Cochin Revelation Cannot be the Original Hebrew of Revelation

Cochin Revelation Cannot be the Original Hebrew of Revelation
By
James Scott Trimm

I have spent close to forty years searching for manuscripts of the original Hebrew of books of the “New Testament”. Recently claims Have surfaced claiming that the Cochin Hebrew version of Revelation (Cambridge Hebrew Ms. 00.1.16 and copied in John Ryland’s Gaster Ms 1616) is the original Hebrew of the Book of Revelation.

The same group has also claimed that the Cochin Gospels are the original Hebrew of the Gospels. In my blog two years ago The “Cochin” Hebrew Gospels – Hebrew Translation of the Peshitta I demonstrated that the Cochin Hebrew Gospels are nothing more than Hebrew translations of the Syriac Aramaic Peshitta text.

The Aramaic Peshitta text of the “New Testament” is only a 22 book canon, which lacks 2Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Some Syriac manuscripts and Bibles have augmented the Peshitta text with Syriac versions of these extra-Peshitta books. In the case of Revelation this is usually the Harkleian Syriac version or the Crawford Syriac version. So the Cochin Hebrew Revelation cannot be a translation of the non-existent Peshitta version.

I have taken some time and effort to examine the Cochin version of Revelation, and have come to the conclusion that it absolutely cannot be the original Hebrew of this very important book. I have found dozens of evidences for my conclusion, but here I will share five of the most compelling examples, that could be understood even by the layman.

Just one of the many evidences that the Cochin Hebrew manuscripts version of Revelation is not the original Hebrew is the reading of Rev. 2:1. Here the Cochin Text has מהעדה של עפהיזוס “from the assembly of Ephesus” where the Greek reading has the highly unusual reading τω εν Εφεσω εκκλησιας literally “the in Ephesus assembly” which is completely unacceptable Greek, and obviously too literally translated from the same Hebrew construction we see in the Hebrew of Daniel 8:2 were we read בשושן הבירה literally “in Shushan the citadel” so that the original Hebrew clearly read באפסוס הקהל not מהעדה של עפהיזוס

In another example in Rev. 2:22. Here we have another compelling evidence for the original Hebrew of the book, which we can clearly see behind the bad Greek translation. Here the Greek reads ιδου βαλλω αυτην εις κλινην “Behold I am casting her into a bed [and the one’s committing adultery with her]” The use of κλινην “bed” here seems strange indeed until we realize that the Greek translator has mistranslated one of two possible Hebrew words here (מטה or ערש) either of which can mean either “bed” or “bier”. Of course Jezebel would like nothing better than to be thrown into κλινην “bed” with her adulterers, but the clear meaning here is that she is being thrown onto her funeral bier along with her adulterers. This is a place where we can clearly see that the Greek is a bad translation of one of two possible Hebrew words, demonstrating that the Greek was a translation. But when we look at the Cochin Hebrew Revelation, we do not see either of these two possible underlying Hebrew words used, instead the difficult passage is simply omitted. However this passage that is difficult in the Greek was not a gloss in the Greek, it was obviously the result of mistranslation from the ambiguous Hebrew original. Instead the Cochin translator omitted the passage because it did not really make sense in his Greek source.

Revelation 2:27 is quoting Psalm 2:9. However the Greek translator of Rev. 2:27 (as does the Greek Septuagint translator of Psalm 2:9 misread תְּרֹעֵם (“shall break them”) as we see in the Masoretic Text of Psalm 2:9 with the wrong vowels as תִּרְעֵם “shall shepherd them” or in Greek ποιμανει then the Cochin Hebrew translates the Greek ποιμανει into Hebrew as ינהג אותם “shall lead them” when one need only look at the Hebrew of Psalm 2:9 to see the original reading is תְּרֹעֵם “shall break them” and that the Cochin Hebrew is a Hebrew translation of the Greek misreading of the original Hebrew. Even if we accept the Septuagint/Greek Rev. 2:27/Psalm 2:9 reading of תרעם as תִּרְעֵם “shall shepherd them” the reading of the original Hebrew would still not be ינהג אותם .

Furthermore in Rev. 12:10 we find the Hebrew word “Satan” (שטן) for “accuser” However the Greek has κατηγορος in the Alexandrian and Byzantine type texts and κατηγωρ in the Western type manuscripts. It has long been pointed out that κατηγωρ is a Greek transliteration of the Rabbinical Hebrew word קטיגור which certainly is the word which appeared here in the original Hebrew, not שטן.

Another very clear evidence is in Rev. 16:16 In this text, we are told in Cochin that the place of the gathering for the end times battle הנקרא בלשון עברי הרמגדן ” is called in the Hebrew tongue ‘Harmegidon'” The original Hebrew would have no need to explain that “Har Megiddon” is “in the Hebrew tongue”.

The Cochin Hebrew version of Revelation simply cannot be the original Hebrew of Revelation. I wish it were, but it simply cannot be. The original Hebrew may yet be discovered. It may be sitting in a clay jar somewhere waiting to be discovered. However the Cochin Hebrew is not the original Hebrew, it is a Hebrew translation of some Greek, Latin of Syriac version and ultimately owes its ultimate origin to our Greek Revelation.

In the mean time perhaps the original Hebrew can be restored by using the types of criteria presented above, to pull the curtain on the Greek, to peak at the original Hebrew behind it.

We must raise at least $880 by the end of the day tomorrow, or our account will plunge into the negative and start a chain reaction of returned items and fees. Plus we still need to pick up one of my wife’s medications which is just over $400 plus she has a procedure Tuesday and we don’t yet know what our copay is for that. We need your help now more than ever.

As I have said to you many times, I look on this work as a co-operative one with me, and all of you combining our resources together in order to get the job done of helping to teach this great truth to all in the world who will listen. Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for your continued support, you are the ones who make it all possible by your contributions and your prayers for our work. I truly appreciate your help in every way.

If you can make a one time donation of $500 or $1,000 dollars to support this work.

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org or by Zelle or Go Fund Me!

Click HERE to donate

Were the Dead Sea Scrolls Written by Zadokites?

Were the Dead Sea Scrolls Written by Zadokites?
By
James Scott Trimm

In a previous blog I made the case very clearly that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essenes. In this blog, I want to address a theory circulating in some sectors of the Hebrew Roots Movement that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by Essenes at all, but by “The True Zadokite Priests” having been exiled from the Temple.

Zadok was the High Priest at the time of King David. By this time the decedents of Aaron had become so numerous, that the High Priesthood was limited to the descendants of Zadok.

In identifying the Qumran Community as the true Temple priesthood and “Zadokites” in exile from the Temple, these theorists exalt the Qumran Community from being merely a representation of one of three sects of Judaism in the First Century, to being the true faith in exile. This exalted status is then used to exalt the so-called Qumran Solar Calendar as YHWH’s true calendar being kept in exile by the true priesthood in exile.

It is interesting that that these Zadokite theorists cherry pick which Dead Sea Scroll practices to exalt as “YHWH’s truth in exile, preserved by the true Zadokite Priests” while glossing over many others. For example, these theorists don’t propose restoring the Dead Sea Scroll practice of allowing a man to die rather than using a tool to save him on the Sabbath (Damascus Document Col. 11, line 16) because this does not fit with their predetermined narrative the Qumran community were the true Zadokite Temple Priesthood in exile, preserving YHWH’s truth in exile.

But was the Qumran Community the literal descendants of Zadok, David’s High Priest, living in exile? One of the key documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Damascus Document. A copy of this document had been found in the 19th Century among the documents discovered in the Cairo Geniza . At that time the document had no context, but seemed to refer to the community it described as “Sons of Zadok” and was thus assigned names like “The Zadokite Document”.

But what does this document actually mean when it refer to its community as “son’s of Zadok”? The relevant passage is as follows:

God promised them by Ezekiel them by Ezekiel the prophet, saying “The priests and the Levites and the sons of Zadok who have kept the courses of My sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from Me, they shall bring Me fat and blood” (Ezekiel 44:15). “The priests”: they are the captives of Israel, who go out of the land of Judah and the Levites are those accompanying them; “and the sons of Zadok:: these are the chosen of “Israel, the ones called by name, who are to appear in the Last Days.”
(Damascus Document Column 3 line 21 thru Column 4 line 2)

Ezekiel 44 is part of a portion of Ezekiel that describes the Millennial Temple and its functioning. This portion of the Damascus Document gives highly allegorical interpretations of various passages of the Tanak, applying them to their community. The Dead Sea Scrolls famously engage in a form of highly metaphorical interpretation known as “Pesher” In this case the author of the Damascus Document is not claiming that the Qumran Community are literal sons of Zadok, but allegorical sons of Zadok, just as his highly allegorical interpretation of “Priests” in the same passage, refers not to literal priests but to “the captives of Israel, who go out of the land of Judah“.

In fact, if one examines this section of the Damascus Document in overall context, one sees the document go on to interpret these “the captives of Israel, who go out of the land of Judah” from this same verse, as the “diggers” that “dug” “the well” “with as rod” in Numbers 21:18 (Col. 6 Lines 1 thru 11) and interprets the “rod” as their Teacher of Righteousness and the “well” as “knowledge”.

Anyone that seriously examines this text can see that the text is no more identifying the Qumran Community as the literal sons of Zadok, than it is identifying the “the captives of Israel, who go out of the land of Judah” as literal priests and the literal “diggers” of the well of Numbers 21:18, or identifying that well as literal knowledge or the rod with which it is dug as a literal rod.

The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls were not the true Zadokite Temple Priesthood living in exile, they only identified themselves as allegorical Zadokites, not literal Zadokites. They were simply a community of one of three major sects of Judaism in the first century, Essenes. And any Solar Calendar they may have used, or experimented with, was no more significant than their doctrine of letting a man die rather than using a tool to rescue him on the Sabbath. There is no reason to believe that this calendar was a “true calendar” preserved by the literal sons of Zadok as the true Temple Priesthood living in exile.

We must raise at least $270 by the end of the day today, or our account will plunge into the negative and start a chain reaction of returned items and fees.

As I have said to you many times, I look on this work as a co-operative one with me, and all of you combining our resources together in order to get the job done of helping to teach this great truth to all in the world who will listen. Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for your continued support, you are the ones who make it all possible by your contributions and your prayers for our work. I truly appreciate your help in every way.

If you can make a one time donation of $500 or $1,000 dollars to support this work.

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org or by Zelle or Go Fund Me!

Click HERE to donate

Statement of Faith for Nazarene Judaism

PREFACE

This “Statement of Faith” is meant only as a basic statement of faith and is not intended to be a “creed” or canon. It is not to be viewed as having the authority of Scripture. This statement is given primarily for these reasons:

  • To clarify some issues about which we have been misrepresented.
  • To answer the many requests we have received for such a statement.
  • To set at ease those who have concerns that we stand for certain apostate theologies.
  • To create an understanding of common ground to which our affiliates hold.

Above all our beliefs must be:

Big enough to include all the facts, open enough to be tested, and flexible enough to change.

I. YHWH

We believe that YHWH is Echad (one). We believe that YHWH reveals Himself in the K’numeh or Gaunin of Av/Abba (Father/Daddy), the Memra (Word), and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit).

II. BIBLE

We believe that the Bible, which includes both the Tanakh [Old Testament] and the Ketuvim Netzarim (New Testament) is the divinely inspired, infallible Word of Elohim in its original Hebrew and Aramaic texts and manuscripts.

III. MESSIAH

We believe that Yeshua HaMashiach has come and with great joy we anticipate his return, and even though he may delay, nevertheless we endeavor to think about his return every day. We believe that the Messiah is the Word made flesh. We believe he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life in accordance with the Torah, performed miracles, was crucified for the atonement of his people in accordance with the Scriptures, was bodily resurrected on the third day. ascended to heaven and currently sits at the right hand of YHWH. He will return at the end of this age to usher in the Kingdom of Elohim on earth and will rule the world from Jerusalem with his people Israel for one thousand years. We also believe that the Messiah Yeshua is the Torah incarnate. Just as the Torah is the way, the truth and the light, the Messiah is also the way, the truth and the light.

IV. SALVATION

We believe that through the death of Messiah, because of his blood covenant with us, we receive salvation by way of inheritance. This salvation comes by faith through grace alone and is not earned by Torah observance.

V. TORAH

The Torah of Truth the Almighty gave to His people, Israel, through Moshe. He will not exchange it nor discard it for another until heaven and earth pass away. We believe that Torah observance is man’s moral obligation and expression of love to YHWH. The Torah is freedom and not bondage. The Torah is the way, the truth and the light and is for all of our generations forever.

VI. THE ONE FAITH

We believe that there is one faith which was once and for all delivered to the set-apart-ones. We believe that Messiah did not come to create a new religion but to be the Messiah of Judaism, the one faith that was once delivered to the set-apart-ones. We believe that Nazarene Judaism is the only expression of the one true faith. We do not accept any other religion as a non-Jewish cultural expression of the one true faith.

The Garza-Trimm Hebrew Matthew and Synoptic Origins

The Garza-Trimm Hebrew Matthew and Synoptic Origins
By
James Scott Trimm

Recently, while working on my translation and analysis of the Trimm-Garza Hebrew text of the Synoptic Gospels, I discovered a reading in Matthew 9:25 which demonstrates not only the close relationship the Garza-Trimm text holds to the DuTillet and Munster Hebrew texts of Matthew, but also, their close relationship as a whole, to the original Synoptic Source behind both Matthew and Mark.

The passage in question (Matthew 9:25) has its synoptic parallel in Mark 5:41. The parallel in Mark 5:41 has Yeshua declare in Aramaic “Tl’ita kumi” (in the Greek of Mark, the Aramaic is transliterated, and then translated into Greek) “little girl arise”. However, this declaration is absent from our received text of the parallel in Matthew 9:25.

Interestingly, in the DuTillet Hebrew Matthew 9:25, Yeshua declares, “kumi, kumi” and in the Munster Hebrew Matthew, Yeshua declares “T’lita kumi”. The Garza-Trimm text has a conflation of these two readings, with “T’lita kumi kumi.”. This reading presents us with clear evidence that the Hebrew of the Garza-Trimm text, is directly related to the Hebrew text in the DuTillet and Munster texts, and is part of this same family of Hebrew manuscripts (which have been shown in the past to descend directly from the original Hebrew of Matthew).

What is especially interesting is that this reading “T’lita kumi” agrees with Mark 5:41 against our received text of Matthew 9:25. This agreement tells us that the Hebrew version of Matthew expressed in these three texts (DuTillet, Munster and now Garza-Trimm) is more closely related to the original synoptic source behind Mark (the Gospel according to the Hebrews), than our Greek text of Matthew.

Donations have been low and we must still raise at least $800 by the end of the day tomorrow (3/19/24) or our account will plunge into the negative and create a cascade of returned items and fees! We need your help today!

As you know we have been digging ourselves out of a budget shortfall.  As I have said to you many times, I look on this work as a co-operative one with me, and all of you combining our resources together in order to get the job done of helping to teach this great truth to all in the world who will listen. Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for your continued support, you are the ones who make it all possible by your contributions and your prayers for our work. I truly appreciate your help in every way.

If you can make a one time donation of $500 or $1,000 dollars to support this work.

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org or by Zelle or Go Fund Me.

Click HERE to donate

How do I start a Nazarene Torah study?

How do I start a Nazarene Torah study?

* Open your home to a few friends for an evening Scripture study.

* Print and distribute copies of the “Free Bible Quiz” with your address and meeting time written on each copy. Distribute them as widely as you can, put them on doors and under windshield wipers.

* Take 10 to 15 minutes before opening for some get-to-know each other time. (This is only needed in new groups or when there are visitors). Go around the room asking an ice breaking question. Below are a list to work from:

  • When did “God” become more than a word to you?
  • What was your religious upbringing?
  • What is your favorite book of the Bible? (Why?)

* Using the free articles at http://www.nazarenejudaism.com teach the truth of Torah and Messiah to the group.

* Close with prayer

* Fellowship and refreshments.

ATTITUDE: Always welcome everyone. Do not be negative. Maintain Torah as truth and freedom and as a thing to rejoice in. Also, If you do start a group in your home let us know. We are keeping a list of the study groups and will be corresponding with them in particular concerning Nazarene Judaism.

If you have any questions in regards to Nazarene Torah Study Groups, please contact us: Email: cleartruth@yahoo.com

Don’t delay. Get a Nazarene Torah Study Group started in your home. We will help you with the details. And let us know, so we can add your study to our directory!

As I have said to you many times, I look on this work as a co-operative one with me, and all of you combining our resources together in order to get the job done of helping to teach this great truth to all in the world who will listen. Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for your continued support, you are the ones who make it all possible by your contributions and your prayers for our work. I truly appreciate your help in every way.

If you can make a one time donation of $500 or $1,000 dollars to support this work.

Now is time to step up to the plate!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org or by Zelle or GoFundMe.

Click HERE to donate

Is “Messianic Judaism” or “Nazarene Judaism” the Scriptural Term?

Is “Messianic Judaism” or “Nazarene Judaism”
the Scriptural Term?
By
James Trimm

In restoring the ancient sect of Nazarene Judaism, one might ask why not use the term “Messianic Judaism” which many Jewish believers in Messiah commonly use?

There are a few problems with this term. To begin with, so-called “Messianic Judaism” began as an outgrowth of Christianity (I will write a blog on the origins of so-called “Messianic Judaism” in the future) as a missionary effort to bring Jews into a culturally Jewish form of Christianity. By contrast the restoration of Nazarene Judaism is an effort to restore the original sect of Judaism which were the original Jewish followers of Yeshua. There are several issues that arise from the motives and origins of so-called “Messianic Judaism” which are problematic for a true restoration of Nazarene Judaism. (We will discuss some of those in a future blog).

