Why Ya'akov and not Romans?

I could've titled this topic as Someone Scrambled the Scriptures!

Most copies of the New Testament today follow this order:
Gospels
Acts
Pauline Epistles
Jewish Epistles
Revelation

However the original manuscript order of the books was:
Gospels
Acts
Jewish Epistles
Pauline Epistles
Revelation

This was testified to by the ancient fathers in the faith.

Athanasius (296-373 CE) Bishop of Alexandria gives the order of books as “the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the seven Catholic (universal) Epistles; the fourteen epistles of St. Paul; and the Revelation of John”. Leonitus of Byzantium gives this order as well.

Philastrius, a fourth century Church Father also argued that the Catholic (Universal) Epistles must precede the Pauline epistles because Gal. 1:17 has Paul referring to the Emissaries of the Jewish Epistles as coming before him.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem also maintained the original manuscript order as did the Council of Laodicea.

But, in the Latin Vulgate we see this order rearranged by Rome. The Pauline epistles dominate first place with the Jewish epistles following.

Why would they do that? What was wrong with the original that the church felt that had to change it? I don't know about you but I get suspicious when I discover that men have tinkered with things like this.

You may ask, "does it matter?"

Yes, the original manuscript order was significant. It was the natural outgrowth that the message was to go to the Jews first. Then it was to go to the Gentiles. It also aligns with the concepts that Ya'akov, Kefa (Peter), and Yochanan (John) were emissaries that came before Paul (Gal. 1:17), and who served as three pillars of authority upon which Paul's message was built (Gal. 2:9) - not the other way around.

The reader of the Brit Hadassah was intended to read the "Jewish" epistles first, then read the Pauline epistles - after understanding the Jewish epistles. This way the new believer would've read Ya'akov's admonition concerning faith and works. They would also be warned through Kefa (Peter) about Shaul's (Paul) teaching being hard to understand and often twisted (2Kefa 3:15-16). This would ground them in Scripture before ever attempting to understand the writings of Paul.

At the least this rearranging of the order of the Scriptures (actually it occurs in the Tanack as well) de-emphasizes the Jewish epistles. As a result Shaul's epistles are given an almost superior position of importance. Certainly it begs the question why the Roman church directly influenced this change.

Unfortunately, Shaul's teachings today seem to take center stage in theological disputes. It matters not your position on an issue whether it's predestination or free will, both sides tend to rely heavily on Shaul to prove their case.

Martin Luther almost eliminated the book of Ya'akov entirely. He claimed it was a 'book of straw.' Of course he also labeled the Jews as 'Christ killers' and wrote sermons against them. Hitler borrowed heavily from his thoughts. All of this makes Luther a prime example of how misunderstanding the Jewish nature of the Scripture can have disastrous effects.

Let's hope that by looking at Ya'akov ourselves we can regain a balance upon which to build a reliable understanding of Scripture.

Discerning True Faith - the Wisdom of James

We are 2000 years removed from the faith as delivered to the apostles. The instructions in our possession came from a Jewish culture, written by Jews, concerning a Jewish Messiah. Yet most who read this can not imagine any thing other than a modern gentile Hellenistic mindset. In fact a large number don't really know what a Hellenistic or a Hebraic mindset is. The best way I can think to help gentiles to begin to grasp the difference is to attend a local Jewish synagogue. That will at least open your eyes a bit.

Suffice it to say that the abandonment of our Hebraic roots is responsible for much of the decay in the congregations today through translations and interpretations that are for the most part anti-Semitic. Even some translators who are not anti-Semitic still reflect the overwhelming consensus of their Christian church upbringing.

Much of what we hear as Gospel has been filtered over the centuries through the mesh of antisemitism. It is an anemic version of the original flavor and energy of the message. You can compare it to the difference between buying orange juice with all the pulp or the variety with all the pulp removed. One is full of vigor and strength reflecting the original orange, while the other is similar to colored sugar water.

Some will immediately object - as I once did out of ignorance - that there is any antisemitism in our translations of Scripture. I'll make only two points on that for now.

One is that there is no Scriptural basis for imparting infallibility or inerrancy to those who have translated our modern versions for the last 500 years. It is wishful thinking or human reasoning alone that has brought many to that belief. We are all biased to some degree and the translators were no exception. Often they made decisions of translation based on their personal theological understanding of what the particular verse should say. Some of the sources I use candidly admit doing this by interjecting their understanding of Hebraic/Jewish roots to add the pulp back to the colored sugar water.

Secondly, a prime example is in the title the Book of James. A quick look in Strong's concordance will reveal that the author of this epistle is not named James. His name is the same as that used elsewhere in the Old Testament (Tanack) as Jacob in English. Considering that names can't be translated - only transliterated to sound similar - the name should have at least had a "Y" beginning. That's because there is no "J" sound in the Hebrew. More correctly the name should be transliterated as Ya'akov.

Why the change of the name? Why the inconsistency? The answer is not clear, but the result is the same. We are given an anglicized version that removes any Jewish flavor of the name. The same double standard can be seen in the name of Mary, the mother of Yahshua (Jesus). In the Old Testament (Tanack) the same name is Miriam.

In any case, this is not really a commentary,or a devotion, or a new translation, but a discussion. The sources used here include four Messianic Jewish, or Hebraic roots versions of Scripture along with the New King James version. That will explain why you may see alternate words in parenthesis in the verses to reflect any diverging translations.

In this discussion it is my purpose to exhort, encourage, and enlighten others. I am especially aiming at new believers or teen agers trying to get a practical grip on how to live out their new-found faith and to taste the message with the "Jewish pulp" included.

From this point forward I will use certain conventions in labeling or naming.

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Hebraic Roots Version NT (HRV)
The Scriptures (TS)
Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition Study Bible (RSTNE)
New King James (NKJV)

Old Testament (Tanack)
New Testament (Brit Hadassah)

Jesus (Yahshua)
God (Elohim, Master)
LORD (YHWH, Yahweh)
James (Ya'akov)