(36 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...
The Book of Revelation. The Apocalypse of John is a book many people revere, many dread, and few actually read. Most who do read it approach it like every other book of the Bible – they’ll read a few verses here or there when someone says something about them but do not read the whole thing from beginning to end. I do find this a bit irritating as a rule, at least among people who insist that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and our guide for all belief and practice, who virtually worship the Bible but have no clue what is actually in it. What’s *that* all about???
The Book of Revelation – Have You Read It?
Having just typed that reminds me of the spiritual leader I had as a teenager, the man who “led me to Christ” (away from the Episcopal church where I faithfully attended every week, saying the prayers, confessing my sins, taking communion – where I was the head altar boy!). He repeatedly said with complete conviction that the Bible is the best book ever written.
Even then I felt like asking him how many books he had actually ever read, to see what his basis of comparison was. Knowing now what I know about him, I can say with some assurance, that he had not read many — certainly none of the great literature of the world, let alone classics of other religions. (He probably was not as badly read as my roommate at Moody Bible Institute, who had literally read ONE book from cover to cover before coming to Moody. And guess what it was? Zip Zip Goes to Venus. Seriously. (He too would have told you with enthusiasm that the Bible was the best book ever written, and I think it’s fair to say that it’s the best book he had ever read….)
Overcoming Biases
In any event, the more I research the book of Revelation the more I realize what a tall hill I have to climb to write about it for a general audience. People will have a bias about the book – pro or con. Possibly strongly so, without having read it. I will either be confirming their biases so they don’t have to think about it or I’ll be challenging views they’ve long held, if for no other reason than they are what they’ve heard and think anything else must be more of those crazy liberal views comin’ outta Chapel Hill.
So it’s a challenge. And there’s another challenge. I’ve completely changed my mind about the book and need to find ways to explain my current views to people who don’t know enough about the book to evaluate them. I guess that’s a common problem I have, but it seems especially daunting in this case for some reason.
Sharing what I think About The Book of Revelation and Why
I’ll be doing some test runs here on the blog, making some attempts to lay out the views emerging from my research. I’ve started, in previous posts, by providing some of the important background information about the Revelation. A summary of its contents (what’s actually *in* it); a discussion of its literary genre (“apocalypse”), and how that’s important for discussing the book; the reasons for thinking that its symbolism has to be interpreted in light of what its first-century author and first-century readers would have known and thought, rather than as hidden messages for Christians living in the 21st century (or the 20th, or 19th, or 18th – pick your century when interpreters thought it was referring to events of their own time!); and sundry other background materials (when it was written, by whom, etc.).
I haven’t yet, though, indicated much about what I now think about the book and why.
Book of Revelation – A Book of Hope?
For many years – virtually my entire academic life, from graduate school until, say, last year (!) (so over 40 years) – I thought, taught, and wrote that Revelation was a book of hope for those who were suffering and oppressed. It was teaching that despite all appearances in this miserable world of pain and persecution, God ultimately was Sovereign. It may look like the powers of evil are in control of this world, but God is soon to intervene to re-assert his power and authority over his creation. He made this world and everything in it.
People (or evil forces like the Devil) messed it up incredibly seriously. But what God made he will remake; what others ruined he will restore. God is going to make all right that is wrong and bring in a glorious world in which there will be no more pain, despair, or hopelessness, no evil, no sin, and no death. It will be a glorious eternity for all those who side with God who may be miserable now, but who will be exalted for all eternity.
That’s how I taught the book both when I was a Christian and believed it and after I had left the faith. I no longer believed the message, but I thought that’s what the message was. Now I have a different view.
I’ve Grown to Dislike The Book
For the past year or so I’ve been thinking harder and harder about the book, reading it carefully in Greek, taking notes on what I read, reading what scholars have long said about it, and seeing what other observers have written, including non-biblical scholars who were/are nonetheless incredibly insightful readers of texts, including some household names (in a later post I may be discussing D. H. Lawrence!). I have come to realize that I do not revere, respect, or even like this book anymore.
I think it is a horrible depiction of God, portraying him as a ruthless tyrant who absolutely detests anyone who does not worship him with all their heart and soul, who wants not just to crush all opposition but to torture everyone who does not believe in Jesus.
When people say that “The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath but the God of the New Testament is a God of love,” I wonder if they’ve read the book of Revelation.
It is indeed horrible that the God of the Old Testament instructed the children of Israel to take over the city of Jericho by slaughtering every man, woman, and child (infants!) in the city and then taking over their houses (Joshua 6). It really is a bloodthirsty narrative that exults in God’s almighty empowerment of those he favors to murder those he hates. But the book of Joshua is NOTHING compared to the book of Revelation, where God does that for the entire human race and world – for EVERYONE who is not a worshipper of Jesus.
That includes your family, friends, and neighbors, it includes everyone who has ever lived who has not committed to following Jesus – that is, not merely the very large majority of the human race living now but, well, everyone for all time who did not follow “the lamb.” Yikes. How do I say this without seeming angry and vicious myself?
The Book of Revelation Isn’t in Keeping with the Teachings of Jesus
There are other problems with Revelation and I’ll be discussing them, as I try to figure out how to write about it without offending huge swathes of the population, readers I would like to address rather than simply enrage. Even now I’m sure a number of blog readers will object to my views. But do bear in mind that I haven’t explained them yet (!). I’ll need to do so, and that will take a few posts.
But I should say that I intend to present a mitigating factor for this seemingly harsh and negative evaluation of the book as a positive contrast. My view of Revelation is that its ruthless, vengeful God who destroys the majority of the human race stands in sharp contrast with the God of Jesus. I think I can demonstrate that.
That will call into question what it might mean to say Revelation is a Christian book. It is certainly Christian to the extent the author considered himself a true and faithful follower of Jesus. But what if he misunderstood the message of Jesus, not just a little but almost entirely? I very much think he did. And I think that’s the view I’ll be laying out in my book. This author has “corrupted the gospel” far more than the opponents of Paul in Galatia or any of the other heretics we know about in the early church. His view is not only dangerous socially and politically; it is the opposite of the teaching of Jesus.
I do not mean to say that the God of Jesus was not also a God of wrath. In a very real sense, he was. But it was in a completely different sense.
Whoa. This one is gonna be tricky.
I was wondering if I may ask you about the criteria you use in establishing the date of Mark in the 7th edition of ‘The New Testament – a historical introduction to early Christian writings?
You said at the recent blog dinner in London that you agreed with Ed Sanders’ view that the historical Jesus probably did predict the fall of the temple. On page 97 of ‘The New Testament’, you seem to acknowledge this and claim that a Christian author is only likely to confidently record a prediction of Jesus after the event. However, in the rest of Mark 13, there are various predictions, earthly and cosmic, that Jesus made that had not occurred before 70 (and have still not occurred!)
Moreover, in Mark10:35-40 Jesus seems to allude to the death of James and John. Whilst I think James had died before 70, it is unlikely John had if Polycarp would have known him in the closing decades of the 1st century, given the likely lifespan of Polycarp.
So, I’d like to ask how you would defend this criterion against my argument that Mark seems to include predictions of Jesus that had yet to occur by 70AD?
I take Mark 13 to be a complex set of predictions about what will happen in days to come after Jesus’ death, but that the author of Mark sets it up the way apocalyptic writers typically do: he first narrates a sequence of events that have already happened *in his own time* before narrativing events that have *not* yet happened in his time. The reader then sees that the first part of what was predicted has indeed come to happen, and naturally draws the conclusion that the rest is just as certain to come — since it all was equally predicted. This is standard procedure going back to Daniel 7 (the first three beasts have come and gone and the readers are living at the time of the little horn, ANtiochus Epiphanes). In Mark 13 I would say that vv. 1-13 are meant to be understood as “past” and “present” for the readers of Mark; the rest of the chpater is what they can expect soon, though no one can say exactly when.
Thanks for the detailed answer, but using the same principle, couldn’t a date of composition be just as likely in 50AD? If Mark aligned the Olivet discourse to the apocalyptic literary pattern you outline (which he seems to), then it starts not with the destruction of the temple (which precedes the discourse) but with the arrival of false messiahs, warfare, earthquakes, famine, and persecution of Jesus’ followers before the later cosmic events.
And do we not see most of these early events occurring within the first 20 years of the church? The arrival of false messiahs (Simon Magus c30/40s?), warfare (Herod Antipas’ war with Aretas of Nabatea c35), famine (Josephus mentions one occurred 45-47) persecution before councils (Sanhedrin 30s>) and Kings (Herod Agrippa’s execution of James in 40-44?), and general persecution (Paul persecuted the Church very early (Gal1:13) and mentions an early persecution in Judea (1Thess2:14)).
Sure — on e could date it most any time. But the prediction *begins* with the destructin of hte temple (13:1-2)and usually the already fulfilled predictions are given first, with an indication of what comes next. (I don’t think Simon Magus was seen as a false messiah until much later; he became the bogeyman only in the second century)
I see how we could view it that way, but how closely does this match typical apocalyptic literature? Isn’t it true that apocalyptic predictions begin with the vision/dream/angelic announcement, and not the narration beforehand? If so, wouldn’t the predictions in Mark13 commence at v5 during the Olivet discourse?
The central thrust of my counter-proposal is that if we accept the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was known to publicly predict the destruction of the temple, then this removes the natural gravitational pull towards a post-70 date of composition of Mark.
I would argue (admittedly from a minority view!) that once other evidence is taken into consideration then an earlier date is more plausible. However, as the majority view is so well established for a c70 date for Mark, then I propose this has become a starting point or lense when viewing the content of Mark, so the tendency would be to view Mk13:1-2 as part of the apocalyptic discourse of Jesus – but is it really?
If we step back a moment and acknowledge the plausibility of these being Jesus’ own words, does it not pause any inclination to unnaturally force these opening verses into the following apocalyptic discourse?
I’m not calling Mark 13 an apocalypse in terms of genre; I’m talking about it as a speech embodying an apocalyptic view.
I used to argue for an pre-70 date as well, but in the end I couldn’t find a good reason for it.
What are the chief reasons for concluding that Mark’s “predictions/prophecies” (esp. ch. 13) are ex eventu? Manuscript dating? Textual clues from Mark and other books of the Bible? The belief that predictive prophecy doesn’t actually exist? Genre? Historical clues? Other? Thank you.
It is usually thought that the descriptions (destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish opposition, etc.) are sufficiently detailed to suggest they were after the fact. THere are, in addition, other reasons for thinking Mark is after 70 CE. If you do a word search for “dating the Gospels” on the blog, you’ll see some posts on it.
This is probably a very naive question. As apocalyptic literature was a genre of the time. Is there any relation between books like Revelation and 2 Baruch? It seems to me they share so much in common. The Old Testament would certainly be considered a common source, but could there be other sources common to these works so that there was a better understanding of the symbolism? Works no longer available to us today? It just seems that a Christian audience could be as lost as we are on some of the crazy imagery unless there was some universal understanding of what the symbols represent.
YEs, they have many generic similarities, and both are expressing a situation in response to the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Studies of ancient Jewish and CHrisitan apocalypses always take both into account.
Fascinating Bart; and I am very much looking forward to your ‘new’ perspectives.
I am not certain whether the God of Revelation is entirely different from the God of Jesus; or simply a very selective simplification.
But I do think it is certain that the God of Revelation is entirely in conflict with the God of Paul.
Paul advises the Roman Christians to honour the Emperor Nero: (Romans chapter 13)
” For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.”
My view is that John of Patmos considers this catastrophically misguided; if the followers of Christ are truly and fully following the Spirit of Christ in their conduct, then they cannot rely on Roman authorities to be supportive, or even neutral. For the new life in Christ, Roman imperial authority must be destroyed.
I agree about Paul — these are two ends of the CHristian spectrum on this issue, and continued to be for a very long time. But both made it in the canon!
Indeed, Bart; and both are quoted as scripture by a wide range of early sources.
Though it is interesting which of the two were preferred by which writers. So, Irenaeus and Tertullian quote extensively from both Paul’s epistles and Revelation. Earlier writers appear more selective; Justin Martyr quotes from Revelation, but not from Paul; while Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius know of at least some of Paul’s letters, but do not quote from Revelation. If the ‘Letter from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne’ is genuinely of 177 CE; then it shows that Revelation was then quoted as scripture amongst Christians in ‘Gaul, Asia and Phyrgia’.
One additional set of questions though; in which ways does Revelation differ from other Jewish apocalyptic texts; and why?
I might suggest:
– Revelation is not pseudonymous; we have no reason to belive that John of Patmos was not as he said he was;
– Revelation’s present is that of John; its future is his future;
– The primary power of the ‘Beast’ of evil is through deception and plausibility, not bombast;
– The People of God are victorious over the Beast through witnessing to truth. Violence is exclusive to the ‘hosts of heaven’
Yup, good points. Every apocalypse is different in ways from others, but these are especially important. I’m not sure about your last point though. God’s people don’t conquer the Beast (or at least no more than they do in Daniel 7); and it’s not clear how much the host does much of anything. Doesn’t seem like much of a battle. But I would think the kdy is that CHrist is the unconquerable one, even if he has the (unnecessary?) backup troops.
Thank you Bart.
Thinking of Revelation 15:2; “And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands.”
This links to Revelation 13:7: “it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.”
The power of the Beast is that of unchallenged deception; so the ‘saints’ are those who publicly expose the lies of the Beast through witnessing the truth; even though they are killed for doing so. In earthly terms they are defeated; but in the context of heaven they have ‘conquered the Beast’.
This contrasts with, for example, the War Scroll; where the ‘exiled sons of light’ return from the desert to confront the ‘forces of darkness’ (specified as the Kittim-the Roman Army) in battle. They fight alongside the ‘assembly of gods’.
Revelation 19:2 depicts apocalyptic violence delivered against the followers of the Beast, and of the Great Whore, as vengeance for the deaths of the saints. But the saints do not themselves fight; Revelation 19:14.
Paul is very much anti-Roman:
“…among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the
rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden,
which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood
this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
I wonder how different Christianity would have been if Revelation hadn’t made it in. Do you care to speculate?
But yeah, the God of Revelation is very much a genocidal maniac.
I really don’t think there’s a way to know — in part it would depend on what else did or didn’t make it in! But I suppose Hal Lindsey and Left Behind never would have happened!
Yes, I’ve been there, and struggled with it from most angles, it did NOT make any sense , and even less the more I read it.
I might be careful taking it into the psychological arena, and even ancient esoteric traditions/beliefs which had existed thousand(s?) of year before the book was written. It is interesting to see that these approaches have a support from a profound psycological reschearch and what our largest and oldest religions are based on, probably derived from meditative inspirations.
If so, the Book of Revelation might be:
* A revelation of our self. It grapically depicts our transformation from our inner being. These thoughts were not new at the time when the book was written.
* In ancient traditions, the spiritual man was devided into 7 spiritual parts (like for instance 7 Chacras in Hinduism) which needs to be awakened and transformed. These have all different properties and qualities from earthly (the first) to more spiritual (the top).
* Among other, the founder of Analytical psycology found an interest in these concepts (i.e. symbology in Gnostic texts and also eastern religion) and claimed it resembled very much his psycological cosmology). He was also familiar with the symbology from which state they came from.
Continue:
If I use these premises as a “codex key/map” the whole book changes and becomes much clearer, for me at least. If one devide it into 7, like 7 centers, symbolized as churces, from bottom to top (crown) and try to understand what these 7 centers basically prepresents, and then read it horisontally it gives me at least much more sense.
For example, lets take the 6th center which basically represent the “mind” and activities in and from the mind, an horisontally approach would go through a phase of rememberanace and transformation.
* The 6th church (perhaps it explains Johns own condition)
* The 6th seal (sealed memory of the center)
* The 6th trumpet (the vibration which is needed in the process for transformation)
* The 6th bowl, the final pouring out of devine influences on our own (Ego) created influences, here pictured as the Amagedon which is a personal battle in one’s mind, between the forces in one’s Self
(one example)
You can easily apply a Christian view into it too where the Kingdom is within and the concept of being one in Christ gives a more inner meaning i.e. Gosple of Thomas,,etc)
The basis is that the soul seeks its higher nature which might be adressed in this book.
kt said on August 5, 2021 at 6:42 am – “The basis is that the soul seeks its higher nature which might be adressed in this book.”
Yes, The soul seeks to regain its true identity, to overcome the ephemeral. When it has overcome the “lies,” then Rev. 3:12 speaks of what happens: “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:” This very explicitly talks about the end of reincarnation of the soul. https://thecosmicreligion.com/2020/11/20/407/
The famous physicist, David Bohm studied the universe in such a way that it tends to clarifie some religious implications of the ancient mystics. Fritjof Capra wrote an interesting book «The Tao of Physics» and tries to correlate frontier knowledge of physics with ancient religjons (eastern). Neuroscientists work on the body, all kind of relationship with hormonial secretions and its effect on both the body and mind. The quantum leap in understanding conciousness(es) done in recent century meet again/unite the ancient concept of mind and conciousness(es) (for example Dr Carl Jung).
I argue that the Revelation is about ourself, written completely! in a symbolic language. In ancient religions (before Judaism) it was a settled and ancient «truth» that the Temple of God (the body) related to God through its 7 spiritual centers with different properties and functions. In those our memory lies, and according to this traditions, sealed. To awaken a soul you need to unseal those centers, and these have to be re-spiritualized. This is still after thousands of year inbedded in world religions, and are the basis in Yoga, eastern meditation etc etc.
Continue,,,,
The Revelation (in my mind, Revelation about ourself) uses the same fundamental framework, the same 7 spiritualized centers. These centers (churces) are described in a «book» (inside the body). Well, it sound like Hinduism, but it is not when the Son of Man, Christ, Jesus, Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David etc is written into this. It is a Christian text in this context, but a more “eastern” approach found in several un canonozed texts (i.e. Gosple of Thomas,,,etc etc).
The consept goes on from knowing ourself through these centers, – open the seal of those (in the book which is the body), and set it into emotion (trumphets, bowls) for /tribulation/purification and all that before unification and restoration.
What you talks about is Philadelphia (6th church),,,should be something like the 6th sense where the total self is involved. It is indeed the pillar of the temple, as it talks about ourself. But as it is said in Rev ch21 ver 22:, «I saw no temple therein» which points to a state of onenenss and reunion. The reference to reincarnation and (Rev 3:123) I do not know, but the reference might suggest an evolved state of the soul
WM,
There are at least three of us here: you, me, and kt, likely more, telling everyone the same mystic message that underlies the Bible narrative. Thanks for that juicy tidbit about pillar of the Temple “not going out” — of course! The imagery of all the mysticism the Bible contains is breathtakingly beautiful. Too bad so few are aware of it. Chariot wheels stuck in mud, arks ferrying, animals talking, streams out of Eden, manna in the wilderness, ‘thy eye be single’ — mysticism is EVERYWHERE to find.
I’ve known this pretty much all my 68-year life. It is the only way to read the Bible, and the only way to make sense of all of it. God knows the New Testyourmentality has surely flummoxed things up good. Every minute detail of the Pentateuch is mystic. Randolphe Stone wrote a great book about it, ‘Mystic Bible.’ It is sometimes found used on Amazon, but at $400. Out of print, it is worth all 40,000 pennies.
I wonder what it will take to impress Bart with the mystic reality of all this? Maybe he can tell us.
Judaswasjames.com
“When people say that ‘The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath but the God of the New Testament is a God of love,’ I wonder if they’ve read the book of Revelation.” Are you familiar with Robert Price’s 2015 book “Blaming Jesus for Jehovah: Rethinking the Righteousness of Christianity”? As you say, it’s not just Revelation that is wrathful and disturbing. I look forward to hearing how Jesus’ God of wrath was different, in some sense.
I haven’t– but thanks for alerting me to it.
I haven’t– but thanks for alerting me to it.
Revelations is, to me, not as bad as the book of Job. The god of Job is terrible jerk. (But I have also never liked Revelations, in part because it has inspired so much dreadful fiction.)
How is it that you were so easily swayed by this person who liked something called Zip, Zip goes to Venus? He must have been very charismatic, in the general sense of the word.
I look forward to seeing this thread. Note that in Revelation, the God YHWH is never the actor who performs the acts of destruction. He simply stops restraining destructive forces already poised. The OT YHWH would kill, for example, by heaving hailstones as big as boulders on Israel’s enemies. As Revelation’s YHWH loosens his restraints, all of creation self-destructs. He acts to preserve the saints during this drama. I think the beast is clearly the Emperor, and the second beast (false prophet) the imperial religion, which causes people to worship the first beast. (But I can’t figure out how to handle the 4 emperors in 1 year. You can’t count Julius and get Nero to be 5. If you skip the next three altogether, then Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian are 6-8. What’s your count, Bart?) God preserves his people in the face of intense persecution by the beasts. Ultimately, the old has passed away and all is new and good.
I also note that Revelation ends in the present tense. The New Jerusalem (the church) is a present reality, and all are invited to come partake of the water of life (usquebae = single malt Scotch).
You have my full attention and my open mind.
Jonathan Kirsch in his “A History of the End of the World” indicates that the John of Revelation is quite explicit that the things he expects to happen will happen very soon. As we know, they did not. Thus much of Revelation is simply failed prophecy. Understanding that does not make Revelation “nice,” but it does render it pretty much harmless. Failure or refusal to understand that makes it highly lethal.
It seems you might be trying to salvage something, get something positive out of the narrative, and I’m not convinced it’s there. I don’t really see the message of Jesus as that benign. IF what we have from the gospels really is a fairly accurate account. More likely than not the gospel writers have done a lot of toning down and cleaning up. We like to overlook the disturbing things Jesus is said to have said. Or try to explain those things away. Jesus worshipped the God of the Old Testament. He must have been OK with the slaughter depicted in Joshua. He was clearly OK with viewing non-Jews as dogs. Don’t pull any punches.
It is a tough sell to say “Most books of the Bible are beautiful, but this one is awful!” But it’s hard to dispute, and some Bible-lovers could be convinced, if it’s sold just right. I can just imagine the tagline… “Many early churches wisely rejected it. Eusebius wasn’t sure it belonged. Martin Luther disputed it, and Calvin had no use for it. Maybe it’s time we purify our Bibles and cast this unworthy appendix into the lake of fire!” 🙂
When I was very young (1950’s) my parents bought us a kaleidoscope. What an imaginative toy it was, you look into it, turn it, and pieces of colored glass shift as you turn, creating endless colorful patterns. Childhood was simpler then…get up eat breakfast and if it was not a school day or raining…off to play outside we went. No computer screens to entertain us, we had to make up our own play in the natural world of our backyard.
Revelation is like that kaleidoscope, colored pieces/segments which through the centuries have provided busy work, a kind of religious entertainment for those seeking such.
Having said that, it is nonetheless useful.
As for God choosing to do as he deems necessary what of it? Do not the governments of the world do the same, most of the time for their own political gain. God gains nothing from us, he is not getting rich nor is he gaining anything he needs.
But if God does not exist the whole discussion is pointless, an academic exercise on a fading religion that at its death will not even have the dignity and respect that Edith Hamilton had for the ancient Greeks and Romans.
Two questions: Do you believe that the book was written by a single author? What do you make of the arguments of Eusebius against Apostolic authorship and against inclusion in the canon?
1. Yes, very much so 2. EUsebius quotes Dionysius of Alexander, and his arguments are very prescient; modern scholars agree with his assessment that it was not written by the same author as the Gospel of John. Eusebius though could not make up his mind whether it was orthodox and canonical or forged and non-canonical (Church History 3.25)
I will be looking forward to Dr Ehrman’s further posts on this topic. My burning question, however, is how (and why) such an odd, badly written and manifestly anti-Roman work made it into the NT at a time when the Christian church was doing its best not to annoy the Roman Imperial establishment of which it had only recently become a part?
The book wasn’t widely accepted until after Xty was well on its way to being the ofifical religion of Rome, so there was no worry about it upsetting officials. Esp. because it attacked *pagan* Rome, which the CHristian rulers at the time would have very much liked.
Bart,
You once protested that I was being abusive of you for suggesting that you have a financial incentive to write books deferential to Christian believers. In light of your rushed attempts to capitalize on the Gospel of Judas discovery (TLG of JI) and mythicist debate (DJE?), and now your, what, 25th book, would you care to say something to disabuse me of this notion that no matter what you may really know, you harbor an apologist’s bias to monetize your position with believers?
To my point, you persistently refuse to engage any debate that might seriously jeopardize the historicity of Jesus. Carrier does not have the best case (which I still think is pretty solid). I do. It is the case to be made for Judas as cover for James, transformed from successor into traitor. There is considerable period evidence, as well as external support, calling into question the very heart of the Gospel narrative.
In my opinion, you have not written a really useful contribution since The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and, maybe, Forged!.
Look, you’re just being offensive. You know nothing about me or my life. Why do you think you can attribute bad motives to me? On what grounds? You think I got involved with the discover and academic discussion of the Gospel of Judas to make *money*? To quote my favorite tennis player-commentator of all time: You CAN’T be serious! And if you don’t like my work or appreciate my scholarship, I really don’t know why you would want to be on my blog.
I know about you because you tell us! Salad for lunch. No beer, but martinis to relax. Your wife is a Shakespearean scholar, and you went to Moody and Princeton, but had misgivings about a God who abides suffering. So, give me a break. You should be pleased you are the go-to guy for media on things biblical.
But that brings responsibility. How much effort went into your Judas book, coming out four months after NGS in April, 2006? Did you ask any mystics for help? Scienceofthesoul.org would have set you on track to avoid the embarrassment of claiming Jesus was betrayed by Judas in the Gospel of Judas. This, and Nag Hammadi, may be the best opportunity we have to tell the truth about the Christian fraud that is the ‘New Testament.’ Your misquoting Jesus (! — John 6:40) and misreading the John 1:1-13 incipit aren’t helping.
Judas self-sacrifices. He is a cover character for James, not a ‘betrayer,’ but “replaced by someone” — his Master — at 36.1-3, and then celebrated on page 56 as successor. This tradition came FIRST, and I prove it from the James Apocalypses. The pauline ‘Bible’ lied about James.
Had two beers last night.
But knowing a couple fo facds about my life does not justify you making those kinds of accusations, and I think if they are your view the most responsible thing would be to keep them to yourself.
No, I do not consult mystics for historical research.
Look, you’re just being offensive. You know nothing about me or my life. Why do you think you can attribute bad motives to me? You think I got involved with the discover and academic discussion of the Gospel of Judas to make *money*? To quote my favorite tennis player-commentator of all time: You CAN’T be serious! And if you don’t like my work or appreciate my scholarship, I really don’t know why you would want to be on my blog.
Oh man – I can see you get it in the neck from both the mythicists and the conservatives! As a former Liberal Democrat centrist who was squeezed by both the left and right, I can sympathize.
I have no advice I can offer of my own, it’s a narrow and painful path, but I do take comfort from:
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Mt7:13-14
Do you think it would be fair to conceptualize mythicism as fundamentalist atheism?
I am hesitant to assume or conclude anything about someone based on a single, short post. He/she is clearly passionate about their views though. I don’t know this necessarily applies to him/her or what he/she believes, but it reminds me that many atheists are just as vulnerable to being influenced by their biases (dare I say agendas) as any believer. When shown evidence that Jesus existed, in response they say “that is not evidence” or that the source was tampered (in the case of Josephus we know this, but on what grounds do they say the same about Tacitus or Paul’s undisputed letters). In my opinion, this is because they have already decided what they believe and reject any evidence that suggests otherwise. They also have their precious texts filled with errors that they never question and heroes they idolize. It sounds a lot fundamentalism.
Yes, I’d say that’s a fair description. Fundamentalists come in all shapes and sizes.
If you are referring to me, Anthony, I am not atheist. I’m a Satsangi with the Radha Soami Satsang Beas. (Satsang, ‘SAUGHT-song’ – Satsangi, ‘SAUGHT-songee’). We are as theist as one can be. http://Www.rssb.org
There are no ‘precious texts,’ only a precious Master.
Have you read any Robert M. Price? His book, ‘The Amazing Colossal Apostle’ details the case against ANY epistles being written by Paul. He’s a double doctorate in Theology, so Bart has in the past considered him worthy of debating. I am obviously not. I can, however, answer many questions neither of them have ever answered, like why a humane God would allow suffering. (Karma, reincarnation, and free choice have their roles to play.)
Bart,
I’m sorry. I should have said, “saved you the embarrassment of claiming that Judas fulfilled Jesus’s role for him by turning Jesus over to the authorities.” I know that you don’t think Judas ‘betrayed’ anybody here. The idea of Betrayal parallels “woe to that man by whom the Son is DELIVERED” — not “betrayed.” As you know, ‘paradidomai’ is often mistranslated, like here (John 19:16 is another example of it correctly translated as ‘handed over’).
Everybody thinks that because he is handed over at the very end, the Judas of this Gospel must also be the same as in the canon. But he’s not. Jesus answers Judas’s question, “What will those baptized in your Name DO?” by telling him that those who aren’t will die, but that he will exceed them all, including the other disciples, and will sacrifice the man who bears him. It is the only way to read the narrative of the Gospel of Judas consistent with his replacement by Jesus at 36.1-3, his role as victorious disciple on page 56, and leader (savior) of the Holy Generation.
This is JAMES. He was the only known disciple TO BE STONED TO DEATH BY FELLOW DISCIPLES, 44.25.
This great blog is based on a high level scholarship, and I hope it always stays that way.
Thanks for this great blog and how it is run!
Hypothetical. To what extent would Christianity be different today if Revelation had not been canonized?
Good luck with the book. Excited to read it!
I am wondering a familiar thing.
I don’t know if any doctrines would be vastly different (which I doubt), but undoubtedly the book of Revelation has an enormous effect on certain christian groups and affiliated politics.
I guess a huge part of simply not being overly observant and caring for global warming has a lot to do with seeing catastrophies taking place as part of the order of things that have to occur and shouldn’t be resisted.
I would say it definitely effects the care for creation.
And the way it scares the hell out of – better said into believers, it certainly helps making the debates that hard. If you’re frightened going to hell if you just ask simple questions about the traditional interpretation of the bible, it’s hard to get to a compromise.
If one told me, the 2016 election would have been the other way round, if the Revelation wasn’t part of the bible, I might keep my doubts about – but I would not simply consider the statement totally unfounded.
I find the Revelation caters a certain, pretty brutal and uncompromising view to the world.
Matthew speaks of eternal punishments for the goats. Is the apocalyptic tradition in the Synoptics necessarily less harsh, or might it simply not be described in such detail? I am curious what Matthew might have said if you asked him to elaborate on what eternal punishment would entail.
I”m going to be arguing that it’s very a very different apocalyptic persepective from Revelation’s. But Matthew typically describes the eternal punishment as “destruction,” and I think that’s what he meant. Those excluded from the kingdom would be annihilated (by fire probably).
The difficulty I have with this view is that, unless I am misunderstanding you, those excluded from the kingdom are resurrected to be annihilated. Are they being raised from the dead to be killed again? To borrow a term from Revelation, I could see this being called a second death. Might the author of Revelation be using that term in deliberate contrast with how other people understand it? In any case, the idea of resurrecting someone to judge them and destroy them (killing them again) seems like an odd thing to do. Maybe not as harsh as eternal torture, but still a bit mean when you could just let them be.
YEs, they are brought back to life to be shown the errors of their ways and to face, then a final judgment, a humiliating and painful annihilation (so they can’t simply die in their sleep and get away with what they did without paying a painful price for it)
I think one of the things Revelation and some other parts of the Bible try to do is to make sense of the Problem of Evil – somehow our hideous suffering is considered to be good and/or justified because God is causing or allowing it.
Hi Dr Ehrman,
Thanks a lot for the post. I look forward to the follow-ups.
I was wondering if you had a view on the argument regularly put forward nowadays that Christianity created modern liberal humanism. They claim, for instance, that Christianity (especially the writings of Paul and Augustine) invented the concepts of the individual, and moral equality, and laid the basis for the modern concept of freedom. This view has been advanced by the historian Tom Holland, as well as intellectual historians like Larry Siedentop.
Do you have a view on it? Would you be willing to write a post on it as some point?
Thanks very much for your time.
It’s a hugely complex issue and I”ve always been uncomfortable with this view. But to answer it fully would require a very deep dive into Hellenistic philosophical positions, and I’ve never gone there in great depth with the kind of massive expertise required.
It’s a bit more complicated than that, I think. Another important influence, for example, was pagan Germanic society, which conceived social hierarchy as a series of mutual rights and responsibilities, that everyone, no matter how high or low, had to respect. So everyone, for example, had to pay weregild for killing another person. More if the person were important, yes, but everybody’s family/clan deserved some recompense. Similarly, even peasants had certain rights, limited, but within those bounds absolute.
Off the subject, I remember reading that the original meaning of the word “sin” in Hebrew was like an archery reference of missing an intended target – off the mark, a falling short, a near miss. Does that sound right? Sounds much less having to do with “guilt” or “evil” than making an “error” or mistake”.
Really looking forward to following your Revelation posts!
That’s probably referring to the *Greek* word translated sin, hamartia — missing the mark (so NT not OT).
There are 3 words for “sin” in Biblical Hebrew: עָוֹ֛ן וָפֶ֖שַׁע וְחַטָּאָ֑ה – ‘avon, peshah, khathaa (khet). See Exod. 34:7. According to rabbinic thinking, khet is the mildest category; ‘avon is stronger, and peshah is deliberate and knowing transgression (call it an insolent sin). All three require repentance.
Khet (חטא) does come from an old archery term for missing the mark, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it meant “mistake” carrying less guilt. For example, in 1 Kings 18:9, Obadiah asks Elijah מֶ֣ה חָטָ֑אתִי – what sin have I done that you send me to Ahab so he can kill me?
In 2 Sam. 12:13, David says חָטָ֖אתִי לַֽיהוָ֑ה – “I have sinned (offended) against the Lord,” using khet, the first category. Since David knew exactly what he was doing in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, this makes me wonder whether the rabbis had softened the meaning of khet in order to make David look better.
How would you describe the view of imminence in Revelation?
It seems comparable to Mark 13. Mark makes analogy to the servant caught sleeping by their master. On one hand, things must take place that can serve as warning. You shouldn’t be caught off guard if paying attention. If you can fall asleep and miss it though, it must be coming at any moment. Does that qualify as imminent?
Revelation has even more events that take place, with specific numbers of days/years indicated in places. Since it is symbolic, it shouldn’t be taken literally but still gives the impression there will be signs and events to occur first. It also says the end is coming soon and makes the analogy of a thief coming in the night (like 1 Thessalonians). As you pointed out, a feature of apocalypticism is imminence. If Mark is apocalyptic, and there will be signs, that seems to support the idea that signs do not negate imminence.
My question then is what does it mean in Revelation to say the end is imminent (if it is at all)? I ask with the differences between 1 and 2 Thessalonians in mind, as people have attempted to harmonize them.
I’d say that the author definitely thinks the end of the age is imminent and that JEsus is very soon to return in judgment. The symbolism involves what will happen — it will not be the destruction of a literal beast with seven heads, but the city of Rome. But that is indeed what will happen. ANd happen very soon, as he says twice in the first three verses and at the end and in between. The destruction adn the imminence are not symbolic of something else, in my judgment.
Is the God described in Revelation the God in whom Jesus believed?
I will be arguing that it is a very different conception of God, by someone who thought it *was* the GOd of Jesus, even though it wasn’t…
Mr. Ehrman, I get the feeling that you must always have been a pretty kind and noble person with empathy. Also, you’re obviously smart (I would actually write “genius”, but I don’t want to be accused of being a fanboy 🤣🤣). So, If you’re not an evil mastermind who have tricked me all this time, in reality, and if I’m indeed not wrong about these facts, I wonder how would you reconcile these brutal aspects of God you mention (such as the slaughter in Jericho, for example) with your faith in Him as the personification of love, back in the day when you were a devoted Christian. I guess I’m asking you out of curiousity to understand the believer’s approach to such a(n apparent) thorn.
I”m no genius — but I know people who are! (Which is why I know I”m not….). I don’t reconcile these images of God. I think they are different images, one exceedingly harmful and one exceeidingly helpful. WHen I was a CHristian I reconciled them by thinking that they showed two different aspects of God, his justice and his love. It was very hard though to deal with how it was “just” for him to punish (in this case, order the murder of) people who didn’t even know he existed. I guess I would have said that Romans 1:18-32 shows that in facdt such people *could* know that GOd existed and *shoujld* have known, but rejected that knowledge. So he judged them.
Many Christians separate what is moral (killing women and children) and what is godly. The Canaanites worshiped other gods so it is godly to kill them. To many Christians what is godly takes precedent over morality. Moral is a human issue in their eyes…..God before humanity if you will.
Hi Dr Ehrman! How reliable is Michael Coogen for information on the Bible? I see he has a book: “The Oxford history of the biblical world” have you heard of it? Thanks!!
He’s an excellent scholar. ANd his Introductoin to the Old Testament is very much worth reading if you’re interested in the OT.
Thank you!
Yeah, I’m still trying to figure out why a wise and loving god would build a world in which a majority, perhaps an overwhelming majority of its inhabitants would suffer through life only to face grisly destruction or torment, and when He comes up with the surprising solution of killing Himself to save some, He entrusts it to word-of-mouth to get the message of salvation out to the dying masses. Peculiar.
Excellent summary. Excellent question…if a person thought god was real perhaps they could pursue it otherwise it’s just—-peculiar. I guess history shows these questions are never pursued with the same impetus as believers. Trading cards!
The lamb is faithful and true who’s weapon is a sword coming out of his mouth.- ie his enemies are destroyed by him speaking the truth.
Its the same idea as Paul’s “For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God.”
Joshua contains actual orders for humans to kill other humans.
I think revelation keeps the general message of the rest of the NT and should be read as a response to Roman persecutions.
“I have come to realize that I do not revere, respect, or even like this book any more. I think it is a horrible depiction of God, portraying him as a ruthless tyrant who absolutely detests anyone who does not worship him with all their heart and soul, who wants not just to crush all opposition but to torture everyone who does not believe in Jesus.”
I’ve kind of felt this way my whole life.
But wasn’t sure if it was just me, seeing so many people got something positive out of it.
I’m wondering if it’s because Christians purposefully sanitize the message, saying god actually “wants” to “save” everyone but “can’t” because their lack of faith prevents him etc etc.
But I could never read revelation that way. It always just alienated me and left me feeling depressed.
Reading your post, I thought of Marcion. He would argue that the solution to your dilemma was that there are two Gods. The God of Revelation and Old Testament that demands equity and exclusive worship. The God of Jesus that preaches love. One catch would be that the author of Revelation would be seen as a false prophet that had been converted by Jewish O.T. thought, but Marcion would explain that this was highly possible. After all, he already claimed that all the apostles (except Paul) were under these influences. Does it change your views on Revelation if you accept the 2-God theory? Wouldn’t it reconcile the contradiction between the God of wrath (both New and Old Testament) and the God of love (Marcion)? It would certainly explain your disappointment with the God portrayed by John
Hi Bart,
Regarding the idea that the Revelation of John might be a version based on an older Jewish apocalypse, might this be a sufficient explanation for the difference between the writings from the apocalypticism John and the teachings of Jesus? I am very well aware that the self-serving christian narration Christianity being the religion of love while Judaism was the religion of law is counterfactual. So I am asking from a perspective of historical streams of Jewish apocalypticism during the 2nd temple period and christian streams
I don’t want to serve christian antisemitic topoi.
I don’t think so, since even the “Christian” parts (if you go with that theory) (which I don’t) are highly vindictive and bring suffering on most of the world. And you’re absolutely right, there is a lot of anti-semiticism going on in some scholarly evaluations of Revelation (older scholars talked about how the violence was the “Jewish” inheritance, as opposed ot hte “Christian.” Yikes.)
Prof. I very much thought of Revelation,like yourself, as a story of hope for the future. I look forward to your commentary in the next posts. Off topic question, disciples and apostles are always used interchangeably by many. I was taught that disciples means student of the word and apostle teacher/messenger of the word. Did Jesus’ chosen twelve start out as disciples and then became apostles after his death/resurrection? Do these two words imply the same meaning ? Please clarify,thanks.
“Disciple” means something like “learner” and is used to refer in this case to someone who is a follower of Jesus’s teachings; as a technical term it refers to the twelve men he chose to be his insiders during his life. “Apostle” means “one who has been sent out” on a mission or with a message. It refers in a technical sense to those that CHrist personally commissioned (e.g., at his resurrection) to tak e his message abroad. So Judas Iscariot was one of the disciples but was not an apostle; Paul was not a disciple but was an apostle. Peter and others were both.
Wasn’t Judas an apostle when he was sent in the mission of the twelve & the mission of the seventy.
Also because he was an apostle, Matthias was chosen as his replacement.
Yes, at that point he was an apostle.
Judas never lived. He was an evil dopple-ganger for James the Just. Read Dr. Robert Eisenman on James. His work (sorry Bart) is the most important biblical scholarship of all time. Christianity will ultimately not survive Robert Eisenman, and the truth he and I, and others, like Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier, bring about the fraud of the New Testament. Judaswasjames.com
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy:
The gospels were not as anti-Roman as the Book of Revelation is. I mentioned earlier that I keep to the Jewish Apocalypticism of Jesus (Tribulation in Judea followed by an unrealized Son of Man-led Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness–unless the Son of Man actually is references Gaius, a caesar).
Dr. Ehrman,
Is Revelation an example of Jewish Apocalypticism?
James Tabor removed the references to Jesus and seemed to make it an example of Jewish Apocalypticism. Would you agree that was the original version of Revelation?
Yes, Revelation does owe a good deal to Jewish apocalyptic thought. I don’t know if it is Jewish apocalypticism because I”m not sure if the author was Jewish. But no, I think the book was produced from the outset by a follower of Jesus.
27 years ago I too believed every single word of the bible was “God’s holy word.” But I NEVER read Revelation in its entirety until about a couple of weeks ago when you encouraged your readers to read it. HAHAHA!
I never liked Revelations. I thought it was a mistake to include it in the New Testament because, as you say, it contradicts the teaching of Jesus. This begs multiple questions some of which I’m sure you will address but I’m just wondering now, how much impact has this book had on the development of Christian thought over the centuries and how different would Christianity appear today if it had not been included?
It was the least read book of the NT, so far as we can tell (apart from several of the incredbily short books). Those who did read it were often influenced by it, especially in thinking about GOd’s work in history and often about how he would bring history to an end. WIthout it in the BIble, I suppose there would not have been such a strong minority view over the years — in teh past century a majority view among some groups of AMerican Christians — that the end really is coming soon with Armageddon on the way…. I’ll be talking about that in my book…
Thankyou for this post, & for all your posts Prof Ehrman.
A quick comment before a related question : I have just signed up as a silver member & sincerely endorse the charitable output from the blog subscriptions! You were most influential for me deciding 2.5yr ago that I was a Done (as in Nones & . . .) after a lifetime of thoughtful belief, increasingly with struggle. Now a thoughtful (I hope to remain) unbeliever.
A very interesting turn of phrase to ask at all : What does it mean that ANY book (even any book in the Bible) is a Christian book? Is it not the case that what is called the Bible is maybe the ultimate church dogma? 27 books curated from hundreds(?) by consensus of the orthodoxy of the day in 4th-Century? Fundamentalist types would use the lens of the Bible to assess the Christian bona fides of all other writings, of course ignoring all the issues of biblical origins, translation & transmission that you have been publicising for many years. There’s more universal human psychology (of wanting things to be simple & in our favour) behind all this than anybody really wants to admit??
Yes, part of the point of my asking the question was to raise the question: what does it mean to say that a book, or a person, or anything else is “Christian.” E.g., can it be “Christian” if it teaches something at odds with the views of JEsus? If so, then, well, is Paul Christian? If you say yes (as I would), then what are the criteria? On *that* we will never agree…. (I do think Revelation is a Christian book, because it is written by someone who believes that Jesus is the way of salvation and writes his book to support and develope that view, even thoguh his understanding runs contrary to the views of JEsus himself.)
My rule about who is a Christian: if someone says they are, they are. There have been so many varieties of Christianity in 2000 years (many more than Heinz sells ketchups), each one damning the others as heretics, that for us non-Christians, the only sensible criterion is: if you say you’re Christian, you are.
Since Christianity (the religion about Jesus) is essentially a profound misunderstanding of Jesusian folk Judaism (the religion of Jesus), the Book of Revelation is a thoroughly Christian book because it takes that misunderstanding to its logical conclusion.
However, one could argue that perhaps the author of the Book of Revelation actually does capture the uncomfortably dangerous implications of Jesus’ apocalyptic vision but where the author goes terribly wrong is in believing and preaching that during the last judgment God will only spare the people who view (or are willing to embrace) Jesus as both God the Son and the sacrificial lamb of God.
Just a comment. My interest is in the possible sources the author of Revelation may have had in crafting his book. For example, where did he come up with Rev. 1:12-16? I think there is at least a weak parallel with certain Buddhist scriptures.
The vision is deeply indebted ot DAniel 10:5-9, and other biblical passages.
Bart,
Did you notice the Daniel of chapter 10 forgoes meat and wine? One of our mystic vows is vegetarian diet. Another is no alcohol. I have had neither for 50 years. Also, Daniel is hearing ‘Word’ or ‘words’ of the Lord a lot in his visions. It is such a powerful experience, he falls in a deep sleep on his face. This is similar to the guards at Peter’s confrontation in John 18 where they fall back as Judas was present. “I am he” is not him saying HE is the one, but that JUDAS is. John 13:31 similarly says “NOW is the Son glorified”, when JUDAS “goes out” into the night. It isn’t ‘Son glorified’ when Jesus died, but when Judas goes out: “Yet a little while I am with you,” he says of himself. This is coding to hide succession. The election of Matthias in Acts 1is more coding to cover JAMES’S succession. Eisenman details all the parallels: “falling headlong” and Joseph Barsabbas JUSTUS the ‘defeated’ candidate are merely two of the clues to James THE JUST. ‘Stephen’ in Acts 7 is yet another cover. Paul holds the cloaks in complicity with his killing.
Yes, of course. See Daniel 1 as well. In a foreign (pagan) land the strict Jew, Daniel, was intent on refraining from foods that may have been connected with pagan worship and thus could “defile” him. (see esp. 1:8-21)
Bart,
“I give you every herb bearing seed and tree fruit bearing seed. It will be as food for you” – Genesis 1:29. Vegan diet, at least in Eden!
I noticed you often avoid comment on the ‘meatier’ portions of my posts. I’d rather hear what you think about “Son of the father Joseph” (cousin James JUSTUS) in the context of Matthias ‘replacing’ Judas at the point in time a successor should be being chosen for JESUS (Acts 1). And Judas “falling headlong” in Acts (Pseudoclementine Recognitions term at 1.70 on Paul killing JAMES). “His office let another take” (Acts 1:20) is not an apostleship, which is no ‘office,’ but fits a successor.
The Gospel of Judas succession narrative is a more reasonable Judas tradition than this one!
> There is no Matthias in Judas Gospel where Judas is “replaced by someone” (Gnostic succession of Jesus by James, 36.1-3, who is stoned by fellow disciples in the vision by Judas, 44.25). This last point is my very own. The rest are Dr. Robert Eisenman.
You really haven’t read Eisenman, have you? I met him. He is as smart as they come.
kt, below, is worth reading, too.)
James was, as a Nazirite (Jesus ‘of Nazirite’?), a long-haired guy who never took hot baths, or ate meat or drank. He was a teetotaler. It wasn’t just about pagan-worship. He was an ascetic. All Masters to this day are. Although now one can assume they do hot bathe!
As it turns out, Nazirite and Nazorean (or Nazarene), are not etymologically related, even though they look so similar in English.
I would rather propose a Hindu concept over the Buddhist. In my mind, the whole story is also similar to a Hindu soul-ascending story
The imaginary and the symbols are definitely Jewish, for example from Daniel and Ezekiel, and finally and essentially Christian since the Son of Man / Christ plays a major role.
If you put the story into a Hindu (also esoteric Jewish and Christian) setting, you may need to change your perception when you read the book. For such a view, the 7 churches are similar to the 7 Charchas, and the book will be our own self/body. The whole story is within ourselves. In this view, these spiritual centers needs to be awakened, and the memories where it once came are sealed in these centers. The Christian aspect (which is essential in this book) is that these can be opened by the “Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David” (Christ / Jesus which here is “the way”). The upper center (the seventh) also put things in vibration with the 7 trumpets for a spiritualization, and completely when the “angels” pour the 7 bowls. These are all for purification/transformation, until the last battle of the Self (at least the earthly part) which has become a “Whore” / fallen. This self (Babylon) must fall before the transformation, into the divine marriage, and to be one with Christ and again live in the presence of God.
The concept is partly Hindu and Jewish / Christian esoteric at the same time as the last part is in the presence of God. In Buddhism, deity is not present in this sense..
kt,
You’ll never get anywhere with that here, kt. You make too much sense! 😉
There is an ongoing debate about Jesus and violence. Reza Aslan wrote a book claiming Jesus was actually a violent zealot. I think Aslan is historically wrong, violent zealotry first emerged in the 40s, and culminated in the Jewish rebellions of 48 and 66-70ce.
However, what do you do with the violent sayings of Jesus? “I came not to bring peace but a sword.” Sell your cloak and buy a sword.” The cutting off of the servant’s ear in Gethsemane? Jesus supposedly healed the ear, but did he really? No, it’s a made up miracle. Maybe the ear was cut off by Peter, or another disciple? Why is that story there?
(To be continued)
At any rate, I’m inclined to think the mostly surreal and catastrophic violence of the Apocalypse of John is driven by an authentic hatred of the Roman oppressors. They enslaved the majority of their subjects. They exploited the largest geographic region in Western history. That hatred seems well deserved.
It will come as no surprise that I take a proto-Marxist reading of Jesus as a class warrior. I think he was crucified because he called for the overthrow of Rome!
The gospels were written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem to create an alternate narrative to the popular one that Jesus was a messianic rebel martyr.
The new, improved Jesus of the synoptics was practically a pacifist. But, those little dissimilar passages I named about reveal another possibility that he was leading an armed rebel movement.
Another key point, “worshipping” Jesus wasn’t a subjective religious adoration, it was acting in the messianic spirit of Joshua, David, Cyrus, and Jesus.
I wrote a number of posts critiquing Aslan’s book; look up his name in a word search and you’ll see. THe big issue with the historical Jesus is figuring out which sayings go back to him. I don’t think these ones do, for reasons I explain.
Bart doesn’t understand why I come here, since it is usually to disagree. One reason is to do this:
This is one of the most interesting incidents in the Gospels. John 18:9-10 are really one sentence, translated poorly. It says it is Peter’s sword. The entire Betrayal is filled with deeply symbolic imagery. Overall, it is a coverup of mastership succession (‘I know whom I have chosen’ is not betrayer but successor). I wrote two books about it. The Malchus *right* ear cutting (right ear is significant spiritually) by Peter’s sword (of the Word) symbolizes initiation. Note, he doesn’t just heal the ear, but heals HIM — SPIRITUALLY. Jesus protests over this being his cup (sins of Malchus) to drink, not Peter’s. Malchus is to be his, not Peter’s, disciple. The kiss right before from Judas to Jesus is symbolic of Judas (covering successor James) becoming the new Master. The Gospels were only written to hide that there WAS a successor. Dr. Robert Eisenman did much of the work showing this, especially from Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. He inspired me. I give my books away for free as pdfs. Judaswasjames.com
Current Master http://www.rssb.org
Bart –
I really need to know if you still think that Revelation was not a response to actual persecution but a perception of past persecutions and an anticipation of future ones, and that his readers should patiently endure their suffering. Is this still the case even if you now see it as (also) a paean to murder and, well, sadism?
Thanks,
Dan
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Where did the idea of baptism originate? Was it anywhere in the OT? Why did Jesus do it?
Thanks so much!!
Jews in the first cenutyr practiced cleansing rituals that involve ritual dipping into water for cleansing from ritual impurity; but these were periodic practices. John the Baptist may have been the one who came up with the one-time baptism in connectdion of repentance for salvation. Jesus was baptized by John as one of his followrs, and so naturally Jesus’ followersbegan to follow the practice as well.
I see! Thank you! Was John the Baptist a Rabbi?
The term “rabbi” later had a kind of technical meaning and indicated a Jewish teacher with a special required training (something like “Professor”). THat was only after the NT period. At that time, rabbi simply meant “my teacher” and could be any ole kind of teacher. So John was a teacher, but not a “rabbi” in a technical sense.
Ah thank you! That is so interesting!
Bart,
This is important.
I have a copy of ‘Apocalyptic Prophet.’ It would be easier to stomach what you say if you didn’t lie.
1. “John says things about Jesus found nowhere else in Scripture, … John 1:1-14.” John 1:1-13 are not ABOUT Jesus. They’re about JOHN. Do you see “Jesus” in there? No. Jesus isn’t introduced until 1:14. John was A MASTER. He — not Jesus — gave “power to become children of God.” This from a Master (Charan Singh). Accept it.
2. “Anyone who believes in him will have eternal life with the Father (5:22-24, 6:40, 14:9).” WRONG: “HE WHO HEARS MY WORD and believes” -v 24.
“This is the will of my Father, that everyone WHO SEES the Son and believes” – 6:40. “He WHO HAS SEEN me” – 14:9. Do you see a pattern yet??? You have TO SEE the Master! You have TO HEAR the Master! More than belief. Only those living CONCURRENTLY can be saved. John 13:1, “his own who were IN the world” and 17:11, “now I am no more in the world, BUT THEY ARE IN the world.”
Please read these lines carefully. You say you are a scholar. No, you’re not.
If you disagree with a scholar, that does not mean she or he is not a scholar. It means you disagree. That’s an important difference to maintain.
I’m not “disagreeing” with you! You have an obvious reading comprehension dysfunction. I’m merely pointing this out.
I carefully laid out to you how you misread John 1:1-13 as being about Jesus when it is in fact about John, referenced BY NAME in 1:6, verse 1:8 notwithstanding, as it references the Holy Spirit IN JOHN. Then you MISQUOTE (by paraphrase) an important verse, John 6:40, supposedly spoken by Jesus in real time to those he says saw him and didn’t believe (6:36). Page 88, ‘Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’: ” … and that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life.” In fact, the “will of the Father [very important!]” in 6:40 is that “everyone *WHO SEES* the Son [whether the ‘Son’ is within John OR Jesus, or anyone else as “witness”] AND believes will be saved.” No Christian reads this correctly any more than you do. Time and again, Jesus says that you must see (6:40), must hear (5:24) — *MUST BE ALIVE!* (17:11) — at the time the Master is. Gospel authors *COVERED – IT – UP*. Got it?
And now, you do it to me in my post. Stop!
My own view is that it’s going to be impossible not to offend someone, no matter what you write. Since it’s unlikely that those who would disagree with you would read your book anyway, or read very far into it without putting it down, I don’t think you should lose too much sleep over how to approach it. From the way you’ve described your thought processes so far, your (future) book promises to be an important contribution to the subject. As you know, people will believe what they want to believe regardless of what you say or write, but I think your book still needs to be written, and I for one am very much looking forward to reading it!
Posting a link to this book in case it’s not already part of your research bibliography. Andrew of Caesarea is presumably past your time period of study, but possibly the footnotes or bibliography may be of interest:
Guiding to a Blessed End : Andrew of Caesarea and His Apocalypse Commentary in the Ancient Church / By Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou:
2013
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Guiding_to_a_Blessed_End/mM7aUdl9WB4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&kptab=getbook
The link goes to a preview. Full text is not cheap, but maybe available via ILL? Preview includes enough pages to possibly decide if its worth obtaining.
From what I understand, Andrew of Caesarea’s commentary on Revelation was a key factor in its universal acceptance as canonical scriptures (Latin Fathers had generally endorsed it, but the Greek Fathers not so much)
Dr. Constantinou also published an English translation of the Commentary itself:
Hermēneia eis tēn Apokalypsin. English
Commentary on the Apocalypse / Andrew of Caesarea ; translated by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou
Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America Press, 2012.
xiv, 270 pages ; 22 cm.
Perhaps God was a little grumpy when he sent his Son for a three day prison stint in Hell (Acts 2:31, 1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6). The question is…In the Jonah reference of the “heart of the earth” and the unknown author alluding to the “lower parts of the earth” (Eph. 4: 7-9), is this really alluding to Jesus’ steamy vacay or number of days in the tomb?
Impossible to say, I’d say.
I work really hard at balancing my faith with a sophisticated, historical understanding of the Bible. I did not come from a fundamentalist background and so have never experienced the trauma that seems to guide some of the blog posts. So, based on Professor Tabor’s posts, I have read the two, very different volumes in the Anchor commentaries on Revelation. I love the scholarship. As a matter of faith, there is a principle among people with whom I worship that the words of scripture, however inspired, are understood through the mediation of Jesus and what we know about him (the basics of his message of love and justice and acceptance are clear) as a living act of faith and not something branded upon in our past, when perhaps we required milk instead of meat. I suppose what tires me most is the dichotomy too often expressed between those who hold narrowly-defined theology and dogma and those who are so overwhelmed by critical analysis that faith in any life-affirming sense of the concept ceases to exist. It is exhausting sometimes, which perhaps explains why I have to take blog posts (including mine, I suppose) only in small doses!
Hi Bart,
I’m guessing that you do not agree with Richard Bauckham’s (1993) “The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation.” In my case, I read Revelation from beginning to end dozens of times since the 1980s, and I tend to agree with Bauckham.
Have you read his 1993 book?
If yes, what do you think of his chapter 9 “The Conversion of the Nations”?
You’ll need to be more specific about which issue you are wondering about. Spell it out so other readers will know what you’re referring to, and that will make better sense of my response.
Thank you, Bart, okay, my summary of the background and my question, in up to 200 words.
Richard Bauckham’s (1993) “The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation” advocates that Revelation teaches a positive view instead of a dark view, especially chapter 9 “The Conversion of the Nations.”
For example, Bauckham says that a primary proclamation of Revelation is that the nations of the world will convert to Christ. He shows the pattern of the nations rebelling against God in Rev 11–20 and then obeying God in Rev 21–22. He also notes that Revelation does not indicate the timetable for the conversion.
One implication is that the apocalyptic imagery (symbolism) in Revelation does not imply belief in a soon, sudden conversion of the nations. It also does not imply that only a mere remnant of believers will occupy the next world.
Bart, I’m guessing, based on your recent blog posts, that you disagree with Bauckham and his positive view of Revelation. Is that correct?
P.S. I read Bauckham (1993) while doing research for my 2012 “Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy.”
I *completely* disagree. As one would expect. If the nations all convert, whom exactly is being destroyed when the vast majory of the world get the mark of the Beast and are thrown into the lake of fire??? This kind of sanguine interpretation makes sense to me from kind and good hearted interpreters of the BIble who do not want it to say what it says, but, well, one does need to look at what it says….
“If the nations all convert, whom exactly is being destroyed when the vast majority of the world get the mark of the Beast and are thrown into the lake of fire??? This kind of sanguine interpretation makes sense to me from kind and good-hearted interpreters of the Bible who do not want it to say what it says, but, well, one does need to look at what it says….”
