Revelations

To each his sufferings: all are men, Condemned alike to groan; The tender for another's pain, The unfeeling for his own. Yet ah! why should they know their fate? Since sorrow never comes too late, And happiness too swiftly flies. Thought would destroy their paradise. No more; where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise. 

-- Thomas Gray, "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College"

The concept of "original sin" troubles many, but recently thinking about the idea, my thought was that in a fashion it makes sense. Human knowledge is a two-pronged thing: it brings forth much good only with some baggage.  Knowledge is necessary to be aware of a concept such as sin and to actively do something we generally deem sinful. A brain damaged child might do harm, but not sin.  Knowledge and sin are linked.  Knowledge is an aspect of humanity.  As is the inability to be perfect.

So, being human includes a sinful nature, some drive to harm.  Fire begins forth arson along with its many good uses. We don't think that fire is therefore depraved as such and "original sin" does have a lot of problematic baggage.  Still, it has some truth to it.  Along with sin is the drive to fight it, to deem it as not just something one must bear, but something that can be destroyed in some fashion.  This continued to be a sort of seminal battle, many cultures believing creation itself was in some fashion a fight against sin or some sort of evil forces.  The Bible itself has signs of this, God controlling the void, making heaven and earth.

The Bible begins with creation and ends with a sort of destruction, namely, Revelations, which ends with the destruction of evil and the return to the beginning. The very heading of the final chapter in one version suggests as much: "Eden Restored."  The book also ends with a warning: "If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll."  Well, surely, that is the end of the Holy Scripture!  And, then we are told that Jesus is "coming soon" and a final "Amen" is said.  A fitting end to the Bible.

Of course, it isn't quite that simple and Elaine Pagels, who has made a career of studying alternate religious writings (particularly those known as "gnostic") says as much in her latest book.  Her own book ends on quite a different note than the original, promoting the importance of "our own voice."  The original, understood to be written around 90 C.E. by a person named "John," but (and many long before it was added to the canon of twenty-seven "New Testament" books thought as much) likely not the one who wrote the gospel by that name* was not so open-minded, concerned not just with the end times, but wrongful practice.  

Pagels' book uses Revelations as a launching pad for a broader discussion, the subtitle referencing "in the Book of Revelation" a tad misleading in that respect.  For instance, John seems to be a foreigner in a foreign land, theorized as originally from Palestine, but driven out because of the Jewish War of the 60s.  He is appalled at the state of the land he is in, a den of iniquity and false gods. But, Pagels notes that many in fact thought the temples and gods were a sign of the majesty of Rome, honoring the empire a means to place themselves in the order of things.  Brings to mind how the Jews sneered at idols as if people like simpletons were worshiping stone reflections of animals or such. Karen Armstrong and others, however, have noted idols were more a type of conduit to outside forces.  Much like icons and relics are for many Christians.

The irony of it all, of course, is that John saw Rome as the evil one here, but eventually we had a "Roman" Catholic Church.  This shows the plastic nature, the flexibility of the work in question.  The attraction to the mystical forces -- would make an interesting video game or comic book -- found in the book is not surprising.  It is a wondrous bit of poetry and vision, a sort of 1st Century Dante.  The charm goes beyond that because of the symbolic nature of it all.  The value of symbols and things not meant to be taken purely literally (though various references to actual things are clearly present; the book notes even the volcanic eruption at Pompey seems to be alluded to)  is it can apply to any number of things.

And, such is the case here -- Pagels makes a good case that John was an Orthodox Jew (I use the term loosely, I realize, given we need a frame of reference) as well being a Christian, someone who felt it important to follow kosher rules and such. He would therefore likely find Paul's philosophy (tempered some by Luke in Acts) that belief in Christ alone, not following such rules, is what is necessary.  (Pagels suggest this is true for Paul in general, not even that a Jewish Christian would still follow the traditional law.)  Imagine John's annoyance that not only were people who we now would deem Christian weren't following Jewish law, but that it would be in fact wrong, evil even, to suggest you had to do so!

In time, however, there was a move to unite everyone -- make things "catholic."  Thus, the differences between Paul and Peter were ironed out and James (not of the twelve apostles, the "brother" of Jesus, who head the Jerusalem Church until his death around 62) is barely mentioned.  Such differences, however, caused a lot of heat, Paul quite upset that his beliefs were challenged.  And, such schisms continued down to the 4th Century, when Christianity became the established church.  Revelations, concerned in part with wrongful belief and action, became useful here.  Its focus on Rome was no longer the focus; the "beast" now heretical Christians.  Pagels, of course, with her gnostic scholarship (such writings come up here too) is more open to this sort of thing.

So, the book is not only about the book itself and the times it was written, but also alternate visions and the "orthodox" groups (themselves ridiculed by the orthodox forces of the day -- now seen as pagans, though as Pagels notes at one point, the shared concerns might make it curious why it matters what exactly one worships, but such openness is the bane of the powers that be throughout the ages) who challenged them.  Readers of her past works will recognize common themes.  An interesting journey with various surprising tidbits, such as how Augustus compromised with the Jews (they were to honor him in their temple, but could do it to their God) and an early appeal to free exercise of religion as a "fundamental right" under natural law.

The book was quite controversial over the years, particularly given how some "heretical" groups found it so appealing, its mystical aspects and claim of prophecy by someone clearly not one of the twelve apostles (if him, why not anyone? where would that take us?!) not helping.  Still, it was as the link above notes, quite popular and that is one reason it was accepted as part of the canon. The ending also seems fitting and the person largely involved in promoting an idea of a fixed canon of books also saw its value as an appeal against "heretics."  Still, unlike most books of the New Testament, it was somewhat of an iffy thing down to the end.**

Such perhaps might be why Pagels finds it appealing. 

---

* The gospel by that name itself is anonymous, not labeled as being by "John" the apostle.  It is only said to be by the "beloved disciple," whomever that might be.  The book in question here at least (this is standard in prophetic literature, according to the book) says who is talking, well, at least the person's first name and location.   

** The inclusion of a set "canon" of twenty-seven books in the so-called New Testament is most problematic when other works are deemed so heretical that even reading them is a problem.  It was such an official announcement that led to the burial of a bunch of works that were only found in the 20th Century, beforehand deemed worthwhile by monasteries and others as a means of insight into the divine.

Most of the actual books are probably validly chosen over others as "true" accounts from the 1st Century. The gospels, e.g., probably do basically reflect what happened in Jesus' ministry in some sense as compared to later works purporting to talk about Jesus' childhood or him having Mary Magdalene serve as a vessel of gnostic knowledge. This does assume "authoritarian" means written by original "fathers of the Church" or those closely connected to them, which is partially why a move was made to make John the Apostle the author of Revelations, which many realized was fictional.  The ability of others to hear the voice of the divine is quite arguable but that would be a separate debate. 

Other gospels, e.g., very well provide insights and truth to those who wrote and read them, but other than (maybe) the Gospel of Thomas, they were actually written much later.  They also have a sort of mystical and at times fantastical content (even compared to walking on water and such) that not surprisingly were rejected.  A few books, such as II Peter (written quite late compared to the others) are questionable and were seen as such (also, the Letter to the Hebrews, not a Pauline letter or even written in his voice ala Timothy).  Again, this doesn't make them "wrong" as such.