A LETTER CONCERNING THE SACRED NAME

MOVEMENT
Last Updated on Friday, 22 March 2013 10:00

By Gary Mink

A letter to a friend By Gary Mink

(c) 2000 (used with permission)

A few words of introduction:

Gary Mink is a long time pastor. One of his many duties is maintaining the SACRED NAME MOVEMENT
ERRORS web site.
This letter was first written as part of correspondence with a teacher in the Sacred Name Movement. Its present
form represents some additions to and revisions of the initial letter.
That correspondence was a discussion of what the Bible shows to be various errors taught by this religious
movement. At the time of this writing, it is the final letter in that discussion. After this letter was posted, no reply
has been forth coming in almost two months.
The sacred name teacher had slowly spiraled down and down in the positions he took. When the truth that the
New Testament was written in Greek was presented to him, he took the stance which occasioned this letter.
These words are excepted from his letter:
"You might be aware that there are about 5000 existent Greek manuscripts today and no two are exactly alike.
There are major differences in the wording of many chapters and verses. Some manuscripts of the Greek leave
out whole chapters and verses that others include and there are multitudes of various changes from manuscript
to manuscript. The differences in most all the various English versions is in the NT, whereas the O.T. is
basically the same in all versions. If you are basing the foundation of your faith on the Greek NT I will have to
say that is a very flimsy foundation."
If you have any interest in the teachings of the Sacred Name Movement, please read this letter. It is written in
answer to one of the most grievous of all the Sacred Name Movement's errors, the denial of the New
Testament. Some other issues surrounding this denial are also addressed.

The fact that such a letter as this needed to be written at all, demonstrates the extent of the reproach the
Movement has brought upon itself in its seventy years of existence.
I beg your prayers for the young man to whom this letter is written. Pray, also, for every sincere person who is
deceived by the seducing spirit working in the doctrine of the sacred name.
Gary Mink
AS A MEMBER OF THE SACRED NAME MOVEMENT YOU HAVE DENIED THE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT
A letter to a friend
Hello Tony,
Our last few exchanges have brought about a focus on the underlying differences between us. The most recent
exchange has pushed to the fore the most basic of these differences. I intend you no personal offense, but I
believe you have now expressed the real difference between a bible believer and a sacred name believer.
When you express your rejection, albeit an ambivalent one, of the authority of the Greek New Testament, you
are speaking the heart of all sacred name people. From the forthright words you use, it is obvious that the
position you have taken is not a conclusion newly reached by you. Your words show that you have given this
matter of the Greek NT a lot of thought and careful consideration.
Whatever your reasoning may be, whatever rational you may have used, whatever research you may have
used to gain the required ends, a rejection of the NT is thrust upon you by the very nature of the doctrine. In
other words, rejection of the NT is inherent in the doctrine of the Hebrew only sacred name.
If one receives not his words, one rejects Jesus also. Where will we base our faith, if the New Testament as we
now have it is unworthy of our confidence? The New Testament is the only book containing the words of Jesus.
To reject the book containing his words is to reject his words. It is these very words that shall be our judge in
the last day.
Frankly, it astonishes me that anyone claiming to be a believer in Jesus, by whatever name one calls him,
should reject the only book by which that person learned of him and his message.
I think of you as an earnest and sincere person. I am sure you have written nothing but what you believe to be
true based on the principals of your doctrines. While I may be astonished at your expression of these beliefs, I

am not surprised. I expected that if you and I corresponded long enough, you would reach the very teaching
you have come to.
Permit me to comment on some of your positions.
1.

You disparage the New Testament.

Your statement is, "there are about 5000 existent Greek manuscripts today and no two are exactly alike. There
are major differences in the wording of many chapters and verses."
Your statement is at least partially true. There are more than five thousand New Testament mss. in Greek. Each
of them was hand copied. Copying by hand was the manner of book publishing before the printing press and
mistakes were not uncommon. Because of this, no two are exactly alike.
However, no two copies of any ancient work, the NT included, are exactly alike. Only a very few of these
differences in the New Testament can be called major.
The information you advance is partially true. The use you make of it is altogether invalid. You are using this
information to cast aspersions on the authority of the New Testament. You have concluded that because no two
copies are exactly alike, the New Testament is untrustworthy; it is not a sound document; it is not a foundational
spiritual source book. These conclusions being true, it cannot be God's word.
Because the word of God is alive, incorruptible, and abides forever, the opposite conclusion is the true one. It is
the conclusion you should have reached. These very differences in the Greek New Testament show that no one
or more reprobate groups have controlled the New Testament and thereby been enabled to falsify it.
A book of contradistinction for you to consider is the Latin Vulgate. It has been controlled, even owned, by one
church for centuries. It has none of these differences major or minor you have found in Greek New Testament
mss.
These peculiarities of NT manuscripts contradict the claim made by almost all sacred name teachers that the
New Testament has been controlled and falsified. Because of this claim, they have produced numbers of
sacred name bible revisions aimed at correcting some one or another of these imagined falsifications.
In light of the five thousand NT mss in Greek you have mentioned (In truth, the number is five thousand plus.) a
question comes to mind. How many ancient mss of the New Testament in Hebrew can be found? Let me
hasten to answer that there are exactly zero Hebrew New Testament mss. to which you can refer. The Hebrew

New Testament mss in existence are like the Hebrew New Testament on my book shelf. They were all
translated from Greek.
Were I a believer in an original Hebrew New Testament, knowing that I come up short in the mss. area, I would
have done just as you and said nothing about any Hebrew New Testament mss.
Let me postulate here that no two copies of Old Testament manuscripts are exactly alike. Some have major
differences. One Dead Sea Scroll mss has Goliath at a bit over six feet tall. Yet you seem not the least
hampered by this fact. You fail even to take notice of it. Perhaps your research has not taken you far enough to
have ascertained this fact.
You base you faith on only the Old Testament. Yet, the same logic you use concerning the NT would warrant a
like conclusion on your part that the Old Testament is a "flimsy foundation" of your faith?
Your statement is a forthright and blatant denial of the validity of the New Testament as a document having
authority in spiritual matters.
Once, when friends, family, even fellow congregation members were converting, I gave earnest consideration
to becoming a sacred name believer. Early in my investigation of the doctrine I was able to see that by
accepting the doctrine of the sacred name, I was being induced to reject the authority of the New Testament.
Therefore, I decided that rather than casting off the New Testament, I would cast off the sacred name doctrine. I
rejected it for what it is, a false teaching. This action has cost me a great deal. I have regretted neither the
decision, the action stemming from it, nor the cost.

2.

You reject the New Testament.

You have certainly qualified this rejection as specifically a degrading of the Greek NT by these words: " If you
are basing the foundation of your faith on the Greek NT I will have to say that is a very flimsy foundation."
You believe that the only extant New Testament is "a very flimsy foundation" of faith. How can one take this as
anything less than a repudiation of the book?
While you make claims for an original Hebrew New Testament, you cannot point to a single one. As Hebrew
versions of the NT are translations from Greek, there is no real Hebrew New Testament. Therefore, you reject
the only New Testament available to you.

It is interesting how you candidly discard the only document by which you have the knowledge of salvation? My
studies of the sacred name doctrine and the Movement prohibit me from viewing this rejection of the NT as
amazing. It is not even unusual. All sacred name people have done just as you or they have not thoroughly
thought out their beliefs.
There is little common ground between us. Every New Testament scripture I refer to, you will disregard as from
the Greek NT. The names, phrases, and other corrections you put in as being from the Hebrew, I reject as the
speculative imaginations of men without authority.
How can we discuss the scriptures in any productive way? We do not regard the same writings as being
sacred.

3.

You still quote the New Testament.

In one breath, you reject the New Testament as a flimsy foundation of faith. In the next, you have the
unmitigated audacity to quote a number of passages from it as a source of your beliefs. This seems to indicate
that you believe it has some value as a foundation in matters of faith. At this point you seem to think of this
"very flimsy" book as having some intrinsic spiritual significance. One is left wondering what you really think
about the NT.
Were it not for the Greek NT you would have few, perhaps none, of the numerous beliefs you hold dear.
You say, "... I believe that what Yahshua spoke was far more important than what was recorded in Greek." Are
you truly unable to see that such a statement shows a gross inconsistency in the rudimentary teaching of
sacred name teachers, you self included? Outside the Greek NT you know nothing Jesus spoke. You are
denigrating, and in so doing, denying the only document by which you know anything about the gospel. You
have placed your personal knowledge and wisdom in a place superior to the only New Testament you have.

4.

You advance the theory, then offer proof, of an original Hebrew New Testament.
You have concluded the New Testament was written in Hebrew from the study of the works of scholars. You
say, "There are many renowned Bible scholars who uphold an original Hebrew NT."
You quote from two of the men you have studied.

To you Dr. E. W. Bullinger's Companion Bible is authoritative about the matter of a Hebrew original NT. Yet the
very quote you give, has Bullinger saying the language of the New Testament "is Greek." He is of no help to
you in your quest for a Hebrew NT original.
You call forth Dr. George Lamsa to sustain your position on an original Hebrew NT. His research and translation
is of little value to anyone for any cause. Lamsa's bible is little more than a reworked KJV. It is particularly
worthless to you regarding what you are attempting to prove.
He attempts to prove one thing. You attempt to prove quite another.
First: Lamsa claims an original Aramaic New Testament. You claim a Hebrew one. You are making the common
sacred name teacher ploy of conveniently confusing the Hebrew and Aramaic languages.
Remember, it was you who lectured me, very painstakingly explaining to me, that Hebrew is not Aramaic and
Aramaic is not Hebrew. Jesus spoke Hebrew, you said. He did not speak Aramaic, you said.
Second: Despite Lamsa's claims of this original Aramaic NT, he is forced to translate his bible from the
Peshitta. This, of course, is a rendering of the NT into Aramaic from the Greek text. Let me quote the
Encyclopedia Britannica on this. The Peshitta "...was based on the Greek text which was at that time in current
use at Antioch." [eleventh ed., handy volume issue, Vol. 3, pg. 882] The very book Lamsa translates was itself a
translation of a Greek New Testament mss.
Third: Adding insult to injury, Lamsa fails to produce for us a single manuscript copy of an Aramaic NT written in
the Aramaic in use during the time of Jesus. Those he shows in his introduction are every one in the Persian
script. See photo copies on pages xvii and xviii of his introduction. You might want to read JE Goodspeed on
Lamsa's position for an Aramaic New Testament, if you have opportunity.
Fourth: Lamsa says Jesus spoke Aramaic. You say he spoke Hebrew. Lamsa thinks the name of the Savior in
Aramaic would have been pronounced as "Eshoo." See page xix of his introduction. You are certain his name
was pronounced Yahshua.
Dr. Lamsa does not sustain your position. Quite the contrary is true; Lamsa destroys your position.
Fifth, you inform me that "all learned Jews spoke Hebrew." Then you claim the disciples Peter and John were
not learned and offer this as proof that at least these men could only have written their New Testament writings
in Hebrew. I hope you will not mind me saying this kind of reasoning is a bit hard to follow.

It is worth noting that Peter and John were not educated in the rabbinical schools of Jerusalem. They had been,
however, commercial fishermen doing business in a mixed cultural area. Generally, intelligent men who are
employed in multilingual areas and make any effort in that direction, acquire at least a working knowledge of
the second language
You can impugn their abilities because the priests in Jerusalem saw them as ignorant men if you like. I do not.
You may use the priests' opinion to impose on them a lack of knowledge of the Greek language. I do not. The
priests also saw them, among other things, as trouble makers. I do not. To ascribe such lack of knowledge to
these two men is to reach an unwarranted, an unnecessary, and surely an unworthy conclusion about them.
Why must the supposed ignorance of Peter and John come up in every discussion with a sacred name person
about the language of the New Testament? Was Paul ignorant, even after the judgment of the priests in
Jerusalem?

5.

You believe one and perhaps more New Testament books were written in Greek.
In the face of all this, you still are willing to say, "...I think it seems likely that some of the NT books were
originally written in Greek..." In consideration of this belief, how can you say the Greek New Testament is a
"flimsy foundation"? Do you not believe that at least these books were inspired by God and therefore
authoritative?
On this point you have once again put yourself at odds with yourself. By believing even a single New Testament
book could have been written in Greek, you necessitate the conclusion upon yourself that the writer put the
Savior's name into that book in a language other than Hebrew. Do you perhaps believe that the original writers
transliterated the Savior's name into Greek. This is, of course, exactly what did happen. The New Testament
writers, every one transliterated the name as IesouV - Jesus.
The obvious action resulting from such a conclusion is that since God saw fit to put the Savior's name in the
New Testament in a language other than Hebrew, we can write and speak that name in our own language, also
not Hebrew.
One way for you to extricate yourself from this dilemma is to take the position some others take. That is, that
the NT in its original was not an inspired document. Some sacred name people take the position that all of
Paul's writings were never in line with what God intended. Surely you do not take this position?

This solution is found to be convenient for a number of sacred name teachers. The Greek New Testament is a
heavy weight of evidence against the use of a Hebrew sacred name, either the tetragrammaton or the Savior's
name. Therefore, its denial is essential to the sacred name doctrine. Some teachers who agree with your
position, deny the NT as a whole, some simply deny all of Paul's writings which to them were obviously written
in Greek.

6.

You put a new twist on the transliteration of the Savior's name into Greek.
You say, "The Hebrew Name Yahshua can be directly transliterated in Greek as Iasua, and it is in various
Greek manuscripts and documents."
As I doubt the veracity of your comments, will you point me to some of the various Greek documents in which
the Savior's name is transliterated iota, alpha, sigma, upsilon, alpha - Iasua?
I know you will be able to quote other sacred name writers who have stated this supposed transliteration as a
fact. However, my reading of these men leads me to conclude that they have no documentation for such a
statement. At least, I have yet to see one give such documentation. I hope you are more able and/or willing to
produce this evidence.
The evidence I have been able to uncover in my own research has been contrary to your statement. I will
advance a few points from this research.
First: The Jewish rabbis, who translated the Septuagint were consistent in their transliteration of the name of
that hero of Israel, Joshua, as IesouV - Jesus.
Second: The Jewish translator of the apocryphal book originally written in Hebrew and commonly known as
Ecclesiasticus transliterated his grandfather's name into Greek as Iesous.
Third: In a letter written c. A. D. 132 by/for a Jewish lady named Babatha concerning the care and welfare of
her son, Jesus. The name is transliterated iota, epsilon, sigma, upsilon, sigma - IesouV. This document
contains the letter, written in Greek, an Aramaic translation, and a Greek summary of the letter. [ Document: 5/6
HevBa]
It is worth noting here that the first language of this document is Greek. This is in spite of the fact that this letter
was written by or for a Jewish lady. Not everyone in Judea spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. All business in the
Jerusalem area was not done in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Fourth: When the NT writers set about to transliterate the Savior's name into Greek one should not be
surprised that they used the commonly accepted transliteration of the name. Quite frankly, this transliteration by
the inspired NT writers is the only that matters. It was always IesouV - Jesus.
Of course there are three renderings of the Hebrew name of Joshua in the O.T. It could not be thought unusual
for there to be more than one transliteration of this name into Greek. While remembering there is only one such
transliteration in the New Testament, I will await your documentation on this point.
Yes, you are noble to search the scriptures. I hope you will continue to do so. I can only pray that you come to
acknowledge that we have scriptures the Bereans did not have.
Peace,
Gary
A very special thank you to Gary Mink for writing and allowing us to post this letter here - Institute for Christian
Works.