The divine name in the New Testament?

[historia]

For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.

Questions for debate:

1. Should translations of the New Testament be emended to include the divine name?

2. Should this particular verse, Roman 14:8, be emended to include the divine name?

[historia]

Perhaps my Post #6 was not enough to make a compelling argument for the existence of the Divine Name in the New Testament? Or maybe you didn't read it?

I did read it, and responded to it a week ago in post 18. Several of my later replies are relevant too.

In brief: Your argument rests on the unfounded assumption that, if Old Testament manuscripts at the time of Jesus included the divine name, then authors at that time quoting from the Old Testament would also include the divine name.

However, as we saw in post 31, that assumption turns out to be false. Jewish authors at that time writing in Greek and Aramaic invariably substitute the word 'Lord', 'God', or another appellation in place of 'Yahweh' when alluding to or quoting from the Old Testament.

Moreover, your assertion that this would be a "sudden" departure from using the divine name is historically inaccurate. As noted in post 18, Jewish authors began using the divine name with decreasing frequency starting 300 to 400 years before the advent of Christianity, as evidenced by the latter books of the Old Testament itself as well as the intertestamental literature.

The New Testament authors using 'Lord' instead of 'Yahweh' when quoting from the Old Testament would therefore be completely inline with the practices of their day. That, coupled with the fact that all extant NT manuscripts lack the divine name, is a compelling argument against emending the text.

[Difflugia]

"Careless?" "Impious?" Have you not read any of the above posts? The banning by religious leaders of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was an absolutely unnecessary, scurrilous act.The Scriptures never called for the stifling of God's name. The Jews say that they base all that on the command, "Thou shall not take YHWH's name in vain." Uttering it is not "taking it in vain." Speaking about YHWH disrespectfully is taking it in vain. (I've heard people say "Jumpin' ----" like an expletive! That is taking His name in vain!)

So you think it is "pious" to forgo the pronunciation of God's name? I don't think so. There is absolutely ZERO Scriptural reason to blot it out of our Bible translations and to refuse to say His name.

What you or I personally think about the piety of saying God's name is immaterial. What needs to be established is what Jesus and the New Testament authors thought about the subject. The point that you're trying to establish is that Jesus must have said God's name aloud as a matter of course and that the New Testament authors must also necessarily have recorded that. The only argument you've offered, though, is that you're sure Jesus would have agreed with your interpretation of Exodus 20:7 against what was likely the prevailing Jewish opinion of the time.

"Jesus would have agreed with me" is certainly a common argument, but it's not a very persuasive one.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 52 by Difflugia]

So be it.

Your idea that Jesus would have followed the prevailing Jewish custom of the last couple of centuries falls flat to me, especially since he detested their burdensome and evil rules and traditions (as brought out clearly in the 23rd chapter of Matthew). I really don't think he would've dispensed with using his Father's name to satisfy those hypocritical Jews, and especially since Jehovah had plainly stated that He wanted Israel to know his name and honor it forever (Exodus 3:15).

[2timothy316]

So the following scripture is a lie?

“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known.�​—JOHN 17:6, 26.

There is scriptural evidence that he said God's name. Otherwise, why didn't he say, 'I have not made you name manifest, I have not said it aloud, I didn't make your name known to them and didn't make it known'.

So which one is it? Is what we read in the Bible true or not? The above scripture is your obstacle to overcome. If you reject it as true then you lose the debate as in this forum the Bible has is the ultimate authority as a reference. viewtopic.php?t=11496

First, "authoritative" and "slavishly literal" are not the same thing and neither is a metaphor a lie.

Second, "The Name" and "Your Name" are used in modern Jewish prayer in exactly the same context, even though modern, observant Jews don't say the name of God. Those phrases are often used as epithets for God Himself ("May the Name help me to...").

I don't care what Jews do. I have already pointed out that Jesus didn't follow do everything that Jews did in his time. Your logic is flawed in thinking that just because a group does it all do it. There is no law forbidding the use of God's name. Psalms 83:18 says, "May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth." In Ex 3:15 God instructed Moses to tell the Israelites, " ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation." Here Moses is instructed to tell the Hebrews God's name.

Third, Jesus could have said and meant it far more literally than I think is necessary for "authoritative" and still not say the name of God. If Jesus were to lead all people to study the Torah, then all would know the name of God, even if none, including Jesus himself, were so careless or impious as to utter it aloud.

Yet the scripture do not support any of this. What the scriptures support is that Jesus said of the Jews, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform.’�—Matt. 23:1-3. Mark 8:15 specifies: “Look out for the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.� In Matthew 12:38-46, Jesus calls the Jewish leadership, "A wicked and adulterous generation."

Matthew 26:59-66 shows that Jesus was not concerned with what the Jewish leadership called, 'blasphemy'. So I don't see where Jesus would be concerned with what you think would be 'impious'. Jesus told us to pray to Jehovah, "Let your name be sanctified." How can a name be sanctified if no one can say it? Your argument makes no sense.

Everything in the Bible points to exact opposite of what you're trying and failing to prove. it is 'far more likely' that Jesus didn't approve of almost every thing the Jewish leadership did. Including the muzzling of people in saying God's name. if Jesus said that he made his Father's name known then he did. I do not accept some twisting the scripture to mean something else.

Long story short, you're trying to say that Jesus went along with whatever the Jewish leadership said to do. However, the Bible doesn't support this claim. In fact the Bible records much to the contrary. Jesus points out in almost every instance that he speaking about the Jewish leadership, they had deviated from the correct coarse.

[Difflugia]

I don't care what Jews do.

I definitely got that.

I have already pointed out that Jesus didn't follow do everything that Jews did in his time. Your logic is flawed in thinking that just because a group does it all do it.

If that weren't a straw man and I had written it, then yes, that would be a flaw in my thinking. That's why I wrote something subtly different. Because Jesus was a member of the group, you have no backing to assert without evidence that Jesus did a particular thing differently than other members of the group.

You are saying that because there is evidence that Jesus rejected some things that the other members of the group did, he rejected one particular thing for which the only evidence is your conjecture.

In fact, there's evidence that he followed that particular tradition, at least in practice. In addition to himself using epithets for God, Jesus neglected to mention the rule even when he had the opportunity. You claim that his rejection of other Jewish traditions is evidence that he necessarily rejected this one, but in the other cases, either the Gospel narrators or Jesus himself make the rejection explicit. When the disciples eat with unwashed hands, other Jews notice and Jesus explains his reasoning (Mk 7:1-8). When Jesus healed people on the Sabbath and locals objected, he made a big deal out of it and used the opportunity to point out their hypocrisy (Mk 3:1-6, Lk 13:10-17). On the other hand, when Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll (Lk 4:16-19), he read a passage that includes God's name twice. The text records that he said "Lord" and the listeners "marvelled at the gracious words" (they only got mad later, after he insulted Nazareth). If he were using that opportunity to speak aloud the name of God to point out the hypocrisy of the Jewish tradition, it seems odd to me that he, his audience, and Luke all failed to note it in any way. Indeed, these are some of the very verses that you've claimed would originally have contained that name of God, only to have it removed later. Not only do we have no manuscript evidence that such a redaction occurred, but the narrative itself is the evidence that it didn't happen.

There is no law forbidding the use of God's name.

I agree with you. That's why I wouldn't be too shocked by an older manuscript with a different Luke 4. That would show that Jesus rejected a blanket prohibition on the speaking of God's name. Unfortunately for your argument, no such evidence exists and the evidence we do have is to the contrary.

Yet the scripture do not support any of this. What the scriptures support is that Jesus said of the Jews, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform.’�—Matt. 23:1-3. Mark 8:15 specifies: “Look out for the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.� In Matthew 12:38-46, Jesus calls the Jewish leadership, "A wicked and adulterous generation."

Yes. They support that Jesus didn't like Pharisaic Judaism. They don't support that Jesus said God's name aloud.

Everything in the Bible points to exact opposite of what you're trying and failing to prove.

No, everything in the Bible points to Jesus having treated the name of God exactly as his contemporaries did. I agree with you that he probably shouldn't have, but as you pointed out, the Bible text is authoritative in this subforum.

it is 'far more likely' that Jesus didn't approve of almost every thing the Jewish leadership did. Including the muzzling of people in saying God's name.

Whether or not Jesus privately thought this, there's no evidence that it was part of his teaching, either in word or deed.

if Jesus said that he made his Father's name known then he did.

Maybe just not in the way you think he should have.

I do not accept some twisting the scripture to mean something else.

Exactly.

Long story short, you're trying to say that Jesus went along with whatever the Jewish leadership said to do.

Nope. That's another clear straw man. I'm trying to say that Jesus probably went along with one Jewish tradition in particular.

However, the Bible doesn't support this claim. In fact the Bible records much to the contrary.

Everything that the Bible actually records supports my genuine claim.

Jesus points out in almost every instance that he speaking about the Jewish leadership, they had deviated from the correct coarse.

Yes. He did so in situations except for the case you're trying to make, even though he created the perfect opportunity to have done so.

[Red Wolf]

Christians follow Jesus. But have you ever studied Jesus in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures?
Take a look at the warning by God in Deuteronomy chapter 13....
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

Jesus got people to follow him with signs and wonders.
The God of Israel was one and one alone. Jesus got people to follow another God...a Trinity God.
Jesus got people to reject the Law...his commandments in the OT.
Have you been seduced from the way the Lord your God commanded you?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 55 by Difflugia]

Everything that the Bible actually records supports my genuine claim.

I can't find you quoting any scriptures in your last reply or the one before that supports your claim. You keep saying it's in the Bible but you don't quote scriptures to back it up.

Let me put it shorter. You have presented no scriptural evidence that Jesus wouldn't use his Father's name. You're argument that "Jesus would have agreed with me" is certainly a common argument, but it's not a very persuasive one. I need actual scriptural evidence that you're not providing. Nothing else will be accepted. If your next reply has no scriptures like your last one, it will be ignored as opinion.

[2timothy316]

Christians follow Jesus. But have you ever studied Jesus in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures?
Take a look at the warning by God in Deuteronomy chapter 13....
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

Jesus got people to follow him with signs and wonders.

So did Moses. Millions of both Hebrews and Egyptians followed Moses after seeing the 10 plagues.

The God of Israel was one and one alone. Jesus got people to follow another God...a Trinity God.

Um no he did not. The trinity God didn't come along until almost 2 centuries after his death. Jesus believed in one God.

Jesus got people to reject the Law...his commandments in the OT.

Nope. He fulfilled it perfectly as it should have been followed but the Jewish leadership of the time had turned it into a burden.

Have you been seduced from the way the Lord your God commanded you?

I have not. Jeremiah 31:31-34 foretold how Jehovah God would make a “new covenant� with His people. That covenant is now in effect. One doesn't put old wine in new wineskins. Luke 5:37, 38. As so, one doesn't put in all of the old Laws into a new covenant.

[Difflugia]

You have presented no scriptural evidence that Jesus wouldn't use his Father's name.

I totally did. Let's recap.

I marked several pericopers in which others object when Jesus ignores Jewish tradition, then Jesus makes a big deal about it:
Mk 7:1-8
Mk 3:1-6
Lk 13:10-17

There are more. I'm pretty sure we can both name several off the top our heads that appear in several Gospels.

I noted that Luke 4:16-19 records Jesus quoting the Old Testament using "Lord" instead of "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or whatever. If he had used God's name, the attendees would have objected, then Jesus would have turned it into an object lesson.

Let's add some more. Here is the list of verses I could find in Matthew (I just eyeballed it, so I might have missed some) where Jesus spoke of God directly, but chose to use some epithet (God, Lord, Father, Power) rather than some form of YHVH:

4:4, 4:7, 4:10, 5:8, 5:9, 5:33, 5:34, 6:6, 6:9, 6:18, 12:28, 15:3, 15:5, 15:13, 16:17, 16:23, 16:27, 18:10, 18:14, 18:19, 18:35, 19:6, 19:24, 19:26, 21:42, 21:43, 22:21, 22:29, 22:31, 22:37, 22:44, 23:22, 23:39, 25:34, 26:39, 26:53, 26:64, 27:46

I just eyeballed them, so I might have missed some. When Jesus referred to God, how often do you think he used God's name? Ten percent of the time? Twenty? Fifty?

Here are all the verses in all four Gospels in all extant manuscripts that record Jesus using God's name:

This space intentionally left blank.

I'm pretty sure I didn't miss any. There is no mention in any Gospel of anyone objecting to Jesus using God's name in contravention of Jewish tradition. Multiple Gospels attest to members of his audience objecting to him defying multiple traditions to the point that it is, as you noted, a common theme. Yet there is no record of Jesus saying God's name aloud, nor is there any instance of someone reacting to what should be the many examples of Jesus flouting the tradition.

[brianbbs67]

Christians follow Jesus. But have you ever studied Jesus in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures?
Take a look at the warning by God in Deuteronomy chapter 13....
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

Jesus got people to follow him with signs and wonders.
The God of Israel was one and one alone. Jesus got people to follow another God...a Trinity God.
Jesus got people to reject the Law...his commandments in the OT.
Have you been seduced from the way the Lord your God commanded you?

I agree with you except for the last paragraph. Ieous never preached against Torah. He preached against manmade traditions that prevented God's law from being followed.

Mark here and Mathew(sayings of yeshua)

https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/15.htm