This seminar will feature 12 weeks of blog discussion by six participants; this general post is the first volley in the series. Then, sometime in September (date to be determined), there will be a conference in Austin where the participants will each present a paper dealing with some aspect of these particular chapters. (I already have an idea for mine!) It should be great fun, and I'm looking forward to the experience.
After this initial post, the other weeks will be devoted to small portions of the text, on the order of three to five verses, so we will really drill down into some fine detail as the weeks progress. For this initial foray, it seems to me that we ought to focus on broader contextual issues affecting the chapters as a whole, and indeed the rest of the Apocalypse of which these chapters form the conclusion.
As I reread the chapters, I thought of two broad issues that I would like to roll out there for discussion. (Others should of course feel free to raise other broad, contextual issues in the comments to this post.)
1. The first is, to what extent are we constrained in our readings by modern scripture?
I'll give two illustrations, and then show how this issue arises in our selected chapters.
The first illustration has to do with who authored this book. The traditional position is that the "John" of Revelation is the Apostle John. This is certainly the most common point of view of the early external evidence, such as titles of the book as they developed in the manuscripts and attributions in the Church Fathers (the most notable exception being Dionysius). But my impression, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that on internal grounds most modern scholars would agree with Dionysius that the Gospel of John and Revelation could not have been written by the same man. These scholars acknowledge that Revelation was written by an otherwise unknown "John," just not the Apostle with that name. The Book of Mormon, however, clearly identifies the Apostle John as the author of Revelation (see 1 Nephi 14:18-27 and Ether 4:16). So does a modern Mormon student have leave to conclude that the Apostle John was not the author of Revelation, the Book of Mormon passages notwithstanding? Why or why not?
The second illustration has to do with basic approaches to the material in Revelation. The LDS Institute Manual for the NT in Section 12 describes basic scholarly approaches to Revelation. Under the caption "The Non-prophetic View" the authors describe two approaches. One is the preterist approach, which was influenced by the historical-critical schools of the scholarship of the last couple of centuries. According to this view, Revelation is describing events of the author's own day. Another school is the idealists, who read Revelation allegorically. Under the caption "The Prophetic View," the authors similarly describe two different approaches. The historicists see Revelation as describing the history of the church from the time it was written to the day of judgment. So while this material was future from John's perspective, most of it is past from ours. Finally, the futurists see the material in the book (after the letters to the churches) as relating to the last days.
The manual goes on to describe in contrast "A View Based on Latter-day Revelation." Since D&C 77:6-7 suggests that the seven seals represent the whole of the world's history in seven 1,000-year periods, we might call this the "dispensanionalist" approach. Given that according to this view the material in Revelation sweeps through the whole of human history, this suggests that portions of Revelation could be read from a preterist point of view, portions from an historicist point of view, but the bulk of the material from a futurist point of view (with perhaps a little allegorizing thrown in for good measure).
But are we bound to read Revelation that way? If there is relevant material in D&C 77, or 29, or 88, does that material in all events take precedence over how we may read the text?
The reason I am raising this issue is that it will affect profoundly how we read our given text, since much of that text has to do with something called the New Jerusalem. The idea of a New Jerusalem has a specific meaning in traditional Mormon sources. As summarized in McConkie, DNTC, 3:580-81 (and quoted in the Institute Manual):
The first illustration has to do with who authored this book. The traditional position is that the "John" of Revelation is the Apostle John. This is certainly the most common point of view of the early external evidence, such as titles of the book as they developed in the manuscripts and attributions in the Church Fathers (the most notable exception being Dionysius). But my impression, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that on internal grounds most modern scholars would agree with Dionysius that the Gospel of John and Revelation could not have been written by the same man. These scholars acknowledge that Revelation was written by an otherwise unknown "John," just not the Apostle with that name. The Book of Mormon, however, clearly identifies the Apostle John as the author of Revelation (see 1 Nephi 14:18-27 and Ether 4:16). So does a modern Mormon student have leave to conclude that the Apostle John was not the author of Revelation, the Book of Mormon passages notwithstanding? Why or why not?
The second illustration has to do with basic approaches to the material in Revelation. The LDS Institute Manual for the NT in Section 12 describes basic scholarly approaches to Revelation. Under the caption "The Non-prophetic View" the authors describe two approaches. One is the preterist approach, which was influenced by the historical-critical schools of the scholarship of the last couple of centuries. According to this view, Revelation is describing events of the author's own day. Another school is the idealists, who read Revelation allegorically. Under the caption "The Prophetic View," the authors similarly describe two different approaches. The historicists see Revelation as describing the history of the church from the time it was written to the day of judgment. So while this material was future from John's perspective, most of it is past from ours. Finally, the futurists see the material in the book (after the letters to the churches) as relating to the last days.
