The Narrow Path Ministries

Right up front, I should state that I'm an early-date partial-preterist when it comes to Revelation. But, it occurred to me that there might be a late-date preterist angle that's at least worth considering.

From what I can tell, much of the literature we have that falls under the umbrella of "apocalyptic" is also pseudepigrapha, and written later than the apparent date of the subject. What if John (or the Elder) or someone else wanted to write about the fall of Judea in 70AD, but was writing in a later time (say, 95AD)? Might he not write in apocalyptic style? How different would Revelation look if this happened?

Thoughts? Not sure how clear I've been here, but hopefully somebody understands.

-Seth

Not sure how clear I've been here, but hopefully somebody understands.

Actually, I've had the exact same consideration myself. I was actually thinking about that possibility again today as a matter of fact. Great minds think alike!

Funny, because the reason I jump on here today was to see if anyone has posted anything abou the subject.

So...??? Anybody have anything?

From what I can tell, much of the literature we have that falls under the umbrella of "apocalyptic" is also pseudepigrapha, and written later than the apparent date of the subject. What if John (or the Elder) or someone else wanted to write about the fall of Judea in 70AD, but was writing in a later time (say, 95AD)? Might he not write in apocalyptic style? How different would Revelation look if this happened?

Seems a little strange considering how symbolic the language is , meaning what would be the reason for this writing style for a past event?

"What if John (or the Elder) or someone else wanted to write about the fall of Judea in 70AD, but was writing in a later time (say, 95AD)?"

If it was written at a later date, 95AD,...How could the writer not mention the destruction of the Temple or Jerusalem? That would be like someone writing the history of America and not mentioning the fall of the twin toweres in NYC.

Blev wrote:If it was written at a later date, 95AD,...How could the writer not mention the destruction of the Temple or Jerusalem? That would be like someone writing the history of America and not mentioning the fall of the twin toweres in NYC.

Straight out of Hank's show...

The point would be to maintain the illusion of it being written at an earlier date. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's not an unheard of phenomenon, from what I understand, in the genre.

Don't we have an "Apocalypse of Enoch" or something, where it puts words in Enoch's mouth, even though we know the document isn't contemporary with his time?

So, in this case, it would be used as a literary device, basically to show the "big picture" of what events looked like from Heaven.

Whoops

Straight out of Hank's show...

The point would be to maintain the illusion of it being written at an earlier date.


I've also heard Hank say exactly this but the point is not what John knew because this is a revelation of Jesus Christ which John simply recorded. He is like a secretary recording dictation at least as far as i know , so why would Christ want to create an illusion?

STEVE7150 wrote:He is like a secretary recording dictation at least as far as i know , so why would Christ want to create an illusion?

Okay, but let's say, hypothetically, that the whole notion of John having actually received prophetic visions from Jesus was just a literary device. I admit, it sounds dishonest and I wouldn't think the book should be included in the Canon if that was the case.

But if John had simply written about the fall of Judea in apocalyptic imagery, wouldn't he have written in a similar fashion to what we have in the book of Revelation?

Seth,

You are right that the Book of Revelation could possibly have been written in the manner you described, as were many other apocalyptic books. If so, however, it should not be considered canonical, just as other books written in that manner are not.

The book claims to be a prophecy from Jesus. If it is not that, then it is a false prophecy, blasphemously claiming to be from Jesus. This is a possibility to be considered, but the early church rejected that idea.

The early Christians, right after John's time, seemed to believe that the apostle John wrote it. If he did not, then it is hard to figure how those who recieved it from its actual author so soon forgot his real identity. If the apostle John did write it, it seems the idea of a false prophecy would have to be ruled out.