Question: Why the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus? Are we being introduced to some rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the name of Jesus? That is the way some nearly react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that the N.T. identifies Jesus with Yahweh. Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I am saying is that Jesus and the Father share the same Name and are not in some sort of competition.
Reply: The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name?
"We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)
When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222
That's right, the Divine Name WAS at one time in the New Testament! Here is a quote from the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 183-186.
JHWH. The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament:
"The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part of this Jewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:
"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them toghether with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman.
The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim" where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."
So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.
It's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings."
We have seen elsewhere that the omission is due to the expansion of piety, and to honor the Son more than the Father. It was important to lessen or blurr the role of the Father.
"In pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with kurios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in Hebrew or archaic characters....We find recollections of the name in the wroting of the Church Fathers; but they are not interested in it. By translating this name kurios (Lord), the Church Fathers were more interested in attributing the grandeur of the kurios to Jesus Christ." Entschluss/Offen, 1985, Feneberg
"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be 'updated' by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son." ~Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God, p. 74.
No comments:
Post a Comment