The Textus Receptus
There has been much written about the credibility, even infallibility in some cases, of the KJV as well as falsifications thereof. The following is an excerpt from the Is of YHVH and provides more truth/light about the KJV, the Textus Receptus and how this impacts on the use of the Tetragrammaton YHVH and the transliteration of Yahushua.
The earliest publications of the Textus Receptus, before it was called the Textus Receptus, which Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Catholic humanist, began in 1512, was published in 1516 AD, known as the Novum Instrumentum omne, and done for economic gain and was endorsed by the Catholic Church, the Pope himself. The full Polyglot Bible (the first printed, but not published, being the Complutensian Polyglot) would have been published before the Novum Instrumentum omne, had it not been for the exclusive printing rights granted to Erasmus by the Catholic Pope (Pope Leo X). His first few editions were so flawed that he, Desiderius Erasmus, used the Vulgate (he had collected as many Vulgate manuscripts as he could find) to fix his translations. Later editions of the Novum Instrumentum omne came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The KJV did not precede the early editions of the Textus Receptus, which were used extensively by the KJV translators. And most English Bible versions also relied heavily on the Textus Receptus, i.e., both its earlier versions, before it was known as the Textus Receptus, as well as the Textus Receptus itself.
The dropping off of the Tetragrammaton YHVH (the Masoretic Hebrew form vs YHWH, the Paleo-Hebrew form) and Yahushua began as early as the Greek manuscripts followed by the Vulgate, followed by the Novum Instrumentum omne, followed by the Textus Receptus, followed by the KJV and all subsequent English versions. Even the translators/editors of the New International Version acknowledge the more accurate use of the YHVH Tetragrammaton (International Bible Society) but opted to use the traditional Catholic translation via the Vulgate keeping the use of “LORD”, “God”, “Jesus”, etc. As indicated above, this is the same path used by the KJV and most all other English translations.
The problem with the Greek language is that its alphabet was insufficient to produce the phonetic sounds needed to replicate the Hebrew phonetic sounds of Yahushua as it was spelled in Hebrew. Although, the first generation of Greek speakers may have understood how to pronounce it when reading the Greek translation since they would have been introduced to the proper pronunciation by the Apostles and the early church members, subsequent generations lost this information over the decades/centuries. For example, consider what Celsus had to say on the topic.
"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 Hoffman (page118).
Take note that Celsus was quoting Christians as saying that the name of "their teacher" (Yahushua no doubt) must not be pronounced "improperly" and that it must not be spoken in a "Greek" way or "Latin" way, but in a "Barbarian tongue" for it to be effective. To the pagans the Hebrew language was nothing more than a barbarian language, but this does lend evidence that even though the name of Yahushua was written as IhsouV and that there were at least some people pronouncing the Greek spelling it in the Hebrew way. As said earlier, the Greek alphabet simply lacks the letters necessary to correctly convey how the name is pronounced in Hebrew and this becomes a problem when there is no one around to teach the intended pronunciation of IhsouV.
It is also believed that the name Jehovah was given prominence by the Vatican. It emerged by inserting the vowel points of Adonai into the sacred Tetragrammaton YHWH and symbolized the ecumenicalism of that period. (Wiseman, 1990). Therefore, YHWH-ology would more accurately describe the specialty study of the God of the Jews and the early church since they were Jews who believed that Yahushua was the Mashiyach (Messiah). The term "theology" would more accurately apply to the study of the Greek gods (and perhaps the gods of other non-Jewish and non-"Mashiyach" religions) and not the YHWH of the Jews and of the Mashiyachim.
The Peshitta Bible (Aramaic Bible) still uses the Aramaic variant for the Hebrew name Yahushua, but most Hebrews would reject an Aramaic variant as being a corruption. Therefore, the Disciples of Christ volumes uses YHVH and Yahushua throughout for technical reasons referring to the English translated words "God" and "Jesus" respectively.
English, Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew
As an argument contrary to using the Hebrew rendition of the Savior's name, some scholars imply that Yahushua generally spoke Aramaic citing that Hebrew was only spoken by scholars. However, that view is pure conjecture. Remember that if in fact Yahushua did not speak Hebrew, which was spoken by the scholars, one should find it curious that Yahushua confounded the scholars (Luke 2:46-50). It does not say here that he spoke Hebrew, but it cannot be excluded since he certainly impressed the doctors with his thoughts, content of answers, and most likely Yahushua's command of Hebrew. In fact, there are a number of other scriptural reasons (at least ten) why it is likely that Yahushua did in fact speak mainly Hebrew (and less often, Aramaic).
Remember when Yahushua said, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”, (Mark 15:34)? This was a Hebrew quote from Psalms 22 and is given as an Aramaic translation versus a Hebrew translation (אלי אלי למה עזבתני [ēlî ēlî lamâ azvatanî](Hebrew)); within a Greek text. Quite curious that this would be distinct, if in fact Yahushua only spoke Aramaic or Greek, as some venture. Therefore, this is doubtful since even here the implication was that Yahushua said it in Hebrew, the reason why the commoners (Romans, skeptics, etc.), misunderstood his words or thought he sought "Elias". This is just one of many examples that could be pointed out, but this one is quite obvious. Furthermore, scriptural texts were sacred and were maintained in Hebrew (and some in Greek so foreigners who spoke Greek could read the scriptures as well) and Yahushua had no problem reading from them (Luke 4:16-20), i.e., the Hebrew texts, and then expounding on the scriptures to the people from them (even if he expounded in Aramaic), showing his bilingual (or more) ability (one more of many examples).
Another strong scriptural implication of mutli-lingual use in Israel, especially Hebrew, is found in Luke 23:38. Here is found that the inscription placed on the cross above Yahushua was tri-lingual, i.e., Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Aramaic was NOT included. Hebrew was for the Jews, Latin was for the Romans and Greek was for any Greek speakers (foreigners, etc.). Another strong implication of Yahushua (and others) speaking Hebrew is the fact that Yahushua had close priestly ties (John the Baptist, a relative, in line for priestly duties, etc.) and it would only make sense that both families (Mashiyach’s and John’s) spoke Hebrew, the sacred religious language of the priesthood, no matter how popular other languages may have become. And remember, Mary and Elizabeth spent a great deal of time together (Luke 1: 36-56).
Therefore, for any Bible scholar to make an assumptive quantum leap from surrounding cultural possibilities to an absolute “truth” relative to Yahushua’s name, language, spelling, etc. is pure conjecture at best, but closer to fraud, especially in light of the proof that Hebrew was very much alive and spoken during the times of Yahushua as proved by the "Dead Sea Scrolls". And even though there have undoubtedly been many mutations to most languages, what is being sought here is the purest possible original form, not the furthest possible and allowable mutation. Seeking justification to mutate and accept poor transliterations runs contrary to good manners, common sense and the purity of one's search for truth.
|