DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION - new article

by EdenOne 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Larsinger58

  This “seating” equals being sitting in the throne as King of the Kingdom of God. (Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:24) How could Paul know for sure that, at the time of writing of his letters, Jesus Christ was already sitting in his throne and ruling as King? Naturally, because Jesus himself had disclosed that already in the Revelation given to the apostle John.

  Just in passing, let me just say this. After Christ ascends to heaven with his sacrifice he remains inactive for the most part until 120 years before the 2nd coming. The 2nd coming is characterized by a preaching work and ingathering work that is done ahead of time in preparation of the 2nd coming, much like John the Baptist was sent out to preach before Jesus started his ministry. Daniel 12:1 thus speaks of "Michael standing up" at one point. Michael standing up represents Christ becoming active in the world again in preparation for the his 2nd coming when he returns to the earth as a man.

  Having noted that, your presumption that Christ sitting at the right hand of God is connected with his kingship is not consistent with when he takes up kingly power per the gospels, which is at the time of his 2nd coming and not until Satan is cast out of heaven. I reference Luke 19:12 where Christ has not yet secured kingly power at the time he sends out his slaves:

  "12 Therefore he said: “A certain man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return. 13 Calling ten slaves of his he gave them ten mi´nas and told them, ‘Do business till I come."

  Chronologically, the sending out of the 10 slaves to do business occurs during his "parousia" and is linked with 1914--that's when the 10 slaves were sent out. The basis for that reference is the parable of the vineyard workers where they work in the vineyard for 11 hours. A half hour is 3.5 years so an hour is equivalent to 7 years. So the 11 hours of work amount to 77 years (11x7=77) from 1914 to 1991. The "last hour" or the "12th hour" during which the workers are paid from the last to the first would be from 1991-1998.

  But the main point here is, that at the time the slaves are sent out, Christ had not yet received kingly power. When he returns though to pay the workers, he is king. This simply means that he obtains kingly power at the time of the 2nd coming after Satan is removed from heaven. He remains at God's right hand until his enemies become his footstool. That means until Satan is cast out of heaven and down to the earth. Thus I see some confusion potential if we try to have Christ beginning his absolute reign in heaven prior to the 2nd coming.

  Just some thoughts to consider.
• 

  Larsinger58

  A note about dating Revelation from internal reference. I have not read your article yet, but just as a passing comment on precisely who Revelation was written for. The opening verse says: "1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place."

  Now on casual reading, one would think this would mean the events of Revelation would happen within a short time of Revelation being written. But Revelation is written specifically for his "slaves." But what "slaves" were these? If they are the specific slaves noted at Luke 19:12 then Revelation is not relevant until after 1914:

  Luke 19: 12 Therefore he said: “A certain man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return. 13 Calling ten slaves of his he gave them ten mi´nas and told them, ‘Do business till I come."

  That is, if Revelation was written specifically for these "ten slaves" who would begin their work in 1914, then the things that would "shortly take place" would be in relation to events post 1914. Of course, all the events in Revelation are post-1914 events.

  Even so, if we presume "his slaves" are not specific to the ten slaves of the post 1914 period, then one would think that John was possibly writing to Christians of his day and thus one would expect these events to take place shortly after his writing this work, which they do not. So the chronology of Revelation hinges completely on just which "slaves" Revelation is written for. If it is the "ten slaves" who are commissioned in 1914 to do a special work for 11 hours (77 years from 1914-1991), then "a short while" is relevant to post 1914 and not in relation to when John wrote the Revelation.

  In other words, Revelation was written in advance for the slaves that would appear in 1914 and thus the things that would "shortly take place" is in relation to their appearance on the scene post 1914.
• 

  Phizzy

  Dating the book of Revelation and establishing authorship, is as difficult as any other Bible book and not without controversy of course.

  Using internal evidence alone seems restrictive and to no great advantage, just my view.

  But, in line with the thread title, some internal evidence you may wish to comment on:

  Rev. 18v20 and 21v14 both speak as though the 12 Apostles are a group from the past, to which the writer of Revelation does not belong.
• 

  EdenOne

  Phizzy

  Regarding Revelation 18:20:

  "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her."

  This call for rejoyce is apparently made by an angel (see v.21), and is addressed at the "heaven" (those who dwell in it), but also also the "saints", the "apostles" and "prophets". Nothing in this text grants that all the apostles were dead (and in heaven) by then. If Babylon the Great represents the apostate Jerusalem, and its fall and devouring by the beast is a prophecy about the future devastation of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire, then it makes sense that both the living and the deceased (and resurrrected) "apostles" would rejoyce over the punishment exacted by God over the one that persecuted them.

