Beit Yahuwah: Journal of the Charismatic Church

This Journal aims to increase the prostration to and service of Yahuwah, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in all the earth, to bring glory to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through the encouragement here contained the Church may rise up to her calling to govern and judge the world in Christ Jesus.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Research up date on Yahuah

The Use of the Memorial Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yaua, in the private life of Hebrews and Christians from the late second temple period to late antiquity. by Antony Michael Hylton Bsc (hons) Southampton University, 1986 PGCE Roehampton Institute, 1993 MA University of the Holy Land A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTERS IN NEW TESTAMENT AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of the Holy Land, I agree that the library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be permitted by the librarian. It is understood that copying of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Antony Michael Hylton Permission has been granted to the national library of Israel to microfilm this thesis to lend or sell copies of the film. The author (copyright owner) has reserved other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed without his/her written permission. ISBN Abstract "The Use of the Memorial Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yaua, in the private life of Hebrews and Christians from the late second temple period to late antiquity." "Some early Christians and Jews from the same period were not doing what many modern Jews and Christians are doing: They were not replacing the name Yahuah every time they saw it in a text or when praying, they were using it." The argument goes thus: The life of the Hebrews is regulated by Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, the Oral law and Traditions and is partly centred around the Temple, the synagogue and the home. This lifestyle was designed to be lived as Hebrews and at the same time to be blessed and healthy. Those elements which were permitted in Torah for dealing with sickness and pain and the desire for success that is to be blessed would be used by some groups of Israel even if forbidden by others. Those elements of the tradition which regulated the use of the name would be applied differently by different groups in Israel. In the Torah certain uses of the memorial name are commended and certain uses are forbidden. Since the name was permitted in certain uses according to Torah and tradition more conservative groups would have continued to use the name into late antiquity, even if other groups forbade it, they would have held to the earlier traditions. The earlier tradition meant retaining the name in many areas. With the reduction of the number of Judaisms after the second temple destruction many uses came under attack. The use of the name continued in the life of the early Church both Jewiah and Gentile. After an introduction where some points of methodology are laid out a description of the historical and religious contexts of the use of the name is given. The third chapter is a look at the name in Hebrew witnesses to the name stretching from the Lachish letters through the dead sea scrolls, the Masoretic Text, to the Sheb Tob Hebrew gospel of Matthew . The fourth chapter looks at the use of the name in Aramaic texts where it appears in letters and kemiot (amulets) and other inscriptions. The fifth chapter is a survey of the name in Greek texts again from the Dead Sea Scrolls through the myriad Greek spell/scripture/ prayers texts. The sixth chapter crosses the divide between the languages and looks at the general function and use of the name in the period and its roles in the society and the life of individual Jews or Jewish groups. The seventh chapter surveys the use of the name in the life of the early Christians and Gnostics who percieved themselves as Christians although history has sometimes made a judgement against them. Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction/ Methodology Chapter 2 Historical Religious context Chapter 3 The Memorial name in Hebrew texts (Dead Sea Scrolls, Ecclesiaticus) Chapter 4 The Memorial Name in Aramaic texts (Amulets and Charms) Chapter 5 The Memorial Name in Greek texts (LXX, Aquila, Magical Texts. dss) Chapter 6 The Memorial name from the late Second Temple period to late antiquity in the life of Hebrews Chapter 7 The Memorial Name from from Late second Temple period Late Antiquity Yaua God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, this is my name forever my memorial from generation to generation Exodus 3:1 Introduction R1 "As they were going Jesus passed before them saying: 'May the Name deliver you [hashem yoshiachen].” (93, Pettersen, Matthew 28:9 Shem Tob) R2 “And behold, Jesus met them and said to them, Peace be to you[slam lchein]” (Lamsa, Peshitta) R3 “And behold Jesus met them saying, hail [CHAIRETE)” Matt 28:9 (Gk) R4 “Because of the minim it was ordained that a man should greet his brother with the name [beshem]; for it is written: And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and he said unto the reapers ‘A1 be with you’ [A imachem] and they answered him ‘May A bless you’ [yeverecqa A] (Mber 10:5) R5 And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and he said unto the reapers YAUA be with you [YAUA imachem]. And they answered him: YAUA bless you [Yeverecqa YAUA] (Ruth 2:4) 1-1 Strange as it may seem, the clearest evidence attesting to Jesus’ use of the name YAUA and that of the early Churches use comes from late rabbinic sources which seek to present a certain Rabbinic perspective on Jesus. These evidences come from a later period than that which we must be most concerned with and so their weight is less than perhaps it might have been. However they preserve a tradition that has its roots in the period of Jesus as have the New Testament and Old Testament manuscripts. An interesting coincidence is represented by the three Matthean references above R1, R2 and R3. 1-102 The Greek text says Jesus greeted the disciples with chairete. This being a Greek word meaning rejoice as we can see from Matt 5:12 and Philipians 4:4. Although Jesus may have known Greek it is extremely unlikely he would have used it in a private greeting to his Hebrew or Aramaic speaking disciples. Thus it is a translation, although perhaps not literal. 1-103 The Hebrew text has a version of the greeting met in the one of the very late Jewish Shem Tob manusripts of Matthew. Howard (1987) argues that the Shem Tob tradition may preserve an albeit corrupted rendering of Matthew’s original Hebrew gospel. Here Jesus says hashem deliver you. Hashem refers to the name YAUA as in many manuscripts of rabbinic literature and the vowel pointing of the earlier manuscript of MT (De troyer, 2005). Jesus may have said hashem but this subsitution of hashem for YAUA in a greeting is seen nowhere else in New Testament literature. The question is what did he actually say in Hebrew or Aramaic? 1-104 The Mishnaic text may helps us . Here the sages ordained that the name was to be used in greeting a friend. The mishna is connected with the benediction in the temple. The text uses A (heh). We see in the final text the actual greeting of Boaz to his workers and in this text from MT the full name is written out. In order to stem a group of minim who held a tradition that the Name should not be used in greetings an ordinance was promulgated indicating that a man should greet his brother with the name like Boaz greeted his harvesters and they greeted him in return. That this was the name and not a substitute is indicated by the scriptures used to illustrate the ordinance. Ruth 2:14 is the prime example in scripture of a man greeting his friend with the name (3.Alon 1977). The Mishna also refers to the greeting of Gideon in the book of Judges. In this greeting Malaq YAUA greets Gideon with “YAUA is with you mighty man of valour [YAUA imqa gibor chechil]”. Thus in our six texts four contain the name whether containing a clear reference to the name in the greeting or the name itself. 1-105 We have then a possible example of someone obeying the ordinance of the sages promulgated while the second temple was standing. In all our studies in this field are we faced with this kind of problem. The problem which come from the fact that we do not have first century manuscripts in the language which Jesus spoke recording him and the early Churches words. The greeting with the name above in Matthew comes from a late manuscript which has gone through many redactions and changes. However the form of greeting demanded by the Mishna and exemplified by the Angel of YAUA, Boaz and the Shem Tob’s Jesus is also witnessed in the Greek New Testament. When Mary is met by the angel of YAUA in Luke 1:28 he greets her with “Hail [Chaire], highly favoured one, YAUA is with you [ho kurios meta sou]. The Peshitta reads “Peace to you [slam lechi] o full of grace, our Lord is with you [malyat tavuta, maran amechi]”. In the Peshitta the direct connection with YAUA is not present because of the use of the relative form maran.2 The Greeting “Our Lord is with thee” seems strange in the mouth of an angel. Is he referring to the Lord of the angels? He would be referring to YAUA but there would be no reason for him, being an angel to avoid the name. It is also clear that at that point there was no Lord Jesus to refer to but only YAUA. The testimony of many Greek manuscripts seems to be solid with the supporting testimony of the Latin.3 Thus we have a primary example of how the GNT documents testify to what would almost certainly be a use of the name YAUA in the early Church4. This phrase YAUA be with you whether YAUA imachem, YAUA imqa or YAUA imaq has an important place in the covenant of YAUA with his people. For YAUA to be with Israel represents certain victory and success in whatever task one was involved in. An early idea of this may be seen in the call of Moses. He protests that he can not deliver Israel who is he to accomplish such a task? However YAUA responds:” Surely I will be with you [Aq eheyeh imqa] (Ex 3). A number of examples can be given. Jehoshaphat and Judah were in battle array against Ammon and Moab, all Judah were said to be standing before YAUA [liphnei YAUA]. The Spirit of YAUA then came on Jahaziel ben Zechariah one of the sons of Asaph and he declares: Be not afraid... Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves and see, stand ye still and see, the salvation of YAUA with you [et yeshuat yaua imachem] o Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed: to morrow you will go out against them: for YAUA will be with you [va YAUA imachem] First we see it is yeshuat5 yaua who is with them and then we see it is YAUA himself who is with them. The name YAUA is used here to refer directly to the person YAUA. Among the Minor Prophets we have testimony to the tradition among Israelites of the northern tribes of saying YAUA was with them. Amos exhorts Israel: Seek good and not evil, that you may live and so YAUA, the God of hosts, shall be with you [ YAUA elohei tzevaoth ‘itchem kaasher amartem], as you have spoken. The reason for the defeat of Israels’ armies in the book of Numbers and Joshua is assigned to that fact that YAUA was or would not be not with Israel (Num 14:43, Josh 7:12). The form “ho kurios meta sou” testifies to the continued use of the form YAUA imaq in the early Church. However even as the MT interspersed other forms of this greeting such as God is with you [elohim imachem](Zech 8:23), so the NT also used other forms. Whereas it is YAUA who says to Moses through malaq YAUA to go and deliver Israel and “Surely I will be with you”, Jesus tells his disciples “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...I am with you always”. Paul blesses the Roman Church with “The God of Peace be with you all [ho de theos ths eirhnhs meta pantwn humwn]” (Rom 15:33). This title the God of Peace is only used by Paul in the NT and is one of his ways of referring to YAUA. So in Phil 4:19 the God of Peace will be with you [ho theos ths eirhnhs estai meth humwn][alaha dein dashlama nihveh am kulchon (AR)], in 1 Thess 5:23 “May the God of Peace sanctify you entirely” [hu dein alaha daslama nqadeshchon], and in Hebrew 13:20 ”May the God of Peace... equip you in every good thing” [alaha dein dashlama’]. Thus we see this exchange between salam and yaua occuring in the greeting of the early Nazarenes, summed in the phrases Yaua be with you, Salam be with you. Is it possible to see Salam, like Adonai, hashem and El as a euphemism for the name Yaua. 1-106 The use of the memorial name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the private life of the Hebrews and the Christians from the late second temple period to late antiquity is one of most interesting and challenging subjects to research. This paper is written simply to demonstrate that the people in the environment of the early Church and people in the early Church itself used the name YAUA in their speech and in their writing. It was not lost during the period contrary to the theses of some nor was it only used once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement (msotah 7:6). Nor was it forbidden for anyone to use the name (mber 9:5) and the name was not unspoken (msot7:5). 1-107 This paper shows that Jesus probably spoke the name Matt 4, Toldot Yeshu (2:19 Schonfield The Gospel According to the Hebrews p 41), John the baptist baptised with the name (Fossum 1985), the early Church baptised catchumens and spoke the name in the baptism as well as sealed (sphragizo) the believer with the seal (gr. sphragis, h. Chotam. Ar. Tava tet-bet-ayin-aleph) or sign of the cross (tav) whose four points represented the four letters of the name yod heh vav heh (Fossum, Odes of Solomon, Gieschen http://www.andreiorlov/.com). 1-108. The name was used in the Parisees, the Essenes and the Apostles and Evangelist’s fight against devils and demons. Whether in direct expulsion with a word as Jesus used to speak or in Christian, Jewish and even pagan use of kemia(aram) philakrion (grk) or amuletum(latin ), and apologia(grk). It recognises in the common fight of Pharisees, Essenes and the Apostles and Evangelists against, Satan, devils, demons and sickness. The common means used to oppose them such as the casting (ekballo) out of demons (Matt 7:22, 8:16, 12:27). The Pharisees, the Essenes, the wandering healers and Jesus all cast out demons. They also forbade demons from entering a person (Matt 9:25). This was the purpose of many kemia and phylaktrion to remove the influence of spirits and demons and to forbid the return of a demon back to a person. Phylaktrion and kemia often used the name YAUA to help achieve this object (Naveh and Shaked, Meyer and Smith). 1-109 This paper also shows that the name was used in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament from the period. The very manuscripts which are likely to have been read by the Jesus and the early Church (Kahle 1959, De troyer 2005). It may have been used in orginal Hebrew gospel of Matthew although in the surviving manuscripts of this gospel the rabbinic circomlocution A (heh) is used. In his work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke Wenham wrote the following regarding the book of Matthew: “The [Church] fathers are almost unanimous in asserting that Matthew the tax-collector was the author, writing first, for Hebrews in the Hebrew language: Papias (c. 60-130), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Pantaenus (died c. 190), Origen (c. 185-254), Eusebius (c. 260-340), Epiphanius (c. 315-403), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86) and others write in this vein. The Medieval Hebrew gospel of Matthew in Even Bohan could be a corrupted version of the original (John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (1991), p. 116) . An interesting reading in one edition of Shem tob Matthew is at Matthew 28:9: At Matt 28:9 1-110 The memorial name was yod heh vav heh or yod heh vav or sometimes it is referred to by yod heh. The name contains then three letters of the Hebrew or Aramaic alphabet. These are transliterated in this paper as Y (yod) A (heh) U (vav) A Heh)..The main reason for this is the simplicity of keeping a one to one correspondence between the letters used in Hebrew and the Latin alphabet we are using. The reason I have selected A to represent Heh and not H, is two fold. Firstly when we see a transliteration of the name Yah in the New Testament, in the LXX or the other Greek version it is as far as I know always transliterated IA. That is as YA. So I have followed the policy of the LXX scribes and the New Testament copyists. The main example comes from the command Hallelujah. In the New Testament this word occurs four times in the apocalypse. In each case it is spelt out  (Apo 19:1,3,4,6) . Thus for simplicity of reference have I used this form of transcription. The letter vav is usually transliterated as v, w, o or u. In our case unless it is a citation it will be transliterated as u.. The last heh in consistency with the first heh is transliterated as a also. In deciding on this representation the comment of Gertoux were taken into account: The question of knowing which vowels accompanied the letters YHWH is absurd, for masoretic vowels did not appear before the sixth century CE. Before this, Hebrew names were widely vocalized by the three letters Y,W,H, as the manuscripts of Qumran widely confirm. The letter Y was read I (or E) , the letter W: U (or O) , and the letter H: A at the end of words. (2. 1999, 4)6 The Greek transliteration of the name in its earliest and most prominent form is or/o. We have opted for iaw or iao to render these two forms. 1-111 I have not used the scholarly conventional transcription yahweh, for it does not bear the one to one relationship to the original letters I felt was necessary and is always loaded down with the considerable debate which goes with its usage vis a vis the competition with the “impossible form” Jehovah ( Botterweck, Ringgren, 501) , that which impossible for some is to others the correct transciption. Dictionaries and encyclopedias indicate that Yahva (or Yahweh) is an uncertain vocalization, and that Jehovah is a barbarism originating from wrong reading. As unbeleievable as it may seem, this last affirmation is known to be false among scholars. This crude error has been denounced by hebraists of all confessions” (Gertoux, 1999, 4). The debate will continue to rage between Botterweck and Gertoux but we will not take it up in this paper. 1-112 Our interest is in the use of the name in the period of the Jesus and the early Church. As for the exact pronounciation, the evidence indicates it was pronounced in many different ways according to the dialects and the accents of various users. This idea is apparent from the various transliterations into Greek. People, especially those practising secret arts or “magic” and the readers in the Church, read what was written. Since the name is written in so many different ways, we have to expect it to be pronounced in those various ways. The process would probably follow stages similar to the following example. 1-113The way pipi came to be a surrogate for Yaua in Syriac texts may have come from person simply reading what was written. We have palimpsets containing what would be the name Yaua in archaic Hebrew letters (Metzberg 1981, 95). In one example the actual letters appear to be yod (broken) heh yod heh. This reads YAYA with our transription.. We find in other fragments places where the name has been transcribed by Greek letters which look similar to the Aramaic square square script. So we find  in the margin of Rahlfs Q (Codex Marchialianus) opposite nomina sacra form ks (Metzberg, 1981, 94). From this kind of procedure we get two interesting results. Firstly, when some Syriac Christians translated their texts in the 4th century using the Greek as at time they transcribe the name pipi into Syriac. This shows that they read what was written and wrote that down. Secondly we have Jerome bemoaning the fact that some ignorant ones were calling God pipi. Jerome says "certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find [the Tetragrammaton] in Greek books, were accustomed to read ." Thirdly it shows a group who were interested in preserving the origianl name in the text as they understood it to be. This indicates they were very conservative in their traditions and desired to preserve what was actually written. 1-114 Modern research into the name has faced some large surprises in the last 150 years or so. At the end of the 19th century the scholarly world were agreed that the Greek title kurios had been used by Hellenistic Jews in their translation of the Old Testament into English. And this was believed to be how the New Testament writers such as Luke had come to use kurios instead of YAUA in their citations from the Old Testament. Other scholars in the first third of the 20th century believed that YAUA was only used by Jews in that period when copying scripture but not in other documents (21 Lauterbach). 1-115 On the first point it is interesting that some 19th century scholars felt the practice of the translation of YAUA to kurios was inadequte and the resulting English substition of Lord for kurios also as not accurate enough. So Willam Smith explains: In reading the Scriptures, they [the Jews] substituted for it the name ADONAI (Lord) , from the translation of which be kurios in the LXX., followed by the Vulgate which uses Dominus, we have got LORD in our version....The substitution of the word LORD is most unhappy; for while it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name, the mind has to continually guard against a confusion with its lower uses., and above all, the direct personal bearing of the name on the revelation of God through the whole course of history is kept injuriously out of sight. (63 Smith, 213) This dissatisfaction with how the name is to be treated in modern translation has a direct bearing on the significance of the use of substitutes for the name. For kurios is the translation for Adonai as Lord is for kurios but neither bear the same significance as YAUA does. Ellicots Bible commentary make the same point “ The word “Lord” is the word contantly used in the LXX to translate, though inadequately, the name Jehovah” (Ellicot, 1971, 1055) . 1-116 The vast majority of evidence which has come forth in th 20th century points clearly to the position that the original LXX and all translations of the Hebrew scripture to Greek until the middle of the second century CE, do not use kurios. Lauterbach work “Substitutes For the Tetragrammaton” surveyed the numerous ways certain of the Jewish people developed to avoid actually writing the four letters YAUA. However despite all these techniques the name was retained in the Greek translations. Kahle drew a conclusion on the growing evidence regarding the name and the LXX back in 1959: We now know that 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 [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222 The other idea that has come under challenge is that the Jews forgot how to pronounce the name during late antiquity and so the pronunciation was somehow lost. Smith (63) had noted Jehovah: The true pronunciation of this name by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost, the Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it. And substituting in its place one of the other words with whose vowel points it happens to be written…According to Jewish tradition it was pronounced but once a year by the high priest on the day of atonement when he enters the holy of holies; but on this point there is some doubt. (63, p.274) Van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst state “Since the Achaemenid period, religious scruples led to the custom of not pronouncing the name of Yahweh; in the liturgy as well as in everyday life…as a matter of consequence, the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was gradually lost (61: 1999, 910). However the excellent Jewish Encyclopedia article the “Tetragrammatton” as well as the Encyclopedia Judaica article on God maintainsthat the pronunciation of the name was never lost. Until the 10th century certain Rabbis were handing down decrees against those who were speaking the name. 1-118 Fossum (1) has produced a very important work on the name in recent years. His The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Brings to light many important aspects of the use of the name and the various ideas which were centered around the name. Very important for our study is his work on the use of the name in the rituals of the Church. He illustrates the very important connection between the name and baptism in the Church. Being a work on the origin of Gnosticism it goes right to the heart of Church practice in regard to the name. In his well sourced work he could asserts with confidence “”The secret name which is given to Jesus is identical with the Name of the Father obviously the proper name of God” 1985, 95i). Whereas his focus is on the origins of Gnosticism ours is simply on the use of the name in the early Church and the surrounding Hebraic culture. Other works which have contributed to the better understanding of the use of the name in the period are those of Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation and Meyer and Smith Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. These works evidence the fact that people who considered themselves Christians in the early Church used the name IAW and IAO and Iaw Sabaoth, in what they wrote and due to the nature of their practises in what they said. Smith’s in his work., Jesus the Magician indicates that in the word of secret arts and “magic” the name was the most popular name even among pagans. On the Jewish side regarding the use of the name very important evidence is contained in Naveh and Shaked’s Amulets and Magic Bowls:Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity and their Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of late Antiquity. In terms of the use of the name in the Dead Sea Scrolls the study of Skehan “The Divine Name at Qumran in the Masada Scroll and in the Septuagint” hold some weight. Kristin Detroyers “The Names of God, Their Pronunciation and thier translations: A digital tour of some of the Main Witnesses” is a good if short overview of this field. The work of Howard on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, opens up a field which could have produced Christian manuscripts which actually contained the name. However 15th century manuscripts he uses use the rabbinic heh substitute in the 19 places in the places where the name may have appeared in the gospel. Clearly the discovery of Chrsitian Hebrew manuscripts and references to Hebrew Christian documents which contained the name go some distance in illustrating the use of the name in early Christian circles. The Authority of the Scriptures for Jesus and Early Church 1-201 Because of the importance of the Old Testament to the early Church and Judaism contemporary with it, it is important to survey the history and significance of the name. The fact that the New Testament sees the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms as forshadowing and foundational to its message their use of the name will have had great influence on Jesus and the early Church belief and pratice in relation to the name. The Torah, the Propets and the Psalms are a seed bed of ideas for Jews and the Early Church of late antiquity regarding the name. Therefore it is important as a backdrop to our study to survey key ways the name was used in the scriptural traditon. Modern source theory plays a vey small role in this study for we need to see the scriptures as they appeared to the eyes of Jesus, the early church and their contemporaries. For Jesus and his disciples the scriptures carried legal, precedental and prophetic authority. We find that much of what Jesus and the early Church said and did was in order to fulfill the Scripture (Mk 12:10, Mk 15:28,Luk 4:21). The Saducees are said to err because of two things they know not the scripture and they they do not know the power of God (Mt 22:9). Jesus manifestation the power of God generated faith in the scripture (John 2:22). The scripture has such strength of authority that it can not be broken (John 10:35). Since they can not be broken (luw), what they say must be true. The Scriptures were percieved as true to the minutest details (Jon 19:36). When Scripture predicts something that prediction must come to pass. In Pauline literature the Scripture is even personified and speaks both generally and specifically to people, it foresees, it concludes, and is given by the inspiration of God (Rom 10:11, Gal 3:8, 3:22, 2Tim 3:16). For James the Scripture does not speak in vain and for Peter it is not for private interpretation. In Matthew, Jesus asserts that not one iwta [yod-‘aot] or keraia [chad-neqodah] shall pass from the law before heaven and earth passaway (Matt 5:17). The Scripture must gives examples for the believers to follow through for example it stories of Israel coming out of Egypt and the experience of the prophets( Heb 4:11, 8:5, 1 Cor 10:6). For Jesus the commandments were binding and had application not merely to the outward actions of men but to the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Matt 5-7). They were summed up in two commandments: Hear O Israel YAUA your God YAUA is one and You shall love your neighbour as yourself. For Paul the commandments are summed up in one commandment: Love your neighbour as yourself (Lev 9:18). Thus what Jesus and the early Church felt the Scripture exemplified or commanded for them they would seek to do even if the traditions of their fathers forbade what the scripture permitted or permitted what the scripture forbade. This would apply with their attitude to the name YAUA. We can not be absolutely certain what was contained in all the Scriptures of Jesus and the early Church, but Jesus often refers to the Law and the Prophets and often cites or alludes to the Psalms and the Writings. Thus in general the Scriptures are comprehend by the 39 books we call the Old Testament today. Chapter 2 Historical and Religious Context 2-100 Historical Scriptural Context According to the Masoretic text the first person to ever use the name in reasoning, speech and decision making was Chavah the first women (Gen 4:1). Then during the time of her grandson, Enosh, men began to call on the name YAUA (Gen 4:26). According to Masoretic text chronology this was just after 4000 B.C. and this date, according to most historians, is about the time writing began and thus about the time history began. In this period the Sumerian and Egyptian civilisations began. The Sumerien developed cuneiform writing and the Egyptians hieroglyphics. 2-101 The next person to use the name YAUA in speech was Noah when he blessed YAUA the God of Shem. (Gen 9:26)ii. This would bring us according to the Masoretic chronology to around 2300 BC. According to the archaeologists this would be the early bronze age. For Egytologists the era of the Old Kingdom whilst in Mesopatamia a part of this period was taken up with the reign of Sargon of Akkad, Just after this period we see the first intermediate period in Egypt and the beginning of the 3rd dynasty of Ur. 2-102 According to the Masoretic text around 300 years afterwards around 2000 BCE the name YAUA began its 4000 year association with Abram the Hebrew (abram haivri- Gen 14:13) and his descendents, Isaac, Jacob and the Hebrews (haivrim) and their land eretz ivrim (Gen 40:15). For the first time in the tradition God introduces himself to a man as YAUAiii, saying to Abraham “ani yaua asher hotzetiqa me’ur casdim latet leqa et-haaretz hazot lerishtah”. I am YAUA which brought you out from Ur of the Chaldees to give to you this land to inherit”. For archaeologists this is the middle bronze age, for biblicists the Patriarchal Age, for Egytologists middle kingdom and the second intermediate period. It the reign of Issin Larsin, Hammurabi and the Old Babylonian empire. 2-103 The Hebrews enter Egypt first through Abram’s temporary residence thereiv during a famine however more permanently through Joseph who whilst languishing in an Egyptian prison explains that he had been stolen away from the Hebrews land (meeretz haivrim-Gen 40:15). Joseph haivri is exalted to the throne of Egypt and rules for about a hundred and ten yearsv. This is around the time of Hammurabi in Babylon and the Hyksos in Egyptvi. According to the Biblical tradition the Hebrew grows in Egypt to become a great nation. Then there arose a Pharoah who did not know Joseph.vii This is around 1500 BC in the masoretic chronology however many scholars place this period in the 13th century BCE. It is the late bronze age. Image 1: Yaua in Hierglyphics 2-104 YAUA reveals himself to Moses as Eheyeh and YAUA God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This would be his name forever his zeker (memorial) to all generations. Moses is sent to proclaim that the God of the Ivrim has appeared to them and requires them to go and worship him three days away in the wilderness. Pharoah refuses a battle ensues between Pharoah and YAUA, YAUA wins and the Hebrews leave Egypt, and a forty year sojourn in the wilderness begin to conquer Canaan. 2-105 We find two Egyptian shields from (Soleb) Nubia (southern Egypt, northern Sudan) which contain a testimony to the name in hieroglyphics from the fourteenth century B.C. as noted by van der Toorn “There are two Egyptian texts that mention Yahweh”. They read it as “Yahu in the land of the Shosu-beduins”. This land is believed to be Edom or Midian ( van der Toorn p.911). Gertoux states that the shields were “found at Soleb[Nubia]…with a short inscription dated about the time of Amenophis III (1391-1353)” Additionally this short inscription is engraved in a shield used for subjugated peoples” (67 Leclant, 1980-81, p.474-475)viii The memorial is the thus preserved in a hieroglyphic (holy script/engraving) from the 14th century BC just after or just before Moses was sent in the name YAUA to set Israel freeix. The hieroglyphs are firstly two upright feathers (y), then what looks like a number six written with straight lines and laying down horizontally to the right (h). The third is a rope with an open knot at the right side (w3). The rope makes a elongated semi circle. The last is a little bird (w). The reading with conventional vocalization is y-eh-ua-w or Yehua’. The whole reading is according to Leclant “Land of the Bedouins of Yehua’. This reading is supported by Gertoux.x Some scholars have maintained that the vowels of Egyptian words are not well known (96 Naveh, 1987, 14). This point Gertoux admits but notes “for foreign words, which is the case here, Egyptian used a sort of standard alphabet with matres lectionis, that is semi consonants which served as vowels. In this system one finds equivalences: 3=a, w=u, y=I, and that is exactly why reading by the conventional system gives acceptable results”xi Gertoux also notes that other dictionaries read the text as Yahweh which he notes does not agree with conventional vocalization. 2-106 In the second shield the first three glyphs are the same. Although the shield is broken at the bottom it the glyphs are still clear. This time we only have the first three glyphs yh[ua] (Yehua)xii. In the temple of Amon in Soleb (Nubia) there is a topographical list from the time of Amenhotep III (1408-1372 B.C.). In column IV.A2 is written t3 ssw yhw3 (…) In the ancient Near East a divine name was also given to a geographical place where the god was worshipped (Axelsson 1987, 60) concludes, “Thus it is conceivable that the full name of the area in question was Yhw’s land, Yhw’s city, Yah’s mountain, or the like (Axelsson 1987, 60) This use of the name by the Egyptian shields is then to identify a group of Shasu and their land. The second is carved on to the statue base ot Kom El Hetan. This is the funerary temple of Amenhotep III. The shield “hangs” from the waste of a human figure. 2-107 Thus we find for the first time that YAUA encounters hiereglyphics. And the first record of the name is with two reed flowers (which look like feathers) for yod, a rectagular 6 laying flat or a reed shelter in fields (Naveh 1987,15) and a length of rope with a bow in the end and YAUA enters history as yehua and connected with bedouins. 2-108 According to the Biblical tradition Israel were rescued from Egypt, crossed the sea of reeds and went to Mount Horeb, or Sinai where they met YAUA. They were offered a covenant with YAUA and accepted it,YAUA himself wrote the initial covenantal tablets. In that initial covenant then YAUA occurs eight times. As far as we know Hebrew as a script did not exist yet. The Egyptians were using hierglyphics as noted above but we do not know which script YAUA used to write his name. However over the next 40 years the Torah was revealed in the wilderness and according to the evidence masoretic text the name was used about 1820 times in the five books of Moses. It is now the late bronze age and Israel begin to develop thier alphabet based on the alphabet in use in Canaan (95 Naveh 1987, 65). We see the beginning of the use of theophric names, the first being YEHOSHUA (yod heh vav shin ayin). Some scholars believed Yochebed, Moses mother was a theophoric name but this is open to quection. 2-109 The name YAUA is then confronted with the Phoenician scripts of the nations living in Canaan as Israel invade. Israel passes through the time of the judges and come to the time of the monarchy and the kings. During the period of the judges and the kingdom from around 1400 BCE to 586 BCE we see many theophoric names and the use of the name YAUA in al most every area of life. 2-110 During the period of the divided kingdom (931-722 BCE), Israel has many wars with its neighbours including Moab to the south east. The northern kingdom had control over Moab and it is this conflict which had lead to the first witness to the four letter form of the name YAUA in history. The name appears on what is the Mesha Stele or the Moabite Stone. 2-111 Ninth Century B.C. Aramaic Text 1: Use, On Stelae as Identification The stele is dated to the 9th century BCE and is the inscription of Mesha the king of Moab the Dibonite. This king boasted that he had finally set Moab free from the dominion of Israel. He claims Chemosh his god sent him to “Go take Nebo from Israel” (60 Pritchard, p.210). So I went there by night and fought by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all, seven thousand men, boys women, girls and man-servants, for I had devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh. And I took from there the […] of …Yahweh , dragging them before Chemosh Wa qach mashama [tak]ly Yaua waschab ham lapani kamash (60 Pritchard, p210). Examples of the inscriptions with the name Los Lunas Decalogue in New Mexico Moabite Stone from 9th century B.C.E. Lachish Ostracon from late 7th century B.C.E. Dead Sea Scroll from 3rd century B.C.E. Square Hebrew in the centuries after Christ Image 2: Yaua in various forms The Los Lunas Decalogue inscription uses the Tetragrammaton in 3 places. They are carved on the rock surface in old Hebrew letters. And they are probably one of the world's oldest surviving writing samples of the Tetragrammaton! There is another short stone inscription on the south pinacle of the mesa. It may have served as an altar. The picture was taken by David Moore on a field trip to Hidden Mountain in 1993. The first line contains the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew letters. The letters are similar in style to those on the Decalogue inscription stone but appear to be more eroded. Photo 1993 David Moore Below is a drawing of the same inscription and an interlinear translation: Image 3 Ancient Inscriptions of the name Yaua This, the oldest of the external epigraphical testimonies to the four letter form of the memorial name, was found in 1868 and later taken to the Louvre. It is carved on a black basalt stela in old Aramaic script, not the more modern Aramaic square script. There are clearly no vowels point in that script so the way of reading the name would be down to the vocalization of the three letters often used as vowels in such alphabets, yod, heh and vav. It is the earliest evidence that the original form of the name was four letters yod, heh, vav, heh and confirms the primacy which the MT gives to that form. It is written in the Aramaic of the 9th century B.C. which was very close to the Hebrew and the Phoenician of the period. It is dated around 840 to 830 B.C. 2-112 Ironically Mesha speaks of Omri, the Biblical northern Israelite king who was considered in the scripture as the worst to of those who apostatized from the worship of Yaua. “But Omri did evil in the sight of Jehovah [Yaua] and worse than all the kings that were before him”. The use we see the name put to here is on the first level as part of an inscription. It is written and used to identify the God of Israel. Secondly it indicates that non Israelites knew and used the name, that is it was a public name as the MT indicates in many places. Mclaurin, who argues that the four letter form is secondary makes the point that this use which is quite negative. YHWH is the form of the name which religious tradition has specially preserved.YHWH is however found in the Moabite stone in a religious context – the Moabite Scribe probably chose this “official” form of the name in a deliberate attempt to to humiliate the bearer still further. To prevent this profanation as far as possible the priests probably encouraged the people to abandon the true pronunciation of the Name and to read Adonai for it. And probably the people were glad to avoid this mysterious name and to read Adonai when they came to the Biblical text (42 p.462). The skeptical attitude to Yaua shown by Mclaurin reflects his focus on the primacy of shorter forms of the memorial, “There is no conclusive early evidence that the name was ever pronounced Yahweh”(p.462). He also claims there is plenty of evidence for Hu, Yah, Yo-, Yau- -yo, -yah. This is usually in the form of theophoric names. However Toorn asserts “The form Yahweh (yhwh) has been established as primitive” (p. 910) by the work of cross. The letters Mesha chose to express the name were yod heh vav heh which later becomes know as the four letter name the tetragrammaton.Here then we find the name Yaua used by local Gentile kings to refer to the deity of Israel.xiii 2-113 With the destruction the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722BCE and the transfer of many Israelites to t he Assytia , and the exile of the kingdom of Judah by Nebuchadnezzer, Israel begins to settle in Babylon. YAUA is confronted to a greater degree with the Aramaic alphabet and the religious beliefs of the Babylonians. We have a number of otraca which contain naem YAUA from just before the destruction of Lachish. The letters are written in the midst of the war and use the name YAUA freely, to greet, to bless (Lachish Ostraca II) and to appeal for judgment and punishment on people who spread false rumours (LOII). These are Hebrew documents and retain the full four letter form of the name YAUA. The name also occurs in personal theophroric names. We find in this period that Israel begins to have doubts about the free use of the name. Thus Psalm 137 expresses these reservations : It begins “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down... (and continues) How shall we sing YAUA’s song in a strange land.” Israel also encounters beliefs among the Babylonians about ineffable names of their gods and may have begun to take on some of these ideas. Also in this strange that there is evidence that the Babylonians alraedy had knowledge of Gematria : “during the time of Sargon II. The wall at khorsabadwas supposed to have been built according to the numerical value of Sargon’s name” (Davis, J , 1968, 126) 2-115 During this period trading links were established with the Greeks (Ionians or Javan) and Greeks and the Hebrews would have an impact later on. There is evidence of trading cotacts from the reign of Josiah amd Ezekiel refers to trading connections between Tyre and Greece showing he had some knowledge of the connection with the Greeks. It is not for another three centuries that YAUA would have the main impact with the Greeks language and alphabet. Many of the concepts of number symbolism and Gematria are already exhibited in Greek thinking. Bell asserts “numerology was born the hour Pythagoras discovered the law of musical intervals” (Bell, 1930, 81) . Although Pythagoras was very influential there were already examples of Gematia in early Greek mytology. The superiority of Achilles in his fight was attributed to the fact that his name added up to 1276, whereas Hectors was 1225 and Paroclus 87 (Davis, 1968, 126) xiv 2-116 This influence of Aramaic writing, writings and ideas from Aramaic speaking culture continue with the return under the Persians amd some scholars hold that many of the ideas about angels and demons, good and evil forces arrayed against one another arose in Israel’s thinking in this period. With the return from Babylon we find some of the people of Israel do no know the language of Canaan and so when the Law was read it had to be translated (Ezra 8:9). Parts if the Masroetic were written in Aramaic. These are Ezra 4:8 to 6:18, 7:12-26, Daniel 2:4 to 7:28, Jeremiah 10:11 and Gen 31:47. These are called Biblical Aramaic. However Aramaic has been split into two main divisions, eastern Aramaic and Western Aramaic. 