Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 11-06-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Not necessarily, but there needs to be good reason to conclude that's what's going on. What is the reasoning involved in concluding that the seven churches are seven literal churches?

This was already provided in this post:

Quote:

The explanation of William Ramsay (1904:171–96) has received wide support. He proposed that these church cities were selected because, in their given order, they are the postal and judicial districts which a courier from Patmos would encounter and from which his letter could be distributed most effectively throughout the province of Asia.

It seems reasonable to suggest that this is not a coincidence.

The ABD in fact expands upon that, laying out the route, and explaining why it would be directed to secondary recipients, not named in the letter.

Quote:

From Patmos, the letter courier would arrive at Ephesus, travel N to Smyrna and Pergamum, and then turn SE to Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. This forms a circular route through the west central portion of the province. Other church cities not mentioned are located beyond the main circular route and could easily be reached on a secondary route from one of these seven cities.

Ramsay’s explanation has the advantages of fitting the geographical positioning of the seven cities, maintaining the sequential order in which they are presented, and explaining why other church cities are not mentioned. It also corresponds to what we know of early Church communication elsewhere. For example, if Ephesians is an encyclical, then it may have been similarly distributed to neighboring churches. Also, when Paul sent his letter to Colossae, the Colossians were to send it on to Laodicea, and Laodicea was to reciprocate with their letter from Paul as well (Col 4:16).

David Noel Freedman (ed), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 5:1143.

Toto · 11-06-2009, 08:54 AM

There were more than seven churches in Asia, but John of Patmos addressed "the seven churches" and named seven, in a passage full of other symbolic uses of seven.

William Ramsey, a Christian who tried to reconcile the Bible with Victorian rationalism, drew a line through the named churches and decided that it was the circular route of a courier, and that the named churches would be expected to send the letter on to others. (Of course, actually naming those others would break the symbolism of "seven.")

I don't think anyone follows Ramsey's archeological proofs of the NT today. Isn't this the same sort of thing? John was primarily concerned with "seven" and picked seven convenient cities.

Is the claim that he listed the cities that he intended to address and it was just a coincidence that there were seven of them?

show_no_mercy · 11-06-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And in fact mythical entities born of a virgin cannot be found in Hebrew Scripture, it is therefore highly likely that the virgin birth of Jesus was lifted or copied from some pagan source.

According to 2 Enoch, Melchizedek was born from a virgin.

Rick Sumner · 11-06-2009, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There were more than seven churches in Asia, but John of Patmos addressed "the seven churches" and named seven, in a passage full of other symbolic uses of seven.

So, I suppose the question is whether he had seven churches in mind, which worked nicely for him since he employs the number 7 throughout his work (though I find the "Seven septet" structural argument to be strained), or whether he deliberately picked seven churches to serve an existing inspiration.

I'd venture that if he didn't have seven real churches in mind, he'd have just picked something else. Doesn't make much sense to write it as admonitions to specific groups if it is not, in fact, admonitions to specific groups.

Quote:

William Ramsey, a Christian who tried to reconcile the Bible with Victorian rationalism, drew a line through the named churches and decided that it was the circular route of a courier, and that the named churches would be expected to send the letter on to others. (Of course, actually naming those others would break the symbolism of "seven.")

I don't think anyone follows Ramsey's archeological proofs of the NT today. Isn't this the same sort of thing? John was primarily concerned with "seven" and picked seven convenient cities.

Do you actually have a response to Ramsey's suggestion? Or just that Ramsey loved the baby Jesus, and is therefore wrong?

Quote:

Is the claim that he listed the cities that he intended to address and it was just a coincidence that there were seven of them?

That's what I'm claiming. The seven churches came because of the presence of seven, actual churches that he had in mind when he wrote his letter.

What's kind of interesting even beyond that here, is that in Revelations, even if I'm wrong, spamandham is still wrong. 7 is the number of completeness, because of God's seven day creation. Which doesn't sound much like 7 fixed celestial objects.

In other words, even if there aren't 7 actual churches, the "completeness" of 7 makes the most sense if we assume that he wrote to 7 churches to symbolize the "complete" Asian Christian community, or even the complete Christian community. So, for example, Ian Boxall, Black's New Testament Commentary: The Revelation of Saint John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 29.

While that symbolism may be valid, it's tough to get around the map. As Amaleq13 pointed out, it's not unreasonable to suggest that it is not coincidence. Could be that it's both.

spamandham · 11-06-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

The author tells us as much. The prima facie case places the burden of proof on the dissenter.

Declaring "prima facie" is equivalent to admitting that there is nothing of substance to support a particular position, as far as I'm concerned. If your starting point is "I'm right until proven wrong", there is little point in discussion.

Quote:

That he intends other people to read it doesn't indicate that there were not seven real churches in mind.

Is it your position that there were exactly 7 churches in Asia at the time of the writing of Revelation? If not, considering the overwhelmingly symbolic nature of Revelation, it is not reasonable to argue the author was writing a letter intended to be distributed to 7 literal churches.

Quote:

He wrote to the churches the letter would get to, but expected them to disseminate its message to other churches.

I see no reason to even suspect that this is the case.

Rick Sumner · 11-06-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Declaring "prima facie" is equivalent to admitting that there is nothing of substance to support a particular position, as far as I'm concerned. If your starting point is "I'm right until proven wrong", there is little point in discussion.

That's hardly what is being said, and this is nothing but empty rhetoric. If you're going to consistently rephrase my words such that they work better for you, there is even less point in discussion.

Quote:

Is it your position that there were exactly 7 churches in Asia at the time of the writing of Revelation? If not, considering the overwhelmingly symbolic nature of Revelation, it is not reasonable to argue the author was writing a letter intended to be distributed to 7 literal churches.

Certainly it is. That Revelations employs a lot of symbolism does not mean that everything in Revelations is symbolic.

Quote:

I see no reason to even suspect that this is the case.

Why not? You gave a reason to suspect it, first of all, he names seven churches, but admonishes people outside of them. That, again, prima facie is precisely the reason to suspect it.

But even ignoring that, epistles were routinely passed out in exactly that fashion. Paul in fact encourages recipients to do it. What makes this different, other than inconvenience?

Roger Pearse · 11-06-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

William Ramsey, a Christian who tried to reconcile the Bible with Victorian rationalism, drew a line through the named churches and ...

Ramsay, if I recall correctly, went out to Asia Minor believing that the Tubingen school was correct and that Luke was a second century text with no real accuracy about it. His experiences on the ground convinced him otherwise.

If we're going to attack someone for their prejudices -- isn't that usually called an "ad hominem" argument? -- we need to be clear what those prejudices were.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Rick Sumner · 11-06-2009, 09:52 AM

Lest anyone think I'm not giving both sides hearing:

Quote:

The number is not chosen to symbolize the universal Church, a notion found in the Canon Muratori 171–72, where the seven churches addressed by Paul are thought to symbolize all the churches (since “seven” does not symbolize “completeness,” a view justly criticized by A. Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism,” 1276–78). Rather, the number seven emphasizes the divine origin and authority of the message of John, since seven is primarily a number with cosmic significance and is therefore associated with heavenly realities. In the phrase ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, “in Asia,” the definite article is used anaphorically, i.e., “referring back” to Asia as one of the two parts of the world generally known (the other is ἡ Εὐρώπη, “Europe”), both of which are normally used with the definite article; this articular use of Asia occurs even when it refers to the Roman province (see Acts 2:9). In Iliad 2.416, “Asia” is limited to a small part of Lydia on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor, though the Greeks later (ca. 750–500 b.c.) understood the term to apply to the land masses outside Europe now designated as Africa and Asia. Cicero (Pro. Flacc. 27) observed that Asia consists of the regions of Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, and Lydia. Judaism had a strong presence in Asia Minor; there were more that fifty Jewish communities here with perhaps a total Jewish population of one million (P. W. van der Horst, “Jews and Christians in Aphrodisias in the Light of Their Relations in Other Cities of Asia Minor,” NedTTs 143 [1989] 106–7).

David E. Aune, vol. 52A, Word Biblical Commentary : Revelation 1-5:14 (, Word Biblical CommentaryDallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 29.

maryhelena · 11-06-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Whether one calls the dying and rising god Jesus, or Horus or Osiris or Tammuz or Dummuzi - thats all simply updating an ancient mythology. These mythological stories are all connected via the same 'yardstick' - all resemble the original prototype in some basic function - i.e. a story about a dying and rising god. All are simply variations on a theme.

That's exactly right, I think.

There need be no conscious borrowing in any of this, it's simply a general abstract principle that becomes apparent (i.e. gradually sinks in) from observation of Nature, to minds of a certain mystical/philosophical bent, in various cultures, roundabout the same time.

Yes, I would imagine that the root of it all, the root of the dying and rising god mythology, rests upon what is evidenced in nature: The natural 'rebirth' of vegetation. Ancient people, seemingly, wanted to apply, somehow, this natural element of the vegetation life cycle to human life. In other words - then, like now, people are not content with what is observable in human life - they want to add another dimension. Death for humans cannot be the end, cannot be the full stop! From then on imagination held full sway...

I would agree with Robert Price - all this mythological take on the dying and rising god - would have seen developments, borrowing etc - until, finally, we end up with Jesus of Nazareth. But that storyline is now 2000 years old - time perhaps for another update for this age old mythology - something more in tune with the rational mind of the 21st century....i.e. viewing Jesus of Nazareth as being 'historical' is simply delaying any progress in regards to re-interpretating or re-applying the ancient mythology to what we know today about our human nature.

Toto · 11-06-2009, 10:25 AM

This is the problem I see with this line of argument. Those who are inclined to see symbols will find them, and those who are not so inclined will refuse to see them. Is there a way of resolving the dispute?

And I don't know of any evidence that Ramsey was actually a skeptic of the Bible.

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

11-06-2009, 08:54 AM	#102
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There were more than seven churches in Asia, but John of Patmos addressed "the seven churches" and named seven, in a passage full of other symbolic uses of seven. William Ramsey, a Christian who tried to reconcile the Bible with Victorian rationalism, drew a line through the named churches and decided that it was the circular route of a courier, and that the named churches would be expected to send the letter on to others. (Of course, actually naming those others would break the symbolism of "seven.") I don't think anyone follows Ramsey's archeological proofs of the NT today. Isn't this the same sort of thing? John was primarily concerned with "seven" and picked seven convenient cities. Is the claim that he listed the cities that he intended to address and it was just a coincidence that there were seven of them?

11-06-2009, 10:25 AM	#110
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is the problem I see with this line of argument. Those who are inclined to see symbols will find them, and those who are not so inclined will refuse to see them. Is there a way of resolving the dispute? And I don't know of any evidence that Ramsey was actually a skeptic of the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.