Witulski's view about Revelation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9665
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Witulski's view about Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

Someone knows something about Witulski's view about the Book of Revelation?

http://www.revelation-resources.com/tag ... -witulski/

If his conclusions are accepted, it's open the concrete possibility that the entire theological motive of expiatory sacrifice, blood that purifies, etc., was indeed later and not early.

I suspect that this means that the theology of redemption by sacrifical death of the Son (found in Revelation, Hebrews, Didachè, Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon etc) is yes Jewish in essence, but born in reaction to a previous theology of the salvific Revealer.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Witulski's view about Revelation

Post by Peter Kirby »

This volume – part of his Habilitationsschrift! – argues that Revelation was written very late, around 132 AD.

Witulski argues that Rev 2:12-17.18-27; 13:1-18; 17:9-14 and 21:1-8 not only allows this very late dating, but substantiates it.

According to Witulski, the two beasts of Revelation 13 are the Emperor Hadrian and the Sophist Antonius Polemon, a friend and political advisor of the Emperor. The “throne of Satan” (Rev 2:13) can just as easily be identified with Traian’s temple in Pergamum.
So, it's a book. 84 euro. Yay for unusual conclusions in obscure, practically-inaccessible German monographs.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9665
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Witulski's view about Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

If the dating of the text (around 130 CE) would be accepted, this would mean that under the Emperor Hadrian we still had groups of followers of Jesus who believed in a mythical Jesus without still a Gospel connected to him.

Which means that the 130 CE is the terminus post-quem for the writing of a gospel.
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Witulski's view about Revelation

Post by yakovzutolmai »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:45 am If the dating of the text (around 130 CE) would be accepted, this would mean that under the Emperor Hadrian we still had groups of followers of Jesus who believed in a mythical Jesus without still a Gospel connected to him.

Which means that the 130 CE is the terminus post-quem for the writing of a gospel.
Unless of course Mark's Gospel concerns a mythical Jesus. I would say the same for Luke and John. Matthew less so, but as I have said, the nativity derives from Adonis cult mythology. We see that David had the Bethlehem cultic forms applied to him, so perhaps Matthew is only writing an exoteric expression of the esoteric argument that Jesus the spirit is to be identified with the god David as the Jews understood him esoterically.

If anyone would have had the ability to recognize the nativity story as cultic, not about Herod, it would have been Jews contemporary to the writing of Matthew.

I think ONLY the Eastern faith - the successors to Sicarii - had any historicized objects of worship. And ONLY during the debate with Marcionites did Christians historicize Jesus so that they could create an apostolic succession from which they could claim authority that Marcionites lacked.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9665
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Witulski's view about Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

A Revelation written around 130 CE comes probably from the same circles who produced the Book of Elchasai. Both are apocalyptic and anti-Roman.

Note that a Revelation written in 130 CE, when Hadrian persecuted the Jews who rejected any contact with gentiles, could be conceived only out of the Roman Empire. In the East.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Christos Replaces Logos

Post by billd89 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:18 amthis means that the theology of redemption by sacrifical death of the Son ...is ... Jewish in essence, but born in reaction to a previous theology of the salvific Revealer.
The Christos (viz. Jesus) replaced the Logos (viz. Melchizedek) Doctrine as a hot trend in Diaspora synagogues c.55-75 AD, yes. The Saviour-Revealer was Melchizedek (for Alexandrian Jews), abstracted as "Logos" for far-flung communities purchasing Egyptian books (sermons, hymns, etc.); even in Egypt, Melchizedekianism (relic military cult; Intercessor for Jewish warriors, c.250 BC = Saviour) was on the wane 100 BC -70 AD, after which it becomes an anathema, heresy.

I want to know when/where the "Christos" myth first appears; perhaps it was Byblos (Adon Myth, radiating from a port city). I don't buy into all this Late Dating; by the time smthg is recorded in script its been in existence orally a generation or two earlier. And Alexandrian Xtian Gnosticism is far too advanced & complex c.125 AD to support 'Late Gospels': foundational material should be 2-3 generations older.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9665
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Christos Replaces Logos

Post by Giuseppe »

billd89 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:31 am I don't buy into all this Late Dating;
Under the traditional dating of Paul, I am fully satisfied by prominent past and present mythicists: William Benjamin Smith, Arthur Drews, Paul-Louis Couchoud, Edouard Dujardin, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, RG Price.

Now it is time, for me, to investigate under the Late Dating paradigm, i.e. placing all the Christian literature after the 70 CE, and in particular the Gospels after the 120/130 CE.

hence, please, if you want to contribute to my threads, respect my inclination. ;)
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

What's What

Post by billd89 »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:07 amhence, please, if you want to contribute to my threads, respect my inclination. ;)
As far as I can tell, NO that is not the way the Forum works. You post a vast array and jumble of peculiar notions (I'm being VERY charitable here), but you certainly don't control the discourse.

In short:
1) no one must accept your Assumptions
2) no one needs your permission or acceptance to Reply
3) no one has to defer to your Fantasy Prerogative.

You can ask whatever politely, but NO, that 'request' really isnt reasonable chief.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9665
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What's What

Post by Giuseppe »

billd89 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:24 am
You can ask whatever politely, but NO, that 'request' really isnt reasonable chief.
if this is your premise, I fear that there is no way to advance the discussion between us. I am not saying that you are not able to say interesting points. Only, we have different interests.

Feel free to talk in my threads (where the interest, from now, is to investigate mythicism under the Late Dating paradigm) only with this additional knowledge: that I will ignore your claims about Christian texts/beliefs in existence before the 70 CE.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Musical Interlude

Post by billd89 »

Heh - whatever.
Post Reply