A Recapitulation
a commentary on the Apocalypse by Victorinus who introduced the theory of recapitulation. Without it misinterpretation is likely. The visions of John cannot be understood to be in chronological order. Each vision should be considered independent of the others. Some are a repetition of others. Recapitulation is a necessary tool in understanding the Apocalypse.
Home 29
A Commentary
a revelation without the churches. An Apocalypse written by John the Baptist would not have the seven churches. A careful reading of Eusebius and Victorinus is consistent with this. The Baptist would use the word lamb about 27 times in his Apocalypse. John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Lamb.
A Commentary
by Victorinus on the Apocalypse. He mentions the seven churches that Paul wrote to but not the ones John wrote to. Eusebius has the same problem. He mentions six of the seven churches of the Apocalypse but never associates any of them with the Apocalypse. What was he looking at?
Home 9
A Commentary
by Victorinus modified by Jerome who was not happy with it. What he added and/or edited is not clear. It is possible that Victorinus was looking at a copy of the original Apocalypse and Jerome was not aware of this. This would also explain why so many were convinced it was not written by John the Apostle who may have added the churches at a later date.
A Missing Martyr
with Eusebius and Victorinus. Antipas can not be found in the Church History of Eusebius or in the Commentary of Victorinus. The missing stuff is adding up. Can it be explained? Has any one tried to? There is reasonable explanation. They were both looking at copy of the Apocalypse that didn’t have Antipas, the churches, or Jesus. They just had the Lamb.
A Problem
with the Victorinus commentary on the Apocalypse. The seven churches Victorinus mentions in his commentary on the Apocalypse are the ones Paul wrote to. The letters are to seven spirits not seven churches. Eusebius mentions six of the seven churches but never associates them with the Apocalypse. Could it be their copy of John’s Apocalypse did not mention them?
Home 8
A Clue
as to what they didn’t know. What the Fathers of the Church wrote has been thoroughly studied but what they left out has not. Victorinus in his Commentary on the Apocalypse fails to mention the seven churches. He does mention the seven churches that Paul wrote to. This by itself should concern no one but when combined with other similar omissions, it demands your attention.
A Strange Beginning
in the Apocalypse. Why is John mentioned three times? Has anyone addressed this in a reasonable way? Could they actually be three different people all named John? Victorinus and Eusebius gives us reason to believe that. Victorinus in his commentary doesn’t mention Antipas or the seven churches. He does mention the seven churches Paul wrote to. Eusebius doesn’t mention Antipas. He does mention six of the seven churches but doesn’t associate them with the Apocalypse. Both may be looking at the first version written by John the Baptist.
Home 14
A Strange Introduction
that doesn’t get enough attention. Combine this with John being told to “prophesy again” after eating the little book. Is there a record of him prophesying again? Yes but the record of John prophesying the first time is missing except for a few clues. The dog that didn’t bark. Eusebius and Victorinus did not mention Antipas or the seven churches. Were they looking at the first Apocalypse written by John the Baptist?
A Critic
of the commentary by Victorinus and took it upon himself to modify it. What did he change and why did he change it?? His wealthy friend Paula and his travels resulted in an impressive collection of books for Jerome. His letters show that he was a very important man at the beginning of the 5th century. It was a time when the bible was being defined.
Watch for more pieces that fit. Blessed is the one who looks.
Home
apocalypse 