The manual goes on to describe in contrast "A View Based on Latter-day Revelation." Since D&C 77:6-7 suggests that the seven seals represent the whole of the world's history in seven 1,000-year periods, we might call this the "dispensanionalist" approach. Given that according to this view the material in Revelation sweeps through the whole of human history, this suggests that portions of Revelation could be read from a preterist point of view, portions from an historicist point of view, but the bulk of the material from a futurist point of view (with perhaps a little allegorizing thrown in for good measure).
But are we bound to read Revelation that way? If there is relevant material in D&C 77, or 29, or 88, does that material in all events take precedence over how we may read the text?
The reason I am raising this issue is that it will affect profoundly how we read our given text, since much of that text has to do with something called the New Jerusalem. The idea of a New Jerusalem has a specific meaning in traditional Mormon sources. As summarized in McConkie, DNTC, 3:580-81 (and quoted in the Institute Manual):
To envision what is meant by this title [i.e., New Jerusalem], we must know
these five facts:
1. Ancient Jerusalem, the city of much of our Lord's personal ministry among men, shall be rebuilt in the last days and become one of the two great world capitals, a millennial city from which the word of the Lord shall go forth.
2. A New Jerusalem, a new Zion, a city of God shall be built on the American continent.
3. Enoch's city, the original Zion, "the City of Holiness. . . . was taken up into heaven." (Moses 7:13-21)
4. Enoch's city, with its translated inhabitants now in their resurrected state, shall return, as a New Jerusalem, to join with the city of the same name which has been built on the American continent.
5. When the earth becomes a celestial sphere "that great city, the holy Jerusalem," shall again descend "out of heaven from God," as this earth becomes the abode of
celestial beings forever. (Rev. 21:10-27)
2. The second issue for reflection I would like to roll out there is whether the traditional ordering of the material in our chapters is completely messed up.
I happen to have in my home library two different commentaries on Revelation: the two-volume International Critical Commentary by R.H. Charles and the Anchor Bible volume by J. Massyngberde Ford, which I bought used at a terrific religion used book store called Loomis near Minneapolis. I wanted to read through what these commentaries had to say on our selected chapters. Boy, was that a frustrating experience! Both commentaries assume that the original order and structure of this material was different than the traditional order, and so they present their commentary material in their posited order. It was very frustrating trying to locate particular verses this way. But my question is, is this German scholarship run amuck (especially given the lack of any textual evidence for these theories), or do we think there may actually be something to this conjecture?
The Anchor Bible volume has a two-page excursus at pp. 38-39 explaining this, under the caption "The Last Two Chapters." (This caption is a mistake; it is clear from the discussion that the author means the last three chapters. My guess is that he visually saw chapters 20-22 mathematically as 22-20=2, but of course chapters 20-22 inclusively totals three chapters, not two.) Ford points out that the text in various places in chapter 20 seems to fit badly. For example, the future tense occurs in 20:7, "Satan will be released," but then two verses later the past tense is used, where Gog and Magog and their forces "marched" and "surrounded." He gives several further examples.
The textual difficulties in chapters 21 and 22 are even greater. In particular, there are two different descriptions of the New Jerusalem that conflict with one another. At this point, I'll quote Ford:
P. Gaechter concludes that there are two new Jerusalems, one which coexists with the present world (21:9-22:2) and one which is eternal (21:1-4c, 22:3-5). the former will last until the disappearance of this heaven and this earth, and will then be replaced by the latter. The eternal city is the same as the temporal but it is transformed. According to Gaechter, the two descriptions follow one another in the wrong order. The description of the city which is of this earth should come before that of the eternal city: 21:9-22:2 and then 21:1-4c with 22:3-5. Gaechter also believes that the duration of the city on earth corresponds to the thousand years and the period of the chaining and imprisonment of Satan. When Satan is chained the way is opened for the conversion of the nations which the millennial Jerusalem resupposes; 20:3, cf. 21:4.
Gaechter suggests a triplet: 20:1-3, the chaining of Satan "for a thousand years"; 21:1-22:2, the millennial Jerusalem; 20:4-6, Christ and his saints reigning "for a thousand years." He brings chs. 20-22 into close relationship to Rev. 12. The millennial Jerusalem is the woman who is protected from Satan by his imprisonment. After the millennium there is another triplet of scenes: 20:7-10, Satan's release, last onslaught, and final ruin; 20:11-15, the last judgment and the condemnation of the wicked; 21:1-4c, 22:3-5, the eternal Jerusalem.
