James Trimm

I am actually trying to keep my own posts short at this point, unless I am responding to a long post. (And there were two of those recently).

WordWolf, Rest assured that if I have lied about the settlement, or its terms, both here and on our own Social Network with over 1,000 members (http://www.nazarenespace.com) and several other places on the internet, TWI and its attorneys would be all over me!

TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT (and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account) 1. The oldest manuscripts are Greek. RESPONSE: Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament books date back to the 4th century C.E.. However there are some important facts that those making the above argument fail to account for. To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated back only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak. Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to the Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original language of Ester was Greek. The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the original. Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not among any discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect Hebrew Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old Testament" books among them. The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement with the Aramaic Old Syriac text. Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest coplete Aramaic manuscripts of NT books. The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproven by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts. 2. The NT quotes the Greek LXX "Old Testament". RESPONSE: 1) Actually this is mainly a tendency of the Greek NT. The Hebrew and Aramaic mss. tend to find agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Aramaic Tanak. 2) Agreements with the LXX do not prove the LXX is being quoted. Hebrew copies of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the LXX. Such agreements may be the result of these types of Hebrew manuscripts rather than any dependence on the Greek LXX. 3. Testimonials "Such-and-such scholar said so". RESPONSE: These do not prove anything. In fact once can also quote various scholars which have declared that parts or all of the NT were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. 4. Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek. RESPONSE: Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic dialect. 5. Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus". RESPONSE: Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic. 6. Greek was the common language of Jews at the time. RESPONSE: The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2) . Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people during his time: I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2) Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language." Confirmation of Josephus's claims has been found by Archaeologists. The Bar Kokhba coins are one example. These coins were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and various Jewish tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language during the first century may be found in ancient Documents from about that time, which have been discovered in Israel. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters. The Dead Sea Scolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the "secular scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew. The Bar Kokhba letters are letters beteween Simon Bar Kokhba and his army, written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These letters were discovered by Yigdale Yadin in 1961 and are almost all written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are written in Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One of the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar Kokhba in Greek, saying "the letter is written in Greek, as we have no one who knows Hebrew here." The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters not only include first and second century Hebrew documents, but give an even more significant evidence in the dialect of that Hebrew. The dialect of these documents was not the Biblical Hebrew of the Tenach (Old Testament), nor was it the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Mishna (c. 220 C.E.). The Hebrew of these documents is coloquial, it is a fluid living language in a state of flux somewhere in the evolutionary process from Biblical to Mishnaic Hebrew. Moreover, the Hebrew of the Bar Kokhba letters represents Galilean Hebrew (Bar Kokhba was a Galilean) , while the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an example of Judean Hebrew. Comparing the documents shows a living distinction of geographic dialect as well, a sure sign that Hebrew was not a dead language. Final evidence that first century Jews conversed in Hebrew and Aramaic can be found in other documents of the period, and even later. These include: the Roll Concerning Fasts in Aramaic (66-70 C.E.), The Letter of Gamaliel in Aramaic (c. 30 - 110 C.E.), Wars of the Jews by Josephus in Hebrew (c. 75 C.E.), the Mishna in Hebrew (c. 220 C.E.) and the Gemara in Aramaic (c. 500 C.E.) But regarding Paul's letters to the diaporia, Aramaic is the issue. It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the diasporia, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England. (see Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology "Note on a Bilingual Inscription in Latin and Aramaic Recently Found at South Shields"; A. Lowy' Dec. 3, 1878; pp. 11-12; "Five Transliterated Aramaic Inscriptions" The American Journal of Archaeology; W.R. Newbold; 1926; Vol. 30; pp. 288ff) 7. Paul was a helenist and would have written in Greek. RESPONSE: In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first examine the background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking city? Would Paul have learned Greek there? Tarsus probably began as a Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conqured by the Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that Empire as well. Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including Tarsus, was incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic was the chief language of all three of these great Empires. By the first century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions on them . Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great question as to if Paul was actually brought up in Tarsus or just incidentally born there. The key text in question is Acts 22:3: I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah. and was zealous toward God as you all are today. Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his being "brought up" in Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by scholars to this term "brought up" as it appears here. Some have argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key, however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat parrallel passage in Acts 7:20-23: At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was brought up in his father's house for three months. And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians... Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic = ityiled); "brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic = itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di). Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire context is that his being raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was merely born at Tarsus. The claim that Paul was a Hellenist is also a misunderstanding that should be dealt with. As we have already seen, Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken. Whatever Hellenist influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem. Paul describes himself as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the first century. The term Hebrew was not used as a geneological term, but as a cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts 6:1 were a dispute arises between the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenists." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenists" here are Hellenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward non- Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts 6:1 a clear contrast is made between Hellenists and Hebrews which are clearly non-Hellenists. Hellenists were not called Hebrews, a term reserved for non-Hellenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew" he is claiming to be a non-Hellenist, and when he calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Hellenist. This would explain why Paul disputed against the Hellenists and why they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus (Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Hellenist Jewish population in Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move. Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt that he was in any way a Hellenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic expresion meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a second or third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept that he had been raised up as a Hellenist. Pharisees were staunchly opposed to Hellenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation Pharisee is further amplified by his claim to have been a student of Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel and the head of the school of Hillel. He was so well respected that the Mishna states that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and modesty died." The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under Gamliel is witnessed by Paul's constant use of Hillelian Hermaneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first rule of Hillel. It is an unlikely proposition that a Hellenist would have studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center of Pharisaic Judaism. 8. Paul wrote to groups in their own languages. RESPONSE: Paul's audience is another element which must be considered when tracing the origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were addressed to various congregations in the diasporia. These congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and a complimentary group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was just such an assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians. Certain passages in the Corinthian Epistles are clearly aimed exclusively at Jews (1Cor. 10:1-2 for example.) Paul was writing first and foremost to the Jewish leadership of mixed congregations. If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's phrase "to the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9- 10). It would also shed more light on the passage which Paul writes: What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! To them first, were committed the Words of God. - Rom. 3:1-2 One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of Paul's Epistles, is their intended purpose. It appears that Paul intended the purpose of his Epistles to be: 1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27) 2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37) All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and Aramaic (see The Words of Jesus By Gustaf Dalman; Edinburg, England; 1909) Paul would not have written material which he intended to be read in the congregations in any other language. Moreover all religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal) authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or Aramaic. 9. There are built in explainations of Hebrew and Aramaic words in the NT and there would not be if it had been written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. RESPONSES: These "expanations" are an added feature to the Greek translations and are not a feature of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts. 10. The NT was written for use by Gentiles and Gentiles of the time spoke Greek. RESPONSE: The original believers in Yeshua were Jews. The first gentile "Christians" were centered at Antioch in SYRIA (Acts 11:26). Syrians spoke Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. These "first" groups would have had a need for Scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic. Even *IF* parts of the NT were intended for gentiles, this does not mean they were initially Greek speaking Gentiles. To the contrary the ealiest Gentile believers were Aramaic speaking Syrians and Assyrians. MATTHEW - Written according to Origen "for the Jewish believers... in Hebrew" (Origen quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25) and according to Jerome "in Hebrew... for the benifit of those of the circumcision who had believed" (Jerome; Of Illustrius Men 3). This book may have been addressed to Pharisees. MARK - Mark probably wrote his Gospel for use by Gentile Assyrians he encountered while in Babylon with Kefa (Peter) (1Kefa 5:13). LUKE/ACTS - Luke a Syrian (Eccl. Hist. 3:4) wrote his Gospel to Theophilus who had been the Jewish High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). YOCHANAN - To the "chosen lady" (2Jn. 1:1) a euphamism for Israel. Yochanan (John) probably wrote his "mystical" Gospel to the "mystical" Essene sect of Jews. JAKOV (JAMES) - "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1) KEFA (Peter) - "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, the Chosen..." (1Pt. 1:1-2) I.E. The scattered Chosen people, Israel. Y'HUDAH (Jude) - Probably written to the Jews. PAULINE EPISTLES (Except Hebrews) - Written to core groups of Jewish leaders in mixxed congregations throughout the world. For example 1Corinthians is written to a group whose "fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1Cor. 10:1-2) These would be Jewish Corinthians not native Corinthians. Hebrews - Obviously written to Jews.

