Did Jesus observe the Rabbinic prohibition?

[Elijah John]

There is an ancient Rabbinic prohibition against pronouncing the name of God "YHVH". That prohibition is not Biblical, per se, but rather was established to "put a fence around the Torah".

The thinking went something like this. "If one never pronounces the name of God one will never misuse or profane the name of God".

King David (and other Bible characters) seems not to have ever "gotten the memo", as he seems to have pronounced the name of God "YHVH" (rendered as "LORD" all caps, in English) over and over again in the Psalms and encouraged others to do so as well, reverently.*


For debate, Did Jesus (unlike King David) observe the Rabbinic prohibition against pronouncing the name of God?

And unlike David, Jesus did not seem to emphasize the Name. He did allude to the Name in the LORD's prayer, and in John 17, but did he pronounce it?

Also, for debate, this similar question regarding Paul. Did Paul preach and pronounce the name of God YHVH? Or only the name of Jesus?

If not, was Paul's restraint to due to respect for the Rabbinic prohibition? OR did he simply consider the name of "Christ" more relevant?

-----

* I am not sure exactly when the prohibition went into effect, so it may not have even been an issue in David's time.

[marco]

For debate, Did Jesus (unlike King David) observe the Rabbinic prohibition against pronouncing the name of God?

The Decalogue commands that the name of God be not taken IN VAIN. I suppose hyper-strict Jews might consider any instance of pronouncing God's name to be "in vain." Jesus constantly refers to his Father, which is to be expected, given that he wished to emphasise this paternal relationship. A boy would not refer to his dad as Robert. In Luke 4:17-19 Christ is confronted with the Lord's name from the reading of Isaiah but I'm not sure that he actually reads this aloud but uses it to discuss a prophet not being recognised among his own.


So it may just have been Christ's assumed relationship that caused him to use Father all the time; after all, according to Trinitarians, he was YHWH himself.

[Elijah John]

For debate, Did Jesus (unlike King David) observe the Rabbinic prohibition against pronouncing the name of God?

The Decalogue commands that the name of God be not taken IN VAIN. I suppose hyper-strict Jews might consider any instance of pronouncing God's name to be "in vain." Jesus constantly refers to his Father, which is to be expected, given that he wished to emphasise this paternal relationship. A boy would not refer to his dad as Robert. In Luke 4:17-19 Christ is confronted with the Lord's name from the reading of Isaiah but I'm not sure that he actually reads this aloud but uses it to discuss a prophet not being recognised among his own.


So it may just have been Christ's assumed relationship that caused him to use Father all the time; after all, according to Trinitarians, he was YHWH himself.

Also, when Jesus confronted Satan in the desert and cited Scripture saying "it is written worship YHVH your God and him only serve". Not clear if he pronounced the Tetragrammaton or used the substitute "HaShem" or "Adonai".

Also, if, (as Trinitarians hold), Jesus was YHVH Himself, I would ask shouldn't he have taught/prayed "hallowed be our name, instead of "hallowed be thy name"?

I do wonder if Jesus gave up on the revealed name of the Father, "YHVH", and taught his own name for God, simply "Father"? Isn't that what is suggested in John 17.6?

I have revealed your name...

And that would have, as you suggest, emphasized his familial relationship with God and also extended that privilege to others.

Unless Jesus revealed how the "forbidden" Name was to be pronounced and he was indeed alluding to "Yahweh" of "Yehovah". Otherwise, it seems he was revealing a new name, "Father" though "Father" is a title.

But as we don't have Jesus own writings, one wonders if it was Jesus or the Gospel Evangelists who were observing the Rabbinic prohibition.

Much as Pope Benedict recently did in removing all mention of the name "Yahweh" from liturgy. This to honor the Rabbinic prohibition which persists to this day, and in spite of the fact that the RCC had already published two Bibles which included the name "Yahweh"... the Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem Bibles.

