|
Post by kjs on Nov 6, 2019 14:11:59 GMT -6
As most people are aware -- there are MANY, MANY Bible Versions (or early translations) Some in Greek, Some in Syriac.
Peshitta, (Syriac: “simple,” or “common”), Syriac version of the Bible, the accepted Bible of Syrian Christian churches from the end of the 3rd century ad. The name Peshitta was first employed by Moses bar Kepha in the 9th century to suggest (as does the name of the Latin Vulgate) that the text was in common use. The name also may have been employed in contradistinction to the more complex Syro-Hexaplar version. { SOURCE}
One interesting component of this Syriac Version is that it contains an "introduction" to the Book of Revelation. {Note: most scholars do not deny the introduction found within this version; what they deny is when this introduction was inserted within the text.}
Here are two translations of this introduction to the Book of Revelation -- note both translations come from the 5th century -- which further implies that IF the introduction was added at a later time -- it had to have happen before the 5th century.
Murdock Syriac (5th Century) The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor."
Etheridge Syriac (5th Century) THE REVELATION WHICH WAS MADE UNTO JUHANON THE EVANGELIST, FROM ALOHA, IN PATHAMON THE ISLAND, WHITHER HE HAD BEEN CAST BY NERO CAESAR.
Summary of what both the above translations are saying..... John the apostle, was exiled on Patmos, under the reign of Nero, before the fall of the church of Laodicea in 61-64 AD to an earthquake.
Source about Earthquake These three cities {Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis} were destroyed sometime between 60 to 62.
NOTE: Many scholars who use the early dating of Revelation (ie. sometime in 60's) try to push a Preterists Agenda ... I on the other hand - am NOT into Preterism but consider myself closer to the dispensationalism side.
AND I HAVE NO Problem with the earlier dating of Revelation......
Found this entire topic interesting and thought to throw it out for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Nov 6, 2019 15:19:05 GMT -6
I find it rather important as this would put Rev written before the fall of the 2nd Temple. Therefore, some of the vision witnessed by John could included this aspect..
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 6, 2019 17:32:25 GMT -6
I find it rather important as this would put Rev written before the fall of the 2nd Temple. Therefore, some of the vision witnessed by John could included this aspect.. Never considered that!
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Nov 6, 2019 17:49:45 GMT -6
Those pushing a Preterists Agenda....
Highlight the existing temple (for John to measure in his vision) as well as it defilement.
They also delight in pointing out that Laodicea was destroyed in the early 60's (as early as 61 or as late as 64) -- and there would not have been a "church" to receive the letter addressed to it
if Revelation had been written in the 90's (as most western Christians believe)....
Both of those items raise interesting questions....
But my biggest (or what has caused me to keep searching) concern -- HOW IN THE WORLD did not one single text / scripture in the NT -- mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70AD ?
That would have been BIG NEWS -- so why does the NT not mention it?
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 6, 2019 18:39:06 GMT -6
So, I did a quick search...there was still a church in Laodicea long after 60 AD. An earthquake did do a lot of damage to the city but it didn't disappear.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 6, 2019 18:58:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 6, 2019 20:46:33 GMT -6
So, I was doing more searches...
Ran across someone who also wondered why nothing was written about the Temple destruction. Could John's Gospel have been written earlier than when most think?
He uses John 5:2 that talked of the collanades that would have been destroyed. John wrote as if they were currently there.
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 6, 2019 23:02:53 GMT -6
So, I did a quick search...there was still a church in Laodicea long after 60 AD. An earthquake did do a lot of damage to the city but it didn't disappear. As I recall, it is frequently and common usage to indicate the Church of the time, not by a building, but by the group of people in a geographic location. Certainly some of the 'church of laodicea' would have survived the earthquake? Nevertheless, the temple destruction not being mentioned in the NT is an interesting thought...
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 7, 2019 9:20:59 GMT -6
From what I read, from a couple different places, the city was heavily damaged from a earthquake in the 60s AD, refused Roman assistance to rebuild but they did rebuild. The city flourished until hit by another earthquake in the 5th century. There was even a Council of Laodicea held in the 300s. They voted to leave Revelation out of the Canon. Wonder why? When saying no one wrote about the Temple destruction, are we talking before or after? If all the books were indeed written before then yes it wouldn't have been mentioned unless as prophecy...and Jesus tells them it is going to be.
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Nov 7, 2019 10:23:01 GMT -6
Is not John writing the recollection of events of Jesus? Then the pool would have been there.
Also, we must remember that media back then is not the same as media we have of today. The important thing to those authors was getting the account of God In the Flesh and those fulfillments, and the eye witness accounts of Jesus, not so much what geo-poilitcally was the themes of the day, other than to make note of who was reigning or who was in a high position.
We don't get the details of the Roman rulers or the arrangements the jewish leaders had with the Roman empire, etc etc. We get names, but we have to search other historical accounts to get a picture of the people of the day. We don't get an account of a siege building up or the like in re: to Jerusalem. The focus of the NT was the New Covenant for mankind, and what it means to overcome and the spreading of the Good News to the nations. I don't view the NT as a geo-political account, but a Spiritual/Fulfillment of Scripture/LIFE application account. After all that is where we rest our Hope even with earthquakes or wars or famines going on around us.
According to the one Bible I have it says the Book of John was written about 85 AD. Then for his epistles, it says they were written 85-95 AD in Ephesus, BEFORE exile to the Isle of Patmos. Flat out question, when was John exiled? bing search says 94 AD
Paul & Peter died before the Temple fall, right? they would not have mentioned the temple since they were killed before the insurgence.
John seems to write more in regard to the Word that became Flesh than the others, and I wonder his focus was just that, because he had that ability to write about the spiritual aspects. Perhaps to him that was what was important to him than any of the physical things of the world. He seemed to want to portray our Lord in that personal relationship sort of way.
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Nov 7, 2019 10:55:10 GMT -6
According to the one Bible I have it says the Book of John was written about 85 AD. Then for his epistles, it says they were written 85-95 AD in Ephesus, BEFORE exile to the Isle of Patmos. Flat out question, when was John exiled? bing search says 94 AD Paul & Peter died before the Temple fall, right? they would not have mentioned the temple since they were killed before the insurgence. Yes, MOST scholars (and websites) of today place the writing of Revelation in the 90's -- but that "introduction" seems to contradict those views.
I believe Peter dies before Paul and I believe there was an additional trip of Paul over to Spain....
Early Church Tradition says that Peter probably died by crucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of the Great Fire of Rome in the year 64.
The exact details of St. Paul's death are unknown, but tradition holds that he was beheaded in Rome and thus died as a martyr for his faith. His death was perhaps part of the executions of Christians ordered by the Roman emperor Nero following the great fire in the city in 64.
The Apostle John died of natural causes around aged 93–94 - place unknown, traditionally assumed to be Ephesus, Roman Empire in around 100AD.
History says Jerome made the following comment --
The blessed John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus until extreme old age. His disciples could barely carry him to church and he could not muster the voice to speak many words. During individual gatherings he usually said nothing but, "Little children, love one another." The disciples and brothers in attendance, annoyed because they always heard the same words, finally said, "Teacher, why do you always say this?" He replied with a line worthy of John: "Because it is the Lord's commandment and if it alone is kept, it is sufficient."
So it appears only John survived after the "Fall" in 70AD
|
|