The Divine Name

• Although the substitution of the name Yahweh with Adonai (ho kyrios, the Lord) was partly a consequence of misunderstanding among the Jews, it was still of no small significance for the spread of the Old Testament revelation that prepared for Christ. It could almost be considered providential that after the Babylonian captivity - when the people of Israel began to interact more frequently with various pagan peoples of the world, and when the synagogues emerging everywhere provided an increasing number of centers for the religion of Israel far beyond the borders of Palestine, around which even the salvation-thirsty pagans gathered and began to familiarize themselves with the revelation - God did not become known to the pagans under the mysterious name of Yahweh, understood only by the Jews, which, as the peculiar name of the God of Israel's covenant, would surely have given them the impression that this was just another national deity.

  The name Yahweh -- as Gustaf Dalman correctly states (Studien zur biblischen Theologie: Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte, Berlin, 1889, page 80) -- with which God revealed Himself to Israel and entered into a close relationship with Israel, distinguishing Himself from the gods of other nations, was only appropriate as long as divine revelation moved only within the confines of one nation. However, as soon as the Kingdom of God moved from "the people", "the nation", into the midst of "the peoples", "the nations", the proper name had to be dropped. The true God now had to appear before the peoples under a name that would express in a universally understandable word the relationship of the revealed God to the world, to all the peoples of the world. This name had to contain that what the false gods are only wrongly attributed, He and only He possesses in reality, i.e., divine dignity and power extending over all things, for which He justly demands obedience and submission from all nations of the world. For these indications, the word "Lord", the "Adonai", the "Kyrios" was undeniably the most suitable.

  So, as Israel gave way to humanity becoming the subject of God's saving activity, Adonai replaced Yahweh as the head and executor of this action. The God of Israel thus became the Lord before whom the whole world must bow, for He is the Lord of the whole world. As Adonai, the God of Israel was proclaimed to the peoples of the world, and as the Lord of the world, He began His triumphant journey among the peoples, and under this name the peoples of the world have been worshiping Him and pleading to Him for centuries, and will continue to worship and plead to Him for the centuries to come until the end of times.

  The substitution of the name Yahweh with Adonai is no less noteworthy when we consider that the Old Testament's LORD, Yahweh, who often appears as "the Angel of the LORD", "the Angel of God", and "the Angel of the Gods" respectively, and manifests Himself in various theophanies, is not the Father, but in fact the second person of the divinity, the Son, same in essence with the Father, the pre-Incarnate Word (Logos), but after His Incarnation, He was to appear in the New Testament as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Kyrios Jesus Christ.

  The Hebrew word Malak in fact simply means the envoy, the messenger (missus, legatus), and later angel, messenger (angelus, nuntius) who is God's delegate, messenger to people. The Angel of the LORD, or the Angel of God in the quoted places does not represent a common, created angel, but an entity infinitely higher than the angels. This "Angel" of the LORD, or the "Angel" of God, although a separate person from the Father, is same in essence with God (Exodus 23:21, the Lord Himself says of him: "my name is in Him", that is, I appear in and through him); divine attributes and operations are attributed to him, and he is even directly called Yahweh, God; those who see him treat him with divine respect and homage, which he accepts from them, and he generally acts as God. This Angel of God, or delegate, messenger to people, as we will see, is none other than the Son, the as yet unincarnated divine Word, the Logos.

  He has appeared to Hagar repeatedly in the desert (Gen. 16, 7, and later; 21, 17, and later), who clearly calls the "Angel of the Lord" "Yahweh" and "her God" (16,13); Abraham in Mamre, accompanied by two angels: promises the old Sarah a son, Abraham countless generations and announces the destruction of the Valley of Siddim (Gen. 18 and 19.1; The Angel of the Lord here is repeatedly called "Yahweh" (18, 13. 17, 19. 20. 22. 26, 33.) and His divine omnipotence is attributed to Him (18, 14); then he appears again when he wanted to sacrifice his son, Isaac (Gen. 22, 11 and later; see 22, 16 and later); he appeared to Jacob, fleeing from Esau, in a dream at Bethel, calling Himself Yahweh and renewing the promises made to Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 28); later in Mesopotamia, where he asks him to return to his homeland (Gen. 31:11 and later); then upon returning, in the form of an unknown man wrestling with him at the Jabok river (whom the prophet Hosea calls "the Angel of God" (12:5), who blesses Jacob and changes his name to "Israel" (wrestler with God) (Gen. 32:24 and later); Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2 and later), where he revealed His name, Yahweh, and stated that He is the God of the patriarchs etc; it was this "Angel of the Lord" who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, led and protected them in the wilderness, gave them the law on Mount Sinai; this is what hovered before the people in the form of a pillar of cloud (Ex. 14:19), which is why it is called "Yahweh's cloud" (Ex. 40:34); He also appeared to Balaam, who arrived on a donkey to curse the Israelites, whom he first invisibly stopped in his path and after being beaten by Balaam, the donkey miraculously spoke in a human voice, becomes visible to Balaam and tells him that he can only speak according to God's command (Num. 22, 22-35); later to the Israelites in Ophrah as the people's guardian angel (Judges 6); to Manoah's barren wife (the future mother of Samson) he promises a son and accepts Manoah's sacrifice (Judges 13). — Since the introduction of the kingdom, He appears less and less frequently, because after the establishment of the kingdom and the prophetic institution, God used his regular tools and substitutes to lead and teach his people; but the operation and mention of "the Angel of the Lord" did not cease. "The Angel of the Lord" was the one who, in the time of King Hezekiah, destroyed 185,000 people in one night in the Assyrian camp besieging Jerusalem in vain; the prophet Isaiah calls this as the liberator of the people "the Angel of the Lord's face" (see Isaiah 63:9), through whom God shows his face, that is, appears to people, therefore in the sense in which the New Testament also calls Christ the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his being" (Heb. 1:3), that is: the manifest image of the unseen Father's divine being. The prophet Ezekiel also saw the Angel of the Lord in his rapture in the form of a man sitting on a royal throne (Ezek. 1:26 and later): the prophet Daniel, however, as the "son of man" on the clouds of heaven (Dan. 3,:49 and later). The "Angel of the Lord" also frequently appears in the visions of the prophet Zechariah (Zech. 3:1 and later; 12:1 and later); the prophet Malachi, however, prophesied to the Jews; "The Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire..." (Mal. 3:1). — When the institution of prophecy, having fulfilled its divine calling, ceased with Malachi, the Angel of the Lord completely withdrew, only to appear a few centuries later embodied on earth in the Lord Jesus Christ.

  In the Old Testament, the hidden Father is not strictly distinguished from the self-revealing, the one working for the benefit of people, the Son of God, both are called Yahweh (Adonai, Lord). The distinction only occurred in the New Testament, after God, the eternal Word, became human. And only the New Testament shed light on the fact that what the Old Testament often generally says about God or attributes to him, is actually meant to be about the Son of God, the Logos, who was the executor of what the Father God had ordered. The New Testament also reveals that both the Old and the New Testament were written by the same author; the Son of God; the Old Testament as the not yet incarnate Logos, the New Testament as the already incarnate Logos.

  For the Father, according to the teaching of the Bible, has never appeared to people, no one has ever seen him; he dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man can see; his essence is invisible (1 John 18:6, 46; 1 John 4:12; Rom 1:20; Col 1:15; 1Tim. 1:17; 6, 16; Ex 33:20; Deut 4:12). Therefore, when the Old Testament speaks of the appearances of God (the theophanies), these cannot be attributed to the Father, for according to the promise we will only see him in the afterlife (Matthew 5:8; 1 John 3:2-3; Re 2:1, 3, 22:23.), - but to the not yet incarnate Son of God, the Logos. This can already be inferred from the wonderful visions of Ezekiel (1:26-28) and Daniel (7:13-14). The former saw a human figure sitting on a throne, surrounded by light; the latter saw the "son of man" on the clouds of heaven, which obviously refers to the future incarnation of the Logos, the God-man Jesus Christ. But this is clearly written about in the New Testament: John, Paul, Judas Thaddeus, and the Apostle Peter.

  John the Evangelist says (12:41) that Isaiah saw (in divine revelation) the glory of Christ (the divine power and nature of the future Messiah and Savior, which manifested in Jesus's teachings and miracles before the Jews). Here John refers to the sublime vision obtained at the time of the prophet's calling, as described in Isa. 6:1—10. The Adonai (Lord, Isa. 6:1) seen in that vision, for whom the Targum uses the expression "the glory of Yahweh", is according to John none other than the revealing Son of God, the divine Word, (the Logos, John 1:1; 12:41), who as from the beginning was the mediator of all divine revelation. In this amazing vision, He appeared as the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His being (Heb. 1:2-3; John 17:24). Isaiah, however, does not explicitly describe Him as the Son of God, but speaks generally of the God of the Old Testament, referring to Him only as "the Lord" (YHWH), since the triune nature of God was not clearly revealed in the Old Testament.

  In this vision, the same Adonai also spoke to Isaiah and commanded him (in verses 9 and 10) to prophesy to the Jewish people about their willful disbelief, which fully manifested in Jesus's time when the Jews largely remained unreceptive to his teachings, miracles, and actions. By abusing their free will, they chose not to believe, which led to their complete spiritual blindness and stubbornness.

  Paul teaches that during the forty-year journey in the wilderness, Christ was the leader and benefactor of the Israelites, whose blessings followed them at every step. Moreover, the frequent grumblings and rebellions of the Israelites were directed against Christ, who was their guide and companion (1 Cor. 10:4,9). Paul also states that it was Christ who shook the earth at the giving of the law on Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:26).

  According to Jude Thaddeus, Jesus (the Lord) delivered Israel from Egypt and destroyed the unbelievers (Jude 1:5). Some significant manuscripts (like the Alexandrian and Vatican codices, and the Vulgate) use 'Lord' instead of 'Jesus', and some textual critics, including Karl Lachmann (died 1851), consider this latter reading to be more authentic. By the way, the "kyrios" read in the Sinai manuscript also refers to Jesus.

  Peter says that the prophets spoke through the Spirit of Christ, that is, the not yet incarnate Son of God, the Spirit of the Logos, who prophesied about His suffering and glorification through them (1 Peter 1:11). John, Paul, Jude Thaddeus, and Peter the Apostles used the names "Christ" and "Jesus" proleptically (anticipating), because the Eternal Logos (Word) only bore these names after incarnation as God-man. But they could anticipate, because the god who revealed himself in the Old Testament was the same Son of God who later appeared in Jesus Christ.

  Following the significant Church Fathers and writers (like Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, Bede, Theophylact, etc.), interpreters of the scripture also relate the words in John 1:10: "He was in the world" to the guidance of humanity by the not yet incarnate Logos. See also Baruch 3:36-38.

  The Council of Sirmium (AD 351) excommunicates those who would deny that it was with the Son of God (the Logos) that Jacob wrestled.

  The concept of the Church is shown by the so-called improperiums, or reproaches (antiphons and responsories), which are said in the Good Friday liturgy under the veneration of the cross for the ingratitude and infidelity of the Jewish people, because 1. He led the Israelites out of Egypt; 2. He guided them for forty years in the desert and finally led them to the fertile land of Canaan; 3. He struck Egypt with plagues and its firstborn with death for them; 4. He opened the Red Sea before them so that they could cross; 5. He buried Pharaoh's army in its waves; 6. He walked before them in the Pillar of Cloud; 7. He fed them with manna in the desert; 8. He quenched their thirst with living water from the rock; 9. He defeated the kings of Canaan for them; 10. He gave them royal law; 11. He elevated them with His power. The same is shown by the second "O" antiphon of the liturgy of the week before Christmas (Dec. 18): "Oh Adonai (God of the Covenant), Leader of the house of Israel, who appeared to Moses in the flame of the burning bush and gave him the law on Mount Sinai, come and redeem us with your mighty arm!"

  Based on the Church Fathers, the same is taught and irrefutably proven by modern Catholic theologians, to whom several orthodox Protestants also join.

  It was most appropriate that the Son of God, according to God's eternal decree, was meant to be the executor of redemption, prepare the way for redemption, gradually prepare the entire Old Testament for what he wanted to accomplish after his incarnation. The whole relationship of the Old Testament to the New almost demanded that the activity of the Redeemer, who is the center of all history, has not remained unknown since it was first promised (Ex. 3:14), because what God did for the salvation of mankind, He did through His Son (John 1:3). However, due to the great tendency of the Jews to idolatry, this could initially only happen in theophanies (divine manifestations), not in incarnation. Thus, the various theophanies of the Son of God, especially his temporary appearances in seemingly human form, were not only types of the future incarnation of the divine Word but also preparations for his incarnation, divine-human appearance, making man more receptive to the idea of incarnation.

  The "Lord" of the Old and New Testaments is therefore one and the same. He whom the nations recognized as the "Lord" at the end of the Old Testament, and whom the whole Old Testament prepared mankind for, in whom the fullness of divinity took bodily form, and through whom we must be saved (Acts 4:12): Jesus of Nazareth rightfully bears that majestic name, which Philo calls "the name above all names", because the God the Father made him "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36), because he is "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36; cf. Nedarim 22b), the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16; cf. Deut. 10:17 and Ps. 136:3, Lord). He is "God over all, blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5)... "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:11).

A shared treasure of Judaism and Christianity, an important element of faith is the name of God; Christians have no particular objection to the name "Jehovah", but they do not insist on it, because it is a theological term.

The Hebrew language originally only recorded consonants, and it was only supplemented with vowel marks in the early Middle Ages. Since when reading the letters YHWH, they always said Adonai ("Lord") instead of Yahweh, the vowels of Adonai were written above and below the consonants YHWH in the Middle Ages (1520, Galatinus). Thus the form "Jahovah", "Jehovah" or "Jehovah" was created, which sounds impossible to Hebrew ears.

This theological term has nevertheless become quite widespread in theological literature, in translations of the Old Testament (!), and in poetry over the centuries.

In Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who I Am" (in Hebrew: ehyeh asher ehyeh), or "I Am" (ehyeh) himself sends Moses to the people. The meaning of the introduction is obvious from the context: God is who He is, and He doesn't have a name in the sense of the pagan gods, who could be invoked and influenced by their names, but He is always with them and will be.

"I Am" is none other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because in verse 15 he continues: "...YHWH, the God of your fathers...". The origin and pronunciation of the word YHWH (approx. Yahweh) is highly debated among experts. The Watchtower has adopted the interpretation that this is the causative form (hifil) of the old, rare version of the verb to be (havah), which would mean: "the Creator"; YHWH in Israeli translations is Adonai ("Lord"), Shaddai ("Almighty").

The Jews were not afraid of "superstitiously" pronouncing the name, but of unnecessary invocation of the Person behind it, reckless, insignificant, aimless, or malicious mention (the "in vain" in Exodus 20:7 refers to this). Understandably, due to their terrifying experiences with God, they avoided the "vain" use of God's name.

The Jews copied the Scripture letter by letter, but certain errors occurred; when the scribes noticed this, they indicated the correct reading with marginal notes, thus distinguishing between the ketib ("written") and the qere ("to be read") text. However, they did not mark God's name with a special qere because they expected everyone to know: if they read YHWH with their eyes, they should say Adonai ("the Lord") with their mouth. Jews still often refer to God simply as "the Name" (ha-Shem).

If Jesus in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21) had pronounced the Name while reading Isaiah (61:1-2), wouldn't that have caused an outrage among the "superstitious" Jews, wouldn't they have attacked him immediately? Instead, we read that they listened attentively to the reading (4:20), and even initially received his added words positively (4:22).

Indeed, Jesus "did not teach like the scribes", but not merely because he was against the traditions that contradicted the law. Unlike the scribes who referred to the Scripture and to each other, Jesus stated things "as one who had authority", as one who could refer to himself (see at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 7:29). What does this have to do with the use of the Name in the synagogue scene?

The "Lord's Prayer" is a prayer addressed to our Father. If Jesus really wanted to encourage the use of the Name with the Lord's Prayer, why should we call God Father, why doesn't the prayer start like this: "Our Lord...", or like this: "Our Jehovah"?

How could a prayer addressed to God encourage us, people, to consider God's name holy? The word "hallow" is not in the optative but in the imperative mood, and it does not ask something from man, but from God. Translated literally: "let your name be hallowed", i.e., by God, i.e., God should make it holy among people, so that finally his royal rule may come, and his will may be done on earth as it is done in heaven (Mt 6:9-10).

If the use of God's name is really so important, then why do Jehovah's Witnesses address God with a theological hybrid word alien to Hebrew, why not according to the most probable pronunciation (e.g. Yahweh)?

Some fragments from early times of the 3rd-century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint, LXX) that have survived contain the four Hebrew letters within the Greek text.

However, this does not mean that they later left it out because of "superstition", as the substitution of JHVH with Kyrios in later editions was not a translation of JHVH, but of Adonai, thus drawing attention to the correct reading (the kere).

This was obviously not needed for the Jews, but for the pagans who were already reading the LXX.

But the pagans would not have been able to do anything with the four Hebrew letters within the Greek text anyway, they would have misunderstood it, so Kyrios was needed from the outset.

In the era of the emperors, who deified themselves and also had themselves called kyrios, it was a testimony on the part of the Jews that their God was "the Lord" (ho kyrios), and not the emperor.

Jehovah's Witnesses' own Bible translation, the New World Translation, has a very debatable feature: it uses the name Jehovah in the New Testament as well, which they call the Christian Greek Scriptures. Witnesses have a hard time defending this stance, because:

• There is not a single New Testament manuscript left to us that contains the name Jehovah.
• The organization's Wescott-Hort text also does not use the name Jehovah.
• No contemporary work mentions that the name was in the New Testament.
• Even in the works of Christian writers, there is no trace of this.

The topic of the divine name has already produced several studies from the critics. The foundations of the argument are not solid. The Society's argument (as a recent study pointed out) is based on some assumptions. We would like to highlight a few of these.

One assumption is that the Septuagint (LXX) translation quoted by Christians used the divine name. There is insufficient evidence for this. The appendix contains 12 fragments, but these prove: there were LXX versions that included the divine name. However, many other LXX fragments do not use it. When the New Testament writers quote the LXX, they used several versions, not just one. But the JHVH name is indeed in the original Scriptures, so this assumption can be overlooked.

The main question is whether Jesus' disciples used the Name? Not a single Christian writer, not a single early Christian group's surviving writings contain the Name. Why?

The apostles indeed quoted the Old Testament either from the Hebrew text (from memory, or possibly from scrolls in their possession), or according to the first-century, commonly used editions of the Greek LXX.

There is not a single fragment of the Greek New Testament that contains even a single Hebrew letter or the Greek transcription of YHWH.

There is no historical record that such a New Testament text ever existed, or that anyone ever saw anything like it.

Is there any factual basis for the Watchtower's claim that the New Testament authors also inserted the Hebrew JHVH into the Greek text?

If not, why does it present as a fact something for which there is no evidence, and which contradicts the well-known facts?

According to the appendix, some have falsified the New Testament writings. However, this is just a theory, as the Society acknowledges (although a theory cannot be treated as a historical fact...). George Howard invented this theory, but he himself did not dare to declare it as a fact. Why not? Because there is no evidence for it. A step as significant as the editing of the Gospels would have required a joint resolution, a joint conspiracy. There would have been traces of this, the Jewish religious leaders would have attacked immediately. But nothing like this happened.

There is not a single written record within Christianity that the church called upon the copyists or translators of the Scriptures to erase JHVH. Such a decision would have required at least a universal council resolution, would have provoked significant internal resistance, and could not have been carried out secretly.

There is not a single written record outside Christianity either, that would verify or at least indicate something like this, although this could have been a strong argument for the Jews in religious debates.

The Watchtower's claim of Bible forgery is thus only an assumption without proof, i.e., a hypothesis. Nevertheless, they accuse the Christianity of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of capital crime, i.e., Bible forgery, because due to their alleged crime, anyone could have believed until the 20th century, based purely on the Bible, that JHVH was among us in Jesus. It fundamentally questions whether God's revelation was successful and whether His Word has been preserved; this contradicts Jesus, who said that his words will remain forever (see Mt 24:35). They also accuse the writers of 20th century Christian Bible translations, hymn books or creeds of hatred against the Name of God, because they mostly omit the name "Jehovah" that still appears in old translations, and replace it with "Lord".

 

None of the surviving Greek New Testament copies contain Hebrew letters, and there is no historical trace of the Name being "erased." The Society, therefore, presents unproven assumptions as facts (slander). The name Jehovah appears 237 times in the "Christian Greek Scriptures," of which 82 are quotes from the Old Testament that contain YHWH, but the other 155 cases were chosen completely arbitrarily. If we start from the existing copies and the facts: the New Testament calls the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit both Lord and God.

Isn't it theological bias to present something as a fact for which there is no evidence? Isn't the Watchtower afraid that its claim contradicts even the words of Jesus? Does the Watchtower rightly accuse Christian churches, who do not object to the Name, as they regularly use the "Yahweh" accepted by the Jews, and even the form Jehovah in specialist literature, sermons, some Bible translations and hymn books, and who, not out of resentment against God and his name, but primarily to distance themselves from the teachings of the Watchtower and its separate Bible, were forced to avoid the variant name "Jehovah"?

The written revelation has been preserved by God's providence; through the many hundreds of preserved copies, thousands of fragments, references, and ancient translations, the sacred text could be completely reconstructed except for a few disputed details. The internationally accepted Hebrew and Greek texts: Biblia Hebraica, Novum Testamentum Graece (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart), The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, New York).

The New Testament writers (except for Luke), who were native Aramaic speakers, did not use the Hebrew letter YHWH, nor did they try to reproduce its Greek phonetics. In quotes from the Old Testament, they always translated YHWH as "the Lord" (kyrios). They referred to Jesus with the same word: "the Lord" (kyrios), and even to the Holy Spirit (e.g. 2Cor 3:17). In the New Testament there is no rule or indication that the kyrios would have a different meaning specifically for YHWH, and another one specifically for Jesus.

Based on the above facts, we only have three possibilities by the method of exclusion:

• if the authors of the New Testament had not paid attention to the fact that the reader could confuse YHWH with Jesus, they would have written with a degree of irresponsibility that would fundamentally question the inspiration and sanctity of their writings;
• if the aim of the authors of the New Testament had been deliberate deception, then we could forget the whole issue
• if the authors of the New Testament wrote consciously and carefully, and had no intention of deceiving others, then based on the facts, it is logical to conclude that they also professed the deity of Jesus.

The WTS presents its own assumption as fact. No one can know what or all that was used in the 1st century. As for Jesus, he knew Hebrew and likely read from the Hebrew scrolls in the synagogues of Palestine, not from the LXX.

According to linguistic research, the Apostles mostly quoted from the Hebrew originals of the Hebrew Scriptures, rarely from the LXX's Old Greek versions, and probably often quoted from memory. The appendix of The Greek New Testament (United Bible Sociates, New York, 4th edition, 1993) lists all Old Testament quotations and allusions, separately marking those taken from the Septuagint with LXX. As I counted, only 62 out of 309 quotes come from the LXX, and only 41 out of about 1200 references. The ratio of quotes and references taken from the Hebrew text and its Greek translation (LXX) is fifteen to one!

Undoubtedly, some copies of the LXX that contained the Name survived even after the 1st century. The WTS itself mentions the 2nd-century (converted to Judaism) Aquila LXX edition, and the 4-5th-century publication by Jerome (Hieronymus), who still saw such copies. However, it is a question why there is not a single fragment or at least a reference to the Tetragrammaton being included in the Christian Greek Scriptures, contrary to the LXX. Why is there no historical data about anyone ever seeing such a thing?

If Jesus had pronounced the Name (the third word of Isaiah 61:1) in the synagogue, the Jews would have immediately reproached him, who, according to the WTS, never uttered the Name out of "superstitious" fear. Instead, they listened to him and only became upset when Jesus claimed that the text he read was being fulfilled right there, in him.

Jesus taught differently from the scribes, not because he freely pronounced the name, but because he taught with authority [exousia] during the Sermon on the Mount. While the rabbis could only refer to the Scripture or to some other famous rabbis, Jesus taught with his own authority: "You have heard that it was said… But I say to you…" (cf. Jn 6:45). Such a sermon ended with Mt 7:28-29.

Jesus' disciples knew God's YHWH name: they knew how to write and pronounce it, as the people could hear it year by year from the mouth of the high priest who presented the sacrifices. Jesus did not make his disciples acquainted with God's name in the sense that he had to betray a sequence of sounds, and there is no biblical data that he would have encouraged them to use the name freely. To "make someone known by name" means to introduce someone personally or to present someone's personality. Thus, Jesus introduced God's essence, personality to his people who had distanced themselves from God (cf. Jn 1:18).

Few Jehovah's Witnesses can look up the Greek base text used, although the Society published it in 1985. Even it does not contain the divine name!!! The Watchtower Society refers to so-called 'J sources'. The problem is that the 'J sources' are all late (1385–1979) translations, not copies made from the Greek text.

The evidence that the organization has brought up over the years in favor of this characteristic of the translation has all been refuted. The July 15, 2001 issue of The Watchtower came up with a new "proof" that quickly turns out to be, to put it mildly, misleading.

The article starting on page 29 deals with Origen. On page 31, there is a picture showing a part of Origen's work Hexapla, with the Greek transcription of YHWH circled. The explanatory text next to the picture says:

"Origen's work titled Hexapla proves that the name of God was used in the Christian Greek Scriptures."

The article no longer makes this claim, only that the Hexapla contains the name of God and this is the proof that the Christians used the name Jehovah.

A research-minded Witness might be satisfied with this and be reassured that something still confirms the Governing Body's position. Is this really the case?

The magazine itself provides the answer on page 30, where it honestly acknowledges what the Hexapla is. It writes, "The Hexapla is a large fifty-volume edition of the Hebrew Scriptures." So, it is an OLD TESTAMENT! Nobody disputes that the name Jehovah has a place in the Old Testament. But the fact that the Old Testament and its translations use the name Jehovah does not prove that it was also in the New Testament. Therefore, the caption on page 31 is highly misleading and does not reflect reality.

The J-sources

What are these so-called J-sources? Several in-house Witnesses asked us. This was partly our fault because we used a designation that the Witnesses do not know. Therefore, we owe an explanation. To prepare a translation, texts are needed on which we base the translation into a given language. These are the sources we use. There are several thousand manuscripts available for the New Testament. These texts had to be distinguished from each other. Therefore, each of these usable source materials received an individual code with a combination of a letter and a number. The earliest material in time, for example, is P52, made in AD 125. Each papyrus manuscript received a P sign. The book mentions the New Testaments translated into Hebrew. The Watchtower Society (but not others!) refers to these with a J letter.

What's wrong with these J-marked sources? The P-marked sources were created between AD 100 and 300 (these are copies of copies made from the original writings and their copies, etc.). The Hebrew alef-marked Codex Sinaiticus is also from the 4th century AD. The A-marked Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5th century AD, etc. What are the J sources? New Testament translated into Hebrew. So these are not copies, but translations, which is a significant difference. Translations are generally less accurate (more distorted) than copies. It is generally not professional to justify a translation process with another translation when talking about deviation from the copies! It's like justifying my wrong action with someone else's wrong action.

Another big mistake is that the copies marked with P, Hebrew alef, A, B, C, and D are fairly early. The time gap between them and the original Writings is between 25 and a few hundred years. The reader may smile at a few hundred years. But do they know how many years are between the translations marked with the letter J and the original Writings? The Society lists 27 such translations. The earliest translation is from 1385 (distance 1287 years), the latest is from 1981 (distance 1883 years); so a few hundred years really is a trifle compared to this.

But why is this important? Because the J sources are the most fundamental from the point of view of the NWT. Only these use the divine name. Not a single copy, only these translations! We think it is understandable how significant this is. The New World Translation reference version lists these translations in detail.

At first glance, it may not be striking, but the age of the so-called "J" sources is of great significance. According to the information found in KIT and NWT,

• the earliest "J" labeled Hebrew translation, "J2" (containing the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew), dates from 1385 AD, thus from the 14th century, the Middle Ages;
• the most frequently quoted Hebrew translation, "J7" (the entire New Testament in Hebrew), is from 1599 AD, on the threshold of the new era;
• the most recent is the 1979 "J22" (also a complete translation).

In contrast, it is a well-known fact that the earliest Greek manuscripts in our possession, which contain the words "kyrios" and "theos", were copied only about 30 years after John wrote the Book of Revelation. The earliest Hebrew translation brought up to substantiate the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament was thus created at least 1300 years later than the Greek copies! In rendering the text, the Society attributes greater authority to 14th-century and later Hebrew translations than to 2nd-5th century Greek copies. On what basis?The Watchtower Society essentially argues in favor of the NWT by saying that the Tetragrammaton appears in such Hebrew translations that were made from the well-known Greek text which does not even contain the Tetragrammaton! After this, several questions arise:

• The Society does not consider the existing Greek text (Westcott-Hort, 1881), which it also uses, to be intact because, according to its theory, Christians of the 2nd-3rd centuries erased the divine name from it. So, did Jesus and the apostles not tell the truth? (Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:25)
• In the text's translation, the Society attributes greater authority to Hebrew translations from the 14th century and even later than to the Greek copies from the 2nd-5th centuries. On what basis?
• The word "kyrios" ("Lord") appears 714 times in the Greek text; the NWT replaces this 224 times with "Jehovah". The question is, why did it do this in exactly these 224 cases and why not in the other 490 cases?
• The word "theos" ("God") appears 1318 times in the Greek text; the NWT replaces this 13 times with "Jehovah". The question is, why did it do this in exactly these 13 cases and why not in the other 1305 cases?
• Although 82 out of the 237 cases involve quotes from Hebrew texts that contained the Tetragrammaton, what justifies the other 155 cases? What does not justify the rest? Do you think the "J" sources can substantiate the replacement of the words "Lord" and "God" with "Jehovah"?

The Watchtower Society treats Professor Howard's theory similarly to its own as a fact ("historical fact"), or presents it misleadingly as a statement ("used the tetragrammaton"). Howard's theory remained what it was in professional circles: a hypothesis, an unproven assumption. Regarding the Talmudic passage, Howard also only hypothesized, and did not claim that these were Jewish-Christian texts.