There are no court transcripts because after discovery and depositions and TWI chose to settle the case before we actually got into the court room.

Simply put, sin is falling short of observing the Torah. As the Tanak says: And if any one sin, and do any of the things which YHWH has commanded not to be done, though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. (Lev. 5:17 HRV) But Yahu took no heed to walk in the Torah of YHWH, the Elohim of Yisra’el, with all his heart; he departed not from the sins of Yarov’am, with which he made Yisra’el to sin. (2Kings 10:31 HRV) With my whole heart have I sought You; O let me not err from Your commandments. Your word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against You. (Ps. 119:10-11 HRV) When we apply this understanding to the teachings of Yeshua, we find that Yeshua came to bering an end to Torah violation: And on the day that followed, Yochanan saw Yeshua, who was walking toward him, and said, Behold, the lamb of Eloah who takes away the sin of the world. (Jn. 1:29 HRV) If I had not come and spoken to them they would not have had sin. But now they have no cause for their sin. (Jn. 15:22 HRV)

Those arguing a Greek origin for the NT will often claim that the NT quotes the Greek LXX "Old Testament". Actually this is mainly a tendency of the Greek NT. The Hebrew and Aramaic mss. tend to find agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Aramaic Tanak. 2) Agreements with the LXX do not prove the LXX is being quoted. Hebrew copies of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the LXX. Such agreements may be the result of these types of Hebrew manuscripts rather than any dependence on the Greek LXX. It has often been claimed by the Hellenists, that the several quotes in the Greek New Testament which agree with the LXX prove the Greek origin of the New Testament. This argument is faulty however, for two important reasons. First of all, the premise of this argument presumes the conclusion to be true. It is only in the Greek New Testament that such neat agreements with the LXX occur. Hebrew Matthew (Shem Tob and DuTillet) tends to agree with the Masoretic Text, While the Aramaic versions of New Testament books (Old Syriac Gospels, Pedangta New Testament and Crawford Revelation) tend to agree in many places with the Pedangta Old Testament. In fact the 4th century "Church Father" Jerome esentially admitted that the Greek translaers had inserted the LXX readings into the Greek NT. As we had noted earlier Jerome wrote: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into 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 Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint], but that of the Hebrew." Here Jerome effectively admits that the Tanak quotes in the original Hebrew of Matthew did NOT agree with the LXX but that the Greek translator had ALTERED the Tanak quotes as they appear in the Greek to agree with the LXX. The Helenists have been caught red handed! There is evidence of this, not just in the book of Matthew but in every portion of the New Testament, even in the Pauline letters. The second fault with this argument is that recent discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls have produced first century Hebrew mss. of Old Testament books which in places agree with the LXX against the current Hebrew Text (the Masoretic text) and at times agree with the Pedangta Old Testament against the Masoretic text or the LXX. Thus many, but not all agreements of the New Testament with the LXX may be due to these first century Old Testament texts which contained such agreements. An examination of four sample Old Testament quotes as they appear in the Aramaic New Testament will demonstrate two important facts. First, the Aramaic text of the Old Syriac and Pedangta New Testament could not have been translated from the Greek New Testament. Second, the Aramaic New Testament, as we have it today has been altered in some places so as to agree with the Greek. Heb. 10:5-7 = Ps. 40:7-9 (6-8) With sacrifices and offerings You are not pleased But You have clothed me with a body And burnt offerings which are for sins You have not asked for. Then I said, Behold I come, In the beginning of the book it is written concerning me I will do your will, Eloah. (from Aramaic) Here the phrase "But You have clothed me with a body" best agrees with the LXX which has "You have prepared a body for me," a radical departure from the Masoretic Text which has "Ears You have cut/dug for me." However the phrase "In the beginning of the book..." is a unique reading from the Pedangta Old Testament. The Hebrew has "In the roll of the book..." while the LXX has "In the volume of the book..." agreeing with the Greek of Hebrews. Thus, this quote in the Pedangta version of Hebrews is a hybrid text sometimes agreeing with the LXX against the Masoretic Text and Pedangta Old Testament, and sometimes agreeing with the Pedangta Old Testament against both the LXX and the Masoretic Text. In fact this hybrid nature looks just like what such a quote might be expected to look like, in light of the hybrid texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This quote could not contain agreements with both the LXX and the Pedangta Old Testament if it were translated from the Greek New Testament. If this passage were translated from the Greek it would either have agreed with the LXX only as does the Greek, or inserted the standard Pedangta reading as a substitute. This quote therefore, is not a translation from Greek nor a substitute inserted from the Pedangta Old Testament but is a reading which originated apart from the Greek text. 1Peter 1:24-25 = Isaiah 40:6-8 Because of this all flesh is grass And all its beauty like a flower of the field The grass dries up and the flower withers and the Word of our Eloah abides forever (from Aramaic) Here the line "And all its beauty like a flower of the field" agrees with the Pedangta Old Testament and Masoretic Text against the LXX and Greek New Testament which has "and all the glory of man like the flower of grass." In fact this quote agrees with the Pedangta Old Testament exactly except for the omission of Isaiah 40:7 which agrees with the LXX. Like the previous example, it could not have been translated from the Greek text. Acts 8:32-33 = Isaiah 53:7-8 Like a lamb he was led to the slaughter, and like a sheep before its shearer is silent, Even thus he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was led from prison and from judgment, And who will declare his generation? because his life has been taken from the earth/land (from the Aramaic) In the first two lines the words "lamb" and "sheep" are reversed in the LXX and Greek Acts but not here, where they agree with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Old Testament. "from prison" agrees with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Old Testament against the LXX, but "In his humiliation" agrees with the LXX against both. The final line contains a special problem. In this line the Pedangta Acts agrees with the LXX and Greek Acts, but this passage could not have merely come from a variant Hebrew text. In this passage the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Old Testament agree against the LXX with "He was cut off out of the land of the living." An examination of the two versions makes it clear that the LXX translator misunderstood the Hebrew grammar here and took the word "life/living" to be a direct object rather than a modifier. Thus this phrase could only have come from the LXX. It is apparent however, because of the agreements with the Masoretic Text and Pedangta Old Testament against the LXX in the preceding lines, that this quote could not have been translated from the Greek. Thus, we may conclude that the Pedangta New Testament has been revised in places to agree with the Greek text, as our last example will further demonstrate. Mt. 4:4 = Deut. 8:3 Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth of YHWH. The word "God" here in the Greek of Mt. 4:4 and even the Pedangta ARamaic of Mt. 4:4 agrees with the LXX against both the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Old Testament. It might first appear that this passage was merely translated from the Greek of Matthew. However, a look at the Old Syriac version, which is recognized by most scholars as the ancestor of the Pedangta has MARYA (which the Aramaic consistently uses for YHWH) in agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Old Testament against the LXX. Also the manuscripts of Hebrew Matthew also have YHWH. Thus, it is clear that the Pedangta was revised here to agree with the LXX and the more primitive text of the Old Syriac retains the original, unrevised reading. Zech. 12:10 = Jn. 19:37 ...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced... (Zech. 12:10) ...they shall look upon him whom they have pierced... (Jn. 19:37) The origin for this variance between the New Testament and the Old appears to originate in the Aramaic versions. This is easier to show with Hebraic-Aramaic fonts but I will attempt to demonstrate it without them. The original Hebrew of this passage (in Zech. 12:10) employs a Hebrew word that cannot be translated into any language including ARamaic. The Hebrew word is ET (alef-tav). This word is a special preposition which points to the next word as the direct object recieving the action of the verb. If we show the invisible word ET in the text it would look like this: ...they shall look upon me {ET} whom they have pierced... Now the Aramaic translator of the Aramaic Pedangta Tanak version of Zech 12:10 striving for a word for word translation, translated the untranslatable ET with an Aramaic word meaning "at-him" (attempting to convey the idea of a pointer to the direct object). The result is that the Aramaic Pedangta Tanak has: ...they shall look upon me at-him whom they have pierced... Now when the quote appears in Yochanan it appears to have passed through another change. The Aramaic of Jn. 19:17 agrees with the Aramaic of Zech 12:10 except for the word meaning "upon-me" which is omitted. Aparently a later scribe found the phrace "upon-me at-him" to be redundant and dropped the phrase "upon-me" from the quote. Thus both the Aramaic and the Greek of Jn. 19:37 have "at him" and not "upon me" in their quotations of Zech. 12:10. This change from "upon me" to "at him" can CLEARLY be demonstrated to have occurred in the Aramaic tradition and then to have been TRANSLATED into Greek. From the above examples it is clear that Old Testament quotes as they appear in the Aramaic New Testament demonstrate that the Pedangta New Testament could not have been simply translated from Greek as the Hellenists claim.

In addition to these factors we must also consider the Eastern spread of Christianity. We have heard much about the so called "Westward spread of Christianity" but little is written of the equally profound Eastward movement. While Paul made missionary journeys from his headquarters in Antioch Syria, into the Western world, most of the emissaries (apostles) traveled eastward. Bartholomew traveled eastward through Assyria into Armenia, then back down through Assyria, Babylon, Parthia (Persia) and down into India where he was flayed alive with knives. Thaddeus taught in Edessa (a city of northern Syria) Assyria and Persia, dying a martyr by arrows either in Persia or at Ararat. Thomas taught in Parthia, Persia and India. He was martyred with a spear at Mt. St. Thomas near Madras in India. To this very day a group of Christians in India are called "St. Thomas Christians. Finally Kefa (Peter) traveled to Babylon and even wrote one of his letters from there. That the emissaries brought Semitic New Testament Scriptures eastward with them is affirmed to us by the Church fathers. Eusebius writes: Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported hat he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew one of the emissaries, as it is said, had preached, and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters. And as Jerome writes: Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries, had there [in India] preached the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters... This entire region of the Near East stretching from Israel through Syria, Assyria, Babylon, Persia (Parthia) and down into India, became known as the "Church of the East." At its high point the Church of the East stretched as far east as China! By the fifth and sixth Centuries Christological debates had split the Church of the East into two major factions, Nestorians and Jacobites . Today, the Church of the East has been split into even more groups: Nestorians , Jacobites , Chaldean Roman Catholics, and Maronites. All of whom continue to use an Aramaic New Testament text. When the Roman Catholic Portuguese invaded India in 1498 they encountered over a hundred churches belonging to the St. Thomas Christians along the coast of Malabar. These St. Thomas Christians, according to tradition, had been there since the first century. They had married clergymen, did not adore images or pray to or through saints, nor did they believe in purgatory. Most importantly they maintained use of the Aramaic New Testament which they claimed had been in use at Antioch .

By Essenes I spoke of the ancient Essenes not any of the modern New Age groups identifying themselves as Essenes. As Nazarenes we are Torah Observant. The word Torah is generally translated as "law" but really means "guidance or instruction". We keep the Seventh Day Sabbath from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. We eat kosher. We keep the Biblical Jewish feasts and abstain from Pagan holidays and practices. In effect we practice Judaism with the inclusion of Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism.

And get this: 1Cor. 10:1 "OUR FATHERS were all under the cloud and all passed through the [Red] sea...."(with Moses, see 10:2) When did Greek Gentile Corinthians cross the Red Sea with Moses? Clearly the target audience was a core group of Jews...

I am still here, two of my threads were moved to the Doctrinal section. On this thread I am doing a lot of listening.

Does it matter what Pilate said or thought? Scripture tells us the answer to the question "What is truth?" The Torah is truth, all of the commandments are truth (Ps. 119:142, 151)

SO what, you think Romans was written Latin and Galatians was written in Gallic? Read what I already presented above, Paul wrote to core groups of Jews in each community. Actually the Aramaic of the Pauline Epistles contain many word plays. Also the Greek translations of the Pauline Epistles even go so far as to transliterate Aramaic words into the text. Aramaic words like ABBA (Father) and even phrases like MARON ATTA (Our Lord Comes).

