Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

[robycop3]

Someone in a different thread asked me for historical proof of an eariler date of Revelation. I posted the following but, to this date, there has been no response. So I start a new thread on this because I believe this quote of Papias has bearing on the dating of Revelation. If no outright proof, I believe it strongly implies the earlier date.

------------------------
The best and earliest source would probably be Papias, AD 130, about 50 years before Irenaeus.

Here is a quote from Ed Stevens on this subject (underlining mine):

"
• Notice what Eusebius and Irenaeus (late second century) said about Papias in relation to the apostle
John and his martyrdom [Source: Eusebius (ca. 260– 340), Chronicle. Text: A. Schöne, Eusebi
Chronicorum canonum quae supersunt, vol. 2 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1866), 162.] :

Pap. 5:5 Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were
killed by Jews.
Pap. 6:3 For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen him with his own eyes, claims in the
second book of the Sayings of the Lord that John was killed by Jews, thus clearly fulfilling,
together with his brother, Christ’s prophecy concerning them and their own confession and
agreement about this.
Pap. 6:4 For when the Lord said to them, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” and they
eagerly assented and agreed, he said: “You will drink my cup and will be baptized with the
baptism with which I am baptized.”
Pap. 6:5 And this is to be expected, for it is impossible for God to lie.
Pap. 6:6 [Eusebius said later] Moreover the encyclopedic Origen also affirms in his interpretation of
the Gospel according to Matthew that John was martyred, indicating that he had learned this
from the successors of the apostles [i.e., possibly referring to Papias].

• Papias claimed that John was killed by the Jews, evidently at a time when they still had the ability
and opportunity to do so. This would point to the Neronic persecution (AD 64), until it was cut short
by the outbreak of the Jewish revolt (AD 66). It would not have been easy for them to do much
against Christians after the war began, and especially not after the war ended.

• The Jews had no political or judicial power to kill anyone after 70. It clearly points to a time before 70
when the Jews would have had the authority, opportunity, and means by which to do it. The
Neronic persecution fits that description well, since that is when the Jews were in their most
powerful position against the Christians."

This is from pages 56-57 of his free PDF book, Final Decade Before the End.

BTW I heartily recommend this PDF. It is easy to find on the Internet. If not I will gladly send anyone a copy. A lot of research went into this. John, you would do well to take a look at this as well. It might help you to much better understand, not only this particular topic, but Full Preterism, what it is and is not.

Papias still wrote after the fact. And when the Romans were finished with suppressing the Jewish rebellion, the Jews went right back to their form of worship, minus the temple.(They still had many synagogues.) They coulda whacked John later, no problem.(The Romans wanted to resume doing business with the Jews who hadn't been principals in their rebellion.)

 

[robycop3]

This whole thread is a pret attempt to move the date of the Rev back, to try to support the pret myth. This has become a game of "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller".

Sorry, prets, but history proves your myth false, as the prophesied eschatological events simply haven't yet happened. There's just no getting by that FACT.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This whole thread is a pret attempt to move the date of the Rev back, to try to support the pret myth. This has become a game of "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller".

Sorry, prets, but history proves your myth false, as the prophesied eschatological events simply haven't yet happened. There's just no getting by that FACT.

Say what?

 

[Reformed1689]

Say what?

I thought he was pretty clear. Preterism is a hoax.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I thought he was pretty clear. Preterism is a hoax.

I know that, what has it go to do with our discussion?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Who is this Dennis Barton, the author of the document of your link, and why should I consider him to be a scholar? Near as I can tell from that website, he was some kind of Catholic, but where did he teach and why is he supposed to be a scholar?

I don't understand why you think that you have to be "scholar" before you accept what a person says? Your thinking is very narrow. Like you seem to reject what someone says because they are Roman Catholic. Even some non Christian experts can be used by the Lord

 

[robycop3]

I know that, what has it go to do with our discussion?

Why else would AsterixTom try to move the giving of the Rev back to an earlier time? prets try to do it so they can say Nero was the beast/antichrist & all eschatology was fulfilled in 66-70 AD. I know someone asked for history proving that early date, but he posted a pretty groddy example.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't understand why you think that you have to be "scholar" before you accept what a person says? Your thinking is very narrow. Like you seem to reject what someone says because they are Roman Catholic. Even some non Christian experts can be used by the Lord

I consider scholarship to be the search for truth. A scholar is one who searches for truth. However, our current topic depends on specialized knowledge and understanding, something not evident in the Church of Christ preacher Tom quoted--the man got the sources wrong, so his conclusions were tainted.

As for Catholic scholars, no, I don't trust them. They have to obey the Catholic hierarchy, and therefore their search for truth is limited. Just looking on the Catholic website you sourced, I noted a place or two where the Catholic scholars had to toe the Catholic line.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I consider scholarship to be the search for truth. A scholar is one who searches for truth

well, I ain't a scholar, and I am VERY interested in the truth, especially Bible Truth!

 

[John of Japan]

well, I ain't a scholar, and I am VERY interested in the truth, especially Bible Truth!

Excellent!

 

[John of Japan]

The search for truth cannot be biased. When a student hands me a research paper, it must not take a position it cannot sustain. It may not quote from sources that are not fair.

I met up this past summer with a scholar who had years ago written a very objectionable essay about my grandfather's place in church history. At that time, I objected strenuously to some biased language he used, quoting from an historian who was anti-fundamentalist. However, more recently he included a chapter about a certain controversy between my grandfather and Lewis Sperry Chafer in a book he recently wrote about the history of Baptist fundamentalism through about 1960. This time he asked me, "Was I balanced?" I answered that he certainly was. (We're friends now.) This is a scholar who searches for truth and does the research necessary to find it.

 

[kyredneck]

Yet we have a man with DIRECT line connection to John saying it was later.

Lol, the same Irenaeus that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Right.

 

[asterisktom]

Lol, the same Irenaeus that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Right.

Some people here are in my ignore list but I can pretty much surmise what the original comment was, hehe.

 

[asterisktom]

The Jews could have killed John in any year.

Said a person who has not really read Josephus. After the war with Rome the Jews did not have any political power to do what they wanted to John (assuming for the sake of this argument that he was still on Earth after that time - which he wasnt).

 

[asterisktom]

I suggest that it is unwise to adopt a theological stance which is so dependent upon extra-biblical writings.

And who is doing this? Like I said probably seventeen times on this board: My belief of the early date for Revelation came long before I was a Preterist.

My theological stance is based on the Bible. It is fine-tuned for me by those here whose Scriptural acumen is apparent in their writings, usually not by those whose theological system is largely strait-jacketed by credal traditions.

Lest that last statement sounds too strong, there is much of value in, for instance, the WCF, except in two main areas: their over-emphasis on the OT and their skewed eschatology. Actually the one error led to the other.

 

[asterisktom]

yeah, JBL is only one such scholar

"G. Edmundson presents a good case for Clement writing this letter in the early months of 70 AD ((GE 180-205)). Robinson accepted that Edmundson’s case should be most seriously considered ((JATR 329)) and Thied has also adopted this date ((CTR 71)).,

DATING CLEMENT OF ROME’S LETTER AND HERMAS

Yes, and there are interesting indications that Hebrews may have been written partly as a response to the Epistle of Barnabas. Not dogmatic on this though.

 

[Michael Hollner]

And who is doing this? Like I said probably seventeen times on this board: My belief of the early date for Revelation came long before I was a Preterist.

My theological stance is based on the Bible. It is fine-tuned for me by those here whose Scriptural acumen is apparent in their writings, usually not by those whose theological system is largely strait-jacketed by credal traditions.

What is your view on "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev 20:6) KJV?

Is this a future event or has it already happened?

 

[asterisktom]

What is your view on "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev 20:6) KJV?

Is this a future event or has it already happened?

Good question. My answer is yes and yes. There are past and future aspects here. The first resurrection include the saints of all ages, the second death obviously not the saints. Those of us alive now still have to enter into the full richness of this promise. I take the thousand years, BTW, as not being that actual length.

 

[Reformed1689]

Some people here are in my ignore list but I can pretty much surmise what the original comment was, hehe.

On your ignore list simply because you can't answer their arguments.

 

[Reformed1689]

I take the thousand years, BTW, as not being that actual length.

For what reason?