-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hard Look at Book of Acts
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
Pretty good chart. I feel inspired to do something similar in Japanese.
Well, what I wanted to show was first of all the balance between Luke's coverage of the Jewish church in Jerusalem (Peter etc.) and the Gentile missions in the 2nd half (Paul & friends). It is clear that Luke (the author of Acts) is very fair and even-handed in his coverage, and also in his coverage of the time periods, in which he devotes a reasonably constant amount of space to each decade.
It is interesting also that the Jerusalem Council, which validated the Gentile mission occurs at the halfway point between the Resurrection and the Temple destruction. Quite remarkable.
Luke must have published his 2nd book (Acts) immediately, giving it a date of around 64 - 68 A.D. Once the Roman-Jewish Wars broke out, there would be little opportunity for leisurely book-writing or even letters.
In fact, whatever may have been written post-68 A.D. would have had little chance for organized reproduction. The very survival of the Letters of Paul etc. indicates many copies must have existed before the wars broke out, which authenticates them as well, with near certainty. Later fakes would not have the same copy-base or the survival-rates as earlier letters.
As to the 'Pastorals', I think many scholars posit 2nd Timothy as Paul's last letter, before he was apparently killed about 68(?) during the persecutions of Nero.
The earliest letter is held by some to be James (Jacob to the 12 tribes), which might have been composed around 40-45 A.D. from Jerusalem. Josephus records the death of James shortly after that.
There is also some debate about the date of Galatians (with some scholars suggesting earlier, i.e., during Paul's 2nd journey as opposed to his 3rd. but this affects the general dating and spread of Paul's letters very little. In fact, almost all of Paul's surviving letters come from his mature missionary period, and there is little time for "theological development". Some scholars would like earlier letters or sermons by Paul for this reason, but obviously only Paul's seasoned and best work has survived.
At some point (probably right after his death) Paul's letters were collected and copied as a group, and this collection and edit is the only version of his letters that we have. Some suspect that 1st Corinthians is a compilation of two letters, since it mentions a previous letter in its own text, and seems to be part of a debate which had more than one stage. But whether or not two letters were combined into one (i.e., content grouped by subject), the basic material is Paul's writing.
Peter's first letter may also have been composed about the same time as James or shortly after. (2nd Peter seems to have been written after the bulk of Paul's letters had already been circulating). Hebrews remains without a named author, but was probably written by Paul, Luke, or even Nicodemus; but since it describes the Jerusalem priesthood performing sacrifices, it must predate the temple destruction.
It is interesting also that the Jerusalem Council, which validated the Gentile mission occurs at the halfway point between the Resurrection and the Temple destruction. Quite remarkable.
Luke must have published his 2nd book (Acts) immediately, giving it a date of around 64 - 68 A.D. Once the Roman-Jewish Wars broke out, there would be little opportunity for leisurely book-writing or even letters.
In fact, whatever may have been written post-68 A.D. would have had little chance for organized reproduction. The very survival of the Letters of Paul etc. indicates many copies must have existed before the wars broke out, which authenticates them as well, with near certainty. Later fakes would not have the same copy-base or the survival-rates as earlier letters.
As to the 'Pastorals', I think many scholars posit 2nd Timothy as Paul's last letter, before he was apparently killed about 68(?) during the persecutions of Nero.
The earliest letter is held by some to be James (Jacob to the 12 tribes), which might have been composed around 40-45 A.D. from Jerusalem. Josephus records the death of James shortly after that.
There is also some debate about the date of Galatians (with some scholars suggesting earlier, i.e., during Paul's 2nd journey as opposed to his 3rd. but this affects the general dating and spread of Paul's letters very little. In fact, almost all of Paul's surviving letters come from his mature missionary period, and there is little time for "theological development". Some scholars would like earlier letters or sermons by Paul for this reason, but obviously only Paul's seasoned and best work has survived.
At some point (probably right after his death) Paul's letters were collected and copied as a group, and this collection and edit is the only version of his letters that we have. Some suspect that 1st Corinthians is a compilation of two letters, since it mentions a previous letter in its own text, and seems to be part of a debate which had more than one stage. But whether or not two letters were combined into one (i.e., content grouped by subject), the basic material is Paul's writing.
Peter's first letter may also have been composed about the same time as James or shortly after. (2nd Peter seems to have been written after the bulk of Paul's letters had already been circulating). Hebrews remains without a named author, but was probably written by Paul, Luke, or even Nicodemus; but since it describes the Jerusalem priesthood performing sacrifices, it must predate the temple destruction.
>It is interesting also that the Jerusalem Council, which validated the Gentile mission occurs at the halfway point between the Resurrection and the Temple destruction.
One would have thought that the Jerusalem Council would have instructed Paul to teach his followers to obey the Ten Commandments.
The Jerusalem Council didn't care what Paul did as long as he stayed far away from Jerusalem.