[marco]

Also, when Jesus confronted Satan in the desert and cited Scripture saying "it is written worship YHVH your God and him only serve". Not clear if he pronounced the Tetragrammaton or used the substitute "HaShem" or "Adonai".

Nobody is clear on this since he was entirely alone in the wilderness and direct quotation is impossible. We are knee deep in poetry and imagination.

Also, if, (as Trinitarians hold), Jesus was YHVH Himself, I would ask shouldn't he have taught/prayed "hallowed be our name, instead of "hallowed be thy name"?

He avoids being boastful, always conceding to the Father while he's in human skin. He gives God a benign countenance by using the familiar Father.

But as we don't have Jesus own writings, one wonders if it was Jesus or the Gospel Evangelists who were observing the Rabbinic prohibition.

I think this is certainly the case. The words imposed on Jesus after so many years cannot be verbatim; they are what his biographers wanted to hear. If he had wanted to instruct people in the use of Jehovah he had an admirable opportunity when he framed the Lord's Prayer.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Good questions; the answers are more difficult.

Rabbinic rulings come largely from the Mishnah and the Talmud. They are later than the N.T., and so we cannot be sure what in them applies to Jesus' time.

But we can set some guidelines:

Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, not Greek, to his audiences; thus we do not know what he said that led John to translate it as (Greek) "Ego Eimi". John is more than likely borrowing from the LXX. Is it possible that the historical Jesus said something in Aramaic, that would translate in Greek to "Ego Eimi", and that a late gospel writer, noting the connection between this logion and the LXX, wrote it down intending the connection? Yes, absolutely. But that is all we have.

I am entirely convinced that Paul, writing/dictating in Greek, fully intended to identify Jesus with YHWH. He looked at passages in the LXX where the Greek translated the tetragrammaton, and applied these Greek passages to Jesus. He was a monotheist and Jew: which means he believed in One God, Creator and Sovereign of the world. But then, he believed that both Jesus and the father could sit comfortably together within this creed.

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it possible that the historical Jesus said something in Aramaic, that would translate in Greek to "Ego Eimi"...

Are your speculations here actually referring to a specific scripture ?


JW

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The thinking went something like this. "If one never pronounces the name of God one will never misuse or profane the name of God".

The name of GOD is the nature of GOD and intimately knowing the nature of GOD one knows the name of GOD cannot be misused or made profane.

That is the difference.

David used the nature of GOD profoundly.

Prohibitions are induced through the unsure.

"Christ" is essentially the Greek rendition of the same principle. GOD redeems, saves etc et al.

That is the nature of GOD. The Christ was in Davids expressions, and likely as not, also in Paul's, although Paul focused upon the man "Jesus' as the example of how to 'be' - how a human would 'be' if expressing the nature of GOD and the general gist of Christianity is that 'we' should always strive to exhibit the nature of GOD in/through our being.

Whether that is a father mother brother sister aunt uncle tinker tailor soldier sailor et al is just anther name for it. The expression is recognizable as surely as we are all lovable.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Good questions; the answers are more difficult.

Rabbinic rulings come largely from the Mishnah and the Talmud. They are later than the N.T., and so we cannot be sure what in them applies to Jesus' time.

But we can set some guidelines:

Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, not Greek, to his audiences; thus we do not know what he said that led John to translate it as (Greek) "Ego Eimi". John is more than likely borrowing from the LXX. Is it possible that the historical Jesus said something in Aramaic, that would translate in Greek to "Ego Eimi", and that a late gospel writer, noting the connection between this logion and the LXX, wrote it down intending the connection? Yes, absolutely. But that is all we have.

I am entirely convinced that Paul, writing/dictating in Greek, fully intended to identify Jesus with YHWH. He looked at passages in the LXX where the Greek translated the tetragrammaton, and applied these Greek passages to Jesus. He was a monotheist and Jew: which means he believed in One God, Creator and Sovereign of the world. But then, he believed that both Jesus and the father could sit comfortably together within this creed.

Paul may have believed it, but he didn't really come right out and say it. As a Jewish monotheist, the consequences would have been disabling to his mission. At least with most Jews who would have recoiled.

Paul always identified God with the Father. In all his apostolic salutations, and in verses like 1 Timothy 2.5. But in his usage he frequently used the term "Christ" as one would use the word"God" or the name "YHVH". And whereas King David championed the name of YHVH, (the LORD), Paul elevated the name of Jesus above all others.

So if Paul didn't actually come right out and say plainly, "Jesus is YHVH God," for all intents and purposes, he may as well have.

Getting back to the Rabbinic prohibition. If it is as you say, (and I have no reason to doubt), that the prohibition came well after King David wrote his portion of the Psalms, then it seems clear that David embraced a spirituality which involved the actual pronounciation of the name of God, the Tetragrammaton. "The LORD", as it is rendered in English translations, and the name of the LORD, is really the focal point of most if not all of the praises contained in the Psalms.

Consider:

Psalm 96.2 "bless his name"
Psalm 5.11 for those who "love your name"
Psalm 3.4 "I will...call on your name" (how can one call on the Name if one is not allowed to pronounce it?)
Psalm 116.12 "I will lift up the cup of salvation, and call on the name of YHWH"
Psalm 113.1 "...praise the name of YHWH" (also Ps 135.1)
Psalm 22.22 "I will tell of your name to my brothers and sisters"
Psalm 52.9 "...I will proclaim your name, for it is good" (again, how can one "tell of" or "proclaim" the Name if one is not allowed to pronounce it?)
Psalm 140.13 "surely the righteous shall give thanks to your name" (also Ps 97.12)
Psalm 34.3 "O magnify YHWH with me, and let us exalt his name together".
Psalm 124.8 "Our help is in the name of YHWH, who made heaven and earth"
Psalm 91.14 "Those who love me, I will deliver; I will protect those who know my name." (seems at this time, the Name was known and not obscured by euphemistic substitutions.)

And so on...

[William]

So if Paul didn't actually come right out and say plainly, "Jesus is YHVH God," for all intents and purposes, he may as well have.

That is besides the point.

Whether the individual was David or Jesus or Moses or Abraham or John or James, the idea is that the nature of the LORD had to be represented in their being.

Quibbling as to how the 'Jews' would have reacted is pointless. Obviously some Jews reacted in different ways than other Jews, and they still do to this day.

"YHVH is GOD" is seen in the individual, or not. That is the point.

I call Her "QueenBee" myself. It matters not. What matters is how one rejoices in GOD, through exhibiting the nature of GOD in the individual and out into the external world.

That is always the main chunk of message that The Masters teach, and Jesus was a Master Teacher of such.

[Elijah John]

I am entirely convinced that Paul, writing/dictating in Greek, fully intended to identify Jesus with YHWH. He looked at passages in the LXX where the Greek translated the tetragrammaton, and applied these Greek passages to Jesus. He was a monotheist and Jew: which means he believed in One God, Creator and Sovereign of the world. But then, he believed that both Jesus and the father could sit comfortably together within this creed.

I agree, but why do you suppose Paul was so indirect about it? He, like John, paid lip service to the notion that the Father alone is God, but for all practical purposes, spoke of "Christ" as though he was God.

Instead of preaching and proclaiming Yahweh by name to the Nations, Paul preached "Christ". Seems to be where his heart was.

In the words of Thomas Paine regrading Christianity as he knew it, "instead of God a man is preached".

Pretty clear that "shoe" fit Paul, and that was probably who (more than any other) Paine had in mind.

Also, you suggested that both the Father and Jesus sat "comfortably" as equals (?) in Paul's creed.

Do you think Paul appreciated the scandal that was causing, or would have caused in Jewish ciircles? To equate Jesus with God? Any tension at all in Paul's mind?

Never mind the confilct between "Law and Grace" etc. Preaching Jesus as God, even indirectly would have been major, and I'm surprised the NT didn't cover the rift such a doctrine would have no doubt caused.