IN DEFENSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

-- Ian Edwards Diamond

Being an examination of the contrast between the New Testament And the Sacred Name Doctrine.

Beloved Brethren, I write this out of concern for your soul. It may seem strange for me to start off
with that statement but I hope that you will soon see why I say it. I do not want this to bring division to
the remnant of faithful Christians. At this point in time it is so critical that we come together, not
separate from one another. If we can not stand together we will most assuredly fall separately.
However there are some things that are essential to the faith that we hold. The New Testament is on of
those essentials.
In 1880, when German higher criticism was taking root in England, Charles Haddon Spurgeon and
Joseph Parker stood firmly against those questioning the authorship of the Bible. Spurgeon said
regarding this matter, “Defend the Bible? I would just as soon defend a lion!!!” My sentiments echo
his completely. I strongly believe that if you read the New Testament for what it says you can easily
ascertain the truth.

Before I get to far into the discussion, I'd like to say that I view the Old and New Testament as
being one book together not separate! They flow together in perfection as one divine river of truth.
Each dependent upon the other. The only uninspired page in the Bible is the one separating Malachi
from Matthew. I rather prefer not to distinguish the one from the other. But because the charges
discussed hear after are only leveled against the part of Scripture known as the New Testament, I have
found it impossible to not make the distinction. At times it may seem that I'm even contrasting the one
to the other to set them at odds with each other. However this is not my intent. The idea has been put
forth that both are inspired yet only one of the two Testaments have been preserved in it's original
form (the older). I am not the one who started the argument. But to finish it please grant me this liberty
for the arguments sake. In the end I hope to reestablish both to there rightful place in harmony as the
God breathed inspired and therefore preserved words of Scripture!

Two men have stood out in the field of New Testament Textual Criticism.

I understand the personal nature of our discussion very well. Many tears have been shed in my life
because of it. To stand were I stand now has not been the easy road to take. We so often grow an
emotional attachment to what we believe. And it becomes so painful to separate our feelings from facts
when examining what we hold to as true. I can scarcely think of two more personal subjects to a
believer than whether the accounts given to us by the disciples and apostles about our Savior's deeds
and teachings while on this earth were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefor preserved by
his Saints, and what names we should use to petition and call upon our father in heaven and his
beloved Son. Yet some how these two things have managed to get caught up in the same controversy
and seem diametrically opposed to each other. As we look into this subject, please try to divorce
yourself from your feelings and examine the facts of Scripture and history. They line up quite well, in
fact.

The Sacred Name Movement (hereafter abbreviated SN or SNM) started about 1930. The primary
founder was a man named Clarence O. Dodd. After being rejected from his position in the Church of
God Seventh day. He with others such as Angelo B. Traina, John Briggs started the SNM. This arose
about the same time, as and is very closely aligned with another movement called the Hebrew Roots
movement. The primary tenet of the SNM is that there are “Sacred Names” for the Creator of the
universe and his Son, that we must use. These names are generally accepted as Yahweh and Yahshua
(though a plethora of other pronunciation are used among various groups). These are thought to be the
correct original Hebrew pronunciations of these names. What implications this has on us as individuals
is some what disagreed upon among SN teachers. Many SN leaders teach that you can not have
Salvation if you don't use these names! The thought seems to be that to not use the names is breaking
of the third commandment. Because to not use them is willful breaking of the third commandment this
is sin. Others teach that you will just attain to a higher spiritual states for the use of these names. But
that if you are showed the names and reject them your salvation is forfeit (This is were I theoretically
fit in). All SN Believers seem to unanimously agree that names and titles such as Jesus, God and Lord
are not to be used when referring to The Father and the Son. The following is a brief explanation of the
primary arguments used to support their belief.

The following verses are most commonly used to teach that our Father has only one personal
name that we must use to call upon him. "I am Yahweh: that is My Name, and My glory will I
not give to another neither My praise to graven images," (Isaiah 42:8).
• "Oh Yahweh, Thy Name abideth for ages; Oh Yahweh, Thy memorial is to generation after
generation," (Psalm 135:13).
• "If Yahweh be Elohim, follow Him; And if Baal then follow Him," (1 Kings 18:21; Hebrew
Baal=Lord, a Phoenician deity).
• "How long shall it be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets of
the deceit of their own heart, which think to cause My people to forget My Name as their
fathers have forgotten My Name for Baal," (Jeremiah 23:26-27).
• "I will take the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembered by
their name," (Hosea 2:17: Hebrew plural of Baal, i.e., Lords).
• "I will declare thy Name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise
unto Thee," (Hebrews 2:12 and Psalm 22:22).
• "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the Name of Yahweh shall be saved,"
(Acts 2:21 and Joel 2:32).
• "And they that know Thy Name will put their trust in Thee," (Psalm 9:10).
• "Thus saith Yahweh, the maker thereof, Yahweh that formed it, to establish it, Yahweh is His
Name; Call unto Me and I will answer thee and show thee great and hidden things which
thou knowest not," (Jeremiah 33:3).
• "I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world," (John
17:6).
• "And I have declared unto them Thy Name and will declare it," (John 17:26).
"Hallowed be Thy Name," (Matthew 6:9).
• The Sacred Name of the Messiah, Yahshua, is the only Name by which He was known to His
disciples, though He has several titles such as Rabbi, Son of Man, Savior, Anointed and
King of Kings.
• "What is His Name and what is His Son's Name, if thou canst tell?" (Proverbs 30:4).

His Name is composed of two parts: Yah-Hoshua (Savior). Thus, the contraction Yahshua
 signifies Yahweh-Savior and strikingly bears out the logic of Matthew 1:21:

• "And she shall bring forth a Son and thou shalt call His Name YAHSHUA, for He shall save
His people from their sins."
• "I am come in My Father's Name and ye receive Me not--," (John 5:43).
• "Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the Name of Yahweh," (John 12:13)
• And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the
Son. If ye ask anything in My Name I will do it," (John 14:13-14).
• "--for there is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,"
(Acts 4:12).
• "And I looked and Lo, a Lamb stood on Mount Zion, and with Him an hundred and forty and
four thousand having His Name and His Father's Name written in their foreheads," (Revelation
14:1, Revised Version).

They seem to view Hebrew as the Divine language of heaven. Therefor all things Hebrew are
good and all things Greek Latin etc. are bad.
3
Because the Tetragramaton is used 6823 times in the Old Testament. It must also be
in the New Testament. And must use it today. ( The word Tetragramaton comes from
Greek meaning four lettered word. Used to refer to the four Hebrew letters comprising
the name HWHY.)
3
Corrupted Greek New Testament. This is so important for their belief to stand,
because there is not one occurrence of the Divine name in or any direct teaching about
it's use in the New Testament as it stands. In the words of Garry Mink “the New
Testament is the nemesis to the SN doctrine”.They say that Imaginary Evil Scribes (A
term I have coined, referring to the evil scribes and copyists, here after rendered IESs)
theoretically removed the Tetragramaton and other things from the New Testament. We
will see why I say imaginary later. In theory the IESs were able to completely remove
the tetragramaton, the Hebrew spelling of our Savior's name, and any arguments and
teachings directly relating to the use of the divine name from the books of the NT.
Many in the SNM have posited the idea that the entire New Testament was first written
in Hebrew and that the corruption took place at the time that it was translated into
Greek. "Scholarship has proved that the New Testament was not written
first in the Greek language" - Exploding the Inspired Greek New
Testament Myth, Jacob O Meyer
The above statement reminds me of one by Frederick Nietzsche . “God is dead we
killed him with science.” Science hasn't killed God nor has scholarship killed the
Inspired Greek New Testament!
This last argument is what has really caused me to do this study. It has struck a chord with me that
sounds very out of key to the rest of Scripture. There are countless promises and prophecies regarding
the preservation of his word.
Assuming this is true, That the entire New Testament has been altered in that the Divine names
have been removed. I'd like to ask you a question. If all New Testament books were under the knife
and pen of the IESs at some point, what guarantee do we have that they did not add and subtract other
things than just the names of the Father and the Son??? How do you know that you can believe
anything pertaining to doctrine written therein? So what implication does that have on the validity of
the New Testament? How does that affect your personal faith? These very questions have led many in
the SNM to regard the NT as only a book of historical record. Sadly, it has caused some to abandon it
altogether. Yet most only view these changes as pertaining to the names of God. They apparently think
that The Father of the universe can preserve everything but his name.

Being raised to believe very strongly in the inspiration and preservation of the Scripture, when first
confronted with this belief, I looked in my English Bible and read some of his promises about his
word. Here Are a few. (In many of the below verses the term forever is used. As we will see later the
underlining Hebrew and Greek words would be better translated as to the age or ages. However the
time period of this age is often equated with all generations and the existence of heaven and earth.)

Psalms12:6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
earth, purified seven times.
7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation
for ever.
Psalms119:
89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (See Deut 30:11-14)
111Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing
of my heart.
152Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them
for ever.
160Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments
endureth for ever.

Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing
can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men
should fear before him.

Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it
may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

Isiah55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return
unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the
thing whereto I sent it.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall
stand for ever.

Matthew 5 :17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
 Matt 24:35; “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away.”
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by
the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass
withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the
gospel is preached unto you.

2 John 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.

I realized that in order to believe the Sacred Name Doctrine, I had to believe that some of Our
Savior's words have passed away. There is no way around that. If he said something that the Holy
Spirit inspired to be written down and it no longer exists then his words have passed away! If He
frequently spoke the name Yahweh and we have no recored of it, then again, his words have passed
away! If he taught his disciples and preached sermon after sermon about the importance of the use of
the Divine name and all these are gone, then again I must say that his words have passed
away! No other conclusion can be made. So we have to examine this belief with careful scrutiny.
For more, please see Appendix B
An interesting study is the definition of the Greek word logos,used in the above passage for words. It is
Strong's word # G3056 λο?γος log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse),
also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the
article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X
concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon,
remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings,
treatise, utterance, word, work.
Being that the use of the Divine Name is purported to be a cornerstone doctrine of our Savior, not
only has every instance that he spoke the Divine name passed away, but so also his teaching,
reasoning, motive, communication, thought, preaching, intent and doctrine regarding the use of the
name disappeared off the face of the earth. For from the time that the Church theoretically apostatized
and stopped using the “proper names” until it was “restored” by the founders of the SN movement in
the 1930s there is not one historical reference to there use. This again strikes an off cord with me
because not only did the everlasting Father prophecy of preserving his Word but also his Church.

Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all
generations.
Isaiah 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have
been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock
(Christ) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great
signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.( But
praise our Father it's not possible).

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an
Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith
of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and
they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand
men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

1 Peter: 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer
up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone,
elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Eph 2:20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone;

1John 4:4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that
is in you, than he that is in the world.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of
Jesus Christ.
Our Father has always reserved unto himself a faithful remnant, that has held true to his core
doctrines. At some points in history this was a small group of people yet at other times the “Remnant”
has been the majority. Yet from the time of the theoretical apostasy by the Church till the advent of the
SNM no one has used these names of God. Which is to say that he hasn't had a remnant people.
λ Let's briefly overview the evidence and facts. The tetragramaton appears 6823 times in the Old
Testament. SN leaders feel like this necessitates it's use in the New testament. There are however 5,686
manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek. When we add to this, the ancient Syriac, Aramaic,
Coptic and Latin translations of manuscripts, we have over 24,000 extant manuscripts giving witness
to the New Testament text. Nowhere does the tetragramaton ever appear in any of these manuscripts.
We also have contained in 9 volumes, the works of the Apostolic and early Church Fathers from 100 to
325 AD. And in them there is no direct preaching or teaching about, or use of, the Divine Name at all.
Nor is there a single word written about some vast conspiracy to remove, erase, or blot out the names,
and the use thereof. Even though many of these men wrote against heresies, false doctrines, and the
changing of the Scriptures.

Let's look at two passages in Psalms. Please compare Ps. 14 to Ps. 53. These psalms are virtually
identical except the tetragramaton appears four times in Ps. 14 and in the same place the Hebrew word
for God (elohim) appears four times in Ps. 53. This is the work of the Holy Spirit divinely inspiring
David to call upon The Father one way the first time and another the second time. This is not the
work of some scribe or copyist! But of God himself. One of the biggest arguments used by SN
leaders is that since the New Testament Quotes the Old, wherever the tetragramaton occurs in the Old
it must therefore also occurs in the New. However these two Psalms represent the second most extant
internal quote in the Old Testament of it's self. Yet in this very quote we have clear testimony that by
the hand and breath of God occurrences of the divine name were changed to a generic word meaning
Mighty One or God. So let us at least consider that this maybe just might have been the case in the
New Testament as well. Not outside the realm of possibility at least is it?

The thought has been put forth by SN Leaders that since all people have names and all the other
gods have names our Father needs a name as well. But is it our place to decide that God needs a name?
It may seem very logical to us that he should have a name but often times what our Father does is
foolishness to us.

1 Corinthians1:25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of
God is stronger than men.
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath
chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And also it is our way to name everyone and everything. But our ways are not the same as the
Father's. We have his word it is through reading, studying, prayer and most importantly faith and
believing that we learn of him and his ways.

Isaiah55:7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let
him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will
abundantly pardon.
8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and
my thoughts than your thoughts.

Also consider this about 190 times in the four Gospels the God of heaven is referred to as Father.
Read John's Gospel, it is through out the text. Yet very few times is he ever called Father in the entire
Old Testament. Virtually all of these instances occur in Messianic prophecies and prophecies about
Israel in dispersion. Also God the Son is called by a distinct personal name close to a thousand times in
the New testament. Yet again this name is never used in direct reference to the Son in the entire Old
Testament (except maybe in Bible codes). Our Savior clearly taught us to think and refer to God as our
Father but there are very few references to such usages in the Hebrew OT. The disciples taught us that
there is Salvation in no other name than that of the Son of God. But that name isn't in the Hebrew Old
Testament. So looking at what SN leaders have done. I could just as easily launch a campaign that
scribes and copyists have defaced the Old Testament by removing the references that “must have been
there” to God as our Father and blotting out the name of his Son. That of course would be ludicrous.
There is absolutely no manuscript or historical evidence to support such a claim! Just as there is no
manuscript or historical evidence to backup SN Leaders claims regarding the New Testament!

So with that in mind I must ask you a question. How much evidence do you need before you just
believe the New Testament taking it for what it says? On a personal level what key factor is the
deciding point for you? What will it take to set aside your personal theology that dictates that our
Savior and His disciples had to have spoken the name HWHY and that the Tetragramaton “must have”,
“should have”, “could have”, “probably did”, and “absolutely had to have” been written in the originals
of the New Testament books? What will it take to believe that the Creator of the universe is sovereign
and can do what ever He wants. Including the possibility that maybe it was by inspiration of the Holy
Spirit that the Disciples and Apostles wrote down words like Kurios, and Theos in their gospels and
epistles, even though that doesn't fit with our personal dogma. So how much evidence do you need?
What if an autographed copy of the gospels was uncovered? What if a copy old enough to be a first or
second generation of the original is found? Is a third or fourth generation copy not good enough?
What if there was an eye witness account from history of some one seeing an autograph? And yet they
said nothing about the tetragramaton's appearance. At what point would you accept that the
tetragramaton just wasn't written in the New Testament? Where do you personally draw the line? Do
you only believe in the wickedness of man or do you have faith in the faithfulness of the Father?

Let's say I have a little box, and it represents what I believe God can and can't do. If I find that He
has done something that doesn't fit in my little box, I am obliged to get a bigger box. In truth I don't
think we can contain the Father of the universe in a box. With that introduction let us examine some
points of relevance to our discussion.

***************************

Point#1 Fruit
Our Savior said that you shall know a tree by its fruits, so in our examination of the SNM it would be a
good start to examine what fruit it has brought forth.

1 The movement has brought forth good fruit in teaching people to keep Biblical Feasts and
Sabbath Days. This is something that I strongly advocate myself, and am very happy to
keep feasts with my brethren in the SNM.
2 I have, however, seen it cause a lot of division. Even among themselves they can not agree on
how to pronounce the names of the Father and the Son. The following are YHVH YHWH
Yahweh Yahveh Yaveh Yaweh Jehova Jehovah Jahova Jahovah Yahova Yahovah
Yahowah Jahowa Jahowah Yahavah Jahavah Yahowe Yahoweh Jahaveh Jahaweh
Yahaveh Yahaweh Jahuweh Yahuweh Jahuwah Yahuwah Yahuah Yah Jah Yahu
Yahoo Yaohu Jahu Yahvah Jahvah Jahve Jahveh Yahve Yahwe Yauhu Yawhu
Iahu Iahou Iahoo Iahueh
Jeshua, Yeshua, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Jeshu,
Yeshu, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua,
YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua,
Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Yawhushua,Yahawshua, Jahshua, Jahshuah, Jahshuwah,
Jahoshua, Jahoshuah, Jashua, Jashuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Yashua, Yashuah,
Yahshua, Yahshuah, Yahushua, Yahushuah, Yahuahshua, Yahuahshuah, Yahoshua,
Yahoshuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah, Yauhushua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua,
Iahushuah, YAHO-hoshu-WAH
1 Others refuse to even talk to and fellowship with people that use the words Jesus, God and
Lord.
2 Because SN teachers put such an emphasis on the use of the name, many believe that there is
only Salvation for those who use the name. Is there salvation to be found in a group that
doesn't use the true Name of the Messiah? The obvious answer is NO.
What must we do to be saved? The answer is obey what the Bible teaches! Believe on the
Name of Yahshua the Messiah, and be baptized in that Name.13 Meyer, "What Must We
Do To Be Saved? Part 6," Sacred Name Broadcaster (March 1990), pp. 9-10.
3 Linguistic Superstition also known as cult and witchcraft.
Spell -noun
1. a word, phrase, or form of words supposed to have magic power; charm; incantation: The wizard
cast a spell.
1
–charm noun

5. something worn or carried on one's person for its supposed magical effect;
amulet.
6. any action supposed to have magical power.
7. the chanting or recitation of a magic verse or formula.
8. a verse or formula credited with magical
power.

in·can·ta·tion noun
1. the chanting or uttering of words purporting to have magical
power.
2. the formula employed; a spell or charm.
3. magical ceremonies.
4. magic; sorcery.

1 It has fostered a disregard and uncertainty about the New Testament. Here are some quotes
from different SN Leaders regarding their beliefs about the New Testament.“Therefore,
until such time as the original [New Testament] documents are unearthed
we must base all doctrine on the Old Testament.” “…the New Testament is
fraught with contradictions, additions and subtractions…”[xvi] The complete
statement in a personal letter from sacred name missionary to India, Tony Suckla: “If you
 are basing the foundation of your faith on the Greek New Testament, I
will have to say that is a very flimsy foundation.”
2 Because of a questioning of New Testament works, an interesting concomitant
of their desire to keep the law, is that because at first glance many of Paul's epistles can appear
to fly in the face of the importance of the law, many SN leaders either completely reject Paul's
writings or hold them as only a historical reference. One of the early leaders of the movement,
A. B. Traina rejected all of Paul's writings.

Since our English version of the Bible and the underlying Greek manuscripts are so “corrupt”, SN
leaders have just made there own Bibles. Because they view the Bible as altered and corrupt, they then
feel that they have the ability to “restore it”. Where Did they get that right? Without any manuscript
evidence they proceed to write in whatever pronunciation of the names that they want. Not knowing
where the Tetragramaton originally might have occurred they put it wherever it soots their purpose.
Some restrain this to only Old Testament quotes within the New Testament. While others put it
anywhere replacing virtually all occurrences of the word God in the New Testament with Yahweh.
And since we don't know where else the IESs changed the text a few have gone so far as to alter verses
that don't jive with some of there other personal doctrines. This practice is strictly forbidden
in Scripture. I don't care how you think it was in the “original” to add to our Fathers word is strictly
forbidden.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I
command you.

Rev:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If
any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in
this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which
are written in this book.
The fact is that they view scripture as no longer sacred. This gives them license to change it
however they want. Well sorry but two wrongs don't make a right. Especially since it is not proven that
there was a first wrong!
1 Now let's put ourselves in the shoes of a SNM believer. You believe that the New Testament is
a “flimsy foundation”; you've rejected the writings of Paul, as you continue down this path, can
you see how you would start to question if there is any truth in the New Testament? Perhaps at
this point in time, the deceiver puts books in your hand about how Christianity is all just a big
Catholic conspiracy. Or a “Passover Plot”. Or in your studies defending SN theology, you read
further into some of their sources. You might see the rest of Shem Tov's writings, part of
which is the Toledeth Yeshu. Or you may run across Joseph Hoffmann's books. You read such
trash and the next thing you know you've rejected the New Testament and Christianity for
Judaism. Friends, you may think that I am taking this to an extreme, but I have personally
witnessed Christian families accept Sacred Name Doctrine, only to follow it to its logical
conclusion that the New Testament cannot be trusted because of “it's unreliability”. At this
point, their treacherous path has left them living as Jews. At some point, they have put
themselves back under the law. We are unable to keep the law; that is why Christ came- to
break the curse of the law hanging over our heads. I have friends that have witnessed the same
thing.
 You might think it an extreme idea to think that this will happen in your life. But what effect will
this have on your children and grandchildren? Please think about this generationally. The doctrinal
foundation that you lay for your family will have repercussions for centuries. Many of you reading
this have been brought up to believe in the Divine inspiration, preservation and inerrancy of scripture.
But you may now have accepted that Scripture is not true when it comes to the names. With your
foundation you won't let the decay go any farther. But now your children are raised and taught that the
text of the Bible has been at the mercy of the IESs. With that as the cornerstone of their faith what
conclusions will they come to? Whenever a Jehovah's Witness comes and knocks on their door and
tells them that the same IESs that added God and Lord to Scripture added all the verses about the
Deity of Christ, how will they answer? When anyone comes and tells them “ New Testament? You
can't believe that, It's been corrupted by scribes and copyists. It's not truth anymore.” Do you think that
your children won't believe these lies, when this is basically the same thing that you're telling them?
1
Brethren and Fathers especially I adjure you by the living God, please do not lay
this foundation for your family and children!! It will lead to spiritual shipwreck!!
I've seen it and I don't want to see it any more!

1 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of
God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now
already is it in the world.
Since the SN doctrine has led people in this generation and will only lead more in the next to deny that
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Through the test laid out for us by John I have no choice but to say
that it is not of God.

**************************

Point #2 Name means...

As stated earlier the SN position relies very heavily on the literal interpretation of the word “name”
in scripture. In other words that every time that the word name is used it refers only to a persons
phonetic identification mark. How ever I have yet to find a single dictionary or lexicon that defines the
word name in only that way. That is always the first definition given but it is always followed by a
second, defining it as relating to Character authority power etc. Especially when relating to the Father.
Here are just a few examples of such.
she?m
A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position;
compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor,
authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.
onoma
on'-om-ah
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively),
(authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name(-d).
Vines ...1onoma (Noun)
Is used (I) in general of the "name" by which a person or thing is called, e.g., Mr. 3:16,17, "(He)
surnamed," lit., "(He added) the name;" Mr. 14:32, lit., "(of which) the name (was);" Lu. 1:63;
Joh. 18:10; sometimes translated "named," e.g., Lu. 1:5, "named (Zacharias)," lit., "by name;"
in the same verse, "named (Elizabeth)," lit., "the name of her," an elliptical phrase, with "was"
understood; Ac. 8:9, RV, "by name," Ac. 10:1; the "name" is put for the reality in Re. 3:1; in
Php. 2:9, the "Name" represents "the title and dignity" of the Lord, as in Eph. 1:21; Heb. 1:4;
II for all that a "name" implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence,
etc., of everything that the "name" covers: (a) of the "Name" of God as expressing His
attributes, etc., e.g., Mt. 6:9; Lu. 1:49; Joh. 12:28; 17:6,26; Ro. 15:9; 1Ti. 6:1; Heb.
13:15; Re. 13:6; (b) of the "Name" of Christ, e.g., Mt. 10:22; 19:29; Joh. 1:12; 2:23;
3:18; Ac. 26:9; Ro. 1:5; Jas. 2:7; 1Jo. 3:23; 3Jo. 1:7; Re. 2:13; 3:8; also the phrases
rendered "in the name;" these may be analyzed as follows: (1) representing the authority
of Christ, e.g., Mt. 18:5 (with epi, "on the ground of My authority"); so Mt. 24:5 (falsely)
and parallel passages; as substantiated by the Father, Joh. 14:26; 16:23 (last clause),
RV; (2) in the power of (with en, "in"), e.g., Mr. 16:17; Lu. 10:17; Ac. 3:6; 4:10; 16:18;
Jas. 5:14; (3) in acknowledgment or confession of, e.g., Ac. 4:12; 8:16; 9:27,28; (4) in
recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying or resting
on), Mt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Ac. 8:16; 9:2 (eis, "into"); Joh. 14:13; 15:16; Eph. 5:20; Col.
3:17; (5) owing to the fact that one is called by Christ's "Name" or is identified with Him,
e.g. 1Pe. 4:14 (with en, "in"); with heneken, "for the sake of," e.g., Mt. 19:29; with dia,
"on account of," Mt. 10:22; 24:9; Mr. 13:13; Lu. 21:17; Joh. 15:21; 1Jo. 2:12; Re. 2:3
(for 1Pe. 4:16, see Note below);
(III) as standing, by metonymy, for "persons," Ac. 1:15; Re. 3:4; 11:13 (RV,
"persons"). Note: In Mr. 9:41, the use of the phrase en with the dative case of
onoma (as in the best mss.) suggests the idea of "by reason of" or "on the ground
of" (i.e., "because ye are My disciples"); 1Pe. 4:16, RV, "in this Name" (AV, "on
this behalf"), may be taken in the same way.
name ne?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[neym]Show IPA
Pronunciation noun, verb, named, nam·ing, adjective
–noun
1. a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object
of thought is designated, called, or known.
2. mere designation, as distinguished from fact: He was a king in name
only.
3. an appellation, title, or epithet, applied descriptively, in honor, abuse,
etc.
4. a reputation of a particular kind given by common opinion: to protect one's good
name.
5. a distinguished, famous, or great reputation; fame: to make a name for
oneself.
6. a widely known or famous person; celebrity: She's a name in show
business.
7. an unpleasant or derogatory appellation or expression: Don't call your brother names! Sticks and
stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
8. a personal or family name as exercising influence or bringing distinction: With that name they can
get a loan at any bank in town.
9. a body of persons grouped under one name, as a family or clan.
10. the verbal or other symbolic representation of a thing, event, property, relation, or
concept.
11. (initial capital letter a symbol or vehicle of divinity: to take the Name in vain; the power of the
 Name.
As stated before all of these definitions give a broader meaning to the word name than just a
phonetic identification mark. How ever none of theses sources are inspired it is always best to let the
Bible define it's self. So let us embark on a brief word study.
The underlying Hebrew word translated name is shem which is synoptic with the Greek word
onoma. In the KJV Shem in translated
renown 7 times
name 837 times
fame 4 times
report 1 time and
famous 2 times
So yes it is almost always translated name. Yet in 14 cases the context necessitated that it be
rendered differently. To be fair to our scriptural definition we must keep this in mind. Here are some
of the verses were it is translated differently.
λ 1 Chronicles 22:5
And David said, Solomon my son is young and tender, and the house that is to be builded
for the LORD must be exceeding magnificent, of fame (shem) and of glory throughout all
countries: I will therefore now make preparation for it. So David prepared abundantly
before his death.

λ Zephaniah 3:19 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save
her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame
(shem) in every land where they have been put to shame.

λ Numbers 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel,
two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown
(shem):

λ Ezekiel 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because
of thy renown (shem), and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it
was.

λ 1 Chronicles 5:24 And these were the heads of the house of their fathers, even Epher, and
Ishi, and Eliel, and Azriel, and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah, and Jahdiel, mighty men of valour,
famous (shem) men, and heads of the house of their fathers.

These verses speak for themselves, it's clear to me that the word name doesn't always refer to a
certain phonetic identification mark. But as stated in the above definitions has a much broader use. Let
us know look at some of the verses were it is translated name.

λ Proverbs 22:1 A GOOD name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather
than silver and gold.

λ Ecclesiastes 7:1 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the
day of one's birth.

The good name talked about in these passages doesn't refer to one's birth name. Meaning that it is
better to be called Issac (laughter) than Jabez (sorrow) or John (who was beloved of Christ) than
Judas (who betrayed Christ) for example. But that a name of good report and trustworthy reputation is
what you want in life.

λ Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is
Jealous, is a jealous God:

λ Proverbs 21:24 Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud
wrath

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace.

The above passages if understood by the narrow SN interpretation of name wouldn't make much
sense. But when it is understood that the word name also pertains to a persons character attributes these
verses have meaning. If not then apparently we need to start calling God by his name Jealous, right?

λ Joshua 7:9For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it,
and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth: and what wilt
thou do unto thy great name?
λ
Name occurs twice in this verse. The Israelites had just lost a battle at Ai. Joshua was very down
cast over the lose. The first use is much broader than just that Israelites wouldn't be called by that name
any more. But that without The Fathers help all the Canaanites would surround them and kill all the
Israelites. Feeling abandoned by God he cries out “ what will thou do unto they great name.” This
again does not refer only to the Fathers phonetic name. For if Israel was lost it wouldn't hurt or harm
four Hebrew letters and the pronunciation thereof. But the great renown and fame that God is praised
for in his deliverance of the our Fathers from Egypt that he had gotten among the Heathen, would be
lost. If the Canaanites won victory over Israel then it would appear that the gods of the Canaanites had
permanence over the God of Israel.

Psalms 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:
8Fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word:
9Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars:
10Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl:
11Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth:
12Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children:
13Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above
the earth and heaven.
Dragons, deeps, fire, hail, snow, vapors, winds, mountains, hills etc do not have voices and so how
can they praise the name Yahweh? With out even being able to say the name Yahweh, as is said to be
so important, how can they hallow it? Yet they are set forth as praising the name of the LORD in the
same way as us. This is not possible unless you understand that name also refers to the Fathers
beautiful nature and awesome power in creation and faithfulness in upholding all things. Indeed for
“his name alone is excellent”. Again is his literal name Excellent or is his power, authority and
character excellent?
Isaiah55:13Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall
come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that
shall not be cut off.

In this beautiful and elegant passage of Scripture it seems to say that his faithfulness ,blessings and
provision will be his name. However in the context the “it” in this verse could refer to his Word spoken
of in verse 11. In which case his word ( which shall not return unto him void) would be his name. This
would flow very well with the Logos theology taught in John 1.

We could keep going in our study but this should suffice to show that word name can not always be
understood as pertaining to a phonetic identification mark. So whenever you read the word name in
scripture you must consider these definitions. For a study of the Greek word onoma see the references
mentioned above in Vines expository dictionary.
Point #3 Hebrew tongue of men or angels?
The following are some excerpts from articles pertaining to Hebrew found on Wikepedia.
Hebrew (òÄáÀøÄéú?, ‘Ivrit) is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family spoken by
more than seven million people in Israel and Jewish communities around the world.
The core of the Tanach (the Hebrew Bible úð"ê) is written in Classical Hebrew, and much of its present
form is specifically the dialect of Biblical Hebrew that scholars believe flourished around the 6th
century BCE, near the Babylonian exile. For this reason, Hebrew has been referred to by Jews as L?
shôn Ha-Qôdesh (ìùåï ä÷åãù?), "The Holy Tongue", since ancient times.
Most linguists agree that after the 6th century BCE when the Neo-Babylonian Empire destroyed
Jerusalem and exiled its population to Babylon and the Persian Empire allowed them to return, the
Biblical Hebrew dialect prevalent in the Bible came to be replaced in daily use by new dialects of
Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic.

[edit] History
As a language, Hebrew refers to one of several dialects of the Canaanite language. Hebrew (Israel) and
Moabite (Jordan) can be called Southern Canaanite dialects while Phoenician (Lebanon) can be called
a Northern Canaanite dialect. Canaanite is closely related to Aramaic and to a lesser extent South-
Central Arabic. Whereas other Canaanite dialects have become extinct, Hebrew survived. Hebrew
flourished as a spoken language in Israel from the 10th century BCE until just before the Byzantine
Period in the 3rd or 4th century CE. (See below, Aramaic displacing Hebrew as a spoken language.)
Afterward Hebrew continued as a literary language until the Modern Era when it was revived as a
spoken language in the 19th century.[1]

Origins of Hebrew

Hebrew is a Semitic language, and as such a member of the larger Afro-Asiatic phylum.
Within Semitic, the Northwest Semitic languages formed around the 3rd millennium BCE, grouped
with the Arabic languages as Central Semitic. The Canaanite languages are a group within Northwest
Semitic, emerging in the 2nd millennium BCE in the Levant, gradually separating from Aramaic and
Ugaritic.
Within the Canaanite group, Hebrew belongs to the sub-group also containing Edomite, Ammonite and
Moabite: see Hebrew languages. Another Canaanite sub-group contains Phoenician and its descendant
Punic.

[edit] Hebrew as a distinct Canaanite dialect

The first written evidence of distinctive Hebrew, the Gezer calendar, dates back to the 10th century
BCE at the beginning of the Monarchic Period, the traditional time of the reign of David and Solomon.
Classified as Archaic Biblical Hebrew, the calendar presents a list of seasons and related agricultural
activities. The Gezer calendar (named after the city in whose proximity it was found) is written in an
old Semitic script, akin to the Phoenician one that through the Greeks and Etruscans later became the
Roman script. The Gezer calendar is written without any vowels, and it does not use consonants to
imply vowels even in the places where later Hebrew spelling requires it.

The Shebna lintel, from the tomb of a royal steward found in Siloam, dates to the 7th century BCE.
Numerous older tablets have been found in the region with similar scripts written in other Semitic
languages, for example Protosinaitic. It is believed that the original shapes of the script go back to the
hieroglyphs of the Egyptian writing, though the phonetic values are instead inspired by the acrophonic
principle. The common ancestor of Hebrew and Phoenician is called Canaanite, and was the first to use
a Semitic alphabet distinct from Egyptian. One ancient document is the famous Moabite Stone written
in the Moabite dialect; the Siloam Inscription, found near Jerusalem, is an early example of Hebrew.
Less ancient samples of Archaic Hebrew include the ostraka found near Lachish which describe events
preceding the final capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity of 586 BCE.

[edit] Classical Hebrew

In its widest sense, Classical Hebrew means the spoken language of ancient Israel flourishing between
the 10th century BCE and the turn of the 4th century CE.[2] It comprises several evolving and
overlapping dialects. The phases of Classical Hebrew are often named after important literary works
associated with them.
• Archaic Biblical Hebrew from the 10th to the 6th century BCE, corresponding to the
Monarchic Period until the Babylonian Exile and represented by certain texts in the Hebrew
Bible (Tanakh), notably the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges
5). Also called Old Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew. Historically, it used a form of the Canaanite
script.
 • Biblical Hebrew around the 6th century BCE, corresponding to the Babylonian Exile and
represented by the bulk of the Hebrew Bible that attains much of its present form around this
time, give-or-take. Also called Classical Biblical Hebrew (or Classical Hebrew in the
narrowest sense). It adopted the Imperial Aramaic script.
• Late Biblical Hebrew from the 6th to the 4th century BCE, that corresponds to the Persian
Period and is represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible, notably the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah.
• Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, corresponding to
the Hellenistic and Roman Periods before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and
represented by the Qumran Scrolls that form most (but not all) of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Commonly abbreviated as DSS Hebrew, also called Qumran Hebrew. The Imperial Aramaic
script of the earlier scrolls in the 3rd century BCE evolved into the Hebrew square script of
the later scrolls in the 1st century CE, still in use today.
• Mishnaic Hebrew from the 1st to the 3rd or 4th century CE, corresponding to the Roman
Period after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the bulk of the
Mishnah and Tosefta within the Talmud and by the Dead Sea Scrolls, notably the Bar Kokhba
Letters and the Copper Scroll. Also called Tannaitic Hebrew or Early Rabbinic Hebrew.

