The Holy Name Bible


Price and Value

  • $100 + for an original out of print Value: 1/5
  • $35-40 for a Yahshua Promotions printing - Value: 2/5

  • Scroll down to the bottom for pictures!

    Summary of Features

    Publication Date 1st Edition: 1963
    Reprints since then
    (1978 reprint reviewed here)
    Cover Leather Textured Hardcover
    Size 8.85 inches tall
    5.4 inches long
    1.5 inches thick
    Binding Smyth-Sewn
    Thumb-Index Tabs No
    Text Format Verse Format
    Headings None
    Mashiyach's Words in Red No
    Number of Ribbon Markers 0
    Gold Gilded w/ Rounded Corners Pages are dyed red
    Extensive Cross References No
    Helps None
    Footnotes Basic cross references
    A few small textual notes
    Concordance No
    Maps Yes
    Name of the Father Yahweh
    Name of the Son Yahshua
    Hebrew Transliterations Minimal
    Book Order Greek LXX Order
    Western Greek Order
    Pauline Epistles
    General Epistles
    Base Text KJV
    Old Archaic English Yes
    Manuscript Origin None - KJV revision only


    Here it is, the infamous "Holy Name Bible" which was the first Sacred Name Bible ever produced. The New Testament (named "The New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yahshua") was published in 1950 and thirteen years later, the Holy Name Bible found it's publication in 1963. The reviser (I cannot call him a translator) is Angelo B. Traina, working under the name of the Scripture Research Association. The original of this (which is out of print) is hard to find and usually costs around $100 or more. It is certainly a collectors item, and the binding and style of it does make it a nice and unique Sacred Name Bible. However, more than most other Sacred Name Bible's since then, the Holy Name Bible has a number of revisions which highly distort and edit the text in key places. The result leaves me with giving this version a very low rating. While the Holy Name Bible is currently in being reprinted by a new publisher with a slightly different binding, I cannot recommend it to anyone because of these revision issues. I will cover what they are below.

    First, the HNB is a revision of the King James Version. While I've mentioned that there are some bad edits in the text, some of them are alright and either make a correction (such as changing "heaven" to "heavens" in Genesis 1:1) or help the flow of the text. There are a few updates of the old English, but most of it is left in tact. Now, on to some of the noteworthy revisions which I have noticed from skimming through the HNB...

    There are several changes that emphasize the sacred names. In Exodus 3:15, when YHWH tells Moshe His name, Traina transliterates the Hebrew text. However, His transliteration (ahyah asher ahyah) is incorrect. The Hebrew Text reads ehyeh asher ehyeh. With Traina being a Yahwist though (using Yahweh and Yahshua has the names), it's obvious why he would transliterate it differently. Right afterwards, in verse 17, Traina puts MEMORIAL in all capitals, emphasizing that YHWH's name is a memorial for all generations. A similar emphasis is done in Isaiah 42:8 where YAHWEH is put in all capitals. Falling in line with this pro-sacred name emphasis, Exodus 20:7 has been revised to read "Thou shall not take away the Name of Yahweh thy Elohim to bring it to nought". You can see that "away" was added into the text to emphasize that YHWH should not be removed from the text (referring to translations, since the Hebrew of course has it intact, not counting the 134 places where the scribes removed it).

    In opposition to the use of the sacred names, we have the typical English term God. In Isaiah 65:11, the text reads "But ye are they that forsake Yahweh, that forget My holy mountain, that prepare a table for the deity of Fortune..." with deity of Fortune footnoted as "Heb. GAWD - English GOD". In Hebrew it's actually Gad, though the pronunciation is similar, and it also does not say "the deity of" in the original text. Isaiah 65:11 is often used as a proof text for God being a pagan name that should not be used as per Exodus 23:13, and this emphasis as you can see is found in the HNB.

    So far, the above revisions aren't that bad. What concerns me are what has been done to Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 12:10, John 10:30, and Hebrews 1:2. Let's go over each of the changes...
    Isaiah 9:6 - "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, of the Mighty El, of the Father of Eternity; The Prince of Peace"
    Here we can clearly see that "of" was added into the text, denying that the son will be called the Mighty El and the Father of Eternity. Now of course, if you're a triniatarian, you don't call the Son the Father, but that's besides the point. The objective is that Traina is trying to point us away from the divinity of Yeshua.
    Zechariah 12:10 - "... and they shall look up toward Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son..."
    This revision especially pains me because it is a very important text in understanding the nature of Yeshua. The original text should say "they shall look towards ME whom they have pierced, and mourn for HIM". YHWH is talking, so this of course would indicate that He is pierced while they mourn for Him (Mashiyach) as an only son, making this an obvious change which avoids this relationship. Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing in their revision of the Scriptures, as did the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. This text is also problematic for Orthodox Jews, so you will see the JPS and Artscroll Tanak read differently too. But the Hebrew reads "et asher dakaru" literally translating as "towards me have pierced they" where "et" acts as the direct object pointer, meaning that whoever is speaking (YHWH) is receiving the action of being pierced. To render this passage any differently in English is to butcher the Hebrew.
    John 10:30 - "I and my Father are in accord"
    Another obvious change because both Greek and Aramaic very plainly state that "I and my Father are ONE". Understanding how this is possible is another issue, and if people want to make their own study bible footnoting their opinion/theology, fine. But it is blasphemous to change the text.
    Hebrews 1:2 - "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heri of all things, by Whom also He hath ordained the ages"
    Hebrews 1:2 is one of the worst changes of all. Both Greek and Aramaic very clearly state that "and by whom He made the world", He being YHWH, and the who being His Son. Traina's revision states "by whom he hath ordained the ages". This again subtracts from any divine connection that the Son is able to have. It should be noted though that Traina missed changing this in Colossians 1:16. Now in verse 3 of Hebrews 1, Traina changed "express image of His person" to "express image of His substance". Not sure why he made the change, but I won't ramble on about the possibilities. But these changes alone are enough to give the translation effort a zero. You cannot change the Word of YHWH no matter what. To do is to create our own Elohim, instead of molding ourselves to Him.

    Now, there have been some changes for the sake of clarity. Matthhew 28:1 reads "After the Sabbath was past and as the day after the Sabbath began to dawn..." which clarifies that the text is intending to mean that it was "the evening after the Sabbath, which is the start of the first day of the week. At the end of the chapter we read "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" where immersing is added for clarity regarding how "baptism" (in reality, Mikvah) is supposed to be done. This is consistent in all occurrences of baptize from the Greek. It's also interesting to note that Traina left the trinitarian formula for immersing, though the infamous Trinity verse in 1 John 5 is of course removed. Luke 2:11 has a very interesting footnote. The text reads "For unto you is born this day in the city of David, the Messiah, who is Yah-Ho-shua" with the footnote reading "Yah - the Saviour". This is quite interesting since it implies that Yah is the savior who has come down. This implication completely contradicts all the changes I pointed out above where Traina is set on removing evidence of Yeshua's dvinity. Luke 2:11 of the Aramaic reads "For today is born to you in the city of Dawid the Savor who is Master YHWH, the Mashiyach" which makes this point that much more clear. So here Traina admits in the footnotes that "Yah is the savior" but yet is unwilling to recognize that Yeshua is YHWH by changing Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 12:10, John 10:30, and so on.

    Moving on, Luke 23:43 has a context paraphrase that is different from most. It reads "And Yahshua said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, in that day thou shalt be with Me in the glory". Most translation says "I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise" which is wrong on several levels. If Yeshua was going to the grave/sheol until His resurrection, there was no way they could be in paradise "that day" together. So the text should actually read "I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise". Just move the comma and it changes it completely. Traina however opts for paraphrasing the statement, which is okay since it does convey the correct meaning. Some people though may take issue.

    The use of Yahweh in the NT is quite severe. It took awhile, but in the west now we finally have widespread knowledge that the tertagrammaton does appear in some NT manuscripts, and that would be the Aramaic. So, there's no need for guesswork in Sacred Name Bibles anymore. However, at this point (1950 - 1963), this was not really common knowledge. The Holy Name Bible, more than most, tends to opt for the use of Yahweh over both "Master" and "Elohim" in the NT scriptures. To give you an example, here us John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was Yahweh". The good thing is that John 1:1 and verse 14 haven't been altered in anyway other than the replacement of Elohim with Yahweh.

    Now, Traina is pro-Torah (which is a GOOD thing) but when it creeps into the text, this can be bad. We cannot change Scripture, only understand it in it's proper context (and it's proper context is very pro-Torah, so there's not an issue). Let me go over some examples though. In 1 Corinthians 7:19 we read "Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of Yahweh means everything." "Means everything" has been added without putting it in italics to indicate it's addition. But this is an acceptable paraphrase given the context, so I won't be too hard here. What I'd really like to point out is Romans 10:4 which states "For Messiah is the end of the sacrificial law for the obtaining of righteousness to every one that believeth". Both "sacrificial" and "obtaining of" have been added, and Traina admits this by putting it into italics. The Greek word for end is "telos" as in telephone, or television, meaning that Mashiyach is the goal of the Torah (Torah points to Him). There's no need to add the theological premise that this is indicating the end of the sacrificial laws which never truly obtained our righteousness. This change though, is not simply found here. We have very similar changes made in Galatians 2:16, 19, 21, most verses in chapter 3, and... well, let's just say that the book of Galatians has been butchered with these additions. They also pop up in other books too though, such as Hebrews 10:1. Although they are all admitted to by being put in italics, these additions completely change the meaning of the text! Paul often talks about the attitude in which we should approach Torah (which includes some written vs oral Torah things) and by understanding that context, the text is very easy to understand. But by putting these additions in, it distorts the meaning completely. Something else that has been distorted is Colossians 2:16-17 which states "Let no one condemn you regarding sacrificial meal and drink offerings made on the holydays, new moons, and Sabbaths, Which are a shadow of things to come; but the substance is the Messiah". Now, most translations render these verses incorrectly, but the KJV is fairly accurate in stating "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." All that has been added in here is "is". The original text should read "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Mashiyach" indicating that no one but the body of Mashiyach should judge/rule on matters. While most Sacred Name Bibles get this right, Traina distorted the verse even more.

    Some other noteworthy changes, in every instance of Lord referring to Mashiyach, it is changed to Saviour. See, Traina believes that Adonai (Adonay as he spells it) is a pagan name and therefore he will never render something as Master/Lord, but will opt for a substitution of Elohim, Saviour, or Yahweh. His choices aren't supported by any textual manuscript evidence. Another change can be found in Colossians 2:9 which states "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Supernal nature of Yahweh in bodily form." I have no idea what prompted Traina to choose "Supernal nature of Yahweh", but this change still attests to the fact that Yeshua had a divine nature which comes from YHWH. 1 Timothy 3:16 has godliness (Greek) / righteousness (Aramaic) changed to holiness - "And beyond controversy, deep is the mystery of holiness: He Who was manifested in human form..." I suppose that change isn't very bad, but this just goes to show that there's no guarantee what you might be getting in the text.

    Finally, Revelation 20:10 is changed to read "And the adversary that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the beast and the false prophet, and shall be tormented day and night for the age". Forever and ever is changed to "for the age" which is a shot against support for eternal torment. However, putting this back into context, the beast and the false prophet are not mortal beings like you and I, so it would make sense that they suffer forever and ever (or as the Greek literally says, for eons and eons). A footnote clarifying this would have sufficed without Traina revising the Word of Elohim once again.

    Also, let me note that Paul is consistently changed to Saul and Mary is changed back to Miriam, but most other names remain the same.

    It is truly unfortunate that there are this many revisions because the book itself is very nice. It is the perfect handheld size: not too big and bulky, but not so small that it has no real meat to it or a text size too small. It's built like your classic KJV Bibles with the red stained page edges and a fairly classic looking font. The text size is nice, though there is a bit of fading in some spots a little bit of bleed through. The pages though are very nice, much nicer than most SNB's. The pages are smyth-sewn and turn nice and easy. There are some maps at the back and a few pages of introduction to the importance of the Sacred Names at the beginning. Other then that though, it is simply straight text, verse format, with minimal footnotes (a few cross references and some textual references, but that's about it). If you're interested in getting a newly printed copy with a different cover with no red pages, you can visit But once again, I do not recommend this translation due to the above revisions. Since I have no read this Scripture from cover to cover, there are bound to be many more changes I haven't found. A much more accurate version based on the KJV would be "The Word of Yahweh" by the Assembly of Yahweh (for my review of this, click here).


    Click on an image for a bigger picture

    The front cover. As you can see, the textured leather hardcover is nice, as is the classic gold lettering.

    While not as classy as gold gilded edges (or even better, art gilded, which is a combination of the red with the gold gilding) this is a classic feature which is nice to have,

    Simple spine with the same lettering as the front and "Scripture Research Association" on the bottom.

    No trouble flipping this book open to Genesis 1 and having it lay flat. This is from the quality of the paper and the smyth-sewn binding. Notice the verse format.

    Here it is flat. As you can see, the text is a fairly standard classic type setting. Notice also that there is a bit of bleed through.

    There's no issue with flipping pages and having them make a crunkly noise like in a glued binding. Notice how there is no ribbon marker.

    Even though this is a hardcover book, I still thought I'd show how flexible it is. The binding on the Holy Name Bible is high quality. This particular printing is 32 years old at the time of this picture!

    The size, as mentioned, is perfect for holding in the hands!

    Here it is compared to Stern's Complete Jewish Bible and the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. As you can see, it's the smallest of the three.

    For comparison sake, here they are laying flat. Again, the HNB is the smallest out of the three, but it's not so small that the text size is tiny or it feels too small when held.