byJacobO.MeAer

OUR COVER: The Parthenon-symbol of Greek mythology-etrndscnrmbling. Meanwhile scholrrship rmames a nuclear areensl of evidenceto EXPLODE the very foundotione of the most insidious myth Greeceever perpetrotod, thst our Savior war a Gree,k! Will you worship theGreek *Jerur' or the llebrew "Yohehua" rfter reviewing the factspreeented in this article? Your eslvation delrcnds on your rnswer to thisvitd question!

Published ba Assembliee of YaLueh, Bethel PA 19507 U.S.A.

@ CopAright 1973, 1978 Assemblies of YahwehBetheLPA 19507 U.S.A.AWfuights Reseroed

opublicotion of Accembliee of Yattuehr

'Alrlemblleaof YahwhIhe fucrcdMame Broa&aetThe fucred Name Droadcostero?e Seraice Morks ond Trademorks ofAssembliee of Yohuteh, Bethel, PA 19507

1. The Original Autographsof the New Testament- !n What Language?

Mrny stumbling blocks havebeen placed in the pathway of thetruth seeker! Almost with thedifficulty of hacking a pathwaythrough virgin jungle, the TrueWorshiper must grope throughthe tangled maze of undergrowthwhich has obscured the pathwayback to Almighty Yahweh. Theprophet Isaiah foresaw such a

time as he wrote,And judgpent is turned away back-

wlrd, end iustice stsndeth sftr off: fortnrth ig hllen in the street, and equitycannot enter. Yea, truth leileth; and he

thst deporteth from evil maketh hirnsell

a prey: and Yahweh saw it, and itdispleesed IIim that there was no judg-

ment. And IIe Baw thst there wos no

Ean, and wondered thst there was no

intercessor: therefore IIis arm broughtstlvation unto Him; and IIis rightoous-

ness, it eustEined IIim. For He put on

righteouoneos as a breastplate, 8nd an

helmet ol salvation upon IIis head; and

He put on the gaments oI vengeanee

Ior clothing, 8nd was clad with zesl as a

cloke. According to their deede, accord-

rngly He will rep8y, fury to IIig adver-

saries, recompence to IIie enemies; tothe islsnds will IIe repsy recomlDcnce.

So shall they fear the ntrne of Yahweh

from the west, and IIis glory from the

rising ol the sun. Isaiah 59:14-19.

Almighty Yahweh has in-formed us that in the last daysknowledge would be inereased,Daniel L2:4. You are livingin those days right now! Whilesome of the fundamentalistgroups assert that knowledge isunimportant and others declarethat doctrine is unimportant and

that we should merely love oneanother, your Bible states thatknowledge and wisdom areindispenssble if we are to findsalvation (Proverbs 8). 2 Peter1:3-11 ineludes mention of theword knowledge four times. Letus resolve to utilize the inereasedknowledge to substantiate theScriptures!

The Sacred Name of AlmightyYahweh and the Name of His Sonour Messiah are a part of thatknowledge which had beennegleeted over the eenturies; butin these last days at the close ofthis &Be, it is once again revealedjust before the Savior returns.

However, most people don'tlike to be in the wrong, nor do they'wish to take a positive approqchand prove whether these thingsare so. One of the stumbling blockswhich seems to deter some peoplefrom accepting the Name of theSavior is the often quoted conceptthat the English translation whichwe use was from the "originalinspired Greek." This article willseek to delve into this subjectdeeply and see if such an argu-ment against the use of theSavior's Hebrew Name is credible.It is important that w€, the peopleof Yahw€h, have this knowledgenow because it will add to ourfaith and make it immovable inthe day of testing which isapproaching at the end of this age.

Do you really know which Namewill bring you salvation? Do youhave a living, knowing faith whicheannot be shaken? Let us under-

stand some of this knowledgewhich has now been made avail-able in these last days.

Was every word of theGREEK New Testament breathedby Yahweh as we have grown upassuming? Did Almighty Yahwehbreathe the name "Theos" into thetext, identifying Himself by thisGreek appellation? With whichlanguages were the humaninstruments, the apostles, whomYahweh used to write the books ofthe New Testament conversant?What was Yahshua's nativetongue? The answers to thesequestions are vital to your salva-tion for we must know what nameis referred to in Acts 4:L2. Thereis "NONE OTHER NAME underheaven gwen among men wherebywe must be saved." Is thatall-important name Greek orHebrew?

Yahweh - Breathed

First of all, let's make it crystalelear.that it is the editorial policyof the Sacred Name Broadcasterto affirm that "all (Holy) Scriptureis given by inspiration of Yahweh,and is profitable for doctrine, forreproof, for correction, forinstruction in righteousness" (Z

Tim. 3:16). We believe thisur-requivocally and withoutreservation. The stand taken bythe editor is that the NewTestament was INSPIRED inHebrew and Aramaie, and sub-sequently translated by unin-spired men into Greek and theninto English as well as many

other languages. We believe thatalthough the original text wasinspired, there is no such thing as

An INSPIRED TRANSLATION.Therefore, until such time as theoriginal documents are unearthedwe must base all doctrine on theOld Testament. We should utilizethe New Testament, however, andalways allow the Old Testament tointerpret the New. Yes, webelieve that every word of theNew Testament was Yahweh-breathed in its original Hebrew orAramaic purity. At present,however, because of man'stampering with and corruptingthe text, we must research andstudy to know what He breathed.

The dilemma that theologianshave been confronted with forwell over a millennium now is thatthere exist no original manu-scripts of any New Testamentbooks unless they remain undis-covered. The oldest manuscriptsextant with the exception of someSyriac fragments are Greek. Andyet the authors of the New Testa-ment books in some eases wereincapable of writing in Greek andin other cases would not havechosen to. At a very early date, un-

doubtedly late in the first centuryof the common era, the NewTestament assembly beeameapostatized, the original NewTestament writings were trans-lated into Greek, and the originaldocuments were' hidden, lost ordestroyed, perhaps intentionally.

Therefore, the purpose of thisbooklet is to set forth evidencethat the books of the New Testa-ment were written originally inHebrew or Aramaic. If any ofthese books were written original-ly in Greek (which we doubt), wemaintain that the authors wouldhave retained the true inspiredHebrew Names for the HeavenlyFather and His Son. We cansubstantiate that they realized the

2

vital significance of these Namesand that they COULD NOT betranslated, but in order to main-tain sound doctrine and harmonywith the Old Testament, they hadto be transliterated.

No Originals Extant

In order to confine our study toknown facts rather than specula-tive opinion, the first point we willestablish is that there are nooriginal manuscripts of any bookor portion of a book of the NewTestament extant today. All havebeen lost, hidden, or destroyed.Therefore, the oldest manuseriptsavailable for examination arecopies of copies, possibly copies ofother copies far removed from theoriginals. This means that eachtime tliey were copied, conceiv-ably there were seribal errorsoccurring. Furthermore, inasmuchas the scribes who did the copyinghad already deviated from sounddoctrin€, there is the distinctpossibility that they altered theirproduct to make it conform totime-honored and cherished paganideas.

Many people who believe in theINSPIRED GREEK New Testa-ment will resort to a Greekinterlinear such as the InterlinearEnglishman's Greek New Testa-ment as their authority when adoubtful translation in the KingJames Version arises. In theintroduction to this work, how-ever, we find on page v, "W'ehave taken the Greek Text ofStephens 1550, which is thecommon text in this country."Therefore, those who go to suchinterlinears as their authority arenot in actuality appealing to theORIGINAL INSPIRED NEWTESTAMENT, but to a copy thatwas translated from Hebrew orAramaic a millennium and-a-halfbefore it reached its present form,and was copied time and time

again by apostate Christians overthat time.

To establish the FACT thaterrors have oeeurred in copyingwe will quote from "An IllustratedIlistory of the Holy Bible," byJohn Kitto, D.D., F.S.A., pp.37-38:

The different manner in which some

passages are expressed in differentmanuscripts, together with the omissionor insertion of a word, or of a elause,

constitute what are called various read-ings. This was occasioned by the over-sights or mistakes of transcribers, whodeviated from the copy before them,these persons not beirg, as some have

supposed, supernaturally guardedagainst the possibility of error; and a

mistake in one copy would, of course, be

propagated through all that were takenfrom it, each of which copies mightlikewise have peculiar faults of its own,

so that various readings would thus be

increased in proportion to the numberoI transcripts thst were nede. [Empha-sis ours.l

Further down in the sameparagraph we read ". . . at thesame time they were unwilling tocorrect such mistakes as theydetected, lest their pages shouldappear blotted or defaced; andthus they sacrifieed the correct-ness of their copy to its fairappearanee."

In McClintock and Strong'sCyclopedia we learn under theartiele "New Testament," "Theoriginal copies seem to haveSOON PERISHED." (Emphasisours.) Further along in the samearticle we read, "Partly, perhaps,owing to the destruction thuscaused, but still more from thenatural effects of time, no manu-seripts of the New Testament ofthe first three centuries remain.Some of the oldest extant werecertainly copied from others whichdated from within this period, butas yet no one con be placedfurther back than the time of

Constsntine." (Emphasis ours.)And still further along in thearticle we read, "History affordsno trace of the pure apostolic

..ltt

originals." Based on this evidenceit should be obvious that any faithbased on the so-ealled "inspiredGreek New Testament" is a faithnot founded upon a solid rock.

Hellenist Jews?

Occasionally we hear theassertion that the Greek-speakingJews (usually called Hellenists)were so numerous during the timeof Yahshua that synagogues had

to be built for them. Acts 6:9 isgiven as scriptural verification,but this in itself is a very weakverse to substantiate such an

important point. Please read it.After researching for this articlewe feel that all of the evidence athand will easily refute such an

assertion. We would like tointroduce here a quote from anartiele called "Judaism as a

Religior," written by Dr. SolomonZeitlin, Jewish Quarterly Review,Oetober 1943, and ask that youglve it serious consideration sinceDr. Zeitlin is a well-knownscholar.

"Thus the phrase-HellenistJews, which is found in thehistory books, encyclopedias, andeven dictionaries is erroneous,-itis a contradiction of terms. Therewere no Hellenist. Jews, one was

either a Hellene or a Jew."We shall eontinue to quote

from the footnotes of this artiele.Here Dr. Zeitlin introduces quotesfrom dictionaries and encyclo-pedias:

Hellenist-applied to those Jews of

the Dispersion who used the Greek

language and were more or less affected

by the Greek influenees, Oxford. These

Jews understand Greek, and use the

Greek Bible, and are therefore called

Hellenists (Hammond on Acts 6:1),

Century. Espeeially a person of Jewish

extraction who used the Greek language

as his mother tongue as did the Jews of

Asia Minor, Greece, Syria, and Egypt,Webster.

The used word Hellenist in Acts 6:1,

is the basis of the belief that the word

Hellenist means a Greek-speaking Jew.

The context, however, does not support

this theory. The word Hellenist in thispassage refers to the Hellenes who

believed in [Yahshual. Compare Acts

9zZ9;11:20. See Henry J. Cadbury, Note

VII, Ihe Beginnings oI Christianity,Volume V, edited by Kirsopp Lake and

Henry J. Cadbury. The word Helleniet

in ancient time referred only to those

who followed the mode of life of the

Hellenes, similarly the word Judaist had

the connotation-one who followedJewish practice and ritual.

As you can see, Dr. Zeitlin has

given ample support to hisconclusion in refuting the defini-tions which are given above. AHellene then was a Jew who had

become apostatized, one who had

accepted the language and

customs of the Greek culture. Nosynagogues had to be built forthem since they were not part ofthe synagogue. Please reviewagain Acts 6:9, where you will findsome italicized words in the textwhich are not found in the Greek.The Libertines, Cyrenians, Alex-andriars, those of Cilicia and

Asia were part of the synagogue,meaning that they were membersof the Jewish religion andattended the common synagogue.Since they were followers of thesynagogue they were opposed tothe Messianic worship andattacked the teachings of Stephen.Again another vital aspect insupport of erroneous doctrine fallsbefore the Word of Yahweh andscholarship!

The Languege of Yahshua

Referring to the time of Yah-shua, Joseph Klausner, Ph.D.states on page 263 of his book

entitled Jesus ol Nazareth, "Afberthe reading of the Pentateuchthey concluded with the reading ofthe Prophets, translating orally tothe people in Aramaic (this wasspeeially the case in Galilee wherethe unlearned were more than inJudea, and where few peoplespoke Hebrew)." For the benefitof those who have not studiedlanguages, allow us to mentionthat Aramaie is a Semitic lan-guage, a dialect of Hebrew.

In the same book on page 234we read, "[Yahshua] eertainlyknew the Law and the Prophetsand the Book of Psahls, and had,also, some knowledge of the Bookof Daniel and also, perhaps, of theBook of Enoch. It may be, how-ever, that He had only heard theLaw read in Hebrew and trans-lated into Aramaic, HIS SPOKENLANGUAGE, in the synagogue ofNazareth (there was then prac-tically no Jewish town without itssynagogue), for all the sayings of[Yahshua] which have beenpresen ed in the Gospels in Hisactual languqge are in Aramaic.Both the Talmud and the Gospelstell us that, in Judea, Galileanswere recognizable by theirlanguage (Aramaic)." (Emphasis

ours.)There is an enormous volume

of evidence to the effect thatYahshua's native language was

Aramaic, but inasmuch as this is

not a controversial point amongscholars, we will rest our case on

this point with the foregoingquotations.

The Language of theNew Testament

Most knowledgeable modernscholars have concluded that all ofthe writers of New Testamentbooks were capable of writing ineither Hebrew or Aramaic. Pauland Luke may have been equallycapable of writing in Greek as

well. But this does not mean theychose to do so. There are numer-ous renowned scholars who feelthat eertain books were writtenoriginally in Hebrew or Aramaic,and subsequently translated intoGreek. Some believe the ENTIRENEW TESTAMENT can betraeed back to Hebrew andAramaic originals. Scholarshipwill prove if such a eonclusion iscorrect.

To substantiate the foregoingstatements we will quote from theIntroduction to Lamsa's HolyBible from the Peshitts. On page

xi we read:When we eome to the New Testa-

ment, the new Covenant, we must not

forget that Christianity grew out of

Judaism. The [Messianic] gospel was

another of [Yahweh's] messages, first tothe Jewish people and then to the

Gentile world. For several centuries,

the [Messianicl movement was directed

and guided by the Jews. All of the

apostles and the evangelists were

Jewish. These facts are strongly sup-

ported by the gospels and history.

The Pauline epistles were letters

written by Paul to small [Messianic]

congregations in Asia Minor, Greeee,

and Rome. These early [believersl were

mostly Jews of the dispersion, men and

women of Hebrew origin who had been

looking for the coming of the promised

Messiah whose coming was predicted by

the Hebrew prophets who had hailed

Him as a deliverer.

i\t the outset, the Romans were themasters of the world and the Greeks

were not looking for a deliverer to rise

up from among a people whom they had

hated and had erushed. Paul, on hisjourneys, always spoke in the Jewish

synagogues. His first converts were

Hebrews. Then came Arameans, thekindred of the Hebrews, as in the ease

of Timothy and Titus. Their fatherswere Aramean and their mothers were

Jewish.

[Yahshual and His disciples spoke

the Galilean dialect of Aramaic, the

language which the early Galileans had

brought from the other side of the riverEuphrates (2 Kings Llz22-25). Mark tellsus in his Gospel, L4:10, that Peter was

exposed by his Galilean Aramaicspeeeh.

Paul was educated in Jewish law inJerusalem. He was a member of the

Jewish Council. His native language

was Western Aramaie but he acquired

his education through Hebrew and

Chaldean or Palestinian Aramaic, the

language spoken in Judea. He defended

himself when on trial in his own tongue

and not in Greek (Acts 22:2). Paul was

eonverted, healed, and baptized inDamascus in Syria (Acts 9:17, 18).

The Epistles were translated into

Greek for the use of converts who spoke

Greek. Later they were translated intoLatin and other tongues.

More on theNew Testament Langrrage

Possibly the most outstanding

study Bible ever compiled is theCompanion Bible, which rvasprodueed by Dr. E.'W. Bullinger.To further support the conclusionthat the New Testament was notwritten originally in Greek, w€shall quote from Appendix No. 94,page 134: '"Ihe writers wereHebrews; and thus, while thelangrrage is Greek, the thougttsand idioms are Hebrew. Theseidioms or Hebraisms are generallypointed out in the notes of theCompanion Bible. If the GreekoI the New Testsment be rG-

garded as an inspired trangla-tion from Hebrew or Aramaicoriglnals, most of the variousreadings would be accounted Iorand understd." Please readagain the emphasized sections inthe above quote (emphasis ours).When such renowned seholars as

Dr. E.W. Bullinger regard theGreek as most realistically atranslation, setting forth thelogical conelusion that the NewTestament is a translation fromHebrew and Aramaic originals,can we then continue to makedogmatic statements such as, "theinspired Greek original NewTestament?" To answer our ownquestion we must utter a resound-ing negative response! Please-notealso that we eannot logicallysupport a misnomer like "aninspired translatioll."

2. The Scholars Speak

Scholarship Favors llebrew(higinds

Tn""" is an abundanee ofevidence which has accumulatedover the centuries in support of an

underlying Hebrew or Aramaiedocument to the New Testament.We will now quote some of thisproHebrew New Testamentscholarship with the hopes thatour more scholastically inclinedreaders will go to the trouble ofverifying our source material. AUof the sources quoted in thisarticle are available for examina-tion at our Home Offices in Bethel,in the event you are unable to findany of them in your local librarY.

"The method of determining a

Semitic original underlying Greekor other texts has often beendiscusscd in connection with theNew Testsment. For a survey ofresearch, see Matthew Black,An Aramaic Approach to theGospels and Acts, 3rd edition(Oxford, 1967)." (Emphasis ours.)

A very prominent and eminentscholar, Professor Charles C.Torrey, maintained that all theevangels were originally writtenin Aramaie and that our extanttext is a translation. The 0xlordDictionary of the ChristianChurch, artiele "Aramaie."

In a book review of Dr.Torrey's Documents of the Primi-tive Church which was publishedin the Jewish Qusrtcrly Rcviewwe read the following ehallenge ofDr. Torrey: "At the annualmeeting of the Society of BiblicalLiterature and Exegesis, in New

York City in December, 1934, Ichallenged my New Testamenteolleagues to designate even onepassage from any of the FourGospels grving clear evidenee of adate later than 50 A.D., or oforigin outside Palestine. Theehallenge was not met, nor will itbe, for there is no such passage."

In this same book review weread, "The main thesis of Prof.Torrey, in his book, is that all fourGospels were compiled in theearly period of the first eenturyC.E. and were written in Arama-ie." Dr. Solomon Zeitlin, Professorof Rabbinic Law, an elder states-man scholar of wide aeclaim, didthis book review which waspublished in the J.Q.B., April,L942. Although he takes issuewith Dr. Torrey's assertion thatthe book of John was written inAramaic and before 50 C.E., hemakes the following dogmatiestatement: "The reviewer, how-ever, Bgrees with Prof. Torreytha? tlhe Synoptic Gospels werewritten in Aramaie," page 429.The "synoptic Gospels" areMatthew, Mark and Luke.

A quote from a previousparagraph is rather interestingwhen we reflect on the missingoriginal manuseripts of the NewTestament. Dr. Zeitlin says, "It ispossible that Jewish [Messianicbelievers] wrote part of theGospels on the margins of thescrolls of the Holy Scriptures [TheOld Testamentl, to which practicesome rabbis objected verystrenuously. (Aceording to R.

Jose, the names of [The AlmightYlin these writings should be tornout and stored away, while thewritings should be burned: Shab.

116; Tos. 14.5)." InterestinglY'Matthew records the words ofYahshua in which the newtreasures eould be the NewTestament reeord written on widemargins of the old scrolls. Please

read Matt. 13:52.There are many exeellent

points brought forth in favor ofthe New Testament having been

originally written in Hebrew orAramaic in the book entitled The

Quest oI the Historicst Jegus bY

the widely known and renownedscholar, Dr. Albert Sehweitzer.Here are just a few:

"The fact is that from thelanguage of the New Testament itis often difficult to make outwhether the underlying words areHebrew or Aramaie," p.215.

"That [Yahshual spoke Ara-maic, Meyer has shown bycolleeting all the Aramaie expres-sions which occur in His preach-ing. He eonsiders 'Abba' inGethsemane decisiv€, for thismeans that [Yahshual prayed inAramaic in His hour of bitterestneed," pp. 216-276.

Ihe Work of Dr. CharlesCutler Torrey

In the world of seholarship a

giant in his field is frequently wayahead of his time. Such was thecase with Dr. Charles CutlerTorrey. In the early 1900's he

began to espouse the position that

the New Testament bears anunmistakable watermark of beinga translated doeument. Dr. Torreypresented his views to theacademie community with everyavailable opportunity. However,sinee the traditional viewpoint ofNew Testament seholars had beenthat it was written in Greek, Dr.Torrey and his theories weregiven little credence, nor werethey seriously discussed. Amongthe more prominent works hepublished are the following: IheFour Gospels, New York, Harperand Brothers, 1933; Our Trans-Iated Gospels, Hodder andStoughton, London, 1936; Docu-ments of the Primitive Church,Harper and Brothers, 1941.

Possibly the most widelyeireulated of these works is theseeond one (Our TranslatedGospels). In this book Dr. Torreyartfully explains that many of theproblems with the Greek textevaporate when we researeh theAramaic or Hebrew languages fora word that could have stood inthe original and then was wronglytranslated by someone who hadmisunderstood the text. As Dr.Torrey pointed out in his book,the instances in the Greek textwhich present problems are toofrequent and the diserepancies tooeasily explained for this to besimply eoincidence. Even thoughyou may be unable to read Greekor Hebrew, it will be well worthyour while to read this book. It isnow out of print, but some li-braries have eopies; if your libraryis not in possession of one youmight obtain the use of a copythrough inter-llbrary loan.

Recently, various New Testa-ment scholars have beeomeinterested in the work of Dr.Torrey. One noted Professor ofBible and biblical languages has

said that he feels the new thrustof scholarship during the next

6

decade will be in the direction of aserious re-evaluation of Dr.Torrey's studies. Those of us whoare seeking truth have realized forsome years that this should longago have been done. A pilot articlealong those lines was recentlypublished in the Journal of BibticalLiterature, Vol. 96, No. 1, March,L977. Written by Dr. GeorgeHoward of the University ofGeorgia and entitled, "The Tetra-gram and the New Testament,"this article explores the excitingpossibility that the Tetragram-maton (the four letters of theSaered Name in Hebrew), wasoriginally contained in the NewTestament texts. If the Evangelswere indeed translated from theSemitic autographs (Hebrewand/or Aramaic), then without adoubt it would have appearedthere. Dr. Howard sees thedistinet possibility that it also wasretained in the first documents ofthe Greek translation just as ithad been retained in the Septua-grnt translation of the Old Testa-ment from Hebrew into Greek.(Do you have a eopy of our article,"Septuagint Study Proves theSacred Name"? If not write foryour free copy today.) Thesurrogates, kurios and theos, wereemployed to stand in plaee of theSacred Name because of a desireby some Messianio believers to bein harmony with Jewish tradition.Without a doubt, many artieleswill be written in ,support of thisview and others will be written inrebuttal. It will be interesting tosee what new evidence and think-ing will rise to the surface as Dr.Torrey's works are resurrectedafter having been almost com-pletely ignored for four decades.

Josephus Speaks

"According to Josephus theknowledge of Greek in Palestineat that time, even among educated

Jews, can only have been of aquite elementary eharacter. Hehimself had to learn it laboriouslyin order to be able to write in it.His'Jewish War'was first writtenin Aramaie for his fellow-countrymen; the Greek editionwas, by his own avowal, notintended for them," p.276, (hrest.

"I have also tahen a great dealof pains to obtain the learning ofthe Greeks, and understand theelements of the Greek languog€,although I have so long accus-tomed myself to speak our owntongue, that I cannot pronounceGreek with sufficient exactness."Antiquities, Book XX, ChapterXI, Section 2.

"I have proposed to rnyself, forthe sake of those who live underthe government of the Romans, totranslate those books into theGreek tongue, which I formerlyeomposed in the language of ourcountry, and sent to the UpperBarbarians." Wars, Preface.

This is quite a different picturethan what is frequently painted ofJosephus. Remember, Josephuswas a priest of Israel and a highlyedueated person for his time, andhe couldn't eveR enunciate Greekproperly! So what conelusionwould prompt an understandingthat the unedueated apostlescould write Greek?

Then, in Antiquities, Book 1,

Chapter V and VI, we read thatthe Grceh had a speeial kind ofproelivity to change the names ofplaces and people so that theywould sound well to themselves.By way of interjecting a thought,are we not first to heed the Wordof our Heavenly Father and eallupon His true Name (Psalm 68:4)rather than to seek popularity orculture which will ultimatelyperish with this wicked world?

The Evangel of John

We fee[ that_thg evidence in

favor of the book of John havingbeen written in Aramaic is eonclu-sive. This evidenee is set forth in abook entitled lhe Aramaic trginol the Fourth Gospel, by ProfessorC.F. Btrrney, M,A., D.Litt. A bookreview of this important contri-bution to getting back to the faithonce delivered is available inarticle form for those who desireto examine this evidenee. Justwrite to us and ask for the articleentitled "Is the Book of JohnGreek to You?"

Ihe New Testsment at a Whole

The following are quotes fromthe article "New Testament" inthe famous Dictionary of the Bibleby James Hastings, 1900 edition:

Before any part of the NT had been

written, the Heb. canon had been virtu-dly closed; and the idea of a new

collection of saered writings which

would be held in no less veneration than

the old was slow to tahe possession of

the Christian Church. Henee the OT

Scriptures, to which the apostles eon-

stantly appealed for evidenee that [Yah-

shual was the Messiah, continued to be

for many years the only authoritativewritings in the Church.

Probably the earliest nucleus of the

NT consisted of notes of the apostles'

preaching, either drawn up by theirhearers for their own use, [Matt. 18:52]

or intended as an aid to catechists and

teaehers. Some such notes (probably in

Aramaie, of which we have many traces

in the Greek text) seem to have formed

the basis of our Syn6ptie Gospels.

It is not, indeed, till near the elose of

the 2nd century, that we find a general-

ly accepted eollection of sacred books

substantially identical with our NT and

equally sacred with the OT.

These quotes are found in thevenerated unabridged edition ofHastings' Bible Dictionary,frequently quoted by manyscholars.

The Hebrew Language

Some have stated that Hebrew

Hebrew gradually eeased being a

spoken language after 70 C.E., when the

Jews were driven from the land ofIsrael by the Romans and were scat-

tered throughout the world. Hebrew, ofcourse, remeined dive, and was used

constantly in other ways. It was the

language of prayer, study, reading the

Torah, and correspondenee. Above all itwas used as the language of a tre-mendously rich literature of law,theology, philosophy, science, medicine,

astronomy, poetryr grsltmar and other

fields of human knowledge.

Yes, the writers of the NewTestament books were capable ofwriting in Hebrew and/orAramaie. The only question iswhether they were even eapableof writing Greek!

The following is an enlightell-ing quote from Robert Taylor'sDiegesis, published 1869,

It is a false representation, or what

would be ealled in common parlance-a

lie, upon the title-page, where it is

represented, that the New Testament

is 'translated out of the original Greek,'

seeing there never was any originsl

Greek. The original of Matthew's gospel

is believed to have been Hebrew. The

Epistle to the Romans, and indeed, the

whole of the New Testament, existed in

a barbarous monkish Latin, from which

the oldest Greek manuscripts in exist-

ence are but barbarous translations.

[Appendix, page 422. (Emphasis ours.)]

Edward Gibbon (L737-1794) isregarded as standing among thegreatest of modern historians."Whatever else is read, Gibbonmust be read, too," wroteFreemalt. On page 185 of Gibbon'sHistory of Christianity we read ina footnote, "The modern critiesare not disposed to believe whatthe fathers almost unanimously

same page we read,Papias, eontemporary of the apostle

St. John, says positively that Matthew

had written the discourses of [Yahshua

the Messiahl in Hebrew, and that each

interpreted them as he eould. This

Hebrew was the SyroChaldaic dialect

then in use at Jerusalem: Origen,

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, Epipha-

nius, conlirm this statement. [Yahshua

the Messiahl preached Himself in Syro-

Chaldaie, as is proved by many words

which He used, BDd which the Evangel-

ists have tahen the pains to translate.

St. Paul, addressing the Jews, used the

same language: Asts xxi 40, xxvi 14.

fire opinions of eritics prove nothing

against such undeniable testimonies.

Moreover their principal objection is,

that St. Matthew quotes the Old Testa-

ment according to the Greek version of

the LXX., which is inaccurate; for of ten

quotations, found in his Gospel, seven

are evidently taken from the Ilebrew

text; the three others offer little thstdiffer: moreover, the latter are not

titerrt quotetion& St. Jerome says posi-

tively, that, according to a eopy whieh

he had seen in the library of Caesarea,

the quotations were made in Hebrew (in

Catal). [Emphasis ours.l

The eoneurrent testimony of so many

early writers leaves no reasonable

ground to doubt the fact, that there was

a Hebrew origrnal of Matthew's gospel.

Eusebius repeats it no less than six

times; and all assert it so positively,

that to question it is, as Gibbon hints, toshake the very foundation of all primi-

tive ecclesiastical history.

The Panin New Testament

Oecasionally we reeeiveinquiries about the Panin transla-tion of the New Testament. Weare asked if this work does notprove that the New Testament

was already a dead language at assert, that St. Matthew com-

the time Yahshua was born. S/e posed a Hebrew gospel, of whichwould like to refute this charge by only the Greek translrrtion isquoting hom the book Eow the extant. It seems' however,Eebrew Iangurge Grew by dangerous to rejeet their testi'Edward Horowitz. On page 6 we mony."read, In another footnote on the

was indeed written in Greekrather than Hebrew or Ararnaic.First, a little history of the Paninversion.Ivan Panin was reputedlya Russian revolutionary whodeeided to translate the Bible by anumerical system during whieh hewas reported to have filled 40,0fl)pages with figures. This conceptwas supposed to have proved thatthe Bible was divinely inspired inthe Old Testament Hebrew and inthe New Testament Greek.Besearch has shown that Paninused a rather flexible system toproduce his translation, whieh wasmost complicated. In our librarywe have a Panin Numeric NewTest ment and we have scru-tinized it with great care. It is atruism that almost anything ean

be proved by numerology.Numerics is indeed a f4scinatingand interesting subject for study,but in the final analysis it is theWord of Yahweh which willendure forever. In the Assembliesof Yahweh we base our faith onthis Word and upon provable factswhich have eome down to usthrough the ages. Panin's workhas done little to support theconcept of an original inspiredGreek New Testament, sinee heapparently never took intoaccount the possibility of anAramaic or Hebrew text under-lying the Greek. Ilue scholarshipwill take into account all possibil-ities.

Internd Evidence in theBook oI Revelrtion

As one of the readers of thisarticle you may be interested in.

something tangible which youyourself can understand withoutknowing languages or the techni-calities involved. The book ofRevelation offers sueh an area ofunderstanding since it wasobviously a translation fromHebrew. First of all, in chapter 5,

verse 1, we see the reference to

8

the book written within and onthe backside. This would be arather awkward way for a scrollto be written (sinee the word bookwould be "safer" in the He[rewmeaning seroll). IVIr. davidEinhorn, writing in a New Yorknewspaper in 1956, in an articlecalled "Are We in the Days of theMessiah?," said that this shouldhave been translated, "writtenfrom right to left.' Now askyourself the question, whichlanguages are written from rightto left? The answer would ofneeessity be Hebrew and Arama-ic.

Then we proceed to Revelation19:16. "And He hath in Hisvesture and on His thigh a namewritten, King of Kings and Rulerof Rulers." Don't you think that tohave His Name written on Histhigh would be puzzling andpeculiar? There is no record of anymonarch having either his name,or his titles, written on his thigh.The problem is instantly solved ifwe realize that the book waswritten in Hebrew. The wordthigh in the Hebrew is "raget"(No. T27L in Strong's), while itshould have been banner "dagel"(No. IlL4l. Evidently a sloppyscribe omitted the little extensionon the top of the dalet and made itinto a resh, changlng from a'l (d)

to a '1 (r), the first letter of theword. This information comesfrom Professor Charles Torrey.

This is very outstandingevidence that the book of Revela-tion was written in Hebrew.There is even more, such as thetransliteration of the Hebrewword HdleluYAH (Alleluia) fourtimes in chapter 19. HalleluYAIImeans "Praise ye YAH," so yousee the true Name of the Al-mighty does appear in the GreekNew Testament after all!

No Scriptural Support

In the membership magazine of

a widely-known religious organwa-tion a writer asserted that theScripture ". . .to the Jew first andalso to the Greek" meant that theGreeks were given the divineright to preserye and transmit thetext of the New Testament tofuture generations. In the sue-eeeding issue the editor printedthe following retraction repri-manding the author for making anerror in expounding the Word ofYahweh:

But the glaring ERROR whieh

slapped me in the face with shock,

amazement and dismay, oeeurred in the

middle column of page 18. The question

is asked: "To whom then was the NewTestament grven for preservation and

transmission?' And I was aetually horri-fied to read the answer: "Romans 1:16

reveals the arswer." And then thewriter only parfidy quoted the verse,

omitting the vital words! Here is what

actually got into print:"Romans 1:16 reveals the answer.

'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of

[Messiahl . . . to tho Jow firlt, rnd dgoto the Greok.' '

By omitting the vital words in themiddle of the sentence-(and the threeperiods denote that words, supposedly

without altering the meaning, have

been omitted)-and by emphasizing the

words "also to the Greek," it was made

to sppear to say, "The writings, pres-

ervation, and transmission of the New

Testament was committed to theGreek.

BUT IT DID NOT SAY THAT ATALL!

Here we see an example of anauthor writing for a group whiehprofesses the doctrine of theinspired Greek New Testament.And yet when he attempts toquote Scripture to support thisdoctrir€, the editor of his maga-zine and leader of his organizationreprimands him acrimoniously andretraets the only possible seriptur-al authority for an inspired GreekNew Testament!

