I suppose regarding the Tetragrammaton in English, it’s a bit different than in Hebrew, where people are used to seeing letters, but the vocalization is always context dependent. So even though a Jew might see the four consonants in a scroll or a Masoretic text with pointing, the vowels that come to mind are not those of the name itself, but those for the Hebrew word “Lord” (adonai). I think in English, and other languages that don’t operate on the basis of triliteral roots, vowels are much more important and more “integral,” for lack of a better word, to the word itself. So when we write out the Tetragrammaton with vowels, our natural response is not to isolate the root consonants and vocalize it a different way, but to go ahead and say the whole world.

It would have been just as easy for the Fathers of the Church to transliterate the Tetragrammaton and write that out in Greek/Latin/Slavonic/Georgian/(your ancient Scriptural language here). But they didn’t do that – they preserved an awe and dare I say holy silence on the divine Name itself, and continued the Jewish practice of substituting “Lord” for the divine name. So there is a difference, in fact, in inserting “Lord” for the divine name itself. This was the point I tried to make.

Thanks for your response! I’ll keep reading the blog avidly (and maybe contributing again at some point in the future, if the topic and my busy schedule permits).

In the risen Lord,
Fr Kilian

Thank you for your comments. I know how much of a devoted reader you are, and we always appreciate feedback, especially when it’s well thought-out and a valid critique. We publish many different types of articles on the blog: academic papers, memoirs, reflections, creative pieces and poetry. Perhaps in the future we need to be better about specifically identifying which genre each of our pieces falls into. In my mind, this article is clearly a creative and emotional retelling of a scriptural story, sort of a midrash if you will. We have a strong tradition in our Church for the creative retelling of scripture both patristically in commentaries but also liturgically in our hymns and in preaching.
You are correct of course in indentifying a place where the author is not precise. Indeed, scripture is clear that concerning Christ’s crucifixion “not a bone of His was to be broken.” Perhaps the author was appealing to the description of the suffering servant in Isaiah (Is. 52:14, 53:5) or perhaps she was trying to conjure a Eucharistic image in her readers (Take, eat, this is my body, broken for you…).
The author was, I believe, trying to emphasize the unique place of Mary Magdalene in John’s Gospel (hopefully not at the risk of displacing our Mother the Theotokos). In John’s gospel, there seems to be a very deliberate emphasis on Mary Magdalene and the curious reference to the Garden. Interestingly enough, from a scriptural perspective, the Theotokos and Eve are less clearly defined, I think, than Mary Magdalene, and this is what the author’s piece brings to light. Of course, both the story of Adam and Eve, and the power of the Theotokos’ actions are things we are meant to take personally and Mary Magdalene is a primary example of this at the tomb as her actions point back to the self-sacrifice and courage of the Mother of God, who enabled salvation for us all.
Forgive us, Father, if we have offended you by how we use the Lord’s name. I have specifically allowed certain versions and variations not because we use them in our tradition, but because they are so very strong in the American Christian environment. I had not previously considered that an English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton might cause offense to some. Of course, offense was not our intention. However, I do not see how writing out an English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton is analogous to writing the Tetragrammaton itself. Neither do I see how it is different from simply inserting “Lord” instead.

In Christ,
Andrew Boyd
Managing Editor

1. Christ’s Body, as the Scriptures teach and as the Psalms prophesied, was not broken – pierced, yes, but not broken.

2. I can appreciate the imaginative reflection on St. Mary Magdalene’s approaching the tomb, but to write: “No words of comfort for Mary. No effort to alleviate the obvious pain that she’s experiencing, so easily dismissed as a woman’s hysterics” seems to be reading way too much into the Apostle’s silence here. Who knows what or if the Apostles said anything to St Mary at that moment? But the absence of a statement in the Scriptural account does not mean we must interpret this to mean an “easy dismissal of a woman’s hysterics”.

3. The reversal of the curse of the Tree in Orthodox teaching and theology comes about through Mary the Mother of God, not St Mary Magdalene.

4. The same author (and this blog) have published entries before writing out the Divine Name (or Tetragrammaton). I for one am an uncomfortable reader of this; no where is this a part of our received Tradition. In the translations made from the Hebrew (where the Divine Name was written, but not pronounced as such) into Greek and Latin, we do not see the Divine Name, but it’s stand-in: “Dominus” and “Kyrios” – i.e., Lord. It would be preferable to use this term rather than writing the Divine Name out.

Your vivid detail brings to mind my own experience with an entire company of Georgian soldiers (and Fr. Alexander Webster) in a palace in Baghdad during Lent in 2007. How faithful they were – and how blessed we were to share the experience with them! For it has never been truer than when we find ourselves so far from home that we feel the presence of Him who sustains us:

“Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt 18:20).

God speed for your safe return.

Kissing your right hand,
Katherine Beauchamp
CWO5, USMC (Ret.)

Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster
Chaplain (Colonel), USAR (Ret.)

Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster
Chaplain (Colonel), USAR (Ret.)

I did enjoy your post being a peanuts fan this is a unique interpretation of it. When you watch the Thanksgiving special I wonder why Franklin is by himself away from the others during the Thanksgiving feast….