Timeline for What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2014 at 1:23 | comment | added | Tau | @majnemɪzdæn No, I didn't realize it. Those mainline churches who do use it, usually interpret it through an Idealist view, and stop at chapter 4. | |
| Dec 5, 2014 at 21:22 | comment | added | Dan | @Tau I see your point, and with the latest edit, you gladly have my +1 :) - also, did you know Revelation is still not read aloud in Eastern Christian churches? | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:28 | history | edited | Tau | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
remove 'unqualified' statement
|
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:11 | comment | added | Tau | @majnemɪzdæn Preterists 'claim' St. Augustine as their spiritual 'father', who I admit did put wind in their sails, yet their stance didn't crystalize until the Jesuit de Alcasar, and Hugo Grotius. Modern Critical scholarship arrives at the same conclusions; except they discredit the Book of Daniel(saying it was penned in the 2nd Century BCE by a Jewish scribe) and by doing so, remove any continuity between Daniel and Revelations. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 20:55 | comment | added | Tau | @majnemɪzdæn There was never a complete consensus in the early church, even after the Councils. The point is when St. Jerome authenticated it, and translated it into the Vulgate, it became de-facto canon, and has survived every challenge since. My last statement on Preterism and Modern Critical scholarship is a tease, which I can remove if you should so desire; as it begs another question(why?) which is beyond the scope of the original one. The point being-Preterism "has to make it so" seeing any conclusion after 70AD throws their arguments out the window-and we can't let that happen! | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 16:28 | comment | added | Dan | I'm torn on this, I want to upvote it and downvote it at the same time! I think it's a good answer, right up until the last statement: "The argument of canonicity of Revelations did not really come into play until Preterism, and the advent of Modern Critical scholarship made it an issue in the 17th and 18th centuries." You've offered no support for this statement, and from my historical readings, it's false. There was considerable controversy about the book, so much so that it was not read in the early churches, thought to be a Montanist work by some (and still rejected by Nestorians). | |
| Nov 29, 2014 at 7:07 | comment | added | Tau | @Bloch The meat of your question, the linguistic comparisons, I apologize for not answering, as I'm not a linguist. I know Rick Renner does an amazing job in his analysis | |
| Nov 29, 2014 at 7:02 | comment | added | Tau | @Bloch The best we have are the Patristics, who verified and accepted the writings of John at Patmos. Short of the author coming in and taking the stand, they were as sure about the authenticity of Revelations as they were about any other New Testament document, and perhaps more so, as the writings occurred later and John was able to confer to those who also were prolific in their writings. As I inferred in my last statement, it's only modern day skepticism that has blemished this otherwise straightforward rendering of canonicity, | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 23:38 | comment | added | Bloch | Thank you. To be clear, I understand from this that all the branches of Christianity that accept BoR accept that Apostle John authored the locus solum on Patmos (Rev 1:9 names the island as the place of revelation) as an epistle to Ephesus (per Rev 2:1, which does not actually entail that the writing also happened on Patmos) in Greek (so we can infer that Apostle John wrote or dictated Greek) during the period of his confinement by Domitian on the island. Which is in fact a very detailed sourcing, an outlier in the opposite direction. | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 19:11 | history | answered | Tau | CC BY-SA 3.0 |