It’s not a typo and I haven’t mistakenly named the last book
of the New Testament in the plural. The
full name of the book I’ve just finished reading is Revelations: Visions,
Prophecy and Politics in the Book of Revelation by Elaine Pagels[i]. Pagels is a well respected professor of
religion and author of several books focusing on Gnostic texts. Her latest book is a history of the canonical
book of Revelation and of other, Gnostics revelation texts. In Revelations she shows how John’s
Revelation came to its place in the accepted books of the canon and why these
other Gnostic works were excluded.
In 1945 a cache of ancient manuscripts was found in Egypt . These documents have come to be known as the
Nag Hamadi texts. Some of these were
“gospels” and some were “books of revelation.”
It is to these that Pagels would like us to turn our attention – but I
was really surprised by how little space she devoted to them in the book.
Revelations is not a commentary on the canonical book
of Revelation, but out of necessity Pagels does give some comment and an
outline of her interpretation of this notoriously difficult book. Her interpretation surprised me a little; and
this surprise surprised me. I like the
book of Revelation. I’ve read it and
re-read it again and again. I’ve read quite a few commentaries on it, both
modern and some ancient and I haven’t (yet) encountered any that interpreted it
in the way she has. I guess I haven’t
read the right ones yet.
Pagels believes that the writer of the Revelation was a “strictly observant Jew” who was enraged with “Gentile followers of Jesus converted through Paul’s teaching” who had begun to corrupt the synagogues ofAsia
Minor [ii]. She interprets John’s harsh words against
“those who claim to be apostles but are not[iii],”
and those “who hold to the teachings of Balaam[iv]”
and “those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan[v]”
to be these Gentile followers of the Christ who had joined the Jewish community
through the teaching of Paul but who did not adhere to the torah.
Pagels believes that the writer of the Revelation was a “strictly observant Jew” who was enraged with “Gentile followers of Jesus converted through Paul’s teaching” who had begun to corrupt the synagogues of
This is not an interpretation that I’ve encountered before.
Again, maybe I’m reading the wrong books.
Pagels seems to have anticipated my rejection of her interpretation.
“But, some readers may ask, when John attacks the ‘synagogue of Satan’ isn’t he talking about actual Jews, that is, members of local synagogues who are hostile to Christians? When he warns ‘those who way they are Jews and are not,’ doesn’t he mean the opposite of what he says – that they actually are Jews who don’t deserve to be called by that name?”[vi]
She calls this interpretation “convoluted.”
But I disagree. Or
maybe – I accept that it is a “convoluted” argument, but it seems to square
with what much of the rest of the New Testament seems to indicate about the
state of relationship between the “Jews” and the burgeoning “Christian”
community within the established Jewish synagogues.
We find this kind of “convoluted” argument in John’s gospel
where Jesus refers to some of his “Jewish” opponents as children of the devil.[vii] This clash is found throughout Paul’s
letters. In one of them he says that not
everyone descended from Israel
is actually Israel .[viii] These are just a couple of references to this
same kind of argument. Why is it convoluted
(and wrong) in Revelation, but natural in these other places?
Pagles also suggests that “John” (whoever he might have
been, -but certainly not John the Apostle, according to Pagles) wrote in
bizarre apocalyptic style as a sort of code in order to hide the meaning from
prying Roman eyes because “open hostility to Rome could be dangerous; he may
have feared reprisal[ix].” This is an idea I’ve heard and read before.
But it’s not one I’ve ever found very convincing. If this is a code intended to disguise
anti-Imperial propaganda, John failed.
That message is pretty clear – even if the book as a whole is
difficult. I don’t believe that John
(whoever he may have been) wrote as he did to –hide- anything; this is a
“revelation” after all. John wrote to reveal
not to hide. But John’s choice of images
and allusions are drawn from a deep knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and are
used to reveal his message about Jesus, and the things to come.
Pagles seems to believe that history has proven John’s
Revelation wrong[x] and that
it only has value in a post-modern sort of subjective-true-if-it-works way
instead of being grounded in an objective and historical truth. I won’t defend an “inerrant” definition of
biblical inspiration, but if any text (scripture or otherwise) can mean anything
then it means nothing.
In the third chapter, “Other Revelations: Heresy or
Illuminations” Pagels gives a very brief overview of some of “revelations”
found in the Nag Hamadi texts. But it’s
very brief – barely 30 pages (out of the 180 pages of actual text). This is the material that I actually expected
when I picked up the book at the library. I knew of Pagels’ other writings on
Gnostic material and I had hoped to learn a bit more about these other
revelations. Oh well. I guess I’ll have to hunt them down and read
them.
While I disagreed with Pagels through chapters 1 and 2 and
was disappointed by chapter 3, I thought chapter 4 “Confronting Persecution:
How Jews and Christians Separated Politics from Religion” and chapter 5 “Constantine ’s Conversion:
How John’s Revelation Became Part of the Bible” were wonderful.
These two chapters are a short history of how the Christian church moved from persecuted minority to the religion of the empire – and how the book of Revelation was variously interpreted for political and ecclesiastical purposes and used against enemies from without and from within the developing Christian church. This was great material, and I would have been pleased to read more.
These two chapters are a short history of how the Christian church moved from persecuted minority to the religion of the empire – and how the book of Revelation was variously interpreted for political and ecclesiastical purposes and used against enemies from without and from within the developing Christian church. This was great material, and I would have been pleased to read more.
As an example- Pagles notes how Tertullian’s interpretation of Revelation led him to an impassioned plea for a secular government that would allow its citizens the freedom to worship according to the dictates of their conscience – a liberate religionis – freedom of religion. “Those of us who think of human rights and natural rights as concepts born of the French and American revolutions, might be surprised to see this African Christian standing up to defy Scapula, the Roman magistrate stationed in Africa, circa 205 C.E., with these words: ‘It is a fundamental human right, a power bestowed by nature, that each person should worship according to his own convictions, free from compulsion.’”[xi]
In the book’s conclusion Pagles briefly laments that Gnostic
voices of revelation were excluded from the canon. She describes them as “visions that lift
their hearers beyond apocalyptic polarities to see the human race a whole…to
see each one of us as a whole, having the capacity for both cruelty and
compassion.”
“Living in an increasingly interconnected world, we need such universal visions more than ever.”[xii]
“Living in an increasingly interconnected world, we need such universal visions more than ever.”[xii]
I won’t at this time go into an apologetic defense of
‘orthodox’ (whatever that may be) Christianity against Gnosticism, but I hardly
think we need these forgotten ancient voices to bring back Gnostic ideas. The Gnostic texts may have been suppressed,
but their ideas have never really disappeared.
Listen to Oprah, or Osteen, or Chopra if it’s Gnosticism you want.
[i] Pagels,
Elaine, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy and Politics in the Book of
Revelation,
Penguin Books, New York , NY ,
2012
[ii] Page 54
[iii]
Revelation 2:2
[iv]
Revelation 2:14
[v]
Revelation 2:9
[vi] Page
59- 60 – Italics in the original.
[vii] John
8:44
[viii]
Romans 9:6
[ix] Page 30
[x] Page 135
[xi] Pages
131- 2
[xii] Page
176
No comments:
Post a Comment