The Apocalypse of John, by Charles C. Torrey

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The second reason, found in early Christian tradition, seems to give support to the first, but the support is negligible. Originating with Irenaeus (second half of the second century), the well-known legend spread abroad concerning the later years of the Apostle John: Banished by Domitian to the island of Patmos, he wrote there his Apocalypse. On the death of the tyrant he left the island and returned to Ephesus, the scene of his former activities, and continued to labor there under the emperor Nerva and into the time of Trajan. This is reported by numerous Church fathers, the ultimate source in every case being the statements of Irenaeus. The latter believed St. John to have been the teacher both of Polycarp and Papias; the belief resulting, apparently, from his confusing the apostle with the presbyter. The story is worthless, as is now generally understood.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

A third reason offered for dating Revelation later than the reign of Galba is the following. Charles, I, xciv (see also Moffatt), Introduction [1917], p. 507), makes Polycarp say in his Letter to the Philippians, xi, that the church of Smyrna did not exist in A.D. 60-64; and thereupon draws the astonishing conclusion from the contents of the letter in Rev. 2:8 ff. that it can have been written "hardly earlier" than the year 75! In fact, Smyrna must have been evangelized very soon after Ephesus, see Acts 19:10, 26; that is before the year 60. After the church had been in existence for a year, or even less, such a letter as that in Revelation could have been written at any time. Polycarp, moreover, is misquoted. He is merely complimenting the Philippian church on its very early reputation. He refers expressly to the beginning of Paul's Epistle (Phil. 1:5), and adds: We, the church of Smyrna, did not exist at the time when you of Philippi were already praised by Paul, as he went about among the earliest of his churches (referring to Phil. 4:15 f.).

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

It appears from the preceding survey that there is no valid evidence, external or internal, connecting the Apocalypse with the reign of Domitian. The one fact, already mentioned, which for many years past has seemed to preclude from consideration any date earlier than Domitian's time, is the literary relation to the Apocalypse to the Gospel of Matthew. The Apocalypse must be put at least a decade later than the Gospel, which has been conveniently dated some years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus. Now, however, that it has been demonstrated that the Gospel was composed and published in Aramaic, probably about the year 50, the one valid reason for rejecting the date (the reign of Galba) given by the author himself in 17:10 is removed.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

A strong reason for accepting the date of Domitian's reign for the composition of the Apocalypse of John seemed to be given by Salomon Reinach's combination (Revue archéologique, sér. III, 39 [1901], 350-74, reprinted in Cultes, mythes, et religions, 2 [1901], 356-80) of Rev 6:6 with Domitian's edict of the year 92 concerning the regulation of crops. However, this is just the sort of edict that might be given out by successive rulers. It is anonymous as it stands in Revelation, and Domitian was not necessarily the first to have made such an edict. The fact also remains that the author of Revelation himself said that he was writing in the days of "the sixth emperor," i.e., Galba.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The positive indications of an early date are numerous, definite, and all pointing to the same time. Conspicuous among them is the fact that this Christian writing could make the express claim to be included in Jewish holy scripture. We have seen (see chapter in Documents), "Gospels in the Synagogue") that the Nazarenes made this claim in their Aramaic Gospels. The Hebrew-Jewish faith was the religion of a written revelation. Its authority was in God-given scripture. Every document in its sacred library was written by an inspired prophet (Moore, Judaism, I, 237-40). Every important epoch in Hebrew history had its authorized record. All this inspired scripture was called "prophecy," nᵉḇûʾāh, in Greek translation prophēteia. Prophecy ceased with Malachi, but it was renewed "in the last days." The appearance on earth of the long-predicted Messiah must of course have its own documents, the divine attestation. The Christians pointed to their written testimony, based on scripture and renewing it. The line of the prophets, they said, had been broken off in the past, but it was now restored; inspiration was again possible, and it had produced it new "prophecy" (ibid., p. 244).

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The Apocalypse of John plainly belongs to the period in which Jews and Christians still lived together, while the status of the latter in the Jewish body was that described by the late G. F. Moore as "a conventicle within the synagogue, rather than a sect" (ibid., p. 90). The Nazarene Jews were still accepted as though on probation. They worshipped in the temple and in the synagogues like the others, and were faithful in their observance of rites and customs of Judaism. They were free to lead the prayers and to bring in their scriptures for study. No one was forbidden to listen to them. They had no new doctrine; even in regard to the Messiah their teaching was only what had long been taught in Jerusalem. They were simply loyal Jews who had accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the long-promised Messiah. It was their belief that he had appeared on earth in the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius in the person of the Man of Nazareth; that his life and especially his death were in obvious fulfillment of holy writ; that he returned from death to life and was taken up to heaven, whence he would soon return to earth in power and glory, to judge the world and thereafter to reign in Jerusalem.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

According to the representation of our Apocalypse, the Christian Church is made up exclusively of Jews. They are all members of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (7:3-8; 21:12). Of the convert from the Gentiles more was required than the mere profession of Judaism. It is plain that at this time the multitude of the Jewish people who could recognize no divine Messiah in the son of a Galilean carpenter wished to live peaceably with the Nazarenes, since by virtue of greatly superior numbers they had the matter in their own hands. While waiting for further developments, the two parties found that they could work together in more than a semblance of harmony, and the attitude of Jewish authorities was tolerant. Although a note of triumph sounds throughout our Apocalypse for the great gains which had been made, it was not only the Nazarenes who felt that the tide had turned and that a happier day was close at hand. Decades had now gone by, and the Orthodox Jews felt greatly encouraged by the lapse of time without event. It was just the time for Ben Zakkai's courteous and conciliatory rely to the claim of prophetic inspiration. Of especial historical interest is this ruling of Johanan ben Zakkai, that the (Aramaic) writings of Ben Sira are not inspired scripture; the plain implication being that by some Jews in good standing they had thus been ranked. In the Gospels themselves inspiration is simply taken for granted, inasmuch as they are the written witness to the advent, the words and deeds, the death and resurrection, in fulfillment of scripture, of the Jewish Messiah. In the Revelation of John, on the other hand, there is the definite assertion of "prophetic" activity, as has been seen. Since this reply of Johanan ben Zakkai appeared at about the time of the publication of Revelation, the reasonable supposition is that it was with reference to the Apocalypse of John that the reply was made. (See "The Aramaic Period . . .")

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

All this time Jewish Christians, with Aramaic as the literary language of the Church, had continued the major part of the Christian community. They applied to themselves literally the title which Paul uses symbolically in the Epistle to the Galatians (6:16): "the Israel of God." This title, precisely, is demanded by the author of the Apocalypse. He and his brethren throughout the Christian world at that day were the true Israel, and he is severe against those who profess to be Jews, but are not worthy of the name. They "say that they are Jews, but are not" (2:9, 3:9). They "blaspheme" against the divine Messiah, the Son of God.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Toward the end of Ben Zakkai's leadership, hostility to the Christian heresy became more and more determined and bitter. This was partly due to the catastrophe of the year 70, out of which the Christians made capital, and still more to the exasperation caused by the heretical mission to the Gentiles. When Gamaliel II became president at Yabneh, in the year 80, he caused the curse on the Christians to be inserted in the daily prayer, the Shemone Esre. This proceeding, in part a reaction against the mildness of Johanan ben Zakkai, marked an important turning point, a decisive change. Theoretically the Christians and their scriptures were henceforth excluded from the Synagogue.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

At this later time, when the separation of Church from Synagogue had become complete, the fact was increasingly irksome to the Church and its leaders that for so long a time there was no apparent distinction between Jews and Christians. The fact was misleading, and the decision was made that it should be dropped from sight and memory. See "The Aramaic Period . . . ," pp. 214-218 [posts #15, #16, #17, #18 #19, #20].

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Since our Apocalypse was composed at the time of greatest harmony between Jews and Christians, it was inevitable that it should have been thought of as composite. Much of its material, including entire chapters, contained nothing specifically Christian. After the separation of Church and Synagogue, attempts were very naturally made to mark off definite portions as Christian or Jewish; lines of cleavage could be found when search was made for them.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

There is very little likelihood that a Christian document intended for the Church in general would have been composed in Aramaic after the war under Titus. The Gentile converts were already very numerous. They could not read Aramaic, while on the other hand the Jews could understand Greek. Moreover, both during and after the war the Jews must have destroyed systematically every Christian Aramaic writing they could lay their hands on. They had both the power and the authority to do this.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Also, a writing persistently claiming canonicity would naturally be put forth when there was still some prospect that the claim would be admitted. After the year 80, when the Christians were officially made anathema, the pretension would have been a mockery.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The claim to be Jewish holy scripture is made impressively at the very beginning of the book, at its end, and in several other places. 1:3, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that keep the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein." 22:19, "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part in the tree of life." See also 19:10; 22:7, 10, 18. This is written prophecy, and the Jewish theological term נְבוּאָה.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:

From the fact that so much of the book is concerned with the future, near and remote, one might think of interpreting the words as prediction. On the contrary, it is expressly defined, more than once. It is not prediction but testimony, sᴐhᵃḏũṯᴐʾ, marturia; testimony to two things: the word of God (i.e., the Hebrew scriptures), and the Messiahship of Jesus; see 1:2, 9; 20:4. More than this, it is inspired testimony. In every one of the passages which speak of the "witness" it is expressly declared to be by divine inspiration, directly given as in the days of the Hebrew prophets; see 1:1, 2; 10:7; 19:9 f.; 22:6, 16. John renews the line of their succession, with a like commission: 10:11, "Thou must prophecy again over many peoples and nations and tongues and kings" (also 7:9); cf. Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:4, 10; Exek. 2:3! The Hebrew prophets are John's "brethren" (19:10, 22:9. They all bore witness to the Messiah, and in 19:10 "the spirit of prophecy" is said to be "the testimony to Jesus."*

*This phrase, "the spirit of prophecy," is repeated, for its importance, in the closely similar passage 22:6-9, but a misreading of the Aramaic word נְבוּאָה (see the note on verse 6) has changed it to "the spirit(s) of the prophets."

To be continued...