andrewcriddle

The idea that Revelation is opposing radical followers of Paul and that the author would have repudiated Christendom as it developed fron Constantine onwards is not particularly original.

The apparent claim that Revelation is, in its present form, basically Jewish seems both more original and also rather problematic. The use of terms such as synagogue of Satan for local Jewish communities in Asia Minor suggests that relations between the author's community and the Jews of his day were in fact rather hostile.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

More original? My impression was that critics tended to think that generally the Revelation represents an apocalyptic Jewish-Christian POV. In light of the fact that the letters to the seven churches appear to be either an independent source used by the final redactor/editor of the book of the Revelation, or was the final editor's own contribution to it, I am not so confident the phrase "synagogue of Satan" in the letters is representative of the POV of the bulk of the rest of the work. Could not "synagogue of Satan" just as easily be used to designate a "liberal" synagogue which has adopted novel theology or practices?

DCH

andrewcriddle

I think the "Synagogue of Satan" has to be the majority Jewish group in Philadephia and Smyrna. If they were a Jewish splinter group I don't see why the author or his readers would care about them.

I tend to link Revelation to the 2nd century Christianity of Asia Minor, found eg in Melito. This has problems with the wider church due to continuing Jewish practices in matters such as the celebration of Easter but is definitely hostile to the contemporary synagogue.

Andrew Criddle

sotto voce

There is no reason to believe that they were Jews, i.e. those who had not accepted Jesus as their messiah, at all. Like both Jesus and Paul, John here uses 'Jews' (or 'Israelites') as synonym for 'Christians'. So, in effect:

'I know your afflictions and your poverty — yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Christians and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.' Rv 2:9 NIV ed

That makes sense.

Tenorikuma

I think we get too caught up in the apocalyptic imagery. Revelation is basically a scathing (and rather petty) indictment of Christian leaders like "Jezebel" and "Balaam" (to use the writer's smear terms) who were willing to mix with pagan society, eat meat intended for idol worship, etc. He felt the churches in Asia Minor were his turf and ought to remain an isolated community.

The traditional view of placing Revelation in the context of persecutions by Nero and Domitian that are now thought not really to have taken place is losing acceptance. Eusebius' history of the church is not to be trusted.

Revelation isn't anti-Christian, but it might be anti-Pauline. Its dogma ended up on the losing side of history, as Christians not only freely mixed with pagans, but became so influential they took over the empire.

sotto voce

:clapping: Very good.

neilgodfrey

A very similar view of the Book of Revelation was argued by Paul Louis Couchoud in the 1930s. His chapter discussing Revelation in particular as an attack on Pauline Christianity is copied and available at The Christ Of John's Revelation - Nemesis of Paul's Crucified Christ.

Neil Godfrey