>I don't have trouble with the God-given part or the prophetic part.
> Firstly, the idea that the Revelation preceded events about which
> it speaks is not a problem if one accepts that it was God-given
> (as per Rev 1:1 given by God to Jesus and by Jesus to John)
> `to show what must soon take place'. That is, the Revelation
> was a prophetic vision rather than someone's creative reflection
> on past and/or current events.
However, there is general consensus that the book jumps around from
past to present to future and back and forth again and again. "Write
what you have seen, WHAT IS and what is to take place after this."
1:19 It is extremely difficult to ascertain when it is speaking
literally of the future or when it is merely using future tense for
dramatic effect. It could very well be describing events that
recently had taken place or were currently taking place and then
giving its own unique interpretation to these events.
>The two witnesses are not located in/around the temple in verse two.
> Secondly, it is a matter of interpretation that the two witnesses of
> Rev 11 refer to Peter and Paul. As the city in which both of them
> die the holy city where the temple was (11:2)
There is a transition in verse three where the two witnesses are first
introduced with "And I will grant my two witnesses..."
and `where there
> Lord was crucified' (11:8) seems to refer to Jerusalem,I don't think so. In verses 7 and 8 we find... "their dead bodies
will lie in the street of THE GREAT CITY (this is always Rome in
Revelation, see especially chapters 17,18) that is prophetically
called Sodom and Egypt (how can this be Jerusalem?), where also their
Lord was crucified." This last phrase alone "where also their Lord
was crucified" would seem to indicate Jerusalem but upon closer
scrutiny, Jesus was in a very real sense crucified in Rome, i.e. by
Roman edict under the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate functioning as
the official representative of Rome, under Roman jurisdiction. Though
geographically situated in Palestine, Jesus was most assuredly
crucified "in Rome" i.e. "by Rome." This cryptic, convoluted way of
referring to Rome is distinctly "Revelation-esque".
I am not
> convinced that these two enigmatic characters are Peter andNow that (hopefully) you're more comfortable with Rome being the
> Paul, both of whom died in Rome.
location for our two witnesses, if they are not Peter and Paul, who
might they be? In the early to mid sixties, in Rome, what other
prophetic figures would merit such accolades, such deep reverence?
>Agreed. For the record, I feel the case for apostolic authorship of
> I suspect the circumstances of the 60s of the first century provide
> many solutions to questions about the text particularly of
> Johannine writings and the inter-relations between these and
> other NT books which the modern tendency to opt for later dates
> and non-apostolic authorships prevent us from seeing.
John is very strong. I highly recommend "The Priority of John" by
John A. T. Robinson, a tour de force, challenging many conventional
assumptions about John and the synoptics. As far as I know, nobody
has ever refuted his arguements, though many contemporary scholars are
quite adept at ignoring them.
Just curious, why and how do you date Revelation to 62 A.D.?
Personally, I'd date it during the height of the Neronian persecution
in 64/65 A.D. and the second/final edition of the Gospel of John I'd
date around 66/67 A.D. I think the first edition of John (minus the
prologue, chapters 6, 14-17 and 21) came out around 62/63 A.D.
F. C. Grant saw no problem in a combination of figurative and literal
meanings in 1 Peter 5:13. In his article on Mark in the Encyclopedia Americana he
wrote: "Further, the intimate reference in 1 Peter, joining Mark's greeting
with Peter's and those of the church in 'Babylon' (Rome?), would be more natural
if the relationship was physical as well as spiritual." According to Swete,
huios does not involve a spiritual relationship which in the Pauline Epistles
is expressed by teknon.
I have argued previously that Mark was forbidden by Jesus to accompany Peter
during the Galilean ministry. This did not preclude him from being a disciple
of John the Baptist. (Mathetes means learner or pupil.) J. E. Bruns wrote
two articles about the confusion between John and John Mark. In one he quotes
a document which claims Mark was with the servants at Cana. According to Mark
6:31, the trip which ended in the feeding of the five thousand was supposed
to be for a rest and there was no reason to make Mark stay home. Mark could
have been present when his grandmother was healed, in the fishing boat, and with
Peter when he went to Jerusalem for the Passover.
Mark's limited contact with Jesus explains why we have just these relatively
few stories about Jesus. There were many other things which Jesus did. Could
John 21:24f be Mark's ending to his notes?
George Melick, Drexel University (Retired)
9 Attleboro Court
Red Bank, NJ 07701