On The Apocalypse: Part I

[BluePhantom]

So I have decided to start a series of threads discussing The Apocalypse (The Revelation....Apocalypse is simply the Greek word for Revelation. The two terms are used interchangably). I was up between that, "The Historical Jesus", "The Early History of Christianity", and "Biblical Controversies and Their Historical Impact". I decided on the Apocalypse for a variety of reasons...the main one being it's a lot easier. First I am going to discuss the scope and the rules. My next post will be the first installment.

The Scope

This series will analyze The Apocalypse from a historical perspective taking culture, languages, and history into account. In other words this will not be a futuristic analysis. While a futuristic interpretation is certainly welcome for debate, such a perspective is a theological interpretation and not a cultural or historical one.

It is important to distinguish between a faith based reading and a scholarly reading. As an example let's consider the letters of Paul. From a faith based perspective the 13 letters of Paul are considered authentic and true. From a scholarly perspective 6 of them are generally considered pseudopigraphic (forgeries) and one (Second Corinthians) is trending more and more toward pseudopigraphic among scholars.

This will not be a futuristic or faith based analysis, but a discussion on what John of Patmos was getting at when he wrote it.

I intend several posts before even getting into the actual text of The Apocalypse. First I want to discuss what an Apocalypse was in ancient culture and tradition (I will post that next to get the ball rolling). Then we will discuss authorship, then the style of Greek used...basically I am going to lay the groundwork and put everything into historical and cultural context before we dig into the text itself.

In the second phase we will discuss and analyze the text and attempt to reveal the symbolism and how it related to what was happening at the time.

In the third phase we will discuss how The Revelation has been interpreted throughout history and how those interpretations impacted society and how the Revelation still impacts societal mores and norms today.

My hope is that we will have a deep, thorough, and lasting discussion with contributions from multiple perspectives from which each person can take their own lesson, understanding, and appreciation.

The Rules

- Be respectful. Passionate debate is welcomed. Opposing points of view are welcomed. Please show tolerance of contrary interpretations and disagree in a respectful manner.

- Keep to the scope. Again this is going to be a historical, cultural, and scholarly approach to interpretation. Making the argument that "the Bible says it and therefore it must be true" isn't going to cut it (and frankly you will get what you deserve).

- I ask contributors to ignore the trolls and not allow themselves to get sucked into pissing matches with those who are unable or unwilling to consider contrary points of view. Ignore them.

- Make your point, support it, and be constructive.

-Let each person walk his/her own path and let them reach their own conclusions. Offering them a different perspective is welcome. Telling them "you must believe this" is not.

My Position

While I am very well versed and educated on the Apocalypse, I do not feel that my opinion is the definitive opinion. It's simply MY opinion that works for me and fits well within MY personal theology. If you reach a different conclusion I have no problem with that...after all I could be wrong. I don't know everything and I welcome new learning provided it is well supported with documentation, historical analysis, or at least a logical argument.

The Goal

The goal is to explore the history, the culture, the language, and all the other elements in regards to The Apocalypse in the hopes that together (including myself) all will achieve a greater appreciation, a greater understanding, and a greater connection with God.



NEXT: What is "an Apocalypse" Anyway?

 

[BluePhantom]

What Is An Apocalypse Anyway?

One of the things most often misunderstood about The Revelation is that it is not a book that was unique. In ancient times an Apocalypse was a genre of writing. Today, for example, we have fiction, non-fiction, historical fiction, sci-fi, biographical, etc. Well in ancient times an Apocalypse was just that...a genre. There were many Apocalypses...the Apocalypse of Peter, the end of Daniel is considered an Apocalypse. There were tons of them. The Apocalypse of John of Patmos was just the one that made it into the Bible (and we will discuss how and why it did in a later thread).

Scholars identify 9 things that make an Apocalypse an Apocalypse and in this discussion...in time we will discuss them. But I think there are two that are really central to this discussion. The first is that an Apocalypse attempted to explain why the people were suffering and assure the people that "their time would come". This was significant because Jewish tradition told the people that they were the chosen ones. Special in the eyes of God...so why was it that they were constantly being conquered and oppressed by other nations? An Apocalypse explains why that is happening and gives assurances that in the end they will prevail. It's a message of hope to Jews who were living in oppression and assuring them that in the end, they will be rewarded.

The second and perhaps most important is that an Apocalypse was always written by an Apcolypticist. I mean you didn't write an Apocalypse unless you were an Apocalypticist. It just doesn't make sense.

But an Apocalypticist today is a bit different than an Apocalypiticist in antiquity. Today when you think of an Apocalypticist you think of the crazy guy standing on the street corner with a bullhorn and signs screaming "repent...the end of the world is near!!! The end is upon us!!!" Well that's not exactly what it meant in antiquity. In antiquity an Apocalypticist did not believe the world was about to end. He/she believed that God's good kingdom was about to come to Earth and people would soon be free from oppression and free to live in harmony with God. It was not a negative message of "beware the end is near" it was a positive message of "God's kingdom is nearly here...we will soon be free".

It's also important to understand that Apocalypticists believed that this would happen in their lifetime or in the generation that followed. This is a significant point in regard to The Apocalypse of John of Patmos and indeed he makes a very specific reference to a timetable (that we will discuss later when we dig into the text). But for now let's just accept that John of Patmos, as an Apocalypticist, believed and wrote that all this would happen "very soon".

Now combine that with the first criteria and what you have is a genre of books that says "this is why we are suffering, this is why we are oppressed, this is what is going to happen to our oppressors, this is how we win in the end, and stay strong, because it's going to be soon"

This is one of the most important points in refuting a futuristic reading of The Revelation. The Revelation is an Apocalypse...trying to put it into the context of 2,000 years or more in the future makes no sense at all according to the genre of book it is. There is no comfort for listeners or readers in the message that "in several thousand years we will win". No...the message in regards to the Apocalypse of John of Patmos is "we will win soon...in our lifetime or in the generation that follows". It would have made no sense or had any validity, importance, or value to anyone without that being specific.

Now what sets the Apocalypse of John of Patmos apart from other Apocalypses is that it is not a jewish Apocalypse but a Christian Apocalypse. Instead of being directed to Jews as most Apocalypses were, this one was directed toward Christians in regard to the oppression Christians were facing from Rome and Jews who felt that Christians were traitors to the Jewish faith. But it's not the only Christian Apocalypse. The Apocalypse of Peter was a well known and popular book in antiquity and it's a great story complete with a walking,talking cross and some great sci-fi stuff that people today would really enjoy.

So this is just a starter...this is far from complete, just an introduction. What is an Apocalypse? It was a genre of writing in antiquity that was intended to comfort the religiously oppressed, give them hope, give them an explanation for why they are suffering, assure them that they will win in the end, and assure them that it will happen soon.

The Revelation of John of Patmos fits every criteria right down the line with the exception of one. Apocalypses were almost always anonymous. This one is different...John of Patmos identifies himself as...well...John of Patmos....the rest of the criteria are met with dotted "I"s and crossed "T"s

 

[BluePhantom]

At first I wanted to detail the dating of the Apocalypse before I tackled the authorship, but eventually I changed my mind. There are a few reasons for this and one is because I depart with scholars on dating of The Apocalypse. Most scholars think the book was written in its entirety and had been preserved. I disagree and in time I will tell you why and provide an argument for that perspective. I think The Revelation (or The Apocalypse) was written and then expanded in order to explain passages that predicted very specific things that did not come to pass. Those passages either provided explanations for the failure of the prediction to come to pass (similar to 1 Thessalonians 5) or altered to context to make it appear more prophetic. That will come later. For now let's focus on authorship.

Tradition holds that the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle/Disciple John during his imprisonment on the island of Patmos where according to that same tradition he was enslaved to work in the mines. This is of particular interest because...well..there are no mines on Patmos and so right from the start we see some traditional license being taken.

i love this passage from a "Biblical Scholar" (i.e. a guy with a ranting website) depicting what life was like on Patmos.

"It seems to me that Patmos was a place where many did not survive. It was a sterile place; crops could not produce. Food would have been scarce; maybe people like John would have been left to starve to death? But he didn’t! He survived. How do we know? We would not have had the Book of Revelation if God did not somehow work a way to get John off that desolate prison colony. What a testimony of the deliverance of our God!"

Wow...well..not only were there not any mines, but this is totally wrong (although I have to give kudos for a great imagination). Patmos was a thriving trading port. There were no mines...it was a thriving Roman city complete with all the accommodations of any other Roman city; running water, sewage, paved roads, security, hot public baths...typical Rome.

