- This topic has 963 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Adam……The execution of Jesus may be problematic for Bart Erhman, because he didn’t take into consideration, that Pilot did not believe Jesus deserved to die, and sought to free him on several occasions. He even washed his hands about the whole matter, so he could have Easley made an exception and allowed Jesus’ family and friends to give him a proper burial. IMO
Hello brother Gene, these are few comments of the NT scholars/Historians on Pilate the Roman Governor;
The Gospels’ portrayal of Pilate is “widely assumed” to diverge greatly from that found in Josephus and Philo, as Pilate is portrayed as reluctant to execute Jesus and pressured to do so by the crowd and Jewish authorities. John P. Meier notes that in Josephus, by contrast, “Pilate alone […] is said to condemn Jesus to the cross.” Some scholars believe that the Gospel accounts are completely untrustworthy: S. G. F. Brandon argued that in reality, rather than vacillating on condemning Jesus, Pilate unhesitatingly executed him as a rebel. Paul Winter explained the discrepancy between Pilate in other sources and Pilate in the gospels by arguing that Christians became more and more eager to portray Pontius Pilate as a witness to Jesus’ innocence, as persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities increased. Bart Ehrman argues that the earliest Gospel, Mark, shows the Jews and Pilate to be in agreement about executing Jesus (Mark 15:15), while the later gospels progressively reduce Pilate’s culpability, culminating in Pilate allowing the Jews to crucify Jesus in John (John 18:16). He connects this change to increased “anti-Judaism.” Others have tried to explain Pilate’s behavior in the Gospels as motivated by a change of circumstances from that shown in Josephus and Philo, usually presupposing a connection between Pilate’s caution and the death of Sejanus. Yet other scholars, such as Brian McGing and Bond, have argued that there is no real discrepancy between Pilate’s behavior in Josephus and Philo and that in the Gospels. Warren Carter argues that Pilate is portrayed as skillful, competent, and manipulative of the crowd in Mark, Matthew, and John, only finding Jesus innocent and executing him under pressure in Luke.
The Gospel narratives were favourable to Roman Government if we read Gospel stories and they were hostile to Jewish people. That was the reason behind the development of anti-Semitism in the Christianity especially the John’s Gospel. We need to do more study on this too.
Who Killed Jesus?
In 1965, as part of the Vatican II council, the Catholic Church published a long-anticipated declaration entitled Nostra Aetate, offering a new approach to the question of Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. The document argued that modern-day Jews could not be held accountable for Jesus’ crucifixion and that not all Jews alive at the time of the crucifixion were guilty of the crime. This was a remarkable step forward in the history of Christian attitudes toward Jews, as Jewish blame for Jesus’ death has long been a linchpin of Christian anti-Semitism.
Nevertheless, many Jews were disappointed. They had hoped that the Church might say that the Jews had in fact played no role in Jesus’ death.
Jews Lacked A Motive for Killing Jesus
Indeed, according to most historians, it would be more logical to blame the Romans for Jesus’ death. Crucifixion was a customary punishment among Romans, not Jews. At the time of Jesus’ death, the Romans were imposing a harsh and brutal occupation on the Land of Israel, and the Jews were occasionally unruly. The Romans would have had reason to want to silence Jesus, who had been called by some of his followers “King of the Jews,” and was known as a Jewish upstart miracle worker.
Jews, on the other hand, lacked a motive for killing Jesus. The different factions of the Jewish community at the time — Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others — had many disagreements with one another, but that did not lead any of the groups to arrange the execution of the other allegedly heretical groups’ leaders. It is therefore unlikely they would have targeted Jesus.
But the belief that Jews killed Jesus has been found in Christian foundational literature from the earliest days of the Jesus movement, and would not be easily abandoned just because of historians’ arguments.
New Testament Accounts
In the letters of Paul, which are regarded by historians to be the oldest works of the New Testament (written 10 to 20 years after Jesus’ death), Paul mentions, almost in passing, “the Jews who killed the Lord, Jesus” (I Thessalonians 2:14-15). While probably not central to Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ life and death, the idea that the Jews bear primary responsibility for the death of Jesus figures more prominently in the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have slightly different accounts of Jesus’ life.
Matthew, the best-known gospel, describes the unfair trial of Jesus arranged and presided over by the Jewish high priest who scours the land to find anybody who would testify against Jesus. Eventually, the high priest concludes that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy and asks the Jewish council what the penalty should be. “They answered, ‘He deserves death.’ Then they spat in his face and struck him” (Matthew 26:57-68). Matthew’s description of Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross (referred to by Christians as Jesus’ “passion”) has becomes the basis for many books, plays, and musical compositions over the years, and is prominent in Christian liturgy, particularly for Easter.
All four gospels suggest either implicitly or explicitly that because the Jews were not allowed to punish other Jews who were guilty of blasphemy, they had to prevail on the reluctant Romans to kill Jesus. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, is described as basically sympathetic to Jesus but unable to withstand the pressure from the Jews who demanded Jesus’ execution. This idea is expressed most clearly in the gospel of John: “Pilate said, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own law.’ The Jews replied, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death’” (18:31).
In the most controversial verse in all the passion narratives, the assembled members of the Jewish community tell Pilate, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). This is the source for the Christian belief that later generations of Jews are also guilty of deicide, the crime of killing God.
The Church Fathers thereafter
In the writings of the Church Fathers, the authoritative Christian theologians after the New Testament period, this accusation appears with even more clarity and force. One of the Church Fathers, Justin Martyr (middle of the second century), explains to his Jewish interlocutor why the Jews have suffered exile and the destruction of their Temple: these “tribulations were justly imposed on you since you have murdered the Just One” (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 16).
Throughout classical and medieval times this theme is found in Christian literature and drama. For example, in a 12th-century religious drama, entitled “The Mystery of Adam,” the biblical King Solomon addresses the Jews, prophesying that they will eventually kill the son of God. Here is a rhyming English translation from the original Norman French and Latin:
This saying shall be verified
When God’s own Son for us hath died
The masters of the law ’twill be
That slay him most unlawfully;
Against all justice, all belief,
They’ll crucify Him, like a thief.
But they will lose their lordly seat,
Who envy him, and all entreat.
Low down they’ll come from a great height,
Well may they mourn their mournful plight.
(Translation from Frank Talmage’s Disputation and Dialogue)Even into modern times, passion plays — large outdoor theatrical productions that portray the end of Jesus’ life, often with a cast of hundreds — have continued to perpetuate this idea.
In the Talmud
Interestingly, the idea that the Jews killed Jesus is also found in Jewish religious literature. In tractate Sanhedrin of the Babylonian Talmud, on folio 43a, a beraita (a teaching from before the year 200 C.E.) asserts that Jesus was put to death by a Jewish court for the crimes of sorcery and sedition. (In standard texts of the Talmud from Eastern Europe — or in American texts that simply copied from them — there is a blank space towards the bottom of that folio, because the potentially offensive text was removed. The censorship may have been internal — for self-protection — or it may have been imposed on the Jews by the Christian authorities. In many new editions of the Talmud this passage has been restored.) The Talmud’s claim there that the event took place on the eve of Passover is consistent with the chronology in the gospel of John. In the talmudic account, the Romans played no role in his death.In Jewish folk literature, such as the popular scurrilous Jewish biography of Jesus, Toledot Yeshu (which may be as old as the fourth century), responsibility for the death of Jesus is also assigned to the Jews. It is likely that until at least the 19th century, Jews in Christian Europe believed that their ancestors had killed Jesus.
From the first to the 19th centuries, the level of tension between Jews and Christians was such that both groups found the claim that the Jews killed Jesus to be believable. Thankfully, in our world it is heard less frequently. But we should not be surprised if it persists among people who take the stories of the New Testament (or of the Talmud) as reliable historical sources.
Adam……Let’s not forget in the book of Acts, Peter also said that they (the Jews ) were responsible for the the death of Jesus.
Acts 2:22-23……You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a “MAN”, approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which “GOD” by him in the Midwest of you, as you yourselves, Also know. (23) Him, being delivered by the determinant council and foreknowledge of God, “YOU” have taken , and by “WICKED” hands, have “CRUCIFIED and “SLAIN”. The apostle Peter sure thought the Jews crucified and killed Jesus, he never blamed it on the Romans.Adam…..There are tons of scriptures that show the account of Jesus’ death, and resurrection, granted there could be some that are distorted, but certainly not all. IMO
peace and love you and yours Adam………gene
The apostle Peter sure thought the Jews crucified and killed Jesus, he never blamed it on the Romans.
Adam…..There are tons of scriptures that show the account of Jesus’ death, and resurrection, granted there could be some that are distorted, but certainly not all. IMO
This is what I was pointing out here that the NT writers were soft on Roman Government and whereas they were dead against their Jewish counter parts because there was religious friction going on at the time of these writings were put on record. Many of the (Jewish) Christians were banned from the Jewish Synagogues because of their new beliefs on Jesus as divine and other religious deviations from Judaism.
Adam,
References on how dead bodies did not hang overnight but got buried.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23
22If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is executed, and you hang his body on a tree, 23you must not leave the body on the tree overnight, but you must be sure to bury him that day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
John 19:31
It was the day of Preparation, and the next day was a High Sabbath. In order that the bodies would not remain on the cross during the Sabbath, the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies removed.Joshua 8:29
He hung the king of Ai on a tree until evening, and at sunset Joshua commanded that they take down the body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And over it they raised a large pile of rocks, which remains to this day.Joshua 10:26After this, Joshua struck down and killed the kings, and he hung their bodies on five trees and left them there until evening. 27At sunset Joshua ordered that they be taken down from the trees and thrown into the cave in which they had hidden. Then large stones were placed against the mouth of the cave, and the stones are there to this day.…
Amen Berean,
Regarding this:
Hi Berean,
Can you see that the Father is identifying the Son as YHVH who laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the works of His hands in Heb 1:10-12?
Hi LU
TOTALY LU
For me They have the same divine NAME: YHVH
EXAMPLE:
In the PSALMS 24 who identifies The Son as the King of glory We can see this….I’m thankful that you also see this!! God bless, LU
Adam,
References on how dead bodies did not hang overnight but got buried.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23
22If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is executed, and you hang his body on a tree, 23you must not leave the body on the tree overnight, but you must be sure to bury him that day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
John 19:31
It was the day of Preparation, and the next day was a High Sabbath. In order that the bodies would not remain on the cross during the Sabbath, the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies removed.Yes you are right on Jewish burial tradition. But the Historians are critical about the person’s fate who was crucified as a Roman criminal. Anyhow this is not about the topic. We can leave this here and come back to the topic, ‘Most High God’.
Please see these arguments on Elyon (Most High) God;
Elyon (Biblical Hebrew עליון; Masoretic ʿElyōn) is an epithet of the God of the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible. ʾĒl ʿElyōn is usually rendered in English as “God Most High”, and similarly in the Septuagint as ὁ Θεός ὁ ὕψιστος (“God the highest”).
The term also has mundane uses, such as “upper” (where the ending in both roots is a locative, not superlative or comparative), “top”, or “uppermost”, referring simply to the position of objects (e.g. applied to a basket in Genesis 40.17 or to a chamber in Ezekiel 42.5)
In Hebrew Bible..
The compound ʼĒl ʻElyōn[edit]
The compound name ʼĒl ʻElyōn ‘God Most High’ occurs in Genesis 14:18–20 as the God whose priest was Melchizedek, king of Salem. The form appears again almost immediately in verse 22, used by Abraham in an oath to the king of Sodom. In this verse the name of God also occurs in apposition to ʼĒl ʻElyōn in the Masoretic Text but is absent in the Samaritan version, in the Septuagint translation, and in Symmachus.Its occurrence here was one foundation of a theory first espoused by Julius Wellhausen that ʼĒl ʻElyōn was an ancient god of Salem (for other reasons understood here to mean Jerusalem), later equated with God.
The only other occurrence of the compound expression is in Psalms 78:35: “And they remembered that God [ʼĒlōhīm] was their rock, and the high God [ʼĒl ʻElyōn] their redeemer.”
The name is repeated later in the chapter, but with a variation: verse fifty-six says ʼElohim ʻElyōn.
It has been suggested that the reference to “ʼĒl ʻElyōn, maker of heaven and earth” in Genesis 14:19 and 22 reflects a Canaanite background. The phrasing in Genesis resembles a retelling of Canaanite religious traditions in Philo of Byblos’s account of Phoenician history, in which ʻElyōn was the progenitor of Ouranos (“Sky”) and Gaia (“Earth”).
ʽElyōn standing alone
The name ʽElyōn ‘Most High’ standing alone is found in many poetic passages, especially in the Psalms.It appears in Balaam’s verse oracle in Numbers 24:16 as a separate name parallel to Ēl.
It appears in Moses’ final song in Deuteronomy 32:8 (a much discussed verse). A translation of the Masoretic text:
When the Most High (ʽElyōn) divided nations,
he separated the sons of man (Ādām);
he set the bounds of the masses
according to the number of the sons of Israel
Many Septuagint manuscripts have in place of “sons of Israel”, angelōn theou ‘angels of God’ and a few have huiōn theou ‘sons of God’. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4QDeutj reads bny ’lwhm ‘sons of God’ (‘sons of ’Elohim’). The New Revised Standard Version translates this as “he fixed the boundaries … according to the number of the gods”.This passage appears to identify ʽElyōn with ’Elohim, but not necessarily with Yahweh. It can be read to mean that ʽElyōn separated mankind into 70 nations according to his 70 sons (the 70 sons of Ēl being mentioned in the Ugaritic texts), each of these sons to be the tutelary deity over one of the 70 nations, one of them being the god of Israel, Yahweh. Alternatively, it may mean that ʽElyōn, having given the other nations to his sons, now takes Israel for himself under the name of the Tetragrammaton. Both interpretations have supporters.
In Isaiah 14:13–14 ʽElyōn is used in a very mystical context in the passage providing the basis for later speculation on the fall of Satan where the rebellious prince of Babylon is pictured as boasting:
I shall be enthroned in the mount of the council in the farthest north [or farthest Zaphon]
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will be like the Most High.
But ’Elyōn is in other places firmly identified with Yahweh, as in 2 Samuel 22:14:The Lord [YHWH] thundered from heaven,
and the Most High [ʽElyōn] uttered his voice.
Also Psalm 97:9: “For you, Lord [YHWH], are Most High [ʽelyōn] over all the earth; you are raised high over all the gods.”The question here is whether El Elyon(Most High God) had been merged with LORD(Yahweh) in the later texts of Hebrew Bible? If so when this change took place?
We still find these traces in Deut 32:8-9 showing Yahweh in the subordinate level to Elyon (the Most High) God.
What are your comments?
Hi Adam,
All this passage is saying is that when He divided up humankind He kept Israel for his own.
Yahweh is the Most High God (El Elyon)Hi Adam,
You said:
But the Historians are critical about the person’s fate who was crucified as a Roman criminal.
Is there a topic for that?
You asked:
The question here is whether El Elyon(Most High God) had been merged with LORD(Yahweh) in the later texts of Hebrew Bible? If so when this change took place?
We still find these traces in Deut 32:8-9 showing Yahweh in the subordinate level to Elyon (the Most High) God.
In my opinion, YHVH is the name of two persons, a father and a son. The father is the head of the son, naturally. The important thing when considering who is El, or Elohim, or El Elyon, is to discover if the reference is to the true eternal creator YHVH, the Father and/or the Son. Every other so called “god” is created by them and under their authority.
Col 1:15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…
1 Cor 8:4Therefore concerning the eating of the things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God except one. 5Truly even if indeed there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords, 6yet to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through Him.
Both our one God and our one Lord are YHVH, two persons as one.
Blessings, LU
In my opinion, YHVH is the name of two persons, a father and a son. The father is the head of the son, naturally. The important thing when considering who is El, or Elohim, or El Elyon, is to discover if the reference is to the true eternal creator YHVH, the Father and/or the Son. Every other so called “god” is created by them and under their authority.
Hi Sis Kathi, yes it’s your opinion and I respect it. But the Hebrew Bible has only one God Yahweh and (a) son is no where found who is also called Yahweh. This is purely the interpretation of the NT writers who applied the Yahweh texts of Hebrew Bible to Jesus at times. For example Rom 10:
13 For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Here ‘Lord’ is Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, Joel 2:
32 Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls.
This is the reason why I am critically examining these NT scriptures with the Hebrew Bible.
THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF YAHWISM
Since the nineteenth century, a number of theories have been developed on the origin of Yahwism
1 The Kenite hypothesis
According to a widely accepted theory, the Kenites were the mediators for the Yahwistic cult (Van der Toorn 1999:912). The Dutch historian of religion, Cornelis P Tiele, was one of the first persons to advance the Kenite hypothesis when, in 1872, he characterised Yahweh as being historically the God of the desert,
who had been worshipped by the Kenites and their relatives before the time of the Israelites. This hypothesis enjoys significant support among modern scholars (Van der Toorn 1999:912). The classical formulation of the theory was developed by Budde in Germany and by Rowley in England. In his formulation, Budde (1899:17-25, 35-38, 52-60) indicates that efforts by scholars to reach the core of the ethical development of the Yahweh-religion, as presented by Moses, have been unsuccessful. The problem is that tradition often disguises the actual history in such a way that, at first glance, the matter seems insignificant. In Sinai, the Israelites adapted to a primitive nomadic religion. They worshipped the same God, Yahweh, as that of the Kenite tribe to which Moses’ wife belonged. There was, however, right from the start a fundamental difference in the religion of the Israelites and that of the Kenites. The God of the
Kenites was, for many generations, inseparably part of them. They worshipped him, not specifically by choice, but by an inevitable necessity of man’s way of life. At Sinai, Israel experienced a previously unknown God. In his encounter with Yahweh at the burning bush, Moses was instructed to remove his shoes as he was standing on holy ground. According to Israel, the ground was holy as Yahweh dwelled there; they have thus met a God that, according to their own way of thinking, was associated with a specific abode. The God of Sinai was worshipped by a nation [the Midianites] living in his territory. Moses tended the flock of sheep of Jethro – his father-in-law and priest of Midian – on Midianite soil. The Kenites were a clan of the all-embracing Midianite group. All indications are that the Kenites did not adopt the Yahweh-religion from another nation but, rather, that they themselves were the original worshippers of this God. According to the classical Source hypothesis (West 1981:63-74), the Yahwist was
the earliest, original Israelite source.7 He uses the name Yahweh freely, right from the beginning of Israel’s history. The Yahwist originated in Judah, in the South, a territory closely connected with the Kenites.
