If the greek is translated from aramiac but retains the meaning is that "2 sets of Scriptures?" what about english translation? It only acceptable if you want it to be...
Jesus' name is not the exact same as God's name. Jesus name is Yahushua = YHWH's Salvation, God's name is YHWH = self existent One. but with that said it does contain YHWH, says Yahshua is calling upon YHWH for Salvation...
Yes most of the time kyrios is used in place of YHWH, however if you study the Septuagint you will see not as often but used is theos/god
yes His name is available all one has to do is speak it...
Yes His name is available to believers today, all one has to do is speak it.
Psalm 113:1-3, "Praise Yah! Praise, O servants of יהוה, Praise the Name of יהוה ! Blessed be the Name of יהוה, Now and forever! From the rising of the sun to its going down, The Name of יהוה is praised.”
There are more historian quotes than this but here are some:
The Ebionites were a Christian sect that claimed to preserve the original autograph of apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It is quoted often by Epiphanius in the 300s. He said its official title was “The Gospel according to Matthew.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 13, 2-3.)
Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)
Irenaeus likewise says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I, quoted in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter VIII.)
Jerome around 404 A.D. wrote of this too: “The Hebrew [Matthew] itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter III.)
“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” – Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
Jerome appears convinced the Hebrew Matthew to which the Nazarenes gave him access was the true autograph of Matthew. Jerome notes how it was protected in a private library at Caesarea. He writes in On Illustrious Men ch. III (404 A.D.):
“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it.”
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” – Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
Well if you study the Greek version you will see remnants of aramaic in it, then if you study the oldest Hebrew version we have you will see there are word idioms that make sense in the Hebrew that do not in the Aramaic and Greek. I was just reading last night ) and also the geneology, only Mat in Hebrew contains the proper amount of generations, all other versions are 1 generation short.
Im not sure if it was 1st or 2nd Corointhins I have tried to find the information a number of imes and can not, butthere is a single manuscript that uses YHWH, possibly it was an eariler manuscript but honestly there is no way to know 100%
by motivation, I mean anything that can motivate someone, it could have been copyists, common culture, hellenistic sway, originally like that, truth is we dont know. It nice to say we know everything and feel fuzzy, but if one studies honestly we see from the time of Yahshua ascention till about the 1500s? it was total chaos, book burning, etc. Jews and others would be killed for simply owning a manuscript, by who? the romans/catholic church... and now everyone hangs on their every word...
how about if I say two different sources, two different final authorities for the scriptures.
if you believe that the Aramaic is authoritative, and I believe the Greek is, and we have at least one situation where the Aramaic has God's personal name and the Greek does not, then we definitely have two different authorities for scripture, I'd say.
English versions today of course are technically translations of the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.
right, Jesus name is not exactly the same as God's name, although I believe Jesus name incorporates the first syllable of God's name.
I don't quite understand what you're saying about Jesus name containing YHWH. I agree that when Peter quotes Joel in Acts chapter 2 he is probably wanting people to call upon the name of Jesus, meaning to appeal to the character of Jesus, which of course displays the character of God. but I don't understand why people sometimes want to replace the word the apostles and Prophets Joe's in the New Testament with YHWH?
I disagree that the name YHWH is available to humans today. I note that no one in the New Testament calls upon it as such. but rather, we do see people frequently calling Upon Jesus.
so moving onto quotes from ancient historians. first off it takes a huge amount of effort for me to research this on my phone. but I did manage to find a huge PDF of this work by Epiphanius that you refer to. it appears that he is very much against the ebionites. here's what he says in the section that you talked about
"But I shall resume the thread of my argument against Ebion—
because of the Gospel according to Matthew the course of the discussion
obliged me to insert the whole of the knowledge which I had gained.
(2) Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not
the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing
“Hebrew”!"
that's from the PDF that I found. now, "corrupt and mutilated", and it's something that they call Hebrew? Seriously?
I honestly don't have the heart to track down the other quotes you list, though I do notice that the Irenaeus quote seems to appear twice.
So, I will concede that there is more than one line from one historian regarding what we call Matthew being written in Hebrew. however, a new question has been raised in my mind as to whether the Aramaic that you are using is related to what Matthew may have written, or to the corrupt and mutilated version referred to above.
In the end, I would say that no one could prove it either way historically, so, again, Matthew is one book of 27.
I don't doubt that you see remnants of Aramaic in the Greek. These were Aramaic speakers, most likely writing in Greek as a second language. they were most likely quoting people who were either speaking Aramaic or again were speaking Greek as a second language.
I understand there is an issue about the number of genealogy entries in the Greek of Matthew. as I understand it, in ancient times when people made a translation they would sometimes fix things they thought were problems. that the Greek text has been maintained and copied over the centuries in its problematic form to Me Lends some weight to the idea that it's the original.
when you can find the Greek manuscript of Corinthians that contains God's personal name, please let me know.
I agree that we don't know everything. Remember though, there we're also Greek manuscripts being transmitted through what we call the Eastern Orthodox.
are you saying that we can't really know what the Bible says? I guess in an absolute sense I'd have to agree. but, we can have a really high degree of certainty about things like Paul's letters. that is, a high degree of certainty that the text arrived at today by textual critics is extremely likely what Paul wrote. now, just about any reason you would have for using God's personal name in your writing say for example here on this forum, Paul will also have known about that reason. yet, he doesn't write God's personal name, the four letters.
