On The Apocalypse: Part I

[Youwerecreated]

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John...he was illiterate. Even Acts says so. Additionally, borrowing descriptions from previous authors was very common. For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

Additionally the style of Greek used in the Apocalypse is totally and completely different than in 1 John or the Gospel of John.

Your argument is terribly lacking

The John of Acts was a different John named John Mark

When [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.[Acts 12:12]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.[Acts 12:25]

When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them.[Acts 13:5]

Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem; but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisidia.[Acts 13:13–14]

And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.[Acts 15:37–40

John of Patmos also known as John the Apostle wrote Revelation.
He was well educated.

You are referring to much later in the book where other things are going on. The author identified John Mark to distinguish between that John and the Apostle John referred to in Acts 4 where it is written (Acts 4:13) that "...Peter and John...were unlearned and ignorant men...."

Your claim that John was well educated is not only absurd according to the state of education at the time and John's status as a peasant, but it's directly refuted by the Bible. As I pointed out before the Greek word used in Acts 4:13 was "agrammatoi"..."unlettered, illiterate, uneducated".

If the Bible is inerrant why is everyone claiming that John was literate when the Bible itself says he was not?

It was not the words of God that claimed John was uneducated,it was enemies of Christ. Besides if you doubt the creator created all things why would you believe that he could inspire his words to be written by men that did not possess the best of educations ?

All scripture was inspired by God and we take that on faith correct ? if we are true believers that is.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Scribes took down what you said word for word. John was a peasant from Galilee. He spoke Aramaic. If he knew Greek at all it would have been very basic Greek. The Gospel of John is written in a flowing, poetic Greek. The Apocalypse is written in almost "Greek slang". Both books were written about the same time with the Gospel of John usually accepted as being written first. There is no rational explanation for why John spoke this beautiful Greek and then a couple years later spoke broken Greek. That makes no sense at all.

Furthermore John would not have dictated in Greek. The only reason to dictate in Greek was to appeal to a gentile audience. That was Paul's territory. John had no interest in gentiles. John was a Jew who was interested in converting Jews and Paul makes that undeniably clear in his letters. In fact Paul makes a great show of humiliating the other Apostles and calling them hypocrites because they didn't care about gentiles. The only reason to write or dictate in Greek was to appeal to gentiles that John didn't give a fuck about.

BTW I can GUARANTEE YOU that neither Irenaeus nor Polycarp knew John son of Zebadee. They may have claimed it to give themselves status but the average lifespan of a peasant in those days combined with their recognized dates of birth and death suggests that John would have died when Polycarp was an infant. That is TOTAL bullshit.

interesting....so a person who spoke Aramaic could not have had a disciple who translated what he said into Greek?.....in truth, a different scribe could not have done the translating for Revelation (on Patmos) than the scribe who translated the Gospel (in Ephesus)?.......

as to your guarantee about Polycarp, he was born in 65AD.....John died around 100AD....they both lived in Ephesus.....
Polycarp | Christian History

It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian,[4] that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle.[5][6] Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.

Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just how good are your guarantees?.....

John is traditionally said to have died in around 100 CE in order to allow for the possibility of him writing the Apocalypse. John would have been well into his 90s at a time when the average life expectancy was 37. The average life expectancy in the United States today with all our modern technological advancements is only 79. If John had lived to even 65 CE (when Polycarp was born) it would have been an extraordinarily long life and John would have had to have lived even longer to allow for Polycarp to grow up enough to understand what John was talking about.

Now no one can know for sure when John died. There is no record, document, or anything that proves it definitively. So with the lack of any evidence we have to use some reason when we consider these things and ask ourselves which is more likely. Is it more likely that John lived two and a half times longer than the average person at the time (today that would be like someone living to 200 years old) or is it more likely that John died far earlier and the stories about knowing Polycarp and writing the Apocalypse are traditional stories and legends intended to give more validity to the claims of the authors?

The Apocalypse is a bit different because as I have pointed out the author never claims to be John the Apostle. He identifies himself just as "John". So The Apocalypse isn't intentionally pseudepigraphic. It's what is called "pseudepigraphic by attribution". In other words, the author himself doesn't claim to be a person he is not, other people claim that the author is someone he is not.
.

well, if we were left with nothing except speculation we would have to speculate....fortunately we have all the first hand reports that for some reason you feel authorized to ignore.....
if John died in 65AD its puzzling the Romans bothered to exile him to Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitiona (A.D. 81-96)......

BTW....no using wiki. I said that before. Anything from wiki gets disregarded as unreliable

lol.....as opposed to your imagination?.....you haven't provided a link yet....

 

[BluePhantom]

interesting....so a person who spoke Aramaic could not have had a disciple who translated what he said into Greek?.....in truth, a different scribe could not have done the translating for Revelation (on Patmos) than the scribe who translated the Gospel (in Ephesus)?.......

as to your guarantee about Polycarp, he was born in 65AD.....John died around 100AD....they both lived in Ephesus.....
Polycarp | Christian History


Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just how good are your guarantees?.....

John is traditionally said to have died in around 100 CE in order to allow for the possibility of him writing the Apocalypse. John would have been well into his 90s at a time when the average life expectancy was 37. The average life expectancy in the United States today with all our modern technological advancements is only 79. If John had lived to even 65 CE (when Polycarp was born) it would have been an extraordinarily long life and John would have had to have lived even longer to allow for Polycarp to grow up enough to understand what John was talking about.

Now no one can know for sure when John died. There is no record, document, or anything that proves it definitively. So with the lack of any evidence we have to use some reason when we consider these things and ask ourselves which is more likely. Is it more likely that John lived two and a half times longer than the average person at the time (today that would be like someone living to 200 years old) or is it more likely that John died far earlier and the stories about knowing Polycarp and writing the Apocalypse are traditional stories and legends intended to give more validity to the claims of the authors?

The Apocalypse is a bit different because as I have pointed out the author never claims to be John the Apostle. He identifies himself just as "John". So The Apocalypse isn't intentionally pseudepigraphic. It's what is called "pseudepigraphic by attribution". In other words, the author himself doesn't claim to be a person he is not, other people claim that the author is someone he is not.
.

well, if we were left with nothing except speculation we would have to speculate....fortunately we have all the first hand reports that for some reason you feel authorized to ignore.....
if John died in 65AD its puzzling the Romans bothered to exile him to Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitiona (A.D. 81-96)......

BTW....no using wiki. I said that before. Anything from wiki gets disregarded as unreliable

lol.....as opposed to your imagination?.....you haven't provided a link yet....

Look closer. There are two links in the very post you quoted. See the lines under "the average life expectancy was 37", and "is only 79"? Yeah...those are links...Most people are able to figure out what a link is. In fact if you look over my posts you will find several such links. Sheesh

The Apostle John's exile to Patmos is again tradition and legend intended to allow for the possibility that he could have written the Apocalypse in order to give it more credibility. There is not a single report from an authoritative source that records that the Apostle John was ever exiled to Patmos and there is not a single first hand report from an authoritative source recording the date of John's death. Find one. You can find a lot of traditional stories and legends, but as far as official records of a historical nature there's not one...zip, zilch, nichts, nada.

 

[BluePhantom]

The John of Acts was a different John named John Mark

When [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.[Acts 12:12]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.[Acts 12:25]

When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them.[Acts 13:5]

Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem; but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisidia.[Acts 13:13–14]

And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.[Acts 15:37–40

John of Patmos also known as John the Apostle wrote Revelation.
He was well educated.

You are referring to much later in the book where other things are going on. The author identified John Mark to distinguish between that John and the Apostle John referred to in Acts 4 where it is written (Acts 4:13) that "...Peter and John...were unlearned and ignorant men...."

Your claim that John was well educated is not only absurd according to the state of education at the time and John's status as a peasant, but it's directly refuted by the Bible. As I pointed out before the Greek word used in Acts 4:13 was "agrammatoi"..."unlettered, illiterate, uneducated".

If the Bible is inerrant why is everyone claiming that John was literate when the Bible itself says he was not?

It was not the words of God that claimed John was uneducated,it was enemies of Christ. Besides if you doubt the creator created all things why would you believe that he could inspire his words to be written by men that did not possess the best of educations ?

All scripture was inspired by God and we take that on faith correct ? if we are true believers that is.

No it was the author of Acts (traditionally thought to be Luke) that wrote that the members of the Sanhedrin were impressed by John and Peter's knowledge and especially impressed because they were uneducated. That was Luke (traditionally) emphasizing that point.

And I knew the argument would come. "They could suddenly speak, read, and write in Greek because God gave them the divine ability to do so". I even posted on a different thread last night that that was about all you guys had left and there it came! Classic

 

[BluePhantom]

interesting....so a person who spoke Aramaic could not have had a disciple who translated what he said into Greek?.....in truth, a different scribe could not have done the translating for Revelation (on Patmos) than the scribe who translated the Gospel (in Ephesus)?.......

as to your guarantee about Polycarp, he was born in 65AD.....John died around 100AD....they both lived in Ephesus.....
Polycarp | Christian History


Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just how good are your guarantees?.....

John is traditionally said to have died in around 100 CE in order to allow for the possibility of him writing the Apocalypse. John would have been well into his 90s at a time when the average life expectancy was 37. The average life expectancy in the United States today with all our modern technological advancements is only 79. If John had lived to even 65 CE (when Polycarp was born) it would have been an extraordinarily long life and John would have had to have lived even longer to allow for Polycarp to grow up enough to understand what John was talking about.

Now no one can know for sure when John died. There is no record, document, or anything that proves it definitively. So with the lack of any evidence we have to use some reason when we consider these things and ask ourselves which is more likely. Is it more likely that John lived two and a half times longer than the average person at the time (today that would be like someone living to 200 years old) or is it more likely that John died far earlier and the stories about knowing Polycarp and writing the Apocalypse are traditional stories and legends intended to give more validity to the claims of the authors?

The Apocalypse is a bit different because as I have pointed out the author never claims to be John the Apostle. He identifies himself just as "John". So The Apocalypse isn't intentionally pseudepigraphic. It's what is called "pseudepigraphic by attribution". In other words, the author himself doesn't claim to be a person he is not, other people claim that the author is someone he is not.
.

well, if we were left with nothing except speculation we would have to speculate....fortunately we have all the first hand reports that for some reason you feel authorized to ignore.....
if John died in 65AD its puzzling the Romans bothered to exile him to Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitiona (A.D. 81-96)......

BTW....no using wiki. I said that before. Anything from wiki gets disregarded as unreliable

lol.....as opposed to your imagination?.....you haven't provided a link yet....

BTW...

"John: No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD"(1) <---Psst...see that? That's a link.

Let's see what the Encyclopedia Britannica (psst...see that? That's a link too) has to say:

"...in Christian tradition, the author of three letters, the Fourth Gospel, and the Revelation to John in the New Testament..... In the Fourth Gospel, ascribed by early tradition to John....John’s subsequent history is obscure and passes into the uncertain mists of legend. At the end of the 2nd century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, claims that John’s tomb is at Ephesus...During the 3rd century two rival sites at Ephesus claimed the honour of being the apostle’s grave. One eventually achieved official recognition, becoming a shrine in the 4th century. ....Legend was also active in the West...Tertullian, the 2nd-century North African theologian, reports that John was plunged into boiling oil from which he miraculously escaped unscathed....This belief that John did not die is based on an early tradition. In the original form of the apocryphal Acts of John (second half of the 2nd century) the apostle dies, but in later traditions he is assumed to have ascended to heaven like Enoch and Elijah. A popular tradition known to Augustine declared that the earth over his grave heaved as if the apostle were still breathing."

Tradition....legend....conjecture. Those are very specific words. They mean no one KNOWS when John died, how he died, or where he died. There are stories about it that were created by the church, church leaders, or the imaginatively faithful. But as for historically verifiable records there are NONE.

 

[The Irish Ram]

John is traditionally said to have died in around 100 CE in order to allow for the possibility of him writing the Apocalypse. John would have been well into his 90s at a time when the average life expectancy was 37. The average life expectancy in the United States today with all our modern technological advancements is only 79. If John had lived to even 65 CE (when Polycarp was born) it would have been an extraordinarily long life and John would have had to have lived even longer to allow for Polycarp to grow up enough to understand what John was talking about.

A little odd that John didn't meet the same fate as the other disciples. There is a reason. It pertains to what Christ said on the cross to John concerning Mary:

John 19:26-27 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

And this is John's blessing for doing so:

Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you."

 

[BluePhantom]

John is traditionally said to have died in around 100 CE in order to allow for the possibility of him writing the Apocalypse. John would have been well into his 90s at a time when the average life expectancy was 37. The average life expectancy in the United States today with all our modern technological advancements is only 79. If John had lived to even 65 CE (when Polycarp was born) it would have been an extraordinarily long life and John would have had to have lived even longer to allow for Polycarp to grow up enough to understand what John was talking about.

