“INDEED, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS” A Study of Revelation 1:7-8 as the Multivalent Thematic Statement of the Apocalypse by Mark A. Haukaas A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES BIBLICAL STUDIES PROGRAM We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard: ______________________________________ James M. Scott, Th.D., Thesis Supervisor ______________________________________ Kent D. Clarke, Ph.D., Second Reader TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY November 2013 © Mark A. Haukaas “INDEED, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS” A Study of Revelation 1:7-8 as the Multivalent Thematic Statement of the Apocalypse Mark A. Haukaas Soli Deo gloria • Coram Deo • Crux probat omnia • Vicit agnus noster, eum sequamur • Ad fontes Sacra doctrina • In luce Tua videmus lucem • In regione caecorum rex est luscus • Post tenebras lux Attende lectioni • Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei • Ascende huc For Leeza, my Abishag, my Dublin Darling, and my fellow pilgrim in the Way, gach mo ghrá i gcónaí Ouj ga»r e˙paiscu/nomai to\ eujagge÷lion, du/namiß ga»r qeouv e˙stin ei˙ß swthri÷an panti« twˆ◊ pisteu/onti, "Ioudai÷wˆ te prw◊ton kai« ›Ellhni. ~ Romans 1:16 Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen. ~ Martin Luther, Reply to the Diet of Worms, April 18, 1521; rendering by Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write. ~ Martin Luther Whenever the Spirit of God blows like a hurricane through Christian history, it is through prophets and Christ lovers who have surrendered unconditionally to the folly of the Cross. ~ Brennan Manning, The Importance of Being Foolish: How to Think Like Jesus Neither revolution nor reformation can ultimately change a society. Rather, you must tell a new powerful tale, one so persuasive that it sweeps away the old myths and becomes the preferred story, one so inclusive that it gathers all the bits of our past and our present into a coherent whole, one that even shines some light into the future so that we can take the next step. ~ Ivan Illich There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you. ~ Maya Angelou If Christianity be not altogether and unreservedly eschatology, there remains in it no relationship whatever to Christ. ~ Karl Barth, Epistle to the Romans On rencontre sa destinée souvent par des chemins qu’on prend pour l’éviter. (Destiny is often met in the paths we take to avoid it.) ~ Jean de La Fontaine, Fables Present-day thought is leading us in the direction of the valley of death, and it is cataloguing the bones one by one. All of us are in this valley but it is up to us to resuscitate meaning by relating all the texts to one another without exception, rather than stopping at just a few of them. ~ René Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, commenting on the Judaeo-Christian scriptures We’ll hang ourselves tomorrow. [Pause.] Unless Godot comes. ~ Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot “Come” does not announce this or that apocalypse: already it resounds with a certain tone; it is in itself the apocalypse of apocalypse. Come is apocalyptic. ~ Jacques Derrida, Derrida and Negative Theology For Intuition of truth may not Relish soe much as Truth that is hunted downe. ~ Sir Robert Southwell to William Petty, 1687 Be Thou my vision, O Lord of my heart, / Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art; / Thou my best thought in the day and the night, / Both waking and sleeping, Thy presence my light. ~ Bí Thusa ‘mo Shúile, a traditional hymn from Ireland :Mymcb yrh lo Mylyah rpol wa ybxl Kl_hmdw ydwd jrb ~ Song of Songs 8:14 Le÷gei oJ marturw◊n tauvta: nai÷, e¶rcomai tacu/. "Amh/n, e¶rcou ku/rie "Ihsouv. ~ Revelation 22:20 Table of Contents Abstract i Acknowledgments ii Preface vii Illustrative Material xiv Abbreviations xv Chapter 1: Prolegomena for the Study of Revelation 1:7-8 1.1 Introduction 1.2 The Problems and the Need for This Study 1.2.1 A Thematic Statement for the Apocalypse 1.2.2 Allusions and Echoes to the Jewish Scriptures in the Apocalypse 1.2.3 Previous Methods for Analyzing Allusions and Echoes in the Apocalypse 1.3 Our Interdisciplinary Method for Interpreting the Apocalypse 1.3.1 Historical Criticism 1.3.2 Narrative Criticism 1.3.3 Discourse Analysis 1.3.4 Oral Criticism 1.4 Our Method for the Exegesis of Allusions 1.4.1 Foundational Principles 1.4.2 Criteria for Determining Allusions 1.4.3 Scale of Evidence for the Detection of Allusions 1.4.4 Categories of Allusions 1.5 A Translation of Revelation 1:7-8 1.6 The Date of Composition, Authorship, and the Audience of the Apocalypse 1.7 The Structure of the Study 1.8 The Thesis of the Study Chapter 2: Revelation 1:7-8: Its Context, Literary Features, and Allusions 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Genre of Revelation 2.2.1 The Macro-Genre of Revelation 2.2.2 The Micro-Genre of Revelation 1:7-8 2.2.3 Revelation 1:1 or 1:1-2 as the Subject, the Theme, or the Thematic Statement 2.3 Revelation 1:7-8 and Its Place in the Literary Structure of Revelation 2.3.1 Cross-References and Chain-Link Interlock in Revelation 2.3.2 An Outline of Revelation 2.4 The Distinctiveness of Revelation 1:7-8 1 1 3 3 5 13 16 16 18 20 21 22 22 26 29 30 36 36 38 38 40 40 40 41 44 47 49 49 53 59 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 Chapter 3: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 The Concentric Double-Ring Composition in Revelation 1:4-8 The Inclusive Language and Liturgical Dialogue of Revelation 1:4-8 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 in Revelation 1:7 2.7.1 A Source-Critical Examination of Daniel 7:13 in Revelation 1:7 2.7.2 The Prominence of the Allusion to Daniel 7:13 The Non-Danielic Allusions in Revelation 1:7 2.8.1 Isaiah 40:5 2.8.2 Zechariah 12:10 and the Catena of Genesis 12:3 and 28:14, Psalm 71:17, and Zechariah 14:17 The Allusions in Revelation 1:8 2.9.1 to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° 2.9.2 oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß 2.9.3 ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß and oJ pantokra¿twr Summary and Conclusions 64 66 69 69 70 72 73 76 79 79 80 82 83 Revelation 1:7-8 and the “One like a Son of Man” Vision 84 Introduction 84 The Structure and Thematic Uses of Revelation 1:9-20 84 The One like a Son of Man in Revelation 1:13 91 3.3.1 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 91 3.3.2 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 as a Window Allusion 92 3.3.3 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 as a Controlling-Text Allusion 93 The Multivalence of the “One like a Son of Man” Vision 96 3.4.1 The “One like a Son of Man” Vision in Its Jewish Historical Context 97 3.4.2 The One like a Son of Man as the Eschatological Judge 104 3.4.3 The One like a Son of Man as the Universal Sovereign 110 3.4.4 The One Like a Son of Man as the Vindicated Witness 119 3.4.5 The One like a Son of Man as God’s Plenipotentiary 123 Summary and Conclusions 133 Chapter 4: Revelation 1:7-8 and Its Links with Revelation 4–5 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The Relationship of Revelation 1:7-8 and Daniel 7 to Revelation 4–5 4.2.1 The Literary Structure of Revelation 4–5 4.2.2 Daniel 7 and Revelation 4–5 4.2.3 Revelation as Ezekiel-Based or Daniel-Based Text 4.3 Summary and Conclusions 134 134 134 134 135 149 153 Chapter 5: Metaleptic Allusions to Daniel 7 and Lexical Chains Based on Daniel 7:13 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Metaleptic Allusions to Daniel 7 in Revelation 5.2.1 qro/noß 5.2.2 e˙do/qh aujtwˆ◊ and Related Expressions 5.2.3 fulh/, glw◊ssa, lao/ß, and e¶qnoß 5.2.4 bibli÷on 154 154 154 155 157 158 160 5.3 5.4 5.2.5 a‚gioi 5.2.6 qhri÷on 5.2.7 puvr Lexical Chains from Revelation 1:7 in the Apocalypse 5.3.1 i˙dou/ 5.3.2 e¶rcomai 5.3.3 nefe÷lh 5.3.4 oJra¿w and ojfqalmo/ß 5.3.5 nai÷, aÓmh/n Summary and Conclusions 160 162 163 163 163 164 179 180 184 184 Chapter 6: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 6.1 Summary and Conclusions 6.2 Implications and Further Areas of Study 185 185 187 Appendix 1: A Translation of Revelation 1 206 Appendix 2: Christological Issues and the Apocalypse 220 Appendix 3: The Metaleptic Allusions to Daniel 7 OG in Revelation 233 Bibliography 242 i Abstract The Apocalypse is replete with allusions to the Jewish scriptures. Many scholars acknowledge this dense network of allusions and conclude that these allusions help to explicate this complex literary work. Although many scholars agree that Daniel, especially Daniel 7, is a key source text for the allusions in the Apocalypse, no scholar has systematically examined its use. Another problem concerns Rev 1:7-8. Although many scholars regard Rev 1:7, 1:8, or 1:7-8 as thematic for Revelation, they have not substantiated their claim for its thematic centrality. Various lines of argument show that Rev 1:7-8, which highlights the cosmic parousia of Christ, is the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse. As two interlinked prophetic oracles, Rev 1:7-8 features a prominent allusion to Dan 7:13, which, along with Daniel 7, serves as a major key for unlocking the multilayered meaning of the Apocalypse. The author centrally places these prophetic oracles in the prologue of Revelation, channeling the two oracles to flow into the prophetic core of the discourse. In crafting Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement, the author uses a variety of literary devices, including poetry, concentric double-ring composition, inclusive language, and liturgical dialogue. The author also uses chain-link interlock to connect Rev 1:7-8 with the initial vision in Rev 1:9-20. In turn, Rev 1:9-20 provides key words, phrases, and themes that recur in many passages in the Apocalypse. The author further links Rev 1:7-8 and Revelation 4–5 and establishes Daniel 7 as an allusion that controls the text in these two central chapters. Building upon his network of allusions, the author uses key words throughout Revelation 6–22 that resonate with Rev 1:7-8. With Rev 1:7-8 as the axis, the author expands the meaning of Christ’s cosmic parousia in all its dimensions and ramifications. Thus, Christ comes first to John on Patmos, continues coming to his people throughout the story, and comes triumphantly at the cosmic parousia. The effects of the cosmic parousia unfold until the judgment at the great white throne and the creation of the new heaven and the new earth, where God and Christ rule forever. ii Acknowledgments In the writing of this thesis, I am indebted to many scholars, loved ones, and friends for their help, wisdom, and encouragement. Among the scholars to whom I am indebted, Dr. James M. Scott, my thesis supervisor, deserves most of the credit for his patient guidance of this thesis to its completion. To whatever degree this thesis has succeeded, much of that success may be ascribed to Dr. Scott, who has helped to shape my research, methods, thinking, and writing. Early in the process, he challenged me, saying, “You have the opportunity to do something from the ground up.” With that mandate for a fresh approach, I launched my thesis and labored at it. He further challenged me to imagine Dr. David Aune, author of the magisterial Apocalypse commentaries, as my interlocutor. Meeting those two challenges has been a North Star for me in this process. Dr. Scott helped me to dig deep and to avoid producing scholarship that assumes more than it probes and questions. Dr. Scott’s kind and sagacious comments have inspired me to forge this thesis and hone it into its final form. I have also benefited from the kind help and instruction of Dr. Kent D. Clarke, the second reader. His passion for textual criticism and the complexities of the Greek language is reflected in my attempt to read with a keen eye for detail in my exegesis of the Apocalypse. In addition, his comments about the postmodern condition and its challenge to the church have provided many avenues for thought on the place that the Apocalypse, as part of the canon, has in our world today. Finally, he has prodded me to consider the practical implications that the Apocalypse has for the church today. Other professors at Trinity Western University have also been a source of wisdom and instruction. I would be remiss if I failed to mention, first of all, Dr. Peter Flint, the catalyst for my journey at Trinity Western University. His enthusiasm as a firebrand for the Dead Sea Scrolls sparked my foray into studies at TWU: all roads lead to Qumran or at least through Qumran. I learned the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls from both Dr. Flint and Dr. Marty Abegg, both of whom encouraged me to finish my studies here. The Scrolls have indeed iii proved to be treasure for both the heart and the mind. In addition, I thank Dr. Dorothy Peters, who has at various times been a guide, a friend, and a source of encouragement. Dr. Dirk Büchner inspired me to give a close reading of any ancient text, Hebrew or Aramaic, as well as to see the value of the Prophets in the Jewish scriptures for the community of faith. Dr. Thomas Hatina gave me new tools and methods for engaging with the Gospel of Mark and provided help in understanding the complex issues involved in study of the historical Jesus. Dr. Tony Cummins inspired me to see the richness of Romans and the way in which the church at Rome was to see itself within the unfolding purposes of God. From his class on Romans, I learned that all roads lead to Rome, at least after the requisite peregrination to Qumran. Dr. Cummins, accompanied by his wife, also came to see me during my hospitalization at Harborview Medical Center—an act of love and compassion I will never forget. Besides learning from these professors at TWU, I have also learned much and benefited greatly from the kindness, wisdom, and guidance of a number of world-class biblical scholars and theologians with whom I have had the privilege to interact: David Aune, Richard Bauckham, Greg Beale, Darrell Bock, George Brooke, Anthony Buzzard, Chrys Caragounis, Bruce Chilton, Adela Yarbro Collins, John J. Collins, John Dominic Crossan, David deSilva, Timo Eskola, Craig Evans, Jan Fekkes, Steven Friesen, Marius Heemstra, Jan-Olav Henriksen, Juan Hernández, Rob Hiebert, Wes Howard-Brook, Alan Hultberg, Edith Humphrey, Larry Hurtado, Craig Keener, Seyoon Kim, Bruce Longenecker, Alec Lucas, Harry Maier, David M. May, Edward Meadors, George Nickelsburg, Ian Paulien, Stanley Porter, Anathea Portier-Young, Jeffrey Reed, Vernon Robbins, James Tabor, Randall Tan, Emanuel Tov, Rick van de Water, Kevin Vanhoozer, Daniel Wallace, Ben Witherington, and N. T. Wright. In addition, I have gained in understanding through interaction with other scholars, social commentators, and writers: John Clarke, Steven Hijmans, Sean Ho, Robert Jensen, Charles Kupchan, Charles Maier, Michael O’Donnell, Jørgen Randers, Maria Tymoczko, and Vinoth Ramachandra. Their insights have helped me at key junctures in this study and enriched me greatly. Any deficiencies of this thesis are solely my own. iv I especially thank my wife Leeza for her prayers, kindness, and love as she has walked with me on the last part of this journey at TWU. Like Martin Luther, I share the conviction that a wife is a man’s rib—“my rib” as Luther called his wife Katharina. Had it not been for love from my rib, I would not be alive today. On December 14, 2011, I nearly died in a vehicular crash, an on-the-job accident that blinded me in my left eye, fractured every bone in my face, fractured several vertebrae, and left my body bleeding and jerking in spasms at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. I underwent about a half-dozen major surgeries, was in a drug-induced coma for about three weeks, and spent nearly two months recovering at the hospital. Naturally speaking, I should not be alive, but God spared my life for His purposes and glory. Part of God’s way of sparing my life included a powerful visitation of two angels in the Intensive Care Unit of Harborview Medical Center, where I was fighting for my life. One of the human vessels that God used to spare my life was my darling wife. She held my bloody hand the first night of the accident, prayed and interceded for me, and encouraged me in the long journey of hospitalization and recovery. Throughout this ordeal and trek through the valley of the shadow of death, Leeza has been a wellspring of love, comfort, and encouragement. Leeza truly is the excellent wife who is “far more precious than jewels” (Prov 31:10). Also joining in the journey has been Hannah, my stepdaughter, who has been a source of joy, laughter, and inspiration. Hannah has given me fresh eyes for seeing life and American culture. My sister Ann Campbell deserves special mention. She rushed from her home in California to come to my side to pray for me and stand with me during this tumultuous time, and she was a welcome support for both Leeza and Hannah. I mention some of the details of this horrific accident to inspire and encourage any reader of this thesis who is passing through the waters and walking through the fires (Isa 43:2). You, too, can overcome by the grace of God. There are many others deserving of thanks. Jeff McGregor, a friend and a fellow student of the Apocalypse, entered into a conversation with me on the meaning of this ancient text for our day. In addition, he helped me with aspects of translating German. Mike v Kozowski has been a fellow sojourner during my time at TWU, and he has been a peripatetic friend in our adventures at the Society of Biblical Literature meetings in Boston and San Diego. Our time of study at the Andover-Harvard Theological Library was memorable, and the fruits of that day of research are included in this thesis. I enjoyed the hospitality and friendship of Mike and his