2-117 Another line of influence of the name YAUA came from those Hebrews who fled to Egypt from the Judah. This group moved south west into Egypt and a group ot them finally settled in what is now known as Elephantine. From here are preserved a number of Aramaic letters containing the name YAU . The final heh is not present as it was in the Lachish letters and the Mesha stele. Thus with this interaction the originally four letter name became a three letter name. 2-118 The Second temple was built around 515 BCE. It was built after the prophetic encouragement of two influential prophets, Zechariah and Haggai in accordance with the decree of Cyrus the Persian. The decree of Cyrus is given twice in the MT. Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of YAUA spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, YAUA stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 2 Chronicles 36:23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the YAUA God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? YAUA his God be with him, and let him go up. This is evidence that the name YAUA was known and respected by the head of the Persian empire which stretched from Ethiopia to India, 127 provinces. The second temple was built in hope that Jerusalem would again be the residence of YAUA and “many people and strong nations shall come to seek YAUA Tzevaoth in Jerusalem and to pray before YAUA” (Zech 8:21-22). However about 100 years later the temple priests and the people of Judah were dispondent and careless with regard to the house of the name YAUA and so came the Message of Malachi promising a reformation and purification in the priesthood. His messenger would come “And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer to YAUA an offering in righteousness.” (Mal 3:3) Apart from judging the priesthood and its contempt for his name, YAUA asserted something very signficant there in the midst of the Persian period: “My name is great among the nations” Thus YAUA contrasts the disrepect shown to his name among the priests of Jerusalem with the greatness of his name among the nations. This comparision is very significant because it is stated in the Persian period from which we do not have too much information. 2-119 With the invasion of Alexander of Macedon the name YAUA meets the Greek alphabet and the Greek culture in a much stronger way than in the time of Josiah and the time of the Judges and Monarhy when the Sea Peoples or the Philistines invaded the land. The contact between the Hebrews go back a very long way and the parallels in the traditions of the two groups are considered striking. The ground was lain for the Greek form of YAUA with the establishment of Egyptian Alexandria as the capital of the Ptolomies and the development of the great library in Alexandria. Now we enter the Hellenistic period where Hebrew and Greek culture meet and mix. This produces the form IAW as the earliest recorded form of the name YAUA in Greek (P. Fouad 266). This form of the name, sometimes spelt iota alpha omega and other times iota alpha omicron, becomes popular with both Greeks and Hebrews when people were writng amulets or reciting spells, psalms and prayers. This God was the most popular god of the Greek magical texts that have been found. The Hellenistic period saw the mixture of religions from as far apart as India and Greece. The philosphies of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, and the Epicureans went with the Greek dominion and the nations around began to be hellenized. During the second century BCE the influence of Greek culture was very strong in Palestine. The Jewish priesthood went through a number changes which lead to splits in the community. Onias IV left Judea and settled in Egypt. There he built a temple to the name Yaua in Leontopolis, perhaps one response to the corruption setting in in the worship at the temple in Jerusalem. The Dead Sea community set it self up in the syrian desert and probably recieved priestly oversight through Onias III and his entourage, calling themselves the priests of Zadok. These were the descendants of the high priestly line of Zadok and were ousted first by Meneleus and later by the sons of Hashmon. From them came the dead sea scrolls which contain the name YAUA in various forms, including, paleo Hebrew, Assyrian square script and Greek. You can two of those forms above in image 2. The dead sea scrolls 3rd century BCE and the “Hebrew” square script. During this period the parties of the Saducees and the Pharisees also divided off. The Saducees were a priestly party who had a lot of power in the temple. They would have been among those to inherit the high priestly mitre which had the name Yaua written on it in paleo Hebrew. This mitre contained the phrase “qadosh le Yaua” holy to Yaua. The Zadokites being priests would have been familiar with this form, and thus this can go some way to explaining why this form appears in a number of the dead sea scrolls. The fact that it does indicates that one group of scribes were very conservative and probably held to the position that the name should not be rewritten or changed. Such a group would have held similar attitudes to the pronunciation of the name also. 2-130 The letters and the name In the late antiquity period we are dealing with significance was attached not only to a name but the letters of the name and the number of a name and whether the name was secret or open, speakable or ineffable (Rev 13). In regard to the name YAUA it was also engraved and worn. The New Testament is just one source indicating the importance of these aspects in regard to a name. Letters According to the Greek Apocalypse both YAUA Elohim and Jesus are the Alpha and the Omega. In Greek these are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. This phrase is repeated three times. Greek Text Peshitta Rev 1:8 Egw emi to Alpha kai to W ‘ena’ ‘iytai alaph aph tav (he arche kai to telos)7 legei kurios ho theos amar marya’ ‘alaha’ Ho wn kai ho en kai ho erchomenos d’itavhi v’iitavhi hova’ va’ate’ Ho pantokrator ’achiyd kol Rev 21:6 Gegonan havai Egw [eimi] to alpha kai to W ‘ena’ alaph vatav He arche kai to telos resha’ vashulama’ Rev 22:13 Egw to Alpha kai to W ‘ena’ ‘ana’ alaph va tav Ho protos kai o eschatos qadmaya’ va’chraya’ Hee archee kai to telos resha’ vashulama Here we see firstly YAUA Elohim associated with the letters alpha and omega. Secondly it is he who was seated on the throne who speaks and thirdly Jesus the one who is coming speaks. In the Peshitta text the reference is alaph aph tav (21:6), alaph va tav (21:6) and alaph va tav. The other letter which is set apart for special consideration in the New Testament is iwta and this is yod in the Peshitta Matt 5:18. At that time it was the symbol of the smallest letter in the law. 2-131 In the Masoretic the letter tav is used as a mark to distinguish those to be protected from YAUA’s judgment on the city (Eze 9:4,6. Job 31.31). In the Mosaic Law yod and heh had a special place when decided to change people names. Abram (a v r m) became Abraham (‘a v r h m), Sarai (sri) became Sarah (srh) and Hosea (h o sh a) bin Nun became Yehoshua (y h o sh a) ben nun (Num 13:16). These changes were connected with YAUA’s covenant which he made with Abrham when he was 99 years old. Thus the letters yod, heh, alpha and tav are marked out in the Bible as letters. In the New Testament these are iota, alpha and omega. Interestingly enough although omega stand for tav in these examples it stand for vav in the name YAU or IAW. 2-132 Aleph and Tav, Alpha and Omega We find in John that the letter aleph stands for the beginning and the first whereas tav symbolises the end. God himself and Jesus Christ tie themself in this way with the alphabet and particuarly these letters. However with the paralell to the past present and future of the verb to be we see a tieing in with the name ehyeh or aya and YAUA. Firstly through the verb to be. As is pointed out in Kittel “No less striking is the fact that the thought of the pretos/escatos lying in a/w can be further expressed in the phrase ho en kai ho erchomenos as an extension of the OT divine name ho wn” (Kittel Vol 1, 1964, 1). In connection these letters are connected with the name Iaoue8 in the thinking of Clement of Alexandria (Strom 5:6). Again, there is the veil of the entrance into the holy of holies. Four pillars there are, the sign of the sacred tetrad of the ancient covenants.3023Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, “Who is and shall be.” The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters.9 The first and lat letters are used in four ways in Rabbinic thought. To keep the torah from alep to tav is one, this means to keep it completely (shab 55a). 3-300 Non Masoretic Pre Temple Sources The sources we have for reassessing long held academic and religious traditions include sources leading up to the second temple period. We have both literary sources and non literary sources. We can start with the sources which indicate what the second temple period inherited from the exilic period and earlier regarding the name. We will review the early testimonies regarding the memorial and its use in the nine centuries before the second temple period. Chapter Three: The Name in Hebrew Texts 3-100 The Name in Hebrew Texts Source Overview of the Name in the Scriptures and Outside the Scriptures 3-101 The Distribution of the Name The full name YAUA is mainly distributed across 5 main sources, the Masoretic Text (MT)-6828 occurences, Hebrew Sirach- 66, the Dead Sea Scrolls – 181 and various Hebrew inscriptions – 32. These figures come from Clines Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. A comparision with the main titles said to refer to YAUA shows that the four letter form YAUA occurs more than twice as many times as all alternatives. These are Elohim (2848), El (807), Adonai (483), Adon (384), Eloah (61) and Yah (56). All figures should be taken as approximations. The Name in the Dead Sea Scrolls 3-102 The Masoretic text is then the main source of the use of the name YAUA. Of the 39 books of the MT, 36 use the name and 3 do not, Ecclesiastes, Esther xvand the Song of Songsxvi. However the Book of Psalms is divided into five books itself and there seems to be some competition between the name YAUA and the title Elohim as exemplified by a comparison between Psalm 14 and Psalm 53. The Studies of Albright and Noel Freedmen indicate that in the earlier songs of the MT, YAUA was prominent (Albright 1957, Freedman 1980). YAUA is used in all stages of Israel biblical tradition, preexilic texts, exilic texts and post exilic texts. Shortened forms of the name is used in theophoric names. These can begin with YAU, YA or YU or end in YAU, YA or YU. The earliest name of this sort is Yehoshua (YAUshua). The evidence from non literary inscriptions indicate that the name was not only used in “holy scriptures” but in profane life. It was used in letters, on cave walls, in phylaktion and in funerary inscription. 3-103 It is important to comprehend just how prevalent the name is in community according to MT and thus the impression it would have had when a person reading it would come across the name YAUA so frequently. Indeed the MT gives us insight into a society which was absolutely centred on YAUA. This means the center of worship and its utensils were seen as belonging to him and representing his name. Events in the communities life were seen as proceeding from the name to the point that every decisions of a judge in a court case could be seen as proceeding from him. The prophets recieved instructions in his name and commanded the priests, the kings and the people according to his word. His spirit was especially present in his house which had its name after him and a whole tribe of Israel, the tribe of Levi, were set apart to him for the purposes of looking after his house, teaching his people his covenant and maintaining his home in the midst of the nation. It was a people of YAUA with everything centered around the name YAUA. People would greet one another with the name in the morning and angels would greet those whom they were to help using the name. It was a means of identification, authority, power. Oaths (shevuah) could only be taken with the name and were called the shevuat yaua the oath of YAUA and children were educated so that could walk in the way of YAUA. It is the community represented by these texts which was the model and example for Jesus and the earlier Church of the Circumcision in Palestine and wherever Jews lived in the diaspora. 3-104 To illustrate I performed a survey those persons, places, things and ideas attributed to YAUA in the MT. The survey is not exhaustative but quite comprehensive. The survey covered mainly the substantives which are in construct relation with YAUA as the absolute. They are translated as “of YAUA” or “of the LORD” in some English Bibles. I represent each word only once to get the idea of how the name YAUA impacted every area of Hebrew covenant, and community life and the way the world around them and their view of the world was named by YAUA. In the MT there are at least 180 individual nouns or participles given in contruct relation to the name YAUA. These can be analysed into a number of classes: 1.YAUA himself, 2.YAUA’s home, YAUA’s garden, YAUA’s government. 3-105 YAUA himself, his name The first aspect of God (we will look at) represented by the things in construct form with YAUA is his name represented by the form shem yaua. He introduces himself to Abraham saying “ani YAUA who brought you out of the Ur of the Chaldees” and to Israel as “anoci YAUA your God who brought you out of Egypt.” He tells Moses to tell Israel “I am YAUA and I will bring you out of from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you of their bondage, and I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with great judgements. And I will take you to me as a people and I will be to you an elohim: And you will know that I am YAUA your elohim”. He says to Jacob, “I am YAUA God of Abraham your Father and God of Isaac”. 3-106 It is not that he simply introduces himself as YAUA future elohim of Israel and present elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but he wants the sons of Israel and Egypt and all the earth to know that he is YAUA. So we see above that he says after he has completed what he has promised Israel will know (yada) that “I am YAUA your elohim”. And Egypt will also know it for a similar reason.“And the Egyptians shall know that I am YAUA, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them” (Exod 7:5). The knowledge that he who was speaking through the prophet is YAUA is known then through the stretching out of the yad yaua and setting Israel free but also through striking the river nile and the waters turning to blood. The knowlege that he is YAUA can be summarised here in two points. Egypt will know it when YAUA gets honour over Pharoah. And Israel and their children should understand that every sign had this as the goal. And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the YAUA. (Exodus 10:2) Thus in YAUA’s covenant community every sign and work points to the fact that he is YAUA. From the MT it is clear that to him YAUA is his only shem. First YAUA says to Moses, YAUA...this is my name forever. This is my memorial from generation to generation. He does not say this is one of my names but this is my shem leolam. When in Exod 6, he makes a comparision with el shaddai, he makes clear firstly that el shaddai is how he appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by el shaddai but by his name YAUA he was not made known (yada)xvii. We know from the above that to be known is not always simply identification by the use of words but demonstration by acts of power. We also see in the scripture above the way YAUA and elohim are related to each other. YAUA by rescuing Israel from Egypt and then taking them as a people through covenant becomes their elohim. In this sense YAUA is always YAUA but not always elohim. Thus elohim describes a role and YAUA identifies a person and his character and abilities.xviii Thus in Isaiah YAUA says “Ani YAUA hu shmi” “I am YAUA that is my name”, Jeremiah writes, “Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is YAUA. Jeremiah 16:21 So Zechariah sums up this thought succinctly “And the YAUA shall be king over all the earth: “yaua echad shmo echad” Yaua is one and his name one”. The reasom it is important to see clearly what the first century readers of the MT may have seen in the scripture regarding the name. For all the other construct absolute relationship are based on the name YAUA. The MT relates certain activites which are permitted and even commended in the use of the name and other uses which are forbidden. Some of these may be seen in table 3-105 below Table 3-105 The Forbidden Uses of The memorial Yaua Lo tisa Et the memorial Yaua la shav No lifting up The memorial Yaua in vanity (Ex 20) Qalal : No profaning or cursing the name (Leviticus 18:21) Naqav: No blaspheming the name (Lev 24:11-16) Zadown: No speaking in the name presumptuously or proudly (Deu 18) Zakar lo be emet: No making mention of the name when not in emet or tzdaqah (Deu 28) Zakar 2: Lo hazcir be the memorial Yaua. Amos sees a time when a man will say they are not permitted to mention the memorial Yaua Eish ha dam : Men who have shed (innocent) blood are not allowed to build a house for the memorial Yaua (1 Kings 5:3) The Permitted, Commanded and Expected uses of The memorial Yaua 1 Qara: It is permitted and commendable to call on or call out memorial YAUA (Deu 32:3) 2 Qara 2: It is permitted and commendable to be called by the memorial YAUA (sp) 3 Qara 3: Some things are called by memorial YAUA (the ark, the temple, the people, some gentiles-Amos 9) (2 Sam 6:2) 4 Davar: It is a positive command for prophets to speak in memorial YAUA 5 Sharat: It is a positive command priests and levites to minister in memorial YAUA 6 Barak: It is a positive command or permitted for Sons of Levi and Kings and others to bless in memorial YAUA (2 Sam 6:18, Ruth, Num 6) 7 Barak2: It is a positive command to bless the memorial YAUA xix 8 Amad: It is a positive command for the tribes of Levi to stand in the memorial YAUA 9 Bo: It is blessed for some to come in the memorial YAUA 10 Bo2: It is permitted to defend in the memorial YAUA and to declare that one is doing so. 11 Amar: It is permitted to speak in the authority of and to speak the memorial YAUA (Is 45, Deu 18. 12 Shaba: It is a positive command to swear by or make an oath in or to cause to swear by the memorial Yaua as long as it is in truth (emet). And when one does it is binding even over generations (see David and Jonathan) 13 Banah: It is permitted for an anointed son of David a Hebrew king who has not shed innocent blood to build for a house for the memorial Yaua (1Kings 3). 14 Zamar: It is permitted to sing the memorial Yaua. (Ps 7:17) 15 Nazcir: It is permitted to remember the memorial Yaua. (Ps 20:7) 16 Yiyra: It is expected that goyim will fear the memorial Yaua (Ps 102:15,Is 59:19) 17 Le saper: Yaua beholds the earth to declare the memorial Yaua in Zion (Ps 102:21) 18 Halelu et Yaua: It is commanded to praise the memorial Yaua. 19 Amilam: It is permitted for a king to circumcise or cut off in the memorial Yaua. 20 Lehodot le the memorial Yaua: The tribes of Israel went to Jerusalem to give thanks to the memorial Yaua.(Ps 122:4) 21 Ezrenu be the memorial Yaua: It is permitted to declare that your help is in the memorial Yaua and thus to receive help from the memorial Yaua. 22 Yarotz: The righteous are permitted to consider the memorial Yaua as a strong tower (migdal oz) and to run into it for safety and in it they are safe (nisgav) 23 El meqom the memorial Yaua: It is expected that a gifts (shay) will be brought to the place of the memorial Yaua from beyond rivers of Cush (naharei cush) (Isa 18). Presumeably all nations are free to do the same. 24 Hineh: It is permitted to behold the memorial Yaua (Is 30.27) 25 Batach: It is permitted to trust in the memorial Yaua. 26 Le ahavah et the memorial Yaua: Sons of strangers are commended for loving the memorial Yaua. 27 Lehavi: Sons, silver and gold shall be brought to the memorial Yaua (Isaiah 60:9) in the restoration prophesied. 28 Niqvu: All the goyim shall gather to, wait for, hope or expect the memorial Yaua (Jer 3:17), this is desireable. 29 Nava: It is permitted and commanded that one sent by YAUA should prophesy in the memorial Yaua and no other name. 30 Vaanachnu nelek beshem-Yaua eloheinu leolam vaed: Micah sees that in the end Israel will walk in the memorial Yaua forever. Thus it is permitted to walk in the memorial YAUA. 31 Shalach It is permitted and commendable to write the memorial Yaua in letters of correspondence (Jer 29) 32 Ani Yaua:It is commanded that legal decrees be on the authority of the memorial Yaua (Exod 21-24) 33 It is commendable to write the name Yaua on all the pots and bells of Jerusalem (Zech 14:10) 34 It is a positive command to write the name Yaua on the high priests mitre. 35 It is a positive command for the high priest to intercede using the memorial Yaua on Yom Kippur (Lev 16) 36 It is a positive command to beware of and obey the voice of and angel in whom the name Yaua is (23:21). 3-106 YAUA himself Temona We find that Moses is unique for he has seen temunat yaua (Num 12:8). This word means likeness, similitude or image (Strongs) 8544). The people do not see it but Moses does see it for he is especially priviliged above all prophets. YAUA strictly forbids the people to produce images (pesel) in any temunah of anything in heaven on the earth or under the water. To make a temunah of male of female is for the sons of Israel to corrupt themselves, to do so is to break the covenant (Deu 4:15, 16, 23). David had a desire to awake in the temunat yaua “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake , with thy likenss (betemunahteqa). YAUA’s beauty is called no’am yaua, and his glory, kavod yaua shines out more strongly than his goodness (tov yaua). Members of YAUA images include his face, eyes, ears, arm, hand and right hand. These are panai yaua, ayinai yaua, ozayi yaua, zerua yaua and yad yaua. Each one is translated in different ways. Either literally of metaphorically. So face often translated presence, eyes as in the sight of, and hand sometimes as YAUA might or power. These are the members of YAUA temunah related through construct absolute connection. However YAUA also has a back or back parts (Exod 33). 3-107 YAUA himself , thought, emotion and action Qol yaua refers to his voice and it is a mighty voice and yet it can be heard “walking in the garden”. Aph yaua, qetseph yaua and chemah yaua are used to describe his anger, wrath and indignation. Chesed yaua is his kindness and tov yaua his goodness. Tzaddiq yaua is righteousness and geburah yaua his strength. YAUA thinks, breathes, speaks and acts. 3-107 YAUA’s home YAUA has a home called after him- beit YAUA, this home is a temple or palace (heichal yaua), however it was originally a tent (mishkan yaua) and was set apart for YAUA purposes (mikdash yaua). It was intially divided into three parts: The house was established on YAUA’s hill (har yaua). And he established his home first as a tent among the tents of Israel but later on as house in the midst of the houses of Israel. His house is adminstered by his servants (eved yaua) who are priests (kohenai yaua). They were taken from a particular tribe called Levi in place of the first born sons who were originally YAUA’s. They were responsible to maintain and operate the house he established. The priests maintain the day to day operation of his home , but if they do not do the job properly another set of servants are sent in to observe and instruct them the prophets called nabi yaua. They recieved the presents, gifts or voluntary offerings for YAUA (terumat yaua), the fire offering (‘isha yaua),those things brought near to the altar (qorban yaua) ???donation of YAUA (minchat yaua). They also administered YAUA’s holy things (qodesh yaua). There were six main pieces of furniture in YAUA’s house each with its own implements (kelim). The copper altar of YAUA (mizbeach yaua)xx, the copper basin (kiyor) outside the tent of meeting (ohel moed); the lampstand of gold (menorah), the table of YAUA (shulchan yaua and an altar of incense (mizbeach kito’ret) inside the holy plac e (haqodesh); and the ark of YAUA (aron yaua) in the qodesh haqadoshim. The arks cover was called the mercy seat (kapporet) and the oversaw the service of worship of YAUA (avodat yaua). They also put YAUA’s oil (shemen yaua) in the lampstand which were in the house of YAUA’s holy place. The altar of YAUA was always lit by YAUA’s fire (‘eish yaua). The tablets of the covenant of YAUA were placed in the ark of YAUA (aron yaua), who was initially borne by the priests but finally came to rest in the heichal yaua in the center of beit yaua. In the early days if the people of Israel had a legal problem they could come to the mishkan yaua and recieve mishpatei yaua. Later on kings could come to YAUA house to recieve the counsel or advise of YAUA (‘etsa yaua). The house was designed to recieve the offerings of YAUA from his people (am yaua) who were initially governed by the king YAUA who ruled his kingdom (malchut yaua). At first the king was YAUA and he administered the kingdom through judges who were sometimes prophet priests and who made YAUA’s judgements (mishpat yaua), by the spirit of YAUA (ruach yaua) in accordance with YAUA’s covenant (brit yaua), YAUA’s law (torat yaua), the commandments of YAUA (mitzvot yaua) and the righteousness of YAUA (tzadiq yaua). However after complaints from his family, the form of goverment changed to a human monarchy with a human king that sat on the throne of YAUA (kisei yaua). He was from the house of David and was responsible to administer justice and righteousness to the people of YAUA in the gates of YAUA (shaar yaua), which were in the walls of the city of YAUA (iyr yaua). 3-108 YAUA’s Garden YAUA’s garden (gan yaua) was eastward in the land of Eden and well watered by a river which ran from Eden into the garden (Gen 2.). It had every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life (etz chaim) was in the midst of the garden along with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ( etz hadat tov va rah). The trees in the garden included arzim (cedars), beroshim (firs), armonim (chestnut). The most beautiful tree in gan yaua was Assyria an armon (cedar). When Assyria fell all the trees of lebanon were comforted. The trees of Eden that were in gan elohim envied Assyria. He ha lifted up himself in his height and as a result his heart lifted up in his height. He thus came under the judgement of YAUA and was brought doen to the nether parts as were all the trees in the garden. The people of the earth who used to live under his shadow of protection had to leave him because YAUA drove him out of the garden because of his wickedness. He was handed over “beyad el goyim” into the hand of EL GOYIM who would deal with him. He was then cut up by strangers (zarim) the terrible of the nations (aritzei goyim). The fowls of the heaven then remained on his ruins and the beasts of the earth upon his branches. Pharoah was also a tree as was Nebuchadnezzar (Ez 30, Dan 4). All the trees in ganxxi yaua were called etzei yaua, were full of sap and were the arzei levanon (cedars) which he planted (Psal 104:16). YAUA’s Government From the people of YAUA an army was selected (tzev’a yaua) whose captain was an angel. When Israel entered the land of Canaan to possess it, they bore the sword of YAUA (cherev yaua) and were fighting the wars of yaua (milchamat yaua). However the angel of YAUA (malak yaua) who had the name YAUA in him, went ahead of them to scare their enemies. The priest of YAUA were responsible to minister in the name YAUA (sharat yaua). They were also responsible to put YAUA’s blessing (baruq yaua) on Israel, his children (benei yaua). Israel’s family are his people (am yaua) and his congregation or Church (qahal yaua). They as a whole dwell in the land of the possession of YAUA (achuzat yaua) where his tabernacle (mishkan yaua) was establised. The house is furnished with YAUA furnishing and YAUA utensils are used to administer them. Panai yaua beinei yaua (G68) Yad yaua ‘aznei yaua (N1118) temunat yaua the similitutude or form The name does not occur in the first record of creation however it is notable that the first act of creation takes place with two letters of the name yod and heh. The first word recorded at creation is yehi (yod heh yod) or . And the summary of what happened at creation adds the third letter of the name vav, vahi ‘or xxii Genesis 3-202 In the Torah the name first arrives on the scene in Genesis 2 in the second creation account. Here it is YAUA ELOHIMxxiii who forms man from the dust of the earth and breathes beaphav neshmat chaim vayehi haadam le nephesh chaya . YAUA ELOHIM plants the garden and established Adam and Eve. YAUA ELOHIM’s first words are ”micol etz hgan acol tocel. Umeetz hdaat tov va ra lo tocal” In this paradise(pardes), the gan in Eden with the tree of life at it center the central name for God is YAUA ELOHIM.. Adam is a gardener and one who names the animals. He recieves his wife and named her ‘issha ki me ‘iysh xxiv and they are echad basar. “They were naked and not ashamed”xxv. The nachashxxvi enters the scene. He refers to God only by Elohim. The couple sin and here the qol YAUA ELOHIM walking in the garden le ruach hayom. They then hide them sevles from the faces of (mipnei) YAUA ELOHIM. After their sin is exposed and the man, the women and the serpent are judged, Adam renames his wife Vayiqra hadam ‘shto chava, because she was the mother of all living. She was named thus inside the garden leaving room for later speculation that she bore a child before they were driven out of the gardenxxvii. 3-203 Adam and Chava are driven outside the garden away from garden. Outside the garden the two names YAUA and ELOHIM are seperated.It is also noticeable that YAUA occurs for the first time alone.xxviii And the combination YAUA ELOHIM does not occur in absolute form in the Torah again. Adam and Chava bear sons. Cain and Abel. 3-204 And Chava becomes the first person in scriptural tradition to use the name YAUA in speech. It is also the first place where the name occurs alone. She says “vatomer qaniti ‘ish et-YAUA” Literally “I have gotten a man YAUAxxix. The literal reading would equate the man who was begotten with YAUA. Thus the sententence subject is Chavah or I and the verb is qaniti and the object of the verb is a man, and YAUA can be taken appositively as the one acquired. Thus qaniti ’ish et YAUA. The verb is from the root qanah which according to Strongs has the meaning to erect and by extension to procure especially by purpose. This verb is translated as buy, purcahsed, aquire and possess. Some have rendered as I have as I have aquired a man, YAUA, but most render it I have aqiured a man for or of or with the help of But in the circles we are dealing with in late antiquity, and the circles who use the name YAUA it would literal meaning would be reflected on in no uncertain terms. Ellicot notes “I have gotten a man from the Lord.- Rather who is Jehovah.” It is inconcievable that eth should have a different meaning from that which it has in 1:1 . It there gives emphasis to the object of the verb: God created eth heaven and eth the earth”. So also here “ I have gotten a man eth Jehovah”. (Ellicot, 15). Abel begins the tradition of sacrifice animals to YAUA (Gen 4:4). Cain murders Abel and recieves the mark on his forehead for a protection.xxxi This is the beginning of the sealing of foreheads which in later times becomes the place for the seal of God which is the name YAUA on the forehead (Rev 7:3, Rev 14:1)xxxii. 3-205 Chavah bears a son to replace Abel whom Cain has murdered. His name is Seth. Seth begets Enosh “vayiqra etshmo enosh az huchal liqra beshem YAUA.” And they called his name Enosxxxiiih and men began to call in/with/on the name Yaua”. This most important phrase to call on the name YAUA is first introduced here in scripture. Az huchal liqro beshem YAUA. 3-206 YAUA gives man 120 years but Noah matza chen beainei YAUA. Noah builds the first mizbeach (altar) to YAUA. YAUA smell the sweet savour of the clean animals sacrificed and reverses the cursing of the ground. 3-207 Noah pronounces the first ever blessing of the name YAUA: “Baruq YAUA Elohei Shem” and is the second person recorded as using the name YAUA in speech. 3-208 YAUA comes down to Babel , balal YAUA shephot and scatters (yapetz) the people. The saying kenimrod gibor tzzir lifnei YAUA became popular sometime after the flood. 3-209 Abraham recieves a command and promise from YAUA and YAUA appears (yr’) He has a hundred year relationship with YAUA. Abraham has made an oath before YAUA by lifting up his hand. He speaks of YAUA to king of Sodom. “harimoti yadi el YAUA el elyon qoneh samayim va eraetz” . He thus connects YAUA to ELYON., the God of Melchizedek, king of Salem. DAVAR YAUA comes to a man, Abraham, for the first time in the biblical record. He comes in a vision ( machze) and says “al tira avram anoci magen laq secrqa” (Gen 15:1) “Fear not Abram I am a shield to you a treasure”. Abraham addresses Davar YAUA as adonai YAUA, this is the first time adonai is used to refer to YAUA in the masoretic tradition. This is also the first time we see Abraham praying to YAUA . In Gen 15:6 Abraham is reckoned righteousness and the YAUA speaks for the first time in the first person using his name: Ani YAUA asher hotzetiqa me’or kasdim latet lqa et haaretz hazot lerishtah”. Thus we here that YAUA brought Abraham out of one land to bring him into another. YAUA then makes a covenant with Abraham. 3-210 In Gen 16 Sarai speaks about God using his name: ”hineh-na atzrani YAUA miledet”. And she introduces for the first time a phrase which becomes very important in later genreration “Yishpot YAUA beini uveineiqa”. YAUA judge between me and you. 1-211 In Gen 16:7 we find the first appearance of MALAQ YAUA, the Angel of YAUA.xxxiv MALAQ YAUA speaks as YAUA in the first person: “harah arbeh et zaeq ve lo yisaper merov” and makes promised to Hagar the Egyptian. In 17:1 YAUA saying “Ani el shadai hithaleq liphni vehyeh tamim” 3-212 In Gen 18:19 the concept of the way of YAUA is introduced. “Ki yedativ leman asher yetzaveh et-banav veet-beito acherav veshamru DEREQ YAUA leasot tzedeqa umishpat lemaan havi YAUA al avraham et asher diber alav.” For I know him and he will command his sons and his house after him and they will guard the way of YAUA to do righteousness and justice in order that YAUA will bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him.” 3-213 In Gen 22 we recieve the first introduction to the mount of YAUA (har YAUA). In Gen 22:16 MALAQ YAUA makes an oath speaking in the first person as YAUA. “Bi nishbati neum YAUA”. By myself I have sworn sayeth YAUA. In Gen 24 Abraham refers to YAUA as “YAUA elohei hashamayim ve elohei haaretz” and YAUA elohei hashamayim asher leqachani mibeit avi u mearetzmoldti vaasher diber liva asher nishba li lemor lezaraqa eten et haaretz hazot hu’ yishlaq malacu lephaneqa ve laqata” . In verse 24:12 Eliezer Abrahams servant prays to YAUA using his name: YAUA elohei adonixxxv avraham haqreh na’xxxvi. In a prostration Eliezer blesses YAUA using his name in front of Rebekah “baruq yaua elohei adoni avraham asher lo azav chado vamito meim adoni anoci bdereq nachni yaua beit achi adoni”. 3-214 Laban also knows and uses the name YAUA in greeting Eliezer: “bo’ beruq yaua”. The conversation continues and the name YAUA is used in secular conversation. Eliezer says to Laban “va yaua bereq et adoni meod vayigdal vayiten lo tzon ubaqar veceseph vezahav vaavadim ushephachot ugemalim vachamorim”. When Eliezer relates the story of his journey to Laban he continues to use the name YAUA naturally as part of the story. He relates what Abraham told him “YAUA before whom I walk will send his angel before you”. And he relates what he said to YAUA “O YAUA God of my master Abraham.” . He goes on to describe his response and freely uses the name YAUA, “ vaeshtachaveh layaua vaabreq et yaua elohei adoni avraham asher hinchani bedereq emet” (24:48) . And I bowed down to YAUA and I blessed YAUA God of my lord Abraham which had led me in the way of truth (right). Laban and Bethuel are convinced and respond: “meyaua yatza’ hadavar lo nucal daber eleiqa ra ‘o tov” From YAUA went forth the thing we can not speak to you bad or good.”. They even interpret the events as YAUA speaking saying to him take Rachel “kaasher diber yaua” In the morning the conversations continue with the name YAUA used as a proper noun. Eliezer says “al teachru oti va yaua hitzliachdarkishalchuniveelcah laadoni” . Thus we have recorded the first extended conversation where YAUA is used freely as a proper noun in its natural place. 3-215 In the life of Isaac there are not so many conversations where YAUA is spoken. But in Gen 26:22 Isaac says to himself “ki atah hirchiv yaua lanu upharinu varetz”. For now yaua hath made room for us and we shall be fruitful in the land”. This was the reason for naming a spot Rehobot. YAUA appears to Isaac but does not use his name. 3-216 In Gen 27:28 we hear Abimelech from Gerar, Ahuzzath his friend and Phicol his chief military officer use the name YAUA in negotiations: rao ra’inu ki hayah yaua imqa vanomer tehi na’ ‘alah beinoteinu beineinu uveineqa venicretah vrit imaq. ...vanshalechqa beshalom ‘atah atah beruq yaua.” 3-217 In Gen 27:6 Rebekah overhears Isaac saying to Esau havi’ah li tzayid vaaseh-li matamim ve’oclah vaabereccah lipnei yaua liphnei moti.”. She repeats it with no special attention to the name yaua. 3-218 In 27:21 Jacob used the name YAUA whilst decieving his father Isaac. Isaac asks how he found the venison so fast. Jacob replies “ki hiqrah yaua eloheiqa lephanai.” For YAUA your God brought it to my face. Isaac eats the food prepared by Rebekah and having eaten blessed Jacob. When he however sends Jacob away he sent him with the blessing of el shadai. On his in Gen 28 journey Jacob dreams and YAUA appears to him introducing himself as YAUA: “ani yaua elohei avraham, aviqa veelohei yitzhaq”. Jacob becomes aware that YAUA is present and exclaims: “acen yesh yaua bamaqom hazeh veanoci lo yadati”. He having used the name naturally becomes afraid and proclaims “ma-norah hamaqom hazeh ‘ein zeh ki beit elohim ve shaar hasamayim” (28:18). Jacob then sets up a stone poors oil on it and calls the place Beit El. Then he makes an confession of faith “vayadar yaaqov neder lemor ‘im yihyeh elohim imadi ushmarani badereq hazeh asher anoki holeq venatan li lechem lecol uveged lilbash. Ve shavti veshalom el beit avi vihaya yaua li lelohim”. Thus he makes a conditional acceptance of YAUA as his God. 3-219 Jacob marries and his second wife Rachel on having her first child names him Joseph reasoning “yoseph yaua li ben ‘acher”(30:24) 3-220 Laban admits the blessing on Jacobs life and gives the glory to YAUA:”‘im na’ matza’ti chen beineiqa nichsti vaivarceni yaua biglaleqa” Gen 30:27 And Jacob responds and also uses YAUA name in the discussion “ki meat asher hayah leqa lephanai veyiparotz larov vaivareq yaua ‘otqa leragli” (Gen 30:30). 3-221 Laban invokes YAUA as witness (ed) and watchman over his covenant with Jacob : yiteph yaua beini uveineqa nisater ‘ish mereehu” Thus the place was name gal ed (heap of witness) by Jacob and yegar sahaduta (pillar of witness) by Laban. YAUA was to witness what they were doing when apart. He goes on to say “elohim ed beini ubeineqa”. We see then YAUA and Elohim parallel to each other. (31:49) 3-222 Jacob speaks to YAUA and asks for protection: elohei avi avraham veelohei avi yitzchaq yaua ha’omer elei shuv leartzeqa ulmoladteqa veeetiiva imaq. Qatonti mikol hacaasadim umicol haemet asher asita et-avdeqa ki vemaqli avarti et-hyarden hazeh veatah haiiti lishnei machanot. Hatzileni na’ miyad achi miyad esav ki-yare’ anoci ‘oto pen-yavo’ vehikani ‘em al-banim. Ve’atah ‘amarta heitev ‘eitiv imaq vesamti et-zaraqa kehol hayam asher lo’ yisapher merov”.(32:9-12) O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, YAUA which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee: I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands. Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear him, lest he will come and smite me, and the mother with the children. And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude. 3-223 YAUA kills Er Judahs firstborn because he was ra in his eyes ra beeinei yaua vaimitehu. What Onan, Judah next son did displeased YAUA and he was also killed. (vayera beeinei yaua asher asah vayamet gam-‘oto) 3-223 From the time that Joseph enters Egypt and through the whole period while Joseph is his brother are ther we have no record of prayers of conversations which contain the name YAUA. However in the blessings of Jacob to the 12 sons, the tribe of Dan has a blessing which contains the name and the first reference to salvation of Yahuah. Dan yadin amo keachad shivtei isr’el . Yehi dan nachash alai dereq shephiphon alei orach hansheq iqvei-sus vayipol rocvo ‘achor liyeshuatqa qiviti yaua. Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel Dan shall be a serpent by the way an adder in the path that bites the horses heels So that the rider falls backward. I have waited for thy salvation o YAUA. Exodus 3-224 In Exodus we see YAUA revealing himself again to his people after what appears to be a break in Egypt. He appears first to Moses as Malaq YAUA. Ex 3:3,4 first interchanges MALAQ YAUA and YAUA.xxxvii YAUA first introduces himself by identifying himself as God of Abrham, Isaac and Jacob. When Moses asks for name to be used in talking the Israel YAUA identifies himself as eheyeh asher eheyeh. He then tells Moses to say ‘eheyeh shelachani eleicem. Eheyeh sent me to you. Finally in verse 15 he reveals him his name le olam and his memorial form generation to generation: “Yaua elohei avoteicem elohei avraham, elohei yitzchaq veelohei yaacov selachani eleicem” This is YAUA’s message to Israel but to Moses he says “zeh shmi leolam ve zeh zikri ledor dor.”. This is the classic introduction of the name. The parallel between the two statements ‘Ayaxxxviii shelachani eleicem and Yaua shelachani eleicem is leads to some later commentators seeing the names as substitutes . We see a clear substitution between YAUA and ‘AYA. 3-225 Moses st Prayer Generally Moses prays to YAUA using Adonai (Ex 4:10, 4:13, 5:22, 34:9, Num 14:17, however he sometimes uses ADONAI YAUA (Deu 3.24, 9:26). 3-226 YAUA in Prophecy Although Moses uses ADONAI in prayer he always uses YAUA when speaking with authority to Pharoah or to the sons of Israel, in fact he is commanded to use the name when addressing the sons of Israel and Pharoah. In this context if Moses had used another name he would be rebelling against the command of YAUA The well known saying “Thus says YAUA” ( koh amar yaua) begins its history at this time (Ex 4:22, 5:1, 7:17, 8:1. 9:1) It used as an introduction to an authoritative statement which has YAUA to back it up. 3-227 YAUA in Promises When YAUA makes a promise to Israel at this time he first introduces himself and then declares what he will do. So in Exod 6:& he say I am Yaua and I will bring you out from under the burden of the Egyptians and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm amd with great judgements, and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God. And you shall know that I am YAUA your God , which bringeth you out from under the burden of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning which I did swear to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you for an heritage: I am YAUA. We see here an example of YAUA promising. First he introduces himself and then gives a series of things he will do. Then a thing the people will know. He then gives the reason he will take the action and finally signs off with I am YAUA. In the Torah YAUA never says I am ADONAI.xxxix Which is not surprising for this simply means my lord and takes the same pre masoretic form when spoken to men or God (Gen 18:3, 18:12, Ex 32:22,Num 11:28, Num 12:11). YAUA in Song In song the name YAUA is often interchanged with YA. He is also referred by other titles. The first song we see that which occurs when Israel through the red sea and safe from the Egyptians. Ashirah layaua ki ga’oh ga’ah Sus vecvo ramah vayam Azi vezimrat ya vayehi-li liyshuah Zeh ‘eli ve’anvehu ‘elohei ‘avi va’arommenehu yaua ‘eish milchamah yaua shemo 3-302 Theophoric Name in Inscriptions or Literature containing the Memorial Name We see the names preservation in the theophoric names of Hebrews and and earlier. This will include names written in cuneiform, Phoenician, Aramaic and old Hebrew alphabets. Here we can see the Amarna letters. We will see the names appearance on the Moabite Stone from the ninth century BC in its first appearance in an Aramaic text. The name also appears on various Hebrew bullae and seals from the eighth century onwards in theophoric names. Our literary sources from pre exilic period are the Amarna letters and the Lachish letters. Theophoric names testify to shortened forms of the memorial and consist of a form of the name of a god and usually some characteristic of him. Either the name of the god comes first or second or even in the middle. There are hundreds of these names. In terms of testimony to the memorial Yaua we have the following regular combinations. Form xxxx- Nathan He has given (2 Sam 7:2) xxxx-ya Nathan-ya He has given Yah (1 Chron 25.2) xxxx-yau Nathan-yau He has given Yah himself (Jer 36:14) Yau-xxxx Yeo-nathan Yahu[ah] has given (1 Sa 14:16) Yaxl-xxxx Yo-nathan Y(ah)u[ah] has given (1 Sa 14.1)xli There are many of these names and they play a significant part in preserving testimony of the memorial name and even the way it was pronounced according to Gertoux (2). Modern studies have been carried out on them by, Joseph Tropper(Cuneiform) Joseph Tigay (Hebrew), Kutschner (Isaiah scroll DSS) and Gertoux (LXX). 3-303 Pre Second Temple Period Witnesses to the Memorial As we approach the second temple period we find the four letter form of the name in a series of letters called the Lachish ostraca from the time Nebuchadnezzar and his assault on the kingdom of Judah. These are unique in being the only known cache of Hebrew prose preserved from this early period (Pritchard, 1958, p212) . They also contain shorter forms in theophoric names. We also have the Jerusalem amulet dated to the fifth or sixth century B.C. in which a four letter form of the name was found (75 Barkay, 1983,14). The memorial name has been preserved in Hebrew texts in the absolute case as the four letter form yhwh, Yaua. It has been preserved in the three letter form in the beginning of names as yau vocalized as yeho and at the end of words as yau vocalized as yahu. It has been preserved in the two letter form at the beginning of theophoric names as yu or yo and at the end of words as ya. It has also been preserved in the absolute case as ya. In pre exilic texts it is preserved on the Samaria Ostraca from the reign of Jereboam II 786BC to 746BC (Pritchard, 1958) Jewish seals from various pre exilic centuries and on Lachish Ostraca (6th century BC) in letters. 3-304 Eight Century B.C.: Phrase, Servant of Yaua: Use, Written on Seals. The name was also used in writing seals in the eight century. We have a seal in the Harvard Semitic Museum which has inscribed on it lamaqanyu abad Yaua, “belonging of Miqneyaw, the servant of yhwh” (62, 502). According to the Botterweck and Ringgren the name is leviticalxlii and the owner of the seal appears to be a priest. We notice this is a written use where the full name is written out without reservations and its use is not connected to any scripture. Thus we find that the name was used for seals of priests. It was also used to identify those who perhaps served in the temple. We can notice also that here we have a theophoric name Miqneyau, yau being one of the attested short forms of the memorial. 3-305 Eighth Century B.C. 2: Use, Epigram as a funerary Inscription The name Yaua was also written as a funerary inscription in the 8th century B.C.. We have one from Khirbet el Qom which is south west of Lachish and is dated around 750BC (62 p.503)xliii The funerary inscription reads: “barak Uriyahu laYaua, “blessed be Uriyahu by yaua.”(62, p.503)xliv. We see the form la yaua. 3-306 An inscription found in Kuntillat ‘Ajrud which is near Sinai includes the letters hytb yaua along with the name baal, it is written in Phoenician (TWOT 503)xlv. 3-307 Lachish Letters The nameYAUA is used in letter writing in greetings. The evidence of this come from the Lachish letters found at Tell ed-Duweir in southern Israel. There are 21 letters and they are written in classical Hebrew prose.xlvi In this period it was in the greetings of letters and in a number of formulas in the letters. This is very important indicating that that the name YAUA was used in the purely secular operation of writing letters just prior to the second temple period. This is also evidence that many of the later scribal restrictions against writing the name and practices of writing one of the many subsitutes like heh or two yods were not being used by the writers of the Lachish letters. This also indicates that the name use was not restricted to the temple. It is used mainly in the greetings of the letters: 3-307a “ysm yaua ‘t ‘adny s[m] ‘t slm ‘t kym” , May {Yaua}xlvii make my lord hear good news soon”; 3-307 b “ yr’ yaua ‘t ‘dny ‘t h’t hzh slm”, May {Yaua} make my lord see this season in good health.” 3-307c We will observe some of Pritchard’s translations of the use in greetings: Lachish Ostracon II “To my lord Yaosh: May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear tidings of peace this very day, this very day!” Lachish Ostracon III “Thy Servant Hoshaiah hath sent to inform my lord Yaosh: May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear tidings of peace!” Lachish Ostracon IV “May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear this very day tidings of good!” Lachish Ostracon V “May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear [tidings of peace] and good [this very day, this very day!]” Lachish Ostracon VI “To my lord Yaosh: May {Yaua} cause my lord to see this season in good health!” Lachish Ostracon VIII “May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear tidings of good this very day!” (Pritchard 1958,212-214) 3-308 The Arad Ostraca also confirms this use of Yaua in the greetings of letters. One letter contains the greeting:” ‘l ‘dny ‘lysb yhwh ys’ l lslmk (lines 1-3), ‘To my lord Elyashib; may Yaua seek your peace’” (TWOT 503) The clear indication is that for this Hoshaiah in Ostracon III Yaua was part of his standard greetings in the letters he wrote. Perhaps comparable to the Apostle Paul’s “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. 3-309 The name Yaua is used in letters to declare an oath. In Lachish Ostracon VI the writers swears: a “As {Yaua} thy God liveth, truly since thy servant read the letters there hath been no [peace] for [thy ser]vant” (Pritchard 1958,214) In Ostracon II there is also an appeal to the life of Yaua: “And as for what my lord said, ‘Dost thou not understand ?- call a scribe!’ as {Yaua} liveth no one hath ever undertaken to call a scribe for me”; 3-310 The name is also used in praying judgement (cursing) upon certain groups: “May {Yaua} afflict those who re[port] an (evil) rumour about which thou art not informed!” Here we see the use is specifically in the context of Yaua afflicting those who spread “rumours” unacceptable to the one praying or cursing.xlviii Some scholars describe this as cursing. 3-311 The name Yaua is used in letters when referring to the house of Yaua. So a second Arad Ostracon letter has: “ wldbr ‘sr swtny slm byt yaua h’ ysb, ‘And as for the matter concerning which you commanded me-it has been settled. In the house of Yahweh he remains,” 3-312 Yaua was written in prophecy on walls in the pre-exilic period. Naveh reports on some “Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave (IEJ 13 (1963), 74-96). The inscriptions are from Khirbet Beit Lei near to Lachish. One inscription reads “[‘]ny yhwh ‘lhykh ‘rsh ‘ry yhdh wg’lty yrslm, ‘I am {Yaua}, your God, I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem’” (TWOT 504)xlix 3-315 Yaua was written out in prayers in burial caves. Another inscription from Khirbet Beit Lei reads: “nqh yh ‘l hnn nqh yh yhwh, ‘Absolve [us] O merciful God; absolve [us], O {Yaua}’”. Another example of this is an appeal for deliverance or salvation: “hws’ yhwh, ‘Deliver [us] {Yaua}’” (TWOT 504). Cross and Naveh disagree on the readings of these texts but agree that Yaua is present and that the texts are not formulaic. The Memorial Name in Aramaic Texts The Preservation of the Name In the Aramaic alphabets and texts the name has been preserved absolutely in the four letters for yhwh, Yaua and in the three letter form yau, and in the two letter form ya. It has also faced substituion by such Aramaic nouns as Mar, Marya and Maran. There are also various other substitutes which have been used to replace the name. The earliest testimonies to forms of the memorial names comes from its presence in theophoric names. 3-304 Second Temple Period Witnesses to the Memorial Judah returned from Exile around 538 BC, the second temple was completed around 515 BC from this time until the time of Christ we have five centuries. During the period we find that many Hebrews had forgotten Hebrew and were fluent in Aramaic. It also appears from exilic and post exilic writings that the Aramaic linguistic preferences began to change yao to yo as can be seen in the writings of Ezra, Nehehmiah, Zechariah and Haggai. During this period Palestine was firstly under the authority of the Persian Achaemenid dynasty, starting with Cyrus the Persian who liberated the Jews from Babylon. According to the record of Cyrus decree in 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1, Cyrus freely used the name in his decree calling Yaua, “the God of Heaven… the God who is in Jerusalem.”l 3-305 The Witness of Elephantine and Maqqedah Testimonies to the name in this period include the 5th century BC Elephantine papyri giving evidence of the three letter form Yau or Yao. And the fourth century B.C. Maqqedah excavation which yielded some one thousand potsherds inscribed in Aramaic. Among these were found one testifying to the three letter form of the name Yau and even to a hitherto unknown temple of Yahu (77 Lemaire, 2004). 3-306 The Witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Magical Texts During the second century BC we see the development of three main sects in Judaism These were the Essenes, the Saducees and the Pharisees. The first two are priestly sects with evidence that the Essenes were from the high priestly family of Zadok replaced by the priestly family of Hashmon around 164 B.C. after the latter had led the fight against the Seleucids and cleansed the temple. The evidence of the Essenes regarding the name we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls ranging from the first century BC to the first century AD. This evidence is very important in helping us know what was going on in the time of Jesus. The evidence from the second to the seventh century is mainly in the form of magical texts., the Aramaic magical bowls and Amulets which generally range from the fourth to the seventh century. Chapter 4: The Name in Aramaic Texts 4-100 The Memorial Name in Aramaic Texts The encounter of the name YAUA with Aramaic texts is the first rocord we have of the name written with an alphabet. I refer to the witness to the name written in stone by king Mesha of 9th century BCE Moab. However the full scale encounter with Aramaic did not begin until 8th the exile to Babylon during the reign of Nebuchanezzar ruler of the neo Babylonian empire. This produced the ancestors of the Masoretic texts of Ezra, Nehemiah and parts of Daniel, in addition we have the Aramaic targums, the Peshitta and the various magical texts written on Amulets and magic bowls. These magic texts stretch from around the 3rd century AD to the 7th century AD. Then we have the writngs of the Church of the East, the East and West Syrian Church who produced the Peshitta and the Old Syriac. Finally we have the Babylonian Talmud and its Gemarah or commentary on the Hebrew Mishnah. 4-101 From about a hundred years after the building of the second temple in Jerusalem we find a mention of another temple built to the God of Israel called the temple of Yau (Yeho). This templ e was built in Elephantine in upper Egypt near near what is now Aswan but in Roman times called Syene called in Elephanitine in Greek and yeb in Aramaic. . It is “ a town constituting the extreme limit of Egypt in one direction.” (Davis: Seveneh). 4-102 The scribes of the Elephantine papyri when writing to their fellow Israelites in Jerusalem used the form YAU in their letters. They wrote on subjects such as Passoever, contributions to the cult of YAU, the settlement of a claim by oath, a petition for the rebuilding of the temple of YAU, seeking advice from the governors of Judah and Samaria and other such subjects. The texts are dated to between 419 BC and are very important because they testifed to the continued use of the name YAU in Aramaic. The Book of Daniel and Ezra do not use YAUA in their Aramaic sections, nor does the peshitta. 4-101 The name YAUA appears independently as YAU and in theophoric names. Thus we see in a “very broad sheet of of papyrus with 7 columesn of Aramaic dated to 419-400BCE and studied by Sachau, Ungnad and Cowley and Ucassuto, talk of contributions to “the God YAU”. “This is the names of the Jewsih garrision which gave money to the God YAU” (Pritchard, 1958, 278,9). In another papyrus YAUA is referred both by the title “God of heaven” , as in Daniel and Ezra, thus the governor of Judah is greeted “”May the God of heaven seek after the welfare of our Lord exceedingly at all times and give you favour before King Darius and the nobles a thousand times more than now”10. He goes one too mention the god Khnub, who is in the fortress of Elephantine2” (Prticahrd, 1958,280) and then finally “the temple of the god YAU”. A certain egyptian priest Vidarang sent a commad to his son, Nefayan, where he spoke of the temple of the god YAU in the fortress of Yeb and how it should be destroyed. In this document the scribe dates the building of the temple of YAU to before the time of Cambyses. He speaks of the community wearing sackloth, fasting and praying to YAU the Lord of heaven”. He also asks Bagoas to send a letter to the authorities in concerning the temple of the god YAU to let it be rebuilt in the fortress of Elephantine. If successful Bagoas would have merit before YAU the God of heaven. Yedoniah and his colleagues, the scribes of the letter also wrote to Sanballat the governor of syria to gain support. 4-104 We also find another temple built to Yau built in Leontopolis from the middle of the secdon century BCE. Our source for this includes Josehphus Antiquities 13:3:1 amd War 7:10:2 , 3) Chapter 5 The Name in Greek Texts 5-100 The Memorial Name in Greek Texts According to the Letter to Aristeas the translation of the first five book of Moses began in the reign of Ptolelmy Philadelphus (285-246 BC) the city of Alexandria in Egypt. Although the idea that their were 70 translators is deemed legendary, the name Septuagint or LXX has been retained. Thus began the name YAUA’s first major encounter with the Greek alphabet and Greek beliefs and practices. The writings which we need to consider in this language range from 285 BC with first translation of the Torah into Greek to after 1000CE with Greek magical texts which reflect earlier Greek practices in the treatment of the name. Thus we are dealing initially with the foundational writings of Hellenistic Judaism. Thus our texts begin with early fragments of the so called LXX and recensions and developments which sprung from that and dealing with what is called the Old Greek . We also have the witness of Diodoros of Sicily, Philo, the Apocrypha, the Pseudipigrapha, the New Testament, and Josephus. In addition we have the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and other Greek translations. We also have the “Christian” Gnostic writings and those of the “Orthodox” Church of the second to 10th century, the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists particularly Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandiria, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret and Jerome. In addition we have the Greek “magical” papyri stretching from the 2nd to the 11th century CE.. 5-101 From this period we also get clear evidence that the first century B.C. Jewish scribal practice regarding the memorial name in the holy scriptures was to retain the name in one of many forms. These forms of retention are represented in the evidence available. These were to transliterate the name YAUA, YAU or YA, to use Paleo Hebrew, Aramaic square script (as is used in modern Hebrew) or to transcribe it using Greek letters which look similar to the name pipili transliterated pipi in later Aramaic translations of Greek texts. The alternatives The tranliterated forms include: I IAW (Iota, alpha omega) used at least from the first century BCE onward. From the first century BCE we have dead sea scroll 4QLxx Levb11 and Diodorus of Sicily I.94.2. From the second century CE we have Ireneus, Heresies (I.30.5, I.30.11, I.4.1). From the 3rd CE century we have Origen Against Celsus (6:31)12. From the 4th centuey we have Eusebius commentary on the Psalms (Psalm 134 and 146), and we also have Epiphanius Heresies (40:5). From the 5th century we have Theodoret Heresies I:7.13 II IABE (iota alpha beta eta) This transliteration is witnessed by Epiphanius Heresies 40:5, and Theodoret. Qu 15 in Ex i.133 which assigns it to the Samaritains. These are both from the 5th century. III IAE (iota alph eta) This transliteration is from a 3rd century comment of Origen on Ps 2:2. IV IAOUE (iota alpha omicron upsilion epsilon). This transliteration is witness in the 3rh century Stromaties of Clement of Alexandria. V IAOTH (iota alpha, omega/omicron) tav. If this is a trasliteration of YAUA it possibly comes form a confusion tav with heh. It is witnessed in the 2nd century by Ireneus –Heresies 35. However in light of the fact that Ireneus saw it as one of the titles of YAUA and not the distiguishing proper name it could be that this is understood to be a feminine plural of YAUA. The feminine nouns end with ah (qametz heh) in the MT. The fact that some greek text seem to treat YAUA as a feminine noun and thus that gives YAUA, YAUoth may indicate that the last syllable was ah in the 3rd century CE. Ireneus lists this as a name of God in Hebrew along with Eloe, Eloeim, Eleouth, Adonai, Addonai, Sabaoth (with omega or omicron). Jaoth he says “when the last syllable is made long and aspirated denotes *a predetermined measure;’ when it is written shortly by the Greek letter Omicron, name Jaoth, it signfies “one who put evils to flight”14 VI IABAS, If this is accepted a a transliteration of YAUA it is clear that the heh is rendered ah, the vav as v and the second heh as “ah”, the “s” is the usual transformation of names when they are hellenized as can be seen in the example od Elias , Elijah. Betz assigns this vocalisation to the Samaritans (5 Betz, 1986, 335) See PGM V.102, Xic. 1, XII. 4 and S. Lowry, The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis (Leiden: Brill., 1977) 273-274 and passim). VII IABO (omega): PGM Xic.1 VII IABAI PGM XII.4  The earliest evidence points to the transliteration of the name YAUA to IAW. Here we can turn to the Greek writings in Qumran. The first usage is the fragment 4QpapLXXLevb. In this freagment we have the name written in uncial script. The text was edited by Skehan (1992, 174). Skehan make some important observations: “This new evidence strongly suggests that the usage in question goes back for some books at least to the Septuagint rendering” (Skehan, P. W. The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Cristism, XXX (Vetus Testamentum Supplement 4 , Leiden Brill, 1957 p157). Emmanuel Tov also supports the prioroty of IAW over kurios. Ha asserts that the “papyrus represents an early version of Greek scripture...antedating the text of the main manuscript tradition of the Septuagint (LXX)” (Tov, Emmanuel. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert, in : Scott Mckendrick and Orlaith A. O Sullivan (editors), The Bible as a Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. London , Newcastle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium : Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003 pp. Spec p.102.). Karen de Troyerlii makes the appropriate observation of all regarding the significance of the name appearing in simple vocalised form: “That the name of God is wrtten IAO in the Leviticus scroll is very telling, for it is precisely in the Greek Leviticus scroll that one reads about the prohibition of the name of the name of God” (De Troyer, 2005, 9). Thus this documents by indicating that the name was written in a vocalised manner challenges the ideas of such scholars who believe that Leviticus 24:17 asserts that the name is not to be pronounced in any way. This reading of the passage is probably to strict. 4QpapLXXLevb is not the only witness to the transliteration IAW from before Christ. Diodorus of Sicily also had som connection with Jews and testified to their usages of the name IAW saying “ton IAW epikaloumenon theon”. Thus IAW has the witness to its being vocalised naturally in a text from the Qumran library and that fact that a Sicilian also uses the same rendering shows that the name had spread from the initial Egyptian translation to Palestian covenanters and Gentiles researchers. 5-102 The Origin of IAW according to the Valentinian Christians The translitersation of the name YAUA to Greek in all liklihood took place in Alexandria, Egypt. The form of the name in Egypt according to the Elphantine letters was YAU (yod, aleph omega) which if transliterated to Greek would produce IAW (iota, alpha omega). Thus the most likely scenario was that the translators simply used the form of the name prevalent in the south , although according to tradition (Josephus Antiquities Book 12) coming from Jerusalem in order to have accurate Hebrew copies of the law used the form of the name current in Egypt at the time. There had already been a temple to YAU which had been destroyed by the prists of Khnum around 400 BC. There were then many Jews in the land of Egypt and 115 years later even more after the building of Alexandria and the invitation for the Jews to live there. This would mean the from came from Hebrew via Aramaic. This process may have been behind most of the Greek rendering of the name YAUA.liii 5-103 The Elephantine letters represent communications between Jerusalem and Egypt so it is also plausible that the Jerusalem Jews were like the Elephantine colony using the name YAU and when a group of them wne to Egypt to translation then law that used the form already prevalent among them. 5-104 When we look at Egypt after Christ we find an astonishing fact. The Jewish community disappear and “orthodox” Christianity does not appear until the third century. The two hundred years are shrouded in mystery. Where did the Jewish community go? Who converted Egypt? This has lead to some startling historical assertions which need to be considered for they impact the use of the name IAW in the early “Church” which included both “Orthodox” and Gnostic Christians. 5-105 Who are Christians? The traditional view is that a war occured in the second and third century between “Orthodoxy” and Heresy and “orthodoxy” won. But the scenario was by no means so simple. Ernst Renan makes some very astute observations: Although he can say “The Gnostics marked the true sense of every word by pretending that they were Christains” (Renan p77) and “With their Hebrew words often taken in an opposite sense , their magic formulas, and later on their amulets and their Abracadabras, the Gnostics of the lower types merited only to be despised.” Thus have we out introduction to the Greek magical texts which confirm the fact that in some circles the name IAW was in use. A group who were not impacted by a Jewish legal tradition but rather by the search for power against the devil and his sicknesses, perjuries and abortions. 5-106 He also has something other to say on the Gnostic leaders: But this contempt ought not to be poured out upon those great men who sought in that powerful narcotic the repose or the stupefication of their thoughts. Valentinus was in his own way a genius. Carpocrates and his son, Epiphanes, were brilliant writers, spoiled by utopia and paradox; but sometimes astonishingly profound. Gnosticism had a considerable part in Christian propaganda. Often it was the transition by which people passed from Paganism to Christianity. The proselytes thus gained became nearly always orthodox, they never returned to Paganism. It is especially Egypt which preserves from these strange rites an ieffaceable impression. Egypt had not any Judeo- Christianity. A remarkable fact is the difference between Coptic literature and the other Christian literature of the East, while the greater number of Judeo- Christians are found in Syria, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian; Coptic only shows a Gnostic backgound without anything further. Egypt also without the intermediary of the Pagan illumination to the Christian light. Alexandria was almost entirely converted by Gnostics. There Hebrew words is perhaps one key to our need to uncover the role of name YAUA/ IAW in Christian liturgy and Christian life. The other is the most interesting statement that Alexandria was almost entirely converted by Gnostics. Terminology is important. And the intermixture of Gnostics and Christains in the first three centuries meant that Gnostic to those outside were considered Christians. Valentinus had communion with the Church and Ireneus was asked to look into him and his teaching because they were hidden. He was to outisders a Christian and the Gnostics and the Orthodox Christains died together in the arenas of Rome. The first Christian commentaries were the work of Valentinus disciples and many of the gnostic gospel and other writings are much like commentaires on the life of Christ and the teaching of the New Testament. If nothing else we can not treat the Gnostics as a homogenous group with a uniform teaching. This is not the case. Ireneus in writing on the Valentians often complains about the large variations of the heresies on particular traditions They had different rituals for baptism or anointing and they had different confessions for those baptsing and those being baptised. (Iren Heresies I:4, I:30). The Gospel of Philip may classified as Gnostic. But the writer considered himself a Christian and considered the name Christian very honorable. He states: If one go down in the water and come up without having recieved anything and says, “I am a Christian,” he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he recieve the holy spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has recieved a gidt does not have to give it back, butof him who has borrwed it at interest, payment is demanded Gospel of Philip II: 64(Robinson 1990, 148) At least three times in the Gospel of Philip does he reiterate the importance of the name and experience of being a Christian. Isenberg describes the gospel of Philip thus “The Gospel of Philip is a compilation of statements pertaining primarily to the meaning and value of sacraments within the context of a Valentinian conceptionof the human predicament and life after death” (NHL, 1990, 139. Thus when we look at Valentinians we are looking at the writings of a group who in our period percieved themselves as Christian and right up until Ireneus were percieved by others as Christians. The Gnostic Christians had a very important role in the early history of the Church. Renan has made one more very important observation which we need to take notice of before we continue with the Valetinian observation on the name YAU. Renans word on Christianity’s debt to Gnosticism bear some consideration: In dogma they provoked nothing but reaction, but their position was more considerable in Christian literature and liturgical institutions. They borrowed nealry always a good deal from those whom they anathematised. The first Christianity, quite Jewish still, was very simple, it was the Gnostics who made a religion of it. The sacraments were to a large extent their creation; their anointings, especially at the deathbeds of the sick, produced a deep impression. The holy Chrism confirmation (at first an integral part of baptism), the attribution of supernatural power to the sign of the cross, and many other elements of Christian mysticism came from them...Moving from time to time from genius to folly, Gnosticism defies all absolut judgements. Perhap we have over used the words of Renan but what he has to say has utmost importance on out perspective on what is Christian and what is not in those early centuries. And we are very interested in what the Christians used the name YAUA or YAU for. 5-107 We come back to the issue of the origin of the name YAU (IAW) according to the Valentinians. To answer this we need to take a foray into the Valentinian myth of creation and redemption. The teaching is what Valentinians might call the kaballah or the hidden teaching of Jesus.liv Our summary is based on the description of Ireneus and Tertullian. 5-108 Valentinians on the Origin of the word IAO (From Ireneus book 4) The Valentinians taught that the word IAO (YAU) originated as an exclamation in the mouth of a power called Boundary (Horos). According to Ireneus the Valentinians held that in the endless beginning there was a Fulness (pleroma). This Fulness consisted of 30 worlds or ageslv. They began with the first couple Profundity and Silence and ended with the last descendant Wisdom. There were fifteen couples. Only the Only Begotten, Mind had knowledge of the Father. Wisdom in her desire to know more went beyond herself and from passion and got frustrated in her attempts to know more. However she repented and returned to the Fulness. Her Thought, name Achamoth was separated from her and from the Fulness and wandered in place of darkness and Emptiness. She was like and abortion with out shape. Christ and the Holy Spirit came to her by means of Boundary. Thye had pity on her and gave her shape but then withdrew. When she sought to find that light which had gone she was blocked by Boundary saying YAU. From her passion and tears the world was created. 5-107 According to Ireneus this was where Valentinians understood YAU to have been derived. The Boundary who exclaimed YAU has at least five different names. These include Cross (Stauros), and Deliverer (Lytrotes), Carpistes, Boundary Setter (Horothetes) and Metagoges. –Thus we see in this early Christian tradition the name is directly issuing forth from a power called Cross and Deliverer. The connection between the Cross and the name will be explored further later.lvi The connection between the name YAU and deliver is perhaps also interesting in the light of the connection between the Hebrew name YAUA and the deliverance or bringing out of Israel from Egypt. This Boundary power is said to have two functions. That of Seperating and that of supporting. and Deliverer (Lytrotes), Carpistes, Boundary Setter (Horothetes) and Metagoges. 5-108 Tertullian adds something very important to the picture. When he gives the origin of IAW, he explains that this is how the Valentinians believe YAU came to be in scripture. Try, however, she did, and perhaps would have found Him, had not the self-same Horos, who had met her mother so opportunely, fallen in with the daughter quite as unseasonably, so as to exclaim at her Iao! just as we hear the cry “Porro Quirites” (“Out of the way, Romans!”), or else Fidem Cæsaris!” (“By the faith of Cæsar!”), whence (as they will have it) the name Iao comes to be found is the Scriptures. (Tertullian, Against the Valentinians XIV) This is very important for us. This indicates that 300 years after the translation 4Qlev mentioned aboce, the name IAW was still present in the Scriptures of the Tertullian and the Scriptures of the Valentinians. If this is the case the manuscripts of these scriptures we do not at present have them. However it is also clear that we have almost no Christian manuscripts from the said period. But if the reading be correct this is evidence that the name was used in the scriptures read by the Christians. Thus the Valentinians give us the role of the name IAU in their tradition. But if we would know more of the position of Iaw and its or his connection to other names or other being. We have to turn to the testimony of Ireneus on the Ophites. 5-109 IAW among the Ophites Renan asserts that the Ophites were really sanke worshippers. And they had a very strange way of celebrating the Eucharist: The Ophites had certain tamed serpents (agatho demoins) which they kept in cages. At the moment of celebrating the mysteries they opened the door to the little god and called on him. The serpent came out mounted the tabel where the serpents were and coiled themselves around them. The Eucahrist appeared then to the sectaries a perfect sacrifice. They broke bread, distributed it, and worshipped the agatho demons, and offered through him , they said, a hymn of praise to the Heavenly Father. (Renan :History of Christianity, p74-5 As strange as it may seem it is from this group that the next testimony regarding YAU among the Christians comes. According to Ireneus the Ophites believed that at the beginning there was Profundity, the Man, the primary light, infinite. He had a Son called the Second Man, from them proceeded the first women the Holy Spirit or Wisdom. The two men saw how beautiful she was and so set desire on her and had a child with the called Christ. Christ came out of the right side of Wisdom. However here left side was agitated and produced a child called Wisdom , Sinistra and Prunicus. Because Christ was from the right he had the desire to go up and went upwards and join the two men and his mother and they became the incorruptible world (aeon). However the child of the left had a desire to descend into the deep while it was still immobile. She descended and took from their a material body. It had within it a sprinkling of light from above. She felt unsatisfied and so tried to ascend again but the material body was too heavy. However she managed to stretch herself and produced the visible heavens15. However she lived under the heavens. With the coneption of an idea and the power of all things she managed to lay down her body and was free. She then managed to produce a son without the aid of a male. This son was Ialdaboth. He produced a son with out a wife, IAW who produced Sabaoth who produced Adneus, who produced Eloeus who produced Oreus who produced Astanpheus. These seven were called a Hebodmad. With the mother Wisdom, the eight they are called Ogdoad. 5-110 Thus for the Ophites IAW is the son of Ialdabaoth. Ialdaboth then tries to boast that he is the Father. His mother cries out “Do not lie Ialdaboth”. All seven disturbed by the new voice. So Ialdaboth tries to distract them and says “Come let us make man in our image (Gen 1:26). The six powers then create man and Ialdaboth breathes into him the breath of life. However through the plan of Wisdom 2 as Ialdaboth breathes into Adam the sprinkling of light entered Adam and left Ialdaboth. Adam then got up and began to praise Profundity (the first Man) the first man and forsook his creators. Ialdaboth got envious and sought to empty man by means of a woman. He thus produced Eve from his Thought. The other powers came and admired Eve and falling in love with her produced sons who are called angels. Wisdom 2 however devised a scheme whereby through the serpent Adam and Eve would transgress the command of Ialdaboth. She succeeds and Ialdaboth sends Adam and Eve out of Paradise and down to earth. 5-111 It appears then we have the incorruptible world above with Man, the second Man, the Holy Spirit/ Wisdom 1 and Christ. Below them is Wisdom 2 the mother of Ialdaboth, and then the hebdomad Ialdaboth, Iao and their 5 descendants. These seven are the rulers of the seven heavens16. Each of the seven powers is assigned a part of the Biblical history. IAW had four prophets, Samuel, Nathaniel, Jonah and Micah. When Christ came down from the incorruptible world he descended through the seven heavens and took the likeness of each of the sons of those heavens. On the way down he clothed his sister Wisdom (the one from the left side of the first woman) with light. This is the mystery of the bride groom and the bride. Having united with Wisdom he descended into the man Jesus after his baptism. He thus began to perform miracles and to announce the unknown Father. As Jesus was being led away to be crucified Christ and Wisdom left him but send down an energy which raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus remained on earth for 18 months and taught his disciples. He then ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of his Father Ialdaboth. There he reiceves souls who are worthy and thus being enriched at the expense of his Father who is unaware of the process. All these holy souls contain a part of the sprinkling of light and when all the sparks of light have been gathered together and carried to the incorruptible world it is the consummation of all things. (Ireneus, Heresies I 30) The Use of YAUA/IAO in Baptism The Priestly Tradition and the Church There is evidence that the baptismal rites of the Church which include washing in water, anointing wih oil and sealing the candidate with the name of God, is intended to continue the rite of washing, anointing and recieving the name present among the sons of Aaron. As we now the temple was destroyed in AD 70. However Jesus Christ and John the baptist were both prophesying great changes in the life of Israel. Jesus especially, according to the witness of all the gospels foresaw the destruction of the temple. The priests were the guardians of the name Yaua. It was they who were responsible to minister in the name and to put the name Yaua on the people. The evidence from the New Testament and the early Church appears to indicate that the guardianship and transmission of the name was intended to continue in the Church. The evidence for this thesis, that the actions of the priest in bearing the name Yaua into the holy of holies and the ministry of the priest before God on behalf of the people of Israel, and of putting the name Yaua on the people, and sanctifying the name Yaua in the earth were all, in the eyes of the Church transfered from the families of the priesthood operating in the first century and continued with priests who joined the Church. That is the priests who joined the Church understood that they work continued, despite the destruction of the temple, inside the Church. We need to look at three key points: Were there priests who were part of the Church’s tradition and the life of Jesus? Is there evidence that the rites of the Church reflect the rites of the priesthood? Is there evidence of the transfer of titles from the priesthood to the Church? The sum of the matter may perhaps be seen in this. The answer to the question where did the priesthood go after the destruction of the temple, is perhaps demonstrated in this study. The priesthood and many of the priests entered the Church and continued to operated, admittedly without the temple, inside the Church. 5-113 Were there priests in the Churches tradition? The two or three most well known priests in early church history are Zechariah of the course of Abijah, John the Baptist, John the Apostle or disciple whom Jesus loved. Whether John the Apostle who wrote the letters is the same John who wrote the Apocalypse is not an issue we will take up. But the evidence presented in both documents is that they were members of the sons of Aaron and thus of the priesthood. The geneaology of John the Baptist is well known. He is the miracle son of the priest Zechariah. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before GOD, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of Yaua blameless. So the story of John the Baptist begins not only with a priest but one who was from the sons of Aaron and so could possibly have a right to the high priesthood. The text does not indicate that he was a Saducee but he is introduced as having one of the most important roles in the temple. He had been selected that day by the drawing of lots, to burn incense at the time of prayer. Zechariah like many priestly prophets before him, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Haggai had an encounter with an angel of Yaua in that period often described as the Word of Yaua (Gieschen, Fossum 1985). The angel Gabriel indicated Zechariah would have a son who would be great in the face, presence, or sight of Yaua. It is then John the levitical priest of the course of Abijah who then baptisesYeshua the son of David. At the same time Jesus recieved an anointing of the holy spirit, which appeared as a dove (yonah H). This for some Valentinian groups represented recieving the name Yaua (Fossum, Qusipel). So in this baptism some see a transfer of the name Yaua from John the priest to Jesus the son of David. Fossum refers to the idea of being vested with the name. The intimate connection between the son of David and the son of Aaron reminds us of the ordination of king Solomon. “Zadok the priest then took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon.” (1 Kings 1:39). That event also took place at a body of water. But there are perhaps more parallels with the anointing of David which had to be done in private, because Shaul was already king. “And Yaua said arise , “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of Yaua came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam. 16). So again we see that it is the high priest at the time who anoints David and immediately the spirit of Yaua came upon him. However unlike the baptism of Jesus this was not a national event but like the baptism Yaua spoke confirming the choice and sent the spirit. John the Baptist baptised Jesus and recognised him as the son of God. He later testified: “This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me. And I did not recognize Him but in order that he might be manifest to Israel, I came baptizing in water. I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and he remained upon him” (John 1:32-33). Perhaps the greatest pair they can be compared with is Moses and Aaron. Aaron performed the signs Yaua gave him in order to support Moses (Ex 4). 5-114 The Priest John the Evangelist The next priest of the early Church context is that of the author John’s gospel and epistles. We will call him John the Evangelist for the sake of clarity and convenience. This man is according to Westcott clearly a priest from the evidence present in the gospel. His detailed knowledge of Jewish practices in the gospel of John point to this idea, at the same time he was a close disciple of Jesus. “Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest” While the text doesn’t say specifically that he was a priest there are evidences evincing this fact including a late antique tradition recorded in Eusebius we will look at below. This disciple had the ability to influence the door man (who was most likely a priest) and get Peter into an area where only certain people were permitted. The Church then had connections not just close to the priesthood but to the high priest. This disciple is later given the name John in Church tradition. Late evidence supporting the closeness of John the Evangelist to the priesthood is represented in the tradition handed by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and recorded by Eusebius. “In Asia great luminaries sleep who shall arise again on the last day, the day of the Lords advent...there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus” (H. E. 3:31). Here Polycrates first supports the point that John was a priest. But in addition he notes that John wore the mitre. But he does not say this in any way so as to make a theological point. For him its was simply and matter of fact. In the same way that Philip was not a priest. The mitre in the Septuagint is that which is mentioned in Exodus 28. And thou shalt make a plate (petalon) of pure gold, and thou shalt grave on it as the graving of a signet, Holiness to Yaua (H. qodesh la Yaua-G. hagiasma kuriou). And thou shalt put it on the spun blue cloth, and it shall be on the mitre: and it shall in the front of the mitre (H. misnepheth). And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron; and Aaron shall bear away the sins of their holy things, all that the sons of Israel shall sanctify every gift of their holy things, and it shall be on the fore head of Aaron continually acceptable for them before Yaua. As is evident from the text the mitre is not worn by the ordinary priest. It is worn by the high priest. The likelhood is that there would not have been many mitres around the temple. It also bore a plate of gold attached by blue lace which had qadosh layaua engraved on it. That is it had the name Yaua engraved on it. In some Jewish tradition the name Yaua was the special preserve not only of the priesthood but of the high priest. Although there is much evidence to the contrary some still believe that the high priest only said the name Yaua once year on the holiest day of the year, yom kippur. This was in the holiest place on earth, the qodesh qodeshim. But of all Israel it was only the high priest who was allowed to utter that name. But according to Exodus it was Aaron alone in Israel who wore the mitre . If then the mitre was used by the various high priests down to the destruction of the temple the final one to use it would be either Matthias son of Theophilus or Phanas of Phannias. The question then would be where did the mitre go? Where is the mitras which bore the name Yaua and was worn only by the high priest. Is it possible that John recieved it and and brought it into the Church? John the bond Servant There is strong evidence in the Apocalypse that the author was a priest. The Apocalypse is one of the texts which is used by scholars to indicate temple practice at the end of the second temple period. His message goes into the intricate details of temple practices and as a priest follows in the tradition of priest prophets or prophets with revelations of the heavenly temple such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Haggai, Malachi and Zechariah son of Berechiah. Again if, as Church tradition has maintained he is the same John who wrote the anonymous gospel of John then we have another evidence to support his priestly position. As we have noted the special concern of the priesthood was the memorial name Yaua. And there are scholars who argue that central to understanding the apocalypse is the recognition that Yaua, the name of God extremely important to it (Tyson). Why would this be? Perhaps because the Church continued the work of the priesthood in Jerusalem. Not just in a symbolic sense but in a literal sense. When the temple was destroyed the priesthood did not disappear it went into the Church. 5-114 Theophilus grandfather of Joanna With the evidence coming of regarding the high priest Theophilus who ruled from AD 37-41 and was appointed by King Herod Agrippa 1 Andersen has recieved support for his thesis. His thesis asserts that the Theophilus which Luke wrote to was one and the same with Theophilus the high priest in AD 37. The evidence includes an ossuary of Johanna grandaughter of Theophilus. The names Theophilus and Johanna are only mentioned by Luke. This evidence also strengthens the idea that the Church continued the line of the priesthood. It is also in this context notable that Johanna the grandaughter of Theophilus the high priest is in this thesis held thought to be a witness of the resurrection. It was also Matthias the son of Theophilus who was the last high priest before the war with Rome. If it was his daughter who was the witness of the resurrection and as a result a believer this would be a very close connection to the Church. 5-115 A Great Company of Priests Strong support for this position is also represented by the witness of Luke in Acts. There he records “And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith”. This phrase a great many is clearly important in this respect. Who were these priests and why did they become obedient to the faith at that time? There were a large number of priests who joined the Church just before the martydom of Stephen. Luke has been established by the works of such scholars as CJ Hemer and Gasque, Bruce and Howard as a first class historian. When he says a large number of priests we need to take him seriously. Marshall (Acts, 1980) simply skips over the verse. However Ellicot (1971, 871) picks up the significance: The fact is every way significant. No priest is named as a follower of our Lord’s. None, up to this time, had been converted by the apostles. The new fact is connected with the new teaching of Stephen. And the main feature of that teaching is an anticipation of what was later proclaimed more clearly by Paul: that the time for sacrifices has passed away, and that the Law and the Temple were decaying.” Ellicots observation of the fact is significant, although to assign the cause to Stephen cannot gain support for his case is taken up following the conversion of many priests. Bruce (1970, 980) observes “Many of the ordinary priests were humble pious men unlike the wealthy ecclesiatical politicians of the high priestly family.” He does not say much more. Bairds notes that, “This sumary refers again to the increase in the Churches membership. It includes the only record of converts from the Jewish priesthood. Apparently the Church had little impact on the cultic leaders of the Jews and, in contrast to the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, had little interest in priestly tradition.” (Baird, 1971, 736). It is this last statement I would like to take issue with. What is more reasonable is that the priest saw in the teaching of the Church something connected with their work not simply its nullification. We will see that the Church was not only interested in priestly tradition, which itself is centred around the name Yaua, but they were establishing the priestly tradition of the kingdom of God, which began with John the Baptist. The Life Application Bible (1991, 1946) notes “Jesus had told the disciples that they were to witness first in Jerusalem (1:8). In a short time, their message had infiltrated the entire city and all levels of society. Even some priests were being converted, an obvious violation of the wishes of the council that would endanger their position.” The Life Application Bible down plays the numbers of priests and seems to see their conversion as surprising. But with Lukes historical assertion of their conversion we need to perhaps wonder what were the possible causes of their conversion. The first cuase may have been the signs, wonders and healing which were taking place at the hands of the apostles. According to Acts 5 two person in the congregation dropped dead having had their sins exposed. Immediatley afterward it is recorded that they were highly regarded by the people but no one else dared to join them. The level of holiness demonstrated when Ananias and Saphira dropped dead may have impressed priests who were used to the idea of those violating God’s holiness dropping dead, as with two of Aarons sons and possibly any high priest who entered the holy of holies unworthily. The Mishna asserts that on approaching the day og atonement a second high priest should be available in case the first one dropped dead and the first entered with a rope around his leg in case he dropped dead and had to be pulled out. Secondly with the head on clash with the high priests over the name and the trial with the Sanhedrin it is clear the Apostles won that battle. The Angel of Yaua released then from prison and all the priests knew about it. After Peter’s shadow started healing people the high priest and his associates arrested him. The Pharisee Gamaliel then spoke out in support of the apostles implying that the high priests and the Sanhedrin by fighting the apostles might be fighting God. Although Gamaliel’s influence among the priests is unlikely to be to strong he was said to be honored by all the people. It is not surprising then that priest having seen their high priests defeated in the Sanhedrin and the prison emptied and people publicly healed began to realise the message of these followers of the son of David may have some truth to it. 5-116 Is there evidence that the rites of the priesthood influenced the rites of the priesthood? In his “Baptismal Praxis in the Book of Revelation Gieschen asserts “This paper will demonstrate that Revelation evinces early Christian baptismal praxis wherein the iniciate recieved a mark that was the bestowal of the Divine Name as a seal. Furthermore, it will be argued from the text of Revelation that this reception of the Divine Name, washing, and clothing in white was understood to be the foundational priestly preparation for the early Christian mystical experience of the presence of God, especially in the Eucharist” ( Firstly we note that it is John the Baptist a priest of the sons of Aaron who was baptising in the Jordan river. This could be described as a levitical or priestly act as it had its origin in Leviticus: “Ritual immersion in water from a living water source- established as a practice in the book of Leviticus- was understood to render the Jews ritually clean, enabling him or her to enter certain pure or sacred areas (such as the Temple precinct) and to participate in specific religious events and in Jewish society as a whole” (99 Pfann S.J. 1999, 337) as a whole His purposes in baptising were manifold. According to the Gospel of John, the Baptist was witnessing to the true light (Joh 1:6). But who was this true light? This true light was the Word of God. According to Gieschen “It is not surprising that Israelites and Jews, long before and during the first century C. E. , referred to this angel [the angel of Yaua who had the Name Yaua in him] as “the Word of YHWH”, “the Word of God”, or simply “the Word”” For Gieschen “Since this “angel” has the name YHWH in him, he is not from among the myraids of created angels; he is YHWH in a visible form”. Thus John was bearing witness to the Word who would have YAUA’s name in him. He bore witness in a priestly way by washing people in the waters of baptism. They came and were immersed, confessing their sins. In other words through their confession and baptism their sins were washed away. However in the Temple based society, people recieved forgiveness of sins in a number of ways. Firstly they had the sacrifices, the sins offerings and the trespass offerings. These were designed to prepare for the forgiveness of their sins. The same with the Day of Atonement where the high priest would intercede for the whole nation and obtain the forgiveness of his sins, his family’s sins and Israel sins. But John a priest, came offering the forgiveness of sins on another level. But John’s activity only prepared people for the one who was coming in the name YAUA. Although it is likely that at the baptism the people were returning to YAUA and so at some point, either before or after they were immersed they would call on the the name YAUA, this prepared them for when they would be immersed not in water but in the Holy Spirit. It is clear that Holy Spirit is understood by John to be a far more powerful work of God than his baptism in water. The Holy Spirit to John represented the presence of YAUA himself. For he claimed to be fulfilling Isaiah 40: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness prepare the way of YAUA; nake straight a highway for our God...And the glory of YAUA will be revealed and all mankind will see it together.” In setting himself in this context John understands the Holy Spirit baptism the revelation of the glory of YAUA. 5-117 This revelation is also some how connected with the temple in the thinking of Mark. For in Marks Gospel a citation is made from Malachi 3 “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.” And significantly in Matthew Jesus himself applied the passage to John. John sent disciples to talk to Jesus about if he was the one or if another should be expected. As they were leaving Jesus says to the crowd: What did you go out to the desert to see? ...A prophet? Yes, I tell you and more than a prophet, this is the one about whom it is written “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you”. (Matt 11:10) This is YAUA speaking and it is clear that it is he who will follow the coming of the messenger. In this passage John becomes a messenger preparing the way for YAUA. Then the messenger of the covenant comes, whom Israel has desired. His specific work in the Malachi context is to “purify the levites and refine them as gold and silver. Then YAUA will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness.” Part of the work then is with the priesthood, with those who offer sacrifices. The book of Malachi is written perhaps primarily to for the defence of the honour of YAUA’s name. The central cry is perhaps “Great is YAUA beyond the borders of Israel”. YAUA addresses the contempt of the priests very directly. 1 They offered defiled bread 2 They offer blind, sick and lame animals 3 They were effectively kindling the fire of the altar for nothing 4 YAUA had no pleasure in them and would not accept offerings from them In contrast to this his name would be great among the Gentiles who would offer incense to his name. Malachi begins to sen our curses. First the man who has an acceptable animal but promises and offers to Adonai a corrupt thing. But more seriously YAUA addresses a warning to the priests: And now this o ye priests, this commadments is for you. If you will not lay it to heart and to give glory to my name, saith YAUA Tzevaoth I will send a curse upon you and I will curse your blessings: yea I have cursed them already because you do not lay it to heart. (Mal 2:2) For Malachi the command “lo techalel et shem eloheiqa”, You shall not profane the name of you God” had been transgressed. For the prophet charged them: ve atem mechalelim ‘oto be’emarcem shulcan adonai megoal hu’ veniyvo nivzeh ‘aclo” And you have profaned it in that you say ‘The table of Adonai is vile”. YAUA accuses the priests of saying: 1 What a burden it is and you sniff at it contemptously. 2 They were accused of bring animals which were taken forcefully (gazal) or had been stolen in robbery. Chapter three of Malchi lays out the ideal of the role of the priest. The covenant YAUA made with Levi was for life and peace. Levi had recieved this for the feared YAUA and was afraid before his name. The law of truth was on his lips and he walked with YAUA in peace and uprightness and turned many away from inquity. The lips of the priests should guard and the people should seek the law or instruction from his mouth for the priest is a messenger of YAUA TZEVAOTH. It then runs through some transgressions of the people especially regarding marrying the daughter of a El Necar (strange god). Finally we come to the passage which Mark applies to John the Baptist and to Jesus: “Behold I will send My Messenger , and he shall prepare my way before me”. Malachi then is important for a number of reasons as we consider the use of the name YAUA in the second temple period. Firstly it shows us that during the Persian period the Temple priests began to despise the name. This is the period just before the coming of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period when the supposed mass withdrawal from the use of the name began. It shows that YAUA would even curse the blessing he had given to the priests to do in the Temple on a daily basis where they were supposed to use his name. One can imagine the impact this may have had on the thinking of the priests as they blessed and the people as they recieved the blessing. But it also shows that his name was great among the nations. The Dead Sea Covenanters marked some of the criticisms of the book and had specific rules to avoid making the same errors (CD 6:13, 4Q265 41-2, CD 20:19-20). The book contains a specific blessing for those who feared YAUA and honouerd his name. They were written into a scroll of rememberance ( sepher zichron) and would be his jewels ( segulah) who would be spared in the future. And as noted John the one of the special focuses of the book is referred to John. And as a result the book applies to Jesus. So baptism connects with the forgiveness of sins which was a priestly operation in the Jewish culture. In the normal context people would turn to Jerusalem, to where YAUA and placed his name. They would then confess their sins and God would forgive, for his eyes and his heart were on Jerusalem because his name was there. We see this in the prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8). However in the first century John had gone out to the desert (as had the Essenes whom he may be connected with) to the Jordan. And people were flocking to him to recieve the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that YAUA’ name must have been with him. 5-118 Fossum notes in his The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord that Moses is imaged as one vested with God's name. In being vested with the divine name he is regaining the glory which had lost in the garden. Moses is vested with God's name on his ascension to Mount Sinai. This was seen as a heavenly enthronement and a restoration of divine glory.The idea is compared with an idea of Jesus recieving the divine name as described in the Gospel of Philip. One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the father gave to the son; it is the name above all things: the name of the father. For the son would not become father unless he wore the name of the father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it (Gospel of Philip II 54, Robinson, 1990, 142) Here the Father gave the Son his name which is exalted above all (Fossum, 1985, 95). Fossum asserts "The secret name which is given to Jesus is identical with the Name of the Father obviously is the proper name of God. Jesus is then believed to have been vested with the name of God.17. – We will Thus we see that the name according to the Gospel of Philip is worn and not spoken. And it is possessed by more than one person not only Jesus. For Fossum the name is YAUA. One issue is less certain the time of being clothed with the name. 5-119 When did this investiture take place? J. Quispel in "Gnosticism and the New Testament", ( in J. P. Hyatt, ed., The Bible in modern scholarship, Nashville & New york , 1965.;p 266) believes the crowning took place at baptism. This is based on his understanding that the "Valentinians thought that at that moment the Name of God descended upon Jesus... . ibid p.52.This is interesting because in the period names and baptisms were definitely connected. For example the disciples were baptising people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:2), and Paul took precautions so that no one would think they were baptised in his name. For Paul says to the Corinthian Church “Were you baptised in the name of Paul. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." Menander the disciple of Simon Magus who is supposed to be the disciple of John the Baptist baptised people in his own name (Grant, Second Century Christianity) . The baptism of Jesus however was performed by John the Baptist. The pertinent question is in which name did John baptise in? We need only look at his credentials to see. He came to prepare the way of YAUA (Mark 1, Isa 40). He came as a prophet. According to the Mosaic law, if John was a true prophet, and few seem to have doubted that at the time, he could only have come in one name YAUA18 (Deu 13:1, Due 18). Throughout the Scriptures, prophets were tested by the criteria set out in the Law of Moses. And the Torah stated very clearly that a prophet had to speak in the name of YAUA, and if he came in the name of another god he would die (Deu 18). Pfanns words can be applied here “It would be untenable to think that John would abrogate the requirements of the Mosaic law for his followers” (99 Pfann 1999, 346) only in this case we speak of the laws on prophecy not immersion. Elijah had the prophets of Baal executed as a group and John was seen as coming in his spirit and power. 5-119 John the Baptist came preparing the way of YAUA and therefore if he baptised in any name it had to be that of YAUA. Do we have evidence of others in the period baptising in the name of YAUA? The answer is again affirmative although late. There is a toseftah which relates a dispute between Pharisees and a Day baptiser or hemerobaptists. In this dispute there is a disagreement as to when the name YAUA should be spoken19 during the baptism process. Whether before the person entered the water or afterwards. The Article in Jewish Encyclopedia on the Hemerobaptists relates that they were a Division of Essenes who bathed every morning before the hour of prayer in order to pronounce the name of God with a clean body (Tosef., Yad., end; the correct version being given by R. Simson of Sens: "The morning bathers said to the Pharisees: 'We charge you with doing wrong in pronouncing the Name in the morning without having taken the ritual bath'; whereupon the Pharisees said: 'We charge you with wrong-doing in pronouncing the Name with a body impure within'"). In the time of Joshua b. Levi (3d cent.) a remnant still existed, but had no clear reason for their practise (Ber. 22a).lvii Thus we see that according to this evidence both the Pharisees and the Hemerobaptists, contemporaries of Jesus Christ and the early Church, used to speak the name Yaua, regularly and repeatedly. They did not only speak it but spoke it every day. The Pharisees do not appear to have any ritual behind the utterring of the name, whereas the Hemerobaptists believed one should be immersed or baptised before using it. The Clementina of the second and third century, place John the Baptist among the hemerobaptists. Although this can not be taken as conclusive it does support the possibility of the belief among the Valentinians that Jesus recieved the name of God at baptism. For John here is said to be in a group who specifically immersed themselves so that they could utter the name Yaua. As we have already noted John the Baptist was considered a prophet and just a glance through the masoretic text indicates that throughout the Law and the Prophets all prophets came in the name Yaua. The mantle of the name Yaua is then seen as descending on Jesus at the baptism. There is other evidence in the New Testament to support this position.Firstly we know that Jesus himself claimed to come in the name of his Father. He like John was called a prophet by his contemporaries. They even compared him with Jeremiah and Elijah or one of the prophets. This being the case what we find conspicous about all these with whom Jesus was compared is that they came in the name Yaua. Jesus pictured John the baptist as Elijah. Elijah was expected to return because of the prophecy of Malach as mentioned earlier. An earlier prophecy of Malachi is applied to John by the Gospel of Mark: We see in the case of Elijah and his successor, Elisha, that the succession took place at the river Jordan. Jesus initiation under the ministry of the levitical priest John the baptist is also recorded as taking place at the river Jordan. When Elijah left Elisha ripped up his mantle, picks up Elijah’s mantle and struck the water and says “Where is YAUA the God of Elijah?”. When the waters opened the prophets said “The Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha” (2 King 2). In one sense they recognised the anointing of Elisha with the Spirit of Yaua even as John the baptist recognises the ministry of Jesus when the heavens opened up. John bore witness I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it aboad upon him.And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me , Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost (John 1:29ff) If John were practising hemerobaptist baptism as indicated by the Clementines then the name YAUA could be uttered after the immersion at the same time that Jesus saw the vision and heard the voice. The parallels are quite general: Eliyahu/Elisha Yochanan/ Yeshua People Two prophets Two prophets Place: Next to Jordan In the Jordan Event: succession and initiation initiation, baptism for all righteousenss After event YAUA’s Spirit acts Heavens open Spirit comes as a dove Prophets recognize Elisha Prophet recognizes Jesus as his successor As successor to Elijah Elisha miracle ministry Temptation Yeshua (Yehosha) begins miracle ministry There may not be parallels to show that the gospel writers were modelling the succession in the two cases but in both cases a succession ministry was begun and and old ministry was drawing to a close. YAUA is conspicously present in the case of Eliyahu and Elisha and it Jesus who compared John with Elijah (Matt 17:12) and his own connection with Eliyahu and Elisha (Luke 4:25,26) If indeed the name YAUA was used at the baptism of Jesus as seems very likely we would expect a memory of the idea in the collective memory of the early Church. For Jesus is the the one whom the Church follows. Has the Church then any recollection of the connection between baptism and the name YAUA. 5-120 Baptism in the name of Jesus and Calling on the name Yaua Our first evidence that the early Hebrew Nazarenes saw a connection between the name YAUA and baptism comes from the scriptures the early Church refers to in preaching the gospel and baptising Jews and later Gentiles. In Acts 2:21 Peter says regarding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the attendant effects that this was a fulfilment of Joel 2. He notes “And it shall be that every one who calls on the name of YAUA shall be saved”. Here he cites a passage in which contains the name YAUA. Later on when the people asked what they need to do, Peter tells them: “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)... Be saved from this perverse generation...And the Lord was adding to their day by day those who were being saved 2:47” Thus we have the prophecy, YAUA shall save those who will call on his name. They are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to be saved. Thus to call on the name YAUA is to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. It is practically certain that Peter was not speaking Greek and that when he cited scripture he cited them in Hebrew. Thus there is no escaping that he was referring to the name YAUA. Even the term Lord here seems almost certainly to refer to YAUA for Peter notes the promise is to all those whom “the Lord our God” shall call. This phrase is almost definitely referring to YAUA ELOHEINU, of approximately 98 occurences of this phrase in MT 96 refer directly to YAUA eloheinu and 2 in Daniel to Adonai Eloheinu, but Daniel also uses YAUA Eloheinu. This was not a synagogue so there is no need to assume that he was using adonai in this context. On the other hand we are not certain if he was speaking Aramaic or Hebrew and we do not know with certainty which word he used when he referred to YAUA but we know YAUA was intended. The only alternatives are Adonai and Marya and there is no strong evidence to suggest that he had any reason to change the name of YAUA to another name . 5-121 Paul makes the same connection in Roman’s although he does not refer directly to baptism. He asserts “If you confess with you mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart God raised from the dead, you shall be saved...for whoever calls on the name of YAUA shall be saved” Roman 10:9, 13). 5-122 It is the literature of the Aramaic speaking Church and the Gnostics where the connection between the name YAUA and baptism has been retained most clearly.lviii A most telling connection is found between the sign of the cross as a seal of the believer being baptised and the name YAUA, the tetragrammaton. In the Western Tradition the repentant was first baptised and then given the sign of the cross as a seal of the unction following. Fossum describes it as a “post baptismal signatio crucis of the forehead associated with an unction and performed with or without oil” (Fossum 1985, 101). However in the Syriac speaking Church the tradition was different and connection the seal of the sign of the cross with the name YAUA. According to Fossum in Syriac Christianity the sealing of the unction came before the actual baptism. And whereas in the Western Tradition the sign of the cross was a symbol of the name or the cross upon which he died in the Syriac speaking Church this was not the case. “It had retained its significance as an emblem of the Divine Name” (Fossum 1985, 101). Narsai, a fifth century Nestorian Church Father who lived in Edessa, illustrates this in his Liturgical Homilies. When the priest anoints the candidate, asserts Narsai: He “signs the flock with the sign of the Lord, and seals upon it His Hidden Name by the outward look” Homiliy 22 (R.H. Connolly trans. The Lirturgical Homolies of Narsai (TS, VIII/1), Cambridge, 1909). Narsai also writes “the Name of the Divinity looks out from the sign on the forehead” (Connolly p.45). The sign is the cross and here the divine name is said to look out from the cross. Fossums argument is that although Narsai is quite late he reflects an earlier tradition. This tradition is reflected in the Syriac Odes of Solomon and the Acts of Thomas. Here the untion is called a “sealing” and the seal is the Name. Firstly in the Acts of Thomas we see that as Thomas begins the rite he calls on the Name. He says “...Jesus , let [your] victorious Power come, and let it settle in this oil [...] and let it dwell in this oil, over which we name your holy Name! (Ch 157) (Fossum 1985, 102) Fossum makes the observation that the Power is “identical with the Name”. In chapter 27 and 132 the Divine Name is called the “Power of the Most High” and the Power established in Christ”. It is very important for us to give attention to the words used by Thomas in the rite. Such words of ritual are for the most part missing from the New Testament but will help us to understand what people actually said and when the name may have been used and how. We note that Thomas claims to name Jesus name over the oil. A pertinent question is how does one name a name over the oil? However this is not our purpose now. Narsai gives some insight as to how the Name and its Power enters the catechumen: The “Secret Power” which is contained in the oil is the Hidden Name: “The name of the Divinity he mixes in his hands with the oil[...]...Through the anointing the believer recieves the Name: “With the Name hidden in it [i.e. the oil] he signs the visible body, and the sharp power of the Name enters even into the soul”. This connection between the three synonyms Name, Power and Spirit can give great insight into the understanding of the New Testament and the place of the name in it. 5-122 The Name used in a complete anointing rite So far we have seen that the name is central to the sealing of the Christian at baptism, but we have not seen how when the name was actually spoken. I understand this to be because despite the apparent openess of the gospels regarding baptism, they in reality are not so. Baptism is part of the hidden teaching of Jesus not open to those outside. So the gospels only refer to the fact that people were baptised into or in the name of Jesus. We are not given the actual steps one should take when being baptised nor the exact word one spoke at each stage in the liturgical order for baptism. Some believe this is because the exact words are not important. However the secrecy of baptism in the early Church is illustrated in the 4th century words of Cyril of Jerusalem. Cyril’s main importance is as a witness to the liturgical practice of the fourth century”. Bettenson,H “The Later Christian Fathers, Oxford:OUP, 1970) When an instruction is given, if a catechumen inquires what the instructors have said, do not tell anything to an outisider, for we are entrusting to you a mystery....You are now standing on the frontier : take care not to let slip a word: not because what you might say is unworthy of utterance, but because the hear is not worthy to recieve it. You yourself were once a catechumen, and then i did not tell you what was to come in future instruction. (Bettensom, 1970, p41) This secrecy in certain teaching is represented at one level in the gospels where outsiders were taught in parables (Matth 13) and where the close disciples are permitted to know the secrets of the kingdom of God (Matt 13, Luke 8). But the secrets continue into the Epistles where mature Christians are taught the hidden wisdom which the rulers of this world did not understand and carnal Christians are not able to bear (1 Cor 2). The apocalypse contains much of the hidden material which is only hinted at in the gospel and even it says “Let him who has wisdom compute the number of the beast (Rev 13. We are then fortunate that Ireneus did some research into the Valentinians and other second century groups with the intention to expose them. He has preserved for us a simple baptismal liturgy with the words of the baptiser, the baptised and the witnessed. Ireneus introduces the liturgy thus:” Others, again, set forth the redemption thus: The name which is hidden from every deity, and dominion, and truth which Jesus of Nazareth was clothed with in the lives2926 of the light of Christ—of Christ, who lives by the Holy Ghost, for the angelic redemption. The name of restitution stands thus” Baptiser/Initiator Messia, Uphareg, Namempsœman, Chaldœaur, Mosomedœa, Acphranœ, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither the heart nor the supercelestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Saviour of truth! Initiate I am established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age (world), and from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul into redemption in Christ who liveth. Witnesses Peace be to all on whom this name rests. And thus we find three partkers in the baptism. And most significat of all we find the name IAW in the confession of the one who is being redeemed. An additional evidence that some thing occur in the baptism which was connected with the name is the clear New Testament evidence that Jesus refered to and ministered and acted in that name. Firstly before at the baptism the declaration of the Father is “This is my beloved son”. Matthew 1    In all cases the coice refers to Jesus as the Son. This declaration harps back to Psalm 2, where the Psalmist says I will declre the decree of Yaua. He said to be bni atah, my son you are. Luke rendering in Luke holds closet to the text in Psalm 2. This states in the standard printed edition: διαγγελλων το προσταγμα κυριου κυριος ειπεν προς με υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε Which agrees with the Lukan records of the evnts. The key point is that in the Hebrew it is Yaua alon who speaks. The synoptics then move into the temptation. In Matthews case Jesus uses mouth of God, where the torah uses mouth of Yaua, You shall not tempt Yaua thy God, You shall worship Yaua thy God and him only shalt serve. In Luke he states every word of God, You shall worship Yaua thy God and You shall not tempt Yaua thy God. It is interesting that in both cases the command about living from the words proceeding from the mouth of Yaua, Yaua is changed to theos implying that in the text Jesus was citing or Luke and Matthew were referring had Elohim in the text. However in both the other text the form Yaua thy God is retained. και εκακωσεν σε και ελιμαγχονησεν σε και εψωμισεν σε το μαννα ο ουκ ειδησαν οι πατερες σου ινα αναγγειλη σοι οτι ουκ επ' αρτω μονω ζησεται ο ανθρωπος αλλ' επι παντι ρηματι τω εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου ζησεται ο ανθρωπος The printed LXX based on Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus speak of dia stomatos theou. Matthew has the same. Luke has panti remati theou. The MT refers to Pi Yaua, mouth of Yaua. The Lhamsa translation from the Aramaic has mouth of Yaua the OT but Mouth of God in Matthew. Thus Matthew 4:4 represents a seperate tradition over whose mouth the word comes from by which man may live. However both Matthew and Luke indicate it is the Lord your God in the other two cases. Matthew Luke LXX kurion ton theon kurion ton theon kurion ton theon kurion ton theon sou kurion ton theon kurion ton theon We may notice something in the way kurion is witten which may indicate something special in its treatment. It is not given with any definite article as theos is. This ungrammatical treatment may be there to draw the readers attention to something. The point however which we want to make is clear. In Jesus first words after his baptism the name Yaua occurs at least two times. The converstaion is completely private and it is the son of God who is speaking. There would appear to be no reason why he would not have spoken the name whatsoever. The anointing took place at baptism. The voice was that of his Father. He recieved the Spirit which is sometimes called the Name or the Power. Jesus then goes forth and later claims “I have come in my Father’s name.” We remember the discussion on the seal and how it is connected to the Name. Jesus says in John 6:27, the Son of Man...for on Him the Father, God has set his seal”. The seal can be seen in the light of what we have said above but also in relation to the Gospel of John. In this gospel John the Baptist states he knew who Jesus was because he saw the Spirit, come down on him. Perhaps the voice of the Apocalypse can also speak here. Firstly there is the group in chapter 9 who are protected because they have the seal of God on their forehead. However under the fifth trumpet we are not told what the seal of God is. However in chapter 14 we find the 144000 have the Lambs name and his Father name’s written on their foreheads. The Son of Man came in the name of his Father. But this was the name which the Father also gave to him (John 17). Excursus The idea that the Name Yaua may be seen as synonymous with Power can perhaps be seen as forshadowed in the words of Jeremiah, where Yaua saysHe will cause them to know his yad (power) and his gvorah and they shall now that his name is Yaua. This recognition that Power was synonymous with name in some texts from the early Church period and that Spirit was synonymous with Name in the same period will help us to understand better the role of the name Yaua in the eraly Church period Kurios Thus De troyer and others scholars read “Onomazwm to onoma kuriou thanatw thanatousw” to mean that one who simply speaks the name should be put to death. And this is read as a supposed restriction on anyone speaking the name whatsoever. But if this is a restriction on speaking the name it does not indicate any exceptions. This would imply that the high priest himself would be forbidden from speaking the name. However no scholars assert that the high priest was forbidden to use thr name at the time the LXX was translated in the third century BCE. Thus this reading of the phrase, naming the name of YAUA is too wide. Thus naming the name YAUA can not be taken as restricting all men from pronouncing the name in any context. It must be limited. The first limitation could be the fact that this passage is translating the idea of naming the naming, as in using it for a blasphemy or a curse. Thus in the translators mind cursing the name or using it in a curse may have been the meaing of naming the name. As we saw earlier under Hebrew this use of the name was specifically forbidden in the law in Hebrew. This phrase onomazwn to onoma kuriou occurs in the Second Letter of Timothy(2:19). Nevertheless the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal “the Lord knows those who are his,”. And, Let every one who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness” These sources present very strong evidence that the name was used in the private lives of Jews, Christians and even Pagans. The writings of the Church fathers give us examples of the Fathers using the name for teaching or for apologetic purposes and reporting what the second and third century Gnostic sects taught regarding Iaw/o and also some of the teachings of the fathers. The tenth century brings us to the evidence of the Masoretic texts with the vowel pointing of the masoretes and also brings us to the earliest manuscripts of the Mishnah and the latter examples of the Greek magical texts. Chapter 6: The Name From the Exile to the Fall of Rome 6-601 The Memorial Name From Late Second Temple Period to Late Antiquity in the life of Hebrews The Name from Jeremiah till the Split of the Church 1054 7-701 The Memorial Name From Late Second Temple Period to Late Antiquity in the life of Christians. Principles of Private Religious Practice and the Memorial of God According to the scriptural tradition, which is so vital to understanding first century Jewish and early church attitudes to any subject including the name, the encounter with Moses recorded in Exodus 3 was a private religious encounter. Nobody knew about it except Moses and those whom he told about it. In that private encounter words were exchanged which were later repeated in public and later still written down, however certain parts of the experience were related only privately to the elders and not to Pharoah. When Moses went before the Pharoah other words were used. When talking to the elders, Moses may have said eheyeh at some point for this is what Yaua initially told him to do. But when talking to Pharoah he spoke of “Yaua the God of the Hebrews”. To the elders Moses spoke of Yaua coming down to visit them and deliver them, to Pharoah he spoke of going on a three day journey into the wilderness to worship Yaua (Ex 3-6). In relation to the ruling power of Egypt the message of deliverance and salvation was part of the Hebrews private life, and this privacy is reflected in that the words spoken publicly were different to the words spoken privately. The name Yaua was among the public words at the time of Moses. Evidenced by the fact that he used it in front of Pharoah and Pharoah himself used it (Ex 5:2). Yaua later says to Pharoah “For this reason have I raised thee up, in order to show in you my power and that my name may be declared (discussed-saper) in all the earth” (Ex 9:16). It is unlikely that you could get more public than that. And the name remained public for the next eight to nine hundred years at least but perhaps even beyond the end of the second temple period (msotah 7:6, mtamid 7;1-2, AvodZ. 