Earlier dating of Revelation

[DCHindley]

As for David Aune:

From a 2008 post I had made on IIDB

What is usually treated as the last word on the subject is the work of Aune, David E.:

Revelation 1-5, World Biblical Commentary 52A. Waco, TX: Word, 1997.

Revelation 6-16, WBC 52B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Revelation 17-22, WBC 52C. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

"Vol. 1 of this commentary features a more than 200 pages introduction covering everything from textual criticism to the language of Revelation in more detail than any other newer commentary to Revelation and more than 350 pages of commentary covering Rev 1-5.

Vol 2. is of approximately the same size. A number of excursuses deals with major subjects e.g. the Nicolaitans. The wealth of material, bibliographies, research summaries, as well as Aune's deep knowledge of ancient literature makes this commentary a must for all serious Revelation students and researchers while it is, in my opinion, of more limited value for homiletic and biblical-theological purposes. It is probably one of the most important commentaries since the commentaries by Bousset, Swete, Beckwith, and Charles, rivalled perhaps only by the commentary by Gregory Beale.

For all its worth, however, some deficiencies may be noticed as well. First and foremost, too often the commentary lacks comments on the text itself and its meaning within Revelation, i.e. the synchronic dimension. The diachronic problems play an immense role, and Professor Aune argues a two-stage composition of Revelation. On a greater diachronic scale, John's use of the Old Testament is poorly treated in spite of the extensive research..."

http://www.revelation-resources.com/200 ... 3-volumes/ [uh oh, link is now dead as a doorknob]

Per a review available at the RBL site, Aune proposes "the first edition of the book was "compiled" about 70 CE (p. cxxiii) while "the second edition" of the book was "completed" in the last decade of the first century."

Per the reviewer, "The first edition [of the Apocalypse] made up a visionary apocalypse emerging directly from a Palestinian Jewish setting, albeit written by a Christian Jew conforming to the evolving canons of Jewish apocalyptic literature in the mid first century. It contained both original and traditional "self-contained units" brought together by a single author in uniquely creative act. A second edition [of the Apocalypse] completed at the end of the first century added the epistolatory framework and reflects maturing Christology of the various Christian communities associated with the Apocalypse."

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/2315_1492.pdf [another dead link]

You might have to be a SBL member to access the review now. I do not know what happened with vol 3, maybe it had not come out by the time of the Review.

I cannot say that I have read any of the other critical commentaries on Revelation.

DCH

[DCHindley]

Now I have studied a book by Gary Cohen that was popular in the 1960s among US style Fundamentalist Christian churches.

Gary G. Cohen, Understanding Revelation: A Chronology of the Apocalypse (Christian Beacon Press, 1968)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables.................................... V
Preface ............................1
Introduction to the Problem................3
Authorship and Date........................... 9

CHAPTER
I. REVELATION 1: BASIC CHRONOLOGICAL ORIENTATION. . 13
Six Basic Approaches............. 15
Critical.........................................16
Allegorical............................ 16
Preterit ............................... 17
Historical ............................. 19
Topical ...............................25
Futuristic ............................29

II. REVELATION 2-3: THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES.....................44

III. REVELATION 4-5: THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF THE THRONE SCENE..........................66

IV. REVELATION 6-19: ARE THE SEALS, TRUMPETS, & BOWLS CONTEMPORANEOUS OR SUCCESSIVE?......76

Part A. Introductory Observations............77
Part B. Succession within Each Series......... 81
Part C. Are the Seals, Trumpets, & Bowls Successive? .............................. 91
Part D. Objections to the Succession View.....106
Part E. Conclusion........................121

V. REVELATION 6-19: THE CHRONOLOGICAL PLACING OF THE INSETS.............................125

The 144,000 Sealed (Rev. 7:1-8)..............126
The Great Multitude (Rev. 7:9-17)............128
The Angel and the Little Book (Rev. 10:1-11) .. .130
The Two Witnesses (Rev. 11:1-13)............ 130
The Woman and the Dragon (Rev. 12).........134
The Beast (Rev. 13).........................139
The 144,000 upon Zion (Rev. 14:1-5)..........142
The Harvest (Rev. 14:14-20).................145
The Destruction of Babylon (Rev. 17 & 18).....147
The Marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:1-10)......155
The Revelation of Christ (Rev. 19:11-21).......158

VI. REVELATION 20-22: THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MILLENNIUM AND THE ETERNAL STATE..........162

Conclusion.....................................176

Selected Bibliography............................................180

LIST OF TABLES

1. ALBERT BARNES’ HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF REVELATION 6-19..................20-21
2. THE SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION PERIOD IN THE SCRIPTURES .........................31-34
3. A COMPARISON BETWEEN DANIEL’S FOURTH BEAST AND THE BEAST OF THE REVELATION...37
4. A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION PERIOD AND FIVE CHRONOLOGICAL SPECIFICATIONS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.....................38-39
5. REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE FUTURISTIC APPROACH.....................................41
6. PHILIP SCHAFF’S OUTLINE OF THE PERIODS OF CHURCH HISTORY..........................................51
7. THE CHRONOLOGICAL PATTERN OF THE UNLOOSING OF THE JUDGMENTS..................95
8. THUNDERS, VOICES, LIGHTNINGS, EARTHQUAKES, AND HAIL AS FOUND IN REVELATION, CHAPTERS 4-19 .........119
9. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE TRIBULATION. . . . 160-61

If you have never heard of any of this, you don't have a clue how to understand fundamentalist's beliefs about "end times" (this means today, right now, including their attitude towards the state of Israel and Barak Obama). You can't make this sort of thing up!

DCH (regurgitating an earlier post)

[ebion]

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/2315_1492.pdf [another dead link]

You might have to be a SBL member to access the review now. I do not know what happened with vol 3, maybe it had not come out by the time of the Review.

It's on the IA: https://web.archive.org/web/20210506192 ... 3-volumes/

I cannot say that I have read any of the other critical commentaries on Revelation.

The reason I ask is that, as many have observed, Revelation 2 stands out as a polemic against Paul, that is very different in character to the later from the later Revelations parts.

If you have never heard of any of this, you don't have a clue how to understand fundamentalist's beliefs about "end times" (this means today, right now, including their attitude towards the state of Israel and Barak Obama). You can't make this sort of thing up!

Yes I agree; I stop at chapter 3!

[dabber]

@ DCH, so do you think chapters 1-4 and 17-18 gave a later date, Domitian c95 CE, the traditional date. But the bulk chapters 5-16 an earlier date c68/69 CE.

[DCHindley]

@ DCH, so do you think chapters 1-4 and 17-18 gave a later date, Domitian c95 CE, the traditional date. But the bulk chapters 5-16 an earlier date c68/69 CE.

If that was based on my summary of Charles 2 Revelations ICC volumes, all I can say is that I usually find his analyses insightful (he's edited critical English translations of all the best known pseudepigrapha), and suggested interpretations measured. For example, he was pretty accurate about his analysis of the 4 sections of Ethiopic Enoch (1 Enoch) that had been found among the DSS.

Did not think his depth of analysis was as as strong as it was for 1 Enoch and the pseudepigrapha. He seemed to be more deferential (forgiving?) when dealing with the Revelation, undoubtedly because it is part of the Christian NT. I read through Aune's commentary volumes, and thought he was also being referential towards a Christian scripture.

Could Charles, or Aune, be wrong? Sure, but the best way for an average person to evaluate their criticism is to examine those passages they say were configured in such and so an order with what and so emendations, to see if that is the impression you also get.

Sure you will have to work from translations (if not familiar with ancient Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, which most simply do not possess, or just are not in a position to learn them) but that is why critical editions/translations are helpful. There are many available online for download, some better than others and the most recent ones not available due to copyright. Some are available in electronic form, but some you may have to scan into an OCR program. That would mean a flatbed scanner wouldn't hurt. That is all stuff we can add over time as we have fun with the subject.

They all have to lay out the text as they understand it, it's apparent seams between source materials exposed and critical changes made to correct apparent copyist errors. I was surprised how persuasive a lot of critical works first appear. However, after you get a bunch of these studies under your belt, you start to see the differences between positions. I've even learned something from the Fundamentalist Cohen's book, if only how the book was viewed by different parties in history, including medieval, feuding Roman Catholics & Protestants, etc.

Do you have a particular interest in the dates of the various parts of the Revelation?

Jus' curious.

DCH

[dabber]

@DCH thanks for the detailed reply. My interest in Revelation is because I'm writing a kindle book on the origins of Christianity, but I'm stumped on how Revelation fits in. It seems to be from an earlier period, messianic Judaism. So may represent pre-Christian writing, with a redactor adding in the Jesus references to Christian'ize it. Cheers

[MrMacSon]

I'd recommend
How John Wrote the Book of Revelation: From Concept to Publication by Kim Mark Lewis

• https://www.amazon.com/How-John-Wrote-B ... 8&qid=&sr=

• https://books.google.com.au/books/about ... edir_esc=y

The author has posted about it in this forum : See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5035&hilit=Lewis+Revelation

As have I : see viewtopic.php?p=130453#p130453

eta

First, the book of Revelation was written after 70 CE. That much is obvious, because the selection of the book of Ezekiel, which depicts the temple being destroyed, as its foundation. However, the book was written decades after the destruction of Jerusalem while depicting its writing prior to its destruction (see Rev 10:1-11).

The entry of the beast narratives come from Daniel, and was the last text added to Revelation. The person, that John is describing as the beast is Domitian. The reasoning is based upon when John wants you to believe that it is written and how he predicts it. If you follow how John splits up the texts of Daniel and the numbers he gives for the kings of the beast. Domitian is the only one that would fit that context. Vespasian when he became emperor, he made his two sons co-emperors. When he died, Titus became emperor for a little while, 2 years, and then Domitian became emperor again.

• Here is Wisdom and Lord of Lords, King of Kings https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t96PhK ... sp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1_KydT5 ... sp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ujEKU0 ... sp=sharing

Now to the question that you are asking. Lots of passages that are claimed as history in Revelation is actually quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Revelation 13:8 is a product of parallel formation between the second church and Revelation 13. You cannot think of Revelation being written in one sitting by done in many with many processes. Below is a snap shot, in fact, one of the very last parallels done in Revelation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gGkg-a ... sp=sharing

However, it is my belief that John was predicting the end of the world at 105 CE and the 10 days of being imprisoned was 10 years from 96 CE to 105 CE.

I will have to get back on the source for 11:8. Sorry, I hope this was at least a good start.

[MrMacSon]

In the first draft of Revelation, John took the whole of Ezekiel and chapters 6 to 29 of Isaiah and formed a parallel with them. The content in both sections contained many of the same items in the same order. The result was two sets of wax tablets, one set from Ezekiel, the other from Isaiah

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12JZcor ... sp=sharing

On page 40, you can see how the content from Ezekiel 2:9 - 3:3 became the source of the scroll that contained honey. In Ezekiel, it is God that has the scroll and hands it to Ezekiel.

On page 41, The Isaiah side of the wax tablet has the interaction with Isaiah and the Seraphim. When page 40 and 41 are conflated we get the genesis of Chapter 5 of Revelation.

In the next draft, John integrated Zechariah into the book of Revelation by organizing the two stacks of wax tablets by reverse order of the the content found in Zechariah 1:1 to 12:10. He also sprinkled a lot of the content of Zechariah into the second draft. However John had a problem and that was that Zechariah had a flying scroll (Zech 5:1-4) and the order was in a different place than Revelation 5. So John split the Ezekiel scroll, literary and place half of it where the Zechariah scroll was. He then added two of the elements of destruction from Zechariah 5:3-5 into the text.

Before John split the scroll, he created the chain of custody of the scroll found in Revelation 1:1 where it went from God, to Jesus, to an Angel, and finally to John. However, for some reason he did not want to use the Seraphim found in Revelation, so he created a synonym for it known as the Mighty Angel. That is how the mighty angel got created.

When John split the scroll, he kept the Mighty angel in both Revelation 5 and 10. John does this type of thing several other places in Revelation.

Since the scroll was a judgment device, John included another scroll passage found in Jeremiah 51:49, 63-64. That is where we get the mill stone found in Revelation 18:21. Yes, you guessed it, when he moved that text there, he also carried the Mighty Angel to that location and that is how the Mighty Angel is found in three places in Revelation.

See https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AUjJoC ... sp=sharing

In the next draft, the Deuteronomy-Joshua draft, John took the last six chapters of Deuteronomy and the first six chapters of Joshua and inserted the text between the wax tablets. When he came to the Mighty Angel in Revelation 10:2, he placed one foot in the water, and one foot on the land just like the children of Israel did when they crossed the Jordan river (see page 9 of chapter 1 posted in this thread).

The last tinkering John did was in the Daniel Draft, where he integrated Daniel 12:3-11 into Revelation 10 and 11
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y0D9wG ... sp=sharing

Sorry if the story is rough in its presentation, but I do hope you like how the Mighty Angel and the Scroll transformed from one draft to the next.