Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this less biographical episode, Sir Anthony and I discuss various Christian mistakes: obsession with Hebrew names for God and for Jesus, keeping kosher food laws and Jewish holidays, the doctrine of tithing, and even the avoidance of doctors (as if that showed a lack of faith in God).
Another mistake was discarding the simple, messianic gospel preached by Jesus, including his Jewish theology of one God, the Father. Jesus, Sir Anthony has argued, was not a trinitarian, and we, as his disciples, shouldn’t be either. He suggests that the apostle’s (Jesus’) creed should be ours.
Another mistake: the widespread unwillingness by conservative, and especially Protestant Christians to think critically about trinitarian traditions, and specifically the 4th c. catholic consensus I discussed with Dr. Holmes in episode 42.
Finally, how could divine providence allow The Church to go so wrong, for so long, on such a central matter as the doctrine of God?
And if unitarian theology is true, then why 19th century unitarianism fail, morphing into a non-Christian movement. One reason (among many), we agree, is some early modern unitarians’ wrongheaded denunciation of worship of and prayer to Jesus as “Christian idolatry.”
You can also listen to this episode on youtube.
Links:
- Jesus was not a Trinitarian
- Jesus Wars by Philip Jenkins – on the process leading up to the Council of Chalcedon in 451
- On the issue of the worship of Jesus, Sir Anthony agrees with this presentation (and paper) of mine.
- My reprints of some early modern unitarian and trinitarian books.
Sean,
Touché! Looks like you might need an early night too. 😉
Thanks for the laugh.
Nathan
“Thanks for the reminder. Long sentences tend to follow short sleeps. ;)”
Well, actually, please allow me to offer this brief corrective, namely, in general I have no problem whatsoever with the thoughtful and eloquent employment of extended sentences, and find that there are occasions, numerous occasions in fact, when the use of a protracted sentence proves to be just what the doctor ordered, helping one achieve a smooth flow where otherwise economical sentences might and often do end up creating a choppy presentation, which is obviously something we should all want to avoid if possible, as such can be a sign that one may actually resort to short sentences because one has some trouble sustaining an extended, complex thought beyond a few words;-)
“…it has been interesting to see to what extent Witnesses have gone in executing their doxastic resistance to material that might encroach upon their cherished traditions, presuppositions, or even social affections.”
I would say that such observations very often apply to Christians in general, of every type. They can be some of the most unbending, unreasoning, closed-minded people on the planet, and they obsessively try and protect what they already believe, not necessarily because of the evidence, but often in spite of it, and sometimes out of fear, i.e. fear that granting an opposing view might cause their entire house crumble to the sand and be washed away in the waves. Moreover, as Bart Ehrman’s latest book demonstrates, sustaining one’s opinion by attempting to gain support in one'[s effort to crush the opposition by declaring it a “heresy” is firmly rooted in the tradition from very early on.
John,
None taken. Actually, I’ve appreciated the openness of your interactions.
Sean,
Thanks for the reminder. Long sentences tend to follow short sleeps. 😉
Nathan
As a former Witness myself, it has been interesting to see to what extent Witnesses have gone in executing their doxastic resistance to material that might encroach upon their cherished traditions, presuppositions, or even social affections. My post-grad psychology training has even enhanced this very observation. Anyway, I am in agreement with Pierre above. The Name is beautiful and there is not prohibition in using it in whatever form.
“Finding a pathway through a verbal plenary theory of inspiration and one that accommodates the textual evidence isn’t always easy as all of us have to work at overcoming our own doxastic resistance to material that might encroach upon our cherished traditions, presuppositions, or even social affections. On this matter I concur with you and appreciate your reflections.”
Many people would say that we should avoid long sentences (I tend to disagree [grin]), but I can’t imagine a better way to say what you’ve said above. I may just have to quote you, but I promise to provide the appropriate attribution:-)
Nathan,
Sorry if I caused offense!
Some very bad (devastating) issues within my wifes family!
Interesting to ‘meet’ a Witness who does not conform to my steteotype !
Blessings
John
Hi John,
Finding a pathway through a verbal plenary theory of inspiration and one that accommodates the textual evidence isn’t always easy as all of us have to work at overcoming our own doxastic resistance to material that might encroach upon our cherished traditions, presuppositions, or even social affections. On this matter I concur with you and appreciate your reflections.
However, as far as the Witnesses are concerned, I have never found them to be fervid “literalists” per se. In fact, as one of them myself I recognise and appreciate the need for an informed doctrine – one capable of being sharpened by the whetstone of others (Prov. 27:17; Eccl. 10:10).
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Nathan
Nathan
“There are no OT autographs still extant”
Precisely , and that is why the ‘literalists’ have such a difficult time.
They cannot get their minds round the fact that not every word in the scriptures is an accurate representation of what was on the original writers mind!
We get protests such as ‘ well then what are we to believe’?
The answer is of course that we have to use our God-given faculty of discernment.
The Jehovas Witnesses are absolute masters of ‘literalism’ and if it were not for the foregoing and (often )toxic fruits, I would be with them.
Blessings
John
Hi Sean,
That is an interesting hypothesis, and one that might be well worth exploring. The account of the Talmudic correspondence that you cited is a poignant one as it shows, at the very least, that some still jealously guarded the Tetragram even at the expense of potentially immolating other contemporaneous Hebraisms. Given what we know of the religious ardour of the first few centuries, it would seem unlikely that those responsible for copying the original MSS would also intentionally corrupt the text that they were transmitting (save for folk like Marcion). Nevertheless, when we consider the explanations given for removing God’s name from within many of the Bible translations in print today, what we find is a rationale that, while unconvincing, is at least sincere in its approach (i.e. traditional, theological, authoritarian, financial). If the motivations regarding the translation of the Tetragram are mixed today, then perhaps the historical motivations were mixed also.
Motivations aside, however, what we have in our possession today are MSS that represent a corruption from their original – at least as far as the Tetragram is concerned (a more neutral term might be to say distorted, or altered). Even so, as there are no NT autographs still extant we have no other choice but to make inferences upon the best MS evidence that we do have; MS evidence that is unambiguous concerning the substitution of God’s name in the era that followed the NT.
Thanks for sharing your musings.
Nathan
Hi Nathan,
In your conclusion, you said:
“With all this in mind, it is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that a similar current of corruption likely affected the minds and hearts of people concerning the use and sanctification of God’s name as well (Cf. Mt. 6:9).”
I read George Howard’s articles about the DN in the NT years ago, and if he is correct, then it certainly would help to have some plausible historical reconstruction to account for the fact that the DN is missing from the earliest mss. and replaced by the nomina sacra. I would agree that when the good news about the Jewish Christ was contemplated within the thought categories of the Greek philosophers, then “corruption” certainly fits, i.e. the OT uses God’s name over six thousand times, yet the Greeks felt God was unnameable. But I wonder if a less nefarious answer might be appropriate for the *original* omission of the DN from writings where it previously appeared? When I read about how pious folks would cut out the divine name from certain texts before burning them — and some have suggested that Christian writings were included in this ancient book-burning effort — it occurred to me that the removal of the DN, if such did occur, may have been an attempt on the part of Christians to *preserve* their sacred writings, not to corrupt them. Is it possible that early Christians replaced the DN with nomina sacra in the hope that this would make their adversaries less motivated to confiscate and burn the writings?
Just musing,
~Sean
Nathan,
That is most illuminating!
Thanks you so much!
Every Blessing
John
Hi Dale,
Firstly, thanks for another great interview. I enjoyed your interaction with Sir Anthony and how you both engaged the subject of mistakes honestly and openly. Much appreciated!
You mentioned in your last response that the “NT authors were content to follow the current custom, substituting the Greek “ho kurios” for God’s name”. However, there are good reasons for thinking that the NT authors did not in fact follow the current custom, but that it was later redactors and Christian copyists that suppressed the divine name within their own manuscript tradition. For instance, the word “kurios” as a surrogate for the Tetragram does not appear in the earliest extant copies of the NT. Instead, what we find in its place are the abbreviations of the nomina sacra (KS|QS). Yet, since these abbreviations cannot be original we know that some tampering with the text must have occurred even at this early stage. Coincident with this finding is that no copy of the LXX prior to the first half of the second century used the nomina sacra as a substitute for God’s name. Rather, what we see is that the Tetragram remained in old Hebrew form, Aramaic, or the Greek form IAW. Furthermore, since John’s Revelation still references the shortened form of the divine name four times (Rev. 19), we have a strong indication that NT authors were familiar with God’s name and even used it in writing.
The Trinity doctrine has held sway and incarcerated the minds of the most brilliant as well as the most banal for centuries. Yet, given the evidence available to us today we can see that it is a corruption of NT thought. Paul indicated that a corrupt movement would begin possibly as early as his departure from Ephesus (Act. 20:29), and both he and John fought against corrupt and apostate influences that denied the resurrection and its import (1 Cor. 15:12ff; 2 John 7). With all this in mind, it is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that a similar current of corruption likely affected the minds and hearts of people concerning the use and sanctification of God’s name as well (Cf. Mt. 6:9).
Although the exact pronunciation of God’s name seems to be uncertain today, I do believe we have good reasons for thinking that NT authors knew it and used it.
Thanks for all your efforts, Dale.
Nathan
I prefer that translators use “Yahweh” instead of LORD. This is one reason I appreciate the New Jerusalem Translation. It does slightly change – if not the meaning, then the “flavor” of the text to substitute a generic title, used as if it were a proper name. I also agree that there is no reason to continue the Jewish practices of not saying the name out loud. I see no problem whatever in using “Yahweh” (or whatever you think the right pronunciation is) in teaching, prayer, and worship. But having said all that, we see that the NT authors were content to follow the current custom, substituting the Greek “ho kurios” for God’s name, and then also using that phrase for Jesus. As to the meaning of his name – YHWH saves – I would suppose that many of them knew that, but apparently for them this was not a reason to cease using the Greek version iesous. The obvious practice is just to have standard transliterations which are used in each language – words which are easy for those people to pronounce. Hence, our English JEE-zuss. What important, in my view, is that we know to whom these terms refer.
I disagree on the Divine Name concept, I think it is the Bible translator’s job to transliterate or maybe translate the Name, but not substitute it with a term LORD that is not in the biblical text. Rabbas agree that to change one letter in Torah is a crime. Jesus name itself is a theophoric name. Saying Abba, Father is fine, but for those who like also to pronounce the Divine Name because of its 6,893 scriptural occurrences, then the uttering practice should not be suppressed. If the Translators did not know the proper vowels, then just preserve the spelling and in a footnote put: this is God’s personal name. I think Greg Stafford’s book( http://www.amazon.com/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Defended-Scholars-Critics/dp/0965981479) has to be consulted on this and receive the scholarly attention it deserves.
Comments are closed.