. This misunderstands Trinitarian theology, which affirms the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the one divine essence. The use of “Kyrios” for Jesus in no way "strips" the Father of His identity. Early Christians reinterpreted the Shema (Deut. 6:4) to include Jesus within the divine identity (1 Cor. 8:6). This affirms that calling Jesus “Kyrios” is a reflection of His unity with the Father, not a replacement of the Father.
Gordon’s claim that early Christians regularly used the Tetragrammaton is not supported by historical evidence. The NT consistently uses “Kyrios” for both the Tetragrammaton and for Jesus. There are no manuscript variants suggesting the Tetragrammaton was originally present in the Greek text. The early Church adopted the Septuagint’s use of “Kyrios,” emphasizing continuity with Jewish tradition and the universal accessibility of the Scriptures to Greek-speaking audiences.
Gordon cites Exodus 3:15 to argue that the Tetragrammaton should be spoken perpetually. However, this overlooks the broader theological context. The divine name signifies God’s eternal nature and covenant faithfulness, not necessarily the requirement to pronounce it audibly in all contexts. In Christian theology, the name and identity of God are fully revealed in Jesus Christ (John 17:6). This fulfills, rather than negates, the significance of God’s name in the OT.
Gordon equates Pope Benedict XVI’s directive with Roman oppression and conflates Catholicism with ancient Roman persecution. This is historically inaccurate. The martyrdom of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion for pronouncing the divine name was a result of Roman suppression of Jewish practices, not an act of Christian authorities. The Catholic Church did not originate the practice of substituting “Kyrios” for the Tetragrammaton; this was inherited from Jewish tradition and upheld by the early Church.
@ Nincsnevem
You said: “The NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT lacks MS support and imposes a theological bias on the text”.
Did you know the anonymous NWT Translation Committee personally? How do you know what motivated them? Trinitarians, Binitarians and Modalists all boast that they can find their respective doctrines using the NWT’s use of Jehovah in the NT, so it’s can’t just be a matter of theology can it…?
We are all free to question whether a translation decision is accurate or best suits the context etc but…
Be careful not to judge. Matt 7:1.
@Terence
Your argument sidesteps the central issue: the lack of MS support for inserting "Jehovah" into the NT. Whether or not the exact motivations of the anonymous committee are known is irrelevant to the textual evidence, which shows no instances of the Tetragrammaton in any extant NT MSS. The NT consistently uses Kyrios (Κύριος, Lord) in all quotations of OT passages containing YHWH. This is true across all known NT MSS, including the earliest and most reliable witnesses (e.g., 𝔓46, 𝔓75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus). If the original NT authors had used "Jehovah," we would expect at least some evidence of this in the MS tradition. No such evidence exists. The NWT's use of "Jehovah" in the NT relies on the assumption that the Tetragrammaton was present in the original NT autographs. However, this assumption is unsupported by any textual evidence and contradicts the established Jewish and Christian practices of substituting Kyrios for YHWH in Greek translations, such as the LXX. Even if the exact motivations of the NWT committee are unknown, their decision to insert "Jehovah" into the NT text must be evaluated against the evidence. Since there is no MS basis for this insertion, it reflects an interpretive choice rather than a faithful representation of the original text.
Your point also conflates doctrinal interpretations with textual accuracy. The fact that various theological groups interpret the NWT differently does not validate the insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT. The central issue is not how different groups interpret the text but whether the translation accurately reflects the original MSS. The consistent use of Kyrios in all extant NT MSS indicates that this term, not "Jehovah," was used by the NT authors. Inserting "Jehovah" into the NT, regardless of theological implications, introduces a term that lacks MS support. The NWT’s insertion of "Jehovah" reflects a specific theological agenda aligned with the JW doctrines. This is evident in how "Jehovah" is selectively inserted in certain NT passages while omitted in others where it would undermine JW theology (e.g., 1 Peter 2:3, where the "Lord" is clearly Jesus). Such selectivity demonstrates that the insertion is not neutral but theologically motivated.
Quoting Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged") in this context misunderstands the verse and its application. Critiquing the NWT’s translation choices is not "judging" in the moral sense Jesus warned against in Matthew 7:1. Instead, it is a necessary part of textual scholarship and translation studies. Translators have a responsibility to faithfully represent the original text, and readers have a right to evaluate whether this has been done. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:1 addresses hypocritical or self-righteous judgment, not the objective evaluation of evidence or actions. Pointing out the lack of MS support for the NWT’s insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT is not a moral judgment but an evidence-based critique.
@ Nincs,
I'm addressing your comment as to the supposed NWTTC's supposed theological bias, not necessarily the MS support for their decisions.
@Terence
The translation decisions themselves reveal a clear and consistent theological agenda, which is evident in the final product of the NWT, the insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT demonstrates selective application of a theological framework rather than a commitment to faithfully represent the underlying Greek MSS. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 places in the NT, even though no extant Greek MS contains the Tetragrammaton. If the translators were motivated purely by textual fidelity, they would have consistently followed the Greek MSS, which uniformly use Κύριος. Instead, they inserted "Jehovah" selectively, often in ways that align with Jehovah's Witness theology, such as emphasizing a strict distinction between God the Father and Jesus. This is where the specific JW terminology "Jehovah AND Jesus" comes from, even though the NT never puts it that way.
For example, in 1 Peter 2:3, where the "Lord" is clearly identified as Jesus, the NWT avoids inserting "Jehovah," despite quoting from a Psalm that uses the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text. This inconsistency reflects a theological preference rather than a textual basis. By the Second Temple period, Jewish tradition had firmly established the oral substitution of “Adonai” (Lord) or “HaShem” (the Name) for YHWH. This practice carried into Greek translations like LXX, which consistently uses Κύριος. The NWT’s decision to "restore" the divine name in the NT disregards this historical context and projects a modern theological agenda onto ancient texts.
Even if one does not know the personal motivations of the anonymous NWTTC members through talking to them personally, the results of their work clearly reflect their theological agenda. This can be demonstrated primarily by the alignment with JW doctrine. The NWT translation decisions consistently align with JW theology, particularly their denial of the Trinity and rejection of Jesus' divine equality with God. For example, in passages like John 1:1, the NWT translates "the Word was God" as "the Word was a god," reflecting JW theology but contradicting established Greek grammar and the broader context of John’s prologue. By "fully divine" I mean the identity of the quiddity with that of the Father: what is the Father, is the same as the Son. The rendering "a god" is precisely the explicit denial of this identity of the quiddity: "it's kind of godlike, but it's not really that, it’s not a big deal, you know, just like Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1." And the Greek text does not make this denial, on the contrary, it affirms it.
The insertion of "Jehovah" reinforces a strict separation between the Father and the Son, which aligns with JW beliefs but lacks MS support. The NWTTC claims to "restore" the divine name based on its presence in OT quotations. However, this approach introduces an interpretive framework rather than adhering to the textual evidence. If the NT authors had intended to use the Tetragrammaton, we would expect to find it in at least some early Greek MSS, yet none exist.
You argue that the motivations of the NWTTC cannot be known, but this does not absolve the translation from critique. Theological bias is not determined by personal intentions but by observable patterns in the translation itself. The selective and inconsistent application of "Jehovah" in the NT strongly suggests a theological motivation. The lack of MS support for this insertion underscores that it is not a neutral or evidence-based decision. The alignment with JW doctrine in key theological areas, such as Christology, highlights the interpretive framework underlying the NWT. Pointing out theological bias in a translation is not about "judging" the translators personally but about assessing whether the translation faithfully represents the original texts. The NWT fails this test because its decisions are driven more by JW doctrine than by textual evidence.
@ Nincs
See https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/bi12/books/1-peter/2/#fn81440261 and footnote.
The reason I take your comments as judgmental is the transparency of the translators themselves. The original NWTTC and the Revised Committee openly state their reasons for using Jehovah in the NT. None of their stated reasons for doing so posit a pre-supposed theological commitment. Why don't you take them on their word? Do you view them as insincere? Why?
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-scriptures/
While the NWTTC claims transparency in their translation decisions, the stated reasons do not align with the MS evidence. There is no extant NT MS, whether from the 1st century or later, that contains the Tetragrammaton or its transliterations (e.g., ΙΑΩ). All NT MSS, including the earliest and most reliable (e.g., 𝔓46, 𝔓75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus), uniformly use κύριος or θεός in quotations of OT passages where YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. The substitution of YHWH with κύριος in the LXX predates Christianity and reflects Jewish scribal practices. The NT authors inherited this tradition and consistently used κύριος when quoting the OT. The claim that the NT authors originally used the Tetragrammaton lacks any transitional MS evidence. If "Jehovah" had been replaced with κύριος, we would expect to find MSS showing a mix of the two terms or transitional evidence. No such evidence exists.
The footnote on 1 Pete,r 2:3 in the NWT (claims justification for inserting "Jehovah" into NT quotations of the OT. However, even in the example of 1 Pet. 2:3, the NWT fails to follow its stated principle consistently. 1 Pet. 2:3 quotes Ps. 34:8, where the Hebrew text uses YHWH. Yet, in the NWT, "Jehovah" is omitted because the context clearly identifies Jesus as the "Lord." This selective omission exposes a theological bias in avoiding an identification of Jesus with YHWH, contradicting the claim that the NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" is based solely on textual fidelity.
The NWTTC claims that their use of "Jehovah" in the NT is based on the assumption that the divine name appeared in the original autographs. However, this assumption is unsupported by any textual evidence and aligns conveniently with Jehovah's Witness theology, which emphasizes a strict distinction between “Jehovah” and Jesus. The translation choices reflect this bias. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 NT passages, often in OT quotations, but omits it in others where it would undermine their theological framework. For example, In 1 Pet. 2:3, where "the Lord" refers to Jesus, "Jehovah" is omitted despite the OT quotation using YHWH. In contrast, the NWT inserts "Jehovah" in places like Matt. 1:22 and Rom. 10:13, even though no NT MS supports this.
The claim that the NWTTC’s motives are not theological cannot be taken at face value because their translation choices consistently align with JW theology. Transparency does not equate to correctness or impartiality. Even if the NWTTC sincerely believes in their decisions, sincerity does not negate the observable bias in their work.
The NT authors’ consistent use of κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus is not confusing but intentional, reflecting their belief in Jesus’ divine status. This theological conviction is evident in passages like Phil. 2:9-11 or, Rom. 10:13, which demonstrate that the NT authors viewed Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH. The use of κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus aligns with the Jewish practice of substituting Adonai for YHWH in oral readings and reflects continuity with Jewish tradition rather than a departure from it.
The NWT’s insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT lacks MS support, historical precedent, and consistency. The arguments presented in the cited footnote and JW.org appendix fail to address the central issue: there is no evidence that the NT authors ever used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. Instead, the NT consistently uses κύριος in all extant MSS, reflecting the Jewish and Christian tradition of substituting Adonai for YHWH. The NWT’s selective insertion of "Jehovah" reflects a theological agenda aligned with JW doctrine rather than a faithful representation of the original text. This bias is evident in the inconsistent application of "Jehovah" and the alignment of translation choices with JW theology. Textual scholarship must prioritize evidence over theological presuppositions, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that κύριος was the original and consistent Greek rendering of YHWH in both the LXX and the NT.
@ Nincs re: biases and agenda...
I've inserted ** for emphasis...
"The NT authors’ consistent use of κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus is not confusing but *intentional*, reflecting *their belief* in Jesus’ divine status. This theological conviction is evident in passages like Phil. 2:9-11 or, Rom. 10:13, which demonstrate that *the NT authors viewed Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH.*"
Sorry friend, but Kettle... Pot... Black...Much?
Let's leave it there. This perpetual wheel spinning is an exercise in futility.
We're repeating ourselves.
Thanks though, as always, for the dialogue.
Post a Comment