Early Christians, the New Testament and the Divine Name.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Interesting. Seems to be a view amongst some I have met, particularly evangelicals, but also a number of clergymen from a variety of denominations.

I don't think we ever really disagreed on this point. I think you are saying that this view is very widespread: that the reason we don't know the correct pronunciation today is due to a lack of written vowels in Hebrew. This same argument would be partly right for every Hebrew name and every Hebrew word, since Hebrew, as spoken today, is a "resurrected" language.

Excuse the double-negative, but I was not saying that this lack of vowels in Hebrew is not one of the reasons. I was saying that no one could argue that this was specifically why the name would have been unpronounceable. Otherwise, the name Jeremiah would have been unpronounceable, too. The other factors surrounding the Divine Name must have been much more important with respect to why the name ultimately became unpronounced, even though still pronounceable.

I would agree that, as of today, one of the difficulties in retrieving a "correct" pronunciation is that Hebrew was not fully voweled during the years when pronouncing the Divine Name began falling into disuse. And when Hebrew was fully voweled, not only had that disuse become widespread, but the vowels chosen for the Hebrew tetragrammaton were evidently purposely misleading, to keep that name unpronounced, or perhaps to discourage any pronunciation even being attempted. If those vowel pointings used by the Masoretes were meant to remind persons to use Elohim or Adonai in place of the Divine Name, this would very likely have been done because the name was still pronounceable in a way that these scribes (and those who would make use of their work) understood to be "correct."

A transliteration into other languages (which are more fully voweled, or with more consistent voweling rules) is helpful in retrieving a "correct" pronunciation, and that is one of the reasons that the early LXX variants are so important.

I don't think I've said anything here that's new or even anything that you likely disagree with. I was only taking issue with a specific way in which the idea about lack of written vowels could result in a misunderstanding. If I can reiterate, I don't think anyone would argue that a lack of written vowels had anything to do with why the Divine Name became unpronounceable, but, yes, it has become a major modern factor in trying to retrieve a likely (or "correct") ancient pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.

[Evacuated]

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think anyone would argue that a lack of written vowels had anything to do with why the Divine Name became unpronounceable,

Well, that's anyone with a knowledge of the background that is, which was patently not the case with regard to some I have discussed the matter with, despite their "qualifications".

What interests me more is did/how did Jesus pronounce the name? And what reaction was there at the time?

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Gone Away said:

What interests me more is did/how did Jesus pronounce the name? And what reaction was there at the time?

There is a lot more info related to that topic than I ever imagined possible.

One could argue that he did not pronounce it at all, and this is why there are no reports in the Greek Scriptures of any squabbles surrounding the issue. Just guessing, of course, but I think this is wrong, and that Jesus probably pronounced it just as most all other Galilean Aramaic speakers would have at that time.

The very first words reported about Jesus' public ministry relate to his baptism where John is preaching based on an OT verse containing the Divine Name (and in Matthew Jesus public ministry starts with Jesus preaching the same theme):

• “Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”+ ³  This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet+ in these words: “A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah!* Make his roads straight.’”

When Satan tempts Jesus times, all three responses from Jesus quoted a scripture that contained the Divine Name:

• It is written: ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah’s* mouth.’”
• “Again it is written: ‘You must not put Jehovah* your God to the test.’”
• For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah* your God you must worship,+ and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”+

In Luke, he reports that one of the first things Jesus did in his public ministry was to go to a synagogue and begin reading from the scroll of Isaiah. We often assume this had to be a Hebrew scroll, but it very well could have been a Greek scroll (LXX). Either way, the Divine Name would have been addressed somehow. In Hebrew, it's from a place in Isaiah that conspicuously starts and ends with a reference to the Divine Name.

• (Luke 4:18,19) 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.”+

Also, the most quoted and most referenced verse from the Hebrew that was used as a theme for Christian writings was Psalm 110:1-3. This is a verse that cannot even be understood well without knowledge that the very first word is the Divine Name ("YHWH") and is obscured into ambiguity if one only heard "KYRIOS said unto David's KYRIOS."

And the Divine Name is surely related to a sub-theme of the Christian Greek Scriptures, perhaps in ways that we are not anxious to address. For example: what is the Name that Jesus is given, a wonderful Name? In what way is Jesus given a name that is above every name? How is that ONLY in the name of Jesus can someone be saved?

It's possible that some of these issues might even be related to Jesus' personal name, "Yahoshua" or "Yehoshua" meaning YAHO is SALVATION. An interesting bit of evidence reflecting some Jewish thinking at the time might be seen in the book "Apocalypse of Abraham" which could have written as early as 70 C.E. Wikipedia mentions this about the "arch-angel" Yahoel mentioned in the book:

• The angel Yahoel is sent to Abraham, terrified of the experience, to guide him and to teach him how to perform the sacrifice. Yahoel introduces himself as a being "whose name is like unto that of God Himself"

The entry under Yahoel [which, in Hebrew, would mean "YAHO is GOD"] contains another version in a footnote/reference:

• Christopher Rowland, Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones The mystery of God: early Jewish mysticism and the New Testament 2009 Page 53 "It speaks of the angel Yaoel who appears to Abraham and takes him to heaven, an angel who has God's name dwelling in him: I am called Yaoel . . .

[JW Insider]

That last reference to Yahoel or Iaoel is not because I think it reflects directly on any NT verse, but it will come up at least as a minor piece of evidence among many other more important pieces of evidence. My first interest in it was not because of this IAO issue, but started when we were discussing the arch-angel "Michael." I have also seen a discussion of it in books about "IAO" however, this is what I found interesting about "Michael," in a Wikipedia quote from the same article on "Apocalypse of Abraham:"

• Yahoel (or Iaoel) in the Apocalypse of Abraham is the mighty angel sent to guide Abraham. Yahoel introduces himself as a being possessed of the power of the Ineffable Name "whose name is like unto that of God Himself". As the angel nearer to God, or perhaps as a manifestation of the power of God himself, Yahoel is said to be also the heavenly choirmaster, the one . . . who has the control over "the threats and attacks of the reptiles" [the dragon, Leviathan is mentioned in the book], with the chief task of protecting and watching over Israel. These functions were traditionally ascribed to Michael and mark the gradual transformation of Michael, originally the guardian angel of Israel. . . .

I left out some of the quote, of course, but this is still intriguing when we remember that Michael means "Who is LIKE God" and this named archangel "IAOel" is spoken of as having the power of the Divine Name and who is also the "angel" nearest to God, the power of God, whose name is LIKE God himself. [Recall, too, that Immanuel means "God with us".] Just as with Michael, Iaoel is the protecting archangel of Israel, who also would be the one who protects Israel from the reptile "dragon/serpent."

Note however that some of the Apocalypse of Abraham has evidently been fused with later gnostic beliefs where the God of Israel is not presented as a good God (he is given a name meaning "evil spirit"), and even "Michael" becomes "intertwined" with the serpent. The Jewish Encyclopedia adds this point http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/361-abraham-apocalypse-of:

• But this very opposition to the Christian dogma shows that at the time the Apocalypse was written Christianity was not far removed from Judaism, at least not in Palestine, where, since he used a Semitic language, the author must have lived. The last decades of the first century appear to be the period in which the Apocalypse was written. This remark, however, applies to the main part of the book, and not to its Christian and Gnostic interpolations. In connection with these must be considered the statement found in the Apocalypse that Azazel, who is described as being endowed with twelve wings (which description coincides exactly with that given in the Haggadah, Pir?e R. El. xiii.), shares with God the power over Israel. This is, no doubt, the Gnostic doctrine of the God of the Jews as Kakodaimon; and in this connection Irenæus may be quoted, who says of the Ophitic Gnostics ("Contra ???????," i. 30, 9), "et projectibilem serpentem duo habere nomina, Michael et Samael, dicunt" (and they called the wretched serpent two names, Michael and Samael). Thus, in the mind of these Gnostics, Samael ( "the entwined serpent") and Michael were fused into one being. Therefore, it is quite probable that certain parts of the heretical Apocalypse of Abraham, which was in circulation among the Gnostics (Epiphanius, ???????? 39, 5), were incorporated in the present text. Subtracting, then, the first part, which does not belong to the Apocalypse, and the Gnostic and Christian interpolations, only about three hundred lines remain, and this number would exactly correspond with the number which, according to the stichometry of Nicephorus, the Apocalypse of Abraham contained.

[indagator]

GA said: "What interests me more is did/how did Jesus pronounce the name? And what reaction was there at the time?"

Then JWI said:

"There is a lot more info related to that topic than I ever imagined possible. "

Yes, this is overall point of Shaw's book. As I posted elsewhere here, "Yaho" in Aramaic (יהו), the language of Jesus and the apostles, was the active pronunciation of the divine name in their day. Since the good news was spread via Greek, this shows up as Ιαω in that language. Hence the finding of this form of the name in the LXX Qumran manuscript of Lev. and its much more common appearance among the biblical onomastica (name lists), the world's first Bible commentaries or dictionaries (though they are primitive by later standards). Then the church fathers, when they quote these name lists, continued to use Ιαω occasionally. This shows how the name had an active pronunciation that long outdated however יהוה was pronounced in Hebrew. I'm not saying that how it was pronounced in Heb is unimportant. Rather if one is interested in how Jesus and the apostles pronounced the name, the evidence for that is known, clear, and irrefutable. That is Shaw's important contribution.

As for Iaoel in the Apoc. of Abraham and other Pseudepigrapha, Shaw discusses that as well.

As for GA's wondering what the reaction was to that pronunciation, that is also in Shaw. He states that the reaction we see in Philo, Josephus, rabbinic literature, etc. is a reaction to some Jews who used Iao.