New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by neilgodfrey »

Some fascinating new (to me) ideas have been set out in comments on an older blog post of mine, "The war of 70 is not a major issue” in the Gospels? that I think will interest some folks here. More interesting than the post itself are comments by Russell Gmirkin and Gregory Doudna. Questions of fulfilled prophecy, the date of Revelation, its relationship to Josephus and the propaganda machine of Titus, to Josephus's role in the war, to the rationale and shaping of the Gospel of Mark ....

This comment is a once-off -- I don't want to use this forum to advertize my blog but I think the contributions of Russell and Greg are worth a special mention for the originality of their ideas and the interest I know others will have in them.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by neilgodfrey »

I forgot to mention: there is room for a historical Jesus in Russell's analysis. A HJ is offered as having some explanatory power for his view of the two witnesses.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

Russell's "proof" of the historicity based on Revelation seems to be something as:

1) the two witnesses are followers of the Lamb hence they emulate the fate of the Lamb

2) the Lamb is said to be "crucified" on the earth in the same place where his followers were crucified after him;

3) therefore: the "Lamb", i.e. Jesus existed in the real history.

The problem is that the reference to the crucifixion of the Lamb is made bluntly of passage, in a text where the Lamb is described again and again as "immolated" for a reason: the effusion of much blood is a necessary requisite to expiate the sins. Which raises the right suspicion that the reference to the crucifixion is an interpolation, hence making invalid the "proof" above.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

On a point I see that Russell and Greg are going to introduce a new argument for historicity:

Both assume, in Russell's words,

I think conquest and the establishment of an earthly kingdom of God (theocracy) was always the agenda. This was the charge for which the Romans crucified Jesus (although his later followers claimed his innocence, of which one is entitled to be skeptical). After the crucifixion there were persistent rumors that Jesus was alive and some of these rumors said he had been taken up into the heavens.

(my bold)

From that POV, Greg and Russell join Turmel's view about the original Christian message being nationalistic, xenophobic, theocratic and anti-Roman.

Differently from Turmel, Greg and Russell don't think that Paul was anti-Roman too.

Hence, their general argument pro-historicity based on an original anti-Roman message seems to be something as:

1) conquest and the establishment of an earthly kingdom of God (theocracy) was always the agenda
2) mythicist Carrier denies that Paul (or the Pillars before him) was interested in contemporary politics and/or preached anti-Roman messages in his epistles;
3) therefore: Jesus existed.


I can confirm that Carrier has always denied that in the original epistles (and by extension: in an hypothetical 'Gospel of the Pillars') there is an anti-Roman agenda.

Couchoud thinks that the original 'Gospel of the Pillars' resembles very much to Book of Revelation, that is both:

1) anti-Roman
2) mystical-hallucinatory

Which, in Couchoud's view, would confute the implication:

Anti-Roman theocracy -----> historical Jesus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

Apparently in order to support a historicist view, Russell writes:

Large groups of people believe and promote the most unbelievable ideas. As a relevant example, America is currently in the grips of an autocratic / neo-fascist movement seeking to undermine American democratic institutions that is fueled in part by a set of viral conspiracy theories known as QAnon. These theories are just plain nuts, but almost one in five Americans (15-20% according to various polls) believe in them, including 56% of Republicans. On Nov. 2, hundreds of QAnon believers gathered at Dealy Plaza, where JFK was shot, to await the predicted appearance of JFK Jr, who died in a 1999 plane crash, but who they believe is still alive. Faced with his non-appearance, some put out the theory that Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones was actually JFK Jr, because it would really be hard to distinguish the two of them in a police lineup, and JFK Jr had such mad guitar skills.

The point being, that reality and common sense has little to do with what people believe. Although QAnon originated in American fringe theories, one can point to substantial evidence that Russian internet trolls picked up and amplified the QAnon theories and helped make them uber-popular (the same was they amplified anti-Vaxxer theories and other potentially divisive topics in 2016 in order to polarize America on multiple fronts). Outside interference aside, America is fertile ground for such theories, and we have members of Congress elected to office for supporting QAnon lunacy. Ultimately, this might be a significant factor in the failure of American democracy that is currently threatening us here in the states. My point being that unbelievable theories of stunning irrationality spring up and proliferate and fuel mass movements in human societies of every era, down to the present. Bringing the discussion around to the point in question, I don’t see an intrinsic unlikelihood to the idea of Jesus in heaven returning with conquering angelic armies being promoted among its believers before, during or even after the Jewish War, despite being fundamentally fantastic and flying in the face of then-current events.

(my bold)

My difficulty is that Carrier may say the same identical things, as "evidence" that "there is no intrinsic unlikelihood to the idea of a mythical Jesus being imagined as returning with conquering angelic armies being promoted among its believers before, during or even after the Jewish War, despite being fundamentally fantastic and flying in the face of then-current events".
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

In alternative, I assume that Russell raises the following argument pro-historicity based on Mark being an anti-Vespasian propaganda:
  • 1) The Vespasian propaganda makes Vespasian the Messiah
  • 2) The Gospel propaganda makes Jesus both the anti-Vespasian and the true Messiah in opposition to the false Messiah Vespasian (for example, the two crucified thieves are the parody of the Vespasian's sons Titus and Domitian);
  • 3) Vespasian is a historical person;
  • 4) Therefore the Gospel Jesus also is a historical person.
It would make indeed more sense that, as reaction against Vespasian's propaganda, the Gospel of Mark would need a historical figure as hero (playing as the anti-Vespasian), more than a mere mythical figure, since about a mythical figure one can't assume in advance that he is anti-Roman (a god being able to be domesticated by the winners in any moment).
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:02 am I forgot to mention: there is room for a historical Jesus in Russell's analysis. A HJ is offered as having some explanatory power for his view of the two witnesses.
For what it is worth, Gmirkin and Parvus have together firmly pushed me into the historical Jesus camp (even though I still appreciate Carrier and Doherty for opening my eyes about the defects within mainstream biblical scholarship) because they have addressed opposing views respectfully and honestly while admitting (in common with Carrier and Doherty) that the gospels' narratives do not make sense as events nor as recounting events behind the earliest Christian literature. If only all such responses to mythicism were so polite and willing to question assumptions.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:39 am
For what it is worth, Gmirkin and Parvus have together firmly pushed me into the historical Jesus camp
Parvus's argument (based on the original Paul being different from the current Paul we know) seems to be to me more rational than Gmirkin's case based on Revelation (notoriously a book full of visions/dreams/hallucinations, hence hardly a good proof of the historicity of Jesus).

Hence I can't accept that you put both the authors in the same historicist camp.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by ABuddhist »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:49 am
ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:39 am
For what it is worth, Gmirkin and Parvus have together firmly pushed me into the historical Jesus camp
Parvus's argument (based on the original Paul being different from the current Paul we know) seems to be to me more rational than Gmirkin's case based on Revelation (notoriously a book full of visions/dreams/hallucinations, hence hardly a good proof of the historicity of Jesus).

Hence I can't accept that you put both the authors in the same historicist camp.
Well, both authors seem to think that the only noteworthy thing that the historical Jesus did was get crucified - even though they argue this from different angles.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:53 am the only noteworthy thing that the historical Jesus did was get crucified - even though they argue this from different angles.
This is surely true for Parvus, but for Gmirkin the case is different. I think, from personal communications, that he is not so minimalist. He seems to have found his historical Jesus in the secular sources, also. I can't say more, what I want to point out now is that he is not minimalist à la Parvus, hence it is better not to place both in the same field.
Post Reply