Language of Biblical Hebrews before Canaan

If (as the Book of Genesis implies) the Hebrews came from elsewhere rather than being native to
Canaan, their language was most probably not a Canaanite one (as Biblical Hebrew linguistically is).
Biblical scholars who accept this feature of the account in Genesis have put forward several theories as
to what this language may have been:
• The language was Akkadian, the predominating language of the Chaldees.
• The language was an early form of the Aramaic language, more specifically the same language
spoken by Laban, another descendant of Terah. This theory assumes that Laban inherited the
language ancestrally from Terah, thus assuming that the Hebrews spoke Aramaean
languages.
• It was a Northeast Caucasian language, perhaps closely related to Avar.
• The language was one of the extinct Hurro-Urartian languages, a non-Semitic language family
based in eastern Anatolia. This theory assumes that the Hebrews were originally Hurro-
Urartian-speaking, and different descendants of the culture adopted local languages wherever
they sojourned or settled. It also associates the Hebrews either with the Hurrians, or with
Urartu and the mountains of Ararat, the traditional landing site of Noah's ark.
• The early Hebrews were highly multilingual and no one language clearly predominated. This
would be plausible considering Abraham and Lot as sojourners, learning and speaking the
local language of the places they traveled and in which they traded.
• Biblically, the original single language was changed for confusion at the Tower of Babel by the
Lord's purpose. Also, Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In the Biblical flood, all
land animals and people that were not on the ark were destroyed, making Noah's three sons
those that would repopulate the earth in the many, many years ahead. Shem is considered to be
the father of Semitic languages, as well as Abraham(7th great grandfather, 10 generations), due
to the location of where he went Biblically and potentially also being Melchizadek king of
Salem, due to name changes after the language changes, the age he is recorded to have lived,
and as older culture would have had the oldest be the priest of the family.
 Chapter 4 Hebrew or Greek?

Many SN teachers have put forth the idea that New Testament was written in Hebrew. Although
not completely necessitated by there view that we must use only Hebrew names for God it is a very
important principle for there teaching to stand. Because if the New Testament was written in Greek
then it would likely use Greek names for God. This gives a lot of precious ground away that they much
need to stand on. Hence it is of great advantage to them if the New Testament was written in Hebrew.
Quite a few times I've heard it said like it was unequivocal fact that the New Testament was written in
Hebrew.
There has already been much written against such an idea. So I won't belabor the point to much
here. A book on the subject that I would highly recommend for anyone to read is New Testament
Hebrew or Greek by Gary Mink. It is a very well put together study in this area. To my knowledge
there are only two articles coming from the SN side to support the Hebrew New Testament. A. B.
Traina's article “Not Greek” and Exploding the Inspired Greek New Testament Myth,
Jacob O Meyer.
Mr. Mink's book does quite a good job on the subject I just wanted to put forth a few other ideas on
the subject. To overview the facts there is not one fragment or shred of a New Testament manuscript
written in Hebrew. Also there is no historical account of the New Testament being written in
Hebrew . Although some scholars have tried to claim a Hebrew origin for some books, it was not until
the SNM's theology virtually necessitated a Hebrew New Testament that the thought was put forth of a
completely Hebrew New Testament. SN teachers mostly say that the Disciples couldn't speak or write
in Greek therefor they say that they must have written in Hebrew.
This quote from the Mishna is largely used to say that Jews didn't speak Greek. The thing that we
must remember is that the mishna was written by the Rabbis who thought that they were better than
every one else. I'll bet that we could find a few proud white American Texas ranchers who would make
a statement that they'd rather eat dirt than learn Spanish. However there are many white Texans that
speak Spanish.
Judea at the time of Christ was under Roman rule. For the past three hundred years Judea had been
ruled by various Greek speaking rulers. The conquerers don't learn the conquered language. Evidence
shows that most businesses of Judea was done in Greek. Since the Disciples were common men with
products such as fish to sell, if they wanted to sell there goods they would have had to learn Greek.
The Apocrypha was written between the time of Ezra and our Savior. Here is what the one author
has to say about their original language.
The Books called the Apocrypha consist of 14 books originally attached to the Greek Old
Testament that were not in the Hebrew-written Bible. That is because they were "first-
written" in the Greek language. They were considered scripture and used as such by the
Jews of the Dispersion (Jews living in foreign countries) at the time of Christ.
http://goodnewschristianministry.org/apocrypha.htm
So in the Apocrypha we find very strong evidence that the New Testament was written in Greek.
And that Judeans had a working knowledge of Greek. Else why would they write these books in
Greek? Because over 300 years before the writing of the New Testament we find that Judeans were
already writing done the history of there Heros and the wisdom of there Sages in Greek. Although the
debate is very much open there are many who view some if not all books of the Apocrypha as being
Divine Scripture. Why would the disciples regress, to writing their books of new life and hope in a
dead and dying language?
In it's oldest canonized form the Old Testament contained 22 books corresponding to the 22 letters
of the Hebrew alphabet. Signifying that Our Fathers revelation to mankind in the Hebrew language had
been completed and he was about to do something new.
Many are very apt to point out and trust the quote from Papias when he said that Matthew first
published a gospel in his native tongue. But when Papias and other Church Fathers say that all the
other books where written in Greek SN Teachers call then liars or think them misinformed. I find it
ironic that SN teachers think they have a better handle on how the New Testament was written almost
two thousand years after the fact than the men who lived with in a hundred years of it, some of which
personally new some of the Disciples.
Bible codes Ivan Paining.

I would now like to engage in a direct rebuttal of A. B. Traina's article “Not Greek”. We'll call this
Contra Trainam

In order to bolster the theory that the New Testament was written in Greek, the
theologians have put forward the idea that at the time of our Savior the
Palestinian Jews spoke the Greek language, and that the Savior Himself spake
the Greek in order to make Himself understood.

The so called theory of a Greek NT is not some new Idea of modern Theologians. The
fact has existed since the beginning of Christianity.

This lame alibi falls to the ground when confronted with the actual evidence
found within the New Testament, and by contemporary writers of the New
Testament times. Here I shall offer repeated statements of Josephus Flavius, the
Hebrew historian who lived in that so-called Hellenic Age, and prove that the
Hellenic (Greek) culture did not contaminate the Palestinian language.

In "The Antiquities of the Jews," Book 20, Chapter XI, Section 2, we read the
following: "And I am so bold as to say, now I have completely perfected the
work I proposed to myself to do that no other person, whether he were a Jew, or
a foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to do it could so accurately
deliver these accounts to the Greeks, as is done in these books. For those of my
own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging
to the Jews. I also have taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the
Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so
long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce the
Greek with sufficient exactness, for our own nation DOES NOT ENCOURAGE
THOSE THAT LEARN THE LANGUAGES OF MANY NATIONS, and so
adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their period; because they look
upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of freemen,
but to as many of the servants as please them to learn them. But they give him
the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with OUR LAWS, and
is able to interpret their meanings; on which account as there have been many
who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there
have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein who
were immediately rewarded for their pains," (emphasis added).

In the "Wars of the Jews," Josephus in his preface, Section I, says, "I have
proposed to myself for the sake of such as live under the Roman Government, to
translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formally composed in the
LANGUAGE OF OUR COUNTRY..." (the common Hebrew, otherwise known
as Aramaic).

As already demonstrated by the Apocrypha, it shows that Jew-deans did have a

working understanding of Greek. Also another Jewish historian named Philo of
Alexandria wrote from 35 to 45 bc and he wrote entirely in Greek.

Herein follows the testimony of investigative scholars, who have not gone
along with the myth of the Greek origin of the New Testament. Dr. H.J.
Schonfield, in translating an old Hebrew Text of Matthew's Gospel, in his 1927
Edition, says, "My opinion is that the canonical Gospel of [Matthew] is an
abridged edition of a larger work, of which fragments still survive, and which
contained all and more of the acts and sayings of [Messiah] than is now found
in the four accepted Gospels put together. I believe this Protevangel WAS
WRITTEN IN HEBREW, NOT ARAMAIC, [emphasis ours] and was intended
for Judean Christians [believers] who produced it, to become the last book of the
Old Testament canon, such a collection as the New Testament not having at that
time been thought of"--preface, page 6.

Stop!!! Hold the phone!!! Does the name H.J. Schonfield ring a bell? He is the
author of a book called the “Passover Plot” in which he teaches that the life and death of
Christ was a conspiracy by our Savior and Joseph of Arimathia to deceive people into
thinking that the Messiah had come. So if you're a Christian, you can pretty much take
anything that he said, and use it in the smallest room of your house, behind you. He
obviously thinks that the New Testament is not our Fathers words to mankind, so of
course, he wants to paint it in a picture very far from it's original form. And to say that
Matthew thought that his would be the only book Written about Christ is insane. He very
well knew that the Gospel was now to spread to all the nations of the Elect.

The Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galileans as of the people of the
Gaulonites, and natives of Syria, according to Josephus (Bell, Jude 4:1,5) "were
able to understand it" (idem, page 10).

"From all the considerations must be drawn the conclusions that [Yahshua]
grew up speaking the Aramaic tongue, and that He would be obliged to speak
Aramaic to His disciples and to the people in order to be understood."
 "That this [the writings of the Gospels] was done in the Greek by three out of
four Evangelists has long been an accepted tradition; though it is NOW ON
PHILOLOGICAL EVIDENCE DISPUTED," (the emphasis is our). "Light on
the Four Gospels from the Sinai Palimpsest," Prelim. P.4 by Mrs. Agnes Smith
Lewis, Hon. D.D. (Heidelberg) Ph.D. (Halle) L.L.D. (Sr. Andrews) Litt. D.
(Dublin) F.N.A.B.A., Published in London by Williams and Norgate.

Prof. D.S. Gregory, quoted in Smith's Bible Dictionary, in the Article "Gospel
of Matthew," says, "The Jewish Historian Josephus furnishes an illustration of
the fate of the Hebrew original of Matthew, Josephus informs us that he wrote
his great work, 'The History of the Jewish Wars,' originally in Hebrew, his
native tongue, for the benefit of his own nation, and he afterwards translated it
into Greek. No notices of the Hebrew originals now survive."

The following is a quotation from Renan, the famous French scholar and
archaeologist, who spent many years in the East in research work for the
Imperial Government of France: "It is not probable that [Yahshua] knew Greek.
This language was very little spread in Judea beyond the classes who
participated in the Government, and the towns inhabited by the pagans, like
Caesarea.... Neither directly nor indirectly, then did any element of Greek
culture reach [Yahshua]. He knew nothing beyond Judaism; His mind preserved
that free innocence an extended and varied culture always weakens. In the very
bosom of Judaism He remained a stranger to many efforts often parallel to His
own," "," by Ernest Renan, as quoted in "Gospel Light," by Lamsa, Page 25,
Introduction, "The life of [Yahshua]."

In the same introduction to "Gospel Light," page 24, Dr. Lamsa says, "Greek
culture, philosophy and religion had no influence on [Yahshua] and His
disciples or the early [disciples]. The Jews resisted every influence not Semitic.
Greek customs and manners were forbidden. During the reign of Trajan and
Hadrian, the Jews were not permitted to learn Greek or use Greek ceremonies.
The first part of the Talmud, 'The Mishna,' emphatically declared IT WAS
WORSE FOR A JEW TO LEARN GREEK THAN TO EAT SWINE'S FLESH.
These laws were strictly observed, with few exceptions, by the Palestinian Jews
who jealously preserved their religion, customs and language from
contamination."

Dr. F.C. Burkit of Cambridge says, "But our [Yahshua] and His first disciples
spoke Aramaic; there is nothing to suggest that they were acquainted with the
current Greek version [the Septuagint]. In the Synagogue they would hear the
Scriptures read in the original Hebrew, followed by a more or less stereotyped
rendering into the Aramaic of Palestine, the language of the country, itself a
cousin of the Hebrew. A faithfully reported saying therefore of [Yahshua] or
Peter ought to agree with the Hebrew against the Greek, or at least ought to
acquire its point and appropriateness from a peculiar rendering in the Greek,"
quotation by Dr. Lamsa in "The Gospel Light," Introduction, page 30.

So far I have quoted from a few of the modern scholars who were not satisfied
to accept blindly the popular theory of the theologians, and investigated for
themselves, not for their personal curiosity, but for the sake of truth, and for the
benefit of the truth seekers. That the New Testament was written in Hebrew and
Aramaic is attested by authentic historical evidence, plus internal evidence found
in the New Testament itself. In this study I propose to prove without fear of
successful contradiction, that the claims of Christian theologians, to the effect of
Greek originals of the New Testament are absolutely baseless.

I will now continue the array of evidence by quoting ancient authorities, and
begin by listing a number of the early church leaders and writers who either
possessed, or had access to, the Hebrew and Aramaic Gospels: Papias,
Hegesippus, Justin Martyr Symmachus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Origin, Pamphilus, Epiphanius and Jerome.

Now I shall proceed to quote from their works, giving documentary evidence
that the New Testament was written in the language in which it was inspired, the
language which the Apostles spoke and that language was Hebrew and Aramaic.

"Matthew, who also is Levi, and who from a publican became an apostle, first
of all the Evangelists composed a Gospel in the Hebrew language and
characters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed; who
translated it into the 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. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes, who use
this volume in the Syrian City of Berea, to copy it, in which, it is to be remarked,
that, whenever the Evangelist makes use of the testimonies of the old Scriptures,
he does not follow the authority of the Seventy Translators [the Septuagint] but
that of the Hebrew," Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccl.

From a later testimony of Jerome, it is evident that he too, undertook to

translate it; for in, Hieronymus: (Jerome) Commentary to Matthew, in Book 2,
Chapter 12 and 13, he states, "The Evangel which the Nazarenes and Ebonites
use, which I translated into Greek, and which is called by most persons, the
Genuine Gospel of Matthew." In Hieronymus DeVirus, Book 3, Chapter 36,
again Jerome says, "Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
Apostles, had there preached the advent of our Savior...according to the Gospel
of Matthew which was written in Hebrew letters and which, on returning to
Alexandria he brought with him."

From the above, it must be evident not only that the Gospel of Matthew was
originally written in Hebrew, but that it must have been copied in Hebrew, for
the evidence here is plain that there must have been more than one copy of the
Hebrew Matthew. Also please note, the very fact that Jerome states that Matthew
did NOT follow the translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint] is evidence that
he was not versed with the Greek language, nor was the Septuagint in anywise
used by the Savior or His disciples, for they knew that the Septuagint had been
corrupted, and that the Names of the Elohim of Israel had been substituted in it
by the names of Zeus, Theos and Kurios, the appellations of the Greek deity.

In fact it has lately been discovered that the original translators of the Old
Testament into the Greek by the Seventy Jewish scholars at the request of
Ptolomy-Philadelphius did not translate, nor transliterate the Name of Yahweh,
but in every place where the Sacred Name was written, they blocked off a space,
and then in gold, they inscribed the Tetragrammaton (the four lettered word
YHWH), which in Hebrew is pronounced "Yahweh." The Greek copyists not
being able to make out the Name which was written in Hebrew letters, they read
it as "PiPi," which made no sense to them, so they inserted the names of their
chief deities, mainly Theos and Kurios (which are the evolvements of Zeus and
Horus), and used these names indiscriminately.

Now let us return and continue with further testimony of the early church
fathers, who because of their having had contact with, and in many cases actual
possession of, the original apostolic documents (Gospels and Epistles) were in a
better position to know the truth than the modern Christian theologians who
upheld the theory of the Greek origin of the New Testament Scriptures.

Eusebius, in his "Ecclesiastical History," Book 4, Chapter 22, says of

Hegesipus, "In his history he states some particulars of the Gospel of the
Hebrews, and from the Syriac, and particularly from the Hebrew language,
showing that he himself was a convert from the Hebrews. Other matters he also
records as taken from the unwritten traditions of the Jews."

Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History," Book 3, Chapter 4, says, "That Paul

preached to the nations and established churches from Jerusalem around as far
as Illiricum, is evident from both his own expressions and from the testimony of
Luke in the book of Acts, and in what provinces Peter also proclaimed the
doctrine of the Messiah, the doctrines of the New Covenant appear from his own
writings, and may be seen from that epistle we have mentioned as admitted in the
canon, and that he addressed to the Hebrews in the dispersion, throughout
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia."

Of the preceding Eusebius says, "We may mention as an instance what

Ignatius has said in the epistles we have cited, and Clement in what is
universally received by all, which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to
that of Corinth, in which after giving many sentiments taken from the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and also literally quoting the words, he clearly shows that this
work was by no means of late production: when it is probable that this was also
numbered with other writings of the Apostles; for Paul addressed in the
language of his country [Hebrew]. Some say that the Evangelist Luke, others say
that Clement, translated the epistle; which also appears like the truth, as the
epistles of Clement and that to the Hebrews preserve the same style and
phraseology, and because the sentiments in both of these works are not very
different."

Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 3, Chapter 38, reads: "Papias, a

disciple of John says, 'And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the
interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded, he wrote with great accuracy, but
not however in the order in which it was spoken by our Savior, but as before
said, he was in the company of Peter, who gave him instruction such as was
necessary, but not to give a history of our Savior's discourses wherefore Mark
has not erred in anything by writing some things as he recorded them; for he
was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to
state anything falsely in these accounts."

Such is Papias' account respecting Mark's Gospel. As concerning Matthew, we

read in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 3, Chapter 39, that he said,
"Matthew composed his History [Gospel] in the Hebrew dialect, and every one
translated it as he was able."

Of Irenaeus, in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, Chapter 8, we

read, "Since we have promised in the outset of our work to give extracts
occasionally when we refer to the declarations of the ancient presbyters and
historians of the church, in which they have transmitted the traditions that have
descended to us respecting the Sacred Scriptures, among whom Irenaeus was
one, let us now give his words: Matthew produced his Gospel, written among the
Hebrews, in their dialect, whilst Peter and Paul proclaimed the Gospel and
founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple
and interpreter also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by
him."

Of Pantaneus, Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 6, Chapter 10, says,

"Of these Pantaneus is said to have been one of them, and to have come as far
as India. And the report is, that he there found his own arrival anticipated by
some who were acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew
one of the Apostles had preached, and had left them the same Gospel in Hebrew
which was preserved until this time."

"Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, Chapter 14, Eusebius, writing of Clement,

says, "But the epistle to the Hebrews, he asserts, was written by Paul to the
Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue; but carefully translated by Luke and published
among the Greeks, whence also, one finds the same character of style and
phraseology in the epistle as in Acts. But it is probable that the title 'Paul the
Apostle' was not prefixt to it; for, as he wrote to the Hebrews who had imbibed
prejudices against him and suspected him, he wisely guards against diverting
them from perusal by giving his name. But now as the Blessed Presbyter used to
say, 'since Yahshua was the Apostle of the Almighty sent to the Hebrews,' Paul
by reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles [the nations], did not
subscribe himself as the Apostle to the Hebrews."

Concerning the Gospels, he (Clement) says that those which contain the
Genealogies were written first: but the Gospel of Mark was occasioned in the
following manner, "When Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at Rome and
declared the Gospel under the influence of the Spirit, as there was a great
number present, they [Jews in Rome] requested Mark, who had followed him
from afar, and remember well what was said, to reduce these things to writing
and after composing the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it of him:
which, when Peter understood it, he directly neither encouraged it nor hindered
it."

Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 16, Chapter 16, speaking of Origin,

says, "So great was the research which Origin applied in the investigation of the
Holy Scriptures, that he also studied the Hebrew language; and those original
works [the Gospels and Epistles], written in Hebrew and in the hands of the
Jews, he procured them as his own. He also investigated the editions of others,
who beside the Seventy had published translations of the Scriptures, and some
different from the well-known translations of Aquilla, Symmachus and
Theodocian, which he traced up and traced to I know not what ancient lurking
places where they had lain concealed from remote times, and brought them to
light."

Here follows Origin's statement, as found in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical

History," Book 6, Chapter 16, "As I have understood from tradition respecting
the four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of
[Elohim], throughout the world. The first according to Matthew, the same that
was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of [Yahshua] the Messiah who
having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in Hebrew. The second is
according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him; the third
according to Luke commanded by Paul, which was written for the converts from
the Gentiles; and, last of all, the Gospel according to John.

Jerome's "Nicean and Post Nicean Fathers," Volume 3, Chapter 1, in his

"Lives of Illustrious Men," says, "Simon Peter the son of John [Jona] from the
village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the Apostle,
and himself chief of the apostles, after having been Bishop of Antioch and
having preached to the dispersion, the believers in circumcision, in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.... He wrote two epistles which are
called Catholic [Universal or General], the second of which, on account of its
difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be his, then too,
the Gospel according to Mark who was his disciple and interpreter is ascribed to
him."

These writings directed to the Jews dispersed in many nations were certainly
written in the Hebrew language.
 Jerome, writing of Mark, in the same book, Chapter 8, says, "Mark the
disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short Gospel at the request of the
brethren at Rome, embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter heard
this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority.
Clement in the sixth book of his Hypcryposes, and Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis,
record.... So taking the Gospel which he himself composed, he [Mark] went to
Egypt; and, first preaching the Messiah at Alexandria, he formed a church so
admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers
of the Messiah to his example. Philo the most learned of the Jews, seeing the
first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner
of life as something credible to his nation, telling how, as Luke says, the
believers had all things in common at Jerusalem, so he recorded what he saw
was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark."

The same Jerome, writing of Paul says, in the same book, Chapter 5, "He
wrote nine epistles to seven churches: to the Romans one, to the Corinthians
two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Philippians one, to the
Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two; and beside these to his disciples: to
Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one. The epistle which is called 'The
Epistle to the Hebrews' is not considered his on account of its difference from
the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either by Tertullian, to be the
work of Barnabas; or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist, or
Clement afterwards the Bishop of Rome, who they say, arranged and adorned
the IDEAS of PAUL in his own language; though, to be sure, since PAUL was
writing to the Hebrews and was in disrepute among them, he may have omitted
his name from the salutation on this account. He being a Hebrew wrote in
Hebrew, that in his own tongue and most fluently, while the things that were
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek, and this is the
reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul."

In the same book, Chapter 9, Jerome writes of John's Gospel, saying, "John
the Apostle whom Yahshua most loved, son of Zebedee and brother of James,
the Apostle whom Herod, after our Savior's passion, beheaded most recently of
all. The Evangelist wrote a Gospel at the request of the Bishop of Asia, against
Corinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of
the Ebionites, who assert that the Messiah did not exist before Mary. On this
account he was compelled to maintain His Divine nativity. But there is said to be
yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark and
Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the
things that they said were true, but they had give the history of only one year,
that is which follows the imprisonment of John, and in which he was put to
death; so passing by this year the events which had been set forth by these, he
related the events of the earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that
it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes of the four
Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be
between John and the others."
 The very fact that John wrote his Gospel on the instance of the growing dogma
of the Ebionites (who were a group of Samaritan believers), whose language was
Aramaic gives added evidence that it was written with an eye single to reach the
Aramaic speaking people. Epiphanius ("Against Heresies," Chapter 30:3) says,
"Others again have asserted that the Gospel of John is kept in a Hebrew
translation in the treasury of the Jews, namely at Tiberias, and that it is hidden
there, as some converts from Judaism have told us accurately." Ibid, (Chapter
30:6) says, "And not only this alone, but also the 'Gospel of Matthew' which was
originally written in Hebrew."

That the Gospel of John was translated into Hebrew can be understood, as the
original was written in Aramaic. See C.F. Burney, in his "Aramaic Origin of the
Fourth Gospel."

In addressing Justin Martyr (in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," Chapter
10), Trypho says, "Moreover I am aware that your precepts in the so-called
Evangelion are so wonderful and so great that I suspect no one can keep them;
for I have carefully read them."

Surely, in the above, one can see that the Jew Trypho refers to the Sermon on
the Mount, which he had read in his own language. The date of this dialogue
was about A.D. 140, and the reference undoubtedly to the Hebrew Matthew, T.B.
Shabb, 116 A., states that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Jochanan called it, (the history
of Matthew) Evangelion. In the same book B.T. Shabb 116 A.B. the author tells
a story that bears out the fact that the Aramaic and Hebrew Gospels were well
known and read by many. Now for the story: "Imma Shalom was the wife of
Rabbi Eliezer and sister of Rabbi Gamaliel. There was in her neighborhood a
'philosoph' who had got a name for not taking a bribe. They sought to make fun
of him. She sent him a lamp of gold. When they came before him, she said to
him, 'I desire that they divide to me the property of the woman's house.' he said
to them, 'divide it.' They said to him, 'For us it is written, where there is a son, a
daughter does not inherit.' He said to them, 'From the days when ye were exiled
from the land, the law of Moses has been taken away, and the law of the
Evangelion has been given; and in it is written. A son and a daughter shall
inherit alike.' The next day Rabbi Gamaliel sent him a Lybian ass He said to
them, 'I have looked further to the end of the book, and in it is written, I am not
come to take away from the law of Moses, and I am not come to add to the law of
Moses, and in it is written, 'Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.'"

The above was written in Aramaic, proving that this Jewish 'philosoph' had
access to the New Testament writings, for the quotation is purely Matthewan,
and the date of this is about A.D. 80.

Origin against Gelsus, Book 2, Chapter 13 says, "This Jew of Celsus continues
after the above, in the following fashion: Although he could state many things
regarding the events in the life of [Yahshua] which are true and not like those
which are recorded by the disciples, he willingly omits them."

Undoubtedly there is more evidence than I have been able to dig up and
anyone interested may find more evidence, because I firmly believe that we are
living in that age of which the Savior said of the Angels (Messengers), He was
going to send them to separate the wheat (the Word) from the chaff (the tares),
the corruptions that Satan has sown. Note, He did not say "Angel," as of one,
but "angels," that is many. So, I expect that many of Yahweh's children will
take up the cause and get busy on the work of searching, finding and restoring
that which was taken away, picking out and casting out that which was added, in
order to fulfill that which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "And
they that shall be of thee [meaning faithful Yahwists] shall build up the old
waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou
shalt be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in,"
Isaiah 58:12.

There is beside the above an abundance of internal evidence in all the Gospels,
with the exception of the Gospel of Luke, which was expressly written to the
Greeks by a Greek, for the Greeks that were coming into the churches of the
Jews. But even this is but an editing into the Greek language, the traditions
taken directly from the Semitic source material available to Luke (see Luke 1:2-
4), then translating and transliterating into the Greek language for the Greeks
who were coming into the church, at the instigation of the Apostle Paul. See
Origin's statement found in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," Book 6, Chapter
16. Even the Acts of the Apostles, which bears the name of Luke, shows evidence
that the early part of the book was originally written in Hebrew, by some Hebrew
author, and when Luke joined with Paul (see the Acts of the Apostles 20:5),
from there on it seems that Luke took the account of the Acts of the Apostles
which had been kept by some Jewish scribe, and translated it into Greek; and
from then on, he kept the record. The first part of the Acts show abundant
evidence of having been translated, while the last part gives evidence of having
been composed in Greek.

This explains what has been puzzling the theologians for so long, when they
could not understand the difference in the grammatical construction between the
first part and the last part of the Book of Acts.

Now, as to the Epistles, James writes to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad,"
for even those living in Greece could still understand the Hebrew as well as
those who lived in India, Persia and in Lybia, or any other part of the globe,
where Israel was to be found. As for proof, I place the entire contents of the
epistle as evidence, for the epistle is loaded with quotations from the law in a
way that only those acquainted with the law could understand it.

Peter's two epistles were also definitely addressed to the "sojourners of the
dispersion." And they were the dispersed Israelites, who had been scattered in
the Assyria and Babylonian dispersions, as well as the Romans. He, too, in his
epistles, makes much use of the Old Testament as proof that the recipients of his
epistles were people who were acquainted with the law as well as the language
he wrote in. Note also his reference to Paul's epistles, when he says, "Even as
our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, hath
written unto you," 2 Peter 3:15.

Now, if Peter wrote to the scattered Israelites (and he said he did), in the
aforesaid quotation, he distinctly states that Paul wrote his epistles to the same
people who were the recipients of Peter's epistles; and, if so, then Paul also must
have written to them in their language, THE HEBREW. Please do not
misunderstand me, IF there has been such a thing as a purely Greek
congregation, I believe that Paul would have written to them in Greek, even if he
had to get Luke to translate it for him. But I do not know from the epistles now
in our present text, which one of them might have been purely Greek. From the
first verse of the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians, I gather that Paul wrote to the
Hebrew believers; for he says, "It is reported commonly that there is fornication
among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the
GENTILES." Here Paul shows the contrast between the Gentiles and Hebrews.
As for the epistle to the Romans, that, too, is full of evidence that the most part
of the congregation of the church at Rome were Hebrews. Anyone with a sharp
eye can go through the epistle and find plenty of evidence of its Hebrewism. For
example, read carefully the second chapter in its entirety, especially verses 14,
17, 24 and 25. The third chapter also in its entirety is full of Hebrewism. The
fourth chapter, particularly the first verse; the ninth chapter, especially verses
24-29; also the tenth chapter; and, as for the eleventh chapter, read the
thirteenth verse to the end, and you will find that it is an exhortation to Gentile
believers who had joined the congregation which was in the main Jewish telling
them that they were not to boast as if they were better than the Jews, for their
(the Gentile) salvation was dependent upon the fact that the Gospel was to the
Jew first, and then to the Gentile.

The book of Revelation is so full of Old Testament symbology that to the

Gentile mind, which has no knowledge of the Old Testament apocalyptic
message, the book that it intended to be a Revelation of the culmination of the
glories to be revealed, he (the Gentile) sees nothing more than the ravings of a
madman impossible to be understood.

The Holy Scriptures were written in Hebrew, by Hebrews, for Hebrews,

particularly for the Israelite branch to whom pertaineth the adoption and the
glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the services of Yahweh
and the promises. The Covenanted Israel is more than the Jew, but it takes in the
so-called Ten Tribes of Israel, which the Christian Church calls Gentiles (the
Caucasian Race) in their blindness.

In closing, let me remind you of the incident in the life of the Savior. When the
Greeks came to Philip and said unto him, "We would see Yahshua," then Philip
tells Andrew, and both of them came and told Yahshua. Reader: meditate on
 what Yahshua said, "The hour IS COME that the Son of Man is to be impaled."
In other words when the Greeks came to look for Yahshua, it did not auger good
but evil. The Savior knew that the Greeks were going to bring corruption into the
Holy Seed which he had sown (the Word of Yahweh); and, in His messages to
the seven churches, in the second and third chapters of Revelation, He warned
against the Nicolaitanes (Greek worshippers of Zeus), the synagogue of Satan.
Through them the Scriptures have been perverted, the doctrines paganized, and
the people confused. No wonder the Holy Spirit is calling loud to them that have
ears to hear, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,
and receive not her plagues." The Roman church and apostate Protestantism is
the direct outgrowth of Greek infiltration into the early Jewish Apostolic
Church.

All of the Christian feasts are nothing else, but glorified ancient pagan
festivals, even to the making into a saint of the Nicolaitanes that the Savior said
He hated.

Awake, O Israel, Awake, O Children of the Most High, it is time for work
while it is yet day; for the night cometh when no man can work.

--A. B. Traina; 1952; Scripture Research Association

HalleluYah!

Home Up One Level

Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah

401 N. Roby Farm Rd.
Rocheport, MO 65279 U.S.A.

Chapter 5 The Celsus quote;

The only shred of historical evidence that has ever been found to even come close to support the
theory that Early Christians used Hebrew pronunciations for God and Christ is a quote from a platonic
philosopher named Celsus from about 178 ad. The following quote is from Eliyah.com. Which may be
the best SN web site out there.

"But of course they think otherwise: they assume that by pronouncing the name of their
teacher they are armored against the powers of the earth and air. And they are quite insistent
on the efficacy of the name as a means of protection: pronounce it improperly, they say, and it
is ineffective. Greek and Latin will not do; it must be said in a barbarian tongue to work. Silly as
they are, one finds them standing next to a a statue of Zeus or Apollo or some other god, and
shouting, "see here: I blaspheme it and strike it, but it is powerless against me for I am a
Christian." Celsus on the True Doctrine, A Discourse Against the Christians, R. Joseph Hoffmann
(page118)

At first this quote can seem very convincing, that early Christians used a Hebrew or Aramaic
pronunciation for our Saviors name. But we should study and trace all things to there source.

Celsus was a very Antichrist platonic philosopher who likely wrote from Alexandria Egypt.
Between 175-180AD he wrote “True Doctrine” and “True discourses” slanders works written to put
Christians in a bad light and try to stop the growth of Christianity. It didn't work. In fact his original
work is completely lost. Swallowed in the sands of time like all other writing that has no value to
future generations. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there is no existing copy, not the tiniest fragment, of
Celsus's writings. The only reason we have any knowledge of his writings, is because about a hundred
years after he wrote, Origen, one of the church fathers, wrote a rebuttal against Celsus's work. All
quotes of Celsus are assembled from what Origen quoted in his “Contra Celsum.” So let's make one
thing clear were it not for Origen, and his powerful and beautiful defense of Christianity and scripture
against the ravings of Celsus, the name Celsus would have been duly and justly erased from the face
of the earth, and from history.

Hoffman is essentially a modern day Celsus. He is an anti-Christian historian. If you doubt this
just look at the books that the man has composed.
Celsus: On the True Doctrine, translator, editor, 1987
The Just War and Jihad: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, editor, 2006
Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?, introduction, 2006
Julian's Against the Galileans, editor and translator, 2004
The Secret Gospels: A Harmony of Apocryphal Jesus Traditions, editor, 1996
Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains, editor and translator, 1994
Jesus Outside the Gospels, author, 1987
Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, author, 1984
Taken as a whole, they represent one more feeble man's pathetic attempts to do what no one has
done, or will ever be able to do; destroy the New Testament records of the life, death, and resurrection
of our Savior. Because of Hoffman's Anti-Christian sentiments he has sought to publish all that he can
against Christianity. You see in his book on Celsus Hoffman wanted to separate Celsus's words from
the clearly vanquishing rebuttals of Origen. He did this so he could resurrect these already defeated
arguments against Christian thought. He attempted to take from Origen's quotes and assemble a text of
Celsus. However due to the nature of Celsus' quotes in Origin's work it is not clear where one sentence
or thought stops, and another picks up. Hoffman seems to have linked them together in whatever
manner best suited his purpose. Added his own words in when he felt like it, mix the text up, and done
a poor job of translating by picking out whatever translation would be most applicable to Christians of
today. Hoffman's work is more of a paraphrase than a translation.

• In an article entitled “Celsus, Origin and Hoffmann” Roger Pearse examines Hoffman's
work. Roger Pearse makes this statement early in his text. “In fact the work is lost(Celsus's),
and can only be reconstructed speculatively from Origen's Contra Celsum. Even so, Hoffman's
versions seem to owe more to imagination than to the text given by Origen.” Mr. Pearse also
wrote: "The comments that Celsus makes, from a range of mutually contradictory positions, are
answered thoroughly by Origen. It is unfortunate that Hoffmann has ensured that these replies
will not be available to the reader at the same time.” Joseph Trigg wrote this in another review
 of Hoffman's work “Other additions and omissions seem to be intended to make Celsus more
convincing.” Here is one of three examples given by Roger Pearse in his artical.

• 2. 'Perfect little pigs'"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander
each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with
deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." -- Celsus
(2nd century C.E.)
• This too is actually a bogus quote. The words above were actually written by R.J.Hoffmann
in the 1980's in his reconstruction of Celsus, p.91. But if you check you find Celsus wrote
something rather different. I went and located the 'quote' in Hoffmann, and then cross-
referenced it back to the real quote in Origen Contra Celsum, book V, chapter 64. Here's
Hoffman.

Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes
perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side. Like so many sirens they chatter away
endlessly and beat their breasts. The world (they say to their shame) is crucified to me and
I to the world. (Hoffmann, p.91)

Here it is (minus Origen) in Chadwick's standard edition:

... some are called 'branding-irons of hearing' ... some are called 'enigmas'... some called
Sirens who are cheats of disgraceful conduct, who seal up the ears of those whom they win
over, and make their heads like those of pigs ... And you will hear all those, he says, who
disagree so violently and by their strife refute themselves to their utter disgrace, saying
'The world is crucified unto me and I to the world'.

Hoffmann has made three sentences of this material, where in the original are two fragments, and two
sentences; and he has split the second sentence into two and combined it with material from the first. In
sentence 1 Hoffmann omits the reference to the Sirens and 'sealing ears' (all a reference to the
Odyssey) and likewise to transforming them from men into pigs (Circe, again in the Odyssey), and
reuses the words. (I think Celsus would be pretty put out to see his classical allusion so cavalierly
destroyed!) Where do the words 'perfect', 'little' come from? Why is 'Sirens' put into the next sentence?
From where is the 'chattering endlessly' and 'beat their breasts'? - and do Sirens do this, in classical
mythology?
The point that Celsus is making depends on the classical allusion. The Christians become less than men
(pigs) when they listen to those who charm to deceive (Sirens, Circe), just as Odysseus' men did. Being
less than men, of course they take no part in human society - and we find in Tertullian's apology that
pagans often accused Christians of being bad citizens because they did not take part in pagan society.
This is all good, second-century stuff.
By contrast in modern English to make someone a pig, or a pig of yourself, has a very definite
meaning, of excess and selfishness. Is this idea present in Celsus? *His* pig is the victim of deception,
not the servant of gluttony.
Unless I am much mistaken, Hoffmann's text does not say what the quotes from Celsus give us. Many
of the words are the same - but not in the same places or same contexts. If this is representative - and I
didn't choose the passage - in what sense is his book a representation of Celsus, rather than of
Hoffmann?
I'm sorry if this seems like a small point. But we can only check whether a translator is doing his job
right by examining in fine detail. If Hoffmann wants to write anti-Christian polemic, perhaps he might
do so in his own person. Written by Roger Pearse
Here is the text of Origen from which Hoffman assembled the quote of interest to us.
CONTRA CELSUS

BOOK VIII Chapter XXXVII. Origen

In the next place, Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone
through Jesus; and mixing up other notions with theirs, he absurdly attributes them all to
Christians. “If,” says he, “they who are addressed are called upon by barbarous names, they
will have power, but no longer will they have any if they are addressed in Greek or Latin.”
Let him, then, state plainly whom we call upon for help by barbarous names. Any one will be
convinced that this is a false charge which Celsus brings against us, when he considers that
Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names which divine Scripture applies to
God; but the Greeks use Greek names, the Romans Latin names, and every one prays and
sings praises to God as he best can, in his mother tongue. For the Lord of all the languages
of the earth hears those who pray to Him in each different tongue, hearing, if I may so say,
but one voice, expressing itself in different dialects. For the Most High is not as one of
those who select one language, Barbarian or Greek, knowing nothing of any other, and
caring nothing for those who speak in other tongues.
[A very express testimony in favour “of speaking in the congregation in such a tongue as the
people understandeth” (Art. XXIV. of Church of England). See Rev. H. Cary’s Testimonies
of the Fathers of the First Four Centuries , etc., p. 287, Oxford, 1835. S.]
Chapter XXXVIII.
He next represents Christians as saying what he never heard from any Christian; or if he
did, it must have been from one of the most ignorant and lawless of the people. “Behold,”
they are made to say, “I go up to a statue of Jupiter or Apollo, or some other god: I revile it,
and beat it, yet it takes no vengeance on me.” He is not aware that among the prohibitions of
the divine law is this, “Thou shalt not revile the gods,”49224922 Ex. xxii. 28 [ θεο?ς ο?
κακολογ?σεις , Sept. S.]. and this is intended to prevent the formation of the habit of reviling
any one whatever; for we have been taught, “Bless, and curse not,”49234923 Rom. xii. 14.
and it is said that “revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”49244924 1 Cor. vi. 10.
And who amongst us is so foolish as to speak in the way Celsus describes, and to fail to see
that such contemptuous language can be of no avail for removing prevailing notions about
the gods? For it is matter of observation that there are men who utterly deny the existence of
a God or of an overruling providence, and who by their impious and destructive teaching
have founded sects among those who are called philosophers, and yet neither they
themselves, nor those who have embraced their opinions, have suffered any of those things
which mankind generally account evils: they are both strong in body and rich in
possessions. And yet if we ask what loss they have sustained, we shall find that they have
suffered the most certain injury. For what greater injury can befall a man than that he
should be unable amidst the order of the world to see Him who has made it? and what sorer
affliction can come to any one than that blindness of mind which prevents him from seeing
the Creator and Father of every soul?

Chapter XXXIX.
After putting such words into our mouth, and maliciously charging Christians with
sentiments which they never held, he then proceeds to give to this supposed expression of
Christian feeling an answer, which is indeed more a mockery than an answer, when he says,
“Do you not see, good sir, that even your own demon is not only reviled, but banished from
every land and sea, and you yourself, who are as it were an image dedicated to him, are
bound and led to punishment, and fastened to the stake, whilst your demon—or, as you call
him, ‘the Son of God’—takes no vengeance on the evil-doer?” This answer would be
admissible if we employed such language as he ascribes to us; although even then 655he
would have no right to call the Son of God a demon. For as we hold that all demons are evil,
He who turns so many men to God is in our view no demon, but God the Word, and the Son
of God. And I know not how Celsus has so far forgotten himself as to call Jesus Christ a
demon, when he nowhere alludes to the existence of any evil demons. And finally, as to the
punishments threatened against the ungodly, these will come upon them after they have
refused all remedies, and have been, as we may say, visited with an incurable malady of
sinfulness.

That should give you a flavor for how the text of CONTRA CELSUS goes. Origen who is a
Christian is defending Christianity, and Celsus is assaulting it. Now let us assemble from the above text
the original quote made by Celsus without the help of Hoffman. Although here is Hoffman's version so
we can compare them side by side.

"But of course they think otherwise: they assume that by pronouncing the name of their teacher
they are armored against the powers of the earth and air. And they are quite insistent on the
efficacy of the name as a means of protection:pronounce it improperly, they say, and it is
ineffective. Greek and Latin will not do; it must be said in a barbarian tongue to work. Silly as
they are, one finds them standing next to a a statue of Zeus or Apollo or some other god, and
shouting, "see here: I blaspheme it and strike it, but it is powerless against me for I am a
Christian." Celsus on the True Doctrine, A Discourse Against the Christians, R. Joseph Hoffmann
(page118)

“If,” “they who are addressed are called upon by barbarous names, they will have
power, but no longer will they have any if they are addressed in Greek or Latin.” And then in
the next chapter.“Behold,” “I go up to a statue of Jupiter or Apollo, or some other god: I
revile it, and beat it, yet it takes no vengeance on me.” We simply do not know if these two
sentences were connected together or not. Hoffman liked them as one but they could have been in
separate paragraphs in Celsus's original.

Quite the difference don't you think? So we see that once again Hoffman has added in much of his
own thought's to the text. All of these phrases in the Hoffman quote are no where in the original but
are Hoffman's words added to further divide and vilify Christianity.

"But of course they think otherwise:

are armored against the powers of the earth and air
And they are quite insistent on the efficacy of the name as a means of protection:
pronounce it improperly, they say, and it is ineffective.
Silly as they are,
for I am a Christian.

Hoffman's version of the Celsus quote after editing out his own words would then appear
something like this.

...they assume that by pronouncing the name of their teacher they are armored against the
powers ... Greek and Latin will not do; it must be said in a barbarian tongue to work. one finds
them standing next to a a statue of Zeus or Apollo or some other god, and shouting, "see here: I
blaspheme it and strike it, but it is powerless against me." Celsus on the True Doctrine, A
Discourse Against the Christians, R. Joseph Hoffmann (page118)

Very important to us is that the phrase “the name of their teacher” owes much to Hoffman's idea
of what he wanted Celsus to say. But Celsus actually said “they who are addressed” Clearly putting
the deities addressed by barbarian names in the plural. This can be vividly witnessed by Origen's reply,
“In the next place, Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone
through Jesus;”... Origen is plainly saying that Christians pray and only use one name, that of our
Savior and contrasts that to the plurality referred to by Celsus. In a personal letter to me from Roger
Pearse he said this, “Hoffman has misled everyone here, presuming (wrongly) what the text
means based on his knowledge of contemporary Christianity, and should not be quoted. We
should always rely on the text of Contra Celsum, and not on a speculative amateur
reconstruction, surely?” Something to keep in mind when reading Hoffman is that his intent in
writing is to hamper and harm Christianity today. A good way for him to do this is to set different
denominations at odds. So think about this since Hoffman views the New Testament as uninspired and
and a straight up lie he would have no respect for it, unlike Christians. So if someone told him that the
New Testament had been tampered with early after being written, it would be very much in his favor to
support the theology behind such an idea. It is my contention that he saw and acted upon such an
opportunity in this passage. I believe that he was familiar with the SNM and their discrediting of the
New Testament. He therefore twisted and tweaked this quote of Celsus to make it support SN beliefs
and therefor the end product of an altered New Testament. Whether or note you agree with that
hypotheses or not, the phrase“the name of their teacher” Simply is not in the original text. And is
completely unsupported from the text of Contra Celsum! Mr. Pearse also made this statement in his
letter to me “Hoffman's version of this is a paraphrase written from his own understanding,
as we quickly see, with words added as he felt necessary.”

Another change done by Hoffman is that he has changed the phrase used by Celsus “barbarous
names” to “barbarian tongue” that we are talking about certain barbarian names is witnessed again
by Origen when he said “Let him, then, state plainly whom we call upon for help by barbarous
names.” that the phrase Barbarous or barbarian names is used in this text is going to become very
important to our study. Now think about this, compared to us Origen is a virtual eyewitness of the time
and religious sentiments going around then. Origen, can be seen from his writings to be a very in
depth and fair scholar. If there had been a sect of Christians that had preserved a Hebrew pronunciation
of our Saviors name he would have known about it. And this would be a perfect time for him to write
an excerpt against such a thought that he didn't support. Or his reply to Celsus would mention this sect
and say that that is just a few Christians that feel that way but doesn't represent all of Christianity. But
instead he says “In the next place, Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to
God alone through Jesus; and mixing up other notions with theirs, he absurdly attributes
them all to Christians”. “Any one will be convinced that this is a false charge which Celsus
brings against us,” So Origen being very well versed with the religions of his day plainly states that
Celsus has mixed up some other religious notions with that of Christians. So what might these other
notions be? Well as stated earlier Celsus wrote from Alexandria Egypt. Alexandria happens to be the
center and birth place of a movement called Gnosticism...
Gnosticism (from Greek gnosis, knowledge) is a term created by modern scholars to describe
a diverse, syncretistic religious movement, especially in the first centuries of the common
era. Gnostics believed in gnosis, the knowledge of God enabled by secret teachings. Some
Gnostics considered themselves Christian, identifying Jesus as the divine spirit incarnated to
bring gnosis to humanity. However, Gnostic non-dualism placed it in stark contrast to
Jewish and Christian dualistic teaching (I would have to disagree with this author on this point
because Christianity does not teach dualism, The living and true God that we serve is greater than any
other thing or force in the universe. It is he that spins the Universe!), and Gnostics were labeled
heretics. Other Gnostics were not even nominally Christian, and several Gnostic texts appear
to have no Christian element at all. Still others were certainly devout mystic ascetics who
worshiped Jesus and lived in their own unique ways according to His teachings.
Gnostics taught that humans were divine souls trapped in a material world created by an evil
spirit, the demiurge. In order to free oneself from the evil, material world, one needed
gnosis, or spiritual knowledge. Initiates were instructed in secret teachings to help them
achieve gnosis. God was depicted as a pleroma composed of multiple manifestations.
Because the textual evidence comes from the first few centuries AD, many scholars have
assumed that Gnosticism did not predate this period, but earlier historians of religion saw it
as an outgrowth of ancient mystical traditions in Asia, especially Iran. From WIKI

The following may be regarded as the chief points in the Gnostic

systems:

(1) a claim on the part of the initiated to a special knowledge of the

truth; a tendency to regard knowledge as superior to faith and as the
special possession of the more enlightened, for ordinary Christians did
not possess this secret and higher doctrine;

(2) the essential separation of matter and spirit, matter being intrinsically
evil and the source from which all evil has arisen;

(3) an attempt to solve the problems of creation and the origin of evil by
postulating a demiurge, i.e., a creator or artificer of the world distinct
from the deity, and emanations extending between God and the visible
universe (the demiurge for the Gnostics being the God of the OT, an
inferior being infinitely remote from the Supreme Being who can have
nothing to do with anything material);

(4) a denial of the true humanity of Christ; a docetic Christology which

considered the earthly life of Christ and especially His sufferings on the
cross to be unreal;

(5) the denial of the personality of the Supreme God.

(6) the teaching, on the one hand, of asceticism as the means of

 attaining spiritual communion with God, and, on the other hand, of an
indifference that led directly to licentiousness;

(7) a syncretistic tendency that combined certain more or less

misunderstood Christian doctrines and various elements from oriental,
Jewish, Greek, and other sources;

(8) ascription of the OT to the demiurge or inferior creator of the world.

Some of these ideas are more obvious in one and some of them in
another of the Gnostic systems (pp. 486-487, vol.2, "Gnosticism").

My understanding is that of these “earlier historians of religion” who “saw it as an

outgrowth of ancient mystical traditions in Asia, especially Iran.” That many of these mystics
tried to adopt part and appear to be Christian is very true. However this was a corruption of
Christianity not an outgrowth of it. Although there are many different views of gnosticism because of
it's many sects, a summation of there beliefs would be something like this.
They view that there is one or a first god. But from him or between him and man are many other
gods or emanations of god. These so called gods are called Aeons under gnostic thought. Aeons are
defined as this
Aeon: These are characterized as emanations from the 'first cause,.. in some Gnostic
schema. The word not only refers to the "worlds" of emanation, but to the personalities as
well. Sophia, Logos, Barbelo, Eleleth, and the other high principles are aeons. ''A link or
level of the great chain of being, the sum total which is the 'All' or Pleroma...Can also mean
a world age.'' (See; Gaffney) ''According to other Gnostics, for example Valentinusc. 100 - c.
153) , the first principle is also called Aeon or the unfathomable, the primeval depth, the
absolute abyss, bythos, in which everything is sublimated...'' translated by Scott J.
Thompson from G.W.F. Hegel's ''Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie ii ,''
(Theorie Werkausgabe, Bd. 19), Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp Verlag, 1977, 426-430] ( See
also; Pleroma.) The first ten aeons in the Valentinian schema are, Bythios (Profound) and
Mixis (Mixture), Ageratos (Never old) and Henosis (Union), Autophyes (Essential nature)
and Hedone (Pleasure), Acinetos (Immoveable) and Syncrasis (Commixture,) Monogenes
(Only-begotten) and Macaria (Happiness). http://www.wbenjamin.org/hegel_kabbalah.html

Gnosticism views these Aeons as the creates of heaven and earth. They hold that the world is
flawed because it was created in a flawed manner. That all things of human existence are bad and that
only things of a spiritual nature are good. It is to these Aeons that they pray or give obeisance through
what they call Theurgy.

Theurgy: 'Works of the Gods' ( See; "Zostrianos"). This refers to human affairs and the
effects in the earthly state. ''Theurgy (from Latin: theurgia, Greek: theourgeia) describes the
practice of rituals, sometimes seen as magical in nature,performed with the intention of
invoking the action of God (or other personified supernatural power), especially with the
goal of uniting with the divine, achieving theosis, and perfecting oneself.''
 These theurgic practices and the gnosis or knowledge of the different Aeons were viewed as
esoteric (hidden or secret). And that as such this esoteric knowledge is reserved for only a select group
of enlightened people. This is in contrast to the teachings of Christ that Salvation is open to all men, of
all intellects, no matter how rich or poor, strong or weak, young or old and Jew or Greek. Far from a
complete summary of gnosticism this will suffice for our study. Variations of Gnosticism tried to adopt
our Savior Jesus as just another one of these Aeons. And some teach that he had reveled in private
certain esoteric things to the Disciples. It is against this incipient (beginning) gnosticism that Paul
wrote much of the book of Colossians and
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and
vain babblings, and oppositions of science (gnosis or knowledge ) falsely so called:
21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

And John wrote in 1st John 4. Though some gnostics adopted Christ as one of there Aeons the were
not Christian! The gnostic influence continued to grow in Christianity after the deaths of the Apostles.
Irenaeus a disciple of Polycarp a disciple of John is probably the man who made the hardest stand
against gnosticism, and kept Christianity from becoming ingrained any more with this mystical
religion. His work Against Heresy is still possibly the best written arguments against gnosticism.

So with this understanding it should be clear that Celsus could easily mistake a gnostic heretic who
may aper to believe like a Christian but in truth is far from Christian, as a true Christian. Notice this
statement in the above definition of Theurgy “describes the practice of rituals, sometimes seen as
magical in nature,performed with the intention of invoking the action of God “... Is this not
very similar to the actions described by Celsus in trying to invoke power from above to try to revile
and beat Idols? To help us better understand the mysticism and theurgy of gnosticism let us examine
from there own writings what this consisted of. From a web article reconstructing some fragments of
thought about magic and theurgy.

Before going into the following quotes I must say that it is with great dismay that I do so. The
following are the writings of magicians and those that we can safely call satanists. Yet through
Hoffman and Celsus there words and practices have somehow been mistaken for that of Christians. In
order to prove this we must press on into this filth.

• Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy

These oracles were ascribed to Julian, known as the 'Theurge', who lived in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius (161-80bc). The Suda made him the son of a 'Chaldaean philosopher' of
the same name, the author of a work on demons. He was said to have contributed by his
occult talents to aiding the Roman army on the Danubian front... Apparently it was
Iamblichus who inspired a major renewal of interest in them, and who led Porphyry to take
account of them... Why this sudden passion for Chaldaeanism at the end of the third
century? Iamblichus of Chalcis... was intent on sacralizing his philosophy. In his Mysteries
of Egypt, he praises the virtues of theurgy and, like the stelae of Hermes Trismegistus, the
Chaldaean Oracles served him as 'holy Scriptures', legitimizing his system in the names of
the gods.
 This should establish the dates of the text and the magic rites being discussed (161-80)bc well
before Christ. From the last sentence we can see that an important part of there discussion is the names
of their gods (aeons). Later on in the text we find this.
In other words, the theurgy makes himself known to and recognized by the gods, like the
mysta in his initiation, by means of 'symbols', signs or passwords (synthemata)... Theurgy,
as Iamblichus proceeds to explain to us (ibid, IV, 2), presents a double aspect: it is practiced
by men, but 'with the support of divine signs [synthemata]... The theurgy 'in some way,
through the ineffable symbols, dons the hieratic garb of the gods'...
First among the 'symbols' come the divine names. The synthemata are sacred phrases of
recognition, like those that had to be uttered in order to be consecrated in the initiatory cults
or to identify oneself as a mysta among mystae. After death, the soul needs to be recognized
by the gods.
So we now see that in their way of thinking that it is absolutely essential that they use certain
symbols and divine names to work there magic, to communicate and be recognized by there
deities. It seems to be the thought that their gods can only understand one language in respect to
their names. That the aeon won't respond if it's name is pronounced incorrectly. They have so
many aeons that perhaps the Aeons could get confused if they didn't pronounce there names
right. Praise be to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that we serve the one Living and True
God. Who knows are thoughts, needs and desires before we even think to ask. Continuing on in
the text we see what term they apply to these divine names. Can you guess what it is?

'Never change barbarian names', says an Oracle. In this respect the Logia remained
true to oriental traditions. Iamblichus (The Mysteries of Egypt, VII, 5) justifies at
length the advantage of 'barbarian' names which are in no way conventional, for the
'language of the sacred peoples' is secretly, inexpressibly, in harmony with 'the
superior beings'. Unlike the Greeks, who were fired by a taste for innovation the
barbarians, for their part, being constant in their customs, keep solidly to their old ways
of talking: so they are looked upon kindly by the gods, and offer them speeches which
please them.

