SDMB weekly Bible Study (SDMBWBS) - The Book of Revelation: Introduction and Prologue
Welcome to the SDMB weekly Bible Study (SDMBWBS). Since the discussion can turn into a very broad and hijackable thread, we would like the following rules to be adhered to:
-
These SDMBWBS threads are to deal with the books and stories in the Bible as literature. What I’m hoping to achieve is an understanding of the stories, the time in which they were written, context, and possibly its cultural relevance.
-
While it is up to the individual to choose to believe or disbelieve any portion, that is not to be the discussion of the thread. If you must, please choose to witness/anti-witness in Great Debates.
-
The intention is to go through the Bible from front to back in order. While different books are needed to be referred to in order to understand context, please try and keep the focus on the thread’s selected chapter(s)/verse(s).
-
Since different religions have chosen which books to include or omit, the threads will use the Catholic version of 46 Old Testament Books and 27 New Testament Books. It’s encouraged to discuss why a book was included/omitted during the applicable threads only. BibleHub, as far as I know, is a good resource that compiles many different versions of the verses into one page.(Also the SDMB Staff Reports on Who Wrote the Bible). Please feel free to use whatever source you want, including-and even more helpfully-the original language.
-
Hopefully we can get through these threads with little to no moderation. A gentle reminder that if a poster comes in and ignores these rules, please use the “report post” function instead of responding.
Thanks very much to vacationing stpauler for letting me borrow his format and the above language. This thread on Revelation does not replace the ongoing one on Genesis, which returns next week in addition to this thread. This session I’m going to start with an introduction to the book, and we’ll get into the actual body of the scripture next week.
Revelation: Its Title.
The texts of the manuscripts of this book that we have are all untitled. In keeping with a long-standing tradition, the book has been named after its first word, “Apokalypsis”, and in the Codex Sinaiticus and most other texts it’s titled simply “Apokalypsis Ioannon” (The Revelation of John). The longest and most fulsome title it has been given is that found in a manuscript at Mt. Athos: “The Revelation of the all-glorious Evangelist, bosom friend, virgin, beloved to Christ, John the theologian, son of Salome and Zebedee, but adopted son of Mary the Mother of God, and Son of Thunder”.
“Apokalypsis” means revelation, a disclosure, an uncovering, an unveiling, a drawing back of the curtain.
Authorship and Date.
The author identifies himself simply as John. Since he says in verse 1.9 that he was an island of Patmos when he received his vision, most modern scholars refer to him as John of Patmos. Since John says he was on Patmos “on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus”, many infer that he had been exiled their by the Roman government for preaching the Gospel. Patmos is a small Greek island in the Aegean Sea off the coast of Turkey.
Early tradition is practically unanimous in identifying John of Patmos with John the Apostle. Justin Martyr, writing around 135 A.D., was familiar with it, and held the apostle as its author. In his work against heresies Irenaeus frequently cites the work, and holds it be the work of Jesus’s disciple. This witness is of special interest because as a boy Irenaeus had known Polycarp, who was reputedly a student/disciple of John the Apostle. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, along with many others, also make the same attribution. The Gnostic manuscript the Apocryphon of John (dated circa 90-150 A.D.) cites Rev. 1.19, and claims it was written by the disciple.
On the other hand, the greater majority of modern scholars don’t agree with this attribution. In the first place, there’s a tradition that the apostle John was never in Asia Minor and died an early death by martyrdom, circ 64-70. Dionysius of Alexandria in the middle of the 3rd Century, attempted to remove the Apocalypse from canon by comparing it with the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John, concluding that they were by different authors. In dwelling on the distinctions in language, style and thought, Dionysius set the pattern for most Bible critics.
The Greek of John’s Gospel is simple and direct, and the Greek of the various letters is refined and polished, able to deal with nuances and complexities of meaning. The Greek of the Apocalypse is not only not the Greek of the author of the gospel, nor any of John’s epistles, it’s like no Greek anyone ever wrote anywhere else. One out of eight words in Revelation is a hapax legomenon (that is, a word that appears nowhere else in the New Testament). Its grammar and sentence structure are also bizarre, leading many to think that not only wasn’t Greek the author’s first language, but it was a language that gave him considerable difficulty. To add to its complexity, despite the warning at the end of the book not to change anything in the book, there are more variant readings in Revelation than in any other New Testament book.
The author never quotes the Old Testament directly, but has more allusions to it (especially from Daniel, Ezekiel and Isaiah) than any other book. It’s obvious from his phrasing in these cases that he’s using the Greek Septuagint version, rather than a Hebrew or Aramaic version.
Besides the author of the Gospel, or the author of one or more of the Epistles, John Mark (associate of Paul) was considered by a few church fathers as a possibility for authorship, but this never gained any major acceptance. John the Baptist was considered as a candidate by J. Massyngberde Ford in her study in the Anchor Bible series. Although it is conceded she did a fairly good job showing how his eschatological preachings may have been a source of the prophecies in the Revelation, she did not convince her critics as to how they could have been placed in an overtly Christian work, or why, when it was accepted, that none of the patristic writers ever mentioned a connection.
Today most scholars (with a notable exception among a number of evangelicals, who still hold out for John the Apostle) believe that John the Patmos was an early authoritative church figure (since he’s writing an authoritative work to seven churches, where it is presumed he would be known), but do not associate him with any of the other John’s of the New Testament era.
Although a few early interpreters dated the work to the time of Claudius’s reign (41-54), that can only be accepted by some truly creative work in interpreting certain passages. Others, including Dorotheus (6th Century) and Theophylact (11th Century), place John’s exile in the time of Trajan (98-117). The majority of scholars, however, place the composition of the Apocalypse either during the reign of Domitian (81-96) or toward the end (or just after) the reign of Nero (54-68). Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria both posit Domitian’s rule as the era.
When one turns to Revelation itself, it’s clear that the background is one of conflict between the demands of a totalitarian secular power and allegiance to the Christian faith. The Roman Empire is personified as beast who demands universal worhip, insisting that all must bear its mark or be put to death. These references are best interpreted against the development of the imperial cult, especially in Asia Minor. An earlier deification of the state among the provinces provided the means for emperors to strengthen their hold on them by making claims to divine status. Julius Caesar accepted worship as a god in his own lifetime; Augustus was cautious in Rome, but accepted worship from outlying provinces. Caligula demanded his subjects everywhere do homage to his statue. Though Nero held the Christians as scapegoats for the burning of Rome, it wasn’t actually until the reign of Domitian when persecution of Christians by the state on religious grounds took place for the first time.
Given the likelihood of Domitian’s reign as the setting, and the witness of early 2nd Century authors, I find it best to put the work at circa 90-95, twenty years after the fall of Jerusalem and the battle of Megiddo.
Form Criticism
Although the field of apocalyptic literature takes its name from this book, that’s a bit misleading. Apocalyptic literature typically have messages about the end times. These may come from angels, or from people who have been taken up to heaven and are returning to earth with messages. The descriptions not only tell of the end times, but also describe both past and present events and their significance, often in heavily coded language. When speaking of the end times, apocalyptic literature generally includes chronologies of events that will occur and frequently places them in the near future, which gives a sense of urgency to the prophet’s larger message.
Though the understanding of the present is bleak, the visions of the future are far more positive, and include divine victory and a complete reformation of absolutely everything. Many visions of these end times mirror creation mythologies, invoking triumph of God over the primordial forces of chaos, and clear distinctions between light and dark, good and evil. The imagery in apocalyptic literature is not realistic or reflective of the physical world as it was, but is rather surreal and fantastic, invoking a sense of wonder at the complete newness of the new order to come.
However, there are few examples where all of the basic elements just described appear; most have a majority of the elements, and some have only a few. In the Old Testament there are apocalyptic passages in Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel and Zechariah, but the entire works are not apocalypses. In the New Testament, there are even fewer occasional passages in the gospels and epistles, but only Revelation is a true apocalypse.
Non-canonical apocalypses abound, though none are actually contemporary with Revelation, despite some of the names attributed to them. A few of the better-known ones are: *The Book of Enoch, The Apocalypse of Adam, The Apocalypse of Daniel, The Apocalypse of Ezra, The Apocalypse of James, The Apocalypse of Paul *and The Apocalypse of Peter. Examining these can give some insight into the symbolism used in Revelation, but, since they are not contemporary, do not give exact correlation of imagery.
Interpreting the Apocalypse
There are four basic interpretive approaches to the book. There are a lot more approaches that tend to the fringes, as well, but I’ll mainly focus on these four in this study.
-
Preterist approach: this understands the Apocalypse from the standpoint of its 1st Century historical setting. The church, threatened by growing demands for emperor worship, is entering into a period in which its faith is to be severely tested. Persecution will increase, but those who endure will share the final victory with God. The merit of this approach is that interprets and understands the plight of the church in terms of the crisis that had developed at that particular time.
-
Historicist approach: this interprets the work as a forecast of the course of history leading up the interpreter’s own time. Its highly subjective nature is underscored by the fact that no two interpreters generally agree on which passage refers to what era or ruler.
-
Futurist approach: these interpreters find everything from chapter 4 on to belong to a period of time not yet achieved: the actual last days, as opposed to the normal period of history. The letters to the seven churches are often considered to represent the seven ages that will occur before the last days.
-
Idealist approach: this states that the Revelation is timeless, and is not to be taken in reference to specific events at all, but as an expression of those basic principles which God has acted throughout history. The Apocalypse is more of a theological poem, pitting the kingdom of light in a struggle with the kingdom of darkness.
Next week, we start with Chapter 1: The Prologue.