Just Asking
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19 NASB
In the name of – Recently Uriel be Mordechai came to my home to teach a group of readers about the impact of the p46 document (papyrus #46 is a series of ancient copies of part of the apostolic writings dating from about 180-200 CE). He pointed out several textual changes, apparently deliberately made, from the time of p46 to the Codex Sinaiticus (circa 4th C.). These changes look as if they were theologically motivated since they imply significant alterations in the status of the Messiah, particularly concerning his divinity. With this in mind, I thought it useful to once more take a look at the baptismal formula found at the end of Matthew.
eis to onoma tou (“in the name of”) reads the Greek text of Matthew. Significantly, neither Mark, Luke, John or Acts repeats this command. While the other gospels record versions of the “Great Commission” and the book of Acts provides instances of its application, nowhere does the phrase “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” occur. Perhaps even more curious is the fact that Matthew, a gospel written specifically with a Jewish audience in mind, uses a phrase that no Jew would have understood at that time. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity was first mentioned by Tertullian in about 200AD and was not fully established in the Christian Church until the council of Nicaea is 325 AD (and even then, it was still a controversy).
We know that another Trinitarian expression found in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is really an addition to the text in about 800 AD, first appearing in a treatise written by Priscillian in about 385 AD. Once incorporated into the text, it was treated as a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. But the truth is that John never wrote it. Is it so difficult to imagine that some translator of Matthew’s Hebrew gospel added this expression to the text, believing that the doctrine of the Trinity established in the mouth of Jesus would provide substantial credibility to the Church’s distinctiveness from Judaism? Is it so difficult to grasp the fact that no Jew in the first century could have embraced the Trinitarian concept of the Christian doctrine formulated more than 300 years later? The difficulty is exacerbated by the very fact that Christian theologians have struggled for thousands of years to provide a rational, logical explanation of the doctrine that God is “three in one.” All analogies ultimately fail since there are no worldly counterparts to the unique idea. In the end, Christian theology is left with something like Tertullian’s comment that the doctrine of the Trinity must be divinely revealed because it cannot be humanly constructed. As Erickson puts it, “It is so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it. We do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity because it is self-evident or logically cogent. We hold it because God has revealed that this is what he is like.”[1]
If you take Erickson’s words seriously, this is an astounding admission. The bottom line is this: The doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t make any sense. But the affirmation of the Church is that it is correct anyway. Now, if it doesn’t make any sense, how did we come to believe it? Erickson uses the absurdity of the idea to suggest that it must come from God Himself. It is beyond human comprehension, therefore, it must have been divinely revealed. But this is quite odd. We don’t make this claim about any other doctrine. We expect that the Sovereign God who reveals Himself will do so in such a way that we can understand Him and His claims upon us. All of the Tanakh is built on the premise that God speaks in words we understand. Apparently in every case but this one. Why? If the doctrine of the Trinity is “one of the truly distinctive doctrines of Christianity” and “crucial for Christianity”[2] then why is it uniquely “absurd” among Christian beliefs? Furthermore, why is it fundamentally and unalterably opposed to Jewish monotheism, especially since Judaism records and recognizes that the One God manifests Himself in more than one form? Everything about the representation of God in the Tanakh is about His singularity, His oneness. Yet Christianity declares that this same God is not ehad (one) but rather “three in one,” whatever that means.
We won’t solve this problem today. We probably won’t solve this problem ever. But we can ask this question and expect a reasonable answer. “Would those who heard Yeshua issue this command have understood Him if He actually asserted a doctrine of the Trinity?” “Would Yeshua, the orthodox, conservative, Torah-obedient Jewish Messiah, have made such a claim?” Doesn’t it make much more historical sense to suggest that this doctrinal stance was added to the text much later when the reading audience needed to see it in the mouth of the Savior?
Just asking.
Topical Index: Trinity, in the name of, Erickson, Priscillian, Tertullian, Nicaea, Matthew 28:19
[1] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, first edition, p. 342.
[2] Ibid, pp. 321-322.
If people in the 21st century still believe that there are 3 days and “3 nights” between friday evening and sunday morning, times of Yeshua’s burial and resurrection (Mathew 12:40), then we can expect this same people believe in a 3 in 1 formula…
Well, that would be true if we use a 21st century understanding of what a “day” is, instead of using a Hebrew understanding (in the first century, anyway) of what a day is. He could have been killed on Friday afternoon and resurrected anytime after sundown on Saturday and still have spent 3 Hebrew days in that grave.
I have heard that statement before, about Hebrew days… but what about the 3 nights? Isn’t that what He said, 3 days and 3 nights? And the sign of Yonah, (Yonah 1.17), seems to clearly specify 3 days And 3 nights. I wonder why would He be so specific if it were up for differing interpretation?
Check out the site “answersingenesis dot org / jesus-christ/resurrection/three-days-and-nights
Dear Laurita. I’m talking about the 3 nights… there are only 2 nights between friday afternoon and sunday morning. It’s not about what a “day” is… it is about understanding Leviticus 23 where you can find the answer to this matter.
Well, you might could consider that Thursday night was really the night for Friday, any time after sundown on Friday would have been counted as the night for Saturday, and that any time after Saturday at sundown would have been that third night, or, Suday’s night; so, you do have 3 nights accounted for because we all know that the Resurrection did not occur before sundown on the Sabbath..
But he wasn’t in the grave on Thursday night. So you still have only Friday and Saturday night, right?
He was in the grave on the DAY of Friday, which, in Hebrew reckoning, counts as that full day. (We, however, don’t count it a day unless and until we clock in an entire 24 hours, no matter where they start or end.) This is NOT the same understanding of what a day means; further, He had started dying long before He took His last breath. He started dying when He was brutalized the night before.
Genesis specifies that we count a day as being BOTH its “night and day”, even though the specified time might only be concerned with a fraction of it. We see this with Esther, where the record states that the fast occurred for a full “three days night or day” even though she went in to see the king “on the third day”, which could have even been as early as the evening of what we would consider the second day.
Hi Laurita, Terri and Mel.
Please, be patient with me… it’s a bit long… (sorry, because this is not about the subject on Skip’s post)
Let’s start with what happens around Passover:
Leviticus 23:5 – Passover is the 14th of the first month. Can be any day of the week in a given year.
Leviticus 23:6 – First day of Unleavened Bread follows the next day. This is a High Shabbat, different concept from a regular weekly Shabbat because it can occur in any day of the week depending on year. Still, no regular work allowed.
This means that a High Shabbat comes next day after Passover every single year.
Now, let’s check what happened on that week:
John 19:31 – “Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath..” Yeshua dies on Passover. John mentions a “special Sabbath”. Please, look up in all translations: a High Shabbat.
Now, let’s consider these two different accounts on a single small event that happened after Yeshua’s death:
Luke 23:50-56 “Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.”
Mark 15:42-47 followed by 16:1 “It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.”
Can you spot the difference between both accounts?
Luke says that the women prepared spices and perfumes before resting on the Shabbat.
Mark says that the women went to buy spices after resting on the Shabbat.
So, they needed to buy spices and then prepare them… that takes time… easily one day… how can this be? The only way that both accounts are correct is by having a day between two Shabbats… the first one is a High Shabbat… then comes friday… then comes a second Shabbat, a weekly regular Shabbat.
Two Shabbats on a week. It happens. We know that by now.
That gives you Passover on Wednesday afternoon just before dawn when Yeshua’s body is buried, a High Shabbat (1st day of Unleavened Bread) on Thursday (1st night, 1st day), spices bought and prepared by the women on Friday (2nd night, 2nd day), a regular weekly Shabbat on Saturday (3rd night, 3rd day).
Three days and three nights… just as He said in Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
The best explanation I’ve seen of the complex nature of G-d is here:
(link removed) There are two videos and Shapira goes into the Jewish Sefirot and the relationship to Yeshua.
Another teacher that give a little deeper Jewish view of the idea of the Trinity but he’s harder to understand is:
(link removed)
Hello, Mark. I’ve removed the links you posted. Please don’t use links outside of this website. You can give details such as where to go(without a URL) titles, descriptions, etc. Links go bad and hurt our rankings as well as causing long page/post load times.
Thank you,
Mark
I have a rather basic question, Jesus is called the Jewish Messiah above. Is his lineage actually from the tribe of Judah?
Not nick picking but sincerely asking because I don’t know.
I have a friend who is Christian but who denies all thing Jewish. He is certain that all Jews are corrupt and follow the Talmud exclusively. His epic rants on this wear me out!
Thanks
I am sure the rants do wear you out. Probably no point in talking to someone who has already determined you are wrong.
He is actually my boss and we get along well. Still wears me out and I really don’t encourage a lot of this discussion with him anymore.
So my basic question-linage from the tribe of Judah? I can search it out but am looking for the rather quick answer today please! Thanks
Yes, Yeshua was from the tribe of Judah….Yosef and Miriam were from the tribe of Judah.
Thank you Heather C. Small simple questions tend to get overlooked and unanswered especially when this particular topic gains steam yet again.
Dawn, the two lineages – in Matthew and Luke – one is Mary’s, one is Joseph’s, both are Judah’s. There are a variety of weak arguments that detractors think are strong arguments, and there is a lot of hype about perspectives that can be invalidated if someone is willing to take the time to walk carefully through the flow of the texts. If the NT is accurate (and except for additions like this particular article covers – THANK YOU, SKIP!) these lineages are accurate and prove Judah. Hope this simple response you can use helps.
Thank you Leslee!
If “Judaism records and recognizes that the One God manifests Himself in more than one form” than there is no way that it would have ever engaged in the One vs. Three argument that subsequently ensued UNLESS Judaism, too, fell for Hellenistic assertions that function followed form. IF the form of God is established as EITHER One or more than one (as in the form of mathematical numbers), then colored in with the accompanying attributes (functions) – then, and only then, would you have an argument.
Both sides, I firmly believe, have to be subscribing to a common denominator of the form of counting things – either one or more than one – to be able to fight at all. They BOTH had to have fought from the substrate of Hellenistic thinking, for we know both sides were equally infected with it. Both sides had to have forgotten that reality produces forms as side effects of function, and that the particular form that YHVH manifested at any given time was determined by the function He was perFORMING at that time. This used to not be a problem – until Hellenistic assertions of ideal forms were introduced, anyway.
I bet if you went looking, you could find just as many ways that the Jews consequently went back and attempted to explain their previous understanding of the forms and functions of YHVH, His Spirit, etc. according to this backwards concept, as the Christians of that era. Why don’t we try doing that, too, instead of just picking on the Christians, necessary as that may be? Otherwise, we could possibly be guilty of inadvertently fostering the fallacy of contrasting ‘pure’ non-Hellenistic viewpoints of the Jews of this time with the ‘polluted’ Hellenistic ones of those supposedly singularly corrupted Christians.
In my understanding of the dialectic, anyway, it is impossible to have an argument at all unless BOTH sides are agreeing on a common basis of that argument. You cannot argue apples and oranges. To me, the argument itself is the strongest evidence that BOTH sides were based in Hellenism, for the principle of the dialectic (argument) presupposes both sides as arising from a single base. Now, what else could that common base possibly have been?
Conversely, I think it is STILL true today that both sides have to be based in Hellenistic projections of form predetermining function, for if any of us really put function before form, the argument would collapse back into that straightforward admission that YHVH can do anything He wants, with appropriate forms following, but with unity (Oneness) of ACTION (function) – not form, as either One or more than One, as the crow counts, anyway (even crows can count to three, y’all) – as His single identity. Why, that might even change how we understood our own identity, with its origins in the ideal unity of all other, made in that divine image as we are. An isolated person, after all, is no person at all, which Skip has pointed out more than once in his study of what the Tanakh says about individuals. Our form follows the function of our unity, too. Personality is a side effect of connection, not the source of it. The world has it exactly backwards, but we don’t have to make the same mistake, do we?
Thank you so much, Skip, for teaching me this!
“I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
The citation is not in question. What is in question is the meaning of “one.” Being one in purpose, character, message and means does not require being one ontologically, as is quite evident. It is the ontological issue that is at the center of Trinitarianism.
It equally is the ontological issue at the center of Unitarianism, unless, of course, you want to assert that there are two different bases for understanding what One vs. Three means, but it there are differing bases there can be no argument. Why don’t we establish the base before we argue, or at least recognize that there has to be a common base to argue at all?
No argument here at all. If “one” means something other than “one,” that is, if it has some specialized meaning only applicable to the Trinity but without any common reference in ordinary language usage, then we really don’t know what it actually means since whenever we try to use ordinary language to explain it we are told that it doesn’t really mean that.
The Trinity argument is messed up, and I agree it mangles language, but to argue that Unitarianism does NOT limit the understanding of the concept of what unity (echad) means is to attempt, I think, to talk out of two sides of the mouth. I don’t think either side allows echad to speak for itself because both sides want to commandeer the same peculiar reasoning that there can be no unity without particulars, while the idea of echad, as far as I can tell, anyway, assumes there can be no particulars without unity. THAT, however, is the one thing neither side can allow, because they have to share the idea that ONE is exclusive.
The Trinity must have three exclusive-in-number ones, and Unitarians have to also have their exclusive-in-number one. They both agree on what ONE must mean, even though they both say they don’t. They both have to understand ONE as being exclusive (particular) before it can be anything else. (Hello, Parmenides?) I say the problem has to start there, with that exclusivity.
The idea of the Trinity is totally dialectic, where you only get unity on the other side of exclusivity (or else you could not count three) but on that side, you don’t get unity (echad); you only get synthesis, which always leaves something out; further, the Trinity supposes a hierarchy, not equality..
I think the Unitarians are even more misnamed, however, because there is no unity (echad) possible at all with their exclusive One. Unity (echad) presupposes equality, and can only exist between equals, (which is why we had to be adopted before we could enjoy it), but Unitarianism gives God nothing with which to enjoy echad WITH.
To miss what unity means is to miss everything, and we run the danger of merely resurrecting Parmenides and Heraclitus and thus continuing to get nowhere. I still say we need to become willing to start over.
Isaiah 48:12;16 “Listen (shema) to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called. I am the one. I am the first and the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth. My right hand stretched out the heavens. When I call for them, they both stand…..Come here. Listen to this: From the beginning I have spoken nothing in private. From the time it took place, I was there. Now Adonay Yahweh has sent me and his Ruach”.
There we have “Me”, “Yahweh” and “Holy Spirit”.
Olga, That passage Isaiah vs 16, I believe that if you read the Hebrew, you’ll find that Yesha’yahu (Isaiah) is speaking.
You might be correct, David (according to some translations)
If we accept the concept of one unknowable God that the Bible itself confirms, why do we entertain ANY concept of unknowingness whatsoever? Is this not the most ridiculous debate imaginable?
“Do not lean on your own understanding”
“My ways are not your ways”
So . . . He’s gifted us with faith. With which we receive, accept, and believe
His Word despite our limited human understanding. Isn’t eternal life beyond
human explanation? Isn’t resurrection a stretch for most people? Don’t miracles
defy all logic? Wasn’t Yeshua the same stumbling block in His day as He is today?
Yeshua said: “Don’t be afraid; just believe.”
I am unashamed my faith is Rock solid. Am I being foolish?
Just asking.
I’ve been reading Benjamin Sommer’s “The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel” recently. He gives a highly plausible account of the existence of divine plurality and fluidity within a monotheistic framework in ancient Israel. It provides a satisfactory backdrop to how a 1st century Jew could consider Yeshua to be divine, and yet not the same person as the Father.
It avoids the usual issues with a Greek-oriented, “Athanasian” attempt at a top-down, analytic formulation, but shows that the everyday folk theology of ancient Israel could conceive of God in this way.
I often wonder if we get hung up on the word Trinity. Also, I wonder if we offend God by expecting all things about Him to make sense to us. I recently heard a lecture by Dr. Michael Rydelnik, Professor of Jewish Studies at Moody in Chicago. Wish it had been recorded so I could listen again. He was discussing the “Variant Readings”…something I’d never heard of before but perhaps some of you theologians have. They are the footnotes, I believe at the bottom of the Masoretic text. Dr. Rydelnik emphasized that he definitely thinks the Masoretic text is superior to others, BUT acknowledged that there are a few areas of confusion and possible mistranslation…especially in the verses that are Messianic. He discussed 6 or 7 of them, but the one that stood out to me most was from Psalm 110:3 where it reads “from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth.” That’s a confusing verse, but the Variant Reading translates it as “eternity past.” Dr. Rydelnik believes this is a verse that supports the preexistence of Yeshua.
Another interesting lecture I heard was on Hebrews 13:12. Rabbi Jacob Rosenberg pointed out that, Yeshua was crucified “outside the city gate,” just as those required by the Torah for the sacrifices for Atonement (Yom Kippur.) It’s been mentioned on this website that Yeshua’s crucifixion didn’t meet the qualifications to forgive sin because it wasn’t done properly. But, the lecturer I heard suggested that it was very properly done, “outside the gates,” and then Yeshua Himself took the blood to be sprinkled on the Heavenly Alter. And, it was all done according to the order of Melchizedek which was far superior to the Levitical way. ( Hebrews 7)…a strong argument FOR the cross resulting in forgiveness of sins (past and present.)
Skip said above…”we won’t solve this problem today.” I agree, but I believe God is pleased with our struggles to know and understand Him better. As He reminded Zerubbabel and the people in Haggai 2:4,9…Be strong and keep working.” When God calls us to do something it is always met with challenges, but He always sees us through to the end. The goal will become a reality!
Thank you.
In Isaiah 9:6, the coming Messiah will be called El Gibbor, yet God is One. How then can there be El Gibbor and El Shaddai two Gods? Jesus in Mark 12:29(Deutronomy 6:4,5) Hear Oh Israel, the LORD our God the LORD is one….El Shaddai and El Gibbor are One..Scripture explains scripture. John 17:11…so that they may be one as we are one.
Scripture cannot be broken.
If you search this web site for comments on Isaiah 9:6 you will find a legitimate but different interpretation of the verse. Additionally, your reading the the text presupposes a doctrine that wasn’t developed until 300 years after the coming of the Jewish Messiah. You might find Joseph Klausner’s work useful on this. Finally, the comment that Scripture interprets Scripture and cannot be broken is also a presuppositional element of a paradigm. It actually isn’t taught in Scripture itself. Look deeper and see what you discover.
Skip, tautologies are also “presuppositional element(s) of a paradigm” too. I mean, the burden is to disprove, not prove, tautologies, after all. If Scripture acts like its own interpreter, talks like its own interpreter, well, you get the idea.
Example of a tautology: if you thought you had to go around telling everybody that you were a man, wouldn’t that just cast doubts in other people’s minds in regards to whether or not YOU thought you were one? I mean, they would still think you were one even if you told them you WEREN’T. Some truths can be still be self evident, even to the most darkened minds.
However, if you say that Scripture is NOT its own interpreter and CAN be broken,could you please give chapter and verse, or show where it advises us that we need other interpreters and warns us of the breaks? Don’t bother showing me where other people say such things, though, (for they always have).
I accept your alternate views on the quoted verses, and am willing to apply your comment about paradigms to the verses themselves, and, I agree that the caution is well given. However, as a person who accepts that truth (self evident tautology) needs no backup or explanation, I politely beg to redirect your last comment. I cannot see – in your actions, anyway – where you really believe what you just said there. Perhaps you could clarify further?
Judas 1:3-16 seems to imply that the scriptures should not be understood literally.
Then other scriptures refer to spiritual concerned, and others for the man of God, so not everyone to interpret and understand…
Good delineation, Seeker (nice to hear from you again!), but much of Scripture is other than literal. Literal is NOT the same as tautological, and you are very right, not many people can interpret Scripture. The statement is about Scripture interpreting itself, however.
And Paul said we take from the old to explain the new.
We need to study from Judah so that we can understand the new. Just duplicating and repeating Judah is no way understanding. In my opinion neither is using scripture to interpret scripture. Using scripture to progressively explain YHVH empowerment seems to be a more correct interpretation.
Then again I may be wrong as I still do not even use TWOT or Strong’s as both are academis literatures.
Strange how YHVH only deemed it necessary to record 10 words to change people. We wanted more and as Saul said there will never be an end of writing books and as for studying it tires out the flesh…
How sorry we want more words because we then miss the initial message. And Skip is doing a fantastic job to remind us of the initial 10 letters or rather words. For the letter is dead and it is the spirit that brings or gives life to the letter… No interpretation is needed only understanding, in my humble opinion.
Seeker, it would be really hard to argue with that, and thanks for the reminder that without the Spirit of that Word we are nowhere.
I assume that the original ten words were something about not eating of the Tree, but because of our hubris, that one Thou Shalt Not had to be expanded to Ten more at Sinai. Sigh.
Always fun with you.
Hubris???
Maybe making them positive guidelines would have been easier than making them sound so restrictive. By doing… You will…
WIIFM
Foolishness through self pride.
I read of Kabbalah, desire to become by overcoming apparently an ancient Jewish concept hidden as we were not right for the process.
This may be the required ability to dig deeper, seek more truths, build on current truths…
All about each one of us becoming giversvand no longer receivers for what we receive from YHVH is sufficient…
“The Mighty God, Father unto eternity and Prince of Peace is planning a wonder”…this is what you mean. I am in the wrong discusion. I avoid discussions where a Bible translation has been forced to fit the beliefs of the translators. E.g. with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
And as I don’t know the Word of God you use, as I can’t refer to it…I will bow out of this conversation, and wait for Judgement day and see who was right.
A few points need to be brought forth. First, p46 does not contain any of the Gospels or Acts (one can verify this on Wikipedia), which means this manuscript says nothing about Matthew 28:19, your subject verse. The way you’ve framed this TW leads the reader to assume the “Great Commission” passage is within p46, which I don’t think is fair. Secondly, this statement He pointed out several textual changes, apparently deliberately made, from the time of p46 to the Codex Sinaiticus (circa 4th C.) presupposes an ‘earlier is more original’ understanding, which you yourself questioned in your August 4, 2014 TW (Theological Self-Contradiction), regarding the textual variant in John 1:18. Moreover, we cannot even know if p46 is in the same lineage as Codex Sinaiticus, and even if it were proven that they had shared lineage, I’d be curious to see the ‘evidence’ that ‘changes’ were ‘apparently deliberate’ and theologically motivated. While there are known cases of theologically motivated textual changes, these are far from the norm.
There are only two textual variants in this verse. The first is a spelling error (nun, “now” vs. oun, “therefore”), the second a different verb tense for “baptizing”.
I should add, there is no proof of an ‘original’ Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Craig, have you investigated the legitimacy of the Hebrew book of Matthew? I am not a linguist but the evidence I have seen is quite favorable. I was led to it by Skip’s mention of Nehemiah Gordon’s book, The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus. You can see him lecture about it on You Tube. He was with Michael Rood in a 2005 tour called Raiders of the Lost Book. You can see him in lectures 4, 5 ,6 ,7, 8 and 9 of that 10 part series, or, just his 2 hour lecture portion of it at
www DOT Youtube DOT /watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y&t=3s
I think you (and everyone here) will find it persuasive and revealing. Let me know why not if you don’t.
Daniel,
No, I’ve not done any sort of formal investigation. The one thing I do know is the writing of Papias of Hierapolis, as found in Josephus (or Eusebius?) that mentions Matthew being in a “Hebrew Dialect”, which some have construed as Aramaic. The Greek for “Dialect” is probably best understood as akin to “Hebrew ‘flavor'”, meaning it contains Semitisms. In any case, at present, I don’t really have a couple hours to devote to this; but, thanks for bringing this up. Maybe one day I’ll look at it with an open mind.
RIGHT! p46 does not contain the gospels. In fact, it doesn’t even contain all of Paul’s letters. If I lead people to think p46 contained Matthew, I apologize. That wasn’t my intention. As I have written before, there are other serious issues with Matthew 28 (from my perspective).
All of this boils down to the conflict between historical evidence and faith commitment. But that is a much longer discussion I am not ready to engage at the moment. Thanks for your careful corrections and linguistic insights. I appreciate them.
Skip,
You’re welcome. It’s not my intention to be overly critical, I just have a penchant for researching and looking at things from multiple angles, and your posts sometimes induce me to further study. Because of this, my comments tend to express points of disagreement rather than points of agreement. However, you won’t find me disagreeing with you on 1 John 5:7—some further thoughts on that below.
I did a quick search of some of the theologically significant passages found in p46 in order to compare with Sinaiticus (Phil 2:5-11, Col 1:15-20, Heb 1:1-9), and I found remarkable agreement between the two, with only a few inconsequential differences. That doesn’t mean there aren’t others, but I’m very curious which Scriptures Uriel ben-Mordechai found in which “apparently deliberately made” textual changes were made in Sinaiticus when comparing with p46—changes illustrating a higher Christology in the former. To provide an example against an ‘earlier is better’ with regard to manuscript evidence, Phil 1:11 in p46 has the unique and very odd reading for the last clause “and praise of God and praise of me”. That’s an obvious error, though it’s difficult to conceive how this error made it into the text. Sinaiticus contains the reading found in most other manuscripts “and praise of God”.
Back to 1 John 5:7: Whatever the specific origin of this spurious text, aka the Johannine Comma, I note that even Christian writings of early antiquity very often had paraphrases of Biblical texts when ‘quoting’ them. This may well have been due to the authors writing from memory, without having the actual ‘original’ text in front of them. Alternatively, this may have been due to what I understand to be the not atypical practice of the time for ‘free’ quotations, i.e., purposely paraphrasing in non-Biblical texts, even Christian texts sourcing Scripture. For this reason, I don’t think it wise to put too much weight on extra-canonical manuscripts. That is, I think one should focus solely on Greek NT manuscripts, only using other versions, or early Christian writers sparingly. And this is where textual criticism should start—with what is called the external evidence, the NT Greek manuscripts themselves. Once these are carefully weighed, then one should look at internal evidence, i.e., the likelihood the Biblical author would have used this or that text.
Nowadays, only the KJV-onlyists will claim the Johannine Comma as ‘original’ to the text. Speaking of “original”, most textual critics understand that the search for the “original” text is a search in vain. That doesn’t mean we throw up our collective hands and claim that we can’t have confidence in the text we do have. We have what one has called “an embarrassment of riches” in extant NT Greek manuscripts, so much so that we can be confident that the critical text (the Greek text underlying most modern Bible versions) is very close to what has been handed down by the original writers, if not the text itself.
Craig,
I agree, we can have great confidence that the Greek text we have is very close to the original Greek text, BUT, was the original Greek text an imperfect translation of the original author’s Hebrew, or, even of a second hand Aramaic translation, – making it a third hand translation?
Why might this be true?
My first example that Yeshua spoke Hebrew is found in Acts 26:14, when Paul hears the voice of Christ call him in the “Hebrew tongue”, (Hebraidi dialektos) which, I am assured, means Hebrew language, and not Aramaic despite what Mel Gibson and the N.I.V. would have us believe.
Second, we have Ps. 22:1 in which David cries out, obviously in Hebrew, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”
Yeshua seems to quote this verse as His dying words, but in our Greek manuscripts, His words are not translated into Greek, but He is “quoted” as saying them in the Aramaic language, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.” And this is why scholars figure He and the rest of the Hebrews spoke Aramaic as their everyday language.
But the Hebrew version of Matthew 27:46 quotes it in Hebrew stating, “Yeshua cried with a loud voice saying in the HOLY LANGUAGE, Eli, Eli, lama azavtani?”
So, not only is the whole verse in Hebrew, but Matthew bluntly states that Yeshua spoke it in the Holy Language or Tongue, which Hebrew has also been known as throughout history.
So, we have a problem. The Greek version has Jesus speaking Aramaic, and the Hebrew version has Yeshua speaking Hebrew. They both can’t be true, but they can both be explained and harmonized.
The answer would seem to be that there is a missing translation, an Aramaic one. This translation would have been from the Hebrew and it translated everything, including Yeshua’s last words, into Aramaic.
But when some unknown Greek/Aramaic translator, translated the Aramaic version into Greek, he decided to stay with the Aramaic translation of Yeshua’s last words. Thus the Greek version is a translation of a translation (and our English version even one more step removed.) (Papias said, each translated as best he was able.)
Could this also be why Matthew’s quotations of the Old Testament are not as accurate as we might otherwise expect them to be, being a second hand translation?
Besides the genealogy problem I recently wrote on, the Hebrew version also solves other seeming contradictions. I think it is worth looking at.
That might make sense, Dan, seeing that the head of the believers moved to Syria after the falling out in Jerusalem and Aramaic was the primary language for hundreds of years, at least until the Roman church moved in a mass campaign to wipe out that center and move it to Rome. There was a vast effort to obliterate all Aramaic influence, this we know, and the translations in that tongue were destroyed wholescale. (see the book Truth Triumphant: The Church In The Wilderness by Benjamin Wilkinson)
Daniel,
It’s not my intention to get into a debate over the relative merits of a Hebrew original Matthew or entire NT, so I’ll be somewhat brief.
The mere fact that all the extant evidence of the NT is in Greek (save for some obviously later Aramaic manuscripts), plus the fact that select portions contain Hebrew or Aramaic words or whole phrases in tranlisterations, sometimes mixed Hebrew and Aramaic, militates against a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original. The most scientific way to examine something is to begin with the evidence we do have. Sure we can make suppositions, but these must be supported by the overall evidence.
Matthew records Jesus’ words in 27:46 as part transliterated Hebrew (Ēli, Ēli, “My God, My God”), with the rest in Aramaic (lama sabachthani, “Why have you forsaken me”); yet, the entire sentence is in transliterated Aramaic in the Markan parallel of 15:33 (Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani), which is then specifically translated into Greek by Mark. Apparently some did not understand Jesus’ transliterated Hebrew in Matthew’s version, as some mistakenly thought He was calling for Elijah.
But then Jesus uses raca (fool) in Matthew 5:20, which is from the Aramaic. Yeshua mixes Hebrew and Greek together in his ‘amen’ prefaced statements, such as Matthew 5:18: “ἀμὴν (amēn, from Hebrew אָמֵן, amen) γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν (gar legō humin) = “Amen, for I say to you…”. And then Jesus uses the Hebrew or Aramaic transliterated—it’s not a direct transliteration of either one—gehenna in 5:22. Thus we have a Hebrew transliteration in 5:18, an Aramaic transliteration in 5:20, then a Hebrew or Aramaic transliteration in 5:22.
Jesus uses ‘double amen’ statements in John, e.g. 1:51, in which he also mixes Hebrew transliterations with the Greek. However, John twice records the Greek χριστός, Christos, “Christ”, alongside the transliterated Aramaic—not Hebrew—Μεσσίας [from ℵמְשִׁיחָ, Meshicha], Messias, “Messiah”.
I could go on but the picture seems clear: The NT was written in Greek, with occasional Hebrew and Aramaic transliterations (from either the Hebrew or the Aramaic to Greek).
Koine (“common”) Greek was the common language of the day. This is the most likely reason it was used for the NT. Even the Tanakh was translated into the Greek (LXX/Septuagint) ca. 200BC.
Daniel,
I’m remiss in not responding regarding Acts 26:14. The phrase τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλἑκτῳ, tȩ̄ Hebraidi dialektō̧ is in the form or article-adjective-noun (dative). The adjective could be either “Hebrew” (perhaps better as “Hebraic”) or “Aramaic” (the form is the same as adjective or noun). Just like Acts 21:40 / 22:2, etc., we don’t know for sure. It could be either “in the Hebrew language” (in the Hebraic language, i.e., Hebrew) or “in the Aramaic language” (in the Hebraic dialect of Aramaic).
I found the reference I was looking for earlier (my comment @ October 1, 2017 5:07 pm) in this same vein: It’s in Eusebius. In David Alan Black’s book Why Four Gospels? (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), the author, a Greek teacher, puts forth his position of Matthean priority, as opposed to the usual position of Markan priority (he asserts that Matthew precedes Mark, not vice versa), he references Eusebius’ work en route to making a point:
In the footnote reference accompanying this, Black states:
All this to say Black adds further corrects the record, providing further evidence that Matthew was not written originally in Hebrew (or Aramaic). The Catholic Church holds that Matthew was written in Hebrew, further perpetuating Origin’s mistaken assertion, which was then perpetuated in the Church “Fathers”, and so on. The origin is Origen!