DOCSLIB.ORG

Reconsidering the Date of John's Gospel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reconsidering the Date of John's Gospel Reconsidering the Date of John’s Gospel by Thomas L. Stegall Introduction The date when the Gospel of John was written is normally considered to be of little theological consequence or concern to most Christians. However, this subject merits a fresh survey of the evidence in order to address the lingering theories of liberal critical scholarship in addition to the recent claims of some Free Grace evangelicals that John is the only evangelistic book in the Bible and that it was written extremely early in church history.1 In addition, if a second century date is permitted for the composition of John in its final form as claimed by some critical, non-evangelical scholars,2 then the historical reliability and divine authority of the book is automatically impugned. Conversely, on the opposite end of the spectrum, if a timeframe as early as the 30s-45 A.D. is accepted for the completion of John, it may lend support to the view that this book has theological-evangelistic priority and preeminence within the New Testament canon. This article will therefore reinvestigate the question of John’s date by first reviewing the rationale of critical, unbelieving scholarship for a very late date that extends into the second century. The bulk of the article will then weigh the evidence for the two main views held by current New Testament scholarship— the more popular later-date view of the 80s-90s and the less common pre-70 view. This will be followed by an assessment of the extremely early 30s-45 view. A reexamination of the evidence demonstrates that a reasonable range of dates may be maintained anywhere from the 60s-90s, with the weight of the evidence tipping slightly in favor of a pre-70 date. But there are many insurmountable obstacles accompanying a date of composition as early as the 30s-45 A.D. or as late as the early second century. While Scripture nowhere provides a specific “born-on” date for John’s Gospel, or even explicit statements about its order of completion in relation to the rest of the New Testament canon, enough implicit biblical and historical evidence exists to conclude that both the 30s-40s and second century extremes lie outside the bounds of credibility. Before proceeding, three matters require clarification. Johannine Priority First, the terms “priority” and “precedence” need proper definition. When these terms are used in this article, they refer either to the theological priority of John’s Gospel over other New Testament books, or to John’s chronological priority to other New Testament books, or sometimes to both. The phrase, “the priority of John,” has taken on a near technical status since the publication of John A. T. Robinson’s book by the same title. There, he defends an early, pre-A.D. 70 date for the writing of John’s Gospel—a date regarded to be decades prior to the timeframe traditionally attributed to John by conventional scholarly opinion. Thus, Robinson uses the term “priority” with a chronological, rather than a theological, 1 Robert N. Wilkin states, “I take the view that John’s Gospel was written in 45, before 1 Corinthians, and I think the first book was James in 34 and then I think John was 45” (“The Bible Answer Men,” Grace Evangelical Society Seattle Regional Conference, September 29, 2007). Elsewhere, Wilkin writes that “the Gospel of John was written at least ten years after Jesus rose from the dead and it says that the way Jesus evangelized is still effective today” (Bob Wilkin, “Scavenger Hunt Salvation without a List,” Grace in Focus 23 [May/June 2008]: 4). John Niemelä, on the other hand, views A.D. 45 as possibly too late for the completion of John’s Gospel, seeing “no reason why it couldn’t have been written in the 30s” (“The Bible Answer Men,” Grace Evangelical Society Seattle Regional Conference, September 29, 2007). 2 Barrett sees A.D. 90 as the earliest possible date (terminus post quem) and A.D. 140 as the latest (terminus ante quem), asserting that “none of the attempts to shift either date is successful” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978], 127-28). Bultmann held to a date range from A.D. 80-120 for the entire process of redaction leading to the final, completed form of John’s Gospel (Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971], 12). Similarly, Haenchen implies that the redactional process did not cease until sometime in the early second century (Ernst Haenchen, John 1, Hermeneia, trans. Robert W. Funk [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 6-7, 75). And though Van der Watt permits a possible completion date as low as the 70s, he extends the latest possible completion date up to A.D. 125 (Jan van der Watt, An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters [London: T & T Clark, 2007] 123). emphasis. However, with recent claims being made that John’s Gospel alone possesses an evangelistic purpose, the phrase “Johannine priority” is sometimes used in this article to indicate a theological- evangelistic preeminence for John, in addition to its chronological priority. Context will determine which sense is intended. Apostolic Authorship Second, the question of authorship naturally coincides with the date of composition for the Gospel of John. This article will assume, rather than attempt to prove, that John the apostle and son of Zebedee was the human author of the fourth Gospel.3 Critical, unbelieving scholarship generally regards John to have had little or no oversight of the Gospel’s final composition. It maintains instead that the book evolved as it progressed through several “stages,”4 thus revealing several “layers” or “strata” of varying ages,5 since it was redacted by the Johannine “community”6 that was two to three generations removed from John himself.7 However, this evolutionary theory of the fourth Gospel’s composition is built on multiple presuppositions rather than verifiable evidence. Current source and redaction criticism of John has become a highly speculative enterprise to say the least. Such speculations will not be addressed here since conservative scholarship has already demonstrated convincingly that apostolic authorship of the fourth 3 While many critical scholars prefer the label “fourth Gospel” over the traditional title, “Gospel of John,” because they do not believe that the apostle John wrote this book, no such implication is intended here. Instead, the phrase “fourth Gospel” is used as an alternative expression because (1) it reflects my own conviction that John wrote his Gospel chronologically after Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and (2) it reflects the traditional canonical order of the New Testament. I recognize that John’s Gospel has not always stood fourth throughout the manuscript history, since Codex Washingtonianus, for example, has the order of Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992] 56). But this is atypical; John is normally fourth. 4 Ashton represents an extreme example, seeing eight such stages in the development of John’s Gospel. John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 163-66. Brown, on the other hand, originally held to five stages (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, 2 vols. [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-1970], 1:xxiv-xxxviii) but later condensed these to three (idem, An Introduction to the Gospel of John [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2003], 40-89). See also, Robert T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); Robert Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), 10-81; Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), 1:59-74; Stephen S. Smalley, “Keeping up with Recent Studies: XII. St. John’s Gospel,” Expository Times 97 (1986): 102-8; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989). 5 Van der Watt, An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters, 93-121. 6 See especially, Barnabas Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1971); J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1979). 7 For internal evidence establishing the unity of the fourth Gospel and its single authorship by the apostle John rather than an evolving communal composition, see Vern S. Poythress, “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions,” Westminster Theological Journal 46 (Fall 1984): 350-69; idem, “The Use of the Intersentence Conjunctions De, Oun, Kai, and Asyndeton in the Gospel of John,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 312-40. Gospel is not only plausible and reasonable but is the most favorable conclusion based on internal and external evidence.8 Order of Composition A third introductory issue requiring clarification is that of order. The matter of date for the Gospel of John must be properly distinguished from that of its order of composition relative to other New Testament books. Even if John could be dated very early, this would not necessarily make it the first book of the New Testament to be written. Thus, some who hold to a view of Johannine priority concede that at least one book was written before John’s Gospel, namely the Epistle of James in A.D. 34.9 However, the subject of John’s date cannot be entirely divorced from the question of order relative to the other New Testament books.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abide in John's First Epistle
    BY JOSEPH BECKLER BIDE IN john’s FIRST EPISTLE he word abide (Greek, meno) carries Abide in the Greek context carries a sense synonymous meanings such as remaining, of remaining or staying in place. The word in Tstaying, living, dwelling, lasting, enduring, its general usage described an idea of endur- and continuing.1 The Greek New Testament uses ing or of someone holding his or her ground, meno 112 times. of its usage, the Johannine group even when facing adversity. Overall, the word 2009 Summer of literature (the Gospel of John; 1, 2, 3 John; and BI revelation) uses the term 66 times.2 having a LESSON REFERENCE proper understanding of abide is thus important BsFL: 1 John 2:3-17 55 when reading any of John’s writings. ILLUSTRATOR PHOTO/ KRISTEN HILLER (2486) meno communicated a strong sense of tenacity, new heaven and new earth (Isa. 66:22).4 Looking and this certainly shaped the understanding of exclusively at the Old Testament usage, abide those who used the word. For the modern reader, suggests more than a casual “sticking around.” understanding the meaning of abide, as related This word emphasizes the enduring, eternal, and specifically to the Jewish community and the dependable nature of God. early Christian movement, requires looking at meno’s usage in the Greek translation of the Old Abide in 1 John 2:3-17 Testament, the Septuagint. John’s writings, as mentioned above, used abide The Septuagint used abide (meno) in translat- in a brilliant theological fashion. The Book ing Hebrew words that carried the sense of of 1 John was written to a group of Christians standing, lasting, remaining, enduring, being who dealt with the threat of gnostic influence.
    [Show full text]
  • Date of Revelation – AD 62
    Date of Revelation – AD 62 Ed Stevens – Blue Point Conference – March 2017 INTRODUCTION: There are a significant number of traditions and opinions from the patristic writers, which have been used on both sides of this debate about the date of the book of Revelation. But very little of that uninspired patristic testimony carries any weight, simply because most of it can not be confirmed at the mouth of two or more reliable first century eyewitnesses. Most of it is merely external hearsay evidence and opinion, and some of it even tends to contradict scripture. Over 130 authors, most of whom are futurists, have advocated a pre-AD 70 date for the book of Revelation. And almost all of them place it during the reign of Nero (AD 54-68). But such a long list of writers is not a strong argument for the early date. Truth is never determined by majority vote or a popularity contest. It does not matter how many names we can stack up on either side of this debate. What does matter, however, are the reasons that these writers give to support the early date, and especially the evidence inside the book of Revelation which points most clearly and forcefully to a pre-70 date. The only kind of evidence that can decide this issue is biblical evidence, and especially that evidence which comes from inside the book of Revelation itself. So we will be focusing a lot of our attention on the internal evidence for a pre-70 date of the book of Revelation. As we all know, the interpretation of most Biblical books is not significantly affected by differences of opinion about its date of composition.
    [Show full text]
  • Livy's View of the Roman National Character
    James Luce, December 5th, 1993 Livy's View of the Roman National Character As early as 1663, Francis Pope named his plantation, in what would later become Washington, DC, "Rome" and renamed Goose Creek "Tiber", a local hill "Capitolium", an example of the way in which the colonists would draw upon ancient Rome for names, architecture and ideas. The founding fathers often called America "the New Rome", a place where, as Charles Lee said to Patrick Henry, Roman republican ideals were being realized. The Roman historian Livy (Titus Livius, 59 BC-AD 17) lived at the juncture of the breakdown of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. His 142 book History of Rome from 753 to 9 BC (35 books now extant, the rest epitomes) was one of the most read Latin authors by early American colonists, partly because he wrote about the Roman national character and his unique view of how that character was formed. "National character" is no longer considered a valid term, nations may not really have specific national characters, but many think they do. The ancients believed states or peoples had a national character and that it arose one of 3 ways: 1) innate/racial: Aristotle believed that all non-Greeks were barbarous and suited to be slaves; Romans believed that Carthaginians were perfidious. 2) influence of geography/climate: e.g., that Northern tribes were vigorous but dumb 3) influence of institutions and national norms based on political and family life. The Greek historian Polybios believed that Roman institutions (e.g., division of government into senate, assemblies and magistrates, each with its own powers) made the Romans great, and the architects of the American constitution read this with especial care and interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses Johannine Theosis: The Fourth Gospel's Narrative Ecclesiology of Participation and Deication BYERS, ANDREW,JASON How to cite: BYERS, ANDREW,JASON (2014) Johannine Theosis: The Fourth Gospel's Narrative Ecclesiology of Participation and Deication, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10908/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 JOHANNINE THEOSIS: The Fourth Gospel’s Narrative Ecclesiology of Participation and Deification Andrew J. Byers Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Durham 2014 Abstract Though John’s Gospel has been widely understood as ambivalent toward the idea of “church,” this thesis argues that ecclesiology is as central a Johannine concern as Christology. For the fourth evangelist, there is neither a Christless church nor a churchless Christ.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 74-10,982
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. White the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case: 17-17531, 04/02/2018, ID: 10821327, DktEntry: 13-1, Page 1 of 111 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WINDING CREEK SOLAR LLC, Case No. 17-17531 Plaintiff-Appellant, On Appeal from the United States v. District Court for the Northern District of California CARLA PETERMAN; MARTHA No. 3:13-cv-04934-JD GUZMAN ACEVES; LIANE Hon. James Donato RANDOLPH; CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN; MICHAEL PICKER, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission, Defendants-Appellees. Case No. 17-17532 WINDING CREEK SOLAR LLC, On Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern District v. of California No. 3:13-cv-04934-JD CARLA PETERMAN; MARTHA Hon. James Donato GUZMAN ACEVES; LIANE RANDOLPH; CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN; MICHAEL PICKER, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission, Defendants-Appellants. APPELLANT’S FIRST BRIEF ON CROSS-APPEAL Thomas Melone ALLCO RENEWABLE ENERGY LTD. 1740 Broadway, 15th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 681-1120 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Appellant WINDING CREEK SOLAR LLC Case: 17-17531, 04/02/2018, ID: 10821327, DktEntry: 13-1, Page 2 of 111 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Winding Creek Solar LLC is 100% owned by Allco Finance Limited, which is a privately held company in the business of developing solar energy projects. Allco Finance Limited has no parent companies, and no publicly held company owns 10 percent or more of its stock. /s/ Thomas Melone i Case: 17-17531, 04/02/2018, ID: 10821327, DktEntry: 13-1, Page 3 of 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hell: Never, Forever, Or Just for Awhile?
    TMSJ 9/2 (Fall 1998) 129-145 HELL: NEVER, FOREVER, OR JUST FOR AWHILE? Richard L. Mayhue Senior Vice President and Dean Professor of Theology and Pastoral Ministries The plethora of literature produced in the last two decades on the basic nature of hell indicates a growing debate in evangelicalism that has not been experienced since the latter half of the nineteenth century. This introductory article to the entire theme issue of TMSJ sets forth the context of the question of whether hell involves conscious torment forever in Gehenna for unbelievers or their annihilation after the final judgment. It discusses historical, philosophical, lexical, contextual, and theological issues that prove crucial to reaching a definitive biblical conclusion. In the end, hell is a conscious, personal torment forever; it is not “just for awhile” before annihilation after the final judgment (conditional immortality) nor is its final retribution “never” (universalism). * * * * * A few noted evangelicals such as Clark Pinnock,1 John Stott,2 and John Wenham3 have in recent years challenged the doctrine of eternal torment forever in hell as God’s final judgment on all unbelievers. James Hunter, in his landmark “sociological interpretation” of evangelicalism, notes that “. it is clear that there is a measurable degree of uneasiness within this generation of Evangelicals with the notion of an eternal damnation.”4 The 1989 evangelical doctrinal caucus “Evangelical Affirmations” surprisingly debated this issue. “Strong disagreements did surface over the position of annihilationism, a view that holds that unsaved souls 1Clark H. Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in Four Views on Hell, ed. by William Crockett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 135-66.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTENT STANDARDS World History and Geography: Ancient
    CONTENT STANDARDS World History and Geography: Ancient Civilizations 6TH GRADE HISTORY 6.1 Students describe what is known through archaeological studies of the early physical and cultural development of humankind from the Paleolithic era to the agricultural revolution. 1. Describe the hunter-gatherer societies, including the development of tools and the use of fire. 2. Identify the locations of human communities that populated the major regions of the world and describe how humans adapted to a variety of environments. 3. Discuss the climatic changes and human modifications of the physical environment that gave rise to the domestication of plants and animals and new sources of clothing and shelter. 6.2 Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the early civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Kush 1. Locate and describe the major river systems and discuss the physical settings that supported permanent settlement and early civilizations. 2. Trace the development of agricultural techniques that permitted the production of economic surplus and the emergence of cities as centers of culture and power. 3. Understand the relationship between religion and the social and political order in Mesopotamia and Egypt. 4. Know the significance of Hammurabi’s Code. 5. Discuss the main features of Egyptian art and architecture. 6. Describe the role of Egyptian trade in the eastern Mediterranean and Nile valley. 7. Understand the significance of Queen Hatshepsut and Ramses the Great. 8. Identify the location of the Kush civilization and describe its political, commercial, and cultural relations with Egypt. 9. Trace the evolution of language and its written forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Authenticity of the Gospels James O'brien Providence College
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@Providence Providence College DigitalCommons@Providence Spring 2015, Faith and Science Liberal Arts Honors Program September 2015 Evaluating the Authenticity of the Gospels James O'Brien Providence College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/faith_science_2015 Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons O'Brien, James, "Evaluating the Authenticity of the Gospels" (2015). Spring 2015, Faith and Science. Paper 6. http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/faith_science_2015/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberal Arts Honors Program at DigitalCommons@Providence. It has been accepted for inclusion in Spring 2015, Faith and Science by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Providence. For more information, please contact [email protected]. O’Brien 1 James O’Brien Fr. Nic Austriaco April 30, 2015 Faith and Science Research Paper Evaluating the Authenticity of the Gospels We live in an age of great skepticism. Nearly everything we do or believe requires proof. While doubt certainly protects people from jumping to conclusions, it can also prevent people from drawing final conclusions. Doubt, especially in high stakes matters, has become a hideout for those who are scared to confront the results of their investigations. Unfortunately, this mentality has penetrated the most important decisions of our lives — even our decisions regarding the authenticity of the Bible. Today, moderns, as well as biblical scholars, have a hard time accepting the possibility that the Gospels are authentic.
    [Show full text]
  • Can the New Testament Be Trusted/Believed?
    CAN THE NEW TESTAMENT BE TRUSTED/BELIEVED? Fact one: the bibliographical test so much greater than the evidence for many writings (corroboration from textual transmission). The of classical writers, the authenticity of which no one historical accuracy of the New Testament can be dreams of questioning. And if the new Testament were proven by subjecting it to three generally accepted tests a collection of secular writings, their authenticity 182 for determining historical reliability. Such tests are would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” utilized in literary criticism and the study of historical It is this wealth of material that has enabled documents in general. (These are also discussed by scholars such as Westcott and Hort, Ezra Abbott, Sanders.178) They involve 1) bibliographical, 2) Philip Schaff, A.T. Robertson, Norman Geisler and internal and 3) external examinations of the text and William Nix to place the restoration of the original text 183 other evidence. at 99 percent plus. Thus no other document of the The bibliographical tests seeks to determine ancient period is as accurately preserved as the New whether we can reconstruct the original manuscript Testament: from the extant copies at hand. For the New Testament Hort’s estimate of “substantial variation” for the (NT) we have 5,300 Greek manuscripts and manuscript New Testament is one-tenth of 1 percent; Abbott’s portions, 10,000 Latin Vulgate, 9,300 other versions, estimate is one-fourth of 1 percent; and even plus 36,000 early (100-300 A.D.) patristic quotations of Hort’s figure including trivial variation is less than the NT—such that all but a few verses of the entire NT 179 2 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Elijah, Election, and the Use of Malachi in the New Testament
    Criswell Theological Review 2.1 (1987) 99-117 [Copyright © 1987 by Criswell College, cited with permission; digitally prepared for use at Gordon and Criswell Colleges and elsewhere] ELIJAH, ELECTION, AND THE USE OF MALACHI IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CRAIG L. BLOMBERG Denver Seminary, Denver, CO 80210 At first glance, the book of Malachi seems not to play a prominent role in the NT. To be sure, key themes from this last oracle of OT prophecy reappear in the later Scriptures. One may compare, for example, the Jews' contemptuous treatment of their sacrifices (Mal 1:7-14) with Paul's admonitions to the Corinthians concerning the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34), the disobedience of the priests and Levites (Mal 2:1-12) with Jesus' consistent critique of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees in his day, God's hatred of divorce and his monogamus designs for marriage (Mal 2:13-16) with Jesus' and Paul’s teachings on the same topics (Mark 10:1-12 pars.; 1 Corinthians 7), the promise of the Lord's coming in righteousness to his temple both to save and to judge (Mal 3:1-4; 4:1-3) with the repeated NT emphasis on the fulfillment of these prophecies in Christ's first and second comings, or the insistence that God's blessings are contingent upon the faithful stewardship of one's tithe (Mal 3:8-12) with Paul's teaching on the collection for Jerusalem (2 Cor 8-9).1 Yet only two explicit quotations from Malachi find their way into the pages of the NT.
    [Show full text]
  • Collector's Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage
    Liberty Coin Service Collector’s Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage (49 BC - AD 518) The Twelve Caesars - The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (49 BC - AD 96) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Julius Caesar (49-44 BC) Augustus (31 BC-AD 14) Tiberius (AD 14 - AD 37) Caligula (AD 37 - AD 41) Claudius (AD 41 - AD 54) Tiberius Nero (AD 54 - AD 68) Galba (AD 68 - AD 69) Otho (AD 69) Nero Vitellius (AD 69) Vespasian (AD 69 - AD 79) Otho Titus (AD 79 - AD 81) Domitian (AD 81 - AD 96) The Nerva-Antonine Dynasty (AD 96 - AD 192) Nerva (AD 96-AD 98) Trajan (AD 98-AD 117) Hadrian (AD 117 - AD 138) Antoninus Pius (AD 138 - AD 161) Marcus Aurelius (AD 161 - AD 180) Hadrian Lucius Verus (AD 161 - AD 169) Commodus (AD 177 - AD 192) Marcus Aurelius Years of Transition (AD 193 - AD 195) Pertinax (AD 193) Didius Julianus (AD 193) Pescennius Niger (AD 193) Clodius Albinus (AD 193- AD 195) The Severans (AD 193 - AD 235) Clodius Albinus Septimus Severus (AD 193 - AD 211) Caracalla (AD 198 - AD 217) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Geta (AD 209 - AD 212) Macrinus (AD 217 - AD 218) Diadumedian as Caesar (AD 217 - AD 218) Elagabalus (AD 218 - AD 222) Severus Alexander (AD 222 - AD 235) Severus The Military Emperors (AD 235 - AD 284) Alexander Maximinus (AD 235 - AD 238) Maximus Caesar (AD 235 - AD 238) Balbinus (AD 238) Maximinus Pupienus (AD 238) Gordian I (AD 238) Gordian II (AD 238) Gordian III (AD 238 - AD 244) Philip I (AD 244 - AD 249) Philip II (AD 247 - AD 249) Gordian III Trajan Decius (AD 249 - AD 251) Herennius Etruscus
    [Show full text]