(10 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...To most modern readers, the Apocalypse of John seems mystical and bizarre, quite unlike anything else that they have read or, well, want to read. In part, this explains some (other) peoples’ fascination with the book—it is so strange, so unearthly, that its descriptions cannot simply have been dreamt up. Its supernatural feel seems to vindicate its supernatural character.
The historian who approaches the book, however, sees it in a somewhat different light, for this was not the only book of its kind to be written in the ancient world, even if it is the only one that most of us have ever read.
As with all genres (novels, epic poems, short stories, limericks) apocalypses shared a number of literary conventions that made them different from other kinds of writing. If
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Did the Romans speak koine greek in Pauls day?
The elite and other educated ones often did.
I have two off topic questions I believe Professor Ehrman can briefly answer. (1) I am perusing, “Christianity an ancient Egyptian Religion” by Ahmed Osman. It presents a materially different vision of last century bce and first two centuries CE. What gives, sir? (2) is there any material that describes the struggle among the five centers of Christianity that resulted in Rome’s selection? Respectfully submitted.
I don’t know the book or the author (or his qualifications). So I’m not sure what gives. But there’s no way Xty started in Egypt!!
Not that I know of. I don’t think it was a competition with a declared winner, so much as a natural development over time.
Dr. Bart Erhman,
Do you think that the author of Revelation believed that the events depicted in the book would actually happen possibly as the result of a vision or some other divine inspiration? Or was this just a fictional story that teaches important spiritual truths? I know that this would be hard if not impossible to figure out since you can’t interview the author. But are there any studies of modern mythmaking, e.g. Pizzagate conspiracy theory that could shed light on this question?
The big problem is that the author is not around to ask. Since most of his early readers took it as a literal description, th we would normally assume he did too. The reason not to I suppose is that it seems way too bizarre to be believable, but that’s probably not a good reason to think that someone else did not think it was entirely believable…
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
Have you heard the term
‘Progressive Revelation’ ?
Meaning the concept that divine truths are revealed by God to humanity in stages over time, not all at once. This idea explains why different parts of scripture might seem different, suggesting that God’s message built upon itself and was progressively clarified, with later revelations fulfilling and clarifying earlier ones
What do you think of this idea Bart?
Thanks.
Yes, it was a view I held as an evangelical. It was a convenient way of explaining some of the contradicitons and tensions in the Bible. I think it can be shown pretty easily to be flawed. (E.g., when God tells Abraham that circumcsion is an “eternal covenant” — why would he say that if he knew full well that it was a termporary one?)
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
You said in a previous comment the church father’s did typically believe in eternal torment. I agree with you the Bible and Jesus and Paul and John the Baptist didn’t teach eternal torment. Why would the church fathers who were soon after Jesus missinterpret or flip the destruction and annihilationism view that Jesus taught on its head?
Thanks.
Ah, again, let me ask you to read my book on Heaven and Hell. It takes about a chapter to explain how they shifted from the idea of future resurrection to a view of eternal reward and punishment!
Off topic. Mark 9:1, Jesus says …”until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” Mark writes 40 or so years after Jesus dies and still says that this kingdom is coming with power. It’s been 40 years, not much has happened and Nero as persecuted some Christians – not much power. Why does Mark use that word power? Did the destruction of the temple signal the coming of the kingdom? Did Mark really think Jesus said those words and wanted to be faithful? Or does Mark just think it is still coming and soon?
It is usually understood to mean that the kingdom would not ease into the world, but wuld come with a mighty act of God that destroys all his enemies. My sense is that it’s something close to what Jesus said, and mark is replicating it, and probably does still think it’s soon to arrive. It’s interesting that Luke, writing later, drops the words “in power” — probalby because Luke (unlike Mark) thinks the kingdom is already being manifest here on earth in the work of Jesus and his followrs.disabledupes{4ee9f68f4062ad0173839731e618e438}disabledupe
A number of years ago I did an informal study on the evolution of Christian eschatology. I wished I would have had the ambition to turn it into an MDiv thesis. I discovered few, if any Christians in the pews (or pulpit, for that matter) knew there was an evolution in thought. Does your book Heaven and Hell cover that subject? I need another book to read.
Yup. And yup, most evangelicals think the “rapture” has always been a major Christian doctrine. Nope. Invented in 1830. (So i deal with this kind of thing)
I have just started reading the book “The Fourth Synoptic Gospel” by Mark Goodacre. It’s got some interesting stuff but I’m wondering if you’re planning on reading it. Because, if you do then I’d love it if you would have a blog post on it. Or if you have any thoughts on it now then let me know to what extent you currently agree or disagree with the main ideas in reply to this comment. Thanks in advance for any comments.
He and I are having a “Face to Face on the Bible” discussion of it on October 26. You can find out about it at my website, http://www.bartehrman.com disabledupes{b685b34c5f7de03378ef4ac2492162f9}disabledupes
You say here that Paul was one prominent apocalypticist we know of although he did not write an apocalypse. Do you see 2 Cor 12:2-4 (his mention of a trip to the third heaven) as at least a reference to this style/genre of writing? There is an element of pseudonymity here in that he does not say outright that it was he who had this experience.
I don’t see that passage as an apocalypse, in terms of genre, no. One of the points of apocalypses is that they precisely do reveal what was heard and said, and Paul explicitly indicates he is not allowed to say. (Also, apocalypses tend to be more than a few verses)
The word ‘Apocalypse’ frequently brings to mind ‘Apocalypse Now’, based on ‘ Heart of Darkness’. Are they good examples of modern Apocalypses?
Yup. And very much worth reading and watching. I used to have my students watch Apocalypse Now when I taught a class called “Apocalypse Now and Then”