Jewish Biblical Quarterly

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Mayo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michael_Mayo

Guest
Some intersting articles here:

jbq.jewishbible.org/jbq-past-issues/

I was looking for more perspective on the Tetragrammaton and found this article:

jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/384/384_Ehyeh.pdf

So, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh can be understood in four very different ways of self-definition:
  1. ‘I AM WHO I AM’ – referring to an eternally unchanging Being. Such
    understanding corresponds to a “static” philosophy, the idea that since the
    World was created everything remains unchanged as it came from the Hand
    of God.
  2. ‘I AM WHO I SHALL BE’ – standing for a fundamental constancy regardless
    of variations. Such a conception of the Eternal does not ignore the evident
    changes that occur in nature in the course of time, but considers them of
    secondary importance without affecting the eternally unchanging essence of
    God.
  3. ‘I SHALL BE WHO I AM’ – is the idea that evolution is inherent to the
    essence of God. It is in agreement with present scientific knowledge of the
    universe, the formation of the galaxies, the evolution of living creatures on
    earth, and particularly to the possibilities of the genetic techniques with its
    crossings and “new models” of plants and animals. In line with this interpretation,
    the contemporary Jewish naturalist Lutz Zwillenberg wrote, “The purpose
    of the Universe is the realization of all the possibilities inherent in it.”
  4. ‘I SHALL BE WHO I SHALL BE’ – can have two meanings: “To every
    one I am something else,” or “each person has a different idea of Me,” as
    masterfully expressed by the author of Shir ha-kavod, a well-known synagogue
    hymn, or to a theistic thinker it could read as if God continuously realizes
    Himself.
I am thinking #2 sounds most appropriate.
 
thanks for the link to JBQ.

regarding the Tetregrammaton:

Much has been written on this subject. I’ve seen a couple modern Jewish commentaries on the subject or containing the subject.

Not that I am a scholar, because I am not. But, having read works of some scholarship, I have to say that a complete survey of this subject would include an analysis of how the T. is rendered into the Septuagint, as well.

It’s not clear exactly where the state four options come from. I would assume that in Hebrew, the missing vowels could be supplied in various ways to render these four English versions.

One question is whether the T. represents ALL of these, without the necessity to choose one over the other.

A review of the Jewish exposition would require surveying the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures in totality), the Talmud (“Talmud Torah” = study of the Torah), Midrash (later commentaries on Torah, and then the modern perspectives. I don’t know if all of thees are wrapped up or represented in the four shown options.

Certainly, #1 is the one we see most often in Catholic Bibles, no?

What’s relevant from a Catholic theological perspective, is that the Tetragrammation transliterated as YHWH forms a part of Jesus’ name (as Yahoshua)

You didn’t reference any particular part of the Quarterly, or did I miss the obvious? What did THEY say about it?
 
sirach2v4 said:
thanks for the link to JBQ.

regarding the Tetregrammaton:

Much has been written on this subject. I’ve seen a couple modern Jewish commentaries on the subject or containing the subject.

Not that I am a scholar, because I am not. But, having read works of some scholarship, I have to say that a complete survey of this subject would include an analysis of how the T. is rendered into the Septuagint, as well.

It’s not clear exactly where the state four options come from. I would assume that in Hebrew, the missing vowels could be supplied in various ways to render these four English versions.

One question is whether the T. represents ALL of these, without the necessity to choose one over the other.

A review of the Jewish exposition would require surveying the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures in totality), the Talmud (“Talmud Torah” = study of the Torah), Midrash (later commentaries on Torah, and then the modern perspectives. I don’t know if all of thees are wrapped up or represented in the four shown options.

Certainly, #1 is the one we see most often in Catholic Bibles, no?

What’s relevant from a Catholic theological perspective, is that the Tetragrammation transliterated as YHWH forms a part of Jesus’ name (as Yahoshua)

You didn’t reference any particular part of the Quarterly, or did I miss the obvious? What did THEY say about it?
Click to expand...
This one about the T:

jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Up…/384_Ehyeh.pdf

This one about HOW GOD INTRODUCED HIMSELF TO THE PATRIARCHS

jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/372/372_Vaera.pdf

I don’t know Hebrew but it would seems that the name God used would be pretty important. Too important, I guess, because out of reverence it was not to be uttered.

But I am just trying to develop a better appreciation for the OT.
 
The title of the thread is a publication, but the subject of our discussion seems to be something else, the holy name of God.

The puzzling thing about the revelation of God’s name to Moses is that WE have seen this holy name before.

If you glance at Gen 1, you see that the word God is there in our english translation, But, already in Gen 2 the reference to God changes to LORD God, where LORD is the respectful alternative for using the tetragramatton. This change is one of the first evidences of what is called the documentary hypothesis, how Genesis resembles a quilt of different patches of text woven together.

So, it is ironic to see the Tetragrammaton used here, and even casually, by Eve in Chap 2.
It’s a funny inconsistency that the name is not formally introduced until later, to Moses.

Maybe I’m mixing up something here, because it’s been so long since I read the commentaries on this.

There are supposedly 72 names for God in the Old Testament. The Tetragrammaton represents the PERSONAL name of God.
 
sirach2v4 said:
The title of the thread is a publication, but the subject of our discussion seems to be something else, the holy name of God.
Click to expand...
Yah, I was searching regarding the persoanl name of God and found the JBQ. I got pretty excited when I saw all the articles right there and you do not need to subscribe.
sirach2v4 said:
The puzzling thing about the revelation of God’s name to Moses is that WE have seen this holy name before.

If you glance at Gen 1, you see that the word God is there in our english translation, But, already in Gen 2 the reference to God changes to LORD God, where LORD is the respectful alternative for using the tetragramatton. This change is one of the first evidences of what is called the documentary hypothesis, how Genesis resembles a quilt of different patches of text woven together.

So, it is ironic to see the Tetragrammaton used here, and even casually, by Eve in Chap 2.
It’s a funny inconsistency that the name is not formally introduced until later, to Moses.

Maybe I’m mixing up something here, because it’s been so long since I read the commentaries on this.

There are supposedly 72 names for God in the Old Testament. The Tetragrammaton represents the PERSONAL name of God.
Click to expand...
The Article by Cohen (Vol. 37, No. 2, 2009) gets into that

I don’t really understand his answer. Sorry. I need to re-read it.

jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/372/372_Vaera.pdf
 
sirach2v4 said:
The title of the thread is a publication, but the subject of our discussion seems to be something else, the holy name of God.

The puzzling thing about the revelation of God’s name to Moses is that WE have seen this holy name before.

If you glance at Gen 1, you see that the word God is there in our english translation, But, already in Gen 2 the reference to God changes to LORD God, where LORD is the respectful alternative for using the tetragramatton. This change is one of the first evidences of what is called the documentary hypothesis, how Genesis resembles a quilt of different patches of text woven together.

So, it is ironic to see the Tetragrammaton used here, and even casually, by Eve in Chap 2.
It’s a funny inconsistency that the name is not formally introduced until later, to Moses.

…
Click to expand...
I always figured the use of God’s personal name prior to Exodus 3:14 is because the first 5 books were recorded/written down/composed by Moses** after **God had revealed His personal name to him. I found the articles very interesting and realize there is a lot more to think about on this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top