when Revelation was written
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Family Bible Fellowship Forum Index -> The Book of Revelation
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anon



Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 12
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:37 pm    Post subject: two different references Reply with quote

I stated this earlier, but isn't it possible that the Olivet Discourse is refering to events that were associated with the rejection of the Jews and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and that Revelation is beyond that and referes to other events. SO essentially, I am asking if the Preterists coudln't be right about the Olivet discourse, and the Historists couldn't be right about Revelation, a perfect marriage of the two houses, so to speak.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve



Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is nothing irrational or absurd in the suggestion.
_________________
In Jesus,
Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Priestly1



Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 72
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe most ancient Christians as well as moderns understand the Prophetic words of Messiah to refer to the cataclysmic events of the First War between Israel and the Nations (66-73 CE), the Second War between Israel and the Nations (132 - 135 CE) and the final War between Israel and the Nations (i.e. the Great Tribulation).
The Judeo-Nazaraean Church of Jerusalem believed this and fled to Perea in 66 - 73 CE based upon the Olivet Discourse. Again in 132 CE this Church fled Jerusalem, but into Mesopotamia (i.e. into the Church of the East). She never returned, and the Church of Jerusalem was colonized by Greek Christians and for the first time a Greek Bishop was installed. This second century flight was based upon the Prophecy of Messiah in John's Gospel that another one would come to Israel in his own name and backward Israel would follow him...this was the false messiah Bar Kosiva (i.e. Bar Kokhva) in 132 CE.
Even so, the Second Century Church awaited the final fulfillment of John's Apocalypse which would involve the Whole known world, not just the People of Israel.
So you are right in one sense. There is a Jewish principle of Prophecy which views all prophecy as repeating until it is finally and ultimately fulfilled. Just as when Messiah said,"As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be before the coming of the Son of Man." Times will repeat and cataclysmic events will also...until mankind repents. If you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. This principle of multiple fulfillment is assumed in Jewish and Judeo-Nazaraean (Christian) teachings.
So we understand the 1st desecration of Jerusalem by Nebochadnezzer, the 2nd desecration of Jerusalem by Antiochos Epiphanes, the 3rd desecration of Jerusalem by Pompey, the 4th desecration of Jerusalem by Titus and the 5th desecration of Jerusalem by Trajan as foreshadows of the 6th and final desecration of Jerusalem by the Sea Beast Leviathan (i.e. the AntiChrist).
So we do accept that some eschatological prophecies have been partially fulfilled in the past, so you could call me a partial praeterist in this loose sense. Yet the Olivet Discourse has yet to be fulfilled in it's final sense. Just as Messianic Prophecies in the Tanakh mix the first and second advents of Messiah into a single discourse, so too the Prophecies of Messiah combine the events of the future as one vision....like seeing a row of mountain peaks as if they are one giant summit, not revealing the distances between them. So too Prophecy is like this.

In Messiah,
+Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Steve



Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got this interesting email related to this topic:

---------------------------

Steve,

Here is some more info I wasn't sure if you were aware of concerning the early date theory of the writing of Revelation:

Robert Young, who authored "Young's Analytical Concordance, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation which was published about 1885. In that work, Young makes the following statement: It [the book of Revelation] was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book [a 6th Century translation]; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosins, and most of the other commentators after Irenaeus mistakenly misquote Dimitianou (as stated by Irenaeus) for Domitianikos, and suppose that this name refers to Domitian, A.D. 95. Most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder without properly reading the name Irenaeus refers to and also explains why most commentaries apply Domitian as the emporor who exiled John to Patmos. The internal testi! mony is wholly in favor of the early date because the name Domitianou is refering to the name of "Domitius Claudius Ceasar (Nero)", not Domitian.

In other words, Irenaeus's use of the name "Domitianou" refers to Domitius Nero, not "Domitianikos" (the name of Domitian of A.D. 95). This is confirmed when anyone looks at the opening statement by the editor of Revelations in the Syriac text. The editor of John's work here clearly states in the heading of the Syriac version of Revelation that it was written during John's exile to the Isle of Patmos by Claudius Nero.

In addition to this I also noticed that you didn't mention the following external evidence in your book "Revelation: 4 views" for an early date:

Clement of Alexandria asserts that "all revelation ceased under Nero's reign." The Muratorian Canon (ca. 170) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to the seven different churches (Paul died in A.D. 67 or 68). Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) places John's banishment in conjunction with Peter's and Paul's martyrdom (A.D. 67/68). Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403) twice states that Revelation was written under 'Claudius [Nero] Caesar.' The Syriac version of Revelation (sixth century) has as a heading to Revelation: 'written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.'"

Since Nero died in A.D. 68, the writing of Revelation must have preceded that date, most likely having been written sometime between A.D. 64 and 67, along with all of the internal Biblical evidence and the evidence you have already provided in your book.

Let me know what you think.

Joseph V.
_________________
In Jesus,
Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Priestly1



Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 72
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:45 pm    Post subject: Domitianou verses Domitianikos Reply with quote

I am shocked by the confusion caused by the Greek cases used for the Latin Name Domitianus. Ou and ikos are suffixes which denote the name's Greek case usage in the sentance....not difference between Domitius and Domitianus...the two names are distinctly different. Irenaeus specifically uses Domitianus in the Greek form, not Domitiusou or Domitiuikos. This is not just a weak stretch, but does not comport with the well known Latin version of Irenaeus' work...which has Domitianus i.e. Emperor Domitian.
Even Eusebius knows this well as his citations of Irenaeus are used in his history of the Church during the reign of Emperor Domitian, son of Emperor Vespian and the brother of Emperor Titus. Read Book 3 ( Vespian to Trajan) of Eusebius's History of the Church and this proves it.
Mr. Young was an heterodox Arian (unorthodox christiology, denies the Divine Trinity and deity of Christ) as well as critical of much of Church's accepted history. His work and data is now well known to be not only out dated, but biased...that is why it is so cheap and easy to print (no copy right). Young's Greek education and scholarship is no where near the quality of his well known contemporaries...Griesbach eats him alive. Obviously he either has no clue as to the cases of Greek and their suffixes, or he is purposely misrepresenting the grammatical facts...Domitianikos and Domitianou both are Domitian...Good Grief! No wonder Young is hardly cited as a Greek Scholar by moderns, whether Historic Premillenialist, Classic Amillenialist or Praeterist. This argument fails the first year greek smell test. I realize Joseph V. knows little of Koine Greek, because if he did he would realize the error of Mr. Young's argument. He also cannot be too aquainted with the works of Irenaeus as well as the context of Irenaeus' statements. It is plain as day in Eusebius' usage of Irenaeus in his History of the Church from Vespian to Trajan (69 CE - 117 CE). I am not slapping Joe V around, just making an observation from the citation of Young and the use of his statements concerning Irenaius' Greek usage of Domitian. But Mr. Young was a heretic, and is not considered an honest Greek Scholar....no more than the Watchtower Translation is considered Hebrew/Greek experts and honest scholars. Mr. Strong, who was Mr. Young's contemporary and rival, is a much better authority and was orthodox. I would use Strong's Concordance if I could not afford a modern critical lexicon..even with it's errors and out dated scholarship.
Domitius Nero Caesar is not Domitianus aka Domitian(ou/ikos) Flavius...and Irenaeus, Eusebius, Sulpicius, Orosins were correct. There is no blunder, save the one in the mind of this commentator. Has he no education in Roman Latin and Greek inscriptions which prove him wrong? He impeaches those ancient scholars whose native languages were both Koine Greek and Latin.....while he has no data save his own words to back up this ignorant claims. This screams willful misrepresentation and blatant deception.
Titus Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement of Alexandria:150 -240 CE), stated that John was very aged when he was released from the Patmos exile. He also stated that John's return took place after the death of the Tyrant, yet he did not say this Tyrant was named Nero! Eusebius himself expressly explains that Clement is referencing Domitian in his History of the Church, not Nero. Thus Clement is not attesting to Neronian date of John's banishment, for he was young in Nero's time. He is discussing the Tyrant Domitian, who banished John in his old age, and that John lived on till the time of the Emperor Trajan in Asia. Clement in now way states John was exiled by Nero, or that he received the Apocalypse during his era. This is a clear misrepresentation of Titus Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus. Clement may have said that "all revelation ceased under Nero's reign", but this generalization of the prophetic gift does not imply that John's Vision was before Nero's reign. Notice he says that the prophetic gift ceased in the Church under the reign of Nero, not during or afterwards. But this refers to the general gift, not the ministry of the Apostles or their inspired visions. Even so, this statement is not concerned with the topic of John's banishment or visions.
Tertullianus of Carthage (160 - 240 CE), stated that Peter and Paul both perished as martyrs by Nero's command, but makes no mention of John or his banishment to Patmos at this time. It is when Tertullain mentions the second Imperial persecution of Domitian, that John is mentioned. This was the first Imperial use of banishment of Christian leaders. Eusebius cited Tertullian again in his history of the Church to place the Domitian date for John's exile to Patmos and reception of the Apocalypse. It is clear that Tertullian is no source for a Neronian date of John's banishment or vision.
Thus the two usages of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullianus Carthago as authorities for the preaterist dating of John's banishment and vision is incorrect and without merit, as Eusebius himself clearly shows.
Bishop Victorinus of Pettaw (near modern Vienna), who died in 303 CE clearly wrote in his commentaries that John was banished and saw his revelations during Domitian's reign. Bishop Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea ( 260 -340 CE) clearly wrote in his History of the Church that John was banished and saw his visions during his exile on Patmos during Emperor Domitian's reign. Saint Jerome (340 - 420 CE), Saint Orosius of Carthage and Saint Sulpitius Severus of Aquitania (363 - 420 CE) all agree that these facts are true. The scholar Primasius of the 6th Century stated that John was banished and saw the revelation during Domitian's reign.
It was not until Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus in Salamis (368 CE), that we have the novel claim that John was banished by Emperor Claudius and then saw his visions in that era. His chief work on the heresies was decried as 'full of blemishes and errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author' because of such unsupported and mistaken claims.
The Muratorian List does not state that John was exiled and wrote his Apocalypse during Nero's reign. It states,"We receive only the Apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of are not willing that the latter (i.e. The Apocalypse of Peter) should be read in the Church." Now how one makes a Neronian dating of the Apocalypse of John from this short statement is beyond, me.
As for the preface of the 6th Century monophysite syriac text of the Apocalypse, it is without any other support. If it stated that this book was written by Frank Capra during his time in Sicily it still would have no weight...as the preface is not inspired nor a basis for dating the original vision. It only shows how late a date this aramaic text is derived, and that the preface is outside the mainstream historic view of the Church at that time.
Not until the advent of praeterism in the Western Church has anyone been confused by the Greek or Latin assertions of Irenaeus concerning the Domitianic date of the Johanine exile and reception of the Apocalypse. Only in modern times has the witness of Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons and the whole of Occidental and Oriental Church testimony concerning the 96 CE date of the Apocalypse been challenged and a concerted effort to impeach it been attempted for this modern theological deviation. Paeterism has no ancient or medieval heritage, but is of a post reformation origin. Praeterists must impeach the ancient and united testimonies of the most ancient Historic Premillennial Fathers as well as the later Classic Amillennial Fathers of the Ancient Apostolic Church.

If you wish to base your Praeterism on one Cyprian Bishop in the late 4th Century and one late 6th century monophysite Syriac preface on a manuscript of the Apocalypse.....be my guest. These two sources are anomalies in an otherwise united Church testimony to the contrary. The former was dismissed by his own contemporaries as an unlearned and unreliable churchmen when it came to such matters. The latter is dated around the same time as the Cyprian bishop....could there be a link? Cyprus was just off shore of Syria, and syriac as well as greek was used on Cyprus....hmmmm.
I know my opinion conflicts with Mr. Young's and Praeterism's as a whole...but at least I have not misrepresented Irenaeus, his greek, nor sought to impeach the united testimonies of the cited Fathers.

In Messiah,
Ken Huffman
P.S.
Again, I do not want Joe V to think I am attacking him....I am just posting a refutation to what he has read and reported on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Steve



Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Ken,
Thanks for writing this. I actually tried to send you Joseph's message through private email, for your critique. I told Joseph that, if anyone could debunk it, you could! The message I sent you came back to me saying that it was not deliverable. Not having heard from you for some time, and knowing of your severe kidney problems, I feared we might have lost you! Thank God you're still with us!

I appreciate your analysis of these arguments.

Not that this makes a great deal of difference to the overall case, but the suggestion that John could not have been described as an old man in the reign of Nero ignores the fact that Paul, who was a "young man" when first introduced in scripture (Acts 7:58), referred to himself as "the aged" during the reign of Nero (Philemon 9). Perhaps the people in biblical times considered people the age of you and me as "old men"!

Blessings!
_________________
In Jesus,
Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Priestly1



Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 72
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:48 pm    Post subject: Hi Steve! Reply with quote

Laughing I am alive and well on the Late Great planet earth! Very Happy Ooops! Do you think Ole Hal Linsey will forgive my reference to his schlock eschatology book?!
I missed your two days on Hank Hannegraff's Radio show.....I wish you could have dealt with 5 point Calvinism with him and his buddy Mr. White....would have been a gas!
So what's up with you and your kin?? Still in Mac, or are we caravaning again? I am almost done with my translation of the Apocalypse and have my translation of the Didache adopted by the Church and published in America and the Far East. Soon I will be finished with an english targum of the gospel of Thomas. It of course will have study notes....though we do not receive it in the NT Canon.
I am doing well, but like usual I have been fighting this bug and that.....my immunity is low due to my kidney disease......but I will survive.

In Messiah,
+ken Huffman

P.S.
Did you know that Emperor Domitianus was also called Nero by his Roman and Christian detractors? Inscriptions such as Nero Domitianus Tyranus were used......so the 6th century Aramaic Apocalypse preface could still be referencing Nero Domitianus Flavius, and not Nero Domitius Caesar. I believe he was also considered Nero redividus or such....Nero reborn. Like Caesar (Kaisar) became a Title like Augustus, so too Nero became a negative Title for a maniacal despots from 68 CE onwards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Damon



Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 387
Location: Carmel, CA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any thoughts on this one?

http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res026.htm

Damon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hebrews 4 12



Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ken,

Since you're obviously experienced in "debunking" the preterists' notions of Irey's writings being unclear, I'll throw one more at you that I haven't seen addressed yet. If you've already mentioned it and I missed it, please accept my apologies.

Quote:
Now because this is so, and since the number is found in all the good and ancient copies, and since those who have seen John face to face testify, and logic teaches us that the number of the name of the Beast appears according to the numeration of the Greeks by the letters in it....

We will not, however, incur the risk of declaring with certainty the name of the Antichrist. Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced in this present time, it would have been declared by him who beheld the actual Apocalypse. Because it was not witnessed a long tome ago, but it was seen almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian's reign.


If it's true that Irey considered Domitian's reign to be "almost in my own lifetime," and if it's true that John's vision is what is being referred to, how do we reconcile that with the "good and ancient copies" comment?

I know he lived 130-200 (give or take a few depeding on the source), and his writings are dated to around 180-190 (I'll split the difference and say 185). If my understanding is correct, Irey implies that the end of Domitian's reign was "almost in our day," which would have been what, around 90 yrs. or so prior to his day? How then, if Rev. was written in or around 96, could it be "almost in our day" and "ancient" at the same time?

Thanks,

The Hebe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anothersteve



Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:16 pm    Post subject: Anitpas of Pergamos Reply with quote

My wife is attending a women's weekly group studying the book of Revelation...more specifically, what is learned about the person of Christ in the book.

Anyway...it was mentioned that one of the evidences that Revelation was written later, likely in the 90's, was the mention of Antipas' death in chapter 2. They said he was martyred during Domitian's reign. I noticed that Ken mentioned this earlier in the thread as well.

When I tried to find out about Antipas, some of the places I looked claimed there was literally nothing known about who him other than what's mentioned in Revelation.

Other places I looked claimed to know exactly who he was (mostly Roman Catholic sources). They claim he was the Bishop of Pergamos during Domitian's reign.

Does anyone know:
1. Why/How the two different conclusions were reach?
2. Who is more likely correct?

Thanks,
Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anothersteve



Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
it was mentioned that one of the evidences that Revelation was written later, likely in the 90's, was the mention of Antipas' death in chapter 2. They said he was martyred during Domitian's reign. I noticed that Ken mentioned this earlier in the thread as well.

When I tried to find out about Antipas, some of the places I looked claimed there was literally nothing known about who him other than what's mentioned in Revelation.

Other places I looked claimed to know exactly who he was (mostly Roman Catholic sources). They claim he was the Bishop of Pergamos during Domitian's reign.

Does anyone know:
1. Why/How the two different conclusions were reach?
2. Who is more likely correct?


I am going to attempt to make a response to my own question.

Here’s what I’ve found out so far:

I did a word search (what did we ever do before word search?!) of the name Antipas through the entire Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and his name came up only once. Tertullian simply quoted the Revelation passage and made mention of him as a faithful martyr.

I also found this concession on the website marythemotherofjesus.com
“Tradition states that Antipas was the bishop of Pergamum, but this is not documented. He is believed to have been burned to death. The only mention of him is in Revelation.”(Underlining is mine)

I also found this quote by William Ramsay, “It is not even certain that Antipas was a member of that congregation: the words are not inconsistent with the possibility that Antipas was brought up for trial from some other city, and ‘killed among the Pergamenians’”.

My question is this. Since several traditions were documented fairly early, even very questionable ones, why is this one lacking early documentation? I find it somewhat puzzling that a person that Jesus names as a faithful martyr has no early documented mention. This is even more puzzling to me if the person was a bishop….especially a bishop late in the first century, which would be closer to the time of Clement and Ignatius’ writings.

I was not able to find when the tradition was first documented.

Since the tradition has no early documentation (and can not, apparently, be proved or disproved), the use of the Antipas argument as a basis for dating the authorship of Revelation seems weak. IMO

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve



Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for digging up that information, anothersteve. I wrote no response to your earlier post because I had always read (in commentaries) that Antipas is known to us only from the one verse in Revelation, so I have never gone looking elsewhere. However, what you have posted is very useful information.
_________________
In Jesus,
Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
achsteven



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 13
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: Early date implied by Muratorian fragment? Reply with quote

Although I hadn't contributed anything to the forum in over a year, I often read material others have posted. Recently I had read over the Muratorian canon and took note of a particular segment that (to me) appears to affirm an early (pre-67) dating for the book of Revelation.

In advance I'll beg your pardon if this is tired old news (or if it's already been taken note of within this thread, I tried to sift through but it was a bit lengthy) - it's new to me...

Quote:
It is necessary for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all.


steve d
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Family Bible Fellowship Forum Index -> The Book of Revelation All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

BlueSilver_C 1.00 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games