8 The calling of Moses was, thus, a new revelation of an existing God. Later references to the covenant between Israel and Yahweh, by prophets and historians alike, were recorded in historical narrative. They, however, described this covenant as no more than an alliance between Israel and the nomad tribe, the Kenites, at Sinai. The adoption of their religion, namely Yahweh-worship, is an inevitable result (Budde 1899:17- 25, 35-38, 52-60).The Kenite hypothesis, which is widely supported by a group of modern scholars, contains a number of important elements. The hypothesis, in its classical form, presupposes that the Israelites became acquainted with the Yahwistic cult by the intermediation of Moses. The father-in-law of Moses, a Midianite priest, has also been described as a Kenite; the Kenites were a tribe of the all embracing Midianite group. Moses had a blood relationship with the Kenites through his mother with the theophoric name Jochebed (Houtman 1993:96) – and the Israelites a close relationship with the Edomites/ Midianites. The Israelites worshipped Yahweh by choice, because he had liberated them, while the Kenites
were notably the original worshippers of Yahweh. They did not adopt the cult from any other nation (Budde 1899:18-19). Situated in the border area between Edom and Midian, Sinai could possibly have been a mountain sanctuary at an earlier stage (Albertz 1994:52). Yahweh came from Edom and Seir, as well as from Sinai, Mount Paran and Teman (in the south) (Van der Toorn 1999:912).Two Egyptian texts, from the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE, refer to Yahu in the land of the Shosu-beduins and of a place called Seir (Van der Toorn 1999:911-912). By the fourteenth century BCE, according to a northern tradition found in a number of ancient theophany texts, groups of Edomite and Midianite nomads had worshipped Yahweh as their god before the cult of Yahweh reached Israel (Van der Toorn 1999:912). The status of the Kenites as a peripheral group is implied in Judges 1:16; 4:17 and supports the hypothesis that they were metal workers (McNutt 1993:407). Cain, the ancestor after whom the Kenites were named, carried the mark of Yahweh (Abba 1961:320-321).
a Critical evaluation of the Kenite hypothesis
This hypothesis undoubtedly has merits, especially when certain elements that have been presented to support the theory are taken into consideration. According to the Exodus narrative, the Israelites became acquainted with the cult of Yahweh by the mediation of Moses. The narrative confirms that Moses was involved with the Kenites. Poetical texts in the Old Testament, as well as inscriptions – inter alia at Kuntillet Ajrud – indicate that Yahweh came from the South, a territory belonging to the Midianites, and thus also to the Kenites. The Yahwist is from the South, from Judah. Cain, who carried the mark of Yahweh, is regarded as the ancestor of the Kenites. Jethro praised Yahweh at Sinai and proclaimed the splendour of Yahweh (Ex 18:9-11). According to van der Toorn9 Albertz (1994:52-53) indicates that Yahweh was a Southern Palestinian mountain god before he became the God of liberation for the Moses group. Later tradition masked the connection of the Mountain of God with the Midianites, and thus with any pre-Israelite worship of Yahweh.
10 Judges 5:4; Deuteronomy 33:2; Habakkuk 3:3; inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud (Emerton 1982:9-13). Certain poetical texts indicate a link with the areas concerned. Psalm 68 describes Yahweh’s migration from the South.
11The opinion of de Moor (1997:310-311) is that the Shosu land called s’rr in the Egyptian texts is erroneously identified with the Biblical Seir.
12 The Kenites could possibly have been related to the Rechabites, another peripheral group, who were ardent supporters of Yahweh (1 Ki 10:15-28) (McNutt 1993:407).
13 According to Mowinckel (1961:124-125), the Kenites, as well as the Midianites, worshipped Yahweh; this is substantiated in Genesis 4:15 whereby Cain, ancestor of the Kenites, carried the mark of Yahweh. The gist of this etiological legend is that every member of the tribe carried the mark of Yahweh.
(1999:912), ‘the strength of the Kenite hypothesis is the link it establishes between different but converging sets of data’.
The hypothesis does, however, contain a number of deficiencies.
It is obvious that several traditions are relevant, as seen in the different names and designations of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law: at times he is called a Midianite, and then again a Kenite. He is also described as a Midianite priest (Ex 2:16; 3:1; 18:1) who praises Yahweh (Ex 18:10-12). However, at no stage it is mentioned, as such, that Jethro was a priest of Yahweh. Jethro’s proclamation of the splendour of Yahweh (Ex 18:9-11) does not necessarily imply his being a worshipper of Yahweh, even though the Kenites were regarded to be worshippers of Yahweh (Gn 4:15; Jdg 4:17). Jethro disappears from the scene (Ex 18:27), and is not present at the momentous manifestation of Yahweh on Mount Sinai. Moses does not mention Yahweh’s manifestation to Jethro (Houtman 1993:97-98). The Kenites, who, according to the hypothesis, were responsible for the introduction of Yahwism to the Israelites, are not mentioned in later Israelite traditions; an adverse declaration in Numbers 24:21-22 foretells that the Kenites will be destroyed.
There is no acceptable evidence of a God by the name YHWH amongst the Kenites. Apart from one allusion in the Masoretic Text, there is no knowledge of the religion of the Kenites or Midianites. None of the ancient traditions describing Yahweh’s journey from the South 19 mentions the exodus or manifestation at Sinai; this implies that this journey had nothing to do with Moses or the origin of Yahwism. The historical role of Moses is problematic (De Moor 1997:310-311). According to Houtman (1993:97-98), no elements in the Exodus narrative indicate a Midianite origin of Yahweh. The impression is not created that the Midianites regarded Mount Sinai/Horeb as sacred; the mountain is anyhow not inside Midianite territory. Biblical Seir, according to de Moor (1997: 310-311), has been erroneously identified with a Shosu land, called s’rr.Disregarding the Canaanite origin of the Israelites is a significant deficiency in the classical Kenite hypothesis. The perspective that the Israelites, under guidance
14 Houtman (1993:96); Albright (1968:38-39). Although it is possible that various traditions regarding the name of the priest of Midian could have bearing, assumptions in this respect should not merely be made arbitrarily. The text and names should be analysed in the light of modern information and science (Albright 1968:38-39).
15 Van der Toorn (1999:912).
16 Albertz (1994:51-55); Hyatt (1980:78-79).
17 McNutt (1993:407).
18 According to Jagersma (1994:39), there is no positive evidence, before the time of Israel, that there was any knowledge of the name Yahweh outside the boundaries of Israel.
19 Psalm 68; Habakkuk 3; Deuteronomy 32; Judges 5.
20 Exodus 3:1; 4:27; 18:5, 27.21
Egyptian records; van der Toorn (1999:911-912); Astour (1962:971); de Moor (1997:117, 124, 127).of Moses, became Yahwists during their wilderness journey and brought this new religion to Palestine, discounts the fact that most Israelites, at that stage, were already firmly settled in Palestine. The historical role of Moses, moreover,
is highly problematic. Only in later traditions was he regarded as symbol of the Yahweh-alone movement and as legendary ancestor of the Levitical priests (Van der Toorn 1999:912). Some discrepancies are evident in scholars’ exposition of certain texts. The account in Exodus 18:12 of the Israelites’ sharing a sacrificial meal with Jethro, is some of the so-called corroborations of exponents of the Kenite hypothesis.
Scholars, such as Albertz (1994:51-52), declare that the sacrificial meal was held on the mountain of God, in honour of Yahweh. According to the relevant text in the Masoretic Text, sacrifices were in honour of Elohim; there is no reference to the mountain of God. Albertz (1994:52) draws the wrong conclusion: ‘then we may suppose that the Midianites or Kenites were already worshippers of Yahweh before the Exodus group joined them’.Exodus 18:19-23 is also applied to confirm Jethro’s involvement with Yahweh. According to this application, Jethro would have initiated Moses in the laws and customs of Yahweh. Throughout this specific passage, references are to Elohim, and not to Yahweh. Mowinckel (1961:124) proclaims, inter alia, the following: ‘in the legend in Exodus 18 we are explicitly told that this Jethro instructed Moses in the ordinances and laws of Yahweh’, and also ‘it is certainly a fact that both Qenites and Midianites were worshipers of Yahweh’. Scholars, such as Abba (1961:320) and Mowinckel (1961:124), indicate that
Cain was under special protection by the mark of Yahweh and that, by implication – according to Mowinckel – every member of the Kenite tribe carried the mark. Genesis 4:15, however, refers only to the mark Yahweh put on Cain; there is no reference to his descendants. Vosloo (1999:24) notes that there is no clarity on the mark of Cain. Scholars link Cain with the Kenites, and surmise that the Kenites carried a type of tattoo that could be related to the mark of Cain.b Conclusion
Observations made and conclusions drawn from the research (as pointed out in 1a) substantiate my inference that scholars, on occasion – to prove their preconceived22 Childs (1974:322-323) indicates that since the time of the Classical Medieval Jewish commentators, they had a problem with Jethro’s part in the narrative. Sacrifices to Yahweh by a foreign priest were unacceptable, unless he was a proselyte. At a much later stage, historical critics were of the opinion that Jethro could sacrifice to Yahweh, only because he was a Yahweh worshipper. From the perspective of the history of religion, the Kenite hypothesis was an attempt to expand and systematise these early perceptions [sic: sacrifices were not offered to Yahweh].
theories – read into texts information not actually there. Boshoff et al (2000:104) mention that Exodus 18 – as, to a great extent, the entire book of Exodus – is an interweaving of Elohist and Yahwist traditions that, inevitably, impede analysis of texts. However, that does not entitle scholars to arbitrarily read YHWH into texts.
2 Identification of Yahweh with El
Several Biblical and extra-biblical sources attest that the roots and origin of the God Yahweh can be found amongst the high gods of the Canaanite religion, as well as amongst the tribal gods of the patriarchal families. According to Miller (2000:24), the hypothesis of Frank Cross is the most acceptable reconstruction of the origin of Yahweh. Cross (1974:242-261) explains that the terminology ilu or el is actually a common title for a god in the main group of Semitic languages. Among the Semites, Ilu or El also appears as a proper name. Any uncertainty that El was the name of the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon was disposed of with the discovery of the Ugaritic texts. Il is the proper name, mostly appearing in ritual texts, pantheon lists and temple records. In the earliest Old Akkadian sources, the name appears as a divine proper name. The element Il, in Akkadian theophoric names, indicates that the god Il (later Semitic El) was the chief god of the pre-Sargon period of the Mesopotamian Semites. Composites of Amoritic El-names appear in Southern Arabia. The fact that we come across Il as proper name in the earliest strata of Eastern, Northern, Western and Southern Semitic languages, leads us to the conclusion that it also occurred in Proto-Semitic languages both as generic appellation and as proper name. Etymologically it means, in all probability, ‘to be strong’, ‘to be excellent’. Various epithets and attributes are associated with Il. He has authority in the divine assembly, although his character is more fitting to
a patriarch and judge than to a divine king. The name El appears seldom, if at all, in the Old Testament as the proper name for a non-Israelite, Canaanite god. The prophet Ezekiel (Ezk 28:2), describes the Canaanite El in excessive mythological terms, but applies the appellation elohim (plural), parallel with el. A series of designations, linked to the element el, for example El Elyon (God Almighty, the Exalted One), appears in the Genesis patriarchal narratives.Cross (1962:225-232) continued with the work of Albrecht Alt, published in 1929. In the patriarchal traditions in the Pentateuch, he observed that the god worshipped by the patriarch and his family could be identified by the patriarch’s name.
