INTRODUCTION TO THE MESSIANIC WRITINGS
These Messianic Writings are universally, erroneously called “The New Testament”. This is an error of immense magnitude, leading to serious theological distortions, some of which have had disastrous historical consequences. There is no “testament” spoken of in these texts, nor do they contain any reference to Tanakh as old and the Messianic Writings as new. There are references to the “old covenant,” i.e. the one God made with Israel at Sinai, and the “new covenant,” i.e. the one God promised to Israel in Jer. 31:31-34, and confirmed in Yeshua. These, however, are covenants, not books of the Bible.
“Christianity” and the “Church” have been built upon “Christian” interpretations of “Christian” translations of these Jewish documents. Though a great amount of good scholarship has gone into these translations, they are marred by traditional, theological renderings which cannot be supported from the text. They create the image of a world, a religious world, that is not presented in the text. Additionally, they foster the illusion that God’s purpose for humanity has departed from Israel and from the earth itself. The Messianic Writings do not mention Christianity, the Church, Christians, or the New Testament.
These are Jewish writings which present themselves as completely dependent upon and flowing from Tanakh — (the standard Hebrew acronym for) the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Tanakh was the authorized, accepted revelation from the God of Israel. All subsequent revelations were to be judged by it. The Messianic Writings flow out of the presentation and revelation of Yeshua as Israel’s Messiah, “Messiah” having already been defined in Tanakh.
This translation is an attempt to give a faithful rendering of these first century Jewish-Greek writings in their own context. These texts, like the Septuagint, the writings of Josephus, Philo, and others, are written in a kind of Greek that had its own peculiarities. Isidore of Pelasium commented in the 5th century that, “The Greeks... despise the divine Scripture as barbarous language, and composed of foreign-sounding words, abandoning necessary conjunctions, and confusing the mind with the addition of extraordinary words.” (4Epistle 4.28, in Migne, Patrologia greca, cited in Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax, Elliott C. Maloney, Scholars Press, Chico, CA, 1981, P.5)
Like other Jewish-Greek writings, they were written in a way that reflected concepts and definitions which could only be found, in their wholeness, in the Hebrew Biblical world. Without reference to that world, both the concepts and the definitions remain obscure.
Accordingly, the Septuagint Greek translation of Tanakh, begun in about 250 B.C.E. is an indispensable bridge for understanding the Messianic Writings. These were the Greek Scriptures referred to more often than any others by the authors of the Messianic Writings. The authors of the classic Bauer/Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature noted that, “As for the influence of the Septuagint, every page of this lexicon shows that it outweighs all other influences in our literature.” (Second Edition, 1979, P. xxi)
Though the Septuagint often diverges from the Hebrew text, and sometimes quite significantly, it still generally enables us to locate the way in which original Hebrew concepts and definitions were put into a particular Greek form. It is that same peculiar Greek — which is neither classical nor common — that appears in the Messianic Writings. Because of this, the Septuagint Greek text of Tanakh can be used to indicate how a particular word, phrase, or text should be translated.
Starting with the public domain American Standard Version, a fairly literal translation I worked through both major compilations of the Greek text, the Textus Receptus and the UBS. I considered the evidence and reasonings for the differences between the two. In all choices, my desire was to be faithful to the Jewish Greek expression of Hebrew Biblical concepts.
SOME TRANSLATION DIFFICULTIES
MANUSCRIPTS: We do not have any of the original manuscripts. We have numerous copies of copies. Some of these copies show “family” resemblances to one another. Within the different manuscript families, however, there are still numerous differences in text. Between all these manuscript copies, there are thousands of different readings — sometimes a single letter, sometimes a word, sometimes much more.
The Scriptures present themselves as being inspired by God and, therefore, without error. They do not make any such claim for those who made copies or for those who combined and compiled a full Greek text from those copies. Nor do they make any such claims for any translation, including this one. Every reader should know and understand that scribes, textual critics, linguists, and translators are all fallible human beings, and therefore subject to making mistakes. All claims for the infallibility of particular human efforts do a disservice to both man and God.
Modern translations do not follow the order of the books that is found in the Greek manuscripts. They follow instead the order that appears in the Latin Vulgate translation, which was begun by Jerome in the fifth century. I have chosen to follow the order that appears in the Greek manuscripts, an order which was essentially followed in the Peshitta Aramaic. (The Peshitta differs in placing Hebrews right before Hazon/Revelation, and in not including some of the shorter letters.) Here is the order used in the Messianic Writings:
Mattiyah, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, and Acts/Ma’asei haShalihim
Jacob, First and Second Kefa, First, Second, and Third Yohanan, and Judah
Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Thessalonians, Hebrews, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.
Hazon/Revelation
APPROACH: There are two basic approaches to translation. One is to bring the text into the world of the reader. The other is to bring the reader into the world of the text. To some extent, both are necessary, and neither is possible. My emphasis has been to try to bring the reader to the world of the text, believing that the meaning of the text is most accurately found in the world in which it was given; but recognizing that it is impossible for us to truly enter into that world. We are far removed from the time, culture, and mindset in which the texts were written. We do not know as the people of those times knew; nor do we think as they thought.
Additionally, Greek and Hebrew grammar do not correspond exactly to each other; nor does either correspond exactly to English grammar. Consequently, the exact literal sense of a particular text can be both awkward and difficult to understand in English. Sometimes a word-for-word literal translation does not communicate what the text actually says.
Given a divinely inspired original, the translator wants to translate each word, even if every word does not convey meaning in the secondary language. For example, hineh in Hebrew and idou in Greek call out to the reader or audience to pay close attention. But “behold” does not always do that in English. It is too old a word. Most often I have used “look,” “listen,” or something similar to try to convey a sense of expectation. Occasionally I have used “behold,” and occasionally I have omitted the word altogether, or placed an exclamation mark at the end of the sentence.
Another difficulty is that a long sentence or thought in the text may extend over four, five, or more verses — let’s say from verse 8 to verse 12. But the best translation of the text into English may not follow the verse numbers or divisions, which are not part of the text. The most faithful and true translation into English may put verse 10 after verse 8, and verse 9 between verses 11 and 12. I have kept the traditional verse numbering, but have occasionally presented the words in a different order.
ADDITIONAL CHOICES: Because of the violent, tragic events and teachings of many centuries, some English words that have been traditionally used in translating these Scriptures actually obscure the meaning of the original text. I have not used these traditional words. Instead, I have tried to use more faithful English terms or, occasionally, equivalent Hebrew transliterations. The Hebrew terms are not numerous, and should present no more than initial difficulty for those unfamiliar with them. A glossary is provided after the Writings.
I have tended to use the Hebrew form of names rather than the English transliteration of their Greek transliterations, but have retained in some cases, the traditional English transliteration of familiar names in Tanakh. Otherwise, names and place names are transliterated from the Hebrew originals and not from the Greek transliterations. The guttural “h” sound is rendered as “h”, rather than as “ch”, e.g. “Beit Lehem,” but occasionally I have used “kh” where it seemed to be helpful.
Other commonly used transliterations of Greek words have been replaced by translation. Since transliteration creates a new word without meaning, unless the meaning is already known, I have avoided it as much as possible.
We do not know how to translate the tetragrammaton, the four letter Hebrew Name of the God of the Bible, which is often rendered in English as “LORD, following the choice made by the LXX translators. However, the thousands of times that the Name appears in the Scriptures indicate that it is related to God’s eternal nature and His covenant relationship with Israel. It is clear that people pronounced this Name of God from the earliest times, as, for example, Havah did in Gen. 4:1. However, a transliteration of the Name, even if it were correct, would not carry the meaning of the Name.
In the appropriate places where it appears, I have attempted to give the meaning of “the Name” as “the Everpresent”. The Rabbis used haMakom, i.e. "the place," to give the sense of God's presence in every place. Calvin and other French translators used “l’Eternel” (the Eternal) to give the sense of God’s presence in all of time. “The Everpresent” is intended to do both.
In modern English, “you” and “your” can be either singular or plural. Hebrew, Greek, and many other languages distinguish between the singular and plural. In the text, I have added a plus sign (+) to signify the plural — “you+” and “your+”.
Where quotations from Tanakh appear in the Messianic Writings, or where particular passages from Tanakh are relevant, they are cited in [brackets] following the phrase or sentence. In these citations, I have used the standard English abbreviations. In the common Jewish usage of the times, such quotations were given either to indicate the fulfillment of a specific prophecy, or to make a particular application of that prophecy. Occasionally, references from the Apocrypha or other contemporary Jewish writings are also cited. Though these writings are not part of the Biblical text, they were well-known in the first century, and were sometimes used by the Biblical writers for illustration or example. In the citations, “1:1H” refers to the Hebrew text, “1:1E” to the English, “1:1LXX” to the Septuagint.
Where it is deemed helpful, I have included some notes related to the text. In these notes, in addition to explanatory comments, I have tried to give some relevant Rabbinic material. This is by no means either comprehensive or systematic. Nor is it a sign of approval or disapproval, but an attempt to help illustrate the context. It should not, however, be assumed that the Rabbinic material is contemporary with the Messianic Writings. Usually it is later. “Tal.” indicates a Talmudic tractate, “Mid.” the Midrash Rabbah.
These Messianic Writings are universally, erroneously called “The New Testament”. This is an error of immense magnitude, leading to serious theological distortions, some of which have had disastrous historical consequences. There is no “testament” spoken of in these texts, nor do they contain any reference to Tanakh as old and the Messianic Writings as new. There are references to the “old covenant,” i.e. the one God made with Israel at Sinai, and the “new covenant,” i.e. the one God promised to Israel in Jer. 31:31-34, and confirmed in Yeshua. These, however, are covenants, not books of the Bible.
“Christianity” and the “Church” have been built upon “Christian” interpretations of “Christian” translations of these Jewish documents. Though a great amount of good scholarship has gone into these translations, they are marred by traditional, theological renderings which cannot be supported from the text. They create the image of a world, a religious world, that is not presented in the text. Additionally, they foster the illusion that God’s purpose for humanity has departed from Israel and from the earth itself. The Messianic Writings do not mention Christianity, the Church, Christians, or the New Testament.
These are Jewish writings which present themselves as completely dependent upon and flowing from Tanakh — (the standard Hebrew acronym for) the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Tanakh was the authorized, accepted revelation from the God of Israel. All subsequent revelations were to be judged by it. The Messianic Writings flow out of the presentation and revelation of Yeshua as Israel’s Messiah, “Messiah” having already been defined in Tanakh.
This translation is an attempt to give a faithful rendering of these first century Jewish-Greek writings in their own context. These texts, like the Septuagint, the writings of Josephus, Philo, and others, are written in a kind of Greek that had its own peculiarities. Isidore of Pelasium commented in the 5th century that, “The Greeks... despise the divine Scripture as barbarous language, and composed of foreign-sounding words, abandoning necessary conjunctions, and confusing the mind with the addition of extraordinary words.” (4Epistle 4.28, in Migne, Patrologia greca, cited in Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax, Elliott C. Maloney, Scholars Press, Chico, CA, 1981, P.5)
Like other Jewish-Greek writings, they were written in a way that reflected concepts and definitions which could only be found, in their wholeness, in the Hebrew Biblical world. Without reference to that world, both the concepts and the definitions remain obscure.
Accordingly, the Septuagint Greek translation of Tanakh, begun in about 250 B.C.E. is an indispensable bridge for understanding the Messianic Writings. These were the Greek Scriptures referred to more often than any others by the authors of the Messianic Writings. The authors of the classic Bauer/Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature noted that, “As for the influence of the Septuagint, every page of this lexicon shows that it outweighs all other influences in our literature.” (Second Edition, 1979, P. xxi)
Though the Septuagint often diverges from the Hebrew text, and sometimes quite significantly, it still generally enables us to locate the way in which original Hebrew concepts and definitions were put into a particular Greek form. It is that same peculiar Greek — which is neither classical nor common — that appears in the Messianic Writings. Because of this, the Septuagint Greek text of Tanakh can be used to indicate how a particular word, phrase, or text should be translated.
Starting with the public domain American Standard Version, a fairly literal translation I worked through both major compilations of the Greek text, the Textus Receptus and the UBS. I considered the evidence and reasonings for the differences between the two. In all choices, my desire was to be faithful to the Jewish Greek expression of Hebrew Biblical concepts.
SOME TRANSLATION DIFFICULTIES
MANUSCRIPTS: We do not have any of the original manuscripts. We have numerous copies of copies. Some of these copies show “family” resemblances to one another. Within the different manuscript families, however, there are still numerous differences in text. Between all these manuscript copies, there are thousands of different readings — sometimes a single letter, sometimes a word, sometimes much more.
The Scriptures present themselves as being inspired by God and, therefore, without error. They do not make any such claim for those who made copies or for those who combined and compiled a full Greek text from those copies. Nor do they make any such claims for any translation, including this one. Every reader should know and understand that scribes, textual critics, linguists, and translators are all fallible human beings, and therefore subject to making mistakes. All claims for the infallibility of particular human efforts do a disservice to both man and God.
Modern translations do not follow the order of the books that is found in the Greek manuscripts. They follow instead the order that appears in the Latin Vulgate translation, which was begun by Jerome in the fifth century. I have chosen to follow the order that appears in the Greek manuscripts, an order which was essentially followed in the Peshitta Aramaic. (The Peshitta differs in placing Hebrews right before Hazon/Revelation, and in not including some of the shorter letters.) Here is the order used in the Messianic Writings:
Mattiyah, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, and Acts/Ma’asei haShalihim
Jacob, First and Second Kefa, First, Second, and Third Yohanan, and Judah
Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Thessalonians, Hebrews, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.
Hazon/Revelation
APPROACH: There are two basic approaches to translation. One is to bring the text into the world of the reader. The other is to bring the reader into the world of the text. To some extent, both are necessary, and neither is possible. My emphasis has been to try to bring the reader to the world of the text, believing that the meaning of the text is most accurately found in the world in which it was given; but recognizing that it is impossible for us to truly enter into that world. We are far removed from the time, culture, and mindset in which the texts were written. We do not know as the people of those times knew; nor do we think as they thought.
Additionally, Greek and Hebrew grammar do not correspond exactly to each other; nor does either correspond exactly to English grammar. Consequently, the exact literal sense of a particular text can be both awkward and difficult to understand in English. Sometimes a word-for-word literal translation does not communicate what the text actually says.
Given a divinely inspired original, the translator wants to translate each word, even if every word does not convey meaning in the secondary language. For example, hineh in Hebrew and idou in Greek call out to the reader or audience to pay close attention. But “behold” does not always do that in English. It is too old a word. Most often I have used “look,” “listen,” or something similar to try to convey a sense of expectation. Occasionally I have used “behold,” and occasionally I have omitted the word altogether, or placed an exclamation mark at the end of the sentence.
Another difficulty is that a long sentence or thought in the text may extend over four, five, or more verses — let’s say from verse 8 to verse 12. But the best translation of the text into English may not follow the verse numbers or divisions, which are not part of the text. The most faithful and true translation into English may put verse 10 after verse 8, and verse 9 between verses 11 and 12. I have kept the traditional verse numbering, but have occasionally presented the words in a different order.
ADDITIONAL CHOICES: Because of the violent, tragic events and teachings of many centuries, some English words that have been traditionally used in translating these Scriptures actually obscure the meaning of the original text. I have not used these traditional words. Instead, I have tried to use more faithful English terms or, occasionally, equivalent Hebrew transliterations. The Hebrew terms are not numerous, and should present no more than initial difficulty for those unfamiliar with them. A glossary is provided after the Writings.
I have tended to use the Hebrew form of names rather than the English transliteration of their Greek transliterations, but have retained in some cases, the traditional English transliteration of familiar names in Tanakh. Otherwise, names and place names are transliterated from the Hebrew originals and not from the Greek transliterations. The guttural “h” sound is rendered as “h”, rather than as “ch”, e.g. “Beit Lehem,” but occasionally I have used “kh” where it seemed to be helpful.
Other commonly used transliterations of Greek words have been replaced by translation. Since transliteration creates a new word without meaning, unless the meaning is already known, I have avoided it as much as possible.
We do not know how to translate the tetragrammaton, the four letter Hebrew Name of the God of the Bible, which is often rendered in English as “LORD, following the choice made by the LXX translators. However, the thousands of times that the Name appears in the Scriptures indicate that it is related to God’s eternal nature and His covenant relationship with Israel. It is clear that people pronounced this Name of God from the earliest times, as, for example, Havah did in Gen. 4:1. However, a transliteration of the Name, even if it were correct, would not carry the meaning of the Name.
In the appropriate places where it appears, I have attempted to give the meaning of “the Name” as “the Everpresent”. The Rabbis used haMakom, i.e. "the place," to give the sense of God's presence in every place. Calvin and other French translators used “l’Eternel” (the Eternal) to give the sense of God’s presence in all of time. “The Everpresent” is intended to do both.
In modern English, “you” and “your” can be either singular or plural. Hebrew, Greek, and many other languages distinguish between the singular and plural. In the text, I have added a plus sign (+) to signify the plural — “you+” and “your+”.
Where quotations from Tanakh appear in the Messianic Writings, or where particular passages from Tanakh are relevant, they are cited in [brackets] following the phrase or sentence. In these citations, I have used the standard English abbreviations. In the common Jewish usage of the times, such quotations were given either to indicate the fulfillment of a specific prophecy, or to make a particular application of that prophecy. Occasionally, references from the Apocrypha or other contemporary Jewish writings are also cited. Though these writings are not part of the Biblical text, they were well-known in the first century, and were sometimes used by the Biblical writers for illustration or example. In the citations, “1:1H” refers to the Hebrew text, “1:1E” to the English, “1:1LXX” to the Septuagint.
Where it is deemed helpful, I have included some notes related to the text. In these notes, in addition to explanatory comments, I have tried to give some relevant Rabbinic material. This is by no means either comprehensive or systematic. Nor is it a sign of approval or disapproval, but an attempt to help illustrate the context. It should not, however, be assumed that the Rabbinic material is contemporary with the Messianic Writings. Usually it is later. “Tal.” indicates a Talmudic tractate, “Mid.” the Midrash Rabbah.
CONTENTS
- Mattiyah
Mark
Luke
Yohanan
Ma’asei haShalihim
Jacob's Letter
Shimon Kefa’s First Letter
Shimon Kefa’s Second Letter
Yohanan’s First Letter
Yohanan’s Second Letter
Yohanan’s Third Letter
Judah’s Letter
Sha’ul’s Letter to the Romans
Sha’ul’s First Letter to the Corinthians
Sha’ul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians
Sha’ul's Letter to the Galatians
Sha’ul’s Letter to the Ephesians
Sha’ul’s Letter to the Philippians
Sha’ul’s Letter to the Colossians
Sha’ul’s First Letter to the Thessalonikans
Sha’ul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonikans
The Letter to the Hebrews
Sha’ul’s First Letter to Timothy
Sha’ul’s Second Letter to Timothy
Sha’ul’s Letter to Titus
Sha’ul’s Letter to Philemon
Hazon - ADDITIONAL NOTES
“The Virgin will Be Pregnant”
God's Law and the New Covenant
“Your Children Saw Your Kingdom”
“The Seat of Moses”
“Destroy this temple”
“Cleansing the Food”
Iudaioi in Yohanan
“Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood”
Sin and Yetzer haRa
Nature and Long Hair
Shimon Kefa in Antioch
Regulating the Actions of Hard Hearts - If you find this translation valuable, please donate to Elijah Ministries. This will allow us to publish it in its entirety. Thank you.