In a previous post entitled: “Restoring the Name Jehovah to the New Testament?” I examined what scholars and researchers had to say about the occurrence of the tetragrammaton in the Septuagint and earliest copies of the Christian writings. That article began with comments made by governing body member Geoffrey Jackson in a 2018 JW Broadcast episode where it was stated:

“It’s important to note that the divine name is used consistently in fragments of the Septuagint that date from the first century BCE and the first century CE. This has led some scholars to acknowledge the possibility that Jesus and his disciples used the divine name when making these quotations.” (Geoffrey Jackson)

The scholar that the society has relied most heavily upon for support is professor George Howard and his published statements in 1977. Appendix 1D of the 1984 edition of the New World Translation states:

“Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, יהוה (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate κς [abbreviation for Kyʹri·os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.”

We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a “theory,” rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts. (The New World Translation 1984 edition appendix 1D pg. 1564)

The fact that only some scholars suggest that Jesus and his disciples used the divine name and that this is only acknowledged as a possibility should give one reason to reserve making any dogmatic statements to the effect that it is a “presentation of the facts of history”, let alone taking the bold step of adding to God’s word what one believes should appear, in effect editing God’s inspired word. The fact is there are some scholars that have reason to believe that, although the oldest extant Greek manuscript fragments of the Septuagint contain the divine name in Hebrew letters, it is by no means certain that this was the general practice for all copies since the beginning of its formation. For example in 1984 Albert Pietersma wrote:

“Since the LXX had the tetragram, according to Howard, the New Testament authors when quoting the Greek Bible naturally incorporated the tetragram in their own writing, thus keeping distinct “the Lord God” and “the Lord Christ”; but this line of demarcation disappeared with the substitution of kyrios for the tetragram. If correct, Howard’s theory could produce interesting results for students of early Christianity, but as will be argued below, the foundation on which it has been built, namely, the ancient LXX, will not sustain it, though it might possibly still be debated whether perhaps the Palestinian copies with which the NT authors were familiar read some form of the tetragram.”

“That we have very ancient literary as well as documentary evidence for the use of the tetragram is clear. What is perhaps not quite so clear, rather, what has thus far not been clearly stated by the proponents of the original-tetragram theory, is the nature of the textual witnesses on which their case rests. There would appear to be room for closer examination and also for drawing into the discussion what others have said in other connections. The underlying assumption of the original-tetragram theory is a rather simple one: older is better, or to word it more adequately: since we have early, even pre-Christian, MS evidence for the tetragram and no such MS evidence to the contrary, the tetragram must be original LXX. But before we conclude what we all like to believe, namely, that older is better, we should at least ask two questions: l) With what fidelity do these early texts testify to the LXX? and 2) What internal evidence on kyrios versus tetragram does the LXX itself supply?” (KYRIOS OR TETRAGRAM: A RENEWED QUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL LXX pgs. 87,88)

After reviewing four of the earliest manuscripts The Scroll of the Minor Prophets (8 HevXIIgr), P. Fouad 266, 4QLXXLevb (Rahlfs 802) and P. Ryl. Gk. 458 (Rahlfs 957) he concludes:

“What we have tried to do thus far in our survey is to emphasize that of the four early texts that have been cited in support of an original tetragram, one gives no evidence at all,[1] a second is non- Septuagintal,[2] and a third contains hebraizing revisions (including at least one instance of the tetragram)[3]. Only one text, 4QLXXLevb, would seem to have good credentials as a typical exemplar of the LXX. (pg. 92)

Then in commenting on an article written by Patrick Skehan[4] he writes:

