Who Said Armageddon was Megiddo?
While the hypothesis that the term Armageddon in Rev 16:16 means 'the mountain of Megiddo' is often thought to have existed throughout the history of the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, this article shows that it only became widespread in the 1580s, after having been put forward...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Revue biblique
Year: 2025, Volume: 132, Issue: 4, Pages: 558-577 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | While the hypothesis that the term Armageddon in Rev 16:16 means 'the mountain of Megiddo' is often thought to have existed throughout the history of the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, this article shows that it only became widespread in the 1580s, after having been put forward in the 12th century by Bruno of Segni (without any legacy). Its success is largely explained by the humanist return to Hebrew sources, but it also reflects a certain anxiety about the proliferation of etymological elucidations. It is now widely accepted, but often expressed with some reluctance and caveats, even into the 2020s. This article demonstrates the usefulness of a history of interpretation in reminding interpreters to be cautious in the face of certain opinions that sometimes seem obvious and universal. Alors que l’on croit souvent que l’hypothèse selon laquelle le terme Armageddon en Ap 16,16 signifierait «montagne de Megiddo» parcourt toute l’histoire de l’interprétation du livre de l’Apocalypse, cet article montre qu’elle ne se répand que dans les années 1580, après avoir été formulée au 12e siècle par Bruno de Segni sans avoir de postérité. Son succès s’explique amplement par le retour aux sources hébraïques initié par les Humanistes, mais témoigne aussi d’une inquiétude face à la prolifération des élucidations étymologiques. Si elle a été largement acceptée depuis, elle est en général exprimée avec certaines réticences et un certain nombre de caveats, y compris jusqu’aux années 2020. Cet article démontre ainsi l’utilité d’une histoire de l’interprétation qui permet de rappeler les interprètes à une grande prudence face à certaines opinions qui apparaissent parfois comme évidentes et universelles. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2466-8583 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Revue biblique
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2143/RBI.132.4.3294770 |