Jehovah in the New Testament

Question

Among the reasons the Watchtower society gives for inserting the name Jehovah in the New Testament is the following:

"In Greek, is the definite article missing from before Kyʹri·os (Lord), where it would normally be expected grammatically, thus indicating that a proper name may originally have appeared in the Greek text? (For example, Mr 13:20)" (New World Translation appendix c)

How valid an argument is this? It would seem that in order for this to happen the copyists would have to have been ignorant of Greek grammar.

Answer 1

Background
Luke 3:4 is one of the 237 instances where the New World Translation (NWT) uses Jehovah:

just as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: “A voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah! Make his roads straight. (NWT)

As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (ESV)

As Luke states, John the Baptist quoted Isaiah. Here is the original passage:

A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: “Clear up the way of Jehovah! Make a straight highway through the desert for our God. (Isaiah 40:3 NWT)

A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:3 ESV)
קֹול קֹורֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר פַּנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה יַשְּׁרוּ בָּעֲרָבָה מְסִלָּה לֵאלֹהֵֽינוּ

The ESV renders the name יְהוָה as LORD which reflects the tradition of not speaking the name. Scholars do not agree on the correct pronunciation which the NWT understands as Jehovah and translates accordingly.¹ By treating the verse cited in Luke as it is found in the Old Testament, both translations reflect a type of consistency. ²

The Greek Isaiah
About 200 years before John the Baptist, Isaiah had been translated into Greek. Therefore, we need to consider if John and/or Luke used the Greek Isaiah.

φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῗτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. (LXX)

The lack of the article (simply κυρίου) in both the LXX and Luke makes the literal rendering of the NWT better in English.

NWT: Prepare the way of Jehovah. Make his roads straight.
ESV: Prepare the way of the Lord. Make his paths straight.

Replacing Jehovah with Lord in English seems to require adding "the" which is not present in any Greek text. (See examples in the Addendum why this is not the case.)

There other aspects to consider. First, the Hebrew Isaiah has מְסִלָּה which is singular for highway. Yet the LXX and all New Testament witnesses³ have the plural of τρίβος, which means beaten paths. Here the NWT also looks to the Hebrew Isaiah:

NWT: Prepare the way of Jehovah! Makes his roads straight.
ESV: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The NWT Study Bible explains the choice of roads:

May allude to the custom of ancient rulers to have men prepare the way before the royal chariot by removing large stones and even building causeways and leveling hills.⁴

This is an accurate statement, but Hebrew text is singular. Thus the NWT appropriates the Hebrew term but follows the LXX and all New Testament writers in making it plural. By doing so the NWT is affirming the Greek texts, at least in part.

Paths is a better choice in the New Testament as seen from Psalm 119 [118]:

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (119:105 ESV)
Your word is a lamp to my foot, And a light for my path. (119:105 NWT)
נֵר־לְרַגְלִי דְבָרֶךָ וְאֹור לִנְתִיבָתִֽי

Thy law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths.
ιδʹ νουν λύχνος τοῗς ποσίν μου ὁ λόγος σου καὶ φῶς ταῗς τρίβοις μου [LXX 118:105]

As all translations show the Hebrew נָתִיב (not מְסִלָּה of Isaiah) is rendered into Greek as τρίβους. The fact the Baptist used "plural paths" is evidence he quoted from the Greek translation of Isaiah.

Another consideration is Luke states the Baptist continued to quote from Isaiah:

Every gully must be filled up, and every mountain and hill leveled down, and the curves must become straight ways and the rough places smooth ways; and all flesh will see the saving means of God.’” (Luke 3:5-6 NWT)

Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’” (Luke 3:5-6 ESV)

Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low: and all the crooked shall become straight, and the rough plains. And the glory of the Lord shall appear, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God: for the Lord has spoken.
(Isaiah 40:4-5 LXX)

Comparing with the Hebrew Isaiah, it is clear John is quoting from the LXX:

Every valley shall be lifted up... (Isaiah 40:4 ESV) [Hebrew]
Every valley must be filled up...(Luke 3:5 NWT) [Greek]
Every valley shall be filled...(Luke 3:5 ESV) [Greek]
Every valley shall be filled... (Isaiah 40:4 LXX) [Greek]

The LXX translator made a logical change from the Hebrew: valleys should be "filled" or "filled up" not "lifted" or "lifted up." As with the plural paths, the NWT also ignores the Hebrew and follows the Greek. With regard to Luke 3:4 (Isaiah 40:3) it is reasonable to see the LXX translator(s) made a change of a highway to paths because it follows the plural of crooked ways and rough ways, and alludes to Psalm 119. The NWT's claim Jehovah is justified because John was citing the Old Testament in Hebrew is not supported by the entire passage. This is clear even from the NWT which mostly follows the Greek, only selectively bringing in Jehovah and road(s).

Undisputed Distortions
There are many examples of how the NWT deliberately deviates from a translation philosophy which claims to correctly preserve Jehovah. I will cite two which touch on the issues of the Baptist's testimony as found in Luke 3.

The first is in how the passage ends.

and all flesh will see the saving means of God.’” (Luke 3:6 NWT)

And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” (Isaiah 40:5 ESV)

And the glory of Jehovah will certainly be revealed, and all flesh must see [it] together, for the very mouth of Jehovah has spoken it.” (Isaiah 40:5 NWT)

If in fact John used the Hebrew Isaiah as the NWT and scholars such as Jason BeDuhn claim, then Jehovah should be included in their rendering of Luke 3:6. But it is not. There are two reasons why the NWT deviates from their stated position. First, the Greek New Testament and the LXX do not have κυρίου, Lord. That is, the NWT is in fact following the Greek New Testament, not the Hebrew Isaiah. Second, using the Hebrew Isaiah would result in John the Baptist making this statement:

and all flesh will see Jehovah, the saving means of God. (Luke 3:6)

Can there be a more explicit reference identifying Jesus as Jehovah?

A second example of the NWT ignoring the Greek text of the New Testament when quoting the Old Testament is seen in the book of Hebrews:

And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” (Hebrews 2:13 ESV)
And again: “I will put my trust in him.” And again: “Look! I and the young children, whom Jehovah gave me.” (Hebrews 2:13 NWT)

The second part of the verse in Hebrews is also taken from Isaiah:

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (ISaiah 8:18 ESV)
Look! I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are as signs and as miracles in Israel from Jehovah of armies, who resides on Mount Zion. (Isaiah 8:18 NWT)

As with John the Baptist's use of Isaiah, the NWT looks to the Hebrew Isaiah and renders the name יְהוָה as Jehovah when translating both books.

However, as in the case of John the Baptist, the writer of Hebrews is quoting from the LXX:

Behold I and the children which God has given me: and they shall be signs and wonders in the house of Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells in mount Sion. (LXX)
ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῗα καὶ τέρατα ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ παρὰ κυρίου σαβαωθ ὃς κατοικεῗ ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σιων

The New Testament follows the LXX and chose ὁ θεός not κυρίου. Thus the NWT's use of "Jehovah" is not only inaccurate, it is even more egregious because the Greek text has the article, which according to their position, in Luke, does not mean the Name.

Conclusion
The New Testament writers use of Isaiah in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and Hebrews is from the LXX which the Jehovah Witness translation replaces "Lord" and "(the) God" with "Jehovah" for reasons apart from their stated translation philosophy.

These examples do not speak directly to the use in Mark 13:20 or other places where the NWT elected to use "Jehovah;" however, it does demonstrate two aspects of the New World Translation:

• It contains deviations from a correct rendering of the Greek texts
• These deviations appear to be driven by a position on the Hebrew name יְהוָה, which is at odds with New Testament writers use of "Lord" and "God".⁵

Since the NWT does not apply a consistent textual standard for the decision to render the Greek κύριος as Jehovah, I conclude this is done selectively to create a pseudo New Testament following a predetermined position rather an objective translation of the New Testament.

Addendum
Is this claim made by the Watchtower Society valid?

In Greek, is the definite article missing from before Kyʹri·os (Lord), where it would normally be expected grammatically, thus indicating that a proper name may originally have appeared in the Greek text.

In Mark 13 there are 4 instances of the grammatical sequence article-accusative-genitive.

for my name τὸ ὄνομά μου (13:13)
its light τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς (13:24)
his house τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ (13:34)
his work τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (13:34)

In each, the translation into English identifies the accusative noun by prefacing it: my name...its light...his house...his work. Therefore, the phrase τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου must be intelligible in Greek and and may be translated as the Lord's way.

