The Divine Name in the NT: Some Reflections

by Let go of fear 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Let go of fear

  I've been fascinated with this topic for some time now, almost to the point of obsession. After researching the issue for several years, I have come to a conclusion/theory that I would love to receive some feedback on. This theory of mine is one that will be somewhat unsettling to both those who believe the divine name was used in the original NT scripts as well as those who believe it wasn't. Here goes:

  It is true, as the WT frequently mentions, that the earliest Septuagint fragments prior to, during and even after the 1st century contain the divine name in some form of the tetragram (or in some cases, the greek IAO, whatever that was!). Therefore, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the greek texts that Jesus, his apostles and the early Christian congregations were familiar with did have some form of the name in it. However, if, as the WT concludes, the NT writers continued this Jewish practice (using tetragram in the NT greek), then it is also reasonable to believe that they continued the Jewish practice of NOT pronouncing the name when they came across it in the text. This would explain why later copyists of the NT (as well as the Sept.), most of whom at this later time were Gentiles, would simply render "Kyrios" (something familiar to them) as they believed that this was the Greek equivalent (or at least one of them) of the "strange" Hebrew word, YHWH. I feel this is a more satisfying explanation as opposed to the melodramatic WT belief that the name was removed because of some Trinitarian conspiracy (keep in mind that-and this is something that is strangely absent from most discussions on this controversy-there was no real equivalent of the divine name in Greek or any other language outside of Hebrew, since, other than some abbreviated forms such as "IAO" or "Alleluia" the Jewish scribes did not fully translate it)

  I know this topic has been covered previously, but I am new to this forum and would love to hear anyone's thoughts on my conclusions, as I feel it is a sort of "third-way" explanation. I am open to any constructive critique!
• 

  FayeDunaway

  I think you are very close, maybe even completely correct.
• 

  Aroq

  It is very interesting that God's name was not spoken of by any Jew other than the Levi's, and even then it was only in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. I believe it was after the time of worshiping the golden calf when this practice came into play. From then on it was unheard of and blasphemous to be spoken out in public. How could Jesus and the early disciples, speak God's name and it not be mentioned in the Bible that the Pharisees would want to kill them for it? There is plenty of accounts where the Pharisees wanted to Kill Jesus and the disciples, but not for speaking God's name. No mention of even a hush-hush, or squabble about it. If this were so important for God to have everyone know and use His name, not only would He have preserved it within scripture, but it would have been made fact through Jesus.

  None of this is is made known in the New Testament. Would the Creator of the universe need a group of men in Brooklyn to restore it in the New Testament? That is a slap in the face to God, making Him unable to do what these men did. That is really pompous of them to rewrite the Bible, and I am sure they are aware of what God has said about adding or removing from the Bible. I just don't think they care.
  
• 

  Aroq

  I stand corrected. The time frame when God's name stopped being pronounced was, according to :The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901, Volume 11, page 353

  "SIMEON THE JUST (): High priest. He is identical either with Simeon I. (310-291 or 300-271 b.c.), son of Onias I., and grandson of Jaddua, or with Simeon II. (219-199 b.c.), son of Onias II... After Simeon's death men ceased to utter the tetragrammaton aloud (Yoma 30b; Tosef Sotah. xiii.)"
• 

  Let go of fear

  "SIMEON THE JUST (): High priest. He is identical either with Simeon I. (310-291 or 300-271 b.c.), son of Onias I., and grandson of Jaddua, or with Simeon II. (219-199 b.c.), son of Onias II... After Simeon's death men ceased to utter the tetragrammaton aloud (Yoma 30b; Tosef Sotah. xiii.)"

  This may or may not have been the case. If it is true, it was a "man made rule" and not a "scriptural" one (i.e., a commandment based in OT texts). With that in mind, the NT makes it clear that Jesus emphatically rejected such "traditions of men." Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe (for a number of reasons I won't get into now) that the FULL name, i.e., the tetragram, was rarely used in conversation among the Jews of the 1st century. Still, when the early Christians expanded their ministry beyond the Jews to the Gentiles, what would they say when someone asked what the name of their god was? Would Paul simply say (as Josephus did in his writings) "I am forbidden to speak it!" That really does not seem plausible to me. I would imagine his response would be something along the lines of "there actually is no equivalent in your language, but in Hebrew it is pronounced...."
• 

  jhine

  I had the opportunity to ask an expert on early manuscripts from Birmingham (uk) university about this .He came to give a talk at our church and was catorgoric about the fact that the Tetragrammaton was not in any manuscripts of the NT found so far .He was incredulous at the suggestion of a conspiracy to remove it saying that the logistics involved in doing that would be impossible .

  Jan
• 

  Let go of fear

  I had the opportunity to ask an expert on early manuscripts from Birmingham (uk) university about this .He came to give a talk at our church and was catorgoric about the fact that the Tetragrammaton was not in any manuscripts of the NT found so far .He was incredulous at the suggestion of a conspiracy to remove it saying that the logistics involved in doing that would be impossible .

  That YHWH has not been found in any NT text yet is absolutely correct, and it MAY very well be true that it was not used in the original texts either. Still, it is wholly POSSIBLE that YHWH was used in the originals (a common practice at the time when it came to the LXX), but that eventually (possibly as early as the latter part of the 1st century), the then predominantly gentile church, rather than copying a foreign language word in the midst of the text, decided to simplify things and translate it as "kyrios," as this was there understanding of what YHWH meant. After all, that is probably how the NT writers themselves would pronounce it, considering both their Jewish upbringing as well as the fact that there was no Greek equivalent at the time.
• 

  Phizzy

  I think the consensus amongst Scholars is that whatever was in the original N.T writings, the Name was certainly not vocalised..

  I have read one Scholar who felt that the Name may have been vocalised in the 1st Century in some parts of Palestine, but he offered no proof for this.

  I do not think this issue is at all important one way or the other, except to the JW Org who have a huge investment in the concocted name "Jehovah", even their re-branding relies upon it.

  The WT/JW arguments about it, simply do not stand up of course.
• 

  Crazyguy

  I think there was a conspiracy because the name of God changed in the old test and maybe they were not even sure who they were going to make the father of Christ. Marcion did not like the god of the old testament. It's also interesting that a 1st century writer from scicily said the god of the Jews was Iao and some people believe this character was non other the Helios. There is a picture on the floor of a Jewish synagogue near Jerusalem that was built around the 5th century Ad I believe, that is a picture of Helios. So why were the Jews worshipping this guy?
• 

  Let go of fear

  @Crazyguy: I've seen some of those references as well, but IMHO I don't think they played a major role on the removal of YHWH from the Greek Scriptures. Again, this is just my theory, but I think that knowing everything we know about the time period, it is more likely that later Gentile copyists decided to just "translate" the "strange" Hebrew characters into what they honestly believed was the Greek equivalent.

  @Phizzy: I agree there is more or less a consensus that in the First Century CE the name was not commonly pronounced; however, all the evidence for this period shows that this was a result of a CUSTOM and NOT an outright prohibition (according to the Mishnah and other Rabbinic sources, a legal prohibition took place around 200CE). The name was used in religious services at the temple, even if it was not typically used in everyday speech (and especially not with Gentiles). It is also evident that while the FULL name was to be avoided, abbreviated forms such as "Jah" were permitted (For evidence of this, consider the Greek "Alleluia" in both the LXX and NT). Regarding God's name rendered as "Jehovah," I see no reason to treat this with disdain. It is an appropriate English translation of the divine name. It may not have been the way it was pronounced in ancient times, but the same is true for names like "Jesus." (or consider JAMES-now THAT is not exactly a very Hebraic sounding name, is it?)