And in fact an exile to Patmos would not have been "imprisoned". Indeed no archaeological excavation has ever uncovered a prison on Patmos. During the reign of Vespasian people were exiled to an island (Patmos was a favorite) for the crime of "Superstition". Superstition was when you were preaching against Rome but what you were saying was so far out of reality, so incomprehensible, that...well...they thought you were crazy. And for all its faults, Rome didn't just indiscriminately slaughter people they thought were...well...nuts. They threw them on an island like Patmos and just let them be nuts there.

Now I need to make clear...I am not saying John of Patmos was nuts. Actually I don't think he was. What I am saying is that the Romans thought he was nuts and they did the things ascribed by Roman law...throw him on an island where he can be of little harm to anyone. If John was preaching what he wrote in The Apocalypse, it's pretty easy to understand why they dismissed him as a lunatic from the Roman perspective.

Now a person convicted of Superstition and banished to patmos would not have been imprisoned. There was no "working hard in the mines (that didn't exist), nor eating stale bread and water in a cell. Such a person could own property, become a citizen, marry, raise a family, have a home, get a job...basically live a standard life...in fact he would be expected to so he could support himself. For all intents and purposes he was just a guy making his way in life, he just couldn't leave Patmos.

So John of Patmos was not a slave working in the mines or in a cell somewhere. That perception has led to another misunderstanding of the Revelation...that John was talking in code to get his letter by his Roman persecutors. Well if it was a code, it was a pretty shitty one because everyone knew (Romans included) exactly what John was talking about. It seems a mystery to us now because a lot of the symbolism had been forgotten and following church leader who had lost the direct symbols had to explain it somehow. In reality the symbolism isn't a code...it's direct and the listeners of the Apocalypse would have known immediately what John was referring to.

But I have digressed from the question of authorship.

Was The Revelation written by John the Apostle/Disciple Son of Zebadee? No chance! Let me explain why.

1) John the Apostle was almost certainly illiterate. In Acts 4:13 it says that "...Peter and John...were untrained and uneducated men..." The Greek word used was "agrammatoi"....literally "not knowing their letters". They could not read or write.

John, like Peter and the rest of the Disciples, were peasants from Galilee. They would have spoken Aramaic naturally and it's 99.999% certain they could not have been able to read and write in Aramaic let alone the foreign language of Greek. Peasants didn't go to school in those days. The minute they could contribute they were working to help support the family. An education was something only the rich had, because only the rich could afford to have their sons doing something beside working. Also an education was only found in the cities. Galilee was a county of small little towns. There was no education to be had. Modern scholarship estimates that only 3% of the public in highly developed cities could read and write. Unless you want to advance the theory that John went to night school after the death of Jesus (BTW...night school didn't exist then) to first learn to read and write Aramaic, then continued to learn to read and write in Greek, you can forget about John writing The Apocalypse.

2) Scholarship places the writing of The Apocalypse anywhere between 65 and 95 AD. Tradition says John the Apostle was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domition. That would have made John 90+ years old in an era where the average lifespan for the rich and cared for was about 55.

3) The Apocalypse doesn't even CLAIM to be written by John, son of Zebadee. It just says "John" from the island of Patmos. John was about as common a name then as it is today. There would have been tons of Johns who lived on Patmos. He never CLAIMS to be John The Apostle and this is significant because pseudepigraphia was alive and well. Paul in writing to the Thessalonians recognized that there were many people writing letters and attributing them to him when he didn't write them. Being an apostle of Jesus carried weight. If the author of the Apocalypse was John the Apostle, why wouldn't he give himself credibility by saying "I am John who walked with Jesus"? he never says that. he just says "John" and I am currently on Patmos. If the author doesn't claim it, why should we attribute it to him?

Well I will answer that for you. It was attributed to John the Apostle in 382 CE at the council of Rome as they determined which books were fit for the Biblical canon. The be accepted there were four factors that had to be met.

1) The book had to be ancient. Meaning it had to have been written during the life of Jesus or within the lifespan of His followers.

2) it had to be orthodox. It had to tow the line of the current teaching of the church in 382 CE...NOT during the life of Jesus. There is a great example of this regarding the Gospel of Peter that was rejected from the Bible because church leaders decided that Peter could not have written it because it didn't agree with what THEY THEMSELVES believed, This was the rationale for the rejection of books like The Gospel of Thomas and The Shepherd of Hermas.

