I base these responses on a recent video by Ehrman shared here: these are short replies, not researched considerations:
1) Bart claims that Revelation is strange and bizarre. The book is different no doubt, but strange can sometimes exist in the beholder's eyes. I'm not in the habit of letting atheists or agnostics shape my belief system or how I think about Bible books. Personally, I love Revelation although I'm not evangelical. It helps to understand the book's genre, which admittedly can be challenging, and what the writer is trying to accomplish under the guidance of holy spirit.
2) Bart says that the book of Revelation does not reveal "our future." He has a point about the way many evangelicals understand Revelation and the unlikely scenarios they bandy about, which they read into Revelation, but it's debatable at best to claim that Revelation is not about "our future."
3) So did John expect that Revelation 19-22 would be fulfilled in his time? I find that highly implausible: these chapters of Revelation deal with the end time, when God deals a blow to evil and brings about the new heavens and new earth. Even in the second Petrine letter, the writer indicates that Christians remain in expectation of a new heavens and new earth. It was not yet a reality in the first century. I'm not trying to read John's mind but I find a preterist reading of Revelation 19-22 one of the most implausible things about that line of thinking.
4) There are some "hard sayings" in Revelation; evil is dealt a blow and the blood rises up to the horse's bridle. However, the divine war is not simply about vindictiveness. Call it "vengeance" if you like, but let's clearly and precisely define what we mean by vengeance within a biblical/GNT context. This is about Christ warring righteously: Bart may not like what the book says, but let's at least get the story straight and precisify our terms.
See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/43727119
5) Lastly, I refuse to buy into Marcionite constructions of God whereby the God of the Hebrew Bible is sharply distinguished from the New Testament deity. Malachi 3:6 reports that YHWH changes not and Exodus 34:6-7 shows the balance of divine attributes that Jews and Christians might expect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZJXZT98A18&t=18s
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
I watched the video, and it frankly seems like his main goal here is to poopoo evangelicals, fair enough. But the idea that the God of the gospels was "nice" and the God of revelation was vindictive is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely sure that Bart Ehrman is completely aware of the apocalyptic-eschatology and millinarianism of Jesus and the gospels, In fact I know he knows because he wrote a historical Jesus book supporting the apocalyptic prophet model. He is also well aware that the ethics of Jesus are not independent from his apocalyptic eschatology, and are, in fact, dependent on them.
As for revelation only being about the author's time ... Again, this is why biblical scholars, early Christianity scholars, and ANE scholars, should probably either stay out of theology, or at least do some reading in theology before weighing in.
Whether or not the author of the book of revelation himself though what he was writing had implications for 2000 years later does not determine if in fact it does .... if one believes in the inspiration of scripture one can have applications, even prophetic applications that are do not depend on the intentions of the original author of the understanding of the original audience.
What's funny is this way of reading scripture is ALL OVER THE PLACE in the ancient world, even in the new Testament, it's in a ton of the inter-testamental pseudepigraphic literature, it's even in the book of revelation, so this hermenuitic should be familiar to good biblical scholars ... yet so many biblical scholars seem to think they have debunked theological readings of texts simply by showing they don't match up with a historical exegesis.
I mean I don't think a historical reading is irrelevant, and I'm open to many historical readings of Revelation (I haven't studied deeply, but so far the common reading seems to be a political/anti-imperial one), and the historical readings will effect one's theological interpretation, but they are not the same thing.
Good points and we know that Bart teaches religion and has done extensive work on the GNT, so he should know about apocalyptic and it's putative features. However, presuppositions often determine one's treatment of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteYou're exactly right about earlier texts being reapplied even in the GNT: both Paul and Peter do it.
Your point about history and theology is why I prefer an eclectic or multipronged approach to reading scripture. For example, Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza utilizes rhetorical criticism to study Revelation; I have another book that uses tradition criticism while others read Revelation through use of metaphor theory or ancient epistolary methods.
However, after the historical or exegetical work is done, there is still room for theology and practical application. Or one can follow the ancients and medievals by using the fourfold exegetical method, which incorporates more than historical exegesis.
ReplyDeleteFor point 1.
ReplyDeleteBart states that it was very little studied through its history.
What is your experience of fathers and how much they do or do not touch on this work?
I'm not sure what his frame of reference is, but two ancient works on Revelation were written, one by Victorinus and another by Oecumenius. Lactantius discusses Revelation in the Divine Institutes and I'm sure that Athanasius wrote about it. But I will confirm. David Sune has plenty of references from the fathers.
ReplyDeleteAthanasius wrote about Revelation and so did Dionysius of Alexandria. And look at the work that Andreas did.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_of_Caesarea
ReplyDeletehttp://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/royaltyr/earlychurch.htm
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_L4_LmqImY
ReplyDeleteNo answers to any of my questions - not surprised though.
I'm surprised he would make the statement about people studying Revelation, but maybe he meant something different. I guess his discussions about Revelation will cover several segments? I don't plan to watch them.
ReplyDeleteTurns out that most of that intro video was hyped controversy. It was a pretty strait foreward lecture on historical views of the apocalypse. The QA was light and fluffy. Beginners stuff really.
ReplyDeleteThanks. A lot of things in Academia work that way: courses and lectures, but there are good ones.
ReplyDelete