A Hebrew Book of Revelation?

[Torah Keeper]

https://www.hebrewgospels.com/revel...mail&cid=316b3c0b-40e5-45dd-b2f3-fa02009b7e93

Here is a link to a Hebrew Book of Revelation that was found in a library. Textual analysis indicates this may be a copy of the original Hebrew Book of Revelation, which was later translated in Greek.

It was an interesting read. Points that stand out to me are the descriptions of the beasts, which do not seem to match Daniel as much in this version, the Hebrew poetry and rhyme when Yeshua speaks, absent in the Greek, and the name of a certain falling star as "Scarlet Worm", instead of "Wormwood".

The site owner has translated it into English, although it is a very clumsy attempt, I give him points for effort! Always check the Hebrew when uncertain. Instead of nitpicking all the translation errors he made in English, the Hebrew is right there to check for yourself.

In my opinion I say this is legitimate! He makes a convincing argument in his opening. What does everyone think about it?

 

[HARK!]

I've read down to page 21; and so far this is very interesting. He makes some very compelling arguments.

 

[Humble Penny]

https://www.hebrewgospels.com/revel...mail&cid=316b3c0b-40e5-45dd-b2f3-fa02009b7e93

Here is a link to a Hebrew Book of Revelation that was found in a library. Textual analysis indicates this may be a copy of the original Hebrew Book of Revelation, which was later translated in Greek.

It was an interesting read. Points that stand out to me are the descriptions of the beasts, which do not seem to match Daniel as much in this version, the Hebrew poetry and rhyme when Yeshua speaks, absent in the Greek, and the name of a certain falling star as "Scarlet Worm", instead of "Wormwood".

The site owner has translated it into English, although it is a very clumsy attempt, I give him points for effort! Always check the Hebrew when uncertain. Instead of nitpicking all the translation errors he made in English, the Hebrew is right there to check for yourself.

In my opinion I say this is legitimate! He makes a convincing argument in his opening. What does everyone think about it?

Thanks for this! Haven't read it yet but will have to tonight after works done.

 

[HARK!]

The postulate on page 46, regarding agalot and agalim, is very intriguing.

 

[Humble Penny]

https://www.hebrewgospels.com/revel...mail&cid=316b3c0b-40e5-45dd-b2f3-fa02009b7e93

Here is a link to a Hebrew Book of Revelation that was found in a library. Textual analysis indicates this may be a copy of the original Hebrew Book of Revelation, which was later translated in Greek.

It was an interesting read. Points that stand out to me are the descriptions of the beasts, which do not seem to match Daniel as much in this version, the Hebrew poetry and rhyme when Yeshua speaks, absent in the Greek, and the name of a certain falling star as "Scarlet Worm", instead of "Wormwood".

The site owner has translated it into English, although it is a very clumsy attempt, I give him points for effort! Always check the Hebrew when uncertain. Instead of nitpicking all the translation errors he made in English, the Hebrew is right there to check for yourself.

In my opinion I say this is legitimate! He makes a convincing argument in his opening. What does everyone think about it?

Alright just read part way through the translation, seems pretty legit. I couldn't help but, wonder why they decided to keep menorot "lampstands" and ruach ha chodesh "the holy spirit" untranslated since they're not proper names?

 

[HARK!]

This portion of this book raises a question:

Translation 1.1 Sodot 17 93b
of the earth and to all the world, to gather them to war for the
day of YHWH the Mighty.1 14 [15] (“Look! I will come like a thief,
and blessed are those who do not sleep, but keeps himself that
he does not walk naked without clothes, that his nakedness be
not uncovered.”) 15 [16] And he gathered them to a place which
is called in the Hebrew tongue, Har-Megidon.

Why would a book, written in Hebrew, to Hebrews, have to explain what this place is called in the Hebrew tongue; as the name of this place is written in Hebrew?

 

[daq]

https://www.hebrewgospels.com/revel...mail&cid=316b3c0b-40e5-45dd-b2f3-fa02009b7e93

Here is a link to a Hebrew Book of Revelation that was found in a library. Textual analysis indicates this may be a copy of the original Hebrew Book of Revelation, which was later translated in Greek.

