G.K. Beale -Revelation

Would someone who has an opinion remark please.

Does Beale provide enough content in NIGTC (Revelation) or in His Book with D.A Carson that would give enough view of what he wrote in the JSNTsup Vol. 166, John's use of the Old Testament in Revelation?

Does vol. 166 occur in any Logos packages or bundles? I was unable to locate it specifically though JSNTsup was listed under titles associated with Gospels and Pauline study sets.

Is the Journal available somewhere/somehow? It appears to have changes hands. An Amazon listing of the book itself is an unbelievable 6 grand.

Thanks

Edited -s

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Allen Browne

Does Beale provide enough content in NIGTC (Revelations) or in His Book with D.A Carson that would give enough view of what he wrote in the JSNTsup Vol. 166, John's use of the Old Testament in Revelations?

Anthony, I don't have a comment on the JSNT article, so can't comment on that. But I did teach on Revelation earlier this year, and found Beale's NIGTC to be the best commentary I had on Revelation.

Beale is a master when it comes to recognising how the NT writers use the OT. The NIGTC Rev volume is jam-packed with explanations of how the images in John's visions are informed by the OT books (and some other ancient material too). Invaluable.

By "his book with D A Carson", I assume you mean the Commentary on the NT Use of the OT (edited by Beale and Carson). That's a great volume too, and the Rev part is attributed to Beale and Sean McDonough. It's good: not as in depth as the NIGTC volume of course.

There are several views of how the NT uses the OT, e.g. Moyise describes it as "decontextualized repurposing", and J Christian Wilson even calls it "John’s raid on the Hebrew Scriptures." IMHO, Beale's work is best at wrestling with the question of how the NT uses the OT appropriately.

George Somsel

Would someone who has an opinion remark please.

I'm assuming you are asking for an opinion regarding Beale's NIGTC commentary. It's reasonably good, but it shares the same flaws that every other commentary on the book exhibits. It really doesn't understand the book. The only work I have seen which really understands it is St Augustine's The City of God, and unfortunately, that is not really a commentary. The unanimous flaw is that all the martyrs are referred to the Church whereas the book actually begins with the Flood as is the case with Enoch then proceeds through Israel and finally the Church.

BTW: Would everyone please make an effort to get the title straight? It's Revelation, not Revelations.

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384066#Comment_384066

Thanks for your reply Allen,

Sorry, yes I should have just said "the commentary with Carson" instead of stating "his", but that is what I meant. How long did you spend teaching through it? Where do you think the thin areas were for your listeners? I mean did you feel that some things could have been explained less or more? I could see myself getting a little facinated with the minutia and loose some.

Anthony

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384072#Comment_384072

Sorry George you are right. It's Revelation. It's not the first time I got call on it. A bad habit I should have corrected by now. Actually what I'm wanting is an opinion on whether or not G.K. Beale covers his same material in a 400+ page publication via the JSNTsup equally or fairly closely in his commentary on Revelation in the NIGTC or in the commentary edited by himself and Carson. Particularly the use of the OT. I haven't read the the 1999 JSNTsup, so I wondered if perhaps someone here had and could tell me. I refer back to my first post.

Thanks

Anthony

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384069#Comment_384069

Would someone who has an opinion remark please.

I'm assuming you are asking for an opinion regarding Beale's NIGTC commentary. It's reasonably good, but it shares the same flaws that every other commentary on the book exhibits. It really doesn't understand the book. The only work I have seen which really understands it is St Augustine's The City of God, and unfortunately, that is not really a commentary. The unanimous flaw is that all the martyrs are referred to the Church whereas the book actually begins with the Flood as is the case with Enoch then proceeds through Israel and finally the Church.

BTW: Would everyone please make an effort to get the title straight? It's Revelation, not Revelations.

George:

Not quite following you; did you perhaps add or leave out a word - i.e., "all the martyrs are referred to AS the Church"? "all the martyrs [ ] referred to the Church"? Could you please explain in a bit more detail - which chapters refer to what, etc.? That's intriguing.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384083#Comment_384083

Not quite following you; did you perhaps add or leave out a word - i.e., "all the martyrs are referred to AS the Church"? "all the martyrs [ ] referred to the Church"? Could you please explain in a bit more detail - which chapters refer to what, etc.? That's intriguing.

The unanimous flaw is that all the martyrs are referred to the Church whereas the book actually begins with the Flood as is the case with Enoch then proceeds through Israel and finally the Church.

Chapter 6 refers to the martyrs of the Flood narrative (Note the ἶρις and the θάλασσα ὑαλίνη in cap 4). The ἶρις is the bow which was set in the sky as a pledge that there would not be another flood to destroy the earth. Ἶρις is used rather than τόξον as in Gen 9 since the 1st living creature of Re 6 has a τόξον which must be distinguished from God's bow. The θάλασσα refers to the waters which were above the earth in the creation acct of Gen 1.

The Jews are referenced in caps 13-14 where Jerusalem is destroyed in cap 14.

Caps 15 ff refer to the church.

This eliminates the necessity of having a return to the subject of church martyrs giving the impression that the book is something of a circular composition returning again and again to the same subject like a dog chasing its tail.

I should also note that most claim that Re is not pseudepigraphal based on the fact that its author is claimed to be John without any qualification as the apostle (John the apostle died prior to the destruction of Jerusalem according to the Syriac tradition). The fact that John is not specified as the apostle in Re is of no significance since Enoch is not specified in any way in the book of Enoch (also, it speaks of "John" as having seen the death of Christ in cap 1 (I do not understand this as an epistolary form).

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384072#Comment_384072

How long did you spend teaching through it? Where do you think the thin areas were for your listeners? I mean did you feel that some things could have been explained less or more? I could see myself getting a little facinated with the minutia and loose some.

We had only 12 sessions, so the whole thing was "thin areas" that needed more explanation.

Without falling into the trap of making this thread theological, can I encourage you to focus on the big picture first? The minutia only have meaning within that. You cannot "get" an impressionistic painting by examining brushstrokes.

As with any other book of Scripture, the best place to start is to ask, "How would the original recipients (the people in the 7 churches) have understood this?" There's a book on Vyrso with a blurb that starts, "Centuries before anyone could make sense of these fantastic warnings ..." going on to claim that this amazing new writer has finally understood what no one has understood for 2000 years. That's exactly the *wrong* approach. That writter cannot have even considered how the people of Ephesus received the book. Perhaps their conversation went like this:

Great news! John's finally got in touch. He's alive. On Patmos. And he's sent us a book with a blessing.
[After reading...]
So what was all that about?
No idea. Perhaps some bloke named Jack will figure it out in 2000 years. I'm disappointed: I thought John might have sent something to help us.

:-) Seriously though, you really do have to start with what it would have meant to them. And that does mean we will need some understanding of the Old Testament (as Beale so aptly explains), and of other Jewish apocalyptic writings (which is why I've been studying Enoch, arguably the most influential one), and of how Jesus and Paul subverted Jewish apocalyptic eschatology (e.g. "this age" and "the age to come") into Christian eschatology (already, but not yet), and then how Revelation fits perfectly as the message of Jesus (recently dead, alive again, running the church and the world) through John, rather than a pseudonymous comment on the world from an ancient sage/prophet.

The framework from which you approach Revelation deeply impact how you understand it. Hope that helps.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384086#Comment_384086

I assume you're referring to 1 Enoch. Does it map to Revelation in significant ways? If so, are there books which show this (e.g., the Hermeneia commentary volumes)? Or should I just read all 100+ chapters to see or find the correspondences for myself?

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384124#Comment_384124

I assume you're referring to 1 Enoch. Does it map to Revelation in significant ways? If so, are there books which show this (e.g., the Hermeneia commentary volumes)? Or should I just read all 100+ chapters to see or find the correspondences for myself?

A book that is very useful in studying apocalyptic literature and the possible relations is J. J. Collins' The Apocalypitc Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. It gives an overview of the genre, and then it surveys the corpus of literature. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but he is one of the best when it comes to the genre.

With that said, any modern scholarly commentary should deal with the Revelation in relation to early apocalyptic literature. Without looking, I would guesstimate that Aune, Beale, Osborne, etc... would all deal with the relationships.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384132#Comment_384132

I assume you're referring to 1 Enoch. Does it map to Revelation in significant ways? If so, are there books which show this (e.g., the Hermeneia commentary volumes)? Or should I just read all 100+ chapters to see or find the correspondences for myself?

A book that is very useful in studying apocalyptic literature and the possible relations is J. J. Collins' The Apocalypitc Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. It gives an overview of the genre, and then it surveys the corpus of literature. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but he is one of the best when it comes to the genre.

With that said, any modern scholarly commentary should deal with the Revelation in relation to early apocalyptic literature. Without looking, I would guesstimate that Aune, Beale, Osborne, etc... would all deal with the relationships.

I have Beale in NIGTC, as well as Nickelsburg

http://www.logos.com/product/15718/jewish-literature-between-the-bible-and-the-mishnah

and this by Collins

http://www.logos.com/product/9934/the-eerdmans-dictionary-of-early-judaism

I also have Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha translation of Enoch and the Greek texts of the Greek Pseudepigrapha, including the Greek portions of 1 Enoch.

So maybe I have all the Apocalyptic-related reading material I need.

Now if only I had as much reading time as I have books. [H]

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384085#Comment_384085

(John the apostle died prior to the destruction of Jerusalem according to the Syriac tradition).

Are you referring to the 5th century Syriac martyrology alone (which is not really a 'Syriac' tradition as it was translated from Greek), or have you come across other evidence that would suggest this? Aphraates mentions the martyrdom of John as well (though with no time reference); If you have anything on this beyond what Charles has said, it might be interesting.

Of course, the Syriac tradition places Revelation itself in the time of Nero. But in any case, I agree it wasn't written by John the son of Zebedee.

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384124#Comment_384124

I assume you're referring to 1 Enoch. Does it map to Revelation in significant ways? If so, are there books which show this (e.g., the Hermeneia commentary volumes)? Or should I just read all 100+ chapters to see or find the correspondences for myself?

Yes: 1 Enoch. It doesn't map to Revelation in terms of content (though there are several interesting parallels of note, e.g. the pillars of the temple). It's more a matter of appreciating how apocalpytic works. There's just no substitute for reading/studying the ancient text. Some of the 108 chapters are short: it's actually about the same length as Isaiah.

