BABYLON REBUTTED AGAIN

This is a follow-up to the latest effort by John Pacheco to discredit the Watchtower Society and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

A short while ago, I happened to read John Pacheco's criticisms of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and of professor Jason BeDuhn, and I was compelled to respond with the open letter, posted on this site, called "Babylon Rebutted" (his comments are presented on his web page as "Babylon's Rebuttal").  My reason for doing this may have been motivated more by passion than good judgment, for I was incensed by what was, in my opinion, a very sarcastic attack on Professor Jason BeDuhn, impugning both his credibility and his scholarship.  I take my hat off to professor BeDuhn, for in rightly praising the Kingdom Interlinear Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses, he was showing the courage to speak the truth, which is more important to him than the rejection of some who base their so-called scholarly opinions on unsound judgment and theological bias.  The Professor was very likely unaware, however, of just how oppressive the theological forces are that conspire to undermine any person or group that dares to question old assumptions.  I am, sadly, all too familiar with them.

Now it happens that Mr. Pacheco is at it again, presenting unsound arguments over the World Wide Web in another attempt to discredit the New World Translation.  Mr. Pacheco claims that his art of apologetics has improved significantly since his original criticisms were presented, but, in my assessment, he is merely more sarcastic.  In fact, when it comes to sarcasm he seems singularly gifted, as will no doubt be apparent to all who read his reply to me.  I do not mean that as a personal attack on Mr. Pacheco, but as a description of his style of apologetics, or in his case, perhaps I should say polemics. Actually, I noticed a certain pattern to Mr. Pacheco's polemics.  He seems more concerned with posturing then with actually addressing issues honestly, and he contradicts himself repeatedly, while withholding certain facts from his readers.  This will all become apparent to you as we consider his comments together.

I think it should be brought to your attention that Mr. Pacheco was not so much concerned with responding to me personally, as he was with criticizing the New World Translation in general.  This can be seen by the following comments he made in his original email to me, which he seems to have omitted from his online reply:

JP:   I am collecting a comprehensive discussion on the Trinity from various sources - including email dialogues.  I am
        assembling them and propose to incorporate them into a fictional dialogue between a Trinitarian and
        Subordinationist.  Would you be willing to allow me to post your objections and answer them in kind?

SK:   No, please, I have no desire to have my words made part of an online discussion.  If I did, I would have been .........much more through and comprehensive with the material I presented.

Now, admittedly, I can't criticize Mr. Pacheco for going against my will and presenting my objections as part of his commentary.  I concede that, for it was I who had "Babylon Rebutted" posted on the Internet.  However, his comments are revealing, as they show that Mr. Pacheco wasn't really interested in responding to me, so much as he wanted to post his collection of anti-Witness propaganda.  You will notice his propensity to do this even when it doesn't really fit the context of the discussion, which makes it somewhat disjointed.  He may have found this entertaining, but, in my opinion, it was a disservice to his readers.

As one final note before I begin addressing JP's dialog, I would like to say that I have had second thoughts about my original comments to Mr. Pacheco.  As I said above, I was motivated more by passion than good judgment, and I'm not completely satisfied with the overall spirit that may have been discernible to some.  In this discussion I have made every attempt to reflect the high standards to which I am committed as a Christian.  That is not to say that I will avoid direct criticism, nor shrink from exposing what I see as deliberate efforts to obfuscate or deceive, but I will try to be as respectful as possible within the guidelines of a debate.  All of this having been said, please join me now as we navigate the labyrinth of Mr. Pacheco's remarkable assertions, with a view toward separating the wheat of truth, from the chaff of groundless accusation.

*(Please Note: the original dialog is in black, while my current responses are in blue, and current quotes are in Red)*

 Seeking out strange new worlds and subordinated civilizations
…shamelessly going where the Greek has not gone before...

SK: You will notice that Mr. Pacheco's sarcasm is already evident in the above subtitle.  In fact, I don't think I'm out of line in stating that sarcasm forms the framework of Mr. Pacheco's entire dialog; at least it is a prominent part of the admixture.
 

SK:  Mr. Pacheco, many (trinitarians) feel that you had the upper hand in your discussion with professor BeDuhn, but that is only because they are not sensitive to subtle, respectful forms of argumentation. We live in the age of Jesse Ventura, who is held as a hero. We live in a time when a former WWF wrestler, with a jejune but gaping mouth, is revered and respected. Society today is not sensitive to content, but to delivery; and the delivery people want is one of sarcasm and aggression. That is the delivery you used in your discussion with professor BeDuhn.
JP:  I was aggressive, but respectfully so. That's just the way I am.  I am a bit impetuous, but not overly so.  If I was not at least a tolerable ass, then why would the professor talk as long as he did? I don't share your assessment, but I apologize to you if you took offense at my attitude.  By the way, I don’t like “the Body” either - at least we can agree on that.

SK: Well, I will accept JP's apology regarding what I consider a heavy-handed conversation with Professor BeDuhn, but that doesn't explain why he has continued to employ the same style of argumentation in his reply to me.  I will at least say that JP and I agree on one thing  --Minnesota's temporary lapse into madness, e.g. "the Body".

SK:  Now for a few points regarding your criticisms of the NWT. You claimed that the NWT is a "faulty" translation because certain words are rendered in a way that you believe is "theologically biased." You also asserted that "liberties" were taken by the translators. For example, you stated:

JP: “Why is the NWT not consistent in translating ‘kyrios’ (kurion) as ‘Jehovah’ in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21”. Again, Professor this is another ‘inconsistency’. It is strange that all of the ‘inconsistencies’ of the NWT favour the JW view of Jesus not being equal to God, don’t you think?"

SK: Yet, the Douay Version consistently favors trinitarian theology, does it not? Two examples:

Titus 2:13, "looking for the blessed hope and glorious coming of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ..."
2Peter 1:1, "...equal privilege of faith with ourselves through the justice of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

Those who read these verses in the Douay Version have no idea that they are disputed, even by trinitarians. Only Greek grammarians and the especially studious have even the faintest idea that there is much debate on how these two verses should be translated; and that there are a number of translations that favor the NWT's rendering. How many of the DV readers know that even the trinitarian Granville Penn said this regarding these texts:

"Some eminently pious and learned scholars...have so far over stretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run it into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their zeal to maintain the 'honor of the Son,' were not aware that they were rather engaged in 'dishonoring the Father.'" (Supplemental Annotations to the New Covenant, 146)

JP:

Let’s look at the Titus passage.   (2 Peter 1:1 encompasses the same issues so there is no point going over that one too.)  Here are a number of translations of the passage:

“..awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ…” (RSV)

“…looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ…” (DR)

“…as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ.” (NAB) [Footnote:  The blessed hope, the appearance: literally, "the blessed hope and appearance," but the use of a single article in Greek strongly suggests an epexegetical, i.e., explanatory sense. Of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ: another possible translation is "of our great God and savior Jesus Christ."]

“…looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus…” (NASB)

“…looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…” (KJV)

“…while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ…” (NIV)

The first three are from Catholic bibles (the RSV being the Catholic Edition), while the second three are from Protestant Translations.  All of these translations clearly point to the divinity of Jesus Christ as understood in the traditional Trinitarian way.

SK:  Those renderings most certainly do not all"clearly point to the divinity of Jesus Christ as understood in the traditional Trinitarian way."  The NAB clearly distinguishes between Christ and God.  Moreover, the renderings found in both the DR and the King James Version, while somewhat ambiguous, do separate "the great God" from "Savior Jesus Christ" in such a way as to show the distinction between Jesus and Jehovah.  We'll consider other translations of this verse below, which support the WTB&TS's understanding of this text, translations with which JP is either unaware, or he ignored as they serve to undermine his position.

Just as a side point, it's rather surprising to see JP assert that the KJV and the DR render Titus 2:13 in harmony with the trinity doctrine, especially since he elicits Sharps Rule in his dialog.  After all, it was specifically because the KJV and DR do NOT harmonize Titus 2:13 and other passages with the trinity doctrine that caused Granville Sharp to write the book wherein he elaborated his "Rule" in the first place!  Remarkably, JP did not have to do any profound amount research to determine this, for the title of Sharp's book pretty much makes the point:

"Remarks on the Use of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages which are wrongly Translated in the Common English Version."  (1st American ed. Philadelphia: B.B. Hopkins, 1807)

The reason Sharp felt that certain passages were "wrongly translated in the Common English Version" was because they supposedly "robbed Christ of his deity", as JP would say.  We will see as we go along that Sharp's Rule is not considered applicable to Titus 2:13 by many renowned scholars, and that the rendering offered in the New World Translation has ample scholarly support, JP's assertions notwithstanding.

JP:  Here is how the NWT renders the passage:

“…while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus…”

SK:  Again, see below for other translations, including some Catholic ones, that render this verse in such a way as to refer to two separate beings.

Witnesses often appeal to other characters in scripture being referred to as ‘saviour’.  They use this to try and demonstrate that Jesus is simply assuming the same kind of title rather than being the source of salvation itself.  Yet, it is an undeniable fact that St. Paul in his letter to Titus is referring to God as the ultimate saviour in verse 10 (and, indeed, throughout the letter):

“…nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.”  (RSV)

“…not committing theft, but exhibiting good fidelity to the full, so that they may adorn the teaching of our Savior, God, in all things.” (NWT)

Are we to believe that St. Paul has switched his meaning within three short verses between the true Saviour (God) and His alleged ‘instrumental saviour’, Jesus Christ?  No, I don’t think so.  Aside from the grammatical problems for Witnesses, the context itself is even more conclusive as to how the passage should be translated.  The focus of the passage is not a false dichotomy that Witnesses construct between the Father and the Son.  Instead, the passage is unquestionably emphasizing the person of Jesus Christ:

SK:  Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach that Paul "switched his meaning", but that he switched referents.  There is no "false dichotomy" here, as many scholars will acknowledge. Even Henry Alford, who was the Dean of Canterbury and the writer of the 4 volume Greek Testament, agreed that Titus 2:13 does not call Jesus "the great God" (see vol. 3, pp. 419-421).  Jehovah is the source and Jesus the agent of our salvation, so there is no reason why we cannot refer to both as savior without having to stretch that to mean that Jesus is God himself.  We will consider the grammatical and contextual factors that bear on how Titus 2:13 should be rendered shortly, but since JP has interposed an argument that focuses on the supposed implications of Jesus as our savior, let's briefly consider that subject first.

As I mentioned above, Jehovah is the source and Jesus the agent of our salvation; this is not just the opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is the clear teaching as elaborated upon in Scripture.  JP is correct in stating Jehovah's Witnesses refer to others who are called saviors.  We do so because this has a direct bearing on how we should understand the term as it applies to Christ.  It answers the claim that, since the Old Testament indicates that only God saves (Isaiah 43:11), and since Christ is called "savior", then Christ must be God himself.  The book entitled, Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses, made some observations that are pertinent to our discussion:

Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, the only Source of deliverance. (Isa 43:11; 45:21) He was the Savior and Deliverer of Israel, time and again. (Ps 106:8, 10, 21; Isa 43:3; 45:15; Jer 14:8) He saved not only the nation but also individuals who served him. (2Sa 22:1-3) Often his salvation was through men raised up by him as saviors. (Ne 9:27) During the period of the Judges, these special saviors were divinely selected and empowered to deliver Israel from foreign oppression. (Jg 2:16; 3:9, 15) While the judge lived, he served to keep Israel in the right way, and this brought them relief from their enemies. (Jg 2:18) When Jesus was on earth, Jehovah was his Savior, supporting and strengthening him to maintain integrity through his strenuous trials.-Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8.... Accordingly, Jesus Christ can rightly be called "our Savior," even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah. (Tit 1:4; 2Pe 1:11) The name Jesus, given to God's Son by angelic direction, means "Jehovah Is Salvation," for, said the angel, "he will save his people from their sins." (Mt 1:21; Lu 1:31) This name points out that Jehovah is the Source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus. For this reason we find the Father and the Son spoken of together in connection with salvation.-Tit 2:11-13; 3:4-6. (See Vol. 2, 873 [published by the WTB&TS])

It is interesting to note that individuals such as Othniel and Ehud were considered saviors (Jg 3:9,15), and that the very same Hebrew word (moshia) which is translated "savior" or "deliverer" in Isaiah 43:11 is used of them.  Since Isaiah says that besides Jehovah "there is no savior [moshia], " are we to conclude that these men were part of the Godhead?  If we follow the  reasoning of some (apparently including JP), that would be the conclusion one would ultimately have to reach. (For further elaboration of this see Greg Stafford's Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, second ed, pp. 161-163, from which I borrowed and paraphrased some of this material).

Now let us consider how God accomplished his will, including our salvation, through his son, by focusing on the following texts:

Acts 2:22,23
22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naz·a·rene', a man publicly shown by God to YOU through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in YOUR midst, just as YOU yourselves know, 23 this [man], as one delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, YOU fastened to a stake by the hand of lawless men and did away with."

The above verse shows that Jehovah showed great signs and portents by using his agent Jesus Christ, for it was "through him" (Christ) that these portents were demonstrated.

Acts 15:12
12 At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Bar'na·bas and Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations.

Acts 19:11,12
11 And God kept performing extraordinary works of power through the hands of Paul, 12 so that even cloths and aprons were borne from his body to the ailing people, and the diseases left them, and the wicked spirits came out.

These two verses show that God used Barnabas and Paul as his agents to relate "many signs and portents", and "extraordinary works of power," for he did these signs "through them". These verses are quoted to further show how Jehovah uses agents to accomplish his will.

Romans 1:4,5
4 but who with power was declared God's Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead--yes, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we received undeserved kindness and an apostleship in order that there might be obedience of faith among all the nations respecting his name...

This verse shows that Christ is the agent "through whom" undeserved kindness has been demonstrated.

Romans 2:16
16 This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.

This account shows that God is a judge, and that he judges through Christ Jesus; again, Jehovah is the source of judgment while Christ is the agent used to judge.

Romans 5:1,2
5 Therefore, now that we have been declared righteous as a result of faith, let us enjoy peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have gained our approach by faith into this undeserved kindness in which we now stand; and let us exult, based on hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:8-11
But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only that, but we are also exulting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Can there be any clearer statement than that which is quoted above?  We are saved through Christ, through his death and subsequent resurrection to life, and it is through Christ that we become reconciled to God.

Romans 7:25
25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with [my] mind I myself am a slave to God's law, but with [my] flesh to sin's law.

The above is quoted to demonstrate that, since our life and salvation are attained through Christ, so our gratitude should be expressed to God through Christ.  In this case we are the source of gratitude, while Christ is the agent through whom our gratitude is expressed to God.

1Corn 8:4-6
 5 For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.

Did you notice the wording of the above verses?  Jehovah is the source of "all things", while Jesus is the agent through whom all things are (or came about).

1 Corn 15:54-57
 55 "Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting producing death is sin, but the power for sin is the Law. 57 But thanks to God, for he gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

Here we see that God is the source, while Jesus is the agent through whom we can gain victory over death by putting faith in his ransom sacrifice.

2 Corn 1:3-5
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God. 5 For just as the sufferings for the Christ abound in us, so the comfort we get also abounds through the Christ.

You will notice above that, not only is the Father the God of Jesus, but he is the God of comfort, and that it is through Jesus that God allows his comfort to abound in us.

2 Corn 5:18,19
18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and he committed the word of the reconciliation to us.

This verse shows, once again, that we can be reconciled to God through Christ, for it is by means of Christ that God reconciles a world to himself.

Ep 1:3-7
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ, 4 just as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love. 5 For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 in praise of his glorious undeserved kindness which he kindly conferred upon us by means of [his] loved one. 7 By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.

Here again the Father is called the God of Jesus Christ.  Also, it shows that the undeserved kindness of God is conferred upon us by means of his loved one (Christ), and that it is by means of him that we the release by ransom.

Ep 2:13-18
17 And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace to those near, 18 because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit.

This reiterates that we have gained the approach to the Father through Christ.

1 Thess 5:6-11
6 So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7 For those who sleep are accustomed to sleep at night, and those who get drunk are usually drunk at night. 8 But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation; 9 because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us, that, whether we stay awake or are asleep, we should live together with him. 11 Therefore keep comforting one another and building one another up, just as YOU are in fact doing.

This verse clearly shows that we gain salvation from God through our Lord Jesus Christ.  Jehovah is shown here to be the source of salvation, making him our savior, and Jesus is the agent of our salvation, making him our savior.

2 Tim 4:16-18
16 In my first defense no one came to my side, but they all proceeded to forsake me--may it not be put to their account- 17 but the Lord stood near me and infused power into me, that through me the preaching might be fully accomplished and all the nations might hear it; and I was delivered from the lion's mouth. 18 The Lord will deliver me from every wicked work and will save [me] for his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

The above is quoted to reiterate that Christ is not the only one through whom God accomplishes his will, for it was through Paul that the preaching was fully accomplished.

Hebrews 1:1-4
1 God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

Just as God used prophets to relate his sayings to mankind, he likewise used his son, for it says that he spoke to us by "means of a son."  You will also notice that God appointed his son as heir of all things, and that he made all things through his son.  Certainly if Christ were God Almighty he would not need to be appointed as heir.  As a side note, you will notice that the son "became" better than the angels.  Certainly if Jesus were both totally God and totally man he would not have had to become better then the angels, for that superior status would have been automatically attached to his supposed "divine nature".
 

Hebrews 7:18-25
25 Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.

Heb 13:15,16
Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name. 16 Moreover, do not forget the doing of good and the sharing of things with others, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

1 John 4:9,10
 9 By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. 10 The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.

Rev 1:1-3
1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw.
 

These last four verses were added just for emphasis; however, there is an interesting side point that can be gleaned from Rev 1:1.  Notice that God gave Christ a revelation, which is “a disclosure of truth, instruction, concerning divine things before unknown” (see Grimm-Thayer, 62). Obviously, even in heaven, Jesus has limited knowledge, which contradicts the notion that he is a co-equal member of the Godhead.  This also emphasizes that Jehovah is the source of all knowledge and Jesus is the channel through whom knowledge appropriate for our edification is dispensed.

So the clear teaching of Scripture shows that God is the author and Christ the agent of our salvation.  Jehovah performed powerful works, signs and portents through his son; he created all things through his son; he demonstrates undeserved kindness to us, and comforts us through his son; he effected our released from sin and offers us victory over death through his son; and it is  through his son that he will ultimately judge all of mankind, and reconcile all things to himself.  May we, in return, show our gratitude and praise to God through his son.

See below for the discussion of the grammatical and contextual factors that bear on the translation of Titus 2:13.
 

JP:  “…while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”

And finally, the ‘Parousia’ is always associated with the glorious manifestation of the Son, not the Father.
 

SK:  The problem with the above statement is that Titus 2:13 is not talking of the manifestation of either the Father or the son, but it's talking about the manifestation or appearing of God's glory.  Understanding how the verse should properly be rendered will greatly affect our interpretation, for, as Henry Alford has said, "Nothing could be more unfortunate than the rendering of the A.V., "glorious appearing," by which the whole sense is obscured." (see his Greek Testament, vol 3, ad locum citation).  To assist us in correctly interpreting this verse, notice how other versions have rendered it:

"...in hope for the blessing will come with the Appearing of the glory of our great God..."--The Jerusalem Bible
"...wait the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God..."--The New American Bible
"...for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"--ASV
"...forward to...when his glory shall be seen--the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."--Living Bible
"...awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"--RSV

Since the appearing spoken of in this verse is the appearing of "God's glory", and since Christ, "reflects the glory of God" (Heb 1:3, RSV), it therefore follows that "the great God" is not Christ but Jehovah.  Also vital to our understanding of this verse is Matthew 16:27, which reads, "the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father"; compare that with Matthew 25:31, "When the Son of man shall come in His glory."  Thus, as Alford makes clear, "[the] glory which shall be revealed at the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ is His own glory [by reflection], and that of His Father [by emanation]." Clearly, both Jesus and his Father are being referred to in Titus 2:13.
 

In regards to the translation, the Greek renders it like this.  (The literal translation is directly below it):

prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thV    doxhV tou    megalou qeou kai swthroV hmwn
awaiting              the   blessed      hope     and appearing     of the glory   of our great       God  and Saviour     of our

ihsou cristou
Jesus   Christ

Using Strong’s Concordance:

prosdecomenoi <4327> (5740) {AWAITING} thn <3588> {THE} makarian <3107> {BLESSED} elpida <1680> {HOPE} kai <2532> {AND} epifaneian <2015> {APPEARING} thV <3588> {OF THE} doxhV <1391> tou <3588> {GLORY} megalou <3173> {GREAT} qeou <2316> {GOD} kai <2532> {AND} swthroV <4990> {SAVIOUR} hmwn <2257> {OF OUR} ihsou <2424> {JESUS} cristou <5547> {CHRIST;}

There is no definite article before “Saviour”  (see swthroV above) in the Greek.  Unlike other verses where the insertion of an article does not change the meaning of the passage, the same obviously cannot be held here.  Inserting the article in this verse completely changes its meaning by diluting Jesus of his Divinity.
 

SK:  JP is correct in stating that the insertion of the article completely changes the meaning of the passage; but even those with the most basic understanding of Greek know that articles and words are often needed when translating Koine to English.  There is no "diluting Jesus of his divinity" involved in this, as you will see from the comments of various trinitarian scholars, as we move along in this discussion.
 

Long ago, eminent Greek Scholar Grandville Sharp posited a grammatical rule (“Sharp’s rule”) when two nouns are joined by the conjunction ‘and’.   The website that your rebuttal is posted on describes it like this:

This rule states, in essence: When two singular nouns, adjectives, or participles of the same grammatical case are joined by the Greek conjunction kai ("and"), if the first noun has the article and the second one does not, then both have the same referent. Sharp noted several exceptions to his rule, including proper names and plurals.

