The 2001 Translation

Click a verse number to see an options menu.

To switch between the spellings Jehovah/Yahweh and Jesus/Yeshua see the preferences section.

Print chapter

2001 Translation


Change the font size using your browser settings.

To print the entire Bible book, close this and use your browser’s normal print option.

Your actual print-out will look different, depending on paper size and margin settings.

If the “Send to printer” button does not work, use the Print option in your browser menu.


Recent searches

    Fetching results...

    See some search hints and tips.

    The Divine Name in our New Testament

    יהוה (YHWH or JHVH) on stained glass in the Church of Saint-Philibert in Charlieu, France

    Jesus said: ‘I’ll also write the Name of my God upon them.’ –Revelation 3:12

    Our translation uses Jehovah (or Yahweh) 151 times in Matthew through Revelation. Since the Divine Name doesn’t appear in any manuscript of those books, why do we include it? It is for good reasons that most people have overlooked: it appears many times as a euphemism.

    Firstly, let’s quickly mention that the Divine Name appears in Greek manuscripts in its shortened form Jah in the word hallelujah (‘praise Jah’) 4 times in Revelation. Also, in the Aramaic manuscripts, haleluwya (‘praise Jah’) likewise appears 4 times. So while a literal translation would never use Jehovah/Yahweh, it would say Jah/Yah 4 times.

    What most people miss is the number of times the ephemism for the Divine Name appears. This page will explain.

    Did the early Christians know the Divine Name?

    Yes, they knew it. This fact is not in dispute, because it appears in many sources from around the 1st and 2nd centuries CE:

    • Greek Septuagint fragment 4Q120 uses ΙΑΩ (in the Greek script) which was probably pronounced something like “ya-ho.”
    • Greek Septuagint fragment Papyrus Fouad 266 uses יהוה‎ (in the Hebrew script).
    • Greek Septuagint fragments 943, 3522, and 5101 have the name in the Paleo-Hebrew script.
    • Josephus described how the Name “is not lawful for me to say any more”.
    • The 1st century CE Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria said that the names of God “may only be mentioned or heard by holy men having their ears and their tongues purified by wisdom, and by no one else at all in any place whatever”.
    • 2nd-century Christian writer, Clement of Alexandria, commented, “For human speech is by nature feeble, and incapable of uttering God. I do not say His name. For to name it is common, not to philosophers only, but also to poets.” He also said “The mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the [Most Holy of the Temple] was accessible, is called Jave (Greek: Ιαουε), which is interpreted, ‘Who is and shall be.’ The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters.”

    Also, there are conflicting Rabbinic traditions from the Middle Ages that describe how the Name could or could not be used back in the 1st century. Some state that it could only be spoken once a year by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, while others say that priests said it once per day in the daily sacrifices.

    Jesus himself mentioned that God has a personal name:

    ‘For though I’ve come in the Name of my Father; you haven’t welcomed me. Yet if someone else came in his own name, you would welcome him!’ —John 5:43

    ‘the things that I’m doing in my Father’s Name all testify about me’ –John 10:25

    ‘I’ll also write the Name of my God upon them’ —Revelation 3:12

    So people of that time knew the Name. However, the question is not whether they knew the Name, it’s whether they explicitly wrote it in the New Testament.

    Was it removed?

    One possibility is that early Christians wrote the Name in their books, but then unknown persons later removed it. This may be true, but nobody has yet found any evidence to support the idea. There are no early fragments containing the Name, nor any external references to it being there or being removed.

    So if that’s what happened, then it must have happened extremely early in the Christian period. So early, in fact, that nobody may find any manuscript evidence proving it either way.

    Yet there is a second possibility that we cannot ignore.

    ‘Lord’ was a well-understood euphemism

    It’s quite possible that the early Christians wrote the name in plain sight of everyone as a euphemism. How so? Well, using ‘Lord’ as a euphemism for the Divine Name was a centuries-old existing practice.

    Most copies of the Greek Septuagint had used kyrios (‘Lord’) as a proper noun in place of Jehovah/Yahweh. Yes, the Septuagint didn’t say “the Lord,” but just “Lord” where it originally said YHWH in Hebrew, treating Lord as if it’s a personal name.

