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.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

The Priesthood Which Entered the Church

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 o 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 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.

Were there priests in the Church?
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).
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 not 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 use by scholars to indicate temple practice at the end of the second temple period. His message goes into the intricate deatails 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 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. 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.
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.
A Great Company of Priests
Strong support for this position is also represented by the witness of Luke in Acts. There he rcords “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 priest who joined the Church just beofree the martydom of Stephen. Luke as been established by the works of such scholars as CJ Hemer and Gasque, is a first clast 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: the the time for sacrifices has passed away, and that the Law and the Temple were decaying.” His observation of the fact is significant, although to assign the cause to Stephen is can not 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 possibles 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 thier sins revealed. Immediatley afterward it is recorded that they were highyl 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 priest who were used to the idea of those violating God’s holiness dropping dead, as with two of Aarons sons. 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 the 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 priest is likely to by minimal 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 realised the message of these followers of the son of David may have some truth to it.

2 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”
(www.andreiorlov.com)
Firstly we note that it is John the Baptist a priest of the sons of Aaron who began the practice of baptism. His purpose is baptising is manifold. He 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. This 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 nations and obtain the forgiveness of his sins, his families 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, probably after they were immersed they would speak the name Yaua, this prepared them for whe 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. 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.” 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 godl and sivler. Then Yaua will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness.” Part of the work the is with the priesthood, with those who offer sacrifices.
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. _However in the first century John had gone out to the desert 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.

Early Christian uses of the Name Yaua

Late Antiquity Christian References to the Name of Yaua

The Odes of Solomon


1...Your seal is known; and youe creatures are known to it (4:7) (tit 1:2)
And your hosts possess it, and the elect archangels are clothed with it

2 His praise he gave us on account of his name;
our spirits praise his Holy Spirit (6:7)

3... For I turn not my face from my own
because I know them
And before they had existed
I recognized them
And imprinted a seal on their faces (8:12)

4 ...Therefore who can stand against my work?
Or who is not subject to them?
I willed and fashioned mind and heart;
And they are my own.
And upon my right hand I have set my elcts ones
And my rigteousness goes before them;
And they will not be deprived of my name;
For it is with them.

The Odist Speaks

Seek and increase
And abide in the love of the Lord;

And you who are loved in the Beloved
And you who are kept in himwho lives
And you who are saved in him who was saved

And you shall be found incorrupted in all ages,
On account of the name of your Father. (Ode 8:17ff)


5... Let be pleasing before you, because of your glory
and because of ypur name let me be saved from the Evil One. (Ode 14:5ff

6 ... I have put on incorruption through his name,
and stripped off corruption by his grace (Ode 15:8)

7... Praise and honor to his name. (Ode 16:20)

8... Praise and great honor to his name. (Ode 18:16)

9 ... Praise and honor to his name ((Ode 20:10)
10 He who gave me authority over chains
so that I might loosen them.

He who overthrew by my hands the dragon with seven heads.
And placed me at his roots that I might destroy his seed.

You were there and helped me
And in every place your name surrounded(blessing) me (Ode 22:4ff)

11... And hsi thought was like a letter
and his will descended from on high.
And it was sent from a bow like an arrow
That has been forcibly shot.

And many hands rushed to the letter
In order to catch (it), then take and read it.

But it escaped from their fingers;
And they were afraind of it and of the seal which was upon it.

Because they were not allowed to loosen its seal;
For the power which was over the seal was better than they.

...And the letter became a large volume.
Which was entirely written by the finger of God.

And the name of the Father was upon it;
And of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
To rule forever and ever. (Ode 23:1ff)
Hallelujah


Coptic Uses of the Name Yaua

MS4 [Three men ] met us in the desert [and said to the lord] Jesus. What treatment is possible for the sick?” And he says to them “[I have] given olive oil and have poured out myrrh [for those] who beilive in the [name of the] father and the holy [spirit and the ] son”.
Angels of the lord ascended to [mid] heaven , suffering from eye ailments and holding a sponge. The son of the lord says to them, “why have you ascended, o holy, all pure ones?”
“We have come up to recieve healing, O Yao Sabaoth, because you are powerful and strong.” (Oxy 1384)

MS19 Excellent apologia (spell) for driving out demons:
Formula to be spoken over his head: Place olive branches before him and stand behind him and say “ Greetings, god of Abraham; greetings god of Isaac; greetings god of Jacob; Jesus the upright, the holy spirit, the son of the father, who is below the seven, who is within the seven. Bring Yao Sabaoth;may your power issue forth from N., until you drive away this unclean demon Satan. , who is in him. I adjure you demon,-
MS19 whoever you are, by this god, Sabarbarbathioth, Sabarbarbathiouth, Sabarbarbathioneth, Sabarbarbaphai. Come out , demon whoever you are, and stay away from N., hurry, hurry now, now!, Come out demon, since I bind you with unbreakable adamantine fetters , and I deliver you into the black chaos in perdition.

Procedure: Take seven olive branches . For six of them tie together the two ends of each one, but the remaining one use it as a whip as you utter the adjuration. Keep it secret it is proven. After driving out (the demon), hang around N. amulet, which the patienct puts on after the expulsion of the demon, with these things written on a tin metal leaf...PHORBA, protect N.”

MS 22 [Christ! I adjure] you, o lord , almighty, first begotten., self- begotten, begotten without semen, [...] as well as all-seeing are you, and Yao, Sabao, Brinthao: keep me as a son, protect me from every evil spirit, subject to me every spirit of impure, destroying demons- on the earth , under the earth, of the water and the land- every phantom. Christ.

MS25 The door, Aphrodite
Phrodite
Rodite
Odite
Dite
Ite
Te
E,
Hor Hor, Phor, Phor, Yao Sabaoth Adonai,
I bind you, arteisian scorpion. Free this house of every evil reptile [and] annoyance, at once , at once, St Phocas is here. Phemenoth 13, third indiction.

MS26 CH M G Hor Hor Phor Phor, Yao Sabaoth Adonai, Eloe, Salaman, Tarchei, I bind you artemisian scorpion, 315 times. Preserve this house with it occupants from all evil, from all bewitchment of spirits of the air and the human (evil) eye and terrible pain [and] sting of scorpion and snake, through the name the highest god, Naias Meli, 7 (times)...XUROURO AAAAAA BAINCHOOOCH MARIIIIII ENAG KORE. Be on guard, O lord, son of David according to the flesh, the one born of the holy virgin Mary, o holy one, highest god, from the holy spirit. Glory to you, O heavenly king, Amen.

MS36 Grant me victories , favor, good luck with N., success with people small and great, whom I may encounter today, during all the hours of the day and the night. For I have before me Jesus Christ , who attends me and accompanies me; behind me Yao Sabaoth Ado[nai]; on my right and [left] the God of Ab[raham, Isaac, and Jacob]; over [my] face... my heart...

MS37 Arima Jesus Yo Salvation
Ariel my light of god
Azael might of god
Yoman Yao faith
Yobab Yo father
Eli eli sazachthani my god my god why have you forsaken me
MS37 Anael grace of god
Judah Yao confession
[J]erael of compassion
[J]ephtae Yao confession
[J]onathan Yao gift
[J]eroboal giving judgment in a higher way
[J]oseph Yao addition
[Es]aiou rising of Yao
[...]elam rest
Jachaz Yao strength
[J]akin Yao resurrection
[...] Yao...

MS40 He exists he raises the one by whom you shall purify me into your life accoridng to your indestructible name.Therefore the fragrance of life is in me. I have blended it with waterfrom the pattern of all the rulers, so that I shall with you in the peace of the saints, you who exist for ever.

MS40 I shall speak your name for you are a primary name.
You are unborn.

MS 42 [I was] baptised the fifth time in the name of theselfbegotten at the hands of each of these powers.

NH8 (Nag Hammadi 8)
Do you suppose that you are the father of [... your race] or that Iolaos is your father?
(Zostrianos ascends with the angel of knwledge to a light cloud)
I very quickly and very gladly went up with him to a great light cloud. I cast my body upon the earthto be guarded by the glories. I was rescued from the whole world and the thirteen aeonsin it and their angelic beings.They did not see us, but theirarchon was disturbed at [our] passage, for the light cloud...
Then I knew that the power in me was set over darkness because it contained the whole light. I was baptized there, and I recieved the image of the glories there. I became like one of them. I left the airy [earth] and passed by the copies of the aeons (ages, worlds), after washing there seven times [in] living [water], once for each [of the] aeons. I did not cease until[I saw] all the waters. I ascended to the Exile which realy exists. I was baptisedand[...] world. I ascended to the Repentance which realy exists [and was] baptised there four times. I passed by the sixth aeon. I ascended to the[...] I stood there after having seen lightfrom the truth which treally exists from its self begotten root, and great angels and glories, [number].
I was baptised in the [name of ] the divines Autogenes (Self Begotten) by those powers which are [upon] the living waters, Michar and Micheus. I was purified by the great Bar Pharanges. Then they [revealed] themselves to me and wrote me in glory. I was sealed by those who are on these powers, [Michar] Mi[ch]eus, Seldao, Ele[nos] and Zogennethlos. I became a root seeing angel and stood before the first aeon which is the fourth. With the souls I blessed the divines Autogenes (self existent) and the forefather Geradamas (Geron= elder, adamas = Adam) , (an eye of] the Autogenes the first perfect [man], and Seth Emm[acha Seth] , the son of Adamas , the [father of] ...Mirothea, the mother...and Prophania...of the lights and De-[...]
I was [baptised] for the second time in the name of the divine Autogenes, by these same powers. I became an angel of the male race. I stood upon the second aeon which is the third, with the sons of Seth I blessed each of them.
I was baptised for the third time in the name of the divine Autogenes, by each of these powers. I becamse a holy angel. I stood upon the thrird aeonwhich is the second. I blessed each of them.
I was baptised for the fourth time by [each of ] these powers. I became [a] perfect [angel]. [I stood upon] the fourth aeon [which is the first], and [I blessed each of them.] Then I sought...with power...about them in another way in the reports of men? Are these their powers? Or are these the ones but their names differ from one another? Are there souls different from souls? Why are people different from one another? What and in what way are they human?
The great ruler on high Authrounios (Self Governing), said to me, Are you asking about those whome you have passed by? And about the airy-earth. Came into being by a word, yet it is the begotten and perishable ones whom it reveals by its indestructibility. In regard to the coming of the great judges, (they came) so as not to taste perception and to be enclosed in creation, and when they came upon...
I called upon the Child of the Child, Ephesech. He stood before me and said “O angel of god, o son of the father, [...] the perfect man. Why are you calling on me and asking about those things which you know, as though you were [ignorant] of them? And i said, I have asked about the mixture[...] it is perfect and gives[...] there is power which [has...those] in which we recieve baptism [...] these names are [different] and why [...] for the first ...
He said [Zostrianos] listen about these[...] for the first[...] origins are three because they have appeared in a single origin. [of the] Barbelo aeon, not like some origns and powers, nor like (one) from an origin and power. It is to every origin that they have appeared;they have strengthened every power; and they appeared from thet which is far better thant themselves. These (three) are Existence, Blessedness and Life.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

The Beginning of Toldot Yeshu

Codex Strasbourg Jewish Counter Gospel

“Jesus was despised and rejected of men” Isaih 53
“Thus says Yaua the redeemer of Israel, and his holy one, to him whom man despiseth. Isa 49.


1 The beginning of the birth of Yeshua. In the six hundre and seventy first year of the fouth millenium (c 90B.C.), in the days of Janneus the king, a great misfortune happened to Israel; when there arose a certain idle and duterous man from the fallen stock of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Yoseph Pantera …He lived at Bethlehem of Judah. Now nigh unto his house dwelt a widow, and she had a daughter called Miriam( W)…

His mother was Miraim ( a daughter) of Israel.

And she had a betrothed of the kingly seed, of the house of David; and his name was John.

And he was learned in the llaw, and feared heaven greatly.

Now overgainst the door of her house (there dwelt a man) of fair appearance (a warrior), Yoseph the son of Pandera: He cast his eye upon her…

When he heard this, straightway he percieved that Yoseph the son of Pandera had cast his eays upon her, and that he had done this deed. He left her…

(He rose early) and went unto Rabban Simeon the son of Shetach.

He said unto him, Know then (what has befallen) me this night with my betrothed.

17 Rabban Simeon the son of Shetach said unto him, Who was laid on your heart? He said to him, The son of Pandera, for he is near her house and a seeker after fornication.

He said unto him, I know that you have no witnesses in this matter, therefore keep silence, I counsel you; If he has entered once, then it must be that he will enter a second time. That time you must act according to your wisdom, and let witnesses watch him.

After some time it was noised abroad in the city that Miriam was with child.

Then said John her betrothed, Not by me is she with child. Shall I stay here and hear my reproach every day from the children of men. So he went away to Babylon.

21 And after (some time she bore) a son and they called his name Yeshua after the name of his mothers brother, [but his dispicableness was revealed they called him Yeshu].

22 His mother brought him before a teacher that he might become [ enlightened (in the Halacha) ] learned in the law [and the Talmud].

23 [ Now it was the custom of the disciples of the wise that neither youth nor lad should pass by the way without his head being covered and his eyes toward the ground out of respect of the disples for their masters.

24 But on a certain day that wicked one passed by while the rabbi’s were seated in a body at the gate of the synagogue, so they called the assembly for searching the scriptures; that wicked one did pass by in front of our masters with erect stature and uncovered head, saluting no one, but with shameless forehead exposing himself to his master.

25 Then answered one of them, and said, He is a mamtza. And another said, Both a mamtza and a son of a women in her seperation.]

26 Now on a certain day the rabbis were debating [the tractate Nezikhin]; then began he to utter halachoth before them.

27 Then said one of them to him, Have you not heard that everyone that recites a halacha in the presence of his mater is worthy of death?

28 He said to that wise man, Who is the master, and who is the disciple? And which of the two is wiser, Moses or Jethro? Was it not Moses, the father of the prophets and the chief of the wise men. Moreover the torah witnesses concerning him.: And there arose not since in Israel like unto Moses.

29 Jethro was an alien …yet he dictated to Moses tight conduc, accrding to the saying:And set over them rulers of thousands and rulers of hundreds.
30 But if you therefore say that Jethro was greater than Moses (then would there be an end) to his greatness.
31 Now whem the sages heard this they said, Since he is so very shameless, let us make inquistion concerning him.
32 They sent to his mother, saying , Tell us, who was the father of this lad?
33 She answered and said. (He is the son of my husband John, who hath left me and gone away to Babylon, and I know not what hath become of him).
34 They answered her, saying …[Why do they witness converning him that he is a mamtzer and the son of a women in her seperation]?
35 Then answered Rabban Simeon the son of Shetach, This day is it thrity years since John her betrothed came unto me; at that time he said, This and that has befallen me.
36 And what Rabban Simeon answered John, and how for great shame he left her and went to Babylon and returned no more.
37 And this Miriam hath borne this Yeshu.
38 And there is no judgement of death upon her, for she did it not wittingly; but Joseph the son of Pandera sought occasion for fornication every day.
39 Now when she heard from Rabbi Simeon that there was no judgement of death on her, then answered she also and said, So was the matter, and she declared it.
40 But after the saying converning Yeshu was spread abroad : [for they said of him, he is a bastard and the son of a women in her seperation and worthy of death], he went forth and fled to Jerusalem.
Chapter 2 Yeshu in Jerusalem

1 Now the reul of all Israel was in the hand of a woman, and here name was Helene.
2 And in the temple was a foundation stone [which being interpreted , Yah founded it, and this is the stone which Jacob anointed with oil], and on it were graven the letters of the Ineffable name.
3 And who ever learned them could do whatsoever he would.
4 But whereas the sages feared that the young men of Israel would learned them, and thereby destroy the world, they took steps that shouls not be possible to learn them.

5 Dogs of brass were bound to two pillars of iron at the gate of the place of burnt- offerings, so that whosoever enttered and leanrt the letters, as soon as he went forth the bayed at him: if he then looked at them the letters wnet forth from his mind.

6 Then came Yeshu and learned them, and wrote upon parchment and cut open his thigh and laid the parchment with those letters therein; so that the cutting of his flesh pained him not. And he restored the flesh to its place.

7 And as he went forth the dogs of the pillars bayed at him, and the letters went forth from his mind.
8 He went into his house , and cut into his flesh with a knife, and lifte out the writing and learnt the leters.
9 Then went he forth and gathered together three hundred and ten of the young men of Israel.
10 He said to them, You see them who which say concerning me, [a bastardand a son of a women in her seperation]; they desire greatness for themselves and seek to exercise lordship in Israel.
11 Have you not seen that all the prophets prophesied, concerning the Mashiach of God, and I am the Mashiach.
12 And concerning me Isaiah prophesied, and said, Behold, the virgin shall concieve, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
13 And, again, David my ancestor prophesied converning me, and said, Yaua said unto me, You are my son; this day have I begotten you.
14 He begat me without a male lying with (my mother); yet they call me a mamtzer.
15 And again he prophesied, Why do the nations rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yaua, and aginst his anointed.
16 I am the Messiah, and them that withstand me are the children of whoredoms. For so saith the scripture, For they be the children of whoredoms.
17 Then answered him the young men, If you are the Messiah, show us a sign.
18 He said unto them, What sign seek ye of me that I should do for you?
19 Straightway they brought unto him a lame man, that never yet had stood upon his feet. He spoke over him the letters, and he rose upon his feet.
20 In that hour they all worshipped him, and said This is the Messiah.
21 Again he performed for them another sign.
22 They brought unot him a leper, and he spek over him the letters (and laid his hand on him), and he was healed.
23 There joined themselves unto him the insurgest of his people.

Chapter 3

1 Now when the sages saw that all were believeing in him, straightway they bound him fast and led him before Helene the queen, under whose hand was the land of Israel.
2 They said unto her, This man is a sorcerer, and he decieveth the world.
3 Yeshua answering said, The prophets aforetime prophesied concerning me, and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and I am he. But concerning them the scripture saith, Blessed is the man that walkent not in the counsel of the ungodly.
4 She said unto them, Is it in your law, whathe says?
5 They say, It is in our law, but it was not spoken concerning him: for it is written , And that prophet which shall presume to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And you shalt put away the evil from among you.
6 But the Messiah whom we expect, with are other signs, and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth. But with this mamtzer the signs are not present.
7 Yeshua said unto her, Lady, I am he, and I revive the dead.
8 She sent for faithful men bringing with them a dead body. He spoke the letters and the dead revived.
9 In that hour the queen trembled, and siad, It is a great sign.
10 She rebuked the sage, and they went forth from the her presence shamefaced, and they were sore distressed.
11 The insurgents increased and were with him, and there was a great schism in Israel..
12 Yeshua went forth to Upper Galilee. And the sages assembled and came before the queen, and siad unto her, Lady, he practiseth sorcery and therewith he leadeth the world astray.
13 Therefore she sent horsemen on his account, and they found him as he was misleading the men of Upper Galilee, and saying to them, I am the son of God of whom it is written in yourlaw.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Bullinger on kurios and adonai

Jesus Christ is Lord

I. Introduction
Our interest is to understand the meaning of this title in Pauline literature.
The confession or title is made up of three nouns:
Kurios, Iesous, and Christos.
It is the idea of some scholars that each part of the title has a particular meaning or significance. The three nouns together are Jesus full name in the letters of Paul, however they are used separately and their order changes in the writings of Paul.

The full title then is Ho Kurious Iesous Kristos and we will seek to look at each part and seek to gain some understating of what this title would have meant to Paul or his readers in the first century Church.

II Ethelbert Bullinger and Kurios Iesous Christos

A. Ethelbert Bullinger who edited the Companion Bible early in the twentieth century presented the idea that each title and the way the title was used had meaning and significance.
1. He argued that Kurios meant Lord. Consequently this would tie back to the use of the word Lord in the Old Testament.
2. That is with the word Adon which represented headship or God as overlord or ruler in the earth. In this case the person ruling is not necessarily the owner of the property he is governing.
So hear in the case of Jesus, Kurios would mean he was ruling and overseeing the Church or the things on the earth, he may or may not possess ownership rights to that which he rules.
3. He contrasts this with Adonai which he believes is the Lord as blesser. It is says Bullinger the Lord in his relation to the earth. Here the Lord is carrying out his plan to bless the earth.
4. Adonim is the intensified form of Adon and has the added aspect of the ruler being the over of that which he rules.
5. Finally we have the name Yah`wah which Bullinger see’s as God in covenant relation to those whom he created. Here he gives an example from 2 Chronicles 18:31 where the term Yah’wah is used when speaking in relation to Israel or Judah and Elohim is used when speaking of a non covenant nation. (Companion Bible OUP London New York).
6. To him the divine definition of Yah’wah is given in Gen 21:33 where he is called the eternal God El Olam.

B. Bullinger teaches ideas as to the meaning of Iesous and Christos also.
1. Iesous which is said to mean Yah’wah’s salvation or Yah’wah the saviour. Here he expresses the idea that Iesous is the name connected with “the shame” which the saviour went through during his incarnation to provide his people with salvation from their sins.
2. Christos on the other hand represents the saiour now glorified and exalted.
3. Consequently Jesus Christ means he who was humbled but is now glorified.
4. Christ Jesus means the exalted one who was once humbled.

C. Whereas I don’t necessarily agree with Bullinger’s interpretations of the meanings of the titles I do believe the titles do have a significance which will enrich the understanding of the New Testament and Pauline writings if understood.

III. I Thessalonians the first document of the New Testament and Ho Kurious Iesous Christos

A. This is the first piece of literature in the Pauline corpus and so although it is written 21 years after the Church universal was born and after the whole of Cilicia, Phrygia, Asia Minor and Phillipi had been evangelised, it gives us an introduction to Paul’s use of the title Kurios Iesous Christos in literature.

1. According to most scholars this letter was written in about AD 51. It was written by Paul and Silas from Corinth in Achaia and sent with Timothy north to Thessalonica because it was not possible for then to go in person.
2. In Luke’s account of Paul and Silas in Thessalonica (Acts 17) the title Kurious does not come up at all, however the Apostles are accused of teaching about another king than Ceaser. Luke relates that Paul explained that Ton Christov according to scripture had to suffer and rise from the dead and that Ho Iesous Paul was proclaiming was Ho Christos.
3. When we now come to the first letter to the Thessalonians the word Basilea King does not come up at all. However the word Kurios comes up in various forms about 25 times.

B. Kurios
1. One Bible dictionary assigns at least 8 different usages to the word kurios contemporary with Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians.

(a) It is used in the broad sense as the possessor or owner of a property.
(b) As a title of respect or honor
(c) It was used in respect to gods in the orient. And examples are given regarding the Egyptian cult of Serapis who is called Kurio S…
(d) In the East it was applied to rulers or kings for example Ptolemy XIII was called kuriou Basileos Theou in 62 BC,Deismann (LAE p.356). King Herod the Great is called Herodei Kurio between 37 and 34 BC and more poignantly Herod Agrippa I was called soterias kuriou Basileos Agrippa between AD 37-44 (Ibid p 418), which might give us a hint as to why he was so upset with the Church and tried to kill her leaders (Acts 12). Among the Roman emperors Augustus and Tiberias are said to have disclaimed the title but Claudius (AD 54) received it Tiberiou Klaudiou Kaisaros tou kuriou (P Oxy I. 37-AD 49)and in the time of Nero (AD 54-68) it was quite popular (dic p365)
(e) It was used in prayer to God
(f) It was used for a legal guardian of a women and finally
(g) It is used as an adjective meaning something is valid as in a contract(Dic p365-366).
(h) Paul’s uses supposedly governed mainly by the LXX usage

2. Kurios is used a number of different ways in 1 Thessalonians
Now we turn back to Paul first letter to any Church and try to grasp the implication of this title for the Church. In contrast to Iesous and Christos we find that Kurios is used with personal pronouns. The various uses of Kurious are listed below.
(a) The Ekklesia (Church) is in Theo Patri kai kurio Iesou Xristo (I Th 1:1)
(b) The Elpidos (hope) of Tou Kuriou Hemon the Lord of us (or Adoneinu) Iesou Xristou enables the Church to endure suffering (1 Th 1:4).
Paul appears to use the title Kuriou Hemon sometimes to refer to those persons he is with alone and sometimes to include to those members of the congregations he is writing too eg I Cor 1:2
The various personal pronouns Paul uses in the epistle are:
Humas-you
Humeis-you
Humin- to you (dative)
Humon-of you
Hemas-us
Hemon-of us
Autou-of him
Hon-whom


(c)

Kurios Iesous

Yeshua Yaua. The Tetragram and Kurios Iesous in Pauline Literature

Outline
A Kurios, Adonai and Yaua
1 Their meanings
2 Adonai and Yaua in the Hebrew Scriptures
3 Adonai and Yaua in the Septuagint
4 Adonai and Yaua in the Pauline writings in Greek so far
I Where Paul is quoting Yaua for Sure
II Where Paul is quoting Adonai for sure
III Where it is uncertain what he is quoting
B Kurios Iesous and Christos its place in Pauline Literature
1 The meaning of the words
2 The role of the words as a confession at Baptism
3 The role of the words as a saying in the Spirit a "prophetic level" saying
4 The role of the words in the life of the Church and the believer
5 The role of the words as a confession of the whole creation

Contents
Part 1
Kurios, Adonai, Yaua and Yehoshua
O N E
Their meanings

T W O
Adonai and Yaua in the Hebrew Scriptures
In the studies at present to understand where the early Christian community derived the absolute title kurios for Iesous from the focus of the scholars has been the cultural environment of the proclamation of the gospel. Fitzmyer (1997) has summarised the four main positions relating to the source of the title Kurios. The four main positions he outlines are
(1) It has a Hellenistic Pagan Background. As perhaps illustrated by Paul's statement in 1 Cor 8:5-6 The case is that the title is taken over from the use of Kurios as a title for gods in the near east of that period. Fitzmyer gives a list of scholars present in this case.
(2) It has a Hellenistic Jewish background. The case here is that the title ho kurios (The Lord) developed out of the Greek equivalents of Biblical titles of Yaua whether in Hebrew or in Aramaic. So we have Adon and its from with suffix adonai which literally means My lords but became an absolute title for Yaua.So in translating this in the Old Greek or the Septuagint Kurios would have been used.
(3) It has an Israeli Semitic Religious Background. Here the title is said to have "originated in the post-Easter Jewish-Christian community of Palestine" (Fitzmyer 1997 pg 117) In this case Yeshua would have been confessed as adon in Hebrew or marah in Aramaic. And these titles would have arisen from the use of these titles for Yaua in Israel among Israeli Jews of the first century. The case is based on the evidence of the use of the term marah (Lord) in Aramaic with its suffixes as in Marai (my Lord) or Maron (our Lord). Often in the construct for giving a title of Yaua
(4) It has an Israeli Semitic Secular Background
That is it developed in the context of the use of adon or marah as "Sir" or as terms of respect. These develop into their forms with suffixes i.e adoni (my Lord) and marai. We see this then in Marks gospel 7:28 where the vocative kurie is used and Yeshua addressed as "Sir".

Our task is not to see where the early Church got the title from, rather our task is to understand what Paul understood the believer was saying when he confessed or said Kurios Iesous. We know that Paul when speaking or writing used both Greek and Aramaic. We know that he quoted the Septuagint and when sharing in synagogues he would have heard either the Masoretic Text, The LXX, and the Targumim. And we know these three sources would have represented the scriptures in most places where Paul would have preached. My contention is that the understanding of the confession kurios iesous, In the Pauline literature comes not simply by seeing how Paul quotes the scripture to refer to Yeshua but seeing how he views the apostolic ministry and the position of Yeshua in his reflections on Scripture. Much scripture is reflected in his writing although not direct quotations it can be seen as commentary on the fulfilment of scripture and points us to Paul's understanding of the confession kurios iesous.
T H R E E
Adonai and Yaua and Kurios and in the Septuagint (LXX)
What is the confession kurios iesous christos since two Hebrew words lie behind the common noun kurios? The first is Yaua the proper name and eternal and personal name of the God of Yisrael. The second is Adonai a common Hebrew noun meaning Lord or Sir. The blurring of the two words was originally felt to have come with the Jewish Hellenistic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. However with discoveries of manuscripts in the last century it is by no means certain that the LXX (Septuagint) did not maintain the distinction between Yaua and Adonai in translation Royse (1991). In the Hebrew scriptures, there is a clear difference in the use and the importance of the name Yaua and the title adonai and the terms are used many times as a title of God as in Adonai Yaua, the Lord Yaua. The Septuagint manuscripts of the 4th century and much of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we had up until 100 years ago, translated adonai as kurios and replaced Yaua with kurios. However it is now certain that many Greek manuscripts of the Tanakh, including both the LXX and Aquila's translation included a specific representation of the Tetragrammaton distinct from kurios. A number of scholars have gone as far as to try to chronicle the movement in translation policy towards kurios and they suggest four stages in the process. First Yaua was transliterated as Iao (iota, aleph, omega) And this is witness by Diodorus the Sicilian from the first century BC. Then they transliterated Yaua into Aramaic script. Then they used Paleo-Hebrew and finally kurios substituted Royse (1991 ibid). A discussion of the evidence is found in (Metzger, 1981) , for support of the opposing idea that kurios was in the LXX see N.A. Dahl and A. F Segal (1978).

Back in 1959 Kahle could confidently says

"We now know that the Greek Bible text as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the divine name by Kurios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such Mss"

Now if this is the case and the first century manuscripts of the Greek Bible had a form of Yaua in the text different from kurios what of Paul's letters back in the first century? Some have said the Christians translated Yaua to kurios when the Hebrew was not understood any more (in Royse 1991). Well at the time of Paul they did know the name and it was understood and Paul was a Jew. It is quite possible that if we found Paul's manuscripts from the first century and he was quoting, as he often does the LXX we would find that Jesus is Lord could be Jesus is Iao (Yaua). And that this was as Edwin Blackman states "The irreducible minimum of Christian faith" (TIOCB 1971 pg 787) and a part of the "earliest baptismal confession" (ibid).








F O U R
Adonai and Yaua and Kurios in the Pauline writings in Greek so far
We need to observe how Paul uses the absolute title in contrast to how he uses relative titles such as Our Lord (maran, adoneinu, kurios umon) and their Lord etc. Now it is clear that in Paul's mind the title The Lord Jesus Christ carries a different import to Our Lord Jesus Christ. We can see this from the beginning of Pauls letters to the Churches. The formal greeting Paul uses to most Churches is

"Grace to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (so Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Eph, Phil, 2 Thes .
(The variations read
I Thess: "Grace to you and peace"
Gal: "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ"
Col: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father")

For our understanding of the title the Lord Jesus Christ we can observe the following:
(i) The Lord Jesus Christ. from the beginning of Paul's letters can be seen to be a formal absolute title like God the Father. And it was a title used in the early Church at least by Paul to greet Churches. It was especially linked to the title God the Father. Our question is it is simply saying the Master, Jesus Christ or is it saying Yaua, Yeshua the Mashiach.
(ii) In I Corinthains Paul refers to those "calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". This phrase "calling on the name of" echoes the old testament scriptures from beginning to the end. The first time it is mentioned is in Genesis 4 where in the time of Enosh men began to call on the name Yaua. And through out the Tanakh from Abraham on. We read in Gen 12 "there he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD" NIV The word LORD translates Yaua). And this practice of calling on the name Yaua continued throughout the Tanakh. We need to ask is there any more to this echoe than a similarity of words. Well we see in Romans 10 that Paul connects the calling on the name Yaua in the Tanakh with calling on the Lord Jesus in the New Covenant.

" If you confess with your mouth the "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him form the dead, you will be saved. as the scripture says
"Any one who trusts in him will never be put to shame" (Isa 28:16)
and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile- the same Lord is Lord of All and richly blesses all who call on him, for,
"Every one who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'.

Our most important questions are Who are they trusting in? and Who are they calling on?
From the fact that the confession of the mouth is "Lord Jesus" and the result of that confession is "salvation", it is clear that the Jew or greek is calling on the "Lord Jesus". The believing in the heart that "God raised from the dead" puts the trust on God. So we have two aspects the first the believing on trusting in the fact that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The second the confession Jesus is Lord.

Paul quotes two scriptures from the Tanakh. Isaiah 28:16 and Joel 2:32. In the second it is talking about calling on the nmae Yaua. Clearly connected here to the confession Jesus is Lord. Perhpas indicating that to confess Jesus is Lord is to call on the name Yaua. Again this brings us back to I corinthians where the saints were "calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Is it a leigimate question to ask what is the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? And if it is could the name be Yaua.

Do we have any other evidence that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ is tied to Yaua. The Book of Acts, though not directly a part of out study, has Peter saying


F I V E
Where Paul is quoting Yaua for sure
S I X
Where Paul is quoting Adonai for sure
S E V E N
Where it is uncertain what he is quoting
Part B
E I G H T
Kurios Iesous and his place in Pauline Literature
N I N E
The Meaning of the Words
T E N
The Role of the Words as a Confession at Baptism

Romans was written from Corinth around AD 55/56 winter (Murphy O Connor pp 104-105) or in AD 57 Barker(1985 p1665).

Romans 10:9
"Hoti ean homologeses to rema en to stomati sou oti Kurios Iesous kai pisteuses en to kardia sou
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart
Hoti ho Theos auton egeiren ek nekron sothese. Kardia gar pisteuetai eis dikaisunen stomati de omologeitai eis soterian
That God raised from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation."

The passage draws our attention again because of the apparent simplicity of the action to believe that Yeshua had risen from the dead by God's power and to confess or say the words Kurios Iesous. The result being salvation. There are a number of issues raised by this text in the context of Pauline Theology and the New Testament. For example where is the Christ and him crucified of I Corinthians? What does it means to confess Kurios Iesous? What does it mean to be saved? Saved from what and perhaps even saved for what? Our need however is really to understand what we are confessing when we say "Kurios Iesous" and what is the significance of saying or confessing in the mind of the first century Church of AD 52- AD 57.

The Role of Confession
At least three aspects of the confession Kurios Iesous need to be explained. The first is the significance of confession in the New Testament and first century Church as opposed to the thinking of the words Kurios Iesous. Secondly the meaning of the words actually expressed and why those words carry so much significance. And what perhaps are they equivalent to in Paul's pre Apostolic Pharisaism? What did those words mean to the Jews who they were confessed by or among and what did they mean to the Greeks and the Barbarians who confessed them. Thirdly How is it that by saying them salvation could operate in the confessor. And why is it that to Paul the whole universe and plan of God is moving towards the confession Kurios Iesous Christos.

Confession, Proclamation, Speech and Sayings
The early Church had as Scripture the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms. The Church had a message the life death and resurrection of their Lord Jesus Christ. Before the letter to the Philippians around AD 52-54, it would appear that very little literature had gone out into the Church. Even if we accept AD 45 as a possible date for James it still represents a miniscule amount of literature for the 15 years since the birth of the Church of Mashiach on Shavuoth AD 30. The reason for this is clear the Church was sent to make disciples (matheteusate) to baptize them (baptitzontes autous) teaching (didascontes) the same disciples to observe the commands Yeshua had given the disciples by the words of his mouth.
According to Mark (16:16) the Apostles were commissioned to preach (cherutsate) the good news to all creation (paseh teh chtisei) and everyone who believed and was baptised would be saved (sothesetai) would person not believing would be condemned (katachrithesetai) or judged against. Again in Luke(24:44-9) we have the idea that the Church is sent to proclaim (herald) the message which would usually go beyond mere writing into speech. Luke's words again have parallels with Roman (10:9) and are worth seeing
"Thus it is written that Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and repentance for forgiveness and (for) forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in (on the bases of) his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Here in common with Romans10 we have the resurrection and a notice of the name, salvation is missing and baptism is missing . We may ask is this the name simply as in authority? Or is it the name as in the name he received after the resurrection which Paul gives us in Philippians 2:9 which most scholars hold to be the tetragrammaton, Yaua This name then on baptism would be confessed, the person then would not be judged against, but saved. In Matthew and Mark baptism is seen as an essential ingredient of the Apostolic proclamation. But in Luke it is missing altogether. Luke in early Church tradition, in the book of Acts (see chapter 21-where Luke uses We when travelling with Paul) and 2 Timothy 4:11, is considered a close associate with Paul. And Paul distinguishes between preaching, which he considered his mission and baptizing which he did but was not sent to do. As he said in 1 Corinthians "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" So for Paul words (admittedly not clever or eloquent words 1 Cor 1) were very important.
The Church then of the first century saw preaching, sayings, speech, combined with Baptism and faith, as very powerful and it was the means appointed to build the Church and spread the gospel.




E L E V E N
The Role of the Words as a saying in the Spirit a "prophetic level" saying
1 Corinthians O Connor (1996) dates as April / May, AD 54 and was written from Ephesus, towards the end of Paul's residence in there
I Corinthians 12
"Peri de ton pneumatikon adelphoi ou thelo umas agnoein…gnoritzo umin hoti oudeis en
Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren I would not have you ignorant. Wherefore I give you to understand that no man
pneumati Theou lalon legei Anathema Iesous , kai oudeis dunati eipein Kurios Iesous ei meh en pneumati agio"
speaking by the spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord , but by the Holy Ghost"
This passage draws our attention not because they who are speaking by the Holy Spirit will not say Jesus be accursed, because this would appear quite naturally. Indeed it is very likely that Paul is giving this instruction because some one carried away in the Corinthian meeting cried out "Anathema Iesous". And the Church not being wise in the discerning of spirit's accepted it as a word in the Holy Spirit. However at least one person got upset and reported to Paul along with the complaints about every one speaking in tongues and no one interpreting. So even as Moses gave instruction how to judge whether a word came from Yaua or no so Paul gives instructions to discern whether a word came from the Spirit or no. John gives similar instruction about discerning the Spirit of Antichrist. What draws out attention is when Paul states "No one is able to say Kurios Iesous" except in Pneumati Agio. We also know that people can mouth the word "Jesus is Lord' and walk away the same way they came. So the problem here is what does Paul mean by this statement. His advice is to inform the Corinthians about spiritual activities.
It is the absoluteness of Paul's statement that leaves a problem which needs addressing. What does it actually mean to say kurios iesous. And is it as W Harold Mare in his comment in the NIV Study Bible pg1750, notes that someone is saying not "Jesus is master" or "Jesus is Lord" using the word kurios to reflect the Hebrew word adonai (emphatic form of Adon) or adon (from an unused root meaning to rule, sovereign or controller) but rather that some one saying Jesus is Yaua that is to say Jesus is "God of Israel the Creator of the heavens and the earth. That when a Jew proclaims "Shema Yisrael Yaua Eloheinu Yaua Echad" They are referring to Jesus the Messiah who was crucified, buried rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven? For a Hellenistic Greek are they saying that the man Jesus who walked the earth in material flesh is the same "To On" (The Existent) of Philo or the same deity who Josephus in his conservative Pharisaism refuses to talk about for his name is ineffable. To be sure to Philo as a Hellenistic Greek coming from a philosophical background influenced by Plato, the Stoics and even the Sophists, name was not a glorifying thing for his 'To on' but a concession to the weakness of material man. To Josephus it was too holy to be uttered. If indeed Paul is saying Kurios Iesous means Jesus is Yaua it would mean there was a time that to say such a thing would to him be blasphemous on two counts. The first would be to say the name and the second would be to identify the man Jesus with the creator. to Once he was a Pharisee and to them the name of Yaua could only by used once a year by the high priest in the temple on Yom Kippour. If someone used the name elsewhere they would be accused of blasphemy and could be stoned to death, Stephen is a case in point. He was stoned to deaf however it is not certain if it was the legal process or mob violence which brought this about.The fact that he was tried and witnesses brought and the fact that he was taken outside the city and stoned all point to legal procedure. The fact that they rushed together upon him and dragged out of the city suggest a mob in action. But looking at is from the legal angle. For what was he stone? Blasphemy. But Klausner(1944) makes a very pertinent point the death penalty should only be applied if he named the name itself.

Stephen is a case in point. He was stoned to deaf. However it is not certain if it was a the legal process or mob violence which brought this about. The fact that he was tried, witnesses brought in, taken to the edge of the city and stoned all point to a due legal process. Baird (1971 pg 739) believes the fact that the mob "cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse" suggests mob violence. He was taken out and stoned. And why then was he stoned for according to Klausner (1944 pg 292) the Mishnah (in the Talmud) asserts "the blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the name itself". According to record of Luke, Stephen had just said "Behold I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God". So there were no grounds for his conviction. However it appears possible that the confession about "The Son of Man being at the right hand of God" may have reached the level of blasphemy in first century Judaism because Yeshua on making the same confession, not long before, was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.
The point is clear, although our launching point was the Church in Corinth in southern Greece or Achaia, the Church in Phillipi northern Greece or Macedonia, both places outside Eretz Yisrael and not part of the seven Toparchies of Judea proper where the Sanhedrin would have had authority, we can still say that if in Hebrew the early Church made as the Confession, Yeshua is Yaua, this would have been counted as blasphemy. This would go far to explaining why the Pharisees and Paul persecuted that name to the death and sought to have the disciples blaspheme.
T W E L V E
The words in the life of the Church and the believer

T H I R T E E N
The Role of Kurios Iesous as a confession of the whole creation
Philippians 2: 9-11
. We hold that Philippians was written, not in Paul's Roman or Caeserian imprisonment, but in his inferred Ephesian imprisonment, during the years AD 52-AD 54.
"Dio kai ho Theos auton uperupsosen Kai echarisato auto to onoma to uper pan onoma
Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name
Ina en to onomati Iesou pan gonu kampse Epouranion kai epigeion kai katachthonion
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of the things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth
Kai pasa glossa exomologesetai hoti "Kurios Iesous Christoseise" doxan Theou
Patros"
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father

To Paul then this confession is the ultimate confession of the entire heavens, earth, and under the earth. The whole result of Yeshua's incarnation, humiliation on the cross, resurrection and ascension is the glory of God the Father. And when all the universe confesses Kurios Iesous Christos God the Father gets the glory. So this text is here because it very universal scope challenges ask to ask the question Why is the confession "kurios iesous christos" so important?






Appendix 1
The Scriptures of the Early Church

The Church in Israel was living in a nation which had been reconstituted after is exile to Babylon. Around 586 BC they had been exiled and began to return in about 539 BC. A community of Hebrews continued and in Babylon but the language of Judah or Hebrew was becoming less and lee know and the language of Babylon Aramaic was becoming the lingua franca for the Ordinary Jews. In order of them to understand the scriptures they needed translation from Hebrew into Aramaic. The Persian empire of Cyrus, which ruled in Eretz Israel from around 539 BC to 332 BC used Aramaic. So the use of Translators increased and the Targumim were developed. Hence from eretz Yisrael eastward the scripture was in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Greeks.
In 334 BC Alexander the Great defeated the successor to Cyrus, and in 332 BC he took eretz Israel. And the process of the spread of Greek culture Hellenization, from Egypt to India took place after his death in 323 BC. The diadochi or four generals of Alexander took over his kingdom. In Syria the dynasty of the Seleucids took over and in Egypt the Ptolemies ended up in control. Eretz Israel came under the rule of either one of these families. The communi9ties were speaking dialects of Greek. In Egypt the family of Ptolemy saw Lagi Soter take the rule of Egypt in 323 BC. He ruled until 285BC. His son was Philadelphus (285-246 BC). He had a very large library and it is reckoned that he desired to have all the books of the world in his library. He heard of the Jewish scriptures and commissioned a translation under his librarian Demetrius. Thus began the beginning of the Pentatuech or Torah into Greek. The work of translation is believed to have continued over the next two centuries. The Greek Scriptures continued as dominant in the Hellenistic world even when the Romans took over. And the languages in the west of the empire were Greek. In Alexandria, Greek, in Eretz Israel the scriptures were the Masoretic Text (MTT), the Targums in Aramaic and the versions of a Greek text Lxx were in use. In the north, in Syria, the Lxx (Septuagint) or another the Old Greek were in use. Lxx, in the major cities like Antioch but if you went out to the villages Syriac a dialect of Aramaic was in use in the Synagogues and they had the forerunner to a text known as the Peshitta meaning simple in Aramaic. Over in the east in the area of Edessa Nisibus there were Greek speaking people but the text in use was probably a Masoretic tradition Syriac text, probably the Peshitta. So as the Church arose out of the synagogues, the community scripture would become the bible of that Church


The Scriptures of Paul
By the times of the first century BC, there were then scripture in a number of languages available.
The Scripture was divided into the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms. They were read in the synagogue each Shabbat and as we can see from Acts, Paul had the policy of going into the town and finding the synagogue and joining the worship on Shabbat. During this service the Torah would be read and this was followed by the reading of the Haphtorah. Someone would then get up and give a word based on the reading or some other matter. In Eretz Yisrael as the Torah was read each verse (parasha) would be interpreted by the meturgeman (professional translator). In the Prophets the translation would take place after every three verses. In the end the Targumim took set form and were written.
Aramaic: The Targumim. The Targum was not read in the synagogue but private collection were permitted and could be read in private study.
The Targums were not always direct literal translations. Indeed they had the function of
1 Harmonising difficult texts
2 Reconciling Biblical texts to tradition
3 spread traditions
4 providing specificity for the listener

So we can hear the culture and beliefs of the community where they operated. This is also true of the Greek versions of the Bible. They too included aggadic supplements in their version. They also were not only translated word for word but included addition and removals, for example in t book of Esther is longer in the LXX and the book of Job shorter, than the MT.

The First Century Scripture or Targums
Aramaic
1 Targum to Job: There is a tradition that one was circulating in the reign of Gamaliel I the teacher of the Apostle Paul.

2 Targum Onkelos: the official Babylonian Targum was redacted by the third century AD. From Israel and exported to Babylon. A literal translation, sometimes paraphrases are used and poetic portions reduced. They
Israeli Targums of Torah
3 Codex Neofiti I Galilean Targum

4 Targum Jonathan (Pseudo Jonathan in the West), Yerushalayim I (Galilean Jewish Aramaic)
free aggadic handling of the text, no figurative speech, no anthropomorphisms for God. Source of Jewish teachings during Talmudic period.

5 Fragmentary Targum (Yerushalayim II) 850 verses
three quarters history of the Penta one quarter Ex Lev Num Legal portions

Targum to the Prophets
1 Targum Jonathan. Orginated first centuries AD in Israel. Believed to be written by Jonatham ben Uzziel, Hillel's most famous student , first century BC. A voice came from heaven when he was translating it. "Who has revealed my secrets?Quoted in the Talmud by san 94b meg.3a mk 28b.
Aggad in Is 12:333:22,62:10, Mich 6:4

Syriac (Eastern Aramaic): Peshitta and other versions
A tradition says that this was made for King Abgar of Edessa who sent 5 scholars to Israel to translate the bile into Syriac. We can see this in the commentary of Bar Hebrseus to Psalm 10. Some identify King Abgar with King Izates II of Adiabene who converted to Judaism in the first century CE (Ant 20:69-71)
Greek Versions
1 The Lxx where the name of Yaua was regularly transliterated into Greek letters, or Aramaic letters or was left in paleo Hebrew.
After Paul.
2 Acquila second century
3 Theodotion (convert to Judaism) Tried to reconcile Septuagint to MT
4 Symmachus (samaritan or Christian)

Friday, November 17, 2006

The Zakar Yaua theory

Appendix 1 : The Zacar Yaua Thesis
The theory I posit 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 EliminationPhase. 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 Elimination 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 Identity 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 Identity Priestly Temple Function of Yaua
The Identity 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, judgments 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 Eliminationphase, 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 Memorial Phase
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 or Aramaic 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 source of this text is extremely ancient. Kutschner 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, The Torah, the Prophets and the Ketuvim. Jenni and Westermann (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament) give a total figure of 6828 occurrences of the name, Torah 1820, Prophets 3523 and Ketubim 1485. Andersen and Forbes agree with the total and give a distribution: Torah 1820, Former Prophets 1406, Latter Prophets 2117, Poetry 814 and Other Writings 671. The Masoretic text clearly represent a text in the Memorial Phase in terms of the written usage of the name. However according to evidence furnished by the Masoretes and other manuscript the Masoretes changed the name in at least 134 places to adonai. This would make a total of 6962 occurrences of the name in the text received but then changed by the Masoretes.
Although the Masoretic text (MT) is an exemplary example of a Memorial phase text, we see in the changes brought into a text a movement to the Rewriting Phase and finally to the Elimination Phase. The note of Ginsburg is worth observing:
We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonaī as if it were written אדני [’Adho·nai´] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.
(Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115,)
Thus according to Ginsburg the restriction on the use of the true name by this particular group within medieval Jewish Orthodoxy lead to changes in the text itself, whether by carelessness of copyists or deliberately in line with the whims of the particular copyist. This is apparently surprising when we read such injunctions in the MT itself as Deu 4:2 “Do not add (yasaph) to what I command and do not subtract from it, but keep the command of Yaua your God that I give you”. But not so surprising when we hear the concerns of Jeremiah regarding scribes of his time “How can you say “We are wise, for we have the Torah of Yaua when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely” (Jer 8:8).
The pen of the Masoretes has had much influence on both Jewish and Christian traditions regarding the name. Whilst the pen preserved the name Yaua in approximately 6828 places of the present text they supposedly added vowel points to four letters yod he vav he which did not present the true reading of the name. These additions have caused great division in traditional and academic community regarding the true vocalization of the name.
Zakar Yaua Theory and the Actions of the Masoretes
In the text of the 24 books of the Tanakh the Masoretes added varying sets of vowels according to the relationship of the name Yaua to the letters and words around it. There seem to be four main sets of vowel points.
1 Yehoah: The letters and vowels read yod shewa heh holem vav qametz heh. The vowel points usually said to be those used for Adonai so that on seeing the vowels the reader ignores the name Yaua and reads a replacement in this case Adonai. However if one turns to Adonai in the MT he does not find these vowel points but shewa-patach holem and qametz. Thus Adonai is spelt aleph,shewa-patach daleth holem nun qametz yod. Although they are different it is maintained among some scholars that shewa holem qametz are directing the reader to shewa-patach holem and qametz and to Adonai which is supported by Adonai being written into the margin of some texts.
The differences had lead some scholars to question the thesis that the pointing is designed to indicate Adonai and may in fact indicate how the name was understood to have been vocalized. There is evidence that Yehoah was in use by 1270. In that year it appears in Raymond Martin’s Pugio Fide. Van der Diesche (Drusius 1550-1616) first ascribed it to Peter Galatin, Pope Leo X’s confessor, and many have followed this opinion. He used it in Arcanis Catolicæ Vertatis (1518, folio xliii). Fagius (Buchlein 1504-1549) followed Galatin in its use (97 Hastings). In the ninteenth century Yehoah was defended by Stier, Hebr. Lehrgebaude and Holemann (Bibelstudien).
It is not only the “holiness” of the name which affects its treatment, it very frequency of occurrence also has an influence. According to Davidson (100) in the ketibh Qere model the ketibh is the consonantal text. When the Masoretes wanted to indicated a reading alternative to what was actually written the vowels of the reading were placed under the ketibh and “the consonants which could not find a place in the text , were set in the margin. This recommended reading is” Qere. A small circle over the ketibh draws attention to the margin. Where the Masoretes substitute along with the word qri . Davidson gives the example of Gen 24:14. The word in the text is hanaar the margin reading is hanaarah. However according to Davidson this procedure is not followed in the case of Yaua. “In the case of [Yaua] and a few other words of very frequent occurrence, the Qere is not placed in the margin, but its vowels are simply inserted in the text” (Davison 41). Thus frequency of occurrence affects the treatment of the name.

The Hebrew grammars as developed by modern Hebraists (For before Saadia of Gaon of the ninth century there were no Hebrew Grammars), justify the difference on assumed or derived rules of Hebrew grammar they have used. In this academic tradition the name Yehowah is seen as grammatically impossible or as a hybrid which the ignorant late medieval Christians introduced into their tradition. Many European translators have been influenced directly by this tradition. Thus the translators of the Revised Standard Version (1973) indicate:
A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but every where, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the Kings James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translator and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh”, this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached the vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”).… The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word…For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (I) the word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church. (RSV, 1973,vii)
As can be seen this modern translation justifies the Rewritng Phase by arguing that the vowel points use the Masoretes placed on Yaua belonged to another word. And thus since Yehovah had supposedly not ever been used in Hebrew it should not be used in translation. However this still left justification for putting their proposed favored “Yahweh” into the text. However this case was removed on the basis of the theology of the translators, they decided philosophically that a name, despite the vast majority of the Biblical writings presenting solid evidence that the God who spoke to the prophets had a proper name, was unnecessary and so eliminated the name Yaua from their translation completely. It is true that the statement of the Committee is vague or inaccurate on almost every single line. The issues will be taken up as we develop the Zakar Yaua thesis. For now we recognize two things: The vowel points of Yaua are different from those of Adonai and this will be thousands of the cases. In the three cases where Yaua is used as part of a proper name the Yehowah form is used. Thus we have according to the vowel pointing of the masoretes
Yehoah elohim (He who causes the mighty ones)
Yehoah el olam (He who causes God eternal)
Yehoah tzevaoth (He who causes the hosts)
Yehoah yireh (He who causes will see),
Yehoah nisi (He who causes my banner),
Yehoah tzidkenu (He who causes our righteousness),
Yehoah shalom (He who causes peace),
Yehoah shammah. (He who causes place)
These readings are based on the interpretation of Botterweck and Ringgren of the name Yaua.
In the MT Elimination Phase oral reading tradition each of these meanings is changed completely.

Adonai elohim (my Lord mighty ones)
Adonai el olam (My lord God eternal
Adonai yireh My Lord will see
Adonai nisi My Lord my banner
Adonai tzidkenu My Lord our righteousness
Adonai Shalom My Lord Peace
Adonai Shammah My Lord Place

Although the RSV (1973) committee understands Adonai to mean “Lord” and some scholarship and usage support this position the pronominal suffix, yod and the Maimonides indicate the letters aleph daleth nun yod mean either my Lord or my Lords.
2 Yehovih The second way the Masoretes pointed the letters gives the reading Yehovih. The letters and points are yod shewa segol heh holem vav hireq heh This pointing occurs when the name Yaua and Adonai occur together in the Masoretic text. Theses point are the same as those by which Elohim aleph shewa-segol lamed holem heh yod hireq mem is pointed. During this elimination phase the fact that the eliminators of the name have chosen a one of the titles of Yaua to replace his name causes them a problem. Adonai and Yaua are combined in the MT approximately 294 times.[1]
Thus in these cases where the reading tradition would require Adonai Adonai

A comparison of the reading of a text in the Memorial and Phase and one in the Rewritten Phase can be illustrated. A memorial phase reading of Numbers 6:24 –27 will illustrated the differences very starkly.
Memorial Phase Forgotten Phase
Yaua bless you and keep you Adonai bless you and keep you
Yaua make his face shine upon you Adonai make his face shine upon you
And be gracious to you and be gracious to you
Yaua life up his face upon you Adonai life up his face upon you
And give you peace and give you peace

The effect of the practice is to completely replace the actual name of the God of Abraham in the text. It is true that usually what we have in the first case is the written text and what we have in the Forgotten Phase is the text of the oral tradition but as generations past some may arise who never knew the memorial name Yaua and may grow up believing that Adonai is the name of their God.[2]
The danger of this occurring is recognized in the MT itself. Those who see the danger represent the groups who would be among those seeking with their utmost to preserve the name in text and in usage. The first example is Psalm 20, attributed to David. The Psalm is in some sense devoted to the name of God beginning with:
Yaua hear thee in the day of trouble
The name of the God of Jacob defend thee
Here we see the name in what might be considered a power function. The name Yaua is answer by “the name of the God of Jacob” in the parallelism. The whole Psalm has an interest in the power and memorial function of the name. Verse seven emphasizes the importance of remembrance directly in another parallel:
Some trust in chariots, Some trust in horses
But we will remember the name of Yaua our God
Yaua save the king
Veanachnu bashem Yaua eloheinu mazcir…
Yaua hoshia ha melech
There is a clear attachment to the name Yaua in the text which precludes a substitutes because Yaua was given as the memorial (zeker) to Moses in the Torah. The prayer is mizmor ladavid a Psalm to or for David. It is clear from the context of the psalm written as a prayer for the king. It is most likely then that those assigned to the role of encouraging the king were the ones who would be praying this prayer or singing this mizmor. This would place it among the Levites and the Priests who were given the task of upholding the king before God. They were also the ones assigned by God to the ministry of his name. The fact that they affirm that they will mazcir (remember ) the name of Yaua as opposed to trusting in chariots or horses indicates the belief in the power of the name of God to defend the king, but also the recognition of a threat to the name from these other sources which could lead to the forgetting of the name.
A text in MT Jeremiah also recognizes this danger, as we mentioned earlier.
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 neighbor,
As their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal
This tendency among parts of Israel to move into the forgetting phase or even to have certain persons planning to cause the people to forget the name is seen by some Israelites as leading to dire consequences and it is seen as a reason for Yaua to judge and punish Israel:
To forget Yaua’s name is the same as forgetting him:
All this is come upon us;
Yet we have not forgotten(shakach) thee…
If we have forgotten the name of our God
Or stretched out our hand to a strange god (al zar)
Shall not God (alohim) search this out.
The assumption is that if they had forgotten the name there would be some justification for what had come upon them. The contrast between the name of Israel’s God, Yaua, and that of strange gods, for example, Ashur or Molech, that is those of other names, is also brought out in the MT Torah. The remembrance of the names of other gods is proscribed “make no mention (Lo tizkiru) of the names of other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth (la yishma al piqa) (Ex 23:13). It is clear the proscription is to do with the vocalization or the speaking of the names of other deities. The verb zakar, that is connected with the name Yaua as memorial (Ex 3) is that referred to in the proscription. Thus although it is clear that the reference to the name refers not simply to the speaking and the writing of the name the encouragements to remember Yaua and serve him most definitely include the recognition of the personal name as a name to be used in various functions, for example to prophesy, praise and make oaths.
The Memorial Phase of the use of the name in the MT sees then a group who were out to protect and guard the use of the name. They even understood that the forgetting of the name would be justification for certain judgments. In the MT Memorial phase of the name many formulaic expressions were developed which used the name. Examples of the Rewriting Phase indicate that some of these expressions are retained but in the Elimination Phase Yaua completely disappears from these expressions and is replaced by a more general or common noun which later takes on features of a proper noun as though it exclusively referred to Yaua. There are a number of texts which exhibit both the Rewriting Phase and the Elimination Phase inside MT. Below we can see many of the expressions developed in the Biblical period MT. When the manuscripts we have of the MT were being copied most of these expressions were not vocally in use. For the writers of the MT were people living the rest of their lives in the Rewriting or in the Elimination Phase. This is demonstrated in looking at the writings of the Talmud from the period, that is the 10th century AD onwards and Jewish tradition as summarized by such writers as Maimonides.


Prophet Might Power Priest and Temple Legal Authority Other
Yaua Tzevaoth Yaua eloheinu Chi Yaua
Yaua elohim Panai Yaua Yaua tzidkinu
pi Yaua has spoken Shem Yaua Yom Yaua
Malaq Yaua Shiru la Yaua Ani Yaua
Adonai Yaua Malaq Yaua beoz Yaua
Koh Amar Yaua Yaua yireh bigon shem Yaua elohaiv
Neum Yaua Behar Yaua Yireh vePasach Yaua
Ani Yaua eloheiqa amad liphnei Yaua venoqev shem Yaua mot yumat
Anoki Anoki Yaua Baruch haba beshem Yaua
Et Yad Yaua Ana Yaua hoshiah na
Yamin Yaua romeimah Ana Yaua hatlicha na
Vayera alaiv Yaua berchnuchem mibeit Yaua
Yaua natzav alaiv meet Yaua haitah
Sar tzava Yaua VaYaua hiphgia bo et avon kulano
Adonai Yaua shalachani
Vanacham alaiv Ruach Yaua
Koh Amar Yaua Tzevaoth
Naam adonai Yaua shuvu
Merahoq Yaua narah
Ki ani Yaua (eloheiqa,
Qadosh Israel moshieqa)
Ruach adonai Yaua alai
Mashach Yaua oti
Liqro shanat ratzon laYaua
Mata Yaua lehitpaer
Veatah amar Yaua
Hayiphaleh meYaua davar?
The Priestly Uses

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").



















Appendix 1 The 134 Extra Places
The 134 Changes
In 134 places the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to ’Adho·nai´. Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonaī as if it were written אדני [’Adho·nai´] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.”
Following is a list of these 134 places, according to Gins.Mas, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26, § 115:
Ge 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32; 19:18; 20:4; Ex 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9, 9; Nu 14:17; Jos 7:8; Jg 6:15; 13:8; 1Ki 3:10, 15; 22:6; 2Ki 7:6; 19:23; Ezr 10:3; Ne 1:11; 4:14; Job 28:28; Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17, 22, 23; 37:13; 38:9, 15, 22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11, 17, 19, 22, 26, 32; 73:20; 77:2, 7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15; 89:49, 50; 90:1, 17; 110:5; 130:2, 3, 6; Isa 3:17, 18; 4:4; 6:1, 8, 11; 7:14, 20; 8:7; 9:8, 17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6, 8, 16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14, 16; 49:14; La 1:14, 15, 15; 2:1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20; 3:31, 36, 37, 58; Eze 18:25, 29; 21:9; 33:17, 20; Da 1:2; 9:3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 19; Am 5:16; 7:7, 8; 9:1; Mic 1:2; Zec 9:4; Mal 1:12, 14.
We restored the original reading in 133 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.” The only exception is Ps 68:26, where BHK and BHS already have the Tetragrammaton.—See Ps 68:26 ftn, “Jehovah.”
Eight Other Changes
According to Gins.Int, pp. 368, 369, in some instances the Jewish Sopherim substituted ’Elo·him´ for the Tetragrammaton. We restored the original reading in eight places and rendered it as “Jehovah,” namely, in Ps 14:1, 2, 5; 53:1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
Thus we restored the Tetragrammaton in the above 141 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.”


[1] This is based on a manual count using the Strongs concordance where Yaua has ben translated God.