Why The Book of Revelation Was Written

[TimothyH]

I agree with TimothyH’s take on this.

I would also add that the churches John wrote to were written in the order you would arrive to them along the Roman road system in Asia Minor. And it starts with the closest church opposite the isle of Patmos. The same order he addressed them in the book.

I point this out because some people wonder why all the major episcopal sees were left out (Rome,Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem). In my opinion, the choice of churches is simply a function of his exile, and these were the churches that were closest to him geography wise.

I have heard that the seven churches were on a circular postal route.

My understanding was that John was an Archbishop or “Superapostle” and that there were Bishops at each of the churches. Antipas was one such Bishop and is mentioned in Revelation 2:12. He was martyred for his refusal to worship the emperor - burned alive on the altar in one of the emperor’s temples.

-Tim-

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I have heard that the seven churches were on a circular postal route.

My understanding was that John was an Archbishop or “Superapostle” and that there were Bishops at each of the churches. Antipas was one such Bishop and is mentioned in Revelation 2:12. He was martyred for his refusal to worship the emperor - burned alive on the altar in one of the emperor’s temples.

-Tim-

I think both Timothy and John have ties to Ephesus. But Timothy is considered its first bishop. Interestingly, Ephesus is where the original copy of John’s gospel was venerated for many years until at least the 4th century. It is also the city where Mary was said to be under John’s care (at least for a time). Since Christ himself charged John with the care of his mother, it is likely that he did not engage in as much dangerous missionary activity as the other apostles until after Mary’s assumption. So IMHO its not surprising to me if he did not establish himself as the founding bishop of one of the cities.

 

[patrick457]

I think both Timothy and John have ties to Ephesus. But Timothy is considered its first bishop. Interestingly, Ephesus is where the original copy of John’s gospel was venerated for many years until at least the 4th century. It is also the city where Mary was said to be under John’s care (at least for a time). Since Christ himself charged John with the care of his mother, it is likely that he did not engage in as much dangerous missionary activity as the other apostles until after Mary’s assumption. So IMHO its not surprising to me if he did not establish himself as the founding bishop of one of the cities.

Ephesus is really John’s city. There’s a strong ancient tradition linking the Johannine writings (the gospel of John, 1-3 John) to Ephesus, and John’s tomb was (supposedly) located there.


St. John’s tomb in Ephesus. The tomb is actually a system of underground chambers, one of which lay directly beneath the altar.


The basilica where the tomb is enshrined, now in ruins (it was destroyed by Seljuk Turks when they captured Ephesus in 1090).

There was actually a legend among later Christians that John did not really die; either he was sleeping inside his tomb or that his tomb was found empty (cf. John 21:20-24). The thing is, from Eusebius (quoting the 3rd century author Dionysius of Alexandria) we learn that there were two tombs or rather, ‘memorials’ claimed to be John’s in Ephesus - the one in the Basilica of St. John is just one of them. This actually led Eusebius, who thought that the author of the gospel of John and Revelation were two different people, to infer that these were actually the burial places of the two Johns: John the Apostle and John the Presbyter/Elder.

But it’s probably more likely that either (1) one of these memorials was a rival site that only came into existence later (a modern analogy would be the rivalry between the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb); (2) one of these two memorials was actually not a tomb but the site of John’s house; or - IMHO the strongest theory of the three - (3) that John’s remains were moved from their original resting place to a new site (the underground vaults over which the basilica was later erected), but the original tomb was still venerated, which explains why there were two memorials. Theory (3) thus explains the origin of the legend of John’s tomb being found empty: it’s a garbled memory of the translation of John’s relics. (There was also a legend about John ordering that his grave - here envisioned as a pit dug in the ground - be dug in the shape of a cross: this can be explained by the fact that the catacombs underneath the Basilica of St. John were roughly cross-shaped.)

 

[steve53]

Ephesus was at somewhat of a crossroads of east and west and a major tourist and commercial center in the ancient world. It had the amazing Temple of Artemis and was Athens-like in its tolerance for religions and ideas.

So it is not unusual for the Christians to have a church there, and it is not hard to imagine opportunistic ancient Christians promoting John as much as they could to the Christian tourists (“John lived here…was buried here…worshiped here”). Throw in a connection Mary and possibly a cottage industry developed. Much of the information on John coming out of Ephesus should probably be questioned.

Patrick- the last paragraph on a couple of your posts show up as very small type. Why?

 

[patrick457]

Ephesus was at somewhat of a crossroads of east and west and a major tourist and commercial center in the ancient world. It had the amazing Temple of Artemis and was Athens-like in its tolerance for religions and ideas.

So it is not unusual for the Christians to have a church there, and it is not hard to imagine opportunistic ancient Christians promoting John as much as they could to the Christian tourists (“John lived here…was buried here…worshiped here”). Throw in a connection Mary and possibly a cottage industry developed. Much of the information on John coming out of Ephesus should probably be questioned.

Patrick- the last paragraph on a couple of your posts show up as very small type. Why?

That was on purpose. Seems to me you don’t really believe in the ‘John was in Ephesus’ tradition. Care to tell us your reasons as to why?

 

[steve53]

Well, we have to go with Eusebius on this one.

I was referring to accounts of knowing where his tomb was, and where he worshiped.

Interesting, however, that by all accounts his Gospel was written in A.D. 85, after the crushing of the revolt.

But there is nary a reference to it- in fact, John ends with a very surreal passage about fishing on the Sea of Galilee.

That suggests that the Gospel we refer to as John was written before A.D. 70 like the other books of the NT.

Could John the Evangelist be one of the great frauds in history?

Just to speculate- maybe he discovered the manuscript late and adopted it as his own.

 

[Mintaka]

steve53, you have two different arguments there.

1. “I think the Gospel of John was written before AD 70, because of a lack of explicit references to the fall of Jerusalem et al.”
2. “I think every single person who knew the Apostle John, from old people to toddlers, all died off in some horrible way, and therefore some strange random guy was able to pass himself off as an apostle without anybody ever figuring it out.”

What you usually see is some argument whether the Apostle John (who allegedly died very old, but really not that old for modern times) was or was not the same guy as John the Presbyter (whose nickname means “old guy” or “elder/priest”). Since people in Ephesus thought they were the same guy, and since that’s where each name was recorded to have lived, I’d say they were probably the same guy.

Then you have the argument about whether the guy who wrote the Gospel of John (which is seen as very poetic Greek) is the same guy who wrote Revelation (which is seen as very weird Greek). But if Bob the scribe was helping with one, and John was writing the other himself under the stress of a vision and harsh punitive conditions, you could very easily get different effects from the same author.

 

[steve53]

I’m not arguing anything.

Just speculating.

Was John the Evangelist the young aristocratic priest who was taken with both Jesus and John the Baptist? Was he the one who provided the room for the Last Supper? Provided a haven for the Christians in the weeks after the Crucifixion? Followed Jesus back to Jerusalem after he was arrested by the mob? Let Peter stay in the courtyard of Caiaphas? Was present when Jesus was crucified?

 

[patrick457]

I’m not arguing anything.

Just speculating.

Was John the Evangelist the young aristocratic priest who was taken with both Jesus and John the Baptist? Was he the one who provided the room for the Last Supper? Provided a haven for the Christians in the weeks after the Crucifixion? Followed Jesus back to Jerusalem after he was arrested by the mob? Let Peter stay in the courtyard of Caiaphas? Was present when Jesus was crucified?

I think you’re basing too much speculation on a single source that claimed John was a priest - Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (189-98).

In Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and moreover John, who was both a witness (martys) and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate (petalon). He also sleeps at Ephesus.

To be fair, we don’t know just in what sense Polycrates considered John to be a priest here. Does it refer to the Jewish priesthood or the Christian priesthood? Does his reference to the ‘sacerdotal plate’ (sometimes translated as ‘mitre’; petalon is the same word used in the Septuagint to refer to the golden plate in the high priest’s headgear; Exodus 28:32/36) mean that he thought John was actually the high priest? More importantly, is this supposed to be historical or metaphorical? (It doesn’t really help here that Polycrates confuses Philip the Evangelist of Acts with the apostle.)

You also have to consider the context in which Polycrates makes this claim. He was writing to the bishop of Rome defending the practice in his area of celebrating Easter on the same day as the Jewish 14th of Nisan - no matter what day of the week it fell (Quartodecimanism). His claim of John wearing the high priestly headgear (which could symbolize the apostolic authority John had) could be read as his trying to enhance his own position regarding his celebration of Easter on 14 Nisan by invoking the authority of John.

Some even say that the ‘John was a (high) priest’ idea may ultimately come from a Christian interpretation of a passage in Acts (4:5-6), which speaks of a John among the high priestly family: “On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.” It was common Jewish and Christian exegesis to lump together people who share the same name into one figure. (Look at all the different Marys in the gospels; sometimes early Christians conflated many of these Marys together. Also the Zechariah who was murdered in the temple with Zechariah the father of John the Baptist.)

It’s true that John (the author of the gospel), if we are to identify him as the unnamed beloved disciple, does seem to have priestly connections or at least had some knowledge of the goings-on among the priesthood (he was known to the high priest, he seems to have knowledge of people like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, he mentions the high priest’s servant’s name and also the fact that one of those who questioned Peter was the servant’s kinsman, his account of Jesus’ trial before the high priest has more verisimilitude than the synoptic versions, etc.), but that’s really all we know. Anything else beyond that is speculation.

In Christian tradition, other people who are claimed to be high priests include the prophet Simeon (Luke 2:25-35 - this could have arisen due to the conflation of this Simeon with Simeon the son of Clopas, second bishop of Jerusalem and successor of James ‘brother’ of Jesus), John the Baptist’s father Zechariah, and James Jesus’ brother. But compared with these other three, the sources which refer to him in (high-)priestly terms are very few and sketchy.

 

[steve53]

I think you are being a naysayer here, Patrick.

When in the first century was anyone referred to as a Christian PRIEST?

If John can be assigned all those roles, he would be one of the most fascinating men in history.

And SOMEONE had to play those roles. Why not John? Jesus had his influential supporters in Jerusalem- that’s why Caiaphas moved so quickly to get rid of him.

And no other Gospel quotes John the Baptist. That John does suggests that it was a first-hand encounter.

 

[TimothyH]

We are way off topic but I need to correct a misstatement about scripture.

John the Baptists is quoted in in all four Gospels. This is easily verifiable by opening the Bible and reading the text.

Scripture speaks of “accurately handling the word of God” and we must always strive to do so. We owe nothing less to God.

-Tim-

 

[patrick457]

I think you are being a naysayer here, Patrick.

When in the first century was anyone referred to as a Christian PRIEST?

Correction: Polycrates lived in the late 2nd century. Supposing you are to take his words as referring to the Jewish priesthood, his mention of John wearing the petalon (identifying him in the role of the high priest, not just an ordinary priest) really puts the historical accuracy of his claim into question - unless you are to suppose that either Josephus’ record of the high priests is not complete or that John was another name of one of those mentioned by Josephus or that John substituted for the reigning high priest during one Day of Atonement. But that still wouldn’t answer the question: why is Polycrates our only source that claims it - a hundred or so years after this John’s lifetime? Wouldn’t it have been more widespread?

It’s one thing to observe that the author of John’s gospel (or the sources of the author’s tradition) belonged to or had connections with Jerusalem priestly circles; it’s another to claim outright that John historically held the office of high priest - which is what you’ll get if you read Polycrates literally.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

When in the first century was anyone referred to as a Christian PRIEST?

A bishop is everything a priest is but with episcopal authority. So naming bishops is naming priests.

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,* to be bishops and deacons *of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."
Pope St. Clement Epistle to Corinthians - 42, 44. (~98 AD)

"Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the ** bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons,* and may my portion be along with them in God!" *
St Ignatius of Antioch - Epistle to St. Polycarp of Smyrna (~AD 100)

 

[steve53]

Correction: Polycrates lived in the late 2nd century. Supposing you are to take his words as referring to the Jewish priesthood, his mention of John wearing the petalon (identifying him in the role of the high priest, not just an ordinary priest) really puts the historical accuracy of his claim into question - unless you are to suppose that either Josephus’ record of the high priests is not complete or that John was another name of one of those mentioned by Josephus or that John substituted for the reigning high priest during one Day of Atonement. But that still wouldn’t answer the question: why is Polycrates our only source that claims it - a hundred or so years after this John’s lifetime? Wouldn’t it have been more widespread?

It’s one thing to observe that the author of John’s gospel (or the sources of the author’s tradition) belonged to or had connections with Jerusalem priestly circles; it’s another to claim outright that John historically held the office of high priest - which is what you’ll get if you read Polycrates literally.

I think you are being too persnickety here.

The High Priest’s position was outlawed after the revolt, along with the whole concept of the High Priesthood and their attendant rituals.

This would have been after A.D. 70.

So to pin Polycarp saying that John the Apostle was a HIGH Priest is silly- there are probably translational or transcription issues to blame.

There were thousands of Jewish priests who served the Second Temple- Josephus being one of them. They were likely pre-selected with their training being complete at the age of nineteen. An honorable profession for a wealthy aristocrat.

In John, Nicodemus interacts with John the Baptist conversationally- a young John could have been along for the meeting. A far cry from what the Synoptic Gospels have to say about the Baptizer.

Assuming a crucifixion date of A.D. 36, and John gaining fame in A.D. 28, the young John the Evangelist might have been born in A.D. 18-20 or so. In A.D. 100, early in Trajan’s reign, John would have been 80. This is a very “doable” age in ancient times, as Josephus documents Holy men living into the 100’s commonly (the Essenes).

 

[TimothyH]

In John, Nicodemus interacts with John the Baptist conversationally

Where? What chapter and verse. I don’t believe it.

Nicodemus interacts with Jesus conversationally in John 3. Nicodemus interacts with the Pharisees in John 7. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea take down Jesus’ body in John 19. Those are the only three times Nicodemus is mentioned in John’s Gospel.

This is the second time you have made incorrect claims about what Scripture says. Unless you can provide a chapter and verse reference I really have to insist that you stop. It’s like you are just making stuff up.

-Tim-

 

[patrick457]

Steve, it’s Polycrates, not Polycarp.

“[T]o pin Polycarp [sic] saying that John the Apostle was a HIGH Priest is silly- there are probably translational or transcription issues to blame.”

Two things. Polycrates wrote that John was “a priest who wore the petalon.” That’s his claim. It might be ‘silly’, but that’s what Polycrates said. Nobody is saying we should accept his words as historically accurate.

Also, you can’t really just ascribe everything to “translational or transcription issues” unless you can back it up. (In other words: please explain why you think this passage from Polycrates suffers from said issues.) It’s true that the word petalon (literally ‘leaf’; cf. the English word ‘petal’) is open to a number of possible meanings, but if we’re talking in the context of the Jewish priesthood, it can only mean one thing: the golden plate on the high priest’s headgear with “Holiness to the LORD” engraved on it. Ergo, “a priest who wore the petalon” = high priest.

http://www.maranathamrc.com/Images/image058.jpg

I think the problem is that we’re not really talking about the same thing here. Let me sum up what I’ve said:

(1) It’s possible (not 100% certain) that the author of John’s gospel (or the sources of the author’s tradition) belonged to or had connections with Jerusalem priestly circles.
(2) Does that automatically mean the author of the gospel - let’s call him ‘John’ for convenience - was a priest, or at least, had connections with priests? Maybe, maybe not. We have no way of knowing the actual fact, because aside from this inference we really have no firm evidence for or against it.
(3) It’s true that Polycrates bishop of Ephesus claimed a John, “who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord” to be (high) priest, but you cannot really count it as proof that ‘John’ (i.e. the author of the gospel) was historically a priest. Polycrates’ quote has enough problems as it is to be a sure proof of that.

The problem is much of your post are speculations based upon an assumption. You take for granted that ‘John’ was historically a Jewish priest and construct what you said based on that assumption.

 

[steve53]

Points well taken.

Heck, it’s all speculation based on assumptions. And of course some assumptions are more reasonable than other assumptions.

And certainly in the Gospel of John we see Nicodemus talking to John the Baptist, but let’s do some speculation on that. In those days, I would venture that no one of wealth and position ever traveled alone. That is especially if you went out into the wilderness from the relatively safe confines of Jerusalem.

And if Nicodemus had a guard with him, why wouldn’t he have someone like a young John- a priest who might have been very interested in John the Baptist?

 

[patrick457]

And certainly in the Gospel of John we see Nicodemus talking to John the Baptist, but let’s do some speculation on that. In those days, I would venture that no one of wealth and position ever traveled alone. That is especially if you went out into the wilderness from the relatively safe confines of Jerusalem.

And if Nicodemus had a guard with him, why wouldn’t he have someone like a young John- a priest who might have been very interested in John the Baptist?

Timothy pointed it out. Nowhere in John do we see Nicodemus talking to John the Baptist. What you have is:

• “Priests and Levites from Jerusalem,” either sent by the Pharisees or accompanied by Pharisees (depending on how you translate) talking to John (1:19-28)
• John speaking to an unspecified audience (1:29-34)
• John speaking to two disciples of his: Andrew and an unnamed disciple (1:35-37)
• John speaking to his disciples (3:25-30)

John the Baptist really only appears in chapter 1 and in chapter 3. I think you’re confusing the meeting of Nicodemus with Jesus (3:1-21) with the dialogue between John the Baptist and his disciples (3:22-30). One could try to identify Nicodemus as being one of the priests and Levites (and Pharisees) who meet John in chapter 1, but since he is not mentioned by name there, that’s just speculation.

 

[Mintaka]

Okay, here’s a question. Did Polycrates say “petalon” or “sacerdotal petalon”?

Because “sacerdote” can mean a Christian bishop, a Christian priest, or a Jewish priest, and I’m not getting which one is being said here.

 

[steve53]

Peter Kirby goes into this in apparent detail in his web site. I will post the link, then go back to it and read what he says about it.

Interesting subject.

peterkirby.com/johns-priestly-petalon-in-polycrates.html

Great blog.

final paragraph on the subject:

The resolution of this difficulty leads us to the hypothesis that this John was both a Greek elder in the city of Ephesus and a Jew by birth from a priestly family, something that would finally explain all the data including the similar indications regarding the John who wrote Revelation. Because there is independent evidence of its existence through the comments of Eusebius and Jerome regarding a second funerary monument to John the elder in Ephesus that is visited by Christians but does not clearly regard John as the evangelist and apostle, a hypothesis that identifies Polycrates’ source with the funerary inscription of John the elder meets the requirement of Ockham’s razor. - See more at: peterkirby.com/johns-priestly-petalon-in-polycrates.html#sthash.TdvNqzQ0.dpuf