The Tetragrammaton in the NT

The NWT 1984 ed. Appendix 1D (p. 1564) quotes George Howard’s theory that “the tetragrammaton was originally written in the OT quotations”. There is more background to Howard’s view on this here. The NWT follows Howard’s views with this: “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.” Facts, however, are derived from evidence, not mere assertions or theories.

The Watchtower organization says that the Bible we have today is trustworthy (Reasoning from the Scriptures p. 64). Yet it also claims that the name of God was removed in the Greek scriptures in the first centuries after Christ. If that is true, can we still say that it is trustworthy? If that could have happened, could not other things also have been removed, or added?

Bible is trustworthy

“Thus modern scholarship gives reason for complete confidence that the Bible has come down to us today essentially unaltered.” Awake! 1972 Jun 22 p.8

*** Reasoning From The Scriptures p. 64 par. 2 q.v. “Bible” ***
In the introduction to his seven volumes on The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them [the papyri] is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used … But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts.”—(London, 1933), p. 15.

Name for God removed

Insight on the Scriptures - Volume 2 p.10
“Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered.”

*** NWT Reference Edition 1984 p. 1564 Appendix 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures *** Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Kyʹri·os, “Lord” or The·osʹ, “God.”

Passages where an OT quotation and the word “God” is not replaced with Jehovah in the NWT: 2Th 1:9 (from Isa 2:10,19,21); 1Pe 2:3 (Psa 34:8); 1Pe 3:15 (Isa 8:13). (These verses uses Jehovah in the following J versions: J⁸, J¹², J¹³, J¹⁴, J¹⁶ and J¹⁷.)

The Watchtower’s use of manuscripts

Charles Russell had a high view of the value of the original manuscripts. In Zion’s WT Aug 1, 1896 he wrote: “But the originals are what we desire, or translations as near to them and their purity as we can obtain.”

Today the WBTS has a more utilitarian view of the manuscripts. When the manuscript evidence supports their teachings, the WTS calls attention to the fact that the oldest manuscripts agree with their position. But when it doesn’t support their position, it quietly ignores this principle hoping no one will notice, as evidenced by the insertion of the word “Jehovah” 237 times in the NT. This is an example of special pleading: “If X, then Y, except when it hurts us.”

WT Jan 1, 1953— “However, these words are no part of God’s inspired Word, not being found in any Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth century, nor in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, nor in any Latin version written before the ninth century.”
WT March 5, 1989 p. 18-19 — “…this was because of the biased views of the translators, not because of what was in the oldest original-language manuscripts.”

So, based on this principle, they have omitted 23 verses which are not found in the oldest manuscripts, the short and long endings of Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 17:37; John 8:1-11. The Mark and John passages are set apart from the main text. As well, the Comma Johanneum (1Jo 5:7-8) omits the unattested portion.

An article in Watchtower May 15, 1978—Where Did Those Verses Go? discusses manuscript evidence and textual criticism.

It is ironic that Jehovah’s Witnesses trust Old Testament manuscripts written 1,500 years after the time of Moses to prove the name YHWH is original to the Torah while trying to claim that manuscripts less than 200 years after the time of Jesus can’t be trusted. (source link) It is equally ironic that they will use Hebrew translations of the New Testament written 1300-1800 years after Christ as a higher authority than the Greek manuscripts, some of which date back to 125 A.D. to justify the insertion of “Jehovah” into the NT.

The Watchtower argues that there must be essentially two groups of Greek NT manuscripts: those which replaced the tetragrammaton (the ones we have today), and the original ones which still contained the tetragrammaton. These have never been found nor have they been quoted, debated, or even discussed by any ancient authors.

