the three johns

[Origen]

thank you for this

I will revisit it

I see that you think Revelation has three authors.

1. John the Baptist
2. John the Apostle
3. John Chrysostom

And you think that it was John Chrysostom who wrote the section with the seven letters. Is that correct? I want to make sure that I understand your view.

 

[oatmeal]

there was a time when the Revelation of Jesus Christ as written by John was referred to as the apocalypse

sorry for the confusion

Well, of course, the book of Revelation would be referred to as the apocalypse, that is what the Greek means, it means revelation or appearing, ie, a revealing.

God authored scripture and in the case of the book of Revelation, the apocalypse, He had John write it down.

So we must ask ourselves, what does it say that applies to us?

And if it does apply to us, how so?

does it apply completely or partially?

Who is the book written to? Are we who it is written to?

If it is not written to us then it is not information at applies directly to us, although it does contain information that is important to us.

Why did God have John write the words he did? Because that is what God wanted John to write down

 

[chrysostom]

I see that you think Revelation has three authors.

1. John the Baptist
2. John the Apostle
3. John Chrysostom

And you think that it was John Chrysostom who wrote the section with the seven letters. Is that correct?

no
chrysostom added very little
but
somehow made sure it got into the bible

tertullian mentions the seven churches
so
we know they were added before his time

 

[chrysostom]

Who is the book written to?

I believe the baptist was writing to the jews to prepare them for the first coming

the apostle wrote to the christians in asia minor to prepare them for some very difficult times
christianity no longer exists in that area
completely replaced by islam

chrysostom was in ephesus at the beginning of the fifth century
and
I believe he was asked to prophesy again to all nations
i.e. get the book into the bible

 

[Origen]

no
chrysostom added very little
but
somehow made sure it got into the bible

tertullian mentions the seven churches
so
we know they were added before his time

So, may I ask, what do you think Chrysostom added?

 

[chrysostom]

So, may I ask, what do you think Chrysostom added?

the only reason it is in the bible is because somebody important like jerome, who was translating the bible at the time, thought the apostle was the author
so
all chrysostom had to do was make it look that way
and
chrysostom was the only john who could say

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

if you buy into my dynasties theory of the seven kings

 

[chrysostom]

I do not see where Charles made such a claim. He does say that the style is Hebraic but no where could I find that he claimed it was written in Hebrew.

you're right
but
correct me
if
you think I am wrong about this

charles finds all the arguments compelling that it was first written in hebrew
but
he is convinced by all the unity arguments which trumps the hebrew arguments

for some reason he cannot accept more than one author

 

[Origen]

charles finds all the arguments compelling that it was first written in Hebrew

I am not sure I can agree with that.

Charles names only two persons as thinking the sources of Revelation were written specifically in Hebrew and they are Kohler (p. 64) and Vischer (p. 68). Yet Charles rejects both views.

Of Kohler's hypothesis he says:

I have given Kohler's hypothesis longer consideration than it deserves, because it comes from a Jewish source. Kohler's hypothesis throws no fresh light on the problem, while it fails to apprehend the general unity of thought and style that characterise the book. (p. 64)

Of Vischer's hypothesis he say:

This clever hypothesis found a wide acceptance at the time; but, as Bousset urges, it cannot be regarded as satisfactory; for Vischer, in the first place, has not succeeded in proving the Jewish character of xi.-xii., nor justified his fundamental thesis as to the unity of the book. (p. 62)

Some of the scholars Charles addresses do not claims the sources were written in Hebrew but simply call them Jewish sources, for example Volter.

Of Volter's hypothesis he says:

It is unnecessary here to enter further into the details of Volter's hypothesis, as it has failed to gain the suffrages of critical scholars, in fact, as a whole it has been rejected on every hand. (p. 60)

Then Charles states, as to the methodologies used:

It is on the ground of this general unity of style in diction and construction that we are obliged to reject all such violent hypotheses as those of Spitta, Yischer, J. Weiss, Von Soden and the like. The problem of the Apocalypse cannot be solved either by the Redaction Hypothesis, or by the Sources Hypothesis, or by a combination of the two. (p. 72)

he is convinced by all the unity arguments which trumps the hebrew arguments

Yes he does hold to the unity argument but it is more than just that. He just does not think that the evidence is there. For example there is no need to postulate a Hebrew text behind the Greek. As Chrales points out: "How, then, are we to explain the unbridled licence of his Greek constructions? The reason clearly is that, while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression." That is perfectly normal for someone writing in language which is not their own. Moreover Charles says "He never mastered Greek idiomatically even the Greek of his own period."


For more information check Charles' A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Revelation Of St. John (1920)
https://archive.org/details/acriticalandexeg01charuoft

 

[Origen]

the only reason it is in the bible is because somebody important like jerome, who was translating the bible at the time, thought the apostle was the author

I am not sure that is quite right.

Revelation is found in Codex Sinaiticus and it is dated between 330 and 360. Revelation was important enough to make it into a collection of the Scriptures. Jerome was born around 347 so he would have had no impact upon that.

In his 39th Festal Letter Athanasius (A.D. 367) states in regard to the canon:

Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John.

That was 15 years before Jerome first began his preliminary work on the Vulgate in 382. I would not want to say that Jerome played no role as to the canon but Athanasius was much more important. Yet the most important point here is that Revelation was considered part of the canon before Jerome started his work on the Vulgate.

 

[chrysostom]

In his 39th Festal Letter Athanasius (A.D. 367) states in regard to the canon:



That was 15 years before Jerome first began his preliminary work on the Vulgate in 382. I would not want to say that Jerome played no role as to the canon but Athanasius was much more important. Yet the most important point here is that Revelation was considered part of the canon before Jerome started his work on the Vulgate.

I have no doubt that he wanted it in
but
others did not
and
that may have included chrysostom who was patriarch of the most powerful empire
and
a trip to ephesus at the beginning of the 5th century may have changed his mind

 

[Origen]

I have no doubt that he wanted it in
but
others did not
and
that may have included chrysostom who was patriarch of the most powerful empire
and
a trip to ephesus at the beginning of the 5th century may have changed his mind

I agree there were some who did not want it or like it but that was not really my point. My point was that Codex Sinaiticus predates Jerome and that codex contains all 27 books of the N.T. So while Jerome may have played some part in the canon, Revelation could already be found in a Greek language codex.

As for Athanasius, my point was he was the first to list the 27 books of the N.T. just as we have it now (without any other additions) and he used the word "canon" to describe them. Again I do not wish to say that Jerome played no part in the canon, but Athanasius was ahead of Jerome by 15 years in regard to the canon and Athanasius was not some nobody.

 

[chrysostom]

there was more than one version of the apocalypse

 

[Anto9us]

I find all of this fascinating -- and must agree that Athanasius was not "just some nobody" and listed the first list of just the 27 books of NT

That Revelation is Hebraic in style is clear -- but if written as LATE as suggested in some places -- why would a scholar the level of Charles say it was written IN HEBREW? I am lost on much of this -- I do not DISMISS IT -- its just some stuff I never heard of before -- but I am glad these threads were revived

 

[chrysostom]

I find all of this fascinating -- and must agree that Athanasius was not "just some nobody" and listed the first list of just the 27 books of NT

That Revelation is Hebraic in style is clear -- but if written as LATE as suggested in some places -- why would a scholar the level of Charles say it was written IN HEBREW? I am lost on much of this -- I do not DISMISS IT -- its just some stuff I never heard of before -- but I am glad these threads were revived

STUDIES IN THE APOCALYPSE
being lectures delivered before the University of London

R.H. Charles
1913

this is one of the most interesting books you will ever read on the apocalypse

 

[chrysostom]

search the bible for the word lamb

27 hits in the apocalypse

only one person in the bible mentions
the Lamb of God

that is john the baptist

when the apocalypse was first written it did not include the name of Jesus

Jesus is the Lamb of God

John 1:32King James Version (KJV)

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Revelation 1:2King James Version (KJV)

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

John 1:1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[chrysostom]

three johns makes more sense

 

[chrysostom]

can you believe three different versions by three different johns?

 

[False Prophet]

The Apocalypse has kept the Bible alive with interpretations throughout history after its inception into the scriptures in the second century.

 

[chrysostom]

The Apocalypse has kept the Bible alive with interpretations throughout history after its inception into the scriptures in the second century.

it was not an official part of the bible in the second century

 

[chrysostom]

john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse