"Jehovah" in the NT
A number of anti-Watchtower writers take delight in "exposing" the "fraudulent" use of Jehovah in the NT by the NWT translators. They correctly point out that none of the still existing MSS of the NT use the divine name. Therefore, they claim it is a terrible dishonest act to replace that name where it should have been (in NT quotes from the OT which originally used it, for example.)
But, if we know it belongs there, and if we know the MSS we have today were copies of copies, etc., written hundreds of years after the originals, and therefore may well have been changed when the name became a hated "Jewish" name to "Christians" (around 135 A.D.), why is it considered so terribly wrong to restore, for the sake of clarity if nothing else, the name we know belongs there?
Does the fact that the name is not in the text used today mean that it should not be used in the places where the term "Lord" now is, even if that term produces confusion? ("Lord" can be used for God, Jesus, and men. "Jehovah" can be used only for God!)
What about other, trinitarian-respected Bibles? Would they be accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, etc. if they added a personal name to their translation for clarity or to make some other point, when it wasn't actually in the NT text to begin with?
Well, let's look at John 12:41 as an example. The scripture says in the available manuscripts: "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and he spoke about him."
This could be understood to mean God's glory or Jesus' glory. Whether for clarity or to try to make a trinitarian point here, some respected trinitarian Bibles replace "he" or "him" with "Jesus"! See, for example, NIV; NJB; and NAB ('70).
We see the same thing, probably just to make it clear to the readers what was probably intended, at Mark 1:41, 45 (as well as other places throughout the NT.)
Mark 1:41 says in the Greek text: "And being moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him". But look what these respected trinitarian Bibles write here instead:
KJV
- "Jesus , moved with compassion, put forth his hand"
NKJV
– "Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand"
NIV
– "Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand"
NRSV
– "Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand"
REB
– "Jesus was moved to anger; he stretched out his hand"
NEB
– "In warm indignation Jesus stretched out his hand"
JB
- "Feeling sorry for him, Jesus stretched out his hand"
NJB
– "Feeling sorry for him, Jesus stretched out his hand"
So, have these respected trinitarian translations been accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, etc. because they have added a personal name to their translation which was not in the original Greek text?
Let's do one more that's near by, Mark 1:45 (there are plenty more). The Greek says:
"… the man started to proclaim it … so that he was not able to enter openly into the city".
NASB
– "to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city"
KJV
– "… insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city"
NKJV
– "So that Jesus could no longer openly enter the city"
NIV
– "As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly"
RSV
– "So that Jesus* could no longer openly enter a town"
NRSV
– "so that Jesus* could no longer go into a town openly"
REB
- "until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town."
NEB
- "until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town,"
JB
- "so that Jesus could no longer go openly into any town"
NJB
- "so that Jesus could no longer go openly into any town"
NAB
('91) – "so that it was impossible for Jesus to enter a town openly."
MLB
- "so widely that Jesus could no longer enter a town openly"
* "Greek he"
Again, have all these respected trinitarian translations been accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, etc. because they have added a personal name to their translation which was not in the original Greek text? Of course not!
The following is my reply to a letter from a Bible-studying acquaintance:
Dear Harvey,
You wrote in your 27 May `94 letter [p. 4, HARVEY-H]:
"Since the name `Jehovah' is never used in the New Testament at any time or in any place in thousands of manuscripts early or late, not by Jesus or any other, I see no evidence -- none whatsoever -- to support the idea that the use of this name is essential. I'm just going by the evidence. This is not to say that the use of the name Jehovah is inappropriate because it has Biblical antecedents.
....
"When the theory was first propounded ... that the name `Jehovah' was originally part of the Greek New Testament—but later expunged—it was before the Egyptian papyrus texts had come to light or been published.
....
"In the late twentieth century because of our increased state of knowledge this nineteenth century thesis is no longer tenable; we have early texts, as early as 125 A.D. and we have different text-types. And evidence of systemic tampering of this nature is not there."
I agree that most of the physical evidence found in existing NT manuscripts does not support "Jehovah" in the NT, and, ordinarily that would be enough for me. But what makes such a difference to me is the belief that BOTH "Testaments" are the word of God and must not contradict each other in important areas of knowledge.
We can accept both "Testaments" as the inspired word of God and still see understandable differences occurring between the two, but not basic contradictory differences. For example, we know how and why animal sacrifices to God have been done away with. It has been carefully, logically explained in the NT and, therefore, does not contradict the OT teachings where such sacrifices were required (essential). But where is the careful, logical explanation that shows that the necessary knowledge and use of God's name (as clearly acknowledged by word and example throughout the OT) was done away with in the NT? It's not there! How can it be that God reveals his personal name and commands that it be publicly acknowledged and used forever by his servants (and they respectfully do so for over a thousand years) and then, for no scriptural reason, His worshipers suddenly begin refusing to use that name and even hide it?
I see the solution to the issue of God's name in the NT as similar to the solution for the question of Zechariah 12:10 which you acknowledged as a "disputed" text. We may not find the physical evidence in OT manuscripts to prove that Zech 12:10 originally read "They will look upon him whom they have pierced..." (in fact the majority of existing MS evidence for the OT points the other way). But the clear, undisputed (even by the trinitarians' "Majority" Text or the Byzantine, or Received Text, etc.) physical evidence of the NT where this OT scripture is quoted exactly that way (Jn 19:37) is proof for me that that is what was originally written in the OT as well. I don't see how anyone (even a trinitarian) who agrees that both "Testaments" are the inspired word of God could honestly disagree no matter how much he wants to believe the trinitarian interpretation of Zech. 12:10. The undisputed proof of the one testimony makes the other (more doubtful) one certain also!
I hope you agree that the inspired OT writers, at least, considered God's Holy Name (YHWH, "Jehovah" in traditional English transliteration or "Yahweh" in another transliteration) as essential. It was used and praised and revered in the OT to an overwhelming degree. It was reverently used nearly 7000 times, much more than any other name in the entire Bible or any title used for God ("God," "Lord," etc.). It was declared to be of essential importance (not in a magical, superstitious sense, but as an essential ingredient in the knowledge of the only true God and in proper worship of him):
Ex. 3:15 -
"Jehovah ... This is my name for ever; this is my title in every generation."- NEB.
"Jehovah, .... This is My name forever and by this I am to be remembered through all generations." - MLB.
"Jehovah ... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations." - LB.
"Jehovah ... this is my name forever." - Byington.
"Jehovah, ... this is my name forever" - ASV.
"Jehovah ... this is My name forever" - KJIIV and MKJV.
"Jehovah, .... This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." - Darby.
"Yahweh .... This has always been my name, and this shall remain my title throughout the ages." - AT.
"Yahweh .... This is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come." - JB & NJB.
"By this name I am to be remembered by all people for all time." - NLV.
"My name will always be YAHWEH." - ETRV.
This scripture alone shows us that His name is essential! Those who worship him, the witnesses of Jehovah, are commanded to know and use it. There are many other Scriptures, however. A few of them are:
1 Chron. 16:8 -
"O give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name; Make known his doings among the peoples." - ASV.
"Give thanks to Yahweh, call his name aloud, proclaim his deeds to the peoples [`among the nations' - NAB (1991); MLB; GNB; `world' - LB]." - NJB.
"O give thanks to Jehovah, call upon His name" - KJIIV.
"Give thanks to Jehovah, call in His name" - Young's.
"Invoke him by name" - REB.
"... call upon him by his name" - The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1970.
"Praise [Jehovah]; call on His name" – The Tanakh
Is. 12:4 -
"And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted." - ASV.
"And, that day, you will say, `Praise Yahweh, invoke his name. Proclaim his deeds to the people [`nations', RSV, NRSV, MLB, NAB (1991), GNB; `world', LB], declare his name sublime.'" - NJB.
"call his name aloud." - JB.
"invoke him by name" - NEB & REB.
"call aloud upon his name" [Boate to onoma autou, literally: "call aloud his name"] - The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1970.
"Praise [Jehovah], proclaim His name" - Tanakh
Zeph. 3:9 -
"For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Jehovah, to serve him with one consent." - ASV.
"Yes, then [the last days] I shall purge the lips of the peoples, so that all may invoke the name of Yahweh." - NJB, c.f. JB.
"That they may invoke [Jehovah] by name" - NEB & REB.
"call out the name of [Jehovah]." - ETRV.
"So that they all invoke [Jehovah] by name" – Tanakh.
Joel 2:26, 32 -
"And ye ... shall praise the name of Jehovah your God .... And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered." - ASV.
"You will ... praise the name of Yahweh your God .... All who call on [`invoke' - REB & NEB]" - JB & NJB. the name of Yahweh will be saved
"you shall … praise the name of [Jehovah] your God …. But everyone who invokes the name of [Jehovah] shall escape" – The Tanakh (Joel 2:26; 3:5)
Here, like knowing God (Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9), calling on (or invoking) Jehovah's name is an essential part of the road that leads to life.
Since it is a requirement to call upon, or invoke the name Jehovah, the knowledge and use of that name is essential (as made known in the OT at least)! And, like knowing God, "calling upon his name, Jehovah" includes much more than merely pronouncing his name aloud in prayer. But, nevertheless, it does necessarily include the knowledge of and the respectful use of his personal name, Jehovah (or Yahweh).
For example, Elijah, in his famous demonstration of who the only true God is, told the priests of Baal,
"Call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Jehovah: and the God that answers by fire, let him be God."
So how did the priests of Baal call on the name of their god?
"And they ... called on the name of Baal ... saying `O Baal, hear us.'" [And how did Elijah call on the name of Jehovah?] "O Jehovah .... Hear me, O Jehovah, hear me, that this people may know that thou, Jehovah, art God.... And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said [aloud, uncoded, in plain language], `Jehovah, he is God'" - ASV, 1 Ki. 18:24, 26, 36-39.
Obviously, calling on (or invoking) the name of Jehovah includes the reverent use of that only personal name of the true God!
Many other scriptures throughout the OT declare the extreme importance (to God and us) of our knowing and declaring and calling upon the name Jehovah:
Jer. 16:19, 21 -
"O Jehovah ... unto thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited nought but lies ... and they will know that my name is Jehovah." - ASV.
"and they shall know that My name is Jehovah." - KJIIV & MKJV.
"and they will be certain that my name is [Jehovah]." - BBE.
"and they shall know that my name is Jehovah." - Darby.
"and they shall know that my name is JEHOVAH." - Webster.
"and they shall learn that My name is [Jehovah]. – Tanakh.
Zech. 13:9 -
"They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say [aloud, uncoded, in plain language], Jehovah is my God." - ASV.
"They shall call on My name, and I will answer them. I will say, It is My people, and they shall say, Jehovah is my God." - KJIIV.
"They shall call on my name, and I will answer them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, Jehovah is my God." - Darby.
"They will invoke me by name, … And they will declare, [Jehovah] is our God" – Tanakh.
Notice the parallelism: `They shall call upon my name' is paralleled with `Jehovah is my God."
Ezek. 39:7 -
"And my holy name will I make known ... and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah" - ASV.
"The nations will know that I am Yahweh" - NJB.
"I will make My holy name known among My people Israel, and never again will I let My holy name be profaned. And the nations shall know that I [Jehovah] am holy in Israel." – Tanakh.
Ps. 83:16, 18 -
"Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, [O Jehovah].... that men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." - KJV.
"Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Your name .... Let them be ashamed and troubled forever; yea, let them be put to shame, and lost; so that men may know that Your name is JEHOVAH, that You alone are the Most High over all the earth." - MKJV.
"Cover their faces with shame so that they seek Your name, O [Jehovah] …. May they know that Your name, Yours alone, is [Jehovah], supreme over all the earth." – Tanakh.
Ps. 135:13 -
"Thy name, O Jehovah, endureth forever; Thy memorial name, O Jehovah, throughout all generations" - ASV.
"Thy name, O Jehovah, is for ever; thy memorial, O Jehovah, from generation to generation." - Darby.
"O Jehovah, your name endures forever" - LB.
"O [Jehovah], your name endures forever" – Tanakh.
We are to know and use Jehovah's name, but we must not misunderstand how extremely important it is to Him (and to us). One of God's Ten Commandments, for example commands:
"You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses [1] his name." - Ex. 20:7, NJB [also NRSV, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB, CEV, NLV, ETRV].
God certainly didn't say, "Don't ever use my Holy Name"! By direct Bible statements and commands and by the clear, thousand-fold repeated examples of all the prophets of God in the OT we know that God's Holy Name must be known and used by his people - for all generations. Instead, this Scripture shows the extreme importance of that name (would God really punish anyone who deceitfully misuses his name if that name weren't extremely important?) and that it must be used in a manner that shows its great importance.
(Please comment on the undeniable removal of God's personal name by "Christian" translators from thousands of places in the OT where the inspired Bible writers originally placed it! After all, for hundreds of translations - in the last few centuries at least - we can see the actual Hebrew OT manuscripts which the "orthodox" translators used and compare that with their actual translations which have God's name removed!
Honestly, isn't this a terrible misuse of his Memorial Name? Isn't this "Christian" tradition inexcusable? How can it be supported by any Christian? How could it even be quietly condoned? Doesn't it illustrate a basic error that the vast majority of Christendom has embraced for many centuries? The complete elimination of the name of the "Hebrew" God has been a goal of the majority of Christendom for so long that its beginning is all but lost in the shrouded mist of time. But for Christendom to claim that this was the case from the very beginning of Christianity is a terrible thing to do.)
Malachi 2:2; 3:16, 17 -
"Unless you listen to me and pay heed to the honouring of my name, says [Jehovah], I shall lay a curse on you .... A record was written before [Jehovah] of those who feared him and had respect for his name. They will be mine, says [Jehovah] ... and I shall spare them" - REB.
(Doesn't the removal of Jehovah's name from the inspired scriptures display a clear lack of respect for his Holy Name? How could there be a more blatant misuse of his Name?)
I don't understand how anyone can deny the extreme importance of God's eternal, holy name in the OT nor that that name was used respectfully much more than any other name (nearly 7000 times) throughout the OT. Nor that God foretold that it would have to be known worldwide by all the nations. And that name was YHWH in the OT! Nor can I understand anyone honestly refusing to admit that YHWH simply does not translate nor transliterate, by any stretch of the imagination, into "Lord"!
Therefore, if we translate YHWH to its most probable equivalent ("He Who Will Be [With You]") or transliterate it into a possible Hebrew form ("Yahweh" or "Yahowah" - see the PRONOUNCE study paper) or even its traditional English form ("Jehovah" - to match the traditional English form of "Jesus")[2] and leave it where it was actually placed by the inspired OT writers, that is not only good but essential.
What are we doing if we purposely change the inspired scriptures; if we purposely remove an essentially important word 7000 times from the inspired Scriptures (and add words and meanings not intended in the original)? We are not just interpreting and translating, but we are actually disobeying God's clear commandments concerning his Most Holy Name and disobeying his clear commandments concerning adding to and taking away from his inspired word! How can this possibly be Christian (whether it started in the 2nd century or the 17th century)?
And if Jesus (the Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Jew) quotes from the OT to his fellow Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Jews, he is not going to do it from the Greek Septuagint! He is going to do it from the scrolls found in the temple in Jerusalem (or copies thereof): the Hebrew Scriptures!
"...the Hebrew text, ... was the only authoritative form of the scriptures recognized by the Palestinian Jews." - p. 168, Vol. 2, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987. (In any case even the Septuagint at this time in Palestine also used the Divine Name in Hebrew characters.)
When Jesus quotes Ps. 110:1, he will say "Jehovah said unto my lord, `Sit thou on my right hand...'." - Matthew 22:44. (Notice the use of "LORD" instead of "Lord" here in the NT in the KJV - what does the code word "LORD" really mean in the KJV?) He would not substitute another entirely different word with an entirely different meaning from what was written by the inspired Bible writers (certainly not if he was quoting the only personal name of God). He continually, fearlessly broke the superstitions and man-made traditions of the Jews in favor of what his Father actually taught and commanded.
So even if the Jewish tradition of substituting "Lord" for "Yahweh" when reading Scripture aloud had been established in Jerusalem itself at this time (which is highly arguable), Jesus would not have hesitated to ignore it in favor of the truth. Certainly he would not have polluted the holy `Shema' but would have said "Jehovah [is] our God; Jehovah [is] one" to the admiring Jewish scribe at Mark 12:29! - see NKJV ("LORD"). Also notice Jesus' words at Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; 5:33; 21:42; 22:37, 44. (Likewise, the inspired Jewish Christian writers of the NT when quoting OT scripture where the Name was clearly written would have also written that Name - e.g., Matt. 3:3, etc.)
I cannot believe that the only-begotten Son of God would deliberately and knowingly change any part of the scriptures. I cannot even conceive of him actually changing the very name of God found in those holy Scriptures! (If the very Son of God himself was forced to never say aloud the name of his Father, we would be terribly wrong to presume that it is acceptable for us to pronounce that most holy name - and all the preceding holy prophets of God would have been terribly, tragically wrong to use the name aloud almost incessantly as they did!)
We need to know this important information from Scripture itself, not from what is acknowledged to be a "superstitious tradition" of the later Jews! But there is nothing in the Scriptures to support it, and the entire OT shows conclusively that the name YHWH was used frequently and respectfully by all his people from the beginning.)
Therefore, if we are to keep the Scriptures from terribly contradicting themselves in an extremely important area, we must conclude that either the OT scriptures are wrong or the oldest available NT manuscripts and fragments (at least those which actually contain places that quote from the OT where "YHWH" was originally used) are copies that have been changed from the original! Since the name of God being used as YHWH even in everyday life is attested to by archaelogical findings back to the 8th century B. C. at least, I am forced to conclude that, yes, the existing NT manuscripts are terribly wrong in this particular area.
I don't believe that the very earliest fragments of papyrus of the NT (that date back to the 2nd century) even have quotations of the OT where God's name would be expected to be found. (For example, the very oldest papyrus manuscript which I believe you refer to - p52 ca. 125 A. D. - is only a fragment of parts of John 18 and contains no quotation from the OT, or allusion to it, which uses God's name and, therefore, cannot be honestly used as evidence for the use or non-use of the divine name in NT manuscripts of that time.) But even if they do, they are still copies of the original whose copyists must have changed the Divine Name in much the same way as the Septuagint copyists changed it about the same time period and probably by the same "Christian" scribes.
When did the Jews begin avoiding the pronunciation of the Divine Name and changing the written form (if they did)?
Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile.... This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used [aloud] by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. [A.D.]. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name." - p. 5, Vol. 2, Insight on the Scriptures, WBTS, 1988.
[Among others, fragments of a leather scroll (LXXVTS 10a) dated to the end of the first century A.D. found in a cave in the Judean desert used the tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters extensively in 5 of the `minor prophets,' and a fragment of a parchment scroll of Zechariah (LXXVTS 10b) dated to the middle of the first century C.E. found in the Judean desert used the tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew characters.]
So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B. C. E. period. In the first century C. E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God's revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: `Then God revealed His name, which ere then had not come to men's ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.' (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus' statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.
The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C. E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: `It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party ... - these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah's statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage.' (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:
In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby's translation of the Mishnah states:
"And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, `Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!'" (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: "In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word." Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty `unless he pronounced the Name,' .... Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those "that have no share in the world to come," states: "Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters." Yet despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that "a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]," the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited. - Berakhot 9:5.
"And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, `Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!'" (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: "In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word." Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty `unless he pronounced the Name,' .... Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those "that have no share in the world to come," states: "Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters." Yet despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that "a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]," the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited. - Berakhot 9:5.
Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using [pronouncing aloud] the divine name sometime before Jerusalem's temple was destroyed in 70 C. E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces. Additionally the historical value of the Mishnaic tradition is questionable, as we have seen.
There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second centuries C. E. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance for the [oral] use of the divine name. The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either `Adhonai' Sovereign Lord) or `Elohim' (God) rather than the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C. E. [after 500 C. E.], the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either `Adhonai' or `Elohim' into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. If using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in later copies, the reader, of course, found the Tetragrammaton completely replaced by Kyrios and Theos ....
Translations into other languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, followed the example of these later copies of the Greek Septuagint. The Catholic Douay Version (of 1609-1610) in English, based on the Latin Vulgate, therefore does not contain the divine name, while the King James Version (1611) uses LORD or GOD (in capital and small capitals) to represent the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew scriptures, except in four cases. - pp. 5-7, Vol. 2, Insight.
The fact that all complete manuscripts of the Septuagint in existence today (4th century A.D. and later) use "Lord" was thought to mean that it had been originally produced that way. But many relatively recent discoveries of fragments of much older Septuagint manuscripts (1st cent. B.C. to 3rd cent. A.D.) have been made.[3] When those fragments include places where the divine name is used in the original Hebrew Scriptures, it is either written "YHWH" in Hebrew characters or trans-literated into a corresponding Greek sound, (e.g., IAO) but not "Lord"! It would appear most likely that the original Septuagint translation used the Divine Name properly and reverently.
"Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios ["Lord"]. LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumran [1st century B.C.] even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. These instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes (P. E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 1959, 222; cf. S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, 1968, 185 f., 271 f.)." - p. 512, Vol. 2, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.
So how does the Watchtower Society explain the lack of Tetragrammata in the existing NT manuscripts? And on what basis have they attempted to restore them to today's NT translation?
The argument long presented [to justify the teaching by Christendom that the original inspired manuscripts of the NT did not contain the Tetragrammaton] was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint,[[4]]and that, since this version substituted Kyrios or Theos for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: `We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians [so-called] who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.' (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila's Greek version, dating from the second century C. E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C. E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: `In Origen's Hexapla ... the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by [a representation of the Tetragrammaton in Greek letters]; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.' (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen's Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that `in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.'
....
The so-called Christians, then, who `replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios' in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings. - 2 Th 2:3; 1 Ti 4:1." - pp. 9-10, Vol. 2., Insight.
So why is the name absent from existing NT manuscripts and why have some translators (beginning with a 14th century translation of Matthew, including the Hebrew translations of the NT by the United Bible Societies, 1983 ed., and the Lutheran scholar Delitsch, 1981 ed., and the English translation of the New World Translation) actually used the Tetragrammaton (or its transliterated form) in their NT translations?
[The name is absent from existing NT manuscripts] "Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Kyrios and Theos. .... This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
....
....
"As to the properness of this course [replacing the Divine Name at certain places in NT translations], note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. [Girdlestone] said: `If [the Septuagint] had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N.T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm, instead of saying, "The Lord said unto my Lord," might have said, "Jehovah said unto Adoni." ' [[5]]
"Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds:
`Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Kurios occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N.T. into all languages if the title [personal name] Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, whenever the expression "the angel of the Lord" occurs, we know that the word "Lord" represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression "the word of the Lord" would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title "the Lord of Hosts." Wherever, on the contrary, the expression "My Lord" or "Our Lord" occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used.' (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43.) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name of Jehovah have proceeded.
`Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Kurios occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N.T. into all languages if the title [personal name] Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, whenever the expression "the angel of the Lord" occurs, we know that the word "Lord" represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression "the word of the Lord" would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title "the Lord of Hosts." Wherever, on the contrary, the expression "My Lord" or "Our Lord" occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used.' (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43.) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name of Jehovah have proceeded.
"Outstanding, however, in this regard is the New World Translation, ... in which the divine name in the form `Jehovah' appears 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As has been shown, there is sound basis for this." - p. 10, Vol. 2, Insight.
So recent discoveries have tended to verify (not disprove) the earlier conclusion of scholars who believed both "Testaments" are equally inspired and, therefore, must both use the personal name of God.
"Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for NT [New Testament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, [YHWH] (and possibly abbreviations of it [Yah, IAO]), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT [Old Testament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with [kurios, `Lord']. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the `Lord God' and the `Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself." - George Howard, University of Georgia, writing in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63.
Another piece of evidence concerning the use of the Divine Name by the inspired Christian writers may be found in the ancient Jewish writings of the Talmud:
Some have criticized [the restoration of the divine name to the NT in the New World Translation] as unwarranted. However, there seems to be support for the New World Translation in an unlikely source: the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part of this Jewish religious work is entitled Shabbath (Sabbath) and contains an immense body of rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. In one section, there is a discussion as to whether it is proper to save Bible manuscripts from a fire on the Sabbath, and then the following passage appears: `It was stated in the text: The blank spaces [gilyohnim] and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand.' - translated by Dr. H. Freedman.
Who were the minim? The word means `sectarians' and could refer to the Sadducees or the Samaritans. But according to Dr. Freedman, in this passage it most likely refers to Jewish Christians. So, what were the gilyohnim, translated `blank spaces' according to Dr. Freedman? There are two possible meanings. They could be the blank margins of a scroll or even blank scrolls. Or - in an ironic application of the word - they could be the writings of the minim, as if to say that these writings are as worthless as blank scrolls. In dictionaries this second meaning is given as `Gospels.'[[6]] In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above-quoted portion reads: `The books of Minim are like blank spaces [gilyohnim].'
Accordingly, in the book Who Was a Jew? by Lawrence H. Schiffman, the above-quoted portion of the Talmud is translated as follows: `We do not save from a fire (on the Sabbath) the Gospels and the books of the minim ("heretics"). Rather, they are burned in their place, they and their Tetragrammata. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: During the week, one should cut out their Tetragrammata and hide them away and burn the remainder. Said Rabbi Tarfon: May I bury my sons! If (these books) would come into my hand, I would burn them along with their Tetragrammata.' Dr. Schiffman goes on to argue [like Dr. Freedman above] that the minim here are Jewish Christians.
Is this portion of the Talmud really speaking about the early Jewish Christians? If so, then it is strong evidence that the Christians did include God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in their Gospels and writings. And it is extremely likely that the Talmud is discussing Jewish Christians here. There is scholastic support for such a view, and in the Talmud the context appears to add further support. The section following the above quote from Shabbath relates a story involving Gamaliel and a Christian judge in which parts of the Sermon on the Mount are alluded to. - pp. 30-31, The Watchtower, November 1, 1993.
Why would "Christian" copyists later remove the Hebrew name of God from their Greek manuscripts of the OT and NT?
The very first Christians (including those who wrote most, if not all, of the NT) used the Hebrew Scriptures. (Even for those few who might have used the Septuagint, the Name of God was still found in Hebrew letters in its manuscripts of that time in Judea.)
"In this period [first century AD] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members .... professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew Scriptures, and took Messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the ethics of Judaism for granted" - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend, Fortress Press, 1985.
However, at some point (probably around the time of the Jewish Revolt of 135 A.D.) the Gentile Christians took over. The Scriptures came to be Greek rather than Hebrew, and an actual anti-Jewish sentiment began to predominate. The Septuagint was now being used exclusively, but the anti-Jewish Gentile "Christian" copyists actually removed God's name whenever they saw the "despicable" Hebrew letters of the Divine Name (the Tetragrammaton [YHWH, Jehovah] and its shortened form [YH, Jah]) that were still being used in the original Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint. They usually replaced the name with "Lord" or "God" in the copies they made.
... the church was by this time [around the middle of the 2nd century AD] a predominantly Gentile body. According to Christian writers in the second and third centuries, relations between Christians and Jews apparently became increasingly hostile. [p. 103]
After the Jewish revolts against Rome (AD 66-74, AD 132-135) most Christians dissociated themselves from the Jews. The Jewish Christians' refusal to support the revolts caused them to be regarded as national enemies. From this time few Jews were converted to Christianity.
Increasingly Christians came to regard Jews as deliberate haters of the good. When the church became recognized by Constantine, legal discrimination against Jews increased and they were gradually deprived of all rights. [p. 594, The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing, 1990.]
* * * * *
It was the generation following the destruction of the Temple which brought about a final rupture between Jews and Christians .... In the third rebellion against Rome [132-135 A.D.], when the Christians were unable to accept bar Kochba as their Messiah, they declared that their kingdom was of the other world, and withdrew themselves completely from Judaism and everything Jewish. The alienation process was completed. Judaism and Christianity became strangers to each other .... A wall of misunderstanding and hate was erected by the narrow zealotries of the two faiths. [pp. 152, 153, Jews, God and History, Max I. Dimont, A Signet Book, 1962.]
* * * * *
"[Bar Kochba] ... tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the Roman army." [p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988.]
"Another Christian apologist, Justin [Martyr], tells how ... Bar Kochba, the leader of the insurrection, ordered Christians alone to be executed if they would not deny and curse Jesus the Messiah." [Ibid.]
"After the war [some time after 135 A.D.] the Jerusalem church, once Jewish, consisted only of Gentiles."[Ibid.][7]
We can see one clear example of the very unChristian hatred for the Jews and everything Jewish (including the "Jewish" name of God, Jehovah) by the 2nd century Gentile "Christians" by examining their treatment of an extremely important custom. Jesus had commanded them to keep an observance memorial of his death like he had done with his disciples at the "Last Supper" on the Passover. The first Christians, then, observed the Memorial of Christ's death every Nisan 14th evening on the Passover (which most often did not fall on a Saturday or Sunday) by eating the Memorial Bread and drinking the Memorial wine. At some point this observance, commanded by Jesus, was greatly altered. It came to be observed at sunrise, only on a Sunday morning, and deliberately scheduled never to be at the time of the "hated" Jewish Passover. (It also later came to be called "Easter" in the northern lands of Christendom - see the HOLIDAYS study paper.)
When did this change come about? Well, we know that at the infamous Nicene Council (325 A.D.) a date was officially assigned (and enforced) "throughout the world" that was intentionally always different from the date of the Jewish Passover. Why? So "that none should hereafter follow the blindness of the Jews" - p. 859, Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, 14th ed.
We don't know exactly when this anti-Jewish reaction against the original Christ-commanded Memorial actually began in earnest (a good guess, however, would be 135 A.D. or shortly thereafter). But we do know that "By 180 A.D. the latter custom [`Easter' celebrated on the non-Passover date and always on a Sunday] prevailed generally" and that Pope Victor I (189-198 A.D.) "demanded uniformity and threatened to excommunicate" the minority of churches which still hung onto the original Jewish Passover date. - p. 190, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia International, Grolier, 1966.
A few churches still clung to the Apostolic custom for a while but were treated as heretics by the "orthodox" majority.
"It is true that from the middle of the second century onwards there is a strong reaction towards standardization in both faith and order; diversities in dogmatic formulation, in matters of liturgical practice (such as the observance of Easter), and in the text of Scripture began to be smoothed out.... it is painfully evident that those [Christians] who celebrated Easter on the same day as the Jewish Passover [Quartodecimans] were not motivated by special friendliness towards Judaism [Chadwick then refers to a strong anti-Jewish `Easter' sermon by Quartodeciman Bishop Melito (ca. A.D. 160-170)] .... but there can be little doubt that the Quartodecimans were right in thinking that they had preserved the most ancient and Apostolic custom. They had become heretics simply by being behind the times." - p. 85, The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Dorset Press, 1986 printing.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica states that the
"earliest Christians celebrated the Lord's Passover at the same time as the Jews, during the night of the first (paschal) full Moon of the first month of spring (Nisan 14-15). By the middle of the 2nd century, most churches had transferred this celebration to the Sunday after the Jewish feast."
From this time - "middle of the 2nd century" (180 A. D., at least) - until the blasphemous Nicene Council (325 A. D.) "Hostility against Jews and Jewish customs led to formal debates [about the date for "Easter"] in councils of the Church." - How It Started, Garrison, p. 49, Abingdon Press, 1972.
With the example of the extremely important "Easter/Passover" reaction of the Gentile "Christians" in mind we should not be surprised that these same Jewish-hating people changed the Hebrew name of the "Jewish" God during their attempts to "smooth out" "the text of Scripture" during the same time period. In fact it would be surprising if they hadn't.
Remember, these "Christians" were mostly Greek (or Latin) speaking Gentiles. It was relatively easy for them to change all the instances of Yahweh and Yah to "Lord" or "God" since those words clearly stood out from the rest of the Greek writing in their Hebrew characters. But what if the hated name had been incorporated into other words and then transliterated into Greek by the original Septuagint translators? Would the name-removing Greek-speaking copyists still recognize it? Apparently not.
We find that when the shortened form of the Divine Name (Jah) was left in Hebrew characters by the original Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the "Christian" copyists always changed it to "Lord." But when the original Jewish translators had incorporated it with another word or words (as in proper names, e.g., "Elijah" [which means "God is Jehovah" - p. 674, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982] or in the phrase "Praise ye Jehovah" [Hallelu JAH]) and transliterated it into Greek characters, it became an acceptable "Greek" word (although one whose meaning they didn't wholly understand) to the "Christian" copyists, and they didn't change it (out of ignorance only). This is very obvious in the "Hallelujah" Psalms where, for some reason, the original Septuagint translators combined the two Hebrew words Hallelu ("Praise ye") and Jah ("Jehovah") and then put that new word into GREEK characters (which still had the Hebrew pronunciation of "Hallelujah").
When the 2nd century Jew-despising "Christian" copyists saw "Jah" in Hebrew characters, they always removed it entirely or changed it to "Lord" or "God" - e.g., Ex. 15:2; Ps. 68:4, 18; Is. 26:4. But when they saw the Greek characters of "HalleluJAH" ( JAllhlouia) they always left it unchanged:
All uses of an independent (standing alone, not attached to other words or names) Jah in the Hebrew Scriptures:
* - Ex. 15:2 K - Ps. 118:17
* - Ex. 17:16 K - Ps. 118:18
K - Ps. 68:4 (:5 Heb.) K - Ps. 118:19
* - Ps. 68:18 (:19) K - Ps. 122:4
K - Ps. 77:11 (:12) K - Ps. 130:3
K - Ps. 89:8 (:9) H - Ps. 135:1
K - Ps. 94:7 K - Ps. 135:3
K - Ps. 94:12 K - Ps. 135:4
K - Ps. 102:18 (:19) H - Ps. 135:21
H - Ps. 104:35__________ H - Ps. 146:1______________
_/ H - Ps. 105:45 - Combined /H - Ps. 146:10 - Combined
\ H - Ps. 106:1 in Sept.___ \H - Ps. 147:1 in Sept.____
H - Ps. 106:48 _/H - Ps. 147:20 - Combined
H - Ps. 111:1 \H - Ps. 148:1 in Sept.____
H - Ps. 112:1 _/H - Ps. 148:14 - Combined
H - Ps. 113:1 \H - Ps. 149:1 in Sept.____
H - Ps. 113:9 _ /H - Ps. 149:9 - Combined
K - Ps. 115:17 \H - Ps. 150:1 in Sept.____
K - Ps. 115:18a K - Ps. 150:6a
H - Ps. 115:18b * - Ps. 150:6b
H - Ps. 116:19 * - Ca. 8:6
H - Ps. 117:2 K - Is. 12:2
K - Ps. 118:5a Th Is. 26:4
* - Ps. 118:5b Th - Is. 38:11
K - Ps. 118:14
* - Reworded to eliminate use of Jah, "God," and "Lord" in existing Sept. MSS.
K - Jah has been replaced with Kurios (`Lord') in extant Sept. MSS.
Th - Jah has been replaced with Theos (`God') in extant Sept. MSS.
H - Jah has been transliterated into Greek letters of HalleluJAH in Sept.
Notice that everywhere Jah is used by itself (except when accompanied by hallel) it has been changed by the "Christian" copyists. However, whenever Jah was accompanied by Hallel ("Praise"), the original Septuagint translators incorporated it with Hallel into a single word and then wrote it out in Greek characters (transliterated it) keeping the Hebrew pronunciation of Hallel and JAH !
"Psalms 113-118 are traditionally referred to as the `Hallel Psalms,' because they have to do with praise to God for deliverance from Egyptian bondage under Moses. Because of this, they are an important part of the traditional Passover service. There is no reason to doubt that these were the hymns sung by Jesus and his disciples on Maundy Thursday when he instituted the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:30).
"The word halal is the source of `Hallelujah,' a Hebrew expression of `praise' to God which has been taken over into virtually every language of mankind. The Hebrew `Hallelujah' is generally translated [falsely], `Praise the Lord!' The Hebrew is more technically [more honestly] translated `Let us praise Yah,' the term `Yah' being a shortened form of `Yahweh,' the unique Israelite name for God." - p. 301, - Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Unger and White, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1980.
"Hallelujah - Praise ye Jehovah - frequently rendered [falsely] `Praise Ye the Lord" - p. 276. "Jah - a shortened form of `Jehovah,'" - p. 322, Today's Bible Dictionary, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.
"HALLELUJAH ... `praise ye Jehovah'; allelouia .... In the NT [Hallelujah] is found as part of the song of the heavenly host (Rev. 19:1 ff)." - p. 1323, Vol. 2, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans Publ., 1984 printing.
"hallelujah: (Heb., hillel, he praises; Jah, form of Yahweh-Jehovah....) Literally, Praise ye Yahweh." - p. 320, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (editor), 1945 ed.
"HALLELUJAH - HALLELOUIA [in NT Greek] signifies `Praise ye Jah.' .... In the N.T. it is found in Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6, as the keynote in the song of the great multitude in Heaven. Alleluia, without the initial H, is a misspelling." - p. 520, W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1980.
"ALLELUIA, the Greek form (Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6) of the Hebrew Hallelujah = Praise ye Jehovah, which begins or ends several of the psalms (106, 111, 112, 113, etc.)." – Easton's Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1897.
The NT Greek text does have the initial `H' sound. The "misspelling" is in certain English translations (e.g., KJV) which drop the beginning `H' sound: "Alleluia"! However, most respected modern translations do have "Hallelujah" in Rev. 19 (e.g., NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, REB, MLB, Mo, and Barclay).
"Hallelujah....is derived from halal, which means to praise, and Jah, which is the name of God .... here in this chapter [Rev. 19] the original Hebrew form transliterated into Greek, is retained." - p. 169, Vol. 2, William Barclay, The Revelation of John, Revised Edition, The Daily Study Bible Series, Westminster Press, 1976.
"Alleluia, so written in Rev. 19:6, foll., or more properly Hallelujah, Praise ye Jehovah ...." - p. 31. "Jah (Jehovah), the abbreviated form of Jehovah ... The identity of Jah and Jehovah is strongly marked in two passages of Isaiah - 12:2; 26:4." - p. 276, Smith's Bible Dictionary, William Smith, Hendrickson Publ.
"Trust ye in Jehovah for ever; for in Jehovah [`Heb. JAH' - ASV f. n.], even Jehovah [YHWH], is an everlasting rock." - Is. 26:4, ASV.
Yes, Jah is equivalent to Jehovah. Two different forms of the very same PERSONAL NAME of God. (This is likely equivalent to the way Greek manuscripts often abbreviated "God" [qeoV] as qV. If so, Jah would still be pronounced "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" - see the PRONOUNCE study paper.)
Psalm 68:4, King James Version - "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name; extol him...by his name JAH [`Jehovah' - ASV; LB]..."
Of course, the Gentile manuscript copyists of later centuries probably did not know that "Abijah"("The Father is Jehovah"), "Elijah," ("God is Jehovah"), etc. are transliterations that actually use the shortened form of God's personal name ("Jah") and certainly didn't know that "Hallelujah" (Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6) is really Hebrew for "Praise Jah" or they would have surely changed them all also. However, the inspired Jewish Christians who actually wrote the original NT manuscripts certainly knew that writing or proclaiming aloud "Hallelu JAH!" (whether in Hebrew characters or Greek characters) was writing (or proclaiming aloud) God's personal name. If the Jewish Christian and Apostle John had left God's name out of the NT originally, he surely would not have then used "Hallelu JAH!" in four places in Revelation 19, for he knew exactly what it truly said: "Praise ye Jehovah"! Only the Hebrew-ignorant Gentile "Christian" copyists would be fooled by "Hallelujah" exactly as they were when they removed and changed the Divine Name in the Septuagint about the same time)!
Actually, then, "Jehovah" IS found in ALL existing MSS of the NT which include Rev. 19.
The extreme importance of this must not be overlooked or minimized. The last book of the Bible (and one of the last to be inspired and written) reasserts and re-emphasizes the extreme importance of God's only eternal personal name. In the "keynote in the song of the great multitude" worshipers of the true God are commanded to praise "our God": "Give praise to our God (ainete [to theo] hemon). Present active imperative [the form used for commands] of aineo." - p. 488, Vol. 6, A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures.
And exactly who is the God whom all are commanded to praise? "God who sits on the throne" (19:4) is the Father, Jehovah alone. See all other instances of the God seated on the throne in the Book of Revelation (e.g., Rev. 4:2, 8; 5:6, 7, 16; 7:9). "The Lord our God the Almighty [pantokrator]" (Rev. 19:6) is never used of the Son (nor anyone else), but only the Father, Jehovah alone. E.g., 2 Cor. 6:18 says: "And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty [pantokrator]." Yes, the only person called God in the Book of Revelation is always the Father. (Rev. 1:6 - "[Jesus Christ] has made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father.") So how do God's true worshipers respond when commanded to praise this God Almighty seated on the throne? "HALLELU JAH!" ("Praise JEHOVAH!").
"Jehovah ... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations." - Ex. 3:15, LB.
If "Hallelujah" had not been, for some unknown reason, combined into a single word by the original translators of the Septuagint[8] (or by very early copyists) and was therefore misunderstood by the Gentile "Christian" copyists of the second century, then even this last (and most important) use of "Jehovah" would have been eliminated from all of the NT Greek Scriptures.
As it is, however, the exclusive name of God was miraculously preserved in the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT (even after the Jews finally succumbed to the superstitious practice of never pronouncing aloud that supremely important name that still appeared written in their OT manuscripts). It was miraculously preserved in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek manuscripts of the OT. (Even after later copyists changed nearly all instances into "Lord" or "God," it remained in the "Hallelujahs.")[9] It was miraculously preserved in the Greek NT manuscripts. (Even after copyists changed nearly all instances into "Lord" or "God," it, too, remained in the single-worded "Hallelujahs.") And it was miraculously preserved in the extremely significant statement of Ps. 83:18 in the English of the King James Version which took away "Jehovah" and substituted "LORD" nearly everywhere else (nearly 7000 times).
So on the basis of the many clear, unquestioned teachings of the OT (and since I believe the two "Testaments" must not so completely contradict each other in such an important area), I am forced to the conclusion that "YHWH" and "YAH" have been removed from the NT in most cases (at the very least in places where the OT is quoted or clearly alluded to). Zech. 12:10 is an example of a similar "contradiction" of the OT with the NT which is resolved by the undeniably certain testimony of one of them (John 19:37 in the NT) versus the questionable testimony of the available manuscripts of the other (OT) - see the MINOR study paper. In the case of God's Name the evidence from the OT is much more overwhelming concerning its extreme importance (and the necessity of its being universally known and reverently used) than the evidence for a discontinuation of the use of that name in existing copies of NT MSS.
Remember, the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the custom of writing the tetragrammaton in copies of the Septuagint "was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D." - Vol. 2, p. 512. So the name was in the very copies (whether in the Hebrew or the Septuagint) which were read and quoted by the inspired NT writers themselves!
And Prof. George Howard of the University of Georgia tells us:
"When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes [`Lord,' `God'] in the Septuagint [after `the first centuries A. D.'], it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint .... Before long it was lost to the Gentile Church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars." - Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978.
This removal of God's name was obviously done in a parallel manner (and at approximately the same time - probably near the time of the Jewish rebellion of 135 A.D. - and by the same people[10]) to the same changes being made in the Septuagint. These are the same "Christians" in the same time period who (probably for the same reasons) radically changed the Memorial Celebration of Jesus' death. Observance of this extremely important ceremony was commanded by Jesus, instituted by the Apostles, and continued until after the deaths of the Apostles when an intense anti-Jewish attitude within Christendom began to dominate (135 A.D. and after).
However, in spite of strong circumstantial evidence (including motive, opportunity, and a history of similar activity [modus operandi] as discussed above), the only real proof we have of the desecration of God's name in copies of the NT manuscripts is the incredibly clear and repeatedly emphasized statement of the OT concerning the never-changing, essential importance of God's personal name (to him and us). There is no other teaching in the entire OT that is any clearer or more emphatic than this. If this is really contradicted by the testimony of the original inspired NT manuscripts, then nothing can be relied upon in scripture, and all is lost.
Either the eternal Holy Name of God is as important forever to all generations and nations as the OT insists emphatically and repeatedly, or it isn't. If it isn't, we simply cannot trust the Bible as the word of God. If it is, then, either the NT has had that essential, eternal name removed in many places, or it is not the word of God. I still believe that both "Testaments" are the word of God and must reveal clearly all essential and important knowledge that we need to worship God in spirit and truth.
Therefore, the best conclusion is that "Jehovah" has been eliminated from the existing copies of the NT manuscripts exactly as it has been removed from existing copies of the Septuagint OT MSS. (And exactly as "Christian" translators have most often removed that name from the OT in English Bible translations - e.g., KJV; RSV; NASB; NIV; NRSV; etc.) The restoring of this most-important name to the NT in the NWT should cause rejoicing. Instead it is one of the most criticized (often angrily, with hateful attacks) features of the NWT. The very same spirit which has prompted Christendom (illogically) to actually remove that only personal name of the only true God from the original Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament AND from even the most "literal" of translations of the original Hebrew manuscripts of the OT (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.) still motivates and influences most of Christendom today.
* * * * *
Note:
Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research and conclusions to provide evidence disproving the "orthodox proof" being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the information in this paper, all of which helps disprove specific "orthodox proofs," may be not entirely reflect current WTS teachings in some specifics. Jehovah's Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others.
* * * * *
"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer" - Tertullian (3rd cent.
A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.
"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.
...........................................................................
NOTES
1. The word used in the Hebrew is shav or, more accurately, shawa' (!&X) which is rendered in the NASB as vain, deceit, deceitful, deception, false, falsehood, lies, etc. - p. 1602, New American Standard Exhaustive Concordamce of the Bible, #7723, Holman Publ., 1981.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament - shawa' ): "…. misuse a name Ex. 20:7" - p. 360, Eerdmans, 1981.(!&X
"shawa' (!&X) `deceit; deception; malice; falsity; vanity; emptiness.' The 53 occurrences of shawa' are primarily in poetry.
"The basic meaning of this word is `deceit' or `deception,' `malice,' and `falsehood.' This meaning emerges when shawa' is used in a legal context [e.g.]: `Put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous [`deceitful'] witness' (Exod. 23:1).* Used in cultic contexts, the word bears these same overtones [deceit, falsehood] but may be rendered variously. For example, in Ps. 31:6 the word may be rendered `vain' (KJV, `lying'), in the sense of `deceitful' (Cf. Ezek. 12:24). Eliphaz described the ungodly as those who trust in `emptiness' or `deception,' though they gain nothing but emptiness as a reward for that trust (Job 15:31)." - p. 91, Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1980.
_________
* Ex. 23:1 - shawa' is rendered as `false' or `lying' in this scripture in most Bibles. Here is the full rendering as found in NRSV: "You shall not spread a false [shawa'] report. You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness." If the meaning is `deceit' or `deception' or `falsehood' when used in a legal context, as here, it should also be understood in this way at Ex. 20:7 (`malice' does not fit the context of this verse), which is the ultimate in legal contexts! It should, therefore, probably be rendered something like: "You must not deceitfully misuse the name of Jehovah." It is even possible, since the word !:0, nasa may be translated as `take away' (among many other meanings), that it could be rendered: "You must not, by deceit, take away the name of Jehovah."
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Deceit. - The misleading of another by word or deed, in which it is equivalent to falsehood (Pr 1425, Hos 127) .... It is so characteristic an element of evil that it is frequently used in Scripture as synonymous with it (Ps 119118, Jer 75)." - p. 583, Vol.1, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Greek word used at Ex. 20:7 to render the Hebrew shawa' in the ancient Greek Septuagint is mataios (mataioV).
"mataios means `worthless because deceptive or ineffectual.' .... It may be pointed out that ... `taking in vain' [mataios, mataioV] is a phrase for [deceitful or lying] misuse of the name of God in Ex. 20:7." - pp. 571, 572, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ["Little Kittel"], Eerdmans Publ., 1985.
"The [Greek Septuagint] used mataios ... to translate various Hebrew words .... [including shawa'] .... These words all denote the various ways in which man can resist in His revelation and claims on him." - p. 550, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, Zondervan, 1986. the reality of God
What else could you call the deceitful misuse of God's name by most trinitarian Bible translators (and trinitarian "scholars" and preachers who defend it)? What else could you call the conscious, deliberate removal (!:0, nasa?) of God's only personal name in nearly 7000 places where it was originally written in the inspired scriptures and the conscious, deliberate replacement of that God-given name with an entirely different word (usually LORD) in most trinitarian Bibles? What could more clearly be called the "misuse" of God's Name? What could be more appropriate than calling it shawa' or mataios (`deceitful,' `lying')?
The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version this book says concerning a spurious verse added to 1 John 5 by later copyists:
"The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project "to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version." To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God." - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.
And yet, in the most blatant and God-defying act of this kind, these two scholars (and most other scholars, priests, preachers, and teachers of trinitarian Christendom) condone the removal of God's only personal name from the original inspired scriptures and its deceitful replacement with an entirely different word and its entirely different meaning!
Yes, even one of the Ten Commandments itself clearly points out one of the major deceptions of most of the trinitarian churches and sects in modern Christendom and condemns it most strongly!
2. Not only is "Jehovah" more used today than "Yahweh," but it is still the preferred usage at some of the highest levels in the U.S. today.
On October 11, 2001, in a nationwide televised memorial to those slain at the Pentagon in the aircraft terrorism disaster, the Chief Chaplain of the U.S. Armed Forces gave the opening prayer. Assembled there were the families of the victims, members of Congress, ex-President Clinton, members of the Cabinet, and President George W. Bush. The Chaplain opened by praying to the Creator God and identified Him by name as "Jehovah"!
Then, after Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke, and before the President was to speak, the Band played "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" which repeatedly has the refrain "Glory, Glory Hallelujah." `Hallelujah,' of course, means literally "Praise Jah" ("Praise Jehovah")!
3. "Notice this comment by Robert Hanhart, who contributed the Introduction to `The Septuagint as Christian Scripture.' He stated therein that, `All Greek biblical texts of Jewish origin found to date, whether from pre-Christian or Christian times, transmit the name [Jehovah] not in the form [Lord] encountered in all the LXX [Septuagint] manuscripts of Christian origin, but in some form of the Tetragrammaton.' (See: `The Septuagint as Christian Scripture,' 2002, book, p.7, by Martin Hengel. Introduction by Robert Hanhart, published by Baker Academic. ISBN 0-8010-2790-X)." -http://www.2001translation.com/Genesis.htm#_Jehovah [2001 Translation – An American English Bible] – Emphasis added.
4. There is strong evidence that Matthew (and possibly other NT writers) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic). If this is so, the inspired Bible writer would surely have used the personal name of God! The Hebrew manuscripts at that time (and for many hundreds of years thereafter) contained the Name nearly 7000 times. Whenever Matthew (and the Hebrew-speaking Jesus and his Apostles) quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, he would have used the Name just as it is found in the Hebrew scriptures.
The WT Society also believes Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic):
"In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: `Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language.... Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.' Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the `Old Testament' that contained the name." - p. 24, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, WTBTS, 1984.
