Language Documentation And Linguistic Theory Style Sheet: Fill & Download for Free

(*A big thank-you to sindresorhus/awesome for being the source of >90% of the Programming lists)PlatformsNode.jsFrontend DevelopmentiOSAndroidIoT & Hybrid AppsElectronCordovaReact NativeXamarinLinuxContainersOS XCommand-LineScreensaverswatchOSJVMSalesforceAmazon Web ServicesWindowsIPFSFuseHerokuProgramming LanguagesJavaScript (https://github.com/sorrycc/awesome-javascript)PromisesStandard StyleMust Watch TalksTipsNetwork LayerMicro npm PackagesMad Science npm PackagesMaintenance Modules - For npm packagesnpmAVA - Test runnerESLintSwiftEducationPlaygroundsPythonRustHaskellPureScriptGoScalaRubyEventsClojureClojureScriptElixirElmErlangJuliaLuaCC/C++RDCommon LispPerlGroovyDartJavaRxJavaKotlinOCamlColdfusionFortran.NETPHPDelphiAssemblerAutoHotkeyAutoItCrystalTypeScriptFront-end DevelopmentES6 ToolsWeb Performance OptimizationWeb ToolsCSSCritical-Path ToolsScalabilityMust-Watch TalksProtipsReactRelayWeb ComponentsPolymerAngular 2AngularBackboneHTML5SVGCanvasKnockoutJSDojo ToolkitInspirationEmberAndroid UIiOS UIMeteorBEMFlexboxWeb TypographyWeb AccessibilityMaterial DesignD3EmailsjQueryTipsWeb AudioOffline-FirstStatic Website ServicesA-Frame VR - Virtual realityCycle.jsText EditingMotion UI DesignVue.jsMarionette.jsAureliaChartingIonic Framework 2Chrome DevToolsBack-end DevelopmentDjangoFlaskDockerVagrantPyramidPlay1 FrameworkCakePHPSymfonyEducationLaravelEducationRailsGemsPhalconUseful .htaccess SnippetsnginxDropwizardKubernetesLumenComputer ScienceUniversity CoursesData ScienceMachine LearningTutorialsSpeech and Natural Language ProcessingSpanishLinguisticsCryptographyComputer VisionDeep Learning - Neural networksTensorFlowDeep VisionOpen Source Society UniversityFunctional ProgrammingStatic Analysis & Code QualitySoftware-Defined NetworkingBig DataBig DataPublic DatasetsHadoopData EngineeringStreamingTheoryPapers We LoveTalksAlgorithmsAlgorithm VisualizationsArtificial IntelligenceSearch Engine OptimizationCompetitive ProgrammingMathBooksFree Programming BooksFree Software Testing BooksGo BooksR BooksMind Expanding BooksBook AuthoringEditorsSublime TextVimEmacsAtomVisual Studio CodeGamingGame DevelopmentGame TalksGodot - Game engineOpen Source GamesUnity - Game engineChessLÖVE - Game enginePICO-8 - Fantasy consoleDevelopment EnvironmentQuick Look Plugins - OS XDev EnvDotfilesShellCommand-Line AppsZSH PluginsGitHubBrowser ExtensionsCheat SheetGit Cheat Sheet & Git FlowGit TipsGit Add-onsSSHFOSS for DevelopersEntertainmentPodcastsEmail NewslettersDatabasesDatabaseMySQLSQLAlchemyInfluxDBNeo4jDoctrine - PHP ORMMongoDBMediaCreative Commons MediaFontsCodeface - Text editor fontsStock ResourcesGIFMusicOpen Source DocumentsAudio VisualizationLearnCLI Workshoppers - Interactive tutorialsLearn to ProgramSpeakingTech VideosDive into Machine LearningComputer HistorySecurityApplication SecuritySecurityCTF - Capture The FlagMalware AnalysisAndroid SecurityHackingHoneypotsIncident ResponseContent Management SystemUmbracoRefinery CMSMiscellaneousJSONDiscounts for Student DevelopersSlackCommunitiesConferencesGeoJSONSysadminRadioAwesomeAnalyticsOpen CompaniesRESTSeleniumEndangered LanguagesContinuous DeliveryServices EngineeringFree for DevelopersBitcoinAnswers - Stack Overflow, Quora, etcSketch - OS X design appPlaces to Post Your StartupPCAPToolsRemote JobsBoilerplate ProjectsReadmeToolsStyleguidesDesign and Development GuidesSoftware Engineering BlogsSelf HostedFOSS Production AppsGulpAMA - Ask Me AnythingAnswersOpen Source PhotographyOpenGLProductivityGraphQLTransitResearch ToolsNiche Job BoardsData VisualizationSocial Media Share LinksJSON DatasetsMicroservicesUnicode Code PointsInternet of ThingsBeginner-Friendly ProjectsBluetooth BeaconsProgramming InterviewsRipple - Open source distributed settlement networkKatasTools for ActivismTAP - Test Anything ProtocolRoboticsMQTT - "Internet of Things" connectivity protocolHacking SpotsFor GirlsVorpal - Node.js CLI frameworkOKR Methodology - Goal setting & communication best practicesVulkanLaTeX - Typesetting languageNetwork AnalysisEconomics - An economist's starter kitFew more resources:Huge list of free online programming/CS courses (MOOCs) with feedback(The list above is updated every month and posted to /r/programming by /u/dhawal. Bookmark his profile to get the latest one)50 Best Websites to Learn MySQLPythonCSS3 Resources,Tutorials and LibrariesCSS ReferenceThe official PHP ManualRuby on RailsJava ResourcesSwiftLearning ScalaAndroid App Development - Cheat SheetThe Complete List of User Experience (UX) Resources & ToolsDesign resources50 Awesome Tools and Resources for Web DevelopersResources for learning about distributed computingBest machine learning blogs and resourcesWeb development ResourcesResources for interviews, internships, coding challengesGenericEverything you need to know about internships, interview questions, the big 4, life in tech etcProgramming interview questionsComputer Science Interview Questions66 Job Interview Questions for Data ScientistsInterest-specificTop 101 IT Security Interview QuestionsTop 100 Networking Interview QuestionsTop 50 Android Interview QuestionsTop 50 Data Structure Interview QuestionsTop 50 Linux Interview QuestionsTop 100 MySQL Interview QuestionsTop 50 Python Interview QuestionsTop 100 PHP Interview QuestionsTop 50 Shell Scripting Interview QuestionsTop 25 Scala Interview QuestionsTop 20 Ruby on Rails Interview QuestionsTop 25 Nodejs Interview QuestionsTop 85 JavaScript Interview Questions (http://career.guru99.com/top-85-javascript-interview-questions/)Top 101 Javascript Interview QuestionTop 115 Java Interview QuestionsTop 50 HTML Interview QuestionsTop 50 CSS Interview QuestionsTop 100 C# Interview QuestionsTop 165 C Interview QuestionsTop 1000+ C++ Interview Questions

ALL flesh is green grass . . . The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.” True to his promise, Jehovah God’s Word has lasted throughout the many, many centuries since it was first penned, and that in spite of all the efforts of God’s enemies to destroy his Word by ridicule and by persecution!—Isa. 40:6, 8.In seeing to it that his Word was preserved, Jehovah could have performed a continuous miracle. He could have either preserved the original manuscripts or kept their copies free from transcribers’ and translators’ errors, but he chose to do neither. Rather, he saw fit to guide matters in such a way that, with few exceptions, no significant errors have crept into the text.We can have confidence that the copies we have today are faithful copies of the original writings. This is to be seen from the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. Authorities date this scroll as having been written before our Common Era. It bears eloquent testimony to the carefulness with which Bible copyists did their work. A comparison of it with the earliest Masoretic text, produced more than a thousand years later, shows that only very insignificant changes crept in during a thousand years of copying!Many Bible lovers who have obtained copies of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures have wondered why they found differences between it and the Bible to which they had been accustomed, usually the King James Version. Why? As to the Christian Greek Scriptures, the differences are primarily because the New World Translation is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text, whereas the King James Version was based on what is referred to as a Textus Receptus or “Received Text.”As students of the Bible are well aware, the Christian Greek Scriptures were originally written in what is known as koiné or “common” Greek during the first century of our Common Era. However, it was not until the beginning of the sixteenth century that a Greek “New Testament” was produced for general circulation. The printer of it was a man named Froben, of Basel, Switzerland. He commissioned Erasmus, a leading scholar of the time, to rush through a Greek “New Testament.” This Erasmus did in ten months, and it appeared in 1516. Because of the haste with which he worked, its text was filled with errors. Many of these were gradually eliminated in further editions that appeared in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.In the preface of his text Erasmus wrote: “I vehemently dissent from those [the Church of Rome] who would not have private persons read the Holy Scriptures, nor have them translated into the vulgar tongue,” that is, into the language of the common people. While in his editions he also made critical remarks about the Roman Catholic clergy, Erasmus never summoned up sufficient zeal or courage to give the common people of Europe the benefit of God’s Word by translating it into one of their own tongues.Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Benjamin Kennicott published at Oxford (in 1776-1780) the readings of over 600 Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts, and the Italian scholar Giambernardo de Rossi published at Parma comparisons of 731 manuscripts in 1784 to 1798. Master texts of the Hebrew Scriptures were also produced by the German scholar Baer and, more recently, by C. D. Ginsburg. Hebrew scholar Rudolf Kittel released in 1906 the first edition of his Biblia Hebraica (The Hebrew Bible), providing therein a textual study through a footnote service, comparing many Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretic text. The basic text he used was the Ben Chayyim text. But, when the older and superior Ben Asher Masoretic texts became available, Kittel undertook the production of an entirely new third edition, which was completed by his colleagues after his death.The 7th, 8th, and 9th editions of the Biblia Hebraica (1951-1955) furnished the basic text used to render the Hebrew Scriptures into English in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures originally published in 1950-1960. A new edition of the Hebrew text, namely Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, is dated 1977. This edition was used for updating the information presented in the footnotes of the New World Translation published in 1984.The first printed edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures was that appearing in the Complutensian Polyglott (in Greek and Latin), of 1514-1517. Then in 1516 the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It contained many errors, but an improved text thereof was made available through four succeeding editions from 1519 to 1535. Later, Paris printer and editor Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott and 15 late manuscripts. The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611.WIKIPEDIA:Later critical editions incorporate ongoing scholarly research, including discoveries of Greek papyrus fragments from near Alexandria, Egypt, that date in some cases within a few decades of the original New Testament writings.[13] Today, most critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as UBS4 and NA27, consider the Alexandrian text-type corrected by papyri, to be the Greek text that is closest to the original autographs. Their apparatus includes the result of votes among scholars, ranging from certain {A} to doubtful {E}, on which variants best preserve the original Greek text of the New Testament.Critical editions that rely primarily on the Alexandrian text-type inform nearly all modern translations (and revisions of older translations). For reasons of tradition, however, some translators prefer to use the Textus Receptus for the Greek text, or use the Majority Text which is similar to it but is a critical edition that relies on earlier manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type. Among these, some argue that the Byzantine tradition contains scribal additions, but these later interpolations preserve the orthodox interpretations of the biblical text—as part of the ongoing Christian experience—and in this sense are authoritative. Distrust of the textual basis of modern translations has contributed to the King-James-Only Movement.Quite noteworthy in more recent times is the master Greek text prepared by J. J. Griesbach, who availed himself of materials gathered by others but who also gave attention to Biblical quotations made by early writers such as Origen. Further, Griesbach studied the readings of various versions, such as the Armenian, Gothic, and Philoxenian. He viewed extant manuscripts as comprising three families, or recensions, the Byzantine, the Western, and the Alexandrian, giving preference to readings in the latter. Editions of his master Greek text were issued between 1774 and 1806, his principal edition of the entire Greek text being published in 1796-1806. Griesbach’s text was used for Sharpe’s English translation of 1840 and is the Greek text printed in The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, in 1864.A Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures that attained wide acceptance is that produced in 1881 by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,” which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E. While Westcott and Hort viewed matters as quite conclusive when these manuscripts agreed and especially when they were supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts, they were not bound to that position. They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve problems presented by conflicting texts; and when two readings were of equal weight, that, too, was indicated in their master text. The Westcott and Hort text was the one used principally in translating the Christian Greek Scriptures into English in the New World Translation. However, the New World Bible Translation Committee also consulted other excellent Greek texts, among them Nestle’s Greek text (1948).Commenting on the history of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures and the results of modern textual research, Professor Kurt Aland wrote: “It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.”—Das Neue Testament—zuverlässig überliefert (The New Testament—Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.The extant manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures (in Greek and other languages) show textual variations. Variations are to be expected in view of human imperfection and the copying and recopying of manuscripts, especially by many copyists who were not professionals. If certain manuscripts had a common ancestor manuscript, perhaps came from a particular revision of early texts, or were produced in a particular area, they would probably have at least some variations in common, and hence they are said to belong to the same family, or group. On the basis of similarity in such differences, scholars have sought to classify the texts into groups, or families, the number of which has increased with the passing of time, till reference is now made to the Alexandrian, Western, Eastern (Syriac and Caesarean), and the Byzantine texts, represented in various manuscripts or in different readings scattered throughout numerous manuscripts. But despite the variations peculiar to different manuscript families (and the variations within each group), the Scriptures have come down to us in essentially the same form as that of the original inspired writings. The variations of reading are of no consequence as to Bible teachings in general. And scholastic collations have corrected errors of any importance, so that today we enjoy an authentic and reliable text.Since Westcott and Hort produced their refined Greek text, a number of critical editions of the Christian Greek Scriptures have been produced. Noteworthy among them is The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies and now in its third edition. Identical in wording is the 26th edition of the so-called Nestle-Aland text, published in 1979 in Stuttgart, Germany.THE “RECEIVED TEXT”The text of Erasmus was a literary sensation. This, together with its reasonable price, resulted in its becoming the first Bible “best seller.” In fact, it might be said that his editions really started something, for then one publisher after another brought out his own editions. Among these were the Parisian Stephanus, the Swiss Beza and the Dutch Elzevir; none of whose editions, however, differed greatly from Froben’s Erasmus text. Luther used the 1519 edition of Erasmus for his own translation into German. Among the editions based on Erasmus’ text was one that became the Textus ReceptusWESTCOTT & HORT26 Among the more than 13,000 manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are many textual variations. The 5,000 manuscripts in the Greek language alone show many such differences. We can well understand that each copy made from early manuscripts would contain its own distinctive scribal errors. As any one of these early manuscripts was sent to an area for use, these errors would be repeated in the copies in that area and would become characteristic of other manuscripts there. It was in this way that families of similar manuscripts grew up. So are not the thousands of scribal errors to be viewed with alarm? Do they not indicate lack of faithfulness in the transmission of the text? Not at all!27 F. J. A. Hort, who was coproducer of the Westcott and Hort text, writes: “The great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed. . . . If comparative trivialities . . . are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.”28 Evaluation of Textual Transmission. What, then, is the net evaluation as to textual integrity and authenticity, after these many centuries of transmission? Not only are there thousands of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the Greek text back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a dependable Greek text in refined form. Note the evaluation that the former director and librarian of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon, put on this matter:29 “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. General integrity, however, is one thing, and certainty as to details is another.” The Bible and Archaeology, 1940, pages 288-9.30 As to the last observation on “certainty as to details,” the quotation in paragraph 27 by Dr. Hort covers this. It is the work of the textual refiners to rectify details, and this they have done to a large degree. For this reason, the Westcott and Hort refined Greek text is generally accepted as one of high excellence. The Christian Greek Scripture portion of the New World Translation, being based on this excellent Greek text, is thus able to give its readers the faithful “saying of Jehovah,” as this has been so wonderfully preserved for us in the Greek reservoir of manuscripts.—1 Pet. 1:24, 25.31 Of further interest are the comments of Sir Frederic Kenyon in his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1962, on page 249: “We must be content to know that the general authenticity of the New Testament text has been remarkably supported by the modern discoveries which have so greatly reduced the interval between the original autographs and our earliest extant manuscripts, and that the differences of reading, interesting as they are, do not affect the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.” As shown on page 309 in the chart, “Sources for the Text of the New World Translation—Christian Greek Scriptures,” all related documents have been drawn on to provide an accurately translated English text. Valuable footnotes back up all these faithful renderings. The New World Bible Translation Committee used the best results of Bible scholarship developed through the centuries in producing its fine translation. What confidence we may have today that the Christian Greek Scriptures, as they are now available to us, do indeed contain “the pattern of healthful words” as written down by the inspired disciples of Jesus Christ. May we keep holding to these precious words in faith and in love!—2 Tim. 1:13.WIKIPEDIA :The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). (Textual scholars use the abbreviation "WH".[1]) It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time. The two editors worked together for 28 years.Westcott and Hort state: "[It is] our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes."[2] They find that without orthographic differences, doubtful textual variants exist only in one sixtieth of the whole New Testament (with most of them being comparatively trivial variations), with the substantial variations forming hardly more than one thousandth of the entire text. [3]According to Hort, "Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments upon Readings". The two editors favoured two manuscripts: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also believed that the combination of Codex Bezae with the Old Latin and the Old Syriac represents the original form of the New Testament text, especially when it is shorter than other forms of the text, such as the majority of the Byzantine text-type.[4] In this they followed one of the primary principles of their fledgling textual criticism, lectio brevior, sometimes taken to an extreme, as in the theory of Western non-interpolations, which has since been rejected.[5]COPYINGCopyists of the Christian Greek Scriptures. In the apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossians, he orders that the letter be read in the congregation of the Laodiceans in exchange for the one to Laodicea. (Col 4:16) No doubt all the congregations desired to read all the congregational letters of the apostles and their fellow members of the Christian governing body, and so copies were made for later consultation and to give them wider circulation. The ancient collections of Paul’s letters (copies of the originals) stand as evidence that there was considerable copying and publication of them.The Bible translator Jerome of the fourth century and Origen of the third century C.E. say that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. It was directed primarily to Jews. But there were many Hellenized Jews among the Dispersion; so it may be that it was Matthew himself who later translated his Gospel into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel mainly with Gentile readers in view, as is indicated by his explanations of Jewish customs and teachings, by his translations of certain expressions that would not be understood by Roman readers, and by other explanations. Both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels were intended for wide circulation, and of necessity, many copies would be made and distributed.Christian copyists were not often professional, but having respect and high regard for the value of the inspired Christian writings, they copied them carefully. Typical of the work of these early Christian copyists is the oldest extant fragment of any of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the Papyrus Rylands No. 457. With writing on both sides, it consists of but some 100 letters (characters) of Greek and has been dated as early as the first half of the second century C.E. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 323) While it has an informal air about it and makes no pretensions to be fine writing, it is a careful piece of work. Interestingly, this fragment is from a codex that most likely contained all of John’s Gospel, or some 66 leaves, about 132 pages in all.Bearing more extensive witness, but at later dates, are the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. These consist of portions of 11 Greek codices, produced between the second and fourth centuries C.E. They contain parts of 9 Hebrew and 15 Christian Bible books. These are quite representative in that a variety of writing styles is found in them. One codex is said to be “the work of a good professional scribe.” Of another it is said: “The writing is very correct, and though without calligraphic pretensions, is the work of a competent scribe.” And of still another, “The hand is rough, but generally correct.”—The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, by Frederic Kenyon, London, 1933, Fasciculus I, General Introduction, p. 14; 1933, Fasciculus II, The Gospels and Acts, Text, p. ix; 1936, Fasciculus III, Revelation, Preface.More important than these characteristics, however, is their subject matter. In the main they corroborate those fourth-century vellum manuscripts termed the “Neutrals,” which are rated most highly by textual scholars Westcott and Hort; among these are the Vatican No. 1209 and the Sinaiticus. Further, they contain none of the striking interpolations that are found in certain vellum manuscripts that have been termed, perhaps mistakenly, “Western.”There are extant thousands of manuscripts dating from especially the fourth century C.E. forward. That the copyists used extreme care is seen by scholars who have carefully studied and compared these manuscripts. Some of these scholars have made recensions or collations based on these comparisons. Such recensions form the basic texts for our modern translations. Scholars Westcott and Hort stated that “the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Graz, 1974, Vol. II, p. 2) Sir Frederic Kenyon stated concerning the Chester Beatty Papyri: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used.”—Fasciculus I, General Introduction, p. 15.For several reasons, little remains of the earliest copyists’ work today. Many of their copies of the Scriptures were destroyed during the time that Rome persecuted the Christians. Wear through use took its toll. Also, the hot, humid climate in some locations caused rapid deterioration. Additionally, as the professional scribes of the fourth century C.E. replaced papyrus manuscripts with vellum copies, there seemed to be no need of preserving the old papyrus copies.The ink used by copyists in writing was a mixture of soot and gum made in a cake form and mixed in water for use. The pen consisted of a reed. The tip, when softened with water, resembled a brush. Writing was done on leather and papyrus in scrolls or rolls; later in codex form on sheets which, if bound, often had a wooden cover.WIKIPEDIA:Character of the collectionAll of the manuscripts are codices, which was surprising to the first scholars who examined the texts because it was believed that the papyrus codex was not extensively used by Christians until the 4th century. Most of the manuscripts dated to the 3rd century, with some as early as the 2nd. The manuscripts also helped scholars understand the construction of papyrus codices. There is significant variation between the construction of each manuscript. Page size ranges from about 14 by 24.2 cm (P. III) to 18 by 33 cm (P. VI). Some of the manuscripts were constructed of a single gathering (quire) of papyrus sheets (Pap. II, VII, IX + X), while in others the gathering varies from a single sheet (I) to five (V) or seven (VII). The largest codex (P. IX/X) is believed to have contained roughly 236 pages.The manuscripts employ nomina sacra. One notable example is in P. VI which contains portions of the Old Testament. The name Joshua which relates linguistically to Jesus was considered a sacred name and abbreviated as such.Since all but two (P. XI, XII) of the eleven manuscripts are dated before the 4th century, they present significant textual evidence for the Greek Bible as it existed in Egypt prior to the Diocletianic persecutions where Christian books are said to have been destroyed and a century or more earlier than the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Although some of the scholars who first studied the collection considered some of the New Testament manuscripts, especially P. Chester Beatty I (P45) to be of the Caesarean text-type, this has little support today. The textual character is generally described as being eclectic, mixed, or unaligned. The manuscripts provided many new textual variations, especially because the Old Testament manuscripts predated the revision activity of Lucian and Origen and others, and the New Testament manuscripts are some of the earliest yet quite extensive examples of the corresponding books.Old Testament manuscriptsOriginally, there were believed to be eight manuscripts in the Chester Beatty collection that contained portions of the Old Testament. However, what was believed to be two different manuscripts actually belonged to the same codex, resulting in a total of seven Old Testament manuscripts in the collection, all following the text of the septuagint.• P. IV and V – Two manuscripts that contain portions of Genesis, one dated to the late 3rd century, and one the early 4th century. These manuscripts are significant because the next oldest Greek Old Testament texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have extensive Lacunae in Genesis.• P. VI – A manuscript of the Book of Numbers and Deuteronomy, consisting of around 50 partial leaves out of 108 and many very small fragment, dated to the first half of the 2nd century. It is the earliest manuscript in the collection, but is predated by two other less extensive Greek papyri manuscripts of these books, P. Fouad 266 and P. Rylands 458.• P. VII – A manuscript of the Book of Isaiah, heavily deteriorated, with Coptic (Old Fayumic) marginal notes, dated to the 3rd century.• P. VIII – Two fragmentary leaves from the Book of Jeremiah, c. 200• P. IX/X – A manuscript of the Books of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther, dated to the 3rd century. What remains is 50 out of an original 118 leaves, 29 of which are in the Chester Beatty Library (8 of Ezekiel, 8 of Esther, and 13 of Daniel), and another 21 (of Ezekiel) are in the Princeton University Library. The bottom portions of the leaves are missing. Nonetheless, all parts of the manuscript are the most substantial, early examples of the corresponding books of the Bible. Ezekiel is written in a different handwriting than the other two books. Daniel was originally counted as P. X, because it was mistakenly thought to be a separate manuscript. It was later decided that all three books belong to a single codex. Daniel contains some significant variations regarding the order and omission of certain parts of the text (chapters 7-8 come before 5-6, and parts of chapters 4 and 5 are missing).• P. XI – Two fragmentary leaves from Ecclesiastes, dated to the 4th century.The John Rylands Library houses papyrus fragments known as the Rylands Papyri and documents from North Africa. The most notable are the St John Fragment, believed to be the oldest extant New Testament text, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, the earliest fragment of the text of the canonical Gospel of John;[41] the earliest fragment of the Septuagint, Papyrus Rylands 458; and Papyrus Rylands 463, a manuscript fragment of the apocryphal Gospel of Mary. Minuscule 702, ε2010 (von Soden),[42] is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, on parchment. Among the papyri from Oxyrhynchus are a homily about women (Inv R. 55247), part of the book of Tobit (Apocrypha) (448), and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 73, relating to the transfer of a slave.The Rylands Papyri are a collection of thousands of papyrus fragments and documents from North Africa and Greece housed at the John Rylands University Library, Manchester, UK. The collection includes the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the "St John's fragment", a fragment from a papyrus codex, generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a Canonical gospel.[1][2][3]The Rylands Papyri collection held by the John Rylands University Library, is one of the most extensive and wide-ranging papyrus manuscript collections in the United Kingdom. It includes religious, devotional, literary and administrative texts. The collection includes 7 hieroglyphic and 19 hieratic papyri which are funerary documents dating from the 14th century BCE to the 2nd century CE. It also holds 166 demotic papyri, mostly dating from the Ptolemaic period, including the famous Petition of Petiese (pRylands 9)[4] from the reign of Darius I of Persia.[5]The collection also houses about 500 Coptic papyri, and around 800 Arabic papyri consisting of private letters, together with tradesmen's and household accounts. Among the roughly 2,000 Greek papyri are the famous fragments of the Gospel of John and Deuteronomy, the earliest surviving fragments of the New Testament and the Septuagint (Papyrus 957, the Rylands Papyrus iii.458)[5][6] respectively; Papyrus 31, a fragment of a papyrus manuscript of the Epistle to the Romans; and Papyrus 32, a fragment of the Epistle to Titus. Also held in the collection is Papyrus Rylands 463, a copy of the apocryphal Gospel of Mary in Greek, and John Rylands Papyrus 470, a prayer in Koine Greek to the Theotokos, written about 250 CE in brown ink, the earliest known copy of such a prayer. It was acquired by the Library in 1917.[7]THE HEBREW SCRIPTURESThe Hebrew Scriptures were produced by God’s penmen from the time of Moses to Ezra’s time. Today none of the original writings are known to be in existence; only copies of copies. However, from the beginning great care was exercised in their preservation, including authorized copies of them.Because the Jews became a widely scattered people, from the time of their return from Babylon there was an increased demand for copies of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Such handwritten copies continued to be made particularly until the invention of printing from movable type in Gutenberg’s time. Today in various libraries of the world there are 1,700 handwritten copies of various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. Until recently there were no copies, save a few fragments, older than the tenth century. But starting with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, many far older Hebrew Scripture scrolls have come to light. The most valuable of these is the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, which, as already noted, experts date as being written before our Common Era.The men who copied these manuscripts from the time of Ezra to the time of Jesus were the scribes or sopherim. These men felt compelled at times to make changes in the text, as when they thought the text implied some indignity to Jehovah God. Their successors were the Masoretes, the “lords of tradition.” These were exceedingly scrupulous and not only refrained from changing anything but were careful to restore the changes that the sopherim made, in particular restoring the divine name Jehovah. The earliest and most reliable Masoretic manuscript that has been made available to modern Bible scholars is the Ben Asher Masoretic text of about 930 C.E.This is the text that one of the leading Hebrew scholars of the twentieth century, Rudolf Kittel, and his associates and successors used in producing the third and later editions of the Biblia Hebraica. Its 7th, 8th and 9th editions (1951-1955) were used by the New World Bible Translation Committee in producing their version of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Committee also consulted other fine Hebrew texts, especially that of the eminent scholar D. Ginsburg, following his text as the main reading in a number of places.The New World Bible Translation Committee also used for purposes of comparison leading earliest translated texts. The most important of these is the Greek Septuagint. It began to be produced in 280 B.C.E., reputedly by seventy scholars, from which fact it got its name. It is the version that was mainly used by the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, as can be seen from both their direct and indirect quotations.The Committee also consulted the leading Latin version, Jerome’s Vulgate. He translated it from the original languages into the then common language of the people, for which reason it was called the Vulgate or “vulgar” version. Published at the beginning of the 5th century C.E., it also is referred to many times in the footnotes of the first and 1963 editions of the New World Translation.Also consulted and deserving mention are the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Aramaic Targums. The Samaritan Pentateuch is actually a transliteration rather than a translation. That is, the Hebrew words were simply put in the characters of the Samaritan alphabet, making it possible for Samaritans to read but not necessarily understand it. It was produced during the fourth century B.C.E., although extant copies go back only to the tenth century C.E. The Aramaic Targums were the earliest translations, or more correctly stated, paraphrases of Bible books. But they were first put in writing at the beginning of the Common Era, until then being transmitted only by word of mouth.The scholarly basis for the renderings found in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, as noted in the foregoing, gives confidence in the accuracy of this translation. Further giving us confidence in it is the fact that the members of the New World Bible Translation Committee firmly believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, knowing that it is indeed the Word of God and that “the saying of Jehovah endures forever.”—1 Pet. 1:25.[Footnotes]Of these there may have been as few as five; at the most eight. These, however. did not consist of the complete Christian Greek Scriptures but rather of one or more sections into which these Scriptures were generally divided for copying by hand: (1) the Gospels, (2) Acts and the general letters of James through Jude, (3) the letters of Paul, (4) Revelation.——————————————_————————————A reliable translation must:• Sanctify God’s name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures.—Matthew 6:9.• Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God.—2 Timothy 3:16.• Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.• Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning.• Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading.—Nehemiah 8:8, 12.REPUTABLE & AUTHORITATIVE NON-WITNESS COMMENTS:A Bible linguistic scholar, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.” His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation.” For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. What is his assessment? BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” He calls it a “remarkably good” translation.Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: “This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation.“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson, in The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7.“The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963.“The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed—a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966.“This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. . . . After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary text. . . . The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate. . . . In sum, when a Witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to bring him in and place an order.”—From a review of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, by Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska, appearing in The Classical Journal, April–May 1974.REGARDING the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7.Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 referring to the New World Translation said: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”When the first volume of the “New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures” was published, Alexander Thomson, a British Bible critic, wrote: “Original renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures into the English language are extremely few. It therefore gives us much pleasure to welcome the publication of the first part of the New World Translation [of the Hebrew Scriptures], Genesis to Ruth. . . . This version has evidently made a special effort to be thoroughly readable. No one could say it is deficient in freshness and originality. Its terminology is by no means based upon that of previous versions.”—“The Differentiator,” June 1954, p. 131.In “The Classical Journal,” Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska wrote a review of “The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures” in which he said: “This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. Thus the interlinear feature of this book is no translation at all. A text with instant vocabulary more correctly describes it. A translation in smooth English appears in a slim column at the right-hand margin of the pages. . . .“The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”—April-May issue of 1974, pp. 375-6.“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation.New World TranslationDefinition: A translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.On what is the “New World Translation” based?As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.Who were the translators?When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”Is it really a scholarly translation?Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.Why is the name Jehovah used in the Christian Greek Scriptures?It should be noted that the New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.The emphasis that Jesus Christ put on the name of his Father indicates that he personally used it freely. (Matt. 6:9; John 17:6, 26) According to Jerome of the fourth century C.E., the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, and that Gospel makes numerous quotations of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contain the divine name. Others of the Christian Greek Scripture writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, begun about 280 B.C.E.), early copies of which contained the divine name in Hebrew characters, as shown by actual fragments that have been preserved.Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “Since the Tetragram [four Hebrew letters for the divine name] was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”—Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77.Why are some verses apparently missing?Those verses, found in some translations, are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts. Comparison with other modern translations, such as The New English Bible and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, shows that other translators have also recognized that the verses in question do not belong in the Bible. In some instances, they were taken from another part of the Bible and added to the text being copied by a scribe.Stand Complete and With Firm ConvictionThe New World Translation Appreciated by Millions WorldwideIT TOOK 12 years, 3 months, and 11 days of painstaking work. On March 13, 1960, however, the final segment of text for a new Bible translation was completed. It was called the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.One year later, Jehovah’s Witnesses published this translation in a single volume. That edition in 1961 had a printing of one million copies. Today, the number of printed copies has passed the one hundred million mark, making the New World Translation one of the most widely distributed Bibles. What, though, prompted the Witnesses to prepare this translation?Why a New Bible Translation?In order to understand and proclaim the message of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah’s Witnesses have over the years used many different English Bible translations. While these versions have their points of merit, they are often colored by religious traditions and the creeds of Christendom. (Matthew 15:6) Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore recognized the need for a Bible translation that faithfully presented what is in the original inspired writings.The first step toward filling this need was taken in October 1946 when Nathan H. Knorr, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, proposed the production of a new Bible translation. On December 2, 1947, the New World Bible Translation Committee set out to prepare a translation that would be faithful to the original text, would embody the latest scholarly findings gleaned from newly discovered Bible manuscripts, and would use language readily understood by today’s readers.With the publication of the first installment—the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures—in 1950, it became evident that the translators had met their objectives. Bible texts that had previously been only dimly understood became dramatically clear. For instance, consider the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (King James Version) It was rendered: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.” The apostle Paul’s admonition rendered “be careful for nothing” (King James Version) was translated: “Do not be anxious over anything.” (Philippians 4:6) And the apostle John’s reference to “the concupiscence of the flesh” (Douay Version) reads, “the desire of the flesh.” (1 John 2:16) Clearly, the New World Translation opened up a new world of understanding.Various scholars were impressed. For example, British Bible scholar Alexander Thomson noted that the New World Translation is outstanding in accurately rendering the Greek present tense. To illustrate: Ephesians 5:25 reads “Husbands, continue loving your wives” instead of saying merely “Husbands, love your wife.” (King James Version) “No other version appears to have exhibited this fine feature with such fulness and frequency,” said Thomson regarding the New World Translation.Another outstanding feature of the New World Translation is its use of God’s personal name, Jehovah, in both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of the Scriptures. Since the Hebrew name for God appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone, it is clear that our Creator wants his worshipers to use his name and to know him as a person. (Exodus 34:6, 7) The New World Translation has helped millions of people to do so.The New World Translation Goes MultilingualEver since it appeared in English, Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world longed to receive the New World Translation in their native tongue—and for good reason. In some countries, it was difficult to obtain translations in local languages because representatives of the Bible Societies distributing them were not pleased to see their stock of Bibles end up in the hands of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Moreover, such vernacular Bibles often conceal vital teachings. A typical example is a version in a southern European tongue that hides an important reference to God’s name by replacing Jesus’ words “Let your name be sanctified” with “May you be honored by people.”—Matthew 6:9.Already in 1961, translators began rendering the English text of the New World Translation into other languages. Just two years later, the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed in six additional languages. By then, 3 out of every 4 Witnesses worldwide could read this Bible in their own language. Yet, much more work had to be done if Jehovah’s Witnesses were to get a copy of this Bible into the hands of many millions of people.In 1989 that goal came closer with the setting up of Translation Services at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That department developed a method of translation that combined Biblical word study with computer technology. Using this system has made it possible to translate the Christian Greek Scriptures into some other languages in one year and the Hebrew Scriptures in two years—a fraction of the time normally required for a Bible translation project. Since this method was developed, 29 editions of the New World Translation have been translated from English and released in languages spoken by over two billion people. Work is now under way in 12 other languages. To date, the English New World Translation has been translated, in whole or in part, into 41 other languages.Over 50 years have now passed since the first part of the New World Translation was released on August 3, 1950, at the Theocracy’s Increase Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York City. On that occasion, Nathan H. Knorr urged the conventioners: “Take this translation. Read it through, a thing that will be done with enjoyment. Study it, for it will help you to better your understanding of God’s Word. Put it in the hands of others.” We encourage you to read the Bible daily, for its message can help you to “stand complete and with firm conviction in all the will of God.”—Colossians 4:12.How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?THE Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So most people who desire to read it must rely on a translation.Today, the Bible is the world’s most widely translated book—parts of it being available in over 2,400 languages. Some languages have not just one translation but scores of them. If you have a choice in your language, you surely want to use the very best translation you can find.To make an informed choice, you need to know the answers to the following questions: What different types of translations are available? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each type of translation? And why should you be cautious when reading some translations of the Bible?From One Extreme to the OtherBible translations cover a broad spectrum of styles, but they fall into three basic categories. Interlinear translations are at one end of the spectrum. These translations contain the original-language text along with a word-for-word rendering into the target language.Paraphrase translations fall at the other end of the spectrum. Translators of these versions freely restate the message of the Bible as they understand it in a way that they feel will appeal to their audience.A third category embraces translations that endeavor to strike a balance between these two extremes. These versions of the Bible strive to convey the meaning and flavor of the original-language expressions while also making the text easy to read.Are Word-for-Word Translations Best?A strictly word-for-word translation is often not the best possible way to capture the meaning of each Bible verse. Why not? There are a number of reasons. Here are two:1. No two languages are exactly alike in grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Professor of Hebrew S. R. Driver says that languages “differ not only in grammar and roots, but also . . . in the manner in which ideas are built up into a sentence.” People who speak different languages think differently. “Consequently,” continues Professor Driver, “the forms taken by the sentence in different languages are not the same.”Since no language exactly mirrors the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, a word-for-word translation of the Bible would be unclear or might even convey the wrong meaning. Consider the following examples.In his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul used an expression that is literally translated “in the (dice) cube of the men.” (Ephesians 4:14, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures) This expression refers to the practice of cheating others when using dice. In most languages, however, a literal rendering of this allusion makes little sense. Translating this expression as “the trickery of men” is a clearer way to convey the meaning.When writing to the Romans, Paul used a Greek expression that literally means “to the spirit boiling.” (Romans 12:11, Kingdom Interlinear) Does this wording make sense in your language? The expression actually means to be “aglow with the spirit.”During one of his most famous speeches, Jesus used an expression that is often translated: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (Matthew 5:3) But a literal rendering of this expression is obscure in many languages. In some cases, a strictly literal translation even implies that “the poor in spirit” are mentally unbalanced or lacking in vitality and determination. However, Jesus was here teaching people that their happiness depended, not on satisfying their physical needs, but on recognizing their need for God’s guidance. (Luke 6:20) So such renderings as “those conscious of their spiritual need” or “those who know their need for God” convey more accurately the meaning of this expression.—Matthew 5:3; The New Testament in Modern English.2. The meaning of a word or an expression may change depending on the context in which it is used. For instance, the Hebrew expression that normally refers to the human hand may have a wide variety of meanings. Depending on the context, this word may, for example, be rendered “control,” “openhandedness,” or “power.” (2 Samuel 8:3; 1 Kings 10:13; Proverbs 18:21) In fact, this particular word is translated in over 40 different ways in the English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.Because the context can affect the way a word is translated, the New World Translation uses nearly 16,000 English expressions to translate some 5,500 Biblical Greek terms, and it uses over 27,000 English expressions to translate about 8,500 Hebrew terms. Why this variety in the way words are translated? The translation committee judged that to render the best sense of these words according to the context was more important than to produce a strictly literal translation. Even so, the New World Translation is as consistent as possible in rendering Hebrew and Greek words into the target language.Clearly, Bible translation involves more than simply rendering an original-language word the same way each time it occurs. Translators must use good judgment in order to select words that present the ideas of the original-language text accurately and understandably. In addition, they need to assemble the words and sentences in their translation in a way that conforms to the rules of grammar of the target language.What About Free Translations?Translators who produce what are frequently referred to as paraphrase Bibles, or free translations, take liberties with the text as presented in the original languages. How so? They either insert their opinion of what the original text could mean or omit some of the information contained in the original text. Paraphrase translations may be appealing because they are easy to read. However, their very freeness at times obscures or changes the meaning of the original text.Consider the way that one paraphrase Bible translates Jesus’ famous model prayer: “Our Father in heaven, reveal who you are.” (Matthew 6:9, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language) A more accurate translation of Jesus’ words renders this passage: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” Note, too, the way that John 17:26 is rendered in some Bibles. According to one free translation, on the night of his arrest, Jesus said to his Father in prayer: “I made you known to them.” (Today’s English Version) However, a more faithful rendering of Jesus’ prayer reads: “I have made your name known to them.” Can you see how some translators actually hide the fact that God has a name that should be used and honored?Why the Need for Caution?Some free translations obscure the moral standards conveyed in the original text. For example, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language says at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10: “Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom.”Compare that version with the more accurate rendering found in the New World Translation: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.” Notice that the details outlined by the apostle Paul on exactly what kind of conduct we should avoid are not even mentioned in the free translation.Doctrinal bias can also color a translator’s work. For example, Today’s English Version, commonly called the Good News Bible, has Jesus saying to his followers: “Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate to hell is wide and the road that leads to it is easy, and there are many who travel it.” (Matthew 7:13) The translators inserted the term “hell” even though Matthew’s account clearly says “destruction.” Why did they do so? Likely, it is because they want to promote the idea that the wicked will be eternally tormented, not destroyed.Finding the Best TranslationIs such a translation available? Millions of readers of this journal favor using the New World Translation. Why? Because they agree with the approach taken by its translation committee, as stated in the foreword to the first English edition: “We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.”The New World Translation has been printed in whole or in part in more than 60 languages, with a total printing of more than 145,000,000 copies! If it is available in your language, why not ask Jehovah’s Witnesses for a copy and see for yourself the benefits of this accurate translation?Sincere Bible students want to grasp and act upon the message that God inspired. If you are such a person, you need an accurate Bible translation. Really, you deserve nothing less.