The divine name in the New Testament?

[historia]

For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.

Questions for debate:

1. Should translations of the New Testament be emended to include the divine name?

2. Should this particular verse, Roman 14:8, be emended to include the divine name?

[onewithhim]

As to the OP, let's only put YHVH where it was originally. We can think and determine from there. I don't like inserting words to God He may have not uttered.

Well, He certainly uttered the quotes that people in the New Testament made when they quoted verses in the Old Testament. Why wouldn't the Divine Name be transferred to the N.T. along with the rest of that particular quote?




("Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Shakespeare)

[Difflugia]

As to the OP, let's only put YHVH where it was originally. We can think and determine from there. I don't like inserting words to God He may have not uttered.

Well, He certainly uttered the quotes that people in the New Testament made when they quoted verses in the Old Testament.

Even if Jesus said the things in the New Testament as "certainly" as you suggest, it's not certain that he said the name of God aloud. We have evidence that unambiguously during the second century CE and that strongly suggests that by the first century, Jewish tradition prohibited saying the name of God.

Jesus seems to have been Jewish and lived during the first century. Since there are no recorded objections to his quoting of the Old Testament, he probably didn't say God's name aloud. Jesus, like the other Jews around him, referred to Yahweh as "Elohim" or "Adonai" depending on context.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 31 by historia]

In the text attributed to Philo, he "consistently uses κ��ιος as a designation for God." According to David B. Capes "the problem for this case, however, is that Christian scholars are responsible for copying and transmitting Philo’s words to later generations." (This is the same problem your other Greek examples have.)

I doubt you can find an extant manuscript of Philo's writings copied before the 5th century.
..............................
As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no extant (surviving) manuscripts of Josephus' works that were copied before the 11th century.

And your quote of his 'summary' of Ex. 17:15 is obviously not a quote by him of the actual scripture at all as found in either the Septuagint or the Hebrew scriptures.

Historia wrote:

"Josephus usually paraphrases the Old Testament rather than quotes it verbatim. But there are places where we might expect him to render the divine name but he doesn't. For example, in Antiquities 3.60, summarizing Exodus 17:15:

"Josephus wrote:

"'[Moses] offered a thanksgiving sacrifice and built an altar dedicated to God the Victorious'


"Again, there is little doubt that Josephus himself wrote 'God' here rather than a later Christian scribe, as Christian scribes would have almost certainly used kurios ("Lord") in place of the divine name instead."

It is well-known that Christian copyists have tampered with Josephus' writings (as they have done with most, if not all, their copies of other early writers).

"The implication [in Antiquities] in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ’s divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist." -
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus

How is it that your assumptions are more accurate than mine?

[onewithhim]

As to the OP, let's only put YHVH where it was originally. We can think and determine from there. I don't like inserting words to God He may have not uttered.

Well, He certainly uttered the quotes that people in the New Testament made when they quoted verses in the Old Testament.

Even if Jesus said the things in the New Testament as "certainly" as you suggest, it's not certain that he said the name of God aloud. We have evidence that unambiguously during the second century CE and that strongly suggests that by the first century, Jewish tradition prohibited saying the name of God.

Jesus seems to have been Jewish and lived during the first century. Since there are no recorded objections to his quoting of the Old Testament, he probably didn't say God's name aloud. Jesus, like the other Jews around him, referred to Yahweh as "Elohim" or "Adonai" depending on context.

Yes, Jesus was Jewish and lived here during the first century. But he didn't adhere to all the silly laws made up by the Jewish religious leaders, whom he called hypocrites and white-washed graves and snakes! (Read Matthew chapter 23.)

He chastised them for all the ridiculous things that they told the people to do. He said:

"They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger." (Matt.23:4)

Do you really think he would've followed their God-dishonoring tradition of not speaking His name? Never!

