- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Due to recent discussions, I though it wise to create a discussion to find out the original language of the New Testament (NT). This might help clear up issues regarding Greek language uses for the word God and even Jesus/Yeshua's name.
There are some who say that the Hebrew is the pure language and that Greek influence and language amounts to changing truth for idolatory and Hebrew for Greek thinking.
E.g., Some say that Jesus is not the true name of the son of God, as 'Jesus' is a Greek word. They say it was Yeshua his Hebrew name. Some even say that the word 'Jesus' comes from the term 'the Zues', a greek god.
We know our English translations came from Greek, but were they written in Aramaic before that? If so, it appears that there are no copies left. The oldest known copies of the NT are in Greek. But of course they are not the original copies.
In the end I am not even sure that this can be proven historically, but perhaps scripture itself gives us the answer. I will write down some possible clues from scripture in my next post. At this stage I am nuetral regarding the answer.
The following points seem to suggest that Greek was the original language of the NT books or at least some of the books.
Mark 5:41
“And taking hold of the child's hand, He said to her, 'Talithe koum,' which is, being translated,
'Little girl, I say to you, rise up!'”If these are the original words of Mark, then it is clear that he was writing in Greek (or another language besides Aramaic) because he found it necessary to translate the Aramaic so his reader could understand.
Acts 26:14
We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'Paul says he heard Christ's speak in Aramaic. Would that even be written if Acts itself was written in Aramaic?
Also consider the book of the Revelation which was written “to the seven churches which are in Asia.” All seven churches are in Greek cities. The Roman province of Asia is today's Turkey. Before the Romans controlled that area, Greek people had lived there for centuries. John received and likely wrote the Revelation while in exile on an island just off the coast of Asia. The people to whom John wrote were Greek. There is no reason why John would have written in any language other than Greek, or is there?
Furthermore, John wrote Jesus' words, “I am Alpha and Omega.” That is Greek is it not? Or was it in reference to the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet originally?
Could Jesus speak Greek while on earth? He certainly lived and ministered in a multilingual culture. This fact is easily seen from the sign Pilate posted on the cross. It was in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic.
The 27 canonical books of the Christian Scriptures were written in the common Greek of the day. However, the book of Matthew was apparently written first in Biblical Hebrew, to serve the Jewish people. The fourth-century Bible translator Jerome states this, saying that it was later translated into Greek. Matthew himself probably made this translation—having been a Roman civil servant, a tax collector, he without doubt knew Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.—Mark 2:14-17.
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote:
“Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III)The other Christian Bible writers, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, all wrote their documents in Koine, the common, living language that was understood by the Christians and most other people of the first century.
Is there anything that proves otherwise?
david
(this text was taken from wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy)
Mistranslations are rather self-explainatory. Where the Greek of the New Testament is awkward in places, Aramaic Primacists suggest that it stems from a botched translation from an Aramaic word.
An example from the Epistle to the Romans is Romans 5:7. The Greek translated to English reads: “For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.” It is suggested that, in the Aramaic, the word “wicked” is used instead of the word “righteous” (which are spelt similarly), again bringing symmetry with the following verse. Further, the difference between the words “wicked” and “righteous” in Aramaic is only one almost identically shaped letter, leaving the implication that a translator from Aramaic to Greek could have simply misread the word.
Polysemy (“Split Words”)
“Split Words” are a distinctive subsection of mistranslations. Sometimes it appears that a word in Aramaic with two (or more) distinct and different meanings appears to have been translated in the wrong sense, or even translated both ways in different Greek sources.Perhaps the most well known is the translation from Greek: “camel through the eye of a needle.” In Aramaic, the word used for “camel” would be extremely similar to that for a certain type of “rope”, suggesting that the correct phrase was “rope through the eye of a needle.” making the hyperbole more symmetrical.
i notice a spelling mistake, so i will change “explainatory” to explanatory. the public can make changes to the encyclopedia.
Listen, IF you people really think that The Evangels were originally written in ” Greek “, you better do some more deep research.
Such as Prof. George Howard, the University og GA.and also a Booklet by
“” Assemblies of Yahweh “” Elder Jacob O Meyer called “” THE MEMORIAL NAME YAHWEH””and other Articles, the articles are free of charge.
http://www.assembliesofyahweh.com
http://hometown.aol.com/jerrheal/index.html
http://www.paleotimes.org/There ARE TOO MANY quotes from the Hebrew texts( arround 300) in the N.T. writings from thee original Hebrew scriptures, the Romans destroyed everything that resembled Hebrew writings during their crusades.
David, you should KNOW about “” Prof. George Howard “” because he is mentioned in several JWs Articles, and I have those articles too.
Yes, I recognize the name from some quotes.
But without me searching through those websites, why do we know that they were written in Hebrew originally?In his Historia Ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History), the fourth-century historian Eusebius quotes Papias and Irenaeus of the second century and Origen of the third, all of whom ascribe this Gospel to Matthew and say that he wrote it in Hebrew.
George Howard, professor of religion at the University of Georgia wrote concerning the belief that this was really Aramaic:
“This supposition was due primarily to the belief that Hebrew in the days of Jesus was no longer in use in Palestine but had been replaced by Aramaic. The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which are Hebrew compositions, as well as of other Hebrew documents from Palestine from the general time period of Jesus, now show Hebrew to have been alive and well in the first century.”
Evidently, Matthew wrote his Gospel to benefit Hebrew Christians but may also have translated it into common Greek.In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write [tetragramaton] within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.
In the quote above, George Howard seems to state that the gospels were written in Greek, him calling them the “Greek Scriptures.”
david.
How can we know for certain Elijah?
David, George Howard was talking also about the first copies of the LXX.
“”
Quote The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which are Hebrew compositions, as well as of other Hebrew documents from Palestine from the general time period of Jesus, now show Hebrew to have been alive and well in the first century.” We also KNOW that some of the Desciples used the LXX as well.
Now how do we know that for certain?
Compare Stephen's words as is quoted from the first century LXX of ( Acts 7:14) of “” 75 souls “” as compared to the Massoretic texts of ( Exod.1:5) of “” 70 “” souls.
Also, in Prof. George Howards 1975 review he remarks “” there are many Hebraisms phrases used in the writings of the Desciples for there not to be an underlining Hebrew original””.
Most all the Scholars agree that there was an original Hebrew text based upon to many Hebrew phrases that were quoted from.
Eliyah C.
Here's an interesting question and one that will help Elijah's case.
When the Greek Septuagint (Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament) was written in Greek, was the divine name kept in Hebrew?I actually think it was.
Yes it was David and you very well know this, that the name YHWH= (Yah for short) was in the LXX in the first century B.C.E. of ( Deut.32:3,6), but the name was replaced and substituted later 3-5th century by the abbreviated form title of “” Kyrios “” in ( Deut.32:3,6).
And IF my photo memory serves me correct, you will also find this and a picture in the APPENDIX Page 1562 of the N.W.T., which absolutely proves what I've pointed out on here concerning substitution of pagan titles in place of YHWH'S Name in other cultures languages.
That is WHY I said before, that even the N.W.T. will back me up concerning this.
· Jesus Christ compared a rich man’s difficulty in getting into the Kingdom with a camel that is trying to get through a needle’s eye. Did Jesus have in mind a literal camel and a real sewing needle?
Two of the three Scriptural quotations of this statement are quite similar. According to Matthew’s account, Jesus said: “It is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24) Similarly, Mark 10:25 reads: “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Some reference works suggest that the “needle’s eye” was a small gate in one of Jerusalem’s large gates. If the big gate was closed at night, the small one could be opened. It is held that a camel could fit through it. Is this what Jesus had in mind?
Evidently it is not. Jesus apparently was referring to a sewing needle. Since both bone and metal needles of ancient origin have been found in that region, they must have been common household items. Luke 18:25 removes any uncertainty about Jesus’ words, for it quotes him as saying: “It is easier, in fact, for a camel to get through the eye of a sewing needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.”
Various lexicographers agree with the rendering “sewing needle” as found in the New World Translation. The Greek word for ‘needle’ at Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25 (rha·phis´) is drawn from a verb meaning “sew.” And the Greek term found at Luke 18:25 (be·lo´ne) is used to refer to a literal surgical needle. Says Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: “The idea of applying ‘the needle’s eye’ to small gates seems to be a modern one; there is no ancient trace of it. The Lord’s object in the statement is to express human impossibility and there is no need to endeavour to soften the difficulty by taking the needle to mean anything more than the ordinary instrument.”—1981, Volume 3, page 106.
SOME SUGGEST THAT IN THESE VERES “camel” should be rendered “rope.” The Greek words for rope (ka´mi·los) and camel (ka´me·los) are similar. However, the Greek word for “camel” rather than the one for “rope” appears at Matthew 19:24 in the oldest extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel (the Sinaitic, the Vatican No. 1209, and the Alexandrine). Reportedly, Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and may personally have translated it into Greek. He knew exactly what Jesus said and therefore used the proper word.
So, then, Jesus meant a literal sewing needle and a real camel. He was using these to emphasize the impossibility of something. But did Jesus mean that no rich man could ever get into the Kingdom? No, for Jesus’ statement was not meant to be taken literally. He was using hyperbole to illustrate that just as a literal camel cannot go through the eye of an actual sewing needle, it is impossible for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom if he continues to cling to his riches and does not put Jehovah first in his life.—Luke 13:24; 1 Timothy 6:17-19.
Jesus made this statement just after a rich young ruler turned down the grand privilege of becoming Jesus’ follower. (Luke 18:18-24) A wealthy individual having greater love for his possessions than for spiritual things cannot expect to gain everlasting life in the Kingdom arrangement. Yet, certain rich people did become Jesus’ disciples. (Matthew 27:57; Luke 19:2, 9) So a rich person who is conscious of his spiritual need and who seeks divine help can receive God-given salvation.—Matthew 5:3; 19:16-26.
Yes, I never discovered this ability untill I was in my High School years, as I never knew what caused me to never forget much of anything.
This anoys my wife somtimes, and it can be to me too, when I see something or read something, I never forget it, and I can bring every memory of my childhood
back UP in my mind, much like clicking on 2 different window screens on our computers.It has downfalls too tho., as I can NEVER forget BAD things that I see, once I have seen then, I soon learned TO NEVER WATCH HORROR MOVIES ON A TV SET, and I hate tv sets period.
My wife can get annoyed if I remind her of something from 5 years ago, which she has forgotten about.
David, I married a Canadian from Ontario, her and I have been together for almost 6 years now.
I love her so, I don't know how I ever got along without her before.
David, I'm not asking people to speak all Hebrew, just learn the correct original Hebrew Titles and YHWH'S correct Name that was ONLY given in Hebrew by Moses in original scriptures.
To Eliyah, david, Brandonike, and you,
Thanks Brandonike for the link to the Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia and Open Source are very cool. It is amazing how things can spring up out of nowhere in little time and rival the hard work of commercial wealthy companies. Just goes to show that there is power in unity or when people work together. Microsoft has found that out first hand with Linux for example.
Anyway I read the Wikipedia article and it seems that people have their opinions about the original language of the NT, but it seems that the opinions regarding an Aramaic version are speculative.
I quote the following in that article found under the heading “Counter Arguments”
Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek. They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from oral Aramaic, but hold that the Gospels' text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings. It is especially interesting to note in the Gospel of Mark the format of Jesus' teaching in Greek with scattered, but only occasional, Aramaic expresssions transliterated and then translated. Most scholars also acknowledge that early Christian writers like Papias and Irenaeus reported that the Gospel of Matthew (and the related non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews) were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. However, even this is doubted in part with an argument that the literary quality of the Greek of these books indicates that the Greek would be the original. This argument extends to the other books where the Church Fathers accepted Greek as the original without debate. The Greek New Testament's general agreement with the Septuagint is also counted as evidence by Greek Primacists. However, the Aramaic texts of the New Testament reference Aramaic versions of the Old Testament.
If indeed the above is true, it doesn't demonstrate what words they used for the English word God, to describe Yahweh.
If we are all to call God by the Hebrew title 'El', or 'Elohim', then what proof do we have that the NT was writen that way? It appears that we have no proof, only speculation.
Surely if scripture says in certain part(s) a quote in Aramaic, is that not consistent with quoting from the Old Testament or a quote that was originally spoken in Aramaic. If the NT itself were in Aramaic to start with, then you wouldn't bother to say he said “yarda yarda” in Aramaic, for example.
It would be like me saying at the end of this post, Nick said in English “Yarda Yarda”. You would wonder why I said that, if the Forums are in English to start with would you not?
I am of course open minded and fully understand that God speaks through the most unlikely vessels sometimes in order for the proud to ignore them. I try to remain open lest I close the wrong door. But unless I get some concrete proof, how am I to know that it is wrong to say the word God, if there is no proof for such a reasoning, just speculation and opinion.
Greetings T8,
You wrote “”
Quote If we are all to call G-d by the Hebrew title 'El', or 'Elohim', then what proof do we have that the NT was writen that way? It appears that we have no proof, only speculation. We do have proof of it T8, because it was written in the earliest copies of the LXX, but the Name was gradually substituted for greek titles from the second through the fifth century.
Here below is written an Article by the “” Watchtower “”( Jws) which also proves my point concerning Yah's true Name in early manuscripts, and the substitution of “” titles “” in later manuscripts.
It also mentions a quote from Prof. George Howard University of GA. concerning the N.T. written of Hebrew.
Please notice my Par. of ( Notice thee above, E.C.) in quotations.
Quote THE DIVINE NAME . THE position of God's name is unshakable in the Hebrew Scriptures, the “Old Testament.” Although the Jews eventually stopped pronouncing it, their religious beliefs prevented them from removing the name when they made copies of older manuscripts of the Bible. Hence, the Hebrew Scriptures contain God's name more often than any other name.
With the Christian Greek Scriptures, the “New Testament,” the situation is different. Manuscripts of the book of Revelation (the last book of the Bible) have God's name in its abbreviated form, “Jah,” (in the word “Hallelujah”). But apart from that, no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God's name in full. Does that mean that the name should not be there? That would be surprising in view of the fact that Jesus' followers recognized the importance of God's name, and Jesus taught us to pray for God's name to be sanctified. So what happened?
To understand this, remember that the manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures that we possess today are not the originals. The actual books written by Matthew, Luke and the other Bible writers were well used and quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made of those copies. This is what we would expect, since the copies were usually made to be used, not preserved.
There are thousands of copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures in existence today, but most of them were made during or after the fourth century of our Common Era. This suggests a possibility: Did something happen to the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures before the fourth century that resulted in the omission of God's name? The facts prove that something did.
The Name Was There.
We can be sure that the apostle Matthew included God's name in his Gospel. Why? Because he wrote it originally in Hebrew. In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language . . . Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.”
Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the “Old Testament” that contained the name. However, other writers of the second part of the Bible wrote for a worldwide audience in the international language of that time, Greek. Hence, they did not quote from the original Hebrew writings but from the Septuagint Greek version. And even Matthew's Gospel was eventually translated into Greek. Would God's name have appeared in these Greek writings?
“””””Well, some very old fragments of the Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus' day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God appeared in them. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: “Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D.” Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name.””””””
( Note thee above, E.C.)
The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures properly uses God's name 237 times
Thus, Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., made this comment: “When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.” (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14) What authority would they have had to do otherwise?
( Note above, E.C.)
“””””God's name remained in Greek translations of the “Old Testament” for a while longer. In the first half of the second century C.E., the Jewish proselyte Aquila made a new translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, and in this he represented God's name by the Tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew characters. In the third century, Origen wrote: “And in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.””””””
( Note thee Above, E.C.)
Even in the fourth century, Jerome writes in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.”
The Removal of the Name
By this time, however, the apostasy foretold by Jesus had taken shape, and the name, although appearing in manuscripts, was used less and less. (Matthew 13:24-30; Acts 20:29, 30) Eventually, many readers did not even recognize what it was and Jerome reports that in his time “certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find [the Tetragrammaton] in Greek books, were accustomed to read .”
“”””In later copies of the Septuagint, God's name was removed and words like “God” (The·os') and “Lord” (Ky'ri·os) were substituted. We know that this happened because we have early fragments of the Septuagint where God's name was included and later copies of those same parts of the Septuagint where God's name has been removed.”””””
( Notice thee ABOVE, E.C.)
“”””The same thing occurred in the “New Testament,” or Christian Greek Scriptures. Professor George Howard goes on to say: “When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint. . . . Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars.””””””
( Notice thee ABOVE, E.C.)
Hence, while Jews refused to pronounce God's name, the apostate Christian church managed to remove it completely from Greek language manuscripts of both parts of the Bible, as well as from other language versions.
See: “The LORD”—Equivalent of “Jehovah”?
The Need for the Name
Eventually, as we saw earlier, the name was restored to many translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. But what about the Greek Scriptures? Well, Bible translators and students came to realize that without God's name, some pa
rts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are very difficult to understand properly. Restoring the name is a big help in increasing the clarity and comprehensibility of this portion of the inspired Bible.God's name on a church in Minorca, Spain and on a statue near Paris, France
For example, consider the words of Paul to the Romans, as they appear in the Authorized Version: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13) Whose name do we have to call on to be saved? Since Jesus is often spoken of as “Lord,” and one scripture even says: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” should we conclude that Paul was here speaking about Jesus?—Acts 16:31, Authorized Version.
“””””No, we should not. A marginal reference to Romans 10:13 in the Authorized Version points us to Joel 2:32 in the Hebrew Scriptures. If you check that reference, you will find that Paul was actually quoting the words of Joel in his letter to the Romans; and what Joel said in the original Hebrew was: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe.” (New World Translation) Yes, Paul meant here that we should call on the name of Jehovah. Hence, while we have to believe in Jesus, our salvation is closely linked with a proper appreciation of God's name.””””
( Note thee above, E.C.)
This example demonstrates how the removal of the name of God from the Greek Scriptures contributed to confusing Jesus and Jehovah in the minds of many. Undoubtedly, it contributed greatly to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity!
Should the Name Be Restored?
John W. Davis, a missionary in China during the 19th century, explained why he believed that God's name should be in the Bible: “If the Holy Ghost says Jehovah in any given place in the Hebrew, why does the translator not say Jehovah in English or Chinese? What right has he to say, I will use Jehovah in this place and a substitute for it in that? . . . If any one should say that there are cases in which the use of Jehovah would be wrong, let him show the reason why; the onus probandi [burden of proof] rests upon him. He will find the task a hard one, for he must answer this simple question,—If in any given case it is wrong to use Jehovah in the translation then why did the inspired writer use it in the original?”—The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, Volume VII, Shanghai, 1876.Would a translator have any right to restore the name, in view of the fact that existing manuscripts do not have it? Yes, he would have that right. Most Greek lexicons recognize that often the word “Lord” in the Bible refers to Jehovah. For example, in its section under the Greek word Ky'ri·os (“Lord”), Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (printed in 1859) says that it means “God as the Supreme Lord and sovereign of the universe, usually in Sept[uagint] for Heb[rew] Jehovah.” Hence, in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote the earlier Hebrew Scriptures, the translator has the right to render the word Ky'ri·os as “Jehovah” wherever the divine name appeared in the Hebrew original.
Many translators have done this. Starting at least from the 14th century, numerous Hebrew translations were made of the Christian Greek Scriptures. What did the translators do when they came to quotations from the “Old Testament” where God's name appeared? Often, they felt forced to restore God's name to the text. Many translations of parts or all of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew contain God's name.
Translations into modern languages, particularly those used by missionaries, have followed this example. Thus many African, Asian, American and Pacific-island language versions of the Greek Scriptures use the name Jehovah liberally, so that readers can clearly see the difference between the true God and the false ones. The name has appeared, too, in versions in European languages.
One translation that boldly restores God's name with good authority is the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This version, currently available in 11 modern languages, including English, has restored God's name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures. Altogether, the name appears with a sound basis 237 times in that translation of the Greek Scriptures.
Opposition to the Name
In spite of the efforts of many translators to restore God's name in the Bible, there has always been religious pressure to eliminate it. The Jews, while leaving it in their Bibles, refused to pronounce it. Apostate Christians of the second and third centuries removed it when they made copies of Greek Bible manuscripts and left it out when they made translations of the Bible. Translators in modern times have removed it, even when they based their translations on the original Hebrew, where it appears almost 7,000 times. (It appears 6,973 times in the Hebrew text of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition.)How does Jehovah view those who remove his name from the Bible? If you were an author, how would you feel about someone who went to great lengths to remove your name from the book you authored? Translators who object to the name, doing so on account of problems of pronunciation or because of Jewish tradition, might be compared to those who Jesus said “strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!” (Matthew 23:24) They stumble over these smaller problems but end up creating a major problem—by removing the name of the greatest personage in the universe from the book that he inspired.
The psalmist wrote: “How long, O God, will the adversary keep reproaching? Will the enemy keep treating your name with disrespect forever?”—Psalm 74:10″”” End of Article from the JWs.
This is only one that testifies to the facts concerning YHWH=Yah's Name I've been pointing on here, there are many more of others besides the JWs that will testify to these facts.
Thanks,
Eliyah C.
So t8, what's your conclusion? Hebrew or Greek?
This actually interested me a lot. I've never really questioned it before. Never thought about it. But Elijah raised some interesting points, which forced me do some research.
It seems the evidence points to the NT being written for the most part in Greek, with the exception of Matthew.
No one of consequence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
