Saturday, July 26, 2008

Did The Churches Of Revelation 2-3 Reject Revelation?

LVKA writes:

"And Revelation has been constantly rejected in the course of history by the very same Churches to which it was purportedly addressed. The only seven somethings that had ever received it constantly throughout human history are the Romans, whose city Rome is founded upon seven hills; and where Satan was enthroned (Revelation 2:13). This fact is not without reason, since the Romans seem to have been very fond of Apocalyptic writings generally: whether John's, or Peter's, or Hermas' Shephard, or Ezra's. (see the Muratory Canon, for instance; and remember that IV Ezra was part of Catholic Bibles up until the age of Trent, when 3rd and 4th Ezra weren't included). The fact that it was rejected by the very same cities to which it was supposed to have been written to is also of signifficance: the excuse for that is that some or certain heretics used it and abused it at a certain point in time"

LVKA doesn't make much of an effort to support his claims. And we aren't told why a book would have to be "constantly" accepted in order for us to accept it. If Revelation was widely accepted early on, but became less accepted later, why should the later status of the book be of much concern to us when making a judgment about its canonicity?

Revelation is different from some other Biblical books in that it's addressed to seven churches rather than one individual or one church, for example. The initial audience of seven churches creates more opportunity for verification or falsification of the book's canonicity. And unfortunately for LVKA's argument, the evidence from those churches points in the opposite direction of what he's suggesting. The data we have concerning the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 suggests that they initially accepted the book rather than rejecting it.

Some of the seven churches were prominent in early church history, and Christians from other locations were often in contact with these churches. For example, Ignatius writes to a few of the churches, some of the most prominent church leaders of the early patristic era came from those churches (Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc.), some of those church's leaders traveled and communicated widely (Polycarp's visit to Rome, etc.), and Irenaeus cites the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus as two of the most significant churches of his day (Against Heresies, 3:3:4). If the seven churches of Asia Minor had rejected the book of Revelation, they were in a position to make that rejection widely known and to influence other churches and individuals to reject the book as well.

But the evidence suggests that, instead, Revelation was widely accepted:

"As early as the middle of the second century, Revelation was ascribed to John, 'one of the apostles of Christ' (Justin, Dial. 81). Other second-century works and writers make the same claim: a lost commentary on Revelation by Melito, bishop of Sardis (c. A.D. 165; see Eusebius, H.E. 4.26.2); Irenaeus (c. 180; Adv. Haer. 3.11.1, 4.20.11, 4.35.2); and the Muratorian Canon (late second century). Whether Papias, an even earlier witness than these (d.c. 130), can be added to this list is disputed, but a good case can be made out that he both knew Revelation and attributed it to John. The evidence of these writers is particularly strong in that two of them (three, if Papias is included) could well be reporting firsthand evidence. Sardis, where Melito was bishop, was one of the churches addressed in Revelation (1:11; 3:1-6). Irenaeus was from Smyrna, also a church addressed in Revelation (1:11; 2:8-11), and claims to have heard Polycarp, who had talked with John the apostle himself. Papias knew John the apostle personally. The early tradition is confirmed by the third-century fathers Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. Not only do these authors ascribe Revelation to John the apostle, they do so without any hint of there being a contrary claim. No New Testament book, concludes Gerhard Maier, has a stronger or earlier tradition about its authorship than does Revelation." (D.A. Carson, et al., An Introduction To The New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992], p. 468)

I would change some of the wording or add some qualifiers that Carson, Moo, and Morris don't mention, but the general thrust of their assessment is accurate. Other sources could be added to theirs, both in terms of authorship attribution and in terms of citations of the book as scripture. See, for example, Bruce Metzger's discussion of Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and other relevant sources in The Canon Of The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

The claim would sometimes be made that the heretic Cerinthus authored Revelation, and later sources would speculate about authorship by some other John. But neither argument seems to have been prominent early on, and such claims are rarely even mentioned among the early sources.

Irenaeus refers to manuscripts of Revelation that were "ancient" in his day and how the correct text of a passage in Revelation was confirmed by "those men who saw John face to face" (Against Heresies, 5:30:1). Multiple eyewitnesses of the apostle John were still living when Revelation was circulating, and it was circulating long enough for them to be involved in commenting on the textual discrepancy Irenaeus references. The view of Revelation held by Irenaeus and his contemporaries was influenced by earlier sources.

Tertullian wrote:

"We have also churches which are nurselings of John's: for although Marcion disallows his Apocalypse, yet the succession of their bishops, when traced back to its origin, will be found to rest in John as originator." (Against Marcion, 4:5)

Tertullian isn't addressing the authorship of Revelation. He's addressing the apostolic origin of the churches of Revelation 2-3. But his comments imply that those churches accepted Revelation. It's unlikely that Tertullian would mention Marcion's rejection of Revelation only to go on to appeal to some churches that also rejected the book. Tertullian accepted Revelation himself, and his comments about the seven churches involve a claim to be knowledgeable about the history of those churches. It's unlikely that Tertullian would accept Revelation if he knew that the book was rejected by those seven churches. And it's unlikely that Tertullian would be ignorant of a rejection of Revelation by those churches, if they did reject it, especially given his claim to be so familiar with the history of the churches. Similarly, it's unlikely that men such as Irenaeus and Origen, who traveled and communicated so widely and showed such an interest in those churches, would be ignorant of their rejection of Revelation or would know of it, yet accept Revelation anyway.

18 comments:

  1. The book of Revelation isn't read in our liturty. This is more evidence that the book came later in time, and that it took a while for churces to accept it.

    By the time John had his vision. Those churches didn't know the book existed. Saint John was still on the Island of Patmos.

    Just because some places in modern day Turkey embraced it, doesn't mean everyone in the east did.



    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those who were eventually called Nestorians, were not the only ones who used the Syriac Biblical scrolls and parchments. MY Jurisdiction used them as well. So we too lacked those very same books for a while.

    "According to Burkitt, the earliest Syriac version of the New Testament is represented by the textual tradition known as Old Syriac, produced during the first two centuries of the Christian era. The Old Syriac is mainly represented today by the Syro-Curetonian Manuscript, produced in either the third or fourth century, and the Syro-Sinaiticus palimpsest, produced around 200 A.D."[1] page 70

    and

    "From the beginning of the fifth century on, we can say the Old Syriac tradition reigns supreme in the Syriac Church. Its use is standard in both Church documents and translations of Grekk texts. The works of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, were translated in the fifth and sixth centuries using Old Syriac Scripture citations."[2]

    I could be wrong, but I think Saint John Chrysostem also used the Old Syriac


    Syriac New Testament

    "Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest. It was at Antioch, the capital of Syria, that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and it seemed natural that the first translation of the Christian Scriptures should have been made there. The tendency of recent research, however, goes to show that Edessa, the literary capital, was more likely the place.

    If we could accept the somewhat obscure statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxii) that Hegesippus "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel," we should have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160-80 AD, the time of that Hebrew Christian writer. One thing is certain, that the earliest New Testament of the Syriac church lacked not only the Antilegomena--2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation--but the whole of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. These were at a later date translated and received into the Syriac Canon of the New Testament, but the quotations of the early Syrian Fathers take no notice of these New Testament books.

    From the 5th century, however, the Peshitta containing both Old Testament and New Testament has been used in its present form only as the national version of the Syriac Scriptures. The translation of the New Testament is careful, faithful and literal, and the simplicity, directness and transparency of the style are admired by all Syriac scholars and have earned for it the title of "Queen of the versions."



    When you include both the christians outside of the Empire as well as those inside the Empire that either didn't have the book of Revelations or just didn't embrace it, in their compilation of books. Then you will have a pretty sizable number. But yes, it is true that everyone in the east didn't use it. Or just didn't have it.




    JNORM888

    [1] pages 69-70,[2] pages 73-74, from the book "Antioch: Incarnational Theology & Ministry" edited by Joseph Allen & Michel Najim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jnorm888 said:

    “Just because some places in modern day Turkey embraced it, doesn't mean everyone in the east did.”

    Who suggested that “because some places in modern day Turkey embraced it…everyone in the east did”? If you’re anticipating what somebody might argue, I doubt that there are many Evangelicals, if any, who would use such an argument.

    You write:

    “When you include both the christians outside of the Empire as well as those inside the Empire that either didn't have the book of Revelations or just didn't embrace it, in their compilation of books. Then you will have a pretty sizable number.”

    A phrase like “a pretty sizable number” doesn’t tell us much, nor does the evidence you cited. The evidence I cited is earlier, more numerous, more diverse, and more relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Jews had a 22 book OT, and the Syriac Christians [Semites by nationality, who still speak Aramaic], have also 22 books in their NT.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The New Testament:
    The Easter churches accept the traditional list of New Testament books. In the fourth century there were doubts in Asia Minor concerning the authenticity of the Aposalypse od St John the Divine. Gregory of Nazianzus, in one of his poems, lists the four Gospels, Acts, fourteen Pauline Epistles ans seven Catholic Epistles. He continues, 'You have them all. Any outside of these is not authentic.' His contemporary Amphilochios of Iconium, a friend of Basil the Great, writes in another poem, 'Again, some count John's Apocalypse, but the majority say it is spurious.' Cyril of Jerusalem and Cosmas of Maiuma both exclude the Apocalypse, though John of Damascus accepts it. The early Syriac-speaking churches did not accept the four minor Catholic Epistle and the Apocalypse, which did not, therefore, form part of th ePeshitta, but these were included in the sixth-century version commissioned by one of the leading opponents of Chalcedon, Philoxenus of Mabbug(see also Bible,Syriac.)
    [1]





    JNORM888

    [1] page 83 of the Blackwekk dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Edited by Ken Parry, David J. Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H. Griffith & John F. Healey. published by Blackwell, copyright 1999,2001

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Liturgical Use:
    "The Byzantine Lectionary In the present Byzantine rite there are only two readings at the eucharist, both taken from the New Testament, which, except for the Apocalpse, is read throughout the year in a modified lectio cintinua............ect"
    [1]



    JNORM888
    [1] pages 83-84 of the Blackwekk dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Edited by Ken Parry, David J. Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H. Griffith & John F. Healey. published by Blackwell, copyright 1999,2001

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jason said:
    "A phrase like “a pretty sizable number” doesn’t tell us much, nor does the evidence you cited. The evidence I cited is earlier, more numerous, more diverse, and more relevant."


    Not really.

    I showed how the view went from the east to the west, and then to North western Africa. Most of what you cited in the other thread of those who had "premill" in their writings (outside of Saint Justin Martyre & Saint Ireanius) were mostly from the west and later in time. From about 200 A.D. to about 320 A.D.

    The sources I showed were mostly around the same era. (about 150 A.D. to about 381 A.D.)






    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  8. LVKA doesn't make much of an effort to support his claims

    That's because my name's Lucian, not Atlas. :-) :D

    ReplyDelete
  9. A short clarification: the lack of liturgical use of the Apocalypse is related with its very late reception into the Canon, when the Liturgical books became crystalized

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jnorm888 quotes another source as follows:

    "In the fourth century there were doubts in Asia Minor concerning the authenticity of the Aposalypse od St John the Divine."

    Your source goes on to discuss later figures as well, such as John of Damascus. But "doubts in Asia Minor" in the fourth century and doubts in later centuries don't overturn what I argued about the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 in earlier centuries. You can't assume that later doubts must reflect the view of the book in earlier centuries. And LVKA made some claims about the seven churches of Revelation 2-3, not Asia Minor in general.

    A large part of the explanation for the later controversies over Revelation probably can be found in the issue we were discussing in another thread, premillennialism. While some ante-Nicene sources opposed premillennialism, it wasn't opposed as widely then as it was later. You can't assume, without argument, that later opposition to Revelation reflects earlier opposition to the same degree. As I've shown above, the evidence suggests that Revelation was widely accepted early on, both in the West and East. The seven churches of Revelation 2-3 in particular are likely to have accepted the book early on rather than having rejected it. The fact that you and LVKA keep ignoring so much of the evidence I've cited, and are instead largely relying on later sources outside of the seven churches in question, is telling.

    And I wonder why you're taking LVKA's side in this discussion, in light of your previous claims about Revelation's acceptance and the acceptance of premillennialism in Asia Minor. It doesn't seem that either of you is giving these issues much thought.

    You write:

    "I showed how the view went from the east to the west, and then to North western Africa. Most of what you cited in the other thread of those who had 'premill' in their writings (outside of Saint Justin Martyre & Saint Ireanius) were mostly from the west and later in time. From about 200 A.D. to about 320 A.D. The sources I showed were mostly around the same era. (about 150 A.D. to about 381 A.D.)"

    First of all, the comment you're responding to was about acceptance of Revelation, not acceptance of premillennialism. For you to equate your arguments about the spread of premillennialism with arguments about the spread of the acceptance of Revelation is erroneous. Somebody like Dionysius of Alexandria could accept Revelation while rejecting premillennialism.

    Secondly, your suggestion that you've "shown" how premillennialism spread is false. By your own admission, you were "guessing". You were speculating about what might have happened. To say that you've "shown" what happened is not only false, but also false by your own previous standards.

    And what I documented in the other thread isn't all that's relevant here. I added further documentation at the beginning of this thread.

    As I've explained to you before, your argumentation regarding where premillennialism started in the patristic era and how it spread is dubious. Papias claims to have gotten his premillennialism from an earlier source. And you have no way of knowing that the premillennial elders referred to by Irenaeus postdated Papias. And Justin Martyr's references to the existence of other premillennialists and non-Christian awareness of premillennialism (Trypho) come from a debate set around the year 135. It would have taken some time for premillennialism to have spread and to have been discussed as much as is suggested in Justin's debate with Trypho. Thus, your frequent references to "pointing the finger" at Papias are suspect.