One would have thought that the Jerusalem Council would have instructed Paul to teach his followers to obey the Ten Commandments.
The Jerusalem Council didn't care what Paul did as long as he stayed far away from Jerusalem.
Dr. Walter
New Member
A good study of Acts is in order,
so I've created this chart showing the basic chronology of Acts/Paul:
Pretty good until you get to the book of Revelation. The restrictive historical application of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation simply will not stand up to the evidence.
You're absolutely right and the diagram is misleading in this respect.
I didn't intend to imply that Revelation was a historical book, covering the period between 60 and 70 A.D. I meant it to be taken, like the letters, as a placement of the time of composition, not application. Unfortunately, looking at the chart a second time, I can see how one could be misled by the similar placement and style of Acts and Revelation, as if it were connected to the timeline more strongly.
My apologies. I will try to make an updated version of the chart which isn't as misleading. Thanks for the heads up.
TrevorL
Member
Greetings Nazaroo,
Interesting chart. I subscribe to the view that Galatians was written shortly after the 1st Missionary Journey and before the Jerusalem Conference. Also the Book of Revelation in AD 96, not before AD70. The events in the Book of Revelation describe the events from AD96 until the return of Jesus Christ.
Kind regards
Trevor
Interesting chart. I subscribe to the view that Galatians was written shortly after the 1st Missionary Journey and before the Jerusalem Conference. Also the Book of Revelation in AD 96, not before AD70. The events in the Book of Revelation describe the events from AD96 until the return of Jesus Christ.
Kind regards
Trevor
Well, one of the reasons that Revelation is believed by some scholars to have been written before the destruction of the Temple, is that it does not mention this destruction at all. The earthly temple and its daily sacrifices seem to still be going, as is also the case with Hebrews. That is why some date both books pre-70 A.D.
The reasons for dating Revelation either in the time of Nero or the time of Domitian has to do with whether or not the "anti-Christ" and various other issues, like Emperor-worship refer directly to one of these Roman emperors or not.
However, since many Christians believe that the Anti-Christ and a 'one-world government' are yet future events, this identification is flimsy in either case. While early Roman emperors may have given the pattern or model for corrupt world governments, those who take Revelation as describing the real End Times or Last Days (i.e, now and in the future) have no reason to date Revelation on this basis at all. Only a Preterist or Roman Catholic who embraces a "past-tense" interpretation of Revelation would give much weight to identifying Nero or Domitian as the Anti-Christ.
That having been said, some would argue that the earliest date must be assigned to one of these Emperors, because the book shows an awareness of persecutions etc. by world leaders (and both Nero and Domitian persecuted Christians). But this too is a very weak argument for dating Revelation. After all, even if we date the book in either of these two reigns, it must be interpreted by believing Christians as real prophecy, i.e., predicting future events from the standpoint of the author. If we buy into modern scholarship's view (i.e., that prophecy cannot exist, and therefore anything that looks like it must be a later forgery), then we have abandoned the obvious intent and meaning of the book of Revelation.
From a Christian believer's point of view then, the book could have been written at any time after the Resurrection, and before the fall of Jerusalem.
There is no reason to force a preterist or historicist view on the book, or demand that Christians adopt such an interpretation. Revelation has spoken effectively in many recent ages and world-events, and has not outlived its usefulness as a prophetic book.
peace
Nazaroo
A Hard Look at the Book of Acts (2) Roman Background
Here's a brief Roman chronology for the same period as the book of Acts, taken from H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero (5th ed. 1982):
30 A.D. Publications of the History of Velleius Paterculus
31 Tiberius, consul v, with Sejanus. Gaius recieves toga virilius. Sejanus put to death. Marco appointed Praetorian Prefect
33 Death of Agrippaina on island of Pandateria. Gaius quaestor. Financial difficulties in Rome. Possible date for the Crucifixion of Christ.
34 Palestinian Tetrarchy of Philip incorporated into Syria
36 Pontius Pilate sent to Rome by L. Vitellius govenor of Syria
37 Death of Tiberius Caesar (16 march) Accession of Gaius ('Caligula') he is consul with Claudius. Commagene re-established as a client kingdom
38 Death and deification of Drusilla. Jewish disturbances in Alexandria. Polemo II receives Pontus and Cotys Armenia Minor
39 Gaius goes to the Rhine. Julia and Agrippina exiled
40 Gaius expedition to the Channel, returns to Rome. Ptolemy of Mauretania murdered in Rome, revolt in Mauretania. Jewish embassy from Alexandria to Rome. Agrippa I receives kingdom of Antipas. Judaea restless
41 Gaius murdered (24 Jan) Claudius made emperor. The Chauci defeated. Claudius settles Alexandrian trouble. Agrippa I receives Judaea and Samaria. Exile of Seneca to Corsica
42 Revolt of Scribonianus in Dalmatia: his suicide. Mauretania organized as two provinces
43 Expedition to Britain. Lycia made an imperial province
44 Claudius' triumph over Britain. Achaea and Maccedonia transferred to Senate. Death of Herod Agrippa I. Judaea reverts to provincial status
46 Thrace made a province
47 Triumph of Aulus Plautius for conquest of Britain. Claudius and L. Vitellius censors. Ludi Saeculares. Corbulo campaigns against Frisii. Ostorius Scapula in Britain
48 Messalina killed
49 Seneca recalled from Corsica and made praetor and Nero's tutor
50 Claudius adopts Nero as Guardian for Britannicus. Agrippa II rules in Chalcis
51 Burrus made Praetorian prefect, Vespasian consul. Caratactus defeated in Wales Vologeses king of Parthia (or in52) Gallio proconsul in Achaea (51-52)
53 Nero marries Octavia . Parthians occupy Armenia and Tiridates recovers the throne
54 Death of Claudius. Accession of Nero. Caldius deified
55 Britannicus poisoned. Pallus dismissed . Corbulo goes to the East
56 Praefecti aerarii replace quaestores aerrarii
57 Nero orders senators and knights to take part in Games
58 Nero refuses perpetual consulship. Corbulo captures Artaxata
59 Nero Murders Agrippina: establishes Greek Games. Cobulo takes Tigranocerta
60 Neronia establishes Corulo settles Armenia governor of Syria. Festus succeeds Felix as governor of Judaea
61 Revolt of Boudicca and Iceni in Britain
62 Death of Burras. Tigellinus made Praetorian Prefect. Seneca disgraced. Nero divorces Octavia and marries Poppaea. Octavia murdered. Paetus surrenders to the Parthians at Rhandeia
( early 60s: Acts coverage ends about here...Paul is believed to have been beheaded by Nero about this time.)
64 Great fire at Rome. Persecution of the Christians. Domus Aurea begun. Mission to Ethiopia. Cottian Alps made a province (64-65) Pontus incorporated into Galatia
65 Conspiracy of Piso. Suicides of Seneca ans Lucan. Death of Poppaea. Musonius Rufus exiled
66 Nero crowns Tiridates king of Armenia in Rome and goes to Greece. Thrasea Paetus condemned. Conspiracy of Vinicius at Beneventum. Nero marries Statilia Messalina. Temple of Janus closed. Suicide of Petronius Rebellion in Palestine.
67 Nero at Corinthian canal. Corbulo ordered to commit suicide. Vespasian in command in Judaea: Josephus surrenders to him
68 Nero returns to Italy. Death of Nero (6 June) Galba, accepted by Senate and Praetorians, enters Rome (autumn) Verginius Rufus opposes Vindex's rebellion in Gaul. Defeat and death of Vindex. Vespasian attacks Jerusalem
69 After the death of Galba and brief reigns of Otho and Vitellius, Vespasian becomes emperor and reaches Rome in summer of 70
70 Jerusalem sieged and burned by Titus, temple destroyed.
Here's a brief Roman chronology for the same period as the book of Acts, taken from H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero (5th ed. 1982):
30 A.D. Publications of the History of Velleius Paterculus
31 Tiberius, consul v, with Sejanus. Gaius recieves toga virilius. Sejanus put to death. Marco appointed Praetorian Prefect
33 Death of Agrippaina on island of Pandateria. Gaius quaestor. Financial difficulties in Rome. Possible date for the Crucifixion of Christ.
34 Palestinian Tetrarchy of Philip incorporated into Syria
36 Pontius Pilate sent to Rome by L. Vitellius govenor of Syria
37 Death of Tiberius Caesar (16 march) Accession of Gaius ('Caligula') he is consul with Claudius. Commagene re-established as a client kingdom
38 Death and deification of Drusilla. Jewish disturbances in Alexandria. Polemo II receives Pontus and Cotys Armenia Minor
39 Gaius goes to the Rhine. Julia and Agrippina exiled
40 Gaius expedition to the Channel, returns to Rome. Ptolemy of Mauretania murdered in Rome, revolt in Mauretania. Jewish embassy from Alexandria to Rome. Agrippa I receives kingdom of Antipas. Judaea restless
41 Gaius murdered (24 Jan) Claudius made emperor. The Chauci defeated. Claudius settles Alexandrian trouble. Agrippa I receives Judaea and Samaria. Exile of Seneca to Corsica
42 Revolt of Scribonianus in Dalmatia: his suicide. Mauretania organized as two provinces
43 Expedition to Britain. Lycia made an imperial province
44 Claudius' triumph over Britain. Achaea and Maccedonia transferred to Senate. Death of Herod Agrippa I. Judaea reverts to provincial status
46 Thrace made a province
47 Triumph of Aulus Plautius for conquest of Britain. Claudius and L. Vitellius censors. Ludi Saeculares. Corbulo campaigns against Frisii. Ostorius Scapula in Britain
48 Messalina killed
49 Seneca recalled from Corsica and made praetor and Nero's tutor
50 Claudius adopts Nero as Guardian for Britannicus. Agrippa II rules in Chalcis
51 Burrus made Praetorian prefect, Vespasian consul. Caratactus defeated in Wales Vologeses king of Parthia (or in52) Gallio proconsul in Achaea (51-52)
53 Nero marries Octavia . Parthians occupy Armenia and Tiridates recovers the throne
54 Death of Claudius. Accession of Nero. Caldius deified
55 Britannicus poisoned. Pallus dismissed . Corbulo goes to the East
56 Praefecti aerarii replace quaestores aerrarii
57 Nero orders senators and knights to take part in Games
58 Nero refuses perpetual consulship. Corbulo captures Artaxata
59 Nero Murders Agrippina: establishes Greek Games. Cobulo takes Tigranocerta
60 Neronia establishes Corulo settles Armenia governor of Syria. Festus succeeds Felix as governor of Judaea
61 Revolt of Boudicca and Iceni in Britain
62 Death of Burras. Tigellinus made Praetorian Prefect. Seneca disgraced. Nero divorces Octavia and marries Poppaea. Octavia murdered. Paetus surrenders to the Parthians at Rhandeia
( early 60s: Acts coverage ends about here...Paul is believed to have been beheaded by Nero about this time.)
64 Great fire at Rome. Persecution of the Christians. Domus Aurea begun. Mission to Ethiopia. Cottian Alps made a province (64-65) Pontus incorporated into Galatia
65 Conspiracy of Piso. Suicides of Seneca ans Lucan. Death of Poppaea. Musonius Rufus exiled
66 Nero crowns Tiridates king of Armenia in Rome and goes to Greece. Thrasea Paetus condemned. Conspiracy of Vinicius at Beneventum. Nero marries Statilia Messalina. Temple of Janus closed. Suicide of Petronius Rebellion in Palestine.
67 Nero at Corinthian canal. Corbulo ordered to commit suicide. Vespasian in command in Judaea: Josephus surrenders to him
68 Nero returns to Italy. Death of Nero (6 June) Galba, accepted by Senate and Praetorians, enters Rome (autumn) Verginius Rufus opposes Vindex's rebellion in Gaul. Defeat and death of Vindex. Vespasian attacks Jerusalem
69 After the death of Galba and brief reigns of Otho and Vitellius, Vespasian becomes emperor and reaches Rome in summer of 70
70 Jerusalem sieged and burned by Titus, temple destroyed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hard Look at Acts (3): Josephus - the Murder of James 62 A.D.
Here is the key excerpt from Josephus, courtesy of James Tabor's site:
Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9
CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.
Nazaroo
Here is the key excerpt from Josephus, courtesy of James Tabor's site:
Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9
CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.
"1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus.
Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests.
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the [office of] high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, son of Damneus, high priest."
Our interest here for the moment is the fact that James' death is not recorded in the Book of Acts, (just as the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple is not recorded), and this suggests not only that Acts was written before 70 A.D., but actually before 62 A.D., since it is hardly conceivable that Luke would have left out the death of James or the destruction of the Jerusalem Church, had he written after that time.Nazaroo
TrevorL
Member
Greetings again Nazaroo,
Kind regards
Trevor
But if it was written after AD70 then as it is a prophecy of “things that must shortly come to pass” Revelation 1:1 there was no need to speak of the Temple and sacrifices in Jerusalem, because they had been removed.
The anti-christ system was to be Christian not pagan, and John refers to the start of this in his epistles.
The anti-christ system would span many years and reach a peak at the return of Christ who will destroy this system.
I accept the historicist view of the Book of Revelation, and do not see that this is in any way forced, but the most natural way to interpret this book. One basis of this method is Daniel 2 and 7. There are many scholars who have adopted the historicist view, believing that Seal 1 is the Gospel era in the 1st Century, and Seals 2-4 are specific war, famine, plague events of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.
Kind regards
Trevor
Thanks for continuing the discussion Trevor.
most of the contents of Revelation things of the past,
and leave little for the recent past, present, or immediate future.
You place Seals 1 - 4 in the 2nd to 3rd centuries for instance. (Rev. 6:1-8)
There is of course a serious problem with such datings.
The first major Bubonic Plague happened much later, (541-544 A.D.)
after the ravaging and plundering of the Western Empire by barbarians.
The second Greater Plague hit in 740 A.D., and
the Final Greatest Plague hit in 1347-1351 A.D. at the end of the
thousand-year reign of the Eastern Byzantine Christian Empire.
