Like the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible makes the uncommon decision to render God's name, the Tetragrammaton in the Jєωιѕн scriptures, as Yahweh rather than as "Lord", in 6,823 places in the NJB Old Testament. This decision was based on translating or reinstating the earliest known copy of parts of the Old Testament found at Qumran in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls), dating to about the second century BCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible

Exodus 3 (New Jerusalem Bible)


14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." '

15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come.

You share the Tetragrammaton opinion with Michael Hoffman, a Catholic man who has mentored me and whom I admire.

That said, as I read Exodus 3:14 in the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and Septuagint, I reach a different conclusion.



I read this as God describing Himself, not Him telling Moses (and us) His Name.

If you have Magisterium that infallibly defines "__fill in the blank__" as His Name, I would love to see it. Though I have not done a deep dive on this precise question, I have never seen anything reaching the level of Magisterium, only opinion.

Like you, it irritates me that anyone tampers with even one iota of God's Word and I object to any Scriptural substitutions.

Like you, I object to the superstitions that the тαℓмυdists attach to Exodus 3:14, hyphens: circuмlocutions, and the rest of their satanic occultism, including their claim that saying His Name backwards would undo all of Creation.

Even if "Yahweh" is His Name, in numerous Scriptural verses God encourages us to make His Name known, proclaim His Name, and call upon His Name, not to hide it, profane it, or tamper with it.

So, if you have a Magisterial source about Exodus 3:14 as His Name, not merely His Self-description, I would welcome it.  Unlike the damned Judaizers infesting CathInfo, I welcome correction of my errors.

I have attached an article that may be of interest to you.

Yes, you are correct. I recant my error. Thank you for the correction.

In 1943, we have yet another controversial initiative by the last (so far) Catholic Pope, Pius XII.

His Holiness published the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, on which he says that the original texts of Holy Writ should be used for future translations of the Bible.

In my opinion this is a very dangerous move, since the Vulgate by St. Jerome had always been the definite and official version of the Bible, and was free from any and all (doctrinal) error.

It might be interesting for scholars to use original texts, but I can see no good reason to make something other than the Vulgate or a good translation of it avaliable to the general faithful as an approved version.

I read just yesterday in the fantastic judaism.is website that the "Hebrew Bible" is actually a corrupted version of the Old Testament, altered to erase the most obvious references to Our Lord, in a way that people would not believe that He is the messiah.

I also would like thank Mr. Mark 79 for his fantastic website.

As far as I know, the most reliable source for the Old Testament is the Septuagint, since the hebrew texts that St. Jerome used are not avaliable anymore. The Dead Sea Scrolls could also be useful, but they were not easily obtainable during the 40s and 50s, as far as I know.

Anyway, what I would like to know is what manuscripts were accepted to be used from 1943 to 1958? Was the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Bible) ever accepted? What other controversial texts were used? The encyclical makes no reference to what can be considered an original text. It simply opens a very dangerous door and leaves it there, unguarded.