# Digest urth.v028.n186 *The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 19 Apr 2000* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Paul C Duggan *19 Apr 2000, 14:33* > On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 alga wrote: > The scholarship is not that "contemporary" regarding Revelation. It was > suspect from the gitgo, with several more sober bishops strongly > objecting to it when the 4th century canon was put together. It crawled > in because of popular superstition that John the gospeleer wrote it, > though more educated folk with a good "ear" even at that early time > found this highly unlikely, and said so. There were lots of similarly > apocalyptic texts around, this one being an anti-Rome rant with > historical references to Babylon, Israel's prior primo peeve. Its also been suggested that the main enemy, and actual identity of Babylon (besides Rome) is non-Christian Judaism ("those who say they are Jews and are not", and all) I would think "modern scholarship" would find that fits right in with the Johnaine "anti-semitism" (as if that term had any contextual utility, which I think it probably doesn't [but that doesn't stop US News and World Report from mentioning it]) > Modern > textual analysis makes the two completely incompatible. I wonder how on earth anyone goes about proving something like that. John's gospel is structurally based abound sevens (seven "I am's", seven miraculous signs, a "seven day creation" in the first chapter) and everyone is well aware of the seven-fold structure of Revelation. Seems that would make them quite compatible. Paul --- ### Ron Hale-Evans *19 Apr 2000, 11:51 · follows Paul C Duggan* >> At 02:33 PM 4/19/00 -0400, you wrote: >> Modern >> textual analysis makes the two completely incompatible. > I wonder how on earth anyone goes about proving something like that. > John's gospel is structurally based abound sevens (seven "I am's", seven > miraculous signs, a "seven day creation" in the first chapter) and > everyone is well aware of the seven-fold structure of Revelation. Seems > that would make them quite compatible. > > Paul Computer analysis of word frequency and other stylistic features. Pretty standard in contemporary scholarship. Ron H-E ``` Ron Hale-Evans: rwhe at apocalypse.org ... Center for Ludic Synergy: Kennexions GBG artgame: Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List: Positive Revolution FAQ: ``` ---