Exploration 97 – The Hebrew Revelation

For those celebrating Shavuot this Sunday rather than last Sunday, Chag Shavuot Sameach!

There is evidence that Revelation was originally written in Hebrew. However, the original is unavailable and the manuscripts one has are rare and suffer from corruption. That means the surviving Greek texts, also not original, are still valuable as sources, but it raises interest in these surviving Hebrew manuscripts.

The following three videos by Justin J. van Rensburg provide some of this evidence and some of the insights one can learn from considering these sources. See Hebrew Gospels for more information.

In the first video he shows how to obtain photos of the manuscript of Revelation, a transcription and a translation. Then he provides an argument that this manuscript is an authentic copy of a chain of copies leading back to the original manuscript that was written in Hebrew. Finally, he uses this manuscript to resolve a puzzle in Revelation 22:2 that mentions that the Tree of Life was on both sides of the river having twelve different fruits.

He continues in the second video to resolve another puzzle: Is Yeshua or Satan the “morning star” referred to in Isaiah 14:12-14 especially considering that translations from the Greek of Revelation 22:16 also refer to Yeshua as the “morning star”. Given evidence from the Hebrew manuscript, Satan is the “morning star”, but Yeshua is the “morning light”.

Justin van Rensburg brings out the significance of this confusion (starting about 12:00) by referring back to Isaiah 14:12-14 where Satan (the “morning star”) claims he will make himself like the Most High. One of the ways Satan did this was by giving Yeshua the same title in the Greek version of Revelation that he himself had from Isaiah.

The third video provides evidence through Hebrew puns and direct quotes from the Old Testament that the original autograph was written in Hebrew.

______

Weekly Parashah Readings
Parashah: Behaalotecha, 19 Sivan, 5782 – June 18, 2022
Torah: Numbers 8:1-12:16
Haftarah: Zechariah 2:14-4:7
Brit Chadashah: 1 Corinthians 10:6-13; Revelation 11:1-19
Resources: Chabad, Hebrew4Christians, Weekly Torah Readings, Calendar

Tree In Bloom
Tree In Bloom

Author: Frank Hubeny

I enjoy walking, poetry and short prose as well as taking pictures with my phone.

30 thoughts on “Exploration 97 – The Hebrew Revelation”

      1. Especially the names in the [[Vatican Ebr. 100]] manuscript had been masked as ‘Catalan’ names – transliterated into awkward Hebrew – in order to give the manuscript a second-hand appearance. To this day, most scholars are sceptical about the authenticity of this manuscript largely because of the awkward, transliterated Catalan names.

        [[MS Vatican Ebr. 89]] and the Early Exegesis of Radak* YITZHAK BERGER** In the sixteenth century, R. Solomon Ibn Melekh, author of Mikhlal Yofi,1 referred to several commentaries of the eminent Provençal exegete R. David Kimh i (Radak; c. 1160-1235) that were unavailable to him and apparently not widely circulated.

        The Radak – a late early to early middle Reshon. This makes this “manuscript” a secondary source and NOT a primary source. Ooops try again.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. A Hebrew translation of the four Gospels is extant in a fifteenth-century manuscript now in the Vatican library. The manuscript is a copy of the original translation and there is no indication as to who the translator or copyist were. A close reading shows that the Hebrew was translated from Catalan, and is based on a manuscript which was then used for the Peiresc version (which contains the fourteenth-century Catalan translation of the Bible). The historical context of the translation along with some interesting anomalies in the translation itself raise questions about the identity of the translator and whether he was a Jew, a convert, or a Christian.

          Hebrew translation: Peiresc version – History of Religion Becomes Ethnology: Some Evidence from Peiresc’s Africa. Bound up amidst Peiresc’s copies of his letters to the Paduan antiquary Lorenzo Pignoria from the winter of 1615–16 is a text of four sides entitled, in large letters, “Delli Popoli della China” and continuing, in smaller ones, “written by P. Ioannes Pietro Maffei History of the Indies, Fr. Antonio di Saint Roman, in the History of the East Indies, Fr. Juan Gonzalez de Mendoza Augustino, in the books on China, and others.

          Peiresc added one crucial element to an Egypto-genetic argument otherwise like that of Pignoria, who made it as early as 1615 in his additions to Cartari’s Imagini degli dei de gli antichi. Peiresc wrote that the Basilidians embraced many Egyptian superstitions “which easily could have been introduced and insinuated, over time, with some patina of Christianity, even to China, Japan, and Mexico, many centuries after the dissipation of this most ancient and grand Egyptian Empire.” It would not be until Athanasius Kircher’s Prodromus Coptus of 1636 that anyone would suggest that the presence of anything Egyptian in China could be a function of Christianity, rather than some pre-historic cultural encounter.

          The Coptic or Egyptian Forerunner published in 1636 by the Jesuit scholar Athanasius Kircher. The book was Kircher’s first venture into the field of Egyptology, and it also contained the first ever published grammar of the Coptic language. Likewise, the discovery of Nestorian texts in China suggested that Christianity was not a recent introduction to the country, and that there was a connection between the ancient civilisations of the world. Kircher, along with other scholars of his age, was actively looking for links to connect China with the civilisations of the ancient world. In Prodromus he theorised that there had been ancient “Egyptian or Coptic expeditions into India, China and other parts of Asia”, and Coptic colonies in Africa and Asia.

          He was particularly interested in the Xi’an Stele, which had both Chinese and Syriac inscriptions and was evidence of an early historic Christian presence in China. The “Nestorian Stele,” is a Tang Chinese limestone bloc/slab/stele\ erected in 781 that documents 150 years of early Christianity in China.

          The stele is thought to have been buried in 845, during a campaign of anti-Buddhist persecution, which also affected Christian missionizers. The stele was unearthed in the late Ming dynasty (between 1623 and 1625) beside Chongren Temple outside of Xi’an, that city, the third most populous city in Western China today.

          The city was renamed Chang’an by the Tang dynasty. In the mid-7th century, after returning from his pilgrimage to India, the Buddhist monk Xuanzang established a translation centre for Sanskrit scriptures. The Nestorian Stele, a Tang Chinese stele erected in 781 that documents 150 years of early Christianity in China. The initial Nestorian Christian church had met recognition by the Tang Emperor Taizong, due to efforts of the Christian missionary Alopen in 635.

          Frank your attempt to make similar research speculation which attempts to suggest that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. LOL compares to the Catholic attempts to show Xtian influence in China.

          Liked by 1 person

              1. Unless they are part of a manuscript chain that goes back to an original Hebrew autography. I know that is not possible given your worldview, but it is given mine.

                Like

                  1. I trashed a disparaging comment by you that you made as a reply to someone who posted to my blog. If you do this again, I will prevent you from posting anything here going forward.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Which disparaging comment do ya refer to. Perhaps the KKK reference? Gee Frank I thought it a funny joke. Xtians often take themselves toooooooo seriously. LOL

                      Like

  2. I took the time to watch the video on the “Morning Star.”
    God created ALL, and ALL were good BEFORE THE FALL. Prior to the Fall the fallen angels, they were ALL morning stars at first as stated in Job. 38;7
    ” When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody.”
    According to Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary
    “Ver. 7. Sons. Septuagint, “all my angels.” Hence it appears that the angels were among the first of God’s works, formed probably at the same time with the heavens (Calmet) or light, Genesis i. 3. (Haydock) — The praise of the stars is figurative (Calmet) as they tend to raise our hearts to God by their beauty, (Haydock) whereas that of the angels is real. (Calmet)

    Yet, after the Fall, Satan and his ilk became the father of lies, Satan’s claim to “Morning Star” was no longer his but a fallen star.

    Jesus, offspring of David, (His incarnation) through the Holy Ghost’s and God the Father’s creations, included His masterpiece the Virgin Mary. In the litany of Mary she is titled, and rightly so. Morning Star through the incarnation of Christ.

    Why believe Satan the father of lies?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am still trying to sort through the issues around the morning star. Thank you for this perspective, Myrna. Not everything that the van Rensburgs write I agree with. However, I am glad they have translated these manuscripts since I could not do that myself.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not at all surprising that Nehemia Gordon & Michael Rood support this narishkeit. Justin J. Van Rensburg “The Hebrew Gospels from Spain” have previously refuted. LOL, ooops perhaps ya forgot. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Based upon what you personally believe than what you can rationally prove and logically argue. Torah – not a belief system; avodah zarah most definitely a belief system.

            Like

        3. Actually Nehemia Gordon and Justin van Rensburg disagree over how to pronounce YHVH. I don’t know what either Gordon or Rood’s opinion is of the van Rensburgs’ efforts. I, however, am glad to be able to read their work.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Attempts to pronounce the Name = the avodah zarah of the golden calf when Aaron translated the Spirit of the Name to a word. We have discussed this in depth.

            Like

            1. The golden calf has nothing to do with “attempts to pronounce the Name”. You are trying to rationalize not pronouncing the Name by calling it a form of idolatry.

              Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: