The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by klewis »

Ben,

Sorry about putting this in a PDF but here is where Daniel 12 enters into the book of Revelation (see https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gfQzJu ... sp=sharing). The placement is critical, it is prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in Revelation 11. The message of the mighty angel is that things will happen real soon (Rev 10:6). If we use that as the the point in time the author wants us to believe when it was written then that makes Rev 17:9-14 easier to understand. (NIV):

9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”


The king now is Vespasian.
The one who ruled a little while is Titus. Ruled for only two years.
The one who is the beast is Domitian.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:20 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:10 am
The problem with dating the final version of this text to a time very long after the death of its putative author is that the actual author would be making the putative author prophesy inaccurately ("the time is near").
that is the worse argument among all to date a text:

The critic later added from his own study the Epistula Apostolorum, where the apocalypse is expected in the mid-2nd century (120 years after the time of Christ)

http://peterkirby.com/dialogue-concerni ... stems.html

The argument from failed apocalypticism works well to consider 1 Tess as genuine but only because 2 Tess corrects 1 Tess from that POV.
Your post makes no sense.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by Giuseppe »

So are you denying that failed apocalypticists existed in 2° century CE ? According to your argument, the Epistula Apostolorum has to be dated before the end of 1° CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by Bernard Muller »

klewis,
My goal was not to explore from where the author drew his imagery & prophecies. I just wanted to demonstrate Revelation was first written as a fully Jewish document (right after the events of 70 CE), and then added with Christian elements later on.
Sure, the author incorporated a lot of OT stuff in his text. Actually Revelation is full of them.
I think that is because the author wanted to comply with a lot of prophecies made in the past, in order to make his book not foreign to what has been written before, by prophets long ago. That would make Revelation more believable. Of course the author wanted these old prophecies to be understood in his present context (end of 1st century CE).

BTW, I cited Ezekiel as a source: "The imagery is very much inspired by the O.T. books, such as 'Ezekiel', 'Isaiah', 'Zechariah', 'Joel' & 'Daniel'." (http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by klewis »

Bernard,

Our early encounters have started from a rocky start. From my perspective, I never seen it as a goal to explore but why my work was wrong and where your were superior. Early on, I pointed out that the problem with your process is that it excludes the possibility that the writer took Hebrew documents, copied them, and flavored them with Christian flavor. I also wanted understanding of your methodology of the process in which apocalyptic literature was written. Those back then and now are the two questions I still have today.

Furthermore, you may make a blanket statement as to the text comes from here at the beginning but you needed to look at the text when you did your analysis. For example, in Revelation 4:6 you said this:
6 Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal.
[probably refer to the top of the vault (or firmament) over the earth: see Genesis1:6-8. Also in 1Enoch18:3 "And I saw how the winds stretch out the vaults of heaven," and Job22:14 RSV "Thick clouds enwrap him [God], so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven.'"]
` And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.
If you would have read Ezekiel 1 and saw that the imagery is consistent with Revelation 4, but backwards. You would have seen that the sea of glass comes from Ezekiel 1:22. I seriously doubt that the imagery of Genesis 1:6-8, 1 Enoch 18:3 and Job 22:14 was in the mind of the author when he wrote it.

That is not to say that my work is without errors. You have pointed a few of them out. How ever, might I suggest that if your goal was to explore, and to have others listen to you, that you refrain from extreme statements.
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:04 am to Klewis,
I am amazed how you twist and invent things to support your agenda and to deny an original strictly Jewish Revelation.

Let's start by Rev 11:8: "...the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."
Frankly, I don't see what that have to do with Ezekiel 5, interlaced with Zechariah 2, 4.

About the two prophets of Revelation: why do you assume to be Jesus (the son of Jozadak) & Zerubbabel? Why would the twosome stand for Jesus (of Nazareth)? Pure imagination from your part.

"John" used some OT passages for inspiration, or even material, but out of the original context. Never "John" said he quoted passages from the OT as prophecies of what would happen during his time.

And I remember you interpreted the 24 elders in Rev 4:4 as 12 elders & 12 apostles. From where did you get the 12 apostles? I'll tell you, because you think the whole of Revelation was written, from the start, by a Jewish Christian.

Going back to Rev 11:8, where did you see Jerusalem as spiritually Sodom and Egypt (outside Revelation)?

What about the 144,000 virgin Jews from Israelite descent. Do you think they would be Jewish Christians? That the heck of a lot for their number in the 1st century, but (barely) possible if they were just orthodox (non-Christian) Jews.
And they are the firstfruits (the first ones to go to heaven in 14:3-4). Is that what a Christian would write?

And what about the baby of that woman being raptured to heaven soon after his birth? You said that would be Jesus. But Jesus is never said anywhere in the NT and other Christian texts to go to heaven so early. And in these Christian texts, where Mary, the mother, is said to hide in the desert for years?

And what about :
14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man,
  • Note: a "Jewish" Son of Man. This one is an angel as implied by the next verse and as stated in v.19, not Jesus (earthly or heavenly), the Christian "Son of Man" in the gospels (including GJohn) and 1:13. Probably inspired by the "like a son of man" in Daniel7:13. Let's also notice this "Son of Man" resides on a cloud, when the heavenly Jesus is repeatedly placed at the right hand of God in the N.T. (Ro8:24, Col3:1, Hb1:3,8:1,10:12,12:2, 1Pe3:22, Mk14:62,16:19, Mt26:64, Lk22:69, Ac2:33,7:55,56). Furthermore, how could the heavenly Jesus be both at the same time, the "Son of Man" on a cloud and the Lamb on God's throne?
    Obviously this verse could not have been written by a Christian.
And also that:
19:12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.
[the no-name Messiah, certainly not Jesus]
14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.
15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
  • Note: this ruler of the Gentiles (living outside the Kingdom) refers to the grown up child-Messiah of 12:5 and also to the "Son of Man" of 'Daniel' (& possibly the "angelized" one of 14:14).
    However, in the Christian additions, the Lamb (who has become also Jesus) "metamorphoses" considerably, becomes that ruler (and the ultimate warrior (19:13-21), quite a bit out of character for a lamb!) and has names:
    17:14 "These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; ..."
    19:16 "And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS."
    19:13 "... His name is called The Word of God."
    This superlative warrior was also the male child-Messiah in 12:5, the one snatched to heaven & God after birth "who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter", as in 19:15b "he himself will rule them with an iron scepter". Of course, Jesus does not go to heaven as a child, which proves that could not have been written by a Christian.
    Remark: the Christian additions will also make the Lamb, oddly enough, a "shepherd" (7:17) and a "lion" (5:5-6).
BTW, the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE did not last 3.5 years, but 4.5 months.

Cordially, Bernard
davidmartin
Posts: 1593
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by davidmartin »

I just thought Rev 16 a bit unusual
"Righteous are You, O Holy One,
who is and who was,
because You have brought these judgments.
6For they have spilled the blood of saints and prophets,
and You have given them blood to drink
as they deserve."

The name "Holy one" is quite rare, unique in revelation
There's some question of 'who is and who was', but no is to come
and also it's a quote from the 'angel of the waters'
so couldn't this be a candidate from a previous prophetic writing, incorporated into the work?
its worth to recall something else also, from an early church standpoint the 'apocolypse' was *before* the Roman/Jewish war, if you take Acts literally when it refers to severe persecution of the church taking place, that Saul/Paul was involved in. The fact this possibility exists must mean the Christian elements could be earlier than the Jewish elements if you posit these two streams, i'm not saying they were earlier, but that the possibility surely has to be considered... since the persecution's in Israel and Rome (Nero) took place before
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:

if I am going to assign this text to some person actually named John, I am going to need an adequate explanation for why this apocalypse, as opposed to seemingly all the others, bears the author's true name. Is the time being near, the book remaining unsealed, enough of a reason for this? I am not sure yet. What do you think?

I like Revelation (historicially speaking), regardless of who wrote it. It does seem Jewish Christian to me (in my view it is in keeping with James, 1 Peter, Matthew -as per Bernard- and Hegesippus and has a strong interest in Daniel, which I see as being the core of Jesus' philosophy), and I have no problem with the idea that it was written c. 95 CE (in keeping with Domitian sending Christians into exile). And I gather it has bad Greek, which could perhaps point to it being written by someone whose main language was Hebrew. That's just my take in the big picture.

And while it may be simplistic, why couldn't Revelation have been written by someone named John (like it purports to be) who wasn't one of the NT Johns? As the Wikipedia page for Revelation puts it:

All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet [well, okay, I suppose that's a guess, but it's one I agree with], probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter. His precise identity remains unknown, and modern scholarship commonly refers to him as "John of Patmos" (Revelation 1:9 – "I, John [...] was on the island called Patmos").



Whoever he was though, he seems like a sincere believer in the idea that Jesus was to "come on the clouds of heaven" soon (in the guise of Daniel's "son of man"), to the point of seeming crazy to me (and exile-worthy).

But if I had to choose a John, I suppose I would pick Papias' presbyter John.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:18 pm, edited 5 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by John2 »

I foresee an objection to the presbyter John idea because Papias says, "I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice," but this John could have said things that Papias heard before he was exiled and wrote Revelation (or at least parts of Revelation).
Last edited by John2 on Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by John2 »

And I'm thinking that even though other apocalypses were pseudonymous, Revelation could still be by a real John (and it doesn't purport to be an NT John, at least) and the others copy cats (i.e., apocalypses pretending to be by NT guys, inspired by the idea that the author of Revelation was an NT guy).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: The authorship of the apocalypse of John.

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Xoroaster makes a compelling case that Apocalypse of John's authorship took the span of nearly a hundred and fifty years, with at least five different authors. The earliest portion is chapter 6, written after the eclipse of 59.
Post Reply