3) It had to be widely used. It had to be something most everyone knew about.

Lastly...

4) It had to be Apostolic. It had to be written by either an Apostle or a companion of an Apostle. In regards to The Apocalypse this is the singular most critical point. No one at the time thought The Apocalypse was written by John the Apostle. in fact the dissentions at the time are VERY well documented. And that "call of bullshit" continued through Martin Luther and beyond. NO ONE thought it was written by John son of Zebedee until the church declared it was to get it into the Bible....and disagreeing with the church meant death.

To summarize:

Who wrote The Apocalyse?

No one knows, but we can be sure of a couple things:

1) The author was named John BUT It Was NOT John the Apostle son of Zebedee

2) It was a converted Jewish to Christian writer, probably exiled to the Island of Patmos during the reign of Vespasian for the crime of superstition.

3) The author was an Apocalypticist. He believed God's good kingdom would come to Earth in his lifetime or in the generation that followed.

4) The Apocalypse, like all Biblical texts, was probably written first and then changed throughout time to compensate for predictions that did not come to pass.

 

[Slyhunter]

too many words.
I liked your summarization though.

 

[BluePhantom]

too many words.
I liked your summarization though.

I find it valuable to post a summerization but to also include full arguments. It makes it easier to just reference earlier posts to detractors

 

[Mad Scientist]

It is important to distinguish between a faith based reading and a scholarly reading. As an example let's consider the letters of Paul. From a faith based perspective the 13 letters of Paul are considered authentic and true. From a scholarly perspective 6 of them are generally considered pseudopigraphic (forgeries) and one (Second Corinthians) is trending more and more toward pseudopigraphic among scholars.

Which scholars are you referring to?

 

[BluePhantom]

It is important to distinguish between a faith based reading and a scholarly reading. As an example let's consider the letters of Paul. From a faith based perspective the 13 letters of Paul are considered authentic and true. From a scholarly perspective 6 of them are generally considered pseudopigraphic (forgeries) and one (Second Corinthians) is trending more and more toward pseudopigraphic among scholars.

Which scholars are you referring to?

I am speaking according to estimates. There will always be very respected scholars who disagree with the majority. That opinion is valuable. I am speaking in general terms. It's widely accepted that the majority of scholars approach, for example, 2 Peter as a forgery...pseudepigraphic. It doesn't take much to look that up

 

[PostmodernProph]

the problem I find with "most scholars" is that it generally is a code used by atheists to pump their claims and convey a film of authority.....

the text books used in most protestant seminaries identify the author of Revelation as John the apostle......

 

[peach174]

First you have to study and understand the book of Daniel, before you can thoroughly read and understand the book of Revelation.

 

[Chuckt]

It is important to distinguish between a faith based reading and a scholarly reading. As an example let's consider the letters of Paul. From a faith based perspective the 13 letters of Paul are considered authentic and true. From a scholarly perspective 6 of them are generally considered pseudopigraphic (forgeries) and one (Second Corinthians) is trending more and more toward pseudopigraphic among scholars.

Which scholars are you referring to?

I am speaking according to estimates. There will always be very respected scholars who disagree with the majority. That opinion is valuable. I am speaking in general terms. It's widely accepted that the majority of scholars approach, for example, 2 Peter as a forgery...pseudepigraphic. It doesn't take much to look that up

It is called unbelief and no one would follow the devil if there wasn't unbelief.

I did a study on Robert Frost and got two different dates for his age. What would the higher critics do with this information? Amazing.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Which scholars are you referring to?

I am speaking according to estimates. There will always be very respected scholars who disagree with the majority. That opinion is valuable. I am speaking in general terms. It's widely accepted that the majority of scholars approach, for example, 2 Peter as a forgery...pseudepigraphic. It doesn't take much to look that up

It is called unbelief and no one would follow the devil if there wasn't unbelief.

I did a study on Robert Frost and got two different dates for his age. What would the higher critics do with this information? Amazing.

I think we need to start an "historic Robert Frost" movement!.....

 

[alang1216]

the problem I find with "most scholars" is that it generally is a code used by atheists to pump their claims and convey a film of authority.....

the text books used in most protestant seminaries identify the author of Revelation as John the apostle......

Almost everyone considers the gospels to be written by the people they were named after. None of the gospels themselves claim an author and, it is my understanding, that the recognition of Mark, Luke, etc., as the authors did not come into general use until centaries after these people lived and died.

 

[BluePhantom]

the problem I find with "most scholars" is that it generally is a code used by atheists to pump their claims and convey a film of authority.....

the text books used in most protestant seminaries identify the author of Revelation as John the apostle......

Almost everyone considers the gospels to be written by the people they were named after. None of the gospels themselves claim an author and, it is my understanding, that the recognition of Mark, Luke, etc., as the authors did not come into general use until centaries after these people lived and died.

That's absolutely correct. As you accurately point out none of the gospels claim to be written by those authors in their texts. They are not written in the first person (in other words in Matthew it says [paraphrasing] ...and Jesus came upon a tax collector named Matthew sitting in his booth....Jesus said follow me and he did. Well if it was Matthew writing it he would have said ....and Jesus came upon ME while I was sitting in MY booth...he said follow me and I did.)

Additionally as I said before the Apostles (except for Paul) were almost certainly illiterate and would have spoken Aramaic. The odds of them being able to compose letters and books in Greek is virtually zero.

There is some argument that Matthew could read and write because he was a tax collector and had to be able to keep the books. Maybe, but still probably not....at least most scholars don't buy that argument. Matthew is viewed by scholarship not as the bookkeeper but as the heavy who pounded on doors and demanded payment.

Some people like to argue that the Apostles originally wrote in Aramaic and they were later translated into Greek or that they dictated to a scribe who translated them into Greek for them. Again there are several problems with this.

First is the motivation. The only reason why they would write in Greek is to appeal to a gentile audience. Jews spoke Greek and the Apostles (except Paul) were not interested in gentiles. They were appealing toward Jews. Why would they ask to have their writings translated into a language that the people they were ministering to could not understand? That makes no sense.

There are also some stories that don't make any sense when read in Aramaic. For example the story about a man being reborn or put back into his Mother's womb and born again. That story details a misunderstanding based on language between the people in the story. The misunderstanding is based on the multiple uses of the Greek words used. In Hebrew or Aramaic those words have no similarity and so such a misunderstanding would not have made any sense. Thus it is clear that the only way it makes sense is if it was originally composed in Greek.

But yes, you are absolutely correct. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, Peter, etc almost certainly did not write Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, Peter, etc.

 

[BluePhantom]

Which scholars are you referring to?

I am speaking according to estimates. There will always be very respected scholars who disagree with the majority. That opinion is valuable. I am speaking in general terms. It's widely accepted that the majority of scholars approach, for example, 2 Peter as a forgery...pseudepigraphic. It doesn't take much to look that up

It is called unbelief and no one would follow the devil if there wasn't unbelief.

I did a study on Robert Frost and got two different dates for his age. What would the higher critics do with this information? Amazing.

Actually what it's called is research. The writing styles of 1 Peter and 2 Peter are totally different. Peter, as I have mentioned before, was almost certainly illiterate (it even says as much in Acts). You mention Robert Frost. Well try taking "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening" by Frost and claiming it was written by William Shakespeare. The average guy on the street may buy it because they know no better but those who actually research it will see immediately that the writing styles, the uses of the English language, etc are poles apart. Such is the case with 1 Peter when compared to 2 Peter. Such is the case with 1 Timothy (for example) when compared to 1 Thessalonians. In each case the same guy didn't write both.

 

[BluePhantom]

First you have to study and understand the book of Daniel, before you can thoroughly read and understand the book of Revelation.

Well...yes and no. Daniel was an ancient Jewish Apocalypse that John of Patmos drew upon (as well as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc). I was going to get into this later, but essentially what John did was to take all those ancient Jewish Apocalypses, roll them into one, give it a Christian perspective, and apply it to the current times (the times of HIS day not ours). My intention when we start digging into the text is to discuss where he is referencing Daniel, where he is referencing Ezekiel, etc and discuss how he is doing it and why.

 

[BluePhantom]

the problem I find with "most scholars" is that it generally is a code used by atheists to pump their claims and convey a film of authority.....

the text books used in most protestant seminaries identify the author of Revelation as John the apostle......

Oh I would beg to differ with you. My grandfather and my uncle were and are (respectively) a Catholic Priest and an Episcopal Father. Both were taught that John the Apostle is considered the author by tradition, but that John of Patmos was a different guy historically.

 

[Chuckt]

the problem I find with "most scholars" is that it generally is a code used by atheists to pump their claims and convey a film of authority.....

the text books used in most protestant seminaries identify the author of Revelation as John the apostle......

Almost everyone considers the gospels to be written by the people they were named after. None of the gospels themselves claim an author and, it is my understanding, that the recognition of Mark, Luke, etc., as the authors did not come into general use until centaries after these people lived and died.

That's absolutely correct. As you accurately point out none of the gospels claim to be written by those authors in their texts. They are not written in the first person (in other words in Matthew it says [paraphrasing] ...and Jesus came upon a tax collector named Matthew sitting in his booth....Jesus said follow me and he did. Well if it was Matthew writing it he would have said ....and Jesus came upon ME while I was sitting in MY booth...he said follow me and I did.)

Additionally as I said before the Apostles (except for Paul) were almost certainly illiterate and would have spoken Aramaic. The odds of them being able to compose letters and books in Greek is virtually zero.

Incorrect.
Matthew was a tax collector and probably was selected for that position because of his ability to communicate or else how would you tax?
Luke was a Physician and there were doctors who were slaves of people who were rich. They're basically rich people whom all the television ads are based on or who else can buy a car for $299 a month?
Israel was basically a trade bridge in the old days giving people contact to several languages.

I also had a friendship with an Orthodox Jew who said that people could speak several languages back then and understand each other.

People back then spoke several languages and it wasn't uncommon for people to know a couple dialects and languages.

The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language.[12][13] Most scholars agree that during the early part of first century Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all natives of Galilee and Judea.[14] Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that he may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[12][13][15][16] Stanley E. Porter concluded: "The linguistic environment of Roman Palestine during the first century was much more complex, and allows for the possibility that Jesus himself may well have spoken Greek on occasion."[17]

Language of the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word koinē (κοιν&#942 is the Greek word for "common", and is here understood as referring to "the common dialect" (κοινὴ διάλεκτο&#962. The word is pronounced /ˈkɔɪneɪ/ or /kɔɪˈneɪ/ in English. Its ancient Greek pronunciation would have been [koiˈneː], Modern Greek [ciˈni]. The term was applied in several different sense by ancient scholars. A school of scholars such as Apollonius Dyscolus and Aelius Herodianus maintained the term Koine to refer to the Proto-Greek language, while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed somewhat from the literary language.[5]

When Koine Greek became a language of literature by the 1st century BC, some people distinguished it into two forms: written (Greek) as the literary post-classical form (which should never be confused with Atticism), and vernacular as the day to day spoken form.[5] Others chose to refer to Koine as the Alexandrian dialect (ἡ Ἀλεξανδρέων διάλεκτο&#962 or the dialect of Alexandria, or even the universal dialect of its time. The former was often used by modern classicists.

Koine Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were also in the family fishing business which would have brought them into communicating with different people.
I wanted a job in center city and one of the questions on applications is how many languages you know today.

 

[shart_attack]

Thread subscription post.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Blue, if that is what your relatives were taught, then tell them I said to do their own research.
To quote yourself:

religion loves nothing more than fanatical ignorance.

I would rephrase that to read, the anti religious love nothing more than fanatical ignorance, and bias.

The books contained in the Bible, except for Revelation were written before 70 AD. We know that because none mention the most important event of that time, the fulfilling of the prophesy by Christ that the Temple would be destroyed. Nor do they mention the martyrdom of Peter (AD 65), James (AD 62) or Paul (AD 64).

Again thanks for the dissertation, but your anti religious claims void the impartiality necessary to take your "teachings" seriously.
Oh, and if your grandfather is still using a replacement theology Catholic Bible, you my want to have a discussion with gramps on replacement theology. Buy him a less tampered with Bible.

One more thing. You are wrong right out of the gate. This is the tell...........

One of the things most often misunderstood about The Revelation is that it is not a book that was unique.

Provide any other work of antiquity Where Jesus addresses the angels of 7 churches. If you can't then the book is indeed unique..........

 

[PostmodernProph]

But yes, you are absolutely correct. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, Peter, etc almost certainly did not write Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, Peter, etc.

/shrugs.....you realize, of course, that this statement is nothing more than your own particular fantasy.....