Nehemia Gordon and the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton

by gubberningbody 92 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Narkissos, thanks for that reference, it was the minim I was thinking of, which expression I undderstand includes the Jewish Christians as well as other non-conformists of Jewish tradition. The Toledoth Yeshu is a Jewish polemic of the Gospel accounts which dates back to the fifth century and possibly earlier. It caricatures the Gospel accounts and so, for example, Jesus' virgin birth is explained as illegitimate by a Roman soldier, ben Pandera. There are a number of versions of this polemic but for the interest of the board I have copy and pasted one of them with those references to the use of the divine name in bold. While some of it seems quite silly most of the caricatures can be identified as early criticisms of Jesus by the Jews and pagans (notably Celsus). For this reason it does seem to me that the many references to Jesus' use of the divine name must have some element of truth.

    The Genealogy (Toledoth) of Jesus

    In the year 3671 in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah.

    Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing.

    At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will.

    Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam. Whereupon Yohanan went to Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah and related to him the tragic seduction. Lacking witnesses required for the punishment of Joseph Pandera, and Miriam being with child, Yohanan left for Babylonia.

    Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu. On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition.

    One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee.

    After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God's Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten.

    Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters.

    He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, "I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'" He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, "David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: 'The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'"

    The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest.

    When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah.

    The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: "This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone." Yeshu replied, "The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,' and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says 'Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.'"

    Queen Helene asked the Sages: "What he says, is it in your Torah?" They replied: "It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: 'And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.' He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah."

    Yeshu spoke up: "Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead." A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: "This is a true sign." She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu's dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel.

    Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him.

    The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: "Wage no battle." He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment.

    Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done.

    When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: "It is spoken of me, 'I will ascend into heaven.'" He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone.

    The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them. Because of this deed of Judah they weep on the eve of the birth of Yeshu.

    Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name.

    Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover.

    Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages.

    Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree." They buried him outside the city.

    On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.

    Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu's followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, "This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven." Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.

    The disciples went out among the nations--three went to the mountains of Ararat, three to Armenia, three to Rome and three to the kingdoms buy the sea, They deluded the people, but ultimately they were slain.

    The erring followers amongst Israel said: "You have slain the Messiah of the Lord." The Israelites answered: "You have believed in a false prophet." There was endless strife and discord for thirty years.

    The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed toe them: "I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done."

    Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, "Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth." They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end.

  • gubberningbody
  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    "I think it is entirely plausible that NT fragments will be discovered one day with the divine name."

    But in the meantime don't we have to treat this on the evidence we have available? Surely if this was so important an issue to God and 2 Tim 3:16 is to be trusted then He would have ensured such NT fragments were discovered long before now.

    I think the explanation is that Jehovah only intended the tetragrammaton to be his personal name for his covenant people, the Israelites. It was his OT name, for his OT people. When that special relationship ended, God intended use of the tetragrammaton to fade away. From Jesus onward he was no longer just the God of the Jews, for whom alone the tetragrammaton had such an intimate application; He was to now be the God of the whole world. And he was not just to be a God to Christians but now their "Father", with them to be his "sons"; this kind of familial relationship between God and humans never really existed between YHWH and the Israelites as such. That is why Jesus mostly addresses God as "Father". And the Father loves the Son so much and rewarded him so greatly that he effectively gave the Son his "name". That's why Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:9 say what they do. (Unfortunately trinitarians confuse this with identity by blasphemously claiming that YHWH is Jesus). Acts 4:12 and Phil 2:9 explain why some passages in the OT that are speaking of YHWH are applied to Jesus in the NT.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Earnest:

    Thanks for the quote: the Toledoth Yeshu` is a fascinating read in many respects (the "writing" part I vaguely remembered had to do with the acquisition of the name from the temple, and the connection of its oral use with "letters" that could be defiled, resulting in loss of power and the necessity of recovering the written name); however I'm surprised by your high datation of this text; I would rather have located it around 1000 AD... (not to be confused with the Talmud baraitha(s)).

    slimboyfat:

    Is not the LXX fragment of Leviticus dated to the first century BCE that contains the transliteration IAW proof that at least some Jews were regularly pronouncing the divine name at that time?

    Certainly. The question is which Jews and in which context. Priestly use was probably unaffected by Pharisaic tradition. Esoterical and magical use of many kinds actually benefited from it.

    Given that this MS was produced around the time Jesus was alive is it not entirely plausible that Jesus may also have pronounced the divine name, at the very least when reading it from the scrolls such as in Luke 4?

    This is a question about the historical Jesus, not the NT. The exclusively-Lukan scene of Jesus reading and commenting the LXX in the "Nazareth Synagogue" is one of the worst starting points to this issue -- and it happens to be the only case in the Gospels where Jesus is reading anything if I'm not mistaken. Now a magical use of the divine name by a miracle-worker would be quite likely, although totally undocumented about Jesus prior to middle-ages Jewish sources. There are many abracadabra-like Aramaic transliterations in Mark's miracle stories, but no divine name is involved. In fact, the absence of any invocation in Jesus' exorcisms and healings is remarkable when compared to the contemporary miracle stories (in Josephus, for instance). Prayer (and fasting) is only mentioned in the last miracles, which makes sense within the Markan scheme of increasing difficulty in miracles.

    There is very good evidence that the tetragrammaton may have been used in the original NT books.
    The NT is not Christocentric, it is clearly Theocentric, because Jesus is everywhere presented as the gate to God the Father, not the end in himself.

    To me such a sweeping statement doesn't make much sense. This must be narrowed down to specific texts.

    The application of the title Lord to Jesus does not indicate he has taken the place of Jehovah, not even in passages like Romans 10.

    Indeed, it's much more complicated than that (as must have been explained a thousand times). Paul calls Jesus kurios (including in quotations where kurios stands for YHWH) but distinguishes kurios from theos. Of course this is only Pauline use, not to be carried over to other texts.

    There is little evidence that Lord was widely used as a title for God at all when the NT was composed.

    There is much. Leolaia has made a detailed post on the evidence for kurios in pre-Christian LXX quotations. Philo, On the Change of Names, § 10ff, comes to mind.

    Many passages that appear to confuse the Lord Jesus and God the Father make much better sense if we allow that the tetragrammaton stood in the original and was lost early in the transmission.

    Which? I would grant that it could make sense (not necessarily better) in some of Matthew's quotes for instance. Only most of them come from Mark where it would probably make less sense.

    I think it is entirely plausible that NT fragments will be discovered one day with the divine name. Boy the triumphalism in the copy of the WT for that month would be something to behold.

    I would certainly not rule the possibility out. But WT hysteria aside, that would be only one more datum to integrate to the existing data which textual criticism works on. One fragment would at best prove one edition of one text -- not "the original," let alone "the NT originals" (as if that should mean anything). And so far it's still 100 % scholarship fiction.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Narkissos, the oldest extant copies of the Toledoth Yeshu were found in the Cairo Genizah and Agobard, archbishop of Lyon, refers to just such a polemic in his work against the Jews De Judaicis Superstitionibus et Erroribus written in 826. William Horbury, one of the foremost scholars of Toledoth Yeshu, concludes in The Trial of Jesus, (ed. Ernst Bammel, 1971, p.106) :

    It seems safe to conclude that, while various elements are witnessed from an early date, the account as a whole is known by the beginning of the ninth century.

    I got the date of the fifth century by a work written by H.J. Schonfield who associated it with the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' and suggested the various elements had already been collated by the fifth century. Whether this is the case or not I am not certain but I do think the elements related to the use of God's name certainly go back that far. Interestingly [as a last resort :)] Wikipedia refers to The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Michael Maas, 2005, p.406 where it apparently asserts that it was in book form by the fourth century at the earliest or in or around the sixth century.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    The tetragrammaton is represented in a wide variety of ways in the LXX MSS that contain the name, e.g. Iaó, distorted paleo-Hebrew characters, double yods, etc. This variety in form imo better supports the view that the name was inserted at different times in different ways than the theory that the name was original to the LXX. That the LXX assimilated itself to the MT over time is also well-attested in many other aspects of the text. And, as mentioned by Narkissos above, early quotations of the LXX by pre-Christian writers and in the NT do not point to the originality of the tetragrammaton.

    But the use of ΙΑΩ in 4QLXXLev b in particular doesn't appear to be very original. Unlike the forms written in paleo-Hebrew characters (which obscure the actual pronunciation of the name), ΙΑΩ is expressly a form that approximates the spoken pronunciation of the name and which can be read aloud. But unlike the MT, the LXX presents the commandment in Leviticus 24:16 as explicitly forbidding the uttering of the name of God and the substitution of kurios is a logical consequence of this:

    MT: "He that curses (nqb) the name of Yahweh (yhwh), he shall surely be put to death".

    LXX: "But he that names (onomazón) the name of the Lord (kuriou), let him die the death".

    Unfortunately, this passage is not extant in 4QLXXLev b but the LXX wording unanimously attested elsewhere is certainly one aimed at forbidding the pronunciation of the name and it would have been strange for the LXX "original" of Leviticus to have placed within this very passage the common pronouncable form of the name. Moreover there is evidence of a Hebrew Vorlage of this version in the paraphrase of Leviticus 24:16 in the Qumran Community Rule (second century BC): "Whoever mentions aloud the name honored above all ('shr yzkyr dbr b-shm h-nkbd `l kwl) whether blaspheming or suddenly overtaken by emotion or for any other reason, or by reading a book or blessing, shall be excluded from the community" (1QS 6:27-7:1). Notice how this paraphrase avoids the name by referring to it as the name honored above all instead of "the name of YHWH". The LXX version was also probably attested by Philo of Alexandria (first century AD), who was otherwise dependent on the LXX: "[The name] may only be said (legein) or heard by holy men having their ears and tongues purified by wisdom and by no one else in any place whatsoever ... If anyone even dares to utter the name improperly (tolméseien akairós phthegxasthai t'ounoma), without even blaspheming against the Lord of gods and men, he must endure the punishment of death (thanaton hupomeinató tén dikén)" (De Vita Mosis 2.114, 206).

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    For this reason it does seem to me that the many references to Jesus' use of the divine name must have some element of truth.

    Earnest....I disagree. The references to Yeshu's use of the divine name in the Sefer Toledot Yeshu are part of the book's overall polemic. They have in view the frequent use of the tetragrammaton in magic spells, particularly Egyptian magic (cf. especially Iaó in the Papyri Graecae Magicae corpus and Iaó and Yawe in gnostic literature), e.g. "Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the ineffable name and the leper was healed". The polemic that Yeshu was a magician or sorcerer occurs in talmudic literature (b. Sanhedrin 107b, b. Sota 47a, t. Shabbat 11.15, b. Shabbat 104b), and the story in b. Sanhedrin 107b is a clear precursor to the Toledot Yeshu version, containing the "ben Pantera" legend and the setting in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. Yeshu's use of the divine name is presented as blasphemous and the lawful basis for the magician's execution.

    It is also rather hazardous to infer anything about Yeshu in these late Jewish works as reflecting genuine traditions of the historical Jesus. That is because Yeshu is a composite figure conflating "ben Pantera" and "ben Stada" traditions with Jewish-Christian traditions of Jesus and Simon Magus (and probably also early anti-Christian polemic). The setting of the story in the reigns of Alexander Jannaeus and Salome (confused with Helena of Adiabene from the first century AD?) is one clue that maybe another figure lies behind this Yeshu; another is the possible connection between the "ben Stada" traditions and Josephus' accounts of the sign prophet from Egypt who caused trouble in Jerusalem in AD 56 (Bellum Judaicum 2.261-263, Antiquitates 20.169-172; cf. Acts 21:38). There were rabbinical debates on whether ben Stada and ben Pantera were the same person.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Leolaia,

    Here is a handy page showing all the different ways the tetragrammaton was represented in early LXX MSS.

    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/tetragram.jpg

    This variety in form imo better supports the view that the name was inserted at different times in different ways than the theory that the name was original to the LXX.

    Why? Skehan has argued (P.W. Skehan, 'The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll and in the Septuagint', Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 13 [Cleveland State University, 1988], pp. 28-35.) that IAW was in the original LXX, and was replaced in the first century BCE by the tetragrammaton in Aramaic letters, then in the early first century CE the tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew script was used, and later KURIOS replaced the divine name in the LXX. That seems a fair reconstruction based on the external MS evidence. But whatever the progression in treatment of the divine name the one conclusion that the external evidence does not support is that KURIOS was used in the original LXX, or at all before the second century CE. That is why Pietersma relied on internal clues rather than external evidence in making his case that the original LXX used KURIOS where the tetragrammaton appears in the MT. But Furuli explains how subsequent discoveries have fatally undermined even that avenue of argumentation for KURIOS in the original LXX:

    [Pietersma] took the text of the Pentateuch in the later manuscripts of the Septuagint as a point of departure. In the Hebrew text, several hundred times we find the preposition le ("to") connected with the tetragrammaton. He argued that in the later Septuagint manuscripts we find this construction rendered as to kurio ("to the Lord") in the dative case, and to be able to give this rendition where the Hebrew text has le connected with the tetragrammaton, the manuscripts with to kurio must have been translated from Hebrew originals. If they were translated from Greek manuscripts containing the tetragrammaton not marked for case, they would not know where to supply to in the dative case.
    After Pietersma published his article, various Greek texts from among the Dead Sea Scrolls were published. In Zechariah 9:1 in 8HevXIIgr to is clearly seen before the tetragrammaton in Old Hebrew script, and in Zephaniah 1:6 it is reconstructed on the basis of the length of the line. This shows that to kurio very well could have been rendered on the basis of Greek manuscripts with the divine name. So Pietersma's argument is invalid. [footnote: In a lecture at the congress of The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, in Oslo, August 1998, Emanual Tov argued that Pietersma's point was invalid. Pietersma himself was present during the lecture.] Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation (1999), pages 166-167.

    The available evidence strongly suggests that various forms of the divine name were used in the early transmission of the LXX, and that KURIOS did not appear in the text, as Paul Kahle long ago maintained, until Christians substituted it for the divine name, probably beginning sometime in the second century CE.

    That the LXX assimilated itself to the MT over time is also well-attested in many other aspects of the text.

    The interesting thing is that the tetragrammaton appears in all the fragments of the LXX earlier than the second century CE where sections of the text containing the divine name are preserved. This is regardless of whether the fragments in question exhibit other Hebraising tendencies, such as is the case Minor Prophets Scroll or the Deuteronomy fragments, or whether the fragment represents a more typical LXX text such as with the Leviticus fragment or the fragment from Job.

    And, as mentioned by Narkissos above, early quotations of the LXX by pre-Christian writers and in the NT do not point to the originality of the tetragrammaton.

    This line of argumentation in a sense proves too much, because in fact were it not for the fragmentary evidence for the tetragrammaton in the early LXX, quotations of the LXX from other early writers (as they have come down to us) don't give direct evidence for tetragrammaton in the LXX at any stage. This goes to show that they don't represent a reliable witness to the presence or absence of the divine name in LXX before the second century CE. And although Philo avoids use of the tetragrammton on philosophical grounds his discussion of the subject suggests his awareness of the four-character divine name from the LXX text he consulted:

    And this holy prophet Moses calls the name, a name of four letters, making them perhaps symbols of the primary numbers, the unit, the number two, the number three, the number four: since all things are comprised in the number four, namely, a point, and a line, and a superficies, and a solid, and the measures of all things, and the most excellent symphonies of music, and the diatessaron in the sesquitertial proportion, and the chord in fifths, in the ratio of one and a half to one, and the diapason in the double ratio, and the double diapason in the fourfold ratio. Moreover, the number four has an innumerable list of other virtues likewise, the greater part of which we have discussed with accuracy in our dissertation on numbers. On the Life of Moses II. 115
    and above this cidaris is a golden leaf, on which an engraving of four letters was impressed; by which letters they say that the name of the living God is indicated, since it is not possible that anything that it in existence, should exist without God being invoked; for it is his goodness and his power combined with mercy that is the harmony and uniter of all things. On the Life of Moses II. 132

    It is not surprising that Philo was aware of the tetragrammaton from the copies of the LXX he consulted since all the fragmentary evidence suggests that copies of the LXX in this period contained the divine name. He was clear that his objection to naming God was based on his philosophy, not on any presumed absence of the divine name from the LXX as it existed in his day.

    But the use of ΙΑΩ in 4QLXXLev b in particular doesn't appear to be very original. Unlike the forms written in paleo-Hebrew characters (which obscure the actual pronunciation of the name), ΙΑΩ is expressly a form that approximates the spoken pronunciation of the name and which can be read aloud. But unlike the MT, the LXX presents the commandment in Leviticus 24:16 as explicitly forbidding the uttering of the name of God and the substitution of kurios is a logical consequence of this:
    MT: "He that curses (nqb) the name of Yahweh (yhwh), he shall surely be put to death".
    LXX: "But he that names (onomazón) the name of the Lord (kuriou), let him die the death".
    Unfortunately, this passage is not extant in 4QLXXLev b but the LXX wording unanimously attested elsewhere is certainly one aimed at forbidding the pronunciation of the name and it would have been strange for the LXX "original" of Leviticus to have placed within this very passage the common pronouncable form of the name.

    Leolaia I think your reasoning is clearly back to front here. The passage as you quote it is attested in late copies of the LXX where the tetragrammaton was already removed. As you hint, it would be remarkable indeed if the same phraseology was used in the earlier copy of the LXX which contained the form IAW because it would present a glaring contradiction. The early fragment containing the form IAW reasonably casts doubt on the originality of the received LXX reading of Leviticus 24:16, which is presumably only attested in MSS from the late second century CE at the earliest, not the other way round.

    Moreover there is evidence of a Hebrew Vorlage of this version in the paraphrase of Leviticus 24:16 in the Qumran Community Rule (second century BC): "Whoever mentions aloud the name honored above all ('shr yzkyr dbr b-shm h-nkbd `l kwl) whether blaspheming or suddenly overtaken by emotion or for any other reason, or by reading a book or blessing, shall be excluded from the community" (1QS 6:27-7:1).

    Is an early variant Hebrew text for Leviticus the best explanation here? What is presented would be a paraphrase as you say, and you assume that the Hebrew text was therefore changed before this point, and then the tradition of avoiding pronouncing the divine name built up around it. But the reverse seems more likely. Rather this passage from the Community Rule probably indicates the early stage in a tradition of avoiding the divine name, which later resulted in a change in the Bible text. Is the practice of the Qumran community of avoiding the divine name likely to have been typical anyway? We know that in other respects they were probably atypical and not reprentative of wider Jewish practice.

    In addition to the Leviticus fragment that indicates the divine name was pronounced, Furuli produces interesting evidence from the Minor Prophet Scroll that the tetragrammton was pronounced when it was encountered in the text and was not substituted by kurios at that stage:

    8HevXIIgr is not far removed in age from the manuscripts with IAO and with the tetragrammaton in Aramaic letters; most experts give it a somewhat younger age. In Micah 1:2 this manuscript has the Greek word kurios as a translation for the Hebrew adonai in a verse where the tetragrammaton in old Hebrew letters also occurs. This is important because the traditional view is that the Jews substituted the tetragrammaton with adonai ("Lord") and this was the reason why the Jews used kurios ("Lord") instead of the tetragrammaton. Commenting on this passage, Tov expresses his belief that the manuscript probably distinguished between the tetragrammaton and adonay. And this of course strongly suggests that the tetragrammaton was not pronounced as kurios. If this is true, then the reader would have read kurios kurios in this verse, and that is not likely. Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation (1999), page 168.

    This provides an interesting contrast with the later palimpsest MS of Aquila's version from the fifth/sixth century CE, that contains the tetragrammaton, and what readers evidently pronounced when they encountered the tetragrammaton in the text at that time. This MS generally represents the tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew letters, but in one instance where the scribe did not have room to fit the tetragrammaton into the line he used KU, the shortened form of KURIOS. This indicates that while the Jews retained the divine name in written form at that stage, they read it as "Lord". This of course is not surprising of Jews in the fifth century CE. But what is interesting is that such textual indications that the tetragrammaton was not pronounced is absent in the early fragments of the LXX, as Furili shows quite the reverse.

    p.s did you notice my post on your Kim Clijsters thread earlier?

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I made a few changes in my post above in the past 20 mins you might not have caught if you have opened the thread already.

  • possible-san
    possible-san

    I am not opposed to the Christians and Jews who use the divine name (Tetragrammaton or Yahweh, Jehovah).
    The translations which have restored the divine name are linked in my website.
    I think that I mentioned that in this forum (JWD) repeatedly.

    http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link03.html
    http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link05.html

    But even so, it is clear that there is no the divine name in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
    Even if we discuss the divine name in the LXX repeatedly, we cannot explain why the divine name is not included in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

    On the other hand, the divine name is included in the manuscripts of the Old Testament thousands of times.
    (Incidentally, the LXX is the Old Testament of the Greek edition.)


    possible
    http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit