Why Jews don't say the sacred name of G-d & Maybe nobody should

[rockfox]

We see in Revelation that God/Jesus has a name that no one knows.

That Christ has ANOTHER name that no one knows doesn't mean God didn't give us His name anymore than it would mean Jesus (or whatever it was two translations back) wasn't Christ's name.

Nope. Every “name” we see used is a version of the acronym “ I am that I am.”...there is none that isn’t based on God’s non-answer to Moses’ impertinent question.

Why coudn't that be God's actual personal name? You presume it's a non-answer. It could have been the actual answer. It actually makes sense as His name from a philosophical sense ('I am' being a self recognition of sentience).
We tend to think of names as distinct entities, but that's only due to the passage of time. For example Michael comes from the meaning, "who is like God?" If I asked someone's name and they said, "who is like God?" I'd think they was playing word games with me. Yet that is his name; it's only seemed become something distinct from that statement through it's transition through many different languages over time. Sometimes they are descriptive, like 'Running Bear'.

And it is entirely consistent that it would be His actual name based on the repeated references to doing things in His name or making His name known. For this....

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of YHUH shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as YHUH hath said, and in the remnant whom YHUH shall call. Joel 2:32

Is meaningless nonsense if we don't actually know His name. And the entire argument for not saying it out loud is predicated on it actually being His name (and hence too holy to say), and not just some reference to a misdirection.

 

[rockfox]

REAL name of the Almighty in ... The Gentiles Shall Know My Name

And yet no one can decide on how to pronounce it, and the offered pronunciations are quite distinct from one another; so distinct as if entirely different words.

 

[IshChayil]

The fact that we cannot be sure of the correct pronunciation is the result of some very unfortunate human actions and it's not evidence that it's wrong for us to pronounce it
Bro I do not find that principle in Scripture it's an assumption based on tradition. You are better than that.

If by unfortunate human actions you mean the example of the Messiah and the entire New Testament, well I wouldn't call it "unfortunate." I'd call it "studied" or "emulative" or pick some other word where you model your behavior after good actors in the bible.
I'd say how great that we have a living example of how God's own son taught us to address His and our Father. "when you pray say ABBA." Nobody has had anything to say about that. Why not just do what the Messiah taught us, or at the very least if you guys insist on making His name like other names then at least have the courtesy to stop speaking condescendingly about the position of those of us who have this sincerely held conviction. (not just speaking to you Pacman, I know you've got a good heart but I can only hint so much brother.)
I started this thread to try to help folks understand that we're not just blind for wanting to make His name holy. I think I've provided ample evidence / reasoning to at least show you guys that our view is plausible. We may be right. maybe. I've even agreed that perhaps it is plausible for an individual in his prayer closet all alone if he has repented just then to utter the Father's name if he's so led. maybe
If you agree with those maybes then you gotta see it's improper to keep hem and hawing about how sad it is that Jews just don't get it. At least you should acknowledge that there are some pretty darn good points on our side so you can't pretend like your position is the de facto pinnacle of reason and fortune.

Also, the new guy who's spam posting on this thread now (6+ posts in a row):
You guys just can't keep pretending we didn't make these arguments. So often stuff is posted in this thread and it looks like the posters did not even read the initial post when I started it! Several of the arguments I read and reread were clearly pre-empted in the original post. So deal with the pre-emptions then; tear those down at least.
***All*** of the New Testament writers conformed to the Jewish norm of the day; not saying His name.
IN a debate, the burden would be on you guys now to overcome this fact of history.
If you want to call God differently than the disciples did, and if you want to break from the Messiah's teaching on how to pray to Him (including the proper form of address "Abba") then you guys need to deal with those issues. You can't just keep pretending they weren't raised, side-stepping then assuming your position is correct that "it's so unfortunate those bad rabbis did that stuff.' [and the disciples followed their lead]

I'm speaking as part of the trunk of the cultivated olive tree here; please stop trying to make us graft into you. It goes the other way though it's hyper rare to see it.
It may turn out that our ancestors aren't really so duped and dumb as folks like to think. That means not treating every aspect of Jewish culture with suspicion.

@enlargeourtent Every single one of your points has already been addressed earlier in the thread. Please take the time to go back and read them. It's exasperating to see this stuff all repeated again without a single original new insight. Maybe just click <like> on the posts where folks said what you are now repeating and don't click like where we amply (IMO) handle those posts.

