The Apocalypse of John, by Charles C. Torrey

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

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

Nevertheless the Apocalypse was committed, without peradventure or proviso, to the doctrine, and this not merely in the passages which have thus far been quoted. The Apocalyptist, in his certainty that the end of the present order was close at hand, saw in Nero redivivus the human instrument in the divine punishment of Rome. The coincidence could not be accidental. There is accordingly in 17:12, 16-18 a very impressive prediction, on divine authority, that Nero, with assistance which is described in some detail, will return to Rome and wreak his vengeance on the city.

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:

A second pseudo-Nero made his appearance in Parthia, as already mentioned, probably in the year 79, for his career was ended in the reign of Titus (79-81). He was eager to lead a Parthian army against Rome, and the Parthians found it convenient to encourage him for a time. The incident made a stir in the empire, and Tacitus (Hist., I, 2) tells us that Rome was near to mobilizing against Parthia because of it. Nothing came of the matter, however.

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:

Inspired in part by this event is the famous passage in the Sibylline Books predicting the return of Nero to Rome with the aid of the Parthians. The lines occur near the end of Book IV, which seems to have been finished about the year 80. The following is an abridged translation of the relevant lines between 119 and 139.

"Then from Italy a great king shall flee unseen, unheard of, across the Euphrates [year 68]. Many for the throne of Rome shall dye the ground with their blood, when he has fled into the Parthian land [year 69]. A Roman captain shall burn Jerusalem's temple [year 70]." Here follows mention of the great eruption of Vesuvius in the year 79. Then to the west shall come the strife of gathering war, and the fugitive from Rome, brandishing a mighty sword, crossing the Euphrates with many myriads." This was written, presumably, in 79 or 80.

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:

It is possible that there is no literary connection between this passage and Rev. 17:12-18, but the contrary supposition seems much more probable. The author of Sib. Or. IV was a Jew who wrote in Egypt, and these things are true also of the author of Book V, which was completed in the second century. Book V, near the beginning (lines 33 f.), treats the redivivus legend as actual fact, and in line 147 repeats the tale that Nero fled to Parthia. Now it is known that this Book makes direct use of our Apocalypse. The passage portraying the doom of "Babylon" (Rome!), lines 162-78, is plainly based on chapter 18 of Revelation; and when in line 143 we are told that Nero's flight "from Babylon," we can be in no doubt as to the source of this pseudonym. The Apocalypse had evidently made a strong impression. The supposition then has everything in its favor that Book IV also made use of it. The Sibylline combination of Rev. 17:12 ff. with the Parthian Nero of the year 79 accounts perfectly for the passages above quoted from this book.

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:

By the year 79 (the year of Vespasian's death) the people of the eastern provinces would doubtless have ceased to look for a returning Nero if the pretender in Parthia had not renewed the excitement; and the fiasco of his career made them the more certain that the fable had nothing behind it. Circumstantial reports from Rome had at length convinced the majority that Nero did not escape. By the time of Domitian the legend was really the "joke" (ludibrium) which Tacitus terms it.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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

The idea that a fleeing Nero would take refuge in Parthia was very natural; how early it arose there is nothing to indicate. The pretender of the year 69 does not appear to have heard of it; at all events, he made no claim to have Parthian support. Nor is there any trace of it in Revelation, which has a very different scheme, more naturally imagined, of Nero's return and conquest of the doomed city. He obtains his support inside the Roman empire, not outside. Nevertheless, the stubborn conviction that the book must be dated near the end of the first century, combined with the impression made by the Sibylline writer's confident prediction, outweighed all other considerations, so that during the past fifty or sixty years, at least, it has been the accepted conclusion of most scholars of the critical school that Revelation takes account of Parthian affairs. All the most important commentaries, textbooks of introduction, and other treatises, state the supposed fact without a query.