Obviously since each plague was far greater and more devastating than the last,
it would be a horrible anti-climax to assign the petty plagues and sicknesses
and famines in the 100s and 200s to the world-shaking events described in Revelation.
It would also leave the greatest woes upon civilization unmentioned and unprophesied.
But if you allow that Revelation is prophetic at all, and
extend its prophecies to 200-300 A.D., why stop there?
There is no logical reason to assume the book stops dead in 300 A.D.,
with most of its startling and world-shaking predictions left poorly sketched
by a few foreshadowing local events, but essentially unfulfilled.
For instance, Revelation predicts an asteroid will hit the ocean
killing 1/3 of life on the planet. If someone were to claim for example
that this was already somehow fulfilled by a local asteroid
hitting a lake somewhere in the Middle East, virtually unnoticed and unknown,
makes a mockery of prophecy.
Its understandable that many prophecies in Revelation seemed so utterly fantastic to early Christians,
that it was thought that they must be allegories or exaggerations, or whimsical interpretations
of ordinary events in the early empire.
But now especially, we are finally coming to the point in history where
many of these predictions are being supported by new scientific discovery.
Scientists now admit for instance, that not only can a large comet or asteroid
hit the earth with the results described in Rev, but that we are overdue for a such a hit!
What Christian today can credibly argue that we should take such a prophecy
as if it were referencing a past unremarkable event, or an allegory,
when even atheist and agnostic scientists are saying its a literal probability?
Update your interpretations of Revelation man, smell the coffee before its too late.
peace
Nazaroo
If I understand you correctly, a 'historicist' interpretation would make
most of the contents of Revelation things of the past,
and leave little for the recent past, present, or immediate future.
You place Seals 1 - 4 in the 2nd to 3rd centuries for instance. (Rev. 6:1-8)
There is of course a serious problem with such datings.
The first major Bubonic Plague happened much later, (541-544 A.D.)
after the ravaging and plundering of the Western Empire by barbarians.
The second Greater Plague hit in 740 A.D., and
the Final Greatest Plague hit in 1347-1351 A.D. at the end of the
thousand-year reign of the Eastern Byzantine Christian Empire.
Obviously since each plague was far greater and more devastating than the last,
it would be a horrible anti-climax to assign the petty plagues and sicknesses
and famines in the 100s and 200s to the world-shaking events described in Revelation.
It would also leave the greatest woes upon civilization unmentioned and unprophesied.
But if you allow that Revelation is prophetic at all, and
extend its prophecies to 200-300 A.D., why stop there?
There is no logical reason to assume the book stops dead in 300 A.D.,
with most of its startling and world-shaking predictions left poorly sketched
by a few foreshadowing local events, but essentially unfulfilled.
For instance, Revelation predicts an asteroid will hit the ocean
killing 1/3 of life on the planet. If someone were to claim for example
that this was already somehow fulfilled by a local asteroid
hitting a lake somewhere in the Middle East, virtually unnoticed and unknown,
makes a mockery of prophecy.
Its understandable that many prophecies in Revelation seemed so utterly fantastic to early Christians,
that it was thought that they must be allegories or exaggerations, or whimsical interpretations
of ordinary events in the early empire.
But now especially, we are finally coming to the point in history where
many of these predictions are being supported by new scientific discovery.
Scientists now admit for instance, that not only can a large comet or asteroid
hit the earth with the results described in Rev, but that we are overdue for a such a hit!
What Christian today can credibly argue that we should take such a prophecy
as if it were referencing a past unremarkable event, or an allegory,
when even atheist and agnostic scientists are saying its a literal probability?
Update your interpretations of Revelation man, smell the coffee before its too late.
peace
Nazaroo
Last edited by a moderator:
TrevorL
Member
Greetings again Nazaroo,
Kind regards
Trevor
I apologise that this has ended up in your Acts thread, so I will try to be brief. Another definition is “Continuous Historic” understanding of the Book of Revelation. The seven seals for example are the events that transpired to bring about the replacement of the Pagan Roman system with a nominally “Christian” Roman system. But the 7th seal then incorporates Seven Trumpets which commences another period, and then the 7th trumpet incorporates the 7 vials. My understanding is that we are in the 6th Vial period, just before the return of Christ and the battle of Armageddon Revelation 16.
I believe that the Book of Revelation depicts events by using symbols, and we need to be careful as to what we take literally and what is understood by symbols.
Kind regards
Trevor
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you Trevor, that Revelation contains symbols.
And that care must be taken in interpreting the book, and that some interpretation is required.
By 'interpretation', here we primarily mean 'identification', that is connecting the symbols and figures of the book with real world events and entities around us.
That having been said, these issues have been raised 140 years ago or more, when people like Christopher Wordsworth noted that interpreters were inconsistent in handling symbols:
For instance, interpreters took the 'Harlot of Babylon' in an allegorical sense and applied it to the Roman Catholic Church, while they took the "Euphrates River' in the same sections of the book 'literally', as the actual river in Iraq.
Wordsworth's own view was that both examples were symbolic, or rather the use of known, recognized symbols with 'properties' , "Babylon" (= the future 'harlot' will be like Babylon was), and the "Euphrates" (= the commerce and corruption will be like the ancient Euphrates). He also held that since a crudely literal interpretation was impossible (Babylon had fallen already, the Euphrates was not the central trade route in Jesus' day), that all the symbols must be consistently interpreted symbolically.
There is some common sense to Wordsworth's criticisms regarding how Revelation was handled in his time.
I wonder if we are any better off really today. There is a wide variety of interpretations of Revelation, even among those who take it very literally, and apply it to today, as being the "Last Days" etc.
This is why I am exploring it freshly in the first place, looking for historical pieces that can plausibly and coherently fit the puzzle-picture portrayed in Revelation.
peace
Nazaroo
And that care must be taken in interpreting the book, and that some interpretation is required.
By 'interpretation', here we primarily mean 'identification', that is connecting the symbols and figures of the book with real world events and entities around us.
That having been said, these issues have been raised 140 years ago or more, when people like Christopher Wordsworth noted that interpreters were inconsistent in handling symbols:
For instance, interpreters took the 'Harlot of Babylon' in an allegorical sense and applied it to the Roman Catholic Church, while they took the "Euphrates River' in the same sections of the book 'literally', as the actual river in Iraq.
Wordsworth's own view was that both examples were symbolic, or rather the use of known, recognized symbols with 'properties' , "Babylon" (= the future 'harlot' will be like Babylon was), and the "Euphrates" (= the commerce and corruption will be like the ancient Euphrates). He also held that since a crudely literal interpretation was impossible (Babylon had fallen already, the Euphrates was not the central trade route in Jesus' day), that all the symbols must be consistently interpreted symbolically.
There is some common sense to Wordsworth's criticisms regarding how Revelation was handled in his time.
I wonder if we are any better off really today. There is a wide variety of interpretations of Revelation, even among those who take it very literally, and apply it to today, as being the "Last Days" etc.
This is why I am exploring it freshly in the first place, looking for historical pieces that can plausibly and coherently fit the puzzle-picture portrayed in Revelation.
peace
Nazaroo
Hard Look at Acts (4): Dating the Synoptic Gospels
I think James was killed around 62 A.D.
That having been said, the letter of James could have been written anytime between 40 and 60 A.D., but I tend to date it early because it is simple and primitive in its Christology and Theology, and it is addressed to the Twelve Tribes of Israel in the Diaspora.
Additionally, Matthew seems to use James liberally in composing the Sermon on the Mount, which is a blend of Luke's Sermon on the Plain and James, as well as other collected sayings of Jesus, now removed from their original historical context:
Quote:
I didn't see the Gospels on there, when were they written?
If early traditions are correct, then Matthew would have first published a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic in the early 30s or 40s, from Jerusalem, and this would have circulated among Christians as far as Galilee, Samaria, Syria (Antioch) and even Asia Minor and Egypt (Alexandria).
Peter would have had access to this, and would have assisted Mark to write the first near-complete Gospel (either Mark or Ur-Mark), probably sometime before Paul came to Rome (50s?).
Luke seems to have used Mark as a base, and combined it with Matthew's sayings collection, as well as eyewitness accounts from other early Apostolic church members, sometime before 60 A.D. (Luke was written before Acts, c. 60-62 A.D.).
Luke block-copies Mark,
Matthew also block-copies Mark
Mark may have been revised after the composition of Luke, since Luke omits one large section of our current version of Mark, (the Great Lukan Omission, Mark 6:45-8:25).
Our Greek Matthew seems to have been composed on the same general idea as Luke (combining Mark with other sayings material). However, Matthew clearly uses the version of Mark now containing the Lukan Omission section.
Click to Enlarge
Matthew was apparently composed sometime after controversies between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians had been worked out, as he has carefully combined Luke's Sermon on the Plain and the letter of James to produce his opus "Sermont on the Mount", a large and organized collection of many of Jesus' sayings, now blended with James' teaching and lacking most of the original contexts, which are given in Luke and Mark etc.
Matthew is also the only Gospel to use the word "Church" (ekklesia), and was probably written just after Luke, possibly in the 60s, after the Church had finally split with the Jewish community; but apparently before the destruction of Jerusalem.
For more info on the Synoptic Problem, go to our website here, for good diagrams etc:
I think James was killed around 62 A.D.
That having been said, the letter of James could have been written anytime between 40 and 60 A.D., but I tend to date it early because it is simple and primitive in its Christology and Theology, and it is addressed to the Twelve Tribes of Israel in the Diaspora.
