God's Name Discussion

by garyneal 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  Is there any evidence of manistream Jews ( Where Jesus's apostles came from) using it in their writings at the time?

  I am sure you know that early copies of the Septuagint contained forms of the divine name. This is the main line of evidence.

  If you look at extant copies of the New Testament, then of course the testimony is unanimously in favour of kyrios rather than the divine name in the New Testament. But if you approach the question differently, and ask what was Jewish practice concerning the divine in sacred texts in greek during the first century, when the New Testament was written, you get quite a different answer. The extant manuscript evidence is decidedly in favour of the view that first century Jews used forms of the divine name instead of Greek substitutes.

  Plus the text of the New Testament itself provides evidence that the divine name stood in the original. For example Psalm 110:1 is quoted in reference to Jesus more than any other OT text. Yet in the Greek text as it survives it is quoted as saying:

  "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."'

  That awkward ambiguity would not have existed for first century Jews who read either in their Hebrew or in their Greek copies a clear distinction between YHWH and their Lord Jesus. The fact that Christians found the text unproblematic and used it so freely in the first century is good evidence that the ambiguity between the two Lords in this passage had not yet been created by the substitution of YHWH with kyrios.
• 

  PSacramento

  Slim, you make a valid point, however I would add that while WE, in our time, may see soem confusion or the possibility there of, in those days, I don't think that THEY, who were THERE in THOSE days, saw any.

  Hence the naturla way that YHWH, Adonai, Elohim and so forth were naturally changed to Lord.

  And Since God the Father became a more "standard" way to refer to God, it was even more natural for other terms to "fall by the wayside".

  The GOJ was the last Gospel written and the one that mentions Jesus making God's "name known" to all more than any other and yet, no inculsion of ANY name other than "Father".

  Same goes for John's letter(s).
• 

  slimboyfat

  I do agree that by the time the Gospel of John was written it appears attitudes to the divine name had changed somewhat. In many respects the Johannine writings have a different flavour than the rest of the New Testament. The absence of the divine name itself, nevetheless with continuing emphasis on God's name as a concept, is one of those differences.

  I think the reason the early Christians did not find the passage problematic and could so freely quote it in reference to Jesus was because the text during their time read:

  ""YHWH said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."'

  Only later when YHWH was replaced with Lord did the meaning of the text become obscured.
• 

  PSacramento

  Perhaps, or they just knew what it meant and the term YHWH became superfolous, we will probably never know.

  John's Gospel is unique in many ways, it is far more personal and private thenthe others and while it doesn't bother to "rehash" what was written earlier it does go into more detail about things that, at the time, were probably being debated, Jesus nature for example.

  John shared a special bond with Jesus it seems, as did his brother James and Peter, but it seems, at least by the writings, that John was more in tune with themessage of love then the others, maybe that is why Jesus "loved him" as much as he did.

  John's is more of an eulogy compared to the others that are more "biogrpahies".
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am a bit skeptical that the Gospel of John was actually written by a disciple of Jesus the first century Jewish preacher.

  Another trajectory within the Gospel of John is that it is more anti-Semitic than the earlier books of the New Testament. This is also indicative of Christianity's drift away from its Jewish roots.
• 

  PSacramento

  None of the gospels were written by the people named probably, at least not in their totallity.

  Remember, it is the Gospel according to John, what John told or wrote to HIS disciples.

  I am sure SOME, perhaps MOST were his words, but not all and final editing and puting togther was done by others.

  Luke's was probably the only one written by Luke since it makes that clear and Luke wasn't an apostle so no reason to attribute it to him if it wasn't his.

  It makes sense that Christainity was drifting aways from its jewish roots, their message was different and they were not accepted in the synagogue.

  As for being anti-semtic, well, kind of hard to sugar coat what the Jews did to Jesus.