This exegesis without 20:5a will also aid our understanding of the closing chapters that follow (i.e., chapters 21-22). During that process I will attempt to simplify and synthesize the visions into one coherent message. In the second part I will provide an exegesis of Revelation chapter 20 without verse 5a. Following that I will present a brief historical and text-critical case for 20:5a as a late scribal addition, so that the experimental exegesis offered in part two is ready to be considered. I will then contrast those perspectives with one that I find frequently overlooked and seriously compelling-one which has also grown in interest over the last two hundred years of scholarly research. In the first part I will quickly address a handful of generally credible perspectives about Revelation’s overall historical context and message. The first part is contextual and text-critical the second is exegetical and theoretical the third is systematic and polemical. Apart from this introduction and some concluding remarks, it consists of three distinct parts. The outline of this paper is straightforward. As such it invites the reader to reimagine the perspicuity of the original message contained in the closing chapters of Revelation, assuming that 20:5a was not original. Instead, this paper is intended to be an exegetical experiment. I am also aware that the book in question has a complicated history of reception and a wide variety of textual variations, resulting in an even wider variety of interpretive options, as the scholarly conjecture over the last two millennia have evinced. I have no authority to propose any dogmas in that regard. This paper is not an attempt to be dogmatic about how the final chapters of Revelation ought to be interpreted. At this point I also wish to be especially clear about my motives and goals, considering how controversial all views of ‘end times’ seem to be. The ‘thousand years’ of Revelation chapter 20 need not be a crux of interpretation as long as 20:5a is considered spurious. Part of my argument will entail that the ‘millennium’ plays such a minuscule role within the lengthy drama being told, that debates about its interpretive-timeline within history (whether in our past, present, or future) are noticeably misguided once the omission of Rev. 20:5a, I also hope to show that the so-called ‘millennium’ is not as pivotal as many scholars have imagined it to be. In addition to showing the importance of Rev. 20:5a is, indeed, a late scribal addition, that leaves an enormous amount of scholarly conjecture about the final chapters of Revelation open to serious reevaluation and reconsideration. Considering that Revelation has the poorest preservation among all Greek New Testament manuscript traditions, and chapter 20 is not contained in the majority of those dated between 150–500 CE, its omission among the oldest manuscripts that do contain chapter 20 is particularly important for discerning its authenticity. It is not found in some of the oldest, best, and most widely attested manuscript traditions available today. Revelation 20:5a reads, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until after the thousand years were finished.” This unusually lengthy textual variant is more significant than most New Testament scholars seem to acknowledge. The unique contribution I would like to offer alongside this first century track is one that excludes Revelation 20:5a from its portrayal of ‘end times,’ on the grounds of it being a later scribal addition. That path so often ignored is one which interprets the entire book as addressing a first century audience and their expectation of fulfillment. In conversation with scholarly controversies, all of which are readily accessible to those investigating the topic today, this paper will attempt to supplement previous research by illustrating one path of interpretation that is frequently ignored, while also shining light on some basic assumptions that are reasonably questionable. The twentieth chapter of the book of Revelation is one the most controversial sections contained therein.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |