Tuesday, July 29, 2003 Greetings Brethren, The fourth month of Yahweh's calendar will shortly be coming to an end. Tomorrow, July 30th at sunset the fifth new moon is expected to be seen around the world. Please share your sighting and pictures with the brethren by sending your report to New Moon. With this new moon sighting there will only be two months left before the Memorial of Trumpets, Yom Teruah. Time to make plans for the Feast of Tabernacles is here. Paleo Times will be once again hosting a list compiled through your submissions of Feast of Tabernacles Sites . submit your congregation's feast site There are many trials that befall each of us but Yahweh through Messiah Yahshua provides the proper focus. Our choice to follow the guidance of Yahweh can be difficult at times because our carnal mind wars against what is righteous and pure. We pray that our brethren stay committed through these times. Please keep the following brethren in your prayers uplifting their requests for help and guidance through the Holy Spirit. Janice Coffey, Diane Wallace - asking for help in the worship of Yahweh and Yahshua, searching for the correct path., Skaggs Family - Brenda's mother recently passed away., Ben Swafford - is suffering from depression, COPD, and has been blinded because of medications he was given., Luther Vandross, Barry White, Marcelino Martinez, Margaret Mbuli, Al and Marie Dupus, Andrew King, Linda Lopez - My son and myself need prayer for physical healing and my husband myself and family are in need of prayer to become closer to Yahweh's truth., Jeffrey Thomas, Sherri Hester, Barry & Margie Moore - Barry has chronic back pain, degenitive disk disease and hepatitis C; Margie has fibromyalgia PTSD., Timothy Dingman, Anthony D. Leone - suffers from panic attacks., Nichole Maxwell - asking for unification of family towards Yahweh's word and healing., Michael and Marie Fegans - Marie has a viral infection for which she needs healing. Michael needs prayer for freedom from incarceration so that he can take his rightful place with his family., Deborah Ogletree - financial and emotional help., Jaime H. Reyes - gastro-intestinal disorder, Keith Espinola - Keith is in the US military (a Jewish brother in Messiah) is awaiting action in Iraq. Please pray for his safety and protection. , Jesika Espinola - Jesika has been recently diagnosed with diabetes. She and her husband Mark, both Jewish believers in Messiah Yahshua live in NYC where they assist in the aliyah process, helping others immigrate to Israel and helping the poor already in Israel. Pray for Jesika's recovery and their safety., Brian Espinola - Brian is a young man who is separated from his dad by others and reunification is a sore need., Garardo Perez, Andrew Matthews, Rushing Family - family problems, Langford Luster and Family - asking for Yahweh inspiration in the family's life., David Rosa - looking for employment, Carmen Alicea - seeks salvation and healing, Shirley Reopelle - Shirley has a virus and other health problems., Karen Bordzuk - Karen needs spiritual and financial help., Delbert Ellis, Chris Nelson, Walt Hoffman, Andre Gale and Family, Twanda Luster, Julie A. Oakman, Jerry Cornwell, Justin Cain, Pendlebury Family, Andres Lopez Jr. and Sr., Barry Weaver, Samuel Ndoumbe, Linda Dupree, Dan Hoskins, Gladys Joyce, Mayra Luisa Vega, Virginia Rivera, Derrick Holmes, Ernestine Walls, James Fauth, Bruce McCall Family - Bruce's great grandson is in desperate need of prayer., Anna I. Velez, Henry Ruiz - liver problems, Gary Guenther, Chloe S. Kurzon, Tom (Mordecai) Mitchell, Jason Kissee, Holly S. Forster prayer requests and submission The process of (love) putting together the Sacred Scriptures - Family of Yah Edition is going well. If you would like to help with this project please devote some time to proofing the online version at http://www.wordofyah.org/scriptures. Yahweh willing a final version will be ready sometime around the beginning of next year, Yahweh's beginning of months, Abib. I have had many questions asking for more information and many offers of help with the proof reading of this version of the Scriptures. A frequently asked question is, "how was the Sacred Name restored to the New Testament." When I started project in the Fall of 1999 I too asked by what method the Sacred Name in the New Testament should be restored. It was a great concern and I felt that without some specific rules my effort would have been too unstructured to be of value. So I started by publishing the New Testament online with G-d and L-rd throughout the New Testament working towards restoring the Sacred Name when I had an Old Testament reference. Brother Michael Banak approached me about this and offered a criteria that is the most accurate that I believe can be achieved with the recourses available today. Attached is an article by brother Michael Banak about this most important undertaking. Yahweh Bless, James A. Meyer The Search for the Hebrew MatthewPart 4, The Two Manuscripts and Their Relationship to The Name of YahwehBy Brother Michael A. Banak In the last section I presented a list of rules which I felt would help us more correctly insert Yahweh's name into the New Testament. We could check the reliability of these rules if we could turn to an original Hebrew New Testament against which to check them. Though we have no such document to work with, we blessedly have two Hebrew Matthew traditions to work from. These sources are found in two basic texts. They are the 'du Tillet' text and the 'Shem Tob' text. The first text I became aware of is the 'du Tillet' text. It is mentioned in a book that anyone can buy from the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Jehovah's Witnesses own the copyrights to the Westcott and Hort Greek text. They used that Greek text as the basis for a Greek interlinear New Testament they call 'The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures'. This Greek text is the work of two men, Westcott and Hort, who did an exhaustive review of all the Greek manuscripts available in their time, 1881. Since there were minor differences between the many Greek texts, they needed some rationale for their decisions as to what they felt appeared in the original. They decided to put heavier emphasis on those manuscripts which were oldest, and employed a number of other rules which are sometimes called 'textual criticism'. Thus their text is sometimes referred to as a 'critical text' (Rotherham used the Westcott and Hort Text to translate the New Testament in his Emphasized Bible.). The Jehovah's Witnesses published this text in 1969 and seized the opportunity to insert the name of Jehovah wherever they saw fit. The rationale for their decision in the various passages seems somewhat arbitrary to me, but in their footnotes they do offer some explanation as to how they decided to put the Name in some places. Often their reasoning was based merely on a Hebrew New Testament that was translated out of the Greek! Their reasoning was sound, of course, whenever they inserted the Name in passages which were quotes from the Old Testament. The Jehovah's Witnesses had two basic reasons to justify the re-insertion of the Name into the English Translation, and the Greek text too for that matter. First of all, they cited the fact that the Greek Septuagint had the Name of Yahweh in it from the very beginning. Though this fact was at one time widely doubted by scholars, fragments of the Old Testament in Greek have surfaced since then, and they do have the Name preserved in ancient Hebrew, amidst the text that is otherwise Greek. Photographs of these fragments can be seen in this 'Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures'. They are a powerful testimony to the reverence the ancients had for the Name. The Jehovah Witnesses rightly reasoned that if the Name of Yahweh appeared in the Greek Old Testament, then it would likely be in the Greek New Testament also. That was their first line of thought on the matter. Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses also pointed out that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Certainly the Name would have been in there. And since it was in there, why not restore it throughout the New Testament also? The Jehovah's witnesses, in this book, put a lot of emphasis on the fact that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. In the bibliography on page 28, they mention a number of interesting items. I quote two of them as follows: Matthew in Hebrew. A version published by Jean du Tillet, Bishop of Brieux, France, from an ancient manuscript of Matthew in Hebrew found in Rome. This version was edited by J. Mercerus in Paris, 1555. -See An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel by Hugh J. Schonfield, Edinburgh, 1927, a copy of which is found at the New York Public Library. Matthew in Hebrew. About 1385 a Jew name Shem Tob ben Shaprut of Tudela in Castle, Spain, wrote a polemical work against Christianity entitled Eben Bohan in which he incorporates Matthew in Hebrew as a separate chapter. (Cursive manuscripts of Shem Tob's Eben Bohan are found at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York City). A translation of the du Tillet Text was available in the book noted above, by Hugh J. Schonfield. In the course of business travel, I would take every opportunity to check libraries for a copy of this book. Although one was reportedly in the New York Public Library, I never was out that way. I finally found the book at the University of Texas at Austin in 1982. It is in a small collection of rare books at the Humanities Research Center, catalogue number BS-2573 (1927). Owing to the age of the book, they refused to make a photocopy for me, but they did take my order for a microfilm. It is fascinating reading. (I have since located another copy at the main Public Library in Cleveland, Ohio). 