Also, your Hebrew pronounciation is totally wack (like my English spelling Not only does it not even resemble Hebrew, no semitic language I've ever come across treats hollow verbs that way. I know some of the sacred-namer groups have bizarre pronounciations and you'll have to forgive me for picking on you because it's a pet peeve of mine to see Hebrew mangled into some form of clipped Klingon, but to be fair, I've NEVER met a sacred-namer who knew Hebrew at all. I've crossed paths with quite a few as the Messianic movement for some reason often attracts them but none of the leaders or followers could understand a single chapter of Hebrew that they hadn't already memorized in English. Maybe there is a unicorn out there and some day I'll meet him and his Hebrew wont' sound like someone faking tongues, but I'm not holding my breath.
Never saw one on youtube who knew Hebrew or was even bilingual at all (though surely there are some Spanish speakers out there who are members of those groups). Be careful of charlatans for they abound. (I'm not calling you one)

Don't learn how to say biblical names from those guys; just go to wikipedia, or pick up literally any biblical hebrew grammar. There are hundreds of them. If you're interested in the ancient pronounciations that's not hard to find either. Check out the Yeminite Jews; most scholars agree their pronounciation in liturgy and biblical Hebrew is the closest to Biblical Times.

I realize most of you won't see it my way, but by goodness, I'm fluent in this language, I don't think in English when I read the Torah; that's the result of decades of deep study and love for our Father; can't you at least give a bit of respect to my position on this thing? Maybe acknowledge a 10% chance you may be wrong and we're not just a bunch of idiots over here.
Our desire to safeguard, protect, and make hard to access (the definition of Holy in Hebrew) His name, is likely on a par with your desire to honor him by saying the name aloud. Let's respect each other enough to not treat the other side as de facto dummies. I'm glad most people in this despicable world don't know how to say the Tetragrammaton. All the times I've heard people say G0d bleep, or Jesus Christ or even as Netflix LOVES to say "Jesus ***** Christ!"
I have NEVER ever heard anyone say the tetragrammaton when they were angry and bezrat Hashem I never will because if I did I just might strangle them.

 

[IshChayil]

And yet the name is all over the Old Testament; quite clearly not the same as "He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.".

As to Adam...silly, the authority to PICK a name is not the same as USING it.

Yes and the shekhinah glory fills the tent now as well, and fire descends from heaven daily from on high as the camp is filled with His presence, clearly things are exactly the same now as they were then right? nobody pollutes the temple with abominations now, we are definitely as holy as they were.

 

[IshChayil]

...And they shall know that My Name is YeHoVaH." - Jeremiah 16:19-21
...

The ו was never a 'V' sound in Biblical hebrew so that's nowhere near the way to pronounce that word. (I teach a master's class in Biblical Hebrew at a seminary).

Michael Rood and Hebrew scholar Nehemia Gordon ...

That's an oxymoron. Nehemia Gordon is a conman not a scholar.
He's a guy who doesn't believe in the Messiah who gets air time because he, like the host, hates the rabbis (though he [Gordon] doesn't dress up like Aladdin).
Gullable Christians think Nehemia knows something because he's very charasmatic and excited about everything as if he's found something.
Real Hebrew scholars like Dr. Michael Heisser and Dr. Michael Brown both independantly mocked some of Nehemia's "pretend" finds last year. I think @nikkud posted some evidence on Biblical Families that Nehemia is an anti-missionary.
If he's truly even a Karaite or not, who knows; that group is so small and most of them are Egyptians (now migrated to Israel). Rood to his detriment has Gordon on I think because Gordon, like Rood, hates the rabbis so it's an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing.
BTW where can I find that Aladdin outfit, I really want one for next shabbat. I like to use comedy when teaching my flock. I'm serious anyone know where you can get Rood's super hero outfit? Crud we're on lockdown still...

The Gentiles Shall Know My Name...

-sigh- please scroll up and read the thread. I've dealt amply with this in the thread teaching how this word works in Hebrew. If you think it means "the Gentiels will know YHWH" then your teachers have not even a kindergartner grasp of Hebrew. It doesnt mean "name". It means "reputation" i.e. who He is. Scroll through the thread to find more; I'm weary of having to repeat everything to newcomers...

 

[IshChayil]

It's good to understand other people's reasons why they don't believe in using pronouncing His Name (can't help but notice the lack of Scriptures or commands to not speak or utter His name),

Mattityahu 23:1-3 (no, not the singer)
... emulating the Messiah's behavior leads us to say "Abba" as he did in prayer.
Sh'mot 18:21-22 (do a word study on the word translated "vain", don't use Strongs lol please)
Bamidbar 11:16-17; 11:24-25
D'varim 1:15-18; 17:9-12
Sh'mot 20:7
Luke 11:2....
Vayiqra 24:16
"[emphatic vav] One who pronounces the name of HASHEM, must surely be put to death."
In the preceding verse the fellow who curses G-d is turned over to G-d whom he cursed (heaven will punish him), in this verse, one who pronounces the name will be turned over to the authorities (for death). Regarding some translations choosing to render this word as "curse" here, see the monumental scholarly work by a Master of Leviticus (recognized by numerous denominations for his amazing insight and skill), he destroys this opinion succinctly.

It's not a slam dunk but it, combined with the uncontested Jewish tradition of giving the death penalty in Yeshua's day to those who pronounced the name, should at least be a "hmmm" moment.

... I heard a child ask a Messianic rabbi what the Father's name was, because this rabbi had just finished preaching on how Holy Hashem's name is. He was given the traditional answer, "we're not holy enough to say His name". He wouldn't tell the boy His name. It was heartbreaking to hear.

I heard a Hebrew roots teacher tell that exact same story on youtube. He, like you, was also heartbroken.

"...with my wife! Morgan Fairchild!"

 

[rockfox]

***All*** of the New Testament writers conformed to the Jewish norm of the day; not saying His name.

But why did they not pronounce it? You're making an argument based on silence. Was it as you contend, or was it because they didn't want to run afoul of this...

the uncontested Jewish tradition of giving the death penalty in Yeshua's day to those who pronounced the name

And because of such things it wasn't in their habit to say it? But where is the New Testament SCRIPTURE commanding not to say it? There are any number of reasons something might happen, to base a prohibition on silence is not sound.

If you want to call God differently than the disciples did, and if you want to break from the Messiah's teaching on how to pray to Him (including the proper form of address "Abba")

Prayer is not the only time the name comes up. For example...Psalm 118 contains the name 28 times. A song of praise. Why if it is not to be said is it put in a song? Even more the text says...

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!

Hard to come in the name of someone if you refuse to say His name. There are many gods, WHICH one is an important question.

Or Psalm 102...

18This will be written for the generation to come,
That a people yet to be created may praise the Lord.
19For He looked down from the height of His sanctuary;
From heaven the Lord viewed the earth,
20To hear the groaning of the prisoner,
To release those appointed to death,
21To declare the name of the Lord in Zion,
And His praise in Jerusalem,
22When the peoples are gathered together,
And the kingdoms, to serve the Lord.

Which is a Messianic prophecy of people declaring His name.

But back to something else you said...

***All*** of the New Testament writers conformed to the Jewish norm of the day; not saying His name.

Is that really true? In the first place, they weren't written in Hebrew, so that's a bit disingenuous. And the second, from John 8...

Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is [o]your God. 55Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

57Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

58Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

59Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going[p] through the midst of them, and so passed by.

That is Christ saying the name (or the root of it?). It's not literally the name, but then this isn't Hebrew but Greek (and hence a translation of the name) and the crowd acted as if He said it, seeking to kill him immediately after.

You said people are ignoring your prior arguments. Well they was 15 pages ago, we're responding to what's recently posted. But I did a search and you never brought up John 8 in this thread (an awful glaring omission considering the import of that verse) and when @Patrick Lauser brought it up you ignored his point. He also brought something else up...

We cannot prove that "Kuriou" (and "LORD" of course) was not a valid translation of the Name not in its root form of I AM.

Which is a good point concidering the LXX translates the name that way. So too in Rev 4:8 is it translated that way....

The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!”

And this is the most important one to me. This is a record of what is spoken in heaven. John heard it as κύριος. And this very closely echo's Isaiah 6:3 where it does use 'the name'. So from this I take κύριος is a valid translation of that name into Greek.