    And, again, I want to remind the readers that when you refer to premillennialism originating in the East, you're referring to Asia Minor in general. You argued that premillennialism and Revelation were accepted in Asia Minor. Yet, in this thread I'm responding to LVKA's claim that Revelation was "constantly" rejected by the seven churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation 2-3. Why are you citing evidence for later rejection of Revelation in the East when the argument of LVKA that I'm responding to is one that contradicts what you argued earlier?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jason,

    I have nothing against Your presentation of the early reception of Revelation by the Fathers that were from Asia Minor. But this doesn't change what happened shortly thereafter: the general rejection of it in the East. -- something with which You Yourself agree, since You've began lecturing me in Your last comment as to why this "actually" happened.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LVKA said:

    "I have nothing against Your presentation of the early reception of Revelation by the Fathers that were from Asia Minor. But this doesn't change what happened shortly thereafter: the general rejection of it in the East."

    As I documented at the beginning of this thread, you didn't just make a claim about what happened "shortly thereafter" among "the Fathers that were from Asia Minor" or "the East". Rather, you claimed that the churches of Revelation 2-3 in particular rejected Revelation "constantly". For reasons I've already explained, a later rejection of the book by other churches in Asia Minor or elsewhere in the East wouldn't be as significant, and it wouldn't support your initial claim.

    And I didn't just argue that Revelation was accepted early by "the Fathers that were from Asia Minor". Rather, I argued that it was accepted early by the churches of Revelation 2-3 specifically.

    You keep making false and misleading claims, keep failing to document your assertions, keep misrepresenting what other people have said, and keep repeating errors after they've been corrected. Yet, in a recent post in another thread, you suggest that I've "lied". If either of us has behaved in a way that suggests dishonesty, it's you, not me.

    Before you make such derogatory comments about a book of scripture again, I suggest that you make more of an effort to get the facts right and argue in a more reasonable manner. You aren't the first Eastern Orthodox to come here and so carelessly belittle the word of God. It doesn't reflect well on Eastern Orthodoxy. Thankfully, other Eastern Orthodox have behaved more responsibly, but you aren't doing much to help their cause. You aren't far from going the way of Orthodox (the Eastern Orthodox poster banned from this blog last year).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jason,

    it's not my fault that you're one-sided and fail to see the elephant sitting in the room.

    And Your authoritarian and imposed bans only help to show Your own cowardness and fears: an I'm as impressed by it as Luther was by the papal bull. :-\

    ReplyDelete
  14. LVKA said:

    "it's not my fault that you're one-sided and fail to see the elephant sitting in the room."

    The only documented elephant that you've been pointing to in this context is the rejection of Revelation by some later churches other than the seven addressed in Revelation 2-3. I've explained why a later rejection isn't as significant as an earlier one, I've argued that the seven churches in Revelation accepted the book early on, and the citation of other churches doesn't support your original claim about the seven churches of Revelation. Your elephant is irrelevant. My elephant is relevant. I've answered your argument. You haven't answered mine.

    You write:

    "And Your authoritarian and imposed bans only help to show Your own cowardness and fears: an I'm as impressed by it as Luther was by the papal bull."

    Moderators of online forums are supposed to have authority. Accusing a moderator of acting "authoritarian" when he enforces forum standards as reasonable as the ones I outlined doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to claim that bans demonstrate cowardice and fear. If somebody came here posting links to Nazi or pornographic web sites, would our banning that person necessarily be a result of cowardice or fear? No. The reasons for banning you would be along the lines of what I mentioned in my last post, as well as what you've been warned about on other occasions (your poor communication skills, your frequent failure to explain who or what you're responding to when such an identification is appropriate, etc.). You're a guest here, and you should act like it. We don't have to issue any warnings like these to the vast majority of other posters, including the vast majority of people who disagree with us. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gracefulness is more appreciated than "rights". :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Forget my last comment: I've just broken my own rule ... :-(

    ReplyDelete
  17. LVKA SAID:

    “And Your authoritarian and imposed bans only help to show Your own cowardness and fears: an I'm as impressed by it as Luther was by the papal bull. :-\”

    Of course, Lvka belongs to a very authoritarian denomination. Back when the Orthodox Church had temporal power, through the patronage of the state, it resorted to iron-fisted measures to repress theological dissent. It criminalized theological dissent. Resorted to violence.

    Why does Lvka submit to such cowardly and fearful prelates?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete