4 ms·
That would demand I become a biblical scholar. As I am not, I won't presume. But I will ask another question: Are you even confident the Aramaic uses a word whi
by ggm 2y ago
That would demand I become a biblical scholar. As I am not, I won't presume. But I will ask another question: Are you even confident the Aramaic uses a word which translates to "apocalypse" as we understand it or might it mean some other contextual meaning such as a revalation of the relationship with god, rather than the apocryphal end-of-times sense?
Because your reply presupposes the modern understanding is inherently sound because of an appeal to authority of the wisdom of times past. I would say instead by the time of the council of Nicea, things were already very political and the church was seeking to confirm words to suit the institution, not for their actual historical meaning. That was only 2-300 years after the record mind you.
- jarpadat 2y agoI tend to agree with your general intuition that presupposing modern understandings creates all kinds of problems understanding ancient texts, some of which is in translation. But the specific case of "apokalypsis" it is kind of the opposite. There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea. The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.