Z you are nothing but a shill and you know it.
"but we put Jehovah's name BACK in the bible!"
by crankytoe 44 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Ianone
"This hypothesis is not intrinsically improbable--and in Aramaic, a language closely related to Hebrew, "to be" actually is hawa--but it should be noted that in adopting it we admit that, using the name Hebrew in the historical sense, Yahweh is not a Hebrew name" (Ency. Brit. 1958 Ed. Vol 12. p. 996).
-
Ianone
Ehyeh Asher Eyheh, I AM THAT I AM. John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM." -
z
Ianone if you are going to debit English with me I’m going to give up in no time but Hebrew I don’t think so IAM THAT IAM Hebrew is ANEY ZHA ANEY
Z
-
Hellrider
"Reviving this thread, and back to the topic after all the conspiracy-crap by Ianone":
I`m discussing this on another forum too, with JWs. One of them posted a post, in which he quoted a text I first thought was a WTS-article. Then it turned out it was taken from an article that appeared in a catholic magazine. This is the entire article, below:
English version of an Italian article published in a Catholic magazine, "Rivista Biblica", edited by Dehonian friars, year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy.
YHWH in the New Testament
For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Hebrew written with the letters, YHWH (which recurs over 6800 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not appear in the original writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers of the New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KURIOS. However, it seems that such an opinion is wrong. Here below are some factors to consider:
1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX).
One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that the LXX substituted for YHWH (YHWH) the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they met the Tetragrammaton during the Bible reading.
However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substitution in the LXX for YHWH with KURIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version. As a matter of fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. (See App. 1)
Girolamo, the translator of the Latin Vulgate confirms this fact. In the prologue of the books of Samuel and Kings he wrote: "In certain Greek volumes we still find the Tetragrammaton of God's name expressed in ancient characters". And in a letter written in Rome in the year 384 it says: "God's name is made up of four letters; it was thought ineffable, and it is written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he (YHWH). But some have not been able to decipher it because of the resemblance of the Greek letters and when they found it in Greek books they usually read it as PIPI (pipi)". S. Girolamo, Le Lettere, Rome, 1961, vol.1, pp.237, 238; compare J.P.Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol.22, coll.429, 430.
Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: "In Origen's Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX all represented JHWH by PIPI; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters." - The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159. Others believe the original text of Origen's Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that "in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones".
A biblical magazine declare: "In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kurios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kurios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates". - New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306.
Wolfgang Feneberg comments in the Jesuit magazine Entschluss/Offen (April 1985): "He [Jesus] did not withhold his father's name YHWH from us, but he entrusted us with it. It is otherwise inexplicable why the first petition of the Lord's Prayer should read: 'May your name be sanctified!'" Feneberg further notes that "in pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with kýrios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form in Hebrew or archaic Hebrew characters. . . . We find recollections of the name in the writings of the Church Fathers".
Dr. P.Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kurios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kurios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more". - The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222.
Further confirmation comes from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, that says: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translators of the LXX have rendered the Tetragrammaton YHWH with KURIOS. The most ancient mss (manuscripts) of the LXX today available have the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was custom preserved by the later Hebrew translator of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)". Vol.2, pag.512.
Consequently, we can easily deduce that if the writers of NT in their quotations of the OT used the LXX they would surely have left the Tetragrammaton in their writings the way it recurred in the original Hebrew or Greek version of the OT. To confirm the correctness of this conclusion it is interesting to note the following declarations made before the finding of the manuscripts proving that the LXX originally continued the Tetragrammaton:
"If that version (LXX) would have kept the term (YHWH), or had used the Greek term for JEHOVAH and another for ADONAY, such a use would have surely been followed in the discourses and in the reasoning's of the NT. Therefore our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalms, instead of saying: 'The Lord has said to my Lord' would have said: "JEHOVAH has said to ADONAY". Suppose a Christian studying was translating in Hebrew the Greek Testament. Every time that he met the word KURIOS, he should have had to consider if in the context there was something that indicated the true Hebrew correspondent; and this is the difficulty that would have arisen in translating the NT in whatever language if the name JEHOVAH would have been left in the Old Testament (LXX). The Hebrew scriptures would have constituted a standard for many passages: every time the expression "the Lord's angel" recurs, we know that the term LORD represents JEHOVAH; we could come to a similar conclusion for the expression "the word of the Lord", according to the precedent established in the OT; and so it is in the case of the name "the LORD of armies [hosts]". On the contrary, when the expression "my LORD" or "our LORD" recurs, we should know that the term JEHOVAH would be inadmissible, when instead the words ADONAY or ADONI should be used". R.B.Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p.43.
For a stronger support of this argument here are the words of the professor Dr. George Howard, of the University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testamental Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14.
Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of Andrè Chouraqui, of Johann Jakob Stolz, of Hermann Heinfetter, in Efik, Ewe, Malgascio and Alghonchin languages.
2) The Tetragrammaton in Hebrew versions of the New Testament.
As many know, the first book of the NT, the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The proof of this is found in the work of Girolamo De viris inlustribus, chap. 3, where he writes:
"Mattew, that is also Levi, that became an apostle after having been a tax collector, was the first to write a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and Hebrew characters, for the benefit of those who where circumcised that had believed. It's not know with enough certainly who had then translated it in Greek. However the Hebrew one it self is preserved till this day in the Library at Cesarea, that the martyr Pamphilus collected so accurately. The Nazarenes of the Sirian city of Berea that use this copy have also allowed me to copy it". From the Latin text edited by E.C.Richardson, published in the series Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschicte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol.14, Lipsia, 1986, pp.8,9.
External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century a.C. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language". - The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16. Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew's account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the "first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language". - The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6.
Was this really Aramaic? Not according to documents mentioned by Dr. George Howard. He wrote: "This supposition was due primarily to the belief that Hebrew in the days of Jesus was no longer in use in Palestine but had been replaced by Aramaic. The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which are Hebrew compositions, as well as of other Hebrew documents from Palestine from the general time period of Jesus, now show Hebrew to have been alive and well in the first century".
[ Dr. George Howard is the author of , "In Search of the Hebrew Matthew" and the second edition called, "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" available for purchase at the link below. http://www.centuryone.com/4470-0.html ]It is therefore natural to conclude that when Matthew quoted passages from the OT in which the Tetragrammaton appeared in the Greek LXX or in the Hebrew OT, he would have surely left YHWH in his gospel as no Jew ever dared to take away the Tetragrammaton from the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures. [There was no confusion or thought that there was a different God in the OT from that of the NT, because there wasn't any NT yet. But today, we must be assured that the God of the OT is the same God of the NT.]
[The renewal of God's personal proper name started within Christendom with the OT being first. It was one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren, John Nelson Darby in his Holy Bible of 1881 that first restored, Jehovah to the 6,825+ places the Tetragrammaton YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. For a copy: Believers Bookshelf, Inc. PO Box 261, Sunbury, Penn. 17801 USA Then Joseph Bryant Rotherham printed, Rotherham Emphasized Bible in 1902, with Yahweh instead of Jehovah in the 6,825+ times in the OT Hebrew had YHWH with an excellent explanation about the name in his preface explaining the previous mistake of other translators using Jehovah. James Moffatt in his Bible preface said he would have used, YaHWeH if he had been writing for scholars, but instead substituted a meaningful translation of YHWH, being "the Eternal" instead of the KJV "the LORD" in 1922 and several reprints were made of that bible. Then there was another Yahweh Bible called, The Jerusalem Bible, 1966 a Catholic work which printed, Yahweh in the 6,825+ times in the OT. Now moving back to the New Testament question having shown Christendom already had Yahweh in the OT for many years.]
It is therefore natural to conclude that when Matthew quoted passages from the OT in which the Tetragrammaton appeared in the Greek LXX or in the Hebrew OT, he would have surely left YHWH in his gospel as no Jew ever dared to take away the Tetragrammaton from the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures.
To confirm this there are many Hebrew versions of the NT that present the Tetragrammaton, where in the quotations of the OT or where the text required it. (see app.2) Some of these versions are by F.Delitzsch, by I.Salkinson & C.D.Ginsburg , by the United Bible Societies, ed.1991 and by Elias Hutter.
[English versions of the NT that present the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters, or Yahweh, or some other transliteration of the name instead of the substitute of Lord where in the quotations of the OT and where the context calls for it. AB Traina, 1951 NT and 1963 OT, The Holy Name Bible 1963; In 1961 the Watchtower organization revised their version; Yahshua for Jesus and Yahweh for the Lord. Restoration of the Original Scared Name Bible 1976 YAHSHUA and YAHVAH bible. Assemblies of Yahweh printed, The Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition 1981 Yahshua and Yahweh the group are dualist or Twinity in doctrine. The book of Yahweh 1988 by Yisrayl Hawkins, Yahshua and Yahweh. The Scriptures 1993 from South Africa inserts the Tetragram YHWH characters in Hebrew both Testaments and the Hebrew characters for Joshua for Jesus in the NT. The Word of Yahweh 2000 from the Assembly of Yahweh in Michigan uses Yahshua and Yahweh. The Hebrew Roots Version by James Trimm 2004 is a Messianic version of the NT. Then there could be others as well. And in main-line Christendom the late Herb Jahn published his "The Authorized King James Version of 1611 in EXEGESES" First Edition in 1991, which became very popular and was printed in many revised editions over the following years, Yah Vah in both testaments and Yah Shua for Jesus in the NT.
It appears the Hebrew culture of the NT has finally been discovered by the English world in this age of information.]
3) The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part of this Yewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:
"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them together with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". -From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman.
The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."
So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.
And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Sabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings.
Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the writers of the New Testament reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely inspired work.
Matteo Pierro Salita S. Giovanni 5, 84135 Salerno, ITALY. e-mail [email protected]
Appendix 1
List of LXX versions that have Tetragrammaton:
1) LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266.
2) LXX VTS 10a.
3) LXX IEJ 12.
4) LXX VTS 10b.
5) 4Q LXX Levb.
6) LXX P. Oxy. VII.1007.
7) Aq Burkitt.
8) Aq Taylor.
9) Sym. P. Vindob. G. 39777.
10) Ambrosiano O 39 sup.
Appendix 2
List of Hebrew versions of the NT that have the Tetragrammaton:
1) Gospel of Matthew, a cura di J. du Tillet, Parigi, 1555
2) Gospel of Matthew, di Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385
3) Matthew and Hebrews, di S. Munster, Basilea, 1537 e 1557
4) Gospel of Matthew, di J. Quinquarboreus, Parigi, 1551
5) Gospels, di F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1537
6) Gospels, di J. Claius, Lipsia, 1576
7) NT, di E. Hutter, Norimberga, 1599
8) NT, di W. Robertson, Londra, 1661
9) Gospels, di G. B. Jona, Roma, 1668
10) NT, di R. Caddick, Londra, 1798-1805
11) NT, di T. Fry, Londra, 1817
12) NT, di W. Greenfield, Londra, 1831
13) NT, di A. McCaul e altri, Londra, 1838
14) NT, di J. C. Reichardt, Londra, 1846
15) Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, di J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlino, 1855
16) NT, di J. C. Reichardt e J. H. R. Biesenthal, Londra, 1866
17) NT, di F. Delitzsch, Londra, ed.1981
18) NT, di I. Salkinson e C. D. Ginsburg, Londra, 1891
19) Gospel of John, di M. I. Ben Maeir, Denver, 1957
20) A Concordance to the Greek New Testament, di Moulton e Geden, 1963
21) NT, United Bibles Societies, Gerusalemme, 1979
22) NT, di J. Bauchet e D. Kinnereth, Roma, 1975
23) NT, di H. Heinfetter, Londra, 1863
24) Romans, di W. G. Rutherford, Londra, 1900
25) Psalms and Matthew, di A. Margaritha, Lipsia, 1533
26) NT, di Dominik von Brentano, Vienna e Praga, 1796
27) NT, Bible Society, Gerusalemme, 1986
______________________________________________________________________________________________
any comments? From my perspective, the only counterargument I really have, is that there has never been found any fragment of the NT, which has the tetragrammation in it. I also know that the claim about Matthew is wrong.
This is where I found the article: http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/YHWH%20in%20the%20New%20Testament.htm
-
anewme
I like the name Jehovah!
I still pray to Jehovah!
Get this..........This Sunday my hubby and I were invited by his mom to attend her new church, the Free Mehthodists.
They were having a Thanksgiving Sunday Service and Pot Luck! Sounded so old fashioned and down to earth friendly we said yes.
After some intros from the pastor and his wife a large screen was lowered on the stage and a projection was started and music began and
JEHOVAH IS GOD!!!!!!
appeared on the screen in huge magnificant bold letters surrounded by trumpets and drums and fanfare!
Nice people though.........and good cooks!!!! YUM!!! -
AuldSoul
Oroberus, the name Jehovah does not appear in the NT of any actual translation, because itdoes not appear in the source texts. If anyone put it into the NT in a single location, it wasn't as a result of translation.
AuldSoul
-
-
z
Wall you doing it again this site is all about who you are 1 tract mined get a life
Under the word "moon" we find this entry: --"Three names of the moon were used by the Hebrews: YAREAH, paleness; LEBONAH, white; and HODESH (renewing) new moon"
Yareah ( wrong spelling should be Yareach) Moon.
Hebrew spelling Yareach yod rach chat not even close to Yahweh
Lebonah (again wrong spelling should be Levana for mon)
Lebonah plant with perfume nice smell in the Bible “moor and lebonah “
Hodesh (wrong,wrong again spelling Chodash)
Chodash in Hebrew is month renewing is chadash
Now if you can read Hebrew you will not have this problem because if it spelled right the word will mean something alls but this site you linked us is just like you posting without any credibility
By the way the letter J not Hebrew there is no J
z
-
Leolaia
As the link above shows, Ianone's nonsense is based on the confused and dishonest nonsense of Pastor G. Reckart. That one webpage is filled with so many errors and false statements that it is difficult to know where to start. I suspect tho that Ianone is a true believer of Reckart and nothing would sway him from his deeply flawed views, but since there may be some people on this board who might find a scintilla of credibility in what Reckart states, here goes nothing:
- Reckart is completely and hopelessly confused about language origins and alphabet origins. To him they are one and the same. Thus, since the Hebrew alphabet has been influenced by Aramaic letter shapes, this means to him that the language as well as the whole alphabet is of Babylonian Aramaic origin. It is actually a direct descendent of the earlier paleo-Hebrew alphabet (see epigraphy textbooks which place side by side the letters as attested in first millenium BC epigraphic finds, to find a continuum of forms ranging between classical Hebrew forms and later DSS Aramaicized letter forms), and both express the same language. Thus, there are DSS versions of the Torah, some copies in the usual Aramaicized letters, and some copies of Leviticus in paleo-Hebrew forms. BOTH represent the same language, it's not as if you have to use a different language to use a different style of alphabet. The difference is more akin to writing with "Courier" font and writing with "Old English" font.
- However, Reckart does not realize this and claims that Paleo-Hebrew is a language distinct from the later Hebrew of the Jews. This is like saying that "Courier" font is an entirely different language than if you write with "Old English" font. And since the Greek alphabet is derived from the North Semitic alphabet which he identifies with Paleo-Hebrew, Reckart makes the incredible and ridiculous claim that the Greek language is in fact nearly the same as the Paleo-Hebrew language!!! He states that "both Paleo-Hebrew and Greek are in the same family of some older ancient language from which they descend" and "Paleo-Hebrew and Greek are in fact nearly the same language and tongue." This is absolutely false. The Greeks borrowed a writing system, but not a language from the Semitic peoples. In actuality, Greek and North Semitic languages belong to entirely different language families. Greek is an Indo-European language related to Latin, Hittite, Celtic, and Germanic, while North Semitic languages are related to other Semitic languages like Akkadian and Arabic, and more distantly to Afro-Asiatic languages like Egyptian, Ethiopic, Hausa, and Berber. Of course, by claiming that Greek is essentially the same as the original "Paleo-Hebrew language", Reckart is then able to claim that the Septuagint is the original OT (only minor translation being required); to him, the Hebrew Masoretic text is the corrupt translation into another language. He concludes: "Some think we have lost ancient Paleo-Hebrew completely but the truth is we may have it nearly exactly in the Greek language. This may answer why it pleased our God to have so many New Testament books written in Greek, since the Babylonian Hebrew Aramaic was not Hebrew." Of course, the actual North Semitic inscriptions and texts that attest the letters Reckart identifies as the Greek-esque Paleo-Hebrew language were in fact used to write North Semitic words, i.e. those words common to ancient Phoenician and biblical Hebrew, entirely unrelated languages to Greek.