'An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel' was published in 1927 by the late Hugh J. Schonfield, who was then a devout Messianic Jew. Since then he had turned agnostic, and his scholarly works are rarely cited in the Christian community today. Many of us would remember him today as the author of 'The Passover Plot', a ridiculous collection of scandalous theories about our beloved Saviour's ministry. The translation Schonfield offers in his 1927 book regrettably did not include the Hebrew Text. However, there were some interesting footnotes showing what the Hebrew text would read in some of the more intriguing passages. The book also has a fine introduction telling the story of the manuscript and how Schonfield stumbled across it. The original hebrew manuscript, including a Jewish commentary, is sitting in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, Hebrew Manuscript number 132. Schonfield, however, found a copy of the Hebrew text and the translation in an old book store, as published by Jean du Tillet, a catholic bishop in Brieux, France in 1555. Thus we call it the 'du Tillet' text. Where did Jean du Tillet get the manuscript? In his introduction to the text, du Tillet merely asserts that he found it in Italy while traveling among the Jews in 1553. However, the Latin translator contributing to du Tillet's publication says that du Tillet extorted the text from the Jews of Rome for the purpose of examination. This makes more sense, historically, as Schonfield points out, because it is known that Pope Julius III authorized suppression of the Talmud in 1553. The decree was carried out on Rosh Hashanna in 1553 with such cruelty that, not only were copies of the Talmud seized, but also every book the inquisitors could get their hands on. Evidently, this Hebrew Text was one of the confiscated items. (Please forgive me, but I mistakenly reported in an earlier installment that this text was rescued from a synagogue in Rome which had burned down. I beg your pardon for this foolish error on my part. - M. B.) Schonfield points out several places where the du Tillet text differs from the Greek Text. In his brief history of the text, he also mentions another Hebrew manuscript of Matthew called 'Eben Bohan' (in Hebrew this would be 'The Touchstone') written by Shem-Tob ben Shaprut. Says Schonfield, 'Shem Tob ben Shaprut was a famous Jewish polemical writer, and flourished in the fourteenth century in Spain.' Schonfield explains that both texts differ from the Greek Received Text, and that both Hebrew texts differ from each other to some degree. It appears to me that Schonfield did only a superficial review of the Shem Tob Text. He cites it as being full of lacunae (omissions) but mentions textual difficulties only in the first chapter. Only a few years ago, however, Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia reviewed the Shem Tob manuscript and found it saturated with some very surprising word plays and other Hebrew delights. Thus we have a contradiction in the scholarly community. It has been settled that the Shem Tob and the du Tillet are not the same text. But the relative value of each manuscript is in question. Professor George Howard leans toward the Shem Tob manuscript as having greater value. Hugh Schonfield leans toward the du Tillet text. The two texts do read together in many, many places. It's not as though they were foreign to each other. But there are places where the du Tillet reads with the Greek better than Shem Tob reads with the Greek. I personally want to lean away from anything that agrees with the Greek text, if for no other reason than to distance myself from the Greek text which has the Father's Name removed. But in my research, I found that both manuscripts have enormous value in recovering lost words of truth. So where do these differences in the Hebrew come from? Considering that these two manuscripts were in the possession of Jews throughout the centuries, it is not hard to imagine some of them toying with the Hebrew Matthew just as later Christians toyed with some of the Greek manuscripts. If this is not all, consider this: St Jerome of the Catholic church discovered a Hebrew Matthew in the possession of the Nazarenes. The Nazarenes, living in Transjordan in the fourth century, claimed to be the descendants of those Messianic Jews who had fled Jerusalem at the invasion of 70 AD. Though we have no copy of their Hebrew Matthew, Jerome quoted their text on many occasions in his writings. Professor Howard reports that almost none of these readings of Jerome from the Nazarenes' Hebrew matches the Shem Tob text. The same can be said for the Gospel owned by the Ebionites, which Epiphanius quoted, and for a host of other Hebrew quotations from the Hebrew Matthew which various writers through history have recorded. To compound matters even more, history mentions several Hebrew Matthews going by several different names. Schonfield mentions some of them: 'The Gospel', 'The Gospel of the Lord', 'The Gospel of the Twelve', 'The Gospel of the