“In delineating the development of the divine names (principally the tetragram) in the Hebrew MSS from Qumran, Skehan distinguishes three stages: 1) names in normal (i.e. square) script, 2) substitution of paleohebrew, 3) spread of the substitution process. And at each stage the author gives appropriate evidence. What the headings indicate and what Skehan makes clear in comment on the evidence is that at Qumran we encounter what may be called an archaizing process in the writing of the divine name, and not, in so far as our present knowledge indicates, a gradual replacement of an older paleohebrew tetragram by a younger one in the square script. Similarly in his survey of Greek evidence Skehan discerns several stages: 1) iao, 2) tetragram in square script, 3) tetragram in paleohebrew script, 4) kyrios. Naturally we would not agree with iao in first place and kyrios in last, but apart from that there is evidence of archaizing similar to that in the Hebrew MSS. The paleo hebrew tetragram in Greek witnesses is not the oldest but apparently the youngest. Both in the Hebrew MSS from Qumran and in our earliest Greek MSS there is clear evidence that the divine name was the object of revisionary activity. (pg. 99)

It would appear then that aside from another ancient manuscript discovery on the order of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is impossible to reach a definitive conclusion based on manuscript evidence alone with what is currently available. Even if we could assume the tetragrammaton appeared in Septuagint copies during the time of Jesus and his disciples, that would still require us to make a second assumption for which there is no evidence, namely that the New Testament writers were obliged to render the divine name in their writings whenever they quoted from the Old Testament. But, according to Jackson, that only accounts for approximately one third of the 237 times the New World Translation restores (inserts would be more accurate) the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. So, what about the other two thirds of occurrences? They could likewise be based on nothing more than assumptions.

Furthermore, even if it could be proven that all 237 insertions of the divine name are legitimate the ratio of divine name usage between Old and New Testament is vastly out of harmony.

This raises the question: how does one account for the apparent inconsistency between the Old Testament which contains the divine name nearly 7,000 times and it’s comparatively few mentions in the New Testament? This is all the more remarkable when we consider that this occured at the time when the greatest prophet, spokesman and representative of God appeared on the scene, his only begotten Son. Surely, one would think that if it were God’s will for his name to be publicly pronounced and widely proclaimed, his Son would have taken the lead. Hence, in this article we will examine what the scriptures reveal as to the example set by Jesus. What do the scriptures reveal as to whether or not he proclaimed the divine name. A future article will deal with the question of whether or not his disciples did so.

Superstition hides the name

Under the heading Jehovah, volume 2 of Insight on the Scriptures released in 1988 states the following:

“At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.

Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it. However, Jehovah himself said that he would ‘have his name declared in all the earth’ (Ex 9:16; compare 1Ch 16:23, 24; Ps 113:3; Mal 1:11, 14), to be known even by his adversaries. (Isa 64:2) The name was in fact known and used by pagan nations both in pre-Common Era times and in the early centuries of the Common Era. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. XII, p. 119) Another claim is that the purpose was to protect the name from use in magical rites. If so, this was poor reasoning, as it is obvious that the more mysterious the name became through disuse the more it would suit the purposes of practicers of magic.

When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold. Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile (607-537 B.C.E.). This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.

Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Kyʹri·os (Lord) or The·osʹ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name.

One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 326) It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.—See NW appendix, pp. 1562-1564.

When did the Jews in general actually stop pronouncing the personal name of God?

So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B.C.E. period. In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God’s revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: “Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men’s ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.” (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus’ statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.

The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: “It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party . . .—these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage.” (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:

In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby’s translation of the Mishnah states: “And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’” (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: “In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.” Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty ‘unless he pronounced the Name,’ and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to ‘say expressly what he had heard,’ presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those “that have no share in the world to come,” states: “Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters.” Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that “a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God],” the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited.—Berakhot 9:5.

Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using the divine name sometime before Jerusalem’s temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces. Additionally the historical value of the Mishnaic traditions is questionable, as we have seen.

There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second centuries C.E. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance of the use of the divine name. The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ʼAdho·naiʹ (Sovereign Lord) or ʼElo·himʹ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C.E., the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ʼAdho·naiʹ or ʼElo·himʹ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. If using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in later copies, the reader, of course, found the Tetragrammaton completely replaced by Kyʹri·os and The·osʹ.—See LORD. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2 pgs. 5-7)

The brochure “The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever” printed in 1984 under the subheading “Christians and the Name” has this to say about this superstition:

“NO ONE can say for sure exactly when orthodox Jews ceased to pronounce God’s name out loud and instead substituted the Hebrew words for God and Sovereign Lord. Some believe that God’s name passed out of everyday use well before Jesus’ time. But there is strong evidence that the high priest continued to pronounce it at religious services at the temple—particularly on the day of Atonement—right up until the temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Hence, when Jesus was on earth, the pronunciation of the name was known, although perhaps it was not widely used.

Why did the Jews cease to pronounce God’s name? Probably, at least in part, because of misapplying the words of the third commandment: “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way.” (Exodus 20:7) Of course, this commandment did not prohibit the use of God’s name. Otherwise, why did God’s ancient servants such as David use it so freely and still enjoy Jehovah’s blessing? And why did God pronounce it to Moses and tell Moses to explain to the Israelites who it was that had sent him?—Psalm 18:1-3, 6, 13; Exodus 6:2-8.

Nevertheless, by Jesus’ time there was a strong tendency to take the reasonable commands of God and interpret them in a highly unreasonable way. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments obligated the Jews to observe the seventh day of each week as a day of rest, a Sabbath. (Exodus 20:8-11) Orthodox Jews took that command to ridiculous lengths, making innumerable rules to govern even the smallest act that could or could not be done on the Sabbath. It was doubtless in the same spirit that they took a reasonable command, that God’s name must not be dishonored, to a most unreasonable extreme, saying that the name should not even be pronounced.[5]

Jesus and the Name

“Would Jesus have followed such an unscriptural tradition? Hardly! He certainly did not hold back from doing works of healing on the Sabbath, even though this meant breaking the man-made rules of the Jews and even risking his life. (Matthew 12:9-14) In fact, Jesus condemned the Pharisees as hypocrites because their traditions went beyond God’s inspired Word. (Matthew 15:1-9) Hence, it is unlikely that he would have held back from pronouncing God’s name, especially in view of the fact that his own name, Jesus, meant “Jehovah is Salvation.”

On one occasion, Jesus stood up in a synagogue and read a portion of the scroll of Isaiah. The section he read was what we today call Isaiah 61:1, 2, where God’s name appears more than once. (Luke 4:16-21) Would he have refused to pronounce the divine name there, substituting “Lord” or “God”? Of course not. That would have meant following the unscriptural tradition of the Jewish religious leaders. Rather, we read: “He was teaching them as a person having authority, and not as their scribes.”—Matthew 7:29.

In fact, as we learned earlier, he taught his followers to pray to God: “Let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) And in prayer on the night before his execution, he said to his Father: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world . . . Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me.”—John 17:6, 11.

Regarding these references by Jesus to God’s name, the book Der Name Gottes (The Name of God) explains, on page 76: “We must appreciate the astonishing fact that the traditional Old Testament understanding of God’s revelation is that it is a revelation of his name and that this is carried on through to the final parts of the Old Testament, yes, continues even into the last parts of the New Testament, where, for example at John 17:6, we read: ‘I have made your name manifest.’”

Yes, it would be most unreasonable to think that Jesus held back from using God’s name, especially when he quoted from those portions of the Hebrew Scriptures that contained it.” (The Divine Name Brochure pgs. 14-16)

While admitting no one knows for sure when this superstition to avoid pronouncing the divine name took place, or what exactly was the motivation behind it, two suggestions are offered. Either, according to the divine name brochure, God’s name passed out of everyday use well before Jesus’ time or, according to the more recent publication Insight on the Scriptures, sometime before Jerusalem’s temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Either option raises interesting questions. On the one hand if the divine name was freely in use during Jesus ministry and that of the apostles we would expect to find the name mentioned at least with as much frequency as it had been in the Old Testament, there being no hindrance in using it. Why then the disparity? On the other hand if usage of the divine name decreased well before Jesus time we would expect Jesus to correct this trend if indeed pronouncing the name was of such high importance. The brochure cites as an example of this the account where Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth. Yet, why was Jesus not charged with blasphemy for reading God’s name out loud in the synagogue? Instead of causing a commotion, the immediate reaction to his speech was favorable:

And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth, and they were saying: “This is a son of Joseph, is it not?” (Luke 4:22)

While it is true that the people of Nazareth did indeed want to kill him on that occasion it was not because of pronouncing the name of God. Rather it was because he refused to perform miracles in his home town.

At this he said to them: “No doubt you will apply this saying to me, ‘Physician, cure yourself. Do also here in your home territory the things we have heard were done in Ca·perʹna·um.’” 24 So he said: “Truly I tell you that no prophet is accepted in his home territory. 25 For instance, I tell you in truth: There were many widows in Israel in the days of E·liʹjah when heaven was shut up for three years and six months, and a great famine came on all the land. 26 Yet E·liʹjah was sent to none of those women, but only to a widow in Zarʹe·phath in the land of Siʹdon. 27 Also, there were many lepers in Israel in the time of E·liʹsha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, only Naʹa·man the Syrian.” 28 Now all those hearing these things in the synagogue became filled with anger, 29 and they rose up and rushed him outside the city, and they led him to the brow of the mountain on which their city had been built, in order to throw him down headlong. 30 But he went right through their midst and continued on his way. (Luke 4:23-30)

On two occasions Jesus removed those that were using the temple grounds for buying and selling merchandise. (John 2:13-16; Matt. 21:12:13) He numerous times pointed out how the religious leaders made God’s word invalid by their traditions. (Matthew 15:1-9) The brochure attempts to make the point that Jesus refused to follow the man made traditions of the religious leaders and often confronted them but fails to provide one example of him correcting this superstitious trend of not publicly pronouncing the name of God. Why, if making God’s name was so important to Jesus, is there no indication that he ever clashed with them on this issue?

When requested by his disciples to teach them how to pray how did Jesus respond?

“You must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. (Matthew 6:9, 10)

In visiting a kingdom hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses or attending one of their assemblies it does not take long for one to notice that almost all prayers are addressed to God referring to him by the name Jehovah. I have been one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for over 40 years and in all that time I cannot remember one prayer in which the speaker did not mention the name Jehovah. In fact, if a brother made a habit of praying regularly without addressing God by the name Jehovah he would not fail to draw attention to himself as one leaning towards apostasy. Why did not Jesus teach his disciples to begin their prayers by directly mentioning Jehovah by name? Furthermore, how many times did Jesus mention the name when he himself prayed? Even in the New World Translation, never once in any of his prayers is Jesus foundaddressing or referring to his Father as “Jehovah.”

Since Jesus encouraged his followers to pray “let your name be sanctified” but then never actually set an example by pronouncing the name, it obviously means there must be another way of understanding how that is to be accomplished.

In this regard, these comments from Insight on the Scriptures are very revealing:

“When Jesus Christ was on earth, he ‘made his Father’s name manifest’ to his disciples. (Joh 17:6, 26) Although having earlier known that name and being familiar with God’s activities as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, these disciples came to know Jehovah in a far better and grander way through the One who is “in the bosom position with the Father.” (Joh 1:18) Christ Jesus perfectly represented his Father, doing the works of his Father and speaking, not of his own originality, but the words of his Father. (Joh 10:37, 38; 12:50; 14:10, 11, 24) That is why Jesus could say, “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.”—Joh 14:9.

This clearly shows that the only ones truly knowing God’s name are those who are his obedient servants. (Compare 1Jo 4:8; 5:2, 3.) Jehovah’s assurance at Psalm 91:14, therefore, applies to such persons: “I shall protect him because he has come to know my name.” The name itself is no magical charm, but the One designated by that name can provide protection for his devoted people. Thus the name represents God himself. That is why the proverb says: “The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection.” (Pr 18:10) This is what persons do who cast their burden on Jehovah. (Ps 55:22) Likewise, to love (Ps 5:11), sing praises to (Ps 7:17), call upon (Ge 12:8), give thanks to (1Ch 16:35), swear by (De 6:13), remember (Ps 119:55), fear (Ps 61:5), search for (Ps 83:16), trust (Ps 33:21), exalt (Ps 34:3), and hope in (Ps 52:9) the name is to do these things with reference to Jehovah himself. To speak abusively of God’s name is to blaspheme God.—Le 24:11, 15, 16. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2 pg. 467)

Under the heading sanctification the Insight book states:

“The act or process of making holy, separating, or setting apart for the service or use of Jehovah God; the state of being holy, sanctified, or purified. “Sanctification” draws attention to the action whereby holiness is produced, made manifest, or maintained. (See HOLINESS.) Words drawn from the Hebrew verb qa·dhashʹ and words related to the Greek adjective haʹgi·os are rendered “holy,” “sanctified,” “made sacred,” and “set apart.” (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2 pg. 856)

In harmony with this it would be correct to say that to pray for God’s name to be sanctified would be to pray that all creation set God himself apart as holy and sacred. This was certainly accomplished by Jesus by how he lived and what he taught about God without it being necessary for him to make constant reference to a particular distinctive name.

However, there is a term that Jesus used in referring to God more than all others.

In his book “In Search of Christian Freedom” Raymond Franz comments:

“When with his disciples the final night before his death, both in talking to them and in a lengthy prayer Jesus referred to God’s “name” four times. Yet in that entire night, filled with counsel and exhortation to his disciples and in prayer, not a single occurrence is found of his employing the name “Jehovah.” Rather he consistently employed the designation “Father,” doing so some fifty times! When dying the next day, he did not cry out using the name “Jehovah” but said, “My God, my God,” and in his final words said, “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.” As Christians, whose example, then, should we follow? That of a twentieth-century religious denomination or that of God’s Son, manifest at such a crucial time?” (In Search of Christian Freedom pg. 514)

Clearly, for Jesus, when addressing God and teaching others to do so, Father is the term of choice. Why is that the case?

Ray Franz continues:

In our family relationships we do not normally refer to or address our father as “John,” “Richard,” or “Herman” or whatever his given name is. To do so would give no indication of the relationship we enjoy with our parent. We address him as “father” or the more intimate “papa” or “Dad.” Those outside that relationship could not use such term. They must restrict themselves to a more formal address involving a particular given name. Thus, with those who become children of God through Christ Jesus, the apostle says, “Now because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts and it cries out: Abba [an Aramaic expression meaning “papa”], Father!’” This fact undoubtedly plays a major part in explaining why the undeniable change came, with the pre-Christian emphasis on the name “Jehovah” passing to the Christian emphasis on the heavenly “Father,” for it is not only in prayer that Jesus made that term his expression of choice. As a reading of the gospel accounts makes evident, in all his speaking with his disciples he consistently and primarily refers to God as “Father.” It is only by coming into and deeply appreciating the intimate relationship with the Father which the Son has opened up to us that we can truly say that we know God’s “name” in the full and genuine sense. (In Search of Christian Freedom pgs. 514-515)

Personally, I find this to be a very reasonable and compelling conclusion.

In the next article we will explore the question: Did the Apostles Proclaim the Name Jehovah?



[1] P. Ryl. Gk. 458 (Rahlfs 957)

[2] The Scroll of the Minor Prophets (8 HevXIIgr),

[3] P. Fouad 266

[4] “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll and in the

Septuagint,” BIOSCS 13 (1980) 14-44.

[5] Some suggest another reason: The Jews may have been influenced by Greek philosophy. For example, Philo, a Jewish philosopher of Alexandria who was approximately contemporary with Jesus, was greatly influenced by the Greek philosopher Plato, who he thought was divinely inspired. The Lexikon des Judentums (Lexicon of Judaism), under “Philo,” states that Philo “united the language and ideas of Greek philosophy (Plato) with the revealed faith of the Jews” and that to begin with he “had a visible effect upon the Christian church fathers.” Philo taught that God was indefinable and, hence, unnameable.