Noted trinitarian scholar F. F. Bruce agrees that the Gospel of Matthew (at least) was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and cites another source as evidence:
"Aramaic is known to have been the common language of Palestine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in all probability the language which He and his Apostles habitually spoke. The New Testament writers usually call it `Hebrew,' thus not distinguishing between it and its sister language in which most of the Old Testament was written. Now, we have evidence of an early Aramaic document in another fragment of Papias [c. 60-130 A. D.]: `Matthew compiled the Logia [literally, "the collection" - Thayer] in the `Hebrew' speech [i.e. Aramaic], and everyone translated them [into Greek] as best he could.' " - p. 38, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.
So, whether originally written in Greek or "Hebrew," the writings of the New Testament should have used the Name of God, especially in quotes from the Old Testament.
And when we restore the name of God to the NT, we eliminate the confusing contradiction of Matt. 22:43-45 and its parallels (Mk 12:36-37; Lk. 20:42-44) where Jesus quoted Ps. 110:1.
"How does David in the Spirit call him `Lord,' [kurios] saying, `The Lord [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], "sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet." ' If David then calls him `Lord,' [kurios] how is he his son?" - Matt. 22:43-45, NASB.
Literally this says in the NT Greek:
"How therefore David in spirit is calling him Lord [kurios] saying Said `Lord [kurios] to the Lord [kurios] of me Be sitting out of right hand of me until likely I should put the enemies of you beneath the feet of you'? If therefore David is calling him Lord [kurios], how son of him is he?"- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, WTB&TS, 1985.
First, of course, it doesn't say "The Lord said..."; it actually says "Lord said..." because the original was "Jehovah" (without "the," of course) and "Lord" was substituted for this name later (still without "the").
Second, in this version there are two uses of "Lord" [kurios], but Jesus speaks as though there is only one (because there really was only one "Lord" [kurios in the Greek here] at the time he spoke it! The other word that later copyists changed to kurios was originally "Jehovah" as can be seen by actually looking at the OT manuscripts that have the scripture Jesus was quoting!).
Third, not only is it confusing to have two uses of kurios here, but, if we insist on this version, it would be grammatically much more accurate to select the first use of this word (the substitute for "Jehovah") as the one Jesus was referring to. Since he said, "If David calls him `Lord'..." but not "David calls him `the Lord' (or `my Lord')...", it would be proper to say that Jesus was referring to the first `Lord' (which is without the word "the") in that quote from the OT. In reality, of course, he was actually referring to the "second" use of kurios as found in modern texts! All this would be smoothed out if the name were simply restored to the NT where it obviously was originally: "Jehovah said to my Lord" as found in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scripture at Ps. 110:1 which Jesus was quoting - ASV.
"Since confession of Jesus as Lord was the mark of the Christian and since for Christians there was no other Lord, it was natural for Paul to speak of `the Lord' when he wished to refer to Jesus. It is true that the same title was used to refer to God the Father, and that this can lead to a certain ambiguity as to whether God or Jesus is meant (this is especially the case in Acts; ...); generally, however, `Lord' is used for God by Paul almost exclusively in quotations from the OT" - p. 590, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 1982.
Again, if the name of God were restored, there would not be so much "ambiguity" because these uses of `Lord' in quotations from the OT were originally `Jehovah' and hence there was no ambiguity or risk of confusion at all until later copyists changed that divine name in the NT manuscripts to kurios!
5. Of course Jesus used the name "Jehovah" in such places. He was a speaker of Hebrew who was quoting (or reading) scripture to other speakers of Hebrew. Of course he would use the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Greek Septuagint scriptures when quoting to these people. It would have been ludicrous for Jesus to have quoted from the Septuagint to these people when most of them would not have understood the Greek language of the Septuagint in the first place.
The native-born Jews in Israel spoke, of course, Hebrew. The Roman conquerors and administrators of the Empire spoke Latin. And the many businessmen and commercial travelers who visited and resided in Israel understood, in addition to their own languages, the common language of commerce in the Mediterranean world: Greek.
Of course there were some Jews who could speak Latin and/or Greek. There were some Romans who could speak Greek (and probably even a very few who could speak Hebrew also). And there were undoubtedly some foreigners there who could speak Latin (and probably a very few who could speak Hebrew also). But, by and large, if you wished to communicate with the majority of the Jews, you would have to do it in Hebrew (or the closely-related Aramaic). And if you wished to communicate with the Romans, you would have to do it in Latin, and so on.
So when Jesus was teaching the Jews from the holy scriptures, he was doing so in Hebrew.
If we should doubt such an obvious conclusion that the majority of Jews did not understand Greek (and therefore Jesus would not have taught them by quoting or reading from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint), we only need to look at John 19:19, 20.
"And Pilate wrote an inscription also .... Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek." - NASB
Obviously the Latin was so the Romans could read the information about Jesus, and the Greek was so the foreign merchants and travelers could read about Jesus. But Pilate certainly would not have gone to the trouble of writing 1/3 of the sign in Hebrew if most of the Jews could already read one of the other two languages on that sign! It is obvious from this passage alone that many of them could not understand Greek and needed to read Hebrew to understand what Pilate wanted them to know!
Therefore, Jesus must have quoted from the Hebrew Bible when reading to the Jews. And the Hebrew Bible which he quoted at
Mt 21:42 actually says: "This is Jehovah's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23)
Mt 22:37 - "And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart..." (Deut. 6:5)
Mt 22:44 - "Jehovah said to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand...'" (Ps. 110:1)
Jn 12:38 - "... to whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed?" (Is. 53:1)
6. "Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir [`Second century rabbi who prepared a systematic edition of traditional Jewish law and doctrine, which paved the way for the final edition of the Mishnah' - p. 479, An Encyclopedia of Religion] are said to have made unfriendly puns on the word Euangelion [`the Greek word for "Gospel"' - p. 102] by altering its vowels to make it read 'or ` meaning [in Hebrew/Aramaic] something like `Iniquity of the Margin' ...." - p. 102, The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.Awon-gillayon,Awen-gillayon
So the word `margin' (gillayon) was used in a derogatory way for a Gospel ("most probably ... the Gospel according to Matthew" as first written in Hebrew or Aramaic - p. 102) of the Christians by these two very early Rabbis.
And when this word is made plural (`margins') it becomes gillayonim (or gilyohnim). Therefore, it is probable that this word was used derogatorily to denote copies of a Christian Gospel written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).
7. "From the middle of the 2nd century AD [around 150 AD] Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms [instead of the original traditional Jewish terms]" – The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.
8. We can see that the source of Halleluia in existing copies of the Septuagint is really two words in the original Hebrew. For example the Hahlayloo Yah [%* F--%] of Psalm 146:1 is obviously two separate Hebrew words: Hahlayloo [F--%, `praise ye'] and Yah [%*, `Jehovah']. And yet, our oldest existing copies of the ancient Septuagint show these two words combined into one `new' word in Greek: Halleluia. And the same Greek word, Halleluia [ JAllhlouia], which was found in the earliest copies of John's Revelation, was likewise treated by copyists of the 2nd century. Whether John himself had combined the two words into one for the benefit of those Hellenic Jews to whom he wrote (who were familiar with the term as it was found in the Septuagint) or whether early copyists had done it to conform with the Septuagint is not the point here.
9. And, of course, it was passed along from its Septuagint use to other early Christian writings:
"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim." - Tertullian (3rd cent. A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.
"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.
10. Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree. - http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/septuag.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX