Hallowed Be Thy Name
September 28th, 2008 by Brian
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM” and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you ‘ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.” Exodus 3:14 & 15 NASB
The following article from Christianity Today caught my attention, not specifically because it was about the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on the use of Yahweh, and not only because of the consideration of the use of that word in songs and prayers, but more generally in the use of the word Yahweh.
Barring YahwehThe Vatican gives orders to excise the name from worship. Do Protestants agree?Sarah Eekhoff ZylstraObservant Jews have traditionally not used the name Yahweh, refusing to pronounce the so-called proper name of God out of respect, or to be sure they do not misuse it. Now neither will Roman Catholics, at least in their worship services.
“In recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel’s proper name,” said a June letter from the Vatican. “As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: Adonai, which means ‘Lord.’” In August, U.S. bishops were directed to remove Yahweh from songs and prayers.
Protestants should be following their lead, said Carol Bechtel, professor of Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan. “It’s always left me baffled and perplexed and embarrassed that we sprinkle our hymns with that name,” she said. “Whether or not there are Jewish brothers and sisters in earshot, the most obvious reason to avoid using the proper and more personal name of God in the Old Testament is simply respect for God.”
While refusing to write or say Yahweh aloud is a long-standing Jewish tradition, the Bible does not forbid its pronunciation.
[To see the entire article, go to: http://www.ctlibrary.com/58691 ]
Most of us are aware that when we read the English translation of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) the expression “the LORD” is the translation for the word YHWH or Yahweh. As I understand it, at some point in the history of Judaism, out of reverence for the name of God, the Jews would substitute the word adonai “lord”) for YHWH as they read from the scrolls. This tradition carried over into the text of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) as the word (kurios “lord”) as well as the Latin Vulgate and has been carried over into most English translations today. Because the Bible does not declare a prohibition of the use of the word Yahweh, I do not have a problem with the use of the word. I know that we don’t know how it was pronounced, especially since no one did pronounce it, but we don’t know really how other names were pronounced, either. I would find it uncomfortable to use the name in my prayers or in speaking to others, but when it comes to reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, I actually find the use of Yahweh more impactful. What are your thoughts?
I do not use the name Y/H/V/H as it seems that Jesus and his disciples themselves did not use it either when speaking, but rather used circumlocutions when referring to the Holy One; Father, Heaven, Place, Power etc.
Rabbinic literature records that in the days of our Rabbi, Yeshua of Nazareth, the Divine Name was no longer used but once a year on Yom Kippur by the High Priest (Tosef., Yoma, ii.; 39b) See also the Jewish Encyclopedia on this: Jewish Encyclopedia – The Name
Christianity Today wrote:
As most of Christianity easily brushes away the Jewish concept of the unity of G’d as a mere tradition but not Biblical, it shouldnt come as a suprise that it can deal with this issue in the same way…
Blessings,
Daniel
christian4moses.wordpress.com
I like what the Jews have done in the Sidur by using “HaShem” which means “The Name.” I don’t stick to any particular pronunciation, but I suppose that using “abba” (Father) would also be appropriate.
In my opinion, using Yahweh is just like any of the other pronunciations. Using these different pronunciations as if that were the true pronunciation seems to me like it’s jumping the gun.
A very good topic indeed.
The first thing worshipers of the True God should do, is to discern (if unclear) or determine (if explained) what the True God requires. If it were unclear, we would interpret through indirect evidence how He wants His Name sanctified. BUT, by means of his self-revelation (e.g. Exodus) as well as inspired utterances from spokesmen (prophets, angels, judges, priests) we have clear instructions and expressions – in many instances in no uncertain terms – as to how we should treat and honor His Name. As early as 16th century B.C.E at Mt. Sinai did He identify Himself and His Sovereignty, as well as give instructions on treating His sacred Name; in no uncertain terms. In Jewish liturgy, as evidenced by the Wisdom writings, the sacred Name was used. As late as Malachi, the last acknowledged inspired prophet of the Hebrew canon, while confronted with indifference toward God’s Sovereignty on the part of his contemporaries did he write in chapter 1 verse 11 that His Name would be great among the nations. Obviously this prophecy has not found complete fulfillment, and would remain incomplete if the Name would disappear from the minds and lips of His people.
As regards the New Testament, we only have copies of the autographs; copies which apparently have been tampered with. Thus, we cannot conclusively say from these tampered copies as evidence that the Jews/Christians of the New Testament did not pronounce the name. Extant copies of the LXX of that time contained the name. It noticeably disappeared around the second century. Some have even concluded that it was the Christians, and not the Jews that were responsible for the Name’s excision from the text so as to increase the breach between Christian and Jew on the basis of their confessing the glorious Messiah. His Name was still referred to in doxologies, such as alleluia in Greek and names containing the Divine Name. So, bottom-line, since we can only find hints from indirect evidence where it comes to pronouncing the Divine Name in the NT, the strongest evidence leans toward the non-superstitious expression of His Name as His people used to throughout the ages.
As regards the exact pronunciation of the name, according to Josephus, the name was made of 4 vowels. In Hebrew certain consonants do serve as vowels in some combinations. YHWH could be transliterated into vowel form as IEOE. Somewhere in-between Yahweh and Yehowah. Some good evidence comes from Firpo Carr’s thesis on the Name wherein he argues for the –ah sound in the last syllable. Gerard Gertroux also has very good evidence for the tri-syllable form of the name (pronounced –oh- sound in the middle) as well as the –eh- instead of an –ah- first syllable. But, once again, whether one’s language has It as Jehofah or Yekoba (as in certain African languages), those names cannot identify anyone else but the one True God of the Bible.
Not ours, but His glory is what we should seek. Guided by His, not our wisdom or reasonings. Hallowing His Name the way His people always have; the people of Yehowah.
Jaco,
Nice post, for this:
Could you provide a citation? Which is it War? Antiquities? and where?
Jaco,
Two more questions.
(1) Are you suggesting that the NT documents originally contained the name of God transliterated into Greek letters? If so, please provide evidence. To my knowledge there are no manuscripts (out of the 5,000) that contain the name of God. Thus, the Jewish practice of not pronouncing God’s name was already in practice prior to the 1st century.
(2) Do you know of some manuscripts of the LXX that contain God’s name? If so, please refer me to the manuscript so I can check it out. That would be fascinating to see. Many manuscripts these days are online.
Sean,
I think there is a large jump in those two sentences. An argument from silence doesn’t really prove a social symbolic practice. Rather, a statement, from Josephus/Philo/Paul/another Rabbi/DSS would exist to back up the social practice (or deny it, thereby assuming it exists in some form).
It’s not so much an argument from silence as it is an argument from circumlocution. The NT documents unanimously substitute kyrios for YHWH. This is not silence. Furthermore, the NT is not one witness. We have to remember we are talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, etc. Even so, checking Josephus et. al. would be more thorough.
My reply to JohnO and Sean
In The Jewish War V:235, he stated: “The high priest had his head dressed with a tiara of fine linen embroidered with a purple border, and surrounded by another crown in gold which had in relief the sacred letters; these ones are four vowels.”
Fragments of the LXX and related Greek versions dated to the time before or during the first century CE all
contain some form of the divine name. There are at least four Greek OT fragments that support this conclusion. They are:
1) P. Fouad 266b (Göttingen 848), which has been dated from the third to the first centuries BCE. This papyrus contains the divine name in an ancient Hebrew/Aramaic script.
[W.G. Waddell, “The Tetragrammaton in the LXX,” JTS 45 (1944), pages 159-161, dates it from the second or first century BCE. See also Howard, “The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy,” HUCA 42 (1971), pages 125-131. Paul Kahle, “The Greek Bible and the Gospels,” Studia Evangelica (1959), page 614, dates it to about 100 BCE, as does Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (New York; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1981), pages 33-34. See an image of this text online here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/PFou848.jpg.
2) The Scroll of the Minor Prophets (8HevXIIgr [Göttingen 943]), which is dated to between 50 BC and 50 CE contains the divine name written in two ancient (paleo-) Hebrew forms.
[See Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll From Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (DJD 8; Oxford: Oxford University Press, rep. 1995), pages 22-26, for a discussion of the dating of this scroll. Tov himself tentatively opts for a date in the later first century BCE. See Howard, “The Tetragram and the New Testament,” page 64, for other references on the dating of this scroll. See the image of “hand A” online here:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsA.jpg, and “hand B” here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsB.jpg.
3) As noted in our discussion above concerning the Greek forms of the divine name, there is a fragment of Leviticus from Qumran cave 4 (4QLXXLevb [Göttingen 802]) that is dated to around the first century BCE It contains the form Iaw where the Hebrew text uses the four-letter tetragrammaton.
[P.W. Skehan, “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg 1956 (VTSupp 4; Leiden: Brill, 1957), page 157. See the image of this text online here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4QLevB.jpg.
4) The final Greek OT fragment that falls within our timeline and that preserves a divine-name-containing text is P. Oxy 3522, which is dated to the early part of the first century CE. It contains Job 42:11-12 and it
also uses an archaic Hebrew form of the divine name in the midst of a Greek text.
[See The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 50 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), pages 1-3. See an image of this text online here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/POxy3522.jpg.
From the available evidence, then, the Divine Name did occur in the early copies of the LXX, either in its Hebrew or Greek form. Shaw nicely summarizes the matter:
In sum then, we may conclude several things: first, many Jews must have ceased using any form of the divine name by the early-to-mid second temple period. … Yet some circles of Jews must have used Iaw somewhat regularly for it to have wound up in 4QLXXLevb and the onomastica, as well as for the pagan testimony to Jewish use to have come about. The name Iaw must have continued in some use at least into the first century BC … and, if the evidence from the pseudepigrapha and the Mishna is counted, likely beyond … to the first or even second century AD … Secondly, it seems that the name began to pick up supernatural connotations in the closing centuries BC and certainly by the early centuries AD … Likely related to this is a third point, [namely], the specific form Iaw starts to appear in mystical contexts: the earliest testimony is to its use among the Gnostics in the second century and beyond … Fourthly, the Jewish God begins to appear nameless to pagans and early Christians. … The passage from Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium [353] is, in a sense, an excellent microcosm of the much larger historical picture. That is, near the middle of the first
century AD we have the conflicting trends present: the practice of not using the name has become entrenched enough for Philo (and probably his party) to become offended at Gaius’ use of it, while on the other hand, the name was available enough for a Roman far removed from Judaism to learn its pronunciation, seemingly without much effort.
[Frank Shaw, “The Earliest Non-mystical Jewish Use of Iaw,” (Ph.D. diss., University of
Cincinnati, 2002)pages 199-201.]
(if the hyperlinks don’t work, I’ll mail the pictures to you personally)
I believe that the most important thing is that God, the creator of the entire Universe has a name. Whether or not we don’t know the exact pronunciation of his name due to the Jewish people had been prohibited not to say it a loud so that they did not use God’s in vane; it was normal for Jews when reading in Hebrew that they had to add the vowels because Hebrew language only uses consonants. God said to Moses that YHWH was his name for time indefinite. One day, he will reveal his name to everyone. At least, the God of the Bible is real not like how the Greeks in ancient times worship to “an unknown god”. Bible Scholars have come to one conclusion, the possible name of God could either be Jehovah or Jahweh based on studies and research. However, that is the closest they can get.
Wally,
Sean, you are correct. The nomina sacra we find in the NT manuscripts as substitutes for the Tetragram are circumlocutions. Before coming to conclusions, though, we need to note:
1.) Those manuscripts are copies, and not the autographs. The presence of variants and atypical transmission (break in the traditional transfer of the Name from one text to its copy) indicates scribal contamination of the text.
2.) Whether we call the anektophoneton, or ineffability of the name, and the eventual substitution of it, silence or circumlocution, the motivation for doing so (using substitutes in pronouncing it, and removing it from Sacred Scripture) has no Divine or Scriptural basis. In fact, the theological implications for allowing or approving of it would be devastating to the sovereignty of the Creator.
3.) What is also peculiar is inconsistencies in circumlocution. Apparently the motivation for doing it in the first place does not apply in theophoric names or doxologies like alleluia where the name is both written and pronounced.
Since early Christianity suffered badly under Hellenization after the apostles’ demise, the truth-seeker’s quest is to retrieve unspotted truth through the pagan clutter.
Wally,
We know God has a Name, yes. We also know that that name is His Memorial Name throughout the ages. It’s a name which reveals the Person of God, namely the Unstoppable Fulfiller of purposes; a name which would eventually be uttered in the tongues of the nations. Since that Name is not a magical formula with mystic powers, the exact articulation of all the sounds is not the purpose of knowing, using, and believing in that name. The purpose of it is to magnify and use it the way He wants us to as a means of vindicating His Sovereignty; regardless of our being imperfect, non-Hebraic, speech-impeded or uninspired.
But, as you say, one day we’ll know!
Sean,
I was just pointing out that your conclusions didn’t follow from that one premise (A -> C), but adding another premise of circumlocution (A + B -> C) you can at least sustain the argument. However, as Jaco pointed out – it can be inconsistent. If we were to assert that *all* uses of Kyrios/Theos were circumlocutions, then there would be no evidence to disprove it (since you just took all that evidence for yourself), a different kind of “defining yourself out of a definition” to use your phrase.
Jaco,
At first your statement seems to support a four vowel theory. However on closer examination it is clear from one argument that this is not what Josephus is saying. Josephus is not supplying information about the pronunciation of the name. In fact, in Antiquities 2:12:4 Josephus states that it would not be lawful for him to do so. Josephus is instead referring to the four letters YHWH which appeared on the High Priest’s headpiece…
“In which [headpiece] was engraved the sacred name. It consisted of four vowels.”
(Wars. 5:5:7)
But why would Josephus term these four consonants as “vowels”? The Hebrew letters YUD, HEY and VAV (which make up YHVH) have no equivalents in Greek. They are generally transliterated in Greek with Greek letters that happen to be vowels. The reason for this is that when the Greeks borrowed the Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew alphabet they used leftover consonants that did not occur in their language and used them as symbols for vowels. For this reason Josephus writes that the four letters which appeared on the High Priest’s headpiece were four “vowels.” To the Greek speaking audience of the Greek edition of Wars of the Jews, the four letters on the High Priest’s headpiece were in fact four vowels.
I think it would be great if you could give more information into your examples, because what I got from your statement is that the occurrences of the four letter name in the LXX are variations. This is the same as using Adonai or Kurios, as these are also substitutions or abbreviations to the fully pronounced version of the name. I’m not arguing that it is not possible, just wanted some more explanation than what MSS you posted.
Thanks to all. I am enjoying the exchanges. I am about a third of the way through Gregg Staffords 1st chapter of his new book due out shortly. And whats the 1st dealing with? Gods name. 132 pages lots of good info. If you want to read it go here and click on 1st chapter.
http://www.elihubooks.com/content/books_media.php
Regards Bill
Jaco,
If you are going to propose a conspiracy theory (all manuscripts were contaminated in dozens of places) then the burden of proof is on you. Please show us manuscripts that have YHWH in it.
Joseph
Since we are not living in the time and circumstances during which Josephus and others recorded history, what they accepted as given, we need to discover; as in the case of the Divine Name. I cannot comment on what Josephus meant or intended to say; only on what he did say and what we learn from it.
Yes, Josephus was not supplying information on the exact pronunciation of the Name since its dispute was not the object of the events he recounted. What he does say, however is relevant and enlightening, and has a bearing on how the Name was viewed and understood to sound like by his listeners, since the tiara was engraved in Hebrew letters. It’s also valid, since it alludes to the matres lectionis system well in use even as early as the second century B.C.E. As Gerard Gertoux noted:
The writings from Qumrân have shown that before the second century CE even usual words were vocalized owing to these special letters (mothers of reading, that is to say Y for the vowels I and E, W for O and U, and H for an A at the end of words), proving that the “mothers of reading” system was widely used. Judah Halevi wrote in his book The Kuzari (1140), that the letters of the Tetragram are used as vowels for any other words (furthermore Judah Halevi in The Kurazi IV:3 related that Y is used for I, W for O, and H for A).
The occurrences of the Tetragram in LXX are not variations. They could be viewed as writing the Name in different alphabets, but definitely not as substitutes as in the case of Adonai and Kurios. As no extant LXX manuscript has been found containing these substitutes earlier than the second century C.E., the practice of their substitution, according to the evidence, had to have happened around that time on. The abbreviated QS and KS with a stroke over the words also appeared as substitutes since that time. Exactly the same phenomenon occurs in the mss. of the Christian Scriptures of that time. Since the earlier LXX mss. contained the Divine Name, writers of the Gospels and Christian letters had no valid reason for not writing the Name in the autographs when they quoted from the LXX. It is unlikely that Kyrios was used as a substitute since that practice developed only after the apostles’ demise.
Sean,
“Conspiracy theory”? Interesting straw man, indeed. The facts show that the Jews gradually stopped pronouncing the Name “according to its letters” (Sifre Numbers 6:23-27), while still spelling or writing it, as the Talmud itself did it (call it a conspiracy if you want to). The facts show that the LXX older than the second century contained the Name in its ancient form. From that time onward, as in the case of the Christian Scriptures (ms. copies of which date back to the same time) the Name was substituted with Kyrios. Conspiracy? Call it whatever you want to. Do some research and see for yourself how the mss. vary in “dozens of places”. That’s what I did.
Jaco,
Correct me if I’m wrong. You propose that the New Testament documents had the tetragrammaton in them prior to corruptions that entered in. These corruptions are so extensive that all 5,000 existing manuscripts fail to containt the tetragrammaton even once. Is this not a conspiracy theory? That does not mean that it is wrong…it just means the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate by citing a NT manuscript (whether a papyrus or a codex) that contains the name. I’m not in the business of constructing straw men. Truth is my goal, not hype.
Sean,
I said in a previous post:
As regards the New Testament, we only have copies of the autographs; copies which apparently have been tampered with.
It is an undeniable fact that among the 5 000 mss. of the NT, there are not only variations in different places, but also whole spurious texts. That is the reality; undeniable facts.
Among those 5 000 mss. we find copies of copies. Manuscript “families” were generated from earlier source texts translated by copyists which were later copied again. Opportunities to import contemporary dogma, later corruption of copies by “correctors”, or mere human errors were not only likely, but have been demonstrated by textual critics. (classical examples of dogmatic importance include the Johannine comma in 1 Jn 5:7, 1 Tm 3:16, Jn 1:18, Ac 20:28, 1 Pe 3:15 to mention a few.) A conspiracy? Heresy? That would be a discussion on its own. In The Text of the New Testament, Metzger includes under intentional alterations changes in the text to emphasize or safeguard important teachings.
Now, of the 5 000 mss. of the Greek NT, about 80 papyrus mss. date back to the second century, and 260 parchment mss. in uncials date back to the third century. The remaining 4 700 odd manuscripts are cursive mss. from the ninth century, lectionaries, ostraca and amulets. 20 manuscripts date back to before the 4th century. Only 2 of those papyri, found in Egypt, date back to the time 80 to 120 years after the autographs. Variations are observed even among these early 20 mss., let alone the later mss. which contain even more alterations as Church influence increased. These are indisputable facts.
Colwell says, “The overwhelming majority of variant readings were created before the year 200.”
Scrivener says, “The worst corruptions to which the NT his ever been subjected, originated within a
hundred years after it was composed.”
Kilpatrick states, “The creation of new variants ceased by 200
AD because it became impossible to sell them.”
Zuntz says of P46: ‘The excellent quality of the text represented by our oldest manuscript, P46, stands out again. As so often before, we must here be careful to distinguish between the very poor work of the scribe who penned it and the basic text which he so poorly rendered. P46 abounds with scribal blunders, omissions, and also additions. In some of them the scribe anticipated the errors of later copyists; in some other instances he shares an older error; but the vast
majority are his own uncontested property. Once they have been discarded, there remains a text of outstanding (though not absolute) purity’ [The Text of the Epistles, pp. 212-13]
Since we don’t have the autographs, but only the copies [which have been badly tampered with], we need to make use of indirect evidence for answers:
What was the religious climate around the time after the apostles’ demise? How did ‘Christians’ treat the Divine Name? These Christians had the LXX as the text of the OT, which, from the evidence, contained the Divine Name. Others were Jews who had the Hebrew text, also containing the Name. They were probably aware of the Jews’ superstition as it related to the Name. From the writings of the Church Fathers we clearly see Greek philosophical influence. In quoting from the OT they substituted, not Despotes, which would be the accurate translation of Adonai, if Adonai were indeed what the text contained, but Kyrios. When commenting on the name, from 125 C.E by Aristides to 200 C.E. by Mark Minucius Felix the pagan concept of a nameless God is articulated. Their commenting on Scriptural matters clearly shows a strong trend in Greek philosophical influence. That was the world of their time in which copies and translations of Holy Scripture were made; the world which influenced the very Fathers of the Church, let alone the laity.
We as Christians confess that the same holy spirit inspired the NT writers as it did the OT writers. The same spirit prevented contamination of Scripture of ancient Judaism in the face of surrounding pagan nations, hence the absence of paganism, mysticism and superstition in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian authors were also surrounded by superstition, paganism and mysticism, but according to the claim you propose, did holy spirit yield to those developments and was an inspired text produced that reflected these concepts and differed from, even contradicted, previously inspired texts. Where the sanctification of God’s Sacred Name used to be of prime importance – not only in identifying the True God among a pantheon of pagan deities, but also in proving his rightful ownership of universal Sovereignty – suddenly, at the climax of his self-revelation until that time, He presents himself as nameless; as nothing different from the other pagan deities who received a name, was invoked by that name and then dwindles into namelessness. Conspiracy? Maybe apostasy.
