Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Ian Paul
    ... The question here is where are you locating your interpretation? Is it in the mind of the writer, the first audience, or the 21st century reader? For John,
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Georg wrote:

      >If this analysis is correct, then Babylon should not be equated with
      >Jerusalem, especially not with the AD 70-Jerusalem. Neither should it be
      >identified with Rome. Rather, it is the end of worldly kingdom (as
      >11:15-18 indeed indicates).

      The question here is where are you locating your interpretation? Is it in
      the mind of the writer, the first audience, or the 21st century reader? For
      John, the end of worldly kingdom would surely have been almost exactly the
      same thing as the end of the Roman Empire. (Compare Paul's language about
      the gospel being preached 'in all the world', by which he means, the whole
      Roman Empire.)

      At the level of language, this 'split reference' (to Rome (?) and to all
      empire) corresponds to the nature of the metaphorical language. If John did
      have Rome in mind (whatever that means) in coining this metaphor, its
      meaning is not exhausted by the reference to Rome alone--there is a 'surplus
      of meaning'. However, this does involve locating the meaning of the text in
      the mind of subsequent readers at least to some extent, which not everyone
      will be happy with.

      Ian Paul
      .......................
      Revd Dr Ian Paul 32 Penn Hill Avenue, Poole, Dorset BH14 9LZ
      01202 745963 fax 01202 385539
    • Georg S. Adamsen
      Yes, the New Jerusalem is equated with the Bride of the Lamb (21:9f) and she comes down from/out of heaven (21:2; cf. 3:12). Since 21:1 has just announced the
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, the New Jerusalem is equated with the Bride of the Lamb (21:9f)
        and she comes down from/out of heaven (21:2; cf. 3:12). Since 21:1
        has just announced the new heaven and earth and 19:7 and 9 refer to
        the wedding (day) of the Lamb (while 19:1-6 celebrates the fall of
        Babylon and God's revenge of this city and its associates), it seems
        clear to me that the bride of the Lamb is the glorified people of
        God. It is _a_ people, as Gundry argued. It is thus the glorified
        people of God depicted corporatively. The wedding guests motif, by
        the way, expresses the individual perspective, I think.

        Hope this is helpful.

        Georg (S. Adamsen, LSTA)


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Marko Jauhiainen [mailto:vmj21@...]On Behalf Of
        Marko
        Jauhiainen
        Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 11:19 AM
        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [revelation-list] New Jerusalem (RE: Rome v Jerusalem)



        Dear Georg & others,

        On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Georg S. Adamsen wrote:

        > Now,
        > most scholars, I think, will admit that the New Jerusalem
        describes the
        > glorified people of God.

        Could you be more specific with regard to the relationship of NJ and
        the
        (glorified) people of God? Would you equate the two (as some seem to
        do)
        or how exactly would you describe their relationship?

        Shalom,

        Marko


        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
        Sponsor ---------------------~-->
        FREE COLLEGE MONEY
        CLICK HERE to search
        600,000 scholarships!
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/J2VolB/TM
        --------------------------------------------------------------------
        -~->

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Georg S. Adamsen
        I hesitate to say that for John, something would surely have ... when this is the very issue under discussion. This is an exegetical issue. It is the text
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I hesitate to say that "for John, something would surely have ..."
          when this is the very issue under discussion. This is an exegetical
          issue. It is the text which we must explain. I pointed to a few
          textual observations.

          I agree that the end of worldly kingdom would include the end of the
          Roman empire. Naturally so. However, I do not agree that the
          Biblical authors, including John, were unaware of other nations and
          political powers. There are many references to them in the Bible,
          and the Roman Empire had commercial relations with, e.g., China. The
          very fact that people knew that the Roman Empire was often attacked
          by other nations (and this is something which many interpreters
          usually take for granted, and rightly so) supports my claim. We
          should not make ancient people more unaware of their world than
          necessary. Why should Paul not be aware of this fact as well? So,
          the opposition between the bride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem, and
          the whore, the fallen Babylon, indicates that the end of worldly
          kingdom (the end of Babylon) is more than, not exactly the same
          thing as the end of the Roman Empire. Naturally, to John and the
          first recipients, the end of wordly kingdom/Babylon would mean the
          end of the Roman Empire in particular. What it first and foremost
          means for 21st century readers depends on our context. For
          persecuted Chinese christians, it means first of all the fall of the
          Chinese empire. Etc. However, I did not write about the pragmatic
          level.

          My point was to call attention to a textual issue (structure and
          content).

          Georg (S. Adamsen, LSTA)



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Ian Paul [mailto:ian.b.paul@...]
          Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:57 PM
          To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem



          Georg wrote:

          >If this analysis is correct, then Babylon should not be equated
          with
          >Jerusalem, especially not with the AD 70-Jerusalem. Neither should
          it be
          >identified with Rome. Rather, it is the end of worldly kingdom (as
          >11:15-18 indeed indicates).

