The Bible is an amazing book full of amazing stories. It is intended for adults, so it is our task as parents to teach our children the ways of God, introducing the Word of God in an appropriate way.
This is why I chose to write this book with the precious assistance of my younger son, Costantino. He helped me understand how the subject should be presented to a young mind. His contribution was so vital that his name had to be on the cover next to mine.
Some children will be attracted by David. Others by Samson. All the characters in the Bible teach us something, whether good or bad. Yet, it must be made clear that Jesus is the most important character and the subject of the entire Scriptures. This is why He is on the cover of this books. This is why His victory over death and sin ends this book. It is a message of Hope that our children need to learn from a very young age.
Jesus is our Lord – their Lord.
Jesus is our Savior – their Savior.
Jesus is our Hope – their Hope.
May God bless this book as it helps you parents in the most difficult task we are being confronted with, parenthood.
The Jewish background of the New Testament is a wonderful, rich characteristic of the Greek Christian Scriptures. Though they were written in Greek, the Hebrew language and culture has influenced its authors in an amazing way, so meaningful and strong that it influences the Church up to this day.
The New Testament was written in Greek. A type of Greek called Koiné. It was everyday language, spoken throughout the Roman Empire during the first century of our era.
In 326 BC, Alexander the Great had conquered almost all the then known world. Though his empire collapsed after his premature death, the cultural influence of Greece – language and thought – would still be predominant for centuries.
The Gospel of Matthew ends with the great mandate of Jesus: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations …” (Matthew 28:19 – NKJV)
Later, the apostle Peter – a Jew – will be responsible for the first proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, the non-Jewish people, of which we read a detailed account in the book of Acts.
It was just the beginning.
Through the ministry of Paul, the Christian faith spread outside the borders of Israel, among the heathen nations, throughout the Mediterranean, in such a powerful way that, by the end of the first century, the majority of the believers were Gentiles.
Since the Gospel was meant to be a message addressed to everyone, universal, the most natural thing we could expect to happen, was that the New Testament should be written in a language spoken practically everywhere. At that time this language was Greek.
The adoption of a foreign language and even the conversion of non-Jewish believers could never eradicate the strong Hebrew roots of the Christian faith.
Hebrew was the background of the ministry of Jesus and of the apostles. Hebrew (and Aramaic) was their native language.
Hebrew was their culture, their faith, their mind.
All these cultural characteristics are alive and well today. They have survived in the Greek used to write the New Testament. They are visible even through today’s translations in our Western languages: language barriers and time have not been able to demise their influence. So strong was the influence of the Jewish language and thought in the Gospels, the epistles and the book of Revelation. Greek was simply used to express Semitic concepts and ideas – which remained dominant.
In the past, the Jewish background of the New Testament was not kept in the proper consideration. Later discoveries – like the Dead Sea Scrolls – revealed that, in order to better understand the New Testament, it is necessary to seriously consider the language and culture of those through whom it was written.
The New Testament did not betray but embraced and gave the world the riches of the Jewish religion. Its authors interpreted from their original language thoughts, sayings, accounts or even written documents, and wrote in Greek. So deep was their Jewish background that when they could not find an equivalent for some Hebrew words or expressions, they thought well to keep them in their Greek autographs. This use has influenced the language of the church down to our days. In fact, we end all our prayers with a Hebrew word: “Amen.” We shout to God: “Hallelujah.” We call Jesus the “Messiah” – the latter word having entirely taken the meaning of the Hebrew term. More details will be given in the pages to follow.
The study of the Hebrew background of the New Testament, I am sure, will unlock some Scripture truths and will bless the reader with a more reverent attitude concerning the Jewish heritage of our faith.
The book of Daniel is a fascinating piece of evidence of the divine inspiration of the Word of God.
In our Bibles it is found after Ezekiel, between the major and the minor prophets. But it is not like any of the other prophetic books of the Old Testament. No wonder the Jewish Canon lists it among the Writings.
Daniel’s prophecies speak both of the first and of the second coming of the Messiah. The kingdom of heaven proclaimed in the first pages of our Gospels is a direct quotation of a concept found in Daniel 2. Jesus himself refers to this wonderful book and its author in his prophetic sermon aiming at his second coming. If we are interested in end-times prophecies, Daniel is the book we need to start with.
My commentary will be both prophetical and historical.
The attacks against the authenticity and historical accuracy of Daniel by the liberals are outdated and untenable when considered in the light of archeological findings of the XX century – though some still turn a deaf ear to evidence and continue to rely on obsolete theories to discredit this wonderful book.
The truth is very simple and scary for some: in Daniel we find a powerful witness of the inspiration of Scriptures!
I pray this book will be a blessing to many and strengthen their faith as we see the day of his return so evidently near – nearer than ever!
He was born a Jew, from a noble or even royal family. His life of ease radically changed when, probably still a teen ager, in circa 606 BC, he was taken captive to Babylon by the great king of the empire, Nebuchadnezzar, to be trained and become a part of the State Administration of that great and ancient nation. He must have been chosen because of his qualities, that met the requirements for the Babylonian court. We know then that Daniel was quick to understand and gifted in all wisdom. Being faithful to God was another of his qualities. In fact, though in a foreign land, captive, Daniel did not forget about the God of his fathers and made up his mind to remain obedient to the Law of Moses, ready to face all the consequences.
The scared hostages were probably taken in procession through the city by the conquering king, along with the treasures looted in the temple of Jerusalem.
Daniel was not alone. Others were led captive with him. Children of rich, educated families; healthy, strong, good looking – the Babylonians would only take the best of everything back to their home. Three of his companions are mentioned: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
The first thing to do with the captives was to introduce them to the Babylonian culture and language. First of all: their names needed to be changed, probably to be more easily pronounced in the dialect of their new home. “ … Daniel, Belteshazzar; and Hananiah, Shadrach; and Mishael, Meshach; and Azariah, Abednego.”
The change was also intended to glorify the pagan gods worshipped by the Babylonians. However, this and other attempts could not change the character of Daniel. He was immovable in his decision to follow God, his God, no matter what would happen to him. Then the three young Jewish men made up their mind they would not contaminate themselves with foods forbidden by the law, since it had been offered to idols. Daniel showed himself to be very wise too. He acted with sharp intelligence and convinced the chief of the eunuchs, Ashpenaz, that the king’s diet was not necessary for him and his friends.
Life has always been hard when you want to do right. Just like when you make up your mind to serve God and everyone else seems to want to test you, to see how far your faithfulness – and patience – can go.
Daniel is a great example for Christians. If a kid could make it, lost in a foreign country where he had been carried a prisoner, taking the risk of his own life to obey the Law of his God, Christians should have no right to complain. If he made it, with God’s help we can make it too, we can stay faithful when the trial comes.
We do not know what God has in store for us until we prove to be faithful servants. I am surely not the only one who would like to know in advance what the reward will be if I “do right.” Well, it does not work like this with God. And it makes sense, just as Jesus said: “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much.” (Luke 16:10). As a matter of fact, it usually works like this both in everyday life as well as in the Kingdom.
Daniel was thus introduced to the Babylonian king and court. It was only the beginning of a long career. In fact, Daniel continued to be (in the state administration) until the times of Cyrus, the Persian king.
The first chapter of Daniel always amazed me with the historical information it provides. It is evident how the vivid descriptions, the narrative, accurate to the smallest details, dates, people’s names, etc. can only be the result of personal experience. Those who fall victim to the deniers of this book’s authenticity need to know that increasing knowledge of the history of the time has always proven the case for Daniel.
Some believe there is a discrepancy between the dating of Daniel and that Jeremiah concerning the first siege of Jerusalem. It is called into question when referring to Daniel 1:1-2. The simple truth is that Jeremiah follows the Egyptian dating methods – because before Judah fell into the Babylonians’ influence, it was subdued by the Egyptians. And, as one would expect, Daniel follows the Babylonian calendar. No mistakes, no discrepancies.
7Q5 The New Testament and the Dead Sea ScrollsbyGiuseppe Guarino
The Dead Sea Scrolls were perhaps the most important manuscript finding of the twentieth century. 7Q5 is one of them: no 5 fragment in cave 7. It was in Greek.
The 18 papyri fragments of Cave 7 are visible in high definition quality on the official website: www.deadseascrolls.org.il
Sometimes evidence of the past may be huge, majestic, like the Egyptian pyramids. Other times it is all hidden in small fragments of papyrus. Then it depends on man’s deductive ability to reveal the truths hidden in the surviving evidence. The latter is the case with the manuscript fragment called 7Q5 – which stands for relic 5 of cave 7 in the Qumran site. Many have tried to understand what 7Q5 actually bears witness to. I am sure many have spent sleepless nights trying to understand if it is possible to prove what was the content of the original complete manuscript – I am one of them. I felt the need to find answers to the puzzling questions that 7Q5 arises and share them with others.
7Q5 is 3.9 cm high and 2.7 cm wide
Papyrology can turn such a little piece of evidence into a powerful witness
from the book
Chapter 4
7Q5 AND THE GOSPEL OF MARK AMONG THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS?
The Greek papyri fragment here in the picture is called 7Q5. It was catalogued number 5 among those manuscripts found in Qumran cave number 7.
It was originally part of a scroll written on only one side (recto).
20 Greek letters are visible. 10 are damaged. They are distributed on five lines.
Its maximum height is 3.9 cm. Its larger part measures 2.7 cm.
The fragment was at the Rockfeller Museum in Jerusalem but now it is property of the Israelian Antiquities Authorities.
I give the official websites to the readers so that they can see for themselves the beautiful pictures of this and other Qumran manuscripts.
In 1972 an article was published in the magazine “Biblica”, where the scholar José O’ Callaghan set forth his theory that the remaining letters visible in 7Q5 were originally part of a manuscript containing the Gospel of Mark. He identified the 20 letters as part of the text found in Mark 6:52-53.
If a Gospel is actually among the Dead Sea Scrolls, this will influence other branches of Bible studies dealing with the origin of the Gospels, their possible dates of composition, or even lead to reconsider the significance of the scrolls themselves.
Most books on the topic, if not all, make it clear that there is no evidence of New Testament writings in the Qumran caves.
This opinion is challenged by the studies of Professor Carsten Peter Thiede, whom with excitement and very plausible suggestions, convincingly reiterated and, to my opinion, demonstrated the identification of 7Q5 with the gospel of Mark proposed by O’ Callaghan.
If the possibility of Christian manuscripts in cave no. 7 has been so strongly refused, much is due to the preconceived minds relying on the results of the studies of scholars who believe that a relatively late date must be given to the books of the New Testament.
The dates of composition of the books of the New Testament has been long debated. There is no consensus among scholars of different factions. The “traditional” dating is not supported by the intellectual circles and a much later date is usually attributed to most New Testament writings. But if O’Callaghan and his followers are right, the “modern” or “liberal” theories should definitely be revised in light of the new archeological and papyrological discoveries.
In support of O’Callaghan’s identification is the recent independent work of other Bible scholars which has led them to consider – or reconsider – the books of the New Testament to have been written at an earlier age than that believed and argued by most credited scholars.
In fact, it is not easy for some to be optimistic about the antiquity of the Gospels as we know them, notwithstanding the ancient witness of the Church for the antiquity and apostolic origin of the Christian Scriptures.
Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, professor at the University of Eichstatt, thinks and openly states that the voice of the opponents to the attribution of 7Q5, among whom is the credited textual critic Kurt Aland, is the result of prejudice and not of scientific observation: “…the hypothesis of O’ Callaghan is still standing, while all the refutations so far attempted have proven to be inconsistent or wrong.” Marco e il suo Vangelo, Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi “Il vangelo di Marco”, Venezia, 30-31 may 1995, edited by Lucio Cilia, pag. 121.
A very peculiar choice of the NWT is the inclusion of the Name of God, Jehovah, in the New Testament.
In 1901 the American Standard Version systematically introduced Jehovah in all of the Old Testament Tetragram occurrences. But the use Jehovah also in the New Testament is peculiar of the NWT.
Am I for or against the inclusion of the Divine Name in the New Testament?
This is not the right question and this cannot be the way we approach this topic.
The question is: Was the Old Testament Name of God present in the autographs of the New Testament?
Then, when this question is answered using all the knowledge and the evidence we have, we are entitled to draw our conclusions and abide with them.
The Bible says that the Divine Name was revealed to Moses by God Himself.
In Exodus 3:13-15 we read: “And Moses said to God, Behold, when I come to the sons of Israel, and shall say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they shall say to me, What is His name? What shall I say to them? And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. And God said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, Jehovah (יהוה) the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My title from generation to generation.”[1]
יהוה is the way the name revealed to Moses is written in Hebrew. (Please notice that Hebrew reads from right to left.)
The Tetragram (from the Greek “Tetragrammaton”, which means four letters) corresponds in our alphabet – more or less – to the following letters: “YHWH”.
The Tetragram is translated “Jehovah” in four passages of the King James Version (Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, 26:4). As we said “The American Standard Version” used Jehovah in the Old Testament and so does the Modern King James Version – that’s why I am quoting from it here.
Discussing the opportunity to render יהוה as Jehovah or Yahweh, or in any of the other suggested ways, is not my goal here. Neither it is to investigate the meaning of the Name or Names of God. It is my purpose to ascertain whether the Divine Name was part of the autographs of the New Testament or not and, by logical consequence, if a translator can rightfully restore it in the New Testament or not.
In general, the need of identifying God’s Name and restore it has been felt by many translators when dealing with the Old Testament. But what about the New Testament? Are there any grounds to extend such practice to the New Testament?
There is nothing wrong in studying the Hebrew roots of our Christian faith. I agree that the New Testament itself motivates the inclusion of Hebrew terms in our Christian terminology. Words we even use daily like Hallelujah, Amen, Messiah, etc., are clear evidence of such tendency. But the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not in Hebrew, and many Hebrew concepts have been adapted and expressed in the Greek language in which the inspired authors were writing – showing us that there is nothing wrong with translating God’s Word. So if someone is trying to force the presence of God’s Name (whether they transliterate it Jehovah or in any other way), along with those who try to “restore” as much as possible of Hebrew terminology and names in general, we can’t help but be skeptical about it.
In fact, not only there isn’t enough evidence to believe that the Name was in the autographs of the Greek Scriptures – LXX included – but, on the contrary, there is good evidence that the Divine Name, יהוה, in any of its forms or abbreviations, was not in the original Greek New Testament.
This I will try to discuss shortly in the pages that follow.
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
We have almost six thousand manuscripts of the Greek original of the New Testament, attesting its text, antiquity and reliability. There is no trace in them of יהוה, or of any kind of transliteration of the Name in any way. In all of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, in all the occurrences of the Old Testament passages quoted, where יהוה is found in the original Old Testament Hebrew, we invariably find “Kyrios”, which is the Greek for “Lord.”
Such was the practice of the Septuagint, the LXX, which is a translation of the Old Testament in Greek as old as the third century BC. Since the New Testament writers wrote in that language, they must have simply and logically followed the LXX practice. Again, unanimous manuscript evidence points in that direction.
I believe this objective fact alone would suffice to end the matter here.
Those who believe that the יהוה was in the autographs of the New Testament and that some kind of conspiracy removed it all together from all the existing copies, have absolutely no evidence to support their views. In doing so, in their blind need to further their fantastic theories, they fail to see that, by accusing ALL manuscripts evidence to have been altered so well as to leave no trace at all of such a deliberate falsification, they are undermining the reliability of the text of the very Bible they say they cherish and honor as God’s Word.
If we can believe that someone was able to remove or change anything from the Bible and leave no trace at all of such a corruption of the text, then we must also be ready to give up believing the New Testament text as we know it to be reliable.
We thank God that such a possibility is not remote, but unquestionably and scientifically impossible and we can safely trust the text of the New Testament, which has been handed down to us through the centuries, being virtually identical to that of the autographs.
To this we must add that not only Greek manuscript show no trace of God’s Name in the New Testament, but also all the Christian writers of the first centuries that quote the New Testament know nothing of the presence of the Tetragram in the Greek text. This happens both with the orthodox and the heretic writers – who agree on this. It must be admitted that joined witness of enemies is very reliable.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
The New Testament text clearly shows that even if its writers had written their books in Hebrew, they would have avoided the use of the Tetragram – which was the common practice in the first century Jewish writers.
Though Jehovah’s Witnesses keep on believing that our goal should be to bear witness to the mosaic Name of God, in whatever way we write it or pronounce it, biblical and historical facts point to an entirely different direction.
Jesus himself said: “But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)
Christian are Jesus’ witnesses! The Bible clearly says so.
Let us consider some statistics concerning the occurrences of the יהוה and of the word God in the Old Testament.
יהוה
God
The Pentateuch
1934
810
Isaiah
500
138
Jeremiah
736
127
Ezekiel
445
253
As we can easily see, Old Testament authors gave great relevance to the Tetragram. It was the Name that God revealed just before the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt. In that occasion God gave Moses the Law and He made a covenant with the nation of Israel. יהוה was Israel’s Covenant Name of God.
In the New Testament things change. That a change occurred in the relationship of God with man and also with his people, who had rejected the Messiah, is clearly and openly stated by John in his Gospel: “For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17)
The New Testament is not Jehovah-centered, like the Old, but Christ-centered.
“Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” (Acts 4:12 – NWT)
Even using Jehovah’s witnesses’ data, which is clearly an overestimation of the possible presence of the name Jehovah in the New Testament, evidence is clear: Jehovah is found 237 times, “God” 1363 times.
The tendency of the Old Testament writers has been reversed and the use of the word “God” is overwhelming compared to the places where the JW inserted Jehovah. Also, it is worth notice that of the 237 occurrences over 133 are quotations or references to Old Testament passages. This reduces the potential use of Jehovah to around 100 occurrences. Less than one tenth of the times the New Testament authors used the word “God.”
If the New Testament intended to be “Jehovah witnessing” it is indeed a very poor witnessing.
But if the words of Jesus are to be relied and we have to be his witnesses in the preaching of the Gospel, it is natural that this must be reflected in the New Testament words.
Let’s see some more statistics.
This is the occurrence of Divine Names in in the New Testament
God 1363
Jesus 1112
Christ 536
Messiah 3
Lord* 680
Father 368
Jehovah* 237
Son of God 236
Savior 24
Even believing the ideas of the JWs are correct, looking at the New World Translation we have 237 references to Jehovah, while the reference to the person of Jesus (1112+536+3+236+24) is found about 1911 times, to which the many times he is called “Lord” should be added.
Can there be any more devastating evidence to the Christ-centered New Testament doctrine?
Also, internal evidence shows that, being their focus on Christ, the New Testament writers had no reason to use the Tetragram when the consolidated practice of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, in some instances even directly quoted) was to use the word “Kyrios”, which is “Lord”, for every occurrence of the Divine Name.
Why use “Lord”?
Because even as far as the third century BC, it was a consolidated orthodox Jewish practice, as a sign of respect, not to pronounce God’s name even when reading the Hebrew Bible.
The Jews encountering the word יהוה in their Bible, even today, read “Adonai”, which means “Lord.” Hence the Greek translation. Hence the New Testament practice. Hence every reliable translation renders “Kyrios” as “Lord”, not corrupting the text, not following opinions and ideas, but simply translating the text of the New Testament as it can be retraced through the manuscript evidence in our possession.
Even through the Greek language reverence for the Name is visible. In fact, New Testament writers show the same attitude of orthodox Jews of the first century in avoiding even the implicit use of God’s Name, as statistics data confirms.
Though the whole New Testament was written in Greek, there is a Hebrew version of Matthew that circulated in the Jewish circles and was used in the fourteenth century to dispute Christian doctrine. I believe the way the Divine Name is dealt with in the Hebrew Matthew is very instructive. In every place where Matthew quotes from the Old Testament as well as where the Name is part of significant expressions (like “Angel of the Lord”, which in Hebrew includes the Tetragram), the Hebrew text has ה, a short form of “hashem”, which means “the Name” – a very common way of reading and addressing the Tetragram among the Jews, even today.
As far as the rest of the Hebrew Matthew, the Name is avoided, not used! This is very significant. It tells us that the writers showed very deep respect for the Divine Name, and that is more evident when we look at a Hebrew version of a New Testament book.
This same attitude the reader will find in the Hebrew translations of the New Testament, where the Tetragram is obviously retained in the places where the text quotes the Old Testament passages that have it but not elsewhere in the text.
Internal evidence shows also that in many passages the context in which the apostles write show that they used the word “Lord” and not the Tetragram.
Let’s look at just one example.
“For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation. 11For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. There is the same Lord over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” (Romans 10:9-14 – NWT)
Paul wrote in Greek to Christians residing in Rome. If you read carefully his words either you realize that he must have used “Kyrios”, “Lord”, and not “Jehovah” or you must admit that he is openly identifying Jesus with Jehovah.
See the devastating parallel in 1 Corinthians 1:2: “Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will, and Sosʹthe·nes our brother, 2 to the congregation of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in union with Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones, together with all those everywhere who are calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:…”
Can we have been so deeply brain-washed not to see something so self-evident?
THE TETRAGRAM AND THE LXX
Some believe that the ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint can be a key to solving the problem concerning the presence or absence of the Name in the Greek New Testament.
The Papyrus named P. Fouad 266 or also known as Rahlfs 848 is as old as the second century BC. It has the Tetragram in the Hebrew square alphabet, the one we know and which I also used in this article, which is still in use in Israel today. Other ancient Greek manuscripts of the LXX were found with the Name in paleo-Hebrew script, the alphabet in use before the square script alphabet came into use. The singularity of the scribal behavior has led someone to conjecture that the Septuagint, though a Greek translation, originally retained the Divine Name in Hebrew letters.
Professor George Howard, whose merits are undisputed, but whose conclusions I strongly oppose, set forth a theory: “that the divine name, יהוה (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate” Greek word we translate in English as “Lord”. (see Journal of Biblical Literature, The Tetragram and the New Testament, 96/I (1977), 63-83).
I fail to see the reasons for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ excitement concerning Howard’s theories. They quote him as if he was giving any sanction to their practice of using Jehovah in the New Testament. On the contrary, he clearly states that: the New Testament originals might have had the original Hebrew words for the Tetragram (יהוה) or its common Hebrew abbreviation (ה) – not Jehovah! – but only when quoting from the Old Testament. Also, the fact that some ancient LXX manuscripts had the Name in Hebrew, is openly contrary to the use of Jehovah, that for a Jew might be as good as any other surrogate – since Jehovah is neither the transliteration of the Hebrew into our alphabet nor the way it is read. Jehovah’s witnesses are used to quote authorities that, when fairly considered, are against their views. Professor Howard has been writing to the Watch Tower for a long time to lament this misuse of his work, but without any result.
Albert Pietersma has written a very deep and valuable article on this subject: “Kyrios or Tetragram: a renewed quest for the original LXX.” There he gives convincing evidence that the presence of the Tetragram in some LXX manuscripts is due to the need of harmonization with the Hebrew text felt by some scribes or religious groups. Specifically, in dealing with the witness of the above mentioned P. Fouad 266 or Rahlfs 848, he writes: “it contains at least half a dozen instances of correction to the Hebrew text. Some revising of this text has obviously been done in order to bring it in better accord with the Hebrew.” Pietersma concludes: “In the Pentateuch kyrios (which means “Lord”) as a surrogate for the tetragram is original.”
In this perspective the testimony of the LXX to the Name assumed by Howard in order to develop his theory must be reconsidered altogether. His idea of the presence of the Tetragram or of the abbreviation of it, is not substantiated and cannot be considered anything more than a theory at best. In fact, evidence points to another direction than that suggested by Howard: the presence in some manuscripts of the original Hebrew name of God in a Greek translation must be seen as a trace of deliberate attempts of Jewish scribes to improve the text of the Septuagint, bringing it to a more evident dependence from the Hebrew original. It can be no matter of discussion the fact that the scribe inserting יהוה at the place of kyrios would not expect the fruiters of his work to read יהוה in any other way than “Adonai”, which is equivalent to “Kyrios” in Greek and “Lord” in English.
The Septuagint testimony is in favor of the use of “Kyrios”, “Lord”, by New Testament authors also where they quote from Old Testament passages. In fact they must have followed the Septuagint practice, using “Kyrios.”
CONCLUSIONS
As I said earlier, no evidence is so strong against the inclusion of יהוה in the New Testament like the witness of all the existing Greek manuscripts.
In the primitive Church days there were only local, independent groups (churches) connected one to another by bonds of love, but no central authority existed which could impose whatever idea, practice or text to all Christianity. It is self-evident that the New Testament books must have circulated for some time independently. They must have also been used and copied by heretics and, in general, by different emerging factions in Christianity.
It is practically impossible that something that occurred in all or almost all the books of the New Testament could be obliterated from manuscript evidence without leaving any trace at all in any of the surviving manuscripts. Not with the incredible amount of evidence we have of the original Greek text.
Not even entering into the details of the possible choice among the possible renderings of the Tetragram, I conclude that the serious, honest translator of the New Testament – in order to remain such and not become an editor of the text – must abide with the witness of the New Testament and translate “Lord” every occurrence of “Kyrios.”
Of course the Hebrew translations of the New Testament must be an exception, since they should diligently render the Old Testament quotations including the Name. Of course the Tetragram will be read by Jews “Adonai”, which means “Lord” and corresponds to the Greek “Kyrios” – which is the reading adopted by the New Testament.
For all the above facts, the only possible conclusion of this discussion is that, as far as evidence is concerned, no translator has the right to discard the apostolic choice to include “Lord” (Kyrios in the original Greek) in the New Testament text, even in the quotation of Old Testament passages that, in the original Hebrew, included the Divine Name. All attempts to “restore” the Name, in any of its suggested readings, are not to be encouraged or supported, since they do not improve the text, nor even simply translate it, but represent a corruption of the text of the New Testament as supported and preserved by all the ancient manuscript evidence.
[1] This and the quotations that follow are from the Modern King James Version free on the e-sword Bible software.
This article is taken from my book The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible.
If we want to state in one sentence the meaning of the work of the two great scholars Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, some could say that “they gave the final blow to the Textus Receptus.”
The Textus Receptus is the name with which the Greek critical text published by Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1516 is commonly known and referred to. It was used as an original for the main versions of the New Testament up to the year 1881. In that year Westcott and Hort published their critical edition of the original Greek text of the New Testament. They explained their method and motivated the choices made with great skill and eloquence. Although for years the Textus Receptus had not been well regarded by the world of textual scholars, no one had previously managed to produce a theory that could so easily satisfy the scientific world on the one hand, and convince the average reader of the reliability of the new text on the other. Undoubtedly, they succeeded.
