Linguistic correlation between the epistles of John and Revelation

[123rock]

Intriguing as Revelation is, one particular description caught my eye:

Revelation 11:1: ‘I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.”’ (NIV)

Now, for non-preterists this is simply the third temple, but what has to be understood that this is the same man that Ezekiel meets in Ezekiel 40:1-4.

The one and only thing that the mysterious man in Ezekiel says to him is found in 40:4: ‘The man said to me, “Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears and pay attention to everything I am going to show you, for that is why you have been brought here. Tell the house of Israel everything you see.”’

The first phrase in that sentence, “Son of man,” as an address to Ezekiel is used by John in Revelation as well (1:13, 14:14). Although 1:13 addresses Christ, his description “as one like a ‘Son of Man,’” as well as 14:14 which is an explanation and correspondence of Daniel 7:13 (which in itself attests to a post-gospel authorship as Jesus acknowledged Daniel’s tribulations in them), shows that this phrase was reserved for the righteous, or very holy people, among which to John Ezekiel would certainly qualify as one of the major prophets. The rest of the phrases in the sentence aren’t found anywhere in Revelation.

The next phrase, “look with your eyes and hear with your ears,” is found in 1 John 1:1: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” (NIV)

Both are opening lines, and both are regarding someone who is to pay attention on a subject that is important (John regarding his revelations, and Ezekiel regarding the measurements of the future second Temple).

The third phrase, “pay attention,” is the equivalent to “set your heart,” (Latin Vulgate). In 1 John 3:19, we find:

“In this we know that we are of the truth and in his sight shall persuade our hearts.”

A key expression, “house of Israel,” is something that would certainly solidify this position, but the only thing close is the tribes of Israel in Revelation.

If these linguistics have any credence, in my opinion this testifies to a date for 1-3 John between 70-90, versus the skeptical dating of 90-120. Since the author of Revelation and 1-3 John in this case would be the same, there is no need for the letters to go into circulation, but a date later than that of Revelation, under these circumstances would become unlikely.

Comments are much appreciated.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Intriguing as Revelation is, one particular description caught my eye:

Revelation 11:1: ‘I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.”’ (NIV)

Now, for non-preterists this is simply the third temple, but what has to be understood that this is the same man that Ezekiel meets in Ezekiel 40:1-4.

The one and only thing that the mysterious man in Ezekiel says to him is found in 40:4: ‘The man said to me, “Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears and pay attention to everything I am going to show you, for that is why you have been brought here. Tell the house of Israel everything you see.”’

The first phrase in that sentence, “Son of man,” as an address to Ezekiel is used by John in Revelation as well (1:13, 14:14). Although 1:13 addresses Christ, his description “as one like a ‘Son of Man,’” as well as 14:14 which is an explanation and correspondence of Daniel 7:13 (which in itself attests to a post-gospel authorship as Jesus acknowledged Daniel’s tribulations in them), shows that this phrase was reserved for the righteous, or very holy people, among which to John Ezekiel would certainly qualify as one of the major prophets. The rest of the phrases in the sentence aren’t found anywhere in Revelation.

The next phrase, “look with your eyes and hear with your ears,” is found in 1 John 1:1: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” (NIV)

Both are opening lines, and both are regarding someone who is to pay attention on a subject that is important (John regarding his revelations, and Ezekiel regarding the measurements of the future second Temple).

The third phrase, “pay attention,” is the equivalent to “set your heart,” (Latin Vulgate). In 1 John 3:19, we find:

“In this we know that we are of the truth and in his sight shall persuade our hearts.”

A key expression, “house of Israel,” is something that would certainly solidify this position, but the only thing close is the tribes of Israel in Revelation.

If these linguistics have any credence, in my opinion this testifies to a date for 1-3 John between 70-90, versus the skeptical dating of 90-120. Since the author of Revelation and 1-3 John in this case would be the same, there is no need for the letters to go into circulation, but a date later than that of Revelation, under these circumstances would become unlikely.

Comments are much appreciated.

The Scofield Bible dates Rev. at 96 AD, as do many other authors & commentators who could by no means be called sceptical.​

I can’t decide whether Rev. was written by the author of the Gospel, or not - the two books have a great deal in common, but there are arguments on both sides. If John was martyred with his brother James by Herod - which is an ancient tradition, & one to which the Gospel seems to point - someone other than the Apostle would have to be the author of Revelation & of the Johannine gospel.

There are indications that Rev. was, at least in part, written about 70: give or take 42 months. I don’t think it is necessary to insist that none of it was written later or even earlier. There is a lot of room for very various proposals on the matter.

 

[123rock]

Thank you for your response

90-96 for Revelation is the near-universal date for Revelation. It’s the epistles of John that are in question. Regarding the Gospel of John, I don’t know whether it had the same author as the epistles and Revelation, and I don’t believe that traditionalism requires it.

The argument against Johannine authorship of the epistle and Revelation is the prophecy by Jesus in Matthew 20:23 where He foretells the martyrdom of both John and James.

The arguments are indeed plentiful, but I haven’t found the time to examine a lot of the skeptical literature out there. If, however, GoJ and the epistles have the same author, then the Gospel of John cannot have a date later than 75-80 AD.

 

[Nita]

…If John was martyred with his brother James by Herod - which is an ancient tradition, & one to which the Gospel seems to point - …

The argument against Johannine authorship of the epistle and Revelation is the prophecy by Jesus in Matthew 20:23 where He foretells the martyrdom of both John and James.

The tradition concerning John’s death that I’ve always heard is that he was the only one of the apostles to die a natural death - altho an attempt was made to martyr him which failed.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
… With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle’s banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian’s testimony (De praescript., xxxvi), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Porta Latina at Rome without suffering injury. After Domitian’s death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.

Nita

 

[NotWorthy]

I can’t decide whether Rev. was written by the author of the Gospel, or not - the two books have a great deal in common, but there are arguments on both sides. If John was martyred with his brother James by Herod - which is an ancient tradition, & one to which the Gospel seems to point - someone other than the Apostle would have to be the author of Revelation & of the Johannine gospel.

What tradition says this? I understood that John was the only Apostle who did not die from martyrdom. I’ve even read where John was rumored to live until the second coming of Christ (which folks thought was anytime soon), and that he was not going to die.

Also, James, the brother of John is not the James, the bishop of Jerusalem, who was killed in Jerusalem. Am I talking about the same James?

There are indications that Rev. was, at least in part, written about 70: give or take 42 months. I don’t think it is necessary to insist that none of it was written later or even earlier. There is a lot of room for very various proposals on the matter.

There is strong evidence to support that Revelation was written during the time of Nero (circa 70AD), rather than Domitius (circa 94 AD). The Christian persecutions under Domitius paled in comparison to those of Nero’s. I don’t think Christians would have called these a time of Great Strife, compared to the reign of Nero.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What tradition says this? I understood that John was the only Apostle who did not die from martyrdom. I’ve even read where John was rumored to live until the second coming of Christ (which folks thought was anytime soon), and that he was not going to die.

Also, James, the brother of John is not the James, the bishop of Jerusalem, who was killed in Jerusalem. Am I talking about the same James?

We have:​

• James “the greater” - son of Zebedee, brother of John. both asked to drink of the same cup as Christ; & to be seated at His right & His left. This James is the one “killed with the sword” in Acts 12, c. AD 44
• James “the less” - brother of Jesus, & did not at first believe; author of the NT letter of James; mentioned by Josephus as being stoned to death in AD 62; traditionally said to be the first bishop of Jerusalem; this is the James who is exalted in the “Clementine Recognitions”
  So there you are ##

There is strong evidence to support that Revelation was written during the time of Nero (circa 70AD), rather than Domitius (circa 94 AD). The Christian persecutions under Domitius paled in comparison to those of Nero’s. I don’t think Christians would have called these a time of Great Strife, compared to the reign of Nero.

Strong, but not necessarily decisive for the entire book. For John to be exiled to Patmos is easier to believe if it took place under Domitian, than if it happened about 30 years earlier. Though it’s true that early Christian literature(inc. NT books) of uncertain date tends to gravitate to the reign of Domitian. OTOH, as you say, the persecution under Domitian is a rather pale affair compared to that under Nero; it may have been an episode of Jew-baiting, & not been an attack on Christians at all​

 

[lak611]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The book of the Apocalypse was written in the midst of this storm, when many of the Christians had already perished and more were to follow them (St. Irenæus, Adv. Hæres., V, xxx). Rome, ‘the great Babylon’, ‘was drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus’ (Revelation 17:5, 6; 2:10, 13; 6:11; 13:15; 20:4). It would seem that participation in the feasts held in honour of the divinity of the tyrant was made the test for the Christians of the East. Those who did not adore the ‘image of the beast’ were slain. The writer joins to his sharp denunciation of the persecutors’ words of encouragement for the faithful by foretelling the downfall of the great harlot ‘who made drunk the earth with the wine of her whoredom’, and steeped her robe in their blood.” newadvent.org/cathen/05114b.htm

Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The author of the Apocalypse calls himself John. ‘John to the seven churches which are in Asia’ (Ap., i, 4). And again, ‘I, John, your brother and your partner in tribulation . . . was in the island which called Patmos, for the word of God’ (i, 9).

The Seer does not further specify his personality. But from tradition we know that the Seer of the Apocalypse was John the Apostle the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple of Jesus. At the end of the second century the Apocalypse was acknowledged by the historical representatives of the principal churches as the genuine work of John the Apostle." newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

Gottle of Geer (which has still got to be one of the coolest names on these forums - along with “Iambic Pen” ),

OK, now that we have James figured out… Yes, James and John were told that they have to be willing to drink of the same cup which Jesus did.

But that still does not explain your statement about early tradition said that John was martyred. All the early tradition I’ve heard claimed that John was the only Apostle to die of old age.

Early Christians began to wonder if John was not going to die at all.

P.S. And I miss that cool stained glass window you used to have in your signature.