On The Apocalypse: Part I

[Chuckt]

Q: What is the likelihood that a peasant in the 1st century CE lived to 94?
A: Extraordinarily remote....unbelievably remote.

My Dad is 93 and my grandmother lived to be 96. It is not too hard.

Your mother and father lived in the 1st century? WOW!!! Talk about longevity

You are probably using faulty reasoning and evidence.

Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years

 

[BluePhantom]

My ggggggggggggggrandfather, fought in the Revolutionary War. He lived to be 114. His wife died at 99. Longevity isn't nearly as uncommon as you think.

Guys as i said....if you choose to believe this horseshit knock yourself out. We have a new topic on the board regarding the theories behind the alternating style of Greek used. It is clear that on the previous topic of authorship you are not going to convince anyone and I am not going to convince you. So let it go. Address the new topic, give your reactions, your theories, and your rationale.

 

[Chuckt]

My ggggggggggggggrandfather, fought in the Revolutionary War. He lived to be 114. His wife died at 99. Longevity isn't nearly as uncommon as you think.

Guys as i said....if you choose to believe this horseshit knock yourself out. We have a new topic on the board regarding the theories behind the alternating style of Greek used. It is clear that on the previous topic of authorship you are not going to convince anyone and I am not going to convince you. So let it go. Address the new topic, give your reactions, your theories, and your rationale.

And you have to be biased and dishonest to win at debate.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Q: What is the likelihood that a peasant in the 1st century CE lived to 94?
A: Extraordinarily remote....unbelievably remote.

My Dad is 93 and my grandmother lived to be 96. It is not too hard.

Your mother and father lived in the 1st century? WOW!!! Talk about longevity

aren't you supposed to be moving on?.....

 

[BluePhantom]

My Dad is 93 and my grandmother lived to be 96. It is not too hard.

Your mother and father lived in the 1st century? WOW!!! Talk about longevity

aren't you supposed to be moving on?.....

Read a couple posts below you. Now...want to share your thoughts about the style of Greek used? For me...frankly I have no idea how to explain it

 

[BluePhantom]

My ggggggggggggggrandfather, fought in the Revolutionary War. He lived to be 114. His wife died at 99. Longevity isn't nearly as uncommon as you think.

Guys as i said....if you choose to believe this horseshit knock yourself out. We have a new topic on the board regarding the theories behind the alternating style of Greek used. It is clear that on the previous topic of authorship you are not going to convince anyone and I am not going to convince you. So let it go. Address the new topic, give your reactions, your theories, and your rationale.

And you have to be biased and dishonest to win at debate.

I am not trying to have a debate competition. I am trying to exchange ideas. If your goal is "to win" at a "debate" go somewhere else. In truth, as much as I disagree with Postmodern, I actually think there is the opportunity for mutual learning and development of each other's relationship with God. There is no question that among all of you , Post modern has been rthe only one who has even made the slightest argument that has any historical documentation. I disagree with his sources,and I certainly disagree with his conclusions but at least he is giving something more then "because I say so", "because it's written that way", and "because you are just an atheist spreading lies of Satan".All it will take is for him to loosen up a bit and be willing to hear an alternate point of view without immediately crying "HERESY" and for me to not be so combative. Out of all of you I think Postmodern is the only one who has the capacity to learn from me and I to learn from him. It's not about debate, you fool.. it's about getting closer to God.

 

[Chuckt]

Guys as i said....if you choose to believe this horseshit knock yourself out. We have a new topic on the board regarding the theories behind the alternating style of Greek used. It is clear that on the previous topic of authorship you are not going to convince anyone and I am not going to convince you. So let it go. Address the new topic, give your reactions, your theories, and your rationale.

And you have to be biased and dishonest to win at debate.

I am not trying to have a debate competition. I am trying to exchange ideas. If your goal is "to win" at a "debate" go somewhere else. In truth, as much as I disagree with Postmodern, I actually think there is the opportunity for mutual learning and development of each other's relationship with God. There is no question that among all of you , Post modern has been rthe only one who has even made the slightest argument that has any historical documentation. I disagree with his sources,and I certainly disagree with his conclusions but at least he is giving something more then "because I say so", "because it's written that way", and "because you are just an atheist spreading lies of Satan".All it will take is for him to loosen up a bit and be willing to hear an alternate point of view without immediately crying "HERESY" and for me to not be so combative. Out of all of you I think Postmodern is the only one who has the capacity to learn from me and I to learn from him. It's not about debate, you fool.. it's about getting closer to God.

Conversation is reciprocal or complimentary. What is reciprocal or complimentary between atheism and Christianity which is what your posts are about? Nothing.

 

[alang1216]

First, it's important to understand that scholarship is virtually (I use the word "virtually" because while I can't find a single scholar who disagrees I am sure there is one somewhere) united that it was originally written in Greek. This is important because it means something very significant. It means that it was written to appeal to a Greek speaking audience...in other words a gentile audience. It was not written to appeal to Jewish converts or else it would have been written in Aramaic.

You may well be correct on this but as I recall Greek was the Lingua Franca in the Roman world. If you were educated and/or worldly, you spoke Greek. If you were literate there would have been lots of pressure to read and write in Greek. Also there was a large Jewish diaspora at the time. Significant numbers of Jews lived outside of Israel and Aramaic may not have been their language of choice. This would explain the Septuagent, the OT/Bible of the early, Jewish, NT writers. John may have chosen Greek to appeal to the widest possible Jewish AND Gentile audience.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Your mother and father lived in the 1st century? WOW!!! Talk about longevity

aren't you supposed to be moving on?.....

Read a couple posts below you. Now...want to share your thoughts about the style of Greek used? For me...frankly I have no idea how to explain it

I don't see that much that needs explaining.......you highlighted it this way....

It reads "Grace and peace to you from HE THE is, HE THE was, and HE THE will be...."

if you had simply done it this way I don't think there is a person here who wouldn't have gotten it....


It reads "Grace and peace to you from he the IS, he the WAS, and he the WILL BE...."

.....I just see more arguments that the Apostle John wasn't the author....not going to get my agreement on that claim.....let me know when you move on.....

I liked, for example the fact you recognized Revelation was written to an audience experiencing persecution in the first century rather than an audience seeking secret messages in the 20th Century.....that was a good thing.....apocalyptic literature used symbolism to protect the authors from punishment by the Roman authorities.....

 

[BluePhantom]

First, it's important to understand that scholarship is virtually (I use the word "virtually" because while I can't find a single scholar who disagrees I am sure there is one somewhere) united that it was originally written in Greek. This is important because it means something very significant. It means that it was written to appeal to a Greek speaking audience...in other words a gentile audience. It was not written to appeal to Jewish converts or else it would have been written in Aramaic.

You may well be correct on this but as I recall Greek was the Lingua Franca in the Roman world. If you were educated and/or worldly, you spoke Greek. If you were literate there would have been lots of pressure to read and write in Greek. Also there was a large Jewish diaspora at the time. Significant numbers of Jews lived outside of Israel and Aramaic may not have been their language of choice. This would explain the Septuagent, the OT/Bible of the early, Jewish, NT writers. John may have chosen Greek to appeal to the widest possible Jewish AND Gentile audience.

Well Greek was definitely the language of scholarship. No doubt about that. But the early church (meaning in the 1st century) was not made up of scholars. The letters of Paul and even the Revelation itself was intended to be read aloud at church gatherings. In The Revelation (I was going to save this for later) it actually says in Greek "...blessed is he who reads aloud, and blessed are those who hear...". It was the tradition and the intent of John for The Apocalypse to be read aloud to church followers. If that is the case why would he write it in a language that they would not understand?

 

[alang1216]

First, it's important to understand that scholarship is virtually (I use the word "virtually" because while I can't find a single scholar who disagrees I am sure there is one somewhere) united that it was originally written in Greek. This is important because it means something very significant. It means that it was written to appeal to a Greek speaking audience...in other words a gentile audience. It was not written to appeal to Jewish converts or else it would have been written in Aramaic.

You may well be correct on this but as I recall Greek was the Lingua Franca in the Roman world. If you were educated and/or worldly, you spoke Greek. If you were literate there would have been lots of pressure to read and write in Greek. Also there was a large Jewish diaspora at the time. Significant numbers of Jews lived outside of Israel and Aramaic may not have been their language of choice. This would explain the Septuagent, the OT/Bible of the early, Jewish, NT writers. John may have chosen Greek to appeal to the widest possible Jewish AND Gentile audience.

Well Greek was definitely the language of scholarship. No doubt about that. But the early church (meaning in the 1st century) was not made up of scholars. The letters of Paul and even the Revelation itself was intended to be read aloud at church gatherings. In The Revelation (I was going to save this for later) it actually says in Greek "...blessed is he who reads aloud, and blessed are those who hear...". It was the tradition and the intent of John for The Apocalypse to be read aloud to church followers. If that is the case why would he write it in a language that they would not understand?

You go almost anywhere in the world and people often speak more than one language. If they are in business or deal with travelers especially. When I traveled in Europe it was rare to meet someone who did not speak English, our lingua franca. I suspect that anywhere you went in the Roman world you'd be able to find someone who read Greek while most people would understand it.

Wasn't Paul a Jew from Israel who spoke Greek. I'm sure the large Jewish community in Alexandria spoke Greek.

 

[BluePhantom]

You may well be correct on this but as I recall Greek was the Lingua Franca in the Roman world. If you were educated and/or worldly, you spoke Greek. If you were literate there would have been lots of pressure to read and write in Greek. Also there was a large Jewish diaspora at the time. Significant numbers of Jews lived outside of Israel and Aramaic may not have been their language of choice. This would explain the Septuagent, the OT/Bible of the early, Jewish, NT writers. John may have chosen Greek to appeal to the widest possible Jewish AND Gentile audience.

Well Greek was definitely the language of scholarship. No doubt about that. But the early church (meaning in the 1st century) was not made up of scholars. The letters of Paul and even the Revelation itself was intended to be read aloud at church gatherings. In The Revelation (I was going to save this for later) it actually says in Greek "...blessed is he who reads aloud, and blessed are those who hear...". It was the tradition and the intent of John for The Apocalypse to be read aloud to church followers. If that is the case why would he write it in a language that they would not understand?

You go almost anywhere in the world and people often speak more than one language. If they are in business or deal with travelers especially. When I traveled in Europe it was rare to meet someone who did not speak English, our lingua franca. I suspect that anywhere you went in the Roman world you'd be able to find someone who read Greek while most people would understand it.

Wasn't Paul a Jew from Israel who spoke Greek. I'm sure the large Jewish community in Alexandria spoke Greek.

Paul was no doubt an educated man but remember that his focus was on gentiles where the rest were focused on Jews. The Bible is quite clear on this. I want to say in Romans but I don't think that's correct. Maybe Galatians. Anyhow, Paul was initially blown off by Peter, et al and he left for a couple years. When he returned he struck a deal with Peter and basically said "Ok tell you what. You guy focus on Jews and I will focus on gentiles. You guys recognize my legitimacy and my authority and in return I will gather a collection from the gentiles in order to build a Christian temple in Jerusalem." In that same letter Paul makes a point about how Peter and the other Apostles didn't care about gentiles (essentially) and only made a show of giving a damn about them in order to get the collection (essentially).

So for John to write in Greek, he would have had to be educated where it's pretty clear he wasn't, and he would have had to have been interested in appealing to a gentile audience, which at least according to Paul he wasn't. There's simply no logic that I can find to explain why John would write in Greek while reconciling the points that Paul makes about the other Apostles. It doesn't make sense given his objectives and his target demographic.

As I mentioned earlier, Jews could probably speak a touch of Greek, just like I can speak a touch of Spanish in order to communicate with my employees at work, but there's no way I could write a simple letter in Spanish let alone a book or be able to understand a book written in Spanish. I find it doubtful that fluency in Greek (which is what would have been needed in order to understand the Revelation) was common among the Jewish peasant class. I find that HIGHLY doubtful.

 

[BluePhantom]

Dating the Apocalypse can be a tricky proposition. Scholars are generally split between those who favor the traditional later date of around 95 AD and those who argue for an earlier date of around 68 AD. The debate is important because how one dates the book can have an effect on how the book is interpreted. For example the Apocalypse states that John of Patmos was given a measuring rod and told to measure the Temple. Those who favor an early date have a tendency to take this literally and believe that he was meant to measure the Temple in Jerusalem. Those who favor a later date argue (and I think quite correctly) that "measuring the Temple" is figurative. Obviously it isn't referring to the Temple of Jerusalem since that was destroyed in 70 AD and so John is doing what he does throughout the book and using symbolism to make a point. Both arguments have some basis but it's important to note that those who favor a later date rely on external evidence (what later authors and church leaders had to say about the Apocalypse), and those who favor an earlier date generally rely on internal evidence (what the Apocalypse actually says and refers to). Let's take the late date theory first.

The late date theory is based primarily upon tradition stemming from Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies where he writes:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of the Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.(Against Heresies 5:30:3)"​

It is interesting that as far as I can tell that's about all Irenaeus has to say about it, the verse is problematic for a variety of reasons (which the provided link goes into great detail about and I will not repeat here), and that Irenaeus' motivation was probably far more theological than historical. What I mean is this. Iranaeus wrote the book as an argument against Gnosticism and he insisted fervently that the bishops (of which he was one) had authority and justification. Think of it like this. in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke a great deal of time is spent trying to establish that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The authors go to great lengths to explain the reason why Mary happened to be in Bethlehem when Jesus was born instead of in Nazareth where they lived. Establishing that was important to those authors because prophecy said the Messiah would come from Bethlehem. So in order to fulfill the prophecy, the authors had to find a way to put the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem even though his parents lived in Nazareth. Despite the fact that the two accounts are dramatically different in their explanation and historically impossible to reconcile between the two, what's important is the establishment of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecy instead of in Nazareth (where he was probably actually born). That gives justification and authority.

Irenaeus does a similar thing in his battle against Gnosticism by establishing the authority of the bishops (and in doing so himself) by claiming that he was a student of Polycarp (which he very well may have been) who was in turn a student of John the Apostle (which he probably wasn't and we have discussed already). What is important to realize is that Irenaeus wanted John the Apostle to be the author of the Apocalypse in order to give it more credibility as it was a useful argument against the Gnostics. He also needed to establish credibility and authority against the Gnostics by claiming that he was in a direct line of scholarship from John the Apostle. The only way to do both of those things was to insist on a later date of authorship even though it seems quite historically implausible.

Later church leaders, in attempting to deal with the question of how John lived so incredibly long began to expand the story and add details in order to make it more believable. Details like John slaving away in the mines on Patmos came decades later (and are pretty amusing actually when one realizes that there are no mines on Patmos).

So the late date theory generally relies on tradition and can be traced back (at least as far as we can tell) to Irenaeus in his argument against the Gnostics. It is, however, important to note that while Irenaeus' quote is a little ambiguous and relies on a lot of assumptions, that it is the dating that is most often accepted by scholars...although it's close.

The early date theory tends to ignore what Irenaeus and other church fathers wrote about the Apocalypse and instead looks in the text of the Apocalypse itself for clues. It is almost universally accepted that the Apocalypse was written sometime after the reign of Nero (as it is Nero who John of Patmos is referring to when he describes the Beast of the Sea - something we will delve into later when we tackle the text itself). Additional clues can be found in chapter 17:10-11 where John describes the seven kings, the first five of which are usually accepted to be the Emperors of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. I don't want to get into too much detail here because when we delve into the text we are going to explore all these arguments and I want to save those arguments for later. I will just leave it to say that proponents of an early date focus on clues written in the text of the Apocalypse itself and try to look at historical records for dates on what the Apocalypse is (or at least seems to be) talking about. It is interesting to note though that early date theorists have a much easier time arguing that John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse because someone living deep into his 60s in the first century AD is a hell of a lot more believable than someone living into their 90s (and sometimes well past 100 depending on the source and tradition you are referring to).

Now for me I tend to favor an earlier date. I tend to think it was written sometime between 70 and 78 AD during the reign of Vespasian but was then altered or added to later during the reigns of Titus and Domitian. This is simply my personal opinion, for which I have absolutely no historical evidence except from looking at the text and making some assumptions (namely that in order to endorse an early date you have to say that John of Patmos was prophetic in some areas of chapter 17 where I don't believe he was. It makes sense to me that John made a prediction that did not come to pass and certain words were added later to explain it away). I will get into specifics when we get to chapter 17 (yes I am going to make you wait that long).

So in summary:

- Dating the Revelation is a source of great debate among scholarship.

- Dating is important because it influences the way one interprets the book

- The majority of scholars favor a later date around 95-96 AD

- Late date theory relies solely on church tradition and can be traced (as best we can tell) directly back to Irenaeus.

- Late date theory makes authorship by John the Apostle far more problematic which has given rise to a multitude of creative legends in order to justify it.

- Early date theory relies on internal clues in the text of the Apocalypse itself. It makes a much more believable scenario for John the Apostle to be the author but it pretty much destroys Irenaeus' claim of a direct line of scholarship.

- While early date theory is the minority opinion among scholars it's not by a whole lot.

- Arguments can be made that the text as we read it today was developed over time (i.e. originally written around 68 AD according to early date theory and modified into its final form that we read today by around 96 AD)

 

[BluePhantom]

As a side note: this was intended to be my last topic entry before starting to read and explore the text, but I am going to add one more before we do that because Peach made an argument in another thread that is a common misunderstanding between the Apocalyptic Jewish tradition in the 1st century CE (which The Revelation follows) and the letters of Paul who did not embrace that tradition. That creates a lot of confusion by modern readers who tend to overlook the timeline of when certain things were written, exactly what they were referring to, and what their personal beliefs were according to their writings. As such those people tend to try to take a banana, smash it together with a plum, and call it rhubarb. So I am going to do one last topic entry on the difference between the Jewish Apocalyptic tradition and the views of Paul in order to establish the danger in trying to cram the two together...in other words making sure everyone understands that a banana is a banana, a plum is a plum, and rhubarb is rhubarb, before we start looking at the text.

 

[BluePhantom]

This will be my last topic entry bringing Part One to a close and setting us up for Part Two where we delve into the text of the Apocalypse itself.

One of the mistakes that most modern readers of the Apocalypse (or indeed the entire Bible) make is that they generally assume that the authors of all these books tended to agree with each other and had a common vision. In reality nothing could be further from the truth, especially where the New Testament is concerned. Indeed, more often than not the authors tended to disagree and sometimes those disagreements could reach a highly vitriolic state. Take for example Galatians 2: 11-21 where Paul completely rips Peter (Cephas) a new one and calls him a hypocrite. Or in Corinthians where the congregation is debating among themselves about who to follow between Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc and Paul basically says "look I founded that church so shut the hell up and listen to me not them." And actually he spends several chapters ripping the others apart in order to establish himself as the leader that should be heeded. In 2 Peter it is written that "...Paul understands according to the wisdom God gave him..." Well that can be taken a lot of ways I personally think it's made clear by the following statement that "...listening too closely to Paul can lead one into destruction..." (paraphrased). Now to be fair it's universally accepted that 2 Peter is pseudopigraphic (i.e. it wasn't written by Peter himself but someone claiming to be Peter) but the point is that someone who was a follower of Peter's message had one hell of an ax to grind with Paul's message...at least according to the way I interpret those verses in 2 Peter which I see as far from flattering.

Sometimes the authors' disagreements are relatively minor. For example in a post below I explained the difference in the stories of why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. Other times, however, they can be quite significant and this is the case when looking at the apocalyptic views between Paul and John of Patmos. These contrasting views have been the source of a lot of hand wringing by church leaders almost from the very start and to explain them traditions were formed within the church in an effort to reconcile the two. In many cases those traditions persist to this very day. So first let's have a look at the view of John of Patmos who embraced the standard Jewish apocalyptic tradition pretty much right down the line.

So what was this tradition and why did it exist? Well we touched on it very early in this series. The apocalyptic tradition in ancient Jewish culture was a means to explain the suffering experienced by the Jews at the time and to give hope and encouragement to them. By the time John of Patmos wrote the Apocalypse, this tradition had been going on for countless centuries and was prevalent in the books of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others. The problem was that according to Jewish tradition a covenant was made between the Jews and God. The Jews give obedience and worship and God grants the Holy Land, prosperity, etc. So why was it that Israel was constantly getting conquered by the Babylonians, Macedonians, Romans, etc? Why was it that they were always being persecuted for their faith? Why wasn't God living up to His end of the bargain?

Well in the apocalyptic tradition there were a variety of reasons why, most of which had to do with the Jews not worshiping properly, not following Torah, etc. But the main point of emphasis was that the Jews were not forgotten. It may not have seemed like it but God was large and in charge and soon he would make all the persecutors of the Jews pay and God would establish His good kingdom ON EARTH and the Jews would be free from oppression, free to live a life in unity with God and in keeping with their faith, and all would just be splendid and wonderful.

Now it's the ON EARTH part that is critical here. According to the apocalyptic tradition all of this would happen on Earth. The Holy Land would finally be returned to the Jews and the covenant would be fulfilled; prosperity would be theirs ON EARTH. God would also send a champion for the Jews to make this happen. This champion was called the Son of Man, and this was to be the guy who would destroy the persecutors. This is not to be confused with the Messiah who was thought to be a great warrior, or a great sage and teacher...but a human and SOMEHOW those would be the guys God sent to drive the persecutors out of the Holy Land and re-establish the line of David to the throne of Israel ON EARTH. This is why in Matthew for example the book starts out by tracing the genealogy of Jesus back to David. According to the author of Matthew, in order to establish Jesus as the Messiah he had to show that He was a direct descendant of David and Abraham. John of Patmos pounded the Jewish apocalyptic tradition right down the line and in the end of the Revelation he discusses the establishment of New Jerusalem which descends from heaven TO EARTH and it is there that people are free to live in perfect unity with God.

Now just as a side note I want to quickly touch on the Son of Man. In modern times people tend to think of the human and divine natures of Jesus in the exact opposite way as they were thought of by the ancient Jews. This will become important in Part II when we start discussing the text and exploring the symbolism. Today most people think the phrase "Son of God", in reference to Jesus, is in regard to His divinity and "Son of Man" to His human element or form. That's actually backwards. To ancient Jews "Son of God" was just like any other Jew. All of them were considered children or sons of God. Son of Man refers specifically to Daniel 7:13 and in the context the author of Daniel is describing visions of beasts and creatures he is seeing that all represent different things. And then he writes:

"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him." (Daniel 7:13)​

The Son of Man was the divine champion God was sending to drive the occupiers and persecutors out of Israel so that God's good kingdom could be established ON EARTH. What John of Patmos does is to combine the Messiah and the Son of Man into one person - Jesus. John tries to establish Jesus as the human Messiah (or the Son of God) while He was alive and as the divine Son of Man when He returns. However, it's absolutely and essentially critical to understand that according to this tradition, that God's kingdom was coming TO EARTH and the Jews would live in harmony with God and Torah ON EARTH. That point is absolutely essential and non-negotiable. It's equally as critical to keep in mind that according to this tradition it would all happen within their lifetime or at most in the generation that followed. This is so imperative to understand that I can't re-emphasize it too many times. Remember the point of the apocalyptic tradition was to give encouragement and comfort to Jews who were facing persecution AT THAT TIME. There would be no comfort or encouragement in a message that says "Oh keep your chin up because in a couple thousand years God is going to make things right". This is the main point that futuristic interpreters of the Apocalypse totally miss. John of Patmos was not talking about something that would happen in OUR future or present. That would have had absolutely no relevance to his listeners and would not have resonated with them in any way, shape, or form.

Now what a contrast to the teachings of Paul who also was preparing his followers for the end. But Paul's message was different. According to Paul, Jesus was the "first fruit". Now the use of this phrase is important and it gets lost by modern readers. According to ancient tradition when the harvest was ready, they would go out into the fields, or orchards, or whatever they were farming, and they would gather the very best of the crop and that was the "first fruits". They would then go home and have a feast and a celebration, giving thanks to God for their crop, and the next day they would go out and start gathering the rest.

Paul saw the resurrection of Jesus as the first fruits and when Paul was ministering his message was that (paraphrasing) "we are the rest of the crop". So just like in the harvest ceremony "Jesus ascended to heaven as the first fruits (the best of the crop) and we (the rest of the crop) are sure to follow very soon". Paul was completely convinced of this. So convinced in fact than in 1 Corinthians 7 he argues passionately that it is so close that there is no point in trying to change one's present status. It's pointless to get married because we will be ascending to heaven so soon that it won't make any difference. Why bother starting a family when we are all going to be ascending to heaven anyhow and you will never see your children grow up and develop? Why bother to seek freedom if you are a slave, because we are all going to be ascending to heaven anyhow where slavery doesn't exist? It's so close, according to Paul, that there is no point in starting something new with your life.

So according to Paul (and this is reinforced in his other letters as well, not just Corinthians), the end is indeed coming soon just like the Jewish apocalyptic tradition says but for Paul it will all take place IN HEAVEN. Paul doesn't speak of God punishing the persecutors and the occupiers ON EARTH. Paul doesn't speak of the establishment of God's good kingdom ON EARTH. Paul sees the faithful simply ascending TO HEAVEN in the same way Jesus (the first fruit) did and what happens on Earth afterwards is irrelevant.

So here we have two dramatically contrasting viewpoints. John of Patmos follows the standard apocalyptic tradition of the time and writes that God's kingdom will come to Earth. Paul is not concerned with Earth. According to him the point is the ascent of the faithful to heaven and the Earth be damned. When one realizes this it's clear that Paul and John of Patmos strongly disagree. In fact knowing Paul according to the mannerisms in which he writes, I can imagine Paul reading the Apocalypse (which he would not have done as Paul was long dead before the Apocalypse was written) and saying "what the hell is this shit? That's ridiculous. That's not the way it's going to happen." and given Paul's tone in his letters he might even toss in "what the hell would be the point of establishing God's kingdom on Earth if all the faithful are in heaven? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever." and based on Paul's letters he might just finish with "whoever wrote this is an asshole." Well...that was Paul: a brilliant mind, and he would not hesitate to make sure you were fully aware of his brilliance.

So why is all this important? Well it's critically important actually and it's because their views are so dramatically different that only one of them can be correct (if either of them are or were). They can't BOTH be correct as they are in total opposition to each other. Much like the discrepancy between the gospels of Luke and Matthew concerning the time of Jesus' birth. Either he was born during the reign of Herod or during the governorship of Quirinius. It could possibly be neither but it can't be both because Quirinius' governorship didn't start until ten years after Herod's death. At least one of them has to be wrong. So is the case with Paul and John of Patmos. They can't both be right so which one is it if either?

Well to solve this problem (and this happened quite quickly by the way) early church leaders developed more traditions in an effort to explain it. They came up with stories and explanations that attempt to show how both could be right and that was important in the early church because it was critical for the early church to establish the absolute infallibility of scripture. By doing so it gave the church the power to control the actions of their followers. Through these explanations and stories invented to reconcile the two opposing points of view we get concepts like "the Rapture" where the faithful are taken to heaven in order to avoid God's wrath upon the oppressors. But Paul never speaks of the ascension of the faithful as being something necessary to avoid God's wrath on the unfaithful. John of Patmos doesn't speak of it at all. What that tradition comes from is an effort by early church leaders to cram the two together no matter how diametrically opposed they are in order to maintain the concept of scriptural infallibility and in extension maintain control of the behaviors of the peasant class. Despite all those efforts and centuries of tradition, no one has still been able to satisfactorily explain (to me anyhow) why God would bother to establish New Jerusalem ON EARTH as a place where perfect unity with God existed (according to John of Patmos) if all the faithful are already IN HEAVEN (according to Paul and the Rapture theorists). Kind of defeats the purpose don't you think? And furthermore, both Paul and John taught that their predictions would take place imminently. There is absolutely no value in their respective messages for their followers if it was not intended to reflect a coming event in their lifetime or in the generation that followed.

So in summary:

- Contrary to popular belief, Biblical authors did not agree on points of theology.

- Paul and John of Patmos had very different views about the end of times

- John of Patmos embraced the standard Jewish apocalyptic tradition and predicted God's good kingdom would come to Earth. The faithful would be free to live in harmony with God ON EARTH and the oppressors would be destroyed and punished.

- Paul did not embrace standard Jewish apocalyptic tradition. He believed that the faithful would be taken TO HEAVEN as the crop after the first fruit (Jesus) had been taken up. Paul makes no argument about the punishment and destruction of the oppressors which is a critical element according to John of Patmos.

- These two views are diametrically opposed and cannot be logically reconciled without the use of...shall we say..."creative suggestions" by the early church leaders. These "creative suggestions" were the catalyst for many Christian traditions that are never spoken of in the Bible or even in non-canonical texts and those traditions endure to the present day. In truth I am of the opinion that both Paul and John of Patmos would look at these traditions, roll their eyes, and say "wow...talk about missing the point completely"

- Trying to cram Paul together with John of Patmos is, as I mentioned before, like smashing a banana into a plum and calling it rhubarb. It's a very dangerous and completely a historically and theologically inaccurate thing to do that will lead to extreme misunderstandings of the respective messages of each author.

So now that we know what a banana is, what a plum, is and what rhubarb is we can start digging into the actual text of the Apocalypse (which I will start on a different thread in a few days titled "On the Apocalypse: Part II").

Thanks for reading.

-The Phantom

 

[Abishai100]

The Terry Gilliam film "12 Monkeys" (1995) presents the science-fiction digestion story of a morose prisoner-servant named Cole in a gloomy post-apocalyptic Earth who travels back in time to collect information about the devastating biological virus that will destroy almost all life.

"12 Monkeys" (1995) draws on traditions of spiritualism and crypto-biology to offer us an apocalyptic vision of man's interaction with his own complex imagination.

The dramatic Christian Bible states that at the time of the fearful apocalypse, the mighty AntiChrist, the confounding harlot of Babylon, and the brutish manslayer will rise to social power to seduce humanity away from civics.

If this proverbial freakish army of darkness does rise to power, perhaps it will serve omens regarding humanity's anxious imagination about self-ruin. Certainly, such notions are not incompatible with Biblical prophecies about a 'lifestyle apocalypse.'

Anyone into the Planet of the Apes franchise?

 

[BluePhantom]

The Terry Gilliam film "12 Monkeys" (1995) presents the science-fiction digestion story of a morose prisoner-servant named Cole in a gloomy post-apocalyptic Earth who travels back in time to collect information about the devastating biological virus that will destroy almost all life.

"12 Monkeys" (1995) draws on traditions of spiritualism and crypto-biology to offer us an apocalyptic vision of man's interaction with his own complex imagination.

The dramatic Christian Bible states that at the time of the fearful apocalypse, the mighty AntiChrist, the confounding harlot of Babylon, and the brutish manslayer will rise to social power to seduce humanity away from civics.

If this proverbial freakish army of darkness does rise to power, perhaps it will serve omens regarding humanity's anxious imagination about self-ruin. Certainly, such notions are not incompatible with Biblical prophecies about a 'lifestyle apocalypse.'

Anyone into the Planet of the Apes franchise?

Work has kicked up so I have been too busy to continue but the Great Harlot of Babylon isn't confounding at all. You just have to know what to look for. John is making a caricature of a very well known image in the first century. The image is of the goddess Roma (the patron goddess of Rome) who was engraved on the coins at the time.

On the coins Roma is depicted as a beautiful woman in flowing gowns seated on seven hills (the seven hills that Rome was founded upon - Rome was known as the city of seven hills). She is wearing fine jewelry to show Rome's wealth. In her hand is a sword pointed downward signifying Rome's military power but the downwards angle of the sword suggests that while Rome is powerful they restrain themselves. It's an image that depicts how Rome wants to be thought of. That image would have been as common to people living in the first century as the picture of George Washington on the one dollar bill is to us today.

What John of Patmos did was to twist it. The seven hills are a seven headed beast (John even says so in the Apocalypse), the Great Whore of Babylon is a city (John says that exactly in the Apocalypse). But in John's caricature she is drunk off the blood of the saints (Christians). She is wearing scarlet and purple...the colors of the wealthy class and of royalty.

What John is doing when he describes the Great Whore of Babylon is not explaining some future entity that will come to do this or that. He is drawing on a well known image and saying "THAT image is not Rome...Rome is a drunken whore who is obsessed with material wealth and kills Christian indiscriminately. Rome is not a beautiful goddess...Rome is a fucking slut pig."

So why has it been misunderstood? Well very simple...eventually Rome stopped minting those coins and the symbolism was forgotten. With it forgotten later church leaders had to come up with some explanation and so they interpreted it according to the political issues they faced at the time. In reality...it's just John calling out Rome. BTW...note the front of the coin indicating Vespasian as the Emperor. Just another bit of evidence that the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Vespasian and not Domitian.

 

[indiajo]

S


NEXT: What is "an Apocalypse" Anyway?

Apophis on the correct course would be one, for sure.

 

[Abishai100]

Gender Turbine


An under-studied character in the Christian story of Revelation (or the apocalypse if you prefer) is the harlot of Babylon.

This mysterious and haunting woman who supposedly rides atop a dangerous beast of human frailty complements the underworld work of the prophetic AntiChrist and the cunning Satan.

For our modern world of consumerism convenience culture (i.e., eTrade, Burger King, etc.), we can perhaps label a narcotics-smuggling airline stewardess as the harlot of Babylon, since human travel/tourism/transit is linked to pleasure and profit.

If such a stewardess represents modern human frailties, how does she aid the AntiChrist and Satan? Such a question helps society appreciate the gender value of social art totems such as the Hollywood (USA) movie "Supergirl" (1984).




Air stewardess - Tardis Data Core the Doctor Who Wiki

 

[Delta4Embassy]

At first I wanted to detail the dating of the Apocalypse before I tackled the authorship, but eventually I changed my mind. There are a few reasons for this and one is because I depart with scholars on dating of The Apocalypse. Most scholars think the book was written in its entirety and had been preserved. I disagree and in time I will tell you why and provide an argument for that perspective. I think The Revelation (or The Apocalypse) was written and then expanded in order to explain passages that predicted very specific things that did not come to pass. Those passages either provided explanations for the failure of the prediction to come to pass (similar to 1 Thessalonians 5) or altered to context to make it appear more prophetic. That will come later. For now let's focus on authorship.

Tradition holds that the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle/Disciple John during his imprisonment on the island of Patmos where according to that same tradition he was enslaved to work in the mines. This is of particular interest because...well..there are no mines on Patmos and so right from the start we see some traditional license being taken.

i love this passage from a "Biblical Scholar" (i.e. a guy with a ranting website) depicting what life was like on Patmos.

"It seems to me that Patmos was a place where many did not survive. It was a sterile place; crops could not produce. Food would have been scarce; maybe people like John would have been left to starve to death? But he didn’t! He survived. How do we know? We would not have had the Book of Revelation if God did not somehow work a way to get John off that desolate prison colony. What a testimony of the deliverance of our God!"

Wow...well..not only were there not any mines, but this is totally wrong (although I have to give kudos for a great imagination). Patmos was a thriving trading port. There were no mines...it was a thriving Roman city complete with all the accommodations of any other Roman city; running water, sewage, paved roads, security, hot public baths...typical Rome.

And in fact an exile to Patmos would not have been "imprisoned". Indeed no archaeological excavation has ever uncovered a prison on Patmos. During the reign of Vespasian people were exiled to an island (Patmos was a favorite) for the crime of "Superstition". Superstition was when you were preaching against Rome but what you were saying was so far out of reality, so incomprehensible, that...well...they thought you were crazy. And for all its faults, Rome didn't just indiscriminately slaughter people they thought were...well...nuts. They threw them on an island like Patmos and just let them be nuts there.

Now I need to make clear...I am not saying John of Patmos was nuts. Actually I don't think he was. What I am saying is that the Romans thought he was nuts and they did the things ascribed by Roman law...throw him on an island where he can be of little harm to anyone. If John was preaching what he wrote in The Apocalypse, it's pretty easy to understand why they dismissed him as a lunatic from the Roman perspective.

Now a person convicted of Superstition and banished to patmos would not have been imprisoned. There was no "working hard in the mines (that didn't exist), nor eating stale bread and water in a cell. Such a person could own property, become a citizen, marry, raise a family, have a home, get a job...basically live a standard life...in fact he would be expected to so he could support himself. For all intents and purposes he was just a guy making his way in life, he just couldn't leave Patmos.

So John of Patmos was not a slave working in the mines or in a cell somewhere. That perception has led to another misunderstanding of the Revelation...that John was talking in code to get his letter by his Roman persecutors. Well if it was a code, it was a pretty shitty one because everyone knew (Romans included) exactly what John was talking about. It seems a mystery to us now because a lot of the symbolism had been forgotten and following church leader who had lost the direct symbols had to explain it somehow. In reality the symbolism isn't a code...it's direct and the listeners of the Apocalypse would have known immediately what John was referring to.

But I have digressed from the question of authorship.

Was The Revelation written by John the Apostle/Disciple Son of Zebadee? No chance! Let me explain why.

1) John the Apostle was almost certainly illiterate. In Acts 4:13 it says that "...Peter and John...were untrained and uneducated men..." The Greek word used was "agrammatoi"....literally "not knowing their letters". They could not read or write.

John, like Peter and the rest of the Disciples, were peasants from Galilee. They would have spoken Aramaic naturally and it's 99.999% certain they could not have been able to read and write in Aramaic let alone the foreign language of Greek. Peasants didn't go to school in those days. The minute they could contribute they were working to help support the family. An education was something only the rich had, because only the rich could afford to have their sons doing something beside working. Also an education was only found in the cities. Galilee was a county of small little towns. There was no education to be had. Modern scholarship estimates that only 3% of the public in highly developed cities could read and write. Unless you want to advance the theory that John went to night school after the death of Jesus (BTW...night school didn't exist then) to first learn to read and write Aramaic, then continued to learn to read and write in Greek, you can forget about John writing The Apocalypse.

2) Scholarship places the writing of The Apocalypse anywhere between 65 and 95 AD. Tradition says John the Apostle was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domition. That would have made John 90+ years old in an era where the average lifespan for the rich and cared for was about 55.

3) The Apocalypse doesn't even CLAIM to be written by John, son of Zebadee. It just says "John" from the island of Patmos. John was about as common a name then as it is today. There would have been tons of Johns who lived on Patmos. He never CLAIMS to be John The Apostle and this is significant because pseudepigraphia was alive and well. Paul in writing to the Thessalonians recognized that there were many people writing letters and attributing them to him when he didn't write them. Being an apostle of Jesus carried weight. If the author of the Apocalypse was John the Apostle, why wouldn't he give himself credibility by saying "I am John who walked with Jesus"? he never says that. he just says "John" and I am currently on Patmos. If the author doesn't claim it, why should we attribute it to him?

Well I will answer that for you. It was attributed to John the Apostle in 382 CE at the council of Rome as they determined which books were fit for the Biblical canon. The be accepted there were four factors that had to be met.

1) The book had to be ancient. Meaning it had to have been written during the life of Jesus or within the lifespan of His followers.

2) it had to be orthodox. It had to tow the line of the current teaching of the church in 382 CE...NOT during the life of Jesus. There is a great example of this regarding the Gospel of Peter that was rejected from the Bible because church leaders decided that Peter could not have written it because it didn't agree with what THEY THEMSELVES believed, This was the rationale for the rejection of books like The Gospel of Thomas and The Shepherd of Hermas.

3) It had to be widely used. It had to be something most everyone knew about.

Lastly...

4) It had to be Apostolic. It had to be written by either an Apostle or a companion of an Apostle. In regards to The Apocalypse this is the singular most critical point. No one at the time thought The Apocalypse was written by John the Apostle. in fact the dissentions at the time are VERY well documented. And that "call of bullshit" continued through Martin Luther and beyond. NO ONE thought it was written by John son of Zebedee until the church declared it was to get it into the Bible....and disagreeing with the church meant death.

To summarize:

Who wrote The Apocalyse?

No one knows, but we can be sure of a couple things:

1) The author was named John BUT It Was NOT John the Apostle son of Zebedee

2) It was a converted Jewish to Christian writer, probably exiled to the Island of Patmos during the reign of Vespasian for the crime of superstition.

3) The author was an Apocalypticist. He believed God's good kingdom would come to Earth in his lifetime or in the generation that followed.

4) The Apocalypse, like all Biblical texts, was probably written first and then changed throughout time to compensate for predictions that did not come to pass.

Never read a scholarly work that began, "It seems to me..."