This begins as a Jewish story with Jewish evidence. Christian evidence comes later in the story. This is the first of two posts.
YHWH: this word of four letters has complex origins, pronunciations, and meanings that continue to engage scholarly discussion. But it's usually thought to express the eternity of God—that he was, he is, he shall be. That his presence shall never depart from Israel. The Hebrew name for God expresses his special covenant relationship with the Israelites.
The word ‘YHWH’ (sometimes referred to as the "Tetragrammaton" which means the four-letter word) is a Hebrew word of course. That is, written in Hebrew letters in the Hebrew Scriptures originally for Hebrew readers. And in other Hebrew texts.
In the Middle Ages, arguably, it was turned into “Jehovah” and now tends to be pronounced as “Yahweh” (by non-Jews). But this post is not about pronunciation. It is about where and when the divine name gets replaced.
We'll start
this journey in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures.
Origins of the name of God in Scripture
Exodus
3:14-15 seems to connect the divine name YHWH with the divine name given to
Moses as 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh'.
So it's a good idea to start with what ''Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh'' means, and it's something like "I am who I am". Another translation I like is "I am he who was, am and will be", as this could underlie the refrain carried into the New Testament "who was, and is and is to come". The name is given to Moses between two promises of God that "I will be with you" (Exodus 3:11-12, Exodus 4:11-12). So the name 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh', seems to reaffirm that.
Oddly, the name actually given - Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh - is never used as a name by Moses as far as we know, but Moses seems reassured by it. Using substitutes for the name of God is a practice that goes back a long way, starting even here. Although God revealed his name to Moses as Ehyeh (meaning ‘I am’) or Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (‘I am that I am’), nevertheless God indicates to Moses that the Israelites can use the name YHWH instead.
(YHWH might
have a similar meaning to Ehyeh - there is some discussion about whether YHWH
means “he is”.) The name Ehyeh is never used again for God in the Old Testament
. Instead the name YHWH is used, perhaps as a substitute for Ehyeh. Perhaps, anyway.
Biblical basis for substitutes for the divine name
For a long time, the name YHWH is used prolifically as the lead Old Testament name for God. But its usage declines in the Old Testament.
It is the case that using a substitute has the same force as using the divine name, precisely because a substitute stands for the divine name. To put it another way, the same God is referred to as El Shaddai (by Abraham), as YHWH (by Moses), and as “The Power” (by Jesus).
Kings and Chronicles: substitutes for
the divine name
The Old Testament books of Chronicles copied a lot of material, word for word to a large extent, from the books of Samuel and Kings. But the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles often use the word 'God' (‘Elohim’ in Hebrew) as a substitute where the older sources, the books of Samuel and Kings, had used the name 'YHWH'. This is very interesting.
i.e. When finding the word YHWH in Samuel and Kings, sometimes the Chronicler replaces it with the substitute word ‘Elohim’. (Other times he doesn’t use a substitute but simply copies the word ‘YHWH’ as he finds it.) Here we find the basis in scripture for substituting the divine name with another word, a harmless practice. The Chronicler wasn’t superstitious about the divine name. The Chronicler was simply happy to take a scripture source with 'YHWH' and write a new version with 'God' as a substitute.
While there
are too many examples to cite from these books, the following few are
instructive, taken from the crucial story of the dedication of the Temple of
YHWH built by Solomon. The source for the story is 1 Kings 7-8. Look for
example at 1 Kings 8:62-63, where the name YHWH appears twice, and see how it
was rewritten in 2 Chronicles 7:4-5... Whilst 2 Chronicles 7 verse 4 faithfully copies
‘YHWH’ from its source, verse 5 surprisingly substitutes ‘God’ for 'YHWH.' Here are the two
passages to compare, Kings and Chronicles.
1
Kings 8
62
And the king and all Israel with him were offering a grand sacrifice before
Jehovah.
63
And Solomon proceeded to offer the communion sacrifices that he had to offer to
Jehovah, twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep,
that the king and all the sons of Israel might inaugurate the house of Jehovah.
2
Chronicles 7
4
And the king and all the people were offering sacrifice before Jehovah.
5
And King Solomon went on offering the sacrifice of twenty-two thousand cattle
and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep. Thus the king and all the people
inaugurated the house of God.
The
difference is in the last word there.
So the Chronicler was both keeping the memory of the divine name alive whilst substituting another word for the name here and there. Other examples of substitution of the divine name, in the story of the dedication of the Temple, occur in:
2 Chronicles 5:1 (compare to 1 Kings 7:51)
2 Chronicles 5:14 (1 Kings 8:11), and
2 Chronicles 6:34 (1 Kings 8:44).
All these use the substitute word
‘God’ for 'YHWH,' except the last example which substitutes “you” for “YHWH”.
I could cite lots
of other examples. But just one more for now. Another notable instance is in
the rewriting of Nathan and David’s prayers where substitutes are used for the
divine name in 1 Chronicles 17:2 & 3 (compare with 2 Samuel 7:3 & 4),
and 1 Chronicles 17:17 (see 2 Samuel 7:19), whilst in neighbouring verses the
word ‘YHWH’ is kept or even added. The writer of Chronicles was free to do
this. Here is the former of those examples:
2
Samuel 7
3
Upon that Nathan said to the king: “Everything that is in your heart—go, do,
because Jehovah is with you.”
4
And it came about on that night that the word of Jehovah came to Nathan, saying...
1
Chronicles 17
2
Upon that Nathan said to David: “Everything that is in your heart do, for God is with you.”
3
And it came about on that night that the word of God came to Nathan, saying...
The practice
of using substitutes for the divine name, as you clearly see here, originates
in the Hebrew scriptures (not in apostacy as some have claimed!). The use of
substitutes in the Hebrew scriptures undeniably legitimises the use of
substitutes elsewhere.
As this blog post goes on, before anyone gets lost in the detail, I’d ask you to remember
this one thing: the honourable tradition of substitutions for the divine name goes back to the biblical books of Chronicles.
Psalm 53: substitutes for the divine
name
But they go
back even earlier too.
Another
example of substitution in the Hebrew scriptures may be seen in Psalm 53. This
Psalm is nearly a word for word copy of Psalm 14. A significant difference is
where Psalm 53 repeatedly substitutes "God" in place of Psalm 14’s
"Jehovah". Here are the verses in the two Psalms:
Psalm
14
2
Jehovah looked down from heaven upon the children of men,
To
see if there were any that did understand, That did seek after God.
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no
knowledge,
Who
eat up my people as they eat bread, And call not upon Jehovah?
6 Ye put to shame the counsel of the poor,
Because Jehovah is his refuge.
7a Oh that the salvation of Israel were come
out of Zion!
When
Jehovah bringeth back the captivity of his people,
Psalm
53
2 God looked down from heaven upon the
children of men,
To
see if there were any that did understand, That did seek after God.
4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge,
Who
eat up my people as they eat bread, And call not upon God?
5b Thou hast put them to shame, because God
hath rejected them.
6a Oh that the salvation of Israel were come
out of Zion!
When
God bringeth back the captivity of his people,
So that is another clear case of the biblical practice of substituting the divine name.[1]
A handful of Hebrew Scriptures:
alternatives and substitutes for the divine name
Curiously, in
the later scriptures of the Hebrew Bible, there is significantly less use of
the divine name than in its earlier scriptures.[2]
For instance, whereas in Deuteronomy, the name is used again and again, in
Daniel’s twelve chapters the name YHWH is used only in chapter 9 (around
Daniel’s prayer). In Daniel generally the preferred words are Elohim and ‘the
Most High.’
Esther and
Ecclesiastes (and perhaps Song of Songs) omit the divine name ‘YHWH’
altogether. There was some Rabbinic discussion of the status of these books but
they were accepted as canon - without God’s name.[3]
Interestingly, these are three of the five books from which the New Testament
never quotes. (The other two are Ezra and Nehemiah.)
Let’s say a
little more about the absence of the name from those Old Testament books.
Esther: the name of God is famously absent
from the book of Esther. Rabbi Ibn Ezra (11th century) suggested that this was so that non-Jews reading it would not misuse knowledge of it.
Ecclesiastes: Ecclesiastes uses Elohim as God’s
name, not YHWH. Some scholars see in Ecclesiastes’ language parallels with a
scripture dated to a time after the Babylonian Captivity, Malachi, but some
prefer to believe that it was written earlier by Solomon himself. Either way,
it is another book without the divine name.
Some editions
come up with one use of Yahweh in Song of Songs, which is a contentious
translation, but the name is otherwise absent from that book too.
The use of
the name is infrequent in Job, mainly in the prologue and epilogue.
If you press
for a reason for the decline in use of the divine name before the time of
Jesus, we must continue to look to ancient Jewish sources. The phenomenon of
scriptures that do not use the divine name directly originates in the Hebrew
scriptures.
It has been
suggested that this goes back to a sense of national disgrace over Israel due
to their exile in Babylon. Here’s a comparison. When Chesterfield Football
Supporters Society once said “we want to restore the good name of the club”, or
when Time Magazine said that in the 1930s that the US, Britain and France “took
the view that Problem No. 1 was to restore Germany's good name” this meant the name of each had been
associated with disgrace. And their good name needed to be re-established.
Likewise, God’s
name was tarnished by the exile. Israel’s sin was judged under the Babylonian
exile. The restoration of God’s name meant the name would no longer be linked
with this disgrace. Israel’s sin would be forgiven, the kingdom would be
restored to Israel, the whole world would see their salvation by Israel’s God:
this was the restoration of the name they were looking for.
Intertestamental Jewish literature: alternatives
and substitutes for the divine name
It should be
mentioned that many non-canonical Aramaic and Hebrew texts omit the divine name
altogether, so why should anyone be surprised that it is absent from canonical
texts?
There's Aristobulus.
His Greek citation of Exodus 9.3 uses 'Kurios'.
Likewise, the
Letter of Aristeas uses 'Kurios' in its Greek citation of Deuteronomy
7:18-19.
Also Philo
uses 'kurios' as an alternative to the divine name, and he was a contemporary
of Jesus.
But let’s do
some more detailed work.
We will note
three main things about intertestamental Jewish literature, focussing on the
so-called Wisdom of Solomon. And Ecclesiasticus (a text also
known as Ben Sirach). And the books of Maccabees. Why do these matter?
1) they were an inspiration to the New
Testament
2) they mentioned caution about
pronouncing the divine name before the time of Jesus
3) they substituted ‘kurios’ for ‘YHWH’ in
citing Old Testament scripture
Here is a brief
overview of this intertestamental Jewish literature, and how words are used as
alternatives and substitutes for the divine name.
2
Maccabees (dating to
about 125 BC) also has 'kurios' as divine name. eg ' the glory of the
Lord/Kurios' in 2.8. There are other examples eg in 3.33.
In the Wisdom
of Solomon (dating to about 50 BC) 'kurios' is used as an alternative to
the divine name. eg "who can comprehend the will of the Lord/Kurios"
in 9:13. There is similar in 4:17-18. This is the sort of place where you might
expect to see Jehovah instead. The Wisdom of Solomon inspired part of Paul’s
letter to the Romans, so it’s valid to take note of it. See appendix 1 below.
It also shows
us very early caution about pronouncing the divine name in Jewish circles.
The Wisdom
of Solomon 14:21 refers to ‘the ineffable name’ (NJB) or ‘the
incommunicable name’ (Greek ‘to akoinoneton onoma’). It is therefore not
surprising that this book does not feature the divine name and that kurios is
used as an alternative to YHWH.
Ecclesiasticus 23:10 (aka ‘Ben Sirach’, about 125
BC) warned that "someone who is always swearing and uttering the Name will
not be exempt from sin” (NJB). Therefore, it is not surprising that this book
does not feature the divine name.
2
Maccabees 2:8 says:
“the
glory of the Lord (‘Kurios’) will be seen, and so will the cloud, as it was
revealed in the time of Moses and when Solomon prayed that the holy place might
be gloriously hallowed.” (NJB)
This is
citing two passages, but it uses the word ‘Kurios’ where a sacred name movement
might use ‘YHWH’, as do these Bible verses:
Exodus
24:16: “The glory of Yahweh rested on Mount Sinai and the cloud covered it for
six days. On the seventh day Yahweh called to Moses from inside the cloud.”
(NJB)
1
Kings 8:11:12: “For the glory of Yahweh filled the Temple of Yahweh. Then
Solomon said: Yahweh has chosen to dwell in thick cloud.” (NJB)
The Septuagint: alternatives and substitutes
for the divine name
We can also
go back to Jewish manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible discovered from before the
time of Jesus, and also to its Septuagint (Greek) translation.
I’d like to
show similarities with another intertestamental text, the LXX Greek translation
of Isaiah 40:
Wisdom
of Solomon 9:13: “What human being indeed can know the intentions of God? And
who can comprehend the will of the Lord (‘Kurios’)” (NJB)
Isaiah
40:13 (LXX), "Who has known the mind of the Lord (‘Kurios’) ? and who has
been His counsellor, to instruct Him?" (The LXX reads τίς ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου.)
We have seen,
from literature that was an inspiration to the first generation of Christians,
that the New Testament authors would have been familiar with caution about
pronouncing the divine name and the Greek practice of using ‘kurios’ in Jewish
literature, sometimes as an alternative, sometimes as a substitute.
Dead Sea Scrolls: alternatives and substitutes
for the divine name
Let’s turn to
the Dead Sea Scrolls, from before the time of Jesus. The Qumran community who had
the scrolls - before the time of Jesus - had a clear warning: "Anyone who
speaks aloud the Most Holy Name of God … while he is reading a book or praying,
is to be expelled…"[4]
Don’t expect
to find that all surviving manuscripts of the Jewish Septuagint in the scrolls do
the same thing. They don’t. They vary their treatment of the divine name. In
the scrolls there are interesting textual variations.
I’m talking
especially about a scroll of Isaiah (1QIsaa):
- in some verses it has four dots in place of YHWH;
- in other verses it has the divine name in Aramaic,
sometimes with and sometimes without the consonants of Adonai written
above it.
This is
direct evidence that there was a reminder to ancient Jewish readers to
pronounce Adonay as a substitute for ‘YHWH’. And this is not the only
substitute evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Other
manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish manuscripts from before
the time of Jesus testify to variety, including blank spaces and substitutions.
A space might have dots instead of the name. This could serve a variety of purposes:
to avoid a risk of overuse of a scroll causing damage to the name; or lest the
reader pronounce it, leaving a cue for some readers to use a substitute such as
Adonai or Kurios if they felt they should; or to leave the space for a more
skilled scribe to add the divine name later.
That is, some
such manuscripts left a blank space in a Bible passage where the word YHWH belongs.
We find the space sometimes filled in by another hand as ‘YHWH’ – this is the
case with PapyrusFouad266 (where a later scribe missed one of the spaces and
left it blank!). But notably in Papyrus Oxyr. 656 a similar blank space has
been filled in as Kurios by a later scribe. So we see variety. The name was
not being phased out, but alternatives were acceptable. What was spoken may
depend on who was reading the scroll. A lower ranking reader might say Adonai,
a more senior one might say YHWH, but this is speculation.
In a Greek
translation of Leviticus found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (labelled 4QpapLXXLev)
the sound of the name of God is represented by the Greek transliteration ιαω
(pronounced ‘Iao’), which is telling, given that this scroll seems to make Lev 24:16 out
to be a prohibition on pronouncing the name out loud. This Greek transliteration
is found in a number of Jewish manuscripts dated to a few centuries before
Jesus.[5]
(By the way,
centuries later, the Aramaic version of Hebrew scripture known as Targum
Onqelos also seems to treat Leviticus 24:16 as prohibiting the pronunciation of
the name YHWH.)
There is an
unidentified fragment in the Dead Sea Scrolls which includes 'Kurios' preceded
by a space, suggesting its use as Jewish divine name.
(All these
things are pre-Christian Jewish writings. So by the time the New Testament
comes along, using 'Kurios' as divine name was hardly a novelty. Naturally
there were texts around with the Tetragrammaton too. But Kurios was also in use
as an alternative, and sometimes a substitute, for the divine name when the New
Testament was being written. I’ll come back to that.)
So, the
Hebrew Tetragrammaton was not the universal form for conveying the divine name.
Martin Rosel good points about this in his 2007 paper entitled The reading and
translation of the divine name in the Masoretic tradition and the Greek
Pentateuch.
The patchy
manuscript evidence is enough to demonstrate diversity in the Septuagint’s
approach to the divine name, blank spaces, substitutes, etc. This is the case
for LXX manuscripts from before and after the time of Jesus.[6]
What we do
know, based on documentary evidence:
(1)
Some,
perhaps all, old Greek texts of the Scriptures around circa 50 BC had either
"YHWH" or the transliteration "Iao". (But it is also possible
that some copies would have had "kurios" (cf. "qere"),
which some LXX experts, like Pietersma for example, think was already the
original rendering of the Divine Name in at least some parts of the LXX.)
(2)
When
Jews in their own personal Greek writings quoted from the LXX they were at
liberty to write Kurios, whether or not the LXX had YHWH or Iao.
(3)
In
some Qumran texts, Maryah (in Aramaic) substituted for YHWH.
Later, it was
Christians who were keeping the text of the Jewish LXX alive. The early
Christians received and maintained a varied manuscript tradition of the LXX,
with and without the divine name. For the avoidance of doubt, we can say that
they didn’t obliterate the divine name from the Septuagint. They preserved
variant readings of the Septuagint with and without the divine name, not least
in Origen’s famous Hexapla, and in Jerome’s work of the 4th-5th century. They
preserved what was there, without a doubt. They simply recorded varied
manuscript traditions.
As an aside,
it's worth making the point that this completely undermines a fringe idea that
the New Testament books originally featured the Hebrew word YHWH only for it to
be censored by naughty Christian scribes. This is obviously nonsense. We have
proof from Origen and Jerome that they hadn’t obliterated the name from the
Septuagint tradition of the Old Testament. So it is baseless to speculate that
they obliterated the name from the New Testament. There is no such trajectory
in early Christian texts. There was variety instead. They were unafraid to make
known the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint. This is all through
those early Christian centuries.
They would likewise
have advertised the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament – if it
had ever been there at all. Just as they preserved variant readings of the
Septuagint, they preserved variant readings of the New Testament, but the
divine name remains forever absent from every New Testament manuscript!
