The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament

Earlier today, I discovered that Volume 6 of the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) is now online for reading at the Internet Archive [LINK].

There is an entry in this volume that I have wanted to read for a good number of years now—Tetragrammation in the New Testament by George Howard. I have encountered quotes from the entry over the years in a number of articles, but until today, did not access to the full entry. I have reproduced the entire entry below for those folk who may have interest in this topic.

====

TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the OT quotations in the NT when the NT documents were first penned. See also NAMES OF GOD IN THE OT; YAHWEH (DEITY). The evidence for this is twofold.

A. Jewish Scribal Evidence

The extant pre-Christian copies of the Greek OT that include passages which in Hebrew incorporate the Divine Name also preserve the Hebrew Divine Name in the Greek text. These copies are (1) P. Faud 266 (=Rahifs 848), 50 B.C.E., containing the Tetragrammaton in Aramaic letters; (2) a fragmentary scroll of the Twelve Prophets in Greek from Wâd Khabra (=W.Khabra XII Kaige), 50 B.C.E.–50 C.E., containing the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew letters; and (3) 4QLXXLevb (=Rahifs 802), 1st century B.C.E., containing the Tetragrammaton written in Greek letters in the form of IAO. The well-known Jewish- Greek versions of the OT that emerged in the 2d century C.E., i.e., those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, continued the Jewish practice of writing the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into the Greek text. The evidence, therefore, suggests that the practice of writing the Hebrew Divine Name into the text of the Greek OT continued throughout the NT period. From this it may be concluded (1) that the NT writers had access to copies of the Greek OT that contained the Hebrew Divine Name, and (2) that the NT writers who quoted from the Greek OT had reason to preserve the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.

B. Christian Scribal Evidence

By the time of the earliest extant Christian copies of the LXX (2d or early 3d century C.E.), a clear break with the Jewish practice outlined above is to be observed. The Christian copies of the Greek OT employ the words Kyrios (“Lord”) and Theos (“God”) as substitutes or surrogates for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. The evidence suggests that this had become the practice of Christian scribes perhaps as early as the beginning of the 2d century. Curiously, the surrogates for the Tetragrammaton have been abbreviated by the writing of their first and last letters only and are marked as abbreviations by a horizontal stroke above the word. Thus, for example, the word for “Lord” is written KS* and for God THS*. These two so-called nomina sacra, later to be joined by thirteen other sacred words, appear also in the earliest copies of the NT, including its quotations from the Greek OT. The practice, therefore, in very early times was consistently followed throughout the Greek Bible.

A conjecture is that the forms KS and THS were first created by non-Jewish Christian scribes who in their copying the LXX text found no traditional reason to preserve the Tetragrammaton. In all probability it was problematic for gentile scribes to write the Tetragrammaton since they did not know Hebrew. If this is correct, the contracted surrogates KS and THS were perhaps considered analogous to the vowelless Hebrew Divine Name, and were certainly much easier to write.

Once the practice of writing the Tetragrammaton into copies of the Greek OT was abandoned and replaced by the practice of writing KS and THS, a similar development no doubt took place in regard to the quotations of the Greek OT found in the NT. There too the Tetragrammaton was replaced by the surrogates KS and THS. In the passing of time, the original significance of the surrogates was lost to the gentile Church. Other contracted words which had no connection with the Tetragrammaton were added to the list of nomina sacra, and eventually even KS and THS came to be used in passages where the Tetragrammaton had never stood.

It is possible that some confusion ensued from the abandonment of the Tetragrammaton in the NT, although the significance of this confusion can only be conjectured. In all probability it became difficult to know whether KS referred to the Lord God or the Lord Jesus Christ. That this issue played a role in the later Trinitarian debates, however, is unknown.

Bibliography

Barthélemy, D. 1953. Redécouverte d‘un chaînon manquant de l‘histoire de la Septante. RB 60: 18–29.

———. 1963. Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégral du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton. Leiden.

Dunand, F. 1966. Papyrus grec bibliques (Papyrus F. Inv. 266) Volumina de la Genèse et du Deutéronome. Cairo.

Howard, G. 1971. The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy. HUCA 42: 125–31.

———. 1977. The Tetragram and the New Testament. JBL 96: 63–83.

———. 1978. The Name of God in the New Testament. BAR 4: 12–14, 56.

———. 1987. The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon, GA.

Paap, A. H. R. E. 1959. Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries A.D. Leiden.

Pietersma, A. 1984. Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint. Pp. 85–101 in De Septuaginta, ed. A.

Pietersma and C. Cox. Toronto.

Skehan, P. W. 1957. The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism. Pp. 148–60 in Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg 1956.

Leiden.

———. 1980. The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint. BIOSCS 13: 14–44.

Traube, L. 1907. Nomina Sacra: Vesuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung. Munich.

Waddell, W. G. 1944. The Tetragrammaton in the LXX. JTS 45: 158–61.

GEORGE HOWARD

[The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 6, Si - Z, 1992, pp. 392, 393.]

====

George Howard’s related, and more detailed JBL article, “The Tetragram and the New Testament”, is also available online [LINK].

Grace and peace,

David

*NOTE: In the original contribution, KS and THS (which replaced KURIOS and THEOS, had an overline instead of an underline).

A 13th century (B.C.) Hebrew inscription on a lead tablet discovered at Mt. Ebal

On May 19^th, I received an email from the Biblical Archaeology Society that contained a link to a Bible History Daily post with the title, An Early Israelite Curse Inscription from Mt. Ebal? [LINK TO POST]

From the post we read:

In early 2022, a research team led by scholars from the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) announced the discovery of a lead tablet from Mt. Ebal that they claim contains the oldest extant Hebrew inscription. Now, after more than a year, a peer-reviewed article presenting one part of the inscription has been published in the journal Heritage Science [LINK].

According to the team, the inscription, which they date to the Late Bronze Age II period (c. 1400–1200 BCE), is a legal text and curse that invokes the Israelite deity Yahweh. The team believes the tablet is one of the most important inscriptions ever found in Israel, predating the previously earliest known Hebrew inscription by several hundred years, and one that could drastically alter our reconstruction of ancient Israel’s earliest history…

As translated by the team, the tablet reads:

You are cursed by the god yhw, cursed.

You will die, cursed—cursed, you will surely die.

Cursed you are by yhw—cursed.

The team claims the inscription is written in an archaic script, similar in style to other early alphabetic inscriptions known from the southern Levant, which they term proto-Hebrew alphabetic. Furthermore, they suggest that the use of the name Yhw, a shortened version of the divine name Yahweh (YHWH), is clear evidence that the text is an early Hebrew inscription. If true, this would make the tablet hundreds of years older than previously known early Hebrew inscriptions.

According to the team, the Mt. Ebal tablet is a type of legal text, which threatens curses upon individuals who transgress a covenant. They connect it directly to the covenant renewal ceremony on Mt. Ebal, described in Deuteronomy 27 and Joshua 8. Moreover, the team claims the tablet is evidence that certain books of the Hebrew Bible could have been written down hundreds of years earlier than most biblical scholars previously thought. As stated by the ABR’s Director of Excavations, Scott Stripling, during the initial press conference, “One can no longer argue with a straight face that the biblical text was not written until the Persian period or the Hellenistic period, as many higher critics have done, when we clearly do have the ability to write the entire text [of the Bible] at a much, much earlier date.” One of the project’s epigraphers, Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa reiterated the point, saying, “The scribe that wrote this ancient text, believe me, he could write every chapter in the Bible.”

Skeptics and liberal Biblical scholars who have embraced the theories of higher criticism have wasted no time in attacking the paper, for the evidence and conclusions presented have raised some serious questions concerning a number of the theories promoted by higher critics of the Bible.

Now, the paper itself was published in the Heritage Science journal on May 12, 2023 under the title, “You are Cursed by the God YHW:” an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal. Six scholars contributed to this peer reviewed paper of 26 pages. The post published by the Biblical Archaeology Society provides an adequate summation of the paper, but the paper itself is a must read for all folk who have an interest in Biblical studies.

