Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Slaters' article in Biblica

Expand Messages
  • Aleksandar Milanovic
    Dear friends, Have you read Slaters article about the date of Revelation (T. B. Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
    Message 1 of 7 , May 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear friends,
      Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B. Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258. http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )?  What is your opinion about his arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
      Sincerely,
      Alexander Milanovic
      Belgrade (Serbia)
    • mloftus955
      I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe that the apostle John wrote the Revelation. I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak
      Message 2 of 7 , May 23, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe
        that the apostle John wrote the Revelation.

        I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence
        for the dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as
        a reliable witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
        to be about 50 years old. If it were a non religious ancient
        writer making factual errors, it would objectively be considered
        non reliable for that reason.

        It should also be noted that there are translation issues affecting
        the proper understanding of what Irenaeus wrote. Also, his writing
        was about a century after the fact. He referred to Polycarp (who
        supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is
        not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus
        recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in of AD 95-96, during the
        last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it"
        Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of
        anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that
        the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to
        us through three people separated by three centuries.

        It is hard to put too much confidence in ancient writings which
        often contradict each other. Some will readily accept these
        uncritically because of tradition.

        Mark Loftus
        Lansdowne, PA


        --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Aleksandar Milanovic"
        <amilanov@f...> wrote:
        > Dear friends,
        > Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B.
        Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
        http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )? What is your opinion about his
        arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
        > Sincerely,
        > Alexander Milanovic
        > Belgrade (Serbia)
      • Ed Garcia
        I am curious, what are your reasons for accepting the apostle John as the writer of Revelation? Thank you. Ed Garcia ... From: mloftus955
        Message 3 of 7 , May 23, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I am curious, what are your reasons for accepting the apostle John as
          the writer of Revelation?

          Thank you.

          Ed Garcia

          -----Original Message-----
          From: mloftus955 [mailto:mloftus955@...]
          Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:26 PM
          To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Slaters' article in Biblica


          I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe that the
          apostle John wrote the Revelation.

          I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence for the
          dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as a reliable
          witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
          to be about 50 years old. If it were a non religious ancient
          writer making factual errors, it would objectively be considered non
          reliable for that reason.

          It should also be noted that there are translation issues affecting
          the proper understanding of what Irenaeus wrote. Also, his writing
          was about a century after the fact. He referred to Polycarp (who
          supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part - "it is
          not long since it was seen" - is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus
          recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in of AD 95-96, during the
          last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it"
          Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of
          anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that
          the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to
          us through three people separated by three centuries.

          It is hard to put too much confidence in ancient writings which often
          contradict each other. Some will readily accept these
          uncritically because of tradition.

          Mark Loftus
          Lansdowne, PA


          --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Aleksandar Milanovic"
          <amilanov@f...> wrote:
          > Dear friends,
          > Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B.
          Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
          http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )? What is your opinion about his
          arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
          > Sincerely,
          > Alexander Milanovic
          > Belgrade (Serbia)




          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Otto Erlend Nordgreen
          Slater s article is interesting. I do, however, think that his previous works on the date of Revelation are more convincing. I also think that Slater
          Message 4 of 7 , May 24, 2003
          • 0 Attachment

            Slater's article is interesting. I do, however, think that his previous works on the date of Revelation are more convincing. I also think that Slater demonstrates a somewhat strange reading of the main argument presented by J. C. Wilson: "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation", NTS 39 (1993), pp. 587-605.

            According to Wilson, the first king is Julius, not Augustus. Slater, however, insists that Nero is the fifth king. In order to do that, he has to have Augustus as the first emperor. But according to Wilson, all "official" lists of emperors begin with Julius. Thus, if John had to follow an 'official' list of emperors, he most likely had to start such a list with Julius Caesar.

            The main arguments for a pre-70 date are (according to Wilson):

            (1) The lack of evidence for a Domitianic persecution;
            (2) The list of seven (or eight) emperos in Rev 17
            (3) The temple in Rev 11:1ff.
             
            Ad (1): This argument is based on the assumption that the Book of Revelation is a typical 'apocalypse' and, therefore, has to have been written "in an historical background of recent persecution", as Wilson (1993:605) puts it. Now, if we do not accept this, the (rest of the) first argument fails to convince.
             
            Ad (2): If John followed an 'official' list, he had to start the list with Julius. According to Slater, John starts with Augustus. But he does not give any support for this "point of departure" -- why start with Augustus? Why not Gaius (Caligula)?

            Ad (3): This argument is based on the assumption that the "naos" in Rev 11:1ff. is the Jerusalem Temple "still standing", viz. in a situation before 70 CE. But there are problems with this position: (a) elsewhere in the Apocalypse, "naos" does not designate the (earthly) Jerusalem temple; (b) if John says that a part of the Temple building is to be spared (= not given over to the gentiles), he would be in conflict with the so-called "Q-Apocalypse" (cf. Bachmann: "Himmlisch: Der 'Tempel Gottes' von Apk 11.1", NTS 40 [1994], pp. 474-480). Such a conflict is, of course, possible. But likely?

            Just some of my thoughts.

            OEN

                     ________________________________________         
                     Otto Erlend Nordgreen                               
                                            
                     Student at Department of Germanic
                     Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
                     E-mail: otton@...
                     Website: http://www.uio.no/~otton/English1.htm
                     ________________________________________

          • Otto Erlend Nordgreen
            Mark, ... Why? ... ...but does not Irenaeus also indicate that the apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Do you consider Irenaeus reliable here? (Perhaps Irenaeus
            Message 5 of 7 , May 24, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark,

              according to you:

              I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe
              that the apostle John wrote the Revelation.

              Why?


              I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence
              for the dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as
              a reliable witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
              to be about 50 years old.

              ...but does not Irenaeus also indicate that the apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Do you consider Irenaeus reliable here? (Perhaps Irenaeus could be trusted in some matters?)

              Best wishes

              OEN

                       ________________________________________         
                       Otto Erlend Nordgreen                               
                                              
                       Student at Department of Germanic
                       Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
                       E-mail: otton@...
                       Website: http://www.uio.no/~otton/English1.htm
                       ________________________________________

            • mloftus955
              Hi Otto, I believe that John wrote the book for other reasons, not because of Irenaeus, I don t think he s a reliable source. I think it is safer to trust the
              Message 6 of 7 , May 25, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Otto, I believe that John wrote the book for other reasons, not
                because of Irenaeus, I don't think he's a reliable source. I think
                it is safer to trust the biblical evidence in a matter like this.

                Rev 1:9 - "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in
                tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in
                the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the
                testimony of Jesus Christ."

                Please note that the above is a direct statement by John as to the
                circumstances of his writing of Revelation. It is therefore more
                than just an "assumption" (as Wilson calls it) that the Apocalypse
                was written "in an historical background of recent persecution."

                This verse shows John as a brother in tribulation, which had taken
                place in the AD 60's (not the AD90s). It shows him as being in
                Patmos, there are many sources for that without contradiction. Who
                else could have sent the recording of his visions to those 7 churches
                back in the first century and have them accepted as the Word of God
                to them? John, the disciple who was close to Jesus, would certainly
                know His Lord. In verse 2 he writes it was he , "Who bare record of
                the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all
                things that he saw." Certainly John the apostle was with Jesus
                throughout His ministry to fulfill this verse, which sounds like the
                introduction to the 1st Letter of John.

                There are also patterns in the Revelation similar to those in John's
                gospel. The end of the Revelation is similar to the beginning, with
                corresponding verses going up and down the ladder. It is impossible
                for me or for anyone else to *prove* that the John of Revelation is
                John the Apostle, and no other. But these are my reasons for
                believing personally that it is.

                Mark Loftus


                --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Otto Erlend Nordgreen
                <otton@m...> wrote:
                > Mark,
                >
                > according to you:
                >
                > >I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe
                > >that the apostle John wrote the Revelation.
                >
                > Why?
                >
                >
                > >I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence
                > >for the dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as
                > >a reliable witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
                > >to be about 50 years old.
                >
                > ...but does not Irenaeus also indicate that the apostle John wrote
                the
                > Apocalypse. Do you consider Irenaeus reliable here? (Perhaps
                Irenaeus could
                > be trusted in some matters?)
                >
                > Best wishes
                >
                > OEN
                >
                > ________________________________________
                > Otto Erlend Nordgreen
                >
                > Student at Department of Germanic
                > Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
                > E-mail: otton@h...
                > Website: http://www.uio.no/~otton/English1.htm
                > ________________________________________
              • mloftus955
                Hi Ed, See my answer to Otto s post, basically I read the scripture itself and not rely on outside sources. The ancient sources may be christian but they are
                Message 7 of 7 , May 25, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Ed,
                  See my answer to Otto's post, basically I read the scripture
                  itself and not rely on outside sources. The ancient sources
                  may be "christian" but they are just men. The internal
                  evidence of the Revelation itself is the most trustworthy
                  source in my view. There is a saying, "History is written
                  by the winners". Besides, I am not tied to traditions.

                  Mark



                  --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Garcia" <Ed.Garcia@f...>
                  wrote:
                  > I am curious, what are your reasons for accepting the apostle John
                  as
                  > the writer of Revelation?
                  >
                  > Thank you.
                  >
                  > Ed Garcia
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: mloftus955 [mailto:mloftus955@y...]
                  > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:26 PM
                  > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Slaters' article in Biblica
                  >
                  >
                  > I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe that
                  the
                  > apostle John wrote the Revelation.
                  >
                  > I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence for
                  the
                  > dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as a reliable
                  > witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
                  > to be about 50 years old. If it were a non religious ancient
                  > writer making factual errors, it would objectively be considered non
                  > reliable for that reason.
                  >
                  > It should also be noted that there are translation issues affecting
                  > the proper understanding of what Irenaeus wrote. Also, his writing
                  > was about a century after the fact. He referred to Polycarp (who
                  > supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part - "it is
                  > not long since it was seen" - is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus
                  > recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in of AD 95-96, during the
                  > last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it"
                  > Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of
                  > anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that
                  > the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to
                  > us through three people separated by three centuries.
                  >
                  > It is hard to put too much confidence in ancient writings which
                  often
                  > contradict each other. Some will readily accept these
                  > uncritically because of tradition.
                  >
                  > Mark Loftus
                  > Lansdowne, PA
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Aleksandar Milanovic"
                  > <amilanov@f...> wrote:
                  > > Dear friends,
                  > > Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B.
                  > Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
                  > http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )? What is your opinion about his
                  > arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
                  > > Sincerely,
                  > > Alexander Milanovic
                  > > Belgrade (Serbia)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.