Additionally, Matthew seems to use James liberally in composing the Sermon on the Mount, which is a blend of Luke's Sermon on the Plain and James, as well as other collected sayings of Jesus, now removed from their original historical context:
Quote:
I didn't see the Gospels on there, when were they written?
If early traditions are correct, then Matthew would have first published a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic in the early 30s or 40s, from Jerusalem, and this would have circulated among Christians as far as Galilee, Samaria, Syria (Antioch) and even Asia Minor and Egypt (Alexandria).
Peter would have had access to this, and would have assisted Mark to write the first near-complete Gospel (either Mark or Ur-Mark), probably sometime before Paul came to Rome (50s?).
Luke seems to have used Mark as a base, and combined it with Matthew's sayings collection, as well as eyewitness accounts from other early Apostolic church members, sometime before 60 A.D. (Luke was written before Acts, c. 60-62 A.D.).
Luke block-copies Mark,
Matthew also block-copies Mark
Mark may have been revised after the composition of Luke, since Luke omits one large section of our current version of Mark, (the Great Lukan Omission, Mark 6:45-8:25).
Our Greek Matthew seems to have been composed on the same general idea as Luke (combining Mark with other sayings material). However, Matthew clearly uses the version of Mark now containing the Lukan Omission section.
Click to Enlarge
Matthew was apparently composed sometime after controversies between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians had been worked out, as he has carefully combined Luke's Sermon on the Plain and the letter of James to produce his opus "Sermont on the Mount", a large and organized collection of many of Jesus' sayings, now blended with James' teaching and lacking most of the original contexts, which are given in Luke and Mark etc.
Matthew is also the only Gospel to use the word "Church" (ekklesia), and was probably written just after Luke, possibly in the 60s, after the Church had finally split with the Jewish community; but apparently before the destruction of Jerusalem.
For more info on the Synoptic Problem, go to our website here, for good diagrams etc:
Lachmann (3) - The "Illiad Theory" and Acts
F.N. Peloubet, in The Teacher's commentary on the Acts (1903, Oxford) deals with Lachmann's multiple author theory in passing, in the context of the composition of Acts.
Peloubet (Introduction, xxxv fwd) states:
Nazaroo
F.N. Peloubet, in The Teacher's commentary on the Acts (1903, Oxford) deals with Lachmann's multiple author theory in passing, in the context of the composition of Acts.
Peloubet (Introduction, xxxv fwd) states:
"VI. THE SOURCES OF ACTS. As Luke expressly says in the preface to his Gospel that he derived his information from the records of eye-witnesses, with which he was perfectly familiar, the same is doubtless true of his treatise on the Acts of the Apostles. ...
...there is no reason for thinking, a priori, that the speeches cannot be historical. . . . The speeches of the leading apostles would impress themselves on the growing community, and would be remembered as the words of the Lord were remembered.
...
There are some interesting comparisons of the discussion of the composite nature of the Acts with other literature in A. H. Strong's The Great Poets and their Theology.
...there is no reason for thinking, a priori, that the speeches cannot be historical. . . . The speeches of the leading apostles would impress themselves on the growing community, and would be remembered as the words of the Lord were remembered.
...
There are some interesting comparisons of the discussion of the composite nature of the Acts with other literature in A. H. Strong's The Great Poets and their Theology.
"The German Lachmann resolved the Iliad into sixteen distinct and clearly defined layers. Paley has compared the Iliad and the Odyssey to pictures of stained glass made up by an artistic combination of handsome bits of older windows which fortune and time had shivered."
The combatants [textual critics] are more and more arraying themselves on the side of the traditional view that both poems are by the same author, and that this author is Homer. But Homer himself may have taken many years for the elaboration of his poems, revising and improving them as he repeated them again and again, so that during those years versions of various degrees of perfection may have been set in circulation.
Goethe in one of his letters to Schiller cites different versions of his own poems, in connection with the theory we have been considering. He had at various times amended and enlarged them; but he did not on that account prove that there was a second Goethe, or many Goethes. "
What all this tells us is that subsequent critics and investigators cioming after Lachmann have found that all such naive theories of 'many detectable layers' and 'multiple authors' are at best precarious conjectures and near-worthless. Even, and perhaps especially, reconstructed 'genealogies', based on the alleged identification of various 'interpolations' and layers are simply academic fantasies, their proliferation and variations providing the best evidence of their spuriousness.Nazaroo
A Chronology for Paul
While conservative Christian scholars have relied heavily on the book of Acts in the reconstruction of Paul's journeys, other academics have rejected the historicity/reliability of Acts, and preferred to rely upon Paul's letters alone. The problem with the second approach is that there is very little in Paul's letters to establish dates with, or even to put them in order.
A Chronology based on Acts
A basic modern approach using Acts is given by Gerd Luedemann in "A Chronology of Paul", Colloquy on NT Studies, Ed. Bruce Corley, SBTS (Mercer U., 1983) p. 289 fwd.
