Insights on Crucifixion
I’m continuing to press ahead on finishing the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) New Testament. Just thought I’d share an interesting insight with you about CRUCIFIXION. I had always thought that the cruel form of capital punishment of crucifixion was an invention of the Romans at the time of Christ. But the Aramaic New Testament helps uncover that the concept probably occured at the time of Ezra, during the return from Bablyon, approximately 400BC.
There is a Hebrew word “zaqap” (Strong’s number 2210) which is “erect” in the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB). It occurs twice in the Old Testament:
(If you haven’t tried the WordSearch feature on www.AncientRoots.com, give it a whirl! Simply enter the number 2210 in the Strong’s number box, and these verses will pop up.)
The single Aramaic use in the Old Testament is spelled the same “zaqap” (Strong’s number 2211), and also is listed as “erect” in the ARTB in Ezra 6:11.
When you get to the New Testament, the usage of the root 2211 explodes. It changes a tiny bit in spelling, but is clearly is the word “CRUCIFY” as the crowd calls for Jesus’ death. It also has a related root which is the word “CROSS”.
As usual, the Hebrew/Aramaic vocabulary is wonderful in its richness. They clearly differentiated between HANGING on a tree (ie an actual TREE with a NOOSE), and dying by being hung on a manmade structure by manmade means which is CRUCIFIXION in the New Testament (NAILED to a CROSS). The Ezra 6:11 verse catches the transition: Tear down the house, ERECT a manmade structure, and INJURE him over it. Sure sounds like crucifixion to me.
You may want to make a note in your ARTB text.
I also received a note about this information from a reader:
Your research is confirmed by historical references. It was used even before Ezra.
Acccording to Josephus and other authorities, Haman was crucified on a cross by Ahasuerus, King of Persia.Crucifixion was used extensively by the Persians:
"It was in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD, when in the year 337 Emperor Constantine I abolished it in his empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion. "
A. Frances Werner
Yeshua or Jesus
I received a question from a reader:
First I want to thank you for the swift processing and sending of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB). What a breath of fresh air. Secondly, I was wondering what Hebrew name for Jesus will be used in the New Testament when it comes out?I've been doing research. It's amazing how many different spellings and renderings of Jesus name there are in the Hebrew. I read one article where the person said Yahushua is the real name of Jesus. Others say Yahshua or Yahoshua, Yeshua. I didn't know if you were a sacred name person or what. As you can see, I ask a lot of questions but I do so to learn. I love to learn.
The final decision for the name of Jesus has not been made. We will likely do a survey of the readers in the near future.
At this point, the spelling of the Hebrew alternative would be Yeshua. There are two main groups who are studying the ARTB. Those who are coming from a Hebrew/Aramaic perspective who would like to see all names and places in Hebrew/Aramaic, and those who are only familiar with a Greek New Testament who would be lost if Bartholomew was listed as "Bar-Tolmai, a disciple of Yeshua".
Glad you are enjoying ARTB!
Genesis 1:1 "In the Beginning"
I had a question from a reader about Genesis 1:1. The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) uses the phrase, "First, God created . . .". Most other versions use the phrase "In the beginning". Other translators use other words. Why did ARTB pick the word "first"?
From the reader: My attention has recently brought to the works of Gerald Shroeder, in one of his books he asserts the following: The opening word, usually translated as "In the beginning," is the Hebrew Be'reasheet. Be'reasheet can mean "In the beginning of" but not "In the beginning." The difficulty with the preposition "of" is that its object is absent from the sentence and so the usual English translation merely drops it. Rather than changing the meaning of the Hebrew and ignoring the "of," the 2,100 year old Jerusalem translation of Genesis into Aramaic realizes that Be'reacheet is a compound word: the prefix Be' – with; and raesheet – a first wisdom. The meaning becomes: "With wisdom God created the heavens and the earth." Having obtained your ARTB bible, with which I am particularly pleased with, I wondered if you could give me your opinion on Shroeder's assertion about the meaning of the Hebrew for "In the beginning".– with; and raesheet – a first wisdom. The meaning becomes: "With wisdom God created the heavens and the earth." Having obtained your ARTB bible, with which I am particularly pleased with, I wondered if you could give me your opinion on Shroeder's assertion about the meaning of the Hebrew for "In the beginning".
I have always been troubled by the first word(s) of Genesis. They are very tough--and there's a lot of discussion about it. The word "first" or "beginning" definitely matches the Aramaic form (Strongs' number 7225). And I absolutely agree with your points about the prepositions.
I am very close to Shroeder's position, but slightly different. Shroeder chose to emphasize the word "widsom" from the notion of "first wisdom", but I have emphasized the word "first". Here's why. In a translinear methodology, I chose the best English word that matched ALL of the occurances of Strong's number 7225. Take a look at the entries that come up when you type in "7225" in the Number box of the "ARTB Bible Search" page on menu to the left.
Genesis 1:1 can work either with "first" or "wisdom". But the next entry, Genesis 10:10 says "His FIRST realm had Babylon . . .". The word "Wisdom" wouldn't work there or in most of the remaining uses. Thus, the ARTB uses the word "first".
A. Frances Werner
Truth in Translation review
As I began to read this work I found it was presented in a factual way, yet easy to follow and understand. I soon found myself submerged in the read, and I was shocked at how many errors were found in just about every translation written of the Word of God. In translating into English, it appears we can use several different words to mean one thing, the translators chose which words to use or not to use. Think it isn't that important? Think again, the switching around of words can throw an entire different light on what our Heavenly Father is trying to teach us in His Word. Some of the examples our author shows us in this book will boggle your mind. I like how our author put it, that translators have no problem going back and forth with words like worship/bow and hear/obey. I don't know about you, but to me worship has a totally different meaning than to bow. And certainly if God said to obey, I would know it wasn't just a casual remark, but a command. How about you?
I truly wish I had the words to tell you what an eye-opener this book will be to you as you compare your translation of the Bible with the information inside these pages. You will see that you are not feasting on many of the true meanings in the Word, nor absorbing what God is wanting to enter your spirit.I know that I haven't come near to doing justice in my review concerning the importance of this book. To me, it is like a bell ringing telling the translators and publishers that we want the pure Word of God, as exact as it can be translated, and I am sure that is what God wants as well.
Thank you, Ms. Werner, for the research and hard work you have done to bring this to our attention. I highly recommend this book to all those who want the pure Word of God. You will be amazed as you see for yourself what I am talking about. I also recommend, Ancient Roots Translinear Bible, which I have found to open my eyes to many of the truths of God's Word.
In conclusion, if you are truly seeking what your Creator is saying in His Word, don't be afraid to let your voice be heard, demanding a pure translation of the Words you live your life by. Highly recommended.
Status of the Ancient Roots New Testament
A reader sent the following inquiry:
When will your new testament be ready? I would like to view some samples such as John 1:1-2. You have produced a beautiful OT.
Thank you for the compliment on the Old Testament!
I'm expecting to finish the New Testament in time for publication at year end. But I don't have samples of specific verses available yet. Here's why. "Regular" translators work verse by verse. The "translinear" methodology dictates that a specific word is worked throughout the New Testament at the same time. Thus, although I'm approximately 80% complete on the first round of word substitution, no verse is complete yet. All the verses will be complete on roughly the same day. So I am as anxious as you are to see what emerges. (A fun fact---I had to work "blind" for over 3 years on the Old Testament before the complete word substitution was visible as readable verses!)
For the Old Testament, I needed to do several rounds of refining the word choices. I feel confident that the New Testament process will be much quicker because most of the hard work of finding the correct word choice has been done.
A second reader sent the following inquiry:
I have purchased the ARTB - Old Testament and, as a biblical scholar, am truly pleased. What is the status of the ARTB - New Testament; will it be taken from the Greek or the Aramic? Are there any plans to work on some of the other books that were not included in our present cannon - i.e., Books of Enoch, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.?
I started the Greek New Testament several years ago. But I put a “pause” on the Greek and am now tackling the Aramaic for a couple of reasons:
1) My personal curiosity got the better of me! I wanted to see what the complete Hebrew/Aramaic vocabulary would look like when placed in the New Testament. Would it be interesting? A significant aid to understanding?
2) I am very aware that the Aramaic Peshitta is likely derived from the Greek. So, it is a legitimate question whether its the right thing to do it from the Aramaic. I want to review the end product of the translinear Aramaic New Testament before I make that conclusion.
3) The very important lesson I learned doing the Old Testament is that the final output looks very different if you start from the New Testament first, and push back to the Old Testament (which the majority of translations have done). If you go from NT to OT, you CANNOT do a translinear version because the vocabulary in the New Testament is so much smaller than the Old Testament. You get caught with the wrong words and you end up with the problem of needing to reuse English words.
Thus, it means if I want to do a translinear Greek NT, I must go back and do the entire Septuagint/Widsom Books/New Testament at one crack. That’s a multi-year project, which I do plan on doing—because I’m also interested in the Wisdom books. But I decided to finish the Aramaic NT first for all the reasons above. My sense is that it truly will be an eye-opener and will resolve the gap between words in the New Testament (like baptism, apostles, church/synagogue, preach, evangelism) that don’t occur at all in the Old Testament. It’s on track to be published by year end.