Re your reply to Joseph Turner, Collins is an expert in this field, and Nickelsburg has some good things to say. I've read some of them too, but there's actually no substitute for understanding the 5 sections of 1 Enoch, when each was written, and how the pieces fit together.

C'mon Eric: primary sources first. :-)

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384137#Comment_384137

I assume you're referring to 1 Enoch. Does it map to Revelation in significant ways? If so, are there books which show this (e.g., the Hermeneia commentary volumes)? Or should I just read all 100+ chapters to see or find the correspondences for myself?

Yes: 1 Enoch. It doesn't map to Revelation in terms of content (though there are several interesting parallels of note, e.g. the pillars of the temple). It's more a matter of appreciating how apocalpytic works. There's just no substitute for reading/studying the ancient text. Some of the 108 chapters are short: it's actually about the same length as Isaiah.

Re your reply to Joseph Turner, Collins is an expert in this field, and Nickelsburg has some good things to say. I've read some of them too, but there's actually no substitute for understanding the 5 sections of 1 Enoch, when each was written, and how the pieces fit together.

C'mon Eric: primary sources first. :-)

I've actually read 1 Enoch in its entirety, but it was years ago (I bought a spiral-bound copy of Charles' translation that included the Greek text and his footnotes, some of which are more expansive and detailed than the version that's in Logos - it was published by an "esoteric" publisher and I got it in a "New Age"-type bookstore in Austin, TX, in the early 1990s). I can't read Ethiopic/Coptic, so the complete "original language" text, apparently translated from Greek, is not available for my reading or study, just the Greek parts that exist.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384124#Comment_384124

I assume you're referring to 1 Enoch. Does it map to Revelation in significant ways? If so, are there books which show this (e.g., the Hermeneia commentary volumes)? Or should I just read all 100+ chapters to see or find the correspondences for myself?

Not too much. It's main value is that it demonstrates how apocalypses were written. I do think it important that one of the chief concerns of Enoch is the cohabitation of angels with women. This is where the heavenly journey in Re begins its description of its visions. Significant portions of Enoch were discovered at Qumran so it was already in existence.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384136#Comment_384136

Are you referring to the 5th century Syriac martyrology alone (which is not really a 'Syriac' tradition as it was translated from Greek), or have you come across other evidence that would suggest this? Aphraates mentions the martyrdom of John as well (though with no time reference); If you have anything on this beyond what Charles has said, it might be interesting.

There is the obvious fact that in Mk 10 BOTH James and John come to Jesus asking for preference in the Kingdom. Jesus asks whether they can drink the cup which he must drink and be baptized with the baptism which he is to receive indicating his death. Jesus then states that THEY indeed with do so. Frequently mention is made of this with regard to the death of James, but they all too easily forget that John was also included.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384148#Comment_384148

I assume you're referring to 1 Enoch. Does it map to Revelation in significant ways? If so, are there books which show this (e.g., the Hermeneia commentary volumes)? Or should I just read all 100+ chapters to see or find the correspondences for myself?

Not too much. It's main value is that it demonstrates how apocalypses were written. I do think it important that one of the chief concerns of Enoch is the cohabitation of angels with women. This is where the heavenly journey in Re begins its description of its visions. Significant portions of Enoch were discovered at Qumran so it was already in existence.

Are you saying that the visions in Revelation begin with a correspondence to the Genesis 6 story/account - i.e., the nephilim/flood story?

Oldnewbie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384149#Comment_384149

George,

Aren't you in the process of writing a commentary on Revelation? If so and you can talk about it, any ETA? Also, in your opinion what have been your most productive Logos resources in your research?

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384149#Comment_384149

There is the obvious fact that in Mk 10 BOTH James and John come to Jesus asking for preference in the Kingdom. Jesus asks whether they can drink the cup which he must drink and be baptized with the baptism which he is to receive indicating his death. Jesus then states that THEY indeed with do so. Frequently mention is made of this with regard to the death of James, but they all too easily forget that John was also included.

I'm well aware of that passage, and it is indeed strong evidence of the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee; however you specifically referred to the Syriac tradition, and I'm wondering what you had in mind.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384154#Comment_384154

Are you saying that the visions in Revelation begin with a correspondence to the Genesis 6 story/account - i.e., the nephilim/flood story?

Precisely.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384159#Comment_384159

I'm well aware of that passage, and it is indeed strong evidence of the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee; however you specifically referred to the Syriac tradition, and I'm wondering what you had in mind.

Simply that church tradition was well aware of John's death prior to the fall of Jerusalem which strengthens the passage in Mk 10.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384161#Comment_384161

I'm well aware of that passage, and it is indeed strong evidence of the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee; however you specifically referred to the Syriac tradition, and I'm wondering what you had in mind.

Simply that church tradition was well aware of John's death prior to the fall of Jerusalem which strengthens the passage in Mk 10.

But what Syriac church tradition was well aware of it? Were you referring to the Martyrology, or have you run across other evidence?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384158#Comment_384158

George,

Aren't you in the process of writing a commentary on Revelation? If so and you can talk about it, any ETA? Also, in your opinion what have been your most productive Logos resources in your research?

ETA? I wouldn't dare to set a date. Writing a commentary isn't all that easy since there is always something more to consider. I may simply at some point need to cut it off and go with what I have.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384158#Comment_384158

in your opinion what have been your most productive Logos resources in your research?

There are a number of works such as the psedepigrapha and the letters of Pliny the younger (Perseus collection). The commentaries are mostly of little worth since they start from a wrong premiss. George Savran on Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. I do find Charles' commentary on the Apocalypse of interest, but I reject his reconstruction—the Apocalypse is what it is, period.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384163#Comment_384163

I'm well aware of that passage, and it is indeed strong evidence of the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee; however you specifically referred to the Syriac tradition, and I'm wondering what you had in mind.

Simply that church tradition was well aware of John's death prior to the fall of Jerusalem which strengthens the passage in Mk 10.

But what Syriac church tradition was well aware of it? Were you referring to the Martyrology, or have you run across other evidence?

The death of John was rather quickly concealed due to the fact that the church, beginning (in written form) with Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. That's about all that remains along with the gospel passage—if you accept it with regard to James, you must also accept it with regard to John.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384166#Comment_384166

in your opinion what have been your most productive Logos resources in your research?

There are a number of works such as the psedepigrapha and the letters of Pliny the younger (Perseus collection). The commentaries are mostly of little worth since they start from a wrong premiss. George Savran on Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. I do find Charles' commentary on the Apocalypse of interest, but I reject his reconstruction—the Apocalypse is what it is, period.

Do you believe the Apocalypse should be part of the NT canon? I mean, it is what it is - i.e., part of the canon - but based on criteria for canonicity, whatever those might have been, do you think the Apocalypse in its authorship or teaching or whatever is qualified to be part of the canon? Or should it be regarded as the NT pseudepigraphal or apocryphal works, or the Apostolic Fathers, are?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384172#Comment_384172

Do you believe the Apocalypse should be part of the NT canon? I mean, it is what it is - i.e., part of the canon - but based on criteria for canonicity, whatever those might have been, do you think the Apocalypse in its authorship or teaching or whatever is qualified to be part of the canon? Or should it be regarded as the NT pseudepigraphal or apocryphal works, or the Apostolic Fathers, are?

Absolutututively.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384178#Comment_384178

Do you believe the Apocalypse should be part of the NT canon? I mean, it is what it is - i.e., part of the canon - but based on criteria for canonicity, whatever those might have been, do you think the Apocalypse in its authorship or teaching or whatever is qualified to be part of the canon? Or should it be regarded as the NT pseudepigraphal or apocryphal works, or the Apostolic Fathers, are?

Absolutututively.

I'll take that as a "Yes!" for its canonicity. Thanks for all you contribute to these forums.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384179#Comment_384179

I read through Beale's NIGNTC, Aune's WBC, Osborne's BECNT and Bauckham. From what I recall, Beale was useful in identifying OT connections when others did not pay enough attention to it. However, as I recall, often it seems like a collection of post-it notes, filling the reader's head with much to consider (many possible connections and a bit of parallelomania) but failing to deliver a clear picture of the whole. Osborne was the most useful as far as clarity of the overall interpretation goes.

I don't know how Beale's commentary compares with the journal article, but considering their respective lengths and the amount of discussion of OT and rabbinical material found the commentary, I think it is a fair bet that there is more material on the topic in the commentary. At the same time, the commentary format means that the material is more fragmented and less synthetic than it would be in the article. The commentary includes about 20 pages about the use of the OT in Revelation in the introduction.

Finally, the commentary on the use of the OT in the NT is not authored but edited by Beale and Carson. I have only referred to it here and there, not read it through but I would suspect that there would be at least small differences between the various contributors' take on how a specific NT author uses the OT. In other words, it might not be a fair representation of Beale's specific views. For my part, I thought that the Beale/Carson commentary suffers from theological tunnel vision. It reflects the Reformed backbone of much of Evangelical scholarship whereby interpretation takes as its starting point a Reformed interpretation of Pauline letters and interprets all the rest of the Scriptures through this lens. The OT quotations are then explained in relation to this line of interpretation frequently resulting in distortion of the original sense in its context. However, anyone who questions this approach to Pauline letters (and by extension the rest of the NT) would find that the questions that are asked in the commentary are the wrong ones to begin (consider for instance, NT Wright's approach). While I find that Wright goes too far, I find that many of the alleged problems need not be unless one is committed to the Reformed approach.

All in all, Beale's commentary on Revelation is more useful for Revelation specifically than for exploring the topic of the use of the OT in the NT generally, although it will raise one's awareness and perhaps spur on more alertness to it.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384168#Comment_384168

The death of John was rather quickly concealed due to the fact that the church, beginning (in written form) with Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. That's about all that remains along with the gospel passage—if you accept it with regard to James, you must also accept it with regard to John.

If it were so quickly concealed, how does it show up in martyrologies and writers from all over the ancient world--from Armenia to Carthage? How did the Syriac church still know about it in the fifth century?

Where does Justin deny John's martyrdom? He mentions a 'certain John, one of the apostles of Christ', but says nothing about how he died or whether he was the son of Zebedee.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384181#Comment_384181

Where does Justin deny John's martyrdom? He mentions a 'certain John, one of the apostles of Christ', but says nothing about how he died or whether he was the son of Zebedee.

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time p 560 since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, XXX.3

While he doesn't specifically deny John's martyrdom (why should he if he considered that he lived until the end of Domitian's reign?), the consequence of what he says is that John did not die in Jerusalem but lived to a ripe old age.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384191#Comment_384191

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time p 560 since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, XXX.3

While he doesn't specifically deny John's martyrdom (why should he if he considered that he lived until the end of Domitian's reign?), the consequence of what he says is that John did not die in Jerusalem but lived to a ripe old age.

That's Irenaeus' Against Heresies, not Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus never identifies this John with the son of Zebedee.

As Richard Bauckham has shown, it is very doubtful Irenaeus did identify the Ephesian John with the son of Zebedee.

Ireneaus read Papias, and we know that Papias did record the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384197#Comment_384197

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time p 560 since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, XXX.3

While he doesn't specifically deny John's martyrdom (why should he if he considered that he lived until the end of Domitian's reign?), the consequence of what he says is that John did not die in Jerusalem but lived to a ripe old age.

That's Irenaeus' Against Heresies, not Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus never identifies this John with the son of Zebedee.

As Richard Bauckham has shown, it is very doubtful Irenaeus did identify the Ephesian John with the son of Zebedee.

Ireneaus read Papias, and we know that Papias did record the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee.

You're correct that my quotation was from Irenaeus. I picked the wrong quotation. Here is Justin.

"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho LXXXI.

We really don't know too much regarding Papias, and what we do know is suspect. I don't recall that Papias recorded the martyrdom of Jonathan bar Zebedee.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384085#Comment_384085

Chapter 6 refers to the martyrs of the Flood narrative (Note the ἶρις and the θάλασσα ὑαλίνη in cap 4). The ἶρις is the bow which was set in the sky as a pledge that there would not be another flood to destroy the earth. Ἶρις is used rather than τόξον as in Gen 9 since the 1st living creature of Re 6 has a τόξον which must be distinguished from God's bow. The θάλασσα refers to the waters which were above the earth in the creation acct of Gen 1.

The Jews are referenced in caps 13-14 where Jerusalem is destroyed in cap 14.

Caps 15 ff refer to the church.

George,

I didn't see this exact question asked yet. Is there a book out there (commentary or otherwise) which takes this approach in its understanding of Revelation (singular ? I know some day "real soon now" I'm going to do an in-depth study of the book, with Beale, Johnson (Triumph of the Lamb), and a number of others in my list. I'd love to find this approach in a fleshed out form that I could browse now and digest in detail later.

Thanks,

Donnie

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384239#Comment_384239

Chapter 6 refers to the martyrs of the Flood narrative (Note the ἶρις and the θάλασσα ὑαλίνη in cap 4). The ἶρις is the bow which was set in the sky as a pledge that there would not be another flood to destroy the earth. Ἶρις is used rather than τόξον as in Gen 9 since the 1st living creature of Re 6 has a τόξον which must be distinguished from God's bow. The θάλασσα refers to the waters which were above the earth in the creation acct of Gen 1.

The Jews are referenced in caps 13-14 where Jerusalem is destroyed in cap 14.

Caps 15 ff refer to the church.

George,

I didn't see this exact question asked yet. Is there a book out there (commentary or otherwise) which takes this approach in its understanding of Revelation (singular ? I know some day "real soon now" I'm going to do an in-depth study of the book, with Beale, Johnson (Triumph of the Lamb), and a number of others in my list. I'd love to find this approach in a fleshed out form that I could browse now and digest in detail later.

Thanks,

Donnie

Not to my knowledge. I would suggest that you first read St Augustine's City of God. It is not a commentary and only indicates the general overall thought of the book, but it's a good place to start. Also, don't fall into the trap of referring the martyrs exclusively to the church in all instances and don't think of the Beast as representing the Roman Empire. The Beast represent all forces in opposition to God throughout history so the heads are not Roman Emperors. All attempts to identify them with particular emperors have failed since they were never intended to be such.

Joseph Turner

Here is a link from the Review of Biblical Literature for scholarly reviews on the book you originally asked about. These should be helpful in figuring out what it covers:

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=436&CodePage=436,2252,4495

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384242#Comment_384242

All attempts to identify them with particular emperors have failed since they were never intended to be such.

Your comments sound a bit like the "idealist" point of view, which is what Beale and Johnson apparently espouse. You need to get your book out so I can read a full treatment of the flood / Israel / church approach.

Another question: Have you read Kenneth Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which makes the case for Revelation having been written before AD 70 (which would allow for it to have been written by the apostle if he in fact died before AD 70). He interacts with the Irenaeus comment, but I don't recall if he touches on Justin Martyr's.

Donnie

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384274#Comment_384274

All attempts to identify them with particular emperors have failed since they were never intended to be such.

Your comments sound a bit like the "idealist" point of view, which is what Beale and Johnson apparently espouse. You need to get your book out so I can read a full treatment of the flood / Israel / church approach.

Another question: Have you read Kenneth Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which makes the case for Revelation having been written before AD 70 (which would allow for it to have been written by the apostle if he in fact died before AD 70). He interacts with the Irenaeus comment, but I don't recall if he touches on Justin Martyr's.

Donnie

No, I haven't specifically read Gentry although I've heard enough from him on the Revelation List to know basically his position. I suppose you would be more or less correct to classify my view as the idealist approach though I don't feel particularly comfortable with that. I have a problem with the preterist position which Gentry espouses since it seems to make it little more than a history book. I don't think we are particularly well served by a history of the very early church. I likewise don't much care for the futurist approach since it would have had no meaning for the church prior to the putative time when it is thought to come to fulfilment. The historicist position seems aimed at linking the visions to events throughout the history of the church and is thus a great puzzle to identify the pieces and place them in their proper sequence rather than having the book convey a message to the church of all ages. The primary emphasis, in my opinion, is the question "What does the Spirit say to the churches?" This is the question which must be asked in every period of church history. If an approach to Revelation cannot answer this in a way that is relevant to each period, it effectively removes the book or a portion of the book from the canon of scripture.

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384271#Comment_384271

Here is a link from the Review of Biblical Literature for scholarly reviews on the book you originally asked about. These should be helpful in figuring out what it covers:

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=436&CodePage=436,2252,4495

Thanks found it very helpful.

On a side note it appears to be unavailable ... in all I believe I understand his view from the few books of his that I do have that cover the subject. Thanks everyone.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384274#Comment_384274

Another question: Have you read Kenneth Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which makes the case for Revelation having been written before AD 70 (which would allow for it to have been written by the apostle if he in fact died before AD 70). He interacts with the Irenaeus comment, but I don't recall if he touches on Justin Martyr's.

Donnie

Even if Revelation were written before 70AD, it still wouldn't be possible to reconcile it with the tradition of the death of John in Jerusalem. Clement says that John settled in Ephesus after the death of the tyrant (Nero in Gentry's view), and traveled within Asia Minor, and returned to a certain city at a later time. He wasn't in Jerusalem. Irenaeus makes John alive in the reign of Domitian, even according to Gentry's view (he only disputes that Revelation was written at that time), and places John's death in the reign of Trajan. Irenaeus makes this John the author of the Fourth Gospel and Revelation.

If the tradition of the early martyr's death of John is correct, then he did not write Revelation or the Fourth Gospel.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384291#Comment_384291

Another question: Have you read Kenneth Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which makes the case for Revelation having been written before AD 70 (which would allow for it to have been written by the apostle if he in fact died before AD 70). He interacts with the Irenaeus comment, but I don't recall if he touches on Justin Martyr's.

Donnie

Even if Revelation were written before 70AD, it still wouldn't be possible to reconcile it with the tradition of the death of John in Jerusalem. Clement says that John settled in Ephesus after the death of the tyrant (Nero in Gentry's view), and traveled within Asia Minor, and returned to a certain city at a later time. He wasn't in Jerusalem. Irenaeus makes John alive in the reign of Domitian, even according to Gentry's view (he only disputes that Revelation was written at that time), and places John's death in the reign of Trajan.

If the tradition of the early martyr's death of John is correct, then he did not write Revelation or the Fourth Gospel.

Agreed. I don't think we have anything from the pen of John the son of Zebedee. I think the enigmatic John the Elder was the author of the gospel and epistles. It was he who was at Ephesus. The confusion arose from considering John the apostle to be the author of Revelation (which the book seems to indicate but which I find incredible).

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384292#Comment_384292

I think the enigmatic John the Elder was the author of the gospel and epistles. It was he who was at Ephesus. The confusion arose from considering John the apostle to be the author of Revelation (which the book seems to indicate but which I find incredible).

Yes, I think he wrote them too. The Zebedee identification possibly began among the Valentinian gnostics (e.g. Acts of John), as Hengel suggests. I can't see that Revelation treats its John as anything more than the brother of the Asian churches and a prophet. He never refers to himself as an apostle, and he speaks of the 12 apostles as a distinct group, and doesn't seem to include himself. Düsterdieck has a good discussion of this (available in Logos): he notes "the complete objectivity with which the twelve apostles are presented to
the author of the Apoc."

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384358#Comment_384358

So, then, who was the disciple whom Jesus loved? Was he the author of the Gospel of John, as tradition has the beloved disciple being (though James Charlesworth argues for the beloved disciple being Thomas)? I.e., was "John the Elder" "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384361#Comment_384361

So, then, who was the disciple whom Jesus loved? Was he the author of the Gospel of John, as tradition has the beloved disciple being (though James Charlesworth argues for the beloved disciple being Thomas)? I.e., was "John the Elder" "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

I hold that John the Elder was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and that the early Christians such as Papias, Irenaeus and Polycrates knew this. Polycrates, for examples, speaks of 'Philip, one of the twelve apostles, and John, who reclined upon the Lord's breast'. None of the Christians of the second century identified the beloved disciple with the son of Zebedee.