Furthermore 'who was and is and is to come' reminds me of I Am Who I Am. Which brings me to Exodus 3...

Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”

14And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

"I AM has sent me" which echo's John 8:58. And I'm not entirely sure that Christ there says only just "I AM" considering it's two words there the first meaning I and the second meaning

So no, based on all that, it is NOT true that the name of God is not used in the NT. It is used, repeatedly all over the place, in it's translation to Greek (in two different forms).

This is also interesting...https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/jesus-seven-i-am-statements/

 

[Pacman]

Is that really true? In the first place, they weren't written in Hebrew, so that's a bit disingenuous.

Rock I'm not in agreement with ish on this subject. I do not believe it's wrong to speak the name. However this is an assumption and it's a really poor one. We know that Matthew was definitely originally written in Hebrew. There is ample evidence that many other Brit Hadassah portions were as well. So the truth is all we know for sure is that the translators from Hebrew to Greek chose not to translate the tetragrammaton into Greek. It is possible that the writers included it originally. We simply do not know.

@IshChayil I actually agree that it's best to follow Yeshua's example during prayer and I do typically begin prayer with some form of "father" however this is still not proof that its wrong to use the name in prayer.

 

[rockfox]

Rock I'm not in agreement with ish on this subject. I do not believe it's wrong to speak the name. However this is an assumption and it's a really poor one. We know that Matthew was definitely originally written in Hebrew. There is ample evidence that many other Brit Hadassah portions were as well. So the truth is all we know for sure is that the translators from Hebrew to Greek chose not to translate the tetragrammaton into Greek. It is possible that the writers included it originally. We simply do not know.

@IshChayil I actually agree that it's best to follow Yeshua's example during prayer and I do typically begin prayer with some form of "father" however this is still not proof that its wrong to use the name in prayer.

Supposedly the current scholarly consensus is that Matthew was originally written in Greek, but I have no opinion on the matter and I don't think it matters because a) I'm not aware of any similar controversy about John and b) Christ may well have been speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic regardless how His words were recorded; but what we have recorded is only in Greek. The same with John in Revelation. And Greek was the main language of the common people to whom much of the NT was written to. I don't speak Hebrew, so how to say the name in Hebrew means little, how should I say it in English matters more. Who knows what language was being spoke in Revelation in heaven, but it's perfectly within God's ability to make John hear what is spoken in whichever language John was fluent in and it was recorded in Greek.

"So the truth is all we know for sure is that the translators from Hebrew to Greek chose not to translate the tetragrammaton into Greek"

I think it's more accurate to say they chose not to transliterate it; which I would content likely means they had a valid translation in an already extent Greek word. A fair claim considering the Rev to Isaiah comparison based on which I'm claiming (and I'd love to hear kickback on this) that the Ancient Greek word translated in English bibles as LORD is a valid translation of God's personal name. But there are holes in that idea.

Prior to this recent conversations here I never had hint that it would be important to proclaim God's personal name. I come from a society where the main claimant to be God was the Christian God, so there wasn't much question of which, and His personal name never spoken of. But now that I see that emphasis the question because, which name to use? The Hebrew? Is LORD a valid translation? I admit it seems hokey, leading to LORD Lord being the translation for some passages; doesn't seem right. But I see nothing wrong with there being a translation of His name. My own name has translations in other languages, which are the same name with the same meaning but are pronounced differently.

But I think it is good to follow Christ's example in the model prayer to address him as father; and there are theological reasons given (there or elsewhere I can't recall) why that would be the case over the personal name (unrelated to the subject of this thread).

 

[IshChayil]

But why did they not pronounce it? You're making an argument based on silence. Was it as you contend, or was it because they didn't want to run afoul of this...

I already pre-empted the "argument from silence" silliness then you still made it. As I wrote before it does not apply when you have an entire corpus of literature (the whole New Testament) "silent" in a way which the same genre of Literature "Old Testament" is not. So my argument does not qualify for the "argument from silence" fallacy.
Even strengthening my point more we have the history about how John the Baptists' father's coworkers freaked out just because he choose a name "not in your line". It's not far fetched to assume we'd have had some kind of recording about Yeshua duking it out with the Pharisees or someone else trying to stone him for praying to The Name (at a time where the death penalty was imposed for such an utterance outside the temple).

