Nehemia Gordon and the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton

by gubberningbody 92 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  Yadda, I meant to respond before that I don't argue for the tetragrammaton in the NT from a theological perspective or from a position of faith. Personally I don't believe in the Bible any more and I don't know about God either. I just find the question of how the original NT dealt with the divine name to be a fascinating historical problem. It would be delicious irony from my perspective if the much maligned Jehovah's Witnesses turned out to be right on this issue after all, and the Metzger et al. wrong. And as I say I think there is a good chance the Witnesses are right.

  I note that neither of the two scholars associated with the theory that the tetragrammaton was used in the original NT are conservative Christian believers. George Howard comes from a Jewish background and David Trobisch reveals in his book about Paul's letters that his parents were Christian missionaries, though if he himself, if he still believes in the Gospel, then it is with a very liberal slant.

  Narkissos, I feel bad for not making a proper reply now, after having cajoled you into responding. And thank you for the reply by the way. Some of what I would say would be similar to what I wrote to Leolaia above. I will get back to it though. I didn't sleep well last night. I see you posting odd hours sometimes as well. I wonder if you suffer from insomnia too or are just a night owl.
• 

  free2think

  slim are they better scholars than Parsons and Hislop

  ql
• 

  cameo-d
• 

  cameo-d

  Hear the pronunciation of the tetragrammation at this link:

  http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htm

  Do you Yahu?
• 

  Earnest

  possible-san, may I point out without being deemed "impolite" that in slimboyfat's comprehensive post above he states, with justification, that

  the one conclusion that the external evidence does not support is that KURIOS was used in the original LXX, or at all before the second century CE.

  Now if the substitution of the divine name with KURIOS began in the second century then to refer to NT manuscripts dated after the first century to demonstrate that the divine name was not used is clearly quite irrelevant. If and when we come across NT manuscripts dated to the first century then your argument will either find support or will completely collapse.

  I would also like to add, regarding Narkissos' reference to you as "(im)possible" that in English to refer to someone as "impossible" is an expression of exasperation and even affection depending on the tone of voice. I think he got it spot on.
• 

  Narkissos

  Earnest, thank you for the info. I found a few online references to the Cairo Genizah Aramaic Sefer Toledoth Yeshu, not how old the copies are unfortunately. In view of the huge narrative variation of the work and its overall aggregative character, I suppose the antiquity of every element of the story must be assessed separately. If the (magical) use of the (written) Tetragrammaton is an old feature, the basic Ben Pandera story is arguably even older (cf. Celsus/Origen, and the Talmud). The consistent Hasmonean setting of the story is even a better "candidate" to a historical status since it doesn't make much sense as an anti-Christian fabrication. The imbrication of the Simon-Jesus-Paul traditions may also have far-reaching consequences (cf. the pseudo-Clementines).

  All in all, as an argument for the Gospel Jesus' use of the divine name (in OT quotations, not in magic) it seems a bit like attempting to kill a fly with a nuclear bomb...

  -> slimboyfat / leolaia

  The debate about "the original LXX" seems to ignore the general shift in textual criticism from the quest for THE "original" to a more modest "topography" of irreducible diversity (cf. E. Tov precisely)... which should be particularly relevant in the case of an "original" translation which extends over several centuries and may include a variety of practices, including for the rendering of the Tetragrammaton.

  More importantly, as possible-san points out, it has little if anything to do with the NT texts. What matters to the latter is not the original LXX, nor even 1st-century LXX ms tradition in general, but the specific sources for OT quotations by NT writers, which in many cases are not LXX mss but Christian Greek testimonia (as evidenced by the recurrent chains of quotations in the NT which make much better sense in "intertextual" relationship than from their "original" setting in full OT context). So, apart from material evidence (which so far is still 0), the best if not only tool for tracking any "lost divine name" in the NT should be narrative/rhetorical analysis of the NT texts themselves. Where, exactly, would the use of the use of a personal name make better sense than the extant substitution, in view of the narrower (pericope, argument) or broader (work) context?
• 

  possible-san

  Earnest,

  At present, even if you describe the correct thing, I refuse it all.
  
  First of all, the cause I got angry is you.
  
  I have not a grudge to Mr. Narkissos.
  Probably, "impossible" is a joke (humor).

  possible
  http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/
• 

  slimboyfat

  More relevant to the initial topic of the thread, I found this interesting reference while searching online.

  Marjanen, Antti. “A Nag Hammadi Contribution to the Discussion about the Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.” Pages 153-160 in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen Edited by H: Juusola, J. Laulainen, and H. Palva. Studia Orientalia 99. Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental Society, 2004.

  Sadly I don't have access to an academic library any more so I can't read it. But others who can locate it might find it interesting to pursue. I have got no idea what its conclusions are.

  Narkissos you raise the question whether the use of the transliterated form IAW in the Leviticus fragment indicates Jews were pronouncing the name outside esoteric and magical contexts. But I would have thought that the presence of the divine name in this form in the sacred text, (rather than on an amulet or part of some incantation) which is evidently intended to be pronounced, (that's the point of a transliteration) shows quite simply that, for those Jews who used this text at least, pronouncing the divine name during readings of the sacred text was routine.

  I found this reference and summary online of what appears to be a PhD thesis submitted to the University of Cincinnati that discusses evidence for the non-mystical use of this form of the divine name. It looks absolutely fascinating. I wish there was some way of accessing it!

  http://liaisons.drc.ohiolink.edu/handle/2374.OX/9377

  And on the question of whether copies of the LXX that Philo consulted used the divine name I found this discussion interesting.

  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TxZK1Le1DpkC&pg=RA1-PA122&lpg=RA1-PA122&dq=george+howard+tetragram&source=bl&ots=CU0Lu6qVkz&sig=4hyixHcs84eCvDRjBny5dBRrcNg&hl=en&ei=YpfqSePNCpeSjAfTjZyfCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PRA1-PA120,M1

  I have been searching high and low in my files for my copy of George Howard's article, but I can't find it anywhere. However I did come across a copy I made of this interesting article about the importance of the divine name in early Christianity:

  http://www.jstor.org/pss/1584631

  Contrary to George Howard, Charles Gieschen agrees with Pietersma that kyrios replaced the divine name in the pre-Christian LXX. He argues that, although absent from the sacred text, early Christians were still very conscious of the divine name, and it continued to play an important part in Christology well into the second century. He cites contextual evidence from Jewish literature, then looks at the NT itself as well as other early Christian writings. The result of the analysis is a very high Christology among the first Christians who saw Jesus as possessing God's own name.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sorry folks, my link in the above post seems to have messed up the width of the thread. I should learn how to do those tinyurl links.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you slimboyfat, the little I could read online from your links is excellent -- and, if I may remark, diametrically opposite to the thrust of WT theology: the theme of the "divine name" (with Yhwh in the background) is indeed essential to both Pauline and Johannine Christologies; in both cases its function is to ascribe divine dignity (whatever that means) to the Son, never to distinguish "God" from the Son as in JW usage.

  The debate is certainly open on the rendering of the DN in the Greek textual sources available to the authors (Philo, "Paul," "John") -- hardly, from what I have seen, on the latter's writing practice in quotations, interpretation and original expression: at that level the use of kurios as a "catalytic" term, allusive to the Tetragrammaton but susceptible of Christological application, seems to be very well established (Howard may be an exception, but I'm not sure whether he has extended his suggestion of an original use of the DN to either pauline or johannine literature; what I read from him was about Matthew).

  Btw, I think that terms such as "mystical" and "esoterical" should probably be defined better. I for one am convinced that Johannism belongs to an early Gnostic trajectory which makes the parallels with the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Truth quite relevant, notwithstanding the differences...

  I hope that Leolaia can access the other documents you mentioned.