Greekexegesis - Tumblr Posts

Textual Criticism: The Reliability of the New Testament

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

One has to be au courant with lower criticism to understand the significance and reliability of the New Testament. If we look at the number of extant NT manuscripts together with the relatively short period of time within which they were written (i.e, the time between the purported events and the written documents), no other book from Antiquity even comes close. First, we have over 5,800 manuscripts just in Greek (not counting those in other languages), more than any other book in history. Second, the texts were written within approximately two decades after the purported events. Other books have a much wider time-gap between the historical events and their initial documentations, as most were written hundreds of years later. Third, the New Testament has also been the most scrutinized book in all of literature. Its textual integrity has been relentlessly challenged down through the centuries. To date, no other book in history has been criticized and attacked as much as the New Testament. And yet its textual reliability has stood the test of time. Critical scholars still find it reliable! In fact, most of the variants are due to simple spelling errors, which do not significantly affect the meaning of the text. So, the textual reliability of the New Testament is well known among scholars. It’s the best attested book from the ancient world, as well as the bestseller of all time! And if you don’t think that it’s reliable, then you have no grounds to believe in Caesar, Homer, or Alexander the Great, whose biography, by the way, was written 400 years later! That’s how reliable the New Testament really is! In his blog, Bart Ehrman, the world-renowned textual scholar, writes:

“He [Bruce Metzger, Bart’s mentor] thought

that at the end of the day, we can be

reasonably confident of something like 99%

[reliability] of the text of the New

Testament. Textual scholars, in his

judgment, argue about that other 1%. As it

turns out, I don’t disagree with most of

that.”

The Use of ἄλλος and έτερος in the New Testament

By Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Greek terms ἄλλος (allos) and ἕτερος (heteros) primarily mean “other,” or “another.” The standard koine Greek teaching that the definitions of the words ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively different has been taught throughout the world in many seminaries, universities, and Bible institutes. The difference between the two words is often explained as follows: állos means “another of the same kind,” whereas héteros means another “of a different kind.” Therefore, entrenched in Biblical scholarship is the notion that ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively *different* terms.

However, according to a published article by Dr. James Keith Elliott——Emeritus Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds——the terms ἄλλος and ἕτερος are essentially interchangeable and synonymous. Dr. Elliott writes:

Ετερος in Classical Greek is used of

division into two parts: in New Testament

Greek the sense of the dual has largely

disappeared and έτερος is often confused

with άλλος. Attempts by commentators and

grammars to differentiate the two words

are often strained. In the New Testament

the words are interchangeable and

synonymous as can be seen most clearly at

I Cor 12 10 … and Hbr 11 35-36.

(James Keith Elliott, “The Use of έτερος in

the New Testament,” Zeitschrift für die

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft [Vol. 60,

Issue 1-2, 1969]).

What Dr. Elliott is saying is that the aforesaid distinction in Classical Greek largely disappeared in New Testament times. He insists that the “attempts by commentators and grammars to differentiate the two words are often strained.” He asserts that the two “words are interchangeable and synonymous.” Let’s take a look at one example which, he claims, proves this point. It is a passage where Paul enumerates the various charismatic gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to believers for the purpose of building up the “church.” 1 Cor. 12.10-11 (SBLGNT) reads:

ἄλλῳ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ

προφητεία, ἄλλῳ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων,

ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ ἑρμηνεία

γλωσσῶν · πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν

καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ

καθὼς βούλεται.

Translation (NRSV):

to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

Notice that “all these [gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit.” So we are not talking about qualitative differences “of a different kind.” Observe also that the two words ἄλλῳ and ἑτέρῳ are used as interchangeable and synonymous terms! The aforementioned distinction between ἄλλος “of the same kind” versus έτερος “of a different kind” doesn’t apply in this particular context. Let’s now look at the second example, which Dr. James Keith Elliott provides, namely, Heb. 11.35-36:

ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τοὺς

νεκροὺς αὐτῶν · ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν,

οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἵνα

κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν · ἕτεροι δὲ

ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, ἔτι

δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ·

Translation:

Women received their dead by resurrection.

Others were tortured, refusing to accept

release, in order to obtain a better

resurrection. Others suffered mocking and

flogging, and even chains and

imprisonment.

In this pericope, the author of Hebrews is praising the giants of faith who were all unquestionably “of one kind,” and “not of another.” But notice that in discussing the faith of the Patriarchs——who were afflicted, persecuted, and tortured——the words ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι are used interchangeably. The people thus described are not qualitatively different. On the contrary, they are of the same kind: the heroes of faith! Once again, the assumed qualitative distinction between ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι does not exist.

In many instances, Dr. James Keith Elliott says that “scribes simply replace έτερος by άλλος.” For example, at Mt 10.23 some manuscripts read έτέραν, “but most Greek witnesses read άλλην.“ Mt. 10.23 reads:

ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ,

φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν · ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω

ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ

Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Translation:

When they persecute you in one town, flee

to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not

have gone through all the towns of Israel

before the Son of Man comes.

Dr. Elliott argues that “In both places έτέραν is used in a non Classical way and is likely therefore to be what the original author wrote.” Elliott points to similar variants that occur for the same reasons in Lk. 10.1 (άλλους); Acts 8.34 (άλλον); Lk. 14.20 (άλλος); Lk. 4.43 (έτερος); Lk. 11.26 (ἕτερα); Lk. 22.65 (ἕτερα); and Jn 9.9 (ἄλλοι). In other words, in New Testament times, άλλην and έτέραν are seen as interchangeable and synonymous terms. Elliott writes:

At Lc 16 18 some mss. read άλλην for

an original έτέραν where assimilation to Mt

19 9 and Mc 10 11 may have been

responsible for the variant. This parallel

shows how easily έτερος and άλλος were

interchangeable within the New Testament

period itself.

If that’s the case, then let’s look at Lk. 16.18, which uses the word ἑτέραν:

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ

γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

Translation:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries

another commits adultery, and whoever

marries a woman divorced from her

husband commits adultery.

Now let’s compare Lk. 16.18 to a parallel passage, Mt 19.9, which uses the alternative term ἄλλην. Mt. 19.9 says thusly:

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ

ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.

Translation:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,

except for unchastity, and marries another

commits adultery.

Notice how ἑτέραν in Lk. 16.18 becomes ἄλλην in Mt. 19.9, which demonstrates that the two terms are indeed interchangeable. Let’s also follow Elliott’s advice and compare yet another parallel, namely, Mk. 10.11:

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς · Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται

ἐπ’ αὐτήν.

Translation:

He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife

and marries another commits adultery

against her.’

Let’s now explore a different set of passages. Specifically, let’s look at Lk 8.6 and compare it to the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5. Lk 8.6 employs the term ἕτερον and reads as follows:

καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ

φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.

Translation:

Some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it

withered for lack of moisture.

However, the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5 uses the word ἄλλο instead. It reads:

καὶ ἄλλο ⸃ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες ὅπου

οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθὺς

ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς ·

Translation:

Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did

not have much soil, and it sprang up

quickly, since it had no depth of soil.

Elliott also adds Mt. 13.5 (ἄλλα) to the mix as a counterpoint:

ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ

εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλεν

διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς.

Translation:

Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where

they did not have much soil, and they

sprang up quickly, since they had no depth

of soil.

Let’s now examine a completely different set of parallel passages and verbal agreements. According to Elliott, “at Mt. 16.14b έτεροι is read where the parallel passages in Mc 8 28 and Lc 9 19 read άλλοι.” So, let’s take a quick look at these final examples before we end our study. Mt. 16.14 uses both words (ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι) and says:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν · Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν,

ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα

τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist,

but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah

or one of the prophets.’

Notice that the parallel passage in Mk. 8.28 uses ἄλλοι in the same place where Mt. 16.14 used ἕτεροι. Mk 8.28 reads as follows:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ⸃ ὅτι Ἰωάννην

τὸν βαπτιστήν, καὶ ἄλλοι Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ

ὅτι εἷς ⸃ τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist;

and others, Elijah; and still others, one of

the prophets.’

Lk. 9.19 is yet another parallel passage which uses the variant ἄλλοι. Lk. 9.19 reads:

οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν · Ἰωάννην τὸν

βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι

προφήτης τις τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀνέστη.

Translation:

They answered, ‘John the Baptist; but

others, Elijah; and still others, that one of

the ancient prophets has arisen.’

Conclusion

Based on the numerous parallel passages that we studied, it is quite obvious that the Classical Greek qualitative distinction between άλλος and έτερος had largely disappeared in New Testament times. As can be seen from the previous New Testament examples, and from Dr. James Keith Elliott’s study, the words άλλος (allos) and έτερος (heteros) are interchangeable and synonymous terms!

Answering Tuvia Pollack’s “Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”

By Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Introduction

Tuvia Pollack writes for Kehila News, which seems to be a Messianic-Jewish apologetics blog. He has no formal biblical training, as far as I know. According to the Kehila news blog, “Tuvia Pollack is an unpublished writer of historical fiction novels depicting Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.”

According to his own words, Mr. Pollack is “an Israeli Messianic Jew” who believes “in the Jewish faith … and the Old and New Testament.” He wrote an essay (“Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”) in which he’s basically trying to establish the notion that the Greek name for Jesus (Ἰησοῦs) in the New Testament comes from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahshua, and he therefore concludes that it doesn’t really matter what we call the messiah. In other words, we can call him any of the 3 names that he mentions above. However, his whole thesis is flawed because he doesn’t understand the finer points of biblical scholarship and how details often go unnoticed. I will not go over his entire paper but rather explore a few key comments that he made therein.

Does it Matter What We Call the Object of Our Worship?

In reference to Jesus, Mr. Pollack writes:

Calling on his name is what mattered,

whether you would say Iesous as the

Greeks would, or Yeshua as the Jews would.

Not true. The New Testament is very specific with names, especially with the name that is above all other names. If any form of the name of Yeshua would do, then that means that any form of the name of God would do as well, right? Wrong! Acts 4:12 (NJB) declares:

of all the names in the world given to

men, this is the only one by which we can

be saved.

Notice that the NT doesn’t say “Salvation is found in no one else” except in Yahweh. Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Not once! The name Elohim is never once mentioned in the NT either. Neither Yeshua nor Yehoshua are ever mentioned in the New Testament. Not even once! The only name that we are commanded to call on is Ἰησοῦς (translated into English as Jesus). We should not overlook this state of affairs. If the New Testament doesn’t even mention the name Yahweh, why would a Christian call on Yahweh instead of Jesus? Yet there are many so-called Christians who never mention the name of Jesus but keep praising Yahweh who is never mentioned by name in the Greek New Testament. Isn’t that bizarre, if not cultic? By that logic, why would a Christian call on Elohim or Yahshua in time of trouble? After all, we must know who we serve and who we worship. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to call on Allah, Yahweh or Yahshua. They are repeatedly told to call on the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19.16). There is only one name associated with that title, namely, Christ Jesus (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς)! After all, that’s the whole point of the New Testament’s revelation, namely, that Jesus is God and the great “I AM” (Rev. 1.8; 22.13). The NT trumps the OT. Therefore, we should not impose OT theology on the NT. Rather, we should get our final revelation of Iesous from the NT per se!

A Bad Theology Based On a Mistranslation

Pollack writes:

When the New Testament was written in

Greek, the name of the Messiah is said to

be Iesous ‘because he will save his people.’

That’s an unfaithful translation, which is based on a Hebrew theology that the name of Jesus is derived from Jewish sources. Mr. Pollack doesn’t understand Greek, so he’s relying on English translations to carry him through. Allow me to explain. Here is the critical Greek text (original text). Mt 1.21 (SBLGNT) says:

τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα

αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν

αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

My Translation:

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

Keep in mind that this verse neither explains the name Ἰησοῦν as an Aramaic or Hebrew name, nor does it define it etymologically as a linguistic transliteration, translation, or pronunciation from the Hebrew language. This is precisely where *Hebrew Roots Theology* twists the Greek to make it say what it wants it to say. The English (Christian) translations typically try to connect the name with a cause, and so they’ll usually take the word γὰρ (which very often doesn't mean “for,” according to Bill Mounce) and they’ll try to assign to it a “reason” for the name. So, they usually end up translating it as “for,” in the sense of “because.” But even though it is commonly translated as such, the Greek grammatical construction sounds very awkward when you insert the conjunction “for” in between αὐτὸς and σώσει. It would literally read: “he for will save.” Just to give you an example, John 4.44 reads:

αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι

προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

Translation (NJB):

He himself had declared that a prophet is

not honoured in his own home town.

