The Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Chapter 1

 

The first chapter of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is very short, so this part of my series will be short as well. The translation I am using for this series was created by Mark M. Mattinson, and it is a public domain translation. Given how this translation is not protected under copyright law, I will be including the full text of the relevant passages for each of my entries in this series.

Let us begin.

CHAPTER 1: PROLOGUE

I, Thomas the Israelite, thought it necessary to make known to all the Gentile brothers (and sisters) all the things done by our Lord Jesus Christ in the village of Nazareth, after he was born in our region of Bethlehem. This is the beginning:

The first chapter ends with a transition into the next chapter. This chapter is entirely about the author, the people to whom he has addressed his writing, and the subject of his writing. The writer identifies himself as “Thomas the Israelite”. Presumably, this is the Thomas that was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. If you read the introduction that I wrote for this series, you are probably wondering, “Why did Daniel say that nobody knows who wrote the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Doesn’t the Infancy Gospel of Thomas begin with Thomas identifying himself as the author?”

I did not err in the statement that I made regarding the lack of information surrounding the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I had already known that Thomas was the person to whom the book in question has been attributed, but that does mean that he actually wrote it. The clearest evidence that suggests that this book was not, in fact, written by Thomas is the year that it was written. The ministry of Jesus Christ ended some time in the early first century, while the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was most likely written some time in the second century, The evidence in question is so damning to the legitimacy of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that I would feel comfortable referring to said evidence as being proof, rather than evidence. Thomas had been deceased for a while before this book had been written, so he absolutely did not write this book.

I could spend much more time coming up with more arguments to refute, but I would rather get into the interesting part of this chapter.

I would like to draw your attention to the phrase “thought it necessary to make known”, and how it makes the author sound like a tattletale. What some (though, not many) would claim to be a “lost book of the Bible” sounds more like a letter a preschool teacher would write to a parent, informing the parent of their child’s misbehavior and poor hygiene.

Thomas (yes, I know Thomas did not write this, but I cannot keep explaining this every time I have to mention the author) begins by letting us know that he felt it was necessary to write about what Jesus had been up to in His early years. Thomas addresses his writing to his Gentile “brothers (and sisters)”.

Perhaps the choice to include “(and sisters)” was made by the translator(s), but I would like to imagine that the original author was an egalitarian.

There is not much more to this chapter, so I would like to conclude this essay with a paraphrase of the text:

CHAPTER 1: PROLOGUE, BUT IT IS ALL ABOUT ME (THOMAS)
I am Thomas. I am most notable for being an Israelite, but that will never be important, so forget I even mentioned it. I am writing this to my Gentile gals and pals, just to let you all know about what Jesus was doing when He was a little kid. I did not want to write this, but He forced my hand.

Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, but if you cared about His birth, you would be reading Matthew or Luke. You are reading my writing, so you are obviously more interested in what Jesus actually did as a child. Buckle up, folks:

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Introduction

If you are a Christian, you have probably read one (or all) of the four Gospels, found in the New Testament. There is the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of John. But, what if there was a new gospel, a “fresh” gospel, a gospel that shows us the side of Jesus that “they” do not want us to see?

Well, that would be something, I suppose.

Since the beginning of Christianity, there have been attempts to add to the existing books of the Bible, attempts to rewrite the Bible to fit a specific theology, and there have been books that have been accepted amongst certain groups of Christians, while other Christians have rejected said books. The most well-known books to be disputed are part of what is referred to as the Apocrypha. I do not believe that the books of the Apocrypha should be part of the Bible, but there are many Christians who disagree with me (most notably, the Catholic Church, and various Orthodox churches).

Despite their disagreements, Catholics and non-Catholics can agree that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is heretical, and should definitely not be included in any Bible, anywhere.

What is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Well, nobody really knows. It is generally agreed upon that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was written somewhere in the second century. In other words, this book was written long after the four gospels (the real ones) were written. Nobody knows who wrote the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, nor do we know how the author even knew the stories he (or she) wrote about. The book describes the childhood of Jesus, but in a very interesting way. Rather than the wise, sinless, perfect Jesus that we know and love, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas portrays a child, allegedly named Jesus, who makes magical mud birds and murders children. Obviously, this book describes a totally different Jesus, which is exactly why the Church has rejected the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

My purpose in asking such a strange series of questions in the first paragraph was so that I could explain the reason why we even have these fake gospels. People who hate Christianity love the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, as well as the other fake gospels, since these books portray Jesus as being evil, harsh, and sinful.

My purpose in writing about this book is to help others understand why this book is not God’s Word, so that people can defend the inerrancy of the Bible against its critics, and so that we can have a bit of fun and laugh at the ridiculousness of this book.

I cannot lie: I love this book, but not for the reason why others do. I love this book because it is so absurd that it becomes genuinely hilarious. I think that other people will join me in mocking the silliness of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

I will begin to read and write about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and I will put out my writing in a chapter-by-chapter format. I have many subjects that I really look forward to writing about, but this subject has been one of the most exciting ones. Remember, it is okay to laugh at the attacks on Christianity, but we must remember the reason that this false gospel was written: to undermine the teachings of Christianity, to tarnish the reputation of Jesus Christ, and to take people away from the Church. This book is absolutely evil, and we must remember that it was not written to be humorous, it was written to attack Christianity.

Modalism

  The concept of the Trinity can be very difficult to understand. The difficulty of understanding the Trinity has led many to become confused about their faith, with some opting to abandon their faith entirely. Others, however, have sought to make a version of the Trinity that makes sense to them, despite their version of the Trinity being in contradiction to the Bible. There are many different flavors of heresy that one may hear about, especially when it comes to the Trinity. This post is about one of the most well-known heresies about the Trinity: modalism.

Modalism denies the existence of the Trinity, which is why modalism is a heretical doctrine. Instead of God existing in three distinct, coexisting, coequal Persons, modalism effectively reduces God to a Being Who can transform into one of three forms. For example, God (as seen in the Old Testament) was in the form of the Father, but God became Jesus when it came time for the events of the New Testament to take place. After ascending to Heaven, Jesus would have become the Holy Spirit. Modalism is the belief that God exists as a single Being, Who can change into different forms, at different times, but cannot be in all three forms at once.

Again, this is a heretical doctrine, which would mean that one cannot believe in modalism and still be a Christian. This belief rejects one of the core beliefs of Christianity.

Did God Create Evil?

If you are like me, you take your beliefs very seriously. When I say that I believe something, I truly believe it. One of the things that makes me confident in my faith in Christ is the reliability of the Bible. I have done plenty of research, yet I have never found a compelling argument against the Bible, nor have I found a compelling argument against the existence of God. However, there have been several arguments that really confused me. One of the most interesting arguments against Christianity is that God created evil. As a devout Christian who studies his Bible regularly, I am well aware of the passage in question, but I have spoken to other Christians who had no idea that there was a passage that says that God created evil. In order to help my brothers and sisters in Christ defend their faith, I am going to break down the aforementioned argument, explain why the argument is misleading, and provide the evidence to support my position. I will also explain how I was able to come to my conclusion, so that others can learn how to do the type of research that I do on a regular basis. Without further ado, let us examine the claim that God created evil.

The verse that this claim usually comes from is Isaiah 45:7. In the ESV, it reads:

I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

The way the ESV words the verse is the way you would read it in the NIV, NLT, BSB, NKJV, NASB2020, NASB1995, NASB1977, AMP, CSB, HCSB, CEV, ISV, and pretty much every major translation from the last half century. However, if you find this verse in the King James Version, for example, it reads:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and I create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Aside from the KJV, the American Standard Version is the only other well-known translation to use the word “evil” in this verse.

So, what is going on? Why does the KJV say that God created evil? Did God create evil? Have modern Bible translations been corrupted? The answer to those questions are “because it is a very outdated and objectively poor (in certain parts) translation”, “no”, and “no”, respectively.

