Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 10-15-2004, 04:44 AM

On Bernard Muller's website, here, he argues (quite convincingly in my opinion) that the Biblical book of Revelation appears to be a Jewish work that was later 'Christianised'.

Is this a common view amongst NT scholars, or is Bernard going out on a limb, here?

Chris Weimer · 10-15-2004, 04:48 AM

um what's the difference?

Chris Weimer · 10-15-2004, 04:53 AM

Christianity bases itself off of Judaism. All things Jewish are (in theory) all things Christian. Revelation is like a lot of other apocalyptic writings of the time in which it described the Messiah coming to deliver the Jewish people and produce the end of the world yadda, the soteriological/eschatological branches of the religion. Since Christianity believes that the Messiah already came once, and since he died and has been dead for quite a while, to describe it again would be basically the same thing. I mean, The Epistle of James is a Jewish work, and so is the entire OT and most of Jesus' sayings (well duh!).

The whole thing is like saying that Buddha took Hindu's Nibbanic and Kammatic concepts and "buddhized" it, or that a children take the traits of their parents and adopt it for their own. It's a little obvious...

Dean Anderson · 10-15-2004, 05:03 AM

The point is not that the work is based on Jewish influences because it was written by a Christian and Christianity is (or at least was at the time) as subset of Judaism.

The point that Bernard argues (assuming that I have understood him correctly) is that the work was written from a purely Jewish perspective without any Christian themes running through it and with no concept that the Son of Man had already been once - just a few decades ago.

Then, at a later point it time, either the same author (having converted to Christianity since originally writing it) or another redactor who was a Christian added various bits to the text to retro-fit it into Christian mythology.

Chris Weimer · 10-15-2004, 05:32 AM

Some thoughts on his work though:

1:1-7 seem to be added work, mainly because of 1:4, which isn't replicated in 1:11 in the original. With that being said, it becomes more plausible that 8 is also added redaction.

1:11 uses ekklesia, I'm not sure, but is there mentioning elsewhere of ekklesia outside the Christian community, and if so, in what context?

2:7, 11 is a direct quote of Jesus, not mentioned by anyone else unaffiliated with Christianity, so either it is an added redaction or a good indicator that John already knew about the Christian communities.

2:9 would appear on surface to support the Jewish claim, if not for the fact that Christians around 70 CE were still being considered a sect of Judaism

The rest of two and three also, now that I reread them, seem to support this claim of a strong Jewish, yet not truly Christian apocalyptic work. But once again, this early and they are still considered Jews.

Quote:

5 And from the throne proceeded lightning, thundering, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning [there is air in heaven!] before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
[and no mention of the Holy Spirit, as would be expected from a Christian writer]

Holy Spirit wasn't considered an entity yet, more of a mindset.

Quote:

6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,
[the Lamb is undoubtedly Isaiah's suffering servant in 52:13-15 & 53:1-12
Isaiah53:5-7 "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes [wounds] we are healed. ... He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth [unlike Jesus, as reported by the gospels]."]

This would be one of the most favourable quotes for his hypothesis. I should have read this more carefully!

Quote:

8 So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him.
[Hellenistic influence: Hades is the god of the underworld and Death has become a godly entity]
` And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth.

Early Chrisitianity was fused heavily with Hellenism, so this doesn't make much sense. Remember, these churches are in the Hellenic realm.

The rest is good reading. Maybe I shouldn't have been so skeptical...

Chris Weimer · 10-15-2004, 05:37 AM

he doesn't really touch in with it, except for that little part about the Lamb contradiction, but the last several verses, 22:14-17, 21 and the latter half of 20...

Clivedurdle · 10-15-2004, 08:37 AM

Revelation as a Jewish apocalypse

CJD · 10-15-2004, 10:36 AM

If you can get around their classical Christian presuppositions, this project approaches the question a little differently by arguing that Revelation is not "apocalyptic"; rather, it is a comedy (yes, in the Aristotelian sense).

This, of course, would place the writing as a whole well within a Hellenistic context, thus possibly undermining Bernard's thesis.

As for me, my default position regarding NT writings is that they are largely Jewish in flavor unless there is a strong indication othwerwise.

Regards,

CJD

Toto · 10-15-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

If you can get around their classical Christian presuppositions, this project approaches the question a little differently by arguing that Revelation is not "apocalyptic"; rather, it is a comedy (yes, in the Aristotelian sense).

This is very interesting, not exactly what I would have expected from "classical Christian presuppositions."

CJD · 10-18-2004, 09:13 AM

Any thoughts as to why not? What do you consider the typical position of "classical Christians" re: Revelation? (Hopefully your answer has nothing to do with dispensationalism or [wholesale or systematic] crass literalism, both of which are barely one century old.)

10-15-2004, 04:44 AM	#1
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Revelation - Jewish or Christian? On Bernard Muller's website, here, he argues (quite convincingly in my opinion) that the Biblical book of Revelation appears to be a Jewish work that was later 'Christianised'. Is this a common view amongst NT scholars, or is Bernard going out on a limb, here?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2004, 04:48 AM	#2
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	um what's the difference?

10-15-2004, 04:53 AM	#3
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Christianity bases itself off of Judaism. All things Jewish are (in theory) all things Christian. Revelation is like a lot of other apocalyptic writings of the time in which it described the Messiah coming to deliver the Jewish people and produce the end of the world yadda, the soteriological/eschatological branches of the religion. Since Christianity believes that the Messiah already came once, and since he died and has been dead for quite a while, to describe it again would be basically the same thing. I mean, The Epistle of James is a Jewish work, and so is the entire OT and most of Jesus' sayings (well duh!). The whole thing is like saying that Buddha took Hindu's Nibbanic and Kammatic concepts and "buddhized" it, or that a children take the traits of their parents and adopt it for their own. It's a little obvious...

10-15-2004, 05:03 AM	#4
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	The point is not that the work is based on Jewish influences because it was written by a Christian and Christianity is (or at least was at the time) as subset of Judaism. The point that Bernard argues (assuming that I have understood him correctly) is that the work was written from a purely Jewish perspective without any Christian themes running through it and with no concept that the Son of Man had already been once - just a few decades ago. Then, at a later point it time, either the same author (having converted to Christianity since originally writing it) or another redactor who was a Christian added various bits to the text to retro-fit it into Christian mythology.

10-15-2004, 05:37 AM	#6
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	he doesn't really touch in with it, except for that little part about the Lamb contradiction, but the last several verses, 22:14-17, 21 and the latter half of 20...

10-15-2004, 08:37 AM	#7
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Revelation as a Jewish apocalypse

10-15-2004, 10:36 AM	#8
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	If you can get around their classical Christian presuppositions, this project approaches the question a little differently by arguing that Revelation is not "apocalyptic"; rather, it is a comedy (yes, in the Aristotelian sense). This, of course, would place the writing as a whole well within a Hellenistic context, thus possibly undermining Bernard's thesis. As for me, my default position regarding NT writings is that they are largely Jewish in flavor unless there is a strong indication othwerwise. Regards, CJD

10-18-2004, 09:13 AM	#10
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	Any thoughts as to why not? What do you consider the typical position of "classical Christians" re: Revelation? (Hopefully your answer has nothing to do with dispensationalism or [wholesale or systematic] crass literalism, both of which are barely one century old.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.