RSS

Category Archives: YHWH

The Traditions of our Fathers

So a little over a year ago I made the argument that Paul wasn’t a Pharisee (which he claims in Philipeans 3:5) based on his apparent ignorance of Hebrew. I inferred this from his argument in Romans 10:

9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” (Isaiah 28:16) 

12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Joel 2:32)

Here Paul’s argument only makes sense if Joel 2:32 actually says the word “lord”. He implies that the “name of the lord” that does the saving when it’s spoken is “Jesus”. Joel 2:32 actually says the name of the god of the Jews: YHWH. In the LXX, however, this is replaced with the word “lord” (κυριος in Greek; and it’s actually Joel 3:5 in the LXX). This is the traditional Jewish circumlocution of pronouncing The Name YHWH. This means that Paul was reading from a version of Joel that had “lord” instead of YHWH, more than likely the LXX in order for his argument to make any sense.

From this I made the connection that Paul wasn’t a Pharisee, since Pharisees were trained in Hebrew.

On the other hand, Paul does use a phrase that implies at least a kinship with Pharisaic ideals. He mentions his “zeal” for the “traditions of [his] fathers” (υπαρχων των πατρικων μου παραδοσεων – lit. the still extant traditions of my fathers) in Galatians 1:14. Josephus uses a similar phrase when describing the Pharisees:

Antiquities of the Jews 13.10.6

What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers (παραδοσεως των πατερων). And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.

Here Josephus uses “traditions of our fathers” to mean the Oral Torah which eventually became the Talmud. Paul’s disdain for the laws of Moses seems to stem from a Sadducean interpretation of the law. As I understand it, the Pharisees were more liberal about following the law as opposed to the Sadducees. A Pharisee wouldn’t have considered the laws of Moses a “curse” (Galatians 3:10, 13) but instead would have simply relaxed its standards. It would be like a liberal Christian all of the sudden becoming a militant atheist. Militancy breed militancy; an all-or-nothing view of the universe. Thus Paul’s total abrogation of the laws of Moses must have come from a more conservative branch of Judaism – one like the Sadducees. The more analogous situation would be going from a conservative Christian to a militant atheist.

It doesn’t seem as though Paul is using “traditions of our fathers” to refer to the Oral Torah, but as a generic term for Judaism.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 14, 2010 in paul, pharisees, sadducees, YHWH, YHWH pronunciation

 

YHWH vs. El

It is very common for people to point out the fact that “Elohim” is a plural, and therefore claim that all the places in the Torah where the word is used must be referring to multiple gods rather than a single god.

This is naive and wrong.

Similarly, it is also common for people to say that although “Elohim” is a plural, its use is like that of the “royal we” (for example Queen Victoria’s famous “We are not amused” quote) and refers to someone who is important enough to speak about themselves in the plural. Therefore, any usage of the word Elohim must be referring to a singular god – the God of the Christians.

This is also naive and wrong. The Hebrew language does not have such a grammatical construction.

So how should the word be treated?

The word is grammatically a plural, and as such it demands plural verb forms. However, the same word is used as a singular.

The best way to think of this is like the English word “Scissors”. We never talk about “a scissor”. Even when referring to a single item, we still refer to it as “some scissors”. We use plural verb forms too – for example we say “The scissors are over there” rather than “The scissors is over there”.

It is not quite the same, since we can also refer to scissors as a pair of scissors, but hopefully the similarity is enough to make the analogy work.

So how do we know whether to translate “Elohim” as “gods” or “god”? The simple answer is that we don’t. Again, this is similar to the English. If someone says “The car is over there”, you know that they are only talking about one car. If they say “the cars are over there” then you know they are talking about more than one car. However, if someone says “The scissors are over there” you don’t know if they are talking about one pair of scissors or many pairs.

We must use the context in which the word is used. If the verse(s) in question talk about “Elohim” and then say that “he” did or said something then it is safe to assume that it is talking about a single god. If the verse(s) talk about “Elohim” and then say that “they” did something then it is safe to assume that it is talking about multiple gods.

Of course, in the Torah, there are many places where neither assumption is safe…

Anyway, on to actual references.

Here is Psalm 82, in the ASV translation:

82:1 God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods.
82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, And respect the persons of the wicked? Selah
82:3 Judge the poor and fatherless: Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
82:4 Rescue the poor and needy: Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
82:5 They know not, neither do they understand; They walk to and fro in darkness: All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
82:6 I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High.
82:7 Nevertheless ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.
82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; For thou shalt inherit all the nations.

Now this passage already has polytheistic themes in it, with the talk of God “judging amongst the gods”.

However, it is obvious from reading this that the translation of verse 1 is somewhat tortured – as if someone is trying to find a monotheistic interpretation of it.

If we look at the Hebrew, a direct translation would be…

‘Elohim’ stands in the council of ‘El’ and judges the ‘Elohim’

Here, the first “Elohim” is fairly clearly supposed to be “God”, and the second is fairly clearly supposed to be “gods”. So a better translation would be:

“God stands in the council of El and judges the gods”

This is clearly polytheistic. Particularly if we look at verse 6 too.

This psalm actually shows Canaanite polytheistic belief and their pantheon. The archaeological records that we have from various other Canaanite tribes (of which the Hebrews were one) shows that they had a pantheon consisting of El, the chief god, and his children, which included Baal, Dagon, Chemosh, As[h]arah, Mot, YHWH and others.

Interestingly, Ugarit inscriptions from the time show Asarah as being YHWH’s wife, as well as his sister. Which is a strange coincidence being that Abraham’s wife was also presented as his sister, and the difference between the names of the two being the letter “aleph” (ASRH אשרה [aleph-shin-resh-he] “As[h]arah” and SRH שרה [shin-resh-he] “S[h]arah”).

The Hebrew tribe(s), being native to Canaan (there was no Exodus), had YHWH as a patron, and this psalm appears to show YHWH standing in his father’s court judging his siblings. The “Most High” in verse 6 is “El-yon” or “El most high”.

A similar view (where El is the chief god and YHWH is one of his children) is shown in Deuteronomy 32:8-9

32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.
32:9 For Jehovah’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Again, the reference is to to “El-yon” translated here as simply “the Most High”. This verse shows El portioning off the various tribes amongst his children, specifically giving Jacob’s tribe to YHWH.

This is the standard reading of the traditional Hebrew text, which we refer to as the Masoretic (MT). It is the basic translation that will be found in the King James Version. However, scholars have known for centuries that in the Septuagint (LXX) version, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament or Tanakh made in the 2nd century BCE, the last phrase reads quite differently:

‘When the most High divided the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam (or man), He set the bounds of the people, according to the number of the sons of God (NOT “Israel”!).’

Obviously, the meaning is quite different, and might even have some important theological implications. As it turns out, to the surprise of us all, the Dead Sea texts of Deuteronomy, which date from before the time of Jesus, agree with the Greek LXX version, against the traditional Hebrew text (Masoretic)! In fact, the exact Hebrew of the Dead Sea texts is most interesting, it reads literally, ‘according to the sons of El.’ This divergence from the traditional text is rare, but when it occurs it is surely significant. This means that Jesus and the other Jews of the first century read copies of Deuteronomy that read ‘according to the sons of El,’ rather than ‘according to the number of the sons of Israel.’

Apart from these passages, which support the henotheistic views that we have from inscriptions left by the other Canaanite tribes, there are other clearly polytheistic statements in the OT, such as…

EX 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders?

EX 18:11 Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods; yea, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against them.

DEUT 32:12 Jehovah alone did lead him, And there was no foreign god with him.

PS 86:8 There is none like unto thee among the gods, O Lord; Neither `are there any works’ like unto thy works.

PS 95:3 For Jehovah is a great God, And a great King above all gods.

Which explicitly compare YHWH with other gods and give no indication that the other gods are seen as false, only that YHWH is the best god around.

Exodus 22:28 is usually translated as a singular…

EX 22:28 Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler of thy people.

However, here the word used is not even Elohim. It is Ha-Elohim – the gods. This must be taken as a plural, not a singular. The correct translation of this verse should be “Thou shalt not revile the gods…”

Additionally, there is the story of the Exodus. In this, YHWH is explicitly described as smiting the Egyptian gods…

EX 12:12 For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am Jehovah.

Now firstly this allegedly coming from YHWH’s own words – so it can’t be explained away as simply that some of his followers believed in other gods that didn’t really exist. Secondly, the apologetic that he was actually talking about smiting the statues or idols of Egypt flies in the face of the Hebrew, which uses the word “Elohim” to describe the Egyptian gods, not any of the Hebrew words for statues or idols.

It is clear that (at least to the writer of the passage) YHWH is smiting other actual gods – the gods of Egypt (whom he has already bested in “miracle competitions” to prove that he is more powerful than them).

There is also the fascinating story in 2 Kings 3 where the Moabites (who worshipped Chemosh – another son of El) are being fought by the Israelites makes a sacrifice to Chemosh and Chemosh has a “great wrath” against the Israelites and drives them back – demonstrating the henotheistic belief that each god is powerful when on his home turf.

3:26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom; but they could not.
3:27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

Of course there is finally the classic first commandment…

EX 34:14 for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

…where YHWH does not claim to be the only god, he merely says that he is the only god who should be worshipped. He does not say “Worship me because I am the only god”. He says “Worship me because I am jealous”.

 
Comments Off on YHWH vs. El

Posted by on October 29, 2009 in asarah, el, henotheism, monotheism, polytheism, torah, YHWH

 

The History of Early Christianity, part 2

And here is part two of my lengthy email to her. Part three coming soon.

Well, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, four new major (for this email) religions sprout out from the rubble of the 2nd Temple: the Ebionites, Rabbinic Judaism, proto-Catholic Christianity, and Christian Gnosticism. The first two groups are thoroughly Jewish, the last two are thoroughly Greek/Roman (Gentile) phenomena. Most importantly, the Ebionites were Jewish-Christians who still maintained Jewish practices/full Torah observance (following all 613 mitzvahs [commandments] – yeah, there are more than just “ten”) and said that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, but he was just a regular person. Not God, not the *literal* but *adopted* “son of God” (a common title among revered Jews; see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=964. Slight digression, “son of God” was also a title used for Roman Emperors. http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~fkflinn/Priene%20Inscription.html describes the “good tidings” [ευαγγελια / “gospel”] of the “son of God” [υιος του θεος] and savior [σωτηρας / soteras] Augustus, who was so revered we get the month “August” from him), was born by normal means from Mary and Joseph, who’s crucifixion didn’t serve any theological or atonement purpose, and didn’t pre-exist as Philo’s Logos. This makes sense since the Ebionites’ name derives from the Hebrew word for “poor”, which is “ebion” – this means they could read and write Hebrew. Ebionites literally means Poor Ones, meaning that they placed special value on poverty (Matt. 19:16 – 24).

Also, since they could read Hebrew, this meant that they weren’t restricted to using the LXX, which meant they saw through the “arguments” that formed the basis for Jesus’ divinity and virgin birth. Both arise from using the LXX and not Hebrew version of the OT. Hebrew has those certain language nuances I mentioned earlier that are absent from Greek that Greek *only* speaking Jews or Gentiles would be unaware of – hence the abundance of Greek words in Christian literature such as:

The Greek Iesous (Jesus) instead of the Hebrew Yeshua (Joshua) [All instances of “Joshua” in the LXX are transliterated as “Jesus”; so Moses’ successor “Joshua” in the LXX is “Jesus”; the “Book of Joshua” in the LXX is the “Book of Jesus”]
Christ (Anointed / Messiah)
Catholic (universal)
Presbyter (elder)
Ecclesia (gathering / assembly [church])
Baptize (dunk)
Pet[e]r (Rock, root word for [petr]ified)
Episcopal (literally “epi” “scopos”: “over seer” – bishop)
Apocalypse (to unveil; revelation), apocrypha (hidden)
Apostle (ambassador)
Evangelist / angel (good news proclaimer / messenger)
Gospel (it’s actually ευαγγελια – “evangelia” which is “good news” or “good tidings” [ευαγγελιον – “evangelion” is good message; singular]. Good news was then transliterated into “god spell” from which we get “gospel”. The root for ευαγγελια also forms the root for “eulogy” which is basically “good words” [also the root for euthanasia – ευ θανατος “good death”, eugenics, eucharist, etc – notice that evangelia is a combination of ευ and “αγγελια” – the word for “angel (messenger)”].)
Deacon (diakonos/diakonon – literally “dia – through” and “konos – the dust” which is a “servant”; the dust kicked up by the servant as he/she waits on people; or a “Minister”: vis Mark 1:16 και οι αγγελοι διηκονουν αυτω – “and the [pl.] angels served him” – though some translations might say “and the angels ministered to him”)
Epistle (letter)
Canon (from the Greek κανόν, “kanon”, which means “rules” or “measuring stick”)
And “Bible” (comes from the Greek word “βιβλίο – biblio” which means “book”).

Also, a lot of words associated with the “Old Testament” are Greek in origin as well, like “Genesis”, “Deuteronomy” (δευτερο νομοι – deutero nomy: second laws) , “Exodus”, “Moses”, “Psalms”, etc. Another line of evidence that modern Christianity is descended from the LXX.

The Ebionites held that only members of Jesus’ family were rightful leaders of the new Church (like James the Just – see gThomas 12), and that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism, apostatized, and later started having gnostic visions of a “Son of God” redeemer – a fusion of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy. There might be some truth to their claim due to Paul citing the LXX in his arguments instead of the Hebrew Bible, as I mentioned above. A well trained Pharisee wouldn’t cite the LXX and confuse the word “lord” with YHWH if they could read Hebrew.

Any time people fuse Greek philosophy with Jewish theology, a system of thought that resembles Christianity always pops up. Paul, also, is not the first person to preach “non-circumcision” in Judaism. Like I wrote earlier, Hellenistic influence was always creeping in on Judaism, Hanukkah is pretty much a celebration of circumcision Jews over non-circumcision Jews. I think I’m the only one to notice this, but it seems as though Jesus clearning the Temple in the gospels might be a literary device used as allegory by the gospel authors “reversing” the Hannuka celebration. Victory of the non-circumcison Jews (Christians) over the circumcision Jews. However, I don’t have the pedagogy or the time to flesh that out more.

But think about it this way: the 2nd Temple was HUGE. It was like the size of a football stadium. It wasn’t just a religious temple, it was also a military fortress. Did Jesus really cleanse the Temple of “the money changers” in such a huge arena without being tackled and arrested; and then kept out the money changers while preaching freely? During the preparation for the biggest holy day in Judaism where hundreds of thousands of people were probably clamoring about, coming in from all over the Roman empire (the equivalent of policing a stadium during the Super Bowl)? When Judah Maccabee did this, he had an *army*. I don’t know about you, but I’d have a pretty hard time clearing a temple that’s like the size of a football field of probably hundreds of money changers’ booths and successfully keeping them out while preaching… all by myself. Imagine trying to kick out some vendors by yourself during Woodstock without the cops/security (or in 33 CE some Roman or Jewish troops) arresting you. So, yeah, it might just be another allegory and not a historical event (if it was historical, then Jesus would have needed an army or a large group of supporters which might look like an insurrection…).

Another significant event happens in Jewish history in the year 132. The Roman Emperor Hadrian starts erecting a statue to Jupiter on the sacred grounds of the rubble of the Second Temple. An abomination… standing where it doesn’t belong… causing desolation. This incites the Jews to go to war again with Rome and the *actual* Jewish messiah comes – Simon Bar Kochba. He leads this rebellion against Rome and re-acquires Jerusalem, re-establishing the Kingdom of Israel. He reigns as prince in Jerusalem for 3 years. During this time period, the Ebionites are severely persecuted. Both by the Jews for refusing to accept Simon as the real messiah and by the proto-Orthodox Christians for refusing to accept Jesus’ divinity, virgin birth, and atonement. Of course, the Romans pretty much did the equivalent of nuking Jerusalem to reclaim it, killing Simon (who is officially thus far the last actual prince of Israel), and purging Jerusalem of all Jews. In the aftermath of the war, Rome consolidated the older political units of Judaea, Galilee and Samaria into the new province of Syria Palaestina (Palestine). The new name was derived as an insult from the name of the enemies of the Jews, the Philistines who had occupied the coastal plain in ancient times.

Also, the Roman emperor Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism because he saw that as a major factor in the continued rebellions over the past 60 years (there was also the “relatively” minor Kitos War inbetween the First Jewish-Roman war and the Bar-Kochkba Revolt, where a Roman “Legion” with an ensign of “pigs” were stationed in Caesarea – “Gadara”, “Gerasa” or “Gergesa” – “C” and “G” are somewhat interchangable in Greek. What’s the name of that demon that gets exorcised into pigs?? Another allegory). He prohibited the Torah law, the Hebrew calendar, and executed Judaic scholars.

Some scholars posit that the attempted outlawing of Judaism is what prompted the writing of the gospels; using allegory to separate Christians (like the situation with Barabbas) from Jews and to show that Romans (represented by Pilate, the centurion who claims that “this man really was the Son of God”, etc) were actually supportive of Christ[ians]. It’s also odd how the Pharisees are always depicted as the “bad” guys in the gospels yet Jesus only has one run in with the Sadduccees and it ends with the Sadduccees basically saying “hey you’re right!” and we never hear from them again. In the gospels the Pharisees are depicted as being stubborn and legalistic in regards to the “Law” (Torah), yet it was the Sadduccees who were the strictly legalistic branch of the Jews, since their power base, being the “ruling class” of the Jews, was dependent on the Law. The Pharisees were actually more interested in the spirit of the Law and not adhering to it literally. Why would Jesus be at odds with the sect of Jews who were interested in the allegorical and non-dogmatic application of the Law and yet only have one run in with the class of Jews who *were* actually insanely legalistic? Why would Jesus be at odds with the Pharisees – who were *anti-slavery?* The *Sadduccees* were pro-slavery! But… Jesus never does condemn slavery… (another odditiy of Paul’s letters is that he complains about the Law and only mentions the Pharisees, even though during his lifetime it was the Sadduccees who were the legalistic ones).