All we have is indirect evidence. The conclusions we draw from the evidence will have implications. The conclusions I and others came to draw uphold the ‘Hallowing of His Name’, the choosing for Him a ‘people for His Name’ and the ‘calling upon His Name’ for salvation. You and others may differ with us, but you’ll have your own implications to deal with…
I’m well aware of the field of textual criticism and the variations in the mss. But, if I hear you correctly, out of the thousands of variations there is not even one manuscript that contains the divine name? If this is so, then you must concede that your theory (that the autographs contained the divine name) is groundless. Show me the evidence from the NT mss or else what we are engaging in is mere speculation.
Jaco wrote
“As regards the New Testament, we only have copies of the autographs; copies which apparently have been tampered with.”
Jaco
I also have problems with the greek NT Not having Gods proper name.
I have searched the OT and the NT for a commandment forbiding the use and have no such command.
The only place i find the forbiding use is in the Oral laws of 2nd temple jews which Jesus was against
The NT writers would not have followed the oral law and being inspred to write would of used Gods proper name in their accounts and letters.
there is also another reason why it is not in the copies or translations of the originals which would be the effort of the early church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries to separate christianity from judaism. If this was the case then more than likely Jesus’s real name was also changed to a greek transliteration for this same purpose.
the conclusion that no greek copies contain Gods proper name is a given if they all were copied from corrupted copies or translations.
Also the conclusion that Greek LXX has not been corrupted is witnessed by the earlier copies have God’s proper name in them.
I can understand how someone of the early centuries were deceived but with all the information we have now i can not figure out what keeps so many people in the dark.
anyone who thinks any copy or translation as the uncorrupted word of God is deceiving themself
Hi, Robert
I coincidently reviewed a few of my previous posts just this morning. It is surprising how foreign a post seems to appear after a while. It’s like I’ve not really written it
But, yes, there are more theological dilemmas than solutions arising when one argues for the absence of the Name in the NT. I have an article on the pronunciation of the name by Nehemiah Gordon (Karaite Jew) I’d like to put on the blog. Hopefully, I’ll be able to. There he goes into some intricate detail regarding the actual pronunciation thereof. I believe it is Yehowah. I do use the expression Yahweh merely for the sake of its scholarly popularity.
I’m inclined to view the church fathers as enemies, rather than friends (much less fathers) of the Church (qoheleth) the Messiah started.
Regards,
Jaco
Jaco
I look forward to any info on this subject
Jaco
Although I haven’t read all the above posts, I agree with you on most. I just had a thought, though. Do you think that the exWT background that you and I both have, has an influence on how we feel about speaking and using God’s name? I’m not criticising, merely wondering. After so many years of using His name much more frequently than the average church goer, maybe something in our unconscious spirituality just never switches off? Do keep up the blogging, I do enjoy your comments
Fiona
Jaco
Has anyone wondered or look into the historical precedent of the absence of Jewish-Christian “Church Fathers”? Mayb this is where part of the problem lies.
Xavier
From what I understand the Jewish Christians were virtually wiped out and their writings destroyed by Constantine who wanted his new church he was creating to be as far removed from it’s Jewish heritage as possible. According to the Church Fathers it was impossible to be a Jewish Christian. In their view it was an oxymoron.
At least that is what I have read anywaze…
Xavier
From what I understand the Jewish Christians were virtually wiped out and their writings destroyed by Constantine who wanted his new church he was creating to be as far removed from it’s Jewish heritage as possible. According to the Church Fathers it was impossible to be a Jewish Christian. In their view it was an oxymoron.
At least that is what I understand anywaze…
Sorry I posted twice by mistake…
Thomas
Have i gave you this link.
http://www.ccg.org/English/s/p122.html
Robert
No you didn’t. I’ve been reading it and it is quite fascinating. I knew about some of things they mention but most of it I didn’t know.
Thanks…
Robert
I didn’t realize Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were Unitarians and that Irenaeus was also a Sabbath keeper. I have heard of these people being mentioned in some books I have read but these books never mentioned these facts about their beliefs…
Thomas
i realized earlier that i didnt finish reading it, i also was surprized by about Irenaeus but had read Jutin was unitarian.
I am sure that it is not mentioned much because it doesnt support popular views of trinitarians and of sunday keeping unitarians.
Robert
The article mentions Adoptionist doctrine so I googled it to see what it meant and it seems to be similar to your beliefs accept you don’t believe that Jesus became divine at the resurection. Am I mistaken???
Thomas
it is very close ,but depends on description. i believe Jesus was adpted at his baptism and was actually begat by God at his resurection
Robert
When you say that Jesus was adopted at his baptism I assume you mean that this is when he became the Messiah (or chosen one). But I am not really sure I understand what you mean when you say he was begat by God at his resurection.
Thomas
Messiah doesnt mean chosen one unless you are speaking of him being chosen to be annointed by Gods word.
I believe Jesus was literally born to God out of the earth at his resurection as i believe those who enter the kingdom will be born to God.
Robert
I didn’t know that Messiah and chosen one were different. I hope you don’t mind me asking you all these questions. I like to try to see things from all angles (or perceptions) and then try to decide what makes the most sense to me…
Thomas
ask all you want, but always prove what i say and correct me if i am wrong.
this is what i do, what i expect of others
About God’s name “I AM.”…I had gathered from this that the first thing I must know is that God is, and from Hebrews 11:6, that I must believe that he is a rewarder of him that diligently seeks him.
So in God’s first introduction to Moses by talking to him as he did,
we see the substance of Hebrews 11. At this meeting with God, Moses had not yet seen the things that God was to do with him.
I’m reminded how where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
(see Luke 4:18 as well as II Cor 3:17)
We don’t really know what the Lord will do with us by his spirit, do we?… until we find out I suppose. So much of his rewarding we can read about in the scriptures.
One of the great purposes in saying God’s name is to be well pleasing in his sight. In this I believe there is great liberty. With the gift of liberty there is also a walk. The more that we walk being well pleasing to him and by knowing him more, the greater rewarding by him we should see. God seeks us to worship him
(see John 4:23) and in our worship of him we can get to know him more. When we know him better we find both the ability and the
responsibility to walk better.
This reminds me of Jer 22:16.
Doubting Thomas
The NT are “Jewish writings”.
Hey Fiona!
Great question. I remember the first time I heard the Divine Name. It was in an Indiana Jones movie. The Name of God Jehovah. It sounded so good. It is the most beautiful name. The Name of the Most High of all that exists!
I do think that our background contributes to our using and exalting the Name more noticibly than among others. I think that coming into truth from different religions will have us retain certain vestiges of those religions, regardless of which they are. Many of the positive aspects of those are enhanced when becoming a true and free Christian. A former Muslim would be more aware of purity, submission and devotion before God. A former Jew would more readily grasp the greater realities under the New Covenant. A former animist would have a greater appreciation of God’s revealing Himself in Creation than someone of a purely rationalistic background. These contribute to the glory of God and other Christians can only learn, imitate and advance in areas of worship where these of formerly different convictions “excel” in. I think the same goes for us. I truly hope more Christians can use the Divine Name more frequently. It is a name Satan would have loved to get wiped out from the surface of the earth. Regardless of the form we use, it is The Owner of the universe we identify and introduce people to, and not a mere nameless and elusive Being we never really make contact with.
See how Jehovah feels about his glorious name:
Malachi 1:11: ” ‘For from the sun’s rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my name will be great among the nations,’ Jehovah of armies has said.”
Proverbs 18:10: “The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection.”
Hebrews 13:15: “Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name.”
There are reasons for people not using the name readily. It is firstly an unfamiliar thing among many professed Christians. To nearly all “Christians” Jesus is the only name you need to concern yourself with. How untrue! (John 17:26). Obviously, due to the trinity heresy, Jesus is turned into a rival god and his worshippers idolators, detracting not only from Jehovah’s glory, but also from our Lord Messiah’s. What a blasphemous mess! But we can correct it. We have to start with ourselves. As those who have come to know the truth, we cannot allow the unchristian religious environment to influence us into not using the Greatest Name in our speech and worship. That would be a pity.
The Name belongs to no one but our God and Father. No group owns that name! No group has the right to judge anyone of his/her worthiness of using or bearing that name! That is another lie and stigma some might have to resolve. Another challenge might be to help people feel at ease with the Name. It can be difficult when people have a fear of certain groups using the Name, which groups did more harm than good to the Name. Believe me, our God will in the fury of his righteous anger deal with those groups!
As those who are “sent-out ones,” sh’liachim, ambassadors of Christ, the Messiah of Yahweh/Jehovah, we bear the name. The most glorious name this world so sorely need!
To Yehowah be the glory through Yeshua haMashiach!
Jaco
Robert,
I received permission to use the article by Nehemiah Gordon! It’s quite bulky, so, some of the information I’ll remove for simplicity’s sake. I’ll send Victor the article sometime this weekend.
It’s good…so get your apetite whetted, bro.
Jaco
Ray
the name of God is YAH
Psalm68
4Sing to God, sing praises to His name;
Extol Him who rides on the clouds, F62
By His name YAH,
And rejoice before Him
The NT are “Jewish writings”.
Xavier
If they were jewish writings they would be in the language of the Jewish as the dead sea scrolls, mishna, and Josephus’ writings.
At best they are greek copies , at worst they are greek rewrites to promote their hellenized views.
Jesus spoke to Paul in hebrew, Identified himself by his hebrew name. why would Paul mention this without writing Jesus real name.
I think Thomas stated it right
Robert
From my understanding after the destruction of the temple in 70AD. the rump of the leadership from the Jerusalem church moved to Egypt and later became known as the Ebionites (or poor ones). I believe they represented the true Christians (both Jewish and Gentile). One of the first things Constantine did when he supposedly converted to Christianity was to use the power of the Roman State including the army to wipe out the Ebionite community and destroy all their writings.
The Ebionites were the most famous of the Jewish Christian communities. I didn’t read this but I’m guessing Constantine probably tried to do the same thing to all the other Jewish Christian communities. After more than a millenium of persecution I don’t think many if any of the early Jewish Christian communities survived.
The result is we don’t know very much about what they believed or how they worshiped etc… The only surviving writings (other than the NT writings) that I’m aware of is the Didache or sayings of the Apostles. Outside of the bible these are my favorite writings. I think they represent the true beliefs of the early Christians.
From what I understand they almost made it into the New Testament cannon but for some reason they were excluded. My personal opinion is that they should have been included in the New Testament. Of course this is just my opinion (I am just a layman).
If anyone knows about other writings of the early Jewish Christians I’d like to read about them. I’ve always had an interest in this subject…
Thomas
here is some references to Ebionites
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Gospel:of:the:Hebrews.htm
Robert
Thanks that was interesting. I find some of it was confusing though but I also find parts of the Didache confusing as well. There are also things that Jesus says in the synoptics I must admit I don’t really understand.
Like Mathew 10:34 “Do not think that I come to bring peace on the Earth; I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”
This seems to contradict his sermon on the mount when he said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”
Or like Mathew 12:32 “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or the age to come.”
It seems like Jesus is saying the Holy Spirit is above him since it proceedeth from the Father. At least that is how I understand it anywaze…
Robert
I also don’t understand Mathew 10:23 “I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
Everyone
I was just looking over my last two posts and realized it may negatively effect some peoples faith to ask these questions. I want to be clear that this is not my intention. I’m just saying that there are many things I don’t understand. I like everyone else have lots of questions.
Questions that maybe we as humans cannot answer….
Thomas
Mathew 10:34
this is speaking of the enemies of God . this is the word of God speaking from Jesus who will bring Death to all that deny Gods Word at the end of days
Mathew 12:32
The holy spirit is what brought the word of God to Jesus. this is showing the separation of the Holy spirit of God which taught Jesus the Word to speak from Human Jesus.
He was just showing the greatness of Gods spirit.
Mathew 10:23
Is probably speaking of the destruction in 70AD
Robert
I can’t believe how easily you can come up with explanations about things that I have spent years struggling over and trying to understand.
Thanks. What you say makes perfect sense to me…
Which Language Did Jesus Speak
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/knowles.html
Robert
That was a great article and simple to understand. Thanks…
Thomas
You need to clear your mind then read the OT with a complete open mind. Then read all the NT with the hebrew perspective you aquired.
then if something doesnt match that perspective search the history surrounding to make sure what is being spoke of is what is being meant like the many differnt laws that existed at Jesus’ time. this should help you with Paul. As far as John goes you need to know that He couldnt of wrote this without help but i do believe he played a big part in it.
John 1 is very important if you understand how the prophets received the words they spoke and understand that the Word is the Only Begotten of God which came to dwell in the Man Jesus not become Him at birth. after you understand this than you can determine who is speaking , Jesus himself or Gods word.
I know that people wonder why i caution getting their complete understanding from the NT because of possible corruptions but i do believe God gave us the OT to prove what is the truth in the NT.
Robert
Thanks for the advice. I’m almost finished that history book that I thought that God had wanted me to reread. It’s amazing just how much new stuff you notice when you haven’t read a book in many years.
My plan is then to tackle the Introduction to the Old Testament book that my friend Tim gave me and then reread the OT to try and see if I can understand the Old Testament better this time around. Like I said I have only read the OT twice and I found it very difficult to understand.
I find the synoptics are the easiest to read and understand…
Hello again! I’m back after being without internet access all week. We moved last weekend and it was supposed to be switched over, but due to various complications it didn’t happen till yesterday. After reading through these latest comments, I would like to add a few thoughts.
The name of God is Yahweh or Jehovah in Hebrew (YAH being a shortened form of it). It doesn’t appear in the Greek NT because they didn’t have that word in Greek. Robert is correct that there was no command forbidding the pronouncing of the name in the Torah. There are also a number of other names and titles for God, and no indication that one is better or preferred by God in our worship. I think that is a matter of personal choice. Jesus frequently called Him Father, and I am rather partial to that myself.
As for Jesus’ “real” name, it was Yeshua in Hebrew and Iesous in Greek. Neither one is more “correct” than the other – it’s just a difference of language.
Xavier made the statement that “the NT are Jewish writings,” to which Robert replied, “If they were Jewish writings they would be in the language of the Jewish as the dead sea scrolls, mishna, and Josephus’ writings. At best they are Greek copies, at worst they are Greek rewrites to promote their hellenized views.”
The NT was written by Jews (except possibly Luke) but they either spoke Greek as well (like Paul) or had their writings translated very early on, because Greek was one of the predominant languages at the time, and more people could be reached with that language. But the thinking and even many of the idiomatic expressions were Jewish. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Greek versions of the NT are corrupted or changed to promote hellenized views. Certainly the extra-Biblical writings by Greek writers do this, but I don’t believe the NT is corrupted.
Robert said, “I believe Jesus was literally born to God out of the earth at his resurrection as i believe those who enter the kingdom will be born to God.” The problem with this is that such an understanding would not be “literal.” The literal meaning of “beget” and “born” have to do with children being the offspring of their parents. When Jesus is called the firstborn from the dead, it is a figurative expression because of the similarities between literal birth and resurrection. But the clear records of the Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, indicate that Jesus’ conception and birth were not merely figures.
Thomas asked about Mathew 10:23 “I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” There are several theories about this that have been put forth, but I think one best fits the context. See this article:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/thisgeneration.htm
Mark C.
Great to have you back. I was wondering why I hadn’t heard from you in awhile. I tried to click on the link but I got “content encoding error” again. I don’t know why but it seems to always happen with the links you give me. I never seem to have a problem with the links that Robert gives me???
Thomas,
Is it just the links to stuff on my website, or do all the links I post give you that result?
The article on “This Generation” was also posted on this blog in two parts:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/11/09/this-generation-part-1-revised/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/11/16/this-generation-part-2/
(Matthew 10:23 is covered in part 2.)
Mark C.
These 2 links worked just fine. I will try to read through them before I go out tonight. I’m going to my friend’s house for the evening…
“The NT was written by Jews (except possibly Luke) but they either spoke Greek as well (like Paul) or had their writings translated very early on, because Greek was one of the predominant languages at the time, and more people could be reached with that language.”
Mark
this is just the traditional view which historical evidence has proven false. Paul was well learned but if you read he had to be asked if he spoke greek which means he normally spoke a language other then greek. Josephus also provides light on what language was spoken during Jesus’ time and as late as 70 AD.
The romans had to have him translate greek to hebrew because they didnt know greek. Josephus himself says he had to learn greek but still perfered to speak his native tongue. Most of the Nt writing have hebrew word order as the grrek translation of the LXX which shows they were first written in Hebrew than translated to greek.The fact that the Nt writing do not have Gods name shows that it was removed after the inspired writers wrote them because they would of not followed jewish tradition over Gods command to proclaim his name. To claim they havent been corrupted at all is the ultimate in blind faith when evidence is so strong. this doesnt mean we throw the out , it just means we must prove them with the OT and written histories.
Btw
welcome back
Not the same around here without you
If he was learned in both, what language he “normally” spoke would depend on where he was and to whom he was speaking. He had been speaking Hebrew with the Jews in Jerusalem when the uproar happened and so the chief captain asked if he spoke Greek. He then went on to address the Jews in Hebrew. But when he was traveling in other parts of the empire he would speak Greek.
You don’t have the exact quote or reference, do you? I’d be interested in seeing what Josephus said. While Hebrew was spoken among the Jews, Greek and Latin were still the most widespread languages in the Roman Empire at that time, which is why Pilate had the accusation sign written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew (Luke 23:38).
Why wouldn’t the Romans have him translate to Latin? (BTW, are you talking about his epistles?) Besides, Greek was more widespread than Hebrew, even among the Romans (whose primary language was Latin).
Yes, Paul (Saul) was raised as a Hebrew-speaking Jew, and learned Greek later (we assume) so Hebrew would be his first language. But which he spoke (or wrote in) would depend on whom he was addressing.
Quite possible, or it could also mean that the Hebrew thinking was behind the word order even if he wrote in Greek, which is not uncommon with bilinguals. But in any case, if it was written in Hebrew first, it was translated very soon afterward, and was copied and spread throughout the Empire in Greek.
Not necessarily. The Greeks did not have the different names for God that Hebrew had, and would have just used words like Theos and kurios.
I don’t say they weren’t corrupted at all. But what evidence do you have that they were corrupted to the extent that you claim? Only a relatively small percentage of the variant readings in the Greek MSS actually affect the sense of the passage, much less a doctrine. And textual criticism can enable us to reconstruct a great deal of it, in addition to comparing it with the OT and historical evidence. Of course, the OT is still invaluable because of the understanding it provides of the foundations that the NT builds on.
Thanks!
Thomas,
BTW, what kind of browser do you use, and what version?
Also, did you have any trouble with the links to other sites in my latest comment over on the Six Reasons to Celebrate Hanukkah thread?
“You don’t have the exact quote or reference, do you? I’d be interested in seeing what Josephus said.”
Mark
You must not read anything i post because i have podted this before
I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning
of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek
language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak
our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with
sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those
that learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2)
The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into “their own language” (Wars 5:9:2) .
Robert,
Thanks. I do read your posts but I must have missed that one. Anyway, as he says, Hebrew and not Greek was the language of his place and time, i.e., Jerusalem, specifically for the Jews. But throughout the Roman Empire, Greek and Latin were the predominant languages. The NT writers may have written originally in Hebrew, but the translation into Greek was shortly thereafter, and they were circulated throughout the Empire in Greek. And as I said, only a relatively small percentage of the variant readings in the Greek MSS actually affect the sense of the passage, much less a doctrine.
“The NT writers may have written originally in Hebrew, but the translation into Greek was shortly thereafter, and they were circulated throughout the Empire in Greek.”
We have no idea when they were translated and by who.
we can not even be sure the greek text we have match the first translation.
As Jaco wrote we only have copies of copies
as it says many places ,prove with the Holy scriptures
Let’s remember that there’s so much more to remembering God’s name than calling him Jehovah, YAH, or whatever else we see God called in the scriptures.
It’s possible to walk in darkness while calling God Jehovah. To bring people to the light of God we need to walk by his Spirit which he has given us and by that spirit there is great liberty.
Not only is it possible to use his name but miss the kingdom, it’s also possible to use the scripture and do the same. It’s far too easy
to make mistakes concerning spiritual matters. But God gave us of his Spirit that we might learn to walk as we should, even as Jesus walked. This may take a lot of time. Hopefully it’s something we will grow into.
The Pharisees came to Jesus with things concerning the sabbath but they did not have authority over those things they came to Jesus with (concerning the sabbath) because they were not walking by the Spirit of God.
We too must learn to walk by the spirit to win the lost. The Lord is most kind and patient. He’s righteous and full of justice. Equity and truth is a part of his equipment. He freely gives us these things and more as we are willing and ready to receive them. With them we can bring others into his glorious light. While walking in the light he gives us, we can effectively declare his name to the nations. The nations will come to his brightness. (see Isaiah 60)
“The Pharisees came to Jesus with things concerning the sabbath but they did not have authority over those things they came to Jesus with (concerning the sabbath) because they were not walking by the Spirit of God.”
Ray
the things concerning the sabbath were things not in the law of Moses or Gods laws , they were concerning the oral laws which are just traditions of men or commandments of men.