These names are effective when they are spoken in a particular sequence which
interweaves them, in the same way as other names uttered in the Egyptian tongue
and addressed to certain demons . . . or others in the Persian dialect addressed to
other powers.

Barbarian names, well are you surprised that these magicians and demon worshipers use such
a phrase? Is it just pure coincidence that this same phraseology appears in Celsus's quote? And
that these same satanists will not use the Greek Language to pronounce the names of there so
called gods? Just as Celsus said of the theoretical Christian that he was quoting. This
phraseology nowhere appears in our Scriptures never once in any book of the Bible. Yet is very
common in the magic papyri, oracles and writings of men like Iamblichus who consider these
Chaldean Oracles as there holy scriptures. Iamblichus(c. A.D. 250-325) is among the most
important of the so-called Neoplatonic philosophers, second only to Plotinus. He was a student of
Plotinus' disciple Porphyry. His influential treatise Theurgia, or On the Mysteries of Egypt deals
with a 'higher magic' which operates through the agency of the gods.
Theurgia or On the Mysteries of Egypt

By Iamblichus
16. The names of the gods in the ancient Skythic and Euphratean languages were
believed to possess some inherent virtue as well as charm. Hence the Oracle gives the
injunction:
"Never change the barbarous names; For among them are terms God-given, That have
ineffable virtue in Sacred Rites."

In a short web book about magic rituals we again find the phraseology.

Hellenic Magic Ritual

Magicus Ritus Graecus

General Framework

Apollonius Sophistes

© 2000

In the Narratio you establish your qualifications in seeking the presence of the Deity, often
by displaying esoteric knowledge. Typically this takes three forms: First is the invocation of
the god by secret names (so called "barbarian names")...
I know Thee and I know Thy secret names:
(secret names)
I've said Thy symbols, signs and secret key,
which Thou, O Master/Mistress, hath divulged to me,
(your magical name), born of (mother's name).

If ever I've fulfilled the vows I've made,

Then hear me now and grant to me Thine aid.

So here again we see this phrase "barbarian names" associated with magic rituals and invoking
deities. Our next book of interest is a book of about a hundred pages entitled...

Александър Фол

ORPHICA MAGICA
I
Университетско издателство “Св. Кл. Охридски”
София, 2004
page 13
In an invocation in Ancient Greek, which can contain simultaneously and
separately a declaration, an oath, a promise, a prayer sometimes doubled with a
curse/spell, the gods’ names are always in acc... This requirement premises the
formula the sacred god’s name (the named divine essence) to be spelled, for that it
executes this for which it had been imperatively summoned. This charm formula is
typical for PGM and for magical texts on other materials except papyri. An
invocation in Ancient Greek is not the same as Ancient Greek invocation. As Graf
had noticed, the Ancient Greek language of the magical papyri from Egypt
does not replicate the Ancient Greek thought. It is primarily a language of the
papyri in a multilingual society, a language which reveals freely Egyptian and
other magica

Although not entirely bearing on this topic I wanted to include the above paragraph to illustrate
that these modern magicians find much of there spells in these magical papyri found near Alexandria
Egypt. These papyri will come into play later in our discussion of the origin of the pronunciation of the
name Yahweh.
Page 20
A FORMULA FOR KATABASIS
The magic force of the speech is noticed by Tambiah...

The logos transforms naming into a being. Taking into consideration that
the naming-being is equal to a magic procedure (s. TД 3, 104-137), the general
meaning of the Orphic mage?a is an accomplished doctrinal-ritual contact with the
god, thought through sacred naming (for the “barbarian names” with magical force
s. TД 3, 322-355).
`O lÒgoj Ð 'OrfaúkÕ
c can be understood fairly well from PGM XIII, which
represents a sacred book from 1077 lines in XXV columns under the title QEOC ‚
QEOI: ‚ B?bloc ?er¦ ?pikaloum?nh Mon¦c ½ 'OgdÒh Moû
c?wc, or “God | Gods: |
Sacred book, called The One and Only of Itself (cf. the translation “Unique” of
Morton Smith in PGMB, 172), or “Eighth (book) of Moses” (s. PGMB 172, n. 2
for MÒnaj, or for the Pythagorean, later – the Platonic Monad, also PGMB 175, n.
12 and 189-190, n. 112 for the choice of the number 8 in “Moses’” texts from the
magical papyri). The recording of PGM XIII is dated in the 4
th
c. AD, but after
Constantine the Great’s time (PGM II. 86 and PGMB 172, n. 2).

Page 33TRUE, IF IT IS BELIEVED

The perfect knowlege awakes itself through a password while remembering.
The theurgy, which Iamblichus values more than theology... The
theurgical ritual is done thanks to the symbols, of the passwords for
communication “between the different classes of the being and of the divine”. The
symbols – the material ones (songs, dances, spells, hieroglyphs) and the superior
poetic ones – play the role of passwords. According to Iamblichus, “the barbarian
names and terms” must not be translated in Greek... I think that the theurgic
priority of the naming with “barbarian names” consists in the linking of tÕ
sÚmbolon...

So do you happen to notice any similarity between what Celsus said and what these wizards are
saying? Below I have assembled from the first and last texts that we have examined a quote very much
in line with what these men are saying, without twisting what they said at all.

"Never change the barbarous names”...”These names are effective when they are
spoken in a particular sequence”...“the barbarian names and terms” must not be
translated in Greek...

And then here is Celsus's statement.

“If,” “they who are addressed are called upon by barbarous names, they will have power, but
no longer will they have any if they are addressed in Greek or Latin.”

Need I say more? In the Celsus quote there is no connection to Christianity. However there is
abundant proof that these sentiments are connected with gnosticism and mystic religions. So to think
that the Celsus quote refers to Christians is bogus. Or that the Cristian quoted by Celsus has any
relation to the doctrine of the Apostles. The true faith that we hold has never been dependent upon
proper pronunciation. Only witches and wizards put their faith in such things. “Say the spell right or
else...” The only power we have as Christians is through faith.

Hebrews 11:1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
2For by it the elders obtained a good report.
33Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped
the mouths of lions.
34Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made
strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting
deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and
imprisonment:
37They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they
wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38(Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in
dens and caves of the earth.
39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made
perfect.
Often times after healing people our Savior said “They faith hath made thee whole”. Faith or sweet
believing and love or charity are the most powerful gifts given to us as Christians. In these there is
power to save, heal overcome and set at nought such demonizations and wizardry that we have just
read about.

Celsus wrote to try to destroy Christianity. He called Jesus a Demon. He said that a roman Soldier
raped Mary, and that Joseph disowned her, that she fled to Egypt where our Savior learned magic from
a pagan priest which he used to work his miracles. He said that “Christians were undoubtedly enemies
of humanity, and they deserved to die by whatever lingering vengeance society could contrive... “And
the list goes on. So why on earth is a “Christian” using something that such a foul enemy of
Christianity wrote to support their theories?

One should read about Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous existentialist philosopher, who's boast was,
“God is dead! We killed him with science.” Nietzsche was a major driving force behind Hitler's
achievements. Who was one of Nietzsche's heroes? Find out in the article, “Celsus, the First
Nietzsche: Resentment and the Case Against Christianity” by Thomas F. Bertonneau. Friend, you will
see that one of the major sources for the godless, deadly, swill that Nietzsche spewed upon the world,
was regurgitated Celsus.

Do you begin to see a pattern here? We have Celsus, then Shem Tov, along with HJ Shonfield,
author of the “Passover Plot”, Frederick Nietzsche, and R J Hoffmann. We can also add in,
Hoffmann's other heroes, Marcion, “Julian the Apostate”, and the fifteen volumes written by the
Roman pagan Porphyry ("Nowhere else does so detailed an attack on Christianity remain to us. It
evidently comes from one who is not merely engaged in the vulgar work of trying to destroy the faith;
for he claims a higher morality, and writes as a philosopher.”-TW Crafer) What do these men have in
common? Why is it that leaders of the SNM have interest in reading such disgusting, unholy,
venomous, filthy trash?

Let me ask a question! What people might be committed to destroy Christianity, and who would
undermine the New Testament, as opposed to the Old Testament, who would have you believe that
Hebrew is a sacred language, without which, you cannot understand the NT, who have always tried to
defile the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, who would ceaselessly attempt to lure Christians into
legalism, away from the blood atonement, and who we were warned against repeatedly by our Saviour
while he was on earth, and again twice in the book of Revelation; chapters 2:9 and 3:9. No wonder
they hate Paul so consistently!!! He exposes them for the frauds, vipers, and murderers they are, with
their secret knowledge, their secret names, and their beguiling of weak believers to be enticed back
under the law to crucify Christ afresh, and trample on his blood.
 If you can't prove your doctrine from the Bible, then it's unbiblical by definition. And I see
absolutely no biblical teaching that we have to use a theoretical original Hebrew name of our Savior.
Indeed, the reason Christianity grew so fast is because it crossed language and cultural bounds on the
very day of it's beginning(Acts 2).

Please understand that though there are some striking similarities in the thought and sentiments of
the mystics talked about earlier and some in the SNM, I am in no way try to say that SN teachers are
associated with such magic arts. I believe that most SN teacher are honest in what they are trying to do.
I write this book in love for my brethren and want only to reunite with them, to stand together on the
solid foundation of the texts of the Old and New Testaments.

In conclusion of this chapter let us sum up what we've found. The only fragment of evidence that
early Christians used a Hebrew pronunciation of our Saviors name has been proven a to be a lie. The
only evidence left on that topic is that there are 5686 manuscripts of the New Testament all written in
Greek and all having our Saviors name written in Greek. We however have seen that there are
mystical religions that rely very heavily upon specific phonetic pronunciations for the names of there
deities. And we have gotten a good idea of what there sentiments are. How they reason to only have
power if the names of there gods are called upon by barbarian names. We've gotten a taste for what is
in the magical papyri. And although we've waded through much vile Antichrist literature, we found in
Origen an expression of real Christian thought. Setting forth the the living God that we serve as the
supreme being and creator of all. Let us conclude, by once more reading his beautiful statement in
defense of how the followers of Christ live.

“Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names which divine Scripture applies to
God; but the Greeks use Greek names, the Romans Latin names, and every one prays and
sings praises to God as he best can, in his mother tongue. For the Lord of all the languages
of the earth hears those who pray to Him in each different tongue, hearing, if I may so say,
but one voice, expressing itself in different dialects. For the Most High is not as one of
those who select one language, Barbarian or Greek, knowing nothing of any other, and
caring nothing for those who speak in other tongues.”

Point #4 Yahshua mispronunciation.

In the early days of the SNM they only used the Hebrew name that they saw as referring to the God
the Father. But it only makes since that if we should use a Hebrew name for God the Father then we
need one for God the Son as well. They then came up with the The name Yahshua. I'm sure that you
have all heard that the Hebrew name for our Savior is Yahshua. The way that SN leaders purport this
teaching is through their interpretation of

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own
name, him ye will receive.

The thought is put forth that because He came in his Fathers name he must have his Fathers name as
part of his own. Since his Fathers name is supposed to be Yahweh, and he is our salvation. His name is
YAHshua. Now every time that I'd read that verse, I never thought that it had any thing to do with how
to pronounce our Saviors name. I dare say that no one until A.B. Traina twisted it to support the idea
no one in 1900 years prior had interpreted it that way. But lets look at their interpretation and see how
it holds true. Turn over to

1 Samuel 17:45Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with
a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of
the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

Now as we all know at this point in time David's name was changed to YAHvid right? Since he came
against Goliath in the name of Yahweh, he must have YAH as part of his name from hence forth
right? Just look over the next few chapters it must be there somewhere. What can't find it? Hum must
have been the IESs (LOL).
Again lets look at another passage

1 Samuel 25:5And David sent out ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to
Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name.

So in view of the SN interpretation of John 5:43 these young men took on the name of David. They
all became known as David or at least took on part of David's name, right? Personally I don't think
that any thing could be farther from the truth. In verse nine we find what they did.

1 Samuel 25:9 And when David's young men came, they spake to Nabal according to all those words
in the name of David, and ceased.

It seems clear to me that what is meant by “in my name” in this passage is that these men came by
David's authority as his representatives. Having nothing to do with what name they had as individuals.
Couldn't the same be true of our Saviors words in John? Just look at John 5:43 itself in the second
part of this verse we find

if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

So according to the given SN position this verse means that if another will come he will have part of
his own name for his name. That's about as pointless of a statement as I've ever heard. The only logical
thing that the latter part of this verse could mean is that he is coming in his own authority representing
only himself. So this would be how we should interpret the first part of the verse as well. I.E., Our
Savior came by his Fathers authority as his representative on earth. Wow that's the same interpretation
that Christians have had for that verse for 2000 years. What a concept!
Typically if I wanted to know how to pronounce a word in a foreign tongue I'd ask some one who
spoke that Language. Wouldn't you? So what do Hebrew speakers have to say about the Yahshua
pronunciation? In an article entitled, The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" Or "Yahshua"? Written
by Dr. Daniel Botkin we find some interesting quotes.
The proponents of the Yahshua form claim that the Messiah’s name was the same as Joshua’s,
written [vwhy or [wvwhy (Strong’s #3091). The only problem is that neither of these Hebrew
spellings of Joshua’s name can possibly be pronounced "Yahshua." The third letter in Joshua’s
name (reading from right to left) is the letter vav (w) and a vav cannot be silent. The letter vav must
be pronounced as either a "v" or an "o" or an "u." (In the case of Joshua, it takes an "o" sound,
giving us "Ye-ho-SHU-a." Strong’s confirms this pronunciation.) For a name to be pronounced
"Yahshua," it would have to be spelled [wv--hy, and no such name exists anywhere in the Hebrew
Bible. You don’t have to just take my word for it, though. Dr. Danny Ben-Gigi says of the Yahshua
form that "there is no such name in Hebrew" and that "people invented it to fit their theology."[1]
Dr. Ben-Gigi is an Israeli and the former head of Hebrew programs at Arizona State University. He
is the author of the book First Steps in Hebrew Prayers, and he designed and produced the "Living
Israeli Hebrew" language-learning course. Dr. David Bivin, a Christian, says that the Yahshua
form "is rooted in a misunderstanding."[2] Dr. Bivin is a renowned Hebrew scholar and teacher
and author of Fluent Biblical Hebrew.
In fact, Dr. Botkin goes on to say this; “I do not know of a single individual that knows Hebrew well
enough to actually read it and understand it and converse in it who uses the Yahshua form.” The
entirety of this article should be read by anyone interested in this debate. The article can be found at
http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm

On Wikipedia we find this statement in the article about Yahshua “Christians, historians, and
linguists outside the sacred name movement for the most part reject the term Yahshua in favor of
Yeshua (éùåò) as the original pronunciation.”

Yehoshua is the oldest most correct Hebrew pronunciation for our Saviors name. Just look it up in
Strongs. However there is Zero historical or linguistic support for the Yahshua pronunciation. It was
invented to fit SN theology in 1936! It has absolutely no root, or history before then!

SN teachers have taken the Yah syllable (yod hey) and decided that what ever it applies to is now
Holy and divine. Even though this syllable is the prefix to many Hebrew words that have nothing to do
with God or divinity. Such as the underlying Hebrew words that are translated into English as; be
joined, together, hope, conceive, ect. But regardless of this armed with there “sacred syllable” they
attach it the our Saviors name and then say see he's God because he has Yah as part of his name. I've
heard it said that this pronunciation proves the Divinity of Christ. If I was a Jehovah's Witness and I
came to your door and you told me that, after rolling on the floor laughing hysterically, once I'd gained
my composure I'd have to ask you if that meant that the other ten men in the Bible that have the same
name were a god as well? Joshua was a good man and all but god? Or what about Isayah, Jerimiyah or
hosheyah are these men gods as well? In truth the greatest witness to the Divinity of Christ is the New
Testament verses that say he is God. If you accept and believe that the New Testament has been altered
by the hand of men then you deny this witness. There is no middle ground. For you will have no leg to
stand on when someone says that the verses that seem to teach Jesus as God where added to the text by
the same who added Iesooce and kiriose and removed the Yahshua and the tetragramaton.
Consider these options to think about. Strongs gives Joshua's name as Yehoshua # H3091
éäåùÑò éäåùÑåÌò yeho?shu?a
So this would be the oldest and most accurate Hebrew pronunciation or form of our Savior's name.
We'll call it option #1 Yehoshua. If our Father holds correct ancient Hebrew names as being so
important like SN teachers purport that he does, then It is entirely possible that he would have given
his beloved Son the most ancient Hebrew form of this name. This Name is used by quite a few people
in the SNM. To read an article about why some think this the correct form please see Eliyah.com.
However at the time of the return from captivity apparently the ho sound was dropped from this
name to give us Yeshua. Ezr 2:2 and

Nehemiah 8:17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the
captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua
(H3442éùÑåÌòye?shu?a)'the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so.
And there was very great gladness.
So we now have option #2 Yeshua. This being the more recent form of the name it may have been
the name that our Father saw fit to give to his Son. Since the people of Palistine at the time of Christ
may have been more familiar with this name.
But the people of Palestine at the time of Christ didn't speak Hebrew they spoke Aramaic. This is
well testified to by many scholars. The Aramaic form of this name is
pronounced Ea-shoa'. So now we have option #3 Ea-shoa'. Being that all those around our Savior
spoke Aramaic it is very likely that he was called by this name.
So those who feel that they must use the name that our Savior's friends and family called him are
left with three mane options and a host of other variants based on these names.
#1 Yehoshua
#2 Yeshua
#3 Ea-shoa'

So which should we use? Maybe a game of eeny meeny miney mo would be appropriate? We
could decide our Saviors name on chance. How are we to know which one is right? Is one of these
right? Well you know there is this book, a book called the New Testament. It happens to be the only
source that we have for any information about the man who's name we are talking about that we call
our Savior. Only through it's word do we have his words. Only through it's verses are we told how to
find him. Only in it's pages do we find anything that tells us of how he lived. Only in it's chapters do
we have the testimony of his miracle's. Only in it's books do we read about his love and how that led to
his cruel death and then his resurrection. And only in it do we have story of our redemption. Maybe
I'm a fool but I view this book as the inspired inerrant and preserved word of God. SN teachers want
to believe everything contained there in all the stories and teachings but disbelieve it and say that it lies
when it gives the name of the man that it was written about. The New Testament was written in Greek
all other manuscripts in other languages are translations from the Greek. Not one Greek manuscript
contains any other form of our Saviors name than it's Greek form. It may be outlandish and bold for
me to say so but since there is precisely zero evidence to support anything else I must say that even the
originals had His name in it's Greek form.