There are several points in favor of the two scholars. Their basic preparation, of course. Historical circumstances also played an important role in the success of their work.
The most significant argument in favor of their thesis, in fact, was provided by the two Codes dating back to the fourth century BC, the Vatican (abbreviated B) and Sinaitic (ℵ, Aleph, first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) manuscripts which became available in that period. These were two extraordinary witness to the Greek text of the New Testament that, given their unique characteristics of completeness and antiquity, jumped to the center of scholars’ attention. Presenting the testimony of B and ℵ already made Westcott and Hort’s text attractive enough.
Since believing that “older” corresponds to “the best” or “more faithful” is an easy concept to support and defend, the theories underlying the new Greek text convinced both scholars and the public. On the one hand, the enthusiasm of the believers was motivated by the fact that a text of the New Testament was finally presented based on documents old enough to silence the criticisms that had been attracted by the relatively late age of the manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus was based. Of course, the community of scholars was quite pleased to attend the funeral of the Textus Receptus .
Westcott and Hort’s claim to have traced a “neutral” text of the Greek New Testament is very convenient to accept. Yet, although their work was intended to be definitive and the two scholars were convinced that they had obtained the closest Greek text to the original that it was possible to retrace, unfortunately this was not the case.
It is my belief that a set of more or less fortuitous circumstances, sometimes only competing with objective merits, are at the basis of the fortune of some ideas and of the individuals who have promoted them.
The exposition of Westcott and Hort is truly captivating: the theories of the scholars are proposed in a convincing, clear, cultured, attentive way, with the right words and the right arguments.
Anyway, sometimes objective truths can be presented in a mediocre way and fail to be sufficiently incisive. But I believe more attention should be paid to substance than to form. When the gospel narratives were introduced to the sophisticated and educated Greek world, they seemed to be too simple and crude to be considered worthy of any consideration – literarily speaking.
Unfortunately, some erroneous theories manage to be well received thanks to the fame and reputation of those who promote them.
Even today the names of Westcott and Hort shine in the firmament of the history of textual criticism, eclipsing far greater scholars than them, less fortunate and less sensationalistic. Their theories are still studied and evaluated with admiration today although it is now clear that very little of what they maintained was based on objective evidence.
There are actually two merits of Westcott and Hort’s work. The first, I have already mentioned, having dethroned the Textus Receptus – if that can truly be called a merit. The second is to have brought to life the Alexandrian text of the New Testament, which was in circulation in Egypt from the second to the fourth century.
I shortly evaluate here some of the conclusions that led them to boldly present to the public the critical edition of the Greek text they published in 1881.
The fourth century official revision of the Greek New Testament.
They supposed that in the fourth century an official revision of the Greek text must have given life to the “type of text” present in most of the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Such presumption was essential in order to be able to nullify the testimony of all the enemies of the text of the oldest manuscripts.
Unfortunately there was and there is no historical evidence for such a revision.
Judging from the objective data of the differences in the text, from the fundamental absence of uniformity in the majority of the manuscripts of the New Testament, although this corresponds to a certain affinity and homogeneity, it is very difficult if not impossible to suppose that these manuscripts are all the result of a deliberate textual revision which took place in Antioch and from there, it was imposed to all Christianity.
To prove their conviction Westcott and Hort isolated eight passages in the New Testament – 8 passages only! – and marked them as the product of a deliberate process which they termed Conflation. These eight readings, are, in their opinion, evidence that the fourth century revisers of the Greek text took two short readings, one belonging to the Western text and another to the Alexandrian and combined them, giving life to a longer reading. The eight passages in question are Mark 6:33, 8:26, 9:38, 9:49; Luke 9:10, 11:54, 12:18, 24:53. Let’s see in practice what we are talking about by examining at least one case.
“And they were always in the temple, blessing God.” (Luke 24:53 – New Revision)
“And they were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen” (Luke 24:53 – New International Edition)
According to Westcott and Hort, the short text “blessing”, found in manuscripts P75, Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ), the uncial L, would be the original one. The supposed fourth century revision must have altered the original reading adding the other short reading of the Western text “”praising.” Doing so, the revisers gave rise to the Majority text, Byzantine/TR reading that we find today in most manuscripts.
That a handful of manuscripts, evidently coming from one single tradition, that is, closely related with each other, may be right against the rest of the New Testament handwritten evidence is a paradox that is difficult to prove by virtue of any theory. The simple reality of the facts is that the long, original reading must have been independently abbreviated to give birth the two short versions of it found in the Alexandrian and Western manuscripts respectively. How can the latter statement be made? Simply because such official, phantomatic revision has left no trace in history and no actual, real evidence exists that it ever took place.
The discovery of several Papyri manuscripts (P45, P46, P66, P75) not available in the nineteenth century, forced twentieth century textual critics of the biblical text to revise some paradigms. These Papiry, which were older than ℵ and B, surprisingly showed traces of Byzantine readings at a time when, according to Westcott and Hort’s theory, they should not have existed.
Let’s see an example,
Luke 12:31
TR (KJV): “But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you.”
According to the witness of ℵ and B the reading was changed to,
“Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things shall be yours as well.” (Revised Standard Version)
“But seek His kingdom, and these things will be provided to you.” (New American Standard Bible)
The supposed late, fourth century Majority/Byzantine/TR reading was later found in the newly discovered P45. It was also in A, W, 33 and other witnesses. That is why the traditional reading has been restored in newer editions of the New Testament.
Let us have a closer look at the manuscript evidence.
– Seek the kingdom – P75.
– Look for his kingdom – B and ℵ.
P45 significantly agrees with the Majority text. Bruce Metzger adds the testimony of P75 in favor of the Alexandrian reading, because “the scribe of P75 has a tendency to omit personal pronouns.” But he might as well have omitted “of God”, we can’t say for sure.
External, objective evidence is by far in favor of the traditional reading. The certainties in Bruce Metzger’s mind, with all due respect, are not convincing enough: “It is more likely that ‘his’ has been replaced by ‘God’s.’” Objective evidence cannot be discarded in force of personal considerations. Metzger supposes the traditional text is a harmonization of Luke with Matthew 6:33. However, in the Nestle Aland the words “of God”, are questioned and put within square brackets, because, as the note of the same scholar explains, the short reading, which is found in ℵ and B, “Explains better the origin of the others”. Using Rhetoric we can support any view or idea and sound convincing, but suppositions must leave the scene when evidence comes in, and in this case evidence is for the Byzantine reading.
There is another passage that had sufficient evidence during the days of Westcott and Hort, but that the two scholars failed to correctly evaluated because of their blind love for the two fourth century codex.
Matthew 6:33
“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided to you.” (WH – NASB)
“But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (WH – NIV)
“But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” (TR – NKJV)
Westcott and Hort’s reading is not the original one. It would be supported by ℵ and B were it not for the fact that at this point the two manuscripts do not agree on the same reading; therefore in reality the short reading is found only in the first of the two. This should have suggested the two scholars the simple fact that conflicting witnesses are not reliable.
Against the hypothesis of Westcott and Hort that the Byzantine text originated through revision, as I already mentioned, the fact that second-third century papyri P45, P66 and P75 show a good number of “Byzantine” readings, which, if the English scholars were actually right, could not have existed in the second and third century – long before the revision they imagine, describe, but cannot prove with objective, historical evidence. Today, it is clear enough: it never took place!
I looked in the Nestle-Aland and checked the critical apparatus concerning the Gospel of John.
In John 5:17, “Jesus” is omitted from P75, B, ℵ and of course not found in the Westcott and Hort text. But it is in P66, the oldest and most complete manuscript of John.
In John 5:19 the Greek word ὰν is the Vatican and Sinaitic reading and is therefore adopted by Hort. But the reading of the Majority text εὰν, is now also found in P66 and P75!
In John 5:29 the choice is between:
– οι – P66c, B. It is the reading adopted by Westcott and Hort.
– οι δε – P75, ℵ. As with the previous reading, in the light of the new evidence, the reading of the Majority text made its way in the Nestle-Aland.
– καὶ οι – P66, W.
Wilbur Pickering collects a series of interesting observations in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text.
Observing 51 variants in the text, this is a table of the times they agree with ℵ, B, and the TR.
ℵ B TR
P45 21 25 33
P66 16 32 38
P75 11 36 33
If P45, P66 and P75 had been discovered in the nineteen century, quite probably there would have been no Westcott and Hort theory as we know it.
Even the name “Byzantine” conceived probably to discredit the witness of the vast majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts, has been replaced today by the more appropriate – and neutral – adjective “Majority” (acknowledged today by all scholars).
Westcott and Hort were wrong, there was no official revision that gave birth to the text found in most of the New Testament manuscripts. The assumption that allowed them to set aside 90% of the handwritten evidence to make room for the supremacy of their Neutral Text mirage was mistaken and must be abandoned.
The Genealogical method applied to the text of the New Testament.
