Posts by KalebOutWest

5

Red Sea Stories Divided.

by peacefulpete in

most of what follows may be new to some but well established by scholarship for well over a hundred years.

anyone reading the genesis stories of creation and the flood are struck by the way two versions of the story have been literally stitched together.

the documentary hypothesis formalized this recognition by assigning names to the sources in genesis and exodus as, j,e,p and a redactor r. while there have been suggested refinements this basic model has stood.

KalebOutWest

Except for the Chasdic Jews and those outside of Modern Orthodoxy, Judaism generally accepts that the Exodus isn't history and that Moses was not a historical figure.

While I remember the days of watching so many proudly answering questions in the Kingdom Hall during the Watchtower Study (back in my day we still used the paper versions of magazines--I'm in my 50s, don't judge me), and I would watch parents offering their children that (awfully illustrated) Bible Stories book, teaching them how this was all true, true, true--myself being born Jewish and now a Reconstructionist I still see remnants of this even in what is supposed to be the more "enlightened" liberal Jewish movements.

And I'm not even mentioning what happens in Hillel for example when an Orthodox Yeshiva boy learns from a professor exactly what you are discussing (because professors in Orthodox seminaries do tell their students more or less what you are saying and, reportedly, students literally go crying to their rabbis that "this can't be true").

But often, I've noticed, since the Reform movement made a turn in 1999 to adopt Jewish cutoms as "a response to secularism" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I've heard some of their rabbis say odd things that make them suggest that one can now choose--at least in the Reform movement--to believe that the Exodus really did happen.

They never used to do that in their particular branch of Judaism. Like our own and the Conservative and even Modern Orthodox Judaism, the Exodus (as you have noted from reading even just a little of the footnotes from the NJPS Bible) is a redaction of mythology, legend, and folklore, all set in an order to teach the Torah. There is a reflection of something historical, but not a Jewish history--someone else's perhaps.

I am glad you touched on the Song of Miriam here. It is noted for being very ancient, the oldest litrugical song in Judaism (liturgical isn't the same as "historical"). But I was visiting a Reform synagogue the other day when it was being read, and the rabbi suggested we (the Jews) have been singing it since we (the Jews) crossed the Sea of Reeds.

I found that disturbing. I thought back to my days in the Kingdom Hall and crossed reference to my days in Hebrew School. We were taught critical scholarship in Hebrew school--that the Song is old, but because it is an old liturgical prayer, from maybe pre-Temple days, when there was just a shrine. But not that there was ever a sea-crossing event. It was designed to be sung to celebrate the Passover or maybe not even that, probably the Festival of Booths and that people had water to drink. It is the Song of Miriam, and Miriam is associated with wells of water that would be found in the desert, and the legends were as she was a prophet, she would lead the people to these oasis spots and the song would be sung in honor of that.

The legend from oasis spot crossings, from water spot to water spot, changed from crossing the Sea of Reeds, from Egypt to Sinai, from the female prophet Miriam being the leader to life to her brother Moses to freedom, all this as time went on. And that is what is believed happened and how we got her song placed after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (and how we know it is not historical).

But I am not sure what to make of seeing hundreds upon hundreds of people just sitting there and listening to this rabbi and saying nothing in this Reform temple. This doesn't happen in the setting I am used to. People would have started chocking in their seats (not to mention tried to choke the rabbi afterwards) in a Reconstructionist setting. (I did not return, of course, even though the food was good. Jews love a good spread.)

I may have heard it wrong when he said what he said, but I don't think I did. I just kind of froze, and all I could think of was see a pair of JW children and that ugly Book Stories book with that yellow cover (and those flat, horribly drawn faces).

Please continue to post things like this. People need to know things these things. It's second nature to me, but for exJWs and many JWs who read this site who don't get exposed to the right materials, it's important eye-opening material. It's great that you are doing all this research.

5

Red Sea Stories Divided.

by peacefulpete in

most of what follows may be new to some but well established by scholarship for well over a hundred years.

anyone reading the genesis stories of creation and the flood are struck by the way two versions of the story have been literally stitched together.

the documentary hypothesis formalized this recognition by assigning names to the sources in genesis and exodus as, j,e,p and a redactor r. while there have been suggested refinements this basic model has stood.

KalebOutWest

The Jewish Study Bible notes a lot of this in its introduction to chapter 14 of Exodus. It states:

The crossing of the Sea of Reeds. The composite nature of this narritive is indicated by inconsistencies and redundancies. For example, God's stiffening Pharaoh's heart to chase the Israelites (vv. 8-9) is redundant after Pharaoah has already decided to give chase (vv. 5-7). V. 19a says that the angel leading the Israelites moves to their rear, while 19b says that it was the cloud. V. 21b (through "dry ground") presents a relatively naturalistic picture of God causing a strong wind to blow back the waters of the sea, while the remainder of the v. and v. 22 present a more miraculous picture of the sea splitting, with the waters forming walls on either side of the Israelites. Source critics assign the components of the narrative to J, E, and P.

The inconsistancies are used my the redactor in a creative way, the editors note to fabricate a religious myth.

By skillfully combining the sources, the redactor has harmonized the differences so as to show, for example, that Pharaoh's independent decision to pursue the Israelites is, in a mysterious way, carrying out God's plan (cf. v. 4), that the cloud is indeed the angel, and that God used the natural means of the wind to carry our His miraculous splitting of the sea.

While the honesty is very refreshing, one cannot imagine anything like this ever appearing in an edition of the New World Translation or the Insight to the Scriptures.

14

Could the law abiding Jesus or his disciples have used a coin depicting Caesar?

by EdenOne in

so, i was just viewing an interview with professor yonathan adler regarding the origins of judaism as an everyday practice of the masses.

he makes a very convincing argument that the jews only became torah observants in a generalized way around the beginning of the hasmonean dynasty, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc.

you can watch the interview here:.

KalebOutWest

I understand that this is a popular belief in its own right.

But these claims are from Christians or people who come from Christian backgrounds. Here is an example of website of someone who is using a similar argument:

https://the-ans.com/library/2012PeterLewis.html

These views don't come from Jewish law, however, nor is there any evidence of this in Jewish history or claims in mainstream academia. As I mentioned, in the Talmud it mentions clearly what actually happened during those oppressive years. That is why I gave you the historical references above. (m. Sanhedrin 3.3; b. Sanhedrin 25b) The famous Jewish Annotated New Testament (edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler) not only uses similar references but doesn’t mention your coin view--which it would have since it offers a Jewish critical view on the New Testament.

There would be something in halakhah (Jewish Oral Law) in the Talmud mentioning this that would be quite easy to locate, especially today since it has been digitized and Jews have it at their fingertips. (As a Reconstructionist, I don’t believe in the observance of the Oral Law as the Orthodox, nor do most other Jews outside of Orthodoxy.)

But in the end, this is basically an argument I gather for Christians or ex-Christians. I was only offering a view from someone who knows and has studied Jewish history and Jewish law.

Whatever your conclusions, I only thought you might find it helpful to hear from someone who would know what laws, from the Torah and Oral Law there were.

Carry on. I was just trying to aid, not argue against. Just forget I said anything at this point.

14

Could the law abiding Jesus or his disciples have used a coin depicting Caesar?

by EdenOne in

so, i was just viewing an interview with professor yonathan adler regarding the origins of judaism as an everyday practice of the masses.

he makes a very convincing argument that the jews only became torah observants in a generalized way around the beginning of the hasmonean dynasty, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc.

you can watch the interview here:.

KalebOutWest

Because many of us grew up as Jehovah’s Witnesses or have been so influenced by the Watchtower religion, we have taken for granted what we learned from them about Judaism.

Of Jewish stock, raised for 10 years as a Witness, but not a Reconstructionist, I got a Jewish and secular education after leaving the group. In reality, the Jewish monotheistic religion as we Jews recognize it today didn’t begin until after the exile in Babylon. It was that event that shook my ancestors into believing that their national deity had abandoned them because they refused to give up polytheism. Because patriotism was religion and vice versa in those days, the Jewish exiles decided to become more "patriotic" by pledging themselves to the God of their Ancestors while away from their homeland in the hopes that they would be restored to where they once were.

While in the midst of Babylon, the priesthood of Judah began devising what is called a liturgical system based on the Levant seasonal festivals of the Fertile Crescent region and applied the events of the Deuteronomy Code to (apparently Deuteronomy was all there was to the Torah at that time). The synagogue system was devised within Babylon, and the writing of the Talmud and the Scriptures began pretty much simultaneously with neither one being considered greater than the other (there was no such thing as a “canon,” as that would be a Catholic invention of the 2nd century CE).

Actual Torah religion started once the Second Temple era began, with Nehemia and Ezra and the writing/redaction of the rest of the Torah as we know it today in Babylon and beyond. Prior to the Hellenistic invasion into Jerusalem that began the events leading to the Maccabean revolt, we finally see Judaism more or less developed as we see today. But it was never settled. It would always remain fluid and pluralistic.

The Use of a Denarius

There are no Jewish laws that prohibit the handling of coins with images of any kind on them. While the Jews themselves did not like the Romans, and even recorded how much they hated handing over their money to them, they paid and did not have any prohibitions over handling money of any type. (m. Sanhedrin 3.3; b. Sanhedrin 25b) The Gospels even show that there were “money changers” or Jews who inside the Temple regularly exchanged Roman coins for Jewish coins.--Matthew 21.12-13.

The famous interchange with Jesus at Matthew 22.15-22 was thus very possible because there was nothing uncommon for Jews of the time to handle money of this type, unless it was on a Sabbath.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

KalebOutWest

To Wonderment and everyone else,

I am embarrassed to admit that while I thought I did my homework, I failed to note that this was a pro-Jehovah's Witness, pro-New World Translation site/thread.

I apologize for my comments. My family hails from Israel. Speaking from someone who was raised from a secular point of view with just a short time in the JW world, I did play catch-up with my religious studies while I got on with the goings-on in Tel Aviv. I was writing from this standpoint of my familiarity with Jewish and Israeli life. I currently live in Las Vegas.

I cannot apologize enough for making such a mistake on this site. I am so sorry for the intrusion. I assure you it will never happen again.

20

Are you convinced what the Gospels say about Jesus is true?

by Fisherman in

probably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.

it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.

not, are you convinced; that is only belief.

KalebOutWest

punkofnice,

As a secular Jew, there is actually some reliable historical Jewish documents that help the secular to formulate a picture of the rabbi that people call "Jesus of Nazareth."

Jesus "Christ" is someone different, and you are correct that such a character as that which is described in the Gospels likely did not exist.

That figure was loosely based on the Jewish Messiah, a concept that was both post-Biblical and fluid, one that kind of crashed after the Bar Kochba revolt which began in 135 CE (and, as we all know ended in disaster). The Jews still kind of talk about the coming Messiah, but for the most part after Bar Kochba, Jews generally no longer believe it refers to the coming of a personal monarch.

The rise of the Jesus movement from the Jesus "character" has a lot to do with the history behind the rise of the Bar Kochba revolt. Christianity did not rise in a vacuum. It was a real sect of Judaism, and it arose because of a real rabbi who either claimed to be the Messiah or whose followers believed or hoped was the Messiah.

While Jesus is spoken of in rabbinic texts, written as early as the first century, they appear edited as late as the third. Whatever they said or didn't say before, they were altered to make references to the written gospel claims to things such as the virgin birth and being the "Son of God," etc. These additions may be minuscule, but do make them somewhat questionable (and funny). You see the rabbis not wanting to mention Jesus at all, but then suddenly say something like: "By the way, that Jesus fellow, his mother was a whore." And then move on to a totally different subject. Very weird. (for example, Lev. Rabbah 14.5) Some of the comments are older, some newer. It's complex.

You can tell if the comments are new by what they are. For instance, the comments about Mary are newer additions because they could only have been added after the writing, copying, and distribution of the gospel accounts. We know if the Talmud, for instance, an older writing, was tampered with if we see a comment like that added within it.

But a few comments, where Jesus is not countered exactly the same way or it is clear that the attempt to counter something in the gospels is added to a comment about Jesus, like making a sentence too long or sounding as if it was written by someone else, etc., it makes it clear that the first part might be about the real rabbi--but then that means we only have something like the name--Yeshua (Joshua or Jesus).

And, eh? So what. It makes sense. "That which is hateful to you, do not do it to another person. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary. Go study." --Hillel (Shabbat 31a)

Hillel the Elder was a famous teacher who lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod. Hillel is a historical figure. We know that Hillel was real.

Scholars believe that whoever the Jesus of Nazareth rabbi was, he was probably a student of Hillel since the Golden Rule as found in the gospels, and many of the teachings of Jesus sound almost exactly like the teachings of Hillel.

20

Are you convinced what the Gospels say about Jesus is true?

by Fisherman in

probably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.

it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.

not, are you convinced; that is only belief.

KalebOutWest

Matthew includes stories about Jesus that heavily borrows from the story of Moses, a folklore character of Judaism, that within the book of Exodus borrows from Mesopotamian hero mythology motifs such as being born into poverty, escaping infanticide, running off to the protection of Egypt, preaching law from a mountainside, etc. These details likely never historically happened to any leader of any Hebrew exodus from Egypt, but they are ancient Eastern ways of saying: "This is a deliverer." Matthew adapts these earmarks into his narrative for what appears to be a Jewish audience, marking much of his infancy narrative as mythology.

Luke's infancy narrative is also mythology. It literally changes the language from the Koine Greek of the 1st century to the Greek of the Septuagint after its introduction to Theophilus in chapter 1 through the ending of chapter 2. It includes visits from the angel Gabriel, who is featured the most in Greek Jewish texts like the expanded Book of Daniel and especially the Book of Enoch. And in the infancy narrative of Luke, the characters break out in song as if they were in a musical, something we don't see in the other gospels. This is also a clue that the author is not being literal nor even cares to be taken that way.

In Matthew chapter 21, the author has Jesus ask his disciples to get a donkey and a colt for him to fulfill the prophet's words for his ride into Jerusalem. This is obviously a mistake that the other writers do not make (see for instance Mk 11:2) and evidence that the author of Matthew was neither an eyewitness nor even Jewish. This is a poor reading of Zechariah 9:9 where the "savior" rides on "a colt, and the foal of a donkey." The "colt" and "donkey" are the same thing in this verse, written just as a poem. But "Matthew" misunderstands. Obviously, the "triumphant ride" into Jerusalem of Matthew is thus a fabrication--at least the one in Matthew. Whether the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth did it at all or did it in a way the gospel writers wanted the Christians to believe all depends.

And that is the point. The gospels are meant to be "believed."

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

KalebOutWest

Footnote:

I am separating this from the previous answer as it goes off a little bit.

The Jehovah's Witnesses making a New World Translation in Hebrew is the most stupid thing I ever heard of in my life. It is an entire Bible, not just New Testament--it contains the Hebrew canon--in modern Hebrew.

The reason for modern Hebrew was to allow modern speakers a quick and easy avenue that most in the Diaspora do not have to learn the Torah and the rest of the Jewish Bible in the original tongue.

In other words, if you live in Israel and are a religious Jew, reading the Bible in ancient Hebrew is far more simple than it is for people like me that live in an English-speaking world. That is why modern Hebrew was invented. It was to preserve, not pervert the ancient Bible--so no Jew would have to rely on a "modern" translation.

And no Israeli Jew, religious or secular, has to.

The New World Translation in Hebrew (at least its "Hebrew Scripture" section) is an idiotic misunderstanding.

And it is a cultural insult.

Again, we are dealing with idiots--people who have no academic background, who think only in two dimensions, according to one cultural standard that we must all adjust to.

I now return this thread hijack to your regularly scheduled programming.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

KalebOutWest

Thanks for the welcome, Venderhoeven7.

Earnest, while all Jews, including those of us who are secular, will use the terms "Jehovah" and "Yahweh," etc, we all recognize that none of these mean anything to us. They are Christian inventions.

"Adonai" is always read because there is no pronunciation of YHWH.

Only when reading from a Torah scroll would a Jew actually come across the Tetragrammaton or the Shem Ha-M'forash. We sometimes see it like that in a siddur (a Jewish prayerbook), but other times it is printed as a double YUD instead of the Shem Ha-M'forash altogether. Some say that the double YUD is done out of reverence, but it also saves a lot of printing space since in Hebrew each letter is square and takes up relatively the exact same space, almost.