Now for the most important part of the Christian Bible. A Christian Bishop named Marcion who was probably born around 70 – 80 AD “breaks off from the ‘orthodoxy'” (a very subjective designator in this time period) being kicked out of the church in Rome around 110 and starts what is later called by his detractors “Marcionism”. Marcion affirmed that Jesus was the Savior, but Jesus’ teachings were incompatible with the god of the Torah and that Jesus was actually the savior sent by a higher, hitherto unknown god of love and mercy (more Plato inspired theology). This god, from one of the higher heavens (2 Cor 12:2), sent his son Christ as a blood sacrifice to the lower, brutal, bloodlusting god of the Jews (possibly 2 Cor 4:4 – who is the “god of this age”??) for the redemption of all mankind. Marcion then was the first person to separate the Torah and make a distinction between “Old” and “New” and in 140 he compiled the first “New Testament” with 10 of Paul’s letters (the ones above minus the “Pastorals”) and one gospel, that seems to share a lot of similarities with our current Luke.

Notice that this happens in 140, five years after the failure of the Bar-Kochkba revolt, and in an environment that was trying to make Jewish theology illegal. Paul, for Marcion, was this new god’s chief apostle, whom Paul knew via personal revelation (just like Paul’s current corpus says like in Gal. 1:11 – 17, 1 Cor 11:23, and elsewhere). Marcion’s teachings made a lot of logical sense (why would God sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself? It makes more sense for a God of love to sacrifice its son to a separate war-like God), and lot of his arguments against the brutality depicted in the Torah (called the Antithesis; cf the supposed “morality” in Numbers 31 or Deut. 22:28-29) are still used to this day.

The “orthodoxy” then scrambled to compete with this by arguing for their own “New Testament” against Marcionism. A simple, narrow popularity contest is what prevented you (and all of Western civilization) from being Marcionites. According to radical critic Hermann Detering (and some other scholars), Simon Magus may be a cypher for Paul, [http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html] with Paul having originally been detested by the proto-Orthodox church due to the popularity of Marcionism, and the name changed when Paul was rehabilitated by virtue of forged epistles correcting the genuine ones. Simon Magus is sometimes described in apocryphal legends in terms that would fit Paul. Furthermore while the Christian proto-Orthodoxy frequently portrayed the major “Gnostic” leader Marcion as having been a follower of Simon Magus (according to Irenaeus, Simon Magus was the “father of all heresies”), Marcion nowhere mentions even the existence of Simon, and instead identifies himself as a follower of Paul. The Ebionites, also, had a huge disdain for Paul – in what’s regarded as some of their writings called the “pseudo-Clementines”, Peter is seen at odds with Simon Magus which most scholars conclude is Paul. The Ebionites argued in their writings that Peter never argued for the abolition of the Law or considered a “curse” like Paul did so there was no way they could have gotten along.

The three Pastoral epistles and “Acts of the Apostles” (maybe even canonical Luke and 2 Peter) were more than likely written to counter Marcion as well, which means they were written almost 100 years after Paul lived. No Christian prior to Marcion seems to be aware of the existence of Acts of the Apostles. Hence, the name change of Paul in Acts, which Paul himself never mentions in his letters. Other “Acts” type literature is also dated to the 2nd century, such as “Acts of Pilate”, “Acts of Peter and Paul”, “Acts of John”, “Acts of Thomas”, “Acts of the Twelve”, etc. This also explains why there are so many letters written by “Paul” in the NT, because the proto-Orthodox church used his letters in their own canon to capitalize on the popularity of Marcionism. From another perspective, why would Jesus go out of his way to pick 12 disciples, teach them the secrets of the coming Kingdom of God, send them out to evangelize during his time on Earth (or “LXX” number of apostles in Luke), just so that he can later knock a guy off of his horse months (or years) after his resurrection to make this guy’s evangelism take up half of the documents for his New Covenant?

While Christians earlier than Marcion (like Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius) write a word or two about Paul or quote one or so of his letters, it seems as though Marcion is the first to actually collect “all” of Paul’s letters – minus the Pastorals. There’s a possibility that every single one of the 10 uncontested and contested Pauline epistles were written by Marcion and distributed throughout his churches. It might even be possible that Marcion was writing about *himself* in those letters, since he did found a lot of churches in the Roman empire. Marcion is also the first Christian to use “Luke” in arguments – even before the earliest proto-Orthodoxy use of the gospel material like Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus is a name you should know. He has a work called “Against Heresies” that he wrote in 180 in which he attacks Marcion (conveniently after his death), the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, and the various Gnostics (like Valentinians, Sethians, Cerinthians, etc.[interestingly enough, the Gnostic Valentinus was a disciple of a “Theudas”, and Theudas was supposedly a disciple of Paul]). In his work, Irenaeus finally gives names to, and argues for, four gospels in the orthodoxy’s “New” Testament:

Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul’s associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord’s disciple — the one who lay on his lap — also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor – Against Heresies 3.1.1 (the first Christian document that gives names to the gospels)

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground [1 Timothy 3:15] of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. – Against Heresies 3.11.8 (arguing for only four gospels even though there were more in circulation at the time)

As you probably can tell, 3.1.1 is the order that the gospels appear in the NT. However, Irenaeus’ credibility is questionable. We know now that his depiction of Gnostics is incorrect due to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in the 1940s containing over 30 manuscripts of Gnostic gospels; he was writing more to warn his proto-Orthodoxy about Gnosticism, not trying to accurately describe it. Also, no Hebrew version of Matthew has ever been found; Matthew was writing originally in Greek due to his use of the LXX. Unless, of course, Irenaeus is referencing the Hebrew written gospel used by the Ebionites (but he would consider their gospel “heretical”). Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” is the first Christian apologetic writing that actually names the gospels of “Luke” and “John” (possibly also the first mention of the names “Matthew” and “Mark”, piggybacking on Papias’ Mark “Logia” [literally “words” – a sayings gospel]). Prior to Irenaeus, no other Christian writes “according to John” or “according to Mark”, etc. they just quote what we find is a phrase specific to John or specific to Matthew etc. Marcion, writing before both Justin Martyr (150s) and Irenaeus (180s) called his “Luke” the “Gospel of the Lord”. Marcion is actually the earliest Christian to quote any gospel directly in his writings. Quite ironically, if we Anglicized “Marcion” (like “Jesus” is the Anglicized version of “Ιησου::Iesou”) his name would be “Mark”.

So, just to bring this point home: the gospel names Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are first given to the canonical gospels in 180. Prior to 180, no one knows of any gospel *authors* called Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John and no one knows of any documents called “the gospel *according to John*”, etc.

However, it’s generally agreed by NT scholars that Mark was the first gospel written, and that Luke and Matthew edited and expanded Mark because they didn’t like his version and used another source called “Q” (like I mentioned to you before) that might be similar in form to the Gospel of Thomas or Papias’ “Logia”, and John was written last. gThomas might have even been written before Mark.

Reading these gospels in their chronological order, Jesus goes from the *adopted* son of God in Mark (like what the Ebionites believed, and what Paul writes in Romans 1:3) via baptism (in Mark, the spirit descends like a dove *into* him, and *immediately* forces him into the desert/wilderness – like being possessed – if you read it in its original Greek) and loses his power/adoption on the cross (thus Mark 15:34-35, with the Temple veil being spilt in two. According to Josephus, the Temple veil was a huge picture of a starry sky, the symolism harkening back to when the sky split open and the spirit descended into him from John’ baptism [Mark and Matthew both have Jesus quote Psalm 22:1, while Luke quotes Psalm 31:5]), to the *literal* son of God in Matthew/Luke (thus trying to *explain* the baptism since he was *already* the son of God), and then to God *himself* (or Philo’s “Logos” – the Word – the baptism now completely gone) in John. Each gospel also gets progressively more gnostic, changes Jesus’ last words on the cross, and gospels written after John are relegated to the Gnostics – though the “Gospel of Peter” was considered canonical for a while as well, it’s a bit more Gnostic-like than John (the True Cross is able to talk and says the word “Yea” wtf lol) – it eventually fell out of favor for possibly promoting “Docetic” (Jesus was just a spirit with the illusion of being human) Christology. There are actually some who say that a prototype version of John was written by the “Gnostic” Cerinthus (who was schooled in *Alexandra, Egypt*… hint hint) and was edited by the person who wrote 1 John to make it more “orthodox” by insisting on the Christ made flesh (google the “Egerton gospel”).

