and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, ²who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw. (New American Standard Bible – NASB)

I’ve started gathering the information for the rabbit hole on the dating of the Gospels. As you can imagine, there are multiple, multiple sources on this topic, so I suspect I’m looking at doing several posts. Realizing that I only had one more post to complete the second verse of chapter one in Revelation, I decided to go ahead and complete that first. 

We’re in the 21st century:

“The oldest manuscripts of ‘John’s Revelation’ we have today are in Greek. John was unquestionably a multi-lingual Jew, as were many of his contemporaries. But it is still hard to imagine Jesus speaking to John in Greek (his non-native language) in heaven. Though the text we possess today is in Greek, imagining the Hebrew subtext gives us a great interpretive advantage. We can stand closer to the actual events that occurred in John’s series of visions if we explore them in the context of ancient Hebrew.”

I agree with this totally. More than that, many commentators have spoken about John’s awful Greek; but some have pointed out that the Greek contains Hebraicisms that cause the Greek to look really bad. This suggests, to me anyway, that the Greek version of Revelation, that is thought of as the original, is actually a poor translation of the Hebrew into the Greek. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s thought of this, and there will be more light shed on this topic in the up-coming rabbit hole.

“Take the Hebrew word for ‘revelation,’ for example. It is hitgalut, and its basic meaning is not much different from its Greek counterpart. It simply means to ‘uncover something that was hidden.’ The term comes from the verb galah, which means ‘to uncover,’ ‘to disclose,’ and ‘to expose.’ It is a common verb used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible. There is another common Hebrew word that sounds a lot like hitgalut — galut. It means ‘exile’ and describes what happened to the Israelites when they were taken to Persia and Babylon. Sometimes this word is used to describe Jews living outside the borders of Israel, even when they do so voluntarily. The words resemble each other for a reason. Could it be that the meaning of ‘exile’ (galut) is somehow connected to the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘revelation’? Yes, it is possible, and this is precisely how the meanings actually connect. There are two sides to Revelation and Exile.”

This word study is interesting. I checked the meaning of the words through reverso.net and the author is spot on. But, he doesn’t mention that there is a Hebrew word, gilui, which also means ‘revelation.’ I don’t know Hebrew, but it seems that this word could also be related to galut (exile). 

Read on to see how the words connect:

“It was God’s judgment upon Israel to send his people to be among the nations. In times past, God temporarily withdrew his protection from Israel, and they were conquered by the pagan nations. This constitutes an exile — God uncovering and exposing his people, intentionally making them vulnerable before the nations. Thus ‘revelation’ and ‘uncovering’ can be seen in a negative sense of exile and punishment. But naturally, there is also a positive side to this concept. God has uncovered something not seen before He revealed it to John. Jesus was exposed, revealed, and made compressible in a new light, in the light of his glory. It was as if his glory was concealed during his ‘exile’ on earth, but now in John’s visions, it is revealed in the heavens.”

I really love this! This is the kind of depth at which we really need to be studying. And truly, this is just scratching the surface of how the Bible can be studied, and what understandings can be had.

“At the time of John’s writing, most Jews were in ‘exile’ (galut) across the world, but God promised that in the last days he would gather his people from the four corners of the world (Is. 11:12). This would end the exile and the same time end Israel’s exposure to the wrath of the nations. Even John himself was in exile, confined to the island of Patmos. Perhaps this helps to cast that scary word ‘apoclaypse’ in a more positive light.

And He will lift up a flag for the nations and assemble the banished ones of Israel, and will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.    
(Isaiah 11:12; NASB)

“We are not alone in maintaining that Revelation is a Jewish apocalyptic text. Sometimes, the Jewishness of the book of Revelation is so obvious that some scholars who do not see early Jesus traditions as being organically Jewish must concoct an explanation. They erroneously propose that the current form of the book of Revelation has many clustered Christian interpolations (mostly Chap. 1 and 22), which were not in the original Jewish texts but were inserted later. There is a theory that the original pre-Christian version of Revelation had no distinctively Christian theological trademarks.”

I’m still not sold on Revelation being a “Jewish apocalyptic text,” because I still think that it’s too different. But, I think that Revelation is much like Daniel, and Daniel is the prototype for the “Jewish apocalyptic text.” My point is that these two books of prophecy, and perhaps others, are the way they are because of the way God reveals things, not because the author is following a format. These books then suggested a format to others (both Christian and Jewish) to follow to make their dreams or imaginations or just logical thinking, sound like it came from God. I could be totally wrong here, but that’s what I think.

I really agree with the rest of this so far though. I am totally uncomfortable with the idea that some random scribe added “Christian” lines into a “Jewish apocalyptic text,”on several levels. It makes much more sense to me that it was a Christian text written by a Jewish person. More than that, Jews are the way they are, and write the way they do, from following God. 

Revelation was written down by a Jewish Christian; but even if he weren’t Jewish, wouldn’t God’s words suggest a Jewish character? Just a thought.

“James Tabor writes that such presumed Christianization of the original Jewish Book of Revelation can be argued as follows: If one removes ‘the Christian material,’ the text itself can be read fluidly, if not more fluidly. In the example below, the alleged Christian interpolations to the Jewish original are in boldface type. ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.’