[Footnotes]An interlinear translation enables the reader to see a literal rendering of each word along with the original-language text.It is noteworthy that some English Bible translations use a greater variety of equivalents than the New World Translation and thus are less consistent.The Bible teaches that at death we return to dust, that the soul dies, and that we no longer have thoughts or feelings. (Genesis 3:19; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6; Ezekiel 18:4) Nowhere does it teach that the souls of the wicked suffer eternal torment in a fiery hell.[Blurb on page 21]Paraphrase translations may be appealing because they are easy to read. However, their very freeness at times obscures or changes the meaning of the original text[Blurb on page 22]The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures has been printed in whole or in part in more than 60 languages, with a total printing of more than 145,000,000 copies![Box/Picture on page 20]AN ANCIENT PARAPHRASEParaphrases, or free translations, of the Bible are not new. In ancient times, the Jewish people compiled what are now called the Aramaic Targums, or loose paraphrases of the Scriptures. Though they are not accurate translations, they reveal how the Jewish people understood some texts and help translators to determine the meaning of some difficult passages. For example, at Job 38:7, “sons of God” is explained to mean “bands of the angels.” At Genesis 10:9, the Targums indicate that the Hebrew preposition used in describing Nimrod carries the hostile meaning “against” or “in opposition to” rather than simply meaning “before” in a neutral sense. These paraphrases accompanied the Bible text but were never intended as a substitute for the Bible itself.Studies on the Inspired Scriptures and Their BackgroundStudy Number 8—Advantages of the “New World Translation”A discussion of its modern language, its uniformity, its careful verb renderings, and its dynamic expression of the inspired Word of God.IN RECENT years a number of modern Bible translations have been published that have done much to help lovers of God’s Word to get to the sense of the original writings quickly. However, many translations have eliminated the use of the divine name from the sacred record. On the other hand, the New World Translation dignifies and honors the worthy name of the Most High God by restoring it to its rightful place in the text. The name now appears in 6,973 places in the Hebrew Scripture section, as well as in 237 places in the Greek Scripture section, a total of 7,210 places all together. The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name יהוה. Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed: “Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree, ‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.”2 The New World Translation is not the first version to restore the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. From at least the 14th century onward, many translators have felt forced to restore God’s name to the text, particularly in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote from Hebrew Scripture texts that contain the divine name. Many modern-language missionary versions, including African, Asian, American, and Pacific-island versions of the Greek Scriptures, use the name Jehovah liberally, as do some European-language versions. Wherever the divine name is rendered, there is no longer any doubt as to which “lord” is indicated. It is the Lord of heaven and earth, Jehovah, whose name is sanctified by being kept unique and distinct in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.3 The New World Translation adds further to the sanctification of Jehovah’s name by presenting his inspired Scriptures in clear, understandable language that brings the intended meaning plainly to the reader’s mind. It uses simple, modern language, is as uniform as possible in its renderings, conveys accurately the action or state expressed in the Hebrew and Greek verbs, and distinguishes between the plural and singular in its use of the pronoun “you” and when using the imperative form of the verb where the context does not make it apparent. In these and other ways, the New World Translation brings to light in modern speech, as much as possible, the force, beauty, and sense of the original writings.RENDERED IN MODERN LANGUAGE4 The older Bible translations contain many obsolete words that belong to the 16th and 17th centuries. Though not understood now, they were readily understood then. For example, one man who had much to do with putting them in the English Bible was William Tyndale, who is reported as saying to one of his religious opponents: ‘If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plow to know more of the Scriptures than you do.’ Tyndale’s translation of the Greek Scriptures was easy enough for a plowboy to understand in his time. However, many of the words he used have now become archaic, so that ‘a boy who drives the plow’ can no longer clearly grasp the meaning of many words in the King James and other older versions of the Bible. Thus, it has become necessary to remove the shrouds of archaic language and to restore the Bible to the ordinary language of the common man.5 It was the language of the common man that was used in writing the inspired Scriptures. The apostles and other early Christians did not use the classical Greek of philosophers such as Plato. They used everyday Greek, that is, Koine, or common Greek. Hence, the Greek Scriptures, like the Hebrew Scriptures before them, were written in the language of the people. It is highly important, then, that translations of the original Scriptures should also be in the language of the people, in order to be readily understood. It is for this reason that the New World Translation uses, not the archaic language of three or four centuries ago, but clear, expressive modern speech so that readers will really get to know what the Bible is saying.6 To give some idea of the extent of change in the English language from the 17th century to the 20th century, note the following comparisons from the King James Version and the New World Translation. “Suffered” in the King James Version becomes “allowed” in the New World Translation (Gen. 31:7), “was bolled” becomes “had flower buds” (Ex. 9:31), “spoilers” becomes “pillagers” (Judg. 2:14), “ear his ground” becomes “do his plowing” (1 Sam. 8:12), “when thou prayest” becomes “when you pray” (Matt. 6:6), “sick of the palsy” becomes “paralytic” (Mark 2:3), “quickeneth” becomes “makes . . . alive” (Rom. 4:17), “shambles” becomes “meat market” (1 Cor. 10:25), “letteth” becomes “acting as a restraint” (2 Thess. 2:7), and so on. From this the value of the New World Translation in using current words in place of obsolete words can well be appreciated.UNIFORMITY OF RENDERINGS7 The New World Translation makes every effort to be consistent in its renderings. For a given Hebrew or Greek word, there has been assigned one English word, and this has been used as uniformly as the idiom or context permits in giving the full English understanding. For example, the Hebrew word neʹphesh is consistently translated “soul.” The corresponding Greek word, psy·kheʹ, is translated “soul” in every occurrence.8 At some places a problem has arisen over the translation of homographs. These are words in the original language that are spelled the same but that have different basic meanings. Hence, the challenge is to supply the word with the correct meaning when translating. In English there are homographs such as “Polish” and “polish” and “lead” (the sheep) and “lead” (pipe), which are spelled identically but are distinctly different words. One Bible example is the Hebrew rav, which represents distinctly different root words, and these are therefore rendered differently in the New World Translation. Rav most commonly has the meaning “many,” as at Exodus 5:5. However, the word rav that is used in titles, as in “Rabshakeh” (Heb., Rav-sha·qehʹ) at 2 Kings 18:17, means “chief,” as when rendered “his chief court official” at Daniel 1:3. (See also Jeremiah 39:3, footnote.) The word rav, identical in form, means “archer,” which accounts for the rendering at Jeremiah 50:29. Word experts, such as L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, have been accepted as authorities by the translators in separating these identically spelled words.9 As to this feature of uniformity, note what Hebrew and Greek commentator Alexander Thomson had to say in his review on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. The version aims to keep to one English meaning for each major Greek word, and to be as literal as possible. . . . The word usually rendered ‘justify’ is generally translated very correctly as ‘declare righteous.’ . . . The word for the Cross is rendered ‘torture stake’ which is another improvement. . . . Luke 23:43 is well rendered, ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.’ This is a big improvement upon the reading of most versions.” On the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the same reviewer made this comment: “The New World Version is well worth acquiring. It is lively and lifelike, and makes the reader think and study. It is not the work of Higher Critics, but of scholars who honour God and His Word.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7, and June 1954, page 136.10 The consistency of the New World Translation has won many a technical Bible discussion in the field. For example, some years ago, a society of freethinkers in New York asked the Watch Tower Society to send two speakers to address their group on Biblical matters, which request was granted. These learned men held to a Latin maxim, falsum in uno falsum in toto, meaning that an argument proved false in one point is totally false. During the discussion, one man challenged Jehovah’s Witnesses on the reliability of the Bible. He asked that Genesis 1:3 be read to the audience, and this was done, from the New World Translation: “And God proceeded to say: ‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light.” Confidently, he next called for Genesis 1:14, and this also was read from the New World Translation: “And God went on to say: ‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens.’” “Stop,” he said, “what are you reading? My Bible says God made light on the first day, and again on the fourth day, and that is inconsistent.” Though he claimed to know Hebrew, it had to be pointed out to him that the Hebrew word translated “light” in verse 3 was ʼohr, whereas the word in verse 14 was different, being ma·ʼohrʹ, which refers to a luminary, or source of light. The learned man sat down defeated. The faithful consistency of the New World Translation had won the point, upholding the Bible as reliable and beneficial.CAREFUL VERB RENDERINGS11 The New World Translation gives special attention to conveying the sense of the action of the Greek and Hebrew verbs. In doing so, the New World Translation endeavors to preserve the special charm, simplicity, forcefulness, and manner of expression of the original-language writings. It has thus been necessary to use auxiliary verbs in English to convey carefully the actual states of the actions. Because of the power of their verbs, the original Scriptures are so dynamic and so expressive of action.12 The Hebrew verb does not have “tenses” in the way the term “tense” is applied to most languages of the West. In English, verbs are viewed particularly from the standpoint of tense, or time: past, present, and future. The Hebrew verb, on the other hand, basically expresses the condition of the action, that is, the action is viewed as either complete (the perfect state) or incomplete (the imperfect state). These states of the Hebrew verb may be used to indicate actions in the past or in the future, the context determining the time. For example, the perfect, or completed, state of the verb naturally represents actions in the past, but it is also used to speak of a future happening as if it had already occurred and were past, showing its future certainty or the obligation of it to occur.13 Accurately conveying the state of the Hebrew verb into English is most important; otherwise, the meaning may be distorted and a completely different thought expressed. For an example of this, consider the verbal expressions in Genesis 2:2, 3. In many translations, speaking of God’s resting on the seventh day, expressions such as “he rested,” “he desisted,” “he had desisted,” “he then rested,” “God rested,” and “he had rested” are used. From these readings one would conclude that God’s resting on the seventh day was completed in the past. But note how the New World Translation brings out the sense of the verbs used in the passage at Genesis 2:2, 3: “And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.” The expression in verse 2 “he proceeded to rest” is a verb in the imperfect state in Hebrew and so expresses the idea of an incomplete or continuing action. The rendering “he proceeded to rest” is in harmony with what is said at Hebrews 4:4-7. On the other hand, the verb in Genesis 2:3 is in the perfect state, but in order to harmonize with verse 2 and Hebrews 4:4-7, it is translated “he has been resting.”14 One of the reasons for inaccuracies in translating the Hebrew verbal forms is the grammatical theory today called waw consecutive. Waw (ו) is the Hebrew conjunction that basically means “and.” It never stands alone but is always joined with some other word, frequently with the Hebrew verb, in order to form one word with it. It has been, and still is, claimed by some that this relationship has the power to convert the verb from one state to another, that is, from the imperfect to the perfect (as has been done in many translations, including modern ones, at Genesis 2:2, 3) or from the perfect to the imperfect. This effect has been described also by the term “waw conversive.” This incorrect application of the verbal form has led to much confusion and to mistranslation of the Hebrew text. The New World Translation does not recognize that the letter waw has any power to change the state of the verb. Rather, the attempt is made to bring out the proper and distinctive force of the Hebrew verb, thus preserving the meaning of the original accurately.15 Similar care has been exercised in the translating of the Greek verbs. In Greek the verb tenses express not only the time of an action or state but also the kind of action, whether momentary, starting out, continuing, repetitious, or completed. Attention to such senses in the Greek verb forms leads to a precise translation with the full force of the action described. For example, giving the sense of the continuative idea where this occurs in the Greek verb not only brings out the true color of a situation but also makes admonition and counsel more forceful. For instance, the continuing disbelief of the Pharisees and Sadducees is brought home by Jesus’ words: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign.” And the need for continuing action in right things is well expressed by the words of Jesus: “Continue to love your enemies.” “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom.” “Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.”—Matt. 16:4; 5:44; 6:33; 7:7.16 The Greek has an unusual tense called the aorist, which refers to action that is punctiliar, or momentary. Verbs in the aorist may be rendered in a variety of ways, according to their context. One way in which it is used is to denote one act of a certain kind, though not related to any particular time. Such an example is found at 1 John 2:1, where many versions render the verb for “sin” so as to allow for a continuing course of sin, whereas the New World Translation reads, “commit a sin,” that is, a single act of sin. This conveys the correct meaning that if a Christian should commit an act of sin, he has Jesus Christ, who acts as an advocate, or helper, with the heavenly Father. Thus, 1 John 2:1 in no way contradicts but only contrasts with the condemnation of the ‘practice of sin’ found at 1 John 3:6-8 and 5:18.17 The imperfect tense in Greek may express not only an action that continues but also an action attempted but not accomplished. Note how Hebrews 11:17 in the King James Version reads: “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” The verb “offered up” differs in form in these two occurrences in the Greek. The first occurrence is in the perfect (completed) tense, whereas the second is in the imperfect (past continuous) form. The New World Translation, taking into account the different tenses, translates the verse: “Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man . . . attempted to offer up his only-begotten son.” The completed sense of the first verb is thus retained, while the imperfect tense of the second verb indicates that the action was intended or attempted but not carried out to completion.—Gen. 22:9-14.18 Careful attention to the function of other parts of speech, such as to the cases of nouns, has led to the clearing up of apparent contradictions. For example, at Acts 9:7, in recounting the remarkable experience of Saul on the road to Damascus, a number of translations say that his traveling companions ‘heard the voice’ but did not see anyone. Then, at Acts 22:9, where Paul is relating this incident, the same translations read that although they saw the light, ‘they did not hear the voice.’ However, in the first reference, the Greek word for “voice” is in the genitive case, but in the second instance, it is in the accusative case, as it is at Acts 9:4. Why the difference? None is conveyed in the above translations into English, yet the Greek, by the change of case, indicates something different. The men heard literally “of the voice” but did not hear it the way Paul did, that is, hear the words and understand them. Thus, the New World Translation, noting the use of the genitive at Acts 9:7, reads that the men who were with him were “hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not beholding any man.”PLURAL “YOU” INDICATED19 The older English forms of the second person singular, “thee,” “thou,” and “thy,” have been retained in some modern translations in cases where God is being addressed. However, in the languages in which the Bible was written, there was no special form of the personal pronoun for use in address to God, but the same form was used as when addressing one’s fellowman. So the New World Translation has dropped these now sanctimonious usages and employs the normal conversational “you” in all cases. In order to distinguish the second person plural “you” and verbs whose plural number is not readily apparent in English, the words are printed entirely in small capital letters. Often it is helpful to the reader to know whether a given Scripture text refers to “you” as an individual, or to “YOU” as a group of persons, a congregation.20 For example, at Romans 11:13 Paul is speaking to the many: “Now I speak to YOU who are people of the nations.” But at verse 17 the Greek changes to the singular “you,” and the application is brought down pointedly to the individual: “However, if some of the branches were broken off but you . . . were grafted in . . . ”NEW WORLD TRANSLATION IN OTHER LANGUAGES21 In 1961 it was announced that the Watch Tower Society was proceeding to render the New World Translation into six more widely used languages, namely, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. This translation work was entrusted to skilled and dedicated translators, all working together at the Watch Tower Society’s headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. They served as a large international committee working under competent direction. It was in July 1963, at the “Everlasting Good News” Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A., that the firstfruits of this translation work became available when the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was released simultaneously in the above six languages. Now inhabitants of the earth who speak languages other than English could begin to enjoy the advantages of this modern translation. Since then, translation work has continued, so that by 1989 the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures had appeared in 11 languages, with more than 56,000,000 copies having been printed.GRATITUDE FOR POWERFUL INSTRUMENT22 The New World Translation is indeed a powerful instrument for demonstrating that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.” From the points discussed in this study, we can appreciate that it is accurate and reliable and that it can provide genuine enjoyment to those who desire to hear God speak to man stirringly in modern, living language. The language of the New World Translation is spiritually arousing, and it quickly puts the reader in tune with the dynamic expression of the original inspired Scriptures. We no longer need to read and reread verses in order to understand obscure phrases. It speaks out with power and clarity from the very first reading.23 The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a faithful translation of God’s Word, “the sword of the spirit.” As such, it is indeed an effective weapon in the spiritual warfare of the Christian, an aid in ‘overturning strongly entrenched false teachings and reasonings raised up against the knowledge of God.’ How well it enables us to declare with better understanding the things beneficial and upbuilding, the glorious things related to God’s Kingdom of righteousness—yes, “the magnificent things of God”!—Eph. 6:17; 2 Cor. 10:4, 5; Acts 2:11.Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?DOES it matter whether God’s name appears in the Bible? God obviously felt so. His name, as represented by the four Hebrew characters known as the Tetragrammaton, appears almost 7,000 times in the original Hebrew text of what is commonly called the Old Testament.Bible scholars acknowledge that God’s personal name appears in the Old Testament, or Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts of the so-called New Testament.What happens, then, when a writer of the New Testament quotes passages from the Old Testament in which the Tetragrammaton appears? In these instances, most translators use the word “Lord” rather than God’s personal name. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament.What problems do Bible translators face when it comes to deciding whether to use God’s name in the New Testament? What basis is there for using God’s name in this part of the Holy Scriptures? And how does the use of God’s name in the Bible affect you?A Translation ProblemThe manuscripts of the New Testament that we possess today are not the originals. The original manuscripts written by Matthew, John, Paul, and others were well used, and no doubt they quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made. Of the thousands of copies of the New Testament in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were penned. It appears that by that time those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kuʹri·os or Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or copied from manuscripts where this had been done.Knowing this, a translator must determine whether there is reasonable evidence that the Tetragrammaton did in fact appear in the original Greek manuscripts. Is there any such proof? Consider the following arguments:▪ When Jesus quoted the Old Testament or read from it, he used the divine name. (Deuteronomy 6:13, 16; 8:3; Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 61:1, 2; Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; 22:44; Luke 4:16-21) In the days of Jesus and his disciples, the Tetragrammaton appeared in copies of the Hebrew text of what is often called the Old Testament, as it still does today. However, for centuries scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, as well as from manuscripts of the New Testament. Then in the mid-20th century, something remarkable came to the attention of scholars—some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day had been discovered. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters.▪ Jesus used God’s name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done “in the name of [his] Father.” In fact, Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”—John 5:43; 10:25.▪ The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Greek Scriptures. At Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, the divine name is embedded in the expression “Alleluia,” or “Hallelujah.” This expression literally means “Praise Jah, you people!” Jah is a contraction of the name Jehovah.▪ Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, . . . they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.” Thus, there is strong evidence that the Jews living in the second century C.E. believed that Christians used Jehovah’s name in their writings.Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself, in his comments on Psalm 2:2, stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”—Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1862, Vol. XII, col. 1104.As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., יהוה], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.” In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: “The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·phoʹne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI].”—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.—2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1.How Have Translators Handled This Issue?Is the New World Translation the only Bible that restores God’s name when translating the Greek Scriptures? No. Based upon the above evidence, many Bible translators have felt that the divine name should be restored when they translate the New Testament.For example, many African, American, Asian, and Pacific-island language versions of the New Testament use the divine name liberally. (See chart on page 21.) Some of these translations have appeared recently, such as the Rotuman Bible (1999), which uses the name Jihova 51 times in 48 verses of the New Testament, and the Batak-Toba version (1989) from Indonesia, which uses the name Jahowa 110 times in the New Testament. The divine name has appeared, too, in French, German, and Spanish translations. For instance, Pablo Besson translated the New Testament into Spanish in the early 20th century. His translation uses Jehová at Jude 14, and nearly 100 footnotes suggest the divine name as a likely rendering.Below are some examples of English translations that have used God’s name in the New Testament:A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863)The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898)St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford (1900)The Christian’s Bible—New Testament, by George N. LeFevre (1928)The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946)Recently, the 2004 edition of the popular New Living Translation made this comment in its preface under the heading “The Rendering of Divine Names”: “We have generally rendered the tetragrammaton (YHWH) consistently as ‘the LORD,’ utilizing a form with small capitals that is common among English translations. This will distinguish it from the name ʹadonai, which we render ‘Lord.’” Then when commenting on the New Testament, it says: “The Greek word kurios is consistently translated ‘Lord,’ except that it is translated ‘LORD’ wherever the New Testament text explicitly quotes from the Old Testament, and the text there has it in small capitals.” (Italics ours.) The translators of this Bible therefore acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) should be represented in these New Testament quotes.Interestingly, under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary makes this comment: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” And scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”Two Compelling ReasonsClearly, then, the New World Translation was not the first Bible to contain the divine name in the New Testament. Like a judge who is called upon to decide a court case for which there are no living eyewitnesses, the New World Bible Translation Committee carefully weighed all the relevant evidence. Based on the facts, they decided to include Jehovah’s name in their translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Note two compelling reasons why they did so.