If James had been the brother of Jesus, why does no Christian know any stories about the life of Jesus from the age of 12 to 30? Surely the brother of Jesus would have had his brains picked clean by Christians eager to know what Jesus had been like. Therefore, the evolution of Jesus from being the adopted son of God to being God himself makes more sense, given the lack of any details of Jesus’ childhood and if he wasn’t considered the son of god from birth.

Also, Mark originally ends without any resurrection appearances; the women just run away scared and don’t tell anyone (16:8). The part after 16:8 is called the “Long Ending”, but the language in the LE is different than that found in the rest of Mark’s gospel. NT scholars are almost unanimous that the part after 16:8 isn’t original to Mark. So, Matthew and Luke have the first resurrection appearances. John also further corrects the resurrection appearances (also Paul’s account of resurrection appearances) by having the “Doubting Thomas” scene and the scene where Peter gets to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times to make up for him denying Jesus three times in the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) – which is odd if Mark was supposed to get his info from Peter but doesn’t have this reconciliation. Reading Mark, it actually looks like the author of Mark was *discrediting* Peter and the disciples (e.g. “are you still so dull?” and “get behind me satan!”, the Parable of the Sower with the “word” getting lost on the *rocks*… rock=peter: Peter, even though he was anxious for the “word” abandons Jesus at the end, etc.).

And then, since Matthew and Luke didn’t like this discreditation, they edited Mark’s narrative to rehabilitate the disciples (e.g. “for you are Peter [“rock”], and on this rock…” nullifying the Parable of the Sower). This is an evolving Christology, an evolution common to many myths; John is the most popular, yet least historical – if at all – gospel out of the four. As a matter of fact, it seems as though the (Greek speaking) gospel writers, writing after Paul, got ahold of a LXX, Paul’s letters, and simply picked “prophecies” for Jesus to fulfill in their narratives (this process is called “midrash”), with some getting a bit overzealous about the prophecies fulfilled.

For example, Matthew is the worst of it – the word “Nazarene” or “Nazareth” never appears in the LXX, but somehow the writer of Matthew thinks this is fulfilling a prophecy in the LXX. Matthew also thinks that Isaiah 7:14 is a messainic prophecy, but it isn’t. Isaiah is telling Ahaz to wait for YHWH for support instead of making alliances with Assyria. The “sign of Immanuel” is a timetable for when YHWH will destroy Ahaz’s enemies. By the time the child Immanuel reaches puberty (Is. 7:15 – 20) – telling Ahaz to wait for about 15 years – the time it takes for the woman in their company to give birth and have the child reach puberty – the two kingdoms (Is 7:16) which are about to invade that Ahaz is fretting over will be defeated, (See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=971&letter=A&search=ahaz) and 7:14 doesn’t say “virgin” in Hebrew. It *does* say “virgin” in the LXX though; a line of evidence that Matthew was written by a Greek speaker. Matthew also thinks that Hosea 11:1 is a messainic prophecy, but he conveniently leaves out the very first sentence of Hos. 11:1 which says “When Israel was a child, I loved him” so he could get “And out of Egypt I called my son” and apply it to Jesus. Also, Matthew quote-mines Jeremiah 31:15 for the “slaughter of the innocents”, but he also conveniently leaves out the rest of Jer. 31 which is about the Babylonian captivity, saying that Rachel’s children will “return from the land of the enemy”.

Anyway, Proto-Catholic Christianity is centered in Rome, whereas Ebionite Christianity is centered in Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina after the destruction of Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt, though the Ebionites joined the rest of the Jewish diaspora after Bar Kochba). In my opinion, the Ebionites are probably what the real, prior to Paul Christians were. The religion of Cephas/Peter, John, and James (Jesus’ brother), while the religion of Paul was closer to Gnosticism. The Ebionites continue surviving until proto-Catholic, Pauline Christianity is favored by Constantine for the “official” Roman religion circa 330 AD. Thus the Catholic Church is formed. When the first official Pope is named, the Ebionites and the Desposyni (relatives of Jesus) came to the gentile Pope and tried to re-claim the now official church but were dismissed. The Ebionites and Desposyni (along with the Gnostics) become further marginalized, finally disappearing around the 5th century (no, I’m not advocating some sort of Da Vinci code scenario!). The oppressed in the proto-Catholic church thus become the oppressors… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Greco-Roman_polytheism. Part 3.

References:
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/ (The Septuagint or LXX)
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/Bible%20Research/LifeOfJosephus.pdf (this is my web site! yay!)
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/Bible%20Research/On%20Pilate.pdf (Philo’s and Josephus’ writings about Pilate)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html (The argument by most scholars that Mark was written first)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees (The Maccabees and Hanukka)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rule_of_the_Blessing (Essene’s Dead Sea Scrolls)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm (Eusebius’ “Church History” written c. 300)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm (Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” written c. 180)
http://www.webcitation.org/5YBgZFADe (2008 Oxford conference about the “Synoptic Problem” by Christopher Tuckett)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html (Sanhedrin 43a – Yeshu ha-Notzri)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_107.html (Sanhedrin 107b another exerpt about Yeshu)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_67.html (Sanhedrin 67a a passage about a ben Stada / ben Pandira)
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html (a lengthy diatribe by a Jewish guy arguing against Christianity. While lengthy and doesn’t cite sources, he does provide good linguistic arguments since he apparently knows Hebrew)
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-15.asp (Biblical Archaeology Review article on the “Teacher of Righteousness”)
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-16.asp (Biblical Archaeology Review article about similarities / differences between Jesus and the “Teacher of Righteousness”)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html (Gabriel’s Revelation)
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/deadsea.html#Essenes (another comparison between the Essenes and Jesus)
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html (a verse-by-verse exegesis of the gospel of Mark)
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=220039 (this is a pretty radical deconstruction of the gospel of Mark but it makes some pretty good arguments that Mark is a pro-Paul, anti-Peter work).

 
Comments Off on The History of Early Christianity, part 2

Posted by on July 13, 2009 in Adonai, adoni, christ, early Christianity, ebionites, Hashem, jesus, LXX, paul, septuagint, YHWH, YHWH pronunciation

 

The History of Early Christianity, part 1

This was originally an email I was going to send to someone, but I decided not to send it to her. So I thought I would post it here instead of letting it go to waste. Maybe and hopefully, if she’s curious enough, she’ll stumble upon this blog. I’m going to split this into two posts because it’s pretty lengthy; one of the reasons why I didn’t send it to her. I didn’t want to beat her over the head with all of this – it’s a lot to digest. The other reason being that it went against the opening theme of the email that was about going out and learning things for yourself instead of simply accepting things uncritically.

I think when I put all of the contents of that email in a Word doc, it was around 50 pages! Ridiculous. Anyway…

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” – Hillel the Elder, c. 100 BCE.

“Jesus” was a common name in the Second Temple time period. I’m going to list a couple of them that eerily share a lot with the Jesus of Christianity.

Yeshu ha-Notzri was a member of a Jewish sect called “Notzrim” around 100 BCE. He was charged with practicing sorcery and tried by the Sanhedrin. For 40 days a town crier was sent out into the streets of Jerusalem asking if anyone would come forth and speak in his defense. When no one came, he was executed; he was hanged on the eve of Passover. He apparently also had five disciples. How much of that is true or false, no one knows. It’s one of the many notes on Sanhedrin trials found in the Jewish Talmud. As you know, Jesus’ actual name is “Yeshua”. Translating this directly into English is “Joshua”, not “Jesus”. But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou” (Ιησου), and “Iesou[s]” in English is Jesus. In my opinion, it seems as though “Iesous” was back-translated in to Hebrew to end up as “Yeshu”; the “I” sound in Greek, the “Y” sound in Hebrew, and “J” sound in our modern English are all generally the same sound, so you could say “Yeshu” or “Jesu”, the “s” in Hebrew can be pronounced as either a regular “s” or an “sh” (It seems pretty obvious to me that the Hebrew “Yeshu” was derived from the Greek “Jesu”). And the ending of the word in Greek depends on its grammatical context.

For example, “Jude”, “Judas”, and “Judah” are all the same name in Greek but change depending on the grammatical context, kinda like we would say either “an apple” or “a pear”; so “Jesus” could be pronounced as either “Jesu” or “Jesus” (or “Jesun”) in Greek. In Mark 1:1, it says “αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου” (the beginning of the good news [of/by] Jesu Christ) but just a few lines later at Mark 1:9 it says “ιησους της γαλιλαιας” (Jesus of Galilee [“from Nazareth” is argued to not be original, since this is the only time in Mark’s gospel he uses “Ναζαρετ – Nazareth” instead of “Ναζαρηνος – Nazarene” and all of its grammatical variations, the significance of which I’ll explain later]). Later at Mark 15:1 is another grammatical variation of “Jesus”, it says “ολον το συνεδριον δησαντες τον ιησουν” which says literally “all of the conference bound [the] Jesoun”.