          The question here is where are you locating your interpretation? Is
          it in
          the mind of the writer, the first audience, or the 21st century
          reader? For
          John, the end of worldly kingdom would surely have been almost
          exactly the
          same thing as the end of the Roman Empire. (Compare Paul's language
          about
          the gospel being preached 'in all the world', by which he means, the
          whole
          Roman Empire.)

          At the level of language, this 'split reference' (to Rome (?) and to
          all
          empire) corresponds to the nature of the metaphorical language. If
          John did
          have Rome in mind (whatever that means) in coining this metaphor,
          its
          meaning is not exhausted by the reference to Rome alone--there is a
          'surplus
          of meaning'. However, this does involve locating the meaning of the
          text in
          the mind of subsequent readers at least to some extent, which not
          everyone
          will be happy with.

          Ian Paul
        • Marko Jauhiainen
          ... Thanks for the clarification, Georg. I do not wish to address Gundry s article here, but let me explain what I had in my mind when I asked you to be more
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On 4 Sep 2001, at 9:27, Georg S. Adamsen wrote:

            > Yes, the New Jerusalem is equated with the Bride of the Lamb (21:9f)
            > and she comes down from/out of heaven (21:2; cf. 3:12). Since 21:1
            > has just announced the new heaven and earth and 19:7 and 9 refer to
            > the wedding (day) of the Lamb (while 19:1-6 celebrates the fall of
            > Babylon and God's revenge of this city and its associates), it seems
            > clear to me that the bride of the Lamb is the glorified people of
            > God. It is _a_ people, as Gundry argued. It is thus the glorified
            > people of God depicted corporatively. The wedding guests motif, by
            > the way, expresses the individual perspective, I think.

            Thanks for the clarification, Georg. I do not wish to address
            Gundry's article here, but let me explain what I had in my mind
            when I asked you to be more explicit:

            In the OT, "Jerusalem" is used for the city of Jerusalem, but it can
            also be used to connote its inhabitants (cf. the use of "Zion" esp. in
            Isaiah). The image of Jerusalem (or Zion) as the bride of Yahweh
            occurs several times in Isaiah (ch. 54 being especially relevant to
            our discussion). Yet though the author(s) of Isaiah use(s)
            "Jerusalem" when he is really concerned about its inhabitants, it
            does not follow that Jerusalem == the people who live in
            Jerusalem. While there is a close relationship between the two (I
            cannot remember the correct literary term; synecdoche?
            metonymy?) they are not identical.

            Could this also be the case in Revelation?

            Shalom,

            Marko
          • Newell, Terry-Michael
            Some time ago on this list, reference was made to the New Jerusalem, not as a place for people, but describing people as a place. What/who is the origin of
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              New Jerusalem

              Some time ago on this list, reference was made to the New Jerusalem, not as "a place for people," but describing "people as a place." What/who is the origin of this line of thinking and where could I further develop this thought?

              Sincerely,
              Terry-Michael Newell

              ********************************
              Terry-Michael Newell, Jr.
              Campus Minister
              Campbell University
              Buies Creek, North Carolina
              (910) 893-1547
              ********************************

            • John W. Marshall
              New JerusalemTerry, I would look to Jonathon Z. Smith, but the exact reference of the article escapes me at the moment. Perhaps another member of our list has
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                New Jerusalem
                Terry,
                 
                I would look to Jonathon Z. Smith, but the exact reference of the article escapes me at the moment.  Perhaps another member of our list has it at hand.
                 
                 --jwm
                _____________________________________________________________________
                John W. Marshall                               Assistant Professor
                                                                        Department for the Study of Religion
                                                                        University of Toronto
                john.marshall@...                416.978.8122
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Newell, Terry-Michael [mailto:newell@...]
                Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:13 PM
                To: Revelation-List Group (E-mail)
                Subject: [revelation-list] New Jerusalem

                Some time ago on this list, reference was made to the New Jerusalem, not as "a place for people," but describing "people as a place." What/who is the origin of this line of thinking and where could I further develop this thought?

                Sincerely,
                Terry-Michael Newell

                ********************************
                Terry-Michael Newell, Jr.
                Campus Minister
                Campbell University
                Buies Creek, North Carolina
                (910) 893-1547
                ********************************



                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • profram@aol.com
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                • profram@aol.com
                  Yes, the terminology comes from Robert H. Gundry, The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People, Novum Testamentum 29 (1987), 254-64. Sorry, I just
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes, the terminology comes from Robert H. Gundry, "The New Jerusalem: People
                    as Place, not Place for People, Novum Testamentum 29 (1987), 254-64.

                    Sorry, I just sent an empty post by accident. This is the one I was trying to
                    send.

                    Ramsey Michaels
                  • Dave Mathewson
                    There is a well-known article with a similar title by Robert Gundry entitled, The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People , NovT 29 (1987), pp.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There is a well-known article with a similar title by Robert Gundry
                      entitled, 'The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People', NovT
                      29 (1987), pp. 254-62.

                      Dave Mathewson



                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.