For the latter half of the book, I want to draw focus on something we talked about in class, the presentation of women in Revelation. Not only that but the perception that John of Patmos has of sex and anything remotely related to it. While Kirsch’s analysis of the historical impact that Revelation has had on western civilization is interesting, I want to move beyond that and try to get into John’s head. More than that, I think it might be more important to understand John’s perspective on certain behaviors in order to get the additional, possibly hidden, messages within Revelation he was trying to convey.
Cialina spoke of the romanticism of the book among women and I think what’s interesting is that the wealthy women of the Middle Ages actually commissioned Revelation as well as various related works for their private readings. Often times they were not read but instead looked at in the form of illustrations. They only knew of what Revelation said because of the clergy but the images told exactly the kind of romantic story that they would have enjoy, complete with the motifs of a damsel and dragons and whatnot, and images allow for too many interpretations. Something to think about.
On another note, Kirsch says himself that John feared women and points to the image of the Whore of Babylon as the prime example. The Whore, representing Rome, is a source of so much disdain for John that he spends all of two chapters on her while offering the woman clothed in the sun as well as the bride of the Lamb much smaller sections. Much of the time spent on the Whore is more description of crimes and punishments and the beast she sits on, though; things about Rome that he despised.
Now, I would like to bring up the possibility that John not only hated women but had been traumatized in some way that he found them the source of all evil, as he does with the Whore and Jezebel; the latter I don’t wish to use as she has a male counterpart that committed similar crimes whereas there is no equal to the Whore besides the serpent and that seems to be a loose connection. Countless research made by theologians and historians has concluded that John of Patmos was very Jewish in origin and had followed those beliefs or known of them at the very least. Whereas the language of the Bible in general is very patriarchal, only John ever resorts to derogatory terms. In the Gospels, Jesus refers to a Canaanite woman as a dog not because she is a woman but because Jews and Canaanites hated each other and, as Jesus put it, he was sent to save God’s chosen people but he even praises her once he sees she’s of great faith. Even Daniel, who John borrowed so much from, never writes with the intensity that John does against woman. There are also countless stories in the Old Testament of women of such great faith that they earn their own books and are highly respected, like Judith or Ruth, who wasn’t even a Jew.
I’m not a psychology major but I would like to purpose the idea that perhaps John of Patmos was…. Something. He might not have been homosexual or asexual or even a eunuch, though that might be possible, but there is an underlying reason for his violence against women in Revelation and it might have morphed his representation of his allegories of Rome and the churches he addresses his letters to.
I think this is interesting as an idea, and the same kind of analysis crossed my mind as well, but I find that (from a traditional literary analysis standpoint) there is not enough to grasp at here to be “sure” or at least remotely sure of any of these ideas. I think it’d be interesting grounds for a kind of creative project – I’ve been thinking a lot about writing something from an Apocalyptic standpoint. I am just as curious as you are, and the idea of some kind of poor experience causing him his reasoning sounds logical, but I don’t know that we have any way to find out. Though it’s fun to wonder, and maybe we can learn something if we take those assumptions as far as we can, and reflect the writing onto that kind of philosophy or “place” of analysis.
Hi Cecibell,
While it may be the case that John of Patmos had what in or day we call psychological problems that manifest in an intense disdain for women, that doesn’t explain the centuries old presumption that Eve was the source of evil in the world and the reason for humanity’s downfall. Nor does it explain why so many others after John held similar beliefs about women being in league with Satan. In other words, he is hardly unique in history, which is the issue that Kirsch wants his readers to grasp. What is it about the Book of Revelation that either echoes or triggers such views of women? As you indicate, the Whore of Babylon is a powerful representation of evil cast as a sexually decadent female—but, as history shows, this is a representation that is not as uncommon as you suggest so we need to place it and John in a context that acknowledges prior history and also recognizes how Revelation was used by others in misogynistic ways. Kirsch calls this a shared delusion. Are you suggesting that this is a shared trauma?
Hey Cecibell,
I’m sort of on Amy’s track in believing that while your ideas here are interesting, and similar thoughts crossed my mind while reading the book, there isn’t enough to glean such a specific portrait of John. I think, for instance, that his intense hatred of women could stem from indoctrination. Could someone such as John, who had such intense, zealot-like passion for scripture, have internalized the idea that Eve (and by extension, all women) is the root of all evil to such an extent that he creates a work that heaps vitriol on the gender as a whole? It’s a possibility as well. These ideas aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, come to think of it. Though I don’t think there’s enough evidence to definitively support either of these claims, I think you could definitely be onto something with your analysis.