Tradition Trumps Truth: Jehovah - The Recovery's Misnomer - Tomes

[UntoHim]

Tradition trumps Truth: Jehovah—the Recovery’s Misnomer
Nigel Tomes

The Local Church of Witness Lee [Li Changshou] & his Living Stream Ministry (LSM) has several epithets. It is called ‘the Shouters’ in mainland China, but its preferred self-designation is “the Lord’s Recovery.”1 Adherents maintain that, “Since the 1500s, beginning with Martin Luther…the Lord has continued to gradually recover more light and truth from His Word.” They also contend that there is a single “Minister of the Age” in each era2 through whom God works. LSM’s “Recovery Version of the Bible reflects this notion; it embodies one man’s teaching—Witness Lee’s. Despite the lack of theological training and biblical language skills, he is responsible for both the text and notes.3 LSM declares, “The Recovery Version of the Bible is so named because its text and footnotes crystallize many of these [recovered] truths and experiences.”4 Hence one expects this translation to closely adhere to Scripture’s original text, determined by the best textual scholarship. Biblical truth ought to trump tradition among those espousing the recovery concept. LSM’s Lesson Book claims, “The Recovery Version is the most accurate translation…The translators did not compromise the true understanding for traditional teachings...”5 This is partially true, but a notable exception is its treatment of God’s personal name.

One distinctive of LSM’s Recovery Version is that God’s name is rendered as “Jehovah.” This contrasts with contemporary English translations (NIV, NKJV, ESV, NASB) which use ‘Yahweh,’ or (more often) ‘the LORD.’ LSM’s editors explain, “Our employing of the name Jehovah is motivated... our convictions...that the name of God, revealed...to His saints (Exo. 3:16; 20:7), should be deliberately rendered...”6 In contrast to others, LSM’s editors assert, they do not “shrink back from the use...of God’s personal and revealed name”—Jehovah.

God’s personal name is not an incidental detail in Scripture; God told Moses “This is My name forever, and this is My memorial from generation to generation” (Exo. 3:15b). So, we ask: is God’s “memorial name,” ‘Jehovah,’ ‘Yahweh,’ or ‘the LORD’? LSM’s Recovery Version renders God’s name as ‘Jehovah’ 6,841 times throughout the Old Testament, beginning from Gen. 2:4 all the way to Malachi 4:5. Plus “Jehovah” appears over 12,500 times in LSM’s publications of Watchman Nee’s and Witness Lee’s writings. Among English-speaking believers, on this issue LSM’s Local Churches adopt a minority position, aligning themselves with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.7

LSM’s Recovery Version rendition of the divine name as ‘Jehovah,’ contrasts with contemporary English Bible translations. Ken Hemphill notes that “the name Jehovah...remained in vogue from the 16th century...until about 100 years ago. The name [Jehovah] has since fallen out of favor with most scholars, who believe Yahweh is a more accurate transliteration.”8 The ‘high water mark’ for ‘Jehovah’ occurred a century ago. Young’s Literal Translation (1862, 1898), J. N. Darby’s New Translation (1890) and the American Standard Version (ASV 1901) all employed ‘Jehovah’ throughout the Old Testament, some 6,800 times. Due to this distinctive, the ASV was known as “the Jehovah Bible.” However, ‘the LORD’ replaced ‘Jehovah’ when the New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1971, 1995) superseded the ASV.9 Likewise Kenneth Taylor’s Living Bible (1971) used ‘Jehovah’ extensively, like the ASV (1901) on which it was based. However, the New Living Translation (NLT, 1996) which succeeded it, generally uses ‘LORD’ (except for Yahweh in Exo. 3:15; 6:3). “Recent English translations tend to use ‘LORD’ rather than ‘Jehovah’,” observes Dr. Steven Friesen.10 Viewed against this trend, LSM’s Recovery Version is an anomaly; it is today’s “Jehovah Bible.” So, we ask, does LSM’s use of ‘Jehovah’ represent a recovery of the original personal11 “name of God, revealed and delivered to His saints (Exo. 3:16; 20:7)”? Or is the Recovery Version’s ‘Jehovah,’ a sign of inertia and tradition? Here we sketch the curious history of the Name, ‘Jehovah,’ review Witness Lee’s exposition of it, and examine LSM’s defense of its use.

The Divine Name—YHWH

The starting point for examining God’s personal name is Exodus 3 when Moses encountered God at the burning bush. Moses asked God, what if the Israelites ask, what’s Your name? What shall I say? In response,
“God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. And God also said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial from generation to generation. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me...” (Exo. 3:14-16, RcV)
We quote the Recovery Version, replacing ‘Jehovah’ with the four transliterated Hebrew consonants, YHWH—the (so called) ‘Tetragrammaton,’ found in Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts. Dr. Katharine Barnwell says,12 “YHWH...is a proper name, the personal name of God, not a title or a general noun.” The ancient Hebrew manuscripts lacked vowels, so public reading required the reader to supply the vowels, which were passed on orally. Retrieving the ‘memorial name,’ God’s personal name revealed to Moses requires deciphering the correct vowels. God, in dialogue with Moses (Exo. 3:14-16), links the divine name, YHWH, to His explanatory declarations “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM,” both forms of the verb, ‘to be,’ (Heb. hayah). Based on this link, scholars deduce that the required vowels are ‘a’ & ‘e,’ producing Yahweh. Professor John J. Davis explains the logic, saying, “The verb translated ‘I AM’ is...‘ehyeh, which is the...first person singular of hayah [to be]. If 'ehyeh [‘I AM’]...is His name, it is also reasonable to regard Yahweh as...the third person singular of that stem and is translated ‘He is.’ The only difference between the two names—‘I AM’ and ‘Yahweh’-- is that the one is a verb in the first person, and the other is the same verb in the third person. The meaning of the one is ‘I AM,’ and the...other—Yahweh--is ‘He is’."13 Another writer explains, “’I AM,’ the verb form used here is [Hebrew] ’ehyeh, the imperfect, first-person, singular, form of the verb ‘to be’ (Heb. hayah)...So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, ‘I AM.’ When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third-person, masculine, singular form of the same verb, it actually means ‘He is’.”14 Beginning from the name Yahweh, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Ronald Youngblood, writes, “The Biblical author would probably have translated ‘Yahweh’ as ‘HE IS’ since he clearly understood it as being related to ‘Ehyeh,’ ‘I AM.’ The original concept...would be that when God’s people spoke of Him they would call Him ‘Yahweh,’ ‘HE IS,’ whereas when God spoke of Himself He would use the name ‘Ehyeh,’ ‘I AM’.”15 God’s personal name is Yahweh.

It is important to note the derivation of Yahweh from YHWH does not rely solely on some tenuous etymology. Scholars conclude that, even though “the caution against over-estimating etymologies holds good for divine names... the interpretation of the [divine name] as a finite verb is already found in Exodus 3:14.”16

“It’s almost certain...YHWH was originally pronounced Yahweh”

God revealed his personal name, YHWH, to Moses. Moreover, God told Moses, “Tell the people of Israel, ‘YHWH [Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, & the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” (Exo. 3:15) Hence, God’s memorial name is ‘YHWH, Yahweh.’ No doubt the Old Testament saints invoked this Name-- e.g., David (1 Chron. 16:8), Elijah (1 Kings 18:24-5), the Psalmists (Psa. 80:18; 105:1; 116:13, 17). However, during the period between the Testaments, Jewish reverence for God led to the substitution of other titles for God’s personal name. This is evident in the Gospels; the returned Prodigal says “I’ve sinned against Heaven...” (Luke 15:18). The High Priest, Caiaphas asks Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61). ‘Heaven’ and ‘the Blessed’ are circumlocutions for ‘God.’ By the Middle Ages the correct pronunciation of YHWH was lost. However, since the Reformation, via the exegetical methods outlined above, it was recovered. Professor D. N. Freeman explains, “The Tetragrammaton YHWH is the personal name of the God of Moses. The correct pronunciation of the name was lost from Jewish tradition some time during the Middle Ages...Early in the modern period scholars attempted to recover the pronunciation. The form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally.”17 The following are corroborating statements from other scholars:

* “It is almost certain that the name YHWH was originally pronounced Yahweh.” [Prof. Joze Krasovec, Transformation of Biblical Proper Names, p. 57]

* “It is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘Yahweh’.” [Prof. Bruce M. Metzger, "Theory of the Translation Process,” Bibliotheca Sacra (1993) p. 150]18

* There is “general agreement among scholars that the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] was probably Yahweh.” [Nehemia Gordon, “Pronunciation of the Name,” pp. 1-2]19

* “The name Yahweh...is the closest thing we have to a proper, personal name for God. The name occurs 6,823 times in the Bible. In Hebrew, Yahweh is written with only 4 consonants—YHWH—and no vowels.” [Ken Hemphill, “How Excellent Are Thy Names,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, (Oct. 22, 2001) p. 96]

* “There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh.” [Kenneth L. Barker, “YHWH Sabaoth: ‘The Lord Almighty”]21

* “His name is Yahweh. For the first time God used...the famous four consonant: YHWH...This was to be his ‘name’ forever.” [Professor Walter Kaiser Jr., Exodus, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 321]

* “While ‘God’ with its capitalization respectfully acknowledges that there is only one true ‘god,’ it does not name him with his proper name, Yahweh. The personal name of God is Yahweh.” [Dr. David J. A. Clines, “Yahweh & the God of Christian Theology,” in Clines, “OT Essays 1967-1998, Vol. II” p. 499]

This conclusion is reflected in some Bible translations. The Rotherham Emphasized Bible (NT 1872; OT 1897-1902) was among the first to render God’s name ‘Yahweh’ throughout the Old Testament.22 The Catholic Jerusalem Bible (1966) also represents the divine name by Yahweh throughout.23 More recently the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB 2003/2011 linked to Southern Baptists) uses Yahweh, the personal name of God in Hebrew, when the biblical text emphasizes the divine name. For example, “Yahweh, our Lord, how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth!” (Psa. 8:1a, 9 HCSB). This designation is also used when God self-identifies, e.g., “I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another...” (Isaiah 42:8 HCSB)

Yahweh also appears as Yah, an abbreviated form of the divine name. It occurs over 50 times, the first being Exodus 15:2 (the ‘Song of Moses’); other examples are Psalm 68:4-5 and Isaiah 12:2. Yah, the short-form of Yahweh, is also embodied in the well-known biblical term, “Hallelujah...a Hebrew word meaning ‘praise ye YAH (Yahweh).’ Hallelujah, as a transliteration, appears four times in Rev. 19:1-6 (NIV, NASB, etc).”24 “The ending ‘jah’ (also written ‘yah’) is a shortened form of Yahweh,” writes Dr. Ron Tappy.25 Yah is also embodied in biblical names like, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah and other, less-known, names.

In contrast to these publications, the divine name, Yahweh never appears in LSM’s Recovery Version Bible, nor is Yahweh or YHWH ever found in any of the voluminous writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.26 Indeed their writings display no familiarity whatsoever with the proposal that the Tetragrammaton, YHWH implies that God’s personal name is Yahweh. Evidently this possibility “never registered on their radar.”

From YHWH (Yahweh) to “LORD” (Adonai)

The first step along the curious path from YHWH (Yahweh) to ‘Jehovah’ was from YHWH (Yahweh) to “LORD” (Heb. Adonai). During the period between the testaments, Jewish reverence for the Divine Name motivated them to treat it as “ineffable”—unutterable due to its sacredness. Professor David Clines describes the process ironically, saying “Somewhere between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC a tragic accident befell God; he lost his name. More exactly, Jews gave up using God’s personal name Yahweh, and began to refer to Yahweh by various periphrases: God, the Lord, the Name, the Holy One, the Presence, even the Place. Even when Yahweh was written in the Biblical text, readers pronounced the name as Adonai [the Lord]. With the fall of the temple, even the rare liturgical occasions when the name was used ceased and even the knowledge of the pronunciation of the name was forgotten.”27 Nick Page summarises the situation succinctly saying, “The Hebrew name for ‘God’ is YHWH—usually transliterated as Yahweh. However, no Jew would utter the sacred name out loud, so those reading the text would substitute a different phrase –either ‘Adonai’ (Lord) or ‘Elohim’ (God).”28

The practice of orally substituting ‘Lord’ for YHWH (Yahweh) impacted the written text when Israel’s Scriptures were translated from Hebrew into Greek as the “Septuagint” (LXX) in the third century BC. Dr. David W. Baker explains, “The practice of substituting [adonai (Lord) for YHWH (Yahweh)] carries over to the Septuagint [the Greek Old Testament] where YHWH is routinely rendered as kurios (‘lord’), a practice carried on in the New Testament (e.g. Mt. 4:7 quoting Deut. 6:16). This continues in most contemporary English translations (except for the Jerusalem Bible) where YHWH is rendered LORD.”29 The New Testament (written in Greek) makes extensive use of the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. As Drs. Beale & D. A. Carson note, “Some portions of the New Testament quote the Old primarily or exclusively by way of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures stemming from approximately 200 years before Christ.”30 Via this means the Septuagint’s use of Kurios (Lord) to represent God’s personal name, passed into the New Testament canon as ‘the LORD.’ Ken Hemphill summarizes developments up to this point, saying “Yahweh...is the closest thing we have to a proper, personal name for God. The name occurs 6,823 times in the Bible [often rendered ‘LORD’ in English]. In Hebrew, Yahweh is written with only 4 consonants—YHWH—and no vowels...Since about 300 BC the Hebrews avoided speaking the name for fear of profaning its holiness. When they came to YHWH in the text, they would substitute Adonai, the common Hebrew word for ‘Lord.’ Today, most English Bibles translate YHWH as ‘LORD’.”31 Thus the widespread use of the title, “LORD” to represent God’s personal name, YHWH, (e.g. in the NIV, NKJV, ESV & NASB Bible translations) follows the precedent enshrined in the Greek Old Testament Scriptures (the ‘Septuagint’) and validated by the New Testament canon’s apostolic authors.

It is evident that the Jews’ reverence for God’s ‘ineffable’ name carried a cost in terms of ambiguity. Take for example Peter’s citation of Psalm 110:1, declaring that David said, "The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand until I set Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet’.'' (Acts 2:34-35, RcV). Drs. Beale & Carson point out that, “There is scope for ambiguity in the LXX [Septuagint], which has to use one Greek word, kurios, for two Hebrew words YHWH {the Tetragrammaton, whose original pronunciation was ‘Yahweh’ and for which ‘Adonai’ (‘My Lord’) was substituted when the word was read aloud} and adon [lord]. The former word refers to God and the latter to the speaker’s ‘lord’.”32 The distinction in the Hebrew text—YHWH (Yahweh) vs. Adonai —is obscured in the Septuagint’s Greek text, where kurios (lord/LORD =Adonai, Heb.) now does double duty.

The Masoretic Hebrew Text, the Ketiv - Qere

The Hebrew Scriptures were transmitted through successive hand-written copies down to the Christian era. The oldest extant Hebrew Scriptures (prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls’ discovery) are the “Masoretic Text,” copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. In order to standardize the text and preserve its pronunciation these Jewish scholars inserted vowel points to accompany the consonantal Old Testament text. So, scholars familiar with both the Hebrew consonants and the Hebrew vowels could now decipher the pronunciation of the entire Hebrew text phonetically. There were, however, important exceptions, called (using Aramaic terms) the Ketiv Qere. This phrase means ‘written one way, to be read another’.”33 In cases where the Hebrew word was considered too obscene or too sacred, the vowel markings indicate the Qere (what is to be read) while the consonants relate to the Ketiv (what is written). In one Old Testament case, Rabshakeh, the Assyrian envoy, trash-talks to the besieged army on Jerusalem’s walls, predicting, “they will eat their own dung and drink their own urine”*(2 Kings 18:27, RcV).34 However, in this translation Rabshakeh’s obscene words, the Ketiv (easily imagined), are rendered euphemistically via the Qere in more politically-correct terminology. In such cases the hybrid Hebrew ‘word’ is a compound encoding the written word (in consonants) in the text, with the oral word (indicated by vowels) to be spoken; it is a serious mistake to translate such a compound word, the Ketiv- Qere, like a regular word.

The substitution of Adonai (Lord) for God’s personal name, Yahweh, is a special case of Ketiv-Qere, called Qere perpetuum (or ‘perpetual’ Qere, since the substitution always applies). A qere perpetuum occurs in the case of the Hebrew name of the God of Israel – יהוה (YHWH, the Tetragrammaton). In the Masoretic Text it is marked with the vowels יְהוָֹה, indicating it should be pronounced as אֲדֹנָי Adonai ("my Lord") rather than with its own vowels. The consensus of mainstream scholars is that ‘Yehowah’ (or in Latin ‘Jehovah’) is a pseudo-Hebrew form which was mistakenly created when Medieval and/or Renaissance Christian scholars misunderstood this common qere perpetuum; the usual Jewish practice was to pronounce it as ‘Adonai,’ as is still customary today. Pronouncing it as ‘Yehowah’ or ‘Jehovah,’ is a major mistake. Dr. Michael Carasik, a scholar of Biblical Hebrew, explains, saying, “The unpronounceable written name, YHWH is always replaced in reading by something else, almost always the word adonai, ‘my Lord.’ This is a Qere Perpetuum, a word that is written one way, but always , automatically pronounced another way...(It is a strange blend of these two forms that gave rise to the English word, ‘Jehovah,’ a word that never existed in Hebrew).”35

It ought to be obvious that the “mongrel form, Jehovah,”36 composed from the consonants of one word and the vowels of another has no validity as representing God’s personal name revealed to Moses. T. N. D. Mettinger, professor of the Hebrew Bible, illustrates the point, saying, “It is important to recognize that the vowels one finds in YHWH in the Hebrew Bible tell us nothing at all about the pronunciation of the Name, as they belong to a different word entirely, namely to ‘Adonai.’ Nevertheless some scholars once read the consonants of YHWH together with the vowels of ‘Adonai’ and arrived at the name, ‘Jehovah,’ a reading which attained considerable popularity until the end of the nineteenth century. It is quite certain, however, that the ancient Israelites never used this term of their God; formally it is a genetic hybrid, as artificial as the words ‘elidile’ and ‘crocophant’.”37 Compound terms like ‘eli-dile’ and ‘croco-phant’ are misleading and invalid epithets for either elephants or crocodiles; “Jehovah” is an equally invalid representation of the divine name, YHWH.

