When did Jews stop using the personal divine name of God in the scriptures?
Did New Testament writers intentionally address God and Jesus in similar forms (Kyrios) in order to appeal to a larger gentile audience in the Roman empire? Or was it the other way around; did the Jewish practice of substituting the divine name with Kyrios influence later Christian thought on the divinity of Jesus when reading Kyrios applied to both God and Jesus?
George Howard suggested that the new testament writers originally would have used and written the divine name of God as was found in early copies of the Septuagint (ex. paleo-Hebrew) and that later Christian scribes made revisions. However, we have examples of 1st century Jews like Philo that used Kurios instead of YHWH.
Was it just simply that new testament writers used Kyrios for both Jesus and God, but understood the context and distinction between the two (the Lord said to my Lord), but later Christian readers misunderstood and thus contributed to the justification that Jesus IS God?
Only very tangentially related, but in late Latin, you get a semantic distinction drawn between Dominus and Domnus (which originally was just a contraction of Dominus)–Dominus was used for God and Domnus was used for men.
So in the mass, before reading the gospel, the person who was to read it would pray, if he was a cleric of a lower rank, “Jube, domne, benedicere” pray, lord (i.e., the human superior), a blessing,” and the priest would give him a brief blessing. But if the person of the highest rank was reading the gospel, he would say, “Jube, Domine (=God), benedicere”: Pray, LORD, a blessing.”
I just find it interesting: We use very human words to name God (master, lord) but then once we use them to name God we want to distinguish God from everyone else, so we need a new word to replace the original word.
The same thing happened with “thou”: Originally it was singular and (slightly later) informal (plural “you” would have been used to address individuals with honor, just like in French). Then, we used ‘thou’ to address God (in the singular, since there is one God) but as time went on and the language evolved, it basically got reserved for God: Most English speakers today only use “thou” (unironicallY) when speaking to God (e.g., the Lord’s prayer or old hymns), or maybe they will use it when trying to sound formal (because they associate it with talking to God)–which is ironic because it used to be the informal second person singular form.
Ok, pre-Christian texts such as what was found at Qumran, and I believe, the deuterocanonical texts, have instances where Adonai or Kurios are used instead of YHWH. Some of the Jewish writers demonstrated reluctance to use YHWH during the second temple period.
The first Jewish Christians inherited this practice of not verbalizing or writing YHWH. In every instance of a new testament writer quoting from the old testament, a title like Adonai or Kurios is used instead of YHWH. The same title is used in reference to Jesus. Paul goes on his ministry preaching Jesus as divine and the source of salvation. Yet, he understands God and Jesus to be separate entities, with Jesus being subservient to God. Paul nor any of the other writers teach that Jesus is YHWH (except maybe John’s camp) from the old testament.
Later Christian theologians (and maybe John), when trying to work out the relationship between Jesus and God, decide that Jesus IS God, and likely were greatly influenced by the way God’s name was treated in the New Testament. YHWH is conspicuously absent, Jesus is given “the name above all names”, and the same title is used for both God and Jesus.
Do I have that correct? Were 2nd/3rd century Christians simply confused when reading the New Testament without YHWH? How much of that misunderstanding led them to believe Jesus and God of the Old Testament are the same being?
Also, has anyone written on this?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is an older book that gives a good analysis of the various ways Philippians 2 has been interpreted. The alternative is to go after a pricey commentary. I do recall that Charles Gieschen has a good chapter in his Angelomorphic Christology .
Mark’s “I am” is “I am the Messiah,” a secret openly revealed at last. This is why I have trouble following Prof Ehrman with his view that Jesus is confused and doesn’t know what’s happening to him after he is arrested in Mark. The existential despairing Jesus is moving and powerful and speaks to we moderns but it is as anachronistic as Jesus the Wisdom Sage.
The charge of blasphemy makes me think Mark meant to identify Jesus with the Son of Man figure.
But why would it be blasphemy to claim to be the messiah, or even to claim to the the Son of Man?
The only alternative, that I can see, to make sense of the charge of blasphemy, is to think he was being charged under Deut. 18:20. But that should only have applied if either he prophesied in the name of another god or if he prophesied something that did not end up happening. But he didn’t prophecy in the name of another god, and the chief priest didn’t wait to see whether the prophecy would be fulfilled.
Btw, I too have come to have some difficulty with Erhman’s interpretation of Mark’s Jesus as being in shock following his condemnation. It doesn’t fit Mark’s narrative of a Jesus who repeatedly predicted his betrayal and execution, and who agonized over what he was about to endure in Gethsemane. Instead I think Mark is simply following the script laid out in Is 53:7.
But why would it be blasphemy to claim to be the messiah, or even to claim to the the Son of Man?
Well it wouldn’t to claim to be the Messiah who could be a human figure. But the Son of Man was a divine figure sent by God to judge the world. But I doubt if anything resembling this “trial” ever took place. The historical Jesus probably did not associate himself with the Son of Man, but the author Mark does and, in his narrative, seems to use this association to support the charge of blasphemy. Mark is theologically retrofitting his view of Jesus’ divinity I would guess.
Btw, I too have come to have some difficulty with Erhman’s interpretation of Mark’s Jesus as being in shock following his condemnation. It doesn’t fit Mark’s narrative of a Jesus who repeatedly predicted his betrayal and execution, and who agonized over what he was about to endure in Gethsemane. Instead I think Mark is simply following the script laid out in Is 53:7.
Agreed. I think Mark is creating stories based on the Hebrew Bible to support his theological agenda. I have come to see that Matthew, Luke and possibly John’s depictions of Jesus are literary responses to Mark rather than oral stories passed on by hypothetical communities. And while we’re on the subject of disagreement I think Ehrman’s dissociation of Mark’s crucifixion episode from Psalm 22 is also misguided.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)