Finally, translating the Hebrew YHVH as κύριος without the article in extremely common in LXX-Psalms. Here is one showing the NWT's altering of an OT text to make it conform to their doctrine:

But you, O GOD my Lord deal on my behalf for your name’s sake; because your steadfast love is good, deliver me!(Psalm 109:21 ESV)
But you are Jehovah the Sovereign Lord. Deal with me for the sake of your name. Because your loving-kindness is good, deliver me. (Psalm 109:21 NWT)
And you O Lord, Lord, do mercy with me for your name's sake, because your mercy is kind. (Psalm 109:21 LXX)

The ESV handles the phrase YHVH Adonai as GOD my Lord. Whenever YHVH and Adonai are used together, the practice of capitalization is to render YHVH as GOD. The literal Hebrew is simply Jehovah Adonai that is Jehovah Lord.

However, the NWT sees the problem with Jehovah Lord and adds words completely foreign to the actual Hebrew (or Greek), But you are Jehovah the Sovereign Lord... The Psalmist calling Jehovah "Lord" essentially refuting a basic tenet made by Jehovah's Witnesses, is distorted into a declaration of Jehovah Witness doctrine: But you are Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord.

---

<sub>1. There is no "J" letter or sound in Hebrew. יְהוָה begins with "yod" and a phonetically accurate rendering would use the English "Y" - Yahweh or Yehovah, for example.
2. Even Jason BeDuhn who praises the New World Translation for it's accuracy, points out instances where the translation fails to follow its stated policy. He points out those instance would identify Jesus as Jehovah.
3. Matthew (3:3) and Mark (1:3), the only times τρίβος is used in the New Testament.
4. Notes from Matthew 3:3 New World Translation Study Bible
5. Overall, it seems the NWT is intent on producing a New Testament which is complete agreement with their position regarding the Name. In both the case of John the Baptist's use of the Greek Isaiah and Hebrews "God" the deviation from the Hebrew could have been explained in a footnote.</sub>

Answer 2

Regarding Mark 13:20, there is the matter of Divine Person.

If Deity, as such (that is to say divine nature) is being referred to, then an article may not be suitable, since there is no identification of Person.

But if a specific Divine Person is in view, then the article may be suitable. That may well be the reason for the article sometimes to be used and sometimes not (as you point out in Mark 13:20).

And I have to add that if there be a misunderstanding of the nature of Deity and of the matter of Person within Deity, there will also be a misunderstanding of why the Greek is presented to us, by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, in the way in which it is presented.

There needs to be a sensitivity to the Lord himself, his nature and his being and his Person, in order to appreciate what has been done with Greek grammar in order to represent invisible things with visible words.

---

Daniel B Wallace has 85 pages on the article (it is not 'the definite article', it is 'the article') in his book 'Beyond the Basics'. The italics are his, not mine :

One of the greatest gifts bequeathed by the Greeks to Western civilization was the article. [p207.]

The function of the article is not, primarily, to make something definite. [p209.]

The article intrinsically has the ability to conceptualize. [p209]

... whatever is conceived by the mind - so it would appear - becomes a concept as a result of one's faculty to call it by name. [p209.]

... in terms of predominant function, it identifies. [p209.]

Concept and identification are what is being drawn attention to, I note.

That which can be named, says Wallace, is in view, conceptually.

Thus the absence of article does not pre-suppose a copyist error and the necessity of adding a name to the text, without authorisation. Quite the opposite, the absence of article indicates that a name is unsuitable (conceptually).

And thus Nature is in view, not Person.

If the article be absent, then Deity is being drawn attention to, in a unified composite way. No identification of a particular Person is being made.

Answer 3

“That throughout the first five books of the Greek Bible kyrios is employed as a proper noun was shown long ago by Huber,37 Debrunner,38 and Baudissin39 and has been reiterated since. As a proper noun, a divine name, and in complete conformity with other personal names in these books, it is more often unarticulated than articulated. This basic fact holds true for all five books. Articulation, however, is well attested in all but Deuteronomy, especially in some of the oblique cases, a fact which demonstrates that, if perchance the original text read the tetragram, this was construed in every respect as a Greek personal name and was not treated as a foreign element.

