The Name In Greek Texts

Chapter 5 The Name in Greek Texts
5-100 The Memorial Name in Greek Texts
According to the Letter to Aristeas the translation of the first five book of Moses began in the reign of Ptolelmy Philadelphus (285-246 BC) the city of Alexandria in Egypt. Although the idea that their were 70 translators is deemed legendary, the name Septuagint or LXX has been retained. Thus began the name YAUA’s first major encounter with the Greek alphabet and Greek beliefs and practices. The writings which we need to consider in this language range from 285 BC with first translation of the Torah into Greek to after 1000CE with Greek magical texts which reflect earlier Greek practices in the treatment of the name. Thus we are dealing initially with the foundational writings of Hellenistic Judaism. Thus our texts begin with early fragments of the so called LXX and recensions and developments which sprung from that and dealing with what is called the Old Greek . We also have the witness of Diodoros of Sicily, Philo, the Apocrypha, the Pseudipigrapha, the New Testament, and Josephus. In addition we have the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and other Greek translations. We also have the “Christian” Gnostic writings and those of the “Orthodox” Church of the second to 10th century, the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists particularly Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandiria, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret and Jerome. In addition we have the Greek “magical” papyri stretching from the 2nd to the 11th century CE..
5-101 From this period we also get clear evidence that the first century B.C. Jewish scribal practice regarding the memorial name in the holy scriptures was to retain the name in one of many forms. These forms of retention are represented in the evidence available. These were to transliterate the name YAUA, YAU or YA, to use Paleo Hebrew, Aramaic square script (as is used in modern Hebrew) or to transcribe it using Greek letters which look similar to the name pipi[i] transliterated pipi in later Aramaic translations of Greek texts. The alternatives
The tranliterated forms include:
I IAW (Iota, alpha omega) used at least from the first century BCE onward. From the first century BCE we have dead sea scroll 4QLxx Levb[1] and Diodorus of Sicily I.94.2. From the second century CE we have Ireneus, Heresies (I.30.5, I.30.11, I.4.1). From the 3rd CE century we have Origen Against Celsus (6:31)[2]. From the 4th centuey we have Eusebius commentary on the Psalms (Psalm 134 and 146), and we also have Epiphanius Heresies (40:5). From the 5th century we have Theodoret Heresies I:7.[3]
II IABE (iota alpha beta eta) This transliteration is witnessed by Epiphanius Heresies 40:5, and Theodoret. Qu 15 in Ex i.133 which assigns it to the Samaritains. These are both from the 5th century.
III IAE (iota alph eta) This transliteration is from a 3rd century comment of Origen on Ps 2:2.
IV IAOUE (iota alpha omicron upsilion epsilon). This transliteration is witness in the 3rh century Stromaties of Clement of Alexandria.
V IAOTH (iota alpha, omega/omicron) tav. If this is a trasliteration of YAUA it possibly comes form a confusion tav with heh. It is witnessed in the 2nd century by Ireneus –Heresies 35. However in light of the fact that Ireneus saw it as one of the titles of YAUA and not the distiguishing proper name it could be that this is understood to be a feminine plural of YAUA. The feminine nouns end with ah (qametz heh) in the MT. The fact that some greek text seem to treat YAUA as a feminine noun and thus that gives YAUA, YAUoth may indicate that the last syllable was ah in the 3rd century CE.
Ireneus lists this as a name of God in Hebrew along with Eloe, Eloeim, Eleouth, Adonai, Addonai, Sabaoth (with omega or omicron). Jaoth he says “when the last syllable is made long and aspirated denotes *a predetermined measure;’ when it is written shortly by the Greek letter Omicron, name Jaoth, it signfies “one who put evils to flight”[4]
VI IABAS, If this is accepted a a transliteration of YAUA it is clear that the heh is rendered ah, the vav as v and the second heh as “ah”, the “s” is the usual transformation of names when they are hellenized as can be seen in the example od Elias , Elijah. Betz assigns this vocalisation to the Samaritans (5 Betz, 1986, 335) See PGM V.102, Xic. 1, XII. 4 and S. Lowry, The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis (Leiden: Brill., 1977) 273-274 and passim).
VII IABO (omega): PGM Xic.1
VII IABAI PGM XII.4




5-102 IAW/IAO
The earliest evidence points to the transliteration of the name YAUA to IAW. Here we can turn to the Greek writings in Qumran. The first usage is the fragment 4QpapLXXLevb. In this freagment we have the name written in uncial script. The text was edited by Skehan (1992, 174). Skehan make some important observations: “This new evidence strongly suggests that the usage in question goes back for some books at least to the Septuagint rendering” (Skehan, P. W. The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Cristism, XXX (Vetus Testamentum Supplement 4 , Leiden Brill, 1957 p157). Emmanuel Tov also supports the prioroty of IAW over kurios. Ha asserts that the “papyrus represents an early version of Greek scripture...antedating the text of the main manuscript tradition of the Septuagint (LXX)” (Tov, Emmanuel. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert, in : Scott Mckendrick and Orlaith A. O Sullivan (editors), The Bible as a Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. London , Newcastle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium : Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003 pp. Spec p.102.).
Karen de Troyer[ii] makes the appropriate observation of all regarding the significance of the name appearing in simple vocalised form: “That the name of God is wrtten IAO in the Leviticus scroll is very telling, for it is precisely in the Greek Leviticus scroll that one reads about the prohibition of the name of the name of God” (De Troyer, 2005, 9). Thus this documents by indicating that the name was written in a vocalised manner challenges the ideas of such scholars who believe that Leviticus 24:17 asserts that the name is not to be pronounced in any way. This reading of the passage is probably to strict.
4QpapLXXLevb is not the only witness to the transliteration IAW from before Christ. Diodorus of Sicily also had som connection with Jews and testified to their usages of the name IAW saying “ton IAW epikaloumenon theon”. Thus IAW has the witness to its being vocalised naturally in a text from the Qumran library and that fact that a Sicilian also uses the same rendering shows that the name had spread from the initial Egyptian translation to Palestian covenanters and Gentiles researchers.
5-102 The Origin of IAW according to the Valentinian Christians
The translitersation of the name YAUA to Greek in all liklihood took place in Alexandria, Egypt. The form of the name in Egypt according to the Elphantine letters was YAU (yod, aleph omega) which if transliterated to Greek would produce IAW (iota, alpha omega). Thus the most likely scenario was that the translators simply used the form of the name prevalent in the south , although according to tradition (Josephus Antiquities Book 12) coming from Jerusalem in order to have accurate Hebrew copies of the law used the form of the name current in Egypt at the time. There had already been a temple to YAU which had been destroyed by the prists of Khnum around 400 BC. There were then many Jews in the land of Egypt and 115 years later even more after the building of Alexandria and the invitation for the Jews to live there. This would mean the from came from Hebrew via Aramaic. This process may have been behind most of the Greek rendering of the name YAUA.[iii]
5-103 The Elephantine letters represent communications between Jerusalem and Egypt so it is also plausible that the Jerusalem Jews were like the Elephantine colony using the name YAU and when a group of them wne to Egypt to translation then law that used the form already prevalent among them.
5-104 When we look at Egypt after Christ we find an astonishing fact. The Jewish community disappear and “orthodox” Christianity does not appear until the third century. The two hundred years are shrouded in mystery. Where did the Jewish community go? Who converted Egypt? This has lead to some startling historical assertions which need to be considered for they impact the use of the name IAW in the early “Church” which included both “Orthodox” and Gnostic Christians.

5-105 Who are Christians?
The traditional view is that a war occured in the second and third century between “Orthodoxy” and Heresy and “orthodoxy” won. But the scenario was by no means so simple. Ernst Renan makes some very astute observations: Although he can say “The Gnostics marked the true sense of every word by pretending that they were Christains” (Renan p77) and
“With their Hebrew words often taken in an opposite sense , their magic formulas, and later on their amulets and their Abracadabras, the Gnostics of the lower types merited only to be despised.” Thus have we out introduction to the Greek magical texts which confirm the fact that in some circles the name IAW was in use. A group who were not impacted by a Jewish legal tradition but rather by the search for power against the devil and his sicknesses, perjuries and abortions.

5-106 He also has something other to say on the Gnostic leaders:
But this contempt ought not to be poured out upon those great men who sought in that powerful narcotic the repose or the stupefication of their thoughts. Valentinus was in his own way a genius. Carpocrates and his son, Epiphanes, were brilliant writers, spoiled by utopia and paradox; but sometimes astonishingly profound. Gnosticism had a considerable part in Christian propaganda. Often it was the transition by which people passed from Paganism to Christianity. The proselytes thus gained became nearly always orthodox, they never returned to Paganism.
It is especially Egypt which preserves from these strange rites an ieffaceable impression. Egypt had not any Judeo- Christianity. A remarkable fact is the difference between Coptic literature and the other Christian literature of the East, while the greater number of Judeo- Christians are found in Syria, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian; Coptic only shows a Gnostic backgound without anything further. Egypt also without the intermediary of the Pagan illumination to the Christian light. Alexandria was almost entirely converted by Gnostics.
There Hebrew words is perhaps one key to our need to uncover the role of name YAUA/ IAW in Christian liturgy and Christian life. The other is the most interesting statement that Alexandria was almost entirely converted by Gnostics. Terminology is important. And the intermixture of Gnostics and Christains in the first three centuries meant that Gnostic to those outside were considered Christians. Valentinus had communion with the Church and Ireneus was asked to look into him and his teaching because they were hidden. He was to outisders a Christian and the Gnostics and the Orthodox Christains died together in the arenas of Rome. The first Christian commentaries were the work of Valentinus disciples and many of the gnostic gospel and other writings are much like commentaires on the life of Christ and the teaching of the New Testament. If nothing else we can not treat the Gnostics as a homogenous group with a uniform teaching. This is not the case. Ireneus in writing on the Valentians often complains about the large variations of the heresies on particular traditions They had different rituals for baptism or anointing and they had different confessions for those baptsing and those being baptised. (Iren Heresies I:4, I:30). The Gospel of Philip may classified as Gnostic. But the writer considered himself a Christian and considered the name Christian very honorable. He states:
If one go down in the water and come up without having recieved anything and says, “I am a Christian,” he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he recieve the holy spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has recieved a gidt does not have to give it back, butof him who has borrwed it at interest, payment is demanded Gospel of Philip II: 64(Robinson 1990, 148)
At least three times in the Gospel of Philip does he reiterate the importance of the name and experience of being a Christian. Isenberg describes the gospel of Philip thus “The Gospel of Philip is a compilation of statements pertaining primarily to the meaning and value of sacraments within the context of a Valentinian conceptionof the human predicament and life after death” (NHL, 1990, 139. Thus when we look at Valentinians we are looking at the writings of a group who in our period percieved themselves as Christian and right up until Ireneus were percieved by others as Christians. The Gnostic Christians had a very important role in the early history of the Church. Renan has made one more very important observation which we need to take notice of before we continue with the Valetinian observation on the name YAU. Renans word on Christianity’s debt to Gnosticism bear some consideration:
In dogma they provoked nothing but reaction, but their position was more considerable in Christian literature and liturgical institutions. They borrowed nealry always a good deal from those whom they anathematised. The first Christianity, quite Jewish still, was very simple, it was the Gnostics who made a religion of it. The sacraments were to a large extent their creation; their anointings, especially at the deathbeds of the sick, produced a deep impression. The holy Chrism confirmation (at first an integral part of baptism), the attribution of supernatural power to the sign of the cross, and many other elements of Christian mysticism came from them...Moving from time to time from genius to folly, Gnosticism defies all absolut judgements.
Perhap we have over used the words of Renan but what he has to say has utmost importance on out perspective on what is Christian and what is not in those early centuries. And we are very interested in what the Christians used the name YAUA or YAU for.

5-107 We come back to the issue of the origin of the name YAU (IAW) according to the Valentinians. To answer this we need to take a foray into the Valentinian myth of creation and redemption. The teaching is what Valentinians might call the kaballah or the hidden teaching of Jesus.[iv] Our summary is based on the description of Ireneus and Tertullian.
5-108 Valentinians on the Origin of the word IAO (From Ireneus book 4)

The Valentinians taught that the word IAO (YAU) originated as an exclamation in the mouth of a power called Boundary (Horos). According to Ireneus the Valentinians held that in the endless beginning there was a Fulness (pleroma). This Fulness consisted of 30 worlds or ages[v]. They began with the first couple Profundity and Silence and ended with the last descendant Wisdom. There were fifteen couples. Only the Only Begotten, Mind had knowledge of the Father. Wisdom in her desire to know more went beyond herself and from passion and got frustrated in her attempts to know more. However she repented and returned to the Fulness. Her Thought, name Achamoth was separated from her and from the Fulness and wandered in place of darkness and Emptiness. She was like and abortion with out shape. Christ and the Holy Spirit came to her by means of Boundary. Thye had pity on her and gave her shape but then withdrew. When she sought to find that light which had gone she was blocked by Boundary saying YAU. From her passion and tears the world was created.
5-107 According to Ireneus this was where Valentinians understood YAU to have been derived. The Boundary who exclaimed YAU has at least five different names. These include Cross (Stauros), and Deliverer (Lytrotes), Carpistes, Boundary Setter (Horothetes) and Metagoges. –Thus we see in this early Christian tradition the name is directly issuing forth from a power called Cross and Deliverer. The connection between the Cross and the name will be explored further later.[vi] The connection between the name YAU and deliver is perhaps also interesting in the light of the connection between the Hebrew name YAUA and the deliverance or bringing out of Israel from Egypt. This Boundary power is said to have two functions. That of Seperating and that of supporting. and Deliverer (Lytrotes), Carpistes, Boundary Setter (Horothetes) and Metagoges.
5-108 Tertullian adds something very important to the picture. When he gives the origin of IAW, he explains that this is how the Valentinians believe YAU came to be in scripture.
Try, however, she did, and perhaps would have found Him, had not the self-same Horos, who had met her mother so opportunely, fallen in with the daughter quite as unseasonably, so as to exclaim at her Iao! just as we hear the cry “Porro Quirites” (“Out of the way, Romans!”), or else Fidem Cæsaris!” (“By the faith of Cæsar!”), whence (as they will have it) the name Iao comes to be found is the Scriptures. (Tertullian, Against the Valentinians XIV)
This is very important for us. This indicates that 300 years after the translation 4Qlev mentioned aboce, the name IAW was still present in the Scriptures of the Tertullian and the Scriptures of the Valentinians. If this is the case the manuscripts of these scriptures we do not at present have them. However it is also clear that we have almost no Christian manuscripts from the said period. But if the reading be correct this is evidence that the name was used in the scriptures read by the Christians. Thus the Valentinians give us the role of the name IAU in their tradition. But if we would know more of the position of Iaw and its or his connection to other names or other being. We have to turn to the testimony of Ireneus on the Ophites.
5-109 IAW among the Ophites
Renan asserts that the Ophites were really sanke worshippers. And they had a very strange way of celebrating the Eucharist:
The Ophites had certain tamed serpents (agatho demoins) which they kept in cages. At the moment of celebrating the mysteries they opened the door to the little god and called on him. The serpent came out mounted the tabel where the serpents were and coiled themselves around them. The Eucahrist appeared then to the sectaries a perfect sacrifice. They broke bread, distributed it, and worshipped the agatho demons, and offered through him , they said, a hymn of praise to the Heavenly Father. (Renan :History of Christianity, p74-5
As strange as it may seem it is from this group that the next testimony regarding YAU among the Christians comes. According to Ireneus the Ophites believed that at the beginning there was Profundity, the Man, the primary light, infinite. He had a Son called the Second Man, from them proceeded the first women the Holy Spirit or Wisdom. The two men saw how beautiful she was and so set desire on her and had a child with the called Christ. Christ came out of the right side of Wisdom. However here left side was agitated and produced a child called Wisdom , Sinistra and Prunicus. Because Christ was from the right he had the desire to go up and went upwards and join the two men and his mother and they became the incorruptible world (aeon). However the child of the left had a desire to descend into the deep while it was still immobile. She descended and took from their a material body. It had within it a sprinkling of light from above. She felt unsatisfied and so tried to ascend again but the material body was too heavy. However she managed to stretch herself and produced the visible heavens[5]. However she lived under the heavens. With the coneption of an idea and the power of all things she managed to lay down her body and was free. She then managed to produce a son without the aid of a male. This son was Ialdaboth. He produced a son with out a wife, IAW who produced Sabaoth who produced Adneus, who produced Eloeus who produced Oreus who produced Astanpheus. These seven were called a Hebodmad. With the mother Wisdom, the eight they are called Ogdoad.
5-110 Thus for the Ophites IAW is the son of Ialdabaoth. Ialdaboth then tries to boast that he is the Father. His mother cries out “Do not lie Ialdaboth”. All seven disturbed by the new voice. So Ialdaboth tries to distract them and says “Come let us make man in our image (Gen 1:26). The six powers then create man and Ialdaboth breathes into him the breath of life. However through the plan of Wisdom 2 as Ialdaboth breathes into Adam the sprinkling of light entered Adam and left Ialdaboth. Adam then got up and began to praise Profundity (the first Man) the first man and forsook his creators. Ialdaboth got envious and sought to empty man by means of a woman. He thus produced Eve from his Thought. The other powers came and admired Eve and falling in love with her produced sons who are called angels. Wisdom 2 however devised a scheme whereby through the serpent Adam and Eve would transgress the command of Ialdaboth. She succeeds and Ialdaboth sends Adam and Eve out of Paradise and down to earth.
5-111 It appears then we have the incorruptible world above with Man, the second Man, the Holy Spirit/ Wisdom 1 and Christ. Below them is Wisdom 2 the mother of Ialdaboth, and then the hebdomad Ialdaboth, Iao and their 5 descendants. These seven are the rulers of the seven heavens[6]. Each of the seven powers is assigned a part of the Biblical history. IAW had four prophets, Samuel, Nathaniel, Jonah and Micah. When Christ came down from the incorruptible world he descended through the seven heavens and took the likeness of each of the sons of those heavens. On the way down he clothed his sister Wisdom (the one from the left side of the first woman) with light. This is the mystery of the bride groom and the bride. Having united with Wisdom he descended into the man Jesus after his baptism. He thus began to perform miracles and to announce the unknown Father. As Jesus was being led away to be crucified Christ and Wisdom left him but send down an energy which raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus remained on earth for 18 months and taught his disciples. He then ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of his Father Ialdaboth. There he reiceves souls who are worthy and thus being enriched at the expense of his Father who is unaware of the process. All these holy souls contain a part of the sprinkling of light and when all the sparks of light have been gathered together and carried to the incorruptible world it is the consummation of all things. (Ireneus, Heresies I 30)
5-112 The Use of YAUA/IAO in Baptism
The Priestly Tradition and the Church
There is evidence that the baptismal rites of the Church which include washing in water, anointing wih oil and sealing the candidate with the name of God, is intended to continue the rite of washing, anointing and recieving the name present among the sons of Aaron. As we now the temple was destroyed in AD 70. However Jesus Christ and John the baptist were both prophesying great changes in the life of Israel. Jesus especially, according to the witness of all the gospels foresaw the destruction of the temple. The priests were the guardians of the name Yaua. It was they who were responsible to minister in the name and to put the name Yaua on the people. The evidence from the New Testament and the early Church appears to indicate that the guardianship and transmission of the name was intended to continue in the Church. The evidence for this thesis, that the actions of the priest in bearing the name Yaua into the holy of holies and the ministry of the priest before God on behalf of the people of Israel, and of putting the name Yaua on the people, and sanctifying the name Yaua in the earth were all, in the eyes of the Church transfered from the families of the priesthood operating in the first century and continued with priests who joined the Church. That is the priests who joined the Church understood that they work continued, despite the destruction of the temple, inside the Church. We need to look at three key points:
Were there priests who were part of the Church’s tradition and the life of Jesus?
Is there evidence that the rites of the Church reflect the rites of the priesthood?
Is there evidence of the transfer of titles from the priesthood to the Church?

The sum of the matter may perhaps be seen in this. The answer to the question where did the priesthood go after the destruction of the temple, is perhaps demonstrated in this study. The priesthood and many of the priests entered the Church and continued to operated, admittedly without the temple, inside the Church.

5-113 Were there priests in the Churches tradition?
The two or three most well known priests in early church history are Zechariah of the course of Abijah, John the Baptist, John the Apostle or disciple whom Jesus loved. Whether John the Apostle who wrote the letters is the same John who wrote the Apocalypse is not an issue we will take up. But the evidence presented in both documents is that they were members of the sons of Aaron and thus of the priesthood. The geneaology of John the Baptist is well known. He is the miracle son of the priest Zechariah.
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before GOD, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of Yaua blameless.
So the story of John the Baptist begins not only with a priest but one who was from the sons of Aaron and so could possibly have a right to the high priesthood. The text does not indicate that he was a Saducee but he is introduced as having one of the most important roles in the temple. He had been selected that day by the drawing of lots, to burn incense at the time of prayer. Zechariah like many priestly prophets before him, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Haggai had an encounter with an angel of Yaua in that period often described as the Word of Yaua (Gieschen, Fossum 1985). The angel Gabriel indicated Zechariah would have a son who would be great in the face, presence, or sight of Yaua. It is then John the levitical priest of the course of Abijah who then baptisesYeshua the son of David. At the same time Jesus recieved an anointing of the holy spirit, which appeared as a dove (yonah H). This for some Valentinian groups represented recieving the name Yaua (Fossum, Qusipel). So in this baptism some see a transfer of the name Yaua from John the priest to Jesus the son of David. Fossum refers to the idea of being vested with the name. The intimate connection between the son of David and the son of Aaron reminds us of the ordination of king Solomon.
“Zadok the priest then took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon.” (1 Kings 1:39). That event also took place at a body of water. But there are perhaps more parallels with the anointing of David which had to be done in private, because Shaul was already king.
“And Yaua said arise , “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of Yaua came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam. 16). So again we see that it is the high priest at the time who anoints David and immediately the spirit of Yaua came upon him. However unlike the baptism of Jesus this was not a national event but like the baptism Yaua spoke confirming the choice and sent the spirit. John the Baptist baptised Jesus and recognised him as the son of God. He later testified: “This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me. And I did not recognize Him but in order that he might be manifest to Israel, I came baptizing in water. I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and he remained upon him” (John 1:32-33). Perhaps the greatest pair they can be compared with is Moses and Aaron. Aaron performed the signs Yaua gave him in order to support Moses (Ex 4).
5-114 The Priest John the Evangelist
The next priest of the early Church context is that of the author John’s gospel and epistles. We will call him John the Evangelist for the sake of clarity and convenience. This man is according to Westcott clearly a priest from the evidence present in the gospel. His detailed knowledge of Jewish practices in the gospel of John point to this idea, at the same time he was a close disciple of Jesus. “Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest” While the text doesn’t say specifically that he was a priest there are evidences evincing this fact including a late antique tradition recorded in Eusebius we will look at below.
This disciple had the ability to influence the door man (who was most likely a priest) and get Peter into an area where only certain people were permitted. The Church then had connections not just close to the priesthood but to the high priest. This disciple is later given the name John in Church tradition. Late evidence supporting the closeness of John the Evangelist to the priesthood is represented in the tradition handed by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and recorded by Eusebius. “In Asia great luminaries sleep who shall arise again on the last day, the day of the Lords advent...there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus” (H. E. 3:31).
Here Polycrates first supports the point that John was a priest. But in addition he notes that John wore the mitre. But he does not say this in any way so as to make a theological point. For him its was simply and matter of fact. In the same way that Philip was not a priest. The mitre in the Septuagint is that which is mentioned in Exodus 28.
And thou shalt make a plate (petalon) of pure gold, and thou shalt grave on it as the graving of a signet, Holiness to Yaua (H. qodesh la Yaua-G. hagiasma kuriou). And thou shalt put it on the spun blue cloth, and it shall be on the mitre: and it shall in the front of the mitre (H. misnepheth). And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron; and Aaron shall bear away the sins of their holy things, all that the sons of Israel shall sanctify every gift of their holy things, and it shall be on the fore head of Aaron continually acceptable for them before Yaua.
As is evident from the text the mitre is not worn by the ordinary priest. It is worn by the high priest. The likelhood is that there would not have been many mitres around the temple. It also bore a plate of gold attached by blue lace which had qadosh layaua engraved on it. That is it had the name Yaua engraved on it. In some Jewish tradition the name Yaua was the special preserve not only of the priesthood but of the high priest. Although there is much evidence to the contrary some still believe that the high priest only said the name Yaua once year on the holiest day of the year, yom kippur. This was in the holiest place on earth, the qodesh qodeshim. But of all Israel it was only the high priest who was allowed to utter that name. But according to Exodus it was Aaron alone in Israel who wore the mitre . If then the mitre was used by the various high priests down to the destruction of the temple the final one to use it would be either Matthias son of Theophilus or Phanas of Phannias. The question then would be where did the mitre go? Where is the mitras which bore the name Yaua and was worn only by the high priest. Is it possible that John recieved it and and brought it into the Church?
John the bond Servant
There is strong evidence in the Apocalypse that the author was a priest. The Apocalypse is one of the texts which is used by scholars to indicate temple practice at the end of the second temple period. His message goes into the intricate details of temple practices and as a priest follows in the tradition of priest prophets or prophets with revelations of the heavenly temple such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Haggai, Malachi and Zechariah son of Berechiah. Again if, as Church tradition has maintained he is the same John who wrote the anonymous gospel of John then we have another evidence to support his priestly position.
As we have noted the special concern of the priesthood was the memorial name Yaua. And there are scholars who argue that central to understanding the apocalypse is the recognition that Yaua, the name of God extremely important to it (Tyson). Why would this be? Perhaps because the Church continued the work of the priesthood in Jerusalem. Not just in a symbolic sense but in a literal sense. When the temple was destroyed the priesthood did not disappear it went into the Church.
5-114 Theophilus grandfather of Joanna
With the evidence coming of regarding the high priest Theophilus who ruled from AD 37-41 and was appointed by King Herod Agrippa 1 Andersen has recieved support for his thesis. His thesis asserts that the Theophilus which Luke wrote to was one and the same with Theophilus the high priest in AD 37. The evidence includes an ossuary of Johanna grandaughter of Theophilus. The names Theophilus and Johanna are only mentioned by Luke. This evidence also strengthens the idea that the Church continued the line of the priesthood. It is also in this context notable that Johanna the grandaughter of Theophilus the high priest is in this thesis held thought to be a witness of the resurrection. It was also Matthias the son of Theophilus who was the last high priest before the war with Rome. If it was his daughter who was the witness of the resurrection and as a result a believer this would be a very close connection to the Church.
5-115 A Great Company of Priests
Strong support for this position is also represented by the witness of Luke in Acts. There he records “And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith”. This phrase a great many is clearly important in this respect. Who were these priests and why did they become obedient to the faith at that time? There were a large number of priests who joined the Church just before the martyrdom of Stephen. Luke has been confirmed as a first class historian by the works of such scholars as Ramsay, CJ Hemer and Gasque, Bruce and Howard . When he says a large number of priests we need to take him seriously. Marshall (Acts, 1980) simply skips over the verse. However Ellicot (1971, 871) picks up the significance:
The fact is every way significant. No priest is named as a follower of our Lord’s. None, up to this time, had been converted by the apostles. The new fact is connected with the new teaching of Stephen. And the main feature of that teaching is an anticipation of what was later proclaimed more clearly by Paul: that the time for sacrifices has passed away, and that the Law and the Temple were decaying.” Ellicots observation of the fact is significant, although to assign the cause to Stephen cannot gain support for his case is taken up following the conversion of many priests. Bruce (1970, 980) observes “Many of the ordinary priests were humble pious men unlike the wealthy ecclesiatical politicians of the high priestly family.” He does not say much more. Bairds notes that, “This summary 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 priests saw in the teaching of the Church something connected with their work not simply its nullification. We will see that the Church was not only interested in priestly tradition, which itself is centred around the name Yaua, but they were establishing the priestly tradition of the kingdom of God, which began with John the Baptist. The Life Application Bible (1991, 1946) notes “Jesus had told the disciples that they were to witness first in Jerusalem (1:8). In a short time, their message had infiltrated the entire city and all levels of society. Even some priests were being converted, an obvious violation of the wishes of the council that would endanger their position.”
The Life Application Bible down plays the numbers of priests and seems to see their conversion as surprising. But with Lukes historical assertion of their conversion we need to perhaps wonder what were the possible causes of their conversion. The first cause may have been the signs, wonders and healing which were taking place at the hands of the apostles. According to Acts 5 two person in the congregation dropped dead having had their sins exposed. Immediatley afterward it is recorded that they were highly regarded by the people but no one else dared to join them. The level of holiness demonstrated when Ananias and Saphira dropped dead may have impressed priests who were used to the idea of those violating God’s holiness dropping dead, as with two of Aarons sons and possibly any high priest who entered the holy of holies unworthily. The Mishna asserts that on approaching the day of atonement a second high priest should be available in case the first one dropped dead and the first entered with a rope around his leg in case he dropped dead and had to be pulled out. Secondly with the head on clash with the high priests over the name and the trial with the Sanhedrin it is clear the Apostles won that battle. The Angel of Yaua released them from prison and all the priests knew about it. After Peter’s shadow started healing people the high priest and his associates arrested him. The Pharisee Gamaliel then spoke out in support of the apostles implying that the high priests and the Sanhedrin by fighting the apostles might be fighting God. Although Gamaliel’s influence among the priests is unlikely to be too strong he was said to be honored by all the people. It is not surprising then that priests having seen their high priests defeated in the Sanhedrin and the prison emptied and people publicly healed began to realise the message of these followers of the son of David may have some truth to it.

5-116 Is there evidence that the rites of the priesthood influenced the rites of the church?
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”
(http://www.andreiorlov.com/)
Firstly we note that it is John the Baptist a priest of the sons of Aaron who was baptising in the Jordan river. This could be described as a levitical or priestly act as it had its origin in Leviticus: “Ritual immersion in water from a living water source- established as a practice in the book of Leviticus- was understood to render the Jews ritually clean, enabling him or her to enter certain pure or sacred areas (such as the Temple precinct) and to participate in specific religious events and in Jewish society as a whole” (99 Pfann S.J. 1999, 337) as a whole His purposes in baptising were manifold. According to the Gospel of John, the Baptist was witnessing to the true light (Joh 1:6). But who was this true light? This true light was the Word of God. According to Gieschen “It is not surprising that Israelites and Jews, long before and during the first century C. E. , referred to this angel [the angel of Yaua who had the Name Yaua in him] as “the Word of YHWH”, “the Word of God”, or simply “the Word”” For Gieschen “Since this “angel” has the name YHWH in him, he is not from among the myraids of created angels; he is YHWH in a visible form”. Thus John was bearing witness to the Word who would have YAUA’s name in him. He bore witness in a priestly way by washing people in the waters of baptism. They came and were immersed, confessing their sins. In other words through their confession and baptism their sins were washed away. However in the Temple based society, people recieved forgiveness of sins in a number of ways. Firstly they had the sacrifices, the sins offerings and the trespass offerings. These were designed to prepare for the forgiveness of their sins. The same with the Day of Atonement where the high priest would intercede for the whole nation and obtain the forgiveness of his sins, his family’s sins and Israel sins. But John a priest, came offering the forgiveness of sins on another level. But John’s activity only prepared people for the one who was coming in the name YAUA. Although it is likely that at the baptism the people were returning to YAUA and so at some point, either before or after they were immersed they would call on the the name YAUA, this prepared them for when they would be immersed not in water but in the Holy Spirit. It is clear from Johns words that Holy Spirit is understood to be a far more powerful work of God than his baptism in water. The Holy Spirit to John represented the presence of YAUA himself. For he claimed to be fulfilling Isaiah 40: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness prepare the way of YAUA; nake straight a highway for our God...And the glory of YAUA will be revealed and all mankind will see it together.” In setting himself in this context John understands the Holy Spirit baptism the revelation of the glory of YAUA.

5-117 This revelation is also some how connected with the temple in the thinking of Mark. For in Marks Gospel a citation is made from Malachi 3 “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.” And significantly in Matthew Jesus himself applied the passage to John. John sent disciples to talk to Jesus about if he was the one or if another should be expected. As they were leaving Jesus says to the crowd:
What did you go out to the desert to see? ...A prophet? Yes, I tell you and more than a prophet, this is the one about whom it is written “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you”. (Matt 11:10)

In the MT this is YAUA speaking and it is clear that it is Yaua who would follow the coming of the messenger. In this passage John becomes a messenger preparing the way for YAUA. Then the messenger of the covenant comes, whom Israel has desired. His specific work in the Malachi context is to “purify the levites and refine them as gold and silver. Then YAUA will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness.” Part of the work then is with the priesthood, with those who offer sacrifices. The book of Malachi is written perhaps primarily to for the defence of the honour of YAUA’s name. The central cry is perhaps “Great is YAUA beyond the borders of Israel”. YAUA addresses the contempt of the priests very directly.
1 They offered defiled bread
2 They offer blind, sick and lame animals
3 They were effectively kindling the fire of the altar for nothing
4 YAUA had no pleasure in them and would not accept offerings from them
In contrast to this his name would be great among the Gentiles who would offer incense to his name.
Malachi begins to send out curses. First the man who has an acceptable animal but promises and offers to Adonai a corrupt thing. But more seriously YAUA addresses a warning to the priests:
And now this o ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not lay it to heart and to give glory to my name, saith YAUA Tzevaoth I will send a curse upon you and I will curse your blessings: yea I have cursed them already because you do not lay it to heart. (Mal 2:2)

For Malachi the command “lo techalel et shem eloheiqa”, You shall not profane the name of you God” had been transgressed. For the prophet charged them: ve atem mechalelim ‘oto be’emarcem shulcan adonai megoal hu’ veniyvo nivzeh ‘aclo” And you have profaned it in that you say ‘The table of Adonai is vile”. YAUA accuses the priests of saying:
1 What a burden it is and you sniff at it contemptously.
2 They were accused of bringing animals which were taken forcefully (gazal) or had been stolen in robbery.
Chapter three of Malchi lays out the ideal of the role of the priest. The covenant YAUA made with Levi was for life and peace. Levi had recieved this for he feared YAUA and was afraid before his name. The law of truth was on his lips and he walked with YAUA in peace and uprightness and turned many away from inquity. The lips of the priests should guard and the people should seek the law or instruction from his mouth for the priest is a messenger of YAUA TZEVAOTH. It then runs through some transgressions of the people especially regarding marrying the daughter of a El Necar (strange god).
Finally we come to the passage which Mark applies to John the Baptist and to Jesus:
“Behold I will send My Messenger , and he shall prepare my way before me”.
Malachi then is important for a number of reasons as we consider the use of the name YAUA in the second temple period. Firstly it shows us that during the Persian period the Temple priests began to despise the name. This is the period just before the coming of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period when the supposed mass withdrawal from the use of the name began. It shows that YAUA would even curse the blessing he had given to the priests to do in the Temple on a daily basis where they were used to use his name, three times. One can imagine the impact this may have had on the thinking of the priests as they blessed and the people as they recieved the blessing. However the above also shows that his name was great among the nations.
The Dead Sea Covenanters marked some of the criticisms of the book and had specific rules to avoid making the same errors (CD 6:13, 4Q265 41-2, CD 20:19-20). The book contains a specific blessing for those who feared YAUA and honouerd his name. They were written into a scroll of rememberance ( sepher zichron) and would be his jewels (segulah) who would be spared in the future. And as noted one of the special focuses of the book is referred to John, and as a result the book applies to Jesus.
So baptism connects with the forgiveness of sins which was a priestly operation in the Jewish culture. In the normal context people would turn to Jerusalem, to where YAUA and placed his name. They would then confess their sins and God would forgive, for his eyes and his heart were on his house in Jerusalem because his name was there. We see this in the prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8). However in the first century John had gone out to the desert (as had the Essenes whom he may be connected with) to the Jordan. And people were flocking to him to recieve the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that YAUA’s name must have been with him.

5-118 Fossum notes in his The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord that Moses is imaged as one vested with God's name. In being vested with the divine name he is regaining the glory which had lost in the garden of Eden. Moses is vested with God's name on his ascension to Mount Sinai. This was seen as a heavenly enthronement and a restoration of divine glory. The idea is compared with an idea of Jesus recieving the divine name as described in the Gospel of Philip.
One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the father gave to the son; it is the name above all things: the name of the father. For the son would not become father unless he wore the name of the father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it (Gospel of Philip II 54, Robinson, 1990, 142)
Here the Father gave the Son his name which is exalted above all (Fossum, 1985, 95). Fossum asserts "The secret name which is given to Jesus is identical with the Name of the Father obviously is the proper name of God. Jesus is then believed to have been vested with the name of God.[7].
Thus we see that the name according to the Gospel of Philip is worn and not spoken. And it is possessed by more than one person not only Jesus. For Fossum the name is YAUA. One issue is less certain the time of being clothed with the name.
5-119 When did this investiture take place? J. Quispel in "Gnosticism and the New Testament", ( in J. P. Hyatt, ed., The Bible in modern scholarship, Nashville & New york , 1965.;p 266) believes the crowning took place at baptism. This is based on his understanding that the "Valentinians thought that at that moment the Name of God descended upon Jesus... . ibid p.52. This is interesting because in the period names and baptisms were definitely connected. For example the disciples were baptising people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:2), and Paul took precautions so that no one would think they were baptised in his name. For Paul says to the Corinthian Church “Were you baptised in the name of Paul. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." Menander the disciple of Simon Magus who is supposed to be the disciple of John the Baptist baptised people in his own name (Grant, Second Century Christianity) . The baptism of Jesus however was performed by John the Baptist. The pertinent question is in which name did John baptise in? We need only look at his credentials to see. He came to prepare the way of YAUA (Mark 1, Isa 40). He came as a prophet. According to the Mosaic law, if John was a true prophet, and few seem to have doubted that at the time, he could only have come in one name YAUA[8] (Deu 13:1, Due 18). Throughout the Scriptures, prophets were tested by the criteria set out in the Law of Moses. And the Torah stated very clearly that a prophet had to speak in the name of YAUA, and if he came in the name of another god he would die (Deu 18). Pfanns words can be applied here “It would be untenable to think that John would abrogate the requirements of the Mosaic law for his followers” (99 Pfann 1999, 346) only in this case we speak of the laws on prophecy not immersion. Elijah had the prophets of Baal executed as a group and John was seen as coming in his spirit and power.
5-119 John the Baptist came preparing the way of YAUA and therefore if he baptised in any name it had to be that of YAUA. Do we have evidence of others in the period baptising in the name of YAUA? The answer is again affirmative. There is a toseftah which relates a dispute between Pharisees and a Day baptiser or hemerobaptists. In this dispute there is a disagreement as to when the name YAUA should be spoken[9] during the baptism process. Whether before the person entered the water or afterwards. The Article in Jewish Encyclopedia on the Hemerobaptists relates that they were a
Division of Essenes who bathed every morning before the hour of prayer in order to pronounce the name of God with a clean body (Tosef., Yad., end; the correct version being given by R. Simson of Sens: "The morning bathers said to the Pharisees: 'We charge you with doing wrong in pronouncing the Name in the morning without having taken the ritual bath'; whereupon the Pharisees said: 'We charge you with wrong-doing in pronouncing the Name with a body impure within'"). In the time of Joshua b. Levi (3d cent.) a remnant still existed, but had no clear reason for their practise (Ber. 22a).[vii]
Thus we see that according to this evidence both the Pharisees and the Hemerobaptists, contemporaries of Jesus Christ and the early Church, used to speak the name Yaua, regularly and repeatedly. They did not only speak it but spoke it every day. The Pharisees do not appear to have any ritual behind the utterring of the name, whereas the Hemerobaptists believed one should be immersed or baptised before using it. The Clementina of the second and third century, place John the Baptist among the hemerobaptists. Although this can not be taken as conclusive it does support the possibility of the belief among the Valentinians that Jesus recieved the name of God at baptism. For John here is said to be in a group who specifically immersed themselves so that they could utter the name Yaua. As we have already noted John the Baptist was considered a prophet and just a glance through MT indicates that throughout the Law and the Prophets all prophets came in the name Yaua. The mantle of the name Yaua is then seen as descending on Jesus at the baptism. There is other evidence in the New Testament to support this position. Firstly we know that Jesus himself claimed to come in the name of his Father. He like John was called a prophet by his contemporaries. They even compared him with Jeremiah and Elijah or one of the prophets. This being the case what we find conspicuous about all these with whom Jesus was compared is that they came in the name Yaua. Jesus pictured John the baptist as Elijah. Elijah was expected to return because of the prophecy of Malachi as mentioned earlier. An earlier prophecy of Malachi is applied to John by the Gospel of Mark: We see in the case of Elijah and his successor, Elisha, that the succession took place at the river Jordan. Jesus initiation under the ministry of the levitical priest John the baptist is also recorded as taking place at the river Jordan. When Elijah left Elisha ripped up his mantle, picks up Elijah’s mantle and struck the water and says “Where is YAUA the God of Elijah?”. When the waters opened the prophets said “The Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha” (2 King 2). In one sense they recognised the anointing of Elisha with the Spirit of Yaua even as John the baptist recognises the ministry of Jesus when the heavens opened up. John bore witness
I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me , Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost (John 1:29ff)
If John were practising hemerobaptist baptism as indicated by the Clementines then the name YAUA could be uttered after the immersion at the same time that Jesus saw the vision and heard the voice. The parallels are quite general:
Eliyahu/Elisha Yochanan/ Yeshua
People Two prophets Two prophets
Place: Next to Jordan In the Jordan
Event: succession and initiation initiation, baptism for all righteousenss After event YAUA’s Spirit acts Heavens open Spirit comes as a dove
Prophets recognize Elisha Prophet recognizes Jesus as his successor
As successor to Elijah
Temptation
Elisha miracle ministry Yeshua (Yehosha) begins miracle ministry

There may not be parallels to show that the gospel writers were modelling the succession in the two cases but in both cases a succession ministry was begun and and old ministry was drawing to a close. YAUA is conspicously present in the case of Eliyahu and Elisha and it Jesus who compared John with Elijah (Matt 17:12) and his own connection with Eliyahu and Elisha (Luke 4:25,26)
If indeed the name YAUA was used at the baptism of Jesus as seems very likely we would expect a memory of the idea in the collective memory of the early Church. For Jesus is the the one whom the Church follows. Has the Church then any recollection of the connection between baptism and the name YAUA.
5-120 Baptism in the name of Jesus and Calling on the name Yaua
Our first evidence that the early Hebrew Nazarenes saw a connection between the name YAUA and baptism comes from the scriptures the early Church refers to in preaching the gospel and baptising Jews and later Gentiles. In Acts 2:21 Peter says regarding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the attendant effects that this was a fulfilment of Joel 2. He notes “And it shall be that every one who calls on the name of YAUA shall be saved”. Here he cites a passage in which contains the name YAUA. Later on when the people asked what they need to do, Peter tells them:
“Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)... Be saved from this perverse generation...And the Lord was adding to their day by day those who were being saved 2:47” Thus we have the prophecy, YAUA shall save those who will call on his name. They are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to be saved. Thus to call on the name YAUA is to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. It is practically certain that Peter was not speaking Greek and that when he cited scripture he cited them in Hebrew. Thus there is no escaping that he was referring to the name YAUA. Even the term Lord here seems almost certainly to refer to YAUA for Peter notes the promise is to all those whom “the Lord our God” shall call. This phrase is almost definitely referring to YAUA ELOHEINU, of approximately 98 occurences of this phrase in MT 96 refer directly to YAUA eloheinu and 2 in Daniel to Adonai Eloheinu, but Daniel also uses YAUA Eloheinu. This was not a synagogue so there is no need to assume that he was using adonai in this context. On the other hand we are not certain if he was speaking Aramaic or Hebrew and we do not know with certainty which word he used when he referred to YAUA but we know YAUA was intended. The only alternatives are Adonai and Marya and there is no strong evidence to suggest that he had any reason to change the name of YAUA to another name .
5-121 Paul makes the same connection in Roman’s although he does not refer directly to baptism. He asserts “If you confess with you mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart God raised from the dead, you shall be saved...for whoever calls on the name of YAUA shall be saved” Roman 10:9, 13).
5-122 It is the literature of the Aramaic speaking Church and the Gnostics where the connection between the name YAUA and baptism has been retained most clearly.[viii] A most telling connection is found between the sign of the cross as a seal of the believer being baptised and the name YAUA, the tetragrammaton. In the Western Tradition the repentant was first baptised and then given the sign of the cross as a seal of the unction following. Fossum describes it as a “post baptismal signatio crucis of the forehead associated with an unction and performed with or without oil” (Fossum 1985, 101). However in the Syriac speaking Church the tradition was different and connection the seal of the sign of the cross with the name YAUA. According to Fossum in Syriac Christianity the sealing of the unction came before the actual baptism. And whereas in the Western Tradition the sign of the cross was a symbol of the name cristos or the cross upon which he died in the Syriac speaking Church this was not the case. “It had retained its significance as an emblem of the Divine Name” (Fossum 1985, 101).

Narsai, a fifth century Nestorian Church Father who lived in Edessa, illustrates this in his Liturgical Homilies. When the priest anoints the candidate, asserts Narsai: He “signs the flock with the sign of the Lord, and seals upon it His Hidden Name by the outward look” Homiliy 22 (R.H. Connolly trans. The Lirturgical Homolies of Narsai (TS, VIII/1), Cambridge, 1909). Narsai also writes “the Name of the Divinity looks out from the sign on the forehead” (Connolly p.45). The sign is the cross and here the divine name is said to look out from the cross. Fossums argument is that although Narsai is quite late he reflects an earlier tradition. This tradition is reflected in the Syriac Odes of Solomon and the Acts of Thomas. Here the untion is called a “sealing” and the seal is the Name. Firstly in the Acts of Thomas we see that as Thomas begins the rite he calls on the Name. He says
“...Jesus , let [your] victorious Power come, and let it settle in this oil [...] and let it dwell in this oil, over which we name your holy Name! (Ch 157) (Fossum 1985, 102) Fossum makes the observation that the Power is “identical with the Name”. In chapter 27 and 132 the Divine Name is called the “Power of the Most High” and the Power established in Christ”.
It is very important for us to give attention to the words used by Thomas in the rite. Such words of ritual are for the most part missing from the New Testament but will help us to understand what people actually said and when the name may have been used and how. We note that Thomas claims to name Jesus name over the oil. A pertinent question is how does one name a name over the oil? However this is not our purpose now. Narsai gives some insight as to how the Name and its Power enters the catechumen:
The “Secret Power” which is contained in the oil is the Hidden Name: “The name of the Divinity he mixes in his hands with the oil[...]...Through the anointing the believer recieves the Name: “With the Name hidden in it [i.e. the oil] he signs the visible body, and the sharp power of the Name enters even into the soul”.
This connection between the three synonyms Name, Power and Spirit can give great insight into the understanding of the New Testament and the place of the name in it.
5-122 The Name used in a complete anointing rite
So far we have seen that the name is central to the sealing of the Christian at baptism, but we have not seen how or when the name was actually spoken. I understand this to be because despite the apparent openess of the gospels regarding baptism, they in reality are not so. Baptism is part of the hidden teaching of Jesus not open to those outside. So the gospels only refer to the fact that people were baptised into or in the name of Jesus. We are not given the actual steps one should take when being baptised nor the exact word one spoke at each stage in the liturgical order for baptism. Some believe this is because the exact words are not important. However the secrecy of baptism in the early Church is illustrated in the 4th century words of Cyril of Jerusalem. Cyril’s main importance is as a witness to the liturgical practice of the fourth century”. Bettenson,H “The Later Christian Fathers, Oxford:OUP, 1970)
When an instruction is given, if a catechumen inquires what the instructors have said, do not tell anything to an outisider, for we are entrusting to you a mystery....You are now standing on the frontier : take care not to let slip a word: not because what you might say is unworthy of utterance, but because the hearer is not worthy to recieve it. You yourself were once a catechumen, and then I did not tell you what was to come in future instruction. (Bettensom, 1970, p41)
This secrecy in certain teaching is represented at one level in the gospels where outsiders were taught in parables (Matth 13) and where the close disciples are permitted to know the secrets of the kingdom of God (Matt 13, Luke 8). But the secrets continue into the Epistles where mature Christians are taught the hidden wisdom which the rulers of this world did not understand and carnal Christians are not able to bear (1 Cor 2). The apocalypse contains much of the hidden material which is only hinted at in the gospel and even it says “Let him who has wisdom compute the number of the beast (Rev 13).
We are then fortunate that Ireneus did some research into the Valentinians and other second century groups with the intention to expose them. He has preserved for us a simple baptismal liturgy with the words of the baptiser, the baptised and the witnessed. Ireneus introduces the liturgy thus:” Others, again, set forth the redemption thus: The name which is hidden from every deity, and dominion, and truth which Jesus of Nazareth was clothed with in the lives2926 of the light of Christ—of Christ, who lives by the Holy Ghost, for the angelic redemption. The name of restitution stands thus”
Baptiser/Initiator Messia, Uphareg, Namempsœman, Chaldœaur, Mosomedœa, Acphranœ, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria
I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither the heart nor the supercelestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Saviour of truth!

Initiate I am established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age (world), and from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul into redemption in Christ who liveth.

Witnesses Peace be to all on whom this name rests.

And thus we find three partakers in the baptism. And most significant of all we find the name IAW in the confession of the one who is being redeemed. The name iao is then on the lips of the one being baptised. Thsi “Christian” group saw a confession in the name of Iao as central to the baptismal process and the redemption of the sould from the world. The witnesses then confess “peace to all on whom this name rests”. This is clealy an allusion to the priestly blessing which was designed to place Yaua’s name on Israel. The blessing uses the name three times and ends with the “Yaua life his countenance towards you and give you peace”. We see that the name is referred to in all three confessions involved in this bapstism. And the purpose of the baptism is to bring the name to rest on the one being baptised.



An additional evidence that some thing occurs in the baptism which was connected with the name is the clear New Testament evidence that Jesus refered to and ministered and acted in that name. Firstly before at the baptism the declaration of the Father is “This is my beloved son”.
Matthew 1 outos estin o uios mou o agaphtos, en w eudokhsa
mark su ei o uios o agaphtos, eudokhsa
luke uios mou ei su, egw shmeron gegenhka



In all cases the voice refers to Jesus as the Son. This declaration harps back to Psalm 2, where the Psalmist says I will declare the decree of Yaua. He said to be bni atah, my son you are. Luke rendering in Luke holds closet to the text in Psalm 2.
This states in the standard printed edition:

διαγγελλων το προσταγμα κυριου κυριος ειπεν προς με υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε

Which agrees with the Lukan records of the events. The key point is that in the Hebrew it is Yaua alone who speaks. The synoptics then move into the temptation. In Matthews case Jesus uses the phrase “the mouth of God”, where the MT uses “the mouth of Yaua”, “You shall not tempt Yaua thy God”, “You shall worship Yaua thy God” and him only shalt serve. In Luke he states “every word of God”, “You shall worship Yaua thy God” and “You shall not tempt Yaua thy God”. It is interesting that in both cases the command about living from the words proceeding from “the mouth of Yaua”, Yaua is changed to theos implying that in the text Jesus was citing or Luke and Matthew were referring had Elohim in the text. However in both the other texts the form “Yaua thy God” is retained.


και εκακωσεν σε και ελιμαγχονησεν σε και εψωμισεν σε το μαννα ο ουκ ειδησαν οι πατερες σου ινα αναγγειλη σοι οτι ουκ επ' αρτω μονω ζησεται ο ανθρωπος αλλ' επι παντι ρηματι τω εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου ζησεται ο ανθρωπος

The printed LXX based on Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus speak of “dia stomatos theou”. Matthew has the same. Luke has “panti remati theou”. The MT refers to “Pi Yaua”, mouth of Yaua. The Lhamsa translation from the Aramaic hasthe “mouth of Yaua” in the OT but “Mouth of God” in Matthew. Thus Matthew 4:4 represents a seperate tradition over whose mouth the word comes from by which man may live. However both Matthew and Luke indicate it is the Lord your God in the other two cases.
Matthew Luke LXX
kurion ton theon kurion ton theon kurion ton theon
kurion ton theon sou kurion ton theon kurion ton theon

We may notice something in the way kurion is written which may indicate something special in its treatment. It is not given with any definite article as theos is. This ungrammatical treatment may be there to draw the readers attention to something. The point however which we want to make is clear. In the first words recorded of Jesus after his baptism the name Yaua occurs at least two times. The conversation is completely private and it is the Son of God who is speaking. There would appear to be no reason whatsoever why he would not have spoken the name.
The anointing took place at baptism. The voice was that of his Father. He recieved the Spirit which is sometimes called “the Name” or “the Power”. Jesus then goes forth and later claims “I have come in my Father’s name.” We remember the discussion on the seal and how it is connected to the Name. Jesus says in John 6:27, the Son of Man...for on Him the Father, God has set his seal”. The seal can be seen in the light of what we have said above but also in relation to the Gospel of John. In this gospel John the Baptist states he knew who Jesus was because he saw the Spirit, come down on him. Perhaps the voice of the Apocalypse can also speak here. Firstly we see a group in chapter seven who are sealed by the angel who arose from the east with the seal of the living God. They were sealed before it was permitted top harm the land and the sea and the trees. This seal went on their foreheads. They were from all the tribes of Israel although Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned. This group are called the servants of our God. Secondly there is the group in chapter 9 who are protected because they have the seal of God on their forehead. Under the fifth trumpet we are not told what the seal of God is. However in chapter 14 we find the 144000 have the Lambs name and his Father name’s written on their foreheads. The Son of Man came in the name of his Father. But this was the name which the Father also gave to him (John 17). The protection provided by the seal of God on the foreheads was a spiritual protection. The locusts which were sent to harm people without the seal of God on their foreheads. This implied that these locusts which by most commentators are considered demonic could see and read the seal of God on the forehead of certain people and as a result would have to leave them alone. Thus the power of this woe was limited and the seal acted as protection. This is also perhaps an allusion to the high priest and he mitre he had on his forehead which read qadosh leyaua. This again point to the fact that the sealing is connected with the name. As with most many ancient seals, this seal bore a name. Davis (1944) speaks of a seal as “a signet ring or cylinder, engraven with the owners name or some design or both...Men affixed their seal as a signature to letters or other documents”.
Jesus makes clear in his “high priestly prayer” that name the Father gave him was to be used to protect or guard his disciples. He prays “Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name- the name you gave me- so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me” (John 17:11-12 NIV)

The Name in Texts of Ritual Power
[1] Lev 4:27 and Lev 3:12: This fragement is dated to the first centuryu BB by CH Roberts
[2] In Latin we also have Tertullian discussion on the way the name entered scriptures according to the Valentinans. (Against the Valentinians XIV)
[3] Betz says “Iao originally derived from the name of the Hebrew god YAHA, became an important deity in magical literature SeeJ. Michl, RAC 5(1965): 215, no.102; R. Ganschinietz, “IAO,” PRE 9 (1914):698-721. In addition to being attested in the Nag Hammadi Literature (See Robinson , The Nag Hammadi Library in English, index) , Iao is found at Qumran 4q Lev b LXX ; cf. H. Stegemann” in M. Delco , ed., Qumran. Sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu (Gembloux: Duculot, 1978) 195-217.
[4][4] Ireneus also gives meanings to the other Hebrew terms: Eloe is God, Eloeim or Elouth , that which contains all, Adonai, that which is nameable and admirable or if the daleth is doubled, one who bounds and seperates the land from the water.
[5] Cf Gen 1:7)
[6] I derived this from the context.
[7] However in view of Gnostic theology the name would be as probably Christ as it would be YAUA. However both have a place as we shall see.
[8] Indeed in light of our discussion on Malachi to glorify the name YAUA would have been central to the purpose of his ministry as well as to turn many people from their sins to the name YAUA.
[9] No question of if, simply when.
[i] Although this is a tetragrammaton it does not represent the full name for iota replaces both yod and vav. This reflects some renderings of the name in paleo Hebrew which write the name as yod heh yod heh, yaya in my transliteration system.
[ii] In whose article I read the witness of Skehan and Tov.
[iii] It may be that the reason kurios found its way into so may Greek texts is because they may have come from Aramaic texts. Many scholars see a move from YAUA to Adonai and from Adonai to KS. However there are not so many texts which contain Adonai over 6000 times. And the likelihood of the Christian have such good relation with the Jews as to desire to follow their tradition on this point does not seem realistic. Thus it is more likely that the tradition of using kurios comes from Christain having access to Aramaic manuscripts came accord maryah and simply translated it ks. The Aramaic translations in many cases seem to have the practice of replacing YAUA with Mar or some other title for God. The examples of Aramaic in the Bible , Ezra and Daniel follw this policy. They may have YAUA before and after the Aramaic section but the Aramaic sections do not contin the name. Thus it may be that later Aramaic translators followed this practice. However another practice is followed in the case of the Jews from Elephantine.
[iv] Renan even speaks of the Jewish Cabbala as “nothing else than the Gnosticism of the Jews. The sephiroth are the perfections of Valentinus.
[v] They were divided into 8, 10 and 12 worlds, called an ogdoad, a decad and a duodecad. The eight consisted of married couples. These were Profundity-1 (First beginning or First Father) and Idea-2 (Grace and Silence). There children were Mind-3 and Truth-4. Mind begat Word-5 and Life-6. And Word begat Man-7 and Church-8. These eight are called the first ogdoad.
The second decade came forth from Word and Life. These were
Deep-9 and Mingling-10, Incorruptible-11 and Union-12,
Self Existing-13 and Pleasure-14
Immoveable-15 and Blending-16
Only Begotten-17 and Happiness-18
The last twelve were the children of Man and Church. These were
Advocate-19 and Faith-20
Ancestra-21 and Hope-22
Metrical-23 and Love-24
Praise-25 and Understanding-26
Ecclesiastical-27 and Felicity-28
Desired-29 and Wisdom-30

Thus the number thirty is important to the Valentinians. Profundity was known only to the Only Begotten who was Mind. To all the other worlds he was invisible. It was only Mind who took pleasure in Profundity.
However Mind wanted to share him with the rest of the worlds but Silence (his wife) restrained him in accordance with the will of Profundity(his father). Mind wanted to create with in the worlds a desire to investigate Profundity’s nature which they also wanted.

The thirtieth and youngest world Wisdom was impatient and experienced passion apart from her husband Desired. This passion had first arisen among those connected with Mind and Truth but was contagious and Wisdom caught it.

Wisdom pretended to act from love but she was really acting rashly. She had not enjoyed communion with the Perfect (Profundity) like Mind had. She had a desire to search into the nature of the Profundity and wanted to comprehend his greatness. This was impossible so she got frustrated.

She was always stretching herself and there was a danger she would be absorbed by his sweetness and disappear into his essence except for a power which supports all things and preserves them outside of the unspeakbale greatness. This power proceeded from Profundity but without his wife existed outside the Fulness (the thirty worlds).
This power was called Boundary. Boundary restrained Wisdom and supported her. She was thus brought back to herself and convinced that Profundity was incomprehensible and thus laid aside her plan and the passion which had arisen form the overwhelming influence of her admiration. However her Thought and the Passion were banished from the Fulness. Her thought was name Achamoth.
The Fulness and Wisdom acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father gave orgin to another pair, Christ and the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of strengthening the Fulness. They completed the number of the ages. Christ taught their place and the Holy Spirit taught them to give thanks for being rendered equal. They all sang praises to the First Father.
[vi] The Syriac Odes of Solomon make a connection between the four letters of the full name and the sign of the cross. This connection is explored in Fossum.
[vii] The Clementina speak of John the Baptist as a Hemerobaptist, and the disciples of John are accordingly called "Hemerobaptists" ("Homilies," ii. 23; comp. "Recognitions," i. 54); similarly, Banus, the teacher of Josephus ("Vita," § 2), was a Hemerobaptist. Hegesippus (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists as one of the seven Jewish sects or divisions opposed to the Christians. Justin ("Dial. cum Tryph." § 80) calls them simply "Baptists."

Kurios
Thus De troyer and others scholars read “Onomazwm to onoma kuriou thanatw thanatousw” to mean that one who simply speaks the name should be put to death. And this is read as a supposed restriction on anyone speaking the name whatsoever. But if this is a restriction on speaking the name it does not indicate any exceptions. This would imply that the high priest himself would be forbidden from speaking the name. However no scholars assert that the high priest was forbidden to use thr name at the time the LXX was translated in the third century BCE. Thus this reading of the phrase, naming the name of YAUA is too wide. Thus naming the name YAUA can not be taken as restricting all men from pronouncing the name in any context. It must be limited. The first limitation could be the fact that this passage is translating the idea of naming the naming, as in using it for a blasphemy or a curse. Thus in the translators mind cursing the name or using it in a curse may have been the meaing of naming the name. As we saw earlier under Hebrew this use of the name was specifically forbidden in the law in Hebrew.
This phrase onomazwn to onoma kuriou occurs in the Second Letter of Timothy(2:19).
Nevertheless the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal “the Lord knows those who are his,”. And, Let every one who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness”




These sources present very strong evidence that the name was used in the private lives of Jews, Christians and even Pagans. The writings of the Church fathers give us examples of the Fathers using the name for teaching or for apologetic purposes and reporting what the second and third century Gnostic sects taught regarding Iaw/o and also some of the teachings of the fathers. The tenth century brings us to the evidence of the Masoretic texts with the vowel pointing of the masoretes and also brings us to the earliest manuscripts of the Mishnah and the latter examples of the Greek magical texts.

According to the Christian editor of the "Didascalia" ("Apostolic Constitutions," vi. 6), the Hemero-baptists "do not eat until they have bathed, and do not make any use of their beds and tables and dishes until they have cleansed them." This obviously rests upon a misunderstanding of their true character. Epiphanius ("Panarion," i., heresy xvii.) goes still further, and says that the Hemerobaptists deny future salvation to him who does not undergo baptism daily.
[viii] Excerpta ex Theodoto xxii.5
In the beginning, the angels were baptized in the redemption of the Name which came down upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him. (Clement of Alexandria) “The Gnostic ...was baptised in the same Name as that in which his angel was baptized before him”

Acts of Thomas (27:49f.) “the Name is equated with the Spirit” (Fossum, 1985,96)
Exc ex Theodoto xxvi.1) Jesus’ “invisible part was the Name, which is the only begotten Son”

Ireneus on Valentinus Others refer to the redemption as follows: “The Name which is hidden (to onoma to apokekrummenon) from every deity, dominion, and power, which Jesus the Nazarene put on (o enedusato) in the spheres of light , [the Name] of Christ, the Christ who lives through the Holy Spirit for the angelic redemption” (I.xx.3)
Acts of Thomas “Come Holy Name of Christ that is above every name!” (Ch 27 Greek version ; cp . ch 132;157)