In this blog, I simply want to address the term “Messianic Judaism.” You may be surprised to find out that the original Jewish followers of Yeshua were NOT “Messianic Jews”. As Messianic Jewish leader Daniel Juster writes:

No form of Judaism or Christianity… has used the term “Messianic Judaism” as its appropriate designation.
(Jewish Roots; 1986 edition, p. viii)

The original followers of Yeshua were a sect of Judaism known as “Nazarenes” (as we read in Acts 24:5).

The term “Messianic Judaism” was invented in the late 60’s and it is a human invention. Messianic Jewish leader David Stern wrote in his Messianic Jewish Manifesto:

According to Scripture the word “Christian” does not denote Jewish believers in Yeshua at all. The New Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2, 22:4) and “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)… the New Testament does not call Jewish believers “Christians”. According to New Testament usage the term “Christian” is reserved for Gentile believers in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

Acts 11:19-26 tells how in Antioch some Jewish believers… did not limit their proclamation of Yeshua as the Messiah to Jews, as had been the norm previously, but broke new ground… Many of these Gentiles came to believe… the other Gentiles in Antioch… coined the word christianoi (Christians),… Thus the term “Christian” was invented by Gentiles to describe Gentiles in a Gentile environment. The New Testament tells us explicitly that “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” [Acts 11:26]
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 32)

Now it is important here to note that David Stern himself in his Jewish New Testament and Complete Jewish Bible, translates Acts 11:26 with:

…it was at Antioch that the talmidim for the first time were called “Messianic”. (Acts 11:26 JNT)

In his commentary to this passage in his Jewish New Testament Commentary Stern wrote:

“Messianic,” or “Messianics,” Greek Christianoi, which could be rendered… as in other translations, “Christians.” …the name “Christianoi” was applied to Gentile believers by Gentile nonbelievers. The name nonbelieving Jews gave to Jewish believers was “Natzaratim”… (“Nazarenes”),

Again in his book Messianic Jewish Manifesto Stern wrote:

“Messianic” comes from the Hebrew mashiach, which means “anointed.” “Christian” comes from Greek christos, which is the [Greek] New Testament’s translation of mashiach and means the same thing. …in the New Testament the term “Christian,” which appears only three times, apparently denotes being a Gentile believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally “Jewish Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
(Emphasis and brackets added)
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 20)

Now we can see from David Stern’s own words above:

  1. The terms “Christian” and “Messianic” are alternate translations of the Greek word “Christianoi” “and mean the same thing”.
  2. The term “Christianoi” or “Christian” is used in the scriptures only to denote a GENTILE believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally the term “Jewish Christian” is “a contradiction in terms”.

Therefore we may conclude that:

  • The term “Messianic” is used in the scriptures only to denote a GENTILE believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally the term “Messianic Jew” is a contradiction in terms.
  • The logic is inescapable… the term “Messianic Judaism” is scripturally invalid, it is a human invention and a contradiction in terms.

So what were the original Jewish followers of Yeshua called if they were not Messianic Jews? Stern admited:

The New Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2, 22:4) and “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 32)

In fact if we quote Stern, but substitute the word “Messianic” for “Christians” (since Stern admits “they are the same”) we read:

According to Scripture the word “MESSIANIC” does not denote Jewish believers in Yeshua at all. The New Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2, 22:4) and “NAZARENES” (Acts 24:5)… the New Testament does not call Jewish believers “MESSIANIC”. According to New Testament usage the term “MESSIANIC” is reserved for Gentile believers in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

So the Biblical term for Jewish believers in Messiah is not “Messianic” but “Nazarene”. We should be seeking a restoration of “Nazarene Judaism” not creating “Messianic Judaism” which, being “Christian Judaism” (i.e. “Christianized Judaism”) is a contradiction in terms.

So in this restoration of the ancient sect of Nazarene Judaism, we should definitely prefer the Scriptural term “Nazarene” Judaism to the Unscriptural term “Messianic Judaism”.

The “church father” Jerome (4th Cent.) described these Nazarenes as those “…who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.” (Jerome; On. Is. 8:14).

Elsewhere he writes:

Today there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans (1), and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called ‘Nazarenes’; they believe that Messiah, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Miriam, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe.”
(Jerome; Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine)

The fourth century “church father” Epiphanius gives a more detailed description:

But these sectarians… did not call themselves Christians–but “Nazarenes,” … However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do… They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion– except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Yeshua the Messiah. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the… Writings… are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law–circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest– they are not in accord with Christians…. they are nothing but Jews…. They have the Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

(1) “Minæans” apparently Latinized from Hebrew MINIM (singular is MIN) a word which in modern Hebrew means “apostates” but was originally an acronym for a Hebrew phrase meaning “Believers in Yeshua the Nazarene”.

Emergency Alert!  We need your help.  Today I woke up to a huge problem.  Our bank account was over $2,500 in the negative!  I rushed to the bank to find out what was going on.  When my wife was hospitalized for 53 days back in 2018 we defaulted on most of our of our bills.  We reached out to all of our creditors at the time to try to make arrangements, and all but two were willing to work with us.  One of those was a credit card.  This creditor recently got a court order to put a hold on our bank account for $2,543 for the outstanding amount plus interest.  Our bank account is now $2,543 in the negative, and we have until the end of the day March 3rd (Sunday) to satisfy this hold, or items will start being returned, and various fees will start mounting up (and things like our rent will not clear, creating huge problems).  Any amount you can help with towards pulling our account out of the negative will be greatly appreciated.  Any donation will help, and any donation is better than no donation.

As I have said to you many times, I look on this work as a co-operative one with me, and all of you combining our resources together in order to get the job done of helping to teach this great truth to all in the world who will listen. Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for your continued support, you are the ones who make it all possible by your contributions and your prayers for our work. I truly appreciate your help in every way.

If you can make a one time donation of $500 or $1,000 dollars to support this work.

Now is time to step up to the plate!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org or by Zelle or GoFundMe.

Click HERE to donate

The Son of Yah in the Zohar

The Son of Yah in the Zohar
By
James Scott Trimm

We read in the Zohar, concerning the “light” of Genesis 1:3-4:

Concerning this, too, it is written: “Let there be light, and there was light” (Gen. I, 3). Why, it may be asked, was it necessary to repeat the word “light” in this verse? The answer is that the first “light” refers to the primordial light which is of the Right Hand, and is destined for the “end of days”; while the second “light” refers to the Left Hand, which issues from the Right. The next words, “And God saw the light that it was good” (Gen. 1, 4), refer to the pillar which, standing midway between them, unites both sides, and therefore when the unity of the three, right, left, and middle, was complete, “it was good”, since there could be no completion until the third had appeared to remove the strife between Right and Left, as it is written, “And Elohim separated between the light and between the darkness” (Ibid.).
(Zohar 2:167a)

And:

This is the Middle Pillar: Ki Tob (that it was good) threw light above and below and on all other sides, in virtue of YHWH, the name which embraces all sides.
(Zohar 1:16b)

This is very similar to what the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria wrote in the First Century:

…the Divine Word (Logos)…fills all things and becomes a mediator and arbitrator for the two sides….from the Divine Word (Logos), as from a spring, there divide and break forth two powers. One is the creative through which the Artificer placed and ordered all things. This is named “God”. And the royal, since through it the Creator rules over created things. This is called “Lord” And from these two powers have grown the others. For by the side of the creative power there grows the propitious of which is named “beneficial” while (besides) the royal the legislative, of which is aptly named “punitive”. And below these and beside them is the ark.
(Philo on Q&A on Exodus, II.68)

The Zohar informs us that this “Middle Pillar” is “the Son of Yah”:

“YHWH is near to all those who call upon Him” (Ps. 145:18). Better is “a neighbor that is near, than a brother far off” (Prov. 27:10), This is the Son of Yah, which is the Middle Pillar, that ascended above, that is Binah (understanding). This world is the world of Jubilee, which is the fifty letters of the unity. Because in this world a son of man has redemption through the Tzadik, 6 (vav) years which encompasses the three first and the three final blessings. The small vav is “six years he shall work”. However, in the world to come, which is the world of Jubilee where exist the 50 (nun) letters of Kriat Sh’ma (the recitation of the Sh’ma), the cantor cannot exempt another from his duty, because there is no redemption through others. And recite the Sh’ma in whatever language you hear. And in this is a hint (remez), “If I am not for myself, who is for me” (m.Avot 1:14). “Who?” And this is the world of Jubilee,
(Zohar 2:115b)

This reference to the recitation of the Sh’ma recalls another passage of Zohar, which explains the meaning of the Sh’ma as the unification of the Three Pillars:

The [profession of] unity that every day is [a profession of] unity
is to be understood and to be perceived. We have said in many places
that this prayer is a profession of Unity that is proclaimed:

”Hear O Yisrael, YHWH“ first, [then] “Eloheynu” [and] “YHWH” they are all One and thus He is called “One”.

Behold, these are three names, how can they be one? Is it because we call them one? (literally: And also concerning the proclamation that we call them one?). How these are one can only through the vision of the Holy Sprit be known. And these are through the vision of the closed eye (or the hidden eye) To make known that these three are one. And this is the mystery of the voice that is heard. The voice is one. And is three GAUNIN: fire and air and water. And all these are one in the mystery of the voice.

And also here “YHWH, Eloheynu, YHWH” these are One. Three GAUNIN that are One. And this is the voice of the act of a son of man in [proclaiming] the Unity. And to which he sees by the Unity of the “All” from Eyn Sof (the Infinite One) to the end of the “All”. Because of the voice in which it is done, in these are three that are one.

And this is the [profession] of the daily profession of Unity that is revealed in the mystery of the Holy Spirit.

And there are many GAUNIN that are a Unity, and all of them are true, what the one does, that the other does, and what that one does, the other does.

But this unification that we awaken from below, by the mystery of the voice which is one, clarifies the Word. It is in general after the particular, as has been stated.
(Zohar 2:43b)

(The Aramaic word GA’UN (sing.)/GAUNIN (plural) comes from the word for “color” and refers to an “aspect, element, substance, essence”. )

Thus the Zohar understands the Sh’ma to mean that YHWH, Elohim and YHWH are three GA’UNIN. This section of the Zohar also recalls a reading from the Sefer Yetzirah:

Three “mothers”: Alef; Mem and Shin
Their foundation is a pan of merit
a pan of liability
and the tongue of decree deciding between them.
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:1)

The Hebrew word for “tongue” (לשון) has the same gematria (386) as “Yeshua” (ישוע)

Three “mothers”, Alef, Mem, Shin
in the universe are air, water, fire…
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:4a)

(Note: The letter SHIN has a gematria (numerical value) of 300 which is the same as the gematria of the phrase ”Ruach Elohim” (the Spirit of Elohim).)

The “tongue of decree deciding between them” is the Middle Pillar of the Godhead which reconciles the two outer pillars of the Godhead.

Another passage of the Zohar which mentions the Son of Yah says that the Rod of Moshe represents the Son of Yah and, as such, the vav (ו) in YHWH (יהוה) represents the Son of Yah, the Middle Pillar. It is of special interest that the Hebrew letter vav was originally a pictograph of a nail:

And now that you have turned in repentance and have become attached into the Tree of Life. Now you have departed from being a servant and returned to being a son of the Holy One, blessed be he, and the rod (mateh) which is given into your hand is the Tree of Life. 6 (vav) which is the Son of Yah, and will penetrate into the MAT (49) aspects you have in the Torah, and become a rod (mot) and shall be fulfilled in “He shall not allow the righteous to be moved (mot)” (Ps. 55:23) The 49 aspects are the 49 letters of the Sh’ma Yisrael, and blessed is the Name. Six denoting the unity above, 6 (vav) above, tif’ret. six aspects of the repetition of “Blessed is the Name” 6 (vav) repeated is the Tzadik a rod (mat) in the middle is alef. “And they carried it on a pole by twos.” (Num. 13:24)
(Zohar 2:114b)

The Zohar also tells us this Son of Yah that “ascends on high, on the third day“:

The Faithful Shepherd said ‘Malchut, in six sefirot it ascends continually to the vav (6) that is unified in them. It is the Son of Yah, hidden in Binah (understanding). And in a certain sefira of the six, it ascends on high, on the third day, which is called tiferet. That on the Sabbath day a second soul is added upon him, which is Binah. The Supernal Hei of YHWH, the sign of Shabbat, supernal chochmah, the king adorned with a crown. For this reason in the Musaf (additional) prayer, is ‘A crown they shall give you.’
(Zohar 3:229b)

In another passage, the Zohar declares that the Holy One has a Son (the Son of Yah):

The Holy One, blessed be He, has a Son, whose glory shines from one end of the world to another. He is a great and mighty tree, whose head reaches heaven, and whose roots are set in the holy ground, and his name is “Mispar” and his place is in the uppermost heaven… as it is written, “The heavens declare (me-SaPRim) the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1). Were it not for this “Mispar” there would be neither hosts nor offspring in any of the worlds.
(Zohar 2:105a)

Here the Zohar is drawing from the Bahir to teach us that the Son of Yah is the sum of the Sefirot:

Why are they called Sephirot? Because it is written (Ps. 19:2), “The heavens declare (me-SaPRim) the glory of God.”
(Bahir 125)

This is because the Middle Pillar harmonizes the outer two pillars and is thus the fullness of the everlasting Godhead.

Finally the Zohar interprets the “kiss the son” in Psalm 2:12 as a reference to this Son of Yah:

We may also translate “he who withholds blessings from the Son” (Prov. 11:26), whom the Father and Mother have CROWNED and blessed with many blessings, and concerning whom they commanded, “Kiss the SON lest he be angry” (Ps. 2:12), since he is invested with judgment (GEVURAH) and with mercy (CHESED)”
(Zohar 3:191b)

As many of you know, we are losing our home of over seven years. We have found a new home.  We have had to make some sacrifices.  There is no wood burning fireplace, that was not in the cards.  And our rent will be higher, we were blessed with a really good deal here, but staying is not an option (the owner is selling).   We signed the new lease and paid the security deposit (equal to one month’s rent) and the pet fees for our dogs.  However,  we now face major expenses in order to actually make the move.  Our new lease starts on February 1st (that is the furthest out we could make it, and we did not want to lose the new house).  We must still pay the first month’s rent on the new home by January 30th.  And our lease here actually ends on March 1st, so we will still have to pay rent here on February 1st as well.  This means we will be paying double rent, but it also gives us plenty of time to move.  To put this another way, including the security deposit we already paid (equal to one month’s rent) and paying rent on both houses on the 30th/1st, we are paying out *triple* rent this month.  Plus, my wife and I are not in sufficient health to move the furniture and major appliances, so we will need to have professional movers move at least those.  So now more than ever we need your help.  just to get the keys to the new home, we must pay that first month of rent early (on January 30th) otherwise we will have no place to go (and we absolutely have to be out of here very quickly).   Thank you all for all of your help so far.  We are now coming to the final lap, and need a final push to get into the new home.  Any donation is better than no donation, and every donation helps.  Thanks to all who have donated so far.  Any more help you can give in this final stretch is appreciated.

You can visit our Go Fund Me Page at: https://gofund.me/f551fb4f

As many of you know, my wife is chronically ill, disabled since and dealing with chronic pain daily, since her fifty three day hospitalization in late 2018, and I am her caretaker.

We need more of you to step up to the plate to donate, even in small amounts. I know you are out there.

This work takes hours of my time, and I spend most of my time at home as her caretaker. I work at a desk less than six feet from her bed. So I am in a position to dedicate many hours to this important work that I have been directed to do.

But I also realize that it is not the activity of James Trimm alone who is responsible to do this work, it is all of us together who are charged with the responsibility of accomplishing this work. I very much look on the efforts of this restoration work as a cooperative one with each one of you. We are all joint heirs with Messiah and should always be about our Father’s business. I am honored to be able to be partnered with truth seekers as this restoration of Scripture moves forward in fulfillment of prophecy.

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org

Donations can be sent by Zelle, Go Fund Me or Paypal

Click HERE to donate

The Original Hebrew of Luke and the Garza-Trimm Manuscript

The Original Hebrew of Luke and the Garza-Trimm Manuscript
By
James Scott Trimm

In a recent blog, I discussed a newly realized Hebrew Manuscript (which I have called the “Garza-Trimm” text) of the Synoptic Gospels containing a copy of Hebrew Matthew which is of the same family as the DuTillet and Munster texts, and thus is a descendant of the original Hebrew Matthew scribal tradition.

This manuscript of the synoptic gospels has a colophon indicating that the material had been hidden away underground by “Jews who has hidden their testimonies” i.e. secret Jewish believers in Yeshua as Messiah.

In that first blog, I focused on the Hebrew Matthew found in that manuscript. In this blog, I will focus on the Garza-Trimm text of Hebrew Luke. (I realize this is out of order, and at some point in the future, I will write a blog on this version of Mark).

The text of Luke in this manuscript, unfortunately, only contains the first seventeen chapters. A header for Chapter 18 appears, but there is no text under it, and the scribe never completed the manuscript.

The following are just a few interesting readings, far from exhaustive.

Luke 1:62

Here the Greek text of Luke opens with “And they made signs to his father…” and this is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, and every other ancient version of Luke I have found. However, the Old Syriac Aramaic Luke, has a unique reading here: “And they said to his father…” The Garza-Trimm Hebrew text of Luke also has “And they said to his father…”. This reading may seem minor, but it is especially significant, because the Old Syriac Aramaic was lost in ancient times, and not recovered until two manuscripts were discovered in the 19th century. The Old Syriac reading could not have been available to a Hebrew translator in Europe in the Middle Ages.

Luke 2:1

Here the KJV reads:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(Luke 2:1)

In this verse, there is a variant reading between the major ancient versions in this verse. The Greek and Latin have words meaning “world” while the Old Syriac Aramaic has the Aramaic word ארעא (era) which is the Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew word ארץ (eretz). This word can mean “earth” (as in Dan. 2:35) “land” (as in Dan. 9:15) or “world” (as in Prov. 19:4) and which, when paired with the definite article (“the”) can be used as a euphemism for the Land of Israel (“HaEretz, “The Land”) (as in Dan. 9:6). Finally, the Peshitta Aramaic has here “people of his dominion” (עמא דאוחדנה).

Here the Garza-Trimm text of Luke reads כל (תבל) הארץ “all (world) the Land”. It is also extraordinary that the Garza-Trimm text has the word “Eretz” in this passage because Eretz is the Hebrew cognate of “Era” (the Aramaic word found here in the Old Syriac Aramaic) because the Old Syriac was completely unavailable in Europe from ancient times until the mid to late 19th Century.

(See also my recent blog An Original Hebrew Reading in a Hebrew Ms. of Luke in a Swedish Library? which deals with a different Hebrew manuscript which has Eretz here as well.)

Luke 2:11

Here the expected a translator from Greek or Latin would be to have the angel say that the child being born was “Messiah HaAdon” (i.e. “Messiah the Lord”) however in the Garza-Trimm text, the angel declares that the child being born is משיח יהוה “Messiah YHWH”. This extraordinary reading agrees with the Aramaic Old Syriac and Aramaic Peshitta which have here מריא which the Aramaic uses to translate YHWH as opposed to Adon/Adonai (As in Psalm 110:1).

Luke 3:4-6

Here the text is quoting Isaiah 40:3. but Greek and Latin Vugate Luke quote it as it appears in the Greek Septuagint with “make his paths straight” while the Masoretic Text of Isaiah 40:3 says “Make straight in the desert, a highway for our Elohim.” Here the Garza-Trimm text of Luke follows the Masoretic Text of Isaiah 40:3, also in a agreement with the Aramaic of the Old Syriac and Peshitta, and against the Greek and Latin Vulgate.

Luke 10:27

Here Yeshua quotes the Shema (Deut 6:5). In the Greek, Latin Vulgate, and even the Aramaic Old Syriac and Peshitta Luke he quotes the Shema incorrectly, saying:

…You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with all your strength and with all your mind…

This fourth element “all your mind” does not appear in Deut. 6:5. To understand how it got into the Shema,we must first look at Matthew 22:37.

In Matt. 22:37 Yeshua quotes the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5).  But the Greek text of Matthew this appears (as it appears in the KJV):

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
(Matt. 22:37 KJV)

However the actual text of Deut. 6:4-5 reads:

4  Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5  And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
(Deut. 6:4-5 KJV)

So did Yeshua misquote the Torah?  Did he not know the correct wording of the Shema?  The answer lies in the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts of Matthew.

The original Hebrew of Matthew reads:

And Yeshua answered him, and said: You shall love YHWH your Elohim: with allyour heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
(Matthew 22:37 DuTillet, Munster and Shem Tob)

The Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew agrees with Hebrew Matthew saying:

And Yeshua answered him, and said: You shall love YHWH your Elohim: with allyour heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
(Matthew 22:37 Old Syriac)

The Greek translator must have misread the Aramaic חילך (might, strength) as הונך (mind).

The Peshitta which is a revision of the Old Syriac Aramaic towards greater agreement with the Greek clearly conflates (combines) the readings of the Old Syriac and the Greek having:

And Yeshua answered him, and said: You shall love YHWH your Elohim: with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might, and with all your mind.
(Matthew 22:37 Peshitta)

This conflation also appears in the Greek, Latin Vulgate, Old Syriac Aramaic and Peshitta Aramaic versions of Luke (10:27) and Mark (12:30).

However the Garza-Trimm Hebrew text of Luke 10:27 agrees with the Masoretic Text of Deut. 6:5 against all of the ancient Greek, Latin and Syriac (Aramaic) versions of Luke.

Of course this is only a preliminary look at just a few passages of the Garza-Trimm Hebrew text of Luke, far more research must be done. However these few examples make it clear that this Hebrew version of Luke is not a mere Hebrew translation of a Greek or Latin version, but is a descendant of the original Hebrew of Luke, with some unique connections with the Ancient Old Syriac Aramaic version of Luke.

In another blog soon, I will look at some interesting readings in this manuscripts Hebrew version of Mark.

Our rent was due on the first and we still do not have it!

As many of you know, my wife is chronically ill, disabled since and dealing with chronic pain daily, since her fifty three day hospitalization in late 2018, and I am her caretaker.

We need more of you to step up to the plate to donate, even in small amounts. I know you are out there.

This work takes hours of my time, and I spend most of my time at home as her caretaker. I work at a desk less than six feet from her bed. So I am in a position to dedicate many hours to this important work that I have been directed to do.

But I also realize that it is not the activity of James Trimm alone who is responsible to do this work, it is all of us together who are charged with the responsibility of accomplishing this work. I very much look on the efforts of this restoration work as a cooperative one with each one of you. We are all joint heirs with Messiah and should always be about our Father’s business. I am honored to be able to be partnered with truth seekers as this restoration of Scripture moves forward in fulfillment of prophecy.

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org

Donations can be sent by Zelle, Go Fund Me or Paypal

Click HERE to donate

A New Witness to the Original Hebrew Synoptic Gospels

A New Witness to the Original Hebrew Synoptic Gospels
By
James Scott Trimm

As many of you know, I have been working for over a year, on a project with Dr. Albert Garza, analyzing some 4,000 pages of Hebrew manuscripts of “New Testament” books. The vast majority of these manuscripts have appeared to be Hebrew translations on the Greek, the Latin Vulgate or even the Peshitta Aramaic. However, a couple of weeks ago, Dr. Garza sent me a new text for analysis (Ms. Or 150 from Zentralbibliothek Zurich (Zurich Central Library)). As I studied this text very carefully, I realized it is very different.

This text, which I have named the “Garza-Trimm” text, is a manuscript of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke Chapters 1-17). The book of Matthew in this manuscript is titled תורת המשיח “The Torah of the Messiah,” just as it is in the version published by Sebastian Munster in 1537, which he said he “obtained from among the Jews.” This is not surprising, because the Hebrew Matthew in this manuscript is a manuscript of the same family and that of Munster and DuTillet, but it does not agree with either of them precisely. Sometimes it agrees with DuTillet, sometimes with Munster, and sometimes it departs from both, often agreeing with the underlying Hebrew text behind the Greek, and even with the Shem Tob text.

A colophon on the final page of the text reads:

The Torah of the Messiah and the Brit Chadashah, the First Portion. The sacred and perfect. And this is the Torah of Yeshua, our Adon and our Messiah. Written by the hand of Matti the Evangelist in the Greek tongue and at a later time, translated into the sacred tongue. Finding light, of the underground hiding place of the Jews they that were hidden in their testimonies; here in Arana. In the year Messiah came in peace to command by the hand of a faithful man and righteous proselyte in Yeshua the Messiah. Rotherwolf Bernhardt a medical doctor from Prague,( a healer of ailments of their mouths, swallowed?) In the place of Bern, the the country of Switzerland.

Some of this Hebrew of this colophon is difficult, but I have done my best to render it into English. It expresses the scribes opinion that Matthew was originally written in Greek, and later translated into this Hebrew text. This opinion is of limited value to us. What is important, is the source of the text itself. We are told that was מוצאת לאור כמוסה היהודים הנחבאו במעדותם “Finding light, of the underground hiding place of the Jews they that were hidden in their testimonies.” The word כמוסה is of special interest. I have translated it “underground hiding place” and in fact, this word can mean “cave”.

The colophon seems to say that a medical doctor named Rotherwolf Bernhardt, who became a “proselyte in Yeshua the Messiah” published this Hebrew text, which was held among secret Jewish believers in Yeshua, and had been hidden away in caves.

The analysis of this text has just begun, but the following observations are enough to demonstrate that it is a new witness to the same family of Hebrew manuscripts as DuTillet and Munster, and that, as such, it is part of the scribal tradition of the original Hebrew of Matthew:

Matthew 1:20

Here the Greek reads:

… for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

However the DuTillet Hebrew reads:

כי מה שילד ממנה מרוח הקדש הוא כי מרוח הקודש היא הרה

…for that which will be born of her is from the Ruach HaKodesh; for from the Ruach HaKodesh she has conceived.

And the Old Syriac Curetonian Ms reads:

הו גיר דמתילד מנה מן רוחא הו דקודשא בטין

…for that which is born of her, from the Ruach HaKodesh is conceived.

This is very significant, because the Old Syriac Aramaic was lost from ancient times, until its 19th Century rediscovery. It was simply not available to Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages.

Even Munster does not have this reading, instead reading:

כי מה שילד בתוכה מאת רוח הקודש הוא

For that which is born of her, is from the Ruach HaKodesh.

In fact no other version of Matthew except the Old Syriac Aramaic and the DuTillet Hebrew Manuscript of Matthew, contain this reading… until now.

The Garza-Trimm text agrees almost word for word with DuTillet, and with the Old Syriac, reading:

כי מה שיולד ממנה כי מרוח הקודש היא הרה

For that which is born from her, that from the Ruach HaKodesh is conceived.

Matthew 3:16

DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew says not “like a dove” but כדמות יונה “in the likeness of a dove” in agreement with בדמותא דיונא of the Old Syriac S manuscript. This also corresponds with the reading in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

The Garza-Trimm Hebrew Matthew, agrees with DuTillet in this wording, and the Hebrew of Luke 3:22 in this manuscript has this same reading as well.

Matthew 4:4

Here Yeshua quotes from Deut. 8:3 where the Greek Septuagint and Greek Matthew read “God” but DuTillet and Munster have “YHWH” (in DuTillet this appears as an abbreviation) in agreement with the Masoretic Text, as well as the Old Syriac (which has מריא the Aramaic word that the Old Syriac and Peshitta use for YHWH). Here our new manuscript, agrees with the Masoretic Text against the Greek, as well.

The same is true in Luke 4:4 of this Hebrew version of Luke, where the Greek has “God” but the Garza-Trimm Hebrew has “YHWH”

Matthew 9:25

Here DuTillet (but not Munster) repeats the word “Arise” (as it is in Mark 5:41), as does the Garza-Trimm Hebrew Matthew.

Matthew 11:29

In the ancient Nazarene Commentary to Isaiah 9:1-4 preserved only in Latin, in a fourth century quotation by Jerome, re read that when Yeshua came to the Land of Zebulon and the Land of Naphtali that he “scribarum et pharisaeorum est erroribus liberata, et gravissimum traditionum Iudaicarum iugum excussit de cervicibus suis.” or in English that he “He shook off of their shoulders the yoke of the heavy decrees of the Scribes and Pharisees” (I have rendered “traditionum” as “decrees” based on Jerome’s use of that Latin word in the Latin Vulgate in Matthew 15 where the DuTillet Hebrew has גזרתכם “your decrees, judgements, sentences”.)

When we look at Isaiah 9:1-4 the Hebrew words for “yoke” and “shoulder” but the verb there is החתת “broken” not “shaken off”. And, in fact, in Biblical Hebrew the idiom is always that a yoke is “broken”. But here the Latin verb is excussit “to shake off”. This points strongly to the Hebrew verb נער

In DuTillet’s Hebrew Matthew 11:29 Yeshua uses the verb נער!

28 Come to me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will satisfy you.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I shake (נער) [that burden] off and am downcast of spirit, and you will find rest for your souls (Jer. 6:16; Ps. 23:3).
30 For my yoke is gentle, and my burden easy.
(Matthew 11:28-30 DuTillet)

The Graza-Trimm Hebrew Matthew uses this very unusual verb here as well. I know of no other versions of Matthew that use this unusual verb here, except for DuTillet and now the Garza-Trimm Hebrew text. (Not even Munster).

The Greek translator must have misread נער as נעם “to be pleasant”.

No doubt the Nazarene Commentator on Isaiah saw Isaiah 9:1-4 and it brought to mind Matthew 3:14-16 & Matthew 11:28-30. And seeing the verb נער in his Hebrew text of Matthew 11:29 commented that Yeshua “shook off of their shoulders the yoke of the heavy decrees of the Scribes and Pharisees”.

This cannot be a coincidence. The Ancient Nazarene Commentator on Isaiah clearly had a Hebrew Matthew before him that agreed with this unique reading found only in the DuTillet Hebrew Matthew (and our new manuscript). We can now make a definite connection between DuTillet Hebrew Matthew, and the original Hebrew Matthew which was in the hands of the Ancient Nazarene Jews!

Matthew 17:12

Here DuTillet has:

יקבל וישא יסורים מה

“…receive and bear scourgings from them.”|

Whereas the Greek simply has “suffer from them”

The Greek translator must have had a Hebrew manuscript with read יסבל “suffer” instead of יקבל “receive” (an obvious Scribal error within the Hebrew)

The Garza-Trimm manuscript reads:

יקבל וסבל מנה יסורים

“…receive and bear from them, scourgings.”

Which is clearly a conflation of the DuTillet reading and the underlying reading behind the Greek.

The Munster text has ישא יסורים מהם”bear scourgings from them.”

In an interesting twist the Old Syriac (C) has Aramaic נסיבר = Hebrew יסבר (endure) which is also related by scribal error to יסבל (suffer)

Matthew 22:37

Here Yeshua quotes Deut 6:5. Greek Matthew has “mind” (the LXX does not agree) while DuTillet, Munster and the Garza-Trimm texts agree with the Masoretic text (as well as the Old Syriac) have “strength”.

Matthew 27:46

In this passage, Yeshua cries out shortly before his death, “Eli, Eli, Lama Shabachtani” (as the Greek transliterates the Aramaic). This is quoting the Aramaic Peshitta Text of Psalm 22:1. The original Hebrew of Psalm 22:1 is “Eli. Eli, Lama Azbatani”.

Munster reads: אלי אלי למה שבקתני

Iohannes Quinquarboreus, in his 1551 reprinting of the Munster Text has a marginal note to שבקתני, offering the alternate reading עזבתני as we read in Ps. 22:1

DuTillet has a very unique reading here: אלי אלי למה שכחתני

This would have the meaning “why have you forgotten me” rather than “why have you forsaken me” (Perhaps drawn from Ps. 42:9)

So it is indeed interesting that the Garza-Trimm manuscript has a complicated reading:

אלי אלי למה עזבתני (שבקתני) (שכחתני) שבחתני (שחטתני)

This is complicated text. The initial text agrees with the Hebrew of Ps. 22:1 (and Quinquarboreus’ marginal note) then in the first set of parenthesis is the reading of Munster (which is the same as the Aramaic given in Greek Matthew, the Peshitta Matthew and the Peshitta of Psalm 22:1). The next set of parenthesis give a word similar to the DuTillet reading, but with a ב in place of a כ so that the meaning is “glorified me”. This is followed by the reading “forgotten me” as found in DuTillet. Finally this is followed by a word meaning “killed me” in parenthesis.

In a future installment, I will explore analysis of the Hebrew versions of Mark and Luke found as found in the Garza-Trimm manuscript.

Our rent was due yesterday and we do not have it!

As many of you know, my wife is chronically ill, disabled since and dealing with chronic pain daily, since her fifty three day hospitalization in late 2018, and I am her caretaker.

We need more of you to step up to the plate to donate, even in small amounts. I know you are out there.

This work takes hours of my time, and I spend most of my time at home as her caretaker. I work at a desk less than six feet from her bed. So I am in a position to dedicate many hours to this important work that I have been directed to do.

But I also realize that it is not the activity of James Trimm alone who is responsible to do this work, it is all of us together who are charged with the responsibility of accomplishing this work. I very much look on the efforts of this restoration work as a cooperative one with each one of you. We are all joint heirs with Messiah and should always be about our Father’s business. I am honored to be able to be partnered with truth seekers as this restoration of Scripture moves forward in fulfillment of prophecy.

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org

Or click HERE to donate

Virtue Flows Naturally from Logic

Recently, I posted on Facebook: “Virtue flows naturally from logic.”

Someone replied:

Virtue flows from logic *that is grounded in a faith in God and His revelation*

Let us explore this issue.  This raises some questions:

What is logic?

Our English word “Logic” actually comes from the Greek word “LOGOS” which is the Greek word for “Word” and “Reason” used by Philo of Alexandria and the Greek version of the Gospel of Yochanan (John).

The Greek word Logos has it’s parallels in the Hebrew word Davar.

By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalm 33:6)

The Hebrew word for “WORD” is DAVAR which means “word, thing, matter” and comes from the same root as DIVRA (reason, cause)

like Logos, Davar. implies logic.  There are several examples in the Tanak:

But as for me, I would seek unto El, and unto Elohim would I commit my cause (“reason” DIVRA):
(Job 5:8)


I said in my heart, It is because (“for this reason” AL-DIVRAT) of the sons of men that Elohim may sift them: and that they may see, that they themselves are but as beasts.
(Ecc. 3:18)

In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider: Elohim has made even the one, as well as the other, to the end that ( “to the logical conclusion that” AL-DIVRAT) man should find nothing after him.

(Eccl. 7:14)

I counsel you, Keep the king’s command: and that, in regard ( “for this reason” AL-DIVRAT) of the oath of Elohim.
(Ecc. 8:2)

The Targums, ancient Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Tanak, had a parallel Aramaic word, the Memra.

It is important to understand the LOGOS/MEMRA is the very expression of the Mind of YHWH.  Philo of Alexandria makes this case as follows:

IV. We must mention as much as we can of the matters contained in his account, since to enumerate them all is impossible; for he embraces that beautiful world which is perceptible only by the intellect, as the account of the first day will show: (16) for God, as apprehending beforehand, as a God must do, that there could not exist a good imitation without a good model, and that of the things perceptible to the external senses nothing could be faultless which wax not fashioned with reference to some archetypal idea conceived by the intellect, when he had determined to create this visible world, previously formed that one which is perceptible only by the intellect, in order that so using an incorporeal model formed as far as possible on the image of God, he might then make this corporeal world, a younger likeness of the elder creation, which should embrace as many different genera perceptible to the external senses, as the other world contains of those which are visible only to the intellect. (17) But that world which consists of ideas, it were impious in any degree to attempt to describe or even to imagine: but how it was created, we shall know if we take for our guide a certain image of the things which exist among us. When any city is founded through the exceeding ambition of some king or leader who lays claim to absolute authority, and is at the same time a man of brilliant imagination, eager to display his good fortune, then it happens at times that some man coming up who, from his education, is skilful in architecture, and he, seeing the advantageous character and beauty of the situation, first of all sketches out in his own mind nearly all the parts of the city which is about to be completed–the temples, the gymnasia, the prytanea, and markets, the harbour, the docks, the streets, the arrangement of the walls, the situations of the dwelling houses, and of the public and other buildings. (18) Then, having received in his own mind, as on a waxen tablet, the form of each building, he carries in his heart the image of a city, perceptible as yet only by the intellect, the images of which he stirs up in memory which is innate in him, and, still further, engraving them in his mind like a good workman, keeping his eyes fixed on his model, he begins to raise the city of stones and wood, making the corporeal substances to resemble each of the incorporeal ideas. (19) Now we must form a somewhat similar opinion of God, who, having determined to found a mighty state, first of all conceived its form in his mind, according to which form he made a world perceptible only by the intellect, and then completed one visible to the external senses, using the first one as a model.

V. (20) As therefore the city, when previously shadowed out in the mind of the man of architectural skill had no external place, but was stamped solely in the mind of the workman, so in the same manner neither can the world which existed in ideas have had any other local position except the divine reason (Logos) which made them; for what other place could there be for his powers which should be able to receive and contain, I do not say all, but even any single one of them whatever, in its simple form? (21) And the power and faculty which could be capable of creating the world, has for its origin that good which is founded on truth; for if any one were desirous to investigate the cause on account of which this universe was created, I think that he would come to no erroneous conclusion if he were to say as one of the ancients did say: “That the Father and Creator was good; on which account he did not grudge the substance a share of his own excellent nature, since it had nothing good of itself, but was able to become everything.” (22) For the substance was of itself destitute of arrangement, of quality, of animation, of distinctive character, and full of all disorder and confusion; and it received a change and transformation to what is opposite to this condition, and most excellent, being invested with order, quality, animation, resemblance, identity, arrangement, harmony, and everything which belongs to the more excellent idea.
(Philo; On Creation IV, 15b-V, 22)

This “Word of YHWH” was, according to Targum Jonathan, the Creator:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)

This idea is also put forward in the Jerusalem Targum:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH said to Moses:
“I am He who said unto the world ‘Be!’ and it was:
and who in the future shall say to it ‘Be!’
and it shall be.” And He said: “Thus you shall say
to the children of Israel: ‘I Am’ has sent me to you.”
(Jerusalem Targum Ex. 3:14)

The Fragmentary Targum of the Torah also expresses that the Word of YHWH was the Creator:

The first night, when the “Word of YHWH”
was revealed to the world in order to create it,
the world was desolate and void,
and darkness spread over the face of the abyss
and the “Word of the Lord” was bright and illuminating
and He called it the first night.
(Fragmentary Targum Ex. 12:42)

That the Word of YHWH was the Creator can also be seen in the Tanak itself:

By the Word (DAVAR) of YHWH were the heavens made,
and all the hosts of them by the Spirit of His mouth.
(Ps. 33:6)

Philo’s concept of the “Word” (Logos) is the “image of Elohim” which served as the pattern for the creation of man in Gen. 1:26-27. Philo writes:

(30) And air and light he considered worthy of the pre-eminence. For the one he called the breath of God, because it is air, which is the most life-giving of things, and of life the causer is God; and the other he called light, because it is surpassingly beautiful: for that which is perceptible only by intellect is as far more brilliant and splendid than that which is seen, as I conceive, the sun is than darkness, or day than night, or the intellect than any other of the outward senses by which men judge (inasmuch as it is the guide of the entire soul), or the eyes than any other part of the body. (31) And the invisible divine reason, perceptible only by intellect, he calls the image of God. And the image of this image is that light, perceptible only by the intellect, which is the image of the divine reason, which has explained its generation. And it is a star above the heavens, the source of those stars which are perceptible by the external senses, and if any one were to call it universal light he would not be very wrong; since it is from that the sun and the moon, and all the other planets and fixed stars derive their due light, in proportion as each has power given to it; that unmingled and pure light being obscured when it begins to change, according to the change from that which is perceptible only by the intellect, to that which is perceptible by the external senses; for none of those things which are perceptible to the external senses is pure. (On Creation 30-31)

…For God does not seem to have availed himself
of any other animal existing in creation as his model
in the formation of man; but to have been guided,
as I have said before, by his own Word (Logos) alone…
(Philo; On Creation XLVIII (139))

But the divine Word (Logos) which is above these
does not come into any visible appearance,
inasmuch as it is not like to any of the things
that come under the external senses,
but is itself an image of God,
the most ancient of all the objects of intellect
in the whole world, and that which is placed
in the closest proximity to the only truly existing God,
without any partition or distance being interposed
between them:
(On Flight and Finding XVIII (101))

Now, Bezaleel, being interpreted, means God in his shadow.
But the shadow of God is his Word (Logos), which he used
like an instrument when he was making the world.
And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things. For, as God is himself the model of that image which he has now called a shadow, so also that image is the model of other things,
as he showed when he commenced giving the law to the Israelites,
and said, “And God made man according to the image of God.”[Gen. 1:26] as the image was modeled according to God, and as man was modeled according to the image, which thus received the power and character of the model.
(Allegorical Interpretations III 96)

For if it was necessary to examine the mortal body
of the priest that it ought not be imperfect through
any misfortune, much more was it necessary to look
into his immortal soul, which they say is fashioned
in the form of the living God. Now the image of God
is the Word (Logos), by which all the world was made.
(The Special Laws I, 81)

What is the man who was created? And how is that man
distinguished who was made after the image of God? (Gen. 2:7).
This man was created as perceptible to the senses,
and in the similitude of a Being appreciable only by the intellect;
but he who in respect of his form is intellectual and incorporeal,
is the similitude of the archetypal model as to appearance,
and he is the form of the principal character;
but this is the Word (Logos) of God, the first beginning of all things,
the original species or the archetypal idea,
the first measure of the universe.
(Q & A on Gen. I, 4)

Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god,
saying that he made man after the image of God,
and not that he made him after his own image? (Gen. 9:6).
Very appropriately and without any falsehood
was this oracular sentence uttered by God,
for no mortal thing could have been formed
on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe,
but only after the pattern of the second deity,
who is the Word (Logos) of the supreme Being;
since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it
the type of the divine Word (Logos); since in his first Word (Logos)
God is superior to the most rational possible nature.
But he who is superior to the Word (Logos) holds his rank
in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could
the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself?
Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact,
that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance,
in order to the defense of virtuous and consistent men,
because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance
with his Word (Logos), of which the human mind is
the similitude and form.
(Q & A on Gen. II 62)

This parallels what we read in the Targum:

And the Word (Memra) of YHWH
created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)

The Word was also the covenant maker. For example the Noachdic covenant was between the Word and all mankind:

And YHWH said to Noah,
“This is the token of the covenant
which I have established between My Word [Memra]
and between all flesh that is upon the earth.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 9:17)


The Word also made the Abrahamic covenant as Targum Onkelos also paraphrases:

And I will establish my covenant
between My Word [Memra] and between you…
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 17:7)


The Word of YHWH was also the giver of the Mosaic Covenant and the Torah as the Jerusalem Targum (as quoted above) makes the Torah giver “the Word of YHWH” in Ex. 20:1. It was to th e Word that Jacob turned to for salvation:

Our father Jacob said: “My soul does not wait for salvation
such as that wrought by Gideon, the son of Joash,
for that was but temporal; neither for a salvation
like that of Samson, which was only transitory;
but for that salvation which You have promised to come,
through Your Word unto Your people, the children of Israel;
for your salvation my soul hopes.”
(Targum Jonathan Gen. 49:18)


The Targums also identify this Memra as the Messiah:

Behold, my servant, the Messiah, whom I bring,
my chosen in whom one delights:
as for my Word [MEMRA], I will put my Holy Spirit upon Him;
He shall reveal my judgment unto the nations.
2 He shall not cry aloud, nor raise a clamor,
 and He shall not lift up His voice in the street.
3 The meek who are like a bruised reed He shall not break,
and the poor who are as a glimmering wick with Him, He will not quench:
He shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
4 He shall not faint nor be weary,
till He have established judgment in the earth;
and the isles shall wait for His Torah.
(Targum Jonathan to Isaiah 42:1-4)

Likewise Philo of Alexandria identified the Logos as the Messiah:

“The head of all things is the eternal Word (Logos) of the eternal God, under which, as if it were his feet or other limbs, is placed the whole world, over which He passes and firmly stands. Now it is not because Messiah is Lord that He passes and sits over the whole world, for His seat with His Father and God but because for its perfect fullness the world is in need of the care and superintendence of the best ordered dispensation, and for its own complete piety, of the Divine Word (Logos), just as living creatures (need) a head, without which it is impossible to live.”
(Q&A on Exodus, II, 117)

Understanding the concept of the Logos (Davar, Memra) is important because the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of controlling destructive emotions and holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos).

What is virtue?

We can derive four cardinal virtues from the Wisdom of Solomon:

5 If riches are a desirable possession in life,
what is richer than wisdom who effects all things?

6 And if understanding is effective,
who more than she is fashioner of what exists?
7 And if any one loves righteousness,
her labors are virtues;
for she teaches self-control and prudence,
justice and courage;

nothing in life is more profitable for men than these.
(Wisdom of Solomon 8:5-7 RSV)

The First Century Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria writes of these four labors of Wisdom:

For there are four generic virtues: prudence, courage, self-control, and justice. And of these, every single one is a princess and a ruler; and he who has acquired them is, from the moment of the acquisition, a ruler and a king, even if he has no abundance of any kind of treasure;
(Philo; On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile; 128)

Now the kinds of wisdom are rational judgment, justice, courage, and self-control.
(4Macc. 1:18)

By what process does virtue flow from logic?

We read in 4th Maccabees (also called On the Supremacy of Reason) we read:

Now the kinds of wisdom are rational judgment, justice, courage, and self-control.
(4Macc. 1:18)

4Maccabees goes on to say:

Rational judgment is supreme over all of these, since by means of it reason (Logos) rules over the emotions.
(4Macc. 1:19)

In 4Maccabees (also known as On the Supremacy of Reason) we read:

21 Now when Elohim fashioned man, he planted in him emotions and inclinations,
22 but at the same time he enthroned the mind among the senses as a sacred governor over them all.
23 To the mind he gave the Torah; and one who lives subject to this will rule a kingdom that is temperate, just, good, and courageous.
(4Macc. 2:21-23)

And as Philo of Alexandria concluded:

“For these passions are the causes of all good and of all evil; of good when they submit to the authority of dominant reason, and of evil when they break out of bounds and scorn all government and restraint.”
(Life of Moses 1; VI, 26)

The neshoma that was breathed into man, is the rational mind. It is a spark of the Logos, the rational mind that permeates the Universe.

The first century Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria composed a beautiful midrash on Genesis 2:8-14 about these four virtues. These verses of Genesis read:

8 And YHWH Elohim, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
9 And out of the earth, made YHWH Elohim to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it was parted and became four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasses the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
12 And the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasses the whole land of Kush.
14 And the name of the third river is Tigris: that is it which goes toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
(Gen. 2:8-14 HRV)

Philo saw the presence of “an allegorical spirit” in the Torah, and specifically in these verses about the Garden of Eden or Paradise, an allegory in which he saw “…the paradise, made by God, all the plants were endowed in the souls and reason, producing for their fruit the different virtues,…”.  He writes:

(153) …But in the paradise, made by God, all the plants were endowed in the souls and reason, producing for their fruit the different virtues, and, moreover, imperishable wisdom and prudence, by which honourable and dishonourable things are distinguished from one another, and also a life free from disease, and exempt from corruption, and all other qualities corresponding to these already mentioned. (154) And these statements appear to me to be dictated by a philosophy which is symbolical rather than strictly accurate. For no trees of life or of knowledge have ever at any previous time appeared upon the earth, nor is it likely that any will appear hereafter. But I rather conceive that Moses was speaking in an allegorical spirit, intending by his paradise to intimate the dominant character of the soul, which is full of innumerable opinions as this figurative paradise was of trees…. (On Creation 153-154)

Elsewhere Philo writes about the river that went out of Eden to water the garden:

(125) As, therefore, the seeds and plants which are put into the ground grow and blossom through being irrigated, and are thus made fertile for the production of fruits, but if they are deprived of moisture they wither away, so likewise the soul, as it appears when it is watered with the wholesome stream of wisdom, shoots forth, and brings fruit to perfection….

(127) On which account it is said in Genesis, “And a fountain went up from the earth, and watered all the face of the Earth.” (Gen. 2:6).  …In this way in truth, it is that the word (Logos) of God irrigates the virtues; for that is the beginning and the fountain of all good actions. (128) And the lawgiver shows this, when he says, “And a river went out of Eden to water the Paradise; and from thence it is divided into four Heads.” (Gen. 2:10) For there are four generic virtues: prudence, courage, self-control, and justice. And of these, every single one is a princess and a ruler; and he who has acquired them is, from the moment of the acquisition, a ruler and a king, even if he has no abundance of any kind of treasure; (129) for the meaning of the expression, “it is divided into four heads,” is … nor distance; but virtue exhibits the pre-eminence and the power. And these spring from the word  [Logos] of God as from one root, which he compares to a river, on account of the unceasing and everlasting flow of salutary words and doctrines, by which it increases and nourishes the souls that love God. (Philo; On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile; 125, 127-129)

Notice that Philo says:

And of these, every single one is a princess and a ruler; and he who has acquired them is, from the moment of the acquisition, a ruler and a king, even if he has no abundance of any kind of treasure;

Philo gives a more detailed explanation in Book I of his Allegorical Interpretations (I have quoted the relevant verse from the HRV version for reference):

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it was parted and became four heads. (Gen. 2:10 HRV)

XIX. (63) “And a river goes forth out of Eden to water the Paradise. From thence it is separated into four heads: the name of the one is Pheison. That is the one which encircles the whole land of Evilat. There is the country where there is gold, and the gold of that land is good. There also are the carbuncle and the sapphire stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; this is that which encircles the whole land of Ethiopia. And the third river is the Tigris. This is the river which flows in front of the Assyrians. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” (Gen. 2:10-13) In these words Moses intends to sketch out the particular virtues. And they also are four in number, prudence, temperance, courage, and justice. Now the greatest river from which the four branches flow off, is generic virtue, which we have already called goodness; and the four branches are the same number of virtues. (64) Generic virtue, therefore, derives its beginning from Eden, which is the wisdom of God; which rejoices and exults, and triumphs, being delighted at and honoured on account of nothing else, except its Father, God, and the four particular virtues, are branches from the generic virtue, which like a river waters all the good actions of each, with an abundant stream of benefits. (65) Let us examine the expressions of the writer: “A river,” says he, “goes forth out of Eden, to water the Paradise.” This river is generic goodness; and this issues forth out of the Eden of the wisdom of God, and that is the word of God. For it is according to the word of God, that generic virtue was created. And generic virtue waters the Paradise: that is to say, it waters the particular virtues. But it does not derive its beginnings from any principle of locality, but from a principle of preeminence. For each of the virtues is really and truly a ruler and a queen. And the expression, “is separated,” is equivalent to “is marked off by fixed boundaries;” since wisdom appoints them settled limits with reference to what is to be done. Courage with respect to what is to be endured; temperance with reference to what is to be chosen; and justice in respect of what is to be distributed. (Allegorical  Interpretation I, 63-65)

Philo’s Midrash on Genesis 2:10 teaches that generic virtue goes out as an unceasing and everlasting flow from the Word of Elohim to increase and nourish specific virtues in the souls of those that love Elohim and that from there generic virtue is marked off by fixed boundaries as prudence, courage, self-control, and justice and that each of these is a ruler and a queen that helps us to rule over our passions.

What is faith? 

When Paul speaks of the faith of believers, he often bases it on Genesis 15:16. Let us examine this verse:

And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
(Gen. 15:6 KJV)

The Targums were ancient Aramaic paraphrases of the Torah and the Prophets.  The official Targum to this verse paraphrases:

 “And he believed in the Word (Memra) of YHWH. And He counted it to him for righteousness.”
(Gen. 15:6 Targum Onkelos)

And Targum Psedo-Jonathan has:

“And he believed in YHWH, and had faith in the Word (Memra) of YHWH, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness.”
(Gen. 15:6 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)

Philo of Alexandria made a very interesting comment about this verse (Gen. 15:6):

“It is best, therefore, to trust in God, and not in uncertain reasoning, or unsure conjectures. “Abraham trusted in the Lord, and it was counted to him for Righteousness” (Gen. 15:6) And Moses governed the people, being testified to that he was faithful with his whole house. But if we distrust our own reason (LOGOS, Word), we shall prepare and build ourselves a city of the mind which will destroy the truth.”
(Philo of Alexandria; Allegorical Interpretation, III, 228)

Abraham’s faith was a rational faith, and ultimately was a faith in the Logos.

Donations in September have been very low, our rent left us broke! We need your help today!

You can now donate thru Pay Pal, Zelle or Go Fund Me!

As many of you know, my wife is chronically ill, disabled since and dealing with chronic pain daily, since her fifty three day hospitalization in late 2018, and I am her caretaker.

We need more of you to step up to the plate to donate, even in small amounts. I know you are out there.

This work takes hours of my time, and I spend most of my time at home as her caretaker. I work at a desk less than six feet from her bed. So I am in a position to dedicate many hours to this important work that I have been directed to do.

But I also realize that it is not the activity of James Trimm alone who is responsible to do this work, it is all of us together who are charged with the responsibility of accomplishing this work. I very much look on the efforts of this restoration work as a cooperative one with each one of you. We are all joint heirs with Messiah and should always be about our Father’s business. I am honored to be able to be partnered with truth seekers as this restoration of Scripture moves forward in fulfillment of prophecy.

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org

Or click HERE to donate