Papers by Nathan Betz
Oxford Patristics Conference, 2019
Despite, or perhaps because of, its status as a commonplace in Christian discourse from apostolic... more Despite, or perhaps because of, its status as a commonplace in Christian discourse from apostolic times, the idea of the New Jerusalem (NJ) in its patristic reception has received scant focused scholarly attention. This presentation marks the second stage in a sustained study meant to map the patristic interpretations of the sign through the early 600s. In the mid-second century, Justin Martyr describes the NJ in literal and millennial terms (Dial. 80-81). Several decades later, Irenaeus follows Justin’s lead (Adv. Haer. 5.35-36)—but only in part. Purporting to draw on a yet earlier tradition, Irenaeus asserts a second New Jerusalem that appears after the millennial Jerusalem (5.35.2)—a final soteriological reality that stands distinct from the millennial teaching for which Irenaeus would become infamous.
Bearing these things in mind, I have set forth three tasks for this presentation. (1) I will compare Justin’s and Irenaeus’s interpretations of the NJ in these texts, demonstrating how they elucidate two competing normative early Christian conceptions of the NJ. (2) I will show that both authors make a theological connection between the NJ and what later would be called theosis. (3) I will demonstrate that this mystical conception of the NJ seems to have been espoused and developed in the Greek Revelation commentaries of Oecumenius (In Apoc. 11.15—12.7) and Andrew of Caesarea (In Apoc. 22.65—23.68), both from c. 600, likely revealing Justin and Irenaeus to be the wellspring of what would become one of several characteristic interpretations of the NJ in the patristic era.
Advanced Research Master's Thesis (Leuven), 2018
Late antique teaching on deification and the patristic reception of the Book of Revelation are tw... more Late antique teaching on deification and the patristic reception of the Book of Revelation are two topics that have drawn focused attention in recent scholarship; yet they have hardly been brought into conversation with one another. In this thesis, I build on a brief essay which I wrote last year and look at the New Jerusalem (NJ) and its significance as a sign of deification to the two earliest writers to have composed full surviving exegeses of the Book of Revelation in Greek—the late-sixth-century exegetes Oecumenius (Commentarius in Apocalypsin) and Andrew of Caesarea (Commentarii in Apocalypsin). Using a blend of literary-critical and historical-critical methods, I argue that together, these two neglected but influential commentators take the NJ sign to be spiritual, as opposed to literal, and personal, as opposed to historical. As such, the NJ represents the mystical union of the two main persons that the writers interpret the sign as encompassing: God and man.
Chapter one introduces these two unfamiliar Byzantine figures, accounts for their work, presents their hermeneutical approaches, and discusses the contents of their commentaries both in general terms and in terms of how the contents relate to the topic at hand. The second chapter begins by exploring each author’s general conception of the New Jerusalem and leads into an in-depth study of their interpretations of the NJ vision in Revelation 21.2—22.5. This study surfaces the commentators’ preference for an understanding of the sign in which all of its primary components signify persons. Thereafter, a conceptual analysis is undertaken in which the relationships between the signified persons signified are characterized in terms of various kinds of union. The chapter concludes with an analysis of a metaphor that is closely related both to the NJ and deification in patristic literature. In the third chapter, a historical-critical methodology is adopted to discern why Oecumenius and Andrew elected to interpret the New Jerusalem mystically. A study encompassing persisting literalist interpretations, the condition of the Eastern Roman Empire, climatological factors, and popular apocalypticism leads to the conclusion that the commentators interpreted the NJ against the current of history in most respects but one: they adhered closely to several interconnected lines of theological tradition, particularly the Alexandrine tradition. Finally, their interpretation of the New Jerusalem is shown to be both a faithful continuation of traditional Alexandrian notions of deification and a creative application of those notions to Revelation’s final sign.
In conclusion, this study (1) shows how the biblical image of the NJ is interpreted as a sign bespeaking deification in the Revelation commentaries of Oecumenius and Andrew and (2) demonstrates that this interpretation is grounded in the Alexandrian theological tradition to which the commentators were heir. It is intended that this thesis is a small first step toward a the first full-length scholarly monograph to deals comprehensively, analytically, and contextually with the NJ image’s leading interpretations throughout the patristic era as represented in its Greek and Latin writings.
Talks by Nathan Betz
My lecture on the occasion of being awarded the 2019 LECTIO/IKS Prize for my master's dissertatio... more My lecture on the occasion of being awarded the 2019 LECTIO/IKS Prize for my master's dissertation on the New Jerusalem in late patristic Greek Revelation commentaries.
Conference Presentations by Nathan Betz
One of the most recognizable figures in the Christian tradition, the extravagantly portrayed New ... more One of the most recognizable figures in the Christian tradition, the extravagantly portrayed New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22, was appropriated by Christians throughout the lateantique period to represent an array of meanings and support various priorities. The reception of these patristic notions of the New Jerusalem has had a direct, profound, and enduring influence on the idea of the holy city in both the West and East in many contexts and leaves a legacy that continues to shape our culture to this very day. For a variety of reasons, however, the foundational early-Christian understandings, uses, and abuses of the New Jerusalem idea have been mostly overlooked at an object of study in its own right. This symposium, therefore, seeks to refocus scholarly attention on the patristic reception of the biblical New Jerusalem.
Journal Articles by Nathan Betz
Books by Nathan Betz
Edited Volumes (as editor) by Nathan Betz
Uploads
Papers by Nathan Betz
Bearing these things in mind, I have set forth three tasks for this presentation. (1) I will compare Justin’s and Irenaeus’s interpretations of the NJ in these texts, demonstrating how they elucidate two competing normative early Christian conceptions of the NJ. (2) I will show that both authors make a theological connection between the NJ and what later would be called theosis. (3) I will demonstrate that this mystical conception of the NJ seems to have been espoused and developed in the Greek Revelation commentaries of Oecumenius (In Apoc. 11.15—12.7) and Andrew of Caesarea (In Apoc. 22.65—23.68), both from c. 600, likely revealing Justin and Irenaeus to be the wellspring of what would become one of several characteristic interpretations of the NJ in the patristic era.
Chapter one introduces these two unfamiliar Byzantine figures, accounts for their work, presents their hermeneutical approaches, and discusses the contents of their commentaries both in general terms and in terms of how the contents relate to the topic at hand. The second chapter begins by exploring each author’s general conception of the New Jerusalem and leads into an in-depth study of their interpretations of the NJ vision in Revelation 21.2—22.5. This study surfaces the commentators’ preference for an understanding of the sign in which all of its primary components signify persons. Thereafter, a conceptual analysis is undertaken in which the relationships between the signified persons signified are characterized in terms of various kinds of union. The chapter concludes with an analysis of a metaphor that is closely related both to the NJ and deification in patristic literature. In the third chapter, a historical-critical methodology is adopted to discern why Oecumenius and Andrew elected to interpret the New Jerusalem mystically. A study encompassing persisting literalist interpretations, the condition of the Eastern Roman Empire, climatological factors, and popular apocalypticism leads to the conclusion that the commentators interpreted the NJ against the current of history in most respects but one: they adhered closely to several interconnected lines of theological tradition, particularly the Alexandrine tradition. Finally, their interpretation of the New Jerusalem is shown to be both a faithful continuation of traditional Alexandrian notions of deification and a creative application of those notions to Revelation’s final sign.
In conclusion, this study (1) shows how the biblical image of the NJ is interpreted as a sign bespeaking deification in the Revelation commentaries of Oecumenius and Andrew and (2) demonstrates that this interpretation is grounded in the Alexandrian theological tradition to which the commentators were heir. It is intended that this thesis is a small first step toward a the first full-length scholarly monograph to deals comprehensively, analytically, and contextually with the NJ image’s leading interpretations throughout the patristic era as represented in its Greek and Latin writings.
Talks by Nathan Betz
Conference Presentations by Nathan Betz
Journal Articles by Nathan Betz
Books by Nathan Betz
Edited Volumes (as editor) by Nathan Betz
Bearing these things in mind, I have set forth three tasks for this presentation. (1) I will compare Justin’s and Irenaeus’s interpretations of the NJ in these texts, demonstrating how they elucidate two competing normative early Christian conceptions of the NJ. (2) I will show that both authors make a theological connection between the NJ and what later would be called theosis. (3) I will demonstrate that this mystical conception of the NJ seems to have been espoused and developed in the Greek Revelation commentaries of Oecumenius (In Apoc. 11.15—12.7) and Andrew of Caesarea (In Apoc. 22.65—23.68), both from c. 600, likely revealing Justin and Irenaeus to be the wellspring of what would become one of several characteristic interpretations of the NJ in the patristic era.
Chapter one introduces these two unfamiliar Byzantine figures, accounts for their work, presents their hermeneutical approaches, and discusses the contents of their commentaries both in general terms and in terms of how the contents relate to the topic at hand. The second chapter begins by exploring each author’s general conception of the New Jerusalem and leads into an in-depth study of their interpretations of the NJ vision in Revelation 21.2—22.5. This study surfaces the commentators’ preference for an understanding of the sign in which all of its primary components signify persons. Thereafter, a conceptual analysis is undertaken in which the relationships between the signified persons signified are characterized in terms of various kinds of union. The chapter concludes with an analysis of a metaphor that is closely related both to the NJ and deification in patristic literature. In the third chapter, a historical-critical methodology is adopted to discern why Oecumenius and Andrew elected to interpret the New Jerusalem mystically. A study encompassing persisting literalist interpretations, the condition of the Eastern Roman Empire, climatological factors, and popular apocalypticism leads to the conclusion that the commentators interpreted the NJ against the current of history in most respects but one: they adhered closely to several interconnected lines of theological tradition, particularly the Alexandrine tradition. Finally, their interpretation of the New Jerusalem is shown to be both a faithful continuation of traditional Alexandrian notions of deification and a creative application of those notions to Revelation’s final sign.
In conclusion, this study (1) shows how the biblical image of the NJ is interpreted as a sign bespeaking deification in the Revelation commentaries of Oecumenius and Andrew and (2) demonstrates that this interpretation is grounded in the Alexandrian theological tradition to which the commentators were heir. It is intended that this thesis is a small first step toward a the first full-length scholarly monograph to deals comprehensively, analytically, and contextually with the NJ image’s leading interpretations throughout the patristic era as represented in its Greek and Latin writings.