On The Apocalypse: Part II

[BluePhantom]

This will be the first entry where we start to delve into the text of the Apocalypse itself. This will probably be the trickiest part of the the entire series because it will rely in some places on at least a basic (if not an advanced) understanding of the Greek language, ancient customs and traditions, and the norms and mores of society in the first century CE, vs. all those things in the 21st century CE. It's no small task because it means you have to take yourself completely out of the traditions you have come to know after 2,000 years of propaganda and think like a first century Jew or gentile convert.

To be able to do that an intense understanding of ancient culture, ancient symbolism, and ancient values is absolutely required and this is tough because the average person doesn't have the time or energy to educate themselves on these matters. The Great Whore of Babylon, for example, is one of the most frequently misinterpreted and misunderstood parts of the Apocalypse. But with just a touch of historical knowledge it becomes as clear as a bell and the symbolism becomes unavoidable. Thus these people often simply take what is told to them by their parents, or their pastor or priest, or a valued friend who heard it from someone else (and most of the time they themselves don't know what they are talking about) and they just go with it.

As a college professor my rule was always to focus on the thinking aspect for my students and the supporting evidence they provided instead of the conclusion they reached. My goal was always to encourage them to think for themselves, show them how to find information, how to apply it critically, and then let them apply it in such a way that it enhanced their lives in whatever form that may be. To me that is the difference between scholarship and dogma. Scholarship relies on a give and take communication, an exchange of ideas, a debate toward a common understanding. Dogma relies upon absolutism and has no tolerance for differing points of view. We see this in the contributions of several USMB posters who I will not bother to mention by name...it's obvious who they are.

I find it a sense of pride that I never marked a student's work lower simply because their thesis did not match my own belief system (and let me tell you there are PUHLENTY of professors who do just that..in fact that is more common than uncommon given my experience in the college educational system). Honestly I never did that. I welcomed disagreement and my basis for grading was on how well they documented and supported their conclusions....basically, how well they argued their point. As a side note I can say that many of the posters on USMB that I have dealt with would have probably failed my classes not because their opinions differ from mine, but because when you present guys like Shipp and Wiley and Hal Lindsay as your supporting evidence you really have no credibility to speak of. At that point most rational people who are even semi-educated will simply say "I am dealing with a nut" and that's pretty much the end of it.

So before we delve into the text of the Apocalypse I want to remind readers of the original terms.


The Scope

This series will analyze The Apocalypse from a historical perspective taking culture, languages, and history into account. In other words this will not be a futuristic analysis. While a futuristic interpretation is certainly welcome for debate, such a perspective is a theological interpretation and not a cultural or historical one.

This will not be a futuristic or faith based analysis, but a discussion on what John of Patmos was getting at when he wrote it.


My hope is that we will have a deep, thorough, and lasting discussion with contributions from multiple perspectives from which each person can take their own lesson, understanding, and appreciation.

The Rules

- Be respectful. Passionate debate is welcomed. Opposing points of view are welcomed. Please show tolerance of contrary interpretations and disagree in a respectful manner.

- Keep to the scope. Again this is going to be a historical, cultural, and scholarly approach to interpretation. Making the argument that "the Bible says it and therefore it must be true" isn't going to cut it (and frankly you will get what you deserve).

- I ask contributors to ignore the trolls and not allow themselves to get sucked into pissing matches with those who are unable or unwilling to consider contrary points of view. Ignore them.

- Make your point, support it, and be constructive.

-Let each person walk his/her own path and let them reach their own conclusions. Offering them a different perspective is welcome. Telling them "you must believe this" is not.

My Position

While I am very well versed and educated on the Apocalypse, I do not feel that my opinion is the definitive opinion. It's simply MY opinion that works for me and fits well within MY personal theology. If you reach a different conclusion I have no problem with that...after all I could be wrong. I don't know everything and I welcome new learning provided it is well supported with documentation, historical analysis, or at least a logical argument.

The Goal

The goal is to explore the history, the culture, the language, and all the other elements in regards to The Apocalypse in the hopes that together (including myself) all will achieve a greater appreciation, a greater understanding, and a greater connection with God.

Your First Assignment

My process will be to give a reading assignment from the Apocalypse, allow time for people to read the text, research it, think about it, develop opinions on it, develop questions about it, and then we will have discussion.

I am going to give a couple days...your reading assignment: Revelation chapters 1-3 which many people think is the most boring and insignificant part of the book. WOW are they wrong! There is a LOT going in in those first chapters.

Read and we will discuss in a couple days.

-The Phantom

 

[BluePhantom]

It’s been a couple days and so the time has come (at last) to dig into the text of the Apocalypse. The assignment for this topic entry was chapter 1-3 and as I said, it seems like the most boring and inconsequential part of the entire book. I say this because the Apocalypse is kind of like the ancient version of Star Wars. You have the epic battles of good vs. evil. You have fire and brimstone raining down upon the Earth. You have the champion of the good side battling a cosmic war against the dark side. This is classic Darth Vader vs. Yoda / Obi Wan Kenobi stuff….and it’s not by accident. Do you think the philosophy of the Jedi in Star Wars being almost a perfect example of Taoist Buddhism where Vader and the Emperor are classic Satan/Lucifer is by accident? George Lucas is a master in that he took ancient traditions, ancient stories, and put them in a future context in “…a galaxy far, far, away….” and made billions. John of Patmos did the same thing in the 1st Century CE and made himself a Biblical legend.

Chapters 1-3 set the stage for what is to come and I want to introduce you to some basic rhetoric of the time. The Apocalypse is a letter and letters at that time followed a very specific pattern. They start with an introduction (who is writing the letter) followed by a blessing or prayer. This is clear as a bell from the letters we have from the time and it is copied precisely in the undisputed letters of Paul. It’s important to note that sometimes (not always) one of the things that contributed to the rejection of Pauline authorship in his letters is that usually he follows rhetoric down to the “T” and yet in some it’s tossed completely out the window and what is left is a rambling..almost “bitchfest” that violates the standard rhetoric of times and completely contradicts in theory and principle those letters that DO follow rhetoric.
`
1 Timothy, for example, technically follows rhetoric. 1 Timothy 1:1 identifies the author, and 1 Timothy 1:2 gives a blessing….but it’s totally unlike anything Paul has done in his other letters. Usually Paul goes on and on………and on…like forever....with that opening blessing. Yet in 1 Timothy...it’s just a quick side note in one sentence respectively. That sure doesn’t sound like Paul and as such scholars have largely rejected 1 Timothy as being written by Paul accordingly as well as for other reasons which are beyond the scope of this discussion on the Apocalypse and not on Pauline authorship.

The Apocalypse follows rhetoric but in a VERY unusual way. First there is no ascribed title. Actually that’s standard, but it's worth pointing out…there were never any titles like there are today. Authors didn’t title their works as they do today. The Gospel of Mark we read today has “MARK” written at the top of the page in all caps, centered, underlined, bolded, and in a bigger point. They didn’t do that back then. The book just started and ended and there was no big title at the top. Those titles were added later. The same is true of the Apocalypse. It never said “THE REVELATION” at the top. It just started and that was that...and why WOULD it be titled? It was just a letter. Does anyone ever write on top of a letter "A LETTER FROM JIM TO HIS DEVOTED MOTHER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI"? Of course not, that's absurd, and John didn't do that either.

But I want you to focus on the first five words….”The revelation from Jesus Christ….”. The author is not defining himself as the author, he is defining Jesus as the author right from the very first words. It was given from Jesus, sent by an angel, to “John”. That’s it….just “John”. Not “John the Apostle”, not “John son of Zebedee”, not “John who walked with Jesus”, not even “John of Patmos”; just “John”. The author himself claims to be nothing more than a guy named “John”. What evidence (not tradition…but evidence) do we have to make any further assumption than..it was just a guy named “John”. Even the Bible doesn't say anything more.

As the author claims nothing more than being named "John" I see no reason nor evidence to grant him any other titles. So we will just call him "John".

Now let me again turn your focus to Revelation 1:3…”Blessed is he who reads ALOUD (emphasis added)…and blessed are those who hear….” As our set up discussions have established, this was a letter intended to be read aloud at church gatherings. Why did John specify “…read ALOUD…” and “…those who hear…”. It’s exactly what we have been discussing about literacy in the first century CE. Very, very, VERY few people could read and write. Even if they could speak or understand a spoken foreign language (that in itself is iffy), reading and writing it was a totally different animal. It was rare enough to be able to read in your own natural language let alone a foreign one. Those that could read were in positions of authority, so John blesses those who are reading his letter (those who CAN read) to the average people of the church (who mostly can’t read). Again it’s important to point of the difference between speaking a language and reading and writing in it.

John then addresses the churches and gives a blessing…this following standard rhetoric but again I wish to point out Revelation 1:4 where it is commonly written in English “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come…” In the introduction thread I pointed out that in Greek it reads “Grace and peace to you from HE THE is, HE THE was, and HE THE will be….”. We have already discussed the Greek syntax so I won’t go over it all again, but right from the start John talks in this kind of “Greek Jive Talk”…as if to say “yo dog…what it is?” and as we might have said in the 70s “gimmie some skin”. It’s just the way John is writing at that point in the Apocalypse and it’s stunning because John is following the rhetoric of an educated man, yet talking in this Greek slang that doesn’t fit the rhetoric.

Think of it like someone addressing a letter in PERFECT business style…with formal names and addresses at the top, the date, phone number, perfect punctuation after the “Dear Mr. X” and then saying “YO BITCH!!! HOW YA BE?” That’s exactly what happens at the beginning of the Apocalypse. Reading it in Greek, your jaw drops and slams itself on the floor and we haven’t even gotten through four sentences yet. It’s astonishing but let’s move on as we have already discussed this.

Lets go back to 1:3 where John writes “…because the time is near.” There are no linguistic games or goofiness with the Greek vs. English here. John is saying the time is near, and I want to remind you again of the previous thread where I made the point that John was writing about things happening now, and that his message would not resonate or be accepted or have any value whatsoever if he was predicting a series of events to happen thousands of years in the future. In 1:3 he is hammering down traditional Jewish Apocalyptic tradition dead in the heart. He is saying “NOW”….”in your lifetime”…”at worst the generation to follow”. Right from the beginning John says everything that is to follow in the Apocalypse is happening now or will happen imminently. This is classic Jewish Apocalyptic tradition right from the start.

I am going to stop there…that’s enough for one day. Those who thought that chapters 1-3 were boring and irrelevant…I am not even five verses in yet through the first chapter and already we are seeing justification in John of Patmos’ own words that my set-up thread is already well established by the text.

We will continue later. Preliminary discussion is welcome.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And we're not just reading Revelations because...? You're so much better to read than the actual text you're only commenting on?

 

[BluePhantom]

And we're not just reading Revelations because...? You're so much better to read than the actual text you're only commenting on?

The go read it yourself Delta. if you are not getting anything from this thread, don't read it.