    Normally this would be a weird grammar error, but in this case, it was a special signal to the reader. It told Greek-speaking Jews where the Divine Name is supposed to be. Some Septuagint copies just left a blank space instead of YHWH, a few even had YHWH in Hebrew script (and one transliterated it into Greek script), but most of the copies that survive to today use this trick of saying ‘Lord’ instead of ‘the Lord’ to show where the original Hebrew text says YHWH. When readers or listeners came across the ‘error,’ they knew what it really meant.

    This practice was about 300 years old at the time of the Apostles, probably dating back to when Jews started speaking Greek.

    Aramaic speakers also said Lord, but they couldn’t use the same trick the Greek speakers used. Why not? Aramaic doesn’t use ‘the.’ So they used a different trick instead: The full, long, spelling of ‘Lord’ (maryah) was usually reserved for replacing YHWH. They used shorter spellings of the word at other times (e.g. mara). This practice may have been 500 years old by the time of the Apostles, perhaps dating back to the time of the Babylonian exile.

    So, 1st-century Jews (and Jews who became Early Christians) had ways of knowing when Lord was a euphemism for YHWH. The Greek speakers had their grammar “error” of missing out “the”, and Aramaic speakers had maryah. Everyone knew when the scrolls really meant YHWH.

    Modern English speakers have a similar system in the King James Version; it sometimes says “LORD” (in capitals) instead of “Lord”. Not everyone knows it, but this is a deliberate tactic of the KJV translators to tell readers where the Hebrew source texts say YHWH.

    Anyway, by the time of the Apostles, these little tricks were centuries-old customs. Writings from the time show that people knew of the Name, and people also knew the laws around saying it (and not saying it). Thus, audiences knew when ‘Lord’ was a euphemism for Jehovah/Yahweh. The name YHWH was not lost or forgotten, they just referred to it by euphemism. It was like saying “[insert Divine Name here].”

    In other words, it’s quite possible that the Gospels and other Christian books never had YHWH written in them, but they didn’t need to write it, because everyone knew when Lord meant YHWH. In addition, there was also the context. After all, what do you look for when working out that something’s a euphemism? Probably the context.

    Readers knew the game, and they knew how to play it. So YHWH is indeed represented in the Christian books and has been all along, staring at us in the face. It was just written for an ancient audience of people who knew what was going on in the ancient languages. Unfortunately, this is lost on modern audiences.

    An even older custom

    The custom of saying ‘Lord’ as a euphemism goes even further back than replacing YHWH. The Jews already used that method to avoid saying a pagan god’s name. This custom was a staggering 1,500 years old by the 1st century. The Law of Moses forbade saying the names of foreign gods:

    ‘don’t mention the names of other gods or speak of them in any way.’ —Exodus 23:13

    So instead, people said ‘Baal,’ which is an ancient word meaning ‘Lord’ or ‘Master.’ There was no false god who had Baal as its proper name; it’s just a title (for more information, see our translator note for BaAl). So, at the time of the Apostles, this custom of using ‘Lord’ as a euphemism to replace the name of a god (real or otherwise), was 1,500 years old – all the way back to the beginning of their nation!

    When they started using Lord as a euphemism for YHWH

    Since returning from exile in Babylon, the Jews did something new. Scholars tell us that the Jews likely felt so horribly ashamed of their captivity, that they adopted the same method used with pagan gods to avoid saying the name of their own God.

    We hear their shame in Psalm 137:4, where the captives in Babylon said (and later made famous by a popular song):

    ‘But, how can we sing the songs of the Lord [or YHWH in Hebrew],
    There in an alien land?’

    Yet a few decades later, when back in Israel and speaking Aramaic, instead of replacing YHWH with ‘BaAl’ (which traditionally referred to pagan gods), they used maryah (‘Lord’ or ‘Lord Jah’). Later on still, when they began speaking Greek, they started using kyrios (‘Lord’) as a proper noun.

    So while some Jews and early Christians may have said Yahweh discreetly on occasion (especially when explaining matters to non-Jews who understood none of this, one might assume), they could also use euphemisms that everyone in their community would understand.

    This method allowed you to ‘say’ YHWH and not break the law, nor risk your expensive scrolls and letters being confiscated and destroyed. By the time of Jesus, this custom was centuries old.

    Readers and listeners of the New Testament could put YHWH back into the text with their minds, as they already did every sabbath at the synagogue when hearing readings from the Hebrew scrolls, Aramaic Targums, or the Greek Septuagint. You see, every time someone read the scrolls, they would see YHWH with the vowel points for a different word written above – a clever way of reminding you not to say the Name aloud!

    How to translate a euphemism?

    If Lord is indeed a euphemism, how should it be translated? Translation is not a mere word-for-word transcription. A proper translation aims to convey the full meaning that the original writer meant, and the meaning the audience was meant to understand.

    If a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word is meant to be understood as a euphemism, then the meaning of the euphemism must be conveyed to modern readers. Sometimes you can just use an equivalent euphemism in English. In this case, there is no problem.

    For example, in Hebrew, to ‘cover your feet’ was a euphemism for emptying your bowels. In English, this is no problem, because translators can just replace it with an equivalent English euphemism (of which we have plenty!). Therefore, the full meaning of the original words is conveyed, and everyone knows what we’re talking about.

    So, where Lord in the New Testament was a well-understood euphemism for the Divine Name, that must be conveyed to modern readers. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent euphemism in English that means ‘insert Divine Name here.’ So instead, our translation just translates the euphemism to say what it means, Jehovah.

    The only way to translate it

    This is the standard way to translate euphemisms and idioms in Bible translation. It is the method taught in training courses for those producing Bible translations for minority languages and sign languages (although no such courses yet recognize Lord as a euphemism for YHWH). Translators are told to find an equivalent euphemism in their target language, and if one doesn’t exist, to just say what it means.

    Imagine what the Bible would look like if euphemisms and idioms were not translated into an English equivalent, or into words saying what it actually means. Large parts of the Bible would be extremely hard to understand. Just look at the many literal word-for-word translations out there.

    Even in modern English, speakers say things like “he’s well-built” or “big-boned” to mean overweight. Translators should not translate these as “constructed with skill” or “has a large skeleton,” as that would be a mistranslation. No, they must change these euphemisms into local equivalents, or just be plain-spoken and translate it as “overweight,” but somehow convey that it was said politely.

    After all, isn’t that what translation is supposed to be? Conveying the original meaning to a new audience?

    So what is the situation that we face? There’s a strong possibility that ‘Lord’ was often originally understood as a euphemism for YHWH in the New Testament. The historical evidence seems to support this. So, translators must convey that to the modern reader. Otherwise, it would be a mistranslation or even censorship of the intended original meaning.

    Indeed, the tradition of using the word Lord as a euphemism (to avoid saying YHWH aloud) is so old and well-established that one could even say that Lord simply means YHWH in certain contexts. Just like how “big boned” has nothing to do with bones, but means “fat,” Lord sometimes just means YHWH.

    The only place where we should translate euphemisms literally is in poetry. After all, poems use words to convey feelings, not just facts. Elsewhere, though, translating euphemisms literally would cause misunderstandings, and therefore, mistranslations.

    Therefore, if Lord means the Divine Name in certain places, then the simplest translation is just to say what it means – Jehovah (or Yahweh).

    Other options

    You might wonder, “Why not say ‘Lord’, but put (Jehovah) afterward in parentheses?” Yes, we could do that. However, to be consistent, we’d have to do the same thing with ALL the idioms and euphemisms throughout the entire Bible. It would be really long-winded and odd to read, which is probably why no other Bible has done this.

    So, to be consistent, when our editor decides that an instance of Lord in the Christian books is (probably) a euphemism for YHWH, this translation says Jehovah (or Yahweh if you have that option switched on in the text settings). Each instance is linked to a translator note which explains the reason(s) for it. We might not get every instance right, but we can try.

    Please understand: we’re not dogmatic about this issue. This theory could be wrong, but it certainly seems to add up. Further, we feel that the 2001 Translation is doing a public service by exploring this possibility. If it turns out to be wrong, then fine. We’ll just correct our Bible and move on.

    But a much more important question is this: what if the theory’s right?

    Possible places

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a DeLorean, and can’t go back in time to ask a 1st-century Jew or Christian where Lord is a euphemism for YHWH. We can only guess. And we might get it wrong! So, where might it be a euphemism?

