Under the above heading appeared an article in the March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. The article was written by George Howard, Associate Professor of Religion and Hebrew at the University of Georgia. His primary thesis is that the earliest Gospels, although written in Greek, used the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. (This is the technical term to describe the name “Yahweh”, so called because in basic, unvowelled Hebrew it consists of four consonants — best translated into English as “YHWH”).

According to Howard, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that Jewish scribes often distinguished the Divine Name by writing YHWH in ancient Hebrew script while the remainder of the verse was written in the more modern, or Aramaic-type script. (This is somewhat equivalent to our italicization of key words). Sometimes this differentiation was carried one step further, and four dots were substituted for the sacred name, it being felt, apparently, that “Yahweh” was so sacred that it should not even be written. We know also that conservative Jews adopted quite early the practice of not pronouncing “Yahweh” in Scripture reading or prayer, but saying “Adonai” instead. (As Christadelphians we are generally familiar with a similar practice in our devotions — though for a much different reason: many of us regularly substitute ‘spirit’ for ‘ghost’ and ‘ecclesia’ for ‘church’ in our reading of the King James version).

These traditional practices suggest that to Jews the personal name of God was a special word which required special treatment, both in writing and speaking.

The New Testament texts that have been available to modern Biblical scholars use the Greek word “Kyrios” (Lord) and occasionally, “Theos” (God) when quoting from the Old Testament in which YHWH appears. In this they agree with the practice adopted in the only available complete texts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Jews in pre-Christian times. However, a few scattered textual fragments of the Septuagint which have come to light during the last century have used not “Kyrios”, but the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew in an otherwise Greek text. This indicates that, at least in some instances, the ancient practice of a differentiated Tetragrammaton was carried forward into the Greek texts of Scripture.

These few fragments might have been dismissed as rare exceptions, were it not for the discoveries in the 1950’s of Old Testament scrolls in the Judean desert that almost certainly date to the first Christian century. In these Greek writings the name of God was written either in old-style Hebrew, or transliterated with the Greek letters IAO, which would have been pronounced “YAH”. With this added evidence we may now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during and after New Testament times to preserve “Yahweh” in Biblical texts. This presents a striking contrast with the later Christian copies of the Septuagint and the standard New Testament texts.

Howard postulates that the old Jewish custom of reserving God’s name in veiled symbols for the Tetragrammaton continued among the predominantly Jewish church in the first century. A famous rabbinical passage (Talmud Shabbat 13) from that period discusses the problem of destroying heretical texts (very probably containing books of Jewish Christians). The problem arises for the rabbinical writer because the heretical texts contain the divine name, and their wholesale destruction would include the destruction of that name also. This further suggests that the Jewish Christians did not translate the Divine Name into Greek, since a corrupted translation of the name would have posed no such problem to scrupulous Jews.

Further, the professor suggests that, as the wave of Gentile converts began to overwhelm the Jewish element in the ecclesias, this special treatment of God’s name began to decline. Gentile scribes who lacked familiarity with Hebrew writing could hardly be expected to preserve “Yahweh” (especially in its coded forms of archaic script or dots). Perhaps this contributed to the copyists’ use of substitutes like “Kyrios” and “Theos” as new manuscripts were created, and the Hebrew name gradually phased out in both the Septuagint and New Testament by the end of the first century. It is not difficult to imagine the next step, in which the understanding of the name as well was lost to a church drifting rapidly towards apostasy.

The effect of this loss was no doubt serious for the second-century church: even today we may experience certain difficulties in Scriptural interpretation due to the imprecise translation of the divine name. Examples abound:

“The LORD said unto my Lord” (Mat 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42) would be quite confusing were it not a direct citation from the Old Testament. By contrast, the early church may have read, “Yahweh said to my Lord” — clear and simple.

“Prepare the way of…” (Mark 1:3) Whom? Yahweh (as in Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1) or Jesus (as Mark 1:1 indicates)? Or perhaps both, in the sense that God manifested Himself through Christ? but who can definitely say? We possess no copy of Mark that uses the Tetragrammaton, therefore “Kyrios” is veiled in ambiguity.

“The one who boasts, let him boast in the Lord” (1Co 1:31). Whom, God or Christ?

These examples are sufficient to suggest (if Howard’s hypothesis is true) that the removal of “Yahweh” from the New Testament and its replacement with “Kyrios” blurred the original clear distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ. “Kyrios” thenceforth was pressed into double duty — as a standard title of Jesus “the Lord” and also as the New Testament equivalent of “Yahweh”. In many passages it is nothing but guesswork as to which one is meant. As time went on, those who had known Jesus in the flesh became fewer and fewer in the ecclesias, and superstition and ignorance made a natural resurgence. Thus these two figures, God and His Son, were brought into such close proximity that it became next to impossible to distinguish them. Therefore it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament contributed significantly to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the related obscuring of the doctrine of God-manifestation.

It is a fairly common Christadelphian practice in some ecclesias to substitute the Hebrew names of God — Yahweh, Elohim and so forth — for the extremely vague “Lord” and “God” of the Old Testament. This is useful enough, provided that the true meanings of the original names are known, but it may also contribute to the confusion of those not sufficiently grounded in the Truth. For this reason this practice should be followed discriminatingly.

In New Testament reading, however, the student who wishes to know and use the appropriate Divine Name must realize (again, given the above thesis) that uncertainties due to transcription exist. He must therefore examine the context of each passage before making an educated guess as to whether “Kyrios” means God or Jesus. And still he is faced with the unsettling conclusion that the Scripture message in its original clarity is, to some degree, hidden from him.

Who are the “nations/enemies round about”?

• Jos 23:1,2: All the Canaanites, and Moab, Ammon, and Edom.

• Jdg 2:14: Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Canaanites, Midianites, Amalekites, etc.

• 1Sa 10:1: Ammonites (1Sa 11); Philistines (1Sa 14); and Amalekites (1Sa 15).

• 2Sa 7:1: Zobah, Philistia, Moab, Syria, Edom, Ammon, Amalek (2Sa 8-10).

• 1Ki 4:31: Same as above. Also, Tyre and Ethiopia.

• 2Ki 17:15: Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria, and the Canaanites — whose abominable fertility rites Israel imitated.

• 1Ch 22:9: Same as 1Sa 10:1; 2Sa 7:1; and 1Ki 4:31 above.

• Neh 6:16: The Arabians, Ammonites, and Ashdodites (Philistines) (Neh 4:7).

• Jer 25:9: All the Arab peoples, including Egypt and the Medes (see the full list in Jer 25:19-25).

• Eze 5:4,15: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia (Eze 25), Tyre (Eze 26-28), Egypt (Eze 29,30), Assyria (Eze 31).

• Eze 36:4: See list above, but esp Edom (Eze 35).

• Joel 3:11,12: Specifically mentioned are Tyre, Zidon, and Palestine/Philistia (Joel 3:4); and Egypt and Edom (Joel 3:19).

• Oba 1:16: Edom esp (Oba 1:1), but all of Obadiah is similar to Jer 25 (see above).

• Zec 12:2,6: Specifically, Syria, Tyre and Zidon, and the Philistines (Zec 9); Egypt and Assyria (Zec 10); and Egypt and the Canaanites (Zec 14).

• Zec 14:14: Same general context as Zec 12 above.

In most of the above, the immediate context answers the question: “Who are the ‘nations round about’?” In a few instances, the answer comes from the wider context (ie, the section of a few chapters in which the passage is found).

When looking for a Last Days application, it makes sense to interpret the “nations round about” with reference to their proximity to Israel, which obviously is the point of reference of the prophets. Also, it makes sense to take those people who occupy those same geographical areas today as the logical successors of the peoples mentioned in the Bible. Such an interpretation harmonizes with a major Bible theme begun in Genesis: that God’s chosen seed (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of Israel) would be in almost perpetual conflict with those neighbors (and relatives!) nearest to them (Lot, Ishmael, Esau, etc) over the ownership of the special Land which God promised to them.

The practical implications for us? When studying Bible prophecy, look first to the Middle East, not to Europe. This may require, for some, a rethinking of their personal views on Last Days events. It would be wrong to reason: ‘The Arabs can’t be the intended peoples, because they don’t fit into my prophetic scenario.’ It may be the scenario itself that needs changing!

When the child-murderer Herod was dead, Joseph the foster-father of Jesus was visited in Egypt by an angel. The glorious messenger reassured him that it was now safe for the little family to return to Israel. And so they came and would have taken up residence in Judea, probably again in Bethlehem the city of Joseph’s royal ancestor. Had Joseph and Mary decided that Judea and Jerusalem would be the proper home for the “Son of the Highest”? Here he could converse with noted rabbis and attend the best traditional schools. Here he could celebrate all the feasts in the shadow of the Temple. Here he could have the “best” opportunities and meet the “best” people.

It was the common feeling of the Pharisees of Judea — among others — that Judea was the “holy place” while Galilee was at best the “court of the Gentiles” — an out-of-the-way, backward place of little consequence, only marginally related to the divine worship. It was simply “the wrong side of the tracks”. And so it must have been with some surprise that Joseph heard the divine command turning himself and his dependents toward Galilee.

“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene“ (Mat 2:23).

This is a passage of some difficulty, inasmuch as there is no such direct statement in any prophetic Scripture. But it is unlikely that Matthew would quote with authority any non-canonical source; so the answer must be there, in the pages of the Bible!

Let us note two comparatively minor points first of all: First, the stress on “which was spoken” (v 23) possibly suggests something not written, perhaps a well-known (at the time) oral prophecy given by Isaiah or some other prophet. (But we should expect that in the written word we will find at least a general confirmation of this theme of the “Nazarene” to explain why Matthew even mentioned it at all.) Secondly, “he shall be called…” is really a Hebrew idiom signifying “he shall be…” “Nazarene” was not to be the literal name of Jesus any more than was “Immanuel” (Isa 7:14), “Wonderful Counsellor” (Isa 9:6), or “Branch” (Jer 23:6). All these “names”, as a matter of fact, are to be understood as divine descriptions, each one telling us something more of the Messiah’s character.

Not a “Nazarite”

Now, as to the major points: A Nazarene is not a Nazarite! The two words are distinctly different in the Hebrew and the Greek. Also, Christ drank wine (Mat 11:19; Luke 7:34; John 2:1-11) and touched the dead (Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14). Holiness and separation he exemplified, certainly, but it was of a different and a higher order than that of the legal Nazarite.

A champion of the poor

The name “Nazareth” is from the Hebrew “netzer”, meaning primarily “to preserve or protect”. Certainly the child Jesus was providentially protected from the wrath of Herod first, and indeed from all harm later — until the appointed time for his deliverance into the hands of wicked men.

As a noun, “netzer” means a new plant, or sucker, which springs from an old root. The word is translated “branch” in Isa 11:1 — a branch sprung up from the old root of Jesse. (Jesse is mentioned here, and not David, since at the time of the birth of Jesus the once-prominent house of David had returned to relative obscurity and poverty, where it had been before David’s reign.)

In Isa 11 we read that this “netzer” was to receive the spirit of wisdom, that he might judge the poor and the meek of the earth (vv 2,4). He was in fact to be the champion of all the weak ones of creation, causing the lamb and the calf and the baby to dwell at peace among their natural predators (vv 6-8).’ Furthermore, this “netzer”, this root of Jesse, was to be the ensign or rallying standard for the Gentiles (!) and the outcasts (!) of Israel (vv 10,12). Apparently this fellow was not to be the product nor the friend of the “privileged class”, but instead a friend of the friendless, a defender of the defenseless! Certainly not much like the ordinary run of lords and kings’

Other Old Testament prophecies refer to Christ as the “branch” (this is the different, though practically equivalent, word “tsemach”), with much the same emphasis — as the Saviour of the weak and oppressed, for he had once been weak and oppressed himself:

Jer 23:5,6; 33:14-16: Here certain shepherds have persecuted and scattered the defenseless flocks, but the good shepherd named the “Branch” will gather the frail remnant and they shall fear no more.

Zec 3:8; 6:12: In these passages the priest Joshua, clothed with filthy garments, an object of ridicule and rejection, is typically cleansed and elevated — and given the prophetic name “My servant the Branch”.

“Despised and rejected”

Nazareth was a city of poor repute, a despised place. It was a proverb in Israel: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). For that matter, all of Galilee was a poor and dirty place in the eyes of the elite. It was a “dry ground” (Isa 53:2) from which no good “plant” could spring forth:

“Shall the Messiah come out of Galilee?… Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (John 7:41,42,52).

Solomon cared little for Galilee; he gladly gave away twenty cities thereof to Hiram of Tyre as wages. (Is this part of the reason for the common name “Galilee of the Gentiles”? — Isa 9:1,2.) Hiram promptly protested, naming them “Cabul”, or “dirty and displeasing” (1Ki 9:11-13). Apparently they were of little value to him, for we read in a parallel passage that he soon returned them to Solomon (2Ch 8:2). And so the despised cities of “Cabul” or “Galilee” became a fitting symbol of the despised son of Galilee, passed in chains from Jew to Gentile and back to Jew again. Truly he was a “Nazarene”!

Any Bible student will readily acknowledge this general theme of the Scriptures — the Messiah as a suffering servant, a man of sorrows, despised and rejected, the embodiment of all that the Jews saw in Nazareth and Galilee. Particularly is this evident in:

Psa 22:6,7: “A worm, and no man…”

Psa 69:7,8: “A stranger or alien to my brethren”

Isa 53:2,3: “A root (‘shoresh’) out of a dry ground…”

In the fullest and most meaningful sense, he was a “Nazarene”. And we can only bow in wonder at the great love and wisdom of the Father who provided for our salvation such a Son. Jesus came to the outcasts and the Samaritans. He came to the sinners, bent double with their burdens of sorrow. He came to the blind and the lame and the poor and the forgotten. And to each of them… and to us… he says,

‘I know you; you are my brethren. Have I not been an outcast, a minority? Have I not been a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief? Have I not been poor and despised and slandered, and forgotten in a tomb of stone? Come unto me, all you Nazarenes, you Galileans, and I will give you rest.’

And so it was best that God’s Son grow up in lowly, despised Nazareth, as the “son” of a poor carpenter, with the “shadow” of illegitimacy hanging over him. The scenes of his childhood were remembered by Jesus, and later incorporated into his teachings. They present a grim picture, of a family living on the hard edge of poverty — the mending of garments, the frantic search for one lost coin, the poor widow pleading with the Judge.

The little that we know of Jesus’ youth teaches us that no man need ever be ashamed of where he comes from, how he makes a living (if it’s honest!), what accent he speaks with, what he wears, or where he lives. Neither should he ever “glory” in such things!

“Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord” (Jer 9:23,24).

What if our Lord returned tonight? Would he find me still a Nazirite? Have I maintained the vows I vowed? Am I still his who set me free, Who poured his lifeblood out for me? Or do I belong to that milling crowd Who recognize in name alone The one who shares Jehovah’s throne?

As the Nazirite left his hair to grow, Have I endeavored to grow in strength? Am I stronger now than a year ago Through reading the word of God at length? Have I conquered the inward man at all? Or have I perhaps grown weak and small?

Have I put aside the worldly wine? Am I drunken with pride or worldly conceit? Am I falling into a sad decline? Or do I still kneel at the Master’s feet, Seeking his counsel in daily prayer, Finding my peace and wisdom there?

Have I left the company of the dead? Do I find my company with those who spurn The Lamb of God, the Heavenly bread, Whose only thought is the bread they earn? Am I bound in thought to those faithful few Who are holding fast to the pure and true?

Suppose I now were brought face to face With Jesus Christ, would I feel disgrace? What if our Lord returned tonight? Would he find me still a Nazirite?

(BAWO, Dawn May 1956)