A New List of the J Versions and Where to Find them

by pizzahut2023 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

pizzahut2023

Hi!

I am doing a very long and exhaustive study of the "J" Versions, based off the new Study Edition of the New World Translation:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/
This list has about 300 sources, mostly Bibles, that the Jehovah's Witnesses have used to "justify" their insertion of "Jehovah" into the New Testament.

I am doing an excel spreadsheet of where to find digitized copies of these J versions and then some notes on them.
They contain some really interesting renderings, some that would make a Jehovah's Witness's head spin!

For example, in J29:

The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English (An American Translation of the Aramaic New Testament), by Glenn David Bauscher, Seventh Edition, Australia, 2012

Which you can find here:
http://buffaloriverforge.com/peshitta/NT%20Peshitta%207th%20Ed%20Plain%20Text%20Unnoted.pdf

In Luke 2:11 it says:

If you can't see the picture, it says:

"For today, the Savior has been born to you, who is THE LORD JEHOVAH the Messiah, in the city of David."

WHAT?

Jehovah himself was born??
There are many more interesting things like that in those J versions.
When I finish I will put the full spreadsheet online.
P.S. is there a place where I can anonymously upload the file somewhere and it won't expire and the file cannot be edited?
Thanks!
ScenicViewer

"Jehovah himself was born??"
Nice catch. JWs believe that Jehovah had no beginning.
Plus, saying that Jehovah is the Messiah tends to support the Trinity belief, since Jesus was the Messiah. The problem is that JWs clearly believe that Jehovah and Jesus are two different individuals.
They (the GB) should have left that one off the list of 'J Versions', since it raises a bigger problem than it solves, and as a result tends to shoot them in the foot.
smiddy3

And if you accept the statement that Jehovah was born ,then who or what are his parents ?
And what does that make them ????
telmac

Hi Pizzahut2023,
I would love to see your finished spreadsheet when it is complete. Will you be letting us know on here where to find it? I am not sure where you can upload a doc but I found this - the five best anonymous file sharing sites:
https://www.online-tech-tips.com/software-reviews/the-5-best-anonymous-file-sharing-and-hosting-sites/
pizzahut2023

The first J version on the list, J1, can be found online:

בשורת מתי, Euangelium Hebraicum Matthæi (Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew), edited by Jean du Tillet, with a Latin translation by Jean Mercier, Paris, 1555. The translation into Hebrew uses יהוה or an abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton in the main text of some verses.

Here is where you find it.

https://ia801608.us.archive.org/22/items/dutillet-1555/dutillet-1555.pdf
I cannot comment much about it because it's entirely in Hebrew, with no arabic numerals (0, 1, 2, 3...) and so it's really hard to know where in the text I am and so I cannot even find the correct verses to compare. So I am not going to comment much about it other than you can find it online.

Perhaps someone here who reads Hebrew can let us know if this Matthew is significantly different from the Matthew in a "regular" Bible.
pizzahut2023

J2:

Even Bohan (אבן בוחן, “Tested Stone; Touchstone”), by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, Spain, c. 1385. This work includes a Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew. Edition: Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, by George Howard, Macon, GA, U.S.A., 1995. In his explanation under the heading “The Divine Name,” Howard states: “Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew employs the Divine Name, symbolized by ה״ (apparently an abbreviation for השם, ‘the Name’).”

It can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/gospelofmatthewa0000unse/page/6/mode/2up
According to the Watchtower, this might be THE original Matthew! But if the Watchtower is right, then they have to deal with the fact that this Matthew is significantly different to the Matthew in a "regular" Bible.

The good thing about this version is that there is an English translation of it right besides the Hebrew, and so you can read along and know what is being said. Unfortunately, George Howard doesn't translate the Hebrew ה״ as YHWH or Jehovah or something similar but just "Lord"...

But the locations of the ה״ (an abbreviation for השם, meaning "the Name"), can be seen easily in the Hebrew text.

This text supports the following renderings:

New World Translation:
(Matthew 1:22) 22 All of this actually came about to fulfill what was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet, saying:
Whereas modern translations read:

But, like I said, if this rendering is "supported", so are these renderings:

Matthew 4:6

Satan directly said that Jesus was, not the SON of God, but God!

Also, Satan was lazy in quoting the Bible (so was Jesus), apparently Satan said "etc"... and didn't finish the quote.
The "etc" is actually on the Hebrew text!
I have other comments related to J2, but will post them later.
pizzahut2023

Here are my notes, so far, on J2 and its renderings:
Matthew 1:1 Jesus is NOT called the Christ
Matthew 1:5 Points out that Rahab was a harlot
Matthew 1:9 skips three generations and says that Uzziah begat Hezekiah
Matthew 1:13 Abiud begat Achim (again jumps 3 generations) Achim
Matthew 1:17-18 skips
Matthew 1:19 admits that Mary was in mortal danger if Joseph decided to humiliate her. Also says that Joseph did not want to be with her.
Matthew 1:21 “my” (meaning of the Angel) people, instead of “his” people
Matthew 1:23 no VIRGIN birth!! Mary was just “a young woman”!!
Matthew 2:2 Worship
Matthew 2:6 insignificant, ruler instead of shepherd
Matthew 2:8 worship
Matthew 2:11 worship in English, bow down in Hebrew (וישתחוו)
Matthew 2:16 doesn’t specify age of children, just “from when the astrologers spoke to him”.
Matthew 2:18 doesn’t finish the quotes, just says “etc”…
Matthew 3:3 quote follows Isaiah much closer…
Matthew 3:10 is waay longer.
4:4 has “etc”
4:6 Satan subtly admits that he is God. Satan also doesn’t finish the quote, he also says “etc”.
4:9 All Jesus needed to do was not “worship” Satan but “bare his head” to him.
4:10 For it is written: “I will pray to H” (YHWH)”…
5:4 wait instead of mourn
5:6-7 omitted
5:17 omits “or the prophets”
5:18 adds “the prophets”
5:22 he who angers his companion
5:32 wording is unclear
5:34 do not swear “in vain”
5:35 Jerusalem is the City of God
5:41 a thousand steps… two thousand
5:46 impudent instead of “tax collectors”
5:47 omits
6:2 marketplaces instead of “synagogues”
6:27 add to height instead of “life” one cubit
6:31 and 32 has different renderings
7:6 chew instead of “trample”
7:11 “give his good spirit”, implying that God has a bad spirit too…
7:12 and others, keeps saying “at that time Jesus said to his disciples:”
7:13 omits the road
8:2 worshipped him, also “are you able to heal me” (?)
8:9 I am a sinful man
8:12 darkness of Gehenna
8:17 Isaiah is of blessed memory
8:20 – Son of Man – Son of the virgin
8:24 – mention of Jesus sleeping is omitted
8:30 near from them (Heb) vs a long way from them (grk)
9:2 Jesus didn’t directly forgive their sins, it was by their faith in God
9:10, 11 “violent and evil men” (heb) vs “tax collectors and sinners” (grk)
9:13 “wicked” vs “sinners”
10:12 “give the house a shalom”
10:38 omitted
11:10, 11 clear way before me. Also omits “but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is”
11:12 says something totally different
11:19 violent men instead of “tax collectors”
12:27 why don’t your sons cast out demons by Beelzebub?
12:37 words judged… deeds convicted
telmac

Thank you so much for sharing your research, Pizzahut2023. I will try to find opportunities to show some of these examples to family members who are still indoctrinated. Some of them are pretty hard-headed, but hopefully something will sink in.
slimboyfat

George Howard’s argument is that Shem Tob is a medieval version of Matthew that reflects a much earlier version of Matthew in Hebrew, not that it itself is the exact form of the original Hebrew Matthew. And yes, this version possibly did differ from the Greek version in significant ways. Another thing is that Shem Tob might have quoted the version inaccurately at points, which might explain odd features such as the etcetera comment. So it can be difficult to work out firstly where Shem Tob is quoting accurately and secondly where the medieval Hebrew Matthew accurately reflects a possible ancient original. Where Shem Tob wrote “the Name” in abbreviated from, the name YHWH presumably appeared in the original Hebrew version of Matthew of the first century.
One of the most interesting differences, in my opinion, is the omission of the threefold baptismal commission “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in Matt 28.20. Was this phrase added to Matthew in later centuries to give it a more Trinitarian flavour? If I recall correctly, there are no manuscripts or quotations of this verse in that form earlier than around 250 CE and a couple of quotations which appear to omit it.
Earnest

slimboyfat : If I recall correctly, there are no manuscripts or quotations of this verse in that form earlier than around 250 CE...
slim, there are no manuscripts/papyri that I know of which contain Matthew 28 prior to the mid-fourth century. Irenaeus (c.130 - c.202) quotes it in his work Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 17, Para.1) with the formula "baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and he was writing about 180.

A New List of the J Versions and Where to Find them

Share this