    We put verses into six different categories. Most verses fall into more than one category (see table below).

    Category A

    Lord with the Greek grammar ‘error,’ treating it as a proper noun and using the Septuagint’s method for replacing YHWH. Learn more.

    Category B

    Where Lord or Lord Jah is written in Aramaic using the word maryah. Learn more.

    Category C

    Quote of a Jewish Era book which we can today see contains YHWH. Learn more.

    Category D

    Where the passage describes the actions of YHWH in the Jewish books. Learn more.

    Category E

    Expressions from the Jewish Bible which contain YHWH. Learn more.

    Category F

    Where the context is clearly referring to the Father, Almighty God. Learn more.

    Our totals

    The 2001 Translation says Jehovah 151 times across 147 verses in its books of the Christian Era (plus 3 times in translator insertions to explain the meaning of a name).

    • All are linked to a translator note to explain the reason(s) for it.
    • We are not dogmatic about any particular occurrence. Some of these will likely change in the future.
    • No other English Bible is so transparent, detailed, and open to change in this matter.

    Each occurrence is listed below.

    Verse AGreek grammar BAramaic maryah CQuote with YHWH DActions of YHWH EExpression with YHWH FClearly refers to the Father
    Matthew 1:20
    Matthew 1:22
    Matthew 1:24
    Matthew 2:13
    Matthew 2:15
    Matthew 2:19
    Matthew 4:7
    Matthew 4:10
    Matthew 5:33
    Matthew 12:4
    Matthew 21:9
    Matthew 21:42
    Matthew 22:37
    Matthew 22:44
    Matthew 23:39
    Matthew 27:10
    Matthew 28:2
    Matthew totals: 11 18 6 3 8 0
    Mark 5:19
    Mark 11:9
    Mark 12:11
    Mark 12:29
    Mark 12:30
    Mark 12:36
    Mark 13:20
    Mark totals: 5 7 4 0 1 0
    Luke 1:6
    Luke 1:9
    Luke 1:11
    Luke 1:15
    Luke 1:16
    Luke 1:25
    Luke 1:28
    Luke 1:32
    Luke 1:38
    Luke 1:45
    Luke 1:46
    Luke 1:58
    Luke 1:66
    Luke 1:68
    Luke 1:76
    Luke 2:9
    Luke 2:22
    Luke 2:23
    Luke 2:26
    Luke 2:39
    Luke 4:8
    Luke 4:12
    Luke 4:18
    Luke 4:19
    Luke 5:17
    Luke 10:27
    Luke 13:35
    Luke 19:38
    Luke 20:37
    Luke 20:42
    Luke totals: 22 28 8 1 15 2
    John 12:13
    John 12:38
    John totals: 2 2 1 0 1 0
    Acts 1:24
    Acts 2:25
    Acts 2:34
    Acts 2:39
    Acts 3:19
    Acts 3:22
    Acts 4:26
    Acts 4:29
    Acts 5:9
    Acts 5:19
    Acts 7:30
    Acts 7:49
    Acts 8:26
    Acts 8:39
    Acts 11:21
    Acts 12:7
    Acts 12:11
    Acts 12:23
    Acts 13:11
    Acts 13:47
    Acts 15:17
    Acts totals: 14 18 5 0 7 2
    Romans 9:28
    Romans 9:29
    Romans 11:3
    Romans 11:34
    Romans 12:19
    Romans 14:11
    Romans 15:11
    Romans totals: 5 5 6 0 0 0
    1 Corinthians 1:31
    1 Corinthians 2:16
    1 Corinthians 3:20
    1 Corinthians 4:4
    1 Corinthians 4:17
    1 Corinthians 4:19
    1 Corinthians 7:17
    1 Corinthians 10:9
    1 Corinthians 12:3
    1 Corinthians 14:21
    1 Corinthians 15:58
    1 Cor. totals: 8 10 3 2 2 0
    2 Corinthians 2:12
    2 Corinthians 3:16
    2 Corinthians 3:17 (A)
    2 Corinthians 3:17 (B)
    2 Corinthians 3:18 (A)
    2 Corinthians 3:18 (B)
    2 Corinthians 6:17
    2 Corinthians 6:18
    2 Corinthians 10:17
    2 Cor. totals: 8 9 3 0 4 0
    Galatians totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Ephesians 2:21
    Ephesians 5:19
    Ephesians totals: 1 2 0 0 1 1
    Philippians totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Colossians 3:22
    Colossians 3:24
    Col. totals: 0 2 0 0 2 0
    1 Thess. totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 Thessalonians 3:3
    2 Thess. totals: 0 1 0 0 0 0
    1 Tim. totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 Timothy 2:19
    2 Tim. totals: 1 1 1 0 0 0
    Titus totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Philemon totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Hebrews 6:3
    Hebrews 7:21
    Hebrews 8:8
    Hebrews 8:9
    Hebrews 8:10
    Hebrews 8:11
    Hebrews 10:16
    Hebrews 10:30
    Hebrews 12:5
    Hebrews 12:6
    Hebrews 13:5
    Hebrews 13:6
    Hebrews totals: 9 11 10 0 0 0
    James 1:7
    James 4:6
    James 4:10
    James 4:15
    James 5:4
    James 5:10
    James 5:11 (A)
    James 5:11 (B)
    James totals: 5 7 1 2 2 2
    1 Peter 3:12 (A)
    1 Peter 3:12 (B)
    1 Peter totals: 2 2 2 0 0 0
    2 Peter 2:9
    2 Peter 2:11
    2 Peter 3:8
    2 Peter 3:9
    2 Peter totals: 3 4 0 0 0 1
    1 John totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 John totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 John totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Jude 1:5
    Jude 1:9
    Jude 1:14
    Jude totals: 2 2 0 1 1 1
    Revelation 1:8
    Revelation 4:8
    Revelation 11:17
    Revelation 14:10
    Revelation 15:3
    Revelation 15:4
    Revelation 16:7
    Revelation 18:8
    Revelation 19:6
    Revelation 21:22
    Revelation 22:5
    Revelation 22:6
    Revelation totals: 4 10 0 0 1 9
    GRAND TOTALS Greek grammar Aramaic maryah Quote with YWHW Actions of YWHW Expression with YHWH Clearly refers to the Father
    102 139 50 11 45 17

    Note: The appearances of the Name in Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:13, and Luke 1:31, were added by translators to describe what the names Jesus and John mean. These instances are not part of the original text and are not listed in the table above.


    Why use ‘Jehovah’ and not ‘Yahweh’ or some other spelling?

    You can use the preferences section (at the bottom of each Bible book webpage) to change it to say ‘Yahweh’ if you want. As for why ‘Jehovah’ is our default spelling, we chose this (rightly or wrongly) because it’s the most well-known English spelling of the Name due to its appearance in the King James Version.

    See Why use the Divine Name in our translation? for more information.

    Why not just say Lord (or LORD), as it says in the source texts, and then link it to a note explaining that it could be a euphemism for YHWH?

    We could do that, but it would be inconsistent with how our Bible (and all non-literal translations) treat euphemisms. To be consistent, we’d have to display every single euphemism in the entire Bible text literally. That would probably be too convoluted for us, and horribly confusing for the reader, too. It’s probably why no Bible (non-literal) translation has done it.

    How does this compare to the New World Translation (NWT) published by Jehovah’s Witnesses?

    The NWT features Jehovah 237 times in its New Testament, whereas ours says it 151 times. Also, our reasons for including the name are very different.

    The NWT includes the name because their doctrine teaches that the Name was once present in the text, but was later removed – so they’re looking for places where the text may have been censored and are trying to restore it to a hypothetical original state. This could be true, but so far, nobody has found a single manuscript to support the idea.

    In contrast, we say that the Name was probably never removed from the text; rather, the Name always appeared as a euphemism right from the start. This was an established centuries-old practice and is supported by numerous manuscripts, such as the Greek Septuagint, which used the same tactics to allude to the Divine Name.

    So we’re looking for instances of Lord that may have been understood as a euphemism in the 1st Century.

    Also, we put a lot of faith in the appearance of the Aramaic’s euphemism for the Name, maryah. However, the NWT does not appeal to it as much, since they teach that most of the Christian Era books were originally written in Greek. Something on which we differ. Also, the Aramaic text does not support their doctrine of Jesus’ invisible presence.