(1) The translators believed that since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah’s name from the text seemed inconsistent.Why is that a reasonable conclusion? About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) Does it sound logical to you that James would make such a statement if nobody in the first century knew or used God’s name?(2) When copies of the Septuagint were discovered that used the divine name rather than Kyʹri·os (Lord), it became evident to the translators that in Jesus’ day copies of the earlier Scriptures in Greek—and of course those in Hebrew—did contain the divine name.Apparently, the God-dishonoring tradition of removing the divine name from Greek manuscripts developed only later. What do you think? Would Jesus and his apostles have promoted such a tradition?—Matthew 15:6-9.➔ ‘But why,’ you may ask, ‘is God’s name not used in every place that it occurs in the original Bible text? Why are the titles LORD and GOD generally used in its place?’ In its preface the American Standard Version explains why it uses God’s name Jehovah, and why for a long time that name was not used: “The American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version . . . This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.” Yes, men who translated that Bible into English felt that the reasons why God’s name had been left out were not good. So they put it back into the Bible in its rightful places.Where is God’s name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?The New English Bible: The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use “Jehovah” in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: “The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.”Today’s English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: “THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.”King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: “My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost.” (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”)The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form “Yahweh,” but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under “Lord” and “Yahweh.”The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by “the LORD” in brackets.The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.The ‘Holy Scriptures’ translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text—A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “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.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.)Translators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write יהוה within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?No human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.Many scholars favor the spelling “Yahweh,” but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand, “Jehovah” is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries and preserves, equally with other forms, the four consonants of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.J. B. Rotherham, in The Emphasised Bible, used the form Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. However, later in his Studies in the Psalms he used the form “Jehovah.” He explained: “JEHOVAH—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name . . . in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahwéh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.”—(London, 1911), p. 29.After discussing various pronunciations, German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded: “From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”—Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.Most names change to some extent when transferred from one language to another. Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛, but the inspired writers of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form of the name, I·e·sousʹ. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. The same is true of other Bible names. How, then, can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language, while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshipers in a manner that honors him?Why is it important to know and use God’s personal name?Do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer. If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions.True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.—Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6.Ex. 3:15: “God said . . . to Moses: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “Jehovah the God of your forefathers . . . has sent me to you.” This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.’”Isa. 12:4: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.”Ezek. 38:17, 23: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘ . . . And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’”Mal. 3:16: “Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.”John 17:26: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”Acts 15:14: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.”Is Jehovah in the “Old Testament” Jesus Christ in the “New Testament”?Matt. 4:10: “Jesus said to him: ‘Go away, Satan! For it is written, “It is Jehovah [“the Lord,” KJ and others] your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.”’” (Jesus was obviously not saying that he himself was to be worshiped.)John 8:54: “Jesus answered [the Jews]: ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God.’” (The Hebrew Scriptures clearly identify Jehovah as the God that the Jews professed to worship. Jesus said, not that he himself was Jehovah, but that Jehovah was his Father. Jesus here made it very clear that he and his Father were distinct individuals.)Ps. 110:1: “The utterance of Jehovah to my [David’s] Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” (At Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus explained that he himself was David’s “Lord,” referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the one to whom Jehovah’s words were here directed.)Phil. 2:9-11: “For this very reason also God exalted him [Jesus Christ] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. [Dy reads: “ . . . every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.” Kx and CC read similarly, but a footnote in Kx acknowledges: “ . . . the Greek is perhaps more naturally rendered ‘to the glory,’” and NAB and JB render it that way.]” (Notice that Jesus Christ is here shown to be different from God the Father and subject to Him.)Call “on the Name of Jehovah”Really, the Scriptures themselves act as a conclusive “eyewitness” statement that early Christians did in fact use Jehovah’s name in their writings, especially when they quoted passages from the Old Testament that contain that name. Without a doubt, then, the New World Translation has a clear basis for restoring the divine name, Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures.How does this information affect you? Quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, the apostle Paul reminded the Christians in Rome: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Then he asked: “How will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard?” (Romans 10:13, 14; Joel 2:32) Bible translations that use God’s name when appropriate help you to draw close to God. (James 4:8) Really, what an honor it is for us to be allowed to know and to call upon God’s personal name, Jehovah.The Divine Name in the Hebrew ScripturesThe divine name in the ancient Hebrew letters used before the Babylonian exileThe divine name in the Hebrew letters used after the Babylonian exileThe divine name, represented by the four Hebrew consonants יהוה, appears nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. This translation renders those four letters, known as the Tetragrammaton, “Jehovah.” That name is by far the most frequently occurring name in the Bible. While the inspired writers refer to God by many titles and descriptive terms, such as “Almighty,” “Most High,” and “Lord,” the Tetragrammaton is the only personal name they use to identify God.Jehovah God himself directed Bible writers to use his name. For example, he inspired the prophet Joel to write: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” (Joel 2:32) And God caused one psalmist to write: “May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalm 83:18) In fact, the divine name appears some 700 times in the book of Psalms alone—a book of poetic writings that were to be sung and recited by God’s people. Why, then, is God’s name missing from many Bible translations? Why does this translation use the form “Jehovah”? And what does the divine name, Jehovah, mean?Excerpts from the Psalms in a Dead Sea Scroll dated to the first half of the first century C.E. The text is in the style of the Hebrew letters commonly used after the Babylonian exile, but the Tetragrammaton appears repeatedly in distinctive ancient Hebrew lettersWhy is the name missing from many Bible translations? The reasons vary. Some feel that Almighty God does not need a unique name to identify him. Others appear to have been influenced by the Jewish tradition of avoiding the use of the name, perhaps out of fear of desecrating it. Still others believe that since no one can be sure of the exact pronunciation of God’s name, it is better just to use a title, such as “Lord” or “God.” Such objections, however, lack merit for the following reasons:• Those who argue that Almighty God does not need a unique name ignore evidence that early copies of his Word, including those preserved from before the time of Christ, contain God’s personal name. As noted above, God directed that his name be included in his Word some 7,000 times. Obviously, he wants us to know and use his name.• Translators who remove the name out of deference to Jewish tradition fail to recognize a key fact. While some Jewish scribes refused to pronounce the name, they did not remove it from their copies of the Bible. Ancient scrolls found in Qumran, near the Dead Sea, contain the name in many places. Some Bible translators hint that the divine name appeared in the original text by substituting the title “LORD” in capital letters. But the question remains, Why have these translators felt free to substitute or remove God’s name from the Bible when they acknowledge that it is found in the Bible text thousands of times? Who do they believe gave them authority to make such a change? Only they can say.• Those who say that the divine name should not be used because it is not known exactly how to pronounce it will nevertheless freely use the name Jesus. However, Jesus’ first-century disciples said his name quite differently from the way most Christians do today. To Jewish Christians, the name Jesus was probably pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛. And the title “Christ” was Ma·shiʹach, or “Messiah.” Greek-speaking Christians called him I·e·sousʹ Khri·stosʹ, and Latin-speaking Christians Ieʹsus Chriʹstus. Under inspiration, the Greek translation of his name was recorded in the Bible, showing that first-century Christians followed the sensible course of using the form of the name common in their language. Similarly, the New World Bible Translation Committee feels that it is reasonable to use the form “Jehovah,” even though that rendering is not exactly the way the divine name would have been pronounced in ancient Hebrew.Why does the New World Translation use the form “Jehovah”? In English, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) are represented by the consonants YHWH. As was true of all written words in ancient Hebrew, the Tetragrammaton contained no vowels. When ancient Hebrew was in everyday use, readers easily provided the appropriate vowels.About a thousand years after the Hebrew Scriptures were completed, Jewish scholars developed a system of pronunciation points, or signs, by which to indicate what vowels to use when reading Hebrew. By that time, though, many Jews had the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Thus, it seems that when they copied the Tetragrammaton, they combined the vowels for the substitute expressions with the four consonants representing the divine name. Therefore, the manuscripts with those vowel points do not help in determining how the name was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Some feel that the name was pronounced “Yahweh,” whereas others suggest different possibilities. A Dead Sea Scroll containing a portion of Leviticus in Greek transliterates the divine name Iao. Besides that form, early Greek writers also suggest the pronunciations Iae, I·a·beʹ, and I·a·ou·eʹ. However, there is no reason to be dogmatic. We simply do not know how God’s ancient servants pronounced this name in Hebrew. (Genesis 13:4; Exodus 3:15) What we do know is that God used his name repeatedly in communication with his people, that they addressed him by that name, and that they used it freely in speaking with others.—Exodus 6:2; 1 Kings 8:23; Psalm 99:9.Why, then, does this translation use the form “Jehovah”? Because that form of the divine name has a long history in the English language.God’s name at Genesis 15:2 in William Tyndale’s translation of the Pentateuch, 1530The first rendering of God’s personal name in an English Bible appeared in 1530 in William Tyndale’s translation of the Pentateuch. He used the form “Iehouah.” Over time, the English language changed, and the spelling of the divine name was modernized. For example, in 1612, Henry Ainsworth used the form “Iehovah” throughout his translation of the book of Psalms. Then, in 1639, when that work was revised and printed with the Pentateuch, the form “Jehovah” was used. In 1901, the translators who produced the American Standard Version of the Bible used the form “Jehovah” where the divine name appeared in the Hebrew text.Explaining why he used “Jehovah” instead of “Yahweh” in his 1911 work Studies in the Psalms, respected Bible scholar Joseph Bryant Rotherham said that he wanted to employ a “form of the name more familiar (while perfectly acceptable) to the general Bible-reading public.” In 1930 scholar A. F. Kirkpatrick made a similar point regarding the use of the form “Jehovah.” He said: “Modern grammarians argue that it ought to be read Yahveh or Yahaveh; but JEHOVAH seems firmly rooted in the English language, and the really important point is not the exact pronunciation, but the recognition that it is a Proper Name, not merely an appellative title like ‘Lord.’”The Tetragrammaton, YHWH: “He Causes to Become”The verb HWH: “to become”What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.Therefore, the meaning of the name Jehovah is not limited to the related verb found at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become” or, “I Will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be.” In the strictest sense, those words do not fully define God’s name. Rather, they reveal an aspect of God’s personality, showing that he becomes what is needed in each circumstance to fulfill his purpose. So while the name Jehovah may include this idea, it is not limited to what he himself chooses to become. It also includes what he causes to happen with regard to his creation and the accomplishment of his purpose.The Divine Name in the Christian Greek ScripturesBible scholars acknowledge that God’s personal name, as represented by the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), appears almost 7,000 times in the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For this reason, most modern English Bibles do not use the name Jehovah when translating the so-called New Testament. Even when translating quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Tetragrammaton appears, most translators use “Lord” rather than God’s personal name.The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah a total of 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In deciding to do this, the translators took into consideration two important factors: (1) The Greek manuscripts we possess today are not the originals. Of the thousands of copies in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were composed. (2) By that time, those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or they copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.The New World Bible Translation Committee determined that there is compelling evidence that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the original Greek manuscripts. The decision was based on the following evidence:• Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text. In the past, few people disputed that conclusion. Now that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back to the first century have been discovered near Qumran, the point has been proved beyond any doubt.• In the days of Jesus and his apostles, the Tetragrammaton also appeared in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. For centuries, scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, in the mid-20th century, some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day were brought to the attention of scholars. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters. So in Jesus’ day, copies of the Scriptures in Greek did contain the divine name. However, by the fourth century C.E., major manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, did not contain the divine name in the books from Genesis through Malachi (where it had been in earlier manuscripts). Hence, it is not surprising that in texts preserved from that time period, the divine name is not found in the so-called New Testament, or Greek Scripture portion of the Bible.Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done in his “Father’s name”• The Christian Greek Scriptures themselves report that Jesus often referred to God’s name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done in his “Father’s name.”—John 5:43; 10:25.• Since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah’s name from the text would seem inconsistent. About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) It would not be logical for James to make such a statement if no one in the first century knew or used God’s name.• The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Christian Greek Scriptures. At Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, the divine name is embedded in the word “Hallelujah.” This comes from a Hebrew expression that literally means “Praise Jah.” “Jah” is a contraction of the name Jehovah. Many names used in the Christian Greek Scriptures were derived from the divine name. In fact, reference works explain that Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”• Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws that was completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week, “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [understood to refer to the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.”• Some Bible scholars acknowledge that it seems likely that the divine name appeared in Hebrew Scripture quotations found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” Scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”• Recognized Bible translators have used God’s name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some of these translators did so long before the New World Translation was produced. These translators and their works include: A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863); The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864); The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898); St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford (1900); The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946). In addition, in a Spanish translation in the early 20th century, translator Pablo Besson used “Jehová” at Luke 2:15 and Jude 14, and nearly 100 footnotes in his translation suggest the divine name as a likely rendering. Long before those translations, Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures from the 16th century onward used the Tetragrammaton in many passages. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use “Jehovah” (or the transliteration of the Hebrew “Yahweh”) in the Christian Greek Scriptures, while four translators add the name in parentheses after “Lord.” More than 70 German translations use the divine name in footnotes or commentaries.God’s name at Acts 2:34 in The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)• Bible translations in over one hundred different languages contain the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Many African, Native American, Asian, European, and Pacific-island languages use the divine name liberally. The translators of these editions decided to use the divine name for reasons similar to those stated above. Some of these translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures have appeared recently, such as the Rotuman Bible (1999), which uses “Jihova” 51 times in 48 verses, and the Batak (Toba) version (1989) from Indonesia, which uses “Jahowa” 110 times.God’s name at Mark 12:29, 30 in a Hawaiian-language translationWithout a doubt, there is a clear basis for restoring the divine name, Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures. That is exactly what the translators of the New World Translation have done. They have a deep respect for the divine name and a healthy fear of removing anything that appeared in the original text.—Revelation 22:18, 19.The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”Nash Papyrus, dated from the second or first century B.C.E., showing portions of Exodus and Deuteronomy. The divine name appears a number of times in the Hebrew text.When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO). Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed. However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done. *That practice creates a special challenge for anyone who translates the “New Testament.” For example, when a translator examines an “Old Testament” quotation in the Greek text of the “New Testament,” he will not see the Tetragrammaton anywhere in the Greek text from which he is translating. However, he should be aware of two basic facts: (1) The original quotation from the “Old Testament” may contain the Tetragrammaton, and (2) the Greek text that he is using is based on manuscripts from a period of time when copyists regularly substituted titles for the divine name. Realizing this, he must make an important decision. Will he follow the Greek text that uses Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ instead of the Tetragrammaton, or will he endeavor to ascertain where the Tetragrammaton would have appeared in the original Greek manuscripts?Both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts used by the Christian Bible writers contained the Tetragrammaton.The basic question that needs to be answered is this: Since the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original Hebrew text that was being quoted by the first-century Bible writers, did those writers deliberately substitute the word Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton each time they quoted from the “Old Testament”? Throughout the centuries, numerous Bible translators have concluded that such a substitution would not have taken place. Therefore, such translators have felt compelled to restore the divine name in their translations of the “New Testament.” The translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation agree with that viewpoint.The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3522, dated from the first century C.E., showing a portion of the book of Job. The Tetragrammaton appears in ancient Hebrew characters in this copy of the Septuagint.Verses Where the Name Jehovah Appears in Direct Quotations and Indirect ReferencesThe following list shows some of the verses where the name Jehovah occurs in the main text of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation. These verses contain either direct quotations from or indirect references to the original Hebrew text that uses the Tetragrammaton.VERSE CONTAINING JEHOVAH’S NAMEQUOTE OR REFERENCEMATTHEW 3:3Isa 40:3MATTHEW 4:4De 8:3MATTHEW 4:7De 6:16MATTHEW 4:10De 6:13; 10:20MATTHEW 5:33Le 19:12; Nu 30:2; De 23:21MATTHEW 21:9Ps 118:25, 26MATTHEW 21:42Ps 118:22, 23MATTHEW 22:37De 6:5MATTHEW 22:44Ps 110:1MATTHEW 23:39Ps 118:26MATTHEW 27:10Zec 11:13Verses Where the Name Jehovah Does Not Appear in Direct Quotations and Indirect ReferencesThe following list shows the remaining verses where the name Jehovah occurs in the main text of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation. These verses do not contain a direct quotation or an indirect reference to the “Old Testament.” However, there are either strong contextual grounds or linguistic reasons for restoring the divine name in these verses. After each occurrence, a reason is provided for restoring the divine name in the verse. A list is also provided of other Bible translations and references that have restored the divine name in that verse or have indicated that it should be represented. These have been designated by the letter J followed by a number.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J3, 4, 7-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”Below is a partial listing of Bible translations and reference works that have used some form of the divine name in the “New Testament.”J1Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, edited by J. du Tillet, with a Latin translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555.J2Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, incorporated as a separate chapter in ʼEʹven boʹchan [“Tried Stone”], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Edition: The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, by George Howard, Macon, Georgia, U.S.A., 1987.J3Gospel of Matthew and Letter to the Hebrews, in Hebrew and Latin, by Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively.J4Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551.J5Liturgical Gospels, in Hebrew, by F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1573.J6Liturgical Gospels, in German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576.J7“New Testament,” in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599-1600.J8“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661.J9The Four Gospels, in Hebrew and Latin, by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668.J10The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vols. I-III, containing the Gospel of Matthew to 1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.J11“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817.J12“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by William Greenfield, London, 1831.J13“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt, and S. Hoga, London, 1838.J14“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846.J15Bible books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, in Hebrew, by J.H.R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853, and 1858 respectively.J16“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt and J.H.R. Biesenthal, London, 1866.J17“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by Franz Delitzsch, London, (1981 Edition).J18“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.J19Gospel of John, in Hebrew, by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957.J20A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, Fourth Edition, Edinburgh, 1963.J21The Emphatic Diaglott (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942.J22“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979.J23“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by J. Bauchet and D. Kinnereth (Arteaga), Rome, 1975.J24A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863.J25St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900.J26Bible book of Psalms and Gospel of Matthew 1:1–3:6, in Hebrew, by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533.J27Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, by Dominik von Brentano, Third Edition, Vienna and Prague, 1796.J28The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament—Peshitta Aramaic Text With a Hebrew Translation, published by The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986.VERSES THAT DO NOT CONTAIN A DIRECT QUOTATION OR AN INDIRECT REFERENCEMATTHEW 1:20 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: The expression “Jehovah’s angel” occurs many times in Hebrew in the “Old Testament,” starting at Genesis 16:7. When “Jehovah’s angel” occurs in early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the “Old Testament,” the Greek word agʹge·los (angel; messenger) is followed by the divine name written with Hebrew characters. That is how this expression is handled at Zechariah 3:5, 6 in a copy of the Greek Septuagint found in Nahal Hever, Israel, which some scholars have dated between 50 B.C.E. and 50 C.E. It is noteworthy that when later copies of the Greek Septuagint replace the divine name with Kyʹri·os, in this and many other verses, the definite article is omitted. This may be another indication that Kyʹri·os replaces the divine name here and in similar contexts.• The Holy Scriptures, by J. N. Darby, 1920 (corresponding to the German Elberfelder Bibel, 1891), says in a footnote on this verse: “‘Lord’ without the article, signifying, as often, ‘Jehovah.’”• The Restored New Testament, by Willis Barnstone, 2009, states in a footnote on the expression “an angel of the Lord”: “From the Greek . . . (angelos kyriou), from the Hebrew . . . (malakh yahweh), . . . A literal rendering would be Yahweh’s malakh or ‘messenger.’” In the main text of Matthew 28:2, this translation reads: “An angel of Yahweh.”• The reference work Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1991, (Volume 2, pages 329-330) lists Matthew 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; 28:2 as verses where Kyʹri·os is “used in the NT [“New Testament”] of Yahweh/God.”• The Complete Jewish Bible, by David H. Stern, 1998, capitalizes the word ADONAI in this verse. In the Introduction to this Bible, the author explains: “The word ‘ADONAI’ is used . . . wherever I, as the translator, believe ‘kurios’ is the Greek representation of the tetragrammaton.”• The Companion Bible, 1999 printing, capitalizes LORD in the main text of Matthew 1:20 and adds this footnote by E. W. Bullinger: “The LORD = Jehovah.”MATTHEW 1:22 “spoken by Jehovah”REASON: The quotation that immediately follows (Matthew 1:23) is taken from Isaiah 7:14, which is the prophetic message spoken by Jehovah through Isaiah.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 7-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, 28MATTHEW 1:24 “the angel of Jehovah”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 7-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 2:13 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 6-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 2:15 “spoken by Jehovah”REASON: This quote is taken from Hosea 11:1, and Hosea 11:11 clearly shows that this is a statement made by Jehovah God.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 2:19 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 6-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 28:2 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 7-13, 16-18, 22-24, 28

ALL flesh is green grass . . . The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.” True to his promise, Jehovah God’s Word has lasted throughout the many, many centuries since it was first penned, and that in spite of all the efforts of God’s enemies to destroy his Word by ridicule and by persecution!—Isa. 40:6, 8.In seeing to it that his Word was preserved, Jehovah could have performed a continuous miracle. He could have either preserved the original manuscripts or kept their copies free from transcribers’ and translators’ errors, but he chose to do neither. Rather, he saw fit to guide matters in such a way that, with few exceptions, no significant errors have crept into the text.We can have confidence that the copies we have today are faithful copies of the original writings. This is to be seen from the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. Authorities date this scroll as having been written before our Common Era. It bears eloquent testimony to the carefulness with which Bible copyists did their work. A comparison of it with the earliest Masoretic text, produced more than a thousand years later, shows that only very insignificant changes crept in during a thousand years of copying!Many Bible lovers who have obtained copies of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures have wondered why they found differences between it and the Bible to which they had been accustomed, usually the King James Version. Why? As to the Christian Greek Scriptures, the differences are primarily because the New World Translation is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text, whereas the King James Version was based on what is referred to as a Textus Receptus or “Received Text.”As students of the Bible are well aware, the Christian Greek Scriptures were originally written in what is known as koiné or “common” Greek during the first century of our Common Era. However, it was not until the beginning of the sixteenth century that a Greek “New Testament” was produced for general circulation. The printer of it was a man named Froben, of Basel, Switzerland. He commissioned Erasmus, a leading scholar of the time, to rush through a Greek “New Testament.” This Erasmus did in ten months, and it appeared in 1516. Because of the haste with which he worked, its text was filled with errors. Many of these were gradually eliminated in further editions that appeared in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.In the preface of his text Erasmus wrote: “I vehemently dissent from those [the Church of Rome] who would not have private persons read the Holy Scriptures, nor have them translated into the vulgar tongue,” that is, into the language of the common people. While in his editions he also made critical remarks about the Roman Catholic clergy, Erasmus never summoned up sufficient zeal or courage to give the common people of Europe the benefit of God’s Word by translating it into one of their own tongues.Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Benjamin Kennicott published at Oxford (in 1776-1780) the readings of over 600 Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts, and the Italian scholar Giambernardo de Rossi published at Parma comparisons of 731 manuscripts in 1784 to 1798. Master texts of the Hebrew Scriptures were also produced by the German scholar Baer and, more recently, by C. D. Ginsburg. Hebrew scholar Rudolf Kittel released in 1906 the first edition of his Biblia Hebraica (The Hebrew Bible), providing therein a textual study through a footnote service, comparing many Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretic text. The basic text he used was the Ben Chayyim text. But, when the older and superior Ben Asher Masoretic texts became available, Kittel undertook the production of an entirely new third edition, which was completed by his colleagues after his death.The 7th, 8th, and 9th editions of the Biblia Hebraica (1951-1955) furnished the basic text used to render the Hebrew Scriptures into English in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures originally published in 1950-1960. A new edition of the Hebrew text, namely Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, is dated 1977. This edition was used for updating the information presented in the footnotes of the New World Translation published in 1984.The first printed edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures was that appearing in the Complutensian Polyglott (in Greek and Latin), of 1514-1517. Then in 1516 the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It contained many errors, but an improved text thereof was made available through four succeeding editions from 1519 to 1535. Later, Paris printer and editor Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott and 15 late manuscripts. The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611.WIKIPEDIA:Later critical editions incorporate ongoing scholarly research, including discoveries of Greek papyrus fragments from near Alexandria, Egypt, that date in some cases within a few decades of the original New Testament writings.[13] Today, most critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as UBS4 and NA27, consider the Alexandrian text-type corrected by papyri, to be the Greek text that is closest to the original autographs. Their apparatus includes the result of votes among scholars, ranging from certain {A} to doubtful {E}, on which variants best preserve the original Greek text of the New Testament.Critical editions that rely primarily on the Alexandrian text-type inform nearly all modern translations (and revisions of older translations). For reasons of tradition, however, some translators prefer to use the Textus Receptus for the Greek text, or use the Majority Text which is similar to it but is a critical edition that relies on earlier manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type. Among these, some argue that the Byzantine tradition contains scribal additions, but these later interpolations preserve the orthodox interpretations of the biblical text—as part of the ongoing Christian experience—and in this sense are authoritative. Distrust of the textual basis of modern translations has contributed to the King-James-Only Movement.Quite noteworthy in more recent times is the master Greek text prepared by J. J. Griesbach, who availed himself of materials gathered by others but who also gave attention to Biblical quotations made by early writers such as Origen. Further, Griesbach studied the readings of various versions, such as the Armenian, Gothic, and Philoxenian. He viewed extant manuscripts as comprising three families, or recensions, the Byzantine, the Western, and the Alexandrian, giving preference to readings in the latter. Editions of his master Greek text were issued between 1774 and 1806, his principal edition of the entire Greek text being published in 1796-1806. Griesbach’s text was used for Sharpe’s English translation of 1840 and is the Greek text printed in The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, in 1864.A Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures that attained wide acceptance is that produced in 1881 by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,” which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E. While Westcott and Hort viewed matters as quite conclusive when these manuscripts agreed and especially when they were supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts, they were not bound to that position. They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve problems presented by conflicting texts; and when two readings were of equal weight, that, too, was indicated in their master text. The Westcott and Hort text was the one used principally in translating the Christian Greek Scriptures into English in the New World Translation. However, the New World Bible Translation Committee also consulted other excellent Greek texts, among them Nestle’s Greek text (1948).Commenting on the history of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures and the results of modern textual research, Professor Kurt Aland wrote: “It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.”—Das Neue Testament—zuverlässig überliefert (The New Testament—Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.The extant manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures (in Greek and other languages) show textual variations. Variations are to be expected in view of human imperfection and the copying and recopying of manuscripts, especially by many copyists who were not professionals. If certain manuscripts had a common ancestor manuscript, perhaps came from a particular revision of early texts, or were produced in a particular area, they would probably have at least some variations in common, and hence they are said to belong to the same family, or group. On the basis of similarity in such differences, scholars have sought to classify the texts into groups, or families, the number of which has increased with the passing of time, till reference is now made to the Alexandrian, Western, Eastern (Syriac and Caesarean), and the Byzantine texts, represented in various manuscripts or in different readings scattered throughout numerous manuscripts. But despite the variations peculiar to different manuscript families (and the variations within each group), the Scriptures have come down to us in essentially the same form as that of the original inspired writings. The variations of reading are of no consequence as to Bible teachings in general. And scholastic collations have corrected errors of any importance, so that today we enjoy an authentic and reliable text.Since Westcott and Hort produced their refined Greek text, a number of critical editions of the Christian Greek Scriptures have been produced. Noteworthy among them is The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies and now in its third edition. Identical in wording is the 26th edition of the so-called Nestle-Aland text, published in 1979 in Stuttgart, Germany.THE “RECEIVED TEXT”The text of Erasmus was a literary sensation. This, together with its reasonable price, resulted in its becoming the first Bible “best seller.” In fact, it might be said that his editions really started something, for then one publisher after another brought out his own editions. Among these were the Parisian Stephanus, the Swiss Beza and the Dutch Elzevir; none of whose editions, however, differed greatly from Froben’s Erasmus text. Luther used the 1519 edition of Erasmus for his own translation into German. Among the editions based on Erasmus’ text was one that became the Textus ReceptusWESTCOTT & HORT26 Among the more than 13,000 manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are many textual variations. The 5,000 manuscripts in the Greek language alone show many such differences. We can well understand that each copy made from early manuscripts would contain its own distinctive scribal errors. As any one of these early manuscripts was sent to an area for use, these errors would be repeated in the copies in that area and would become characteristic of other manuscripts there. It was in this way that families of similar manuscripts grew up. So are not the thousands of scribal errors to be viewed with alarm? Do they not indicate lack of faithfulness in the transmission of the text? Not at all!27 F. J. A. Hort, who was coproducer of the Westcott and Hort text, writes: “The great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed. . . . If comparative trivialities . . . are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.”28 Evaluation of Textual Transmission. What, then, is the net evaluation as to textual integrity and authenticity, after these many centuries of transmission? Not only are there thousands of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the Greek text back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a dependable Greek text in refined form. Note the evaluation that the former director and librarian of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon, put on this matter:29 “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. General integrity, however, is one thing, and certainty as to details is another.” The Bible and Archaeology, 1940, pages 288-9.30 As to the last observation on “certainty as to details,” the quotation in paragraph 27 by Dr. Hort covers this. It is the work of the textual refiners to rectify details, and this they have done to a large degree. For this reason, the Westcott and Hort refined Greek text is generally accepted as one of high excellence. The Christian Greek Scripture portion of the New World Translation, being based on this excellent Greek text, is thus able to give its readers the faithful “saying of Jehovah,” as this has been so wonderfully preserved for us in the Greek reservoir of manuscripts.—1 Pet. 1:24, 25.31 Of further interest are the comments of Sir Frederic Kenyon in his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1962, on page 249: “We must be content to know that the general authenticity of the New Testament text has been remarkably supported by the modern discoveries which have so greatly reduced the interval between the original autographs and our earliest extant manuscripts, and that the differences of reading, interesting as they are, do not affect the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.” As shown on page 309 in the chart, “Sources for the Text of the New World Translation—Christian Greek Scriptures,” all related documents have been drawn on to provide an accurately translated English text. Valuable footnotes back up all these faithful renderings. The New World Bible Translation Committee used the best results of Bible scholarship developed through the centuries in producing its fine translation. What confidence we may have today that the Christian Greek Scriptures, as they are now available to us, do indeed contain “the pattern of healthful words” as written down by the inspired disciples of Jesus Christ. May we keep holding to these precious words in faith and in love!—2 Tim. 1:13.WIKIPEDIA :The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). (Textual scholars use the abbreviation "WH".[1]) It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time. The two editors worked together for 28 years.Westcott and Hort state: "[It is] our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes."[2] They find that without orthographic differences, doubtful textual variants exist only in one sixtieth of the whole New Testament (with most of them being comparatively trivial variations), with the substantial variations forming hardly more than one thousandth of the entire text. [3]According to Hort, "Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments upon Readings". The two editors favoured two manuscripts: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also believed that the combination of Codex Bezae with the Old Latin and the Old Syriac represents the original form of the New Testament text, especially when it is shorter than other forms of the text, such as the majority of the Byzantine text-type.[4] In this they followed one of the primary principles of their fledgling textual criticism, lectio brevior, sometimes taken to an extreme, as in the theory of Western non-interpolations, which has since been rejected.[5]COPYINGCopyists of the Christian Greek Scriptures. In the apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossians, he orders that the letter be read in the congregation of the Laodiceans in exchange for the one to Laodicea. (Col 4:16) No doubt all the congregations desired to read all the congregational letters of the apostles and their fellow members of the Christian governing body, and so copies were made for later consultation and to give them wider circulation. The ancient collections of Paul’s letters (copies of the originals) stand as evidence that there was considerable copying and publication of them.The Bible translator Jerome of the fourth century and Origen of the third century C.E. say that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. It was directed primarily to Jews. But there were many Hellenized Jews among the Dispersion; so it may be that it was Matthew himself who later translated his Gospel into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel mainly with Gentile readers in view, as is indicated by his explanations of Jewish customs and teachings, by his translations of certain expressions that would not be understood by Roman readers, and by other explanations. Both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels were intended for wide circulation, and of necessity, many copies would be made and distributed.Christian copyists were not often professional, but having respect and high regard for the value of the inspired Christian writings, they copied them carefully. Typical of the work of these early Christian copyists is the oldest extant fragment of any of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the Papyrus Rylands No. 457. With writing on both sides, it consists of but some 100 letters (characters) of Greek and has been dated as early as the first half of the second century C.E. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 323) While it has an informal air about it and makes no pretensions to be fine writing, it is a careful piece of work. Interestingly, this fragment is from a codex that most likely contained all of John’s Gospel, or some 66 leaves, about 132 pages in all.Bearing more extensive witness, but at later dates, are the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. These consist of portions of 11 Greek codices, produced between the second and fourth centuries C.E. They contain parts of 9 Hebrew and 15 Christian Bible books. These are quite representative in that a variety of writing styles is found in them. One codex is said to be “the work of a good professional scribe.” Of another it is said: “The writing is very correct, and though without calligraphic pretensions, is the work of a competent scribe.” And of still another, “The hand is rough, but generally correct.”—The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, by Frederic Kenyon, London, 1933, Fasciculus I, General Introduction, p. 14; 1933, Fasciculus II, The Gospels and Acts, Text, p. ix; 1936, Fasciculus III, Revelation, Preface.More important than these characteristics, however, is their subject matter. In the main they corroborate those fourth-century vellum manuscripts termed the “Neutrals,” which are rated most highly by textual scholars Westcott and Hort; among these are the Vatican No. 1209 and the Sinaiticus. Further, they contain none of the striking interpolations that are found in certain vellum manuscripts that have been termed, perhaps mistakenly, “Western.”There are extant thousands of manuscripts dating from especially the fourth century C.E. forward. That the copyists used extreme care is seen by scholars who have carefully studied and compared these manuscripts. Some of these scholars have made recensions or collations based on these comparisons. Such recensions form the basic texts for our modern translations. Scholars Westcott and Hort stated that “the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Graz, 1974, Vol. II, p. 2) Sir Frederic Kenyon stated concerning the Chester Beatty Papyri: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used.”—Fasciculus I, General Introduction, p. 15.For several reasons, little remains of the earliest copyists’ work today. Many of their copies of the Scriptures were destroyed during the time that Rome persecuted the Christians. Wear through use took its toll. Also, the hot, humid climate in some locations caused rapid deterioration. Additionally, as the professional scribes of the fourth century C.E. replaced papyrus manuscripts with vellum copies, there seemed to be no need of preserving the old papyrus copies.The ink used by copyists in writing was a mixture of soot and gum made in a cake form and mixed in water for use. The pen consisted of a reed. The tip, when softened with water, resembled a brush. Writing was done on leather and papyrus in scrolls or rolls; later in codex form on sheets which, if bound, often had a wooden cover.WIKIPEDIA:Character of the collectionAll of the manuscripts are codices, which was surprising to the first scholars who examined the texts because it was believed that the papyrus codex was not extensively used by Christians until the 4th century. Most of the manuscripts dated to the 3rd century, with some as early as the 2nd. The manuscripts also helped scholars understand the construction of papyrus codices. There is significant variation between the construction of each manuscript. Page size ranges from about 14 by 24.2 cm (P. III) to 18 by 33 cm (P. VI). Some of the manuscripts were constructed of a single gathering (quire) of papyrus sheets (Pap. II, VII, IX + X), while in others the gathering varies from a single sheet (I) to five (V) or seven (VII). The largest codex (P. IX/X) is believed to have contained roughly 236 pages.The manuscripts employ nomina sacra. One notable example is in P. VI which contains portions of the Old Testament. The name Joshua which relates linguistically to Jesus was considered a sacred name and abbreviated as such.Since all but two (P. XI, XII) of the eleven manuscripts are dated before the 4th century, they present significant textual evidence for the Greek Bible as it existed in Egypt prior to the Diocletianic persecutions where Christian books are said to have been destroyed and a century or more earlier than the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Although some of the scholars who first studied the collection considered some of the New Testament manuscripts, especially P. Chester Beatty I (P45) to be of the Caesarean text-type, this has little support today. The textual character is generally described as being eclectic, mixed, or unaligned. The manuscripts provided many new textual variations, especially because the Old Testament manuscripts predated the revision activity of Lucian and Origen and others, and the New Testament manuscripts are some of the earliest yet quite extensive examples of the corresponding books.Old Testament manuscriptsOriginally, there were believed to be eight manuscripts in the Chester Beatty collection that contained portions of the Old Testament. However, what was believed to be two different manuscripts actually belonged to the same codex, resulting in a total of seven Old Testament manuscripts in the collection, all following the text of the septuagint.• P. IV and V – Two manuscripts that contain portions of Genesis, one dated to the late 3rd century, and one the early 4th century. These manuscripts are significant because the next oldest Greek Old Testament texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have extensive Lacunae in Genesis.• P. VI – A manuscript of the Book of Numbers and Deuteronomy, consisting of around 50 partial leaves out of 108 and many very small fragment, dated to the first half of the 2nd century. It is the earliest manuscript in the collection, but is predated by two other less extensive Greek papyri manuscripts of these books, P. Fouad 266 and P. Rylands 458.• P. VII – A manuscript of the Book of Isaiah, heavily deteriorated, with Coptic (Old Fayumic) marginal notes, dated to the 3rd century.• P. VIII – Two fragmentary leaves from the Book of Jeremiah, c. 200• P. IX/X – A manuscript of the Books of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther, dated to the 3rd century. What remains is 50 out of an original 118 leaves, 29 of which are in the Chester Beatty Library (8 of Ezekiel, 8 of Esther, and 13 of Daniel), and another 21 (of Ezekiel) are in the Princeton University Library. The bottom portions of the leaves are missing. Nonetheless, all parts of the manuscript are the most substantial, early examples of the corresponding books of the Bible. Ezekiel is written in a different handwriting than the other two books. Daniel was originally counted as P. X, because it was mistakenly thought to be a separate manuscript. It was later decided that all three books belong to a single codex. Daniel contains some significant variations regarding the order and omission of certain parts of the text (chapters 7-8 come before 5-6, and parts of chapters 4 and 5 are missing).• P. XI – Two fragmentary leaves from Ecclesiastes, dated to the 4th century.The John Rylands Library houses papyrus fragments known as the Rylands Papyri and documents from North Africa. The most notable are the St John Fragment, believed to be the oldest extant New Testament text, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, the earliest fragment of the text of the canonical Gospel of John;[41] the earliest fragment of the Septuagint, Papyrus Rylands 458; and Papyrus Rylands 463, a manuscript fragment of the apocryphal Gospel of Mary. Minuscule 702, ε2010 (von Soden),[42] is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, on parchment. Among the papyri from Oxyrhynchus are a homily about women (Inv R. 55247), part of the book of Tobit (Apocrypha) (448), and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 73, relating to the transfer of a slave.The Rylands Papyri are a collection of thousands of papyrus fragments and documents from North Africa and Greece housed at the John Rylands University Library, Manchester, UK. The collection includes the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the "St John's fragment", a fragment from a papyrus codex, generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a Canonical gospel.[1][2][3]The Rylands Papyri collection held by the John Rylands University Library, is one of the most extensive and wide-ranging papyrus manuscript collections in the United Kingdom. It includes religious, devotional, literary and administrative texts. The collection includes 7 hieroglyphic and 19 hieratic papyri which are funerary documents dating from the 14th century BCE to the 2nd century CE. It also holds 166 demotic papyri, mostly dating from the Ptolemaic period, including the famous Petition of Petiese (pRylands 9)[4] from the reign of Darius I of Persia.[5]The collection also houses about 500 Coptic papyri, and around 800 Arabic papyri consisting of private letters, together with tradesmen's and household accounts. Among the roughly 2,000 Greek papyri are the famous fragments of the Gospel of John and Deuteronomy, the earliest surviving fragments of the New Testament and the Septuagint (Papyrus 957, the Rylands Papyrus iii.458)[5][6] respectively; Papyrus 31, a fragment of a papyrus manuscript of the Epistle to the Romans; and Papyrus 32, a fragment of the Epistle to Titus. Also held in the collection is Papyrus Rylands 463, a copy of the apocryphal Gospel of Mary in Greek, and John Rylands Papyrus 470, a prayer in Koine Greek to the Theotokos, written about 250 CE in brown ink, the earliest known copy of such a prayer. It was acquired by the Library in 1917.[7]THE HEBREW SCRIPTURESThe Hebrew Scriptures were produced by God’s penmen from the time of Moses to Ezra’s time. Today none of the original writings are known to be in existence; only copies of copies. However, from the beginning great care was exercised in their preservation, including authorized copies of them.Because the Jews became a widely scattered people, from the time of their return from Babylon there was an increased demand for copies of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Such handwritten copies continued to be made particularly until the invention of printing from movable type in Gutenberg’s time. Today in various libraries of the world there are 1,700 handwritten copies of various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. Until recently there were no copies, save a few fragments, older than the tenth century. But starting with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, many far older Hebrew Scripture scrolls have come to light. The most valuable of these is the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, which, as already noted, experts date as being written before our Common Era.The men who copied these manuscripts from the time of Ezra to the time of Jesus were the scribes or sopherim. These men felt compelled at times to make changes in the text, as when they thought the text implied some indignity to Jehovah God. Their successors were the Masoretes, the “lords of tradition.” These were exceedingly scrupulous and not only refrained from changing anything but were careful to restore the changes that the sopherim made, in particular restoring the divine name Jehovah. The earliest and most reliable Masoretic manuscript that has been made available to modern Bible scholars is the Ben Asher Masoretic text of about 930 C.E.This is the text that one of the leading Hebrew scholars of the twentieth century, Rudolf Kittel, and his associates and successors used in producing the third and later editions of the Biblia Hebraica. Its 7th, 8th and 9th editions (1951-1955) were used by the New World Bible Translation Committee in producing their version of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Committee also consulted other fine Hebrew texts, especially that of the eminent scholar D. Ginsburg, following his text as the main reading in a number of places.The New World Bible Translation Committee also used for purposes of comparison leading earliest translated texts. The most important of these is the Greek Septuagint. It began to be produced in 280 B.C.E., reputedly by seventy scholars, from which fact it got its name. It is the version that was mainly used by the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, as can be seen from both their direct and indirect quotations.The Committee also consulted the leading Latin version, Jerome’s Vulgate. He translated it from the original languages into the then common language of the people, for which reason it was called the Vulgate or “vulgar” version. Published at the beginning of the 5th century C.E., it also is referred to many times in the footnotes of the first and 1963 editions of the New World Translation.Also consulted and deserving mention are the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Aramaic Targums. The Samaritan Pentateuch is actually a transliteration rather than a translation. That is, the Hebrew words were simply put in the characters of the Samaritan alphabet, making it possible for Samaritans to read but not necessarily understand it. It was produced during the fourth century B.C.E., although extant copies go back only to the tenth century C.E. The Aramaic Targums were the earliest translations, or more correctly stated, paraphrases of Bible books. But they were first put in writing at the beginning of the Common Era, until then being transmitted only by word of mouth.The scholarly basis for the renderings found in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, as noted in the foregoing, gives confidence in the accuracy of this translation. Further giving us confidence in it is the fact that the members of the New World Bible Translation Committee firmly believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, knowing that it is indeed the Word of God and that “the saying of Jehovah endures forever.”—1 Pet. 1:25.[Footnotes]Of these there may have been as few as five; at the most eight. These, however. did not consist of the complete Christian Greek Scriptures but rather of one or more sections into which these Scriptures were generally divided for copying by hand: (1) the Gospels, (2) Acts and the general letters of James through Jude, (3) the letters of Paul, (4) Revelation.——————————————_————————————A reliable translation must:• Sanctify God’s name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures.—Matthew 6:9.• Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God.—2 Timothy 3:16.• Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.• Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning.• Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading.—Nehemiah 8:8, 12.REPUTABLE & AUTHORITATIVE NON-WITNESS COMMENTS:A Bible linguistic scholar, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.” His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation.” For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. What is his assessment? BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation.” While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” He calls it a “remarkably good” translation.Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: “This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation.“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson, in The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7.“The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963.“The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed—a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966.“This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. . . . After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary text. . . . The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate. . . . In sum, when a Witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to bring him in and place an order.”—From a review of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, by Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska, appearing in The Classical Journal, April–May 1974.REGARDING the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7.Andover Newton Quarterly of January 1963 referring to the New World Translation said: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”When the first volume of the “New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures” was published, Alexander Thomson, a British Bible critic, wrote: “Original renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures into the English language are extremely few. It therefore gives us much pleasure to welcome the publication of the first part of the New World Translation [of the Hebrew Scriptures], Genesis to Ruth. . . . This version has evidently made a special effort to be thoroughly readable. No one could say it is deficient in freshness and originality. Its terminology is by no means based upon that of previous versions.”—“The Differentiator,” June 1954, p. 131.In “The Classical Journal,” Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska wrote a review of “The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures” in which he said: “This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. Thus the interlinear feature of this book is no translation at all. A text with instant vocabulary more correctly describes it. A translation in smooth English appears in a slim column at the right-hand margin of the pages. . . .“The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”—April-May issue of 1974, pp. 375-6.“I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”—Letter, December 8, 1950, from Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation.New World TranslationDefinition: A translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.On what is the “New World Translation” based?As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.Who were the translators?When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”Is it really a scholarly translation?Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.Why is the name Jehovah used in the Christian Greek Scriptures?It should be noted that the New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.The emphasis that Jesus Christ put on the name of his Father indicates that he personally used it freely. (Matt. 6:9; John 17:6, 26) According to Jerome of the fourth century C.E., the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, and that Gospel makes numerous quotations of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contain the divine name. Others of the Christian Greek Scripture writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, begun about 280 B.C.E.), early copies of which contained the divine name in Hebrew characters, as shown by actual fragments that have been preserved.Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “Since the Tetragram [four Hebrew letters for the divine name] was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”—Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77.Why are some verses apparently missing?Those verses, found in some translations, are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts. Comparison with other modern translations, such as The New English Bible and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, shows that other translators have also recognized that the verses in question do not belong in the Bible. In some instances, they were taken from another part of the Bible and added to the text being copied by a scribe.Stand Complete and With Firm ConvictionThe New World Translation Appreciated by Millions WorldwideIT TOOK 12 years, 3 months, and 11 days of painstaking work. On March 13, 1960, however, the final segment of text for a new Bible translation was completed. It was called the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.One year later, Jehovah’s Witnesses published this translation in a single volume. That edition in 1961 had a printing of one million copies. Today, the number of printed copies has passed the one hundred million mark, making the New World Translation one of the most widely distributed Bibles. What, though, prompted the Witnesses to prepare this translation?Why a New Bible Translation?In order to understand and proclaim the message of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah’s Witnesses have over the years used many different English Bible translations. While these versions have their points of merit, they are often colored by religious traditions and the creeds of Christendom. (Matthew 15:6) Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore recognized the need for a Bible translation that faithfully presented what is in the original inspired writings.The first step toward filling this need was taken in October 1946 when Nathan H. Knorr, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, proposed the production of a new Bible translation. On December 2, 1947, the New World Bible Translation Committee set out to prepare a translation that would be faithful to the original text, would embody the latest scholarly findings gleaned from newly discovered Bible manuscripts, and would use language readily understood by today’s readers.With the publication of the first installment—the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures—in 1950, it became evident that the translators had met their objectives. Bible texts that had previously been only dimly understood became dramatically clear. For instance, consider the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (King James Version) It was rendered: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.” The apostle Paul’s admonition rendered “be careful for nothing” (King James Version) was translated: “Do not be anxious over anything.” (Philippians 4:6) And the apostle John’s reference to “the concupiscence of the flesh” (Douay Version) reads, “the desire of the flesh.” (1 John 2:16) Clearly, the New World Translation opened up a new world of understanding.Various scholars were impressed. For example, British Bible scholar Alexander Thomson noted that the New World Translation is outstanding in accurately rendering the Greek present tense. To illustrate: Ephesians 5:25 reads “Husbands, continue loving your wives” instead of saying merely “Husbands, love your wife.” (King James Version) “No other version appears to have exhibited this fine feature with such fulness and frequency,” said Thomson regarding the New World Translation.Another outstanding feature of the New World Translation is its use of God’s personal name, Jehovah, in both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of the Scriptures. Since the Hebrew name for God appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone, it is clear that our Creator wants his worshipers to use his name and to know him as a person. (Exodus 34:6, 7) The New World Translation has helped millions of people to do so.The New World Translation Goes MultilingualEver since it appeared in English, Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world longed to receive the New World Translation in their native tongue—and for good reason. In some countries, it was difficult to obtain translations in local languages because representatives of the Bible Societies distributing them were not pleased to see their stock of Bibles end up in the hands of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Moreover, such vernacular Bibles often conceal vital teachings. A typical example is a version in a southern European tongue that hides an important reference to God’s name by replacing Jesus’ words “Let your name be sanctified” with “May you be honored by people.”—Matthew 6:9.Already in 1961, translators began rendering the English text of the New World Translation into other languages. Just two years later, the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed in six additional languages. By then, 3 out of every 4 Witnesses worldwide could read this Bible in their own language. Yet, much more work had to be done if Jehovah’s Witnesses were to get a copy of this Bible into the hands of many millions of people.In 1989 that goal came closer with the setting up of Translation Services at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That department developed a method of translation that combined Biblical word study with computer technology. Using this system has made it possible to translate the Christian Greek Scriptures into some other languages in one year and the Hebrew Scriptures in two years—a fraction of the time normally required for a Bible translation project. Since this method was developed, 29 editions of the New World Translation have been translated from English and released in languages spoken by over two billion people. Work is now under way in 12 other languages. To date, the English New World Translation has been translated, in whole or in part, into 41 other languages.Over 50 years have now passed since the first part of the New World Translation was released on August 3, 1950, at the Theocracy’s Increase Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York City. On that occasion, Nathan H. Knorr urged the conventioners: “Take this translation. Read it through, a thing that will be done with enjoyment. Study it, for it will help you to better your understanding of God’s Word. Put it in the hands of others.” We encourage you to read the Bible daily, for its message can help you to “stand complete and with firm conviction in all the will of God.”—Colossians 4:12.How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?THE Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So most people who desire to read it must rely on a translation.Today, the Bible is the world’s most widely translated book—parts of it being available in over 2,400 languages. Some languages have not just one translation but scores of them. If you have a choice in your language, you surely want to use the very best translation you can find.To make an informed choice, you need to know the answers to the following questions: What different types of translations are available? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each type of translation? And why should you be cautious when reading some translations of the Bible?From One Extreme to the OtherBible translations cover a broad spectrum of styles, but they fall into three basic categories. Interlinear translations are at one end of the spectrum. These translations contain the original-language text along with a word-for-word rendering into the target language.Paraphrase translations fall at the other end of the spectrum. Translators of these versions freely restate the message of the Bible as they understand it in a way that they feel will appeal to their audience.A third category embraces translations that endeavor to strike a balance between these two extremes. These versions of the Bible strive to convey the meaning and flavor of the original-language expressions while also making the text easy to read.Are Word-for-Word Translations Best?A strictly word-for-word translation is often not the best possible way to capture the meaning of each Bible verse. Why not? There are a number of reasons. Here are two:1. No two languages are exactly alike in grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Professor of Hebrew S. R. Driver says that languages “differ not only in grammar and roots, but also . . . in the manner in which ideas are built up into a sentence.” People who speak different languages think differently. “Consequently,” continues Professor Driver, “the forms taken by the sentence in different languages are not the same.”Since no language exactly mirrors the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, a word-for-word translation of the Bible would be unclear or might even convey the wrong meaning. Consider the following examples.In his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul used an expression that is literally translated “in the (dice) cube of the men.” (Ephesians 4:14, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures) This expression refers to the practice of cheating others when using dice. In most languages, however, a literal rendering of this allusion makes little sense. Translating this expression as “the trickery of men” is a clearer way to convey the meaning.When writing to the Romans, Paul used a Greek expression that literally means “to the spirit boiling.” (Romans 12:11, Kingdom Interlinear) Does this wording make sense in your language? The expression actually means to be “aglow with the spirit.”During one of his most famous speeches, Jesus used an expression that is often translated: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (Matthew 5:3) But a literal rendering of this expression is obscure in many languages. In some cases, a strictly literal translation even implies that “the poor in spirit” are mentally unbalanced or lacking in vitality and determination. However, Jesus was here teaching people that their happiness depended, not on satisfying their physical needs, but on recognizing their need for God’s guidance. (Luke 6:20) So such renderings as “those conscious of their spiritual need” or “those who know their need for God” convey more accurately the meaning of this expression.—Matthew 5:3; The New Testament in Modern English.2. The meaning of a word or an expression may change depending on the context in which it is used. For instance, the Hebrew expression that normally refers to the human hand may have a wide variety of meanings. Depending on the context, this word may, for example, be rendered “control,” “openhandedness,” or “power.” (2 Samuel 8:3; 1 Kings 10:13; Proverbs 18:21) In fact, this particular word is translated in over 40 different ways in the English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.Because the context can affect the way a word is translated, the New World Translation uses nearly 16,000 English expressions to translate some 5,500 Biblical Greek terms, and it uses over 27,000 English expressions to translate about 8,500 Hebrew terms. Why this variety in the way words are translated? The translation committee judged that to render the best sense of these words according to the context was more important than to produce a strictly literal translation. Even so, the New World Translation is as consistent as possible in rendering Hebrew and Greek words into the target language.Clearly, Bible translation involves more than simply rendering an original-language word the same way each time it occurs. Translators must use good judgment in order to select words that present the ideas of the original-language text accurately and understandably. In addition, they need to assemble the words and sentences in their translation in a way that conforms to the rules of grammar of the target language.What About Free Translations?Translators who produce what are frequently referred to as paraphrase Bibles, or free translations, take liberties with the text as presented in the original languages. How so? They either insert their opinion of what the original text could mean or omit some of the information contained in the original text. Paraphrase translations may be appealing because they are easy to read. However, their very freeness at times obscures or changes the meaning of the original text.Consider the way that one paraphrase Bible translates Jesus’ famous model prayer: “Our Father in heaven, reveal who you are.” (Matthew 6:9, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language) A more accurate translation of Jesus’ words renders this passage: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” Note, too, the way that John 17:26 is rendered in some Bibles. According to one free translation, on the night of his arrest, Jesus said to his Father in prayer: “I made you known to them.” (Today’s English Version) However, a more faithful rendering of Jesus’ prayer reads: “I have made your name known to them.” Can you see how some translators actually hide the fact that God has a name that should be used and honored?Why the Need for Caution?Some free translations obscure the moral standards conveyed in the original text. For example, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language says at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10: “Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom.”Compare that version with the more accurate rendering found in the New World Translation: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.” Notice that the details outlined by the apostle Paul on exactly what kind of conduct we should avoid are not even mentioned in the free translation.Doctrinal bias can also color a translator’s work. For example, Today’s English Version, commonly called the Good News Bible, has Jesus saying to his followers: “Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate to hell is wide and the road that leads to it is easy, and there are many who travel it.” (Matthew 7:13) The translators inserted the term “hell” even though Matthew’s account clearly says “destruction.” Why did they do so? Likely, it is because they want to promote the idea that the wicked will be eternally tormented, not destroyed.Finding the Best TranslationIs such a translation available? Millions of readers of this journal favor using the New World Translation. Why? Because they agree with the approach taken by its translation committee, as stated in the foreword to the first English edition: “We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.”The New World Translation has been printed in whole or in part in more than 60 languages, with a total printing of more than 145,000,000 copies! If it is available in your language, why not ask Jehovah’s Witnesses for a copy and see for yourself the benefits of this accurate translation?Sincere Bible students want to grasp and act upon the message that God inspired. If you are such a person, you need an accurate Bible translation. Really, you deserve nothing less.[Footnotes]An interlinear translation enables the reader to see a literal rendering of each word along with the original-language text.It is noteworthy that some English Bible translations use a greater variety of equivalents than the New World Translation and thus are less consistent.The Bible teaches that at death we return to dust, that the soul dies, and that we no longer have thoughts or feelings. (Genesis 3:19; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6; Ezekiel 18:4) Nowhere does it teach that the souls of the wicked suffer eternal torment in a fiery hell.[Blurb on page 21]Paraphrase translations may be appealing because they are easy to read. However, their very freeness at times obscures or changes the meaning of the original text[Blurb on page 22]The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures has been printed in whole or in part in more than 60 languages, with a total printing of more than 145,000,000 copies![Box/Picture on page 20]AN ANCIENT PARAPHRASEParaphrases, or free translations, of the Bible are not new. In ancient times, the Jewish people compiled what are now called the Aramaic Targums, or loose paraphrases of the Scriptures. Though they are not accurate translations, they reveal how the Jewish people understood some texts and help translators to determine the meaning of some difficult passages. For example, at Job 38:7, “sons of God” is explained to mean “bands of the angels.” At Genesis 10:9, the Targums indicate that the Hebrew preposition used in describing Nimrod carries the hostile meaning “against” or “in opposition to” rather than simply meaning “before” in a neutral sense. These paraphrases accompanied the Bible text but were never intended as a substitute for the Bible itself.Studies on the Inspired Scriptures and Their BackgroundStudy Number 8—Advantages of the “New World Translation”A discussion of its modern language, its uniformity, its careful verb renderings, and its dynamic expression of the inspired Word of God.IN RECENT years a number of modern Bible translations have been published that have done much to help lovers of God’s Word to get to the sense of the original writings quickly. However, many translations have eliminated the use of the divine name from the sacred record. On the other hand, the New World Translation dignifies and honors the worthy name of the Most High God by restoring it to its rightful place in the text. The name now appears in 6,973 places in the Hebrew Scripture section, as well as in 237 places in the Greek Scripture section, a total of 7,210 places all together. The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name יהוה. Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed: “Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree, ‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.”2 The New World Translation is not the first version to restore the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. From at least the 14th century onward, many translators have felt forced to restore God’s name to the text, particularly in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote from Hebrew Scripture texts that contain the divine name. Many modern-language missionary versions, including African, Asian, American, and Pacific-island versions of the Greek Scriptures, use the name Jehovah liberally, as do some European-language versions. Wherever the divine name is rendered, there is no longer any doubt as to which “lord” is indicated. It is the Lord of heaven and earth, Jehovah, whose name is sanctified by being kept unique and distinct in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.3 The New World Translation adds further to the sanctification of Jehovah’s name by presenting his inspired Scriptures in clear, understandable language that brings the intended meaning plainly to the reader’s mind. It uses simple, modern language, is as uniform as possible in its renderings, conveys accurately the action or state expressed in the Hebrew and Greek verbs, and distinguishes between the plural and singular in its use of the pronoun “you” and when using the imperative form of the verb where the context does not make it apparent. In these and other ways, the New World Translation brings to light in modern speech, as much as possible, the force, beauty, and sense of the original writings.RENDERED IN MODERN LANGUAGE4 The older Bible translations contain many obsolete words that belong to the 16th and 17th centuries. Though not understood now, they were readily understood then. For example, one man who had much to do with putting them in the English Bible was William Tyndale, who is reported as saying to one of his religious opponents: ‘If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plow to know more of the Scriptures than you do.’ Tyndale’s translation of the Greek Scriptures was easy enough for a plowboy to understand in his time. However, many of the words he used have now become archaic, so that ‘a boy who drives the plow’ can no longer clearly grasp the meaning of many words in the King James and other older versions of the Bible. Thus, it has become necessary to remove the shrouds of archaic language and to restore the Bible to the ordinary language of the common man.5 It was the language of the common man that was used in writing the inspired Scriptures. The apostles and other early Christians did not use the classical Greek of philosophers such as Plato. They used everyday Greek, that is, Koine, or common Greek. Hence, the Greek Scriptures, like the Hebrew Scriptures before them, were written in the language of the people. It is highly important, then, that translations of the original Scriptures should also be in the language of the people, in order to be readily understood. It is for this reason that the New World Translation uses, not the archaic language of three or four centuries ago, but clear, expressive modern speech so that readers will really get to know what the Bible is saying.6 To give some idea of the extent of change in the English language from the 17th century to the 20th century, note the following comparisons from the King James Version and the New World Translation. “Suffered” in the King James Version becomes “allowed” in the New World Translation (Gen. 31:7), “was bolled” becomes “had flower buds” (Ex. 9:31), “spoilers” becomes “pillagers” (Judg. 2:14), “ear his ground” becomes “do his plowing” (1 Sam. 8:12), “when thou prayest” becomes “when you pray” (Matt. 6:6), “sick of the palsy” becomes “paralytic” (Mark 2:3), “quickeneth” becomes “makes . . . alive” (Rom. 4:17), “shambles” becomes “meat market” (1 Cor. 10:25), “letteth” becomes “acting as a restraint” (2 Thess. 2:7), and so on. From this the value of the New World Translation in using current words in place of obsolete words can well be appreciated.UNIFORMITY OF RENDERINGS7 The New World Translation makes every effort to be consistent in its renderings. For a given Hebrew or Greek word, there has been assigned one English word, and this has been used as uniformly as the idiom or context permits in giving the full English understanding. For example, the Hebrew word neʹphesh is consistently translated “soul.” The corresponding Greek word, psy·kheʹ, is translated “soul” in every occurrence.8 At some places a problem has arisen over the translation of homographs. These are words in the original language that are spelled the same but that have different basic meanings. Hence, the challenge is to supply the word with the correct meaning when translating. In English there are homographs such as “Polish” and “polish” and “lead” (the sheep) and “lead” (pipe), which are spelled identically but are distinctly different words. One Bible example is the Hebrew rav, which represents distinctly different root words, and these are therefore rendered differently in the New World Translation. Rav most commonly has the meaning “many,” as at Exodus 5:5. However, the word rav that is used in titles, as in “Rabshakeh” (Heb., Rav-sha·qehʹ) at 2 Kings 18:17, means “chief,” as when rendered “his chief court official” at Daniel 1:3. (See also Jeremiah 39:3, footnote.) The word rav, identical in form, means “archer,” which accounts for the rendering at Jeremiah 50:29. Word experts, such as L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, have been accepted as authorities by the translators in separating these identically spelled words.9 As to this feature of uniformity, note what Hebrew and Greek commentator Alexander Thomson had to say in his review on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. The version aims to keep to one English meaning for each major Greek word, and to be as literal as possible. . . . The word usually rendered ‘justify’ is generally translated very correctly as ‘declare righteous.’ . . . The word for the Cross is rendered ‘torture stake’ which is another improvement. . . . Luke 23:43 is well rendered, ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.’ This is a big improvement upon the reading of most versions.” On the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the same reviewer made this comment: “The New World Version is well worth acquiring. It is lively and lifelike, and makes the reader think and study. It is not the work of Higher Critics, but of scholars who honour God and His Word.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7, and June 1954, page 136.10 The consistency of the New World Translation has won many a technical Bible discussion in the field. For example, some years ago, a society of freethinkers in New York asked the Watch Tower Society to send two speakers to address their group on Biblical matters, which request was granted. These learned men held to a Latin maxim, falsum in uno falsum in toto, meaning that an argument proved false in one point is totally false. During the discussion, one man challenged Jehovah’s Witnesses on the reliability of the Bible. He asked that Genesis 1:3 be read to the audience, and this was done, from the New World Translation: “And God proceeded to say: ‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light.” Confidently, he next called for Genesis 1:14, and this also was read from the New World Translation: “And God went on to say: ‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens.’” “Stop,” he said, “what are you reading? My Bible says God made light on the first day, and again on the fourth day, and that is inconsistent.” Though he claimed to know Hebrew, it had to be pointed out to him that the Hebrew word translated “light” in verse 3 was ʼohr, whereas the word in verse 14 was different, being ma·ʼohrʹ, which refers to a luminary, or source of light. The learned man sat down defeated. The faithful consistency of the New World Translation had won the point, upholding the Bible as reliable and beneficial.CAREFUL VERB RENDERINGS11 The New World Translation gives special attention to conveying the sense of the action of the Greek and Hebrew verbs. In doing so, the New World Translation endeavors to preserve the special charm, simplicity, forcefulness, and manner of expression of the original-language writings. It has thus been necessary to use auxiliary verbs in English to convey carefully the actual states of the actions. Because of the power of their verbs, the original Scriptures are so dynamic and so expressive of action.12 The Hebrew verb does not have “tenses” in the way the term “tense” is applied to most languages of the West. In English, verbs are viewed particularly from the standpoint of tense, or time: past, present, and future. The Hebrew verb, on the other hand, basically expresses the condition of the action, that is, the action is viewed as either complete (the perfect state) or incomplete (the imperfect state). These states of the Hebrew verb may be used to indicate actions in the past or in the future, the context determining the time. For example, the perfect, or completed, state of the verb naturally represents actions in the past, but it is also used to speak of a future happening as if it had already occurred and were past, showing its future certainty or the obligation of it to occur.13 Accurately conveying the state of the Hebrew verb into English is most important; otherwise, the meaning may be distorted and a completely different thought expressed. For an example of this, consider the verbal expressions in Genesis 2:2, 3. In many translations, speaking of God’s resting on the seventh day, expressions such as “he rested,” “he desisted,” “he had desisted,” “he then rested,” “God rested,” and “he had rested” are used. From these readings one would conclude that God’s resting on the seventh day was completed in the past. But note how the New World Translation brings out the sense of the verbs used in the passage at Genesis 2:2, 3: “And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.” The expression in verse 2 “he proceeded to rest” is a verb in the imperfect state in Hebrew and so expresses the idea of an incomplete or continuing action. The rendering “he proceeded to rest” is in harmony with what is said at Hebrews 4:4-7. On the other hand, the verb in Genesis 2:3 is in the perfect state, but in order to harmonize with verse 2 and Hebrews 4:4-7, it is translated “he has been resting.”14 One of the reasons for inaccuracies in translating the Hebrew verbal forms is the grammatical theory today called waw consecutive. Waw (ו) is the Hebrew conjunction that basically means “and.” It never stands alone but is always joined with some other word, frequently with the Hebrew verb, in order to form one word with it. It has been, and still is, claimed by some that this relationship has the power to convert the verb from one state to another, that is, from the imperfect to the perfect (as has been done in many translations, including modern ones, at Genesis 2:2, 3) or from the perfect to the imperfect. This effect has been described also by the term “waw conversive.” This incorrect application of the verbal form has led to much confusion and to mistranslation of the Hebrew text. The New World Translation does not recognize that the letter waw has any power to change the state of the verb. Rather, the attempt is made to bring out the proper and distinctive force of the Hebrew verb, thus preserving the meaning of the original accurately.15 Similar care has been exercised in the translating of the Greek verbs. In Greek the verb tenses express not only the time of an action or state but also the kind of action, whether momentary, starting out, continuing, repetitious, or completed. Attention to such senses in the Greek verb forms leads to a precise translation with the full force of the action described. For example, giving the sense of the continuative idea where this occurs in the Greek verb not only brings out the true color of a situation but also makes admonition and counsel more forceful. For instance, the continuing disbelief of the Pharisees and Sadducees is brought home by Jesus’ words: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign.” And the need for continuing action in right things is well expressed by the words of Jesus: “Continue to love your enemies.” “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom.” “Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.”—Matt. 16:4; 5:44; 6:33; 7:7.16 The Greek has an unusual tense called the aorist, which refers to action that is punctiliar, or momentary. Verbs in the aorist may be rendered in a variety of ways, according to their context. One way in which it is used is to denote one act of a certain kind, though not related to any particular time. Such an example is found at 1 John 2:1, where many versions render the verb for “sin” so as to allow for a continuing course of sin, whereas the New World Translation reads, “commit a sin,” that is, a single act of sin. This conveys the correct meaning that if a Christian should commit an act of sin, he has Jesus Christ, who acts as an advocate, or helper, with the heavenly Father. Thus, 1 John 2:1 in no way contradicts but only contrasts with the condemnation of the ‘practice of sin’ found at 1 John 3:6-8 and 5:18.17 The imperfect tense in Greek may express not only an action that continues but also an action attempted but not accomplished. Note how Hebrews 11:17 in the King James Version reads: “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” The verb “offered up” differs in form in these two occurrences in the Greek. The first occurrence is in the perfect (completed) tense, whereas the second is in the imperfect (past continuous) form. The New World Translation, taking into account the different tenses, translates the verse: “Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man . . . attempted to offer up his only-begotten son.” The completed sense of the first verb is thus retained, while the imperfect tense of the second verb indicates that the action was intended or attempted but not carried out to completion.—Gen. 22:9-14.18 Careful attention to the function of other parts of speech, such as to the cases of nouns, has led to the clearing up of apparent contradictions. For example, at Acts 9:7, in recounting the remarkable experience of Saul on the road to Damascus, a number of translations say that his traveling companions ‘heard the voice’ but did not see anyone. Then, at Acts 22:9, where Paul is relating this incident, the same translations read that although they saw the light, ‘they did not hear the voice.’ However, in the first reference, the Greek word for “voice” is in the genitive case, but in the second instance, it is in the accusative case, as it is at Acts 9:4. Why the difference? None is conveyed in the above translations into English, yet the Greek, by the change of case, indicates something different. The men heard literally “of the voice” but did not hear it the way Paul did, that is, hear the words and understand them. Thus, the New World Translation, noting the use of the genitive at Acts 9:7, reads that the men who were with him were “hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not beholding any man.”PLURAL “YOU” INDICATED19 The older English forms of the second person singular, “thee,” “thou,” and “thy,” have been retained in some modern translations in cases where God is being addressed. However, in the languages in which the Bible was written, there was no special form of the personal pronoun for use in address to God, but the same form was used as when addressing one’s fellowman. So the New World Translation has dropped these now sanctimonious usages and employs the normal conversational “you” in all cases. In order to distinguish the second person plural “you” and verbs whose plural number is not readily apparent in English, the words are printed entirely in small capital letters. Often it is helpful to the reader to know whether a given Scripture text refers to “you” as an individual, or to “YOU” as a group of persons, a congregation.20 For example, at Romans 11:13 Paul is speaking to the many: “Now I speak to YOU who are people of the nations.” But at verse 17 the Greek changes to the singular “you,” and the application is brought down pointedly to the individual: “However, if some of the branches were broken off but you . . . were grafted in . . . ”NEW WORLD TRANSLATION IN OTHER LANGUAGES21 In 1961 it was announced that the Watch Tower Society was proceeding to render the New World Translation into six more widely used languages, namely, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. This translation work was entrusted to skilled and dedicated translators, all working together at the Watch Tower Society’s headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. They served as a large international committee working under competent direction. It was in July 1963, at the “Everlasting Good News” Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A., that the firstfruits of this translation work became available when the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was released simultaneously in the above six languages. Now inhabitants of the earth who speak languages other than English could begin to enjoy the advantages of this modern translation. Since then, translation work has continued, so that by 1989 the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures had appeared in 11 languages, with more than 56,000,000 copies having been printed.GRATITUDE FOR POWERFUL INSTRUMENT22 The New World Translation is indeed a powerful instrument for demonstrating that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.” From the points discussed in this study, we can appreciate that it is accurate and reliable and that it can provide genuine enjoyment to those who desire to hear God speak to man stirringly in modern, living language. The language of the New World Translation is spiritually arousing, and it quickly puts the reader in tune with the dynamic expression of the original inspired Scriptures. We no longer need to read and reread verses in order to understand obscure phrases. It speaks out with power and clarity from the very first reading.23 The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a faithful translation of God’s Word, “the sword of the spirit.” As such, it is indeed an effective weapon in the spiritual warfare of the Christian, an aid in ‘overturning strongly entrenched false teachings and reasonings raised up against the knowledge of God.’ How well it enables us to declare with better understanding the things beneficial and upbuilding, the glorious things related to God’s Kingdom of righteousness—yes, “the magnificent things of God”!—Eph. 6:17; 2 Cor. 10:4, 5; Acts 2:11.Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?DOES it matter whether God’s name appears in the Bible? God obviously felt so. His name, as represented by the four Hebrew characters known as the Tetragrammaton, appears almost 7,000 times in the original Hebrew text of what is commonly called the Old Testament.Bible scholars acknowledge that God’s personal name appears in the Old Testament, or Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original Greek manuscripts of the so-called New Testament.What happens, then, when a writer of the New Testament quotes passages from the Old Testament in which the Tetragrammaton appears? In these instances, most translators use the word “Lord” rather than God’s personal name. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament.What problems do Bible translators face when it comes to deciding whether to use God’s name in the New Testament? What basis is there for using God’s name in this part of the Holy Scriptures? And how does the use of God’s name in the Bible affect you?A Translation ProblemThe manuscripts of the New Testament that we possess today are not the originals. The original manuscripts written by Matthew, John, Paul, and others were well used, and no doubt they quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made. Of the thousands of copies of the New Testament in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were penned. It appears that by that time those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kuʹri·os or Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or copied from manuscripts where this had been done.Knowing this, a translator must determine whether there is reasonable evidence that the Tetragrammaton did in fact appear in the original Greek manuscripts. Is there any such proof? Consider the following arguments:▪ When Jesus quoted the Old Testament or read from it, he used the divine name. (Deuteronomy 6:13, 16; 8:3; Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 61:1, 2; Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; 22:44; Luke 4:16-21) In the days of Jesus and his disciples, the Tetragrammaton appeared in copies of the Hebrew text of what is often called the Old Testament, as it still does today. However, for centuries scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, as well as from manuscripts of the New Testament. Then in the mid-20th century, something remarkable came to the attention of scholars—some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day had been discovered. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters.▪ Jesus used God’s name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done “in the name of [his] Father.” In fact, Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”—John 5:43; 10:25.▪ The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Greek Scriptures. At Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, the divine name is embedded in the expression “Alleluia,” or “Hallelujah.” This expression literally means “Praise Jah, you people!” Jah is a contraction of the name Jehovah.▪ Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, . . . they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.” Thus, there is strong evidence that the Jews living in the second century C.E. believed that Christians used Jehovah’s name in their writings.Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself, in his comments on Psalm 2:2, stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”—Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1862, Vol. XII, col. 1104.As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., יהוה], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.” In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: “The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·phoʹne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI].”—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.—2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1.How Have Translators Handled This Issue?Is the New World Translation the only Bible that restores God’s name when translating the Greek Scriptures? No. Based upon the above evidence, many Bible translators have felt that the divine name should be restored when they translate the New Testament.For example, many African, American, Asian, and Pacific-island language versions of the New Testament use the divine name liberally. (See chart on page 21.) Some of these translations have appeared recently, such as the Rotuman Bible (1999), which uses the name Jihova 51 times in 48 verses of the New Testament, and the Batak-Toba version (1989) from Indonesia, which uses the name Jahowa 110 times in the New Testament. The divine name has appeared, too, in French, German, and Spanish translations. For instance, Pablo Besson translated the New Testament into Spanish in the early 20th century. His translation uses Jehová at Jude 14, and nearly 100 footnotes suggest the divine name as a likely rendering.Below are some examples of English translations that have used God’s name in the New Testament:A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863)The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898)St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford (1900)The Christian’s Bible—New Testament, by George N. LeFevre (1928)The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946)Recently, the 2004 edition of the popular New Living Translation made this comment in its preface under the heading “The Rendering of Divine Names”: “We have generally rendered the tetragrammaton (YHWH) consistently as ‘the LORD,’ utilizing a form with small capitals that is common among English translations. This will distinguish it from the name ʹadonai, which we render ‘Lord.’” Then when commenting on the New Testament, it says: “The Greek word kurios is consistently translated ‘Lord,’ except that it is translated ‘LORD’ wherever the New Testament text explicitly quotes from the Old Testament, and the text there has it in small capitals.” (Italics ours.) The translators of this Bible therefore acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) should be represented in these New Testament quotes.Interestingly, under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary makes this comment: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” And scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”Two Compelling ReasonsClearly, then, the New World Translation was not the first Bible to contain the divine name in the New Testament. Like a judge who is called upon to decide a court case for which there are no living eyewitnesses, the New World Bible Translation Committee carefully weighed all the relevant evidence. Based on the facts, they decided to include Jehovah’s name in their translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Note two compelling reasons why they did so.(1) The translators believed that since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah’s name from the text seemed inconsistent.Why is that a reasonable conclusion? About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) Does it sound logical to you that James would make such a statement if nobody in the first century knew or used God’s name?(2) When copies of the Septuagint were discovered that used the divine name rather than Kyʹri·os (Lord), it became evident to the translators that in Jesus’ day copies of the earlier Scriptures in Greek—and of course those in Hebrew—did contain the divine name.Apparently, the God-dishonoring tradition of removing the divine name from Greek manuscripts developed only later. What do you think? Would Jesus and his apostles have promoted such a tradition?—Matthew 15:6-9.➔ ‘But why,’ you may ask, ‘is God’s name not used in every place that it occurs in the original Bible text? Why are the titles LORD and GOD generally used in its place?’ In its preface the American Standard Version explains why it uses God’s name Jehovah, and why for a long time that name was not used: “The American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version . . . This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.” Yes, men who translated that Bible into English felt that the reasons why God’s name had been left out were not good. So they put it back into the Bible in its rightful places.Where is God’s name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?The New English Bible: The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use “Jehovah” in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: “The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.”Today’s English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: “THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.”King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: “My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost.” (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”)The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form “Yahweh,” but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under “Lord” and “Yahweh.”The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by “the LORD” in brackets.The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.The ‘Holy Scriptures’ translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text—A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “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.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.)Translators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write יהוה within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?No human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.Many scholars favor the spelling “Yahweh,” but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand, “Jehovah” is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries and preserves, equally with other forms, the four consonants of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.J. B. Rotherham, in The Emphasised Bible, used the form Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. However, later in his Studies in the Psalms he used the form “Jehovah.” He explained: “JEHOVAH—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name . . . in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahwéh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.”—(London, 1911), p. 29.After discussing various pronunciations, German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded: “From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”—Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.Most names change to some extent when transferred from one language to another. Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛, but the inspired writers of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form of the name, I·e·sousʹ. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. The same is true of other Bible names. How, then, can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language, while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshipers in a manner that honors him?Why is it important to know and use God’s personal name?Do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer. If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions.True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.—Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6.Ex. 3:15: “God said . . . to Moses: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “Jehovah the God of your forefathers . . . has sent me to you.” This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.’”Isa. 12:4: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.”Ezek. 38:17, 23: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘ . . . And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’”Mal. 3:16: “Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.”John 17:26: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”Acts 15:14: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.”Is Jehovah in the “Old Testament” Jesus Christ in the “New Testament”?Matt. 4:10: “Jesus said to him: ‘Go away, Satan! For it is written, “It is Jehovah [“the Lord,” KJ and others] your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.”’” (Jesus was obviously not saying that he himself was to be worshiped.)John 8:54: “Jesus answered [the Jews]: ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God.’” (The Hebrew Scriptures clearly identify Jehovah as the God that the Jews professed to worship. Jesus said, not that he himself was Jehovah, but that Jehovah was his Father. Jesus here made it very clear that he and his Father were distinct individuals.)Ps. 110:1: “The utterance of Jehovah to my [David’s] Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” (At Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus explained that he himself was David’s “Lord,” referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the one to whom Jehovah’s words were here directed.)Phil. 2:9-11: “For this very reason also God exalted him [Jesus Christ] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. [Dy reads: “ . . . every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.” Kx and CC read similarly, but a footnote in Kx acknowledges: “ . . . the Greek is perhaps more naturally rendered ‘to the glory,’” and NAB and JB render it that way.]” (Notice that Jesus Christ is here shown to be different from God the Father and subject to Him.)Call “on the Name of Jehovah”Really, the Scriptures themselves act as a conclusive “eyewitness” statement that early Christians did in fact use Jehovah’s name in their writings, especially when they quoted passages from the Old Testament that contain that name. Without a doubt, then, the New World Translation has a clear basis for restoring the divine name, Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures.How does this information affect you? Quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, the apostle Paul reminded the Christians in Rome: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Then he asked: “How will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard?” (Romans 10:13, 14; Joel 2:32) Bible translations that use God’s name when appropriate help you to draw close to God. (James 4:8) Really, what an honor it is for us to be allowed to know and to call upon God’s personal name, Jehovah.The Divine Name in the Hebrew ScripturesThe divine name in the ancient Hebrew letters used before the Babylonian exileThe divine name in the Hebrew letters used after the Babylonian exileThe divine name, represented by the four Hebrew consonants יהוה, appears nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. This translation renders those four letters, known as the Tetragrammaton, “Jehovah.” That name is by far the most frequently occurring name in the Bible. While the inspired writers refer to God by many titles and descriptive terms, such as “Almighty,” “Most High,” and “Lord,” the Tetragrammaton is the only personal name they use to identify God.Jehovah God himself directed Bible writers to use his name. For example, he inspired the prophet Joel to write: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” (Joel 2:32) And God caused one psalmist to write: “May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalm 83:18) In fact, the divine name appears some 700 times in the book of Psalms alone—a book of poetic writings that were to be sung and recited by God’s people. Why, then, is God’s name missing from many Bible translations? Why does this translation use the form “Jehovah”? And what does the divine name, Jehovah, mean?Excerpts from the Psalms in a Dead Sea Scroll dated to the first half of the first century C.E. The text is in the style of the Hebrew letters commonly used after the Babylonian exile, but the Tetragrammaton appears repeatedly in distinctive ancient Hebrew lettersWhy is the name missing from many Bible translations? The reasons vary. Some feel that Almighty God does not need a unique name to identify him. Others appear to have been influenced by the Jewish tradition of avoiding the use of the name, perhaps out of fear of desecrating it. Still others believe that since no one can be sure of the exact pronunciation of God’s name, it is better just to use a title, such as “Lord” or “God.” Such objections, however, lack merit for the following reasons:• Those who argue that Almighty God does not need a unique name ignore evidence that early copies of his Word, including those preserved from before the time of Christ, contain God’s personal name. As noted above, God directed that his name be included in his Word some 7,000 times. Obviously, he wants us to know and use his name.• Translators who remove the name out of deference to Jewish tradition fail to recognize a key fact. While some Jewish scribes refused to pronounce the name, they did not remove it from their copies of the Bible. Ancient scrolls found in Qumran, near the Dead Sea, contain the name in many places. Some Bible translators hint that the divine name appeared in the original text by substituting the title “LORD” in capital letters. But the question remains, Why have these translators felt free to substitute or remove God’s name from the Bible when they acknowledge that it is found in the Bible text thousands of times? Who do they believe gave them authority to make such a change? Only they can say.• Those who say that the divine name should not be used because it is not known exactly how to pronounce it will nevertheless freely use the name Jesus. However, Jesus’ first-century disciples said his name quite differently from the way most Christians do today. To Jewish Christians, the name Jesus was probably pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛. And the title “Christ” was Ma·shiʹach, or “Messiah.” Greek-speaking Christians called him I·e·sousʹ Khri·stosʹ, and Latin-speaking Christians Ieʹsus Chriʹstus. Under inspiration, the Greek translation of his name was recorded in the Bible, showing that first-century Christians followed the sensible course of using the form of the name common in their language. Similarly, the New World Bible Translation Committee feels that it is reasonable to use the form “Jehovah,” even though that rendering is not exactly the way the divine name would have been pronounced in ancient Hebrew.Why does the New World Translation use the form “Jehovah”? In English, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) are represented by the consonants YHWH. As was true of all written words in ancient Hebrew, the Tetragrammaton contained no vowels. When ancient Hebrew was in everyday use, readers easily provided the appropriate vowels.About a thousand years after the Hebrew Scriptures were completed, Jewish scholars developed a system of pronunciation points, or signs, by which to indicate what vowels to use when reading Hebrew. By that time, though, many Jews had the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Thus, it seems that when they copied the Tetragrammaton, they combined the vowels for the substitute expressions with the four consonants representing the divine name. Therefore, the manuscripts with those vowel points do not help in determining how the name was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Some feel that the name was pronounced “Yahweh,” whereas others suggest different possibilities. A Dead Sea Scroll containing a portion of Leviticus in Greek transliterates the divine name Iao. Besides that form, early Greek writers also suggest the pronunciations Iae, I·a·beʹ, and I·a·ou·eʹ. However, there is no reason to be dogmatic. We simply do not know how God’s ancient servants pronounced this name in Hebrew. (Genesis 13:4; Exodus 3:15) What we do know is that God used his name repeatedly in communication with his people, that they addressed him by that name, and that they used it freely in speaking with others.—Exodus 6:2; 1 Kings 8:23; Psalm 99:9.Why, then, does this translation use the form “Jehovah”? Because that form of the divine name has a long history in the English language.God’s name at Genesis 15:2 in William Tyndale’s translation of the Pentateuch, 1530The first rendering of God’s personal name in an English Bible appeared in 1530 in William Tyndale’s translation of the Pentateuch. He used the form “Iehouah.” Over time, the English language changed, and the spelling of the divine name was modernized. For example, in 1612, Henry Ainsworth used the form “Iehovah” throughout his translation of the book of Psalms. Then, in 1639, when that work was revised and printed with the Pentateuch, the form “Jehovah” was used. In 1901, the translators who produced the American Standard Version of the Bible used the form “Jehovah” where the divine name appeared in the Hebrew text.Explaining why he used “Jehovah” instead of “Yahweh” in his 1911 work Studies in the Psalms, respected Bible scholar Joseph Bryant Rotherham said that he wanted to employ a “form of the name more familiar (while perfectly acceptable) to the general Bible-reading public.” In 1930 scholar A. F. Kirkpatrick made a similar point regarding the use of the form “Jehovah.” He said: “Modern grammarians argue that it ought to be read Yahveh or Yahaveh; but JEHOVAH seems firmly rooted in the English language, and the really important point is not the exact pronunciation, but the recognition that it is a Proper Name, not merely an appellative title like ‘Lord.’”The Tetragrammaton, YHWH: “He Causes to Become”The verb HWH: “to become”What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.Therefore, the meaning of the name Jehovah is not limited to the related verb found at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become” or, “I Will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be.” In the strictest sense, those words do not fully define God’s name. Rather, they reveal an aspect of God’s personality, showing that he becomes what is needed in each circumstance to fulfill his purpose. So while the name Jehovah may include this idea, it is not limited to what he himself chooses to become. It also includes what he causes to happen with regard to his creation and the accomplishment of his purpose.The Divine Name in the Christian Greek ScripturesBible scholars acknowledge that God’s personal name, as represented by the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), appears almost 7,000 times in the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For this reason, most modern English Bibles do not use the name Jehovah when translating the so-called New Testament. Even when translating quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Tetragrammaton appears, most translators use “Lord” rather than God’s personal name.The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah a total of 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In deciding to do this, the translators took into consideration two important factors: (1) The Greek manuscripts we possess today are not the originals. Of the thousands of copies in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were composed. (2) By that time, those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or they copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.The New World Bible Translation Committee determined that there is compelling evidence that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the original Greek manuscripts. The decision was based on the following evidence:• Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text. In the past, few people disputed that conclusion. Now that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back to the first century have been discovered near Qumran, the point has been proved beyond any doubt.• In the days of Jesus and his apostles, the Tetragrammaton also appeared in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. For centuries, scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, in the mid-20th century, some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day were brought to the attention of scholars. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters. So in Jesus’ day, copies of the Scriptures in Greek did contain the divine name. However, by the fourth century C.E., major manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, did not contain the divine name in the books from Genesis through Malachi (where it had been in earlier manuscripts). Hence, it is not surprising that in texts preserved from that time period, the divine name is not found in the so-called New Testament, or Greek Scripture portion of the Bible.Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done in his “Father’s name”• The Christian Greek Scriptures themselves report that Jesus often referred to God’s name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done in his “Father’s name.”—John 5:43; 10:25.• Since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah’s name from the text would seem inconsistent. About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) It would not be logical for James to make such a statement if no one in the first century knew or used God’s name.• The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Christian Greek Scriptures. At Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, the divine name is embedded in the word “Hallelujah.” This comes from a Hebrew expression that literally means “Praise Jah.” “Jah” is a contraction of the name Jehovah. Many names used in the Christian Greek Scriptures were derived from the divine name. In fact, reference works explain that Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”• Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws that was completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week, “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [understood to refer to the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.”• Some Bible scholars acknowledge that it seems likely that the divine name appeared in Hebrew Scripture quotations found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” Scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”• Recognized Bible translators have used God’s name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some of these translators did so long before the New World Translation was produced. These translators and their works include: A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863); The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864); The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898); St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford (1900); The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946). In addition, in a Spanish translation in the early 20th century, translator Pablo Besson used “Jehová” at Luke 2:15 and Jude 14, and nearly 100 footnotes in his translation suggest the divine name as a likely rendering. Long before those translations, Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures from the 16th century onward used the Tetragrammaton in many passages. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use “Jehovah” (or the transliteration of the Hebrew “Yahweh”) in the Christian Greek Scriptures, while four translators add the name in parentheses after “Lord.” More than 70 German translations use the divine name in footnotes or commentaries.God’s name at Acts 2:34 in The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)• Bible translations in over one hundred different languages contain the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Many African, Native American, Asian, European, and Pacific-island languages use the divine name liberally. The translators of these editions decided to use the divine name for reasons similar to those stated above. Some of these translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures have appeared recently, such as the Rotuman Bible (1999), which uses “Jihova” 51 times in 48 verses, and the Batak (Toba) version (1989) from Indonesia, which uses “Jahowa” 110 times.God’s name at Mark 12:29, 30 in a Hawaiian-language translationWithout a doubt, there is a clear basis for restoring the divine name, Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures. That is exactly what the translators of the New World Translation have done. They have a deep respect for the divine name and a healthy fear of removing anything that appeared in the original text.—Revelation 22:18, 19.The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”Nash Papyrus, dated from the second or first century B.C.E., showing portions of Exodus and Deuteronomy. The divine name appears a number of times in the Hebrew text.When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO). Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed. However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done. *That practice creates a special challenge for anyone who translates the “New Testament.” For example, when a translator examines an “Old Testament” quotation in the Greek text of the “New Testament,” he will not see the Tetragrammaton anywhere in the Greek text from which he is translating. However, he should be aware of two basic facts: (1) The original quotation from the “Old Testament” may contain the Tetragrammaton, and (2) the Greek text that he is using is based on manuscripts from a period of time when copyists regularly substituted titles for the divine name. Realizing this, he must make an important decision. Will he follow the Greek text that uses Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ instead of the Tetragrammaton, or will he endeavor to ascertain where the Tetragrammaton would have appeared in the original Greek manuscripts?Both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts used by the Christian Bible writers contained the Tetragrammaton.The basic question that needs to be answered is this: Since the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original Hebrew text that was being quoted by the first-century Bible writers, did those writers deliberately substitute the word Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton each time they quoted from the “Old Testament”? Throughout the centuries, numerous Bible translators have concluded that such a substitution would not have taken place. Therefore, such translators have felt compelled to restore the divine name in their translations of the “New Testament.” The translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation agree with that viewpoint.The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3522, dated from the first century C.E., showing a portion of the book of Job. The Tetragrammaton appears in ancient Hebrew characters in this copy of the Septuagint.Verses Where the Name Jehovah Appears in Direct Quotations and Indirect ReferencesThe following list shows some of the verses where the name Jehovah occurs in the main text of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation. These verses contain either direct quotations from or indirect references to the original Hebrew text that uses the Tetragrammaton.VERSE CONTAINING JEHOVAH’S NAMEQUOTE OR REFERENCEMATTHEW 3:3Isa 40:3MATTHEW 4:4De 8:3MATTHEW 4:7De 6:16MATTHEW 4:10De 6:13; 10:20MATTHEW 5:33Le 19:12; Nu 30:2; De 23:21MATTHEW 21:9Ps 118:25, 26MATTHEW 21:42Ps 118:22, 23MATTHEW 22:37De 6:5MATTHEW 22:44Ps 110:1MATTHEW 23:39Ps 118:26MATTHEW 27:10Zec 11:13Verses Where the Name Jehovah Does Not Appear in Direct Quotations and Indirect ReferencesThe following list shows the remaining verses where the name Jehovah occurs in the main text of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation. These verses do not contain a direct quotation or an indirect reference to the “Old Testament.” However, there are either strong contextual grounds or linguistic reasons for restoring the divine name in these verses. After each occurrence, a reason is provided for restoring the divine name in the verse. A list is also provided of other Bible translations and references that have restored the divine name in that verse or have indicated that it should be represented. These have been designated by the letter J followed by a number.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J3, 4, 7-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”Below is a partial listing of Bible translations and reference works that have used some form of the divine name in the “New Testament.”J1Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, edited by J. du Tillet, with a Latin translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555.J2Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, incorporated as a separate chapter in ʼEʹven boʹchan [“Tried Stone”], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Edition: The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, by George Howard, Macon, Georgia, U.S.A., 1987.J3Gospel of Matthew and Letter to the Hebrews, in Hebrew and Latin, by Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively.J4Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551.J5Liturgical Gospels, in Hebrew, by F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1573.J6Liturgical Gospels, in German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576.J7“New Testament,” in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599-1600.J8“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661.J9The Four Gospels, in Hebrew and Latin, by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668.J10The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vols. I-III, containing the Gospel of Matthew to 1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.J11“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817.J12“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by William Greenfield, London, 1831.J13“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt, and S. Hoga, London, 1838.J14“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846.J15Bible books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, in Hebrew, by J.H.R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853, and 1858 respectively.J16“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt and J.H.R. Biesenthal, London, 1866.J17“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by Franz Delitzsch, London, (1981 Edition).J18“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.J19Gospel of John, in Hebrew, by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957.J20A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, Fourth Edition, Edinburgh, 1963.J21The Emphatic Diaglott (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942.J22“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979.J23“New Testament,” in Hebrew, by J. Bauchet and D. Kinnereth (Arteaga), Rome, 1975.J24A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863.J25St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900.J26Bible book of Psalms and Gospel of Matthew 1:1–3:6, in Hebrew, by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533.J27Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, by Dominik von Brentano, Third Edition, Vienna and Prague, 1796.J28The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament—Peshitta Aramaic Text With a Hebrew Translation, published by The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986.VERSES THAT DO NOT CONTAIN A DIRECT QUOTATION OR AN INDIRECT REFERENCEMATTHEW 1:20 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: The expression “Jehovah’s angel” occurs many times in Hebrew in the “Old Testament,” starting at Genesis 16:7. When “Jehovah’s angel” occurs in early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the “Old Testament,” the Greek word agʹge·los (angel; messenger) is followed by the divine name written with Hebrew characters. That is how this expression is handled at Zechariah 3:5, 6 in a copy of the Greek Septuagint found in Nahal Hever, Israel, which some scholars have dated between 50 B.C.E. and 50 C.E. It is noteworthy that when later copies of the Greek Septuagint replace the divine name with Kyʹri·os, in this and many other verses, the definite article is omitted. This may be another indication that Kyʹri·os replaces the divine name here and in similar contexts.• The Holy Scriptures, by J. N. Darby, 1920 (corresponding to the German Elberfelder Bibel, 1891), says in a footnote on this verse: “‘Lord’ without the article, signifying, as often, ‘Jehovah.’”• The Restored New Testament, by Willis Barnstone, 2009, states in a footnote on the expression “an angel of the Lord”: “From the Greek . . . (angelos kyriou), from the Hebrew . . . (malakh yahweh), . . . A literal rendering would be Yahweh’s malakh or ‘messenger.’” In the main text of Matthew 28:2, this translation reads: “An angel of Yahweh.”• The reference work Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1991, (Volume 2, pages 329-330) lists Matthew 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; 28:2 as verses where Kyʹri·os is “used in the NT [“New Testament”] of Yahweh/God.”• The Complete Jewish Bible, by David H. Stern, 1998, capitalizes the word ADONAI in this verse. In the Introduction to this Bible, the author explains: “The word ‘ADONAI’ is used . . . wherever I, as the translator, believe ‘kurios’ is the Greek representation of the tetragrammaton.”• The Companion Bible, 1999 printing, capitalizes LORD in the main text of Matthew 1:20 and adds this footnote by E. W. Bullinger: “The LORD = Jehovah.”MATTHEW 1:22 “spoken by Jehovah”REASON: The quotation that immediately follows (Matthew 1:23) is taken from Isaiah 7:14, which is the prophetic message spoken by Jehovah through Isaiah.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 7-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, 28MATTHEW 1:24 “the angel of Jehovah”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 7-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 2:13 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 6-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 2:15 “spoken by Jehovah”REASON: This quote is taken from Hosea 11:1, and Hosea 11:11 clearly shows that this is a statement made by Jehovah God.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 2:19 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 6-14, 16-18, 22-24, 28MATTHEW 28:2 “Jehovah’s angel”REASON: See comment on Matthew 1:20.OTHER TRANSLATIONS: J1-4, 7-13, 16-18, 22-24, 28