For two thousand years, people have attempted to uncover the true meaning behind the Book of Revelation. Yet can there really be just one “true” meaning that takes precedence over anything else? In A History of the End of The World, Jonathan Kirsch reviews several dozen different interpretations of Revelation that each have their own followers and critics. These interpretations seem to change as the centuries progress and often reflect upon societal conflicts. When all we have left to go on is a piece of literature (if some even dare to call the Book of Revelation literature), we must accept that each reader creates his or her own interpretation, which becomes their own “true” meaning.
Back in the early years of interpreting Revelation, circa the first and second centuries, the literalists seemed to make a large impact. For example, the Montanists, “like countless other mystics and visionaries, insisted on reading the text of Revelation as absolute and literal truth” (104). Despite John’s warning that the book should be read as an allegory, they did not try to decode numerical messages or find symbolism in the fantastical imagery. Rather, they convinced their followers that John’s prophecy would be fulfilled so soon that they would be alive to witness it. But their belief was so strong that even as they went through life, prophecy unfulfilled, they were not swayed from their faith. Instead, their inaccurate prediction seemed to give them new fervor for the Christian life.
As time passed and interpretations changed, strength in belief remained the same. With the later interpretations, it is also easier to see the impact that society has on the minds of these visionaries. Circa the eleventh century, the most popular Revelation interpretation was an attack on the church itself. Hildegard of Bingen essentially accused the members of the clergy of corruption, saying that “the greatest evil in Christendom was to be found within the bosom of the church” (144). Probably unhappy with the functions of the church, she launched an attack in the form of a Revelation inspired vision, exposing the corruption from within. In the next few centuries, there are also several apocalyptic theories that attempt to explain natural disasters and fatal epidemics. If we fast-forward a few hundred years from then, we see the modern interpretations that we are probably more familiar with. Kirsch aptly groups these interpretations in a chapter called “The Godless Apocalypse.” As weaponry rapidly advanced within a short few decades in the twentieth century, a worldwide fear of complete destruction developed. The force of apocalyptic destruction landed in the hands of mankind. The atomic bomb became a force so full of imminent doom, that it was inevitably added into the thread of apocalyptic theories. During the era of the atomic bomb, people believed the end was nigh just as much as anyone ever has over the past two millennia.
A written text can be interpreted in countless ways. Whether the Book of Revelation is to be taken literally or metaphorically is ultimately decided by the readers. Just as John’s own genuine belief in the Book of Revelation was enough to get it recognized by the church, anyone else’s genuine belief in their interpretation of Revelation is enough to make it legitimate. And after evaluating the effect that societal situations have on interpretations, it is easy to see how these apocalyptic theories relate to each era, making each “meaning” of the Book of Revelation that much more believable.
Hi Emily,
I’m intrigued by your conclusion in light of your introductory paragraph about true meaning of a text: “A written text can be interpreted in countless ways. Whether the Book of Revelation is to be taken literally or metaphorically is ultimately decided by the readers.” This latter view is actually historically in keeping with the Protestant Reformation, which broke from the authority of the Catholic Church to declare the status of truth. In the reformation, it was argued that people could read sacred text and get at the truth of the text themselves. This didn’t mean that every interpretation was correct, however, and certain interpretations were seen as heretical. Often, new congregations emerged out of disagreements. There is increasingly an emphasis on what you claim about countless interpretations. So my question for you is, under those circumstances, how is truth defined?
I find it interesting how you explore how Revelation and its cultural relevance has changed throughout the years as it is interpreted either literally or metaphorically. What I find particularly interesting in light of the differences between the literal and metaphoric interpretations is how mainstream, irreligious culture has adopted certain aspects of Revelation literally, such as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the Antichrist. Even without the passion of true believers, many of us are familiar with these images and figures, which are embedded deeply in our cultural subconscious. While other aspects of modern day apocalypse scenarios deal with man-made disasters or “godless apocalypses,” certain aspects of Revelation have been adopted wholesale and remain virtually unchanged from their depiction in John’s writings. I find myself wondering why these aspects of Revelation retain their appeal in popular culture and others do not.
I also would like to ask Professor Quinby’s question: How is truth defined when there are countless interpretations? What would be the kernel of truth, if it exists, that all of these interpretations have stemmed from? Or rather, what truth are these interpretations leading towards? When looking at how apocalyptic thought has evolved and taken shape over the centuries, Kirsch makes it clear that a Godless apocalypse takes priority in the movies and novels of the last few decades. As the centuries have progressed, it seems more and more aspects of the Book of Revelation have been criticized or cut out altogether – at least in mainstream popular culture – and the idea that humans have the power to end the world prevails.
But, as Aparna asks, it’s interesting to think about why certain aspects of the Book of Revelation have still remained with us even after all of these countless interpretations. As I jokingly reminded one of my friends “It’s not the end of the world!” I realized that a lot of us are hard-wired to think of the world as ending one day. I also wondered why we feel this incessant need to think about the world ending. I’m sure it has a lot to do with fear and anxiety (something we will surely discuss in class). But, I still don’t completely understand why we feel the need to make all of these interpretations and number-crunching when Jesus himself says we’ll never figure it out.