There is a lot more to discuss about why, in my opinion, one should avoid using the King James Version as his primary translation, but that is a topic for another essay. For now, let us go onto the next part of examining this verse: understanding the context.

The verse comes from Isaiah, and it is a message from God, directed toward Cyrus, whom the Lord refers to as “his anointed”. God says that He has grasped the right hand of Cyrus, “to subdue nations before him and to loose the belt of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed” [Isaiah 45:1 (ESV)]. In verse 2, God tells Cyrus how He will “go before you [Cyrus] and level the exalted places”, and that He will “give you [Cyrus] the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places” [Isaiah 45:3]. In verse 4, God tells Cyrus that he has been called by God. The first five verses of this chapter are God explaining to whom He is speaking, why He is speaking to Cyrus, and how He will show Cyrus that He is God.

Verse 5 is where we get into the part of the chapter where the subject of this essay comes from:

I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is non besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. [Isaiah 45:5-6 (ESV)]

Now that we have reached the main verse that we are discussing in this essay, we can understand the meaning of the verse, in context. Cyrus has been chosen by God, God will show Cyrus that He is truly God, and God declares that there is only one God. Then, God tells Cyrus that all things come from Him, that He has the power to create, to destroy, to create light, to create darkness, to “make well-being”, and to “create calamity”. The last two things that God mentions are the things that we are most interested in.

Finally, let us examine what the word “evil” has been translated from.

According to the Lexham Theological Wordbook, the word ”רַע” (pronounced, “rah”), which, as a noun, means “evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity”. This definition makes sense, given the way every Bible translation seems to have one of the words used to define the original word in Hebrew. The King James Version uses the word “evil”, but, as is the case with many of the words in the KJV, that word does not mean the same thing today as it once meant.

According to etymonline.com, the word “evil” comes from the Old English “yfel”, meaning “bad, vicious, ill, wicked”. It goes on to explain that, “as a noun in Old English”, the word meant, “what is bad; sin; wickedness; anything that causes injury, morally or physically”. While the Old English form of this word did mean “extreme moral wickedness”, that definition “did not become the main sense of the modern word until [the 18th century]”. The King James Version was originally published in 1611, which would mean that the meaning of evil (as it is used today) was not what the word meant at that time.

In short, God is telling Cyrus that He is God, and how He can give (in the words of the NLT) “good times”, and “bad times”, not that He creates good and evil.

Yes, the Bible Condemns Rape.

[Written August 24, 2022]

While I was conducting some research to find topics to write about, I came across an article that caught my attention. The article is titled, “Ten Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer”, written by Casper Rigsby of Atheist Republic. I would love to respond to each of the questions posed by Rigsby, but I cannot respond to each of them right now. In the future, when I have more time, I plan on revisiting this article. For now, I would like to address the first half of the first question posed by Rigsby:

“Can you make a moral judgement against rape or slavery using only scripture?[sic]”

Yes.

I could leave my response at that, given that the author of the article does not cite any passages to support their claim about there being no passage that condemns rape. However, my response is designed to bring some kind of sense to a rather simple question, posed by a man who is not educated in the Bible. The article describes how, “they [Christians] can search the bible till their fingers fly off, and not once will find a single scripture that says rape and slavery are morally wrong. Not even one.”

The statement in question is verifiably false, and I will explain how Rigsby is incorrect, but I want to take a moment to clarify a few things. I have quoted the author of the article correctly, including the way he intentionally leaves “Bible” in lowercase. He does the same with the words “Scripture” and “God”. The decision to leave said words in lowercase shows the author’s contempt for the faith of Christians, as well as his devotion to being condescending and dismissive of other beliefs, to the point where he actually harms his writing by leaving a proper noun (“the Bible”) in lowercase. I am not a Muslim, but I would still capitalize the name of their holy book. This is a concept that one would be taught in elementary school, and a topic that Rigsby is surely aware of, yet he chooses to make a grammatical error just to get in another dig at Christians. The author also uses language that would lead the reader to assume the article was written by a man with extensive knowledge of the Bible, despite the author having a very limited understanding of the Bible. There are plenty of atheists that are respectful, educated, and genuinely interested in a discussion. The author of this article is not one of those atheists.

The first passage that I want to draw your attention to is Genesis 34. This chapter is about the defiling of Dinah. Jacob (who would go on to become Israel) had a child with Leah, and that child was Dinah. Dinah was “seized” by Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, who was the “prince of the land”. The ESV describes how Shechem “seized her [Dinah] and lay with her and humiliated her. [Genesis 34:2]”. In short, Dinah was raped.

Now, what happens next? Hamor, the father of the man who raped Dinah, tries to get Jacob to give Dinah in marriage to Shechem. Jacob makes a deal where, if all the men are circumcised (as the Jewish people were), he would give Dinah for Shechem to marry. This deal was made “deceitfully, because he [Shechem] had defiled their sister Dinah. [Genesis 34:13].”

So, Jacob’s daughter was raped, then he gave her to the man who raped her? No. In verse 25, we are told about Simeon and Levi (two of Dinah’s brothers) taking their swords and killing all the men in the town. Verse 26 tells us that the brothers killed Hamor and Shechem (the father and the rapist, respectively), then took Dinah away from Shechem’s house. Verse 27 describes how the brothers “came upon the slain and plundered the city, because they had defiled their sister”. Jacob was upset about what his sons had done, as he feared that he and his household would be destroyed because of what his sons had done. The chapter ends with the response given by the brothers: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute? [Genesis 34:31]”

The chapter ends there. What does this chapter tell us? This chapter describes Dinah being raped, her brothers killing the man who raped their sister, killing the father of the rapist, and killing all the men in the town. Jacob tells his sons how they may be destroyed for what they did, but the brothers basically tell their father, “it was worth it.”

I have provided an example of the Bible condemning rape, despite Rigsby’s claims that no such condemnation exists in the Bible. To further illustrate how silly of a question Rigsby has asked, let me describe some more examples of the Bible condemning rape:

Deuteronomy 22:25:

“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”

This verse describes how a man who rapes a betrothed woman should be put to death. Verses 23 and 24 describe a similar scenario, except the woman is in a town, and the woman does not resist the man. In the previous example, by not resisting the rapist, she consents. As for what would constitute “resistance”, verse 24 mentions the woman never letting out a “cry for help”. Basically, if a man wants to have sex with a woman, and that woman does not try and fight or make a sound, she would effectively be consenting to the act. The requirement that a woman resist her rapist is not important if the rape takes place in a location where nobody could witness the rape. In such a case, the woman is not punished, but the man is put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

One may look at this passage and be upset at the seemingly insignificant ramifications for raping a woman, but there is a cultural aspect to this punishment that one must understand. Virginity was incredibly important in those days, to the point where a woman would likely never marry if she was not a virgin. By raping a virgin, the rapist is removing her hope for a future, which means that she will live with her family for her entire life, she will never have children, and her family will be required to take care of her. In order to deter the rapist, the Bible requires that, in such a scenario, the rapist pay the father of the victim, and that the rapist is now required to marry and take care of his victim for the rest of her life. This passage deters the rapist, while providing some kind of security for the victim. Whether one agrees with the punishment that this passage describes, this passage definitely condemns rape.

Casper Rigsby claimed that Christians could not find a single example of the Bible condemning rape, yet I have presented you all with three examples of the Bible condemning rape.

In order to address a common argument against the Bible (concerning rape), I would like to dedicate the remaining portion of this entry to discussion Numbers 31. It does not take much to explain why this chapter does not support rape, but let me explain it anyway:

Yes, Numbers 31 does allow for the Israelites to take female captives. No, it does not give the Israelites the authority to rape them. The captives may have married the Israelites (they probably did), but that does not mean that the Israelites raped the captives. If the Israelites did rape their captives, the Israelites in question would be put to death (see my explanation of Deuteronomy 22).

The New Testament never describes rape, but it does condemn sexual immorality (which would include sex with a person outside of marriage), and it commands Christians to submit to the governing authorities. The governing authorities had already made rape illegal, so Christians would not be allowed to rape.

In short: the Bible condemns rape.

- Daniel Teberian

Here is the link to the article that I responded to:

https://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/casper-rigsby/ten-questions-biblical-literalists-cannot-honestly-answer

A Warning (Against Participating in Ministry to the Jehovah's Witnesses)

[Originally written August 14, 2022. This is an entry from a larger research/writing project to equip Christians with the necessary information to help Jehovah's Witnesses see the light of Christ.]

This entry is not designed to confront the teachings of the JWs, nor to prepare one to minister to them, but to warn those who are interested in joining this ministry effort. For a while, I have been praying and researching the material that I discuss in my entries. I have spent time with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, read their literature, spoken with ex-JWs, and sought wisdom from the Lord and from more mature Christians. The things that I have learned, and the things that I have experienced, have led me to writing this entry. I believe that my job is to educate Christians about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, so that Christians can go out, preach the Gospel, and that many lives can be saved. However, there are some very big risks that one must take in order to participate in this ministry effort, and I feel like I need to explain what those risks are, and how to minimize them.

1. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are good at what they do.

While this is not always the case, in general, Jehovah’s Witnesses have an excellent understanding of their beliefs, and they have an excellent understanding of how to address arguments against said beliefs. The average JW is much less likely to know the way to deal with people who challenge them on their beliefs, but, just as there are expert apologists in Christianity, there are expert apologists in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Ministering to the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not something that one can do without investing a considerable amount of time into studying. You will not see Jehovah’s Witnesses turning around in droves, following you towards the truth of Christ (there are exceptions, and I hope that there are more in the future). In reality, you will be committing to a long-term, in-depth, study and relationship with Jehovah’s Witnesses. You do not have to (nor should you) renounce your Christian faith, nor do you have to avoid discussing your faith, but you do have to surround yourself with people that do not know Jesus, and are actively trying to draw you away from your faith.

2. Satan uses false religions to harm our faith and lead us away from God.

The Bible makes it very clear how the devil will use false prophets, false religions, and individuals who claim to know Christ, for the purpose of infiltrating into our lives and destroying our faith from the inside. This ministry requires one to venture into the enemy camp and expose himself to the attacks that the devil will inevitably direct towards him. This ministry will cause you to experience an increased volume of attacks on your spirit, along with attacks on others involved with you/this ministry. We have the ability to fight against such attacks, as we are given access to our Father, and God is all-powerful, but unless you know how to identify and address demonic oppression in your life, it is not advised that you participate in this ministry.

3. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are very well organized, and they will keep track of you.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses will be very careful about what they tell you, and what they invite you to. As you grow in your relationship with the JWs, they will pay more attention to you and your life. The JWs are amongst the best in terms of following up with people and keeping track of events and dates. If you enter into this ministry, do not expect to be able to just leave when you feel like it. This ministry is all about leading others to Christ through relationships and fellowship with others.

4. There is the risk of one’s faith being irreparably damaged by the false teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The stories of people who have left the JWs are very different from each other, but one thing is almost always present in an ex-JW’s testimony: the long-lasting trauma and distrust of others, combined with a prolonged period of dealing with the brainwashing that they have been victims of. If you are not strong in your faith, if you do not have the ability to address the teachings that you will be exposed to, and if you lack the ability to remain confident in your faith, you will be putting yourself in the position to potentially lose your faith altogether when you are involved with the JWs. The JWs are a cult, and they could not exist without brainwashing others. By participating in this ministry, you are voluntarily exposing yourself to said brainwashing, in order to rescue people from the path that they are on.

5. By leading JWs away from their current beliefs, you will bear the weight (on your conscience) of the fallout that will inevitably take place in their lives.

The consequences of leaving the JWs are numerous, and the consequences are incredibly severe. People who leave the JWs are viewed as being apostates, and the other JWs are instructed to completely cut ties between themselves and those who have been “disfellowshipped” [refer to the entry on disfellowshipping for more information]. This policy applies to family, as well as friends. By participating in this ministry, you are aiming for people to leave the JW organization and follow Christ. If you are successful in your efforts (which I pray that you are), you will inevitably cause the JW to lose their social connection, their family, and their way of life. That type of loss will destroy a person, and you must be able to assist the individual so that they have the support needed to get back on their feet. There is a sense of guilt that will likely follow a successful conversion to Christianity, but such guilt is worth the promise of everlasting life for the person, through Jesus Christ.

6. There is always a risk of feeling overwhelmed, discouraged, or confused, which could lead to one’s faith being harmed.

Jesus speaks about the challenges that will come to those who follow Him. Jesus tells us that we will be hated for following Christ, and the Epistles go into more detail about the suffering that comes to those who seek the Lord. In ministering to others, you will encounter hardships. Again, you will encounter hardships. This is a reality of seeking God, and a reality of openly professing your faith. The Bible tells us about the rewards that will be given to us when we suffer unjustly, and when we suffer for the sake of the Gospel. God will take care of you, He will strengthen you, and He will guide you, but you must know how to seek Him and His guidance. If you are new to your faith, or you have been doubting your faith/salvation, then you should not participate in this ministry.*

* It is a normal thing for people to doubt themselves and their beliefs occasionally. This statement is about those who consistently doubt their faith.

The Truth About God's Divine Name

[Originally written August 11, 2022.]

One of the most notable beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is that God’s true name is “Jehovah”. This entry will explain why they believe that God’s name is Jehovah, followed by my response to each of the arguments made in favor of said belief.

According to the JW website:

“Jehovah is God’s unique name as revealed in the Bible. (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 83:18) It comes from a Hebrew verb that means ‘to become,’ and a number of scholars suggest that the name means ‘He Causes to Become.’ This definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator and Fulfiller of his purpose. (Isaiah 55:10, 11)”

יהוה

“Jehovah” is the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate the Hebrew word for God. The specific word is referred to as the Tetragrammaton, composed of four Hebrew letters (written above). These Hebrew letters can be transliterated as “YHWH”. Ancient Hebrew (which the Old Testament was primarily written in) does not have any vowels. Obviously, Hebrew has the sounds for vowels, but those sounds are never expressed in writing. The way that people would work around the lack of vowels in written Hebrew was by giving certain letters additional meanings (similar to how “th” is not pronounced as “tuh-huh”). Most of the time, however, the vowels would be supplied by the reader of the text. For example, an English speaker could read, “rd ppl” and, with some thinking, deduce that the meaning is “red apple”. The issue is that some could read that same phrase and come away with “rud eppli”, “rad ipple", or some other incorrect interpretation. Note that nobody would come away with something such as “rxd dpplz”, as English speakers are well aware that such a phrase could not be pronounced, as there is no way (in English, at least) to pronounce those letters, written in that order. Remember that last example, as it will be used again in a bit.

So, with the vowels in ancient Hebrew being inferred by the one reading the text, the word “YHWH” could be interpreted in several ways. The JW website concedes that “the exact pronunciation of the divine name in ancient Hebrew is not known”, yet they assert that the correct pronunciation is “Jehovah”, citing the “long history” of that pronunciation. The origin of the pronunciation that the JW’s use comes from (according to the JW website) the Bible translation that William Tyndale produced in 1530. Tyndale did not make the same mistake that the Jehovah’s Witnesses make, and the JWs specifically mention how Tyndale translated the Tetragrammaton as “Iehouah”, but, as English changed, “the spelling of the divine name was modernized.” The translation of the Tetragrammaton that the JWs use hinges on the revised version of a translation of Psalms by a man named Henry Ainsworth. Ainsworth originally used “Iehovah” when he released his 1612 translation of the book of Psalms, but he modified the translation to “Jehovah” for his 1639 revision of his translation. The JWs also cite the American Standard Version (ASV) of the Bible as supporting their belief about the correct pronunciation of the “divine name”. The ASV was published in 1901, and it used “Jehovah”, rather than “Iehovah”.