Having set aside the Majority text witness, Westcott and Hort applied the so called genealogical method in order to determine which was the original among the variant readings found in ancient manuscripts. In order for this method to actually give reliable results, some conditions had to occur. A major one is that the manuscripts at our disposal must be so closely related to each other as to allow us to trace the original text through the copying errors made. Furthermore, the text of the manuscripts should not have been polluted by voluntary variations.
The genealogical method is therefore inapplicable to the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and has never actually been applied. Colwell affirms it and Aland reiterates it.
Deliberate changes to the text are one of the main reasons for most of the variant readings we find in manuscripts, or, to say it more politely, it was an excess of self-esteem of the scribes that gave rise to many changes introduced into the text of the New Testament. The differences among the manuscripts belonging to the Alexandrian- Egyptian tradition are clear evidence of this fact.
Since trying to apply this method to New Testament textual criticism is no longer considered possible, it is not necessary to say more about it. Another fundamental practice behind the creation of the Neutral Text has been proved to be wrong, and if not wrong in itself, inapplicable to the Greek text of the New Testament.
Yet, Westcott and Hort’s fame has been left untouched and the results of their conclusions never radically questioned by the main stream of textual critics, who, basically, follow in their footsteps.
Text Types
For the sake of convenience, I often speak of types of text myself: Alexandrian, Western, Majority. But it is an artificial construction that does not correspond to the reality of the facts. In fact, the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament cannot, in a definite and scientific way, be placed within such artificial categories as what we define “text types.”
The truth is that, for the Greek New Testament we have too much manuscript evidence and that it is too heterogeneous to allow such a rigid classification. The text that Westcott and Hort imagined to have brought back to light was what they termed Neutral, the purest form, closest to the originals, that could be found in the manuscripts available. Hort stated: “We are convinced that (1) the readings of ℵ and B must be accepted as authentic as long as valid internal evidence proves the opposite, and that (2) no reading of ℵ and B can be definitively rejected…”
The theory of these two scholars is convenient. It would be easy to embrace and defend it for the plausibility it brings with it and which makes it seductive both for the believer and for the scholar: the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable, just follow them and we will have the original text. Unfortunately, the evidence and the love of textual truth cannot make right the wrong.
Let me be a bit more radical. There is just one text type, and that is the Majority Text. It is the result of the faithful copying tradition of the autographs down to the invention of moving type printing. All the other manuscripts which do not belong to this category, are simply editions, revisions and deviations from the reliable line of transmission of the text of the New Testament.
Western Non-Interpolations.
The Western Non-Interpolations are nine New Testament passages considered spurious by Westcott and Hort. They are omitted only by some manuscripts cataloged as witnesses of the “Western Text” but present in the rest of the New Testament manuscripts. They are Matthew 27:49, Luke 22:19b-20, 24:3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52.
This detail of the W-H theory and text is absurd. It shows how the two scholars overestimated their personal judgment as much as the (isolated) scribes who deliberately dared to manipulate the text of the Gospels. Supposing that a few, otherwise considered inferior manuscripts altogether, are the only recipient of the truth of the Gospel means to invalidate the reliability of the Greek New Testament manuscript evidence itself and goes beyond the boundaries of sound, objective textual criticism.
“…scholars have been critical of the apparently arbitrary way in which Westcott and Hort isolated nine passages… whereas they did not give similar treatment to other readings that also are absent from Western witnesses.” Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, p. 165.
Westcott and Hort is not “apparently”, but totally arbitrary and the same remark can be made concerning their theory in general.
There are no signs of voluntary alteration of the text.
This is another false assumption on which the Westcott and Hort’s theory stands.
Objective evidence, coming from various patristic writings, but also by observing the variant readings of some manuscripts show that deliberate changes to the text are a fact the textual critic must seriously evaluate among the other causes behind the birth of differences among manuscripts.
But, we wonder: why did the two scholars come up with such a principle? Because if it is believed that there have been attempts to deliberately alter the biblical text, the genealogical method is no longer applicable to the New Testament and their whole theory falls apart.
The main reason for voluntary changes are doctrinal. What may seem absurd to one’s mind must have looked as necessary to another. The case of Origen, the famous father of the Church, is a clear example of this. He believed that Jesus could have never said, “Get behind Me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:23) and that therefore there must have been a primitive error in the manuscripts with this reading – which is, all! Origen was a textual critic too: would he not erase such phrase from the manuscripts he would copy?
There are also open accusations of early believers who write of heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in order to substantiate their wrong doctrines. The so called Western non-interpolations must have originated because of the beliefs of gnostics following the famous heretic Marcion, who did not believe in Jesus being a true man and actually suffering on the cross.
There are traces of peculiar attempts to alter the text in the manuscripts themselves.
P45 is a very ancient manuscript, but not so reliable. For reasons that we do not know the scribe of this papyrus shortened the text by removing here and there whatever he thought unnecessary, keeping, anyway, the readability of the text.
Intentional variations to the text introduce elements that disturb the practice of textual criticism, because they present us with modifications due to circumstances that we probably ignore. However, neglecting this possibility exposes you to trivial errors.
Colwell said it plainly, “Most of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons… In the New Testament manuscripts most of the variations, I am convinced, were deliberately introduced.”
Conclusions
Nothing to argue about the objective merits of Westcott and Hort, their credentials and academic achievements. But time and new discoveries have proved the inconsistency of their textual theories for the Greek New Testament.
Their contribution still remains in history as the most glamorous and popular result of textual criticism. Yet, it is doubtful that their results meant a real progress in the search for the original text of Scripture. Much more correct were the observations of those who, already at the time of Westcott and Hort, less popular, defended the text of the majority of manuscripts. Pillars like Burgon, Scrivener, Miller are ignored and falsely accused of being blind defenders of the Textus Receptus in the academic circles.
The truth is that Westcott and Hort dethroned the Textus Receptus only to revive a less reliable “type” of text, a text fabricated in Egypt, influenced by the school of Alexandria. Their theory has fallen miserably against the weight of evidence, but their fame and, more important, their text still remains standing. It is a wrong that sound textual criticism of today’s many scholars who support the Majority Text (Robinson, Pierpont, Pickering, Farstad, Hodges) will, in time, I am sure, correct, giving new assurance of the reliability and accountability of the Greek text so well and miraculously preserved to both the average Bible reader and the diligent student of the Word.
This article is taken from my book on the Majority Text.
CAUGHT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND FAITHby Giuseppe Guarino
Can Science and Faith coexist in the mind of the twenty-first century Christian? The author of this book is a man of faith, but also a science fan. He enthusiastically shares with the readers his personal, fascinating journey into trying to make both the two alleged opposite branches of human knowledge, faith and science, live in his mind and heart. The results of his thoughts are quite edifying – as far as faith is concerned – and interesting – from a scientific point of view.
Since the Universe is ruled by unbreakable Laws, two views are possible.
There is no God and it is simply a cage
There is a God, and it is a giant play-ground!
I advocate the second view and enjoy it!
From the book
CHAPTER TWO
The rules that cannot be broken
“The universe is governed by a set of rational laws that we can discover and understand.”, Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, xi.
These rules are there, and – that’s it?
They simply are. No-one created them? Is there no greater mind behind them, no design? Is there no reason why things are the way they are?
Is our universe a giant cage, ruled by self-made unbreakable laws?
Can we be satisfied with just learning about those laws, or can we hope to understand the reason or reasons why things are the way they are?
Such beauty, such perfection can’t be meaningless.
If the world was not created and if there is no God, why do we all feel this need to find the answers to so many “why’s” which are inevitable when the world is observed and its majesty considered?
If the whole universe obeys to the so called “natural laws”, then why was it necessary to have this other law too? Why can’t we simply be, just be; like a planet, a star, a cat or a dog? In the end, are we not made all of the same matter, atoms and molecules? Are we not basically subject to the same rules and limitations?
Gravity is necessary. A cat eating a dog – no, sorry, it’s the dog eating the cat… Well, dogs don’t eat cats anymore, maybe soon they will ally against humans. Anyway, putting aside jokes, the balance of the planet is important to the least of the rings of this immense chain that keeps our world inhabited.
The sun is at a perfect distance from the earth.
The earth describes an elliptical orbit around the sun and it could not be otherwise.
All of these things are necessary, not even one is expendable. They cannot be there by chance. We feel it. We cannot explain with words, because it is spiritual. It is a perception that goes beyond the physical. But, it is a fact. Like it is necessary and unchangeable that the moon show only one face to our planet, at the same time it is inevitable that we keep wondering why about the mysteries of the cosmos.
Does my ideas make any sense at all? If they do, they open a door. A door to an invisible universe, parallel to the visible, co-existing with it.
Love is as strong as gravity, this can’t be denied. It is beyond any natural, scientific, explanation. It is not governed by any understandable law. Yet, we all are, sooner or later, interested in its irresistible attraction.
Contemplation of beauty is as real as the perfect moving of planets and stars.
Since no law in the universe is apparently without a specific purpose, if I feel the need to understand – and not only observe – it must be because there is a reason why the world exists and we can hope to investigate the matter successfully.
If we simply stop at discovering the laws of the universe, we have only used half of our potential and only partially fulfilled our inclinations and purpose. If we did so it would be as if the sun refused to shine for six months a year – it would be a disaster. Also the moon, which it may decide to simply move a bit closer or farther, it would have catastrophic consequences.
So, if we, as human beings, avoid asking ourselves all the “why’s” which our condition as human beings demands that we do in order to function fully and fulfill our purpose, why do we expect no worse consequences? Can’t we see we are witnessing this today?
Today’s technology and progress are wonderful. Then, why are we destroying the planet? Why this need to destroy ourselves? Is this not evidence of a deep, rooted feeling of discontentment or even hate for ourselves
The answer is simple: because we focus on the “how” and discard the need to understand the “why”.
Today an entire generation is becoming more and more dysfunctional from a spiritual point of view. Not because they are not told the meaning and purpose in life, but because from young age they are taught nihilism in a systematic way and implicitly told that life has no meaning.
If we consider the laws ruling the universe for what they are, if we consider that they cannot be broken, then the universe and our planet become only a cage. Big, beautiful; yet a cage anyway.
But.
If we consider the “why” and the “why’s”, if we find the source and the meaning of it all, if we discover that all has and is with a purpose, then the cage turns into a playground.
I have my own right to look for the reasons why the world exists. I do have my own ideas, theories and thoughts. And as a scientist investigates the physical, being a religious man I feel the need to investigate the spiritual.
Yes, there are Laws in the universe. They are there with a purpose: they are there for us! They are there to show us that God loves us. He set the universe in motion and He preserves it.
When I take my kids to the park I do because I want them to have a good time and enjoy contact with nature, fresh air and a more traditional way of playing. I give them rules to follow, even before getting there, and I supervise them as they play. The reason is because I want them to have fun but not to get hurt – or hurt someone – by taking risks or misbehaving. Laws, rules and regulations are not sadism, but a result of care and love.
I believe God created the universe, he set all in motion according to specific rules so that we may live it and enjoy it. He is both the cause and the purpose of it all.
There is an expression in the New Testament which is incredibly powerful, full of meaning and implications.
It speaks of Jesus, the Son of God made man, as upholding (or sustaining) all things by the word of His power. (Hebrews 1:3).
We are safe, love was the reason because the universe was created and love is the reason why God will not let it be destroyed before His purpose will be fulfilled.
GREEK, THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENTNew Wine into New Wineskins by Giuseppe Guarino.
We got the New Testament in Greek. Koinè Greek, used in a form we can call Biblical Greek. The Author was recently confronted with some claims that Greek was not the New Testament actual language of composition. Then he asked himself: were the autographs of the New Testament actually written in Greek or Hebrew, Aramaic, or whatever language or dialect was spoken by the Jews in Israel during the first century? He investigated the matter and found enough reasonable evidence to come up with convincing ideas. They are collected in this book, hoping they will be a satisfactory answer to those interested in this challenging question.
Introduction (from the book)
This collection of considerations is a personal review of facts I have learned and thoughts I have meditated on the challenging topic described in the title of this book.
We got the New Testament in an “original” Greek. I was recently confronted with some claims that this is not its actual language of composition.
So, I asked myself: were the autographs of the New Testament actually written in Greek or Hebrew or even Aramaic, or whatever language or dialect was spoken by the Jews in Israel during the first century?
I investigated the matter and found enough reasonable evidence to come up with convincing ideas. I collected them here.
I pray the results of my study will give a satisfactory answer to those interested in this challenging question.
Sicily, 9th December, 2018.
Chapter 1
The Language of the New Testament
As far as evidence is concerned, the original Text of the New Testament has been handed down to us through manuscripts which contain it in Greek.
The question has recently been asked me: Are you sure the original New Testament was actually written in Greek?
The New Testament is a collection of books written independently, at various times and in different places, for specific immediate needs or purposes.
In this perspective, and for the sake of convenience, we will discuss about those books separately.
The initial question, in fact, must be thus reviewed: were any or all of the books of the New Testament originally written in another language that was not the Greek in which they have travelled down through the centuries?
If we rely on external, objective, evidence only, we must answer the preceding question positively. There is, in fact, no manuscript attestation that can actually compete with the over six thousand representing the Greek originals of the New Testament.
The Church has constantly relied on the Greek manuscripts as a witness to the original text of the Christian Scriptures. And, apart from some references to Hebrew autographs, like Matthew for example, we have no other serious candidate for a non-Greek original language.
The above made me always state, and I confirm it now, that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.
The first century Greek spoken everywhere in the Roman Empire is called Koinè. But I prefer to refer to Biblical Greek when speaking of the language of the Septuagint or of that of the New Testament.
Koinè was the language of commerce, of contracts and documents. It was the language spoken everywhere in the former Greek empire founded by Alexander the Great.
The peculiarities of the language of the Scriptures became even more evident in the hands of the early Christians.
So many conjectures, suppositions and ideas can be added to the above statement which represents facts as they are. So many details of the language of the New Testament can be investigated.
The purpose, my purpose, is not and cannot be arguing or trying to prove or disprove this or that theory, but to deepen and widen our understanding of the holy scriptures, their meaning, authority and authenticity.
If I wanted to shock the readers I would say that all the books of the New Testament were basically written in Hebrew, this term being a general way to address the language currently spoken in Israel during the times of
Jesus – if it was biblical Hebrew or Aramaic, we will say something about it later. In fact, even if Paul, Luke, or any other inspired author entrusted their thoughts and ideas to the Greek language, their mother tongue, frame of mind and the environment in which they lived was Jewish, Semitic. The Faith they were writing about was based on Hebrew Scriptures. Very probably in their work they consulted some reliable early document in Hebrew – abundant evidence shows the latter is more than an assumption.
Had the New Testament been written all in Hebrew it could have not been more Jewish than it is the way it was delivered to us.
I believe this to be a fact.
After I learned Greek, studying the original text made it clear for me how necessary it was to learn at least some Hebrew.
This is why I call the Greek of the Septuagint and its consequent New Testament evolution, Biblical Greek. Because it is a derivation of Koinè. It started there, but then it took a path of its own, which is also deeply connected to the development of the Jewish Faith that we call Christianity.
Just a few examples.
Matthew 1:1 reads: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (King James Version).
I choose the KJV here because we need to look at a literal translation. The opening of this gospel is so deeply Jewish that no translation in any language can change this fact.
If it had been originally written in Hebrew, the translator(s) in Greek must have rendered it faithfully
and literally, so that, in practice, the Greek is no less Semitic than a Hebrew autograph.
The KJV follows a literal translation criteria, which I actually like.
We all know there are different ways of translating a text from one language to another.
For the way in which I read the Bible, I always had a preference for the literal approach. Other ways will inevitably reflect the personal ideas and opinions of the translator(s).
Translating literally is sanctioned by the New Testament itself, since the Greek we read today clearly shows
Hebrew thoughts in a native speaker’s mind or
Reference to written sources, documents, or
Even autographs.
The New Testament in Greek keeps all the flavor, the Semitisms, the atmosphere, the terminology of Hebrew-Jewish language and culture.
The New King James Version tries to move a bit further in Matthew 1:1 and renders: “the book of the generation” so the reader may have access to the idiomatic correspondent expression in English: “the genealogy.”
This is more conveying the meaning in our modern current language than simply translating it, for the sake of being more understandable and make sense to the English speaking reader.
The NKJV doesn’t continue this way for the rest of the verse. It is just like the KJV: “the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.”
The Amplified Bible will fulfill its purpose and further dig into the meaning of Mt 1:1, which, of course, is not so evident to the non-Jewish mind or those who are not familiar with the Scriptures: “The book of the ancestry (genealogy) of Jesus Christ (The Messiah, the Anointed), the son (descendant) of David, the son (descendant) of Abraham.”
The English word “son” perfectly translates the Greek here, which, in turn, literally renders the Hebrew, and conveys the idea of descent and not of a direct father-son relationship. This frame of mind is not found here in Mt 1:1 only. See James 2:21, Romans 4:1, 12, 16, Acts 7:2, just to name a few.
Anyway, focusing on the Hebrew language only can also lead us astray.
If not by the authors, Greek was chosen by the supposed translator(s) of the New Testament, who must have been convinced that it could serve their purpose well.
Neglecting the importance of Greek is dangerous and can be an (even involuntary) attempt to undermine the witness of the Church.
In the next chapter I will give the reader a quick introduction of the Greek language in general, then I will move to discuss evidence in favor of Greek autographs and the possibility of non-Greek autographs.
The New World Translation (NWT) is the official translation of the Bible released by the Watch Tower, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Directive Body. The first English edition was presented to the public in 1950. The latest updated edition is the 2013’s, now available online.
It is a very peculiar version of the Bible.
