Translate by chatGPT ![:o]( "Surprised")
![:o]( "Surprised")
![:o]( "Surprised")
![:o]( "Surprised")
![:o]( "Surprised")
:
:IV. RESULT
The analysis of the statements of the apologist Justin in Dial. 81.4 – and in Dial. 82.1 – conducted from different perspectives, suggests the following individual results as being quite probable:
(a) The date of composition of the Dialogus cum Tryphone as such provides no conclusions regarding the dating of the composition of the New Testament Apocalypse, and therefore does not necessitate assigning it to a time before 120 AD. The portrayal of the ἀνήρ τις Ἰωάννης (a certain man John) as a contemporary of the 'text-internal' Justin, who – again, 'text-internal' – engages in a discussion with the Jew Tryphon during the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, strongly suggests a dating of the Dialogus to the Hadrianic period.
(b) The explicit attribution of the New Testament Apocalypse to the apostle John, distinct from the son of Zebedee, formulated in the phrase εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, represents an original contribution of Justin or possibly even a later addition. From this attribution, it is difficult to argue in favor of dating the composition of the New Testament Apocalypse to before 120 AD or even to the time of Domitian, but it is quite plausible for dating it to the Hadrianic period.
(c) The statements of Justin in Dial. 81.4 deviate significantly in content from those in Apk 20.4.6.11-15, although the apologist explicitly refers to the New Testament Apocalypse in his discussion. This corresponds to the fact that the former cannot ultimately be considered a true citation of the latter. These facts, along with the observation that the apologist does not use the titulus of the New Testament Apocalypse in his reference to it, suggest initially that the New Testament Apocalypse, at the time the Dialogus was composed, was not yet perceived as a circulated and established work. This, in turn, supports the assumption of temporal proximity between the composition of the Dialogus and that of the Apocalypse, thus arguing against a Domitianic date, but in favor of a Hadrianic date.
From all of this, it follows in sum: The terminus ad quem (latest possible date) for the composition of the New Testament Apocalypse is determined by the time of the (final) redaction and publication of the Dialogus cum Tryphone, which lies after 150 AD. The considerations here formulated regarding Justin’s remarks in Dial. 81.4 particularly render the thesis that the Apocalypse was composed in the time of Domitian (i.e., between 90 and 95 AD) unlikely. However, they are quite suitable for supporting the thesis that the composition of the Apocalypse occurred during the Hadrianic period, specifically between 132 and 135 AD.
The analysis of the statements of the apologist Justin in Dial. 81.4 – and in Dial. 82.1 – conducted from different perspectives, suggests the following individual results as being quite probable:
(a) The date of composition of the Dialogus cum Tryphone as such provides no conclusions regarding the dating of the composition of the New Testament Apocalypse, and therefore does not necessitate assigning it to a time before 120 AD. The portrayal of the ἀνήρ τις Ἰωάννης (a certain man John) as a contemporary of the 'text-internal' Justin, who – again, 'text-internal' – engages in a discussion with the Jew Tryphon during the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, strongly suggests a dating of the Dialogus to the Hadrianic period.
(b) The explicit attribution of the New Testament Apocalypse to the apostle John, distinct from the son of Zebedee, formulated in the phrase εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, represents an original contribution of Justin or possibly even a later addition. From this attribution, it is difficult to argue in favor of dating the composition of the New Testament Apocalypse to before 120 AD or even to the time of Domitian, but it is quite plausible for dating it to the Hadrianic period.
(c) The statements of Justin in Dial. 81.4 deviate significantly in content from those in Apk 20.4.6.11-15, although the apologist explicitly refers to the New Testament Apocalypse in his discussion. This corresponds to the fact that the former cannot ultimately be considered a true citation of the latter. These facts, along with the observation that the apologist does not use the titulus of the New Testament Apocalypse in his reference to it, suggest initially that the New Testament Apocalypse, at the time the Dialogus was composed, was not yet perceived as a circulated and established work. This, in turn, supports the assumption of temporal proximity between the composition of the Dialogus and that of the Apocalypse, thus arguing against a Domitianic date, but in favor of a Hadrianic date.
From all of this, it follows in sum: The terminus ad quem (latest possible date) for the composition of the New Testament Apocalypse is determined by the time of the (final) redaction and publication of the Dialogus cum Tryphone, which lies after 150 AD. The considerations here formulated regarding Justin’s remarks in Dial. 81.4 particularly render the thesis that the Apocalypse was composed in the time of Domitian (i.e., between 90 and 95 AD) unlikely. However, they are quite suitable for supporting the thesis that the composition of the Apocalypse occurred during the Hadrianic period, specifically between 132 and 135 AD.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Sat Jan 18, 2025 10:56 am