Once again, here is THE LINK.

Grace and peace,

David

Holy Year(s), Holy Door(s), and some musings concerning 1933

I had no recollection of the phrase “holy year” when I came across it yesterday in the pages of a most unlikely source—J. F. Rutherford’s book, Jehovah.

During the last couple of days, I have been researching the use of the nomina sacra found in the early New Testament manuscripts, attempting to understand why early second century Christian scribes adopted their use—not only in the NT manuscripts, but also their Greek copies of the OT—whilst Jewish scribes did not employ them at all. Related to this issue was the use of the Tetragrammaton by Jewish scribes as a substitute for kurios in some copies of the Greek OT they created circa  2nd century B.C. through the 3rd century A.D. (Christian scribes never made use of the Tetragrammaton in any of their copies of the OT).

In this process of trying to understand the differing scribal methods utilized by Christian and Jewish scribes when copying the OT, I began reading a book that I had not read for over four decades—Rutherford’s aforementioned book, Jehovah. Note the following:

The so-called “holy year” has failed to bring the promised peace and prosperity, and that failure should of itself convince the people of good will that God did not authorize the year 1933 to be called a holy year, nor will he hear the prayers of men who try to make it a holy year. Upon earth there is now no peace, and poverty continues to stalk hideously through the land. Jehovah’s witnesses have no controversy with men. Their only purpose is to be obedient to God's commandment to tell the message of truth. (J. F. Rutherford, Jehovah, p. 23 – 1934.)

As mentioned above, I had no recollection of what this 1933 “holy year” entailed. Some online research revealed that the official Vatican website has a page titled, “WHAT IS A HOLY YEAR?” (link). From that contribution we read:

In the Roman Catholic tradition, a Holy Year, or Jubilee is a great religious event. It is a year of forgiveness of sins and also the punishment due to sin, it is a year of reconciliation between adversaries, of conversion and receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and consequently of solidarity, hope, justice, commitment to serve God with joy and in peace with our brothers and sisters. A Jubilee year is above all the year of Christ, who brings life and grace to humanity…

A Jubilee can be "ordinary" if it falls after the set period of years, and "extraordinary" when it is proclaimed for some outstanding event. There have been twenty-five "ordinary" Holy Years so far: the Year 2000 will be the 26th. The custom of calling "extraordinary" Jubilees began in the 16th century and they can vary in length from a few days to a year. There have been two extraordinary jubilees in this century: 1933 proclaimed by Pope Pius XI to mark the 1900th anniversary of Redemption and 1983 proclaimed by Pope John Paul II to mark 1950 years since the Redemption carried out by Christ through his Death and Resurrection in the year 33. In 1987 Pope John Paul II also proclaimed a Marian year.

The mystery of the “Holy Year” was now solved. However, in the same Vatican contribution, I came upon yet another phrase I had no recollection of—“Holy Door”. Note the following:

In 1500 Pope Alexander VI announced that the Doors in the four major basilicas would be opened contemporaneously, and that he himself would open the Holy Door of Saint Peter's.

So, what are these “Doors”; and specifically, “the Holy Door”? The following is from a Wikipedia article:

A Holy Door (Latin: Porta Sancta) is traditionally an entrance portal located within the Papal major basilicas in Rome. The doors are normally sealed by mortar and cement from the inside so that they cannot be opened. They are ceremoniously opened during Jubilee years designated by the Pope, for pilgrims who enter through those doors may piously gain the plenary indulgences attached with the Jubilee year celebrations. (link)

Armed with this new knowledge, two important events during the 1933 “Holy Year” came to mind. The first important event is quite personal, for it was the birth of my father. As for the second event, I can think of no better term to describe it than ‘insidious’, for that was the year Adolf Hitler rose to power, becoming the Chancellor of Germany. I suspect the latter event may have been one of the factors Rutherford had in mind when he penned his assessment of the 1933 “holy year”.

