the_cave

Hi anglo atheist--we're aware of the traditional dating of Revelations. This thread is about the proposal that it was written earlier than the traditional date.

I did want to add that there is an alternative to my original proposal (that Vespasian is the sixth king who "is"--i.e. the author is retrojecting the revelation back to the time just before the fall of Jerusalem, when--if we can trust the dating of events by Josephus--Vespasian has become emperor). The alternative is this:

Pehaps the author is retrojecting the revelation back to a time before the beginning of the siege itself, or during its early stages. This could make it possible that the sixth king is indeed Nero (and so Julius would be the first). But, then, who is the seventh king, and the eighth "who is of the seven"? The eighth is generally taken to be a reincarnation of Nero. I have already suggested a date of 81CE for this passage. However, another date is possible--from Wikipedia:

This would place his appearance during the brief reign of the emperor Galba, who in fact captured and killed him. Galba reigned for only a few short weeks, and so perhaps Galba is the seventh king, who was only to reign for "a little while". Perhaps the author viewed Galba's successors as illegitimate--or perhaps he viewed Galba's successor, Otho, as the reincarnation of Nero. From Wikipedia, taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Or perhaps it is that revival of Nero's cognomen that the author of Revelation views as the symbolic return of Nero. Possible also that the return of Nero was seen in the pro-Neronean actions that Otho took. (From the same entry in Wikipedia):

Indeed, during Galba's reign, the Neronean impostor hid out among the Aegean islands--right nearby Patmos! From Wikipedia again:

So, it's possible this part of Revelation was written as early as 69CE. And the possibility that the current text of Revelation was based on a pre-70 prophecy shouldn't be completely ruled out. In its present form, it does seem likely that it was at least redacted after the fall of Jerusalem. But there might have been prophetic language about the fall of Jerusalem that pre-dates the event. How could this be possible? Well, think of Josephus' Jesus ben Ananias--and I think that a direct comparison between Jesus ben Ananias and the language of Revelation is rather interesting. Here is Jesus ben Ananias, as recorded by Josephus (War 6.5.3):

Compare this to Revelation (esp. chs. 9 and 18).

If Jesus ben Ananias can "forsee" the fall of Jerusalem, why not the author of Revelation? (Although, IMO, again, at least some of it is post-70. It seems to me that the horrific, vengeful, even terrifying, language is most plausibly the work of someone who witnessed either the siege itself, or its aftermath. It's possible they're forming their impressions from Josephus, but I am not sure.)

Also possible that this part of Revelation was written after the siege, and the author viewed Vespasian (and Vitellius) as illegitimate emperors. He figured Nero was still out there somewhere. This is less likely, I think.

So, I think it's quite likely that part of Revelation, at least, predates the gospels. Personally I think this would make a lot of sense. The Jesus of revelation is rather different from the Jesus of either the gospels or almost all of the epistles.

angelo

What as some author wrote long ago, the writers or writer of Revelation had the history of Palestine in front of him. That would explain the mention of the Temple.
The whole story reads like the author was under the influence of magic mushrooms anyway, or at least mentally disturbed in some way.

jules?

I had the opinion that Rev was written by a mad man until i sat down and deconstructed it. I am no scholar so I cannot go back to Greek but it is possible to follow the method of writing.

In the first instance it is half a dozen End-Time stories, most are simply predictions of global destruction but a couple are more abstract. So each cycle of scroll opening represents another version and increases the detail rather than being a chronological series of events. The whole event is to last 3 and half years so every time an angel opens a scroll the timescale is reset. Try it yourself, download a copy and then cut and paste.

7 has all kinds of significance so the frequency of its use becomes contrived. perhaps someone can place the magic of the number into Jewish apocalyptic context beyond 7 being the number of days of creation. which leads to 7 kings as having particular significance. I do not see internal dating from this referance but I can see why the churches cling to the view the document is late and not the basis of christianity. It seems there is a desire to seperate Jewish apocalyptic beliefs from christianity which IMO is simply a breaking out of those beliefs into the rest of the Empire

MortalWombat

The bolded part is a non sequitur. It's like saying, "John Adams wasn't the first president of the United States. In fact, there was doubt that he would have been remembered fondly after his death."

Ben C Smith

You have changed the subject here. Your assertion was that none of the symbology and numerology fits anything other than a Domitianic date; this is false. The symbology and numerology fit Nero, period. That the book itself was written later does not affect the symbology and the numerology.

These steps are arbitrary. The list virtually always begins with Julius. (I seem to recall reading that there is a list out there that starts with Augustus, but I have been unable to track it down.) And the other three emperors are never left out of the count on any other list.

The is can be Nero, regardless of when the book was written. The author may have wished, for example, to make it seem that the book was written in the reign of Nero and that it predicted the fall of Jerusalem. Another possibility is that the vision really did take place during the reign of Nero, but the book was written later, and the vision was revised to fit the history that had transpired. (I am not committing to any of these at this point.)

If the author can make it seem that the book was written during the reign of Vespasian, why can the author not make it seem that the book was written during the reign of Nero?

You rejected the Neronic symbology because you knew the book had to postdate Nero; you then seized upon Vespasianic symbology of some kind; yet, when you found that the book has to postdate Vespasian, too, you floated an option that would have allowed you to keep the Neronic symbology, had you wished to do so. Why is this?

Ben.

ETA: I just saw your subsequent post where you deal with this issue more fully. Good points, cave.

the_cave

I don't dispute that it fits Nero. I'm asking how it fits Nero.

The problem is that there are several choices to make, and it's not easy to see which are arbitrary and which aren't. Some might say it's just as arbitrary to assume a two-stage composition process, as it is to assume that the list might begin with Augustus, for example.

They seem like common-enough theories out there on the Web, at least. Do some hunting, and you'll find them (Curiously, there are Biblical literalists out there who agree with me. I even found a Tektonics page that also suggests Otho could be the eighth! Strange befellows. More curiously, Kenneth Humphries also agrees with the dating, but starts the list with Augustus nevertheless!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/revelation.htm

I don't know of any scholarly presentations of these theories, but then I don't know that there is any semi-official scholarly presentation of any interpretation of Revelation.)

See above--I'm not rejecting the Neronic symbology. I'm trying to make it fit a post-70 date for authorship. But this may not be necessary. It's hard to say. At any rate, there is good evidence for a source just prior to, or just after, the fall of Jerusalem.

Thanks.

Ben C Smith

Agreed.

Actually, I meant lists attested from antiquity. Not from the modern internet.

Try Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, chapter 11 (Nero and the Beast).

Bauckham thinks, BTW, that the seven kings are not meant to count any kings in particular, that the number seven was pulled out solely for its apocalyptic and numerological value. I am not so sure about that, but the chapter is very enlightening as to the numerology involved (triangular numbers, square numbers, rectangular numbers, oh my!).

Okay, then I simply misunderstood this:

Bauckham does too, IIRC.

Ben.

angelo

The point of revelation was that the ''lord Jezus'' was coming very soon to repay according to every one's work. [Rev. 22.12]
The fact is that the Gospelers were still trying to understand what this Jebus was all about, and why he died.
Don't forget, Jebus was expected to free the Jews from the Roman yoke, he was regarded as the liberator of the Jews. When it failed to materialise all sort of spin was placed on why at that time nothing happened.
So it was placed in ther near future that Jebus would return to earth and save his followers.
And like the JWs today, postpone the end times to a future event when it failed to materialize in their time.
As far as I'm concerned, all these myths grew out of nothing more than hearsay.
When people are oppressed and living with no hope of betterment, they start to fantasize a better future through myths and hope.

the_cave

While I'm at it, it seems like a no-brainer to me that the "ten kings" of Revelations 17:12 probably represent the leadership of the cities of the Decapolis, and the author is thinking of the civil conflicts described in War 2.18.1-2 (Yes, I realize that Daniel 7:24 also has ten kings, and that the author of Revelations was probably influenced by this. I'm just saying he probably saw either a parallel to this, or fulfillment of this, in the conflicts among the cities of the Decapolis in his time.) This means that the author is either protesting the treatment of the Jews, or perhaps instead of some third party that got caught in the conflict. (Interesting that Josephus mentions that the Syrians "had the Judaizers in suspicion also".) It appears that the author may in fact be speaking directly of the Roman persecution of the Jews during the First Revolt. This suggests that the author identifies as both Jewish and Christian. (Though, again, the Jesus of Revelation is pretty different from the gospel Jesus!) I'm not the first to suggest that Revelation was originally a Jewish document, but I'm starting to come around to the idea.