(28 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...I received a number of comments on my recent posts about whether Jesus was Yahweh (Hebrew: YHWH) in traditional Christian thinking/theology. And a number of people have wanted further explanation of the name. In particular: how does it relate to “Jehovah”? In fact, where does the name “Jehovah” come from? And is it in the New Testament?
I was asked this question directly years ago on the blog, and posted on it. Here is the question and what I said in response.
QUESTION:
How firmly grounded in reality is the claim of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the ‘divine name’ (Jehovah) belongs in the New Testament?
RESPONSE
So this is an interesting question, with several possible ramifications. At first I should explain that the divine name “Jehovah” doesn’t belong in *either* Testament, old or new, in the opinion of most critical scholars, outside the ranks of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That’s because Jehovah was not the divine name.
So here’s the deal. In the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) God is given a number of different designations. Sometimes he is called God (the Hebrew word is El, or more commonly – by far – the plural form of that word, ELOHIM); or The Almighty (SHADDAI), or God Almighty (EL SHADDAI), or Lord (ADONAI), or – well, or lots of other things. But sometimes the God of Israel is actually given his personal name. Like everyone else, he has a name. And his name was יהוה (in English letters, that looks like YHWH).
Written Hebrew, as you probably know
In the scholarly work “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” the crusaders keep the Grail behind a series of traps. One of them is to walk “nly in the footsteps of God…”, walking on the letters that spell Jehovah (“but in Latin, Jehovah starts with an I”). So if this name only appeared during modern times, that would mean Indiana Jones III is guilty of an anachronism. I find that hard to believe, but is that indeed what you are saying?
I’m not sure. I”ve always taken the text of the Indiana Jones movies as inerrant.
Don’t you kinda get something more like “Yah-ho-voi” if you add the vowels of “Adonai” to “YHWH”?
Yeah, I’m not sure exactly how the specifics work. The “i” at the end if Adonai is the first person pronoun, “MY Lord” so I guess that isn’t included in the transfer of vowels?
The final vowel in Adonai (אֲדֹנָי]) is not ‘ai’ or ‘oi’, but ‘a’. What is transliterated as an ‘i’ at the end of Adonai is not a vowel but rather a consonant called yod (י).
Ah. Thanks Robert.
Something I’m confused about is why the third letter of the tetragrammaton (“vav” in Hebrew, which is pronounced like “v” in English) is translated into “w” in YHWH. Shouldn’t the name be YHVH? In that sense, the final syllable of Jehovah actually seems closer to the original Hebrew.
Vav can also be spelled waw. (I learned to pronounce the letter as “wow” instead of “vav” when I took Hebrew)
not the first time something to do with the Bible was made-up.
I’m not sure how many Christians were taught this as I was but I’m very curious about your thoughts. I was taught Jehovah was the spirit of Christ. Obviously the people of Israel didn’t believe that but what about the early followers of Jesus or even in modern times?
I don’t believe I’ve ever hear that!
I was listening to one of your old debates, between you and William Lane Craig. (No offense, but I think Craig probably won that one).
However, I was intrigued, because Craig made it seem like you once didn’t think there was an empty tomb, but then changed your mind. In the debate itself, you say there was no empty tomb. Did you change your mind twice on this issue? Or did Craig misrepresent you?
I don’t remember what I said at the debate. I do seem to recall coming up with a range of scenarios for how there *could* have been an empty tomb, that if a tomb is empty it is not “evidence” that a person has been brought back to life and taken up to heaven (it’s a crazy argument to think that an empty tomb is evidence of a resurrection. If anyone finds a grave that is empty in a cemetary today, is that evidence that the person who had been in it has now been raised from the dead?
I agree, but I’m not really talking about the debate. I’m more talking about how your view of the empty tomb changed over time. I know you changed your position in the late 2000s to thinking there was no tomb. But Craig in the debate seems to be saying that you changed your position before that(from anti-tomb to pro-tomb). Is he misrepresenting you?
As I said, I don’t remember what he said. But no, I did not strart to think there was no empty tombuntil later. I didn’t start with that idea and then begin to think that it *was* empty.
Is it disingenuous of Jehovah Witnesses to insert the name Jehovah into their New World translations for the Greek words kyrios and theos?
I don’t think they’re being dishonest or deceitful, no.
Dr. Ehrman, I was curious about why you think the Jehovah’s Witnesses are NOT being dishonest or deceitful.
Question 1: Could you explain what you are basing this assessment on?