There is no objection to using any of the current attempts of made-up YHWH names, even if you are a religious Jew. It is a cultural thing that the God of Abraham has a name that is ineffable--which is different from the claim that the name should not be used due to superstition as the Jehovah's Witnesses say.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

KalebOutWest

I'm new around here. My family was made up of secular Jews who got interested for a while in the message of the Witnesses with the 1975 message. So I was around for a brief time, shortly up to and during the Live Forever and Evolution books era, but not long after that. I currently live in Las Vegas and was never technically a JW myself (thank goodness).

The problem with attempting to place the Divine Name into the New Testament on the basis of its appearance in some LXX manuscripts is that one is basically saying the following:

"The Septuagint is Canon."

In other words: what appears in the LXX should appear in all copies of the Scriptures.

That is problematic.

But, let's say, in support of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, that we play along and just follow the rule that "if it appears in the LXX, it must belong in the Scriptures."

Well, if that's good enough for the Divine Name, then it must also go for any of those so-called Apocryphal books (that Catholics call "Deuterocanonical") that appear there.

For you see, the Septuagint is not a translation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture.

Didn't you know? There was no such thing as a Biblical canon when the Septuagint was written down in any of its versions, including the ones with the Divine Name in them. The LXX is just a collection of Jewish religious writings translated into Greek so that Greek-speaking Jews could have access to them in the Diaspora.

The reason there happen to be so many copies that differ is that became popular due to the fact that there were so many Jews and Jewish converts and even non-Jews who wanted to read Jewish literature in the ancient world. So this collection was made again and again and again. That is the way you "printed" books back then. You made handwritten copies. These would often differ as time went on due to the need or feedback from the public.

But a canon? No. (Not yet, at least.) There would not be such a thing as a canon until the 2nd century CE. And the first would be created by a Christian heretic, known as Marcion of Sinope. He was a bishop who adopted Gnostic teaching and believed that salvation could be acquired through the reading of sacred Christian texts that were free of Jewish influence. So he took a few of the apostle Paul's writings and edited down the gospel of Luke and made this the "rule" or in Greek, "canon," of what should be read for gnostic salvation. The Church, in response, excommunicated him and spent almost 300 years developing its own canon to counter the popular heresy started by Marcion.

The Septuagint was never considered authoritative among the Jews. This was because it was a translation from Hebrew--and second, because the Septuagint became the basis for the official canon during the New Testament era, especially after the Marcion of Sinope incident (the collection of Old Testament books, however, would not be officially recognized until the Canon of Trent in 1546--another story).

If whatever appears in the LXX is the original Biblical text--"canon"--and the Jehovah's Witnesses are just "restoring" what belongs there in the first place, why not restore the Apocrypha as the Catholics do to the Old Testament? Those books appear in the oldest copies of the LXX too?

Alas, no copies of the NWT have any books of the Apocrypha in them.

You see, Jehovah's Witnesses just picked the LXX as a point to say: "Here, the Divine Name is 'here.' Therefore it belongs 'there."

But the LXX was never a canonical source.

The Jews did not have a Hebrew canon until about the 10th century CE--not BCE, but 10th century CE, our modern era--when the Masoretes completed the Masoretic text. As everyone here knows the Masoretic text is the authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible (even the Jehovah's Witnesses agree). That canonical source didn't exist until our modern age.

The LXX isn't an authoritative source. The Jews don't recognize it. The oldest copies of the LXX don't have the Divine Name. When the Jewish translators were making copies, they had yet to decide had to handle it. Since Jews did not speak the name, they left it blank and merely placed dots. Later they put the name in Hebrew. Later they tried other manners, but eventually, they replaced it with the Greek word for "Lord."

It was an evolutionary process based on reader feedback. It was nothing else.

You've all made some great points yourselves. I may be off in some of mine. I am using my memory the best I can. Excuse me where I may have erred. I belong to a Humanistic Jewish community, and I am trying to put together from memory a lot of points I learned over the years that are stuck in my 55-year-old brain.