Introduzione al vangelo di Matteo di Giuseppe Guarino
Ogni volta che rileggo il vangelo di Matteo percepisco il senso della sua presenza fra i libri del Nuovo Testamento e persino il fatto che l’uso ormai consolidato della Chiesa l’abbia voluto come primo dei libri del nuovo patto. Si tratta infatti d’un’opera stupenda, sulla quale è evidente il sigillo dello Spirito Santo. Mi ha particolarmente affascinato l’incredibile onnipresente unità d’intento dello scritto e questo ho cercato di trasmettere al lettore nello schema del vangelo che propongo più avanti.
Il mio commento l’ho confinato a delle note, che non possono né vogliono sostituirsi al testo, bensì facilitarne la lettura. È per questo che saranno ridotte al minimo indispensabile e il tutto sarà inteso con l’unisco scopo di aiutare il lettore a percepire la grandezza dell’intento narrativo di questo stupendo vangelo.
Perché Matteo?
Quello che (tra virgolette) è un “mistero” è perché lo Spirito Santo abbia scelto figure minori come oggettivamente sono state Matteo, Marco o Luca per la composizione delle prime narrazioni ufficiali della cristianità e non apostoli come Pietro o Giacomo. Questo paradosso, se così possiamo chiamarlo, venne percepito dalle sette eretiche dei primi secoli che si diedero da fare per produrre e diffondere falsi vangeli curandosi di attribuirli a personaggi di spicco, fra i discepoli quali Pietro o Tommaso, Giacomo, ecc. È, quindi, di particolare rilevanza il fatto che il vangelo di Matteo, sebbene in realtà anonimo, sia stato universalmente e già dalle origini attribuito a quell’apostolo e sia riuscito ad essere scelto unanimemente come ispirato ed autentico.
Eusebio, vescovo di Cesarea vissuto nel IV secolo, è autore di una importante “Storia ecclesiastica”. Nel suo lavoro consegna alle future generazioni quella che molto probabilmente era l’idea della Chiesa del suo tempo sul primo vangelo.
“… e di tutti i discepoli, Matteo e Giovanni sono gli unici che ci hanno lasciato un resoconto scritto, e anche loro, come ci dice la tradizione, hanno intrapreso questo lavoro per necessità. Matteo avendo già proclamato l’evangelo in ebraico, quando stava per recarsi anche in altre nazioni, scrisse nella sua lingua natia, supplendo alla mancanza della propria presenza fra loro, per mezzo dei suoi scritti”.
L’idea che Matteo possa avere composto il suo vangelo in un originale ebraico in seguito tradotto in greco ed in questa lingua soltanto giunto a noi, è piuttosto antica. Quanto abbia di vero questa opinione non è facile dirlo. È molto difficile – per non dire impossibile – cercare di supporre l’esistenza di un documento in una lingua esaminandolo in un’altra.
Sono dell’avviso che il vangelo di Matteo sia stato originariamente composto in greco, la lingua nella quale c’è arrivato.
Jean Carmignac ha scritto un libro interessantissimo “La nascita dei vangeli sinottici”. La sua teoria sull’origine ebraica di Marco è fondata e ben proposta. Leggendo il suo lavoro mi sono convinto che il forte sostrato ebraico dei vangeli sia dovuto a dei documenti originali scritti appunto in lingua ebraica (meno verosimilmente aramaica) ai quali – Luca dice apertamente di averlo fatto nel prologo del suo vangelo – gli evangelisti devono avere attinto come fonti per la loro narrazione.
Per me è naturale che gli apostoli e i discepoli trascrivessero i detti di Gesù o altri eventi principali del suo ministero, che mi sembra di dire una cosa persino troppo ovvia. Che questi documenti siano stati custoditi dalla prima cerchia dei cristiani è inevitabile conseguenza. Che Matteo, Marco e Luca li abbiano utilizzati per il loro lavoro deve essere stato naturale. Ciò spiega sia le similitudini nelle loro narrazioni, sia le piccole differenze, dovute ad una diversa lettura o traduzione in greco di medesimi documenti, oltre ad elementi aggiunti dal contatto diretto con gli apostoli o il contatto con altre fonti indipendenti. Ciò spiega le divergenze dei vari evangelisti, se vengono intese come peculiarità narrative fondamentali per dare un’impronta che distingueva – e, in un certo senso, quindi, motivava – il proprio scritto, con un intento narrativo che, come un filo conduttore, legava quelle fonti indipendenti.
Allo stato attuale, da un’analisi del testo in nostro possesso, dalle evidenze manoscritte che sopravvivono dall’antichità a testimoniare l’esistenza e la diffusione di questo vangelo, non abbiamo un motivo concreto per dubitare che il vangelo di Matteo sia stato scritto dall’apostolo al quale viene tradizionalmente ed unanimemente ascritto da ormai due millenni e che la lingua originale di composizione di questo scritto sia la stessa nella quale è giunto sino a noi, il greco.
Chi ha studiato la trasmissione del testo del Nuovo Testamento, il suo percorso in copie manoscritte fino all’invenzione della stampa, sa che la Bibbia è il libro meglio attestato dell’antichità, per numero, qualità ed antichità dei manoscritti che testimoniano la sua esistenza e diffusione.
Per quanto riguarda il vangelo di Matteo, Carsten Peter Thiede ha avanzato l’ipotesi che il frammento di questo vangelo chiamato P64, il cosiddetto Papiro Magdalen, custodito appunto al Magdalen College di Oxford, risalga a prima del 70 d.C. Perché ciò potrebbe essere importante? Perché avremmo una prova oggettiva – offerta dalla papirologia, una scienza sufficientemente al di sopra delle parti da garantire un ottimo livello di oggettività – che la datazione di questo vangelo ad un’età più prossima agli eventi, concezione da sempre sostenuta nella tradizione cristiana, è tutt’altro che inverosimile. Scrivo questo perché alcuni che studiano le Sacre Scritture potrebbero imbattersi in testi che propongono una datazione tarda sia i vangeli che per gli altri scritti del Nuovo Testamento – una posizione oggi meno sostenibile che in passato.
Parlando della datazione di tutto il Nuovo Testamento in generale, scrive così Thiede: “Si è dato per scontato che, se il Vangelo secondo Marco (al quale di solito viene attribuita la preminenza fra i sinottici) fosse stato composto approssimativamente verso il 70 d.C., il Vangelo secondo Matteo sarebbe stato scritto intorno all’anno 80 d.C. Schadewalt (filologo classico contemporaneo) riconosce che “questo errore nella storia della tradizione – come egli la definisce – era piuttosto frequente negli studi classici, finché i filologi, diversamente dagli studiosi del Nuovo Testamento, non migliorarono le loro conoscenze”. Testimone oculare di Gesù, Piemme, I edizione, 1996, pag. 37.
Insomma, non solo non vi sono motivi per non credere che gli apostoli ed il loro seguito abbiano dato vita alle pagine del Nuovo Testamento, ma è addirittura saggio crederlo anche da un punto di vista scientifico, alla luce di nuovi recenti risvolti negli studi di papirologia e filologia.
Perché un altro studio su Matteo?
Perché voglio comunicare al lettore la struttura narrativa che ho percepito nelle varie letture che ho dedicato a questo meraviglioso libro.
Prego il Signore di benedire questo mio studio e coloro che si impegnano per comprendere la Sua Parola.
Il battesimo di Gesù, la voce dai cieli e la tentazione nel deserto di Giuseppe Guarino
Il nostro testo di riferimento è Matteo, ovviamente. Il Battista apre la via Gesù, come avevano previsto i profeti secoli prima e Gesù si presenta per essere battezzato da lui e iniziare il suo ministero. Siamo alla fine del capitolo 3 del vangelo. Appena Gesù esce dall’acqua, accade qualcosa di meraviglioso,
“ed ecco, una voce dai cieli disse:
Questi è il Figlio mio
l’amato,
nel quale mi sono compiaciuto”.
(Matteo 3:17)
La traduzione è mia. Ho preferito tradurre io perché qui nel testo greco originale ravvisiamo questa triplice attribuzione a Gesù di titoli e qualità che può scomparire traducendo in maniera meno letterale. Il lettore vedrà perché questo importante dettaglio.
Gesù è il Figlio di Dio.
Ciò è un chiaro riferimento messianico, che avvera in lui quanto profetizzato nell’Antico Testamento.
l’Amato
Egli non è un figlio qualsiasi, ma il Figlio Unigenito di Dio. L’intima unione fra il Padre e il Figlio sarà poi ribadita e anche meglio chiarita nel Vangelo di Giovanni, in molti punti.
