Justin Martyr and the name Yaua
Thesis: The influence of Greek philosophical ideas and extra biblical traditions, upon Justin Martyr lead him to depart in some respects from the position of the Scripture that God has a proper and eternal name.
Outline
Introduction
IThe proper name of God in Justin Martyr writings and the sources
A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
1 Scripture Sources
2 Other Sources
B Hortatory Address to the Greeks
1 Scriptures compared
2 Greek thinking compared
C First Apology and Second Apology
1 Scriptures compared
2 Greek thinking compared
II The Idea of Name of God pre Christian
A Hellenistic
B Biblical Background
III The proper name Yahwah in the Scriptures
A Exodus 3 and Exodus 6
C Jeremiah 4
D Acts 2 and Revelation
Conclusion
Thesis: The influence of Greek philosophical ideas and extra biblical traditions, upon Justin Martyr lead him to depart in some respects from the position of the Scripture that God has a proper and eternal name..
Introduction
The name of God is a very vital part of the Biblical tradition. We read throughout the scripture of the importance of the name Yahwah[1]. The issue of whether God should or could have a proper name has been an issue debated in religious history for thousands of years. We see that from Gen 4:26 where men began to call on the name Yahwah to Rev 22:4 where it says the name of the Lamb shall be on the foreheads of the servants of the Lamb after the curse on mankind has been removed, that the idea of the name of God held importance in biblical theology. In the Catholic Theology of the Catechism the name is seen as connected with Yahwah’s revelation of himself.
God revealed Himself to his people Israel by making his name known to them. A name expresses a person’s essence and identity and the meaning of this person’s life. God has a name; he is not an anonymous force[2]…God revealed himself progressively and under different names to his people, but the revelation that proved to be the fundamental one for both the Old and the New Covenants was the revelation of the divine name to Moses in the Theophany of the burning bush, on the threshold of the Exodus and of the covenant on Sinai”[3]
The Scripture makes clear and the Catholic catechism agrees that God has a name. And I would go further and assert that the name is not just an appellation but is a proper name even absolute related to the very nature of God. We also see that the Catholic tradition holds that the name reveled to Moses at the Burning Bush in Exodus 3 is the “fundamental one” for both the Old and the New Covenant communities. This then begs the question: What is this name that reveals the essence, identity and meaning of God’s life ?
In revealing the mysterious name, YHWH (I Am He Who Is,” or I Am Who Am”, or “I AM Who I Am”) God says who he is and by what name he is to be called[4]
The Catholic Catechism then recognizes that what Yahwah revealed of himself in his name to Moses was not just accidental but essential to his nature. It was reflecting what Greeks might call his physis[5] his true unbegotten nature. We will do well then to look at what Yahwah actually said regarding his name to Moses. Having told Moses he was Eheyeh asher Eheyeh in Exod 3:14 (translated by some as I am: that is who I am which in context could equally be translated “I will be what I will be”[6] and by the Septuagint as ‘Ego Eimi Ho On” (I am He who is) Moses is told to tell Israel Eheyeh sent him to them. However up to this point Yahwah has only begun to answer the question what should Moses say if Israel asked them the name of the God of their fathers.[7] Some commenatators understand this answer to be an avoidance of giving a name to God[8]. However he goes on to give Moses further instructions to give to Israel tell them:
“Yahwah, God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, hath sent me to you”
So Moses is told to tell them Yahwah their father’s God has sent him. By now perhaps it seems that Moses must tell Israel two things Eheyeh sent him and Yahwah God of their father’s sent him. Did one of these represent his proper name? Yahwah explained to Moses about the name Yahwah
“This is my name forever, and this is my memorial (Zichron) to all generations”.
So Yahwah not only declares his name but declares that it is eternal and will be the means by which the nation of Israel in every generation will call him in particular to remembrance[9]. In Exodus 6 God confirms to Moses that Yahwah is his name by contrasting it with an appellation or title.
I appeared unto Abraham unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by El Shaddai, but by my name Yahwah was I not known to them?”[10]
Again Yahwah confirms that he has a name and does so affirming Yahwah in many places of the scripture. We can add to these the scriptures, which tell Israel not to mention the names of other gods and the words of Jesus who said to Jerusalem “You will not see me again until you say Baruch Ha ba beshem Yahwah”[11]
In view of the importance of the name as represented in Scripture and The Catholic Catechism, we seek to explain the sources behind certain of Justin Martyr’s words regarding the name of God, especially those in his first Apology
“For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if anyone dare to say that there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness”[12]
And from his Hortatory address to the Greeks:
“For God can not be called by any proper name”[13]
Our problem then is this: Where as Scripture and the Catholic Catechism hold that God most definitely has a proper name, some of Saint[14] Justin’s teaching to the Greeks most clearly affirm that God can not be called by any proper name, and added to this is the idea that any one who dares to say that there is a name for God “raves with hopeless madness”. Our dilemma is added to by the fact that Justin is quoted in the Catholic Catechism at least 11 times.
Background and Context of Saint Justin
Justin Martyr lived from around 110 AD until 165 AD was born in Flavius Napolis, in Samaria. In coming from Samaria he came from one of the early centers of Gnosticism and Heresy. It was the area where Simon Magus came from who is considered by many Church fathers as the father of heresy.[15] This a very important time in Church history it is the first post apostolic generation. Saint Justin acts as an eyewitness for us as to the earliest Churches practices, traditions and even scriptures. The only post apostolic writings in the Church before him are the Apostolic Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome (AD 96), Letter to Diognetus[16], the Epistle of Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, fragments from Papias, Didache. These were the earliest post Apostolic writings of the Church and were followed by Saint Justin. He is numbered among the Apologists, men who rose up in the late second century to defend the Church against those who were assailing her from the outside. His extant writings are all apologies of one sort or another. And during this period his contemporary apologists include: Quadratus Bishop of Athens who presented an Apology to Hadrian(117-138), Aristides of Athens (138-161) who like saint Justin presented a defense to to emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161), Athenagorus of Athens who wrote Supplication for the Christians to emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180), Marcus Municius Felix who wrote a dialogue between a Pagan and a Christian called Octavius, Tertullian of Africa the father of Latin theology in the Church, Tatian the Assyrian who was a disciple of saint Justin and the author of Diatessaron.[17] He was a gentile born in Flavia Neapolis Samaria near the well of Jacob. He was for much of his life a roving philosopher. He was once a Stoic then a Peripatetic (a follower of Aristotle’s teaching), also a Neo Pythagorean pondering music and number and also a Neo Platonist. He then became a Christian and saw in the old philosphers men who pointed to Christ among the Greeks. He wrote a number of apologies and they were addressed to Antoninus Pius (138-161AD). We see that that Justin Martyr fitted quite well into the period as an Apologist. He was also very influential in the Church and his students went on to impact the development of the Church in both the East with Tatian and his Diatesarron and the West with Hippolytus who in his Refutation of all Heresies is held by Lietzman[18] to continue Justin’ line of Apology where in Greek philosophers are held to have seen some of the light of the Logos.[19] His literary style then is typical of the Church of the second and third centuries including Letters of Apology, Dialogues[20] and Hortatory Addresses.
We see from the above that he was living during the rule of Emperors Hadrian (117-138), Antonius Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). He traveled extensively and is held to have died as a martyr (witness, confessor) in the reign of Marcus Aurelius around 165 AD. He was one of the earliest of the Christian Apologists who rose up to defend the faith in the second century period when writing of Christians were scant. He debated both Greeks and Jews and carried out extensive discussion in the Dialogue with Trypho is an indicator of those activities. Our interest is in Justin's attitude to the name of God.
This will help us to understand how the fledgling Church in its first post apostolic generation began to develop its theology regarding the proper name of God. It is the attitude of Justin regarding God’s proper name that we are interested in not simply his name as in his reputation, or his name as in his appellations and attributes but his proper which is revealed in scripture as Yahwah (YHWH) known as the Tetragrammaton.
The proper name of God in Justin Martyr writings and the sources
Hortatory Address to the Greeks
In this treatise Justin Martyr is exhorting the Greeks to turn to the One God in his son Jesus Christ. He is playing out his role as an evangelist. One approach he takes in doing this is to show that in abandoning the customs of his fathers and leaving behind the Greek way of life and worship he was acting reasonably. In the process of his case he asserts that God did not reveal his proper name to Moses;
“For having heard in Egypt that God had said to Moses when he was about to send him to the Hebrews ‘I am that I am’ He understood that God had not mentioned to him his own proper name”[21]
So Justin Martyr is one of the commentators who on reading Yahwah saying to Moses “Eheyeh asher Eheyeh”, he sees this as being an avoidance of applying a proper name to God. He clearly also had access not only to the LXX but perhaps also to the Hebrew text or another Greek translation of the Hebrew[22]. For the LXX uses “I am he who is”. The comment which he makes here regarding the revelation of God’s name to Moses ignores the fact that Yahwah went on immediately after stating Eheyeh asher Eheyeh to say to Moses
“Yahwah…hath sent me to you…This is my name for ever, my memorial to all generations.” [23] And to confirm that Yahwah is actually the name, the author of Exodus goes on to explain in chapter 6 that by his name Yahwah did he not make himself known, and this is affirmed in contrast to El Shaddai or as the LXX has it “thy God”. In light of this we must wonder why saint Justin felt it important to depart from the text of Exodus in this manner? Our investigation is helped by something Justin Martyr says in the next chapter:
“For God cannot be called by any proper name for names are given to mark out and distinguish their subject matters because these are many and diverse” (chap 21).
So perhaps we see here a development of Justin’s argument with some of the Greek thinkers. First he asserts that God did not reveal a name to Moses, and secondly he asserts “God can not be called by any proper name”. If we look at these statements together, bearing in mind that one reason for him right is to show the reasonable of the faith of the Church, we see that Justin is arguing that because the purpose of a proper name is to mark out one kind in a class from another, the true God can not have a name because he is only one. There is no other kind in his class. Secondly the God who revealed himself to Moses in showing that he is alone and the only God with existence, as opposed all the gods of the nations who do not exist, revealed himself in this line of logic by not giving a proper but only an appellation.
The idea of God having no proper name compared with Scripture
If we look at this argument in the light of scripture clearly a number of objection could be raise against it. Firstly it is clear from scripture that Yahwah applies the title Elohim of god both to himself and to the elohim acherim of the other nations. This can be seen clearly from even the covenant at Sinai where Yahwah says I am Yahwah your Elohim…You shall not take for yourselves any elohim besides me”. And added to this we have a number of scriptures which indicate that the Torah and the Prophets recognized a class of being called elohim. The phrases elohim acherim, elohei nekar, elohim chadashim, elohei ha amim all used in scripture indicate that there are beings out there which were in the class of elohim or el and which Yahwah the Elohim of Israel needed to be set apart from, thus leaving a very good reason for a holy name to indicate the God who is thrice holy. Then there is the teaching in the Torah which actually compares the names of the elohim acherim with the name Yahwah as in Deuteronomy 18:20
But the prophet who shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or shall speak in the name of other elohim, even that prophet shall die
There are also two other points which could be raised against the argument that Elohim didn’t mention a name and didn’t need to because there were no other elohim. The first springs from the fact that God commands Israel not to mention the names of elohim acherim.[24] In contrast to this elohim did say to Pharoah in Exodus 9:16
And in very deed for this cause I have raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name[25] may be declared in all the earth.
These are spoken to the same Pharoah who said “Who is Yahwah that I should obey him?” It is clear then that in scripture God did have a proper name, which distinguished him from other elohim.
The argument which Justin later uses against this quoting Isaiah 44:6 is disqualified if only on the grounds that Isaiah is referring to a statement made hundreds of year later, in a different context and a different situation.
The Argument compared with Greek Philosophy
If then saint Justin did not develop the idea that God did not mention a proper name and could not have one was not derived from the authority of scripture used in context, we are left with the questions: Why did he use this argument? And where did the idea of God having no name come from?
The second question can be answered by the fact that we know the line of logic saint Justin was using. The authority was logic. It wasn’t necessarily handed down by a Hebrew or Church tradition. In this section we can turn to Kittel for enlightenment regarding the Hellenistic understanding of the function of names. For here the argument is based on the definition of the role and purpose of names.
In the Hermetic writings[26]…names serve to differentiate distinct things, and this is unnecessary with the one and all”[27] “Celsus is thinking along these lines when he regards the names of the one God as irrelevant Orig. Cel., I 24f Origen contradicts on this point. The Gnostics teach the same doctrine. For Basilides God is huperano pantos onomatos onomatzemenou, Hipp. Ref VII, 20”
So we see a school of thought, which assents to this idea in the period in which Justin was writing. It is according to Kittel a doctrine of late antiquity and as we have seen Kittel understands that the teaching is not biblical describing it as an “unbiblical doctrine of late antiquity”[28] Saint Justin is not alone in the Church in arguing this idea, for two other second or third century writers teach this. Clement of Alexander in his Al Stromateis V, 12, 78,3 and Minucius Felix 18:10. We will go a little bit deeper into this when we come to the Apologies of Justin. It is important to note that the idea of namelessness doesn’t appear to come up in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. It appears rather to be a focus of his writings to the Greeks. However it is from the Greeks that we have tradition going back relating to gods being worshipped who had no name:
“Herodot., II, 52 records as a tradition of the priestesses at Dodna that the Pelasgians worshipped gods without giving one of them a…name(onoma). The names of the gods came from Egypt, and an oracle allowed their use”
So we see that even at the time of Herodotus their were traditions regarding gods without names. This was a tradition going back to the roots of the idolatrous religion of the Greeks. Then there is Strabo’s story in book III, 4, 16 of a Celtic Iberian tribe whose “gods had not proper names.”[29] Since we saw above that the Biblical tradition included God having a proper name and the gods having proper names which Israel were commended not to mention, we can see that the root of the idea of god having no name is pagan. It is unlikely saint Justin was consciously following this pagan idea, but his idea on this subject appears to reflect it. I would suggest that in his zeal to deal with the polytheistic conceptions of the names of god in his day he used the argument as polemic against the pagan Greeks and Romans of his day. For by that time it was “considered a sign of godlessness for the gods to have no name”, that is godlessness to the polytheists.
His position then came from his reasoning from a definition of the term onoma which lead him to argue that God logically could have no proper name.
B First Apology and Second Apology
Saint Justin also has teaching on the God who is called by no proper name in his Apologies. Here he indicates that some how aGod without a proper names has characteristics of temperament “peculiar” to him. For he states:
He [God] accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in him, temperance and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name”[30]
The basis of acceptance of his followers is said to be linked to the fact that certain virtues are peculiar to him because he is called by no proper name. However it is difficult to consider of what he means by this. For he himself said in chapter 4 of the first Apology
By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from actions implied in the name”[31]
It would appear then that a god would not miss virtues just because he happen to have a name. We also see here a focus on a God being “called” by no proper name. Which may not disqualify him from having a proper name but rather just that it is not be used. But it would appear later on in the Apology Justin appear to assert that not only does God have a name but that this name does a lot more than distinguish him from other beings of the same class the God class. For he in speaking of the Baptism of those who believe states:
“In order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins the name of God the Father, and Lord of the Universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone”[32]
Here Justin clearly states in line with Scripture that the name of God the Father and that name alone is pronounced over the person being baptized. Here a number of problems Aside from his teaching on this point. Firstly it appears that he is not only saying that God has a name but that this name is pronounced over the person who had repented of their sins and chooses to be born again. His emphasis on “this name alone” makes us wonder how this is reconciled to Matthew 28:18-20 where the baptism is in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is cleared up by looking at chapter 61 where all tree are referred to regarding baptism. The pronouncing of the name of God the Father with baptism produces children of God. That is this name has power and efficacy and is more than simply a distinguishing mark. But here he definitely links a name with God. However he does not use the term proper name and so maybe referring to an appellation. However we are not out of the woods yet for Saint Justin goes on to say:
“For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if anyone dare to say that there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness”[33]
Now we have a number of problems which arise from this. We need to know is God the Father the same as the ineffable God? If this is the case what is the difference between utter and pronounce. Secondly to say no one can utter the name of the ineffable (unspeakable ) God is to imply that although the name is not spoken it does exist. However when he continues to say anyone who says there is a name he is raving with hopeless madness, we are in a very complicated situation. We need to wonder here, was Saint Justin effected Jewish tradition or other tradition in making this statement. It is possibly that he was effected by both. Sine he is on the subject of the unspeakable God we are immediately thrown back to traditions going back to Egypt, Babylon and the mystery religions. Legge in his Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity states
The ineffability of the divine names was an old idea in Egypt, especially in Osirian religion, where it forms the base of Ra and Isis. So the name of Osiris himself was said to be ineffable…The name of Marduk of Babylon is in the same way declared ineffable in an inscription of Neri… in every case a magical idea that the god might be compelled by utterance of his secret name seems to be the root of the practice
The source of this idea of the ineffable God or name of the ineffable God again can not be trace back to scripture. We see in scripture Boaz greeting his workers with the name Yahwah. We see David make solemn oaths using the name Yahwah. For example Yahwah do so to me and more if…is a regular saying in biblical tradition. The priest of Israel were commanded to put the name of Yahwah on the people by the three fold blessing which used the name Yahwah three times. During the late second temple period the priests would come out and bless the people every day and according to the late tradition we have in the Mishnah the name was used on this occasion as well as on Yom Kippor by the high priest 10 times.[34]
The aim of the authorities of the temple was to restrict the use of the name to the temple, so strictly speaking the name was not ineffable.
“How was the blessing of the priests carried out?... In the temple they pronounced the Name as written, but in the provinces with a substitute word”[35]. However by the time the Justin wrote the Temple had been destroyed for more than 70 years and by 95 AD Josephus was unwilling even to write anything about the name. So it may have appeared to Justin that the name Yahwah was ineffable rather than simple not spoken because the Temple had been destroyed.
It is unlikely that Josephus apparent out burst of censure on the one who dares to say “there is a name” came from his interaction with the Jews. It sounds more reasonable to say that he got into a discussion with a very clever philosopher and in the heat of the moment burst out “Your raving with hopeless madness”. However there is another was of looking at this “raving with hopeless madness”. There were prophetic personalities in the Hellenistic world who were considered to prophecy in a rave and the term mad was used to describe them. We have the Dionysian Cults who were described as going into a frenzy, raving and prophesying in Euripides the Bacchae. Then we have Virgil’s Aeneid VI:46 where the prophetess comes out eyes rolling and prophesying with hopeless madness. Perhaps Justin was hinting at people being taken over by a spirit and in their frenzied outburst they would dare to day God had a name. He knew the writings of Plato which said “no man achieves true and inspired divination in his rational mind”, that is he goes out of his mind and raves in madness.
Justin Martyr knew the scriptures extremely well. He must have been well aware that they taught that God had a name. That when the name Yahwah is used it is a proper name unlike Elohim which has suffixes to indicate it is a common noun become Elohai my God, Eloheiqa, your God , Eloheihem their God etc. Yahwah had not such possessive suffixes. Elohim had plural and singular Yahwah was simply a name there was no plural or definite article before Yahwah.[36] Whatever influences were working on Justin they must have been very strong to overrule the teaching of the scripture.
“And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless (anonomaston) God spake to Moses”[37]
Chapter XXXV.-Yet More Discrepancies. Just Now the Sex of Bythus Was an Object of Dispute; Now His Rank Comes in Question. Absurd Substitutes for Bythus Criticised by Tertullian. ANF Vol III Against the Valentinians
There are some who do not claim the first place for Bythus, but only a lower one. They put their Ogdoad in the foremost rank; itself, however, derived from a Tetrad, but under different names. For they put Proarche (Before the Beginning) first, Anennoetos (Inconceivable) second, Arrhetos (Indescribable) third, Aoratos (Invisible) fourth. Then after Proarche they say Arche (Beginning) came forth and occupied the first and the fifth place; from Anennoetos came Acataleptos (Incomprehensible) in the second and the sixth place; from Arrhetos came Anonomastos (Nameless) in the third and the seventh place; from Aoratos309 came Agennetos (Unbegotten) in the fourth and the eight place. Now by what method he arranges this, that each of these ¦ons should be born in two places, and that, too, at such intervals, I prefer to be ignorant of than to be informed. For what can be right in a system which is propounded with such absurd particulars?
Tertullian Five books against Marcion and speaking of his god
100 His suasion tells of other one, to none
E'er known, who nowhere is, a deity
False, nameless, constituting nought, and who
Hath spoken precepts none. Him he calls good;
Who judges none, but spares all equally,
Municipius Felix 18:10 The Octavius
Neither must you ask a name for God. God is His name. We have need of names when a multitude is to be separated into individuals by the special characteristics of names; to God, who is alone, the name God is the whole. If I were to call Him Father, you would judge Him to be earthly; if a King, you would suspect Him to be carnal; if a Lord, you will certainly understand Him to he mortal. Take away the additions of names, and you will behold His glory. What! is it not true that I have in this matter the consent of all men? I hear the common people, when they lift their hands to heaven, say nothing else but Oh God, and God is great, and God is true, and if God shall permit. Is this the natural discourse of the common people, or is it the prayer of a confessing Christian? And they who speak of Jupiter as the chief, are mistaken in the name indeed, but they are in agreement about the unity of the power.
Second Apology
“The angels began to be worshipped as gods after they had rebelled and bore children at the time of Noah. The sons were devils… For whatever name each had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them” (p 190 chap 5 Anf Vol 1)
“But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given…For by whatever name he be called, He has his elder the person who gives him the name” ( chap 6 ibid)
1 Scriptures compared
2 Greek thinking compared
C Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
1 Scripture Sources
2 Other Sources
In this passage Justin Martyr appears to be drawing out a number of points based on his own thinking and on tradition he has been taught. He is discussing Platos thinking and discussing with the Greeks. Clearly then his motivation in writing these things is to exhort the Greeks anmd perhaps especially the Philophers to listen to his reasoning. We might say this Hortatory Address to the Greek is a long Evangelistic tract designed for Greeks into Philosphy. He the select scriptures and explanations which would make his various points and persuade Greek Philosophers that Christian Philosophy is the best Philosphers but not addressing the teaching of scripture as a whole but rather with Hellesnistic glesses. For we see here Justin discussing the call of Moses and the revelation of God name to Moses and yet he says that Moses understood "that God had not mentioned to him his own proper name". However if we turn to the scripture which he is refelecting on we see that God did mention his own proper name and it was Yahwah. We can look below at the scriptural record of the revelation of God's name to Moses:
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I am come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me: What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM [Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh (I will be that I will be)] : and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you...The LORD [Yah'wah] God of your fathers , the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
It is clear from the text of scripture that a few seconds after God said to Moses I Am that is who I am or "I am he who is" as the Septuagint would read it he also told him a name. Yahwah...this is my name forever". So Josephus at this point departs from the scriptural contexts and focusses in on the first answer Yahwah gave to Moses and ignores the rest of the answer. And our question then is why did he do this? Was he following a Greek or Chrsitian tradition? Or was he following a school of logic?
As an Evanmgelist he was seeking to show to the Greeks that his position as a Christian and not a
Name and God in the New Testament
Name and God in Justin Martyr
Name and God in the Apostolic Fathers
Name and God in
(1) The Antenicene Fathers Vol 1 Trans Roberts A, Donaldson LL, Ed A Cleveland Coxe, Edinburgh T & T Clark, Michigan: WMB Eerdmans Company
[1] Starting in Gen 4:26 and ending in Revelation 22:4
[2] P55, 203 Catechism of the Catholic Church
[3] P56 ibid 205
[4] Strangely enough the Catechism goes on to say that the name is ineffable which will need to be reconciled to the fact that he is to be called by the name YHWH.
[5] As oppose to just being a mode of classification (nomos)
[6] The verb Eheyeh is the first common singular imperfect of the verb to be. It occurs also in Exodus 3:12 where it is uniformly translated a “I will be”.
[7] Some commentators have taken the question to indicate that Israel had forgotten the name of their fathers’ God whilst in bondage in Egypt. Others have also commented that this question meant much more than simple want the name to be said but was asking “What is this God capable of?”
[8] They see further evidence in the story of the Angel who spoke to Manoah and the one who spoke to Jacob asking “Why do you ask me my name seeing it is wonderful”? They also see evidence of this in the removal of the name Yahwah and its replacement with Elohim in certain Psalms c.f. Psalm 14 and 53
[9] We have here perhaps a parallel to the Eucharist where Jesus says do this in Remembrance of me (emen anamenasin or Zichroni). We take the bread and wine and we remember Jesus and at the same time proclaim his death, until he comes, we use the name Yahwah and we remember the God of Abraham etc
[10] This is the rendering of The Scriptures
[11] Matt 21:9, 23:39, Mar 11:9,10, Luke 13:35, 19;38, John 12:13
[12] pg 183 ANF Vol 1
[13] chap 21
[14] This is his title in the Catholic Catechism
[15] See Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, for a discussion
[16] Which is reckoned among saint Justin’s writings by some scholars.
[17] See Fremmantle, A, A Treasury of Early Christianity, (1953) for more detail
[18] Lietzmen The Founding of the Church Universal London: Lutterworth Press, 1938 repr. 1960
[19] Some Church Father like Tertullian were very much against Greek Philosophy and other streams like the Gnostics put Greek philosophy above Scripture and Church tradition see New Catholic Encyclopedia “Gnosticism”.
[20] Here perhaps he is following the approach of Plato.
[21] p 281 ANF Vol 1
[22] This is also clear from his discussion with Trypho the Jew where he refers to the fact that the Jews had removed certain text from their scriptures which were contained in the translation of the 70.
[23] We do not know what Justin would have read in his text. We know that the great majority of the Greek Manuscripts of the Jews at that time had God name Yahwah, written out either in Paleo Hebrew, Assyrian Square script, Greek letters representing Iao or Greek letters which look like YHWH, pi, iota, pi, iota. For evidence see Metzger, B Manuscripts of the Greek Bible New York: Oxford, 1981
[24] Joshua 23:7 and Exodus 20:13
[25] Although The Interpreters one volume Commentary on the Bible, Ed Laymon C, indicates that the word name here is reputation, it is clear that it mest represent a reptutation of some one or some thing. And in the context of the Pentatuech and Joshua it is clearly the reputation of Yahwah the God of the Hebrews, as opposed to the reputation of one by another name. This is confirmed by Jethro’s statemtn in chapter 18 “Now I know Yahwah in greater than all the elohim” and of Rachab later in Johsua when she meets the spies and speaks of Yahwah giving them the land.
[26] God is also anonymous in Max. Tyr.,2, 10 a
[27] p 250 Kittel Volume 5 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
[28] p 250 Kittel ibid
[29] p 248 Kittel ibid
[30] p 165 CX First Apology ANF
[31] p 164 ANF Vol I
[32] p183 ANF Vol I Chap 61
[33] pg 183 ANF Vol 1
[34] See Mishnah Yoma 3:8 see Lipman E., The Mishnah, Oral Traditions of Judaism, New York Schoken
[35] p183 Lipman, ibid
[36] Justin Martyr was aware the Jews had left out of their canon certain parts of the LXX. I do not know if this meant Trypho was using a Greek translation or a Hebrew text but Justin appears to be well read enough to know the translation difficulties in the LXX. In most manuscripts the name Yahwah would have been obvious to see, being often written in non Greek characters.
[37] pg 184 ANF Vol 1
Outline
Introduction
IThe proper name of God in Justin Martyr writings and the sources
A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
1 Scripture Sources
2 Other Sources
B Hortatory Address to the Greeks
1 Scriptures compared
2 Greek thinking compared
C First Apology and Second Apology
1 Scriptures compared
2 Greek thinking compared
II The Idea of Name of God pre Christian
A Hellenistic
B Biblical Background
III The proper name Yahwah in the Scriptures
A Exodus 3 and Exodus 6
C Jeremiah 4
D Acts 2 and Revelation
Conclusion
Thesis: The influence of Greek philosophical ideas and extra biblical traditions, upon Justin Martyr lead him to depart in some respects from the position of the Scripture that God has a proper and eternal name..
Introduction
The name of God is a very vital part of the Biblical tradition. We read throughout the scripture of the importance of the name Yahwah[1]. The issue of whether God should or could have a proper name has been an issue debated in religious history for thousands of years. We see that from Gen 4:26 where men began to call on the name Yahwah to Rev 22:4 where it says the name of the Lamb shall be on the foreheads of the servants of the Lamb after the curse on mankind has been removed, that the idea of the name of God held importance in biblical theology. In the Catholic Theology of the Catechism the name is seen as connected with Yahwah’s revelation of himself.
God revealed Himself to his people Israel by making his name known to them. A name expresses a person’s essence and identity and the meaning of this person’s life. God has a name; he is not an anonymous force[2]…God revealed himself progressively and under different names to his people, but the revelation that proved to be the fundamental one for both the Old and the New Covenants was the revelation of the divine name to Moses in the Theophany of the burning bush, on the threshold of the Exodus and of the covenant on Sinai”[3]
The Scripture makes clear and the Catholic catechism agrees that God has a name. And I would go further and assert that the name is not just an appellation but is a proper name even absolute related to the very nature of God. We also see that the Catholic tradition holds that the name reveled to Moses at the Burning Bush in Exodus 3 is the “fundamental one” for both the Old and the New Covenant communities. This then begs the question: What is this name that reveals the essence, identity and meaning of God’s life ?
In revealing the mysterious name, YHWH (I Am He Who Is,” or I Am Who Am”, or “I AM Who I Am”) God says who he is and by what name he is to be called[4]
The Catholic Catechism then recognizes that what Yahwah revealed of himself in his name to Moses was not just accidental but essential to his nature. It was reflecting what Greeks might call his physis[5] his true unbegotten nature. We will do well then to look at what Yahwah actually said regarding his name to Moses. Having told Moses he was Eheyeh asher Eheyeh in Exod 3:14 (translated by some as I am: that is who I am which in context could equally be translated “I will be what I will be”[6] and by the Septuagint as ‘Ego Eimi Ho On” (I am He who is) Moses is told to tell Israel Eheyeh sent him to them. However up to this point Yahwah has only begun to answer the question what should Moses say if Israel asked them the name of the God of their fathers.[7] Some commenatators understand this answer to be an avoidance of giving a name to God[8]. However he goes on to give Moses further instructions to give to Israel tell them:
“Yahwah, God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, hath sent me to you”
So Moses is told to tell them Yahwah their father’s God has sent him. By now perhaps it seems that Moses must tell Israel two things Eheyeh sent him and Yahwah God of their father’s sent him. Did one of these represent his proper name? Yahwah explained to Moses about the name Yahwah
“This is my name forever, and this is my memorial (Zichron) to all generations”.
So Yahwah not only declares his name but declares that it is eternal and will be the means by which the nation of Israel in every generation will call him in particular to remembrance[9]. In Exodus 6 God confirms to Moses that Yahwah is his name by contrasting it with an appellation or title.
I appeared unto Abraham unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by El Shaddai, but by my name Yahwah was I not known to them?”[10]
Again Yahwah confirms that he has a name and does so affirming Yahwah in many places of the scripture. We can add to these the scriptures, which tell Israel not to mention the names of other gods and the words of Jesus who said to Jerusalem “You will not see me again until you say Baruch Ha ba beshem Yahwah”[11]
In view of the importance of the name as represented in Scripture and The Catholic Catechism, we seek to explain the sources behind certain of Justin Martyr’s words regarding the name of God, especially those in his first Apology
“For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if anyone dare to say that there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness”[12]
And from his Hortatory address to the Greeks:
“For God can not be called by any proper name”[13]
Our problem then is this: Where as Scripture and the Catholic Catechism hold that God most definitely has a proper name, some of Saint[14] Justin’s teaching to the Greeks most clearly affirm that God can not be called by any proper name, and added to this is the idea that any one who dares to say that there is a name for God “raves with hopeless madness”. Our dilemma is added to by the fact that Justin is quoted in the Catholic Catechism at least 11 times.
Background and Context of Saint Justin
Justin Martyr lived from around 110 AD until 165 AD was born in Flavius Napolis, in Samaria. In coming from Samaria he came from one of the early centers of Gnosticism and Heresy. It was the area where Simon Magus came from who is considered by many Church fathers as the father of heresy.[15] This a very important time in Church history it is the first post apostolic generation. Saint Justin acts as an eyewitness for us as to the earliest Churches practices, traditions and even scriptures. The only post apostolic writings in the Church before him are the Apostolic Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome (AD 96), Letter to Diognetus[16], the Epistle of Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, fragments from Papias, Didache. These were the earliest post Apostolic writings of the Church and were followed by Saint Justin. He is numbered among the Apologists, men who rose up in the late second century to defend the Church against those who were assailing her from the outside. His extant writings are all apologies of one sort or another. And during this period his contemporary apologists include: Quadratus Bishop of Athens who presented an Apology to Hadrian(117-138), Aristides of Athens (138-161) who like saint Justin presented a defense to to emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161), Athenagorus of Athens who wrote Supplication for the Christians to emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180), Marcus Municius Felix who wrote a dialogue between a Pagan and a Christian called Octavius, Tertullian of Africa the father of Latin theology in the Church, Tatian the Assyrian who was a disciple of saint Justin and the author of Diatessaron.[17] He was a gentile born in Flavia Neapolis Samaria near the well of Jacob. He was for much of his life a roving philosopher. He was once a Stoic then a Peripatetic (a follower of Aristotle’s teaching), also a Neo Pythagorean pondering music and number and also a Neo Platonist. He then became a Christian and saw in the old philosphers men who pointed to Christ among the Greeks. He wrote a number of apologies and they were addressed to Antoninus Pius (138-161AD). We see that that Justin Martyr fitted quite well into the period as an Apologist. He was also very influential in the Church and his students went on to impact the development of the Church in both the East with Tatian and his Diatesarron and the West with Hippolytus who in his Refutation of all Heresies is held by Lietzman[18] to continue Justin’ line of Apology where in Greek philosophers are held to have seen some of the light of the Logos.[19] His literary style then is typical of the Church of the second and third centuries including Letters of Apology, Dialogues[20] and Hortatory Addresses.
We see from the above that he was living during the rule of Emperors Hadrian (117-138), Antonius Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). He traveled extensively and is held to have died as a martyr (witness, confessor) in the reign of Marcus Aurelius around 165 AD. He was one of the earliest of the Christian Apologists who rose up to defend the faith in the second century period when writing of Christians were scant. He debated both Greeks and Jews and carried out extensive discussion in the Dialogue with Trypho is an indicator of those activities. Our interest is in Justin's attitude to the name of God.
This will help us to understand how the fledgling Church in its first post apostolic generation began to develop its theology regarding the proper name of God. It is the attitude of Justin regarding God’s proper name that we are interested in not simply his name as in his reputation, or his name as in his appellations and attributes but his proper which is revealed in scripture as Yahwah (YHWH) known as the Tetragrammaton.
The proper name of God in Justin Martyr writings and the sources
Hortatory Address to the Greeks
In this treatise Justin Martyr is exhorting the Greeks to turn to the One God in his son Jesus Christ. He is playing out his role as an evangelist. One approach he takes in doing this is to show that in abandoning the customs of his fathers and leaving behind the Greek way of life and worship he was acting reasonably. In the process of his case he asserts that God did not reveal his proper name to Moses;
“For having heard in Egypt that God had said to Moses when he was about to send him to the Hebrews ‘I am that I am’ He understood that God had not mentioned to him his own proper name”[21]
So Justin Martyr is one of the commentators who on reading Yahwah saying to Moses “Eheyeh asher Eheyeh”, he sees this as being an avoidance of applying a proper name to God. He clearly also had access not only to the LXX but perhaps also to the Hebrew text or another Greek translation of the Hebrew[22]. For the LXX uses “I am he who is”. The comment which he makes here regarding the revelation of God’s name to Moses ignores the fact that Yahwah went on immediately after stating Eheyeh asher Eheyeh to say to Moses
“Yahwah…hath sent me to you…This is my name for ever, my memorial to all generations.” [23] And to confirm that Yahwah is actually the name, the author of Exodus goes on to explain in chapter 6 that by his name Yahwah did he not make himself known, and this is affirmed in contrast to El Shaddai or as the LXX has it “thy God”. In light of this we must wonder why saint Justin felt it important to depart from the text of Exodus in this manner? Our investigation is helped by something Justin Martyr says in the next chapter:
“For God cannot be called by any proper name for names are given to mark out and distinguish their subject matters because these are many and diverse” (chap 21).
So perhaps we see here a development of Justin’s argument with some of the Greek thinkers. First he asserts that God did not reveal a name to Moses, and secondly he asserts “God can not be called by any proper name”. If we look at these statements together, bearing in mind that one reason for him right is to show the reasonable of the faith of the Church, we see that Justin is arguing that because the purpose of a proper name is to mark out one kind in a class from another, the true God can not have a name because he is only one. There is no other kind in his class. Secondly the God who revealed himself to Moses in showing that he is alone and the only God with existence, as opposed all the gods of the nations who do not exist, revealed himself in this line of logic by not giving a proper but only an appellation.
The idea of God having no proper name compared with Scripture
If we look at this argument in the light of scripture clearly a number of objection could be raise against it. Firstly it is clear from scripture that Yahwah applies the title Elohim of god both to himself and to the elohim acherim of the other nations. This can be seen clearly from even the covenant at Sinai where Yahwah says I am Yahwah your Elohim…You shall not take for yourselves any elohim besides me”. And added to this we have a number of scriptures which indicate that the Torah and the Prophets recognized a class of being called elohim. The phrases elohim acherim, elohei nekar, elohim chadashim, elohei ha amim all used in scripture indicate that there are beings out there which were in the class of elohim or el and which Yahwah the Elohim of Israel needed to be set apart from, thus leaving a very good reason for a holy name to indicate the God who is thrice holy. Then there is the teaching in the Torah which actually compares the names of the elohim acherim with the name Yahwah as in Deuteronomy 18:20
But the prophet who shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or shall speak in the name of other elohim, even that prophet shall die
There are also two other points which could be raised against the argument that Elohim didn’t mention a name and didn’t need to because there were no other elohim. The first springs from the fact that God commands Israel not to mention the names of elohim acherim.[24] In contrast to this elohim did say to Pharoah in Exodus 9:16
And in very deed for this cause I have raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name[25] may be declared in all the earth.
These are spoken to the same Pharoah who said “Who is Yahwah that I should obey him?” It is clear then that in scripture God did have a proper name, which distinguished him from other elohim.
The argument which Justin later uses against this quoting Isaiah 44:6 is disqualified if only on the grounds that Isaiah is referring to a statement made hundreds of year later, in a different context and a different situation.
The Argument compared with Greek Philosophy
If then saint Justin did not develop the idea that God did not mention a proper name and could not have one was not derived from the authority of scripture used in context, we are left with the questions: Why did he use this argument? And where did the idea of God having no name come from?
The second question can be answered by the fact that we know the line of logic saint Justin was using. The authority was logic. It wasn’t necessarily handed down by a Hebrew or Church tradition. In this section we can turn to Kittel for enlightenment regarding the Hellenistic understanding of the function of names. For here the argument is based on the definition of the role and purpose of names.
In the Hermetic writings[26]…names serve to differentiate distinct things, and this is unnecessary with the one and all”[27] “Celsus is thinking along these lines when he regards the names of the one God as irrelevant Orig. Cel., I 24f Origen contradicts on this point. The Gnostics teach the same doctrine. For Basilides God is huperano pantos onomatos onomatzemenou, Hipp. Ref VII, 20”
So we see a school of thought, which assents to this idea in the period in which Justin was writing. It is according to Kittel a doctrine of late antiquity and as we have seen Kittel understands that the teaching is not biblical describing it as an “unbiblical doctrine of late antiquity”[28] Saint Justin is not alone in the Church in arguing this idea, for two other second or third century writers teach this. Clement of Alexander in his Al Stromateis V, 12, 78,3 and Minucius Felix 18:10. We will go a little bit deeper into this when we come to the Apologies of Justin. It is important to note that the idea of namelessness doesn’t appear to come up in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. It appears rather to be a focus of his writings to the Greeks. However it is from the Greeks that we have tradition going back relating to gods being worshipped who had no name:
“Herodot., II, 52 records as a tradition of the priestesses at Dodna that the Pelasgians worshipped gods without giving one of them a…name(onoma). The names of the gods came from Egypt, and an oracle allowed their use”
So we see that even at the time of Herodotus their were traditions regarding gods without names. This was a tradition going back to the roots of the idolatrous religion of the Greeks. Then there is Strabo’s story in book III, 4, 16 of a Celtic Iberian tribe whose “gods had not proper names.”[29] Since we saw above that the Biblical tradition included God having a proper name and the gods having proper names which Israel were commended not to mention, we can see that the root of the idea of god having no name is pagan. It is unlikely saint Justin was consciously following this pagan idea, but his idea on this subject appears to reflect it. I would suggest that in his zeal to deal with the polytheistic conceptions of the names of god in his day he used the argument as polemic against the pagan Greeks and Romans of his day. For by that time it was “considered a sign of godlessness for the gods to have no name”, that is godlessness to the polytheists.
His position then came from his reasoning from a definition of the term onoma which lead him to argue that God logically could have no proper name.
B First Apology and Second Apology
Saint Justin also has teaching on the God who is called by no proper name in his Apologies. Here he indicates that some how aGod without a proper names has characteristics of temperament “peculiar” to him. For he states:
He [God] accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in him, temperance and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name”[30]
The basis of acceptance of his followers is said to be linked to the fact that certain virtues are peculiar to him because he is called by no proper name. However it is difficult to consider of what he means by this. For he himself said in chapter 4 of the first Apology
By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from actions implied in the name”[31]
It would appear then that a god would not miss virtues just because he happen to have a name. We also see here a focus on a God being “called” by no proper name. Which may not disqualify him from having a proper name but rather just that it is not be used. But it would appear later on in the Apology Justin appear to assert that not only does God have a name but that this name does a lot more than distinguish him from other beings of the same class the God class. For he in speaking of the Baptism of those who believe states:
“In order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins the name of God the Father, and Lord of the Universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone”[32]
Here Justin clearly states in line with Scripture that the name of God the Father and that name alone is pronounced over the person being baptized. Here a number of problems Aside from his teaching on this point. Firstly it appears that he is not only saying that God has a name but that this name is pronounced over the person who had repented of their sins and chooses to be born again. His emphasis on “this name alone” makes us wonder how this is reconciled to Matthew 28:18-20 where the baptism is in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is cleared up by looking at chapter 61 where all tree are referred to regarding baptism. The pronouncing of the name of God the Father with baptism produces children of God. That is this name has power and efficacy and is more than simply a distinguishing mark. But here he definitely links a name with God. However he does not use the term proper name and so maybe referring to an appellation. However we are not out of the woods yet for Saint Justin goes on to say:
“For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if anyone dare to say that there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness”[33]
Now we have a number of problems which arise from this. We need to know is God the Father the same as the ineffable God? If this is the case what is the difference between utter and pronounce. Secondly to say no one can utter the name of the ineffable (unspeakable ) God is to imply that although the name is not spoken it does exist. However when he continues to say anyone who says there is a name he is raving with hopeless madness, we are in a very complicated situation. We need to wonder here, was Saint Justin effected Jewish tradition or other tradition in making this statement. It is possibly that he was effected by both. Sine he is on the subject of the unspeakable God we are immediately thrown back to traditions going back to Egypt, Babylon and the mystery religions. Legge in his Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity states
The ineffability of the divine names was an old idea in Egypt, especially in Osirian religion, where it forms the base of Ra and Isis. So the name of Osiris himself was said to be ineffable…The name of Marduk of Babylon is in the same way declared ineffable in an inscription of Neri… in every case a magical idea that the god might be compelled by utterance of his secret name seems to be the root of the practice
The source of this idea of the ineffable God or name of the ineffable God again can not be trace back to scripture. We see in scripture Boaz greeting his workers with the name Yahwah. We see David make solemn oaths using the name Yahwah. For example Yahwah do so to me and more if…is a regular saying in biblical tradition. The priest of Israel were commanded to put the name of Yahwah on the people by the three fold blessing which used the name Yahwah three times. During the late second temple period the priests would come out and bless the people every day and according to the late tradition we have in the Mishnah the name was used on this occasion as well as on Yom Kippor by the high priest 10 times.[34]
The aim of the authorities of the temple was to restrict the use of the name to the temple, so strictly speaking the name was not ineffable.
“How was the blessing of the priests carried out?... In the temple they pronounced the Name as written, but in the provinces with a substitute word”[35]. However by the time the Justin wrote the Temple had been destroyed for more than 70 years and by 95 AD Josephus was unwilling even to write anything about the name. So it may have appeared to Justin that the name Yahwah was ineffable rather than simple not spoken because the Temple had been destroyed.
It is unlikely that Josephus apparent out burst of censure on the one who dares to say “there is a name” came from his interaction with the Jews. It sounds more reasonable to say that he got into a discussion with a very clever philosopher and in the heat of the moment burst out “Your raving with hopeless madness”. However there is another was of looking at this “raving with hopeless madness”. There were prophetic personalities in the Hellenistic world who were considered to prophecy in a rave and the term mad was used to describe them. We have the Dionysian Cults who were described as going into a frenzy, raving and prophesying in Euripides the Bacchae. Then we have Virgil’s Aeneid VI:46 where the prophetess comes out eyes rolling and prophesying with hopeless madness. Perhaps Justin was hinting at people being taken over by a spirit and in their frenzied outburst they would dare to day God had a name. He knew the writings of Plato which said “no man achieves true and inspired divination in his rational mind”, that is he goes out of his mind and raves in madness.
Justin Martyr knew the scriptures extremely well. He must have been well aware that they taught that God had a name. That when the name Yahwah is used it is a proper name unlike Elohim which has suffixes to indicate it is a common noun become Elohai my God, Eloheiqa, your God , Eloheihem their God etc. Yahwah had not such possessive suffixes. Elohim had plural and singular Yahwah was simply a name there was no plural or definite article before Yahwah.[36] Whatever influences were working on Justin they must have been very strong to overrule the teaching of the scripture.
“And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless (anonomaston) God spake to Moses”[37]
Chapter XXXV.-Yet More Discrepancies. Just Now the Sex of Bythus Was an Object of Dispute; Now His Rank Comes in Question. Absurd Substitutes for Bythus Criticised by Tertullian. ANF Vol III Against the Valentinians
There are some who do not claim the first place for Bythus, but only a lower one. They put their Ogdoad in the foremost rank; itself, however, derived from a Tetrad, but under different names. For they put Proarche (Before the Beginning) first, Anennoetos (Inconceivable) second, Arrhetos (Indescribable) third, Aoratos (Invisible) fourth. Then after Proarche they say Arche (Beginning) came forth and occupied the first and the fifth place; from Anennoetos came Acataleptos (Incomprehensible) in the second and the sixth place; from Arrhetos came Anonomastos (Nameless) in the third and the seventh place; from Aoratos309 came Agennetos (Unbegotten) in the fourth and the eight place. Now by what method he arranges this, that each of these ¦ons should be born in two places, and that, too, at such intervals, I prefer to be ignorant of than to be informed. For what can be right in a system which is propounded with such absurd particulars?
Tertullian Five books against Marcion and speaking of his god
100 His suasion tells of other one, to none
E'er known, who nowhere is, a deity
False, nameless, constituting nought, and who
Hath spoken precepts none. Him he calls good;
Who judges none, but spares all equally,
Municipius Felix 18:10 The Octavius
Neither must you ask a name for God. God is His name. We have need of names when a multitude is to be separated into individuals by the special characteristics of names; to God, who is alone, the name God is the whole. If I were to call Him Father, you would judge Him to be earthly; if a King, you would suspect Him to be carnal; if a Lord, you will certainly understand Him to he mortal. Take away the additions of names, and you will behold His glory. What! is it not true that I have in this matter the consent of all men? I hear the common people, when they lift their hands to heaven, say nothing else but Oh God, and God is great, and God is true, and if God shall permit. Is this the natural discourse of the common people, or is it the prayer of a confessing Christian? And they who speak of Jupiter as the chief, are mistaken in the name indeed, but they are in agreement about the unity of the power.
Second Apology
“The angels began to be worshipped as gods after they had rebelled and bore children at the time of Noah. The sons were devils… For whatever name each had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them” (p 190 chap 5 Anf Vol 1)
“But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given…For by whatever name he be called, He has his elder the person who gives him the name” ( chap 6 ibid)
1 Scriptures compared
2 Greek thinking compared
C Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
1 Scripture Sources
2 Other Sources
In this passage Justin Martyr appears to be drawing out a number of points based on his own thinking and on tradition he has been taught. He is discussing Platos thinking and discussing with the Greeks. Clearly then his motivation in writing these things is to exhort the Greeks anmd perhaps especially the Philophers to listen to his reasoning. We might say this Hortatory Address to the Greek is a long Evangelistic tract designed for Greeks into Philosphy. He the select scriptures and explanations which would make his various points and persuade Greek Philosophers that Christian Philosophy is the best Philosphers but not addressing the teaching of scripture as a whole but rather with Hellesnistic glesses. For we see here Justin discussing the call of Moses and the revelation of God name to Moses and yet he says that Moses understood "that God had not mentioned to him his own proper name". However if we turn to the scripture which he is refelecting on we see that God did mention his own proper name and it was Yahwah. We can look below at the scriptural record of the revelation of God's name to Moses:
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I am come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me: What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM [Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh (I will be that I will be)] : and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you...The LORD [Yah'wah] God of your fathers , the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
It is clear from the text of scripture that a few seconds after God said to Moses I Am that is who I am or "I am he who is" as the Septuagint would read it he also told him a name. Yahwah...this is my name forever". So Josephus at this point departs from the scriptural contexts and focusses in on the first answer Yahwah gave to Moses and ignores the rest of the answer. And our question then is why did he do this? Was he following a Greek or Chrsitian tradition? Or was he following a school of logic?
As an Evanmgelist he was seeking to show to the Greeks that his position as a Christian and not a
Name and God in the New Testament
Name and God in Justin Martyr
Name and God in the Apostolic Fathers
Name and God in
(1) The Antenicene Fathers Vol 1 Trans Roberts A, Donaldson LL, Ed A Cleveland Coxe, Edinburgh T & T Clark, Michigan: WMB Eerdmans Company
[1] Starting in Gen 4:26 and ending in Revelation 22:4
[2] P55, 203 Catechism of the Catholic Church
[3] P56 ibid 205
[4] Strangely enough the Catechism goes on to say that the name is ineffable which will need to be reconciled to the fact that he is to be called by the name YHWH.
[5] As oppose to just being a mode of classification (nomos)
[6] The verb Eheyeh is the first common singular imperfect of the verb to be. It occurs also in Exodus 3:12 where it is uniformly translated a “I will be”.
[7] Some commentators have taken the question to indicate that Israel had forgotten the name of their fathers’ God whilst in bondage in Egypt. Others have also commented that this question meant much more than simple want the name to be said but was asking “What is this God capable of?”
[8] They see further evidence in the story of the Angel who spoke to Manoah and the one who spoke to Jacob asking “Why do you ask me my name seeing it is wonderful”? They also see evidence of this in the removal of the name Yahwah and its replacement with Elohim in certain Psalms c.f. Psalm 14 and 53
[9] We have here perhaps a parallel to the Eucharist where Jesus says do this in Remembrance of me (emen anamenasin or Zichroni). We take the bread and wine and we remember Jesus and at the same time proclaim his death, until he comes, we use the name Yahwah and we remember the God of Abraham etc
[10] This is the rendering of The Scriptures
[11] Matt 21:9, 23:39, Mar 11:9,10, Luke 13:35, 19;38, John 12:13
[12] pg 183 ANF Vol 1
[13] chap 21
[14] This is his title in the Catholic Catechism
[15] See Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, for a discussion
[16] Which is reckoned among saint Justin’s writings by some scholars.
[17] See Fremmantle, A, A Treasury of Early Christianity, (1953) for more detail
[18] Lietzmen The Founding of the Church Universal London: Lutterworth Press, 1938 repr. 1960
[19] Some Church Father like Tertullian were very much against Greek Philosophy and other streams like the Gnostics put Greek philosophy above Scripture and Church tradition see New Catholic Encyclopedia “Gnosticism”.
[20] Here perhaps he is following the approach of Plato.
[21] p 281 ANF Vol 1
[22] This is also clear from his discussion with Trypho the Jew where he refers to the fact that the Jews had removed certain text from their scriptures which were contained in the translation of the 70.
[23] We do not know what Justin would have read in his text. We know that the great majority of the Greek Manuscripts of the Jews at that time had God name Yahwah, written out either in Paleo Hebrew, Assyrian Square script, Greek letters representing Iao or Greek letters which look like YHWH, pi, iota, pi, iota. For evidence see Metzger, B Manuscripts of the Greek Bible New York: Oxford, 1981
[24] Joshua 23:7 and Exodus 20:13
[25] Although The Interpreters one volume Commentary on the Bible, Ed Laymon C, indicates that the word name here is reputation, it is clear that it mest represent a reptutation of some one or some thing. And in the context of the Pentatuech and Joshua it is clearly the reputation of Yahwah the God of the Hebrews, as opposed to the reputation of one by another name. This is confirmed by Jethro’s statemtn in chapter 18 “Now I know Yahwah in greater than all the elohim” and of Rachab later in Johsua when she meets the spies and speaks of Yahwah giving them the land.
[26] God is also anonymous in Max. Tyr.,2, 10 a
[27] p 250 Kittel Volume 5 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
[28] p 250 Kittel ibid
[29] p 248 Kittel ibid
[30] p 165 CX First Apology ANF
[31] p 164 ANF Vol I
[32] p183 ANF Vol I Chap 61
[33] pg 183 ANF Vol 1
[34] See Mishnah Yoma 3:8 see Lipman E., The Mishnah, Oral Traditions of Judaism, New York Schoken
[35] p183 Lipman, ibid
[36] Justin Martyr was aware the Jews had left out of their canon certain parts of the LXX. I do not know if this meant Trypho was using a Greek translation or a Hebrew text but Justin appears to be well read enough to know the translation difficulties in the LXX. In most manuscripts the name Yahwah would have been obvious to see, being often written in non Greek characters.
[37] pg 184 ANF Vol 1
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 9:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home