Re: Revelations relocated?

Jim Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:55:26 -0400 

That's pretty interesting.  Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is probably
a good place to start before we approach any text, especially highly
symbolic texts.  The thing about texts that employ high degrees of
symbolism is that when we approach them they're more like ink blot tests
than any other form of literature -- we tend to see our own patterns in
them.  This is very easy with the book of Revelation and other
apocalyptic literature.

So we have to start with ourselves and our own presuppositions.  If we
come into the text with antisupernatural presuppositions, we're going to
read it one way.  If we come into the text willing to at least concede
the possibility that John was experiencing some kind of vision from God,
then we may approach the book another way.  

I'd like to refer to Umberto Eco again, from Six Walks in the Fictional
Woods.  He divides perspectives on texts into four arenas -- the
empirical author (the person who actually wrote the book), the empirical
reader (the person actually reading the book), the model author (a set of
instructions coded into the text directing us to read it a certain way),
and the model reader (the ideal person following these instructions).

Point is, we look to the text first, in my opinion.  How is the text
directing us to read it?  There are references to heavenly signs in
apocalyptic literature, what do they mean?  Do they seem to be pointing
to specific time frames within the text?  Or do they mean something else?
 Christ cut his disciples off whenever they asked for a time frame --
None of your business, boys, was essentially his answer.  See Acts 1.  So
should we look for that?    

So where I'd start is with the symbolism that is explained in the book
itself.  For the most part, when it's explained, most of the beasties
refer to human leaders or political alliances.  The tradition of Jewish
Apocalyptic literature into which Revelation falls makes it serve the
purpose of providing a long range view of human history.  It is
"prophecy" not because it foretells the future, but in that it shows all
of history **as it is relevant to a particular topic** in one sweeping
view.

Revelation 12 and 13 is a good example.  We have a woman that most
interpreters say represents either Israel or the Virgin Mary giving birth
to a child.  Christ, clearly.  A dragon tries to kill the child, but the
child is protected.  The dragon goes to war in heaven, and loses.  So the
dragon calls up a beast out of the sea, and that beast rules the earth. 
At the end of that beast's rule (42 months is mentioned, just 3 1/2
years), Christ returns and takes over himself.

So we go from the birth of Christ to sometime in the future (at least
2000 years later, since it hasn't happened yet) in just a couple short
chapters.  There's a heck of a lot that's gone on between that isn't even
mentioned, but that's not the purpose.         

So what I'd ask this guy is, do you think the model author is directing
us to read the text this way?  Or are we just seeing our own patterns
here?

Jim

>I have only recently been studying prophecy in any depth, so my 
>thoughts
>and questions certainly do not come from a scholarly perspective.  
>With
>respect to the Book of Revelations, I have read an interesting theory 
>about
>some of the symbolism contained in it.  In Robert F. Riggs's book
>Apocalypse Unsealed, he discusses a theory mainly taken from ASTRONOMY 
>by
>Dr. Arthur M. Harding.  This theory holds that many of the "beasts" of 
>the
>apocalypse are refernces to zodiac symbols.  It has nothing to do with
>modern astrology, but instead with the zodiac as it was used at the 
>time of
>the Bible, as a time keeper.  The parade of symbols across the sky
>correlate roughly with a year, but as enough time passes, the symbols 
>which
>coincide with a particular month change.  The solstices and equinoxes 
>were
>refered to as the four pillars or corners of the sky.  These shifts 
>take
>approximately two thousand years, and the symbols "reigning" at the
>solstices and equinoxes define periods in time.  To make a long story
>short, the reigning beasts refer to periods in time, before and after
>Christ's lifetime.
>
>Has anyone else heard this theory?  I have not been able to find any 
>other
>references to it so far.  Riggs discussed many other ways that the 
>zodiac
>symbols were significant, but i'm still trying to wrap my brain around 
>some
>of his logic.  Interested in any thoughts on the subject.
>
>Elizabeth
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.