Is it the Revelation of John or the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

[Bad Grass]

Can anyone answer this once and for all?

Some of you may already know I have trouble with this particular book.
I don't need further issues.

It's bad enough I hear it verbally used both ways.

But I Googled the 1611 King James Bible and it reads the Revelation of John.
I have a King James Bible and it reads the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

What gives?

[Darcy88]

I've only ever heard that stack of rough rectangular toilet-paper referred to as the Revelation of John, and to refer to it as the Revelation of Jesus Christ is a heinous slander against Christ.

[Bad Grass]

Wow. Not what I was expecting.

[Charles Darnay]

It is the Revelations of Jesus Christ, which was passed on to and recorded by John, therefore the book of the Revelations is called The Revelations of John.

[Bad Grass]

Thanks Charles.

[Bad Grass]

Hey, Darcy.
I was actually dying to discuss who the beast really is.
I have my opinion.
But between the atheists and haters, I’m not going anywhere soon.
Perhaps another time. Yet again.

[cacian]

well I have just googled and typed
the revelation of J without finishing the sentence and John came up first in the entry.
Jesus came second.
Interesting because one would assume it would appear alphabetically but it did not so one could easily assume by this order that google shows that John's came first.
Just an observation.

[Calidore]

well I have just googled and typed
the revelation of J without finishing the sentence and John came up first in the entry.
Jesus came second.
Interesting because one would assume it would appear alphabetically but it did not so one could easily assume by this order that google shows that John's came first.
Just an observation.

That just means John paid more than Jesus for higher placement in the search results.

[Varenne Rodin]

That just means John paid more than Jesus for higher placement in the search results.

Haha. Cute.

[Charles Darnay]

That just means John paid more than Jesus for higher placement in the search results.

Awesome!


well I have just googled and typed
the revelation of J without finishing the sentence and John came up first in the entry.
Jesus came second.
Interesting because one would assume it would appear alphabetically but it did not so one could easily assume by this order that google shows that John's came first.
Just an observation.

Really it just means more people search John than Jesus.

As I mentioned, both are things. One is the actual "revelations" the other is the Bible book.

[Calidore]

Just did a quick look around, and Charles has it. Jesus spoke and an angel passed it along to John to record.

For some reason I've been in limerick mode lately, so here:

There was an apostle named John
Whose gospel was not quite canon
He expressed his ire
Vowed brimstone and fire
But the world, nonetheless, still went on

[cacian]

That just means John paid more than Jesus for higher placement in the search results.

LOL I see...it goes to show money takes buys you rank haha..

[Varenne Rodin]

So, this John guy was pretty much a crazy liar?

[Charles Darnay]

So, this John guy was pretty much a crazy liar?

I think they prefer the term "apostle" - it's more PC.

[Varenne Rodin]

I think they prefer the term "apostle" - it's more PC.

Haha. I wish Jesus had written a book himself. Lazy.

[BienvenuJDC]

It is the Revelations of Jesus Christ, which was passed on to and recorded by John, therefore the book of the Revelations is called The Revelations of John.

I agree with this one...

[G L Wilson]

The Greek Orthodox had enough sense not to include Revelations in their Bible.

[Charles Darnay]

I agree with this one...

...He says surprised that I got one right concerning religion :)


The Greek Orthodox had enough sense not to include Revelations in their Bible.

I don't know why people hate Revelations so much.

[Varenne Rodin]

Revelations is an allegory.

[Bad Grass]

First, everybody stop using ‘Revelations’ when it’s ‘Revelation’.
There is no S at the end.

It is one vision.

Wilson, you caught my attention when you said: The Greek Orthodox had enough sense not to include Revelations in their Bible.
What is enough sense?

But to the Catholic, you have more books than the Baptist.

[tomingram]

Why the hate for Revelation? It's great. Wonderful hallucinogenic literature.

Seriously, though, it's certainly a colorful and inventive book. And, considering the context (try to imagine yourself in John's shoes), pretty powerful.

[Charles Darnay]

First, everybody stop using ‘Revelations’ when it’s ‘Revelation’.
There is no S at the end.

It is one vision.



So it is....which doesn't really make sense. It should be revelations, there are indeed more than one.

[Darcy88]

Why the hate for Revelation? It's great. Wonderful hallucinogenic literature.

Seriously, though, it's certainly a colorful and inventive book. And, considering the context (try to imagine yourself in John's shoes), pretty powerful.

I covered my view on this in Bad Grass's other thread on the book.



"We can understand that the Fathers of the Church in the East wanted Apocalypse left out of the New Testament. But like Judas among the disciples, it was inevitable that it should be included. The Apocalypse is the feet of clay to the grand Christian image. And down crashes the image, on the weakness of these very feet. There is Jesus--but there is also John the Divine. There is Christian love--and there is Christian envy. The former would "save" the world--the latter will never be satisfied till it has destroyed the world. They are two sides of the same medal."

"It is very nice if you are poor and not humble ... to bring your enemies down to utter destruction, while you yourself rise up to grandeur. And nowhere does this happen so splendiferously than in Revelation."

- D.H. Lawrence


Revelations was written by John of Patmos. Its a work suffused through and through with not love but resentment. With sweet delectation John forsaw those he despised cast into a lake of burning fire. The four gospels shine like four brilliant suns in the sky of history. Its a shame they had to be clouded over by this dark filthy final addition.


Believing the word of Jesus and even that of Paul is one thing. Believing in this John of Patmos who wrote well over a hundred years after Christ and only made it into the bible at the behest of a council of men meeting some 400 years after Jesus' ministry, well that's entirely another.


I have not read revelations in a long time but I remember that Christ comes back and puts all the unconverted Jews to the sword. Anyone with a developed sense of compassion and understanding knows that its not anyone's fault if they don't believe in a particular religion.Some people are born Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or whatever and taught from the cradle that their religion is the true religion. And that's how you know John was making stuff up. Christ was full of love. He's not going to come commit genocide upon entire peoples for failing to believe in him. It would be an act of supreme ignorance and supreme hate. Jesus was not ignorant and hateful. John of Patmos by all signs was.

[Bad Grass]

Darcy, You are so wise.
Yet a hater.
Why?

[Darcy88]

Darcy, You are so wise.
Yet a hater.
Why?

I'm a hater of irrational haters. John of Patmos was an irrational hater. How people can read the book of revelations and not see madness there I do not understand. Turn on the christian channel and see the kind of mad rhetoric and beliefs that book has spawned.

[tomingram]

Several points to consider:

Every book in the "Bible" was included in the "Bible" by the same council on which you blame Revelation's inclusion. They're all in the same boat, so to speak. Other Gospels exist, and those Gospels were thrown out. There was a fist fight over the Gospel of Thomas, for example. All those books made it into the Bible "at the behest of a council of men meeting some 400 years after Jesus' ministry".

As for the Jews, the idea is that, when they are executed, they would have denied Jesus after he had come back to Earth at the time of the apocalypse. Basically, those executed would be those who refused to accept the Son of God after it is made perfectly and incontrovertibly clear that He is, in fact, the Son of God. In other words, those executed would be those who insist whole heatedly on denying God Himself. To bring up cultural issues, to inject the word genocide, is to forget the context of the event as described in the book.

To cast John of Patmos as resentful takes a particular bias against the book to begin with. Let's remember the context; again, try to imagine ourselves in John's shoes. There had just been the Jewish Roman War. Jews and Christians were being harshly persecuted by the Roman state. John is writing in response to this persecution, in response to this violence. Really, it's kind of an inspiring text: a call to persevere, to remember that people who are hateful and brutal will be annihilated, and that Jesus will reward the righteous sufferers (blessed are the meek and all that stuff).

Also, Revelation was not (in all likelihood) written over one hundred years after the death of Jesus.

Though I love Lawrence, I'd have to argue with him on this one. He was a novelist, poet, and travel writer, not a religious scholar or theologian.

[tomingram]

As for the lunatics who use Revelation as a reference for their hate and insanity, I agree: it's a shame. But people do the same thing with the Koran. There are even Buddhist fundamentalists (see the violence in Sri Lanka).

I just hope we're not seriously going to judge a book based on what small minded people make of it.

[Bad Grass]

Lunatics?

[Darcy88]

Several points to consider:

Every book in the "Bible" was included in the "Bible" by the same council on which you blame Revelation's inclusion. They're all in the same boat, so to speak. Other Gospels exist, and those Gospels were thrown out. There was a fist fight over the Gospel of Thomas, for example. All those books made it into the Bible "at the behest of a council of men meeting some 400 years after Jesus' ministry".


The other books in the bible do not contain so virulent a strain of hateful resentment as John's. John's departs from the message of love that is the sweetness and truth of the other books.



As for the Jews, the idea is that, when they are executed, they would have denied Jesus after he had come back to Earth at the time of the apocalypse. Basically, those executed would be those who refused to accept the Son of God after it is made perfectly and incontrovertibly clear that He is, in fact, the Son of God. In other words, those executed would be those who insist whole heatedly on denying God Himself. To bring up cultural issues, to inject the word genocide, is to forget the context of the event as described in the book.

To execute someone for not believing in you is just sick and depraved, narcissistic to an incredibly malicious degree. I covered this in the other thread, about how belief is not really a virtue and comes about more as a result of accident. I did not ever decide to be an atheist. I was born into an atheist family, an atheist culture, had atheism rammed down my throat since I was a small child. Makes no sense for a loving God to kill me and damn me for something that simply isn't my fault. If you want to understand my position on this go check out what I wrote in the other thread. Its in the same section, one or two below this one.


Really, it's kind of an inspiring text: a call to persevere, to remember that people who are hateful and brutal will be annihilated, and that Jesus will reward the righteous sufferers (blessed are the meek and all that stuff).

That is what is so disgusting about it. That there is its spirit of resentment most plainly and affirmatively stated. A truly religious person does not pine to see his enemies and oppressors suffer. The gospels for the most part teach love, revelations teaches resentment.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yeah, it's so great when people write stories that are allegorical for destroying all Jews. Wait, it sucks really hard actually. Still, awesome literature. Lots of vivid imagery.

[Darcy88]

Yeah, it's so great when people write stories that are allegorical for destroying all Jews. Wait, it sucks really hard actually. Still, awesome literature. Lots of vivid imagery.

Come on now Varenne. They haven't accepted His divinity, and so being as wise and loving and meek and just as He is, Christ recognizes their massacre to be a sensible and necessary thing. Makes sense don't it?

[tomingram]

The other books in the bible do not contain so virulent a strain of hateful resentment as John's. John's departs from the message of love that is the sweetness and truth of the other books.

My point is that Revelation does not contain hateful resentment -- that to read hateful resentment in the book is to ignore the context of the book's genesis, to ignore John's audience.


To execute someone for not believing in you is just sick and depraved, narcissistic to an incredibly malicious degree. I covered this in the other thread, about how belief is not really a virtue and comes about more as a result of accident. I did not ever decide to be an atheist. I was born into an atheist family, an atheist culture, had atheism rammed down my throat since I was a small child. Makes no sense for a loving God to kill me and damn me for something that simply isn't my fault. If you want to understand my position on this go check out what I wrote in the other thread. Its in the same section, one or two below this one.

Your personal life isn't at stake here.

The bottom line is that, in Christianity, faith and belief are virtuous. Your personal beliefs about virtue are irrelevant to a discussion of Revelation in the context of Christian faith.

For anyone, Jew or otherwise, to deny Jesus in the end times would be the most atrocious blasphemy -- hence the execution. It would be entirely a person's fault for denying Jesus in the end times, when Jesus returns to earth and is undeniably and incontrovertibly understood to be the Son of God. Yep, that's a person's fault, not the result of heritage.

And this nonsense about an allegory for killing Jews: again, try to take a moment and look at the context of the work. Jews and Christians are both being violently persecuted by the Roman emperor. The issue here has more to do with denying your persecuted brothers than killing people because they circumcise their males.

Equally as interesting would be this notion that you are somehow not responsible for being an atheist. I'm sure our existentialist friend Varenne Rodin could summarize Sartre's view on the matter, and explain why you are indeed responsible for the things you believe, according to Sartre, of course.

Unless, perhaps, I would not be responsible for murdering Jews had I grown up in a family in which murdering Jews was par for the course. Personally, I think I'd still be responsible for murdering Jews. I think anyone would be responsible.


That is what is so disgusting about it. That there is its spirit of resentment most plainly and affirmatively stated. A truly religious person does not pine to see his enemies and oppressors suffer. The gospels for the most part teach love, revelations teaches resentment.

But John doesn't "pine to see his enemies and oppressors suffer". He reveals that their fate will inexorably be suffering for their sins. It's not a pretty dream he spends afternoons idling over. It's a dark, terrifying vision of the end of times, when all sinners suffer and the righteous are saved by Jesus.

I certainly do not recall a passage in which John is rubbing his hands and saying, "Payback, losers!"

Instead, John is giving us a nightmarish allegory for the spiritual results of living a certain way. Or maybe he was predicting a literal and imminent end of times. That's still debatable, from a scholarly perspective. Even if John was being quite literal, he's describing the results of living in certain ways. These are not hate-inspired descriptions. If anything, the book gives [I]cautions against[I] continuing the oppression Christians and Jews, cautions for Jews to embrace the message of Jesus (one of loving enemies rather than rebelling against them, one of giving unto Caesar rather than trying to fight Caesar).

[Darcy88]

My point is that Revelation does not contain hateful resentment -- that to read hateful resentment in the book is to ignore the context of the book's genesis, to ignore John's audience.



Your personal life isn't at stake here.

The bottom line is that, in Christianity, faith and belief are virtuous. Your personal beliefs about virtue are irrelevant to a discussion of Revelation in the context of Christian faith.

For anyone, Jew or otherwise, to deny Jesus in the end times would be the most atrocious blasphemy -- hence the execution. It would be entirely a person's fault for denying Jesus in the end times, when Jesus returns to earth and is undeniably and incontrovertibly understood to be the Son of God. Yep, that's a person's fault, not the result of heritage.

And this nonsense about an allegory for killing Jews: again, try to take a moment and look at the context of the work. Jews and Christians are both being violently persecuted by the Roman emperor. The issue here has more to do with denying your persecuted brothers than killing people because they circumcise their males.

Equally as interesting would be this notion that you are somehow not responsible for being an atheist. I'm sure our existentialist friend Varenne Rodin could summarize Sartre's view on the matter, and explain why you are indeed responsible for the things you believe, according to Sartre, of course.

Unless, perhaps, I would not be responsible for murdering Jews had I grown up in a family in which murdering Jews was par for the course. Personally, I think I'd still be responsible for murdering Jews. I think anyone would be responsible.



But John doesn't "pine to see his enemies and oppressors suffer". He reveals that their fate will inexorably be suffering for their sins. It's not a pretty dream he spends afternoons idling over. It's a dark, terrifying vision of the end of times, when all sinners suffer and the righteous are saved by Jesus.

I certainly do not recall a passage in which John is rubbing his hands and saying, "Payback, losers!"

Instead, John is giving us a nightmarish allegory for the spiritual results of living a certain way. Or maybe he was predicting a literal and imminent end of times. That's still debatable, from a scholarly perspective. Even if John was being quite literal, he's describing the results of living in certain ways. These are not hate-inspired descriptions. If anything, the book gives [I]cautions against[I] continuing the oppression Christians and Jews, cautions for Jews to embrace the message of Jesus (one of loving enemies rather than rebelling against them, one of giving unto Caesar rather than trying to fight Caesar).

Every sentence of this post starkly contradicts with astonishing difference so many countless things I profoundly and rationally believe. I dislike the book so much I'm not going to get into a massive debate here that will waste hours of our time. I shouldn't have posted my thoughts here for that reason anyway.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yeah, it's so great when people write stories that are allegorical for destroying all Jews. Wait, it sucks really hard actually. Still, awesome literature. Lots of vivid imagery.

Why do you think that this is an anti-Semetic book? This has nothing to do with destroying Jews at all.

[Varenne Rodin]

Why do you think that this is an anti-Semetic book? This has nothing to do with destroying Jews at all.

Many biblical scholars would tell you differently. They would let you know that the "end of days" isn't the end of days for mankind, just the Jews. It wasn't just dreamed up by John either. There were lots of written works that went into the book. These aren't atheist scholars. For a long time, Christian believers and followers of Judaism understood the rift and intent of revelation. Some still do. Others don't want to think that any part of their religion might be awash in hatred of entire peoples. I get that. You should check out the works and words of Naseeb Shaheen, an expert on the bible and Shakespeare. He explains it very nicely, in nonoffensive terms.

Much of the world doesn't believe in every biblical story as fact and prophecy of real events (sorry fundamentalists). Even believers strong in their faith have known for a very very long time that the bible is a big mix from thousands of sources. That's why some of it reads like the phone book, some of it reads like hell and brimstone, some like erotic poetry, and some like a hippie handbook. There were two distinct schools of thought, however, dating back to when we say the bible was ultimately written. One large group liked to call Jesus "Yahweh/Jehovah", the other called him "Elohim." They viewed Jesus as two completely different guys. These people weren't real friendly with each other, from what I understand. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong. I won't be offended.

It seems to me that "John" (although really there were a lot of people contributing and agreeing) thought to sock it to the people who they didn't fully jive with by coming up with a badass allegory for their demise. That's why you've got all this crazy animal symbolism going on, pigs and etc. Call it ancient day Orwell meets Tolkien with a hissy fit twist. I'm not saying it was antisemitic by modern definitions. That wouldn't make much sense coming from the time they were in, but it was a highlight of the divide and definitely meant to insult and scorn. They did think they had good reason, though. Around this time, see, you also had Israel's King Josiah commanding that faith and worship could ONLY take place inside Jerusalem. Anyone outside Jerusalem couldn't have faith, they couldn't hear the stories, couldn't share in praise. You probably wouldn't have liked them either. This squabble resulted in differing groups writing "doublets," two versions of the same story. It happened multiple times. Each group put their own spin on things.

I'm sure non-fundamentalist Christians who have read about this could explain it much better than this simple secular girl, so I'll now happily give up the floor.

[MarkBastable]

I just hope we're not seriously going to judge a book based on what small minded people make of it.

Given that there's no purpose at all in the book apart from being made something of, one might argue that that's exactly what a judgement of it should be based on.

I read a prosaic theory about the origins of Revelation, which was that the climate of the Dodecanese gives rise to a mould on old bread that's somewhat hallucinogenic.

[tomingram]

Every sentence of this post starkly contradicts with astonishing difference so many countless things I profoundly and rationally believe. I dislike the book so much I'm not going to get into a massive debate here that will waste hours of our time. I shouldn't have posted my thoughts here for that reason anyway.

I'm not a big fan of the book personally, either. I don't read it frequently for pleasure. But personal dislikes do not translate to serious criticisms of any given work.

Varenne - you may be mixing up a few different eras, but it's hard to tell. The essence of what you say is, from what I understand, pretty spot on. There have always been divides in the Christian community. These divides are expressed in serious doctrinal and interpretive disagreements.

The Yahweh/El division, the one I am familiar with, deals with the evolution of God in the OT: that is, that El was a relatively friendly deity (had a meal with Abraham, for example); Yahweh was the war god brought up from Egypt with Moses (burning bush, going to battle with Joshua). Over time, and while the early Jews were polytheists, these two deities were merged into one tradition of worship. We can speculate a number of power struggle theories, etc, but the point is: beliefs change over time.

As for John of Patmos, I still have to disagree with this hate and scorn argument. Not only does it not fit the context of the book being written, it doesn't match the text of the book, either. That is, the most likely explanation isn't that John was pissy and wrote a nasty book; the most likely explanation, given the narrative's complexity, is that he was writing a highly nuanced allegory that cries loudly for all to accept Jesus so that they will not be destroyed in the end of times.

At least, that's what the book seems to be suggesting. Repent and be saved, else all this terrible stuff will happen to you.

Mark: I hope you don't seriously hold that position. First of all, to assert such a view would mean the effective end of any productive literary criticism. The projects would devolve into a worrying lest some lunatic adopted an apparently impossible reading of a text. I mean, what if some nut job decided that The Sun Also Rises calls for the systematic eradication of all boxers and matadors? Would that lunatic's interpretation be a fair basis for negatively criticizing Hemingway's masterpiece?

Let the stupid people have their stupid understandings. Let's just be careful not to take their opinions serious.

The ergot theory may be true. Tough to say. Some people speculate that ergot is the cause of some of the religious hysteriasof the middle ages. Possible. We just don't know. And so what if it is? We should still read and discuss the text according to the text's own merits. Remember thy intentional fallacy!

[Bad Grass]

My college history teacher actually attributed bad rye bread with the cause of the hallucinations during the Salem Witch Trials.

That is not in the history books but it sounds plausible. A mass suddenly went insane and spoke abnormally. I can attest to that. I’ve been messed up a time or two.

But why is hallucinations attributed to John? The whole thing is too long to blame on a bad trip.

I’ve tried to discuss the Revelation but I always get dogged.

But in lacking a better answer, I always get ‘he was messed up’.

I’m hearing it again.

I would say ‘easy people’, but what do I know? I’m a Christian.

The phrase Anti-Christ used to be taboo. But I can see how it’s becoming the norm.

Now that I said the words, some of you have me wondering.

It’s all good though. I’m cool.

[Bad Grass]

While I'm at it, why do men trade in their wives like used cars?
Doesn't anybody believe in Holy Matrimony anymore?
Oooh, the things I want to talk about.

[tomingram]

But a psychedelic experience could be sighted as an inspiration. It's possible. I doubt it, because the explanation doesn't add anything to the conversation. I mean, it isn't as though John of Patmos needed psychedelics to come up with such a vivid account.

And sure people swap wives! Things can get bogged down and boring pretty quickly. Swapping changes things up, injects something fresh into the night life, so to speak.

Not to justify; I mean it is what it is. Not to denounce either.

[Bad Grass]

I do not agree with you Sir.

[tomingram]

I do not agree with you Sir.

About Revelation and ergot, or about marriage and wife swap?

The ergot thing really can't be resolved. The verdict is still out about exact date of composition, so we can't even look for traces of ergot in whatever evidence of bread may or may not be available. We just can't know.

As for the marriage and wife swap: people do it to liven things up, for excitement. I'm not going to say it's right or wrong, only that it happens and happens regularly and regularly for a reason.

[Bad Grass]

I didn't say swap. I said trade in.
You don't go a 100,000 miles and trade it in.
For me, the best time of my marriage were after the worst ones.
You don't give up when things are bad.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Since I find all the parts of the Bible equally fictional, I like Revolations. I like dark stuff by nature, though.

You don't give up when things are bad.

That sounds like a great time to give up.

[tomingram]

Ah, sorry, misread you. Well, even then, I guess it all depends on how bad things get, right? I mean, if you're going through a rocky phase, quarreling frequently, all that, I can see sticking it out. But if, you know, a person stabs his or her spouse, maybe it's time to trade in.

[Bad Grass]

There is no giving up in Holy Matrimony.
But if you do so, that's on you.
What God had joined together, Let no man put asunder.
That is the word of God.
Not you.

[Charles Darnay]

Since I find all the parts of the Bible equally fictional, I like Revolations. I like dark stuff by nature, though.

.

I agree. And If there are those who want to take this literal,y and believe that they will spend their afterlife floating on a cloud watching non believers burn, let them. As a non Christian,I would want know part in the heaven that the literal interpretation of the bible proposes. Note, the key term here is "literal interpretation"

[Bad Grass]

That is so wrong.

[Charles Darnay]

That is so wrong.

You are right, my typos are inexcusable.

[Bad Grass]

Your interpretation is so wrong.
The afterlife is complicated.
Not everyone will be the highest in heaaven.

[tomingram]

That sounds like a great time to give up.

Again, depends on how bad things get. But it wasn't my quote anyway; it was Bad Grass'.

Another way to look at this: if a relationship is rough enough, then ending it may not be a matter of "giving up" as it is an acceptance of the fact that the relationship is an unhealthy one.

I'm not going to tell a battered woman to stay with her abuser, though I have seen people say this to battered women. Creative nonfiction workshop, and a girl writes an essay about her abusive ex. Another student starts to lecture her, as part of critique, on God and the sanctity of marriage. It was an ugly thing, a very ugly thing.

[MarkBastable]

But a psychedelic experience could be sighted as an inspiration.

True. Some of my favourite music was inspired by hallucinogens.



First of all, to assert such a view would mean the effective end of any productive literary criticism. The projects would devolve into a worrying lest some lunatic adopted an apparently impossible reading of a text. I mean, what if some nut job decided that The Sun Also Rises calls for the systematic eradication of all boxers and matadors? Would that lunatic's interpretation be a fair basis for negatively criticizing Hemingway's masterpiece?

I think this is a very good point, though not as black and white as you suggest.


....what if some nut job decided that The Sun Also Rises calls for the systematic eradication of all boxers and matadors? Would that lunatic's interpretation be a fair basis for negatively criticizing Hemingway's masterpiece?

If it was some nutjob, no. If it was a wide-ranging and well-funded organisation of nutjobs, then a literary criticism of the work would have to cover the question of how the book is able to have that effect.

If they called for the eradication of matadors, maybe you'd not make a big deal of it. If, on the other hand they got into government and started shaping foreign policy on the strength of it, and started wars because of it, and generally did stuff that mattered in pursuit of it, then yeah, I think that that's something you would have to take into account during any discussion of the book. Not as a criticism necessarily, but in order to include in the assessment that very real and apparently applicable interpretation.

Also, of course, you'd have to think that The Sun Also Rises was worth talking about at all.

[Edward74]

I wish Jesus had written a book himselfhttp://www.infoocean.info/avatar2.jpg

[tomingram]

If it was some nutjob, no. If it was a wide-ranging and well-funded organisation of nutjobs, then a literary criticism of the work would have to cover the question of how the book is able to have that effect.

Sure, a critic might discuss strange interpretations and set them right, but the work itself could not be impugned simply because people make strange interpretations of it.