They were just concerning being a JEW only, Not AN ISRAELITE OR A CHILD OF GOD.
they were made up things by the Jews
Since we have no Hebrew MSS we can’t even be sure IF they were written down in Hebrew first, or translated by someone as they were dictated. But if they were, the translations must have happened very soon afterward, since it was the Greek MSS that were circulated and preserved. That’s why I say there is no evidence that the Greek MSS are less accurate than a Hebrew original.
I agree. But comparing the MANY copies we have shows a remarkable consistency not seen in any other ancient writing.
I agree. And I believe that includes comparing the variant MSS as well as comparing with the OT.
“Since we have no Hebrew MSS we can’t even be sure IF they were written in Hebrew first. But if they were, the translations must have happened very soon afterward, since it was the Greek MSS that were circulated and preserved. ”
we have many witnesses within the early church fathers that the gospel according to the hebrews which we know included Matthews account in hebrew . this was destoyed so how can you be sure others werent destoyed
we still can only estimate when a writing was wrote so how can you with good concience say when they would of been translated as very soon afterward and you failed to address by who. the early church fathers had the motives to do things to separate christianity from judaism and many of them who were in high postions were also very hellenistic in their views of God and Jesus and probably took great measures to remove all hebrew traits to present Jesus as separate from Judaism. this is where the greek thought started mixing with true christianity and the results were binitarianism which turned into trinitarianism, sunday worship, the use of idols as the cross and the view of the law of God.
they also had the means to leave things out,add things or flat reconsctruct sentences to read the way they wanted them to read.
this is why you should always get your understanding of the Nt from the Ot not vise versa
Ray
here is something to help you understand why the jews acussed Jesus of breaking the Sabbath.
Yes as jews in judaea that certainly had authority of these issues if you wanted to remain a jew amongst jews.
Jesus actually broke their manmade laws with full knowledge of them before hand.
The Pharisees differed from the Sadducees most significantly in accepting the oral Law as well as the written Law. The oral Law was a body of unwritten legal opinions intended to make the Law applicable to changing situations. Thus the scribes, or experts in the Law, had identified thirty-nine different kinds of work in the written Law which were prohibited on the Sabbath; in the oral Law each of these types of work was expanded to include thirty-nine sub-categories of work, resulting in some 1521 different kinds of work which were prohibited on the Sabbath. Behind all this study and labor was the overwhelming conviction that God’s will was perfectly revealed in the Law of Moses, and that this Law was applicable to every situation in life.
Mark C.
I use Mozilla Firefox but I’m not sure of the version or how to check which version I have (I’m new to this computer stuff). I do remember updating to a new version several weeks ago. My son has it set up so the updates automatically come up somehow.
I only had a problem with that one link and one other link you sent me a few weeks ago. Like I said I never seem to have a problem with the links Robert sends me. Both times it said “message encoding error” whatever that means…
I can’t be sure, but while there are witnesses to the existence of Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, there aren’t witnesses of Hebrew originals of the other NT books.
True, we can only estimate. But since we have no Hebrew MSS, and only a witness of a Hebrew original of Matthew, and since the NT was circulated, copied, and preserved in the Greek, it’s a fair assumption that they were either written in Greek originally or translated very shortly afterward. If there were Hebrew originals that were around for a number of years before being translated into Greek, there would be some evidence of that. As for who translated them, there’s no way to know, just as there is no way to know who translated it into Latin and other languages later.
Just because they could have doesn’t prove that they did. Besides, the earliest patristic writers weren’t as anti-Jewish as the later ones, and many of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (those that had direct contact with the Apostles) show more similarities to the New Testament itself than the later writers do. I find it hard to believe that God would preserve the OT so miraculously and not do the same with the NT. I’d have to see solid evidence of such radical and deliberate corruption.
I’d say it goes both ways. We gain much understanding from the OT that provides the foundation of the NT, but we also gain a greater spiritual perspective from the NT that reveals the full intent of the shadows and types of the OT.
Hi, Lads,
I sent Victor the shortened article on the Divine Name’s pronunciation. I hope to see it up soon.
But to return to the conversations:
Mark, you said,
Actually, they did. Pre-christian transliterations of the Name into Greek included IA and IAW. The Name could certainly have been transliterated in this way. As I posted earlier, Josephus said the name was written in 4 vowels. These could also have been transliterated into Greek, namely, IEOE.
Another point to remember is that the Jews were the ones forbidding pronouncing the name, while still writing it. There was an ancient custom to cut out all the occurences of the Name before destroying a worn-out scroll, so as not to desecrate the Name. The “Christians,” however, were the ones removing the name even from the LXX. Before the 2nd century, the LXX contained the name. After then, it was noticeably absent, even in its paleographic Hebrew form. The oldest Christian mss we have of the NT date back to this period (Chester-Beatty Papyri). Needless to say, they don’t contain the Name. The only place the name was retained was in Revelation where the doxology, aleluia, was transliterated into Greek.
The NT is full of Hebraisms/Aramaisms. Their occurence is striking indeed! This is one of the best proofs of Hebrew/Aramaic primacy of the NT, instead of Greek.
Your brother,
Jaco
The reason the Pharisees who came to Jesus asking him why his disciples didn’t wash their hands before they ate, didn’t walk in the perfect law of liberty was because they had not received it. (see Romans 8:1)
Jaco,
You wrote:
I found this interesting bit of info on the Wikipedia article on The Tetragrammaton:
So according to this, anyway, the name was removed by Jews and replaced by other words to avoid profaning it, rather than by Christians to separate from Jewish things. Apparently, the NT used Kurios in place of YHWH because that was the standard practice by then. I know of no evidence that the NT originally had YHWH but it was replaced.
“Apparently, the NT used Kurios in place of YHWH because that was the standard practice by then.”
Mark
we are suppose to be talking about inspired writers who didnt follow standard practices or traditions of men most of which who were of poor Jewish backgrounds. we know that at least John and Peter probably couldnt read or write still after they received the holy spirit. we also know that Jesus chose hebrew over greek to speak with Paul.
“Just because they could have doesn’t prove that they did. Besides, the earliest patristic writers weren’t as anti-Jewish as the later ones, and many of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (those that had direct contact with the Apostles) show more similarities to the New Testament itself than the later writers do.”
Mark
Christians were being persecuted very soon after Jesus death which provides us with the motives of to separate from judaism very early in church history
“I’d say it goes both ways. We gain much understanding from the OT that provides the foundation of the NT, but we also gain a greater spiritual perspective from the NT that reveals the full intent of the shadows and types of the OT.”
Mark
Actually if you read all of the OT with an open mind you will find the same spiritual perspectives. all you would lack was when and who.
“The reason the Pharisees who came to Jesus asking him why his disciples didn’t wash their hands before they ate, didn’t walk in the perfect law of liberty was because they had not received it. (see Romans 8:1) ”
Ray
actually again this was a commandment of men in the oral law of the jews.
The perfect law of Liberty is Gods Morals(all 10) written within us
Robert, the law of liberty is the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, not the 10 commandments.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Ray if you took the time to actually read what Romans 8 is saying you would understand.
why is the carnal mind against God?
What Law is fulfilled in those of the spirit?
Show me one place that Jesus gave any laws that werent already given by God.
show me anywhere that Jesus was a law giver of New laws.
and dont try to say it was here because these commandments were only confirmed by Jesus not Giving by Jesus. Just where did this scribe learn about these 2 commandments. It was his summary of Gods morals giving within the 10 commandments
Luke 10
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Robert, why is it you say I don’t understand? Present your case.
What is it that I don’t understand?
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Ray
this is what you cant understand.
If the spiritual mind is not against God what is it subject to
The carnal mind is not subject to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, but rather seeks to justify itself by it’s own efforts
something Christ came to deliver us from.
Christ came to transform us into the image of God who created us and his work was completed on the cross from where he cried with a loud voice, “It is finished.” This began a new day, giving us a rest in him and in his work which justifies us through faith.
Robert, you say I can not understand that the carnal mind is emnity against God being contrary to the law of God. Please make your case. Make it plain against me. Has God committed into your
care this ministry of condemnation? If so, show us the power of God.
Nay! but who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect.
Make it plain against me. Has God committed into your
care this ministry of condemnation?.
Ray
you were condemned in need of redemption long before i came along as all humans are from birth.
If someone wants to stay that way then it is there own doing especially when God gave us a way to be redeemed, the same way Jesus was redeemed.
Robert, do you now find me in my past deplorable condition?
Ray
it is your claim that it is past, i myself am still working on it because i still lack all the signs of being there already
I was at one time without God and without hope, but then the good news of Jesus came to me and with it a new perspective,
a new direction, a new inheritance, and a new future.
Ray
i claimed that 30 years ago also but came to find its was just a deception of satan to keep me from really getting to know God.
Now i work day in and day out to get to know My God
Mark,
The Christian copies we have of the NT beginning second century contain the practise of writing shortened forms of God, called nomina sacra. This, however, does not occur in any of the Jewish writings of the time. The practice involves a shortened form of Theos or Kyrios with a “supralinear stroke” above the name. No LXX versions before the second and third centuries contain these nomina sacra. The versions of later times copied by Christians (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus) contain these nomina sacra where the pre-christian LXX have the tetragam. It is for this reason that the Christians of the time is held responsible for the removal of the name. As I said, Jews refused to utter the name, while still writing it down. Christians refused to utter and write the name.
I’ll elaborate on the theological implications of asseting that the divine name was not included in the Christian Scriptures’ autographs.
Good night,
Jaco
Robert, what I am claiming is the truth which God has shown me.
With me it’s not a deception.
Ray
God is calling you
satan is telling you that you are already there
Robert, Satan is telling me no such thing. Though I am seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, I have not yet attained unto the salvation that is yet before me. Still I have hope in God. Therefore I continue
on my journey which is set before me. Satan is always found to be
hindering me in that process of going to heaven. But he is a liar and will use anyone who is willing to be used by him for his evil purposes which are contrary to Christ and the heavenly throne that awaits those who have already tasted of some of it’s virtues that are in Christ Jesus.
Satan uses people who don’t know God to spew out buckets of atrocities upon those who have decided to leave this world’s ways behind. Satan will pervert every good way. He can not travel the right path, though a Christian will met his messengers on it at times. God will give his own the victory in these battles because of
Christ Jesus. They will overcome by him who gave his life for them
because God was with him. The Lord is with those who are going to heaven. He has not left them alone. He is by their side.
Robert, you say Satan is telling me that I am already some place.
Please explain yourself. Make your case. Make it clear.
Robert, check this out:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.iv.i.html
It’s The Pilgrim’s Progress on the computer. One can hold the cursor on verses that are highlighted in the text and the verses come up on the screen.
It’s all about his journey to heaven and the characters and troubles he met with.
Ray
The Pilgrim’s Progress is just a fictional story, and i have my hands full just seaking the truth
Robert, the Pilgrim’s Progress holds more truth than a lifetime on this earth can receive. It’s about a man who began his journey to heaven. He doesn’t get to the gates of the City itself until after he
crosses the final river.
The standard practice I am referring to is not “traditions of men” which contradict God’s Word. It is simply the standard practice of using the word kurios where the Hebrew Tetragrammaton had appeared, just as we have the English word LORD.
The persecution was only from certain Jews, not from all Jews. Many of them believed and became part of the early church. It wasn’t till after the death of the Apostles, when Gentile Christians began to outnumber Jewish Christians, that the animosity towards the Jews led to a loss of Jewish ideas, as reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers. But even then there is no evidence of such deliberate and radical corruption of texts.
You would lack more than that. There are a number of things that Paul specifically says was hidden and not revealed until it was given by revelation to him.
There is a big difference between using a shortened nomina sacra and “removing” the name of God. And there may have been a change in the LXX, but there is no evidence that the NT originally had the name and it was removed.
Mark,
Mark, you’re resorting to special pleading here. To take the Name out of the text of the Bible and then replace it with another title, a practice without any Scriptural basis, is, in fact, “removal” of the Name.
But to summarise the evidence so far:
1. The Sacred Name occurred in all LXX copies and fragments before the second and third centuries.
2. The Christians of the time, including the inspired writers of the NT, used the LXX extensively. Other Hebrew scrolls, also containing the Name, had the name in nearly 7000 places as well.
3. The inspired writers quoted from these writings. They did so in a milieu when the Jews used an unwarranted practice of writing down the name but forbade the utterance thereof. There were exceptions to this rule, as when a purified priest attended to his priestly duties at the temple, as well as isolated Jewish sects who ignored the baseless practice of that time.
Yet, the copies of the Christian NT have the Name removed and replaced by substitute nomina sacra. The Christian copies of the OT also have the Name removed and replaced by the titles kyrios and theos.
To claim that the Name did not occur in the original, since no extant mss. contain the Name, amounts to a slippery slope argument. The absence of the Name in a copy has very little bearing on its presence or absence in the autographs in light of the circumstantial manuscript evidence of the time. Ultimately, the circumstantial evidence will weigh the heaviest since direct evidence is lacking.
To claim that the Name did not occur in the NT has devastating theological implications.
Firstly, it implies that the inspired writers of the NT yielded to the unwarranted practice of the time, namely, of not uttering the Name.
Secondly, it implies that the Christians presumed it upon themselves to take it further and remove the name also from among the OT.
To claim that the autographs did not contain the Name, thirdly implies that the inspired Christian writers did not faithfully copy the OT scriptures, including Ps 110:1, which did contain the name. Fourthly, Jesus’ words in John 17:26 means absolutely nothing:
Nor would Jesus’ prayer in Matt. 6:9 have any meaning if Our Father had no Name to sanctify.
Fourthly, if the absence of the name in the NT and subsequently in the Christian copies of the LXX is a mere triviality, then this unwarranted practice started by the Jews and continued by the Christians is irreprehensible.
Fifthly, the purpose of revealing His Name to us in the first place, namely, to serve as an eternal and everlasting Memorial Name, met with devastating failure.
Sixthly, If Jesus used the Name, and the inspired writers of the NT wrote down his words without writing down the name, then they did not faithfully write down the words of our Lord. If, indeed, Jesus did not use the name, his faithfulness in upholding Yahweh’s Law perfectly is placed in serious jeopardy, since he yielded to a practice initiated by imperfect and unapproved men. Not only that, then Jesus could not have been the “Prophet like Moses” who would speak in Yahweh’s name, for, “the prophet who presumes to speak in my Name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die” (Duet. 18:18, 20).
Finally, no intimacy can by gained if the One we’re desiring to worship, is a nameless, elusive mystery. This is the god of the mystics, not the God of my spiritual ancestors, and definitely not the God of my Lord, Christ Jesus. Jesus the Messiah and his followers were faithful, approved men. They were the ones who revived and upheld the Law of my God, Jehovah. Included in that Law is the crucial command: “You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you” (Deut. 4:2).
These issues are simply insurmountable and devastating to all aspects of Christianity. Hence my contention, from circumstantial evidence and theological extrapolation, that the divine Name belongs in the NT.
In His service,
Jaco
Jaco & Mark,
The seeming exclusion of the divine name [YHWH] in the NT, does not make “the God” [ho theos] of Israel, Father of Jesus of Nazareth, somehow different or unidentifiable. The name is replaced by the standard “Lord” or the Semitic “Abba” (Mar 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), in each case followed by its Greek equivalent, pater ["father"].
If there is a connection with the Divine Name translated as “I AM WHO I AM” of Ex 3:14 in the NT, it is found in the koine Greek phrase ho ōn ho ēn ho erchomenos: “the one being and the one who had been and the one coming” (Rev 1:4, 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5).
The first expression (ho ṓn) declares that there has never been a time when God was not existent; hence He is self-existent. The second expression (ho ḗn = the One who had been), takes us back all the way before the creation itself, to which He gave existence, He Himself having been self-existent. The last part [ho erchómenos; literally "the coming One"] does not exclude the fact that He came at different times and in different ways speaking to His creation (Heb 1:1-2). He came, He is here, and He will yet keep coming in ways peculiar and necessary for the execution of His will.
The reason why this designation of God is given only in Revelation may be because it is only there that God’s plan and purpose are fully revealed. In all its occurrences it is applied only to God the Father:
Jesus refers to God as Father – my father, your father, our father, the father, etc. – more than anything else, I believe. It seems more likely to me that the absence of the divine name in the NT is due to the greater understanding of God as our Father, rather than a deliberate corruption of texts.
Also, the references to glorifying “His name” are not necessarily referring to the word YHWH. The following is from The Holy Name by Bob Pickle:
Guys,
I do not think that any of these explanations sufficiently resolve the circumstantial and theological issues I presented. No historian will will naively accept the evidence as innocently as you have presented. The issues at hand are hard-core and crucial. To brush them aside with almost unrelated peripherals does the matter no justice.
I know we’re passionate about what we believe. And we have very good research and argumentative skills. What I say is with deep respect and a high regard for both of you!
Your brother,
Jaco
Jaco
What is the problem bro?
Xavier,
Please review the points I made in post #97. That is the problem.
Jaco
Jaco
Bottom line is neither Jesus nor the Apostles are explicitly using the Divine Name as such. They instead refer to the same God of Israel by other “names”, titles and attributes.
What is the problem with that?
Are you ex-JW?
Xavier,
There are implications to that. As I said, the implications are serious and I listed them in #97. To say that Jesus and the apostles didn’t use the name amounts to assuming that the copies we have are exactly identical to the autographs.
There are major problems with that.
Yes, I used to be a JW.
Jaco
Wow
Xavier do you think that you are better than JW’s just because they are deceived in certain areas you arent. well from my standpoint thats the kettle calling the pot Black. Jaco has presented evidence that should bring a real question mark into rational thinking people. there is also a ton of common sense within his reasoning.
Is there a reason in your religous past that effects your reasoning as you have accused Jaco. I have met some JW’s and let me tell you one thing , I have never met christians that were more dedicated to God , it is not there fault the dedication has been taken advantage of by false doctrines.
Jaco
I think this subject should stand on its own using a common sense stance but you went way beyond to provide historical evidence. I cant see how someone can explain it all away in their minds
Robert,
Thanks for the encouragement. I’m very glad you enjoyed my brief summary of the issues. Believe me, I can add a lot more to the list of implications!
Well, Xavier can answer for himself as to his question on my religious past. It’s way past midnight in Ausieland, so, I’ll think he’ll reply when I’ll be still asleep (lol). But I don’t think he meant anything by asking me of my religious past other than out of sincere interest. On another blog he asked Fiona of hers and was quite amazed at Fiona’s religious journey. I appreciate your concern, but I think Xavier meant no harm. I enjoy Xavier’s open-mindedness myself. I think he’s very knowledgeable, and wouldn’t classify him under the ad hominem attackers (Old Andrew Patrick’s clan). But, as I say, Xavier will clarify himself in the (their) morning…
I appreciate your honesty in matters. I appreciate your challenging conventional conviction and having a fervent zeal for what convinces you of truth. You have done a lot of valuable research yourself. Keep it up. All of us need to pray for courage. I like the word “guts.” It takes “guts” to face truth. Not everyone can take truth. It takes guts to adjust one’s thinking to be aligned with truth.
Much appreciated,
Jaco
P.S. Robert, what’s your religious background? Xavier, and yours? Everybody’s journey is interesting.
Jaco
I was a disciple of christ till i was 16 and shortly after i was baptized i left because i felt i didnt belong there. For the last 30 years i havent been involved with any church. 13 months ago i was compelled to read the OT in which i read 6 different translations in the month of january. after that i moved to the NT within the same translations to find out that i followed no sound doctrine at all. since then i have searched to find the truth by proving everything i base my faith on.
I have read more the last 13 months then i had the 46 years prior.
I don’t see how it’s “special pleading.” As Xavier pointed out, “Bottom line is neither Jesus nor the Apostles are explicitly using the Divine Name as such. They instead refer to the same God of Israel by other “names”, titles and attributes.” And in the quotes from the OT, the fact that it uses different words is not a “removal” but a representation of a name which has no direct translation.
Regarding the “evidence” in comment #97, there are a few things to consider.
According to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Volume 2, page 512:
Paul Kahle, in The Cairo Geniza (Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1959) p. 222, writes:
So while the Divine Name was written in Greek in some earlier fragments of the Septuagint, there is no evidence that it “occurred in all LXX copies and fragments before the second and third centuries.”
Still, whether the Divine Name was used exclusively in the copies of the LXX at that time is not conclusively proven.
The statement that the Name was “removed and replaced by substitute nomina sacra” is starting with the assumption that the NT contained it in the first place, of which there is no evidence. We must be careful not to lump the NT together with the LXX in this case. There is evidence that the Name was used in the LXX, but there is no evidence that it originally appeared in the NT and was changed.
The “circumstantial evidence” you present contains quite a few assumptions, however:
Not necessarily. Jesus and the Apostles used different names and titles for God, most notably “Father.” Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God addressing Him as “Our Father.” It is just as likely (if not more so) that the understanding of God as Our Father is the reason the Divine Name was not used as much in the NT.
Not necessarily. The fact that they didn’t use the Name as much in the NT has no direct bearing on the changes in the LXX.
If they had no direct translation of the word YHWH and had previously only transliterated it into Greek characters, then using Kurios to represent it is not an “unfaithful” translation.
As I quoted in comment #99 above, references to making known or glorifying “His name” do not necessarily refer to the one name YHWH. “His name” can refer to His character and reputation.
True, if he used it. But we have no evidence that he used it rather than the other names or titles that he used, as recorded in the Gospels.
Speaking “in my name” does not equal speaking the name of YHWH. It means speaking on His behalf. His use of other names and titles for God (especially Father) do not imply that he did not faithfully speak God’s words. In fact, the opposite can be said: The fact that Jesus called God Father and instructed us to pray, “Our Father” shows that this is God’s will, since Jesus always said and did the will of his Father. And since he followed the addressing of God as “Our Father” with the phrase “Hallowed be thy name” it is plain that God’s “name” is not limited to just the one name YHWH. It is His reputation and character, and all that He represents. There are many different names of God in the Bible, and no command that one is to be used more than others.
Nobody has suggested that God is a “nameless, elusive mystery.” Far from being nameless, He has many names, reflecting the many aspects of His nature and character. And the one our lord used most often, “Father” (and even the more intimate form Abba) portrays a relationship even more intimate than what Israel had.
So the “circumstantial evidence” consists of many assumptions, none of which is sufficient to outweigh the lack of any hard evidence that the original NT once contained the Divine Name. Let’s not be dogmatic over such ideas, but follow our lord’s example of worshiping and praying to God Our Father.
“If they had no direct translation of the word YHWH and had previously only transliterated it into Greek characters, then using Kurios to represent it is not an “unfaithful” translation.”
Mark
that view is certainly not backed.
You dont translate names you transliterate them according to how they sound.
the below words prove this.
Mat 12:1 sabbaton sabbaton 4521 שבתון shabbaton sabbath, rest 7676
Mat 23:7 Rabbi rabbi 4461 רבי rabbi master 7227
Mat 26:2 pasca pascha 3957 פסח pesach passover 6453
Mat 4:10 SatanaV satanos 4567 שטן satan adversary 4566
Mat 5:18 amhn amen 281 אמן amen amen 543
Mat 5:22 raka raka 4469 ריק reyq empty 7386
Mat 5:22 geenna gehenna 1067 גיא הנם gai hinom valley 1516/2011
Mat 6:19 shV ses 4597 סס sas moth 5580
Mark 7:11 korban korban 2878 קרבן qorban offering 7133
Mark 14:36 Abba abba 5 אבא abba father 1
Luke 1:15 oinoV oinos 3631 יין yayin wine 3196
Luke 1:15 sikera sikera 4608 שכר shekar strong drink 7941
Luke 10:13 sakkoV sakkos 4526 שק saq sackcloth 8242
Luke 13:21 saton saton 4568 סאה se’ah measure 5429
Luke 16:19 bussoV boosos 1040 בוץ buts fine linen 948
Luke 16:7 koroV koros 2884 כור kor measure 3734
John 6:31 manna manna 3131 מן man manna 4478
John 12:13 ¢wsannna hosanna 5614 הושעה נא hoshi’ah na save now 3467/4994
Rom 9:29 Sabawq sabaoth 4519 צבאות tsivot hosts 5467
2 Cor 1:22 arrabwn arrabon 728 ערבון erabon pledge 6162
2 Cor 11:33 sarganh sargane 4553 שרג sarag wrapped 8276
Rev 19:1 ¢Allhlouia halleluia 239 הללו יה halelu yah praise Yah 1984/3050
AHRC Home > New Testament > Semitic origin > Hebrew words
——————————————————————————–
Copyright © 1999-2007
Ancient Hebrew Research Center Please feel free to use, copy or distribute any material on this site for non-profit educational purposes only.
robert
Do you know me? Or whatever “motivations” I may or may not have? Your making serious generalisations and coming to erroneous conclusions. I am not accusing anyone of anything just simply stating facts. As we have them, the NT scriptures do not include the “Divine Name”. Perosnally, I do not see why you people are getting so nasty over this subject. What surprises me more is Jaco’s tone and attitude in his posts.
Jaco
Reason I asked is because I have heard and read that JWs place great emphasis on the “Divine Name” subject. Something I was not familiar with until I started seeing your posts and the comments by others on here. Although you have provided some great info I am still baffled by your “hardcore” attitude to this subject.
If anyone is interested in my “religious background” [or lack thereof] check out the following link:
http://21stcr.org/multimedia/carlos_jimenez_interview/carlos_jimenez.html
For anyone else who agrees with Jaco’s post:
Is the Divine Name [YHWH] the only expression by which “the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Jesus” can be addressed or known?
And would you agree that for Christians if there is a “name” we should be “hardcore” about, it is the name of the Jesus Christ?
Xavier
I am sure i deserved some of that, But your response didnt show me how i should of acted either.
sorry for jumping to conclusions but to be honest i am not sorry for what i wrote if my conclusion would of been correct.
“Perosnally, I do not see why you people are getting so nasty over this subject.”
First thing is i was the only one that really should of been addresed to
Second you just kept me company in it
“And would you agree that for Christians if there is a “name” we should be “hardcore” about, it is the name of the Jesus Christ? ”
Xavier
I am not sure there is was a man name Jesus, I do know that if i personally knew Him i would personally make sure His real name was known by everyone possible.
Xavier
I just saw your interview on the 21st. century site and the way God brought you to his truth is fascinating. We all have our stories about how God brought us to where we are today. It is nice to know the person behind the name Xavier. Blogging is such an impersonal way to meet someone…
Doubting Thomas
I’d like to think the old adage “all roads lead to the same God” should be the other way around:our different roads should lead to the only one true God!
Xavier
You said, “Our different roads should lead to the only one true God!”
I like that…
Hi Jaco,
how are you doing buddy?
There certainly is logic in what you are saying – your six points regarding God’s name. But what if Christians really didn’t use the name, and simply went along with the Judaism of their day?
I mean, Christianity was just a branch of Judaism when it started, I think we can all agree on that. They were all Jews, practicing Judaism, and it seems that Judaism didn’t use the name anymore. Sure, older copies of the LXX contained the name but there’s no evidence (AFAIK) that 1st century copies still contained it.
How realistic would be to contend that later, a corrupt Christianity replaced all occurrences of the name the evangelists used all over the place in the Gospels? Why would they do that? Wasn’t later Christianity kind of anti-Jewish, why would they enforce Jewish sensibilities? If the name was in the NT, and somebody did replace it, it had to be quite early, because:
- No textual evidence survived
- Later Christianity detached from Judaism
Even so, how did they manage to replace ALL occurrences of the name? We know of real corruptions here and there, but to say that all occurrences have been replaced, that seems a bit of a stretch, mainly because textual tradition is very strong. Christians would simply be very reluctant to take out stuff of the well established text. For example the two tacked-on endings of Mark, the long one and the short one: most scribes have included both, despite them standing in opposition to the each other. But they were tradition, so nobody aware of it dared to take them out.
In my opinion, the very first Christians, the ones practicing Judaism, just went along naturally with the practices of that Judaism. Take Matthew for example. Jews of the time were reluctant to even say “God”, and were replacing this word with “heaven”. Matthew adheres to this sensibility, having Jesus most often say “kingdom of heaven” instead of “kingdom of God”. Out of 31 occurrences of “kingdom of heaven” in the NT, 31 of them occur in Matthew. That’s a 100%
Are we to understand that all other evangelists didn’t know of Jesus’ heavily use of “kingdom of heaven”? This then would be an example of a Christian writer not shying away of following Jewish practice of replacing some rather direct references to God with other not so direct ones. This is also showing up to a lesser extent in the case of other evangelists, not so “Jewish” as Matthew. Luke for example has the prodigal son saying “I have sinned against heaven”.
Many of today’s Jews have the same reluctance to even write “God”. I’ve seen many writing instead “G-d”
The other side of the problem are the assumptions we make. The NT writers are “inspired” writers, so they surely couldn’t have conformed to the unwarranted Jewish practice of replacing the name!
But the things is, NT inspiration is a later, post-biblical concept. There’s no indication the writers themselves or their immediate readers ever held to the idea that the NT writings were God-inspired. There are indications to the contrary in fact. Luke and Matthew felt free to modify Mark’s writing to suit their needs. Real early Christian writers quote rather from the OT than the NT, and the NT references are oblique and inexact. For the one who has studied the history of the canon, it is clear that THE authoritative, inspired book, of the early Christians (in the post-NT era) was the OT. The idea that the NT was inspired came much later.
JohnE
Great points regarding the Divine Name but your conclusion that “the idea that the NT was inspired came much later” is not held by some of the NT writers.
Check out the following from the ESV Study Bible:
“Even so, how did they manage to replace ALL occurrences of the name? We know of real corruptions here and there, but to say that all occurrences have been replaced, that seems a bit of a stretch, mainly because textual tradition is very strong.”
John
this is a very easy feat to accomplish if all the NT writings were in hebrew first than translated during the christian antisementic times of early 2d century to greek to promote the growing separation of christianity from judaism. there were probably very few copies made which would be no great feat to destroy.
We know that some hebrew copies of the originals survived by histories of certain groups of christians and several witnesses such as the early church fathers of christianity.
Speaking Gods name was common amongst all jews except for the scribes and the Pharisees who followed the oral law who were a minority but still controled the political and religous matters of 2nd temple judaism.
Speaking Gods name was a matter of true doctrine to those who held Gods giving laws more authoritive then the traditions of the elders oral laws.
You will find great research on How the NT reads perfectly as hebrew but reads poorly as greek as we see in the LXX translations which only makes sense if it was translated from hebrew to greek
Xavier,
indeed, of all 27 NT books, 3 refer to other NT books as “scripture” (3 out of 27 is a very small number, but anyway). I couldn’t help but notice though that all three you mentioned, and this is not a coincidence, are questionable books when it comes to their authorship.
2 Peter was rejected by Eusebius (the Church historian), who was aware of the widespread doubts about its authenticity. Syrian churches appear to have held it in question until the 6th century. Several early church fathers simply ignore it. As the New American Bible (catholic) says, there is a wide agreement among scholars that it is a pseudonymous work. Many assign it to the 1st or 2nd quarter of the 2nd century.
1 and 2 Tim’s authorship is also disputed. As the NAB says, most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization or the theological expressions found in these letters.
On another note, 2 Ti 3:16 refers to the OT, despite ESV’s unproved assertion that “by implication it also refers to at least some NT writings, which by this time were already being considered as Scripture” (which books would these be, since Paul’s epistles are considered the earliest in the NT?) Not to mention that the writer says Timothy knows these scriptures from childhood, which thus excludes the NT.
This doesn;t amount to much then isn’t it? And I would like to emphasize again, the fact that you have these quotations in three contested (and seemingly late) books, says a lot about the NT inspiration. It’s simply a late idea. Just look at how Paul refers to the OT verse saying “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing” in 1 Co 9, also mentioned by the author of 1 Ti 5:18. In 1 Ti 5:18, Luke 10:7 is also quoted. But when Paul mentions “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing” in 1 Co 9, no further reference to Luke exists.
Besides those points, simply looking at the NT, the overwhelming majority of verses from other books quoted are from the OT, not other NT books. As I already mentioned, one just have to study the writing of “apostolic fathers”, and the OT rules again. NT quotations are inexact (from our anachronistic POV) and meager compared with the OT ones.
I recommend you to read Metzger’s “The Canon of the NT” (if you haven’t read it already). He says on page 40:
A situation that again argues in favor of the idea that the inspiration of the NT is a rather late development.
The words you used as examples are not names but common nouns. However in many cases a name is translated rather than just transliterated. And in some cases there are names in one language that are equivalent to other names in another, such as Peter and Cephas. In addition, people can have more than one name, and it would not be “unfaithful” to call someone by another of their names, such as Simon and Peter, Saul and Paul, etc. The same is certainly true of God, who has many different names throughout the Scriptures.
JohnE
Are you a Christian? If so, you remind me of the Marcionites of the early Church period who basically came up with their own NT canon.
If we start questioning the NT canon as it has been handed down to us we’re in danger of losing said Christian faith in its entirety.
Guys!!!
The name of God stands alone in the Hebrew Bible as a distinct word a total of 6,877 times: 6,828 times as a four-letter name (the tetragrammaton [יהוה]), and 49 times as a two-letter name (יה), pronounced, “Jah,” in English. If you combine the number of occurrences of these two stand-alone names, God’s occurs more often than any other name or title in the entire Hebrew portion of the Bible (the OT).
There are simply no reasons anyone can argue in favor of the non-use of God’s name. In light of the staggering number of occurrences of the Divine Name in the OT, compared to the complete absence of it in the Greek copies of the NT (save the unexplained “exceptions” of transliterated Sacred-Name containing alleluia in Apokalypsis), as well as the circumstantial evidence and theological implications thereof, there are many who contend that the Name was indeed in the NT originals. This is especially so, as the First Century Christian congregation was presented and understood to be a climactic extension of true Judaism, demonstrably different from the disapproved Judaism of Jesus’ time.
Isa 52:5, 6: “‘And now, what interest do I have here?’ is the utterance of Yahweh. ‘For my people were taken for nothing. The very ones ruling over them kept howling,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘and constantly, all day long, my name was being treated with disrespect. For that reason my people will know my name, even for that reason in that day, because I am the One that is speaking. Look! It is I.’”
Jer. 23:27: “They are thinking of making my people forget my name by means of their dreams that they keep relating each one to the other, just as their fathers forgot my name by means of Ba’al.”
Yahweh’s Name, His Memorial Name cannot be forgotten. The ancient Jewish understanding was that mentioning a name of a god implies acknowledging that god. Refusing the utterance of the name indicated rejection of the bearer of the name, the god. That usage and understanding involved the Memorial Name of God Yahweh as well. Mentioning His Name meant acknowledging Him as God Almighty. Refusing to do it implied rejection.
The prohibition from uttering the Name was most certainly not a universal one. Indeed, many Jewish communities continued in the “old ways,” and there were continual contact and travels, even displacement of families from these and other communities, which resulted in an awareness, even usage of the Name, although most fervently opposed by the elite – those who considered themselves chasidim of “pious ones.” These were the very ones Jesus and his apostles exposed as ones who ‘make the word of God invalid by their tradition which they handed down’ (Mr. 7:13). One of those traditions was the refusal of uttering the Name – a practice instituted for all the wrong reasons. What is even more interesting is that the use of the name became even less restricted in certain areas renowned for their objection to it, around the second century. According to the Tosefta Yadaim, a supplement to the oral laws of the Mishnah, and therefore compiled after 200 CE, at the end of chapter 2 a group known as the “Morning-Bathers” complain about the Pharisees who “speak the Name in the morning, before bathing,” and of the Pharisees’ complaint against the Morning-Bathers “who speak the Name, with a body containing defilement.” Not only that, among the many scrolls discovered in the Qumran caves, was a scroll of Psalms, 11QPs, containing hymns that were recited and sung, dating back to 30-50 CE!
Naturally, merely using different names and titles of God interchangeably is not at issue here. Occasional euphemistic use of God, such as “kingdom of heaven,” or “to sin against heaven” is not at issue here either. The issue is the demonstrably purposeful and deliberate non-use of God’s Sacred Name. This would not only make Jesus and his apostles accomplices in a practice their enemies firmly supported, (forbidding the mere utterance of the name while still writing it down when copying from Scripture), they would even be more reproachable in that they engaged in a practice not even their enemies dared to engage in (until much later), and that is deliberate removal and replacement of the most Sacred Name of God. A practice Yehowah would never have initiated, nor approved, much less supported by the One who claimed to be His ultimate Agent, Jesus Christ.
According to Frank Shaw, “The Earliest Non-mystical Jewish Use of IAW,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 2002) pages 199-201,
Now, for several years the oldest LXX copies and fragments in our possession dated back to even after the second century. This, many a scholar used to “prove” that the Divine Name was in non-use both orally and scripturally during the time of Jesus and the apostles. Anyone who dared to say, ‘there must have been copies containing the Divine Name’ only put themselves out for extreme ridicule. The fact of the matter is that both those who claimed non-use, and those who claimed continued-use were conjecturing. They had, after all, only LXX copies from after the NT compilation. Discovery of pre-christian and current LXX fragments proved almost devastating to the “non-use” crowd. The discoveries confirmed the “continued-use” crowd’s theories – based on valid assumptions based on circumstantial evidence. Today, all LXX copies and related Greek versions of the OT dating back to the time before or during the first century contain the Divine Name in some form. According to the best evidence then, proceeding scientifically in this regard, it would be fair to conclude that the First Century Christians and Jesus Christ had before them Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic scrolls containing the Divine Name in almost 7000 places. In fact, George Howard concluded:
So, the implications I mention still stand. This is indeed a very intricate and sophisticated field. Much more sophisticated than what many would merely brush aside as a triviality; not to mention the reductionistic excuse that “no extant copies contain the Divine Name.” It does indeed take a leap of logic to claim that the autographs did not contain the Name based on the extant copies of translated texts, not even dating back to the First Century. What is more, the circumstantial evidence and theological implications (which, with the current mss evidence, are ultimately the concluding factors) do favor, not the absence of the Name, but its presence.
One objection involves the traditional practice of the Jews, and the claim is that Jesus and his apostles proceeded accordingly. If, indeed, it were the case, the practice would involve the non-expression of the name, not the scribal substitution thereof.
Another objection is that the removal of the name from upward 200 assumed places in the NT appears unbelievable. Well, nothing prevented the copyists of second-century LXX and later from removing the name some 7000 times! What is more, no one would contest Hebrew/Aramaic primacy of many of the NT books merely from the absence of the existence of any Hebrew/Aramaic mss evidence. In these cases also, circumstantial evidence, Semitisms, and variations in Greek translations among different textual traditions due to inherent or scribal ambiguities in the Hebrew/Aramaic all add up to conclude their Hebrew/Aramaic primacy. The very same procedure would have us arrive at exactly the same conclusions with regard to the Divine Name.
With regard to the meaning of the word “name,” Mark is quite correct that it does imply more than the mere nomination of a person. It encompasses the person’s character, personality and even reputation. That is perfectly correct. What tends to happen, though, is that we as Western Gentiles tend to divorce the two related concepts which, in Hebrew and biblical times, were inseparable. A person’s character, personality and reputation could not be separated from his nomination. While our culture tends to assign names to people according to their sound, or family legacy, the ancients picked names and even changed names according to their character, reputation and even certain events. The one (person) could not be separated from the other (nomination). So, for Jesus to speak in the name of the same God of Israel, he had to speak in the Name of the One nominated as YHWH. The one could not go without the other.
As I’ve shown, transliteration could not have been a problem either. As the non-mystic IAW and even Josephus’ testimony to the “4 vowels” would not have caused any trouble to the Greek or Greek-speaking Jew to transliterate the Name. The inconsistency in removing the name, as in the alleluia expressions in Revelation, does pose a serious problem for those arguing for the absence of the Name and the possible theological motivations thereof. What is more, and this is the other side of this coin, is that the reasons the proponents of the absence of the Name in the NT put forth to argue their case can also (theoretically) be applied to the non-use of Jesus’ name. And, that the reasons they put forth in using Jesus’ name can consistently be applied to the use of Yahweh’s name.
As I see it, whichever generalizations and reductionistic arguments put forth, those arguing for the non-use and absence of the Name find themselves in a catch-22 of some kind.
Regards,
Jaco
P.S. The attempt to discredit my arguments based on my JW background, I won’t take seriously. Those who suspect me of prejudice in this regard only demonstrate how badly they know me and how short-sighted their judgment is in this regard. The rest of those who do know my background and spiritual purging I’ve gone through will accept my arguments as objective and as unprejudiced as I can present them. I still have a very high regard for all of you brothers.
Jaco
Do you take Jesus’ saying of “Abba Father” in his native Aramaic tongue as legitimate [Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6], therefore, authoritative?
If so, it seems to me that this NT teaching conveys the purest form of warmth, and intimacy that we have been allowed to have through the New Covenant that the Messiah Jesus has enacted.
I do not personally “discredit” nor belittle the fact that the Almighty has a unique Divine Name. But I just do not feel we should be so dogmatic on this one point and go as far as saying that it was somehow removed or changed from the NT autographs [of which you have provided the scantest information].
Then again, would you agree that for us Christians if there is a “name” we should be dogmatic [“hardcore”] about, it is the name of Jesus as the lord [adoni & not Adonay] Messiah? As per Phil 2.9-11:
Xavier (msg. 122)
You said, “If we start questioning the NT cannon as it has been handed down to us were in danger of losing said Christianity faith in it’s entirety.”
The early Christians didn’t have a set NT cannon like we do and they didn’t loose the said Christianity faith in it’s entirety. As a matter of fact the church tradition of the first 1000 years of Christianity was to debate the authenticity of the NT books with one another.
Prior to the year 1000AD each Christian country had it’s own collection of books (or bibles as they were called) and they would actively debate the authenticity of these books with each other. I think it would be nice if we went back to this earlier tradition of the first 1000 years of Christianity and abandon this later tradition which says no one can question the authenticity of the books contained in the NT cannon.
I believe good healthy debate will strengthen Christianity and strengthen the belief of Christians rather than destroy or diminish them. Saying that no debate is allowed is what will actually diminish Christianity and weaken the belief of Christians who have doubts about these things.
Doubting Thomas
I thought the authenticity of the books that were eventually compiled by first people like Marcion and finally Nicea in 325AD date back to at least the time of the last Apostle, John [c. 100AD].
From what historical sources do you get the claim that “Prior to the year 1000AD each Christian country had it’s own collection of books (or bibles as they were called)…”??