This theory of Howard's also remained what it was: a hypothesis. Moreover, Howard at least inaccurately provided the title of the Talmud quotation: "Talmud Shabbat 13,5" simply does not exist. According to Ezra Bick, an Israeli Talmud scholar, the most probable place for the text is Shabbat 116a. The Society claims that the word here "minim" (heretics) refers to Christians, but in reality, we can guess among three possibilities. The "minim" or heretics refers to Jews (according to Bick's opinion), or to Christians (according to the Society), or to Judaizing Christians, who were also considered heretics by the early Christian church (e.g., the Ebionites).

 

Some JW apologists presented funnier than funnier conspiracy theories, that the alleged New Testament manuscripts containing Jehovah are "kept in their secret cellars in the Vatican, so that the Truth does not come out" and the like. Of course they can exist, just as UFOs, perpetual motion machines or secret masonic world governments can exist. In principle, at least in the skulls of their inventors. It's just that the characteristic of reality is that it comes to light sooner or later. Woe to the one who is forced to live his life relying on such conspiracy theories, snarling at the facts of experience every day as if they ate his breakfast. I understand that you have good reason to assume this, because they chew on their paranoia like a shipwreck on the sole of a six-times-boiled, three-week-old boot, and draw a significant part of their Antheusian vitality from it.

You call this recent stumbling "evidence?" So what can "probability" mean then? Indeed, I'm more and more rooting for the WTS to prepare that Greek "miracle text", which cannot be based on any manuscript, yet it will be forged in 237 places on the tetragrammaton - if you are is so sure about it. And then you will be able to see for yourself. The existing manuscripts are the only sure basis that entitles you to make any kind of dogmatic statement! You are furiously cutting the rope on which their religious system depends.

Stafford, for instance, wants to justify the insertion of "Jehovah" into the New Testament Watchtower by suggesting that it was probably not the apostles who began to abbreviate holy names, but the generation that followed them, while the apostles followed the practice of the Old Testament copyists who inserted Hebrew into the Greek text. In this demonstration, he relies on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original Matthew derived from Papias and Jerome as a fact. However, research has already refuted this insofar as it has shown that the Matthew we have is not a translation, but was originally written in Greek. The hypothesis of a Hebrew Matthew might have originated from those early Syriac translations which, as later works, corrected the tangled Hebraisms in Matthew. The author is also mistaken in suggesting that Matthew consistently quoted from the Hebrew text, because there are many places where he follows the Septuagint (e.g., 1:23, 3:3, 4:4, or 15:8-9).

Then he argues for the insertion of Jehovah in 1 Cor 2:16 ("For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ"), asserting that there are data for the reading of "Lord" instead of Christ, and in this case the name Jehovah would naturally have stood first. The problem with this argument is that an undeniably later textual tradition attests to the "Lord" standing second (Vaticanus etc.) rather than "Christ" (p46, Alef etc.). The latter are much more numerous, so it is more likely that some copyists standardized the usage, rather than that it was originally there and the copyists replaced it with Christ (fearing the strange coincidence) when the Lord allegedly replaced Jehovah in the first place. Because this coincidence was by no means strange if one bears in mind that the authors often applied to Jesus Old Testament verses that spoke of Yahweh. (Such as Hebrews 1:10.)

Stafford's work doesn't really answer the main question, namely, why doesn't the New World Translation translate verbatim, even though it puffs itself up in the preface with all sorts of self-praise, promising to do just that, and even promises concordance where possible. (Some of its defenders boastfully mention this in relation to the gnosis-epignosis.)

The NWT is not a literal translation, but contains a lot of interpretative insertions and changes in wording. Many of these are also significant theologically. Your defensive writings focus all their energy on these, but are unable to remove the main accusation: namely, that your comrades are trying to force their various interpretations into the genre of translation rather than commentary. Such tactics will be taken very strictly by readers of a translation that does not wish to be verbatim but prides itself in the preface. That is, those who look into the matter; those who take the promises of the preface at face value will draw false conclusions from this usage.

Therefore, the NWT preface should not have suggested that they will translate every Greek word with the same English word if possible. It seems that in many places they didn't even strive for this. The New World Translation is a theologically influenced, affected translation, which combines some principles of dynamic equivalence with the method of interpretive insertions built on the principle of "it can also be translated this way, you can't refute it". Neither is characteristic of verbatim translations.

For example, let's look at Romans 4:3. You often seem to take pride in the idea that you have corrected the "error" of "apostate copyists" who allegedly removed the tetragrammaton from the Greek texts. Well, in the Hebrew text, the name Yahweh indeed appears, but Paul does not quote the verse according to this, but according to the Septuagint. This change and reversion now backfires on you strongly, because it turns out that the apostle gave his seal of approval to the translation of the tetragrammaton with the word "God". I assume he did this because he realized that the appearance of the name YHWH in this context, although common in the Hebrew text, is strictly speaking an anachronism (i.e., a mode of expression reflecting the subsequent knowledge and vocabulary of Moses, who wrote down the events), since we know that God had not yet revealed the name YHWH to the patriarchs.

Therefore, Paul's inspired word, following the Septuagint (and sanctifying it even against the Hebrew text at this point), returned to the contextual reading of the verse, taking into account the above statement, while you rip the word out of his mouth and drop the name Jehovah in its place, which is simply an anachronism in the Hebrew text at the said place. Who do you think you are?

Daniel already associates the name of God with the word "heaven" and substitutes it twice. Following this, Matthew says "kingdom of heaven" instead of "kingdom of God". Since the Jews started vocalizing their manuscripts, they have been supplying the tetragrammaton with the vowels of the word "Lord" (Adonai), indicating what should be read there. The Septuagint did not leave it in (in some manuscripts) for it to be pronounced: one camp pronounced it, another did not. But even those who pronounced it could not be sure that they were saying it correctly.

That the apostles, when quoting the Septuagint, did not write Jehovah is clear from the large mass of manuscripts. The p46 (one of the Ryland papyri from around 200 AD; one of the earliest papyri containing longer text) writes Kyrios in Rom 9:29, just like the great codices. ("Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us offspring" etc.) Interestingly, Paul did not want to translate the "sabaoth", which is translated as "hosts", into Greek, from which we can deduce that he had before him or in his memory a Greek Old Testament text in which, out of respect for the name of Yahweh, the tetragrammaton was replaced with Kyrios, but the Sabaoth was just transcribed in Greek letters.

What can be said about such a work but to quote Revelation 22:18? How much can a denomination claim to really respect and stand on the Scriptures if it forces such shameless mistranslations?

 

• The writings of the Watchtower consistently muddle the legitimate demand to indicate in the translations at the appropriate places in the Old Testament that it is Yahweh or Jehovah - and your demand, plucked from thin air, to attempt this also in the New Testament, at the two hundred or so places they determined, despite the fact that here, the faintest semblance of manuscript and historical evidence is entirely lacking.

  These insertions are labeled as "easier to understand" only by the Watchtower. In reality, it's a sectarian stamp: the branding iron, fired up by the "discreet slave" and pressed on the body of their congregation, of the desire to be different at all costs. The brazen disregard of the Greek text we have at hand. Double standards. Because they do the same thing as the "great harlot" they condemn, while they, in principle, are willing to renounce their custom and issue many translations abundant in the name Jehovah / Yahweh, the Watchtower is not willing to do the opposite.

  The fact that the New Testament refers to the Old Testament at certain places does not turn into a fact, a text, a data, their underlying assumption that in the original, apostolic-evangelistic text YHWH stood there. And yet, they say in their writings (although they can no longer defend it in a factual debate), that the apostate copyists left out the Name etc. But they cannot produce a single New Testament manuscript that would support them here. The hypothesis of the "apostate copyists" is good for everything and good for nothing. With this method, they could even prove that reincarnation was in the Bible, only those pesky apostate copyists left it out.

  The Watchtower assumes a deliberate, conscious falsification of the Bible, according to which "wicked apostates hated the name of God and falsified the Bible." Compared to that, you are talking about a coincidence, or rather a natural process. But that doesn't stand either, since the converts from among the Jews lived among their fellow Jews, it is also impossible that they would have followed the Watchtower manner of "using" the YHWH name, since this in itself was a crime under the Jewish law, deserving of the death penalty, which would have caused serious riots to break out.

  If the Watchtower's claim were true, that YHWH was as central to the primitive Christian church's faith as it is to them today, then how could they not have known what it was, and no one would have objected to the reading text changed?

  It was difficult for Christians to accept even theologically insignificant translation changes (for example, the changing of the Latin term used for 'qiqayon' (likely castor oil plant) in Jonah 4:6 from 'cucurbita' (“gourd”) to 'hedera' (“ivy”), and a bishop had caused a great disturbance just by reading aloud it, and had nearly lost his flock), which is why it took centuries until Jerome's Vulgate finally replaced the Vetus Latina in Western Christianity. Don't you not that the doctrine of God's being himself would have passed without a word, without it being noticed by any one, and causing considerable rebellion?

  Don't forget: the New Testament writers often quote the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Hebrew text. And despite the few manuscripts they have unearthed, the Septuagint contains a tendency (and not just on the side, but as a mainstream, and well before the writing of the New Testament), to represent the name YHWH with the word Lord. JWs can argue with this tendency, and qualify its cause as superstitious - but it seems, the New Testament authors did not consider it superstitious or offensive to God, because whenever they quote the Old Testament, they do not transcribe the tetragrammaton with Greek letters, but call it Lord. In this regard, therefore, they approved the Jewish custom they call superstitious. And at least in this, they testify against them that the name YHWH would be so important and indispensable in the New Testament that without its proclamation, the church itself would collapse.

  In response to the question that if it is allowed to rewrite the name YHWH in our translations of the Old Testament, then why aren't you allowed to "rewrite" it in the New Testament, I answer this: JWs are ignoring a very important aspect. We are free to consistently write out the name YHYH as Yahweh or Jehovah in our translations (like J. N. Darby), and the mainstream churches don't bite the head off of anyone who might circumlocute the Name out of excessive fear due to the "do not take in vain" commandment or for some other reason (e.g. because they don't want to pronounce it incorrectly). Therefore, we have freedom: the (non)pronunciation, the (non)translation of the name YHWH is not a matter of faith for us. Moreover, newer translations also distinguish between Lord (Adonai) and LORD (YHWH), so anyone who wishes can reconstruct the original for themselves by looking through the usual substitution. This is what many Bible translations do.

  You cannot use our freedom to justify how they falsify the New Testament Greek manuscripts, which deal with the Tetragrammaton in a similarly cool manner and translate it as freely into Lord as we do. Moreover, JWs blaspheme as apostate everyone who removed the name YHWH from both covenant documents. But it has become certain that this accusation of them first hits the apostles. For if they had taken it as a matter of faith, as they do, they would have avoided the Septuagint like the plague.

  No one said "YHWH is not the name of God." Just that it is not the only name of God, and not an indispensable name for him. Learn to understand their opponents' statements in the sense they represent, and do not project onto their place some concocted, albeit obviously easier to attack, nonsense. And do not expect me to defend this nonsense on behalf of everyone. No: here their schizoid, either-or logic has misled them, which shouts into their ear that God can only have one true and indispensable name (YHWH), and whoever denies this also denies that YHWH is the name of God.

  Has God changed? The answer is a definite no. God did not change either when he said that his name YHWH was not yet known to the patriarchs. Nor did he start to change when he declared himself in Jesus as the Father (as the Father of Jesus Christ and our Father). This would lead to another thread of argument, so I will not elaborate further here.

  The ancient Israelites lived in a polytheistic, pagan environment and were, in some respects, a rather undeveloped civilization. In such an environment, monotheism was a revolutionary idea on the one hand, and on the other hand, they were constantly exposed to the constant temptation from paganism. In fact, as we know, the common Israelites often fell into the sin of idolatry. (This also shows that the common man was never a high-level theologian in any era, and it would be pointless to ever expect this.) The role, meaning, purpose, and significance of the name "I AM" (Yahweh) can only be understood in this environment. But why?

  For an ancient common man, for whom the existence of multiple gods was as evident as the cellphone is for us today, if you had been living in the Near East during the Egyptian captivity, it would have been evident to you that every nation has its own god, with its temples and priests. People talk about it, sacrifice animals to it, etc. No one questioned its existence. The various nations didn't say that our "gods" exist and yours are the products of religious fantasy and mythology, but rather said things like our gods are stronger than yours. In such an environment, saying that these so-called gods do not exist at all would have caused considerable confusion. "What, Osiris doesn't exist? But there is his temple, my neighbor regularly sacrifices to him, how could he not exist?". And God chose a brilliant way in the cultural environment to communicate the basic religious truth about Himself to His chosen people.

  Because whenever a Jew pronounced the word God as YAHWEH, they thereby professed that He alone is "The One Who IS" (therefore, other "gods" do not exist). The name YAHWEH clearly refers to God as the absolute being, whose real characteristic and essence is that He IS, He exists: He is the Eternal. Compared to Him, other deities are nothing, non-existent, see Is. 42,8. When God in the Bible emphatically declared several times, "I am Yahweh", He essentially said, "understand that I alone am the existing God, no other god exists besides me". Therefore, this Name had a pedagogical aim and role, somewhat like telling a small child that the "name" of the plug is "Don'tStickYourFingerInIt". It is perfectly clear that this "name" is not a name in the sense of, say, Carl, but serves the purpose of reminding the person, when recalling this "name", of the most important thing they should think of first in relation to this matter. So the purpose of the name Yahweh was to remind Jews in a fundamentally polytheistic environment that their God is the only true God, they can only believe in Him, only worship Him, etc. - while the many "gods" of other peoples do not actually exist.

  The Holy Tetragrammaton is both a revelation and a rejection of the Name. The essence of God, His existence, is fundamentally different from this world, so we cannot "essentially" know God - we can only say, "what is not He".

  From this it follows that the name YAHWEH fulfilled its role when monotheism was still on weak legs - even among Jews! - , when the religious development of the Israelite people was not high. God, therefore, in this matter as well, gradually led the people carrying the revelation to a higher religious standpoint. He did not anticipate the normal intellectual development as a Deus ex machina, but involved his revelations in its individual phases. Therefore, the naming of God as Yahweh is an early stage of the development of monotheism.

  From this it follows clearly that later, when monotheism was strong, the oneness of God had largely become evident to the Jews, there was no longer a need for this "crutch" for God. Just as the side wheels are only needed on a bicycle until the child is too small to balance on two wheels, after which there is no longer a need for them. We will not perceive the removal of the side wheels as a negative or a lack, on the contrary. The same was true here.

  This is confirmed by the fact that the name Yahweh fell out of common use. We all know that God punished the Jewish people by sending them into Babylonian captivity. Well, this punishment was quite effective, as we all know how effective a religious reform Ezra carried out among the Israelites who returned to their land. His basic act was regular Torah study, so the "theological" knowledge of the average people also increased a lot. Monotheism was no longer questionable, other kinds of "dangers" (such as those later condemned by Jesus among the hair-splitting, Pharisaic interpretations of the Torah) were of course threatening, but that is another story.

  There was no longer a need for the name Yahweh to maintain monotheism, so when God providentially led his people to a new level, there was not only no longer a need for any nominator, but it was specifically a hindrance - just as the side wheels used to learn to ride a child's bike can later function as a hindrance. God's Providence is ultimately behind the Name's exclusion from common use.

  The ancient gods could be invoked at any time by their names. Hence, the knowledge of a god's name in some sense encompassed the belief that a human could possess its power, or in some sense rule over it. In this sense, the Name became a kind of speakable magic spell. Traces of this can be found in certain Semitic, Arab legends, where to use the power of the djinn, one must know its name. Although in the Bible the use of the Name YHWH is free from such misuse, nevertheless – if we tie God to a specific "Name" this in some sense carries the danger of the emergence of this phenomenon (even if it is not consciously functioning).

  What are we talking about? The Name becomes objectified, which is treated as a kind of property. Like the medieval mystical Jewish rabbis who used the Tetragrammaton as a kind of magic spell. They wrote it on the golem, and it came to life. They can essentially misuse it as magical automatism and as a guarantee of salvation. Indeed, the use, the utterance of the word "Jehovah" does not guide anyone, and it does not cause any additional salvation, because the Bible does not aim for us to "use" the Tetragrammaton, a Hebrew word, zealously for salvation, like some magic key, but to know the person of God, to love him, and to become His children.

  The Old Testament Jews gradually understood that there is no name, word, or phrase in human language that could describe the essence of God. "The divine is unnameable", says Theologian St. Gregory. "Not only does reason show this, but so do the oldest and wisest Jews. Those who respected the Divine by writing His name with special signs, and did not allow God's name and creatures to be written with the same letters... could they ever have dared to pronounce the Name of the indestructible and unique nature in a fleeting voice? Just as no one could ever take in all the air, so reason could not fully embrace, and words could not encompass the essence of God."

  By not pronouncing the name of God, the old Jews showed that contact with God is possible not so much through words and expressions, but rather through devotion and humble silence. So the real reason is that this is a mystery, not because it's taboo. The reality of God surpasses the world. Compared to Him, we do not even exist. The pure linguistic version of the Holy Tetragrammaton was also used by other Semitic peoples, and by the Jews before Moses. However, this embodiment into a purely human word was a prefiguration of the embodiment into Jesus, just as the burning bush was a prefiguration of the transfiguration on Mount Tabor. If we deny the incarnation of Christ, this leads to the denial of the Holy Tetragrammaton. The "namers" just pronounce a generally used Semitic designation of divinity, moreover in the Latin reading (Jehovah => Latin reading of the Holy Tetragrammaton), so they just do what someone would do if they were scrutinizing the human nature of Jesus, which is possible, as he was truly human. However, they do not reach the essence of the Holy Tetragrammaton, only its "garment", and never pronounce it as heretics, because they cannot "possess" the knowledge of the Name, they can only defile it.

  Since it is undeniable that the name YHWH does not appear in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, except for the four Hallelujahs, only the transcription of Kyrios (Lord), what prevents us from keeping these in the New Testament translations? Precisely this entitles us to do so, if the New Testament writers (following the Septuagint) mentioned the names of Jeremiah and Jesus in Greek, why shouldn't we accept from their mouths the Greekization of the name YHWH to "Kyrios"? And it cannot be an argument against this that "apostate copyists left out the name YHWH from the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament," because 1. there is no evidence for this, 2. why couldn't anyone say about this that "then let's re-Hebraize the names of Jeremiah and Jesus in the New Testament!"?

  I see the storm with which Jehovah's Witnesses force the name YHWH on the New Testament as quite novel and contrived. How the Septuagint and today's translations were handled, I do not consider a matter of salvation in any way, and I read Darby as gladly as King James. I don't know if this is laid down as a program for them, but I feel that they were the first to make this a matter of salvation. And if the debate has reached this point (that one party is accusing the other of heresy and apostasy on the basis (also) that it wants to translate the name YHWH as Kyrios, LORD, Eternal), then he who has so far considered his practice to be free and innocent is quite helpless if he wants to maintain it as a custom. Because we admit that among us this is not a law, not a question of salvation, and in principle can be changed at any time (of course, rewriting translations does not happen overnight, especially if there is no compelling reason) - but they are pressing us, and they blame us for everything because of this.

  The question is how this writing of YHWH in the LXX (which was not universal among Jews either, as we know from various sources) could have made its way into the New Testament in such a way that not a single copy of it has survived. One of the Bodmer papyri (p66) contains the section Johnn 1:1-6:11, in its entirety, including for example Jn 1:23. According to WTS, the tetragram should be here. Well, this papyrus is from the 2nd century, and we hardly have longer New Testament sources from before that time. I haven't looked into what kind of textual witnesses are available for the places in question, but you already have to place the action of the "apostate copyists" team without gaps at a very early time.

  Jesus declared: "I came in my Father's name." He also emphasized that what he does, he does "in his Father's name." - Indeed, and he did not say that he came in the name of Yahweh or Jehovah. This proves that the Father is not just a title, but also a name. (As is, I might add, the Son and the Holy Spirit, for in this triune name is baptism.)

  "In the Greek Scriptures, God's name appears in abbreviated form. In Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, God's name is part of the expressions "alleluia" or "hallelujah"." - According to this, those "apostate copyists" were not vigilant enough to root this out as well. These four examples rather weaken JW's case, because in a fixed liturgical formula it preserves the name Yah in the New Testament. Therefore, the copyists could not have been led by superstition or pagan prejudice, as JWs are prone to assume as a reason.

