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?

[2timothy316]

If the name was used in the first NT Greek scriptures (as it should have been), it certainly would be abandoned by copyists at the same time they abandoned it in their Septuagint copies.

This argument just begs the question. Asserting that the divine name should have been in the New Testament writings is merely an expression of desire, not an argument from historical evidence that it was in those writings.

Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 in Matthew 22:37.

Should what Jesus quoted accurately reflect what was written in Deuteronomy? It's not a matter of want, it's matter of accuracy and truth.

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 21 by 2timothy316]
It seems to me that what some people does not like is to consider the possibility of the name of God written in the NT.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 21 by 2timothy316]
It seems to me that what some people does not like is to consider the possibility of the name of God written in the NT.

“They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baʹal.� - Jer 23:27

The above just keeps getting repeated. Interestingly enough Ba'al simply means the title 'master'. Today people forget the name Jehovah for the simple title 'god'. Satan's tactics change but the desired result is always the same.

[Eloi]

Mal. 3:6 “For I am Jehovah; I do not change. And you are sons of Jacob; you have not yet come to your finish. 7 From the days of your forefathers you have turned aside from my regulations and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,� says Jehovah of armies. (...)
13 “Your words against me have been strong,� says Jehovah.
And you say: “How have we spoken against you among ourselves?�
14 “You say, ‘It is of no value to serve God. How have we benefited by keeping our obligations to him and by walking somberly before Jehovah of armies? 15 Now we consider presumptuous people happy. Also, those who practice wickedness are successful. They dare to put God to the test and get away with it.’�
16 At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.
17 “And they will be mine,� says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between a righteous person and a wicked person, between one serving God and one not serving him.�

There are old Jews writtings accusing Jesus of doing miracles because he used the name of God. Even if they stopped using the name of God, even if it was for fear of using it inappropriately, the facts show that before they became the corrupt system they were at the time of Jesus (more than 4 hundreds of years before he was born), the name of God was profusally used even in salutations.

Ruth 2:4 And, look! Boʹaz came from Bethʹle·hem and proceeded to say to the harvesters: “Jehovah be with YOU.� In turn they would say to him: “Jehovah bless you.�

Could there have been any reason why Jesus would have stopped using his own Father's proper name? No, there is no such reason, and he said so clearly:

John 17:6 “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. 7 They have now come to know that all the things you gave me are from you; 8 because the sayings that you gave me I have given to them, and they have received them and have certainly come to know that I came out as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me forth.

... and the same way there was not any reason why his followers stop using it.

Acts 15:14 Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’

There are also Jews writtings of that time telling the Jews how to deal with the name of God appearing in non Jews writtings. So the name of God was still profussally used by other persons in that time, which indicate the Christian did so too.

[historia]

Christianity was a continuation of the adoration of the God of the Jews, not a new invention, not matter how many people think it is. You said "new literary works", and that is correct, but that is not the same as a new way to consider or refer to God.

Indeed, nobody here is suggesting that the New Testament authors suddenly stopped using the divine name because Christianity was a radical departure from the Jewish religion.

In fact, I'm making nearly the opposite point in the post you are responded to here. You may want to re-read what I wrote in that light.

[historia]

It seems to me that what some people does not like is to consider the possibility of the name of God written in the NT.

There is no need to resort to this kind of ad hominem argument. I am more than happy to conclude the New Testament writings contained the divine name if there is compelling historical evidence to that effect.

But, if folks here are simply saying that it should have been there because their theology requires that it was, that's not a compelling argument to anyone who doesn't already share those prior theological commitments.

Imagine if a Roman Catholic participant entered the thread and argued that the text should be rendered as 'Lord' because that is what appears in the Vulgate, and the Vulgate is the official text of the Church. You wouldn't find that kind of theological argument compelling, right?

Only an historical argument based on historical evidence will be compelling to everyone.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 26 by historia]

Tigger 2

If the name was used in the first NT Greek scriptures (as it should have been), it certainly would be abandoned by copyists at the same time they abandoned it in their Septuagint copies.

"But, if folks here are simply saying that it should have been there because their theology requires that it was, that's not a compelling argument to anyone who doesn't already share those prior theological commitments."

But I wasn't 'simply saying' that. I believe that if the Bible is true, that Jesus quotes of the OT, at least, should actually be quotes (what a concept!)

If the name of God was revealed nearly 7000 times in the OT, shouldn't it be expected to be found in quotes in the NT?

