Digest urth.v028.n186
The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 19 Apr 2000
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2201

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 historical references to Babylon, Israel's prior primo peeve.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, by subject match 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  ... <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/>
  Center for Ludic Synergy:        <http://www.ludism.org/>
  Kennexions GBG artgame:          <http://kennexions.ludism.org/>
  Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List: <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/hex8.html>
  Positive Revolution FAQ:         <http://www.ludism.org/posrev/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------