****************************

Point #5 Fallacies about the name of Jesus

So after making up a Hebrew sounding name for our Savior, SN leaders needed a way to promote
this name. So they proceeded to vilify the name Jesus with all sorts of accusations and false ideas. This
is not to say that all have done this; many of the more recent teachers have recanted and tried to
prevent others from spreading these fallacies. Yet I still hear them quite often, so I'm forced to deal
with them here. The most basic misconception that I've heard about the name of Jesus is that it means
sorcerer. This misconception is based on Acts13:6-8

6And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet,
a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:
7Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas
and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
8But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away
the deputy from the faith.

It is put forth that the interpretation given ( “the sorcerer”) apples to Barjesus. This simply is
not the case. Barjesus was this mans given birth name. Elymas however was a name given to him
because of what he turned out to be( a sorcerer). Just like so many other people in the Scriptures that
have had their name changed because of things that they did, so also Barjesus had his name changed to
Elymas. Elymas is an Aramaic word. Luke transliterated the name into Greek since he was writing in
Greek. And since he was writing to his Greek friend Theophilus who had no idea what it meant he then
translated it (the sorcerer). Strong's definition is this, Ε?λυ?μας Elumas el-oo'-mas Of foreign origin;
sorcerer ,a wizard: .
Hear also is Strong's definition of the mans original name.
G919 βαριησου?ς Barie?sous bar-ee-ay-sooce'
Of Chaldee origin [H1247] and [H3091]; son of Jesus (or Joshua); Barjesus, an Israelite: - Barjesus.
That's pretty cut and dry a first grader who knows how to use a dictionary can find the truth in this
matter.

A second slander cast at the name Jesus is that it means “Earth pig”. They derive this from the
original Greek word that Jesus is transliterated from Ι?ησου?ς. They get this by breaking the word
down into syllables ee-ay and sooce . They think that the first part sounds like Strong's word # G1093
γη? ge? ghay meaning earth. I'll give them points for this. It's creative , somebody must have done
some thinking to come up with that. But they don't really sound that much alike, ee-ay and ghay.
However, to get the rest of our definition we have to go to Latin. Greek wasn't quite doing it for us,
so let's use Latin. We have a Greek word but know we are going to use latin to define it. Now that's a
stretch. Sooc I gueese is close to the Latin word for pig. Hence “earth pig”. The problems with this
are glaring. You just can't use an unrelated language to define a word . Ι?ησου?ς has no relation to
Latin whatsoever! It is a very clear Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua. In transliteration
the sound of a word comes a cross not the meaning. It's like saying that the name Dorkas Implies that
she was a dork. Or that Bildad The Shuehite was Bill's Dad and that he was only a “shoe hight” tall. Or
that Joshua didn't have a Dad because he was the son of Nun. All these statements along with the earth
pig theory, although funny, are ignorant and have no facts underlying them. The sounds from which
the above names are derived, were in existence long before our English words were used. And our
English words have no etymological connection to them at all.
Another common statement I have heard from SNM believers is that the name Jesus means “hail
Zeus”. They come up with this by looking at the Greek word that Jesus is transliterated from Ι?ησου?ς
Ie?sous pronounced ee-ay-sooce'.
Again break it down into its syllables, tweak the pronunciation just a little and this time we get “Hey
Zeus”. And taking it one step further to say “hey Zeus” some how equals “hail Zeus”. Not much
difference between hey and hail right? It sounds good doesn't it? That's really scholarly and has a lot
of reference behind it, don't you think? We're breaking a Greek word Iesous down into syllables and
then applying English definitions to them. Even though English didn't have any thing to do with the
Greek word. Indeed English didn't exist till over a thousand years after the first use of the name Iesous.
The Greek word for Zeus is Ζευ?ς in Greek pronounced dzyooce. When looking at both words in
their Greek form, their only commonality is a -us ending Ι?ησου?ς Ζευς.?S The -us ending is a first
person masculine word ending that occurs in about 50% of all Greek masculine names. There is
absolutely no link between the name Jesus and Zeus other than they are both Greek masculine names.
Just like the names Jonathan , Nathan, and Satan have the same ending in Hebrew. Yet just because
one of these names represents the evil one it doesn't make the others bad.

I veiw these myths as being the same old wives tails that Paul warned Timothy about. And therefor I
refuse them.
1 Timothy 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto
godliness.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the OT made in 285 BC by Seventy faithful Jews. ( often
abrevated as LXX from the Roman numerals for seventy LXX) This became the text of scripture used
by Jews in Alexandria (or anywhere in Egypt), Rome, Asia minor and later by the Christians. The
Seventy Judean translaters practiced what they preached so they would have been circumspect not to
use the names of other gods. Exo 23:13 .Joshua is of one of their patron saints he led their forefathers
into the promise land driving out the nations of the Canaanites before them. Do you think that they
would transliterate his name into a Greek name that had any thing to do with the Greek god Zeus? Let
alone meant “hail Zeus” of even “earth pig” Absolutely not! Yet in the Septuagint we find after the
book of Δευτερονόμιον (Deuteronomy) we find the book of Ι?ησου?ς (Joshua). The Hebrew name
for Joshua is Yehoshua very similar if not the identical to the name that our Savior bore. So because
of the work of the LXX translators the transliteration of the name Yehshua into Greek was already
established as Iehsoos in 285 BC. So at the time of Christ there would have be absolutely no question
how the Hebrew name Yehshua would be transliterated into an writen in Greek by Greek speaking
Jews. They read it as Ι?ησου?ς every time they read about Joshua in the LXX. They would just
follow the example of the translators of the LXX. As can be seen in all the manuscripts of the New
Testament, some dating as far back as 200ad. The men we know as Joshua and Jesus both have the
same Hebrew name. Because one came to us directly through Hebrew and the other through Greek
and then Latin we have the different sounds. If you are wondering how Iehsoos could be considered a
transliteration of Yehshua, when they sound so different, it is because in Greek there is no phonetic
sound for Y or sh so when transliterating a name with both these sounds into Greek your bound to
come up with something that doesn't sound just the same. To further compound the problem the
sigma ?ς needed to be added to follow rules of Greek grammar. To identify it as a masculine noun.
Following the rules a Greek grammar and pronunciation Ie?sous is a very good transliteration of
Yeshua into Greek. And its just a fact of history that that's how it was done. Look in any Greek
English copy of the LXX. Without a Y or sh sound you just aren't going to get the same sound.
For an example of this turn to Judges 12. A controversy had arisen between Jephthah and the men
of Ephraim. Apparently the Ephraimites had developed their own dialect of Hebrew void of the sh
sound.

Jdg 12:6 Then said559 they unto him, Say559 now4994 Shibboleth:7641 and he said559
Shibboleth:5451 for he could not3808 frame3559 to pronounce1696 it right.3651 Then they took270
him, and slew7819 him at413 the passages4569 of Jordan:3383 and there fell5307 at that1931
time6256 of the Ephraimites4480, 669 forty705 and two8147 thousand.505

So we find that they could not frame to pronounce an sh sound upon pain of death. I'm sure that they
tried hard though. So were Greek coverts required to over come this speech impediment to have a
place in the Kingdom? Have you ever tried to learn a foreign language? Were there sounds that you
could not master? Did you spend hours and hours sounding like a babbling imbecile? I have. A
Hispanic lady lives not to far from me. She lived in Mexico for the first 18 years of her life. She is fifty
now having lived in the US around English speaking people for 32 years. To this day she still can not
make the th sound that we have so prevalently in English and also has a lot of trouble with that good
old sh sound. Accents and speech impediments are all through out the world. No matter how hard you
try on a international level you will never get all peoples of all nations tribes and tongues to pronounce
a name the same.

So in view of all this and the absence of the Y and sh sound in the Greek language, do you view
the disciples as preachers or linguistic teachers? In other words do you think that every new convert to
Christ who spoke only Greek was immediately caused to learn to enunciate the Y and sh sounds of
Yeshua in order to be a believer, even though these were completely foreign phonetic sounds? Keep in
mind that by the end of the first century there where around 500,000 believers, the majority being
Greek speakers. To get every one of these to be able to make these sounds would be a virtually
impossible task, that would have greatly hindered the spread of the Gospel. Although I've never heard
it from their own lips, when I take their doctrine, that “we must use original pronunciations” to it's
ultimate conclusion of how it would have played out in the first century, this is what I come up with.
SN Teachers seem forced to think that the Disciples went around telling people about the awesome gift
of God in sending his Son to pay the debt for our sin. How that His son loved us so much that he gave
up his life pouring out his blood for us in a shameful death on the cross. But then in order to received
that gift you have to say Yeshua can't say Iesoose. It doesn't matter how you are used to talking, and
we don't care that from your birth you've never heard, or made these sounds before. No mercy on this
one; get it right or go to hell! Oh yeah that's Christianity in it's purest form... according to SN teachers.
Can you imagine the varied results that the disciples would have had? Some converts might get it
right; others just wouldn't- ever. Some Greeks might get the Y but not the sh others the sh but not the
Y. And some neither. Older folks would have found this a great hurdle to overcome. This would have
caused so much division and strife in the early Church. If the pronunciation was taught as being so
important, I can only imagine the endless debates that this would have caused. If there is no Hebrew
speaker in a congregation who is going to say who is right and who is wrong? I can see people having
to find a different church because their pastor “ Just isn't saying it right”. Or they could not fellowship
with others because of “how they say it.” It would have been a big bone of contention. It is easily
proved that this would have been the case; just look at the SNM today. They have who knows how
many different pronunciations for the name of our Savior, and an endless number of “translations”
propounding their personal pronunciations. Just as would have been the case in the early Church, they
have endless disputations and strifes over words. These debates and arguments are well documented in
the writings of SN leaders. Yet the writings of the Church Fathers are completely silent about any
debates about how to pronounce the name of our Savior. The only explanation for this is that
Christians who spoke Greek used the Greek transliterated for. What else would they do? And when the
Disciples and Apostles wrote in Greek they wrote down by Inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Greek
transliterated for of our Saviors name. As stated earlier, not one Manuscript of any New Testament
book contains anything but the Greek name Iesoose.. Neither do they give any hint or direction that it
should be pronounced any different than how it appears in Greek. And in not one of the Epistles or
Gospels, do we find any statement about requiring or teaching that the proper Hebrew pronunciation
had to be used. Not one! Yet Paul and others wrote extensively about every thing that they thought was
wrong or needed improvement in the Churches. However, Paul did write this to Timothy.
1 Timothy 6:4Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
4he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and word-striving, out of which doth come
envy, strife, evil-speakings, evil-surmisings,
Vines Dictionary defines the underlying Greek word of word-striving as
2
logomachia (Dispute, Disputer, Disputing) Scripture Index for logomachia
Denotes "a dispute about words" (logos, "a word," mache, "a fight"), or about trivial things,
1Ti. 6:4, RV, "disputes," AV, "strifes," See STRIFE....

And for what purpose and end would it be for the Disciples to do all this linguistic work? Just to
preserve the Hebrew name of ten men in the Hebrew scriptures, at least two in the Apocrypha, three in
the New Testament, and who knows how many others through the centuries. The very fact that Our
Savior's disciples called him “Jesus of Nazareth” attests to the fact that there were other men alive at
his time that had the same name. Thus the distinction “of Nazareth”. They might even have had
friends or family with that name. Yeshua was a common name among Israelites. Our Savior is not the
only one to have had the name Yeshua. It is not a name unique or peculiar to him. There is no
“inherent power or force” in the vocalization Yeshua. The power and Salvation that comes to us as
believers on his name is through his being the Son of God, the spotless sacrifice, and by his blood, the
blood of the lamb. However, because of what He did, in living a sinless life, bearing our sorrows,
carrying our pain and obedience unto the cross. Then is his name above all other names. Not because
of the name that he had but because of what he did. In Hebrews Chap 1 we read how that through him
the world was made and he upholdeth it, then he purged our sins, and sitteth on the Right hand of the
Father. Because he is the Son of God, he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name. That
more excellent name is a result of his perfect life. Not because there is some phonetic perfection in the
vocalization Yeshua.

The power we have as Christians is through the blood of the Lamb.

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their
testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
And Faith.
Hebrews 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained
promises, stopped the mouths of lions...
Is our salvation contingent upon the confines of our voice box or does it come to us through faith and
sweet believing?
Act 16:31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and
thy house.

SN teachers have also made a big point out of the two times that our Savior introduces himself
when he appears to believers after his ascension. We find these accounts in Acts 9:3-6 this is restated in
acts 22:6-11 and Acts 26:13-16. The second instance is when our Savior personally introduces himself
is at the end of Revelation, 22:16.

Before Looking into this to far we need to establish some facts about the books of Acts and
Revelations. Even A. B. Traina in his article “Not Greek” trying to say that the New Testament was
not written in Greek he was forced to say “ with the exception of the Gospel of Luke, which was
expressly written to the Greeks by a Greek, for the Greeks that were coming into the churches of the
Jews. But even this is but an editing into the Greek language... for the Greeks who were coming into
the church, at the instigation of the Apostle Paul... Even the Acts of the Apostles, which bears the
name of Luke, shows evidence that the early part of the book was originally written in Hebrew, by
some Hebrew author, and when Luke joined with Paul from there on it seems that Luke took the
account of the Acts of the Apostles which had been kept by some Jewish scribe, and translated it into
Greek; and from then on, he kept the record. The first part of the Acts show abundant evidence of
having been translated, while the last part gives evidence of having been composed in Greek.”

So from The mouth of one of the founders of the SNM we have it that Luke wrote his Gospel in
Greek. Whether He used Aramaic sources or not is inconsequential. In it's Greek form it is still an
inspired text of Scripture. Hebrew just like Greek is a derived languadge. Although older, it is not
some original pure Language of Heaven. “Hebrew is a Semitic language, and as such a member of the
larger Afro-Asiatic phylum”. (Wike) As for the book of Acts, so what if the early part of the book was
translated from minutes and short hand notes taken down by others? Do you view Luke as an authority
to do such a translation and assemble the book of Acts? Luke published his works the Gospel and Acts
in Greek. The second part of Traina's above paragraph is his own opinion about Acts. He gives no
other reference of anyone who has come to the same conclusion. Nor sites any examples of the
“abundant evidence” of translation. Not saying that there isn't any but it should be presented with such
a statement. If Luke hadn't endeavored to compose the book in Greek we wouldn't have it today. I
view Luke as an inspired author both in translating and writing. What do you think of Luke?

As for Revelations the authorship is some what in question. But that is not of consequence to this
article. However the dating seems to be consistent at about 96 AD. It is plainly addressed to “...the
seven churches which are in Asia...” These seven churches are squarely in the Greek speaking world.
Each one of them is a Gentile Church that all history indicates spoke Greek. There is no history,
tradition or manuscript evidence that supports anything other than a Greek original of Revelations.
In Traina's article he makes this statement to try to prove a Hebrew/Aramaic original of Revelations.
“The book of Revelation is so full of Old Testament symbology that to the Gentile mind, which has no
knowledge of the Old Testament apocalyptic message, the book that it intended to be a Revelation of
the culmination of the glories to be revealed, he (the Gentile) sees nothing more than the ravings of a
madman impossible to be understood.”
I believe that Traina has however rebutted his own argument with this statement. Although he may
be of Jewish decent he doesn't appear to have grown up speaking Hebrew. He has gained his
knowledge of Old Testament symbology through study. It is through this study that he is able to
recognize this symbology. Though he was a Jew, he wasn't born knowing all about what practices went
on in the Temple. The LXX was widely used among Gentile Christians. Early Gentile Christians held
the Old Testament in high regard. They read and quoted from it (Unlike so many Christians today
unfortunately). Therefore to say that Gentiles couldn't understand Revelations based on a lack of OT
knowledge is inconsistent. It would aid just as much as hinder a Greek speaking Gentile to be
unfamiliar with Jewish tradition, since so little of that is rooted in scripture anyway. The Scriptural
understanding needed could be gained from Scripture.

Now let us proceed with our study. The First introduction is to Saul (Paul) on the road to
Damascus.
Acts9:3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a
light from heaven:
4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks.
6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto
him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
This is the first account of this event. Luke as we have already stated wrote in Greek. He makes no
mention that the conversation transpired in Hebrew at this time . If it was so important he would have
mentioned it. As that he was writing to Theophilus who was most likely a Greek speaking Roman. He
wrote these words in Greek. And when coming to the name of our Savior, he continued to write in
Greek. So in view that the Holy Spirit moved through Luke to compose this work, we have that our
Saviors name is written down under inspiration in the best Greek transliterated form possible as Ι?
ησου?. To write down in Hebrew letters the name of our Savior would be totally unreadable and
unpronounceable to Luke's audience. The next occurrence is in the second time that Paul gives his
own testimony of this event in Acts22:6-8. Paul gives a discourse of about 21 verses to Jews in
Jerusalem. Luke prefaces this whole discourse with this statement
Acts21:40 And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand
unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue,
saying,
So we know that the following discourse was originally spoken in Hebrew. Luke prefaced it that
way because he was about to write it in Greek. He wanted his reader to know that although he was
writing in Greek the text was spoken in Hebrew. Notice that when Paul told the story about what
happened on the road to Damascus. He said nothing about what language the words were spoken in.
He was already speaking in Hebrew so there was no need. However in the third instance Paul is
relating the story in Greek to Agrippa. We know that Paul is Speaking Greek because he specifically
had to mention that he heard a voice speaking in the Hebrew tongue. If he was speaking in Hebrew
then this would have been an unnecessary statement. Which it is not in the text of chap22.
Acts26:13At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun,
shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the
Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Paul was speaking in Greek but wanted Agrippa to know that the words he was about to say were first
spoken in Hebrew. So he said “heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue...”,
He then continued to speak in Greek. Just as Luke prefaced the text of chap22 with “spake unto them
in the Hebrew tongue”,but then wrote it in Greek. So also did Paul. If he spoke the above text in
Hebrew it would have been followed by an interpretation, not prefaced with such an article. Since Paul
was speaking in Greek when he spoke the name of our Savior he very possible used the Greek form of
the name since this would have been recognizable to Agrippa. Do we know for sure? Nope none of us
were there. But we have the word of God inspired and preserved written down by Luke in which we
find I am Ι?ησου?. What more evidence do you need? If you can't believe Scripture what can you
believe? Would you rather believe the imaginations of some SN teacher two thousand years removed
from the fact or the account written down by Luke shortly after the event to which we have manuscript
support from 300AD and possibly earlier?
The second personal introduction is in;
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
As already proven the book was written in Greek. And Hebrew is not some divine language from
heaven but just like Greek derived from other tongues. So there would be no express reason for him to
speak in Hebrew. The book was written by some one who spoke and wrote in Greek. For Greek
speaking Churches. Why would Christ and the angels speak to the writer in any other language but
Greek? If they did the writer would then have to translate it. Especially the opening Epistles to the
Churches. In order for them to be read by their intended audience they would need to be in Greek. So i
view all conversation that occurred as being spoken in Greek. If you doubt this at all look at the verse
just three verses before
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Only if Christ was speaking Greek would he say I am Alpha and Omega. So When he said I Jesus.
He was speaking Greek. And in the Greek Language he spoke is name in Greek I Ι?ησου?