“Jesu” is the neutral version of the name and the actual transliteration of Yeshua/Joshua, whereas if Jesus is doing something, it becomes “Jesus” (which is why this is the version that occurs the most in the NT), if Jesus is having something done to him, it changes to “Jesoun”. And just to be thorough, here is Numbers 13:16 LXX:

και επωνομασεν μωυσης τον αυση υιον ναυη ιησουν / And Moses named Hosea son of Nun Jesus

But it’s literally “Jesun” since Jesus/Joshua is having something done to him – the naming.

Next, Jesus ben Sira was a Jewish sage living around 180 BCE who wrote a non-canonical Tanach (Old Testament) book called “the Book of Sirach”. This Jesus was a wandering Jewish preacher who apparently was always close to getting killed due to his teachings. His works included mixing Jewish theology with Greek Homer-styled heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira might have started or belonged to the Essenes (that Jewish sect that I told you about before besides the Pharisees and Sadduccees). He was reported to have been a miracle worker and upset the Maccabean king (106-79 BCE) by continually preaching about the end times, and was eventually executed by being hanged from a tree – on the eve of Passover. Ben Pandira might be the Essene “Teacher of Righteousness”; the Essene suffering, benevolent teacher.

So, next, around 10 BCE to 10 AD there was some Hebrew “scripture” inscribed on a tablet called “Gabriel’s Revelation” in which the angel Gabriel is talking to a messiah claimant, saying that even though he died, he would be brought back to life in three days. Some scholars think that the messiah claimant referred to here is a Jew named Simon, who was one of Herod’s slaves who revolted (the Jewish historian Josephus writes about him in his work “Antiquities of the Jews” 17.10.6), and that the community that produced this tablet is the same community that the Dead Sea Scrolls belonged to – Jesus ben Pandira’s Essenes. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain themes of baptism, asceticism, allusions to “living water”, a “new covenant” celebration, and a “messianic banquet”.

Also during this time period, a Hellenized Jew named “Philo” had schools in Alexandria, Egypt. His schools focused on mixing Jewish theology with Greek philosophy. The thing he’s most known for is this concept called the “Logos”. The Logos was literally what the gods (in Stoicism, YHWH in Judaism) used to make the world. Kinda like how we would use gloves to handle radioactive material since we can’t touch it directly. “Logos” in Greek means “logic” or “word / speaking” (it’s also the root word for the “-logy” suffix in all of our sciency words like bio[logy], paleonto[logy], geo[logy], etc.). The logos, Philo taught, was also sorta the blueprint for humans, and functioned as a “high priest” in heaven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_view_of_God#The_Logos – you should read the whole article; ironically Philo’s non-Jewish version of god is a lot like mine). All High Priests are anointed with olive oil once taking office – they are “YHWH’s anointed” (Greek: χριστου κύριου – actually the “lord’s anointed”) – ergo… the logos, the high priest, is a “christ”: “χριστος” (notice the parallels between “Jesus the high priest” in Zechariah 3 and Jesus the “high priest” Hebrews. Of course in your English Bible, the high priest is called “Joshua” in Zechariah 3).

Philo is also a contemporary of Jesus and would have definitely taken notice of him (and Philo even visited Galilee once), but never writes about him… but he does write about his other contemporary – Pilate, which I’ll get to later.

Another major thing that happened in this time period (3rd – 1st centuries BCE) was the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek so that the reading of the Hebrew Bible wasn’t restricted to the Pharisees or other Jews who could read and write Hebrew. This tome was called the “Septuagint” or the “LXX”: literally “Seventy”. It gets its name from the tradition that 70 Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew bible into Greek. When Martin Luther translated the Bible into his native tongue – German – it brought the Bible to the common person, letting anyone who could read the ability to read it without depending on the priesthood for translations, ushering in the Protestant Revolution. The same thing happened with the LXX – Jews who could only read Greek were allowed to read the Torah/Tanach without depending on the Pharisees or other Hebrew educated Jews for translations. The LXX also made Judaism mainstream. It meant Jewish thought could be teased against Plato and Homer etc. and its influence could spread. Without “it” (there were many variations, all called “Septuagint”), Judaism would have remained an insular national cult. This allowed any gentile Greek who could read and get their hands on a LXX to perform exegesis and midrash on the Hebrew Bible and fuse it with their own philosophies (a *very* key point), making up stories based on LXX characters. Later, when the writers of the gospels quote the Tanach, they’re not quoting the Hebrew version, they’re quoting the LXX… “mistranslations” and all. It’s not so much that there were “mistranslations”, it’s just that languages never have a one-to-one relationship. I’m sure there are jokes, double entendres, etc. you know in German that wouldn’t make sense in English, and vice-versa. Every reference to Tanach texts in the NT does so by quoting the LXX. None of them quote the actual Hebrew version.

For example, in Hebrew, there are two words for “lord” – Adonai and adoni. Adonai is “LORD” and adoni is “lord”; the first refers to YHWH only, and the second is simply a human title. This is because Jews, if they’re reading from the Hebrew Bible and come across YHWH (יהוה), they’ll say “LORD” – Adonai (or they’ll say “HaShem” – The Name). Greek only has one word for “lord” – kyrios (κυριος). This is a critical point here – the tetragrammaton (יהוה or YHWH – Yahweh) is never written in the LXX. The writers of the gospels and Paul wrote in Greek and used the LXX for their arguments. This means that they couldn’t read Hebrew and thus were unaware of the difference between the two “lords” in Hebrew, and unaware of any being named YHWH. I reiterate – Paul, James, Jude, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and for some reason Jesus himself were **all unaware of a being named YHWH**. All references to YHWH in the LXX use either “kyrios” or “theos”, so the writers of the NT only used those words as well. The most glaring example of this confusion by the gospel writers is Psalm 110 (NIV):

“The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

In Hebrew, the first LORD is pronounced as “Adonai” but would be really pronounced YHWH (vowels aren’t really written in Hebrew, so for example your name in Hebrew is actually שרה or SRH) if Jews were to forsake the aversion of saying Ha Shem out loud. The second “lord” is “adoni”, and in this case is referring to a *human*… King David (the Psalm begins with “a psalm for/about King David”. “My lord” = King David). Adoni is *never* used for a divine entity, only for *humans*. The second “lord” is, in English, improperly capitalized (you can read the actual Hebrew here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26b0.htm and see that יהוה only appears one time in verse 1, not twice; Hebrew reads from right to left). However, this distinction between the two types of “lord” doesn’t exist in Greek or in the LXX. So when, for example, the writer of Matthew wrote 22:41-44 and quotes Psalm 110, he thinks that both lords have the same divine “lord” status. Both “lords” are gods. Thus you get the inaccurate idea that the “lord / adoni”, a god (in Matthew’s case, Jesus) sits at the right hand of the “lord” (YHWH). A Pharisee (trained in Hebrew) would have pointed out the two *very* different types of “lords” immediately, and not sulked away with their tail between their legs. This also seems to imply that Jesus spoke Greek *instead* of Hebrew or Aramaic, which doesn’t make sense.

The implication that Jesus spoke in Greek and not Hebrew/Aramaic shows up again in John 3:1-8… “[born] again” (γεννηθη άνωθεν – gennithi anothen [our word “genesis” comes from the Greek]) makes sense in Greek as a double entendre, but not in Aramaic/Hebrew, since in Greek the word for “again / anew” can also mean “from above” (anothen). The more specific word in Greek for “again” would be either “pali” (or in koine Greek “palin” …lol) or as is used in 1 Peter 1:23 “αναγεγεννημενοι – anagegennimeni”… literally “reborn [pl.]”. This double meaning is completely absent in the Hebrew/Aramaic word for “anew”. “From above” and “anew” are two separate words/phrases in Aramaic. The writer of John thus implies that Jesus and Nicodemus are speaking in Greek to each other, since Nicodemus wouldn’t have had the confusion/reaction that he had if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and said “born from above”.

Paul makes the same “mistake” meshing the two different “lords” and showing ignorance of YHWH in Romans 10:9 – 13 (and elsewhere):

“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. For the same Lord is Lord of all. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Paul is using Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5 LXX) as a proof text for the divinity of Jesus. His argument only makes sense if Joel 2:32 reads “lord” – as does the LXX. If Paul had rabbinic training (or could read Hebrew) then he would certainly know that Joel was talking about a specific name – YHWH (the referent for Adonai). Joel in Hebrew doesn’t say “lord”, it says YHWH. Not once does the book of Joel say the word “lord”.

To try expressing this another way, whenever the phrase “YHWH El” or “YHWH Elohim” appears, Hebrew literate Jews would read it “the LORD God”. Sometimes it’s written as YHWH El (the LORD God), sometimes just YHWH (the LORD). If someone can’t read Hebrew, they might think that the singular “lord” (kyrios) is a different being than the “lord god” (kyrios theos), but seems to have similar “powers” as the “LORD God”. Since non-Hebrew literate readers of the LXX find “lord” and a different “lord god” they might think that these are two different beings (sorta like Philo’s “Logos”, hmm…) – yet Hebrew literate readers would recognize that YHWH (Adonai – Lord) is the same being, regardless of the qualifier “God”. Notice in Joel 2:32 that “the LORD God” is never mentioned. Just the LORD. Of course, Paul couldn’t read Hebrew, so he didn’t know that this “LORD” character is YHWH, and not some other “LORD” (in Paul’s case, Jesus). Now you know how the phrase “my name is the LORD” is actually supposed to be (“my name is YHWH”).

As a slight side note, however, the gospel of John implies that YHWH’s name is “I Am”, which he got from Exodus 3:14. It’s still not quite, since “I am” in Hebrew is אהיה (ehyeh or ahyah) and not יהוה. John uses multiple “I am” statements to imply that Jesus is God – but he’s still unaware of The Name יהוה since that would have been written in the LXX as “lord” and אהיה would be written in the LXX as “I am” (εγω ειμι – ego eimi). But notice in the very next verse, Exodus 3:15, YHWH says his actual name that he says he should be called “from generation to generation” (but, in our English and the LXX, it says “LORD” and not YHWH). And in the subsequent generations, the Jews have to be reminded again and again that their “God” is “Yah” (“god” = el… “yah” or “jah” – Elijah, means “my god is jah”; “shua” in Hebrew means “salvation”, “Yah-Shua” [Jesus’ Hebrew name] means “Yah is salvation”; but don’t take these theophoric names too prophetically, since “Judas” – the betrayer – his name comes from Yahuwdah which means “praise to Yah”).

This Jewish person I correspond with sometimes had this to say about Exodus 3:14:

Without gong into detailed Hebrew ‘word studies’ and elaborately documented ‘proofs’, my personal opinion on Exodus 3:14 is approximately;

“I am the causing to be, what I am causing to be”

A ‘play’ on The Name ‘YHWH’ and the causative verb forms ‘yah’he and ha’yah’ יהי and היה (and ‘it (he) WAS)’-(and ‘it (he) BECAME’)

The core idea being of a past, present, and future (self-existent) FORCE, causing, and bringing into ‘being’ all that -ever ‘was’ -now ‘is’-ever ‘shall be

The LXX version of Ex 3:14 has YHWH say “εγω ειμι ο ων” which in Greek is “I am the being” (ων is the Koine Greek version of οντος which forms the root to one of my favorite words “ontology” lol). It’s probably the closest the Greek translators could come to describing the “pun” that only makes sense in Hebrew.

Another interesting side note about “adoni” is that’s no coincidence that this is the name of one of the Greek gods “Adonis” who, oddly enough, was a dying and resurrecting god. “Adoni” (lord) is where Adonis gets his name.

So, if Paul knew Hebrew, his argument in Romans would look like this (for this instance I’ll translated YHWH as “Jehovah” as JWs do):

“Whoever calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved. For the same Jehovah is Jehovah of all. If you confess with your mouth that Jehovah is salvation is Jehovah and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

This makes absolutely no sense. Like I wrote above, “Jesus” isn’t Jesus’ actual name, it’s “Yah is salvation” (Yahshua or Yahoshua).

Anyway, for this reason alone, the vast majority of converts to Christianity were gentile Greeks (“ger toshav” – you should google it!) and non-Hebrew literate Jews. Conversions of Hebrew-literate Jews was almost non-existent (1 Peter 3:10-15 quotes Psalm 34:12-16 and also betrays ignorance of YHWH). If you talk to any Jews today, these are some of the same reasons that they give for not being Christians – that Christians don’t understand the language nuances of Hebrew, and don’t understand what the Jewish Messiah is *actually* supposed to do. Why would Christians refer to Jesus by the Greek name “Jesus” instead of the Hebrew name “Joshua”? Or call themselves the Greek word “Christian”? Why the lack of Hebrew words in Christian literature? All of the evidence indicates that the early Christians didn’t understand Hebrew and “exploited” the ignorance of Hebrew on all of their proselytes. How, then, can non-Hebrew literate people claim to know the Hebrew Bible better than people who *can* read Hebrew? It doesn’t even seem as though any of the “Apostolic Fathers” (Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement) were Jews.

It seems as though if it weren’t for the LXX, there would be no Christianity – other than the Ebionites; which I’ll explain later.

Also, during this time period there were many factions of Jews besides the Pharisees and the Sadduccees. There were the Notzrim, the Zealots, Herodians, Essenes, Nazirites (not really a “sect”, but whatevs), etc. But the main four that are probably most important for this email are the Pharisees, Sadduccees, Essenes, and Notzrim. Just so I can stop typing “Notzrim”, that Hebrew word in (Greek) English is, for all intents and purposes, “Nazarenes”.

Yes, the Nazarenes were around before Jesus and had nothing to do with a town called “Nazareth”. “Yeshu ha-Notzri” means “Jesus the Nazarene”. While it’s debated whether our English “Nazarenes” (Greek “Nazoraios” Ναζωραιος) derives from the Hebrew “Notzrim” (Aramaic “Natzoriya”), “Notzrim” and “Naztrat” have two different meanings in Hebrew. “Notzrim” means “Nazarene” as a religious group (or simply a close knit group) like the Pharisees, and “Naztrat” means “someone from Nazareth (Nazarene)” in *modern* Hebrew. The term “Naztrat” or town called “Nazareth” is never found in the Talmud or any other Jewish writings until after Christianity’s prominence. However, “Nazarene” (Notzrim) is, and is used to refer to Christians all throughout the Talmud. The town “Nazareth” seems to first appear in non-Christian literature when Constantine’s Christian mom, Helen, either “found” or “founded” the town circa 330. I really have no idea if the town Nazareth existed during Jesus’ lifetime. There’s evidence that people lived in the area *now* known as Nazareth in the first century, but whether it was actually called “Nazareth” back then is up for grabs.

There’s also the possibility that “Nazarene” is a Greek mistranslation of a “nazirite” vow (Numbers 6:1-21).

The Nazarenes prior to the Christian era were claimed to have been descendants of the House of Joseph… meaning that they had a completely divergent view of the “Christ” or “Messiah” – he wouldn’t be a “seed of David” (since that’s via the lineage of the House of Benjamin), he would be from the House of Joseph. Their messiah was supposed to re-establish the northern kingdom. The Nazarenes called themselves “sons of Joseph” due to their heritage. Also complicating/conflicting matters, the modern day Samaritans claim lineage from the House of Joseph. Apparently, the Nazarenes were popular among the Samaritans; with the Samaritans claiming that Mount Gerizim as the true place where sacrifices to YHWH were to be performed, and not Jerusalem (see John 4:19). Samaritans also claim that the only inspired texts were the first five books of the OT (the Pentateuch) written by Moses.

There might have been a lot of mixing of religions before a lot of this was written down and reified. The gospel of Matthew, which was said to have been written to try to convert Jews, is the only gospel that’s antagonistic towards Samaritans. John, on the other hand, is antagonistic towards Jews and has “many Samaritans” believing in him – but if Jesus is a Davidic seed, it is insanely unlikely that Samaritans would accept a Davidic Messiah, since they don’t acknowledge lineage from the House of Benjamin.

We’ll skip what happens in Christian history from the year 1 AD to 33 (really, no one knows) and go straight to the earliest Christian writings by Paul which were written around the 40s – 50s, or, at the most written before 70. The reason for a no-later-than 70 date I’ll also write about later. There are 13 letters ascribed to Paul. 14 if you count “Hebrews”, but this has been contested ever since it was introduced by the proto-Orthodoxy around 1,850 years ago. For all intents and purposes, “Hebrews” was anonymously written, just like the canonical gospels. Seven of Paul’s letters share a near scholarly consensus that they’re authentically written by “Paul”, or at least written by the same person. There are three letters that have no consensus, and three that are almost unanimously agreed by New Testament scholars to not be by “Paul”, or at least not by the same person. The seven that are generally agreed to have been written by “Paul” are 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, Phillipians, and Philemon. The three that have no consensus are Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and Colossians. The three agreed forgeries are 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus – called the “Pastoral Epistles”. From my own reading I think that “Paul”, or the same person, did write Ephesians and Colossians but not 2 Thessalonians.

Reading all of the authentic and non-consensus Pauline letters, there’s something “wrong” with Paul’s version of Christ. Paul’s Christ does nothing of value while he was on Earth other than have a last supper, get “handed over” (cf. 1 Cor 11:23 vs. Rom 8:23), crucified, and “resurrected”. Paul’s Christ never gets baptized by John, does no miracles, no wisdom sayings or parables, never clears the Temple, and never heals anyone or raises anyone from the dead (wouldn’t Jesus’ marital status – either “celibate” or “married” have been a highly potent line of argument in 1 Cor 7?). Paul also never mentions his crucifixion by Pilate in Jerusalem (that part is mentioned in the Pastorals, which was written to counter a specific “person” which I’ll write about later) or any sort of “empty tomb”. Some things are certain in Paul’s letters though – he’s the Son of God, was crucified at some point in the past, and was resurrected (and is going to come back and destroy the world while resurrecting all those who are “asleep” in Christ). However, Paul’s account of his resurrection is that he “appeared” to the apostles (on a similar note, Paul [and all other epistles] never makes any mention of any “disciples”, or people that his Christ actually taught physically or any “ministry” in the sense of “preaching”). Paul makes no distinction between the way he appears to himself and the way he appears to Cephas (Peter – may or may not be the same person), the 500, the “twelve” (why are the twelve mentioned separately from Cephas [pronounced “kee-fas”]? Isn’t he part of the twelve? Thus the possibility that Cephas and Peter are two different people), and James. The prima facie conclusion (that is, without any biases from later gospels) is that Christ appeared to them all the same way – in visions.

Paul’s writings are very proto-Gnostic. More on that later, since it’s extremely important to the canonization process and “New” Testament (or you can read this as well: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html). This silence about the earthly life of Jesus by Paul is shared with the epistles of “1 Peter”, “1, 2, 3 John”, “Jude”, and “James” up to writings like Ignatian epistles, Polycarp’s epistles, 2 Peter, and the Didache (short for “The Teaching [Didache / διδαχη, where we get the phrase “didactic”] of the Twelve”) circa 100 AD. This is where we start to get “whispers” of gospel material – vague quotes, works, biography, etc. of Jesus. But never direct word-for-word quotes like what Paul does with the Tanach – or more accurately, with the LXX. In the mid-100s we start getting direct quotes of gospel material, but no author names. Like Justin Martyr’s “Memoirs of the Apostles” in 150. He quotes from what we find are Matthew, Luke, and Mark (possibly John) but he never names those authors outright (side note – Justin never describes “talking in tongues” as being among the gifts that Christians possess upon being saved, which means that, at the least, his version of Mark didn’t have the part after 16:8 which most scholars agree is a later addition to the text. Justin doesn’t seem to be aware of Paul or considered to be “Simon” the Magician, and was a contemporary and *antagonist* of a “Marcion”; the reason for me mentioning that will be brought up later). Similarly so with Tatian’s subsequent “Diatesseron” which literally means “through four” in Greek – it was a single version of the four gospels without any contradictions (my website name “diapente” means “through five”).

Now, back to the Jews. Two very significant events happen in Jewish history from 70 AD to 132 – 135 AD. Probably the most important events for *all* modern Jews. Since the time of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the “known world” in the 300s BCE up to the first century AD, Jews are pressured for assimilation by the Greek culture and had been conquered by the more brutal Romans since the 50s BCE. Jews are pissed off. Their high priests are just Roman lackeys, some Jews want to maintain their Hebrew roots while other Jews want to assimilate to Greek culture (which was actually one of the causes for the celebration of Hanukkah about a hundred years prior around 150 BCE – the traditionalist Jews cleared the Temple of Hellenistic influence; this is in 1 & 2 Maccabees which isn’t included in Protestant Bibles but is present in Catholic Bibles). The Sadduccees are the “ruling class” of the 2nd Jewish Temple culture, the Essenes were highly ascetic Jews who were insanely dedicated to Judaism but somewhat anti-social and highly selective, the Nazarenes are “Jews” who are Jewish by ethnicity but want to re-establish the northern kingdom of Judah (where Galilee is at), want to re-establish the lineage of Joseph from the Torah (calling themselves the “Sons of Joseph”) and are sort of “anti-Pharisee/Torah”, and the Pharisees are the “regular”, Torah-educated Jews: the Rabbis. All of these Jewish sub-groups want freedom from each other, Roman rule and Greek assimilation, and Messiah-ism is rampant. Hundreds, if not thousands, of “messiahs” pop up starting mini rebellions, doing random displays of trying to recreate the miracles of Moses and other prophets, etc. and all are put down by the Romans. Romans like to kill, and they’re pretty brutal. However, Pontius Pilate was even more brutal. He was actually too brutal even for his superiors and was eventually fired for his wanton murder and execution of Jews. The polar opposite of how he’s presented in the gospels.

As a matter of fact, the situation between Jesus (Christ) and Jesus (Barabbas) displaying Pilate’s “mercy” almost certainly never happened. In the gospels, Pilate is presented as merciful, reluctant, and scared of the Jewish mob. According to Philo (in his work “On The Embassy of Gauis”), Pilate was “inflexible, he was stubborn, of cruel disposition. He executed troublemakers without a trial.” He refers to Pilate’s “venality, his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, endless savage ferocity.” Philo, for the most part, got along with the Romans. He was the head of a delegation to the Roman Emperor Caligula, yet this is the way he speaks about Pontius Pilate. Not only that, but Philo and Pilate were contemporaries.

Josephus also has a very negative view of Pilate. According to Josephus, at one point there was a minor uprising, somewhat peaceful, of Jews because they were demonstrating against Pilate’s spending money from the Temple on building an aqueduct. Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them. After giving the signal, Pilate’s soldiers randomly attacked, beat, and killed scores of Jews who weren’t even being unruly; he just liked killing Jews. Note that Josephus is writing this account *for the Romans!* You would think that, if anything, he would present a Roman official in a better light if his audience were his Roman superiors. Accordingly, Pilate was fired for massacring some Samaritans who went up to Mount Gerizim where a messiah claimant went to demonstrate a miracle.

There’s no way he would have had some tradition of letting one prisoner go and no way he would have been scared of a mob of Jews. He would have just killed them all. Also, Jesus Barabbas is a nonsense name – “Barabba[s]” or “bar Abba” (remember, this was originally written in Greek and thus the endings change depending on the grammatical context – so in the text appears “Barabbas” and “Barabban”) is Aramaic for “son of the father”, which is a surname that makes no sense. This is a literary creation of the author of Mark and scholars really have no consensus on why he would do it. Possibly, Jesus Barabbas was the historical Jesus who really was an insurrectionist and was rightfully arrested and executed, and Pilate’s “washing his hands” was symbolic of removing the blame for Jesus’ death on the Romans and placing it on the Pharisees (or all Jews in gJohn) so that Christianity wouldn’t be seen as being at odds with Roman authority (giving a clue as to when these stories were written – which I’ll explain in the next couple paragraphs). The surname “Barabbas” given because the historical Jesus was known for praying to the Father and always refered to himself as “the son”. This also makes sense of why Paul’s letters, and other epistles written in the 1st century (1 Peter, James, Jude, 1,2,3 John) make no mention of any miracles or wisdom sayings attributed to Jesus.

Either that, or Mark put this in to mimic the “scapegoat” ceremony in Leviticus 16. Jesus, the real “son of the father” just so happens to meet “bar Abba” (son of the father) who is his complete opposite? And Pilate, who executed troublemakers without trial, supposedly had a ceremony for releasing insurrectionists because it was a Jewish holiday? He had no respect for Jewish customs! And releasing an “insurrectionist” would make Pilate himself an accomplice to insurrection. So possibly an allegorical representation of Lev 16.

Another somewhat important aside, Josephus was born in 37 CE. In his autobiography, he says that when he turned 16 (which would be around 53 CE), he wanted to get a thorough introduction to the three major “philosophies” of Judaism – he names the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes as the three. Later on, he mentions a fourth “philosophy” of Judaism led by a Galilean named “Judas” which scholars have dubbed the “Zealots” which supposedly only had 4,000 followers. According to Acts of the Apostles, this was a time period when thousands of Jews and Greeks were being converted to Christianity, yet Josephus doesn’t mention any of these mass conversions that should have been happening during his lifetime.

Finally, in the year 66, the first Jewish-Roman war breaks out – during the reign of Nero – and the Jews are crushed. Most importantly, the Second Temple is destroyed in 70. This is a HUGE cataclysm for Jews and sparks the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism – the current form of Judaism. In the Apocalypse of John of Patmos (the book of Revelation), he writes about an “anti-Christ” who’s “number” is six hundred and sixty six. Greek (and Latin and Hebrew) don’t have separate “text” for writing numbers. So if a Greek wanted to write the number “12”, they’d either write δωδεκα (twelve) or use Greek letters to add up to 12, like βι; “β” is the number 2 and “ι” is the number 10 – so βι would be “12”. So, if someone’s name adds up to a certain number, you could just “write their number” instead of spelling out their name… !

Nero was pretty much a bastard. He killed his own mother and sister, reinstated persecutions against Jews, and supposedly “fiddle while Rome burned”. At the end of Nero’s reign, during the First Jewish-Roman war, he fled Rome because he knew he was going to get assassinated. When some members of the Roman Senate found him, he decided to commit suicide instead of being exiled and/or murdered. So Nero, this huge bastard who started the war with the Jews, simply “disappears” one day from the point of view of the common person. Depending on who is talking, “Nero” can be spelled either as “Nero” or “Neron” – the difference between the two names being the letter “N”. “N” has the value of 50 in Greek.

There are actually two versions of the “number of the beast” in John’s Revelation. The most commonly known one “six hundred sixty six”, and another that appears in some earlier manuscripts of Revelation – six hundred sixteen(here). What an odd coincidence: 666 minus 616 = 50… the value of “N”.

Also around this time, there was another veeeery interesting “Jesus” named Jesus son of Ananias described by Josephus in his book “War of the Jews” 6.5.3:

An incident more alarming still had occurred four years before the war at a time of exceptional peace and prosperity for the City. One Jeshua son of Ananias, a very ordinary yokel, came to the feast at which every Jew is expected to set up a tabernacle for God. As he stood in the Temple he suddenly began to shout: ‘A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, a voice against the bridegrooms and brides, a voice against the whole people.’ Day and night he uttered this cry as he went through all the streets. Some of the more prominent citizens, very annoyed at these ominous words, laid hold of the fellow and beat him savagely. Without saying a word in his own defence or for the private information of his persecutors, he persisted in shouting the same warning as before. The Jewish authorities, rightly concluding that some supernatural force was responsible for the man’s behaviour, took him before the Roman procurator.

There, though scourged till his flesh hung in ribbons, he neither begged for mercy nor shed a tear, but lowering his voice to the most mournful of tones answered every blow with ‘Woe to Jerusalem!’ When Albinus — for that was the procurator’s name — demanded to know who he was, where he came from and why he uttered such cries, he made no reply whatever to the questions but endlessly repeated his lament over the City, till Albinus decided he was a madman and released him. All the time till the war broke out he never approached another citizen or was seen in conversation, but daily as if he had learnt a prayer by heart he recited his lament: ‘Woe to Jerusalem!’ Those who daily cursed him he never cursed; those who gave him food he never thanked: his only response to anyone was that dismal foreboding. His voice was heard most of all at the feasts.

For seven years and five months he went on ceaselessly, his voice as strong as ever and his vigour unabated, till during the siege after seeing the fulfilment of his foreboding he was silenced. He was going round on the wall uttering his piercing cry: ‘Woe again to the City, the people, and the Sanctuary!’ and as he added a last word: ‘Woe to me also!’ a stone shot from an engine struck him, killing him instantly. Thus he uttered those same forebodings to the very end.

Interestingly, this Jewish historian, writing for his Roman benefactors, writes about more alarming stories like these (like an insurgent Jesus son of Sapphias, who gathers a bunch of *fishermen* and *poor people* to start a rebellion in Josephus’ hometown Galilee – and when one of this Jesus’ followers betrays him, this Jesus is arrested and his band of fishermen and poor people abandon him), gives pages and pages about all of these bandits, crazy people, messiah claimants, etc., multiple Jesuses who seem to be an “episode” of the Gospel’s Jesus’ ministry, but never writes about the Jesus of Christianity – even though Josephus was from Galilee and lived from 37 to 100… and Josephus’ father was a member of the Jewish priesthood, someone that would have had first hand experience of the Jesus of Christianity.

The current corpus of Josephus has a single paragraph about the Jesus of Christianity in his other book “Antiquities of the Jews” but considering that he calls him “the Christ” in that book (a word he doesn’t use anywhere else) and only has one paragraph describing him – while on the other hand writes pages about bandits and crazy people – makes his passing remark about the Jesus of Christianity (it’s called the “Testimonium Flavium” in scholarship) more than likely an interpolation by later Christians. The way that books were copied prior to the printing press makes unintentional interpolations happen all the time. Possibly, a Christian scribe copying Josephus’ work read the part about Pilate and wrote in a margin of the text (implying that he wasn’t intentionally trying to forge Josephus’ work) a couple of words about the Jesus of Christianity. A later scribe, not knowing that these couple of words are more like an anotation or note and not the original work, simply and mistakenly inserted the note of the margin into the body of the work.

Josephus actually thought that the Roman General Vespasian was the Messiah:

What more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the [1st Roman] war was an ambiguous oracle … found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil”

– Josephus’ Jewish War 6.5.4

Anyway, after the war, the Pharisees (who become Rabbinic Jews) begin consolidating power (mostly by murdering the Sadduccees, since the Sadduccees’ power base – the Temple – was destroyed), the Essenes mysteriously disappear, and what happens to the Nazarenes? Part 2

References:
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/ (The Septuagint or LXX)
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/Bible%20Research/LifeOfJosephus.pdf (this is my web site! yay!)
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/Bible%20Research/On%20Pilate.pdf (Philo’s and Josephus’ writings about Pilate)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html (The argument by most scholars that Mark was written first)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees (The Maccabees and Hanukka)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rule_of_the_Blessing (Essene’s Dead Sea Scrolls)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm (Eusebius’ “Church History” written c. 300)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm (Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” written c. 180)
http://www.webcitation.org/5YBgZFADe (2008 Oxford conference about the “Synoptic Problem” by Christopher Tuckett)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html (Sanhedrin 43a – Yeshu ha-Notzri)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_107.html (Sanhedrin 107b another exerpt about Yeshu)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_67.html (Sanhedrin 67a a passage about a ben Stada / ben Pandira)
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html (a lengthy diatribe by a Jewish guy arguing against Christianity. While lengthy and doesn’t cite sources, he does provide good linguistic arguments since he apparently knows Hebrew)
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-15.asp (Biblical Archaeology Review article on the “Teacher of Righteousness”)
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/dead-sea-scrolls-16.asp (Biblical Archaeology Review article about similarities / differences between Jesus and the “Teacher of Righteousness”)
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/deadsea.html#Essenes (another comparison between the Essenes and Jesus)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html (Gabriel’s Revelation)
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html (a verse-by-verse exegesis of the gospel of Mark)
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=220039 (this is a pretty radical deconstruction of the gospel of Mark but it makes some pretty good arguments that Mark is a pro-Paul, anti-Peter work).

 

Christian ignorance of Hashem – YHWH


Christianity, at least the current form of Christianity, seems to be a Greek religion with sprinkles of Judaism to give it an air of “authenticity” or “antiquity”. The earliest Christians seemed to have been unaware of The Name: YHWH. Jews never actually say YHWH out loud; they either say “Hashem” (literally “The Name”) or they say “Adonai” which means “LORD”. It’s a recent thing in Christian versions of the Old Testament to actually spell out YHWH with vowels. It thus becomes “Yahweh” for Christians – though saying The Name out loud is extremely blasphemous and highly offensive to Jews.

There are actually two words in Hebrew that mean lord: Adonai and adoni. Adonai is only ever used for the replacement of saying YHWH. Adoni is only used for human beings. In English, and in Greek, we only have one word for “lord”. Greeks would say κυριος or “kyrios”.

In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Tanach, The Name YHWH is never written. It’s always replaced with kyrios or kyrios theos. Since [Pauline] Christians were Greeks and couldn’t read Hebrew, they used those two words alone for claims of divinity.

In Romans 10:9 – 13, Paul quotes Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5 LXX) and thinks that the passage says “lord” when it really says YHWH. The entire book of Joel never says the word “lord” at all. It only says YHWH. Here are some other examples of this confusion:

2 Cor 10:17 (quotes Jer 9:42)

1 Thess 4:15 (the word of the Lord [actually the word of YHWH] is a technical expression in OT literature, often referring to a divine prophetic utterance (e.g., Gen 15:1; Isa 1:10; Jonah 1:1; 2 Sam 12:9, 24:11; 1 Kings 13:1, etc.))

2 Tim 2:19 (quotes Num 16:5)

*Not by “Paul”, but according to some Conservative Christians it is:
Heb 1:10 (quotes Ps 102:25-27)

It might be understandable if Paul was Hellenized Jew and didn’t know Hebrew, but it even shows up in 1 Peter 3:10-15 where he quotes Ps 34:12-16. Quite a few scholars say that 1 Peter is pseudopigraphal; this might be one line of evidence. A Hebrew literate Jew wouldn’t make such an error. But “Peter” is a Greek name.

On the other side of things, 1, 2, and 3 John never once quote the Tanach or LXX.

 
Comments Off on Christian ignorance of Hashem – YHWH

Posted by on February 14, 2009 in Adonai, adoni, Hashem, LXX, paul, YHWH, YHWH pronunciation

 
 
NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Slate Star Codex

NꙮW WITH MꙮRE MULTIꙮCULAR ꙮ

Κέλσος

Matthew Ferguson Blogs

The Wandering Scientist

Just another WordPress.com site

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Euangelion Kata Markon

A blog dedicated to the academic study of the "Gospel According to Mark"

PsyPost

Behavior, cognition and society

PsyBlog

Understand your mind with the science of psychology -

Vridar

Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

atheist, polyamorous skeptics

Criticism is not uncivil

Say..

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus