![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The first one was about Jerome relegating the Apocalypse to a second class. I checked the source, and it was an encyclopedia. I got the encyclopedia, found its information, and all it said about Jerome on the Apocalypse was: "An exceptional position was taken up by Jerome, who, under eastern influence, relegated the Apocalypse to the second class of scripturae ecclesiasticae (in Ps. 149)..." So I removed the encyclopedia middle-man and changed the reference to "Jerome's homily on Psalm 149". I will get the homily later and verify or remove the wikipedia sentence on Jerome.
The second one was about the 1st Council of Hippo. The wikipedia page used more wishy-washy language that made it appear as if the Council was against the Apocalypse. Rather, only dissenters were, and the Council affirmed it. So, I removed the statement about the Council, since it was irrelevant. Glorthac ( talk) 03:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that someone recently deleted a paragraph, and one of the reasons given was that it did not contain a (secondary) citation, which prompted me to share a few thoughts on the use of citations.
I can't help thinking that we often try to be too clever for our own good in theological articles on Wiki. We throw in all of these obscure citations (some of which no self-respecting theologian would want to be associated with), and we forget, or perhaps don't realize, that the highest form of citation is that of the primary source, which in this case is Revelation itself. A quote from a primary source is worth two or three from secondary sources.
This is not to say that secondary sources aren't valuable. However, just because something is published doesn't make it worth quoting, or even accurate, and we have to be careful that we don't use citations in a way that might be misleading to people who are not acquainted with Revelation and its issues. Some of our readers (and some of our editors too, I think) don't realize that a secondary citation is just an opinion, no matter how well-informed that opinion may be.
Finally, it is not necessary to provide a citation from a secondary source to illustrate every single point. To expect this is to impose an unreasonable burden on writers/editors. If a statement is both reasonable and can be supported by the primary text, it is perfectly acceptable, even without a secondary citation. If a secondary citation can be added, so much the better, but the lack of one is not a cause for deletion. -- gdm ( talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the dating section. It pays far more attention to the minority, early-date view than to the predominant view (c 96).
Here's the undue weight policy: "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views."
Leadwind ( talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the Modern views section. Notice how many words are devoted to the mainstream scholarly view (first paragraph), and how many words are devoted to older, minority views (three other paragraphs). For NPOV reasons, it's important to give each viewpoint an amount of coverage proportional to its notability. Minority views should be secondary. Leadwind ( talk) 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently the Composition section includes an "Introduction" subsection. Instead, the Introduction should be discussed elsewhere, where the article discusses the content, probably under the "structure" section. Leadwind ( talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The Characters section is an excellent place to avoid contentious interpretations and simply build out the article with good information about the content of Revelation. I started, but there's plenty of room for folks to add a sentence or two for each character. Leadwind ( talk) 13:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I liked this introduction. It flowed and made sense (unlike many if not most other wiki articles). One suggestion for improvement: Include something about John in the introduction. I liked the definition of the word "revelation", something similar regarding John would be useful. The John that wrote "Revelations" can be confused with "John the Baptist". It would just be a good idea to establish something of his identity, what his relationship was to Christ, etc... to provide some context for the rest of the article. ````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 ( talk) 04:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to start a new section entitled Old Testament Origins of Revelation. This seems a useful topic and it is one which has spawned a small and manageable research literature in recent years. My plan is to have an opening part which discusses the theories commentators have developed, then a section going through each chapter of Revelation (actually it will probably be possible to group the chapters) and show the interesting uses to which John puts his sources. Anyway; that is the plan at present! All are welcome to add to and amend it as it goes along. Coxparra ( talk) 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I shortened the "Modern Views" section significantly. However, I still think paragraphs 2-4 shouldn't even be there in the first place. I think this because paragraph 1 is about the '3 John's theory', while paragraphs 2-4 are about a 'Redactor of Revelation' theory.
If you like how I've shortened the article, say so, so we can remove that dumb "undue" thingy. Glorthac ( talk) 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add (but don't know how to go about it yet) this translation of some lines from Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals to Criticism: "By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that enthusiastic amorous gospel—: there is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for this purpose)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.110.88 ( talk) 17:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There is too much space given in the "Modern View" section. Besides not representing the views of all modern people, every single person that wrote about the Book of Revelations shortly after it was written said it was written by John the Apostle. And why is the "Traditional View" called "Traditional" anyway? The basis of the book being attributed to John the Apostle is based on ancient writings, including by people that actually knew John. These are eyewitness accounts, not "traditions." A tradition is putting up a Christmas tree each year. Do you people not even know the difference between an eyewitness account and a tradition? The "modern" view seems to based on a very subjective view of writing style, which seems to be based on nothing. Use of the words "traditional" and "modern" makes the article biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydeman ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The summary of the breaking of the third seal currently given in the article reads as follows:
"Third Seal: A black horse appears, whose rider has "a pair of balances in his hand", where a voice then says, "A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine." (6:5-6)"
This is misleading because the actual coin named was the Denarius, which was equivalent to an entire day's wages for most laborers of the time, rather than a Penny#Value, which, in addition to not being a type of coin that was extant of the time that the book of Revelations was written, is also effectively worthless (this includes British pennies, to which the translation in question refers) and therefore completely reverses the meaning of the quote.
A more accurate translation would be: "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 ( talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Said "It remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church": it's true but I'm afraid if it misleads readers this book may be read in a certain other office (Matins, Vespers, etc). IIRC and as far as I heard it's never read in any liturgical prayer. Can anyone have a source which can give a more specific description? -- Aphaia ( talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC) :P.S. In my mother language source I found a comment "some phrases are taken from The Book of Revelation in liturgical services" (unfortunately no examples were given there) so it seems to meat we retain this part as is. -- Aphaia ( talk) 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
First, the quotation did read "It is the pidgin Greek of someone who appears to know exactly what he is about[to say]". The original in fact reads "...what he is about and whether...." Needless to say, as anyone familiar with idiomatic American English knowing 'what you are about' and knowing 'what you are about to say' are thoroughly different things, so I'll assume the restoration of the quotation to the former is uncontroversial, though noting it here anyway. The other issue is that for some reason the quotation and its companion are sourced to a random text ('Do You Know Greek') rather than the book they are actually from. This seems particularly strange as google has enough of the book to allow me to have checked the above quotation so there is no barrier for someone wanting to give the right page citation even if they do not have the book. I have left this unchanged in case there is some reason for citing a book which - judging from the title - is an introduction to Koine rather than the book the quotations were originally published in, even named in the body. I'd urge something with greater 'ownership' of the page to make the necessary change - I'm really just a passer by so don't want to step on toes needlessly. 94.193.220.27 ( talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
In the Section Academic Interpretations of the Article it reads: "The eventual exclusion of other contemporary apocalyptic literature from the canon [...]"
Can someone provide examples of "other contemporary Apocalyptic literature" which was not included in the canon, and cite apart from which these pieces of literature were, when they were rejected by the church, and which churches in particular (i.e. synod of Nicaea), etc.? Also, if you happen to make this addition or change to the article I would greatly appreciate a personal message, as a reminder to help me with current research. ____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The footnote for this statement, under 'Literary structure', leads to www.carm.org, a "Christian apologetics" site, where we find this text: "About The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry CARM is a 501(c)3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God. Check out the Navigation Bar on the left to see what CARM has to offer." Not sure we have a reliable source here, and the claim is certainly somewhat novel. -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
User Zytigon has added a reference to some 2007 criticism by Robert Price at the beginning of this section. I don't know enough to know whether Price's criticism is significant enough to be included. It's not clear why he should be included, unlike Jefferson, Martin Luther and George Bernard Shaw, who are quite well known. If this reference is included, there should be some context as to why it is included. Also, the section could use some reorganization. After the Price reference, the next paragraph starts out with a 19th Century critic, but the same paragraph includes Jefferson, Friedrich Engels & George Bernard Shaw. The next paragraph discusses Martin Luther's views on Revelations.
What is the organizing principle? If nothing else is available, it could be placed in chronological order.
Finally, it appears that Zytigon has added the following to the end of the section:
What is its relevance to the criticism section? The sentence should probably be deleted. Ileanadu ( talk) 01:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. Skinrider ( talk) 14:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the page for The Marriage Supper of the Lamb? There is a redirect to this page but no details are given. 99.0.37.134 ( talk) 14:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Saw this buried in the article & thought better to surface it here for any treatment: (comes after 3rd para in #Dating section)
Revert this if it messes with much. Manytexts ( talk) 11:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I created the page " Wrath of the Lamb" for the purpose of redirecting to this page and to note that it's also the massive expansion pack for The Binding of Isaac. Users SiefkinDR and Theroadislong have edited the article to remove the redirect warning at the top. Thoughts about this? Soffredo ( talk) 15:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
My objection was that it appeared like a promotion of a commercial product at the top of an article on a completely different subject. I agree with the above comment, why not redirect directly? SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Resolved -
Wrath of the Lamb now redirects to
The Binding of Isaac (video game)#Expansion instead of this page. However, {{Redirect}} is being used on that page now. Any further discussions should be brought to
Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game).
Soffredo (
talk)
19:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
From the beginning of the article: The Book of the Revelation of John, often referred to as the Book of Revelation or simply Revelation
This is incorrect.
The name of the book of Revelation is: The Revelation of Jesus Christ [1]. The book titles itself in the first chapter, first verse: Revelation 1:1 - THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisDWiki ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What is your source for the author of the book not having a title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.59.9 ( talk) 21:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm new here. The quote attributed to C.G. Jung in note 55 does not support its referrent, and I will try to explain why. (Sorry, but that "critics who deny" phrase looks so thin.)
Anyway, I think the article would be improved by removing that phrase and note 55, and possibly by bringing Jung back into the Interpretations section. (I'll try to make a separate note about that.)
Although Memories, Dreams, and Reflections is made up of Jung's writings and utterances, the book is not a planned, comprehensive or scholarly composition on par with his other published works.
The quote is not Jung's opinion of the spiritual value of the scripture, and so does not support the assertion that Jung might be included among "critics who deny any spiritual value to Revelation at all."
Here and throughout his writings, Jung is highly critical of mainstream theological tenets for what he perceived as a loss of true, inner religiosity through an over-emphasis on convention, rules of faith, the narrowness of which denies spiritual significance to visions, mystical experiences, prophecies, etc. He glibly avoids getting into the subject, not only because "no one believes in them and the whole subject is felt to be an embarrassing one..." (in other words, because the mainstream doesn't quite know how to handle Revelations), but also because he had recently (1952) and quite controversially treated Revelations' "transparent prophecies" in some depth.
Jung wrote at length on Revelations in the later chapters of his book Answer to Job. Whether one embraces his theses or not, Jung explicitly presents this scripture as spiritually valid, important, relevant, and valuable.
If Jung's thought on such things matters -- and obviously I think it does -- would it not improve this article to bring him in elsewhere? HudMcCoy ( talk) 00:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I also shortened the "Dating" section as well. There were points in the section that seemed as if they came directly from a book. Basically, I kept the main points of the section, and deleted all the unimportant details. Glorthac ( talk) 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This is in the lead. modern scholars are divided between the apostolic view and several alternative hypotheses which have been put forth in the last hundred years or so.<ref>Merrill C. Tenney, gen. ed. "Revelation, Book of the." ''Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.'' Vol. 5 (Q-Z). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.</ref>
This is hardly a reliable source, especially as Tenney died in 1985 and here he is editing a book 24 years later. Zondervan is a well-regarded only within Christian circles. Is there a historical-critical scholar who thinks that the author of Revelation wrote John? It's not an open issue in mainstream scholarship. To say that it's an open issue is misleading. It's only an open issue for those outside the mainstream. Leadwind ( talk) 16:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The full title of the book is "The Revelation of St. John the Divine", but at present, if one puts in a Wikilink to The Revelation of St. John the Divine, it will be red. Can some one please sort out things so that if one types that in, it gets redirected here? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be worhtwile expanding the article by mentioning ancient and modern interpretations of numerology and lexarithmic interpretations, i.e. how each letter is a number and Greek, and how the Emperor Nero's name itself comes to be the number 666 in Greek χ'ξ'ς (six hundred sixty six), or ςςς (six,six,six) as separate integers. I've come across various such interpretations, and perhaps they would be worthy of mention.
(And just for trivia's sake, i'd like to mention when you type ςςς in Greek, it is the equivalent of www, when you enter the internet, LOL)
____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This kind of statement is likely invalid. Who are the scholars? Is there really common ground on who the "scholars" are and are not? And who took the poll? What is the modern era? You start after the Renaissance? BTW, I agree with the date attached to the comment; but I think this kind of statement is not to be believed. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 00:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC))
The (short) name of the book in English is Revelation, not Revelations (an alternative is Apocalypse). ( EnochBethany ( talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC))
The interpretation section only explains the beliefs of various denominations in broad terms, like the Catholic Church teaches amillenialism. Well, DUH! I'd prefer for the interpretation section to explain the interpretations in detail, like: "The Catholic Church teaches the first seal and the Rider on the white horse as Christ who has conquered and is conquering through the Holy Spirit and His Church."
This is probably what people are coming to wikipedia to figure out, anyway. Who would only want to know something in broad terms? Glorthac ( talk) 18:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that many people who look to this source of information aim to increase their understanding of what possible interpretations of the final book of the bible means. Without providing some original thougt on this, there may be some who leave unedified and uneducated beyond their own interpretations of the deeply mystifying words meanings. Some phrases have deep meanings that aer not just leical, but historical, religiously repetitive, recurrent reincarnataions of previous prophecy nad other mysterious analogies. I would suggest that a page be created for each section that is being debated that they be ordered according to the schools of hought that are recognised and the area of Wikimedia's Blight: Original Thought to-Stamped-Out-Without-Second-Thought. Vision2020 ( talk) 02:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This secion of the bible is yet to be fulfilled and as such any written documentation is purely theory and orginal thought. We as editors and as reviewers of it can only make sure that the content is not plagiarised or ethically corrupt yet allow for new ideas to be promulgated that an educated mind might make a connection between a new thought and printed corroboration in a later edition of a new work in progress. We don't know what it means, but we can only guess and hope that the faith placed in those guesses be accurate to redeem the lost. Vision2020 ( talk) 02:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
An example of original thought might be the expansion of the measurements of a few verses describing the New Heaven and New Earth into an essay on possibilities that it therefore presents to the modern readers' mind. To this end I have created an unexpanded link to a non-existant page that maybe I might edit to expose such a flaw in the very design of extreme intolerance of Wikimedia reviewers' attitude towards original thought that cannot be copyrighted being placed on an open-source platform such as this. The complete lack of original thought on Wikimedia precludes it from becoming the foremost Original source of original work and therby becomes the foremost source of secondary (incomplete) work at best. The placement of original thought and source on Wikimedia means that it becomes the source and not a mirror and therefore the content becomes truly copyrighted as part of the point of the GPL 3.0 completely to fulfill its intentions. Just a thought for "Non-scientific, non-substantive and inconclusive" veins of personal/ professional research. Just a thought Vision2020 ( talk) 02:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Can we add to the section on 666 something like 666 is mentioned 2 other times in the bible
1 Kings 10:14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents
and
Ezra 2:13 13 The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.
because Solomons life is more focused on in the bible than Adonikams the verse 'number of a man' In Revelation 13:18 may be referring to king Solomon.
??? and what about a reference to this
A mosaic uncovered in 1991 shows an image of the Woman and Dragon motif mentioned in the Christian biblical book of the "Revelation" (of St. John_. It shows a woman about to give birth to a child as a dragon waits to devour it.
Themainman69 ( talk) 06:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The bit about 666 is self evident someone can open a bible in front of them and find the verse or look at a bible online. The bit about capernaum what about this
http:// www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/capernaum-synagogue.html A mosaic uncovered in 1991 shows an image of the Woman and Dragon motif mentioned in the Christian biblical book Revelation of St.John. It shows a woman about to give birth to a child as a dragon waits to devour it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Themainman69 ( talk • contribs)
Well because the 'number of the beast' is the 'number of a man (Solomon)' and beast is used as analogy in the book of Daniel for empire or kingdom which makes the beast an empire to do with Solomon. The previous empires in Daniel were in the middle east. Solomon lived on the same piece of land that is now Palestine/modern Israel and the jewish people in there today want to re build the temple.
-Solomon built the 1 temple. -The hexagram on Israels flag is also known as the seal of Solomon. -Modern Israel is 1 of the 2 beasts mentioned in Revelation 13. -The mark of the beast is the hexagram.
I think people should be warned about this. Themainman69 ( talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Jesus had no earthly biological dad Mary was conceived of the holy spirit (Mathew) Mary came from David not through Solomons (cursed bloodline) this is one of the reasons judaic religion people rejected him as messiah because he is not from Davids bloodline on the fathers side. Beast is analogy for empire. Solomon is not the beast he is the 'number of a man'.Hexagram appears on the capernaum synagogue which at latest was built 1700 years ago ( i think earlier). Star of david is not from 1 or 2 samuel (Davids life) hence is not biblical. Babylon the great in rev 17 and 18 is provably using only the bible Jerusalem.
I added a new talk section on the babylon wiki page check it out if you want if any christians here i will msg you a little thing i wrote on Israel/Revelation if you want.
Themainman69 ( talk) 06:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really happy with this section being in the body of the article, since it's just a portal to articles on persons and symbols. On the other hand, someone went to a lot of trouble to make it, and it does provide information that some readers might find useful. I think it would be better as a portal-template on the side of the article. I don't know how to make templates, but some other editor no doubt does. I'd like the views of other editors. 203.217.170.26 ( talk) 05:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, I keep forgetting to log in...) PiCo ( talk) 05:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues involving sources, specifically the Interpretations section. Is there anyone willing to source, or should I just remove the no source content. The article will be very short if I do, so is there any objections? --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII ( talk) 20:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I dislike the subdivisioning of the section Outline, is it conventional and citeable? I find it unnatural that Before the Throne of God immediately follows in the same division, Act I, as the messages for seven churches of Asia. There the Revelations changes character from a prophetic vision with clear messages to an extremely mystical apocalyptic hallucination from Messages to Before the Throne, where most of the meaning is fairly obscure.
Is the subdivisioning really conventional or an editors arbitrary pick? If it is conventional it should be sourced. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
That we use the typical English names for apostles, evangelists etc. all over the place is one thing, but do we really have to pretend that these are the names used in the Bible? The Bible didn't call anyone "John", the names used are Ιωάννης (Ioannes (with the 'e' pronounced like in "bed", but long), Latinized as Johannes) or יוחנן (Yohanan). 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E ( talk) 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This article needs to have a clear section that summarizes the modern consensus scholarly interpretation of the book and what the symbolism therein refers to. The article as it stands merely bombards its readers with a load of fantastic spins to the book that have been made in the last 2 millenia. It is crucial to explain FIRST what the book ACTUALLY meant by whoever wrote it, and then, we can have all the colourful ways subsesquent Christian groups intrepreted it. Its also quite difficult to find this info with an internet search, as google is invariably swamped by mindless nonsense put out by 101 churches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.227.163 ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The imagery in Revelations is so bizarre and fantastical that it is impossible to give a down-to-earth explanation of what it means. Everything seems symbolic, but there are countless ways of "de-coding" it, none of them "official". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 ( talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
86.176.227.163, I understand your frustration. While the article does contain some useful scholarly information, it seems to be dominated by a section on interpretation that is poorly organised and heavily weighted towards Christian denominational beliefs rather than scholarly literature. You can find bits and pieces of helpful information on the meaning of Revelation scattered through the article, particularly in section one (Composition and Setting) and in the embarrassingly short footnote devoted to academic views.
I would say there is broad agreement that the book addresses a situation of occasional or sporadic persecution in the cities of the Roman province of Asia Minor sometime in the last third of the first century CE. A battle for authority is clearly being fought between John and his followers who believe that Rome is about to be punished for her sins, and opponents who advocate a more integrated approach to Greco-Roman society (possibly Pauline). The author reinforces a belief evidenced in the gospel of Mark that the fall of Jerusalem signified Jesus' return was imminent. The main vision of the book starts with a vision of a crucified lamb in heaven and this in turn initiates the woes of the "last days" spoken of by the prophet Daniel (e.g. 12:1), a limited period of war and pestilence that climaxes in the activity of the beasts and the persecution of the faithful. The second half of the book clearly identifies the beast as the Roman Empire and the prostitute who sits on her as the city of Rome (the city on seven hills, the 'great city that rules over the kings of the earth, ch 17). John takes great delight in predicting her downfall, described in thinly veiled terms as the fall of "Babylon" (a designation for Rome used in other apocalyptic works of the period), and in anticipating exceptional rewards for Christian martyrs, the descent from heaven of a "new" Jerusalem, and the final resurrection of the remaining dead in a climatic judgment scene.
If you're interested in some helpful and accessible scholarly works, I would recommend Elizabeth Fiorenza's short commentary, Invitation to the Book of Revelation; Alela Yarbro Collins' The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation; and Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John, by Steven Friesen. -- Sineaste ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Revelation, and the idea of an impending Apocalypse, are "central" to some of the newer Protestant denominations, particular in the US, but are not "central" in the older mainstream denominations. There are many different ways of interpreting "The Kingom of Heaven is at hand" that do not involve the world blowing up. It can be translated as, "It is right here, but you just can't see it, because you're not looking." Revelation wasn't tacked onto the NT until 419, and it was a controversial move that many Christian theologians rejected. So how could it be "central" when it wasn't even there for four centuries? I didn't correct the sentence because someone would revert it. But it needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 ( talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Revelation is not central to the eschatology of the vast majority of Christians. It tends to be favored by fundamentalist, Protestant denominations with dogmatic views about end-of-the-world scenarios and timetables. However, the suggestion that it just popped up in the fifth century out of nowhere is a little silly. If no Christian groups had valued it over the preceding four centuries there wouldn't have been any debate about its inclusion in the canon and that inclusion would never have occurred. -- Sineaste ( talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose a phrase and internal link referencing the Biblical cosmology that this book illustrates. The focus is human destiny, but the context is cosmic. Church of the Rain ( talk) 13:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Not my original research see http://www.worldcat.org/title/imperial-cults-and-the-apocalypse-of-john-reading-revelation-in-the-ruins/oclc/5104725870&referer=brief_results as one source. Also http://www.worldcat.org/title/silence-and-praise-rhetorical-cosmology-and-political-theology-in-the-book-of-revelation/oclc/881180781&referer=brief_results Church of the Rain ( talk) 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA266/English/UNK1999/19110305e01.html
So that mankind can evolve further and get into the spiritual there's always men from time to time who're more advanced than is permitted by the momentary stage of human development, and who have things to tell us about states of human evolution that reach far into the future. Such advanced beings must exist to lead men further. John, the writer of the Apocalypse, was such a man. When he wanted to write a revelation of the future, he told himself: If I write this book out of the whole surroundings in which I'm living here and now it'll be influenced by the self that's in my body, since I'm connected with everything around and in me. I must free myself from all of this. He had to place himself on something like a rock that served him as a firm support, on which he didn't wobble and wasn't influenced by anything that surged around and in him. And he moved himself to the evening to 9-30-395, to Patmos Island, as the sun had already disappeared under the horizon, though its effect could still be felt, and as the moon and stars appeared. The Virgin constellation was there in the western sky, irradiated by the last gleam of the sun that had set, with the moon under it. This picture is reproduced in one of the seals — the virgin with the radiating sun and the moon under her feet. Thus, all of these seals were produced out of deep mystical connections. John broke through the cover that surrounds us in this one direction — that of Virgo. There are 12 of these signs. Seven of them are good — the ones reproduced in the seals; the other five are more or less dangerous. Just as John chose this particular point in time and space to become completely separated from himself and all temporal things around him, so a Rosicrucian pupil must acquire a firm foundation in himself. The best way to do this is to let theosophical teachings work on us. Our astral body and thereby our etheric body become expanded by listening to theosophical ideas. This is the effect on anyone who hears anything about theosophy But the effect on those who are inclined towards theosophy is different than on those who aren't. The former feel the etheric body's expansion and fill it up with theosophical teachings, by accepting them. The other feel an emptiness in their etheric body through its expansion because they don't accept these ideas and so don't fill the expansion. Then doubt and skepticism arise through this emptiness. Whereas with the first men, it's like a pouring of oneself into the universe, which they can't let go too far, for they'll get a feeling of hollowness, of not feeling at home in these widths of space, like a fish that's taken out of water and can't live in air, because its organs haven't adapted themselves to this changed element. When a theosophist devotes himself to the teachings and his astral body expands evermore, he loses himself in this unfamiliar element One must avoid drowning here. And this is possible if one studies theosophy seriously, takes it in, elaborates it, and grasps it with feeling, not just with thinking and will, but permeates it completely with feeling. One can only do this with great earnestness. One must gain a firm support within oneself — like John when he wanted to write the Apocalypse and he transported himself to Patmos Island at sundown of Sept. 30, 395. The configuration of the sun, Virgo and moon on that evening can be checked astronomically, and this was done. From this materialistic science draws the conclusion: Therefore the Apocalypse was written at that time. And then we're told that science has ascertained this. That's the way science ascertains things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.206.191 ( talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I have made a little change to Archangel Michael's name. Maymichael2 ( talk) 16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Um, no offense, but why is this page being depicting the Book of Revelation like a made-up story? Despite anyone's own personal views here, we have to acknowledge that some people do subscribe to this belief as divine truth (including myself). How can you expect anyone except cynics and atheists to refer to this as reliable if the page comes off as being written from an atheist or cynic point of view? I mean, there's actually a part that says that the book of Revelation has a "whole host of colorful characters" or something to that effect. That doesn't even seem like it takes the Book to be serious. I think people editing this page should avoid using levity, in the same way that Christian editors should avoid religion promoting or leaving out valuable details (this site is about trying to provide information, not take a stance on whether or not the Bible is a historical account); therefore they should treat each page with equal respect. They take other religious beliefs seriously, even those featured in myth and legend, and I think Christianity deserves the same respect. RandyS0725 ( talk) 06:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, although on the one hand it's my opinion that it is ludicrous to treat Revelation as anything but superstitious nonsense, we have to be NPOV as (inexplicably) large numbers think it's "divine truth". Having read through the article I think that, with 2 exception, it's pretty NPOV and balanced. (But I think a believer would find it difficult to distinguish between POV and NPOV when it comes to, for example, the Bible). The 2 exceptions are the "plot" and "characters" sections in "Literary Elements". Although I enjoyed reading these sections, they do come suspiciously close to ridicule. The Book deserves it, but it can't really be justified in wikipedia DeCausa ( talk) 01:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Because of Christian bias. Portillo ( talk) 06:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
There's as much reason to treat religious texts as nonfiction as there is Lord of the Rings. We know the books were authored by people (sometimes not the specific person, mind), depicting fantastical images and claiming future-sight not possible, and there is thus absolutely no reason to consider them true. Arguing otherwise is to display grotesque bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.181.134 ( talk) 03:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The last line in the authorship section reads:
"In her volume in the original Anchor Bible, J. Massyngberde Ford argues that the core of Revelation, chapters 4-11, was written by John the Baptist and later surrounded with a Christian beginning and ending.[13]"
Some quick Googling suggests that this viewpoint is held by a tiny minority, possibly even unique to Ms Ford. I think that the way it currently reads, this line gives UW to a fringe theory. It could also be considered OR, since the reference is to Ms Ford's publication and not a secondary source. I would propose deleting the sentence unless there is a secondary source citation. Bgovern ( talk) 05:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The article uses a source written and published by Kim Mark Lewis. That falls under WP:SPS and thus fails WP:IRS. A better source has to be found. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This article states that according to the end of Revelation of St. John the Divine Chapter 13 the number of the beast was 666, but it could also point out that some now believe this was a mis-translation and the number was 616, as a footnote in The Living Bible clarifies. Vorbee ( talk) 22:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
666 was Nero's numeric name in greek. 616 was Nero's numeric name in Aramaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.235.177 ( talk) 20:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object to moving the outline section to the end and re-formatting with the hidden template or something similar? Seraphim System ( talk) 08:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Would any
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Revelation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
In the "Source" section, you do not mention the hypothesis that the Book of Revelations (Revelation) contains ancient pre-Christian texts of Jewish origin dating from the time of John the Baptist and the communities of Qumran adn called "Embedded Jewish Texts" or "Ur-text" (nothing to do with the city of Ur).
Indeed, in several verses one can isolate the ancient text from the one attributed to John, the latter having just added in the original text some words like "Jesus Christ" (Rev 1: 1), "testimony of Jesus Christ "(Rev. 1: 2) or even" Jesus "(Rev 1: 9), occurrencies that we can find in dozens of verses across all 22 chapters.
Example of old embedded jewish text with additions between brackets (source: J.Tabor) :
Rev 1:1 The revelation [of Jesus Christ,] which God gave [him] to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
2 who testified to the word of God [and to the testimony of Jesus Christ,] even to all that he saw.
3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,
[5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,
6 and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.]
Rev 1:9 I, John, your brother who share with you [in Jesus] the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God [and the testimony of Jesus.]
etc.
Reference: read the following books and articles detailing this subject:
"Revelation (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)", J. Massyngberde Ford, Yale University Press, 1995
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rh/revelation_beasley-murray.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C933:2900:E069:529F:BD45:A3EE ( talk) 09:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
https://jamestabor.com/can-a-pre-christian-version-of-the-book-of-revelation-be-recovered/
https://jamestabor.com/here-it-is-at-last-a-pre-christian-version-of-the-book-of-revelation/ --
So I added a small reference to this hypothesis which is supported by several old texts --luxorion
From everything I have read and heard, the apostle John (son of Zebedee, same as author of the Gospel according to John) was the author of the book of Revelation. This is not a view held by just a few individuals, and the article seems biased in its interpretation of the facts. [2] is one example showing that it was indeed the apostle John. It is widely believed that John the apostle was exiled to Patmos. If the book was written c. 96 AD like many speculate, and the apostle John was born c. 6 AD, he would have been 90, but according to this site [3] it states that if you lived past 30, it was not uncommmon to die after 70, so John would have been old, but like in modern times, it would not be impossible. Finally, while many secular scholars believe the apostle John did not write the book, most Christians do, and Theologians would know more about this subject than secular scientists [4] Please take this into consideration, as the article should represent the most accurate and unbiased sources, and reconsider placing the apostle John as the author of the book. RSquier ( talk) 20:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
almost all theologians believe it was himis thoroughly bunk. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
John of Patmos offers some information about himself, but never claims to be John the Evangelist, John the Apostle, or John the Presbyter. The Authorship of the Johannine works has been debated for centuries, and it is unlikely that the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were written by the same person:
"Tradition links him to John the Apostle, but it is unlikely that the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition, the reign of Domitian, and the author never states that he knew Jesus. All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter. His precise identity remains unknown,[9] and modern scholarship commonly refers to him as John of Patmos [10] (Rev. 1:9 – "I was put on the Island of Patmos")." to say something more along the lines of "Tradition links him to John the apostle, and many christian denominations hold this belief, however, some scholars believe it is unlikely the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition..." By just changing the first sentence to something along the lines of what I wrote would show a more objective POV, without denouncing the fact that it may not have been him (as the main argument against his authorship is is age, 90ish) RSquier ( talk) 02:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Tradition links him to John the Apostle
References
See The Myth of Persecution and the TTC courses by Bart Ehrman: the persecutions against Christians have been greatly exaggerated. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I usually don't care to comment on this universal problem with religious articles and the so called "consensus" that is to be fulfilled in a Wikipedia context, but the section Title, authorship, and date is an extra vivid example. As a context, I'm currently investigating whether John of Patmos could indeed be the apostle of Jesus, and that they were both seditious Zealots. Snapshots:
Tradition links him to John the Apostle, but it is unlikely that the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition, the reign of Domitian, and the author never states that he knew Jesus.[7] All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter.[4][8][citation not found]
The section smells of wishful thinking, not of any objectivity. "The author never states that he knew Jesus" is proof by absense. Worse, next section:
Early Church tradition dates the book to end of the emperor Domitian (reigned AD 81–96), and most modern scholars agree, although the author may have written a first version after Nero's Great Fire in Rome (AD 64) under Vespasian (AD 69–79) and updated it under Domitian.[11][citation not found].
I know about the statement that it was written shortly after the death of Nero, from f.ex. Karl Kautsky, and that is exactly what I'm investigating. The text adhers to "consensus", but the participants in this "consensus" do not necessarily rely on facts or analyses, but are instead repeating a "consensus" based on a conventional mythos (which might, or might not be true), and the editors are reasoning on basis that such a "consensus" is academically valid, while pressing their personal opinions. That annoys me, something is wrong with Wikipedia rules in relation to religious topics. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There's no coverage in the article to mention those researchers, e.g. John M. Allegro, Benny Shanon, Carl A. P. Ruck, et al, who have proposed that John of Patmos' particularly fantastic visions (as well as those of others, including in other religions) were enhanced by the use of psychedelics, such as hallucinogenic mushrooms. Whether or not people agree with it, it would be POV to exclude any mention of it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Aside from citations and direct quotations, I have changed the phrase "Old Testament" to "Hebrew Bible" throughout this article for the following reasons:
— anthologetes ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Reverted. He drew from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible. It includes books which are not part of the current Hebrew Bible, which is based on the Masoretic Text. Dimadick ( talk) 18:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"The "Hebrew" in "Hebrew Bible" does not simply describe the language of the texts" Try reading the article on the Hebrew Bible. "The form of this text that is authoritative for Rabbinic Judaism is known as the Masoretic Text (MT) and it consists of 24 books". It excludes about 22 books that are part of the traditional Old Testament of the Christians (46 Books), and its versions of the Book of Daniel and Book of Esther are consideredably shorter. Dimadick ( talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm in agreement that Hebrew Bible (or, even better imo, Hebrew Scripture) is the more appropriate term, especially since the section is parsing information based on what John of Patmos had access to. "Old Testament" would be appropriate only in instances where modern interpretations of Revelation are compared with the current Old Testament, using the lens that the Christian canon changed how the books in the Christian Old Testament were viewed. As for the claim regarding the reservation of "Hebrew Bible" only for the Masoretic Text is a fallacy, although an understandable one. Many Jews lived well outside of Jerusalem for near plus 600 years by the time of John, and Greek had been the lingua franca for quite some time; so much so, that many Jews didn't even speak Hebrew, but Greek. Hence, they would have used the septuagint or similar available scripture in their studies. It wasn't called the "Greek Bible" or "Greek Scripture" just because it was written in Greek. - Trumblej1986 ( talk) 04:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The following is a perspective on the Book of Revelation by The Church of Almighty God (a.k.a. Eastern Lightning): According to the church, after the incarnated Almighty God (who is not believed to live forever on Earth) will have completed God's work on Earth for the last days, the catastrophes prophesied in the Book of Revelation of the Bible will come, in the form of earthquakes, wars and famines. However, "the Earth will not be annihilated, and the ones who are purified by God will be saved in the cataclysms of the last days, and will live on Earth forever."
Is the perspective eschatological or liturgical? Thanks for considering the possible addition to the entry. -- Lo Ximiendo ( talk) 05:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This article doesn't point out that the Syriac (Aramaic) version of Revelations has a title like this: "The Revelation that was on John the prophet from God on the island of Patmos, where he had been exiled by Nero Caesar". And Nero Caesar in Hebrew letters = 666. [1]. Here is a quote about this I just found (from Robert Young's Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible (1865)):
'It was written in Patmos (about A.D. 68), whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac Version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D. 175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, i.e. Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favour of the earlier date [... etc.]
It seems unusual that information about this original Syriac title is so difficult to find. Are there any translations of Revelations that refer to it? At any rate, it seems like it should be mentioned in the present article. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As stated in the article The Book of Revelation is the only apocalyptic document in the New Testament. It is NOT included in the Peshitta (an early Syriac translation of the Christian Bible) This seems to be confusing at least to me. Kazuba ( talk) 01:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Can Robert Young's concise Commentary on the Holy Bible (1865) be in error? Kazuba ( talk) 02:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article says "The Book of Revelation" and then says "often called the Book of Revelations". This is inaccurate. It should have said that the Book of Revelation is sometimes erroneously referred to as the Book of Revelations. The full title of the book is "The Revelation of Saint John the Divine". Vorbee ( talk) 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al Jilwah. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Al Jilwah (The Black Book of Satan). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
OFF-TOPIC! - This has nothing to do with the Book of Revelation and should be deleted. 2601:580:5:97A7:CD88:63F2:3031:FCF8 ( talk) 17:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I tweaked the opening with... This book prophesizes the return of the Christ who reveals great secrets through the "book/scroll sealed with seven seals" - Revelation 5:1. This event triggers great plaques, natural catastrophes, war and economic collapse... It ends with a vision of "a new heavens and a new earth" - Revelation 21:1. 73.85.203.141 ( talk) 16:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if this is out of place (I am a new user). As this article demonstrates, interpretation of scripture evolves. A body of Christian scientists have begun to interpret the "allegorical" passages in Genesis as primitive renderings of the paleontological record. Extending this to Revelation leads to an interpretation of the book as God's view of the struggle of redemption, beginning billions of years ago. Where do I go to argue that this view be included in this article? I am also sensitive to the charge of self-promotion, as the interpretation is fully developed only out at one of my blogs (www.love-returns.org). BrianBalke ( talk) 16:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Obviously I am sensitive to the issue of self-promotion, for I raised it. Are their specific guidelines on the matter? What if I did this: raised the issue of correspondence between paleontology and Revelation without reference to my site? And this is not entirely original research: there are reputable Christian scientists that have drawn parallels between the days of Creation and the paleontological record, and others that have drawn parallels between the golden bowls and the ecological disasters befalling us in the modern era. They could be cited, and the correspondence to Revelation posited as an extension of their ideas. The content would lay out the days of creation, the trumpets of Revelation, and the great extinction episodes known to paleontology. These are all facts that can be cited, unlike much of what else is posted on the topic, which is summaries of the opinion of writers working without reference to any material facts except the echo chamber they have generated. You understand my concern: that we be sensitive to the politicized context of the interpretation of scripture, and recognize and respect those that seek to place it on a firm evidentiary foundation. BrianBalke ( talk) 04:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Dimadick, I am referring to scientists that are Christians. Better known among them are people such as Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe and the Eco-Evangelicals. I myself am a Ph.D. particle physicist. BrianBalke ( talk) 04:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I want more informationor want to know more about Satan's and all about them... Janice Wu Qian ( talk) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This work has a Wikimedia compatible license as described at https://apocalypseanimated.com/about/
The artist is free-culture enthusiast Nina Paley, known for illustrating classical religion with contemporary cartoons. Right now I think the newest illustration in this article is the William Black art from about 1800. How would anyone feel about using one of the cartoons in this project anywhere in this article? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Partitioning the Bible into verses happened much later, after John of Patmos died. So it is quite anachronistic to attribute him patterns which became apparent only after the Bible was partitioned into verses. I don't know if such error could pass for scholarship at any major university, apparently Liberty University is not a major university, to say the least. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
Revelation of Christ and it has been listed
for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Revelation of Christ until a consensus is reached.
Veverve (
talk)
14:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The first one was about Jerome relegating the Apocalypse to a second class. I checked the source, and it was an encyclopedia. I got the encyclopedia, found its information, and all it said about Jerome on the Apocalypse was: "An exceptional position was taken up by Jerome, who, under eastern influence, relegated the Apocalypse to the second class of scripturae ecclesiasticae (in Ps. 149)..." So I removed the encyclopedia middle-man and changed the reference to "Jerome's homily on Psalm 149". I will get the homily later and verify or remove the wikipedia sentence on Jerome.
The second one was about the 1st Council of Hippo. The wikipedia page used more wishy-washy language that made it appear as if the Council was against the Apocalypse. Rather, only dissenters were, and the Council affirmed it. So, I removed the statement about the Council, since it was irrelevant. Glorthac ( talk) 03:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that someone recently deleted a paragraph, and one of the reasons given was that it did not contain a (secondary) citation, which prompted me to share a few thoughts on the use of citations.
I can't help thinking that we often try to be too clever for our own good in theological articles on Wiki. We throw in all of these obscure citations (some of which no self-respecting theologian would want to be associated with), and we forget, or perhaps don't realize, that the highest form of citation is that of the primary source, which in this case is Revelation itself. A quote from a primary source is worth two or three from secondary sources.
This is not to say that secondary sources aren't valuable. However, just because something is published doesn't make it worth quoting, or even accurate, and we have to be careful that we don't use citations in a way that might be misleading to people who are not acquainted with Revelation and its issues. Some of our readers (and some of our editors too, I think) don't realize that a secondary citation is just an opinion, no matter how well-informed that opinion may be.
Finally, it is not necessary to provide a citation from a secondary source to illustrate every single point. To expect this is to impose an unreasonable burden on writers/editors. If a statement is both reasonable and can be supported by the primary text, it is perfectly acceptable, even without a secondary citation. If a secondary citation can be added, so much the better, but the lack of one is not a cause for deletion. -- gdm ( talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the dating section. It pays far more attention to the minority, early-date view than to the predominant view (c 96).
Here's the undue weight policy: "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views."
Leadwind ( talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the Modern views section. Notice how many words are devoted to the mainstream scholarly view (first paragraph), and how many words are devoted to older, minority views (three other paragraphs). For NPOV reasons, it's important to give each viewpoint an amount of coverage proportional to its notability. Minority views should be secondary. Leadwind ( talk) 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently the Composition section includes an "Introduction" subsection. Instead, the Introduction should be discussed elsewhere, where the article discusses the content, probably under the "structure" section. Leadwind ( talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The Characters section is an excellent place to avoid contentious interpretations and simply build out the article with good information about the content of Revelation. I started, but there's plenty of room for folks to add a sentence or two for each character. Leadwind ( talk) 13:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I liked this introduction. It flowed and made sense (unlike many if not most other wiki articles). One suggestion for improvement: Include something about John in the introduction. I liked the definition of the word "revelation", something similar regarding John would be useful. The John that wrote "Revelations" can be confused with "John the Baptist". It would just be a good idea to establish something of his identity, what his relationship was to Christ, etc... to provide some context for the rest of the article. ````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 ( talk) 04:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to start a new section entitled Old Testament Origins of Revelation. This seems a useful topic and it is one which has spawned a small and manageable research literature in recent years. My plan is to have an opening part which discusses the theories commentators have developed, then a section going through each chapter of Revelation (actually it will probably be possible to group the chapters) and show the interesting uses to which John puts his sources. Anyway; that is the plan at present! All are welcome to add to and amend it as it goes along. Coxparra ( talk) 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I shortened the "Modern Views" section significantly. However, I still think paragraphs 2-4 shouldn't even be there in the first place. I think this because paragraph 1 is about the '3 John's theory', while paragraphs 2-4 are about a 'Redactor of Revelation' theory.
If you like how I've shortened the article, say so, so we can remove that dumb "undue" thingy. Glorthac ( talk) 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add (but don't know how to go about it yet) this translation of some lines from Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals to Criticism: "By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that enthusiastic amorous gospel—: there is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for this purpose)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.110.88 ( talk) 17:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There is too much space given in the "Modern View" section. Besides not representing the views of all modern people, every single person that wrote about the Book of Revelations shortly after it was written said it was written by John the Apostle. And why is the "Traditional View" called "Traditional" anyway? The basis of the book being attributed to John the Apostle is based on ancient writings, including by people that actually knew John. These are eyewitness accounts, not "traditions." A tradition is putting up a Christmas tree each year. Do you people not even know the difference between an eyewitness account and a tradition? The "modern" view seems to based on a very subjective view of writing style, which seems to be based on nothing. Use of the words "traditional" and "modern" makes the article biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydeman ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The summary of the breaking of the third seal currently given in the article reads as follows:
"Third Seal: A black horse appears, whose rider has "a pair of balances in his hand", where a voice then says, "A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine." (6:5-6)"
This is misleading because the actual coin named was the Denarius, which was equivalent to an entire day's wages for most laborers of the time, rather than a Penny#Value, which, in addition to not being a type of coin that was extant of the time that the book of Revelations was written, is also effectively worthless (this includes British pennies, to which the translation in question refers) and therefore completely reverses the meaning of the quote.
A more accurate translation would be: "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 ( talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Said "It remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church": it's true but I'm afraid if it misleads readers this book may be read in a certain other office (Matins, Vespers, etc). IIRC and as far as I heard it's never read in any liturgical prayer. Can anyone have a source which can give a more specific description? -- Aphaia ( talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC) :P.S. In my mother language source I found a comment "some phrases are taken from The Book of Revelation in liturgical services" (unfortunately no examples were given there) so it seems to meat we retain this part as is. -- Aphaia ( talk) 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
First, the quotation did read "It is the pidgin Greek of someone who appears to know exactly what he is about[to say]". The original in fact reads "...what he is about and whether...." Needless to say, as anyone familiar with idiomatic American English knowing 'what you are about' and knowing 'what you are about to say' are thoroughly different things, so I'll assume the restoration of the quotation to the former is uncontroversial, though noting it here anyway. The other issue is that for some reason the quotation and its companion are sourced to a random text ('Do You Know Greek') rather than the book they are actually from. This seems particularly strange as google has enough of the book to allow me to have checked the above quotation so there is no barrier for someone wanting to give the right page citation even if they do not have the book. I have left this unchanged in case there is some reason for citing a book which - judging from the title - is an introduction to Koine rather than the book the quotations were originally published in, even named in the body. I'd urge something with greater 'ownership' of the page to make the necessary change - I'm really just a passer by so don't want to step on toes needlessly. 94.193.220.27 ( talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
In the Section Academic Interpretations of the Article it reads: "The eventual exclusion of other contemporary apocalyptic literature from the canon [...]"
Can someone provide examples of "other contemporary Apocalyptic literature" which was not included in the canon, and cite apart from which these pieces of literature were, when they were rejected by the church, and which churches in particular (i.e. synod of Nicaea), etc.? Also, if you happen to make this addition or change to the article I would greatly appreciate a personal message, as a reminder to help me with current research. ____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The footnote for this statement, under 'Literary structure', leads to www.carm.org, a "Christian apologetics" site, where we find this text: "About The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry CARM is a 501(c)3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God. Check out the Navigation Bar on the left to see what CARM has to offer." Not sure we have a reliable source here, and the claim is certainly somewhat novel. -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
User Zytigon has added a reference to some 2007 criticism by Robert Price at the beginning of this section. I don't know enough to know whether Price's criticism is significant enough to be included. It's not clear why he should be included, unlike Jefferson, Martin Luther and George Bernard Shaw, who are quite well known. If this reference is included, there should be some context as to why it is included. Also, the section could use some reorganization. After the Price reference, the next paragraph starts out with a 19th Century critic, but the same paragraph includes Jefferson, Friedrich Engels & George Bernard Shaw. The next paragraph discusses Martin Luther's views on Revelations.
What is the organizing principle? If nothing else is available, it could be placed in chronological order.
Finally, it appears that Zytigon has added the following to the end of the section:
What is its relevance to the criticism section? The sentence should probably be deleted. Ileanadu ( talk) 01:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. Skinrider ( talk) 14:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the page for The Marriage Supper of the Lamb? There is a redirect to this page but no details are given. 99.0.37.134 ( talk) 14:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Saw this buried in the article & thought better to surface it here for any treatment: (comes after 3rd para in #Dating section)
Revert this if it messes with much. Manytexts ( talk) 11:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I created the page " Wrath of the Lamb" for the purpose of redirecting to this page and to note that it's also the massive expansion pack for The Binding of Isaac. Users SiefkinDR and Theroadislong have edited the article to remove the redirect warning at the top. Thoughts about this? Soffredo ( talk) 15:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
My objection was that it appeared like a promotion of a commercial product at the top of an article on a completely different subject. I agree with the above comment, why not redirect directly? SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Resolved -
Wrath of the Lamb now redirects to
The Binding of Isaac (video game)#Expansion instead of this page. However, {{Redirect}} is being used on that page now. Any further discussions should be brought to
Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game).
Soffredo (
talk)
19:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
From the beginning of the article: The Book of the Revelation of John, often referred to as the Book of Revelation or simply Revelation
This is incorrect.
The name of the book of Revelation is: The Revelation of Jesus Christ [1]. The book titles itself in the first chapter, first verse: Revelation 1:1 - THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisDWiki ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What is your source for the author of the book not having a title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.59.9 ( talk) 21:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm new here. The quote attributed to C.G. Jung in note 55 does not support its referrent, and I will try to explain why. (Sorry, but that "critics who deny" phrase looks so thin.)
Anyway, I think the article would be improved by removing that phrase and note 55, and possibly by bringing Jung back into the Interpretations section. (I'll try to make a separate note about that.)
Although Memories, Dreams, and Reflections is made up of Jung's writings and utterances, the book is not a planned, comprehensive or scholarly composition on par with his other published works.
The quote is not Jung's opinion of the spiritual value of the scripture, and so does not support the assertion that Jung might be included among "critics who deny any spiritual value to Revelation at all."
Here and throughout his writings, Jung is highly critical of mainstream theological tenets for what he perceived as a loss of true, inner religiosity through an over-emphasis on convention, rules of faith, the narrowness of which denies spiritual significance to visions, mystical experiences, prophecies, etc. He glibly avoids getting into the subject, not only because "no one believes in them and the whole subject is felt to be an embarrassing one..." (in other words, because the mainstream doesn't quite know how to handle Revelations), but also because he had recently (1952) and quite controversially treated Revelations' "transparent prophecies" in some depth.
Jung wrote at length on Revelations in the later chapters of his book Answer to Job. Whether one embraces his theses or not, Jung explicitly presents this scripture as spiritually valid, important, relevant, and valuable.
If Jung's thought on such things matters -- and obviously I think it does -- would it not improve this article to bring him in elsewhere? HudMcCoy ( talk) 00:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I also shortened the "Dating" section as well. There were points in the section that seemed as if they came directly from a book. Basically, I kept the main points of the section, and deleted all the unimportant details. Glorthac ( talk) 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This is in the lead. modern scholars are divided between the apostolic view and several alternative hypotheses which have been put forth in the last hundred years or so.<ref>Merrill C. Tenney, gen. ed. "Revelation, Book of the." ''Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.'' Vol. 5 (Q-Z). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.</ref>
This is hardly a reliable source, especially as Tenney died in 1985 and here he is editing a book 24 years later. Zondervan is a well-regarded only within Christian circles. Is there a historical-critical scholar who thinks that the author of Revelation wrote John? It's not an open issue in mainstream scholarship. To say that it's an open issue is misleading. It's only an open issue for those outside the mainstream. Leadwind ( talk) 16:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The full title of the book is "The Revelation of St. John the Divine", but at present, if one puts in a Wikilink to The Revelation of St. John the Divine, it will be red. Can some one please sort out things so that if one types that in, it gets redirected here? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be worhtwile expanding the article by mentioning ancient and modern interpretations of numerology and lexarithmic interpretations, i.e. how each letter is a number and Greek, and how the Emperor Nero's name itself comes to be the number 666 in Greek χ'ξ'ς (six hundred sixty six), or ςςς (six,six,six) as separate integers. I've come across various such interpretations, and perhaps they would be worthy of mention.
(And just for trivia's sake, i'd like to mention when you type ςςς in Greek, it is the equivalent of www, when you enter the internet, LOL)
____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This kind of statement is likely invalid. Who are the scholars? Is there really common ground on who the "scholars" are and are not? And who took the poll? What is the modern era? You start after the Renaissance? BTW, I agree with the date attached to the comment; but I think this kind of statement is not to be believed. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 00:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC))
The (short) name of the book in English is Revelation, not Revelations (an alternative is Apocalypse). ( EnochBethany ( talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC))
The interpretation section only explains the beliefs of various denominations in broad terms, like the Catholic Church teaches amillenialism. Well, DUH! I'd prefer for the interpretation section to explain the interpretations in detail, like: "The Catholic Church teaches the first seal and the Rider on the white horse as Christ who has conquered and is conquering through the Holy Spirit and His Church."
This is probably what people are coming to wikipedia to figure out, anyway. Who would only want to know something in broad terms? Glorthac ( talk) 18:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that many people who look to this source of information aim to increase their understanding of what possible interpretations of the final book of the bible means. Without providing some original thougt on this, there may be some who leave unedified and uneducated beyond their own interpretations of the deeply mystifying words meanings. Some phrases have deep meanings that aer not just leical, but historical, religiously repetitive, recurrent reincarnataions of previous prophecy nad other mysterious analogies. I would suggest that a page be created for each section that is being debated that they be ordered according to the schools of hought that are recognised and the area of Wikimedia's Blight: Original Thought to-Stamped-Out-Without-Second-Thought. Vision2020 ( talk) 02:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This secion of the bible is yet to be fulfilled and as such any written documentation is purely theory and orginal thought. We as editors and as reviewers of it can only make sure that the content is not plagiarised or ethically corrupt yet allow for new ideas to be promulgated that an educated mind might make a connection between a new thought and printed corroboration in a later edition of a new work in progress. We don't know what it means, but we can only guess and hope that the faith placed in those guesses be accurate to redeem the lost. Vision2020 ( talk) 02:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
An example of original thought might be the expansion of the measurements of a few verses describing the New Heaven and New Earth into an essay on possibilities that it therefore presents to the modern readers' mind. To this end I have created an unexpanded link to a non-existant page that maybe I might edit to expose such a flaw in the very design of extreme intolerance of Wikimedia reviewers' attitude towards original thought that cannot be copyrighted being placed on an open-source platform such as this. The complete lack of original thought on Wikimedia precludes it from becoming the foremost Original source of original work and therby becomes the foremost source of secondary (incomplete) work at best. The placement of original thought and source on Wikimedia means that it becomes the source and not a mirror and therefore the content becomes truly copyrighted as part of the point of the GPL 3.0 completely to fulfill its intentions. Just a thought for "Non-scientific, non-substantive and inconclusive" veins of personal/ professional research. Just a thought Vision2020 ( talk) 02:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Can we add to the section on 666 something like 666 is mentioned 2 other times in the bible
1 Kings 10:14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents
and
Ezra 2:13 13 The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.
because Solomons life is more focused on in the bible than Adonikams the verse 'number of a man' In Revelation 13:18 may be referring to king Solomon.
??? and what about a reference to this
A mosaic uncovered in 1991 shows an image of the Woman and Dragon motif mentioned in the Christian biblical book of the "Revelation" (of St. John_. It shows a woman about to give birth to a child as a dragon waits to devour it.
Themainman69 ( talk) 06:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The bit about 666 is self evident someone can open a bible in front of them and find the verse or look at a bible online. The bit about capernaum what about this
http:// www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/capernaum-synagogue.html A mosaic uncovered in 1991 shows an image of the Woman and Dragon motif mentioned in the Christian biblical book Revelation of St.John. It shows a woman about to give birth to a child as a dragon waits to devour it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Themainman69 ( talk • contribs)
Well because the 'number of the beast' is the 'number of a man (Solomon)' and beast is used as analogy in the book of Daniel for empire or kingdom which makes the beast an empire to do with Solomon. The previous empires in Daniel were in the middle east. Solomon lived on the same piece of land that is now Palestine/modern Israel and the jewish people in there today want to re build the temple.
-Solomon built the 1 temple. -The hexagram on Israels flag is also known as the seal of Solomon. -Modern Israel is 1 of the 2 beasts mentioned in Revelation 13. -The mark of the beast is the hexagram.
I think people should be warned about this. Themainman69 ( talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Jesus had no earthly biological dad Mary was conceived of the holy spirit (Mathew) Mary came from David not through Solomons (cursed bloodline) this is one of the reasons judaic religion people rejected him as messiah because he is not from Davids bloodline on the fathers side. Beast is analogy for empire. Solomon is not the beast he is the 'number of a man'.Hexagram appears on the capernaum synagogue which at latest was built 1700 years ago ( i think earlier). Star of david is not from 1 or 2 samuel (Davids life) hence is not biblical. Babylon the great in rev 17 and 18 is provably using only the bible Jerusalem.
I added a new talk section on the babylon wiki page check it out if you want if any christians here i will msg you a little thing i wrote on Israel/Revelation if you want.
Themainman69 ( talk) 06:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really happy with this section being in the body of the article, since it's just a portal to articles on persons and symbols. On the other hand, someone went to a lot of trouble to make it, and it does provide information that some readers might find useful. I think it would be better as a portal-template on the side of the article. I don't know how to make templates, but some other editor no doubt does. I'd like the views of other editors. 203.217.170.26 ( talk) 05:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, I keep forgetting to log in...) PiCo ( talk) 05:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues involving sources, specifically the Interpretations section. Is there anyone willing to source, or should I just remove the no source content. The article will be very short if I do, so is there any objections? --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII ( talk) 20:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I dislike the subdivisioning of the section Outline, is it conventional and citeable? I find it unnatural that Before the Throne of God immediately follows in the same division, Act I, as the messages for seven churches of Asia. There the Revelations changes character from a prophetic vision with clear messages to an extremely mystical apocalyptic hallucination from Messages to Before the Throne, where most of the meaning is fairly obscure.
Is the subdivisioning really conventional or an editors arbitrary pick? If it is conventional it should be sourced. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
That we use the typical English names for apostles, evangelists etc. all over the place is one thing, but do we really have to pretend that these are the names used in the Bible? The Bible didn't call anyone "John", the names used are Ιωάννης (Ioannes (with the 'e' pronounced like in "bed", but long), Latinized as Johannes) or יוחנן (Yohanan). 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E ( talk) 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This article needs to have a clear section that summarizes the modern consensus scholarly interpretation of the book and what the symbolism therein refers to. The article as it stands merely bombards its readers with a load of fantastic spins to the book that have been made in the last 2 millenia. It is crucial to explain FIRST what the book ACTUALLY meant by whoever wrote it, and then, we can have all the colourful ways subsesquent Christian groups intrepreted it. Its also quite difficult to find this info with an internet search, as google is invariably swamped by mindless nonsense put out by 101 churches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.227.163 ( talk) 17:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The imagery in Revelations is so bizarre and fantastical that it is impossible to give a down-to-earth explanation of what it means. Everything seems symbolic, but there are countless ways of "de-coding" it, none of them "official". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 ( talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
86.176.227.163, I understand your frustration. While the article does contain some useful scholarly information, it seems to be dominated by a section on interpretation that is poorly organised and heavily weighted towards Christian denominational beliefs rather than scholarly literature. You can find bits and pieces of helpful information on the meaning of Revelation scattered through the article, particularly in section one (Composition and Setting) and in the embarrassingly short footnote devoted to academic views.
I would say there is broad agreement that the book addresses a situation of occasional or sporadic persecution in the cities of the Roman province of Asia Minor sometime in the last third of the first century CE. A battle for authority is clearly being fought between John and his followers who believe that Rome is about to be punished for her sins, and opponents who advocate a more integrated approach to Greco-Roman society (possibly Pauline). The author reinforces a belief evidenced in the gospel of Mark that the fall of Jerusalem signified Jesus' return was imminent. The main vision of the book starts with a vision of a crucified lamb in heaven and this in turn initiates the woes of the "last days" spoken of by the prophet Daniel (e.g. 12:1), a limited period of war and pestilence that climaxes in the activity of the beasts and the persecution of the faithful. The second half of the book clearly identifies the beast as the Roman Empire and the prostitute who sits on her as the city of Rome (the city on seven hills, the 'great city that rules over the kings of the earth, ch 17). John takes great delight in predicting her downfall, described in thinly veiled terms as the fall of "Babylon" (a designation for Rome used in other apocalyptic works of the period), and in anticipating exceptional rewards for Christian martyrs, the descent from heaven of a "new" Jerusalem, and the final resurrection of the remaining dead in a climatic judgment scene.
If you're interested in some helpful and accessible scholarly works, I would recommend Elizabeth Fiorenza's short commentary, Invitation to the Book of Revelation; Alela Yarbro Collins' The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation; and Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John, by Steven Friesen. -- Sineaste ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Revelation, and the idea of an impending Apocalypse, are "central" to some of the newer Protestant denominations, particular in the US, but are not "central" in the older mainstream denominations. There are many different ways of interpreting "The Kingom of Heaven is at hand" that do not involve the world blowing up. It can be translated as, "It is right here, but you just can't see it, because you're not looking." Revelation wasn't tacked onto the NT until 419, and it was a controversial move that many Christian theologians rejected. So how could it be "central" when it wasn't even there for four centuries? I didn't correct the sentence because someone would revert it. But it needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 ( talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Revelation is not central to the eschatology of the vast majority of Christians. It tends to be favored by fundamentalist, Protestant denominations with dogmatic views about end-of-the-world scenarios and timetables. However, the suggestion that it just popped up in the fifth century out of nowhere is a little silly. If no Christian groups had valued it over the preceding four centuries there wouldn't have been any debate about its inclusion in the canon and that inclusion would never have occurred. -- Sineaste ( talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose a phrase and internal link referencing the Biblical cosmology that this book illustrates. The focus is human destiny, but the context is cosmic. Church of the Rain ( talk) 13:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Not my original research see http://www.worldcat.org/title/imperial-cults-and-the-apocalypse-of-john-reading-revelation-in-the-ruins/oclc/5104725870&referer=brief_results as one source. Also http://www.worldcat.org/title/silence-and-praise-rhetorical-cosmology-and-political-theology-in-the-book-of-revelation/oclc/881180781&referer=brief_results Church of the Rain ( talk) 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA266/English/UNK1999/19110305e01.html
So that mankind can evolve further and get into the spiritual there's always men from time to time who're more advanced than is permitted by the momentary stage of human development, and who have things to tell us about states of human evolution that reach far into the future. Such advanced beings must exist to lead men further. John, the writer of the Apocalypse, was such a man. When he wanted to write a revelation of the future, he told himself: If I write this book out of the whole surroundings in which I'm living here and now it'll be influenced by the self that's in my body, since I'm connected with everything around and in me. I must free myself from all of this. He had to place himself on something like a rock that served him as a firm support, on which he didn't wobble and wasn't influenced by anything that surged around and in him. And he moved himself to the evening to 9-30-395, to Patmos Island, as the sun had already disappeared under the horizon, though its effect could still be felt, and as the moon and stars appeared. The Virgin constellation was there in the western sky, irradiated by the last gleam of the sun that had set, with the moon under it. This picture is reproduced in one of the seals — the virgin with the radiating sun and the moon under her feet. Thus, all of these seals were produced out of deep mystical connections. John broke through the cover that surrounds us in this one direction — that of Virgo. There are 12 of these signs. Seven of them are good — the ones reproduced in the seals; the other five are more or less dangerous. Just as John chose this particular point in time and space to become completely separated from himself and all temporal things around him, so a Rosicrucian pupil must acquire a firm foundation in himself. The best way to do this is to let theosophical teachings work on us. Our astral body and thereby our etheric body become expanded by listening to theosophical ideas. This is the effect on anyone who hears anything about theosophy But the effect on those who are inclined towards theosophy is different than on those who aren't. The former feel the etheric body's expansion and fill it up with theosophical teachings, by accepting them. The other feel an emptiness in their etheric body through its expansion because they don't accept these ideas and so don't fill the expansion. Then doubt and skepticism arise through this emptiness. Whereas with the first men, it's like a pouring of oneself into the universe, which they can't let go too far, for they'll get a feeling of hollowness, of not feeling at home in these widths of space, like a fish that's taken out of water and can't live in air, because its organs haven't adapted themselves to this changed element. When a theosophist devotes himself to the teachings and his astral body expands evermore, he loses himself in this unfamiliar element One must avoid drowning here. And this is possible if one studies theosophy seriously, takes it in, elaborates it, and grasps it with feeling, not just with thinking and will, but permeates it completely with feeling. One can only do this with great earnestness. One must gain a firm support within oneself — like John when he wanted to write the Apocalypse and he transported himself to Patmos Island at sundown of Sept. 30, 395. The configuration of the sun, Virgo and moon on that evening can be checked astronomically, and this was done. From this materialistic science draws the conclusion: Therefore the Apocalypse was written at that time. And then we're told that science has ascertained this. That's the way science ascertains things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.206.191 ( talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I have made a little change to Archangel Michael's name. Maymichael2 ( talk) 16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Um, no offense, but why is this page being depicting the Book of Revelation like a made-up story? Despite anyone's own personal views here, we have to acknowledge that some people do subscribe to this belief as divine truth (including myself). How can you expect anyone except cynics and atheists to refer to this as reliable if the page comes off as being written from an atheist or cynic point of view? I mean, there's actually a part that says that the book of Revelation has a "whole host of colorful characters" or something to that effect. That doesn't even seem like it takes the Book to be serious. I think people editing this page should avoid using levity, in the same way that Christian editors should avoid religion promoting or leaving out valuable details (this site is about trying to provide information, not take a stance on whether or not the Bible is a historical account); therefore they should treat each page with equal respect. They take other religious beliefs seriously, even those featured in myth and legend, and I think Christianity deserves the same respect. RandyS0725 ( talk) 06:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, although on the one hand it's my opinion that it is ludicrous to treat Revelation as anything but superstitious nonsense, we have to be NPOV as (inexplicably) large numbers think it's "divine truth". Having read through the article I think that, with 2 exception, it's pretty NPOV and balanced. (But I think a believer would find it difficult to distinguish between POV and NPOV when it comes to, for example, the Bible). The 2 exceptions are the "plot" and "characters" sections in "Literary Elements". Although I enjoyed reading these sections, they do come suspiciously close to ridicule. The Book deserves it, but it can't really be justified in wikipedia DeCausa ( talk) 01:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Because of Christian bias. Portillo ( talk) 06:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
There's as much reason to treat religious texts as nonfiction as there is Lord of the Rings. We know the books were authored by people (sometimes not the specific person, mind), depicting fantastical images and claiming future-sight not possible, and there is thus absolutely no reason to consider them true. Arguing otherwise is to display grotesque bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.181.134 ( talk) 03:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The last line in the authorship section reads:
"In her volume in the original Anchor Bible, J. Massyngberde Ford argues that the core of Revelation, chapters 4-11, was written by John the Baptist and later surrounded with a Christian beginning and ending.[13]"
Some quick Googling suggests that this viewpoint is held by a tiny minority, possibly even unique to Ms Ford. I think that the way it currently reads, this line gives UW to a fringe theory. It could also be considered OR, since the reference is to Ms Ford's publication and not a secondary source. I would propose deleting the sentence unless there is a secondary source citation. Bgovern ( talk) 05:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The article uses a source written and published by Kim Mark Lewis. That falls under WP:SPS and thus fails WP:IRS. A better source has to be found. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This article states that according to the end of Revelation of St. John the Divine Chapter 13 the number of the beast was 666, but it could also point out that some now believe this was a mis-translation and the number was 616, as a footnote in The Living Bible clarifies. Vorbee ( talk) 22:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
666 was Nero's numeric name in greek. 616 was Nero's numeric name in Aramaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.235.177 ( talk) 20:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object to moving the outline section to the end and re-formatting with the hidden template or something similar? Seraphim System ( talk) 08:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Would any
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Revelation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
In the "Source" section, you do not mention the hypothesis that the Book of Revelations (Revelation) contains ancient pre-Christian texts of Jewish origin dating from the time of John the Baptist and the communities of Qumran adn called "Embedded Jewish Texts" or "Ur-text" (nothing to do with the city of Ur).
Indeed, in several verses one can isolate the ancient text from the one attributed to John, the latter having just added in the original text some words like "Jesus Christ" (Rev 1: 1), "testimony of Jesus Christ "(Rev. 1: 2) or even" Jesus "(Rev 1: 9), occurrencies that we can find in dozens of verses across all 22 chapters.
Example of old embedded jewish text with additions between brackets (source: J.Tabor) :
Rev 1:1 The revelation [of Jesus Christ,] which God gave [him] to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
2 who testified to the word of God [and to the testimony of Jesus Christ,] even to all that he saw.
3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,
[5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,
6 and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.]
Rev 1:9 I, John, your brother who share with you [in Jesus] the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God [and the testimony of Jesus.]
etc.
Reference: read the following books and articles detailing this subject:
"Revelation (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)", J. Massyngberde Ford, Yale University Press, 1995
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rh/revelation_beasley-murray.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C933:2900:E069:529F:BD45:A3EE ( talk) 09:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
https://jamestabor.com/can-a-pre-christian-version-of-the-book-of-revelation-be-recovered/
https://jamestabor.com/here-it-is-at-last-a-pre-christian-version-of-the-book-of-revelation/ --
So I added a small reference to this hypothesis which is supported by several old texts --luxorion
From everything I have read and heard, the apostle John (son of Zebedee, same as author of the Gospel according to John) was the author of the book of Revelation. This is not a view held by just a few individuals, and the article seems biased in its interpretation of the facts. [2] is one example showing that it was indeed the apostle John. It is widely believed that John the apostle was exiled to Patmos. If the book was written c. 96 AD like many speculate, and the apostle John was born c. 6 AD, he would have been 90, but according to this site [3] it states that if you lived past 30, it was not uncommmon to die after 70, so John would have been old, but like in modern times, it would not be impossible. Finally, while many secular scholars believe the apostle John did not write the book, most Christians do, and Theologians would know more about this subject than secular scientists [4] Please take this into consideration, as the article should represent the most accurate and unbiased sources, and reconsider placing the apostle John as the author of the book. RSquier ( talk) 20:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
almost all theologians believe it was himis thoroughly bunk. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
John of Patmos offers some information about himself, but never claims to be John the Evangelist, John the Apostle, or John the Presbyter. The Authorship of the Johannine works has been debated for centuries, and it is unlikely that the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were written by the same person:
"Tradition links him to John the Apostle, but it is unlikely that the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition, the reign of Domitian, and the author never states that he knew Jesus. All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter. His precise identity remains unknown,[9] and modern scholarship commonly refers to him as John of Patmos [10] (Rev. 1:9 – "I was put on the Island of Patmos")." to say something more along the lines of "Tradition links him to John the apostle, and many christian denominations hold this belief, however, some scholars believe it is unlikely the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition..." By just changing the first sentence to something along the lines of what I wrote would show a more objective POV, without denouncing the fact that it may not have been him (as the main argument against his authorship is is age, 90ish) RSquier ( talk) 02:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Tradition links him to John the Apostle
References
See The Myth of Persecution and the TTC courses by Bart Ehrman: the persecutions against Christians have been greatly exaggerated. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I usually don't care to comment on this universal problem with religious articles and the so called "consensus" that is to be fulfilled in a Wikipedia context, but the section Title, authorship, and date is an extra vivid example. As a context, I'm currently investigating whether John of Patmos could indeed be the apostle of Jesus, and that they were both seditious Zealots. Snapshots:
Tradition links him to John the Apostle, but it is unlikely that the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition, the reign of Domitian, and the author never states that he knew Jesus.[7] All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter.[4][8][citation not found]
The section smells of wishful thinking, not of any objectivity. "The author never states that he knew Jesus" is proof by absense. Worse, next section:
Early Church tradition dates the book to end of the emperor Domitian (reigned AD 81–96), and most modern scholars agree, although the author may have written a first version after Nero's Great Fire in Rome (AD 64) under Vespasian (AD 69–79) and updated it under Domitian.[11][citation not found].
I know about the statement that it was written shortly after the death of Nero, from f.ex. Karl Kautsky, and that is exactly what I'm investigating. The text adhers to "consensus", but the participants in this "consensus" do not necessarily rely on facts or analyses, but are instead repeating a "consensus" based on a conventional mythos (which might, or might not be true), and the editors are reasoning on basis that such a "consensus" is academically valid, while pressing their personal opinions. That annoys me, something is wrong with Wikipedia rules in relation to religious topics. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There's no coverage in the article to mention those researchers, e.g. John M. Allegro, Benny Shanon, Carl A. P. Ruck, et al, who have proposed that John of Patmos' particularly fantastic visions (as well as those of others, including in other religions) were enhanced by the use of psychedelics, such as hallucinogenic mushrooms. Whether or not people agree with it, it would be POV to exclude any mention of it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Aside from citations and direct quotations, I have changed the phrase "Old Testament" to "Hebrew Bible" throughout this article for the following reasons:
— anthologetes ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Reverted. He drew from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible. It includes books which are not part of the current Hebrew Bible, which is based on the Masoretic Text. Dimadick ( talk) 18:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"The "Hebrew" in "Hebrew Bible" does not simply describe the language of the texts" Try reading the article on the Hebrew Bible. "The form of this text that is authoritative for Rabbinic Judaism is known as the Masoretic Text (MT) and it consists of 24 books". It excludes about 22 books that are part of the traditional Old Testament of the Christians (46 Books), and its versions of the Book of Daniel and Book of Esther are consideredably shorter. Dimadick ( talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm in agreement that Hebrew Bible (or, even better imo, Hebrew Scripture) is the more appropriate term, especially since the section is parsing information based on what John of Patmos had access to. "Old Testament" would be appropriate only in instances where modern interpretations of Revelation are compared with the current Old Testament, using the lens that the Christian canon changed how the books in the Christian Old Testament were viewed. As for the claim regarding the reservation of "Hebrew Bible" only for the Masoretic Text is a fallacy, although an understandable one. Many Jews lived well outside of Jerusalem for near plus 600 years by the time of John, and Greek had been the lingua franca for quite some time; so much so, that many Jews didn't even speak Hebrew, but Greek. Hence, they would have used the septuagint or similar available scripture in their studies. It wasn't called the "Greek Bible" or "Greek Scripture" just because it was written in Greek. - Trumblej1986 ( talk) 04:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The following is a perspective on the Book of Revelation by The Church of Almighty God (a.k.a. Eastern Lightning): According to the church, after the incarnated Almighty God (who is not believed to live forever on Earth) will have completed God's work on Earth for the last days, the catastrophes prophesied in the Book of Revelation of the Bible will come, in the form of earthquakes, wars and famines. However, "the Earth will not be annihilated, and the ones who are purified by God will be saved in the cataclysms of the last days, and will live on Earth forever."
Is the perspective eschatological or liturgical? Thanks for considering the possible addition to the entry. -- Lo Ximiendo ( talk) 05:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This article doesn't point out that the Syriac (Aramaic) version of Revelations has a title like this: "The Revelation that was on John the prophet from God on the island of Patmos, where he had been exiled by Nero Caesar". And Nero Caesar in Hebrew letters = 666. [1]. Here is a quote about this I just found (from Robert Young's Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible (1865)):
'It was written in Patmos (about A.D. 68), whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac Version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D. 175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, i.e. Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favour of the earlier date [... etc.]
It seems unusual that information about this original Syriac title is so difficult to find. Are there any translations of Revelations that refer to it? At any rate, it seems like it should be mentioned in the present article. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As stated in the article The Book of Revelation is the only apocalyptic document in the New Testament. It is NOT included in the Peshitta (an early Syriac translation of the Christian Bible) This seems to be confusing at least to me. Kazuba ( talk) 01:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Can Robert Young's concise Commentary on the Holy Bible (1865) be in error? Kazuba ( talk) 02:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article says "The Book of Revelation" and then says "often called the Book of Revelations". This is inaccurate. It should have said that the Book of Revelation is sometimes erroneously referred to as the Book of Revelations. The full title of the book is "The Revelation of Saint John the Divine". Vorbee ( talk) 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al Jilwah. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Al Jilwah (The Black Book of Satan). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
OFF-TOPIC! - This has nothing to do with the Book of Revelation and should be deleted. 2601:580:5:97A7:CD88:63F2:3031:FCF8 ( talk) 17:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I tweaked the opening with... This book prophesizes the return of the Christ who reveals great secrets through the "book/scroll sealed with seven seals" - Revelation 5:1. This event triggers great plaques, natural catastrophes, war and economic collapse... It ends with a vision of "a new heavens and a new earth" - Revelation 21:1. 73.85.203.141 ( talk) 16:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologize if this is out of place (I am a new user). As this article demonstrates, interpretation of scripture evolves. A body of Christian scientists have begun to interpret the "allegorical" passages in Genesis as primitive renderings of the paleontological record. Extending this to Revelation leads to an interpretation of the book as God's view of the struggle of redemption, beginning billions of years ago. Where do I go to argue that this view be included in this article? I am also sensitive to the charge of self-promotion, as the interpretation is fully developed only out at one of my blogs (www.love-returns.org). BrianBalke ( talk) 16:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Obviously I am sensitive to the issue of self-promotion, for I raised it. Are their specific guidelines on the matter? What if I did this: raised the issue of correspondence between paleontology and Revelation without reference to my site? And this is not entirely original research: there are reputable Christian scientists that have drawn parallels between the days of Creation and the paleontological record, and others that have drawn parallels between the golden bowls and the ecological disasters befalling us in the modern era. They could be cited, and the correspondence to Revelation posited as an extension of their ideas. The content would lay out the days of creation, the trumpets of Revelation, and the great extinction episodes known to paleontology. These are all facts that can be cited, unlike much of what else is posted on the topic, which is summaries of the opinion of writers working without reference to any material facts except the echo chamber they have generated. You understand my concern: that we be sensitive to the politicized context of the interpretation of scripture, and recognize and respect those that seek to place it on a firm evidentiary foundation. BrianBalke ( talk) 04:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Dimadick, I am referring to scientists that are Christians. Better known among them are people such as Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe and the Eco-Evangelicals. I myself am a Ph.D. particle physicist. BrianBalke ( talk) 04:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I want more informationor want to know more about Satan's and all about them... Janice Wu Qian ( talk) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This work has a Wikimedia compatible license as described at https://apocalypseanimated.com/about/
The artist is free-culture enthusiast Nina Paley, known for illustrating classical religion with contemporary cartoons. Right now I think the newest illustration in this article is the William Black art from about 1800. How would anyone feel about using one of the cartoons in this project anywhere in this article? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Partitioning the Bible into verses happened much later, after John of Patmos died. So it is quite anachronistic to attribute him patterns which became apparent only after the Bible was partitioned into verses. I don't know if such error could pass for scholarship at any major university, apparently Liberty University is not a major university, to say the least. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
Revelation of Christ and it has been listed
for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Revelation of Christ until a consensus is reached.
Veverve (
talk)
14:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)