Did Jesus observe the Rabbinic prohibition

[Elijah John]

1) Did Jesus observe the Rabbinic prohibition against pronouncing the sacred Name of God, YHVH?

2) Or is there any evidence that Jesus pronounced the Name? And taught others to?

3) Is the Rabbinic prohibition against pronouncing the Name Biblical?

4) Or is the Rabbinic prohibition another one of the "traditions of men" that Jesus railed against.

[Difflugia]

Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew with all the Hebrew characters, for the benefit of those Jews who came to believe. The Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel is preserved now in the library at Caesarea. (Jerome, 4th century, Concerning Illustrious Men, chapter III.)

Jerome was wrong. What Jerome thought was Hebrew Matthew was either a translation into Hebrew, or it wasn't our Matthew at all. The tradition of a Hebrew Matthew originated with Papias, who was himself mistaken:

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, p. 78

In about AD 110 Papias wrote as follows: ‘Matthew collected the sayings (or records) in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) language and every person interpreted (or translated) them as he was able.’ Unfortunately this comment raises more questions than it answers. The origin and date of the tradition are not entirely clear and the interpretation of almost every word is much disputed. Papias probably believed that Matthew wrote the gospel we now have and not a collection of sayings of Jesus (Q), nor a collection of Old Testament proof texts, nor an early forerunner of the gospel. But our Matthew never did exist in Hebrew or Aramaic; the evangelist wrote in Greek and used both Mark and Q in Greek.

The Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton, p 844:

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39, attributes to Papias, a second-century Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, the earliest testimony to Matthew's authorship: 'Now Matthew made an ordered arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew [or: Aramaic] language, and each one translated [or: interpreted] it as he was able.'

...

Most, however, now doubt the tradition. For (1) from Papias on, Christian tradition consistently associated Matthean authorship with a Semitic original; but this gospel is unlikely to be the work of a translator. (2) It is improbable that a Semitic document, such as Papias speaks of, would have incorporated a Greek document (Mark) almost in its entirety.

The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels edited by Stephen C. Barton, p. 36:

Papias also speaks of Matthew, claiming that he ‘wrote the oracles [logia] in the Hebrew language, and everyone interpreted them as he was able’. This may refer either to the Gospel of Matthew (in which case the claim about a Hebrew original is false) or to a collection of sayings of Jesus in the original Aramaic, which Papias knows only indirectly through various divergent Greek translations.

Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene by Bart Ehrman, p. 9:

Second, consider the one other Gospel that Papias mentions: the Gospel of Matthew (he doesn’t discuss Luke or John). This is what he says about it: “Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability.� Again, one might uncritically assume that he is referring to the Gospel that we call Matthew. But is he? The two things he says about this book are that it contained (only) sayings of Jesus and that it was written in Hebrew. But our Gospel of Matthew contains much more than sayings, as it also gives an account of Jesus’ activities, miracles, death, and resurrection. And it was written not in Hebrew but in Greek.

So it is left to us to either accept this "theory" as grounded and correct, or to reject it. I accept it as fact.

And I'll accept the scholarship.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 21 by Difflugia]

So Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia is not a scholar? He offers more solid reasoning than the others that you quote.....at least no LESS solid reasoning than they.

There is nothing concrete in what the scholars you mention say. Their writings here that you quote are full of ambivalence....words like "probably," "unlikely," "improbable," "most doubt the tradition." Nothing really solid.

Ehrman says that the Gospel was written in Greek, but he offers no explanation along the lines of proof, to convince us of that.


So, I would say that my position is as viable as yours. Both sides are using the same terminology, like "probably," "most likely," etc. I choose to go with Dr. Howard's reasoning.


.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by onewithhim]

If Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name, why didn't the Gospel Evangelists do so as well? Seems Jesus only alluded to the Divine name, but didn't pronounce it in public. That is, if the Gospel Evangelists are accurate.

And if it was simply an omission, and Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name why didn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John consider this important enough to record? What's more important than reverently proclaiming the name of God? And salvation and forgiveness in the Father's name? (Psalm 79.9 etc.)

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 22 by onewithhim]

If Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name, why didn't the Gospel Evangelists do so as well? Seems Jesus only alluded to the Divine name, but didn't pronounce it in public. That is, if the Gospel Evangelists are accurate.

And if it was simply an omission, and Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name why didn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John consider this important enough to record? What's more important than reverently proclaiming the name of God? And salvation and forgiveness in the Father's name? (Psalm 79.9 etc.)

He was a Jew who preached the Torah without the traditions of men which negated following of God's law. Apparently, honoring God's name this way did not negate the Torah.

[Difflugia]

So Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia is not a scholar? He offers more solid reasoning than the others that you quote.....at least no LESS solid reasoning than they.

The quoted portion is just the abstract of Howard's paper and only presents a statement of his thesis without any of the "solid reasoning" that comes "in the following pages." I didn't mention Howard at all because he didn't even touch on the argument that I was engaging with, which is your claim that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew.

There is nothing concrete in what the scholars you mention say. Their writings here that you quote are full of ambivalence....words like "probably," "unlikely," "improbable," "most doubt the tradition." Nothing really solid.

That's how scholars talk. I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that Howard's paper is full of the same kind of language, because, yes, he is a scholar, too.

Ehrman says that the Gospel was written in Greek, but he offers no explanation along the lines of proof, to convince us of that.

Sure he does. I didn't include it because your quotations were just summary statements by scholars, so I figured that was OK until you moved the goalpost on me. If you had read the page that I linked for you, however, you'd have seen that Dr. Ehrman added a footnote to the fragment I quoted:

The author of Matthew copied a number of his stories from Mark, which was also originally written in Greek. This means that he too must have been writing in Greek. For a further discussion, see my The New Testament, chap. 6.

I happen to have a copy of the textbook Dr. Ehrman mentions. Chapter 6 concerns itself with what's known as "the Synoptic problem." Essentially, the problem is how to resolve the nature of the obvious relationship between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that involves patterns of both verbatim copying and crucial differences that can't be accidental. Most scholars (Dr. Ehrman included) accept "Markan priority," which means that Mark wrote first, then was copied and modified by Matthew and Luke. In addition to the copying pattern above, Ehrman notes something else in The New Testament (p. 75):

It is difficult to understand why Mark would introduce awkward grammar or a strange word or a difficult idea into a passage that originally posed no problem, but it is easy to understand why Matthew or Luke might have wanted to eliminate such problems. It is more likely, therefore, that Mark was first and that it was later modified by one or both of the other authors.

So, not only did Matthew copy Mark's Greek, he occasionally improved it along the way. That argues very strongly for the idea that the original Matthew was a Greek document that depended on a Greek Mark.

If you'd like to read more about the Synoptic problem, a good textbook is available (with the blessings of both the author and publisher) as a PDF from archive.org: Mark Goodacre's The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. Goodacre differs from Ehrman in at least one fundamental way (Ehrman accepts that Matthew and Luke used, in addition to Mark, a source known as Q; Goodacre does not), but both explain the similarities and differences between the Synoptics well enough that it should be pretty clear that Mark was written first, was written in Greek, and was in part copied into Matthew in Greek.

So, I would say that my position is as viable as yours. Both sides are using the same terminology, like "probably," "most likely," etc. I choose to go with Dr. Howard's reasoning.

If you'd like to discuss it, the full paper is available to read.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by onewithhim]

If Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name, why didn't the Gospel Evangelists do so as well? Seems Jesus only alluded to the Divine name, but didn't pronounce it in public. That is, if the Gospel Evangelists are accurate.

And if it was simply an omission, and Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name why didn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John consider this important enough to record? What's more important than reverently proclaiming the name of God? And salvation and forgiveness in the Father's name? (Psalm 79.9 etc.)

He was a Jew who preached the Torah without the traditions of men which negated following of God's law. Apparently, honoring God's name this way did not negate the Torah.

OK, so the "traditions of men" included the Rabbinic prohibition. The Rabbinic prohibition against pronouncing the sacred Name is not Torah based, and not Biblical. Jesus did not adhere to the "traditions of men", but only the Tanakh including the Torah.

Honoring and proclaiming God's name is something Jesus likely did (since he was not bound by the traditions of men), according to the line of reasoning we both seem to be presenting here (unless I misunderstand). So I wonder why the Gospel Evangelists did not record Jesus proclaiming forgiveness in the Father's name.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 22 by onewithhim]

If Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name, why didn't the Gospel Evangelists do so as well? Seems Jesus only alluded to the Divine name, but didn't pronounce it in public. That is, if the Gospel Evangelists are accurate.

And if it was simply an omission, and Jesus did in fact proclaim the Name why didn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John consider this important enough to record? What's more important than reverently proclaiming the name of God? And salvation and forgiveness in the Father's name? (Psalm 79.9 etc.)

Haven't we already discussed this at some length? We have said, and tried to reason on it, that the Gospel writers DID use God's name, as Jesus did. Maybe going over the previous posts would help.


.

[onewithhim]

So Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia is not a scholar? He offers more solid reasoning than the others that you quote.....at least no LESS solid reasoning than they.

The quoted portion is just the abstract of Howard's paper and only presents a statement of his thesis without any of the "solid reasoning" that comes "in the following pages." I didn't mention Howard at all because he didn't even touch on the argument that I was engaging with, which is your claim that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew.

There is nothing concrete in what the scholars you mention say. Their writings here that you quote are full of ambivalence....words like "probably," "unlikely," "improbable," "most doubt the tradition." Nothing really solid.

That's how scholars talk. I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that Howard's paper is full of the same kind of language, because, yes, he is a scholar, too.

That is exactly what I said. I said that my points were AS reasonable as yours because BOTH sides use the same language---"probably," "could have," "unlikely," etc.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 25 by Difflugia]

I am not convinced that Matthew copied Mark's gospel in Greek, but actually may have copied Mark FROM the Greek into his own gospel in Hebrew.

Ehrman and I came to butting heads a few years back. I read his "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" and was impressed with his knowledge of Greek. He rooted out many blemishes in the N.T. and straightened out what the meanings should be, according to more recent manuscripts. I had the highest opinion of him. Until I heard an interview with him concerning the Trinity. I dropped my teeth---or would have if they were loose. I couldn't believe my ears. He defended the teaching of the Trinity because many verses, he said, would lead us to believe that it was true!!! What???

He, if anyone would know, he knew about John 1:1 and the missing article, and he mentioned that in his book. Yet he said that it could be understood to back up the Trinity. He said the same thing about the sloppy translation of John 8:58. I emailed him and asked for his explanation, and he wouldn't budge on that. I let him know my thoughts, and he didn't email me back the second time. Since then I don't listen to anything he says. I have several of his books, and I use them to hold up the legs to my bed frame now.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 26 by Elijah John]

I ALSO have been saying that Jesus did not follow the prohibition because it was a tradition of men.