The JW website explains that, after the Old Testament was written, “some Jews adopted the superstitious belief that it was wrong to utter God’s personal name”. This statement is worth mentioning for two reasons:

1. The word “superstitious” is derogatory and condescending. Merriam-Webster defines “superstition” as “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or change, or a false conception of causation”, or “a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary”. By describing the aforementioned belief as “superstitious”, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are attempting to elevate their understanding of the Bible above the understanding of the Jewish people.

2. The refusal to pronounce the name of God was not based on fear (in the modern sense of the word) as much as it was based on a deep respect and admiration for God. There are many different explanations for why the Jews refused to pronounce the name of God, but the most compelling explanation (in my opinion) is that the Jewish people believed that saying the name of God would be in violation of the Third Commandment (“thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”).

The JWs continue by describing how, as “this superstition spread”, the “ancient pronunciation was eventually lost”. I would ask the reader to refer to the previous portion of this entry, which explains how the Jews did not pronounce God’s name, therefore there would be no “ancient pronunciation”. The JW website explains the way the name of God has been transliterated as “Yahweh”, “Iao”, “Iae”, and so on. A notable exception to the list of transliterated forms of the “divine name”: Jehovah.

Before we go into the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ arguments in favor of their understanding of the name of God, I would like to make something very clear: there is no “J” sound in ancient Hebrew.

The pronunciation of the divine name could not be “Jehovah”, just as my example of “rd ppl” could not be pronounced as “rxd dpplz”. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of right and wrong. There could not be a word with a “J” sound, as there is no such sound in ancient Hebrew. “Jehovah” is an objectively, and verifiably, incorrect translation of the ancient Hebrew word for God.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ arguments:

1. “Translations that use ‘Jehovah’ have added this name.”

This statement is responded to by the Jehovah’s Witnesses describing the “fact” (in bold lettering) that the Tetragrammaton appears “some 7,000 times in the Bible”. The conclusion that the JWs draw from the Tetragrammaton appearing “some 7,000 times” is that “most translations arbitrarily remove God’s name and replace it with a title such as ‘Lord’”.

2. “Almighty God does not need a unique name.”

This is one of the issues that Jehovah’s Witnesses make a big deal out of. The response to this “misconception” is that God inspired the authors of the Bible to “use his name thousands of times”, and that God has instructed us to worship Him by His Name. The verses that the JWs cite are Isaiah 42:8 (“I am the LORD; that is my name” [ESV]), Joel 2:32 (“everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” [ESV]), Malachi 3:16 (“a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the LORD and esteemed his name” [ESV]), and Romans 10:13 (“everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” [ESV]). Every single verse is cited out of context. The connotation is often more important than the denotation, which is why we cannot read a dictionary and find some kind of story. It is the context that gives words their meaning, with the denotation serving as the way of ensuring that there is some kind of order to how we use words. This removal of context is not an isolated incident, it is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses use to support their core beliefs. In order to show how the Jehovah’s Witnesses have misunderstood the meaning of the verses they cite, here is a more detailed explanation of each verse:

Isaiah 42:8:

“I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, Nor my praise to graven images.” [NWT]

This verse, if the first half is the only part used, seems to support the claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. After all, God says that His Name is Jehovah, right? In nearly every translation (aside from the NWT and the ASV, as well as a few obscure translations), the first half of this verse is translated to something like, “I am the Lord; that is my name”. This verse does not end with “that is my name”, however. It continues, “I give my glory to no one else, nor my praise to graven images”. I have referenced the NWT translation for a reason: it is the version produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In their own translation, when read in context, this verse means something much different than what they claim it means. This verse is basically God saying, “I am God, there is no other god. I should get the glory, not your idols”. God is saying that He is the only God, and that all praise should be to Him. God is not introducing Himself (“Hello, I am Jehovah. What is your name?”), He is declaring that He is the one true God.

Joel 2:32

“And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” [NWT]

It is worth pointing out the grammatical implications of the NWT of this verse. It does not say that anybody who “calls in the name of Jehovah” will be saved, it says that anybody “who calls on the name of Jehovah” will be saved. There is a difference between the name Jehovah, and the name of Jehovah. Therefore, Joel 2:32 is telling us that we must call on the name of Jehovah, not in the name of Jehovah. On and in are two different words. The logical follow-up question would be, “well, what is the name of Jehovah?”

In addition to the aforementioned implication of the text, it is also worth noting how the Jehovah’s Witnesses remove the context of this verse. The point of this verse is not that we should use God’s name, but that if we follow God, He will save us.

Malachi 3:16

“At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.” [NWT]

First, the context has been removed. At the time of what, exactly? If we follow what this verse describes (at least, inasmuch as the name “Jehovah” is concerned), we will have a book of remembrance, written before “him” (presumably, Jehovah), if we fear Jehovah, and we meditate “on his name”. If we want to take this passage literally, we must think about the name “Jehovah”, and we will receive the aforementioned “book of remembrance”. The context shapes the meaning of this verse, but without the context, the meaning is entirely up to the person providing the context.

Romans 10:13

“For ‘everyone who calls the name of Jehovah will be saved.’”

I could go into the way this verse is yet another example of the context being removed, but I would rather just explain what this verse is doing. The second set of quotation marks is from the text, meaning that Paul (who authored the book of Romans) is quoting something. He is quoting Joel 2:32, which is one the verses that the JWs have already cited. This verse does not count, and by excluding it, I am showing grace. This verse does not help their argument.

3. “Following the tradition of the Jews, God’s name should be removed from the Bible.”

The argument against this “misconception” begins with the Jehovah’s Witnesses describing how “some Jewish scribes refused to pronounce the divine name”, but the scribes did not remove it from the Bible. Why, if the Jewish scribes revered the name of God as much as they did, would they want to remove it? The scribes revered the Name of God, they did not seek to rid the Scripture of It. Thankfully, the JW website continues with “in any case”, meaning, “but that doesn’t matter”. The final component of this argument is the “God does not want us to follow human traditions that deviate from his commandments”, citing Matthew 15:1-3. The verses that the JW cite is from an exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees, where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for (in the NWT) “overstep[ping] the commandment[s] of God because of your [the Pharisees’] tradition”. There could be an entire discussion about this verse, but the most glaring issue in this argument is that, in their words, “God does not want”, but they cite Matthew, which is about Jesus. If there is any doubt as to the issue in this argument, let me make it clear: in order to use this argument, one must equate God with Jesus, which is a belief that the Jehovah’s Witnesses openly reject.

4. “The divine name should not be used in the Bible because it is not known exactly how to pronounce it in Hebrew.”

This “misconception” is rather strange. The belief that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been trying to share is that God has a name, and that we should address Him by His Name. However, the response to this “misconception” is that the translation of  God’s Name does not matter. The JW website explains, “far more important than the exact pronunciation chosen is that God’s name be given its rightful place in the Bible”. This argument is a red-herring, as nobody is trying to remove all mentions of God because there is no way to know how to pronounce God’s Name properly. Some translations do use the letters, “YHWH”, while most use the word “LORD”. With the latter example, Jehovah’s Witnesses should have no objection. After all, their website tells us that it does not matter how we translate the name of God, as long as the name of God is used. Whenever God is referred to as “LORD”, we can know that the original text used the Tetragrammaton, which would effectively serve as an alternate translation of the divine name.

Why do the Jehovah’s Witnesses defend this belief so vehemently? There are many ideas as to why this belief is so important to the JWs, but none of them come from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, themselves. I believe that God’s Name is made into a big issue for the same reason that the “torture-stake” is made into a big issue: the Jehovah’s Witnesses have to set themselves apart from Christians and Jews in order to feed the narrative that the JWs are being persecuted, that God’s Name has been intentionally removed from the Bible, and that the only faithful translation of the Bible is the one produced by the Witnesses.

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/who-is-jehovah/