Use of Jehovah in the RcV of the Old Testament

[Freedom]

I'm not sure if this topic has been brought up here before or not, so forgive me if it has. Something that I have been wondering about for some time now is regarding the heavy use of the name "Jehovah" in the OT RcV.

I know that a lot of people here have been out of the LC long before the OT RcV came out (circa 2003), so I realize not everyone will know what I'm talking about. In the introduction to the OT RcV, a rather wordy paragraph is dedicated to explaining their reasoning for using the name Jehovah:

"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 of Jehovah into the English language, as evidenced by its inclusion in our modern dictionaries. Our employing 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."

I know that other versions use the name Jehovah frequently as well, however, it seems many of the more common versions use "Lord". I know that this is a topic that people will get into debates about, and my purpose here is not to start a debate or anything. I am mainly curious about the reasoning behind this and whether or not it was a WL thing. I hope some might have some insight into this.

What catches my attention from the OT RcV introduction is that the unnamed translators seem to rationalizing their choice to use "Jehovah" based on its use in classical English literature and the heritage behind the name. I don't think that many people would attempt argue that Jehovah is a better rendering/transliteration than Yahweh, so probably it's just something where people are more comfortable with a name as they are used to seeing it. I don't know the motives of the unnamed translators, but I get the feeling the issue might be more involved than what they just state in the introduction.

When I first got my OT RcV right around the time they came out, I remember reading that introduction and I wondered why they made such a big deal about it. Again, I'm not here to say whether "Lord" or "Jehovah" should be used, but it's just something I have been curious about, and whether or not there is any background behind it related to the LC. It's not one of those things I want to ask anyone in the LC about or bring up for fear of it actually being a touchy issue that gets people upset (wouldn't surprise me).

Believe it or not, I have heard saints discuss it every now and then, someone even went as far to say that they didn't quite feel comfortable with the RcV translation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not sure if this topic has been brought up here before or not, so forgive me if it has. Something that I have been wondering about for some time now is regarding the heavy use of the name "Jehovah" in the OT RcV.

I know that a lot of people here have been out of the LC long before the OT RcV came out (circa 2003), so I realize not everyone will know what I'm talking about. In the introduction to the OT RcV, a rather wordy paragraph is dedicated to explaining their reasoning for using the name Jehovah:

I know that other versions use the name Jehovah frequently as well, however, it seems many of the more common versions use "Lord". I know that this is a topic that people will get into debates about, and my purpose here is not to start a debate or anything. I am mainly curious about the reasoning behind this and whether or not it was a WL thing. I hope some might have some insight into this.

What catches my attention from the OT RcV introduction is that the unnamed translators seem to rationalizing their choice to use "Jehovah" based on its use in classical English literature and the heritage behind the name. I don't think that many people would attempt argue that Jehovah is a better rendering/transliteration than Yahweh, so probably it's just something where people are more comfortable with a name as they are used to seeing it. I don't know the motives of the unnamed translators, but I get the feeling the issue might be more involved than what they just state in the introduction.

When I first got my OT RcV right around the time they came out, I remember reading that introduction and I wondered why they made such a big deal about it. Again, I'm not here to say whether "Lord" or "Jehovah" should be used, but it's just something I have been curious about, and whether or not there is any background behind it related to the LC. It's not one of those things I want to ask anyone in the LC about or bring up for fear of it actually being a touchy issue that gets people upset (wouldn't surprise me).

Believe it or not, I have heard saints discuss it every now and then, someone even went as far to say that they didn't quite feel comfortable with the RcV translation.

The Jehovah's Witnesses can certainly get behind it. I personally prefer Elohim, of the bronze age, and Yahweh, of the iron age ... and just God, of the modern age.

[zeek]

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 of Jehovah into the English language, as evidenced by its inclusion in our modern dictionaries.

Thus, LSM acknowledges making a conscious decision to perpetuate an error. Not their first error, but it may be the first time I have ever seen them acknowledge an error. Perhaps they should sue themselves for slander.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thus, LSM acknowledges making a conscious decision to perpetuate an error. Not their first error, but it may be the first time I have ever seen them acknowledge an error. Perhaps they should sue themselves for slander.

Not only that, but it could be argued that "classic English literature", e.g. KJV &c, uses LORD for the divine tetragrammaton, i.e. the name of the Lord God.

But if the RcV editor decides what is classic literature, and what is not, who are we to argue? I mean, when God's oracle pronounces judgment, that's it: game over. "Thus sayeth the LORD"

(warning: the above included some humor)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Not only that, but it could be argued that "classic English literature", e.g. KJV &c, uses LORD for the divine tetragrammaton, i.e. the name of the Lord God.

But if the RcV editor decides what is classic literature, and what is not, who are we to argue? I mean, when God's oracle pronounces judgment, that's it: game over. "Thus sayeth the LORD"

(warning: the above included some humor)

That's how I feel as well. The whole "classic English literature" thing, doesn't seem like a strong a argument. It seems to me like their argument it essentially a "we know best" thing, as is everything else with the LC.

Since I'm still in the LC, stuff like this has started to bother me more and more. Any translation is going to have areas where it can be improved or ways it could have been done differently. The problem is that those in the LC exclusively use the RcV. A problem that I have is that now that I am trying to read a non-RcV Bible is that I unintentionally compare what I am reading to what I am used to seeing in the RcV.

[OBW]

I find the "classic English Literature" argument to be somewhat meaningless. Isn't that what gives us the prpoensity to morph into some kind of altered persona when we pray, suddenly speaking about "thou" who "doest" (or "dost") etc. It is so funny. It bugged me as a young teenager in the Assemblies of God how faces contorted, language changed, and voices alterd (typically down 1/2 to a whole octave).

Lots of posturing for a God that technically doesn't speak any of our languages, or more rightly, speaks all of them better than anyone. What is the draw for making ancient English be "God's language"?

This is sort of a Cargo Cult observation and it seems to cover the whole of Christianity, including the LRC.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I find the "classic English Literature" argument to be somewhat meaningless. Isn't that what gives us the prpoensity to morph into some kind of altered persona when we pray, suddenly speaking about "thou" who "doest" (or "dost") etc. It is so funny. It bugged me as a young teenager in the Assemblies of God how faces contorted, language changed, and voices alterd (typically down 1/2 to a whole octave).

Lots of posturing for a God that technically doesn't speak any of our languages, or more rightly, speaks all of them better than anyone. What is the draw for making ancient English be "God's language"?

This is sort of a Cargo Cult observation and it seems to cover the whole of Christianity, including the LRC.

This Jehovah thing is not the only >Cargo Cult< aspect of the local church. The idea that, if we can only make the church today like the early church in Acts, is a cargo cult conception. The idea is, if we can only make the church today just like the early church, if we can get it just right, then God will send the cargo, Pentecost, all over again. It's reverse engineering, when that's not how the early church was formed. We can't trick the Holy Spirit into coming.

That's why we needed the MOTA. We put all the tumblers of the lock in the right place, and God sent the cargo, in the form of the MOTA.

And the MOTA tells us that translating the divine tetragrammaton into Jehovah is how God wants it. Cuz, obviously, God prefers classic English literature. In fact, it must be, His favorite past time reading material. After all, God's got a lot of time to kill.

Funny question: When God kills time, does it injure eternity?

This RcV Jehovah thing is just as funny as my goofy question.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This RcV Jehovah thing is just as funny as my goofy question.

The local LC church nearby has an old brother who visits and he is convinced that God demands that we pronounce His name correctly. So he constantly reminds the congregation of "Yeshua Messiah" or some such. I suppose he has his scripture supporting him.

Funny thing is the spoken part of the Hebrew language was completely lost until the early 20th century when some Zionist starting speaking it again. He just made up all their pronunciations.

It's kind of like the LC tradition of using bleached white flour for their bread-breaking meeting. Funny thing is white flour was not even invented until the late 19th century.

Tell me again about that ministry which forsook all traditions to return to the pure word of God?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

This Jehovah thing is not the only >Cargo Cult< aspect of the local church. The idea that, if we can only make the church today like the early church in Acts, is a cargo cult conception. The idea is, if we can only make the church today just like the early church, if we can get it just right, then God will send the cargo, Pentecost, all over again. It's reverse engineering, when that's not how the early church was formed. We can't trick the Holy Spirit into coming.

That's why we needed the MOTA. We put all the tumblers of the lock in the right place, and God sent the cargo, in the form of the MOTA.

And the MOTA tells us that translating the divine tetragrammaton into Jehovah is how God wants it. Cuz, obviously, God prefers classic English literature. In fact, it must be, His favorite past time reading material. After all, God's got a lot of time to kill.

Funny question: When God kills time, does it injure eternity?

This RcV Jehovah thing is just as funny as my goofy question.

Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century). [Wikipedia] Lee made the choice based on personal taste even though it went against linguistic probability. It was aesthetics over accuracy. As far as I am concerned that would have been OK for him personally had he not insisted that everyone in his organization had to follow him absolutely. Go to an LC meeting, cite another Bible translation and see how long you last before they chant you out of there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So he constantly reminds the congregation of "Yeshua Messiah" or some such. I suppose he has his scripture supporting him.

Well maybe. Or it could be that there is no "J" in Hebrew. So Jesus could not have been called"j"esus. And moreover, Jehovah can't be called "j"ehovah.

As a result it would be more accurate for the RcV to use Yahweh.

And in fact it would be best to use Elohim & Yahweh when those names are used in the scripture. The would be less confusing, in the end.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

That's how I feel as well. The whole "classic English literature" thing, doesn't seem like a strong a argument. It seems to me like their argument it essentially a "we know best" thing, as is everything else with the LC.

What bothered me was the author dismissing other options as "faulty" and "mistaken" and from "confusion." But there are no references given, no discussion, no real assessment. As always, the reader must simply assume that the oracle knows best.