A figure falling dead from the sky in Revelation 1:7 implies a crucifixion in outer space

[Giuseppe]

I hate facebook but sometimes I find real jems there. So Richard Carrier about Revelation as a historicist text:

Joel Pearson For the record (in case anyone wants to know), I think Revelation (or at least our redaction of it; scholars debate how many layers of redaction it underwent, but none, IMO, are adequately provable to be usable as a premise) is simply a spinoff from the same sect (and possibly author) as the Gospel of Matthew. Its most probable composition during the reign of Domitian (as most scholars agree, with good reason IMO) would support that. So I don't consider it likely to be a mythicist text. Maybe some early form was, but that's speculation at best (so far). It would be nice, though, if we had a stronger case for a redaction history. Because much of its content is suspicious from the hand of a historicist, I agree.

But alas the surprise by a commenter:

Since you mentioned the book of Revelation, and I have been wanting to discuss this with you anyway...

I am slowly working on a paper where I will present (what I think is) a new suggestion that Rev 1:7 may have at first been intended as an account of the one like a son of man falling dead from the sky, and that Rev 1:12-18 was meant as an account of the figure being resurrected soon after. I am aware this is radically different from how those verses have traditionally been understood.

Whether that figure was originally meant to be Jesus, or (say, in a version of Revelation prior to Christian interpolations as J. Massyngberde Ford, James Tabor, and some others postulate) was meant to symbolize Israel, is outside the scope of my research, but I footnote it as a possibility.

The scene in Rev 1:12-18 takes elements from one particular vision in Daniel and also mixes in some elements found elsewhere in Daniel. I find it fascinating how John transforms Daniel's version - I argue that every single changed detail appears to serve the purpose of making John's version look like a resurrection account rather than like an epiphany. For now I'll just mention three quick examples: the re-ordering the visual elements into sequence of increasing brightness is unique to John (John makes them dynamic--changing right before his eyes--rather than a static snapshot of what the figure looks like at a particular moment), John changes "sound of a multitude" to "sound of many waters" as water in revelation symbolizes life, and John's adding the sword "coming out of" could refer to the sword (possibly already implied in v7) being extracted from the body it had just been piercing.

I have a shareable first draft of the paper, but it needs significant revision and additional footnotes before I could consider it actually publishable. My progress on the paper has been extremely slow. I started it a couple years ago, and I have been very slow at doing further research for it. Also, not being in academia myself and not having any much formal training in academic writing, I extremely wish I had a coauthor who could help me at this stage - if anyone reading this wants to help, please direct message me. I am undertaking this project only because I feel I've stumbled onto a thesis that I strongly believe needs to be vetted by the wider academic community, even though I don't really feel sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled to complete the task of properly arguing for it on my own. I desire to offload some of the more difficult parts of the research onto someone else who can help me.

My current draft of the paper already has much more to say about the passages in question than I can fit into this already too long Facebook comment. In particular, it explains my reasons for suggesting that 1:7 should not be read merely a summary statement of the future parousia as it's normally interpreted, but rather as the figure falling dead from the sky in order to set the scene for verse 12. One problem in 1:7 is to explain why the tribes of the earth are "mourning over him". I do not find popular explanations for the mourning (such as people fearing coming judgement) convincing in the slightest. The most obvious reason to mourn over someone is that said person has died, and this linking of death with mourning has repeated precedent in the Hebrew Bible, including in the context following Zech 12:10, the very verse which John quotes from, and probably expects his audience to recall. The figure is meant to be seen as dead when seen in the sky, in that way Revelation begins with the just introduced protagonist seemingly already defeated.

On a related note, I am still pondering how Rev 1:7 relates to Matthew 24:30-31. (What makes these two verses interesting to me is how they both combine Daniel 7:13 with Zech 12:10, a very peculiar innovation which similar verses like Mark 13:26; 14:64; Mt 26:64 don't do.) Is one derived from the other or are both derived from an earlier source or tradition? I suspect the combination of Daniel 7:13 with Zech 12:10 is an original idea by the author of Revelation, and thus the verse in Matthew is secondary to it, but it's hard to really be sure of such things.

The same commenter shares my doubts about Paul:

I don't really have an opinion on whether Paul existed. Acts is mostly, if not entirely, fiction. The letters ascribed to Paul are full of second century interpolations, and the Marcionites' shorter version of the letters is almost certainly closer to the original. But whether they were written around Marcion's own time, or preserved from the mid-first century as tradition claims, I don't have an opinion. I also find the parallels between Simon and Paul intriguing. I remember that Carrier has argued for the authentic Pauline epistles being first century (at least in part), and I saw nothing wrong with his arguments on the matter, but overall I think the evidence just seems too weak for us to have much confidence either way. I also don't think the dating matters much, in the sense that I can't see it really affecting how we interpret the text itself.

Anyway, Nick, what motivated you to bring up Paul in response to a comment about Revelation?

(my bold)

A "figure falling dead from the sky" has been obviously killed in heaven.

[Giuseppe]

Curiously, years ago and independently from this commenter, I had interpreted "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven" as a survived trace of the belief in a celestial crucifixion, only the Gospel mention of it doesn't imply a mourning for it:

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

[DCHindley]

Or an alien space craft orbiting earth to observe our culture around 95 CE broke up due to meteorite strike and one occupant did not burn up in the unit as it fell about 20 miles through our atmosphere, but fell to earth relatively unschathed (compared to the spacecraft going 10,000 MPH), alighting in the heap that happens when an organic object falling about 120 MPH meets solid ground. Yes, he would have been bloody. Please, do not force me to propose a time shift scenario.

[maryhelena]

Or an alien space craft orbiting earth to observe our culture around 95 CE broke up due to meteorite strike and one occupant did not burn up in the unit as it fell about 20 miles through our atmosphere, but fell to earth relatively unschathed (compared to the spacecraft going 10,000 MPH), alighting in the heap that happens when an organic object falling about 120 MPH meets solid ground. Yes, he would have been bloody. Please, do not force me to propose a time shift scenario.

[GakuseiDon]

I am slowly working on a paper where I will present (what I think is) a new suggestion that Rev 1:7 may have at first been intended as an account of the one like a son of man falling dead from the sky, and that Rev 1:12-18 was meant as an account of the figure being resurrected soon after. I am aware this is radically different from how those verses have traditionally been understood.

The King James text for Rev 1:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... n-kjv.html

Rev.1
[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
[2] Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
[3] Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
[4] John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
[5] And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
[6] And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
[7] Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
[8] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
[9] I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
[11] Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
[12] And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
[13] And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
[14] His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
[15] And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
[16] And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
[17] And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
[18] I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
[19] Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
[20] The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

It seems like less of "an account of the one like a son of man falling dead from the sky" but more like a vision of someone returning who had been killed.

[Giuseppe]

"John" learns that Jesus is risen only from the his (=of Jesus) same mouth (verse 12):

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore,

...not because he had seen him descend from heaven only a second before, implying that the descent could well be of a dead figure.

[Giuseppe]

The same author continues:

The parallel to Rev 1:7 in Matthew 23:30 is misleading and should not be allowed to limit or overly influence how we are read Revelation. We might instead consider if Rev 1:7 means to depict an angel falling out of the sky after being killed by other powers there. This would create an interesting parallel with Rev 9:1, and later with the slaying of the dragon.

(my bold)

[StephenGoranson]

Revelation 1:7 does not mention a "figure falling dead from the sky."

[Giuseppe]

Have you read the previous comment?

You are absolutely correct that Zechariah 12:10-14 is crucially important here. It’s about mourning over the dead (whomever that includes). That’s a big part of my fuller argument that I sent you privately.

This passage itself never implies the figure uses the sword as a weapon; it merely says the a sharp double-edged sword was departing (the same Greek word often used for people exiting a city) out of his mouth. Be careful, since mention of the sword elsewhere in Revelation could be written by a different author making a quite different point, but even a single author could be contrasting two separate functions of the sword. For now, looking closely only at Revelation 1 itself in the Greek, the most straightforward and natural explanation of the sword is that it is being extracted from someone it had pierced. This is the plain reading.

English translations aren’t always as helpful as we might like. For example, “like burnished bronze refined in a furnace,” is certainly wrong; it has to be white-hot molten bronze that is meant.

Another translation issue is that ancient Greek uses the same word, phonos, both for voices and for other kinds of sounds. One has to determine the meaning from context. It has been controversial among scholars whether the sound like many waters should be identified with the previous voice like a trumpet. I argue, partially based on the striking parallel to Daniel 7:11 (where when Daniel turns around intending to hear the beast continue speaking, but instead finds it being slain, and hears another speaking), that these are two different sounds. Here the later sound’s position alongside the visual description is very well explained as referring to the noise of whatever process causes the increasing glowing.

John falling down “as if dead” in ironic contract to the figure’s restoration is yet another clue. Then soon after, the figure explicitly says, “I was dead, but you see I’m alive”.

Seriously, the most compelling reading of Rev 1:12-16 is as a vision of a full blown resurrection. It is not a mere revelatory appearance. (It is a separate question whether John supposedly witnesses the resurrection the same time it happens, or whether the vision means to be some sort of flashback or flashforward.) It greatly disappoints me how scholarly commentaries (every one I’ve checked) have all missed this.

The part in bold raises surely the my interest. I am expecting the Neil's answer to Wayne VanWeerthuizen.

[StephenGoranson]

Rev. 1:7 does not mention a "figure falling dead from the sky."