A few people asked me about the nature of the errors in this video (mentioned in my last post and also viewable as a youtube video). The content of the video can also be found (more or less) in posts here and here. The basic thrust of this bizarre claim: Jesus is the logos (John 1:1), which must mean written word; Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 21:6), which is a translation from Hebrew of Jesus the Aleph and Tav; the Hebrew word et (את, aleph tav) is an untranslatable word found in Genesis 1:1; therefore Jesus' claim that he is the logos and the Alpha and Omega is actually a claim that his name is את and is written in Genesis 1:1.Here is a sampling of the linguistic errors in the video:
1) Logos (λόγος) and rhema (ῥῆμα) no longer have the distinct meanings of "word as idea" and "spoken word" - they are mostly synonymous by the time of the NT (see BDAG or another reputable Greek dictionary).
2) The speaker claims that logos must mean "written word" - simply not true. Using BDAG or finding the occurrences of logos in the NT and LXX is a quick way to disprove this mistake.
3) Jesus likely could speak all three languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek), although there is some debate on this (see Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Languages of Palestine" by M.O. Wise).
4) There is no evidence that Revelation is "spoken in Hebrew and written in Greek." If you are very familiar with both languages, you can recognize Greek that has been translated from Hebrew, as in the LXX or in the quotations of the OT in the NT. Those marks of "translation Greek" are not found in most of Revelation, except in the quotes and allusions to the OT.
5) The worst error: the Hebrew word et (את, aleph tav) is not at all "mysterious" or "untranslatable;" in fact, I remember learning its meaning during the second week of introductory Hebrew. It is a very common word used to identify the direct object (as well as a few other less common functions). English identifies the direct object by the noun's position in the sentence; languages like Greek, Latin and German identify the direct object by changing the ending of the noun; and Hebrew marks the direct object with the word את.
Thanks for posting your very helpful refutation of the alef-tav video. Obviously, I'm on the same page as you in interpreting the video.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I'm still trying to decide how to respond to this kind of thing (the video, not your blog!) and have started a discussion over at my blog. Let me know your thoughts.
Karyn has some useful questions/thoughts on whether and how we should respond to such things over on her blog, and I have added some comments to her post (see hyperlink in her comment above).
ReplyDeleteBTW, in case it's not clear - my phrase "sniping at vat-bound ichthyoids" is not intended to be an insult at the gentleman on the video. I was about to write "shooting fish in a barrel" and then decided that was overused, so replaced it with a synonymous, but less hackneyed, phrase.
Thanks for this explication. I have some friends whose love for the word is extreme. Somehow they expect magical results with gematria - but they do not need them at all.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat off the subject - but not exactly - you might enjoy some of the stories I wrote years ago about Eutychus - a few are published on my blog here. He is definitely a good fellow.
Thanks for your comments on the Hebrew word et and the Hebrew letters Alef and Tav. You are correct. There are a lot of misunderstandings about Hebrew on the Internet, and it's good that you have debunked some of them.
ReplyDeleteYour obvious arrogance has blinded you to the truth. I would not state that the individual in the youtube video expounded his case as accurately as he could. However, that does not disguise your obvious bias. Just as there is no evidence that revelation "is spoken in Hebrew and written in Greek", there is also no evidence to the contrary. I notice that you are a fan of the New testament, but not of the old testament? I love to see how so called "scholarly" indivduals will carve up the bible, emphasising one part over another, ignoring the part that makes the so called "new" part, make sense. It would be foolish to start a book 4 chapters from the end, so would reading the new testament, and then going back and interpreting the old testament, or as most people do ignoring it altogether.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Akiva would disagree with you.
ReplyDeletehttp://motspluriels.arts.uwa.edu.au/MP1901dpAkiva.html
To anonymous #1 above: hmm... it would be interesting to list the sorts of words that identify a blog entry or post as "arrogant." Don't accusations like "obvious bias" "so-called scholarly" and "blinded to the truth" say more about the accuser than the accused? But whether I am arrogant or not is unimportant for this discussion. You might take a look at some of my other posts and notice that the use of the OT in the NT is one of my great interests and specialties. My point is that the aleph-tav claims are incorrect uses of the OT. There are many other correct evaluations of the use of the OT in the NT, including in John 1:1.
ReplyDeleteto Anonymous #2: I have read Rabbi Akiva's words, but I think you have not read them carefully enough. Akiva's point, arguing against Rabbi Nahum, is that the aleph-tav cannot refer to God in Gen 1:1 - in which case I agree with Akiva.
Hiya, I heard about the aleph-tav idea from a friend who had heard Joseph Prince speaking. I've had a little look around on the web and found this unit:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Jesus_and_the_Aleph-Bet/jesus_and_the_aleph-bet.html
Can you make a comment on it?
Doug
Can you even possibly consider that there is more to the purpose of the alephtav in the Old Testament than it being merely an object marker?
ReplyDeleteCan you even believe that the alephtav might indeed be the Word Himself concealed in plain sight to those with scales on their eyes, who have no revelation of Him, or who have yet to accept Him as Messiah?
Why be so quick to scoff?
To anonymous: The OT has enough clear references to the Messiah, so there is no need to make up more. There are three significant problems with claiming that אֵת(aleph-tav) has a deeper meaning.
ReplyDelete1) אֵת is roughly equivalent to our word "to" in the sense that it is very common (11,000 occurrences in the OT) and serves more of a grammatical function than a meaning function. 2) If אֵת refers to the Messiah, then there are thousands of meaningless statements in the OT, like Gen 2:6 "a mist used to rise from the ground to water אֵת the whole surface of the ground" or Gen 10:8 "Cush fathered אֵת Nimrod..."
3) If אֵת refers to the Messiah in Gen 1:1, then the Messiah is a created being - certainly inconsistent with NT teachings about Jesus.
A very common word yet it is left out everywhere. Pretty much making it much more on target with the other explanation that is being called an error. It is a reasonable doubt and therefore more likely to be considered innocent or true rather than false for me.
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
ReplyDeleteActually, it is never left out - it is the item that indicates which word is the direct object in a sentence. We "translate" it by correctly placing the following word as the direct object in English translations. It's kind of like the word "do" and "did" in English. Most other languages have no equivalent, so when English is translated into other languages, "do" is not translated. That is not evidence that "do" is an incredibly significant word (quite the opposite). "Do" has a grammatical function in English sentences, not a meaning function. Every language has words like this, words that are not normally translated as words. In fact, there are other fairly insignificant words in Greek and Hebrew that are in general not translated.
A pastor I know introduced the Aleph Tav to me last year. It is interesting to note that when Esau gave up his birthright the Aleph Tav was removed from his name. When Ruth, a Moabitess joined herself with Naomi, the Aleph Tav preceded her name after that. It is clearly and irrefutably the mark of YHWH upon His chosen people, actions and places.
ReplyDeleteActually, the name of Ruth follows the grammatical pattern I describe above. The name "Ruth" is the grammatical subject or object of a preposition in every occurrence of the name for the first three chapters, so her name never has אֵת. As soon as her name is the direct object (4:5, 10, 13), her name has the אֵת. In the story of Esau, both before and after he gave up his birthright, the name Esau can be found with or without אֵת depending on whether it is the subject or direct object.
ReplyDeleteJust a reminder: anyone is welcome to post and welcome to disagree - but I won't publish posts that are just name-calling. I have not published the last two posts because their whole point was to insult. Just argue the facts!
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Hebrew aleph bet is the first step in understanding any of what we know of our creator. The explanation of each letter attests to the Holiness of the creator and gives us an insight into the heavenly realm and its creation before even getting into our creation and the duality principle. We are introduced to the angelic connection to every letter and the numeric values assigned as well. The elementary understanding that is needed before ever entering the WORD of scripture is so important, but we miss from the start so much of the meaning and never consider that Aleph-Tav in itself is a marker! The Word given by the creator in the language that is Holy and unconfused! This is the only original form that has remained unchanged and given in a way that confirms that no mortal man conveyed the instruction by which we can live, and know we have a creator that is so far above our understanding that forward and backward it balances out. There is no doubt that the Torah is in its construction, a unique work. The Gematria itself is a marvel! The lack of vowels giving the understanding of the meaning of the unspoken word of god,the unbroken letter chain that need be rightfully divided,the bible code that when run as a computer program unlocks to us the fact that it records the events of the past and the present and asks of events in the making the question will we change them? making it most evident that it is the living word! We are most fortunate to have a verifiable communication with built in checks and balances that has remains unchanged by the hand of man. The western scriptures are changing and have changed since the time of Alexander with more expected changes on the horizon. The Aleph or the only one (likened) to the one true G-d,and the Tav or the Spirit of Truth which man will try to bury in denial of the very existence of the creator is attested to in the understanding of this aleph Tav or (WORD). I am thankful that the word has remained with the people chosen to guard it and treasure it as the very Holy communication that it is!
ReplyDelete