Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
just as genesis (according to the documentary hypothesis) consists of 2 or 3 interweaved stories maybe revelation consists of 2 interweaved parallel stories/visions.
could it be that 2 people saw the vision and wrote books and then the 2 books were interwoven to produce revelation?
I've always believed that revelation was actually given on the mount of transfiguration to peter and john.
7 churches, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, dragon, 7 plagues, & the defeat of the dragon at Armageddon
the other vision consists of the
throne room, sealing of the servants of God, 2 Witnesses, Lamb on Mt Zion, judgement of the great harlot, & Paradise
this is especially interesting with respect to the sentence
7but in the days of the voice of the seventh messenger, when he may be about to sound, and the secret of God may be finished
instead of being the 3rd woe this 'seventh messenger' would be referring to the angel that opens of the seventh seal
it also explains how "the third woe doth come quickly" (right after the second woe)
I've also long been sure that the 4 angels holding back the wind are the 4 horsemen.
just as genesis (according to the documentary hypothesis) consists of 2 or 3 interweaved stories maybe revelation consists of 2 interweaved parallel stories/visions.
could it be that 2 people saw the vision and wrote books and then the 2 books were interwoven to produce revelation?
I've always believed that revelation was actually given on the mount of transfiguration to peter and john.
one vision consists of the seals, trumpets, dragon, plagues, & Armageddon
the other vision consists of the sealing of the servants of God, 2 Witnesses, Lamb on Mt Zion, judgement of the *****, & Paradise
this is especially interesting with respect to the sentence
7but in the days of the voice of the seventh messenger, when he may be about to sound, and the secret of God may be finished
instead of being the 3rd woe this 'seventh messenger' would be referring to the angel that opens of the seventh seal
it also explains how "the third woe doth come quickly" (right after the second woe)
The only problem with this theory is that the Book of Revelations does not appear to share any of the traits that are commonly used to posit the Documentary Hypothesis for the Torah. I'm not an expert in Greek, but I think the scholarly consensus is that the book was written by one author and in a consistent style. A multiplicity of inherited ideas would not be enough to suggest your theory, I think; for all things build upon previous endeavors.
The Documentary Hyopthesis is posited on the fact that the different authors (or "Collectors", as Gunkel would put it) used various writings techniques that reveal their multi-authorial status, such as differences in writing style (P's terse to-the-point style VS J's beautiful, character-driven style), different names for things (YHWH/Elohim, etc, Sinai/Horeb, places, people), differences in theology, differences in dates-of-composition, doublets, differences in story content, etc. It gets quite involved.
just as genesis (according to the documentary hypothesis) consists of 2 or 3 interweaved stories maybe revelation consists of 2 interweaved parallel stories/visions.
could it be that 2 people saw the vision and wrote books and then the 2 books were interwoven to produce revelation?
Are you sure this is the most parsimonious explanation?
The only problem with this theory is that the Book of Revelations does not appear to share any of the traits that are commonly used to posit the Documentary Hypothesis for the Torah. I'm not an expert in Greek, but I think the scholarly consensus is that the book was written by one author and in a consistent style. A multiplicity of inherited ideas would not be enough to suggest your theory, I think; for all things build upon previous endeavors.
The Documentary Hyopthesis is posited on the fact that the different authors (or "Collectors", as Gunkel would put it) used various writings techniques that reveal their multi-authorial status, such as differences in writing style (P's terse to-the-point style VS J's beautiful, character-driven style), different names for things (YHWH/Elohim, etc, Sinai/Horeb, places, people), differences in theology, differences in dates-of-composition, doublets, differences in story content, etc. It gets quite involved.
I just don't see that in the Book of Revelations.
1. It's the Book of Revelation....only 1 Revelation--not singular. It's John's Revelation.
2. I agree...there was only 1 author--the language used indicates only 1 author. That, and John identifies himself as the one that wrote it...not him and another person.
well I am quite sure that the 4 angels holding back the wind are the 4 horsemen.
I was sure of this long before I came up with this new idea.
Let me try this another way:
Are you sure that your idea, of more than one person observing things that actually occurred and reporting them differently, is more parsimonious than to conclude that it is fiction?
I feel that there are a number of ways to view the Book of Revelation.
Personally, I like the newer interpretation that it is a retelling of the Gospel in cryptic and apocalyptic symbolism.
I believe that the author was well aware of the seven churches that Paul corresponded with.
I also feel that the author was somewhat versed in Judaic apocalyptism.
It is not a book of the future, like so many people would like to believe. It, like the Gospels before it, is about the past. But the past has great import for the future.
The early church was neither interested or concerned with the death of the Christ or the expected "end of the world." The early church celebrated the birth, the resurrection, and the concept that the Kingdom of God had already descended to Earth, meaning that adherents to the new religion were living in a qualified and not perfect existence within this Kingdom. Perfection (including the Kingdom) would occur at death and the subsequent final resurrection.
There is also an element of Hellenism: the duality of body/soul, heaven/hell, and the Christ/Satan.
But before the Greeks screwed up Judaism, the concept of Satan was a far cry from Hellenistic concepts, the expansion of the same during the Middle Ages, and modern mythological beliefs. Satan was merely an Adversary, and that term was used liberally (as it is today by Islam) against the great oppressors of Jews (e.g., Alexander's son, Herod(s), the Roman emperor(s), and so on and so on).
The idea of a Satan being thrown into a Lake of Fire (the ultimate Gehenna) is more symbollic of the end of evil in all its forms, not the end or destruction of an actual entity and the souls of those who others, repeat others have deemed "evil" and deserving of hellfire.
What do we get out of Revelation? Hope. Pure and simple: hope.
No matter what happens in our future--and we have already been admonished not to give a whit of care about what happens in the future--we are already in the care of our God. We move in God, with God, and for God. We witness not by seeing who can save the most souls in this life but by simply living our faith. If we should drop dead in the next second, we are taken care of, and that should end all worry and concern.
1. It's the Book of Revelation....only 1 Revelation--not singular. It's John's Revelation.
2. I agree...there was only 1 author--the language used indicates only 1 author. That, and John identifies himself as the one that wrote it...not him and another person.
Theogeek - for point 1, it should be fairly obvious that I'm using the standard title of the book as familiar to many Christians - since I'm not interested in referring to the books in their Greek titles, because of the audience. It's the same reason I use the term Genesis when referring to the first book of the Hebrew Bible, instead of the Hebrew name of the book: it's more familiar to most people and it avoids extra explanations. AS to "Revelations", it's been variously referred to as Revelations, The Book of Revelations, The Revelation of John, The Apocalypse of John, Etc.
If you really want to be anal about it - lets use the Greek: it's Apokalypsis - which does not mean "Revelation" or "Revelations" at all.
But delving into these points isn't necesarry and detracts from the point of the thread.
As for which John wrote it - scholars are fairly (if not 100%) certain that it was not the same John as the Apostle John (or whoever wrote the Gospel of John). There were many Johns running around back then, for one point. The only point in favor of the Apostle John's authorship is the authority that he seems to wield among the churches. But this is trumped by Dionysius in the 3rd Century and his study of the language, style and theology of the book, and his conclusion that it is impossible that it was the same Apostle John that we know of from the Gospel. Further scholarly investigation since then has concurred on this.
In the end - however you wish to refer to the book, it's authorship does not appear to be composite.
And, to hitchhike on whopper's post, this particular John's Greek was atrocious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