In this book I will direct the readers’ attention to the evident mistakes that make of the NWT a unique literary phenomenon among the various attempts of translating the Bible. These mistakes are so many and so misleading on certain specific doctrines that I cannot help but wonder if we are looking instead of a translation at a deliberate attempt to manipulate the text of the Scripture. This the readers will judge by themselves.
In the first part of the book I will focus my attention on the New Testament passages where the Deity of Jesus has been removed or made obscure, considering as simply as I can the grammar of the original Greek text of the New Testament.
In the second and fourth part I will discuss the critical text adopted by the NWT and its choice to include the name of God, Jehovah, in the New Testament.
The third part will be a quick look at passages in the NWT which still bear witness to the deity of Jesus.
My goal is to make this work a quick reference book and a tool in the hands of the believer whenever Jehovah’s Witnesses will knock on their doors so that he or she will be able to answer to their false pretenses on the New World Translation reliability.
The info I collected and used here comes from the very good official website that the Watch Tower has built, www.jw.org, which is absolutely very useful for quick access to information that in the past was very hard to collect.
May God help us not to be arguers only, but good witnesses of His grace.
INTRODUCING THE PROBLEM
In this first section I will discuss of those Bible passages which clearly teach that Jesus is God in the original Greek but that the Watch Tower has not translated accurately, altering the simple truth they reveal, in order to better substantiate their unscriptural position on the person of Jesus.
I will evaluate these passages in the light of my experience on the original text of the New Testament, quoting, when necessary, from grammars and manuals.
The critical text that I will use as a reference is the The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. Anyway, most of the passages I quote in this study are the same with the prestigious Nestle-Aland text, which the JW seem to be so fond of.
For the English text I will use the New King James Version as a constant reference, but honestly, concerning the Deity of Jesus, I might use any other Bible translation, both old and new.
One important detail is that, up until now, the Watch Tower has not released an official grammar for the New Testament Greek. This is why, absurd as it may seem, they quote from grammars and texts that ultimately contradict or do not share their views.
It is incredible how they extensively quote Harner in a passage where, if read all, he affirms the divinity of the Son of God. Just like they quote Howard to motivate their inclusion of Jehovah in the New Testament – notwithstanding the fact that he has openly asked the Watch Tower to stop misusing his studies.
TANAKH è una parola formata dalle iniziali delle tre divisioni principali delle Scritture sacre per gli ebrei: Legge: Torah, תורה – Profeti: Nebi’îm (o Nevi’îm), נביאים – Scritti: Ketubîm (o Ketuvîm), כתובים.
Il primo dei tre volumi è già disponibile su Amazon:
TORAH, LA LEGGE, i primi cinque libri di Mosè, il Pentateuco.
Introduzione tratta dal libro
di Giuseppe Guarino
Il Tanakh viene anche definito Antico Testamento, al quale viene sommato il Nuovo per dar vita alla raccolta chiamata Bibbia, il libro sacro della cristianità.
Questi, schematicamente, i libri che compongono il canone ebraico.
Gesù stesso ha fatto riferimento a questa triplice divisione in una meravigliosa conferma della sua messianicità: “Sono queste le parole che vi dicevo quando ero ancora con voi: bisogna che si compiano tutte le cose scritte su di me nella Legge di Mosè, nei Profeti e nei Salmi” (Luca 24:44).
La Bibbia, nelle versioni oggi diffuse, presenta l’Antico Testamento, seguendo la divisione e l’ordine della traduzione greca detta dei LXX (Settanta), molto popolare fra i cristiani del primo secolo. Raccoglie i libri nel seguente ordine: Pentateuco, Scritti (storici e poetici), Profeti (Maggiori e Minori). Questa disposizione è cronologica, al contrario di quella ebraica che è tematica.
Quest’opera presenterà i libri dell’Antico Testamento secondo il canone ebraico.
Torah
TORAH in ebraico, “Legge” in italiano, ovvero “Pentateuco”, sono i vari modi in cui vengono chiamati i primi e più antichi libri della Bibbia: Genesi, Esodo, Levitico, Numeri e Deuteronomio.
Dio comandò espressamente a Mosè di scrivere.
“E il Signore disse a Mosè: “Scrivi questo fatto in un libro, perché se ne conservi il ricordo” (Esodo 17:14).
Gesù stesso afferma che Mosè è l’autore del Pentateuco, come leggiamo nel Vangelo di Giovanni: “Perché se credeste a Mosè, credereste anche a me; poiché egli ha scritto di me. Ma se non credete agli scritti di lui, come crederete alle mie parole?” (Giovanni 5:46-47).
Alcuni studiosi, soprattutto in passato, hanno gettato dei dubbi sulla mosaicità di questi cinque libri della Bibbia. Tempo fa, infatti, a causa delle scarse conoscenze storiche si riteneva che la scrittura fosse sconosciuta a Mosè e che la tradizione orale fosse predominante durante periodo in cui visse. Ma il tempo e le scoperte archeologiche più recenti hanno dimostrato che tali conclusioni erano infondate. Intere biblioteche, anche di molto più antiche del periodo del quale stiamo parlando, sono state scoperte in Medio Oriente, ad Ugarit, Mari, Ebla. Forse ci viene difficile crederlo, ma l’uso della scrittura era diffusissimo nell’antichità e riguardava testi scolastici, narrativi, amministrativi.
“Nei cento anni che durò Ur III (siamo nel 2120 – 2000 a.C.), fu prodotta una enorme quantità di documentazione scritta, dove persino le più insignificanti transazioni, come l’acquisto di una sola pecora, venivano registrate”. Città perdute della Mesopotamia di Guendolyn Leick, pag. 123.
Accanto alla tradizione mesopotamica, va anche considerata quella egiziana. Mosè rimase per anni alla corte del faraone, durante i quali ricevette la migliore istruzione del tempo. Gli egiziani avevano due maniere per scrivere. Quella più nota è la scrittura in geroglifici. Ma non è l’unica. Già dalla metà del terzo millennio a.C., fu in uso la scrittura ieratica, molto più semplice, utilizzata per documenti amministrativi, contabili, giudiziari, archivi, ecc…
Mosè aveva a sua disposizione i mezzi per scrivere il Pentateuco, per fermare in forma scritta il codice, la Legge del popolo che si sarebbe insediato nella terra promessa da Dio.
Del resto i più antichi Codici sono stati ritrovati proprio in Mesopotamia, la terra dalla quale Abramo era uscito. Al periodo Ur III va fatto risalire il più antico codice conosciuto, quello del re Ur-Nammu. Di qualche secolo dopo è il più famoso codice del re babilonese Hammurabi.
Durante i suoi anni di esilio, Mosè deve aver appreso da Ietro, suo suocero, le radici della sua fede nel Dio di Abramo, Isacco e Giacobbe. Avendo visto quanto in comune hanno le narrazioni bibliche della creazione, di Noè e del diluvio, con gli antichi miti mesopotamici, è difficile pensare che Mosè non abbia avuto accesso a documenti scritti o tradizioni orali che riportavano le credenze del suo popolo su tali eventi passati. A queste fonti può avere attinto, ispirato da Dio, per la composizione della Genesi.
Dio aveva preparato Mosè, attraverso le incredibili vicende della sua vita, per essere il più grande legislatore della storia dell’umanità.
Sia la testimonianza delle Sacre Scritture sia le evidenze storiche sono a favore della mosaicità del Pentateuco. Non è questa la sede per discutere le implicazioni e le conseguenze dei successivi possibili interventi redazionali che devono aver portato al testo che oggi noi conosciamo.
Consiglio la lettura dei libri dell’egittolo David Rohl. Il suo “Il testamento perduto” è un capolavoro di armonizzazione storica fra i dati archeologici e le informazioni storiche trovate nella Bibbia. Il libro “Exodus, Myth or History” dello stesso autore non è stato ancora tradotto in italiano, ma ne è stato tratto un film “Patterns of Evidence” uscito nelle sale cinematografiche americane e, per qualche tempo, disponibile su Netflix.
Il testo dell’Antico Testamento
La domanda che sorge spontanea dopo avere considerato l’antichità dell’Antico Testamento è: come sono giunti fino a noi questi scritti?
Si tratta di una curiosità lecita, specie se consideriamo che la prima edizione stampata dell’Antico Testamento è stata prodotta solo nel 1488 d.C. a Soncino, in Italia: 3000 anni dopo la composizione del Pentateuco, 2000 anni dopo la chiusura del canone.
Prima di quel periodo, l’Antico Testamento era stato trasmesso da una generazione all’altra copiandolo in manoscritti.
Non è difficile immaginare che subito dopo che i libri sacri furono composti, si cominciarono a fare delle copie, così che questi fossero diffusi. Quando le copie più vecchie sono state rovinate dall’uso, furono rimpiazzate da delle nuove.
Il testo che abbiamo oggi è ricavato dall’esame degli antichi manoscritti esistenti. Il processo di raccolta, comparazione ed edizione dei testi antichi è compito della cosiddetta critica testuale, che, ovviamente, non riguarda solo la Bibbia, ma tutti i libri composti prima dell’invenzione della stampa.