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:

Charles, 2, 81, offers a good example; he writes: "The Jewish source lying behind Rev. 17:12-17 . . . predicts the destruction of Rome by the Parthians under the leadership of Nero. . . . This expectation of a Parthian invasion of the West is explicitly stated in 16:12." This is now the standard interpretation, and it is a remarkable example of blind exegesis. Whoever will return to chapter 16 and read the whole passage, verses 12-16, will see that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Rome, nor even with "the West," unless Palestine is to be included in that geographical term. This is Armageddon, not a campaign of Parthian satraps. The city which "the kings of the whole word" are gathering to attack is Jerusalem, not Rome. Nor is Parthia present in the picture except by inclusion, as one of many eastern kingdoms. Here is the favorite scene, so often depicted, shown again momentary in 19:19, when "the kings of the earth" (Pss. 2:2, 48:4, 110:5, Isa. 24:21, 45:1; Enoch 56:6; etc.) make their final onslaught on the holy city. The way is made clear for a speedy and complete assembling, and the river which would halt the approach of the far-eastern kings is dried up.

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:

The (now prevailing) exegesis of the other passage mentioned, 17:12-17, is equally perverse, for it is excluded by the plain words of the writer's picture. We are asked to see here "the destruction of Rome by the Parthians under the leadership of Nero." We see indeed the avenging return of Nero and the devastation of the city, but the Parthians are not present at all. Daniel's ten horns are here, and we learn from verses 12 f., 17, that in this case they represent 10 vassals of Rome, who in return for their help in reinstating the Beast are to receive as their reward, after the capture of the city, independent kingdoms. They and the Beast, thereafter, are to exercise their evil authority "for one hour." When Rome has been destroyed, Nero will resume his frightful work of persecution in the name of "the great tribulation" (7:14―see Dan. 12:1, Mark 13:19).

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 is all Nero: his slaughter of the Christians in Rome, the memory of it still fresh; the prospect of redoubled cruelty and violence on his part after his return; the requisition soon to be instituted in his name throughout the world.

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:

Charles, in his article on Revelation in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, maintains that in the absence of any edict against the Christians in Nero's time, the persecution during his reign was not directed against the Christians as such, and that it was not until the time of Domitian that the conditions of such persecution were realized. Nero's horrible work was caprice, but in the face of the Church's tradition and all human probability it seems fruitless to maintain that the Christians did not know why they were being slaughtered. There is no thought of any other persecutor than Nero, no allusion to the circumstances of any other time than his. This does not, indeed, fix the date of the book, but it makes extremely plausible its claim to have been written in the time of the emperor whose reign immediately followed that of the Beast. It now becomes a question of positive indications of the early date.

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 is first necessary, however, to inquire why it is that by scholars of the present generation the Apocalypse is assigned, with hardly a dissenting voice, to the reign of Domitian. It was not so in former years. Swete, pp. xcviii-c, notes how "the great Cambridge theologians of the last century," Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort, held the book to be a unity and assigned it to the time after Nero's death and before the destruction of Jerusalem. Many of the foremost German scholars of the same period were in essential agreement with this dating, as is well known. The evidence seemed to permit no other conclusion.

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:

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:

There are indeed very obvious reasons why the Apocalypse should now seem to call for drastic alteration, for it cannot be made to fit into the present scheme of New Testament dogma. If the church in its beginnings was mainly Gentile and opposed to Judaism, this Book of Revelation can hardly be understood. It is very plainly a mixture of Jewish and Christian elements, and the hope of effecting a separation of the two naturally suggests itself. It is, however, a perfectly futile dream, as the many attempts have abundantly shown. Every chapter of the book is both Jewish and Christian, and only by very arbitrary proceeding can signs of literary composition be found. The trouble is not with the book, but with the prevailing theory of Christian origins.

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 this theory, moreover, the Apocalypse as it stands is chronologically impossible. It makes unquestioned use of the Gospel of Matthew (see above, p. 10), and yet professes to come from a time about a decade earlier than the date ordinarily assigned to that Gospel. This chronological difficulty, then, has also seemed to necessitate the dismemberment of the book. The Apocalypse as a whole and in its final form, it is said, must be dated near the end of the century; the portions which are manifestly early must be regarded as excerpts from older works. Hence further analysis. In seeking a time of composition of the book only the reign of Domitian could be considered; even though, as has been seen, no internal evidence of any sort points clearly to this date.

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 first reason, then, for the now accepted dating of the book is its incompatibility (as it stands) with the "assured results" of present-day criticism.

To be continued...