From YHWH to Jehovah—the Making of a Medieval Mistake

Jehovah—“a mistake lying in wait for the ignorant”-- Dr. Robert Wilkinson

From the above, it is easy to see how the uninitiated could stumble upon a misrepresentation of the divine name. It was a “pitfall lying in the path of some unwary scholar,” an “accident waiting to happen.” As Dr. Robert Wilkinson expresses it, ‘Jehovah’ was the result of “a mistaken reading [which] naturally arose among Christians unfamiliar with the conventions of Masoretic scribal practices and Jewish liturgical propriety. But it was hardly an error which needed to be invented, rather an inevitable mistake lying in wait for the ignorant.”38 Dr. Al Garza explains,39 “The Masoretes ensured that the Name of the LORD would not be taken in vain by substituting the vowel marks of Adonai and putting them under the letters YHWH in the running text...The Hebrew text, then, contains the Ketiv [YHWH] but uses the vowels of the Qere (Adonai) and this has led to the obviously incorrect pronunciation of the Name as ‘Jehovah’…Yahweh is most likely the correct transliteration.” Dr. Michael L. Brown elaborates, saying, “The name Jehovah is actually based on a mistaken reading of the biblical text by medieval Christian scholars who were educated in the Hebrew language but were not aware of certain Jewish scribal customs. In short, they did not realize that it was a Jewish tradition to write the vowels for the word adonai, ‘Lord’, with the consonants of the name Yahweh, known as the Tetragrammaton and they wrongly read this hybrid word as Yehowah or Jehovah in English. That is to say, the name Jehovah (or Yehowah) did not exist in Israel—despite the popularity of this name in English-speaking Christian circles, and despite religious organizations like Jehovah’s Witnesses.”40 Nick Page concurs, saying, “Jewish scribes put the vowels of these words in tiny letters above YHWH, [vowel points] indicating which substitute word was to be used. But Western translators thought these marks were the missing vowels for YHWH. So they combined Adonai and Yahweh to get ‘Jehovah.’ Although translations such as the KJV use the word occasionally and we sing ‘Guide me O Thou Great Jehovah,’ we are using a name that no ancient Jew ever used.”41

Finally, the transition from “Ya-” to “Je-” is due to Germanic influence. J. P. Green Sr. states “In the history of the English language...the letter J has a written counterpart in the German J [which]...is pronounced like an English Y. The bulk of theology studies having come from German sources, there has been an intermixed usage in English of the J and the Y. Our English translations of the Bible reflect this, so we have chosen to use J, thus Jehovah, rather than Yahweh.”42 Hence, “Jehovah is essentially a Germanic pronunciation of the Latinized transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH. It is the letters of the tetragrammaton [YHWH], Latinized into JHVH, with vowels [from Adonai (Lord)] inserted.”43 This is the long and torturous road from YHWH to ‘Jehovah.’

‘Jehovah’–a Recent Invention

Contrary to LSM’s claims, ‘Jehovah’ is not God’s “name revealed and delivered to His saints.”44 It is a man-made mistake, an artificial creation, which arose when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the English language. In that era, the study and translation of the Hebrew Scriptures by Christian scholars was in its infancy so errors occurred; unaware of the Masoretes’ Ketiv-Qere system, YHWH became “Jehovah.” The earliest available Latin text using a vocalization similar to Jehovah dates from the 13th century. The form Jehovah first took effect in works dated 1278 & 1303; it was adopted and popularized in William Tyndale’s (1530) English translation of the Bible. Jehovah appeared 6 times in the 1560 Geneva Bible, and 7 times in the 1611 King James Version (KJV) (elsewhere ‘the LORD’ was used). In the 1885 British Revised Version (RV), Jehovah occurs 12 times. Its US equivalent, the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), used ‘Jehovah’ throughout, earning it the moniker, ‘the Jehovah Bible.’ This innovation was not welcomed; Professor Gordon Fee observes, “The ASV’s greatest idiosyncrasy was rendering the Divine Name in the Old Testament as Jehovah... introduced a name for God that is seldom used by anyone except a cult known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”45 The ASV (1901) translation “never acquired real popularity, and its use of ‘Jehovah’ was probably its most unpopular feature;” Professor Robert C. Dentan reports46 “Certain distinguishing marks of the ASV... hindered its wide acceptance...The most obvious...was the universal use in the Old Testament of the proper name ‘Jehovah’.” Due to this distinctive, it “was almost universally disliked,” Dr. Dentan observes.

J. N. Darby’s New Translation (1890), and Young’s Literal Translation (1862, 1898), also employ ‘Jehovah’ everywhere; but these never achieved widespread popularity. Thus in its extensive use of ‘Jehovah,’ LSM’s English Recovery Version Bible (1999) joined the select group of ‘Jehovah Bibles,’ including Darby’s New Translation (1890), Young’s Literal Translation (1862, 1898), the ASV (1901), alongside the Jehovah Witnesses’ New World Translation, presenting ‘Jehovah’ as God’s Divine Name revealed in the Old Testament.

The high point for the epithet “Jehovah” was reached by the 1950s; since then it has been in decline. “Recent English translations tend to use ‘LORD’ rather than ‘Jehovah’,” says Dr. Steven Friesen.47 “Sometimes YHWH is transliterated in English as ‘Jehovah.’ However, no recent major English translation follows this form and using the name Jehovah is not recommended,” says translation expert, Dr. Katharine Barnwell.48

[B]‘Jehovah’ (Yēhéhuá) in Chinese Bibles

At this point it’s worth noting the contrasting use of ‘Jehovah’ in English- and Chinese- Bible translations. In English Scriptures ‘Jehovah’ is clearly in decline, displaced by ‘Yahweh’ or ‘the LORD.’ But, in Chinese Bible translations, ‘Jehovah’ still reigns supreme. The Chinese Union Version (CUV, 1919), and its adaption, the Mandarin Union Version (1939), hold the preeminent position among translations, equivalent to that once held by the KJV among English Bibles. The CUV Bible has been circulated and used in China for almost a century. Translated by western missionaries in an era when ‘Jehovah’ was popular, the Chinese equivalent, Yēhéhuá, dominates the CUV and its successors (including the Chinese Recovery Version Bible). Via this means, Yēhéhuá (Jehovah) and other Biblical terms have entered the Chinese language mainstream. Scholars conclude that “it is the Chinese Protestant version of the Bible –the Chinese Union Version --which has, almost exclusively, been the inspiration for names of biblical scriptures, persons, terms and expressions” appearing in secular Chinese language dictionaries.49 Hence the Chinese situation differs significantly from the English.

‘Jehovah’ is a Misnomer, a Man-Made Mistake

Despite the frequent use of “Jehovah” in LSM’s Recovery Version and its limited popularity a century ago, (e.g. in ASV 1901) it is evident that this rendition of God’s name is a mistake. "Jehovah" is a pseudo-Hebrew word mistakenly created when Medieval &/or Renaissance Christian scholars misunderstood the common qere perpetuum--the Jewish practice of substituting YHWH with ‘Adonai.’ Rendering it as ‘Jehovah,’ ‘Yehowah’ or some similar form, is an error. Scholars’ evaluations of ‘Jehovah’ are summarized in the following statements:

* “Jehovah [is] a word that never existed in Hebrew.” [Dr. Michael Carasik, Bible's Many Voices, p. 40]
“The name Jehovah (or Yehowah) did not exist in Israel.” [Dr. Michael L. Brown, 60 Questions Christians Ask About Jewish Beliefs & Practices, pp. 60-61]

* “The divine name YHWH was never actually pronounced ‘Jehovah’ in antiquity.” [Dr. Dana M. Pike, “The Names & Titles of God in the OT,” Religious Educator, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2010) p. 19]

* “The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.” [Prof. Bruce M. Metzger, Preface, NRSV, p. ix]

* “’Jehovah’ [is] an artificially constructed name for Israel’s God first attested in 16th century [English] Christian texts.” [Dr. Steven Friesen, ‘Jehovah,’ in Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan (eds.) Oxford Guide to the Bible, p. 343]

* “It is quite certain...that the ancient Israelites never used this term of their God...‘Jehovah’ [is] an artificial form bearing no relation to the name of the God of Israel in biblical times.” [Prof. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning & Message of the Everlasting Names, (1988) p. 16]

* “The one thing that all scholars agree on is that...[YHWH] was not pronounced as an English reader would pronounce ‘Jehovah’.” [Dr. Peter E. Unseth, “Sacred Names Bible Translations in English,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 62, No. 3, (July 2011) p. 187]

* “Sometimes YHWH is transliterated in English as ‘Jehovah’ ...No recent major English translation follows this form and using the name Jehovah is not recommended.” [Dr. Katharine Barnwell, “Translating the tetragrammaton YHWH,” Notes on Translation, Vol. 11, No. 4, (1997) p. 25]

* “The term Jehovah, strictly speaking, is not a biblical term. It is a man-made term...used to render the Hebrew term YHWH.” [Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 51]

* “The word ‘Jehovah’ is widely used as a name for God...But you won’t find it in the Bible, because it wasn’t invented until the 13th century AD...We are using a name that no ancient Jew ever used.” [Nick Page, God's Dangerous Book: The Surprising History of the World's Most Radical Book, p. ]

* “The name Jehovah, as used by the ASV (1901), has been judged unacceptable.” [Dr. Walter A. Elwell, & Dr. Philip Wesley Comfort51 (eds.) Tyndale Bible Dictionary, p. 541]

“Jehovah”--Mistake Detected & Corrected

We sketched the tortuous path by which the divine name YHWH was mistranslated into “Jehovah” in early English Bible translations by William Tyndale (1530), KJV (1611), etc. Perceptive readers will ask--when was this error discovered? At least by 1857 this error was detected. That year Alexander MacWhorter III (1822-80) of the Theology Department at Yale College, New Haven CT., published a book entitled, Yahveh Christ—Or the Memorial Name, arguing the divine name was not Jehovah, but Yahweh. MacWhorter stated about “the name ‘Jehovah’...It will be shown that this Name, having been deprived of its true vowels through the superstition of the Jews, is not ‘Jehovah,’ but YAVEH [i.e., Yahweh];...that it represents the same Divine Person, who afterward appeared in the world’s human history under the name CHRIST.”52 So, at least by 1857 (if not earlier) the fact that ‘Jehovah’ was a misnomer, and that God’s memorial name is Yahweh were being propounded.

We also note that part of MacWhorter’s “Yahveh Christ—Or The Memorial Name” is quoted in Mary E. McDonough’s (1922) book, God's Plan of Redemption, reprinted by LSM in 1999.53 Witness Lee referred to Mary McDonough’s book over ten times in his writings. Hence MacWhorter’s corrective, pointing out the error of “Jehovah” and advocating Yahweh as God’s personal name, was close at hand. A little effort could have brought this to Witness Lee’s attention. This is now common knowledge among scholars.

Witness Lee’s Exegetical Fallacy-- ‘Jehovah’

Witness Lee emphasized ‘Jehovah’ as God’s personal name in the Old Testament. He notes that, “Throughout the Old Testament, the name Jehovah is used a total of more than 7,000 times; the name Elohim [‘God’] is used a total of more than 2,500 times. Together the two names are used more than 10,000 times.”54 However W. Lee never points out the Medieval origin of ‘Jehovah,’ nor does he relate this artificial, pseudo-Hebrew term to the underlying Hebrew YHWH and Yahweh. Rather, W. Lee’s exposits the divine name, Jehovah, as follows:
“The name of God that occurs most frequently in the Old Testament is Jehovah or Yehovah. In Hebrew this name is composed of three words: Je represents a word, ho represents a word, and vah also represents a word. Je means ‘is,’ ho means ‘was,’ and vah means ‘will be.’ Therefore, Jehovah translated into English is ‘the One who is, was, and always will be’.” [W. Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible, Ch. 1, Sect. 2]

This kind of exposition leaves one at a loss for words! It is pure fabrication, 100% fiction, devoid of any basis in fact! It simply manifests the expositor’s ignorance. Evidently, here is someone with zero knowledge of biblical Hebrew teaching falsehoods to people who know even less! It is clear from what has been presented above that “Jehovah” is not a genuine Hebrew word, but a pseudo-Hebrew term that resulted from mistranslation. It follows that it makes no sense to parse “Jehovah” into three components—Je, Ho and Vah; in this context none of these elements has the meaning Witness Lee claims. This is yet another exegetical fallacy and a serious one.

Men began to call on Jehovah’s name, “O Jehovah. O Jehovah”

‘Calling on the Lord’s name’ is an important practice emphasized by the Local Church movement. For this reason they are derided as the “Shouters (Yellers, or Callers, Huhan pai)” in mainland China. According to Witness Lee the exercise of calling practiced by Local Church adherents today, began in the patriarchal period. During mankind’s third generation “men began to call on the name of Jehovah.” (Gen. 4:26, RcV). Witness Lee says, “because men realized that...they were frail and mortal they spontaneously began to call on the name of Jehovah.”55 So (W. Lee alleges) Enosh began “to call spontaneously, ‘O Jehovah. O Jehovah.’ Calling on the Lord's name started in this way.”56 Thus, LSM’s Truth Lessons assert, Enosh “became a model representing all those who call on the name of Jehovah and enjoy the riches of God.”57 Witness Lee elucidates a long list of people who called on the name of Jehovah in the Old Testament era.

Moreover, Witness Lee equates the New Testament believers’ calling “O Lord Jesus” with the Old Testament saints’ calling “O Jehovah.” However these two propositions do not have equal biblical validity. The name “Lord Jesus” directly translates the Greek [Kurie Iesou] ascribed to the Hellenistic believer, Stephen, at his martyrdom (Acts 7:59b). But “Jehovah” is a recent artificial invention which originated within the last 700 years. “Jehovah [is] a word that never existed in Hebrew,” says Dr. Michael Carasik.58 “The name Jehovah ...did not exist in Israel,” asserts Prof. Michael L. Brown.59 Professor Bruce M. Metzger concurs, saying “The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.”61 Therefore Witness Lee’s depiction of the Old Testament saints calling “O Jehovah” is a fabricated pseudo-history, without validity. None of the Old Testament saints ever called “O Jehovah. O Jehovah,” in Hebrew or even Paleo-Hebrew. Plus this invalidates the LSM-editors’ suggestion that abandoning “Jehovah” would be “to shrink back from the use...of God’s personal...name,” “revealed and delivered to His saints (Exo. 3:16; 20:7).”62 Their claim is specious.

No doubt God’s Old Testament saints invoked the name of their God. If they did not call, “O Jehovah” (a later phonetic corruption of God’s name) what did they call? There is no indication that later Jewish reticence to invoke God’s personal name characterized earlier generations. Dr. William D. Barrick addresses this issue, saying, “the ultimate question should be: Did Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, and other OT saints likewise refuse to pronounce the divine name of Yahweh?”63 His answer is a resounding, “No,” quoting the respected OT scholar, R. Laird Harris, who says, “the facts are plain. The ancient Hebrews, naturally, pronounced and wrote the name of God.”64 So the Psalmists declare “Moses and Aaron...Samuel also was among those calling on His name. They called to Yahweh and He answered them” (Psalm 99:6 HCSB) and the Psalmists exhort, “Give thanks to Yahweh, call on His name; proclaim His deeds among the peoples.” (Psalm 105:1 HCSB)

Why Did Witness Lee use “Jehovah”?

Why did W. Lee use “Jehovah” in his Recovery Version Bible and his teaching? He never addressed this issue. His writings show no familiarity with the Hebrew terms—YHWH and Yahweh; these key terms never appear in LSM’s vast array of W. Nee’s and W. Lee’s writings. This neglect is made more striking since W. Lee produced a new Chinese Bible translation. In this context Dr. Yiyi Chen says, “The most controversial case [issue?] for Chinese translation of the Hebrew Bible is in naming the Israelite deity, the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH.”65 But, for Witness Lee, evidently this was a non-issue--the options of YHWH or Yahweh were never considered; the choice was between ‘Jehovah’ (Chinese: Yēhéhuá) and ‘LORD,’ (Chinese: Zhu) and the former won out.

Perhaps W. Lee’s appreciation of Darby’s New Translation (1890) and the 1901 ASV, both of which employ ‘Jehovah’ throughout the Old Testament, was influential. Watchman Nee endorsed Darby’s translation, saying, “Of all the English versions, Darby's translation tops the list in terms of its understanding of the meaning of the original text.”66 Witness Lee is on record saying, “I have a great deal of trust...in Darby's New Translation and in the 1901 edition of the American Standard Version.”67 W. Lee was aware of the divergence between the English Revised Version (RV, 1881-5) and the ASV (1901) translation. He says, “In the 1800s a group of British and American Bible scholars formed a committee to revise the King James Version [KJV 1611], but they had different views on many points, including whether to use the name Jehovah. The British scholars, who advocated using Lord, published the Revised Standard (sic) Version [RV]. While the American scholars, who advocated using Jehovah, published the American Standard Version [ASV].”68 However W. Lee failed to mention that, later, the US trend reversed; with the New American Standard Bible (1971, 1995), “unlike the ASV [1901] which uses Jehovah as the personal name of God, the traditional rendering of the Tetragrammaton was adopted, printed in capital letters”—LORD,69 says Bruce M. Metzger. Other translations followed suit. Apparently, despite these shifts, W. Lee saw no reason to diverge from Darby (1890) and the ASV; as a result LSM’s Recovery Version Bible uses the artificial, hybrid term which no Old Testament Jewish saint in Israel ever employed, the mistranslated name, “Jehovah,” 6,841 times. So LSM’s Recovery Version is among a select group of English Bibles, with the JW’s ‘New World Translation,’ presenting God’s personal name as ‘Jehovah.’

Another probable influence is the preponderance of “Jehovah” in Chinese Bible translations. In contrast to other Bible translators, W. Lee did not produce a single-language version, he produced English- and Chinese- Recovery Versions in tandem; and he expected them to be consistent. W. Lee was affected by existing Chinese versions; he says, “We took the Mandarin Union Version [1939] as the standard reference, and we used all the recognized English versions. We also used the other Chinese versions as secondary references. We did this...to avoid bias or misjudgment.”70 A reviewer of the Chinese Recovery Version notes this influence, saying “The translation headed by Li Changshou [Witness Lee] tries to keep the flavour of the [Chinese] Union Version...”71

This raises the issue—did Witness Lee’s strategy of producing English- and Chinese- Recovery Versions in tandem have detrimental effects? Historically English Bible translations have incorporated new insights earlier than their Chinese counterparts. We see this in English-translations’ trend away from “Jehovah” in favor of “LORD,” “Yahweh” or simply “YHWH.” Meanwhile most Chinese versions retain the invalid rendition--Yēhéhuá (Jehovah). We ask, did W. Lee’s veneration of the Chinese Union Version lead him to preserve its traditional rendering—Jehovah (Yēhéhuá)--in both English- and Chinese Recovery Version Bibles? Did his adherence to Yēhéhuá (Jehovah), the norm in Chinese Bibles, handicap the English- Recovery Version, leaving it ‘stranded of the sands’72 of the out-dated and discredited Jehovah? Witness Lee had an opportunity to make significant progress by ‘recovering’ God’s personal name, Yahweh, in both Chinese- and English Recovery Bibles. But this opportunity was missed; instead the English Recovery Version was retarded in order to be consistent with the Chinese Version which retained the traditional (but invalid) rendition of God’s name as Yēhéhuá (Jehovah).

