Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi all,

first of all Stephen. The use of the divine name in NT autographs is not
central to the JW position that Jesus and YHWH are different people. Their
beliefs in this matter are much more largely based on the way Jesus spoke
about himself throughout the gospels and the way the apostles wrote about
him:

1) I came to do not my will but the will of him that sent me
2) Nobody knows the time of date except for the Father. Not even the Son or
any of the angels
3) The Father is greater than I am
4) Although being God's Son he did not give way to a seizure, namely, to
consider himself equal to God but rather humbled himself and submitted to
death on a stauros.

I've met and spoke to very many JW's and read large amounts of their
literature and am sure that not one of those I have met would feel the need
to change their beliefs on the basis of the use or absence of the name in NT
literature.

Regarding the Orthodox understanding I am also very familiar with the
Orthodox tradition and there really is no scholarship in Orthodoxy. Most of
what is accepted Orthodox tradition has largely been passed down by word of
mouth or in MSS in libraries in Orthodox monasteries which date back to the
days of the desert fathers who fleed persecution to live in the desert and
dedicate their lives to prayer. Their faith led many to seek their guidance
in the desert and they gained respect by the then Catholic Orthodox Church.
In those days monks lived in caves in deserts but later they started to
build organised communities which culminated in the construction of the
fortress like monasteries in the days of Justinian (6th century). These
include monasteries like St Catherine's at the foot of Mount Sinai. Perhaps
the most important monasteries today are the 20 or more on the holy island
of Mount Athos. During the Turkish persecutions this was a place of refuge
for many monks who brought their treasured relics and MSS as the Turks
 agreed not to touch the island. Mount Athos is perhaps the most significant
place in terms of the line of survival of Orthodox traditions and the island
is today home to monasteries representing all of the Orthodox lands (e.g.
Romania, Russia, Greece etc.). This is the kind of place where the
patriarchs of Orthodoxy hand out and I've been there and met them so I
really know what I'm talking about here.

The Orthodox position is that revelation did not stop in the time of Jesus
and the apostles but that the church continued to gain understanding as a
community through guidance of the holy spirit. They fully acknowledge that
the Catholic Orthodox Church was divided for several centuries on the issue
of the person of Jesus and that steps were made to unify the Church in the
fourth century at the council of Nicea. Here the majority vote was that in
favour of Jesus and the Father being of the same substance. Nonetheless, the
debate still raged for centuries. Arius was exiled but Eusebius (an Arian)
signed a confession of Niceanism in order to be able to stay active in the
Church. Being a relative of Constantine he was able to turn the emporer and
others to sympathy for the Arian view and Eusebius himself baptised
Constantine on his death bed. Constantine's son, Constantinius was therefore
an active Arian, and Arianism gained the upper hand for quite some time
after.

Further, the Orthodox position is that understanding of the holy spirit
being a third person in the godhead was a much later and gradual revelation.
There were many councils held with many conflicting decisions throughout but
only with hindsight did Catholic Orthodox tradition decide which ones were
to be upheld as ecumenical councils. However, round about 1064 many of the
other patriarchs started to have had enough of the patriarch of Rome's idea
that he was superior to all the others and had the sole right to
independently dictate the official doctrine of the Catholic Orthodox Church.
For this reason the churches divided (one patriarchate in the West (Rome)
and four in the East (Jerusalam, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantiople)) and
there was no longer a unanimous opinion on which councils were ecumenical (I
believe they both accept the first 7 with one minor difference - the
question of the figlio clause).

To George.

Yep. I fully agree. I don't buy a universal theory either. I think it's much
likely to have happened at different times to different extents to different
groups of people. However, I would make one observation. As far as I'm aware
we only know for sure that the Hebrews used YHWH's name freely with other
neighbouring Semitic nations. I'm not too sure if there is any real evidence
that the Jewish diaspora that started after the destruction of Solomon's
temple used the name with the Greeks among whom they resided as aliens like
some kind of strange and foreign sect. Secondly, your idea that Christians
were by and large Jews seems to go absolutely contrary to what I read in the
NT. In fact, I see that only a minority of the Jews embraced Christianity
and that Paul and Peter had much more success with converting the Greeks. In
any case, I think the main issue here for people like me is how to come to
terms with the following massive contradiction in terms:

1) Jesus openly opposed the traditions of men
2) Jesus superstitiously refused to use the name of his father (or his own
name if we are to believe he is God)

To all,

I think I feel the need to clear up my position. During this discussion I've
seen a few different viewpoints at the two extremes are:

1) Rolf et al. who actively defend the use of YHWH or some equivalent in the
NT autographs
2) Stephen et al. who actively oppose the use of YHWH or some equivalent in
the NT autographs

>From some of the responses I've seen to issues I've raised I seem to have
been lumped into category 1). I would therefore like to make it clear that I
view myself as being in neither. I see problems with both camps. My main
problem with camp 2) is the massive contradiction in terms:

1) Jesus openly opposed the traditions of men
2) Jesus superstitiously refused to use the name of his father (or his own
name if we are to believe he is God)

My main problem with camp 1) is the lack of any extant NT MSS with YHWH or
an equivalent in.

In summary, I am undecided on the matter and would love to find an MSS that
cleared up the matter. One of the Romanian monks I met on Athos in one of
the more prominent monasteries once let it slip to me that some of the
autographs are kept under lock and key in secret places on the island. I've
tried my best to gain access but these guys don't like to 'throw their
pearls before swine or feed what is holy to dogs' and so haven't managed it
yet evidently being a 'swine' and a 'dog'.

James Christian

2009/12/24 Stephen Shead <srshead+bh AT gmail.com <srshead%2Bbh AT gmail.com>>

> Dear Edward,
>
> One final comment: If you consider that the argument I presented about the
> original autographs is not "crucial" to the Jehovah's Witnesses position on
> Jesus, I can accept that. It is nevertheless used a lot!
>
> Stephen Shead
> Sydney, Australia
>
>