Table of Contents
----------------------










The Bible:  Worthy of Your Trust?


Eyewitness Testimony Invalidated

     Responses to Eyewitness Testimony Invalidated

God Is Not The Author

History or HIS-STORY?

How Firm A Foundation... of Forgeries???

James the Brother of Jesus

Schizophrenia and Personal Revelations

     Responses to Schizophrenia




The God of The Bible

Biblegod Is Not Perfect

    Responses to Biblegod Not Perfect

Biblegod The Warcriminal

    Responses to Biblegod
The Warcriminal


Tyrannosaurus Pettius Rex

Jehovah Unmasked

In or Out or Neit
her


Acts of God

September 11th Biblegod Did Nothing

    Responses to September 11th




The God of The Bible:
Does He Exist?

E=MC Disproves God

    Responses to E=MC

How To Prove The Existence of God

    Responses to How To Prove The Existence of God

Shopping For A God

Transcendental La La Land




Caught in a Lie:  Contradictions Within The Bible

Don't Be Such A Cretan

The Genealogy of Jesus

Galilee vs Jerusalem

Matthew vs John

Intrinsic Contradictions

Splainin To Do

The Intercontinental Ballistic Jesus

The Sign on The Cross

     Responses to The Sign on The Cross




Sand, Not Rock:  What Christianity is Really Built Upon

The Atonement

Monotheism Not Biblical

The Ten Commandments

Christianity Has Pagan DNA

Faith

Misc. Topics & Thoughts




Jesus:  False Prophet?


False Prophet- Liar, Fraud!

 If Anybody Else But Jesus…

 Jesus and His Expired Prophecies

Matthew 24 Verse by Verse

Mt 24:34 What The Scholars Say

Significance of Jesus Being a False Prophet

Preterism

     Responses to Jesus The False Prophet




Jesus:  Resurrected?

Even If True

Evidence That Doesn't Demand a Verdict

The Roman Soldiers: "We Were There!"

     Responses to Roman Soldiers




Churchianity Examined

Connecting The Dots

The Authority Totem

Twenty Percent Fewer Errors

Fire The Clergy

     Responses to Fire The Clergy

The Wealth of Churches

Authority In Church Government

The Fleecing of The Flock

The Great Commission Does Not Apply




CAUTIONChristianity May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Victims of Religion

   Responses to Victims of Religion

Voices In Our Head

Brainwashing

   Responses to Brainwashing

We Love Our Lies




Christian Morality or Lack Thereof 

Christianity Doesn't Work as Advertised

Hypocrisy- Thy Name is Christian

Morality

The Gospel of Jesus

 Happy Father's Day

He Wasn't a REAL Christian




Evangelical Atheism

Free JCnot4me Business Cards
JCnot4me Business Cards- FREE!

Without A Leg To Stand On (A Message For Freethinkers)

Give To Him That Asks

   Responses to Give To Him That Asks

Just Say No

   Responses to Just Say No

Damn The Truth- Full Speed Ahead

Answering Christian Stock Arguments

Modern Miracle Workers

Atheists In America

Anti-Religious Songs

Do Unto Others

Kissing Hank's Ass

Why Beer Is Better Than Jesus

Poster: Jesus is a Liar & Lunatic

The Good News of Atheism

The Skeptic’s Prayer

What Would Jesus Do?




Christian Cults

Consumers Guide to Religion- John Cleese of Monty Python (audio file)

Geek Speak Like a Fundy

   Responses to Geek Speak 101

How To Be a Fundy

-----

Baptists} Once Saved, Always Saved: Always False

Catholics: Only Child or Eldest Brother

Church of Christ

   Responses to Church of Christ Essays

Dr. Robert Schuller: Racism By A Nose

Jehovah Witnesses

Nazarenes} Entire Sanctification = Entire Nonsense

   Responses to Entire Sactification

Mormons

Seventh Day Adventists




For Christians...

Message to Christian Apologists

Notes to Christians Battling Atheists

Move A Mountain

Hope

Ex-Christians Get No Respect

Abortion

Hellfire For Homosexuals and Roses




Creationism, aka Intelligent Design

The Universe According To The Bible

   Responses to The Universe

In The Beginning God Was Nuts

Intelligent Design




Politics

Legalize Prostitution

Its The Economy, Stupid

Illegal Immigration

Bush Is Outta Here!!!

The Bush Monkey

Twilights Last Gleaming




Contra Craig
    (Dr. William Lane Craig)


Contra Craig

   Responses to Contra Craig




Misc.

Editorials

   Responses To Editorials

Comments to JCnot4me- Pro + Con

One Picture is Worth...

Links- Other Websites Worth Checking Out




Books You Should Read   

Jehovah Unmasked cover
Jehovah Unmasked




Ha Ha Ha

Christian Election Poster

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Invitation from Rev. Jim Jones

Jokes

Pranks

Songs and Poems




 





The Sign On The Cross

Mark Smith

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

The Sign on The Cross

 

The Four Language Hypothesis

 

Responses to The Sign on The Cross.

 

The Sign on The Cross

 

Fundy Christians claim their Bible to be perfect, but as I see it, it keeps jumping around as to the sign on the cross. The evidence is found within the four gospels- four chances to get the story straight, and yet their Biblegod blows it each time. Their New Testament has four  “inspired” gospels that cannot agree on the contents of one little sign nailed (assuming they didn't lie about this as well) to the cross above the head of Jesus, yet Fundies deny this massive piling of contradictions as being the crashing of lies! Let’s compare all four “versions” together. You tell ME if they are all exactly the same, as the Fundy’s seem to imply, or do you see the same thing I see: four different contradictory versions of the same supposed little sign?

 

 

 

 

 

Will The REAL Sign Please Stand Up!!!

The Sign According to1

Saint Mark

 

The Sign According to2

Saint Luke

 

The Sign According to3

Saint Matthew

 

The Sign According to4

Saint John

 

1)  Mark 15:26   2) Luke 23:38  3) Matthew 27:37   4) John 19:19

 

 

 

 

 

               

EVOLUTION:  Just like a good fish story evolves into something larger with each telling, so also these signs. Notice how the story grows- how it evolves- from the earliest gospel (Mark) with the simplest sign,  to the latest gospel (John) which has the most complex sign. This coincides exactly with what we would expect with a false “fish story”- as the years went by, the story grew and grew. Need I point out that real truth, unlike a lie, unlike a fish story, unlike these signs in the four gospels, real truth does not evolve; that  2+2=4 now and forever. Only a lie, a rumor, will grow larger and more elaborate with each telling. The very fact that we can see the story evolving, growing bigger thru the years, is powerful evidence of it being a lie, a myth, and not being the truth. 

 

 

 

 

            CHANGES SUBSTANTIAL:   It also needs to be pointed out that the changes made by the Gospel authors to the supposed sign were substantial. This is not just a simple case of word transposition. Deceitful Christians over the years kept adding to the story, building it up. Things like "Jesus of Nazareth" don't just get lost in the translation from Latin to Greek. Someone added a name to the sign, others a city. Proper names and cities of origin are not inconsequential innocent additions- they constitute a major re-write! As for Christians trying to quibble away the significance of the changes, saying that "it was no big deal, just a word or two that was added or subtracted", actual bloody WARS have been fought over differences such as these. And as for a "word or two" not being of any importance, which Christian would like to stand up and say that in regards to John 1:1, where Jehovah Witnesses and Christians have fought for almost a hundred years over the addition / subtraction of the one little word "a" in regards to was Jesus GOD or merely "a" god??? Upon this one little word hangs the entire doctrine of the Trinity, yet you can't get a smaller word than "a". An entire religion- The Jehovah Witnesses- has been build upon that one little word. Another line of reasoning to show the error of the Christian claim here: how would they feel if "just a word or two" was changed during translation in a legal real estate contract involving themselves that maybe doubled the cost or changed the ownership of their house? Would they accept the Real Estate agent's quibble that "a word or two" doesn't matter? Hell no! So then, it DOES appear that "a word or two" can make quite a difference, doesn't it, Christian? The fact is, we are told- point blank- exactly what was on that sign. It's not my fault that each Gospel author made up a different version out of thin air, thus resulting in contradictions. "Oh what a tangled web Gospel authors weave, when at first they practice to deceive."

 

 

 

 

           WHO MADE YOU THE JUDGE?      Just because you might not know the importance of a few words on a sign, doesn't give you the right to amputate  them, like doctors used to routinely amputate tonsils, thinking they were not important.   Who set you up as the judge and jury as to what is or is not important in your Biblegod's Bible???   Biblegod apparently thought that whatever was on that sign was important enough to be included in The New Testament. In fact, it's apparently more important than a clear statement on abortion or birth control, because Biblegod could have occupied the column inches of his book with these tidbits, but instead ran with the sign info instead. Therefore, whatever was included within the New Testament must be pretty damn important.

 

 

 

 

            NO ROOM FOR VARIATIONS:    IF there had been three different messages on the sign recorded in three different languages, THEN the gospels, when saying what was written on the one sign, would have said something like "one of the titles on the sign said..." or "in Greek the sign said... while in Hebrew the sign said...". But we don't find that. We find each Gospel author coming straight out claiming to tell us what exactly was written on that sign. Matthew says they put up a sign which read, then tells us WHAT was read on the sign (Mt 27:37). Mark says THE inscription against him read, and then tells us WHAT was read on the sign (Mk 15:26). Luke wrote there was an inscription above Jesus, then tells us what it said (Lk 23:38). John is the most specific. John writes that Pilate wrote an inscription, and then put that inscription on the cross, then tells us via "it was written" exactly what WAS written on that sign (Jn 19:19). There was no ambiguity about WHAT was written on the sign.  Therefore, there were no differences in substance among the three translations. Each translation, when translated into another language, must have said EXACTLY the same thing- at least that's what the gospel authors hoped to fool people into thinking.

 

 

 

 

            NO EVIDENCE OF VARIATION     Where exactly is the evidence anyway that supports the contention that each language contained different information from the other languages? Where is the evidence that each language contained unique information? There isn't any!!! Once again, we see Christians not hesitating to base theological conclusions upon hypothetical assumptions, IF that is what's needed to save their dogma and traditions. But however much the Christians desire to defend the errors of their religion, in the court of human reason conjectures and wishful thinking are NOT admissible. Just because you want to explain away a contradiction does NOT give you the right to make up "evidence" out of thin air. No evidence? Then no argument. Case closed. 

 

 

 

 

            ONLY ONE LANGUAGE ON THE SIGN WAS USED:    All three Gospels, when they gave their supposed version of the sign's content, all three Gospels were using the same language from the sign. How do I know this? I know this because everywhere else in the Gospels, when a "foreign" phrase or piece of writing is given, it is always specified as being a translation. For example, when Jesus cried out on the cross , it specifically says he cried out in Aramaic, and then the translation is given.

 

 

 

 

                FAULTY TRANSLATIONS UNLIKELY:    The Christian claim that faulty translations are to blame for the contradictions is unlikely. Finding a good translator in Israel at that time would not have been difficult. Many of the people, in fact, were already bi, if not tri, lingual. Israel had been occupied by Greece, and then by Rome, for a long time before the supposed crucifixion of Jesus. Just as in Quebec, Canada and parts of modern Europe the people grow up speaking two or three languages, thus also in Israel of that time. Even Pilate- the man that ordered the sign to be posted in the first place- was able to converse with Jesus without the aid of a translator. Likewise the mob of priests who complained to Pilate about the sign, and demanded the content of the sign be changed- they didn't use a translator. In fact, the sign having been personally ordered by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate himself, the likelihood of the Roman soldier screwing up the sign to the extent that the Christians (without one shred of evidence) claim he did is non-existent.

 

 

 

 

 

            PONTIUS PILATE HIMSELF ORDERED THE SIGN:        Pilate himself- personally- commanded exactly, word for word, what was to be written on the sign. Does anyone in their right mind think for one moment that a Roman soldier- having been given a direct order by the Roman military governor as to what was to go on the sign- does anyone think this soldier would have risked his life in a fit of poetic license to the extent the Christian "explanation" requires??? This soldier would not have changed a thing. Even the priests themselves tried to change the contents of the sign- and failed to persuade Pilate- how much more so a lowly soldier? Believe me- each language on the sign said exactly the same thing.

 

 

 

 

            NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRANSLATION:    The priests who complained to Pilate about the contents of the sign did NOT complain about the translations being faulty, but rather at the contents of the three translations. Therefore the translations must have had no problems or else the only people who did complain about the sign would have complained about the translations.

 

 

 

 

                MODERN EXAMPLE:    Picture a Christian who currently lives in a multi-lingual area of the country, such as southern California, New York City, Chicago etc, who orders business cards in three languages for his business. This Christian businessman would not for a moment buy from the printer the kind of translational variations on his business cards that Christian excuse-makers try to get us to buy from the Gospel stories. For our example, let's use a Los Angeles Christian businessman who orders ten thousand business cards, each card done up in English, Spanish, and Korean. Similar to the New Testament, let's say one translation leaves out the name of his business, another the location, and yet another only puts in his title. This corresponds to various Gospel authors leaving out the name: Jesus (Mark & Luke); the location: Nazareth (Matthew, Mark & Luke); and leaving out everything except his title: King of The Jews (Mark). Common sense itself tells us that he would refuse to accept, much less pay for, errors of these magnitudes, yet theologians want us to buy into their "excuse" for these contradictions, which excuse is clearly shot down by common sense. If a modern businessman would refuse this kind of poor quality work, how much more so an ancient despot such as Pilate ruling a county with a fist of iron???

 

 

 

 

            SPEAK WHERE THE BIBLE SPEAKS:        When "the Lord" said what was on that sign, that would have incorporated, taken into account, all the languages it was written in. Therefore, it must have said the exact same thing in all three languages  -OR-  Biblegod doesn't have the I.Q. to know how to translate.

 

 

 

 

 

NO ROOM FOR ERRORS:   The purpose of this exercise was to show you that the gospel stories contain at least some untruths, some little lies. These gospel writers obviously didn’t  know what was on that sign, IF there even WAS a sign, so they made up out of thin air  what was lacking by guessing  the best they could, as historians back then were wont to do. But Fundies don’t claim these gospel writers to be mere mortal historians, oh no! Fundies claim that every burp and fart which exited these ancient windbags was of divine origin, under the direction of Joe Hovah himself. If that’s the case, there is no room for any errors, regardless of how small. The FACT that we DO see these errors proves that no infallible god or goddess authored them.

 

 

 

 

LITTLE LIES Þ BIGGER LIES:   In actuality these Gospel writers show the world that if they could so easily lie about this small sign, they could just as well lie about a much bigger “sign”: the sign of the resurrection, the “sign of Jonah” (Matthew 16:4). According to Jesus (Lk 16:10), if you can’t trust these writers in small matters like a sign (and I have shown that you can’t), neither can you trust them in large matters, like resurrections. Or, as the Jewish Talmud says, 

 

“Testimony that is invalidated in part is invalidated entirely#1  

 

 

I have shown where these gospel writers have lied. Jesus and the Jewish Talmud both agree that if a person lies in a small thing, if his testimony is invalidated in just a part, his entire testimony should be thrown out. Based upon this, all four gospels, along with their supernatural claims of people walking on water and zombies walking out of graves should be thrown out as BAD EVIDENCE.

 

 

 

 

CHRISTIAN SPIN-CONTROL:   Of course, a full-time professional Christian nit-picker such as Dr. Gleason Archer#2  has had time to dream up an “explanation” for this sign problem: after all, it’s his job- it’s what he gets paid for! However, his far-fetched “explanation” comes off sounding as truthful as a tobacco scientist explaining how cigarettes really are good for you.  He even freely admits on his own that he’s grasping at straws as evidenced by his liberal use of the following  phrases: “quite conceivable... may have... this could  account for... a reasonable supposition.” It’s another typical Inerrantist’s contorted & distorted pretzeling of problems into far-fetched “could have been / what if”  OJ type scenarios. However, his “grasping at straws” will turn out one straw too short, as I’ll show.

 

 

 

           THE OLD SHELL GAME:    His “explanation” comes off like the classic “Shell Game” hucksters have used for ages. Here goes…  The single sign contained three (3) languages. ASSUME that each one of the three (3) languages  contained different details than the other two (2) remaining languages.  ASSUME that each of the four (4) gospel authors picked one (1) language out of a possible total of three (3) languages to pick from.  Then assume this accounts for the four (4) variations scattered among the four (4) gospel authors. (Are you confused yet? That’s the point! This is a shell game, and he’s counting on your being confused in order for him to intellectually scam you.)

 

 

 

 

 

MUSICAL CHAIRS:   His problem: Musical chairs. His problem is the childhood game called Musical Chairs. You see, there are four (4) gospels looking for chairs but only three (3) chairs (languages) to sit in. It is therefore 100% physically impossible for his “explanation” to be true, and I challenge him or anyone else to prove me wrong. There are four (4) gospel authors with four (4) different versions of the sign. EVEN IF he were right (which he’s not, but I don’t want to bore you with further details), it would only get three (3) of the gospel fictions off the hook. That still leaves #4 hanging in the wind looking for a chair!  Four (4) gospel versions divided amongst three (3) languages equals (1) ONE still left unaccounted for. His jive, contrived, contorted, distorted “explanation” is, as I’ve said, ONE STRAW (or chair), TOO SHORT!!!!

 

 

CONCLUSION:   The four gospels can’t seem to agree as to what the sign actually said. They can’t all be right while contradicting each other (a proof of their being UNinspired), and therefore logic demands that at least  3 out of the 4 gospels are incorrect.  In other words, the authors out-and-out  lied about what was on that sign. This is a fact that has been establish beyond a reasonable doubt by the contradictions. Therefore it is also a fact that the Bible isn’t perfect, the Bible is flawed, the Bible isn’t inerrant.  The “inspired” confusion over the sign is a sure sign that these authors were not inspired.

 

1)   Mythology’s Last Gods, William Harwood, Prometheus, NY,  p. 94.

2)   Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1982,  pp 345-346

 

*****************

 


 

The Four Language Hypothesis

 

Gleason Archer has apparently added to his bag of "any excuse will do" theology when it comes to trying to explain away contradictions. This latest work of art is produced below, from the CARM website.

 

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY                        www.carm.org

What was written on the sign on the cross?
Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19 

  1. (Matthew 27:37) - "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

  2. (Mark 15:26) - "And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS."

  3. (Luke 23:38) - "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

  4. (John 19:19) - "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin."

     The Inscription above the cross of Christ was written in four different languages:   Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin.  We see this when we look at Luke 23:38 and John 19:20 Luke 23:38 clearly states it was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.  In John the word for "Hebrew" is hebraisti.  "John 19:20 uses for this the adverbial form Hebraisti, which in gospel usage did not mean "in Hebrew" but in the Jewish dialect of Aramaic.  We know this because wherever Hebraisti is used elsewhere, as in John 5:2; 19:13,17; 20:16, the word is given in its Aramaic form, transcribed into Greek letters,"  (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, page 346).

http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark15_26.htm

 

It was weird reading the above from Gleason Archer- a sense of dejavu came over me. This new one reads like his previous gobbledygook "explanation" (the one I tore apart in the first essay on this page). Once again I am left with the impression that Acher's goal in life is not to clarify the Bible, but obfuscate, in order to confuse people to the point where they THINK, but aren't sure, they've had their question answered. It is also obvious from the way he can cook up multiple contrived "explanations" that he is of the opinion that any excuse which gets his inerrancy off the hook will do. It's something like O.J. Simpson's attorneys passionately arguing to the jury that he was in Paris the week of the Brentwood murders, then just as passionately, a few days later, arguing he was in Tokyo that week. Well, which "explanation" is it? It doesn't really matter, does it- just as long as you get your client (O.J. or the Bible) off the hook.  And even though none of the verses that Archer himself chose to quote mentions four languages, four languages is what Archer walks away with. The verses specifically call out only three languages, yet Archer pulls forth a fourth one from his magic theological hat! Amazing!  Gleason Archer's math never fails to astound. For a religion that preaches we should all strive to be honest, why do Archer's fellow Christians tolerate his flagrant intellectual DIS-honesty over and over? This sort of immoral behavior, and the tolerance for it as long as it supports their side, disgusts me. 

 

The first thing needed while dealing with an Archer "explanation" is a translation. Since he deliberately writes to confuse people, no one can deal with his raw material. It's like Alan Greenspan speaking- it has to be filtered and translated before we can deal with it. So that is what I will attempt at first- a translation. If I fail to correctly translate, don't blame me- he should have done a better job writing it in the first place.

 

Gleason Archer's Argument
As Translated by Mark Smith

 

The Number of Languages on the cross sign: 4

The sign on the cross was written in four languages

  1. Greek
  2. Latin
  3. Hebrew
  4. Aramaic

Because...

          Luke 23:38 states it was written in

  1. Greek
  2. Latin
  3. Hebrew

          John 19:20 states it was written in

  1. Greek
  2. Latin
  3. Hebrew

 

 

The word "hebrew" means "aramaic"

 

"Hebrew" from word "Hebraisti"
"Hebraisti" = "Aramaic"
Therefore, "Hebrew" = "Aramaic"

"Hebraisti" = "Aramaic" because:

Hebraisti: always in Aramaic form.

Hebraisti: always transcribed into Greek letters.

Examples of the above:

John 5:2

John 19:13

John 19:17

John 20:16

 

 

 

 

 

Gleason Archer's Argument
As Rebutted by Mark Smith

 

The Number of Languages on the cross sign: 4

The sign on the cross was written in four languages

  1. Greek
  2. Latin
  3. Hebrew
  4. Aramaic

Because...

          Luke 23:38 states it was written in

1.  Greek

2.   Latin

3.   Hebrew

          John 19:20 states it was written in

1.  Greek

2.   Latin

3.   Hebrew

 

Mark Smith's Rebuttal:     Gleason needs to go back to school and "gleen" how to add. If I have to even elaborate on Gleason's screw up here, you the reader need to do the following: 

LEFT HAND: hold up 4 fingers. These represent the number of languages Archer claims were on the sign.

RIGHT HAND: hold up 3 fingers. These represent the number of languages mentioned in the verses Archer cited.

Now, go to someone who passed first grade math, and ask them if the number of fingers being held up on the LEFT HAND is equal to the number of fingers being held up on the RIGHT HAND. If they are NOT equal, then Gleason Archer is either an idiot, or a dishonest theologian.

 

It needs to be pointed out that part of Gleason's problem may be just a disagreement over what the text actually says, especially regarding Luke 23:38. I did a comparison of various translations  for the two verses mentioned by Gleason- something maybe he never took the time for.

Luke 23:38      Out of 22 versions I could get ahold of, I found 13 translations (scroll down or click LUKE 23:38 Various Bible Versions ) that have NO reference whatsoever to the particular language the sign may have been written in, and 9 that do. It is obvious that there is a BIG disagreement going on here among the Bible translators. Possibly there is some problem with the ancient Greek texts. Possibly Biblegod wanted to confuse Christians so messed up his own text. Whatever the cause, it is NOT good practice to build a theology or argument on such a disputed and shaky text. Why Gleason would do so is beyond me.

John 19:20      I consulted 22 translations (scroll down or click John 19:20 Various Bible Versions ) on this verse. All these verses specify what language the sign was written in. Of the 22, only 3 mentioned Aramaic in place of Hebrew. As it has already been pointed out, by scholars I quoted below (scroll down) and even Gleason himself, since "Hebrew" is interchangeable with "Aramaic" all these translations agree that the sign was written in only THREE languages:

  • Greek
  • Latin
  • Hebrew, otherwise known as Aramaic

One must not get confused. Calling the Hebrew language by a different name and thinking it was therefore a different language, is like thinking "Bob Ingersol" and "Robert Ingersol" are two separate men, or that President Richard Nixon and President Dick Nixon were two separate presidents. In other words, back then "Hebrew" was just another name for "Aramaic". In the words of scripture, the "two are one."

 

 

 

 

The word "hebrew" means "aramaic"

 

"Hebrew" from word "Hebraisti"
"Hebraisti" = "Aramaic"
Therefore, "Hebrew" = "Aramaic"

 

Mark Smith's Rebuttal:   Well, if "Hebrew" = "Aramaic", then we can substitute "Aramaic" whenever we see the word "Hebrew". Therefore, when Luke 23:38 or John 19:20 says the sign was in: 

1) Greek

2) Latin

3) Hebrew

We can just as easily say the sign was in:  

1) Greek

2) Latin

3) Aramaic

Seeing how Hebrew and Aramaic are the same thing, as far as the N.T. authors are concerned. Either way, you STILL end up with THREE (3) LANGUAGES, not four, as Archer claims, unless Archer has made a mistake similar to thinking that American English is somehow a separate language from United States English.

Many scholars believe that when the ancient New Testament authors wrote that such-and-such a phrase or writing was "in Hebrew" what they meant was "in Aramaic", as Aramaic had so well replaced the Hebrew language by the time of Jesus (For a more in-depth study of the word "Hebraisti" scroll down or click here: HEBRAISTI ). Therefore, if the New Testament were to speak of a sign written in Hebrew, and later of the same sign in Aramaic, they are speaking of the same language, just calling said language by two different names. Maybe Archer has gotten confused on this point and thinks "Aha! Two more languages to add to the two already on the sign, that makes FOUR!".

 

 

 

"Hebraisti" = "Aramaic" because:

Hebraisti: always in Aramaic form.

Hebraisti: always transcribed into Greek letters.

Examples of the above:

John 5:2

John 19:13

John 19:17

John 20:16

 

 

 

 

 

 

LUKE 23:38 Various Bible Versions


No Mention of Which Language Sign Written In

Revised Standard Version:    There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."

American Standard Version:    And there was also a superscription over him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

New American Standard Version:    Now there was also an inscription above Him, "This is the King of the Jews."

The Net Bible:    There was also an inscription over him, “This is the king of the Jews.”

Today's English Version:    Above him were written these words: “This is the king of the Jews.”

The Message Version:    Printed over him was a sign: “This is the king of the Jews.”

The New English Bible:    There was an inscription above his head which ran: “This is the king of the Jews.”

Smith & Goodspeed:    For there was a notice above his head: “This is the king of the Jews!”

Phillips Version:    For there was a placard over his head which read, “This is the king of the Jews.”

New World Translation:    There was also an inscription over him: “This is the king of the Jews.”

New Living  Translation:    A signboard was nailed to the cross above him with these words: “This is the King of the Jews.”

The Living Bible:    A signboard was nailed to the cross above him with these words: “This is the King of the Jews.”

The Scholar's Version:    There was also this sign over him: This is the King of the Judeans.

 

 

 

Language of Sign Mentioned

The Amplified Bible:    For there was also an inscription above Him in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew, This is the King of the Jews.


NOTE from the Amplified Bible: Italics indicate certain familiar words or passages found in the King James Version, but generally omitted now because they are not adequately supported by more recent scholarship. (Amp. Bible Intro.)

NOTE from Mark Smith:  What this means is that better and more recent scholarship has learned that the listing of the languages was a bogus add-on to the Bible. If this is what Archer is basing his argument on- bogus add-on's, please don't take him too seriously.

International Standard Version:  There was also an inscription over him written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: “This is the King of the Jews.”

Darby Version:    And there was also an inscription written over him in Greek, and Roman, and Hebrew letters: This is the King of the Jews.

King James Version:    And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

King James Version, With Strong's Numbers:    And <1161> a superscription <1923> also <2532> was <2258> (5713) written <1125> (5772) over <1909> him <846> in letters <1121> of Greek <1673>, and <2532> Latin <4513>, and <2532> Hebrew <1444>, THIS <3778> IS <2076> (5748) THE KING <935> OF THE JEWS <2453>.

21st Century King James Version:    And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

New King James Version:     And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Weymouth's Version:    And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Young's Literal Translation:    And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

 

 

 

 

John 19:20  Various Bible Versions

King James Version:    This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

The Amplified Version:    And many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written  in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

The Scholar's Version:    Many of the Judeans saw the notice, since Jesus was crucified near the city and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

21st Century King James Version:    Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city, and it was written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin.

Darby Version:    Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city, and it was written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin.

Revised Standard Version:    Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

American Standard Version:    This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek.

New King James Version:    Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

Weymouth Version:    Many of the Jews read this notice, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the notice was in three languages--Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. 

Young's Literal Translation:    This title, therefore, read many of the Jews, because the place was nigh to the city where Jesus was crucified, and it was having been written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Roman.

The Living Bible:    The place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and the signboard was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, so that many people read it.

New Living Translation:    The place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and the sign was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, so that many people could read it.

New World Translation:    Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.

Phillips Version:    This placard was read by many of the Jews because the place where Jesus was crucified was quite near Jerusalem, and it was written in Hebrew as well as in Latin and Greek.

Smith & Goodspeed:    Many of the Jews read this placard, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

The New English Bible:    This inscription was read by many Jews, because the place where Jesus was crucified was not far from the city, and the inscription was in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

The Net Bible:    Thus many of the Jewish residents of Jerusalem read this notice, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the notice was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.

The New American Standard Bible:    Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in *Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek.
        *NASB Sidenote: i.e. Jewish Aramaic

The Message Version:    Many of the Jews read the sign because the place where Jesus was crucified was right next to the city. It was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

Today's English Version:    Many people read it, because the place where Jesus was crucified was not far from the city. The notice was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

The New International Version:    Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

The Nestle Greek Text:    This therefore title many read of the Jews because near was the place the city where was crucified Jesus; and it was having been written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.

 

 

 

HEBRAISTI    from John 19:20 & Elsewhere

Source Definition & Notes
The New Testament Greek Lexicon
(web site)

Definition:  in Hebrew, i.e. in Chaldee

Translated Words:  KJV (6) - in Hebrew, 1;  in the Hebrew, 2; in the Hebrew tongue, 3   NAS (7) - Hebrew, 7

   http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1447

Strong's Concordance Word #1447 

IN WHICH LANGUAGE WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT ORIGINALLY WRITTEN?

By Julio Dam  
(web site)

 

First of all, Scripture itself says the language of the Rabbi Yeshua and His disciples was Hebrew. Despite this scriptural proof, various translations, especially the NIV, has changed the original Hebraisti (which does not require one to be a Greek scholar to understand it says "Hebrew") for "Aramaic" (see John 19:13,19; Lk. 23:38; Acts 21:40).

http://a.rn11.com/yh/pu/yhgeouspu.htm 

Nestle Greek Text ebraisti

Review of Difficult Words
(web site)

1) The Greek expressions “Hebrew” (hebraisti) and “Hebrew language” (hebraidi dialekto) can definitely be used with reference to Aramaic; cf., e.g., John 19:17, where the Aramaic place name golgotha' is identified as “Hebrew” (the Hebrew would have been gulgolet),[xiv] and note that Philo (and probably also Josephus) can use the Greek term hebraisti (“Hebrew��) to refer to Aramaic.[xv] In fact, when Philomeans Hebrew -- including the Hebrew of the Tanakh -- as opposed to Aramaic, he sometimes speaks of it aschaldaisti, i.e., Chaldaic! It is clear, therefore, that first century Jewish authors could speak of either Hebrew or Aramaic as “Hebrew” in the sense of “the language of the Hebrews.”[xvi]

http://www.icnministries.org/Materials/Review_of_Difficult_Words/review_of_difficult_words.htm  

Leksikon IBRANI
(web site)
1447 -- Hebraisti
No. Strong: 1447
Kata      : Hebraisti
Pengucapan: {heb-rah-is-tee'}
Asal Kata : from 1446
Sumber    : TDNT - 3:356,372
Jenis Kata: adv

Dalam AV  : in the Hebrew tongue 3, in the Hebrew 2, in Hebrew 1
Jumlah    : 6

Definisi  :
1) in Hebrew, i.e. in Chaldee

http://www.bit.net.id/SABDA-Web/L/L14b.htm 

Strong's Concordance
(web site)

adverb from ebraiV - Hebrais 1446; Hebraistically or in the Jewish (Chaldee) language:--in (the) Hebrew (tongue).

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK14.htm 

http://www.bju.edu/bible/g/1400.html#1447 

Waganui Church of Christ (New Zealand): Bible Words
(web site)

ARAMAIC (Heb. ‘Araamiyt)

     Aram, son of Shem (Gen. 10:22-23), founded the nation of Aram, which was later known as Syria.  The language that developed among these people was Aramaic (rendered “Syrian” in the KJV).  This language was closely related to Hebrew, having the same alphabet, but spoken differently (cf. 2 Kings 18:26; Isa. 36:11).  It was used by Laban, the grandson of Abraham’s brother, in Gen. 31:47.  During and after their exile in Babylon, the Jews gradually adopted the Aramaic language.  While the majority of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, portions of Daniel and Ezra appear to have been written in Aramaic.  By the time of Christ, although the Hebrew tongue continued to be used among the rabbis in Jerusalem, Aramaic had replaced pure Hebrew as the everyday language of the Jews in Palestine (cf. Acts 1:19).  Jesus probably spoke both Hebrew (Luke 4:16-19) and Aramaic (Mark 5:41), as well as the more universally understood koinê Greek (Matt. 5:2).  Often when “the Hebrew language” (Hebraisti) is mentioned in the NT, Aramaic may be intended (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; Rev. 9:11)

http://www.churchofchristwanganui.org.nz/listArt.asp?file=Bible%20Words.htm

Definitions
(web site)
<C-1,Adverb,1447,hebraisti>
(or ebraisti, Westcott and Hort) denotes (a) "in Hebrew," Rev. 9:11, RV (AV, "in the Hebrew tongue"); so Rev. 16:16; (b) in the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine, John 5:2, AV, "in the Hebrew tongue" (RV, "in Hebrew"); in John 19:13,17, AV, "in the Hebrew" (RV, "in Hebrew"); in John 19:20, AV and RV, "in Hebrew;" in John 20:16, RV only, "in Hebrew

 http://www.fredshome.com/religion/vine/T0003000.htm 

 

Young's Analytical Concordance to The Bible
Robert Young, Eerdmans Pub, Grand Rapids, MI 1970
Hebrew (tongue), in the---

Hebraistic:

John 5:2  "which is called in the Hebrew tongue"
John 19:13 "the Pavement, but in the Hebrew"
John 19:17 "which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha"
John 19:20  "it was written in Hebrew, (and) Greek, and"
Rev. 9:11  "whose name in the Hebrew tongue"
Rev. 16:16  "a place called in the Hebrew tongue"

Englishman's Greek Concordance
G.K Gillespie, Zondervan's, Grand Rapids, MI, 1970
John 5:2  "called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda"
John 19:13 "the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha"
John 19:17 "called in the Hebrew, Golgotha"
John 19:20  "written in Hebrew, (and) Greek, and Latin"
Rev. 9:11  "name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon"
Rev. 16:16  "called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon"

 

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon
Joseph Henry Thayer, Associated Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1972
In Hebrew, i.e. in Chaldee. Jn v.2, xix 13, 17, 20, Rev ix 11; xvi 16

 


 

 

Contact Information for Mark Smith

Set Free!
Orange County, CA

Email     JCnot4me@aol.com

Web Page     JCnot4me.com

NOTICE:  Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of SET FREE however SET FREE decides. Views contained in SET FREE represent the views of the authors. No implicit approval by SET FREE is to be assumed.

 

 

To view some emailed responses to the above articles, go to...

Responses to The Sign on The Cross

 









Contact Information

Set Free!  Orange County, CA

Email:     JCnot4me@aol.com             Web Page     JCnot4me.com

NOTICE:  Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of SET FREE however SET FREE decides, but don't worry,  your email address will probably be deleted.   Views contained in SET FREE represent the views of the authors. No implicit approval by SET FREE is to be assumed.