Moreover, we ask, doesn’t LSM’s adherence to tradition, retaining Jehovah, violate the Local Church’s vaunted principle of recovery? LSM’s editors declare that Bible translations ought to improve over time, that “each new translation…should go further” than its predecessors.73 However, contrary to this, on the vital issue of God’s personal name, LSM’s Recovery Version (English) does not exhibit progress, rather there has been regression.

Translating YHWH--Four Options— “YHWH, Yahweh, LORD, or Jehovah”

There are four major options for translating the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, YHWH

1. YHWH

One option is to leave the Tetragrammaton untranslated and simply render it as “YHWH.” Professor William D. Barrick proposed this approach, saying, “Ancient scribal practice should be imitated in our translations by representing the Tetragrammaton with four simple capitalized consonants: YHWH. It would be read as ‘Yahweh.’ The distinctiveness of the divine name would thus be preserved from obscurity...The divine name issue is an ambiguity imposed upon the text. The text is not ambiguous in this matter.”74

This option is being adopted for a Jewish translation of the Old Testament. Jewish Publication Society editor, Rabbi David E. S. Stein, reports that “We first settled on representing the Name unmediated and unvocalized: YHWH... Eventually, however, the publisher opted to employ Hebrew letters rather than YHWH, but with the same intent.”75 In effect this shifts the task of translation from the editors to the reader. Old Testament scholar, Professor Bruce Waltke suggests a variation of this strategy, saying “Using a title [e.g. ‘the LORD’]...establishes a less intimate relationship with a person than using his or her name”76 To overcome this, he opts for “I AM” (in all-caps) to represent the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. But Dr. Walke’s proposal has not received much support.

2. Yahweh

A more appealing choice is to render YHWH as “Yahweh,” consistent with the overwhelming consensus of scholars on this issue. The virtues of this approach are that it renders God’s name as closely as possible to the original Hebrew text and that it represents YHWH as God’s personal name, rather than substituting a title, such as “Lord.” Dr. Robert G. Bratcher makes the case, saying, “YHWH is the personal name of God, the name by which God willed to be revealed and by which God willed to be called. Why not, then, represent YHWH in English (and other languages) as a proper name, as we do all other names?”77

Professor David Clines laments the widespread omission of God’s personal name in most English versions, due to substitutes like, “Lord.” He says, “In popular Christian theology the personhood of God is less prominent than it ought to be because God is not referred to by his personal name.”78 Moreover he recommends, “In our translations of the Bible it should be made plain...when the personal name of God is being used, rather than having it hidden in such an epithet as ‘the LORD.’ And the introduction of God’s personal name into Christian worship and theology could have surprisingly creative results.”79 This author supports these sentiments.

Among English Bibles, the Rotherham Emphasized Bible (NT 1872; OT 1897-1902) was one of the first to render God’s name ‘Yahweh’ throughout.81 However, it never achieved widespread popularity. More recently, the Jerusalem Bible (1966) and its revision, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), rendered YHWH as “Yahweh” throughout the Old Testament, some 6,800 times. This is surprising since both translations were produced by the Roman Catholics.82 The impact on Catholics is likely to be attenuated by Roman Catholics’ emphasis on liturgy and sacraments, rather than Bible study and the ministry of God’s Word. Plus certain measures within the Catholic Church appear designed to restrict the use of God’s personal name in public worship.83 The recently published King James Bible Proper Name Version,84 based on the KJV, also employs Yahweh. The publishers assert that this version “restores the proper name of God, rather than using a traditional title [‘the LORD’] in place of His name. His name is written as Yahweh and as its short form, Yah.”

A promising development is the publication of Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB, 2004-9) by a publisher related to the Southern Baptists. This translation renders YHWH as “Yahweh” in over 600 verses, representing about 10% of cases (mainly where God’s name is emphasized), while retaining “LORD” for the remaining 90%. For example Exodus 6:2-3 is translated as “…I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I did not reveal My name Yahweh to them…” The promotional material says, “God gave us his personal name, which is why you’ll see it in the Holman Christian Standard Bible.” Personally, I think this translation has done what Witness Lee’s Recovery Version Bible ought to have done. Unfortunately, LSM’s Recovery Version adopted the archaic “Jehovah,” which represents regression, rather than recovery.

3. “The LORD”

The vast majority of English Bible translations (NIV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc) render YHWH as “the LORD,” distinguishing it from Adonai (“Lord”). In so doing they follow the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. As Dr. David W. Baker observes, “The practice of substituting [Adonai (Lord) for YHWH (Yahweh)] carries over to the Septuagint [Greek OT] where YHWH is routinely rendered as kurios (‘lord’), a practice carried on in the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 4:7 quoting Deut. 6:16). This continues in most contemporary English translations...where YHWH is rendered LORD.”85

One justification for rendering YHWH as ‘the LORD’ is that “in the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament the word יהוה YHWH is always rendered Κυριος [kurios] —the common Greek word meaning ‘Lord’ —and so it must be recognized that the regular use of ‘Lord’ in English versions conforms to the practice of the Apostles [recorded in the New Testament], who did not use ‘Yahweh’ in reference to God,”86 says Michael Marlowe. The Apostles’ use of “Lord” for God’s name (YHWH) when they quote from the Old Testament (based on the Greek Septuagint) has been validated by its inclusion in the New Testament canon of Scripture.

Moreover, Witness Lee maintains that the Lord Jesus Himself quoted, not from the Hebrew Scriptures, but from the Greek (Septuagint) translation. He asserts, “The Old Testament used by the Lord Jesus in His speaking to the people was not in the original [Hebrew] language, but was a Greek translation, the Septuagint version...the Lord Jesus and early apostles quoted from it...”87 Again, elsewhere he says, “when the Lord Jesus was on earth, He often quoted the Scriptures in His speaking, and His quotations of the Old Testament came from the Septuagint (meaning 70), the Greek translation of the Old Testament.”88 This implies that when Jesus read from Isaiah 61 in the Nazareth synagogue, he said, “The Spirit of the Lord (Greek: Kurios =Heb. Adonai) is upon me because He has anointed me...” (Luke 4:17-19), even though the Hebrew text is written as: “The Spirit*of*Adonai Yahweh*is upon me*because*Yahweh*has anointed me...” Thus W. Lee’s statements imply that Jesus Himself, in his public reading of Scripture (allegedly in Greek), rendering YHWH as ‘the LORD’ (as in the Septuagint), thereby authenticating this practice. If W. Lee is correct in his assertions,89 this validates the use of “the LORD” for YHWH, and undermines the LSM-editors’ suggestion this is a practice of “ancient religion.”

The disadvantage of using “the LORD,” is that it is not a personal name; rather it is a title. Hence as Professor Bruce K. Waltke states “Using a title [e.g. ‘LORD’]...establishes a less intimate relationship with a person than using his or her name.”91 What Professor David Clines observed about the designation “God,” also applies here, ‘LORD’ “...does not name him with his proper name, Yahweh. The personal name of God is Yahweh.”92 Robert Bratcher argues against those maintaining “LORD” is the only legitimate translation; he says, “Those who insist that ‘the LORD’ is the only appropriate translation of YHWH must prove that this is true. After all, YHWH is the personal name of God, the name by which God willed to be revealed and by which God willed to be called. Why not, then, represent YHWH in English (and other languages) as a proper name, as we do all other names?”93
Rendering YHWH as “LORD” and also Adonai as “Lord” blurs the distinction between the two; to those listening to Scripture reading they are indistinguishable. Dr. Robert P. Carroll criticizes this practice, saying, “To reduce two very distinctive words to doing the duty of only one of the words is a most curious maltreatment and distortion of language by translators.”94 “Such euphemized circumlocution is more than a distortion of language, it is tantamount to a loss of intellectual and linguistic integrity,” Professor William D. Barrick adds.95

4. “Jehovah”

This article’s main thesis is that “Jehovah” is the worst-possible option among those considered. Whatever else Witness Lee might have recovered and incorporated into his Recovery Version Bible, he did not recover “God’s personal and revealed name” (Exo. 3:15). As Jason Dulle states, “by no means can it be claimed that Jehovah is the name of God that has only been restored to us in these recent times…[Rather ‘Jehovah’ represents] a phonetic corruption of God’s name. The probable pronunciation of God’s revealed name is Yahweh.”96

[B]LSM-editors’ Justification for “Jehovah”

Witness Lee’s passing in 1997 left LSM’s editorial section with the unenviable task of justifying the anachronistic use of “Jehovah” in the English Recovery Version Bible. They “gave it their best shot;” saying:

“The reader will quickly note the use of the name Jehovah in this translation. In spite of the historical linguistic arguments against its use, no other rendering of the Tetragrammaton has the same heritage that Jehovah has in classic English literature. While our forebears in translation, based on a faulty understanding of the Hebrew vowel pointing, might have mistakenly transliterated the divine name, their great influence has firmly embedded the name Jehovah into the English language, as evidenced by its inclusion in our modern dictionaries. Our employing of the name Jehovah is motivated not by linguistic considerations but by a recognition of the heritage of the English language and, more importantly, by a desire to be true to our convictions as translators that the name of God, revealed and delivered to His saints (Exo. 3:16; 20:7), should be deliberately rendered in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Deference to ancient religion and confusion from modern sectarians are no reasons to shrink back from the use and enjoyment of God’s personal and revealed name...”
The editorial section
August 1, 2003
Anaheim, California”97

LSM’s editors are less than forthright; they seem loath to admit that “Jehovah” was mistake. They say, “Our forebears in translation...might have mistakenly transliterated the divine name...” They concede the possibility YHWH “might have mistakenly transliterated” into Jehovah. This is a definite under-statement. A rare consensus exists among biblical scholars; as Dr. Peter Unseth states, “The one thing that all scholars agree on is that...[YHWH] was not pronounced as an English reader would pronounce ‘Jehovah’.”98 On the other hand, “There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh.”99 “It is almost certain that the name YHWH was originally pronounced Yahweh,” says Professor Joze Krasovec.101 Hence, the vast majority of biblical scholars concur, regarding the Tetragrammaton’s representation, that “Jehovah” is wrong and “Yahweh” is right. Nevertheless, LSM’s editors defend the indefensible misnomer, “Jehovah.” This error ought to be identified and corrected, not perpetuated.

Americas’ indigenous peoples were dubbed ‘Indians’ in 1492 by Christopher Columbus, who was 6,000 miles off course; Columbus had not reached India. They were later called “Red Indians,” to distinguish them from India’s inhabitants. Both terms—“Indians” and “Red Indians”--are misnomers, which nonetheless, entered the English language and English Dictionaries in that era. However, America’s indigenous peoples object to such designations, especially “Red Indians.” This led to replacement expressions like, “First Nations.” The misnomer, “Jehovah” has parallels with Columbus’ “Red Indians.” ‘Jehovah’ also originated from a mistake made some 500 years ago. If the one error--“Red Indians”--can be corrected, despite entrenched tradition, why not the other? By using the “Jehovah” misnomer, LSM has allowed tradition to trump truth. It is time LSM made good on their boast that, “The Recovery Version is the most accurate translation...The translators did not compromise the true understanding for traditional teachings or for cultural preferences.”102

[B]LSM’s Special Pleading

LSM’s justification for “Jehovah” rests, not on its use in the biblical text, but on its “heritage...in classic English literature.” They assert that “the name Jehovah” is “firmly embedded...into the English language.” This appeal to tradition is a case of special pleading—a logical fallacy.103 Watchman Nee asserted “the Bible is our only standard.” Witness Lee decried adherence to tradition, saying, “The truths that we...preached...are not bound by tradition. Instead, these truths have been identified according to the standard of the Bible.”104 Yet, in this singular case, LSM asserts that “the heritage of the English language” is a counter-veiling principle which overrides the Bible. They appeal to tradition, in spite of overwhelming evidence that Jehovah is an erroneous rendition of God’s personal name. LSM’s editors argue that, in this one instance, tradition trumps biblical truth; they contend that “Jehovah’s” 500-year history means it is too entrenched in English tradition to be changed. Yet they never justify why “heritage...in classic English literature” ought to be the decisive factor in this particular case; hence LSM’s special pleading on behalf of ‘Jehovah’ is a logical fallacy. Their argument about “classic English literature heritage” applies equally to other terms. Take “bishop” for example. The KJV uses “bishop” in 1 Tim 3:1-2, where the Recovery Version (RcV) has “elder.” Yet “bishop” has been used for 1,000-years, and is less ambiguous than “elder.”105 Or compare the KJV “communion” (1 Cor. 10:16; 2 Cor. 6:14) with the Recovery Version’s “fellowship.” In these cases English-language heritage favors the KJV’s rendition over the Recovery Version. Plus we ask: does English-language heritage really favor “Jehovah” over the alternatives? Ask any “typical American Christian”106 to recite Psalm 23; they will say “The LORD in my Shepherd...,” not the Recovery Version’s “Jehovah is my shepherd...”

LSM’s Specious Argument

LSM argues for “Jehovah” based on its “heritage...in classic English literature.” However, the widely-used alternative, “LORD,” has a longer history than Jehovah. The English word, ‘Lord” originated before 900 AD and its use is documented prior to the 12th century. In contrast, “Jehovah” is of recent origin; the form Jehovah is first found in works dated 1278 & 1303; it was popularized via William Tyndale’s (1530) English Bible. LSM’s editors assert that “no other rendering of the Tetragrammaton has the same heritage that Jehovah has in classic English literature.” However, “the LORD,” the most common rendition of YHWH in English, has a longer and more established history; LSM’s appeal to classic English literature heritage is specious.
Moreover, ‘Jehovah’s’ vaunted popularity is overstated; the ‘Jehovah Bible,’ the ASV (1901) “never acquired real popularity and its use of ‘Jehovah’ was probably its most unpopular feature.” Dr. Robert C. Dentan writes, “Certain distinguishing marks of the ASV...hindered its wide acceptance...The most obvious ...was the universal use in the Old Testament of the proper name ‘Jehovah’.” Due to this, it “was almost universally disliked.”107 LSM’s editors are “grasping at straws” to justify the unjustifiable, ‘Jehovah.’ Evidently the “bottom line” is this—W. Lee wanted the traditional Chinese rendition of God’s name, Yēhéhuá (Jehovah), in both English- and Chinese- language-translations of the Recovery Version Bible. On this issue tradition trumped biblical truth.

LSM’s tendentious defense of ‘Jehovah’

LSM’s tendentious defense of ‘Jehovah’ implicitly assumes there are only two options for rendering YHWH, God’s personal name—either as, Jehovah or the title, ‘LORD.’ They assert the Recovery Version’s use of Jehovah reflects their “convictions...that the name of God, revealed and delivered to His saints (Exo. 3:16; 20:7) should be deliberately rendered.” Yet, given this conviction, ‘Jehovah’ is obviously not the only option; Yahweh is another. When choosing between an erroneous representation (‘Jehovah’) and a more authentic translation (‘Yahweh’), the latter ought to be the obvious choice. LSM’s editors never mentions this option, not even once. Their lack of forthrightness on this issue is disingenuous; what became of truth in translation?
LSM’s editors suggest that rejecting “Jehovah” is “to shrink back from the use and enjoyment of God’s personal and revealed name...” However, ‘Jehovah” is not a valid representation of “God’s personal and revealed name.” Rather, it is an artificial, man-made, ‘mongrel form’ that originated in a medieval mistake! Plus, it is neither a personal name, nor a title. It is a “mash up,” a hybrid of God’s name (YHWH) and the title, Adonai (Lord). Other viable options include God’s personal and revealed name—Yahweh. Unquestioning allegiance to W. Lee’s personal preference has left LSM’s editors aligned with tradition, rather than biblical truth. We applaud their “convictions...that the name of God...(Exo. 3:16; 20:7) should be deliberately rendered.” But we condemn their preference for a “phonetic corruption of God’s name”--Jehovah, over the more authentic, Yahweh.

Using ‘the LORD’—“Deference to Ancient Religion”?

LSM’s editors contend that “deference to ancient religion and confusion from modern sectarians are no reasons to shrink back from the use” of Jehovah. The fact that ‘Jehovah’ is an invalid rendition of the divine name, YHWH, ought to be reason enough not to employ it.108 While ‘the LORD’ may not be the “first best” solution for rendering YHWH, it surely trumps using Jehovah, a “phonetic corruption of God’s name.” “Confusion from modern sectarians” must refer to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (JWs’) promotion of the ‘Jehovah’ epithet.109 Since LSM adopts the same position as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they have indeed aligned themselves with them on this important issue. Witness Lee’s Local Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses make “strange bedfellows.” However, both these sects share the common cause of promulgating the error that God’s personal name is ‘Jehovah.’ Any resulting “confusion” is their own making.

[I]Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA.
December, 2015.

Notes: Thanks are extended to those commenting on earlier drafts. The author alone is responsible for the contents of this piece. The views expressed here are solely the author’s & should not be attributed to any believers, elders, co-workers or churches with whom/which he is associated. In view of the topic, the author wishes to emphasize that he claims no more than the most rudimentary knowledge of the biblical languages—OT Hebrew or NT Greek. He has sought therefore to rely on primary & secondary sources and to quote the findings & views of qualified scholars, published in accredited journals & books. Plus, he has endeavored to quote from multiple sources “that by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses every fact may be established.” (Matt. 18:16). If the resulting piece is a little tedious, due to repetition, the author offers his apologies.