It was an interesting read. Points that stand out to me are the descriptions of the beasts, which do not seem to match Daniel as much in this version, the Hebrew poetry and rhyme when Yeshua speaks, absent in the Greek, and the name of a certain falling star as "Scarlet Worm", instead of "Wormwood".

The site owner has translated it into English, although it is a very clumsy attempt, I give him points for effort! Always check the Hebrew when uncertain. Instead of nitpicking all the translation errors he made in English, the Hebrew is right there to check for yourself.

In my opinion I say this is legitimate! He makes a convincing argument in his opening. What does everyone think about it?

From a first glance cursory look my opinion, (and just that, merely my opinion), would be to say be careful. I read the welcome page and applaud the work that this person is engaged in. However there are a few telltale signs that make me think that this is not as ancient as the translator might wish to believe. What I think may be happening here is that the translator may be mistaking the clear and present Jewish or Hebrew mindset displayed in the text for the mindset of the original author of the work. Several things give this away, again, in my opinion. I'll mention just a few things that lead me to believe this to be the case.

1) "he has made us kings and priests" should not be in this text if it is close to the original. Nowhere else are we said to be made kings and priests, but we are said to be made a kingdom of priests. The thinking that one is a king is a pretty big mistake, and we have good examples of that already in the scripture: just look how bad it was for Israel to desire to have a king over them when that first happened? What does the scripture say? Those that desired a king had rejected the Most High in desiring to have a king set over them.

The more ancient Greek texts do not say the same in Rev 1:6, (Revelation 1:6 Greek Text Analysis), but instead read, "and has made us a kingdom, priests unto God...". Not even the Byzantine textual family says "kings and priests", for the phrase is primarily found only in the Erasmus compilation text which later became the Textus Receptus or Received Text. (The phrase may be in a scant few later texts and maybe some Latin texts, I didn't check).

This does not bode well because, at least, imo, it tells me that this text is based on a version that was quite recent by comparison, (especially compared to what the translator and site owner seems to want to believe). What this would mean is what I touched on above, that is, that just because the text is full of Hebraisms and Jewish idiomatic thought does not mean it is the mind of the original author: it appears more to be that a more recent text was taken and rendered into the Hebrew/Jewish mindset of the scribe or person who did this work. That would mean that, yes, it appears much different and much more "Jewish", but is it the mind of the original author that we are reading or is it the mind of the Jewish scribe who took a late Greek text and converted it back into Hebrew? (I do agree the original Apocalypse may have been in Hebrew).

2) The name Antipas should not likely be in this text, and there are a host of reasons why, which I won't try to go into here, but this again tells me that the source text for this Hebrew text is probably much more recent than the translator would like to believe.

I believe the original Greek word in the most ancient texts of Rev 2:13 was the verb anteipas, (antepo, to speak against), but through a process known as itacism it erroneously came to be the name Antipas. The variant reading appears in manifold texts, to the point that even Tischendorf placed the verb form in his text, (Revelation 2 (Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.))

Here is a little primer on the subject matter:
Evangelical Textual Criticism: August 2016

(Scroll down to the short section titled "Three Interesting Variants at Rev. 2.13 Not in Nestle")

3) Another thing I noticed was the word used for carcass in Rev 11:8-9, which in this text is נבלה (twice, once in each verse, נבלתיהם, "their carcasses"), which should rather be domen, (דמן). If you look at this passage in the Greek text of Rev 11:8 you will find that the word for carcass is ptoma and in this case, strangely, even though it speaks of two individuals the word ptoma is singular in the Nestle-Aland text, (not in the T/R).

Revelation 11:8
8 και το πτωμα αυτων επι της πλατειας της πολεως της μεγαλης ητις καλειται πνευματικως σοδομα και αιγυπτος οπου και ο κυριος αυτων εσταυρωθη

The reason it is singular in the more ancient and more reliable Greek texts is because it more likely came from the word domen, as one may also see in the above text, we read το πτωμα αυτων, which is like saying "the carcass of them", (which is likely why it was changed or "corrected" in other more recent Greek texts). Domen is like a mass noun, and is used this way in the scripture for multiple corpses or carcasses in the singular. There is debate whether domen actually means dung or simply carrion, but one thing is sure: the usage of this word in the Prophet Yirmeyah fits "the layout of the landscape" in this passage of the Apocalypse.

I'll just quote the KJV here and let others do their own investigation, but it is clear by the context in these passages that several things stand out: "they shall not be lamented", "they shall not be buried", and "they shall be as dung/carrion (domen) upon the face of the earth". The two in Rev 11 also are not lamented, and not buried, and that's not to suggest they are evil, but the surrounding context in Jer 25 may seriously have much to do with what we read in Rev 11.

Jeremiah 8:2 KJV
2 And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth.

Jeremiah 9:22 KJV
22 Speak, Thus saith the LORD, Even the carcases of men shall fall as dung upon the open field, and as the handful after the harvestman, and none shall gather them.

Jeremiah 16:4 KJV
4 They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

Jeremiah 25:33-34 KJV
33 And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.
34 Howl, ye shepherds, and cry; and wallow yourselves in the ashes, ye principal of the flock: for the days of your slaughter and of your dispersions are accomplished; and ye shall fall like a pleasant vessel.

4) Domen is found in the exact same context, in the controversial reading of the now famous "Chazon Gabriel", (Vision of Gabriel), or Gabriel Stone, which caused such a stir a few years back when it was discovered. It's the same context as Rev 11 and it uses domen. This is the word which should have been in this Hebrew text, in Rev 11:8-9, if it was from anywhere near the original, but again, that's just my two cents opinion.

 

[Torah Keeper]

This portion of this book raises a question:

Translation 1.1 Sodot 17 93b
of the earth and to all the world, to gather them to war for the
day of YHWH the Mighty.1 14 [15] (“Look! I will come like a thief,
and blessed are those who do not sleep, but keeps himself that
he does not walk naked without clothes, that his nakedness be
not uncovered.”) 15 [16] And he gathered them to a place which
is called in the Hebrew tongue, Har-Megidon.

Why would a book, written in Hebrew, to Hebrews, have to explain what this place is called in the Hebrew tongue; as the name of this place is written in Hebrew?

I noticed in the Greek Revelation about the name of the destroying angel, his name is said "In the Greek tongue his name is Apollyon,..."

Revelation 9:11

So even with the Greek text we see this.

Domen seems to be decayed bodies, rotten flesh. So the bodies of the 2 witnesses don't decay, so domen is not the right word.

Other points aren't enough to disqualify it in my opinion. But I am still not 100% sure on it.

 

[HARK!]

I noticed in the Greek Revelation about the name of the destroying angel, his name is said "In the Greek tongue his name is Apollyon,..."

Revelation 9:11

So even with the Greek text we see this.

Well that verse started to raise the same question in my mind; until I finished reading the sentence.

(CLV) Re 9:11
They have a king over them the messenger of the submerged chaos. His Hebrew name is Abaddon, and in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

The name is given in both languages; so I dismissed the question at that time.

 

[Torah Keeper]

This portion of this book raises a question:

Translation 1.1 Sodot 17 93b
of the earth and to all the world, to gather them to war for the
day of YHWH the Mighty.1 14 [15] (“Look! I will come like a thief,
and blessed are those who do not sleep, but keeps himself that
he does not walk naked without clothes, that his nakedness be
not uncovered.”) 15 [16] And he gathered them to a place which
is called in the Hebrew tongue, Har-Megidon.

Why would a book, written in Hebrew, to Hebrews, have to explain what this place is called in the Hebrew tongue; as the name of this place is written in Hebrew?

Now that I think about it, it is a bit odd isn't it?

 

[HARK!]

Translation 1.1 Sodot 1 58b
messenger1 to his servant Yochanan2 – 2 the witness of the
word of YHWH, and the testimony of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach, of
that which he saw.3 3 Blessed is he who reads, and those who
hear this prophecy and establish that which is written.
4 Yochanan, [to] the seven elders in Asia: steadfast love and
shalom be with you, from him4 who was and is and will be, and
from the seven Ruchot 5 who are at 6 his throne. 5 And from
Yeshua Ha-Mashiach the faithful witness, and the first who
stood up from the dead ones

Verse 5 raises a question.