While there are some exceptions to the rule, the rule itself seems to hold out exceptionally well.  Even subordnationists have conceded this.  Of course, they invariable work WITHIN the rule to validate their positions.  Here is a sample of a dialogue on Mr. Schmitz’s site which I have offered some comments on:
 

SK: Yes, the rule holds together well, and "subordinationists" do concede this; however, eminent trinitarian scholars also concede that Titus 2:13 is probably an exception to Sharp's rule.  Catholic scholar Raymond Brown admits that Titus 2:13 is "dubious" as a trinity proof text (Jesus: God and Man, pp. 10-23), and Henry Alford, former Dean of Canterbury, completely rejects it, as already mentioned.  It should be noted that JP has admitted that he does not know Greek.  This being the case, I would advise him to be less dogmatic in his assertions regarding certain texts, and defer to those who do know their Greek, such as Brown, Alford, et al, many of whom would probably concur that "there is no passage in his [Paul's] letters in which Jesus is called God beyond any doubt" (Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay, p32).

You will notice below that JP now inserts parts of conversations between Greg Stafford and Robert Bowman.  I mentioned this in the introduction, showing that JP's real motive is not to debate with me, but to post what he called a "fictional dialog", and to present his favorite collection of anti-Witness propaganda.  It should be noted that Robert Bowman has dedicated much of his life to attacking the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, indeed, he's turned it into a commercial enterprise; therefore, his comments can hardly be viewed as unbiased.  For those who prefer to know the whole story, I would urge you to read the entire dialog between Stafford and Bowman, which is located here: http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/index.htm OR  here:     http://members.aol.com/debatelog

I strongly urge you to consider these dialogs in toto, as JP's presentations are as conspicuous for what they withhold, as for what they present.
 

Bowman-Sharp, pages 9, 10
Although Stafford is correct in observing that Kuehne and others have used this principle to explain (away) apparent exceptions to Sharp's rule, the evidence we have provided undermines the legitimacy of Stafford's principle. In no text considered here is it necessary to appeal to theological preunderstandings in order to know what is meant. In Proverbs 24:21 LXX, for example, we saw that the text is grammatically unambiguous that two persons are meant because the two nouns "God" and "king" are antecedents for the plural pronoun "them."

Stafford-Response
This does not explain why the article is not repeated before "king," if the LXX translator considered Sharp's rule valid. You have proven nothing about the key issue. You have simply told us what we already know, but have failed to deal with the issue under consideration: Why did the LXX translators not repeat the article if he/they understood that article-noun-kai-noun constructions always applied to one person? If it is because the context makes the distinction evident, then the context should be the determining factor, or at least one of them, in properly interpreting such passages. But this is not stressed by those who advocate one-person translations for Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1.

Pacheco-Comment
This is simple circular argumentation.  There is no reason to believe that the LXX translators would not except the article when there were two pronouns present, which would make the meaning obvious - thereby making the insertion of the article obsolete.

Bowman-Sharp, pages 17, 18
Even where the name "Lord" is not in the immediate context, not once does "the great God" carry the force of a proper name.

Stafford-Response
Bowman is just making things up again. He is also begging the question. The fact that the Bible makes it clear that Jehovah alone is "the great God," points to the fact that this is a description that is restricted in its usage to Jehovah, and thus carries the restrictive force of a proper name.

Pacheco-Comment
This is not legitimate.  Of course, “the great God” by itself CAN carry the restrictive force of a proper name as Stafford has rightly pointed out, but it is equally possible that it is merely a personal noun.   In determining whether it is used as a proper name or a personal noun, the entire verse must be considered.   If “saviour Jesus Christ” is a proper name, then it follows that “the great God” MUST BE also.  However, if “saviour Jesus Christ” is not a proper noun, then it follows that “the great God” is not either.    Which brings us to the next question…

Bowman-Sharp, page 18
Is "Our Savior Jesus Christ" a Proper Name?
If anything the problems are worse for Stafford's claim that "(our) Savior Jesus Christ" is a compound proper name in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. He offers no actual evidence for this claim, although he compares the expression "(our) Savior Jesus Christ" to "the compound name, 'Lord Jesus Christ.'"
 

SK:  I would like to insert here that if you want to be accurately apprised of what evidence Greg Stafford presents for his claims then you should read the second edition of his book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, copyright 2000, published by Elihu Books.  Copies can be ordered from Elihu Books from this site:  www.elihubooks.com Greg's book contains a comprehensive excursus on Sharp's Rule, and the limitations of its applicability to theologically critical texts, including Titus 2:13.  He also provides a plethora of examples of the shabby scholarship, misinformation, and outright deceit that has been employed in an attempt to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses.  Anyone who sincerely wants to know the truth about Jehovah's Witnesses, as opposed to the chaff that is disseminated via the Web and other sources, should read Greg's book.

You will also find for sale an excellent discussion regarding Bible translation principles presented in another book from the same publisher, entitled, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, by prof. Rolf Furuli.  A balanced discussion of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is presented in professor Furuli's book, along with other theologically critical texts.  Professor Furuli also answers many of the types of charges that JP has alleged against the NWT, and he does so with the knowledge of one with over forty years experience as a Bible scholar.
 

Stafford-Response
The fact is, the expression "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Savior Jesus Christ," even if they were only used once in NT, are either used as compound proper names, or the proper name "Jesus Christ" is used in apposition to the nouns "Lord" and "Savior," and sufficiently restricts their application, even more than an article would, for the referent is identified by name!

Pacheco Comment
OK. I was doing a little research on “Saviour Jesus Christ”, and lookie here what I found in 2 Peter 2:20.  This passage has the same type of construction as Titus 2:13.  Let’s see if Stafford’s argument holds water.

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…(NASB)

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ...” (KJV)

“Certainly, if after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…” (NWT)

ei gar  apofugonteV   ta  miasmata tou    kosmou en  epignwsei tou    kuriou kai swthroV ihsou
For if   having escaped  the  pollutions  of the  world    through [the]  knowledge of the Lord     and Savior      Jesus

cristou
Christ

Now, my questions are these:

Since the ‘article-noun-conjunction-noun’ construction is the same as Titus 2:13, why is the NWT not consistent in inserting the definite article in 2 Peter 2:20 before ‘Savior’ like it does in Titus 2:13?

“…glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus…” (Titus 2:13-NWT)
“…..accurate knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…” (2 Peter 2:20-NWT)

If the NWT was consistent in translating both verses, the 2 Peter 2:20 rendering would be:

 ...accurate knowledge of the Lord and of [the] Saviour Jesus Christ…
 

SK:  It is obvious that JP is not only unfamiliar with Greek, but that he's not disinclined to making ludicrous accusations on the web.  To use your own words JP, "let's see if [your assertions] hold water."  You have presented us with a comparison between 2 Peter 2:20 and Titus 2:13, as found in the NWT.  OK, now lets see how some of your Catholic translations render these two verses:

The New American Bible:

"...await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ"--Titus 2:13
"....escaped the defilements....world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and [?] savior Jesus Christ"--2 Peter 2:20

Notice that the Catholic New American Bible translates both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 2:20 in a way that is comparable to the renderings found in the New World Translation.  The only difference is that the New American Bible uses the words "of our" rather than the definite article "the" at Titus 2:13, but the meaning is the same.  So I must ask JP his own question: "Since the 'article-noun-conjunction-noun' construction is the same ...why is the New American Bible not consistent in inserting the [words "of our"] in 2 Peter 2:20 before 'Savior' like it does in Titus 2:13?"  I'll answer that question myself, JP.  It's because the translator's of the New American Bible, like many others, realize that "the great God" in Titus 2:13 is probably not referring to Jesus, but to Jehovah.  In other words, Greg Stafford's views, as only partially expressed above, which you claimed were "not legitimate", are shared by the translators of the Catholic New American Bible!  The same could be said for the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, if you adopt the rendering offered as a possible alternative in the footnote --to wit:

"...which will come with the Appearing of the glory of our great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ"--Titus 2:13
"....escaped the pollution....world once by coming to know our Lord and [?] savior Jesus Christ"--2 Peter 2:20

Again, JP, I must ask you your own question: "why is the Jerusalem Bible not consistent in inserting the [pronoun 'our'] in 2 Peter 2:20 before 'Savior' like it does in Titus 2:13 [in the alternative rendering found in the footnote?]"  The answer, once again, is simply that the rendering Jehovah's Witnesses prefer has scholarly support.  There is yet one more Catholic Bible, The New Testament, by Ronald Knox, that offers via footnote an alternative rendering comparable to the one found in the New World Translation:

"...the glory of the great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ"--Titus 2:13
"...by acknowledging our Lord and [?] Saviour Jesus Christ"--2 Peter 2:20

I will spare you, faithful reader, by not asking JP's groundless question again.  Now, let us look a little more closely at the issues involved in translating Titus 2:13, and we'll see why many have rejected the rendering JP and other trinitarians favor.

Since JP is fond of characterizing my arguments as "pathetic" and asking me if "that's the best [ I ] can do", I'll develop some of the arguments that were put forth by the trinitarian scholar Henry Alford in his Greek Testament and in The New Testament for English Readers.  That way if JP again uses such characterizations, he will be raving against one of his own, and a highly respected trinitarian scholar at that.  It should be noted that Alford's Greek Testament was first published in 1849, about 71 years after Granville Sharp first elucidated his "Rule" in various personal letters written in 1778.  The third edition of Sharp's book was self-published in 1803, and his first American edition in 1807; so, it cannot be argued that Alford was unaware of Sharp's contentions.  In fact, on page 419 of volume 3 of Alford's Greek Testament, Alford specifically mentions the "Six letters to Granville Sharp on the use of the definite article in the Greek text of the N.T."  Thus, Alford disagreed with Sharp regarding the applicability of his "Rule" as it pertains to Titus 2:13 (and 2 Peter 1:1 for that matter), because he felt that the  mere lack of the article was not sufficient to override the other convincing exegetical factors that bear on our interpretation of the verse.

Alford also rejected the common argument based on the contention that some of the Greek Father's supported the rendering favored by trinitarians, for he said, "that the former [the Fathers] so interpreted the words, is obviously not (as it has been considered) decisive of the question, if they can be shewn to bear legitimately another meaning, and that [other] meaning to be the one most likely to have been in the mind of the writer" (emphasis mine.)  He went on to say that, "the passage must be argued primarily on its own ground, not primarily on the consensus of the Greek Fathers."  In this, Jehovah's Witnesses agree with Alford completely, for post-biblical views of certain Greek Fathers as to the correct interpretation of Paul's words, views that may have been motivated by overzealous opposition to Arius, should not be used as the deciding factor in determining Paul's true meaning.  Alford went on to make another very revealing comment:
 

"No one disputes that it may [italics was Alford's] mean that which they [the Fathers] have interpreted it: and there were obvious reasons why they, having license to do so, should choose this interpretation.  But it is our object, not being swayed in this or any other interpretation, by doctrinal considerations one way or the other, to inquire, not what the words may mean, but what they do mean, as far as we can ascertain it [emphasis mine]."

Alford's views are well taken.  We should not use the trinity doctrine as a translation principle in determining how to render this or any other text.  We should be endeavoring, to the best of our ability, to determine what the Bible writer(s) actually meant to say.  Notice what Alford says in his Greek Testament (ad locum citation), which is almost identical to some of Greg Stafford's arguments:
 

"Is it...plain, that its [the article's] omission is decisive for (1)? [(1) is the rendering where Jesus is called "the great God"].  This must depend entirely on the nature and position of the word thus left anarthrous [emphasis mine].  If it is a word which had by usage become altogether or occasionally anarthrous,--if it is so connected, that the presence of the article expressed, is not requisite to its presence in the sense, then the state of the case, as regards the omission, is considerably altered."

Alford refers to two factors that might justify including the article, the position and nature of the word left anarthrous (anarthrous = without the article).  This is exactly what Greg Stafford has contended; that some words or phrases carry such restrictive force that it would not be necessary to include the article to make the distinction clear.  Alford goes on to assert that soter [(the) saviour] often carried just such restrictive force, for he said:
 

"Now there is no doubt that soter [(the) saviour] was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi proper name: cf. 1 Tim. i. 1 (I am quite aware of Bp. Middleton's way of accounting for this, but do not regard it as satisfactory); iv. 10; which latter place is very instructive as to the way in which the designation from its official nature became anarthrous.  This being so, it must hardly be judged as to the expression of the art[icle] by the same rules as other nouns.  Then as to its structural and contextual conexion.  It is joined with [of us], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke i. 78: Rom. i. 7: 1 Cor. i.3 (1 Cor. ii. 7; x. 11): 2 Cor. i.2, & c.  Again, as Winer has observed, "the prefixing of an appositional designation to the proper name frequently causes the omission of the article."  So in 2 Thess. i. 12: 2 Pet. i. 1: Jude 4: see also 2 Cor. i.2; vi. 18: Gal. i.3: Eph. i.2; vi. 23: Phil. i.2; ii.11; iii. 20 & c.  If then [saviour of us Jesus Christ] may signify 'Jesus Christ our Saviour,'--on comparing the two members of the clause, we observe, that [God] has already had its predicate expressed in [of the great]; and that it is therefore natural to expect that the latter member of the clause, likewise consisting of a proper name and its predicate, should correspond logically to the former: in other words, that [of the God and saviour of us]...would more likely suite (1) [(1) = the trinitarian rendering] than [of the great God and saviour (which is a much more restrictive phrase)].  (Greek Testament, ad locum citation)

The observant reader will notice that Alford presents almost the exact same argument that Greg Stafford did above (and in his book), which you will recall JP claimed was "not legitimate".  Alford shows that such reasoning is quite legitimate.  Not only does Alford feel that "the Saviour...became a quasi proper name", especially when used in conjunction with the words "of us", but he felt that "of the great" has similar restrictive force when applied to "God", providing a semantic signal restricting the phrase to the Father.

Now Alford moves away from his arguments based on grammar and focuses on Paul's habitual usage of language.  Alford notes that it is not Paul's style to refer to Christ as "God and Saviour"; notice his contention, which is quoted at length:
 

"Let us now consider, whether the Apostle would in this place have been likely to designate our Lord as [our great God and Savior].  This must be chiefly decided by examining the usages of the expression [God our Saviour], which occurs six times in these Epistles, once in Luke (i. 47), and once in the Epistle of Jude. (From his Greek Testament)

If the writer here identifies this expression, 'the great God and our Saviour,' with the Lord Jesus Christ, calling Him 'God and our Saviour,' it will be at least probable that in other places where he speaks of "God our Saviour," he also designates our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now is that so?  On the contrary, in 1 Tim. i. 1, we have the command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope:  where I suppose none will deny that the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.  The same is the case in 1 Tim. ii. 3-5, a passage bearing much (see below) on the interpretation of this one: and consequently in 1 Tim. iv. 10, where "is the saviour of all men" corresponds to "willeth all to be saved" in the other.  So also in Titus i. 3, where the "our Saviour God," by whose "command" the promise of eternal life was manifested, with the proclamation of which St. Paul was entrusted, is the same "eternal God", by whose "command" the hidden mystery was manifested in Rom. xvi. 26, where the same distinction is made.  The only place where there could be any doubt is in our ver. 10 [i.e. Titus 2:10], which possible doubt however is removed by ver. 11, where the same assertion is made, of the revelation of the hidden grace of God (the Father).  Then we have our own ch. iii. 4-6 [i.e. Titus 3:4-6], where we find "God our Saviour" in ver. 4, clearly defined as the Father, and "through Jesus Christ our Saviour" in ver. 6.  (The New Testament for English Readers, ad locum citation)

In that passage too [Titus 3:4] we have the expression [the loving kindness of God our Saviour appeared], which is quite decisive in answer to those who object here to the expression [appearance of the glory] as applied to the Father.  (Alford's Greek Testament, ad locum citation)

In the one passage of St. Jude [v. 25], the distinction is equally clear: for there we have "to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord."  It is plain then, that the usage of the words 'God our Saviour' does not make it probable that the whole expression here is to be applied to the Lord Jesus Christ.  And in estimating this probability, let us again recur to 1 Tim. ii. 3,5, a passage which runs very parallel with the present one [Titus 2:13].  We read there, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, himself man, who gave himself a ransom"  &c. Compare this with "the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for us," &c.  Can there be a reasonable doubt, that the Apostle writing two sentences so closely corresponding, on a point of such high importance, would have in his view the same distinction in the second of them, which he so strongly lays down in the first" [emphasis mine]?
(The New Testament for English Readers, ad locum citation)

Now, after considering all of the above, this is what Alford concludes:
 

"Without then considering the question closed, I would submit that (2) satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence [(2) is the rendering of Titus 2:13 that does not call Jesus "the great God"]: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it. (New Testament for English Readers)

The principle advocates for it have been, the pseudo-Ambrose (i.e. Hilary the deacon, the author of the Commentary which goes by the name of that Father..., Erasm[us] (annot. and paraphr.), Grot[ius], Wetst[ein], Heinr[ichs], Winer, De W[ette], Huther." (Alford's Greek Testament)
 

Certainly the preceding recommends the understanding of Titus 2:13 that Jehovah's Witnesses accept.  It definitely shows that no "deception" was employed by the NWT translators, and that there was no "inconsistency" in their application of translation principles, despite the groundless accusations of JP.

As a side point, it is interesting that Alford also rejects 2 Peter 1:1 as a text that calls Jesus "God".  Notice what he has to say in this regard:
 

"Next, as to the words [of our God and (our) Saviour Jesus Christ].  Undoubtedly, as in Titus ii. 13, in strict grammatical propriety, both [God] and [Saviour] would be predicates of [Jesus Christ].  But here [2 Peter 1:1], as there [Titus 2:13], considerations interpose, which seem to remove the strict grammatical rendering out of the range of probable meaning.  I have fully discussed the question in the note on that passage [Titus 2:13], to which I would refer the reader as my justification for interpreting here, as there, [our God] of the Father, and [Saviour Jesus Christ] of the Son.  Here, there is the additional consideration in favour of this view, that the Two are distinguished most plainly in the next verse" (see vol. 4 of Alford's Greek Testament, p. 390)

Greg Stafford discusses these and other arguments against using Sharp's Rule as a determining factor in translating both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the second edition of his book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, (see pp. 367-410).  See also the Expositor's Greek Testament, page 195, wherein Newport J.D. White, D.D. further substantiates the Witnesses understanding of this verse.  There are also the comments of E.F. Scott, as found in The Pastoral Epistles:

"...His words are capable of the translation, 'the appearance of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.'  From a strictly linguistic point of view this is the more natural rendering, and it would require us to assume that for this writer Christ was now completely identified with God.  It may be argued, however, that the identification is made nowhere else in the Epistle, and is not even suggested.  Moreover, in the present passage the writer is concerned with one of the fixed beliefs of the Church, and his statement of it cannot be essentially different from the others which have come down to us.  Wherever the Parousia is mentioned in the New Testament or the early Christian literature, it is taken for granted that the Messiah who comes in the clouds of heaven is distinct from God.  He comes in the power of God, accompanied by angels, but He is the representative of God, not God Himself.  So it is best to understand the verse as in Moffatt's translation.  Believers look for the appearing of a glory which is at once that of God and of Christ, or rather, it is the Glory of God with which Christ is invested at His coming.  The writer expresses in his own manner the normal apocalyptic expectation that 'the Son of man will come in the glory of the Father with His angels' (Matt. xvi. 27).  (The Pastoral Epistles, Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York and London: [no year provided]; part of the multi-volume commentary on Moffatt's Bible)

Now, notice what it has to say on pages 1581-82 of the NWT Reference Bible, which, you will observe, is in harmony with what we've discussed so far:
 

In this place we find two nouns connected by kai ("and"), the first noun being preceded by the definite article (tou, "of the") and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by kai, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense "of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is possible in [koi·ne'] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article]."

A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found: "Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus 'cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple, [tous po·loun'tas kai a·go·ra'zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of [tous] before [a·go·ra'zon·tas]; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before [so·te'ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,--not because [so·te'ros] is made sufficiently definite by the addition of [he·mon'] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called "our Saviour," [he do'xa tou me·ga'lou The·ou' kai so·te'ros he·mon'], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of [I·e·sou' Khri·stou' to so·te'ros he·mon'] changes the case entirely, restricting the [so·te'ros he·mon'] to a person or being who, according to Paul's habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as [ho The·os'], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression [ka·ta' ten kha'rin tou The·ou' he·mon' kai ky·ri'ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before [ky·ri'ou] if two were intended; but the simple addition of [I·e·sou' Khri·stou' to ky·ri'ou] makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article."

Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.

Also, consider what some eminent scholars and theologians from yesteryear had to say about this verse:
 

"If Jesus is to appear at the last day, in his own glory, and in the glory of the Father, that event may fitly be termed 'the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.'  It is true, the article is wanting before [saviour]; yet it may be supplied, as our translators have done...elsewhere, particularly Eph. v. 5: 'In the kingdom of Christ and of God.'  Besides, as [saviour] is in the genitive case, it will bear to be translated of our Saviour, although the article is wanting." (Harmony of the Gospels, Literal Translation of all the Apostolical Epistles, with a Commentary, by James Macknight, D.D. [as quoted in Scripture Proofs and Illustrations of Unitarianism, by John Wilson])

"When two nouns are of the same gender and in the same case, this is reason enough for omitting the article before the second, if the writer pleases; and this, WHETHER THEY BOTH RELEATE, OR NOT, TO THE SAME INDIVIDUAL...The pronoun [of us] of itself specificates [saviour], and therefore renders the insertion of the article unnecessary, even in case the writer meant that [saviour] should be considered as distinct from [of the God]...If the writer designed to make [saviour] merely an explicative ar attributive of [God], in this case he would, beyond all doubt, have expressed himself as he now has; but if he did not design this, but meant to make the usual distinction so often made in Paul's epistles, between God the Father and Christ, HE MIGHT STILL HAVE USED THE SAME EXPRESSION.--The WHOLE ARGUMENT, then, on either side, so far as the article is concerned, FALLS TO THE ground."--(Prof. Stuart's Dissertation, p. 72-74, Moses Stewart, Prof. of Sac. Lit, in Theol. Sem. Andover.  Dissertation on the Greek Article. Edin. 1835 [as quoted in Scripture Proofs and Illustrations of Unitarianism, by John Wilson])

"Of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.--So pointed by Wynn and Dr. Macknight.  Of the great (or, mighty) God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.--Wicliff and Tyndale; Barker's Bible, 1576; Bibles, 1596-7, 1607; and Dr. Doddridge." (See p. 518 of The Concessions of Trinitarians, by John Wilson)

"It is doubtful whether these words ["the great God" and "saviour Jesus Christ] should be read conjointly or severally of the Father and the Son."--Calvin (See Concessions, by John Wilson, p. 519)

"This future appearance is spoken, not only of Christ, but also of God; because God hath bestowed on Christ that majesty or glory; and accordingly it is said, in Matt. xvi. 27 and Mark vii. 38, that he "shall come in the glory of his Father."  In this sense is the passage rightly understood by St. Ambrose.  Those who think that [of our Saviour], would have been used if the apostle had designed to make a distinction, should recollect that in these writings the article is often inserted where it is not necessary, and omitted where the usage requires its insertion."--(Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian; b. 1583, d. 1645.--Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum Testamentum.  Amstel. et Paris.  1641, 1644, 1648, 1650; 5 vol. fol. [as quoted in Concessions, by John Wilson, p. 519])

"The original words might be rendered our great God and Saviour; but I have retained the vulgar translation [at this time in history, 'vulgar' meant 'common'], as the more natural interpretation, alluding to the "Son of man coming in his own, and his Father's glory."  See Luke ix. 26.--(Richard Wynne, M.A., Rector of St Alphage, London; b. 1718, d. 1799. --The New Testament, carefully collated with the Greek, and illustrated with notes.  Lond. 1764, 2 vol. 8 vo. [as quoted in Concessions, by John Wilson, p. 520, 614]).

"God and Saviour."  As to the argument founded on the omission of the article, it is not necessary to add anything to what has already been said.  (See p. 199, note.)  But it is urged by Professor Stuart and others, in respect to Titus ii. 13, that the "appearing" of God the Father is never fortold in the New Testament, and therefore "the great God" here spoken of must be Christ.  The answer to this is, that, according to the literal and correct translation of the original, it is not "the appearing," but "the appearing of the glory" of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," of which the Apostle speaks; and that our Saviour did expressly declare that he should come "in the glory of his Father."  See Matthew xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; and compare 1 Timothy vi. 14-16.  Professor Stuart admits that "the whole argument,....so far as the article is concerned, falls to the ground."  (Biblical Repository for April 1834, p. 323.)  The title "the great God" in this passage is referred to the Father by Erasmus, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Doddridge, Macnight, Abp. Newcome, Rosenmuller, Heinrichs, Schott, Winer, Neander (Planting and Training, I. 509, note, Bohn's ed.), De Wette, Meyer (on Romans ix 5), Huther, Conybeare and Howson, and others. (See Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton, p. 306)

"This might be read so that both the words God and Saviour should belong to Christ; or the former to the Father, and the latter to the Son.  Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Jerome, attribute both to Christ, exalting as victors over the Arians; though the passage is undoubtedly ambiguous, nay, seems more favourable to them than to us.  First, it cannot be denied that the Greek expression is doubtful, and equally pertinent to either sense.  Now, what do you achieve against the heretics by this very doubtful text?  If you press them with the agreement of commentators, it is certain that Ambrose, an eminent man and an orthodox bishop, divided the word, so as to refer great God to the Father, and Saviour to Christ....But it is objected to this interpretation, that, in the Sacred Scriptures, the coming, or appearance, is attributed, not to the Father, but to the Son.  In this passage, however, the coming of the Father is not mentioned, but simply the coming of the glory, which in the meantime we expect with all humility.  Then will appear our majesty, when the glory of the great God the Father, and of our Saviour Jesus, is disclosed.  But why should we here dread the Arians, since Paul, in so many passages, employs the term God, of the Father; and Lord, of the Son?  If, only in the introduction of John's Gospel, the Son of God is so clearly declared to be God, is not that sufficient against the whole body of the Arians?--(Erasmus: Annot. in Op. tom. vi. p. 971 [See also tom. vii. pp. 1071-2; and tom. ix. pp. 273-4] [as quoted in Concessions, by John Wilson])

The reader of the above quote by Erasmus may notice that in the last sentence he asserts that John 1:1 is all that's needed to combat Arianism [Arius was a non-trinitarian theologian].  Soon you may see below for a further discussion of John 1:1, which will be appended to this discussion in the near future.  For now I will simply say that the proper rendering of John 1:1 has been debated ad extremum, and its precise meaning is open to interpretation.  The rendering found in the New World Translation, "the Word was a god" actually fits the context of the passage better, and it has scholarly support, but more on that to come.

Now, penultimate to the conclusion of this discussion of Titus 2:13, here is a list of Bibles that render this verse in such a way as to refer to two entities (note: some of these renderings are supported in footnotes).
 

"the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Chrst"...................The NT of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by C. Nary (1719)
"the mighty God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ.................Tyndale's Bible (translated into modern English)
"the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ"............The NT in Greek & English, by D. Mace, London (1729)
"the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ"...................The NT Translated from the text of J.J. Griesbach, by S. Sharpe (1840)
"the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ"...................The NT: Translated from the Greek Text of Tischendorf, by G.R. Noyes (1869)
"the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ"...................The Riverside New Testament (1934)
"the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus"...................A New Translation of the Bible, by J. Moffatt (1935)
"the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ".....................La Sainte Bible, by L. Segond, [translated from French] (1957)
"the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus".....................The New American Bibie [Catholic]
"the great God and of Christ Jesus our Saviour"...................The New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips (1972)
“the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”........................The King James Version
“our great God and our savior, Christ Jesus”..........................Footnote to the Jerusalem Bible
“the great God and our saviour Christ Jesus”.........................Footnote to the New English Bible
“the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.........................Rheims
“the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ”........................footnote to the NRSV
“the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus”.........................footnote to the Revised English Bible
“the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”........................American Standard Bible
“our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”...........................footnote to the CEV
“the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”...........................Footnote to the TEV
“the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.........................Lamsa
“the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ”...................R Knox (Footnote)
“the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ”........................Ferrar Fenton
“the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ”........................Concordant Lit NT
“the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus”.........................Lattimore
“the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus”.........................J.B. Rotherham
“the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ”................Schonfield
“the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”........................Alternative reading given by the Translator’s NT

 The following is an incomplete but substantial list of scholars, theologians, and biblical grammarians from both previous centuries and our own, who have favored a rendering of Titus 2:13 that distinguishes between the Father and Jesus:

Tyndale,  Winer, Alford,   Huther,   Abbot,   White,   Parry,   E.F. Scott,   Jeremias,   Kelly,   Conzelmann,   V. Taylor,   W. Foerster,  Erasmus,   Calvin,   Luther,   Grotius,   LeClerc,   Bloomfield (in his revised view -see below)  Wetstein,  Moldenhawer,   Michaelis,   Benson,   Macknight,   Abp. Newcome,   Rosenmuller,   Heinrichs,   Schott,  Bretschneider,   Neander,   De Wette,   Meyer,   Fritzsche,   Grimm,   Baumgarten-Crusius,   Krehl,   H.G.T.L. Ernesti,   Schumann,   Messner,   Ewald,   Holtzmann,   Beyschlag,   Rothe,   D. Macy,  S. Sharpe,  G. R. Noyes,  Moffatt,  L. Segond,  J.B. Phillips,  Lamsa,  Lattimore,  Rathherham,  Schonefielf,  Conybeare and Howson,   Fairbairn (with some hesitation),   Davidson,   Farrar,   Immer,  Prof. Lewis Campbell,   W.F. Gess (in Christi Person und Werk, Abth. II. (1878), in opposition to his earlier view expressed in Die Lehre von der Person Christi (1856),  Reuss,   Fenton,   Wescott and Hort (Abbot says, "apparently, according to the punctuation of their text, as distinguished from that of their margin"),   C. Nary,  and   T.S. Green.

To which might be added the following who left the matter undecided:

Heydenreich,   Flatt,   Tholuck,   C.F. Schmid,   Luthard

Here's what Bloomfield (from above list) said, which was a revision of his former view:

"I am ready to admit that the mode of interpreting maintained by Huther and Al[ford] [where Jesus is not called 'the great God'] completely satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence; that it is both structurally and contextually quite as probable as the other, and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing."

Please note that many of the names listed above, as well as the above quote, can be found in the article written by Ezra Abbot, presented in The Journal of Biblical Literature, entitled On the Construction of Titus ii. 13. (June and December, 1881).
 

JP has said that "these passages [including Titus 2:13] are “disputed” by subordinationists who like to add words which completely change the meaning of the text."  Well, all of the above translations are not the result of "subordinationists"...add[ing] words", but the result of mindful scholarship and sound exegetical meditation.  In fact, the only non-trinitarian scholars (I'm aware of) from the above list are Abbot and Schonfield, but that does not negate their knowledge of Greek.  Indeed, Ezra Abbot was considered a superb Greek grammarian in his time, possibly comparable to today's Murray J. Harris.  Finally, most of the above are Catholic and Protestant translations, and many of them are far from "obscure" (you may recall that JP has stated that he doesn't care what renderings are offered in "obscure" translations).
 

If the Titus 2:13 verse is talking about two separate persons, and if the above CONSISTENT  rendering were accepted, what person is “the Lord” if it cannot be identified with “the Savior Jesus Christ”?  That is, why does the NWT not translate kuriou as ‘Jehovah’ in this passage when it cannot be Jesus Christ?
 

SK:  Titus 2:13 does not contain the word "Lord", it contains the words "the great God".  2 Peter 2:20 uses "Lord" and it does refer to Jesus Christ.  I think JP is confused here; he certainly is confus(ing).  Actually, what JP is doing is trying to assert that since the article-noun-kai-noun construction found at Titus 2:13 is purported to apply to two different entities, then 2 Peter 2:20 must also apply to two entities.  The problem with JP's reasoning is simply that the word "Lord" does not carry the restrictive force of the words "the great God".  The word "Lord" is a title that is used of many different persons in the Bible, and it applies to Jesus many times; so there is no reason to believe that it does not at 2 Peter 2:20.  However, the words "great God" never apply to Jesus, so the restrictive force was so obvious that Paul could feel comfortable omitting the article.  This reasoning is accepted by many scholars, including those who worked on the Catholic New American Bible, as I've already demonstrated.  As Nigel Turner observed in his Grammatical Insights Into The New Testament, "Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule [Sharp's Rule] is decisive" (p. 16).  The reason the trinitarian Nigel Turner felt that the indecisiveness of Sharp's Rule is unfortunate, is because he realized that the rendering he prefers cannot be proven to be definitive.  So since the omission of the article is indecisive, we should rely on other factors, such as the author's habitual use of language, and the other biblical texts that bear on how Titus 2:13 should be rendered.  As has been clearly shown, these factors recommend the rendering found in the NWT quite highly.

I would like to wrap up this discussion of Titus 2:13 by repeating the words of Granville Penn, who, speaking as a trinitarian averred:

"'The glorious appearing of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.'...The [great God and saviour of us], of St. Paul in this place, denote the two persons whom our Lord expressed in the words, ["the Father is greater then I"].  Some eminently pious and learned scholars of the last and present century have so far over stretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run it into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their zeal to maintain the 'honor of the Son,' were not sensible that they were rather engaged in 'dishonoring the Father.'"--(Granville Penn: Supplemental Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant, p. 145. [as quoted in Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, by John Wilson]).

Mr. Penn, I couldn't have said it better, nor could I agree with you more!  In fact the words "fallacious sophistry" might well describe the entire effort of some who wish to force the straitforward language of Scripture regarding the nature of God and his Son, into the metaphysical world of substances, essences, and hypostases.
 

SK:  I don't consider myself qualified to argue whether it is correct in every case that the Divine Name is found in the Christian Greek Scriptures in the NWT, but at least the reader knows why it was put there. The appendix to the NWT has a discussion wherein they [the translators] make a full disclosure of their reasons for incorporating the divine name.

JP:  As Professor Beduhn concede in my dialogue with him, this is not an acceptable translation technique.  The Professor admitted that,

“as a biblical scholar I object to intruding the name Jehovah into the New Testament text. Although some the NT writers show that they know this name of God, none of them makes a point of introducing it, and not a single Greek manuscript supports putting the name in.  So this is a criticism I have of the NWT.”

SK:  I do not begrudge Prof. BeDuhn his criticism of the Divine Name in the New Testament, but that isn't the end of the matter either.  The fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who have argued in favor of its inclusion in the New Testament, and this is based on sound reasoning, which I will elaborate upon in a moment.

JP:  The word ‘Jehovah’ does not appear in the Greek text.  The NWT actually replaces ‘kyrios’ by inserting the name of God into the text, which is completely unwarranted.  No amount of “full disclosure” in the appendix changes this corruption.

SK:  I respect JP's right to oppose the introduction of the Divine Name in New Testament, but I object to the charge that doing so is "completely unwarranted" and a "corruption".  Granted, it may not be included in the extant Greek manuscripts, but it almost certainly was in the originals, as I'll demonstrate in a moment.  Therefore, its inclusion is really more of a restoration than a corruption.

For those who are interested in a balanced discussion of this subject, you may enjoy reading two articles by George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament (Biblical Archeology Review, March '78) and The Tetragram and the New Testament (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977).  Notice some of Howard's words, which testify to his very balanced views:

"...I offer the following scenario of the history of the Tetragrammaton in the Greek Bible as a whole, including both testaments (emphasis mine).  First, as to the Old Testament: Jewish scribes always preserved the Tetragrammaton in their copies of the Septuagintboth before and after the New Testament period.  In all probability Jewish Christians wrote the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew as well.  Toward the end of the first Christian Century, when the church had become predominantly Gentile, the motive for the retaining the Hebrew name for God was lost and the words kyrios and theos were substituted for it in Christian copies of Old Testament Septuagints.  Both kyrios and theos were written in abbreviated form in a conscious effort to preserve the sacred nature of the divine name.  Soon the original significance of the contractions was lost and many other contracted words were added.

A similar pattern probably evolved with respect to the New Testament.  When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.  But when the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint.

Thus toward the end of the first Christian century, the use of surrogates (kyrios and theos) and their contractions must have crowded out the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in both Testaments.  Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars.  Soon, even the contracted substitutes lost their original significance and were joined by a host of other abbreviated nomina sacra which had no connection with the divine name at all."

The above quote represents some of Howard's conclusions as presented in The Name of God in the New Testament.  I will present some of the evidence upon which he based his conclusions as we move through this part of the discussion.

SK:  On the other hand, the DV and other translations have removed the name Jehovah from their translations. The one name that is mentioned more than any other name in all of Scripture, simply deleted. The name that Jesus Christ himself avowed to have "made known"--simply deleted. It is my opinion that those who would do such a thing are guilty of unmitigated hubris.

JP:  “Unmitigated hubris”?  Do you know what you are talking about?

The Divine Name

What “name” is mentioned more than any other name in all of Scripture?

It is certainly not “Jehovah” which is a concoction that the Witnesses have assumed.  The recorded text designating God’s nature in relation to man is YHWH.  The Jews put in vowels between these consonants so they would not pronounce God’s true name, but say “Edonah” or “Lord” instead.  In point of fact, Hebrew has no vowels and the pronunciation of many biblical words varied greatly from region to region.

The Masoretes, scribes who lived between 500 to 900 A.D. created a method of pronounication
whereby they added tiny dots above and below the Hebrew letters to show how words should be pronounced.  Now, in order to prevent the tetragrammaton from being said out loud, for reasons I shall elucidate below, they did not use the above method, but instead inserted the tiny dots for the name ‘Adonai’ below YHWH to ensure the reader did not pronounce the divine name.  "The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew word Adonai or Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being." (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1991).  The  word 'Jehovah', therefore, does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew so why should the Watchtower insist on preserving a FLAGRANT FABRICATION?

SK: Whether or not the name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) is artificial remains to be seen, and I will elaborate on that shortly, but JP's use of the words "flagrant fabrication" should have been beneath him.  I said in the introduction that JP's polemical style was based on sarcasm and posturing.  It is apparent that we should also add that he looses credibility due to his overweening use of hyperbole.

In the Hebrew language, there is no ‘J’ sound.  Many Jewish names in the Bible have become traditionally Hellenized, and therefore they have assumed Greek pronunciations. For instance, "Jacob" is really pronounced "Yah-kobe" in Hebrew -  likewise for “Jehovah” and YHWH.  Furthermore, according to Strong’s Concordance (word number 1943) “Hovah” (the second part of “Je-hovah”) actually means “ruin” and “mischief” or “disaster”.  It occurs three times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Isaiah 47:11[1], Ezekiel 7:26 [2]).  Now the question is:  is “mischief”  what God’s name is supposed to be rooted on?  Give me a break.  Far from elevating God’s name, the Witnesses have ironically blasphemed the Holy Name, and go on insisting that everyone do the same!

SK:  The above assertion is so blatantly absurd that I am actually embarrassed to find myself replying to it!  Many words look or sound alike, but that does not mean that they are based on the same root.  For example: You can take your friend TO the store and buy TWO candy bars so that he can have one TOO.  Or, a MAN can buy a MANual that clearly MANifests how to assemble something.  Are the aMENdments to the constitution male in gender?  Is a trinitARIAN a group of three ARIANS?  Well, neither is jeHOVAH based on the root HOVAH.  JP charged Jehovah'sWitnesses with adopting a "flagrant fabrication," but in reality, his argument about Hebrew roots is more aptly described as such.  The root from which Jehovah (or Yahweh) is derived is not Hovah but Hava.

Dr. J. B. Rotherham, the gentleman scholar you refer to below in your discussion of the “Lukan comma”, states in the preface of his Bible concerning Jehovah: "Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D."

SK: Whether or not Jehovah is the correct pronunciation may be open to question, but very few would describe it as "monstrous."  In fact, notice what was said by Francis B. Denio, in the Journal of Biblical Literature:
 

It is not a barbarism (emphasis mine).  It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant God of Israel.  There is no other word which can faintly compare with it.  For four centuries it has been gathering these connotations.

In the sixteenth century Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars alike began to use this word freely.  At the outset they believed that the Hebrew points were correctly used.  The word thus launched into literature was not wholly relinquished when the facts became known.  For one reason, it filled a felt need.  The literature of devotion appropriated it more and more as time went on.  Few collections of hymns are without the one beginning:

Guide me, O thou great Jehovah.

Almost as many have that beginning:

Before Jehovah's awful throne (''awful' used to mean 'causing awe')

In half a dozen hymn books used by three different denominations the following first lines are found:

Call Jehovah thy salvation.
Jehovah God the Father.
Jehovah!  thy gracious power.
Jehovah reigns, he dwells in light.
Jehovah reigns, his throne is high.
Jehovah reigns, let all the earth rejoice.
Jehovah speaks, let Israel.
Praise ye Jehovah!
Praise ye Jehovah's name!
Sing to the great Jehovah's praise.
Sing tot he Lord Jehovah's name.
Thank and praise Jehovah's name.
The Lord Jehovah reigns.  And royal.
The Lord Jehovah reigns. His throne.

These occurrences give only first lines, but the use is not confined to first lines.  These suffice to show the fact of usage and meaning which usage gives.  They show it to be a personal name with associations of reverence and trust and affection such as befit the name of the covenant God of Israel.  These are the qualities upon which the Psalmists of Israel love to dwell.  In fact the use of this word in our devotional literature especially adopts it for use in the Psalter, and also in the prophets.

No other word approaches this name in the fulness of associations required.  The use of any other word falls so far short of the proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in a translation (emphasis mine).
 

Denio goes on to mention that the translators of the American Standard Version were justified in their observations that were expressed as follows:
 

"The change first recommended in the Appendix (of the English Revision of 1885)--that which substitutes 'Jehovah' for 'LORD' and 'GOD'--is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced.  But 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 the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries.  This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. 3 14,15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people;--not merely the abstract 'Eternal' One of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of those who are in trouble.  This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, it now restored to its place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim." (emphasis mine)

Finally, Denio observed the following unquestionable fact: "In some of these passages, as Jer. 16:21, a personal name is fairly demanded: "And they shall know that my name is Jehovah."  (The Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 45, pp. 146-149, 1926)

Denio makes some important observations, which actually represent the very reasons the WTS has stressed the need to restore the Divine Name in the form 'Jehovah' in the Bible.  As Denio said: "There is no other word which can faintly compare with it.  For four centuries it has been gathering these connotations." He also observed that 'Jehovah' is "a personal name with associations of reverence and trust and affection such as befit the name of the covenant God of Israel."  Sadly, times seem to have changed, for while the American Revisers who worked on the ASV averred that the Divine Name should be "restored to its place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim", those who worked on the NASB (the revised ASV) felt justified in omitting it!  Now notice how the WTS expressed very similar views to that of Denio:
 

"Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form "Jehovah" in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah', Isaiah would become Yesha'·ya'hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu'a' (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous' (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes." (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, under Jehovah)

In point of fact, the first recorded use of the word “Jehovah” dates back to the thirteenth century A.D. where a DOMINICAN SPANISH MONK used it in his book “Puego Fidei” of the year 1270.  So in other words, the Witnesses try pushing a concocted word first proposed by a Catholic monk in the late middle ages!

SK: I'm not sure what JP's point is here.  Is he saying that the name 'Jehovah' should be avoided because a Dominican Monk supposedly invented it?  Surprisingly, regarding pronunciation, that Monk may very well have been correct after all, as I'll demonstrate below.

The Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) says:  "Yahweh-the personal name of the [El] of the Israelites ...The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH)came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20thcenturies biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

Now, I happened to come across this little tidbit from a subordinationist site who trumpets ‘Yahweh’ as the true name of God instead of ‘Jehovah’:

“Interestingly, even the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that the name Jehovah is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton. This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission: "While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves equally with other forms, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton JHVH." (from http://www.bodyofmessiah.org/ishisnam.htm).

Did you get that, Sean?  On the one hand, the Watchtower insists on the ‘correct and pure’ name of God, and make a big deal out of God’s true name being “stricken” from Scripture.  And what do we read here?  Well, the Watchtower says “we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century”.   WHAT?!?!?  If your criteria is “familiarity”, then I’m sorry to bring you back to reality but “Lord” is much closer.  Anyways, since when does “familiarity” replace the Greek text as a criteria in translation?  Hmmmm…..interesting.

SK: It's a shame that I have to explain what should be a basic concept to JP, but the above paragraph leaves me no choice.  JP, the WTS has never claimed that Jehovah is 'the correct and pure' name of God (though it could be); we've argued that some form of the Divine Name belongs in Scripture, and that Jehovah has all the associations engendered by familiarity.  There are many scholars who agree with this, and Denio, quoted above, is representative of them, along with the translators of the American Standard Version, which Denio himself quoted in his article.

Also, JP appears to be confusing 'Name' with 'Title'.  Lord is a title, which is used of numerous people in the Bible, while Jehovah is a NAME, that signals to our minds the covenant God of Israel.  He is NOT simply Kurios or Lord.  He is the Almighty God whose enumeration is ONE according to the Bible and the Shema, and his personality and his name are inextricably intertwined.  Just as your name is semantic signal of your personality and character to those who know you, so the name Jehovah signals his lofty, incomparable qualities to those who have come to know him.  Those who insist on calling Jehovah nothing but “God” or “Lord” are doing no less a disservice to him, then those who would constantly refer to you as “man” to me as “dood”.  Think about it  –we even feel the need to name our pets!  If we would not feel comfortable calling a dog ‘dog’, then how much more so should we realize the disrespect that is shown to our heavenly Father by those who refuse to use his name.  I think the Great God of the universe deserves at least the same degree of respect we are willing to show our family basset hound –don’t you JP?

Now, as to the correct pronunciation of the Divine Name, I have said that Jehovah could be an accurate (English) rendering.  The same conclusion was reached by Professor George Wesley Buchanan in an article that appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review, entitled How God's Name Was Pronounced.  Let's consider his findings, which compelled him to reject the pronunciation Yahweh (please note that I have omitted the Hebrew characters from Buchanan's comments, because my browser does not support them.  In any case, they were parenthetic anyway).  One important detail Buchanan noted was that the middle vowel oo or oh is never omitted from the biblical names based on the Tetragrammaton:

The Hebrew for the name "Jonathan" is Yah-ho-na-than, "Yaho or Yahowah has given."  When this name was abbreviated it became "Yo-na-than", preserving the vowel oh.  John was spelled "Jaho-cha-nan", "Jaho or Yahowah has been gracious."  Elijah's name was Eli-yahoo, "My God is Yahoo or Yahoo-wah."  Ancients often gave their children names that included the name of their deity.  For other examples, Ish-baal is "the man of Baal," and Baal-ya-sha means "Baal has saved."  In both cases the name "Baal" is probably correctly pronounced in the name of the person involved.  The same is true with the Tetragrammaton.  Anyone who cares to check the concordances will find that there is no name in the entire Scriptures that includes the Tetragramaton and also omits the vowel that is left out in the two-syllable pronounciation...(How God's Name Was Pronounced, found in Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, March/April 1995)

As further evidence, Buchanan suggests that we consider Hebrew poetry:

...from the poem of Exodus 15, read aloud [in Hebrew, of course] verses 1, 3, 6, 11, 17 and 18, first pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" and then read it again, pronouncing the same word as "Yahowah."  Notice the rhyme and poetic beat of the two.  In this way the reader can judge which one is the more likely pronunciation used in antiquity.

Thus Buchanan concludes:

When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was "Yah" or "Yo."  When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been "Yahowah" or "Yahoowah."  If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been "Yaho," but even this spelling may have been pronounced with three syllables, including the final aspirant, because Hebrew had no vowel points in Biblical times.

Perhaps the Spanish Monk JP referred to previously had the forsight to consider some of the issues Buchanan did, or perhaps it was pure dumb luck; in any case, he may have been right after all!

The SEPTUAGINT

The Watchtower’s official web site says this:

To understand this, remember that the manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures that we possess today are not the originals. The actual books written by Matthew, Luke and the other Bible writers were well used and quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made of those copies. This is what we would expect, since the copies were usually made to be used, not preserved. There are thousands of copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures in existence today, but most of them were made during or after the fourth century of our Common Era. This suggests a possibility: Did something happen to the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures before the fourth century that resulted in the omission of God's name? The facts prove that something did.

In summary, therefore, the Witnesses bring forth the following argument:

There are a few early fragments of the Septuagint MSS (Greek Old Testament) which do, in fact, contain the tetragrammaton [First published in 1983 by P. J. Parsons (Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 50)- Job 42:11-12; The Cairo Geniza, 1959 ed., 222,224 (Papyrus Fouad 266) - Lev. 2-5)].  In light of the older Septuagint versions containing the tetragrammaton, the evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX [The Septuagint--a Greek translation of the Old Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D. onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton [the Hebrew consonants YHWH, usually rendered "Jehovah"] form has been eliminated from the text by copyists....In place of it they substituted the words "kyrios" (usually translated "the Lord") and "theos", meaning "God".

SK:  So far so good, but pay close attention to the reasoning JP puts forth below.

In order to give a fair consideration to these facts, it’s first necessary to provide a little background.  The Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture says this:

“In extra biblical Jewish literature and, we may suppose, in Jewish conservation, God was usually designated by circumlocation:  the Name, the Place, the Shekinah (dwelling), the Power, the Heavens, the Most High, the Holy One…Such modes of speaking certainly suggest a great advance in reverence, not to say timorousness over the bold addresses of many of the Psalms…and an increasing reserve in converse with God.  They suggest also a  more remote sense of the divine personality and presence.”  (p.736)

In NT times this name was never uttered except by the priests in a few liturgical functions.  The utterance seems to have been abandoned between the 5th and 3rd centuries B.C.  Possible reasons include:

) an exaggerated fear or superstition on the oral pronunciation of the name;
) to protect the name from pagan magical formulas;
) to preserve the name from being placed on par with pagan deities which also were known by their personal names - Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Diana etc.

There are plenty of instances of the Aramaic ‘mari’ (‘my Lord’) and ‘maran’ (‘our Lord’) which are found in early Christian prayers to Christ (including the Didache, 10:5).  And there was opposition to ‘kyrios’, ‘kyria’ in the Roman Caesar Cult  (Cf. Martyrol. Polycarpi 8:2) which would have been meaningless unless the early Christians understood ‘kyrios’ as referring to deity.

And of course, there is the outrageous “technique” in arbitrarily dicing up ‘kyrios’ in the New Testament:  ‘Lord’ when it refers to Jesus and ‘Jehovah’ when it refers to the Father.  THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES TO SPEAK TO CHRIST’S IDENTIFICATION AS GOD IF WITNESSES INSIST ON MAKING SUCH AN MONSTROUS PARTITION OF ‘KYRIOS’. Furthermore, the fact that St. Paul uses ‘Lord’ for God in OT passages would compel him to explain that he did not mean it in the sense when he applies it to Christ if Christ were not God.

SK:  Just as the word "Saviour" can be applied to different referents with different senses, so the word "Lord" can also, and is.  The fact that Paul may have used "Lord" as a reference to Jehovah and to Christ, proves less than nothing in support of your trinitarian view.  Check your concordance and see how often the word "Lord" is used in the OT in reference to those who are not God.  Since the NT is an outgrowth of the OT, the principles of the OT use of the word "Lord" can be applied to the NT.  If Abraham can be Sarah's "Lord" without making Abraham part of a triune Godhead, so too, Jesus can be our "Lord" without making him part of a triune Godhead.  Consider:
 

The Greek and Hebrew words rendered "lord" (or such related terms as "sir," "owner," "master") are used with reference to Jehovah God (Eze 3:11), Jesus Christ (Mt 7:21), one of the elders seen by John in vision (Re 7:13, 14), angels (Ge 19:1, 2; Da 12:8), men (1Sa 25:24; Ac 16:16, 19, 30), and false deities (1Co 8:5). Often the designation "lord" denotes one who has ownership or authority and power over persons or things. (Ge 24:9; 42:30; 45:8, 9; 1Ki 16:24; Lu 19:33; Ac 25:26; Eph 6:5) This title was applied by Sarah to her husband (Ge 18:12), by children to their fathers (Ge 31:35; Mt 21:28, 29), and by a younger brother to his older brother (Ge 32:5, 6). It appears as a title of respect addressed to prominent persons, public officials, prophets, and kings. (Ge 23:6; 42:10; Nu 11:28; 2Sa 1:10; 2Ki 8:10-12; Mt 27:63) When used in addressing strangers, "lord," or "sir," served as a title of courtesy.-Joh 12:21; 20:15; Ac 16:30.  (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, under "Lord")

Obviously, the biblical use of the word "Lord" is not in harmony with the views of JP and some other trinitarians who are not conservative in thinking.

The way that St. Paul insists on the confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’ indicates more than simple reverence.  In fact, since the suppression of the Divine Name and adoption of ‘Lord’ was already well established by the time of St. Paul’s writing, he would assuredly be inclined to use ‘Lord’ for God.  Yet, it can be shown from thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not once does the tetragrammaton appear, not even in the Gospel of Matthew, which was probably originally written in Aramaic.  Christianity was PRIMARILY AND STILL IS an ORAL religion.  Hence, the Apostles would be inclined to respect the religious heritage that they were brought up in as long as it was not false or unnecessary (Cf. Matthew 23:2).

SK:  The last two sentences in the above paragraph assume that the 'copes of the Greek New Testament' are absolutely identical to the originals in every case.  George Howard, quoted earlier, demonstrated that such is an unwarranted assumption.  Since it fits the discussion here so well, I will repeat Howard's contention:
 

"...I offer the following scenario of the history of the Tetragrammaton in the Greek Bible as a whole, including both testaments (emphasis mine).  First, as to the Old Testament: Jewish scribes always preserved the Tetragrammaton in their copies of the Septuagint both before and after the New Testament period.  In all probability Jewish Christians wrote the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew as well.  Toward the end of the first Christian Century, when the church had become predominantly Gentile, the motive for the retaining the Hebrew name for God was lost and the words kyrios and theos were substituted for it in Christian copies of Old Testament Septuagints.  Both kyrios and theos were written in abbreviated form in a conscious effort to preserve the sacred nature of the divine name.  Soon the original significance of the contractions was lost and many other contracted words were added.

A similar pattern probably evolved with respect to the New Testament.  When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.  But when the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint.

Thus toward the end of the first Christian century, the use of surrogates (kyrios and theos) and their contractions must have crowded out the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in both Testaments.  Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars.  Soon, even the contracted substitutes lost their original significance and were joined by a host of other abbreviated nomina sacra which had no connection with the divine name at all."

I have no doubt at all that the Apostles respected the religious heritage in which they were brought up.  But, as Howard has said, it was probably the Gentile converts who were responsible for the omission of the Divine Name in the NT and Septuagint.  I highly doubt that Paul or any of the Apostles would have avoided using the very name that Scriptures show is so very important:
 

Exodus 3:15
15. God further said to Moses, "You are to tell the Israelites, `Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come.--NJB

2 Chronicles 7:12-14
12  Then Yahweh appeared to Solomon in the night and said, "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice. 13  If I shut the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the country, or if I send pestilence among my people, 14  if my people who bear my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence and turn from their wicked ways, then I will listen from heaven and forgive their sins and restore their country.--NJB

Psalms 83:18
That they may know that thow alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth--Darby

Psalms 68:4
Sing unto God, sing forth his Name; cast up a way for him that rideth in the deserts: His name is Jah, and rejoice before Him--Darby

Isaiah 12:2
And in that day shall ye say, Give ye thanks to Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his deeds among the peoples, make mention that His name is exalted--Darby

Isaiah 12:4
Give thanks to Yahweh, call his name aloud--The Jerasulem Bible

Isaiah 52:6
 6. Because of this my people will know my name, because of this they will know when the day comes, that it is I saying, Here I am!"--NJB

Malachi 3:16
16 At that time 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.--NWT

The above is just a sampling of how the Hebrew Scriptures emphasize the importance of the Divine Name.  Is it reasonable to conclude that Jesus' followers would have any less respect for the Name?  Not if we accept the full import of Jesus' own words in the following texts:

Matthew 6:9-10
9  So you should pray like this: Our Father in heaven, may your name be held holy--NJB

John 17:26
26 And I have made your name known to them 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."--NWT

What name did Jesus make known?  Certainly not "the Lord", which is not a name at all, but a title.
 

Witness allegations that there were later ‘corruptions’ in the New Testament MSS which removed the divine name are futile.  First, if the copyists made such a sacriligious abomination in later Septuagint and NT MSS, then how do Witnesses know that the NWT does not have other such atrocities or errors?  The NWT is based on these LATER Greek MSS which are, apparently, “corrupted”.  If one calls into question the textual authenticity of so many affected passages, what basis do Witnesses have for insisting that the bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

SK:  The more I read JP's arguments, the more I gaze at my monitor in disbelief!  JP, you seem to believe that the Greek NT manuscripts have come down to us with such absolute fidelity that there is no question of their complete accuracy in any case whatsoever.  Do you have any idea how far off base you are?  Have you heard of textual criticism, or the MANY problems with which textual critics have had to contend?  Let me share a quote with you from The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes:
 

My own [Ehrman's] work in in this area [of textual studies] has eventuated in the first full-length analysis, entitled The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.  The study examines one area of ideological conflict -- the christological controversies of the second and third centuries -- and shows how it affected a number of textual witnesses produced in the period.  While no one would claim that theological controversies caused the majority of the hundreds of thousands of textual variants, they clearly engendered several hundred.  Nor are these variant readings, taken as a whole, of little consequence.  To the contrary, many prove to be critical for questions relating to NT exegesis and theology. (ibid, pp 364 & 365)

Did you catch that JP?  Textual critics have to contend with, not a few, but "hundreds of thousands of textual variants"!  Does that sound to you like the COPIES of the NT bear such unquestionable fidelity to the ORIGINALS, in every particular?  Moreover, while you are quite vehement in charging the WTS with "corrupting" the Scriptures by "stripping Christ of his Godhead", you seem ignorant of the incontestable fact that christological controversies have "engendered several hundred" textual corruptions in favor of orthodoxy, as stated in the above quote!

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses do accept the Bible as the "inspired, inerrent Word of God"; we are simply less naive then JP in determining what constitutes God's word, as opposed to man's word.  We do not hide our eyes from the evidence which reveals the many problems that must be faced by textual critics, and by lovers of truth.

Sean,  it seems that it’s a little hypocritical of you to be castigating the DV over the Comma when it does not appear in the original Greek texts, but at the same time say, “Well, there’s ‘corruption’ in the New Testament MSS because it does not contain the tetragrammaton”.   You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Sean.  Let’s make a deal, Sean.  I will agree to reject the insertion of the Johannine comma because it is not in the Greek New Testament manuscripts if you agree to reject the insertion of “Jehovah” for Lord?  Do we have a deal?

SK:  The problem with the above comment is that the comma Johanneum is a proven interpolation, which definitely does not belong in the NT.  However, the best evidence shows that the Divine Name WAS in the original Septuagint and therefore also in the original NT manuscripts.  Thus, the Comma is without question a corruption, while the inclusion of the Divine Name can legitimately be considered a restoration.

Now I will share with you, in brief, some of the evidence for the Divine Name in the original Septuagint and therefore also the NT, as presented by George Howard.  Howard begins by discussing the Dead Sea Scrolls, which show that "Jewish scribes often distinguished the divine name Yahweh."  Then he draws attention to a second-century scroll called Fuad 266:
 

In 1944, W.G. Waddell discovered the remains of an Egyptian papyrus scroll (Papyrus Fuad 266) dating to the first or second century B.C. which included part of the Septuagint. In no instance, however, was YHWH translated kurios.  Instead the Tetragrammaton itself--in square Aramaic letters--was written into the Greek text.

It should be noted that Fuad 266 predates any of the extant copies of the Septuagint, which testifies that in the earlier copies, the Divine Name was in fact retained.  There is also the Jewish translations of the OT into Greek by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, which also included the Tetragram, and about which Howard says:
 

These fragments which are the underwriting of palimpsest scraps clearly show the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script written into the otherwise Greek text.

The next example should interest JP, since he is so fond Patristic citations, for Origen himself, a third-century church father, retained the Tetragram in his Hexapla:
 

At the end of the last century, Giovanni cardinal Mercati discovered a palimpsest in the Ambrosian Library of Milan containing parts of the Psalter to Origen's Hexapla (lacking the Hebrew column).  All the columns show the Tetragrammaton written in square Aramaic script, although the texts are otherwise written in Greek.

Albert Pietersma, in his Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint, quotes Origen as stating, "In the more accurate exemplars [of the LXX] the (divine) name is written in Hebrew characters."  While Pietersma amazingly does not believe that the Divine Name was in the original Septuagint, his quote of Origen is revealing, for Origen clearly said that the divine name was in "the more accurate exemplars [copies]"!

Howard also refers to fragments of a scroll of the Twelve Prophets, that are probably from the first century.  He notes that "like the fuad papyrus it too writes the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew--in old style script--in an otherwise Greek text."  There was also a fragment of the Greek translation of Leviticus found in cave 4 at Qumran, dated to the first century where the divine name is represented by the Greek letters IAO.  After considering all of this evidence, Howard states the following:
 

Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all.  We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture.  This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos.

Yes, the best evidence we have clearly shows that the original Septuagint had the divine name; therefore, logically, the New Testament most certainly did also, especially where the OT quotations are concerned.
 

Second, we see absolutely NO CONTROVERSY AMONG THE JEWS OR EVEN AMONG THE CHRISTIANS over the this issue EVEN if there were changes later to the Septuagint.  Of all the hot-button issues in the history of the Church: from the necessity of Mosaic Law that St. Paul fought against to Justification by Faith Alone during the Reformation, where was this issue in the history of Christianity? Oh yes, I almost forgot,  God’s “johnny-come-lately organization” invented it in the twentieth century and presto!!! Now it’s a “controversy”.  Good grief.

SK: And since the Bible makes clear the importance of the Divine Name, I am proud to be part of the organization that, unlike the historic church, has seen fit to address the issue.

My problem is with the inconsistency of Witnesses translating ‘kyrios’ - it subverts the truth of the Divinity of Jesus.  The issues of using “Jehovah” as God in the New Testament and “Lord” in the Old Testament is NOT a big deal.  What IS a big deal is shamelessly stipping Jesus of His Godhead and subordinating Him to a mere creature.  What an atrocious blasphemy!

SK: Ah Ha!  It all falls in place now!  All the ranting and raving over how we've supposedly 'corrupted' the Bible by restoring the Divine Name has nothing to do with being faithful to the Greek text, and everything to do with "stripping Jesus of His Godhead."

Interestingly, the very argument you've employed can be reversed, and the opposite can be argued.  Notice what George Howard said in the conclusion of his article, The Name of God in the New Testament:
 

...the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible to tell which one was meant.  This is supported by the fact that in a number of places where Old Testament quotations are cited, there is a confusion in the manuscript tradition whether to read God or Christ in the discussion surrounding the quotation.  Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate "Lord", scribes were unsure whether "Lord" meant God or Christ.  As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them.  Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries. (Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978)

Incidentally, the Catholic Jerusalem bible does use ‘Yahweh’ instead of ‘Lord’ in the Old Testament.  Of course, I have no serious objection to using “Jehovah” in the Old Testament - I just think it’s ridiculous to INSIST on it.  After all, any vowel can be inserted between the consonants of either YHWH or JHVH so that God’s name could possible be many combinations from JaHaVaH to JoHoVoH.

SK: Does anybody besides me notice the contradiction in JP's arguments?  Remember, in the beginning of his discussion of the Divine name he made the following assertion:
 

JP: Furthermore, according to Strong’s Concordance (word number 1943) “Hovah” (the second part of “Je-hovah”) actually means “ruin” and “mischief” or “disaster”.  It occurs three times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Isaiah 47:11[1], Ezekiel 7:26 [2]).  Now the question is:  is “mischief”  what God’s name is supposed to be rooted on?  Give me a break.  Far from elevating God’s name, the Witnesses have ironically blasphemed the Holy Name, and go on insisting that everyone do the same!

But now he says:
 

JP: Of course, I have no serious objection to using “Jehovah” in the Old Testament - I just think it’s ridiculous to INSIST on it.

There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from this contradiction: (1) JP doesn't really believe that "Jehovah" is a corruption at all, or (2) He does not object to subjecting God's Holy Name to blasphemy!  If the former is true, then he's wasted our time presenting the argument; if the latter is true, then he condones blasphemy.  In either case, it is obvious that JP does not take his own argument seriously, so why should we?

Finally, Jehovah's Witnesses are not opposed to Yahweh as a pronunciation; our contention is that it is wrong not to include some form of the Divine Name in the biblical text.  Jehovah saw fit to inspire its inclusion nearly 7000 times, we should obviously respect his obvious objective of drawing attention to His Name.  By incorporating the most common form of the Divine Name in the text of Scripture, Jehovah's Witnesses are doing just that.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The rest of my response to JP's criticisms of the NWT will be presented once it is completed.  I will address his out-dated views of John 8:58, and his highly-misleading, even deceptive presentation of the facts regarding John 1:1.  Indeed, his comments about John 1:1 speak right to the heart of the sort of deception that has been employed by some in an effort to discredit the WTS.  I hope you, my faithful readers, will return periodically, as I promise to complete my response at the earliest possible convenience.

index