  As for Revelation 21:14

  "And the wall of the city [New Jerusalem] had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

  Again, I see no contradiction here. The "New Jerusalem" is seen after the final war of Armageddon takes place and Satan is destroyed. It is still a vision with a future fulfillment. It's natural that the names of the twelve apostles are associated with it, I don't see why it wouldn't. From God's point of view at the time of the vision, he could foretell that they would all die faithful.

  Eden
• 

  Phizzy

  Dear Eden One, would you say that the WT's book "Revelation, its Grand Climax" takes a sensible approach to understanding and explaining the book of Revelation ?

  I doubt you would say so. Why is the WT's book so poor ? Because it takes an Eisegetical approach (reading in to the text what it wishes to see there), and it ignores almost all NT Scholarship, unless it can find someone who seems to support their view. Also it begins its exposition using two unproven suppositions, or fallacies if you prefer, 1) That it is inspired of God, and 2) that the text we have is trustworthy 100%.

  I would say your own approach is almost identical to the WT's method, this is fine if one wishes to stay in the fog-filled bubble of baseless belief, but for those interested in approaching the Bible texts with an open mind, and getting as accurate appreciation as is possible, this is not a good way of going about it.

  To get a good understanding and appreciation of say, the works of Shakespeare, it is necessary to gain an understanding as to the history of the time, the mores of the time, the politics of the time etc etc.

  Also an understanding of the idioms and metaphors used is invaluable. To that end, the work of scholars who have spent many years on the subject, and have a reputation to maintain, is useful, if not vital. True, individual scolars may have an agenda and their one view may not be all there is, but a consensus view of scholars is foolish to ignore.

  The same applies to understanding Bible books, we need to understand the genre, the time it was written, and what was happening then, the idioms and metaphors etc etc, and to that end a consensus of scholarly opinion is valuable.

  The consensus I see on the Revelation is that it was not written by the Apostle John, and it was written very late in the first Century, around 95 AD. Also that redaction of the original has taken place.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I woke up early this am. Eden One's scholarship is not scholarship. His dates are way off base. There is broad agreement among NT and secular sources. Months ago I promised to summarize portions of Elaine Pagels latest book on Revelation. John of Patmos was a second generation Christian. Furthermore, to completley understand why Revelation was not dumped from the canon involve much early church history. Athansius, Iraneus, Tertullian were all major players. It took me forty-five minutes to write a summary of her findings. My computer is acting up, esp. Chrome.

  I will briefly repeat my comments from another thread. One can read Eden One's blogs or one can read massive scholarship that negates his conclusions. Normally, I would not become so engaged. We all know how ill educated most JWs are. Anyone thinking on their own is a massive step, even when they are wrong. As I often state, NT and Gnosticism is a life-long interest of mine. I can never know what academics who have the time to devote to it know. My journey through main stream churches impressed me b/c every priest or minister would agree with the scholarship of Pagels and others. Furthermore, this forum is broad. Many members post here and discuss the latest books or theories on the issue. I am very impressed with the level of scholarship. Leo is only one example.

  When I first studied NT, the field was rather closed. Pagels had to give us a bibliography for sources. We considered it an insult but she explained that knowing which books are legitimate is very difficult in the field. What I like about this scholarship is the author will argue his conclusion but always mark it as opinion. N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg are perfect examples of scholars who agree on basic facts-facts markedly different from Eden One's facts. Yet because of personal experience, their Christian lives differ. Recent years show how deep the public's thirst for these studies are. Popular books abound. Indeed, Pagel's book is complex for a casual reader. Yet for academics and students she published even more complex material at a website.

  One need never leave this forum to access most of this information. Members who know far more than I do post this information. Even Roman Catholic cardinals no longer assert church "history" as truth. Lowly priests still do. With my legal training, I notice the cardinals qualify their statements. They explain "church legends teaches" or "church tradition states that." They know the scholarship and contribute to it. Anyone with an EBSCO daabase can find thousands upon thousands of articles dealing with this material.

  Perhaps I am a b.....I don't think so. What is freedom if one must dumb down. When someone makes extraordinary claims, let us see extraordinary proof. Eden One may be correct and the rest of the world may be wrong. I no longer want to read conclusions. The time is ripe for sources and credentials. I personally feel Eden One has good intentions. The bias in his conclusions could drown us all. Must we walk on tippy toes to not offend. Can't this be a college seminar where one must prove wacko findings. There has been much change on peripheral issues since the 1970s. The basics have not changed.

  A casual stroll through the recent Dead Sea Scroll exhibit that appeared in New York and Philadelphia on the East Coast negate his views.

  I am swamped with so many projects in the grips of an allergic attack. When my computer is tuned up, I wll post on Pagels book again. I would never rely on her work alone. She is the very person who taught us to read a variety of sources and to watch for bias. IN fact, take my personality out of the picture. There are numerous posts in the archives on these topics by other members. I was not present at Patmos so I must rely on scholarly debate.

  Wow. I would be kicked out of college or never go to law school b/c ofthe grade I would receive.
• 

  Terry

  The truth is never enough.

  One also must display the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

  Everything must be on the table so that cherry-picking buffet-style "scholarship" isn't indulged.

  Facts lead where they lead. But, all the facts--not just the few that appear to prop up favorite ideas.

  Most of us are now familiar with how the WT cheats and diddles around with "evidence". It is scandalous.

  Which bible "books" are legitimate in having been inspired? That is a false question. We can't answer such numinous queries.

  But, we can address WHEN they were written and that is de facto science at work.

  As time goes by more and more evidence is amassed and conclusions are adjusted to incorporate the totality.

  The best we can do is WATCH THIS SPACE and keep an open mind.
• 

  EdenOne

  Phizzy,

  I know of one fundamental erroneous assumption that haunts the entire Revelation Climax book: That the Jehovah's Witnesses are, alone, the only true rendering of Christianity in contemporary times and that, therefore, all prophecies concerning God's people have a fulfillment into them.That being said, this leads to all sorts of false conclusions, and an enormous deal of eisegesis. One such example is to see the fulfillment of the sounding of the "trumpets" as the Resolutions adopted in several conventions of the JW's during the 1920's. Laughable.

  I disagree with you when you claim that there's a "consensus" among scholars that Revelation wasn't penned by the apostle John, and that its writing is to be dated close to the end of the first century. The scholars are in fact divided about the date of writing. The majority, usually conotated with an evangelical / millerite agenda, favors a later date for the writing of Revelation, because that allows them to reject a preterist view of Revelation for it invalidates their notions of futuristic fulfillments, such apocaliptic, rapture and end-of-the-world doctrines. On the other hand, the preterists, usually conotated with more traditional churches, favor an earlier date, contemporary to Nerus, because that allows them to put all of Revelations' visions as having been completely fulfilled within the first century, and focus on individual salvation.

  In very short, these are the two opposing views. I wasn't aware of this when I started to write my article about "Dating Revelation". I simply allowed the NT to cross-reference itself, and to me the picture became clear: Revelation could only have been written BEFORE 66/70 CE. Now, if it was compiled into one single book at a later stage, if its compiler was the apostle John or someone else, if there were tiny bits edited, to me that's interesting, but secondary. The MESSAGE was delivered to the Christian congregation before 66/70. I don't side with the preterists because I have an interest in their agenda; I'm actually persuaded that part of Revelation is still awaiting a fulfillment in the future. But a good deal of it unquestionably has seen its fulfillment in the first century.

  The Aramaic Peshitta NT (5th century) preface writes the following comment on the preface page of Revelation: "The revelation which God gave the evanglist John on the island of Patmos where he had been banned by Nero Caesar." Now, the emperor Nero ruled from 54-68 AD, and according to Roman rules those banned by a Cesaer would be released after the Caesar's death ... thus, John would have been released from Patmos in 68 AD (or shortly thereafter) and the time when he received this revelation and wrote it down would have been prior to 70 AD. John himself mentions in the book that he was at Patmos, when he received this revelation. Given the commentary of Paul about a distinguished disciple receiving visions of heavens and secret revelations in the year 41 CE, and assuming that disciple was John, then the visions of John began even before he was exiled to Patmos. It was in Patmos that he received orders to write down what he saw - and possibly new visions were then given to him.

  Also notice another detail, in Revelation 10:11 - John is told that he "must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings". If John was an old man in 96 CE, and soon to die around 100 CE, how come this prophecy would come to be? How could he still have a life full of ecclesiastical and evangelical activity, enough to span over several "peoples, nations, and tongues and kings"? However, if he received the Revelation during the reign of Nero, and his life span stretched to year 100, then h e would have been able to prophesy and to teach during the reigns of caeasars Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, also Domitian, and even possibly Nerva.

  Also consider chapter 11. John is told to measure the temple, but is instructed: " do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months." In this vision, the temple is referred to as still exisiting, still standing, and the trampling of the temple given as a future event. Would it be a logical thing to say if Revelation was written in 96 CE, 26 years past the destruction of the temple??

  Still, remember that contemporary Christianity in North America is dominated by agressive neo-evangelical groups. They invest a lot in universities. They produce a lot of scholars. However, there is an agenda there - to advance that agenda of a future rapture and end-of-the-world apocaliptica, it is absolutely vital that Revelation is portrayed as a book written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Because it frees the interpretation to be transported into an indeterminate time in the future.

  Eden
• 

  EdenOne

  BOTR,

  I'm no scholar, never claimed to be, and I don't see why you're coming at me as if I were one. But at least I'm not a disciple of Elaine Pagel either.

  Eden
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Thank you Eden for publishing your excellent research.