Solo

I have observed the curious inconsistency of the rationalist critics of the NT. They refuse to consider the historical reality of the miracles, in effect saying, miracles cannot happen for reasons of physics and, if we admit miracles to a rational discourse we admit separate physical realities. But when it comes to mental health, these same critics insist that we accept "special pleading" of religious experiences or dismiss them ostrich-like for events that are routinely observed medically or by trained psychologists. They , after the fashion of the current APA, accept separate psychic realities.
It is a miracle that surely beats the feeding of the multitudes, that NT studies in the two hundred years of rationalist examination has not yet stumbled on the discovery, that if people do not come back from the dead, then their eschatological speculations are informed by the experiences of this life and if these come as radically bi-polar visions (heaven vs hell) then they are most likely a reflection of radical swings of mood between absolute euphoria and hopeless damnation.

Jiri

bacht

I can understand the hesitancy of biblical scholars to diagnose any sort of unhealthiness in the canonical writers. One could argue that the post-exilic writers were defensive and narrow-minded, fighting desperately to preserve the Josianic vision of centralized monotheism and ethnic homogeneity.

The rise of apocalyptic speculation during Hasmonean times can be seen as a splintering of whatever consensus existed before the 2nd C bce. Maybe the old tension between pagans and monotheists never really went away, it just morphed into Hellenism vs Torahism (or internationalism vs provincialism).

The DSS seem to reflect paranoia and resentment from a minority of religious nationalists. As the internal political situation worsened over the next two centuries this minority found a voice in the Zealots, who eventually forced the destruction of the "polluted" Judean culture.

I think the 2nd C rabbis wanted to distance themselves from the eschatological ravings that fueled the death of their country.

gupwalla

The imagery in John's Revelation are fantastical and possibly congruent with paranoid thinking, but the book as it has come down to us has a strong literary form and structure which do not match many typical examples of paranoid writings. Whoever composed the book as we have it now had the capability of well-structured thinking.

For an obvious if strawman-ish example of disorganized paranoid writings, check out the "Time Cube" website. Lots of crazy stuff there, and I challenge anyone to find any semblance of sense or structure inside it. By comparison, Revelation is remarkably lucid and sane -- at least from a literary standpoint.

I suppose it is possible that John was an insane Sybil figure, lapsing into hallucinatory episodes on Patmos and relaying those visions to a coterie of literate scribes who could give them a sense of structure on the written page. Or, Revelation could have originally been written as poetry in another language and then very literally translated into Greek. Or, John could have been an ancient Dan Brown figure with a passionate anti-Roman bias and an equally passionate imagination, providing a form of escapist literature that resonated with the hopes and fears of his audience.

Dante and John Milton wrote stories of equally fantastic journeys into Heaven and Hell, and they are not normally accused of being mentally ill.

Revelation only seems mad and incoherent if we take the literalism viewpoint that John had a vision because he said he had a vision, and that John literally believed these things to be true because he said so. Dante and Milton also claimed vision or divine inspiration as their sources, but we understand them to be using a literary device. If we give John of Patmos the same courtesy, we can enjoy the figurative literary story he tells without jumping to conclusions about his mental state.

For me, debating John's sanity only really makes sense in a world where the only two options are "John was sane and told the literal truth" or "John was insane, but thought he was telling the literal truth." I don't think either of those is true, and I find it much more rewarding to read Revelation as John's version of a mystical truth told in imaginative and figurative language.

bacht

I agree, John was clearly sane enough to compose a structured and detailed narrative modelled on the writings of Ezekiel, Zechariah et al. Maybe I'm judging him by the people who are drawn to this kind of writing, like the Zealots and various messianic pretenders of the 1st C.

I can accept the idea that writers of apocalyptic, like Daniel, used a special code to express opposition to powerful rulers (as perhaps Ezekiel was wary of Babylonian authorities, and Zechariah was watching out for the Persians). The usual dating of Revelation ties it to Domitian and his supposed persecution of Xtians in the 90s.

The ultimate source of all these ideas is the Hebrew "Day of the Lord", the judgment against Israel's enemies as predicted by the classic prophets. By the Christian era this evolves to end-of-the-world scenarios with their resolution in resurrection rather than military victory.

aa5874

Initially I thought the author of Revelations appeared to have some kind of problem, he recorded that he heard loud and great voices, apparently in his head, sometimes like a loud trumpet or thunder and that he saw creatures not known to exist anywhere at any time.

But upon reflection and re-examination, it now seems to me that the author heard and saw nothing, this author simply used and re-worked Hebrew scripture as his prototype.

The author used word for word copying of numerous passages from, Isaiah, Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Genesis, Numbers, Proverbs, Joel, Hosea, Jeremiah, Leviticus, Exodus, Micah, Zephaniah, Kings and Deuteronomy.

The author of Revelations appear to have been sane, he seems to know what he was doing. He did not acknowledge the name of any writing from which passages were lifted.

Instead of seeing visions the author appear to have seen or just simply looked into, and copied the Septuagint or some similar source.

Solo

possibly congruent with paranoid thinking ? ...it would be nice to know what you think paranoid thinking is and what non-paranoid thinking it may be congruent with.

How about the first verse of Revelation ? God revealed something to Jesus (hey, I am sure you noticed that it is not something about Jesus) and Jesus sent it to John via angel. Would that be kinda congruent with delusions of reference ?


But you see, I am not interested in strawmanish examples
of what you consider 'paranoid'. I simply take note of your poor grasp of what paranoid means. It does not mean incapable of forming or articulating ideas. It means having ideas which are dominated by excessive fear or anxiety, and unrealistic view of oneself vis-a-vis one's surroundings. You are probably mistaking the paranoid tag with some forms or phases of schizophrenia in which a subject is incapable of forming coherent thoughts, but speaks or writes in a "word-salad".

Again, you don't understand. Revelation does not presuppose any hallucnations on the part of its author. It displays pronounced and persistent persecutory imagery which the author apprehends as revelatory knowledge relating to the a physical demise of the world (as his contemporaries knew it) originating in divine revelation to himself.

I suppose that would explain to you the numerous solecisms in John's writing.

But they were not claiming to have eaten their compositions from scrolls handed to them by angels of God. Neither Dante or Milton confused their literary creations with knowledge of God's ultimate purpose.

Hey, it's a free world, my friend

Jiri