Furthermore, a basic rule in the Pentateuch is that kyrios is unarticulated in the nominative case, the genitive, as object of a preposition and as subject of an infinitive. Kyrios is articulated most often in the dative when rendering Hebrew le- prefixed to the tetragram. It is in this construction that differences among the five books are most noticeable. Thus, to kyrio appears twice in Genesis as against five unarticulated instances, in Exodus twelve times against twenty-three without articulation, in Leviticus seventy-two versus twenty-one, in Numbers four as against fifty-four, and not at all in Deuteronomy.

Since most often kyrios is unarticulated, the articulated instances naturally attract special attention. Why, for instance, the translator of Leviticus chose to render YHWH approximately three times out of four by to kyrio, while the Numbers translator did so in a mere four occurrences out of fifty-four, is an interesting question."

(DE SEPTUAGINTA. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday (ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox.) Benben Publications: Mississauga, 1984. pp. 94-95)

Answer 4

Valid enough to prove what this footnote says, but insufficient to warrant wholesale changing of every other instance of Kyrios in the New Testament to "Yahweh."

In this one verse (or a few others at most) an allusion to the Old Testament may be intended. But an intended, "read this Kyrios as Yahweh" doesn't give liberty or justification for haphazardly rendering Kyrios as Jehovah whenever they personally feel its referent is Yahweh.

The passage Jesus is alluding to seems to be:

Isaiah 1:9 Except the Lord of hosts had left us seed, we had been as Sodom, and we should have been like to Gomorrha.

Clearly "the Lord of Hosts" (Yehowah saba'ot) is an absolutely unambiguous reference the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So if Mark wanted to convey that Jesus used the word "Yahweh" here (retaining this possible allusion for his readers) he definitely could have used an anarthrous "Kyrios" to do so, since Jews were accustomed to reading Kyrios for the Hebrew Yahweh in Greek translations of the Bible, and other Greek writings to do with their God.

It's been argued that Mark's Gospel was penned in Latin and not Greek, too, which is also another possible explanation (although this might just as well be explained by the fact that according to unanimous tradition, Mark was written with a Roman audience in mind, who would have been familiar with a mixing of the languages of Latin and Greek in daily life).

It's highly unlikely that a Latin writer copying Greek wasn't aware that Greek has articles, and virtually impossible that a Greek writer doesn't, so that's out the window as an explanation.

Answer 5

The Bauer-Danker-Arndt -Gingrich Greek Lexicon (BDAG) specifically lists Mark 13:20 as an example which would normally grammatically have the article like the LXX where YHWH was replaced with κύριος. That reference also lists Blass-Debrunner-Funk (BDF) a stellar grammar.

Thus there really is no question that there is ample scholarly evidence, both lexical and grammatical, for the NWT rendering. See BDAG below:

α. as a designation of God (for this custom, which has its roots in the Orient, s. the references in Ltzm., Hdb. exc. on Ro 10:9; Bousset, Kyrios Christos2 1921, 95-98; Dssm., LO 298f [LAE 353ff]; s. also SEG XXXVI, 350 and add. ins cited by DZeller, DDD 918f; LXX (where it freq. replaces the name Yahweh in the MT); pseudepigr.; Philo, Just.; Hippol. Ref. 8, 17, 1; Orig., C. Cels. 1, 35, 6.—FDoppler, D. Wort ‘Herr’ als Göttername im Griech.: Opusc. philol. v. kath. akad. Philologenverein in Wien I 1926, 42-47; MParca, ASP 31, ’91, 51 [lit.])ὁ κ. Mt 5:33; Mk 5:19; Lk 1:6, 9, 28, 46; 2:15, 22; Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2); 7:33; 8:24; Eph 6:7 (perh. w. ref. to Christ); 2 Th 3:3; 2 Ti 1:16, 18; Hb 8:2; Js 1:7; 4:15. Without the art. (on the inclusion or omission of the art. s. BWeiss [θεός, beg.]; B-D-F §254, 1; Mlt-Turner 174), like a personal name (οὐδένα κύριον ὀνομνάζουσι πλὴν τὸν θεόν Hippol. Ref. 9, 26, 2) Mt 27:10; Mk 13:20; Lk 1:17, 58; Ac 7:49; Hb 7:21 (Ps 109:4); 12:6 (Pr 3:12); (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon, pp. 576-577)