I’ve set out
what happened before Jesus simply as background to understand the development
of relevant Jewish practices.
Philo and Josephus: alternatives and
substitutes for the divine name in the first century AD
The trajectory,
which remember goes back to the book of Chronicles, continues. We come to the
primary witness of non-Christian Jews that they were were still cautious about
the Tetragrammaton in the first century AD. This is particularly important,
being the century and context in which Jesus preached and Jewish Christians
wrote the New Testament.
Philo used alternatives
to writing YHWH, and one of his preferred alternatives was Kurios.
Josephus like
Philo, used an alternative to writing YHWH. Josephus’s preferred alternative
was “despotes”. (Josephus may well have avoided “Kurios” as the emperor’s
title. Christians on the other hand, by using Kurios, were clearly not worrying
about offending the emperor! We’ll come to that below.)
Philo
First century
Jewish writer Philo (20BC to 50AD ie a contemporary of Jesus) lived in Egypt.
He described the divine name discreetly as “a name of four letters”, one of the
names 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.” (Philo, On the Life of Moses, II, 23)[7] That
policy is clear then. The name could be spoken, but only by the right people,
and he wasn’t going to write it down, lest it fall into the hands of the wrong
people.
Philo quotes
Leviticus 24:15-16 this way: "Whoever curses God shall be guilty of sin,
and whoever names the name of the Lord shall die.” (Philo, On the Life of
Moses, II, 37-38)[8] Strong
stuff. Obviously one could not use the name publicly amongst Jews without
serious offence being triggered, unless one had the right to do so. But if
Philo was doing this to hide the name from anyone, it was only to hide from
what he would see as barbarians. Perhaps
this was to mitigate a risk of the name being misused, whether in Jewish oaths
or in the spells of Gentile magicians who might hear it.
Philo’s Greek
writings evidence his use of Kurios as a preferred substitute for the name
‘YHWH’. This is not insignificant, as we can be confident that some early
Christians had read Philo’s Greek works. The Gospel of John, written in Greek,
presents a concept of the Word (Greek: Logos) which seems to be an answer to
Philo’s concept of the Word/Logos.
One other
thing about Philo is that he commented that “I am” was not a name, properly
speaking. (A question that often comes up.) It’s an open question whether Philo
had in mind ‘Ehyeh’ or ‘YHWH’ when making this comment. This “I am” question is
a theme taken up later by early church writers (beginning with Justin Martyr)
to whom I will return later.
Josephus
Now we come
to Josephus (born after the time of Jesus, about 37AD, and living in Jerusalem
until the war with the Roman army). He was alive throughout the time the
writings of the New Testament were written. Josephus published a self-authored
book called Antiquities of the Jews around 93AD and in it – tellingly -
he wrote that "God declared to [Moses] his holy name, which had never been
discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any
more."[9]
That is,
Josephus’ Jewish religion prevented him divulging the divine name to his Greek-speaking
readership. This echoes what Philo said at the start of that century.
In summary,
usage of the name beyond certain parameters was taboo amongst first
century Jews. This is true before during and after the time of Jesus and his
first disciples. This is true whether our research is Jerusalem-centred
(Josephus), looking at the Jewish diaspora (Philo), or even a sect (the people
who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran).
The shema
A good test
case is how the shema prayer was used. The shema in Deuteronomy goes “Hear O
Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is one.” And we have texts of the shema from around
the turn of the era (BC/AD) containing the divine name (eg the Nash papyrus,
Phylacteries at Qumran).
But Philo
tells us the name was not normally spoken aloud in that era. It is therefore
difficult to see that any other word was used in Philo’s era (which of course
was also Jesus’ era), than Adonai. That is, something like “Hear O Israel,
Adonai our God, Adonai is one.”[10]
So what did
Jesus say? Now Mark 12:29 is not a record of what was written but what was
spoken aloud by Jesus. And we know that his words brought commendation from the
Jewish scribe (Mark 12:32), not scandal. So as the Jews were happy with what
they heard, what did they hear? Presumably not the divine name.
Shem/onoma
Jewish people grew cautious about using God's name. Urbach argues that this was to avoid it being misused.[11]
We see a development in which the word "Name" (i.e. shem in Hebrew, and onoma in Greek) were substitutes for YHWH. FF Bruce recounts the Rabbinical story (found in T.Sot. 13.8) of how the names were switched.[12] According to the old story, after the death of Simon the Just (c. 200 BC) the priests no longer uttered the name YHWH in blessings In the temple except in the High Priest's blessing on the Day of Atonement. And that in scripture quotations the word YHWH came to be replaced by the Hebrew "Shem" ("name") in Jewish teaching schools.
Bruce writes that this Shem practice gave rise to odd constructions like "le-shem hasshem" ("in the name of the Name").[13]
Of course, one should not go to the opposite extreme and suppose the name to be forgotten. The evidence is that the name was in use, but not in overuse.
So let’s take
stock for a moment. Writings with and without the divine name belong in the
canon of the Bible. The Hebrew Old Testament with the name and the Greek New Testament
without the name. So anyone holding a presupposition that the divine name
automatically belongs in the NT ought to reconsider.
Now let’s turn
to Jesus.
Jesus and the Lord’s prayer
Jesus' words
are striking in that the word Yahweh is never quoted as coming from his lips.
Whatever we might like to infer about it, it is never quoted.
Even in the example
of all examples, the model prayer which Jesus taught to His disciples, it
addresses God not as Yahweh but as "our Father" (Matt. 6:9; see also
Luke 11:2). It actuall y says, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.”
Notably, it doesn’t say “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name Yahweh.” There
is no instruction that disciples should use the divine name. It is thus implied
that God has a name without actually pronouncing it. Everyone is happy it seems.
Jesus gave us the finest example of how to address God as "Father," not
as by the divine name it seems.
If Jesus
wanted the name to be pronounced, this is the moment when the name had to be
used – in prayer just as it was used in Daniel chapter 9, in probably Jesus’
favourite book of the Hebrew Bible. It doesn’t happen.
If ever there
was a time to teach people to call upon the divine name in prayer, that was it
– and this I think is the main thing - this was the moment of moments when
Jesus was being asked specifically how one should pray, and Jesus directed them
to do something precisely other than pronouncing the divine name. That was the
opportunity. Would some prefer to pray “Yahweh in heaven, hallowed be your
name”? If so, they should think on why Jesus commanded them to pray differently
and led by example. Not once in Jesus' long prayer in John 17 does Jesus use the
word Yahweh, but often uses the word "Father" (John
17:1,11,21,24,25).
Jesus
practiced what he preached and prayed to “Abba, Father”. To speak of God as
Father was already accepted in Jewish circles, and Jesus taught his disciples
to pray that way. So Jesus does the best thing in that community, teaching a
way of addressing God (as Father), while acknowledging God has a name without
pronouncing it. A matchless model for ministering in a sensitive situation.
In summary, when
Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, he taught them specifically to address
God as "Our Father," and in John 17, Jesus does not appeal to anyone
but "Righteous Father" (v 25). In the New Testament, in a very real
sense, Father is the "name" of God for believers, those who by the
Spirit cry out, "Abba, Father!" (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6)
Jesus criticises the traditions of men, the ones to which he objected, traditions that were burdens on people (Math 15:1-6; Mark 7:1-13). He mentioned the ones that bothered him (to do with Korban and Sabbath). He left off his list the tradition of caution as to the divine name. This is noteworthy. He didn't list as a problematic human tradition.
In the
turbulent world of first century Jews, the century of Philo and Josephus, such an
act as openly pronouncing the divine name would hardly go unnoticed. The reaction
of the sensitive Jewish community would have been a story worth recording. The gospels
provide places where this would naturally fit. It doesn’t happen anywhere.
Jesus doesn’t
criticise anyone’s traditions about the name and no-one criticises his. Silence
is all. The divine name simply doesn’t appear on his lips or theirs, anywhere in
the Greek scriptures.
Jesus and alternatives
Note also how
in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:21), Jesus has the son saying, “I
have sinned against heaven…” - using the word “heaven” as an alternative to the
divine name.
Note also how
Jesus uses “The One” in Matthew 23:19.
Note also
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26:64 about the Son of man “sitting at the right
hand of Power.” Jesus is clearly using the word “power” as an alternative to the
divine name, given that he is taking his words from Psalm 110:1. It’s a
substitution, or at least use of an alternative. It’s striking. Jesus was on
trial for his offences. Consider the febrile scene. A list of offences was
brought up against Jesus by the Jewish authorities: such as prophesying against
the temple; claiming to be a king. But no accusation of misusing the divine
name? It’s interesting that uttering the divine name without due authority is
one charge they had no cause to bring against him. They presumably never heard
him use it.
Jesus wasn’t
wrong to use a substitute for the name of God, surely. Here is another striking
example. Consider how Jesus used Psalm 110:1, the OT verse most cited in the
NT: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: Sit at my right hand” (NWT)
In Matthew
26:64 (cf Mark 14:62) Jesus takes these words and says: “sitting at the right
hand of …” (NWT) So how did Jesus end that phrase? Following the OT, Jesus
could naturally have said “sitting at the right hand of Jehovah”. But Jesus
used a substitute instead of the divine name, so what Jesus said was “sitting
at the right hand of power” (NWT). And you see the same thing in Mark 14:62.
Why do you think Jesus used a substitute for the divine name? And was he wrong
to do so?
Jesus
commanded us to address God as “Father”, not “Jehovah” (Matthew 6:9), at the
same time explicitly acknowledging the “name” that is not pronounced (in any of
these examples).
Using
substitutes for the divine name is a scriptural
practice. Even Jesus does it.
We ought to
consider whether Jesus said Adonai, or the Greek Kurios, for ‘Lord’ instead of
the divine name. Not considering this would be unserious. In the Greek New
Testament, you frequently see Jesus saying Kurios, and never Yahweh. You have
to consider seriously that this is a fair representation of him. This makes it
difficult to resist the conclusion that when speaking in Hebrew, Jesus said
Adonai, rather than the divine name. (Note also the absence in the gospels of
any raised eyebrows from Jews at hearing the divine name pronounced outside its
prescribed limits.)
Note also
Jesus’ occasional grammatical use of the divine passive. For example,
beatitudes such as "blessed are those who mourn" are in the passive
voice. God is not named in it.
Jesus and oaths
Naturally ordinary
Jewish people taking oaths would be left wondering which substitutes for the
divine name to treat as binding in their oaths, if they were circumspect about
using the divine name. Jesus speaks into that question.
Exodus 20:7
is sometimes cited as creating an expectation that the name would be pronounced
in oaths. The obvious place to see an application is in Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus
teaching about oaths.
The divine
name had been used in Jewish oaths, and then substitutes had been used in oaths.
So it might be a place where Jesus could encourage people to say “Yahweh” but…
not so. Oaths were a subject of some debate for rabbis. Here Jesus clamps down on
oaths so strongly that he will not allow people to use even substitutes for the
divine name precisely because God is still the referent when substitutes are
used, which point Jesus makes clear enough in Matthew 23:21-22.
Only the
words “yes” and “no” are permitted by Jesus in oaths. By clamping down effectively
on pronunciation of substitutes as well as the divine name in oaths, the risk
of misusing the divine name by oath-breaking is avoided. To Jesus, there is an
equivalence between alternatives and the divine name (once used in oaths)
because both refer to their God. That is, Jesus indicates that whether one
replaces the word Yahweh with Adonai or a term further removed, such as ‘heaven’,
it still refers to God and God is still invoked.
And so the
warning in Exodus 20:7 is satisfied by avoiding invocation of God in any way,
and simply saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’.[14] So
we know which way Jesus is leaning here. For Jesus here, avoiding use of the
name is precisely not misuse of the name here.
Jesus and the Isaiah scroll
We come to Luke
4:17-18, where a scroll is handed to Jesus:
“So
the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed him, and he opened the scroll and
found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor…”
As we know, we can’t automatically assume that this scroll had the divine name written on it. Let's assume anyway that the scroll was written in Hebrew, and not in Aramaic or Greek. This scroll may have featured dots, or YHWH, or Iao (Greek ιαω), or a blank space where the name would fit, as we have seen.
We don’t know whether or not any particular reader speaking in Hebrew on that day, holding that particular scroll, would choose to say out loud Yahweh or Adonai or something else. What we do know is that we have the story in Greek only, and in this gospel, Jesus uses a substitute here, the Greek word Kurios. If the gospel author though Jesus had said YHWH, then the gospel author could have represented this in his Greek text as ιαω. But he didn't, the gospel author wrote Kurios (Greek κυριος). Which could mean that the gospel author thought or assumed that Jesus had said Adonai. This would be pretty significant. Here is Jesus definitely reciting scripture and the gospel definitely portrays him using a substitute, not saying YHWH.
But what text of Isaiah was Jesus actually reciting? The quote from Isaiah, which is in the Greek language in Luke's gospel, generally reflects the text of the Greek Septuagint, while in part agreeing with the content of the later Hebrew Masoretic Text against the Septuagint. and in part differing from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. And finally, Jesus adds a line from Isaiah 58:6 into his quote. We can’t really insist that this scroll had YHWH on it, given all that. But even if it did, the gospel author tells the story as if Jesus used a substitute. And that's the only direct evidence we have to go on in this case.
In the next
post, I’ll say more about what the New Testament authors do, how they were really quite innovative, which drawing on the tradition of substitutes that goes back to Chronicles. And how things
developed in the centuries that followed.
My research
for this article was rather a long time ago. My apologies to any sources I have
forgotten. If you see this and let me know who are, I’ll add a credit. (I’ll
also fix the rather messy footnotes!)
Appendix 1
The Wisdom
of Solomon inspired part of Paul’s letter to the Romans, so it’s valid to
take note of it. Here are some examples.
Romans
Here’s just a
few examples. Compare here:
Wisdom
of Solomon 13.5: "From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a
corresponding perception of their Creator"
Romans
1.20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead”
And compare
here:
Wisdom
of Solomon 13.8-9: "Yet again, even they cannot be excused, for if they
had the power to know so much that they could investigate the world, how did
they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things"
Romans
1:20-21: “so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God,
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
And compare
here:
Wisdom
of Solomon 14:24-26: "They no longer keep either their lives or their
marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one
another by adultery, and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and
deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury, confusion over what is
good, forgetfulness of favors, pollution of souls, sex perversion, disorder in
marriage, adultery, and debauchery."
Romans
1:26-31: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
women did change the natural use into that which is against nature… God gave
them over to a reprobate mind… filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity…”
And compare
here:
Wisdom
of Solomon 15.7: "out of the self-same clay he models vessels intended for
a noble use and those for a contrary purpose"
Romans
9.21: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
See the
pattern? There’s more there too, but let’s move on from Romans for now to
Colossians for more of the same.
Colossians
Here is more
of how Paul was influenced by relevant intertestamental literature, showing
that it’s valid to take account of them in this study. Compare here:
Wisdom
of Solomon 7:26 [Wisdom is] “a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an
image of his goodness.”
Colossians
1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God...”
Wisdom
of Solomon 1:14 "for he created all things that they might exist"
Colossians
1:16 “...by him all things were created…”
Wisdom
of Solomon 1:7” ...that which holds all things together knows what is said...”
Colossians
1:17 “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
See where
Paul got some inspiration from?
You may be
interested to know that Paul’s interest in such literature also extends to
Ecclesiasticus – see Corinthians here.
Corinthians
Again, here
is more of how Paul was influenced by relevant intertestamental literature,
showing that it’s valid to take account of them in this study. Compare here:
Ecclesiasticus
1:4: “Wisdom existed before all things...”
1
Corinthians 2:7: “...wisdom that God predestined before the ages....”
Ecclesiasticus
1:6: “To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed?”
1
Corinthians 2:10: “God revealed these things to us...”.
Ecclesiasticus
1:10: “...he has given [wisdom] to those who love him.”
1
Corinthians 2:9: “...which God has prepared for those who love him.”
Ecclesiasticus
1:15: [Wisdom] “has built an eternal foundation among men...”
1
Corinthians 3:10: “...as a wise architect I laid down a foundation....”
Ecclesiasticus
2:5: “Gold is tested in the fire....”
1
Corinthians 3:12-13: “And if any man builds upon the foundation with gold or
silver or precious stones..., it is to be revealed in fire.”
Footnotes
[1] It is interesting to note that the
Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible does not allow that this was a choice of the author
of the Psalm, and in four places changes the word “God” to “Jehovah”, to
enforce conformity with Psalm 14, as follows:
Psalm 53 (NWT)
2 As for God, he has looked down from heaven itself upon
the sons of men,
To see whether there exists anyone having insight, anyone
seeking Jehovah.
4 Have none of the practicers of what is hurtful got
knowledge,
Eating up my people as they have eaten bread? They have
not called even upon Jehovah.
5b You will certainly put [them] to shame, for Jehovah
himself has rejected them.
6 O that out of Zion there were the grand salvation of
Israel!
When Jehovah gathers back the captive ones of his people
[2] Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor: ‘Yahweh:
The Divine Name in the Bible’ page 7-8.
[3] “Defilement of the hands,
canonization of the Bible, and the special status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and
Song of Songs.” In Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought,
1995, Broyde: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17155566.html
[4] Charter of a Jewish Sectarian Association,
Dead Sea Scrolls. Wise, Abegg & Cook. pg 135.
[5] David B. Capes. ‘YHWH texts and
Monotheism in Paul’s Christology’ in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism
. pg 121-123.
[6] For a fascinating scholarly
discussion of this, see http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-09/27824.html
and http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-09/27823.html
[7] Philo, On the Life of Moses, II, 23. See:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book25.html
[8] Philo, On the Life of Moses, II, 37-38.
See: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book25.html
[10] Stephen M. Wylen. The Jews in the
Time of Jesus: An Introduction. pg 86. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael
and https://www.scribd.com/document/78096694/Troyer-Names-of-God
[11] The Sages: The World and Wisdom of
the Rabbis on the Talmud. Harvard University Press; 3rd edition (September
1987), 126-131.
[12] FF Bruce "Name" in The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
[13] You can
find this FF Bruce quote at https://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03ex.html
[14] For more on this, see an interesting
Mennonite article here: http://www.goshen.edu/facultypubs/Oaths.html
