Metatron and the Divine Name

by Alf3831 7 Replies latest jw friends

Alf3831

Metatron,
Just thought I would pass along some information to you in response to your post. Would be interested in reviewing your comments to the following:
"Leviticus 24:15-16 (LXX) is speaking about the one who, according to verses 11 through 16, "named THE NAME ***AND***cursed" (LXX). Anyone reading from verse 11 onward can see this. It is so obvious that the Targum in verses 15-16 reads: "Any man who pronounces the name of God IN BLASPHEMY will receive the punishment of his sins. And whoever pronounces the name of the Lord IN BLASPHEMY shall surely be put to death...when one pronounces the name of God IN BLASPHEMY he shall be killed."

The Hebrew text agrees with the Targum in its explicit language, and Jesus read the Hebrew text in the synagogue, not the LXX. What language he spoke outside the synagogue, and on what occasions, is debatable. The LXX is simply obvious per the context as noted above.

Furthermore, Jewish sources shortly after the time of Jesus indicate that the Jews did pronounce the name of God, hence showing they did not share the understanding of Leviticus 24:15-16 communicated by metatron. See the Mishnah, Yoma 6:2; Berakhot 9:5. See in the Tosefta, Barakhot 6(7), 20; Yeadim 2:20. Combine this with the fact that we have phonetic transcriptions of the divine name (notably, IAW) in Jewish copies of the LXX in circulation prior to and during the time of the first century CE and we have plenty of evidence to suggest that metatron has misapplied or misunderstood the meaning of Leviticus 24:15-16 in its proper context. This is particularly evident in light of the Hebrew original and the explicit Jewish understanding found in the Targums and the Jewish practice as evidenced by the Mishnah, Tosefta and other Jewish sources. All of this information and more is discussed in detail in Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation and in Three Dissertations.

Sincerely,
Alf3831
metatron

without getting deeper into the Talmud, etc., a few points
stand out.(see freeminds review of the Insight book
under Jehovah for more on tradition)
First, the scriptural evidence is clear such that any person
unequipped with scholarly tomes need not doubt it. Jesus
avoided the name - and so did his followers. John omits it
altogether in his letters - nor is there any direct evidence
of any use by Christian Bible writers. They liked "Father".
Aside from a few confusing texts ("the Lord said unto my Lord")
there just wasn't much reason to use the name. Jesus was
setting up a universal faith, not a strange tribal 'Yahweh'
sect.
Second, the evidence from Josephus and the Dead Sea scrolls
is clear - the Pharisees would have accused and stoned Jesus,
if they could, of using the name. Compare the Sabbath regulations
of the Dead Sea Coventanters with the Pharisees (they wouldn't
pull a hurt animal out of a pit, unlike Jesus' accusers!)
and you still would end up with strong feelings against
using the name. The Sept. simply says "naming the name"
- allowing intolerant Jews to interpret it with no
regard for its context - no different than today.
Actually, I left out one strong additional reason for the
name's disappearance - Christians eagerly applied texts
that referred to Jehovah to Jesus. As "the very representation
of his very being", this was bound to happen.
Christians were simply obsessed with the name 'Jesus'.
It's a simple point that conflicts with the 'Jehovist'
organization that now exists. The old Bible student
types were more balanced.
metatron
Earnest

metatron:
While I agree with you that the early Christians were coming into a new relationship with God where "Father" was a more personal term than was God's name, Jesus was a Jew among Jews and there is little reason to think that he felt obliged to adhere to the traditions of the pharisees when reading scripture (or at any other time). I have given a number of reasons to support this in my reply to your original post. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=35584&page=1&site=3#480135
As for the scripture in Leviticus where it speaks of "naming the name" I would also add Philo's understanding of this text to what Alf3831 has contributed:
"But if anyone, I will not say blasphemes the Lord of gods and men, but even ventures to utter His Name unseasonably, let him suffer the penalty of death." (De Vita Mosis II, 206)
What does he mean by "utter His Name unseasonably"? Two lines later he says:
"After this, can we still think worthy of pardon those, who, with a reckless tongue, make unseasonable use of the most holy name of the Deity and treat it as a mere expletive?" ("Philo / with an English translation" by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. VI, De Vita Mosis II, 208)
So, far from substantiating the idea that Leviticus 24:15,16 referred to pronouncing God's name, Philo shows clearly that it dealt with using the Name as an expletive and so implies there is no such sanction against using the Name respectfully.
Earnest
edited for verbosity :)
Edited by - Earnest on 2 September 2002 22:37:9
metatron

For reasons of time, I can only reply patchwork style - and from fallible memory.
Once the Sept. says 'naming the name' instead of 'blaspheming the name', the path is
set. People will quote the text without context, inevitably. At one point, Philo seems
swayed by Greek thought that God had no name. If the Name had any prominence at all
it seems hard to understand that 2nd. cent. Justin Martyr thought God nameless.
If we concede that Josephus gives the Pharisaic opinion, that the priests opposed the
name's use outside of the Temple, who were associated with Sadduccees (tradition
plus Ecclesiasticus 50:22 "privileged to pronounce the name" footnote in Jerusalem
Bible) and the Essenes/Dead Sea people were dead set against it, what are we left with?
We've pretty much covered Judaism in the first century haven't we?
The 'Monty Python' sketch in 'Life of Brian' is probably more accurate in portraying
Jewish opinion than anything you will read in the Watchtower (aside from the jokes).
The situation with Jesus' avoidance of the name gets even worse as one examines it.
Jesus AVOIDED the Name even when it wasn't necessary. After he was condemned, why not
use the name openly? What will they do, stone him while crucified? And after his
resurrection, he was invunerable - and still avoided it ("in the name of the Father").
As for Jesus obeying Jewish tradition, the above shows it goes deeper than that.
His motivations transcended dead traditions. He was setting up a universal faith
in which God was everyone's Father. Obeying Jewish tradition prevented trouble but
Jesus had more in mind.
This point is so simple it amazes me that so many can read the Bible without
seeing it. Yet, such is the power of Witness obsessions, that they can't see the
forest for the trees. They've managed to wedge 'Jehovah' into the Christian Greek
scriptures even where no Septuagint quotation exists. Who ever calls Jesus 'Lord'
without suspicion from the elders? Where is the Christ centered religion of the
first century with its "one God, the Father"?
metatron
metatron

That depends on what 'unseasonable' means. He seems to distinguish it from simple
cursing, blasphemy, etc. Many scholars confine the Name to use in the temple
(see Ecclesiasticus 50: 22 Jerusalem Bible).
metatron
Earnest

metatron:
I previously suggested that: "We simply have no record of how the average Jew in Jesus' time viewed God's name...It is most unlikely that the average Jew would have felt themselves as bound to tradition as Josephus was."
In response, you maintain that between the Pharisees, the priests/Sadduccees, and the Essenes we've "pretty much covered Judaism in the first century, haven't we?" The answer is no, not by far. One well-documented site - http://www.bibarch.com/The%20First%20Christians/Pharisees.htm - states that:
"the general population of first-century Palestine, presumably about one million out of the more or less six million Jews in the Roman empire, did not live as Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, nor as Christians."
We think of these groups as including all Jews because that is all we read of in scripture. But scripture only includes those groups with whom the Christians clashed and, by and large, were comprised of the zealots of various persuasions in the population. We know little or nothing of the common man, the average Jew, of the time.
Your reference to Ecclesiasticus 50:20 to support your premise that God's name was limited to the temple has little support.
The Jerusalem Bible, which you cite for support, reads:
"Then he [High Priest Simeon II] would come down and raise his hands over the whole concourse of the sons of Israel, to give them the Lord's blessing from his lips, being priveleged to pronounce his name."
The footnote says that
"the holy name was pronounced only at the feast of the Atonement, as a blessing over the people."
However, the footnote was NOT written by the writer of Ecclesiasticus (who lived about 200 years before Christ) but by the editors of the Jerusalem Bible (probably based on the Mishnah written after the time of Christ).
A comparison of other translations of Ecclesiasticus 50:20 shows that this slant to the verse is not universally shared.
Revised Standard Version
Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name;
New American Bible
Then coming down he would raise his hands over all the congregation of Israel. The blessing of the LORD would be upon his lips, the name of the LORD would be his glory.
New English Bible
Then Simon came down and raised his hands over the whole congregation of Israel, to pronounce the Lord's blessing, proud to take his name on his lips;
King James Version
Then he went down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the children of Israel, to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to rejoice in his name.
Contemporary English Version
Then Simon came down from the altar and raised his hands to praise the Lord and to bless the people in his name.
Todays English Version
Then Simon came down from the altar, raised his hands over the whole assembly of Israel, and reverently pronounced the blessing from the Lord,
You also refer to Justin Martyr who wrote that "to the Father of all there is no name given." Again we are dealing outside of the first century and you are quoting a man deeply influenced by Platonic philosophy which teaches the highest power is the unknowable intellect ("nous"). I do think that by the time Justin wrote (130 A.D), the Nazarene party in the church were vastly outnumbered and God's name had become irrelevant to all but a few.
It seems it is the nature of believers to go from one extreme to another in their search of truth. The early church ultimately compromised their worship by their neglect of Jehovah. JWs compromise their worship by their neglect of Christ, as you observe.
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 8 September 2002 6:7:46
*lost*

bumped
metatron

The Jews began to avoid the Name, as hinted at in Daniel, where he keeps using euphemisms for 'Jehovah' (Ancient of Days, Revealer of Secrets, etc.)
I think a number of basic points here are unanswered as to the emphasis on 'Father' and Jesus avoidance of the name in cases where he clearly could have done otherwise ('eli, eli, lama sabachthani').
The account about an 'unknown god' in Acts also militates against using 'Jehovah' because spreading that name would have violated Roman law and Paul 'went all universal' about God to avoid that.
metatron

Metatron and the Divine Name

Share this