(Per the first paragraph, the term "funadgelicals," which I've seen on some Patheos blogs, might be better than using "fundamentalist" for all conservative Protestants. On the other hand, politically and theologically moderate to liberal Protestants in mainline denominations refer to themselves as "liberal evangelicals," among other things, and are represented in thought by magazines like Sojourners, so, it's actually not such an ideal alternative. But I digress.)
Well, not confused as much as claiming they're the same.
They're not.
First, there is NO "theology of the New Testament." There's theologies of different authors. And, one might even distinguish early from late Paul, and I'm not even counting the "Pauline" pseudepigraphal works.
Second, they're simply not the same.
First, Paul's man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians:
Could be seen as reflecting Nero Redivivus legends that flourished years, even decades, after his death. Indeed, a pretender arose during Domitian's time. (Collins and others mention this, too.)
In any case, this beast is NOT the man of lawlessness. It arises from outside the congregation of the faithful, and operates by forceful, violent opposition, not deceit. (Godfrey elsewhere discusses the whole book coming from Nero's time. This, and other updates, come from a subReddit post about a British academic claiming that the eruption of Vesuvius was the target, with VERY specific alleged terminus a quem/ad quo dates for the writing range. Color me skeptical. That's even more so since Alan Garrow also claims the first part of the Didache precedes even 1 Thessalonians. He gets there by saying this is the same as the "Jerusalem Council," which he claims actually happened and also claims that Acts 15 is paralleled by Galatians 2:1-10. Really? Pass. I get the feeling that some young bucks at r/AcademicBiblical are looking for young bucks in biblical scholarship who have one foot, at least, halfway in the Sokol hoax camp. And, Garrow's Sokol hoax is a Didache fetish. Side note: Now that I've been comment banned for calling a quasi-Nazi moderator just that and other things, I'll say there's a fair amount of nuttery in that subReddit.)
And neither the beast nor the man of lawlessness is the antichrist(s) of 1-2 John, specifically 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 1:7. Per the parentheses, more than one person is referred to.
Well, not confused as much as claiming they're the same.
They're not.
First, there is NO "theology of the New Testament." There's theologies of different authors. And, one might even distinguish early from late Paul, and I'm not even counting the "Pauline" pseudepigraphal works.
Second, they're simply not the same.
First, Paul's man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians:
2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 New International Version (NIV)
3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Actually, "Paul" should probably be in scare quotes; the majority of modern scholarship considers this pseudepigraphal, albeit with lack of consensus on when it actually was written, per the intro to this quote. In addition, the "don't you remember" of verse 5 reads exactly how I would expect a pseudo-Paul to read.
Anyway, this appears to be almost like an evil version of the intertestamental Metatron. And arising from within the faithful.
BUT! He's not currently present in this realm. He's being held back. And, this seems to be part of "Paul" explaining that the eschaton will come — when the man of lawlessness is revealed. In other words, part of 2 Thessalonians explaining away the immanent eschaton that pervades 1 Thessalonians.
It is this critter that is fused with the 666 of Revelation, but given the name of Antichrist. It is this critter that, given his internal rise, Luther identified with the papacy. Note: The office, not any individual pope.
And THAT said, I just had a brain flash.
What if this is a vaticinium ex eventu, with the "coming" in verse 9 being Rome entering the Most Holy Place? As in, the Jewish War. Or, if this is allegedly from "inside the faith," or kind of like that, it would be the Zealot rebels, or the worst of them. That would probably mean that the early end of critical dating of 85-115 is correct. The Bar Kokhba War is too late a date, as Marcion had it in his canon, and much later than 85? The Temple Revolt might not be a good sign. Maybe we could date as late as 95 or so, the time of the Christian sections of Revelation.
Per what I said above, if connected to the Jewish War and the temple, it can't be Titus, as he doesn't arise from among the faithful.
And with that, on to "the number of the beast."
First, given that no word is intended, "616" is not the text-critical tougher read. The Greek for “666,” χξϛ, has a “triple sibilant” sound
which the Greek for “616,” χιϛ, does not.
Second? "Nero Caesar" in the Hebrew alphabet is נרון
קסר NRON QSR, which when used as
numbers represent 50 200 6 50 100 60 200, which add to 666. And one does not have to be a preterist to accept this. (If you drop the final "ן" [which has you at the nominative singular of the name Nero in Latin], you get "616." That might mean that a scribe familiar with Latin did an edit.)
J. Massingbyrde Ford, in her Anchor Bible volume on Revelation, had the interesting theory that the central sections were written by John the Baptist. My review is here.
Just one problem. Not only the Christian gospels but Josephus claim that Antipas killed John. And, I've never seen that Josephus passage credibly claimed to be a Christian interpolation.
BUT! As noted in my review, we know that disciples of John were running around during Nero's imperium. Says who? The author of Acts, in chapter 19.
So, say one of them wrote Revelation 4-11. (Some other scholars, like James Tabor, favor ideas along this line.) But the beast is in chapter 13.
Can we extend Ford's thesis to see strands later on? It's tough. Unless one wants to claim that John's followers had a Messianic view of him by this time, and the Christian final writer of Revelation did a copy and rewrite even past chapter 11, it's tough. But, from what we've seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as, of course, what Paul promulgated about Jesus, not impossible. (Per some recent critical scholarship on the ante-Nicean era and its larger milieu, trying to find actual historical ties from Mandeanism to the Baptizer is a mug's game.)
In case you're wondering, some of the specifics from the first three chapters of the book date it to the time of Domitian, pretty strongly. (At Vridar, Neil Godfrey references Adela Yarbro Collins, among others, on this dating and the information that's a hinge.) So, traditional unitary authorship theories, or even Ford's idea if we can't extend the central area through chapter 13, throw Nero as the beast out the door.
At the same time, chapter 14 refers back to the mark. And chapter 16 refers back to this beast. Chapter 17 refers to another beast, based on Daniel imagery.
But the Babylon throughout could be Jerusalem, not Rome, with a Johannine follower saluting its overthrow. Certainly, if one rejects prophecy other than vaticinium ex eventu, Babylon can't be Rome. AND, the name of "Jesus" does not appear until Revelation 20, which can, on other grounds as well, be seen as starting something new.
Or, whether Johannine or Yeshuite, the core of Revelation could be dated later than the 60s. This, Revelation 13:14:
Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.
My personal guess is that, the "denying that Jesus has come in the flesh" has the author (authors?) battling some sort of Docetism. This is neither a deceiver leading one to Satan (2 Thessalonians) nor a mighty emissary of Satan (Revelation). That said, that only encompasses two of the four references. A third would seem to be against Ebionism or similar, calling those who reject Jesus' full divinity antichrist. The final verse, but, the first in order, seems to anticipate one final antichrist, but without any further definition.
In any case, all the 1-2 John references are theological ones about what would later be called Christology. And, the battles already in these books are a pretty good support for a second-century date of writing. And, the different reference in 2 John might indicate that, within a "Johannine school," it and 3 John have a different author than 1 John.
In any case, all the 1-2 John references are theological ones about what would later be called Christology. And, the battles already in these books are a pretty good support for a second-century date of writing. And, the different reference in 2 John might indicate that, within a "Johannine school," it and 3 John have a different author than 1 John.
No comments:
Post a Comment