Gospel of John a Forgery, Johannine Communities Never Existed

[Bernard Muller]

The harvest in Rev 14:14-17, made by "like a son of man", with a golden crown, with his own sickle, is for the "good ones".
The second harvest (Rev 14:15-17), done by an angel, with a different sickle, is obviously for the "bad ones".
I don't know where that observation leads to, but I think it needed to be told.

to Joseph D. L.,

My overall point is that Revelation 14:14-20 was not relying on written source texts and was just using common day expressions.
I know. I've confused myself too.

I am very confused also. Does that mean a few words of Gittin 57, an alleged written source for Rev 14:14-20, were not used in the redaction of Rev 14:14-20?

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I am very confused also. Does that mean a few words of Gittin 57, an alleged written source for Rev 14:14-20, was not used in the redaction of Rev 14:14-20?

Bernard, I think he means that a certain set of images and terms was used to describe Hadrian's final conquest of the Jews, and that this set of images and terms made its way both into Gittin 57 and into Revelation 14.14-20. He does not (necessarily) mean that the author of Revelation had something like Gittin 57 in writing. It would be kind of how one particular night in which the Nazis carried out a pogrom against the Jews came to be known as "the night of broken glass." That phraseology does not require a written source; it is simply how that night is described in the culture. I think Joseph thinks that the events surrounding the fall of Betar were described in certain stereotyped ways, as well, and that both Gittin 57 and Revelation 14.14-20 drew upon those stereotyped descriptions.

[Joseph D. L.]

This is the part that I disagree with on the merits. Like I said, all it takes is one. The source materials are not supposed to form some unified textbook from which the author slavishly drew; I mean only that they form part of a broad prophetic vocabulary or imagery set from which all apocalypticists drew.

Furthermore, there are demonstrable uses of earlier material by later material in which only one passage is alluded to, and there are highly dubious uses of earlier material by later material in which multiple passages are potentially alluded to. These two factors: (A) the likelihood of influence and (B) how many sources fed into that influence, are necessarily completely independent. To conflate them produces nothing of use. (By which I mean that, potentially, a detail which scored only 2/8 on your method could easily be the most secure connection, while one scoring 6/8 could actually comprise a less probable connection.)

There was actually something I forgot to mention (I've been scatterbrained all day. One of the mangas I read just had a huge reveal and it's got me all out of whack now), but we can actually see [one of] the author[s] utilize an Old Testament passage directly in Revelation 4:8. The three holy, holy, holys is too conspicuous to not have been in the author(s) mind.

I don't know of what worth this would be, but BlueLetterBible has a page where verses from Revelation are compared to similar passages in the Old Testament:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/quotes05.cfm

My issue with comparing the three sets of texts (Revelation, Gittin, and the CSM you quoted) is that I think it is more of a genetic fallacy. Are there parallels with all of the above texts? Absolutely. Are the CSM influences on Revelation? Probably. But should that take away from any potential value it has when compared to Gittin 57? That's really the only issue I have.

Suppose that Revelation 14:14-20 did take from a CSM, just any of 'em, or all of 'em, doesn't matter. The question I'm asking is, did the author have something specific in mind when he used these sources? Or was it just a need to pad out his text with more dramatic imagery? It's the same issue that the Abomination that causes desolation brings up. Did Mark and Matthew have something in mind when they reiterated Daniel?

That is actually part of my point, as well. Did the author get the winepress from Joel or from Isaiah, for example? In the end it does not really matter, since the whole body of prophetic imagery is the thing.

All of that said, however, like I mentioned, your overall case is better than I had considered. I will let it rest for now and give it more thought.

G'day comrade. I'll work on refining my arguments. I know I'm not the clearest when I talk/write.