"Jehovah" in The New Testament

"Jehovah" in the NT
(For much more concerning God's Name, click here.)

A number of anti-Watchtower writers take delight in "exposing" the "fraudulent" use of Jehovah in the NT by the NWT translators. They correctly point out that none of the still existing MSS of the NT use the divine name. Therefore, they claim it is a terrible dishonest act to replace that name where it should have been (in NT quotes from the OT which originally used it, for example.)

But, if we know it belongs there. And if we know the MSS we have today were copies of copies, etc., written hundreds of years after the originals, and therefore may well have been changed when the name became a hated "Jewish" name to "Christians" (around 135 A.D.). Why is it considered so terribly wrong to restore, for the sake of clarity if nothing else, the name we know belongs there.

Does the fact that the name is not in the text used today mean that it should not be used in the places where the term "Lord" now is, even if that term produces confusion? ("Lord" can be used for God, Jesus, and men. "Jehovah" can be used only for God!)

What about other, trinitarian-respected Bibles? Would they be accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, etc. if they added a personal name to their translation for clarity or to make some other point, when it wasn't actually in the NT text to begin with?

Well, let's look at John 12:41 as an example. The scripture says in the available manuscripts: "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and he spoke about him."

This could be understood to mean God's glory or Jesus' glory. Whether for clarity or to try to make a trinitarian point here, Some respected trinitarian Bibles replace "he" or "him" with "Jesus"! See, for example, NIV; NJB; and NAB ('70).

We see the same thing, probably just to make it clear to the readers what was probably intended, at Mark 1:41, 45 (as well as other places throughout the NT.)

Mark 1:41 says in the Greek text: "And being moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him". But look what these respected trinitarian Bibles write here instead:

KJV

- "Jesus , moved with compassion, put forth his hand"

NKJV

– "Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand"

NIV

– "Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand"

NRSV

– "Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand"

REB

– "Jesus was moved to anger; he stretched out his hand"

NEB

– "In warm indignation Jesus stretched out his hand"

JB

- "Feeling sorry for him, Jesus stretched out his hand"

NJB

– "Feeling sorry for him, Jesus stretched out his hand"

So, have these respected trinitarian translations been accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, etc. because they have added a personal name to their translation which was not in the original Greek text?

Let's do one more that's nearby, Mark 1:45 (there are plenty more). The Greek says:

"… the man started to proclaim it … so that he was not able to enter openly into the city".

NASB

– "to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city"

KJV

– "… insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city"

NKJV

– "So that Jesus could no longer openly enter the city"

NIV

– "As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly"

RSV

– "So that Jesus* could no longer openly enter a town"

NRSV

– "so that Jesus* could no longer go into a town openly"

REB

- "until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town."

NEB

- "until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town,"

JB

- "so that Jesus could no longer go openly into any town"

NJB

- "so that Jesus could no longer go openly into any town"

NAB('91) 
– "so that it was impossible for Jesus to enter a town openly."

MLB

- "so widely that Jesus could no longer enter a town openly"

* "Greek he"

Again, have all these respected trinitarian translations been accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, etc. because they have added a personal name to their translation which was not in the original Greek text? Of course not!

The following is my reply to a letter from a Bible-studying acquaintance:

Dear Harvey,

You wrote in your 27 May `94 letter [p. 4, HARVEY-H]:

"Since the name `Jehovah' is never used in the New Testament at any time or in any place in thousands of manuscripts early or late, not by Jesus or any other, I see no evidence -- none whatsoever -- to support the idea that the use of this name is essential. I'm just going by the evidence. This is not to say that the use of the name Jehovah is inappropriate because it has Biblical antecedents.

....

"When the theory was first propounded ... that the name `Jehovah' was originally part of the Greek New Testament—but later expunged—it was before the Egyptian papyrus texts had come to light or been published.

....

"In the late twentieth century because of our increased state of knowledge this nineteenth century thesis is no longer tenable; we have early texts, as early as 125 A.D. and we have different text-types. And evidence of systemic tampering of this nature is not there."

I agree that most of the physical evidence found in existing NT manuscripts does not support "Jehovah" in the NT, and, ordinarily that would be enough for me. But what makes such a difference to me is the belief that BOTH "Testaments" are the word of God and must not contradict each other in important areas of knowledge.

We can accept both "Testaments" as the inspired word of God and still see understandable differences occurring between the two, but not basic contradictory differences. For example, we know how and why animal sacrifices to God have been done away with. It has been carefully, logically explained in the NT and, therefore, does not contradict the OT teachings where such sacrifices were required (essential). But where is the careful, logical explanation that shows that the necessary knowledge and use of God's name (as clearly acknowledged by word and example throughout the OT) was done away with in the NT?

It's not there! How can it be that God reveals his personal name and commands that it be publicly acknowledged and used forever by his servants (and they respectfully do so for over a thousand years) and then, for no scriptural reason, His worshipers suddenly begin refusing to use that name and even hide it?

I see the solution to the issue of God's name in the NT as similar to the solution for the question of Zechariah 12:10 which you acknowledged as a "disputed" text. We may not find the physical evidence in OT manuscripts to prove that Zech 12:10 originally read "They will look upon him whom they have pierced..." (in fact the majority of existing MS evidence for the OT points the other way). But the clear, undisputed (even by the trinitarians' "Majority" Text or the Byzantine, or Received Text, etc.) physical evidence of the NT where this OT scripture is quoted exactly that way (Jn 19:37) is proof for me that that is what was originally written in the OT as well. I don't see how anyone (even a trinitarian) who agrees that both "Testaments" are the inspired word of God could honestly disagree no matter how much he wants to believe the trinitarian interpretation of Zech. 12:10. The undisputed proof of the one testimony makes the other (more doubtful) one certain also!

I hope you agree that the inspired OT writers, at least, considered God's Holy Name (YHWH, "Jehovah" in traditional English transliteration or "Yahweh" in another transliteration) as essential. It was used and praised and revered in the OT to an overwhelming degree. It was reverently used nearly 7000 times, much more than any other name in the entire Bible or any title used for God ("God," "Lord," etc.). It was declared to be of essential importance (not in a magical, superstitious sense, but as an essential ingredient in the knowledge of the only true God and in proper worship of him):

Ex. 3:15 -

"Jehovah ... This is my name for ever; this is my title in every generation."- NEB.

"Jehovah, .... This is My name forever and by this I am to be remembered through all generations." - MLB.

"Jehovah ... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations." - LB.

"Jehovah ... this is my name forever." - Byington.

"Jehovah, ... this is my name forever" - ASV.

"Jehovah ... this is My name forever" - KJIIV and MKJV.

"Jehovah, .... This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." - Darby.

"Yahweh .... This has always been my name, and this shall remain my title throughout the ages." - AT.

"Yahweh .... This is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come." - JB & NJB.

"By this name I am to be remembered by all people for all time." - NLV.

"My name will always be YAHWEH." - ETRV.

This scripture alone shows us that His name is essential! Those who worship him, the witnesses of Jehovah, are commanded to know and use it. There are many other Scriptures, however. A few of them are:

1 Chron. 16:8 -

"O give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name; Make known his doings among the peoples." - ASV.

"Give thanks to Yahweh, call his name aloud, proclaim his deeds to the peoples [`among the nations' - NAB (1991); MLB; GNB; `world' - LB]." - NJB.

"O give thanks to Jehovah, call upon His name" - KJIIV.

"Give thanks to Jehovah, call in His name" - Young's.

"Invoke him by name" - REB.

"... call upon him by his name" - The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1970.

"Praise [Jehovah]; call on His name" – The Tanakh

Is. 12:4 -

"And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted." - ASV.

"And, that day, you will say, `Praise Yahweh, invoke his name. Proclaim his deeds to the people [`nations', RSV, NRSV, MLB, NAB (1991), GNB; `world', LB], declare his name sublime.'" - NJB.

"call his name aloud." - JB.

"invoke him by name" - NEB & REB.

"call aloud upon his name" [Boate to onoma autou, literally: "call aloud his name"] - The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1970.

"Praise [Jehovah], proclaim His name" - Tanakh

Zeph. 3:9 -

"For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Jehovah, to serve him with one consent." - ASV.

"Yes, then [the last days] I shall purge the lips of the peoples, so that all may invoke the name of Yahweh." - NJB, c.f. JB.

"That they may invoke [Jehovah] by name" - NEB & REB.

"call out the name of [Jehovah]." - ETRV.

"So that they all invoke [Jehovah] by name" – Tanakh.

Joel 2:26, 32 -

"And ye ... shall praise the name of Jehovah your God .... And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered." - ASV.

"You will ... praise the name of Yahweh your God .... All who call on [`invoke' - REB & NEB]  the name of Yahweh will be saved." - JB & NJB.

"you shall … praise the name of [Jehovah] your God …. But everyone who invokes the name of [Jehovah] shall escape" – The Tanakh (Joel 2:26; 3:5)

Here, like knowing God (Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9), calling on (or invoking) Jehovah's name is an essential part of the road that leads to life.

Since it is a requirement to call upon, or invoke the name Jehovah, the knowledge and use of that name is essential (as made known in the OT at least)! And, like knowing God, "calling upon his name, Jehovah" includes much more than merely pronouncing his name aloud in prayer. But, nevertheless, it does necessarily include the knowledge of and the respectful use of his personal name, Jehovah (or Yahweh).

For example, Elijah, in his famous demonstration of who the only true God is, told the priests of Baal,

"Call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Jehovah: and the God that answers by fire, let him be God."

So how did the priests of Baal call on the name of their god?

"And they ... called on the name of Baal ... saying `O Baal, hear us.'" [And how did Elijah call on the name of Jehovah?] "O Jehovah .... Hear me, O Jehovah, hear me, that this people may know that thou, Jehovah, art God.... And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said [aloud, uncoded, in plain language], `Jehovah, he is God'" - ASV, 1 Ki. 18:24, 26, 36-39.

Obviously, calling on (or invoking) the name of Jehovah includes the reverent use of that only personal name of the true God!

Many other scriptures throughout the OT declare the extreme importance (to God and us) of our knowing and declaring and calling upon the name Jehovah:

Jer. 16:19, 21 -

"O Jehovah ... unto thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited nought but lies ... and they will know that my name is Jehovah." - ASV.

"and they shall know that My name is Jehovah." - KJIIV & MKJV.

"and they will be certain that my name is [Jehovah]." - BBE.

"and they shall know that my name is Jehovah." - Darby.

"and they shall know that my name is JEHOVAH." - Webster.

"and they shall learn that My name is [Jehovah]. – Tanakh.

Zech. 13:9 -

"They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say [aloud, uncoded, in plain language], Jehovah is my God." - ASV.

"They shall call on My name, and I will answer them. I will say, It is My people, and they shall say, Jehovah is my God." - KJIIV.

"They shall call on my name, and I will answer them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, Jehovah is my God." - Darby.

"They will invoke me by name, … And they will declare, [Jehovah] is our God" – Tanakh.

Notice the parallelism: `They shall call upon my name' is paralleled with `Jehovah is my God."

Ezek. 39:7 -

"And my holy name will I make known ... and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah" - ASV.

"The nations will know that I am Yahweh" - NJB.

"I will make My holy name known among My people Israel, and never again will I let My holy name be profaned. And the nations shall know that I [Jehovah] am holy in Israel." – Tanakh.

Ps. 83:16, 18 -

"Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, [O Jehovah].... that men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." - KJV.

"Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Your name .... Let them be ashamed and troubled forever; yea, let them be put to shame, and lost; so that men may know that Your name is JEHOVAH, that You alone are the Most High over all the earth." - MKJV.

"Cover their faces with shame so that they seek Your name, O [Jehovah] …. May they know that Your name, Yours alone, is [Jehovah], supreme over all the earth." – Tanakh.

Ps. 135:13 -

"Thy name, O Jehovah, endureth forever; Thy memorial name, O Jehovah, throughout all generations" - ASV.

"Thy name, O Jehovah, is for ever; thy memorial, O Jehovah, from generation to generation." - Darby.

"O Jehovah, your name endures forever" - LB.

"O [Jehovah], your name endures forever" – Tanakh.

We are to know and use Jehovah's name, but we must not misunderstand how extremely important it is to Him (and to us). One of God's Ten Commandments, for example commands:

"You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses [1] his name." - Ex. 20:7, NJB [also NRSV, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB, CEV, NLV, ETRV].

God certainly didn't say, "Don't ever use my Holy Name"! By direct Bible statements and commands and by the clear, thousand-fold repeated examples of all the prophets of God in the OT we know that God's Holy Name must be known and used by his people - for all generations. Instead, this Scripture shows the extreme importance of that name (would God really punish anyone who deceitfully misuses his name if that name weren't extremely important?) and that it must be used in a manner that shows its great importance. 

(Please comment on the undeniable removal of God's personal name by "Christian" translators from thousands of places in the OT where the inspired Bible writers originally placed it! After all, for hundreds of translations - in the last few centuries at least - we can see the actual Hebrew OT manuscripts which the "orthodox" translators used and compare that with their actual translations which have God's name removed!

Honestly, isn't this a terrible misuse of his Memorial Name? Isn't this "Christian" tradition inexcusable? How can it be supported by any Christian? How could it even be quietly condoned? Doesn't it illustrate a basic error that the vast majority of Christendom has embraced for many centuries? The complete elimination of the name of the "Hebrew" God has been a goal of the majority of Christendom for so long that its beginning is all but lost in the shrouded mist of time. But for Christendom to claim that this was the case from the very beginning of Christianity is a terrible thing to do.)

Malachi 2:2; 3:16, 17 -

"Unless you listen to me and pay heed to the honouring of my name, says [Jehovah], I shall lay a curse on you .... A record was written before [Jehovah] of those who feared him and had respect for his name. They will be mine, says [Jehovah] ... and I shall spare them" - REB.

(Doesn't the removal of Jehovah's name from the inspired scriptures display a clear lack of respect for his Holy Name? How could there be a more blatant misuse of his Name?)

I don't understand how anyone can deny the extreme importance of God's eternal, holy name in the OT nor that that name was used respectfully much more than any other name (nearly 7000 times) throughout the OT. Nor that God foretold that it would have to be known worldwide by all the nations. And that name was YHWH in the OT! Nor can I understand anyone honestly refusing to admit that YHWH simply does not translate nor transliterate, by any stretch of the imagination, into "Lord"!

Therefore, if we translate YHWH to its most probable equivalent ("He Who Will Be [With You]") or transliterate it into a possible Hebrew form ("Yahweh" or "Yahowah" - see the PRONOUNCE study paper) or even its traditional English form ("Jehovah" - to match the traditional English form of "Jesus")[2] and leave it where it was actually placed by the inspired OT writers, that is not only good but essential.

What are we doing if we purposely change the inspired scriptures; if we purposely remove an essentially important word 7000 times from the inspired Scriptures (and add words and meanings not intended in the original)? We are not just interpreting and translating, but we are actually disobeying God's clear commandments concerning his Most Holy Name and disobeying his clear commandments concerning adding to and taking away from his inspired word! How can this possibly be Christian (whether it started in the 2nd century or the 17th century)?

And if Jesus (the Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Jew) quotes from the OT to his fellow Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Jews, he is not going to do it from the Greek Septuagint! He is going to do it from the scrolls found in the temple in Jerusalem (or copies thereof): the Hebrew Scriptures!

"...the Hebrew text, ... was the only authoritative form of the scriptures recognized by the Palestinian Jews." - p. 168, Vol. 2, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987. (In any case even the Septuagint at this time in Palestine also used the Divine Name in Hebrew characters.)

When Jesus quotes Ps. 110:1, he will say "Jehovah said unto my lord, 'Sit thou on my right hand...'." - Matthew 22:44. (Notice the use of "LORD" instead of "Lord" here in the NT in the KJV - what does the code word "LORD" really mean in the KJV?) He would not substitute another entirely different word with an entirely different meaning from what was written by the inspired Bible writers (certainly not if he was quoting the only personal name of God). He continually, fearlessly broke the superstitions and man-made traditions of the Jews in favor of what his Father actually taught and commanded.

So even if the Jewish tradition of substituting "Lord" for "Yahweh" when reading Scripture aloud had been established in Jerusalem itself at this time (which is highly arguable), Jesus would not have hesitated to ignore it in favor of the truth. Certainly he would not have polluted the holy `Shema' but would have said "Jehovah [is] our God; Jehovah [is] one" to the admiring Jewish scribe at Mark 12:29! - see NKJV ("LORD"). Also notice Jesus' words at Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; 5:33; 21:42; 22:37, 44. (Likewise, the inspired Jewish Christian writers of the NT when quoting OT scripture where the Name was clearly written would have also written that Name - e.g., Matt. 3:3, etc.)

I cannot believe that the only-begotten Son of God would deliberately and knowingly change any part of the scriptures. I cannot even conceive of him actually changing the very name of God found in those holy Scriptures! (If the very Son of God himself was forced to never say aloud the name of his Father, we would be terribly wrong to presume that it is acceptable for us to pronounce that most holy name - and all the preceding holy prophets of God would have been terribly, tragically wrong to use the name aloud almost incessantly as they did!)

We need to know this important information from Scripture itself, not from what is acknowledged to be a "superstitious tradition" of the later Jews! But there is nothing in the Scriptures to support it, and the entire OT shows conclusively that the name YHWH was used frequently and respectfully by all his people from the beginning.)

Therefore, if we are to keep the Scriptures from terribly contradicting themselves in an extremely important area, we must conclude that either the OT scriptures are wrong or the oldest available NT manuscripts and fragments (at least those which actually contain places that quote from the OT where "YHWH" was originally used) are copies that have been changed from the original! Since the name of God being used as YHWH even in everyday life is attested to by archaelogical findings back to the 8th century B. C. at least, I am forced to conclude that, yes, the existing NT manuscripts are terribly wrong in this particular area.

I don't believe that the very earliest fragments of papyri of the NT (that date back to the 2nd century) even have quotations of the OT where God's name would be expected to be found. (For example, the very oldest papyrus manuscript which I believe you refer to - p52 ca. 125 A. D. - is only a fragment of parts of John 18 and contains no quotation from the OT, or allusion to it, which uses God's name and, therefore, cannot be honestly used as evidence for the use or non-use of the divine name in NT manuscripts of that time.) But even if they do, they are still copies of the original whose copyists must have changed the Divine Name in much the same way as the Septuagint copyists changed it about the same time period and probably by the same "Christian" scribes.

When did the Jews begin avoiding the pronunciation of the Divine Name and changing the written form (if they did)?

Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile.... This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.

Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used [aloud] by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. [A.D.]. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name." - p. 5, Vol. 2, Insight on the Scriptures, WBTS, 1988.

[Among others, fragments of a leather scroll (LXXVTS 10a) dated to the end of the first century A.D. found in a cave in the Judean desert used the tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters extensively in 5 of the 'minor prophets,' and a fragment of a parchment scroll of Zechariah (LXXVTS 10b) dated to the middle of the first century C.E. found in the Judean desert used the tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew characters.]

So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B. C. E. period. In the first century C. E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God's revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: 'Then God revealed His name, which ere then had not come to men's ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.' (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus' statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.

The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C. E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: 

"It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party ... - these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah's statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage." (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:

In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby's translation of the Mishnah states:

"And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, `Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!'" (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: "In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word." Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty `unless he pronounced the Name,' .... Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those "that have no share in the world to come," states: "Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters." Yet despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that "a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]," the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited. - Berakhot 9:5.

Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using [pronouncing aloud] the divine name sometime before Jerusalem's temple was destroyed in 70 C. E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces. 

Additionally the historical value of the Mishnaic tradition is questionable, as we have seen.

There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second centuries C. E. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance for the [oral] use of the divine name. The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either `Adhonai' Sovereign Lord) or `Elohim' (God) rather than the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C. E. [after 500 C. E.], the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either 'Adhonai' or 'Elohim' into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. If using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in later copies, the reader, of course, found the Tetragrammaton completely replaced by Kyrios and Theos ....

Translations into other languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, followed the example of these later copies of the Greek Septuagint. The Catholic Douay Version (of 1609-1610) in English, based on the Latin Vulgate, therefore does not contain the divine name, while the King James Version (1611) uses LORD or GOD (in capital and small capitals) to represent the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew scriptures, except in four cases. - pp. 5-7, Vol. 2, Insight.

The fact that all complete manuscripts of the Septuagint in existence today (4th century A.D. and later) use "Lord" was thought to mean that it had been originally produced that way. But many relatively recent discoveries of fragments of much older Septuagint manuscripts (1st cent. B.C. to 3rd cent. A.D.) have been made.[3] When those fragments include places where the divine name is used in the original Hebrew Scriptures, it is either written "YHWH" in Hebrew characters or trans-literated into a corresponding Greek sound, (e.g., IAO) but not "Lord"! It would appear most likely that the original Septuagint translation used the Divine Name properly and reverently.

"Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios ["Lord"]. LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumran [1st century B.C.] even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. These instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes (P. E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 1959, 222; cf. S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, 1968, 185 f., 271 f.)." - p. 512, Vol. 2, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

So how does the Watchtower Society explain the lack of Tetragrammata in the existing NT manuscripts? And on what basis have they attempted to restore them to today's NT translation?

The argument long presented [to justify the teaching by Christendom that the original inspired manuscripts of the NT did not contain the Tetragrammaton] was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint,[[4]]and that, since this version substituted Kyrios or Theos for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: `We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.' (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?

It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila's Greek version, dating from the second century C. E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C. E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: `In Origen's Hexapla ... the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by [a representation of the Tetragrammaton in Greek letters]; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.' (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen's Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that `in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.'

....

The so-called Christians, then, who `replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios' in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings. - 2 Th 2:3; 1 Ti 4:1." - pp. 9-10, Vol. 2., Insight.

So why is the name absent from existing NT manuscripts and why have some translators (beginning with a 14th century translation of Matthew, including the Hebrew translations of the NT by the United Bible Societies, 1983 ed., and the Lutheran scholar Delitsch, 1981 ed., and the English translation of the New World Translation) actually used the Tetragrammaton (or its transliterated form) in their NT translations?

[The name is absent from existing NT manuscripts] "Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Kyrios and Theos. .... This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
....

"As to the properness of this course [replacing the Divine Name at certain places in NT translations], note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. [Girdlestone] said: `If [the Septuagint] had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N.T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm, instead of saying, "The Lord said unto my Lord," might have said, "Jehovah said unto Adoni." ' [[5]]

"Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: `Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Kurios occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N.T. into all languages if the title [personal name] Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, whenever the expression "the angel of the Lord" occurs, we know that the word "Lord" represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression "the word of the Lord" would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title "the Lord of Hosts." Wherever, on the contrary, the expression "My Lord" or "Our Lord" occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used.' (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43.) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name of Jehovah have proceeded.

"Outstanding, however, in this regard is the New World Translation, ... in which the divine name in the form 'Jehovah' appears 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As has been shown, there is sound basis for this." - p. 10, Vol. 2, Insight.

So recent discoveries have tended to verify (not disprove) the earlier conclusion of scholars who believed both "Testaments" are equally inspired and, therefore, must both use the personal name of God.

"Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for NT [New Testament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, [YHWH] (and possibly abbreviations of it [Yah, IAO]), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT [Old Testament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with [kurios, 'Lord']. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself." - George Howard, University of Georgia, writing in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63.

Another piece of evidence concerning the use of the Divine Name by the inspired Christian writers may be found in the ancient Jewish writings of the Talmud:

Some have criticized [the restoration of the divine name to the NT in the New World Translation] as unwarranted. However, there seems to be support for the New World Translation in an unlikely source: the Babylonian Talmud.

The first part of this Jewish religious work is entitled Shabbath (Sabbath) and contains an immense body of rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. In one section, there is a discussion as to whether it is proper to save Bible manuscripts from a fire on the Sabbath, and then the following passage appears: `It was stated in the text: The blank spaces [gilyohnim] and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand.' - translated by Dr. H. Freedman.

Who were the minim? The word means 'sectarians' and could refer to the Sadducees or the Samaritans. But according to Dr. Freedman, in this passage it most likely refers to Jewish Christians. So, what were the gilyohnim, translated `blank spaces' according to Dr. Freedman? There are two possible meanings. They could be the blank margins of a scroll or even blank scrolls. Or - in an ironic application of the word - they could be the writings of the minim, as if to say that these writings are as worthless as blank scrolls. In dictionaries this second meaning is given as 'Gospels.'[[6]] In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above-quoted portion reads: 'The books of Minim are like blank spaces [gilyohnim].'

Accordingly, in the book Who Was a Jew? by Lawrence H. Schiffman, the above-quoted portion of the Talmud is translated as follows: `We do not save from a fire (on the Sabbath) the Gospels and the books of the minim ("heretics"). Rather, they are burned in their place, they and their Tetragrammata. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: During the week, one should cut out their Tetragrammata and hide them away and burn the remainder. Said Rabbi Tarfon: May I bury my sons! If (these books) would come into my hand, I would burn them along with their Tetragrammata.' Dr. Schiffman goes on to argue [like Dr. Freedman above] that the minim here are Jewish Christians.

Is this portion of the Talmud really speaking about the early Jewish Christians? If so, then it is strong evidence that the Christians did include God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in their Gospels and writings. And it is extremely likely that the Talmud is discussing Jewish Christians here. There is scholastic support for such a view, and in the Talmud the context appears to add further support. The section following the above quote from Shabbath relates a story involving Gamaliel and a Christian judge in which parts of the Sermon on the Mount are alluded to. - pp. 30-31, The Watchtower, November 1, 1993.

Why would "Christian" copyists later remove the Hebrew name of God from their Greek manuscripts of the OT and NT?

The very first Christians (including those who wrote most, if not all, of the NT) used the Hebrew Scriptures. (Even for those few who might have used the Septuagint, the Name of God was still found in Hebrew letters in its manuscripts of that time in Judea.)

"In this period [first century AD] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members .... professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew Scriptures, and took Messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the ethics of Judaism for granted" - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend, Fortress Press, 1985.

However, at some point (probably around the time of the Jewish Revolt of 135 A.D.) the Gentile Christians took over. The Scriptures came to be Greek rather than Hebrew, and an actual anti-Jewish sentiment began to predominate. The Septuagint was now being used exclusively, but the anti-Jewish Gentile "Christian" copyists actually removed God's name whenever they saw the "despicable" Hebrew letters of the Divine Name (the Tetragrammaton [YHWH, Jehovah] and its shortened form [YH, Jah]) that were still being used in the original Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint. They usually replaced the name with "Lord" or "God" in the copies they made.

... the church was by this time [around the middle of the 2nd century AD] a predominantly Gentile body. According to Christian writers in the second and third centuries, relations between Christians and Jews apparently became increasingly hostile. [p. 103]

After the Jewish revolts against Rome (AD 66-74, AD 132-135) most Christians dissociated themselves from the Jews. The Jewish Christians' refusal to support the revolts caused them to be regarded as national enemies. From this time few Jews were converted to Christianity.

Increasingly Christians came to regard Jews as deliberate haters of the good. When the church became recognized by Constantine, legal discrimination against Jews increased and they were gradually deprived of all rights. [p. 594, The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing, 1990.]

* * * * *

It was the generation following the destruction of the Temple which brought about a final rupture between Jews and Christians .... In the third rebellion against Rome [132-135 A.D.], when the Christians were unable to accept bar Kochba as their Messiah, they declared that their kingdom was of the other world, and withdrew themselves completely from Judaism and everything Jewish. The alienation process was completed. Judaism and Christianity became strangers to each other .... A wall of misunderstanding and hate was erected by the narrow zealotries of the two faiths. [pp. 152, 153, Jews, God and History, Max I. Dimont, A Signet Book, 1962.]

* * * * *

"[Bar Kochba] ... tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the Roman army." [p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988.]

"Another Christian apologist, Justin [Martyr], tells how ... Bar Kochba, the leader of the insurrection, ordered Christians alone to be executed if they would not deny and curse Jesus the Messiah." [Ibid.]

"After the war [some time after 135 A.D.] the Jerusalem church, once Jewish, consisted only of Gentiles."[Ibid.][7]

We can see one clear example of the very unChristian hatred for the Jews and everything Jewish (including the "Jewish" name of God, Jehovah) by the 2nd century Gentile "Christians" by examining their treatment of an extremely important custom. Jesus had commanded them to keep an observance memorial of his death like he had done with his disciples at the "Last Supper" on the Passover. The first Christians, then, observed the Memorial of Christ's death every Nisan 14th evening on the Passover (which most often did not fall on a Saturday or Sunday) by eating the Memorial Bread and drinking the Memorial wine. At some point this observance, commanded by Jesus, was greatly altered. It came to be observed at sunrise, only on a Sunday morning, and deliberately scheduled never to be at the time of the "hated" Jewish Passover. (It also later came to be called "Easter" in the northern lands of Christendom - see the HOLIDAYS study paper.)

When did this change come about? Well, we know that at the infamous Nicene Council (325 A.D.) a date was officially assigned (and enforced) "throughout the world" that was intentionally always different from the date of the Jewish Passover. Why? So "that none should hereafter follow the blindness of the Jews" - p. 859, Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, 14th ed.

We don't know exactly when this anti-Jewish reaction against the original Christ-commanded Memorial actually began in earnest (a good guess, however, would be 135 A.D. or shortly thereafter). But we do know that "By 180 A.D. the latter custom ['Easter' celebrated on the non-Passover date and always on a Sunday] prevailed generally" and that Pope Victor I (189-198 A.D.) "demanded uniformity and threatened to excommunicate" the minority of churches which still hung onto the original Jewish Passover date. - p. 190, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia International, Grolier, 1966.

A few churches still clung to the Apostolic custom for a while but were treated as heretics by the "orthodox" majority.

"It is true that from the middle of the second century onwards there is a strong reaction towards standardization in both faith and order; diversities in dogmatic formulation, in matters of liturgical practice (such as the observance of Easter), and in the text of Scripture began to be smoothed out.... it is painfully evident that those [Christians] who celebrated Easter on the same day as the Jewish Passover [Quartodecimans] were not motivated by special friendliness towards Judaism [Chadwick then refers to a strong anti-Jewish 'Easter' sermon by Quartodeciman Bishop Melito (ca. A.D. 160-170)] .... but there can be little doubt that the Quartodecimans were right in thinking that they had preserved the most ancient and Apostolic custom. They had become heretics simply by being behind the times." - p. 85, The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Dorset Press, 1986 printing.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica states that the

"earliest Christians celebrated the Lord's Passover at the same time as the Jews, during the night of the first (paschal) full Moon of the first month of spring (Nisan 14-15). By the middle of the 2nd century, most churches had transferred this celebration to the Sunday after the Jewish feast."

From this time - "middle of the 2nd century" (180 A. D., at least) - until the blasphemous Nicene Council (325 A. D.) "Hostility against Jews and Jewish customs led to formal debates [about the date for "Easter"] in councils of the Church." - How It Started, Garrison, p. 49, Abingdon Press, 1972.

With the example of the extremely important "Easter/Passover" reaction of the Gentile "Christians" in mind we should not be surprised that these same Jewish-hating people changed the Hebrew name of the "Jewish" God during their attempts to "smooth out" "the text of Scripture" during the same time period. In fact it would be surprising if they hadn't.

Remember, these "Christians" were mostly Greek (or Latin) speaking Gentiles. It was relatively easy for them to change all the instances of Yahweh and Yah to "Lord" or "God" since those words clearly stood out from the rest of the Greek writing in their Hebrew characters. But what if the hated name had been incorporated into other words and then transliterated into Greek by the original Septuagint translators? Would the name-removing Greek-speaking copyists still recognize it? Apparently not.

We find that when the shortened form of the Divine Name (Jah) was left in Hebrew characters by the original Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the "Christian" copyists always changed it to "Lord." But when the original Jewish translators had incorporated it with another word or words (as in proper names, e.g., "Elijah" [which means "God is Jehovah" - p. 674, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982] or in the phrase "Praise ye Jehovah" [Hallelu JAH]) and transliterated it into Greek characters, it became an acceptable "Greek" word (although one whose meaning they didn't wholly understand) to the "Christian" copyists, and they didn't change it (out of ignorance only). This is very obvious in the "Hallelujah" Psalms where, for some reason, the original Septuagint translators combined the two Hebrew words Hallelu ("Praise ye") and Jah ("Jehovah") and then put that new word into GREEK characters (which still had the Hebrew pronunciation of "Hallelujah").

When the 2nd century Jew-despising "Christian" copyists saw "Jah" in Hebrew characters, they always removed it entirely or changed it to "Lord" or "God" - e.g., Ex. 15:2; Ps. 68:4, 18; Is. 26:4. But when they saw the Greek characters of "HalleluJAH"  they always left it unchanged:

All uses of an independent (standing alone, not attached to other words or names) Jah in the Hebrew Scriptures:

* - Ex. 15:2 ..............................................K - Ps. 118:17

* - Ex. 17:16 ............................................K -  Ps. 118:18

K - Ps. 68:4 (:5 Heb.) ............................K - Ps. 118:19

* - Ps. 68:18 (:19) ..................................K - Ps. 122:4

K - Ps. 77:11 (:12) ..................................K - Ps. 130:3

K - Ps. 89:8 (:9) .....................................H - Ps. 135:1

K - Ps. 94:7..............................................K - Ps. 135:3

K - Ps. 94:12 ...........................................K - Ps. 135:4

K - Ps. 102:18 (:19) ...............................H - Ps. 135:21

H - Ps. 104:35__________ ...............H - Ps. 146:1_________

_/ H - Ps. 105:45 - Combined .........../H - Ps. 146:10 - Combined

..\ H - Ps. 106:1 in Sept.___ ..............\H - Ps. 147:1 in Sept.____

H - Ps. 106:48 ...................................._/H - Ps. 147:20 - Combined

H - Ps. 111:1 ..........................................\H - Ps. 148:1 in Sept.____

H - Ps. 112:1 ......................................._/H - Ps. 148:14 - Combined

H - Ps. 113:1 ..........................................\H - Ps. 149:1 in Sept.____

H - Ps. 113:9 ......................................_ /H - Ps. 149:9 - Combined

K - Ps. 115:17 ........................................\H - Ps. 150:1 in Sept.____

K - Ps. 115:18a ........................................K - Ps. 150:6a

H - Ps. 115:18b .......................................* - Ps. 150:6b

H - Ps. 116:19 ..........................................* - Ca. 8:6

H - Ps. 117:2 ............................................K - Is. 12:2

K - Ps. 118:5a ..........................................Th Is. 26:4

* - Ps. 118:5b ...........................................Th - Is. 38:11

K - Ps. 118:14

Key:

* - Reworded to eliminate use of Jah, "God," and "Lord" in existing Sept. MSS.

K - Jah has been replaced with Kurios (`Lord') in extant Sept. MSS.

Th - Jah has been replaced with Theos (`God') in extant Sept. MSS.

H - Jah has been transliterated into Greek letters of HalleluJAH in Sept.

Notice that everywhere Jah is used by itself (except when accompanied by hallel) it has been changed by the "Christian" copyists. However, whenever Jah was accompanied by Hallel ("Praise"), the original Septuagint translators incorporated it with Hallel into a single word and then wrote it out in Greek characters (transliterated it) keeping the Hebrew pronunciation of Hallel and JAH !

"Psalms 113-118 are traditionally referred to as the `Hallel Psalms,' because they have to do with praise to God for deliverance from Egyptian bondage under Moses. Because of this, they are an important part of the traditional Passover service. There is no reason to doubt that these were the hymns sung by Jesus and his disciples on Maundy Thursday when he instituted the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:30).

"The word halal is the source of `Hallelujah,' a Hebrew expression of `praise' to God which has been taken over into virtually every language of mankind. The Hebrew `Hallelujah' is generally translated [falsely], `Praise the Lord!' The Hebrew is more technically [more honestly] translated `Let us praise Yah,' the term `Yah' being a shortened form of `Yahweh,' the unique Israelite name for God." - p. 301, - Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Unger and White, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1980.

"Hallelujah - Praise ye Jehovah - frequently rendered [falsely] `Praise Ye the Lord" - p. 276. "Jah - a shortened form of `Jehovah,'" - p. 322, Today's Bible Dictionary, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.

"HALLELUJAH ... 'praise ye Jehovah'; allelouia .... In the NT ['Hallelujah'] is found as part of the song of the heavenly host (Rev. 19:1 ff)." - p. 1323, Vol. 2, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans Publ., 1984 printing.

"hallelujah: (Heb., hillel, he praises; Jah, form of Yahweh-Jehovah....) Literally, Praise ye Yahweh." - p. 320, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (editor), 1945 ed.

"HALLELUJAH - HALLELOUIA [in NT Greek] signifies `Praise ye Jah.' .... In the N.T. it is found in Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6, as the keynote in the song of the great multitude in Heaven. Alleluia, without the initial H, is a misspelling." - p. 520, W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1980.

"ALLELUIA, the Greek form (Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6) of the Hebrew Hallelujah = Praise ye Jehovah, which begins or ends several of the psalms (106, 111, 112, 113, etc.)." – Easton's Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1897.

The NT Greek text does have the initial `H' sound. The "misspelling" is in certain English translations (e.g., KJV) which drop the beginning `H' sound: "Alleluia"! However, most respected modern translations do have "Hallelujah" in Rev. 19 (e.g., NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, REB, MLB, Mo, and Barclay).

"Hallelujah....is derived from halal, which means to praise, and Jah, which is the name of God .... here in this chapter [Rev. 19] the original Hebrew form transliterated into Greek, is retained." - p. 169, Vol. 2, William Barclay, The Revelation of John, Revised Edition, The Daily Study Bible Series, Westminster Press, 1976. 

"Alleluia, so written in Rev. 19:6, foll., or more properly Hallelujah, Praise ye Jehovah ...." - p. 31. "Jah (Jehovah), the abbreviated form of Jehovah ... The identity of Jah and Jehovah is strongly marked in two passages of Isaiah - 12:2; 26:4." - p. 276, Smith's Bible Dictionary, William Smith, Hendrickson Publ.

"Trust ye in Jehovah for ever; for in Jehovah ['Heb. JAH' - ASV f. n.], even Jehovah [YHWH], is an everlasting rock." - Is. 26:4, ASV.

Yes, Jah is equivalent to Jehovah. Two different forms of the very same PERSONAL NAME of God. (This is likely equivalent to the way Greek manuscripts often abbreviated "God" [Qeos, 'theos'] as QS. If so, Jah would still be pronounced "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" - see the PRONOUNCE study paper.)

Psalm 68:4, King James Version - "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name; extol him...by his name JAH ['Jehovah' - ASV; LB]..."

Of course, the Gentile manuscript copyists of later centuries probably did not know that "Abijah" ("The Father is Jehovah"), "Elijah," ("God is Jehovah"), etc. are transliterations that actually use the shortened form of God's personal name ("Jah") and certainly didn't know that "Hallelujah" (Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6) is really Hebrew for "Praise Jah" or they would have surely changed them all also. However, the inspired Jewish Christians who actually wrote the original NT manuscripts certainly knew that writing or proclaiming aloud "Hallelu JAH!" (whether in Hebrew characters or Greek characters) was writing (or proclaiming aloud) God's personal name. If the Jewish Christian and Apostle John had left God's name out of the NT originally, he surely would not have then used "Hallelu JAH!" in four places in Revelation 19, for he knew exactly what it truly said: "Praise ye Jehovah"! Only the Hebrew-ignorant Gentile "Christian" copyists would be fooled by "Hallelujah" exactly as they were when they removed and changed the Divine Name in the Septuagint about the same time)!

Actually, then, "Jehovah" IS found in ALL existing MSS of the NT which include Rev. 19.

The extreme importance of this must not be overlooked or minimized. The last book of the Bible (and one of the last to be inspired and written) reasserts and re-emphasizes the extreme importance of God's only eternal personal name. In the "keynote in the song of the great multitude" worshipers of the true God are commanded to praise "our God": "Give praise to our God (ainete [to theo] hemon). Present active imperative [the form used for commands] of aineo." - p. 488, Vol. 6, A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures.

And exactly who is the God whom all are commanded to praise? "God who sits on the throne" (19:4) is the Father, Jehovah alone. See all other instances of the God seated on the throne in the Book of Revelation (e.g., Rev. 4:2, 8; 5:6, 7, 16; 7:9). "The Lord our God the Almighty [pantokrator]" (Rev. 19:6) is never used of the Son (nor anyone else), but only the Father, Jehovah alone. E.g., 2 Cor. 6:18 says: "And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty [pantokrator]." Yes, the only person called God in the Book of Revelation is always the Father. (Rev. 1:6 - "[Jesus Christ] has made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father.") So how do God's true worshipers respond when commanded to praise this God Almighty seated on the throne? 

"HALLELU JAH!" ("Praise JEHOVAH!").

"Jehovah ... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations." - Ex. 3:15, LB.

If "Hallelujah" had not been, for some unknown reason, combined into a single word by the original translators of the Septuagint[8] (or by very early copyists) and was therefore misunderstood by the Gentile "Christian" copyists of the second century, then even this last (and most important) use of "Jehovah" would have been eliminated from all of the NT Greek Scriptures.

As it is, however, the exclusive name of God was miraculously preserved in the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT (even after the Jews finally succumbed to the superstitious practice of never pronouncing aloud that supremely important name that still appeared written in their OT manuscripts). It was miraculously preserved in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek manuscripts of the OT. (Even after later copyists changed nearly all instances into "Lord" or "God," it remained in the "Hallelujahs.")[9] It was miraculously preserved in the Greek NT manuscripts. (Even after copyists changed nearly all instances into "Lord" or "God," it, too, remained in the single-worded "Hallelujahs.") And it was miraculously preserved in the extremely significant statement of Ps. 83:18 in the English of the King James Version which took away "Jehovah" and substituted "LORD" nearly everywhere else (nearly 7000 times).

So on the basis of the many clear, unquestioned teachings of the OT (and since I believe the two "Testaments" must not so completely contradict each other in such an important area), I am forced to the conclusion that "YHWH" and "YAH" have been removed from the NT in most cases (at the very least in places where the OT is quoted or clearly alluded to). Zech. 12:10 is an example of a similar "contradiction" of the OT with the NT which is resolved by the undeniably certain testimony of one of them (John 19:37 in the NT) versus the questionable testimony of the available manuscripts of the other (OT) - see the MINOR study paper. In the case of God's Name the evidence from the OT is much more overwhelming concerning its extreme importance (and the necessity of its being universally known and reverently used) than the evidence for a discontinuation of the use of that name in existing copies of NT MSS.

Remember, the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the custom of writing the tetragrammaton in copies of the Septuagint "was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D." - Vol. 2, p. 512. So the name was in the very copies (whether in the Hebrew or the Septuagint) which were read and quoted by the inspired NT writers themselves!

And Prof. George Howard of the University of Georgia tells us:

"When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes [`Lord,' `God'] in the Septuagint [after 'the first centuries A. D.'], it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint .... Before long it was lost to the Gentile Church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars." - Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978.

This removal of God's name was obviously done in a parallel manner (and at approximately the same time - probably near the time of the Jewish rebellion of 135 A.D. - and by the same people[10]) to the same changes being made in the Septuagint. These are the same "Christians" in the same time period who (probably for the same reasons) radically changed the Memorial Celebration of Jesus' death. Observance of this extremely important ceremony was commanded by Jesus, instituted by the Apostles, and continued until after the deaths of the Apostles when an intense anti-Jewish attitude within Christendom began to dominate (135 A.D. and after).

However, in spite of strong circumstantial evidence (including motive, opportunity, and a history of similar activity [modus operandi] as discussed above), the only real proof we have of the desecration of God's name in copies of the NT manuscripts is the incredibly clear and repeatedly emphasized statement of the OT concerning the never-changing, essential importance of God's personal name (to him and us). There is no other teaching in the entire OT that is any clearer or more emphatic than this. If this is really contradicted by the testimony of the original inspired NT manuscripts, then nothing can be relied upon in scripture, and all is lost.

Either the eternal Holy Name of God is as important forever to all generations and nations as the OT insists emphatically and repeatedly, or it isn't. If it isn't, we simply cannot trust the Bible as the word of God. If it is, then, either the NT has had that essential, eternal name removed in many places, or it is not the word of God. I still believe that both "Testaments" are the word of God and must reveal clearly all essential and important knowledge that we need to worship God in spirit and truth.

Therefore, the best conclusion is that "Jehovah" has been eliminated from the existing copies of the NT manuscripts exactly as it has been removed from existing copies of the Septuagint OT MSS. (And exactly as "Christian" translators have most often removed that name from the OT in English Bible translations - e.g., KJV; RSV; NASB; NIV; NRSV; etc.) The restoring of this most-important name to the NT in the NWT should cause rejoicing. Instead it is one of the most criticized (often angrily, with hateful attacks) features of the NWT. The very same spirit which has prompted Christendom (illogically) to actually remove that only personal name of the only true God from the original Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament AND from even the most "literal" of translations of the original Hebrew manuscripts of the OT (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.) still motivates and influences most of Christendom today.

* * * * *

Note:

Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research and conclusions to provide evidence disproving the "orthodox proof" being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the information in this paper, all of which helps disprove specific "orthodox proofs," may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics. Jehovah's Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others. - RDB.

* * * * *

"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the 'Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer" - Tertullian (3rd cent.A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.

"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.

...........................................................................

NOTES

1. The word used in the Hebrew is shav or, more accurately, shawa' (!&X) which is rendered in the NASB as vain, deceit, deceitful, deception, false, falsehood, lies, etc. - p. 1602, New American Standard Exhaustive Concordamce of the Bible, #7723, Holman Publ., 1981.

------------------------------------------------------------------

A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament - shawa' ): "…. misuse a name Ex. 20:7" - p. 360, Eerdmans, 1981.

"The basic meaning of this word is 'deceit' or `deception,' `malice,' and `falsehood.' This meaning emerges when shawa' is used in a legal context [e.g.]: `Put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous [`deceitful'] witness' (Exod. 23:1).* Used in cultic contexts, the word bears these same overtones [deceit, falsehood] but may be rendered variously. For example, in Ps. 31:6 the word may be rendered `vain' (KJV, `lying'), in the sense of 'deceitful' (Cf. Ezek. 12:24). Eliphaz described the ungodly as those who trust in `emptiness' or `deception,' though they gain nothing but emptiness as a reward for that trust (Job 15:31)." - p. 91, Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1980.

_________

* Ex. 23:1 - shawa' is rendered as `false' or `lying' in this scripture in most Bibles. Here is the full rendering as found in NRSV: "You shall not spread a false [shawa'] report. You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness." If the meaning is `deceit' or `deception' or `falsehood' when used in a legal context, as here, it should also be understood in this way at Ex. 20:7 (`malice' does not fit the context of this verse), which is the ultimate in legal contexts! It should, therefore, probably be rendered something like: "You must not deceitfully misuse the name of Jehovah." It is even possible, since the word !:0, nasa may be translated as `take away' (among many other meanings), that it could be rendered: "You must not, by deceit, take away the name of Jehovah."

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Deceit. - The misleading of another by word or deed, in which it is equivalent to falsehood (Pr 1425, Hos 127) .... It is so characteristic an element of evil that it is frequently used in Scripture as synonymous with it (Ps 119118, Jer 75)." - p. 583, Vol.1, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Greek word used at Ex. 20:7 to render the Hebrew shawa' in the ancient Greek Septuagint is mataios.

"mataios means `worthless because deceptive or ineffectual.' .... It may be pointed out that ... `taking in vain' [mataios, mataioV] is a phrase for [deceitful or lying] misuse of the name of God in Ex. 20:7." - pp. 571, 572, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ["Little Kittel"], Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

"The [Greek Septuagint] used mataios ... to translate various Hebrew words .... [including shawa'] .... These words all denote the various ways in which man can resist the reality of God in His revelation and claims on him." - p. 550, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, Zondervan, 1986.

What else could you call the deceitful misuse of God's name by most trinitarian Bible translators (and trinitarian "scholars" and preachers who defend it)? What else could you call the conscious, deliberate removal of God's only personal name in nearly 7000 places where it was originally written in the inspired scriptures and the conscious, deliberate replacement of that God-given name with an entirely different word (usually LORD) in most trinitarian Bibles? What could more clearly be called the "misuse" of God's Name? What could be more appropriate than calling it shawa' or mataios (`deceitful,' `lying')?

The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version this book says concerning a spurious verse added to 1 John 5 by later copyists:

"The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project "to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version." To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God." - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.

And yet, in the most blatant and Scripture-defying act of this kind, these two scholars (and most other scholars, priests, preachers, and teachers of trinitarian Christendom) condone the removal of God's only personal name from the original inspired scriptures and its deceitful replacement with an entirely different word and its entirely different meaning! 

Yes, even one of the Ten Commandments itself clearly points out one of the major deceptions of most of the trinitarian churches and sects in modern Christendom and condemns it most strongly!

2. Not only is "Jehovah" more used today than "Yahweh," but it is still the preferred usage at some of the highest levels in the U.S. today.

On October 11, 2001, in a nationwide televised memorial to those slain at the Pentagon in the aircraft terrorism disaster, the Chief Chaplain of the U.S. Armed Forces gave the opening prayer. Assembled there were the families of the victims, members of Congress, ex-President Clinton, members of the Cabinet, and President George W. Bush. The Chaplain opened by praying to the Creator God and identified Him by name as "Jehovah"!

Then, after Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke, and before the President was to speak, the Band played "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" which repeatedly has the refrain "Glory, Glory Hallelujah." `Hallelujah,' of course, means literally "Praise Jah" ("Praise Jehovah")!

3. "Notice this comment by Robert Hanhart, who contributed the Introduction to `The Septuagint as Christian Scripture.' He stated therein that, `All Greek biblical texts of Jewish origin found to date, whether from pre-Christian or Christian times, transmit the name [Jehovah] not in the form [Lord] encountered in all the LXX [Septuagint] manuscripts of Christian origin, but in some form of the Tetragrammaton.' (See: `The Septuagint as Christian Scripture,' 2002, book, p.7, by Martin Hengel. Introduction by Robert Hanhart, published by Baker Academic. ISBN 0-8010-2790-X)." -http://www.2001translation.com/Genesis.htm#_Jehovah [2001 Translation – An American English Bible] – Emphasis added as usual.

4. There is strong evidence that Matthew (and possibly other NT writers) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic). If this is so, the inspired Bible writer would surely have used the personal name of God! The Hebrew manuscripts at that time (and for many hundreds of years thereafter) contained the Name nearly 7000 times. Whenever Matthew (and the Hebrew-speaking Jesus and his Apostles) quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, he would have used the Name just as it is found in the Hebrew scriptures.

The WT Society also believes Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic): 

"In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: 'Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language.... Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.' Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the `Old Testament' that contained the name." - p. 24, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, WTBTS, 1984.

Noted trinitarian scholar F. F. Bruce agrees that the Gospel of Matthew (at least) was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and cites another source as evidence:

"Aramaic is known to have been the common language of Palestine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in all probability the language which He and his Apostles habitually spoke. The New Testament writers usually call it `Hebrew,' thus not distinguishing between it and its sister language in which most of the Old Testament was written. Now, we have evidence of an early Aramaic document in another fragment of Papias [c. 60-130 A. D.]: `Matthew compiled the Logia [literally, "the collection" - Thayer] in the `Hebrew' speech [i.e. Aramaic], and everyone translated them [into Greek] as best he could.' " - p. 38, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.

So, whether originally written in Greek or "Hebrew," the writings of the New Testament should have used the Name of God, especially in quotes from the Old Testament.

And when we restore the name of God to the NT, we eliminate the confusing contradiction of Matt. 22:43-45 and its parallels (Mk 12:36-37; Lk. 20:42-44) where Jesus quoted Ps. 110:1.

"How does David in the Spirit call him `Lord,' [kurios] saying, `The Lord [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], "sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet." ' If David then calls him `Lord,' [kurios] how is he his son?" - Matt. 22:43-45, NASB.

Literally this says in the NT Greek:

"How therefore David in spirit is calling him Lord [kurios] saying Said `Lord [kurios] to the Lord [kurios] of me Be sitting out of right hand of me until likely I should put the enemies of you beneath the feet of you'? If therefore David is calling him Lord [kurios], how son of him is he?"- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, WTB&TS, 1985.

First, of course, it doesn't say "The Lord said..."; it actually says "Lord said..." because the original was "Jehovah" (without "the," of course) and "Lord" was substituted for this name later (still without "the").

Second, in this version there are two uses of "Lord" [kurios], but Jesus speaks as though there is only one (because there really was only one "Lord" [kurios in the Greek here] at the time he spoke it! The other word that later copyists changed to kurios was originally "Jehovah" as can be seen by actually looking at the OT manuscripts that have the scripture Jesus was quoting!).

Third, not only is it confusing to have two uses of kurios here, but, if we insist on this version, it would be grammatically much more accurate to select the first use of this word (the substitute for "Jehovah") as the one Jesus was referring to. Since he said, "If David calls him `Lord'..." but not "David calls him `the Lord' (or `my Lord')...", it would be proper to say that Jesus was referring to the first `Lord' (which is without the word "the") in that quote from the OT. In reality, of course, he was actually referring to the "second" use of kurios as found in modern texts! All this would be smoothed out if the name were simply restored to the NT where it obviously was originally: "Jehovah said to my Lord" as found in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scripture at Ps. 110:1 which Jesus was quoting - ASV.

"Since confession of Jesus as Lord was the mark of the Christian and since for Christians there was no other Lord, it was natural for Paul to speak of `the Lord' when he wished to refer to Jesus. It is true that the same title was used to refer to God the Father, and that this can lead to a certain ambiguity as to whether God or Jesus is meant (this is especially the case in Acts; ...); generally, however, `Lord' is used for God by Paul almost exclusively in quotations from the OT" - p. 590, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 1982.

Again, if the name of God were restored, there would not be so much "ambiguity" because these uses of `Lord' in quotations from the OT were originally `Jehovah' and hence there was no ambiguity or risk of confusion at all until later copyists changed that divine name in the NT manuscripts to kurios!

5. Of course Jesus used the name "Jehovah" in such places. He was a speaker of Hebrew who was quoting (or reading) scripture to other speakers of Hebrew. Of course he would use the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Greek Septuagint scriptures when quoting to these people. It would have been ludicrous for Jesus to have quoted from the Septuagint to these people when most of them would not have understood the Greek language of the Septuagint in the first place.

The native-born Jews in Israel spoke, of course, Hebrew. The Roman conquerors and administrators of the Empire spoke Latin. And the many businessmen and commercial travelers who visited and resided in Israel understood, in addition to their own languages, the common language of commerce in the Mediterranean world: Greek.

Of course there were some Jews who could speak Latin and/or Greek. There were some Romans who could speak Greek (and probably even a very few who could speak Hebrew also). And there were undoubtedly some foreigners there who could speak Latin (and probably a very few who could speak Hebrew also). But, by and large, if you wished to communicate with the majority of the Jews, you would have to do it in Hebrew (or the closely-related Aramaic). And if you wished to communicate with the Romans, you would have to do it in Latin, and so on.

So when Jesus was teaching the Jews from the holy scriptures, he was doing so in Hebrew.

If we should doubt such an obvious conclusion that the majority of Jews did not understand Greek (and therefore Jesus would not have taught them by quoting or reading from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint), we only need to look at John 19:19, 20.

"And Pilate wrote an inscription also .... Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek." - NASB

Obviously the Latin was so the Romans could read the information about Jesus, and the Greek was so the foreign merchants and travelers could read about Jesus. But Pilate certainly would not have gone to the trouble of writing 1/3 of the sign in Hebrew if most of the Jews could already read one of the other two languages on that sign! It is obvious from this passage alone that many of them could not understand Greek and needed to read Hebrew to understand what Pilate wanted them to know!

Therefore, Jesus must have quoted from the Hebrew Bible when reading to the Jews. And the Hebrew Bible which he quoted at

Mt 21:42 actually says: "This is Jehovah's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23)

Mt 22:37 - "And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart..." (Deut. 6:5)

Mt 22:44 - "Jehovah said to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand...'" (Ps. 110:1)

Jn 12:38 - "... to whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed?" (Is. 53:1)

6. "Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir ['Second century rabbi who prepared a systematic edition of traditional Jewish law and doctrine, which paved the way for the final edition of the Mishnah' - p. 479, An Encyclopedia of Religion] are said to have made unfriendly puns on the word Euangelion [`the Greek word for "Gospel"' - p. 102] by altering its vowels to make it read Awon-gillayon or Awen-gillayon, meaning [in Hebrew/Aramaic] something like `Iniquity of the Margin' ...." - p. 102, The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.
 

So the word `margin' (gillayon) was used in a derogatory way for a Gospel ("most probably ... the Gospel according to Matthew" as first written in Hebrew or Aramaic - p. 102) of the Christians by these two very early Rabbis.

And when this word is made plural (`margins') it becomes gillayonim (or gilyohnim). Therefore, it is probable that this word was used derogatorily to denote copies of a Christian Gospel written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

7. "From the middle of the 2nd century AD [around 150 AD] Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms [instead of the original traditional Jewish terms]" – The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.

8. We can see that the source of Halleluia in existing copies of the Septuagint is really two words in the original Hebrew. For example the Hahlayloo Yah of Psalm 146:1 is obviously two separate Hebrew words: Hahlayloo [`praise ye'] and Yah [`Jehovah'].  And yet, our oldest existing copies of the ancient Septuagint show these two words combined into one `new' word in Greek: Halleluia. And the same Greek word, Halleluia, which was found in the earliest copies of John's Revelation, was likewise treated by copyists of the 2nd century. Whether John himself had combined the two words into one for the benefit of those Hellenic Jews to whom he wrote (who were familiar with the term as it was found in the Septuagint) or whether early copyists had done it to conform with the Septuagint is not the point here.

9. And, of course, it was passed along from its Septuagint use to other early Christian writings:

"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim." - Tertullian (3rd cent. A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.

"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.

10. Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree. - http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/septuag.htm


For more, see:

God's Name

Water Witching (Dowsing) and Other "Paranormal" Powers

Water Witching (Dowsing) and Other "Paranormal" Powers

(Also see the Astrology, the Shroud, and Theomatics study papers)

Of course it's easy and proper for many folks to quickly and positively dismiss water witchers (dowsers, diviners, etc.) who claim supernatural help in performing their `miraculous' work.  If you wish to follow the Bible, then you cannot do such things.   They would be a form of divination which is strongly condemned in the Bible.

But what about those who use such things and who are convinced that they have merely learned to use natural God-made forces?   (Also see the ASTROLOGY study paper.)

They might tell you that this natural force is merely one that science has yet to discover, but that they have somehow managed to learn to use.  It is, they might say, no different from an early European explorer amazing the natives by using a magnet to find buried iron or find his way with a mysterious north-pointing needle or using a miraculous glass lens to magnify objects and even start fires!

Well, the difference is that the explorer could have given the magnet or the compass or the lens to anyone and, with very little instruction, it would have worked perfectly every time for him.   The forces of nature (including magnetism and light rays, of course) do not work in some mysterious selective fashion anymore than gravity or any other natural force.

If a `force' can be made to work only sporadically (and even then only for a few special individuals), then it is bogus.   It must be capable of being proven.

Any test devised to prove the existence of a real force in nature must (1), be capable of being duplicated by anyone who follows the appropriate steps.  And (2), it must be devised in such a way that the tester can not possibly manipulate the results (whether intentionally or otherwise).[1]

In the case of the so-called paranormal, the subject will most often claim that since it is some extra-ordinary gift that has been bestowed on him (and not on most other people) that detects and uses the mysterious force in question, we must forgo rule #1 above.   This is a very strong indicator for quackery.  Nevertheless, we should be able to plan and execute rule #2 carefully and precisely enough to prevent the results being tainted by self-deception or outright quackery.

The method James Randi used in his test of "water witching"[2] sets a high standard for this sort of thing.  If there is any truth to the claims of water witchers that they can find buried objects, water, or anything else, this should prove (or disprove) it!

First, he offered a legitimate prize of $10,000 to anyone who might pass his test in any of a number of categories, including water-witching.  Then he outlined exactly what each test would entail and what results were required as proof.  Not only would those who passed his test receive the $10,000, but they would receive the endorsement of Randi and his organization (which would mean much more than the $10,000 in promotion for the person's business!).

The dowsing (water-witching) test was written out as follows:

1.  In a 10-by-10-meter area, pipes 3 centimeters in diameter have been buried at a depth of 50 centimeters.

2.  There are three different paths of three different lengths available, one to be chosen at random for each test.

3.  Three tests will be performed with each person, and the same path may be used more than once, since the choice is random.

4.  The chosen path may enter at any point on any side of the square and exit at any point on any side of the square.

5.  First, the dowser must scan the area for any natural water or other distractions (metal or other objects) and mark these `natural' places.

6. Any secondary distractions will be outlined on the ground visibly.

7.  Second, the dowser must demonstrate, on an exposed water pipe, while the water is running, that the dowsing reaction is present.

8.  The dowser will determine the path of the flowing water in the pipe being used, and this path will be marked on the ground.

9.  The dowser will place from ten to one hundred pegs in the ground along the path he traces.

10. To be counted, a peg must be placed within 10 centimeters [nearly 4 inches] of the center of the pipe being traced.

11.  Two thirds of the pegs put in the ground in each of the three tests for each dowser must be placed within the limits specified by condition 10 for the test to be considered a success.

12.  Placement of each peg will be transferred to a scale chart by the surveyor to the satisfaction of the dowser, who will sign this chart along with Mr. Randi, the lawyer, and other witnesses.

13.  No results will be announced until all tests are finished and the location of the pipes is revealed.

14.  After a dowser has performed, he will be isolated from those yet to be tested.

15.  Two out of three of the tests must be successful (as in condition 11) for the dowser to have passed the testing condition.

16. If a dowser passes the test (conditions 11 and 15), the check for $10,000, which has been deposited with the lawyer, will be awarded to him. If no dowser is successful, the check will be returned to Mr. Randi.

17.  If the test is failed, no further claim may be made against Mr. Randi.

Of course, efforts were made to ensure that the very few individuals who knew the layout of the pipe system were unable to communicate this knowledge to anyone else until the tests were completed.  It would also have been proper technique to keep them away from the site during each test so that they couldn't possibly give any clue, even inadvertently.

Only four established dowsers were brave enough to make the attempt in a 1979 test in Italy.  I expect they honestly believed they had the ability that others swore they had.  They seemed supremely confident.

I have heard of some dowsers who claim 100-percent success in their attempts to find water and of others who claim only 90 percent.  The sad fact is that dowsers are no better at finding water than anyone else. Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it.  Dowsers have the strange notion that water travels in underground rivers, and they will happily trace these hidden torrents for you. But geologists know otherwise. - p. 315.

All four failed completely and spectacularly!

As Mr. Randi concluded:

All the dowsers who were tested had failed.  The two who "found" natural water disagreed spectacularly [about its location], and those who found no water disagreed too.  All had positive dowsing reactions and were certain they were correct, but actually they had detected nothing at all.  All had considerable reputations as successful dowsers, yet all asserted that this was the first time they had undergone a test that was controlled and could be checked thoroughly for correctness!  Only a method similar to the one I designed could settle the matter once and for all.    Their first and only proper tests had proved the subjects did not have the ability to dowse.  Yet I am quite sure that these people still claim they are dowsers.  Incredible?  Yes, but typical. - p. 324.

Mr. Randi has kept his $10,000 offer, first offered in 1964, open to all who will submit to a fair, objective test.  Over 650 persons had applied in various `paranormal' categories at the time his book was first published (1982).  Not one ever passed a proper, objective test.  [I believe that the offer is now $1,000,000 - Jan 2007 - RDB]

Jehovah's Witnesses have written about this subject also:

From the AWAKE! magazine:

Dowsing - Scientific or Occult?

"AMAZING!" exclaimed a dairy farmer in the Midwestern United States.  A slender peach limb was jerking and twisting violently in his hands.  He dug his fingernails into the bark to hold the branch steady, but the downward force was strong. " It even left pieces of bark in my hands," he gasped, awestruck.  He was still more amazed later when he found water by digging in the exact spot that the limb had pointed out.  What was going on here?

The farmer was practicing what is often called dowsing, water witching, or water divining.  Often, the dowser holds a forked branch in his hands and paces about, concentrating on his search for water.  Suddenly, his dowsing rod may behave erratically.  Some rods jerk toward the ground, others snap upward, even striking the dowser's face or chest, while still others just barely move.  In any such case, the dowser feels that there is water below.  Dowsing is practiced around the world.  According to one estimate, some 25,000 dowsers ply their trade in the United States alone.

Is It Scientific?

Is there some scientific principle that makes dowsing work?  The question has long been controversial.  Over 70 years ago, the Watchtower magazine reasoned this way:  "We would not wish to be in an attitude of disregarding any of nature's laws, but it seems passing strange that a small trickle of water fifteen or twenty feet [5 or 6 m] below the surface of the earth would have magnetic power enough to bend a willow withe when a whole creek full of water will in no wise affect the same stick.... There must therefore be something other than the operation of natural laws."

Still, many dowsers insist that dowsing is a science.  In fact, The American Society of Dowsers calls itself "a non-profit, educational and scientific Society."  Over the years, more than a few scientists have emerged to call upon some new branch of science to explain dowsing.   In the 1700's it was "emanations" from atomic particles that made dowsing work.  In the 1800's it was electricity.  In our century it has been everything from radioactivity to electromagnetism to human psychology.

More recently, in 1979, the reputable New Scientist magazine published seemingly plausible theories on dowsing.  An energy consultant and a geologist speculated that the human body itself might be supersensitive to subtle changes in electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields caused by underground water or ore.

But such theories have failed to win wide acceptance among scientists.  In fact, in The Encyclopedia Americana, Harvard University scientists E. Z. Vogt and L. K. Barrett dismiss dowsing this way: "Controlled field and laboratory tests have failed to establish the validity of dowsing, and judged by scientific standards the practice has little basis in fact. " In November 1990, dowsers submitted to 720 experiments in Kassel, Germany.  Although they were pleased with the conditions of the tests and were confident of success, the dowsers failed; they had only fluky successes in detecting underground water and metals.

The monthly magazine Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau concluded that when judged scientifically, dowsing is "as reliable as flipping a coin."  Other such experiments have ended similarly.

Dowsers explain such failures in strange terms.  Some complain, for instance, that the tests make them doubt their abilities or lead them to dowse for motives that are not right or serious enough.  Such factors, they claim, make them lose their powers temporarily.  In fact, a number of dowsers have found that after a lifetime of successful dowsing, it is the one time when they really need to prove themselves that their powers suddenly vanish - or mislead them.  Some therefore conclude that the force behind dowsing has a perverse sense of humor.

Does this sound like science to you?  After all, natural forces (those measurable by methods known to science) do not have a sense of humor, perverse or otherwise; nor are they whimsical.  They are constant.  They do not fluctuate according to the mood, mind-set, or motives of those who test or measure them.  Thus, to most scientists dowsing is a superstition - nothing more.  In fact, even prominent dowsers have agreed that no force known to science can account for dowsing.

Is It Fake?

But does this absence of a scientific explanation mean that all reported cases of successful dowsing are either remarkable coincidences or outright fakes?  What about the farmer's experience mentioned at the outset - was it just a fluke, an isolated case?

Actually, the field of dowsing has produced innumerable well-attested stories.  For instance, a woman in Vermont called a dowser when the water supply to her house was cut off.  Apparently a long pipe running from a distant spring to the house had developed a leak.  The woman did not even know where the pipe was - it had been buried 30 years previously - let alone where the cracked section might be.  But the dowser mentally asked his rod, and it bobbed over a certain spot.  Six inches [15 cm] from there, the leaking piece of pipe was found.

Probably the most famous story concerns the noted American dowser Henry Gross.  Geologists were convinced that fresh water could not be found underground in Bermuda.  The Saturday Evening Post reported: "Gross spread out a map of Bermuda in [novelist Kenneth] Roberts's home in Kennebunkport, Maine, and passing his divining rod over it, marked three places where fresh water was to be found . . . To check his findings, Gross and Roberts flew to Bermuda, persuaded the government to provide drilling equipment, and went to work.  A few months later, in April 1950, all three wells had come in as Gross had said they would."

Dowsers claim to have found water for wells by the thousands.  Reporters have accompanied dowsers, have seen the rods jerk so violently that the dowser's hands blistered, and have heard dowsers predict even the depth of the water below.  They have seen the wells drilled and the predictions verified.  While science may not supply viable reasons why this phenomenon works, it clearly does work - at least for some people, sometimes.  Why?

A Revealing History

The history of dowsing is quite revealing in this regard.  The practice may well have been around for thousands of years.  But it was in 1556, when physician Georgius Agricola wrote his landmark work on mining, De Re Metallica, that the first detailed description of dowsing was recorded.  German miners were using the practice to find veins of metal ore.  But even then there was controversy over whether dowsing was a natural or an occult phenomenon.  Agricola noted that some objected to the practice, since "the twigs [dowsing rods] will not move for everybody, but only for those who employ incantations and craft."  As dowsing spread across Europe, the controversy spread with it.  Martin Luther condemned it, and other church leaders later followed suit.  To appease such clergymen, some dowsers had their rods baptized, and they invoked their Trinitarian God when dowsing.

For many dowsers, looking for water and mineral deposits was not enough.  They found more and more uses for the rod.  In 17th-century France, Jacques Aymar began dowsing to find criminals!  Reportedly, he was dowsing for water one day when his rod jerked violently at the grave of a murdered woman.  The rod then lurched toward the woman's husband, who promptly fled. Aymar - and many imitators - used the dowsing rod to flush out criminals all over Europe.  Catholic zealots even enlisted Aymar and his dowsing rod to help them hunt down Protestants to slaughter.

The Occult Connection

Not surprisingly, even in Aymar's day there were "experts" who thought they could explain such feats scientifically.  They theorized that Aymar's dowsing rod was picking up mysterious "emanations" unique to murderers, which they dubbed "murderous matter."  Clearly, though, Aymar's feats had little to do with science.  The force behind what Aymar did was intelligent.  It could pick out criminals, differentiate between Protestant and Catholic, and find water and minerals as well.

Similarly, how could anything but an intelligent force be behind map dowsing, where the rod points out water sources on a mere map of a distant location?  Some dowsers have found lost wallets, passports, jewelry, and even people by dowsing with a pendulum over a map.  Some watch for the dowsing instrument's response to yes or no questions.  In the 1960's some U.S. Marines used dowsing rods to locate tunnels, land mines, and booby traps in Vietnam.  Today, the dowsing rod is increasingly popular as a tool of the paranormal.  It is used to predict the future, to look for `ghosts,' and to investigate `past lives.'

Author Ben G. Hester was originally convinced that dowsing was simply a "not-yet-understood physical phenomenon."  But after eight years of investigating the subject, he wrote the book Dowsing-an Exposé of Hidden Occult Forces.  In it he equates the dowsing rod with such devices as Ouija boards.  He found that some dowsers claim the ability to heal people - or make them sick - with a dowsing rod!  Similarly, dowser Robert H. Leftwich wrote in his book Dowsing-The Ancient Art of Rhabdomancy: "The energies being tapped probably belong to powers that . . . are closely allied to those practised in witchcraft.  Careless experimentation can therefore be dangerous."

To true Christians, the foregoing has an unpleasant ring to it.  Whether real or fake, dowsing in such cases as noted above is clearly not science; it seems to be the occult.  As scientists Evon Z. Vogt and Ray Hyman summed up in Water Witching U.S.A.: "We therefore conclude that water witching is a clear-cut case of magical divination."

Should a Christian Dabble in Dowsing?

Of course, if dowsing is really an act of divination, a true Christian would want nothing to do with it.  God's people were commanded, as we read in the Bible at Deuteronomy 18:10: "There should not be found in you . . . anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer."  The prophet Hosea bemoaned the Israelites' failure to heed this command, writing: "My people consult their block of wood, a rod answers their questions." - Hosea 4:12, The Jerusalem Bible.

Some might object, though, that they only indulge in the simplest form of dowsing: locating water.  But is water dowsing clean of all association with the occult?  It is interesting to note that dowsing instructors commonly teach students to tell the rod directly what they are looking for, as if it were an intelligent entity.  One dowsing instructor even tells his students to name the rod and address it by name!  Dowsers often ask their dowsing rods how far down the water source lies.  The rod begins to bob, and the dowser counts the number of times it does so.  The final tally equals the depth, in feet [meters], of the water source!  Does this not suggest that a hidden intelligence is at work?

Furthermore, water dowsing is associated with another practice that Jehovah's Witnesses have long been careful to avoid - ESP (extrasensory perception).  The Watchtower noted that connection back in 1962. [3] Shortly thereafter, the American Society of Dowsers responded with a letter: "We agree with the theory that dowsing is a form of ESP and that engaging in any form of ESP can lead to `possession' or the involvement with `wicked spirit forces' unless proper precautions are taken.   We must take exception, however, to your dogmatic advice of total abstinence."

What do you think?  If even the most ardent proponents of water dowsing admit that it carries a risk of involvement with wicked spirit forces or even of possession, should not a Christian want to abstain from such a practice?

`But doesn't dowsing do a lot of good?' some might ask. `Is that not proof that the force behind dowsing is benevolent?'  Sadly, no.  Remember, "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14)  Even in Bible times demons occasionally tried to gain favor and influence by uttering truths. - Acts 16:16-18.

Granted, we cannot assert dogmatically that each and every case of dowsing (and ESP as well) is scientifically unexplainable and must be caused by demons.  Without a doubt, there is much about the human mind and the forces of nature that still eludes the grasp of science.  And no doubt there are a great many dowsing and ESP feats that can be explained away as plain, old-fashioned fakery.  But since the history and current practice of dowsing is so inextricably intertwined with the occult, ESP, and spiritism, it is clearly too dangerous to be dismissed as a harmless trick.

No, when it comes to dowsing, "quit touching the unclean thing" still seems appropriate counsel. - 2 Corinthians 6:17. - pp. 12-16, Awake!, 22 April 1992.

.........................................................................

NOTES

1. There are many more people who are deluded (sometimes self-deluded) into belief in the non-existent than there are intentional hucksters. James Randi, noted hoax-buster, writes:

"Possession of a `high IQ' often has little to do with one's ability to function as a rational human being. It merely means that some admittedly imperfect tests indicate one has a better-than-average potential for good thinking. Like a scalpel that is never put to use by a skilled hand in a good cause, brainpower is often not put to work. .... So, if you have in the past fallen for the hucksters of [the paranormal], and if you are embarrassed by it all, take hope.  The smartest folks in the world are no smarter than you are when it comes to belief in the ridiculous." - pp. 210-211, Flim-Flam!

It should be added that critical thinking can be learned by anyone of average intelligence.  And critical thinking (how to reason and sift out all the distractions and irrelevancies to a proper investigation of the truth) is much more important than "intelligence"!  We have all fallen into the trap.  Sometimes we get out.  Sometimes we stay in it until we die.  If something is truly important to us, we must learn to investigate it properly!

2. Flim-Flam!, Prometheus Books, 1987 printing.

3. One such theory was reported on in the June 22, 1979, issue of Awake! In 1989 an extensive report on dowsing in The New Yorker magazine noted that today even the more conservative of American dowsers agree (tacitly) that ESP is the force behind dowsing.

For more, see:

Dowsing - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Faith - Once Saved, Always Saved?

Faith, Believe, "Exercising Faith"

w90 12/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers:

• Why does the New World Translation at times render the Greek word pi·steu'o as "believe" (like most translations) and at other times as "exercise [or put] faith in"?

This is done to reflect different shades of meaning that are expressed by the Greek word pi·steu'o.

For example, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Moulton, notes that early Christians clearly recognized "the importance of the difference between mere belief . . . and personal trust." Both these thoughts can be expressed using the Greek word pi·steu'o.

Often, the different shades of meaning of pi·steu'o must be discerned from the context. At times, though, different grammatical constructions help us to see what the writer had in mind. For example, if pi·steu'o is followed merely by a noun in the dative case, the New World Translation usually renders it simply as "believe" - unless the context indicates something different. (Matthew 21:25, 32; but see Romans 4:3.) If pi·steu'o is followed by the word e·pi', "on," it is generally rendered "believe on." (Matthew 27:42; Acts 16:31) If it is followed by eis, "to" [or "into" - RDB], it is usually translated "exercise faith in." - John 12:36; 14:1.

This latter rendering (which reminds us that pi·steu'o is related to the Greek word pi'stis, "faith") is in harmony with a comment in An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek, by Paul Kaufman. This work says: "Another construction which is common in the New Testament (especially in John's Gospel) is pisteuw [pi·steu'o] with eij [eis] and the accusative case [as found at John 3:16] . . . The whole construction of eij plus the accusative must be translated rather than attempting to translate the preposition eij as an isolated word. Faith is thought of as an activity, as something men do, i.e. putting faith into someone."

* * * * *


The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
("Indispensable for advanced theological students and scholars as well as for ordinary Bible Students." - Christianity Today):

"pistij (pistis), faith; pisteuo (pisteuo), believe .... CL 1. (a) In classical Gk literature .... With reference to people, pisteuo means to obey." ....
"(b) Originally the word-group denoted conduct that honoured an agreement or bond. .... [p. 594]

"[NT] 2. Paul and the Pauline Tradition. .... `Faith' means receiving the message of salvation and conduct based on the gospel. .... [p. 601]

"4. The Understanding of Faith in the Rest of the NT. .... [James] demands renunciation of all conduct that conflicts with living faith and confession (1:6ff.). For him, faith and obedient conduct are indissolubly linked. Faith understood merely as trust and confession is not able to save. Only through obedience ... and conduct which fulfills the commandments of God does faith come to completion (James 2:22). .... For the thesis which Jas. wishes to argue is that `faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead' (2:17)." [pp. 603-605] - Vol. 1, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

* * * * *

The New Bible Dictionary (which Christianity Today describes as "true to the Bible as God's word" and "destined to become a standard that will be turned to often by students and ministers alike") says about pisteuo:

"The man who really believes God will, of course, act on that belief. In other words, a genuine belief that what God has revealed as true will issue in a true faith. .... [p. 367]

"Faith implies complete reliance on God and full obedience to God." [p. 368] - Tyndale House Publ., 1984.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament tells us about pisteuo:

* * * * *

"C. Faith in Judaism. 1. The OT Legacy .... The OT [Septuagint] term, however, carries a stronger element [than in even the classical Greek] of acknowledgment and obedience. [pp. 852, 853]
"D. The pistis Group in the NT. .... 1. Continuation of the OT and Jewish Tradition..... b. pisteuo as `to obey.' Heb. 11 stresses that to believe is to obey, as in the OT. Paul in Rom. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 (cf. Rom. 15:18; 16:19) shows, too, that believing means obeying. He speaks about the obedience of faith in Rom. 1:5, and cf. 10:3; 2 Cor. 9:13." [pp. 853, 854] - Kittel & Friedrich, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 reprint.

* * * * *
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ("a standard in the field") also tells us:

"4100.... a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messish ... conjoined with obedience to Christ." - p. 511, Joseph H. Thayer, Baker Book House, 1977.

* * * * *
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
says concerning pisteuo specifically as found at John 3:16: 

"John 3:16 paj o[ pisteuwn [eij]
everyone who believes [into]
The idea seems to be both gnomic and continual: `everyone who continually believes.' 

This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle 
[pisteuwn] of pisteuw." - p. 620, Daniel B. Wallace, Zondervan Publ., 1996.

* * * * *

Dr. William Barclay discusses pisteuo as used at John 3:15 (also in present participle form, pisteuwn, as defined above by Wallace):

"So then belief [pisteuw] in Jesus has these three elements - [1] belief that God is our loving Father, [2] belief that Jesus is the son of God and therefore tells us the truth about God and life, and [3] unswerving and unquestioning obedience to Jesus." - p. 136, Vol. 2, The Gospel of John, Rev. ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.

* * * * *

Even Martin Luther tells us, 

"It is impossible, indeed, to separate works from faith, just as it is impossible to separate heat and light from fire." And, "In chapter 12 [of Romans], Paul speaks of the true way of serving God. He shows that all Christians are priests,.... He then describes the outward conduct of Christians under the discipline of the spirit; how they must teach, preach ... and act towards friend, foe, and fellow-man. These are the works which a Christian does, for, as I have said, faith is not an inert thing." - from the Preface of the Epistle to the Romans as quoted in Martin Luther, selections from his writings, Doubleday Publishing, 1961, pp. 24 & 33.

* * * * *

So, much more is involved in real Faith than just passively believing something.
Notice this contrasting parallel in John 3:36:

"He who believes [pisteuwn] in [eij] the Son has eternal life; But he who does not obey the Son shall not see life" - NASB.

We find pisteuwn used in a parallel sense to `obey' here. There has to be, at least, a strong element of obedience understood to be in the word pisteuwn, or the contrasting parallel used by John would be senseless.

* * * * *
Luther also said, 

"Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see to it for himself that he believes rightly." - Martin Luther, p. 385.

From "Christian Discussions" an on-line discussion group:
"Faith" – A Word of Action

One of the most absurd statements that we ever read was from a denominationalist who declared: "Faith is the only thing that one can do without doing anything." The affirmation is a textbook case of contradiction. 

The following examples will clearly reveal that genuine faith is not a mere attitude; rather, it is a word of action.

1. Jesus was teaching in the city of Capernaum. The crowds so pressed around Him that some who sought His presence could not gain access to the Lord. Four enterprising men brought a lame friend, climbed to the rooftop of the house wherein Christ was teaching, and lowered their impotent companion through the ceiling. Significantly, the inspired writer comments: "And Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5). 

What did Christ see? He literally saw the action of these men (including the sick man who obviously endorsed the activity). But the action is called faith. In a similar vein, James challenged: "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith" (Jas. 2:18).

2. John 3:16 is perhaps the best-known verse in the Bible, but it is one of the most misunderstood. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." 

Does the "belief" of this passage include obedience, or exclude it? A comparison of this verse with Hebrews 5:9 reveals that the former is the case. In John 3:16 believing results in eternal life. In Hebrews 5:9, eternal salvation is said to issue from obedience to Christ. It thus should be quite clear that the belief that saves is one that manifests itself in obeying the Son of God. True faith is not just a mental process. 

3. Note this declaration from the Lord: "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 ASV). 

We have cited the ASV here because it is more accurate in its rendition of the original language than is the KJV. The term in the latter portion of the verse is apeitheo, which, according to Balz & Schneider, literally means "to disobey" (118). In this passage "believing" is set in vivid contrast to disobedience.

Is not Christ suggesting that the one who obeys the Son is promised life, but the person who disobeys will not receive such? 

Observe a similar usage in Acts 14:1, 2 ". . . a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed. But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren." 

In the book of Hebrews we are informed that God was displeased with many rebellious Israelites who died in the wilderness. They were condemned because they were "disobedient" – yes, they were not allowed to enter the promised land due to their "unbelief" (Heb. 3:18, 19). Continuing that analogy, it will be those who have "believed" who will enter the final rest (4:3), but those who are "disobedient" will not (4:6). 

The Bible knows nothing of true "faith" that is divorced from obedience. 

4. When a jailor in the city of Philippi feared for his life during an earthquake that rocked the prison, he pled with Paul and Silas: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" God's messengers proclaimed to him the gospel. Evincing repentance (for having beaten his prisoners), the jailor washed their stripes. Subsequently, he and his family were immersed (Acts 16:31-33). 

Significantly, this entire process is summed up in this fashion: "And he . . . rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God" (34). It is clear that the participle, "having believed," includes the jailor's repentance and his baptism. 

5. The book of Romans demonstrates that faith is an action term. For example, Paul commends the "faith" of these saints, which, says he, is "proclaimed throughout the whole world" (1:8). As he concludes the epistle he again congratulates them: "For your obedience is come abroad unto all men" (16:19). Faith and obedience are parallel in these verses. In fact, at the beginning and end of the book, the expression "obedience of faith" stands like guardian sentinels, defining the character of biblical faith (1:5; 16:26). In Romans 10:16, those who refused to "obey the gospel" fulfilled Isaiah's prediction that some would not "believe" the divine report. 

6. That the "faith" system of the New Testament is not merely a mental phenomenon is evidenced by Galatians 3:26, 27. There Paul declares: "For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For [a conjunction of explanation] as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." 
Immersion was an integral part of the faith process. Later, to the same people, the apostle affirmed that the faith that avails is that which is "working through love" (Gal. 5:6). The fact of the matter is, believing itself is a work (cf. John 6:27-29; cf. 1 Thes. 1:3). 

7. James shows the connection between faith and obedience when he writes: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works [obedience], in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? You see that faith operated with his works [obedience], and by works [his obedience] was [his] faith made complete; and the scripture was fulfilled which says, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God" (Jas. 2:21-23). 

If faith plus obedience constitutes one as a "friend of God," how would one be characterized who has faith minus obedience? 

8. Those who possessed genuine intellectual-emotional faith were granted the "right to become" children of God (John 1:12), but they were not, by that faith, automatically constituted sons of God. 

9. That "faith alone" is invalid as a means of redemption is revealed by a number of biblical examples. 
There were many Jews who "believed on" Christ (John 8:30,31), but their faith was not operative, hence, the Lord appropriately described them as children of the devil (8:44). 

(a) There were those among the Hebrew rulers who "believed on him [Christ]," but because of Pharisaic pressure they would not confess their faith; they loved the glory of men more than that of God (John 12:42). 

(b) Will anyone contend that these proud egotists were saved simply because they "believed" (cf. Matt. 12:32)? What was the flaw in their theology? 

Luke records that when Christ was preached, "a great number that believed turned to the Lord" (Acts 11:21). The construction of the original language indicates that the "believing" was prior to the "turning," hence, turning to the Lord involved something in addition to their faith. 

(c) The Language Authorities

It is this type of biblical evidence that has compelled leading New Testament language authorities to acknowledge that "faith" is more than a mere philosophy of belief. Genuine faith cannot be separated from submission to the Lord. 
Liddell & Scott show that the verb pisteuo (believe) can mean "to comply" (1273). 

H. Cremmer stated that the noun pistis (faith), both in the Old and New Testaments "is a bearing towards God and His revelation which recognizes and confides in Him and in it, which not only acknowledges and holds to His word as true, but practically applies and appropriates it." (482). 
W.E. Vine noted that pistis involves "a personal surrender" to Christ (71). 

Lexicographer J.H. Thayer commented that pisteuo includes "a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah" – the divinely appointed author of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God, conjoined with obedience to Christ." (511). 

O. Michael has stated: "Faith understood merely as trust and confession is not able to save. Only through obedience . . . and conduct which fulfills the commandments of God does faith come to completion (Jas. 2:22)" (604). 

Bultmann contended that "`to believe' is `to obey'" (205). He stressed that this is particularly emphasized in Hebrews 11:7. He further made this interesting comment: "According to Paul, the event of salvation history is actualized for the individual, not in pious experience, but in his baptism (Gl. 3:27-29). Faith makes it his. Hence faith is not at the end of the way to God, as in Philo. It is at the beginning" (217). 

Alan Richardson declared that faith "is confident reliance on God. It is the act by which he lays hold on God's proffered resources, becomes obedient to what God prescribes, and, abandoning all self-interest and self-reliance, trusts God completely. . . . Obedience, conformity to what God prescribes, is the inevitable concomitant of believing" (75, 76). 

Conclusion

The doctrine of salvation by "faith alone" does not have the support of Scripture. It has resulted from a sincere – but misguided – reaction to Roman Catholicism. Those who have embraced this philosophy should carefully restudy the question of salvation.

……………………………………………………

"Once Saved, Always Saved" (?)

1 Tim. 4:16 – After listing some of the things that Timothy must [NRSV] insist on and teach (4:11-4:15), Paul writes to him: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers." – NRSV. [Emphasis added]. Although Paul believed Timothy was in a saved state at the moment, he did not consider it as something assured!

The Awake! Magazine covered this in a brief article:

Awake
4/8/1978: 
The Bible's View
"Once Saved, Always Saved"—How Certain?

`THE "Son of Sam" killer terrorized New York city residents for more than a year, killing six random victims and wounding several others. Yet the person accused of the crime reportedly had been "saved" at a church meeting about four years before his reign of terror began.

`A former army friend of the suspect who had invited him to the church meeting relates that the new convert "came up to me grinning and laughing and saying, `Man, I'm saved.' Then we came back that same day for the evening service and he went forward again at the invitation [to accept Christ]. He told me afterward that he just wanted to make sure it [being "saved"] took."

Upon hearing the charges against this former member of her church, another member told the Associated Press: "I'm just thankful he was saved." Why? She declared: "The Bible says, once saved, always saved."—New York Post, August 25, 1977, p. 2.

`Does the Bible actually say, "Once saved, always saved"? No, it does not use those words in any specific text, but many sincere people believe that this is what the Bible teaches. And it is true that a number of Bible texts indicate that the basis for salvation is not one's works, but, rather, faith in Jesus Christ, together with God's "grace" and mercy. (Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:4, 5) Additionally, Jesus himself said that "he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."—John 3:36, Authorized Version (AV); 1 John 5:13.

`From such references it is often reasoned that if one `has everlasting life,' he actually possesses it permanently; it cannot be lost, or, as many would have it: "Once saved, always saved." However, does this understanding fully express the Scriptural view of gaining everlasting life?

`Well, Christians concerned about their salvation may also wish to consider Jesus' declaration that "he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 10:22; 24:12, 13; Mark 13:13, AV) And the apostle Paul comments similarly: "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end."—Heb. 3:14, AV.

`How are we to reconcile these seeming disparities? Surely these servants of God were not contradicting themselves. Rather, were they not merely expressing the same understanding from different viewpoints? The apostle Paul provides the key to harmonizing these viewpoints.

`Time and again Paul likens the Christian's course to a "race" that must be run to the finish. "Let us run with patience the race that is set before us," he urged the Hebrews. (12:1, AV) To enter the race, sinners must take the steps necessary for salvation: hearing and accepting the Word of God, believing in Jesus Christ and his ransom sacrifice, repenting of their sins and being baptized. In this way, they get saved "from this crooked generation," as Peter exhorted those gathered at Pentecost. Unbelievers are outside the race, having failed to enter by getting "saved."—Acts 2:37-40, Revised Standard Version (RSV); 16:31-33; Rom. 10:13, 14.

`Once entered in the race by being "saved," a Christian takes "hold of the life which is life indeed." But is it possible to lose that grip on life? Paul answers with this question: "Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize?" In the Christian race, Paul indicates the "one" who receives the prize is anyone who finishes the race. Therefore, Paul urges, "So run that you may obtain it." Then, using himself as an example to make the point of his illustration, he continues: "I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."—1 Tim. 6:19; 1 Cor. 9:24-27, RSV.

`Evidently the apostle, who surely was a "saved" Christian, believed that even he could be "disqualified" from the race. Yet as long as he continued to `run that he might obtain' the prize, thus remaining in the race, salvation was assured. This is why Christians who remain in the race can be said to `have everlasting life.' But if they should ever quit the race, they are "disqualified," losing their hold on everlasting life.

`Hence, Paul follows up his remarks on the Christian's race by cautioning about the danger of overconfidence. Using the example of the Israelites who were saved through the Red Sea, yet fell to wrongdoing in the wilderness, he warned: "We ["saved" Christians] must not put the Lord to the test." Then, driving his point home, he declared: "Let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." Yes, it could happen, even to "saved" ones!—1 Cor. 10:1-12, RSV.

`This is why, throughout his writings, Paul consistently emphasized his own need to stay in the race. For example, of his hoped-for reward of the resurrection, he said: "I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." It was only after Paul neared the end of his life that he wrote: "I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." At this point in his life, he could finally say with confidence: "Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award me on that Day."—Phil. 3:11-14; 2 Tim. 4:6-8, RSV.

`Paul's view of his own salvation, then, is consistent with Jesus' comments mentioned earlier about `enduring to the end' to be saved.—See also Revelation 2:10; 3:11, 12, AV.

`The foregoing helps us to see why Paul repeatedly entreated "saved" Christians to be on guard. Their everlasting salvation was still at stake. Addressing the obviously "saved" Hebrew Christians who had been "illuminated" and who had "endured a great fight of afflictions," he warns: "If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." The sacrificial benefits that "saved" such persons, then, can be lost. Why? Because such a person "hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto [outraged, RSV] the Spirit of grace."—Heb. 10:26-32, AV.

`Yes, Christians who truly appreciate the salvation provided through Christ and God's grace will not be overconfident. They will strive to remain in the race like Paul and the other early Christians, whom he encouraged to "work out [their] own salvation with fear and trembling."'—Phil. 2:12, AV. 
Quoted from Awake! - pp. 27-28.

…………………………………………….…………

Paul's "race for life" brings to mind Jesus' "narrow road." He said that only a few will even find the gate that leads onto the narrow, difficult path which leads to eternal life. He gave no guarantee even that once the path was found, the finder would actually stay on that difficult path that eventually leads to eternal life. – Matt. 7:13-14.

In fact, he indicated that many who evidently believed they were saved, were not even in consideration for everlasting life – Matt. 7:21-23.

Outline of Scriptures Showing That Jehovah The Father is God Alone

OUTLINE:

1. God is Jehovah (YHWH in Hebrew text) Alone.

2. Jehovah is the Father Alone.

3. The Father (Jehovah) is the God of the Messiah.

4. The Father (Jehovah) is God Alone.
....................................................

1. God Alone = Jehovah (YHWH in Hebrew text) - Ps. 83:18; 86:10; Is. 37:16, 20 (and numerous Israelite personal names like 'Elijah' which mean 'God is Jehovah).

Psalms 83:18 "That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah (YHWH), Art the Most High over all the earth." - ASV.

Ps. 86:10 "For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: Thou art God alone. 11 Teach me thy way, O Jehovah (YHWH); I will walk in thy truth: Unite my heart to fear thy name." - ASV.

Is. 37:16 "O Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, that sittest [above] the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth." - ASV.
.......................................................

2. Only Jehovah = the Father in heaven -Ps. 2:7 (Acts 13:33); Is. 64:8 (and numerous Israelite personal names like 'Abijah' which mean 'The Father is Jehovah')

Psalms 2:7 "I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee. -ASV.

Acts 13:33 "That God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. -ASV.

Isaiah 64:8 "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

But there are no personal names in Scripture which mean "Jehovah is the Son" or "Jehovah is the Messiah," or anything else to indicate that the firstborn son of God is Jehovah or is God.
.....................................................

3. The Father (Jehovah) is the God of the Messiah

Micah 5:2-4  "2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity. 3 Therefore he doth give them out till the time She who bringeth forth hath brought forth, And the remnant of his brethren return to the sons of Israel. 4 And he hath stood and delighted in the strength of Jehovah, In the excellency of the name of Jehovah his God - Young's.

Rom. 15:6 "so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." - NASB.

Revelation 1:6 "and He [Jesus Christ in heaven] has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." - NASB.

2 Corinthians 11:31 "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying." - NASB.
................................................

4. The Father (Jehovah - see above) = only true God


John 17:1, 3 "Father, .... 3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. - NASB.

The Father (Jehovah) = only God for Christians - 1 Cor. 8:6

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." - RSV.

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live." - TEV.

Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." - NASB.