Jehovah said:

To Moses: "Tell them 'Jehovah the God of your forefathers [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation [forever].'" (Exodus 3:15, NWT, Living Bible, Young's Literal Translation, American Standard)

To Jeremiah: "So I will make them know, at this time I will make them know my power and my might, and they will have to know that my name is Jehovah." (Jeremiah 16:21)


The Jewish religious leaders made up a plethora of rules for the people to follow that had nothing to do with being from God.

[2timothy316]

As to the OP, let's only put YHVH where it was originally. We can think and determine from there. I don't like inserting words to God He may have not uttered.

Well, He certainly uttered the quotes that people in the New Testament made when they quoted verses in the Old Testament.

Even if Jesus said the things in the New Testament as "certainly" as you suggest, it's not certain that he said the name of God aloud. We have evidence that unambiguously during the second century CE and that strongly suggests that by the first century, Jewish tradition prohibited saying the name of God.

Jesus seems to have been Jewish and lived during the first century. Since there are no recorded objections to his quoting of the Old Testament, he probably didn't say God's name aloud. Jesus, like the other Jews around him, referred to Yahweh as "Elohim" or "Adonai" depending on context.

So the following scripture is a lie?

“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known.�​—JOHN 17:6, 26.

There is scriptural evidence that he said God's name. Otherwise, why didn't he say, 'I have not made you name manifest, I have not said it aloud, I didn't make your name known to them and didn't make it known'.

So which one is it? Is what we read in the Bible true or not? The above scripture is your obstacle to overcome. If you reject it as true then you lose the debate as in this forum the Bible has is the ultimate authority as a reference. viewtopic.php?t=11496

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 39 by Difflugia]

I see, that might make the numbering a little different. I am holding in my hands a 16th century (1st English edition, I believe) on parchment. The numbers line up in most spots, such as 18.3.3 where Josephus talks Of Jesus and his followers.

[Difflugia]

So the following scripture is a lie?

“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known.�​—JOHN 17:6, 26.

There is scriptural evidence that he said God's name. Otherwise, why didn't he say, 'I have not made you name manifest, I have not said it aloud, I didn't make your name known to them and didn't make it known'.

So which one is it? Is what we read in the Bible true or not? The above scripture is your obstacle to overcome. If you reject it as true then you lose the debate as in this forum the Bible has is the ultimate authority as a reference. viewtopic.php?t=11496

First, "authoritative" and "slavishly literal" are not the same thing and neither is a metaphor a lie.

Second, "The Name" and "Your Name" are used in modern Jewish prayer in exactly the same context, even though modern, observant Jews don't say the name of God. Those phrases are often used as epithets for God Himself ("May the Name help me to...").

Third, Jesus could have said and meant it far more literally than I think is necessary for "authoritative" and still not say the name of God. If Jesus were to lead all people to study the Torah, then all would know the name of God, even if none, including Jesus himself, were so careless or impious as to utter it aloud.

[onewithhim]

So the following scripture is a lie?

“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known.�​—JOHN 17:6, 26.

There is scriptural evidence that he said God's name. Otherwise, why didn't he say, 'I have not made you name manifest, I have not said it aloud, I didn't make your name known to them and didn't make it known'.

So which one is it? Is what we read in the Bible true or not? The above scripture is your obstacle to overcome. If you reject it as true then you lose the debate as in this forum the Bible has is the ultimate authority as a reference. viewtopic.php?t=11496

First, "authoritative" and "slavishly literal" are not the same thing and neither is a metaphor a lie.

Second, "The Name" and "Your Name" are used in modern Jewish prayer in exactly the same context, even though modern, observant Jews don't say the name of God. Those phrases are often used as epithets for God Himself ("May the Name help me to...").

Third, Jesus could have said and meant it far more literally than I think is necessary for "authoritative" and still not say the name of God. If Jesus were to lead all people to study the Torah, then all would know the name of God, even if none, including Jesus himself, were so careless or impious as to utter it aloud.

"Careless?" "Impious?" Have you not read any of the above posts? The banning by religious leaders of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was an absolutely unnecessary, scurrilous act.The Scriptures never called for the stifling of God's name. The Jews say that they base all that on the command, "Thou shall not take YHWH's name in vain." Uttering it is not "taking it in vain." Speaking about YHWH disrespectfully is taking it in vain. (I've heard people say "Jumpin' ----" like an expletive! That is taking His name in vain!)

So you think it is "pious" to forgo the pronunciation of God's name? I don't think so. There is absolutely ZERO Scriptural reason to blot it out of our Bible translations and to refuse to say His name.

[historia]

There is a piece of evidence you missed.

“I have made your name known . . . and will make it known.� (John 17:26)

According to this, it is most likely Jesus would have ignored the prohibition not to say God's name.

But John is not saying here that Jesus went around Judea and Galilee making the name 'Yahweh' known to his listeners. After all, the Jews already knew the name Yahweh. The prohibition against saying the name aloud outside the Temple wouldn't be necessary if people didn't already know the name.

Perhaps you are aware of the evidence that Jesus was quite well known for not following some of the so-called 'laws' of the time?

Picking grain on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1)
Not washing his hands up to the elbow. (Luke 11:38)
Not fasting. (Mark 2:18)

Indeed, I referred to this in the very post to which you are responding.

When Jesus went against the traditions and practices of the Pharisees, they criticized him for it, and the resulting conflict was then recorded in the gospels, as the examples you have cited here attest.

But think about it: If Jesus had gone around saying the divine name aloud, that would have been very scandalous and controversial with the Pharisees -- far, far more so than not washing his hands or fasting.

We would certainly expect to see that controversy recorded in the gospels. The fact that no such conflict appears in the gospels is therefore good evidence Jesus didn't go around saying the divine name aloud when quoting from scripture.

[historia]

In the text attributed to Philo, he "consistently uses κ��ιος as a designation for God." According to David B. Capes "the problem for this case, however, is that Christian scholars are responsible for copying and transmitting Philo’s words to later generations."

I already anticipated this objection and refuted it in my earlier post, of course.

In addition to quoting from scripture, Philo also comments on it. In the example I gave, you'll notice his commentary explicitly references the fact that the verse says kurios ("Lord"). There are numerous other examples of this in his writings, including places where in his commentary on a passage that says 'Lord' he goes into the etymology of the word kurios itself.

There is no serious doubt that Philo originally wrote kurios in these quotes. The author you are citing here is just ill-informed.

And your quote of his 'summary' of Ex. 17:15 is obviously not a quote by him of the actual scripture at all as found in either the Septuagint or the Hebrew scriptures.

Indeed, but neither is Matthew 22:37 (the example 2timothy316 gave in post 21) an exact quote of Deuteronomy 6:5 in either the Hebrew (i.e., MT) or the Septuagint. Authors at this time often slightly paraphrased quotes.

Josephus is paraphrasing moreso, of course, as I already mentioned in my earlier post. But we might expect him to render the divine name in the example I gave, as it is part of a place name. He doesn't, instead substituting the word "God," which a later Christian scribe would be very unlikely to do.

Moreover, as we saw in post 30, Josephus himself says he is constrained from saying the divine name. It is very unlikely he would then include it in his writings, especially when they were intended for a largely Gentile audience.

How is it that your assumptions are more accurate than mine?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The fact that Philo substituted 'Lord' for the divine name is not an assumption, it's based on an analysis of the text.

The fact that Josephus used 'God' or 'Master' in place of the divine name is also based on an analysis of the text and later Christian scribal practices, rather than assumptions.

The fact that nearly 30 Jewish texts from this time written in Aramaic -- which never passed through the hands of later Christian scribes -- don't include the divine name is based on an analysis of those text as well.

The importance of this evidence for the broader purposes of our discussion is that we cannot simply assume that the New Testament authors must have included the divine name in their texts, even when quoting directly from scripture that originally included the divine name, but also in cases when they are just alluding to or paraphrasing such passages, and especially in passages that are neither of those two things, as the one in the OP.