Many scholars reading the Journal of Biblical Literature may have been surprised at the conclusion reached, namely, that the divine name, Jehovah (Yahweh) appeared in the “New Testament” when it was originally written. It may have seemed new, for it is an about-face from the long-held view that Christian writers avoided using the divine name. But is it new?

Away back in 1796 Dominikus von Brentano used the divine name at places in his German translation of the “New Testament.” Consider, for example, Mark 12:29, which you see here reproduced. Jesus had been asked, “Which is the foremost commandment?” Brentano’s translation then reads: “The foremost commandment, answered Jesus, is this: Hear Israel! Jehovah, our God, is the only God.”

29. Das allervornehmste Gebot, antwortete Jesus, ist dieß: Höre Israel! Jehovah, unser Gott, ist der einige Gott^◊).

Did Brentano have good reason for showing Jesus as pronouncing the divine name? Yes, for Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 6:4, which contains the Tetragrammaton. Certainly Jesus was not tradition-bound, as most Jewish religious leaders were, for Jesus ‘taught as a person having authority and not as the scribes.’ (Matt. 7:29) Christ publicly said that he desired to glorify his Father’s name, both his actual name and all the purposes and accomplishments associated with that name. (John 12:28) And near the end of his earthly life he said that he had made his Father’s name known. So translator Brentano had a logical basis for presenting Jesus as using God’s name when quoting a text containing it.​—John 17:6, 26.

Similarly, Matthew’s Gospel account alone contains more than 100 quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures. In 1950 the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures said about Matthew: “Where these quotations included the divine name, he would be obliged faithfully to include the tetragrammaton.”

This translation in 1950 reached the same basic conclusion set forth later on in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1977. In view of the evidence that the writers of the “New Testament” encountered the Tetragrammaton, whether they quoted scriptures from the Hebrew text or from the Greek Septuagint, the Foreword of the New World Translation stated:

“The modern translator is warranted in using the divine name as an equivalent of [the Greek words for “Lord” and “God”] at places where Matthew, etc., quote verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs.”

Thus, the position set out by Professor Howard in 1977 is not entirely a new one. But it brings to light fine new evidence that was not available when the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures in 1950 used “Jehovah” 237 times in the “New Testament.”

Certainly, then, God’s name does have a place in translations of the Bible. It belongs there, to be used and appreciated by all true worshipers who desire to do what Jesus did​—glorify his Father’s name—​and who pray, “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.”​—Matt. 6:9, Authorized Version.

There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah that are quoted in the “New Testament” in a context speaking about the Son. (Isa. 40:3​—Matt. 3:3​—John 1:23; Joel 2:32​—Rom. 10:13; Ps. 45:6, 7​—Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father’s foremost representative. In fact, in a similar way even an angel was spoken of as if he were Jehovah, because he was serving for Jehovah in a representative capacity. (Gen. 18:1-33) What, however, may have been the effect of removing God’s name?

The Journal of Biblical Literature says:

“In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable ambiguity. . . . Once the confusion was caused by the change in the divine name in the quotations, the same confusion spread to other parts of the NT where quotations were not involved at all.”

Apparently realizing that this could have contributed to the development of the Trinity doctrine, the article asks:

“Did such restructuring of the text give rise to the later christological [about the nature of Christ] controversies within the church, and were the NT passages involved in these controversies identical with those which in the NT era apparently created no problems at all? . . . Are [current christological] studies based on the NT text as it appeared in the first century, or are they based on an altered text which represents a time in church history when the difference between God and Christ was confused in the text and blurred in the minds of churchmen?”

So, removing God’s name from the “New Testament” could have aided later acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, which was not taught at all in the original Bible.