[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #768
b-greek-digest Friday, 30 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 768
In this issue:
unsubscribe
Re: Apoc. Lit.
Re: Apoc. Lit.
Re: Apoc. Lit.
Unsubcribe B-greek for now
Re: Apocalyptic literature
Re: Apocalyptic literature
Re: Apocalyptic literature
Re: Apocalyptic literature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Apokrisis@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 01:54:43 -0400
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 00:38:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Apoc. Lit.
I have been following this discussion of apocalyptic and genre
of Revelation with much interest. One question I have concerns
the meaning of the instruction to John to "seal the words of
the prophecy of this book, because the time is near" (Rev 22:10).
Does this mean the book was to be sealed so no one could read
it? Obviously someone broke the seal--or else it would not be
in the canon for someone to read! The language sounds similar to
language used in pseudepigraphic works allegedly written long
before the time of their recent discovery (e.g. Dan 12:4) but
that does not seem to be the case here.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 07:35:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Apoc. Lit.
>Rod Decker wrote,
>"2. How far back can the title be traced? I seriously doubt that it was
...>
>The title of the Revelation is the first three verses. They seem to be an
>essential part of the work. There is no evidence of which I am aware that
>the book as originally produced did not start with verse one which contains
>the word "apocalypse."
\\\Blush\\\ Of course you're right. That's what I get for responding too
quickly and not looking at the text of a familiar passage before opening my
mouth! What a glorious way to rejoin b-greek after being out for a month
during our move :( No excuse.
My other comment/query re. the meaning of apokalupsis will still stand (I
hope!).
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 09:04:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Apoc. Lit.
On Thu, 29 Jun 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
> I have been following this discussion of apocalyptic and genre
> of Revelation with much interest. One question I have concerns
> the meaning of the instruction to John to "seal the words of
> the prophecy of this book, because the time is near" (Rev 22:10).
> Does this mean the book was to be sealed so no one could read
> it?
Greg, In Rev 22:10 John is told *not* to seal the book ("me sphragises
tous logous tes propheteias tou bibliou toutou"). This is a *contrast*
with such instructions as Dan 8:26; 12:9.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:49:02 -0400
Subject: Unsubcribe B-greek for now
Unsubscribe B-Greek
------------------------------
From: TNewell889@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 12:51:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Apocalyptic literature
In a message dated 95-06-27 19:17:06 EDT, you write:
> First,
>upon what do you base the view that 1 Thess 4:13-18 is symbolic, and
>why do you put this particular handful of verses in a non-apocalyptic lit.
>book in the category of apocalyptic literature?
Evidently, you did not read my original post carefully. I did not assert
that 1 Thess. 4.13-18 was apocalyptic. These verses were used by John N.
Darby to prooftext his theory that God would removed the church from the
present world (premillenialism). They are not a part of apoc. lit., nor did
I imply they were.
As for their symbolical nature, I read this somewhere and it seemed to work.
I'll have to research some to find where this originated. However, how can
anyone prove concretely that a part of the Bible should be taken symbolically
or literally? Both can only be left to presumption.
>Second, since you
>focused your note on Rev. 20, I would like to know what the original
>intent of Revelation has to do with the specific meaning of this passage.
>Is Revelation just for comfort? If so, and I think that is
>underinterpreting it, why doesn't the presentation of a future, earthly
>kingdom meet with that purpose?
As I understand apoc. lit., it is to assure the original hearers-readers that
an age would come where evil was not in control. Yes, it was meant to
comfort and more. Apocalyptic literature functions to meet the needs of its
hearers-readers. The Jews in exile needed a new theology. The Deuteronomic
theology of "You're not a faithful people, that's why you were taekn into
exile was no longer working. Thus, two types of literature arose to comfort
hurting people, that is Wisdom literature and Apocalyptic literature. So,
the presentation of a future, earthly kingdom does meet with the purpose,
that is to say, persecution will not last forever. An age will come when God
will take back control. This is based on my understanding of Apoc. lit.'s
root, origin, and purpose.
Terry-Michael Newell
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 10:24:35 PDT
Subject: Re: Apocalyptic literature
Terry-Michael Newell wrote:
> In a message dated 95-06-27 19:17:06 EDT, you write:
>
> > First,
> >upon what do you base the view that 1 Thess 4:13-18 is symbolic, and
> >why do you put this particular handful of verses in a non-apocalyptic lit.
> >book in the category of apocalyptic literature?
>
> Evidently, you did not read my original post carefully. I did not assert
> that 1 Thess. 4.13-18 was apocalyptic. These verses were used by John N.
> Darby to prooftext his theory that God would removed the church from the
> present world (premillenialism). They are not a part of apoc. lit., nor did
> I imply they were.
>
> As for their symbolical nature, I read this somewhere and it seemed to work.
> I'll have to research some to find where this originated. However, how can
> anyone prove concretely that a part of the Bible should be taken symbolically
> or literally? Both can only be left to presumption.
My point was not whether the verses were apocalyptic lit. but why
you asserted, without qualification, that they are symbolic. There is
a basis for making such decisions. One obviously cannot prove which
they are, but I think a very strong case can be made for taking them
as meant literally, whatever the nature of the event they portray is.
> >Second, since you
> >focused your note on Rev. 20, I would like to know what the original
> >intent of Revelation has to do with the specific meaning of this passage.
> >Is Revelation just for comfort? If so, and I think that is
> >underinterpreting it, why doesn't the presentation of a future, earthly
> >kingdom meet with that purpose?
>
> As I understand apoc. lit., it is to assure the original hearers-readers that
> an age would come where evil was not in control. Yes, it was meant to
> comfort and more. Apocalyptic literature functions to meet the needs of its
> hearers-readers. The Jews in exile needed a new theology. The Deuteronomic
> theology of "You're not a faithful people, that's why you were taekn into
> exile was no longer working. Thus, two types of literature arose to comfort
> hurting people, that is Wisdom literature and Apocalyptic literature. So,
> the presentation of a future, earthly kingdom does meet with the purpose,
> that is to say, persecution will not last forever. An age will come when God
> will take back control. This is based on my understanding of Apoc. lit.'s
> root, origin, and purpose.
Let's try this again. I asked what in the nature of apocalyptic
literature disables Rev 20 from being intended as a prophetic statemetn
of an actual event of some duration (probably the 1000 is not meant
literally but that doesn't mean the event is not). The notion that
apocalyptic literature is meant to comfort those in difficulty, though
possibly true, may not be the only purpose of Revelation, and even if it
is, do you mean to say that its author freely invented material merely
to make the recipients feel better even though the author tho8ght there
was no substance to what he was describing? That seems to me to be what
you are saying. John's readers are being persecuted. John wants to
comfort them. Therefore John invents this long, convoluted book to
comfort them by giving them false hops intentionally? Is that what you
are trying to argue? I'm afraid that's a little implausible to me.
Regardless of how you view the accuracy of the prediction in Rev. 20, or
what you think it means, nothing in the text, whatever genre it gets
stuffed into (and genre is a loose category, after all), does not require
that John is not attempting to give what he believes the future holds.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:53:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Apocalyptic literature
Ken Litwak asks Terry-Michael Newell,
"do you mean to say that its author freely invented material merely to make
the recipients feel better even though the author tho8ght there was no
substance to what he was describing? That seems to me to be what you are
saying. John's readers are being persecuted. John wants to comfort them.
Therefore John invents this long, convoluted book to
comfort them by giving them false hops intentionally?"
Ken seems to be working with the concept that to say something is symbolic is
to say that it is not true. Hence if the millenium is not a literal reign
in the future on earth, it is a "convoluted" invention. The truth of what
John says may well be that in contrast to evil the reign of the risen Lord is
ultimate and eternal. That is true and difficult to for me to call
convoluted any more than to say that he has seven eyes, i.e., full insight or
has a sharp two-edged sword protruding from his mouth, i.e., he conquers with
his work. To see symbols is not to see John trying to dupe his readers but a
powerful way of communicating a theological message. The modern reader often
"fears" to see symbolic truth because such a reader is usually visually
oriented by images that look real, i.e., television even though they may not
have anything to do with reality.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 11:05:16 PDT
Subject: Re: Apocalyptic literature
> Ken Litwak asks Terry-Michael Newell,
> "do you mean to say that its author freely invented material merely to make
> the recipients feel better even though the author tho8ght there was no
> substance to what he was describing? That seems to me to be what you are
> saying. John's readers are being persecuted. John wants to comfort them.
> Therefore John invents this long, convoluted book to
> comfort them by giving them false hops intentionally?"
>
> Ken seems to be working with the concept that to say something is symbolic is
> to say that it is not true. Hence if the millenium is not a literal reign
> in the future on earth, it is a "convoluted" invention. The truth of what
> John says may well be that in contrast to evil the reign of the risen Lord is
> ultimate and eternal. That is true and difficult to for me to call
> convoluted any more than to say that he has seven eyes, i.e., full insight or
> has a sharp two-edged sword protruding from his mouth, i.e., he conquers with
> his work. To see symbols is not to see John trying to dupe his readers but a
> powerful way of communicating a theological message. The modern reader often
> "fears" to see symbolic truth because such a reader is usually visually
> oriented by images that look real, i.e., television even though they may not
> have anything to do with reality.
>
> Carlton Winbery
> Prof. Religion
> LA College
Since Carlton Winbery misunderstood me, I assume that I did not
express myself adequately. Terry-Michael Newell seems to me to be
justaposing apocalyptic literature with prophecy of future, real events.
That is the only thing I'm concerned about. I don't doubt that it is
possible Rev 20 is symbolic. For all I know, we should follow the lead
of some NT scholars on the parables in the Gospels, and say that
Rev. 20 is a metaphor, and metaphors are not subject to interpretation.,
according to them, so this passage really means who knows what.
All I am trying to say is that it does not follow from classifying
Rev. as apocalyptic literature, which we discussed a few months back
I think (but UNIX kindly trashed my BGREEK mail file so I have nada
from before June anymore), that John cannot possibly be making a
prophecy of a future event. That should not be excluded from the
exegetical options because of the assumed genre of the book.
Nothing about apocalyptic lit. requires the abscence of prophetic
features and if it does, that only means the definition needs refining.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #768
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu