Chili

It is Catholic, actually, and was written by the favorite apostle who Jesus introduced as Mary's son. His name was John.

gstafleu

I don't think calling this just a word count is quite right. Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, but he is by and large absent from Revelations. Removing him from the few places where he does occur does not change the story. You cannot say that of the gospels or Paul's letters.

We know that an apocalypse is something usual in Judaism. We then also know that in the 400 or so verses of Revelations there are over 500 references to Judaic scripture. That does steer the mind towards an assumption of Judaism.

Sure there might be elements in there that can only be seen as Christian. But what could those be? We know from the works of Robert Price that not much in Christianity is original. The only thing that really sets it apart is Jesus, who has been sent by God to fix things up via his salvific death. That is what the gospels are all about and that is also what Paul's epistles revolve around, I'd say. But it seems to be absent from Revelations.

Something else that is maybe typical Christian is the element of forgiveness. Turning the other cheek and all that. It may not be original with Christ, but it certainly sets it apart from then prevalent custom. It is, to put it mildly, difficult to find any cheek-turning or forgiveness in Revelations.

So what are perhaps the two most specific Christian ideas, salvific death and forgiveness, seem to be absent from Revelations. That does not bode well for its Christian-ness.

Just a few words about some of the examples you mention. As for the lamb, isn't Judaism rather fond of its passover lamb? The fact that "day of the lord" could be Christian doesn't do much given that it could easily be Jewish. Same for son of man, who appears in Daniel. A male child born from some heavenly woman to do wonders is a usual pagan theme. So is the number 12.

It might be true that there are elements in Revelations that are typically Christian. But until someone points them out, with an explanation as to why they are typically Christian, the assumption must be, given the evidence that has been pointed out, that Revelations is an adapted Jewish document.

Gerard

Coleslaw

Actually, I was wrong about that-I skimmed over the Collins chapter on Revelation last night and Collins accepts it as a Christian document although he does discuss the difference between the way Jesus is presented in Revelations as opposed to how he is presented in the Gospels, and places Revelations within the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic writing. I know I read the description "Jewish apocalypse with Christian interpolations" somewhere, long before I read Kirsch's book, but now I can't say where.

As for it being written by "the favorite apostle who Jesus introduced as Mary's son", that was in dispute even at the time Revelations was accepted into the canon, although Kirsch says it was accepted into the canon only because tradition had it that it was written by that John.

Ben C Smith

Yes. But the lamb in Revelation is a figure slain in order to save men by its blood (5.9, nullifying your contention, BTW, that Revelation lacks a salvific death), who is deemed worthy of praise (5.12) and is coming in vengeance. If your contention is that these things are a strictly Jewish interpretation of the Passover sacrifice, you will need to provide a strictly Jewish example of such an interpretation. Otherwise, it looks unabashedly Christian, since our sources attest Christ as having died salvifically, honored with praise, and presently to come in vengeance.

If it is Jewish, what is it? The Hebrew scriptures are full of the day of the Lord motif, but always as a day of judgment at the end of the age. The day of the Lord in Revelation is the day on which John the seer saw his vision. If your contention is that such usage is strictly Jewish, you will need to provide a strictly Jewish example of that usage.

Granted.

Twelve apostles? Does that not sound Christian to you?

Calling Jesus a lamb is typically Christian (gospel of John), asserting that Jesus (the lamb) died a salvific death is typically Christian (gospels, Paul, many others), and expecting Jesus to come in judgment as the son of man is typically Christian (synoptic apocalypse). Most importantly, wrapping these aspects up into a single messianic figure is typically Christian. Is it typically Jewish? If so, who?

Calling a given day in present history (not the end of all things) the day of the Lord is typically Christian (Didache, gospel of Peter, acts of Peter, others). Is it typically Jewish? If so, what does it mean? (Moreover, the Greek for this phrase in Revelation uses the Christian adjectival wording with κυριακη, not the LXX wording with a noun in the genitive.)

The number 12 is Jewish. But twelve apostles... surely that is Christian (synoptic gospels, Acts, Ascension of Isaiah, others). Who are the twelve apostles in a strictly Jewish sense?

It may well be an adapted Jewish document. That is not what is at issue, since I mentioned that I as yet have no firm opinion either way on the matter. What is at issue is your assertion that our present text can be turned back into the original Jewish document simply by removing all instances of Jesus or Christ. I think the operation would have to be a little more involved than the mere excision of twenty phrases or so.

Ben.

gstafleu

I was talking (or meant to do so) about Jesus' salvific death. But indeed, if we have Lamb=Jesus (which is under discussion of course) then we do have a salvific death of Jesus here. If we assume that the lamb is not Jesus, could this be a more "normal" sacrifice? Something tells me you are going to argue that "and with your blood you purchased men for God" is pretty Christian and not very Jewish...

But is it Christian. Isn't the day of the lord in Christianity Sunday, as opposed to the day John saw a vision?

It does ring a bell . How close is "apostles" to something like "prophets"?

Fair enough, that assertion may have been a bit simplistic. Of course we have the added problem that Christianity can be seen as a modification of Judaism, which makes the contention that a given (early) Christian document is a modification of a Jewish one a bit of a well-duh proposition.

But still, the (relative) lack of Jesus mentions and the lack of anything like forgiveness, plus the apparently enormous amount of OT references, makes me think Revelation is at least a witness to some intermediary form of Jewish-Christianity. Maybe one where the Lamb had not yet been identified with Jesus? Somehow the passover lamb morphed into a messiah?

Gerard

jakejonesiv

Hi Gerard,

You are exactly right.

Revelation was not originally a Christian work. It was redacted, with "John" expanding the prologue, adding the epilogue, and letters to the seven churches. (The seven letters section was a separate document). Notice the redundancy of Jesus with the angel. Notice the redundancy of John himself. How many intermediaries do you need? He also sprinkled some Christian references in the principal body of the text, but they are only surface glosses. Once that the redaction of John is removed, and this process is not onerous, the remaining document consists of:

1. A Brief Prologue
"The Revelation God gave his angel show to his bond-servants, the things which must soon take place. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.... "
2. Revelation chapter 4 through Rev chapter 22:6 minus Christian references .

This document identifies the conflict in question clearly. It is Rome (the seven hills, Rev. 17:9) against Jews in the reign of Nero (Rev. 13:18), which would be approximately 68 CE. Revelation was not written as a "recapitualation" of the Jewish rebellion, indeed it was composed in the midst of this war. It was not written to predict some events far in the future, it was about the events which would come soon to pass. Jerusalem was in a dire predicament, and it was believed by the Jewish author of the Revelation that only the interposition by God could save them (Rev. 19:1-2). The conflict concentrating on Jerusalem was increased to a cosmic level by the author. God would intervene because of the fidelity of the holy remnant (Rev. 7:4), and Rome would be demolished. The author was wrong. Dead wrong. Although the symbolism of the Book of Revelation is strange, the context is very clear, and not mysterious at all.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

I would argue that the phrase and with your blood purchased men for God is pretty Christian....

I think the sense is that John saw the vision on a Sunday (during Christian worship). He is not defining what the day of the Lord is.

There is overlap, but not necessarily identity. The issue, however, is not what a phrase can mean; the issue is what a phrase normally means. Do you really wish to argue that a strictly Jewish author referred to the twelve apostles and meant some group other than that known as the twelve apostles in early Christianity? What would your evidence be?

Oh, I will eagerly grant that Revelation witnesses to some form of Jewish Christianity.

The somehow points up the issue here. How exactly? (This is not a dare, just a question.) Your opposition has a fairly easy time of it at this point; early followers of Jesus had to explain the unexpected and shameful death of their master, and they latched onto OT ideas and themes as part of their interpretation, including and perhaps especially sacrificial themes. Hence Jesus as sacrificial lamb, Jesus as atonement, Jesus as redeemer.

In short, the lamb who died to purchase men for God by his blood and who is coming in vengeance sounds a lot like Jesus. Is there anyone, historical or mythical, that it sounds even closer to?

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Ben,

Sometimes I have to shake my head in wonder. :huh:

OF COURSE the Lamb is a pre-Chrsitian symbol of sacrifice! The Passover, the lamb of the Exodus chapter 12; whose blood on the doorfames protected the occupants from the angel of death.
We are so used to seeing the pascal lamb as a prophecy, type, or pre-figurement of Jesus that it is easy to forget that it originally was no such thing, and still isn't to those of the Jewish faith.

Jake Jones IV

dzim77

I don't see much support for this theory in the book itself. The book is clearly concerning the apocalypse - the end of the world - not merely the war with Rome.

For example, how would this theory explain:

-the thousand years' reign in Rev. 20
-the 'white throne' judgement in Rev. 20:11-15 in which all those whose names are wrtitten in the book of life enter paradise
-the new heaven and the new earth coming out of the sky in Rev 21 and the passing of the first heaven and earth

There is surely something to the proposed context of persecution from Rome, but how do you know it is referring to the war against Jerusalem and not to Roman persecution of Christians? (as the book claims)

jakejonesiv

The redactor conflated the twelve apostles with the twelve tribes of Israel.

On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev. 21.

Further more, the fondations in Revelation are rendered from the tale of the twelve foundation stones of Jesus' OT alter ego, Joshua who in Joshua chapter 4 replicated Moses parting of the Red Sea when he cut off the flow of the Jordan river for the Ark of the Covenant to cross.

Jake Jones IV