Category: +Religion

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Rev. 6)

Most scholars today think that the book of Revelation was written around the year A.D. 95, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian.

Historically, though, many thought it was written earlier than that, and there is a surprisingly strong case that the book was written in the late A.D. 60s or the early part of A.D. 70. Let’s take a quick look at the evidence . . .

“Five Are Fallen”

In Revelation 17, John sees a vision of the Whore of Babylon seated on the beast with seven heads, and he is told:

[9] This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;
[10] they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.

There’s pretty good evidence that the beast represents the Roman empire and that these seven kings represent the line of first century Roman emperors.

If you’d like more information on that subject, check out my videos, Who Is the Beast of Revelation and Who Is the Beast of Revelation (Part Two).

Assuming that identification is accurate, that gives us a pretty strong clue about when the book was written. If five of the kings (emperors) are fallen (dead) and one is (living/reigning) then that means Revelation was written during the reign of the sixth emperor. So which would that be?

Here are two possibilities . . .

The Reign of Nero?

The Emperor Nero
If you start the count with Julius Caesar then the sixth emperor would be Nero:

  1. Julius Caesar
  2. Augustus
  3. Tiberius
  4. Caligula
  5. Claudius
  6. Nero

Nero certainly fits well with the description of the beast that is given in the book (see the two videos), but there is a possible problem: Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor. He was a dictator (meaning: the Roman Senate voted him the title “dictator”–which was an actual political office back then, before the term came to mean “tyrant”), but he wasn’t voted the title “emperor.”

Still, it’s possible that this might not have made a lot of difference from the perspective of first century Jews and Christians.

Technically, the Roman emperors weren’t kings at all (the Romans were very proud of the fact that they had ended the line of Roman kings and set up a republic), but they functioned as kings, and everybody understood that.

This is why the crowd cried “We have no king but Caesar!” during the trial of Jesus.

So if the count starts with Julius then we have reason to think Revelation was written in the reign of Nero, which was between October 13, A.D. 54 and June 9, A.D. 68.

But there’s another possibility that may be even more likely . . .

The Reign of Galba?

The Emperor Galba
The first person to be voted the title “emperor” was Augustus, and he could well be regarded as the starting point of the count by people all across the empire, including Jews and Christians. If so, then this is what we would get:

  1. Augustus
  2. Tiberius
  3. Caligula
  4. Claudius
  5. Nero
  6. Galba

I know. You may be saying, “Who?”

Galba isn’t a very famous emperor, and one reason is that he didn’t reign very long. In fact, he reigned only a few months, during a disastrous period known as “the Year of Four Emperors,” in which Rome was torn apart by a series of bloody civil wars in which one emperor toppled another in rapid succession.

But if that’s the case then, since Galba reigned such a short time, we’d actually be able to date the writing of Revelation very precisely.

It would have to be between June 8, A.D. 68 and January 15, A.D. 69. (Galba actually began reigning the day before Nero died, because Nero had been declared an enemy of the state by the Senate and went on the lam before being coerced into committing suicide.)

So it could be that Revelation was written during a very short span in late 68 or (very) early 69.

Is there other evidence that has a bearing on this?

“He must remain only a little while”

The Emperor Otho
You’ll recall that the seventh king was said to remain (reign) only a little while. Does that fit the situation?

Yes. In fact, it fits both of the possibilities we’ve mentioned.

If Nero was reigning then Nero’s successor, Galba, certainly reigned a short time–just barely over 7 months.

If Galba was reigning then, since he was reigning in the Year of Four Emperors, his own successor–Otho–lasted only a short time as well, just 3 months (from January 15 to April 16, A.D. 69).

“Do not measure the court outside the temple”

The Jerusalem Temple, including the broad, outer courtyard
Back in Revelation 11, John was told:

[1] Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,
[2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.

This passage speaks of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem as if it is still standing.

The text speaks of the gentiles (or nations, same word in Greek) trampling the holy city (Jerusalem) and invading the temple courtyard.

They also invaded and destroyed the temple itself, but the text speaks of this as not having happened yet, since John is told to measure the temple, its altar, and those worshipping there. So it was still functioning.

Since the temple was destroyed on August 5, A.D. 70, that also suggests that Revelation was written before this date.

Learning More

I’m currently writing a book–titled Secret History of the Bible–which will go into this kind of information and more, revealing fascinating facts that bear on how, when, and by whom the Bible was written.

That’s not out just yet though, so until then you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.

You should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

Do Women Need to Wear Head Coverings at Mass?

Are Head Coverings at Mass Required for Women?

The question of whether women need to wear head coverings (mantillas, chapel veils, etc.) at Mass keeps coming up.

With the greater freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy, it poses the question anew, since prior to the current rite of Mass head coverings were required for women.

If a woman is going to an Extraordinary Form Mass, does she have an obligation to wear one, in keeping with the law at the time?

I’ve blogged about the subject before. More than once, in fact.

But the question keeps coming up, and with the new twist based on the broadened permission to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, it’s worth looking into again.

So what’s the answer?

Head Coverings at Mass in Canon Law

The requirement that women wear head coverings at Mass was part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided:

Canon 1262

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

Notice that this didn’t establish a requirement for any particular form of head covering. It could be a mantilla, a veil, a hat, a scarf, etc.

But when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was released, it provided:

Canon 6

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

Laws which had been part of the 1917 Code, including canon 1262, thus lost their force and the legal requirement was officially ended. (The custom had already fallen into disuse in many places.)

Since it was the 1917 Code and not the Church’s liturgical documents that established the requirement, it would seem that when the 1917 Code lost its force, the obligation ceased for Latin Rite liturgies in general, regardless of whether they were celebrated according to the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.

But wait . . . what about St. Paul’s mention of them in 1 Corinthians?

Head Coverings in the Bible

If St. Paul’s directive that women wear head coverings were binding today then it would apply to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Forms (as well as non-Latin Rite liturgies).

However, in 1976 the Congregation for the Faith dealt with the issue and judged that St. Paul’s directive on this point is not binding. In its declaration on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood (Inter Insigniores), the CDF stated:

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

So it would appear that neither canon law nor the Church’s liturgical books nor Scripture establish a requirement that women today must wear head coverings, at either Ordinary or the Extraordinary Form Masses.

Of course, women are still absolutely free to do so, and doing so can be a beautiful expression of devotion.

Common Sense & the Extraordinary Form

Given the natural expectations of many people at Extraordinary Form Masses, one can see a certain appropriateness to wearing them in that context.

People there would commonly expect the use of head coverings–precisely because there was an obligation in 1962–and not using them could cause puzzlement or consternation.

Still, it would be nice to have some additional insight on Rome’s thinking into this question, which leads us to . . .

Cardinal Burke on Head Coverings & the Extraordinary Form

I was pleased recently when I discovered that Cardinal Burke had addressed this question in a private letter that is now available on the EWTN web site.

This letter does not represent an official ruling, but since Cardinal Burke is head of the Holy See’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, his opinion carries weight and certainly gives insight on the kind of thinking that Rome applies to these issues. So here is what he said on the subject:

The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.

Cardinal Burke thus seems to envision a middle category of “expectation.” Not a legal requirement. And not something that must be fulfilled on pain of sin. But not a matter of complete indifference, either.

That corresponds to my sense as well. At the Ordinary Form there is neither a requirement nor an expectation that head coverings be used, though women are totally free to do so. And at the Extraordinary Form there is and expectation but not a requirement, certainly not one binding on pain of sin, that they be used.

What do you think?

Learning More

By the way, if you’re interested in liturgical matters like this, they are one of the topics I cover in my mailings to the Secret Information Club. If you’re interested, you should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

The Weekly Benedict: 15 July, 2012

This  version of The Weekly Benedict covers material released in the last week from 22 June – 9 July 2012  (subscribe here; get as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):

Angelus

Letters

Speeches

What Is the “God Particle”? And Why Is It Important?

What is the "God particle"?
Computer simulation of a Higgs boson event
Scientists are abuzz with word that the long-sought “God particle” (aka the Higgs boson) may have finally been discovered.

While most scientists don’t like the nickname “God particle” (and while many religious people might not neither), it’s certainly generated a lot of coverage in the media.

Because of the God-based nickname the particle has been given, the discovery of the Higgs has attracted a lot of press attention, and I’ve received quite a number of requests to comment on it.

What is the Higgs boson? Why is it important?
And why do they call it the “God particle”?

In this video, I take a look at these and similar questions to give you the basics of the new discovery and what to make of it from a religious perspective.

Before we get to the video, though, here’s a Higgs-related joke (adapted from one I read on the Internet):

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest, offended by its nickname of the “God particle,” immediately orders it out.

The Higgs shrugs and turns to leave. “Okay,” it says. “But without me, you can’t have Mass.”

Groan!

At least if you know the basics of what the Higgs boson is supposed to do.

If not, watch the video and find out!

If you’re reading this by email, click here to view the video.

By the way, several of the requests I got for comment came from members of the Secret Information Club. If you’d like to get cool, informative material on a variety of topics from me by email, you should sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or just use this handy sign up form:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

You can also listen to or download an audio, podcast version of this video. Just click the “play” icon to listen!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chapel Veils, Understanding Scripture, Tithing and Debt, and More!

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live (July 12, 2012), I take on the following questions:

  • What is the history of chapel veils? Why did women stop wearing them?
  • What is the best resource for helping Catholics understand Scripture?
  • If I have a lot of debt, should I still tithe 10%? How do we know when to stop tithing and start paying our debts?
  • Do you think the laity’s attitude toward the priest is still that he is a member of the community, or do people just go to him for the sacraments and then ignore him?
  • What must I do to be saved?
  • In The Passion of the Christ, Satan asks, “How can one man bear the full burden of sin?” — how do Catholics address this question?
  • Where can I find proof that the Bible comes from the Catholic Church?
  • What can I do to help my daughter who is dating a Muslim stay strong in her faith?
  • How long does the sacrament of the anointing of the sick last? Can you receive it more than once?
  • What resource do you recommend for information about the permanent diaconate?
  • Is it disrespectful to refrain from bowing during the Nicene Creed and from striking your breast during the Penitential Rite?
  • My 24-year-old son always talks about the Vatican’s “corrupt” police force — can you tell me anything about this?
  • If I enter into the Catholic Church with a lot of spiritual “baggage,” will that be taken care of before I join, or do I bring it to confession after I become Catholic?

Click the “Play” icon to listen!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Can You Pour out the Precious Blood?

When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass, the change is permanent. It remains so long as the appearances of bread and wine do.

This has implications for how we treat the consecrated elements after Mass is over. Hosts that remain are stored in a Tabernacle, but what about the Precious Blood?

It cannot normally be reserved (the only exception being when it will be taken to the sick, and then special precautions have to be taken to keep it from spilling).

If there is a quantity of the Precious Blood left and it cannot be reserved, what are you supposed to do?

Pouring the Precious Blood into a Sacrarium?

Some have suggested pouring it out–not out on the ground or down an ordinary drain but down a special kind of sink known as a sacrarium.

Sacraria are typically found in the sacristy of a church, and they differ from an ordinary sink in a crucial respect: Instead of draining into the local sewer system, they drain down into the earth.

Sacraria are used for a variety of purposes, including these:

  1. To dispose of ashes from objects that have been blessed and then destroyed by fire
  2. To dispose of the water that has been used to wash the altar linens
  3. To dispose of water that has been used to dissolve small particles of the host
  4. To dispose of water that has been used to clean up places where the Precious Blood has spilled

Except for the first example, which deals with the ashes of former blessed objects, the other examples cited deal with water that is known to have or may have come into contact with the consecrated elements (since small particles of the host might be on the altar linens).

Given that, can you use the sacrarium to dispose of the Precious Blood itself? After all, it’s not like you’re pouring it into the sewer. You would be pouring it into something specially intended to deal with the remains of sacred things, right? So can you do this?

No. You can’t.

Throwing Away the Consecrated Species

It’s one thing to pour water into the sacrarium, even if that water has been used to dissolve the consecrated species. In that case, the appearances of bread and wine no longer remain, and so the Real Presence does not remain, either. It is another thing entirely to use it to throw away the consecrated species themselves.

According to the Code of Canon Law,

Canon 1367  A person who throws away the consecrated species or who takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if a cleric, he can be punished with another penalty including dismissal from the clerical state.

 This offense is one of those graviora delicta (graver offenses) that is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as noted in the instruction Redemptoinis Sacramentum, which provides:

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:

a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;

Pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium counts as throwing away the consecrated species, and so it cannot be done.

It Is Explicitly Forbidden

Recently I was questioned on this point by a member of the Secret Information Club, who had gotten the communique I send to members on the worst liturgical abuses (the graviora delicta). Citing the section where I said one can’t pour the Precious Blood into a sacrarium, the member wrote:

I believe you may have an error regarding the pouring of the Precious Blood.  It’s forbidden to pour it down the sewer system, not the other way around.

I understand that people have been given incorrect information on this in some parishes, and there is a difference between a sacrarium and a sink that drains into the sewer system, but the point remains. In fact, pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium is explicitly forbidden in Remptionis Sacramentum, which provides:

[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.

To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species.

Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down. 

The good news, for anyone who has done this innocently not knowing that they shouldn’t, is that the excommunication does not apply to them (CIC 1323, no. 2).

But the rule remains: No pouring the Precious Blood down a sacrarium.

What You Are Supposed to Do

The actual answer is that any remaining amount of the Precious Blood should be consumed. Section 107 of Redemptionis Sacramentum continues:

Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.

Want to Learn More?

This is precisely the kind of thing I cover in my Secret Information Club mailings. If you’re not already a member, you can learn more at www.SecretInfoClub.com or sign up using this form:

Be sure to email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any trouble.

The Weekly Benedict: 8 July, 2012

This  version of The Weekly Benedict covers material released in the last week from 26 June – 1 July 2012  (subscribe here; get as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):

Angelus

General Audience

Speeches

Final Solution? Infant Circumcision Outlawed In Germany!

Sometimes today you encounter stories that are truly jaw-dropping, like this one being reported by the Washington Post.

Headlined, “The Crime of Circumcision,” it deals with a ruling issued by a judge in Germany that prohibits Jews from circumcizing their baby boys:

A district judge in Cologne, Germany, recently ruled that ritual circumcision is a crime, violating “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity,” which outweighs other parental and religious rights. “This change runs counter to the interests of the child,” the court concluded, “who can decide his religious affiliation himself later in life.”

Circumcision is a rite central to the Jewish faith and is, in fact, the rite by which a male becomes part of the Jewish community.

The circumcision of infants is also expressly commanded by Jewish law, which requires the circumcision of baby boys on the eighth day after birth.

Unsurprisingly, the decision is being condemened by religious folks:

German religious figures from all the Abrahamic faiths criticized the Cologne ruling, with particular outrage expressed by Jewish leaders. ­Dieter Graumann, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, called it “outrageous and insensitive” and warned that a general application of the decision would “coldbloodedly force Judaism into illegality.”

KEEP READING.

The Weekly Benedict: 1 July, 2012

This  version of The Weekly Benedict covers material released in the last week from 20 June – 29 June 2012  (subscribe here; get as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):

Angelus

General Audience

Homilies

Why Are There Unicorns in the Bible?

If you read some older English translations of the Bible, like the Catholic Douay-Rheims (pub. 1609) or the Protestant King James (pub. 1611) you come across some passages that seem a bit mysterious. For example in the Douay-Rheims, in Psalms 91:11 we read:

But my horn shall be exalted like that of the unicorn.

In the equivalent verse in the King James (Ps. 92:10) we read:

But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn.

In reading such passages, you might think, what on earth does that mean? In these cases, the horn is being used as a symbol of strength or vigor. The Psalmist is saying that thanks to God, I’m going to be given a lot of strength and vigor, so praise God.

Fine, but what’s this stuff about unicorns? I, mean does this mean unicorns are real?

In this video we go to the heart of the matter and reveals the startling truth about what the Bible might be referring to in these passages.

We also look at how the word “unicorn” got into these passages in the first place and what ancient but real creature the translators may have been referring to. (Unless you’ve heard this before, it can come as a real surprise.

Here’s the video!

If you’re reading this by email, click here to view the video.

By the way, if you haven’t joined the Secret Information Club, there’s lots of cool stuff waiting for you for FREE. You should click here to learn more or use this form to sign up:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

I’ve also got a transcript of the unicorn episode that you can read:

And you can listen to or download the audio podcast version. (Just click the “Play” icon to listen.)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download