“Although this is an intriguing proposition that highlights the Jewish character of Revelation, we view the above exercise as futile and exceedingly subjective. There is no scientific way to determine what was added to the text. We have no ancient manuscripts that have those phrases omitted. Many phrases that have no connection to Christian doctrines could be just as easily removed, and the main text would still be fluid. Therefore, this in and of itself proves nothing. A number of other considerations need to be made.”

I agree with the criticisms of Tabor’s work. James Tabor is a retired Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, having studied and taught at various American universities; one of his specialties is studying the origins of Christianity and early Judaism. I think that the biggest criticism of his work is the fact that all of the ancient manuscripts of Revelation actually have the “Christian” references.

“Scholars observed that the Samaritan version of the Torah reads much more fluidly than the Jewish Torah. The Jewish Torah is far more unpolished and at times, inconsistent and convoluted in its presentation…So, in our opinion, just because the text reads more fluidly once the explicitly ‘Christian’ content is removed, the meaning is unchanged. To conclude otherwise overstates any evidence that supposed ‘Christian interpolations’ in Revelation are anything more than a curious and intriguing possibility. There is no known textual evidence to support this idea.

“But there is another more central problem…In short, those who hold this view fail to see that such phrases (designated by them in boldface) as ‘Jesus Christ’ and his ‘testimony’ (among others) are also first-century Jewish terms and native Jewish concepts that only centuries later became distanced from their original Israelite context and came to be understood as ‘Christian’. Such differentiation between Jewish and Christian material is an anachronistic and artificial argument. Such arguments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the first-century Jewish environment, as well as the absence of any subsequent, clear-cut Christian identity as opposed to Jewish identity.”     [from HEBREW INSIGHTS FROM REVELATION, by Eliyahu Lizorkin-Eyzenberg and Shir Pinchas, 2021]

This last argument is a really sad commentary on a PhD-trained professor of ancient Judaism. Wikipedia states that Tabor is “frequently consulted by the media on these topics and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs.” In this day and age, saying this about a person is no complement; it, rather, suggests compromise and misinformation: presenting “facts” as the public wants to hear them, as opposed to how they truly are.

This next source is part of the introduction to the Hebrew version of Revelation that was found in the Cambridge University Library in England: 

“‘These are the confidential counsels (sodot) which YHVH gave to Yeshua Ha-Mashiach…’

“The very word from which the title ‘Revelation’ is usually obtained, is different in this Hebrew version! Rather than the expected ‘revelation’ which would be ‘chazon’ in Hebrew, we find ‘sodot’ instead.”

This is very interesting. The word “chazon” is not the word that Lizorkin-Eyzenberg and Pinchas used for “revelation” in Hebrew. “Chazon” is Strong’s #H2377 and means a vision, a dream, a revelation or oracle; a revelation by means of a vision. This seems like a good word choice, but that’s not what this Hebrew version is called, it’s called “sodot”. “Sodot” is Strong’s #H5475, and it means assembly, close friend, council, counsel, secret plot, secret counsel.

“‘Sodot’ is the plural form of ‘sod,’ and does not mean ‘revelation,’ but rather ‘confidential counsels’ or ‘secrets.’ Thus the Hebrew title for the Book of Revelation should really be Ele Ha-Sodot, meaning ‘These are the Confidential Counsels.’ To some people this might sound like a meaningless variant, but interestingly, this Hebrew word ‘sod’ is repeated in several passages throughout the book.

“Authentic Hebrew documents often contain such repeated keywords, and this can link together some seemingly unrelated verses or passages. Let’s consider an example from the Tanach (Old Testament):

“Jeremiah 1:11-12: ‘What do you see Yirmeyahu [Jeremiah]? Then I said, “I see an almond branch.” Then YHVH said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to do it.”’

“In most English translations it is very difficult to see any connection between this vision and its interpretation. What does ‘an almond branch’ have to do with ‘watching’?

“Well, in Hebrew this makes perfect sense, as a key root word is repeated in the vision as well as in the interpretation! The Hebrew word for ‘almond’ is ‘shaqed,’ and the Hebrew word for ‘watching’ is ‘shoqed.’ Both these words are formed from the same root word as shown below:

“Root-word: Shaqad

“Almond: Shaqed

“Watching: Shoqed

“Sadly, such keyword connections in the original Hebrew are nearly always lost in translation, not only in English but even in Greek! The Greek Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew words ‘shaqed’ and ‘shoqed’ as two Greek words which sound very different: ‘karuinen’ and ‘egregora.’

“Because most languages do not use similar words for ‘almonds’ and ‘watching,’ only the original Hebrew version fully preserves this beautiful keyword link.

“Now, with this background, let’s get back to Revelation and the Hebrew word Sod. Not only does this word occur in chapter one verse one, but also in:

“Revelation 1:20: ‘Now the confidential counsel (sod) of the seven stars…’

“Revelation 10:7: ‘…all these confidential counsels (sodot) YHVH will be completed…’

“Revelation 17:5: ‘…The secret (sod) of the Great City Bavel…’

“Revelation 17:7: ‘…I want to tell you the secret (sod) of the woman…’

“Thus in the Hebrew version there is a clear theme throughout the book, starting in chapter one, verse one!

“However, the Greek version of Revelation uses ‘apokalupsis’ (meaning ‘appearance’ or ‘revelation’) in chapter one verse one, probably to interpret or explain to the reader that the secrets are now revealed. But just as we saw in the above example from Jeremiah, part of this keyword based time is lost in the Greek translation. The Greek word ‘apokalupsis’  only occurs once in the entire Greek Revelation — with zero repetition Also, reconstructed Hebrew translations which follow the Greek reading, all use words related to ‘reveal’ or ‘appear’ in this verse, unlike this Hebrew manuscript.

“Thus the Hebrew reading Oo.1.16 for Revelation 1:1 is linguistically authentic, and not a second-hand translation, because:

1. The Hebrew reading enables a keyword-based theme through the book, and
2. the Hebrew reading differs from the Greek, Latin, and Aramaic versions by not using any form of ‘reveal’ or ‘appear’ in chapter one, verse one.

“If the Hebrew Revelation of Oo.1.16 derived from any Greek-based version, the above difference should not have existed.”     [from THE HEBREW REVELATION, JAMES AND JUDE (based on Ms. Oo.1.16 and Ms. Oo.1.32 from the Cambridge University Library), by Justin and Michael J. Van Rensburg, 2022]

By studying the Hebrew, even if we don’t really know the language, we can learn so much about the intentions of the original writer. In this case, we were thinking about Revelation from the Latin, and from the Greek (apokalupsis),  as “a revealing of mysteries.” Here, we see that Revelation (Sodot) means “a revealing of secrets.” I don’t know about you, but “secrets” seems more powerful than “mysteries.” “Mysteries” are things that you just haven’t learned about yet. “Secrets” are things that have been kept from you, until now. Very interesting.

There are further key-word themes and other Hebrew word-plays that we will discuss when we get to them.

“Let me give you an example as we once again look very closely at Revelation 1:1. It says, ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, to shew unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John.” It is worth noting that John penned this nearly 2,000 years ago, and it is very clear that what he’s speaking about is not for some far-off future time, but events that would shortly come to pass, in his original hearers’ day.”

Clear? We’ve already seen that the closer you look at this, the less clear that is. 

“To understand this better, let me call your attention to this portion of the opening: ‘[God] sent and signified it.’ This simple statement is extremely important for us to understand. The word ‘signified’ is most interesting. Break that word up and you get: “Sign-i-fied.’ God communicated this to John through His angel in signs and symbols. We’re told right from the outset that this book is written in signs and symbols. Revelation has been written in code; if you’re going to understand this enigmatic book, you’ve got to decipher this code. You’re going to need to get into the same spirit that John was in when received this revelation. Also, we must realize that this book was written in code not just so it would be difficult to understand but so it could be passed around undetected through the Roman Empire. (It would have been considered seditious if it had been written in plain language.)”     [THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHURCH FROM A MODERN PERSPECTIVE OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by Lynn Hiles, 2021]

Oh my. It’s unfortunate that we must end on a commentator who is harkening back to the old “sign-i-fy” canard. And then he goes even further by stating that Revelation is written in “code.” There is no “code;” I think that if there was a “code,” it would have been figured out over the last 2000 years, and wouldn’t be waiting for Hiles to reveal it. More than that, how is a coded book called Revelation? A coded book keeps things hidden, it isn’t revealing them.

The next question is: how would you get into the “same spirit that John was in”? We are indwellt with the Holy Spirit, but clearly John was experiencing being “in the spirit” much differently than your average, 21^st century Christian.

Lastly, we’ve discussed before how the Romans were not concerned about what was being written in “holy books.”  They didn’t care what was written even if it was seditious. They didn’t care what people thought of them and their rule. It was what people did that got them into trouble; threatening to do something might get you into trouble, if say, you did it in front of a Roman soldier, but usually, it wouldn’t. Remember that Pilot was not concerned at all that Jesus said He was a King; Jesus had not led an uprising, nor even threatened one; Pilot declared Him innocent. It was the Sanhedrin that were upset by what Jesus was saying; it was the Sanhedrin that saw the teachings of Jesus threatening their power; and it was the Sanhedrin who insisted He be killed by the Romans.

As I said before, this is the last post on this topic. The next Revelation post, after the rabbit hole, will be on verse 3, though I think I’m going to change the format a bit so that we can move along a little faster. 

Up to now, I’ve tried to include every commentary I can with each phrase or verse to give the reader a taste for all these commentaries. I did this so that the reader could choose for him/herself which commentaries would suit them best for personal reading. I think we’ve done enough of that at this point, so I’m going to start following concepts instead. I will continue to comment on every part of Revelation, and, I will continue to read through the relevant part of each commentary, but, I will only quote those commentaries that are bringing up a new idea or interpretation. This way we can follow more closely how the interpretations morphed and changed through the centuries. I think this will be a fascinating way to look at Revelation.