The book ends with the conclusion of the visions (22:7b, 10-13, 16b-17b, 20) of the epistle (22:21) and of the prophecy itself (22:18-19). the present writer believes that 22:16a, 20b, 21 are Christian interpolations akin to chs. 1-3. . . .
Satan's chaining 20:1-3
Millennial Jerusalem 21:9-22:2, 22:14-15 clausulae
Millennial Kingdom 20:4-6
Satan Unchained 20:7-10
Last Judgment 20:11-15
Eternal Jerusalem 21:1-4c, 22:3-5, 21:5ab, 4d, 5c-6, 7 clausulae
Conclusion of the Visions 22:10-13, 7b, 16b-17b, 20
Conclusion of the Epistle 22:21
Conclusion of the Book 22:18-19
So what do you think about this? The revised order makes sense, but is it necessary? Do you buy that it is original?
And again, feel free to roll out any other broad issues for reflection you would like the group to consider.
Kevin, thank you so much for getting the ball rolling. This is a fabulous post with all sorts of interesting things to think about.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on your thoughts:
You ask, "So does a modern Mormon student have leave to conclude that the Apostle John was not the author of Revelation, the Book of Mormon passages notwithstanding? Why or why not?"
The answer to that question might be tied up in one's theory of translation of the Book of Mormon. I would ask this question in return: Are there any instances when our identification of the author makes a substantive difference in our interpretation of the book? (And I ask that as an honest question, not as a disguised argument.) If there aren't, we may be able to avoid wading into this very large can of worms . . .
You ask, "But are we bound to read Revelation that way? If there is relevant material in D&C 77, or 29, or 88, does that material in all events take precedence over how we may read the text?"
Such great questions! My own sense is that the best option is something different than any of the ones that you suggest. We might instead focus on the word "signified" in 1:1 as a key word to understanding what exactly the author was writing (i.e., what genre). The Revelation is "signified," that is, presented in signs or symbols. The reader has to work to determine whether the signs refer to events in John's present, John's future (but our past), our future, or more than one time period.
In other words, I think that all of the main schools of thought are too restrictive; the only blanket assumption we can make about Revelation is that the material will be presented symbolically.
I don't see anything in any of the D & C sections that wouldn't mesh with what I've laid out above and I see support for this reading from, for example, D & C 77:2 leading out with the idea that the beasts are "figurative expressions."
I'm not sure that the reader any more obligated to take the "thousand years" mentioned in D & C 77:7 literally than we take the "six days" of v12.
I agree that "the material in Revelation sweeps through the whole of human history," but I am not convinced that the presentation of the material in Revelation is literal or chronological.
"So my question to you is, to what extent are we bound by this schema in discussing the New Jerusalem of our Revelation chapters? Do we need to relate it in some material way to, say, Jackson County, Missouri? Why or why not?"
My sense is that if we are to err in reading Revelation, we should err on the side of a "too symbolic" reading instead of a "too literal" one. If we go too literal, we run the risk of missing the deeper meaning of the Revelation. If we go too symbolic . . . well, I'm guessing we'll know what the score is if we stumble upon a beast with seven heads some day, so no damage will have been done. :)
"But my question is, is this German scholarship run amuck (especially given the lack of any textual evidence for these theories), or do we think there may actually be something to this conjecture?"
I haven't read either of those (well, I read parts of the Anchor but that was over a decade ago . . .), but I recently read Beale's NIGTC and Mounce's NICNT and I can't remember either of them dwelling on that issue. I am suspicious of proposed textual changes without manuscript support, because it is so much easier to claim that the text is out of order than to figure out why the author might have ordered the material as it is. ;)
"My guess is that he visually saw chapters 20-22 mathematically as 22-20=2, but of course chapters 20-22 inclusively totals three chapters, not two."
This always gives me headaches, but math was never my strong suit. . .
Thanks again, Kevin, for some thought-provoking questions.
Excellent responses, Julie!
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julie that you’ve provided for us here an excellent set of opening questions. Nice work!
As it turns out, I think that I agree with practically all of Julie’s responses.
1. You ask if, as Mormons, we should feel compelled to conclude that the author of Revelation was the apostle John. Julie responds:
"The answer to that question might be tied up in one's theory of translation of the Book of Mormon."I think that this is right. We may feel compelled to give it an extra hard look, but it seems to me to be a reasonable option to conclude that Joseph Smith may have had a relatively “constructive” part to play in translating the text (rather than simply translating it word for word) and, if so, then it would acceptable to conclude that the ascription of the book’s authorship to John may be an (inconsequential?) contribution made by Joseph himself.
2. You ask:
"If there is relevant material in D&C 77, or 29, or 88, does that material in all events take precedence over how we may read the text?"I think that we should approach these sections as important resources for Revelation, especially if we are primarily interested in producing a reading of the text that is “doctrinal” or institutionally normative.
However, I think that the primary text is more than sufficiently rich to allow for a variety of theologically productive readings. Perhaps I’ll send through the email list a brief article from our work on the Alma 32 seminar where I try to describe, in general, the kind of “theological” freedom we have in approaching a scriptural texts.
With respect to the text’s over-abundance of meaning, I think that Julie’s right on the money when she says that:
"I think that all of the main schools of thought are too restrictive; the only blanket assumption we can make about Revelation is that the material will be presented symbolically."Julie also says:
"I am not convinced that the presentation of the material in Revelation is literal or chronological."I agree, but would amend this just slightly and say that I’m not convinced that the presentation of material in Revelation is either just literal or just chronological. I don’t want to rule these possibilities out - though, for my part, I intend to err with Julie on the side of being too symbolic (and “existential”) rather than too literal.
3. These things being said, I’d like to add a note/question of my own.
In past seminars we’ve found it to be very helpful to collaboratively generate (before we start reading the text) a short list of questions that interest us. I’d like to propose a couple (in addition to those already raised by Kevin) that interest me. Sorry that they are a bit obviously philosophical in spirit – blame Julie for inviting me :)
a. What does the term “new” mean in Rev 21-22?
b. What can we say about what a “symbol” is or does on the basis of Rev 21-22?
c. Why do numbers play such an important role in Rev 21-22?
Please add to this list with your own general questions!
My best,
Adam
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDisregard the last comment or two. I'm just seeing if I can get the recent comments widget to work.
ReplyDeleteThe following is from Eric Huntsman, who is having some posting difficulties at this time.
ReplyDeleteEric's comments:
"A few initial thoughts. First of all, on the authorship issue there is another outside possibility that might be worth at least considering: the apostle John might, in fact, have been the author of Revelation and NOT necessarily the "author," in the modern sense, of the other works in the Johannine corpus. The quality of the Greek itself, heavily semiticized and exhibiting grammatical difficulties, seems more like the work of a Jew with little or poor Greek. Without bringing in the whole issue of the compositional theories surrounding the Fourth Gospel, perhaps John was the BD (Beloved Disciple, a point still largely argued) but not the FE (Fourth Evangelist) or final editor(s). 1 John has thematic and literary similarities with the Fourth Gospel, but nothing clearly connects 2 and 3 John except the postulated Sitz im Leben.
As Book of Mormon readings clearly impact the authorship issue for most Latter-day Saints, D&C 77 similarly affects how many of us feel that we need to look at interpretive approaches to Revelation. However, one could argue that this dispensationalist approach applies solely to Revelation 4-11, the visions in or connected to the seven sealed scroll. This is a tightly structured inclusio, with the open door in heaven at the beginning and the open temple at the end. While 12:1-22:7 can be seen as a restatement of the same basic events and issues, I do not know that the dispensationalist approach necessarily obtains in the block of text that we will be looking at.
Finally, I may be guilty of compartmentalizing, but I think that there is utility in examining the text in its own context fully and independently before bringing in outside material to inform our interpretation. I always have my students due strict exegesis first, looking at the text itself and allowing only texts that the author had at the time of the composition (in this case Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel, etc.) affect done can they then, as an exercise of exposition, reflection, and application, bring in later scripture, restoration theology, and statements by authorities. I know that we cannot totally escape our world view and belief structures, but it is useful in a class setting, at least, to challenge students to engage the text itself.
That said, this is an LDS-oriented blog, and I have a personal interest in working to bring exegesis and exposition together. I simply reviewed this elementary approach, because my preference is to examine the text first and then shape is in subsequent readings and discussions. Also pardon the undigested nature of my first comments here; I am operating under extreme jet lag and 3 hours of sleep!"
1. Eric says:
ReplyDelete"There is another outside possibility that might be worth at least considering: the apostle John might, in fact, have been the author of Revelation and NOT necessarily the "author," in the modern sense, of the other works in the Johannine corpus."Nice point.
2. Eric also says:
"I always have my students due strict exegesis first, looking at the text itself and allowing only texts that the author had at the time of the composition . . . I know that we cannot totally escape our world view and belief structures, but it is useful in a class setting, at least, to challenge students to engage the text itself."I agree entirely that this is essential. Hopefully doing this kind of very close textual work together will be one of the joys of this seminar.
Hello to all,
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful opportunity to touch minds on this topic. Thanks to Julie for setting all of this up, to Adam for the original concept, and to Kevin for setting the stage for us.
I'd like to respond to a couple of issues mentioned by Kevin and developed further in the responses. (And I hope all will forgive my lack of formatting knowledge in blog-world.)
1. As Kevin asked: "To what extent are we constrained in our readings by modern scripture?"
Eric responded to this question: "Finally, I may be guilty of compartmentalizing, but I think that there is utility in examining the text in its own context fully and independently before bringing in outside material to inform our interpretation."
I completely agree with this statement by Eric. First we need to immerse ourselves in the text itself and let it speak in its own voice, as much as possible. However, as Eric mentioned, it is difficult to let the text speak for itself when our own previous viewpoints and backgrounds are so inextricably interwoven into the way we view the text (although this doesn't absolve us from trying). We are at even greater difficulty when we start to look at the context, or the set of historical circumstances surrounding the text. Immediately we are dependent upon outside readings and assumptions, and it is important to remember that our thinking is affected by them all: the viewpoints and biases of historians of that time period (depending on exactly what time period we believe we're looking at), the methods of analyzing ancient languages and ancient authors that we have received from other scholars, the viewpoints of modern biblical scholarship from the past couple of centuries, etc.
My experience has been that LDS scholars of scripture are often more deeply affected and influenced by scholarship and viewpoints outside of modern LDS scripture than other LDS members. This is not surprising, given their increased level of study, nor is it necessarily a negative, as it allows the LDS scholar to present insights, issues, and thoughts to LDS membership that have been gleaned from many good minds and much good research.
However, in response to Kevin's original question, I think that in this setting it is important that modern scripture should color the way in which we understand all other thinking about the "context" of the scripture text. Modern scripture can act as an effective check and balance to our own thinking, and can reveal to us when we have possibly absorbed too many other influences outside of the scripture text. This point is likely very elementary, but bears mentioning, I believe.
On the other hand, if we are to use modern LDS scripture to inform our reading of Revelation, the question still needs to be asked whether we understand modern scripture correctly, or whether our understanding of modern scripture has been taken too casually, having accepted inherited interpretations without a second thought. For example, with regards to Nephi's identification of the writer of Revelation as John, a cursory reading would indicate that we are constrained to see the author of Revelation as the apostle John with whom we are familiar in the gospels. However, further thought and study offers a number of other possibilities, one of them mentioned by Adam in his response. Another possibility exists that Nephi uses the term "apostle" in the broader context of the word, "one sent forth," as one given a specific mission to testify of Christ, as the author of Revelation does (Rev. 1:9, 19:10), and not to identify John with the apostle from the gospels. While the identification of the author of Revelation with the apostle John of the gospels stills seems the best understanding of 1 Nephi to me, other possibilities do exist. The same can be said for how we typically understand D&C 77 (and other modern scriptures), as Eric shows in his response about the seven dispensational seals in Revelation.
2. Should our analysis tend toward a symbolic or literal interpretation of our text? I appreciate Julie's viewpoint in this area, augmented by Adam's statement: "I’m not convinced that the presentation of material in Revelation is either just literal or just chronological. I don’t want to rule these possibilities out - though, for my part, I intend to err with Julie on the side of being too symbolic... rather than too literal."
I find additional support for this stance in Joseph Smith's discussion of Revelation, which he only took up towards the end of his life because an LDS member (Elder Brown) had interpreted sections of the text too literally, and had erred in his interpretations. In response to this, Joseph stated:
"I have seldom spoken from the revelations; but as my subject is a constant source of speculation amongst the elders, causing a division of sentiment and opinion in relation to it, I now do it in order that division and difference of opinion may be done away with." (History of the Church, 5:339-40)
Later in the same discourse he stated: "I make this broad declaration, that where God ever gives a vision of an image, or beast,or figure of any kind, he always holds himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don't be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure where God has not given a revelation or interpretation on the subject." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 290)
In his own discussion of Revelation, Joseph at times used his prophetic prerogative to give literal interpretations, such as his declaration that the animals in Revelation 5 show that there are animals in heaven (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 290). However, as illustrated by Julie above in the wording of D&C 77:2a, his interpretations just as often treated the images in Revelation as figurative.
There is a tendency for us to want immediate, one-to-one, literal interpretations of all things in Revelation so that we can check it off as understood and leave it behind. However, assigning literal interpretations would often miss the point of Revelation: the images there are meant to teach the serious reader important lessons about the battle of good versus evil and about God's plan for His children. The use of symbolic language offers a depth of interconnected meanings for the text that can invite deeper understanding of the principles of the gospel. The understanding of these principles is at least as important, and possibly more important, than any literal, one-to-one equivalent that we might assign to the text.
So, while we may need to pay some attention to what specific New Jerusalem the text is referring to, it will probably be more important for us to discuss why Revelation includes a description of the New Jerusalem (instead of the myriad of other ways to describe a victory of good over evil), why it describes the specific elements of the New Jerusalem as it does (instead of the myriad of other elements that could exist in a description of the heavenly city), and why the description of the New Jerusalem takes such a prominent place at the end of the book.
These promise to be exciting discussions. I'm looking forward to getting into the text next week and seeing what it has to offer.
Best,
Shon Hopkin
In response to Julie's "I think that all of the main schools of thought are too restrictive; the only blanket assumption we can make about Revelation is that the material will be presented symbolically."
ReplyDeleteI agree . . . for the most part. Views on the structure of Revelation differ, particularly on the question of whether the visions in Rev 4-11 and 12-22 cover the same material but from different perspectives or whether they actually constitute two different sets of material with only some overlap (e.g., are the 7 trumpet judgments of 8:7-11:18 the same as 7 bowls of 16:1-21).
I tend to see some visions as being *primarily* preterist, historicist, or futurist, but the the overarching importance of them can always be taken symbolically. Accordingly, even though a more-or-less "straightforward" reading of D&C 77 would tend to incline many LDS readers to interpret the seven seals of 6:1-11:18 eclectically (first four seals as preterist, fifth seal as contemporaneous with the seer, some of the sixth as historicist, and the rest of the sixth and seventh as futurist), the fact is that the kind of judgments and destructions that are emphasized in each dispensation in fact happen in all (famine would not be limited to the third, for instance) and are most important in terms of seeing God's judgment on the wicked and his vindication of his saints.
I tend to see the Second Revelatory Experience of 12:1–22:5 as having its primary fulfillment in the eschatological future (the dicey issue of LDS intepretations of ch. 12 notwithstanding), but the symbolic value of these visions made still gave them significance for Revelation's original audience, for people in the middle ages, and for us, even if we are not as close to the "winding up scene" as many assume.
A few more preliminaries.
ReplyDeleteSince some of our readers may be new to the study of Revelation, I thought it might be useful to post a few working points or characterizations, which I do not intend to be definitive or dogmatic:
Attributed Author: “John” (1:1, 4, 9), a Jewish–Christian prophet; early patristic evidence and latter–day revelation tend to confirm his identity as the apostle John, son of Zebedee and brother of James. Later patristic evidence identified him with a separate “elder,” and much modern scholarship tries to question the traditional identification.
Date: Either late in the reign of Nero (c. A.D. 64–68) or, more probably, in the later phases of the reign of Domitian (c. A.D. 92–96)
To: “Seven Churches” in Asia Minor (1:4; 2:1–22)
From: Island of Patmos, perhaps put in final form in the Roman Province of Asia (possibly the city of Ephesus itself)
Unity and Integrity: a single work, but possible composed in stages, incorporating some older apocalyptic materials; some scholars see two apocalypses have been joined.
Literary Genre: an “apocalypse” (1:1; 4:1), with an epistolary frame (letter–like introduction and conclusion – 1:4; 22:21)
Language: highly symbolic Greek, including some Semitic influences
Purpose: to encourage Christians to preserve faith in the midst of trials and tribulations (cf. 13:10b; 14:12); to reveal the full glory and majesty of Christ in his role as Judge and King and illustrate his role in human history (past and present as well as future).
One overview of its structure:
Prologue (1:1–3)
Letters to the Seven Churches (1:4–3:22), including John’s “inaugural vision” in 1:9–20
First Revelatory Experience (4:1–11:19)
• The Opened Door in Heaven (4:1a)
• Vision of the Heavenly Court: God and the Lamb (4:1b–11)
• The Seven–Sealed Scroll (5:1–11.19)
• The Scroll and the Lamb (5:1–14)
• Opening the First Six Seals (6:1–7:17)
• Seventh Seal and the Seven Trumpets (8:1–11:18)
• The Opened Temple in Heaven (11:19)
Second Revelatory Experience (12:1–22:5)
• The Woman, Child, and Dragon (12:1–17)
• The Demonic Trinity: Dragon and Two Beasts (12:18–14:20)
• The Lamb and His Servants (14:1–20)
• Seven Plagues and Seven Bowls (15:1–16:21)
• Judgment on Babylon, the Great Harlot (17:1–19:10)
• Victory of Christ (19:11–20:15)
• New Heaven and New Earth (21:1–22:5)
The Letter Resumes: Epilogue and Blessing (22:6–21)
Kevin noted the commentaries by Charles and Ford that he has referred to. I thought that I would list a few reference works, since I may refer to them in my first foray into blog commentary this week as I begin to treat 21:1-4.
ReplyDeleteIntroductions:
Four Views on the Book of Revelation, edited by C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).
Bruce R. Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993).
Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary, edited by Steve Gregg (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997. [this useful reference summarizes the approaches of the four interpretive schools pericope by pericope]
Scholarly references and commentaries:
G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible 38 (New York: Doubleday, 1975.
[Ford advanced the idea that the John of Revelation was actually John the Baptist, and that the apocalypse was later reshaped by a Christian editor . . . while anecdotal comments suggest that she abandoned this position, I always thought that it was interesting given the way Nephi received an expanded version of Lehi's dream and wondered about the possibility of a connection between JBaptist and John the Beloved]
Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
LDS references:
Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol 3: Colossians - Revelation (SLC: Bookcraft, 1973).
Richard Draper, Opening the Seven Seals: The visions of John the Revelator (SLC: Deseret Book, 1991).
Does anyone know of any other LDS commentaries? I provided the chapter on Revelation in Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament, but it was only meant as an introductory overview and not a sustained, careful analysis.
I have very much enjoyed reading the various responses to Kevin's initial set of questions. I have found your thoughts to be both enlightening and enjoyably provocative of further thought. Below, I return to a few of Kevin's first queries by way of Adam and Shon's recent responses, but do so most directly by taking up a few points made by Julie, and as an amplification of a point made yesterday by Eric.
ReplyDeleteFirst, to the question of being constrained in our readings by modern scripture's assertions regarding a literal New Jerusalem:
In addition to what has already been said, I would suggest that the material manifestation of the ideal represented by the New Jerusalem is always preceded by the City of God plotted in the charitable deeds of believers. Relationships also make up a city, even before land is chosen, buildings and streets constructed. That is, before Christian disciples will ever dwell in a literal New Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem will first have to dwell in their hearts and take shape in their actions. Modern scripture is equally clear on this idea – Enoch's city was taken into a final form of divine approbation well after the deeds of its inhabitants had erased violence, poverty, pride, and various forms of human suffering. So in addition to exploring, from a theological perspective, the various symbolic possibilities of Revelation, I would want to be constantly thinking about those possibilities as being intimate with the material (and in this sense, literal) discipleship or behaviors-of-heart that make up any Jerusalem worth having. In other words, though we have good reasons to be cautious about reading any or part of the text literally, we might want to freely extrapolate theological points from literal behaviors the text is meant to nurture or inspire.
Second, in response to the Ford and Gaechter material:
The suggestion that there are always two new Jerusalems, one co-existing with the present world, and one which is eternal, accords well with the belief I've expressed above. However, the business of working out a "correct" narrative order for Revelation is not, in answer to Kevin's question about its necessity, essential to the kind of invitation extended to us by the genres of the book (I'll come back to this in a moment). Moreover, the use of tense as textual evidence for there having been an original, or "correct" ordering of visionary events is weak. At the very least, such an assertion is laced with complications. Writers in many languages shift tense not only to signify a change of scene-in-time, but to other rhetorical ends as well. For instance, a shift in from past to present tense might be used to create thematic emphasis, or to underscore the special relevance of a particular symbol. A shift to the past from the present tense might be meant to encourage intellectual distancing (for critical perspective), and moving again to present tense might encourage emotional immediacy or intimacy (especially when requiring a close identification with an ancient or traditional symbol). Moreover, cultures have narrative traditions and expectations for how present tense might be used to recount a past event (for instance, Spanish is different from English, in this regard). In other words, though we needn't dismiss the possibility of a need to correct the current form of the narrative, doing so would require considerably more rhetorical analysis and explication than we would be able to accomplish within the parameters of our seminar. Or rather, it would fall to those whose knowledge of Greek and its narrative traditions (or linguistic games) is best suited to such an analysis.
Third, to return to something Julie said earlier:
Focusing on "signified" in 1:1 (particularly as a key word for understanding what the author was writing) is an excellent idea, and I am especially enamored of doing so in relation to the narrative's flirtations with time. Eric's latest response is also useful in this regard. He notes that symbolic readings are especially powerful (I might add, "alive") because they are useful in recognizing relevance and meaning for any time. Attention to genre is similarly useful, and I want to add a set of readerly questions to our growing list: in addition to what Eric has suggested, what other genres are used in the passages we're attending to? How do they direct the course of meaning? Do they invite special expectations which can then be put to particular use? To what extent do such genres carry over successfully to our own time, and is there further "translation" to be done in this regard?
Fourth, in response to Adam's delicious questions regarding why numbers play such an important role in Revelations:
I can't help but think of Pythagorean influences, here, as well as the Hebraic tradition. P-inflected assumptions might suggest that numbers invite a sense of rectitude, clarity, and transcendence, as well as a strong assurance that there are relationships of direct correspondence in representation. If so, then we have at the heart of the text an engaging (and perhaps "playful" in the serious sense) paradox. The kind of truth invoked by numbers (eternal, stable, and unchanging) is asserted even as the truth of poetical language throws meaning toward an ever-receding horizon of amplification and interpretative possibility (contingent on readers, cultures, and the effects of mutability). As much as this possibility delights me, I admit that it breaks down a bit if we take into account that in the Hebrew/Jewish literary tradition, numbers are poetical. But that poses other interesting possibilities for us to think about. If the writer was hoping to put both traditions into play simultaneously, we have a remarkably complex literary device – one that simultaneously resists interpretative closure, while perhaps framing, highlighting, "revealing," what otherwise might have remained hidden.
Fifth, as a final contribution to our list of questions:
I can't help but wonder to what extent English translation has inflected (or not) the images we'll be discussing. I'm especially interested in how glosses to the English text tend toward denotative meanings of the Greek. What, I wonder, are the crucial connotative meanings that bear on the symbolic? And do some of these images grow out of idiomatic expressions useful to our theological explorations?
Eric, thank you for setting out some of the basics for us; I think that is very helpful for our readers. As to your question on other LDS commentary, here is a list of LDS resources on Revelation:
ReplyDelete“Book of Revelation Overview.” Ensign 15 (Oct. 1983): 50-53.
Draper, Richard D. Opening the Seven Seals: The Visions of John the Revelator. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991.
Lund, Gerald N. “Seeing the Book of Revelation as a Book of Revelation.” Ensign 17 (Dec. 1987): 46-52.
Lund, Gerald N. “Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass.” Studies in Scripture Vol. 6: Acts to Revelation. Ed. by Robert L. Millet. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987, 6:256-75.
Mackay, Thomas W. “Early Christian Millenarianist Interpretation of the Two Witnesses in John’s Apocalypse 11:3-13.” In By Study and Also By Faith, ed. by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 222-331. Vol. 1. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990.
Maxwell, Robert L. [Review of both Parry and Parry and Smith.] BYU Studies 38/3 (1999).
Parry, Donald W. and Jay A. Parry. Understanding the Book of Revelation. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998.
Parry, Jay A. and Donald W. Parry. “The Temple in Heaven: Its Description and Significance.” In Temples of the Ancient World, ed. by Donald W. Parry, 515-32. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994.
Smith, Mick. The Book of Revelation: Plain, Pure, and Simple. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998.
Wilcox, Michael S. The Writings of John: St. John, the Epistles, the Revelation. Orem, Utah: Randall Books, 1987.
Brandie, I'm intrigued by your last point on the influence of translation. That's something I think I'll try to keep an eye on as we progress through the reading.
Just a note, first of all, that I don't believe I've gotten the "recent comments" widget in the sidebar to work yet. I'm holding out hope that it may start functioning with Eric's post. For the time being, though, don't trust it!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Eric, for the brief overview and, especially, for pointing out some helpful reference materials. As a novice with this particular text, I'm be grateful for all such suggestions.
Also, excellent point, Shon, about the need to not assume that we've already correctly read the meaning of modern revelations that touch on Revelation.
And thanks, as well, Brandie, for your comments about numbers. I'm anxious to see how this all plays out in our reading. Also, you nicely summarize the exact approach I hope to take over the next few months when you say:
"So in addition to exploring, from a theological perspective, the various symbolic possibilities of Revelation, I would want to be constantly thinking about those possibilities as being intimate with the material . . . discipleship or behaviors-of-heart that make up any Jerusalem worth having. In other words, though we have good reasons to be cautious about reading any or part of the text literally, we might want to freely extrapolate theological points from literal behaviors the text is meant to nurture or inspire."