The views of those like Charlesworth (Thomas) and Witherington (Lazarus) all have to dismiss the writings of the earliest Christians.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384361#Comment_384361

So, then, who was the disciple whom Jesus loved? Was he the author of the Gospel of John, as tradition has the beloved disciple being (though James Charlesworth argues for the beloved disciple being Thomas)? I.e., was "John the Elder" "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

It may very well be John the Elder as Dean has stated, but I would call your attention to the fact that there is only a few identified individuals whom Jesus is said to have loved (not that those were the only ones he loved, the only ones stated). There was the rich young ruler, Martha and Lazarus.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384383#Comment_384383

1) I have read extensively on authorship issues and came up with these conclusions:

The New Testament apparently cannot have been written by anyone we know because for each and every book the legitimacy of ascribing its stated or traditional authorship is contested. Hence, the gospel sayings need to be sifted to find the historical Jesus and distinguish His voice from that of later insertions and attributions.
Paul is not the real author of any of his letters when any particular letter is being discussed because he uses vocab, ideas or syntax that is not exactly the same as that of his other alleged letters. Of course, when these letters are studied, apparently Paul did not write them either!
The letters of John are not written by the author of the fourth gospel. Same kind of reasoning as for Pauline letters.
Revelation is not written by the author of the Fourth gospel.
This post is not written by Francis. If you study it carefully enough, you will notice that someone tried to emulate his style but there are "significant" differences.
Even if authorship is granted with regard to a specific letter, it's not the whole letter. There are insertions in there as well.

Bottom-line: a lot of arrogance in scholarship, a lot of speculation, a lot of biased and faulty arguments and -- I suspect -- a lot of people who try to be interesting by suggesting something new (or keep up their earnings by continual publishing). Look to the clouds long enough and I guarantee that you will see familiar shapes. But are they really there? Have you detected the chiastic structure of my post yet?

2) I have rarely come out of reading extensive authorship discussions feeling that I am better equipped to interpret the book in question. The outcome of these discussions are so speculative and iffy that it leaves no certain ground to profit from.

It seems that the spirit that pervades these approaches to biblical studies is a sort of conspiracy theory, the idea that all traditional or stated authorship must be there to give credibility to writings that do not originate from Jesus or true apostles. "Faith communities" shaped the tradition for its own need and then canonized it. Is this scholarship? It is certainly following in the tradition of the mythological approach of "enlightenment" (and social evolution) scholarship but it has little to offer but complex edifices of pedantic guesswork.

As a servant of the Lord and someone who loves studying the Scriptures, I am often perplexed by all the energy that is invested in fruitless pursuits. Elaborate arguments can be conjured up, but are these making me grow in understanding the will of the Lord, as a disciple, and in helping others know the Lord?

Nord Zootman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384433#Comment_384433

As a servant of the Lord and someone who loves studying the Scriptures, I am often perplexed by all the energy that is invested in fruitless pursuits. Elaborate arguments can be conjured up, but are these making me grow in understanding the will of the Lord, as a disciple, and in helping others know the Lord?

Amen!

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384433#Comment_384433

1) I have read extensively on authorship issues and came up with these conclusions:

The New Testament apparently cannot have been written by anyone we know because for each and every book the legitimacy of ascribing its stated or traditional authorship is contested. Hence, the gospel sayings need to be sifted to find the historical Jesus and distinguish His voice from that of later insertions and attributions.

Paul is not the real author of any of his letters when any particular letter is being discussed because he uses vocab, ideas or syntax that is not exactly the same as that of his other alleged letters. Of course, when these letters are studied, apparently Paul did not write them either!

The letters of John are not written by the author of the fourth gospel. Same kind of reasoning as for Pauline letters.

Revelation is not written by the author of the Fourth gospel.

This post is not written by Francis. If you study it carefully enough, you will notice that someone tried to emulate his style but there are "significant" differences.

Even if authorship is granted with regard to a specific letter, it's not the whole letter. There are insertions in there as well.

Bottom-line: a lot of arrogance in scholarship, a lot of speculation, a lot of biased and faulty arguments and -- I suspect -- a lot of people who try to be interesting by suggesting something new (or keep up their earnings by continual publishing). Look to the clouds long enough and I guarantee that you will see familiar shapes. But are they really there? Have you detected the chiastic structure of my post yet?

2) I have rarely come out of reading extensive authorship discussions feeling that I am better equipped to interpret the book in question. The outcome of these discussions are so speculative and iffy that it leaves no certain ground to profit from.

It seems that the spirit that pervades these approaches to biblical studies is a sort of conspiracy theory, the idea that all traditional or stated authorship must be there to give credibility to writings that do not originate from Jesus or true apostles. "Faith communities" shaped the tradition for its own need and then canonized it. Is this scholarship? It is certainly following in the tradition of the mythological approach of "enlightenment" (and social evolution) scholarship but it has little to offer but complex edifices of pedantic guesswork.

As a servant of the Lord and someone who loves studying the Scriptures, I am often perplexed by all the energy that is invested in fruitless pursuits. Elaborate arguments can be conjured up, but are these making me grow in understanding the will of the Lord, as a disciple, and in helping others know the Lord?

I agree with much of the post, though I think it is out of place on a forum such as this. But I also think that it is mistaken to condemn a responsible reassessment of ancient traditions. Work done over the past hundred years by scholars who cannot be pigeon-holed (e.g. more recently Hengel, Bauckham) have made legitimate reassessments of the patristic evidence while standing aloof from the speculation (and imo pure fantasy, but my personal view of it is inappropriate for this forum) of many of the critical views, such as Brown's 'Johannine community'.

You might not like or agree with Bauckham's arguments to the effect that the early Asian Christians did not identify their John with the son of Zebedee, but I don't think it can be assumed that everyone is motivated by the desire to uphold the canons of form and redaction criticism. Bauckham in fact has probably done more than anyone (Wright excepted) to expose their faulty foundations.

Imo, had the Fourth Gospel never been ascribed to a Galilean fisherman by later tradition (an identification probably first made by the Valentinian Gnostics in Alexandria, as the evidence seems to suggest), its seems doubtful to me whether the historical Jesus Quest would ever have been able to discount the testimony of the Fourth Gospel in the first place: it was the gross unlikelihood of the traditional view (the author knows Judea, not Galilea, is learned in rabbinical exegesis and well-connected to the priestly establishment) that led to the rejection of the Fourth Gospel and of the early patristic evidence that was erroneously seen to support it. It is only the discoveries of archaeology, ancient papyri of the text of the Gospel, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, that have forced a re-evaluation of the Fourth Gospel surprisingly in line with the insightful arguments of Bishop Westcott in favor of the authenticity of the work, over a century ago.

This isn't conspiracy: figures did get confused in antiqutiy: that is why in tradition, Aristobulus is said to be the father of both St. John and St. Mark. At least three people are said to be John Mark in antiquity (the bishops of Byblos, Alexandria, and Apollonia). Mark was said both to have been a disciple of Jesus (Epiphanius, Severus and others) and to have not known Jesus (Papias, Muratorian fragment). Why? well, I would suggest that the Evangelist Mark, Peter's disciple, became confused with John Mark, the Jerusalem Levite. I don't think anyone would characterize Grotius, Du Pin, Tilleman--even Alban Butler--as well as the ancient liturgies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as conspiratorial for distinguishing Mark the Evangelist and John Mark.

Conspiracy is the view of the critical scholars who seem to think that early Christian writers sat down together and decided to make up mythologies and suppress information they didn't like. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that similar process to the one that seems to have taken place with Mark took place with John also, by which the son of Zebedee quite accidentally and naturally morphed into John the Beloved Disciple. The question is, are we going to patiently sit down and let the evidence of the Johannine writings and early Christian fathers speak to us, or are we going to react so much against critical scholarship that we aren't even willing to make sure our own views are built on a historically solid basis?

And yes, if we really realized who the author was, it would throw light upon the Johannine works, and would solve such problems as how the 'other disciple' was known to the high priest (something impossible of the son of Zebedee, according to Acts 4, as even Pink admits), was able to take Mary to his home 'from that hour', was seated in the host's spot at the Last Supper (suggesting he lived there), how he happened to be at the house to which Nicodemus came by night, and a whole lot more.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384434#Comment_384434

As a servant of the Lord and someone who loves studying the Scriptures, I am often perplexed by all the energy that is invested in fruitless pursuits. Elaborate arguments can be conjured up, but are these making me grow in understanding the will of the Lord, as a disciple, and in helping others know the Lord?

Amen!

Does this apply only when the results don't agree with your own view, or are the discussions of historical setting and authorship okay when they agree with what you already hold? .

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384455#Comment_384455

I think that by and large, authorship issues are relevant in several main ways:

With regard to the Lord Jesus and the apostles, it confers the seal of authentic Christianity. This is the difference between the inspirational value of many other Christian writings at that time and throughout the centuries. Since both the Lord's teaching and that of the apostles are fundamental to the testimony (what we have seen, heard, touched; we did not invent fables but beheld the glory on the mountain; I did not receive the gospel from any man, etc) they are not mere speculative games.
With regard to canonicity -- and in spite of efforts to show that it was common secular practice -- pseudo-authorship and freedom in inserting non-authentic material are problematic. They undermine the reliability (and put a question mark on the divine inspiration) of what is taught.
From an hermeneutical standpoint, authorship is important to study usage whether it be idioms, words or syntax.

The point is not that my views are bothered by all these speculations. I don't know who the author of Hebrews is (I don't think it's Paul and all the other proposals are inconclusive). Any serious student of canonicity knows that we don't have all the answers. What bothers me is when the sacred is handled so casually. I think there needs to be more restraint in challenging authenticity when much of what is argued is highly speculative.

Nord Zootman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/384455#Comment_384455

Does this apply only when the results don't agree with your own view, or are the discussions of historical setting and authorship okay when they agree with what you already hold? .

My understanding of scripture is certainly informed by the issues of authorship and historical setting is crucial in understanding the Word of God. I still have much to learn and am open to still being taught, although as I continue to age I am comfortable with my beliefs. I don't object to the ongoing study, I just struggle with those whose first assumption is that the traditional views must be in error. (I am not speaking of any in this particular conversation). I think some of the literature I have read in that regard is very close to what you object to in your post to Francis when you said "Conspiracy is the view of the critical scholars who seem to think that
early Christian writers sat down together and decided to make up
mythologies and suppress information they didn't like." Authorship is one of the places that they seem to enjoy attacking.

I'm sure I have gone beyond the bounds of the forum rules in this reply (and in my earlier Amen). I apologize for that.

In Christ,

Nord Zootman