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

Re: [revelation-list] Re 16.15 a gloss?

Expand Messages
  • polycarp66@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/18/2004 8:37:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, drjenney@earthlink.net writes: It’s certainly a possibility. There are two harvests in 14
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 18, 2004
      In a message dated 4/18/2004 8:37:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, drjenney@... writes:

      It’s certainly a possibility. There are two harvests in 14 though, not one. I think the grape harvest symbolizes Christian martyrs [or at least includes them]. Note that the blood that fills the seven vials is that of prophets AND saints (16:5f). When the number of these martyrs is complete, the End will come (Rev. 6:9-11).

      I should add that my theory is that Revelation’s liturgical passages are an eschatologically heightened Sukkoth [Tabernacles] celebration. I argued this in my 1993 U Mich dissertation, The Harvest of the Earth.
      ______________
       
      I think it would be going beyond the evidence to say that the seven vials contain the blood of the martyrs.  While the sea and the fresh water sources are said to turn to blood, it is nowhere stated that the vials contained blood but rather that they are the vials of the Wrath of God.  Also, it should be noted that the pouring of the vials on other portions of the cosmos does not produce blood.  That the grape harvest symbolizes the Christian martyrs is, in my opinion, precisely wrong since they are thrown into the wine-press of the Wrath of God.  This is rather God's wrath against those who rejected the Son.
       
      I'm not ready to say that ALL the liturgical passages refer to Sukkoth.  It is relatively certain, however, that this is in view with regard to the 144,000 sealed from the twelve tribes in chapter 7 since the great multitude is there pictured as having palm branches in their hands.  Also, in chapter 14, when the 144,000 again appear on the heavenly Mount Zion they themselves have palm branches and are specifically designated as first fruits.
       
      gfsomsel
    • Ian Paul
      ... But you only have to look at the amazing complex of words occurring four, seven, ten, 14 and 28 times (Richard Bauckham gives a start in Climax of
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 19, 2004
        On Sunday, April 18, 2004, at 05:01 PM, polycarp66@... wrote:

        > Our author was not loathe to specify that there were seven lampstands
        > representing seven churches and seven spirits of God.  He also
        > enumerated seven seals, four angels holding back the winds, seven
        > trumpets, seven bowls of wrath and three woes.  Nowhere does he
        > specify that there are seven makarisms.  Even had he thus specified,
        > the question would remain "Why is this placed here?" though, in such a
        > case its authenticity would not then be in question.
        >
        But you only have to look at the amazing complex of words occurring
        four, seven, ten, 14 and 28 times (Richard Bauckham gives a start in
        Climax of Prophecy) to see that there are structures in the book which
        are not made explicit.

        If you are suggesting that we can effectively discard part of the text
        unless we see a reason for it being there--I think I would want to take
        issue with your methodology!

        Ian Paul
        _________________
        Revd Dr Ian Paul
        Director of Partnership Development, St John's College, Bramcote, Nottm
        NG9 3DS
        w 0115 925 1114 x 254 h 01202 745963 m 07974 351502
        Also Managing Editor, Grove Books Ltd Ridley Hall Road Cambridge CB3
        9HU
        01223 464748 Fax 01223 464849
        http://www.grovebooks.co.uk
      • polycarp66@aol.com
        In a message dated 4/19/2004 4:51:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, editor@grovebooks.co.uk writes: But you only have to look at the amazing complex of words
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 19, 2004
          In a message dated 4/19/2004 4:51:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, editor@... writes:
          But you only have to look at the amazing complex of words occurring
          four, seven, ten, 14 and 28 times (Richard Bauckham gives a start in
          Climax of Prophecy) to see that there are structures in the book which
          are not made explicit.

          If you are suggesting that we can effectively discard part of the text
          unless we see a reason for it being there--I think I would want to take
          issue with your methodology!
          _________
           
          Do you mean to say that if you were to find (hypothetically speaking, of course) a passage with a recipe for Trout Munieres in the middle, you would have any hesitation in saying it wasn't original?  I find something amiss with that methodology.
           
          gfsomsel
        • Ian Paul
          ... What I would do is ask: 1. whether it is genuine data in the text, or has been constructed by unjustifiably selective reading 2. whether this was a
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 19, 2004
            On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 01:26 PM, polycarp66@... wrote:

            > Do you mean to say that if you were to find (hypothetically speaking,
            > of course) a passage with a recipe for Trout Munieres in the middle,
            > you would have any hesitation in saying it wasn't original?  I find
            > something amiss with that methodology.
            >
            What I would do is ask:

            1. whether it is genuine data in the text, or has been constructed by
            unjustifiably selective reading
            2. whether this was a possible significance of the text for the author
            3. whether an informed first reader might have been able to discern
            this (ie so that this feature of the text was a genuine act of
            communication, which presumably all texts are intended to be)
            4. whether this could fit with the explicit (ie expressed at the level
            of semantic content) theology of the text.

            All four are satisfied in the observation of word frequencies (see my
            Grove booklet on the subject http://www.grovebooks.co.uk) whereas the
            supposed recipe for Trout Munieres would, I think, fall at every step.
            (As an alternative example, the Bible Code stuff fails at least at
            steps 1, 3 and 4.)

            There is also the question of burden of proof, that is, if we think
            that text has been added, we would need to support this with a good
            reason why a later scribe would see the need for this. (As an example,
            there are two good reasons for justifying the alternative reading of
            616 in Rev 13.18 which explains why it might have arisen, and
            additionally makes sense of the primary reading 666). The difficulty in
            16.15 is constructing a plausible meaning for the text *without* the
            interpolation (the meaning for the author) and constructing a plausible
            meaning for the text *with* the interpolation (the meaning for the
            later scribe/editor) and being able to tell the difference and how we
            might attribute these two meanings to the two people concerned the
            right way around (since if they are attributed the other way around,
            then the scribe should have taken text out not added it in).

            What I would avoid is:
            1. assuming that if something does not fit in with my reading, then it
            could not have fitted with the author's (possibly incoherent) intention
            2. offering slightly facile illustrations as a counter to a serious
            comment
            3. going under an anonymous signature in my emails

            regards

            Ian Paul
            _________________
            Revd Dr Ian Paul
            Director of Partnership Development, St John's College, Bramcote, Nottm
            NG9 3DS
            w 0115 925 1114 x 254 h 01202 745963 m 07974 351502
            Also Managing Editor, Grove Books Ltd Ridley Hall Road Cambridge CB3
            9HU
            01223 464748 Fax 01223 464849
            http://www.grovebooks.co.uk
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.