Thus we find examples like the god of Abraham or the bull of Jacob. Such a god, who was in a relationship with, or had a bond of convenience with the tribe, was not a local god, but the patron god of the tribe or social group. It was his responsibility to protect and guide the tribe. The characteristics of the cult of Yahweh were anticipated by the historical nature of this god’s activities, as well as the special alliance with the social group. These patron gods were not anonymous or without identity outside the confines of the tribe. They were high gods, identified with gods of the Canaanite or Amoritic pantheons by common attributes or cognate names. Worship of the high god El was also identified in the pre-Yahwistic patriarchal religion. According to the Genesis narratives, the gods of the ancestors were associated with the Canaanite El; characteristics of El made identification possible.
Cross (1962:225-259) furthermore indicates that a number of situations would be better understood by recognising that Yahweh originally was a cultic name for El; possibly also an epithet for El as patron god of the Midianites (or Kenites) in the South. With the radical differentiation of his cult in southern Canaan, Yahweh had separated from El, and El was eventually expelled from the assembly of gods. Ancient gods and forces are doomed to death (compare Ps 82). It can thus be deduced that Yahweh was originally an El-figure. Cross (1974:260) adds hereto that the extensive overlapping of attributes, epithets and names of Yahweh and El furthermore undoubtedly suggest that Yahweh originated from an El-figure. Yahweh separated from the old god El when the cult of Israel deviated from its polytheistic context. Prophetic scripts from the eighth century BCE contain numerous condemnations of Ba’al and the Ba’al-religion.
There are no such condemnations of El; on the contrary, his image as patriarch of the assembly of the gods is freely used. The name Yahweh originates as a hypocoristicon from a liturgical title of El, a well-known phenomenon in Amoritic and Canaanite divine names and epithets.Thus, recapitulating, the hypothesis denotes that, amongst the Semites, the epithet el or ilu appears as a proper name for God, as well as a proper name for a god. At times, in the early cult of Israel, the designation El was combined with Yahweh; in Biblical tradition, the name El is often alternated with Yahweh. The hypothesis, furthermore, suggests that, taking into consideration the overlapping of attributes, epithets and names of Yahweh and El, it is evident that Yahweh originated from an El-figure. According to the exponents of this hypothesis, it explains the continuation between God of the fathers, the Canaanite El, and Yahweh, the God of Israel. Yahweh separated from the old god El when the cult of Israel moved on from its polytheistic context.
a Attributes of relevant gods from Ancient Near Eastern pantheons that could be linked to the Israelite Yahweh and El
Extra-biblical evidence on similarities between the early Israelite culture and the Canaanite culture indicates that these two cultures in reality cannot be separated. Biblical terminology affirms that the Canaanite culture reached into the domain of the Israelite religion. Smith (1990:7-8) infers that El was the original God of Israel, as the name is not Yahwistic, but incorporates the theophoric element –’l.
Most scholars agree that the Canaanite Il was, if only for a period of time, leader of a pantheon of independent gods. The younger and more virile Ba’al, who appeared from elsewhere, displaced the older, inactive Il in the course of time (Handy 1994:69-70). A number of epithets are ascribed to Il, namely father and creator, sovereign Il, the ancient one, the eternal one, patriarch, eternal king, king-father of years, eternal father, ancient one of days, the loving one, the compassionate one, the merciful one, judge, warrior (Cross 1973:42-43). According to Ugaritic texts found at Ras Shamra, Il was also known as the Bull Il (Kapelrud 1962:804). Cross (1974:253) furthermore mentions that Il cannot be described as a god of the heavens, storm god, chthonic god or a grain god [fertility god]. The distinctive way he revealed himself, often in a dream, was either by way of a vision or an audition. This is in contrast with the theophany of a storm god whose voice was the thunder, who travelled on the clouds and let the mountains shudder with his wind and thunderbolts.
Ba’al, also known as Ba’al Hadad / Adad, was a Canaanite fertility god. His cult was widely spread throughout the Levant, manifesting differently in the various localities. Iconographically, Ba’al is portrayed with a club in his right hand above his head, and a thunderbolt in his left hand; on his head is a conical crown with two horns on the front side (Fulco 1987:31-32). His sphere of influence was thunderstorms and life-giving rain (Handy 1994:101-102). Seven different storm gods are presented on two Syrian inscriptions; this is in accordance with the Hebrew ba’lîm, the baals’ (Albright 1968:143).
Shemesh (Shamash) represented the Canaanite cult of the solar deity. Certain references in the Masoretic Text could, in all possibility, refer to a solar cult, for example, worshipping the host of heaven (sun, moon and planets, 2 Ki 21:3; 23:5), although such a cult, apparently, was not popular in Syro-Palestine during
the Iron Age (Lipinsky 1999:764-768). In the Assyro-Babilonian mythology, the astral triad embodied Sin, the moon god, in unison with his two children, Shamash (solar god) and Ishtar (the planet Venus) (Guirand 1996:57). The AssyroBabilonian god representing storm and fertile rains was Adad (Addu), depicted in the Akkadian structure as Hadad (Haddu). The name is also associated with the Arabian haddat, meaning ‘noise’, ‘thunder’. Adad was delineated by the signed IM (wind god). As a storm god, he was responsible for floods and disruptions (Frymer-Kensky 1987:26-27). Ra (or Re) in the Egyptian religion symbolises the creator and the sun as sovereign ruler of the sky (Guirand 1996:9-16).b Similarities and relationships between Yahweh and El
Scholars have decided on conceptions of El attributes, to substantiate their theory that Yahweh originated from an El-figure (see discussion in par 2a). To ascertain which characteristics of El pertain to Yahweh, passages from the books of Job, Psalms and the Prophets have been examined. The poetic passages of Job refer only to Elohim (or related forms) apart from two exceptions, namely Job 12:9 that mentions the hand of Yahweh, and Job 28:28 that declaims the fear of Yahweh. In this instance, El attributes, as such, are not relevant to Yahweh. In Psalms, there are references to Yahweh as Creator that resides in heaven, Sovereign, Yahweh the Host of heaven, and a few indications as Saviour, Judge, Protector, merciful and as Father. In some instances, the prophetic books name Yahweh as a Judge, Creator, Sovereign, and Father and as a Leader. There is no single reference to Yahweh as a bull. An exceptional incidence of Yahweh Sebaoth (Yahweh, Host of Heaven) appears in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah.c Similarities and relationships of Yahweh and Ancient Near Eastern storm gods
As from Job 38, an intriguing phenomenon occurred when Yahweh addressed Job out of the storm (Job 38:1). Yahweh is here indisputably equated to a storm god. He commands the hail, snow and rain, as well as thunderstorms and lightning; he is responsible for fertility and proliferation. Images of the sun, water and dawn (the sun) appear in these passages. In Job 38, as well as the following three chapters, Yahweh is portrayed with images of force and power. Cosmic images and representations from plant kingdom and animal kingdom are used to illustrate the omnipotence and greatness of Yahweh.
A remarkably large number of texts in the Psalms and the Prophets associate Yahweh with fire, flames, red-hot coals, smoke, thunder, lightning, clouds, waters, sea, waves, storm, wind, mountain and earthquake. These attributes are normally ascribed to storm gods of ancient pantheons.
d Critical evaluation of the hypothesis that Yahweh originated from an El-figure
Certain aspects of this hypothesis, as a reconstruction of the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism, have merits. A clear distinction is made in Exodus 6, between the
24 A plural form of majesty and intensity. The epithet Yahweh Sebaoth is not taken into consideration for the purpose of the comparison, as it seems that Proto Isaiah and Deutero Isaiah implemented the epithet with a specific regularity and with a specific intention.
25 The divine mountain Zaphon was the abode of Ba’al; El later took control of the mountain (De Moor 1997:151, 162). Although Yahweh’s involvement with ‘mountain’, ‘holy mountain’, and so forth could be categorised as an El attribute (the high gods dwell on the mountains), it has in this instance been classified as a storm god attribute. Descriptions of Yahweh’s being involved with a mountain, or mountains, more often brings to mind a storm god, rather than just a dwelling of God.592 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 religion of the patriarchs and that which existed from the time of Moses.
According to all indications in the Old Testament, the popularity of El increased in the South (Judah) in the course of time, compared to the popularity of Ba’al in the North. The essence of this hypothesis is based thereon that Yahweh was originally a cultic epithet for El, known as YHWH-Il. According to – inter alia – de Moor (1997:191), Yahweh was a manifestation of El, worshipped by the early Israelites. The epithets and attributes of this Yahweh overlapped with those of El.
Following the examination of a selection of texts to ascertain to what extent El attributes and/or Ba’al/storm god attributes have been allocated to YHWH, it is concluded that there is no reference to either Yahweh or El/Elohim as a bull.Texts with El attributes linked to Yahweh are mainly referring to Creator, Sovereign and Father. The majority of texts are those with storm god characteristics. It is apparent that the theophany of Yahweh is mostly connected with fire, smoke, thunder, lightning, storms, storm clouds, wind clouds and fierce waters. This observation, to a certain extent, supports de Moor’s (1997:39; 107-108) point of view that YHWH (according to him, YHWH-EL) adopted Ba’al attributes. Further, there is merit in Van der Toorn’s (1999:917) opinion that the identifying of YHWH with El should be critically examined. Considering the mainly storm god characteristics of Yahweh, it seems that El has been artificially linked with Yahweh.
D CONCLUSION
It transpires from the preceding research that there are several shortcomings in theories regarding the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism. In some instances, texts are not approached by scholars as a point of departure to put their theories to the test, but, on the contrary, have been arbitrarily utilised to substantiate a specific theory. It is unscientific to handle texts in this manner. To equate Yahweh and El,
is to disregard the numerous references in the Masoretic Text whereby Yahweh is depicted as a storm god. The complexity of the origin and history of the religion of the Israelites – in particular, Yahwism – with virtually no, or very little, verifiable evidence, makes it well nigh impossible to reconstruct the relevant historical events. Discrepancies in various hypotheses are an indication that accessible evidence is too meagre to render possible a solution to the quest for the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism.According to de Moor (1997:368-376), it was the belief of the ancient Canaanites that eminent people were united with the patron god after their death. An ancestor of one of the Proto-Israelite tribes would have procured the name Yahwi-Ilu in this way. Yahwi was a common Amoritic name and Ilu the divine addition. De Moor is of the opinion that the name YHWH has possibly been derived from Yahwi-Ilu.
Hi Adam,
If secular scholarship contradicts the Bible then
we have to reject secular scholarship.
Because the Bible is the Word of God.
The Hebrews didn’t develop their God to be the only God.
Over and over again Yahweh himself said that He is the only true God.
Believe Him or not.
It’s your decision.Hi Adam,
I hope you find your way out of your spirit of doubt and enjoy the whole Hebrew Bible including the NT. Two persons are both called YHVH in the NT as you admit, YHVH is the Great God. They are not separate gods, they are as One. One person does the will of the other. It’s beautiful. Perfect unity.
Best wishes, LU
I am sorry I have not mentioned any Trinity in my post but I have stated that our NT supports deviated ideas on God. For example 2 Cor 13:13
So you agree then that the New Testament does not teach that God is a Trinity?
So you agree then that the New Testament does not teach that God is a Trinity?
My answer is yes and no as there is much ambiguity in these writings as I quoted one example 2 Cor 13:13.
Ambiguity?
The verse you quote is clear that the Father is the one true God. Let’s take a look.
2 Corinthians 13:13
New Revised Standard VersionThe grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.
This passage teaches us that Jesus is Lord which we believe, and the Spirit gives us fellowship. Note, it says nothing about the Spirit being a third person. The remainder is God which at this point has to be the Father. If one is identified clearly as God, then why would you think this means all three are God?
The only reason this might seem ambiguous is you first have to be taught the Trinity. Then the verse looks different. It’s like the question, “how do you get vinegar from a sponge”?
“You first soak the sponge in vinegar” is the answer.
What other verses triggered you to say yes? We can address them one by one.
Let’s do an experiment. If the NT teaches that God is a Trinity, then let’s look at this verse again and replace the word ‘God’ for ‘Trinity’?
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.
Now apply the Trinity filter:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of The Trinity, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.
Now you have a union of up to 5 members. Or you have 3 members with two being mentioned twice. And the Father referenced indirectly once. See it doesn’t make any sense does it?
Let’s take a look at three other similar scriptures and in your mind, swap out ‘God’ for ‘The Trinity’ and watch each verse get completely ruined.
- Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.
To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
(The Trinity our Father?) - We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
(The Trinity is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ?)
Again, scripture is broken once you understand God as The Trinity.
Now let’s look at other potential trinities in scripture. One may ask, why not forge a doctrine around these triple persons. If it is good enough to apply such understanding to God, then why stop there?
- I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels
(Now angels are part of the union). - About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray.
(So Jesus took a trinity up into the mountain to pray?)
I finish with these wise words from Paul (which has already come to pass):
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Hi Proclaimer, thanks for your thoughtful responses on my post on Trinity.
Ambiguity?
The verse you quote is clear that the Father is the one true God. Let’s take a look.
2 Corinthians 13:13
New Revised Standard VersionThe grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.
This passage teaches us that Jesus is Lord which we believe, and the Spirit gives us fellowship. Note, it says nothing about the Spirit being a third person. The remainder is God which at this point has to be the Father. If one is identified clearly as God, then why would you think this means all three are God?
The only reason this might seem ambiguos is you first have to be taught the Trinity. Then the verse looks different. It’s like the question, “how do you get vinegar from a sponge”?
Yes there is no Trinity (God in three persons) in 2 Cor 13:13 but it talks about Christian doxology where in Jesus and Holy Spirit included along with God. The same logic applies to the other scriptures you quoted on God and Jesus.
Trinity was not formed in the NT writings but these ambiguous doxological statements caused the Church fathers to form the doctrine of Trinity to include Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.
Here are few more such verses which enabled them (Church fathers) to frame Trinity;
- Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
- John 14: 7 If you know me, you will know[d] my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
- John 14: 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,[g] to be with you forever. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.
- John 15: 26 “When the Advocate[h] comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
- John 16: 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate[a] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
If we see the above verses it is so clear that Jesus and the Spirit had been assigned the roles of divine activities apart from God(Father). This is some thing strange which is not found in the Hebrew Bible.
I am just quoting the Nicene creed here for our reference;
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come.Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
At best, we cannot say that Matthew 28:19 teaches a Trinity, but could certainly lead people in that direction if their hearts were wayward. However, this is one of these verses that are thought to have been added in. What we need to remember is that the Trinity Doctrine is the official creed of the Catholic Church which has wielded great power in history. So much so, that the Trinity is a mainstream doctrine to this day and is considered without question as being what the Bible teaches. Great fear falls on those who dare question it. As the saying goes, if you cannot test it, it is not science, rather propaganda. Translators will often bend a scripture toward the Trinity because of their faith in the Trinity Doctrine.
Here is some evidence that this verse like 1 John 5:7 was added in later and is not part of the original book of Matthew. The evidences for a possible alteration or addition is below:
Encyclopedia Britannia, the 11th edition vol 3, page 365-366
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost by the Catholic church in the second century.Encyclopedia Britannia, vol 3, page 82
“Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53
The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume2
Christian baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus”. page 377.The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church’s history.page 378
“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, in my name” … the latter form being the more frequent.page 380.
Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was used. page 389.
Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2, page 377,
Catholics acknowledge that baptism in Jesus’ name was changed by the Catholic church.Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435
The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88
It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus.The Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 states,
The early Church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the trinity doctrine in the 2nd Century.Whatever we may believe about the validity of Matthew 28:19 we must remember that the Apostles were taught and discipled by Jesus directly and they administered baptism in the name of Jesus, just as they did all things in the name of Jesus. In scripture we see no record of the Apostles baptizing or repeating the words ” In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost”. Not even one instance.
We know that the earliest Believers continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine (Acts 2 : 42) and we read in Acts 2:38:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Scholars will tell you that some errors have crept into the text as expected over the centuries, like spelling errors and worse. There have also been purposeful additions, but these are usually traceable given the different texts that are available including the Dead Sea Scrolls. It would be nearly impossible for a miscreant to alter scripture because they wouldn’t have access to all the texts. So comparing the different texts can show up errors. It does become easier to do mischief the further back you go though.
To summarize. There is not one example in scripture of anyone being baptized in that formula. Even if the verse is legit, it doesn’t teach the Trinity. Because the fact is, there is a Father, a Son, and there is the Spirit of God. The Trinity is not acknowledgement of this, it is the method in which these three are tied together as one God.
John 14: 7 If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
You really cannot get the Trinity from this verse. What you can get is this line of thought penned by Paul.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
or this:
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.
In other words, what a person who walks the true path sees here is that the Son is the likeness of God. He is the radiance of God’s glory. While each person is suppose to reflect a part of God, he reflects God in full. While God is invisible, the greatest revelation of God is his Son, the firstborn. This is the mystery of Christ and revealed to us in this time.
You know we even have father and sons in humanity. Our sons share 50% of our DNA. The Son being like the Father is not a hard concept for anyone to grasp. Reading a Trinity here would only happen if a person’s theology was wayward to begin with.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