Here is an example of a verse translated differently in the New World Translation (NWT) published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s Romans 10:13.
NIV: for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
NWT: For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”
The insertion of the name “Jehovah” here changes the meaning of the version in a crucial manner in order to support the JW doctrinal stance. This appears dishonest and deceitful to me.
Question 2: What do you make of the translation of this verse in the NWT?
Just because I don’t think a group of millions of people are dishonest or deceitful if they have a view that differs from mine, even if it’s on an important topic, and even if I think they are flat out wrong. None of the JWs I’ve known seem to be intentional liars determined to leadthe world astray. It’s just what they’ve been taught to think; and whoever came up with the idea may have been completely sincere about, and simply mistaken or misled.
How did you reach the conclusion that William Lane Craig won that debate?! Even most Christians I’ve seen commenting on that debate admit that Bart Ehrman won… Craig used nonsensical arguments such as trying to prove the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus using mathematical formulas… who can seriously see this performance and think: “Yep, those are good arguments! Won the debate!”
Ehrman answered Craig very well. He simply pointed out that Craig’s arguments were nonsense, and explained why.
It may not, as you say, Bart, make sense to translate the tetragrammaton as “Jehovah”. But in fact, Jehovah is not a translation of the tetragrammaton at all. It is, rather, a *transliteration* of the pointed tetragrammaton as it appears in the Hebrew text.
Most names in our English Old Testament are, after all, transliterations of the Hebrew names, not translations. We call Adam Adam, not Earth; Seth Seth, not Name. Jehovah is just another transliteration of a name like Adam or Seth or many others. As such, as a *transliteration*, it makes perfect sense, I think.
Many thanks! <3
It’s an interesting question if it’s a translation or a transliteration. I’m not sure I’ve thought much about it. ON one hand it’s not a transliteration either since it isn’t what you get when you do it in reverse and put it back into Hebrew. The transliteration of YHWH would be Yahweh, I believe. But I’ll have to think about it.
“The transliteration of YHWH would be Yahweh, I believe.”
Respectfully, I’d have to disagree, Bart. In my opinion, a transliteration of YHWH (that is to say, of the tetragrammaton in an unpointed Hebrew manuscript such as the Isaiah scroll) would be YHWH.
On the other hand, a traditional transliteration of the tetragrammaton in a pointed text such as the Leningrad codex could be something very like Jehovah. That would be a transliteration of what actually appears in the Leningrad text. Yahweh, to my way of thinking, would be a *scholarly reconstruction* of something that doesn’t actually appear in the Leningrad manuscript. Yahweh is not a transliteration *or* a translation. Yahweh would be a scholarly reconstruction of something that lies *behind* the text of the Leningrad codex manuscript.
Does that make sense, Bart?
“But I’ll have to think about it.”
I’m honored that you would.
Thank you. <3
I think if you look at the standard modes of transliteration of Hebrew from the Hebrew Bible the vowels are included. If you want to see the transliteration codes, see, e.g., the SBL Manual of Style. This is, of course, because the Hebrew Bible scholars use is the Masoretic Text, which is pointed.
Wonderful Bart:
Reflecting further this morning on the word “Jehovah”, I concluded that I would describe “Jehovah” as a transliteration of a portmanteau of two Hebrew words: one word the name of the high god of Israel, and the other word the title of that god.
I’ll write up a little essay on my view and submit it for consideration as a platinum post.
Thanks so much, Bart, for helping me precipitate my (before, rather foggy) thoughts on the subject.
<3
How do I save a blog post as a .pdf? I think there used to be a button at the bottom of the post, but I don’t see it now.
I don’t know! I can ask. If it were me, I wold do it the round about wayt and copy it to a word file and save it as a PDF. But I’ll ask.
This is somewhat unrelated, but I have to ask. I’m currently reading “How Jesus became God” (I’m loving it so far and learning a lot by the way). In the beginning of chapter 4, you briefly discuss your debates with conservative evangelicals and you say “I actually enjoy these venues.” I immediately laughed because in the Gold member Q/A session, which I listened to just a couple hours ago, you seemed to suggest that you don’t enjoy these experiences. I’m just wondering if anything changed your perception of these events in the last seven years since you published the book.
Yeah, it’s a love hate thing In the middle of the debates I always ask myself why I’m doing it. Then afterward I’ll have people come up to me to show that it’s worth it….
Why am I unable to read the entire post seeing I am a member?
I don’t know. Try sending me an email so we can figure it out.
As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I pointed out (during a talk I was giving) that God’s name wasn’t Jehovah because they didn’t have a J or a V. Jerusalem and Jesus were other examples I used. Ever since leaving the Witnesses I still find myself relying on the habitual name “Jehovah.” But why did the folks who compiled the King James Version bother using Jehovah at Psalm 83:18 if they didn’t use it everywhere else? Why not just use LORD everywhere? It feels bizarre to have those few exceptions.
I don’t know!
Great question! I was also a JW who recently left. I know the JW answer but I guess it’s a more complicated question than I thought
Some Christian mystics seems to think God’s name is “I AM” based on Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Wouldn’t God’s name be “Ehyeh” in Hebrew in that case?
Ehyeh is said to mean “I am”, “I was”, and “I will be”. That seems to be the concept early Christians used in Revelation 1:8: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Some people also think that Jesus used this name to identify himself as God in Luke 22:70-71: “You say that/because, I AM.” “Why do we need any more testimony?” they declared. “We have heard it for ourselves from His own lips.”
What is your take on this as you didn’t refer to “I AM” as God’s name in your blog?
In Exodus, “I am” is an etymological explanatoin for God’s actual name YHWH (they are related words). In Greek “I am” can mean lots of things; in the NT it can mean simply (yes, that’s mean). In Luke 22:70, the OTI means “that” — it’s the way of iintroducing indirect discourse “You say that I am that one.” In other places it is clear Jesus is taking on the divine name in reference to Exodus 3; at least that’s the meaning apparently of John 8:58. But not too many, if any other, places.
I apologize for asking a question not entirely related to the New Testament or Early Christianity Dr. Ehrman, but since you know of many scholars, maybe you can point me to where I might find the answer. As a layperson it’s hard to know where to look.
Of the three major sects/groupings in Second Temple Judaism that we know of (the Saducees, Pharisees and the Essenes)
What came first, or to clarify;
which of them seems to represent an older view?
If it’s outside your research area, could you please recommend a book or some authorative Scholars of Second Temple Judaism?
I find the whole period quite interesting, but a little confusing.
They all emerged out of conflicts arising from the Maccabean revolt, so one is not atually (much) older than the others.
Yeah, bummer. I expected that. History isn’t as straightforward as I would like sometimes🙂 But could you please recommend some scholars in the field of Second Temple Judaism in general, or any books dealing with that whole (long) period? I’m fascinated by the period and know very little about it.
The two I find most useful are E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief and Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah.
Thanks Dr. Ehrman!
Thanks for this.
The Jehova Witnesses ‘believe’ that you can only speak to God by using His name. I point out that we understand that you must ‘call upon the name of Jesus to be saved.’ I like to say “His name is not Jesus, therefor you have not called upon His name” if you are going to use this Jehovah logic.
In order to read unpointed Hebrew, would one just have to memorise the hidden vowels to each word?
How do linguists of dead ancient languages (like classical Hebrew, classical Greek, Aramaic) figure out how the vocabulary was originally pronounced? It must be a really technical field, by a step-ladder approach, starting with pronounciation of modern languages, tracing back their immediate ancestral languages.
No, not quite. One simply learns how the words are pronounced, just as today. As to how linguists figure it out, it’s really tricky. But there are clever methods. You see how animal sounds were spelled out (since you know what the animals sound like); you look for rhymes (so the words sound alike); you look for word play and puns; you see how the meters of poetry works; etc. etc. Yes, it’s a refined expertise.
Professor, just a knee jerk based on similar sounds but, with Kurios meaning Lord and Lord being a high authority do you think that worked around to also meaning a court in Latin and eventually the Roman Catholic Curia?
I don’t think so. I believe the Latin term “curia” comes from to words “co” and “viri” and means “a gathering of men” But I may be wrong….
As an ex-Witness I have pondered a lot about the use of the divine name. One thing that I should point out is that the Tetragrammaton is the by far the most used title/name for God in the OT with nearly 7000 occurences, and was not considered too holy to utter but was in fact very common in Israel until late in the second temple period. So on that part the Witnesses have a point in using it in every day speech. But as for 1st century Christian use, I think they don’t have a good case.
A question for Bart: Since we know at least that some Septuagint mss from the 1st century had the tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters amongst the Greek, did this practise, in your view, carry over to the NT at all? Or was it always just kyrios in every passage? And why do you think Christians left it out, we’re they just disinterested in the divine name altogether?
Good question. So far as we know, there weren’t any scribes who used the tetragrammaton for the books of the NT.
While I was reading the King James version of the New Testament, I often noticed the term “LORD” (all capitalized) pop up, such as in Matthew 22:44, which always puzzled me, since I thought the term should only appear the Old Testament referring to the Hebrew Tetragram.
But the term “LORD” indeed seems to be used sometimes in the King James version of the New Testament, simply referring to the Greek word for Lord: “KURIOS” (if I’m not mistaken). It seems that sometimes this is translated as “Lord” while other times “LORD”. I wonder what could be the explanation for this…
I”m not sure what theh policy of the KJV translators was…
Coming late to this, I’m afraid, but surely (some of) the Witnesses have heard this explanation of the origin of Jehovah. What’s their take on why Jehovah is still the right name to use? (Or maybe some of the ex-Witnesses on the blog know the answer?)
I don’t know!
Ok, I have 2 comments to make regarding the use of ‘Jehovah’ which I think is a legitimate definition of God’s name.
Firstly, I don’t think anyone disputes that ‘Jah’ is used in scripture without controversy. Therefore if ‘Jah’ which really should be ‘Yah’ is acceptable, then why not ‘Jehovah’ instead of ‘Yehovah’ ?
Secondly, if God’s Holy name YHWH had not been removed from scripture by in the first place, then Jesus would certainly NEVER have become God or His equal!
@bamurray, you could check out this website: https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/jehovah-yahweh.php with a comprehensive explanation of the use of Jehovah by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The argument basically goes that it is a hallmark of true Christians to use God’s proper name, and that name is Yahwe or Jehovah, and since Jehovah is the more common form, it’s OK to just use that.
A rabbi suggested to Richard Rohr in the context of one of the interreligious conferences on contemporary mysticism aka contemplative prayer aka silent meditation that _maybe_ the “unspeakable” name is also a transliteration of the breath.
inhale yh exhale vh
follows a Darth Vader ish impression of Richard inhaling and exhaling, smiling ear to ear. ah i’d love to have a link to the video.
however with that it becomes somewhat simpler to pray incessantly, as long as we live.
YHWH translated as JHVH in some languages.
Satan doesn’t want anyone to learn YHWH is the true God so he corrupted Christianity from within. Parable of the wheat and the tares for example, false teachers, etc.
Satan created a counterfeit religious system around the time of building the tower of Babel.
These pagan Babylonian teachings including doctrines and holidays were later “Christianized” with false interpretations and mistranslations of certain Bible verses that appear to say several different things depending on interpretations
Revelation 18:4 Come out of her.
“Her” is the Mystery Babylon religious system that has taken most of Christ’s disciples into spiritual captivity through use of false doctrines such as literal hellfire, inherent immortality of the soul, and the Trinity.
Read Martin Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church
The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the original manuscripts of the New Testament actually contained the name Jehovah, and that is was edited out by scribes in the 2nd and 3rd who were intent on obliterating God’s name from the scriptures.
Dr. Ehrman, do you think that this is a credible claim?
Nope. Beware of arguments that support someone’s views and for which there is no real evidence!
I wrote the comment further up about whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are being dishonest or deceitful. I didn’t mean to imply that the individual members of the religion are dishonest or deceitful. But I do think the members are being deceived by a leadership (the Watchtower Society) that claims to adhere to the Bible more closely than all other churches.
The Watchtower Society claims that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only true Christians. They lump all other churches together into “Christendom”, represented by the whore of Babylon riding the wild beast in Revelation. They have published their own translation of the Bible to which they have made some crucial textual changes that support Watchtower doctrine, and they flat-out forbid members from reading any critical literature. Dissent within the religion is not tolerated. Dissenters are disfellowshipped and then shunned by believing JWs, even their closest family members. It’s an appalling policy.
I’m writing this just for context. I’m not intolerant of other religions. But Watchtower is a high-control group that is actively harming people.
For example, Watchtower uses Acts 15:20 to argue that blood transfusions are forbidden by God, causing hundreds of deaths every year. In your opinion, does this verse support this teaching?
No, I don’t think the author of Acts knew anything about the process of blood transfusion. I agree that religions do a lot of harm, not just JWs, and some religious policies/practices are absolutely ghastly. At the same time, most of them do good in other areas. Like so many other things in our lives, I suppose….
You are right, of course. I’m an atheist myself, but I acknowledge that religious organizations frequently do good and charitable works that benefit others.
Although, the JWs are again an exception here. They don’t engage in any charitable works at all, because they argue that Armageddon is imminent. They say that the world is completely broken because it is under Satan’s control, and therefore it is pointless for people to make any efforts to alleviate human suffering. The only thing humans can do is to wait for God’s Kingdom on Earth that will right all the wrongs. (Unfortunately, in their thinking, only JWs will benefit from this wonderful kingdom, because everyone else will be killed by God at Armageddon…)
Which leads me to my next question: How is your new book coming along? It will be about the book of Revelation and apocalyptic thinking in general, right?
Having grown up as a JW in an apocalyptic cult myself, I am very much looking forward to it! (Your book, I mean, not the apocalypse)
Yes, the book will be about Revelation and how it has been regularly misinterpreted to be about what is about to transpire in our own near future; I’ll be arguing it’s not about that at all. (That’s not a weird view: it’s what scholars have long known and most readers … have not!)
Fragments of the Septuagint have the Tetragramatton, YHWH, JHVH (Jehovah) (Yahweh) translated? into Greek
The Syriac Peshitta has some mention related to the divine name
Aramaic Peshitta
MarYa replaces YHWH in the Peshitta Tanakh. It is a combination of the Aramaic word Mar (“Lord”) and the Hebrew Yah (shortened form of YHWH, used in Psalms 68:4 and other places). The letter heh is absent not only in MarYa, but also in any other word or name in which Yah is used:
Elijah in Hebrew is Eliyahu or Eliyah. In Aramaic it is Eliya. Elijah means “Yah is my God.”
Jeremiah in Hebrew is Yirmeyahu or Yirmeyah. In Aramaic it is Eramya. Jeremiah means “Yah exalts.”
Isaiah in Hebrew is Yeshayahu or Yeshayah. In Aramaic it is Eshaya. Isaiah means “Yah is Savior.”
Yah is also used at the end of the Hebrew word HalleluYah (Hallelujah). In Aramaic it is HelleluYa This means “Praise Yah”.
Most of the billions of dead throughout history sleep in the grave until after the 1,000 year reign of Christ begins.
Even wicked people such as Nazi Adolf Hitler will be awakened from the grave during the millennial reign of Christ and given an opportunity to live forever young under Kingdom rulership of the earth
What a merciful God YHWH is.
He who has died has been acquitted from his sin
Bible says both righteous and unrighteous will come out of their graves during god’s kingdom government rulership over the earth with Christ as King
Christs 1,000 year reign over the earth will restore the paradise that Adam and Eve lost.
By means of Kingdom rule, God will undo the damage caused by the rebellion in Eden.
Gods original purpose he originally had for Adam and Eve to have the earth to be a global paradise will be fulfilled.
Undone all damage that Satan, Adam and Eve, along with the demons caused mankind.
Simple yet perfect solution when someone actually stops and thinks about it for a minute.
If Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned in Eden they would still be alive today and stayed young forever?
Inherent Immortality of the soul doctrine is false
Bible says “dead are conscious of nothing at all” Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10
Most of the billions of people whom have died throughout history are asleep in the grave will awaken on earth during the 1,000 year reign when Jesus is ruling as King except the 144,000 co-rulers in Jesus kingdom government and those in “lake of fire.”
The 144,000 have the first resurrection. The 2nd resurrection is during the 1,000 year reign which will result in end being brought to life at the end of 1,000 years reign, meaning perfect human life by staying young forever with no sicknesses nor calamities during that time
Satan lied by Eve wouldn’t die. God didn’t tell Adam and Eve would go to to a fiery hell. Instead God told Adam he would die by returning to the dust. Nonexistent.
Satan promised immortality.
If immortality is a gift God bestows on the righteous. How could the wicked have an immortal soul.
Bible says “the soul that sinneth it shall DIE.” Ezekiel 18:4
Bible says soul can die. Soul can die. Soul can be destroyed
Hellfire is a false doctrine from the Devil.
Hellfire slanders God and portrays YHWH as cruel God. The Bible scriptures that people use to support literal torment in hell actually mean something other than what they appear to mean
What would a person think of a parent who puts his child’s hand in a fire to punish him. Is that a loving parent? Would that be a person who is loving?
Fire is a symbol of destruction such as in Sodom and Gomorrah
These are interesting questions/issues. For the most part on the blog we try to stick to historical observations and discussions rather than theological ones that involve personal beliefs. If you have issues to address along those lines we would welcome them!
God’s Kingdom is a heavenly government. The kingdom in King David’s day was a theocratic government. Christ a successor to the Davidic throne. Heavenly Jerusalem will rule the world instead of a limited geographic area in the Mideast
Earthly Jerusalem was a earthly theocratic government. Heavenly Jerusalem, the successor to earthly Jerusalem is a heavenly theocracy which will restore earth to paradise
Please remember that members are allowed only three comments a day.
God’s Kingdom is a heavenly government. The kingdom in King David’s day was a theocracy. Christ a successor to the Davidic theocratic throne.
Earthly Jerusalem was a earthly theocratic government. Heavenly Jerusalem is a heavenly theocratic government which will rule the earth and restore it to a paradise during the millennial reign of Christ
Clements letter, around the start of the 2nd century AD mentions “God’s Government”
Dr. Ehrman could you comment on a question regarding Romans 10:13? Jehovah’s Witnesses say that at Romans 10:13 (“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”) Paul is quoting the words of Joel at Joel 2:32 JW organization says “What Joel said in the original Hebrew was: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe.” (New World Translation)” So they say that at Romans 10:13 “Lord” should be understood as Jehovah (or in other words Yahweh) and not as Jesus. Should it be Jehovah/Yahweh or Jesus and Why? Your thoughts on this would be helpful to me. Thank you for all of your great information!
When you read the quotations of the OT in the authors of the NT, it becomes very quickly obvious that what the NT author is saying is NOT what the OT author originally appears to have meant. Just look at Matthew 1 and 2! (“Out of Egypt I have called my son,” “He shall be called a Nazarene” etc.) So I don’t find the argument at all persuasive. One has to see what an author means by a quotation, and you can’t assume that he means what the author who originally wrote it meant many centuries earlier in a different context.
“YaHWaH said to my ADON,
Sit at my right until I place
Thine enemies a footstool under thy feet.”
The ADON of David cannot be the son of David as jesus peace be upon him explained to the Jews. So jesus peace be upon him excluded himself from being The Messiah To Defeat the enemies ie the Romans.
The verses below gives more description of the Adon of David peace be upon him.
(Psalms, 45:2-5)
(Psalms, 72:7-17)
(Psalms, 149:5-9)
It seems That jesus told the jews exactly Who is that Adon is “The praised one”. Because He(Adon) Was The Goodnews of Jesus peace be upon him.
Hello bart . I know in revelation it mentions halleluyah about 4 times . Could this be some kind of evidence that the divine name was probably used in the original manuscriptsof the New Testament but it was replaced for whatever reason but halleluyah stayed since it does not spell out the full divine name . Love your content by the way . I would love if one day you could make a video about the divine name and the New Testament.
Thanks! Do you mean the tetragrammaton YHWH? I don’t think there’s any evidence that the Greek writers of the NT knew the Hebrew name of God. They were reading the Greek version of the OT (the Septuagint), where YHWH was rendered “Lord” — and so that was what they called him as well. The word “halleluyah” did come into the Christian tradition from early times, out of the Aramaic speaking communities that used it — just as it came into English churches till today! (So too “maranatha”) They knew the word but probably didn’t now what it literally meant.
Hello Dr. Ehrman. I have no formal training in classics or biblical studies or theology but I have a strong interest in these topics and I have been studying informally and following your work as time permits for many years. I’m a little bit confused about the use of the words ELOHIM and YHWH in the old testament. If I understand correctly, above you say that the word ELOHIM would be used like the English word God (a descriptive term describing the type of being that God is) and the word YHWH was God’s actual name. Am I understanding this correctly? My confusuion comes from my understanding that both EL and YHWH were the actual names of gods (EL in the original cananite pantheon and YHWH adopted later into the cananite pantheon). Is this acurate? Did common Hebrew usage of the word El (and it’s derivative ELOHIM) change from being a referrence to a specific cananite god to being a generic and general referrence to any devine being?
Ah, good question. Yes, in teh Canaanite pantheon El was the name of a God. In the Hebrew Bible El can also be used as a name when it is found in a compound, such as El Shaddai (“God Almighty”); but normally it is given in its plural form Elohim (literally “gods” — but when used of hte God of Israel it means capital G God) and is not used as a personal name but as a kind of designation/descriptive.
Ah, good question. Yes, in teh Canaanite pantheon El was the name of a God. In the Hebrew Bible El can also be used as a name when it is found in a compound, such as El Shaddai (“God Almighty”); but normally it is given in its plural form Elohim (literally “gods” — but when used of hte God of Israel it means capital G God) and is not used as a personal name but as a kind of designation/descriptive.