Talk:Two witnesses

Change to the "see also" section
I cleaned up excessive links in the "see also" section. The article on the Second Coming isn't near this detailed, this article is about the two witnesses (who are rarely mentioned compared to the Second Coming) it is 'not' a textbook for eschatological differences (yes, good, cover them for this subject). This isn't the portal page for various eschatological views, it is a page on a small subject within eschatology. The links by and large were only remotely related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs) 23:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullinger quote
The quote by Bullinger is referenced as being in 1889, but specificlly mentions events which occurred after that date (e.g. death of Queen Victoria). If the quote is accurate, the date must be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.67.223 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the quote and the surrounding material. It all was straying off the "Two Witnesses" subject. ✤ JonHarder talk 11:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Historicist view
The article does not reflect neutrality as there is a Historicst view not presented. When sourced edits were made it was removed. Seventh-day Adventist pioneers Uriah Smith and Ellen white wrote about the two witnesses being fulfilled at the time of the French Revolution. (Smith, Uriah, Daniel and Revelation, p.535, and White, Ellen, Great Controversy, pp.239,240) They posite the 42 months are the typical Historicist 1260 years (using Day-year principle) from 538-1798 when the two winesses (symbolism from Zechariah for God's word, the Bible) were attacked by the Beast from the Bottomless Pit, which both concure was atheistic revolution (eg, spiritually Sodom and Egypt). The lead states as fact the witnesses are literal when the next verse says they are candlesticks. Why have you not included the Historicist view?72.161.222.79 (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutrality does not mean giving every view under the sun equal weight, but due weight according to reliable sources, without interpreting them. What you are citing does not use the words "French Revolution."  They do not mention 42 months or 1260 years in what you've cited.  "France" does not appear anywhere on p.535 of Smith, but I will grant that a few pages later he does mention France (but this only justifies the addition "Uriah Smith believed that the Two Witnesses were warred on by Republican France.")  France only just appears at the end of 240 for White, but 240 and 241 are talking about the Reformation era, not the French Revolution.  They do not mention 42 months or 1260 years, though.  Citations aren't horseshoes.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Every view under the sun? The Historicist school is in the sidebar, and this page needs to comply. The sources are from SDA since they are the Historicist. Ellen White's Great Controversy has an entire chapter called The French Revolution.




 * Uriah Smith continues the same:


 * 72.161.222.79 (talk)
 * (Facepalms)... The sidebar is the "Christian eschatology" sidebar to help folks navigate to different related articles, it's not article content.
 * Again, citations are not horseshoes. The pages you cited in your addition to the article did not contain the information you added. Your addition to the article cited the wrong chapter of White's work even.
 * But you know what? When I have time, I'll go through and cite the correctly numbered pages, and properly attribute them.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
The lead in is not neutral since it presents a Futurist view. The two witnesses is a symbol whether one views it as futurist men who walk and prophesy or as historic fulfilled in the banning of the Bible. The article lacks the Historicst view and presents the Futurist view as conclusion (ie., "Two Witnesses are prophets"). Uriah Smith and Ellen White wrote of the events of Revelation 11 as fulfilled 200 years ago! (Smith, Uriah, Daniel and the Revelation, p.533-537, Review and Herald Publishing, French Revolution "atheistic power" after 1260 years (538-1798) "spiritualy Sodom and Egypt". White, Ellen, Great Controversy, pp.266-269, Pacific Press Publishing), the current Historicist view found on websites, study lessons and books by modern authors. The beast from the bottomless pit was the French revolution who banned the Bible (two witnesses) following the 1260 years. After this the Gospel went to the world. The article needs a Futurist and Historist section.72.161.222.79 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is YOUR view that it is a symbol no matter what, other people have interpretted it in different ways. The article already says different people see them as "two literal individuals who may be present now, a symbolic concept (e.g., the Old and New Testaments of the Bible), or two corporate entities symbolizing peoples," "the witnessing church," "Moses and Elijah," "Enoch and Elijah," or "two Jewish prophets in the period of the 70th Week of Daniel."  It goes on to say that "Their description as "two olive trees and two lampstands" may be symbolism, allegory, or representative of people."  It repeatedly covers the various views, but if it will get you to quit griping about non-existant problems, I'll put in "Uriah Smith believed this, Ellen White believed that."  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The text includes allusions to previously recorded miraculous events, as in my stopping the heavens for 3.5 years ca. 3,000 years ago. The parallels to chapter eleven of the Book of Revelation and chapter eleven of the Book of Daniel are astounding, especially as regards the use of 3.5 years, aka 1,260 days.  The most important 'allusion', however, is the fulfillment of chapter eleven of the Book of Daniel being a past occurrence now, something which wikipedia has great difficulty in realizing because when prophet Daniel was given the prophecy, the Giver of the prophecy was not chained to the "five pillars", nor the wiki-this nor the wiki-that.  Wikipedia needs to think outside its man-made bun which just doesn't apply to texts written outside of it in the first place, texts which, ultimately, have no need of wikipedia, nor its tyranny. - Prophet of the Most High - 100.14.100.86 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Two Witnesses → Two witnesses –
 * MOS title capitalization, existing redirect requires assistance Joja  lozzo  21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Within the scenario of the Revelation predictions, they are two specific people, and not two random witnesses such as may be found at the scene of an incident or waiting about in some courthouse/etc, and thus may merit being called the Two Witnesses with capitals as a proper name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of twenty or so mentions in the article itself, only three capitalize it ("Two Witnesses").
 * And, by my reading, MOS does not support the capitalized version. Joja  lozzo  01:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"or two corporate entities symbolizing peoples" - citation request
This is quite an exotic idea considering the fact that corporations did not symbolise peoples in biblical times (if they even do now.) If this is a concept in biblical scholarship it still requires some citation otherwise this excerpt should be removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.1.118 (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Measuring the temple image
The at the start of Two witnesses has no clear relation to the subject. There is nothing in the text that discusses the subject of the image, "measuring the temple". Joja lozzo  15:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I commented out the image for now, as I don't see any mention that it is even related to the two witnesses, and the source of the image is unavailable. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove "Christian Mysticism"
The section doesn't contain a single citation and is rubbish

Who was their murderer?
These two were murdered in the Streets of Future of Earth. . Who exactly was their murderer?? 2604:2D80:AE03:CF00:B06A:42E2:ED85:D34 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them". Editor2020 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Introduction
The introductory paragraph to this page is not general enough.

I would propose that after the introductory sentence it should say as follows:

Interpreters have understood the two witnesses to be two individuals or a symbol or a combination of the literal and the symbolic. For individuals, some have chosen to see two people who will appear in the future (e.g., Enoch and Elijah returning to earth), while others have chosen to see two people who were contemporaries of the author of Revelation (e.g., the Apostles, Peter and Paul). For symbols, some have chosen to see many individuals (e.g., part or all of the Christian church), while others have chosen to see non-personal entities (e.g., the Law and the Prophets or the Old and the New Testaments). Malachirobertson (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Exegesis
The introduction to the exegetical section is not general enough and seems to favor a dispensationalist reading of the passage.

I would propose the following:

In attempting to interpret Revelation 11, commentators have generally understood the two witnesses in one of four ways or as a combination of two or more of these ways:


 * 1) as individuals appearing in the future, being either two returning biblical figures or two presently unknown figures;
 * 2) as individuals who were contemporaries of the author of Revelation;
 * 3) as a corporate and personal symbol, such as the martyrs or the totality of the Christian church;
 * 4) as a non-personal symbol, such as the Old and the New Testaments or mercy and grace.

Malachirobertson (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for Exegesis section 1: Individuals appearing in the future
The early Christian writer, Hippolytus of Rome, concluded that the two witnesses would be Enoch and Elijah, the two individuals who did not experience death according to other biblical passages (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:10-11; Hebrews 11:5). This is the earliest proposed identification for the two witnesses. This view is evident outside of early interpretive or apologetical Christian literature. For example, the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as Acts of Pilate) states …

Others have proposed Moses, for his ability to turn water into blood and the power to send plagues on the earth (Exodus 7:17-21; 9:13-14; Revelation 11:6). His companion would be Elijah the prophet, predicted to return (Malachi 4:5-6) and who prevented it from raining in Israel in the days of Ahab (1 Kings 17:1; Luke 4:25; James 5:17; Revelation 11:6). These two appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:28-36).

Others have proposed two people who are now unknown to the world who will appear in the future as the witnesses. They may be seen as coming “in the spirit” of the prophets of old.

Hippolytus references: On Christ and the Antichrist 43

Commentary on the Prophet Daniel 4.35, 50 Malachirobertson (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for Exegesis section 2: Individuals who were contemporaries
Some commentators have concluded that the two witnesses were the Jewish high priests, Ananus and Jesus, who were killed during the turmoil in Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the city in 70 CE.

Still others propose that the two witnesses are the apostles, Peter and Paul. This was argued most extensively by the Danish scholar, Johannes Munck.

Other contemporaries of the author of Revelation have been proposed instead of these: James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter; James, the brother of Jesus, and John; James and John, the sons of Zebedee; two unnamed Christian prophets active during the first Jewish War; and others.

Reference: Munck, Johannes. Petrus und Paulus in der Offenbarung Johannis: Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apokalypse. Det Lærde Selskabs Skrifter, Teologiske Skrifter 1. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1950. Malachirobertson (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Witnesses as a symbol of the church
I believe there are better references for this section. For example, the citation of Bullinger is misleading. Bullinger in his Apocalypse commentary proposed the two witnesses as two currently unknown individuals who will appear in the future. See Ethelbert William Bullinger, The Apocalypse; or, "The Day of the Lord", 3rd ed. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935), 343–368. Since there is so much variety for this section, it should be longer. I will try to create a succinct proposal for this section. Malachirobertson (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for Exegesis section 3: Symbol for God's people
This is what I propose for the third section, but I would add a few more references:

The earliest symbolic interpretation of the two witnesses is that proposed by the 4th century commentator, Tyconius. He concludes the witnesses represent the church prophesying by means of the two testaments.

Symbolic interpretations become more prevalent in the literature with the coming of the Reformation. For example, Heinrich Bullinger identifies the witnesses as all the faithful preachers who from 763 CE until the final judgment oppose the antichrist, which he understands to be the Papacy.

Heinrich Bullinger, In Apocalypsim Iesu Christi … (Basel: Johannes Oporinus, 1559), 138–141, 143–144, 147–148, 172–173, 193–194.

Another example is the proposal of David Pareus. He identifies the witnesses as a succession of individuals, whether preachers, teachers, princes, or kings, who maintain true religion opposite antichrist, which he understands to be the Papacy.

David Pareus, In Divinam Apocalypsin S. Apostoli Et Evangelistæ Johannis Commentarius (Heidelberg: Rosa, 1618), cols. 469A–476A, 479D–483D, 489C–D, 492A, 503–504, 511C–D, 512C–D, 597A–609D.

More recently, some commentators follow the thought of Tyconius and conclude that the witnesses are the Christian church, during a certain period of history.

Similar to this type of proposal is to see the witnesses as models for Christian testimony in action for the audience of Revelation.

Others see the two witnesses as representing only part of the Christian church, such as the martyrs, the teachers, or the prophets.

Others see the two witnesses as representing Israel and the Christian church. Malachirobertson (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Another thought
I would propose a separate fourth section for the two witnesses as sacred writings. Granted that Adventists are the only ones who seem to be espousing this today, but it has a history before Adventists existed. Under this section, one could also note those who see the two witnesses as the Law and the Prophets. The early church has two examples of the witnesses as the two testaments. A revision of Tyconius, found in the Turin fragments, has this. And this view is listed with many others by Beatus of Liebana. The same identification returned with the Reformation and had several people espousing it after the French Revolution. Since the mid-1800s, I am only aware of Adventists promoting this view. Malachirobertson (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)