Revelation - The Songs in Heaven are in Aramaic

EclipseEventSigns

Well-known member
The Book of Revelation has a lot of singing in it. Have you ever noticed that before? Singing usually means rhyme and meter. Poetry follows certain rules.

If you've done much research into the language used in the Book of Revelation, you've most likely come across the issue that the Greek is a mess. Full of grammatical errors. It's always surprised me that God would make Scripture full of embarrassing mistakes like that. It just was very hard to accept. Scholars and expert linguists have tried to explain why.

There are many grammatical errors in the original text. These have been corrected in the translations. An easy explanation is that John was writing in a foreign language and under stress. He had no time to consider the niceties of grammar, which he would do if he were writing under favorable conditions.
Arthur E Bloomfield, "The Key to Understanding Revelation" p 11
According to Charles, the language of John was that of someone who thought in Hebrew but wrote in Greek.
"R. H. Charles and Modern Biblical Studies" James VanderKam p 11
But according to C. C. Torrey:
For the Apocalyptist, the language of the New Dispensation, of the Christian church, was Aramaic only. It is most significant that the numerous hymns and doxologies sung or recited by the saints and angels in heaven, in chapter after chapter of the book, are composed in Aramaic (wherever it is possible to decide), not in Hebrew, though the writer could have used either language.
The Language and Date of the Apocalypse "Documents of the Primitive Church" p151

A very striking feature of the Apocalypse is the amount of lyric verse which it contains. In chapter after chapter, and often more than once in a single chapter, the vision pauses for a brief chorus sung by angels or other heavenly beings, by the army of martyrs (15:3), or again by all created things (5 :i3). These doxologies and little songs of triumph are all in strict metrical form. They are generally not printed as poetry in our texts and translations, and thus the reader loses some of the impression which they could create. A large part of the Apocalypse is in rhythmical form, after the manner of the O. T. prophecies; to what extent the rhythm is in a definite literary mode, or occasionally becomes truly metrical, it may some day be possible to determine. The lyrical outbursts, however, are not patterned on Hebrew prophecy, but are a new feature. We seem to have here a bit of the early Church hymnology, that of the Jewish- Christian congregations.

The meters employed in the songs are the same which are used in the Hebrew scriptures, but the language here is Aramaic, not Hebrew. Easily recognized are both the line of 3 + 3 metric accents and that of 3 + 2, and the manner of their use has in it nothing new.

The Language and Date of the Apocalypse "Documents of the Primitive Church" p155
 
Here are 3 songs which he has back translated from the Greek into Aramaic. How could he do this. Because the "mistakes" in the Greek reflect actual Aramaic grammatical rules. Once he used the most common Aramaic word for the Greek, then the most likely original emerged.
He states:
Both songs read smoothly and are high-sounding in the Aramaic.
p211
This is after discussing only 2. The 3rd is likewise grammatically correct Aramaic.

Some notes to understanding this. You don't have to know Aramaic.
1. It is read right to left.
2. The colored boxes show similar sounds - the rhymes
3. The orange bars are just a visual display of the stanzas and show the structure


revelationSong_5-9_color.png

revelationSong_15-3_color.png


revelationSong_19-6_color.png
 
Last edited:
I failed to see any argument here other than an assertion.

Do you think God's power was unable to preserve any of these Aramaic originals for us to examine today?

Edited
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I failed to see any argument here other than an assertion

Do you think God's power was unable to preserve any of these Aramaic originals for us to examine today
2 minutes from when I posted. You can't possibly have read or researched. Just blasted an edited response. This is not the behaviour that's wanted or should be supported on this board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As further evidence, I took the first song and constructed a transliteration to examine the vocal sounds. This shows the internal rhyme and overall meter of the song. The accents are arranged in 3 + 2 structure. The rhyme within the lines become very obvious. And this is grammatically correct Aramaic. I then compared it with the passage as found in the Peshitta and it matches very closely.

You can easily do this yourself to verify. The rules of the Hebrew letters and vowel markers are very easy to find. Aramaic can be written using several alphabets - the Hebrew being one of them.

And to be clear. This rhyme and meter does not appear in the Greek text. Only the Aramaic. This shows that these songs will be sung in Aramaic in heaven.


revelationsong_5-9_color-png.253



revelationSong_5-9_translit.png
 
Last edited:
The Book of Revelation has a lot of singing in it. Have you ever noticed that before? Singing usually means rhyme and meter. Poetry follows certain rules.

If you've done much research into the language used in the Book of Revelation, you've most likely come across the issue that the Greek is a mess. Full of grammatical errors. It's always surprised me that God would make Scripture full of embarrassing mistakes like that. It just was very hard to accept. Scholars and expert linguists have tried to explain why.



But according to C. C. Torrey:

There are variant manuscripts of "Revelations". Which variant do you find certainty in?
 
As this thread gives evidence for, the text was most certainly originally written in Aramaic. The Crawford Codex seems to be the best manuscript that contains the accurate and original text.

Key word "seems". I will take this journey you're undertaking with you but I'm going to expect you to clearly state your methodology to decide between competing sources. In my opinion, you should lead with evidence such as this before assuming your OP is true.
 
Since this is not a area I'm familiar with I will sit back and learn from your guys dialogue. I'm familiar with N.T. Greek manuscripts. So I will sit back and learn as a student. :)
 
Key word "seems". I will take this journey you're undertaking with you but I'm going to expect you to clearly state your methodology to decide between competing sources. In my opinion, you should lead with evidence such as this before assuming your OP is true.
I'm not going to do the research for you. If you are interested, I include ALL sources for YOU to investigate for YOURSELF. That's what a Berean does. Not spoonfeed those who have decided before hand not to accept any of this.
 
I'm not going to do the research for you. If you are interested, I include ALL sources for YOU to investigate for YOURSELF. That's what a Berean does. Not spoonfeed those who have decided before hand not to accept any of this.

I'm not bound by YOUR preferred sources. I know the evidence. You can deal with me. Invite your source if you like. They can participate.
 
I'm not going to do the research for you. If you are interested, I include ALL sources for YOU to investigate for YOURSELF. That's what a Berean does. Not spoonfeed those who have decided before hand not to accept any of this.
I think he is interested in learning what you know. Think of it as mentoring/discipleship. I'm interested too :)
 
I think he is interested in learning what you know. Think of it as mentoring/discipleship. I'm interested too :)
Unfortunately, he is NOT interested. He is only here to mock and denigrate. I've include all original sources for EVERYTHING I've ever posted. I don't accept people whose first knee-jerk response is to dismiss it without making SOME effort to check things out for themselves.
 
Unfortunately, he is NOT interested. He is only here to mock and denigrate. I've include all original sources for EVERYTHING I've ever posted. I don't accept people whose first knee-jerk response is to dismiss it without making SOME effort to check things out for themselves.

I'm challenging your methods. Without proper methods.... all we ever do is "spin our wheels"

I have never seen any evidence that establishes what you're claiming. I've spent significant time and study myself to know this issue.
 
I'm challenging your methods. Without proper methods.... all we ever do is "spin our wheels"

I have never seen any evidence that establishes what you're claiming. I've spent significant time and study myself to know this issue.
If that's the case, have you actually read "The Apocalypse of St. John" by John Gwynn?
 
I may have. We are talking over 30 years here.... I don't own the writing. If you have something to use from him, make it your own and support it.
Actually, if you haven't even bothered to check any of the sources I've ALREADY given, then just move on and keep your opinions to yourself. This is not how discussions work.
 
Actually, if you haven't even bothered to check any of the sources I've ALREADY given, then just move on and keep your opinions to yourself. This is not how discussions work.

That is exactly how discussions work. I don't have to read the entirety of your sources. I know the subject myself. Invite the expert to defend "HIS POSITION" or make it your own.

I keep having to say this over and over again.....

I don't know the times I've done what you're asking me to do..... to only have that person say.... "well...... I don't believe that". I gave up trying to comply with such demands of me.

If you don't know enough of it to defend it yourself, then you're wasting everyone's time.
 
To support such a claim, I believe it is necessary to demonstrate the stability of Aramaic over time.....

I can't help but see the method being used here comes from circular reasoning.

Why Aramaic from this particular manuscript?
 
That is exactly how discussions work. I don't have to read the entirety of your sources. I know the subject myself. Invite the expert to defend "HIS POSITION" or make it your own.

I keep having to say this over and over again.....

I don't know the times I've done what you're asking me to do..... to only have that person say.... "well...... I don't believe that". I gave up trying to comply with such demands of me.

If you don't know enough of it to defend it yourself, then you're wasting everyone's time.
You seem to have a very skewed understanding of what a discussion is. The "expert" that you want is the source document itself. Do you not investigate the original manuscripts and texts? Or do you rely on and blindly accept some person to guide your opinion? I choose to listen to an opinion and then find the source document and look it over for myself to make up my own mind. If that's not what you do, then I'm not interested in anything you have to say. You are just regurgitating things.

I don't think YOU get it. I don't have to defend anything. The facts are the facts. The evidence is the evidence. I don't deal with "opinions" or "hearsay". If you can't be bothered to check out the sources for yourself, then really, I have absolutely no desire in responding to anything you have to say.

It's like you don't even read to comprehend. You have a made up mind about every subject. No one can tell you anything different. We all had better watch out if we write something you don't agree with because you know everything about everything. I can state with almost certainty that you haven't even bothered to check out for yourself whether or not the transliteration of the Aramaic song text is correct (at the beginning of this thread). The point of this thread is to discuss that. And if you don't have the interest or need to verify for yourself, then please, stop polluting this thread already.
 
Back
Top Bottom