Richard Carrier on the Book of Revelation

[billd89]

Hi, I am still alive.
I have a webpage on Revelation, which goes much deeper than what Carrier wrote:
http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
...
Cordially, Bernard

Great stuff, thx.

[Bernard Muller]

But the worst claim by Carrier was when he said that Marcion corrupted really Luke.

I agree with Carrier on this:

See:
Dating of Luke's & John's gospels: a simplified study
Dating of these two gospels can be estimated through series of clues inside the text.
http://historical-jesus.info/62.html

Also consider:
Arguments in favor of proving Marcion's gospel (of the Lord) was written after Luke's gospel
It points to Marcion modifying gLuke rather than "Luke" making changes from gMarcion.
http://historical-jesus.info/53.html
Note: If you don't like the attestations of the "fathers", look below my quotes of them for other arguments.

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

@Bernard

No way. I'm 100% certain that Luke is derivative of Marcion. It's so obvious. Luke 1, 2 & 24 are distinctly different from the rest of the text.

Luke 3:1 is a clear opening of a story. It's obvious that the original began at Luke 3:1, to which Luke 1 & 2 were added later.

[Giuseppe]

RG,
what do you think about the Book of Revelation ? Do you have a definite view about it?
Thanks for any answer.

[Jagd]

The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

For whatever reason this source's information almost always seems spurious, maybe it's just generally outdated and too theologically biased?

[Bernard Muller]

@ RG

No way. I'm 100% certain that Luke is derivative of Marcion. It's so obvious. Luke 1, 2 & 24 are distinctly different from the rest of the text.

Marcion had good reasons not to include Luke 1 & 2: deny human origin of Jesus.
As for Luke 24, Marcion included a big chunk of it in his gospel.
Consult: viewtopic.php?p=39332#p39332

Luke 3:1 is a clear opening of a story. It's obvious that the original began at Luke 3:1, to which Luke 1 & 2 were added later.

Luke 1:1 is, more so, a good introduction of the story.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

what do you think about the Book of Revelation ? Do you have a definite view about it?

Definite view cannot replace thorough research backed by strong evidence.

I also noted that the author of the Christian addition knew about gMatthew.
Consider (from http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html):
It is likely the Christian additions were made with knowledge of GMatthew:
Mt24:30 "... and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven ..."
Rev1:7 "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him [from GJohn?]. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. ..."
Nowhere else in 'Revelation' Christ's coming (14:1, 19:11, 20:4, 21:2) is associated with clouds.
Another passage (of the Christian additions) apparently drawn from GMatthew:
Mt24:43-44 "... if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched ... Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (also in Lk12:39-40)
Rev3:3b "Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you."
Furthermore, among the gospels, only in GMatthew the resurrected Jesus has his own throne at some day of Judgment (Mt19:28,25:31).
In Rev3:21a, Christ will also have his own (but before, (as the Lamb) he shares God's throne: Rev3:21b). And let's notice Rev20:4 makes allowance for Christ and his disciples to judge from their thrones (as in Mt19:28).

Now about the dating of gMatthew:
Why is the gospel according to Matthew from the first century?
My conclusion is that the gospel was written before 93 CE
http://historical-jesus.info/57.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Is it possible / likely that the NT book of Revelation is earlier than most or even all of the canonical gospels?

(or that a core of Revelation, a proto-Revelation, is earlier than a core, a 'proto'-version, of some or most (or even all) of the canonical gospels?)

[MrMacSon]

I also noted that the author of the Christian addition knew about gMatthew.

Consider (from http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html):

It is likely the Christian additions were made with knowledge of GMatthew:1

• Mt24:30 "... and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven ..."

• Rev1:7 "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him [from GJohn?]. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him ..."
  1 [or the passages in Matthew were developed based on those in Revelation or from some an earlier text]

Nowhere else in 'Revelation' [is] Christ's coming (14:1, 19:11, 20:4, 21:2) associated with clouds.

Another passage (of the Christian additions) apparently drawn from GMatthew [or vice versa??]:

• Mt24:43-44 "... if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched ... be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect".2 (also in Lk12:39-40)

• Rev3:3b "Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you."1

Furthermore, among the gospels, only in G.Matthew [does] the resurrected Jesus [have] his own throne at some day of Judgment (Mt19:28,25:31).

In Rev3:21a, Christ will also have his own (but before, (as the Lamb) he shares God's throne: Rev3:21b). And let's notice Rev 20:4 makes allowance for Christ and his disciples to judge from their thrones (as in Mt19:28).

< . . snip . . >

Cordially, Bernard

• What's the chance the direction was Revelation —> Matthew ?
  
  2 nb. Rev 3:3b is written in the first person, whereas Matt 24:23-24 is written in the third person

Hi, I am still alive [ ]

I have a webpage on Revelation, which goes much deeper than what Carrier wrote:
http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

It has been mentioned that 'Revelation' is the result of Christian additions on a thoroughly Jewish text:

• "the main [part of the] apocalypse [of John] actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature," (Jewish Encyclopedia)
• "...German scholar Vischer...holds the Apocalypse to have been originally a purely Jewish composition ... we think it cannot be objected to"
• The Apocalypse abounds in passages which bear no specific Christian character but, on the contrary, show a decidedly Jewish complexion," (Catholic Encyclopedia)

I never saw any detailed reconstruction of the original Jewish Revelation. Well, this is just what I attempted, carefully sorting out the Christian parts. What is left had to be written by a non-Christian, definitively a Jew, for obvious reasons that I will explain within the text.

The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one ... This work offered an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also a badly needed hope for the Diaspora Jews, so they would not lose their faith. The apocalypse gave also the opportunity for our ex-priest to vent off his considerable anger against the Gentiles and, above all, Rome. Then the author adopted Christianity and was later known as "Presbyter John" in Asia Minor, an elder/apostle based in Ephesus.
< . . snip . . >
The imagery is very much inspired by the O.T. books, such as 'Ezekiel', 'Isaiah', 'Zechariah', 'Joel' & 'Daniel'. And "John's" vision, which is full of (apocalyptic) precise details, is incorrect on many physical items, such as the origin of wind & rain, the shape of the earth, the size of great stars, etc., denoting a knowledge rather biblical & ancient but certainly not "revealed".

This apocalypse was added on, updated & christianized ... and, according to the majority opinion (& myself), released during the "tribulations" under Emperor Domitian.

Cordially, Bernard

I think a lot of that is a good place to start (though it is highly doubtful that there really were "tribulations" under Emperor Domitian")

[rgprice]

Is it possible / likely that the NT book of Revelation is earlier than most or even all of the canonical gospels?

(or that a core of Revelation, a proto-Revelation, is earlier than a core, aprot-version, of some or most (or even all) of the canonical gospels

It's certainly possible. Provable is a different matter.