Later on in this same editorial

we read, "But the article seemed,from that point oD, to assume that[Yahwehl turned the eustodian-ship of the New Testament portionof His WORD over to heathenGentile Greeks of the GreekCatholic Chureh, as if [Yahweh]had 'bowed out,' and we mustRELY on the Greek CatholicChurch. THAT ASSUMPTION ISUTTERLY UNTRUE!''

lVe certainly agree whole-heartedly with the foregoingretraction, and if such a statementwere to appear in one of ourpublications we would have toretract it as well. For there is notone iota of scriptural evidence tosupport the theory that Yahwehintended to preserve and transmitHis inspired lVord through paganapostatwed Greeks! There is noscriptural basis for an "IN-SPIRED GREEK NEW TESTA-

MENT." Therefore, let's tahe thenext logical step that honesthumility demands and admit thatwe have no inspired originals towhich we can appeal when doctri-nal disputes arise. We must go tothe Old Testament for ourdoctrine as Yahshua the Messiahand all His origrnal true followersdid.

The assertion that there is anoriginal, inspired Greek NewTestament must now be viewed as

a totally inaccurate statementwhich has been used to trap theunwary into believing somethingwhich cannot be proved. It hasbeen used as one of the foremostsupporting arguments to under-gird an unseriptural doetrinewhich opposes the exclusive use ofthe Sacred Name of Yahweh andthe Name of our Savior, Yahshuathe Messiah. Certainly we must

admit that they are HebrewNames and since the world isanti-Semitic as a general rule,they would neeessarily be unpopu-lar. Hasn't True Worship alwaysbeen unpopular? Certainly! Pos-

sibly this is why Yahshua ourMessiah turned a deaf ear to theGreeks who asked Philip to see

Yahshua, sinee He knew whatthey would do with the pureMessianie worship (John 12:20-31).How can we really say that we ane

worshiping the true Mighty Oneunless we use His correct, inspiredName? Read Jer. 10:10. Can youknow the true mission of theMessi&h, ean you really hold atrue pieture of Him in your heartand mind unless you recognizethat He was the Messiah of theJews?

3. Historic EvidenceOu, research indicates that the

four "gospels" were writtenoriginally by the Evangelists inthe form of targrrms. These werenotes in the margins of theirscrolls (Z Tim. 4:13) relative toineidents in the Messiah's lifewhich the disciples used to pro-claim His Messiahship in theirpublic messages. This could be thereason why they are not set downin a chronological manner, withthe exeeption of the book of Luke.

Please review at this time Dr.Solomon Zeitlin's quote foundearlier in this artiele regardingthe rabbinic reference to writingson the margins of the scrolls.Evidently the Name of Yahwehwas used in these writings orRabbi Jose would not haveinstructed his disciples to destroythem and store away the Name of

the Atmighty, Yahweh, which wasused in them. These notations ofincidents in the life of the Messiahwould then have been compiled ata later date, when it was evidentthat the Messiah would not returnuntil the end of the 6,000 years ofman because Israel would notaccept Him voluntarily. We feelthat either the apostles themselvesor some of their disciples compiledthe notes from the targums. Thiswould explain why there are no

original manuseripts extant today.Also, it is our feeling that most ofthese ancient Hebrew andAramaic New Testament manu-seripts perished in the bookburnings which accompanied thepersecution of the Jews prefacingthe great crusades of the MiddleAges. Many prieeless documentsperished at that time, simply

because they were written inHebrew.

Two Additional Sources

Although no original manu-scripts of the New Testament arecurrently extant, there is a

Hebrew version of the NewTestament available. This transla-tion was completed in 1877 by Dr.Franz Delitzsch, a GermanChristian Hebrew seholar.Reviewers have aecorded it thehigh position of being one of thebest translations ever made in anylangu&Be, on any subject. Dr.Delitzseh knew many languagesand was a student of Jewishtraditional law. This ability toplaee himself in the times of theMessiah made it possible for himto correct some of the deficienciesof the Greek text, and proved

once again that the Greek is anapparent translation from anunderlying Hebrew or Aramaicoriginal. Honorable mentionshould also go to his assistant, Dr.J. E. Salkinsohn, and a Jewishadvisor, Dr. Arnold Ehrlich.

An additional souree whichenvisions Semitic documentsunderlying the Greek New Testa-ment is the New World Trangls-

' tion. Although the writers of theFOREWORD prefacing the workdo not take the strong stand forsuch a document which we feel isjustified by the evidence, theynevertheless do make some strongpoints which show that the SacredNames would have appeared inthe text. An example of theserather bold statements is thefollowing: "The evidence is,therefore, that the original text ofthe Christian Greek Scriptureshas been tampered with, the sameas the text of the LXX has been.And, at least from the 3rd centuryA.D. onward, the divine name intetragrammaton form has beeneliminated from the text bycopyists who did not understandor appreciate the divine name orwho developed an aversion to it,possibly under the influence ofanti-Semiti$m. In place of it theysubstituted the words kyrios(usually translated 'the lrord') and

theos, meaning God." There ishardly one scholar who will affirmunequivocally that the New Testa-ment was written in the Greeklanguage exelusively, after takinga good, hard look at the factswhich have emerged to proveotherwise.

The Lost Origin&ts

Obviously it was not impera-tive that the original New Testa-ment documents be preserved forour day. Translations are fullyaceeptable; however, theY shouldbe faithfully translated, with the

10

Name of the Almighty Author andthe Name of His Messiah restoredto the text. In fact, without callingupon this Name which means"Eternal" we cannot hope toattain to everlasting life! This isthe reason why the apostlestaught that we must call upon thisone specific Name, because thereis EVERLASTING LIFE intrinsiewithin only this one Name. Pleasesee Acts 4zLZ and Acts 222L6.

Yahshua the Messiah did indeedcome to manifest the Name of theAlmighty Heavenly Father to Hispeople, John 17:6 and 26. 'He saidto Jerusalem, "You shall not seeMe henceforth, till you shall s&y,

'Blessed is He that cometh in theName of Yahw€h,"' (Matt.23:86)

This prophecy could not be ful-filled without the Sacred Namebeing used.

It is a fact that the Greek textswhich have eome down to us areeurrently the main evidence of theapostolic writingS, with theexception of the Aramaic Peshitta.However, Yahshua the Messiahcharges two assemblies urith thesin of heeding the doctrines of theNicolaitanes (Rev. 2:6 and 15) andtwo assemblies who say that theyare Jews (Yahudim, rleaning"those praising Yah") but are not,but are of the synagogue of Satan(Rev. 229 and 3:9). The synagogueteaches that you should not usethe inspired Name Yahwch, butrather "Adonai." Therefore, wemust conclude that the leaders ofthe generally accepted religions ofthe world are hostile to a HebrewName for the Almighty and theMessiah. But the Seriptures showsuch hostility to be unseripturaland in actuality a sin which will bejudged by Almighty Yahweh inthe last days, Rev. 16:9, 11.

It is also evident that suchapostate Jews as Philo Judaeuswere attempting to make theHebrew religion more palatable

for the masses, by using differentnames for the Almighty. Religioussuperstition is a very compellingforee in the lives of people andmost people will not go to thesource to eheck their doctrines. Ifthese Jewish apostates were aseager to dilute True Worship asthe reference works indicate thatthey were, (simultaneouslymerging their endeavors with thezealous persecution from the de-

veloping Roman Catholic Church)then it is logical that this falsepagan worship did indeed seek todestroy any ancient manuscriptswhich would prove them to be inerror! It has not been the TrueWorship which has glven us theGREEK New Testament, but ithas come down to us through thecorrupted worship of Rome! Therewere no True Worshipers in thatorganization, &s the documentedhistory of the true religion proves.Every manuseript which wouldprove Rome in error was de-

stroyed systematicdly, so that thecommon people would submitthemselves to the doctrines ofRome. With thd universal inquisi-tions of the Middle Ages sweepingacross Europe, the True Wor-shipers may have themselvesdestroyed some of these preciousmanuscripts to avert death, whichwas a dreaded certainty if theywere caught with them.

History offers MAI.IY CLUESas to what did happen to the NewTestament's original manuscripts.However, we may still today becertain that we are in TrueWorship if we adhere to the OldTestament and allow this agelessdoeument to interpret the New.There was no pressing need topreserve the original texts of theNew Testament sinee AlmightyYahweh knew that the Jewswould preserve the Old Testa-ment, that knowledge would be

inereased in the last days, and

that students of the Scriptureswould be taught by the mightypower of the Holy Spirit andreturned to the truth of the pureMessianic worship at that time. Infaet, some early Messianic groupsof believers never used what wecall the New Testament.

Ilialectic l)ifferences

Now let us deal with thequestion: "W'hen the Aramaienames of the Creator are differentfrom Hebrew names, are thesedialectic forms of Semitic permis-sible?" It is a fact that theAramaic names of the Almightyand the Messiah do closelyresemble the Hebrew names. Forinstance, Mariah means "themaster Yah," and although Mar isproved to be derived from theBabylonian deity Marduk and isused in place of Adonai, the YAHis retained. The form Yeshuscame into being from the Jews'insistence on dropping the correetform Yah and corrupting it so thatits true pronunciation would bedistorted.

Where the variations of theHebrew word Elohim are em-ployed in the Aramaic text (Elsh,Alshs), it is obvious that these arevery little different from El orEloah, the titles for the Almightywhich are used in the HebrewScriptures. Again we shouldemphasize that these are notnameq but merely'titles. They arenot sacred as is the Name ofAlmighty Yahweh. This is theName which wil alone bring ussalvation. The student of Semiticcultures will realize that varia-tions of the word Elohim havebeen used by many of the aneientMiddle Eastern nations, but theName Yahweh has been proteetedfrom eorruption by the mightyhand of the Heavenly Father.

We stand firrnly with Dr.Solomon Zeitlin of DropsieUniversity when he says that theHebrew Name of the Messiah is

Yahshua and not Yeshua. Pleaseremember that the oracles ofYahweh rvere eommitted to theJews, Romans 8:2. They pre-senred them faithfully, althoughScriptune has been distorted bythe vowel points whieh are muchless ancient than the letters (which

can be pronounced with no assist-ance from vowel points). Is it not afact that the translators wiU disre-gard indicated vowel points when amore intelligibte translation canbe attained? This explanation eanbe found in a number of transla-tions, among them notably theRSV. So by their own admissioneven the translators will correctthe document before them inorder to be consistent.

The Language of Adam

Now we will address ourselvesto the question of how we canknow that the Hebrew is not initself a Semitic dialect whichwould differ from the language ofAdam. Please review Exodus19:19 and Deut. 4:9-13. AlmightyYahweh spoke to Israel at Sinaiand they understood Him, just asdid Adam. The Greeks eould notunderstand the voice from heavenas you can determine from thecontext of John 12:20-30. TheHebrew says-literally in Genesis11:1, "one language and fewwords." This has led somescholars to surmise that theUgaritic dialect may be moreancient than the Hebrew. How-ever, again we would have to relyupon Romans 3zZ and Isaiah 40:8,along with Psalm L47 219-20. TheseScriptures indicate that Yahwehhas never chosen to speak directlyto anyone other than people

speaking a Semitie language. Weread in Zephaniah 3:9 that Yah-weh will restore to the people apure language or lip, that theymay all eall upon Him to serveHim with one eonsent. Sueh arestoration should be beginningnow at this present time withElijah the prophet, who webelieve to be the group whichboldly proclaims today that "MyEl is Yah!" People have become ,

confused oceasionally by Matt.17:11, but Elijah must first come '

before the Great Day of Almighty '

Yahweh, Malachi 4:5-6. Israel didnot accept the message (Matthew11:14), so this propheey is notexhausted.

Which Cane First?

Some scholars have surmisedthat the Aramaic is a translationfrom the Greek and not viceversa. This theory will not findsupport by the searehing mind,since internal evidence shows thatthe speakers were obviouslyspeaking in Hebrew or Aramaic.Some examples are: "And Heanswered and said unto them,"(Matt .2lz24l; "Peace be unto you"(John ZO:ZLI, ete., each of whichare Hebraisms or Aramaisms.

But now let's look at thosepassages which show an interpre-tation in the Greek, for example,John 1:38, 4L, 42. Dr. Lamsaexplains this in his translation as

explanation of terms from oneAramaie dialect to another.Furthermore, about half of theseinstances do not exist in thePeshitta, which are evident in theGreek and the English. It ispossible that the authors wereagain following the example of theTargums and offering interpreta-tion, so this argument is invalid tosupport a Greek text for the NewTestament.

11

4, Taking a Stand

Tn" Assemblies of Yahwehhave taken their firm stand uponthe Sacred Name of the AlmightyHeavenly Father Yahweh andName of the Savior Yahshua theMessiah. This stand has beendietated by the revelation of theSacred Name to the people of theMost High through His InspiredWord in the Old TestamentScriptures. It would hardly bepossible that the AlmightyHeavenly Father would haveinspired a Name to be written inHis Word, and then severalcenturies later reversed Himselfand decided to aceept worship in amultitude of different names.Human logic where the SacredName is concerned must concludethat the Almighty meant what Hesaid in Malachi 3:6, "For I amYahweh, I ehange not: thereforeye sons of Jaeob are not con-sumed." The nation of Israel hadaecepted the worship or rule ofYahweh and entered into thecovenant with Him (Exodus 24l-.

He promised to punish the guiltyparties who would break Hiscovenant. He also promised toaccept any of the people whowould come to Him in the latterdays, Deut. chapters 30 and 31.

He is Yahweh who never changes,but will always be faithful to thecovenant which was made in HisName. Therefore our reverence ofHim will always be rewardingsince His dependability is unim-peachable.

It is obvious then that since theAlmighty Heavenly Fatherdeclarbs that He will not change,

T2

no extra scriptural names arepleasing to His worship. Consis-tently throughout the Old Testa-ment we find that He has revealedHis Name on 7000 oceasions asYAHWEH. When we begrn tostudy the Bible deeply we areconfronted squarely with thisSacred Name. We eannot in anyway evade this subject. We cannotavoid the issue. We cannot ignoreit in the hopes that it will just fadeaway and leave us pleasantly toour eomplacency. We must rise tothe challenge which our HeavenlyFather has given to us! Will we bededicated enough to His truth tobe able to enter into the covenantwhich He has presented to us?

We read in Jer. 32240, "And Iwill make an everlasting covenantwith them, that I will not turnaway from them, to do them good;

but I will put My fear in theirhearts, that they shall not departfrom Me." Did you comprehendcompletely this declaration fromthe Most High? He wishes toenter into an everlasting covenantwith us, His people. His NameYAHWEH means everlasting,eternal, endless. In order for us tobe able to enter into this everlast-ing covenant, we will have to eallupon a Name which holds withinitself this quality intrinsically, andwe shall also have to be madeimmortal as He is. Reflect on thisdeep thought for just a fewminutes and allow your mind to beexpanded! Now do you see whyknowing and using the SacredName is so vital to our salvation?Can you see how we will become

children of Yahweh and bear Hisimmortal charaeteristics throughealling upon His Name? Yahweh'speople are called by His Name,Eph. 3:14-15. The covenant wasmade in the Name of YAHWEH!Catling upon any other Name willbe useless!

Ihe Name lor Sdvation

In Acts 4:12 we read, "Neitheris there salvation in any other: forthere is none other NAME underheiven grven among men, where-by we must be saved." Now Weare faced with a dilemma! Wemust call on only one Name whichwill bring us salvation.

Researeh of the New Testa-ment as it has been transmitted tous in Greek would show that theName of our resurreeted Messiahwas lesous. However, how eansuch a foreign name be harmenized with the Old TestamentScriptures which say that thecovenant will be made in theName of YAHWEH? It is anuncontested fact that the Messiahwas of the tribe of Jud&h, that Helived in Palestine where Aramaicand Hebrew were used natur"lly,and that the first converts to thenew Messianic Worship wereIsraelites, mostly of the tribe ofJudah, who also spoke the com-mon Aramaic tongue. Can wediscount all of these faets or rejectthem entirely as having noinfluence on the final doctrineswhich we must believe and obeyto enter into our covenant withthe Most High YAHWEH? Shouldwe continue to follow a doctrine

merely because it is popular andwidely aecepted? If this were theease, we would have no faith atall, sinee the majority of people onthis earth today have no viablereligion.

Separation Through the Name

Popularity is no seripturaleriterion for judging the merits oftruth. We must stand firmly uponthe Word of Yahweh, or we willfall prey to doctrines which arenot eoncretely scriptural. TheBible is not a book of ecumeniealinstructions. It does not seek tounite all religions of the worldunder one banner through com-promise, but it seeks to separatethe people of the Most High (Lev.20222-26) from those who are notinterested in serving Him, guidingthem toward the narrow way inwhieh FEW people will be found.

Our only safe course to theKingdom is one eharted throughthe use of the Inspired Word ofYahweh. In the Old Testament wefind several illustrations of theMessiah who was prophesied torule Israel, notably Isaiah 53 andthe book of Joshua. Interestingly,the man who took Israel into thepromised land of Palestine 40years after their exodus fromEglypt was named Joshua, mean-ing in the Hebrew, "Yahweh issalvation!"

We find that this identiealName was given'to the Messiahby an angelie messenger in Matt.LzZL. He (Yahweh) shall save(Hebrew-shua) His people (Israel)from their sins (transgressionsagainst Him). This name can befound recorded also in Numbers13:16, and it is explained as well.

Proving Messish's Name

Since there is none other Nameunder heaven given among menwhereby we must be saved, let usprove conclusively whieh Name

that must be. Is it too repulsivefor you to conclude that sinee theMessiah was of the tribe of Jud&h,and sinee He was of Semitic stoek,that His Name was a SemiticName also, rather than Greek,which is an IndoEuropean lan-guage?

In basis of faet, the form ofthe name Jesus which is found inthe English is not the same at allas Iesous in Greek. Etymologyproves that Jesus is derived fromthe Latin language. It is candidlyobvious from reading circulatingliterature which has been pub-lished with the purpose of oppos-ing the necessity for using theName YAHSHUA, that the crucialpoint which is used is the conceptof an INSPIRED GREEK NewTestament. The Assemblies ofYahweh have gone on record thatsuch a term is ill advised andcannot be supported by scholar-ship. This is the reason why wehave published articles devoted tothis subjeet.

Again we wish to reiterate thatwe believe in the inspirationof the New Testament Scrip-tures. We find that they deseribethe life of a man who walked thisearth, who lived a righteouslife, and then died as an atone-ment for our sins. The recordshows that He rose again from thedead and ascended to heaven tosit at the right hand of theAlmighty Heavenly Father Yah-weh, from whence He shall returnto rule this earth in righteous-ness for a period of a thousandyears.

Scholarship has proved thatthe New Testament was notwritten first in the Greeklanguag€, nor is it the onlylanguage in which the New Testa-ment has come down to us. TheAramaic or Syriac language NewTestament yields manuscriptsantedating the Greek manuscripts

which have come down to us.(Introduction to Lamsa's Bible,and appendix 94 in the CompanionBible, etc.)

Hastingu Bible Eneyclopediaof Roligion and Ethics

In the article "BIBLE" in thisnoted work, we find the followingquote. "The Gospel soon left thesoil of Palestine and the Aramaicspeech." This work recognizesthat the Aramaic language wasspoken almost exelusively inPalestine at the time of theMessiah. Later in the article theystate, "Almost all of the books ofthe New Testament were com-posed in Greek." Evidently theeditors feel that since religion isrelated to the classics, it wouldhave been necessary for the NewTestament to be composed in theclassieal Greek language toreceive the proper credit andexposure. However, this is anerroneous conclusion, since themessage was sent to the Jew first.

Paul makes this quite plain inRomans chapter one. Sinee theNew Testament was written tothe Jew first, the original lan-guage would have been eitherHebrew or Aramaic, both well-known and popular languages.Please review our ehapterentitled "Hellenist Jews?"-which shows that such a title is amisnomer. The eoncept that theJews in the dispersion all knewGreek is the only possible reasonwhich could be advaneed for thenecessity of writing the NewTestament entirely in Greek. As amatter of fact, we have alreadyproved that the books of Matthewand Hebrews can be doeumentedhistorically as having been writtenin Hebrew, while the remaindercan be shown to have Hebrew andAramaic versions underlyingthem.

l3

The Text of Mark

A very interesting articleappeared in the Autumn, 1971

issue of the Journal of SemiticStudies (Vol. XVI). It was called,"The Original Book of Mark," andwas written by Dr. Isaac Rabin-owitz. The writer shows thatmany passages in the book ofMark are purely of Hebrew originand meanitrg, while some areAramaic. To explain this situationcorreetly then, Dr. Rabin owitzwrites, ". . . supposing, however,that the Gospel was origina[ywritten in Arnmaic and subse-quently translated into Greek.The translator from Aramaic intoGreek, if in his Aramaic text heencountered a word that was notAramaic but Hebrew, and if hewished to indicate to his Greekreaders the presence at this pointin the original text of a word in alanguage foreign to that of thetext, could do this most easily andnaturally by first transliteratingthe foreigu word into Greekcharacters, and then translating itinto Greek." (Emphasis oursthroughout article.) Here then isan explanation of the Hebraismsin the book of Mark which havecome down to us through theGreek text; obviously it can beshown to be a translation from aHebrew word that was originallyAramaic. Later in the article Dr.Rabinowitz stated that it was hisopinion that both a Hebrew andAramaic original existed, and wewould concur with this conclusion.This then is another penetratingwork which goes deeply to the eoreof the problem and presents evi-dence in solving the reason for a

Greek version of the fundamentaldocuments of what was theHebrew or Jewish religion.

Rome Enters the Picture

Another invaluable work in

t4

showing that Greek could nothave been the language of theNew Testament is by Dr. Fred-erick C. Grant, ealled RomanHellenism and the New Testa-ment. One of the most dynamicquotes from the entire book maybe found on page 13. "NoteworthyGreek Religion itself NEVERPRODUCED anything like a Bible,though in later centuries Homerwas often viewed as inspired-nordid it produee a church or a creedor a system of dogma, or a body ofeschatological beliefs, eithercosmie or terrestrial." It is obviousfrom a study of Greek religion,that each locality seemed to revereits own individual deity, just as didBaal worship. Most of the Greekreligion was myth, passed down byword of mouth, or taken from thewritings of Homer. Can we thensuppose that the Greeks wouldhave passed down to us immacu-lately the writings of a religionwhich they did not completelyunderstand? This is why it seemsto be a wise safeguard to check theAramaic versions of the NewTestament and glve them cre-dence in Bible study, and to baseour every doctrine concretelyupon the Old Testament laws.

"Another feature of the ancientGreek Religion was a certainquality of this worldliness. Happi-ness must be found here and now,if anywhere, any time; the afterlife is gloomy and uninviting."Hellenism was indeed a religion ofthe moment, to live for the day, tolive in the world; it was perhapsan early example of the "now"generation. To keep the OldTestament commandments wouldhave seemed to them to berestrictive and repressive, so theinterpretation was made that theywere annulled when the Saviordied upon the tree. Then on page5 we read, "The Romans simplyborrowed their myths from the

Greeks." Historians have provedthat the Roman religion wasmerely a copy of the Greek paganworship, with each Roman deityhaving its Greek counterpart.

Page 16 yields another enlight-ening thought. "Roman Religionwas an ancient agriculturalreligion which was later adaptedto city life, and then finally to theeontrol of an empire-but it neveroutgrew its original features asthe local cultus of the old Italianfarmers and herdsmen." Afterdescribing some of these cultishideas, we find on page 19, "Even-tually Christianity won thiseontest (for religious supremacy),though the victory was muchnetrer to a draw than to the totslconquest oI pqganism which oldfashioned writers and oratorsused to enjoy describing." Howastonishing are the admissionswhich are poured forth from thepens of some noted, honest-heart-ed scholars. Certainly it is notdifficult to recognize the paganismwhich has permeated to the veryeore of nominal Christianity,obscuring True Worship! It is ourduty to weed out the emor,through the Word of AlmightyYahweh, by adhering strictly toHis covenant commandments.

On page 24 we find anothergem of enlightenment. *Christ, inGreek is an attempt to translatethe Hebrew or Aramaie word(Messiah) whieh means anointed-though the meaning was surelylost upon most non-ChristianGentiles. Eventually Christosceased to be a title and becameonly a part of the proper nameJesus Christ." Do you see how theGreeks have not only comuptedthe pronunciation of the Names ofthe Bible, but also have eorruptedthe meaning? This corruption hasbeen responsible for painting a

false portrait of the Savior. Itshould be obvious that Almighty

Yahweh has deelared Himself tothe Israelites or Hebrews (Psalm

L47219-20), and if we are to returnto the original religion of Abra-ham, Isaac, and Jacob, whieh isthe True Worship, then we mustrid ourselves of all pagan influ-enee. The place to begin thishousecleaning is by begrnning touse the Savior's true Name, Yah-shua the Messiah. Try using it and

see if you don't receive a muchdifferent mental picture of theman who died for you, the truepicture of the Jewish King whowill be taking over the ruIe oI thisworld in the Kingdom of Yahweh.

Peter Preached in Aramaic

The following are quotes takenfrom the book, The Birth of theChristian Religton and the OriginsoI the New Testament, bY Dr.Alfred Firmin Loisy. Dr. IoisYsays that Mark and Matthew werewritten first in Aramean (Ara-

maic) langu&ge, of which we haveonly the untmstworthy translil-tions into Greek (page 66). Hepontinues, "Peter could probablyexpress himself only in Aramean(Aramaic), no small drawbaek foran apostle to the world at large,even were his ministry limited tothe Jews dispersed about theworld, os our texts in no waysindicate that it was. Peter, so theevidenee runs, not knowingGreek, would teach his hearers inAramean; but he 'had Mark forinterpreter; what he taught hishearers was what Mark theinterpreter has reproduced in hisGreek Gospel. . . ." Do you com-prehend the eredibility which isgiven by seholars to the Hebrewand Aramaic languages as a basisfor the New Testament? If theinspired Greek New Testament is

the only obstacle to your aeeept-

ing the Sacred Name of Yahwehor the Name of the Messi&h,Yahshu&, then that obstacle has

crumbled into the dust of antiq-uity, under the onslaught of end-

time increased knowledge. Factssuch as we are presenting are tobe found in any library and thesebooks have been gathering dustfor too many years!

Another quote from thisvolume follows: "Just as Peterspoke in the Aramean, so theApostle Matthew must havewritten in the same language. Thedifference was that Matth€\il,unlike Peter, had no disciple to actas his translator into Greek; thefirst-comers undertook the opera-tion without further credentials.That this or that element in Markor in Matthew was first written inAramean is probable enough,"(p.ffi)

Papias

The following is a quotation ofPapias by one of the early"fathers" of the Messianic Wor-ship. It is from the works ofEusebius as translated by Dr.Lightfoot. "And the Elder [Papias]said this also: Mark, havingbeeome the interpreter of Peter,wrote down aeeurately everythingthat he remembered, withouthowever recording in order whatwas either said or done by[Messiah]. For neither did he hearthe Master, nor did he follow him;but afterwards, as I said, attendedPeter, who adapted his instructionto the needs (of his hearers) buthad no design of giving a con-

nected account of the Master'soracles. So then Mark made no

mistake, while he wrote downsuch things as he rememberedthem; for he made it his one carenot to omit anything that heheard, or to set down any falsestatement therein." Papias was a

disciple of John the Apostle. Hewas a close associate and co-

worker with Polycarp, another ofJohn's disciples. He lived during

the tst and 2nd eenturies of ourera and is one of our most reliablesources for the history of the NewTestament and the early Mes-sianic Assembly.

Conclusion

Now what will you as an

individual do with the foregoingscholarship which we havepresented for your consideration?We cannot turn our heads awayfrom the studies of sueh an arrayof scholars, nor can we allow to gounchallenged dogmatic statementswhich are not ?rovable, mademerely to support "church"doctrine. Was the New Testamentwritten in Aramaie?

Facts would strongly supportsuch a conclusion. However, evenif one or two books were writtenin Greek, which cannot be proved,there is no reason to assume thatthe Greek names were substitutedfor the Hebrew Names. We findmany Hebrew names in ourEnglish Bibles, and we may askwhy the true Name of the Al-mighty and our Savior should notappear there. Please read Acts18:12-16 which indieates stronglythat the apostles were indeedpreaching the Hebrew Names forthe Almighty and this is why theyhad aroused the ire of the Jewishcommunity. Yahweh would hardlycall Himself Theos, \ilhich Dr.Ignaz Goldzhier in his book TheMythology of the Hebref,rs, statesconclusively is the same as Zeus,the idol of the Greeks! Is it reallyirresponsible to preaeh faith in theName of the Messiah? The book ofActs discloses that the apostlespreached in this Name (one spe-

cific Name) and were persecutedfor it! Shouldn't we be the same as

the early brethrer, since theSacred Name doctrine is mostconsistent in the Bible? We inviteyou to do some researeh and wechallenge you to put the doctrines

l5

you believe to the test. Will theNew Testament continue to beGreek to you? It needn't be!

Summary

Once again we have shownfrom seholarship that the NewTestament was written for themost part by Aramaic or Hebrew-speaking men, who wrote for theJew first. If they wrote theirmanuscripts in the Semitictongues of Hebrew and Aramaic,

then they did not use the names ofour Savior which are in eommonuse today! They wrote HisHebrew Name, Yahshua, and Histitle as designated by AlmightyYahweh Himself, Messiah. This isa name with meaning in theHebrew as was pointed out previ-ously. It means YAHWEH ISSALVATION. The other nameswhich are generally in use todayhave no meaning similarly, nor dothey fulfill Acts 42L2. Can we

rejeet such conclusive evidenee?Can we continue to call theAlmighty by a name which is notpleasing to Him? Let Yahweh betrue! Let every man "SanctifyYahweh of hosts Himself, and letHim be your fear and let Him beyour dread," Isaiah 8:13. TheMessiah came in His Father'sName, John 5:43. Is His Namewritten on your forehead? Revela-tion 14:1.

It is not dways reali-ed thatthe New Testament writers'toskof recording the Gospel in Greekw&s made easier because the Sep-tuagint already existed. They didnot have to invent a Greek theo-logical library; such a vocabularyIay ready to hand in the Septua-gint. The general religious vocab-ulary of the Greek laogt age waspa,gan in character, but severa,Ielements of that psgan vocabularyhad been taken by the Nexandri-

an translators snd used as equiva-Ients of the great words of OIdTestament revelation. Thus itcame about that in Greek-spenking Jewish circles thesewords did not bear their originalpa,gan si$dfiGance but the newsignifiGance which they acquiredfrom the Hebrew vocabularywhich they represented.

The Books and the Parchments(page 159)

Do you recognize this man? He bears asuspicious resemblance to the Greek Messiah wor-shipped in nominal churchianity. He has creptunawares into the Greek manuscripts of the New

Testament in the form of Theos. Ponder thisstartling quote from Greek and Roman Mytholo-gy, Appendix l, Survivals of Ancient Greek Div-

inities and Myths in Modern G reece, p. 312:"Only in a few localities, notably in Crete, does

any form of the name of Zeus survive, but thegod stitl lives under the title Oeds [Theos] , a ti-tle so conveniently equivocal that the Christiancan use it without heresy and at the same timesquare perfectly with the ancient pagan belief."Does your faith square perfectly with paganism,

or do you worship the invisible Mighry One oflsrael?

l6

BIBLIOGRAPHYBlack, Matthew. An Annric Approrch to the Gospele

end Acts. Oxford:Clarendon, 1967.

Bullinger, E.W'. Cronprnion Bible. [^ondon:Samuel

Bagster and Sons Limited, rpt. L972.

Horowitz, Edward. How the Hebrew Language Grew.

New York:KTAV Publishing House, 1960.

Burney, C.F. Anrrric Oridl ol thc Fouil.h Gospct Kitto, John. Ithutrrt d Htstory ol thc Hoty Biblc.

Iondon:Oxford University Prcss, 1922.

Klausner, Joseph. Jcrur oI Nrzrrcth. Trans. byBruce, F.F. Thc BooLs rnd ftc Puc.hncnts. New Herbert Danby. New York:Macmillan Co.,

Jersey:Fleming H. Revell Co., 1968. 1944.

Cadbury, H.J. Boginftgr ol Ghrirlfroity. Vol. V. [,amsa, George M. I]e Eoly Bibtc tron AncientErrtcrn Mrnuecriptr. Philadelphia:

Cross, F.L. Orlord Dictlourry oI the Ghristirn Chuch" A.J. Holman Co., 1967.

London:Oxford University Press, 1961.

Ioisy, Alfred. Bitth ol the Chrietiu Rcligion rndDelitzsch, Franz. Eebnew New leetenent. London: Origins oI the New TestuenL University

Samuel Bagster, 1877. Books, 1962.

Englirhnrn'e luterliuerr Greel New Testrment. McClintock and Strong. Cyclopcdir oI Biblicel, Thec[.ondon:Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd., 1877. logrcd, lnd Ecclcsi.ctic.l Litcnture. New

York:Harper and Brothers, 1867. Rpt. Grand

Eusebius Pamphilus. Euecbius' EcclesirsticEl Hietory. Rapids:Baker Book House, 1968.

Trans. John Lightfoot. Grand Rapids:Baker

Book llouse, 1973. Panin, Ivan. The New Testrncnt-EstEblighed byNuncrics. Toronto:The Book Society of

Gibbon, Edward. Eistory ol Ghrirtirnity. New York: Canada, 1954.

Peter Eckler, 1891.

Rabinowitz, Isaac. "The Original Book of Mark.l'

C,oldzhier, Ignaz. Mythology Arnong tlrc Hcbrcws r,rd Journrl oI Senitic Studies. Vol. XVIIts f,idoric.l Developnent" London:Long- (19?1-Autumn).

mans Green, 1877.

Rotherham, J.B. ltc Emphreized Bible. Cincinnati:

Grant, Frederick C. nomr! Eellenisn rnd the New Standard Publishing Co., 1902.

Test DGnt.

Schweitzer, Albert. Ttc Qucd ol tie llistoriorl Jeeue.

Harrington, David J. "The Original Language of New York:Macmillan Co., 1968.

Pseudo-Philo's Libcr Autiqurriuu Bibli-cttrun." Elnyerd ltoologtcd Rcview, Taylor, Robert. Diegceir. Boston:J.P. Mendum, 1869.

fu. 1910, Vol. &3, No.4.Torrey, Charles Cutler. Documents of the Primitive

Hastings, James. A Dietionety ol the Biblc. New York: Church. New York:Harper and Brothers,

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899. 1941.

Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septurgint rnd Modern Study.

Oxford:Clarendon, 1967.

Josephus, Flavius. The Worts oI Jogcphus. Trans. byWilliam Whiston. Philadelphia:David McKay.

Our Trenelrted Goepels. New York:Harperand Brothers, 1936.

Howard, George. "The Tetragrarn and the New Testa- Zeitlin, Solomon. "Judaism as a Beligion." Jewiehment." Jounrl oI Biblicrl Literrture. (hrrrtcrty Rcview. Vol. il4 (1941|-Oct.) No. 2.

Vol. 96 (197?-March) No. 1.