Xavier
From I have read prior to the year 1000AD each Christian country had it’s own collection of books that were hand picked by the Christian King in that country. The King not only got to pick which books were included in that countries bible but also got to pick which doctrines were to be followed or not followed.
Unfortunately the common person had no input and had to follow whatever the King said. The result was that when a new King came along he would often change doctrines (and/or books) and everyone living in that country would have no choice but to accept these new doctrines or face the wrath of the state and be punished accordingly.
I know this isn’t very scholarly but I can’t remember which book I read this in. I think it was “A History of Christianity” by Paul Johnson but I’m not sure. I’m assuming this is common knowledge among religious historians.
Doubting Thomas
I think your mistaking what certain Roman Emperors and later Medieval kings of Europe interpreted from the already canonized books, than saying that for 1000 years after Christ the NT books were in a state of flux.
I suggest you read F.F. Bruce The Canon of Scripture, 1988; The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance, Bruce Manning Metzger; all very good seminal works.
Jaco,
There are also other names of God used in the OT, such as Elohim, El, El Shaddai, El Elyon, Adonai, not to mention many titles that describe him, such as Creator, Righteous Judge, Ancient of Days, etc. And as I mentioned, Jesus called him Father more than anything else. While Yahweh is given as his “proper” name, there is no place in Scripture that says we should use it more than the other names. God is more concerned that we have a relationship with Him than what name we call him.
Once again, nobody is arguing in favor of the non-use of God’s name. We are arguing that He has many names, and the NT using other ones besides Yahweh in no way proves a deliberate conspiracy to remove it from the NT.
On the contrary, the use of different names and other titles and descriptive phrases is exactly what is at issue here. God is called many different things in the Bible, and there is nothing that demands that the one name Yahweh be used exclusively. There is simply no evidence of any deliberate tampering with the NT documents to remove the name, much less a “demonstrably purposeful and deliberate non-use of God’s Sacred Name.” The “circumstantial evidence” you keep referring to is based on many unfounded assumptions, as I pointed out in my last post.
I agree with Xavier, that the name of Abba, or Father, “conveys the purest form of warmth, and intimacy that we have been allowed to have through the New Covenant that the Messiah Jesus has enacted.” I also agree with his point about the name of Jesus. It is at that name that every knee shall bow. Let’s keep this in perspective.
Thomas,
While the final canon may have been officially declared around 1000 AD, that doesn’t mean that all of the books were in question before that. Only a few, such as II Peter, James, and Revelation were questioned at all, as well as some apocryphal books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, and epistles of Clement and Barnabas, which were ultimately excluded. The majority of the NT we know now, including the four Gospels and Paul’s epistles, were accepted and not in question at least as early as the third century. This chart shows which books were accepted in different lists:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
“God is called many different things in the Bible, and there is nothing that demands that the one name Yahweh be used exclusively”
Mark
where did this ever get mentioned, this is not about titles ,this is about the Personal Name of God exclusively Not getting used.
while in the Inspired scriptures His personal name is used along with many titles.
His Name has been purposely removed and replaced with titles of average authority in the NT or the NT writers were not inspired when they wrote.
This seems to be the only common sense possibilities.
Why make excuses and explainations
just look at the facts
Xavier,
Does Eusebius remind you of Marcion? Or all early Christians who had doubts over this or that book? I assume it doesn’t, so why the double standard? In fact why have you shifted the discussion towards my person? You can’t address my arguments? Also, do you realize just how anachronistic your approach is? Only those accepting 27 NT books as inspired are Christians? As far as I know, Christianity didn’t start in the 4th century. Do you know something different?
As for your observation “that the Marcionites of the early Church period who basically came up with their own NT canon”, the Trinitarian Church came up with their own NT canon, which you adopted, from them, as your canon. Is it just my impression or you haven’t studied the formation of the canon enough (since you are capable of putting forth such odd arguments). It is ironic that you, a fierce unitarian, are so dogmatic about a canon invented by a theologically corrupt, Trinitarian Church. Or did you not know that Athanasius, THE champion of Trinitarianism (involved at Nicea and so on), was the one who officially declared the 27 NT books as canonical? Oh yes, you bet it’s ironic
Handed down by who? See above. They also handed down the Trinity, and I don’t see you embracing it too soon? As Thomas already pointed out to you so nicely, “The early Christians didn’t have a set NT cannon like we do and they didn’t loose the said Christianity faith in it’s entirety.” If the trinitarians would have decided 1 Clement was inspired and canonical, today you’d have scolded me for not accepting it. Why don’t I accept 1 Clement, am I not a Christian? It’s not only ironic, it’s arbitrary and a bit ridiculous.
As for losing faith because of the canon, it depends on what kind of faith you have.
JohnE
No, he along with all of the so-called “Church Fathers” strike me as Gnostic Christians who introduced into the faith all sorts of Gentile, philosophical nonsense. Like Origen’s “eternal generation of the Son” doctrine. None of them seem to hold to a biblical unitarian view of the NT canon as they themseleves have handed down to us.
Isn’t it interesting though that although a wholly Gnostic-Christian “council” of churchmen, headed by a pagan Roman Emperor, somehow still canonized books that have nothing to do with what Christendome later adopted as the “true religion”?
You are right that in a way we “biblical unitarians” have “adopted the orthodox [though not yet Trinitarian, as such] canon”. But history shows the simple fact that the books we have been handed down by “true Christians” or not, are the earliest attested works dealing with Jesus of Nazareth and the nascent Christian movement of antiquity. There is basically no disputing that fact. Especially when it comes to the 4 Gospel accounts. Even more so with the Pauline corpus, which has been attested to as early as 50-60AD.
I am not attacking your person, I do not even know you. But you “sound” to me to be like the Marcionites, who picked and chosed certain books to come up with their own NT canon. This claim has nothing to do with your person or character as such, but with your mindset and belief system.
Funny you mention this book since, if you have read it that is, you will note there is not even a hint of Trinitarian dogma within it. This is what your not understanding. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated and refined much, much later than the NT canon. The canon came first and first Gnostic then later trinitarian components were read into it. The doctrine was established until, as you rightly suggest, Athanasius in the 4-5th century. But by then the canon as we know them had historical promenance dating back to the time of the Apostle Paul.
Are you going to answer my initial question…are you a Christian or not? If so, what kind then?
Jaco,
I guess you’re talking about the early Christian non-use. But you are wrong. One can argue that they didn’t use it by looking at their writings, as we have them. Unless you come up with hard evidence showing their writings contained the name, all you have is circumstantial assertions. The picture you put forth about how the first Christians must have and should have been thinking, is simply your picture of them, an idyllic and ideal one.
Its “complete absence of it in the Greek copies of the NT” does in now way demonstrate (or merely suggest for that matter) that the name has been removed from the NT. The NT didn’t come into existence from a theological vacuum, but from a 2nd Temple Judaism milieu. Which Judaism, it’s no secret, progressed towards a total blackout regarding the use of the name. Christianity wasn’t born from Moses’ Judaism, but from the much later one, biased towards the name. Why would I expect something different then?
This is the idyllic, rosy picture I was talking about above.
You were talking earlier about 200 alleged occurrences of the name in NT. These would be the OT quotations I assume. So why wouldn’t these NT writers not use the name at all in their writings, except when it came to OT quotations? Why didn’t they use it all over the place, outside their OT quotations? Were they, by implication, rejecting Him as God Almighty?
Please prove this.
But that’s just your POV, isn’t it? From their POV, you are wrong, God’s name should not be pronounced because it’s too holy. Yeah, you can write it, but don’t pronounce it. And as a matter of fact, Jesus didn’t accuse them of refusing to utter the name, therefore invalidating God’s word. Why hasn’t he?
Naturally? But there’s nothing natural about it
This is exactly the issue here, as it shows an avoidance, just as in the case of the name, to refer to God in a direct way.
Jaco, do you know that saying, “you’re more Catholic than the pope”?
You are more Christian that the first Christians were. None of them, not even Jesus, mentions any condemnation of the Jews regarding the name (although they mentioned plenty of other issues). I guess they were accomplices, right?
Not exactly. They could have simply followed written tradition in which Yahweh was simply present. That doesn’t show that “some circles of Jews must have used Iaw [Iao] somewhat regularly”. What everybody needs to prove here, is not that *some* circles of Jews did this or that, but that *Christians* did, or that they originated from some circles that did. Where;s that proof?
Yeah sure Jaco, totally devastating
Come on now, seriously. We don’t know whether the LXX copies the Christians used contained it. Or do we?
They could have. I’m not saying they didn’t. The actual manuscript material though, does not allow such a conclusion. Conspiracy theories do, indeed, but not extant evidence.
But the gospels and epistles simply put into writing what was being said, not what was written. If the name wasn’t uttered, I would expect not to be written either outside OT quotations. If replacing YHWH with LORD was standard scribal practice, I would expect the NT writers to do just that in OT quotations. If their LXX copies were saying LORD, they would have repeated that. There was no controversy about YHWH in the early Church.
The situation is quite different: we have proof that it was replaced in the OT, we have no such proof for the NT. But if you say that this huge conspiracy existed against the NT use of the name, then this conspiracy has obviously succeeded. God wanted his name in the NT, but man defeated God and eliminated it. Then this God is an impotent God, isn’t it? You have to wonder, what other hundreds or thousands of theological atrocities have made it in the NT, if the NT was butchered in such an outraging way? Or what other vital truths have been eliminated by men, which poor God wanted his people to read?
That is certainly untrue. The majority of scholars do in fact deny the “Hebrew/Aramaic primacy of many of the NT books”, assigning a Greek origin to them.
Jaco
As with many discussions here there is a lot of evidence presented on one side and on the other a lot of excuses and explainations.
You have thoroughly presented enough evidence to prove your point but have fell short of opening people’s minds who should be able to understand.
But you have left a giant footstep for those who come here for the truth who need to see this.
It is not always about who we are having a discussion with.
while it seems their excuses and explainations take away from the points you made they actually show how easy it is to make excuses and give explainations that when used can prove any false doctrine and disprove any true doctrine.
If you have more to present on this please for my sake included it here.
thank you for what you presented so far
“Divine Name” supporters,
As holy and important the personal, “Divine Name” of the one God of Israel is, why do we as Christians want to debate a point that even the Jews themseleves don’t? I mean, most of them even had a problem not only in saying but writing the “Name”. Jesus nor the Apostles didn’t make a big deal out of this, why should we?
Again I ask, shouldn’t the “name of Jesus”, meaning everything he and the apostles [disciples] teach and command, serve as our example?
I do not think God the Father has called us to further debate and fight over whether we should go back to pronouncing or writing His “Divine Name”, whatever that may have been!
Don’t we already have enough “enemies at the gate” and other more important issues to tackle than this? Like, I don’t know, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and the name of the lord Messiah Jesus [Acts 8.12]?
Jaco,
I guess you’re talking about the early Christian non-use. But you are wrong. One can argue that they didn’t use it by looking at their writings, as we have them. Unless you come up with hard evidence showing their writings contained the name, all you have is circumstantial assertions. The picture you put forth about how the first Christians must have and should have been thinking, is simply your picture of them, an idyllic and ideal one.
Its “complete absence of it in the Greek copies of the NT” does in now way demonstrate (or merely suggest for that matter) that the name has been removed from the NT. The NT didn’t come into existence from a theological vacuum, but from a 2nd Temple Judaism milieu. Which Judaism, it’s no secret, progressed towards a total blackout regarding the use of the name. Christianity wasn’t born from Moses’ Judaism, but from the much later one, biased towards the name. Why would I expect something different then?
This is the idyllic, rosy picture I was talking about above.
You were talking earlier about 200 alleged occurrences of the name in NT. These would be the OT quotations I assume. So why wouldn’t these NT writers not use the name at all in their writings, except when it came to OT quotations? Why didn’t they use it all over the place, outside their OT quotations? Were they, by implication, rejecting Him as God Almighty?
Please prove this.
But that’s just your POV, isn’t it? From their POV, you are wrong, God’s name should not be pronounced because it’s too holy. Yeah, you can write it, but don’t pronounce it. And as a matter of fact, Jesus didn’t accuse them of refusing to utter the name, therefore invalidating God’s word. Why hasn’t he?
Naturally? But there’s nothing natural about it
This is exactly the issue here, as it shows an avoidance, just as in the case of the name, to refer to God in a direct way.
Jaco, do you know that saying, “you’re more Catholic than the pope”?
You are more Christian that the first Christians were. None of them, not even Jesus, mentions any condemnation of the Jews regarding the name (although they mentioned plenty of other issues). I guess they were accomplices, right?
Not exactly. They could have simply followed written tradition in which Yahweh was simply present. That doesn’t show that “some circles of Jews must have used Iaw [Iao] somewhat regularly”. What everybody needs to prove here, is not that *some* circles of Jews did this or that, but that *Christians* did, or that they originated from some circles that did. Where;s that proof?
Yeah sure Jaco, totally devastating
Come on now, seriously. We don’t know whether the LXX copies the Christians used contained it. Or do we?
They could have. I’m not saying they didn’t. The actual manuscript material though, does not allow such a conclusion. Conspiracy theories do, indeed, but not extant evidence.
But the gospels and epistles simply put into writing what was being said, not what was written. If the name wasn’t uttered, I would expect not to be written either outside OT quotations. If replacing YHWH with LORD was standard scribal practice, I would expect the NT writers to do just that in OT quotations. If their LXX copies were saying LORD, they would have repeated that. There was no controversy about YHWH in the early Church.
The situation is quite different: we have proof that it was replaced in the OT, we have no such proof for the NT. But if you say that this huge conspiracy existed against the NT use of the name, then this conspiracy has obviously succeeded. God wanted his name in the NT, but man defeated God and eliminated it. Then this God is an impotent God, isn’t it? You have to wonder, what other hundreds or thousands of theological atrocities have made it in the NT, if the NT was butchered in such an outraging way? Or what other vital truths have been eliminated by men, which poor God wanted his people to read?
That is certainly untrue. The majority of scholars do in fact deny the “Hebrew/Aramaic primacy of many of the NT books”, assigning a Greek origin to them.
Xavier,
So “no”. Why the double standard then? He rejects it, but he doesn’t remind you of Marcionites. I reject it, but I remind you of Marcionites
If you want to maintain they were Gnostic, then Marcion was close to gnosticism as well (though not a gnostic per se).
But your assertion that they were Gnostic is inaccurate. Scholars specialized in Gnostic studies would certainly disagree. Just read Pagels or DeConick. They even say the Gospel of Thomas is not gnostic since in fact it lack the hallmarks of Gnosticism.
It isn’t that interesting. They can very well, in their sincere minds at least, hold that their doctrines are certainly found in the NT. But anyway, you’re approach is a bit circular. You believe the books are in the canon because of them, these churchmen that decided so (you don’t reject John because of the prologue and all that pre-existence bunch, you just explain it away). And then you ask, isn’t it interesting that these canonical books have been recognized as canonical by them?
They were already Trinitarian of course. In 367? They were Trinitarians. But I acknowledge your unease.
Early does not equal authentic, or inspired. Or does it? Some scholars contend the Gospel of Thomas is very early. Surely it must be inspired?
As I already said, some of these epistles are contested: the pastorals (1,2 Ti; Titus), Colossians, 2 Thess, Ephesians. I’m sure you know there are even more alleged Pauline epistles, that didn’t make it into the canon. But if 2 Peter did, then the way was clearly open.
I didn’t say you attacked me (not that one cannot attack people who one doesn’t even know). But you shifted the focus on me, associating me with Marcion, in an obvious bid to discredit my position. We all know Marcion is a no-no, and I remind you of him, me and Marcion have things in common. How on earth could my position be valid then? It can’t, Marcion with his ill reputation takes care of that. Guilt by association they call it
Again, this picking and choosing, as a method is universal (it doesn’t say anything about the authenticity of the ones picked and chosen); the triniarians did the same, and boy did they battle over their choices.
That is not the point, but it makes it all the more probable you would have accepted it, had it been in the canon. Do you realize the point I was making?
The Trinity didn’t start at Nicea (325), but earlier (the first time our canon was laid out officially was 367, *after*). As Metzger says, Athanasius’ official designation of the canon hasn’t stopped disputes over it, nor did it bring majority acceptation of it. The disputes and use of non-canonical material continued. But let’s not allow this “trinitarian” dogma formation over a certain period of time obscure the fact that before 367 (first time our 27 books were declared canon), the idea that Jesus was God was, if not almost universal, it was well established. The guys that decided the canon were all “Jesus is God” guys.
I am an ex-JW, just like Jaco. Why is this important to you?
Sorry I repeated my response to Jaco in the last post. Xavier, please read from ” No, he along with all of the so-called”.
How would we like it if nobody ever used our “real” name?
I’ve usually found that people like to hear their names as long as their name is respected.
We see God’s name used so often in the Bible, always with great respect. Isn’t this a sign to us that this is right and good? Wasn’t it done this way for our instruction?
There is one scenario in which a person’s “real” name is not the most desirable way of addressing them. My father’s name was Warren, but I almost never called him that. He was Daddy or Dad. Since Jesus never made an issue about God’s “real” name but nearly always called Him “Abba” or “Father,” it seems to me we should follow his example. Especially when he specifically said, “When ye pray, say, Our Father…”
Good day, again
Good points indeed! I think, as in some other posts, we tend to talk past one another. So, to level out the surface, I’ll state a few thing which I regard as bottom-lines:
1. As much as I conjecture about the presence of the Name in the NT, just as much do others assume its absence, since no-one has the autographs. Hence my approach to inductively construct a theory based on current indirect and circumstantial evidence, as well as theological implications. I have seen none of you approaching it this way, other than resorting to “we don’t have the autographs,” “Jesus and the disciples continued the practice of non-use of the Name,” and “the copies did not contain that many errors.”
2. The non-use of the name was not as homogeneous as traditionally believed. Discovery of canonical and non-canonical mss, non-biblical inscriptions from after the return from Babylon, as well as the testimony of historians indicate the awareness, even public use, of the Name. JohnE rejects the traditionally accepted authorship of 2nd Peter based on Eusebius’ account. In that case, I hope, he’ll accept the account of Jerome and Gennadius of Marseilles, who wrote,
If he does, then the quotations of Jesus in Matthew 3:3, 4:4, 7, 10, 22:24, and 23:39 should all contain the Name.
3. I provided the evidence for the presence of the Divine Name in the LXX versions prior to the 2nd and 3rd centuries (please see my initial comments to this article). In fact, no LXX fragements, nor Greek versions of the OT, nor the Hebrew copies before or during the time of the apostles had the name replaced. This is an indisputable fact. It is also an indisputable fact that Greek onomastica (early Greek lexical tools) frequently made use of the divine name in the form IAW when explaining the meaning of words that contain the divine name as a theophoric element, meaning that the divine name or a part of it is used as a part of other proper names. The discovery of the Sacred-Name containing LXX and other copies was indeed devastating! It only widened the leap between what was believed to be “traditional scribal non-use” of the Name at the time and the apparent absence of the name in the NT.
4. As I said, the issue is not the natural switch from one title to another when referring to Yahweh. The OT does it all the time. The issue is the preferred usage of titles at the expense of using the Sacred Name – something which has no OT precedent. That is at issue here!
5. I am asked to provide evidence of the dispute regarding the Divine Name. As far as I can remember, it was JohnE who said that Jesus virginal birth was not accepted with consensus among the apostles. Do we need evidence of a dispute in this regard? Likewise, do we have to accept Jesus’ Divinity because there was a dispute regarding his statement in John 8:58? Hardly! What is more, where is the dispute regarding the substitution of the Name in the LXX contained in Christian copies of later times? Does that mean it was not substituted? The evidence shows that the mss to the Christians’ disposal contained the Name. If, indeed, the utterance of the Name was prohibited even among Christians in following this trend, at best would the writing of the Name still have persisted, consistent with the said trend. We don’t see it. Changing Scripture, in the Jews’ eyes, was a serious thing! Substituting the Name with nomina sacra in the LXX during the second century – a practice not even seen in the Jewish writings of the second century and earlier – would undoubtedly have evoked a dispute! Do we have evidence thereof? No. Does that mean that the Christians using these in place of the Divine Name didn’t indeed do it? Definitely not! What is more, if, indeed, the practice of using nomina sacra instead of the Name (as we see in extant NT copies and later LXX copies) was also the practice the original NT writers – a practice never seen among the Jewish translators and copyists of the LXX or the Hebrew texts – then this was a brand new Christian literary invention! Where is the evidence for the official deviation from the Jewish practice (not of non-use of the Name, but of the scribal substitution of the name using nomina sacra). Since no OT copy of the first century used this practice, did the Christians invent it? If so, then why is there no mention of such a novelty in any of their writings? Why do we not find in Christian traditions following the first century CE anything that would suggest that any of the nomina sacra began first with the writings of the NT? If the Christians were not the inventors of this practice, then what did the original writers use before then, and, whatever they used, why were those replaced by nomina sacra? Surely, since, as we have seen, it was not uncommon to use one or more forms of the divine name (in paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, or in Greek) in OT Greek texts during and prior to the first century CE, then the NT writers would have had no reason for some special remark about not continuing that practice. If the NT writers followed such Greek OT texts in using the divine name then they would simply have been doing what was commonly done and, in fact, what was in agreement with all known Hebrew and Greek OT texts of the time. But if the NT writers had invented a new way of representing the divine or other names, such as by means of the nomina sacra then one might have expected some explanation or discussion of the new practice at some point within the first few centuries of the writing of the NT, especially if it was believed to have been a new way of writing the name through influence from the holy spirit or at least part of the tradition handed on by the apostles (compare 2 Thessalonians 2:15). But there is no mention of it anywhere during this period as a device invented by the NT writers.
As JohnE said, the canonization of the NT books came late in our history. If the ancient post-apostolic Christians have no qualms in removing and replacing the Divine Name from the LXX, which they did revere as inspired, how much more so would they be willing to do exactly the same to NT writings whose inspiration was not fully appreciated!
The issue is definitely very complex. Regardless of the side of the fence you find yourself, the conclusions one draws can only be based on indirect, circumstantial and theological evidence. The likelihood of the appearance of the Divine Name in the NT has definitely shifted toward the positive the last several years. Manuscript evidence, a greater understanding of the first-century (and second-temple Judaism), as well as cooperation between both Christian and Jewish scholars in investigating surviving ancient sources have contributed greatly to a better understanding of the matter. Call my impression of the First Century Church “idyllic” or “ideal” or whatever. Everyone has a measure of non-ideal impressions of the early Church. Being dogmatic in this regard goes both ways – either for the Name’s absence or presence in the NT.
Regards,
Jaco
P.S., JohnE, in another thread you expressed your disagreement with the virginal Begettal of Jesus (in agreement with atheist/agnostic Bart Ehrman). Do you believe in the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection? Or do you also agree with Bart Ehrman in this regard? Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah prophesied about in the OT?
JohnE
You lost me here friend. All I am saying is that the early Christians mentioned like Marcion and “Church Fathers” had different views of the NT canon. Some [like Marcion] were outright heretics [Gnostics] and others held to a “proto-orthodox” stance that would developed into the trinitarian orthodox creeds of 4-5th century Catholic councils.
Even they could not go against the historical authenticity of the books that were eventually canonized. Not just because they thought they should be but because there already was widespread promenance of such works dating back to the time of the Apostles.
True, but in terms of historical viability it certainly helps to have sources as close as possible to the events described. But in the case of the NT we have more than one source which basically catalogues the same story [events, places, persons etc.].
Yes, and their categorized under Apocryphal works.
Bro, anyone [especially "Christian"] who throws doubt on the NT canon as we have them now or accepts some but not all of the canon has to be compared with other likeminded “Christians” of the past. That is all my statement was observing. How have I “shifted the focus” if we’re still debating the same points?
Yes, you are right again but if I could add, it was believes by some early Christian groups. Just like others who believed Jesus was just a spirit who appeared as a human being [Docetics] or just a normal human [Ebionites] etc. One of these “proto-orthodox” groups eventually “won the day”. Even though the NT canon does not support their interpreation of them.
In other words, early Christian followers may have called Jesus God in the absolute, explicit sense that the NT writers themseleves never do!
Just curious friend. Peace out!
“Bro, anyone [especially “Christian”] who throws doubt on the NT canon as we have them now or accepts some but not all of the canon has to be compared with other likeminded “Christians” of the past”
Xavier
The very christians that personally followed Jesus,the very christians that Peter, Paul, James,John and the others all warned to not accept if it didnt match the Holy scriptures and the testimony of Jesus.
Doesnt the fact that those who follow men’s traditions also need to be compared with other like minded christians of the past.
Who is the real heritic?
how have you proved to yourself that what you follow just isnt the opinion of men.
can you prove that the NT canon reflects the truth of the NT writers without just taking someones word on it?.
NO , and you probably wont because you then would have to think of yourself as a lower form of a christian as you do with others on this subject.
Can the NT canon if it is true not standup if you were actually to try to prove it?
You will never ever truely know unless you open your mind to look at all angles and quit making excuse and explainations to keep your belief
Sean wrote this
Many groups do not see a need to peel back the layers of tradition in order to discover what the original apostolic faith of the first century was. Rather, they are content to hold fast to the beliefs and practices that the church has bequeathed to them regardless of whether or not they were held to by the early Christians. That is not the sort of Christian I am. Instead, I am a restorationist—someone who wants to understand and align my practice of Christianity as closely as possible with the earliest Christians. Unfortunately, many times people who belong to restorationist groups, like us, oversimplify what early Christianity looked like. We imagine that everyone got along and agreed on doctrines, that there were no major schisms or controversies until much later. Some of us probably even believe that until the fourth century when the trinitarian controversy occurred, everything was serene and unified. But, this picture, no matter how much we might want for it to be true, is simply not accurate in light of the facts.
so where was this open minded approach when he dismissed Jaco’s concerns early in this discussion.
why is it alright to question early beliefs using common sense if the subject is the trinity?
I know there is tons of evidence against the trinity but almost any trinity believer can dismiss all using excuses and explainations and showing its long standing acceptance of the majority.
If something is the whole truth it will standup to being proven, if it doesnt than it wasnt the truth.
we win either way
can you prove that the NT canon reflects the truth of the NT writers without just taking someones word on it?.
Yes I can. Can you prove that it doesn’t?
Mark
You certainly cant , you yourself claim corruption.
————————————————————
Can the NT canon if it is true not standup if you were actually to try to prove it?
It can and it has.
Mark
this was just an opinion of the council
———————————————————-
If something is the whole truth it will standup to being proven, if it doesnt than it wasnt the truth.
And since the deliberate removal of God’s name from the NT has not been proven, it must not be the truth.
Mark
It has been very well proven with facts, but has been disputed by excuses and explainations.
———————————————————-
so where was this open minded approach when he dismissed Jaco’s concerns early in this discussion.
why is it alright to question early beliefs using common sense if the subject is the trinity?
The difference is that there is indeed evidence against the Trinity, even if Trinitarians “dismiss all using excuses and explanations,”
Mark
what Sean was refering to was common sense not just facts.
Mark
how and why did you delete your post.
Jaco,
This is a misrepresentation of the responses that have been offered. First of all, we don’t have to conjecture to assume the absence of the Divine Name. We can see it isn’t in the MSS in extant. Second, your approach assumes a deliberate removal, rather than the much simpler idea that the NT writers used different names for God.
Nobody questions the awareness and/or public use of the Name. But there are other reasons for not using it in the NT besides a deliberate conspiracy. Chiefest of them is Jesus’ example of addressing God as Father.
Again, nobody is questioning the change in the LXX.
The issue is in fact the switch from one name to another. The OT switched between various names, but “Father” was not used very often before Jesus. You say “at the expense of the sacred name” but I again point out that there is nothing in the OT that says the sacred name should be used more than any other name.
There was no dispute because it was not a problem.
Again, there was no dispute or even mention of it because it was not a problem for them. It was, and should remain, a non-issue.
Robert,
I deleted my original post because I decided to respond to Jaco’s comments first. Here is what I wrote, with your comments and responses:
Yes I can. Can you prove that it doesn’t?
There is some corruption, but the majority of it does not affect any major doctrines. And by careful examination we can see how it reflects the truth of the writers. God has had His hand on His Word to us.
It can and it has.
What council? The NT has stood up to scrutiny by many throughout the years.
The difference is that there is indeed evidence against the Trinity, even if Trinitarians “dismiss all using excuses and explanations,” but there is no evidence of the deliberate removal of God’s name from the NT. This is not excuses and explanations, it is simply a statement of fact. And the so-called circumstantial evidence is based on several baseless assumptions. There is no explanation necessary, since a solid case has not, and cannot, be made.
Both common sense and facts show that there is no evidence.
And since the deliberate removal of God’s name from the NT has not been proven, it must not be the truth.
Even Jaco admits that there is no solid evidence but must be inferred from “circumstantial evidence” and inductive reasoning. But his reasoning makes too many assumptions.
what Sean was refering to was common sense not just facts.
Both common sense and facts show that there is no evidence.
———————————————————
Mark
This proves that atleast Matthew.
It doesnt take much common sense to see that others would of followed Matthew in holding to the authority of the Hebrew OT which had God’s real name and with the facts that Jaco presented even the Septuagint still had it in them as late as the 3rd century AD.
How is it that this escapes you.
You must just flat out ignore the facts that are presented and must not recognize common sense
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he
does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Jerome and Gennadius, Lives of Illustrious Men, NPNF 3, chap. 3, page 362
It is good to pray as Jesus taught us calling God our Father. God has so many names in the Bible. All of them are good. I believe that all the good things in the Bible are also a part of his name, or character. We see some of this when we see that God is the Lord who provides. God is in authority over all and does in mercy and grace provide.
I believe all of these things are a part of his character. When we use these things which we have found from the scripture about him in our worship of him, we name him. We tell about him being the God who forgives, cleanses from sin, provides atonement, justifies, restores, rebuilds, teaches, corrects, instructs, judges, renews, reuses, changes things that we can not, establishes what is good, true and right, plans, finishes, and makes known Jesus.
All of these things and so much more are a part of him. Sometimes
I’ve used “Yeshua” in worhip when I was in a group that at times would do so, and “Jehovah” also. We used these words in worship
of Jesus also, for Jesus is as the Father is.
Because of the liberty of the Spirit with which we are a part of (for Jesus is that Spirit, see II Cor 3:17) I don’t think we can defend any doctrine of calling God this or that name of the Bible, nor the forbidding of such, as by the making of a command or rule, unless that rule is the perfect law of liberty by that Spirit.
This reminds me of the command a king made in the book of Esther.
See Esther 1:8.
Though all of God’s children are diverse from one another, being vessels for his use, having each received that which is more valuable than gold, which we have received according to the state of the King, having been filled in abundance with that which is of heaven, and having been fashioned into what we are, for his use,
though not knowing what we shall yet become, as his work in us is
still being done by Jesus, for the glory of the Father, we continue, and we worship God in what we have been given of him, by his grace, according to his pleasure, if so be we are found of him to be abiding in him who gave us this liberty by his own blood, and being taught by his spirit.
This is what David wrote (Psalm 23:3) for the purpose of God’s name:
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Ray (msg. 148)
Again. That was beautifully written…
Jaco,
Jaco, I do not simply assume the absence of the name from the NT. As I already said above:
They could have used the name in their writings, I am not excluding that, but actual manuscript data do not allow anybody to conclude that they did. As I said, what you need to demonstrate is that they used such OT manuscripts, and then that they used the name in their writings, be they OT quotations or not.
So I do not conjecture Jaco, but you do. You say you base your theory on indirect and circumstantial evidence, but the evidence you laid out is not even indirect or circumstantial. It would have been if you would have proven that LXX manuscripts used by the NT writers contained the name. This would have helped your case. You cannot provide such evidence.
As for the theological implications, they really depend on your own theological system. Others might not see the theological implications you see. I know you believe that your belief in this regard is in sync with the absolute truth, but so do others about theirs
Theological implications are not an objective way to prove this theory.
I’m not sure why you felt the need to repeat this point. I responded to it in my earlier post:
You also said:
Actually there is also a traditional dispute about this book’s authorship. I do not base my opinion on Eusebius’ account, I was simply showing there were Christians (it’s not only Eusebius there were many) who didn’t accept its Petrine authorship, or who doubted it. These would be external indications that something’s fishy. Today’s scholars offer rational, text-based arguments against its Petrine authorship – internal indications. You probably haven’t studied this topic too much – I did.
I can’t say I accept Jerome’s testimony. There are strong reasons to believe not only that it was written originally in Greek, but that it also copied Mark. It is also an anonymous book. The author does not identify himself in the gospel. He doesn’t speak in the first person, singular or plural. Just for example’s sake, he never says “Jesus told us this”, or “we saw Jesus doing that”. It is simply an anonymous book. Jerome, at 300 years distance, could not objectively know this was not only written in Hebrew first, but that also Matthew did it. It seems Ireneus was the first one to make this claim about Matthew, but Jerome (much later) is the only to mention that “he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew”. In other words, the authorship of this gospel is simply a tradition, and the hebrew reading of the quotations is simply a late tradition.
Not to mention that this gospel contains serious inaccuracies, as I mentioned when we discussed Matthew’s genealogy. I also mentioned arguments indicating the author was not even a Jew.
You have to provide evidence about the copies Christians used Jaco.
Are you sure? Cause I’ve read something different: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//lxxjewpap/kyrios.jpg Wikipedia says:
In the P. Ryl. 458 (perhaps the oldest extant Septuagint manuscript) there are blank spaces, leading some scholars to believe that the Tetragrammaton must have been written where these breaks or blank spaces are. (Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1959) p. 222)
I personally am not in any way devastated. Who is? Can you give specific examples?
I would remind you some of my points to which you didn’t respond:
- Why wouldn’t these NT writers use the name at all in their writings, except when it came to OT quotations? Why didn’t they use it all over the place, outside their OT quotations?
- If you say that this huge conspiracy existed against the NT use of the name, then this conspiracy has obviously succeeded. God wanted his name in the NT, but man defeated God and eliminated it. Then this God is an impotent God, isn’t it? You have to wonder, what other hundreds or thousands of theological atrocities have made it in the NT, if the NT was butchered in such an outraging way? Or what other vital truths have been eliminated by men, which poor God wanted his people to read?
You responded instead to my question about the total absence in the NT of any condemnation of the Jewish custom to avoid pronouncing the name. Your response basically boils down to:
The argument works somehow in your detriment. If there was no dispute (I think you imply there wasn’t), then there were no prominent figures opposing the substitution. Translated to our issue, it would mean Jesus or the apostles didn’t oppose the Jewish tradition.
The avoidance of the name was obviously not a concern to Jesus or the first Christians. They had several problems with the traditions and practices of Judaism, but the avoidance of the name wasn’t among them.
But as I explained, I’m not dogmatic at all. All I’m saying is the existing evidence does not allow you to claim the name was present in the NT – simply because it is not. If you would have as little as one manuscript instance where the name can be found, I would say you have proof. But we have no such manuscript. Were these enemies of God so thorough that they succeeded to find and alter every single manuscript in the world?
Where did I say such a thing? I don’t think I ever said so.
It’s nice on your part to put me in agreement with the atheistic bogeyman Ehrman is. I actually haven’t said I’m in disagreement “with the virginal Begettal of Jesus”, I said I’m not sure it has happened, and I gave my reasons why. You of course chose not to say anything, so I’m baffled about why you bring this up now, and in this discussion about the presence of the name in the NT? Hope you’re not trying to do a little character assassination for the benefit of our readers?
Pardon?
Why are you going off-topic again? Anyway, history, as any historian can tell you, cannot and does not deal with supernatural events. It can neither confirm nor deny the occurrence of the supernatural. The affirmation of the resurrection is a theological one, not a historical one.
Jaco, in case you think Ehrman says the resurrection has not taken place, you probably need to do a little more research about what Ehrman is saying. He never said that, but that the resurrection is the least probable explanation of what happened. But again, why this sudden interest in whether I agree with Ehrman or not?
Unfortunately my faith has suffered tremendously after I delved into books dealing with the historical Jesus, with the textual history of the gospels, etc. I also grew disappointed about many unfulfilled, human expectations (mine, and those of the 1st Christians). Jesus’ hasn’t returned in the 1st century (almost 2000 years now), evil things happen to innocent people all the time, humanity has suffered, suffers and will suffer.
So I cannot think anymore in terms of “was Jesus the OT Messiah”. But again, what does this have to do with our discussion?
JohnE
Maybe because his an ungodly, open atheist who still goes around lecturing professing to “love the bible”?
Hey guys!
I don’t think so. Before 1st century and earlier LXX were discovered, scholars conjectured that the first century Christians simply copied from these substituted copies. This, as well as the assumed “universality” of the practice to keep the Name both unspoken and unwritten, was what all these scholars based their conjecture on. Further discoveries solidly proved these scholars wrong. The use and writing of the name was not as much a taboo as many had thought.
Neither you, Mark, nor I, nor anyone else has the autographs. Anyone’s claim of what they contain remains a conjecture! That’s my whole point. If you say with all certainty that the autographs contained substitutes for the divine name, then bring the autographs. No one can do it. The circumstantial evidence you use for your conjecture, are later copies and theology (intimacy with God by calling him Abba instead). I have provided my circumstantial, indirect and theological evidence for my conjecture.
Ok. I see and appreciate your point.
That’s good. The change came after the first-century:
You continue:
I don’t think you’re presenting a valid argument here, brother. To use the Divine Name more or less is not at issue. There was no using of it to a lesser extent in the NT according to the late copies. It is completely absent! The replacement of the name was not with “Father,” but with kyrios and theos – something never employed by any copyist before the 1st century.
The Christians of the time (second century and later) responsible for this change did not see the removal and substitution of the Name as a problem. The ancient Jewish copyist would. As you say, there was no dispute, but it happened. So, to look for a dispute in the first century is not a reasonable condition for the removal of the Name in the NT to have happened.
It was no problem for the writers of the autographs…if they were indeed the inventors and writers of nomina sacra as a new scribal device.
Hey, JohnE
I can accept your reasonable approach up to here. But you go on:
What mss material are you referring to? The later copies?
My evidence not even indirect or circumstantial? Wow, that’s a bit harsh. I think the challenge you pose becomes unreasonable. It’s impossible to determine the exact mss the Christians used. Not only to prove my point, but also yours. I showed that the LXXs and other translations and Hebrew copies of the time did include the Name. For the Christians to have copied from mss. not containing the Name is highly improbable. It would be no short of preposterous if I asked you to present the exact mss. not containing the Name as the very sources the Christians used when they did the copying. I don’t think it would be fair.
Fair enough.
That’s why it’s circumstantial. It certainly refutes the previously-held (and still-popular) contention that the Name was in absolute non-use – unspoken and unwritten. My quote from the Tosefta Yadaim showed that the prohibition to speak the name had its practical exceptions, even among those renowned for their restrictive piety.
I suppose we can all site scholars who argue both for and against a point. I certainly enjoyed Robert Lindsey’s research in the possible Hebrew primacy of the gospels and other books. He was supported by Brad H. Young, the Jerusalem School, Jehoshua Grintz, Joseph Frankovic, and many more. Many scholars have joined in this conclusion; a very recent one is M.H. Segal. But, as I said, there are proponents on both sides – even for the canonicity of 2nd Peter.
I’m not so sure. Greek OT manuscript P. Ryl Gk. 458 (Göttingen 957) published by C.H. Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester: Aberdeen University Press, 1936), page 24, is dated to the second century BCE, but it does not preserve enough of the text for us to know if the translator used a form of the divine name or a surrogate such as kyrios or theos. In fact, blotted-out words can be recovered through spectro-analysis. The LXX copies that do date from the first century and earlier, containing the Divine Name, present it as such and not its surrogates.
Friend, I’m not saying you were devastated. You are most certainly not the prototype of what perfect reaction should be – I’m saying it with respect, not sarcasm. I’m not all that convinced that anything would “devastate” you at your current spiritual location. I also say this sincerely. If, for instance, numerous copies of a Hebrew NT book were discovered containing the Divine Name, dating back to the first century, will you really change your mind? I don’t think so. What prevents you from rebutting, saying that those copies were mere Hebrew translations of the Greek originals, done by Judaizing Jewish Christians? Or that those were from an isolated heretic sect? Face it, to you, as things currently stand, reasons to doubt a matter weigh heavier than the ones to believe it. That’s fine, but it simply is not my approach.
Someone once said, “It’s much easier to rail against the beliefs of others if you don’t have to present a working model of your own.” You are very knowledgeable and have read up a lot on many topics. I just think you’ll present more reasons not to believe anything, than to believe something. I tell you this not to offend you, buddy. And if I’m wrong, feel free to correct me, and I’ll apologise.
They could have. Where, I don’t know. As the OT used Adonai in some places, and Elohim in others and YHWH in yet others – all instances where the translator could translate kyrios or theos, the NT writer could speak about YHWH or Adonai and both of them could have been translated to kyrios. I focused on the OT, since the mss evidence of the OT of the time indicates the presence of the Divine Name. The practice (if, indeed the Christians followed the practice) was to keep the name unspoken (in some circles) but not unwritten. Hence my focus on OT quotations where the original text most probably contained the Name, and where we have a greater amount of certainty as to its occurrence.
The removal of the Divine Name from the NT was as much a conspiracy as the removal of it from the LXX in the Christian copies was. I do not completely agree with you on your line of reasoning. Would you say that God was defeated before the discovery of Divine Name-containing LXX copies? I don’t think so.
.
…or there was no reason for dispute, since the practice of still writing down the name was upheld…I wasn’t the one calling for evidence of a dispute – you were. A dispute is not a determining factor to conclusively prove that something happened. The Name was removed from the LXX without a dispute, yet, it happened.
You’re arguing from silence. Much like, Jesus did not disagree with the accusations in John 5:18, so, he agreed with them.
This is exactly where you are dogmatic. The existing evidence refutes the formerly held reasons for the non-inclusion of the Divine Name: its non-inclusion in the late copies of the LXX. Those reasons, true to sound logic, had to be falsifiable. The evidence later emerged – Divine Name containing fragments and copies of the LXX, and other testimonies of the usage of it, more widely than was formerly believed. To say “simply because it is not,” is just as dogmatic of what you accuse my argument of when I say, “certainly it was.” Neither you nor I, nor anyone has an autograph to prove it. If you require one for the Name’s inclusion, then, fairly, you should require one for its exclusion. It truly goes both ways!