I do not recall the details of how Bauckham responded to interpretations like yours. But a general response to your view is that the apocalyptic imagery in Revelation does not necessitate that John the Revelator intended to teach a literal apocalyptic worldview.
For example, we do not need to interpret that John taught that Nero would return as the Beast who rules the world until Christ returns.
Also, looking at what the Bible says includes looking for the Bible’s intention and not a mere literal interpretation of everything, especially apocalyptic imagery or symbolism.
Furthermore, I will not consider brushing off Bauckham’s (1993) chapter 9 as merely a good-hearted interpretation without a thorough analysis of exposition, which cannot be done here in up to 200 words.
Will you at least address Bauckham’s (1993) in your pending book?
No, I”m not planning to. THe book is for a popular audience, and I simply can’t respond to all the books written about Revelation over the past 30 years. THere have been hundreds!
Whoa! I’m waiting for the next post. Please teacher Bart, go on, I’m loving this!
Bart,
I look forward to reading this when it comes out! Criticism of NT Jesus is still extremely rare both in academic settings (as Avalos pointed out) or in society in general. This is due to multiple factors: centuries of cultural conditioning, status quo bias, ancestor worship, legacy fear, and the simple desire not to tick off 2 billion potential readers.
But NT Jesus is indeed full of faults of flaws and sometimes verbally abusive and controlling and sometimes threatening (such as calling for villages that don’t accept the disciples to be wiped out worse than S&G). His apocalyptic dark side indeed is there all thru the NT if it’s read objectively.
We don’t know if historical Jesus had this dark side or not. We do know he was apocalyptic.
When anyone, including you – who I regard with utmost respect – goes down a road of painting historical Jesus as a benign peaceful hippie apocalyptic leader…well you have entered the world of speculation at that point.
We simply do not know if historical Jesus was that type of apocalyptic sect leader or not.
We have information on both sides of the ledger.
TY
THanks. “d say critical studyof the NT is not rare in academic circles; it’s the order of the day outsdie of fundamentalist and conservative evangelical groups.
Bart,
One last point on this: if you study apocalyptic group leaders one finds a good cop/bad cop approach is extremely common.
They often do many good things in the community and talk about love and peace. Then their controlling abusive apocalyptic dark side comes out to play some days.
Perhaps historical Jesus also took a good cop/bad cop approach. I personally think that is the most objective view of the totality of the material we have.
I grew up in a home full of verbal abuse – it is the exact opposite of being peaceful. It can be every bit as damaging as physical abuse. NT Jesus is clearly verbally abusive toward others at times.
Good Cop/Bad Cop.
Thanks for your time,
SC
Dr Ehrman,
1. Do share your journey of writing this particular book i.e. with what mindsets and beliefs you started and with what you finished this book?
2. Any possibility if you can invite Amy-Jill Levine for few comments on Book of Revelation?
Regards,
Interesting ideas!
I think your new view of Revelation is perfectly correct and look forward to your future posts on that subject. In general, I think that people who don’t know much about Christianity look at it in what I call its “soft” form: Sermon on the Mount, give the naked your cloak, turn the other cheek, etc. The “hard” form, the Inquisition, the 30 Years War — everything that became prominent in the religion when it became the government of the Roman Empire and of other governments since — is just as much part of it as the Sermon on the Mount stuff, and the way cruel Christians have used the book of Revelation is evidence of that.
“Zip Zip Goes to Venus” is priced on Amazon as $188.00. At that price it actually may be a great book!
Well, it’s good he read a truly valuable one….
I don’t disagree with your understanding of this troubling apocalypse. I was terrorized by this book as a child, and, frankly, believed that it was used to abuse me, along with other children like me. I wish that we could teach our children to disregard texts like these until they have the ability to contextualize them. I think that Handel used this text effectively when he just set the doxologies to music, and ignored the rest.
Historically, hasn’t the Catholic Church more or less ignored the Book of Revelation? I seem to remember one of the early Church fathers saying that there may be some worthy hidden messages in there but it was far too confusing to dwell on or study. I know growing up Catholic I never heard passages read in church or taught in school. Contrast that with other churches I have attended and the book seemed to be the primary focus. Maybe the Catholic Church has regretted adding it to canon?
THere have been plenty of Catholics who have spent much of their lives focusing on it — and historically, of course, it had big moments (e.g., Joiakim of FIore). But thorughout history most Catholics *and* Protestants have pretty much shunted it to the side.
I heard read in a Catholic church today Revelation 11:4-12. (By the way, the preacher implied that the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation had the same author).I hadn’t read Revelation from beginning to end for a number of years and I was intrigued by the passage.
The only comments I could find were notes in Catholic Bibles. The note in the 1899 edition of the Douay Bible stated that the two witnesses were Enoch and Elijah (the two characters in the Hebrew Bible who were taken up to heaven without dying.)The New American Bible, the one presently used by the Catholic Church, speculates on several possibilities: Moses and Elijah (Enoch is gone),or Peter and Paul, or the Christian Martyrs. Verse 7 does say that the beast that comes from the abyss will kill them That doesn’t seem to apply to Elijah. That’s all I can find about this passage.
What do modern new Testament scholars think of the passage?
My sense is that most scholars opt either for Moses and Elijah (representing the Law and the Prophets) or Enoch and Elijah (the two people in the OT never said to die). I suppose the former makes better sense since they are “witnesses” (as in the Mount of Transfiguration) but I’ve always rather liked the second (since everyone “has to die”).
My sense is that most scholars opt either for Moses and Elijah (representing the Law and the Prophets) or Enoch and Elijah (the two people in the OT never said to die). I suppose the former makes better sense since they are “witnesses” (as in the Mount of Transfiguration) but I’ve always rather liked the second (since everyone “has to die”).
How close did Revelation come to being excluded from the cannon? I’ve heard it was the most contentious of all the NT books. If it was thrown out, do you think humanity would be better off for it?
I don’t think it would be a question of throwing it out but of not including it in. It was very much debated for a very long time, till the fifth century or so. I’m not sure what effectd its exclusion would have had on human history generally. We certainly would not have had the kinds of fundamentalizem that developed in Protestant circles in teh 19th and 20th c.s (no Late Great Planet Earth or Left Behind; no David Koresh; etc.)
I don’t think it would be a question of throwing it out but of not including it in. It was very much debated for a very long time, till the fifth century or so. I’m not sure what effectd its exclusion would have had on human history generally. We certainly would not have had the kinds of fundamentalizem that developed in Protestant circles in teh 19th and 20th c.s (no Late Great Planet Earth or Left Behind; no David Koresh; etc.)
I hope in your upcoming book you will spend some time explaining how and why fundamentalist Christians combined revelations with John Birch-style conspiracy theory that spawned books like ” The Late Great Planet Earth”? I have already enjoyed and been enlightened by your comments on Revelations! Thank you!
What is the “book of life,” mentioned in the book of Rev., all about? How did it come about?
Thank’s
It has a long biblical history, and in Revelation refers to those who will live forever because of their commitment to Jesus, as opposed to everyone else who will be destroyed in the lake of fire.
Gallilian Yeshua’s (Jesus) God was not the absolute objective mercy. Yeshua preached mercy to those who follow his convictions & preached destruction to those who rejected his message. That is why he condemned Capernaum. The author of Revelation didn’t corrupt what was already the view but just had more elaborate delusional hallucinations
Thank you so much. I look forward to the continuation of this post. One more knife is taken out of my back… thanks to you.
Dear Bart,
“So it’s a challenge. And there is another challenge. I’ve completely changed my mind about the book …”
Fantastic !! You have completely changed your opinion on Revelation. Only a small number of people are willing to change even if the facts are obvious. You did mention this kind of situation in your debates. Change for the better is extremely important for progress yet few are willing to do it. You made the change simple because you had done more research, carefully rethink on the matter which eventually compelled you to make a better stand.
You accepted two challenges and willing to face more hard work to convince your readers. It shows you are a gentleman of great character.
Good luck! Bated breath . .
When I hear the old cliche, “The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath but the God of the New Testament is a God of love,” I think, “So much for God’s unchangeable nature.” In parts of the New Testament, God is a God of wrath against non-believers. The fate of non-believers (in Christ) is much worse vision than any punishment in the Old Testament.
The Tanakh, when not describing the destruction of Jericho and the like, teaches that God is a God of love, mercy, forgiveness, and justice (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 86:13, Psalm 103:8, Isaiah 49:13, Isaiah 30:18) and teaches that the Israelites should care for the widow, the stranger, the hungry, the poor, and the homeless. You do not find exhortations to the gentiles to believe as Jews believe or face eternal punishment in the way the New Testament and fundamentalist Christians insist that everyone must believe as they do or be condemned.
Really late to this party and solicits ifthis is off-topic, but you’re not alone in your thinking. Although it isn’t scholarly by any measure, the band Depeche Mode recorded a song in 2005 called “John the Revelator” which reflects this outlook- though put into angry poetic form. Not sure where your musical tastes lie but the lyrics are fascinating in light of your “revalation” here. The crux of the song is contained in this section:
“…By claiming God as his only rock
He’s stealing a God from the Israelite
Stealing a God from a Muslim, too
There is only one God through and through
Seven lies, multiplied by seven, multiplied by seven again…”
Weird coincidence, but apparently there are others with a similar take who are moved to write a very angry song about it.
I agree. I’ve been saying that the Jesus in Rev. is not the Jesus in the gospels for some years now. In Rev. Jesus forgets about love your neighbor, and love your enemy. He becomes like his hateful dad in the OT. In Rev. Jesus becomes like a Sci-Fi evil super villain.
I can’t wait until your book on Rev. is printed and available for purchase. All this blogging about it is just a tease.
So, if it is not a revelation of hope, despite depicting a despicable god to orchestrate his bloody road to divine utopia; its… a misguided revelation “ misunder[standing] the message of Jesus, not just a little but almost entirely” “ opposite of the teaching of Jesus.”. But, is it really that opposite? The basic apocalyptic story line seems to fit Jesus apocalyptic prediction, albeit with a lot of gory nasty detail way beyond the gnashing of some teeth.
Perhaps the differences lie not in the basic prediction/message but in the intent behind all the gory detail. Jesus it would seem sought audiences acceptance with a message of hope through righteousness, John stuck on Patmos sought to scare his unseen audience into righteousness while he vented his spleen against a (perhaps hated) world that had cast him out. Maybe its his despair driving all the horror?
He certainly hated Rome. It’s not clear to me what his personal situation actually was. (Everyone says he had been exiled to Patmos during a persecution, but I”m not sure that’s right. It *may* be! But he doesn’t actually say that)
Rev 1:9
“I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. ”
“because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” since Patmos “was used as a place of exile for convicts” (BTW I couldn’t find a historical source for that claim ) this passage seems to refer to John being imprisoned because of his condition of christian or in relation to it .
Question to Bart:
When you say that “Everyone says he had been exiled to Patmos during a persecution, but I”m not sure that’s right” you mean that:
1) You’re not sure if he was imprisoned ( he could be In Patmos for preaching for instance)
2) He was imprisoned but not necessarily in relation to a persecution
3) Another choice I can’t figure out.
P.D : I saw a link to Platinum Webinar for August but since I’m not a platinum member I can’t see what kind of webinars are , would you think you could post the titles of those webinars? Thanks a lot.
All it says it that he was on Patomos “beasue of the word of the God and the testimony of Jesus.” Does that mean that he was sent in exile as a punishment? Maybe. But it’s not what he says. Does it mean that he’s on the island in order to evangelize the inhabitants? Maybe. BUt it’s not what he says. Does he mean that he’s on the island in voluntary exile so that he can escape the temptations of the flesh back in Asia Minor and lead a more holy life? Maybe. But it’s not what he says. Etc. Etc. — you can think of other options too!
Yes , he didn’t explain exactly why he was there,and we can think of a lot of maybes .
“because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” suggest that preaching or imprisonment are the two most probable “maybes” for John being there.
Preaching in Patmos it’s not like preaching in Ephesus nor Corinth, Paul was smart in choosing those cities for two and one and a half years. But he also preached in Galatia (perhaps in relation to his illness?) so it’s not impossible for John to preach in Patmos.
On the other hand if Patmos really “was used as a place of exile for convicts” makes me think that the Maybe of “Does that mean that he was sent in exile as a punishment?” is the strongest.But, maybe not.
Bart,
“I give you every herb bearing seed and tree fruit bearing seed. It will be as food for you” – Genesis 1:29. Vegan diet, at least in Eden!
I noticed you often avoid comment on the ‘meatier’ portions of my posts. I’d rather hear what you think about “Son of the father Joseph” (cousin James JUSTUS) in the context of Matthias ‘replacing’ Judas at the point in time a successor should be being chosen for JESUS (Acts 1). And Judas “falling headlong” in Acts (Pseudoclementine Recognitions term at 1.70 on Paul killing JAMES). “His office let another take” (Acts 1:20) is not an apostleship, which is no ‘office,’ but fits a successor.
The Gospel of Judas succession narrative is a more reasonable Judas tradition than this one!
> There is no Matthias in Judas Gospel where Judas is “replaced by someone” (Gnostic succession of Jesus by James, 36.1-3, who is stoned by fellow disciples in the vision by Judas, 44.25). This last point is my very own. The rest are Dr. Robert Eisenman.
You really haven’t read Eisenman, have you? I met him. He is as smart as they come.
I once believed that Book of Revelation was divinely inspired because I felt that the humankind has really earned this kind of a fate because of their sins. I was happy about the coming destruction of evil and at the same time sad for those who had to suffer the eternal punishment just because they did not have a chance to hear about Jesus – and a little bit relieved that I myself was on a path to better eternity.
But now I see how evil my thoughts actually were. You are right. The Book of Revelation is evil and horrible – a production of a corrupted religious mind.
I wonder – what makes us support and maintain these horrible lies. I hope you find some answers.
Isn’t the contempt shown to non-believers by the book of Revelation mostly the same as the contempt shown to non-believers in other NT writings, such as 1 John?
To some extent yes, with a lot of graphic narrative detail!
Wow is this a fascinating post, for me personally. Some time ago (a couple years, maybe?) I posted here a personal observation, that, as a person who grew up with almost no Christian instruction, I couldn’t understand why so many people claim that Jesus and the NT expound a message of “Love.”
Love, I noted, is a word that is hardly ever found on the lips of Jesus.
And do you remember your reply? You bade me look again, and pointed, for example, to Matthew 25. Which — as much as I respect and enjoy your writings, pretty much all of which I’ve read — left me scratching my head. I frankly had to put it down to some unconscious bias caused by your evangelical education. Because for me, the plain reading of Matthew 25 is, “God will separate the world into two groups, and he will destroy one of them.”
Which is pretty much the message of Revelations, no?
Yes, he will. I’ll be arguing that it’s different from Revelation. The question is *why* he destroys people. It acdtually matters.
Quote Dr. Ehrman: “That will call into question what it might mean to say Revelation is a Christian book. It is certainly Christian to the extent the author considered himself a true and faithful follower of Jesus. But what if he misunderstood the message of Jesus, not just a little but almost entirely?” unquote
What about the possibility that John was stuck on Patmos experiencing ergot hallucinations?
One never knows. BUt of course one wants evidence for any claim…
Bart for once you got it right…your own words are truth everyone needs to heed for the end draws near:
“My view of Revelation is that its ruthless, vengeful God who destroys the majority of the human race stands in sharp contrast with the God of Jesus.”
and the most important:
“That includes your family, friends, neighbors, it includes everyone who has ever lived who has not committed to follow Jesus – that is, not merely the very large majority of the human race living now but, well, everyone for all time who did not follow ‘the lamb.'”
Stop intellectualizing and know the truth, Jesus is the only way to an eternal life with our creator God who is merciful but a just God.
Hey, it’s nice to get something right on occasion!
You might find evidence of sorts in a book and research in The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion with No Name
by Brian C. Muraresku
It’s a worthy read in regards to use of hallucinogens prier to and in early Christianity. Ergot, where LSD comes from, has a long history.
It would explain visions, like seeing Jesus after he died. They could have been hallucinating, from spiked wine.
It is a long history!
The most ancient sivilizations like for example the Sumarians, the Egyptians and the Indians have evidently been focusing on awakening, and in particular what they claim 7 spiritual centers. This methology and theology is still the most central point among the world largest religions (Buddism and Hinduism). The point is to basically to unseal these centers, and “balance” spiritualize those until a return til unity/divinity.
When you take the 7 spiritual centers, the power increases the higher you come, all represented in 144000 petals, an energy which they think flow through the spine, and being collected into the 24 carnial nerves before they enter the two highest chakras which is related to the Pineal gland (6) and the Pituitary gland (7) which is 1000 times as powerful as the below. In their traditions (ancient Sumarian, ancient Egyptians, and present Hindu/Buddistic) the Pineal gland can be evolved to get a divine connection (much like Jacob in Genisis where he met God face to face in “Pinel”. This could be allegorical or coinsidental,,,who knows, but it was there he got his spiritual name “Israel”.
Anyway, the interesting thing is that, beside using different external substances and methodes, and like the quite famous author Graham Hancock so eagerly advocates , the body, by itself, naturally produces this substance which scientists call “the God gene”called Vesicular Monoamine Transporter 2 (VMAT2). This have the capacity to transcend/evolve the human conciousness into spirituality, spiritual-mystical experiences. So the brain through whollely or partly through the Pineal gland (call it the 6th center, the 6 chakra,,,,and more) , have the capacity to even produce much more.
That means that our own natural body has capasity to lift ourself up to such levels and can probably explain many kind of visions, dreams, extatic spiritual journeys, and probably also NDE’s.
So kt, do you think John on Patmos was seeing the visions in Rev, from his highest Chakra? Did he even know about Chakras?
I don’t know exactly where the visions are seen from/through. Perhaps it is as written in 1 Corinthians 3:16 where it says, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” Perhaps all the centers are involved, if the Revelaton is in fact a spiritual visjon or journey and not something that is chopped out of the head based on ideas that were known at the time.
If he knew about Chakras?
The idea among those who have studied visions/dreams and such from a scientific level, indicates that these originate from a much deeper state of our consciousness / non-consciousness. The symbols, the visions are thought of presenting themself on a personal ajusted level, but at the same time often very difficult to interpret without skilled help. It is my understanding that these symbols can appear even you don’t know much about them before. You can for example see that this “Mandala” symbols appear througout all regions of the ancient world (on almost , if not all the worlds contintents), and perhahps also in part of Gnosticism included in the 5 seal symbol in the bookof of IEOU .
Continue:
Cont:
But on the other hand, he could have had knowledge about these centers. It was then present among most of the world population through Buddhism (500 BC) and Hinduism (older than 500 BC) where most people lived almost 2000 years ago. The Indian “Upanishads” are full of technique and philosophy about these consepts, like seen in the Kundulini meditation. The Kunduline symbols are seems also to be found in ancient Egypt and also an artifact from ancient Sumaria (2500 BC).
So I wouldn’t be surprised if John the revelator could have had knowledge about this view about the 7 spirital centers
Interesting answer kt. Thanks.
“And I think that’s the view I’ll be laying out in my book.” So you are writing a book on Revelation? When is the release date of this book?
I just started writing it. It will probably be out in teh late fall 2022 or spring 2023.
Dr. Ehrman,
When do you date the book of Revelation and for what reasons? I’ve heard folks date it prior to 70 and then I’ve heard mid 90s. I would love to hear your belief and reasons.
I’ll be dealing with it in my book. I don’t think it can be before the mid-90s in its final form. Some of its traditions, of course, may be older. THe arguments for the later date are a bit complicated, but they are arued at length in arious places, including Adele Yarbro Collins, Crisis and CAtharsis. A simple point, thoough, is the stress o nRome as “Babylon” shows that it was written after Rome had destroyed the temple in 70 CE