A little odd that John didn't meet the same fate as the other disciples. There is a reason. It pertains to what Christ said on the cross to John concerning Mary:

John 19:26-27 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

And this is John's blessing for doing so:

Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you."

It's a clever argument. I will give you that. Unfortunately you over look that John wasn't the only person in the 1st century CE that honored his father and mother. In fact I would bet that the vast majority of sons honored their father and mother and yet the average life expectancy as I demonstrated below was still only 37.

I am getting close to wrapping up this section because I want to move along to the dating and style of Greek used. But just a few thoughts. If you guys want to believe that a peasant living in the first century CE lived to the ripe old age of 94 at a time when the life expectancy was 37 (as I demonstrated below this is akin to a person today living to be 200 years old) knock yourself out. If you want to believe that John was educated (even though the Bible clearly says he wasn't) in order to satisfy some need for justification of Christian traditions, fine by me. If you want to believe (as YWC argues) that God pointed his magic finger at John and in a triumphal voice proclaimed "Let Him Speak Greek!" (when John's target audience didn't even speak Greek to begin with)...whatever. If you want to believe John the Apostle wrote The Revelation, that is certainly your prerogative. BUT those are faith based beliefs, not historically accurate events.

When you are looking at an event whose likelihood is remote and there is no reliable documentation to support it, then belief in that event is based on faith and not acceptable as a historically accurate event. Let's apply that to this question:

Q: What is the likelihood that a peasant in the 1st century CE lived to 94?
A: Extraordinarily remote....unbelievably remote.

Q: Is there any historical evidence that John lived to 94 years old?
A: No

Q: Is there any historical evidence that anyone in the 1st century CE ever lived to 94 years old?
A: No....at least none that I am aware of.

Conclusion: The belief that John lived to 94, old enough to write the Apocalypse is faith based. It cannot be accepted as historically likely or accurate.

Now in the OP I said that in this thread we would be proceeding according to a historical and scholarly perspective. According to that perspective, John the Apostle was almost certainly LONG dead by the time the Apocalypse was written. Arguments based in faith, while interesting, are better suited for threads that are concerned with theological questions, not historical ones.

 

[BluePhantom]

So I am going to wrap this section up, invigorating as the discussion has been (sarcasm). I think when you reach the point where it starts being suggested that John could read and write Greek because he was divinely inspired by God and magically had the ability to do so that the discussion has run its course.

As I said in the OP of this thread "...this is going to be a historical, cultural, and scholarly approach to interpretation....". I gave a general criteria in my post below in order to distinguish between that view and a faith based, theological view. Again if the likelihood of a claim seems remote and lacks reliable historical documentation, then it's a view based in faith and not a view that is credible according to a historical, cultural, or scholarly perspective. Given that criteria, here are the things regarding the authorship of the Apocalypse that most scholars will generally agree upon (see previous posts for more detailed explanations).

- The author was a converted Jew who identifies himself as "John".

- The author was writing on the island of Patmos, probably for the offense of "superstition"

- The author was not John the Apostle, son of Zebadee.

- The author was an apocalypticist (meaning someone who believes God's good kingdom was coming to Earth in the very near future) who was writing to the seven churches of Asia minor in order to give them comfort and assurances that even though they are suffering now, God is in control and will win in the end, and their suffering will be rewarded.

I personally advance the additional theory that the Apocalypse as we read it today may not have been written that way originally. Again I will get into this later when we dig into the actual text and give you my reasoning then so i am not going to spend any real time on it now, but just something to file away in the back of your head.

Thanks to everyone for some very interesting discussions and points of view. Let's move on.

NEXT: The Style of Greek Used in The Apocalypse

 

[BluePhantom]

This should be a quick little section to discuss but it's important for a variety of reasons. First, it's important to understand that scholarship is virtually (I use the word "virtually" because while I can't find a single scholar who disagrees I am sure there is one somewhere) united that it was originally written in Greek. This is important because it means something very significant. It means that it was written to appeal to a Greek speaking audience...in other words a gentile audience. It was not written to appeal to Jewish converts or else it would have been written in Aramaic. This makes sense as the letter is addressed to the seven churches in Asia-Minor that were largely gentile churches. So it's written to appeal to that audience and that's something to keep in mind as we go through the text, because it will imply cultural traditions of the times that I will identify later. For now just file that in the back of your mind but always keep that target audience in mind when we start making interpretations. That creates context and that is very important in determining what John of Patmos was talking about..

Now the Apocalypse is difficult enough to understand with all of its picture images, and seemingly vague suggestions, and bold predictions. But translators have historically struggled with the Apocalypse because...well....John of Patmos didn't make it very easy on them. His writing style fluctuates between sometimes very poetic Greek and Greek that is so strange in its composition that it becomes extremely difficult to translate.

For example Revelation 1:4 is usually translated as: "To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come..." (1)...or something very similar to that depending on which version you are reading.

But in Greek it's quite different. It reads "Grace and peace to you from HE THE is, HE THE was, and HE THE will be...." Sigh...wow! That's really off the wall. The first thing people might think is that maybe the speakers of ancient Greek did not conjugate as we do in English. In other words they would use the exact same word for "he" and "him" or "the" and "that". But in fact that's not true at all. In ancient Greek "the" was written "&#959;" and "that" was written "&#972;&#964;&#953;". "He" was written "&#913;&#965;&#964;&#972;&#962;" and "him" was written "&#945;&#965;&#964;&#972;&#957;". So it wasn't that Greek speaking people didn't distinguish between "he" and "him" or "the" and "that". It's that John didn't....at least not there. In other places he does which adds to the mystery of his writing. The manner in which John writes Revelation 1:4 would have sounded just as odd to natural speakers of Greek in the first century as it does to us today in English.

There are a lot of theories about why John does this and to be truthful I have not yet made up my own mind completely although I lean toward one. One theory is that John is writing in "broken Greek". This is a favorite theory among those who claim John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse. The argument goes like this: "John the Apostle, a native speaker of Aramaic, and a novice speaker of Greek wrote the best he could but he didn't know enough of the Greek language to do things like conjugate properly. Much like a German tourist in the United States might say 'I want to a movie to go" instead of "I want to go to a movie", because in German the active verb is always placed at the end, John's broken Greek is the result of a native Aramaic speaker trying to write in a foreign language and confusing the sentence structure and tenses of the words."

Well...but then why would he write in very normal Greek in other sections and almost poetic Greek in others? If he was writing broken Greek because he didn't know any better, wouldn't he do so through the entire letter? Advocates of the "broken Greek" theory respond to that by saying "well in reality it took John a long time to write the book and in the beginning his Greek was terrible and by the end he had gotten better at it." Well...again an interesting argument that would make sense if John's Greek started out bad and progressively got better until the end. But that's not what happens. John starts off in this crazy form of Greek, then goes into this flowing beautiful Greek, then goes back into this really off the wall Greek, then back to normal Greek....it's all over the place. Normally I tell people to read the Bible in the original languages the best they can even if it requires some help from outside sources to do so...in truth I am not sure I want to curse anyone by suggesting they try to read The Apocalypse in Greek. It's confusing enough in English let alone in the mind-numbing, back and forth styles of Greek in which John writes .

Another theory is that multiple people wrote The Apocalypse and that would explain the differences in the styles of Greek being used. One writer was an expert in Greek, one was a typical Greek writer, and one was a terrible writer. Well there's nothing to suggest that The Apocalypse was the work of a group of people. If that was the case then why was John the only identified author? Wouldn't all of them be credited with the writing much like in the letters of Paul where he attributes the writing to himself, Timothy, et al? I find this argument implausible because if you accept it then you must essentially concede that the entire work is a bunch of BS. John is relating visions he has seen and he writes in the first person and presents it as a spiritual experience he has had. if multiple people wrote it then you have to argue as well that multiple people also saw those same visions and had the same spiritual experience. Well that doesn't seem very realistic to me. Regardless it's a theory that is out there. It's not one I embrace nor is it a theory that has gained much support in scholarly circles.

Some argue that John, being illiterate, used scribes but since he didn't dictate it all in one day multiple scribes were used; one of which was an expert scribe, one of which was average, and one of which was terrible. That would account for the differences in writing style. But again that creates problems. Where would a guy who was banished to Patmos...essentially a criminal in the eyes of Rome...get the money to hire a scribe? As I alluded to in an earlier post, banishment to an island for superstition was probably not the harsh conditions that is traditionally painted, but neither was it exactly the lap of luxury. All outside sources of revenue were cut off from the person in exile. They had to make do with what they earned on the island. It's pretty tough for me to buy the argument that John, a man in exile, cut off from any outside financial support would have had excess money to pay scribes. You can champion the theory if you want but it sounds like bullshit to me. Again, it's a theory that's out there but again one I don't endorse and one that scholarship generally rejects.

The theory I lean towards is the one which argues that John was writing that way on purpose. It wasn't "unintentional broken Greek" so much as it was "intentional, guttural Greek slang" so to speak. Take the point I made above about Revelation 1:4 with the "he the be, he the was" form of writing. The argument states that John was writing in a slang form as a show of rebelliousness and to appeal to an audience that was certainly a culture that was set apart from standard Roman culture at the time. Think of it in modern terms. Instead of someone saying today "I want to give you my opinion on this" they might say "Lemme tell ya how it be". It's a slangy, guttural, rebellious form of speaking that is set apart from what would be considered "proper" according to the current culture. John's message was certainly rebellious. There is no denying that. It was certainly provocative. It makes sense that he would write a provocative message in a provocative manner of speech. Almost as if to say to his listeners (who were themselves certainly rebellious...at least against the norms of Rome at the time), "see how I am talking? I am one of you. I gotcho back."

It's an interesting theory. Again I have not completely made up my mind why the style of Greek bounces back and forth like it does. But this last one I think is the most plausible among the others that have been advanced. If you put a gun to my head and said "give us the reason why the Greek in The Apocalypse is so messed up and back and forth" I would consider myself a dead man because although the "intentional slang theory" seems to me to be the most plausible I am not terribly confident in it. In short, I don't know why it's like that. From what I can tell scholarship has not formed a consensus on the issue and so they don't know either.

One last point I would like to make is that the style of Greek John used has been a nightmare for translators because it puts them in a choice between two evils. If they translate it word for word, then modern readers get a text that becomes almost impossible to understand in certain places...sometimes very critical places. If they translate it according to what they think John meant then they run the risk of allowing their own biases to corrupt the text. It's a shitty position to be in and I have to give a lot of sympathy to translators of The Apocalypse, because John sure as hell didn't make their lives any easier.

So there it is. This is a great topic for discussion because as there is no scholarly consensus, and because I am not willing to take a very firm stance on the issue, there is some opportunity for some good exchanges of ideas on all sides.

 

[PostmodernProph]

John is traditionally said to have died in around 100 CE in order to allow for the possibility of him writing the Apocalypse. John would have been well into his 90s at a time when the average life expectancy was 37. The average life expectancy in the United States today with all our modern technological advancements is only 79. If John had lived to even 65 CE (when Polycarp was born) it would have been an extraordinarily long life and John would have had to have lived even longer to allow for Polycarp to grow up enough to understand what John was talking about.

Now no one can know for sure when John died. There is no record, document, or anything that proves it definitively. So with the lack of any evidence we have to use some reason when we consider these things and ask ourselves which is more likely. Is it more likely that John lived two and a half times longer than the average person at the time (today that would be like someone living to 200 years old) or is it more likely that John died far earlier and the stories about knowing Polycarp and writing the Apocalypse are traditional stories and legends intended to give more validity to the claims of the authors?

The Apocalypse is a bit different because as I have pointed out the author never claims to be John the Apostle. He identifies himself just as "John". So The Apocalypse isn't intentionally pseudepigraphic. It's what is called "pseudepigraphic by attribution". In other words, the author himself doesn't claim to be a person he is not, other people claim that the author is someone he is not.
.

well, if we were left with nothing except speculation we would have to speculate....fortunately we have all the first hand reports that for some reason you feel authorized to ignore.....
if John died in 65AD its puzzling the Romans bothered to exile him to Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitiona (A.D. 81-96)......

BTW....no using wiki. I said that before. Anything from wiki gets disregarded as unreliable

lol.....as opposed to your imagination?.....you haven't provided a link yet....

Look closer. There are two links in the very post you quoted. See the lines under "the average life expectancy was 37", and "is only 79"? Yeah...those are links...Most people are able to figure out what a link is. In fact if you look over my posts you will find several such links. Sheesh

lol...so, since you couldn't find anything to support your claims about John, you're trying to salvage things by pretending links about life expectancy averages is sufficient?.....

sorry dude, you lose badly on this one.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

They mean no one KNOWS when John died, how he died, or where he died.

????....I thought you did....you "guaranteed" us that he died before Polycarp was born, remember?.....

personally, I'll accept the claims of those who lived with him before I will accept your authority....

 

[BluePhantom]

well, if we were left with nothing except speculation we would have to speculate....fortunately we have all the first hand reports that for some reason you feel authorized to ignore.....
if John died in 65AD its puzzling the Romans bothered to exile him to Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitiona (A.D. 81-96)......


lol.....as opposed to your imagination?.....you haven't provided a link yet....

Look closer. There are two links in the very post you quoted. See the lines under "the average life expectancy was 37", and "is only 79"? Yeah...those are links...Most people are able to figure out what a link is. In fact if you look over my posts you will find several such links. Sheesh

lol...so, since you couldn't find anything to support your claims about John, you're trying to salvage things by pretending links about life expectancy averages is sufficient?.....

sorry dude, you lose badly on this one.....

Dude, if you want to accept the suggestion that a 1st Century peasant lived to the modern equivalent of 200 years old, or that Polycarp knew John the Apostle, knock yourself out. Your life...your fantasy. We've moved on to a different topic.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Look closer. There are two links in the very post you quoted. See the lines under "the average life expectancy was 37", and "is only 79"? Yeah...those are links...Most people are able to figure out what a link is. In fact if you look over my posts you will find several such links. Sheesh

lol...so, since you couldn't find anything to support your claims about John, you're trying to salvage things by pretending links about life expectancy averages is sufficient?.....

sorry dude, you lose badly on this one.....

Dude, if you want to accept the suggestion that a 1st Century peasant lived to the modern equivalent of 200 years old, or that Polycarp knew John the Apostle, knock yourself out. Your life...your fantasy. We've moved on to a different topic.

I do.....I prefer it to your unsupported assumptions.....especially since you've just pretended that instead of living to his 90s, he had to live to be 200.....false assumptions result in false conclusions.....

however, I'm glad you're moving on to a different topic......you're better at theology than you are at history.....I even gave you positive rep for your second post, remember?.....

 

[BluePhantom]

lol...so, since you couldn't find anything to support your claims about John, you're trying to salvage things by pretending links about life expectancy averages is sufficient?.....

sorry dude, you lose badly on this one.....

Dude, if you want to accept the suggestion that a 1st Century peasant lived to the modern equivalent of 200 years old, or that Polycarp knew John the Apostle, knock yourself out. Your life...your fantasy. We've moved on to a different topic.

I do.....I prefer it to your unsupported assumptions.....especially since you've just pretended that instead of living to his 90s, he had to live to be 200.....false assumptions result in false conclusions.....

however, I'm glad you're moving on to a different topic......you're better at theology than you are at history.....I even gave you positive rep for your second post, remember?.....

I do. And I didn't say John lived to 200. I said that according to the average life spans in the 1st century CE and the 21st century CE, that someone living into his 90s in the first century would be similar to someone living to 200 today.

MOVING ON!

 

[Chuckt]

Q: What is the likelihood that a peasant in the 1st century CE lived to 94?
A: Extraordinarily remote....unbelievably remote.

My Dad is 93 and my grandmother lived to be 96. It is not too hard.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I said that according to the average life spans in the 1st century CE and the 21st century CE, that someone living into his 90s in the first century would be similar to someone living to 200 today.

:

which of course has no truth to it whatsoever......what it would be similar to is a person living 90 years......very similar, in fact......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Q: What is the likelihood that a peasant in the 1st century CE lived to 94?
A: Extraordinarily remote....unbelievably remote.

My Dad is 93 and my grandmother lived to be 96. It is not too hard.

as a matter of fact, dad died at 95, and mom at 93......doesn't change the fact that what Blue has ignored is that averages were still averages in the first century as they are today......and there is no reason at all why a person could not have lived to 95 in that era.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Plato was 78.....Socrates was 71 and he was executed....
Archimedes 77
Pythagorus 75
Hippocrates 85 (though as a physician he probably took good care of himself)
Democritus 90

 

[BluePhantom]

Q: What is the likelihood that a peasant in the 1st century CE lived to 94?
A: Extraordinarily remote....unbelievably remote.

My Dad is 93 and my grandmother lived to be 96. It is not too hard.

Your mother and father lived in the 1st century? WOW!!! Talk about longevity

 

[The Irish Ram]

My ggggggggggggggrandfather, fought in the Revolutionary War. He lived to be 114. His wife died at 99. Longevity isn't nearly as uncommon as you think.