The name “Jehovah” comes from an English rendering of the Tetragrammaton—a name consisting of 4 letters (YHWH). This name appears more than 6000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament text. The Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament, also contains the name.
However, no New Testament manuscript contains this name at all, not even when the writers quoted Old Testament passages where the Tetragrammaton appeared. Instead, the Greek text substitutes the words kyrios (Lord) or theos (God).
The Watchtower admits that no existing New Testament Greek manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton. On page 11 of its Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, it states, “One of the remarkable facts, not only about the extant manuscripts of the original Greek text, but of many versions, ancient and modern, is the absence of the divine name.”
Despite this, the Watchtower’s New World Translation inserts the name “Jehovah” into the New Testament 237 times. How do they justify this?
They assume that it must have been there. The Septuagint translators included the Tetragrammaton, so why wouldn’t the writers of the Christian Scriptures have done likewise? Also, in view of the fact that James referred to God calling out of the nations “a people for his name” (Acts 15:14), the Watchtower deems it unlikely that it would have been removed by the Christian writers. Besides, “Jah” is an abbreviation of the divine name, and John included the term “Hallelujah” (“praise Jah!”) in Revelation four times.
On page 17 of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, the Watchtower concludes “that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with… at least from the 3d century A.D. onward, the divine name in Tetragrammaton form has been eliminated from the text by copyists who did not understand or appreciate the divine name or who developed an aversion to it, possibly under the influence of anti-Semitism. In place of it they substituted words derived from the Greek words kyrios (usually translated ‘the Lord’) and theos, meaning ‘God.'”
Based on all these arguments, the Watchtower has “restored” the name 237 times in the New Testament.
There’s a major problem with this line of reasoning. If the original New Testament writings contained the Tetragrammaton but no existing Greek New Testament manuscripts contain it, then that would mean that the scribes who copied and transmitted it systematically tampered with the text 237 times by removing it.
If so, how can we trust the New Testament at all? What else did the scribes change that hasn’t been caught? Did they remove other things that it should contain? Did they add in things that shouldn’t be there?
Ironically, a recent article in The Watchtower undermines Jehovah’s Witnesses own arguments (“The Bible Survived Attempts to Alter Its Message,” The Watchtower No. 4, 2016). This article stresses that we can trust the Bible. It points out that by comparing Greek texts from all areas of the world, scholars can determine which copyist’s variants should be rejected as not accurately reflecting the original text.
With regard to the text of the New Testament, the Watchtower states:
“The Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland, features a collection of papyri that represents nearly every book of the Christian Greek Scriptures, including manuscripts dating from the second century C.E.—only about 100 years after the Bible was completed. “Although the Papyri supply a wealth of new information on textual detail,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary observes, “they also demonstrate remarkable stability in the transmission history of the biblical text…”
It cites with approval this statement about the Christian Greek Scriptures by Sir Frederic Kenyon: “No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text, and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.”
But how could it be “substantially sound” if, as the Watchtower claims, ignorant or anti-Semitic scribes systematically tampered with it 237 times? And if they removed the divine name because of some misguided motive, why did they leave the four “Hallelujahs” of Revelation in?
In discussing this issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses, you can ask, “Don’t you believe that God has preserved his Word against attempts by its opponents to destroy or corrupt it? If the Tetragrammaton was in the original Greek text of the New Testament more than 200 times, then why isn’t there even one Greek New Testament manuscript that contains it?”
Aren’t the following points a far more likely explanation?
- The entire New Testament text can be trusted because God has preserved his Word from its enemies.
- Therefore, scribes did not systematically tamper with the New Testament text with regard to any matter.
- Comparison of Greek New Testament texts from all areas of the world provides a reliable way of determining what the original writings did or did not contain.
- No New Testament Greek text from anywhere in the world contains the Tetragrammaton.
- Therefore, the original Greek New Testament texts did not contain the Tetragrammaton.
- Although the Watchtower considers inclusion of the divine name in the New Testament to be highly significant, the original, inspired Christian writers did not consider it important at all.
- By adding the name “Jehovah” into the New Testament 237 times despite the fact that no Greek manuscript contains it, it is the Watchtower—not the scribes—that has tampered with the New Testament text.
Your turn:
Have Jehovah’s Witnesses told you that scribes took the divine name out of New Testament texts and that the Watchtower has restored it? If the scribes tampered with the text with regard to this matter, what else did they tamper with? Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses trust the New Testament at all? Who really tampered with the New Testament text—the scribes or the Watchtower?
Share your thoughts in the comments.
Leave a Reply
14 Comments on "Tampering with the New Testament Text"
Good point! The altering would have had to have begun almost immediately, and not just regarding the writings of one NT author (such as Paul) but regarding all of them.
Right. YHVH should have NEVER been removed. Doing so made it easier for the trinity scamers.
The point is that it wasn’t removed from the New Testament. It was never there in the first place. If the scribes really tampered with the New Testament text 237 times, what else did they tamper with? Why would anyone trust the New Testament text at all?
Actually, (despite my private opinion that like LXX, NT fragments with the Name will eventually surface) we don’t know if it was there or not. What we do know is that Bible translators have treated the Tetraram as a special case, as outlined in a comment to Bridget above. The Name, we all acknowledge, has been tampered with in the OT. Yet, we do not assume the entire text is faulty. Deadsea Isaiah confirms our assumption is correct.
I think we need to distinguish between translators and scribes. Scribes had the duty of faithfully copying the text in the language in which the text was originally written. Translators had a different role of writing the Scriptures in the different language (such as LXX translators translating the OT from Hebrew into Greek).
I agree, the distinction is important.
So, let me pose 2 reasonable questions, from the perspective of translation, rather than transcription: Do you think it is acceptable to translate the Tetragram with the English “LORD”, which is the most common word used by the precedent- setting AV of 1611, and subsequently, most other versions since? And, as a corollary, is “JEHOVAH” an acceptable English equivalent for the Tetragram, which the AV, uses 7 or 8 times?
I personally believe LORD, Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHWH would be acceptable in English translations. Generally, translations include footnotes or other explanatory material.
And a follow-up question: So, again, speaking from the perspective of translation, if ‘Lord” is an acceptable replacement for ‘Jehovah’ in the OT, why is it not acceptable to replace ‘Lord’ in the NT with ‘Jehovah’, when the subject is the God of the OT?
Because the Tetragrammaton doesn’t appear in the NT text.
That’s why I specified from the perspective of translation, not textual transmission. So, again: If ‘the Lord’ and ‘Jehovah’ are translational equivalents in English, which both the AV translators and you agree, why is it wrong to use ‘Jehovah’ in the NT when the subject is clearly the LORD God of the Israelites of the OT?
Because that would lead the reader to conclude that the Tetragrammaton appears there, which it doesn’t. Now that I think about it, though, inserting it might aid the Trinitarian argument. Psalm 102:24-27 is clearly addressed to Jehovah, saying that he laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of his hands. Yet if we put “Jehovah” into Hebrews 1:8 rather than “Lord,” we would have the Father explicitly addressing the Son as “Jehovah.”