Friend if you can see as is proven by scripture and history that the Greek transliterated of our
Saviors name was perfectly acceptable by our Father. Even written down by inspiration of the Holy
Spirit and used by Christ himself. Then as Christianity grew that was what Christians knew as his
name. And when Latin grew to replace Greek as the Lingu Franca. It was from Ι?ησου? The name that
they knew our Savior by that Christians transliterated to get the Latin and got Iesus. Which came to be known as
are Lord's name in Latin. And then as English grew it was brought into English from Latin as Jesus. None of the
changes which happened as a result of the passage from one Language to another were done maliciously. Our
Christian forefathers did the best they could following the rules of grammar and pronunciation in each case. And
as the precedent was set with Ι?ησου? , as being his name in Greek. So Jesus is his name in English. If we all
accept the faulty pronunciation Yahshua, two thousand years from now and three languages removed do you
actually think that it will sound the same? His name to us today Is Jesus. SN teachers have said that this name
is meaningless. In truth any name when transliterated retains the same meaning. Whether we know it by
definition or by experience, Jesus has the same meaning to those who believe in him that it had in it's Hebrew
form. Salvation!!!
Psalm 25 explains these names. But there is more. Think about these facts:

Word Book 1 (Psalms 1-41) Book 2 (Psalms 42-72)

God (elohim) 49 times 189 times

LORD (Yahweh) 275 times 26 times

The Oxyrinchus Papyri

Psalms 12:6-7; 78:1-8; 119:89; 111; 152; 160; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 8:20; 30:8;
40:6-8; Matthew 4:4; 5:17-18; 24:35; 28:20; John 10:35; 17:17; Colossians 1:17; I
Thessalonians 2:13; II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:23-25; II Peter 1:19-21; 2 John 2;
Revelation 20:12)
at this time also, the church of Ephesus claimed to possess the autograph of the
Fourth Gospel.

Chapter XXV.—His Review of the Canonical Scriptures.

1. When expounding the first Psalm,[1] he gives a catalog of the sacred Scriptures of the Old
Testament[1] as follows:
“It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two;
corresponding with the number of their letters.” Farther on he says:
2. “The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by
the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith,[1] which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus,
Welesmoth,[1] that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called‘; Numbers,
Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ‘These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave,
Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of
Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one,
Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one,
Dabreïamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras,[1] First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An
assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth;
the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with
Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther,
Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.”[1] He gives
these in the above-mentioned work.
2733. In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel,[1] maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that
he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:
4. “Among the four Gospels,[1] which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under
heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but
afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published
in the Hebrew language.[1]
5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter,[1] who in his
Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together
with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’[1]
6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul,[1] and composed for Gentile converts. Last
of all that by John.”[1]
7. In the fifth book of his Expositions of John’s Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the epistles of the
apostles:[1] “But he who was ‘made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter,
but of the Spirit,’[1] that is, Paul, who ‘fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about
even unto Illyricum,’[1] did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which
he wrote he sent but few lines.[1]
8. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not
prevail,’[1] has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.[1]
9. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus,[1] John, who has left us one
Gospel,[1] though he confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain them?[1]
And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of
the seven thunders.[1]
10. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider
them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines.”
11. In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews[1] in his
Homilies upon it: “That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the
language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’[1] that is, in expression; but that
its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will
acknowledge.
12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged
apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text[1] will admit.’
13. Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle,
but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and
wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this
epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it
down as Paul’s.
14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is
that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the
Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters.
from Heinz Schmitz's Response to Lynn Lundquist's book
Moving along though, any discussion on textual criticism inevitably involves including the Ante-
Nicene Fathers (hereafter, ANF). How did they feel about God's name?

"God has no name, for everything that has a name is related to created things." Aristides (c. 125, E)
9.264

"He has many virtues as are distinctive to a God who is called by no proper name." Justin Martyr (c.
160, E), 1.165

"To the Father of all, there is no name given" Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190

"As to the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe,... if anyone dares to say that there is a
name, he raves with hopeless madness." Justin Martyr (c. 160, E) 1.183

"God cannot be called by any proper name. For names are given to mark out and distinguish various
subject matters, because these matter are many and diverse. However, no one existed before God who
could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself. For He is one and unique...
On this account, He said to Moses, "I am the Being." By the participle *being,* He taught the
difference between the God who is and the gods who are not. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.281

"If we name Him, we do not do so properly." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E) 2.464

"The name of God the Father had been published to no one." Tertullian (c. 198, W) 3.682

"Neither must we ask for a name of God. God is His name. We have no need of names when a
multitude are to be separated into individuals...To God, who is alone, the name "God" is the whole.
Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W) 4.183

"We say the name Sabaoth, Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence among the
Hebrews, do not apply to any ordinary created things. Rather, they belong to a secret theology
concerning the Framer of all things." Origen (c. 248, E), 4.407

"Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names that divine scriptures applies to God." Origen,
4.653

"God's own name also cannot be declared, for He cannot be conceived....For the name is the
significance of whatever thing can be comprehended from a name." Novatian, 5.615

"Neither must you ask the name of God. God is His name. Where a multitude is to be distinguished by
the appropriate characteristics of names, there is a need of names. However, to God - who alone is -
belongs the whole name of God." Cyprian 5.467

Here, despite the fact that the Name occurs so many times in the Hebrew text, there is evident hostility
towards the name. Is it because of the Name's association with the Jews the early Christians were
trying to disassociate and distinguish themselves from?
"the Torah is not the itself the name of God but the explication of the Name of God. To him (the
Kabbalist] meant exactly what it meant for Jewish tradition, namely the tetragrammaton YHWH. And
this is the true meaning of "God's Torah." on The Meaning of the Torah/On the Kaballah and Its
Symbolism, by Gershom Scholem, p.42
The Jews and the Name were solidly bound together. Perhaps, this is why the ANF were not only
hostile to the Name, but to the people of the Name.

"In Christian sources, the charge of Jewish hate is unrelieved. St. Justin (A.D. 100-65), in his Dialogue
with Trypho, returns again and again to the point. On one occasion he confronts Trypho the simple
declaration, 'You hate and (wherever you have the power), you kill us." Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-c. 222)
labels Jews 'the seed-plot of all calumnies against us;' and in the early fourth century, Emperor
Constantine (A.D. 306-37) said, 'Let us have nothing to do with the most hostile Jews.'

Taken from many available accusations, these few samples convey the seriousness of the charge. The
answer has been made that the accusers, having entertained few relations with real Jews, constructed a
theological abstraction having little relation to reality."

What did this lead to?

"In steering a course between the extremes of Judaeo-Christianity and the anti-Judaism of Marcion and
the Gnostics, that Church had to prove to the gentiles - and to the Jews - that it was the true Israel, that
Judaism was a pretender that refused to abdicate a lost kingdom - and all this from Judaistic
sources....Exegetical disputes inevitably arose between the apologists and the rabbinate. The latter
accused the former of mutilating the text of the Septuagint...and replaced it with several new Hebrew
translations. Christian polemicists countered with charges of textual suppressions by the Jews."
Anguish of the Jews, Edward Flannery, p. 32

Do you see that the fighting between the two factions initially involved allegations of textual
corruption?

The move away from Judaism, the formation of a new religion and the great apostasy foretold in the
NT was enough fuel to create "wholesale" changes in the text. This was helped in part by the
abbreviations of divine names and titles. You recommend the Book, The Jesus Papyrus by Carston
Thiede, which says:

"With the first Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, YHWH acquired the visible form of an
abbreviation - initially, because the Hebrew consonants were inserted in the Greek text wherever
"God" appeared. This custom was continued into the Middle Ages and had its variations, which made
the abbreviating nature of the exercise more obvious - such as writing only the first letter of the
Hebrew word yod, doubling to to look like a twinfold z and drawing a horizontal bar through the
middle of both letters. A find from Qumram dating from the period just before the 'birth' of the first
Christian texts documents the use of Greek rather than Hebrew letters to abbreviate God's
unpronounceable name.

In a fragmentary Greek papyrus scroll discovered in Cave 4 - Pap4QLXXLev b, with parts of Leviticus
- "God" is written neither with the full Greek word theos nor with the Greek translation of Adonai,
kyrios ('Lord'), but with the Greek vowels alone (!) iota/alpha/omega, to sound something like Ya-oh
or Ya-ho. In brief, by the time the first Christians wrote their own Greek manuscripts rather than
copying Old Testament texts, they were already accustomed to the concept of contracting the name and
title of God. We do not know if kyrios was already contracted as this earliest stage, the period of the
scrolls. It could have been abbreviated in Greek consonants (KS) or with the Hebrew tetragrammaton
or with the Greek vowels IAO. But we have no direct Christian manuscript evidence of this word
dating from this period. However, if the identification and reconstruction of 7Q4 as 1 Timothy 3:16 -
4:3 is any indication of standard practice, the word 'God' itself, theos, was apparently not abbreviated,
nor was another extant nomen sacrum...Let us suppose then, that the first (Jewish)-Christian scribes
initially did what they had always done as Jews, resisting the temptation - if temptation it was - to
break with the traditional practice.

As we see above, in fact, as we see often, divine titles are usually abbreviated. But the Divine Name is
substituted for a circumlocution. We will come back to this later.

Let us continue on with Thiede, and let's take note of the following "wholesale" change:

"Suddenly, however, all of this changed. Almost at a stroke, at the beginning of the second phase of
transmission, the phase of the codex. 'holy names' were being abbreviated in Christian papyri....this
was also the period when Jews and Christians were becoming estranged, beginning with the killing of
St. James...This was the moment for the scribes to make a statement - a statement of faith. It was no
longer necessary to show diplomatic or missionary consideration for Jewish sensitivities. Christian
documents could begin to assert unequivocally the divinity of Jesus. It was a final step, from oral
preaching via the more cautious scroll documents to the boldly unambiguous handwritten signs in the
oldest codex and its successors: Jesus Christ is Lord and God." p. 143

From reading your book, you seem to think the removal of the Divine Name must be a gradual change,
but as we see above, by Thiede's and Carson's comments, the changes took place abruptly. Couple this
anti-semitism with the neo-Platonic thought rampant amongst the ANF (Plato's trinity included a
NAMELESS 'ONE') and you have enough of a push for change. The one thing that I have learned
while studying textual criticism, is that corruption happened almost immediately. As you said:

"For a heresy of this magnitude to take place so soon after the Apostles' deaths is most difficult to
believe?"

Exactly how many mss do we actually have that can be dated within one generation of the Apostles?
Very few, and even they are disputed.
1 Several Jewish revolts fostered much persecution by Roman authorities upon any who
appeared Jewish;
2 After the apostle's deaths, there was a great falling away from the true faith. (2
Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:3);
3 Most Jewish Christians were killed by the Roman authorities, leaving mostly "Gentile"
Christians. These Gentile Christians wanted to appease the Roman authorities and gain
approval amongst Romans, in general, and therefore may have developed a propensity to
discard almost anything that made them look Jewish, including The Divine Name.
4 Greek philosophies were put on par with the Holy Scriptures. (2 Timothy 6:20, 21)
Under these circumstances, we can see how most scriptures containing The Divine Name could have
been destroyed, leaving only copies that contained the substitutes, kyrios or theos. Therefore, those
who replaced the Tetragrammaton with "kyrios "in the both the OT and NT copies, were NOT
the early disciples of Jesus; they were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well
developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.--2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1.

Nomina Sacra

Contents: Introduction * Chart of Nomina Sacra * Footnotes

Introduction
Ancient manuscripts were, of course, written by hand, often in large uncial scripts, on papyrus
(moderately expensive) or parchment (even more expensive). The expense of writing materials and the
time needed to copy a manuscript meant that every attempt had to be made to save space.
One way to conserve materials was abbreviations. A number of strategies were adopted at one time or
another -- e.g. a superscript sigma at the end of a word, a bar representing a terminal nu, or a special
symbol such as an elaborate script kappa for KAI.
The Christians went a step further by creating the nomina sacra ("sacred names"). These were
abbreviations formed by taking the first one or two letters of certain words, plus the final letter(s) (to
determine the inflection), omitting the intervening letters, and drawing a line over the whole.
The reason for the development of the nomina sacra is disputed and will not be covered here.[1]
The use of nomina sacra became standard at a very early date.[*2] By the third century their presence
or absence can be used to tell a Christian from a Jewish codex of the Old Testament. The use of the
abbreviations at this time was slightly haphazard (e.g. one or two scribes might use the abbreviation ΙΣ
for Joshua; in later use it would have been reserved exclusively for Jesus; similarly, should σωτηρ be
abbreviated if not used for Jesus?). One or two marginal abbreviations fluctuated in their use (e.g. the
Egerton Gospel abbreviates προφητασ). But by Byzantine times a list of fifteen nomina sacra had
been generally adopted. They were as follows:

Chart of the Standard Nomina Sacra

Footnotes
1. A good brief summary of ideas on the matter can be found in Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the
Greek Bible: An Introduction to Paleography (1981), pp.36-37. [back]
2. There are no nomina sacra visible in P52; the line length perhaps implies the use of the abbreviation
ΙΝ, but this is not certain (see discussion in the entry on P52). The substantial early papyri use the
abbreviations at least intermittently.
According to Scrivener, the Old Uncials use the following abbreviations:
• Vaticanus (B) abbreviates Θεοσ Κυριοσ Ιησουσ Χριστοσ πνευµα (generally only these,
although the Old Testament sometimes abbreviates ανθρωποσ as well as Ισραηλ
Ιερουσαληµ)
• Bezae (D) abbreviates only Θεοσ Ιησουσ Κυριοσ Χριστοσ (D F G of Paul also follow this
usage, but rather inconsistently)
• Z "seldom abridges."
• Σ abbreviates Πατηρ as ΠΤΗΡ
• Codex 700 abbreviates εθνων as ΕΘΝ.
• The Bodleian Genesis has an odd abbreviation (ΠΑΡΝΟΣ with a theta above the line) for
παρθενοσ.

• Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy

•
First among the 'symbols' come the divine names. The synthemata are sacred phrases of recognition,
like those that had to be uttered in order to be consecrated in the initiatory cults or to identify oneself
as a mysta among mystae. After death, the soul needs to be recognized by the gods. A Logion makes
allusion to this:
The paternal Intellect does not receive the will of the soul unless the latter has emerged
from forgetfulness and proffered a word, remembering the pure paternal symbol. (Fr. 109)

These voces mysticae by themselves have a sovereign efficacy.

'Never change barbarian names', says an Oracle. In this respect the Logia remained true to oriental
traditions. Iamblichus (The Mysteries of Egypt, VII, 5) justifies at length the advantage of 'barbarian'
names which are in no way conventional, for the 'language of the sacred peoples' is secretly,
inexpressibly, in harmony with 'the superior beings'. Unlike the Greeks, who were fired by a taste for
innovation
the barbarians, for their part, being constant in their customs, keep solidly to their old ways
of talking: so they are looked upon kindly by the gods, and offer them speeches which
please them.

On this point Iamblichus is echoing Origen (Against Celsus, I, 24) who, citing the names Sabaoth,
Adonai and 'all the others held in great veneration among the Hebrews', states that they proceed from a
'mysterious divine knowledge attributed to the Creator of the Universe' and that for the same reason
These names are effective when they are spoken in a particular sequence which
interweaves them, in the same way as other names uttered in the Egyptian tongue and
 addressed to certain demons . . . or others in the Persian dialect addressed to other powers.

Hellenic Magic Ritual

Magicus Ritus Graecus

General Framework

Apollonius Sophistes

© 2000

In the Narratio you establish your qualifications in seeking the presence of the Deity, often by
displaying esoteric knowledge. Typically this takes three forms: First is the invocation of the God by
secret names (so called "barbarian names"). Second is the recitation of previous situations in which the
God has helped you or others in similar situations, for which you may mention relevant myths. Third is
the recitation of instances in which you have fulfilled your vows and obligations to the God. Here are
some examples:
I know Thee and I know Thy secret names:
(secret names)
I've said Thy symbols, signs and secret key,
which Thou, O Master/Mistress, hath divulged to me,
(your magical name), born of (mother's name).

If ever I've fulfilled the vows I've made,

Then hear me now and grant to me Thine aid.

First, let me point out that, from the very title of the book, we know where Hoffmann is headed, i.e.,
what his motivation is; to attack Christianity. That was Celsus' purpose in writing, as well. Why is it
that SN authors, who masquerade as “Christians,” have a book like this on their shelf to begin with?
Why do they quote writers like Celsus and Hoffmann, as if they were legitimately, unbiased scholars,
and not let their unsuspecting readers know what vile garbage these men put forth?
To make this issue perfectly clear, one should read about Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous
existentialist philosopher, who's boast was, “God is dead! We killed him with science.” Nietzsche was
a major driving force behind Hitler's achievements. Who was one of Nietzsche's heroes? Find out in
the article, “Celsus, the First Nietzsche: Resentment and the Case Against Christianity” by Thomas F.
Bertonneau
Friend, you will see that one of the major sources for the godless, deadly, swill that Nietzsche
spewed
upon the world, was regurgitated Celsus.
Hoffmann is no better; “the blind leading the blind.” Hoffmann is also a very anti-Christian
historian. Hence his interest in another Antichrist writer (Celsus). Here is a list of the books that
Hoffmann has written.
(Incidentally, this is one of the earliest accounts of the jewish fables about Jesus' life, contained in the
Toledeth Yeshu, which is part of Shem Tov's vile Antichrist rantings mentioned earlier.)