Notice that we have a similar clause: αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. Where is the translation “for” in this verse? Nowhere! The conjunction γάρ is translated as “himself.” In many other cases, γάρ is translated as “indeed.” In fact that is the correct translation, here, in Mt 1.21 (My Translation):

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

There is no explanatory factor here, just that Ἰησοῦς will indeed save his people. The term “indeed” acts as an assurance or a reaffirmation that this statement is in fact true.

Mr. Pollack doesn’t take into account the fact that Hebrew was a consonantal writing system with no vowels. That’s why we don’t really know what the tetragrámmaton יהוה (transliterated as YHWH) sounded like phonetically. Nor do we know what these other names sounded like. These are approximations at best, yet Mr. Pollack writes about these names as if they were written in stone and well known.

What Happens if the Greek New Testament is Suddenly Changed into the Hebrew New Testament?

Mr. Pollack then goes on to write that no matter what you call Jesus, it doesn’t really matter. Really? Could you call him Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Elohim? Or Lucifer? He mentions how some Christians abhor Judaizing, which I will get to in a minute. Judaizing is actually very dangerous. This is an attempt by the Hebrew Roots movement to revert Christians back to Judaism, to the laws of Moses, the Hebrew covenants, and the Sabbath, while pretending that Jews don’t really need Jesus to be saved because there are actually 2 groups of people within Christianity: the Jews and the church (Dual-covenant theology). Not only that, but they turn the Greek New Testament into a Jewish book, and they also manipulate the Greek words by changing them into Hebrew. This is a complete corruption of the Greek text, and of Christian theology. How many times have you heard the alpha and omega being declared as the aleph and the tav? Or Jesus being referred to as Yeshua Hamashiach? Others try to interpret the Greek NT passages by using the Hebrew language. Does that sound like a proper method of exegesis, or does it sound like a corruption of the inspired text? It’s like trying to understand Polish literature through the Chinese language. At any rate, returning to our vignette, Pollack objects to the Christian attack on Judaizers, and writes:

‘Saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is

Judaizing.’ Will you then please tell

me, what we Israeli Hebrew speakers are

supposed to say? How should we address

him in Hebrew? Do you expect us to adopt

the Greekified version instead of his original

name?

But the Greek version contains his original name, which is given to us in the Greek New Testament by God. Anything else is a perversion and a corruption of God’s word. Otherwise, we’re disrespecting the NT by implying that only the OT is inspired. When Mr. Pollack tries to usurp the original name that is inspired by God, and supplant it with a foreign one, he’s not only violating and corrupting God’s word, but he’s also imposing his own Jewish theology on the text, rather than respecting the principles of textual criticism.

By that logic, Christians should still call on Yahweh. But God is never mentioned as Yahweh in the NT. Jews may not care, but Christians do care and want to call God by his proper name. If we don’t know which God we believe in, and which God we serve, or whom we worship, then how can we even claim to be Christians who follow Christ? Calling and praising Yah is not Christianity. It’s Judaism.

Is the Ἰησοῦς of the Septuagint the Exact Same Name We Find in the New Testament?

Moreover, Mr. Pollack uses the logic that since the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (LXX) translates the name Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, then the matter is officially settled. It must come from Hebraic sources. Here’s the backstory. Joshua, son of Nun——who later succeeded Moses as the chief leader of the Israelite tribes——was originally called Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ‍), and Moses changed his name to “Yehoshua,” which afterwards became shortened to “Yeshua.”