Nazaroo
While conservative Christian scholars have relied heavily on the book of Acts in the reconstruction of Paul's journeys, other academics have rejected the historicity/reliability of Acts, and preferred to rely upon Paul's letters alone. The problem with the second approach is that there is very little in Paul's letters to establish dates with, or even to put them in order.
A Chronology based on Acts
A basic modern approach using Acts is given by Gerd Luedemann in "A Chronology of Paul", Colloquy on NT Studies, Ed. Bruce Corley, SBTS (Mercer U., 1983) p. 289 fwd.
'The Conventional View:
'The conventional view...may be broadly described as ...ingenious combination of ...Acts with info in [Paul's] letters. ...One proceeds on the basis of the sole absolute datum ...the Gallio inscription. Since Gallio held office in A.D. 51-52, Acts 18:12 is taken as a sure indication that Paul stood trial before Gallio in this year. Further confirmation is then derived from 18:2, which mentions the arrival of Priscilla and Aquilla from Rome after the expulsion of the Jews (the year is assumed, on the basis of Orosius, to be A.D. 49). Since these two dates confirm one another, it is held that Luke's report of Paul's 1st Cor. Mission in Acts 18 is historically accurate. With the date of the mission on European soil relatively set, other dates are reckoned both before and after this period.
After the stay in Corinth Paul traveled to Ephesus, then on to Palestine, and then back to Ephesus (Acts 18:18ff.). There Paul wrote the Corinthian letters and later traveled back to Jerusalem (by way of Macedonia) to deliver the [money] collection. In Jerusalem, Paul was arrested and was eventually taken to rome to meet his death as a martyr.
Before the stay in Corinth, Paul had worked as a missionary in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Athens (and agreement of 1st Thess. with Acts 17ff.). Prior to this mission, Paul had traveled as a delegate of the Antioch congregation, to Jerusalem for the conference (Acts 15:2ff.). One determines this date of the conference, 14 - 17 years after Paul's conversion, on the basis of Gal 1ff. Confirmation of this view is then found in the reference to the ensuing conflict between Paul and Barnabas in both Acts and Gal. 2:13.
For 11 - 14 years prior to the Jerusalem conference, Paul had worked, as a missionary of the Antioch congregation, in Syria and Cilicia (a combin. of Gal 1:21 and Acts 13ff.).
'The conventional view...may be broadly described as ...ingenious combination of ...Acts with info in [Paul's] letters. ...One proceeds on the basis of the sole absolute datum ...the Gallio inscription. Since Gallio held office in A.D. 51-52, Acts 18:12 is taken as a sure indication that Paul stood trial before Gallio in this year. Further confirmation is then derived from 18:2, which mentions the arrival of Priscilla and Aquilla from Rome after the expulsion of the Jews (the year is assumed, on the basis of Orosius, to be A.D. 49). Since these two dates confirm one another, it is held that Luke's report of Paul's 1st Cor. Mission in Acts 18 is historically accurate. With the date of the mission on European soil relatively set, other dates are reckoned both before and after this period.
After the stay in Corinth Paul traveled to Ephesus, then on to Palestine, and then back to Ephesus (Acts 18:18ff.). There Paul wrote the Corinthian letters and later traveled back to Jerusalem (by way of Macedonia) to deliver the [money] collection. In Jerusalem, Paul was arrested and was eventually taken to rome to meet his death as a martyr.
Before the stay in Corinth, Paul had worked as a missionary in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Athens (and agreement of 1st Thess. with Acts 17ff.). Prior to this mission, Paul had traveled as a delegate of the Antioch congregation, to Jerusalem for the conference (Acts 15:2ff.). One determines this date of the conference, 14 - 17 years after Paul's conversion, on the basis of Gal 1ff. Confirmation of this view is then found in the reference to the ensuing conflict between Paul and Barnabas in both Acts and Gal. 2:13.
For 11 - 14 years prior to the Jerusalem conference, Paul had worked, as a missionary of the Antioch congregation, in Syria and Cilicia (a combin. of Gal 1:21 and Acts 13ff.).
I wish to emphasize at this point that if this veiw were correct, then all of Paul's letters would have been composed within about 5 years of one another. They would all have been written by a man who had already been a Christian for about 19 years and who was a veteran missionary. Accordingly, one should expect the letters to be quite homogeneous; little room would be left for any theory regarding a development in Paul's thought reflected in the letters. The historian's exposition could rather proceed from the old theological principle, "scriptura ipsius interpres". (i.e., "Scripture is [self]-explanatory")
Luedemann goes on in his article to develop a "non-conventional view" (i.e., a chronology that rejects the historicity and usefulness of Acts. But that does not concern us here. We remain grateful for Luedemann's concise description of the 'conventional view'. Nazaroo