HHMI Newsgroup Archives
From: James Trimm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Question on Rev 19:16
Dear Dr. Trimm,
The following is an excerpt from a letter posted by someone else in the Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup. I know how busy you are brother, but if you can spare a moment I would like you comment on this in the light of the HRV that just came out. I have understood this "name on His thigh" or "thighs" to be indicative that Yeshua was wearing a Tallit, with the Name in the tzitziot being draped across His thighs. The point being made below though, seems to be validated by the possible lack of Hebraic or Aramaic understanding of the translator when looking at "dalet" and possibly confusing it with "resh". This inquiry will be posted to our newsgroup as well so that all may profit from your teaching in this area. Thank you so much for your work on the HRV! Our recently received copy is available for anyone to view while visiting with us, and I have found your comments in the introduction to be most enlightening and informative!
And there is more. The Explanatory notes at the back of the rendition of the Scriptures put out by the Institute for Scripture Research indicates certain textual criticisms in the Book of the Revelation which indicate that it was also written in Hebrew. Revelation 19:16 reads that Yahshua will return with the words "KING OF KINGS AND MASTER OF MASTERS," written across his thigh. That's not right. The word "thigh" should read "banner," instead. The problem with the word "thigh" is that if the words are written on Yahshua's thigh, then they are speaking of a tattoo, but Leviticus 19:18 forbids us to make tattoos on our bodies. But we know that Yahshua would never get a tattoo, because Yahshua would never break Torah, because He tells us Himself in the Sermon on the Mount that He did not come to break the Torah or to do away with it (Matthew 5:17-20). We know that sin is a transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), so if Yahshua has a tattoo on his thigh, then He will be breaking the Law, which means He will be sinning. Yet we know that this can not be, because Yahshua is without sin. Further, we know that a person whose thigh is exposed is considered naked in Hebraic thought (Mark 14:51, see also Shemot/Exodus 28:42), and we know that Yahshua would never come immodestly dressed, since He is our example. He would keep His thighs covered, especially in battle. What makes more sense is to acknowledge that the Book of the Revelation must have been written in Hebrew. A particular letter in Hebrew that represents the "d" sound (called the "dalet") has a small stub on the end of one of the pen strokes, while a very similar looking letter representing the "r" sound (called a "resh") does not. It is easy for translators to mistake the two, especially when the scroll is old, damaged, or when the translators don't know Hebrew that well. Constantine's Catholic translators might easily have confused the dalet for a resh. If a scribe translating the Book of the Revelation from Hebrew (or > possibly Aramaic) in to Greek mistook the "d" for an "r", then the word "dagel" (banner) becomes "ragel" (thigh), and you have Yahshua breaking Torah, wearing a tattoo on a naked thigh. Given the fact that Yahshua said that the Torah would not pass away until heaven and earth pass away, this is impossible. It would make Yahshua an immodest sinner with naked thighs! When you understand that Yahshua came not to do away with the Law, but rather to show how best to keep it, the image of Yahshua galloping around with a tattoo on a naked thigh becomes ludicrous. Yet a Roman Catholic scribe translating in to the Greek would not have caught the mistake, because the Catholics teach (against Scripture) that Yahshua did away with the Law.
James Trimm Replies:
First of all thank you for your kind comments regarding the HRV.
The "thigh" = RGL as an error for DGL "banner" explaination was first proposed by C. C. Torrey in 1941 in a paper titled "The Language and Date of the Apocalypse. The paper has been reprinted by SANJ as part of the book A SEMITIC APPROACH TO THE TEXT OF REVELATION. the material appears on pages 105-106 of that book.
Now there are some problems with it. First of all RGL normally means "foot" and sometimes means "leg" but "thigh" might be a stretch and "thighs" (plural) an even further stretch.
If Rev. was originally written in Hebrew then the Hebrew has not survived. The Aramaic Crawford manuscript, which has survived and which has signs of being the source for the Greek version, has 'ATMA here (ayin-tet-mem root) meaning "thigh" (it actually appears in the plural.
Having said that let me now point out something more important. The Aramaic does not have this problem at all!
The Greek has "on his garment AND on his thigh" but the Aramaic has "...on his garments, on his thighs..." as we read in the HRV Rev. 19:16.
While the Greek makes these two different things, the Aramaic has the phrase "on his thighs" as a modifier of "on his garments" implying that it was upon his tzitzit or upon the KANAF (corner where the tzitzit is attached).
Hope this helps,
From: James Trimm <email@example.com>
Subject: Hebrew Roots New Testament Translations
For those who would like a better idea of how the HRV differs from
other versions of the NT on the issue of Torah I have collected the
following set of examples with comments:
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Jn. 1:17 KJV
Notice that the word "but" is in itallics. Words which appear in itallics in the KJV are words that were added by the translator. This is supposed to have been done simply to smooth out the translation into workable english. However in certain passages (such as this one) the translators bias is clear. As we have learned there is no conflict between "law" and "grace" so there is no reason to place the ord "but" here. The word "and" fits the context much better unless we assume an anti-nomian theology. The HRV follows the ancient Aramaic "Old Syriac" text of John 1:17 with:
in that the Torah through Moshe was given, and grace and truth through Yeshua the Messiah came to pass.
Moreover the law entered,
that the offence might abound.
But where sin abounded,
grace did much more abound;
Rom. 5:20 KJV
This reading of Romans 5:20 falsely implies that the Torah causes sin and is therefore of negative value. However while translating the Aramaic text literally I found this reading which appears in the HRV:
But the entrance that was towards the Torah was because of the proliferation of sin, and where sin proliferates, there grace abounds.
This reading instead implies the opposite cause and effect order. In the Aramaic text it is not implied that the Torah was the cause and sin was the effect as it is implied in the KJV. Instead the Aramaic indicates that because of the proliferation of sin the Torah was given. Moreover the Aramaic also identifies Torah with grace rather than contrasting the two. In fact the Aramaic teaches that the Torah is grace and was given because of grace!
Now this is completely in keeping with the Tanak which teaches that
CHESED (grace) is given because of the "fear of YHWH" (Ps. 103:11;
118:4 & Prov. 16:6 - the KJV renders CHESED here as "lovingkindness"
rather than "grace"). Now the Torah teaches that we "fear YHWH" by
observing Torah (Deut. 17:19; 31:12). So in the Tanak there is a
clear connection between the abounding of grace and the entrance
towards the Torah! Both result from the "fear of YHWH." This idea
fits perfectly with the Aramaic text of Romans 5:20.
Rom. 7:1-7 taken from the HRV translation from the Aramaic:
1. Or do you not know, my brothers,
(for I speak to learned ones of the Torah),
that the Torah has authority over a man as long as he is alive,
2. As a woman who is bound by the Torah to her husband as long as he is alive. But if her husband dies, she is freed by the Torah from her husband.
3. And if while her husband is alive she has intercourse with another man, she becomes and adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is freed by the Torah; and she is not an adulteress if she marries another.
4. And now, my brothers, you also are dead to the Torah in the body of the Messiah that you might be [married] to another who arose from among the dead, that you might bear fruit to Eloah.
5. For while we were in the flesh, the passions of sins that are in the Torah were working in our members, so that we would bear fruit unto death.
6. But now we are brought to an end by the Torah, and we are dead to that which was holding us, that we should serve from now on in the renewal of the spirit and not in the oldness of the writing.
7. What therefore are we saying? Is the Torah sin? Absolutely not! But I did not learn sin except through the Torah. For I had not known covetousness except that the Torah said, Do not covet.
For Christ is the end of the law
for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom. 10:4 KJV
In our current English we are told that Messiah is the "end" of the Law and then contrasts the righteousness that is by the Torah by the righteousness that is by faith using the contrasting conjunction "but" in verse 6. This makes little sense since Paul quotes the Torah when explaining both the righteousness that is by the Torah (Rom. 10:5 = Lev. 18:5) and the righteousness that is by faith/trusting (Rom. 10:6-8 = Deut. 30:11-14) so he is not contrasting the two.
The Greek word for "end" in verse 4 is TELOS. The Greek word TELOS does not always mean "end" in the sense of "termination" but can mean "end" in the sense of aim or goal. (as in 1Tim. 1:5; 1Peter 1:9)
The Aramaic word for "end" in verse 4 is SAKA which means "end" in the sense of a "goal" or "aim" not a "termination." In fact when James Murdock made the first English translation of the Peshitta New Testament way back in 1893, he translated this word as "aim" in Rom. 10:4. I have translated this word as "goal."
The HRV transaltion of Rom. 10:4-8 :
10:4 For the goal of the Torah is the Messiah;
for righteousness to all who trust.
10:5 For Moshe thus wrote of the righteousness that is in the Torah; that he who does these shall live by them.
10:6 Now of the righteousness that is by trusting he thus says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who has ascended to heaven and brought down the Messiah?
10:7 And who has descended to the depth of Sh'ol, and brought up the Messiah from among the dead?'
10:8 But what does it say? The answer is near to you, to your mouth and to your heart," which is the word of trust which we proclaim.
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph. 2:15 KJV
Notice that in the KJV the words "even" and "contained" have been added in an attempot to give the Greek version of the passage some meaning. Without these words the Greek is simply difficult to make sense of. The Aramaic text of this passage is very clear however. In the Aramaic the passive verb "is abolished" is singular and cannot have two subjects. As a result only "enmity" is abolished. "by His flesh is conjuncted to "and the torah". The next phrase is a dalet clause which can be translated many ways "of, which, that, who or because" I have translated here "because" as in Dan. 3:29,4:9, 6:3, 23, and 7:11. Therefore, it is by His flesh and the torah statute of "love thy neighbor" (for instance) that abolishes enmity. Thus the verse is better translated as the HRV reads:
And enmity (by his flesh and also the Torah, because of commandments in his commands) is abolished, that [from] the two of them he might create in himself one new man, and he made peace. Eph. 2:15 from Aramaic
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances
that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross.
Col. 2:14 KJV
The KJV has a very poor translation here.
The HRV reads:
He has blotted out by his commandments
the handwriting of our debts which were against us,
and he took it from the midst
and fastened it on his gallows.
Col. 2:14 from Aramaic
In the HRV reading it is not the Torah which was done away with in
Col. 2:14, but the record of our sins.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,
(for under it the people received the law,)
what further need was there that another priest
should rise after the order of Melchisedec,
and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
(Heb. 7:11-12 KJV)
There are two words that need to be looked at closely here. The first is the word "perfection" which in the Aramaic is G'MIRA'IT a form of the Aramaic word G'MARA. This word is better translated "completion. To give you some idea how this word is used in Aramaic let us look at another common usage of the word G'MARA. The Jewish book known as the Talmud is made up of the MISHNA which was editted around 250 C.E. and the G'MARA which was written about 550 C.E. The G'MARA is coimmentary on the MISHNA. The G'MARA does not change, replace or do away with the MISHNA. The G'MARA completes and complements the MISHNA. In the same way the Melchizadek priesthood of Messiah completes and complements the Levitical priesthood. It does not change, replace or do away with the Levitical priesthood.
Now let us look at the word "change". The Aramaic word here is
SHUKH'LAFA which means "change, transform renew or revive." The
Hebrew form of the same Semitic root is Strong's 2498 KHALAF. This
Hebrew cognate of the same word appears in Is. 40:31, 41:1 which reads
"...let the people renew their strength..." Now as we have alread
shown it would be a Torah violation to change any part of the Torah
(Deut 4:2; 12:32) so if we were to understand this passage to mean
that Yeshua changed the Torah, we would be making Yeshua a Torah
violator. However the context of this passage is one of renewal, and
in fact in the section of Hebrews Paul comments on the "Renewed
Covenant" of Jer. 31:31f.
For there is verily a disannulling
of the commandment going before
for the weakness and uprofitableness thereof.
For the law made nothing perfect,
but the bringing in of a better hope did;
by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Heb. 7:18-19 KJV
Now the key word here is "disannulling" which in the Aramaic is SHUKH'LAFA which is better translated here as "renewal" (see coomet to Heb. 7:11-12. The word for "perfect" here is G'MARA which is better understood as "complete" (see note to Heb. 7:11-12). Thus the HRV has:
Therefore, if completion is through the cohen-hood of Levi
by which the Torah was enacted for the people,
why was it necessary that another cohen be raised up
in the likeness of Makitzedek? Then he [would have]
said that he will be in the likeness of Aharon.
But as renewal took place in the cohen-hood,
so a renewal also took place in the Torah.
For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Heb. 8:7 KJV)
A beter translation for "faultless" is "without blame." The "fault" or "blame" involved is not a fault with the Torah. The sripture tells us the Torah is perfect ( Ps. 19:7; James 1:25). The fault or blame is ours for having violated Torah. As the following passage elaborates:
For finding fault with them...
(Heb. 8:8 KJV)
The fault was not with the Torah but with the people who violated it.
Thus the HRV has in Hebrews 8:7:
For if the first was without blame, there would be no place for this second.
This takes us to our next commonly misunderstood passage.
In that he saith, A new covenant,
he has made the first old,
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old
is ready to vanish away.
Heb. 8:13 KJV
This passage immediately follows the quotation from Jer. 31:31f which followed Heb. 8:8 above. The HRV translates the Aramaic of Heb. 8:13 literally as follows:
By that which he called renewed,
he made the first antiquated,
and that which is antiquated and old
is near to corruption.
Heb. 8:13 from Aramaic
Now the context is that in Heb. 8:8 Paul has said that there was fault with the people and that that caused a need for the covenent to be renewed. In the Torah we are told that if we as a people do not keep the Torah there will be consequences for us (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-29) but there is also a promise of a renewal of the covenant in Deut. 30 which closely paralels Jer. 31:31f. Paul is saying in Heb. 8:7-8 what the Revewal of the covenant spoken of by Jer. 31:31f resulted from our fault in not keeping Torah. Paul concludes in 8:13 to state that the existance of a renewed covenant proves that we had corrupted the first covenant, thus substantiating the case he made in Heb. 8:7-8.
Some of the major features of the HRV include:
* MESSIANIC TERMINOLOGY
* TRANSLATED FROM HEBREW AND ARAMAIC RATHER THAN FROM GREEK
* SACRED NAME APPEARS BASED ON MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
* LITERAL TRANSLATION, NOT PARAPHRASED
* BOOKS APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT ORDER
* QUOTES FROM TANAK (OLD TEST.) APPEAR BOLD FACED AND FOOTNOTED
* OVER 1,600 SCHOLARLY FOOTNOTES CITING THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES ETC.
MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE TRANSLATION FEATURES:
MESSIANIC TERMINOLOGY - The HRV uses Messianic terminology. Hebraic names are used. "Yeshua" rather than "Jesus"; "Yochanan" rather than "John"; "Ruach HaKodesh" rather than "Holy Spirit"; "Shadim" rather than "Demons"; "Talmidim" rather than "disciples" etc. Also in many other cases theologically neutral terms have been used "immerse" rather than "baptize"; "emissaries" rather than "apostles" etc.
TRANSLATED FROM HEBREW AND ARAMAIC - Most NT translations are made from the Greek text. This has been true of every Messianic version of the NT to date. The HRV is the first Messianic New Testament to be translated from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts rather than from the Greek.
SACRED NAME APPEARS BASED ON MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE - The major Messianic editions of the NT have not included the sacred name. However even in some Rabbinic circles it has become accepted and helpful to include the sacred name translated with the four consonants YHWH or YHVW (for example the Fox translation). Moreover the majority of NT versions (Messianic or otherwise) which have included the Sacred name have done so only by way of guesswork. since the Greek NT does not distinguish "Lord" from "YHWH". However the HRV includes the sacred name throughout the NT based on real manuscript evidence found in the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts which distinguish ADONAI/Lord from YHWH.
LITERAL TRANSLATION, NOT PARAPHRASED - Many Messianic versions of the past have been highly paraphrased. Unlike these editions the HRV is a very literal translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic.
BOOKS APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT ORDER - This
is another important feature which makes the HRV unique when compared
to other Messianic editions. Just as the manuscript order of the books
of the Tanak (OT), (followed by Judaism) does not agree with the
ordering of the same books in the Christian "Old Testament" as printed
today, so also does the manuscript order of the NT differ. The ancient
manuscript order of the books of the "New Testament" has first the
"Gospels" then "Acts" followed by the Jewish Epistles (Ya,akov
(James); 1 & 2 Kefa (Peter); 1, 2 & 3 Yochanan (John) and Y'hudah
(Jude)) followed by the Pauline epistles which are followed by
Revelation. This order was rearranged by Rome in the Latin Vulgate in
which the Pauline epistles were given first place and the Jewish
epistles given second place. The original manuscript order had an
important significance. It agreed with the precept that the message
was to the Jews first and then to the Goyim (Gentiles). It also agrees
with the concept that Ya'akov, Kefa and Yochanan were emissaries that
come BEFORE Paul (Gal. 1:17) and with the concept that Kefa, Ya'akov
and Yochanan served as three pillars which lend authority upon which
Paul's message was built (Gal. 2:9) and not vice-versa. The reader of the NT was intended to read the "Jewish" epistles FIRST and then to
read the Pauline epistles already having understood the Jewish
epistles. The NT reader was intended to read Ya'akov's (James')
admonition concerning faith and works (Ya'akov 2) as well as Kefa's
warnings about Paul being difficult to understand and often twisted
(1Kefa 3:15-16) etc. before ever attempting to understand the writings
of Paul. The HRV follows the ancient manuscript order (which agrees
also with the order of the ancient Aramaic manuscripts) in placing the
"Jewish epistles" immediately after Acts and placing the Pauline
Epistles AFTER them.
QUOTES FROM TANAK (OLD TEST.) APPEAR BOLD FACED AND FOOTNOTED - This is a very helpful feature which demonstrates the NT dependence on the Tanak. This feature is common to many NT versions (Christian and Messianic) and is also a feature of the HRV.
OVER 1,600 SCHOLARLY FOOTNOTES CITING THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES ETC. - Did you know that some Greek manuscripts of Matthew contain column notes which offer alternate readings from "the Jewish version"? The HRV includes these column notes as footnotes. The HRV also contains many footnotes pointing out ambiguous words which seem to have been misunderstood by the Greek translator; words that seem to have been misread by the Greek translator and wordplays and alliteration in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Also some passages in which my translation differs from the traditional translations contain footnotes explaining why the passage should be translated as I have it. Other footnotes demonstrate how the same Aramaic words have been used in the Talmud. Finally for some key passages of interest I have included the actual Hebrew or Aramaic text in a footnote. This sum total of over 1,600 footnotes will sharpen your understanding of the text.
For a donation of $44.00 ($39 + $5 shipping) or more we will gladly send you the Hebraic Roots Version New Testament.
Just send your contribution check or money order to:
Hurst, TX 76053
New Messianic Translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic!
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.