Ma quanto è affidabile il processo di copiatura per poter sostenere che il testo che è oggi in nostro possesso sia virtualmente uguale a quello originale?
Lo storico giudeo Giuseppe Flavio, vissuto all’inizio del primo seolo, parla nei suoi libri della grande importanza che avevano gli scritti sacri per la nazione ebraica. Le prove manoscritte a nostra disposizione, nonché la cura che anche oggi gli stessi ebrei mostrano per la fedele preservazione del testo sacro, gli dannno ragione.
Nessun altro libro mostra come l’Antico Testamento una tale accuratezza nella maniera in cui vengono riportati i nomi degli antichi re.
“Vi sono ventinove re antichi i cui nomi menzionati non solo nella Bibbia ma anche in monumenti del loro tempo; molti di loro prodotti sotto la loro supervisione. Vi sono 195 consonanti in questi 19 nomi propri. Ancora, troviamo che nei documenti dell’Antico Testamento ebraico vi sono solo due o tre fra le 195 delle quali vi può essere dubbio circa il loro essere la riproduzione fedele di quello che era iscritto sui monumenti. Alcuni di questi vanno indietro fino a 2000 anni fa, altri 400; e sono scritti in tal modo che ogni lettera sia chiara e corretta. Questo è certamente sorprendente”. “Which Bible”, edito da David O. Fuller, pag.45
Ciò a dimostrazione di due cose: 1. Gli autori dei libri erano contemporanei dei fatti di cui scrivono e riportano il tutto con estrema accuratezza. 2. L’attenta copiatura di tali dettagli minori, quali i nomi propri di antichi re, ci permette di supporre la più minuziosa cura anche durante il processo di copiatura in genere, divenendo un chiaro indizio dal quale possiamo dedurre l’affidabilità della tradizione manoscritta.
“Che i nomi ci siano stati trasmessi attraverso così tante copiature e così tanti secoli in uno stato di così completa preservazione è un fenomeno senza uguali nella storia della letteratura”, ibid, pag.55.
Dio stava prendendosi cura affinché il testo della Bibbia giungesse fino a noi nella maniera più fedele possibile all’originale e lo faceva attraverso la fedeltà del suo popolo nell’attendere al compito di custodi della Parola di Dio.
Scriveva Paolo: “Qual è dunque il vantaggio del Giudeo? O qual è la utilità della circoncisione? Grande per ogni maniera; prima di tutto, perché a loro furono affidati gli oracoli di Dio” (Romani 3:1-2).
Per quanto riguarda le testimonianze dirette al testo dell’Antico Testamento giunteci dal passato, dobbiamo evidenziare che per molti anni, secoli addirittura, sono stati disponibili pochissimi manoscritti e di data relativamente recente.
Cito i più importanti in uno schema.
Nome e categoria
Data
Contenuto
Codice Aleppo
925
A.T. escl. Pentateuco
Codice di Leningrado L
1008
Tutto A.T.
British Museum 4445 B
925
Quasi tutto Pentateuco
Codice del Cairo C
986
I libri dei profeti
Questi manoscritti rappresentano il cosiddetto testo Masoretico, quello utilizzato già dai traduttori della Bibbia del diciassettesimo secolo, per la King James Version inglese del 1611 o la Diodati italiana e francese, 1607-1649.
A causa della datazione relativamente recente dei testimoni del testo Masoretico, questo veniva sottovalutato da diversi studiosi. La scoperta nel 1947 dei cosiddetti Rotoli del Mar Morto, però, aprì nuove porte per una migliore comprensione della storia della trasmissione dell’Antico Testamento. A cominciare da quell’anno e in quelli seguenti, in prossimità del sito di Qumram, furono ritrovati, in undici grotte, dei manoscritti della Bibbia ebraica datati fra il II a.C. ed il I secolo d.C. Questa meravigliosa scoperta portò indietro nel tempo la testimonianza al testo dell’Antico Testamento di oltre 1000 anni.
Del significato di una tale incredibile scoperta parla Ellis R. Brotzman: “Le cospicue differenze nell’ortografia e nelle forme grammaticali fra il manoscritto di S. Marco e il testo Masoretico rende il loro accordo sostanziale nelle parole del testo ancora più rimarchevole…E’ da meravigliarsi che dopo qualcosa come 1000 anni il testo è andato soggetto a così poche alterazioni”, Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, pag. 95.
Le piccole differenze nell’ortografia dimostrano che i documenti provengono da fonti diverse ed indipendenti e ciò rende il loro accordo più significativo e la loro testimonianza più affidabile.
Il testo dell’Antico Testamento è stato confermato – almeno per quanto concerne le ricerche storiche.
Con gli occhi della fede, non c’è mai stato alcun dubbio che la mano di Dio si fosse presa cura della Sua Parola, perché è chiaro che non avrebbe avuto alcun senso ispirare un testo che poi sarebbe andato perduto durante il suo tragitto nella storia. Dio stesso ha preservato ciò che ha ispirato: lo crediamo per fede, oggi lo confermano le evidenze storiche ed archeologiche.
Per dirlo con le parole di Gesù: “poiché io vi dico in verità che finché non siano passati il cielo e la terra, neppure un iota o un apice della legge passerà, che tutto non sia adempiuto.” (Matteo 5:18)
Antiche traduzioni dell’Antico Testamento
Le antiche traduzioni dell’originale delle Scritture ebraiche dimostrano l’esistenza, la diffusione e lo stato del testo sacro nel periodo nel quale la traduzione è stata eseguita.
Varie versioni dell’Antico Testamento sono state approntate durante il suo lungo tragitto nella storia. Non così tante, comunque, come per il Nuovo Testamento, a causa della distinzione nazionale della religione ebraica, e molte sono state motivate dall’uso cristiano.
La traduzione più conosciuta dell’Antico Testamento è quella greca chiamata Septuaginta ovvero dei Settanta (abbreviata LXX), che risale al III secolo a.C.
Fu Tolomeo Filadelfo (285-246 a.C.) che invitò 72 studiosi ebrei in Egitto per eseguire la traduzione del Pentateuco dall’ebraico in greco. Dal loro numero, arrotondato a settanta, deriva il nome di questa versione.
Giuseppe Flavio, nel suo dodicesimo libro delle “Antichità Giudaiche” propone un resoconto dettagliato delle circostanze nelle quali questa versione nacque.
Più tardi anche il rimanente dei libri furono tradotti e disponibili per gli ebrei di lingua greca, ed, in seguito, anche per i cristiani.
L’importanza della LXX è rilevante visto che divenne l’Antico Testamento utilizzato dai primi cristiani, quando la maggioranza di loro non erano ebrei e non potevano leggere l’ebraico e il greco era la lingua più diffusa nell’impero romano. La Settanta è stata chiaramente citata in alcuni passi del Nuovo Testamento.
Le prime traduzioni cristiane dell’Antico Testamento – in latino o altre lingue – furono approntate sulla Settanta e non dall’originale ebraico.
Altre traduzioni in greco dell’Antico Testamento sono quella di Aquila (ca. 150), un proselito ebreo, di Teodozione, che divenne molto popolare fra i cristiani e quella di Simmaco, che influenzò il lavoro di Girolamo, autore della più famosa traduzione della Bibbia in latino, la cosiddetta Vulgata, prima traduzione cristiana in latino sui testi originali in ebraico.
Un’altra importante traduzione dell’Antico Testamento sono i cosiddetti Targumin. Si tratta di una versione in aramaico che non solo traduce ma ampia e parafrasa il testo per gli ebrei che avevano perso l’uso della lingua ebraica ed erano ormai più familiari con l’aramaico. Il Targum ci offre anche uno spaccato dell’interpretazione ebraica dell’Antico Testamento la cui importanza è difficile sottovalutare.
Parola di Dio
A parte quello che abbiamo detto fin qui, una cosa bisogna tener bene in mente avvicinandosi alla lettura delle pagine straordinarie che seguono. Non siamo davanti ad un semplice libro, la Bibbia, Antico e Nuovo Testamento, è di più: è la Parola di Dio, ispirata da Dio.
L’apostolo Paolo scrive: “Tutta la scrittura è divinamente ispirata e utile a insegnare, a convincere, a correggere e a istruire nella giustizia, affinché l’uomo di Dio sia completo, pienamente fornito per ogni buona opera” (2 Timoteo 3:16-17).
La Bibbia è stata scritta da uomini, ovviamente; ma quegli uomini non stavano scrivendo i loro propri pensieri o le loro idee, bensì quello che lo Spirito Santo li spingeva a scrivere.
“…poiché non è dalla volontà dell’uomo che venne mai alcuna profezia, ma degli uomini hanno parlato da parte di Dio, perché sospinti dallo Spirito Santo” (2 Pietro 1:21).
Possa Dio, autore delle Sacre Scritture, aprire la nostra mente, donarci fede ed intendimento spirituale per comprendere la rivelazione di Gesù Cristo contenuta nelle Scritture ed il meraviglioso piano di salvezza in Lui che il Suo amore ha concepito per noi.