17b, Yer Yoma 40d; Sifre Emor 19). This public use of the name is confirmed by the plan of Solomon when building the temple. He prays that the foreigner will come to this house built for the name Yaua, pray, be heard by Yaua and go back to his nation and testify of the greatness of Yaua. (I Kings 8). Solomon completes his dedication prayer with a desire that "all people of the earth may know that Yaua is God and that there is none else" (1 Kings 8:60). My contention is that practices which were forbidden which a person wanted to persist in would enter into the realm of the private life, witness all the Greek and Aramaic magical texts. Roman law forbade the use of magic in the strongest terms (45 Smith 1977, p.77) but it did not stop its practice (5 Betz, 1986; 7 Meyer & Smith 1994). When we say private here we mean in relation to a larger public group. So an individual has privacy in relation to his family. This is exemplified in Jesus teaching or praying in the closet and being heard by the Father in secret (Matt 6). A sect such as the Nazarenes may have privacy in relation to rest of the Hebrews. The Pharisees had privacy in relation to the Saducees, the Essenes in relation to the general population. Forbidden practices would continue privately. This is exemplified in the story of Shaul and the witch of Endor. Here Shaul banishes all consultations of mediums. When he goes to see her she is fearful of practicing the secret art she clearly has the ability to practice. However she does not know who the man is and so she does a private séance for him (1 Sam 28). It is a contention of this paper that even if we accept, admittedly with reservations, the testimony of the mishnah regarding the restrictions on the use of the memorial name (msotah 7:6, mtamid 7:1-2 msanhedrin 10:1), we will find that in private the people continued to use it (30). The restrictions on speaking or writing it will have been ignored in some circles and this will be evidenced in the literary writings and the inscriptions from the period under review. And although a group of pietists sought to reserve its use to the temple (3 Alon, “The Expressed Name”, 30 JE) because of the many examples in the Biblical tradition commissioning its use, whole groups of Hebrews and many private individuals would persist in its use in private (7). There is a famous saying in Mishanh avot. That of Shimon the Just who used to say “al shiloshah devarim haolam omed al hatorah veal havodah ve algemilot chasadim” (The world is based on three things; the torah, seving God and active loving kindness) (The Hirsch Siddur New York: Feldham Publishers 1969, 419). This may be the most signiicant issu we can address regarding the use of the name at least among the Jews. The use of the name will have been governed by Torah and by custon. As the community would understand by the Torah of Moses and the Custom of the sages. In terms of defining doctines the Jews of the period were, according to the JE not in the habit of doing such. Philo attempted but found no followers among the tannaim or the amoraim. JE explains Only in a general way the Mishnah Sanh. xi. 1 excludes from the world to come the Epicureans and those who deny belief in resurrection or in the divine origin of the Torah. R. Akiba would also regard as heretical the readers o f Sefarim Hetsonim -- certain extraneous writings (Apocrypha or Gospels) -- and such persons that would heal through whispered formulas of magic. Abba Saul designated as under suspicion of infidelity those that pronounce the ineffable name of the D eity. By implication, the contrary doctrine and attitude may thus be regarded as having been proclaimed as orthodox. On the other hand, Akiba himself declares that the command to love one's neighbor the fundamental the principle of the Law; while Ben Asa i assigns this distinction to the Biblical verse, "This is the book of the generations of man " (Gen. v. i.; Gen. R. xxiv). The definition of Hillel the Elder in his interview with a would-be convert (Shab. 31a), embodies in the golden rule the one fundam ental article of faith. A teacher of the third Christian century, R. Simlai, traces the development of Jewish religious principles from Moses with his 613 commands of prohibition and injunction, through David, who, according to this rabbi, enumerates ele ven; through Isaiah, with six; Micah, with three; to Habakkuk who simply but impressively sums up all religious faith in the single phrase, " The pious lives in his faith" (Mak., toward end). As the Halakhah enjoins that one should prefer death to an act of idolatry, incest, unchastity, or murder, the inference is plain that the corresponding positive principles were held to be fundamental articles of Judaism. (JE Articles of Faith). We see that Judaism was interested in the obedience to the Law (Torah) and the traditions of their fathers. The same can be said of Jesus Christ in the gospel of Matthew and the writings of Paul. Jesus says not one jot or tittle will pass freom the Law until all is fulfilled. He also criticises the Pharisees for disobeying the Law in certain aspects. Thus we can see that Jesus maintain a postive attitude to postivie commandments which can be read in the torah. On the other hand Jesus criticised traditions prevalent at the time which in his understanding undermined the written torah. Such as the law of korban, which Jesus understood to undermine the commendment to honour your father and mother. Jesus also practised things which some Jews understood to be forbidden according to law, but which Jesus maintained was acceptable. Thus if we follow the rabbinic tradition regarding positive and negative commandments we see that Jesus sifted the prevalent practices of the day and taught and practised what he understood to be the teaching of the commadments of God and ignoring what he considered to be the traditions of men. Thus we need know what the law of God taught regarding the use of Yaua name as a back drop to the practice of Jesus and the Church in the first century. A second very important element which informed the pracritce of Jesus thus the early Church was the practice and example of King David and the prophets Elijah and Elisha. Again we see Jesus drawing illustration from thier activities and practises as guidelines for his attitudes and practices. As Elijah and Elisha were sent to Gentiles so Jesus could be sent to Gentiles, despite the fact that the custom of his day appear to disagree with him. Jews may not have gone to Samaria but Jesus can go to Samarai and teach. The Jewish custom may have been not to spen time alone talking to women but Jesus willing to surprise his disciples is willing to talk with the women at the well. These and other example illustrated the fact that Jesus activity was governed by the written Torah of Moses but not but the customs of some the groups in Israel at the of his ministry. Thus we must expect that he will follow the law where it is clear regarding the name and the rest he would decide according to what he understood was right in the eyes of his father, not public custom. The Torah of the Name Although there is no official ban on using the name Yaua for prayer, prophecy, praise, invocation and intercession there is evidence that the "pious" started to restrict the use of the name to them and their disciples because of the growth of impiety and wickedness and the high priest started to mumble it so that those considered unworthy would not hear it (yer. yoma 40b, yer sanh 71b). If we turn now to the time of the early Church we need to understand the fact that the texts of the life of Moses and the prophets as they stood had varying impact on the belief and behaviour of Jesus and the early Church (Luke 24:44, Matt 8:4), not the text as the modern source of form critic sees it. The modern higher critic sees a number of pericope put together after circulation as individual units. Jesus and his disciples saw a scripture that could not be broken and had to be fulfilled. This scripture included the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24). It is this understanding of the scriptures which would provoke them to continue practicing what they understood to be the requirement of the Scriptures despite prevailing oral traditions among other sects, such as the certain groups of scribes which Jesus encountered (Matt 23). Jesus and the early Church saw in the scriptures the commandments of God and so despite opposition from other parties continued to practice their obedience (Matt 15:8, Mark7.6, 1 Cor 1). Thus if the groups of pietists who sought to reserve the use of the name to the temple and to the priest were perceived as placing restrictions on the permissions Yaua had granted in regard to his name those who accepted the scripture as unbreakable or as the commands of God would disregard the restrictions where possible. Most definitely in private but if legal also in public, and even if illegal and they are bold enough also in public. They will continue to practice what they understand as activity acceptable in the sight of God (John 10.36, Acts 5). Witness Peter’s answer to the council “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge” (Acts 4:19). Interestingly the disciples were being told not to preach any more in the name of Jesus, they refused to obey the human authority because they wanted to do what, in their sight, was righteous in the sight of God. This will apply to the perception of the restrictions on the use of the name Yaua. We can also here illustrate a principle of function over grammatical and etymological merticulousness. To the modern scholar (2)Gertoux the name Yaua and the name Yahu are not derived from each other. “There is no obvious link between the short name YH and the great name YHWH. The vocalization Yah of the short name does not prove anything regarding the vocalization of the great name” (2a Gertoux, A14 ). However the Greek derivative of Yahu (YHW), IAW will happily be combined with the title Sabaoth by a Copt “in place of Yaua” (Meyer and Smith, 87) in his private religious or magical use of the name, to reflect the Biblical Yaua Tzevaothlix. Maclaurin (42) states that some believe the phrase Yaua Tzevaoth to be ungrammatical in using a proper noun in a construct state (p.448), but this will still not hinder its use in the prayers and confessions of Hebrews and Christians in Late Antiquity. This principle will help us understand the way the Scripture becomes a model for behaviour and actions of Hebrews and Christians in late antiquity. We will find in the private religion of individuals and groups a deliberate plan to follow the patterns and policies recorded in the scriptures they consider authoritative even if the public religion or the religion of those in control militates against it. Jesus is a perfect example of this attitude. Those traditions which were seen as in contravention of the word of Yaua Jesus would contravene in some cases privately. An example is the healing on a shabbat of the man born blind. Jesus healed him quietly and disappeared. This meant there were no witnesses and even the man himself did not know who had healed him until Jesus returned and identified himself to the man (John 9). We need to consider in relation to the memorial Yaua what uses we would expect it to be put in the period under review. 1.01 The Subject of the Memorial Name in Judaism and Christianity The proper noun Yaualx (yod heh vav heh), the memorial (zeker) of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exod 3), has for 1976 years been the primary focus of Christian prayer throughout the earth. The central prayer of the faith ever since the first third of the first century when the disciples traditionally asked their teacher: “Our Lord teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples” (Luke 11). Every day the Charismatic, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Protestant, the Evangelical, the Messianic, the nominal and the committed will in all probability at some point approach their Father in heaven with the words “Hallowed be thy name” “avun dbashmaya niqadash shmaq”(55 Aramaiclxi); “`agiasqetw to ononma sou” (56- Greek) “avinu shebashamayim yitqadesh shimqa” (55 Hebrew). This prayer for the sanctification of the name of God the Father not by chance finds it counterpart in modern and historical Judaism’s “Kiddush Hashem ‘sanctification of the (divine) Name’...term denoting one of the loftiest principles of Judaism” (57, p.102) . In their terminology kiddush hashem is so central that a religious Jew is required to die rather than “hillul hashem” that is rather than profane the name. The covenant Yaua traditionally made with Israel on Sinai or at Horeb and its restatement at Nebo includes a specific commandment regarding the name which has entered into both Jewish and Christian tradition. It traditonally enters the covenant as the third commandment of the decalogue, Lo tisa et shem Yaua eloheiqa le shav, lo yenaqeh Yaua, et asher yisa et shmo leshav. Traditionally translated “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. He shall not remain guiltless who takes His name in vain”. Lamsa translates it based on the Peshitta “You shall not take a false oath in the name of the LORD [Yaualxii] your God; for the LORD [Yaua] will not declare him innocent who takes an oath in his name falsely”(54). 1.1 How the Abuse of the Name was Punished According to scriptural tradition the first man to blaspheme and curse the name Yaua, ben Shelomith, was quarantined from the desert camp of the Israelites and imprisioned until Moses could find out Yaua’s judgement for this unheard of crime among the Israelites. Moses consultation was not without result, Yaua gave the judgement swiftly and clearly “Bring outside the camp him who has cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him” (54 Lev 24:11). And a mishpat (law) was written into the Law of Yaua “Whoever curses his God shall suffer for his sin. And he who blasphemes the name of the LORD [Yaua] shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall surely stone him” (54 Lev 24: 15-16). This name then commanded the respected, then as now. 1.2 How the Name has been at the Center of many Debates To some this legal ruling or the sentence for the crime of blaspheming (naqav) and cursing the name (qelalah) will no doubt in our present age be considered controversial. But this is by no means the only area of controversy in regard to this memorial. A mere cursory glance at the modern academic discussion around the name serves to show that this name, is and for thousands of years has been subject of discussion regarding such questions as the following: Where did it originate? Did the Egyptians know it? Did Abraham know it? What was its original form and composition? Is it the Hebrew letters yod, heh, vav, heh or yod, heh, vav, or yod vav, or yod, heh or heh, vav, or some form of Egyptian hierglyph? What does it mean? to cause be; or to fall upon; or He will be a disaster; He loves; He is kindly; or He blows? What is its pronunciation? Are the letters 4 vowels or are they 4 consonants? Should it be transliterated into Greek letters or into any alien alphabets? What way should it be transliterated into Greek letters?. Is it Iaw or Iao, Iabe or Iaue? Should it be written or not? Should it be translated or not? Should it be spoken according to its letters or not? Should it be spoken according to how it is written or not? Should it be written into Paleo Hebrew, Aramaic Square script or transcribed into Greek letters or just simply replaced? When is it permitted to speak it? Should the scriptures of the minim which contain the name be destroyed by “Orthodox” Jews? With these topics of dispute we begin the long journey of the area of controversy regarding perhaps the most mysterious and yet simple short name the world has ever known. The issue as to it number value (gematria) has also meant discussion. The basic gematria of the four letters are 26, of the three of yau 21, of the two of ya 15 or yu16, but does the name consist of 2, 3, 4, 12, or 42 letters? Is the name the highest name or the second highest name? Is the Gnostic Iaw/o the same as the Elephantine Yau or Yeo(yod heh vav), the same as Jeremiah’s Yaua, the same as the Father of Jesus Christ? Reflections have been held regarding the relation of the name to the Holy Trinity and its relation to the first created primordial Adam. We could go on but we will not, this name, if it is indeed one name, comes into the twenty first century with a lot of baggage. Most of this baggage consists of human traditions which have grown up around the form, composition, meaning, power, the writing, and the speaking of the memorial. And after much discussion we can not say today that there are many certainties, the field is still in a flux. This interest may be summed up in the word of Van der Toorn “The significance of the name Yahweh has been subject of a staggering amount of publications (for an impression see Mayer 1958)” (van der Toorn, p.913). This phenomena is according to Cross a “monumental witness to the industry and ingenuity of biblical scholars” (1973:60). The Method and Thesis of This Paper A fundamental problem to be addressed in dealing with the data available regarding the name Yaua is the issue as to why the usage in terms of speaking, writing and reading the name has gone through the various changes it has gone through. The theory I posti I will call the Zakar Yaua theory of the name. In the Zakar Yaua theory we analyse the changes in terms of three phases. The Memorial Phase, the Forgetting Phase or the Rewriting Phase and the Replacement Phase. These are the three phases which the name Yaua goes through until it completely disappears from texts and the life a group. The treatment of the name takes place in certain parts of the community not all parts of the Jewish and Christian community went through these stages. The Memorial Phase is the time when the name was used freely in a group. It, for example, applies to the writers of the Lachish Letters nd other pre exilic documents. Here the name is used completely and freely as part of the Jewish community in 6th century BC. “May {Yaua} make my lord hear good news soon”, is typical greeting in one of these letters. The Forgetting Phase or the Rewriting Phase is exemplified by the exilic Elephantine Papyri where the name is shortened from Yaua to Yau. The Replacement Phase is represented in earlier Israel by the replacement of Yaua by “Baal” (Jerem 23:27) and the replacement in the Mishna by such substitutes as Heh and in the dead sea scrolls by four dots and the replacement in the Greek text of Iaw by kurios. This hypothesis only describes the process of change. The causes of change also need to be addressed. Here I posit that the name has three main contexts of function. The Prophet Power and Might function, the Priestly Temple function and the State Legal Authority function. My thesis holds that whilst these functions are in place the name continues to be used in a community or group. But when one of these functions or the institutions representing these functions disappear, or pass through major transformation, the use of the name is subject to change. The Prophet, Power and Might function of Yaua The Prophet, Power and Might function is exemplified in the names use as the authority and signature in prophetic words. All true signs and wonders are to be referred to his name. Those of the true prophet to confirm that the word spoken was a word of Yaua. Moses exemplifies this function at two levels the first was the sign he showed Israel to demonstrate he was the deliverer sent by Yaua. His first of turning water to blood was paralleled by Jesus turning water to the blood of the grape, wine. The second in seeing that the words he prophesied were fulfilled. By this they knew this was a words Yaua had spoken (Deu 18). This function is also illustrated by Solomon’s prayer that Gnetiles would come from a far land pray to Yaua and that he would answer them. They would then go back to their nations and tell how great the God Yaua was. That he would have demonstrated his power to the strangers. The greatness of his name as a result of the power would then be spread abroad among the nations. Yaua’s desire for this universal reputation is seen in his declaration to Pharoah “For this reason have I raised thee up to manifest my power in thee and that my name my be declared in all the earth” (Exod 9), and the prophetic word of Malachi “For I am a great king and my name is great in all the earth” (Mal 1:14). This function is also represented in the “magical” use of the name to heal the sick or cast out demons. Where the function continues the group using the name tends to preserve the whole name it recieved and to use it. In Hebrew the whole name is Yaua but Ya also used and in Greek Iaw and Iao. This function is also exemplified by statements of prophets as Jeremiah: “Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is [Yaua]”. The Priestly Temple Function of Yaua The Priestly Temple Function is rooted in the tradition that the name is the special preserve of the sons of Aaron who are given the role of putting Yaua’s name on the sons of Israel. The key words of the Aaronic blessing represent a central feature of this function. “Yevereqa Yaua ve yishmereqa, Yaer Yaua panav eleiqa vichuneqa, Yisa Yaua panav eleiqa veyasem leqa shalom”. These words were used daily in the temple to put Yaua’s name on the people of Israel. They also preserved the usage of the name very clearly as long as the temple was standing. The Levites had the function of guarding the the house of Yaua (beit Yaua) and of praising Yaua in Psalms. This activity also took place in the temple and in the first temple period would have been part of the memorial phase. With the destruction of the first temple and the exile to Babylon we have evidence of reticence to singing Yaua’s song in a strange land (Ps 139). These songs of Yaua were seen a songs of Zion. Again they were a way of preserving the name but the evidence we have of the use of the name in these songs in later period is slim. The Psalms are full of references to the name and reflections on the name, Yaua was glorified in these songs. The role of baptism and seems to belong under the head of the prophetic and the priestly functions. This is partyl because these two functions most definitely over lap. Many of the prophets came from among the sons of Aaron, for example Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Malachi. This was because the presence of Yaua was very strong in his house and it was from their and the word of Yaua often went forth. The house of Yaua was the place where he was praised daily and we see in the case of Elisha that singing and praise lead to the coming of the Spirit and the word of prophecy. All prophets to be considered genuine had to proclaim in the name of Yaua. The Essenes and John the Baptist practiced baptism and they were also descendants of the priesthood. It is not however exclusively a priestly acitivity. The Pharisees also practiced baptism and they were most definitely not a priestly group although they had connection with priests. The State Legal Authority Function Since much of the set up Israel was delivered through the prophecies of Moses we again have an overlap with the prophetic function. However in the Legal Authority Function the name Yaua is used as a signature to the judgements (mishpatim) Yaua gives to Moses and the Israelites to guide the nations. Many of the decrees have the signature “Ani Yaua”. We see from the beginning of the monarchy under King Saul and before this in the period of the judges, judgements that were made on the authority of Yaua. Yaua used the kings to execute his decrees in his name. An illustration of Yaua’s sovereignty exercised through the kings is that of Yau (Jehu). Elisha sends a prophet appoint him king and to give him his assignment. The child of the prophets went to Ramoth Gilead and found Jehu and said to him: Thus saith Yaua , I have anointed thee king over the people of Yaua, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yaua, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel. King David was in the habit of consulting directly with Yaua when he had to make a military decisions and had the ability through song to bring the Spirit of Yaua on to a person. He also claimed that the Spirit of Yaua spoke by him and his word of covenant was on his lips. While this three contexts of the functions of the name Yaua stood there would be a tendency for the use of the name Yaua to be maintained. However when were removed there was a tendency for the name to disappear from that function. So when Israel lost its state authority in Elephantine the name lost its final heh. It what was perhaps its long movement in Egypt away from Yaua to Yau to Iaw to kurios. This illustration I have given is a bit extreme but this at the end of the day is just one process the name would go through until it was transformed out from a particularly community. Whilst State Authority may lose the name or turn away from the name for example from Yaua to Baal, the prophetic function would act as a guardian of the name. So when Israel in the north rejected Yaua from Baal Yaua raised up Elijah to preserve the name. Elijah anointed Elisha who sent the child of the prophet to Jehu. He then went and executed Yaua’s word on Yaua’s enemies. And so the prophets would through the prophetic word acts as guardians of the name selecting persons they considered willing and able to execute the decrees of Yaua. This function kicked in under extreme occasions. In general the guardianship of the name was in the hands of the family of Levi, starting with Moses and Aaron but continuing from generation to generation. It was they who stood and ministered before Yaua. And whilst in the provinces the name Yaua had already passed through a replacement phase, in the temple of Jerusalem in the first century it was still in the memorial phase right up until the destruction of the temple. After the temple destruction the name came under challenge and with the disappearance of the priesthood came the supposed disappearance of the name. The Zakar Yaua theory and the Hebrew and Aramaic Evidence for the Name The Hebrew and Aramaic evidence for the use of the memorial name in its full form span at least a two thousand year period. When we say the Hebrew and Aramaic evidence we are talking about not simply the occurrence of the name in the Aramaic alphabet but the occurrence of the name in Hebrew documents. By far the greatest number of occurrences of the name in the Memorial Phase occurs in the masoretic text of the tenth century. Although the manuscripts for this text are late there is clear evidence that the cource of this text is extremely ancient. Kutchner argues from the form of theophoric names that the text goes back to an earlier source than that of the dead sea scrolls. The Masoretic text in Jewish tradition can be divided into three sections. 1.3 How The Name was Used in the Early Church Period One area of this flux is whether the name was used outside the temple and in the daily lives of the Jews and the early Church, those Jews and Gentiles who joined Jesus Christ and their descendants. This is a controlling idea for this paper. This paper sets out to demonstrate the high probability that Christians, Jews and Gentiles in all probability, used the name in their spiritual or religious lives during the second temple period until the 7th century AD and beyond. They prayed it, called upon it, sanctified it, baptized with it, praised it, magnified it, wrote it, wrote about it, substituted it, exorcised with it, misunderstood it and revered it in different ways and at different periods during this time. Even as groups of Jews, Messianic Jews and Chrstians use the name in these various ways today, so they did in late antiquity. To demonstrate this we will need to refute some long held and yet unfounded religious and academic traditions regarding the name. Such as the idea that the memorial name was ineffable, forgotten, avoided by all Israel except in the temple. Even the idea that Christians have not really had much interest in the name has to be dealt with. In short everything that militates against the idea that Jews and Christians of late antiquity derived great blessing by calling on the name Yaua needs to come under critical evaluation. 3.2 Has Late Antiquity’s Vocalisation of the name been lost? An academic position held at the beginning and even in the middle of the twentieth century has now come under challenge. Smith from the late 19th century states a typical position on the great name Yaua (Jehovah or Iehovah of the original King James Bible): Jehovah: The true pronunciation of this name by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost. The Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it. And substituting in its place one of the other words with whose vowel points it happens to be written…According to Jewish tradition it was pronounced but once a year by the high priest on the day of atonement when he enters the holy of holies; but on this point there is some doubt. (63, p.274) The first claim in Smith’s assertion has been challenged by modern scholars, especially Gertoux, in his excellect study on the name(2). The term “Jews” being a generalization is automatically discounted by the diversity of the individuals in contrast to the community. When he says “Jews” he really means Orthodox Jews or the dati population. I, personally have heard many Jews make an attempt at pronouncing the name. The typical dati, will, rather than read Yaua in a reading in the synagogue, read Adonai. Rather than mention Adonai in the street he will say Hashem. Rather than say Elohim he will say Elokim and I have even heard Hallelukah over againt Hallelujah among the particularly zealous. All of these kinds traditions go back to the period of late antiquity and even before (msotah 7.6). Psalm 14 and 53 are an example of this the practice of replacing the name. The name Yaua in Psalm 14 has been replaced by Elohim in Psalm 53lxiii. The whole 5 books of Psalms reflect focuses on different names of the deity. 3.21 The Failure of the Ban on the Pronouncing of the Name. In contrast to this religious practice reform Rabbi David Weisberg from Hebrew Union College Cincinatti Ohio during his talk on “The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies” made the claim that they had found cuneiform inscriptions in excavations of Judean villages from 6/5th century B.C. Babylonia. One of which read gift of God “Nadav Yaualxiv”. When I asked him why he used that exact pronunciation, for it was one I had come across among in my own researches and among Arabs who rendered the pronunciation of the four Arabic letters, yah ha wah ha, the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew yod heh vav heh, he replied “I wanted to get as close to the cuneiform as possible”. I have had similar experiences with other Jewish individuals. This is a very important factor behind the thesis that the Christians and Jews used the memorial name in their private lives. Although there may be an official religious policy supported by an establishment opposing a practice, there will always be individuals who will debunk that policy and do what they consider is right. Another example is that of a religious bookshop owner in Jerusalem. Here he happily spoke the name.When I said to him that I thought it was forbidden for him as a Jew to speak the name. He replied that he had spoken it in another language (which is clearly in his mind not forbidden). The language then became for him the crux of the matter. 3.22 The Traditional Restriction late and not Limited in Scope The traditional restriction on pronouncing the name is against vocalizing it according to its proper letters (msanhedrin 10.1) or reading it as it is written (msotah 7.2). If this is the restriction according to Jewish tradition this was the true pronounciation which according to Abba Shaul second century tanna barred a person from a place in the world to come (msotah 7:2). At the time Abba Shaul was speaking the Masoretes had another 500 years before they would set about putting the niqqudot on the consonants or semi vowels. Therefore we need to explore how the name may have been vocalized up until the end of late antiquity. 3.23 The Strange Tradition of the Ineffability of the Name The tradition that the name was ineffable is a strange one. Ineffable (arrhtos) means I “unspoken, unsaid” (66) and II “not to be spoken not to be divulged, of sacred mysteries” and secondly “unutterable, inexpressible, horrible” or thirdly “shameful to be spoken”. Those who apply it seem to apply the term as though it was relevant during the second temple period. Paul used the terms in 1 Cor 12:4 regarding words heard by a man in paradise. This man heard “unsaid” words. However the name was in continuous use with no apparent legal ban on it from the time Abraham called on the name Yaua, to the well into the third century CE. And it continued to be used by Jews and Gentiles throughout the period when the Byzantines were running the Levant. Throughout this period and even up until the 10th century of the common era there is evidence of the use of the name (30), in public and private and by Jew and Gentile alike (Betz, 1992). 3.24 The Evidence Contradictory to the Idea of Ineffability The assumption that the name was ineffable is then contradicted by much evidence. Its consequence, the idea that the pronunciation of the name has been forgotten, also comes under criticism. Some scholars assert that the vocalization of the name was never forgotten (EJ, Vol 7,p.680). We can ask then, Was the pronunciation of the memorial name Yaua forgotten? This section might well have been called “The Myth of the Lost and Forgotten Tetragrammatton”. This academic tradition that indicates that the pronunciation of the name Yaua has somehow been lost and then forgotten by the Hebrews comes under our consideration now. Van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst state “Since the Achaemenid period, religious scruples led to the custom of not pronouncing the name of Yahweh; in the liturgy as well as in everyday life…as a matter of consequence, the correct pronunciation of the tetrgrammaton was gradually lost (61. 1999, 910). This position is supported by Thompson in his Anchor Bible Dictionary article “The pronunciation of yhwh as Yahweh is a scholarly guess. Hebrew biblical mss were principally consonantal in spelling until well into the current era. The pronunciation of words was transmitted in a separate oral tradition…The Tetragrammaton was not pronounced at all…Though the consonants remained, the original prounuciation was eventually lost” (84 Thompson ) This argument having established the fact that the name was gradually forgotten, then turns to Christian circles to attempt to reconstruct the pronunciation of the namelxv. The usual authority appealed to is Clement of Alexandria and Theodoret. The conclusion is that Yahveh or Yahweh is believed to be the vocalization of the name. I do not doubt that we can not be certain of the exact way Yaua was pronounced in all the places and in all the times it was pronounced as we can not be certain how any word was pronounced in late antiquity, but the idea of the Hebrews allowing themselves to forget it is almost unthinkable.lxvi As can be seen above Van der Toorn, Becking and Van der Horst hold that “Yahweh” is a scholarly convention and Thompson holds that Yahweh is a scholarly guess, both hold that the pronunciation was “lost”. It is this academic tradition which we will explore and take issue with now. Firstly we need to emphasise how unlikely it is that the pronunciation of the name was lost by the time of Clement of Alexandria that is the early third century. Indeed we will show that the pronunciation of the name as the Hebrews understood it was not lost by the early third century and evidence suggests it was not even lost by the 10th century. The Hebrews (Jews) have a great respect for their understanding of the Torah of Moses. And one of the biggest commandments Israel is given in the Torah is to remember and not to forget. This verb zakar (to remember) comes up at least 235 times in the MT and has a very strong association with the name Yaua. This name is called the God of Abraham’s memorial (zeker) from generation to generation, the very object the Hebrews were to use to call Yaua to mind and his great deeds to mind. It can perhaps be seen as his personal signature, seal and all his works are “copyrighted” in this name. It is true that in Hebrew name means a lot more than the mere proper noun used to identify one person as opposed to another. It is used in regard to the reputation of someone in terms of a good name. It is used in regard to someones character as when Jacob is changed to Israel. It is used as a prophecy over someones life as when Abram is changed to Abraham in light of his new future. In these senses the term name is used regarding Yaua also. However we find in the Torah the Prophets and the New Testament that Yaua is very We see in the prophets when Yaua says anything it is sealed with the authority of the name Yaua. Thus we see “Coh Amar Yaua and Neum Yaua” devar Yaua all over the writings of Moses and the prophets. When he has a house built it is called “beit Yaua” (Ps 23) and the future city will be called “Yaua Tzidkenu” (Jer 33). The emphasis on remembrance and its connection to the name Yaua militates against the idea of the names pronunciation being forgotten. What is far more likely and has evidence to support it is the fact that the Hebrews would have reserved the pronunciation of the name to themselves. The Rabbis would have ensured that the name was reserved to themselves and their close disciples. They would have taken precautions to ensure it was not forgotten and to keep it from the unworthy. It would have had restricted but continued circulation and usage among those considered worthy. Interestingly modern support for the thesis that the name was never forgotten comes from Jewish scholars who no doubt know only too well the desire of many Rabbis to keep from the unworthy or impious and the Gentiles knowledge that they might be perceived to abuse. The saying of Jesus against a particular group of Torah scholars is well known “Woe to you lawyers[experts in the Mosaic law]! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered” (Luke 11:52). They could only take away that of which they had possession. The use of the name was never completely forbidden in the second temple period and was still in use afterwards and so in the period of late antiquity was never “lost”. Clear evidence is available illustrating some of the ways the name was pronounced. Both articles in Jewish Encylopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica maintain that the pronunciation of the name was never lost. The evidence that the name may have been forgotten because pronunciation of it was proscribed usually cites, LXX, Philo, Josephus, the Qumran community and Abba Saul. However if we look at each of these cases we find a number of interesting facts. The first three are all Hellenistic Jews. The Rabbis who preserved Judaism after the destruction of the second temple sought to proscribe or ignored the writings and traditions of all three. What the Hellenistic Jews testify to is unlikely to have been accepted by the tannaim. If we review their evidence briefly we will see that they do not support the idea that the pronunciation of the name Yaua was unknown or forgotten. Philo’s evidence indicates that the name was spoken and heard (Glazer p.253)lxvii. “And a golden leaf was wrought like a crown, having four names engraved on it which may only be mentioned or heard by holy men having their ears and their tongues by wisdom, and by no one else at all in any place whatsoever. And this holy prophet Moses calls the name, a name of four letters”.lxviii 3.25 Philo’s Evidence that the name was Spoken For Philo it was not God’s name that could not be spoken but his nature for “no personal name even can be properly assigned to the truly existent…[but so that] “the human race should not totally lack a title to give the supreme goodness, he allows them by license of language, as though it were his proper name, the title Lord [kurios]lxixGod of the three natural orders, teaching perfection and practice”lxx Philo is also the source of other evidence that the name is well known in the first third of the first century “If anyone, I do not say should blaspheme against the Lord of men and gods, but should even dare to utter his name unseasonably, let him expect the penalty of death”. Thus Philo testifies that the name might be uttered seasonably and unseasonably and if it were done it would be recognized, there was no mystery in what would be uttered but if not uttered seasonably a penalty should be expected. The first Philo passage indicates Yaua was spoken and heard in a small select group from the people of Israel, and this adds support to the case that the name was known and used in his time (25 B.C. to 50 CE approximately). He does not specify the place it was to be used as being the temple in Jerusalem or Leontopolis although we might assume this was his intention. 3.26 Some LXX Translators vocalized the name in a way in which it could be spoken The LXX manuscripts we have from the period include transliterations of the name and the name written in Hebrew. The vocalised transliteration gives Iaw as the name. This transliteration would allow a person to read a form of the name because the word is vocalized with “a” and “u”. Evidence that this kind of transliteration was for vocalization purposes is supported by it use in the Greek Magical Papyri where it is used both as Iaw and Iao. Thus the particular speaker would transcribe it as he heard it not from a Hebrew Text with a systematic transliteration approach (5 Betz, 1986). Those who wanted to hide the name’s pronunciation would often write it in such as way as to make the true pronunciation difficult to discern. As we see in DSS 1QS where the name is replaced by four dots or in cases where the name is simply replaced by a surrogate as el or kurios. The surrogates these groups of “replacers” developed, number in their dozens (Lauterbach, 1931). The name Iaw is used in the earliest Greek testimony to the rendering of the name and in the later Greek texts representing Church fathers, the Gnostics and Greek magical papyri. Both the the people of the Magical Papyri had every reason to pronounce the name and no reason to refrain from pronouncing the name. The first because in magical practices the exact pronunciation is very important in any incantation or spell or even prayer, and in the second one the myth of the origin of the name Iaw was in its pronunciation and the power released by it (Ireneaus chap 4). 3.27 The Limitation of Josephus’ Restrictions Josephus restriction simply says that he is not lawfully allowed to say any more than he does regarding the name. He was referring to writing about the name not it’s pronounciation lxxi. He [Moses] entreated him to grant him that power when he should be in Egypt; And besought him to vouch safe him the knowledge of his own name; And since he had heard and seen him, he would also tell him his name, That when he offered sacrifice he might invoke him by his name in his oblations. Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before Concerning which it is not lawful for me to say anymore.” (Josephus, Ant II, 12:4) 3.28 The Precise Knowledge of the Name Among the Essenes The Qumran community and its beliefs contain many sectarian ideas which would have been unacceptable to the Tannaim and there descendants who produced the Mishna. They were a protest group who moved out of mainstream Jewish society in the second century B.C. However even their evidence from 1 QS indicates a very precise knowledge of the name. In this case one who unwittingly used the name was tried and punished by the community with an exile. Whoever invokes the glorious name in a statement is subject to… (asher yazkir dabar bashem hanichbad) But if he has uttered a curse either because he was shaken by some crisis Or what ever may have prompted him to do it, then reads from the book Or offers a blessing, they shall exclude him from the community (1 QS:VI:27-VII=) From the text we do not know the result of the invocation of the name but the result of cursing is seen to be negative. For some one to curse with the name implies not only a precise knowledge of the name but it is usually the name which is well known and regularly used that is used by a man in cursing. It may be that the invocation of the name was not a negative thing for it is clear that the scriptures did not forbid the invocation of the name in truth. We also have other evidence that may indicate that the Essenes or a similar sect called the Hemerobathers, Daily Baptisers, made regular positive use of the name (Tos. Yad 2:20). “In order to pronounce the name of God in prayer with perfect purity the Essene …underwent baptism every morning.” (Tos. Yad 2:20, Simon of Sens to Yad 4:9 and Ber. 22a cf.kid 70a). 3.28 The Witness of Abba Shaul that the Letters of the Name were readable as they were This leaves only Abba Saul. Abba Saul and no other voice in the Mishna says that those who pronounce the Name with its proper letters have no place in the world to come (M San 10:1). The saying of Abba Saul was not confirmed or denied by the sages of the Mishna it is left hanging whilst the Mishna goes on to other kings and commoners having no place in the world to come. Because it is stated in the Mishna by no means gives it Halakhic authority. Danby (1935, 800) lists Abba Saul as a fourth generation Tanna who are dated from AD 140-165. On another level the evidence of Abba Shaul tells us quite distinctly that even in the middle of the second century A.D. there were Israelis pronouncing the name with its proper letters. And this for Abba Shaul was punishable only by heaven, for to be forbidden a place in the world to come has nothing to do with a trial and punishment on earth. The fact that Abba Shaul had to raise the protest and that Rabbi Judah ha Nasi included it in the Mishna in the next century points to the fact that people knew how to pronounce it “correctly” as the community understood it even into the third century. The Masoretes had not yet started their vocalisation work and despite the widespread idea that the Hebrew alphabet is not vocalized evidence of some weight is now available indicating that the letters aleph, yod and heh were used as matres lectionis, that is mothers of reading. This is important in looking at Abba Shaul’s statement that the name could be spoken with its proper letters indicating that on seeing the four letters yod heh vav heh, with out any vowel pointings, one could read them intelligibly. This implies that the four letters were readable and thus in all probability included vowels among them. A person on reading a torah text with those four letters could read them. The presence of vowels in the name is confirmed by Josephus who said the name was made up of four vowels (Gertoux). The question then is not could the letters be read but how should those four letters be read a thousand years before the masoretes set out on their traditional vocalization. We will develop this issue a little later. For now we continue with the evidence that the name was well known in the period of Late Antiquity. 3.29 The Evidence from the Courts that the Name was Accurately known and Heard The outline of the trial of a blasphemer in Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5 also indicates that the way to pronounce the name as opposed to a substitute was clearly known when the Mishnah was redacted. Without this knowledge a sentence could not be given “‘The blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself” . The trial was conducted with a substituted name but when the final sentence had to be given the people were sent out and the witnesses testified as to what he actually heard. He would say it and “the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments” (Danby 1935,392)lxxii. The witnesses then testify that they heard the name by speaking the name. This indicates that it is clear the name was being used in publiclxxiii. The form of the substituted saying was “May Jose smite Jose”. In truth this may have been “May Yaua smite Jose[whoever Jose was]”lxxiv. We notice that the witnesses are permitted here to use the name for the purposes of the trial. In other words it was a legitimate use of the name. Only two or three witnesses were required to testify in the trial and the crime is perhaps the blasphemy through cursing and not simply saying the name. In this tradition there is nothing said about the name being spoken according to its letters, but it is known that a forbidden use is made of the namelxxv. Some uncertainty arises because the form “May Jose smite Jose” indicates that Jose was substituted for Yaua and for the person who is object of the curse. But here in the Mishna we clearly see one of the substitutes for Yaua used in the Oral law. We should notice that the crime here is not simply using the name accurately but blaspheming or cursing using the name. The curse may have taken the form we noted above and at that period it was forbidden to speak in this manner.lxxvi 3.30 The Possible Use of the Name by Jesus in his trial Evidence that it may simply have been the use of the name and not its use to curse may perhaps be indicated in the trial of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of Matthew. In this case the High Priest responds to something Jesus says by doing exactly what is required of the judges in a blasphemy case and he cries out blasphemy at the same time. The high priest said to him, “I charge You on oath by the living God that you tell that you tell us whether You are the Christ the Son of God.” Jesus said to him. “As you say, Besides , I tell you that shortly you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty (Dunamis) and coming on the clouds of heaven” Then the high priest tore his clothes , saying “He has blasphemed![blasphemeo] What further need do we have of witnesses. What do you think? They answered “He deserves death” Although he Mishna is late it is unlikely its procedures in this case would have been influenced by the gospel of Matthew, they are more likely to have derived their message from a common source. If the blasphemer, as stated above can not be put to death unless he speaks the name itself then if Jesus has blasphemed he must have spoken the name itself. But in the text their seems to be only the word dunamis or the right hand of dunamis which would be capable of containing the blasphemy. Dunamis is perhaps the Matthean redactors substitute for the name itself. This idea may be evidenced by Jeremiah’s parallel between Yaua’s might and his name. “Therefore my people will know my might and my power,. Therefore my people will know my name” (Jer 16:21). And is illustrated by the Samaritan tradition surrogate for the name the “great power” (1 Fossum, 1985,10). In Marks gospel we have a slightly different recollection which could perhaps help us a little Again the high priest questioned Him. He said, “Are you the Christ , the son of the Blessed? Jesus said egw eimi. And you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tearing his clothes, said; “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; How does it seem to you? And they all condemned Him as deserving death. Mrk 14:62 In this case we see three possible substitutes, for Yaua: Dunamis and egw eimi and for God, Blessed (evlogetos). However Jesus statement egw eimi, has been used as a divine name in the LXX, translating Ani Hu but also in place of Ani Yaua in Isaiah 42. This first example reflects a passage in Isaiah where Yaua says “Ani hu Ani Hu” who blots out your sins. Ani hu is translated egw eimi who blots out your sins or “I am egw eimi who blots out your sins for my sake” (Is 43:25). In the second as noted it is possible that behind the egw eimi is a divine name which Jesus is not supposed to say. Egw eimi is also used for the phrase Ani Yaua that is it is a direct substitute for the memorial name, this combined with the high priests reaction and the courts sentence imply Jesus may very well have used the name at this point. John’s gospel echoes this idea where egw eimi is definitely used as a divine name. And when it is used it is considered a blasphemy. But is it also possible that behind the word dunamis is the name Yaua. Thus it is conceivable, knowing Jesus uncompromising adherence to truth, that Jesus said: “Ani Yaua and you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven” The strange thing in this case is the fact that only the high priest tore his clothes it is supposed to be all the judges. The problem is we can not be certain what was actually said. 3.4 Evidence that the Pronounciation was known beyond Israel and the 3rd Century We see then that from the early period up to the 3rd century there is clear evidence that the name was neither forgotten or uncertain to the Hebrews. They knew when they heard the name and they had court procedures established for cases where the restrictions were transgressed. What we have considered is however only the beginning of the evidence. A number of other later texts also support the contention that to the Hebrews the name was not lost or forgotten. This includes the following examples: 1 Avodah Zarah 17b relates a tradition that one of the martyrs in the time of Hadrian, Hananiah b. Teradion, burned at the stake because he uttered the name according to its letters. Again this is evidence that the letters when seen by a Jew in that period were readable, that is the information for vocalization was contained in the four letters. 2 A third century Palestinian Amora (Mana the Elder) indicates that the Samaritans (“who swear”) in their oaths pronounce the Tetrgrammaton as it is writtenlxxvii. Theodoret the 5th century Church Father indicates that by that time Samaritans used Iabh when they pronounced the name. This Samaritan usage is one of the reasons some scholars have opted for Yahweh as the vocalization of the name. There are also traditions which indicate that Jewish scholars used to teach their disciples the name. 1. In Yer. Sanh 71b Yohanan notes that “Once each week the sages give their pupils the Four-Lettered Name.” Yer Yoma 40d relates “In former times the Name was taught to all; but when immorality increased it was reserved for the pious”. lxxviii This testimony is very important for our thesis that the name was never forgotten but merely restricted to those considered worthy. But the fact that the name was not forgotten indicates that giving the disciples the four letter letter at a minimum would include pronouncing it but would also include lessons on its use. What these lessons were would be an interesting subject for reasearch. Jesus may perhaps be classified among these teachers having made known and manifest his Fathers name to his disciples (John 17)not necessarily to outsiders at that point. 2 Haggadist Phinehas b. Kama refused to teach the name to a physician of Sepphoris who offered to pay for lessons (Yer Yoma 40d). Indicating that the Haggadist himself knew and possibly used the name, but restricted its use to those to whom he considered worthy. 3 A scholar of the fourth century offered to ‘transmit the Name’ to the amora R. Hanina of Sepphoris (Yer Yoma 40d). Evidencing a clear practice among some circles of ensuring that the name was passed accurately from generation to generation, even as Yaua had indicated that Yaua was his memorial from generation to generation. Samuel a third century Babylonian amora heard a Persian curse his son using the name (yer. Yoma 40d) A very clear evidence indicating that even non Jews had access to and pronounced what Jewish Rabbis understood to be the name. As it is now so it was then. Ecclesiates. Rabba. 3:11 relates that it was a Persian woman who cursed her son using the memorial Yaua. Here we see a Gentile women having knowledge of Shem ha-Meforash and using it freely. She is clearly familiar with the name and so familiar that rather than curse her son with the names of one of the pagan deities or Ahura Mazada of the Zoroastrians she called on Yaua to smite her son. Thus indicating that the name was not only spoken by Jews but also by varying types of Gentiles and that it was spoken and also heard in public. A women who curses her son using the name Yaua knows the name very well and believes in its power and veracity. Her son will in all probability learn from the example of his mother. He too will begin to use the name and thus the knowledge of it would be passed down the generations. This knowledge of the name displayed by the Gentiles is evidenced very clearly in the Greek magical papyri where the name is used around three times as much as any pagan deity (Smith, Jesus the Magicain ). All of this evidence indicates a clear understanding of the pronunciation however the question arises How was it pronounced? 4.0 Evidence For Various Vocalisations of the Name We come now to the issue of how the name was vocalized. As has been seen in this paper I have vocalized the name as Yaua. This vocalization I present as an altenative to the many and various vocalization posited by various scholars. The main academic alternatives are YeHoWaH (Jehovah) defended by Gertoux, Yahweh the rendering is the academic’s conventional vocalization held by Albright and Yahuah supported by Reisel or Yahwa supported by Tropper. The pronunciation of these four letters has probably seen more speculative vocalization than any other name in history. And not just speculative vocalizations but a sense in which the way to pronounce the name is actually important. For some a mispronunciation would lead to a loss of salvation. Before we go into the methods which can perhaps be used reconstruct a well grounded pronunciation a review of the various speculations will at least be informative. Century Source Script Vocalisation Reference 14th B.C. Nubian shields Hierglyphics Yehua 2 Gertoux 9th-11th B.C. Amarna Letters Cuneiform Yahwa Tropper 5th B.C. Elephantine Papyri Paleo Aramaic Yahu/Yaho Albright 4th B.C. Maqqeda Potsherd Paleo Aramaic Yahu/ Yaho Lemaire 3rd B.C. 2nd B.C. 1st B.C 4 Q Lev Greek Iaw 1st A.D. Josephus Greek 4 vowels Gertoux 2nd A.D. Ophites Greek Iao Ireneaus Her I 30.5 2nd A.D Abba Shaul Hebrew YeHUaH According to its letters 3rd.A.D. Samaritans Greek Iaoue Clem of Alex (CA) Strom.5:6 3rd AD Origen Greek Iao Celsus 6:31 4th A.D. 5th A.D. Theodoret Greek Iabh Samaritans 5th A.D. Theodoret Greek Iao Heresies 1:7 6th A.D. Codex Marchalianus Greek Iaw Metzger, 35lxxix 7th A.D 8th A.D. 9th A.D. 10th A.D. Sepher Yetzirah Hebrew IHV Wynn Westscott, 1980 10th A.D. Masoretic Text Hebrew Yehowah 10th A.D. Masoretic Text Hebrew Yehowih 11th A.D. 12th A.D. Sefer Bahir Hebrew IHVH 12th A.D Maimonides Hebrew YeHUaH According to it letters 13th A.D. 14th A.D. Clavicula Salomonis Hebrew YHVH Key of Solomon 15th A.D. Pico Della Mirandola Hebrew YHVH Waite, A. Holy Kabbalah 16th A.D. Cornelius Agrippa Hebrew IHVH Iod Heh Vav Heh 1516 Peter Galatin Hebrew Jehovah 1567 Genebrardrus Greek Jahve Chronologia ed.(Paris 1600) 17th A.D. 18th A.D. 19th A.D. Joseph Smith Hebrew Jehovah Book of Abraham 1:16 19th A.D Joseph Smith Hebrew Jehova Book of Abraham 2:8 1810 A.D. Fabre d’Olivet Hebrew IEVE The Tarot of the Bohemianslxxx 1815 Gesenius Hebrew Jahweh 1855 A.D. Eliphas Levi Hebrew Jehovalxxxi Transcental Magic 1855 A.D. Eliphas Levi Hebrew Jodchevalxxxii High priest’s prnounciationlxxxiii 1855 A.D. Eliphas Levi Hebrew Jodhevalxxxiv Kabalistic Tetragram 1863 A.D. Christian Ginsburg Hebrew Jehovah The Kabbalah 1877A.D. H.P. Blavatsky Hebrew Jehovah Substitute for mirific name 20th A.D. Gertoux asserts that the 14th century B.C. vocalization of the Soleb shields gives Yehua. Tropper argues that the Amarna letters and Amorite cuneiform inscription lead to a vocalization of Yahwa. The Aramaic documents of the third and fourth century B.C. point to Yahu Reading and Writing An important issue regarding the pronunciation of the name comes up when dealing with the issue of reading the name. It is the issue of what is read when one comes across the name Yaua in the text. A Babylonian amora, Abina, has a comment on this based on Exodus 3:15’: “I am not read,’ says God, ‘as I am written; I am written with “yod”, “he” and pronounced with “alef,” “dalet” [] (Yer. Yoma 71a; Pes 50a. Jacob bar Aba refers to this tradition in Yer. Sanh 28b. Ahabah b. Ze’era (4th century) says “Men slay one another – so saith God- even by pronouncing the paraphrasis of the Divine Name; what would they do if I should teach them the Shem ha-Meforash?” The miraculous power of this word is known from the time of the Tannaim. IV The Memorial Name in Greek Texts A We will do this for the NT for the main purpose of this paper is to argue that the Christians did use the name for various purposes. The context of the use in the life and will clearly be related to what the Law, the Prophets and the Psalmslxxxv, the three bodies, which the scriptures were divided into, were seen as models and authority for acceptable thought, speech and actions in the eyes of the late antique Hebrews and Christians (1 Cor 10, John 10:36, Matt 5:17). Our approach will be to enter into the potential Jesus movement and Christian use of the memorial. We will then branch out from NT evidence backwards to our Hebrew sources and forwards to further Greek and Aramaic evidence which preserves the memorial. The Christians texts we have were normally preserved in Greek and Aramaic. There is evidence that the first gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Papias, Eusebius, Ireneus, Pantaneus, Jerome and Origen testify that Matthew wrote down sayings in Hebrew (grammaton hebraikois) and that this gospel was found as far east as India. Papias noted that others translated the gospel to Greek as they were able (52 Wenham, p.116ff). There is also a tradition in Epiphanius’ Panarion, that there were “translations” of gospel in Hebrew in the city of Tiberius with Hillel II the Jewish Patriarch from the fourth century which fell into the hands of one of his assistants after his death. There is also evidence that second century Christian books contained the name Yaua. This gave Bar Kochba a headache when deciding to destroy them, it was forbidden to blot out or destroy the memorial (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho). A1 In terms of the Greek manuscripts we have, most of them come from the 4th century onwards. One convenient element about the NT documents is there uniformity in substituting either kurios (Lord) or theos (God) not only for the words they appropriately translate, such as Adon/ Adonai or el/eloah/elohim but also to replace the memorial Yaua with these common nouns. The New Testament texts often cite or allude to the supposed LXX, that is the Greek text which the Jewish community began to translate in the 3rd century BC. From some of these references we can discover some of the uses of the memorial in the NT community either by their reference to the name of by the use of the name in the documents. B The Name and Jesus In the New Testament we have evidence of what might be considered a complicated interaction between the title kurios and the name Iesous. In first century Israel this was probably an interaction between the name Yaua / Adonai (marya) and the name Yahoshua / Yeshua. Because the New Testament documents we have preserved today have been preserved in Aramaic and Greek we can not at present speak with certainty as to the actual Hebrew name used by the early Church in the first century neither in writing nor in speaking. The bulk of the New Testemant manuscripts we have stem from the 3rd century onwards. We have no New Testament manuscripts from the first century. Neither those who affirm that the early Church wrote and spoke the name Yaua in the first century, nor those who deny it can speak with certainty, the direct evidence simply is not there. This point is fundamental to all theses dealing with the use of the name Yaua in that period, we have no manuscripts from the Church in which we can observe that kurios, Iao, Iaw or Yaua were written. This means we must approach the issue through later documents and through comments contained in them which refer to the name. We can also look at the early Church’s Jewish contemporaries and their writings to see how they treated the name to gain some awareness of the possible uses of the name. If we observe chart B1 gleaned from Lampe Patristic Lexicon we can the earliest Christian transliterations of the name. It is clear from the chart that Christian writers Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen began to use the name for teaching purposes at the end of the second century moving into the middle of the third century. The actual transliterations varied depending on the source. However all of the transliterations are connected in one way or another to the letters Yod heh and vav. The standard rendering of the first yod and heh in the memorial is with iota and aleph. These two letters are usually followed by an omicron or an omega which in the Greek transliterations is usually used to render vav in the memorial name. This is the most popular rendering of the name among the Chriatian and pagan transliterators of the name. Both Clement and Origen are connected with Egypt and it could be that the tradition represented by the 5th century BC Elephantine papyri of dropping the last heh leaving yahu or yaho is represented in this transliteration to iao or iaw. Gertoux and others have shown that in general three letters were used as matres lectionis for reading Hebrew words in the period up to late antiquity. Yod was rendered as I ot y, heh usually as a at the end of a word and vav as o or u. Thus the transliteration IAW or IAO fits with Yahu very well. Not only so but we will see in other Christian uses of the name that Iaw was used by Chraitian and understood as the Greek rendering of the memorial name. This is evidence most clearly in the combination of the name with Sebaoth with which Yaua is often combined. We see then that second and third Church fathers used the name in relation to their teach about the Christian faith or in describing the beliefs of the Gnostics. When we turn to the Christian use of the name in private worship, prayers and “spells”, we find ourselves in another area of controversy but one which we cannot side step. The problem of the overlap between and prayers and spells, religion and magic is an emotive one. However we can say with absolute certainty that the materials used by those praying and those seeking the magical effects are in many cases identical. Both the magician and the religious use the scriptures and the psalms and in many cases in order to obtain identical effect. These parallel results are rooted in many traditions including those of the Jewish. We see Moses competing with the Egyptian magicians (Exod 3-15). His power outdid theirs at higher levels. The competition between between prophets and magician is represented in the Jewish tradition of Moses versus Jannes and Jambres mentioned in 2 Tim 3:8 and the Targum of Pseudo Jonathan (Davies 1944, 282). The Clemetines have Apostle Peter pitted against Simon Magus. Comments by Naveh and Shaked on the Aramaic magical Amulets and Bowls have equal application in the case of our Christian Greek magical texts. “Jewish incantation texts very often make use of biblical verses…Biblical verses are also commonly quoted in Jewish liturgy, and this is one of the factors which sometimes makes it hard to distinguish between prayers and spells” (Naveh and Shaked, 1993,22). Thus in the Jewish and later in the Christian community the name Yaua was used in prayers, spells or psalms which were used to obtain the desired end of the uses. In many cases this end was healing or deliverance. In the book of Acts we see the deliverances and healings performed in the name of Jesus. In Jewish magical texts this action was often performed by the memorial name. And we see in the claim of Jesus Christ that he came in the name of his Father. And in his amazing signs I the gospel of John he had “manifested” and made known the name of his Father (John 17). If we ponder what was the name of the Father, John 12 gives a strong indicator. The crowds cried “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” “Barukh ha ba be shem Yaua” in the original Psalm. The tension then between Yaua and Eheyeh or AIA in some greek transliterations as seen in Exodus three is maintained in the gospel with a tension between Kurios and Egw Eimi in the Greek text. However this tension may be resolved in whereas it is obvious to us that kurios is used as a surrogate for Yaua there is also evidence that egw eimi too is used in the LXX as a surrogate for Yaua. Chart of All Greek Textual Evidence B1 Chronological Chart of treatment of Yahuah 4Q LXX Levb late 1st C BCE Dated by CH Roberts Lev 4:27 toon entoloon Iaoo Lev 3.12 final omega and much of alpha. Four broke papyrus columns reconstruct well with the same readinglxxxvi Diodorus of Sicily I.94.2 1st cent BCE ton Iaoo epikaloumenon theon Greek Apocryphon 1st cent BC kurios employed frequently Wisdom of Solomon 1st cent BC kurios employed frequently Philo 1st cent AD kurios occurs in Philo Josephus 1st cent AD kurios occurs in Josephus Ireneaus Heresies I.30.5 2nd century Aeon generated by Ialdaboth: Ophite mythology Ireneaus Heresies I.30.11 2nd century Sent certan prophets Ireneaus Heresies I.4.I 2nd cent CE Valentinian, ton horon kooluonta auteen toumprosthen hormees eipein Iao. hothen to Iao onoma gegeneesthai paskousi. Origen Against Celsus 6.31 3rd cent CE Iaw ...proote despota thanatou Origen Ps 2:2 Migne text 3rd century Iae(eta)lxxxvii,. translated kurion in Ps 146:I Of commentary Origen 3rd cent Testifies of Jewish 3rd cent practice of rendering Tetragram as kurios Clement Stromateis 5.6 3rd century ho methermeeneutai ho oon kai ho esomenos (Iaoue) Eusebius Psalm 134 4th century Ia: tou...iaw. tov kurion Eusebius Psalm 146 4th century Epiphanius Heresies 40.5 4th century Pap. Chr (p403) Epiphanius Heresies 40.5 5th century to Iabe(eta) hos een kai estin ho aei hoon Theodoret. qu.15 in Ex i.133 5th century (sc. to tetragrammaton) Samaratai ..Iabee Theodoret Heresies I.7 5th cent CE en tooi prootooi ouranooi einai ton Iaw arxonta Observe the chart below on the name or using the name: Chart 1: The Name in use and the Name Referred to Matthew 1:21 Thou shalt call his name Jesus (Iesous-Yeshua) 1:23 They shall call his name Immanuel which interpreted is God with uslxxxviii 1:25 And they called his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins. 6:9 Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name. 7:22 My Lord My Lord Did we not prophesy in thy name. 7:22 And in your name cast out devils, 7:22 And in your name do many wonders 12:21 And in his name will the Gentiles find hope. 18:5 And he who will welcome one little child in my name welcomes me. 18:20 For wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there among them. 21:9 Hosanna to the son of David. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (en onomati kuriou- briq hu date bashmeh dmarya) Ps 118:25-26 23:39 Jerusalem Jerusalem, murdereress of the prophets and stoner of those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children, just as a hen gathers chickens under her wings, and yet you would not! Behold your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, from now on you will not seem me until you say Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (en onomati kuriou- bashmeh dmarya) 24:5 For many will come in my name, and say I am the Christ, and they will deceive many. Our Father in Heaven Hallowed be thy name (hagiasthetw to onoma sou) Matt 6:25 2 We will base our analysis on the MT because here the memorial is witnessed 6828 times outside of this it is preserved a few hundred times in classical Hebrew more than in any other place (41 Clines). It is usually preserved as the four letters, yod heh vav heh. However it is preserved as three letters in the theophoric names beginning with yod heh and vav and always vocalized by the masoretes and in transliteration as yeho (2a Gertoux A14), and the theophoric names ending with yod heh and vav which are always vocalized yahulxxxix. The name is also witnessed in the two letter forms yu and ya, again mainly preserved in theophoric names but ya is used as a distinct form of the name in the MT between 25 and 50 times. Gertoux notes The Jews reserved a different treatment for these two names [Yaua and Ya] because they always agreed to pronounce the short name, contrary to the great name, which was replaced around the third century BC by its substitute Adonay (Lord). Thus the short name Yah is found in the Christian Greek writings in the expression Alleluia (Rev 19:1-6), which means “Praise Yah”. Moreover , in the Qumran writings, the Tetragram was sometimes written in Paleo Hebrew inside the Hebrew text, which was not the case for the name Yah (2a Gertoux A 14) Whilst Gertoux point has validity it also illustrates the slimness of some of the evidence we have to deal with. Alleluia only occurs four times in the last book of the Bible. Yah occurs 50 times in MT, once in Sirach and 4 times at Qumran. The Forbidden Uses of The memorial Yaua Lo tisa Et the memorial Yaua la shav No lifting up The memorial Yaua in vanity (Ex 20) Qalal : No profaning or cursing the name (Leviticus 18:21) Naqav: No blaspheming the name (Lev 24:11-16) Zadown: No speaking in the name presumptuously or proudly (Deu 18) Zakar lo be emet: No making mention of the name when not in emet or tzdaqah (Deu 28) Zakar 2: Lohazcir bethe memorial Yaua. Amos sees a time when a man will say they are not permitted to mention the memorial Yaua Eish ha dam : Men who have shed (innocent) blood are not allowed to build a house for The memorial Yaua (1 Kings 5:3) It is a positive command to beware of and obey the voice of and angel in whom the name Yaua is (23:21). The Permitted, Commanded and Expected uses of The memorial Yaua Qara: It is permitted and commendable to call on or call out the memorial Yaua (Deu 32:3) Qara 2: It is permitted and commendable to be called by the memorial Yaua (sp) Qara 3: Some things are called by the memorial Yaua (the ark, the temple, the people, some gentiles-Amos 9) (2 Sam 6:2) ( Davar: It is a positive command for prophets to speak in the memorial Yaua Sharat: It is a positive command (especially for Levites) to minister in the memorial Yaua Barak: It is a positive command or permitted for Sons of Levi and Kings and others to bless in the memorial Yaua (2 Sam 6:18, Ruth, Num 6) Barak2: It is a positive command to bless the memorial Yaua xc Amad: It is a postive command for the tribes of Levi to stand in the memorial Yaua Bo: It is blessed for some to come in the memorial Yaua Bo2: It is permitted to defend in the memorial Yaua and to declare that one is doing so. Amar: It is permitted to say in and to say the memorial Yaua(Is 45, Deu 18) Shaba: It is a positive command to swear by or make an oath in or to cause to swear by the memorial Yaua as long as it is in truth (emet). Banah: It is permitted for a Hebrew king who has not shed innocent blood to build for the memorial Yaua (1Kings 3). Zamar: It is permitted to sing the memorial Yaua. (Ps 7:17) Nazcir: It is permitted to remember the memorial Yaua. (Ps 20:7) Yiyra: It is expected that goyim will fear the memorial Yaua (Ps 102:15,Is 59:19) Lesaper: Yaua beholds the earth to declare the memorial Yaua in Zion (Ps 102:21) Halelu et the memorial Yaua: It is commanded to praise the memorial Yaua. Amilam: It is permitted for a king to circumcise or cut off in the memorial Yaua. Lehodot le the memorial Yaua: The tribes of Israel went to Jerusalem to give thanks to the memorial Yaua.(Ps 122:4) Ezrenu bethe memorial Yaua: It is permitted to declare that your help is in the memorial Yaua and thus to receive help from the memorial Yaua. Yarotz: The righteous are permitted to consider the memorial Yaua as a strong tower (migdal oz) and to run into it for safety and in it they are safe (nisgav) El meqom the memorial Yaua: It is expected that a present (shay) will be brought to the place of the memorial Yaua from beyond rivers of Cush (naharei cush) (Isa 18) Hineh: It is permitted to behold the memorial Yaua (Is 30.27) Batach: It is permitted to trust in the memorial Yaua. Le ahavah et the memorial Yaua: Sons of strangers are commended for loving the memorial Yaua. Lehavi: Sons, silver and gold shall be brought to the memorial Yaua (Isaiah 60:9) in the resoration prophesied. Niqvu: All the goyim shall gather to, wait for, hope or expect the memorial Yaua (Jer 3:17) Nava: It is permitted and commanded that one sent should prophesy in the memorial Yaua. Vaanachnu nelek beshem-Yaua eloheinu leolam vaed: Micah sees that in the end Israel will walk in the memorial Yaua forever. It is permitted and commendable to write the memorial Yaua in letters of correspondence Jer 29) Ani Yaua:It is commanded that legal decrees be on the authority of the memorial Yaua (Exod 21-24) It is commendable to write the name Yaua on all the pots and bells of Jerusalem (Zech 14:10) It is a positive command to write the name Yaua on the high priests mitre. It is a positive command for the high priest to intercede using the memorial Yaua on Yom Kippur (Lev 16) From this list the MT texts positive commands or exhortations, permissions and restrictions regarding the memeorial Yaua has Although from the time of Jesus we have no clear ban on the use of the name for purposes of prophecy, taking an oath, for praising and praying and calling on it, we know that restrictions had already entered the community regarding the use of the memorial name. If any of these restrictions were considered to contravene the direct instruction of authoritative scripture or what the private individual or sectarian group considered to be necessary and acceprtable practice, that practice on the whole will move from the public realm to the private realm. We find clear evidence that Jesus identified the apostles with the prophets (Matt 5-7). Jesus also understood himself as a prophet, for in the first case he said to the disciples that as the Jewish authorities had persecuted the prophets so they would persecute them. And Simon Peter after the resurrection speaks of Jesus as the prophet which Moses spoke about (Acts 3). According to Exodus 6, Moses had the memorial name made known to him in a way which it was not made known to Abrahamxci. And Jesus made known his Fathers name to the men whom his Father gave him out of the world (John 17:26). Moses came and spoke in the name Yaua and even complained to Yaua, that ever since he had gone to the Pharoah to speak in the memorial name things had taken a turn for the worse. In fact Yaua had not delivered Israel at all. The claim in Acts (3-4) that Jesus is the prophet like Moses and in all the gospels that he came in the name of Yaua (John 12, Matt 21, Mark 11, Luke 13 and 19) gives us strong reason to infer, along with the later Jewish traditions regarding the ministry of Jesus, that Jesus actually used the name Yaua in his ministry. Toldot Yeshu the medieval Jewish caricature of the gospels indicates very clearly that among themselves the unbelieving Jews, who despised Jesus and opposed his message in their writings, believed that he performed miracles. And he performed the miracles by speaking the letters of the name Yaua over the sick person for example or to enable himself to ascend into heaven.xcii The textual, literary and historical problem we have is that in the New Testament Manuscripts still preserved we only have Greek substitutes for the full memorial name (Metzger, 1981). There are many surrogates for the name but the full name itself does not occur, neither in transliteration as IAW , nor through the writing of the memorial name in Paleo Hebrew, Aramaic Square Script, or transcribing into Greek letters, pipi, which looks like the name. These are the ways the name was portrayed by the Jewish contemporaries of the Hebrew disciples when writing the Greek scriptures ((40) Fitzmyer, 1979, (18) Kahle 1959). Of the thousands of manuscripts we have of the New Testament, not a single fragment of evidence has been found to indicate that the authors of the New Testament wrote the memorial name in the text of their writings. This is very strange considering that it is clear that the New Testament identifies Jesus at one moment with Moses (Acts 3) at another moment with Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4). When Jesus asked his disciples who the people thought he was, they responded by saying, John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets (Matt 16). A cursory glance at the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures and the stories of Moses, Elijah and Elisha and Jeremiah will indicate the pertinent point that each of them spoke and performed miracles in the name Yaua. Moses we have already noticed, but the first century Jew on reading about Elijah sees a man who stood alone for Yaua in Israel (James 5:17). He, standing against 950 prophets of other gods, and having shown an incredible sign, fire falling from heaven, saw all Israel prostrate before Yaua and crying “Yaua hu ha elohim, Yaua hu ha elohim” (1 Kings 18). A cursory look at Elisha shows a prophet who on facing the whole Syrian Army simply says “Yaua close their eyes” and they lose all awareness of where they are. This same prophet says “Yaua open his eyes”, and his servant Gehazi can see all the armies of Yaua surrounding the army of Syria (2 Kings 6). These prophets, Moses, Elijah and Elisha were adepts in the use of the name Yaua. As for John the Baptist, he was seen as a prophet by the people so much so that Jesus could challenge the chief priests (archiereis) and the elders of the people (prebuteroi) with the question “The Baptism of John was it from heaven or from men?” and they feared to deny speak against John’s authority because the people considered him a prophet. When we turn see what the Church has handed regarded the ministry of John the Baptist we find a number of key elements. Firstly John in in the wilderness making ready a way for Yaua, for the scripture cited in the Greek of the New Testament is Isaiah which reads Qol qore bamidbar panu dereqYaua Phwne bowntos en te eremw etoimasate ten hodon kuriou (Matt 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4). It is highly unlikely that John was prophesying to the Hebrews in the Greek language. Thus they were thinking at the time of John not as a prophet of kurios but as a prophet of Yaua. The evidence for this has some weight to it. Firstly, John is compared to Elijah, who was the prophet of Yaua par excellence. Yaua promised in the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures, considered the last of the prophets, to send Elijah before the great and terrible day of Yaua. Secondly, John was proclaiming the “Repent, kingdom of Heaven is at hand”. The idea of kingdom in the Hebrew mind is linked very much with the idea of the shema. And to say the shema for the Jews was to take on the yoke of the Kingdom (mber 2:2). The shema starts with a declaration of Yaua’s name twice. “Shema Israel Yaua, Eloheinu, Yaua echad” (Hear Israel, Yaua is our God, Yaua is one). The kingdom was also associated with the name Yaua in the temple. When the priest would say the name Yaua in the temple on Yom Kippur all the people would prostrate themselves in the temple courtyards and proclaim “Baruch shem kavod malchuto le olam va ed” (mYoma 6.2).xciii Thus we see again the name Yaua has a close association with the kingdom of heaven in the mind of the first century Hebrew. Thirdly John went out baptising. There is also evidence that baptism was also associated with the name Yaua in the mind of the Pharisees and Hemerobaptistsxciv in the tosephta (Tos Yad.ii.20, JE “Baptism”). According to this evidence the name Yaua was uttered apart of the baptism ritual, perhaps in a similar way to how the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were used in later baptism ceremonies. John was a priest and the son of the priest Zachariah. Like the priests Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Malachi before him the word of Yaua came to him and he began to proclaim in the name Yaua what Yaua told him to proclaim. We must bear in mind there is no recorded prohibition against prophesying in the name Yaua. Indeed according to the Torah if a prophet prophesied in any other name he was ought to receive the death penalty for trying to lead Israel astray(Deu 18, Deu 13). It would not simply be John’s clothing which would convince the people that he might be Elijah. The New Testament evidence suggests that Jesus himself saw John not just as his forerunner but as the Elijah to come.(Matt 17:12, Mk 9:13). Elijah was the prophet who stood up for the name Yaua when almost all of Israel had abandoned it. When then we see John was associated with Elijah and Jesus was associated with John and Elijah we have weighty evidence that this is association is connected to the name Yaua which they may have been proclaiming. This however brings the depth of our historical problem to the fore. This memorial name of Abraham’s God is at the center of the life of Israel from the time of Moses perhaps before, right through to the time of Jeremiah when Israel went into exile. In that period of about 872 years the memorial name of the God of Israel was used by the people of Israel in many aspects of their lives. It was the God which the people were known to serve even in the dark ages of the 9th century BC under Omri and Mesha inscription testifies that the land of Israel was the land of Yaua. After this period the people of Israel went into exile to Babylon. And began to wonder “How can we sing Yaua’s song in a strange land (Psalm 139)? Just before this exile the name came under a challenge. According to the record of Jeremiah there was an attempt among a groups of prophets to cause the people to forget the name Yaua, which meant to forget Yaua’s authority and to replace this with another source of authority: How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams , which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal According to Yaua these prophets have a goal. The goal is to cause the people to forget (shachach) his name, as their fathers had forgotten his name for Baal. We see here to replacements for the name Yaua. The first is the title Baal and the second the Dreams of the prophets. According to Jeremiahs prophecy it was the intention of the prophets to cause the name to be forgotten, the plot against the name was deliberately contructed. It would not be an accident if the name was forgotten it would be the result of the planning of these prophets. As we have seen above Jesus was perceived to be a prophet like Jeremiah by some of the people in his time. They had read the prophecies of Jeremiah and knew the issues he addressed. We find some grounds for their position in the evidence we have regarding Jesus attitude to the name and its replacement. In Johns gospel Jesus makes a similar accusation against some of the people of his day. “I am come in my Fathers name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (John 5:43). Jesus spoke these words to that nebulous group among the Hebrew called “oi Ioudaioi” . A group whom Jesus said searched the scriptures because thought that in them they had life and who were so zealous that they were persecuting Jesus because he healed people on Shabbat. The evidence that the name Yaua in the name in sight and not simply and nebulous authority We see in the context of John 5 that Jesus is continually referring to the Son and is making God his Father. This would point to him being the son of David for the Psalms (2 and 89) indicate that the Messiah would be the son of Yaua. In Psalm 89 we some particular parallels with the themes of John 5. “Justice and Judgement are the habitation of thy throne” (Ps 89:14) says the Psalm and Jesus says “For not even the Father judges anyone , but he has given all judgement to the Son” (John 5:22). “In my name shall his horn be exalted” (Ps 89:24) and Jesus says “I have come in my Fathers name”(John 5:43). However the key connection is perhaps the fact that Jesus calls God his Father. He does not simply call God “Our Father” referring to Israel but his Father referring to him personally. The Psalmist prophesies of the seed of David “He shall cru unto me , Thou art my Father, my God and the rock of my salvation”. Usage in Daily life Palestine Aramaic Judaism Contents The Hebrew Context Andersen. F. I., & Forbes. A. Dean. The Vocabulary of the Old Testament. (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto, 1989) Gianotti, C.R. “The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH.” Bibliotheca Sacra. Jan-Mar,(1985), 38-51 Hertog, Cornelius Den. “The Prophetic Dimension of the Divine Name: On Exodus #:14a and Ist Context.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 64 (2002), 213-229. Karel, van der Toorn., Becking, Bob., & Van der Horst. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible 2nd rev ed (Leiden: Brill, 1999). Kutscher, The Language of the Isaiah 1Q1Sa Jenni. E., & Westerman C. “Yahweh.” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Vol 2. Trans. Mark. E. Biddle. Hendrikson Publishers Appendix 1 Emil Hirsch on the Jehovah By : Emil G. Hirsch (see image) Valley of Jehoshaphat.(From a photograph by Bonfils.) A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "qere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")—"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. "Adonay" presents the vowels "shewa" (the composite under the guttural א becomes simple under the י), "holem," and "ḳameẓ," and these give the reading (= "Jehovah"). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with "chatef segol" () under the י —thus, (="Jehovah")—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced "Elohim" (). These substitutions of "Adonay"and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written, or even, and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name "). The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI =] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κύριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κύριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila). "Jehovah" is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X.'s confessor, Peter Galatin ("De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis," 1518, folio xliii.), who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius (= Büchlein, 1504-49). Drusius (= Van der Driesche, 1550-1616) was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of "Jehovah," and this view has been taken since his days (comp. Hastings, "Dict. Bible," ii. 199, s.v. "God"; Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterb." 1899, p. 311; see Drusius on the tetragrammaton in his "Critici Sacri, i. 2, col. 344). But it seems that even before Galatin the name "Jehovah" had been in common use (see Drusius, l.c. notes to col. 351). It is found in Raymond Martin's "Pugio Fidei." written in 1270 (Paris, 1651, iii., pt. ii., ch. 3, p. 448; comp. T. Prat in "Dictionnaire de la Bible," s.v.). See also Names of God. The pronunciation "Jehovah" has been defended by Stier ("Hebr. Lehrgebäude") and Hölemann ("Bibelstudien.," i.). The use of the composite "shewa" "qatef segol" () in cases where "Elohim" is to be read has led to the opinion that the composite "shewa" "qatef patach" () ought to have been used to indicate the reading "Adonay." It has been argued in reply that the disuse of the "pataḥ" is in keeping with the Babylonian system, in which the composite "shewa" is not usual. But the reason why the "pataḥ" is dropped is plainly the non-guttural character of the "yod"; to indicate the reading "Elohim," however, the "segol" (and "ḥirek" under the last syllable, i.e.,) had to appear in order that a mistake might not be made and "Adonay" be repeated. Other peculiarities of the pointing are these: with prefixes ("waw," "bet," "min") the voweling is that required by "Adonay": "wa-Adonay," "ba-Adonay," "me-Adonay." Again, after "Yhwh" (= "Adonay") the "dagesh lene" is inserted in, which could not be the case if "Jehovah" (ending in ה) were the pronunciation. The accent of the cohortative imperatives (), which should, before a word like "Jehovah," be on the first syllable, rests on the second when they stand before, which fact is proof that the Masorites read "Adonay" (a word beginning with "a").Bibliography: Schrader-Schenkel, Bibellexikon, iii. 147 et seq.; Köhler, De Pronunciatione Tetragrammatis, 1867; Driver, Recent Theories on the . . . Pronunciation, etc., in Studia Biblica, i., Oxford, 1885; Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj und Seine Gesch. 1889; Dillmann, Kommentar zu Exodus und Leviticus, p. 39, Leipsic, 1897; Herzog-Hauck, Real-Encyc. viii., s.v. Jahve. Appendix 2 William Foxwell Albright and David Freedman Form Vl Stem Meaning Notes Yahwe Hwy to fall, become, come to existence Not qal imperfect (yihwayu>yihye> YHYH) Yahwe Later indicative Hifil yihwayu>yahwiyu>Yahwe Yahu Abbreviated form and Jussive form of imperfect causative. Shortened to yau in Israelite personal names and later to yah (p 259). Yahwe Tzevaoth He who causes the hosts of Israel to come into existence Yahwe shalom He who causes peace to exist Yahwe yira He who causes worship to exist Yahwe asher Yihye Yahweh Pronounced like this “as we know from Greek transcriptions” (Albright, p.259) Linguistically it can only be causative. It is probably an abbreviation of a longer name of litany formula, looking at analogies from Babylonia, Egypt and Canaan. Yaum ilu Mine is the god, the most plausible of alternative meanings. Yaua He blows He fells He loves He is kindly He causes to be (the only meaning that yields suitable sense. No real evidence for a storm god No real evidence for No real evidence for a modified moon god. Sinai Zuen>Zen, Accadian Sin (moon god of Ur as nannar) improbable Sinai from place name sin or seneh (Aram sanya) bush Moses saw theophany. Ehyeh asher ehyeh Would become when transposed in third person Yahweh asher yihweh > yihyeh If transposed assuming causative Yahweh.”He causes to be what comes into existence. This proposed solution is not isolated “we have it again and again in egyptian texts of the second millennium B.C. (a god) who causes to be (or who creates) what comes into existence’ See Great hymn to Amun 15th century BC. These last four without parallel in ancient near east onomastics. Arguments: 1 Yahu is more original than Yahweh: 1ans all epigraphic and linguistic facts arre opposed to this. 2 This or that personal or divine name earlier non Israelite divine name shows a prototype. 2ans not impossible but every suggestion has been disproved.including the latest on Ugarit where Viroleaud suggest yw is “identical to Yahweh” p.259. Context doesn’t fit Appendix 3 Chapter 5: An Emphasis on the Tetragrammaton The use of the Tetragrammaton in the original writings of the Christian Scriptures is a central teaching of the Watch Tower Society. The Society teaches that Jehovah's name—written in Hebrew letters as יהוה—was used by the original writers of the Christian Scriptures, and that the present content of the Greek text (which does not use the Tetragrammaton) took form as a result of heresy and subsequent changes made by the scribes who copied the Scriptures. These scribes presumably changed the four Hebrew letters (YHWH) to the Greek word Kyrios. A concise summary of this teaching is given in Appendix 1D of the New World Translation Reference Edition (page 1564). We quote in part: Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures [in his gospel written in Hebrew[1]]. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time. [1] In this same section, Jerome is quoted as stating that there was a gospel written in Hebrew by Matthew. The testimony of Jerome must be accepted as being reliable. There is no reason to doubt that Matthew wrote a parallel gospel in Hebrew. Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter's speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God's name, Jehovah. When Peter's speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky'ri.os, Lord or The.os', "God." Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how N[ew] T[estament] authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, יהוה (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate κς [abbreviation for ky'ri.os, Lord]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS [manuscript] tradition of the NT text itself." We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a "theory," rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts. KIT KIT J20 Documentation NWT Matthew Hebrew Scripture Hebrew Word 1:22 Κυρί Lord Is 7:14 Jehovah 2:15 Κυρίου Lord Ho 11:1 Jehovah 3:3 Κυρίου Lord Is 40:3 יהוה Jehovah 4:7 Κύριον Lord Dt 6:16 יהוה-* Jehovah 4:10 Κύριον Lord Dt 6:13 יהוה-* Jehovah 5:33 Κυρίω Lord Lv 19:12 Note 1 Jehovah 21:9 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:26 יהוה Jehovah 21:42 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:23 יהוה Jehovah 22:37 Κύριον Lord Dt 6:5 יהוה Jehovah 22:44 Κύριος Lord Ps 110:1 יהוה Jehovah 23:39 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:26 Jehovah 27:10 Κύριος Lord Zc 11:13 Jehovah Mark 1:3 Κυρίου Lord Is 40:3 יהוה Jehovah 11:9 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:26 Jehovah 12:11 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:23 Jehovah 12:29 Κύριος Lord Dt 6:4 יהוה Jehovah 12:29 Κύριος Lord Dt 6:4 יהוה Jehovah 12:30 Κύριον Lord Dt 6:5 יהוה Jehovah 12:36 Κύριος Lord Ps 110:1 Jehovah Luke 2:23 Κυρίου Lord Ex 13:2 Note 1 Jehovah 2:23 κυρίω Lord Ex 13:2 Note 1 Jehovah 2:24 Κυρίου Lord Lv 12:8 Jehovah 3:4 Κύριον Lord Is 40:3 יהוה Jehovah 4:8 Κύριον Lord Dt 6:13 Jehovah 4:12 Κύριον Lord Dt 6:16 Jehovah 4:18 Κυρίου Lord Is 61:1 יהוה Jehovah 4:19 Κυρίου Lord Is 61:2 יהוה Jehovah 10:27 Κύριον Lord Dt 6:5 Jehovah 13:35 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:26 Jehovah 19:38 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:26 Jehovah 20:42 Κύριος Lord Ps 110:1 Jehovah John 1:23 Κυρίου Lord Is 40:3 Jehovah 12:13 Κυρίου Lord Ps 118:26 Jehovah 12:38 Κύριε Lord Is 53:1 Note 1 Jehovah 12:38 Κυρίου Lord Is 53:1 יהוה Jehovah Acts 2:20 Κυρίου Lord Jo 3:4 יהוה Jehovah 2:21 Κυρίου Lord Jo 3:5 יהוה Jehovah 2:25 κύριον Lord Ps 16:8 יהוה Jehovah 2:34 Κύριος Lord Ps 110:1 Jehovah 3:22 Κύριος Lord Dt 18:15 יהוה Jehovah 4:26 κυρίου Lord Ps 2:2 יהוה-* Jehovah 7:49 Κύριος Lord Is 66:1,2 יהוה-* Jehovah 15:17 κύριον Lord Am 9:12 Note 1 Jehovah 15:17 Κύριος Lord Am 9:13 יהוה Jehovah Romans 4:8 Κύριος Lord Ps 32:2 יהוה Jehovah 9:28 Κύριος Lord Is 10:23 יהוה Jehovah 9:29 Κύριος Lord Is 1:9 יהוה Jehovah 10:16 Κύριε Lord Is 53:1 Jehovah 11:3 Κύριε Lord 1 Ki 19:10 Note 1 Jehovah 11:34 Κυρίου Lord Is 40:13 יהוה Jehovah 12:19 Κύριος Lord Dt 32:35 Note 1 Jehovah 14:11 Κύριος Lord Is 14:23 Jehovah 15:11 κύριον Lord Ps 67:1 יהוה-* Jehovah 1 Corinthians 1:31 Κυρίω Lord Jr 9:23 Jehovah 2:16 Κυρίου Lord Is 40:13 Jehovah 3:20 Κύριος Lord Ps 44:11 יהוה Jehovah 10:26 κυρίου Lord Ps 24:1 יהוה-* Jehovah 14:21 Κύριος Lord Is 28:12 Note 1 Jehovah 2 Corinthians 6:17 Κύριος Lord Is 52:11 Jehovah 10:17 Κυρίω Lord Jr 9:23 Jehovah 2 Timothy 2:19 Κύριος Lord Nm 16:5 יהוה Jehovah 2:19 Κυρίου Lord Is 52:11 Jehovah Hebrews 7:21 Κύριος Lord Ps 110:4 יהוה Jehovah 8:8 Κύριος Lord Jr 31:31 יהוה-* Jehovah 8:9 Κύριος Lord Jr 31:32 יהוה-* Jehovah 8:10 Κύριος Lord Jr 31:33 יהוה-* Jehovah 8:11 Κυρίου Lord Jr 31:34 יהוה-* Jehovah 10:16 Κύριος Lord Jr 31:34 Jehovah 10:30 Κύριος Lord Ps 135:14 יהוה Jehovah 12:5 Κυρίου Lord Pr 3:11 יהוה Jehovah 12:6 Κύριος Lord Pr 3:12 יהוה Jehovah 13:6 Κύριος Lord Ps 118:6 יהוה Jehovah 1 Peter 1:25 Κυρίου Lord Is 40:5 יהוה Jehovah 2:3 κύριος Lord Ps 34:8 יהוה Lord 3:12 Κυρίου Lord Ps 34:16 יהוה Jehovah 3:12 Κυρίου Lord Ps 34:17 יהוה Jehovah 3:15 κύριον Lord Is 8:13 יהוה-* Lord Note 1: The citation is a Hebrew entry that does not contain the Tetragrammaton. יהוה-* = a compound word containing the Tetragrammaton Appendix 1: The name of Yaua around the world Here we have 40 different translation of Exodus-Shmot 63. Many of these translations are not in English . Of these 40 translations 13 tranliteratew the name Yaua into their script. This is is encouraging and let us hope that all future translationsinto whatever language will begin to restore Yaua’s name to its right place. May Yaua permit this speedily in our time. And may Yaua’s glory be overall the earth as the water’s cover the sea. 1 KJV Exodus-Shmot 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Yitzchaq, and unto Yaaqov, by the name of Elohim Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. 2 ASV Exodus-Shmot 6:3 and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Yitzchaq, and unto Yaaqov, as Elohim Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. 3 NIV Exodus-Shmot 6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq and to Yaaqov as Elohim Almighty, but by my name Yaua I did not make myself known to them. 4 NIB Exodus-Shmot 6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq and to Yaaqov as Elohim Almighty, but by my name Yaua I did not make myself known to them. 5 NAS Exodus-Shmot 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Yitzchaq, and Yaaqov, as Elohim Almighty, but by My name, YAUA, I did not make Myself known to them. 6 NAU Exodus-Shmot 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Yitzchaq, and Yaaqov, as Elohim Almighty, but by My name, YAUA, I did not make Myself known to them. 7 RSV Exodus-Shmot 6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq, and to Yaaqov, as Elohim Almighty, but by my name Yaua I did not make myself known to them. 8 NRS Exodus-Shmot 6:3 I appeared to Abraham, Yitzchaq, and Yaaqov as Elohim Almighty, but by my name 'Yaua' I did not make myself known to them. 9 NKJ Exodus-Shmot 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq, and to Yaaqov, as Elohim Almighty, but by My name YAUA I was not known to them. 10 WEB Exodus-Shmot 6:3 And I appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq, and to Yaaqov, by {the name of} Elohim Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. 11 DRA Exodus-Shmot 6:3 That appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq, and to Yaaqov, by the name of Elohim Almighty: and my name ADONAI I did not shew them. 12 RWB Exodus-Shmot 6:3 And I appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq, and to Yaaqov, by the name of Elohim Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. 13 DBY Exodus-Shmot 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Yitzchaq, and unto Yaaqov, as the Almighty *Elohim; but by my name Jehovah I was not made known to them. 14 BBE Exodus-Shmot 6:3 I let myself be seen by Abraham, Yitzchaq, and Yaaqov, as Elohim, the Ruler of all; but they had no knowledge of my name Yahweh. 15 YLT Exodus-Shmot 6:3 and I appear unto Abraham, unto Yitzchaq, and unto Yaaqov, as Elohim Almighty; as to My name Jehovah, I have not been known to them; 16 LXE Exodus-Shmot 6:3 And I appeared to Abraam and Yitzchaq and Yaaqov, being Eloheihem, but I did not manifest to them my name Yaua. 17 LUT Exodus-Shmot 6:3 und bin erschienen Abraham, Isaak und Jakob als der allmächtige Gott, aber mit meinem Namen »HERR« habe ich mich ihnen nicht offenbart. 19 LUO Exodus-Shmot 6:3 und bin erschienen Abraham, Isaak und Jakob als der allmächtige Gott; aber mein Name HERR ist ihnen nicht offenbart worden. 20 SVV Exodus-Shmot 6:3 En Ik ben aan Abraham, Izak, en Jakob verschenen, als Elohim de Almachtige; doch met Mijn Naam HEERE ben Ik hun niet bekend geweest. 21 LEI Exodus-Shmot 6:3 (06-2) Aan Abraham, Izaak en Jakob ben ik verschenen als Elohim de Machtige, en onder mijn naam, Heer, heb ik mij hun niet bekend gemaakt. 22 FBJ Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Je suis apparu à Abraham, à Yitzchaq et à Yaaqov comme El Shaddaï, mais mon nom de Yahvé, je ne le leur ai pas fait connaître. 23 SRV Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Y aparecí á Abraham, á Yitzchaq y á Yaaqov bajo el nombre de Dios Omnipotente, mas en mi nombre JEHOVÁ no me notifiqué á ellos. 24 LND Exodus-Shmot 6:3 e sono apparso ad Abrahamo, a Isacco e a Giacobbe, come Dio onnipotente; ma non mi ero mai fatto conoscere da loro con il mio nome di Eterno. 25 DAN Exodus-Shmot 6:3 For Abraham, Isak og Jakob åbenbarede jeg mig som Gud den Almægtige, men under mit Navn HERREN gav jeg mig ikke til Kende for dem. 26 FIN Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Ja minä olen ilmestynyt Aabrahamille, Iisakille ja Jaakobille 'Jumalana Kaikkivaltiaana', mutta nimelläni 'Herra' en minä ole tehnyt itseäni heille tunnetuksi. 27 HUN Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Åbrahámnak, Izsáknak és Jákóbnak úgy jelentem meg mint Mindenható Isten, de az én Jehova nevemen nem voltam elôttük ismeretes. 28 BIS Exodus-Shmot 6:3 (6 - 2) Aku menampakkan diri kepada Abraham, Ishak dan Yakub sebagai Allah Yang Mahakuasa, tetapi Aku tidak memperkenalkan diri kepada mereka dengan nama 'TUHAN'. 29 ALB Exodus-Shmot 6:3 dhe i jam shfaqur Abrahamit, Isakut dhe Jakobit, si Perëndi i plotfuqishëm; por ata nuk më kishin njohur kurrë me emrin tim, Zot. 30 N38 Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Eg synte meg for Abraham og for Isak og for Jakob og nemnde meg Gud den allmektige, men dette namnet mitt, Herren, gjorde eg ikkje kunnigt for dei. 31 BCI Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Em vaig aparèixer a Abraham, a Yitzchaq i a Yaaqov com a "Déu totpoderós", però no m'hi vaig revelar amb el meu nom, que és "el Senyor". 32 ACF Exodus-Shmot 6:3 E eu apareci a Abraão, a Isaque, e a Jacó, como o Deus Todo-Poderoso; mas pelo meu nome, o SENHOR, não lhes fui perfeitamente conhecido. 33 NAB Exodus-Shmot 6:3 As Elohim the Almighty I appeared to Abraham, Yitzchaq and Yaaqov, but my name, YAUA, I did not make known to them. 34 R95 Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Yo me aparecí a Abraham, a Yitzchaq y a Yaaqov como Dios Omnipotente, pero con mi nombre Jehová no me di a conocer a ellos. 36 BTP Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Ja objawi³em siê Abrahamowi, Izaakowi i Jakubowi jako Bóg Wszechmocny, ale imienia mego, Jahwe, nie objawi³em im. 37 NLT Exodus-Shmot 6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Yitzchaq, and to Yaaqov as Elohim Almighty, though I did not reveal my name, Yaua, to them. 38 NJB Exodus-Shmot 6:3 To Abraham, Yitzchaq and Yaaqov I appeared as El Shaddai, but I did not make my name Yahweh known to them. 39 BKR Exodus-Shmot 6:3 Ukázal‌jsem se zajisté Abrahamovi, Izákovi a Jákobovi v tom, ‍e jsem Bùh siln‎ všemohoucí; ale v jménu svém, Hospodin, nejsem poznán od nich. 40 SCRP And I appeared to Abraham to Yitshaq, and to Yaaqob, as El Shaddai And by my name , Yaua, was I not known to them. Bibliography: King James Bible from Bible Works NIV Study Bible, Zondervan The Scriptures, Institute for Scripture Research Bible Dictionary Ed James Hastings Petra Heldt Lectures on Septuagint UHL Yisrael David Moseberg, Hebrew Union College Cincinnatti Ohio on the pronunciation of the name David Noel Freedmen in his Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Studies in early Hebrew Poetry BS51199 l57 f73 Hebrew U YHW-H must be read as YeHO-AH.” (2a Gertoux, A11) Chart 1 Masoretic Text Yaua-phoric names YHW Yo Yehaleleel Yoab Yehdeiah Yoah Yehizkiah Yoanna Yehoaddan Yochebed Yehoahaz Yoel Yehoahaz Yoahaz Yoelah Yehoash Yoash Yoezer Yehohanan Yohanan Yokneam Yehoiacan Yokim Yehoiada Yoiada Yokmeam Yehoiakim Yoiakim Yokneam Yehoiarib Yoiarib Yokshan Yehonadab Yonadab Yoktan Yehonathan Yonathan Yoktheel Yehoram Yoram Yonah Yehoshaphat Yoseph Yehosheba Yehoshua Yosiah Yehovah Yotham Yehovahyireh Yozachar Yehovahnissi Yehovahshalom Yehovahshammah Yehovahtzidkenu Yehozabad Yozabad Yehu Yehucal Appendix 5: From Discussion on Abba Shaul According to the scholars who believe the name’s pronunciation is uncertain by the time Abba Saul was teaching the name was already unspoken. For example Plauts The Torah a Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations) states: A large literature exists which deals with the proper pronunciation of the Name as well as its etymology, and much of this is of a highly technical nature. The following represents a brief summary: VOCALIZATION. How the name was originally vocalized is no longer certain. Its pronunciation was in time restricted to the temple service, then to the High Priest intoning it on the Day of Atonement, and after the destruction of the Temple it received a substitute pronunciation both for the reading of Scripture and for its use in prayer. The Masoretes who vocalized the Hebrew texts took the vowels from the word Adonai and put them with YHVH to remind the reader not to pronounce the name but to substitute Adonai…OVERWHELMING SCHOLARLY OPINION HOLDS THAT YHVH WAS IN MOSES’ TIME PRONOUNCED YAHVEH. (p 425-426) The implication is that because by the time of the destruction of the second temple the name is supposed to have been restricted to its use by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and afterwards forbidden with only a substitute being used, the original vocalization is no longer certain. However the event mentioned has nothing to do with certainty as to how the name was originally vocalized. Firstly, even if we knew exactly how the high priest vocalized the name on Yom Kippur in the second temple period or how it was vocalized in the temple service this would not give us any certainty as to how it was vocalized at the time of the Mesha inscription nor at the time of Moses. Appendix 6 DDD, (Toorn, Becking and van der Horst, 1999,910) Yahweh: 1 Since the Achamenid dynasty religious scruples led to the custom of not pronouncing the name, in the liturgy and in every day life. 2 the correct pronunciation was gradually lost 3 Jehovah “consonants of the tetragrammaton with the vocals od adonay” the hatef patach of adonay becoming a mere shewa because of the yodh of yhwh (Alfrink 1948) 4 “The transcription of Yahweh is a scholarly convention” 5 based on : Iaoue Clem of Alex, Stromata 5, 6 34,5 Iaouai “ “ Iabe Epiphanius of Salamis, Adv Haer. 1,3,40,5 and Iabai Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Quaest. In Ex. XV; Haer.fab. comp.5,3 6 The form Yahweh is primitive, Yah, yahu, Yo Yeho are secondary (Cross 1973:61) Yw is Yau in Neo Assyrian sources is especially northern kingdom. Yh is predominantly Judean Ieuw It is unsure if this allegedly northern Syrian deity is related to Yaua (Porphyry Adv. Christ. Fr41, apud Eusebius. Praep. Ev.I,9,21; 9 Iaw Theodoretus, Graec. Aff. Cur. II 44-45 Macrobius, Sat. I 18-20 From theophoric names We have given the vocalized form and it ought to be noted “the pronunication of God’s name, that is Jehovah, is easy to find using the theophoric names beginning YHW-are vocalized YeHO-(IO- in the Septugint). Therefore the ultimate theophoric name that is to say Yehudi In the Christian Greek Scriptures. In view of this evidence it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called New Testament. Yet the name does appear in these sources in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, in the expression “Alleluia” or “Hallelujah” (KJ, Dy, JB, AS, RS). The call there recorded as spoken by spirit sons of God to “Praise Jah, you people!” (NW) makes clear that the divine name was not obsolete; it was as vital and pertinent as it had been in the pre-Christian period. Why, then, the absence of its full form from the Christian Greek Scriptures? Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures? The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky´ri·os or The·os´ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that 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 [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place? It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.” As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., יהוה], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.” In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: “The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·pho´ne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI].”—Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4. The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.—2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1. Used by Jesus and his disciples. Thus, in the days of Jesus and his disciples the divine name very definitely appeared in copies of the Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts. Did Jesus and his disciples use the divine name in speech and in writing? In view of Jesus’ condemnation of Pharisaic traditions (Mt 15:1-9), it would be highly unreasonable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples let Pharisaic ideas (such as are recorded in the Mishnah) govern them in this matter. Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” He stated: “I have come in the name of my Father” (Joh 5:43); he taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified” (Mt 6:9); his works, he said, were done “in the name of my Father” (Joh 10:25); and, in prayer on the night of his death, he said he had made his Father’s name manifest to his disciples and asked, “Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name” (Joh 17:6, 11, 12, 26). In view of all of this, when Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures or read from them he certainly used the divine name, Jehovah. (Compare Mt 4:4, 7, 10 with De 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; also Mt 22:37 with De 6:5; and Mt 22:44 with Ps 110:1; as well as Lu 4:16-21 with Isa 61:1, 2.) Logically, Jesus’ disciples, including the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, would follow his example in this. Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky´ri·os and The·os´. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Restoration of the divine name in translation. Recognizing that this must have been the case, some translators have included the name Jehovah in their renderings of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ’E´ven bo´chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence. Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice. As to the properness of this course, note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. He said: “If that [Septuagint] version had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N. T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm, instead of saying, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord,’ might have said, ‘Jehovah said unto Adoni.’” Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: “Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Κύριος occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N. T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, wherever the expression ‘the angel of the Lord’ occurs, we know that the word Lord represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression ‘the word of the Lord’ would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title ‘the Lord of Hosts.’ Wherever, on the contrary, the expression ‘My Lord’ or ‘Our Lord’ occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used.” (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name Jehovah have proceeded. Outstanding, however, in this regard is the New World Translation, used throughout this work, in which the divine name in the form “Jehovah” appears 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As has been shown, there is sound basis for this. Jerome "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language . . . Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea." Origen Origen wrote: "And in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones." The Use of the Tetragrammaton in the Second Temple Period Thesis Proposal School: UHL Year .2005 Course: MA New Testament and Early Christianity Subject: The Use of the Memorial Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, YAUAxcv, in the private life of Hebrews and Christians from the second temple period to late antiquity. Methodology: The main evidence surveyed will be that of inscriptions with a focus on Greek and Aramaic “magical texts” from the period involved. The New Testament scribal traditions will be considered in the light of Jewish scribal practices from the period. The main sources analysed include Lachish Letters, Elephantine papypri, Wisdom of Solomon, Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek Magical Papyri, Aramaic magical texts, Apocryphal writings. Having surveyed the evidence of the use of the memorial name conclusions will be drawn. Outline I Introduction/ Methodology II Historical Religious Context III The Memorial name in Hebrew texts IV The Memorial Name in Greek texts V The Memorial Name in Aramaic Text VI The Memorial name from the late Second Temple period to late antiquity in the life of Hebrews VII The Memorial Name from from Late second Temple period Late Antiquity in the life of Christians. Reference List 1 Fossum, J. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tubingen, 1985) 2 Gertoux, Gerard, The Name of God Yehowah: Which is and its Story: Pronounced as it is Written, I_EH_OW.AH: Its Story. Trans. Terry Constanzo (Lanham: University Press of America, 1999). 2a Gertoux , Gerard, Frequently Asked Questions Website: A1-A20 3 Alon, G., Jews , Judaism and the Classical World, Jerusalem : (Magnes Press, Hebrew University Press, 1977) 4 "Baptism.", The Jewish Encyclopedia. MDCCCC11 ed. 5 Betz, H. D., ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Editor Hans Dietter Betz (Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1986) 6 Lampe, G.W. A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964) 7 Meyer, M., & Smith, R., eds. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994) 8 Naveh, J., & Shaked, S. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1985). 9 ---------- Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1993). 10 Baird, W., The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible. ed. Laymon, C. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971) 11 Blackman, P. The Mishna Cunningham, David, S. “On Translating the Divine Name.” Theological Studies 56 (1995), 415-440 12Dahl, N. A., and Segal, A.F., "Philo and the Rabbis on the names of God", Journal for the study of Judaism Vol 9 1978. 13 Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (1889) Reprinted 1997 in One vol abridged Edition. Feldman, L and Reinhold, M., Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans, (Edinburgh T&T Clark) 1996 14 Ganz, Y., The Jewish Fact Finder. (New York: Feldham, 1998). "God", Hastings, J., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 15" Heirs of the Septuagint" Eds. Runia., D., Hay, D., Whiston, D. 16 Jamieson, R., & Brown, F. The Portable Commentary Vol II New Testament, (Glasgow: 17 William Collins, Sons & Company, 1869) 18 Kahle, P. E., The Cairo Geniza (Oxford, 1959) 19 Kausner, J., From Jesus to Paul (1944) 20 Nickelsburg G., & Stone M. Faith and Piety in Early Judaism, (Valley ) 21 Lauterbach, J. “Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton” American Academy for Jewish Research Vol. 1 1930/31. 22 Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1991 23 Polycrates "Letter of Aristeas" 24 Metzger, B.M., Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (New York: Oxford, 1981) 25 Pfann, S. "The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance", The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls ed. Parry, D. and Ulrich, H., (Brill Leiden, Boston, Koln,1999) 26 Royse, J., "Philo, Kurios and the Tetragrammaton", The Studia Philonica Annual Vol. 3 (1991) 27 EJ: "Proselyte", Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971) 28 "Septuagint", New Catholic Encyclopedi. 29 Strack. H Introduction to Talmud and Midrash, (The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1931) 30 "Tetragrammaton", The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1911 31 The Emphatic Diaglot, International Bible Students Association, (Watch Tower Bible Society, 1942) 32 Glatzer Nachum, ed. The Essential Philo, (New York: Schocken Books, 1971) 33 Zodhiates, S, ed. The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible, New Amrerican Standard, Ed Zodhiates Spiros (Chattanouga: AMG Publishers. 34 Danby H trans. The Mishna (London : OUP, 1933) 35 The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible, Ed. Laymon, C., (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971) 36 The New Bible Commentary Revised, Ed's, Guthrie, D., Motyer, J. A., Stibbs, A. M., Wiseman, (London: IVP, 1971) 37 Urbach, E., The Sages.( Cambridge Massachusett: Harvard University Press, 1979) 38 Swete, "Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek," p. 30; Nestle, in Z. D. M. G." xxxii. 468, 500, 506 39 Friedlander, Maimonides: Guide for the Perplexed [twelfth century] (New York: Dover, 1956] 40 Fitzmyer, J.A. The Semitic Background to the New Testament, (1991) 40a ---------- A Wandering Aramean (1979) 41 Clines, J. A. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 42 Mclaurin, ECB. “YHWH: The Origin of the Tetragrammaton” Vetus Testamentus 12 no 4 O 1962, 439-463. 43 Tropper, Josef. “Der Gottesname Yahwa” Vetus Testamentum Vol LI, I 2001 p81-106 44 Hertog, Cornelius Den. "The Prophetic Dimension of the Divine Name: On Exodus 3:14a and its Context". Catholic Bible Quarterly 64, 2002 p213-229. 45 Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. (San francisco: Harper and Rowe., 1981). 46 Reisel, Max. The Mysterious Name Y.H.W.H. (SSN2; Assen; Van Gorcum, 1957) 36-61 47 Buchanan, George, Wesley. "The Ponounciation of the Tetragrammaton, RevQ 13 (1988) 413- 419) 48 Skehan, P. W. "The Divine Name at Qumran in the Masada Scroll and in the Septuagint.” (USA: The Catholic University of America, BIOCS 13,1980) 14-44. 49 EJ " Masorah" Encyclopedia Judaica (U-Z) 50 Glatzer, N. ed. The Essential Philo (New York: Schocken Books, 1971) 51 Whiston, W. Trans. The Complete Works of Josephus, (Michigan: Kregel Publications). 52 Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke. (Illinoi: Inter Varsity Press, 1992) 53 Amidon, Philip, S. J. The Panarion of St Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis. (New York : Oxford University Press, 1990) 54 Lamsa, George, M. trans. Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Text. (Sanfrancisco: HarperSanfrancisco A. J.Holman, 1957) 55 The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society. Ed. The New Covenant commonly called New Testament, Peshitta Aramaic Text with a Hebrew Translation (Jerusalem: Bible Society, 1986) 56 Marshall, Rev. Dr. A. The Interlinear Greek –English New Testament, The Nestle Greek Text with a literal English Translation. (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons limited, 1957). 57 Tomaschoff, Avner. Ed. Judaism A-Z Lexicon of Terms and Concepts. (Jerusalem: Dept for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora of the World Zionist Organiization Jerusalem, 1980) 58 Habel, C. Norman. Yahweh versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures: A Study in the relevance of Ugaritic Naterials for the early faith of Israel. (New York: Bookman Associates, 1964) 59 Albright, William, Foxwell. From Stone Age to Christianity, Monotheism and the Historical Process. (New York: Double Day Anchor Books, 1957) 60 Pritchard, J. B. ed. The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (London: Oxford University Press, 1958) 61 Toorn, K. van der. Becking, Bob. & van der Horst, Pieter W. Dictionary of Deities and demons in the Bible: DDD (Cambridge UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999). 62 Botterweck, G.J. & Ringgren, H. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol V (Grand Rapids Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) 63 Smith, William. Smith’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Pyramid Books, 1967) 64 Davies, John, D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Revised and Rewritten rev. Henry Snyder Gehman. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1898, 1944) 65 Weisberg, David. “The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies”. (Jerusalem: Jerusalem University College, May 4th, 2000) 66 Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 67 Leclant. J. “Les fouilles de Soleb”, Annuaire du Collcge de France 1980-81 pp474-475 67a Leclant. J. “Le “Tetragramme” r l’epoque d’Amenophis III” in : Near Eastern Studies. Wiesbaden 1991 Ed. Otto Harrassowitz pp.215-219) 68 Moran, W.L. “Les Lettres d’El Amarna” in: LIPO no13 Paris 1987 Ed.Cerf pp.604-605 69 Nikiprowetzky, V. “Dictionnaire de l’Egypte Ancienne” In: Encyclopedia Universalis Paris 1998 ed. Albin Michel pp.169,170. 70 Durand, J.M. “Documents epistolaires du palais de Mari” in: LIPO no18 Paris 2000 Ed. Cerf p.205. 71 de Vaux, R. Histoire ancienne d’Israel (Paris 1986) Ed. Gabalda pp.106-112,202-206. 72 Pritchard Ancient Near East Texts 1969 Ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, p.242) 73 Ward, W. A. “A New Look at Semitic Personal Names and Loan Words in Egyptian” in: Chronique d’Egypte LXXI (1996) No141 74 Judaeus, Philo. Of the Life of Moses 75 Tigay, Jeffrey. What’s in a name? Early Evidence of devotion exclusively to Yahweh. Biblical Review, 2004, 20:1, 24-43, 47-51 76 Barkay, Gabriel. The Divine Name Found in Jerusalem. Biblical Archaeological Review, Mar-Apr 1983, 9 no 2, p.14-19 77 Lemaire, Andre. Another Temple to the Israelite God: Aramaic Hoard Documents Life in Fourth Century B.C. Biblical Archaeological Review, July-August 2004, 38-44. 78 Andersen. F. I., & Forbes. A. Dean. The Vocabulary of the Old Testament. (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto, 1989) 79 Gianotti, C.R. “The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH.” Bibliotheca Sacra. Jan-Mar,(1985), 38-51 80 Hertog, Cornelius Den. “The Prophetic Dimension of the Divine Name: On Exodus #:14a and Ist Context.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 64 (2002), 213-229. 81 Karel, van der Toorn., Becking, Bob., & Van der Horst. “Yahweh”. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible 2nd rev ed (Leiden: Brill, 1999). 82 Kutscher, The Language of the Isaiah 1Q1Sa 82 Jenni. E., & Westerman C. “Yahweh.” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Vol 2. Trans. Mark. E. Biddle. Hendrikson Publishers. 83 Freedman, David, Noel. Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Studies in early Hebrew Poetry84 Pinches. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 85 Mackenzie, Donald A. Myths of Babylonian and Assyria. (1915) 86 Grayson, A. Kirk, “Shalmaneser III and the Levantine States: The Damascus Coalition”. 87 Driver, G.R. The Original Form of the Name Yahweh: Evidence and Conclusions Z.A.W. XUI (1928) 88 Stolper, M.W. American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin (1976). 89 Reisel, M. The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H 90 Coogan, M.D. West Semitic Personal Names in Murasu Documents. 91 Genebrardus Chronologia. (1567) ed Paris 1600 92 Thompson Henry, O. “Yahweh”, Anchor Bible Dictionary 93 (Pettersen , May1998) 94Elliot, C. J., Elliots Bible Commentary. In One Volume (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing, 1971) 99 Pfann S.J. The Essene Yearly Renewal ceremony and the baptism of John: The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea scrolls, Technological Innovations , New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, eds Parry and Ulrich, Leiden: Brill, 1999 M. Grünbaum, Ueber Shem Hammephorasch, in Z. D. M. G. xxxix., xl. (= Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sprach- und Sagenkunde, pp. 238-434); L. Löw, Die Aussprache des Vierbuchstabigen Gottesnamens, in Gesammelte Schriften, i. 187-212; E. Nestle, Jacob von Edessa, über den Schem Hammephorasch, etc., in Z. D. M. G. xxxii. 465-508; Fürst, Schem Hammephorash, ib. xxxiii. 297-300; A. Nager, Ueber Schem Hamephorasch, ib. xxxiv. 162-167; D. Oppenheim, Ueber die Bedeutung der Worte, in Monatsschrift, xviii. 545; D. Cassel, Noch Etwas über, ib. xix. 73; W. Bacher, Eine Neue Erklärung für, ib. xx. 382; A. Sidon, Sens et Origine du Schem Hamephorasch, in R. E. J. xvii. 239; W. Bacher, Le Schem Hammephorasch, etc., ib. xviii. 290; A. Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 263 et seq.; Zunz, S. P. pp. 144 et seq.; L. Blau, Das Altjüdische Zauberwesen, pp. 124 et seq.W. B. Los Luna Inscription Photo 1997 J.Neuhoff How old is the Los Lunas Inscription? This question may never be fully answered. In order to get at least some ideas about the age, several factors are to be taken into consideration: 1. Geology of the Los Lunas site2. Other Phoenician and old-Hebrew inscription samples3. Phoenician and Bible history4. A zodiac calendar stone at the Los Lunas site Geology of the Los Lunas site The whole eastern side of Hidden Mountain, which is of the same basalt than the mesa top, has gradually moved down over the centuries. The boulder with the Decalogue inscription is now tilted by approximately 40 degrees. This supports the assumption that the inscription must be at least some centuries old. George Moorehouse, a professional geologist, has given a cautious estimate of the age (12). Critics claim that the engraving looks too fresh and lacks the patination characteristic of great age. However, Moorehouse concludes that the freshness actually derives from the frequent, recent scrubbing of the inscription (with wire brushes on some occasions) to improve its visibility. Taking this into account, Moorehouse estimates the age of the Los Lunas inscription by comparing its weathering with a nearby 1930 inscription. Conclusion: the Los Lunas inscription is much older than 1930. Any length of time from 500-2000 years or even more would be "quite reasonable" (13). Other Phoenician and old-Hebrew inscription samples Another way to narrow down the problem of the age is to compare the Los Lunas inscription with other Phoenician and paleo-Hebrew inscription samples from the Mediterranean Middle East. In general, if the Los Lunas inscription is old-Hebrew, it is no younger than 600 B.C.E. because after that old-Hebrew came to be gradually replaced by the square-Hebrew alphabet. The old-Hebrew and Phoenician characters used to be almost identical from 1100 B.C.E. to 600 B.C.E. Thereafter, mainly the Phoenicians continued to use this old alphabet, until their Mediterranean colonies were destroyed by the Romans during the Punic wars of the 2nd century B.C.E. As mentioned in the Epigraphy section, the closest matching Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew writing samples are those from the Eshmunazar Sarcophagus (4th century B.C.E.) or those of the Bar Rakab Inscription and the Nerab Stelae. Some scholars, such as Cyrus Gordon (6), think that the Los Lunas Decalogue is of Samaritan origin because the letters YOD, QOPH and SHIN have a Samaritan form. Others have suggested that the letters TAW, ZAYIN, DALETH and KAPH look like old-Greek letters indicating a Greek influence as well as a post-Alexandrian date. Gordon suggests that the Los Lunas inscription is an ancient Samaritan mezuzah with its abridged version of the Decalogue. This would indicate an age from the Byzantine period. However, the Los Lunas Decalogue follows the Masoretic text by saying "remember the Sabbath day" instead of the Samaritan "preserve the Sabbath day". Also, the additional Samaritan clause to the 10th commandment calling for a temple to be built on Mt. Gerizim does not appear in the Los Lunas Decalogue. Phoenician and Bible history Perhaps it makes more sense to assume that the Los Lunas Decalogue is indeed plain old-Hebrew. Its message certainly is in the Hebrew language. In that case the following question has to be answered: Has the ancient nation of Israel ever been capable of doing long-distance overseas expeditions and trading? The answer is Yes! According to the Bible record, ancient king Solomon of Israel and the Phoenician king Hiram of Tyre closely cooperated in their overseas trading activities (quotes are taken from the Revised Standard Version): 1 Kings chapter 10 verse 22: For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks. 1 Kings chapter 9 verse 27: And Hiram sent with the fleet his servants, seaman who were familiar with the sea, together with the servants of Solomon. Solomon and Hiram used to have ocean going fleets at around 1000 B.C.E.! Their joint fleets were based both in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Red Sea. This gave them access to both the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The word Tarshish is an old name referring to the Iberian peninsular. It would take the fleet three years to complete each round trip. The only reasonable explanation for such an extremely long traveling time seems to be that of cross-oceanic voyages. The Phoenicians eventually set up trading outposts and colonies all over the Mediterranean area, including Tarshish and e.g. Carthage in Northern Africa. When Carthage was founded, part of its culture may have been based on the Hebrew language, customs and names, along with the Phoenician traditions. Carthage called itself "Kirjath Hadeschath," a Hebrew name, while the name Carthage was given to it at a later time by their Roman enemies. Carthage became a leading Phoenician trading center during the second half of the 1st millennium B.C.E.. Herodotus, the Greek historian, confirms that the Carthaginians organized cross-Atlantic trips as part of their trading activities. The Los Lunas site itself used to be accessible via the Rio Puerco, a contributory to the Rio Grande, which in turn leads into the Gulf of Mexico. The present dry climatic conditions did not always prevail in New Mexico. According to the climatologist C.E.P. Brooks (15) and the archaeologist Ellsworth Huntington there used to be wet periods during the first millennium B.C.E.. This would have allowed easy navigation along the Rio Grande and Rio Puerco for boats coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Israel's capabilities of doing long distance overseas travels soon came to an end after king Solomon's death. The Phoenicians may have continued Atlantic crossings for centuries till their decline during the Punic Wars against the Romans. It was not until after the time of Alexander the Great and the subsequent spread of Greek culture and language in the Middle East when more Jews settled in places outside Israel, especially in Alexandria, Egypt. They came to be mostly Greek speaking people, with only some of them having a secondary knowledge of Hebrew. Interestingly enough, some letters in the Los Lunas Decalogue, such as the DALETH, ZAYIN, HETH or TAW, look like their Greek counterparts DELTA, ZETA, ETA or TAU. Also, the Los Lunas Decalogue uses the letter ALEPH like a vowel in a misspelled Hebrew word for "remember". This is an indication that the Los Lunas writer may have had only a secondary knowledge of Hebrew, with Greek as his primary language. If this is the case then the date of the Los Lunas Decalogue inscription has to be somewhere between the third and first century B.C.E., which in turn agrees with David Deals analysis of a nearby Zodiac calendar stone. CRITIQUES OF BIBLICAL TRANSLATION Excerpt from the End Notes of the The Electric Mirror on the Pharos Lighthouse and Other Ancient Lighting. by Larry Radka Hebrew Language In regard to the Old Testament, the Hebrew language, as anciently written, was the most difficult of all languages to translate, wrote Bible scholar John E. Remsburg in his work entitled The Bible. In one of thirty weekly installments collected in his book, which had begun to appear in The Truth Seeker at the beginning of January in 1901, he went on to explain that:It was written from right to left; the words contained no [written] vowels; there were no intervening spaces between words, and no punctuation marks. Even with the introduction of vowel points (dots or marks below the words that indicate vowel sounds) many words in Hebrew, as in English, have more than one meaning. Without these points, as originally written, the number is increased a hundred fold. The five English words, bag, beg, big, bog, and buy, are quite unlike and easily distinguished. Omit the vowels, as the ancient Jews did, and we have five words exactly alike, or rather, one word with five different meanings. The Hebrew language was thus largely composed of words with several mean¬ings. As there were no spaces between words, it was sometimes hard to tell where a word began or where it ended; and as there were no punctuation marks, and no spaces between sentences, paragraphs, or even sections, it was often difficult to determine the meaning of a writer after the words had been deciphered.Here is the best known passage in the Bible printed in English as the Jews would have written it in Hebrew: bllwhtmcmdgnkhtmnhtbdllhnvhntrhchwrhtfRvgrfwsstbdrsvgrfdndrbldrdshtsvgnvhnstshtrnndnkhtsnhtrflvmrfsrvldtbnttpmttntnsdldnsrtbdrnnmrvrfrlghtdnrphtdnmdg Its no wonder Saint Jerome (340?-420), who published the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, admitted: When we translate the Hebrew into Latin, we are sometimes guided by conjecture. Furthermore, Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736), a Swiss Protestant theologian and scholar, even went so far as to maintain that: The learned merely guess at the sense of the Old Testament in an infinity of places. This is in large part because of the ancient Hebrews' failure to write down their vowels and of the language subsequently falling into disuse. The adding of the relatively modern vowel points, by a few belated Dark-Age rabbis, in order to make up for this deficit, naturally casts very great suspicion and doubts on how the Hebrew vowels were originally sounded and used. Verifying the recent appearance of these vowel points, the renowned J. Paterson Smyth, B.D., LL.D., Litt.D., an author of several books on the Bible, maintained that: These marks are of comparatively modern date, certainly not older than about 500 or 600 AD. He added; We can imagine then what a sensation was produced when Elias Levita, a very famous Hebrew scholar, about the year 1540, proved to the world that these vowel marks were not in existence for hundreds of years after the time of our Lord ! Of course this caused some controversy at the time, but Dr. Smyth concluded that: No scholar now thinks of doubting the comparatively recent origin of the Hebrew vowel points.Nobody today knows for sure how the original Hebrew was pronounced, regardless of the tales commonly propagated about the Jewish rabbis carrying on an accurate oral tradition for thousands of years. Our knowledge of the evolution of languages would almost certainly deny the likely possibility of such. If old King Solomon were to walk through Jerusalem today and hear the Hebrew spoken there now, he would probably stop in astonishment, listen in amazement, shake his head in bewilderment, and finally conclude that he must be in a foreign country. God Singular or Gods PluralPage 119 - It is noteworthy to point here that the Old Testament is a misleading authority in regards to the existence of the “gods” of the Hebrews. In fact, the Hebrew gods (elohim) are mentioned about 2,000 times in the Bible, but nearly all translators and biblical commentators - from about the time of Christ - have mistakenly, or intentionally, chosen, in almost every instance, to convert them into a singular “God” or combination of so-called “divine names” that implies that one Hebrew god rules the universe. You can verify the plurality of the Hebrew god by checking any Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, or The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments - where Oxford professor of Assyriology A. H. Sayce also verifies their plurality. In his learned and courageous declaration, he openly maintains:Elohim is a plural noun, and its employment in the Old Testament as a singular has given rise to a large amount of learned discussion, and, it must also be added, of a learned want of common sense. Grammarians have been in the habit of evading the difficulty by describing it as a “pluralis majestatis,” “a plural of majesty,” or something similar, as if a term in common use which was grammatically a plural could ever have come to be treated as a singular, unless this singular had once been a plural. We can construe the word “means” with a singular verb, but nevertheless there was once a time when “means” was a plural noun. We may take it for granted, therefore, that if the Hebrew word Elohim had not once signified the plural “gods,” it would never have been given a plural form, and the best proof of this is the fact that in several passages of the Old Testament the word is still used in a plural sense. Indeed there are one or two passages, as for example Gen. I. 26, where the word, although referring to the God of Israel, is yet employed with a plural verb, much to the bewilderment of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian commentators who followed them. It is strange how preconceived theories will cause the best scholars to close their eyes to obvious facts. The Israelites were a Semitic people, and their history down to the age of the Exile is the history of a perpetual tendency toward polytheism. Priest and prophet might exhort and denounce, and kings might attempt to reform, but the mass of the people remained wedded to a belief in many gods. Even the most devoted adherents of the supreme God of Israel sometimes admitted that he was but supreme among other gods, and David himself, the friend of seers and prophets, complains that he had been driven out of “the inheritance of Yahveh” and told to go and “serve other gods” (1 Sam. xxvi. 19). What can be plainer than the existence of a persistent polytheism among the bulk of the people, and the inevitable traces of polytheism that were left upon the language and possibly the thoughts of the enlightened few ?Page 119 -Yahweh, or Yahveh, was one of only several gods - as Sayce has just pointed out-that the ancient Hebrews believed in. Exodus 34:14 even specifically names one of their gods, “whose name is jealous,” and says he “is a jealous God.” Of what he is jealous, we do not know. Nevertheless, in opposition to the popular monotheistic notion that Jews and Christians entertain today - of one almighty God of Israel always ruling everything - then and now - stands adequate historical evidence that shows this notion originally emerged from an earlier age ruled by several gods. Monotheism (a belief in only one God) sprang forth from polytheism (the worship of many gods) at a relatively recent time in human history, and it progressed slowly, and only began to flourish several centuries after the time of Christ. It developed from the later Hebrew worship of a sole God, Yahweh - as, in The Religious Teachings of the Old Testament, Albert C. Knudson, a professor in the Boston University School of Theology, so aptly pointed out:The sole godhead of Yahweh was a truth, that was only gradually attained. The different steps in this development, may be distinguished with a fair degree of clearness. We begin with the Mosaic age. It was to Moses, as we have seen, that the establishment of Yahweh-worship was due. Previous to his time the Israelites seem to have been polytheists. On one of the cuneiform tablets discovered by Winckler at Boghazköj and belonging to the pre-Mosaic age we read of “the gods” of the Habiri or Hebrews, and in Josh. 24.2, 14f. and in Ezek. 20.7f., 24 we are told that both in Mesopotamia and Egypt the Israelites worshipped other gods. The very name “Yahweh” also points in the same direction. The manifest purpose of such a name was to distinguish the god of Israel from other gods. If the Hebrews had not believed in the existence of other deities, there would have been no need of giving a personal name to the Divine Being through whom they were delivered from Egypt. He would have been to them simply God. Then, too, it is a significant fact that the common Hebrew word for “God,” Elohim, is plural in form. This plural, it is often said, was not numerical, but simply enhancive of the idea of might, a plural majesty. And this was no doubt to a large extent true of later usage. But originally the plural form must have had a polytheistic background. People could have begun to use the plural “gods” to express the idea of divinity only at a time when they believed in the existence of a plurality of divine beings. This is illustrated by the Greek use of theoi and the Latin use of dei. The plural, Elohim, points, then, back to an earlier polytheistic stage of belief. And this stage we naturally locate in the pre-Mosaic period. What Moses did was to put monolatry in place of the earlier polytheism. He did not deny the existence of other gods, but proclaimed Yahweh as the sole god of Israel. He did not say that there was but one God, but insisted that it was Israel's duty to have but one God. But while he thus did not teach monotheism [like the wayward do now], the monolatry he established was an important step in that direction.In fact, The Emphasized Bible even goes so far as to translate Amos 5:26 thus: “But ye carried the tent of your king-idol, and your Saturn-images-the star of your gods, which ye made for yourselves.” This is a more accurate translation than that in the King James Bible-wherein the Hebrew word used for “God” is actually elohim, which once again, should be translated “gods,” just as the Emphasized Bible translates it. Apparently its translators saw no great danger in rendering elohim as a divine plural in this particular instance. But, like about two thousand or so other times in the King James Translation, and in other translations as well, the translators apparently thought it was safer and wiser if the naive flock would read just “God,” so that the greatest deception of two millennium - that is, that there is but one God in this infinite universe - could be effectively propagated to future generations for perhaps another two thousand years. It is time for religious shepherds to teach their naïve flocks the truth for a change.References The Bible by John E. Remsburg Several books on the Bible by Paterson Smyth, B.D., LL.D., Litt.D Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments by A. H. Sayce - Oxford Professor of Assyriology The Religious Teachings of the Old Testament by Albert C. Knudson - Professor in the Boston University School of Theology: The Emphasized Bible The Electric Mirror on the Pharos Lighthouse and Other Ancient Lighting by Larry Radka A zodiac calendar stone at the Los Lunas site As pointed out in the section about the petroglyphs, on the top of Hidden Mountain there is a special petroglyph which seems to depict a sky-map. It is laid out on the broken pieces of a flat rock. The researcher David Deal has done some detailed studies of this calendar stone during the 1970s and 1980s and even found some broken off pieces from further down the hill. His conclusion, after comparing them with known astronomic sky maps over that area for the past centuries, is that they depict a nearly total solar eclipse over New Mexico from the year 107 B.C.E. (3). This, along with the fact that there used to be an ancient habitation or small fortification on top of that hill (8), again points to a time period before Christ. ABSTRACT One significant shortcoming in the area of contemporary research in New Testament and Early Christianity is the lack of any frank detailed treatment of the use of the name Yaua (Yahweh) in the period of late antiquity. An unfortunate result follows: many project modern traditions regarding the role of the name Yaua in the life of a Christian or a Jew back to the period of late antiquity. Not only this but substantial evidence pointing to the regular use of the name among the followers of Jesus, early Christians and contemporary Jews is overlooked and not taken seriously because of the presuppositions which colour the approaches to the evidence. These presuppositions are usually strongly theologically based and so influence the way data is interpreted in a way which can lead to misinterpretations of the data and unhelpful classifications of much of it. One of the consequences of this approach is “theologically” translated Bibles instead semantically and grammatically translated Bibles. The name Yaua is perhaps the one word in the Bible which has suffered most from the theological presuppositions which has clouded the thinking of many scholars of New Testament and early Christianity. The name Yaua, Yahuah, Yahu or Yah appears first in Egyptian hierglyphics 13th century BCE, it it then appears in the famous Mesha stela and over the next 800 years in various Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek literature and inscriptions from the ancient near east and the north America20. The main evidence surveyed in this paper is that of inscriptions with a focus on Greek and Aramaic “magical texts” from the period involved. The New Testament scribal traditions will be considered in the light of Jewish scribal practices from the period. The main sources analysed include Lachish Letters, Elephantine papypri, Wisdom of Solomon, Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek Magical Papyri, Aramaic magical texts, Apocryphal writings. The paper looks at the appearance of the name in the three main languages blocks of the late antique meditteranean area. It looks at the name in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek inscriptions, from Hebrew, Christian and some pagan sources. The use of the name is spread among many different peoples in late antiquity it is by no means limited to Jews and Christians and in many texts or inscriptions it is very difficult to decide whether the text is Jewish or pagan. After an introduction where some points of methodology are laid out a description of the historical and religious contexts of the use of the name is given. The third chapter is a look at the name in Hebrew witnesses to the name stretching from the Lachish letters through the dead sea scrolls, the Masoretic Test, to the Sheb Tob Hebrew gospel of Matthew . The fourth chapter looks at the use of the name in Aramaic texts where it appears in letters and kemiot (amulets) and other inscriptions. The fifth chapter is a survey of the name in Greek texts again from the dead sea scrolls through the myriad Greek spell/scripture/ prayers texts. The sixth chapter crosses the divide between the languages and looks at the general function and use of the name in the period and its roles in the society and the life of individual Jews or Jewish gropus. The seventh chapter surveys the use of the name in the life of the early Christians and Gnostics who percieved themselves as Christians although history has made a judgement against them. 1 In our paper we used the transliteration yod Y, heh A, vav U, heh A, thus maintaining a one to one letter correspondence between the Aramaic and the Latin letters. This makes it easier to deal with the two, three and four letters forms of the name. 2 The Latin retains the Lord dominus tecum 3 Metzger 1975 makes no comment on this reading neither does the UBS, 1983 critical GNT. 4 An angelic pronunciation of the name would clearly give Mary an authoritative divine rendering of the name much like Moses recieved the pronunciation directly from Yaua himself (Exod 3, 34) 5 Yahuah combined with a construct based on the passive participle yeshuah from which the name yeshua comes. 6 I and E, W served only for sounds Ô and U, and a H final served for the sound A. Furthermore, the H was used as vowel only at the end of words, and never inside of it (but between two vowels the H is heard as a slight E). So, to read the name YHWH as four vowels, it is to read IHÔA that is IEÔA. Gertoux 7 20 miniscules , Textus Receptus has arche kai telos 8 Most scholars take these letters as pointing to the vocalisation yahweh. 9 Now the Lord, having come alone into the intellectual world, enters by His sufferings, introduced into the knowledge of the Ineffable, ascending above every name which is known by sound 10 If this had been wrrtten by the scribe of the Hebrew letters about two centuries earlier he would have used the full name YAUA, as witnessed by his regular “May Yaua cause” 11 Lev 4:27 and Lev 3:12: This fragement is dated to the first centuryu BB by CH Roberts 12 In Latin we also have Tertullian discussion on the way the name entered scriptures according to the Valentinans. (Against the Valentinians XIV) 13 Betz says “Iao originally derived from the name of the Hebrew god YAHA, became an important deity in magical literature SeeJ. Michl, RAC 5(1965): 215, no.102; R. Ganschinietz, “IAO,” PRE 9 (1914):698-721. In addition to being attested in the Nag Hammadi Literature (See Robinson , The Nag Hammadi Library in English, index) , Iao is found at Qumran 4q Lev b LXX ; cf. H. Stegemann” in M. Delco , ed., Qumran. Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu (Gembloux: Duculot, 1978) 195-217. 14 Ireneus also gives meanings to the other Hebrew terms: Eloe is God, Eloeim or Elouth , that which contains all, Adonai, that which is nameable and admirable or if the daleth is doubled, one who bounds and seperates the land from the water. 15 Cf Gen 1:7) 16 I derived this from the context. 17 However in view of Gnostic theology the name would be as probably Christ as it would be YAUA. However both have a place as we shall see. 18 Indeed in light of our discussion on Malachi to glorify the name YAUA would have been central to the purpose of his ministry as well as to turn many people from their sins to the name YAUA. 19 No question of if, simply when. 20 America BC, Barry Fell, i Unfortunately he doe not say what the proper name of God is. ii And there one might say began the name YAUA long and perhaps even competive relations with the word Shem meaning name in Hebrew. Later generations of Hebrews refusing to say YAUA would say HASHEM in its place. iii We are not talking about making himself known, as in demonstrating his amazing power in creation as we see in Exodus 6 but simply introducing who he was. iv Faustlich sees this residence taking place around 1976 BCE during the reign of Amenemhet I and his crown prince Sesostris I. v According to Faustlich this took placefrom 1771 BCE to 1689 BCE vi According to Faustlich the pharoah at the time of Josephs exaltation was Sebeknefrure who succeeded Amenemhet IV vii This was Ahmose according to Faustlich and he succeeded four Hyksos kings, Tutimaeus, Salitis, Bnon and apachmas. viii ix Some scholars hold it was the 15th century BC and can cite the references to the apiru in the amarna letters as evidence others hold to 13th BC and use other archeological evidence. x Other scholars prefer to read Yehua as an unknown toponym but gertoux maintins it is unlikely . xi xii For further discussion see 68 Moran (1987, pp604-605), 69 Nikipowetzky (1998,pp.169-170) 70 Durand (2000, p.205), 71 de Vaux (1986 pp.106-112, 202-208), 72 Pritchard (1969, p.242) xiii A clear evidence of the public use of his name even in the international arena. xiv Names and numbers continue to be considered significant as can be seen in the Apocalypse eith the number 666 (Apo 13:18) xv Bullinger did a study on Esther and present evidence that that name is written backwards in a number of place. xvi The Song of Songs as one passage which the for yaa (yod heh heh in the 8th chapter. This has been read as YAH and is evidenced in other fragment as a form of the name. xvii Knowing the form and the sound of the word YAUA is not the meaning of yada in this texts. Yada clearly needs to be demonstrated after the form of the name is already know. xviii Moses is seen as elohim to phaorah and araon was moses prophet. YAUA becomes elohim to Israel and Moses was his prophet. xix This case with Job xx The first mizbeach (altar) Moses built was when Joshua defeated the Amalekites, Moses called the altar YAUA NISI. xxi Another word for a place of trees used in the MT is pardes which occurs three times (Ecl 2:5, Song of sons 4:13 and Neh 2:8) it is translated orchard or forest and all three are connected with the kings pardes, initially Solomon but even at the time of Nehemiah a man called Asaph was the keeper of the kings forest. This word is later used by qabbalists to describe the four levels of the meaning of the torah using notariqon, peshat, remez. derash and sodut. In Greek it is paradeisos and Strongs defines as a park or an Eden. Jesus mentions it from the cross as a place one goes to after death. Paul describes how he knew a man who ascended to paradise, in body or out of body he did not know, and John’s connects to Eden in the Apocalypse by saying the tree of life is in the paradise of God. xxii In Sepher Yetzir the imporatnce of these three ltters in creation has great significance. xxiii In the mind of the author of the Apocalypse names have numbers and these number have significance. The number of a man is 666. The number of Yaua Elohim is 26 + 86 that is 114. YAUA contins 4 letters and Elohim 5 letters. For many philosphically inclined Jews both the number of the name and the number of letters in a name would have had significance. xxiv Here there is a play on words in the Hebrew. Aleph shin shin heh cane from aleph yod shin xxv Nakedness and shame are two of the themes of the apocalypse (Apo 3:18) and the cloting is connected with baptism (Fossum). xxvi We notice that nachash(nun chet shin) has the same gematria as mashiach (mem shin yod chet) 358. xxvii Their may be an allusion to this child in the manchild of Rev 12. In Rev 12 the man child is destined to rule the nations and is no doubt the seed promised to eve who battles with the serpent or the dragon. xxviii For Rabbi Elia Munk “This is because the Tetragrammaton signifies the mdt rhrchmim merciful God. xxix This may helpt to explain the kaballistic image of the tetrgrammaton representing adam kadmon. xxx Keil and Delitzch say the sense will not bear the meaning the man as being YAUA. Eth is a preoposistion in the sense of helpful association as in Gen 21:20, 39:2,21 xxxi This marks reads ‘ot or aleph vav tav. If we look at it in terms of the apocaluptic thinking of wisom it may be construes to read the Alehp and the Tav or Alpha and Omega in Greek., which the LORD God calls himself in Rev 1:6. We notice in Revaltion the form LORD God which can be seen as corresponding to Gan Eden’s YAUA ELOHIM. xxxii For the high priest qadosh leYAUA was inscribed on a gold place which was placed on his forehead to protect him from death when he etnered the holy place (Exo 28:37ff) xxxiii Enosh is another word for man amd occurs in Psalm 8 and in Daniel 7 in the vision of the bar enosh. Jesus then refers to this word his trial before the high priest. Matt 28:64. xxxiv This Angel becomes very important in the second temple period. He ic connected directly with the name YAUA. See Fossum (1985) xxxv This word adoni for my servant is exactly thre same word used by Abraham to YAUA earlier. In an unvocalised text they would both be simply aleph daleth nun yod. xxxvi We notice the words you to appeal to YAUA are haqreh na, from the verb qarah to happen or meet. The form is hiphil imperative. It is clear however that in later terms this is a simple prayer request asking for guidance. xxxvii As noted earlier the interplay between malaq YAUA and YAUA lead groups during late antiquty to identify YAUA as an angel. This lead to some of the teachings of the Gnostics and the Samaritans. xxxviii Here I have used my own rendering of heh as A. xxxix As far as I can see he only says I am Adonai in Ezekiel and ther Adonai is combined with YAUA. xl I am using Y for Yod, A for Heh and U for Vav in accordance with my transliteration scheme and for clarity of the patterns. xli This chart is mainly taken from 2a Gertoux, A14. xlii 1 Chron 15:18 xliii See W. G. Dever, “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el Kom,” HUCA 40-41 (1969- 1970), 139-204. xliv See A. Lemaire, “Les Inscriptions de Khirbet El-Qom et l’Asherah de YHWH, “ RB, 84 (1977), 595-608. xlv Z. Meshel , “Kuntillat ‘Ajrud, - An Israelite Site on the Sinai Border, “ Qadmoniot, 9 (1976), 122. xlvi xlvii {Yaua} These brackets are used to indicate that I have substituted Yaua for Yahweh in the original quotation in accordance with the latest Assyrian evidence for the way the name would have been spoken. See Josef Tropper. xlviii An interesting parallel can be drawn with the Apostle Paul when referring to Alexander the Coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4:14 “Alexander <223> the coppersmith <5471> did <1731> (5668) me <3427> much <4183> evil <2556>: the Lord <2962> reward <591> (5630) him <846> according to <2596> his <846> works <2041>:” xlix This is the reading of Cross in Festschrift N. Glueck, 299-306 l li Although this is a tetragrammaton it does not represent the full name for iota replaces both yod and vav. This reflects some renderings of the name in paleo Hebrew which write the name as yod heh yod heh, yaya in my transliteration system. lii In whose article I read the witness of Skehan and Tov. liii It may be that the reason kurios found its way into so may Greek texts is because they may have come from Aramaic texts. Many scholars see a move from YAUA to Adonai and from Adonai to KS. However there are not so many texts which contain Adonai over 6000 times. And the likelihood of the Christian have such good relation with the Jews as to desire to follow their tradition on this point does not seem realistic. Thus it is more likely that the tradition of using kurios comes from Christain having access to Aramaic manuscripts came accord maryah and simply translated it ks. The Aramaic translations in many cases seem to have the practice of replacing YAUA with Mar or some other title for God. The examples of Aramaic in the Bible , Ezra and Daniel follw this policy. They may have YAUA before and after the Aramaic section but the Aramaic sections do not contin the name. Thus it may be that later Aramaic translators followed this practice. However another practice is followed in the case of the Jews from Elephantine. liv Renan even speaks of the Jewish Cabbala as “nothing else than the Gnosticism of the Jews. The sephiroth are the perfections of Valentinus. lv They were divided into 8, 10 and 12 worlds, called an ogdoad, a decad and a duodecad. The eight consisted of married couples. These were Profundity-1 (First beginning or First Father) and Idea-2 (Grace and Silence). There children were Mind-3 and Truth-4. Mind begat Word-5 and Life-6. And Word begat Man-7 and Church-8. These eight are called the first ogdoad. The second decade came forth from Word and Life. These were Deep-9 and Mingling-10, Incorruptible-11 and Union-12, Self Existing-13 and Pleasure-14 Immoveable-15 and Blending-16 Only Begotten-17 and Happiness-18 The last twelve were the children of Man and Church. These were Advocate-19 and Faith-20 Ancestra-21 and Hope-22 Metrical-23 and Love-24 Praise-25 and Understanding-26 Ecclesiastical-27 and Felicity-28 Desired-29 and Wisdom-30 Thus the number thirty is important to the Valentinians. Profundity was known only to the Only Begotten who was Mind. To all the other worlds he was invisible. It was only Mind who took pleasure in Profundity. However Mind wanted to share him with the rest of the worlds but Silence (his wife) restrained him in accordance with the will of Profundity(his father). Mind wanted to create with in the worlds a desire to investigate Profundity’s nature which they also wanted. The thirtieth and youngest world Wisdom was impatient and experienced passion apart from her husband Desired. This passion had first arisen among those connected with Mind and Truth but was contagious and Wisdom caught it. Wisdom pretended to act from love but she was really acting rashly. She had not enjoyed communion with the Perfect (Profundity) like Mind had. She had a desire to search into the nature of the Profundity and wanted to comprehend his greatness. This was impossible so she got frustrated. She was always stretching herself and there was a danger she would be absorbed by his sweetness and disappear into his essence except for a power which supports all things and preserves them outside of the unspeakbale greatness. This power proceeded from Profundity but without his wife existed outside the Fulness (the thirty worlds). This power was called Boundary. Boundary restrained Wisdom and supported her. She was thus brought back to herself and convinced that Profundity was incomprehensible and thus laid aside her plan and the passion which had arisen form the overwhelming influence of her admiration. However her Thought and the Passion were banished from the Fulness. Her thought was name Achamoth. The Fulness and Wisdom acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father gave orgin to another pair, Christ and the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of strengthening the Fulness. They completed the number of the ages. Christ taught their place and the Holy Spirit taught them to give thanks for being rendered equal. They all sang praises to the First Father. lvi The Syriac Odes of Solomon make a connection between the four letters of the full name and the sign of the cross. This connection is explored in Fossum. lvii The Clementina speak of John the Baptist as a Hemerobaptist, and the disciples of John are accordingly called "Hemerobaptists" ("Homilies," ii. 23; comp. "Recognitions," i. 54); similarly, Banus, the teacher of Josephus ("Vita," § 2), was a Hemerobaptist. Hegesippus (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists as one of the seven Jewish sects or divisions opposed to the Christians. Justin ("Dial. cum Tryph." § 80) calls them simply "Baptists." According to the Christian editor of the "Didascalia" ("Apostolic Constitutions," vi. 6), the Hemero-baptists "do not eat until they have bathed, and do not make any use of their beds and tables and dishes until they have cleansed them." This obviously rests upon a misunderstanding of their true character. Epiphanius ("Panarion," i., heresy xvii.) goes still further, and says that the Hemerobaptists deny future salvation to him who does not undergo baptism daily. lviii Excerpta ex Theodoto xxii.5 In the beginning, the angels were baptized in the redemption of the Name which came down upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him. (Clement of Alexandria) “The Gnostic ...was baptised in the same Name as that in which his angel was baptized before him” Acts of Thomas (27:49f.) “the Name is equated with the Spirit” (Fossum, 1985,96) Exc ex Theodoto xxvi.1) Jesus’ “invisible part was the Name, which is the only begotten Son” Ireneus on Valentinus Others refer to the redemption as follows: “The Name which is hidden ( from every deity, dominion, and power, which Jesus the Nazarene put on ( in the spheres of light , [the Name] of Christ, the Christ who lives through the Holy Spirit for the angelic redemption” (I.xx.3) Acts of Thomas “Come Holy Name of Christ that is above every name!” (Ch 27 Greek version ; cp . ch 132;157) lix Tzevaoth occurs in the MT around 285 with Yaua or Elohim ( lx In “scholarly convention” (van der Toorn 1999) this is written Yahweh but we have opted for Yaua for reasons which will be discussed later. lxi All transliterations in this paper unless otherwise stated are mine. lxii The substitute used for Yaua in the Peshitta is Marya lxiii Albright and Freedman show from comparisons with Ugaritic psalm that the name Yaua is the most ancient usage and is represented in the more ancient poems of Israel(83 Freedman) lxiv Pronounced yahuwah with a very short u sound in the middle. lxv Even Albright (59) who has a whole systematic derivation of the name Yahweh as a causative of a verb to cause to be appeals to Greek authorities in relation to the pronunciation of the name. In contrast those who maintain it was never forgotten also turn to Clement of Aleandria and Theodoret for support (EJ, Vol p.680) lxvi Even Jeremiah’s (Chap 23) accusation that some were trying to cause the people to forget the name for their dreams as their fathers had forgotten it for Baal implies a lot more than simply forgetting how to say the proper name. It speaks of forgetting his authority his worship and replacing it with another authority the dream for example. lxvii Philo, OnThe Life of Moses Book III lxviii This may well be the first historical reference to the term Tetragrammatton as applied to the memorial, Yaua. lxix Here Philo begins to discuss using the etymology of kurios and does not seem to know Yaua. This has lead Dahl and Segal to argue that Philo read Kurios in his copy of the LXX, however Royse (1991) has argued that his LXX contained Yaua but Philo was discussing from a reading of the text which when read would have been kurios in his Hellenistic synagogue as it would have been Adonai in a Hebrew speaking synagogue or Maran inan Aramaic speaking synangogue. lxx Philo, About Those Who Have changed Their Names and Why They Have Changed Their Names lxxi In fact in another place Josephus indicates that the name was made up of four vowels. If his testimony is trusted on this point it would be a great help in ascertaining the pronunciation of the name. Gertoux makes the point that yod was mainly pronounced I, Heh as “a” at the end of a word, and Vav as “u”. lxxii This is one of the texts which can be used as evidence to indicate that the High Priest in the trial of Jesus may have heard Jesus prnounce the name(Matt 26.64-65) . lxxiii For a different view compare the Talmudic genralised understanding of the word name here. They see it as referring to any of the seven names they consider to be the holiest, Yaua, Elohim, Eloah, El, Shadai, Elyon and one other. lxxiv Curiously in in terms of Gematria one of the 32 measures used by the Rabbis to interprest the Torah Josi, yod vav, samech Ayin adds to 86 the same number as Elohim. It is composed of yod , vav, yod, 26 or the number of Yaua and samech (60). There is evidence that the Rabbis used Gematria in developing substitute terms. For example yeshu (yod shin ayin) the famous Rabbinic surrogate for Yeshua, adds to 316 which is the same as elohei nekar, strange god. lxxv The fact that shem ha meforash and the rules regarding letters is not mentioned may be the reason the Rabbis extend the names included here to such titles as elohim. lxxvi Interestingly we have a similar form apparent in the Lachish letters: “May Yaua afflict those who...” (Pritchard, 1958 p.212) Perhaps even the Apsotle Pauls was close to the edge when he cried out in the court room “God will strike you you white washed wall” (Acts 23:3) lxxvii Yer Sanh. 28b) lxxviii This referred to the twelve letter name. lxxix In the maginal notes to Ezekiel 1:2 and 11:1 lxxx Papus (1958), translated from La Langue Hebraique Restituee, trans. A.P.Morton (1810) lxxxi p.37 lxxxii p.37 lxxxiii Levi understand the name to be Yod plus the name of Eve, Chevah, thus Yod Chet, Vav, Heh lxxxiv p.54 lxxxv The more tradition division is the Law the Prophets and the Torah. Luke witnesses to an ancient division, the refernce is more usually between the Law and the prophets. lxxxvi “The MS which which allows for the pronunciation, or at least a pronounceable and normal writing, of the yhwh name in the same hand employed for the rest of the text, derives from a period of LXX transmission prior to all texts which in written form warn againt utterance of the name” Skehan lxxxvii For Skehan this was Origens chosen transcription of the name. lxxxviii Other scriptures with interpretation include:Mk 5:41, Mk 15.22, Mk 15:34, Jn 1:38, Jn 1:41, Acts 4:36 lxxxix Geroux maintains that where as yeho is a shortened form of Yaua, yahu is based on Yah which is a distinct name. Thus he interprets Yahu as Yah himself (A14). Mclaurin also maintains that Yah is not a shortened form of Yaua but a distinct name which probably preceded the use of Yaua among the Hebrews (42, 449-453). xc This case with Job xci Although for some modern scholars this has meant Abraham did not know the word Yaua as the proper name of God (Mclaurin, 442) this is not the only way it may be read. Rabbi Ephraim, in a talk I heard in say in Diaspora Yeshiva Jerusalem relates a tradition that Moses was given a password which would identify him to the elders as the true redeemer. That is he was given a word which only the elders would know and when he revealed it they would understand him to be the true redeemer. I make this point to say only that it is unlikely Moses would have come to the elders of Israel with a strange name that they had never heard of. It is far more likely he would come in the name of the God of their fathers the form whose proper name they were aware of . The possibility that they knew it is perhaps indicated by fact that they used in it their every day speech when talking to Moses and the way Moses uses it when talking to Yaua xcii There is a tradition in the books of Enoch that a certain goddess used the name of god to ascend to heaven. xciii Although the Mishnah was compiled in the 3rd century there are sources in it going back to the first century temple practice. Mishnah Yoma contains some of the earliest strands of the Mishnah. We must obviously use the evidence with reserve. xciv JE believes this group were Essenes and hence perhaps there is a connection with John. xcv This form of writing the name was first understood on 25th Feb 2006 in Porsgrunn Norway. There it was understood that if the name was four letters and could be read as it was written or according to its letters then four English letters must be able to be comprehensible not five or six. These four are evidenced as Yaua as will be shown.