Apostles', 'The Gospel of the Hebrews' and 'The Hebrew Matthew.' With all this Hebrew Matthew tradition about, all of it running in the same direction, but none of them fully agreeing with one another, we can only conclude that the Shem Tob and du Tillet texts represent a complicated tradition of Hebrew Manuscripts, all of them pointing back to the original Hebrew manuscript. There are readings in both du Tillet and Shem-Tob, for example, which account for some of the discrepancies we find in the Greek manuscript tradition. But the real value of these two manuscripts appears in their handling of the Heavenly Father's Name. From the first time I saw Schonfield's translation in 1982, I was fascinated by the rendering of the Father's Name in the du Tillet text. Instead of a Tetragrammaton we have three Hebrew yodths in a triangular pattern. Specifically it was rendered as [insert pattern here]. This was made evident through the footnotes in Schonfield's book, where he sometimes shared the du Tillet text with us for unusual readings. Let's think about this. The Name is rendered with three yodths, a unique substitution. Furthermore, this substitute often appears in passages which are NOT quotes from the Old Testament. Now we know this text was in the possession of Jews for many generations. Its purpose was to serve as reference to refute Christian doctrines. The du Tillet text itself has several commentaries appended to the end, all of which were written by some Jewish commentator attacking the Hebrew Matthew. Try to envision what happened the first time a copy of Matthew fell into Jewish hands. Did they burn it right away? Obviously not, for we still have copies derived from it. So, they kept it. And when the copy they started with began to age, another generation re-wrote the text on fresh parchment. Now what they did to the text itself is a complicated issue. Perhaps they massaged some of the doctrinal points to make Christianity look bad. Perhaps one generation was extremely faithful as they transcribed the text. We will not address that issue here. But their handling of the Name is somewhat predictable. A Jewish scribe would be afraid to write out the Name of Yahweh as it appeared in a supposed heretical writing. He wouldn't dare write out the Tetragrammaton under those circumstances. Never. But he would place a special substitute in there...such as three yodths. One might argue, I suppose, that the Jewish scribe was obligated to do this when transcribing the Hebrew Matthew in places where Matthew quotes the Old Testament. Even assuming the Jewish scribe started with a Greek Matthew, he would still feel obligated to transcribe the Name as a unique substitute in Old Testament quotes. Very conceivably, he would shrink from rendering the Name in such places as anything but a unique substitute. All I am saying here is that those three yodths prove nothing if they are found only in Hebrew Matthew passages which are quotes from the Old Testament. The scribe would possibly add them on his own. Therefore it is very significant that the three yodths, representing the Name, appear in fresh New Testament material also. An example of this is Matthew 1:22. 'And all this was to fulfill what was spoken of Yahweh by the prophet Isaiah.' Note also how the du Tillet text includes the name of the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah's name is not in the Greek (check the English translation for yourself), nor is it in the Shem Tob text. For several years I struggled with a microfilm of Schonfield's translation. Finally I ordered a microfilm of the du Tillet text from the Bodleian Library at Oxford, England. To save money, I ordered only the Hebrew portion. Half the book, after all, is a Latin translation of the Hebrew Text. The manuscript is filed under catalogue number 8o - Z - 210 - Th. It cost about fifty dollars for the microfilm back in 1985. It was certainly a joy to see the three yodths, representing the Father's Name, in various places throughout the text. It was also good to see the precise Hebrew wording of some of the more interesting passages. In the fall of 1986, George Howard published an announcement of his forthcoming translation of the OTHER text, the Shem Tob text. Up till that point in time I had ignored the Shem Tob, seeing how Schonfield cast such a bad light upon it. George Howard reported in the Bible Review Magazine how he was astounded to find the Shem Tob Text saturated with puns, word plays and other unique Hebrew constructions. In many ways, this Shem Tob text appeared to be more valuable than the du Tillet text. Let's digress for a moment and ponder the significance of puns, word-plays, etc. The Old Testament is also filled with such things. For an example of a pun, please see Jeremiah 1:11-12. "Moreover, the Word of Yahweh came unto me saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see the rod of an Almond tree. Then said Yahweh unto me, thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it." It is important to know that the Hebrew word for almond (Strong's number 8247, shaw-kade) sounds like the Hebrew word for 'hasten' (Strong's number 8245, shaw-kad). That is an example of a pun. Psalm 122:6 has a fine example of a word-play. Where it says 'Pray for the peace of Jerusalem,' the Hebrew is pronounced, 'Shalu shalom Yerushalaim.' The Old Testament has many other examples of this kind of writing. We should, therefore, find it no surprise when we turn-up a Hebrew Matthew which also has these things. Further, it shows strong evidence that the Shem Tob text was NOT a translation from the Greek. George Howard has for years been an unknown ally of ours. He has published many fine articles on the subject of finding the Name in the New Testament (Please see the Bibliography at the end of Part III in this series). It is his opinion, based on some very compelling evidence, that the Name of Yahweh was included in the New Testament, regardless of whether it was written in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. Thus his interest in the Shem Tob text came as no surprise. When I got a copy of his book, The 'Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text,' I was pleased to discover that there are at least nine (9) manuscripts of Shem Tob's text scattered through England and the Eastern United States. It was literally under our noses all this time. The Name of Yahweh in the Shem Tob is also found in a unique substitute form. It is rendered as the Hebrew letter 'Heh', which is short for HaShem (meaning, 'The Name'). The same arguments noted above, as to why we find this phenomena in a text handled by Jews for centuries, also apply here. We should expect to find a substitute for the Tetragrammaton in a Jewish copy of a supposedly heretical work. This text also shows that the Name appears in fresh New Testament material, and not just quotes from the Old Testament. One of my favorite examples is Matthew 22:31. Have you not read concerning the resurrection of the dead that Yahweh spoke to you saying...' So Yahshua did use the Name on his own, without Old Testament authority. When you stop to think about it, the Jewish scribes who preserved these documents are hostile witnesses against the Name. They would never insert the Name of Yahweh, or even a unique substitute for it, into New Testament passages where the text they started with did not have it. It is possible for such a scribe to eliminate every trace of the Name on his own (perhaps by inserting 'Adonay'), but to add evidence of the Name to the text on his own? - Never! Therefore, the existence of these peculiar substitutes give us a very clear picture of where Yahweh's Name should be placed in the book of Matthew. In the next and final installment, we shall present interesting readings from these two Hebrew texts. However, the rest of this installment will be devoted to those passages where the Name appears in the two Hebrew Texts. We will compare the two Hebrew manuscripts with each other, and with the Greek texts. For the sake of brevity, some of these notes will appear short and terse, but the information is here for those who wish to check on their own. The Greek texts I use are Westcott & Hort's Critical Text, and the Majority Text (Received Text, as corrected by the Majority Tradition) published by Green. At the last minute in writing this installment, I deleted usage of the Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott. It is derived from a single manuscript, the Vaticanus #1209 and has difficulties which leave me feeling leery. Says Jay Green in the Preface to the First Edition of his Interlinear Bible, 'The Vaticanus manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican Library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it (Erasmus, the noted Catholic Scholar, refused to consider it as a source when he formed the Received Text). The Vaticanus has errors so absurd that the books purporting to teach 'textual science' carefully avoid mentioning these gross errors in their favorite manuscript'. [The Vaticanus #1209 and The Sinaiticus manuscripts together represent one side of a raging debate over which manuscripts are 'best.' Though admittedly older than the 5,000 or so texts represented by the Majority Tradition, they do have their problems. In a previous section, I erroneously reported that the Vaticanus was found in a trash can in Rome. It was the Sinaiticus which was thus found. It is Jay Green's opinion that both these manuscripts were found discarded, one on a shelf, the other in a wastebasket, while the majority text was protected by the common people through the centuries. Please forgive my confusion between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. - M. B.] The translations I use for the two Hebrew texts come from George Howard's book for the Shem Tob, and from Schonfield's book for the du Tillet. The only difference, of course, is that I render the Name as Yahweh, where Schonfield and Howard used 'The Lord.' We will also see how the guidelines I shared in the last installment regarding the insertion of Yahweh's name, compare to the use of the Name in the Hebrew texts. Please see the appendix for a summary of these guidelines. We also introduce two (2) new rules: #6: If the Name is indicated in either the Shem Tob or du Tillet text, the Name belongs in Matthew for that passage. #7: The Shem Tob and du Tillet texts can be used to insert the Name into parallel passages in Mark, Luke and John. Though I presently know of no place where this can be used, I do believe it is a good rule to follow. Overview of the Results Given Below The Hebrew Texts indicate the Name should appear in 21 places in Matthew. Of these 21, the two Hebrew texts agree in 15 places. Of the 21 places where the Hebrew texts call for the Name, 16 of them would have been predicted by the guidelines. These are marked 'GW', for 'Guidelines Work.' Of the 16 places where the guidelines work, 15 of them would have been predicted based on the Greek construction alone. These are marked 'GW-GK' for 'Guidelines work in the Greek.' Of the 15 places where the Greek evidence alone would have also indicated the Name, in 2 of these places only the Westcott & Hort Text would have predicted the Name. These are marked 'GW-GK-WH' for 'Guidelines Work in the Greek, Westcott & Hort.' This does not mean the Westcott & Hort Text is superior for the entire New Testament, it only says the Westcott & Hort is preferred for the book of Matthew when it comes to extracting the Name from the Greek. The 5 places where the guidelines failed to predict the Name are marked 'GF' for 'Guidelines Fail.' Of these 5 places, 3 of them, Matt 15:8, Matthew 22:32 and Matt 28:9 offer absolutely no clue in the Greek that there should be either a name or a title in the clause under scrutiny. For these cases it would not be entirely fair to blame the guidelines for failing to catch it. Summary of Places where the Blessed Name is Indicated in the Hebrew Texts: Matthew 1:22 GW-GK-WH, Rule #2 du Tillet: All this was to complete what was written by the prophet according to Yahweh: Shem Tob: And all this was to fulfill what was spoken of Yahweh by the prophet Isaiah, saying: Majority text: upo tou kuriou; by the kurios Westcott & Hort: upo kuriou; by kurios Matthew 1:24 GW-GK, Rule #2 du Tillet: Then Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of Yahweh had commanded him, and took her as his wife. Shem Tob: Then Joseph awoke from his sleep and did all which the angel of Yahweh commanded him and took his wife. All Greek texts: o aggelos kuriou; the angel of kurios Matthew 2:13 GW-GK, Rule #2 du Tillet: And after they were departed, behold the angel of Yahweh appeared to Joseph in a dream...Shem Tob: As they were going, behold the angel of Yahweh appeared unto Joseph saying...Majority Text, Westcott & Hort: aggelos kuriou; an angel of kurios Matthew 2:19 GW-GK, Rule #2 du Tillet: the Angel of Yahweh appeared in a dream Shem Tob: the Angel of Yahweh appeared in a dream All Greek texts: aggelos kuriou; an angel of kurios Matthew 3:3 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Is 40:3) and Rule #2 du Tillet: Prepare ye the way of Yahweh Shem Tob: Prepare the way of Yahweh All Greek texts: tane odon kuriou; the way of kurios Matthew 4:4 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Deut 8:3) and Rule #5 du Tillet: by whatsoever proceeds from the mouth of Yahweh shall man live.Shem Tob: All nine manuscripts, except one, stop short before this point in the verse. The one that doesn't stop short reads: Man shall live but by every word coming out of the mouth of Yahweh. All Greek texts: stomatos theou; mouth of theos Matthew 4:7 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Deut 6:16) and Rule #2 du Tillet: Thou shalt not tempt Yahweh thy Elohim.Shem Tob: You shall not tempt Yahweh your Elohim. All Greek texts: kurion ton theon sou; kurios the theos of you. Matthew 4:10 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Deut 6:13, Deut 10:20) and Rule #2 du Tillet: It is written, Yahweh thy Elohim thou shalt worship. Shem Tob: It is written, I will pray to Yahweh and him only you will serve. All Greek texts: kurion ton theon sou; kurios the theos of you. Matthew 5:33 GW, Rule #1 (Lev 19:12 & paraphrase of Deut 23:23) du Tillet: Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall pay unto Yahweh thy vow. Shem Tob: You shall not swear by my name falsely, but you shall return to Yahweh your oath. All Greek texts: toe kurio; to the kurios Matthew 15:8 GF du Tillet: This people honoreth me with its mouth...Shem Tob: thus Yahweh said: because this people has come near me with their mouth...All Greek texts omit the opening phrase, 'Thus says Yahweh', or anything even resembling it. They all lead right into the quote from Isaiah 29:13, as does the du Tillet text. Since the Greek text has no reference to theos or kurios here, the guidelines would have no