Urth Net
Digest urth.v028.n186
↰ answers Alice Turner
· by quotation
2 quoted lines
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 There were lots of similarly apocalyptic texts around, this one being an anti-Rome rant with historical references to Babylon, Israel's prior primo peeve.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])
2 quoted lines
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