Loading...Now that I have said something about what’s in the book of Revelation and about how we need to study it in light of its literary *genre* (“apocalypse”) I can begin to discuss something about its historical context. As you know, one of the overarching themes of this entire blog is that if you take something out of its context, you change its meaning. If you want to know what the author of Revelation might have actually meant and how he would have been understood by his real-life audience — the Christians in the seven churches of Asia Minor he was addressing – you have to put the book and its author in their own historical context (not in our 21st century context).
Here are some of the most important points about that, as I make them in my textbook on the New Testament (The New Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction; Oxford University Press, 7th ed.), edited slightly here.
**********************************************
The Revelation of John in Historical Context
I have already pointed out that the book of Revelation is virtually unique among apocalypses in that it does not appear to be pseudonymous. I say that it does not “appear” to be pseudonymous because the author simply calls himself John without claiming to be a famous person from the past.
Some Christians of the second and third centuries claimed that this John was none other than the son of Zebedee, Jesus’ own disciple. Others rejected this notion and as a result refused to admit the book into the Christian canon of Scripture.
I should point out that if the author had claimed to be that John, the book would probably have to be considered pseudonymous, for reasons we will see momentarily. One of the ironies of the New Testament is that the Fourth Gospel, which does not claim to be written by someone named John, is called John, whereas the book of Revelation, which does claim to be written by someone named John, is not called by this name. In any event, it can be stated without reservation that whoever wrote the Gospel did not also write this book. For one thing
Revelation is the most mysterious and misunderstood book of the entire Bible. Want to see how scholars approach it? Members of the blog get this entire post. Why not join yourself? Here’s how to do it: Click here for membership options
I talked to a friend about whether Christians need to keep kosher (what? you don’t have these conversations?). So I want a-hunting on Google and found Acts 10:10-19. Peter is preparing a meal and has a vision of all food in the world, clean and unclean mixed together. A voice tells him that what God has made clean he should not call unclean. I was taught that this meant God had removed the dietary restrictions, but other people interpret it as meaning Peter was free to associate with Gentiles (Acts 10:27-29). Do you have an opinion on what Acts is saying here?
THe two issues are connected. Peter can associate with gentiles (that’s the conclusion he himself draws in the story itself) because God has made the kosher laws irrelevant (that’s what happens in the vision itself)
Very interesting. Does Paul talk about kosher laws?
He hints at them in his letters, though his primary concern is about circumcision. His dispute with Cephas in Antioch was about the same issue: can Jewish followers of Jesus ahve their meals with gentiles (who would not be keeping kosher). Cephas: after meeting with the “people from James” responded No; Paul: absolutely Yes!
The interesting thing is that Yeshua [Jesus] completely forgot to teach or even to train his disciples about ministering to non jews while alive but the whole thing came as an after thought because of the relative success that Saul the Paul achieved in converting some people.
Understanding the Revelation as a comforting message to his followers, written in an overcomplicated military codex, might have made sense to some few, but not to the audience John is referring to. They were probably just a bunch of illiterates schattered around who barely knew history, Roman politics to such extent or to all kind of roman geography references, and then in a language nobody have understood for 2000 years. No, I lost belief in this (after holding on to it for a decade or so) long time ago.
When I switch my perseptional button and read the Revelation on for me a well furnitured inner and symbolic story of our own self it gives a whole different view and one doesn’t have to leave a christian understanding at all. Such a conspet is very much in line with modern psychology in relationship with our own being, including our understanding of conciousnesses.. Based on this the Revelation is not an apocalyptic tale about the end of the world, but a personal evolvement of ones self, and ones conciousnesses on to a parth of a divine unification with God.
From this, the book just become much more understandable to me
,,and if a switch to an inner symbolic understanding your refernces in your post would be
Revelation 21.14, a foundation “in them”,,not “on them» referring to the internal essence of Christ. The foundation had the Apostle “in them”. The number of 12 can have many “complete” references throughout the Bible and doesn’t in this context mean 12 physical persons.
The throne of God and the 24 elders where the body is a physical tempel of God, can easily be referred to what eastern esoterics consider the spiritual part (upper spiritual Charcras) of the the human. Around where several esotrerics places its “throne/crown” there is 12 pair (24) physical cranial nerves who record every human aspect in this life.
The “Beast” referred in chapter 17 is in this context referred to the carnial desires which have worked as our stumbeling stones, with references all the way back to the “fall”.
The seven heads, seven mountain will then have to be related to the seven spiritual centers (churches, chackra etc (se Rev2-3). It is about the spiritual centers within us all who need to be awakened. A topic found elsewhere also in other esotreric religjons as well.
,,,and could be in line with what could have been seen in a deep meditation experience.
kt,
You should get hold of a copy of Mystic Bible, by Dr. (Chiropractor) Randolphe Stone, a rare book by a disciple of ‘Great Master’ Maharaj Sawan Singh (d 1948). It won’t be cheap, (Amazon) But it is the best book you will ever read on the Bible. Every single story detail, right down to the Pharoah charioteer’s wheels, and manna melting by dawn, has spiritual significance.
The twelve (elements) in the Gospel of Judas that “return to their god” after Judas is “replaced by someone” at 36.1 is not at all about Matthais as every scholar first thought, and is key to Judas as the enigmatic “man who bears me.” All mystics like me aspire to this joyous “horn raising,” “wrath at self,” “star ascending,” “heart strengthening” experience (56.20-25).
Scholars have colluded in a gelatinous mass of self-imposed ignorance of mystic teaching, teachings which are the only – and I mean only – way anyone will ever understand these texts. Masters like James (‘Judas’ was invented by Pauline usurpers to hide his coming as successor ‘Christ’) come at all times to teach those ready, and always will. One is here now (Gurinder Singh). Books available at cost, Scienceofthesoul.org
Hi Dr. Ehrman!
So many conservative pastors argue that what makes Christianity distinctive from other religions is that it is faith based.
Where did this idea of salvation via faith come from?
Was that always what the messiah was supposed to do?
And why is everyone not saved through the death of Jesus (whether you believe or not) why was it established that the salvation was conditional to faith?
Thank you!!
It’s an interesting argument. I”m not sure I follow it though: what do these pastors say other faiths are based on if not faith? Are they referring to the fact that most religions involve *practices*? So does their religion, of course…. But yes, within the ancient world, Christainity wwas unusual in saying that a relationship with God was established by trusting in his sacrifice of his son rather than the worshiper making a sacrifice him/herself. I”m not sure there was anything quite like that in antiquity. And no, no one ever thought of such a thing in reference to the messiah, before the Xns came along.
Ah sorry I was a little ambiguous. I meant that they say that the means of salvation is distinct in that it is faith based instead of works based. Many pastors say that Christianity is distinctive because of grace in that way.
So why did Paul establish the idea of salvation via faith? Why did he think that salvation by Jesus’ crucifixion was conditional on faith? Especially when Jesus’ ministry often promoted good works and when Jesus himself surely would have believed in salvation via good works (being Jewish)?
I feel like this is a core tenet I struggle to get my head around since it seems almost contradictory to circumvent good works (and then have so many good people- or at least as good as those who have faith- go to hell- well more accurately annihilation)
Where did the idea come from that we are all totally stained by sin that no good work can make up for?
Ah, it’s a very long story and a bit complicated. I’ve posted on before but it’s been a while. I”ll post again on it (it’s too involved for a reply here) in a couple of weeks (I have a queue of posts in line before it!)
Ah! Thank you so much!! Do you know of any resources that I could look into in the meanwhile? (Any books?)
My views (which I will summarize in a post in two weeks) were heaveily influenced by the book Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders.
A lot of this sort of thing comes down to word games, but I think a more accurate statement is that the idea is salvation through God’s grace. Faith is merely the tangible acceptance of that grace. If there is some kind of life after death, I suppose that by the time we really know the answers to these theological questions, it will not much matter. And if death is a final state, there will be no opportunity to rethink the answers or the questions.
thank you Bart.
taking your observation:
“Even more intriguingly, at one point of the narrative the prophet sees twenty-four elders around the throne of God (chap. 4). Most interpreters understand these figures to represent the twelve Jewish Patriarchs and the twelve apostles of Jesus.”
I understand that there is a wholly western patristic tradition – most especially found in Jerome, but certainly a hundred years older than him and continuing through to Bede – which identifies the twenty-four elders as the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible. Llinking this to the near universal reading of the four living creatures of Chapter 4 verse 7 as the four New Testament Gospels.
Interesting. I”m not aware of that 24 books of teh Hebrew Bible view; but I haven’t done a review of the history of interpretation yet. Do you know where it begins to show up? And how are the *elders* understood to be *books*??? (Are five of the elders all “Moses” somehow?)
Victorinus of Petovium seems to be the oldest recorded (died c.303 CE):
“The four animals are the four Gospels…. And there were twenty-four elders who had twenty-four tribunals. These are the books of the prophets and of the law, which give the testimonies of the judgment. However, these twenty-four fathers are also the twelve apostles and the twelve patriarchs.”
And it becomes a major theme in Jerome.
“And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four book of the old law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb, and with downcast looks offer their crowns, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who wast, and art, and art to come.”
Jerome repeatedly contrasts the true Hebrew of the ‘twenty-four elders’, against the unreliable ‘seventy interpreters’.
Ah right: he’s not saying that the 24 elders ARE the 24 books but that they “represent” the 24 books. Different, no? But with the animals, they come to represent the *authors* of the Gospels, not just the Gospels, and surely Jerome knew that wouldn’t work with the HB, since he believed MOses wrote 5 of the 24 books.
As I read Irenaeus, he takes the four living beasts as standing for the gospels, as Victorinus does the same. Identifying them with the *authors* may be later.
Though for Irenaeus; the lion is John’s gospel. the ox is Luke, the man is Matthew and the eagle is Mark.
“The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second was like a calf, signifying sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.”
For Jerome, the Revelation vision of the twenty-four elders provides scriptural authority for preferring the Hebrew text of the Old Testament above the ‘torn and perverted’ Septuagint Greek.
In any case, a Talmudic baraita of c. 200 CE confirms that the standard Mishnaic Jewish canon had twenty-four books. It would be natural to read the twenty-four elders as these.
Bart:
Something on which I would very much like to hear your opinion, is the history of doubts as to the status of Revelation as ‘scripture’.
Gallagher and Meade propose there there is no evidence of reservations on the matter before the mid 3rd century CE. Irenaeus, for example, applies the narrative of the four living beasts to support the ‘fourfold gospel’; implying that Revelation was then recognised with at least the scriptural authority of the gospels. Do you agree?
Gallagher and Meade then speculate that opposition to literal millenarianist readings of Revelation – that Christ would return and reign on earth for a thousand years before the end-time – lead to questions as to the authenticity of the book as a whole. Further informed by Dionysius of Alexandria in 248 CE, proposing that the authorial style of the book was incompatible with that of the Gospel of John. Albeit that Dionysius appears to consider this a mistaken identification, not forgery. Eusebius, who approves of Dionysius’s arguments, appears uncertain as to whether this also implies that Revelation should be accounted as scripture or not.
Again, do you agree?
I don’t think we can use one witness on canonicity as an indication of what was widely thought. Metzger has a detailed explanation of who accepted which books and when, and it’s striking that there are such wide differences in times, places, and church fathers/lists one place to another on many of the books, especially the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. Revelation was pretty popular in the West but not in the East; Hebrews was just the opposite. Irenaeus does seem to accept the authority of Revelation in one respect. THe Muratorian canon does as well, along with the Apocalypse of Peter. But other authors simply don’t deal with it, and later authors like Eusebius show that it was much disputed — is it “spurious” or not? So I don’t think there was any consensus. THe reason there’s not much evidence of reservations before the mid third century is becasue the book is not mentioned much before the mid third cantury. I’m away from my books but off hand, apart from Iren and MF, and don’t remember who actually uses it as an authoritative text. Does anyone? (And of course “authoritative text” is not hte same as “holy Scripture.”) Dionysius is certainly important and unusually intereasting — and at the least he shows that the issue was being debated.
From Gallagher and Meade p.50.
Papias is reported (by Andrew of Caesarea) as citing Revelation as scripture. Otherwise, the earlist surviving such citation would appear to be the 2nd CE ‘Epistle of Lyons and Vienne’ (quoted in Eusebius), citing Revelation 22:11. Otherwise, early support for Revelation as scripture is found in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen. The Muratorian Frament – commonly dated to the late second century in Rome – asserts Revelation as scripture without reservation; applying the observation that, as in Revelation, John wrote to seven churches, so the church only preserves letters to seven church destinations in Paul.
The Origen citation is in the “Commentary on John 5′ (quoted in Eusebius), where Origen says of John son of Zebedee “.. and he wrote also the Apocalypse, being ordered to keep silence and not to write the voices of the seven thunders (Revelation 10:4).”
Subsequent Latin lists include Revelation in the New Testament; as do Athanasius and Epiphanius of the Greek canon lists. Eusebius and Amphilocius note divided contemporary opinions; with Eusebius favouring inclusion, and Amphilocius exclusion. Cyril of Jerusalem definitely excludes; while Gregory of Nazianus could be read either way.
Are we seeing early signs here of proto-Christianity? its doctrinal incompatibility with the rest of the NT and with the doctrine of the Trinity nowhere in sight, the text seems to embody Philo’s notion of ‘multiple emanations’ – the ‘seven spirits of God’ (3.1, 5.6). Revelation has no dogma of ‘original sin’ ; it is idolatry which damns the mass of humanity. Baptism is not mentioned; believing Jews are ‘sealed’ not baptised. There is no reference to the Eucharist, etc. On the day of judgement it is ‘works’ (public action) that will count, not the Pauline ‘grace through faith’. There is no religion of love here but only undiluted hatred and lust for revenge. How on earth could such a text, with such divergent theology, christology and thematic discourse ever be harmonized with the rest of the NT to receive canonization status?
Yup, these are some of the qeustions I’ll be dealing with in the book, and possibly in blog posts to come.
I don’t know if it can be pre-ordered. Not yet, anyway, since I haven’t even started writing it. In any event, there are compelling reasons for thinking it was written in the 90s. If you want to see the evidence, you may want to look at the commentary by C. Koester or the detailed argument of Adela Yarbro Collins in Crisis and Catharsis.
How bad was it really for the Christians in the first century? Is John just throwing out religious hyperbole when he describes what I presume is Rome as “drunk with the blood of the saints and witnesses for Jesus” (Revelation 17:6)?
YEs’ it’s usually thought that he is thinking of massive persecutions when in reality there weren’t many.
YEs’ it’s usually thought that he is thinking of massive persecutions when in reality there weren’t many.
Couple questions irrelevant to this great post.
1* If the originals of the collective books of what historically know as New Testament are lost, how can we know [Evidence] of what language they were written with? What if someone argue that those we assume as originals were actually translations from the originals which were written in Aramaic, Syriac or coptic for example.
2* Publishing a book doesn’t mean when it was written, so what if someone argue that even though the books historically known as gospels were in circulation [published] 40 to 60 years after the public execution of Yeshua the Galilean [Jesus]. It was actually written as notes during the time of Yeshua, then it was collected by its writers may be toward the end of the writer’s life and published at that time. Hence perceived to be written decades later.
1. Great question! It’s really the work serious linguists, who can determine if an ancient writing is a “translation” into Greek or an original Greek composition, based on a number of factors, including grammatical constructions and the like. With the NT there really isn’t a lot of question any more: it’s pretty clearly the case that all of them were original Greek composition.
2. YEs, scholars have long wondered about that and considered it as well. AGain, it’s a complicated affair that would take a lot of detail argument do show what the evidence actually is, but some of the stories are clearly Greek compositions and so they could not have been written by Jesus’ earthly followers (who almost certainly could not write anyway; very few people could, and those were the wealthy elite). SOME of the sayings of JEsus do presuppose an Aramaic original, but there are solid reasons for thinking those were *circulated* in Aramaic at some time but not necessarily that they actually go back to eyewitness reports. One of the tasks of biblical scholarship is to see what *does* go back to JEsus, but the early records would have circulated orally. I deal with these issues in my book JEsus Before the Gospels, if you’re interested.
Got the book. Thank you 😊. I will read it
Sometimes when I read an article that was originally written in english (even if I didn’t know that) I can “see” some sentences or expressions that, although correct in spanish are “weird” to read. In some cases I can even guess the original english expression that caused the confusion. The same with articles written in Portuguese, but in this case the “weirds” are different. Since I am not a linguist nor a master in English or Portuguese (I think it’s clear) my conclusion is that for a professional linguist/scholar it has to be easy to tell if a certain text was originally written in the language of the textus receptus and also if it was written by a native speaker.
Question to Bart :
So, why is there so much debate about Revelation ?
It’s that we do not have enough knowledge of first century greek to tell the difference?
Is the bias of christian linguist/scholars that “see” aramaic everywhere in order to link
NT scripture to Palestine and avoid the conclusion that all NT was written by Paul and first/second generation of ‘gentile’ greek speakers followers that never ever put a foot in Palestine ?
Do you mean debate about why the writing seems so peculiar, so that some scholars say it was written by a speaker of Aramaic with Greek as a second language? Some scholars have argued that the non-Greek constructions often appear to be influenced by Semitic grammar. Taht’s what led to the theory in the first place. Other scholars point out that some of these instances could have been influenced by the Semitic flavor of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). Others argue that the Semitic features are not particularly prominent at all. My view is that lots of peole didn’t write very well — since most people couldn’t write at all — and this author simply made a lot of mistakes, since he was not among the great writers of the world.
Do you mean …?
Yes , that was exactly what I asked .
As I see you’re in line with those scholars that “argue that the Semitic features are not particularly prominent at all” and so John of Patmos only was not so good in writing greek. Thanks for your answer , I keep waiting for your next book on Revelation.
Hi Dr. Ehrman!
Second question here:
What do you think of “harmony of the gospels” by olive tree publishers. It’s put together for a horizontal reading. It’s an NRSV translation. I’m just wondering- would it then be the same as doing your own horizontal reading? Like, if it’s a certain translation they aren’t allowed to change a couple of words, right? All books of a certain translation will be word for word the same?
Thank you!!
I’m afraid I don’t know it. But if it’s the Gospels displayed in Columns, that’s an extremely useful tool. Another like that used by lots of professors is called Synopsis of the Four Gospels by Kurt Aland.
What significance, if any, do you place on the writer probably being a native Aramaic speaker? For example, might he be less removed, compared to the gospel writers, from the original followers of Jesus? Might there have been more books written by Aramaic speakers, or even in Aramaic, and this was the only one that got into the canon?
I no longer think he was originally an Aramaic speaker. I used to think that and taught it for years, but experts in ARamaic and Greek have shown that there’s actxually little evidence for it. My view now, which I”m sure I”ll be discussing in my book, is that they author simply wsa not well versed in written Greek. We certainly wish we *did* have ARamaic writings from Jesus’ followers! (BUt of course even if John originally did speak ARamaic that wuoldn’t make him a companion of Jesus. He almost certainly was writing in the 90s, well after JEsus’ followers had passed off their mortal coils, and he gives no suggestion that he had ever met JEsus.
I didn’t know that scholars believe it was started and then completed with a 30 year gap! Is this thought to be from another change in the writing style?
IT’s a debated point. Some of the book appears to be driven by a concern about Nero, and other bits for things happening 30 years later under Domitian. I’m reconsidering my view of this, and now am suspecting that it was written in the 90s but that some of the traditions had been circulating earlier (whether there was an earlier writing or not….)
What do you think of the idea that Revelation was written to be performed as a dramatic performance jn the arena in Ephesus
I’d say there is not a shred of evidence of it and tons of reasons to think it’s not true. For one thing, public drama presentations were never ever produced by Christians, and could NOT be produced for staging at that period in a major pagan city like Ephesus. Whave no evidence at all for any drama written by XNs in the early centuries of the church, up to the Middle Ages
This is similar to the arguments for interpreting the US Constitution.
“Now batting for Judas Iscariot, Saint Matthias…” (the crowd roars).
Thanks Bart. The language/grammar argument against different authorship of Revelation to the 4th gospel is a strong one, although might be countered by claiming thet Revelation was a bad translation from Aramaic to Greek by a dodgy translator. It’s also interesting to speculate why an Aramiac-speaking Jew was exiled on Patmos. The diffferent style and content is a less strong argument, because we are all capable of changing our style and emphasis. Take for example, your most academic book and compare it with your most popular book. You also might change your views between 2 books written 30 years apart. You say “that if you take something out of its context, you change its meaning”. How much context to we really know? The author certainly expects everyone to know who he is: Rev 1:4 and claims fairly high authority for the text: Rev 1: 1-5 Maybe he had a genuine mystical experience (as indeed he effectively says he did! Rev 1:10 , Rev 4: I-2 ). If you asume he just made it all up, rather than describing what he genuinely saw, then you certainly change the meaning 🙂
Yeah, that argument’s been floated. But linguists now are confident the book is an original Greek composition. And I personally no longer think he was an Aramaic speaking Jew. NOw that I”ve done the research, I suspect he was simply a Greek-speaker not well trained in writing. (THe vast majority of the population, of course, could not write at all!) And I’m searching hard for ANY evidence that he was actually Jewish. His name is, but Christians did start naming their children after the apostles….
Could the “7 kings of Rome” be an attempt by John to conflate the 7 legendary kings of Rome (thereby identifying exactly which city he was referring to) with the current batch of rulers? One reason for doing this would be to label the emperors with the toxic designation of *king*, something that would have really aggravated them. Emperors, in the first century at least, preferred to be called princeps (ie first citizen). But this would mean that John’s reference to kings could not then be used to pin down precisely when he was writing.
I suppose that’s possible, yes. I wonder if the “7 kings” thing was widely known? We assume it was because we have Livy etc. But most ancients would not have had. Did they know about the tradition of the 7 kings? Good question!
My guess is that the more educated members of the Roman Empire would have had some sense of the Romans’ anxieties about their early rulers. Julius Caesar’s assassination was partly due to fears that he wanted to make himself king of Rome. Furthermore, Augustus’ convoluted efforts to cement his regime without any obvious monarchical overtones were probably also well known. But whether these common memories were quite as widespread or were pretty much fading away by John’s time is not so clear.
“Detailed studies have shown that the author of Revelation was principally literate in a Semitic language, probably Aramaic, with Greek as a second language.” – Bart, you mentioned in one of your lectures that you changed your mind about the author not being a Greek first-language speaker. Please could you elaborate? Also, could the bad Greek be explained by the text being a translation from Aramaic by a non-native Greek speaker?
YEs, that’s the old normal understanding, which I used to have (as when I wrote my textbook discussion that I posted!). But linguists more recently have called that view into serious question, and my suspicion is that the man simply could not write well (that he could write at *ALL* put him above 95-97% of his world….)
You mention “the author” several times, and then say that parts of the book were written 30 years after other parts. Does that mean there is more than one author, or do you mean that the same author wrote the whole book, starting the composition during the reign of Nero, and then picking it up again and finishing it decades later during the reign of Domitian? Is there a noticeable difference in the style of the Greek between the early and later parts of the book? Thanks
THis is a view I”ve recently started to reconsider. It’s not the writing style, it’s that some of the book is obsessed with Nero (early 60s) and others clearly presuppose a context 30 years later. Now I’ve been convinced by the scholarship that says the author was writing in the 90s but that the obsession with Nero is because of later traditions known from otehr sources of Nero redivivus: Nero didn’t actually die but only seemed to, and was coming back leading the armies of Parthia against Rome for their rejection of him (as in the Jewish books called the Sibylline Oracles from about the same time)
Or maybe Tacitus was quite right about what Nero did to christians and even 30 years later John felt it as something recent, exactly the same happens today with leftist groups that endured torture and killings in the 70’s, more than forty years later they speak about it as something happened just yestarday.
I read/was taught long ago that the so-called “number of the Beast” (666) is a coded reference to Nero, but the hidden meaning of which is that the current emperor — Domitian — is in fact Nero returned, or Nero redidivus, which is why the churches are being persecuted again. Is that your understanding as well?
No, I don’t ever recall hearing interpreters say that Domitian himself was Nero redivivus. I’ll have to look to see if there was an ancient tradition that said that, but I don’t recall it. Some people say that the book was about Domitian, others that it was about Nero redivivus. But if you know of someone ancient or modern who says that DOmitian WAS Nero redivivus (as opposed to an emperor who acted like Nero with respect to the Christians), do let me know!
Yeah, I’m not sure either if the identification of Nero redidivus with Domitian has any contemporary non-Christian sources or if it’s confined strictly to Christian exegetes working on Revelation, but people have proposed it. It may be that it comes from the fact that 666 refers pretty clearly to Nero, but that we all assume John was writing in the 90s CE, so he’s making that connection between Domitian and Nero.
One notable article on the topic is:
KLAUCK, HANS-JOSEF. “Do They Never Come Back? “Nero Redivivus” and the Apocalypse of John.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63, no. 4 (2001): 683-98.
THanks. YOu’re pretty sure that Klauck (he’s a very fine scholar) is saying that Domitian was himself actually Nero, returned?
I just received Breaking the Code by Bruce M. Metzger.
Looking forward to reading your perspective on the book of Revelation. Many view the NT as a kind of lost world a time that, like the movie “Gone With the Wind”, is a work of fiction anchored to historical places, customs and people.
But for others, “Tara’s” theme rings true though the horrors of the last 2000 years keep pushing it away.
Hi Bart
I was just wondering about John and what we know about him or can work out.
What gave him the authority to write to these 7 churches and on what basis would they heed his words? Can we assume he had some role in the Early church around that time?
It is usually thought that he was a prophet connected with those churches and that they considered him an authoritative spokesperson of God. We don’t have any details unfortunately, since the only reliable information is what can be inferred from the book itself.
Hi Dr. Erhman,
I have two issues with Revelations I would like your guidance on:
1. Isn’t the main problem with Revelations is that Jesus is communicating through an un-named Angel? Why would he do that when all his other communications have been in person? In Mathew and Mark, Jesus states, “But take heed, I have told you everything in advance (Mark 13-21-23). This had to do with dealing with false teachers and Messiahs. Therefore, if Jesus has told them everything they need to know, is this book needed?
2. Which John? John the silent as identified in Revelation, John the Beloved, or John the Apostle, or John the Elder? When the canon was being constructed, I believe one of the main arguments of keeping this book out was that it was not Apostolic?
I am looking forward to your thread on Revelation!
The use of an unnamed angel as interpreter is very widespread in ancient apocalyptic texts, JEwish and CHristian — so I don’t think anyone objected. As to the possible Johns: we know of only two from early Christianity. THe “Beloved Disciple” in the Gospel of John is not named John, and those who thought it *was* John thought it was John the son of Zebedee. The “silent” John is never referred to in antiquity. So the issue is whether it is John the Son of Zebedee or John the elder or — a John otherwise not known. Whoever it is, it is not the author of the Gospel of John, as recognized by philologists in the ancient world and certainly today. THe writing style and their theological views are radically different. We don’t have solid evidence of John the Elder, but he is referenced in writings of the 2nd century. Today it is usually thought that this is simply a person named John, an otherwise unknown prophet; some scholars do identify him as “the elder.”
Wow Bart! You’ve got some intellectual stamina .. and patience
Hats off again!!!!!!!!
Bart, you said recognized even by linguists in early Christianity. Could you say names?
THe main figure was Dionysius of Alexandria in the third century, quoted with approval by Eusebius in his Church HIstory.
“Detailed studies have shown that the author of Revelation was principally literate in a Semitic language, probably Aramaic, with Greek as a second language. His Greek is clumsy in places, sometimes even ungrammatical. This is not at all the case with the Gospel of John, which is written in an entirely different style and therefore by a different author.”
Hi Bart, I understand that this is a common view among New Testament scholars, but the literary differences between the Gospel of John and Revelation by themselves do not sound to me like enough evidence for two different authors because of the use of secretaries during the New Testament period and also the two different genres.
I clarify that I am not convinced that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John and Revelation with the help of different secretaries, but I also do not completely dismiss the possibility.
Have you ever specifically argued against the possibility that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John and Revelation with the help of different secretaries?
On the light side, “amanuensis” is one of the words that I decided that I will never attempt to pronounce during a public speech.
I don’t remember if you know Greek, but if you did the point could be pretty easily demonstrated. The idea that it could go back to secretaries doesn’t work because we don’t know of secretaries who functioned as acutal authors of books for authors. I”ve written a good bit on “secretaries” in teh ancient world, to show that modern popular assumptions about them (widespread!) are simply wrong. I’ve posted some of this on the blog: just do a word search for “secretary.” And it’s not too hard to pronounce once you get the hang of it: a-man-you-EN-sis.
Bart,
The four animals (living beasts) are the four gospels?
If Revelation was written over the span from say AD 67 to AD 95, the author of Revelation would have to know about the fourth gospel, written between 85 and 90, giving him only a few months or years to realize, all the way over in Asia Minor (Turkey) east of Greece, there would be a fourth gospel.
Other than the four animals (living beasts) being the four gospels, what else can they be? You think they are the four gospels?
No, I don’t think they are the GOspels, though they were later taken to be them. In Revelation, as in Ezekiel, they are representative of all living cratures.