1. Misnomer: an error in naming a person or thing
2. In this context, the Local Churches explain, "’Recovery’ means the restoration or return to a normal condition after a damage or a loss has been incurred. To say that God is recovering certain matters means that in the course of church history they have been lost, misused, or corrupted and that God is restoring them to their original state or condition… revealed in His Word.” [“Co-workers in the Lord’s Recovery,” “Beliefs & Practices of the Local Churches” (1978) p.]
3. This notion began with Witness Lee’s teaching [W. Lee, Vision of the Age, Anaheim, CA, LSM, 1st ed., April, 2003]. It was developed by W. Lee’s successors at LSM; consider (for e.g.) this exposition from LSM’s The Ministry magazine: “In every age there is a particular vision. This vision is released not through many persons but through one person who is the minister of that age. There is the vision of the age, and the one who receives this vision becomes the minister of the age. All the others who are with him are led through this one…they speak… according to the leading of the one whom the Lord has chosen to give the vision of the age.” [The Ministry, vol. 7, No. 6, Aug., 2003, p. 34, emphasis added] Within LSM’s Local Churches “Brother [Watchman] Nee” & “Brother [Witness] Lee” are recognized as successive ministers of the age, “The Lord raised up our brother Nee in approximately the first half of the twentieth century. The vision of the age was with him. He was the minister of the age. God stood with him, and Witness Lee followed him … But then, in the sense of opening up the vision of the age to His people, God set Watchman Nee aside when he was put into prison. Who did God bring in? Who continued this? It was Witness Lee. ” [The Ministry, Vol. 7, No. 6, Aug. 2003, p. 35] Along the same lines, another “blended co-worker” says, “In the 20th century the minister of the age was Watchman Nee and then Witness Lee as the continuation of Watchman Nee. These brothers were ministers of the age. There is no doubt about this.” [The Ministry, vol. 9, no. 6, June 2005, p. 114]
4. At various points Witness Lee admitted his lack of biblical language skills. For e.g. he says, “I never took a Greek class; neither was I taught...I am not a Greek scholar...” [W. Lee, Vision, Living & Work of the Lord's Serving Ones, Ch. 14, Sect. 2] “I have not studied Greek in any school....” [W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Ch. 8, Sect. 1] “I do not know Greek well, I can consult reference books.” [W. Lee, Sufficiency, Pursuit, & Learning of the Lord's Serving Ones, Ch. 9, Sect. 2] If W. Lee’s knowledge of NT Greek was rudimentary, his skill at Biblical Hebrew was virtually zero. (To my knowledge, he never directly addressed this issue). Despite these deficiencies and the lack of university education & theological training, Witness Lee took charge of the translation project. He says: “I did not graduate from a university or receive any kind of diploma, but, may the Lord's blood cover me, I have been able to take charge of the translation work of the Recovery Version of the New Testament.” [W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Bk.2: Ch. 2, Sect. 4 (emphasis added)] Moreover Witness Lee took a “hands on” approach to the translation project; he said, “I am deeply concerned that if those who are involved in the translation of the Bible do not have an accurate understanding of the original meanings of the words in the Bible, then their translation will surely contain mistakes. Hence, after careful consideration I have decided to labor on this personally by taking the lead in the translation of the New Testament Recovery Version…” [W. Lee, Vessels Useful to the Lord, Ch. 3, Sect. 1 (emphasis added)] No doubt the same principles apply (to a large extent) to the Old Testament RcV.
5. LSM, “The Holy Bible: Recovery Version,” http://www.recoveryversion.org/? Note that the main focus of this paper is the English Recovery Version of the Bible. Only occasional reference is made to the Chinese Recovery Version.
6. LSM, Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God, Ch. 4, Sect. 6
7. LSM’s editorial section, Introduction to the Recovery Version Bible, Aug. 1, 2003, Anaheim, CA., n.p.
8. This is among the most prominent features of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect: “The Governing Body of the (Watchtower Bible & Tract) Society teaches its members that God has a personal name—Jehovah.” [Andrew Holden, Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, p. 24]
9. Ken Hemphill, “How Excellent Are Thy Names,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, (Oct. 22, 2001) p. 96
10. Princeton Professor Bruce M. Metzger compares the NASB (1971) with the preceding ASV (1901) which it replaced, observing, “Unlike the ASV [1901] which uses Jehovah as the personal name of God, the traditional rendering of the Tetragrammaton was adopted, printed in capital letters”—LORD [Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient & English Versions, (2010) p. 150]
11. Steven Friesen, ‘Jehovah,’ in Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan (eds.) Oxford Guide to the Bible, p. 343. Dr. Steven J. Friesen is the Louise Farmer Boyer Chair in Biblical Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University.
12. The following phrase quotes LSM’s editors’ “convictions as translators that the name of God, revealed and delivered to His saints (Exo. 3:16; 20:7), should be deliberately rendered in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures...” [LSM’s editorial section, Introduction to the Recovery Version Bible, Aug. 1, 2003, Anaheim, CA.] We note also the allusion to Jude v3 which charges believers to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Certainly LSM’s editors are contending for the name Jehovah; we ask—Do they consider this an essential item of ‘the faith’?
13. Katharine Barnwell, “Translating the tetragrammaton YHWH,” Notes on Translation, Vol. 11, No. 4, (1997) p. 24. Dr. Katharine Barnwell, Ph.D. is a Senior Translation Consultant with SIL. Professor Gordon J. Wenham makes the same point; when Moses asks: “The God of your fathers... What is His name?’ (Exo. 3:13) “The divine answer in Exodus 3:14 then gives the personal name of the God of the fathers.” [Gordon J. Wenham, “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” in A. R. Millard & D. J. Wiseman, eds., Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, p. 178 (emphasis added)] Likewise D. N. Freeman states “The Tetragrammaton YHWH is the personal name of the God of Moses...” [D. N. Freeman TDOT quoted in Steven Ortlepp, Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: A Historico-Linguistic Approach, p. 15] The Handbook of Biblical Criticism says, “The Tetragrammaton...is strictly speaking the Hebrew Bible’s only personal proper name for God, other names being common nouns, appellations, or epithets.” [Richard N. Soulen, R. Kendall Soulen (eds.) Handbook of Biblical Criticism, p. 188 (emphasis added)]
14. John J. Davis, “THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH,” Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 4.1 (1963) p. 38. John J. Davis, Th.D., D.D., is president/professor emeritus at Grace College & Grace Theological Seminary. He was a translator of and contributor to the New International Version of the Bible (NIV)
15. “THE CALL OF THE DELIVERER (Exo. 2:23–3:22)” p. 9, note 51
16. Ronald Youngblood, "A New Occurrence of the Divine Name 'I AM’," JETS, Vol. 15 (1972) p. 147. Dr. Ronald F. Youngblood, Bethel Seminary professor of Old Testament and Hebrew emeritus. “Ron Youngblood was a giant in the world of Bible translation,” says Bethel President Jay Barnes.
17. “Yahweh” in Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities & Demons in the Bible, p. 913. More completely: “The caution against over-estimating etymologies, voiced... by James Barr...holds good for divine names as well... Having said that, however, the question of the etymology of Yahweh cannot simply be dismissed...The interpretation of the theonym [i.e., divine name] as a finite verb is already found in Exodus 3:14.” Hence the text of Exodus 3:14-16 itself makes the link between YHWH and the phrase ‘I AM THAT I AM’. My piece entitled “LSM’s Etymological Errors” discusses related issues.
18. D. N. Freeman TDOT quoted in Steven Ortlepp, Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: A Historico-Linguistic Approach, p. 15
19. Princeton Professor Bruce M. Metzger was heralded as “one of the most influential NT scholars of the 20th century”
20. Nehemia Gordon (a member of Karaite Judaism) is one of the few critics of this consensus
21. [blank]
22. Kenneth L. Barker, “YHWH Sabaoth: ‘The Lord Almighty,’” The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation <http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/9.php> Dr. Kenneth L. Barker is an American biblical scholar and professor of Old Testament and Hebrew. He was also one of the original translators of the NASB & NIV Bibles.
23. Frederick F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, p. 133
24. Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient & English Versions, (2010) p. 124. The Jerusalem Bible (1966) was the first complete Roman Catholic Bible in English translated from the original languages.
25. GotQuestions.org. Note that in the case of the word Hallelujah (like the word ‘fjord’) the letter ‘j’ is pronounced as ‘y’ in English; this matches the earliest pronunciation of ‘j’ in the English language.
26. Ron Tappy, “Hallelujah,” in Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan (eds.), Oxford Guide to the Bible, p. 267 Dr. Ron E. Tappy is G. Albert Shoemaker Professor of Bible & Archaeology & Director, Kelso*Museum of Near Eastern Archaeology, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. W. Lee asserts that “Jah is a short form of Jehovah. This is similar to a person's full name also having a short form, such as Benjamin and Ben.” (W. Lee, Life-Study of Isaiah, Ch. 40, Sect. 1) However, this contradicts Ron Tappy’s statement that “‘jah’...is a shortened form of Yahweh.” The ESV Study Bible notes, “Hebrew:* hallelu-yah. Hallelujah, which occurs only here (Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6), in the New Testament comes from a Hebrew term for ‘praise Yahweh,’ seen often in the Psalms (esp.*Psa. 113-118).”*[ESV Study Bible, p. 2490]
27. A search of LSM’s publications finds only seven occurrences of “Yahweh.” All of them are found in LSM’s re-publication of God's Plan of Redemption by Mary E. McDonough (1863-1962), Overcomer Bookroom, UK, 1922, Living Stream Books, 1999. None are found in the writings of W. Nee or W. Lee published by LSM.
28. David J. A. Clines, “Yahweh & the God of Christian Theology,” Theology, Vol. 83, No. 695 (Sept. 1980) p. 323 in David J. A. Clines “On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998,” Vol. II, p. 498. Dr. David John Alfred Clines is a biblical scholar. He is currently Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield, UK. Dr. David Clines’s degrees are in Greek & Latin from the University of Sydney & in Oriental Studies (Hebrew, Aramaic & Syriac) from St John’s College, Cambridge, UK. His specialism is the Hebrew Bible; he edited the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew.
29. Nick Page, God's Dangerous Book: The Surprising History of the World's Most Radical Book, p.
30. David W. Baker, “God, Names of”, in T. Desmond Alexander, David W. Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, (2006) p. 365 Dr. David W. Baker is Professor of Old Testament & Semitics at Ashland Theological Seminary.
31. G. K. Beale, & D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 2. Gregory K. Beale is a biblical scholar, currently a Professor of NT & Biblical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. D. A. Carson is Research Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
32. Ken Hemphill, “How Excellent Are Thy Names,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, (Oct. 22, 2001) p. 96
33. G. K. Beale, & D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 542
34. Dr. Dan Lioy, The Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount, p. 53 Ketiv & Qere are sometimes rendered Ketib & Kere. In the quotations used here, we have made the spelling consistent to avoid confusion. Dr. Dan Lioy is professor at South African Theological Seminary & Institute of Lutheran Theology, South Africa.
35. Charles L. Echols, “An Explanation of the System of Ketib (Ketiv)-Qere,” pp. 3-4
36. Michael Carasik, The Bible's Many Voices, p. 40. Dr. Michael Carasik has a Ph.D. in Bible & the Ancient Near East from Brandeis University. He is Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biblical Hebrew, in the Jewish Studies Program at Univ. of Pennsylvania.
37. The phrase comes from, John Joseph Collins, who says, “The mongrel form ‘Jehovah’ is a combination of the consonants of YHWH...with the vowels of Adonai.” [John Joseph Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, p. 51]
38. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning & Message of the Everlasting Names, (1988) p. 16. Dr. Tryggve Mettinger is a retired professor of the Hebrew Bible, at Lund University, Sweden.
39. Robert J. Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians & the Hebrew Name of God, p. 212. Robert J. Wilkinson, Ph.D. (2004) in History, U.W.E. was before retirement Research Fellow at Wesley College & Visiting Fellow in Theology in Bristol, UK.
40. Al Garza, YHWH: The Triune God, p.
41. Michael L. Brown, 60 Questions Christians Ask about Jewish Beliefs & Practices, pp. 60-61 (emphasis original). Dr. Michael L. Brown is professor of practical theology at Fellowship for International Revival & Evangelism School of Ministry. He has served as adjunct professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School & adjunct professor of Jewish apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary.
42. Nick Page, God's Dangerous Book: The Surprising History of the World's Most Radical Book, p.
43. J. P. Green Sr., The Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic Old Testament, Vol. 1 (1985) p. xii, quoted by D. David Bourland, “Word of God, Languages of Man” in Delphus David Bourland, & Paul Dennithorne Johnston (eds.) E-Prime III!: A Third Anthology, p. 83
44. “Is Jehovah the true name of God?" GotQuestions.com. Note also that the name “Jehovah” certainly did not exist (as such) in Old English. The Cambridge History of the English Language tells us that “There are differences between the Old English and present-day alphabets. First the letters ‘j, v’ were not used...” [Richard M. Hogg, Norman Francis Blake, Roger Lass, The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 1, p. 74]
45. The quotation is from LSM’s editors who defend the Recovery Version’s use of Jehovah based on their “convictions as translators that the name of God, revealed and delivered to His saints (Exo. 3:16; 20:7), should be deliberately rendered in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.” [LSM’s editorial section, Introduction to the Recovery Version Bible, Aug. 1, 2003, Anaheim, CA (emphasis added)
46. Gordon D. Fee, Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, p.
47. Robert C. Dentan, “Story of the New Revised Standard Version,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 11/3 (1990), p. 212. Robert C. Dentan was Professor of OT Literature & Interpretation at the General Theological Seminary in New York
48. Steven Friesen, ‘Jehovah,’ in Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan (eds.) Oxford Guide to the Bible, p. 343
49. Katharine Barnwell, “Translating the tetragrammaton YHWH,” Notes on Translation, Vol. 11, No. 4, (1997) p. 25
50. Thor Strandenæs, “Negotiating Christianity in the People’s Republic of China: The Impact of the Chinese Bible on the Han Chinese Language, as Represented by Dictionaries,” Swedish Missiological Themes, Vol. 97, No. 2 (2009)
51. [blank]
52. It is interesting to note that Philip Wesley Comfort, one of the editors of the Tyndale Bible Dictionary quoted here was, at one time, a leader & full-time serving brother in the Local Church movement. In the late 1970s &/or early 1980s, Philip W. Comfort was among the leaders of the Church in Columbus, OH plus a gifted & respected ministering brother among local churches in the “Great Lakes area.” His biography at Tyndale House Publishers says: “Philip W. Comfort, Ph.D., has studied English literature, Greek, & New Testament at the Ohio State University & the University of South Africa. He has taught these classes at a number of colleges, including Wheaton College, Trinity Episcopal Seminary, Columbia International University, & Coastal Carolina University. He is currently senior editor of Bible reference at Tyndale & served as New Testament editor for the New Living Translation. He has contributed a number of books to the Tyndale collection, both as author & editor. Among these are The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, The Origin of the Bible, The Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Essential Guide to Bible Versions, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (with D. Barrett), and*Who's Who in Christian History...Philip lives in Pawleys Island, South Carolina, with his wife, Georgia. His three children (Jeremy, John, and Peter) live nearby, as do his grandchildren.”
53. Alexander MacWhorter, Yahveh Christ—Or The Memorial Name (1857) Preface, p. iii. This monograph was intended for the Christian public in general. He also published a companion piece for an academic audience: Alexander MacWhorter III, “Jehovah Considered as a Memorial Name,” Bibliotheca Sacra & Theological Review, Vol. 14 (1857) pp. 98-124
54. Mary E. McDonough, God's Plan of Redemption, (Overcomer Bookroom, UK, 1922, Living Stream Books 1999) Ch. 3, Sect. 14
55. W. Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible, Ch. 1, Sect. 3
56. Genesis 4:26, note 2, RcV
57. W. Lee, History of God in His Union with Man, Ch. 5, Sect. 4
58. W. Lee, Truth Lessons, Level 2, Vol. 2, Ch. 3, Sect. 2
59. Michael Carasik, The Bible's Many Voices, p. 40
60. Michael L. Brown, 60 Questions Christians Ask About Jewish Beliefs & Practices, pp. 60-61
61. [blank]
62. Bruce M. Metzger, Preface, NRSV, p. ix
63. LSM’s editorial section, Introduction to the Recovery Version Bible, Aug. 1, 2003, Anaheim, CA.
64. William D. Barrick, “What Is Truth in Translation? The Issue of Accuracy in Translating the Bible,” ETS Annual Meeting Nov., 18, 2004, pp. 13-14. Dr. William D. Barrick is Professor of Old Testament at The Master's Seminary.
65. R. Laird Harris, “The Pronunciation of the Tetragram,” in The Law & the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. by John H. Skilton ([Nutley, N.J.]: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), p. 215 R. Laird Harris was chairman of the Old Testament department at Covenant Theological Seminary & he taught as an adjunct of Old Testament at Knox Theological Seminary.
66. Yiyi Chen, “Understanding Israelite Religion: New Challenges for Chinese Bible Translations,” Religion Compass 1/1 (2007) p. 51
67. W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 62: Matured Leadings in the Lord's Recovery (2), Ch. 5, Sect. 1
68. W. Lee, World Situation & the Direction of the Lord's Move, Ch 3, Sect. 2
69. W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Ch. 2, Sect. 2. The later Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952) follows its predecessor RV (1881-5) in using “the LORD,” so the difference noted between RV and ASV also applies to the RSV vs. the ASV (1901). F. F. Bruce concurs, writing, “One striking difference between the ASV and RSV so far as the OT is concerned is the rendering of the personal name of the God of Israel. While the ASV regularly used ‘Jehovah,’ the RSV follows the AV [i.e., KJV] normally rendering is ‘the LORD’.” [Frederick F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, p. 192]
70. Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient & English Versions, (2010) p. 150
71. W. Lee, Vision of Divine Dispensing & Guidelines for the Practice of the New Way, Ch. 7, Sect. 1 Note: messages given by Witness Lee in Taipei, Taiwan in October 1990.
72. Sin-wai Chan, David E. Pollard (eds.), An Encyclopaedia of Translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese, p. 66. The comment applies directly to the Chinese New Testament Recovery Version.
73. Our phrase “stranded on the sands” echoes W. Lee’s similar phrase in his critique of Christianity. He said: “All the groups in Christianity have been stranded on their own sands, like a boat stranded on sands in shallow water. The Catholic Church is stranded on their sands of superstitions. Most of the Protestant churches are stranded on the sands of superficiality. They are not deep; they are too shallow, on the surface. Nearly all the Protestant churches are stranded in their kind of lukewarm theology.” [W. Lee, The Triune God's Revelation & His Move, Ch. 12, Sect. 4]
74. LSM’s editors write, “Throughout the centuries, translations of the Bible have steadily improved. In general, each new translation inherits from previous ones and opens the way for later ones. While a new translation derives help from its predecessors, it should go further.” [Witness Lee &*the editorial section, “A Brief Explanation” Aug. 1, 1991, Anaheim, California]
75. William D. Barrick, “What Is Truth in Translation? The Issue of Accuracy in Translating the Bible,” ETS Annual Meeting Nov., 18, 2004, pp. 14-15. William D. Barrick, Th.D. is Professor of Old Testament The Master’s Seminary
76. David E. S. Stein, "God's Name in a Gender-Sensitive Jewish Translation," SBL Forum, n.p. (June 2006) Rabbi David E. S. Stein teaches at the American Jewish University.
77. Bruce K. Waltke, Old Testament Theology, p. 11. He has held professorships in the Old Testament & Hebrew at multiple institutions, including Dallas Theological Seminary.
78. Quoted by B. Schneider, “Rendering God’s Name in Bible Translation,” in I Must Speak to You Plainly: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Bratcher, ed. Roger L. Omanson (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), p. 20
79. David J. A. Clines, “Yahweh & the God of Christian Theology,” in David J. A. Clines, “On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Vol. II,” p. 500
80. David J. A. Clines, “Yahweh & the God of Christian Theology,” in David J. A. Clines, “On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Vol. II,” p. 500
81. [blank]
82. Frederick F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, p. 133
83. The Jerusalem Bible (1966) was the first complete Roman Catholic Bible in English translated from the original languages. It represents the divine name by Yahweh. [Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient & English Versions, (2010) p. 124]
84. Alaric Naudé reports that “One proponent against the use of the Tetragrammaton is Arthur J. Serratelli a Catholic Bishop (himself a scholar). On the 8th of August 2008 he wrote an edict for “The Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments” stating that the Divine Name or Tetragrammaton should not be used in any religious services, effectively banning its use. The edict admits that a large portion for the basis of this is not from scholarly research but to uphold the Jewish practice and traditions of the church.” [Alaric Naudé, “The Tetragrammaton : Its Phonetics, Phonology, Semantics & Argument for Rendering in Vernacular Languages,” European Journal of Academic Essays, Vol. 2(9) 2015, p. 47] If this is correct, it replicates the situation among the Jews in Jesus’ era where God’s personal name, YHWH was written and could be read (silently), but could not be pronounced publicly.
85. King James Bible Proper Name Version (KJBPNV, Life Resources Inc., 2010)
86. David W. Baker, “God, Names of”, in T. Desmond Alexander, David W. Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, (2006) p. 365
87. Michael Marlowe, “The Holman Christian Standard Bible” (Review), July 2004, revised Oct. 2008, Aug. 2011
88. W. Lee, World Situation & the Direction of the Lord's Move, Ch. 2, Sect. 2
89. W. Lee, Living of Mutual Abiding with the Lord in Spirit, Ch. 8, Sect. 1
90. It is doubtful if many NT scholars would agree with W. Lee’s assertions that Jesus’ “quotations of the Old Testament came from the Septuagint...the Greek translation of the Old Testament.” W. Lee assumes that Jesus could read the Greek OT (and chose to read & quote the Greek OT, rather than the Hebrew); not many NT scholars assert that. Their consensus view can be summarized: “Widely accepted data [by NT scholars] regarding Jesus’ life include the following facts: Aramaic was Jesus’ mother-tongue; however as a pious Jew, he also read Hebrew and probably spoke Greek. The gospels are dependant on several Aramaic traditions, but as literary texts, they were written in Greek.” [Petr Pokorny, “Jesus Research as Feedback on his Wirkungsgenschichte,” in Tom Holmén, Stanley E. Porter (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 Vols.) p. 344] Note that these scholars deduce that Jesus could read Hebrew, and did so on occasions like the Nazareth Synagogue (Luke 4). Consider also the following quotes: “Jesus had sufficient linguistic competence in Greek to converse in that language during his itinerant ministry...It is likely that Jesus’ primary language was Aramaic.” [Stanley E. Porter, “Jesus & the Use of Greek in Galilee,” in Bruce D. Chilton, Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, pp. 123, 125] “Jesus...was multilingual. Jesus certainly spoke Aramaic, but also Greek, the lingua franca of Mediterranean society and possibly classical Hebrew when debating with the scribes and Pharisees.” [Tom Holmén, Stanley E. Porter (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 Vols.) p. 1431] These scholars deduce that Jesus spoke Greek, but not that he could read Greek.
91. [blank]
92. Bruce Waltke, Old Testament Theology, p. 11
93. David J. A. Clines, “Yahweh & the God of Christian Theology,” in David J. A. Clines, “On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Vol. II,” p. 499
94. Quoted by B. Schneider, “Rendering God’s Name in Bible Translation,” in I Must Speak to You Plainly: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Bratcher, ed. Roger L. Omanson (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000) p. 20
95. R. P. Carroll, 2002, “Between Lying & Blasphemy or On Translating a Four-Letter Word in the Hebrew Bible: Critical Reflections on Bible Translation,” in A. Brenner & J W van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the 21st Century, Authority, Reception, Culture & Religion, Sheffield Academic Press, pp.*53–64. Dr. Robert P. Carroll was Professor of Hebrew Bible & Semitic Studies in the Department of Theology & Religious Studies at the University of Glasgow, Scotland.
96. William D. Barrick, “What Is Truth in Translation? The Issue of Accuracy in Translating the Bible,” ETS Annual Meeting Nov., 18, 2004, pp. 14-15
97. Jason Dulle, “Is ‘Jehovah’ the Name of God?” www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jehovah.htm
98. These paragraphs appear in the “Introduction” to the “Holy Bible, Recovery Version”
99. Peter E. Unseth, “Sacred Names Bible Translations in English,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 62, No. 3, (July 2011) p. 187. Dr. Peter Unseth has a Ph.D. in Linguistics. He is Associate Professor at the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics, (GIAL) Dallas, TX.
100. Kenneth L. Barker, “YHWH Sabaoth: ‘The Lord Almighty,’” The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation <http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/9.php>
101. [blank]
102. Joze Krasovec , The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names, p. 57. Joze Krasovec is Professor of Old Testament in the Institute of Biblical Studies, Faculty of Theology, at the University of Ljubljana, Poland.
103. LSM, Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God, Ch. 4, Sect. 6
104. “Special pleading” is defined as: “Applying standards, principles, &/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.* Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. Example: “Yes, I do think that all drunk drivers should go to prison, but your honor, he is my son!* He is a good boy who just made a mistake!” Explanation: The mother in this example has applied the rule that all drunk drivers should go to prison.* However, due to her emotional attachment to her son, she is fallaciously reasoning that he should be exempt from this rule, because, “he is a good boy who just made a mistake,” which would hardly be considered adequate justification for exclusion from the rule. [Bo Bennett, PhD., Logically Fallacious] “Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption.” [Rational Wiki] LSM does not offer any justification why this issue—the representation of God’s proper name—ought to be decided on the basis of classical English literature.
105. W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Ch. 7, Sect. 2 (emphasis added)
106. Use of the term “elder” leaves it up to the reader to determine if “elder” is a matter of age (“senior”) or position (church leader). The term “bishop” is clearly the latter.
107. Among the “Great Lakes Area” local churches, the phrase “typical American Christian” is a euphemism for “Caucasian American.”
108. Robert C. Dentan, “Story of the New Revised Standard Version,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 11/3 (1990), p. 212
109. The LSM-editors’ phrase “deference to ancient religion,” presumably means the long-standing use of ‘the LORD.’ We have already outlined (above) the biblical precedent for representing YHWH by ‘the LORD’ —in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. According to Witness Lee, even Jesus Himself quoted from the Greek Septuagint; yet in doing so He was hardly practicing “deference to ancient religion”!
110. For completeness we document the fact that “The Governing Body of the (Watchtower Bible & Tract) Society teaches its members that God has a personal name—Jehovah.” [Andrew Holden, Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, p. 24]

[Freedom]

I remember starting a thread on this very topic a while back. Maybe the whole issue of the name "Jehovah" is not unduly important to most people, but just considering LSM's choice to use "Jehovah" leads to some conclusions that LC members would do well to take note of. The following LSM claim caught my attention:
LSM’s Lesson Book claims, “The Recovery Version is the most accurate translation…The translators did not compromise the true understanding for traditional teachings...”

This type of mindset was something I believed for many years, I really felt that my RcV Bible represented the best available. The only problem was that I never took the opportunity to read other versions or verify that it really was an accurate translation. I wouldn't say that the RcV is necessarily a bad translation, but there's a danger in thinking that it represents the best of the best. The second notion that really needs dispelling is that the RcV translators didn't have any "special interests". Well, it turns out that they did, and that was their wanting to support WL's ministry through the translation. If they could knowingly continue to print something that they themselves admit to be erroneous, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they are doing it because it's the way that WL wanting it.

To this extent, I think Nigel has done well in saying that the RcV Bible is not a "recovery" of any kind, rather it is a regression in certain respects. There is just so much irony that when faced with certain modern understandings of Biblical language, LSM has decided instead to remain in "tradition", the very thing that was spoken against in the past. Of course, any understanding that didn't come from WL isn't taken into consideration today. Above anything else, I think what diminishes my respect for the translators the most is that they have knowingly continued in error. There's nothing stopping them from revising future editions of the RcV. But I highly doubt they would ever do that. To do so would be to admit WL made a mistake and that they knowingly continued in that mistake.

[countmeworthy]

Hi all...
Long time no be here... just popping in. :)
A couple of threads caught my eye. While this thread is very long, I am going to respond to the opening statement regarding Martin Luther. Here is the quote from the post:

its preferred self-designation is “the Lord’s Recovery.”1 Adherents maintain that, “Since the 1500s, beginning[B] with Martin Luther…the Lord has continued to gradually recover more light and truth from His Word.” They also contend that there is a single “Minister of the Age” in each era

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me Lee 'gloated' AS if he had been the one to discover "the Lord has continued to gradually recover more light and truth from His Word.”

And while it is true, that that all the denominations, including the charismatic ones came from the Roman Catholic church with a little more light, in my studies as well as those by others, [I]I believe that at the end of the age, all the man made 'churches' and religious denominations will return to their 'mother', that is the mother harlot who is the woman riding the beast of Revelation 17. So while the Reformation was a good thing, the religious system never quite broke off. Go to a Lutheran church service and it looks very much like a Catholic mass, as do the Anglican, Episcopalian, and to a lesser extend the Methodist and still further, the Baptist church.

The last couple of popes have been fervently working to unite all religions together beginning with the 'Christian' denominations.

Grant it the rituals are different but the LSM sheeple using the footnotes and the HWMR as their 'spiritual food', are not much different now than the RCC and the denominations who use little booklets with scriptures in their services!

Lee and the LSM have pretty much now prevented the 'sheeple from reading their bibles and have prevented them from studying the scriptures outside the LSM walls. You want to understand a topic? Go read Lee or Nee for understanding. And don't go challenging them!!!!

I am presenting a few short videos that have nothing to do with the LSM on the surface.

This short video..less than 2 minutes shows Pope Benedict receiving a warm applaud as he visits a Lutheran church in Rome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOzEQ--Ntgk

In the following 12 minute video, an Anglican priest attends Kenneth Copeland's service with a message from Pope Francis to the Copeland and followers. Around the 7:22 time Copeland video tapes a message to the Pope. He quotes to the pope the 'unity of the faith' found in Ephesians 4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eulTwytMWlQ

It's all lovey-dovey....
The entire 45 minute video for those interested is below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eulTwytMWlQ

Last year in June 2014
"In an effort to encourage peace in the Middle East, Pope Francis hosted the leaders of the Israeli and Palestinian worlds at the Vatican on Sunday, presenting an ecumenical gathering that joined professing Christians and Catholics together with Muslims, Jews and Druze.

Pope Francis, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas planted an olive tree together as a symbol of peace, and each took turns speaking about their desire for “co-existence.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/06/09/pope-hosts-interfaith-peace-gathering-featuring-christian-jewish-muslim-prayers/


What has all this to do with Lee and the LSM?
Lee brainwashed us many, many years ago that the LC was the 'true church' and while I never quite understood and still don't understand the outer darkness scriptures, Lee had a way of making it sound like a place of purgatory until after the thousand year reign. Catholics believe in a place called purgatory for those who don't go straight to hell but don't go straight to heaven either after they die. Those who go to purgatory can only get out through the prayers of the living. I was never taught Jesus prayed for them. Perhaps Mary and the saints in heaven do..:watchout:

[QUOTE] LSM’s “Recovery Version of the Bible reflects this notion; it embodies one man’s teaching—Witness Lee’s.

more similiarties between Lee and the Pope.

Despite the lack of theological training and biblical language skills, he is responsible for both the text and notes.3 LSM declares, “The Recovery Version of the Bible is so named because its text and footnotes crystallize many of these [recovered] truths and experiences.
If anyone has ever been a Catholic or been to Catholic masses, the church takes scriptures and inserts it in their church booklets. Catholics don't read their bibles. They read/study the catechisms of the church.

" LSM’s Lesson Book claims, “The Recovery Version is the most accurate translation…" And the RCC believes it HAS the most accurate translation in their Catholic Bible.
Personally, I think Lee held some Roman Catholic views and with the way the LSM has evolved, reading pretty much only the footnotes and the HWMR, they seem to be right on track in returning to the RCC in due time. They've returned to the 'dark ages'.

Those who are true believers and followers of Father God and the Lord Jesus will leave the LSM as so many have already done or..........

That said, all true believers cleansed and washed in the Blood of the Lamb regardless of their denomination affiliations are children of the Creator, the Most High God. Let not your heart be troubled. (John 14:1) There will not be any denominations or LSM in heaven or in the Holy City New Jerusalem. Halleluiah to the Lamb of God! :)

Blessings everyone...
Our Bridegroom comes soon for His Beloved Bride!

[SpeakersCorner]

Good article, Nigel. I became aware of the Jehovah problem about 15 years ago via a young man I had taught in high school who now attended a Bible study I was leading. I argued stupidly with him, relying on my superior knowledge which, come to find out was in fact greatly inferior to his, a good lesson in humility for me.

Later I discovered that word of explanation in the Recovery Version and was troubled. At that time I still held the RV in high regard. It did seem highly ironic that the group that calls itself the "Recovery" was so quick to dismiss the research that showed a truly lost form.

Having said all that, I do see a fallacy in today's trend by some to call Jesus Yeshuva. Jesus is simply the English form of such. To say Jesus is to say Yeshuva.

To say Jehovah, though, is not to say Yahweh, the point of which Nigel does a good job of proving.

[Freedom]

This kind of exposition leaves one at a loss for words! It is pure fabrication, 100% fiction, devoid of any basis in fact! It simply manifests the expositor’s ignorance. Evidently, here is someone with zero knowledge of biblical Hebrew teaching falsehoods to people who know even less! It is clear from what has been presented above that “Jehovah” is not a genuine Hebrew word, but a pseudo-Hebrew term that resulted from mistranslation. It follows that it makes no sense to parse “Jehovah” into three components—Je, Ho and Vah; in this context none of these elements has the meaning Witness Lee claims. This is yet another exegetical fallacy and a serious one.

I would surmise that had I read WL's statement in the past, I would have accepted it without thought, just like all the other wild claims that he made. This is really the problem, that members aren't willing to think about, or verify claims that are made, not even to mention challenge these claims. It's even fair to say that most of us weren't equipped to challenge such claims in the first place.

One thing that Nigel has done very well is to point out WL's own admissions that he had never studied any biblical languages. Therefore, he had no business initiating or overseeing a new translation of the Bible. For LSM to portray the RcV as "the most accurate translation" is dishonest to say the least. With all the popular Bible translations out there, I am fairly certain that ever single version besides the RcV had numerous scholars assisting with, verifying and editing the translations. I know of maybe a few "linguistics" people that LSM has on staff that LSM will use that as their "credibility" in producing a Bible translation. The introduction at the beginning of the OT RcV really destroys the credibility of the translators as far as I'm concerned. They knowingly admit that 'Jehovah' is neither correct or recommended today, yet they insist upon using it anyways. Why? Probably because it's what WL would have wanted.

[Ohio]

With all the popular Bible translations out there, I am fairly certain that ever single version besides the RcV had numerous scholars assisting with, verifying and editing the translations. I know of maybe a few "linguistics" people that LSM has on staff that LSM will use that as their "credibility" in producing a Bible translation. The introduction at the beginning of the OT RcV really destroys the credibility of the translators as far as I'm concerned.
When I learned that LSM back in the 1980's, then commandeered by the profligate Phillip Lee, son of Witness, fired her original N.T. translators John Ingalls, Bill Duane, and Albert Knoch for attempting to protect the volunteer staff from Philip's immoral impulses, the whole business enterprise got exposed for its corrupton. It was a bright light shining in a dark place.

Many of us old guys bought into Ingalls' work because it was such an improvement over the KJV and more accurate than the paraphrases (The Living New Testament, which btw, while reading I was dramatically saved) at the time. Back in those days, the selection of good translations was no where near what we have today in English.

Philip Lee, "Office Manager" of his nepotist father, then replaced LSM's translation department by Benson Philip's loyal Texan cadre, featuring Kerry Robichaux, who was actually in Greece at the time apparently learning the contemporary language. (I suppose that's like going to the inner city to learn Shakespearean English, but I jest.) Poster ZNPaaneah, who knew the Texan crew, has stated on numerous occasions that the new staff simply stole the 1901 ASV with a number of semantic improvements and Leeisms like "God's Economy" for sale to the faithful. Since the new editorial committee had little education nor maturity to show for, they willingly gave all the glory to Witness himself, accompanied with the smiles of Benson and Ray Graver.

[TLFisher]

When I learned that LSM back in the 1980's, then commandeered by the profligate Phillip Lee, son of Witness, fired her original N.T. translators John Ingalls, Bill Duane, and Albert Knoch for attempting to protect the volunteer staff from Philip's immoral impulses, the whole business enterprise got exposed for its corrupton. It was a bright light shining in a dark place.

Many of us old guys bought into Ingalls' work because it was such an improvement over the KJV and more accurate than the paraphrases (The Living New Testament, which btw, while reading I was dramatically saved) at the time. Back in those days, the selection of good translations was no where near what we have today in English.

Since this thread came up, I have wondered what was the translation based off in the initial RcV by Knoch, Ingalls, and Duane?

[TLFisher]

One thing that Nigel has done very well is to point out WL's own admissions that he had never studied any biblical languages. Therefore, he had no business initiating or overseeing a new translation of the Bible. For LSM to portray the RcV as "the most accurate translation" is dishonest to say the least. With all the popular Bible translations out there, I am fairly certain that ever single version besides the RcV had numerous scholars assisting with, verifying and editing the translations. I know of maybe a few "linguistics" people that LSM has on staff that LSM will use that as their "credibility" in producing a Bible translation. The introduction at the beginning of the OT RcV really destroys the credibility of the translators as far as I'm concerned. They knowingly admit that 'Jehovah' is neither correct or recommended today, yet they insist upon using it anyways. Why? Probably because it's what WL would have wanted.

I agree with your last sentence Freedom. Suppose Kerry is well versed in ancient Greek as he claims to be. When it comes to what brother Lee wants, Kerry wasn't going to say "you're wrong. Furthermore I doubt the original OT text was in ancient Greek anyways.
As for the RcV, I believe it's translation was heavily influenced by Lee's Exclusive Brethren background.

[Freedom]

As for the RcV, I believe it's translation was heavily influenced by Lee's Exclusive Brethren background.

As Nigel indicated, the Darby version was an influence for WL. I know that LCers often used the ASV in the past as well. As the saying goes, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Both versions are 19/20th century works. It seems LCers are stuck in that era, having not moved on past what Nee/Lee sanctioned.

[Freedom]

Since this thread came up, I have wondered what was the translation based off in the initial RcV by Knoch, Ingalls, and Duane?

I seem to remember reading that just one of them knew anything about Greek. Maybe the rest were pressured by WL to participate in the project. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the project was just comparing English translations verse by verse and selecting what they felt to be best.

[TLFisher]

I seem to remember reading that just one of them knew anything about Greek. Maybe the rest were pressured by WL to participate in the project. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the project was just comparing English translations verse by verse and selecting what they felt to be best.

Yes, that is my opinion as well.

[TLFisher]

As Nigel indicated, the Darby version was an influence for WL. I know that LCers often used the ASV in the past as well. As the saying goes, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Both versions are 19/20th century works. It seems LCers are stuck in that era, having not moved on past what Nee/Lee sanctioned.

In the 90's it was often inferred if not spoken outright, if it's not the RcV the translation of choice be Darby.
By contrast in the 80's if a book wasn't already translated into RcV, King James was the nest preferred version. NIV and NAS were considered a sub-standard translation.

[Ohio]

W. Lee never points out the Medieval origin of ‘Jehovah,’ nor does he relate this artificial, pseudo-Hebrew term to the underlying Hebrew YHWH and Yahweh. Rather, W. Lee’s exposits the divine name, Jehovah, as follows:“The name of God that occurs most frequently in the Old Testament is Jehovah or Yehovah. In Hebrew this name is composed of three words: Je represents a word, ho represents a word, and vah also represents a word. Je means ‘is,’ ho means ‘was,’ and vah means ‘will be.’ Therefore, Jehovah translated into English is ‘the One who is, was, and always will be’.” [W. Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible, Ch. 1, Sect. 2]This kind of exposition leaves one at a loss for words! It is pure fabrication, 100% fiction, devoid of any basis in fact! It simply manifests the expositor’s ignorance. Evidently, here is someone with zero knowledge of biblical Hebrew teaching falsehoods to people who know even less! It is clear from what has been presented above that “Jehovah” is not a genuine Hebrew word, but a pseudo-Hebrew term that resulted from mistranslation. It follows that it makes no sense to parse “Jehovah” into three components—Je, Ho and Vah; in this context none of these elements has the meaning Witness Lee claims. This is yet another exegetical fallacy and a serious one.How dare Nigel Tomes expose Lee's nonsensical exposition of the name of God!!! DCP should sue him for all the Canadian dollars he has!! I'm kidding of course, or am I??

It looks like this is one of those many "compilations" that LSM loves to publish. It's just amazing how they can take one message or conference and make 6 books out of it! Since this book came out in 2004, who knows which of the "Blundeds" came up with this whopper -- just make up new stuff -- [I]this is the Lord's Recovery!!! [I]

This is exactly what happens when a minister and a publisher have no vetting process, internal or external. They publish for a closed audience who, like mushrooms, are kept in the dark and fed manure.

[Ohio]

W. Lee never points out the Medieval origin of ‘Jehovah,’ nor does he relate this artificial, pseudo-Hebrew term to the underlying Hebrew YHWH and Yahweh. Rather, W. Lee’s exposits the divine name, Jehovah, as follows:“The name of God that occurs most frequently in the Old Testament is Jehovah or Yehovah. In Hebrew this name is composed of three words: Je represents a word, ho represents a word, and vah also represents a word. Je means ‘is,’ ho means ‘was,’ and vah means ‘will be.’ Therefore, Jehovah translated into English is ‘the One who is, was, and always will be’.” [W. Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible, Ch. 1, Sect. 2]This kind of exposition leaves one at a loss for words! It is pure fabrication, 100% fiction, devoid of any basis in fact! It simply manifests the expositor’s ignorance. Evidently, here is someone with zero knowledge of biblical Hebrew teaching falsehoods to people who know even less! It is clear from what has been presented above that “Jehovah” is not a genuine Hebrew word, but a pseudo-Hebrew term that resulted from mistranslation. It follows that it makes no sense to parse “Jehovah” into three components—Je, Ho and Vah; in this context none of these elements has the meaning Witness Lee claims. This is yet another exegetical fallacy and a serious one.How dare Nigel Tomes expose Lee's nonsensical exposition of the name of God!!! DCP should sue him for all the Canadian dollars he has!! I'm kidding of course, or am I??

It looks like this is one of those many "compilations" that LSM loves to publish. It's just amazing how they can take one message or conference and make 6 books out of it! Since this book came out in 2004, who knows which of the "Blundeds" came up with this whopper -- just make up new stuff -- this is the Lord's Recovery!!!

This is exactly what happens when a minister and a publisher have no vetting process, internal or external. They publish for a closed audience who, like mushrooms, are kept in the dark and fed manure.

[Freedom]

How dare Nigel Tomes expose Lee's nonsensical exposition of the name of God!!! DCP should sue him for all the Canadian dollars he has!! I'm kidding of course, or am I??

It looks like this is one of those many "compilations" that LSM loves to publish. It's just amazing how they can take one message or conference and make 6 books out of it! Since this book came out in 2004, who knows which of the "Blundeds" came up with this whopper -- just make up new stuff -- this is the Lord's Recovery!!!

This is exactly what happens when a minister and a publisher have no vetting process, internal or external. They publish for a closed audience who, like mushrooms, are kept in the dark and fed manure.

I was always aware that WL had the tendency to make questionable statements, and generally, I had no trouble ignoring these things in the past. As is the case with many other LCers, my position was simply that WL could have said things better.

More recently, I have noticed things that WL said that, as Nigel puts it, were pure fabrication. It's impossible to respect WL when it is clear that he knowingly spoke falsehoods under the guise of expounding scripture. As Nigel has pointed out, he likely relied on the ignorance of his audience as his free pass for doing this. Of course LC leaders will inevitably characterize Nigel's evaluation of WL as an "attack". There is no willingness among anyone in the LC to examine just how far off-course they are.

The true situation of the LC is so clear now, yet members are still in the dark. A few years ago, I became aware of the 'Jehovah' issue when a newcomer to the LC that I'm from started questioning our use of 'Jehovah' in the OT RcV. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I realized that he probably knew the Bible a lot better than the elders did. At any rate, the elders didn't like this one bit and he wasn't around long. The whole situation just served to show me how opposed LCers are to receiving any form of correction. In a certain respect, they want to remain in the darkness. As the old saying goes, ignorance is bliss. They must not realize that there is nothing better than the manure that they are being fed. Granted, to admit that the manure is manure might be devastating to some who have invested their entire lives in a man and a ministry. The situation is sad really.

[Freedom]

In the 90's it was often inferred if not spoken outright, if it's not the RcV the translation of choice be Darby.
By contrast in the 80's if a book wasn't already translated into RcV, King James was the nest preferred version. NIV and NAS were considered a sub-standard translation.

There are Christians outside the LC who are resistant to anything "new" (like the KJV-only crowd), but it's probably fair to say that the resistance to change has nothing to do with staying true to the ministry of one man. That's what the RcV problem is really about.

It's really a shame that there would be this facade of producing the "best" or most "accurate" translation, only come to find that there were conflicts of interest involved. That's not even to mention the ministry office shenanigans happening when the NT RcV was being produced. That's a whole different story.

[Ohio]

Why Did Witness Lee use “Jehovah”?

Why did W. Lee use “Jehovah” in his Recovery Version Bible and his teaching? He never addressed this issue. His writings show no familiarity with the Hebrew terms—YHWH and Yahweh; these key terms never appear in LSM’s vast array of W. Nee’s and W. Lee’s writings.

To me, the answer here is easy -- because the 2 prior MOTA's (Darby and Nee) had already "recovered" the use of Jehovah. As a side benefit, the fact that most other contemporary translations used "THE LORD" reinforced the exclusive viewpoint that governed so many of his other decisions.

[Unsure]

I was always confused on the matter of why the Tetragrammaton was rendered "Jehovah" in all of the LSM materials. I had been exposed to the other names of God and some of the more accurate Hebrew terms (YWHW, Adonai, etc) during some of my own personal reading. Gad to see I wasn't alone.

[Freedom]

To me, the answer here is easy -- because the 2 prior MOTA's (Darby and Nee) had already "recovered" the use of Jehovah. As a side benefit, the fact that most other contemporary translations used "THE LORD" reinforced the exclusive viewpoint that governed so many of his other decisions.

I also see WL's choice to use the name 'Jehovah' as wanting to be different. This brings up something interesting that I was considering. To address God as LORD might be somewhat similar to addressing someone as 'sir' instead of their real name. That is a completely acceptable way to address someone, especially when it's an important person. Of course, there is the downside that it's impersonal.

Perhaps WL felt that 'LORD' was a bit impersonal and since he was already in the business of "recovering" things, he felt that he could also recover the personal use of God's name. So I understand where WL may have been coming from. The only thing about using a persons name is that it's probably a good idea to get it right. I know that I get annoyed if people call me by the wrong name (and ironically there are a few LCer who constantly did this to me). It's not like God is going to smite anyone for calling him the wrong name, but all the same, if LCers are really looking to know God at a more personal level, it would serve them well to not remain in ignorance.

[TLFisher]

It's really a shame that there would be this facade of producing the "best" or most "accurate" translation, only come to find that there were conflicts of interest involved. That's not even to mention the ministry office shenanigans happening when the NT RcV was being produced. That's a whole different story.

Regardless of inaccuracies, you can be sure your local brother maximums will boast of the RcV as the most accurate translation.

[Freedom]

I was always confused on the matter of why the Tetragrammaton was rendered "Jehovah" in all of the LSM materials. I had been exposed to the other names of God and some of the more accurate Hebrew terms (YWHW, Adonai, etc) during some of my own personal reading. Glad to see I wasn't alone.

The usage of 'Jehovah' in the RcV never really struck me as odd other than the obvious similarity to the JW's insistence on the use of the name 'Jehovah'. It wasn't until I observed how the RcV diverged from other translations that I realized that something was up. The explanation in the RcV introduction didn't do anything to ease my concerns either.

It's usually a warning sign if a group insists on doing something that no one else is doing. Of course, the LC mindset is that they got something right that no one else does (the JW's think this too). LCers would be better off asking themselves the question of why no else is gravitating towards using the name 'Jehovah'. There is a reason after all.

As a big of a digression, the following is a scene from one of my favorite movies. I couldn't help but think of it when this topic of 'Jehovah' came up. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMSK-wq3jlg

[Ohio]

The usage of 'Jehovah' in the RcV never really struck me as odd other than the obvious similarity to the JW's insistence on the use of the name 'Jehovah'. It wasn't until I observed how the RcV diverged from other translations that I realized that something was up. The explanation in the RcV introduction didn't do anything to ease my concerns either.

It's usually a warning sign if a group insists on doing something that no one else is doing. Of course, the LC mindset is that they got something right that no one else does (the JW's think this too). LCers would be better off asking themselves the question of why no else is gravitating towards using the name 'Jehovah'. There is a reason after all.

As a big of a digression, the following is a scene from one of my favorite movies. I couldn't help but think of it when this topic of 'Jehovah' came up. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch:v=XMSK-wq3jlg

So Stupid! Both the film clip and the commercial preceeding it. :hysterical:

Guess that's why I never watch Sci-Fi. And now zeek hits on me for watching the History Channel too much. :blahblah:

[aron]

I'ts interesting the way the RecV introduction presents it in shades of Hebrews 10: "we don't shrink back" from declaring the name Jehovah, as if every other choice were morally deficient.

How many times did Jesus declare the name Jehovah in the NT, anyway? Even when saying, "I've given them Your name" in John 17, Jesus didn't utter the Name. Did He and his followers deliberately suppress it, only to have the Name unearthed by the Final Prophet for the New and True Church? Seems that way, reading the presentation. "We don't shrink back" from God's present oracle, which is whatever Our Brother thinks today. Whether or not it's founded on anything resembling objective reality is incidental; it's God's present speaking.

[Freedom]

I'ts interesting the way the RecV introduction presents it in shades of Hebrews 10: "we don't shrink back" from declaring the name Jehovah, as if every other choice were morally deficient.

The following is taken directly from the JW's website:

Why Are We Called Jehovah’s Witnesses?

It identifies our God. According to ancient manuscripts, God’s name, Jehovah, appears thousands of times in the Bible. In many translations this name has been replaced by titles, such as Lord or God. Yet, the true God had revealed himself to Moses by his personal name, Jehovah, saying: “This is my name forever.” (Exodus 3:15) In this way, he distinguished himself from all false gods. We are proud to bear God’s holy name.


Doesn't this line of reasoning sound familiar? Actually, the introduction to the OT RcV basically uses the same logic to justify the use of 'Jehovah'. It is ironic indeed.

[Freedom]

So Stupid! Both the film clip and the commercial preceeding it. :hysterical:

Guess that's why I never watch Sci-Fi. And now zeek hits on me for watching the History Channel too much. :blahblah:

Please tell me you've seen the Indiana Jones movies.:rolleyes2:

[Ohio]

Please tell me you've seen the Indiana Jones movies.:rolleyes2:


No. Bro. Sorry. Never saw Star Wars either.

But I did like that film clip. Jehovah in Latin starts with an "I" -- Who knew?

[Indiana]

To me, the answer here is easy -- because the 2 prior MOTA's (Darby and Nee) had already "recovered" the use of Jehovah. As a side benefit, the fact that most other contemporary translations used "THE LORD" reinforced the exclusive viewpoint that governed so many of his other decisions.

Thank you, Nigel, for what appears to be an excellent work. I don't expect our brothers in Christ to challenge you, or admit they were wrong, but I wish they would open their hearts and begin to care for the truth when it's presented to them, by members placed in the Body "as it pleases Him".

[Freedom]

How many times did Jesus declare the name Jehovah in the NT, anyway? Even when saying, "I've given them Your name" in John 17, Jesus didn't utter the Name. Did He and his followers deliberately suppress it, only to have the Name unearthed by the Final Prophet for the New and True Church? Seems that way, reading the presentation. "We don't shrink back" from God's present oracle, which is whatever Our Brother thinks today. Whether or not it's founded on anything resembling objective reality is incidental; it's God's present speaking.

This is a very good point, and it falls right in line with what Nigel points out:
One justification for rendering YHWH as ‘the LORD’ is that “in the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament the word יהוה YHWH is always rendered Κυριος [kurios] —the common Greek word meaning ‘Lord’ —and so it must be recognized that the regular use of ‘Lord’ in English [Bible] versions conforms to the practice of the Apostles [recorded in the New Testament], who did not use ‘Yahweh’ in reference to God,”86 says Michael Marlowe. The Apostles’ use of “Lord” for God’s name (YHWH) when they quote from the Old Testament (based on the Greek Septuagint) has been validated by its inclusion in the New Testament canon of Scripture.

When there is some sort of Biblical precedent for a practice, such as the use of 'Lord', then I believe that serves as a justification for its usage. In other words, if someone comes along and tries to imply that such a practice is insufficient, it should raise eyebrows. Just as importantly, the precedent set forth in the NT is an indication of what level of "precision" is acceptable with respect to addressing God. Kurios can mean Lord, master or sir, so obviously the meaning is less than precise. Nevertheless, that never kept anyone from using it.

According to LSM's logic, I could see the implication arise that the apostles didn't experience the "enjoyment of God’s personal and revealed name", because they didn't use it. To me that demonstrates the problem with setting forth the notion that you must refer to God by his "personal" name. Of course, there is nothing wrong with such a usage, but on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any indication that not doing so is somehow lacking or deficient.

[Freedom]

LSM’s Special Pleading
LSM’s justification for “Jehovah” rests, not on its use in the biblical text, but on its “heritage...in classic English literature.”

LSM’s Specious Argument
LSM argues for “Jehovah” based on its “heritage...in classic English literature.” However, the widely-used alternative, “LORD,” has a longer history than Jehovah.

LSM’s tendentious defense of ‘Jehovah’
LSM’s tendentious defense of ‘Jehovah’ implicitly assumes there are only two options for rendering YHWH, God’s personal name—either as, Jehovah or the title, ‘LORD.’

Using ‘the LORD’—“Deference to Ancient Religion”?
LSM’s editors contend that “deference to ancient religion and confusion from modern sectarians are no reasons to shrink back from the use” of Jehovah.


I quoted above in summary four points that Nigel makes at the end of his paper regarding LSM's argument for the use of 'Jehovah'. I'm glad that he took the opportunity to deconstruct their line of reason. Here are some of my own thoughts regarding these points.

Special Pleading
The obvious irony here is that the LC claims to be opposed to "tradition". It is indeed another double standard and a clear example of them bending the rules in their favor. Since when did any particular practice get brought into the LC because it had any amount of "heritage"? You don't see LC meeting halls with an organ even though there is a "heritage" of having an organ in church buildings.

Specious Argument
It's a bit confusing how LSM would think there might be any amount of "heritage" with the name 'Jehovah' to begin with. I can definitely say that I have never felt any particular connection to the name 'Jehovah'. The first thing that I think of when I hear 'Jehovah' are those pesky people who come knocking at your door. Having read the RcV for so long, I'm now used to the name 'Jehovah', but that never made me feel more gravitated towards using 'Jehovah'.

Nigel offers an explanation as to how 'Jehovah' originated: "So they combined Adonai and Yahweh to get ‘Jehovah.’" With this in mind, it could be just as easily said that since Adonai (LORD) was used to construct Jehovah, then 'LORD' has more heritage than the name 'Jehovah' (if there were any to begin with). It's just another example of the LSM's ignorance.

Tendentious Defense of "Jehovah'
Obviously, LSM is in the dark about this one. It's almost as if they want the decision appear as being between a good and bad name for God. I personally have no preference between 'Yahweh' or 'LORD', but to imply that the decision must instead be between 'Jehovah' and 'LORD' is ignorant at best. As Nigel pointed out, the Holman Bible is an example of one version that has begun using 'Yahweh'. In this day and age the options are not what LSM would have people believe.

Using ‘the LORD’—“Deference to Ancient Religion”?
There is indeed a "religious" aspect to the usage of 'LORD'. But is this inherently wrong? I don't see any indication that it would be wrong because people began using it because of the fear of saying 'YHWH'. I don't think any Christian is really afraid of saying "Yahweh", so that argument falls flat on its face.

[aron]

The obvious irony here is that the LC claims to be opposed to "tradition"...Typical. "Traditions of men", long derided, suddenly become "our rich heritage", when they want to do something. The argument is so shallow that only the truly glassy-eyed will buy it, but even then I wonder how something doesn't stir uneasily within them.

I'm never so much reminded here, as of the character in Orwell's novel "Animal Farm", whose job was to explain to the assembly of animals the latest reversal from HQ, when something long vilified suddenly became the goal, and the "good" became became "bad", and so on.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Thanks Nigel for an interesting subject I have never paid attention to before.

God’s personal name revealed to Moses requires deciphering the correct vowels. God, in dialogue with Moses (Exo. 3:14-16), links the divine name, YHWH, to His explanatory declarations “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM,” both forms of the verb, ‘to be,’ (Heb. hayah).
ok

Based on this link, scholars deduce that the required vowels are ‘a’ & ‘e,’ producing Yahweh. Professor John J. Davis explains the logic, saying, “The verb translated ‘I AM’ is...‘ehyeh, which is the...first person singular of hayah [to be].
ok, ehyeh is the 1st person masculine singular imperfect of hayah

If 'ehyeh [‘I AM’]...is His name, it is also reasonable to regard Yahweh as...the third person singular of that stem and is translated ‘He is.’ The only difference between the two names—‘I AM’ and ‘Yahweh’-- is that the one is a verb in the first person, and the other is the same verb in the third person.
Not quite true. The 3rd person singular imperfect of hayah is yihyeh, not yahweh. The consonants are YHYH, not YHWH.

YHWH is not a conjugation of the root hayah. YHWH is the 3rd person masculine singular imperfect of the verb havah, consonants HWH. The software I use gives the pronunciation of 3rd person singular imperfect of HWH as Yeheveh יֶהֱוֶה. (The software is by an Israeli Jew, not a Christian.)

The current pronunciation may not have been the way it was pronounced in the ancient time.

The verb HWH is used only 6 times in the Bible, where it seems to mean "become", which is how LXX translated it. (Gen 27:29; Neh 6:6; Job 37:6; Eccl 2:22; 11:3; Isa 16:4). Of these, Eccl 11:3 is 3rd person singular masculine imperfect, and its Masoretic pronunciation is Yehoo. In Eccl 11:3 the consonants are YHWA instead of YHWH, maybe to avoid God's name. There is no DSS witness to the text.

I do not see how these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh. I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh.

Jesus is not a very good transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua or Yahshua, but He answers to it.

[Ohio]

I do not see how these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh. I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh.

Jesus is not a very good transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua or Yahshua, but He answers to it.

Wow VIW, you just threw a wrench into the gears here. :scratchhead:


Jesus, with the hard "J" found only in English, comes to us via the Greek. Strong's numbering system says this:

2424 Iēsoús – Jesus, the transliteration of the Hebrew term, 3091 (http://bibleapps.com/hebrew/3091.htm) /Lṓt ("Yehoshua"/Jehoshua, contracted to "Joshua") which means "Yahweh saves" (or "Yahweh is salvation").

And ... like you implied, our Savior answers the hearts of men. A heart that calls out to Him, in any language, in any dialect, even incorrectly, will be answered. On the contrary, people who use His name vainly, though they speak it most correctly, violate the 3rd commandment.

[UntoHim]

Hi V.I.W., good to hear from you. Don't make yourself so scarce my brother!

You bring up some interesting linguistic twists, but other than citing "the software I use", you don't cite your scholarly/authoritative sources. I say this assuming you're not a Hebrew scholar in your own right.

I do not see how these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh. I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh.
Well Nigel spent many hours to produce a paper of dozens upon dozens of paragraphs with 110 footnotes explaining his position, and why he thinks these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh, so you're going to have to do a little more to convince us that his position is faulty. Again, please cite your sources when you get a chance.

As far as Jehovah being a better guess than Yahweh, well I think we would all agree that these scholars' "educated guess" is light-years ahead of Witness Lee's uneducated guess. Of course Lee wasn't the only lay person to make this crucial error, but maybe only just one of the latest.

[Freedom]

I do not see how these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh. I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh.

I respect your position though I do not agree. It is true that some things can only be speculated upon. But if a vast majority of scholars take up a certain view, shouldn't that be indication that there might be some validity to that position?

It seems WL liked to take up different views than everyone else. This was part of the "recovery" mindset. Maybe some of what he said had merit, but certainly there were things that didn't.

What I think could be agreed upon is that LSM's insistance upon the exclusive use of the RcV has created a problem. The problem of translation bias is easily mitigated by using multiple versions. Whether 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' is correct, LSM's argument has nothing to do with that, it's about supporting WL.

Frankly speaking, having used the RcV for so long, it's a bit of a relief to see 'LORD' instead of 'Jehovah'. I don't know why, maybe it just doesn't feel like a certain dogma is being promoted.

[UntoHim]

Nigel Tomes' response to VoiceInWilderness
**Any problems or inconsistencies in the formatting are the responsibility of the editor

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

Hi Voice in the Wilderness,

I read your post. I'm glad to see that you were inspired to look into this topic , especially since you have some facility & interest in the Hebrew language. I hope that you would delve into this topic more. There is an extensive academic literature on these issues. What I quoted is just the "tip of the iceberg."

May I suggest that you look into these things more before appearing to come to some definite conclusions?

Your current conclusion seems to be: "I do not see how these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh. I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh."

To me this conclusion seems premature. I only quoted part of the literature discussing the Hebrew tense (etc) of the Heb. verb "to be" There are different views among Hebrew scholars on these & related issues. The imperfect tense is only one possibility. (I simply didn't want to complicate matters by bringing these points into the paper) Why don't you check out the articles, books etc which I cited? Some of these people who conclude that YHWH implies God's personal name is Yahweh are respected Hebrew scholars with academic credentials. I don't think they should be lightly dismissed by saying: "I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh." That seems to me to be an unwarranted & cavalier statement.

Consider the following quotes & sources:
: “The words "I AM" express the meaning of God's name, but they are not the name itself. God's name is revealed in [Exo. 3] verse 15 as Yahweh. The Hebrew name Yahweh is probably best understood as derived from a third-person form of the Hebrew verb "to be", emphasizing, as in the case of "I AM," that He is the self-existent One.” [J. Carl Laney, “GOD'S SELF-REVELATION IN EXODUS 34:6-8,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Vol. 158 (Jan.-Mar. 2001) pp. 36-51]

"Some object that we don’t really know how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced. But according to D. N. Freedman, “The form yahweh is now accepted almost universally” (D. N. Freedman, “יהוה YHWH,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 5:500). According to the Encyclopedia Judaica (L. F. Hartman, “God, Names of,” Encyclopedia Judaica [1971], 7:680), the divine name was “regularly pronounced with its proper vowels” at least until 586 BC (when the Babylonian exile began). We have archaeological evidence for this from the Lachish Letters. A clue to its pronunciation is the names that have the divine name in them, like Zechariah, which in Hebrew is zachar-yah, which means “Yahweh remembers.” Scholars recognize yah as a shortened form of the divine name. The Encyclopedia Judaica again says, “The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh’.” The Christian theologian, Clement of Alexandria (d. AD 215), for example, was apparently familiar with the Jewish tradition for how the divine name was pronounced, for he regularly uses (in Greek) ‘Iaoue, which would be pronounced “Yahweh.” (Also see the summary of the evidence in L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and M. E. J. Richardson, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [5 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1995], 2:395.)

Professor D. N. Freeman explains, “The Tetragrammaton YHWH is the personal name of the God of Moses. The correct pronunciation of the name was lost from Jewish tradition some time during the Middle Ages...Early in the modern period scholars attempted to recover the pronunciation. The form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally.”17 The following are corroborating statements from other scholars:

· “It is almost certain that the name YHWH was originally pronounced Yahweh.” [Prof. Joze Krasovec, Transformation of Biblical Proper Names, p. 57]

· “It is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘Yahweh’.” [Prof. Bruce M. Metzger, "Theory of the Translation Process,” Bibliotheca Sacra (1993) p. 150]18

· There is “general agreement among scholars that the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] was probably Yahweh.” [Nehemia Gordon, “Pronunciation of the Name,” pp. 1-2]19

“The name Yahweh...is the closest thing we have to a proper, personal name for God. The name occurs 6,823 times in the Bible. In Hebrew, Yahweh is written with only 4 consonants—YHWH—and no vowels.” [Ken Hemphill, “How Excellent Are Thy Names,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, (Oct. 22, 2001) p. 96]
·“There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh.” [Kenneth L. Barker, “YHWH Sabaoth: ‘The Lord Almighty”]21
· “His name is Yahweh. For the first time God used...the famous four consonant: YHWH...This was to be his ‘name’ forever.” [Professor Walter Kaiser Jr., Exodus, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 321]
· “While ‘God’ with its capitalization respectfully acknowledges that there is only one true ‘god,’ it does not name him with his proper name, Yahweh. The personal name of God is Yahweh.” [Dr. David J. A. Clines, “Yahweh & the God of Christian Theology,” in Clines, “OT Essays 1967-1998, Vol. II” p. 499]

Please go to the original sources & read the quotes in context, plus (if you have the time & interest) access the sources which these people cite. This further investigation on your part might help you see why "these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh."

These scholars have not come to this conclusion based on cursory or superficial investigation & therefore their conclusions should not be lightly dismissed on the basis of our own cursory or superficial investigation.

Plus, on this issue--YHWH implies Yahweh--among qualified scholars there is a rare overwhelming academic consensus--(of course not 100%, that never happens)--but still a consensus.

·“There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh.” [Kenneth L. Barker, “YHWH Sabaoth: ‘The Lord Almighty,’” The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation <http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/9.php>,]
·The consensus of mainstream scholarship is that ‘Yehowah’ (or in Latin transcription "Jehovah") is a pseudo-Hebrew form which was mistakenly created when Medieval and/or Renaissance Christian scholars misunderstood this common qere perpetuum; the usual Jewish practice at the time of the Masoretes was to pronounce it as "Adonai," as is still the Jewish custom today. Pronouncing it as ‘Jehovah,’ ‘Yehowah’ or similar would be a mistake.
·There is “general agreement among scholars that the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was probably Yahweh, and that the vowel points now attached to the Tetragrammaton [a Greek word, meaning ‘4 letters’] were added to indicate that Adonai was to be read instead, as seen in the alteration of those points after prefixes. He also wrote: "There is a virtual scholarly consensus concerning this name" and "this is presented as fact in every introduction to Biblical Hebrew & every scholarly discussion of the name.” [Nehemia Gordon, “The Pronunciation of the Name,” pp. 1-2 (emphasis added)]

I look forward to reading the results of your further investigation

Nigel


-----------------End of Tomes' response----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

[VoiceInWilderness]

Hi V.I.W., good to hear from you. Don't make yourself so scarce my brother!
Thanks UntoHim,
Is there a way to get emails on new threads? I pretty much only visit when Nigel has posted something new, because his writings facilitate good discussion. Other than that, it's usually, Out of Sight, Out of Mind.

You bring up some interesting linguistic twists, but other than citing "the software I use", you don't cite your scholarly/authoritative sources. I say this assuming you're not a Hebrew scholar in your own right.
I'm not a scholar. I know some Hebrew, and that is enough to know that the 1st (and I think strongest) justification for Yahweh ref'd by Nigel is wrong. That is the quotation from Prof. John J. Davis.

UntoHim, I think you know a little Hebrew, so you could follow the refs below.

Except for the pronunciation, what I said are just facts. Here it is with refs:
1. Yahweh is not any form of conjugation of the verb haya, which is the word God used for "I am" in Exo 3.
Here is the verb table for haya:
http://www.pealim.com/dict/454-lihyot/?highlight=p3ms
look at the Future Tense 3rd person maculine. It's transliterated there for you. The Hebrew spelling is YHYH. God's name is YHWH.

In Nigel's paper, Dr. Davis gives the most convincing argument for God's name being pronounced Yahweh except that it is just plain wrong. I looked Dr. Davis up on Wikipedia and am surprised to find that he taught Hebrew and OT. If anyone wants, I can post the Dr. Davis' statements on B-Hebrew and ask what people think?

2. YHWH is the 3ms imperfect conjugation of the verb hava.
http://www.pealim.com/dict/452-lehavot/?highlight=p3ms
Again look at the Future Tense 3rd person masculine.
The Hebrew word is YHWH, which is the same spelling as God's name.
This website's transliteration gives "yehave" as the transliteration. where the "e" at the end is actually pronounced "eh", which I can tell from the Hebrew vowels above.

The s/w I use, which is called HebrewWorks, gives different vowels than the above website. The vowels it gives transliterate to "yeheveh".

[VoiceInWilderness]

I respect your position though I do not agree. It is true that some things can only be speculated upon. But if a vast majority of scholars take up a certain view, shouldn't that be indication that there might be some validity to that position?
If most scholars take a certain view, then it should be taken seriously. I don't believe something just because the vast majority of scientists or scholars say it is so. If they are convinced, they should be able to give convincing proof for it. I'll believe it if the proof makes sense.

It seems WL liked to take up different views than everyone else. This was part of the "recovery" mindset. Maybe some of what he said had merit, but certainly there were things that didn't.
I think we are in agreement on that.

What I think could be agreed upon is that LSM's insistance upon the exclusive use of the RcV has created a problem. The problem of translation bias is easily mitigated by using multiple versions. Whether 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' is correct, LSM's argument has nothing to do with that, it's about supporting WL.
agreed

Frankly speaking, having used the RcV for so long, it's a bit of a relief to see 'LORD' instead of 'Jehovah'. I don't know why, maybe it just doesn't feel like a certain dogma is being promoted.
I prefer LORD also because that's how the NT translated it, and the all caps tell me it is actually YHWH.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Your current conclusion seems to be: "I do not see how these scholars can say that the Name was almost definitely pronounced Yahweh. I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh."

To me this conclusion seems premature. I only quoted part of the literature discussing the Hebrew tense (etc) of the Heb. verb "to be" There are different views among Hebrew scholars on these & related issues. The imperfect tense is only one possibility. (I simply didn't want to complicate matters by bringing these points into the paper) Why don't you check out the articles, books etc which I cited? Some of these people who conclude that YHWH implies God's personal name is Yahweh are respected Hebrew scholars with academic credentials. I don't think they should be lightly dismissed by saying: "I think Jehovah is a better guess than Yahweh." That seems to me to be an unwarranted & cavalier statement.

Bro Nigel,
Thanks for taking the time to give a detailed answer.
I agree that my conclusion was premature.
I had based it on the argument that Yahweh was the 3ms imperfect of haya, which it factually is not.
But you had many more arguments than that, and I based my conclusion on the wrongness of that argument.

I've posted the question on b-hebrew. There has been a lot of discussion about this there in the past, which I had ignored.

Also, as always, thanks very much for all the work you put into bringing these matters to be fellowshipped about among the churches.

[Freedom]

If most scholars take a certain view, then it should be taken seriously. I don't believe something just because the vast majority of scientists or scholars say it is so. If they are convinced, they should be able to give convincing proof for it. I'll believe it if the proof makes sense.

I can agree with you here. Even consensus among scholars can and should be questioned at times. Unfortunately, for those like me who have zero grasp on Hebrew, we have to take other people's word for things. It seems you have a better grasp than most here in this area.

[TLFisher]

Jesus is not a very good transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua or Yahshua, but He answers to it.

I had checked the Names of God Bible version and it's translation of Jesus is Yeshua.
God is prominently translated as Yahweh 5856 times.

[TLFisher]

I pretty much only visit when Nigel has posted something new, because his writings facilitate good discussion.

Personally, I would love to see Nigel eventually release articles on either Deputy Authority or God made man to make man God doctrines.

[TLFisher]

Recently I had received an email from Nigel. The following is what he had to share on Hymn #391:

"The LSM Hymnal has the well known hymn "Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah; Pilgrim thro' this barren land." composed by William Williams (perhaps in the Welsh language) 1745 & translated by Peter Williams & William Williams (Williams is a common Welsh surname). This Hymn appears in many English Hymnals.
What I find interesting is that when it was included in LSM's Hymns (#391) the opening line was changed. Instead of "Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah; Pilgrim thro' this barren land."

LSM's version reads:

"Guide me, O Thou Gracious Savior; Pilgrim thro' this barren land." (LSM Hymns #391)

The obvious question is why the change? It's not just to improve the English (W. Lee always talked about John Ingalls telling him "that's not good English" when they were producing the Hymnal.

My guess would be that John Ingalls realized "Jehovah" was a mistaken designation of God's name, so it was changed

Nick Page refers to this Hymn in the context of a discuss of Jehovah as a Misnomer. He says: "

"Although translations such as the KJV use the word [Jehovah] occasionally and we sing ‘Guide me O Thou Great Jehovah,’ we are using a name that no ancient Jew ever used. And all because they left the vowels out.” [Nick Page, God's Dangerous Book: The Surprising History of the World's Most Radical Book, p. ]"

[aron]

Recently I had received an email from Nigel. The following is what he had to share on Hymn #391:

"...My guess would be that John Ingalls realized "Jehovah" was a mistaken designation of God's name, so it was changed

Nick Page refers to this Hymn in the context of a discuss of Jehovah as a Misnomer. He says: "

"Although translations such as the KJV use the word [Jehovah] occasionally and we sing ‘Guide me O Thou Great Jehovah,’ we are using a name that no ancient Jew ever used. And all because they left the vowels out.” [Nick Page, God's Dangerous Book: The Surprising History of the World's Most Radical Book, p. ]"


ברכי נפשי את ה׳ . ה׳ א‑להי, גדלת מאד; הוד והדר לבשת – עטה אור כשלמה, נוטה שמים כיריעה.

Transliteration: Barkhi nafshi et Adonai. Adonai Elohai, gadalta m'od; hod v'hadar lavashta – O'te or ka'salma, no'te shamayim ka'y'ri'a.

Translation: "Bless, (O) my soul, the LORD. LORD my God, You are very great; glory and majesty have You worn – Who dons light as a garment, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain."

The obvious question to me was, why do the Jews use "Adonai" and "Elohai" when they have the "Jehovah" at their disposal? I went through a list of Jewish prayers and didn't see any "Jehovah" at all. Did the editorial staff at LSM know something about the Jewish/Hebrew language that the native speakers lacked?

Somehow, I doubt that. I think LSM's nomenclature was due to an editorial stance, i.e. bias.

The Jews seem to prefer "Adonai", or "God", which I guess is the equivalent to the Greek "Kurios", i.e. "Lord". Or the all-caps variant: LORD. The Boss. The Big Guy. The One that Is. My question is: if "Jehovah" is the right name to use, why don't the ones with most intimate connection to the source language (Masoretic Text, Septuagint) use it?

[Indiana]

Recently I had received an email from Nigel. The following is what he had to share on Hymn #391:

"The LSM Hymnal has the well known hymn "Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah; Pilgrim thro' this barren land." .....

...What I find interesting is that when it was included in LSM's Hymns (#391) the opening line was changed. Instead of "Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah; Pilgrim thro' this barren land."

...LSM's version reads:

"Guide me, O Thou Gracious Savior; Pilgrim thro' this barren land." (LSM Hymns #391)

....The obvious question is why the change? It's not just to improve the English
My guess would be that John Ingalls realized "Jehovah" was a mistaken designation of God's name, so it was changed.

I think the change came from the brothers' sense of intimacy with a "gracious Savior", spoken of in the New Testament and present with us in our earthly pilgrimage; rather than objectively looking away to a Great Jehovah in heaven. (Jehovah's Witnesses may look to A Great Jehovah, and they do sincerely, but we have a gracious Savior with us day by day to experience and appreciate.

Brother Lee was always looking for improvements in song, in Scripture, in ministry - not just to be different, but to be on the mark to bring more blessing to the church. This was his endeavor, I believe. And, John Ingalls helped him in uplifting our hymnal to be an outstanding collection of hymns - in accuracy, ministry of life, truth, and the enjoyment of Christ.

[OBW]

From a post by Terry, above. Not sure if this was his comment or something that came from Nigel or someone else.
John Ingalls realized "Jehovah" was a mistaken designation of God's name, so it was changedThe real question to me is whether it is truly that important. Not that I am suggesting we can call God "Frank." But is there really some magic in getting the nuances of how a good Hebrew wandering in the desert would have said the name? After the 10 Commandments, they mostly abstained from saying, or even writing, His name at all because they wanted to make sure they didn't use his name in vain.

Do we think that God is somehow turning his thumbs up or down based on how historically correct we get his name? Seems that Jesus simply referred to him as Father, and Father in Heaven. Is simply saying God wrong because someone thinks that a particular alternate moniker should be used in the particular place?

Is our God that nearly capricious?

We get so hung up on a name (and the LCM really does for certain purposes), but when Jesus made reference to "in my name" was he referring to somehow having the word "Jesus" spoken or it was not "in his name"? Is that kind of reading a correct understanding of the meaning of "in my name" in the culture of the day?

Or does "in my name" mean something more like "within my authority and under my lordship"? And does that even require the use of a moniker.

In other words, is "name" here about terms, or about the authority under which you live, act, meet, etc.?

[TLFisher]

From a post by Terry, above. Not sure if this was his comment or something that came from Nigel or someone else.
The real question to me is whether it is truly that important. Not that I am suggesting we can call God "Frank." But is there really some magic in getting the nuances of how a good Hebrew wandering in the desert would have said the name? After the 10 Commandments, they mostly abstained from saying, or even writing, His name at all because they wanted to make sure they didn't use his name in vain.

Do we think that God is somehow turning his thumbs up or down based on how historically correct we get his name? Seems that Jesus simply referred to him as Father, and Father in Heaven. Is simply saying God wrong because someone thinks that a particular alternate moniker should be used in the particular place?

Is our God that nearly capricious?

We get so hung up on a name (and the LCM really does for certain purposes), but when Jesus made reference to "in my name" was he referring to somehow having the word "Jesus" spoken or it was not "in his name"? Is that kind of reading a correct understanding of the meaning of "in my name" in the culture of the day?

Or does "in my name" mean something more like "within my authority and under my lordship"? And does that even require the use of a moniker.

In other words, is "name" here about terms, or about the authority under which you live, act, meet, etc.?

OBW, I was quoting an excerpt from Nigel's email.

On another note concerning Jesus' name of God's name, in the ancient Greek, Aramaic, or ancient Hebrew, how many scholars are there really who can accurately translate it's text?
Best example I heard regarding God's name was in John 1:1. In the time before Jesus, whenever God spoke His name could not be uttered as it was said God's speaking was described as The Word.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Personally, I would love to see Nigel eventually release articles on either Deputy Authority or God made man to make man God doctrines.

I second those topics and add Oracle and Minister of the Age.

[VoiceInWilderness]

John Ingalls realized "Jehovah" was a mistaken designation of God's name, so it was changed

John Ingalls' post Recovery hymnal Christ in Song restores the name "Jehovah" to that song. I don't think he was making a statement about the accuracy of "Jehovah" but just restoring the song to its original form. The original song (with "Jehovah") was greatly used by the Lord in the Welsh revival. "Soon all Wales was singing their way to the coal mines and soccer matches. And their favorite hymn was this marching song by one of their own." (Great Songs of Faith by Brown & Norton). Other hymnal editors have felt the same way as WL and changed "Jehovah" to "Redeemer" to be more New Testament.

[Freedom]

The real question to me is whether it is truly that important. Not that I am suggesting we can call God "Frank." But is there really some magic in getting the nuances of how a good Hebrew wandering in the desert would have said the name?

I get your point, but at the same time, I don’t think the issue is unimportant. Names are just names to most people, but look at what the LSM has done. They have selected a name for God which is only viewed to be correct by a minority. Notwithstanding that fact and their own admission of the likelihood of incorrectness, those in the LC would view the RcV as the most accurate and only acceptable translation to use.

That’s really the problem. The LC takes an extreme position and they expect complete cooperation with their decisions. Under normal circumstances most people would probably care less if someone prefers ‘Jehovah’, but in the context of the LC, I wonder how long it would take someone who prefers ‘Yahweh’ or a different Bible version to get excommunicated?

[Freedom]

John Ingalls' post Recovery hymnal Christ in Song restores the name "Jehovah" to that song. I don't think he was making a statement about the accuracy of "Jehovah" but just restoring the song to its original form. The original song (with "Jehovah") was greatly used by the Lord in the Welsh revival. "Soon all Wales was singing their way to the coal mines and soccer matches. And their favorite hymn was this marching song by one of their own." (Great Songs of Faith by Brown & Norton). Other hymnal editors have felt the same way as WL and changed "Jehovah" to "Redeemer" to be more New Testament.

I agree that would be a bit of a stretch to assume that the rendering of a hymn is a statement of how the compilers felt about the "correctness" of a position. And I have come to realize that a lot of hymns had much more meaningful lyrics before they were "modified" to fit the LC mold.

[VoiceInWilderness]

I posted this question on b-Hebrew:

Jehovah vs Yahweh
Postby SteveMiller » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:47 pm

Why are scholars fairly sure that God's name is pronounced Yahweh? Is it just a guess? Is Jehovah just as good a guess?
Thanks.

All the answers say that Yahweh is a guess. Some that it is a better guess than Jehovah.

Here are all the answers I got:

1. Karl is the most active poster on b-Hebrew. Self taught. Knows Hebrew very well. Evangelical.

Re: Jehovah vs Yahweh
Postby kwrandolph » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:52 am

Steve:

This is one of the few words, if not the only one, where scholars admit uncertainty in the pronunciation. It is generally recognized that the points for Adonai were added when YHWH was found in the text, which come out as “Jehovah” in English. This is probably the most common Kethib/Qere pair in Tanakh.

The story told to me is that the name “Yahweh” was an invention of Gesenius, and because he is held in such high regard most scholars follow him. As far as I know, most modern dictionaries from ancient Hebrew to English are basically updates of his dictionary.

SteveMiller wrote:
Is Jehovah just as good a guess?
Thanks.


Well, in actuality, yes.

Because ancient Greek had neither “h” nor “w”, the jumble of vowels used to transliterate the name can be read as anything from “Yahweh” to “Yehowah” to “Yehowahe” (the last one is the one that I think is most accurate, with the accent on the third syllable).

The question on pronunciation came up on an earlier thread, which included the Greek transliterations. I probably should have saved those transliterations for this discussion.

Personally, I’m not dogmatic on any of the pronunciations. So take your pick.

I have seen more than one indication that in Biblical Hebrew, i.e. before the Babylonian Exile, that the writing was not an alphabet, rather a syllabary. As a syllabary, every consonant was followed by a vowel. That’s why indications of which vowels was not included, because people who were native speakers could recognize which vowels to include.

Jst lk ths sntnc, a ntv spkr of Englsh wd rcgnz whch vwls t insrt.

So a word with four letters would have had four syllables, four consonants each followed by a vowel. Hence the pronunciation would probably have been similar to Yehowahe. I suspect that the transliteration of יה came out as ιαω, that this was not the transliteration of the full four letter name.

Steve Miller wrote:
For comparison, do you know how Qumran transliterated the name Joshua into Greek?

I don't believe there're any Greek manuscripts at Qumran that have Joshua transliterated. I know that the Greek Minor Prophets scroll doesn't have the name extant amongst its pages.


The New Testament, one example Hebrews 4:8, mentions Joshua but transliterates that name as ιησους “Jesus”.

SteveMiller wrote:
Why do scholars say that the vav sounded like a w rather than a v?


Ancient Greek also didn’t have the “v” sound, so transliterated that as “b”. When we look at names transliterated into Greek, the ו is almost always transliterated as a vowel, or omitted listing only its vowel, rather than giving a hard consonant.

My understanding is that Yemenite pronunciation as well maintained that “w” sound until fairly recently.

2. Ste. A top poster. Very knowledgeable in Hebrew, Gk, LXX and DSS. Christian.

Re: Jehovah vs Yahweh
Postby S_Walch » Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:49 pm

I believe the Moabite Stone/Mesha Stele has helped in understanding the V/W connection.

As for the vowels for Yahweh - The fact that names ending in -yh or -yhw are vocalised -yah or -yahu has convinced many, not to mention the Greek manuscripts from Qumran have it transliterated into Greek as Ιαω/Ιαο

SteveMiller wrote:
I can see that as a good reason for the "Yah" part of Yahweh, but why does Yahweh have no vowel sound with the H?


Does it need to have a vowel after the H?

(The Hebrew Vav/waw transliterated into Greek as ω is the most common, so I'm not quite sure as to whether the Greek omega had more a -u rather than an -o sound than currently understood).

SteveMiller wrote:I still don't see why the vav is transliterated to a W, since omega did not sound like a W.

Did it not? I don't think we actually know how ancient Hebrew/Greek was pronounced.

Seeing as though there're more than a few Hebrew names transliterated into Greek using ω for a Waw, one may find a correlation between the two.

Steve Miller wrote: How would the Gk Ιαω/Ιαο be pronounced?

I would guess it would be pronounced Ee-ah-ou - but that's just how I pronounce it :)

Steve Miller: For comparison, do you know how Qumran transliterated the name Joshua into Greek?

I don't believe there're any Greek manuscripts at Qumran that have Joshua transliterated. I know that the Greek Minor Prophets scroll doesn't have the name extant amongst its pages.
Ste Walch


3. Jonathan, a top poster. An advanced theological student. Christian.


Re: Jehovah vs Yahweh
Postby Jemoh66 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:48 am

SteveMiller wrote:
Thanks Ste,
I can see that as a good reason for the "Yah" part of Yahweh, but why does Yahweh have no vowel sound with the H?


I believe the basic reason for this pronunciation is taken from the Samaritan pronunciation, [jɑ-vɛ'], taken from the Greek transliteration, Ἰαβέ. In my opinion it was probably pronounced with a /β/ (voiced biblabial fricative). Try to say a /v/ with both lips, instead of using your upper teeth touching the lower lip.

SteveMiller wrote:
I still don't see why the vav is transliterated to a W, since omega did not sound like a W.

If the vav was a consonant, then it most surely was a /w/, not a /v/. However, it seems that by the time of the 2nd Temple period, that the Samaritans pronounced the vav at least as a /β/.

SteveMiller wrote:
How would the Gk Ιαω/Ιαο be pronounced?


[yao].
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary


4. Martin. PhD on Qohelet in Australia, and part time professor on Wisdom Literature.

I did not find his answer helpful, and when I asked him for details he did not respond. Not very active on b-Hebrew.

Re: Jehovah vs Yahweh
Postby enkidu » Sun Dec 06, 2015 3:02 am

There are quite a few considerations which favour Yahweh over Jehovah. These include theophoric elements in names, sounds in cognate languages, transliterations into some languages, and so forth. Consequently it is widely believed that ו (waw) was pronounced as "w" not "v" and that "j" is just wrong (just look at how other names beginning with yod are read in modern translations). So while there will always be some uncertainty over the precise pronunciation (and there may have been some variation in pronunciation in different regions and at different times anyway), it is pretty certain that "Jehovah" is wrong while "Yahweh" is close.
Martin Shields,
Sydney, Australia.

[VoiceInWilderness]

And I have come to realize that a lot of hymns had much more meaningful lyrics before they were "modified" to fit the LC mold.

I think the LSM hymnal is a great hymnal, but almost all the modifications are better in the original.

[aron]

(From the Recovery Version translation)

Psalm 110:1

Jehovah declared to my Lord,
Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies
Your footstool

Matthew 22:41-46

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them,
Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David's.
He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,
"The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet"?
If then David calls Him Lord, how is He his son?
And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor disd anyone from that day dare to question Him anymore.

So did Jesus "shrink back" from the divine name, properly given in Psalm? Or did the writers of the gospels? Or was it hidden, only to be revealed in the last days by the Apostle of the Age in the True and Recovered Church?

I think Tomes made a good case for the emergence and decline of the word "Jehovah" for the divine name, in modern usage. And ultimately whether one says "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord" isn't as important as how one behaves. How one treats one's neighbor is most indicative of their relationship with God, whether it is familial or estranged.

Likewise, I find Jee'-zus and Hay'-soos and Yeh'-shua to be viable alternatives. Nobody is forcing the Greeks to live like Jews, or the Jews to live like Greeks, and this goes for pronunciations etc. See Paul's speech to Peter, quoted in Galatians chapter 2, here. I think it is relevant.

What makes this germane to "Local Church Discussions" is this: Witness Lee turned it into a moral issue. He was ostensibly clear, and cutting straight the word of the truth in translations as in all matters; any other rendering was to "shrink back"*, cowardly, double-souled, etc. WL used these epithets to those who took different positions. He had the light, and the others, ALL others, were "dark" or "confused" or had "twisted" the word. He alone was true and pure.

And this even went as far as the writers and composers of the Bible, both OT and NT, when they ran afoul of his hermeneutical agendas.

So Nigel exposing the utter amateurishness of at least some aspects of the Recovery Version's production is certainly relevant to seeing this ministry and its movement for what they really are.

*See the comments in the preface of the 2003 RecV.

[Ohio]

I think Tomes made a good case for the emergence and decline of the word "Jehovah" for the divine name, in modern usage. And ultimately whether one says "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord" isn't as important as how one behaves. How one treats one's neighbor is most indicative of their relationship with God, whether it is familial or estranged.

Likewise, I find Jee'-zus and Hay'-soos and Yeh'-shua to be viable alternatives. Nobody is forcing the Greeks to live like Jews, or the Jews to live like Greeks, and this goes for pronunciations etc. See Paul's speech to Peter, quoted in Galatians chapter 2, here. I think it is relevant.


Agreed, and let me throw out a few thoughts.

I don't believe for one moment that our God cares one bit about the actual phonetic pronunciation of His hallowed name. His commandment concerned taking His name "in vain." One characteristic of the phrase "in vain" is respect. It is a matter of the heart, which God alone can know, but is often reflected in the tone of the speaker. It takes little more than a kindergarten education to distinguish when a person is honoring His name, and when a person is taking His name in vain.

It is my understanding that the English language alone employs the hard "j" sound, (Compare the English "John" to the Spanish "Juan.") which My own surname picked up this hard "j" sound, as it was anglicized when my paternal grandfather passed through Ellis Island. It is my opinion that the real incentive for the continued use of the name "Jehovah," rather than Yahweh, is the dependence of the English language on the hard "j" sound.

[Freedom]

What makes this germane to "Local Church Discussions" is this: Witness Lee turned it into a moral issue. He was ostensibly clear, and cutting straight the word of the truth in translations as in all matters; any other rendering was to "shrink back"*, cowardly, double-souled, etc. WL used these epithets to those who took different positions. He had the light, and the others, ALL others, were "dark" or "confused" or had "twisted" the word. He alone was true and pure.

And this even went as far as the writers and composers of the Bible, both OT and NT, when they ran afoul of his hermeneutical agendas.

So Nigel exposing the utter amateurishness of at least some aspects of the Recovery Version's production is certainly relevant to seeing this ministry and its movement for what they really are.

It's funny, but I was mostly unaware that the usage of Jehovah was uncommon until one day when I happened to read the RcV preface. It then occurred to me that hardly anyone else was using it besides maybe the Jehovah's witnesses. It did lead me to investigate a bit.

While issues of nomenclature are nothing to get worked up about, the real issue is what has been pointed out, that WL/LSM attempted to make this into a moral issue. Because they spoke of not "shrinking back" from using the word Jehovah, the hidden implication is that to not engage in what they perceive to be a correct practice is highly inferior. If a minority position is going to be mandated, there had better be good reason for it. I'm all for hearing a well laid out argument. But as Nigel pointed out, the appeal to tradition/heritage is absurd as other religious traditions have been viscous attacked by Lee/LSM.

What Ohio posted earlier in this thread is spot on:
This is exactly what happens when a minister and a publisher have no vetting process, internal or external. They publish for a closed audience who, like mushrooms, are kept in the dark and fed manure.

[aron]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/tetragrammaton.html

Interesting article on the fairly recent, short-lived attempt to put "Jehovah" into the English Bible. In 1880-1, the Americans associated with the English Revised Version tried to insert this for the Divine Name. The English scholars demurred, and carried the day. But the 1901 American Standard Version succeeded.

Here's where it gets interesting. Later versions of the ASV dropped this practice.

Although the American Revision (which came to be known as the American Standard Version) was appreciated and used by many Bible students in America, it never acquired real popularity, and its use of “Jehovah” was probably its most unpopular feature. During the twentieth century two different revisions of the American Standard Version were done (the Revised Standard Version in 1952 and the New American Standard Bible in 1971) and both returned to the traditional rendering. The Preface of the Revised Standard Version explains:

"A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word Lord (or in certain cases God) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh,” this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”). The ancient Greek translators substituted the work Kyrios (Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus. The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."

So the Divine Name was removed from common usage by the Christian era, and the writers of the New Testament followed suit. Where the OT is quoted, the LXX "Kurios" is used. Jesus said, "I have given them Your name" and "keep them in Your name", obviously meaning the ineffable Divine Name, but the NT doesn't write it out (!!!). So who is callowly following "the traditions of men" here? The writers of the NT? Are we really that deranged, to suppose this? Or have we perhaps not thought our argument sufficiently through, here?

Therein lies the danger when only one person is allowed to think critically: people make mistakes; we all do. Even Bible translators can make mistakes. But in the counsel of many is safety. And this critical safeguard is nowhere evident with the LSM and their oeuvre.

It is my understanding that the English language alone employs the hard "j" sound, (Compare the English "John" to the Spanish "Juan.") which My own surname picked up this hard "j" sound, as it was anglicized when my paternal grandfather passed through Ellis Island. It is my opinion that the real incentive for the continued use of the name "Jehovah," rather than Yahweh, is the dependence of the English language on the hard "j" sound.
Agreed - I don't think it's vain, in and of itself, to say "Jehovah", or write it out. But it's probably vain to presume that this is the 'correct' or 'authorized' version, English or otherwise, any more than "Yeh-shua" is preferred to "Jee-zus". Or vice-versa.

One other interesting point. The article above mentioned that if a child calls their father by his proper name - i.e. "George" - this is disrespectful, and demeaning the relationship. The child's use of "Dad" or "Pop" or "Father" indicates the special relationship. Jesus didn't use "Yah-Weh" or "Yeh-ho-Vah" but "Father" and "Lord". Should we follow Jesus, or LSM's convention?

Vote early. Vote often.