- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,698
- Reaction score
- 1,539
- Location
- The City Different
- Website
- www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Elaine Pagels, Princeton religion professor and author of The Gnostic Gospels, has a new book out about apocalyptic visions. Its title is Revelations, and you can read a good summary (and positive review) of it here.
One of her key arguments is that apocalyptic messages are always couched in the present, in the political moment of the time they are written. This is particularly true of the Book of Revelations in the Bible. I don't think this is a particularly controversial thesis -- I was taught long ago that the context of Revelations was one of a reaction to the fall of the Temple and the persecutions of the Jews by Rome. Pagels has an interesting twist on this notion -- that John (the author of the Book of Revelations) was incensed Christianity was emerging as a faith separate from Judaism, one that was making its peace with Rome.
" . . . when [John] gets to western Asia Minor, he comes across many gentile Christians, quite possibly in churches founded by the now dead Apostle Paul. Unlike John, they seem to be relatively well off. They usually get along fine with their non-Christian neighbors. They may be prospering from the Pax Romana, the “peace” sustained by Roman domination. They are marrying and having children, running their small businesses, ignoring the statues, temples and worship of other gods that surround them.
For John, this Christian toleration of Rome and its idols is offensive. This is not a benign governmental power. It is the Whore of Babylon, arrogantly destroying the earth. John writes (in Pagels' theory) to warn the churches, and he relates his vision to provoke alarm at the Evil Empire."
She also points out that apocalyptic messages are politically unpredictable -- the same words can be put to opposite use later. Those same Christians John lambasts for being tolerant of Rome will be in quite different situations, for example, during the persecutions of Diacletian a couple of centuries later. In our own time, it is easy to argue that the whole Left Behind phenomenon is intensely political.
I liked her book on the Gnostics quite a bit, and I think I'll like this one when it arrives in the mail.
One of her key arguments is that apocalyptic messages are always couched in the present, in the political moment of the time they are written. This is particularly true of the Book of Revelations in the Bible. I don't think this is a particularly controversial thesis -- I was taught long ago that the context of Revelations was one of a reaction to the fall of the Temple and the persecutions of the Jews by Rome. Pagels has an interesting twist on this notion -- that John (the author of the Book of Revelations) was incensed Christianity was emerging as a faith separate from Judaism, one that was making its peace with Rome.
" . . . when [John] gets to western Asia Minor, he comes across many gentile Christians, quite possibly in churches founded by the now dead Apostle Paul. Unlike John, they seem to be relatively well off. They usually get along fine with their non-Christian neighbors. They may be prospering from the Pax Romana, the “peace” sustained by Roman domination. They are marrying and having children, running their small businesses, ignoring the statues, temples and worship of other gods that surround them.
For John, this Christian toleration of Rome and its idols is offensive. This is not a benign governmental power. It is the Whore of Babylon, arrogantly destroying the earth. John writes (in Pagels' theory) to warn the churches, and he relates his vision to provoke alarm at the Evil Empire."
She also points out that apocalyptic messages are politically unpredictable -- the same words can be put to opposite use later. Those same Christians John lambasts for being tolerant of Rome will be in quite different situations, for example, during the persecutions of Diacletian a couple of centuries later. In our own time, it is easy to argue that the whole Left Behind phenomenon is intensely political.
I liked her book on the Gnostics quite a bit, and I think I'll like this one when it arrives in the mail.
Last edited:
