Was the Book of Revelation a Christian book?

[food4thought]

I have read parts of it, and read ABOUT it.

Good for you, it is the only book in the Bible that promises a blessing on those who read and/or hear it.

Nevertheless I still cannot get my head around the fine theological distinctions of denominations arising from its content.

I am not aware of any denomination that has split solely over the interpretation of Revelation. To be sure, though, there are at least 4 major ways Revelation is viewed:

Preterism: Revelation depicts events that happened in the 1st century AD
Historicism: Revelation spans history from the first century AD to the 2nd coming of Christ
Idealism: Revelation symbolically depicts the overarching battle between good and evil at all times
Futurism: Most of Revelation speaks of events that are yet future, the time leading up to the 2nd coming of Christ

Much of discussion about it reminds me of Midrash or Kabbalah, and is similar to so-called kabbalistic or Hassidic apocalyptic theories about the coming of the Messiah son of Joseph, Messiah son of David, preceded by Elijah - when and how and who, which is all rather confusing even to many Jews.

I am not familiar with those traditions, so I should not comment further upon the comparison. I will admit that eschatology (the study of the last things) is a very complicated endeavor.

And of course it seems to be clear that in its original form Revelation was not a Christian book at all, but belonged to some pietistic Jewish sect in its original form.

Not to be rude, but that is utter hogwash. Even a cursory reading of the book depicts the centrality of Jesus Christ to it's message. It is, from someone who spent quite a bit of time studying it, an obviously Christian book.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

Good for you, it is the only book in the Bible that promises a blessing on those who read and/or hear it.

Did you get a blessing when you read and heard it?
And what was it if you don't mind me asking

 

[food4thought]

Did you get a blessing when you read and heard it?
And what was it if you don't mind me asking

Yes I did, it helped me to see beyond my struggles in life and see a hope for the future based upon God's promised creation of a new heavens and a new earth.

 

[Duvduv]

I was thinking of the possibility that the book was adaptrf over time by the Christians by something written much earlier.

 

[food4thought]

I was thinking of the possibility that the book was adaptrf over time by the Christians by something written much earlier.

I guess I can understand how you might think that way, given the book's extensive use of OT imagery and references. Yet you have to understand that the early Christians greatly revered the OT as the very word of God, and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was closely linked to the revelations of the OT prophets. The NT in large part is a continuation and fulfillment of the OT, so there should be no surprise that certain aspects of some of it's books would bear the marks of OT literature. The book of Revelation is largely a culmination of all the OT prophecies, as it ties together all the various passages about the ultimate "day of the LORD". Yet at the center of it's message is the person and work of Jesus Christ, and to try to remove Him from the book leaves it without it's major theme of the Lamb of God who is judging the wicked world, and His ultimate triumph over all evil, including death itself.

Hope this helps;
Michael

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was thinking of the possibility that the book was adaptrf over time by the Christians by something written much earlier.

There's clearly an influence on the text from the apocalyptic tradition of Daniel, Ezekiel, and 2nd Temple apocalyptic literature--its literary style is clearly in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition. But there's no reason to believe that it is anything other than an original writing by John on the island of Patmos. There is a very clear influence of apocalyptic, visionary, and prophetic material such as Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, etc but all of those influences are structured in ways that are distinctly Christian; written for seven communities of Christians located in the Roman province of Asia,

Tradition maintains that John of Patmos is either John the Apostle or John the Presbyter (or both, it is unclear if these are two different people or the same person, ancient sources disagree). Assuming the common tradition, however, that this is the Apostle, then John after the dispersion of the Apostles from Judea following the persecution under Herod Agrippa eventually ended up in Ephesus along with Mary the mother of Jesus (the Fourth Evangelist, identified with John the Apostle, is the disciple whom Jesus entrusted care for His mother). Here, tradition says, John was to be killed by being boiled alive in bubbling oil--but was miraculously unharmed. So instead he was banished to the prison island of Patmos where he received his visions, and then wrote them down and sent them to the seven churches in Asia, including Ephesus.

Tradition also says John eventually returned home to Ephesus, where he died a natural death of old age.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Duvduv]

Well, one of the ironies is that there is no corroborative evidence outside of church sources for the existence of Christian communities in these places, or in the communities identified in the Epistles in the first or even second centuries.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, one of the ironies is that there is no corroborative evidence outside of church sources for the existence of Christian communities in these places, or in the communities identified in the Epistles in the first or even second centuries.

I don't see how that's ironic, it would seem reasonable that a relatively small religious movement would be more interested in cataloguing its important people, events, and places than outside sources.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Duvduv]

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for the existence of such communities outside the Christian canon. Thus, their existence is purely a matter of faith, a fact which is even ignored by secular historians of the emergence of Christianity.

 

[JackRT]

Even among super conservative evangelicals this raises some eyebrows, when you stop to consider the bulk of the New Testament was written between 60-70 AD.

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)


Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)


Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)


Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

 

[ViaCrucis]

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for the existence of such communities outside the Christian canon. Thus, their existence is purely a matter of faith, a fact which is even ignored by secular historians of the emergence of Christianity.

Mention of these communities do exist outside of the Christian Canon. Early Christian writings that aren't included make plenty of mention of these things.

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters during his imprisonment and travel to Rome. Three of those letters are addressed to the Ephesians, the Smyrnaeans, and the Philadelphians. And one of those is addressed to his friend Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna. Two others were written to two other churches in Asia, the Epistle to the Trallians and the Epistle to the Magnesians (Tralles and Magnesia are two cities located in the same region as the seven cities mentioned in the Revelation). The last of the letters is to the Church in Rome, sent ahead in large part to discourage the community from trying to rescue him or find a way to keep him from dying, telling them that he is in his old age prepared to die.

The very existence of letters written to communities indicates the existence of these communities. That they are Christian sources, and not non-Christian sources, doesn't change that.

It seems to me that a pretty good reason should be given to assume that no communities existed in these locations when there are people writing to said communities. Saying there is no early evidence outside of Christian sources isn't an argument for or against anything, it's just a statement.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JackRT]

Earl Doherty wrote --- "Despite the apologetic efforts of those seeking to rehabilitate this document for the modern mind, it is difficult to see Revelation as anything more than a paroxysm of hate created by a mind bordering on the psychotic. The early church long resisted placing it in the developing canon of inspired writings. John the prophet has cast his spiritual Christ in his own joyless and vengeful image. The voice of this Messiah is his own, ready to punish for every slight, every rejection the prophet has suffered in his missionary work."

 

[Duvduv]

Isn't the Book of Revelation the source material for the failed apocalyptic prophecies and predictions of the Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses and assorted Adventist sects?? And how do the adherents of these groups grapple with all these failed predictions since the mid-1840s? I saw a video on the Witnesses and it surprised me that anyone would continued affiliating with the Watch Tower Society given the poor records of Russell, Rutherford and their successors. Do the adherents have comments about all this?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isn't the Book of Revelation the source material for the failed apocalyptic prophecies and predictions of the Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses and assorted Adventist sects?? And how do the adherents of these groups grapple with all these failed predictions since the mid-1840s? I saw a video on the Witnesses and it surprised me that anyone would continued affiliating with the Watch Tower Society given the poor records of Russell, Rutherford and their successors. Do the adherents have comments about all this?

St. John's Revelation has been used by all sorts of people and groups throughout history, in trying to make a claim of how "the end" will transpire, yes. Which is why earlier in this thread I said that obsession over the book or too much focus on the book is unhealthy and leads to all kinds of wacky ideas. It's also why mainstream, historic churches have avoided having anything like an official interpretation of the book.

I think there is a lot of value in the text, but there is also a lot of danger in reading the text in a vacuum and making it the primary source for any theological position. And a methodology of Homologoumena over Antilegomena is important when reading Scripture.

As I recall, in Judaism certain books of the Tanakh are also recommended against being read by someone who isn't properly educated and trained, such as the Song of Songs. The Revelation is, without question, the most complicated and controversial book in the Christian Canon. There are exceptionally few ancient commentaries, the only one off the top of my head I am aware of is the commentary by St. Victorinus (late 3rd century).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Micah888]

And of course it seems to be clear that in its original form Revelation was not a Christian book at all, but belonged to some pietistic Jewish sect in its original form.

"Seems to be clear" according to whom? The naysayers or genuine believers.

The first chapter of Revelation makes it crystal clear that (1) it is a totally Christian book, (2) it is divinely inspired, (3) it is meant to bring blessing to the Christian reader who applies its teaching, and (4) it exalts God and the Lord Jesus Christ in a profound way.

And why speak of "original form" as though what we see is some kind of corruption or redaction? Who comes up with these weird notions other that so-called scholars who are probably not even believers to begin with?

 

[Micah888]

I believe it was written by a Christian and would have to assume it was written for Christians.

You are absolutely right and we could easily establish this just by reading the first chapter. But there are some who are never content to accept the Scriptures as the Scriptures, but keep picking away and casting doubt, and obfuscating instead of clarifying.

 

[JackRT]

In a seminar decades ago the bible scholar who presented it made the comment that when the question of canonizing Revelation came up more than half the bishops abstained from the vote and it was accepted by a majority of just one vote. This means that only about 25% of the bishops cared enough for the book to vote for it. Earl Doherty wrote "Despite the apologetic efforts of those seeking to rehabilitate this document for the modern mind, it is difficult to see Revelation as anything more than a paroxysm of hate created by a mind bordering on the psychotic. The early church long resisted placing it in the developing canon of inspired writings. John the prophet has cast his spiritual Christ in his own joyless and vengeful image. The voice of this Messiah is his own, ready to punish for every slight, every rejection the prophet has suffered in his missionary work."

 

[Hawkins]

I have read parts of it, and read ABOUT it. Nevertheless I still cannot get my head around the fine theological distinctions of denominations arising from its content. Much of discussion about it reminds me of Midrash or Kabbalah, and is similar to so-called kabbalistic or Hassidic apocalyptic theories about the coming of the Messiah son of Joseph, Messiah son of David, preceded by Elijah - when and how and who, which is all rather confusing even to many Jews.
And of course it seems to be clear that in its original form Revelation was not a Christian book at all, but belonged to some pietistic Jewish sect in its original form.

It was written prophetically. I found it very useful when I discovered that it behaves more like an book index of reference for you to confirm an important speculation.

 

[lesliedellow]

And of course it seems to be clear that in its original form Revelation was not a Christian book at all, but belonged to some pietistic Jewish sect in its original form.

The name “Jesus Christ” occurs four times in the first nine verses alone, so I would say that it is a Christian taxt. I would also say the fact that Judaism has apocalyptic literature as well, is pretty irrelevant.

It was probably written at the end of the first century, as an encouragement to Christians undergoing persecution. They were being reassured that the enemies of God, and the Roman Empire in particular, would get their comeuppance.

 

[Uber Genius]

I have read parts of it, and read ABOUT it. Nevertheless I still cannot get my head around the fine theological distinctions of denominations arising from its content. Much of discussion about it reminds me of Midrash or Kabbalah, and is similar to so-called kabbalistic or Hassidic apocalyptic theories about the coming of the Messiah son of Joseph, Messiah son of David, preceded by Elijah - when and how and who, which is all rather confusing even to many Jews.
And of course it seems to be clear that in its original form Revelation was not a Christian book at all, but belonged to some pietistic Jewish sect in its original form.

A jewish sect that recognizes Jesus as the eternal Alpha and Omega? As Eternal? That portrays Jesus as the lamb of God? The writing is apocalyptic in nature and will have similarities with that genre but no sect of Jews would have influenced a story where the central figure is an individual they took to be just another false messiah.