And because of such things it wasn't in their habit to say it? But where is the New Testament SCRIPTURE commanding not to say it? There are any number of reasons something might happen, to base a prohibition on silence is not sound.

See the verses I referenced; one of them is to obey those who sit in the seat of Moses; Hardly anybody who follows the Messiah keeps that New Testament commandment (many also don't care about eating at Hindu restaurants, having blood pudding, or fornicating.)
I also quoted a very scary Old Testament verse, about someone who pronounces the name shall surely be put to death. Old testament has usefulness beyond just trying to make everything a Messianic prophecy; it's 75% of the bible.

Prayer is not the only time the name comes up. For example...Psalm 118 contains the name 28 times. A song of praise. Why if it is not to be said is it put in a song? Even more the text says...

No actually, the exact same Hebrew bible that is used for ALL christian translations, which has ALL JEWISH tradition for how to say ALL THE WORDS, tells us not to say the name in EVERY instance in that psalm. The Hebrew bible is not read just by sounding out words; the Masorah must be consulted.

Hard to come in the name of someone if you refuse to say His name. There are many gods, WHICH one is an important question.

-sigh- I've explained this countless times. sheymi i.e. "my name" in hebrew, most of the time does not even mean "name" in English. It means, "authority, reputation, character, knowledge of mighty works, fame" etc. But due to King James English translation many modern translations follow suit instead of freshly translating from the Hebrew. There are also verses that say "I come at you in the name of Hashem!" So do you tink the fighter scratched YH WH on the ground and shouted at them "do something about it!" That's not what that means... at all. Come to think of it, I shouldn't even have to be explaining this. "Down with your weapons, come out in the name of the king!" And they all fell on their face as "G-E-O-R-G-E was pronounced!"
[

Which is a Messianic prophecy of people declaring His name.

Ironic that the Messiah did not fulfill it in the way you are understanding that scripture to mean then since we don't have record of him "proclaiming the name" in that way. Again, it means reputation. "My sheym [fame] shall resound in all the Earth" and it does. Billions of Christians have known about the Mighty one of Jacob (the man without blemish)" yet for centuries Christians did not erroneously try to shout his name; the kept with the proper understanding of these verses.

Is that really true? In the first place, they weren't written in Hebrew, so that's a bit disingenuous. And the second, from John 8...

nothing disengenious about it at all. Read the Early Church Fathers. Eusebious claims to have been an eye witness to the "original Hebrew scroll of Matthew" as does Jerome and someone else. it's not disengenious; it's engenious

You said people are ignoring your prior arguments. Well they was 15 pages ago, we're responding to what's recently posted.

It's common knowledge netiquette if you come into a thread to read before you start arguing.
That's not even debatable.

But I did a search and you never brought up John 8 in this thread (an awful glaring omission considering the import of that verse) and when @Patrick Lauser brought it up you ignored his point. He also brought something else up...

Sorry when people clearly didn't read the thread, and they post a novel, yeah I don't read all their comments.
It's tit for tat I guess. I'm not even sure what you are mentioning in John 8 but if it's the "ego eimi" I already brought that up earlier in the thread and dealt with it.
If it's something else you are arguing from that entire chapter then please restate it but let's get more on topic and less blamy shall we?

Which is a good point concidering the LXX translates the name that way. So too in Rev 4:8 is it translated that way....

Please read what @The Revolting Man man already said about that verse. It's not the name, it's "I will be as I have been" in itself an obfuscation of the name even as he "reveals" it to Moshe.

And this is the most important one to me. This is a record of what is spoken in heaven. John heard it as κύριος. And this very closely echo's Isaiah 6:3 where it does use 'the name'. So from this I take κύριος is a valid translation of that name into Greek.

Nope. kyrious is a translation of Hebrew Adonai which is precisely the word we say in prayer in order to NOT say the Name. So actually your point proves our side of the argument. The Greek text of the Apostolic WRitings follows the Jewish tradition of saying Adonai instead of "He who brings into being" - that would be a translation of the name into Greek.

Furthermore 'who was and is and is to come' reminds me of I Am Who I Am. Which brings me to Exodus 3...