In lui Dio è compiaciuto
Gesù è il perfetto Adamo. È la Parola (il logos) di Dio che si fa uomo, è colui che “essendo in forma di Dio” (Filippesi 2:6) si spoglia, nell’esteriore, della sua divinità per “assumere forma di servo” (Filippesi 2:7), per amore nostro e per obbedienza al Padre.
Quando si battezza, Gesù ha raggiunto i suoi trent’anni ed è arrivato il suo momento, nell’immediato di annunciare il vangelo, la buona notizia, del regno di Dio, di rivelarsi a Israele.
Quanto accade a lui riflette un po’ le nostre vite di credenti. Dopo aver creduto nel Signore, anche noi iniziamo il nostro cammino pubblico di credenti con il battesimo. Da quel momento cominciano le lotte. O sbaglio? E come vuole distruggerci il nemico, se non mettendo in discussione tutto ciò che il Padre ha detto di noi e vuole fare in noi?
Gesù era un uomo. La sua perfetta e autentica umanità lo ha reso il perfetto giudice che giudicherà un giorno il mondo. Vedi Giovanni 5:22 e rif. Alcuni mettono in discussione la letteralità della tentazione di Gesù descritta in Matteo 4. Non capisco in base a quale criterio, se non la loro ristrettezza mentale. La tentazione di Gesù è un momento importantissimo. È fondamentale perché nella sua vittoria traccia l’inizio della strada che conduce alla nostra salvezza. È fondamentale perché ci dice che come lui e con lui possiamo vincere anche noi.
Dopo il battesimo, Gesù si prepara alla battaglia spirituale del suo ministero. Lo fa digiunando. C’è molto da dire sul digiuno. Vi sono vari tipi di digiuno che di solito vengono osservati nella Chiesa. Famoso è il digiuno di Daniele, che ho visto diversi fratelli mettono in pratica, e che si limita all’astensione da carni e cibi ricercati in genere, basando la propria alimentazione su vegetali e frutta. In generale, tranne dei casi dove per motivi medici il digiuno non è raccomandabile, digiunare è una pratica che, insieme alla preghiera, ci prepara al compito di servire Dio, permettendo di mettere in soggezione la propria carne; indebolendola, diamo nuova forza, energia e consapevolezza allo spirito e alla trascendenza dagli elementi di questo mondo in genere.
Trovo la narrazione evangelica meravigliosa. Sottolinea l’umanità del Salvatore, la sua vera, reale, non fittizia umanità: dopo quaranta giorni di digiuno, ebbe fame!
“E, dopo aver digiunato quaranta giorni e quaranta notti, alla fine ebbe fame. Ora il tentatore, accostandosi, gli disse: …” (Matteo 4:2-3)
Per questo la Scrittura ci dice che il Diavolo va in giro come un leone ruggente… Attende il momento propizio.
Il diavolo tenta Gesù non in maniera confusa e casuale. Come nell’Eden, egli riprende le parole di Dio e le distorce, le usa mischiandole alla sua menzogna. Ed è quindi nella corretta comprensione e applicazione della Parola di Dio che sta la chiave per vincere le menzogne di Satana.
“Se tu sei il Figlio di Dio, di’ che queste pietre diventino pane”. (Matteo 4:3)
Ecco che Satana mette in dubbio l’identità di Gesù, vuole insinuare il dubbio, con quel “se”. Richiede una prova di ciò che Dio ha detto, una dimostrazione. Ma nella fede nella Parola di Dio è la certezza di chi siamo e non abbiamo bisogno di dimostrarlo, bensì di crederlo. Gesù zittisce il nemico citando la Sacra Scrittura.
Il “se” nel testo originale greco del vangelo è qui “ei”, un “se” dubitativo, che pone una sfida. Sarà così anche per il secondo “se” che incontreremo, ma non per il terzo.
Questa la risposta di Gesù al nemico:
“Sta scritto: “L’uomo non vive di solo pane, ma di ogni parola che procede dalla bocca di Dio””
Ciò che siamo lo definisce la Parola di Dio, che è ben più importante delle percezioni della nostra carne mortale.
Il secondo “se”, il secondo dubbio, la pulce nell’orecchio è …
5 Allora il diavolo lo trasportò nella santa città, lo pose sull’orlo del tempio 6 e gli disse: “Se sei il Figlio di Dio, gettati giù, perché sta scritto: “Egli darà ordine ai suoi angeli riguardo a te; ed essi ti porteranno sulle loro mani, perché non urti col tuo piede in alcuna pietra””. (Matteo 4:5-6)
Qui il nemico è come se dicesse a Gesù: “vediamo se davvero Dio ti ama come ha detto” e cita anche la Sacra Scrittura, nella sua consueta, vile maniera.
Ma Gesù risponde ancora ricacciando indietro il dubbio, ponendo fede nelle parole di Dio sul suo conto, senza bisogno di dover avere o dover dare alcuna dimostrazione tangibile di chi egli sia. Egli sa chi è Dio perché Dio lo ha detto, definendolo: quelle del diavolo sono solo menzogne.
7 Gesù gli disse: “Sta anche scritto “Non tentare il Signore Dio tuo””.
Arriva il terzo “se”. In questo caso nella lingua originale del vangelo non è come i primi due, (ei), bensì (ean) che possiamo tradurre anche con “quando”. Questo perché le parole del diavolo non mettono in discussione la natura della persona di Gesù, bensì vanno a provare a disilludere le parole pronunciate poco prima “Questi è il Figlio mio, l’amato, nel quale mi sono compiaciuto” e che riguardano la condotta del Figlio di Dio, che in ogni modo avrebbe onorato la missione affidatagli dal Padre.
“il diavolo lo trasportò sopra un monte altissimo e gli mostrò tutti i regni del mondo e la loro gloria 9e gli disse: “Io ti darò tutte queste cose se (o quando), prostrandoti a terra, mi adorerai””.
Gesù veniva dalla gloria del cielo. Aveva lasciato il suo trono per rimediare al danno causato dalla sua stessa creatura. La richiesta del diavolo è assurda. Oppure è soltanto lo schema della sua menzogna e delle sue medesime tattiche che si ripetono – dall’Eden a oggi. Infatti, vediamo i ricchi e i potenti di questa terra che adorano Satana, più o meno consapevolmente. Vivono nella sua menzogna e se ne fanno ambasciatori. E così vivono cercando di appagare la loro vita con le cose che offre questo mondo.
Gesù non può non rispondere come ognuno di noi deve rispondere davanti alle lusinghe di questo mondo che promette (promette e spesso nemmeno mantiene) fama, ricchezze e potere.
10 Allora Gesù gli disse: “Vattene Satana, poiché sta scritto: “Adora il Signore Dio tuo e servi a lui solo””.
Nella sua perfetta obbedienza Gesù esprime la sua identità, di Figlio di Dio, la sua certezza di essere amato dal Padre e l’approvazione che ricerca nella sua condotta conforme alla Parola di Dio.
Gesù traccia il solco che anche noi, per quanto più piccoli e limitati, dobbiamo sforzarci di seguire.
Allo stesso tempo, con la sua obbedienza, con il suo non cedere, inizia la sua opera che disfa, annulla, in lui, secondo Adamo, la caduta del primo Uomo in Eden.
Romani 5:12-19: “Perciò, come per mezzo di un solo uomo il peccato è entrato nel mondo, e per mezzo del peccato la morte, e così la morte è passata su tutti gli uomini, perché tutti hanno peccato… 13Poiché, fino alla legge, il peccato era nel mondo, ma il peccato non è imputato quando non c’è legge. 14Eppure, la morte regnò, da Adamo fino a Mosè, anche su quelli che non avevano peccato con una trasgressione simile a quella di Adamo, il quale è figura di colui che doveva venire. 15Però, la grazia non è come la trasgressione. Perché se per la trasgressione di uno solo, molti sono morti, a maggior ragione la grazia di Dio e il dono della grazia proveniente da un solo uomo, Gesù Cristo, sono stati riversati abbondantemente su molti.16Riguardo al dono non avviene quello che è avvenuto nel caso dell’uno che ha peccato; perché dopo una sola trasgressione il giudizio è diventato condanna, mentre il dono diventa giustificazione dopo molte trasgressioni. 17Infatti, se per la trasgressione di uno solo la morte ha regnato a causa di quell’uno, tanto più quelli che ricevono l’abbondanza della grazia e del dono della giustizia, regneranno nella vita per mezzo di quell’uno che è Gesù Cristo. 18Dunque, come con una sola trasgressione la condanna si è estesa a tutti gli uomini, così pure, con un solo atto di giustizia, la giustificazione che dà la vita si è estesa a tutti gli uomini.19Infatti, come per la disubbidienza di un solo uomo i molti sono stati resi peccatori, così anche per l’ubbidienza di uno solo, i molti saranno costituiti giusti.”
Questo il primo capitolo di Matteo, con le note al testo a seguire. Il Vangelo va letto con attenzione e il commento è soltanto un aiuto e la comprensione la dobbiamo principalmente allo Spirito Santo e al suo perfetto ministero.
Capitolo 1
Genealogia di Gesù
1 Libro[1] della genealogia di Gesù Cristo, figlio di Davide, figlio di Abrahamo[2].
2 Abrahamo generò Isacco; Isacco generò Giacobbe; Giacobbe; generò Giuda e i suoi fratelli.
3 Giuda generò Fares e Zara da Tamar; Fares generò Esrom; Esrom generò Aram;
16 Giacobbe generò Giuseppe, il marito di Maria, dalla quale nacque Gesù, che è chiamato Cristo.
17 Così, tutte le generazioni da Abrahamo fino a Davide sono quattordici generazioni; e da Davide fino alla deportazione in Babilonia, quattordici generazioni; e dalla deportazione in Babilonia fino a Cristo, quattordici generazioni[3].
Nascita di Gesù
18 Or la nascita di Gesù Cristo avvenne in questo modo. Maria, sua madre, era stata promessa in matrimonio a Giuseppe, ma prima che iniziassero a stare insieme, si trovò incinta per opera dello Spirito Santo[4].
19 Allora Giuseppe, suo sposo, che era uomo giusto e non voleva esporla ad infamia, deliberò di lasciarla segretamente[5].
20 Ma, mentre rifletteva su queste cose, ecco che un angelo del Signore gli apparve in sogno, dicendo: “Giuseppe, figlio[6] di Davide, non temere di prendere con te Maria come tua moglie, perché ciò che è stato concepito in lei è opera dello Spirito Santo.
21 Ed ella partorirà un figlio e tu gli porrai nome Gesù, perché egli salverà il suo popolo dai loro peccati”.
22 Or tutto ciò avvenne affinché si adempisse quello che era stato detto dal Signore, per mezzo del profeta che dice:
23 “Ecco, la vergine sarà incinta e partorirà un figlio, il quale sarà chiamato Emmanuele che, interpretato, vuol dire: “Dio con noi”[7].
24 E Giuseppe, destatosi dal sonno, fece come l’angelo del Signore gli aveva comandato e prese con sé sua moglie;
25 ma egli non la conobbe, finché ella ebbe partorito il suo figlio primogenito[8], al quale pose nome Gesù[9].
NOTE
[1] Non è singolare che Matteo cominci la sua narrazione parlando di un “libro” della genealogia di Gesù, quasi che abbia inserito un documento indipendente all’inizio del suo resoconto sulla vita di Gesù. Non può essere una coincidenza che una simile affermazione a quella di Matteo la troviamo nel libro della Genesi quando viene elencata la genealogia – Genesi 5:1 – del “primo” Adamo. L’inizio di questo vangelo è quindi subito marcatamente ebraico.
[2] Gesù è “figlio” in senso ampio; noi oggi diremmo “discendente”. La precisazione dell’evangelista ha uno scopo ben preciso: Gesù porta a compimento le promesse fatte ad Abramo e quelle fatte a Davide, cioè per le loro progenie. Vi è un significato ancora più profondo. Essendo figlio di Abramo, egli è il sacrificio che Dio promise ad Abramo in sostituzione per il figlio che in un primo momento gli aveva chiesto di offrire. Ciò è già avvenuto durante la sua prima apparizione, ormai oltre duemila anni fa, quando Gesù offrì se stesso sulla croce quale perfetto sacrificio per la redenzione dell’umanità.
In quanto discendente di Davide, egli avvererà tutte le promesse fatte a quel grande re circa il suo trono, al suo glorioso ritorno come giudice e re.