However, this is akin to a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a word’s origin or history rather than its content. It asserts that a word's historical meaning is its only valid meaning and that its current meaning is invalid. But anyone who studies philology and linguistics knows that names and words change and evolve over time. For example, the word “nice,” derived from the Latin nescius, originally had a negative connotation and meant “unaware,” or “ignorant.” That is not what the word “nice” means today. There are many similar examples. In fact, many classical Greek words began to have different meanings or connotations in Koine within only a few hundred years. The point is, the meaning of words is not static. It changes over time, just as languages change and evolve. All languages undergo diachronic changes. Therefore, a name that was once ascribed to a Hebrew man named Hoshea, son of nun (based on a Hebrew meaning), may not have the same etymology as a diachronic name assigned to a different figure, centuries later, in a different language and based on a Greek meaning. From a philological standpoint, that’s the key difference between the LXX and the NT rendering of Iesous. Whatever the name may have meant in the 3rd century BC, it had a significantly different meaning centuries later as it was assigned to the Son of God. The name Iesous might have had the same referent in both the LXX and the NT but not necessarily the same sense (cf. Heb. 4:8). In fact, the argument of whether or not the NT Ἰησοῦς is a distinctly Greek name or a Hebraic transliteration (derived from the earlier LXX) is analogous to the argument of whether or not the OT Yahweh is a distinctly Hebraic name or the patron god of metallurgy (derived from the earlier Canaanite pantheon). It’s the exact same argument with the exact same conclusion. Although the name Yahweh is shared by both religions, Jews rightly believe that the earlier Canaanite Yahweh is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the same way, the earlier Ἰησοῦς of the LXX bears no resemblance to the Divine Ἰησοῦς of the New Testament!

Here’s a case in point. Cyril of Jerusalem was born at or near the city of Jerusalem and was steeped in the writings of the Christian scholars. He was a learned theologian who obviously understood both Greek & Hebrew. He knew the Septuagint extremely well because that was his Old Testament, given that the Latin Vulgate had not been written yet. Knowing Hebrew, he obviously knew that the Book of Joshua (Yeshua) was translated as Iesous. Yet, despite all that, Cyril nevertheless considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin. The same thing occurred with another towering figure of Bible scholarship and one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria. He lived very early (150 – c. 215). He was a famous Christian theologian and Bible scholar who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some of his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. He was obviously steeped in the LXX and yet he, too, attributed the name Ἰησοῦς to Greek sources. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that many early church fathers considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be of Greek origin. For instance, both St. Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) & Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be derived from Greek sources. Thus, it appears that the name Ἰησοῦς has different meanings in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:

Jesus then means according to the Hebrew

‘Saviour‘, but in the Greek tongue ‘The

Healer.’

Cyril is most likely referring to the derivation of the name Ἰησοῦς from Ἰάσων (Iásōn), meaning "healer".

see 2392. iasis (“healing”)

https://biblehub.com/greek/2392.htm

We find the same idea in Revelation 9.11 in which *the same referent* (i.e. destroyer) of an angelic king has 2 different renderings in Hebrew (Abaddon) and Greek (Apollyon).

Evidence from Within the New Testament that Ἰησοῦs is a Greek Name

As serious students of the Bible, and especially of the NT, we should not accept a Hebrew alteration or a redefinition of what the New Testament says, as this would be equivalent to an eisegesis. Regardless of what the consensus might be, we should always demand an exegesis directly from within the Greek New Testament itself. Otherwise we’re changing not only what God said, but also how he said it!

Even in the introduction of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, never once does the New Testament EXPLICITLY say, SUGGEST, or even REMOTELY hint that it is an Aramaic or Hebrew name. Nowhere, in any NT book, do you find a Hebraic definition or explanation for the name Ἰησοῦς. It doesn’t even work as a Hebraism. If it was a Hebraic transliteration, it would have been rendered as Ωσηέ (Hoshea הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ). What is more, Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) In Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46, «ελωι ελωι

λεμα σαβαχθανι» is explained.

3) In Mark 5.41, “Talitha cum” is explained.

4) In John 20.16, “Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, “Abba” is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name.

You would think that a name as important as Jesus would **necessitate** such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration of Hōšēaʿ. At least not in NT times. Mt. 1.21 clearly says “you should call his name Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς). It doesn’t say that this is a pronunciation or a transliteration of the Hebrew name Hoshea or Yeshua.

The Hebrew Roots movement has attempted to turn Christianity into Judaism. Have you ever heard any pastor preaching about Ἰησοῦς? All you hear is “Yeshua Hamashiach” and Yahweh. Well, Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Nor is Yashua. If God doesn’t mention them, why should we?

If people want to go back to the OT, that’s fine. But don’t call yourselves Christians and expect the third temple to be rebuilt, and the animal sacrifices to be reinstituted. Read Heb. 10.4:

Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable

of taking away sins.

It’s a complete rejection of Christ and his atonement. The Hebrew roots movement has also influenced Dispensationalism, to such an extent that the latter distinguishes between 2 classes of people in the Bible, namely, the Jews and the church. And they also assert that these 2 groups have supposedly two completely different programs of salvation. They believe that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved through their own covenants. And if some reasonable theologian rightly objects, he’s immediately attacked as an antisemite, or as one who resorts to replacement theology. However, the attempt to fuse Judaism with Christianity has been disastrous. In the final analysis, you either follow Christ or Moses, but not both!

An Additional Nuance of Meaning to Πονηρός (ponērós)

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Definitions of Πονηρός (ponērós)

Koine is the immediate ancestor to modern Greek and the language that’s still used in the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church. In modern Greek, πονηρός (ponērós) means “cunning, sneaky, sly, wily, devious, insidious,” as well as “evil.” And since many linguists claim that Koine is very close to modern Greek, I propose that the New Testament (NT) definition of ponērós, in many instances, has certain sinister undertones of “cunning” and “devious” cognition. I intend to demonstrate that by looking at the way the term is used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the NT. This is not an exhaustive study, by any means, but it does have sufficient evidence to at least warrant such an endeavor.

Mounce gives us several standard meanings of πονηρός (ponērós), such as evil, afflictive (Eph. 5:16; 6:13; Rev. 16:2), the evil one, or the devil (Mt. 13:19, 38; Jn. 17:15). But he also adds envious (Mt. 20:15; Mk. 7:22) and covetous (Mt. 7:11) to the list. Both of these terms presuppose planning, premeditation, scheming, plotting, and the like, in order to achieve these ends. In other words, these intentions originate from thoughts and imaginations that can, if they’re quite overwhelming, turn people into evil and malicious beings. So, I’m basically trying to demonstrate that the word ponērós has the added connotative meaning of “cunning” or “crafty” in koine Greek, which has been neglected by modern lexicons.

Πονηρός (ponērós) in the LXX

The LXX has many instances where ponērós could mean “affliction” (Gen. 12:17; Deut. 7:15) or “grievous” (Exod. 33:4), or simply “evil” (Gen. 2:9). However, there are cases where the definition of ponērós goes beyond the standard definitions and implies “thinking evil thoughts” (Gen. 6:5). Case in point, the English translation by L.C.L. Brenton of Gen. 8:21 (LXX) reads:

the imagination [διάνοια] of man is intently

bent upon evil [πονηρὰ] things.

The LXX demonstrates that the functional aspect of ponērós is not just thinking but also uttering evil words. Gen. 31:29 (LXX) writes:

speak not evil [πονηρά] words.

Numbers 11:1 (LXX) goes even further by showing that the term ponērós suggests a certain amount of premeditated plotting in a cunning or underhanded fashion:

the people murmured sinfully [πονηρά]

before [έναντι] the Lord [Κυρίου].

In other words, the people complained, not in a justifiable way, but rather “sinfully” (πονηρά], which suggests that they were plotting against God in a devious and insidious manner.

In Num. 14:27 (LXX) God declares that those “murmuring against me” (γογγύζουσιν εναντίον μου) are a “wicked generation” (την συναγωγήν την πονηράν). That is to say, these people are murmuring and planting seeds of dissension, plotting against God in an attempt to create discord and division.

Numbers 14:36-37 (LXX) suggests that those who were dispatched by Moses to scout out the Land of Canaan were slandering God by devising lies and false reports. Numbers 14:36 (LXX) reads as follows:

[they] murmured against it to the assembly

so as to bring out evil words concerning the

land [ρήματα πονηρά περι της γης].

Numbers 14:37 (LXX) is even clearer, suggesting that these were false and fabricated reports. Numbers 14:37 (LXX) says thusly:

the men … spoke evil [πονηρά] reports

against the land.

As we move on to Gen. 50:20 (LXX), it becomes apparent that the word πονηρά implies underhanded schemes and evil plots. Gen. 50:20 (LXX) reads as follows:

ὑμεῖς ἐβουλεύσασθε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς πονηρά.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

Ye took counsel against me for evil.

This was a case where wily and devious ideas where exchanged, evil plots were devised and considered, and then cunningly executed.

Similarly, Isaiah 32:7 (LXX) says:

For the counsel of the wicked [πονηρῶν]

will devise iniquity.

In other words, the term πονηρῶν indicates devising, plotting, and scheming in an underhanded way.

Finally, our last example comes from Psalm 109:20 (which is actually 108:20 LXX). It reads:

τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον τῶν ἐνδιαβαλλόντων με

παρὰ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν λαλούντων πονηρὰ

κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μου.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

This is the dealing of the Lord with those

who falsely accuse me, and of them that

speak evil against my soul.

It becomes clear, then, that πονηρὰ means false allegations, false claims, or downright lies! Thus, πονηρὰ refers to cunning plots and schemes.

Πονηρός (ponērós) in the NT

Matthew 5:37, 6:13, and 13:19 all have the standard ponērós (πονηροῦ/πονηρὸς) meaning that refers to Satan per se. But Mt. 5:11 links insults (ὀνειδίσωσιν), lies, and slanders (ψευδόμενοι) to the term *ponērós* because it refers to cunning deceivers who “falsely say all kinds of evil [πᾶν πονηρὸν] against” the elect. Thus, false accusations, slanders, insults, and personal attacks are all considered as part of the wily, devious, and evil (ponērós) schemes that are often used to persecute Christians.

Matthew 9:4 identifies the thoughts in our hearts as being ponēra (πονηρὰ) or evil. Thus, we all have ponēra thoughts. Matthew 20:15 adds more color to the mix because it translates πονηρός as envious or jealous, depending on which Bible version you read. Finally, Matthew 15:19 presents a list in which he identifies evil thoughts (διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί). The list is as follows: 1) premeditated murders, which are certainly insidious, 2) adulteries and sexual immorality, which involve lies and deceptions in order to keep the affair concealed; 3) thefts are also included as διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, which require the thief to be cunning, sneaky, and sly in order to achieve his aims; 4) false testimonies fall under the same category of deviousness and deception; 5) slanders are also part of the scheming διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, as they cunningly aim to dishonor and discredit people.

Mark 7:22 defines ponērós as a cunning deception because it undergirds covetousness, lies, slanders, and pride (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). So Mark adds greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, and arrogance to the list of meanings associated with the Greek word “ponērós.”

Conclusion

As we have seen, both the LXX and the NT often define ponērós as a cunning and devious cognition. Numbers 11:1, for example, demonstrates that ponērós means plotting & devising in a cunning and underhand fashion. The text suggests that the people were plotting against God in a devious and insidious manner. Similarly, Numbers 14:36-37 (LXX) suggests that ponērós is associated with slanders, lies, and false reports. In Psalm 109:20 (108:20 LXX), it becomes clear that πονηρὰ means false allegations, false claims, or downright lies! Thus, it refers to cunning plots and schemes.

And in the NT, Mt. 5:11 links insults, lies and slanders to the term ponērós because it refers to cunning deceivers who “falsely say all kinds of evil [πᾶν πονηρὸν] against” the elect. Thus, false accusations, slanders, insults, and personal attacks are all considered as part of the wily, devious, and evil (ponērós) schemes that are often used to persecute Christians.

Mark 7:22 defines ponērós as a cunning deception because it undergirds covetousness, lies, slanders, and pride (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). So Mark adds greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, and arrogance to the list of meanings associated with the Greek word “ponērós.” As we have seen, in both the LXX & the NT, aside from the standard meanings of πονηρός (ponērós)——such as evil, afflictive, the evil one, or the devil——there are additional connotative meanings which suggest the terms “cunning, crafty, sneaky, sly, wily, devious, insidious, slanderous, and deceitful.” Thus, the koine word ponērós does have the modern-Greek connotative meaning of “cunning,” which has been neglected by modern lexicons!

A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus

By Eli Kittim 🎓