Talk:Book of Revelation

My editing of Dating

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)

Revelation 21:1 quotes 2 Peter 3:10, suggesting that the former may have been written near to the time of the latter. Second Peter & Jude both date to c.65AD, near to the beginning of the First Jewish War in 66AD. Perhaps a professional could quote a current source, and so improve the present article? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My editing of Modern Views

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)

Old Testament origins

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)

There are similarities between the visions of John and those of Ezekiel; the waters in Ezekiel's city are of interest as well as his detailed architectural remarks; there are similarities as well amongst the observations in Enoch to those of John -- particularly in the details of Enoch's mentions of gates and their compass -- those have resembled to this reader, something of Stonehenge. 69.69.21.99 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we expand upon the interpretation sections?

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)

Two improvements

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)

Include some sense of John in the introduction.

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)

Jonny: Good comment. If we could agree that John the Apostle wrote Revelation, we could have a section giving all of the background information we have on him, and it most certainly would be a worthwhile addition. Trouble is, we can't agree on who wrote it (see the section on "Authorship"). --gdm (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article, see WP:lead. In particular, it should summarize the content of the book and the various traditions about the author. Leadwind (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the intro is incomplete, you need to write a section to add whatever you think is missing, but please don't do it by copying and pasting, or cutting and pasting, from the body of the article. Re authorial issues: In the case of a document like Revelation, these are more extensive than can be covered adequately in the intro, which is why they have been given their own separate section. The rules are good guidelines, but each situation is unique and some flexibility is required. --gdm (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Two editors and the guidelines for good leads all say we should summarize the main points of the article in the lead. I have a lot of experience editing leads and have a pretty good idea that this one is poor. A lead should be able to stand on its own as a concise summary of the topic. Please cite a guideline or policy that supports excluding this information from the lead. If you can't, then please let other editors edit this page in accordance with standard WP practice. Leadwind (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem there, Leadwind. There's always room for improvement. You just need to create a real summary of your own making, and not just copy and paste from the body of the article. --gdm (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite me the policy or guideline that says I can't just copy and past from the body. Let's leave aside our various opinions and stick to policies and guidelines. Leadwind (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a matter of common sense, Leadwind. Clearly, you don't want to have a paragraph here, then an identical one further down.--gdm (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the paragraphs you deleted from the lead was identical to any paragraph in the body. But it's a moot point because the sort of information that you deleted (author and content) is now in the lead. Leadwind (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Use of Citations

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)

Depending on the paragraph, the primary sources might have been appropriate and might not have been. What was the paragraph? Leadwind (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Modern views and undue weight

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)

Leadwind, you're coming in late in the discussion here. There has been lots of contention in the past due to the use of loaded (and subjective) terms like "mainstream," "liberal," "conservative," "academic," "non-academic," etc., which are often used in a way which amounts to little more than name-calling, and we've made a conscious effort to get rid of that kind of language. If you turned in an academic paper, at least at the graduate and post-graduate levels, and offered as an argument in support of your thesis that it is "mainstream" -- quite frankly, your professor would laugh at you. On this site, we've found that presenting multiple views in an objective and unbiased fashion has been a good way to get rid of the contention and the destructive editing that went along with it, not to mention that it's a good scholarly practice. If you have anything constructive to add to the article, we'd love to see you participate, but if your idea is just to tear down what's already there, please reconsider.--gdm (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing I'm not submitting a paper to a professor! It's no fun to be laughed at! Anyway, the point is that the more predominant views should get more space and the less predominant views less space. Right? Isn't that what WP:NPOV says? Leadwind (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As for getting laughed at, what do you think a professior would say if you turned in an academice paper that cited the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.? Leadwind (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

dating and undue weight

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)

Leadwind, you're beginning to sound like a bureaucrat! Reading the passages in question, I see no undue weight given to any of the positions. The earlier date (which I personally do not support) takes up more space because it is more complex and requires more explanation. Notwithstanding, the views are presented in a fair and even-handed manner, and a lot of effort has been put into making them so. If you're concerned that a particular view is still not getting covered in enough detail, we would like nothing better than for you to fill in the gaps with new material, but please don't try to even things up by deleting what others have worked hard to put together, or by changing the wording in a way which privileges one position over another. --gdm (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite me a policy or guideline that says we should give more space to less-notable views when the less-notable views are complex. Leadwind (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Tenney is not a reliable source

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)

Leadwind, I think you just said this, above. You seem to think that a work is "academic," "mainstream," or "scholarly" only if it shares the positions that you personally support. Yet when I was studying for my graduate degree in theology, I studied under professors who hold Ph.Ds, have full-time university faculty positions, and publish on a regular basis (it was required of them). No one could accuse them of not being academic or scholarly. Yet each of them was opinionated in their own particular way and they did not conform to any kind of a "mainstream" stereotype. Similarly, the publications you demean are put together by respected scholars. You can't exclude them from the conversation just because you don't like the positions they hold.

In theology, unlike some areas of study, things are never black and white. The world of contemporary theology is very diverse. It does not have a universally accepted position on just about anything. On top of that, you have the accumulation of 2,000 years of theological history which is still very much a part of the discussion today. It is a huge mistake to take one little blip from that huge radar screen and dogmatically insist that it is the only valid position. This is a kind of intellectual tyranny which has no place on Wiki. Your positions should most definitely be covered in an objective and unbiased way, and even though many people won't agree with them, they have no right to interfere with that. But you, in turn, have to extend that same privilege to others, and you have to do so without implying that they are outdated or unscholarly. For example, your addition to the introduction is clearly intended to bias the statement on authorship in a particular direction. It should have been included in a section dedicated to that viewpoint in the body of the article.

Here's a quote from the first section on this discussion page. It sums up in one sentence what makes Wiki so special: --gdm (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia performs a uniquely valuable role in putting side by side, ideas which would otherwise probably never share the page." Coxparra (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

gdm, please cite WP policy or guidelines to back up your statements. WP says to give preponderance to the views that predominate in scholarship. The view that the Apostle John didn't write Revelation predominates. That's the view that a WP article should emphasize. It's really pretty simple. Stick to what the experts say. The experts predominantly say that the apostle didn't write John. It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is what the experts say. Leadwind (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, since when are we discussing theology? This issue is one of history. Which actual historical person actually wrote this text? When we get to theology, there's no consensus, but as long as we're talking about plain history, the historians have pretty much come to agreement on this issue. Leadwind (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm using theology in the broad sense, which encompasses every aspect of Biblical study, even in a secular environment. As for the consensus you appeal to, it simply doesn't exist, except within very limited circles of scholarship. Many published authors will claim that there is a consensus behind their position, because it strengthens their argument. But in reality, the "consensus" is just a "consensus of like-minded scholars," which is not quite the same thing. Strictly speaking, they're not lying, but they're not telling the whole truth either. You seem to be very much against the unbiased inclusion of multiple viewpoints.--gdm (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"You seem to be very much against the unbiased inclusion of multiple viewpoints." Not at all. I'm against the biased inclusion of multiple viewpoints. I want to follow WP policy and let the predominant view predominate. Where we differ is simply on the question of whether there is a dominant, mainstream view to be given precedence (that's what I think) or whether there are lots of scholarly opinions with no predominant view (your view, unless I'm being unfair). Let's just find the best, current sources and see what they say. Then you and I can agree on the facts and get on with editing the article. Now in my experience those who hold a minority view like to deny that there is a majority view, but treating a minority view as of equal weight to a majority view is a violation of WP:NPOV. Leadwind (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

On the surface of it, what you're saying makes sense. But what you're not making allowance for is that "predominant view," like "mainstream," is all a matter of which side of the fence you're on. What you think is predominant is totally fringe to someone else, and they can produce just as many publications to support their view as you can to support yours. ("But my sources are better than theirs," you will say. They'll say the same thing back to you, and where does that get us? Precisely nowhere!) If you want to avoid contention and negative editing, you have to present the major views on equal terms - objectively, neutrally, and without value judgments (even subtle or implied ones). This is my experience on this site, and I've seen it borne out on all of Wiki's theological sites, many of which continue to be contentious because one side or the other insists that their position be represented as the "mainstream" or "predominant" view. It's not scholarly, and it's not necessary. --gdm (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the predominant view should be given priority if it can be identified but we disagree on whether a predominant view can be identified. You say that since we can't agree on which view predominates, we should treat the views equally. Fair enough, I'll proceed only where a predominant view is clear. Leadwind (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

introduction out of place

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)

Leadwind, this is great! We actually agree on something! I've long felt that the article's organization still needed work. If you can help to organize it in a more logical way (without undermining the article's neutrality), I, for one, would be grateful to you.--gdm (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

characters

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)

Religious Tolerance...

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)

• sigh* the whole thing is a silly made-up fairy-story, harry potter for the gullible masses. in fact i'd say it's actually been given far more credence here than it should have been in a serious encylopedia article HieronymousCrowley (talk) 17:55, 26 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)

Wikipedia is neutral, meaning that it describes the Bible and theological views as pertaining to a certain religion or religious group. It does not say that the Bible would be the word of God, but neither denies it, since only believers (or unbelievers) make such choices about holy books; Wikipedia does not make such choices. The article should be informative for Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, pagans, etc. It is neither a place for them to fight about who's right about God and religion, nor a platform for evangelizing or proselytizing. Mainstream theological views upon the Apocalypse can be rendered in the article, as long as they are not presented as fact, but as opinion clearly attributed to such religion or such religious group. Scientific analysis of the Apocalypse can be rendered as fact, as long as such conclusions are consensual among the scientists (historians, textual critics, scholars of religious studies, linguists, anthropologists, etc.). If they are not broadly accepted in the scientific world, they still can be rendered as minority opinions pertaining to this or that authoritative scholar. E.g. if a textual critic proved that the number 616 appears in some old manuscripts instead of 666, this is a fact, since the textual critic did not invent the manuscripts, he has only studied them and published articles about it in respectable scientific journals (print-published, peer-reviewed). My personal philosophy is that God does not talk to humans, but this is not a matter of scientific proof, but a philosophical persuasion. Even starting from this assumption, I find interesting to know how others think about the Apocalypse, what are the most popular theories about its meaning, what are the main theological viewpoints about it, how has it been considered during human history, how this or that literary critic has analyzed the aesthetic merits of the Apocalypse, how scholars see it, how activists for social change see it as a source of inspiration for shaping a new world, how it mesmerized the masses during the history of Christianity, how it was almost excluded from the canon of the New Testament, since some Church Fathers preferred the Apocalypse of Peter to the Apocalypse of John, or at least saw these books as having equal value. I say these not as mere personal opinions, but as an explanation of how the official Wikipedia policies about neutrality, reliable sources, notability, etc. apply to the article which we are discussing. Wikipedia has articles about many religious and theological issues, and as a rule of thumb the same basic rules apply to any theological or religious Wikipedia article. So, one's religious affiliation should be bracketed when writing such articles, and only viewpoints based upon reliable sources should be included in the article, indicating their sources in the footnotes or using small quotes in order to render their point. Don't think you're writing for the Sunday school or for a club of fellow atheists, but think of writing a scientific (academic) article about this subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Er...what's your point? You've written a very long essay saying what we all know anyway...but the point of this discussion is: does anything need to change in this Article? If so, what?DeCausa (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My point was neither that it needs change nor that it doesn't need change. My point was that the article is/should/could become encyclopedic, and therefore it isn't silly to discuss the Apocalypse inside Wikipedia. It was a reaction to statements which seemed to ignore this point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because of Christian bias. Portillo (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that Christian theologians care most about the Book of Revelation, therefore they produced most of the scholarship/theology about it. It is not a fault of describing several theological positions in respect to this book (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern-Orthodox) and its most usual interpretations. Such views are notable, and they should be rendered, as long as there's no claim like "this is the truth, according to Wikipedia," but rather "Catholics view it like this, Protestants like that, etc." In assigning these views to their respective authors there is no bias, it is just a statement that notable groups of people have produced notable views of this book. Of course, people who disbelieved this book are also rendered inside the article, but we should not overstate the importance of their views, since such views are not widespread. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The name of the Book is Incorrect in the article

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. 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)

Well, here we mention its name as commonly used in mainstream sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

E.g., just think of calling the Gospel of Matthew as "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The book doesn't "title itself". There is no title to the book as such. Subsequently, the book has been given titles, which is a different thing so let's not claim it has a one true authentic title. The King James Bible titles it "the Book of Revelation of St John the Divine". The New Jerusalem Bible calls it "The Book of the Revelation to John". Looking at Google, the most common references are simple to the "Book of Revelation" and then to "Book of Revelation of St. John". I therefore have amended the opening to read: "The Book of the Revelation, also known as the Book of Revelation of St John the Divine (in reference to its author) or Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ (in reference to its opening line)..." DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at this again, it seems the lead is now almost entirely taken up with the title issue, and doesn't comply with WP:LEAD. I have therefore moved it to its own section in the article and written a new lead with the aim of summarizing the main points in the article. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for the author of the book not having a title?

Criticism by Nietzsche

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)

Too Much Space Given to Modern View

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)

I don't see any problem with the length of the modern view subsection as it is. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Clydeman, Wikipedia renders the consensus of scholars (or lack of such consensus, case wherein it presents the scholarly debate). Scientific consensus is reached according to the scientific method. Scientific debate takes place in print-published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. The book does say that it is written by John, but it does not say who this John was, e.g. it does not claim that John would be an apostle. As you saw in the introduction, the idea that this book was written by the Apostle John is based upon an allusion made by Justin Martyr. So, unless interpreting an allusion counts for a establishing a hard fact, rather than hearsay, there are no direct witnesses vouching for the fact that the Apocalypse of John was written by the Apostle John. You have a very limited understanding of the formation of the New Testament cannon and I suggest that you update your knowledge with recent scientific articles about the Apocalypse of John. In this respect, you cannot just believe your priest or pastor on his word of honor, since he/she is most probably not recognized as a scholar by the scientific community. Scholars work according to the principle "publish or perish", i.e. publish in print-published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Your church cannot know any better than scholars, since it does not have historical sources vouching for its authorship. It if would have had such sources, it would have made them available to scholars. So, churchly tradition only represents an opinion among many other opinions, it cannot count as a statement of fact, and it does not constitute scholarly work. History should not be conflated with theology: establishing who a real person was is a matter of historical research, not of theological speculation. Besides, a reliable source says that according to the modern scholars the Apostle John did not write any of the books of the Bible. So, unless you are able to quote reliable sources in support of your claims, I consider that your accuse of bias lacks any scholarly ground. Inside an encyclopedia we only render the views of the most representative scholars. We do not do original research and we refrain from venting our own opinions upon what constitutes scholarly matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect the sincere enthusiasm of the above entry, but for the sake of readers who are new to the subject would like to make a few observations: 1) The writer is apparently not well-acquainted with the evidence and diversity of opinion re the authorship of Revelation and the other “Johannine” documents. 2) To suggest that theology is or can be “objective science” is inaccurate and extremely naïve. If we think of Revelation as just literature, the same thing applies to literary studies. 3) The clergyperson/scholar dichotomy is false. Many clergypeople are scholars and vice-versa. 4) Peer-review is not a certification of truthfulness or “scientific” accuracy, and it does not necessarily mean that a work is a “reliable source.” It simply means that the author is a recognized authority by virtue of his or her academic standing, his/her publication has been reviewed by others of a similar standing, and while they may not agree with it on all points, they consider it to be a valid contribution to the ongoing discussion. Peer review does not mean that the author checked his/her individuality at the door, and peer-reviewed publications frequently offer contradictory viewpoints. This is considered healthy and normal. --Kicheko (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that post is a response to the earlier post except in relation to point 1 (which you don't expand upon, but which from the Wikipedia policy point of view, is the one point that is worth going into detail on). Although Tgeorgescu can be criticized for verbosity, his post only states the obvious: he doesn't suggest that theology is an "objective science". He doesn't present a clergyperson/scholar dichotomy in the way that you mean. He doesn't suggest that peer-review is a certification of truthfulness or “scientific” accuracy. He does, however, suggest that peer-review makes for a reliable source in the Wikipedia term of art. And quite rightly so. The last 2 sentences seem to be on a different subject altogether. DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to me that he suggested all of those things. If I got that impression, I'm sure others did too, which is why I felt that clarification was necessary. No offense intended to the writer of the post. --Kicheko (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then let me correct the impression: theologians can be scholars, but when they write as historians they write science, not theology, and are judged by other scientists. This is what I meant by following scientific consensus. Writing the history of the New Testament and Christianity or of the Hebrew Bible and Judaism does imply that one should have knowledge of theology. It is just that a historian is not called to pass judgment upon which is the right doctrine which puts the believers in a right standing before God, he/she just say if this doctrine was popular, when it was popular, in which group was it popular, who disagreed with it, what was it aimed against and so on, claims which are subject to the empiric-analytic model of science. The debate about objectivity in science is too elaborate for developing it here, but I point to Wallace and Wolf's claim from Contemporary Sociological Theory that although perfect objectivity is unattainable, scientists should strive towards (more) objectivity. And indeed, peer-review and print-published in a serious journal means that an article is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Eschatology-oriented edits

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)

Basically a good idea, but i think it's a little too paired back. I think it would be appropriate to have say just one sentence on each, giving the basic headline. Otherwise the reader has to do a lot of click-throughs to get even the basic idea. DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for mistaking it for vandalism. Did all information deleted from the article reach its new destination? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, sorry, forgot to put an edit summary in the seven or so pages I edited. Bad habit of mine that I'll try to rectify (and would have prevented the vandalism misunderstanding). DeCausa, there's already a one sentence headline of each method of interpretation, does that satisfy your request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinrider (talk • contribs) 21:04, 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)

Need for a redirect

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)

Someone's already taken care of it, apparently. It's a working link now.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Misleading translations regarding the breaking of the third seal

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)

Publish a translation which is recognized by scholars and/or churches, or that becomes traditional, and we'll use it. While what you have to say is accurate, we don't take original research, and we don't alter quotes just to match original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Biblos Dot Com offers translations from several less misleading sources. Young's Literal Translation reads "and I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, 'A measure of wheat for a denary, and three measures of barley for a denary,' and 'The oil and the wine thou mayest not injure.'"; International Standard Version reads "I heard what sounded like a voice from among the four living creatures, saying, 'A quart of wheat for a denarius, or three quarts of barley for a denarius. But don't damage the olive oil or the wine!'"; New Living Translation reads "And I heard a voice from among the four living beings say, 'A loaf of wheat bread or three loaves of barley will cost a day's pay. And don't waste the olive oil and wine.'"; the God's Word Translation reads "I heard what sounded like a voice from among the four living creatures, saying, 'A quart of wheat for a day's pay or three quarts of barley for a day's pay. But do not damage the olive oil and the wine.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the ISV one. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"In the Divine Liturgy"

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)

Criticism Section

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:

"[81] Rev 12v3-4 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his head. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth."

What is its relevance to the criticism section? The sentence should probably be deleted. Ileanadu (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. A summary of Price's views would be appropriate at the end of the Criticism section, but just saying that he wrote a book is pointless. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.72.94 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about "stature" since the author is essentially unknown, nevermind the identities attributed to him. And the method of book publication was fairly clunky. One copy at a time, manually. Not like putting it out on the internet! I think we can forget "instant fame" as an incentive!  :)

The book was one of the last canonized by the Christians. Martin Luther questioned it when he broke from the church, but ultimately accepted it. Taken literally, it's a bit much. Taken allegorically, not quite that bad. I would imagine it was the concern that someone would take it literally that bothered the early theologians and Luther. Ultimately, all Christians accept it as "inspired" by God. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Two notes on the Robinson quotation

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)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Thank you for pointing that out. I'm about to start a class, or I'd get to work on it. Could someone else please get to work on this? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the section " Academic Interpretations"

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)

Interpretations of Numerolgy and Lexarithmic stuff

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)

They have extensive footnotes (which I haven't checked) at Number_of_the_Beast#As_Nero. "www." sounds a lot better an explanation!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Seven is considered the number of perfection in Christianity"?

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)

See Biblical numerology. It also references CARM, but references a Catholic Study Bible, as well. This is a fairly standard claim IMO. Daniel, Ezekiel and it's derivative, Revelation, are really "into" numerology. But these are (to those authors) like the phrases today, "You look like a million bucks;" "I feel like two cents." Our cultural, more materialistic, uses money! Student7 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have brought CARM up at WP:RSN as this personal website really doesn't qualify as a reliable source, although it's used in a lot of articles. I'll remove it from this one. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Outline subdivisions

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)

As you know, the inclusion of Revelation as part of the canon took a long time for the reasons you mention. Even Luther wanted to exclude it!

The Catholic Study Bible, which is fairly npov, does not use this strict outline. It has, rather two outlines: (!)

• I. Prologue (1, 1-3) or Opening Vision (1, 1-20)
• II. Letters to the Seven Churches (2,1-3,22) or (1,4 to 3.22)
• III. God and the Lamb in Heaven (4,1-5,14)
• IV. Visions of Cosmic Conflict ((6,1 - 16,21) or The Seven Seals, Trumpets and Plagues with Interludes
• V. Punishment of Babylon and the Destruction of Pagan Nations (17,1 - 20,15)
• VI. The New Creation (21,1 - 22,21) (or to 22,5)
• VII. Epilogue (22, 6-21)

Splitting the outline into "Acts" seems counter-historical and possibly profane. The word "Acts" should be replaced if nothing else is changed IMO.

So I assume that there are other differences by other researchers. We needn't accept one as (uh) gospel. The problem is reading it literally which is a bit of a caution, IMO. Or reading it, using cross-references to Ezekiel and Daniel (and a lot of other refs, as well), it starts to make some sense, though on a metaphorical plane. The author was clearly familiar with the rest of the bible, as most biblical writers were. So the "hallucinations" have imbedded "meaning," which is usually historical. Student7 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I second the splitting of the outline into "Acts." It is disruptive, interpretive and causes things like the Second Woe to need to be cited twice in order to accommodate it. Unless it is sourced, it must be removed and discussed here until there is a consensus. My guess is it was the addition of some clever, self-thinking, Bible interpreting "genius" who was hell bent on inserting their POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.224.89 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rm three "acts." "Outline" really more like a very long summary. Maybe "outline" should be written out in full sentences. It is never really explained, but rather interpreted. Student7 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Until about a year or 2 ago (from memory) this article was shaped by Revelation being a piece of literature: it had headings such as "plot" "characters" etc. I quite liked it, but it was a little contrived. It got changed along the way at some point - I haven't followed this article that closely. It may be that the "Acts" were a left-over from that approach. I don't think it matters either way. One thing I do think is inappropriate and has no place as a criticism of any text in Wikipedia is the description of that approach as "profane". Whether or not it is "profane" is utterly irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary:profane, second or third definition. Profane being secular. Or pov disrespectful (third definition). Student7 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

SO non-notable

Saw this buried in the article & thought better to surface it here for any treatment: (comes after 3rd para in #Dating section)

"I like what this guy is saying, BUT he is SO non-notable as to be too obscure for something this well-known. We need somebody notable IMO. This seems like a plug WP:SPAM for him

John W. Marshall dates the book to 69 or early 70 AD, saying it predates any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism, and that it is a thoroughly Jewish text."

Revert this if it messes with much. Manytexts (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac DLC

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)

So why not redirect to The Binding of Isaac directly instead?Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Book of Revelations talks about the event known as the Wrath of the Lamb. The Binding of Isaac named it's DLC after the Book of Revelations. That's why it should redirect to this article and have a notice at the top of the article. Soffredo (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Write an article about the Wrath of the Lamb and then do a re-direct. It's not a re-direct from this page. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 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)

The redirect is absurd. It's got nothing whatsover to do with this article. Per WP:BRD, I've taken it out pending any consensus emerging for its inclusion. See WP:BURDEN. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Many refer to the DLC as simply Wrath of the Lamb. How is it absurd? Soffredo (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect should go directly to the game page. It is absurd that it would go through this page. If you put redirect notices on this page for everything that loosely refers to something from the Book of Revelation, that's all the page would be made up of. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 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)

Nero banishes John to Patmos in Syriac version?

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)

I am no expert on this, but I did a search on Young's quote and found this link: [2] (see the bottom of page in particular). As for the Syriac version of Revelations and where it came from, that I also don't know. But there was a Syriac version. "Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century. "The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation)" (on same page).Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)