chance to be tested in this case. The Shem Tob text includes the preface, 'Thus says Yahweh' as it appears in Isaiah 29:13. Matthew 21:9 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Ps 118:26) and Rule #2 du Tillet: Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of Yahweh. Shem Tob: Blessed is he who comes in the Name of Yahweh. All Greek texts: en onomati kuriou; in name of kurios Matthew 21:12 GF, Rule #4 du Tillet: And Yahshua entered into the Temple of Elohim Shem Tob: Yahshua entered the House of Yahweh Majority text: eis toe yeron tou theou; into the temple of the theos Westcott & Hort: eis toe yeron; into the temple In this case all of our sources are more or less in disagreement. Du Tillet calls for a title (Elohim), Shem Tob calls for the Name, the Majority Text calls for a title and Westcott & Hort call for nothing. Based on the arguments presented earlier in this article, even one incident of the Name, (or a substitute for it) in this Jewish document is a tip off that it was in the original Hebrew Matthew. Matthew 21:42 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Ps 118:22-23) and Rule #2 du Tillet: This is from Yahweh, it is wonderful in our eyes. Shem Tob: this was from Yahweh; it is a marvel in our eyes. All Greek texts: para kuriou; from kurios Matthew 22:31 GF, Rule #4 du Tillet: have you not read what was spoken by Elohim, who said unto you...Shem Tob: Have you not read concerning the resurrection of the dead that Yahweh spoke to you saying...All Greek texts: upo tou theou; by the theos Matthew 22:32 GF du Tillet: I am the Elohim of Abraham Shem Tob: I Yahweh am the Elohim of Abraham All Greek texts are like the du Tillet text in that they eliminate the preface, 'I am Yahweh.' Thus there would be no opportunity to apply the guidelines to the Greek in this case. Matthew 22:37 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Deut 6:5) and Rule #2 du Tillet: Thou shalt love Yahweh thy Elohim Shem Tob: Thou shalt love Yahweh your Elohim All Greek texts: kurion ton theon sou; kurios the theos of you Matthew 22:44 GW-GK-WH, Rule #1 (Ps 110:1) and Rule #2du Tillet: Yahweh affirmed unto my Master Shem Tob: Yahweh said to my Master Majority text: eipen o kurios toe kurio mou; said the kurios to the kurios of mine. Westcott & Hort: eipen kurios toe kurio mou; said kurios to the kurios of mine. Matthew 23:39 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Ps 118:26) and Rule #2 du Tillet: Blessed is he who cometh in the Name of Yahweh Shem Tob: Blessed is our saviour All Greek texts: en onomati kuriou; in name of kurios Matthew 27:9-10 GW-GK, Rule #1 (Zechariah 12:12-13) and Rule #2(The wording in the two Hebrew sources is so very different, we must quote two verses to cover it properly). du Tillet: Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, who said, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, a goodly price of him that was valued, whom they valued of the children of Israel; and gave them for the potter's portion, as Yahweh appointed me. Shem Tob: Then was fulfilled the word of Zechariah the prophet: and I said to them: if it is good in your eyes, multiply my wages, but if not, forbear. So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then Yahweh said to me: Cast it unto the potter. This is from the man who forms clay as Adonay commanded. All Greek texts are in harmony here and pretty much follow the du Tillet text. The Greek in the clause where the Name should be reads: katha sunetazen moi kurios; according as directed me kurios. The guidelines work here, but both the Greek and the du Tillet are unfaithful to the Hebrew Old Testament quote. Please check Zechariah 12:12-13 to see this. Shem Tob represents a better quote of Zechariah as it starts off in this passage, but falls short with a corrupted ending, 'this is from the man who forms clay, as Adonay commanded.' Note also that du Tillet and the Greek both erroneously attribute this quote to Jeremiah, while Shem Tob correctly quotes it as a writing from Zechariah. If I were to do a translation of the New Testament of my own, I would simply replace Matthew 27:9-10 with Zechariah 11:12-13. This is simply an extension of Rule #1. Matthew 28:2 GW-GK, Rule #2 du Tillet: for the Angel of Yahweh had descended from heaven Shem Tob: because the Angel of Yahweh had descended from heaven All Greek texts: aggelos gar kuriou; angel because of kurios (or: because an angel of kurios) Matthew 28:9 GF du Tillet: Yahshua came to meet them saying, 'Peace be unto you.' Shem Tob: Yahshua passed before them saying: May Yahweh deliver you. In all Greek texts, Yahshua's greeting is simply 'khairete,' translated 'greetings' or 'all hail.' The Greek text offers no clue that the Name would be here. The reading from the Shem Tob is wonderful and astounding. However, there is a little caution in order here. Whereas the rest of the Shem Tob text has simply the letter 'heh' (for HaShem) where the Name should appear, this occurrence has the expression 'HaShem' fully spelled out in the Hebrew. I am in agreement with George Howard that the Name of Yahweh actually belongs in this point of the text. The fact that the expression 'HaShem' (meaning 'The Name') was fully spelled out here shouldn't dissuade us from believing the Name was actually in the original. Going back to Matthew 1:22, we find that most texts have only the Hebrew letter 'heh' for the Name. But one of the manuscripts in the nine which George Howard located has 'HaShem' fully spelled-out in the Hebrew. This is also the case for Matthew 28:2 in another one of the manuscripts located by Howard. Thus the expression 'HaShem' fully spelled out in Hebrew also stands for the Name of Yahweh. If we are wrong, the text would simply read, 'May the Name deliver you.' Either way you look at it, Yahshua elevates Yahweh's Name in this setting. Appraisal of the Guidelines One might find fault, I suppose, that out of 21 occurrences of the Name, the guidelines would only catch 16 of them, 14 if we do not use the Westcott & Hort. However, in 3 of the 5 cases where the guidelines fail, the Greek offers absolutely no clue as to whether a Name or a title should be added. Eliminating these three cases, the guidelines have a batting average of 14 out of 18, or 78%. Both the guidelines and the Hebrew texts suggest that the Name is definitely in the New Testament, but not as much as originally assumed by previous translators. The Spirit has born witness among many in the household of faith that this should be the result. Therefore anyone doing a fresh translation of the New Testament should give serious consideration to these guidelines. In translating, a decision would have to be made whether to use the Westcott & Hort or the Majority Text. But care and thoughtfulness in the light of these guidelines will avoid undue forcing of the Name into the New Testament in passages where it never was to begin with. Summary We have condensed the story of the two Hebrew Matthews through my experiences and the experiences of the scholars who champion them. Both texts offer important clues regarding the placement of Yahweh's Name back into the original. Both texts also offer important insights into the true words of Yahshua (more of this in the last installment). However, my earlier expectation, that a Hebrew text would be somehow 'superior' did not fully materialize. Both texts have difficult passages, having passed through the hands of many Jews through the dark ages. Nevertheless, many places where the Name should be found are preserved. How many of them have been forever lost is known only to Yahweh. Using the guidelines, the Greek text gives evidence for 7 additional places where The Name was in the original (3:16, 5:9, 6:24, 12:28, 14:33, 19:26, 27:54). Until the Master returns, I honestly believe, brethren, that the information shared in this article is the very best available. Appendix Guidelines for the insertion of Yahweh's Name into the New Testament based on the Greek scriptures. Rule #1. If there is an Old Testament quote in the New Testament, the names and titles will be restored as they appear in the Old Testament. This rule over-rules all other rules. Rule #2. When 'kurios' stands alone in the Greek, with no definite article in front of it, it will be rendered as the Name, Yahweh. Rule #3. When 'kurios' is preceded by a definite article meaning 'the', then it will be rendered as a title, 'Master' or 'Sovereign.' When it is clearly understood that the one referred to is Yahweh the Father, the title 'Sovereign' will be used. Rule #4. If 'theos' is preceded by a definite article, it is taken as a title. Thus it will properly be rendered as 'The Mighty One' or 'The Almighty.' Rule #5. If 'theos' is not preceded by a definite article, it is taken to be the Name Yahweh. Rule #6. If Either the Shem Tob or the du Tillet texts of Matthew give evidence of Yahweh's Name, the Name will be inserted. Rule #7. If a parallel passage in Mark, Luke or John is found to have the Name in the corresponding passage in the Hebrew Matthew, the Name will be carried over to the verse in Mark, Luke or John as appropriate. ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY The following items are an addition to the Bibliography published earlier in this series: The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969, Watchtower Tract and Bible Society, Brooklyn, New York. This book contains the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. Benjamin Wilson, The Emphatic Diaglott, 1942, International Bible Students Association, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, N.Y., USA Jay P. Green, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1984, Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of Saint Matthew's Gospel, 1927, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, England George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text, 1987, Mercer University Press, Macon, Georgia |