My reference to whether you agree and disagree with Bart Ehrman was not a character-assassination attempt. If I gave you that impression, I’m sorry for it. It’s much like Xavier’s question on my religious background. I sent Victor an article by Nehemiah Gordon, which has just gone up. That certainly does not make me a Karaite Jew. I just want to make that clear. Your take on events which I hold to be factually likely might give me some understanding of how you assess the current topics at hand. BTW, I don’t think it’s off-topic at all, since you mentioned the NT canonizing issue, which does have a bearing on how “canonical” other generally accepted matters are, such as the resurrection, Messiah, etc. issues.
I do want to say something about the lingo many people use. (Sorry for going off-topic again) My studying third-year cognitive linguistics last year dealt also with linguistic and impressional incongruity. This is something I’ve observed in people like Richard Dawkins and Bart Ehrman. The two would very technically state how “highly probable” certain events would be. And their listeners would be stunned at how “reasonable” and “open-minded” these men seem to be. They would innocently state their objectivity and their harmless agnostic stance regarding these essential issues. And the crowd would feel all warm and fuzzy with the company of these very honest and benevolent men! Oh, boy, until you let them loose! Their fanatic verbosity, the malicious, even fatalistic renunciation of anything religious, their shocking comparisons and degrading tone of anyone considering the probability of anything divine in nature, and, of course their own outright rejection of anything ascribed to the existence and activity of God immediately bust their initially innocent presentation of themselves. You see, the impression they cognitively give is that they regard certain events as “highly improbable.” But the truth of the matter, after seeing them in action, is that they are all but in line with their innocent introduction. Their demeanor attests to, in fact, not their belief in the highly improbable nature of events, but simply, of its absurdity, its preposterousness, its impossibility, of the lunacy of believing in them, of the detestability of religion’s effects. That, unfortunately, reveals a side of them I’d be very weary of. The innocent agnostic suddenly turns into a god-eating atheist! To me, that’s outright deception. I’m much more comfortable with Gary Habermas, Mike Licona and Richard McGrath. I’d also be willing to engage with them in debating matters like the Trinity or immortality of the soul, etc. I’d probably lose, but would still feel dignified in who I am and what I believe.
I truly want to keep this discussion civilized. The article on tolerance I took to heart.
Chat soon,
Jaco
“Neither you nor I, nor anyone has an autograph to prove it. If you require one for the Name’s inclusion, then, fairly, you should require one for its exclusion. It truly goes both ways!”
Jaco
This is exactly the point that escapes them. They follow a view that has not been proven and cant. Atleast your arguement has some evidence be it indirect and circumstancial it is still more than what they base their arguement on.
Are we to just accept tradition?
If yes then should we accept all tradition because the early church fathers must of known something we didnt, so why question any of the beliefs of the early church fathers?
Because they were human!
What really get me is what they say your doing here they also do in others areas but somehow that is different.
ty you again
I agree that the earlier conjecture that the Divine Name was replaced because of the practice of not writing or speaking it was mistaken. But I don’t believe that the only other alternative was a deliberate conspiracy to remove the name, especially from the New Testament. When I said, “we don’t have to conjecture to assume the absence of the Divine Name. We can see it isn’t in the MSS in extant,” I was referring to the NT. Whatever the autographs may have said, we can see that in the MSS we have today, it was not used. The conjecture is whether it was used originally and replaced, or simply not used in the first place. I don’t see any evidence that it was used originally and replaced.
The divine name was replaced by Kurios and Theos in the quotes from the OT, and one major reason would be the uncertainty in how best to represent it in Greek letters. The article you posted about the pronunciation of the Name illustrates the problems that exist with transliterating it. “Lord” and “God” were probably used for simplicity’s sake, since there was nothing that demanded the Tetragrammaton to be used rather than other words. I believe Jesus’ practice of calling God “Father” is indicative of this, which is why I think the whole argument about whether the Divine Name originally appeared in the NT is a non-issue.
The only view I am following is that the Name is not used in the extant MSS, so there is no proof that it was in the original autographs. Jaco could see and appreciate the point that there are other reasons for not using it in the NT besides a deliberate conspiracy, chiefest of them being Jesus’ example of addressing God as Father.
First, I’m not talking about accepting tradition, just accepting that the NT MSS don’t use the Divine Name, for whatever reason, and to claim a deliberate tampering should require more than circumstantial evidence that is based on many assumptions.
Second, it’s not about traditions of the early fathers, it’s about the NT documents themselves. Obviously we shouldn’t accept any tradition that goes against the Scriptures.
John E. (msg. 151)
You said, “Jesus hasn’t returned in the 1st. century (almost 2000 years now), evil things happen to people all the time, humanity has suffered, suffers and will suffer.”
I don’t know if this will will help or not, but I once heard this story about how a daughter was complaining to her mother while she was baking a cake that she was failing in school, her boyfriend had left her and her best friend was moving away.
The mother asked her if she’d like some cake and the daughter replied that she would. The mother then offered her some cooking oil and the daughter said that tastes terrible. The mother then said well how about some flour and the daughter replied that flour was disgusting. The mother then said well how about some raw eggs or some baking soda. The daughter said all those things taste terrible.
The point of the story was that even though individual events happen that appear to be terrible (like the slaughter of millions of Christian Armenians or the slaughter of even more millions of Jews during the holocost) God can put these things together in such a way as to make the perfect cake. GOD’S CAKE.
When I was 11 years old a terrible incident happened that I ended up blaming God for and by the age of about 13 or 14 I was a staunch Athiest. I could not understand why God would let this happen to me, but decades later I find myself in a position where my faith is in God is stronger than it was when I was a child.
God used these events to refine me and my faith. I don’t think I would be a Biblical Unitarian with such a strong faith today if this event had not happened to me. We have to trust that God has the ability to bring something good out of anything no matter how bad it might seem to be.
I don’t know if this story helps you with your doubts or not, but I will say a prayer for you that your faith in Jesus as the Messiah is not only restored to where it was before but that it is stronger than ever…
God Bless
Thomas,
thank you for your kind words, I appreciate it.
Xavier,
You are affirming the consequent Xavier. The historical authenticity itself is in question, so you cannot just use that as an assumption, and then build on it an argument. And in fact they *have* gone against the historical authenticity of some of the books. Some whole national churches have refused to accept them, not to mention many other individuals, some prominent ones. One of the recurring reasons why those books were eventually accepted despite previous doubts and rejection was very simple: they were used by many churches. Traditional/regular use was an important determining factor for church authorities to give in and canonize them.
The “historical authenticity” was and is a matter of debate, and not debate for the sake of debate, but because indications, external and internal, to that effect. There are books above all suspicion. For instance the majority (or even unanimous AFAIK) view about 1 Corinthians is that Paul did write it. There’s no doubt about that. Or 1 Thess, etc. There’s also a majority view that 2 Peter simply wasn’t written by Peter the apostle of Jesus. It’s not that somebody’s after your canon.
I said “As I already said, some of these epistles are contested: the pastorals (1,2 Ti; Titus), Colossians, 2 Thess, Ephesians.”
You replied:
No they’re not. I’m not sure you read carefully what I write.
I said “But you shifted the focus on me, associating me with Marcion, in an obvious bid to discredit my position.” You replied:
No, one “who throws doubt on the NT canon as we have them now” does not have to be compared to anything, that’s only an excuse for your behaviour. I told you your approach is not only anachronistic, but it shows how little you know about the widespread rejections/doubts of some of your canonical books in the antiquity, coming from the “orthodox” themselves. You defend your canon only because you have inherited it from the orthodox and constitutes a foundation of your creed. I could very well be wrong, but I doubt you engaged in any serious research about your canon, about which books were contested, why, and if rightly so. So instead of following your urge to compare me with anybody you like, please focus on my arguments, not on my person. Okay?
You not only observed, you felt the need to let me and everybody else know who I remind you of. Please keep that to yourself in the future.
We’re still debating because I reoriented the discussion to the topic at hand (although I had to spend time on your off-topic assertions too). After my post, instead of further addressing my points you *shifted the focus* towards my person. Your whole post amounted to this:
So while the focus of the discussion was why some books are authentic or not, you placed me in the spotlight. No counter-arguments to my arguments against authenticity, not one mention about them, instead you put the spotlight on me, personally. What I am and who I remind you of. That’s how you shifted the focus. I really regret that I have to spell out the obvious.
That is a non-issue here. These “Jesus is God” guys that you are so opposed to, have handed you their canon, and you took their word for it, *that* is the issue. As a neo-protestant, I had debates with them (not the catholics, but the “orthodox” “orthodox”) about this canon, and this is exactly what they were arguing. “YOU have your Bible because WE took care to put it together and preserve it”. And you know what, they sure did. And this is something that many un-ortodox neo-protestants are kind of… embarrassed to be reminded of. If they realized it before at all.
I asked Jaco ” But again, why this sudden interest in whether I agree with Ehrman or not?”. You replied:
If I would be to follow your M.O. I’d say you remind me of the orthodox
But your response hasn’t answered the question. I guess you just felt the need to share with us your personal view about Ehrman. Odd.
Jaco,
I said:
” Jaco, I do not simply assume the absence of the name from the NT. As I already said above:
They [first Century Christians and Jesus Christ] could have [had before them Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic scrolls containing the Divine Name]. I’m not saying they didn’t.”
You replied:
There shouldn’t be a “but” there. What I continued to say is in perfect accord with my previous statement.
Yes, the later copies, and the only ones we have. I get the impression from your question that you presuppose widespread – ok, scratch that: a total corruption – of the manuscripts. The presupposition with which you approach this issue has no basis Jaco. I hope you realize that?
I beg to differ. There’s nothing harsh, or kind, or any other emotional attitude there. I can assure you I have invested no sentiment in my appraisal of your evidence, it’s just my cool assessment, my own opinion.
If it’s impossible to determine that then it’s impossible for you to bring indirect evidence. Hey, nobody said this is easy, right? And I would beg to differ, it’s not impossible. We know exactly what LXX manuscripts some later Christians used, since they were found bound together to NT books. Who says much early such collections won’t be found? Are you sure that’s impossible? How come?
I think you are overstating your case here. We don’t have the majority of LXX mss used in the 1st century, so you have no idea about how many didn’t contain it, and how many did. You cannot accurately say it’s “highly improbable”. I’ve showed you mss where there are blanks instead of the name.
It would be indeed preposterous, but for different reasons – I have never claimed I know they used mss lacking the name. You seem to forget that.
Well it’s not only about citing scholars, it’s about what the majority think. AFAIK and have read, the majority agree they were written originally in Greek. One constant argument provided is that the quotations of the OT come in the majority of cases from the Greek LXX, not the Hebrew version. This is significant because many times the LXX text has its own peculiarities, compared to the Hebrew. So the writer of the Greek NT text did not translate an alleged initial Hebrew text.
It provides enough text to see there are blanks where the name should be – for whatever reasons. These are not called “blotted-out” parts of the ms, they are *blanks*.
I believe you are sincere, no issue here, the issue is though is that you are strongly biased (yes, there is such thing as a sincere bias
) If you are able to say what I emphasized, you are biased towards me without a doubt. Of course, you are free to be so, but your impression is totally gratuitous. So let me share this with you: if numerous copies of a Hebrew NT book were discovered containing the Divine Name, dating back to the first century, I would have the proof I required. But I *would not change my mind* simply because my mind is not made up. Here we go again: my position is that based on the extant mss evidence we have, you cannot claim the name was used in the NT – be they autographs or very very early mss. I thought I repeated this already?
I’ll tell what would: real early dating; it would be anomalous for mss to be first authored in Greek, and then translated in Hebrew or Aramaic. Christianity started the other way around.
If there would be evidence about that I would affirm just that. I’m all about evidence Jaco, I do not make up theories for which I have none.
Oh my
All I can do is to roll my eyes, no malice intended. I hope you realize in retrospect that you are psychologizing too much.
Who told you I don’t Jaco?
You are over-generalizing Jaco, and I really don’t know where from you’re coming up with these impressions. To answer you assertion, it depends on the topic. I’m just like anybody else, I’m not special Jaco.
Well see, that represents a problem to your position. If they have not used it anywhere else, or used it rarely, we end up with avoidance of the name. If they did, then the corruption of NT has been accomplished on an even larger scale than you assert. Which would be again even more embarrassing of course, because then you end up with a really butchered NT, and men have thwarted God’s plan regarding the most important document he wanted his worshippers to be guided by. And again, if men were able to massively corrupt the NT this way, why would this the only corruption made? If it was done once on such a large scale, who knows what else they did to it? We end up with a legitimate suspicion about the whole NT.
But the issue is not *WHEN* God was defeated in his plan regarding his inspired word, but *IF*. Do you think Bible loving John Doe knows about discoveries of Divine Name in the LXX? He doesn’t of course. This means that for centuries and millenniums, man *DID* defeat God, since God wanted his name there during all those dark millenniums, but the overwhelming majority of people did not have it there, it was simply unavailable to them. For a very very long time. For ever really, it hasn’t been restored to this day.
If you say that the name was in the NT at few hundred time, and of course God wanted it that way, it’s really important for the name to be there, people to know about it and to use it, then man has defeated God in his purpose. Man said “I don’t think so God, you won’t have your name in there”. And God couldn’t do (and hasn’t done) anything significant about it. It’s either he cannot do anything against it, or he won’t. Why wouldn’t he? Well, maybe it’s not *that* important. Either way, the result is not good for your theory, right?
But the issue was the uttering of the name, not its writing. Let me quote you:
So if there was no dispute, it was because Jesus and Christians had no problem with avoiding the name. You don’t deny there was a prohibition of “uttering the Name”.
Actually Jesus did disagree, I sincerely can’t understand how are you able to state that. Please read his response. As for my arguing from silence, you make it sound like arguing from silence is weak or invalid. In fact, this silence is a very powerful one since we know that Jesus and Christians *did not* remain silent about significant invalid Jewish practices. I hope I don’t have to give you examples. But they somehow chose to stay mum about the outraging Jewish practice of avoiding the name. Why would they? Isn’t it an issue of utmost importance? Apparently not! Do you see why their silence is relevant?
But I simply don’t care about “formerly held reasons for the non-inclusion of the Divine Name”. All I care about is NT mss evidence. I’m not dogmatic at all, I’m simply intransigent. I require proof if you make a claim. Isn’t that normal?
I’m sorry but you mis-associate the evidence. That is evidence that *the LXX* contained the name. I am looking for evidence that *the NT* contained it.
No, it’s a matter of fact. In objective reality, there is no mss evidence the name was present in the NT mss.
No, I shouldn’t, and I think I explained so many times already why. Again: (last time, not kidding): I do not pretend I know it wasn’t there. What I know is that we have no evidence it was.
That is my sincere impression. You felt the need to introduce Ehrman into the subject and to associate him with me. You not only injected him into the topic (when the topic did not require his presence at all), but you made sure everybody knows who this fellow is: you specifically and purposely said about him he is an atheist/agnostic, and did I agree with him? It’s like saying, “after all, JohnE, you agree with this famous atheistic Ehrman aren’t you?” This is a clear case of character assassination. It has the purpose to signal where I stand, in what light should my arguments be understood; when seen it this light, regardless of their substance, my arguments cannot really be valid, since they are related (or come from) atheism, and we know that atheism is an aberration. Atheism/agnosticism pre-determine the invalidity of its arguments, in the Christian mind. I am sorry I have to spell out things this way, but you provoked this.
But the topic was not the resurrection, the virginal conception of the identity of Messiah. If you wanted to know how I assess the topics at hand (the name, the canon), you could have asked me directly about those topics.
I certainly disagree. Whether I believe Jesus was resurrected, or born from a virgin, or being Messiah, has no bearing on the canon. I contested specific books from the canon, and none of them raise these issues, or contribute in a significant way to them.
Guys, you and Xavier, a friendly suggestion: please stop focusing (I didn’t want to be direct saying “attacking”, but here you go) on what persons are, how bad they are, how deceiving they are, etc. It would be much more fruitful to discuss their arguments, instead of saying how bad these people are, or how dark and diabolic their intentions are. Their persons should not be an issue at all. It seems odd that you and Xavier focus so much on this Ehrman. I haven’t mentioned him at all (at least in this thread) before you did. Are you unhappy with his ideas? Buy his books, and start writing refutations. Prove him wrong if you guys are so fixated on him. This constant unwarranted Ehrman bashing is really putting you in a bad light. But that’s only my opinion.
Apparently labels are very important here, on this blog. People are simply trigger happy when it comes to labelling. I was labelled here – directly or indirectly – a gnostic, an arian, a fundamentalist, a Marcionite-like, in the league of atheists. That is quite a collection. Seriously, you people who feel the need to label everybody, have to stop this. If you cannot simply deal with one’s arguments, it would be more beneficial for everybody if you would simply say nothing. I understand what function this labelling serves, and it doesn’t look good.
Guys,
At least we got the opportunity to discuss this issue. Believe what you see is good for the best available reasons.
JohnE, you have made up your mind. (Or maybe not.) You certainly are more sure about what not to believe than of what to believe. That’s a very safe and comfortable position, indeed. Your assessments of my arguments are not all that valid, but I’ll leave the readers to see for themselves.
Just a few replies of some of your remarks:
The same goes for the LXX then (which you know has been tampered with). In which case the discovery of the Name-containing mss. only emerged in the 20th century. So, according to your line of reasoning, the name is unimportant to God. He was defeated. I bet you’d say the same about God regarding suffering.
And you’re calling ME psychologizing??? I said I would apologize if I was wrong. I do apologize for the impressions people may get from my remark about Ehrman.
Just to make myself clear on Dawkins: Anyone calling religion a “virus,” or the former atheist Anthony Flew a lunatic after becoming a theist (to mention only two), is indeed instigating a mind-set which could have dangerous consequences. Such a man should indeed be regarded the same way eugenist theorists should. Arguments like Dawkins’ are what make oppressive and murderous dictators (as history has proven). What makes this man’s ideas even more dangerous, is that he provides them under a guise of being a friendly lover of Church-goers. Not the validity of his arguments, but the effects they could evoke (as seen by history), and his total disregard for the positive religion can have (esp. in the teachings of Jesus) are what make him a villain in many people’s eyes, and rightly so.
Granted, Ehrman has not gone to such extremes. I do think, however, that his books and debates bespeak a person not as innocent and accommodating as the “reasonable scholar” he wants his listeners to believe he is.
Again,
“It’s much easier to rail against the beliefs of others if you don’t have to present a working model of your own.”
Cheers!
Jaco
Jaco,
Thanks for informing me, I certainly didn’t know that.
Not both. If he sees his name’s presence in the bible as important and necessary to be there, then he was defeated. If he wasn’t defeated, he didn’t consider it important. I guess the conclusion is not to your liking either way.
Yes. I am merely stating the facts, available for everybody too see in what you wrote. Everything in what you quoted me can be clearly observed.
If he made any efforts to stop the suffering people have gone are going through, then he was defeated. If he made no such efforts, he obviously wasn’t defeated. Either way, it doesn’t look good. See this article written by a philosopher about the existence of evil and God: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8467755.stm
I’ve already responded to your statement. Who told you I don’t Jaco?
DAN 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall
wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they
shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Just because God has given power to the beast doesnt mean we should follow its ways.
The beast has giving us the trinity, sunday worship, the cross, easter, christmas, has changed Gods laws, has removed Gods name and has completely separated Gods people in the process.
And you have the nerve to state that if the things are against God then God was defeated.
These were things ALLOWED BY GOD for a purpose but that doesnt mean we dont have the freewill to resist them.
God could of defeated evil at anytime because without God giving it power it wouldnt exist.
God has a purpose for everything under the sun.
Revelation 13:7
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Who do you think gave him this power
Who are you talking to, me? If so, then is your claim that I stated “if the things are against God then God was defeated” – a gross lie?
John
If what you are stating is there is some possibility that God could be defeated than Yes that is a gross lie.
All power comes from God whether it be for good or evil.
Did God expect that Man would remove His name? Yes but does that make him defeated? No because God gave man freewill. was God defeated when Adam sinned? NO. Could He of made it possible for Adam not to sin?yes but He chose to give man freewill so they would chose Him on their own.
that where evil fits into His purpose.
Yes God could of made sure His name was in the writen word but that would of taken away the whole reason we have it. He left it up to Us to chose to do the things He loves.
John E.
I’m not a philosopher I’m just a Christian. Jesus said we should be happy when we suffer for his name. Jesus and the prophets suffered not only for us but also for God’s name. As Christians we shouldn’t see death and suffering as the worst possible thing that could happen.
Jesus said, (Luke 12:4-6) “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those that kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”
This life is transient the next life will not be and that is the life we should be concerned about and look forward to. (Mathew 6:19-20) “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.”
It takes courage but Christians should not be afraid of death or suffering. Jesus said, (Mathew 24:21-23) “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. ”
I can only pray that I will endure to the end. Faith is what will determine whether we endure to the end or not. Jesus not only predicted the pain and suffering that your philosopher talks about he says that it will get worse in the end days. I think this makes the fact that Jesus was actually the true Messiah stronger and not weaker.
But of course this is just my opinion. I pray that you can have faith to trust God and his Messiah (Jesus) again.
I saw this scripture reference above, and noticed that it says something quite different than I have heard men say. It says that Jesus broke the sabbath, (John 5:18) at least according to the KJV.
I suppose that Jesus, though he was known for keeping the sabbath day holy was known to have broken it. I suppose he did it to keep it holy.
But it was the keeping of it the way that men often kept it, which he broke wasn’t it? For the law is good if men use it lawfully. So it was the unlawful ones who often used the law unlawfully. Using it lawlessly made them unlawful, according to the law. Though they thought they were being lawful, they were in violation of it.
Jesus walked in the name of God, therefore he used the law lawfully.
“I saw this scripture reference above, and noticed that it says something quite different than I have heard men say. It says that Jesus broke the sabbath, (John 5:18) at least according to the KJV.”
Ray
Jesus never broke the commands of God or the commands of Moses.
Only law he broke was the commandments of men which are contained in the Oral law which the Jews also called the Law of Moses.
Search the scriptures for the command of the sabbath Jesus broke. you wont find it.
search the Mishnah and you will find them amongst the 1521 extra laws they made for the sabbath. search hard enough and you will find the law that Jesus was convicted by and crucified for.
Ray
Time and time again in the Gospels Jesus broke “the letter of the Law” regarding the Sabbath [Mat 12.2, 10; Lu 13.14; 14.3; John 7.23; 9.16], this has nothing to do with the “Oral law”.
Yet, Jesus [in the Mount of Olives, Mat 5-7] and later the Apostles teach and uphold the true “spirit of the Law” which we are supposed to be under inthe New Covenant [2Cor 3].
Previous post was addressed to “robert” not “Ray” [I think]
“Ray
Time and time again in the Gospels Jesus broke “the letter of the Law” regarding the Sabbath [Mat 12.2, 10; Lu 13.14; 14.3; John 7.23; 9.16], this has nothing to do with the “Oral law”.
”
Xavier
now show Ray the letter of the law Jesus broke, YOU CANT IT DOESNT EXIST IN GODS GIVING LAWS BUT IT DOES EXIST IN THE ORAL LAWS OF THE JEWS.
Major deception
Exodus 20:
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:
12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Exodus 35:
1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.
2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Lev. 23:
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation;
ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Deut. 5:
12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
Note: This is the Torah, not the oral laws. There were many other instances when Jesus confronted the religious leaders about teaching for doctrine the commandments of men, and pointed out that their traditions contradicted God’s commandments. But these issues about the Sabbath were not in that category. He never said that they were teaching wrong traditions in those cases. Rather, he pointed out that the heart rather than the letter was what was important. Rescuing an animal from a pit, like healing someone was OK because it fulfilled the heart of love even though it broke the letter of the Law. This is why Paul contrasted the spirit with the letter; he did not contrast the spirit with the Jews’ oral laws or traditions.
Mark C
Took the verses out of my mouth…
Mark C. and Xavier,
I don’t think that the argument is over the commandment, although, thanks for pointing that out. The argument lies within how the Jews of Jesus’ time considered work on the Sabbath and how Moses would have considered work on the Sabbath. This is the line of study we need to follow in order to understand that Jesus did not break the Sabbath. Jesus wasn’t against traditions alone, he was against the concept of traditions taking precedence over Torah commandments.
We know that Jesus observed the Sabbath in different ways than the customary ways of his time. He did so by teaching his disciples that the Sabbath is made for man by plucking the wheat from the crop to feed their hunger. He was teaching them the true way to obey the Sabbath, not how to break the Sabbath. The Jews had built up a large fence around the Sabbath to go as far as to say that the only time their fence can be torn down is if there is life in immediate danger.
“Note: This is the Torah, not the oral laws.”
as I said not a single one was in the written laws
thanks for showing it Mark.
Now look at the Oral laws
Well if you are right then Jesus wasnt spotless and the jews are correct in saying the messiah hasnt come.
Thank Yah you are wrong!.
Joseph
Work is work my friend, whichever side of the time line you look at it. YHWH’s Torah explicitly prohibits any kind of work on the 7th day, “for it is to be kept holy/set apart/ for YHWH”.
Jesus clearly breaks with YHWH’s commnandment not as a sign of disobedience, but as a sign [especially to the Pharisees] that he has authority to do so, because he is the heavenly “Son of Man” figure of Daniel 7; the prophesized [and not "preexistent"] Messiah of the Most High God. The one through whom YHWH promised long ago [Jer 31.31-34] that he would institute a new covenant, which was ratified and explained to all of us at the Last Supper.
The point is not about interpretation perse, whose right or wrong, or who correctly follows Torah, but in this instance about Jesus pointing himself out as YHWH’s supreme representative and executor of the New Torah [cp. Deu 18.15-19].
Mark and Xavier
You missed your calling ,you would of made excellent Pharisees because of your ability to excuse and explain how you see the truth.
Note that it was only the Pharisees(the enforcers of the Oral law) and the scribes( the interpretors of the Law) that accused Jesus.
It is CLEAR you havent researched 2nd temple Judaism enough to know what Jesus and Paul was speaking of.
Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?
By Rod Reynolds
——————————————————————————–
Did Jesus Christ show His followers that the Ten Commandments were not the standard for Christian life? Did He abolish the Law, or did He—in word and deed—demonstrate its true meaning for Christians today?
——————————————————————————–
Practically anyone who has been exposed to Christianity knows that Jesus Christ grew up in an environment steeped in Old Testament scriptures; He knew them, quoted them and lived by them.
Or did He? Some believe that Jesus kept the law so that others after Him would no longer need to. Others say that He revealed new meaning through old laws. Many, however, believe that Jesus made a “break” with the old Law, and in breaking the law established a new pattern of living for His followers.
Nowadays, even many who call themselves friends of Jesus say that He broke the law. Originally, however—during His lifetime on earth—it was His enemies who made that accusation.
Because Jesus performed miracles of healing on the Sabbath, some Pharisees accused Him of breaking the Sabbath (Matthew 12:10; Mark 3:2, John 9:14–16). John records that Jesus performed a healing during one of the festivals in Jerusalem. John’s gospel records what happened next, when Jesus confronted His accusers: “Jesus answered them, ‘My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.’ Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:17–18). From this, many assume that the Pharisees’ accusation—that Jesus broke the Sabbath—was correct, and that Christians as a result are free to do so.
Scripture also records that Jesus’ disciples were walking through a field on the Sabbath when they plucked and ate heads of grain. Seeing this, some Pharisees asked them: “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” (Luke 6:2). Many accept that the Pharisees’ accusation is correct, and that by their actions Jesus and His disciples did not keep the Sabbath.
To understand what is at issue in these accounts, it is helpful to understand something of the rabbinical tradition that lay behind the Sabbath-breaking charges leveled against Jesus and His disciples. The Pharisaic tradition, by Jesus’ day, had developed into an array of petty rules having to do with the minutiae of the law. It focused on physical works that had little to do with the spirit and intent of the law—and which, in fact, often violated the law (Matthew 15:1–9; Mark 7:1–13; John 7:19; Galatians 6:13).
The scribes among the Pharisees created and transmitted the Pharisaic rabbinical traditions. The body of traditional law that they formulated, called the Halakah (preserved in the Mishnah), is extra-biblical. Although authoritative for Jews who follow Pharisaic tradition, much of the Halakah is not directly supported by Scripture, but is intended as a “hedge” about the law, to prevent any possibility of its being broken.
Ironically, in an attempt to ensure their law-keeping by putting a “hedge” about the law, the Pharisees were breaking the law, for God had said: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2; also 12:32). By adding the weight of their tradition to the law of God, they bound “heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4).
The Pharisees placed the authority of their traditions above that of Scripture itself, thus going against the word of God. Scripture scholar Joachim Jeremias affirms that for the Pharisees, the oral tradition was “above the Torah,” and that the esoteric writings containing scribal teachings were regarded as inspired and surpassing the canonical books “in value and sanctity” (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, pp. 236, 238–239). Alfred Edersheim also points out that traditional law was of “even greater obligation than Scripture itself” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Book I, 1.98).
What was the nature of these traditional ordinances? “The Halakah indicated with the most minute and painful punctiliousness [attention to detail] every legal ordinance as to outward observance.… But beyond this it left the inner man, the spring of actions, untouched.” Echoing what Jesus said (Mark 7:5–13), Edersheim continues: “Israel had made void the Law by its traditions. Under a load of outward ordinances and observances its spirit had been crushed” (Book I, 1.106, 1.108).
The sometimes-absurd contradictions within Pharisaic law are especially apparent in the rules of Sabbath observance. Edersheim writes: “On no other subject is Rabbinic teaching more painfully minute and more manifestly incongruous to its professed object.” Edersheim charges the scribes with “terribly exaggerated views on the Sabbath” and “endless burdensome rules with which they encumbered everything connected with its sanctity” (ibid., Book II, 2.52, 2.53). “In not less than twenty-four chapters [of the Mishna], matters are seriously discussed [regarding Sabbath observance] as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain.” Yet “in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace of anything spiritual—not a word even to suggest higher thoughts on God’s holy day and its observance” (ibid., 2.778–779).
For example, the law included detailed regulations regarding what constituted a “burden” that could not be carried on the Sabbath; for example, pieces of paper, horses hairs, wax, a piece of broken earthenware or animal food. Generally a burden was anything as heavy as a dried fig, or a quantity sufficient to be of any practical use (e.g. a scrap of paper large enough to be converted into a note or a wrapper). It prescribed what might or might not be saved if one’s house caught on fire. Only those clothes that were absolutely necessary could be saved. But one could put on a dress, save it, then go back and put on another. One could not ask a Gentile to extinguish the flames. But if he did so voluntarily, he should not be hindered. One could eat food on the Sabbath lawfully only if it had been specifically prepared for the Sabbath on a weekday. If a laying hen laid an egg on the Sabbath, it could not be eaten. But if the hen had been kept for fattening and not laying, the egg could be eaten, since it would be considered a part of the hen that had fallen off! These regulations considered studying the Mishna on the Sabbath more important than studying the Bible. The Hagiographa (the Old Testament “Writings”) were not to be read on the Sabbath except in the evening. And there are many other similar examples.
Of special interest to us are the laws regarding harvesting and healing on the Sabbath. Even the slightest activity involving picking grain—removing the husks, rubbing the heads, cleaning or bruising the ears or throwing them up in the hand—was forbidden. Yet if a man wanted to move a sheaf on his field, he had only to lay a spoon on it; then, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay!
It should be noted that, unlike the Pharisees (whose numbers were relatively few), most Jews of Jesus’ day paid little attention to these petty rules.
When the Pharisees complained about Jesus’ disciples plucking and eating heads of grain on the Sabbath, Jesus (as He often did) was able to point out the contradictions in Pharisaic law. Jesus noted how David and his followers, famished and fleeing for their lives, ate the shewbread when no other food was available, though it was normally only for the priests to eat (Matthew 12:3–4; Mark 2:25–26; Luke 6:3–4; 1 Samuel 21:1–6). Even the Pharisaic law agreed with the original written law on this point, vindicating what David chose to do when his life was in danger (Edersheim, Book II, 2.58). Jesus simply said: “Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:6–8).
Of course, the Sabbath commandment is in a separate category from the sacrificial ordinances. Yet since Jewish law permitted the feeding and watering of animals on the Sabbath to relieve unnecessary suffering, this principle would logically and naturally extend to human beings—in this case, Jesus’ disciples—who were partaking of the only food readily available at that time.
This controversy would never have been possible were it not for the Pharisees’ exaggerated views about actions forbidden or allowed on the Sabbath. The priests in the Temple worked on the Sabbath, yet were guiltless (Matthew 12:5). The scribes knew this, but apparently did not clearly understand why it was so. Somehow, they missed the point that God instituted the Sabbath not only to give human beings rest from physical labors, but also to give them a time to devote to God by doing His works and serving Him. The disciples’ actions were “clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law” (Edersheim, Book II, 2.56). Jesus said that the Pharisees, not understanding the law, had “condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7). Clearly, the disciples were falsely accused, and were not guilty of breaking the Sabbath as charged.
Since healing might entail work, Pharisaic law permitted it on the Sabbath only if necessary to save life or prevent death. Thus a plaster might be applied to a wound if the object was to prevent it from getting worse, but not to heal it. Yet, contrarily, a splinter might be removed from the eye, or a thorn from the body, though no immediate danger to life was perceived. Furthermore, an animal might be removed from a pit, or taken to water, on the Sabbath.
When the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the law by healing on the Sabbath, He again was able to reveal their hypocrisy by using their own contradictory rules. First, we will examine Jesus’ acknowledgement that He had been working. The Sabbath law is, in part: “Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work” (Exodus 20:9–10). Notice that the work forbidden by the Sabbath law is “your work.” The law does not forbid works of service towards God. Indeed, the very reason we are commanded to cease from our own works on the Sabbath is so we may devote the time to the work of honoring and serving God; that we may “turn your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable, and shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words” (Isaiah 58:13). Here it is clear that it is our own works—the course of our everyday business—that we are to avoid on the Sabbath. On the other hand, we are to honor God on the Sabbath. Giving honor to God often entails work—”good works.”
A careful reading of Scripture reveals that we are to cease and rest from common or profane work on the Sabbath, so that the time may be devoted to God’s holy purpose. But implicit in the Sabbath command is that we do the work necessary to fulfill the spiritual aim and meaning of the Sabbath. On the first Sabbath, God rested from His work of physical creation, but He did the work of creating the Sabbath, blessing and sanctifying it (Genesis 2:2–3; Mark 2:27). The weekly Sabbaths and the annual Sabbaths were proclaimed to be “holy convocations”—commanded assemblies for the purpose of gathering to hear God’s word taught, and for congregational worship (Leviticus 23:2, 4). This includes the “work” required to travel to the place of assembly, and to listen, learn and participate in the worship service. Those commissioned to teach did the work of reading and explaining God’s word. On such occasions, people customarily did the work of eating and drinking, sharing and rejoicing in the holy day and in the truth of God’s word (Nehemiah 8:1–12). Other work implicit in the command was done, too: even on the most solemn day of the year—the Day of Atonement—the priests did the work of slaying animals and offering sacrifices before God, according to the requirements of the law (Leviticus 16).
The work of honoring and worshiping God is not forbidden on the Sabbath. Indeed, it is the object of the Sabbath. That is why the priests could work on the Sabbath and not be guilty. Their work was a necessary part of the congregational Sabbath duty of honoring and serving God. It was, in that sense, not their work but God’s work that was being done. On a Sabbath day early in His ministry, Jesus announced in summary form the work He had been sent to perform. His work was preaching the gospel, healing [both physically and spiritually] and liberating from oppression (Luke 4:18–19). The works Jesus did were not His works, but God’s works, which He had been sent to perform (John 4:34; 9:4; 17:4). Healing was an integral part of Christ’s ministry. In perfect harmony with what the Sabbath rest pictures—and with the gospel message—Jesus’ healings typified the physical and spiritual healings that Christ will perform during the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth (see Isaiah 35:5–6, 57:16–20; Jeremiah 30:10, 17; Ezekiel 47:8–10).
When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, He was not breaking the Sabbath, but fulfilling it, because one is not at rest when afflicted, oppressed and bound by disease or infirmity. As many scriptures show, God delights in redeeming and restoring the afflicted, and giving them the rest exemplified by His Sabbath. God “hears the cry of the afflicted. When he gives quietness [rest], who then can make trouble?” (Job 34:28–29). Bound by their false traditions, the Pharisees did try to make trouble for the Messiah, condemning Him for giving those whom He healed rest from their afflictions.
Instead, they should have offered praise. Speaking of ones afflicted and at death’s door, the psalmist wrote: “Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble, and He saved them out of their distresses. He sent His word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh, that men would give thanks to the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men! Let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare His works with rejoicing” (Psalm 107:19–22).
Jesus answered those who accused him of breaking the Sabbath: “If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:23–24).
As we have seen, when John wrote that Jesus “broke the Sabbath” (John 5:18), he was describing Jesus’ actions from the Pharisees’ perspective (compare 9:14–16). Those who say Jesus did actually break the Sabbath are agreeing with Christ’s enemies—His accusers—that Jesus’ miraculous works of healing were a breach of the Sabbath law. They are agreeing with Jesus’ accusers that He was a Sabbath-breaker. To be consistent, they must also agree with the Pharisees when they said of Christ: “We know that this man is a sinner” (v. 24). The blind man who had been healed knew better than that, saying that “we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him” (v. 31).
When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, He was not violating the law of God. By His actions, He demonstrated the true application of God’s laws—rather than Pharisaic traditions—that “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12). The “law” that Jesus violated was a man-made rule that was itself against the principles of God’s law.
Remember: Had Jesus Christ actually broken the Sabbath, He would have been sinning. But the Scripture says that He “committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:22). Had He sinned, He could not be our Savior. But He, being undefiled and separate from sinners, offered Himself without spot and without blemish to God for our redemption (Hebrews 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18–19). No, Jesus did not break the Sabbath. He spent the Sabbath preaching, teaching, healing, honoring God and doing the good work of His ministry—the work of God.
The record of Scripture is that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully, as God intended it to be kept. In doing so, He set us an example. “He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked” (1 John 2:6).
Robert
Thank you for that great article on the Sabbath…
Thomas
Your very welcome
There is so many people out there who would not you to know the truth about the oral laws because it removes their basis on the understanding of Paul which they claim he says the Law of God was done away with when it was only the interpretations of them that was done away with.
That’s true, and he addresses that issue in other places. But when dealing with the Sabbath issue, he did not say that their traditions contradicted the Law. The Law clearly said “NO work.” But in his responses, he spoke of going against the LETTER of the Law to teach the true heart of God.
So are you saying that Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are not the written Law? Even in your theory that the Ten Commandments were separate from the rest of the Law, it still says “Thou shalt not do ANY work” (Ex. 20:10).
There’s no need to because this was not the issue for Jesus.
That would only be true if he had gone against the commandment with a disobedient or rebellious heart. But as Xavier pointed out, “Jesus clearly breaks with YHWH’s commandment not as a sign of disobedience, but as a sign [especially to the Pharisees] that he has authority to do so.”
That cannot be the case, since Paul contrasted the New Covenant with what Moses delivered on Mt. Sinai, not with the oral laws or Jewish traditions.
The Law clearly said “NO work.
“Thou shalt not do ANY work”
So how does this apply to the priest.
What you dont get is services to God or to your neighbor is not WORK.
Work is your livelyhood .
So again your excuses and explainations are baseless
John E
I believe that there is a lot of truth in Paul’s writings like Romans 8:28 “And we know that in ALL things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
Many years ago I wrote a list of all the things that caused me to feel bitterness.
I felt bitterness towards the hurts I felt in my life, towards the pain that I had to endure, towards the rejections that I have felt, towards the abuses I had experienced, towards the disappointments I have had, towards the evil and injustice I have seen, towards the loneliness that I have been burdened with.
Then I realized that Jesus experienced hurts, pain, rejection, abuse, disappointment, evil, injustice, and loneliness. But, even with all these many burdens upon him he was not filled with bitterness.
Instead he was filled with love and compassion.
Realizing this helped me with the doubts and the bitterness that I had been experiencing. It is normal to have doubts. I know exactly how you feel if that is any comfort…
robert
Agree to disagree friend. We’re obviously not going to get anywhere, especially with your condescending attitude.
Just one last thing, if Jesus did not “break” or do away with all of Torah, what does the following mean:
Xavier
First thing is the torah done away with itself, there is no nation of either house of Israel.
Gods law never had anything about circumcision , that was only in the written mosaic law to be an Israelite and was also in the oral law to be a Jew.
Gods law never separated , it was for all the children of God.
btw you have no right to judge my attitude from words on a screen. I just call them the way i see it.
Jesus never broke any laws that God gave,10 commandments or the ones for Israel.
He just refused to follow the man made laws of the JEWS
The law has been done away in Christ by his work on this earth in the days of his flesh which includes his work on the cross.
Those who are in Christ do not try to put their brothers under the commands of the law anymore, though they may remind one another of the law should they be found walking in sin, for the law reminds us of what is good and right, speaking against sin. When we use it lawfully it is a good tool to use against sin.
Since we are in the new covenant and not under the old we seek a new and better way by Jesus Christ according to the spirit he has given us.
The law is spiritual and contained ordinances about carnal things,
“taste not, touch not,” etc. and is for the carnal man that he might know his spiritual condition of being born into a world that is contrary to God, and knowing that he is a part of it by nature. By this knowledge he will find a need for deliverance, his conscience
being directed to some place of refuge. God will lead the man to Christ who has a conscience that troubles him because of sin. He will be directed to the cross where his burden will fall from him because of the power of the cross of Christ.
Thus he begins his journey to heaven. He will learn to be led by the spirit of God, taking the word of God with him. Having come to the cross through the gate of praise by faith, he finds himself on the path of life, having left the old destructive ways of the flesh behind. On the path ahead he will meet with many people and things. There will still be much to overcome. He will meet with some spiritual things that are enemies of God. Wearing the armor of light
and using the sword of the spirit he will overcome. Applying the pages of scripture to his wounds he will be healed. The word of God is unto him like a medicine, a healing ointment sent from heaven, giving life to his soul.
“The law is spiritual and contained ordinances about carnal things,
“taste not, touch not,” etc.”
Ray
this is not found in Gods law or Mosaic law.
Guess where it also exist.
The tradition of the elders, commandments of men, Oral law or whatever you want to call it by.
Paul spent a lot of time separating the Law of God from the Law of Moses and the oral law for gentiles showing them the Law of God was spiritual and the others were carnal and for things of this world. Before Jesus Paul followed all 3 after He followed just the law of God for spirtual but still followed the customs within his heritage of being an Israelite but seen the oral law for what it was ,manmade traditions.