Another misunderstanding common in the church today is the concept that Torah and Grace are mutually exclusive ideas. For example one author writes: A believer can not be under law and under grace at the same time. (God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 83) Now let us be noble Bereans to see if this is true. Let us ask ourselves: "How were people saved in 'Old Testament' times? Were they saved by works or by grace? The fact is that often when Paul speaks of how we are saved by grace through faith he often cites the Tanak to prove his point. Two of his favorite proof texts for this concept are from the Tanak: And he believed in YHWH; and he counted it to him as righteousness. (Gen. 15:6 = Rom. 4:3, 22; Gal. 3:6) ...the just shall live by his faith. (Hab. 2:4 = Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11) So Paul is arguing from the Tanak that one is saved by faith alone appart from works. In fact the real truth is that men of the "Old Testament" times were just as under grace as we are today: But Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH. (Gen. 6:8) ...you have also found grace in my sight.... ...for you have found grace in my sight... (Ex. 33:12, 17) ...and now I have found grace in your sight... (Judges 6:17) The people... found grace in the wilderness... (Jer. 31:2) Thus as noble Bereans we learn from the Tanak that people in "Old Testament" times were saved by grace through faith. They could not have earned their salvation any more than we could today, as Paul writes: Knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua the Messiah, even we have believed in Yeshua the Messiah, that we might be justified by the faith of Messiah, and not by works of the law; and by the works of the law shall no flesh be saved. (Gal. 2:16) In fact the "New Testament" contains more commandments than the "Old Testament". The New Testament contains1050 commandments [as delineated in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible; By Finnis Jennings Dake; N.T. pp.313-316] while the "Old Testament" Mosaic Law contains only 613 (b.Makkot 23b; see Appendix). Thus faith and grace are in the "Old Testament" and law and works can be found in the New Testament. People in Old Testament times were saved by grace through faith just like people in New Testament times. Now many anomians will agree to this fact on the surface, but lets follow this thought through to its fullest conclusion. Lets go beyond the surface and really think this through. If what we have shown to be true is true, then the people in the wilderness in the days of Moses were saved by grace through faith. Now lets look at the full impact of that statement. That means that people were under grace, and saved by faith alone and not by works, when Moses was stoning people to death for violating the Torah! Obviously then being saved by grace through faith in no way affects Torah observance. So if grace and faith do not negate the observance of Torah, then what is the true nature of faith and grace? What is faith? What is grace? Let us once again turn to the scriptures for answers. Now part of the reason that many people have come to think that there is more "grace" in the New Testament than in the Old Testament is a translation bias in the KJV and many other English versions. There are two words for "grace" in the Hebrew Tanak. The first word is CHEN (Strong's 2580/2581) which means "grace or charm". The other word is CHESED (Strong's 2616/2617 ) which carries the meaning of "grace, mercy or undue favor." These two words closely parallel the meanings of the two Greek words used for grace in the Greek Bible. These are CHARIS (Strong's 5485/5463) which means "grace or charm" and ELEOS (Strong's 1651/1653) meaning "grace, mercy or undue favor." Obviously Hebrew CHEN = Greek CHARIS and Hebrew CHESED = Greek ELEOS. Now the KJV tends to translate CHEN/CHARIS as "grace" but tends to translate CHESED/ELEOS as "mercy". Now when we think of "grace" in biblical terms we are ussually thinking of the concept of CHESED/ELEOS "undue favor". Now if we follow with the KJV translation scheme then it appears that there is much more grace in the New Testament than the Tanak, since CHEN only appears 70 times in the Tanak while CHARIS appears 233 times in the New Testament. But remember, the concept of "undue favor" is actually CHESED/ELEOS. CHESED appears 251 times in the Tanak, while ELEOS appears only 50 times in the New Testament. If anything there is far more "grace" in the Tanak than in the New Testament. Now let us turn to the Tanak to get a better understanding of what grace really is. According to the Scriptures there is a close connection between "grace" and the "fear of YHWH": For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his grace (CHESED) toward those who fear him. (Psalm 103:11) Oh let those who fear YHWH say, "His grace (CHESED) is everlasting. (Psalm 118:4) By grace (CHESED) and truth iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of YHWH one keeps away from evil. (Proverbs 16:6) And the fear of YHWH, according to the Tanak, includes Torah observance: ...that he may learn the fear of YHWH his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them: (Deut. 17:19) ...that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear YHWH your God, and observe to do all the words of this Torah. (Deut. 31:12) Therefore there is clearly no conflict between grace and Torah. In fact the Torah is closely connected to grace. The next word we need to examine is "faith". The Hebrew word is EMUNAH. EMUNAH can mean "belief, faith or trust" and is best translated "trusting faithfulness". When we speak of "faith" in YHWH we are not merely speaking about "belief" but "trusting faithfulness". If someone were to ask you if you are faithful to your spouse, you would not reply by saying "Yes, I believe my spouse exists." That is because it is clearly not an issue of what you believe but in whether you are faithful. Imagine a man who stays out late at night every night committing adultery with various women. Each night he comes home to his wife and tells her how much he loves her, and insists that since he believes in her existence that he therefore is faithful to her. Is this man faithful to his wife? Absolutely not! This understanding is confirmed to us in the Scriptures as follows: Remove the false way from me, and graciously grant me your Torah. I have chosen the way of faith; I have placed your ordinances before me. (Psalm 119:29-30) Now I want to make it clear that we are not saying that one earns ones salvation by keeping Torah. At times I have been asked "Do I have to keep Torah to be saved?". I reply by saying "Of course not.... do you have to get cleaned up to take a bath?" You may ask, "Well if we don't keep the Torah for salvation, then why do we keep the Torah?" First of all, keeping the Torah SHOWS our faith (Titus 3:5-8; 1Jn. 2:3-7; James 2:14-26). Secondly there are rewards for keeping the Torah (Titus 3:8). The Psalms tell us that it "restores the soul" (Ps. 19:7). Yeshua promises that those who keep the Torah and teach others to do so will be called first in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:19). Additionally, Jews who keep the Mosaic Torah are given a long list of other promises (Deut. 28). Now if the Torah is good and everlasting then it stands to reason that it should be observed. Paul tells us that we should not use grace as an excuse to sin (Rom. 6:1-2, 15) and that the only way to know sin is through the Torah (Rom. 7:7). Yeshua tells us that if we love him we will keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-25; 15:10). The fact that we are saved by faith is all the more reason that we should keep the Torah, as the Scriptures tell us: ..not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Yeshua the Messiah our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men. (Titus 3:5-8) And by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, "I know him," and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in him ought himself to walk just as he walked. Brothers, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning. (1Jn. 2:3-7)

Let us look back to the Tanak to find the answer to Pilate's question: Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your Torah is truth. (Psalm 119:142) You are near, O YHWH, and all your commandments are truth. (Psalm 119:151)

>The dominant language of the first century >when the New Testament was written was Greek. >This was often the second language for the >majority of people, in particular the Jews. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2) . Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people during his time: I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2) Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language." >Luke the writer of Acts and the gospel of >Luke was a Gentile. The question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular interest to us. This is because the common wisdom has been to portray Luke as a Greek speaking, Greek writing Gentile who wrote his account to the Gentiles. The reality of the matter is (whether Luke himself knew Greek or not) that Luke was most certainly written in a Semitic language. as Charles Cutler Torrey states: In regard to Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the Four Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest and most constant evidence of being a translation. - C.C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels p. lix It is commonly argued that Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek. Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic dialect. It is often also argued that Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus". Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic The common wisdom of textual origins has always been that the Pauline Epistles were first written in Greek. This position is held by many, despite the fact that two "church fathers" admitted the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's Epistles and one (Jerome) admits to the Semitic origin of most, if not all, of Paul's Epistles . Still, Paul is generally seen as a Helenist Jew from Tarsus who Hellenized the Gospel. So strong has this image of Paul been instilled in Western scholarship that even those who have argued for a Semitic origin for significant portions of the New Testament have rarely ventured to challenge the Greek origin of the Pauline Epistles. For example David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament/Complete Jewish Bible (which is translated from the Greek), admits that "there is good reason to think that several of the books of the New Testament eother were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon source materials in those languages..." (CJB p. xxxi) but he then goes on to say "Sha'ul (Paul) whose letters were composed in Greek, clearly drew on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought-forms when he wrote." (ibid). In this and future instalments I intend to show that Paul did in fact draw on his native Jewish and Hebraic though forms, including his native languages of Hebrew and Aramaic and that he did NOT write in Greek. Now in Instalment four we have already quoted some Church Fathers as indicating that Paul wrote at least some of his material in Hebrew or Aramaic. In this instalment I intend to reinforce that point and open the door for the internal evidence for a Hebraic-Aramaic for the entire NT (including Paul's Letters) which will be presented in future instalments. Paul and Tarsus In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first examine the background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking city? Would Paul have learned Greek there? Tarsus probably began as a Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that Empire as well. Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including Tarsus, was incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic was the chief language of all three of these great Empires. By the first century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions on them . Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great question as to if Paul was actually brought up in Tarsus or just incidentally born there. The key text in question is Acts 22:3: I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah. and was zealous toward God as you all are today. Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his being "brought up" in Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by scholars to this term "brought up" as it appears here. Some have argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key, however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat parallel passage in Acts 7:20-23: At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was brought up in his father's house for three months. And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians... Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic = ityiled); "brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic = itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di). Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire context is that his being raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was merely born at Tarsus. Was Paul a Helenist? The claim that Paul was a Hellenistic is also a misunderstanding that should be dealt with. As we have already seen, Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken. Whatever Hellenistic influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem. Paul describes himself as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the first century. The term Hebrew was not used as a genealogical term, but as a cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts 6:1 were a dispute arises between the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenistic." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenistic" here are Helenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward non-Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts 6:1 a clear contrast is made between Helenists and Hebrews which are clearly non-Helenists. Helenists were not called Hebrews, a term reserved for non-Helenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew" he is claiming to be a non-Helenist, and when he calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Helenist. This would explain why Paul disputed against the Helenists and why they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus (Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Helenist Jewish population in Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move. Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt that he was in any way a Helenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic expression meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a second or third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept that he had been raised up as a Helenist. Pharisees were staunchly opposed to Helenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation Pharisee is further amplified by his claim to have been a student of Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel and the head of the school of Hillel. He was so well respected that the Mishna states that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and modesty died." The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under Gamliel is witnessed by Paul's constant use of Hillelian Hermeneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first rule of Hillel. It is an unlikely proposition that a Helenist would have studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center of Pharisaic Judaism. The Audience and Purpose of the Pauline Epistles Paul's audience is another element which must be considered when tracing the origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were addressed to various congregations in the Diaspora. These congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and a complimentary group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was just such an assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians . It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England. If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Hebrew or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's phrase "to the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It would also shed more light on the passage which Paul writes: What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! To them first, were committed the Words of God. - Rom. 3:1-2 It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities to which he wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a Latin original of Romans. One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of Paul's Epistles, is their intended purpose. It appears that Paul intended the purpose of his Epistles to be: 1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27) 2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37) All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and Aramaic Paul would not have written material which he intended to be read in the congregations in any other language. Moreover all religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal) authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul was born in Tarsus, an Aramaic speaking city, and raised up in Jerusalem as a staunch non-Helenist. He wrote his Epistles to core groups of Jews at various congregations in the Diaspora to hold doctrinal authority and to be used as liturgy. There can be little doubt that he wrote these Epistles in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were later translated into Greek. I suggest you read the book The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament http://www.lulu.com/nazarene It makes a thorough and completely documented case.

That the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic is further verified by the history of the early believers in Yeshua as the Messiah. The first believers in Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes" . Sometime later the first Gentile believers in Yeshua called "Christians" appeared . This first congregation of Gentile Christians formed in Antioch, the capital of Syria, where some of the people spoke Greek and almost all spoke Aramaic, which is also called "Syriac". Then in 70 C.E., there was a mass exodus of the Nazarenes from their center at Jerusalem to Pella. Eventually, they established communities in Beroea, Decapolis, Bashanitis and Perea. These Nazarenes used Hebrew Scriptures and in the fourth century Jerome traveled to Borea to copy their Hebrew Matthew. As a result, while at least the book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, very early on Aramaic and Greek New Testament books were needed.

Sounds good :-) "And, finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." Thomas Jefferson

TESTIMONY OF THE "CHURCH FATHERS" All of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to the Semitic origin of at least the Book of Matthew, as the following quotes demonstrate: Papias (150-170 C.E.) Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. (quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39) Ireneus (170 C.E.) Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1) Origen (c. 210 C.E.) The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25) Eusebius (c. 315 C.E.) Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:24) Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had proclaimed, and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 5:10) Epiphanius (370 C.E.) They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4) Jerome (382 C.E.) "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into 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 Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint], but that of the Hebrew." (Lives of Illustrious Men 3) "Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries, had there [india] preached the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him." (De Vir. 3:36) Isho'dad (850 C.E.) His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew... (Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels) Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's epistles. These "church fathers" claim that Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate: Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.) In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks. (Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2) Eusebius (315 C.E.) For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3) Jerome (382) "He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek (Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5) It should be noted that these church fathers did not always agree that the other books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Matthew put the setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament in the Hebrew language and letters." (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3) Epiphanius does, however, tell us that the Jewish believers would disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of John and Acts in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius, Israel. (Epipnanius; Pan. 30:3, 6) Epiphanius believed these versions to be mere "translations" (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6, 12) but admitted that the Jewish believers would disagree with him. (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3) The truth in this matter is clear, if Greek had replaced Hebrew as the language of Jews as early as the first century, then why would fourth century Jews have any need for Hebrew translations. The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these books in fourth century Israel testifies to their originality, not to mention the fact that the Jewish believers regarded them as authentic.

The basic concept is that Yeshua did not come to create a new religion, but to be the Messiah of the old one. There is a lot of talk these days about getting back to the New Testament Church... but two things the New Testament Church did not have... A "New Testament" (it was still being written) and s "Church" (they met in homes and synagogues) Here are some free resources: NazareneSpace It's like MySpace or FaceBook for those interested in Hebraic Roots of the Faith http://www.nazarenespace.com (Over 1,000 members worldwide!) I ESPECIALLY recommend this free book: The Apostasy and Restoration http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8676000/8676568/2/print/restore2.pdf Test your Faith Bible Quiz http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2324000/2324355/1/print/biblequiz.pdf Davar Bible School: Free Bible correspondence Course http://nazarenespace.ning.com/group/davarbibleschool Is the Torah for Today? http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2276000/2276560/1/print/booklet.pdf What do you mean... "Church"? http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2277000/2277151/1/print/church.pdf What is Nazarene Judaism? http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2277000/2277304/1/print/naz.pdf Which Day is the Sabbath? http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2286000/2286389/2/print/sabbath.pdf What do you mean... "Salvation"?

You hit the target dead on! First of all it is important to realize that the four Gospels give the account of the life of Yeshua on each of the four levels: (The following is from the introduction to my Hebraic Roots Commentary on Matthew at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene The Hebrew/Aramaic word PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without vowels as PRDS. PaRDeS refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of Eden. The word PRDS is also an acronym (called in Judaism "notarikon") for: [P]ashat (Heb. "simple") The plain, simple, literal level of understanding. [R]emez (Heb. "hint") The implied level of understanding. [D]rash (Heb. "search") The allegorical, typological or homiletically level of understanding. od (Heb. "hidden") The hidden, secret or mystical level of understanding. These are the four levels of understanding. The Four Gospels each express one of these four levels of understanding of the life of Yeshua. Each also expresses a different aspect of the Messiah and corresponds to each of the four faces of the living beings in Ezekiel 1. The Pashat Gospel is Mark. Mark wrote a simple, brief, concise, pashat account of Yeshua’s life for the Goyim (Gentiles) while he was in Babylon with Kefa (1Kefa 5:13). He wrote his Gospel in the Syriac dialect of Aramaic for his Syrian and Assyrian readers in Babylon. Mark thus compiled material from Matthew and Luke and simplified it to create a simple version for Goyim. Mark presents the Messiah as the servant (the servant who purifies the Goyim in Is. 52:13, 15) the “my servant the Branch” of Zech.3:8 who is symbolized by the face of the Ox in Ezekiel 1 (the Ox being a servant, a beast of burden). Mark does not begin with an account of the birth of Messiah as do Matthew and Luke because, unlike the birth of a King, the birth of a servant is unimportant, all that is important is his work as a servant which begins with his immersion by Yochanan. Thus Mark’s simplified account omits any account of Yeshua’s birth or preexistence and centers on his work as a servant who purifies the Goyim. The Remez Gospel is Luke. Luke wrote a more detailed account for the High Priest Theophilus (a Sadducee). The Sadducees were rationalists and sticklers for details. Luke presents Yeshua as the “Son of Man” and as “the man whose name is the Branch” (Zech 6:12) who is presented as a High Priest and is symbolized by the face of the man in Ezekiel 1. Luke wants to remind by remez (by implication) the High Priest Theophilus about the redemption of the filthy High Priest Joshua (Zech. 6) and its prophetic foreshadowing of a “man” who is a Messianic “Priest” and who can purify even a High Priest. The Drash Gospel is Matthew. Matthew presents his account of Yeshua’s life as a Midrash to the Pharisees, as a continuing story tied to various passages from the Tanak (for example Mt. 2:13-15 presents an allegorical understanding of Hosea 11:1).. As a drash level account Matthew also includes a number of parables in his account. Matthew presents Messiah as the King Messiah, the Branch of David (Jer. 23:5-6 & Is. 11:1f) symbolized by the face of the lion in Ezekiel 1. The Sod Gospel is Yochanan (John). Yochanan addresses the Mystical Essene sect and concerns himself with mystical topics like light, life, truth, the way and the Word. Yochanan includes many Sod interpretations in his account. For example Yochanan 1:1 presents a Sod understanding of Gen. 1:1. Yochanan 3:14; 8:28 & 12:32 present a Sod understanding of Num. 21:9 etc.). This is represented by the eagle that flies above the earth and sees from above. These same four categories parallel the four faces as shown on page 12 of the appendix to the Hebraic Roots Version Mark portrays Messiah as the servant

As I said earlier there is a spiritual battle taking place between light and darkness. Paul writes: ...what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Messiah with Belial... (2Cor. 6:14b-15a) Throughout the New Testament there are extended metaphores revolving around light and darkness. Believers are called "sons of light" (Lk. 16:8; Jn. 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1Thes. 5:5). The full armour of God is also called the "armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). The New Testament speaks of those "who walk in darkness" (Jn. 8:12; 12:35). But what does this idiomatic use of the terms light and darkness mean? For the answer let us turn to the Tanak: For the commandment is a lamp; and the Torah is light... (Prov. 6:23) Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105) To the Torah and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20) ...for a Torah shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgement to rest for a light of the people. (Isaiah 51:4) So according to the Tanak the Torah is a light for our paths. Those that walk in the Torah walk in the light. This is why the New Testament speaks of those who walk in darkness (Jn. 8:12; 12:35; 1Jn. 1:6; 2:11). These are those who do not walk by the light of Torah. Of these John writes: And if we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we are liars and we do not walk in truth. (1Jn. 1:6) Notice that John equates "walking in truth" with walking in the light. As we noted previously "the Torah is truth" (Ps. 119:142) thus if "walking in the light" means "walking in truth" then both phrases refer to walking in the Torah. This takes us back to our passages from the Tanak given above. John also confirms this by writing the parallel statements: ...walking in truth. ...walk according to his commandments. (2Jn. 1:4, 6) Now lets look back at a moment to the full armour of God. As we have noted Paul also calls this armour the "armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). According to Paul we are involved in a spiritual battle with "the rulers of the darkness of this world." (Eph. 6:12) and thus he instructs us to put on this "armour of light" (Eph. 6:13 & Rom. 13:12) Now several of the items of the "armour of light" also tie in with the Torah: • The Belt of Truth Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your Torah is truth. (Psalm 119:142) You are near, O YHWH, and all your commandments are truth. (Psalm 119:151) • The Breatplate of Righteousness What great nation is there that has statutes and judgements as righteous as this whole Torah which I am setting before you today?... (Deut. 4:6) • The Shield of Faith Remove the false way from me, and graciously grant me your Torah. I have chosen the way of faith; I have placed your ordinances before me. (Psalm 119:29-30) • The Sword of the Word ...For the Torah will go out from Zion; and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:3) Thus the Armour of Light is the armour of the Torah which lights our path. There are two paths before us, one of darkness and one of light. On the one hand one may "walk in darkness" on the other hand one may "walk in the light" of Torah. The "son's of light" put on the "armour of light" and walk in the light of Torah, while the "sons of darkness" walk in the Torah-lessness which is the darkness of this dark world.

The Torah is Truth (Ps. 119:142) and Yeshua said: ... if you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32) Therefore the Torah brings freedom. This is completely contrary to what most people have been taught. The common wisdom is that the Torah is bondage and that "freedom in Christ" means freedom from Torah. For example one author writes: Many Christians today would return to Sinai. They would put upon the church the yoke of bondage, the Law of Moses. (God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 66) However as we shall see the scriptures teach that exactly the opposite is true. The central story of Judaism is that of the Exodus from Egypt. The children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt. God promised to gring them out of bondage and give them freedom. Upon leading the children of Israel out of Egypt, YHWH led them to Mt. Sinai where he delvered the Torah to them. Note that the theme of this central story is that God promised freedom from bondage and gave the children of Israel Torah. Now why would YHWH lead the people out of bondage in Egypt, lead them to Mt. Sinai, and deliver them right back into bondage again? And why would he at the same time promise them freedom. God is no liar. He promised the people freedom and he gave them Torah because the Torah is freedom from bondage. The Torah is truth (Ps. 119:142) and the truth will make you free (John 8:31-32). This truth is proclaimed by the Psalmist: So shall I keep your Torah continually forever and ever, And I will walk in freedom: for I seek your precepts. (Psalm 119:44-45) As well as by Ya'akov HaTzadik (James the Just) who called the Torah "the Torah of freedom" (James 1:25; 2:12). However the ANOMOS teachers today teach that the Torah is bondage and that Torah-lessness is freedom. They have exchanged the truth (Torah) of God for a lie (Torah-lessness) (Rom. 1:25). Of these 2Peter 2:19 states: While they promise them freedom, they themselves are servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage. according to Kefa these men "turn from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2Peter 2:21) they promise freedom but deliver bondage. By contrast Yeshua said: Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my load is light. (Mat. 11:28-30) Now many of the teachers of Torah-lessness use this this passage as a proof text. To them this passage refers to freedom from the bondage of Torah. However notice the boldfaced portion. This bolfaced portion of Yeshua's statement is a quotation from the Tanak. A quotation which gives a great deal of context to Yeshua's statement. Lets look at this Tanak passage: Thus said YHWH, stand you in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls. But they said, we will not walk therein. (Jer. 6:16) Notice that this "way" which gives "rest" is "the old path". Now lets read a little further down in Jer. 6 to obtain more context: But they said, we will not walk therein (Jer. 6:16)... ...they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my Torah, but rejected it. (Jer. 6:19) Notice that the "old path" that brings "rest for your souls" to which they said "we will not walk therein" (Jer. 6:16) is identified by YHWH as "my Torah". This takes us up a bit further in the text of Jeremiah: ...they are foolish, for they do not know the way of YHWH, the requirements of their God. So I will go to the leaders and speak to them; surely they know the way of YHWH, the requirements of their God." But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke and torn off the bonds. (Jer. 5:4-5 see also Jer. 2:20) Here we find that the "yoke" which brings rest is the yoke which was being rejected. The yoke of Torah. Now lets look again at Yeshua's saying: Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my load is light. (Mat. 11:28-30) The yoke that Messiah asks us to take on ourselves, the yoke that will give us rest for our souls is the Torah. The Torah is freedom from the bondage of Torah-lessness. The freedom of Torah is freedom from the bondage to sin that results without Torah. Without Torah there is no true freedom, only bondage. True liberty does not include a license to sin (Rom. 3:8; 6:1-2, 15)

An excerpt from my book: HERMENEUTICS: Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (2Tim. 2:15) http://www.lulu.com/nazarene The Hebrew/Aramaic word PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without vowels as sdrp (PRDS). PaRDeS refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of Eden. The word appears three times in the Aramaic New Testament (Lk. 23:43; 2Cor. 12:4 & Rev. 2:7). The word PRDS is used in Jewish hermeneutics as an acronym (called in Judaism "notarikoni6) for: Pashat (Heb. "simple") Remez (Heb. "hint") Drash (Heb. "search") Sod (Heb. "hidden") In Jewish hermeneutics these four terms indicate the four levels of understanding of the Scriptures. Each layer becomes deeper and more intense than the last. Digging deeper and deeper into these four levels of understanding is like digging through the layers of an onion. Each layer is more intense than the last. THE PASHAT The first level of understanding is PASHAT (simple). The Pashat is the simple, basic, literal meaning of the text. It is similar to what Protestant hermeneutics calls "Grammatical Historical Exegesis" and also similar to what Protestant Heremeneutics calls "The Literal Principle." Generally speaking the Pashat of a passage is either an axiom itself or the conclusion of a sound deductive argument. The PASHAT is the plain, simple meaning of the text; understanding scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the words being used, in accordance with the primary exegetical rule in the Talmud that no passage loses its PASHAT (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a). While there is figurative language (like Ps. 36:7) symbolism (like Rom. 5:14); allegory (like Gal. 4:19-31) and hidden meanings (like Rev. 13:18; see also ICor. 2:7) in the Scriptures, the first thing to look for is the literal meaning or PASHAT. The following rules of thumb can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its PASHAT: 1.When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative. For Example: "The name of YHWH is a strong tower..." (Prov. 18:10) 2.When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative. For Example: "...the trees of the field shall clap their hands." (Isaiah 55:12) 3.When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative. For Example: "Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings," (Ps. 17:8) The PASHAT is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the PASHAT we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding. We are left with a no-holdsbarred game of pure imagination in which we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis) (see 2Pt. 1:20-21; 1 Tim. 4:3-4). Thus the Talmud twice warns us: "No passage loses its PASHAT" (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a). THE REMEZ The next level of understanding is called in Hebrew REMEZ (hint). This is the implied meaning of the text. A conclusion reached through inductive reasoning would be a REMEZ understanding. On the REMEZ level details in the text are often regarded as implying a deeper truth than that conveyed by its PASHAT. In many cases a "corollary" would be a REMEZ understanding. A corollary is a sound conclusion that is drawn from a premise which was itself the conclusion of another sound argument. An example of implied "REMEZ" meaning may be found in Ex. 21:26-26-27 where we are told of our liability regarding eyes and teeth. By the "REMEZ" understanding we know that this liability also applies to other parts of the body as well. THE DRASH The next level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "drash" meaning "search", this is the allegorical, typological or homiletically application of the text. On the DRASH level creativity is used to search the text in relation to the rest of the Scriptures, other literature, or life itself in such a way as to develop an allegorical, typological or homiletically application of the text. This process often involves eisogesis (reading ideas into the text) of the text but should be constrained by having some foundation in sound exegesis as well. The term "midrash" generally refers to a commentary which is built upon drash understandings. Three important rules of thumb in utilizing the drash level of understanding a scripture are: 1. A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its PASHAT meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict any PASHAT meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states "No passage loses its PASHAT." (b. Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a) 2. Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory. For example Mt. 13:3-9 gives the parable of the seed. One need not speculate about what the elements of this parable mean because the text goes on in 13:18-23 to define the meanings of the primary elements of this parable. Another Example: Rev. 1:12-16 mentions seven candlesticks and seven stars. Rev. 1:20 tells us what they represent. Another example: Rev. 17:2-8 mentions seven heads, seven mountains, a beast with ten horns, a woman and waters. Rev. 17:9-18 explains what all of these elements refer to. 3. The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text. SOME EXAMPLES OF DRASH UNDERSTANDINGS: Mt. 2:14-15 gives a drash understanding of Hosea 11: 1: When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of YHWH by the prophet, saying: "Out of Egypt I have called my son." Now if we go look at Hosea 11:1 we will see that in the PASHAT the "son" of Hosea 11: 1 is Israel: When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. This is a drash use of the text which allegorically likens Messiah to Israel. So how is the Messiah allegorically like Israel? * Both made a major impact on the world. * Both were born through a biological miracle on their mother's womb. * Both were taken into Egypt to save their lives. * Both are called up out of Egypt. * Both have been despised and rejected by man. * Rome attempted to execute each of them. * Both are resurrected never to die again. Other examples of the Drash level of understanding used in the "New Testament'": Rom. 5:14 (14-2 1) gives a drash understanding of Gen. 3:1-24 comparing Adam with Messiah. "Puffed up" in I Cor. 4:6 implies a drash understanding of unleavened bread (see Exodus 12). Gal. 4:24(21-3 1) gives a drash understanding of Gen. 17-22 comparing Sarah and Isaac with the Torah and comparing Hagar and Ishmael with the "under the law" heresy. Col 2:17 indicates a drash level meaning to the Jewish festivals. Heb. 8:5 gives a drash understanding which compares the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood of Messiah. Heb. 9:9, 24 gives a drash on the Tabernacle which compares the Tabernacle with the heavenly holy of holies. Heb. 10:1 gives a drash understanding which compares elements of the Torah with the death of Messiah. Heb. 11:19 gives a drash understanding of Gen. 22:1 f I Pt. 3:21 gives a drash understanding of the events in Gen. 6-9 SOD The final level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "SOD" meaning "hidden". This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. (See I Cor. 2:7-16 esp. 2:7). This process often involves returning the letters of a word to their prime-material state and giving them new form in order to reveal a hidden meaning. An example may be found in Rev. 13:18 where the identity of the Beast is expressed by its numeric value 666. As on the drash level this process often involves eisogesis (reading ideas into the text) of the text but should be constrained by having some foundation in sound exegesis as well. See the 29th rule of Eliezer in Chapter 6. Some examples of SOD level interpretations are: GEMATRIA - This involves interpretations based on the fact that letters in Hebrew are also numbers, thus each letter and word also have numerical values. This method will be discussed in more detail under the 29' Rule of Eliezer. NOTARIKON - This involves interpretations based on an acronym, anagram or an acrostic in the original Hebrew. This method will be discussed in more detail under the 30"' Rule of Eliezer. AL-TIKREI - Literally "do not read but . This method involves changing the vowel points (which were unwritten in the original text) with other vowels to convey another meaning. For example in b.Ber. 64a "your sons" in Is. 54:13 is interpreted to mean "your builders". In the Dead Sea Scrolls (11Q13) the word "peace" (shalom (Strong's 7999)) is understood as "retribution" (shillum (Strong's 7966)): How fair upon the mountains are the feet of the herald who proclaims `Shalom! (peace)', the herald of good tidings who proclaims `Salvation'! who says to Zion, `Your Elohim has now claimed His kingdom! (Isa. 52:7), for the word shalom may also be read shillum, `retribution'... (11Q13; Col. 2 Line 16) ' As given in The Dead Sea Scriptures 3' Edition by Theodore H. Gastor p. 435; 1976 ATBASH- This method involves writing each of the 22 letters down and then writing them next to each other in reverse. The result is a table that is used to decode hidden messages in the Scriptures. Each letter is replaced by the corresponding letter on the table so that ALEF is exchanged for TAV, BEIT is exchanged for SHIN etc.. Thus the name for this method is ATBASH. An example if found in the Hebrew of Jer. 51:1 where we read 'n7 :1 L7 "Leb-kamai" for M'7= "the Chaldeans". Another example is in Jer. 25:26 and 51:41 7= "Sheshach" is understood to mean L7::M "Bavel/Babylon" TEMURAH- This method is similar to ATBASH except that the tables are drawn with the two sets of 22 letters off-set only by one letter. Thus ALEF is exchanged for BEIT; BEIT is exchanged for GIMEL etc.. SKIP CODES - Moses Cordevaro wrote "The secrets of the Torah are revealed... in the skipping of letters." This method seeks out equidistant letter sequences within the Hebrew letters of Scripture. For example a skip interval of 50 (skipping 49 (7*7) letters) starting with the first TAV (7) in the Torah spells the Hebrew word Torah. A skip interval of 26 (the Gematria of "YHWH"') spells "Elohim". At various intervals the word "Elohim" can be found 147 times in the book of Genesis. Through the same method the name of Aaron is found imbedded 25 times in the text of the first portion of Leviticus. These skip intervals are often laid out in arrays of lines of equal length such that words can be found in the text much like a seek-and-find word puzzle. For example the name Yitzach Rabin is found encoded only once in the entire Torah (running from Deut. 2:33-24:6 at an interval of 4,772 letters. When these letters are laid out in array of lines of 4,772 Hebrew letters, the Hebrew phrase "assassin will assassinate" is found running crossways through his name. When Rabbin was in fact assassinated as this Scripture Code predicted, a great deal of attention was turned to the phenomena of such codesR

A number of noted scholars have argued that at least portions of the New Testament were originally penned in a Hebrew and/or Aramaic. The following is just some of what these scholars have written on the topic: When we turn to the New Testament we find that there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and for the apocalypse. - Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian, and the language in which it was originally written is Aramaic, then the principle language of the land... -C. C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936 p. ix The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956),... His work however fell short of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case, some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct. ... The translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made from a written record, including the Fourth Gospel. The language was Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed, most strikingly through a comparison of parallel passages. ... One group [of scholars], which originated in the nineteenth century and persists to the present day [1979], contends that the Gospels were written in Greek... Another group of scholars, among them C. C. Torrey ... comes out flatly with the proposition that the Four Gospels... including Acts up to 15:35 are translated directly from Aramaic and from a written Aramaic text.... My own researches have led me to consider Torrey's position valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were translated from Aramaic into Greek. - Frank Zimmerman; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels; KTAV; 1979 Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle the question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel; and quickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic document was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of the fullest verification... - Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel; 1922; p. 3 ...this [Old Syriac] Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least to be built upon the original Aramaic text which was the work of the Apostle himself. - William Cureton; Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac; 1858; p. vi) ...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language, and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close rendering of the original." - C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church 1941; p. 160 We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic... - R. B. Y. Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse 1928; p. 6 The question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular interest to us. This is because the common wisdom has been to portray Luke as a Greek speaking, Greek writing Gentile who wrote his account to the Gentiles. The reality of the matter is (whether Luke himself knew Greek or not) that Luke was most certainly written in a Semitic language. as Charles Cutler Torrey states: In regard to Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the Four Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest and most constant evidence of being a translation. - C.C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels p. lix

Of course if someone gives an original argument against the Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the NT that I have never heard before. I will compose an original response.