Clivedurdle

How are these comments about churches used to date Revelation?

Ellegard noted that Paul seemed to be writing to well established Churches, with hierarchies and traditions. Revelation is even more complex, with heresy.

Does not complexity, veneer, patina, take time? Like the gnarled roots of an old oak?

sotto voce

Then he should have seen his doctor.

DCHindley

Clive,

Actually, it would only date the first four chapters as these four are generally considered to be a later addition. For the rest of it, the final editor apparently used several earlier sources and sewed them together with some changes. I believe that chapter 22:7 to the end is the final editor's wrap up, which draws upon symbolism in the main body (with some errors, surprisingly).

Per Robert Henry Charles, (ICC Commentary on Revelation, 1920) the sources the author of Revelation may have used are:

a) Either a Hebrew or Greek source
7:1-8 (before 70 AD) actually 2 sources:
A 7:1-3
B 7:4-8.

b) Greek sources
11:1-13 (before 70 AD, likely Neronian in date)
12 (before 70 AD) Christianized Jewish source (possibly Neronian in date)
17-18 (71-79 AD) Greek translation of 2 Hebrew sources:
A) 17:1c-2, 3b-6, 7, 18, 8-10 (greater part), 18:2-23. (18:4 postulates a Vespasianic date)
B) 17:11 (greater part), 12-13, 17, 16. (elements of 17:10-11 suggests both a Vespasianic and Domitianic date, depending on how interpreted)

c) Hebrew sources
13:1a,b,d, 2, 4-7a, 10 (before 70 AD, likely Neronian in date),
13:3c, 8, an independent Greek translation of which is reflected in 17:8
13:11, 12ab, 13-14ab,16ad-17a (before 70 AD)
15:5-8 (possible source)

The rest of Revelation is pretty much the creation of the author, and editorial interpolations in his sources, probably under Vespasian (example are chapters 1-4) or Domitian (final, including redaction of earlier sources).

On the opposite side of the coin, David E Aune has produced a 3 volume commentary that sweeps all the things noted by Charles (who was 90% correct in his anaylsis of 1 Enoch) under the rug:

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

DCH

Perspicuo

The funny thing is that all those churches converted to Islam. LOL

sotto voce

The Roman police state got to those parts long before Muhammad's armies arrived, and the churches there disappeared without trace, as they did everywhere else in the empire by the time of Theodosius at the latest. In the case of Anatolia, probably long before that, in the 2nd century. The theology of Byzantium was no different, in practice, from that of Islam, as is true of Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam today.

Perspicuo

Apart from your fringe history, everyone knows Nicean Christianity is Pauline. But go ahead, I understand these are questions of faith for you.

sotto voce

What everyone educated knows is that any educated people who lend any support or give credence to the RCC or EOC will forever wish they have never been born.

Perspicuo

You wish I hadn't been born. Why should I wish such a thing?

Sotto, it may seem odd to you, but the options are not between believing in this church or the other. There actually exists a field of research called history to go to when deciding on these matters. The world isn't flat anymore, nowadays we don't only have sects but science. Try it, but I don't guarantee you will like it (the real world isn't always likeable).

Toto

As far as I know, they are not used to date Revelation.

The seven churches - for which no evidence exists outside the NT - have a wikipedia entry.

Seven_churches_of_Asia

The term "Historicist" above is used in a different sense from its use in this forum.

Historicism_(Christian_eschatology)

sotto voce

Not in the least.

True. So why go down that silly road?

It's a question of whether one is going to discuss history, and theology, or not. And you have yet to make a start. If you dispute any of my points in #5, quote them and query the content directly, without misrepresentation, without making classic false arguments, without contentious opinions, without adding personal comment; but from a historian's pov, if possible. Do as I do.

'The funny thing is that all those churches converted to Islam. LOL'

This comment is wildly inaccurate, and is plainly not impartial, so is not what one expects in a scholarly discussion.