Session I - April 18, 2007 - Introduction

Session I

So, the semester has finally started. In this first session I hope I was not too efficient about scaring students away. After a few introductory remarks on course requirements, we began by reading that short article from the Village Voice, with a mention of Charles Manson's call on the apocalyptic. More interesting than that, and I guess in retrospect I didn't make this clear enough, was that quote the article has in the final paragraph, taken from a song by American band Collective Soul, a quote pertinent to the apocalyptic in its own quaint way -

• “Teach me how to speak/Teach me how to share/Teach me where to go/Tell me will love be there. . . Oh, heaven let your light shine down"

I felt strongly reminded of John, the apocalyptist, who we had the pleasure to meet today, not in person or spirit, but as the first-person narrator in the excerpts on that two-page-handout with a best-of-sample from Revelations -

Remember that very final paragraph at the end of the handout (and the end of Revelation, of course)?

• (22.19) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. (22.19) And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

It seems that God has taught him to speak - and he does that with a lot of anger and full of righteousness: he, after all, is the one with the divine inspiration (1.1-1.2 - "He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ" - and note that he saw the revelation, he didn't just listen to it) - but not how to share the word. Any reader, one would think, would be forced to make interpretations of his or her own, as this is just what people do in reading a text - and certainly so in a text as wild and flurried as Revelation) - and that is just what John tries to outlaw here, interpretations: since, according to him, his text is the divine word itself, not a iota of it may be changed.

How far does that extend? If you go by the word of John, even a simple translation would not be legitimate, it seems, especially not when it goes between languages that are as grammatically and syntactically incompatible as Ancient Greek and Modern English, as any such interpretation is also an interpretation.

It's quite possible to take the text at face level, as evangelical defenders of a strict biblical literalism would, of course - any maybe that is the easiest and most coherent way to make sense of this odd text: it removes the urge to interpret all these weird symbols and metaphors and takes the book as a straightforward description of the final stages of the history of planet Earth.

______

What I'd like to take away from this session is an understanding that apocalypse is not a synonym for catastrophe - rather, it's a very distinct way of segmentalizing the historical timeline, with all implications this has.

It's important that Revelation is very precise with durations, but not at all with dates: "it will soon come to pass" is all that John has to offer on the point, and this was 1900 years ago. He seems to have a rather lax definition of the term "soon". That notwithstanding, he's absolutely clear about the precise course of the upcoming apocalypse - that's what is making this book so different to me. His style is deliberately precise and cutting and doesn't match at all the weird content it is expressing - all these over-the-top symbols (such as the dragon) are described in a very sober language, not in a totally mad rant. And he doesn't spare with precise numbers - we read, to name the most obvious example, about the millenium, that is the one thousand year period of God's reign on earth that will pass before the final battle.

Noteworthy is the degree to which John is using apocalyptic language as a means of power - there is, as we have read, no compromise possible: either you are in among the saved that will survive the final battle, or you are out. This is a clear and - to John - easy choice (remember that he speaks in the conviction that he is the bearer of the divine spirit), and consequently there is no compassion at all for all who make the wrong decision. Also, there is no way back once you've made your decision, because an indelible mark comes with it -

• He [=Satan] also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. (13.16-17)
  

• And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (20.15)

It takes some serious action not to wear the mark - which may explain why some believers in an infallible bible have serious problems with barcodes, implants, and other devices that may function as a mark. On a more every-day level, the Euro currency has also been interpreted as a mark of the devil - it is the mark we have to use to do business, no matter what kind.

Europeans believe that the monetary system called ECU (European Currency Unit), now in place, will serve as the medium of commercial exchange and trade. However, the Bible reveals that a mark (or the symbolic number 666) on the right hand or forehead will replace the ECU and become the mandatory currency expression necessary to conduct trade and commerce in much of the world. Those refusing to accept this mark will be killed. (Arthur H. Brown, Europe After Democracy, 1993, pp. 138,139)

The final sentence seems to cast a heap of doubt on the whole thing - I can't seem to remember the German government, or any other ECU government, prescribe the death penalty for those who refuse to pay using Euro coins and bills, rather than, say, lumps of silver. Lumps of silver just ain't so very practical to carry around in a wallet.

Going on, Christian Crouch gave us an ad-hoc introduction, better than I would have been able to, on the terms of pre-millenialism (gist: humans are living before Christ's 1000 year reign), post-millenialism (gist: the 1000 years are already up and rolling, and Christ will return at the end of them) , and a-millenialism (gist: the number 1000 in this context is a symbolic, not a literal, number). Now, you don't have to memorize these terms, but the idea behind them - there is a historical timeline, and there are ways to take a position on it, the final phase/the end of history that Revelation describes included.

_______
_______

So far. In case you haven't noticed: it's everywhere. The end of the world, I mean - Thursday, April 19, will see the box office start of Sunshine, yet another disaster movie, dealing with the re-ignition of an extinguished sun. You may also remember Armageddon - which takes its title and motive from Revelation. Yes, apocalyptic John also has disastrous meteors in his arsenal, we read about that:

• The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter. (8.11)

What do you think: would John have approved of a space mission to destroy the meteor Wormwood? Or not?

Got any other feedback or remarks on this week's class session? Then go ahead and post them here.