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

RE: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
      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 2 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
        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 3 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
          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 4 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
            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 5 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
            • 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 6 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                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 7 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                  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.