Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is simply false.The problem with transliterating the divine name as "Yahweh" is that it's a completely speculative way to transliterate it. There's no historical evidence for the pronunciation.
The only historically attested way to transliterate it is Jehovah/Yehovah/Yehowah. This is based on the vowel points in the Hebrew. Modern scholars have speculated that these points were carried over from Adonai, and that they don't represent the original pronunciation of the divine name--but again, that's speculation.
Did you hear that MacArthur and Co. are trying to improve on an older version of the NASB, calling it the Legacy Standard Bible?
Start at the 7:25 mark
This is simply false.
To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.
Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).
Third, the confirmation of this - and the reason why I suggest it is better to use "Lord" than the divine name in translating Scripture - is that this is what the NT universally does when it translates OT passages. It never transliterates them, whether as "pipi" (an attempt to render the four Hebrew characters into the nearest greek letters) or as some Greek version of the divine name. If kurios is the choice of Jesus and the NT authors in rendering OT quotations, why isn't it good enough for us?
One further comment on the LSB: I am bemused by Dr Macarthur's insistence in his new translation on the distinctive feature of always translating doulos as slave. First, because the NASB very often translates it this way anyway and second, because any linguist will tell you that it is very rare for the semantic range of a word in one language to exactly match that of a word in another language. There are many instances where slave is an excellent translation for doulos; there are others where in our context at least (where the meaning of "slave" is significantly colored by the American experience), servant is a better rendering. Wooden literality and one-for one word equivalence doesn't always give you the best translation.
Did anyone hold this theory before the 19th century?This is simply false.
To begin with, we know exactly how the first syllable was pronounced because of its incorporation into names like Isaiah, Jeremiah etc and phrases like Hallelu-yah: Yah not Yeh.
Second, it is not a speculation that the common scribal practice of Kethiv/Qere was applied to the divine name - using the vowels of the Qere ("what is read") under the consonants of the Kethiv ("what is written") - in this case the vowels of "Adonai" with the consonants of Yahweh. It is clear because on some occasions where the divine name is preceded by the word Adonai, they substituted a different set of vowels, namely those of 'Elohim, so the reader would read Adonai Elohim (in English translations, Lord GOD).
The short answer is, Yes. There has been debate since at least the beginning of the 17th century. It is often discussed in conjunction with the question of the date of the Hebrew vowel points, though the argument for the pronunciation of the divine name does not depend on a particular view of that question. It is true that some notable Reformed divines were on the wrong side of this debate, such as John Owen. However, they didn't have access to some of the data that is now available. Can you give me specific reasons (apart from the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century) why you think the near universal agreement of scholars, conservative and critical, Christian and Jewish is wrong on the question of the pronunciation of the divine name? And, more pertinently, why we need to depart from the universal usage of the NT writers and translate the divine name as anything other than "LORD"?Did anyone hold this theory before the 19th century?
it seems to me a reaction to the NASB update.
Which is odd in itself, as Zondervan has already received permission to continue publishing the NASB95 after the NASB2020 is released.
I was thinking the same thing with regard to the concern of a possible dispensational bias. It pains me to say that because I highly respect John MacArthur due to the fact that he was so pivotal in my coming to a biblical understanding of the Doctrines of Grace before I embraced Reformed Theology as a whole. I hope those concerns will not be realized.One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.
Sounds like a rerun:
Just as Crossway took the 1971 version of the RSV and re-tooled it into the ESV, now MacArthur's team is taking the original version of the NASB and re-tooling into the LSB.
Since I don't like the NASB, I probably won't like the LSB, either.
Also, I smiled when John said that they were being "given" the opportunity to do this. They were probably "given" the opportunity after paying a hefty licensing fee.
Thank you. That's very informative.The short answer is, Yes. There has been debate since at least the beginning of the 17th century. It is often discussed in conjunction with the question of the date of the Hebrew vowel points, though the argument for the pronunciation of the divine name does not depend on a particular view of that question. It is true that some notable Reformed divines were on the wrong side of this debate, such as John Owen. However, they didn't have access to some of the data that is now available.
First, "the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century" is no reason to discount a view. I haven't made that argument.Can you give me specific reasons (apart from the fact that the opinion is more popular now than in the 17th century) why you think the near universal agreement of scholars, conservative and critical, Christian and Jewish is wrong on the question of the pronunciation of the divine name?
I don't see a reason to make the change, either.And, more pertinently, why we need to depart from the universal usage of the NT writers and translate the divine name as anything other than "LORD"?
My goodness, the judgment of charity seems pretty absent in this discussion. I can assure you all that MacArthur does not need the money at this point in his life.
I wondered the same thing.One of the strengths of a good translation committee is that it will be comprised of translators from a variety of conservative evangelical traditions so as to avoid sectarian bias. I fear the LSB will end up with a dispensational bias.
It can really only happen if it's annotated or chain-referenced. If all they do is translate the text without marginal or footnote commentary, I don't see a way to insert dispensationalism into the translation--the text is what it is.I wondered the same thing.
But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?
I have not looked at the specifics for some time, but recall this being discussed a few years ago. 2 Thess 2:7But then I wondered what that dispensational bias even look like. Can you think of an example?
It's actually more than that even; the NASB 1973 is still being published by several entities as well, so there will be the 73, the 95, the 2020, and the LSV all being published and available simultaneously.So, I guess we're going to wind up with three versions of the NASB available simultaneously:
1. The original, from 1973 (I guess that's the one he's using), as updated by MacArthur.
2. The 1995 update, which Zondervan will continue to publish.
3. The 2020 update, forthcoming from the Lockman Foundation.
So, take your pick! We're awash in NASBs!
It's actually more than that even; the NASB 1973 is still being published by several entities as well, so there will be the 73, the 95, the 2020, and the LSV all being published and available simultaneously.