Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

[Evang.Benincasa]

First of all Matthew wasn't written originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language than Greek. The name Iesous appears in Matthew 1:21, if it was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic the name in Hebrew and Aramaic didn't survive. Why????

The Greek name is what we have been reading and baptizing people for over 2,000 years. Why? Because it is found in the ORIGINAL Greek. Not one shred of evidence which would lead us to a Hebrew copy of Matthew. Guess what?

Matthew 16:18 makes absolutely NO SENSE in Hebrew or Aramaic! That is why the Roman Catholic Church uses the verse in Aramaic to prove Peter is the Pope. Because in Aramaic, there is only one word to denote rock, and if kepha was employed it would of meant Peter was the actual rock which Jesus would build upon. Sorry, but once again NO CIGAR for the Hebrew Matthew crowd.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

What about all the Aramaic phrases and words written in Matthew?

Mat 1:23

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Why isn't this done in Isaiah in the LXX? The translators of the LXX didn't translated transliterated Hebrew words for their readers. The Gospel was meant to go throughout the known world. Matthew was going to be in the hands of the Diaspora throughout the Roman Empire. Aramaic was spoken in rural areas, but Jerusalem was a major hub in the Mediterranean. under GREEK SPEAKING GENTILE OCCUPATION for hundreds of years. If Matthew was written exclusively in Aramaic (Hebrew is totally out of the question) then it would of never needed to have Emmanuel translated for its reader, and Jesus would of been Yeshua, or Ieshua. Sorry, the whole Hebrew Roots argument for the Hebrew Matthew just doesn't fly well.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

First of all Matthew wasn't written originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language than Greek. The name Iesous appears in Matthew 1:21, if it was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic the name in Hebrew and Aramaic didn't survive. Why????

The Greek name is what we have been reading and baptizing people for over 2,000 years. Why? Because it is found in the ORIGINAL Greek. Not one shred of evidence which would lead us to a Hebrew copy of Matthew. Guess what?

Matthew 16:18 makes absolutely NO SENSE in Hebrew or Aramaic! That is why the Roman Catholic Church uses the verse in Aramaic to prove Peter is the Pope. Because in Aramaic, there is only one word to denote rock, and if kepha was employed it would of meant Peter was the actual rock which Jesus would build upon. Sorry, but once again NO CIGAR for the Hebrew Matthew crowd.

These guys were closer to the time of the Apostles than you or me.
and they disagree with you.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”

Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”

Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest.”

Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Epiphanius 370 AD “They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.”

Jerome 382 AD “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”

Isho'dad 850 AD “His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.” [Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels]

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

These guys were closer to the time of the Apostles than you or me.
and they disagree with you.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”

Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”

Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest.”

Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Epiphanius 370 AD “They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.”

Jerome 382 AD “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”

Isho'dad 850 AD “His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.” [Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels]

Sorry, but Hebrew wasn't the lingua franca in the First Century A.D.. Also, it seems that no one can answer my questions, but feel to produce Ireneus and friends to reinforce their argument. Oh, Clement of Alexandria said "according to the Hebrews" meaning it was directed the the Judeans. So, maybe you should scrap Clement, he never actually said Matthew was written in the Hebrew language. Papias is often taken to be saying that Matthew made his notes in Aramaic, and his scribes complied Matthew in Greek. But, my questions remain and need some answers. Yet, the Hebrew Matthew crew cannot answer why the name of "Yeshua" or Ieshua was lost? If we had an Aramaic original and the Judeans translated it into Greek, what happened to Yeshua? Papias says that it was scribed, so the scribes are messing up the name and Matthew hasn't a clue? Also Matthew quotes the LXX? Oh, no, he doesn't quote the LXX, but he quotes what???? What Aramaic OT did he quote from? Targums? Some other unknown Hebrew OT? Also why is Emmanuel translated for us? Sorry, but the so called Church fathers save doesn't answer questions, but just create more.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Oh, by the way, Papias' quote, comes from Eusebius. So, basically, you have push Papias' quote further down the calendar to 300 A.D.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sorry, but Hebrew wasn't the lingua franca in the First Century A.D.. Also, it seems that no one can answer my questions, but feel to produce Ireneus and friends to reinforce their argument. Oh, Clement of Alexandria said "according to the Hebrews" meaning it was directed the the Judeans. So, maybe you should scrap Clement, he never actually said Matthew was written in the Hebrew language. Papias is often taken to be saying that Matthew made his notes in Aramaic, and his scribes complied Matthew in Greek. But, my questions remain and need some answers. Yet, the Hebrew Matthew crew cannot answer why the name of "Yeshua" or Ieshua was lost? If we had an Aramaic original and the Judeans translated it into Greek, what happened to Yeshua? Papias says that it was scribed, so the scribes are messing up the name and Matthew hasn't a clue? Also Matthew quotes the LXX? Oh, no, he doesn't quote the LXX, but he quotes what???? What Aramaic OT did he quote from? Targums? Some other unknown Hebrew OT? Also why is Emmanuel translated for us? Sorry, but the so called Church fathers save doesn't answer questions, but just create more.

Professor Michael O. Wise disagrees with you.

"The idea was in vogue for a long time that at the time of Jesus Hebrew was a dead language and Aramaic was only spoken in a small region. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls swept into the trash, the linguistic notion that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus. The majority of the scrolls were written in Hebrew, Aramaic texts were also abundant, but only a small minority was written in Greek." The Dead Sea Scrolls (1996) p. 9-10 by Michael Wise

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Oh, by the way, Papias' quote, comes from Eusebius. So, basically, you have push Papias' quote further down the calendar to 300 A.D.

Just because Eusebius is quoting him does not mean he did not say it a long time ago.

When you cite Abraham Lincoln does it mean he did not say those words many years ago?

If I quote your words a week later does it mean you did not say them a week earlier?

[Esaias]

Papias never said the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. He said Matthew had collected some "logia" (sayings) of Jesus in Hebrew. (Papias said "Iesous", by the way.) The Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek. Alford himself, once believing in a Hebrew original of Matthew, later concluded the evidence forced him to abandon the position.

Read the link I gave earlier, Flaming, it makes the case ironclad and unassailable.

Why put stock in something that does not exist, and for which there is literally a sum total of ZERO evidence that it ever existed at all?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Mat 1:23

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Why isn't this done in Isaiah in the LXX? The translators of the LXX didn't translated transliterated Hebrew words for their readers. The Gospel was meant to go throughout the known world. Matthew was going to be in the hands of the Diaspora throughout the Roman Empire. Aramaic was spoken in rural areas, but Jerusalem was a major hub in the Mediterranean. under GREEK SPEAKING GENTILE OCCUPATION for hundreds of years. If Matthew was written exclusively in Aramaic (Hebrew is totally out of the question) then it would of never needed to have Emmanuel translated for its reader, and Jesus would of been Yeshua, or Ieshua. Sorry, the whole Hebrew Roots argument for the Hebrew Matthew just doesn't fly well.

Notice they don't actually deal with the TEXTUAL evidence, instead relying on obscure catholic traditions which can be traced down to a misunderstanding of what Papias actually said.

[votivesoul]

In Hebrew and Aramaic, the spelling of the name of the Lord looks like this:

ישוע

With vowel points, it looks like this:

יֵשׁוּעַ

Let us all note, however, that the vowel points are a much later construct, courtesy of the Masorites, somewhere between or around the 9th and 11th centuries (obviously far removed from the time Jesus actually lived).

The point I am intending to make is that, without the vowel points, the name of the Lord can be pronounced in many various ways.

Just to illustrate, take the following letter from the Hebrew/Aramaic:

ש

This is the letter sin. However, with the vowel points used above, it becomes this:

שׁ

Note the one little dot in the upper right hand corner. This one dot changes the letter from sin to shin.

This little dot then changes the pronunciation and orthography from Yesua to Yeshua.

It is a veritable to shibboleth (See Judges 12:6).

Now, take this letter (without vowel points):

ו

This is vav. Depending on vowel points or not, it can be pronounced like a "v" in English, or it can have a long "O" sound (as in "Oh, I see."), or even a long "U" sound (as in "Ooh-Ahh").

According to the vowel points the Masorites gave the name, we see it written like so:

וּ

That one dot to the left tells the reader to pronounce vav with the long "U" sound.

But what if the Masorites were wrong in where they placed their vowel points?

The name could then be pronounced and spelled like so:

Yesoa, (i.e. ye-SO-ah).

But wait, there's more!

Note in the Hebrew/Aramaic spelling, the one above without vowel points, there is no extra letters between the yod and sin/shin. Without the vowel points the pronunciation is up for grabs.

With the vowel points, we have this:

יֵשׁ

The two dots under the yod are called Tseire. This gives the yod a mid front unrounded vowel sound, which in phonetics looks like this: [ei̯]. This is a very short "e" sound, similar to how we use the letter "e" in words like: men, yes, test, best, rest, and etc.

But again, the questions must be asked. What if the Masorites were wrong?

The point in all of this is that there is no way to know for certain how the ancient speakers of Hebrew or Aramaic pronounced the name of the Lord. In fact, since the Masorites didn't come on the scene until centuries later, it can rightly be said that the name "Yeshua" as it now exists may actually be a Middle Age invention.

Yeshua, both in orthography and pronunciation is, however, acceptable. But let us not quibble about it as if it is the only legitimate pronunciation. I personally make use of the name Yeshua, both in writing and in prayer. But I don't think it needs to be elevated as if it were some grander, better version than anyone else's. The truth is, had the Masorites not placed their vowel points into the Hebrew text of the Bible and thus create the Masoretic Text, we'd likely have almost no idea how to learn to read Hebrew in the modern day. And we'd quite possibly not pronounce "Yeshua" as "Yeshua".