Furthermore the gist of what I wrote was: the Christians from about 135 A.D. took over the Septuagint (and made changes attempting to abandon all things Jewish) while the Jews abandoned it. The Christians removed the name of God from the Septuagint (replacing it with 'Lord'). Isn't it probable that they would remove the same name from the NT at this time?

So why pick out one parenthetical phrase from the entire message and concentrate on that while ignoring the actual message?

[Eloi]

[Replying to historia]
Historia said:

There is no need to resort to this kind of ad hominem argument.

BUT Historia also said to OneWithHim:

It seems to me this is merely an expression of what you want the New Testament authors to have written, rather than an historical argument for what they did write.

... and again:

Asserting that the divine name should have been in the New Testament writings is merely an expression of desire, not an argument from historical evidence that it was in those writings.

Is there any reason why you can say what it seems to you, and I can not say what it seems to me?

[Eloi]

If the question is about FACTS, there have been some facts stated in the thread by OneWithHim, 2timothy316, tigger2 and myself ...

These are facts: the Hebrew Scriptures and also their Greek translations contained the name of God in Jesus' times, so it is a fact that Jesus mentioned it here:

Luk. 4:16 He then went to Nazʹa·reth, where he had been brought up, and according to his custom on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and stood up to read. 17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.� 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.�

It is a fact that we don't have Greek manuscripts containing the name, but it is also a fact that even when nobody knew the name was in the original LXX, it really was, and that we came to know it when some manuscripts found relatively recently showed it. So the fact that we do not yet have Greek manuscripts of Christian writings that contain the name of God, is not sufficient proof that the Greek NT did not contain it and anyone who says otherwise is trying to go against evidence of many kinds which are obvious facts.

It is a fact also that there have been a practically universal tendency to make dissapear the name of God from His word even in modern times, when some Bible translators substitute the name of God for titles and barely we see it in Psal.83:18 even if it is used in almost 7000 places all around the Hebrew Scriptures ... and the Jews, the presumed witnesses of that name, do not even mention it publicly, and many do not even use the word "God" without removing a letter because of pure superstition. Not in vain we are Jehovah's Witnesses. These are facts, not simple theological bias or desire.

[historia]

Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 in Matthew 22:37.

Should what Jesus quoted accurately reflect what was written in Deuteronomy?

I can't tell you what Jesus "should" have said. However, we can examine what Jesus likely did say based on the historical evidence.

We know from several sources that, at the time of Jesus, there was a prohibition against saying the divine name aloud.

We see this as early as the first or second century B.C. in the Community Rule (4QS) found among the Dead Sea Scrolls:

If a man, in speaking about anything, mention that Name which is honored above all [names], or if, in a moment of sudden stress or for some other personal reason . . . he is to be put out and never to return to formal membership in the community.

Philo, writing in the early part of the first century A.D., in Life of Moses 2.109,114-115, mentions that the divine name, which is engraved on the diadem worn by the high priest, is only spoken aloud by the priests in the Temple and by no one else:

[T]he architect of the tabernacle next prepared a sacred dress for him who was to be appointed high priest . . . a golden leaf was wrought like a crown, having four names engraved on it which may only be mentioned or heard by holy men having their ears and their tongues purified by wisdom, and by no one else at all in any place whatever. And this holy prophet Moses calls the name, a name of four letters

Josephus, writing toward the end of the first century A.D., in Antiquities 2.276, mentions that he too is constrained from saying the divine name:

So God told [Moses] his holy name, which had never been revealed to humans before, and about which I am not free to say any more.

The Mishnah, compiled in the third century A.D., but potentially reflecting earlier accounts and traditions from the Second Temple period, confirms the above authors' descriptions:

In the Temple the name was uttered as it is written, but in the province in its substituted name.

And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and . . . Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.

Finally, as mentioned in post 18, many of the manuscripts of this time offset the divine name in a separate script, or replace it with four dots, which most likely served as an indicator to readers to not pronounce the name when reading aloud.

Given that background information, I think we can safely conclude that, in reciting this passage from Deuteronomy, Jesus most likely would have said adonai ("Lord") in place of "Yahweh," in keeping with the practice of that time.

Even if we conclude that this prohibition against saying the divine name was not universally practiced in Jesus' time, it appears to have been strictly observed and enforced by the Essenes and Pharisees. If Jesus went around saying the divine name aloud, this would have almost certainly created scandal and controversy with the Pharisees. The fact that we don't see that controversy recorded in the gospels, despite Jesus' many disagreements with the Pharisees regarding other practices and traditions, is good reason to believe Jesus did not say the divine name aloud when alluding to or reciting from scripture.

So Matthew's rendering of kurios ("Lord") here most likely reflects what Jesus actually said.