Here is a translation from the Greek. This source tends to conform to the Critical Text, in contrast to the Textus Receptus:



(CLV) Re 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness, the Firstborn of the dead, and the Suzerain of the kings of the earth. To Him Who is loving us and looses us from our sins by His blood

firstborn

πρωτοτοκος

BEFORE-most-BROUGHT_FORTH

This raises the question: Who was Lazarus?

(CLV) Jn 11:24
Martha is saying to Him, "I am aware that he will be rising in the resurrection in the last day."

αναστησεται

he-SHALL-BE-UP-STANDING

he-shall-be-rising

 

[HARK!]

5
About Manuscript
Interestingly, it was found in one of the Jewish Synagogues in
Cochin, India!

This is all of the information that I have been able to find regarding the origin of this manuscript.

However, upon viewing an image of the manuscript, I noticed the absence of niqqud. Would this suggest that it preceded the Masoretic Text?

 

[Torah Keeper]

I am not sure. I am starting to think the MT may be a much later date than we think. And yes, the English translation of Revelation is clunky. Firstborn, first in authority or importance, but also first to receive immortality. Lazarus was raised, along with lots of others, but they died again. And I suspect the 2 men who never died, Enoch and Elijah, will be the 2 witnesses.

 

[Humble Penny]

Translation 1.1 Sodot 1 58b
messenger1 to his servant Yochanan2 – 2 the witness of the
word of YHWH, and the testimony of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach, of
that which he saw.3 3 Blessed is he who reads, and those who
hear this prophecy and establish that which is written.
4 Yochanan, [to] the seven elders in Asia: steadfast love and
shalom be with you, from him4 who was and is and will be, and
from the seven Ruchot 5 who are at 6 his throne. 5 And from
Yeshua Ha-Mashiach the faithful witness, and the first who
stood up from the dead ones

Verse 5 raises a question.

Here is a translation from the Greek. This source tends to conform to the Critical Text, in contrast to the Textus Receptus:



(CLV) Re 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness, the Firstborn of the dead, and the Suzerain of the kings of the earth. To Him Who is loving us and looses us from our sins by His blood

firstborn

πρωτοτοκος

BEFORE-most-BROUGHT_FORTH

This raises the question: Who was Lazarus?

(CLV) Jn 11:24
Martha is saying to Him, "I am aware that he will be rising in the resurrection in the last day."

αναστησεται

he-SHALL-BE-UP-STANDING

he-shall-be-rising

I remember pondering this as well, and then I came to understand that beig the "firstborn of the dead", or as the translation shared with us by Torah Keeper puts it, "the first who stood up from the dead ones" is a reference to Yeshua being the first to rise from the dead unto eternal life, as opposed to the first person in history to rise from the dead. It is clear from certain Old Testamet examples that there others who rose from the dead during the times of Elijah and Elisha, therefore we know that John wasn't referring to Christ being the first person to rise from the dead; this idea may be fleshed out further when we connect the idea of being "born unto life" with "firstborn of the dead". The first birth into this world is a temporary life, while those born again at the last day will be born unto eternal life; therefore it would follow why our temporal death is the first death, while those who are condemned to the lake of fire suffer an eternal, or second death.

 

[Humble Penny]

I am not sure. I am starting to think the MT may be a much later date than we think. And yes, the English translation of Revelation is clunky. Firstborn, first in authority or importance, but also first to receive immortality. Lazarus was raised, along with lots of others, but they died again. And I suspect the 2 men who never died, Enoch and Elijah, will be the 2 witnesses.

You know I will have to create a separate thread on this line of thought you introduced with Enoch and Elijah being the only two people in history who never died, because there is actually a third:

1) Enoch
2) Elijah
3) Ezra

Of all of the editions of the Bible I have read which include the apocryphal books only the New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Interconfessional includes this ending. And the year 5000 AM which Ezra gives us means that hewas not only contemporaries with Ezekiel and Daniel, but also lets us know that this occured in the first year of Darius the Mede which is exactly when Daniel 9:1 and 11:1 was recorded to have happened! This was in the 53rd Year of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in the year 5000 AM as the LXX perfectly indicates!

2,242 Years (Adam to Flood)
1,247 Years (Flood to Abraham)
430 Years (Abraham to Moses)
511 Years (Moses to Saul)
517 Years (Saul to Babylon)
53 Years (Babylon to Darius the Mede)
5,000 Years (Adam to Darius the Mede)

So Darius the Mede ruled for 17 Years before Cyrus the Great came into power at the end of the 70 Year Babylonian Captivity of the Jews. Darius the Mede began his rule at 62 Years old and died at 79 Years old.

 

[Torah Keeper]

I never saw that about Ezra not dying. Why does only the NRSVCI include it? Where is the source for that?

 

[Humble Penny]

I never saw that about Ezra not dying. Why does only the NRSVCI include it? Where is the source for that?

Well the sources are in the screenshot I uploaded on post #15. Personally I haven't tracked down the scrolls, but for whatever reason the NRSV-CI is the only English Bible translation among all the Catholic editions which bothers to note that.

Otherwise the NRSV-CI says they got this information from the endings in the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and 1 Armenian editions of 2 Esdras.

 

[HARK!]

I found a group study on the first two chapters of this translation. I disagree with many of the conclusions drawn by those who led this study; but they still present some valuable information.

However, beginning at the 1:57:02 mark of the 'question and answer period', a woman adept at Hebrew, working directly off of the Hebrew text, makes some very interesting statements about some of the flaws in this translation.

The explanation that she gave for the word translated as "pierced" hit home with me.

The Passover was not a sin sacrifice in Egypt. I have concluded that it was a threshold covenant. In a threshold covenant, the master of the house slaughters an animal on his threshold, to invite his honored guest into his home, to dine on the slaughtered animal. That guest comes under his protection. He would lay down his life for him,as he would for his own family. This guest in effect becomes a member of his family. In Egypt Israel was inviting YHWH into their homes as a member of their family. You can find more details on this subject here: YHWH's Table (Part 8A)

However, in the renewed covenant, YHWH provided the Passover offering. From this I infer that though Yahshua, YHWH is inviting us as the honored guest into his home.

So where does the sin sacrifice fit in? Most Christians aren't interested in the what was brought to YHWH's Table as outlined in the Torah. It's troubling; because Moses speaks of Yahshua. I use the word's YHWH's Table, because many words, with different meaning have been translated as sacrifice.

I began a study on this subject here: YHWH's Table (Part 1)

In this portion of that study we begin to get to what is brought to YHWH's table regarding sin.: YHWH's Table (Part 5)

This was done for unintentional sin. This study is incomplete; but I have seen no signs that YHWH commands that anything be brought to his table for intentional sin.

This appears to be the truth today.

(CLV) Hb 10:26
For at our sinning voluntarily after obtaining the recognition of the truth, it is no longer leaving a sacrifice concerned with sins,

YHWH wants repentance.

Repentance is how YHWH spared Nineveh. Repentance is what reconciled the actions of Yahudim in exile, with no access to YHWH's Table.

As most Christians have little interest in the purpose of YHWH's table; most don't understand that what was brought to that table regarding sin never covered the unintentional sin. One was to love on the animal. He was to identify with it. As it was being killed; it was to hit home. His sin was to die with the animal. How much more should Yahshua's brutal death hit home, in our love for him?

However, the woman in this video compares the word used for "pierced" to what happened to the animals in Genesis 15.

This is the very same way that the animals were cut (karat) in the covenant that was cut (karat) in Jeremiah 34: 18-20.

(CLV) Jer 34:18
I will make the men, the trespassers of My covenant, who do not carry out the words of the covenant which they contracted before Me, like the calf which they cut in two and passed between its sundered parts,

(CLV) Jer 34:19
the chief officials of Judah and the chief officials of Jerusalem, the court officials and the priests and all the people of the land who passed between the sundered parts of the calf.

(CLV) Jer 34:20
I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those seeking their soul, and their carcasses will be food for the flyer of the heavens and for the beast of the earth.

This is one way that covenants were cut in those days. If someone broke the covenant after passing through the dismembered animal parts; he was saying that the violated person could do to him, what was done to the animals.

The word used in this manuscript might give us some insight as to how some of the early assembly viewed this renewed covenant though Yahshua's brutal death.

 

[daq]

Revelation 17:3-4 reads as follows in the Hebrew version, according to the transcript and reading of the author of the site, (I note that the author of this site has now added pointing to the Hebrew text: this was not so at first, or at least when this thread was started, if I remember correctly).

Notice that there is only one color mentioned for the clothing of the harlot woman, adom-red, (no purple, as in the Greek texts). It rather says red garments with the appearance of lilies, with lilies appearing in the text where we would expect to see the other color purple written. It appears that shoshani(m) ended up getting parted out in the first Greek translations, which resulted in a reading of shani, (crimson-scarlet), which then became kokkinos, (crimson-scarlet), in our extant Greek texts. This becomes even more likely and more understandable when realizing that the more likely original reading did not have the mem and was simply shoshani, "lily-like" flowers, (the mem was probably added later because people kept dividing the word and reading shani instead of shoshani). See this Sefaria link under the entry for the Klein Dictionary: Sefaria Search.

Moreover the likelihood of the above mistake becomes even more probable due to the fact that this Hebrew text is attaching the shin prefix for the relative pronoun, (who, which, what, etc.), which is essentially an abbreviation for asher, the relative pronoun. It is not difficult to imagine how this may have become a problem for some (church) scribes not familiar with such a practice, especially with a word like shoshani.

Shoshani is used by the Master himself in the Gospel of Matthew in quite a curious statement. Two older Hebrew texts, (DuTillet and Munster), contain this word shoshani in Matthew 6:28, "lily-like" flowers, as well as modern Hebrew renderings of the same passage.

Matthew 6:28 Hebrew Bible
וללבוש למה תדאגו התבוננו נא אל שושני השדה הצמחות אינן עמלות ואינן טות׃

But then look what he says in Matthew 6:30 following this statement: he switches from shoshani, lily-like flowers of the field, to the grass of the field. So he likens both to be as the same: and what does he say about the lily-like flowers of the field and the grass of the field? He says, "which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven"...

Uhhh, who goes around collecting grass of the field and lily-like flowers of the field once they have died out just to cast them into an oven or furnace? The only thing I can think of for doing so would be something like a quick-start, very short-lived kindling, as fuel to start a fire, but this seems highly doubtful and probably not worth the effort. The answer to this question should provide a big clue that he is not merely speaking of grass and lily-like flowers of the field. Moreover, in the Matthew passage, he is also speaking about clothing, just as is the Apocalypse passage under discussion herein.

Matthew 6:28-30 KJV
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

So then, if the Apocalypse was penned first, (for example, by Yohanne the Immerser), then the Master is expounding Rev 17:3-4 in Mat 6:28-30. And if the Gospel of Matthew was penned first, then the author of the Apocalypse in Rev 17:3-4, (by the usage of the word shoshani, once in each verse), is referring the reader back to the Testimony of the Master in Mat 6:28-30. Either way the Spirit of the prophecy is the Testimony of the Master, (Rev 19:10).

What is the Gematria of שושני?

Moreover, in the modern Hebrew renderings for Rev 17:5, the harlot woman has the number of the name of the beast written upon her forehead, which one would expect to find since she is seated on the beast, and since this is forced upon all the kingdom of the beast in Rev 13:15-18, it would surely be true of the woman in Rev 17.

Revelation 17:5 Hebrew Bible
ועל מצחה כתוב שם סוד בבל הגדולה אם הזנות ותועבות האדמה׃

סוד בבל הגדולה אם הזנות ~ "SOD BABEL THE GREAT MOTHER OF HARLOTS" (Gematria 666).

The two words on the end of the verse may be read as an afterthought or an author's addition because of the waw separation, but they may also be a gloss added to the text by a later scribe, or possibly even a partial homoeoteleuton scribal error, with abominations accidentally carried down from verse four, but either way, all one needs to do is see the final two words as though they are in parentheses and not part of the name written in the forehead of the woman, seeing that the words are surely true and probably belong there.

Isaiah 40:3-11 KJV
3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
9 O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.

1 Peter 1:24-25 KJV
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Any further thoughts on how legitimate and old this might be ???