Che Matteo intendesse esattamente questo quando quasi premettesse che Gesù è sia figlio di Abrahamo che di Davide è evidente dagli sviluppi della sua narrazione.
[3] Le tre divisioni della genealogia in gruppi di quattordici ci dà un totale di 42. Questo numero nella Scrittura lo ritroviamo riferito ai mesi della grande tribolazione e non è escluso che possa voler intendere il travaglio dell’umanità fino all’arrivo di Gesù, il Salvatore. Quattordici comunque è anche il numero del nome del re Davide in lingua ebraica, dove ogni lettera dell’alfabeto ha un valore numerico.
[4] La promessa di matrimonio ebraica era allora vincolante a tal punto che subito l’evangelista parla di Giuseppe come “sposo” di Maria. Potremmo paragonare la “promessa di matrimonio” qui citata ad un compromesso che precede un atto di vendita, dove sussistono tutti gli obblighi di legge per le parti senza che vi sia stata ancora la vendita vera e propria. L’inadempienza ad un compromesso provoca la risoluzione dello stesso con l’obbligo del risarcimento per la parte inadempiente. Quanto qui era successo a Maria era motivo sufficiente perché la promessa di matrimonio non si potesse perfezionare in un matrimonio vero e proprio. Ma quanto cresceva nel ventre di Maria non era opera di nessun uomo, bensì di Dio stesso, dello Spirito Santo che aveva concepito in lei il futuro re di Israele.
[5] La Legge di Mosè permetteva a Giuseppe, in questo caso parte offesa, di far valere ogni sua ragione. Ma Giuseppe, forse perché incredulo e quindi comunque convinto che qualcosa di nefasto potesse essere accaduto alla ragazza, voleva agire con discrezione.
[6] Anche qui “figlio” va inteso come “discendente”.
[7] La citazione è da Isaia 7:14. Uno dei motivi per i quali prediligo la Nuova Diodati come versione è la rispondenza in questa fra questa citazione che troviamo nel Nuovo Testamento con il verso citato di Isaia nell’Antico Testamento. Ciò non accade in altre versioni, quali la Riveduta e la Nuova Riveduta. Ma nel tradurre Isaia 7:14 non sarebbe saggio ritenere affidabile sia la lezione della versione greca dei LXX (Settanta) che l’interpretazione apostolica del brano, dove, nella parola ebraica originale, che è “giovane”, il senso è quello dell’età legata allo stato di purezza fisica? Ritengo la coerenza con l’insegnamento apostolico di gran lunga più importante delle critiche mosse da studiosi razionalisti e anticristiani.
[8] La parola “primogenito” manca in alcuni manoscritti, ma era certamente parte del testo originale di questo brano della Scrittura. La sua omissione è infatti facilmente motivata dall’eccessivo zelo di quegli scribi che immaginando che la parola implicasse che altri figli furono partoriti da Maria dopo Gesù, pensarono bene di toglierla dal testo eliminando ogni fraintendimento.
[9] In questo punto la vecchia Diodati offre una lettura piuttosto singolare: “ella gli pose nome Gesù”. La Nuova Diodati recupera nella sua versione di questo passo, in accordo con tutte le altre versioni, la lettura corretta.
Struttura del Vangelo di Matteodi Giuseppe Guarino
L’opera di Matteo segue una struttura precisa e lo si coglie molto bene nello schema che segue. Uno sguardo d’insieme infatti rivelerà l’intento di questo vangelo: dimostrare che Gesù è il Messia promesso a Israele.
E’ importante afferrare il senso della sequenza degli eventi descritti in questo meraviglioso scritto per carpire il profondo significato che hanno all’interno dell’economia della salvezza.
Una nota importante riguarda la cronologia. Noi occidentali del XXI secolo siamo ossessionati dalla cronologia. Ciò è visibile anche nell’uso dei nostri verbi, nella loro struttura – che finisce per influenzarci più di quanto non pensiamo. Nella cultura ebraica, e comunque per meglio dire, quella biblica, non è esattamente così. Gli scritti di Geremia, ad esempio, o di Daniele, per citare due casi, mettono avanti il senso degli eventi rispetto a quando questi si sono verificati. Lo stesso fenomeno accade in Matteo: non è una limitazione, ma stile.
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.