Please See @The Revolting Man 's previous comments about this a few pages back. This applies to your following comments as well [deleted for brevity]

So no, based on all that, it is NOT true that the name of God is not used in the NT. It is used, repeatedly all over the place, in it's translation to Greek (in two different forms).

as someone who teaches Greek to grad students in seminary I have to say to you, "show me where THE NAME is used in the Greek new Testament".
It's not. And we should learn from that.

(I reread through what I wrote and tried to soften it down, my intent is absolutely not to come off as snarky or a jerk. If somethign I wrote comes off that way please PM me about it and I'll happily edit it. I appreciate you debating with me about this important subject of what it means to be Holy and to make His name Holy) It's 8AM and I couldn't sleep because of the heat here.

 

[FollowingHim]

No actually, the exact same Hebrew bible that is used for ALL christian translations, which has ALL JEWISH tradition for how to say ALL THE WORDS, tells us not to say the name in EVERY instance in that psalm. The Hebrew bible is not read just by sounding out words; the Masorah must be consulted.

Are you not just saying here that the Hebrew Bible contains the name throughout that psalm, but an ancient Jewish study guide says not to say it? I'm not trying to put down the Masorah by calling it "an ancient Jewish study guide", just state what it is. It is not the Bible, it is notes on the Bible. Those notes may be correct, I'm not disputing your point. Just disputing your statement that the Bible itself says not to say the Name in that psalm.

 

[IshChayil]

Are you not just saying here that the Hebrew Bible contains the name throughout that psalm, but an ancient Jewish study guide says not to say it? I'm not trying to put down the Masorah by calling it "an ancient Jewish study guide", just state what it is. It is not the Bible, it is notes on the Bible. Those notes may be correct, I'm not disputing your point. Just disputing your statement that the Bible itself says not to say the Name in that psalm.

No offense taken.
I think though that you do not understand what the Masorah is. The Masorah is not only the comments in the margins. The Masorah is the vowel pointings on every single word itself that tells us what the words mean. ALL the words in the entire bible as accepted by Christiandom and how to read them, for generations. In this manner the Masorah is inextricable from the transmitted text itself.
I do understand why it's confusing though b/c some authors will refer to the masorah parva (or masorah magna) as simply "the masorah" adding to the confusion.

 

[IshChayil]

Supposedly the current scholarly consensus is that Matthew was originally written in Greek, but I have no opinion on the matter and I don't think it matters because...

Most of what you wrote I have no beef with so accept please my tone is not overly critical.
As a lover of the Greek language, I can tell you that when someone who knows Biblical Hebrew reads Matthew in Greek, it feels totally mangled. The word order is all messed up, especially involving conjuctions, it totally follows the speech patterns of Hebrew. The imperfect is used as a command in places which happens in biblical Hebrew; there are simply a slew of things that undermine the idea that the text was a Greek original.
I used to give lectures on "the Hebrew behind the Greek." and I have to say that if you think there is scholarly consensus that Matthew was written in Greek, I want to know if those scholars know Hebrew, like at all.
The sad truth is that many Greek translators had their 2 semesters of Hebrew in seminary and promptly forgot everything since in the protestant world Greek has been King for so long. I posit that one can NOT accurately translate many parts of the Apostolic Writings without a working knowledge of Hebrew.
Then we have the church father accounts of having seen the scroll; and not small figures, important fellas. I know this does not prove it was originally in Hebrew but I try to be fair on these things. I think many if not all of Paul's letters were Greek originals. I'll admit they are also much harder for me personally to get through. The Greek of Matthew and John (especially John) is just so simple and similar to Hebrew it's uncanny. The Greek is abused in many ways making things semitic which appears to me as someone was trying to be VERY loyal to the text; even in perverting word order and plurals which should be singular in Greek, and misusing the imperfect, etc.

I'd actually be fine though if it turns out that Matthew was originally in Greek. Just as a lover of the biblical languages it would seem unlikely even if we didn't have Jerome and Eusebias' testimony on this. There are even some very strong arguments to be made regarding gospels other than Matthew for Aramaic primacy. There are some interesting idioms that work out nicely in Aramaic (i.e. the Peshitta Syraic text) which just make no sense in Greek.
In the gospel of John, the meeting with Nikodemeus, Yeshua employs Greek idiom in making Nikodemeus look like an embicile.
The idiom he uses of "from above" i.e. "again" does not work in hebrew or in Aramaic. So when I read that passage, I came to the conclusion that he must have been speaking Greek to Nikodemeus. Nikodemeus is a hellenized name anyway so his family likely made their fortune outside of Israel then returned with great wealth. (this is all just my opinion, I haven't read this anyware, just as someone with a hobby in languages it's quite clear). So I think yeshua decided to speak to Nik. in Nik's native language; Greek and he bewildered him. To this day people don't get it right, they still say "are you born again brother?" It's laughable. it's not BORN AGAIN, that was the joke. It's "Born from above." 2000 years later and we keep making 'Ol Nik's mistake due to the play on a Greek word anothen.

So, to be fair I think we could compromise and say, "we don't know for sure what the original language text was. Perhaps the writers wrote multiple copies in multiple languages and all were inspired as they were all (perhaps) penned by Prophets. [not implying any of New Test. is uninspired, just saying maybe they wrote in multiple languages under inspiration] I personally believe Matthew was in Hebrew but there is certainly room for scholarly disagreement on this. it's for sure not "in the bag" in the Greek primacy camp.

 

[FollowingHim]

Perhaps the writers wrote multiple copies in multiple languages and all were inspired as they were all (perhaps) penned by Prophets.

That is actually very similar to Augustine's take on the LXX. In City of God, he goes to some lengths discussing the discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek. However, he also expresses great confidence in the 72 scholars appointed by the High Priest Eleazar, and assumes they were inspired directly by the Holy Spirit, and can be considered Prophets in this particular work for that reason, because their words came from God. He also very logically points out that any translation made by many individuals is more trustworthy than a translation made by one.

His basic conclusion is that when there is a discrepancy of historical fact (e.g. how long someone lived), then the Hebrew is most likely correct, as the original. However, there is value in both readings, as both were inspired by the Spirit. Both readings of a proverb or prophecy, for instance, may be of value in different ways and may bring out different details that the Spirit wished to convey.

In the same way, as you have pointed out, the writers of the New Testament may have written in multiple languages and actually made slightly different points or emphases in the different languages, with all still being inspired.

 

[IshChayil]

That is actually very similar to Augustine's take on the LXX. In City of God, he goes to some lengths discussing the discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek. However, he also expresses great confidence in the 72 scholars appointed by the High Priest Eleazar, and assumes they were inspired directly by the Holy Spirit, and can be considered Prophets in this particular work for that reason, because their words came from God. He also very logically points out that any translation made by many individuals is more trustworthy than a translation made by one.

His basic conclusion is that when there is a discrepancy of historical fact (e.g. how long someone lived), then the Hebrew is most likely correct, as the original. However, there is value in both readings, as both were inspired by the Spirit. Both readings of a proverb or prophecy, for instance, may be of value in different ways and may bring out different details that the Spirit wished to convey.

In the same way, as you have pointed out, the writers of the New Testament may have written in multiple languages and actually made slightly different points or emphases in the different languages, with all still being inspired.

I think the importance of the Septuagint is greatly lost on most people.
However, I'm not willing to call a translation "inspired" it's certainly possible. I think more likely they LXX translators were looking at a different Hebrew manuscript than what later became the Masorah.
We see evidence of this in some places where the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls depart from the Masorah but agree with the LXX.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

No actually, the exact same Hebrew bible that is used for ALL christian translations, which has ALL JEWISH tradition for how to say ALL THE WORDS, tells us not to say the name in EVERY instance in that psalm. The Hebrew bible is not read just by sounding out words; the Masorah must be consulted.

I think the importance of the Septuagint is greatly lost on most people.
However, I'm not willing to call a translation "inspired" it's certainly possible. I think more likely they LXX translators were looking at a different Hebrew manuscript than what later became the Masorah.
We see evidence of this in some places where the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls depart from the Masorah but agree with the LXX.

Wow! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Another big nail in the Masoretic coffin for me. Think about what you just said Ish.

When I study the Masoretics, I see all kinds of motive and opportunity, . . . And evidence.

If the Masoretics are saying not to say “the name”, thats enough for me to do exactly the opposite . . . . For exactly the reasons you stated above.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think the importance of the Septuagint is greatly lost on most people. ...
I think more likely they LXX translators were looking at a different Hebrew manuscript than what later became the Masorah.

Wow! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

This is a point of agreement in fact, not in implications, so I'm not going to imply anything further than what @IshChayil and @Verifyveritas76 have actually stated themselves. Obviously both will personally disagree on the degree and implications of this, and both may well decide to argue the details further if they don't just decide it's not worth their time.

But for the rest of us reading this from the sidelines and gleaning details we can use to inform our own Biblical studies, this is very helpful. @IshChayil is extremely well studied in the Hebrew texts and history from a Jewish perspective, while @Verifyveritas76 is well studied in church history, early Christian writings etc. They come from completely opposite perspectives - and they almost always disagree very strongly.

Yet in the middle of that disagreement they both agree that the Masoretic Hebrew may not entirely reflect the original text (to one degree or another), and there are likely places (whether many or few) where the LXX reflects an older text. They also both agree that the LXX is valuable, possibly more important than most people realise.

Whenever two so different people agree on a detail, pay attention to that particular detail. It's probably true and possibly important. Take-home message: if you're studying anything in depth, make sure you check out both the LXX and the Masoretic text.

 

[IshChayil]

...@IshChayil is extremely well studied in the Hebrew texts and history from a Jewish perspective...

I also teach Biblical Greek to masters students at a seminary (accredited college). I'm not saying that to toot my own horn, only that it's relevant if you're mentioning my qualifications to those following the thread, that I am not stuck in the "Jewish perspective" only, as I read the Gospel of John in Greek without a dictionary for example and regularly peruse the Septuagint in the Greek (not interlinear). So if we are just calling out qualifications there is hardly a balance at hand here.
This is not ego, this is info I want those following my thread to know since I feel I am defending the sanctity of God's sacred name here; you should know the knowledge of the thread Op is not limited to Jewish studies and therefore Jewish bias, I'm quite informed of the Greek tradition; linguistically more so than anyone who interacts on this thread so far.
I'm also ordained if that matters to anyone.
Sam. you never mention Greek stuff so if you heard some lashon hara and think it's not true, I can share my proof of employment at the college, or my ordination card or whatever, PM me if you need that and I'll send over my bonafides.

Please don't misunderstand fellas, I'm not saying my opinions are better; I'm only correcting what could be seen as Sam's apparent claim that my scholarship is limited to Hebrew language and (not by inference) Greek since we were talking about Greek scriptures as well. All your opinions matter and I often learn a lot from folks here but as I feel I'm defending the sanctity of the Name, I will not have my scholarly credibility (His gift) sold short (for His name's sake).

 

[FollowingHim]

@IshChayil, I did not need to state in detail your and Joe's full lists of qualifications and experiences, a few relevant words were sufficient background for my point.

I wouldn't bother stating this except that I realise you clearly feel quite strongly about this, as I can see that you spent a large amount of time editing and re-editing this post today. Originally it was simply an outline of your qualifications, but now I see you're worrying about Lashon Hara and accusing me personally of apparently saying you only know about Hebrew. If it helps your peace of mind, this is nonsense. I did not claim your knowledge was limited to any one area. Saying that you have knowledge of one thing does not mean you have no knowledge of another - just as saying absolutely nothing about your knowledge would not imply you had no knowledge. I simply mentioned a couple of key points in your expertise that illustrated the difference I was emphasising, to give a tiny bit of background to my actual point.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil, I did not need to state in detail your and Joe's full lists of qualifications and experiences, a few relevant words were sufficient background for my point.

I wouldn't bother stating this except that I realise you clearly feel quite strongly about this, as I can see that you spent a large amount of time editing ....

Yep, we all know that Joe knows something.
He's a big boy and doesn't need you conflating our levels of scholarship as he continues to troll my thread which I asked him to stay out of (since I can't block a mod's comments).
It was unethical for you to "out" the time I spent editing my post; there's a reason that type of data is only accessible to admins...
Will this be the norm now when your ticked with folks Sam? To share with everyone the time they spend on their posts? I'm a writer too, it's common to craft, buy my books bro.
Or go back and reread my post. Usually you accuse me of something publicly, I have to tell you "go reread" then you reread and "oh my bad you did / didn't say that" etc. This happens constantly over the few years I've been here. I'm not bashing you in that post; if it came off that way I'm sorry. I am calling you out for unethical behaviour in this one.