Back to my studies…

Grace and peace,

David

Terminology: trinitarianism, unitarianism, monotheism, polytheism...

Over the last few weeks, I have been in one of my 'reading modes', spending hours each day researching the issue of terminology concerning theology proper—i.e. the doctrine of God. My last post touched on the issue of 'dueling definitions' concerning unitarianism and trinitarianism. Informed discussions concerning unitarianism and trinitarianism should also include an in depth examination of the following labels/terms: monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, monolatry, triune, trinity, tritheism, modalism, monarchianism, adoptionism, Arianism, homoian, homoousian, homoiousian, monoousian, anhomoian, divine, divinity, Godhead, being, nature, essence, substance, person, ousia, hypostasis, prosopon, autotheos, el, eloah, elohim, adonai, the tetragrammaton, et al.

I suspect most folk think that the definitions for many of the above labels/terms are 'set in stone'; however, such is not the case—especially so when one attempts to classify the various theological systems of individuals, sects and religions throughout history. For instance, Arianism has been termed by many as unitarian, while some say it is polytheistic. John Calvin has been called a tritheist by some folk, but a modalist by others. The list of such contrasts can be multiplied into dozens of examples. Hope to write much more on such issues in the near future...

For now, whilst my research continues, I would like to share links to two works I have recently read—and are germane—first, a dissertation by Gordon Allen Carle, titled:

Alexandria in the Shadow of the Hill Cumorah: A Comparative Historical Theology of The Early Christian and Mormon Doctrines of God [LINK] 

The following is the abstract from the dissertation:

This work is a comparative study of the theological and historical development of the early Christian (Pre-Nicene) and Mormon doctrines of God. For the Christian tradition, I follow a detailed study of the apostolic period, followed by the apologetical period, and then conclude with the pre-Nicene up to around 250 C.E. For the Mormon tradition, I cover the period beginning with the establishment of the Mormon Church in 1830 and conclude with its official doctrinal formulation in 1916. I begin this work with a chronological examination of the development of the Mormon doctrine of God, commencing with Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon and concluding with his revelations and additional translations of those books that make up the Pearl of Great Price. I then examine Brigham Young's single theological contribution, followed with the speculative contributions of Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, John A. Widtsoe, B. H. Roberts, and concluding with James E. Talmage. This section covers chapters two through four. In chapters five through seven, I examine the theological contributions of Ignatius of Antioch, then Theophilus of Antioch, and conclude my study with the theological contributions of Origen of Alexandria. For the Christian tradition, I trace the development of the pre-Nicene theologians' struggle to explicate the theological and philosophical implications regarding the divinization of Christ within the context of monotheism. At the end of chapters five through seven I include a succinct, comparative study of each father's doctrine with Mormon doctrine. This work will also address the major theological and historical factors that influenced both the Mormon and traditional Christian doctrines of God. Further, I contrast both theological systems and discuss their basic differences and similarities. My conclusion is that the fundamental difference between these two theological systems rests upon their foundational conceptions of reality as absolutist or finitist. The Mormon theological system rests upon a materialistic and monistic conception of reality, whereas traditional Christianity's system rests upon a dualistic conception of reality. In Mormon materialism , the Trinity is divided as individuated Gods; in Christian transcendence, the unity of God may only be maintained, while acknowledging the separate existences of the Persons, if the nature of God is understood as an incorporeal substance.

Carle's, conclusion "that the fundamental difference between these two theological systems rests upon their foundational conceptions of reality as absolutist or finitist", is not a novel one, but the research which leads him to this conclusion is the most exhaustive I have yet to read. [For a number of related papers which delve into the absolutist vs. finitist distinction see this Google search]

The second contribution is a thesis by Anthony R. Meyer titled:

The Divine Name in Early Judaism: Use and Non-Use in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek [LINK]

Note the following abstract:

During the Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE) a series of developments contributed to a growing reticence to use the divine name, YHWH. The name was eventually restricted among priestly and pious circles, and then disappeared. The variables are poorly understood and the evidence is scattered. Scholars have supposed that the second century BCE was a major turning point from the use to non-use of the divine name, and depict this phenomenon as a linear development. Many have arrived at this position, however, through only partial consideration of currently available evidence. The current study offers for the first time a complete collection of extant evidence from the Second Temple period in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek in order answer the question of how, when, and in what sources the divine name is used and avoided. The outcome is a modified chronology for the Tetragrammaton’s history. Rather than a linear development from use to avoidance, the extant evidence points to overlapping use and non-use throughout most of the Second Temple period.

Those folk who share my interest in the history of God's unique name, will greatly appreciate this exhaustive work.

Back to my studies...

Grace and peace,

David

Pavlos D. Vasileiadis and the Tetragrammaton

There is a question that has troubled me for most of my adult life: "did Jesus and his early disciples use God's personal name"?

Note the following from Exodus 3:15 -

And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (ASV)

John 17:6 -

I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word. (ASV)

John 17:11b, 12 -

Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (ASV)

And John 17:26 -

... and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them. (ASV)

Since 1975, I have acquired and studied numerous articles and books which explore this question; and as with so many important Bible related issues, scholars are divided, with some affirming, and others denying. Earlier today whilst engaged in some online research, I came across two extraordinary resources, that I had no prior knowledge of, by one Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, an associate professor at the Aristotle University of Thessalonki, which are germane to my question:

Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek

The Pronunciation of the Sacred Tetragrammaton

Vasileiadas provides the following conclusions towards the end of the first paper:

In this article it was attempted to demonstrate that,

(a) Despite the various reasons that led to the silencing of the sacred Tetragrammaton, it long remained an utterable name, at least in some circles;

(b) A more systematic investigation of the various Greek renderings of the Tetragrammaton provides a better understanding of the methods that were used;

(c) There is no unique or universally “correct” rendering of the Hebrew name in Greek;

(d) The two Greek renderings of the Tetragrammaton presented for the first time here, namely Γεχαβά (early 13th century) and Ἰεοβάχ (early 17th century) are both following the /e–a|o–a/ vocalic pattern; and

(e) According to the available indications, a vocalic rendering pronounced /i.e.o.'a/ (/i.o.'a/), or /i.e.u.'a/ might probably have been the proper pronunciation of the full Tetragrammaton in Greek during the Second Temple period. (Page 71)

And just a bit later, he provides some beautiful color plates of Hebrew and Greek uses God's name in ancient manuscripts. (Pages 83-88)

In addition to Vasileiadas' above contributions, I would like to provide a few links to other online resources that I have found to be useful in my studies:

JBL article by, George Howard -

The Tetragram in the New Testament

Masters thesis by, Joëlle Alhadef-Lake -

YHWH, The Ineffable Name

"Greek Transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton", G. Adolf Deissmann (in, Bible Studies, pp. 319-336) -

Bible Studies

Enjoy !!!

Grace and peace,

David

Addendum - I forgot to include the following essay by Gérard Gertoux:

The Use of the Name (YHWH) by Early Christians

Gertoux, is also the author of the following book:

The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH

The Tetragrammaton: Should Christians use God’s OT ‘personal’ name?

This morning, whilst engaged in some research on a non-related topic, I came across an interesting article posted last week on the Christianity Today website concerning the recent ban of the use of “Yahweh”, by the Vatican, in all liturgical uses (CT article HERE; Vatican ruling HERE). [UPDATE: Letter to Bishops' Conferences HERE.]

When the Vatican released the ruling on 08-19-08 via Zenit, it precipitated a considerable amount of cyberspace discussion (GO HERE for some examples).

Now, as a former 4th generation Jehovah’s Witness, I think one could expect that yours truly has experienced a bit of consternation over this Vatican ruling; as such, I would like to ask a couple questions:

Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican’s ruling?

Do you believe that Jesus and/or His apostles pronounced the Tetragrammaton when it appeared in the passages they cited from the OT?



Grace and peace,

David