Loading...I’ve been presenting a lecture I gave to a regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature recently on the violence of the book of Revelation. In my previous post I talked about a passage that strikes me as excessively ugly, which discusses Jesus’ treatment of the prophetess Jezebel (a Christian leader/teacher) from the church of Thyatira. At this point in my lecture I move on from detailing aspects of the violence of the text to considering its significance.
******************************
Most of Revelation, of course, is not about what will happen to Christians that John considers wayward, but to those outside the church who suffer incomprehensible catastrophes and are eventually tossed alive into a lake of burning sulfur.
But why would it have to be this way, even if God is just and decides to avenge his persecuted or even martyred followers and to wipe out the masses of the ungodly? Couldn’t he simply give them a simultaneous and fatal coronary? Or just disintegrate them with a cosmic ray gun? Not for John. The wrath of God and the Lamb needs to be satisfied. The Christian martyrs in chapter 6 plead for vengeance, and God gives it to them. Everyone except the most devoted followers of Jesus will suffer torment and then be subject to a hideous death.
I anticipate many of you may be thinking that the book of Revelation is symbolic and that I’m making a mistake in thinking any of this is literally going to happen. Jesus is not actually going to kill babies, torture almost everyone on earth, and then execute them in the most horrifying way we can imagine. The book is all a metaphor about how God will restore justice, destroy evil, and make the world good again, a paradise for those who are faithful.
In part, I agree. I do not think that John imagines the events he narrates will literally happen just as he describes. He is using symbolism in order to convey a message. And that message does provide hope for those who are – or who at least feel – persecuted and oppressed for their faith. In the end, God will triumph and evil will be destroyed. That part is good. But why does the author tell this story in such incredibly violent and gory terms?
It is important to realize that
Do symbols matter? It probably depends. To see why they matter here, in a book of Scripture, keep reading! To keep reading you’ll need to join the blog. But it’s inexpensive and you get tons for your money! And every penny goes to charity! Click here for membership options
I’m looking forward to your debate next week. I see your opponent is described as being an expert on the resurrection. How does one become an expert on the resurrection given the event happened 2k years ago and the accounts are sketchy?
I guess the same way there are people who are experts on Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. Such people exist!
Is belief a prerequisite for being an expert on the alleged Resurrection of Jesus?
Only if it actually happened. If it allegedly happened, then there can be experts on the stories, jsut as there can be experts on the journeys of Odysseus.
Exegesis that explains literally worded verses as being metaphorical just creates a new problem: what literal reality is the metaphoric verses referring to? For example, some apologists interpret what the NT says about Jesus’ miracles as metaphoric stories. The loaves and fishes stories were simply a metaphor for the virtues of sharing, and walking on water as a metaphor for the power of faith. Likewise, the resurrection was a lesson in love and ardent belief. The problem with such interpretations is that if NT events aren’t literally true but just stories about a “deeper truth,” then what precisely is the point of the religion?
I guess to believe those deeper truths.
Professor Ehrman, you differentiate John’s violent message in Revelation from messages found in other NT texts. Is there extra biblical evidence of other Christians from the same period, sharing the version of belief found in Revelation?
I’m afraid all we have from this period are the writings of the New Testament; most later Christian writings embrace non-violence.
It is symbolic and it is a human self-transcendence. It’s a lot about the return to “the prodigal son”, and we are in fact the “prodigal son”, from a unit and a return to this unit. Meister Eckhard gives a proper paradigm in his envisjoned «ground» of being and unity. Living in and from unity in the way Eckhart envisioned when the end of self-discovery becomes possible through a change. Here the “Ground” of God is my “Ground” and my “Ground” the “Ground” of God, which indicates that unity has always been attained, rather on the way to. The paradigm here is in my mind just a forgetfulness more than a fall, possibly suggested by Eckhard and his as a path, a rediscovery of ourselves. The latter part, in particular from chapter 12-22, Carl Jungs concepts is for me applicable of the Selfs evolving.
This is what Revelation is about, and the emblematic symbols / creatures / events , and “the violence” referred to are processes and influences within. It is a book about ourselves on the way “home” to this divine realm.
I have a tendency to think that if there’s more than a negligible chance that Christianity is true, it’s wise to be a believer–more or less. On the other hand, there are lots of things that have more than a negligible chance of being true that I don’t in fact believe. But because of the purported negative consequences of not believing Christianity, it’s hard to treat it in the same way as these other questionable beliefs.
Stimulated by consideration of your question concerning the afterlife and being religious, I came to have a greater appreciation of the reasonableness of agnosticism. I would state it as follows: as a general rule (with possible justified exceptions) don’t believe something unless the chances of its being true are (roughly) equal to or greater than it not being true-or at least proportion belief to the amount of evidence. That acknowledges uncertainty and helps keep an open mind, but also gives one a reasonable decision rule by which to proceed in life.
It doesn’t solve the problem of the possible negative consequences of not believing, but hopefully a God who is good would value intellectual honesty and reasonableness.
Weighing the “wisdom” of belief on the potential negative consequences (rather than the actually likelihood of it being true), sounds a lot like Pascal’s Wager to me. The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that you’re only taking into account one religion’s version of negative consequences. What if Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet? Or even within Christianity, there are plenty of denominations that consider the others to be destined to hell. What if you choose the wrong one?
You’re right. I thought I acknowledged that with regard to agnosticism. However, my additional comment about pragmatic religious belief is very vulnerable to that charge. I’d just say that I wouldn’t limit the possibility of pragmatic religious belief to Christianity. I’m thinking of something more philosophical, like Deism for example.
This is a continuation of my comment about the afterlife, being religious, and agnosticism.
Besides agnosticism, “pragmatism” is another possible response to religious uncertainty that seems reasonable to me. Beliefs are like tools that help us achieve goals. The test of a belief is whether it works. Generally, true beliefs work better than false. Religious beliefs can help some be happier than they would be otherwise. This has obvious dangers. But I think that within some important constraints it could be reasonable. For one thing, there couldn’t be strong evidence that the belief is false. For another it would have to be at least somewhat consistent with other important beliefs for which there is much stronger evidence or that satisfy more important or more immediate needs. Religious beliefs that are too inconsistent with evidence or with other beliefs simply wouldn’t work.
A big difference between pragmatism and agnosticism is that religious beliefs might need only to meet a lower threshold of evidence than than with agnosticism. Religious beliefs with chances of being true that are less than their chances of being false might be admissible.
Does this seem like a reasonable approach to you?
Sure. I”m not sure which religious beliefs work better than others though, or to what ends….
I think it’s plausible for many people to think that belief in a happy afterlife works to make them happier in this life. I’ve often thought that belief should be considered to be the icing on the cake. This life (the cake alone) can be quite happy for some even without the icing. But the icing makes it even better-for some.
One thing I would add to my discussion of pragmatic religious belief is that, for it to be reasonable, there needs to be enough evidence that there’s more than a negligible chance that it’s true. But there doesn’t need to be an equal or better chance than it’s true than not true.
As you say, Revelation is mythological. It’s a sick fantasy. And it celebrates one of the main features of religious belief, namely, divisiveness. All religious belief is divisive: The believers and the non-believers. The saved and the damned. Sinners and saints. The orthodox and the heretics.
Any belief system that commands adherence to a creed (mandatory beliefs) under threat of eternal punishment is by its nature divisive. And it’s totalitarian.
Bart couple of questions…
1) Would you be considered an expert on early Roman Bishops (popes) or is that simply not your expertise?
2) Is there scholarly argument to be made that the earliest Popes on traditional lists (Linus etc) were indeed leaders in the Roman Church, even if not called bishop or Pope? (assuming you believe there were many elders, is there any argument to be made that these early figures were the most notable and most senior of a group of elders?)
3) Is there scholarly argument to be made to support the idea that Apostolic fathers were taught by the Apostles?
4) What do you make of Acts 15 describing an Ecumenical council where there is a strict hierarchy and decisions of the council are to be sent to every elder who is under the apostles?
Thank you!
1. Depends how early. Earlist, yes, about as much as anyone.
2. Yes, possibly; but one of the problems is that early on “the” Roman church was almost certainly a collectino of house churches, and it’s not clear or even likely that ONE person was in charge of them all. The one most talked about is Clement, of course, but the one time “reliable” sources of information, the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, are later creations; and 1 Clement does not claim to be by him or indeed even mention him.
3. Not really, except Polycarp (since Irenaeus claims so). Even Papias indicates that he got his information from people who were disciples of those who were disciples of the apostles.
4. I don’t think it can be historical. It does not compare favorably with Paul’s account in Galatians 2.
Hi Prof. Ehrman, does the concept of Satan/Ha-Satan being a leader of the forces of evil emerge first within Christianity or Judaism? What are our earliest sources for this idea?
The first mention by name is in the Maccabean period in Jubilees 23:29 and the Assumption of Moses; There are references to a sinmilar figure using various names in other texts, possibly Tobit, and similar figures are in 1 Enoch 1-36. Satan is name several times in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
If you have read my previous comments on your recent Revelations posts, I believe that the book is about the Zealots war/revolts with Rome between 66 -134 ce. The zealots goal was to expel Rome and re-establish an independant Israel ruled by God. My belief is that Rev was written by a messianic (maybe), Jewish Zealot in elisting support of other messianic Jews within the named churches (and possibly others) as the christians were not supporting the revolt. The use of symbology was to mask from the Romans of the intent, as well as convince all the Messianic Jews to join the holy war as the revolt was preparing for the return of Jesus as the ruler of the new Earthly Kingdom of Israel.
The wrathfull violent God” is representative of the God the Author has envisioned and requires in sanctioning this holy war. This is not the God and Jesus that Paul was teachng. The book is not representative of how the majority of Pauls converts viewed God and Jesus.
I can only “guess” that because early century Christians were pacifists, the book was added to canon to Justify Holy Wars as War is what Rome was doing.
Thanks — that’s an interesting view. I have a different take on it — but one always has to argue a case!
Unrelated. Dear professor, is there a way to reconcile Christian theme of “dying for our sins” with the vibe or the theme of Ezekiel 18?
I’m not sure what the contradiction you’re seeing is? Ezek 18 says that a person who sins will be punished. The Christian doctrine is that Christ takes the punishment for the person.
I meant that in Ezek 18 a sinner alone has to carry, pay & repent for their sins, but according to the Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15 and many other NT passages suddenly it is Jesus who does all of that for you by his death, believe in that and your ok (I am simplifying ofc). I reckon Ezek 18 is primarily an internal OT debate with / contradiction of Ex 20:5 and the like, but still the main Christian theme of someone paying or suffering on your behalf seems alien to the “message” of Ez 18 (U fu*ked up, U must clean it up!), as many rabbis would point out. Thank you professor
Professor, If I recall correctly Revelations barely made it in the Canons. Did that debate center on the violence and perhaps the wisdom of elevating it within the church?
Nope! It was all about it’s celebratoin of a materialistic paradise to come to the saints.
Definitely not a communist utopia!
Why do you think that John did not think that the events he narrated would literally happen as he described them?
Because he was surely smart enough to realize that if placed in linear sequence the story doesn’t make any *sense*. The entire cosmos is wiped out in chapter 6.
Revelation is, for me, the worst book of the NT—the most poorly written one and with a terrible message.
Some scriptures are meant to be understood with a type ante-type approach. Some parts of prophetic books such as Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation are meant to be understood this way
Some scriptures that are difficult to comprehend can be understood by looking for verses in another part of the Bible to explain.
Some parts of Revelation can be understood by looking for verses in Isaiahand Ezekiel and Daniel to explain them
Scripture sometimes interpret scripture