Then Reckart takes his erroneous conclusion that Greek = Paleo-Hebrew and then imposes Greek phonetic values onto Paleo-Hebrew forms. So since he "h" was adapted by the Greeks to express "e" (epsilon), he argues that this was actually a vowel in North Semitic, not an "h". Then he claims that Masoretes, in their villianous corruption of the OT text, removed all the mater lectionis letters in order to use their vowel pointings, ignoring the fact that mater lectionis is attested all throughout the OT (but varying according to linguistic change in the Hebrew language). He then produces this chart as evidence:
The first row of the table (from 64-70 AD) represents the Paleo-Hebrew inscription in the Hebrew coin pictured above in Reckart's webpage. First of all, he gives the text backwards, from left to right (as in Greek) rather than right to left as one would find in the actual texts; the first column has yrwshlym "Jerusalem" and the second column has the words h-qdwshh "the holy". The way Reckart reads it from left to right turns a Hebrew inscription into gibberish. Thus he does not realize that this coin disproves his very claim, in that a Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is used to express Hebrew, not Greek-like words. The claim that the Masorites eliminated vowel letters is also not supported by these examples. The first column in fact shows that yrwshlym and yrwshlm were two variant spellings of Jerusalem from around the same time, one from AD 64-70 and the other from AD 132-135 (i.e. both long before the Masorites). In fact, both spellings are found in the MT. Yrwshlm is the most commonly attested (and earlier) spelling, while yrwshlym is found in later books like 2 Chronicles 32:9, Jeremiah 26:18, Esther 2:6. In fact, the same pattern holds for the LXX, which also has two spellings for Jerusalem: Ierousalem (the most common one, corresponding to yrwshlm) and Hierosolyma (which is confined to later apocryphal books like 1 Esdras, Tobit, and 1-4 Maccabees, and which corresponds to yrwshlym), and both spellings are found in the Greek NT as well. So Reckart is being disingenuous when he cites yrwshlm as the Masorite form when they recorded yrwshlym as well, and neither is he aware of the fact that his "sacred" LXX and NT reflect both spellings as well. In the second column, Reckart compares the inflected Hebrew phrase h-qdwshh "the holy (place)" with the bare stem qdsh, claiming that the Masoretes have eliminated the he's (which he regards as vowels on the basis of the Greek letter epsilon) and the medial waw. Again, Reckart's lack of knowledge of the language shines through. The initial he is a definite article (not a vowel of the verb stem) and the medial waw is most definitely not eliminated by the Masoretes, as one can easily see from Exodus 19:6, Leviticus 7:6, 11:44-45, 16:24, Numbers 16:5, Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, 21, 1 Samuel 2:2, 6:20, 2 Kings 4:9, 19:22, h-qdwshym in 2 Chronicles 35:3 which is the plural of h-qdwshh, etc. etc. for dozens and dozens of more examples. Reckart is comparing apples with oranges in order to explain that the Masoretes were eliminating something they weren't. Moreover, he is confused again in the bottom row when he says that "The vowels yod, way, he are eliminated," evidently mistaking a he for a yod. Finally, it is not clear what he is trying to convey with the third column, tho I think it is supposed to be the remainder of the AD 132-135 inscription, which is not compared to anything else, except that Reckart refers to the 'ayin as a "vowel", which is again incorrect...it may indicate a vowel as a mater lectionis or indicate a gutteral consonant depending on where it is in the word (and the LXX does often indicate the gutteral sound of 'ayin with a consonant g), and the use of such letters to indicate vowel sounds is retained in the MT.
- Another example, if not the example, of Reckart's muddled thinking is his assumption that YHWH originated in the occult because it was used in medieval Kabbalah, and post-Enlightenment Tarot....as if those very late uses are indicative of the original context in which YHWH was used. Thus because YHWH is a "secret name" in late Jewish mysticism, Reckart assumes that it must have been so originally. This is like saying that because the name "Jesus" is used in secret Mormon rites, this proves that the name "Jesus" originated in Mormon Masonic mysticism. In fact, the historical evidence shows that YHWH was not secret at all originally, it was the name of the Israelite god used in ordinary everyday contexts. Then, on the basis of this erroneous premise, Reckart argues that thus such a name could not possibly have been used in the OT originally and must have been inserted there later by, who else, practicioners of the dark mystical arts who were using the name centuries later:
These letters were forged and placed in the scrolls centuries later by Babylonian occult scribes who intended that ADONAI, Ehyeh, and Yeh, should be replaced by those four letters and the mystic pronunciation of them. These scribes of hell then perverted the scripture to make their secret occult name an ineffable name among those not initiated into the cult.
Does Reckart provide any evidence is back up this extraordinary claim? No. Instead, he shifts the burden of proof completely onto others and demands absolute PROOF that YHWH was ever in the Bible before those nasty, wiley Masoretic Kabbalists corrupted the texts many centuries later: "There is absolutely NO PROOF that the tetragrammaton was ever in the text of the Scriptures prior to the Babylonian captivity and up to the time of Malachi". The reason of this is not due to lack of evidence, in fact there is overwhelming evidence, but none of it will ever satisfy Reckart because he has his preconceived notion that he must maintain. Thus, all evidence to the contrary must be the result of forgery: "When we find it supposedly there, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls we discover that it is there hundreds of years later by fraud."
- In fact, the oldest surviving text of the OT is the Ketef Hinnom text of Numbers 16:24-26, which dates from BEFORE the Babylonian Exile (i.e. in the seventh century BC). And guess what....it has the tetragrammaton exactly where it is in the MT. So you would think that is would be proof that YHWH was in the text of the Bible prior to the Babylonian captivity? Nope, not to Reckart who is silent on this piece of evidence. And its presence in the Dead Sea Scrolls? It must be a fake...Reckart argues. First of all, he stipulates that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the era from AD 100-700. Does he provide any evidence at all for this claim? No, not at all....instead he demands proof from scholars who "will wail and scream" to the contrary. So conveniently for his beliefs, Reckart makes the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls very late and then he points to the fact that the tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew characters and claims that this is proof of forgery:
The says: "They are not in conformity with the previous [Aramacized] written script. They are not even inserted in the manuscript level with the surrounding text. Thus shows that this is a forgery and an interpolation". Does it? Apparently Reckart assumes that a copyist is incapable of representing two script styles, or that a sacred name like YHWH is incapable of being represented in more archaic form than the surrounding text. Such an assumption is not evidence of forgery. In fact, he goes one step further and claims that a forger has even altered the third letter to make an original samekh into a waw...turning a yhsh "Jesus" into a yhwh (even tho "Jesus" is ywsh' in Hebrew and neither does Reckart's favorite LXX have "Jesus" in this text from the Psalms), showing an ignorance of variation in letter forms. Neither does Reckart examine any of the hundreds of other attestations of YHWH in the Psalms scroll and other scrolls, or even the Paleo-Hebrew scroll of Leviticus (in which the entire scroll is in Paleo-Hebrew, including the tetragrammaton). And of course, there are all the early MS fragments of the LXX and other Greek versions which attest the tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew letters, or the attestation of the name by the church fathers, or the fact that thousands of personal names in the OT (rendered in the LXX as well) utilize YH and YHW as theophoric elements. Reckart basically makes an easily falsifiable claim (that YHWH did not appear in the text of the OT before the Masoretes), and then tries to explain away (or ignore) all the evidence that disproves his claim. His arguments against the evidence however lack substance, they are instead based on assumptions and stipulations (such as the DSS dating to the Byzantine period) rather than evidence.
- There is so much other crap on this webpage that cannot be adequately mentioned in a post of this length. Reckart claims that there is no "y" in Hebrew (despite the use of yod), and he is utterly confused again between the alphabet and the language itself (such as claiming an original "J" sound in Hebrew that the Masoretes dropped in favor of "y"). He plays the most ridiculous word games with Hebrew names that makes Hislop seem tame by comparison, he indulges in a quasi-Qabbalist letter-skip procedure to find "Jesus" in Isaiah 52-53, he regards 'hyh 'shr 'hyh as the true name of God despite the fact that it is a phrase in biblical Hebrew (presumably the so-called Babylonian language he hates, as this is the language of the MT), he connects YHWH to an epithet of an Egyptian moon deityYh on the basis of nothing else than phonetic coincidence (tho he regards ADONAI as a real name of God....even tho it is clearly the same name as the Greek god Adonis...should I say that the God of the Bible is a Greek god?), and to base this he posits a philologically impossible connection between yh "Yah" and the Hebrew word for moon yr'ch, and on and on it goes. My senses overload at the amount of bullsh*t this webpage has to offer. Mr. Reckart demonstrates over and over again that he knows very little about the languages involved, and he shows an uncanny ability to twist the evidence and facts to support an idea that is directly opposed by the evidence.
And of course Ianone is his faithful follower, peddling such intellectually dishonest crap here as well.