  "Is the New World Translation the only translation in which God's name has been restored to its place in the Greek Scriptures? No" - In fact, it is not even "the only one," because there is no such translation. The ones they mention did not "restore" but, on a speculative basis, contrary to the evidence of the manuscripts, inserted the name Yahweh (Jehovah) into their translations. But this does not make JW's position more secure, but theirs more shaky. I am only reacting to one of the missing sources, but it is enough to prove their bad faith.

  The Watchtower is sitting on the horns of a dilemma here. Because if that mass of Greek manuscripts, on which he is forced to base the authenticity of God's word in other respects, fell victim to the tendentious "apostate copyists" at this point, then what prevented them from forging whole doctrines into the Scripture elsewhere so that they uniformly appear in all surviving copies? And then WTS is forced to make itself the measure of authenticity not only in terms of the occurrence of the JHWH name in the New Testament, but also in many other textual and theological questions.

   

  • The Tetragrammaton refers to every person of the Holy Trinity, thus Jesus and the Holy Spirit as well. This follows from the meaning of the Name. According to Scripture, God once named Himself and sees the expression of His own essence in existence: "I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14). He then continued: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: the 'I AM' has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:14). This means that God possesses all existence, in other words: God necessarily exists, He is the most real existence, pure existence, Existence itself, the self-existing being (ens a se). If Jesus is God, then these also apply to Him. Moreover, Jesus also says: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father." So, His name too. This also follows from His divinity. "He is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15) This is exactly why the Jews wanted to stone him: "You claim to be God." If Jesus is the son of the Almighty God, then He inherits God's power, rights, and Name. This is why Eastern icon painters write the letters 'Ho ón' (who is) into the halo of Christ.

    The Tetragrammaton is also a sacred name for Christians, which is why we use it in our churches, but according to Ecclesiastical tradition only rarely, and with the greatest respect. Therefore, we believe it was correct that in the Bible translation they used the Lord instead of the name Jehovah, just as the Jews read Lord (Adonai) instead of Jehovah. The Jehovah word is actually the result of this practice. YHWH consonants with Adonai vowels. The Catholic truth is therefore in the middle: We neither say that the Name cannot be pronounced, nor that it can be used indiscriminately, as is the case today in some modernist-liberal theological faculties, or among the JWs.

    The Mosaic Law indeed did not require the Jews to read Adonai instead of YHWH, but it was a pious tradition which embodied "do not take the Lord's name in vain!" Let's not go into what it means to take the Lord's name in vain.

    When we say God, depending on the context of the text, we mean either the Father, or the other persons of the Holy Trinity, or the most supreme Trinity. Generally, if we say God in prayer, and it is not expressly aimed at any one person, then I think of the Trinity, who is three in unity and oneness in Trinity.

    The teaching of the Holy Trinity is perfectly justifiable based on the Bible.

    Arius also used the alleged distinction between 'theos' - 'hó theos' to support his claim. He just couldn't answer to the fathers of Nicaea how Scripture could sink into idolatry by consistently presenting a man as a little god.

    For example, Jn 1:18 ("No one has seen God") uses 'theos' (well, here "theon") without an article, yet it is clearly about God. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation brings "God". This immediately topples their logic. But this is just one example of many.

    The incarnation of the Holy Tetragrammaton is the name Jesus. The Sacred Tetragrammaton expresses the essence of God, thus as a Name it refers to the WHOLE Holy Trinity, each divine hypostasis specifically possesses it, and it was pronounced in Christ, who is the image of the invisible God.

    On the other hand, the Holy Tetragrammaton is "unpronounceable" in human or angelic language because it is a mystery, not because it is a taboo. God's essence surpasses the world. In comparison to Him, we do not exist. Huber rightly writes about this, that the purely linguistic variant of the Holy Tetragrammaton was used by other Semitic peoples, and even the Jews before Moses. However, this embodiment into a purely human word was a prefiguration of the embodiment into Jesus, just as the burning bush was a prefiguration of the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. If we deny the incarnation of Christ, it leads to denial of the Holy Tetragrammaton. They just utter a Semitic god designation generally used, moreover, in the Latin reading of the Latin Holy Tradition (Iehovah => read in Latin the Holy Tetragrammaton), so they just do as if someone would scrutinize Jesus' human nature, which is possible, because he was truly human. However, this way they don't reach the essence of the Holy Tetragrammaton, only its "garment", and they never pronounce it, like heretics, for they can't "possess" the knowledge of the Name, they can only scorn it. This also confirms that they really don't know the Shem-ha Mephorash, as they deny the Incarnation.

    This, as well as the interpretation of the Name in Jewish tradition, and even in Kabbalistic interpretations, are reflections of God's inner, essential emanations. Moreover, this led to prefigurations of the Trinity in the Old Testament, so we can rightly say that there is a kind of Trinitarianism in the Old Testament.

    It's important to note that one cannot rely solely on the Scripture, as it was written, compiled, approved, declared as revelation, i.e., divinely inspired by Christ's Church, and it's the Church that has always interpreted it, because that's its mandate. This is also reflected in the Scripture itself, which means, even if we were to start with the Scripture alone, we would inevitably have to arrive at the Church. That is, at minimum, we cannot disregard the word of the Church and the Holy Tradition preserved by it. The Nicene and other councils clearly, and the Christian writers preceding them unanimously, testify to the divinity of Jesus, and they have consistently rejected the Arian heresy. We must not let doubts arise because of sophistry (2 Pet 3:15-16) and "foolish controversies" (Tit 3:9).

    Regarding the Tetragrammaton, we must consider that God does not have one Hebrew name, as He transcends all languages and, in fact, He does not need a name, or more precisely, He cannot have one, because He is Everything, the Alpha and the Omega. So what are we talking about? Hebrew names were primarily not used as nominal emblems to distinguish someone from others, or to define, identify someone (as in the modern age), but in every case they expressed a certain description, characterization of the person's essence, attributes, etc. (like in the case of Native Ameircan names: "Swift Arrow", "Rising Sun", "Big Bear"). God revealed His name in this sense, which stands the same in every language: His name is YHWH, i.e., "Who Is", "Who Exists", "Who Is Existence". He revealed Himself to the Jews, so it became YHWH, however, if He had done the same to the Greeks, His name would be "Ho Estin" (if to the English, then "Who Is"). The parallel to this can be found in the New Testament in the 'egó eimi' (i.e., "I Am") declarations of Jesus. This is most visible in Jn 18:5-6, where when Jesus says "I Am", they retreat and fall to the ground. But see also Jn 8:24-28 (cf. also Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; Jn 4:26; 6:20; 13:19).

    The Greek-language New Testament uses the word Kurios instead of the Hebrew YHWH (or we could say the Jehovah, created by the Masoretes in the 9th-10th centuries AD) – following the practice of the Septuagint, made for Jews around 300 BC – (cf. for instance, Deut 6:5 – Mt 22:37) (this also shows that there is no NEED to refer to God in Hebrew). And this word Kyrios is also used for Jesus (many times, e.g., Mk 16:19-20; Acts 5:14; 9:10-17; Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 6:13-14; Col 3:23-24; Eph 6:6-11; as a confessional formula: Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; cf. 8:6; Phil 2:11, especially: Jn 20:28).

    Jesus did not reject the Jewish tradition altogether. He specifically stated what He objected to, and where we need to follow His word. He said nothing about the Sacred Name. It doesn't matter whether the Jews thought, whether by mistake, that the Sacred Name could or couldn't be pronounced. (This should not be seen as a scandalous mistake, but as a pious mistake.) As can be seen from the above, it can be pronounced, but it's not necessary to refer to God only in this way. Out of respect for its own tradition, the Church does not use the Name. This was confirmed again by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 2001 and 2008: it should not be used in liturgical occasions, scripture translation, and outside of these with respect only.

    In addition, Jesus is also referred to as "ho theos": E.g. Jn 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8; cf. also Tit 2:13; 1 Jn 5:20; 2 Pet 1:1. In some Eastern Christ icons, the inscription "Ho Theos" can also be found in Christ's cross-divided glory.

    The Holy Tetragrammaton is, on the one hand, a revelation, on the other hand, a refusal of the Name. God's essence, His existence is fundamentally different from this world, so we cannot "essentially" know God - we can only say "what He is not". He is unnameable. This is spiritual emptiness (kenosis), the theology of asceticism - apophatic (negative) theology. The "hidden divinity", sought by the prophet in everything, and finally found in the gentle breeze.

    This emptiness (kenosis), "darkening", the "dark night of the soul" stands in blindness from the Light (three apostles on Mount Tabor), "gnophos" and not "skotos". This leads to the theology of mysticism, the cataphatic theology, which is filling up with God - theosis -, enlightenment (phótismos).

    Then we experience God as a Reality existing in three Persons, a Flow of Love, in His "activity" (énergeia) permeating the world.

    And the fact that Jews did not pronounce God's name is not superstition, and I don't know of Jesus speaking against it. What we do know, however, is that Apostle Matthew - obviously under the influence of inspiration - preserved this Jewish custom. He never pronounces God's name, in fact, he doesn't even use the word God (cf. what is Kingdom of God in Luke, is Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew).

    We do not know the exact pronunciation of YHWH. One thing is for sure: "Jehovah" was never the correct pronunciation. The Jews - due to the second commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" – eventually decided that since it's sometimes hard to determine what constitutes taking the name in vain, they rather would never utter it. Once a year, the High Priest would pronounce the Name in the Sanctuary, so by Jesus' time, common people couldn't know exactly how to pronounce it, since Hebrew writing only records consonants, not vowels. The vowels were added to sacred texts (with dots under, next to and above the letters) around the 9th-10th century AD (in many cases in Europe) to prevent further text corruption. The vowels of the word Adonai (= Lord) were dotted under the sacred four letters, so that the reader would immediately remember not to say the word, but to read Adonai instead. Christian readers, not highly educated but having learnt the Hebrew alphabet, read the vowels of YHWH and the vowels of Adonai (a-o-a) together, and through the inevitable phonetic change, this produced "Iehovah". This is a simple misunderstanding arising from a lack of familiarity with scripture and the Hebrew language. The Old Testament calls God by several names: YHWH, El, Elohim, Adonai - and that's not even mentioning other names (Lord of Hosts, Most High, Majestic, etc.). Of these, only the first was not pronounced, because it's the name Moses inquired about in the burning bush episode, and God Himself denied its pronunciation - this is when He says: "I am who I am," in another translation: "I am that I am". So, behind the prohibition to pronounce it is the deepest respect, based on God's decision - He did not publicly reveal this name, it could only be voiced inside the Sanctuary, once a year, only from the mouth of the High Priest, without ear-witnesses. This is a sign of the deepest respect for the infinitely Majestic God, whom no human word can describe or comprehend. He is ineffable (Deus ineffabilis, as phrased by the Latin Church). When we say God, it's not His name, but His nature (like we have a name, say Nicholas, and we have a nature: we are human). In other words, we Christians also do not pronounce God's name. Pope Benedict XVI recently reminded us several times that Christians must also respect God's name, and therefore warned against the irresponsible use of the form YHWH, even more so against its irresponsible pronunciation. The four letters often appear in churches because it is God's name, the incomprehensible Mystery, the ultimate Mystery before which we also kneel in adoration. We only write down the consonants, so the exact pronunciation remains hidden, and we do not pronounce it. It is also written like this on the pages of the Bible. The Bible translations - following the millennial tradition - translate it as Lord (Adonai) wherever it encounters the Sacred Tetragrammaton.

    Indeed, when the New Testament uses the expression 'ho theos' (the God), it almost always (apart from the exceptions mentioned above) refers to the Father. The form without the definite article, referring to Christ, appears several times (Jn 1:1c. Tit 2:13). However, this does not affect the question of divinity; it is a question of usage. The Redeemer's name was Jesus; "Christ" is not a name but a title, a titulus, and theologically a function. In a word: the term "Christ" in New Testament theology clearly refers to the Anointed One (Messiah), sent by God, equal with God, of the same essence. Therefore, the word "Christ" - just like the word "theos" - is used with a definite article (Iésous ho Christos, literally: Jesus the Christ).

    God's name is not a name in the sense that the names of the ancient gods were, which could be invoked at any time. God revealed Himself to Moses as "I am who I am (ehyeh asher ehyeh) ... I am (ehyeh) has sent me... the LORD [YHWH] has sent" (Exodus 3:14-15). Hebrew writing only recorded consonants, and when the Jews read the Scripture aloud and reached the four letters (YHWH), they respectfully said Adonai (the Lord, my Lord) instead, causing the precise pronunciation to be lost. According to scholars, the word originates from the verb "to be", so the currently most probable variant Yahweh essentially means the future tense, causative form of the verb "to be": "He who will cause to be" = He who will sustain life? (This is grammatically acceptable, though an unused form.) Most modern Old Testament translations indicate the word Yahweh as "LORD", using small capital letters. The "Jehovah" variant, known from the older translation, literature, and Jehovah's Witnesses, is a theological term of medieval origin. They wrote the vowels of Adonai under the consonants of YHWH, so that one reading YHWH would say Adonai, but certain medieval theologians read the consonants of YHWH together with these vowels. This is how the variants Iahovah or Iehovah etc. were created.

    Even today, Jews call God "the Name" (ha Shem). In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for "person", so the word "name" is used: e.g., "to call upon the name of God" = to call upon God Himself; "to exalt the name of God" = to exalt God Himself for who He is. This unusual usage of language also passed into the New Testament, e.g., Acts 1:15 "the company of persons was in all about 120" (literally "the number of names together were about 120") or Acts 4:12 "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" = there is no one else.

    In Hebrew thought, a name not only distinguishes (a way of addressing someone), but also expresses the character and qualities of the person. God also has many names based on His attributes and actions, and the experiences of the faithful, e.g., the Lord, the Almighty, the Most High, King, God of Comfort, God of Tender Love, Rock, Father, etc.

    In the writings of the Watchtower, they consistently confuse the justified demand to indicate in the translation at appropriate places in the Old Testament that Yahweh or Jehovah - and the fabricated demand that they should also attempt this at the 200+ places in the New Testament set by them, even though here they are completely devoid of even the slightest semblance of manuscript and historical evidence.

    These insertions are only described as "easier" and "reasonable" reading by the Watchtower. In reality, it is a sectarian stigma: the brand pressed onto your group body by the "wise slave" out of an insatiable desire to be different. The shameless setting aside of the Greek text at hand. Double standards. Because they do the same thing as the "great harlot" they condemn, only they are in theory willing to give up their custom and release many translations that abound in the name Yehovah / Jahweh, while the Watchtower is not willing to do the opposite.

    The fact that the New Testament refers to the Old Testament in certain places does not make your underlying assumption a fact, a text, or data that in the original apostolic-evangelist text, YHWH was also present. However, you yourself say in your own writings (although you cannot defend this in a factual argument) that "apostate copyists" omitted the Name etc. But you cannot provide a single New Testament manuscript that would support you here. The "apostate copyist" hypothesis is good for everything and for nothing. With this method, one could also prove that reincarnation was in the Bible, but those damn "apostate copyists" left it out.

    Don't forget: the authors of the New Testament often quote the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Hebrew text. And despite a few manuscripts the refer to, the Septuagint contains the tendency (and not only as a sideline but as a mainstream, and well before the New Testament was written) to replace the YHWH name with the word "Lord". One may argue with this tendency and qualify its cause as superstitious - but it seems the authors of the New Testament did not consider it superstitious or offensive to God, because whenever they quote the Old Testament, they do not transliterate the tetragrammaton into Greek letters, but call it Lord. Therefore, they approved of the Jewish custom you call superstitious. And they at least testify against you that the YHWH name in the New Testament is so important and indispensable that without proclaiming it, the Church itself would collapse.

    In response to the question that if it is permissible to rewrite the YHWH name in our translations of the Old Testament, why it is not permissible for you to "rewrite" it in the New Testament, I answer this: you overlook a very important aspect. We are free to consistently write out the YHWH name as Yahweh or Jehovah in our translations (like J. N. Darby, for instance), and we don't bite off the head of anyone who perhaps, out of excessive fear due to the "do not take in vain" commandment or for some other reason (e.g., not wanting to mispronounce it) prefers to circumlocute the Name. So there is freedom with us: the saying (not) and translating (not) of the YHWH name is not a matter of faith with us. Moreover, newer translations also distinguish between Lord (Adonai) and LORD (YHWH), so anyone who wants to can reconstruct the original for themselves by looking past the usual substitution.

    You can't use this freedom of ours to justify the way you falsify the New Testament Greek manuscripts, which - as I just demonstrated - deal just as coolly with the tetragrammaton and translate it into Lord as freely as we do. What's more, you "brand" anyone who removed the YHWH name from both covenantal documents as "apostate". But it turns out that this accusation of yours hits the apostles first. For if they had considered it a matter of faith, what you take as such, they would have avoided the Septuagint like the plague.

    No one has claimed against you that "YHWH is not the name of God". Only that it is not the only name of God, and not an indispensable name for him. Learn to understand your opponents' claims in the sense they represent, and don't project some concocted, obviously easily attacked nonsense in their place. And don't expect me to defend this nonsense on behalf of everyone. No: it is your schizophrenic, either-or logic that has led you astray, which shouts in your ear that God can only have one true and indispensable name (the YHWH), and whoever denies this is already denying that the YHWH name is God's.

    Has God changed? The answer is a clear no. God did not change when he said that his YHWH name was not yet known to the patriarchs. And he did not start to change when he declared himself in Jesus as Father (as the Father of Jesus Christ and our Father). This would lead to another thread of debate, so I won't elaborate on it here.

    Since it is undeniable that the YHWH name does not appear in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, apart from the four Hallelujahs*, but only the transcription of Kyrios (Lord), what prevents us from keeping these in the translations of the New Testament? The fact that the New Testament writers (following the Septuagint) grecianized the names of Jeremiah and Jesus, why wouldn't we accept their grecianization of the YHWH name into "Kyrios" as well? And it can't be argued against this that "apostate copyists left out the YHWH name from the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament", because 1. there is no evidence for this, 2. why couldn't anyone say that "then let's also restore the names of Jeremiah and Jesus in the New Testament to Hebrew!"?

    * According to this, those "apostate copyists" were not vigilant enough to weed this out as well. These four examples actually weaken the JW's case, because while it preserves the name 'Yah' in the New Testament in a liturgical formula, it's not a pervasive use. So the copyists could not have been led by superstition or pagan prejudice, as JWs are prone to presume.

    I see the storm with which JWs force the YHWH name onto the New Testament as very recent and artificial. How the Septuagint and today's translations have dealt with it, I don't consider it a matter of salvation, and I read Darby as willingly as the King James. I don't know if this is a laid down program with them, but I feel that the JWs were the first to make this a matter of salvation. If the debate has come to this point (that one party brands the other as heretical and apostate based on (among other things) their wanting to translate the YHWH name into Kyrios, LORD, or Eternal), then those who wanted to maintain their previously free and innocent custom as a custom feel quite helpless. Because we acknowledge that with us it's not a law, not a matter of salvation, and in principle could change at any time (of course, rewriting translations doesn't happen overnight, especially if there's no compelling reason) - but they attack us and label us all sorts of things because of it.

    The Watchtower and its apologists often refer to the discovery of some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint, which were in use in the days of Jesus, and that these fragments can be found with the form of YHWH in Hebrew characters. The question is how this script, which was not universally known in Jewish circles according to various sources, could have made its way into the New Testament in such a way that not a single instance has survived. One of the Bodmer papyri (p66) contains the section from Jn 1:1 to 6:11 in its entirety, including for example Jn 1:23: "I am a voice crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as Isaiah the prophet said." According to the JWs, the tetragram should be here. Well, this papyrus dates from the 2nd century, and we have hardly any longer New Testament sources from before that time. I haven't checked what text witnesses there might be for the places in question, but you already have to place the "apostate copyists" team's flawless operation at a very early date.

    The Watchtower is sitting on the horns of a dilemma here. Because if that stack of Greek manuscripts, on which it is forced to base the authenticity of God's Word in other respects, fell victim to the tendentious "apostate copyists" at this point, then what stopped them from inserting whole doctrines into the Scriptures elsewhere so that they appear uniformly in all surviving copies? And then the JW's own sect is compelled to make itself the measure of authenticity not only with regard to the New Testament occurrences of the YHWH name, but also in regard to many other text-critical and theological questions. However, this would indeed be a real FDS "papacy".

   

  While the name Yahweh is not Yahweh himself, in the Scriptures the "name" often represents the thing expressed by the name, and thus "the name of Yahweh" refers to Yahweh himself, who cannot tolerate any kind of profanation of his person. The pious can be characterized as those who fear the name of Yahweh. In fact, any violation of God's commandments is a desecration of his name. The often apostate Israel, therefore, brought disgrace upon the name of Yahweh with every sinful act. This is why the prophets often rebuked Israel for the desecration of Yahweh's name, most sharply Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Malachi.

  Under such circumstances, the belief gained ground that the name of Yahweh should really be relegated to the sanctuary as the most appropriate environment, because only the consecrated personnel, the priesthood, could use it without profanation. The command given to the priests to invoke the name of Yahweh upon the sons of Israel during the blessing (Numbers 6, 27), seemed to confirm that only they were entitled to pronounce the name of Yahweh.

  Under the influence of this increasingly widespread view, after the Babylonian captivity, out of respect for the sanctity of the name of Yahweh and to avoid profanation, a custom developed among the Jews to utter this sacred name less and less, then to write it less frequently in ordinary, profane documents (e.g. contracts), and finally not to utter or write it at all. According to the scholars (rabbis), this outcome sufficiently protected the name of Yahweh from profanation.

  The practice of refraining from the use of the name Yahweh, or of increasingly withdrawing it from common use, can be observed from the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – AD 54), knowing nothing of the former general use of the name Yahweh, is evidence that the replacement of the name Yahweh with Adonai was probably already a completed fact in the 3rd century BC. The advice Ben Sirach, who lived in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 2nd century BC, which we read in Ecclesiasticus 23:9, points to this: "Do not accustom your mouth to oaths nor habitually utter the name of the Holy One".

  Witnesses to the avoidance of the use of the divine name Yahweh include:

  The earliest translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Alexandrian Greek translation known as the Septuagint (LXX), which was made in the 3rd century BC, always replaces the name Yahweh with the word Kyrios (= Lord).

  Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (died AD 54), possibly of priestly descent, writes that the four-letter divine name engraved on the high priest's golden head plate could only be uttered in the holy place (the temple) by those whose ears and tongues had been purified by wisdom. Elsewhere he says that to address God, people are allowed to use the word "Lord".

  Josephus Flavius (died around AD 100), a Jewish priest and historian, informs us that it is not permissible to speak of that name, i.e., it is not permissible to pronounce the name that God revealed to Moses.

  Rabbi Abba Saul, who lived in the first half of the 2nd century AD, already declares anyone who dares to pronounce the name Yahweh as it is spelled to be excluded from eternal salvation. He therefore threatens the person with punishment in the afterlife. No earthly judge judges such a person; only blasphemy against Yahweh is punished by earthly courts. However, a legal scholar of the 4th century, Rab Chanin, relying on the authority of the famous Rab (died 247), declares: "Whoever hears the name of God (Yahweh) mentioned from someone's mouth is obliged to excommunicate him immediately."

  Since the mere pronunciation of the name Yahweh has been classified as a deadly sin by the rabbis, this teaching about the name of God has become increasingly complex among the Jews (especially among the so-called "mystics"), because the name of Yahweh, holy above all, was almost equated with the divine essence. Philo and Onkelos believe that the mere pronunciation of Yahweh's name in Moses' book is forbidden. According to Onkelos, "Whoever pronounces the name of Yahweh, let him be killed, let the entire community stone him, both the newcomer and the native, when he pronounces the Name, let him be killed."

  And it is a firm principle in Rabbinic law that while all other sins can be atoned for in this life, there is no atonement in this life for the desecration of Yahweh's name; neither repentance, nor the Day of Atonement, nor suffering can wipe it out, in fact only the death of the penitent can.

  Since the distrustful and at the same time unreliable Eastern man, prone to lying due to his character, frequent swearing was also very common among the ancient Jews, and in the oath the name of God is invoked, it is natural that the danger of desecrating the name Yahweh was most often at the thoughtless swearing. Therefore, rabbinism has long referred the prohibition contained in Exodus 20:7 mainly to the oath. Philo exclusively understood it about the oath. Josephus Flavius also writes that the third commandment (according to Jewish calculation) prohibits us from swearing in any vain thing. Similarly Onkelos, whose targum translates this verse of the Hebrew text as follows: "Do not swear by Yahweh's name in vain, for Yahweh does not hold him guiltless who swears falsely by his name."

  Since, therefore, the sin committed by the careless pronunciation of Yahweh's name could not be made good by any earthly atonement, the Jews in Christ's time, looking for a way out, deliberately avoided naming God Himself in the oath and only swore by the heaven, the earth, Jerusalem, their own head (life), mistakenly thinking, on the one hand, that such an oath is not binding, and on the other hand, that they thus avoid the desecration of the divine name, and can indulge in the bad habit of vain, thoughtless swearing with impunity. However, our Lord Jesus spoke out against this erroneous understanding and thoughtless swearing and showed his contemporaries that such an oath, not directly on the name of God, but indirectly, is in fact an oath to God, because it involves reference to God as the creator and lord of those things.

  It is noteworthy that the first Christian witness who informs us that the Jews read the word Adonai instead of the four-letter divine name is Origen (185-254), who, among other things, writes: "There is an unutterable four-letter name, which is also written on the high priest's golden forehead plate, and it is pronounced Adonai, although this is not what is written in the four letters; in Greek, it is expressed with the word Kyrios."

  Albert Pietersma takes issue with Howard's claim that "we can now say with almost absolute certainty that the divine name, יהוה, was not rendered by κύριος in the pre-Christian Bible". He holds that the Septuagint Pentateuch originally contained κύριος, and that the hebraizing insertion of the tetragrammaton in some copies can be seen as "a secondary and foreign intrusion into LXX tradition". Emanuel Tov states that "the writing of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters in Greek revisional texts is a relatively late phenomenon."

  Martin Rösel holds that the Septuagint used κύριος to represent the Tetragrammaton of the Hebrew text and that the appearance of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in some copies of the Septuagint is due to a later substitution for the original κύριος: "By means of exegetical observations in the Greek version of the Torah, it becomes clear that already the translators of the Septuagint have chosen 'Lord' (kyrios) as an appropriate representation of the tetragrammaton; the replacement by the Hebrew tetragrammaton in some Greek manuscripts is not original." He recalls that, although κύριος was obviously the name that early Christians read in their Greek Bible, "Jewish versions of the Greek Bible, including Aquila and Symmachus as well as a few LXX manuscripts," had the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters or the form ΠΙΠΙ imitating Hebrew יהוה and also recalls the arguments for the originality of the Greek transcription ΙΑΩ. However, in view of the inconclusive nature of the analysis of the manuscripts, he proposes evidence internal to the Septuagint text that suggests that "κύριος is the original representation of the first translators", delimiting his research in this matter to the Pentateuch texts, since these were the earliest and provide a glimpse of a translator's theological thinking, for, as he said earlier, "the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by theological considerations when choosing an equivalent for the divine name". In some contexts, to avoid giving the impression of injustice or harshness on the part of κύριος, they represent the Tetragrammaton instead by θεός. Thus the immediate context explains the use of θεός as avoidance of the default translation as κύριος, while "it is hardly conceivable that later scribes should have changed a Hebrew tetragrammaton or Greek ΙΑΩ into a form of ὁ θεός". The presence of κύριος in the deuterocanonical books not translated from Hebrew but composed originally (like the New Testament) in Greek and in the works of Philo shows, Rösel says, that "the use of κύριος as a representation of יהוה must be pre-Christian in origin". He adds that this use was not universal among Jews, as shown by the later replacement of the original Septuaginta κύριος by the Hebrew Tetragrammaton; and he says that "the ΙΑΩ readings in the biblical manuscript 4QLXXLevb are a mystery still awaiting sound explanation. What can be said, is that such readings cannot be claimed to be original."

  The Jews were not afraid of "superstitiously" pronouncing the name, but of unnecessary invocation of the Person behind it, reckless, insignificant, aimless, or malicious mention (the "in vain" in Exodus 20:7 refers to this). Understandably, due to their terrifying experiences with God, they avoided the "vain" use of God's name.

  There is no indication in the Bible that Jesus ever uttered the name. The burden of proof would be on you, which you obviously don't do enough. This is speculation. I know that every time you see the word "name", you immediately associate it with the term YHWH, but this can even be supported by the publications of the Watchtower, that this term refers to the being of God. Hallowed be the "name" of God = Hallowed be God himself!

  If Jesus in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21) had pronounced the Name while reading Isaiah (61:1-2), wouldn't that have caused an outrage among the "superstitious" Jews, wouldn't they have attacked him immediately? Instead, we read that they listened attentively to the reading (4:20), and even initially received his added words positively (4:22).

  I know that in the Witnesses' minds, the Watchtower's dozen hypotheses consolidate into fact.

  The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into ancient Greek as early as the 3rd century BC (this is the Septuagint), and such translations were made later as well. However, all these translated the text of the Old Testament. Of course, it is acceptable that some translators retained the Tetragrammaton in the Greek translation (and here we are not talking about the original Greek text of the New Testament!).

  However, it is already the unproven theory of the WTS, lacking any factual basis, that the writers of the New Testament, the Christian Greek Scriptures, using these Septuagint versions, also transferred it into the Greek text of the New Testament. Out of the 15 Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament, 14 directly come from the Hebrew Scriptures, yet there is not a single New Testament fragment that contains the Tetragrammaton!

  However, most Witnesses, when they see the fragments of the Septuagint in the Appendix of the NWT or the image of the Hexapla fragment in this article, and the Association claims: this "proves that the name of God was used in the Christian Greek Scriptures," they automatically adopt and consider this baseless conclusion logical. Why? Simply because the complete system of the borrowed theory is already in their head, they trust the WTS, so this information, without any checking, ends up on the appropriate shelf of the existing system, in the box labeled "Evidence". The WTS manipulates extremely effectively. This is how a fiction becomes a fact, even a dogma, in their minds as well.

  This is all you are doing, to bring out the YHWH associated with the Hebrew Old Testament cult, a Judaizing tendency that is completely foreign to the theological environment of the New Testament.