The silence of the early Church Fathers and their opponents on this topic is significant. (If there had been some discussion of this topic you can be sure that the Watchtower Organization would be among the first to let us know.) Indeed, Origen mentions at least two Hebrew names of God, namely Adonai and Sabaoth (and again in Contra Celsus Book 5.45, and Book 6.32. In Book 6 the term for “Jehovah” is transliterated as “Iao or Jah”.) Some of their writings date to the early part of the second century (100-150 A.D.). If some copyists had replaced the tetragrammaton in the NT writings in order to support some preferred doctrine, the early Church Fathers, or their opponents, whether Greek, Roman, Gnostic or Jews, would certainly have written about it, either condeming it or defending it. The fact that these accusations are never made, nor even discussed, is very strong evidence that there never existed two sets of Christian writings, one which contained the Name and another which had it replaced with “theos” and “kurios.” We don’t know how long the original autographs remained in existence nor where they were kept or who had them, but some of them could potentially have still been available for examination in the 3rd century. For a discussion on this, see here.

It is interesting at this point to note that Charles Russell already knew that even if we did not have any of the original manuscripts we could still know what they contained by reading the Church Father’s many documents. “They quote passage after passage and page after page of the same Scriptures that are quoted to-day and read in every Christian assembly. They quoted the books which we quote; they quoted them as we quote them; they received them as we receive them, and this, long before the Council of Nice or any other council had anything to say about the canon of the Scriptures.”— WT May 1883 p. 7. Surely, if Tetragrammaton had been removed from the apostolic writings there would be evidence of it in the Church Father’s materials.

The internal evidence for using the name “Jehovah”

There is certainly no desire on my part to prohibit anyone from using a Hebrew name for God, yet there is no command found in scripture to do so nor any example in the NT of anyone modelling its use and elevating its importance to the point of it needing to be used in order to be saved.

So how important is it to call God by using the word “Jehovah”? The WTBTS agrees that earliest recorded use of the word was by a Catholic monk, Raymundus Martini ca. 1270. Scholars agree that it is most certainly NOT the way it was pronounced by the ancient Jews. If you are going to go about insisting to honour the old Hebrew name of God by using it then certainly you should try to use the MOST authentic form of it, shouldn’t you? That would be Yahweh. By using an inauthentic form of it, you are saying that it is not THAT important what the original form was, but that you can use a contextualized form, a latinized form, that is not the original form.

Is the use of the Tetragrammaton so important that our salvation depends on it? Exo 6:3 states that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know God by this name, and thus could not have used it either. Yet, the NT states that they will be in the kingdom of heaven (Mat 8:11) or kingdom of God (Luke 13:28). So can using it be necessary for salvation?

Many people can call me by my name, but is that an indication of a close relationship with me? Neighbours, friends, business colleagues, officials, strangers, and even my enemies can use my name. But precious few can call me “father.” The ones who can and do are those with whom I have the closest relationship in all the world. Could that be similar to our relationship with God?

People do and talk about what’s important to them

How do we know that the word “Jehovah” is important for JWs? Well, they use it all the time and they teach others to use it. They write about it, talk about it, and translate it for others. So they model using it in their speech and writing and teach others to use it. Those are all very good indications that something is important to someone. Now, how important was it for the NT writers to do that? Did they teach others to use it? Did they write about it? Did they model using it?

Paul’s example

As an example of the Apostle Paul teaching something and using a Hebrew word within his line of reasoning, we can look at Rom 8:14-17. Here Paul is teaching believers that they have been adopted as “sons”, they are children and heirs of the Father. In verse 15 he says “we have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out ‘Abba! Father’.” A Hebrew (or Aramaic) word is used within a line of reasoning that spans multiple verses. This is an example of how the biblical writers would have taught new believers about the importance of using God’s Hebrew name, if it was important. There would have been supporting text, including commanding others to use the actual word in Hebrew if that is what they were trying to teach. This would be relevant to both Jews and Greeks. For Jews, because they had a long tradition against pronouncing God’s personal name, and for Greeks because they would not necessarily know of this name. Can we find such an example advocating using the word “YHWH?”

Paul evangelized the Gentiles, many of whom probably didn’t know the personal name of the Hebrew God. He himself was educated by the best Jewish teachers of the time and therefore knew the Name of God from the Hebrew scriptures. He had also almost certainly followed the Jewish custom of the time of not speaking this sacred Name out loud. (Some examples of how the Jews at that time avoided using the name of God are found in Mat 16:16; 26:63; Mark 5:7; 14:61; Acts 7:2.) As a result of the vision on the road to Damascus his life took a radical turn when he encountered the risen Christ. This certainly could have changed his approach to the importance of following this Jewish practice. Yet we find no mention in his teaching of using God’s Hebrew name. In his farewell speech to the elders of Ephesus he could say “I didn’t shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable… Therefore I testify to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all men for I didn’t shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:20,26,27) He also stated that he taught the same things in every church (1Co 4:17; 7:17). Certainly if it was important that the Gentiles use the Hebrew word for God then Paul would have taught them. But we have no record of any such teaching by Paul or that he modeled using it.

Christ’s example

What did Christ use in referring to God? Did he ever model the use of the Tetragrammaton? He could have, but we don’t have any record of it, or manuscript evidence for it. But he did model another word for us that we should use, namely the word: “Father”, which he used about in the Gospels. Mat 5:16,45,48; Mat 6:1,4,6,8,9,14,15,18,26,32; Mat 7:11,21; Mat 10:20,29,32,33; Mat 11:25-27; Mat 12:50; Mat 13:43; Mat 15:13; Mat 16:17,27; Mat 18:10,14,19,35; Mat 20:23; Mat 23:9; Mat 24:36; Mat 25:34; Mat 26:29,39,42,53; Mat 28:19; Mrk 8:38; Mrk 11:25-26; Mrk 13:32; Mrk 14:36; Luk 2:49; Luk 6:36; Luk 9:26; Luk 10:21,22; Luk 11:2,13; Luk 12:30,32; Luk 15:12,18,21; Luk 16:24; Luk 22:29,42; Luk 23:34,46; Luk 24:49; Joh 1:14,18; Joh 2:16; Joh 3:35; Joh 4:21,23; Joh 5:17-23; Joh 5:26,36,37,43,45; Joh 6:27,32,37,40,44,45,46,57,65; Joh 8:16,18,19,27,28,38,41,42,49,54; Joh 10:15,17,18,25,29,30,32,36-38; Joh 11:41; Joh 12:26,27,28,49,50; Joh 13:1,3; Joh 14:2; Joh 14:6-13; Joh 14:16,20,21,23,24,26,28,31; Joh 15:1,8-10; Joh 15:15-16,23-24,26; Joh 16:3,10,15,17,23,25-28,32; Joh 17:1,5,11,21,24-25; Joh 18:11; Joh 20:17,21

When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray he had the perfect opportunity to teach them the importance of using the word “Jehovah”, but what did he say? He began by addressing God as “Father” (Mat 6:9; Luke 11:2) and never mentioned the name Jehovah or Yaweh or any other Hebrew name or title for God.

In the encounter Jesus had with the woman at the well we can discover how Jesus (and the apostle John) addressed the topic of using God’s name. In his conversation with her Jesus stated that she did not know what she (and the Samaritans) were worshipping. He had the perfect opportunity to tell her that she had to use the Hebrew name for God, yet he didn’t. The apostle John writes: John 4:22-24 (NWT 2013) “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

The Holy Spirit’s example

Finally, we could say that if it was important for Christians to use it then certainly it would be the Holy Spirit who would teach the believers to use the name “Jehovah.” So what does the record show? In Rom 8:15 Paul says “For you didn’t receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba, Father!’” Then again, in Gal 4:6, he says: “And because you are children, God sent out the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father!’” Interestingly, Jesus uses this very word when he addressed his Father in Mark 14:36 - “And he was saying, ‘Abba! Father! All things are possible for Thee…’” We have the privilege of addressing God using the very same form that Jesus himself used.

The external evidence for “Jehovah” in the NT

Next, we shall examine the question of whether the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) ever existed in the New Testament. To begin with, all of the manuscripts of the NT were written in Greek and not a single one contains the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. It is of interest to note that there are quite a number of instances where Hebrew words do get used, and they are always transliterated, meaning the Hebrew word is written with Greek letters. A very familiar one is the expression “truly, truly,” which is a Hebrew word written in Greek as “ἀμὴν” or “amen”. We even find two references to a Hebrew name for God (Rom 9:29; James 5:4), namely “σαβαὼθ” [Sabaoth], commonly translated as “Hosts/Armies”. If we ever find an old NT manuscript that does contain the Tetragrammaton then we would have a good reason to use it where it occurs. But, for the time being, we should remain true to the historical evidence we do have, rather than use conjecture to promote a hypothesis.

A number of times the biblical authors used foreign words which they then translate into Greek for the reader. They lived in a multi-lingual and multi-ethnic society and were quite aware of language barriers and made efforts to make themselves understood by everyone (Mat 1:23; Mrk 5:41; 15:22,34; John 1:41; Acts 4:36; 13:8). Here are verses where a writer refers to other languages by name: Luke 23:38; John 5:2; John 19:13,17,20; Act 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; Rev 9:11; 16:16.

The writers of the NT could and did actually use Hebrew words (in the Greek manuscripts using Greek letters) when they wanted to. If using the Hebrew form of the name of God was important to them they most certainly could have and would have mentioned it.

Hebrew words in the New Testament

Here is a table of the 351 times a Hebrew word gets used in the NT (from this source).

“Truly, Amen” ἀμὴν 127x	Mat 5:18,26; 6:2,5,16; 8:10; Mat 10:15,23,42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; Mat 17:20; 18:3,13,18,19,23,28; Mat 21:21,31; 23:36; 24:2,34,47; Mat 25:12,40,45; 26:13,21,34; Mark 3:28; 8:12; 9:1; 9:41; Mark 10:15,29; 11:23; 12:43; Mark 13:30; 15:9,18,25,30; Luke 4:24,37; 18:17,29; 21:32,43; John 1:51; 3:2,5,11; 5:19,24; John 6:26,32,47,53; 8:34,51,58; John 10:1,7; 12:24; 13:16,20,21,38; John 14:12; 16:20,23; 21:18; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:22; 16:27; 1Co 14:16; 2Co 1:20; Gal 1:5; 6:18; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1Th 3:13; 1Ti 1:17; 6:16; 2Ti 4:18; Heb 13:21; 1Pe 4:11; 5:11; [2Pe 3:18]; Jude 25; Rev 1:6,7; 3:14; 5:14; 7:12; 19:4; 22:20
“Sabbath” σαββάτου 68x	Mat 12:1,2, 5, 8,10,11,12; 24:20; 28:1; Mark 1:21; 2:23,24,27,28; 3:2,4; 6:2; 16:1,2,[9]; Luke 4:16,31; 6:1,2,5,6,7,9; Luke 13:10,14,15,16; 14:1,3,5; Luke 18:12; 23:54,56; 24:1; John 5:9,10,16,18; 7:22,23; John 9:14,16; 19:21; 20:1,19; Acts 1:12; 13:14,27,42,44; 15:21; Acts 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; 20:7; 1Co 16:2; Col 2:16
“Accuser/Satan” (Heb. satan) σατανᾶς 35x	Mat 4:10; 12:26; 16:23; Mark 1:13; 3:23; 26; 4:15; 8:33; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:3,31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1Co 5:5, 2Co 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1Th 2:18; 2Th 2:9; 1Ti 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9,13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2,7
“Passover” (Heb. pesach) πάσχα 28x	Mat 26:2,17,18,19; Mark 14:1,12,14,16; Luke 2:41; 22:1,7,8,11,13,15; John 2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14; Acts 12:4; 1Co 5:7; Heb 11:28
“Rabbi” - master ῥαββί 14x	Mat 23:7,8; 26:25; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38,49; 3:2,26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8
“Gehenna” γέεννα 12x	Mat 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; Jas 3:6
(Heb. “man from Kyriot”[?]) Ἰσκαριώθ 11x	Mark 3:19; 14:10; Luke 6:16. The more Greek version Iskariot is in Mat 10:4; 26:14; Luke 22:3; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2,26; 14:22
A unit of coinage (Heb. Mina) μνᾶς 9x	Luke 19:13,16, 18,20,24,25
“Rock” (Heb. Kepha) Κηφᾶς 9x	John 1:42; 1Co 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9,11,14
“Manna” μάννα 4x	John 6:31,49; Heb 9:4; Rev 2:17
“wealth” (Heb. mammon) μαμωνᾶς 4x	Mat 6:24; Luke 16:9,11,13
“sack cloth” (Heb. sak) σάκκος 4x	Mat 11:21; Luke 10:13; Rev 6:12; 11:3
“Hallelujah” ἁλληλουϊά 4x	Rev 19:1,3,4,6
Pledge/Down Payment (Heb. erabon) ἀρραβών 3x	2Co 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14
“moth” σής 3x	Mat 6:19,20; Luke 12:33
“of hosts” - “sabaoth” σαβαὼθ 2x	Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4
“Our Lord come!” μαράναθά 2x	1Co 16:22. The same phrase in Revelation 22:21 has been translated into Greek.
A measure of quantity (Heb. sata) σάτον 2x	Mat 13:33; Luke 13:21
Proper name “Boanerges” (Heb. “sons of thunder” / earthquake / noise) βοανηργές 1x	Mark 3:17
Offering - “korban” κορβᾶν 1x	Mark 7:11
Beer (Heb. shik’ra) σίκερα 1x	Luke 1:15
A liquid measure - “batos” βάτος 1x	Luke 16:6
A measure of quantity - “koros” κόρος 1x	Luke 16:7
Fine linen - “bussos” βύσσος 1x	Luke 16:19
Mulberry tree - “sukaminos” συκάμινος 1x	Luke 17:6
Hyssop - “hussopos” (Heb. ayzov”) ὕσσωπος 1x	John 19:29
basket - “sargane” (Heb. sarag) σαργάνη 1x	2Co 11:33

Aramaic words in the Greek New Testament

“empty headed” ῥακά	Matt 5:22
“zealot” (Aram. kan’an) Καναναῖος	Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18.
“Save now” (Aram. Hosanna) ὡσαννὰ	Matt 21:9 (2x), 15; Mark 11:9; John 12:13
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι	Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34
“Little girl, rise.” ταλιθα κουμ	Mark 5:41. The parallel in Matt 9:24 and Luke 8:54 omit this phrase.
“Be opened” εφφαθα	Mark 7:32
“Rabbi” (Aram. rabbouni) ῥαββουνί	Mark 10:51; John 20:16
“Father/Dad” (Aram. abba) αββα	Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6
“The Stone Pavement” (Aram. Gabbatha) γαββαθά	John 19:13
“Place of the skull” (Aram. Golgotha) Γολγοθᾶ	Mark 15:22
“Sheep Gate” (Aram. Bethzatha) Βηθεσδά	John 5:2

The NWT inserts the word Jehovah into the NT

One of the principles the NWT has used to determine where to use the word “Jehovah” in the NT is where Old Testament verses are quoted and these use the word יהוה (YHWH) in the Hebrew. In some places where the NT writers applied such a passage to Christ, the NWT applies it to Jehovah. This would weaken the connection of Christ being identified with God. I believe this is the primary reason the WTS introduced the use of the word Jehovah into the NT. When they came out with the NWT they revealed their motive by saying:

“This translation, by restoring the name Jehovah to the rightful place it holds in the Greek Scriptures, shows that the name Jehovah is not applied to Jesus. For example, trinitarians are prone to link up Romans 10:13, a quotation of Joel 2:32, with Jesus. But now if we read in the New World Translation both verse 9 and verse 13 of Romans 10 we see the wrongness of that.” — WT Oct. 15, 1950.

Theology versus translation

Should we allow our doctrinal convictions to enter into the translation? Let’s look at an example that I’m sure JWs would agree with. In 1 John 5:7-8 there is a textual variant that exists only in some late manuscripts. This passage is also called the Comma Johanneum. It found its way into the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Erasmus in 1522, probably under pressure from the Catholic Church. The verse reads as follows in the King James version:

⁷ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
⁸ And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

In translations that are not based on the TR the verses read as follows:

⁷ For there are three who testify:
⁸ the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one.

The words in red above are only found in 10 late manuscripts which are dated from the 10^th to the 18^th centuries. Those words were added by copyists to support the trinitarian doctrine they believed in but unfortunately it did not have any support in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts. If a copyist or a translator relies on their own beliefs or theories in deciding how and what to copy or translate then they view these ideas as having a higher authority than the writings of the best and oldest manuscripts we have available. I believe that is acting deceptively and can lead to corrupting the Word of God. I’m sure the WTS agrees that since the oldest manuscripts know nothing about those words in red (above) then we should not translate them and place them in the text either. Indeed, most modern translations don’t and if they make mention of them, it is in the margin or footnotes. This is a good translation principle and it should be used consistently. However, the WTS does exactly what it criticizes the King James Version of doing. And it bases its decisions of where to use the word “Jehovah” not on the oldest (or even any!) Greek manuscripts available, but on translations of the NT into Hebrew and other languages, which are dated from the 14^th to the 20^th centuries!

Follow the J references or not?

The J references or versions is a label used by the WTS to refer to those Hebrew translations which used the Tetragrammaton in the main text of the New Testament. The Society uses them as confirmation (and justification) that their own practise is not the first or only translation to do that.

Why did the NWT translators put more trust in the wording of Bible translations written over 1300 to 1800 years after the death of Jesus in preference to the ancient Greek manuscripts they were taken from? This is similar to a translator choosing to include the spurious wording of 1 John 5:7 as found in the King James Version instead of what actually appears in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Except, they didn’t just change 2 verses, they changed 237 verses!

On the other hand, the Watchtower does not actually follow the J versions consistently. Some of the J versions were produced by trinitarians, and included YHWH to support that Jesus is Jehovah. For this reason the NWT does not include Jehovah in over 50 places that the J versions do. Curiously, the Watchtower claims to have disregarded only one such instance.

*** w69 6/1 p. 331 Choosing a Modern Bible Translation ***
This same translation is also quite helpful when rendering the word kyʹrios, which means “lord” or “master.” Whenever the context indicates that Jehovah God is referred to, it will render kyʹrios as “Jehovah.” Is this too radical? No, for in every instance except one such is also found to be the way a number of Hebrew versions have rendered kyʹrios . (Matt. 1:20, 22) Especially is the name Jehovah fitting in the Christian Greek Scriptures when these quote from the Hebrew Scriptures where “Jehovah” is used.—Matt. 3:3; 4:7, 10.

In the following passages the New World Translation chooses not to follow the J versions.

J7 and J8 translate 1 Peter 3:15 as: “Sanctify Jehovah God (who is Christ) in your hearts, ...” (source)

J7 includes YHWH in reference to Jesus at Acts 9:5. “ ‘Who are you, YHWH?’ Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.”
Acts 9:5 (NWT) as: “He asked: “Who are you, Lord?” He said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”

Other verses in which the Tetragrammaton appears in the “J” versions but not as Jehovah in the New World Translation include;

1 Corinthians 12:3
(J14) “...no one can say “Jesus is Lord Jehovah, except by the Holy Spirit.”
(NWT) “nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.

2 Timothy 1:18
(J7,8,13,14,16,17,18,22,23,24) “The Lord Jehovah grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord Jehovah in that day...”
(NWT) “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from Jehovah in that day.”

So it seems that the NWT translation committee views the Hebrew translations as having a higher authority than the best and oldest Greek MSS available to us today. But then, when some of those Hebrew translations don’t agree with the WTS doctrine, they conveniently ignore both the Greek MSS and those Hebrew translations and consider their own doctrinal convictions based on historical speculations as having the highest authority.

What does the Reasoning from the Scriptures book say about this?

Reasoning from the Scriptures q.v. “Bible” p. 64: “It is true that some translations of the Bible adhere more closely to what is in the original languages than others do… Some translators have allowed personal beliefs to color their renderings. But these weaknesses can be identified by comparison of a variety of translations.”

*** Watchtower June 1, 1969 p. 331 Choosing a Modern Bible Translation ***
Today the English Bible student has many modern translations from which to choose. By far the greater number, however, consist of only the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some of these translations have become quite popular by reason of their smooth flow of language and many apt turns of speech or felicitous expressions. However, as seen from the above examples, these are prone to err by taking too many liberties, because of misunderstanding or due to religious bias. Since accuracy and dependability are the most important requirements of a modern Bible translation it would seem that a largely literal translation is to be preferred, especially by readers who have faith that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Which translation do you think is the most desirable for you?