THE NETZARIM EMUNAH CHUMASH is a literal translation within idiomatic language from
the writings of Onkelos Targums and various other translations of the same.
Onkelos is not always appreciated as the great interpreter he was; Indeed, every translator is also an
interpreter, but no translation of the Torah has the depth and authority that comes with the
interpretation of Onkelos.
THE NETZARIM EMUNAH CHUMASH is a line by line precept by precept Chumash. Easy to
use format for reading and in-depth study of Torah. This new edition is drawn from translations of
the Ancient Aramaic. For example this edition incorporates the name of (MarYah Yeshua
Msheekha) that is (Lord G-d Yeshua the Messiah) and (MarYah for Maran HaShem) and it
employs the word (HaShem for Eli)-( ______ ) 1 and it also introduces the Aramaic rendering of
( Maran for Lord / Adonai) and (Milta for word), along with others.
*
Ancient Galilean Aramaic renderings are employed some are in Paleo Hebrew.
Due weight was given to the ancient versions as establishing a tradition of interpretation, out of the
four levels of interpretation Parshat, Remez, DÕrash, Sod methods, mostly (peshat) was employed,
as was Onkelos method of interpretation of the Torah.
The following resources used, Westminster Leningrad Codex, and the Targums Onkelos, Neophyti.
Including all available Jewish commentators, both the great medieval authorities, like Rashi,
Rashbam, Rambam, Ibn Ezra, Sforno and the moderns S. D. Luzzatto, Malbim, M. Jastrow,
Usrael Drazin, Stanley M. Wagner as well as the important works of non-Jewish Commentators. 2
Like his maternal grandfather, the Rashbam was a biblical commentator and Talmudist. He learned
from Rashi and from Isaac ben Asher ha-Levi ("Riva"). He was the teacher of his brother, Rabbeinu
Tam, and his method of interpretation differed from that of his grandfather.
His commentary on the Torah is renowned for its stress on the plain meaning (PESHAT) of the text.
He sometimes disputes his grandfather's interpretation and indicates that his grandfather concurred
with his approach. He adopted a natural (as distinct from a homiletical and traditional) method. This
approach often led him to state views that were somewhat controversial.