Rooted In the Hebrew

By Ashley R. Clarkson
1 June, 2005

In the fine tradition of trying to confiscate God's Word, and muddying down folks in religious ceremony and tradition comes the latest fad. The Hebrew Roots Movement (including the Sacred Name Movement) seek to redress a supposed iniquity with regards to the proper language of the New Testament, and of the names of our Lord. The following article is a brief summary of their general argument and aims, and a refutation of the general concepts of these movements. Unfortunately the author is unable to commit time to debate regarding this topic (due to workload), but he can direct those who disagree with the conclusions of this argument to a discussion board where they can try (at their peril) to convince others of this folly.

HRM? SNM?

The Hebrew Roots Movement are a group that, succinctly, assert that the New Testament was written not in Greek but in Hebrew and Aramaic. As such, it is an attempt to steal away the Greek New Testament and its English translation as the New Testament of the Bible, and replace it with supposed Hebraic and Aramaic originals. The originals being in Hebrew or Aramaic, this imposes bondage onto the adherent to either learn these languages or to submit one's self to the authority of one who can, and translates and interprets it. As a result, the adherent is largely at the whim of established Rabbinic beliefs on interpretation and on events. The Hebrew Roots Movement is a movement that shifts adherents back under the bondage of the Mosaic Law, or at least acts as a type of catalyst for it.

The Sacred Name Movement is a sort of brother movement to the Hebrew Roots Movement, in that it seeks to undermine the usage of any name for God or Jesus except in the language of Hebrew (or Aramaic). The idea is that non-Hebraic/Aramaic names are an abomination, or a "bastardisation" of the proper name (if not the Greek name, as some try to argue). Generally terms such as "Anti-Semite" are bandied about against those who resist such notions. Both the Sacred Name Movement and the Hebrew Roots Movement are plots to distract and bestray Christians from the truth, tying them back into the bondage of the Law and trying to destroy Christ's work at the Cross.

Rooted in the Hebrew - The Hebrew Roots Movement

The idea that the 'originals' were written in Hebrew and Aramaic is so far divorced from reality as to be laughable if it were not for the seriousness of the charges. The deadly problem with the Hebrew Roots Movement is that those who are suckered in are lead away from Christianity and back to the Law. In essence, adherents and promulgators of the Hebrew Roots Movement are modern-day Judaizers. Because of the extra-biblical nature of the argument, it is difficult to answer Hebrew Roots Movement claims without resorting to predominantly extra-biblical sources. The following refutation is by no means complete and will no doubt be enhanced and added to as time passes by.

Let us be absolutely clear here. The issue with the Hebrew Roots Movement has absolutely nothing to do with the Old Testament. The Old Testament was obviously and clearly written originally in Hebrew. The issue here is absolutely only to do with what language(s) the New Testament was written in. Those who read on continuing to believe that this author denies that the Old Testament was written in some language other than Hebrew has something seriously wrong with them. This problem confronted, let us now pursue the object of this article.

Essentially the most serious problem with the argument that is promoted by this group is that there are no 'originals' to prove that the New Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Admittedly this is essentially the same case with any argument for the texts being written in the Greek as well, except that numerous very old manuscripts are all Greek. Most of these are almost as old as the 'originals' as well.

Leaving aside the lack of physical evidence, we should now turn to the actual employment of language by the writers of the New Testament. Once again, Hebrew Roots proponents are caught up short in their arguments. Hebrew Roots Movement proponents argue that because Jesus and the Disciples spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, they would therefore have written in Aramaic and Hebrew. This is all very well and good, and at first glance does not appear to be a great stretch of the truth. But is it the whole truth?

The fact is that Hebrew and Aramaic were not the only languages spoken in the region at the time. In fact, Hebrew was by then a largely ceremonial language, much as it is today for Jews, and much as Latin now is in the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus would have had a commanding understanding of Hebrew - he was after all the Son of God, fully acquainted with Scripture and with an uncorrupted intellect would have been able to pick up languages like apples in a bucket. However, it is a gross stretch of the imagination to presume that a group of fishermen from the back blocks would be fluent in Hebrew. Neither would we expect the recipients of Paul's epistles (Paul who trained as a Rabbi would have been fluent in Hebrew, though his natural tongue was Greek since he came from Tarsus in modern-day Turkey) to be fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic - most lived in areas where neither tongue was spoken. Luke (physician, companion of Paul and author of the Gospel of Luke, as well as the book of Acts) was Greek, and is unlikely to have ever learned a word of either language, because he simply would never have needed to know it in his travels.

In reality, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic were widely employed languages. To put it in economic terms, to write a public letter in Hebrew or Aramaic was to be pursuing business in a niche market. Christianity was never meant for Jews alone, but as a way for all people to come to salvation. The writers (to continue the analogy) were not looking to fill a niche market but to sell their product to as many as would buy it. God would not have inspired the writers of the New Testament to write in Hebrew and Aramaic knowing full well that most of those who would ultimately accept the Good News (Jesus being a stumbling stone for the Jews) were the Gentiles - and to reach them the universal language of the time and region was Greek. Greek had held this prestigious position since Alexander the Great cut a swathe through most of the Eastern Mediterranean, and Greek had become the natural language of trade. Aramaic and Hebrew have not ever had this level of universality about them. Even today, Hebrew is an official language only in the State of Israel, of which only a certain percentage speak it (many more speak the other national language - Arabic). The only sane, rational and (in light of historical and Biblical truths) logical position is that the 'originals' were written in Greek, not Hebrew and Aramaic, and so this movement has no basis in reality. The Hebrew Roots Movement is nothing but a devil's temptress to lead believers away from Christianity.

Rooted in the Hebrew - The Sacred Name Movement

The Sacred Name Movement is a relative of the Hebrew Roots Movement because it seeks similar means, and achieves similar ends. By forcing adherents into using the Hebrew name for Jesus and God as if they are the only acceptable ones (which is what they claim), they bind their adherents up from the freedom gained from Christ's death on the cross. Sacred Name Movement adherents often make a lot of bold claims, including referring to the name "Jesus" as a "bastardisation" of the Greek name. When they find that they cannot make sufficient headway against any person who dares to obstruct them is the inevitable straw-man. In this authors case such a charge was that of fanaticism. At first, Sacred Name Movement arguments seem to be very well structured, thought out, and solidly based. Nothing could be quite further from the truth. In fact, the Sacred Name Movement's arguments can be blown apart quite easily (though of course the simplicity of the argument means that no adherent is ever going to accept it, let alone consider it anything less than nonsense). Here is one example of how.

As you are no doubt aware names have different pronunciations and even different spelling according to different languages employed. Employing an obvious historical example for instance the German name Wilhelm (as in the German Emperor Wilhelm II) is the equivalent of William in English. Incidentally, Kaiser (the English equivalent being King or Emperor) is the Germanic equivalent of Caesar (being the Latin for Emperor, as it came to be connotated after the long establishment of the Caesars as the Emperors of Rome) or the Russian equivalent of Tsar/Tzar/Czar/Csar (also derived from Latin, with the same meaning). Former English king Canute also suffered from this linguistic anomaly - his name could be spelt Knut as well as Canute depending on the language used (though the pronunciation was the same).

So what does this prove? Well, firstly, just because something is not spelt the same in one language than in another, it does not mean that they are not equivalent. Second, even though something may be pronounced differently, this does not mean that this is some grave insult to the person in question (Wilhelm is pronouced more along with lines of Veal-Helm, but Will-helm and Will-yum all mean the same thing). To suggest that a name is wrong because "the vowel phrasing J- does not even exist in Hebrew" is as silly as saying that William is wrong because of the way in which it is pronounced as opposed to the name of the former illustrious Emperor's Germanic equivalent's pronunciation. Y- and J- are as interchangeable as Will- and Veal-.

In order to shed further light on what has been said it is pertinent to now clarify previous comments regarding the usage of names. In order for this to proceed, a couple of baseline assumptions need to be made. Firstly, the assumption that any Sacred Name Movement adherent who has read this argument has dismissed it out of slight of hand. Secondly, an assumption that the inevitable return salvo issues the bold statement that the name "Jesus" is a bastardisation of the Greek - this is generally touted in response to the argument that one name is as good as another in any language. Finally, it must be assumed (not that all these assumptions have actually occurred) that this author has had the charge of fanaticism leveled against him. Now we shall continue.

Firstly, the contention that this authors argument has no bearing on the general debate regarding the Sacred Name Movement need be addressed. In fact the contention that this argument has nothing to do with the Sacred Name Movement is nothing but the exact opposite of reality - let the author elaborate. The central thesis of the argument is that a person could have many names, each of which is the same (that is no more or less disrespectful or legitimate or otherwise) than any other name. A person's name is their identity, but is not in itself bearing of certain characteristics. A name is (to use an analogy) the cart to which a carriage - that is, a persons personality and mana - is attached. Someone is lazy not because of their name (they may have the term applied to them) but because of their personality. The term lazy may be attached to their name, but it is a reflection on their personality (the carriage) not their name (the horse).

Let us apply this. In this case, Jesus is a name for the son of God, and is applied as a name to identify him as such. The reverence and holiness of his name is not by virtue of his name, but of his mana of which his name is the identification. Thus to say that one name is more holy than another by virtue of it being different to one translation of the name than another is erroneous. The name Jesus referring to Jesus is no more or less respectful or reverent than Iesous or Yeshua or whatever other names Jesus may have in other languages. To suggest otherwise is to "put the cart before the horse". This argument cannot thus be "sheer nonsense" or have no bearing on the general name regarding the Sacred Name Movement as it is only remonstrative of a simple truth. Also, any argument that suggests that Jesus is a bastardisation of a name or not is irrelevant, because the point is not whether it has been translated or transliterated "correctly" but in what manner it is being employed and for what purpose.

Please note that this argument does not apply to the supposed controversy over Yahweh/Jehovah. This is in fact a debate over the reading/pronounciation of the tetragrammatron (YHVH) and is akin to someone pronouncing the name "Jesus" as "Yaysis" or "Gysoos", or better put like "JeeyaSusee". It relates to the vowel pointers attached to the name. (The debate over this extends beyond the scope of this article, but suffice to say that the author believes that Jehovah is the correct utilisation of the tetragrammatron, and that Yahweh is probably not - though he is willing to accept arguments to the contrary, and will not be losing any sleep over the matter).

The assumption that Jesus is a "bastardisation" of the Greek is not only irrelevant, it is poorly thought out. Jesus is a translation from Latin, not direct from Greek. Also, English is a strange mishmash of languages including Latin, French, German and a smattering of Nordic and other influences. As such, any word translated from the Greek may sound somewhat "bastardised" - that is the nature of translation and language differentiation and adaptation.

Finally, this article shall deal with the charge of fanaticism raised against the author. While the author can speak only for himself, he can inform all the readers that yes, indeed, he is a fanatic! The author is absolutely fanatical! The author is a fanatical fundamentalist! The author believes that believers should be free to worship in whatever way or tongue they feel appropriate within Biblical bounds (because the Truth is exclusive and "thy word is truth" - John 17:17b). There is no Biblical requirement for us all to use the name Yeshua or to sit through a boring congregation where some old codger speaks in a language we do not even understand. If that makes this author a fanatic and "the other side of the coin" from Hebrew Roots and Sacred Name Movement adherents then yes, the author is a fanatic and heartily admits and embraces such a label. The absurdity of the authors position is up to the reader to decide.

Conclusions

As readers may realise, the debates regarding the Hebrew Roots Movement and Sacred Name Movement are very complex and often involves significant delving into areas of knowledge in which most people are unaware or have no concern for knowing. This article in no way seeks to address and answer every argument that is produced by proponents of these movements - that would be a monumentous task. Instead this author has focused on exposing the fallacies of the general principles and arguments of these movements. Further research and study is ultimately up to the reader. Those that do embark on this journey should be continuously aware, and test everything against Scripture.

When all arguments are assessed, the fact is that ultimately both movements are seeking to enshrine the majestic, much touted and deified ever elusive 'originals'. This is just another covert attack by certain groups, powers and principalities that would seek to take away the certainty of God's Preserved Words and replace it with man as the Final Authority. These movements should be resisted and exposed for their real intentions.

Note: parts of this article are based upon an internet exchange on this topic.