To
find out more about the Hebraic-Roots Version New Testament, the first Messianic
translation translated not from the Greek manuscripts, but from the Hebrew and
Aramaic manuscripts, visit: http://www.nazarene.net/hrv
The Hebraic Roots Version
(which began as the Semitic New Testament Project) has been a ten year project
to produce a new and accurate translation of the New Testament taken primarily
from old Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
The HRV uses Messianic terminology.
Hebraic names are used. “Yeshua”
rather than “Jesus”; “Yochanan” rather than “John”; Ruach HaKodesh”
rather than “Holy Spirit”; “Talmidim” rather than “disciples” etc.
Also in many other cases theologically neutral terms have been used
“immerse” rather than “baptize”; “emissaries” rather than
“apostles” etc. Most NT
translations are made from the Greek text.
This has been true of every Messianic version of the NT to date.
The HRV is the first Messianic New Testament to be translated from
ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts rather than from the Greek.
This translation will seek to understand the text of the New Testament
from the languages in which it was originally written. This is important because
there are some passages in the NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but
only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Acts 11:27-30
And in these days prophets
came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and
showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all
THE WORLD, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the talmidim,
each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers
dwelling IN JUDEA. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of
Barnabas and Saul.
Now this doesn't make
sense at all, why would those in Antioch send relief to those dwelling IN JUDEA
if the famine was to strike all THE WORLD. They would be facing famine
themselves. The Jewish New
Testament translates the Greek word as "throughout the Roman Empire"
but this has the same problem, since Antioch and Judea were both in the Roman
Empire.
The solution lies in the
fact that the word for "WORLD" in the Aramaic manuscripts is ERA (Strong's
#772) the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word ERETZ (Strong's 776). This word can
mean "world" (as in Prov. 19:4) "earth"
(as in Dan. 2:35) or "land" (as in Dan. 9:15) and is often used as a
euphemism for "The Land of Israel" (as in Dan. 9:6). Certainly the
word here is not meant to mean "world" but "land of Israel."
Mt. 26:6 = Mk. 14:3
And when Y'shua was in
Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, (KJV)
As any Bible student
knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46).
Stern's JNT attempts to
fix the problem by translating:
Stern's JNT has: Yeshua
was in Beit-Anyah, at the home of Shim'on, the man who had had the repulsive
skin disease.
But in fact the Greek does
NOT say that Shim'on HAD BEEN a Leper. The
Greek calls him "Simon the Leper".
Since ancient Hebrew and
Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between the
Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper)and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in
this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar
merchant or jar maker and not a leper.
-Mt.
19:12 & Acts 8:26f ....there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs
for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake....--Mt. 19:12 NKJV
So he [Phillip] arose and
went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace
the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to
Jerusalem to worship.
--Acts
8:27 NKJV
In Mt. 19 Stern's JNT
translates the same Greek phrase for "eunuch" as "do not
marry"; "without desire"; "been
castrated" and "renounced marriage" to avoid this problem.
He translates the same Greek word as "eunuch" in Acts 8:27 just
as the KJV does.
The man in Acts 8:27
appears to be a proselyte to Judaism since he seems to be making the
Torah-required pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Dt. 16:16). The Torah, however, forbids
a eunuch both from becoming a proselyte Jew, and from worshiping at the Temple (Dt.
23:1f). This also raises the question of why one would become a eunuch (be
castrated) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. After all eunuchs are excluded
from the assembly of Israel. The
word for "eunuch" in the Aramaic manuscripts of both of these passages
is M'HAIMNA which can mean "eunuch" but can also mean
"believer" or "faithful one" as it clearly means here.
In Mt. 19 it appears as a sort of word play because it also refers to one
who is faithful in marriage.
Mt. 19:24 = Mk. 10:25 = Lk.
18:25
...it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom
of God.
Stern's JNT has
"...it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich
man to enter the Kingdom of God."
The word for
"camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which can mean
"camel" but can also refer to a "large rope," which is
certainly the meaning here.
Jn. 12:11 & 15:16
One word that the Greek
translators often misunderstood was the Aramaic word 'EZAL which normally means
"to go" or "to depart" but is used idiomatically in Aramaic
to mean that some action goes forward and that something progresses "more
and more".
One case where the Greek
translator misunderstood this word and translated to literally is in Jn. 12:11:
Because that by reason of
him many of the Jews went away (!?!?!?!?), and believed on Jesus. (KJV)
Stern's JNT has:
since it was because of
him that large numbers of the Judeans were leaving their leaders and putting
their trust in Yeshua.
Note that Stern adds the
phrase "their leaders" which does NOT appear in the Greek in an
attempt to force the Greek to make some kind of sense.
Now I have translated the
Aramaic of this passage as follows: because
many of the Judeans, on account of him, were trusting more and more ('EZAL) in
Yeshua.
And Jn. 15:16:
...that ye should go and bring forth fruit... KJV
...to go and bear fruit...
JNT
I have translated from the
Aramaic: ...that you also should
bear fruit more and more ('EZAL)
DuTillet
Matthew - The DuTillet version of Matthew is taken from a Hebrew manuscript
of Matthew which was confiscated from Jews in Rome in 1553. On August 12th,
1553, at the petition of Pietro, Cardinal Caraffa, the Inquisitor General, Pope
Julius III signed a decree banning the Talmud in Rome. The decree was executed
on September 9th (Rosh HaShanna) and anything that looked like the Talmud, that
is, anything written in Hebrew characters was confiscated as the Jewish homes
and synagogues were ravished. Jean DuTillet, Bishop of Brieu, France was
visiting Rome at the time. DuTillet was astounded to take notice of a Hebrew
manuscript of Matthew among the other Hebrew manuscripts. DuTillet acquired the
manuscript and returned to France, depositing it in the Biblioteque Nationale,
Paris. It remains there to this day as Hebrew ms. No. 132.
While most scholars have ignored the DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew,
two scholars, Hugh Schonfield and George Howard, have stated their opinion that
this Hebrew text underlies our current Greek text. Schonfield writes:
...certain
linguistic proofs... seem to show that the Hebrew text [DuTillet] underlies the
Greek, and that certain renderings
in the Greek may be due to a misread Hebrew original. (An Old Hebrew
Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927, p. 17)
Munster
Matthew - The Munster Hebrew Text of Matthew was published in 1537 by
Sebastian Munster. Munster claimed to have received his Hebrew text from the
Jews. Munster also noted that he received the text "in defective condition,
and with many lacunae (holes)" which he himself filled in. Unfortunately
Munster did not take steps to preserve his manuscript source which is now lost,
and he did not make note of those places where he filled in missing text.
Shem
Tob Matthew - The Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew was transcribed by Shem
Tob Ben Yitzach Ben Shaprut into his apologetic work Even Bohan sometime around
1380 C.E.. While the autograph of Shem Tob's Even Bohan has been lost, several
manuscripts dating between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries still exist,
complete with the transcribed text of Hebrew Matthew. George Howard writes of
Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew:
...an
old substratum to the Hebrew in Shem Tob is a prior composition, not a
translation. The old substratum, however, has been exposed to a series
of revisions so that the present text
of Shem-Tob represents the original only in an impure form.
(The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text;
1987;p.223)
It
might appear from the linguistic and sociological background to early
Christianity and the nature of some theological tendencies in Shem-Tob's
Matthew that the Hebrew text served as a model for the Greek. The present writer
is, in fact, inclined to that position.
(ibid p. 225)
Shem-Tob's
Matthew... does not preserve the original in a pure form. It reflects
contamination by Jewish scribes during the Middle Ages. Considerable
parts of the original, however, appear
to remain... (Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; 1995; p. 178)
The
Old Syriac Gospels Another relatively unknown fact to much of Christendom is
the existence of two ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the Four Gospels dating back
to the Fourth century. The first was discovered by Dr. William Cureton in 1842.
It was found in a monastery at the Naton Lakes Valley in Egypt. This manuscript
is known as Codex Syrus Curetonianus or, the Cureton and is catalogued as
British Museum Add. No. 14451. The second was discovered by Mrs. Agnes Smith
Lewis in 1892. It was found at St. Catherines Monastery at the foot of
traditional Mount Sinai in Egypt. This manuscript is known as Codex Syrus
Sinaiticus or the Syriac Siniatic and is catalogued as Ms. Sinai Syriac No. 30.
After making his profound discovery Dr. Cureton studied the Old Syriac text of
the manuscript in detail. Cureton concluded that at least the version of Matthew
found in the Old Syriac has its basis in the original Semitic text and was not
merely a translation from the Greek or Latin. Cureton published his findings to
the world saying:
...this
Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least to be built upon the original
Aramaic text which was the work of the Apostle himself.
(Remains
of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac;1858; p. vi)
The
Peshitta Bible is an Aramaic version of the Scriptures which is used throughout
the Near East. The birth of the Peshitta looms beyond the horizon of antiquity.
Although one tradition has the Tanak portion of the Peshitta being
translated at the time of Solomon at the request of Hiram, and another ascribes
the translation to a priest named Assa sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria.
More likely is that the Peshitta Tanak was prepared at the edict of King Izates
II of Abiabene who with his entire family converted to Judaism. Josephus records
that at his request, King Izates' five son's went to Jerusalem to study the
Jewish language and customs. It was probably at this time that the Peshitta
Tanak was born.
The New Testament portion of the Peshitta was added to the Peshitta Tanak in the
earliest Christian centuries. It is universally used by Jacobite Syrians;
Nestorian Assyrians and Roman Catholic Chaldeans. The Peshitta must predate the
Christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries, since none of these
groups would have adopted their rival's version. Thus, this version certainly
originated in the pre-Nicean Church of the East. It includes all of the books
except 2Peter; 2John; 3John; Jude and Revelation. These books were not canonized
by the Church of the East. The Peshitta is not merely a translation from the
Greek text, but rather a revision of the Old Syriac, as Arthur Voobus writes:
...the
Peshitta is not a translation, but a revision of an Old Syriac version.
(Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac;
1951; p. 46 see also pp. 54-55).
The
Crawford Aramaic version of Revelation is a very rare, little known version. How
the manuscript made its way to Europe is unknown. What is known is that the
manuscript was purchased by the Earl of Crawford around 1860. In the Earl of
Crawford's possession the ms. became catalogued Earl of Crawford's Haigh Hall,
Wigan, no. 11. It has since come into the possession of the well-known John
Rylands Library of Manchester, England. The manuscript contains a complete
Peshitta text supplemented by the extra-Peshitta epistles and this unique
version of Revelation. Concerning the variants of this version John Gwyn Writes:
Two
or three... are plausible readings; and might well be judged worthy of adoption
if there were any ground for supposing the Apocalypse to have been originally
written, or to be based on a document written, in an Aramaic idiom.
(The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown;
1897; p. lxxix)
And
to this we may add to show that there is ground for "supposing the
Apocalypse to have been originally written, or to be based on a document
written, in an Aramaic idiom.":
...the
Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language, and that the Greek
translation... is a remarkably close rendering of the original."
(C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church 1941; p. 160 )
We
come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse
as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic... RBY Scott; The
Original Language of the Apocalypse 1928; p. 6
When
we turn to the New Testament we find that there are reasons for suspecting
a Hebrew or Aramaic original for
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John
and for the apocalypse. Hugh
J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii
For
the DuTillet Hebrew text of Matthew I have used:
Des
Schentob ben Schaprut hebraeische des Evangeliums Matthaei nach den Druken des
S. Munster and J. DuTillet-Mercier; Adolf Herbst, 1879
Biblioteque
Nationale, Paris; Hebrew Manuscript No. 132 (on Microfilm)
For
the Munster Hebrew Text of Matthew I have used:
Torat HaMashiach: Evangelium se cundum Matthaeum in Lingua Hebraica;
Sebastian Munster; 1537
For
the Shem Tob Hebrew Text of Matthew I have used:
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; George Howard; Mercer University Press;
1995
For
the Old Syriac Aramaic text of the Four Gospels I have used:
Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac;
Dr. William Cureton; 1858
Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe; F. C. Burkitt; 1904
The
Old Syriac Gospels or Evangelion da-Mepharreshe; Agnes Smith Lewis; 1910
For
the Peshitta Aramaic text I have used:
(Eastern;
"Nestorian" texts) Codex
Khaboris (I was fortunate
enough to have direct access to the Codex
for about a year beginning in July of 1995; and since that time have
had access to photographs)
The
New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation; The Bible
Society in Israel; 1986 (Western "Jacobite" texts)
The
New Testament in Syriac; The British and Foreign Bible Society;
1950
Syriac
Bible; United Bible Societies; 1979
For
the Aramaic of Revelation I have used: The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac
Version Hitherto Unknown; John Gwynn. D.D..
D.C.L.; 1897
Just
as the manuscript order of the books of the Tanak (OT), (followed by Judaism)
does not agree with the ordering of the same books in the Christian "Old
Testament" as printed today, so also does the manuscript order of the NT
differ. The ancient
manuscript order of the books of the "New Testament" has first the
"Gospels" then "Acts" followed by the Jewish Epistles (Ya'akov
(James); 1 & 2 Kefa (Peter); 1, 2 & 3 Yochanan (John) and Y'hudah
(Jude)) followed by the Pauline epistles which are followed by Revelation.
This
original order was rearranged by Rome in the Latin Vulgate in which the Pauline
epistles were given first place and the Jewish epistles given second place.
This gave Romans a more prominent place in the NT as part of Rome's bid
for power. Thus Rome effectively
displaced and replaced the Jews by displacing the Jewish epistles and replacing
them with the Pauline Epistles beginning with "Romans".
Up
until the 4th Century all of the "Church Fathers" who list the NT
books do so by placing the Jewish Epistles (sometimes called the "Catholic
(Latin: Universal) Epistles") first, followed by the Pauline Epistles.
The ancient Aramaic manuscripts always follow this order as well.
This is because Rome had no legal authority over those in the Parthean
Empire outside its borders, where the Aramaic retained its position as the
original, standard text.
The
original manuscript order had an important significance. It agreed with the
precept that the message was to the Jews first and then to the Goyim (Gentiles).
It also agrees with the concept that Ya'akov, Kefa and Yochanan were emissaries
that come BEFORE Paul (Gal. 1:17) and with the concept that Kefa, Ya'akov and
Yochanan served as three pillars which lend authority upon which Paul's message
was built (Gal. 2:9) and not vice-versa. The reader of the NT was intended to
read the "Jewish" epistles FIRST and then to read the Pauline epistles
already having understood the Jewish epistles. The NT reader was intended to
read Ya'akov's (James') admonition concerning faith and works (Ya'akov 2) as
well as Kefa's warnings about Paul being difficult to understand and often
twisted (2Kefa 3:15-16) etc. before ever attempting to understand the writings
of Paul.
In
fact when Westcott and Hort published their critical edition of the Greek NT in
1881 they returned to the original order of the books saying in their
introduction:
…We
have followed recent editors in abandoning the Hieronymic order familiar in
modern Europe through the influence of the Latin Vulgate, in favour of the order
most highly recommended by various Greek authority of the fourth
century…(Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 320-321)
(obviously I do not agree that the Greek was the original)
So
the ancient Aramaic places the Jewish Epistles first, and the Ancient Greek
places the Jewish Epistles first and Rome actually rearranged the Scriptures to
place the Pauline Epistles beginning with Romans in front and pushed the Jewish
Epistles behind them when creating the Latin Vulgate which served as the Roman
Catholic Standard text. This Roman
Replacement Rearrangement became adopted by many Greek printed editions, the
King James Version, virtually all English versions which followed, and even all
Messianic Editions until the HRV. Even
the Jewish New Testament and Complete Jewish Bible (which restores the order of
the Tanak books) adopts Rome's replacement rearrangement of scrambled
Scriptures.
(The
HRV follows the ancient manuscript order (which agrees also with the order of
the ancient Aramaic manuscripts) in placing the "Jewish epistles"
immediately after Acts and placing the Pauline Epistles AFTER them.)
Books
appear in the original ancient manuscript order
This is another important feature which makes the HRV unique when compared to
other Messianic editions. Just
as the manuscript order of the books of the Tanak (OT), (followed by Judaism)
does not agree with the ordering of the same books in the Christian "Old
Testament" as printed today, so also does the manuscript order of the NT
differ. The ancient manuscript order of the books of the "New
Testament" has first the "Gospels" then "Acts" followed
by the Jewish Epistles (Ya’akov (James); 1 & 2 Kefa (Peter); 1, 2 & 3
Yochanan (John) and Y'hudah (Jude) followed by the Pauline epistles which are
followed by Revelation. This order was rearranged by Rome in the Latin Vulgate
in which the Pauline epistles were given first place and the Jewish epistles
given second place.
The
original manuscript order had an important significance. It agreed with the
precept that the message was to the Jews first and then to the Goyim (Gentiles).
It also agrees with the concept that Ya'akov, Kefa and Yochanan were emissaries
that come BEFORE Paul (Gal. 117) and with the concept that Kefa, Ya'akov and
Yochanan served as three pillars which lend authority upon which Paul's message
was built (Gal. 29) and not vice-versa. The reader of the NT was intended to
read the "Jewish" epistles FIRST and then to read the Pauline epistles
already having understood the Jewish epistles. The NT reader was intended to
read Ya'akov's (James') admonition concerning faith and works (Ya'akov 2) as
well as Kefa's warnings about Paul being difficult to understand and often
twisted (1Kefa 315-16) etc. before ever attempting to understand the writings of
Paul. The HRV follows the ancient manuscript order (which agrees also with the
order of the ancient Aramaic manuscripts) in placing the "Jewish
epistles" immediately after Acts and placing the Pauline Epistles AFTER
them.
Did
you know that some Greek manuscripts of Matthew contain column notes which offer
alternate readings from "the Jewish version"? The HRV includes these
column notes as footnotes. The
HRV also contains many footnotes pointing out ambiguous words which seem to have
been misunderstood by the Greek translator; words that seem to have been misread
by the Greek translator and wordplays and alliteration in the original Hebrew
and Aramaic. Also some
passages in which the HRV translation differs from the traditional translations
contain footnotes explaining why the passage should be translated as we have it.
Other footnotes demonstrate how the same Aramaic words have been used in
the Talmud. Finally for some
key passages of interest I have included the actual Hebrew or Aramaic text in a
footnote. This sum total of
over 1,600 footnotes will sharpen your understanding of the text.
Regardless
of where one stands on the controversial issue of when, if or how the Sacred
Name should actually be used, the issue of where it does or does not occur in
the NT is an important issue to Messianic Jews of all persuasions.
In his Jewish New Testament David Stern makes note that this is an
important issue. Stern writes:
In the New Testament the Greek word kurios is frequently ambiguous.
It can mean "sir", "lord" (as in "lord of the
manor"), "Lord" (with divine overtones), and "Y-H-V-H"
("Jehovah", God's personal name, for which Judaism substitutes the
word "Adonai" and many translations substitute "LORD"). Most
translations, by always rendering kurios "Lord", finesse the issue of
when it means "YHWH".) The
Jewish New Testament does not… translators should decide the true meaning
clearly, rather than transfer vagueness from one language to another. In several
places this approach brings into bold relief a key theological issue…namely,
whether the concept of Adonai can include Yeshua the Messiah and/or the Holy
Spirit. (JNT p. xxiv-xxv) ...the word "Adonai" is used in the B'rit
Hadashsah wherever I as the translator, believe "kurios" is the Greek
representation of the
tetragrammaton. (CJB p. xxxiv)
Stern
makes the important observation that the Greek NT uses Greek KURIOS to mean
either Hebrew ADONAI or Hebrew YHWH. Stern
also makes the important observation that distinguishing between these words in
the NT has an important impact on key theological issues.
Unfortunately by working from the Greek text Stern can only rely on his
opinion as to whether the ambiguous Greek word KURIOS is intended to mean ADONAI
or YHWH. Moreover Stern's
translation introduces confusion to the issue in that wherever Stern believes
KURIOS means ADONAI he translates it as "Lord" and wherever he
believes KURIOS means YHWH he translates it "Adonai".
In recent years, however it has become acceptable for Jewish versions to
transliterate the Sacred Name in Bible translations with YHVH or YHWH.
In fact the Jewish Fox translation of the Torah uses YHWH and does the
Original Bible Project Version which is widely advocated by Jewish authorities.
Certainly there is no reason therefore that a Messianic edition should
not do the same.
In
the past, sacred name versions of the New Testament have depended largely on
guesswork to determine where Greek KURIOS means YHWH and where it means ADON/ADONAI.
This is because as Stern stated, the Greek New Testament (at least as we have it
today) does not distinguish between the two, having Greek KURIOS for both YHWH
and ADON/ADONAI.
However
we know from both the Tosefta and Talmuds (ancient Jewish writings) that certain
New Testament manuscripts contained the name of YHWH in their text (t.Shab.
13:5; b.Shab. 116a; j.Shab. 15c).
Now
our Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts preserve for us knowledge of where KUIOS
in the Greek NT was YHWH and where it was ADON/ADONAI. The DuTillet
Hebrew manuscript of Matthew repeats the Hebrew letter YUD two or three times
encircled as to mark places where the name of YHWH should go. The Shem Tob
Hebrew version of Matthew has the Hebrew letter HEY standing alone (and in one
place the word HASHEM spelled out) to mark places where the name of YHWH
belongs. The Munster Hebrew text of Matthew actually contains the name of YHWH
spelled out where it belongs.
The
Old Syriac, Peshitta and Crawford
Aramaic manuscripts of NT books also distinguish between YHWH and ADON/ADONAI.
As a rule the Aramaic Peshitta Tanak (Old Testament) renders EL/ELOAH/ELOHIM
with ALAHA; ADONAI/ADON with MAR and YHWH with MARYA.
For Example: Psalm 110:1a
Hebrew: ADANAI said to my ADON…
Psalm 110:1a Aramaic: MARYA said to my MAR…
This
pattern continues through the Aramaic NT as well.
These Aramaic manuscripts have Aramaic
MARYA for YHWH and Aramaic MAR (or MARI or MARAN) for ADON/ADONAI.
We have objective manuscript evidence to support placement of the sacred
name into the NT text, the era of guesswork is over.
The
Hebraic Roots Version is the first "Sacred Name" NT to use such
objective manuscript evidence to place the sacred name to the New Testament.
Wherever
the Sacred Name is indicated the HRV has YHWH.
Wherever ADONAI is indicated the HRV has ADONAI.
Wherever ADON is indicated the HRV had "Master".
Wherever EL is indicated the HRV has EL.
Wherever ELOAH is indicated (or where the Aramaic has ALAHA) the HRV has
ELOAH. Wherever ELOHIM is indicated
the HRV has ELOHIM.
The
major Messianic editions of the NT have not included the sacred name. However
even in some rabbinic circles it has become accepted and helpful to include the
sacred name translated with the four consonants YHWH or YHVW (for example the
Fox translation). Moreover the majority of NT versions (Messianic or otherwise)
which have included the Sacred name have done so only by way of guesswork. since
the Greek NT does not distinguish "Lord" from "YHWH".
However the HRV includes the sacred name throughout the NT based on real
manuscript evidence found in the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts which
distinguish ADONAI/Lord from YHWH.
We
know from both the Tosefta and Talmuds (ancient Jewish writings) that certain
(Hebrew and Aramaic?) New Testament manuscripts contained the name of YHWH in
their text (t.Shab. 13:5; b.Shab. 116a; j.Shab. 15c). Now our Hebrew and Aramaic
manuscripts preserve for us knowledge of where "Lord" in the NT was
YHWH and where it was ADON/ADONAI.
The
DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew repeats the Hebrew letter YUD two or three
times in a circle so as to mark places where the name of YHWH should go. The
Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew has the Hebrew letter HEY standing alone (and
in one place the word HASHEM spelled out) to mark places where the name of YHWH
belongs. The Munster Hebrew text of Matthew actually contains the name off YHWH
spelled out where it belongs. The Old Syriac, Peshitta and Crawford Aramaic
manuscripts of NT books also distinguish between YHWH and ADON/ADONAI. These
Aramaic manuscripts have Aramaic MARYA for YHWH and Aramaic MAR (or MARI or
MARAN) for ADON/ADONAI. Now we have objective manuscript evidence to support
placement of the sacred name into the NT text, the era of guesswork is over.
The
Middle East, through all of its political turmoil, has in
fact been dominated by a single master from the earliest ages until the
present day. The Semitic tongue has
dominated the Middle East from ancient times, until the modern day.
Aramaic dominated the three great Empires, Assyrian, Babylonian, and
Persian. It endured until the
seventh century, when under the Islamic nation it was displaced by a cognate
Semitic language, Arabic. Even
today some few Syrians, Assyrians and Chaldeans speak Aramaic as their
native tongue, including three villages north of Damascus .
The
Jewish people, through all of their persecutions, sufferings and wanderings have
never lost sight of their Semitic
heritage,
nor their Semitic tongue. Hebrew, a
Semitic tongue closely related to Aramaic, served as their language until the
great
dispersion
when a cognate language, Aramaic, began to replace it.
Hebrew, however continued to be used for religious literature, and is
today the spoken language in Israel.
Some
scholars have proposed that the Jews lost their Hebrew language, replacing it
with Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity.
The error of this position becomes obvious.
The Jewish people had spent 400 years in captivity in Egypt
yet they did not stop speaking Hebrew and begin speaking Egyptian, why
should they exchange Hebrew for Aramaic after only seventy years
in Babylonian captivity? Upon
return from the Babylonian captivity it was realized that a small minority could
not speak "the language of Judah"
so drastic measures were taken to abolish these marriages and maintain
the purity of the Jewish people and language
One final evidence rests in the fact that the post-captivity books
(Zech., Hag., Mal., Neh., Ezra, and Ester)
are written in Hebrew rather than Aramaic.
Some
scholars have also suggested that under the Helene Empire Jews lost their
Semitic language and in their rush to
hellenize,
began speaking Greek. The books of
the Maccabees do record an attempt by Antiochus Epiphanies to forcibly Hellenize
the
Jewish
people. In response, the Jews
formed an army led by Judas Maccabee
This army defeated the Greeks and eradicated Hellenism .
This military victory is still celebrated today as Chanukkah, the feast
of the dedication of the Temple a
holiday that even Yeshua seems to have observed at the Temple at Jerusalem in
the first century . Those who claim
that the Jews were Hellenized and began speaking Greek at this time seem to deny
the historical fact of the Maccabean success.
During
the first century, Hebrew remained the language of the Jews living in Judah and
to a lesser extent in Galilee. Aramaic
remained a secondary language and the language of commerce.
Jews at this time did not speak Greek, in fact one tradition had it that
it was better to feed ones children swine than to teach them the Greek language.
It was only with the permission of authorities that a young official
could learn Greek, and then, solely for the purpose of political discourse on
the National level. The Greek
language was completely inaccessible and undesirable to the vast majority of
Jews in Israel in the 1st century.70a Any gauge of Greek language outside of
Israel cannot, nor can any evidence hundreds of years removed from the 1st
century, alter the fact that the Jews of Israel in the 1st century did not know
Greek.
The
first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the
fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews.
Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of
his place and time. Josephus gives
us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.
According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to
the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2) .
Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his
people during his time:
I
have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning
of
the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek
language
although I have so long accustomed myself to speak
our
own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with
sufficient
exactness: for our nation does not encourage those
that
learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2)
Thus,
Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or
understand Greek, but spoke "their own language."
Confirmation
of Josephus's claims has been found by Archaeologists.
The Bar Kokhba coins are one example.
These coins were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.).
All of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions.
Countless other inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount,
Masada and various Jewish tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions
Even
more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language during the first
century may be found in ancient Documents from about
that time, which have been discovered in Israel.
These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters.
The
Dead Sea Scrolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more than 500 scrolls
dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses
Scrolls are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic.
A large number of the "secular scrolls" (those which are not
Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew.
The
Bar Kokhba letters are letters between Simon Bar Kokhba and his army, written
during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These letters were discovered by Yigdale
Yadin in 1961 and are almost all written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Two of the letters are written in Greek, both were written by men with
Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One of
the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar Kokhba in Greek,
saying "the letter is written in Greek, as we have no one who knows Hebrew
here."
The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters not only include first and second
century Hebrew documents, but give an even more significant evidence in the
dialect of that Hebrew.
The
dialect of these documents was not the Biblical Hebrew of the Tenach (Old
Testament), nor was it the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Mishna (c. 220 C.E.).
The Hebrew of these documents is colloquial, it is a fluid living
language in a state of flux somewhere in the evolutionary process from Biblical
to Mishnaic Hebrew. Moreover, the
Hebrew of the Bar Kokhba letters
represents Galilean Hebrew (Bar Kokhba was a Galilean) , while the Dead Sea
Scrolls give us an example of Judean Hebrew.
Comparing the documents shows a living distinction of geographic dialect
as well, a sure sign that Hebrew was not a dead language.
Final
evidence that first century Jews conversed in Hebrew and Aramaic can be found in
other documents of the period, and even later.
These include: the Roll Concerning Fasts
in Aramaic (66-70 C.E.), The
Letter of Gamaliel in Aramaic (c.
30 - 110 C.E.), Wars of the Jews by
Josephus in Hebrew (c. 75 C.E.), the Mishna
in Hebrew (c. 220 C.E.) and the Gemara
in Aramaic (c. 500 C.E.)
Having
thus demonstrated that Hebrew and Aramaic were languages of Jews living in
Israel in the first century, we shall now go on to demonstrate that the New
Testament was first written in these languages.
Although Stern uses the UBS Greek New Testament text and NOT the Hebrew
and Aramaic manuscripts as the source for his Jewish New Testament version
(Which also appears in THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE) (JNT p. xxii; CJB p. xxxi) he
also admits:
“Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that several books of the
New Testament either were written
in Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon source materials in those languages; this
case has been made by one scholar or another for all four Gospels, Acts,
Revelation and several of the General Letters.... In fact, some phrases in the
New Testament manuscripts make sense unless one reaches through the Greek to the
underlying Hebrew expressions. “
(David
Stern; Complete Jewish Bible p. xxxi) (an almost identical statement appears in
JNT p. xvii)
(It
should be noted that Stern also indicates his belief, with which I do not agree,
that the Pauline Epistles were composed in Greek).
Stern
is absolutely correct in the above statement.
A number of noted scholars have argued that at least portions of the New
Testament were originally penned in a Semitic tongue.
The following is just some of what these scholars have written on the
topic:
When
we turn to the New Testament we find that there are reasons for suspecting a
Hebrew or Aramaic original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and for the
apocalypse. - Hugh J. Schonfield;
An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii
The
material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian, and the language in which it
was originally written is Aramaic, then the principle language of the land...
-C. C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936 p. ix
The
pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was Charles Cutler
Torrey (1863-1956),... His work however fell short of completeness; as a
pioneering effort, in the nature of the case, some of his work has to be revised
and supplemented. His main
contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct...
The
translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made from a written record,
including the Fourth Gospel. The
language was Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed, most strikingly
through a comparison of parallel passages...
One
group [of scholars], which originated in the nineteenth century and persists to
the present day [1979], contends that the Gospels were written in Greek...
Another
group of scholars, among them C. C. Torrey ... comes out flatly with the
proposition that the Four Gospels... including Acts up to 15:35 are translated
directly from Aramaic and from a written Aramaic text....
My
own researches have led me to consider Torrey's position valid and convincing
that the Gospels as a whole were translated from Aramaic into Greek. - Frank
Zimmerman; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels; KTAV; 1979
Thus
it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle the question of the original
language of the Fourth Gospel; and quickly convincing himself that the theory of
an original Aramaic document was no
chimera, but a fact which was capable of the fullest verification...-Charles Fox
Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel; 1922; p. 3
..this
[Old Syriac] Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least to be built upon the
original Aramaic text which was the
work of the Apostle himself. - William Cureton; Remains of a Very Ancient
Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac; 1858; p. vi)
...the
Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language, and that the Greek
translation... is a remarkably close rendering of the original." - C. C.
Torrey; Documents of the Primitive
Church 1941; p. 160
We
come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse as a whole is a
translation from Hebrew or
Aramaic...
-
R. B. Y. Scott; The Original
Language of the Apocalypse 1928; p. 6
The
question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular interest to us.
This is because the common wisdom has been to portray Luke as a Greek
speaking, Greek writing Gentile who wrote his account to the Gentiles.
The reality of the matter is (whether Luke himself knew Greek or not)
that Luke was most certainly written in a Semitic language.
as Charles Cutler Torrey states:
In
regard to Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the Four Gospels it is the one
which gives by far the plainest and most constant evidence of being a
translation. -C.C. Torrey; Our
Translated Gospels p. lix
All
of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to the Semitic
origin of at least the Book of Matthew, as the following quotes demonstrate:
Papias
(150-170 C.E.) Matthew composed the
words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.
(quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39)
Ireneus
(170 C.E.) Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own
dialect. (Irenaeus; Against
Heresies 3:1)
Origen
(c. 210 C.E.) The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that
was once a tax collector, but
afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the
Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)
Eusebius
(c. 315 C.E.) Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when
on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his
native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his
writings. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist.
3:24)
Pantaenus...
penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the Gospel
according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some
who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as
it is said, had proclaimed, and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew
letters.
(Eusebius;
Eccl. Hist. 5:10)
Epiphanius
(370 C.E.) They [the Nazarenes]
have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel
is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew
letters. (Epiphanius; Panarion
29:9:4)
Jerome
(382 C.E.) “Matthew, who is also
Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all
evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language
and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at
Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.
I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian
city of Borea to copy it. In which
is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the testimonies
of
the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators
[the Greek Septuagint], but that of the Hebrew." (Lives of Illustrious Men
3)
"Pantaenus
found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries, had there [India] preached
the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew,
which was written in Hebrew
letters, and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him."
(De Vir. 3:36)
Isho'dad
(850 C.E.) His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and
everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew…(Isho'dad
Commentary on the Gospels)
Other
"church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one
of Paul's epistles. These
"church fathers" claim that Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was
translated into Greek from a Hebrew original,
as the following quotes demonstrate:
Clement
of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.) In
the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he [Clement of
Alexandria] has given us abridged
accounts of all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the
Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated
by
Luke, and published among the Greeks. (Clement
of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by
Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2)
Eusebius
(315 C.E.) For as Paul had
addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the
evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle. (Eusebius; Eccl.
Hist. 3:38:2-3)
Jerome
(382) “He (Paul) being a
Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things
which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into
Greek (Lives of Illustrious Men,
Book 5)
It
should be noted that these church fathers did not always agree that the other
books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew.
Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Matthew put the setting
forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament in the Hebrew
language and letters." (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3)
Epiphanius does, however, tell us that the Jewish believers would
disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of John and Acts
in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius, Israel. (Epipnanius;
Pan. 30:3, 6) Epiphanius believed
these versions to be mere "translations" (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6,
12) but admitted that the Jewish believers would disagree with him.
The truth in this matter is clear, if Greek had replaced Hebrew as the
language of Jews as early as the first century, then why would fourth century
Jews have any need for Hebrew translations.
The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these books in fourth century
Israel testifies to their originality, not to mention the fact that the Jewish
believers regarded them as authentic.
In
addition to the statements made by the early Christian church fathers, the
ancient Jewish Rabbis also hint of a Hebrew original for the Gospels.
Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and the Tosefta relate a debate
among Rabbinic Jews over the method of destruction of manuscripts of New
Testament books (t.Shab. 13:5; b.Shab. 116a; j.Shab. 15c) .
Specifically mentioned is a book called by them as
ALEF-VAV-NUN-GIMEL-LAMED-YUD-VAV-NUN (see end note) (or
"Gospels"). The question
which arose was how to handle the destruction of these manuscripts since they
contained the actual name of God. It
is of course, well known that the Greek New Testament manuscripts do not contain
the Name but use the Greek titles "God" and "Lord" as
substitutes. This is because the
Name is not traditionally translated into other languages, but instead is
(unfortunately) translated "Lord", just as we have it in most English
Bibles today, and just as we find in our late manuscripts of the Septuagint.
The manuscripts these Rabbi's were discussing must have represented the
original Hebrew text from which the Greek was translated.
ENDNOTE
- (b.Shab. 116a) The word ALEF-VAV-NUN-GIMEL-LAMED-YUD-VAV-NUN is part of the
title of the Old Syriac manuscripts, and is also used in some passages of the
Peshitta (such as Mk. 1:1) and may be a loan word from the Greek word for
"Gospel" and in Hebrew
and in Aramaic may mean "a powerful scroll."
The exact same spelling is used both in the Talmud, the Old Syriac and
the Peshitta.
That
the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was originally written in Hebrew and
Aramaic is further verified by the history of the early believers in Yeshua as
the Messiah. The first believers in
Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes".
Sometime later the first Gentile believers in Yeshua
called
"Christians" appeared .
This first congregation of Gentile Christians formed in Antioch, the
capital of Syria, where some of the people spoke Greek and almost all spoke
Aramaic, which is also called "Syriac".
Then in 70 C.E., there was a mass exodus of the Nazarenes from their
center at Jerusalem to Pella. Eventually,
they established communities in Beroea, Decapolis, Bashanitis and Perea.
These Nazarenes used Hebrew Scriptures
and in the fourth century Jerome traveled to Borea to copy their Hebrew
Matthew. As a result, while
at least the book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, very early on Aramaic
and Greek New Testament books were needed.
In
addition to these factors we must also consider the Eastern spread of
Christianity. We have heard much
about the so called "Westward spread of Christianity" but little is
written of the equally profound Eastward movement. While Paul made missionary
journeys from his headquarters in Antioch Syria, into the Western world, most of
the emissaries (apostles) traveled eastward.
Bartholomew traveled eastward through Assyria into Armenia, then back
down through Assyria, Babylon, Parthia (Persia) and down into India where he was
flayed alive with knives. Thaddeus taught in Edessa (a city of northern Syria)
Assyria and Persia, dying a martyr by arrows either in Persia or at Ararat.
Thomas taught in Parthia, Persia and India.
He was martyred with a spear at Mt. St. Thomas near Madras in India. To
this very day a group of Christians in India are called "St. Thomas
Christians. Finally Kefa (Peter)
traveled to Babylon and even wrote
one of his letters from there. That
the emissaries brought Semitic New Testament Scriptures eastward with them is
affirmed to us by the Church fathers. Eusebius
writes:
Pantaenus...
penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the Gospel
according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who
had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew one of the emissaries, as it
is said, had preached, and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters.
And
as Jerome writes: …Pantaenus
found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries, had there [in India]
preached the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of
Matthew,
which was written in Hebrew letters...
This
entire region of the Near East stretching from Israel through Syria, Assyria,
Babylon, Persia (Parthia) and down into India, became known as the "Church
of the East." At its high
point the Church of the East stretched as far east as China!
By the fifth and sixth Centuries Christological debates had split the
Church of the East into two major factions, Nestorians and Jacobites.
Today, the Church of the East has been split into even more groups:
Nestorians , Jacobites , Chaldean Roman Catholics, and Maronites.
All of whom continue to use an Aramaic New Testament text.
When
the Roman Catholic Portuguese invaded India in 1498 they encountered over a
hundred churches belonging to the St. Thomas Christians along the coast of
Malabar. These St. Thomas
Christians, according to tradition, had been there since the first century.
They had married clergymen, did not adore images or pray to or through
saints, nor did they believe in purgatory.
Most importantly they maintained use of the Aramaic New Testament which
they claimed had been in use at Antioch.
Now
while many of the emissaries were spreading the Messianic movement eastward,
Paul was taking the movement into the Western world.
From his headquarters at Antioch, the capitol of Syria, Paul conducted
several missionary journeys into Europe. At
this time there came a need for Greek versions of New Testament books.
As
time progressed several events occurred which resulted in a great rise of
anti-Semitism in the West. This
began when the Jews revolted against the Roman Empire in 70 C.E.
A second revolt by Jews in Egypt occurred in 116 C.E..
Things were further complicated by the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 C.E.. In
the Roman Empire anti-Semitism became very popular, and even patriotic.
In the West, Gentile Christianity sought to distance itself from Judaism
and Jewish customs. The Greek text
began to be favored over the Semitic text and many Semitic writings were
subsequently destroyed.
By
325 C.E. anti-Semitism and the priority given in the West to the Greek
Scriptures had solidified. Constantine
invaded Rome, making himself emperor. Constantine
proclaimed Christianity to be the Catholic (universal) religion, thus making
Christianity the enforced state religion of the Roman Empire.
Before this occurred one could be killed for being a Christian,
afterwards one could be killed for not being a "Christian."
Constantine, who was an anti-Semite, called the council of Nicea in 325
C.E. to standardize Christianity. Jews
were excluded from the meeting. Jewish
practices were officially banned and the Greek translations officially replaced
the original Semitic Scriptures.
Having
alienated the Jewish Nazarenes in 325 at the Council of Nicea, subsequent
councils alienated the Assyrians and Syrians over Christological debates.
The Nestorian Assyrians were alienated in 431 C.E. at the Council of
Ephesus while the Jacobite Syrians were alienated in 451 C.E. at the Council of
Chalcedon. The division between the
Semitic peoples of the Near East, and the Roman Catholic Church grew ever
steeper.
With
the rise of Islam in the Near East the Near Eastern Christians were even further
separated from their European counterparts in the West.
Relations between the Christian West and the Islamic Near East were
non-existent.
As
time progressed, in the West the Roman Catholic Church began to suppress the
Scriptures in Europe. Those who
would try to make the Scriptures available to the common man were often burned
alive. Such suppression was
impossible in the Near East, where the Scriptures were already in Aramaic, the
common language of the people. When
the Protestant reformation emerged, claiming the Greek New Testament as the
original, it was a time when most Europeans were not even aware that an Aramaic
version existed.
In
was in this atmosphere, in 1516 that the first printed edition of the Greek New
Testament was published in Europe. This
edition, published by Erasmus, would become known as the Textus Receptus, and
serve as the standard Greek text until the 19th Century.
The first edition of this work was based solely on six manuscripts, while
later editions used only ten. None of these manuscripts were complete, and only
one was even particularly old, dating to the tenth century. Since none of his
manuscripts were complete, Erasmus was forced to invent many of his Greek
portions of Revelation by translating from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.
It was this poor edition which served as the evidence by which the West
would embrace the Greek as the original. This
edition would later serve as the basis for the King James Version.
It
has long been recognized that the New Testament is written in very poor Greek
grammar, but very good Semitic grammar. Many
sentences are inverted with a verb > noun format characteristic of
Semitic languages. Furthermore,
there are several occurrences of the redundant "and".
A number of scholars have shown in detail the Semitic grammar imbedded in
the Greek New Testament books. (For example: Our Translated Gospels By Charles
Cutler Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church by Charles Cutler Torrey; An
Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; The Aramaic Origin of
the Fourth Gospel by Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels
by Frank Zimmerman and Semitisms of the Book of Acts by Max Wilcox).
In
addition to the evidence for Semitic grammar imbedded in the Greek New
Testament, the fact that serious grammatical errors are found in the Greek New
Testament books may be added. Speaking
of the Greek of Revelation, Charles Cutler Torrey states that it "...swarms
with major offenses against Greek grammar."
He calls it "linguistic anarchy", and says, "The
grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and
especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of
literature." Torrey
gives ten examples listed below:
1.
Rev. 1:4 "Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to
come" (all nom. case)
2.
Rev. 1:15 "His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gender dative case) as
in a furnace purified" (Fem. gender sing. no., gen. case)
3.
Rev. 11:3 "My witness (nom.)
shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth."
4.
Rev. 14:14 "I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a Son of Man (accus.)
having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown."
5.
Rev. 14:19 "He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the
winepress (fem), the great [winepress] (mas.) of the wrath of God”
6.
Rev. 17:4 "A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean
things" (accus.)
7.
Rev. 19:20 "The lake of blazing (fem.) fire (neut.).
8.
Rev. 20:2 "And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.) who is
the Devil and Satan, and bound him."
9.
Rev. 21:9 "Seven angels holding seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the
seven last plagues."
10.
Rev. 22:5 "They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight
(accus.)."
(Documents
of the Primitive Church; Charles Cutler Torey; Harper and Bothers, New York;
1941; p. 156-158)
In
addition to grammatical errors in the Greek New Testament, there are also a
number of "blunders" in the text which prove that the present Greek
text is not inerrant. One of the
mistakes in the Greek New Testament may be found in Matthew 23:35 where
Zechariah the son of Jehoidai (2Chron. 24:20-21; b.San. 96; j.Ta'anit 69)
mistakenly appears as Zechariah the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1).
This error was not to be found in the ancient Hebrew copy which Jerome
held. Jerome writes of Hebrew
Matthew: "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, for 'Son of Barachias' I
find 'of Joiada' written" (Jerome; Com on Mt. 23:35)
Another
mistake in the Greek New Testament is to be found in Matthew 27:9 which quotes
Zech. 11:12-13 but falsely credits the quote to Jeremiah .
The Shem Tob Hebrew correctly attributes the quote to Zechariah, while
the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Peshitta) simply attribute the quote to "the
prophet."
Yet
another apparent mistake in the Greek text of the New Testament is the name
"Cainan" in Luke 3:36. In
this passage the name appears but not in the corresponding Masoretic genealogies
in Gen. 10:24; 11:12 and 1Chron. 1:18, 24. (The name does appear in the LXX in
Gen. 11:12 but not in the other passages where it would appear if it were a true
reading) The Old Syriac does not contain this reading, but reads
"Elam" a name which appears in the Masoretic genealogy of Gen. 10:22
and 1Chron. 1:17 as a brother, who apparently is inserted into this family line
based on Deut. 25:5-6.
In
Mk. 2:26 the Greek NT wrongly informs us that "Abitar" was High Priest
at the time King David was given the show bread.
In fact Ahimelech the father of Abitar was High Priest at the time (1Sam.
21:1; 22:20). However the Aramaic
Old Syriac reading of Mk. 2:26 does not contain this error.
One
of the more compelling evidences for the Semitic New Testament may be found in
the genealogy of Yeshua as given in Matthew 1.
There is a well known mistake in the Greek text of this passage.
While the text itself claims to give three lists of fourteen names (Mt.
1:17), the Greek text contains only 13 names in the last list:
1.
Abraham
2.
Isaac
3.
Jacob
4.
Judas
5.
Phares
6.
Esrom
7.
Aram
8.
Aminadab
9.
Naasson
10.
Salmon
11.
Boaz
12.
Obed
13.
Jesse
14.
David
1.
Solomon
2.
Roboam
3.
Abia
4.
Asa
5.
Jehosaphat
6.
Joram
7.
Ozias
8.
Joatham
9.
Achaz
10.
Ezekias
11.
Manases
12
Amon
13.
Josias
14.
Jehonias (carrying away to Babylon)
1.
Salathiel
2.
Zorobabel
3.
Abiud
4.
Eliakim
5.
Azur
6.
Sadoc
7.
Achim
8.
Eliud
9.
Eleazar
10.
Matthan
11.
Jacob
12.
Joseph
13.
Yeshua/Jesus
Now
the DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew contains the missing Name "Abner"
which occurs between Abiud and Eliakim in the DuTillet Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13.
In Hebrew and Aramaic "d" and "r" look very much
alike and are often misread for each other.
In this case a scribe must have looked back up to his source manuscript
and picked back up with the wrong name, thus omitting "Abner" from the
list. The Greek text must have come
from a Hebrew or Aramaic copy which lacked the name "Abner."
There is amazingly clear evidence for this.
The Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew was lost from the fourth
century until its rediscovery in the 19th century. This ancient Aramaic text has
"Aviur" where the Greek has "Aviud" thus catching the error
in a sort of "freeze frame" and demonstrating the reliability of the
reading in the Hebrew.
Another
evidence for a Semitic background for the New Testament is the abundance of
Semitic idiomatic expressions in the New Testament text.
Idiomatic expressions are phrases whose literal meanings are nonsense,
but which have special meanings in a particular language.
For example, the English phrase "in a pickle" has nothing to do
with pickles, but means to be in trouble. When
translated into Aramaic it is meaningless.
Several
Semitic idiomatic expressions appear in the New Testament, the following are
only a few:
•
"good eye" meaning "generous" and "bad eye"
meaning "stingy" (Mt.6:22-23; 20:15; Lk. 11:34)
•
"bind" meaning "prohibit" and "loose" meaning
"permit" (Mt. 16:19; 18:18)
•
"destroy the Law" meaning to teach a precept of the Law incorrectly,
and "fulfill [the Law]" meaning to teach its precepts correctly (Mt.
5:17).
•
Use of the word "word" to mean "matter" or "thing"
(1Cor. 12:8)
•
Use of the word "Heaven" as a euphemism for "God"
(Mt.
5:3; 21:25, Lk. 15:18; Jn. 3:27)
•
Idiomatic use of the word "face" (Lk. 9:51-52)
•
The phrase "cast out your name as evil" (Lk. 6:22) is a poor
translation of "cast out your evil name" meaning to defame someone.
•
"Lay these sayings in your ears" (Lk. 9:44)
means to listen carefully.
The
common wisdom of textual origins has always been that the Pauline Epistles were
first written in Greek. This
position is held by many, despite the fact that two "church fathers"
admitted the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's Epistles and one (Jerome)
admits to the Semitic origin of most, if not all, of Paul's Epistles .
Still, Paul is generally seen as a Hellenist Jew from Tarsus who
Hellenized the Gospel. So strong
has this image of Paul been instilled in Western scholarship that even those who
have argued for a Semitic origin for significant portions of the New Testament
have rarely ventured to challenge the Greek origin of the Pauline Epistles.
For
example David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament/Complete Jewish Bible (which is
translated from the Greek), admits that "there is good reason to think that
several of the books of the New Testament either were written in Hebrew or
Aramaic, or drew upon source materials in those languages..." (CJB p. xxxi)
but he then goes on to say "Sha'ul (Paul) whose letters were composed in
Greek, clearly drew on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought-forms when he
wrote." (ibid).
In
this and future chapters, I intend to show that Paul did in fact draw on his
native Jewish and Hebraic though forms, including his native languages of Hebrew
and Aramaic and that he did NOT write in Greek.
Now
we have already quoted some Church Fathers as indicating that Paul wrote at
least some of his material in Hebrew or Aramaic.
In this chapter , I intend to reinforce that point and open the door for
the internal evidence for a Hebraic-Aramaic for the entire NT (including Paul's
Letters) which will be presented in future chapters.
In
addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first examine the
background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a
Greek speaking city? Would Paul
have learned Greek there? Tarsus
probably began as a Hittite city-state. Around
850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the great Assyrian Empire.
When the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire around
605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that Empire as well.
Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including Tarsus, was
incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic
was the chief language of all three of these great Empires.
By the first century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus.
Coins struck at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic
inscriptions on them.
Regardless
of the language of Tarsus, there is also great question as to if Paul was
actually brought up in Tarsus or just incidentally born there.
The key text in question is Acts 22:3: “I
am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, but brought up in this city
at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our father's
Torah and was zealous toward God as you all are today.”
Paul
sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his being "brought
up" in Jerusalem. Much
argument has been given by scholars to this term "brought up" as it
appears here. Some have argued that
it refers only to Paul's adolescent years.
A key, however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat
parallel passage in Acts 7:20-23: “At
this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was brought up in
his father's house for three
months. And when he was set out,
Pharaoh's daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son.
And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians...”
Note
the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic = ityiled);
"brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic = itrabi);
"learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di).
Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the
language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and then
taught. Paul's entire context is
that his being raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was
merely born at Tarsus.
The
claim that Paul was a Hellenistic is also a misunderstanding that should be
dealt with. As we have already
seen, Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken.
Whatever Hellenistic influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to
have left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in
Jerusalem. Paul describes himself
as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil.
3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1).
It is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in
the first century. The term Hebrew
was not used as a genealogical term, but as a cultural/linguistic term.
An example of this can be found in Acts 6:1 were a dispute arises between
the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenistic."
Most scholars agree that the "Hellenistic" here are Hellenist
Jews. No evangelistic efforts had
yet been made toward non-Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10).
In Acts 6:1 a clear contrast is made between Hellenists and Hebrews which
are clearly non-Hellenists. Hellenists
were not called Hebrews, a term reserved for non-Hellenist Jews.
When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew" he is claiming to be a
non-Hellenist, and when he calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is
claiming to be strongly non-Hellenist. This
would explain why Paul disputed against the Hellenists and why they attempted to
kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus (Acts 9:30).
If there was no non-Hellenist Jewish population in Tarsus, this would
have been a very bad move.
Paul's
Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt that he was in any way a
Hellenist. Paul claimed to be a
"Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee"
(Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a second generation Pharisee.
The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek mss. have "Pharisee the son
of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic expression meaning a third generation
Pharisee. If Paul were a second or
third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept that he had been
raised up as a Hellenist. Pharisees
were staunchly opposed to Hellenism. Paul's
claim to be a second or third generation Pharisee is further amplified by his
claim to have been a student of
Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel was
the grandson of Hillel and the head of the school of Hillel.
He was so well respected that the Mishna states that upon his death
"the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and modesty died."
The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under Gamliel is witnessed by
Paul's constant use of Hillelian Hermeneutics.
Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first rule of Hillel.
It is an unlikely proposition that a Hellenist would have studied under
Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center of Pharisaic Judaism.
Paul's
audience is another element which must be considered when tracing the origins of
his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were
addressed to various congregations in the Diaspora.
These congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and
a complimentary group of Gentiles. The
Thessalonian congregation was just such an assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the
Corinthians . It is known that
Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish
Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England.
If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Hebrew or Aramaic to a core group of Jews
at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile
counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's phrase "to
the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom.
1:16; 2:9-10). It would also shed
more light on the passage which Paul writes:
What
advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every
way! To them first, were committed the Words of God. - Rom. 3:1-2
It
is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities
to which he wrote. Certainly no one
would argue for a Latin original of Romans.
One
final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of Paul's Epistles, is
their intended purpose. It appears
that Paul intended the purpose of his Epistles to be:
1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27)
2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37)
All
Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and Aramaic Paul
would not have written material which he intended to be read in the
congregations in any other language. Moreover
all religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal) authority,
were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul
could not have expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the
authority he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Another
factor which should be considered in determining the origin of the Pauline
Epistles is the Semitic style of the text.
This Semitic style can be seen through Paul's use of Semitic poetry,
Semitic idioms, Hillelian hermeneutics and Semitic terms.
These factors neutralize the claim that Paul was a Hellenist writing in
Greek with Hellenistic ideas and style. Paul's
use of Semitic poetry also points to a Semitic background for his epistles.
The following are just a few examples of Paul's use of the Semitic poetic
device known as parallelism:
Behold,
you are called a Jew, and rest in the Law and make your boast in God, and know
his will and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of
the Law and are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind a light of
them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish a teacher of babes
which has the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law
You
therefore which teach another, teach
you not yourself? You that proclaim a man should not steal, do you steal? You
that say a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?
You that abhor idols, do you commit blasphemy?
You that makes your boast of the Law, through breaking the Law, dishonor
you God?
(Rom. 2:17-23)
Now
there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences
of administrations, but the same Lord. And
there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which works all in
all. (1Cor. 12:4-6)
Though
I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I have become
as sounding brass, or a tinkling
cymbal.
And
though I have prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and
though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not love, I am
nothing.
And
though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be
burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing. (1Cor. 13:1-3)
Be
you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has
righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion has light with darkness? and what concord has Messiah
with B'lial? or what part has he that believes with an infidel? and what
agreement has the Temple of God with idols? (2Cor. 6:14-16a)
Finally,
my brothers, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of
God that you may be able to stand against the whiles of the devil.
For
we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.
Therefore,
take unto you the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the
evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand
therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the
breastplate of righteousness; And
your feet shod with the preparation of the goodnews of peace;
Above
all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith you shall be able to quench all the
fiery darts of the wicked.
And
take up the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word
of God. (Eph. 6:10-17)
Paul
clearly writes using Semitic idiomatic expressions. Paul uses the term
"word" to refer to some matter or thing (1Cor. 12:8)
Paul also uses the Semitic form of magnification by following a noun with
its plural form. This is used in
the Teach (Old Testament) in such terms as "Holy of Holies."
Paul uses this idiom in such phrases as "Hebrew of Hebrews"
(Phil. 3:5); "King of
kings" and "Lord of lords" (1Tim. 6:15).
Paul was born in Tarsus, an Aramaic speaking city, and raised up in Jerusalem as a staunch non-Hellenist. He wrote his Epistles to core groups of Jews at various congregations in the Diaspora to hold doctrinal authority and to be used as liturgy. There can be little doubt that he wrote these Epistles in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were later translated into Greek.