Is it proper to remove God's name from Bible translations ?

Question

John W. Davis, a missionary in China during the 19th century, explained why he believed that God’s name should be in the Bible:

“If the Holy Ghost says Jehovah in any given place in the Hebrew, why does the translator not say Jehovah in English or Chinese?
What right has he to say, I will use Jehovah in this place and a substitute for it in that?
. . . If any one should say that there are cases in which the use of Jehovah would be wrong, let him show the reason why; the onus probandi [burden of proof] rests upon him.
He will find the task a hard one, for he must answer this simple question,—If in any given case it is wrong to use Jehovah in the translation then why did the inspired writer use it in the original?”
—The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, Volume VII, Shanghai, 1876.

Answer 1

Is it proper to remove God's name?



Well, that depends wholly on what you mean by "proper". Since ancient times, the Jews were concerned about speaking the "ineffable name" with impropriety. The commandment against speaking the tetragrammaton (the four-letter Hebrew name of God) (Exodus 20:7) is fairly vague about what qualifies as "misusing" the name (or speaking it in vain), but is quite clear on the seriousness of such an offense.



As a result, the ancient Masoretes, when copying the Holy Scriptures, added the vowels (which they had invented) for the word "adonai" (meaning "lord") above the tetragrammaton so that readers would *see* the name of God, but would *speak* the word "lord", and thus avoid any accidental mispronunciation or other unforeseen or unknowing error in speaking the holy name of God.



This combination of two words was later copied by Christians ignorant of the Jewish practice into early bibles, thus giving rise to the word "Iehouah" which, when anglicized, became "Jehovah".



So, here is what we know.

1) "the lord" is not an accurate translation of the tetragrammaton

2) "the lord" is the traditional euphemism used by ancient Jews to guard against misusing the name of God. This practice is seen throughout the New Testament, which universally uses the Greek term for "the lord" when quoting scriptures from the Old Testament which include the tetragrammaton. Jesus himself is recorded as using the phrase "the lord" rather than the tetragrammaton when quoting Old Testament scriptures.

3) "Jehovah" is the anglicization of a copy error. Although it *is* remotely possible that "Jehovah" is an accurate transliteration of the tetragrammaton, the use of the "J" sound is generally regarded by linguists as *very* unlikely. Common scholarly transliterations of the tetragrammaton (including vowel sounds) are "Yahweh" and "Yahveh".



So, there *is* scriptural support (*lots* of it, in fact) for using the term "the lord" in place of the tetragrammaton. As mentioned, the New Testament universally makes use of this euphemism, and so does Jesus himself.



However, IMHO, a great disservice is done to readers of the bible - and an even greater disservice to listeners - when this substitution is made. From a scholarly point of view, it is an inaccurate translation of the tetragrammaton, and in addition leads to ambiguity and imprecision (full discussion of this aspect and comparison between translations at the site below)

http://www.bible-reviews.com/accuracytetragrammaton.html

As ingeniously established by the Jewish copyists in ancient times, the speaking of the tetragrammaton should be the decision of the reader, *not* the decision of the translators. Certainly, the *silent* reading of the tetragrammaton should remain, as the clarity of scriptures is so greatly enhanced by a transliteration.



So, to answer your question: is it proper? Yes, in so far as Jesus is recorded as using the very same euphemism. We must accept the reliability of the Gospel record with regards to Jesus' usage of the term "the lord". We can only *conjecture* that the spoken tetragrammaton was replaced with the written euphemism. It is far more likely that Jesus adopted the common practice of the Jews and used the euphemism himself (to avoid unnecessary offense).



But a further question might be asked: is it a *best practice* to remove the tetragrammaton? From a scholarly point of view, certainly not, as the classic euphemism introduces problems. Additionally, from the purely practical point of view of attempting to convey the precise meaning of scripture to the reader, the replacement of the tetragrammaton is counterproductive.



*At the least*, bible translations should, as was done by those ancient Jewish copyists, include both terms in a manner that permits the reader to recognize (and choose to speak) the name of God where it appears. Additionally, I would recommend for those passages in the New Testament that, in the source text, make use of this euphemism, a similar mechanism be used. In other words, the term "the lord" should be prominent, but include the presence of the tetragrammaton so that the reader may, once again, choose either the traditional euphemism or the actual name of God, but regardless will be *aware* of the presence of the name of God.



In translations that are supposed to be purely scholarly translations of the source manuscripts, the terms in the source manuscripts should be translated as they appear or, in the case of the tetragrammaton, transliterated. This practice has been implemented in the New Jerusalem Bible. There is no other translation of which I am aware that accurately either translates or transliterates the actual terms present in the source texts in these cases. (The New World Translation, for example, replaces "the lord" in several instances in the New Testament with "Jehovah", even in instances where the tetragrammaton is not found in any source manuscript. However, the New World Translation does have the scholarly decency to note every instance of this. Of course, a scholarly transliteration of the tetragrammaton would be superior to the very doubtful use of "Jehovah", as mispronunciation of the name *is* a consideration for some.)



Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/

Answer 2

in accordance to solid’s Lexicon Concordance the Tetragrammaton [???????] Jehovah, ideal call of the suited Hebrew God, later Hebrews for some centuries till now the time of Christ, the two deceive by fake interpretation of specific rules(Ex 20:7;Lev 24:11), or following some previous superstition known this call as so very holy, that it may not additionally be mentioned. Lexicon effects solid's H3068 - Y?hovah [???????] , define of Biblical utilization Jehovah = "the prevailing One"a million) the right call of the only genuine God approved version (KJV) Translation count huge form in the Hebrew scriptures of [???????] finished is: 6519 AV — LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variation a million Jesus gave us this at Mat 6:9 the Lord’s prayer he advised us to “make Holy” God’s call: 9 After this form consequently pray ye. Our Father who paintings in heaven, Hallowed be thy call. Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy would be carried out, as in heaven, so in the international. The clergy has supervised the translating of the Bible yet even under their eye’s Jehovah made advantageous his call could be conventional. the undeniable fact that Jehovah is the call of the Hebrew suited God has grow to be so glaring that the clergy now says that Jesus grew to become into Jehovah till now he grew to become into Jesus. Jesus has continuously mentioned his Father Jehovah is greater than him & the scriptures coach that Jehovah has set Jesus the optimal aside from himself(Matt 28:18;Hebrews a million:a million-13;Col a million:13-19)

Answer 3

I was confused by your question at first, but when I read the quote, it seems that the question really should be "Is it OK to call God by the name Jehovah?" in which case the answer would be that either is acceptable. For that matter, why Jehovah and not Yahweh?

Answer 4

You really know your research.



Anyway, to answer your question, DON'T REMOVE GOD'S NAME. I know Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't.



VIVA LA RAZA!

Answer 5

it shouldnt be removed

Answer 6

you must be a witness...good for u