clontzjm

“Which (Hebrew) version of the New Testament are you using? Or is this simply based upon the idea that those who know Hebrew would be able to understand that, even though it is in Greek, we would realize that the Hebrew puns and plays could be read this way?” In this instance I am using: Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995 which is also referred to as the Shem Tov text. There are several Hebrew versions of Matthew that date from the medieval period and this text is the oldest of those texts. However, many early church fathers knew of a Hebrew version of Matthew: Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Pantanaeus, Hegesippus. Two of the more famous Hebrew versions of Matthew were kept in the library of Caesarea and the Cenacle (House of the Last Supper). Codex Sinaiticus has about ten notes in the margins with readings from the version at the Cenacle. Several other Codexes also have notes in the margins with readings from the version at the Cenacle. We know that Jesus probably spoke Hebrew or Syriac (Aramaic) to his audiences. Before the Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) and Bar Kochba documents were found most scholars leaned toward Jesus speaking Syriac with the majority of His audiences and since the DSS and Bar Kochba documents most scholars are leaning toward Jesus speaking Hebrew. We would expect the majority of wordplays to exist in the original language and Hebrew appears to supply the greatest abundance of wordplays for both the words of Jesus and the Gospel of Matthew. “I don't quite see actual word plays in most of these.” The word plays are puns based on forming words out of words by rearranging key letters and either dropping or adding letters. There are several examples in the old testament for this type of deliberate wordplay. For instance, a similar wordplay to what I’ve described is in Genesis 25:25: “Hair” (שער) “Esau” (עשו) The key letters in the example above are and (ש) and (ע). These two letters switch positions to form the wordplay. The letter (ר) could be considered exchanged for (ו) or the two letters could be considered simply unimportant to the wordplay. The wordplays that I posted are similar to the example above and at times the wordplay is only preserved through two or three key letters that keep reappearing in different arrangements. Some of the wordplays also provide dramatic tension for instance Herod/Kills and Jesus/Saves. “I also perceive some errors in the Hebrew, like “Nazarith” נאזרית - this would be more of a transliteration from Greek (ναζαρετ) into Hebrew. Nazareth in Hebrew would be N'tzareth (נְצָרֶת).” One of the more interesting aspects of the Shem Tov text is that it appears to use poetic license to acquire Greek transliterations of proper names and technical terms to maintain a closer Hebrew wordplay when the correct Hebrew term would obscure the wordplay. For instance, the text often uses a transliteration of the Greek work for “hypocrite” which lends itself to a variety of wordplays with Hebrew words. Possibly one of the sources of the text was created for a Hebrew audience that was familiar with various transliterations between Greek and Hebrew. Such an audience would have existed in Israel at the time of Jesus. I hope you found this helpful, Jerry

This section of Matthew also employs the wordplay “Appeared” (נראה), “Fear” (תירא), “Saw” (ראו) which is used in several other passages in Matthew including the Transfiguration and The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Vineyard. Some of the more interesting wordplays are listed below: “Betrothed” ארוסה “Bind” לאוסרה “Want” רצה “Conceiving” הרה “Appeared” נראה “Fear” תירא “Jesus” ישוע “Save” יושיע “Name” שמו “People” עמי “Sins” מעונותם “Virgin” העלמה “Emmanuel” עמנואל “God With Us” אלקים עמנו “Herod” הורודוס “Kill” להרוג “Jeremiah” ירמיה “Rama” רמה “Bitterness” תמרורים “Hastened or Urged” זרזהו “Nazarith” נאזרית “Called” הנקראת “Nazareth” נאזרת J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

In Matthew 23:27-28 Jesus creates a poem out of two wordplays. “Hypocrites” החנפים “Filthy” מטונפים “Sepulcher” קבר “Within” קרב Matthew 23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites {“Hypocrites” (החנפים)}! For you are like whitewashed tombs {“Sepulcher” (קבר)} which outwardly appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness {“Filthy” (מטונפים)}. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside {“Within” (קרב)} you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. J. Clontz – Editor of The Comprehensive New Testament

In Matthew 11:07-12, Jesus creates a poem with two wordplays. The first wordplay involves the terms “Cast About,” “King,” “Messenger,” and “Kingdom.” This wordplay symbolizes the contrast between kings and John the Baptist – the messenger. The terms “King” and “Messenger” are spelled similarly, however, Jesus emphasizes that even though they are spelled similarly the “Messenger” of the kingdom of Heaven is greater than an earthly “King.” The second wordplay involves the terms “Noble” and “Greater.” This wordplay emphasizes that John is greater than those who wear noble clothes. “Cast About” (מושלכת) “King” (המלכים) “Messenger” (מלאכי) “Kingdom” (מלכות) “Noble” (בגדים) “Greater” (גדול) 7 As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken {“Cast About” (מושלכת)} by the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man in dainty {“Noble” (בגדים)} clothes? Indeed, those who wear dainty clothes are in kings’ {“King” (המלכים)} houses. 9 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more {“Greater” (גדול)} than a prophet. 10 This is he of whom it is written: ‘Behold, I send my messenger {“Messenger” (מלאכי)} before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ 11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater {“Greater” (גדול)} than John the Baptist. Yet he who is least in the kingdom {“Kingdom” (מלכות)} of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom {“Kingdom” (מלכות)} of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. J. Clontz – The Comprehensive New Testament

In Matthew 06:05-08, Jesus makes a poem that uses four different wordplays that contrast the right way and the wrong way to pray. Jesus contrasts praying in the synagogue versus praying in secret. He contrasts the results for the way that hypocrites pray versus the result for praying correctly. He contrasts praying by multiplying words and not praying with a multitude of words. He contrasts what heretics think versus what the Father in Heaven knows. In the wordplay concerning “Multiply Words,” the two words “Multiply” and “Words” form a pun. Given the similarity of the two words the sound produced is tantric in nature. “Synagogues” (כנסיות) “Secret” (בסתר) “Already” (שכבר) “Reward” (שכרם) “Couch” (משכב) “When” (כאשר) “Multiply Words” (דברים תרבו) “Multitude of Words” (דברים שברוב) “Heretics who Think” (חושבים שהמינים) “Father in Heaven” (שבשמים שאביכם) Matthew 5:5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues {“Synagogues” (כנסיות)} and on the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have {“Already” (שכבר)} received their reward {“Reward” (שכרם)}. 6 But when you pray, go into your room {“Couch” (משכב)}, shut the door and pray to your Father, who is in secret {“Secret” (בסתר)}. And your Father, who sees in secret {“Secret” (בסתר)}, will reward you. 7 And when {“When” (כאשר)} you pray, do not use empty repetitions {“Multiply Words” (דברים תרבו)} as the Gentiles do. For they think {“Heretics who Think” (חושבים שהמינים)} that they will be heard for their many words {“Multitude of Words” (דברים שברוב)}. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father {“Father in Heaven” (שבשמים שאביכם)} knows what you need before you ask him. J. Clontz – Editor of The Comprehensive New Testament

The Lord’s prayer is a poem that contains wordplay between the words “Kingdom” (מלכותך), “Bread” (לחם), “Forgive” (מחול), “Sinners” (לחוטאים). “Kingdom” מלכותך “Bread” לחם “Forgive” מחול “Sinners” לחוטאים “From” מכל “Them” להם “You” לכם Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread {“Bread” (לחם)}. 12 And forgive {“Forgive” (מחול)} us our debts, as we also have forgiven {“Forgive” (מחול)} our debtors {“Sinners” (לחוטאים)}. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from {“From” (מכל)} the evil one.’ 14 For if you forgive {“Forgive” (מחול)} men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive {“Forgive” (מחול)} you. 15 But if you do not forgive {“Forgive” (מחול)} men {“Them” (להם)}, neither will your Father forgive {“Forgive” (מחול)} {“You” (לכם)} {“Your” (לכם)} your trespasses. J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

The english translation is from the Comprehensive New Testament. The Hebrew terms in the ellipses are from the Shem tov Hebrew Matthew. As you know Jesus probably did not speak Greek to his Jewish audiences. He spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic. Shem tov's Hebrew Matthew.uses {“Your Gift” (מתנן)} which may be what Jesus actually said if he used Hebrew in the Sermon on the Mount. Shem tov's Hebrew Matthew is saturated with Hebrew poetry. Since Jesus captivated his audiences and had large crowds following him it is a reasonable assumption that when he spoke his dialogues may have included poetic techniques. Poetic techniques such as alliteration may have been used to add emphasis to what he was saying and also make what he was saying memorable. Many of the puns by Jesus symbolically express how something “earthly” is turned into something “heavenly” by a small change. For example, In Genesis 17 God “turns” Abram into Abraham the father of many nations by a small change which adds a single letter to his name. In Matthew 6:3-4, the small difference between correctly turning what your right hand is “Doing” secretly into “Your Gift” is symbolized by the small change that Jesus makes between the word “Doing” and “Your Gift” that involves turning a single letter into another. “Doing” ימינן “Your Gift” מתנן This particular pun is contrasted with the pun in Matthew 6:2 concerning acting like a hypocrite. In Matthew 6:2, the pun on the words ”Wish to” and “Sound Trumpets” reveals that hypocrites wish to “blow their own horn” and are not really seeking God’s reward but their own aggrandizement. In Matthew 6:3, what your right hand is doing is in secret indicates that you are not seeking your own aggrandizement. Matthew 6:2 “Thus, when you give alms, do not {“Wish to” (תרצו)} sound a trumpet {“Sound Trumpets” (וחצוצרות)} before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. “Wish to” תרצו “Sound Trumpets” וחצוצרות J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

In Matthew 06:03-04, Jesus makes a Hebrew pun with the words “doing” and “your gift.” “Doing” ימינן “Your Gift” מתנן Matthew 6:3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing {“Doing” (ימינן)}, 4 so that your charitable deed {“Your Gift” (מתנן)} may be in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you. J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

In Matthew 17:20 Jesus made a poem in Hebrew using the words “faith,” “truly,” “believe,” and “boast.” The poem keys on two wordplays that both involve the word “believe.” “Faith” אמונתכם “Truly” אמן “Believe” תאמינו “Believe” תאמינו “Boast” תאםרו Matthew 17:20 So he said to them, “Because of your little faith {“Faith” (אמונתכם)}. For truly {“Truly” (אמן)}, I say to you, if you have faith {“Believe” (תאמינו)} as a grain of mustard seed, you will say {“Boast” (תאםרו)} to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.” [Matthew 17:20 The Passion: The Poetry of God] J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

In Matthew 15:32-37, Jesus creates a Hebrew poem using the following words: 15:33 “Satisfy” לשביע 15:34 “Seven” שבעה 15:35 “Grass” העשבים 15:36 “Seven” השבעה 15:36 “Broke them” וישברם 15:37 “Satisfied” וישבעו 15:37 “Seven” שבעה Matthew 15:32 Now Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion on the multitude, because they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.” 33 Then the disciples said to him, “Where could we get enough bread in the wilderness to feed {“Satisfy” (לשביע)} such a great crowd?” 34 And Jesus said to them, “How many loaves do you have?” They said, “Seven {“Seven” (שבעה)}, and a few small fish.” 35 He told the crowd to sit down on the ground {“Grass” (העשבים)}. 36 He took the seven {“Seven” (השבעה)} loaves and the fish, and having given thanks he broke them {“Broke them” (וישברם)} and gave them to the disciples. And the disciples gave them to the crowds. 37 And they all ate and were satisfied {“Satisfied” (וישבעו)}. And they took up seven {“Seven” (שבעה)} baskets full of the broken pieces that were left over. J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

Interesting insight - could be.

Hello Qnts2, I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew. Jerry Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there. Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from? Hello Qnts2, I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him. Ok, so you chose to use the Howard Mercer translation of atonement. In light of other translations, Mercer to my knowledge stands alone. It brings up one issue. The word as written is plural. I do not know if the text calls for singular as the other translations or if the Greek word allows for atonement or forgiveness. I do not know Greek so I am at a definite disadvantage when dealing with a Greek to Hebrew translation. I am far more comfortable with English to Hebrew or Hebrew to English. But the differences between this and other reliable translations does raise a question. Another issue is the words chosen. Pri hagafen is a standard phrase translated as fruit of the vine/wine. Fruit of the vine is a phrase used repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. To break apart this phrase to use fruit and vine as a word play does not seem warranted. I do not believe this was intended as a word play. Rather it is a standard phrase and any perceived word play is simply coincidental. Unless the word play goes back to the Hebrew scriptures. That's the point, I am not breaking them apart. "Fruit of the Vine" is the target of the wordplay and poetically morphs into "atonement of the body." Isn't that what the last supper symbolized and the offering of Jesus on the cross was about? The key to the poem is Fruit of the vine - Jesus used this precise term for a reason. When a poet uses a precise term it is often to create a wordplay. Jesus was a poet and I believe that the phrase Fruit of the vine was chosen by him to create a poem. By the way, I looked for obvious poetics by going through the gospels in English so that I would not create wordplays in Hebrew. They are typically easy to spot in English. Normally a very specific descriptive and unique word or phrase placed in a passage - even though it is translated it is still very specific and descriptive. Then you have to go back into the native speaker's language and try to find what rhymes with what appears to be a poetic device. I chose this text because it had the poetic device that I had already spotted. It can take a long time until you finally understand the poetic device and the meaning that it is trying to amplify. You have to try to look at the passage as a poet would. Jerry Since fruit of the vine is standard terminology, it was not specifically chosen to create a poem. It is standard terminology used multiple times in the OT in reference to wine. Now, if you want to argue that it is used multiple times in the OT, anticipating the poetic use in the NT. The last supper did point to Jesus and what He would do, but the symbolism is specific in the Passover seder. The fruit of the vine is consumed 4 times. The actual cup is the cup of redemption. This would be a back reference into Exodus starting with Exodus 6:6. Cup 1: Exodus 6:6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, Cup 2: I will rescue you from their bondage, Cup 3: and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. Cup 4: 7 I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. Cup 5 - Elijahs cup: 8 And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’” Today, only 4 cups a consumed. But all of that is a different topic. Again, you are assuming that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Although that is not a standard belief, it is a possibility. Then, we must accept that not all words which match the rules, are necessarily poetic devices. In this case, I see the format as a stretch. Hello Qnts, Why don't look at an example that is less of a stretch? Jesus makes a pretense to find “grounds for quarrelling” with the fig tree in Matthew 21:19. According to Mark 11:13, it wasn’t the season for figs so the pretense os obvious. The Hebrew word for fig tree is spelled the same as the Hebrew word used in Judges 14:4 for “occasion [ground of quarrel].” Jesus uses the double entendre for “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” as the theme of a poem that includes pun for “found” and “come forth” and also “leaves” and “forever.” There is a difference between Matthew and Mark wording that points to a Hebrew structure for Matthew. Mark 11:14 “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” Matthew 21:19 ““May no fruit ever come from you again!” Matthew uses “come from you” while Mark has “eat fruit from you.” Matthew’s wording produces a Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth.” Jesus obviously intended the double entendre on “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” however the author of Matthew takes it further by recording an additional Hebrew pun that is not present in Mark's version. The author of Matthew in my opinion was aware of the Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth” and preserved it in his account. “Fig Tree” תאנה “Occasion [Ground of Quarrel]” תאנה “Found” מצא “Come Forth” יצא “Leaves” העלים “Forever” לעולם “18 In the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road he went to it, and found {“Found” (מצא)} nothing on it but leaves {“Leaves” (העלים)} only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come {“Come Forth” (יצא)} from you again {“Forever” (לעולם)}!” And immediately the fig tree withered.” [Matthew 21:18-19 The Passion: The Poetry of God] I would be interested in your views on this passage and its implications concerning the original text of Matthew. Jerry I am guessing that in your view, the existence of these puns is proof that the original text of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Assuming the translation from Greek to Hebrew is correct, these do have the potential to be puns/poetic word play. (I have a tendancy to want to translate based on the translated from Greek English, and say that L'olam is potentially not accurate. L'olam can mean forever, or it can mean this age or a future age. To emphatically say forever, the standard convention used is, l'olam vaed. But then, I have to remember, it must go from Greek to Hebrew and I don't know Greek. This example does have the potential for poetic word play. But, does this mean the text was written in Hebrew? Does the wording prove that the text was written in Hebrew? While I have always thought that Matthew had the possibility of orginally being Hebrew or Aramaic, since we do not have an original, we can not be sure. Matthew has the most Hebraisms. I grew up in a family which spoke a mixture of English and Yiddish. Yiddish speakers, speak English with a very pronounced method and order of words which comes from Yiddish. Even writing in English, the Yiddish expression is very evident. (I had to spend time learning to speak without the Yiddishisms when I got out in the business world because I was somewhat difficult to understand. I still sometimes use a different word order even though I am speaking English only). So, Matthew could have been written in Greek, by a Hebrew speaking Jewish person or Matthew might have been translated to Greek. But, I tend to be highly literal and detailed so I would be very difficult to convince, while I usually leave an opening for possibilities. Hello Qnts, I am enjoying our dialogue. We have plenty of clues that Matthew was constructed in Hebrew. The sermon on the mount and the olivet discourse in Matthew are so loaded with Hebrew poetry that they are undoubtedly Hebrew in origin - either verbal or written. The passion and the feeding of the four thousand are also obviously in Hebrew since they are not just saturated with poetry but employ dramatic alliteration to accent the dramatic moments in the narratives. We also start the text of matthew with two puns from the angel of the lord that repeat at the crucifixion indicating literary planning and structure for the entire work. But we have much more than that, we have a main Hebrew poetic device that runs almost beginning to end. It is used by almost every speaker - John the Baptist, the Devil, Jesus, the apostles, the crowd at the trial, and nature itself. A main poetic device that is used to provide cohesion to the entire gospel of Matthew is unarguable evidence of hebrew construction. If you reflect on the entire gospel of Matthew you can not ignore a singular Hebrew poetic device running through the entire work incuding sayings and narratives. The main linguistic wordplay in the gospel of Matthew involves the words “son,” “stone,” “build/building/will build” and is dependent on the Hebrew word for “son” pronounced “ben” as opposed to the Aramaic word for “son” pronounced “bar.” However, this is also somewhat ambiguous since both words are used in the Hebrew language and appear on the Old Testament. Nonetheless, the wordplay using “son (ben),” “stone,” “build/building/will build” appears about ten times in the gospel of Matthew and Jesus is depicted as using this wordplay multiple times including the Sermon on the Mount, the Confession of Peter, the Olivet Discourse, The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Vineyard. The continuous use of this Hebrew wordplay by Jesus and the author of Matthew indicates that while Jesus may have spoken Aramaic he definitely spoke Hebrew and was fluent enough to create complex wordplay in Hebrew. Below is a listing of the instances where the main wordplay occurs as listed in “The Passion: the Poetry of God”: 03:09 “Stones” (אבן) and “Sons” (בן) 04:03 “Son of God” (אלקים בן) and “Stones” “Bread” (לחם אבן) 04:06 “Stone” (אבן) and “Son” (בן) 07:09 “Stone” (אבן), “Son” (בנו) and “Prophets” (הנביאים) 07:23-25 “Built” (שבנה), “Stone” (אבן) and “Built” (בנה) 16:12 “Understand” תבינו)) 16:14 “Prophets” מהנביאים)) 16:16 “Son” (בן) 16:18 “Stone” (אבן) 16:18 “Will Build” (אבנה) 21:35-46 “Son” (בנו), “Stone” (אבן), “Builders” (הבונים) and “Prophet” (נביא) 23:29 “You Build” (שתבנו) and “Prophets” (נביאים) 23:30 “Prophets” (נביאים) 23:31 “Sons” (שבנים) and “Sons” (שבנים) 23:34 “Prophets” (נביאים) 23:37 “Prophets” (הנביאים) and “Sons” (בניך) 24:01 “Buildings” (בניני) 24:02 “Stone” (אבנ) 24:11 “Prophets” (נביאי) 24:15 “Understand” (יבין) 24:22 “Chosen (נבחריו)” 24:24 “Prophets” (נביאי) 27:40 “Build” (לבנות) and “Son” (בן) 27:51“Stones” (האבנים) 27:54 “Son” (בן) 27:60 “Stone” (אבן) 28:02 “Stone” (אבן)

But Hebrew poetry is not based on rhyme. While there is a difference between puns, alliteration and word connections, they are all poetic devices used to create poems. Thus as I stated, a poem was created. To your point, there isn’t a translatable word in English that exactly expresses the concept for Hebrew poetic devices being used in conjunction to produce a set of sounds. I have used the english word “rhyme” since it has alliterative connotations in English concerning the sounds that letters in words make. A similar “rhyme” to what I’ve described is in Genesis 25:25: “Hair” (שער) “Esau” (עשו) These two words are not derivative from the same root, however, the letters shin and ayin do produce a common set of sounds to produce a “rhyme.” I don’t believe that the English term pun is truly descriptive. A pun generally involves two words in English. In Hebrew puns often involve several words which is not really a pun but a play on a set of sounds. The English word rhyme is a play on a set of sounds often employing two or more words.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus creates a poem about the end of the world. The poem is based on a rhyme between the Hebrew words “The End” and “Summer or Summer Fruit.” Jesus is expounding on a poem in Amos 8:1-2 that uses the same rhyme and the same theme. However, he adds an additional rhyme that involves “Wickedness,” “Saved,” “Gates,” and “Shall be done.” The words “Saved” and “Wickedness” use many of the same letters but the letters are prioritized differently. Almost as if they were symbolizing that it is how everything is prioritized that is the difference between “Saved” and “Wickedness.” “The End” (קץ) “Summer Fruit” (קיץ) “Wickedness” (הרשעות) “Saved” (יושע) “Gates” (לשערים) “Shall be done” (יהיו עשוים) 8:1 “Thus the Lord GOD showed me: behold, a basket of summer fruit {“Summer Fruit” (קיץ)}. 2 And he said, "Amos, what do you see?" And I said, "A basket of summer fruit {“Summer Fruit” (קיץ)}." Then the LORD said to me, "The end {“The End” (קץ)} has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass by them.” [Amos 8:1-2 RSV] 24:12 And because wickedness {“Wickedness” (הרשעות)} will increase, the love of most will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end {“The End” (קץ)} will be saved {“Saved” (יושע)}. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end {“The End” (קץ)} will come. 24:32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer {“Summer” (קיץ) or “Summer Fruit” (קיץ)} is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door {“Gates” (לשערים)}. 34 Truly, I tell you that this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place {“Shall be done” (יהיו עשוים)}. [Matthew 24:12-14, 32-34 The Passion: The Poetry of God] J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

Hello Qnts2, I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew. Jerry Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there. Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from? Hello Qnts2, I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him. Ok, so you chose to use the Howard Mercer translation of atonement. In light of other translations, Mercer to my knowledge stands alone. It brings up one issue. The word as written is plural. I do not know if the text calls for singular as the other translations or if the Greek word allows for atonement or forgiveness. I do not know Greek so I am at a definite disadvantage when dealing with a Greek to Hebrew translation. I am far more comfortable with English to Hebrew or Hebrew to English. But the differences between this and other reliable translations does raise a question. Another issue is the words chosen. Pri hagafen is a standard phrase translated as fruit of the vine/wine. Fruit of the vine is a phrase used repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. To break apart this phrase to use fruit and vine as a word play does not seem warranted. I do not believe this was intended as a word play. Rather it is a standard phrase and any perceived word play is simply coincidental. Unless the word play goes back to the Hebrew scriptures. That's the point, I am not breaking them apart. "Fruit of the Vine" is the target of the wordplay and poetically morphs into "atonement of the body." Isn't that what the last supper symbolized and the offering of Jesus on the cross was about? The key to the poem is Fruit of the vine - Jesus used this precise term for a reason. When a poet uses a precise term it is often to create a wordplay. Jesus was a poet and I believe that the phrase Fruit of the vine was chosen by him to create a poem. By the way, I looked for obvious poetics by going through the gospels in English so that I would not create wordplays in Hebrew. They are typically easy to spot in English. Normally a very specific descriptive and unique word or phrase placed in a passage - even though it is translated it is still very specific and descriptive. Then you have to go back into the native speaker's language and try to find what rhymes with what appears to be a poetic device. I chose this text because it had the poetic device that I had already spotted. It can take a long time until you finally understand the poetic device and the meaning that it is trying to amplify. You have to try to look at the passage as a poet would. Jerry Since fruit of the vine is standard terminology, it was not specifically chosen to create a poem. It is standard terminology used multiple times in the OT in reference to wine. Now, if you want to argue that it is used multiple times in the OT, anticipating the poetic use in the NT. The last supper did point to Jesus and what He would do, but the symbolism is specific in the Passover seder. The fruit of the vine is consumed 4 times. The actual cup is the cup of redemption. This would be a back reference into Exodus starting with Exodus 6:6. Cup 1: Exodus 6:6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, Cup 2: I will rescue you from their bondage, Cup 3: and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. Cup 4: 7 I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. Cup 5 - Elijahs cup: 8 And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’” Today, only 4 cups a consumed. But all of that is a different topic. Again, you are assuming that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Although that is not a standard belief, it is a possibility. Then, we must accept that not all words which match the rules, are necessarily poetic devices. In this case, I see the format as a stretch. Hello Qnts, Why don't look at an example that is less of a stretch? Jesus makes a pretense to find “grounds for quarrelling” with the fig tree in Matthew 21:19. According to Mark 11:13, it wasn’t the season for figs so the pretense os obvious. The Hebrew word for fig tree is spelled the same as the Hebrew word used in Judges 14:4 for “occasion [ground of quarrel].” Jesus uses the double entendre for “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” as the theme of a poem that includes pun for “found” and “come forth” and also “leaves” and “forever.” There is a difference between Matthew and Mark wording that points to a Hebrew structure for Matthew. Mark 11:14 “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” Matthew 21:19 ““May no fruit ever come from you again!” Matthew uses “come from you” while Mark has “eat fruit from you.” Matthew’s wording produces a Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth.” Jesus obviously intended the double entendre on “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” however the author of Matthew takes it further by recording an additional Hebrew pun that is not present in Mark's version. The author of Matthew in my opinion was aware of the Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth” and preserved it in his account. “Fig Tree” תאנה “Occasion [Ground of Quarrel]” תאנה “Found” מצא “Come Forth” יצא “Leaves” העלים “Forever” לעולם “18 In the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road he went to it, and found {“Found” (מצא)} nothing on it but leaves {“Leaves” (העלים)} only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come {“Come Forth” (יצא)} from you again {“Forever” (לעולם)}!” And immediately the fig tree withered.” [Matthew 21:18-19 The Passion: The Poetry of God] I would be interested in your views on this passage and its implications concerning the original text of Matthew. Jerry

Have you ever wondered why Jesus went to so much effort to find “grounds for quarrelling” with the fig tree in Matthew 21:19? It just so happens that the Hebrew word for fig tree is spelled the same as the Hebrew word used in Judges 14:4 for “occasion [ground of quarrel].” Jesus uses the double entendre for “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” as the theme of a poem that includes rhymes for “found” and “come forth” and also “leaves” and “forever.” “Fig Tree” תאנה “Occasion [Ground of Quarrel]” תאנה “Found” מצא “Come Forth” יצא “Leaves” העלים “Forever” לעולם “18 In the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road he went to it, and found {“Found” (מצא)} nothing on it but leaves {“Leaves” (העלים)} only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come {“Come Forth” (יצא)} from you again {“Forever” (לעולם)}!” And immediately the fig tree withered.” [Matthew 21:18-19 The Passion: The Poetry of God] J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

Hello Qnts2, I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew. Jerry Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there. Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from? Hello Qnts2, I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him. Ok, so you chose to use the Howard Mercer translation of atonement. In light of other translations, Mercer to my knowledge stands alone. It brings up one issue. The word as written is plural. I do not know if the text calls for singular as the other translations or if the Greek word allows for atonement or forgiveness. I do not know Greek so I am at a definite disadvantage when dealing with a Greek to Hebrew translation. I am far more comfortable with English to Hebrew or Hebrew to English. But the differences between this and other reliable translations does raise a question. Another issue is the words chosen. Pri hagafen is a standard phrase translated as fruit of the vine/wine. Fruit of the vine is a phrase used repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. To break apart this phrase to use fruit and vine as a word play does not seem warranted. I do not believe this was intended as a word play. Rather it is a standard phrase and any perceived word play is simply coincidental. Unless the word play goes back to the Hebrew scriptures. That's the point, I am not breaking them apart. "Fruit of the Vine" is the target of the wordplay and poetically morphs into "atonement of the body." Isn't that what the last supper symbolized and the offering of Jesus on the cross was about? The key to the poem is Fruit of the vine - Jesus used this precise term for a reason. When a poet uses a precise term it is often to create a wordplay. Jesus was a poet and I believe that the phrase Fruit of the vine was chosen by him to create a poem. By the way, I looked for obvious poetics by going through the gospels in English so that I would not create wordplays in Hebrew. They are typically easy to spot in English. Normally a very specific descriptive and unique word or phrase placed in a passage - even though it is translated it is still very specific and descriptive. Then you have to go back into the native speaker's language and try to find what rhymes with what appears to be a poetic device. I chose this text because it had the poetic device that I had already spotted. It can take a long time until you finally understand the poetic device and the meaning that it is trying to amplify. You have to try to look at the passage as a poet would. Jerry

I disagree. I am not convinced that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but even if it was, the Hebrew words for body and vine or atonement and fruit do not rhyme. Hello Qnts2, As you are probably aware Hebrew rhymes or puns are formed by re-arranging (turning) the letters in one word to form another word or letters are added to one word to form the a new word. Often there is a spiritual link or meaning behind the pun. For instance, “Body” (גופי) “Vine” (הגפן) Jesus stated in John chapter 15 that he was the true vine. At the last supper, the pun forms a spritual link between the body of Jesus and the true vine - hence the wine at the last supper is from a vine and is spiritually linked to the blood from his body. The pun is formed by the use of the gimmel and pe letters in both words. In the second pun, “Atonement” (לכפרת) “Fruit” (פרי) Throughout the gospels (Matthew ch 3,12,21,etc.), John the Baptist and Jesus discuss "bearing fruit" and the connection to bearing fruit and a person's relationship to God. The pun is formed by the use of the pe and resh letters in both words. This particular pun is part of a larger rhyme in the last supper passage that employs: “Peter” (פיטרוש) “Deny” (תכפור) Ok, you have moved from rhymes to puns, but none fall under the idea of a pun. To create a pun or as I like to call it 'word play', the exchange is within certain phonetic groups. None of these fit. Some are altered or differing vowels but I do not see a word in your list with only an altered vowel. There is a significant number of Hebrew wordplays in the Hebrew scriptures. When it comes to the NT, while some claim the original Matthew was written in Hebrew, some claim Aramaic, and many claim Greek. Some of Matthew indicates a type of Hebrew or Aramaic word play, although there are instances where Hebrew/Aramaic humor is evident in the books which are more certainly written in Greek book. The word connection between “Deny” (תכפור) and “Atonement” (לכפרת) is cited in p.188, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995 Below is Dr. Howard’s background: Dr. George Howard Ph.D. (Hebrew Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion) Emeritus Head of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religion, University of Georgia Member, Editorial Board Journal of Biblical Literature Past-President Society of Biblical Literature I have added “Fruit” (פרי) and “Peter” (פיטרוש) which have an alliterative connection to both words stemming from the pe and resh letters. While there is a difference between puns, alliteration and word connections, they are all poetic devices used to create poems. Thus as I stated, a poem was created. To your point, there isn’t a translatable word in English that exactly expresses the concept for Hebrew poetic devices being used in conjunction to produce a set of sounds. I have used the english word “rhyme” since it has alliterative connotations in English concerning the sounds that letters in words make. A similar “rhyme” to what I’ve described is in Genesis 25:25: “Hair” (שער) “Esau” (עשו) These two words are not derivative from the same root, however, the letters shin and ayin do produce a common set of sounds to produce a “rhyme.” Using your criteria as I understand it there isn’t a “rhyme” in Genesis 25:25 since “Hair” (שער) and “Esau” (עשו) aren’t in a phonetic group. Just FYI- I have no problem disagreeing with people who claim expertise. Sometimes I prove my point and they accept it, and sometimes they further explain their reasoning, which I deem as valid, and sometimes we simply disagree, which good scholars are used to. There are certain accepted forms of puns in Hebrew, but generally the puns have to have a sufficiently similar sound, or a play on words. A simply pun in Hebrew can be found in Isaiah 5:7 'God looked for justice (mishpat) but only saw oppresion (mispach).' For pure poetic verse, look no further the Genesis 1 where scripture says the earthd was without form and void which is a famously poetic expression of Tohu v'Bohu Hello Qnts2, I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew. Jerry Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there. Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from? Hello Qnts2, I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him.

The Poetry of Perfection, a Poem by Jesus - Matthew 05:38-48 Jesus creates a Hebrew poem about perfection in the sermon of the mount using rhymes for: “Repay” (שלם) “Perfect” (שלם) “Love” (אהבו) “Enemies” (אויביכם) Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist {“Repay” (שלם)} an evil person. But if someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to him who asks you, and do not refuse him who wants to borrow from you. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say to you, love {“Love” (אהבו)} your enemies {“Enemies” (אויביכם)} and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect {“Perfect” (שלם)}, as your heavenly Father is perfect {“Perfect” (שלם)}. [The Passion: The Poetry of God] J. Clontz – Editor of the Comprehensive New Testament

I disagree. I am not convinced that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but even if it was, the Hebrew words for body and vine or atonement and fruit do not rhyme. Hello Qnts2, As you are probably aware Hebrew rhymes or puns are formed by re-arranging (turning) the letters in one word to form another word or letters are added to one word to form the a new word. Often there is a spiritual link or meaning behind the pun. For instance, “Body” (גופי) “Vine” (הגפן) Jesus stated in John chapter 15 that he was the true vine. At the last supper, the pun forms a spritual link between the body of Jesus and the true vine - hence the wine at the last supper is from a vine and is spiritually linked to the blood from his body. The pun is formed by the use of the gimmel and pe letters in both words. In the second pun, “Atonement” (לכפרת) “Fruit” (פרי) Throughout the gospels (Matthew ch 3,12,21,etc.), John the Baptist and Jesus discuss "bearing fruit" and the connection to bearing fruit and a person's relationship to God. The pun is formed by the use of the pe and resh letters in both words. This particular pun is part of a larger rhyme in the last supper passage that employs: “Peter” (פיטרוש) “Deny” (תכפור) Ok, you have moved from rhymes to puns, but none fall under the idea of a pun. To create a pun or as I like to call it 'word play', the exchange is within certain phonetic groups. None of these fit. Some are altered or differing vowels but I do not see a word in your list with only an altered vowel. There is a significant number of Hebrew wordplays in the Hebrew scriptures. When it comes to the NT, while some claim the original Matthew was written in Hebrew, some claim Aramaic, and many claim Greek. Some of Matthew indicates a type of Hebrew or Aramaic word play, although there are instances where Hebrew/Aramaic humor is evident in the books which are more certainly written in Greek book. The word connection between “Deny” (תכפור) and “Atonement” (לכפרת) is cited in p.188, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995 Below is Dr. Howard’s background: Dr. George Howard Ph.D. (Hebrew Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion) Emeritus Head of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religion, University of Georgia Member, Editorial Board Journal of Biblical Literature Past-President Society of Biblical Literature I have added “Fruit” (פרי) and “Peter” (פיטרוש) which have an alliterative connection to both words stemming from the pe and resh letters. While there is a difference between puns, alliteration and word connections, they are all poetic devices used to create poems. Thus as I stated, a poem was created. To your point, there isn’t a translatable word in English that exactly expresses the concept for Hebrew poetic devices being used in conjunction to produce a set of sounds. I have used the english word “rhyme” since it has alliterative connotations in English concerning the sounds that letters in words make. A similar “rhyme” to what I’ve described is in Genesis 25:25: “Hair” (שער) “Esau” (עשו) These two words are not derivative from the same root, however, the letters shin and ayin do produce a common set of sounds to produce a “rhyme.” Using your criteria as I understand it there isn’t a “rhyme” in Genesis 25:25 since “Hair” (שער) and “Esau” (עשו) aren’t in a phonetic group. Just FYI- I have no problem disagreeing with people who claim expertise. Sometimes I prove my point and they accept it, and sometimes they further explain their reasoning, which I deem as valid, and sometimes we simply disagree, which good scholars are used to. There are certain accepted forms of puns in Hebrew, but generally the puns have to have a sufficiently similar sound, or a play on words. A simply pun in Hebrew can be found in Isaiah 5:7 'God looked for justice (mishpat) but only saw oppresion (mispach).' For pure poetic verse, look no further the Genesis 1 where scripture says the earthd was without form and void which is a famously poetic expression of Tohu v'Bohu Hello Qnts2, I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew. Jerry

I disagree. I am not convinced that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but even if it was, the Hebrew words for body and vine or atonement and fruit do not rhyme. Hello Qnts2, As you are probably aware Hebrew rhymes or puns are formed by re-arranging (turning) the letters in one word to form another word or letters are added to one word to form the a new word. Often there is a spiritual link or meaning behind the pun. For instance, “Body” (גופי) “Vine” (הגפן) Jesus stated in John chapter 15 that he was the true vine. At the last supper, the pun forms a spritual link between the body of Jesus and the true vine - hence the wine at the last supper is from a vine and is spiritually linked to the blood from his body. The pun is formed by the use of the gimmel and pe letters in both words. In the second pun, “Atonement” (לכפרת) “Fruit” (פרי) Throughout the gospels (Matthew ch 3,12,21,etc.), John the Baptist and Jesus discuss "bearing fruit" and the connection to bearing fruit and a person's relationship to God. The pun is formed by the use of the pe and resh letters in both words. This particular pun is part of a larger rhyme in the last supper passage that employs: “Peter” (פיטרוש) “Deny” (תכפור) Ok, you have moved from rhymes to puns, but none fall under the idea of a pun. To create a pun or as I like to call it 'word play', the exchange is within certain phonetic groups. None of these fit. Some are altered or differing vowels but I do not see a word in your list with only an altered vowel. There is a significant number of Hebrew wordplays in the Hebrew scriptures. When it comes to the NT, while some claim the original Matthew was written in Hebrew, some claim Aramaic, and many claim Greek. Some of Matthew indicates a type of Hebrew or Aramaic word play, although there are instances where Hebrew/Aramaic humor is evident in the books which are more certainly written in Greek book. The word connection between “Deny” (תכפור) and “Atonement” (לכפרת) is cited in p.188, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995 Below is Dr. Howard’s background: Dr. George Howard Ph.D. (Hebrew Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion) Emeritus Head of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religion, University of Georgia Member, Editorial Board Journal of Biblical Literature Past-President Society of Biblical Literature I have added “Fruit” (פרי) and “Peter” (פיטרוש) which have an alliterative connection to both words stemming from the pe and resh letters. While there is a difference between puns, alliteration and word connections, they are all poetic devices used to create poems. Thus as I stated, a poem was created. To your point, there isn’t a translatable word in English that exactly expresses the concept for Hebrew poetic devices being used in conjunction to produce a set of sounds. I have used the english word “rhyme” since it has alliterative connotations in English concerning the sounds that letters in words make. A similar “rhyme” to what I’ve described is in Genesis 25:25: “Hair” (שער) “Esau” (עשו) These two words are not derivative from the same root, however, the letters shin and ayin do produce a common set of sounds to produce a “rhyme.” Using your criteria as I understand it there isn’t a “rhyme” in Genesis 25:25 since “Hair” (שער) and “Esau” (עשו) aren’t in a phonetic group.

I disagree. I am not convinced that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but even if it was, the Hebrew words for body and vine or atonement and fruit do not rhyme. Hello Qnts2, As you are probably aware Hebrew rhymes or puns are formed by re-arranging (turning) the letters in one word to form another word or letters are added to one word to form the a new word. Often there is a spiritual link or meaning behind the pun. For instance, “Body” (גופי) “Vine” (הגפן) Jesus stated in John chapter 15 that he was the true vine. At the last supper, the pun forms a spritual link between the body of Jesus and the true vine - hence the wine at the last supper is from a vine and is spiritually linked to the blood from his body. The pun is formed by the use of the gimmel and pe letters in both words. In the second pun, “Atonement” (לכפרת) “Fruit” (פרי) Throughout the gospels (Matthew ch 3,12,21,etc.), John the Baptist and Jesus discuss "bearing fruit" and the connection to bearing fruit and a person's relationship to God. The pun is formed by the use of the pe and resh letters in both words. This particular pun is part of a larger rhyme in the last supper passage that employs: “Peter” (פיטרוש) “Deny” (תכפור)

The Poetry of Jesus at the Last Supper At the last supper, Jesus creates a Hebrew poem by rhyming “body” and “vine” and rhyming “atonement” and “fruit.” Matthew 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and, giving it to the disciples, said, “Take, eat; this is my body {“Body” (גופי)}.” 27 Then he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness {“Atonement” (לכפרת)} of sins. 29 From now on, I tell you, I will never drink of this fruit {“Fruit” (פרי)} of the vine {“Vine” (הגפן)} until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” [The Passion: The Poetry of God] Body and Vine are Hebrew puns for each other “Body” (גופי) “Vine” (הגפן) Atonement and Fruit are Hebrew puns for each other “Atonement” (לכפרת) “Fruit” (פרי) J. Clontz – Editor of The Comprehensive New Testament

The name Jesus – In Hebrew, Jesus name rhymes with “save” and the word “shook”. The rhyme appears twice in Matthew. Once before his birth and then during the crucifixion. Matthew 1:21 And she will give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus {“Jesus” (ישוע)}, for he will save {“Save” (יושיע)} his people {“People” (עמי)} from their sins {“Sins” (מעונותם)}.” [The Passion: The Poetry of God]. The Trinity – Both Philo and the Talmud indicate that God in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 is grammatically plural. Cross references from the Comprehensive New Testament concerning the Trinity - Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:22, Philo[Appendices A Treatise Concerning the World (1)], Philo[On Abraham (56)], Philo[On Abraham (132)], Philo[On Flight and Finding (68-71)], Philo[On the Confusion of Tongues (146-147)], Philo[On the Confusion of Tongues (168-179)], Philo[On the Migration of Abraham (132-133)], Rabbinic[babylonian Menahot 110a], Rabbinic[babylonian Sanhedrin 38b], Rabbinic[bereshith Rabba viii p. 22d], Rabbinic[Debarim Rabba ii: 33 p. 104c], Rabbinic[Jerusalem Berakhot i: 8 (3c)], Rabbinic[shemoth Rabba xxix 5 p. 51b], Rabbinic[siphra 4c], Rabbinic[siphri Numbers 143 p. 54] Genesis 19:24 is possibly the clearest indication of two persons with the name Jehovah – “Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven.” Philo indicates that the first reference to Jehovah in Genesis 19:24 is the Word. There are hundreds of references to the trinity in the writings of the early church fathers. I did not cite them since they are so numerous. Perhaps the best known description and theological explanation of the trinity is the five theological orations of Gregory of Nazianzen. He delivered the orations during the debate on the Trinity at the council of Nicea. I will ask you how many earths there are? There is just one earth correct? What is the gravitational field that surrounds the earth? Isn’t the gravitational field around the earth part of the earth? Or is the gravitational field around the earth something other than the earth. The gravitational field is energy and the earth is matter but aren’t they one? There is never a time that the earth existed when it didn’t have a gravitational field they are inseparable. This is similar to the person of the Son of God and the Godhead. Jesus stated that he was the “I am” and met Abraham in Genesis - John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” A. The Messiah had to fulfill all the prophecies in one coming, and he would bring peace to the earth. There is no such claim in the Talmud. However, the Messiah did fulfill all the prophecies that were supposed concerning the first born Son of God in his first coming. Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies written by Moses. That’s right I said Moses. See 2Corinthians 3:18-4:6 and Luke 24. The essenes referred to this as the hidden Torah (nistar) and the pharisees tried unsuccessfully to recreate this through their oral Torah or Talmud. The early Christians like Paul referred to this as the “veiled” gospel. You should ask your Jewish friends to explain to you the legend of the “oral” Torah. According to the legend, Moses told the priests and prophets orally a way to interpret the Torah that would yield the correct way to interpret the law and the prophecies concerning the Messiah. Paul is referring to exactly the same legend in 2Corinthians 3:18-4:6. Jesus opens the minds of the apostles in Luke 24:44-45 so that they would be able to understand. B. The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods. The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the prophecy written by Moses in Genesis about the mother of the first born Son of God as “not knowing a man” which is exactly the literal translation of Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel in Luke. C. The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet. The Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Christian reading. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls are over a thousand years older than the existing masoretic texts and were written before Jesus was born the Dead Sea Scrolls unlike the Masoretic text could not have been redacted. D. Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3) The Talmud also states that the Messiah existed before the world was created. Maimonides interpretation is not supported by several portions of the Talmud. I would note Babylonian Sanhedrin 93b, 98b-99a, Sukkah 52a [Cross references from the Comprehensive New Testament concerning the Christ]. I have seen all of your arguments presented before by Jewish anti-missionaries. Most of the arguments depend on the Christian not knowing the Talmud otherwise the Jewish arguments have a tendency to unravel in contradictions with the Talmud. I would note that the Jewish concepts of the messiah were supposedly fulfilled by Bar Khochba according to Rabbi Akhiva. I would note that Rabbi Akhiva supposedly recorded the Talmud and was executed by the Romans after Bar Khochba was proven to be a false messiah.

Matthew 7:1 Cross Reference from the Comprehensive New Testament The king does not judge, and [others] do not judge him; does not give testimony, and [others] do not give testimony about him. [Talmud Sanhedrin 18a, The Babylonian Talmud a Translation and Commentary] We are a royal priesthood. So we are supposed to act as kings. Kings don't judge. Judges do the judging and we aren't called to be judges.