Bart Ehrman on the apocalypse of revelation

[drumdude]

https://youtu.be/W7ibS4i8QfM

Ehrman points out that almost everyone, including himself 5 years ago, misunderstands the Book of Revelation.

Some insights:

1) This disaster story was just a popular genre at the time, like superhero movies are today

2) The John of the gospels was not considered by early Christian scholars as the writer of Revelation

3) Much of what people believe about the apocalypse comes from the popular Christian fan fiction since the 1830s. It’s not in the text at all.

4) For most of Christian history, the book was not interpreted as a prediction of the figure. That started with the French Revolution. And John Edwards of “sinners in the hands of an angry God” fame.


Joseph Smith took all of that and ran with it. Creating fan fiction built upon fan fiction.

[Philo Sofee]

Yes, not only Ehrman, but also Elaine Pagels and Margaret Barker have thoughts along these lines. Good catch reminding us that Joseph Smith ran with it however. Funny how some things just skip right by one while researching. This is a podcast in the making! Smith, for all his prophetic insights, didn't realize Revelation was fan fiction as it were. And it had nothing to do with prophesying of future events. THANKS for the insight!

[kairos]

Just to note!
Serious scholars of The Revelation point out that it relies almost exclusively on the Old Testament especially Ezekiel and Daniel. When I say serious scholars I mean those who for their lifetimes have been down in the weeds-are down into the words, context and possible meanings of every verse in The Revelation and where it is found in the Old Testament-whence they try to draw some practical conclusions. In that area BE is a lightweight and people like me not even a featherweight.
Thanx for the Post!
by the way when I asked E by email years ago if he could agree that at least one miracle in the New Testament was authentically a miracle, he blew it off apparently trying to hold to a position that Jesus was not God. I have no idea what position he holds now on that issue.
In a sense I believe he goes along with the nutcases like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar who say that only about 6 words in the New Testament were actually spoken by Jesus. Of course non believers get comfort from the Seminar’s “scholarship “! I think they are dangerous to Christianity.
Sorry for the late rant!
k

[Jason Bourne]

https://youtu.be/W7ibS4i8QfM

Ehrman points out that almost everyone, including himself 5 years ago, misunderstands the Book of Revelation.

Some insights:

1) This disaster story was just a popular genre at the time, like superhero movies are today

2) The John of the gospels was not considered by early Christian scholars as the writer of Revelation

3) Much of what people believe about the apocalypse comes from the popular Christian fan fiction since the 1830s. It’s not in the text at all.

4) For most of Christian history, the book was not interpreted as a prediction of the figure. That started with the French Revolution. And John Edwards of “sinners in the hands of an angry God” fame.


Joseph Smith took all of that and ran with it. Creating fan fiction built upon fan fiction.

I very much enjoyed this presentation. I enjoy both Sam Harris and Bart Ehrman.

[huckelberry]

https://youtu.be/W7ibS4i8QfM

Ehrman points out that almost everyone, including himself 5 years ago, misunderstands the Book of Revelation.

Some insights:

1) This disaster story was just a popular genre at the time, like superhero movies are today

2) The John of the gospels was not considered by early Christian scholars as the writer of Revelation

3) Much of what people believe about the apocalypse comes from the popular Christian fan fiction since the 1830s. It’s not in the text at all.

4) For most of Christian history, the book was not interpreted as a prediction of the figure. That started with the French Revolution. And John Edwards of “sinners in the hands of an angry God” fame.


Joseph Smith took all of that and ran with it. Creating fan fiction built upon fan fiction.

I think this new book might be worth a read. The inventive interpretations of the book of Revelations in the past 200 years have grown into a large and to my mind negative influence. Ehrman pointed to Darby and the development of dispensational theories as the source of the rapture theory. I have noticed in the past that the ideas of dispensations has a popularity in Mormon thought but I don't think the rapture idea has been included. Well getting excited about the near end has had plenty of Mormon energy.

I think there have been people who noticed the vengeful dimension in the book before five years ago. There are a variety of ways to read it. I noticed he explained Jonathan Edwards read the millennium the opposite way as these left behind fans. Edwards thought we should all be working to make a better world to prepare for some future second coming. I agree and if I think about Revelations I see warning of the difficulties to be encountered in the historical way. Edwards could be extreme but he was not supporting this abandon helping the world because it is all ending sort of nonsense.

[huckelberry]

Yes, not only Ehrman, but also Elaine Pagels and Margaret Barker have thoughts along these lines. Good catch reminding us that Joseph Smith ran with it however. Funny how some things just skip right by one while researching. This is a podcast in the making! Smith, for all his prophetic insights, didn't realize Revelation was fan fiction as it were. And it had nothing to do with prophesying of future events. THANKS for the insight!

Yesterday I listened to a different conversation with Bart Ehrman on this subject. He pointed out that at first people understood it as predicting the future and there was difficulty in accepting it as scripture. Mr Augustine devised an interpretation which did not see it as predictive. This change made it easier to accept. The book has disruptive and destructive potential and Augustine's interpretation blunted those.

Though historical predication as a reading grew a great deal in the past two hundred years Ehrman noted earlier time. Munster being an example of baleful influence.

[Philo Sofee]

Yes, not only Ehrman, but also Elaine Pagels and Margaret Barker have thoughts along these lines. Good catch reminding us that Joseph Smith ran with it however. Funny how some things just skip right by one while researching. This is a podcast in the making! Smith, for all his prophetic insights, didn't realize Revelation was fan fiction as it were. And it had nothing to do with prophesying of future events. THANKS for the insight!

Yesterday I listened to a different conversation with Bart Ehrman on this subject. He pointed out that at first people understood it as predicting the future and there was difficulty in accepting it as scripture. Mr Augustine devised an interpretation which did not see it as predictive. This change made it easier to accept. The book has disruptive and destructive potential and Augustine's interpretation blunted those.

Though historical predication as a reading grew a great deal in the past two hundred years Ehrman noted earlier time. Munster being an example of baleful influence.

Oh thanks for pointing this out.

[huckelberry]

Just to note!
Serious scholars of The Revelation point out that it relies almost exclusively on the Old Testament especially Ezekiel and Daniel. When I say serious scholars I mean those who for their lifetimes have been down in the weeds-are down into the words, context and possible meanings of every verse in The Revelation and where it is found in the Old Testament-whence they try to draw some practical conclusions. In that area BE is a lightweight and people like me not even a featherweight.
Thanx for the Post!
by the way when I asked E by email years ago if he could agree that at least one miracle in the New Testament was authentically a miracle, he blew it off apparently trying to hold to a position that Jesus was not God. I have no idea what position he holds now on that issue.
In a sense I believe he goes along with the nutcases like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar who say that only about 6 words in the New Testament were actually spoken by Jesus. Of course non believers get comfort from the Seminar’s “scholarship “! I think they are dangerous to Christianity.
Sorry for the late rant!
k

Bart Ehrman has explained in some detail that he is an agnostic atheist. He believes the problem of pain and evil in the world is large enough to rule out the existence of god.

I do not think Crossan is correct. He does make some interesting observations however. Calling him a nutcase might satisfy an emotional note but is pretty doubtful and clarifies little.