sweet wife Becky at their home, which served as my Wartburg Castle on many an occasion. I am forever grateful to them for their kindness. Don and Pam Tuggle have also been stalwart friends and pillars of the faith. They joined with my wife and me in the quest to see a fresh expression of the church in an experiment known as Maranatha Grace Assembly. Their love, prayers, and encouragement have meant the world to me. Don’s passionate prayers and preaching have left an indelible mark in my heart. In my absence because of the accident, he took the helm of our assembly and guided the saints through rough waters. Warren Bailey, my friend of many years, has been pointed me to the rock during this storm (Ps 18:2). His passionate pursuit of God and his love for people have inspired me. When I was plunged into a coma, he prayed for me and read the Scriptures to me. In the months following, we have joined in prayer to see Paul’s desire for the church militant fulfilled (Rom 16:20). We believe that Azusa redivivus, Shekinah Seattle, and much more await us. Bob and Margaret Sackett have been expressed love, kindness, and support in many ways. Like Warren, Margaret prayed for me and read the Scriptures to me while I was in a coma. In addition, she created and oversaw a benevolence fund for me. Jim Hunley, a pastor and a beloved friend, and Duwamish Community Church came to my aid in their prayers and generous gifts. Jim and his assembly have taught me the true nature of the love of God in these perilous times. Jim’s insights into Scripture and our walk before God have been immeasurably valuable to me. Amos Hunter, a beloved friend, came to my rescue on the legal front and has been “a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Prov 18:24). His friendship through the years has been a joy and strength. His compassion, altruism, and lucid, incisive legal arguments have changed the way I think and view life and the world. Tom and Kathleen Shaver were a shelter in the time of storm for both Leeza and vi me, opening their home and their hearts. Dr. Edwin Pund, an intrepid nonagenarian teacher for India and Nepal, and his daughter Marilyn have stood with us and prayed for us. Eddie’s zeal for rightly expounding the Word of truth and edifying God’s people is the hallmark of a truly great teacher (2 Tim 2:15; Eph 4:11-13). Josef and Dana Larsson prayed for us and provided generous financial support. Finally, in the wake of my accident, believers from points around the world prayed for me: Ireland, Norway, Canada, and many places in the United States. To all who prayed or helped in any way, I extend my thanks. Many more names could be added, and they know who they are. May the Lord reward them all. Most of all, I thank the Father of glory, who is the One sitting on the throne, and the Lord Yeshua Messiah, my Savior and the one like a son of man, who loves me now and forever. Without God commanding the light to shine in the darkness to my heart, I would have no “knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Messiah” (2 Cor 4:6). Without the power and providence of God after my accident, I would not be alive. In the process of this thesis, I have learned, in ways too deep for words, that God will fulfill in His time for His glory all that He has planned for the assemblies of Yeshua Messiah across the world. As one member of that worldwide assembly, and as one accepted in the beloved, I am on a journey that is taking me and all others of like mind toward the new Jerusalem. With the words of John of Patmos, I proclaim, “To the One sitting upon the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the strength unto the ages of the ages” (Rev 5:13). vii Preface In the aftermath of World War I, Karl Barth called people back to “the strange world of the Bible”—the world in which sin makes its inroads, in which God is known as Other and transcendent, in which accommodation fails, in which liberalism is weighed in the balances and found wanting, and in which theology finds its focus in Jesus Christ.1 Perhaps the strangest part of that strange world is the Apocalypse, the last writing in the canon of the scriptures of the Jesus movement, and it is a world that has become even stranger by the passage of nineteen centuries. This strange biblical discourse is in many ways a terra incognita. Indeed, in the biblical corpus the Apocalypse looms like Everest. Like that jagged peak of rock and ice, the Apocalypse invites and frustrates ascent. Both Everest and the Apocalypse defy unidirectional approaches. As Jim Whitaker, the first American to summit Everest, notes, “The process of scaling a mountain like Everest is not linear.”2 So it is with the Apocalypse. The symbols, images, stories, and messages of the Apocalypse know no boundaries, speaking to people and cultures around the world and across the centuries. In engaging this text, an interpreter faces untold dangers. To engage the Apocalypse in pedantic fashion renders the text abstruse—a literary artifact for antiquarian fascination. Perhaps even more dangerous is the flattening of the discourse into mere chronology—an object for entertainment. At times the Apocalypse has inspired fanatical zeal that people have translated into violence. At other times it has inspired a quietism that has resulted in an eschatology of Schadenfreude. Ironically, both fanatical zeal and quietism exhibit triumphalism: the triumph of human will and initiative or the triumph of world-weariness.3 The metaphor of Everest is not hyperbolic, for all we need do is summon up remembrance things past. From the outset, a firestorm of controversy raged concerning the Apocalypse. Believers in the pre-Nicene and post-Nicene church argued whether the Apocalypse be1 Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 934, provides this assessment of the world at the time Karl Barth issued his commentary on Romans. 2 Jim Whitaker, A Life on the Edge: Memoirs of Everest and Beyond (Seattle: Mountaineers, 1999), 104. 3 On the ways in which sects view and interact with the world, see B. R. Wilson, “A Typology of Sects,” in Sociology of Religion: Selected Readings (ed. Roland Robertson; Baltimore: Penguin, 1969), 361-83 viii longed in the canon.4 Worse yet is the abusive and even bloodstained history of the putative application of truths from this part of the Jesus movement scriptures. Bad theology breeds bad practice, and nowhere is this dictum more evident than in theologies of the Apocalypse. The nightmares spawned by eisegetical treatments of Revelation are legend. 5 In the second century CE one of the leaders of the Montanists proclaimed that the new Jerusalem would descend near the village of Pepuza in Asia Minor. So unsettling were the apocalyptic images of Revelation that in 1513 the Lateran Council prohibited people from preaching on apocalyptic topics.6 Leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have seized the image of the 144,000 and adopted it as literal count of those destined to live in heaven with Jehovah God. In more recent times David Koresh regarded himself as the seventh messenger of Revelation who would prepare the way for the 144,000.7 His end and the end of some of his followers were the fiery tragedy of Waco. Down through the centuries, interpreters have plied and plotted their way through the symbolic labyrinth of the Apocalypse, which has inspired both awe and loathing.8 For instance, Friedrich Nietzsche denounced Revelation as “the most rabid outburst of vindictiveness in all recorded history.”9 Similarly, D. H. Lawrence talked about his childhood and said, “Perhaps the most detestable of all these books of the Bible, taken superficially, is Revelation.”10 Martin Luther struggled with the book and gave it little regard, saying, “I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . There is one sufficient 4 For a history of the complex process by which Revelation was incorporated as Scripture, see Elaine Pagels, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation (New York: Viking, 2012), 133-70. 5 The watchwords for the proper interpretation of Revelation appear to be the triplex of the rule of whole counsel of God, apostolic authority, and the rule of faith. Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 201, says that “the rule of faith, Scripture, the creeds, and theological reflection will function more as they did in the early church than they have in the most recent past. They will be viewed as a witness to the truth, placing Christ as the center with Scripture as an authoritative summary and the universal creeds as the common theology that unites all Christians everywhere. This kind of Christianity will speak convincingly to the postmodern world.” 6 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation (New York: Viking, 2003), 93. 7 James D. Tabor and Eugene V. Gallagher, Why Waco? Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 25. 8 For an overview, see Bruce D. Chilton, Visions of the Apocalypse: Receptions of John’s Revelation in Western Imagination (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2013). 9 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals (trans. Francis Golffing; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1956), 185. 10 D. H. Lawrence, Apocalypse and the Writings on Revelation (London: Penguin, 1931), 3. ix reason for me not to think highly of it—Christ is not taught or known in it. . . . I stick to the books which give me Christ clearly and purely.”11 However, when Luther was confined in the Castle of Wartburg, he used the image of John on Patmos and signed some of his letters “my Patmos.”12 Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest pioneer of theoretical physics until Albert Einstein, devoted much of his time to theology, which included much labor at deciphering Revelation.13 To expatiate on the exegetical, doctrinal, and practical woes that attend with the Apocalypse is to say more about the proclivities of human nature than about the text itself. The naysayers protest too much. For all of the tragic appropriations of the Apocalypse, there are many creative, life-affirming uses of it for the purposes of comfort, edification, and inspiration. Overlooked among these nightmares is the source of peace, comfort, and inspiration that the Apocalypse has proved to be to countless people.14 Strange it is that more consolation would not flow from the Apocalypse, for, amidst its dark hues—its Four Horsemen, the beast, the earthquakes and plagues, Armageddon—is a golden ray. Indeed, of the over 400 verses only 98 concern catastrophe, whereas 150 refer to heaven, restoration, joy, singing, and banqueting.15 Perhaps appropriate to the hymns and musical interludes and motifs in the Apocalypse is its use in musical compositions. The haunting music of Quartet for the End of Time, by Olivier Messiaen, filled a German prison camp in 1941.16 During the height of World War II, Kurt Weigl, an ardent pacifist, put the Apocalypse again to music in his Apocalyptic Symphony (Symphony 5). The joyful pealing of bells marks its climactic coda. Weigl’s symphony is a protest against Nazi 11 Martin Luther, “Preface to the Revelation of St. John,” in Luther’s Works (55 vols.; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; St. Louis: Concordia, 1958–1986), 395-99. These remarks are found in his translation of the New Testament in 1522. 12 Kidnapped by his friends, Luther stayed at Wartburg for ten months. While there, Luther translated the New Testament into German and wrote some books. On the use of “my Patmos,” see Martin Luther, “Letter 82,” in Luther’s Works, 48:246. 13 MacCulloch, Reformation, 536. 14 Dennis Costa, Irenic Apocalypse: Some Uses of Apocalyptic in Dante, Petrarch and Rabelais (Saratoga, California: Anma Libri, 1981), 1-3, 44-45; Arthur W. Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse: Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 189-201. 15 This calculation comes from Eugen Weber, Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults, and Millennial Beliefs through the Ages (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 230. 16 Francesca Aran Murphy, “Revelation, Book of,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 686. x ideology. Also protesting Nazi ideology and appropriating the Apocalypse was the heroic pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. During his 18 months at Tegel military prison in Berlin, Bonhoeffer read with omnivorous zeal, and that reading included the Psalms and the Apocalypse, which were a powerful source of comfort to him.17 For such a time as this, the Apocalypse tolls.18 Its message is veiled in symbols, its truths communicated prophetically. If the Apocalypse is to have impact again, it will come with prophetic force.19 It will be like a voice crying in the wilderness, that place of isolation. Citing the examples of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Mary of Nazareth, and Paul, and stressing the individual believer’s witness, Hans Urs von Balthasar says, “Nothing has ever borne fruit in the Church without emerging from the darkness of a long period of loneliness into the light of the community.”20 However, the footfall of the prophet, let alone his voice, is seldom welcome in the world or even in the community of the people of God. The history of Israel’s prophets—Elijah, Micaiah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel—stands as mute testimony to this fact that the 17 Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy—A Righteous Gentile vs. the Third Reich (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 463. On Bonhoeffer’s omnivorous reading during this time, see idem, Bonhoeffer, 458-61. 18 On true apocalypticism, Robert Jensen, We Are All Apocalyptic Now: On the Responsibilities of Teaching, Preaching, Reporting, Writing, and Speaking Out (Austin, Texas: Monkey Wrench, 2013), 9, argues that “honest apocalyptic thinking that is firmly grounded in a systematic evaluation of the state of the world is not only sensible but a moral obligation.” 19 In the words of A. W. Tozer, The Size of the Soul: Principles of Revival and Spiritual Growth (n.p.: Christian Publications, 1992), 128-29, “If Christianity is to receive a rejuvenation, it must be by other means than any now being used. If the Church in the second half of this century is to recover from the injuries she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher. The proper, ruler-of-the-synagogue type will never do. Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth-talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone. All these have been tried and found wanting. Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will be not one but many), he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment of Christendom. Such a man is likely to be lean, rugged, blunt-spoken and a little bit angry with the world. He will love Christ and the souls of men to the point of willingness to die for the glory of the One and the salvation of the other. But he will fear nothing that breathes with mortal breath.” Tozer’s remarks may strike the ears of many people living in postmodern times as acerbic and sanctimonious, but he speaks of an ideal, not of himself, and he casts this prophetic man as one who has a divine commission. Moreover, church history over the last century, let alone since the inception of the church, confirms the plight of the church in both the generalities and the particulars of its present condition to which Tozer addresses himself (e.g., the acrimonious fundamentalist-modernist debate, the drift of Evangelicalism, the word of faith heresies, the bewildering fragmentation of Protestantism). 20 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness (trans. Richard Beckley; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994), 32. xi prophet is a pariah and a scapegoat. The words of Walter Brueggemann about Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry ring true in the broader scope of prophetic witness: It is clear that such a linguistic enterprise that redescribes the world is in fact subversive activity and indeed may be the primal act of subversion. Such speech functions to discredit and illegitimate the old, conventional modes of perception. When things are seen in new ways, we become aware that old, conventional slogans (for example, Jer. 7:4) are in fact ideological cover-ups that no longer claim allegiance. Such imaginative speech evokes new sensitivities, invites people to hope, that is, to respond to social possibilities that the old administrative language has declared unthinkable, unreasonable, and impossible.21 The Apocalypse has fired the imaginations of many writers, artists, and musicians down through the centuries. The artist John Martin (1789–1854) created a number works of art that portrayed epic biblical events. Among them were the triptych of The Last Judgment, The Great Day of His Wrath, and The Plains of Heaven—paintings that in large part were inspired by the Apocalypse. Although these three paintings may strike some people as tedious, grandiose, and extravagant, they possess a compelling power to those accustomed to engaging with this kind of artistic expression.22 As William Feaver observes, Martin’s The Great Day of His Wrath “represents the end, the moment of truth when the entire human race, including even prophets, artists, seers, must be overwhelmed.”23 William Blake also exemplifies this use of the Apocalypse. On the one hand, during a time of political turmoil in England, Blake wrote, “To defend the Bible in this year 1798 would cost a man his life. The Beast & the Whore rule without control.”24 On the other hand, Blake railed against “these dark Satanic mills” but went on to allow the millennium in Apocalypse to fuel the flames of his political utopianism: I will not cease from Mental Fight, Now shall my Sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In this our green and pleasant Land.25 21 Walter Brueggemann, Like Fire in the Bones: Listening for the Prophetic Word in Jeremiah (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 7-8. 22 William Feaver, The Art of John Martin (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 208. 23 Ibid., 196. 24 William Blake, Complete Writings: With Variant Readings (ed. Geoffrey Keynes; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 383. 25 Ibid., 481. xii I visited the green and pleasant land of Ireland in 2009. On a bright and cold day, Leeza and I went to City Centre in Dublin. There we visited the National Gallery of Ireland to luxuriate in artistic masterpieces by such painters as Monet, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, and Caravaggio. One painting, though not by an artist I knew, riveted me the most: The Sixth Seal, by Thomas Danby. This colossal painting is predominantly dark, but it is punctuated by bright light toward the top and a lightning bolt on the right. I asked Bill, a security guard, whether he knew anything about this painting. He proceeded to tell us a story about how someone had cut out the central part of the painting, excising the part that depicts a slave with broken shackles as he looks upward at the sky. This painting was done at the time when the abolitionist movement was making progress in Britain, so the expunger was an anti-abolitionist. Up in the sky at the place that the slave’s eyes are fixed is a faintly painted cross, which is only visible when observed from an oblique angle. The cross. Never mentioned by name in the Apocalypse yet always in the background (Rev 11:8). If we let the Apocalypse speak to us, we will see the cross and the one like a son of man synchronizing believers with his prophetic messages and the realities of the ages to come. If we let the Apocalypse speak to us, we will see the One sitting on the throne and the Lamb, slaughtered but standing, the ones who lead us to conquer and triumph over the dragon and the beast and who lead us onward to the new Jerusalem. The images of the Apocalypse speak today. One story conveys one of the unusual ways that happens. My wife, who was in Dublin visiting family, told me recently that one of her sisters had proclaimed the gospel via a video call to a Muslim man in a region of the Middle East. In the course of their conversation, the man believed on Jesus Christ and was powerfully saved. The next day he told Leeza’s sister that he had a dream that night that unnerved him. He saw Jesus Christ standing before him, and Christ’s face was bathed in radiant light. Christ, who had white hair and piercing blue eyes, flashed a smile at the man. Jesus placed the man on a white horse. Then the dream ended. This man, who had never read the Apocalypse, experienced a dream based on the first and nineteenth chapters of the Apocalypse. Yes, the Author of the Apocalypse speaks today, speaks to you and me, and speaks to those who have an ear to hear xiii what the Spirit says to the assemblies. At the appointed time the Alpha and the Omega will unite prophetic saints around the world. Maranatha! ! xiv! Illustrative Material Scholars’ Count of Allusions and/or Echoes in Revelation 7 Point Scale for the Detection of Allusions 30 Comparison of Revelation 1:1-3 and Revelation 22:6-7 49 Chain-Link Interlock 52 An Outline of Revelation 55 Chain-Link Interlock in Revelation 1:7-8 57 The Concentric Double-Ring Composition in Revelation 1:4-8 66 Comparison of Revelation 1:7, Daniel 7:13 MT, Daniel 7:13 OG, and Daniel 7:13!Q 70 Revelation 1:9-20 and Lexical Cohesion with Revelation 2:1–22:21 85 Comparison of the Texts of Papyrus 967 and Codex 88 for Daniel 7:13-14 127 Allusions in Revelation 4–5 to Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1–2 137 Tetradic Phrases in Revelation as Allusions to Daniel 7:14 159 Occurrences of the Lexeme!e¶rcomai in the Apocalypse ! 166 xv Abbreviations All abbreviations in this study are based on the standards established in The SBL Handbook of Style, Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland, 27th edition), and The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 4th edition). We have adopted “OG” instead of “LXX” to refer to the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, because, as many scholars note, there was no single such translation before the inception of the Jesus movement. Translations of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature EB NHL NVK WAC Emphasized Bible Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by J. M. Robinson. 4th rev. ed. Leiden. 1996 Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004 Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996 Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials ADP ALUOS ANCT ASCP AUSDDS AYB BCBC BECNT BLS BMC BRS BTSt CBSC CSRS CTL DH DRLAR EBC EDSS EH ELS EuntDoc EUS Advances in Discourse Processes Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies Series Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series The Anchor Yale Bible Believers Church Bible Commentary Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament The Bible and Liberation Series H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, I and II (2d ed., 1976) Biblical Resource Series Biblical Tools and Studies Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Comparative Studies in Religion and Society Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Kurt Niederwimmer. The Didache. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Edited by Harold W. Atytridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998 Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion Expositor’s Bible Commentary Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls Europäische Hochschulschriften English Language Series Euntes Docete European University Studies xvi FCI FH GPBS HolNTC IJFM IVBS JGRChJ JH JPTSup KCBT KEKNT KTAH LD LP LNTS MBPS ML MNTS MSup NCBC NIVAC NLH NPEPP NTC NTM NTR NTSI NTTh OBS OHA OPTAT OS PC PCPSSup PEPP PTA RAnt RGRW ROS RRAS RSB SBG SBLit SCSS SDSSRL SEAJT Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation Fides et Historia Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship Holman New Testament Commentary International Journal of Frontier Missiology International Voices in Biblical Studies Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Janus Head Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series Kregel Charts of the Bible and Theology Kritisch-exegeticscher Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Key Themes in Ancient History The Literacy Dictionary Language and Psychoanalysis Library of New Testament Studies Mellen Biblical Press Series MetaLinguistica McMaster New Testament Studies Mnemosyne Supplementum New Cambridge Bible Commentary NIV Application Commentary New Literary History The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics New Testament Commentary New Testament Message New Testament Readings The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel New Testament Theology Oxford Bible Series Oxford History of Art Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics Orbis Supplementa Proclamation Commentaries Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Supplement Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen Revealing Antiquity Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Radical Orthodoxy Series Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity Series Religious Studies Bulletin Studies in Biblical Greek Studies in Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature South East Asia Journal of Theology xvii SLing StBL TDGR TENTS TLLin TSL VPT WDNT WPC Sophia Linguistica Studies in Biblical Literature Translated Documents of Greece and Rome Texts and Editions for New Testament Study Topics in Language and Linguistics Typological Studies in Language Voices in Performance and Text Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric Westminster Pelican Commentaries Chapter 1 Prolegomena for the Study of Revelation 1:7-8 1.1 Introduction Determining allusions in the literature of the early Jesus movement (c. 30-100 CE) to the Jewish scriptures has been a great problem in biblical studies and theology, and the questions and controversies surrounding this problem show no signs of abating.1 In this scholarly 1 Instead of “Old Testament,” we will use the term “Jewish scriptures.” Instead of “New Testament,” we will use the term “Jesus movement scriptures.” We will use the term “literature of the Jesus movement” to refer more broadly to both the Jesus movement scriptures and writings that are putatively ascribed to the first and centuries CE such as 1 Clement, the Didache, and the Gospel of Thomas. However, we will use “Old Testament” and “New Testament” when we refer to how other scholars view the canonical Scriptures. Our reasons for this nomenclature are as follows. First, many scholars use the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament,” but these terms are an anachronistic superimposition of categories that were foreign to both the Jews of the Second Temple period and the first-century followers of Jesus. Second, “Old Testament” and “New Testament” are associated with the canonical process, which at the time of the writing of Revelation was still not a settled issue for the early Jesus movement and perhaps for certain Jews of Palestine and the Diaspora. Cf. Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2007). The term “early Jesus movement” is intended to capture three aspects that the word “church” does not convey. First, the word “Jesus” conveys the centrality of Jesus to his followers from Pentecost onward. L. G. Champion, Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistles of Paul (Oxford: Kemp Hall, 1934), 36, notes the importance of the name of Jesus and says that a general name for Christians appears to have been oi˚ e˙pikaloume÷noi to\ o¡noma touv kuri÷ou hJmw◊n "Ihsouv Cristouv (1 Cor 1:2) along with variations of this phrase. Scholars reaching a similar conclusion are James D. G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 16; and Larry W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 78-79. This emphasis on calling on Jesus’ name is seen elsewhere in the Jesus movement literature (Rom 10:13; Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16; 2 Tim 2:22; cf. Acts 7:59). For more on the significance of the name of Jesus for the early Christians, see Wilhelm Heitmüller, “Im Namen Jesu”: Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903); and David E. Aune, Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2006; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 407-11. Second, the word “movement” conveys the dynamic quality of the name “the way” (hJ oJdo\ß), which Jesus’ followers adopted to describe themselves. They saw themselves as those moving forward in the road or way of God’s plan of salvation (Acts 9:2; 19:23; 22:4; 24:14). Third, “movement” conveys the sociological phenomenon of Jesus’ followers in the aggregate, their itinerancy, and their different base assemblies for the spread of the gospel (e.g., Jerusalem, Antioch). Cf. Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (trans. O. C. Dean Jr.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999); Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); Richard A. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989). The following sample of works, listed chronologically, attests to the fact that questions and controversies continue in this area of study: Crawford Howell Toy, Quotations in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884); Joseph Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” NTS 7 (1961): 297-333; Robert Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1967); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985); D. A. Carson and Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson, eds., It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars, S.S.F. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Steve Moyise, ed., The Old Testament in the New Testament (JSNTSup 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, eds., Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand 1 2 debate one of the areas of greatest interest and controversy is the study of Revelation’s allusions and echoes to the Jewish scriptures, other source texts, and extratextual sources.2 An allusion is a tacit yet recognizable element of a textual or extratextual source that is antecedent or contemporaneous with the target text and that is placed in a target text as words, symbols, concepts, or structure that may or may not reconfigure the source.3 A reconfigured source may also be called an approximate parallel.4 In this chapter we will examine the need for this study of Rev 1:7-8, which is composed of allusions to the Jewish scriptures, by identifying two important problems regarding this passage.5 We will then see how various scholars have approached the study of allusions and echoes in Revelation. After this survey of secondary literature, we will propose our interdisciplinary method for interpreting Rev 1:7-8. We will end the chapter by stating the thesis and the programmatic statement of this study. Rapids: Zondervan, 2007); G. K Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). 2 Scholars refer to “source text” by other names: precursor text, antecedent text, subtext, prototype, pre-text, and Vorlage. We prefer the term “source text” and the related term “target text,” which are used in translation studies. In one sense, the author of Revelation is taking a written text or his memory of a text and is translating it in some fashion in the target text. Cf. Theo A. W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies (CBET 47; Leuven: Peeters, 2007). 3 Our examination of a variety of definitions of “allusion” leads us to our definition. See definitions in M. H. Abrams and Geoffrey Galt Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms (10th ed.; Boston: Wadsworth, 2012), 12; and Earl Miner, “Allusion,” NPEPP 38-39. 4 In his comment about allusions in Revelation to the Old Testament, Floyd O. Parker Jr., “‘Our Lord and God’ in Rev 4,11: Evidence for the Late Date of Revelation?” Bib 82 (2001): 220, says, “An ‘approximate parallel’ is defined as one that contains the basic wording and structure of a phrase. . . .” Parker (ibid.) adds that an approximate parallel may involve the transposition of words, the use of synonyms, and the inclusion of new text. 5 We define “multivalence” as a text’s generation of two or more meanings or references that co-exist in harmony or tension with one another. Our study concerns multivalence on a micro-level (e.g., a word) and on the macro-level (the entire discourse). On “multivalence,” see Christine Helmer, “Introduction: Multivalence in Biblical Theology,” in The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings (ed. Christine Helmer; SBLSymS 37; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 7. “Multivalence” is also called “polyvalence,” “ambiguity,” “multiple meaning,” and “plurisignification.” According to Abrams and Harpham, Glossary, 13, “ambiguity,” “multiple meaning,” and “plurisignation” are used alternatively to describe “the use of a single word or expression to signify two or more distinct references, or to express two or more diverse attitudes or feelings.” Multivalence is not to be equated with polysemy or polymorphy, although polysemy and polymorphy may be involved in multivalence. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 84, notes that polysemy is a word that has more than one meaning and polymorphy is several symbols having the same meaning. We agree with Humphrey, And I Turned, 132, who argues for polyvalence within parameters: the text cannot mean anything imposed by the interpreter. Thus, multivalence depends much on the genre of the text, for some texts are inherently more multivalent (e.g., poetry, prophecy). 3 1.2 The Problems and the Need for This Study For many years New Testament scholars focused their efforts on the Gospels and the Epistles, so serious scholarship of Revelation, especially from 1945 to 1980, had often been an afterthought of many scholars, but that neglect has been changing.6 The magisterial commentaries of H. Kraft, David Aune, G. K. Beale, Grant Osborne, H. Giesen, Stephen Smalley, and Brian Blount, as well as various books, monographs, and articles have rectified much of the scholarly neglect and have filled in many gaps, but more work remains to be done in certain key areas.7 1.2.1 A Thematic Statement for the Apocalypse One key area requiring more work concerns the nature and meaning of a thematic statement for the Apocalypse. As noted below in this section, many scholars use “thematic statement” or an equivalent description when dealing with Rev 1:1, 1:7, 1:8, or 1:7-8. However, few have examined the nature and meaning of such thematic statements. For the purposes of our study, a thematic statement is defined as one or more sentences in a literary work, usually at its beginning, that explicitly or implicitly mention the key theme or themes of the work and that assert certain propositions to be true for the purpose of moving or persuading the audience. “Subject,” “theme,” “thesis,” and “thematic statement” are not synonymous terms, although they are related and may overlap.8 In our view a thematic statement blends 6 E. Schüssler Fiorenza, “Revelation,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 407. 7 H. Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16a; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1974); David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5 (WBC 52A; Dallas: Word, 1997); idem, Revelation 6–16 (WBC 52B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998; idem, Revelation 17–22 (WBC 52C; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998); G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002); H. Giesen, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1997); Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005); Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). 8 Monroe C. Beardsley, Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism (2d ed.; Indianapolis: Hackett, 1981), 401-11, raises the issue of defining “subject,” “theme,” and “thesis.” In terms of a continuum of general to specific, he says that “subject” is the least specific, “theme” is more specific, and “thesis” is the most specific. According to Beardsley (403), a subject may be referred to “by a concrete noun or nominative construction: a war, a love affair, the Aztecs, the taming of a shrew.” In contrast, he says that a theme of a literary work is “something named by an abstract noun or phrase: the futility of war, the mutability of joy; heroism, inhumanity.” Beardsley (405) goes on to say that a theme is “a concept in the mind of the speaker, an abstracted quality or relation that he evidently regards as noteworthy, because in someway he singles it out for attention.” The defini- 4 the categories of “theme” and “thesis” and includes terms and concepts that are central to the discourse and that are elaborated by various literary devices throughout the discourse.9 In ancient literature, the subject, theme, thesis, or thematic statement normally occurs at the beginning (e.g., the title, the first sentence of the work, the preface or prologue), but sometimes later in the work.10 tion of Abrams and Harpham, Glossary, 229, of “theme” is similar to Beardsley’s but is more helpful: “a general concept or doctrine, whether implicit or asserted, which an imaginative work is designed to involve and make persuasive to the reader.” Beardsley’s definition of theme as abstract noun or phrase is overly restrictive because Theodore Harris and Richard Hodges, “Theme,” LD 256, state that a theme is “a major idea or proposition broad enough to cover the entire scope of a literary or other work of art.” They correctly state that a theme may consist of a sentence, a noun phrase, an adverbial phrase, or a prepositional phrase. Finally, according to Beardsley (404), a thesis, which is not necessarily part of a literary work, is something about or in a literary work that can be called true or false. 9 Brendan Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical, 1996), 51. A thematic statement may have lexical and thematic correspondence with other sections of the work. Cf. Lars Hartman, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1-5 (ConBNT; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979), 132. In the Jewish scriptures Mic 1:2-7 is a good example of a thematic statement that is elaborated through various means in the rest of the writing. Delbert R. Hillers, Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984), 18; Mignon Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (JSOTSup 322; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 46-57; Bruce K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 15. 10 The title: The title of the Roman novel Satyrica, by Petronius, is an example in which the title discloses information about the document. Hubert Petersmann, “Environment, Linguistic Situation, and Levels of Style in Petronius’ Satyrica,” in Oxford Readings in the Roman Novel (ed. S. J. Harrison; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 106-7. The first sentence of the work: Before the 114 logia, the Gospel of Thomas says, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down” (NHL). The author of 4 Maccabees sets forth the purpose of his writing in the first sentence: “Highly philosophical is the subject I propose to discuss, namely, whether devout reason is absolute master of the passions, and I would strictly counsel you to give earnest attention to my philosophical exposition” (4 Macc 1:1, OTP). The writer of the Didache establishes his theme in the initial sentence: “There are two ways, one to life and one to death, but the difference between the two ways is great” (Did. 1:1, DH). Fourth Ezra 3:1-3, which begins the Jewish text of this literary work, probably serves as a thematic statement for the rest of the writing. Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 53, says that these three verses “set the stage for the whole book.” W. O. E. Oesterley, II Esdras: The Ezra Apocalypse (London: Methusen, 1933), 18, says that verse 2 provides “one of the main themes of the book.” The preface or prologue: As D. E. Smith, “Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory,” Semeia 52 (1990): 1-9, points out, in ancient writings of various kinds, the first sentence or first paragraph usually gives the theme of the document or other central information. Ancient writers note this use of a subject, theme, thesis, or thematic statement somewhere in the beginning of literary works. For example, Epiphanius states, “The authors of old used to give hints of the subject they were to treat in the prefaces or remarks which they composed as a sort of title. Hence we too shall use this style in writing our preface for you, beloved brothers, and we shall briefly summarize the essential matter [of our work composed?] against the sects” (Pan. 1.1.1). Philip R. Amidon, trans. and ed., The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 5. The feature of preparing the audience is seen in Greco-Roman speeches, epic poems, and dramas. As Aristotle states, “But in speeches and epic poems the exordia provide a sample of the subject, in order that the hearers may know beforehand what it is about, and that the mind may not be kept in suspense, for that which is undefined leads astray; so then he who puts the beginning, so to say, into the hearer’s hand enables him, if he holds fast to it, to follow the story. . . . Similarly, tragic poets make clear the subject of their drama, if not at the outset, like Euripides, at least somewhere in the prologue, like Sophocles. . . . 5 1.2.2 Allusions and Echoes to the Jewish Scriptures in the Apocalypse Another problem requiring more work is the allusions and echoes to the Jewish scriptures in the Apocalypse. Especially since the commentary of Henry Swete appeared in 1908, scholars have investigated Revelation’s extensive use of allusions and echoes to the Jewish scriptures and have drawn differing conclusions.11 In 1912 Adolf von Schlatter examined the It is the same in comedy” (Rhetoric 3.14.6). In regard to epics, Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (trans. Jane E. Lewin; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980), 67, explains, “Anticipation, or temporal prolepsis, is clearly much less frequent than the inverse figure, at least in the Western narrative tradition— although each of the three great early epics, the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid, begins with a sort of anticipatory summary that to a certain extent justifies the formula Todorov applied to Homeric narrative: ‘plot of predestination.’” Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1414b; Lucian, Ver. hist. 53; Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a, lines 33-39; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 24; Seneca the Elder, Controv. 1.pref.21; Quintilian, Inst. 4.1.35. Outside speeches: Polybius 3.1.3–3.5.9; 11.1.4-5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 19; Virgil, Aen. 1.1-6). On the prologue: Cicero, Inv. 1:20-26; Rhet. Her. 1:6-8; Quintilian, Inst. 4:1; Anon. Seg. 1–39; Aps. Rhetoric. 217:2–242:11; [Hermog.] Inv. 93:4–108:17. Later in the work: Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse (2d ed.; TLLin; New York: Plenum Press, 1996), 37-38. 11 In chronological order, see Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (3d ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1908; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), cxl-clviii; Adolf von Schlatter, Das alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse (BFCT 16.6; Güttersloh: Bertelsmann, 1912); R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 1:lxv-lxxxii; Pierre Lestringant, Esai sur l’unité de la révélation biblique (Paris: Editions ‘Je. Sers,’ 1942); J. Cambier, “Les images de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Apocalypse de Saint Jean,” NRTh 77 (1955): 113-22; Stanislas Giet, L’Apocalypse et l’histoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957), 186-208; Eduard Lohse, “Die alttestamentliche Sprache des Sehers Johannes. Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Apokalypse,” ZNW 52 (1961): 122-26; A. Vanhoye, “L’utilisation du livre d’Ezechiel dans l’Apocalypse,” Bib 43 (1962): 436-76; H.-P. Müller, “Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Apc John. 4–5” (PhD diss., Heidelberg University, 1962); Leonhard P. Trudinger, “The Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation” (ThD diss., Boston University, 1963); C. G. Ozanne, “The Influence of the Text and Language of the Old Testament on the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 1964); Rudolf von Halver, Der Mythos im letzten Buch der Bibel (TF 32; Hamburg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich Evangelischer Verlag, 1964), 11-17; J. Comblin, Le Christ dans l’Apocalypse (Bibliothèque de Théologie: Théologie biblique 3.6; Paris: Desclée, 1965), 80-91; H. Lancellotti, “L’Antico Testamento nell’Apocalisse,” RivB 14 (1966): 369-84; A. Gangemi, “L’utilizzazione del Deutero-Isaia nell’Apocalisse di Giovanni,” EuntDoc 27 (1974): 109-44, 311-39; B. Marconcini, “L’utilizzazione del T. M. nelle citazione isaiane dell’Apocalisse,” RevistB 24 (1976): 113-36; G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1984); Jon Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12 (AUSDDS 11; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1987); idem, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation,” BR (1988): 37-53; JeanPierre Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17 - 19,10 (Frankfurt: Lang, 1989); John T. Willis, “The Old Testament and the Book of Revelation,” in Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack (ed. James E. Priest; Malibu, California: Pepperdine University Press, 1989), 231-39; Jan Fekkes III, Isaiah and the Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Developments (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (JSNTSup 166; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); idem, G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 7699; Jon Paulien, “Criteria and Assessment of Allusions to the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation,” in Studies in the Book of Revelation (ed. Steve Moyise; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001); David A. deSilva, “Final Topics: 6 use of the Old Testament in Revelation, but his work remained the only significant published scholarly treatment of the subject until Beale examined the use of Daniel in Revelation and published his revised PhD dissertation in 1984.12 Between 1912 and 1984, the only other significant scholarly contributions to this topic were the unpublished dissertations of Leonhard Trudinger and C. G. Ozanne.13 Despite scholarly differences about the Apocalypse, many have reached consensus on two points. First, Revelation has more references to the Old Testament than other parts of the New Testament have.14 Second, the writer of Revelation never formally quotes or provides an introductory or concluding formula in conjunction with his use of the Old Testament.15 In this lack of formal quotations, Revelation differs from both the Qumran corpus and the rest of the Jesus movement literature.16 The following scholars or scholarly works, listed in chrono- The Rhetorical Functions of Intertexture in Revelation 14:14-16:21,” in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament (ed. Duane E. Watson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 215-41; David E. Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed: An Intertextual Reading of the Apocalypse of John,” in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation (ed. David L. Barr; SBLSymS 39; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 43-70; Robby Waddell, The Spirit of the Book of Revelation (JPTSup 30; Blandford Forum, Dorset: Deo, 2006); G. K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1081-1161. 12 Adolf von Schlatter, Das alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse (BFCT 16.6; Güttersloh: Bertelsmann, 1912). 13 Leonhard P. Trudinger, “The Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation” (ThD diss., Boston University, 1963); C. G. Ozanne, “The Influence of the Text and Language of the Old Testament on the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 1964). 14 Beale, Revelation, 77. 15 This absence of formal quotations is acknowledged by the following scholars: Beale and Carson, Commentary, 1082-83; Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 4; Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38– 39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17–21 and 20,7–10 (WUNT 2/135; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001), 26; Paul T. Penley, The Common Tradition behind Synoptic Sayings of Judgment and John’s Apocalypse: An Oral Interpretive Tradition of Old Testament Prophetic Material (LNTS 424; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 2; Swete, Apocalypse, cliii-cliv; United Bible Societies, 3d ed., 903; United Bible Societies, 4th ed., 890. The second edition of the UBS text (897-920) includes Revelation in its Index of Quotations, but the UBS committee changed its philosophy in the third and fourth editions, expunging Revelation from the index. 16 In a minority view, Leonhard P. Trudinger, “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation,” JTS 17 (1966): 84, argues that certain allusions should be called quotations because of the “word combinations” that point to knowledge of such forms in another source. Works from the Qumran corpus with introductory formulas include the Damascus Document (Genizah A + B, 4Q266–272), the Florilegium (4Q174), and the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab). 7 logical order, provide varying estimates of the number of allusions or the number of allusions and echoes in Revelation to the Jewish scriptures:17 Table 1: Scholars’ Count of Allusions and/or Echoes in Revelation Scholar and Date Allusions Comment and/or Echoes Westcott and Hort (1882)18 At least 278 278 verses contain allusions 19 Toy (1884) 262 20 Rotherham (1897) 320 Estimate 21 Hühn (1900) 455 22 Dittmar (1903) 195 British and Foreign Bible Society 493 (1904)23 Swete (1908)24 278 25 Charles (1920) 226 26 Gélin (1938) 518 27 Stähelin (1951) About 63828 748 parallels when including the Old Testament Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 29 Tenney (1957) Nearly 250 About 95 of the 348 allusions are repeated 30 Bratcher (1961) 11 17 This table was compiled, in part, on totals cited in the following secondary literature: Beale, John’s Use, 60 n. 1; Beale and McDonough, “Revelation,” 1081-1161; Fekkes, Isaiah, 62; Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 45; Waddell, Spirit, 68 n. 90. 18 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882; repr., Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1988), 184-88 of the appendix. 19 Toy, Quotations, 294-300. 20 Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible (n.p.: 1897; repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994), 252-67 (New Testament). 21 E. Hühn, Die alttestamentlichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900), 269-71. 22 Wilhelm Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Die alttestamentlichen Paralleles des Neuen Testaments im Wortlaut der Urtexte und der Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 263-79. 23 Eberhard Nestle, H KAINH DIAQHKH: Text with Critical Apparatus (4th ed.; London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1904), 734-87. 24 Swete, Apocalypse, cxli. 25 Charles, Revelation, 1:lxv-lxxxii. 26 A. Gélin, L’Apocalypse (Le sainte Bible 12; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1938), 589-90. 27 Johann Stähelin, 700 Parallelen: Die Quellgründe der Apokalypse (Bern: M. Hötzendorfer, 1951). 28 Fekkes, Isaiah, 62, gives the estimate of 638. 29 Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 101. 30 Robert G. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (rev. ed.; London: United Bible Societies, 1961), 74-76. 8 Scholar and Date 31 Allusions and/or Echoes Trudinger (1963)31 76 UBS2 (1968)32 Van der Waal (1971)33 Jenkins (1972)34 Over 500 About 1,000 Nearly 250 UBS3 (1975)35 Ford (1975)36 NA26 (1979)37 Metzger (1993)39 Fekkes (1994)40 394 Over 400 in Revelation 4–22 635 278 About 150 Moyise (1995)41 Aune (1997)42 NA27 (1998)43 Rowland (1998)44 Over 200 Over 100 734 599 Beale (1999)46 About 1200 Comment Trudinger lists 58 quotations separate from allusions About 95 of the 348 allusions are repeated 25 direct quotations38 These are certain or virtually certain, and 72 recapitulations occur 40 allusions to other texts45 Estimated by Paulien As cited in Appendix A of Frederick David Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Sourcecritical Perspective (BZNW 54; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 385-86. 32 Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (2d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1968), 897-920. 33 C. Van der Waal, Openbaring van Jezus Christu: Inleiding en Vertaling (Göttingen: De Vuurbaak, 1971), 174-241. 34 Ferrell Jenkins, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Marion, Indiana: Cogdill Foundation, 1972), 23 n. 9, follows Tenney’s list. 35 Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (3d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), 836-95. 36 J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation (AB 38; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1975), 27, 42. 37 Kurt Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979), 63280. 38 NA26 indicates allusions in regular type and direct quotations in italics. 39 Bruce M. Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 13. 40 Fekkes, Isaiah, 70. 41 Moyise, Revelation, 137. 42 Aune, Revelation 1–5, l. 43 Barbara Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998), 632-80. 44 Christopher C. Rowland, “The Book of Revelation,” NIB 12 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 737-43. 45 Ibid., 743. These texts include Tobit, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 3 Maccabees, 1 Enoch, and Psalms of Solomon. 46 By analyzing Beale’s identifications of allusions in three test passages in the Apocalypse, Paulien, “Criteria,” 126, estimates Beale’s total for Revelation. 9 Scholar and Date UBS4 (2001)47 Waddell (2006)50 Allusions and/or Echoes 632 (664)48 394 to 695 Comment 403 verse citations49 Difficult to determine The table above highlights the first problem: divergent criteria and terms have yielded widely varying results for the compilation of allusions and echoes.51 For example, this problem becomes clearer when examining the differences in the totals for the second, third, and fourth editions of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (over 500, 394, 664 [632], respectively). The large spread in totals for Revelation’s allusions to the Jewish scriptures, from a low of 11 to a high of about 1200, has been caused by at least three factors.52 To begin with, scholars have used divergent definitions of “allusion” and “echo.” Compounding this problem is scholars’ employment of divergent criteria for detecting allusions and echoes. Moreover, some scholars have included parallels in addition to allusions and echoes.53 Seeing these problems, Jan Fekkes observes, “The need for systematic methodological guidelines in delimiting John’s use of specific OT texts is evident simply from the multitude of disparate enumerations of OT allusions in Revelation.”54 Stanley Porter criticizes studies on the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament and says that “the criteria for determining and label- 47 Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 891-901. 48 The total of 664 includes both the 632 from the Genesis-Malachi Protestant canon and 32 from deuterocanonical literature (2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon). 49 Mark Wilson, Charts on the Book of Revelation: Literary, Historical, and Theological Perspectives (KCBT; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 120. 50 Waddell, Spirit, 68 n. 90, lists a range from Beale’s work. 51 In addition, Paulien, Decoding, 121-54, has surveyed ten scholarly sources for their identifications of allusions in Rev 8:7–9:21 and 11:15-18 and found widely differing totals. 52 Bratcher, Quotations, vii, does not specify his method in determining quotations, paraphrases, and allusions other than saying that his list “includes all formal quotations and some of the more obvious paraphrases and allusions which seem to reflect a conscious use of a specific Old Testament passage or of Old Testament phraseology.” 53 Beale, Revelation, 77. 54 Fekkes, Isaiah, 61-62. 10 ing the use of the Old Testament and related texts in the New Testament are far from being resolved and even further from providing objective tests.”55 A second problem that emerges from a survey of secondary literature on Revelation is that scholars have not examined in sufficient depth the allusions to Daniel 7 in Revelation. This exegetical inattention to Daniel 7 is ironic because some scholars acknowledge that allusions to Daniel play a central role in Revelation.56 For example, according to Henry Swete and G. K. Beale, Daniel, when analyzed by its length, is referred to more often than any other part of the Old Testament, and Beale further says that Daniel 7 is alluded to more than any other chapter of Daniel.57 J. P. M. Sweet says that Revelation “represents the Danielic version of Christianity, stressing Christ’s sacrificial death and imminent return, which stamps the synoptic gospels and most of the epistles.”58 Indeed, the few scholars who have focused on Daniel 7 have directed their discussion of it in the broader vein of determining whether Daniel or Ezekiel provides the main model for Revelation in terms of the dominant themes or the narrative structure. Other scholars acknowledge the importance of Daniel 7. However, they do not see the centrality of Daniel 7, granting Ezekiel precedence over Daniel. For example, R. H. Charles says that the author uses Daniel 7 mainly in Revelation 1, 11, 13, and 20, adding further that most of the Danielic allusions come from Daniel 7 (11 of the 27 verses alluding to Daniel).59 In his dissertation G. K. Beale sought to remedy this inattention to the broader DanielRevelation connection. However, writing 15 years later, Beale points out that a major problem with the treatment of Revelation 1 is that “the majority of commentators have not 55 Stanley E. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 88. 56 Beale, Use of Daniel, 87; J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (WPC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 17-21. 57 Beale, Revelation, 77. Swete, Apocalypse, liii, says that the author of the Apocalypse refers to the Book of Daniel 45 times and that “the Books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are used with almost equal frequency. . . .” 58 Sweet, Revelation, 47-48. 59 Charles, Revelation, 1:lxviii-lxxxi. As subsequent chapters of our study will show, allusions to Daniel 7 occur in more than just these chapters. Moyise, Revelation, 45, has followed Charles’s survey of Daniel 7. 11 developed the significance of Daniel 7 enough.”60 He does not elaborate on this lack of development except to note that commentators have focused on aspects of the son of man reflected in Daniel 10 and the “lampstands” of Zechariah. Although Beale deals with the use of Daniel 7 in Revelation 1, he does not devote an excursus in his commentary to trace its use throughout Revelation. Moreover, Beale does not see how Daniel 7 plays a thematic function in Rev 1:9-20, which he says serves “as a commission to John from the risen Christ to write the totality of the vision which he witnesses.”61 In contrast, Richard Bauckham sees the importance of not only Daniel as a whole for Revelation but also Daniel 7 in particular, and he asserts that the author “alludes to almost every part of that chapter at some point in Revelation, demonstrating that a consistent and complete exegesis of Daniel 7 lies behind his work.”62 Given his concern for other subjects related to Revelation, Bauckham does not isolate Daniel 7 or treat it extensively, but to his credit he incorporates it into the broad discussions in his book.63 Therefore, Bauckham’s treatment of Daniel 7 is limited. Grant Osborne does not elaborate on the significance of the development of the “one like a son of man” passage from Daniel 7, but he concludes, “The Danielic image [of the one like a son of man] is implied throughout 1:4-8 and is a major force in Revelation as a whole (Dan. 7 is one of the most frequently used passages in the book), focusing as it does on an eternal kingdom established by God.”64 A third problem that emerges from a survey of secondary literature on Revelation is the lack of detailed exegesis of Rev 1:7-8 in relation to the rest of Revelation. Many scholars identify Rev 1:7, 1:8, or 1:7-8 as the thematic statement of Revelation, or they identify these verses as expressing major themes of Revelation, but to our knowledge none of the scholars 60 Beale, Revelation, 221. Ibid., 206. 62 Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (London: T&T Clark, 1993; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2007), 500-1. 63 Ibid., 329. 64 Osborne, Revelation, 68. 61 12 surveyed has examined these verses comprehensively.65 This problem may be summarized as four questions. First, what is a “thematic statement” in the literature of both the early Jesus movement and other ancient literature, and how does such a thematic statement function? Second, if Rev 1:7, 1:8, or 1:7-8 is the thematic statement, how does it function in that way? Third, is one of the scriptural allusions in Rev 1:7-8 more important than the other allusions in these two verses? Fourth, how is Rev 1:7 or Rev 1:7-8 linguistically and thematically connected with other passages in Revelation? 65 Revelation 1:7 as the thematic statement: Monica-Elena Herghelegiu, Siehe, er kommt mit den Wolken! Studien zur Christologie der Johannesoffenbarung (EUS 23:785; Frankfurt: Lang, 2004), 87; Beale, Revelation, 25-26; Marko Jauhiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation (WUNT 2/199; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005), 75 n. 62, 102-7, 142-44; Charles Brütsch, La Clarté de l’Apocalypse (Paris: Labor et Fides, 1966), 30; Kendell H. Easley, Revelation (HolNTC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 15; Felise Tavo, Woman, Mother and Bride: An Exegetical Investigation into the “Ecclesial” Notions of the Apocalypse (BTSt 3; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 51 n. 12; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 48; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 28; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 76-77; Evis L. Carballosa, Apocalipsis: La consumación del plan eterno de Dios (Grand Rapids: Editorial Portavoz, 1997), 46; J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 590; J. B. Smith, A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (ed. J. Otis Yoder; Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1961), 43; Tenney, Interpreting Revelation, 150, 159. These scholars do not always use the word “theme” or the phrase “thematic statement,” but they indicate in other ways an idea that is synonymous with these terms. For example, Beale, Revelation, 25, entitles his section “The Initial Thematic Focus of 1:7.” Carballosa, Apocalipsis, 46, calls 1:7 “el tema central del libro” (“the central theme of the book”). Payne, Encyclopedia, 590, states, “With this key verse at the heart of the opening chapter, the last book of the Bible takes up its ‘revelation’ of events surrounding the return of Jesus Christ and of God’s all-embracing conclusion to the course of world history.” Revelation 1:8 as the thematic statement: Richard L. Jeske, Revelation for Today: Images of Hope (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 35. Revelation 1:7-8 as the thematic statement: George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NCB; rev. ed.; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 29; Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John: Studies in Introduction, with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (London: Macmillan, 1919; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 255, 256-57, 431; M. Eugene Boring, Revelation (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1989), 79; Wilhelm Bousset, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (KEKNT 16; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 220; Gerhard A. Krodel, Revelation (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 77; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998), 170; idem, Revelation: Vision of a Just World (PC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 43-44; Leonard L. Thompson, Revelation (ANTC; Abingdon: Nashville, 1998), 47. Thompson does not use the word “theme” or “thematic” but views vv. 7-8 as preparatory for Revelation’s contents. Boring calls 1:7-8 “this ‘motto’-like prophetic pronouncement.” Although not citing Rev 1:7, Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (trans. Wendy Pradels; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001), 653, states that the coming of Christ is “the main assertion of the book of Revelation. . . .” Beckwith, Apocalypse, 257, 431, appears to contradict himself in citing v. 7 as the theme and vv. 7-8 as the theme, but in his most detailed comments he appears to view vv. 7-8 as the theme. He calls these verses “the Motto of the book.” Expression of major themes: Eugenio Corsini, The Apocalypse: The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ (trans. and ed. Francis J. Moloney; GNS 5; Wilmington, Delaware: Glazier, 1983), 78-79. Corsini sees the prologue of 1:1-8 drawing the audience “into the whole theme of the work” (66) and 1:1 as expressing “the theme of the book” (71). Italics original. 13 1.2.3 Previous Methods for Analyzing Allusions and Echoes in the Apocalypse An exhaustive survey of the methods that scholars have used to interpret allusions and echoes in the Jewish scriptures, the Apocalypse, the literature of the early Jesus movement, and other ancient literature is beyond the scope of this study, although we will draw from certain scholars’ work during our study. Other scholars have incisively examined the secondary literature on allusions and echoes in Revelation, so we will not try to duplicate their efforts.66 Instead, we will note the dominant views and the common problems concerning the determination of allusions in Revelation. According to G. K. Beale and Sean McDonough, an examination of the various methods reveals three dominant views of the way the author uses the Old Testament in Revelation: (1) non-contextual use of the Old Testament scriptures for new theological purposes, (2) highly contextual use of the Old Testament in a literal way in which the Apocalypse supplements the Old Testament prophets (i.e., Revelation is interpreted in light of the Old Testament), and (3) highly contextual use of the Old Testament in which the author speaks from the standpoint of “a redemptive-historical stance of greater progressive revelation” (i.e., the Old Testament is interpreted in the light of Revelation).67 The problem with the first view is that such a use of the Old Testament scriptures contravenes the general tendency of the author to respect the context of the source text.68 Views 2 and 3 are the primary way that the author uses his allusions because of his respect for the source text, contrary to the opinion of some scholars such as G. B. Caird.69 However, a dialectical tension between views 2 and 3 often 66 Beale, John’s Use, 13-59; Beale and McDonough, “Revelation,” 1081-1161; Fekkes, Isaiah, 59-63; Waddell, Spirit, 66-90. 67 Beale and McDonough, “Revelation,” 1088. 68 Ruiz, Ezekiel, 219, contends that the author of the Apocalypse “produces genuinely new meaning” when he alludes to Old Testament passages. Likewise, Rowland, “Revelation,” NIB 12, 561, exemplifies this view when he states that the author’s allusions are not “deliberate attempts to echo biblical passages.” Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Justice, 135, says that the author in his use of the Old Testament “uses its words, images, phrases, and patterns as a language arsenal in order to make his own theological statement or express his own prophetic vision.” 69 In regard to the vision in Rev 1:9-20, G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 25, states, “But to compile such a catalogue is to unweave the rainbow. John uses his allusions not as a code in which each symbol requires separate and exact translation, but rather for their evocative and emotive power. This is not photographic art. His aim is to set the echoes of memory and associa- 14 exists. Many times the author does not disclose whether the stress is placed on the context of the source text or the context of the allusion in the target text. One common flaw in all of the methods for interpreting allusions and echoes is either imprecise definitions or the lack of definitions for key terms such as “allusion” and “echo.”70 In contrast to some Revelation scholars and other biblical scholars, we do not define “echo” in a continuum with “allusion” in a way in which an echo is only a less identifiable allusion. Laurence Perrine is right in defining echo thus: “Any recurrence of the same sound or combination of sounds at intervals near enough to be perceptible to the ear. Thus, alliteration, assonance, consonance, near-rhyme, rhyme, repetend, and refrain . . . all constitute kinds of echo.”71 We will not concern ourselves with echo in Revelation because we are interested in tion ringing.” Caird implies that John’s allusions are disparate and hence beyond conceptual congruence because of “their evocative and emotive power.” Corsini, Apocalypse, 78, is closer to the truth when he says, “John does not use the Sacred Scriptures to fill out his images or to add colour. He uses it to provide himself with a sure footing and basis for the truth which he is trying to communicate.” Some allusions in Revelation provide the main theme or structural framework for a passage and show a high degree of respect for the context of the source text. Scholars who see the author’s respect for the context include the following scholars: Bauckham, Climax, 238; Beale, Revelation, 96-99; Fekkes, Isaiah, 286-88; Sweet, Revelation, 63. Louis A. Vos, The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1965), 2137, claims that the author had little respect for the context, but Moyise, Revelation, 102, notes that such a generalization is too simplistic in light of major texts on which passages in Revelation have been modeled. This sensitivity to the context of the source text is in keeping with the author’s view of himself as being in the continuum of Israel’s prophets. In addition, this high degree of respect for the context is in keeping with the work of other writers of the early Jesus movement. The author’s method has close affinity with what appears to be the method of other writers in the Jesus movement who kept the context of a cited scripture as the background for the citation. At the conclusion of his study of the use of particular passages of the Old Testament in the New Testament, C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), 126, says, “The method included, first, the selection of certain large sections of the Old Testament scriptures, especially from Isaiah, Jeremiah and certain minor prophets, and from the Psalms. These sections were understood as wholes, and particular verses or sentences were quoted from them rather as pointers to the whole context than as constituting testimonies in and for themselves. At the same time, detached sentences from other parts of the Old Testament could be adduced to illustrate or elucidate the meaning of the main section under consideration. But in the fundamental passages it is the total context that is in view, and is the basis of the argument.” Italics original. 70 For example, Paulien, “Criteria,” 127, notes that the study of allusions and echoes in Revelation has suffered because of inconsistent terminology. He argues that a more objective methodology is needed in determining Revelation’s allusions to the Old Testament. Likewise, Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 3, 19-29, surveys the work of Beale, Paulien, Hays, Thompson, Fekkes, and Paul, noting the lack of a suitable definition of “allusion” and the problems that this lack poses. Jauhiainen appeals to the work of Ziva Ben-Porat for a definition of “allusion,” and this appeal is a step in the right direction. However, Ben-Porat’s definition suffers from his use of the elastic word “intertextual.” Furthermore, more precision is still needed by appealing to other studies of allusions outside of biblical studies. 71 Laurence Perrine, “Echo,” PEPP 212. 15 allusions that consist of corresponding words, concepts, and structures between a source text and a target text. One thorny issue that is raised in these studies of allusions is the use of the terms “intertextual” and “intertextuality.” The terms “intertextual” and “intertextuality” are too elastic in meaning and will not be adopted in this study.72 Despite the acceptance of these terms among some biblical scholars, other scholars criticize the confusion and imprecision that these terms have generated.73 Another common flaw in all of the methods used to determine allusions and echoes is the imprecision in constructing the levels of probability.74 To avoid this imprecision, scholars should determine allusions and echoes based on a sliding scale of prob- 72 For example, Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 14, defines “intertextuality” as “the imbedding of fragments of an earlier text within a later one.” However, Hays’s definition oversimplifies intertextuality and equates it with fragments of a source text in a target text. 73 On the acceptance of these terms, see Jacob Neusner, Canon and Connection: Intertextuality in Judaism (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987); Lars Hartman, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1-5 (ConBNT; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979); and Sipke Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989). Regarding the term “intertextuality” in the study of Revelation, see Seán Freyne, “Reading Hebrews and Revelation Intertextually,” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (ed. Sipke Draisma; Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989), 83-93; and Waddell, Spirit, 44, 68. Bauckham, Climax, x-xi, says that Revelation “is a book to be read in constant intertextual relationship with the Old Testament.” A number of scholars note the broadness of the term “intertextuality” or criticize its imprecise use. For example, Abrams and Harpham, Glossary, 12, say that “intertextuality” encompasses “literary echoes and allusions as one of the many ways in which any text is interlinked with other texts.” Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996), 33, contends that scholars have collapsed three areas of analysis and interpretation— intertexture, social and cultural texture, and ideological texture—under the rubric of “intertextuality” and that the result of this collapse is confusion. A reductionistic view of intertextuality consigns the term as a synonym for source criticism or comparative criticism. Ellen Van Wolde, “Trendy Intertextuality?” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (ed. Sipke Draisma; Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989), 45, argues that two major differences exist between the comparative study of texts and the intertextual study of texts. First, intertextuality has a wider scope, encompassing both the thinking-environment and the living-environment of biblical texts. Second, readers and exegetes of today cannot escape the épistémè—a term of Foucault referring to an a priori basis for knowledge and its discourse—and thus do not know the extent to which their codes, judgments, and traditions of thinking shape the way they study texts. Van Wolde (46) further notes that with the historicalcritical method, the approach is causal and diachronic, whereas with the intertextual method, the approach is analogous and synchronic. As Abrams and Harpham, Glossary, 401, note, intertextuality refers to “the multiple ways in which any one literary text is in fact made up of other texts. . . .” As such, intertextuality involves not only allusions but also the common linguistic and literary conventions and discourses in which people participate. Thomas R. Hatina, “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism,” BibInt 7 (1999): 29, argues that “intertextuality” is wrongly used in biblical studies because historical critics have used the term without considering its original ideological context (literary and cultural revolution), the related concept of text, and distinction between influence and intertextuality. 74 For example, Jauhaianen, Use of Zechariah, 20-21, criticizes the boundaries in Beale’s treatment of allusions. 16 abilities.75 A number of scholars such as A. Vanhoye and G. K. Beale note that some kind of scale of evidence should be adopted for establishing the presence of an allusion or echo, but the approach can verge on being subjective.76 1.3. Our Interdisciplinary Method for Interpreting the Apocalypse Having seen some of the problems concerning Old Testament allusions and echoes in the Apocalypse, the lack of detailed treatment of Rev 1:7-8, and the lack of emphasis on Daniel 7, we will use an interdisciplinary method for our study.77 1.3.1 Historical Criticism We will employ certain subdisciplines of the historical-critical method in our study because this method provides a useful way of determining the author of the work and the historical milieu out of which Revelation arose.78 This method helps us to identify the original meaning(s) and purpose(s) of the original document for its original audience.79 As Elisabeth 75 In this assessment we agree with Paulien, “Ellusive Allusions,” 46. Beale, Revelation, 78, places allusions to the Old Testament in Revelation in three categories, defining more clearly the three categories he used in earlier work: (1) clear allusion, which involves wording that is almost identical to Old Testament text, possesses common core meaning, and probably could not come from any other source; (2) probable allusion, which consists of an idea, wording, or structure that points uniquely to the Old Testament text; and (3) possible allusion, which consists of language that bears general similarities and echoes wording or concepts. See also Vanhoye, “L’utilisation,” 473-76, for his categories. 77 We seek a balance in our methodological approach in interpreting Revelation and recognize the tension of keeping the methods integrated. We embrace both ancient and modern approaches to literature and rhetoric and agree with David E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), xi, who points out, “There is no convincing reason that ancient literary and rhetorical conceptions and methods should not be supplemented with modern perspectives. . . .” As with any method, we recognize the limitations of our method, but such a danger must be weighed against the risks of not using any consciously employed method. For example, Robbins, Exploring, 2, admits the limitations in his approach and indeed any approach to a text, saying, “No complete interpretation of a text is humanly possible, and this state of things should be admitted as one begins the exciting task of interpretation.” 78 Scholars differ concerning what constitutes historical criticism and in the epistemic weight that they grant to the method. In our view historical criticism is primarily a dual form of inquiry into an ancient text for the purpose of determining the historical situation of the given text as well as the historical situation of the author. We regard source criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, and redaction criticism as methods subsumed within historical criticism. For the purposes of our study, we also include textual criticism as one of the tools of the historical-critical method. The historical-critical method provides a starting point for our study. In this regard, M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Revelation: Holy Living in an Unholy World (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury, 1990), 23, observes, “Historical-critical methods can give us the starting point of the images, myths, and symbols; the vision must reveal to us the reshaping of the images, myths, and symbols in the service of the new experience of reality encountered in the visionary experience.” In other words, historical-critical methods ground the interpretation in the historical context in which the images, myths, and symbols are found, but the author may reconfigure those images, myths, and symbols in a fresh way. 79 Thomas B. Slater, Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the Christology of Revelation (JSNTSup 178; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 62. 76 17 Schüssler Fiorenza notes, “The historical-critical method has proved most fruitful in delineating Revelation’s historical-social setting and in elaborating its context within the history of cultures and religions.”80 Despite its usefulness, the historical-critical method poses problems when it is enlisted as the only overarching method for interpreting Revelation. One problem is that in the attempt to examine Revelation historically, historical-critical exegetes have failed to place enough emphasis on other aspects of Revelation that are equally or more important.81 Another problem is that the historical-critical method fails to do justice to the multivalence of Revelation. As Schüssler Fiorenza notes, “Insofar as historical-critical exegesis subscribes to such a referential understanding of language as a reflection of reality, it is little equipped to appreciate the polyvalent symbolic language of Revelation; but instead, it seeks 80 Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 17. Among the problems are (1) a denial of the primordial tradition and myth of the ancient world: Marcus J. Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1994), 130; Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 14; Steven J. Friesen, “Myth and Symbolic Resistance in Revelation 13,” JBL 123 (2004): 282; (2) an atomistic view of biblical texts: Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 414; Ulrich Luz, Studies in Matthew (trans. Rosemary Selle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 320; (3) an orientation toward an objective interpretation that is either univalent or primary: John J. Collins, The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 14; Susan E. Gillingham, The Image, the Depths, and the Surface: Multivalent Approaches to Biblical Study (JSOTSup 354; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 1-2; Dale B. Martin, Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 3-4; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 1; (4) an unrealistic and ideological claim to objectivity: Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical (trans. Robert Yarbrough; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990), 89-90; Vernon K. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (New York: Routledge, 1996), 201, 230-31; (5) a lack of coherent treatment of the sacred and transcendent: Peter Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Toward a Hermeneutics of Consent (trans. Roy Harrisville; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 83-91; (6) failure to see the relationship between textual units or an emphasis on topical or only sequential relationships between textual units: Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 42; (7) a lack of emphasis on symbolic, rhetorical, and narratorial referents in the text: Robbins, Tapestry, 8; (8) a minimization of an analysis of biblical narrative in its own right: Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 141; Robert Morgan and John Barton, Biblical Interpretation (OBS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 205-6; (9) a hermetic treatment of the biblical documents that avoids treatment of them in relation to one other and fractures the canon artificially: Martin, Pedagogy, 5-6; and (10) the failure to understand the kingdom of God and apocalypse as themes in the Gospels: René Girard, Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (with Jean-Michel Oughourlian and Guy Lefort; trans. Stephen Bann and Michael Metteer; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 259-60. For further critique, see Caroline Vander Stichele and Todd Penner, Her Master’s Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse (GPBS 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005). 81 18 to make it a true one-to-one meaning.”82 Adding further, Schüssler Fiorenza states, “All scholarly attempts to arrive at a definite interpretation of certain passages or of the whole book seem to have failed. This failure suggests that the historical-critical paradigm has to be complemented by a different approach that can do justice to the multivalent character of Revelation.”83 She stresses that an approach to Revelation must be taken that realizes that its author “speaks in the language of symbol and myth” and that a literary approach and symbol analysis would “bring out the evocative power and ‘musicality’ of Revelation’s language, which was written to be read aloud and to be heard.”84 Adela Yarbro Collins, who also finds problems with strictly historical-critical methods in exploring the meaning of Revelation, proposes drawing from the fields of sociology, anthropology, and psychology, and sees the value of a literary-critical approach.85 1.3.2 Narrative Criticism Narrative criticism has value for our study and can be used as a complementary method with historical criticism for interpreting Revelation.86 First, a narrative-critical ap- 82 Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 16. Italics original. Scholars often use “polyvalent” and “multivalent” interchangeably, and this appears to be the case here. On the multivalence of Revelation, see Elaine Pagels, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation (New York: Viking, 2012), 34. 83 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Revelation,” 416. Cf. Adela Yarbro Collins, The Apocalypse (NTM 22; Wilmington, Delaware: Glazier, 1979), 153. 84 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Revelation,” 417. 85 Collins, Crisis, 21-22. Collins (21) says, “The book of Revelation is not only an artifact from a specific place and time, a historical document; it is also a literary creation, a work of great artistic beauty and power. As aesthetic literary critics and philosophers have reminded us so often, a great work of literary art has a dynamic union of form and content. The content or message is best grasped in and through the form. Thus the historical approach must be complemented also by literary sensitivity and by aesthetic literary-critical methods.” A number of Revelation scholars employ other methods with the historical-critical method: Edmondo F. Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John (trans. Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 10-12; Moyise, Revelation, 18-20; Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 3-22; Smalley, Revelation, 2. 86 Powell, Narrative Criticism, 10. Narrative criticism is not a monolithic method. For simplicity, we refer to it in this way in this overview of method. Our study will not use one model exclusively but will incorporate the insights of various narrative critics. This approach allows us to engage with the narrative of Revelation, for, as Vernon K. Robbins, The Invention of Christian Discourse (vol. 1; RRAS 1; Blandford Forum, Dorset: Deo, 2009), 25, notes, “early Christians created a distinctive mode of religious discourse by setting forth a particular ‘argumentative story.’” Revelation presents such an argumentative story. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Justice, 25, observes concerning methods for interpreting Revelation: “Scholarship on this book is in the process of integrating the historical-critical and literary-critical paradigms into a new literary-historical paradigm of interpretation.” 19 proach recognizes the narrative structure, trajectory, and features of Revelation.87 In short, the plotted narrative, which consists of multiple narratives, moves from the author’s spiritual experience and vision of the exalted Christ on Patmos toward the point at which the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of the Lord and His Christ, and ultimately toward the point at which the new heaven and the new earth serve as the eternal locus of that kingdom (11:1519; 21:2).88 In her analysis of interpretations of Revelation, Adela Yarbro Collins observes, “Revelation . . . provides a story in and through which the people of God discover who they are and what they are to do.”89 Second, narrative criticism sees Revelation both as a nuanced, complex, organic whole and as a narrative that is composed of a hierarchy of events and multiple stories.90 Third, narrative criticism isolates important features of Revelation such as point of view, spatial settings, rhetoric, characters, and plot and structure.91 87 More scholars are seeing the narrative trajectory of Revelation: David E. Aune, “Stories of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 292-319; David L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Santa Rosa, California: Polebridge, 1998); A. J. P. Garrow, Revelation (NTR; London: Routledge, 1997); Edith M. Humphrey, And I Turned to See the Voice: The Rhetoric of Vision in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 174-75; James L. Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse (BibInt 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998). As Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 25, 33, observes, Revelation’s narrative is oriented toward an end and is not cyclic or encyclopedic. Admittedly, the author of Revelation intentionally thwarts a smooth chronological succession of events in the narrative by use of intercalation, recapitulation, and other literary techniques, but the general eschatological movement presses the audience forward to the eternal state. Cf. Håkan Ulfgard, Feast and Future: Revelation 7:9-17 and the Feast of Tabernacles (ConBNT 22; Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989), 154. 88 Stephen W. Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, and Exegesis (SNTSMS 128; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 9, describes the Apocalypse as “a nesting of embedded stories.” Similarly, Harry O. Maier, Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 37, remarks, “The Apocalypse is a developing narrative (or, better, set of narratives).” On the non-linearity of Revelation, see Sweet, Revelation, 58. For the purposes of our study, “exalted Christ” and similar expressions (e.g., “resurrected Christ,” “glorified Christ”) refers to the entire complex of redemptive events that ensued after the resurrection of Jesus. The writers of the Jesus movement describe a multiplex of events concerning the resurrected Christ, but they do not always draw a sharp distinction in these events, which at times overlap. The sequence of events include resurrection, ascension, exaltation, enthronement (session), and Lordship. For example, T. Alan Chrisope, Jesus Is Lord: A Study in the Unity of Confessing Jesus as Lord and Saviour in the New Testament (Welwyn, Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1982), 26, observes that Paul appears to use uJperuyo/w in Phil 2:9 “in a somewhat broader sense, to denote the whole complex of redemptive events which followed on the death of Jesus, including his resurrection, ascension and seating at the right hand of God.” 89 Adela Yarbro Collins, “Reading the Book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century,” Int 40 (1986): 242. 90 Powell, Narrative Criticism, 7; James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 213-41. As Roland Barthes, “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives,” in The Narrative Reader (ed. Martin McQuillan; London: Routledge, 2000), 112, explains concerning narratives, “But however many levels [of narrative] are proposed and whatever definition they are given, there can be no doubt that narrative is a hierarchy of instances. To understand a narrative is not merely to follow the 20 1.3.3 Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis will be integrated with the foregoing methods. The strength of this method is that we can begin with the micro-level of the text (i.e., morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and paragraphs) and ultimately engage the macro-level of the discourse, or we can work in the other direction.92 With this method, we will analyze the extent to which the linguistic units of the discourse of Revelation feature cohesion, especially lexical cohesion, in their relationship to one another and to 1:7-8.93 In addition, we will use the concept of semantic chains to explain the use of certain allusions in Revelation.94 For the purpose of our unfolding of the story, it is also to recognize its construction in ‘stories,’ to project the horizontal concatenations of the narrative ‘thread’ onto an implicitly vertical axis; to read (to listen to) a narrative is not merely to move from one word to the next, it is also to move from one level to the next.” 91 For an excellent treatment of these and other features, see James L. Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse (BibInt 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998). 92 George H. Guthrie, “Discourse Analysis,” in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues (ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 259. 93 M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Cohesion in English (ELS 9; London: Longman, 1976), 4, refer to “cohesion” as follows: “Cohesion occurs where the INTERPRETATION of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one PRESUPPOSES the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated into a text.” Capitals original. Although Halliday and Hasan are dealing with cohesion in English, their work applies to other languages such as koine Greek. Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 8, calls Halliday’s and Hasan’s book “the standard work on cohesion” and effectively applies the concept to his work in the Pastoral Epistles. On the applicability of their work to biblical studies, see Stanley E. Porter, “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSNTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 27-29. On discourse cohesion in ancient Greek, see Stéphanie Bakker and Gerry Wakker, eds., Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek (ASCP 16; Leiden: Brill, 2009). George H. Guthrie, “Cohesion Shifts and Stiches in Philippians,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (ed. Stanley Porter and D. A. Carson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 38, states, “Cohesion, as used in linguistic investigation, may be defined as a semantic property of a text which gives the text unity. Any discourse unit has a network of relationships, some grammatical and others lexical, which make that unit of text cohesive.” Following the lead of Van Neste, Cohesion, 8, we regard “cohesion” and “coherence” as basically synonymous, although we realize that some scholars distinguish between the two. Cohesive devices include the following: the same topic(s); consistent grammatical subject; consistent reference to main actor(s); same verb tense, person, and number; same person; transitional devices; conjunctions and asyndeton; consistency in pronouns and relative pronouns; chain-link interlock; the article; co-referential use of pronouns and other words; repetition of key lexemes and phrases; repetition of concepts; the same micro-genre; logical progression in a narrative or an argument; the use of chiasmus, parallelism, and inclusio; paronomasia; ellipsis; and semantic chains. The foregoing devices, as well as other devices, are mentioned in Guthrie, “Cohesion Shifts,” 38; Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion; Van Neste, Cohesion, 11-17; and Jeffrey T. Reed, “Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (ed. Stanley Porter and D. A. Carson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 100. 94 Halliday and Hasan developed this method. M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan, “Text and Context: Aspects of Language in Social-Semiotic Perspective,” SLin 6 (1980): 4-90. Van Neste, Cohesion, 16, provides a solid definition and example: “A ‘semantic chain’ is basically a set of words in a discourse which are related to each other 21 study, lexical cohesion may be defined as the uniting of related words over a span of text, whether a sentence or the entire discourse, for the purpose of lexical meaning. Following Michael Hoey’s taxonomy, lexical cohesion may be divided into two broad categories: (1) lexical repetition (simple or complex) and (2) paraphrase (simple and complex).95 1.3.4 Oral Criticism Oral criticism works well with discourse analysis and is especially suitable for Revelation, which was an orally read text (1:3).96 Oral criticism illuminates the effects that orality has on literature by showing: (1) ways of moving the audience, (2) group identification with characters in the narrative, (3) community values, (4) an ancient, non-Western view of time, (5) the repetition of sounds, grammatical constructions, words, and topics, (6) story clusters, (7) the reciprocal and interchangeable character of actions and words, (8) dynamic syntax, and (9) poetry accompanied by music and sometimes dancing.97 semantically because they refer to the same person/concept or to the same general class of people/concepts. For example, in a certain discourse the words ‘grace,’ ‘Savior,’ ‘life,’ and ‘redeem’ may all relate to the idea of ‘salvation.’ These words then connect with each other because of their semantic relationship, thus creating a ‘chain’ of related words running through a discourse. The occurrence of such a chain throughout a discourse creates some cohesion between the different units in which it occurs, uniting the units by the repetition of a common idea. However, significant cohesion is created when prominent semantic chains which run through the discourse connect with each other.” 95 Michael Hoey, Patterns of Lexis in Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). 96 Casey W. Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (JSNTSup 172; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 61. As various scholars note, it is vital to realize that Revelation was an orally performed text. Cf. David E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (Semeia 36; Decatur, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986), 77-78; David L. Barr, “The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment,” Int 40 (1986): 243-56; Allen D. Callahan, “The Language of Apocalypse,” HTR 88 (1995): 460; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 31; Sweet, Revelation, 13-14. In the second century CE, the tradition of the oral recitation of Scriptures was still the norm (Irenaeus, Haer. 2.27.2; Origen, Cels. 3.50). Sweet, Revelation, 13, notes that the Apocalypse could be read in its entirety in about 90 minutes. Penley, Common Tradition, 28, notes five characteristics of oral performances: (1) redundancy, (2) flexibility, (3) stability, (4) story clusters, and (5) dynamic syntax. 97 Ways of moving the audience: Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 351-52. Ancient, non-Western view of time: Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (New York: Methuen, 1982; repr., London: Routledge, 2002), 74-75; Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism, 61. Repetition: Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (VPT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983; repr., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), 66-68; Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism, 80-90. Barr, “Apocalypse,” 243-49, argues that three techniques helped the audience to understand and remember the Apocalypse: numbering, place and image, and the scroll of the letters. Actions and words: Kelber, Gospel, 65-66. In this vein, Kelber (ibid.) notes, “Words carry the force of action, and actions speak as loud as words.” Poetry with music and dancing: 22 1.4 Our Method for the Exegesis of Allusions Our analysis of the work of scholars on allusions in Revelation points to the need for establishing some foundational principles, definitions of key terms, criteria for determining the presence of allusions with a continuum of probability, and categories of various allusions. 1.4.1 Foundational Principles In our study we begin with some foundational principles that will guide us. The first three principles help to provide an isagogic control for our study. First, allusions are used often in ancient literature such as the Jewish scriptures, deuterocanonical literature, the Qumran corpus, and Greco-Roman literature.98 Therefore, the author’s allusions in Revelation must be seen as a participation in diverse, widespread, long-standing literary traditions that have common features.99 Second, multivalence is a literary feature of different kinds of literature Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (KTAH; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 117. 98 Jewish scriptures: Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985; repr., Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 542-43, describes this phenomenon as “inner-biblical exegesis” and analyzes the diachronic and systematic use of this interpretive method. Deuterocanonical literature: In both the Jewish scriptures and in deuterocanonical literature, Exod 34:6, the proclamation of Yhwh to Moses, is one of the most frequently cited and alluded to scriptures. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC 38B; Dallas: Word, 1988), 552, makes this claim and cites numerous examples. Qumran corpus: In the Qumran non-biblical texts, allusion to the Jewish scriptures is an important feature. In particular, George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 37, sees allusions and biblical imagery as especially important in 1QS, 1QSa, 1QM, and CD. Greco-Roman literature: Karl Galinsky, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 229, points out the great lengths to which authors would go in such works, explaining that “the Aeneid was the result of meticulous labor—Vergil averaged about two and a half lines a day—and Seneca (Suas. 3.7) states explicitly that Vergil wanted his allusions to and borrowings from earlier writers to be recognized.” Cf. E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen, Latin Literature (vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Classical Literature; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 140; Victoria Rimell, “Petronius’ lessons in learning – the hard way,” in Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire (ed. Jason König and Tim Whitmarsh; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 109. 99 David Mathewson, A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5 (JSNTSup 238; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 222. To the extent that allusions may be spoken of as literary condensation, allusions should be situated historically in the variety of ways that ancient texts were condensed in the period from the fourth century BCE to the four/fifth century CE. Cf. Marietta Horster and Christiane Reitz, “‘Condensation’ of literature and the pragmatics of literary production,” in Condensing texts - condensed texts (Palingenesia, Bd 98; ed. Marietta Horster and Christiane Reitz; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010), 3-14. As Horster and Reitz (6) note, the ancient world of this period featured “a rich range of genres of abridgement and compilation, such as epitome, periocha, excerpt, florilegium, anthology, hypothesis, lemmatized handbook, and gnomologium.” As a mosaic with many allusions to the Jewish scriptures, Revelation most resembles the genre of florilegium. 23 such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greco-Roman literature, and Revelation.100 Third, and in line with the previous principle, apocalyptic literature is multivalent.101 Fourth, in the first century CE many Jews and the audience of the author of the Apocalypse would have regarded the Jewish scriptures as subtle and cryptic.102 Fifth, the allusions in Revelation are primarily derived from the Jewish scriptures.103 Sixth, the author of Revelation is operating in the broader 100 Dead Sea Scrolls: George J. Brooke, “Reading the Plain Meaning of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible (ed. George J. Brooke; JSSSup 11; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 89-90, notes, “Paying attention to the plain meaning of the text as it is reflected in the Qumran scrolls lets us see that the ancients knew that words are polyvalent, that authoritative texts demand to be made intelligible for those they influence and often control, that the quest for literary coherence is not bland standardisation but a reflection of the text’s own integrity, and that respect for the text is part and parcel of making sense of experience.” Cf. A. M. Gazov-Ginzberg, “Double Meaning in a Qumran Work: ‘The Wiles of the Wicked Woman,’” RevQ 6 (1967): 279-285. Greco-Roman literature: Galinsky, Augustan Culture, 229-234, explains that poetry during the Augustan age could involve complex mixtures of various traditions that were intentionally multivalent. See also G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony: Especially in Drama (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948), 5-6. Revelation: Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Justice, v. David E. Aune, “The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John,” BR 18 (1983): 13, notes that “John’s symbols are frequently polyvalent.” Cf. Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St John’s Apocalypse (London: Dacre, 1949; repr., Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1970), 19. 101 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2d ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 51, notes “the essential multivalence of apocalyptic symbolism.” Likewise, Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation (BZNW 107; New York: de Gruyter, 2001), 9, mentions the “open, multivalent and multilayered” quality of apocalyptic symbolism. Both our analysis and Stevenson’s analysis incorporate the work of Philip Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962). Wheelwright (92) defines “symbol” thus, “A symbol, in general, is a relatively stable and repeatable element of perceptual experience, standing for some larger meaning or set of meanings which cannot be given, or not fully given, in perceptual experience itself.” Wheelwright distinguishes between steno symbols (i.e., closed symbols) and tensive symbols (i.e., open symbols). He (33) regards steno symbols as recognizable for all people who use the symbol correctly. In contrast, he (94) says that tensive symbols are more fluid, drawing “life from a multiplicity of associations, subtly and for the most part subconsciously interrelated. . . .” 102 On the subtle characteristics of the Jewish scriptures, see Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 189; and Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), xxvi. Géza Vermès, “The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in its Historical Setting,” ALUOS 6 (1966-68): 91, says that the Qumran community’s interpretation of the Jewish scriptures was based first on their view that “the words of the prophets are full of mystery; they have a hidden significance which must be discovered by means of further revelation.” James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (New York: Free Press, 2007), xii, 14, refers to the four assumptions that “ancient interpreters”—mainly anonymous scholars from roughly 300 BCE to 200 CE—used in approaching texts, including the “biblical text.” One of the four assumptions of these interpreters was the cryptic nature of scripture. Cf. Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 11-13. This view of the Jewish scriptures as cryptic also fits within the widely held belief of the cryptic nature of ancient art and literature. Cf. Shadia Bartsch, Decoding the Ancient Novel: The Reader and the Role of Description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 22-31. On the cryptic nature of Revelation, see Bauckham, Theology, 18. 103 Russell S. Morton, One upon the Throne and the Lamb: A Tradition Historical/Theological Analysis of Revelation 4–5 (SBLit 110; New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 17. 24 Jewish exegetical tradition and more specifically in the prophetic pesher exegetical tradition of the Qumran community.104 Seventh, allusions in Revelation must be treated holistically, not atomistically.105 Eighth, text supersedes symbols in Revelation.106 104 Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (trans. Mark E. Biddle; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), 111, says that each writer of the early church developed a “christologico-eschatological exegesis” for contemporary fulfillment that “most closely parallels the prophetic pesher interpretation of the Essenes at Qumran.” David E. Aune, “Qumran and the Book of Revelation,” in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 62629, says that the Qumran community did not write any apocalypses, although they possessed apocalypses and wrote literature that contains apocalyptic and eschatological ideas. 105 Warren Bargad, “The Poetics of Allusion and the Hebrew Literary Tradition,” Judaism 26 (1977): 48, observes, “The literary analyst, when interpreting a work’s meaning, should not, and cannot, isolate a particular passage or a literary allusion from the work as a whole. And likewise, though in a much wider context, the literary historian should not isolate the use of allusion as a static convention or a detached stylistic technique.” 106 Text supersedes symbols in Revelation. In other words, text as interpretation and as narrative provides the semiotic control. The author of the Apocalypse provides this interpretive key in the vision-report of the exalted Christ in Rev 1:9-20 when Christ provides the interpretation for the seven stars and the seven golden lampstands (1:20). Barr, Tales, 7, cites three places in Revelation where the author explicitly interprets his symbols. Because symbols can be so multivalent, whether in Revelation or any other symbol-rich document, interpreters need to be careful to treat the acts and declarations associated with the symbol before analyzing the symbol. That is, such an approach helps to control the meaning. For example, in the Jewish scriptures, fire is associated with the presence or glory of God (Exod 19:18; 24:17), but fire is also associated with God’s judgment of Israel and Yhwh’s enemies (Gen 19:24; Jer 43:12; Ezek 15:7; Hos 8:14; Amos 1:4, 7; Nah 3:13; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:23). In deuterocanonical literature, fire is symbolic of judgment (1 En. 18:15; 102:1; 2 Bar. 37:1; 48:39; 4 Ezra 13:10-11; Pss. Sol. 15:4-5; Jub. 9:15; 36:10; 1QH 8:20). As Wheelwright, Metaphor, 117-19, notes, fire is an archetypal symbol because fire symbolizes spiritual and intellectual clarity, warmth of enthusiasm, and rapid reproduction (torch to torch). In Revelation fire is a positive symbol of the light and presence of God (implied in the seven lampstands, 1:12) and penetrating knowledge (Christ’s eyes of fire, 1:14; 2:18; 19:12), and, conversely, fire can be a negative symbol of judgment and destruction (the burning of Babylon, 17:16; the lake of fire, 20:14-15). The text associated with these symbols serves to interpret them. Although not fully appreciating the allusions to the Jewish scriptures and to Greco-Roman culture, Jacques Ellul, Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation (trans. George W. Schreiner; New York: Seabury, 1977), 34-35, appreciates the importance of the text-symbol relationship: “And moreover, we must in fact observe clearly that most of the visions are accompanied in the Apocalypse by spoken explanations. So the symbols must not be interpreted by other images, nor by our images, but by means of a correct reading of the word which relates to them. It is necessary to go back from the text to the symbol and not study the symbol more than the text: the former is only the occasion for the latter. . . . This is to say that the word is the sole means for encompassing and defining the subject (in other words, we must interpret the text exclusively by the text itself: the white horse cannot be understood by external references, by example, to another white horse, but by reference to the text of the Apocalypse itself). But once the matter is known, the symbol obviously goes beyond its definition: a distance appears between the real and the deciphered symbol. And this distance enables us to discern a reality more than the real, in its turn deciphered by the symbol. The word has a full and entire primacy for the revelation of the vision, but the vision makes it possible for us to apprehend another dimension of the real.” Italics original. Applying Ellul’s principle means that we focus first on the text, whether the narrative text or interpretive passages, and then we look at the symbol. In her treatment of vision-reports, which she bases in part on Ellul’s insight into the relationship between text and symbol, Humphrey, And I Turned, 199-200, examines a spectrum of vision-reports in which, at one end, words clarify and interpret the visual and appeal to the mind and the logic, and at the other end, images dominate and elicit reactions from the imagination and the heart. 25 Ninth, at least 19 possibilities exist for sources for the allusions in Revelation.107 Complicating the identification of the source or sources is the possibility that the author modifies texts and traditions as needed. In our study we regard the Greek Jewish scriptures—the OG and Theodotion—as the basis for any initial textual comparison, although we recognize the variety of source texts and traditions that the author of the Apocalypse probably used.108 Five factors dictate our choice. First, the Greek Jewish scriptures provide a baseline for comparison. The author was addressing Greek-speaking churches in Asia Minor, and their access to any scriptures would most likely have been some form of the Greek Jewish scriptures.109 Second, our study reveals verbatim agreement with the OG and Theodotion, so the Greek Jewish scriptures are one of the author’s Vorlagen.110 Third, comparison with the Greek Jewish scriptures affords an equivalent linguistic comparison. Fourth, the OG and Theodotion, rather than hypothetical texts, are extant texts for comparison.111 Even if one argues that the author’s main source texts were Semitic, this objection is not insuperable because the Greek is 107 The following are possible sources for the author’s allusions: (1) Proto-MT, (2) the Jewish scriptures as reflected in the MT, (3) an unknown recension of the Hebrew text, (4) a Greek text that is reflected in the LXX of the Göttingen Septuagint Project or Rahlfs, (5) proto-Theodotion, (6) proto-Symmachus, (7) proto-Aquila, (8) kaige recension of the OG, (9) non-extant versions of the Greek Jewish scriptures, (10) one or more forms of oral tradition from the early Jesus movement, (11) one or more forms of liturgical tradition from the early Jesus movement, (12) testimonia of the early Jesus movement, (13) collections of testimonia that are new translations, (14) an Aramaic paraphrase of the Jewish scriptures, (15) Aramaic targums, (16) Jewish traditions, (17) John’s memory of texts, (18) rabbinic tradition, and (19) a combination of one or more of the aforementioned possibilities. Also, in the absence of manuscripts, with the Dead Sea Scrolls being the main exception, generalizations about texts in Palestine and the Mediterranean world must be stated in terms of a continuum of possibilities and probabilities. On the possibilities listed above, see Beale, John’s Use, 66; Collins, Crisis, 48-49; Jauhiainen, Zechariah, 9-10; Robert K. MacKenzie, The Author of the Apocalypse: A Review of the Prevailing Hypothesis of Jewish-Christian Authorship (MBPS 51; Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen, 1997), 65; and Penley, Common Tradition, 18-19. 108 The manuscripts or traditions that the author of the Apocalypse worked from were probably different in various respects to any academic construct. For example, Paulien, Decoding, 194 n. 1, acknowledges this problem. The dating of Theodotion’s recension to the last part of the second century CE poses no problem for its relevance for Revelation because an earlier version was already in use. On Theodotion, proto-Theodotion, and kaigeTheodotion, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 145. 109 Hengel, Septuagint, 108. In this regard, we disagree with Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 11, who considers neither the Hebrew (MT) nor the Greek (LXX) as “primary a priori.” 110 For example, a± dei√ gene÷sqai in Rev 1:1 agrees with the phrase in Dan 2:28 OG. On the use of Theodotion, see Gregory K. Beale, “A Reconsideration of the Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse,” Bib 67 (1986): 539-43; and Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 11. 111 Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 11. 26 still providing the content for any Semitic substructure.112 Fifth, the author in a number of instances uses text from the OG.113 1.4.2 Criteria for Determining Allusions With the foregoing foundational principles, we are now ready to establish criteria for determining allusions that will provide controls for our research. A solid method for detecting an allusion depends on using three major criteria in a process: (1) determining the presence of an allusion, (2) assessing the strength of the allusion, and (3) specifying the kind of allusion.114 Without establishing some objective criteria for detecting allusions, an exegete is likely to be guilty of parallelomania, which Samuel Sandmel defines as “that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.”115 After analyzing the criteria given by G. K. Beale, Ian Paulien, Richard Hays, Dennis MacDonald, Michael Thompson, Paul Penley, Richard Longenecker, other scholars, and critiques of their work, we have established the following major criteria for determining allusions in the Apocalypse.116 112 The fusion of Greek language and Semitic substructure is often present in the Apocalypse. In his analysis Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 108, concludes that the Greek of the Apocalypse may be regarded as Jewish Greek and that in this text “the Greek language was little more than a membrane, stretched tightly over a Semitic framework, showing many essential contours from beneath.” 113 Maarten J. J. Menken, “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37,” CBQ 55 (1993): 494-511. In a number of instances, whether the author of the Apocalypse is alluding to the OG or a Semitic text is a secondary issue when the gloss of the OG and the Semitic text are essentially the same. For example, an allusion to the image of the beast in Dan 7:3 is primary, not whether the source text reads qhri÷on or wyj. Appendix 3 presents a comparison of the text of Daniel 7 OG with the text of Revelation and shows many instances in which the two texts match. Further analysis of all of the OG with the text of Revelation would probably further strengthen the correlation. 114 In using this threefold method, we are in general agreement with the method of Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 30, although our criteria differ in some respects. Thompson (30) points out that “a sound method requires (1) discerning whether a significant parallel exists between the two texts, (2) determining the likelihood of their relationship, and (3) seeking to clarify the precise nature of the relationship.” These three criteria function within the framework of engaging with the exegetical traditions operating within Second Temple Judaism and the Jesus movement. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, xxi-xxii, points to the value and the necessity of engaging with this tradition. 115 S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1. 116 Hays, Echoes, 29-32, proposes seven criteria: (1) availability to the author and/or original readers, (2) volume, primarily based on verbal repetition and syntactical patterns, (3) recurrence, (4) thematic coherence, (5) 27 Criterion 1: Lexical Agreement.117 If a target text matches a source text verbatim or nearly verbatim, it is possible that an allusion exists.118 An allusion that is lexical may consist of one or more sentences, a clause, a phrase, or even a single word.119 More weight will be attributed to content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) in contrast to particles, prepositions, and conjunctions.120 In particular, if three content words in the target text reflect historical plausibility, (6) history of interpretation, and (7) satisfaction. To some degree, satisfaction is subjective. As William Scott Green, “Doing the Text’s Work for It: Richard Hays on Paul’s Use of Scripture,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; NSNTSup; SSEJC 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 61, notes concerning Hays’s book, “Despite its admirable efforts at historical sensitivity, and its awareness of five ‘distinguishable possibilities’ of the locus of ‘intertextual meaning’, this book cannot but display the thoroughgoing extent to which intertextuality really is the reader’s work, not the writer’s.” Dennis R. MacDonald, “Introduction,” in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (ed. Dennis R. MacDonald; SAC; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2001), 2-3, proposes six criteria: (1) accessibility (availability to the author); (2) analogy (other authors’ imitation of the same story); (3) density (volume of parallels); (4) order (similar sequences); (5) distinctive traits (unusual characteristics in both texts); and (6) interpretability (reasons for the author’s use of the model). To determine the use of Jesus tradition in Romans 12:1-15:13, Thompson, Clothed, 30-36, establishes the following criteria for determining whether the author of an epistle is alluding to or echoing a saying in a Gospel: (1) verbal agreement, (2) conceptual agreement, (3) formal agreement (i.e., parallel in structure and number of elements), (4) place of the Gospel saying in the tradition, (5) common motivation, rationale, (6) dissimilarity to Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions, (7) presence of dominical indicators, (8) presence of tradition indicators, (9) presence of other dominical echoes or word/concept clusters in the immediate context, (10) likelihood the author knew the saying, and (11) exegetical value. In most instances it is unnecessary to develop such elaborate criteria in dealing with allusions or echoes, but such criteria become very useful when the allusion is not strong. Penley, Common Tradition, 12, proposes the following criteria: (1) vocabulary, (2) phrases, (3) grammar, (4) syntax, (5) ideas, and (6) contexts. See also Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, xiv-xvii. 117 Among the scholars who follow this criterion are Beale, Revelation, 78; Hays, Echoes, 30; and Thompson, Clothed, 30. 118 In this criterion we are thus including duplication or similarity of vocabulary, syntax, and grammar. An example of nearly verbatim wording of texts that have different contexts is a comparison of Matt 26:18 (oJ kairo/ß mou e˙ggu/ß e˙stin) with Rev 1:3 (oJ ga»r kairo\ß e˙ggu/ß) and Rev 22:10 (oJ kairo\ß ga»r e˙ggu/ß e˙stin). If a target text exhibits a fixed or variable collocational pattern that matches other texts in an isolexical, isotextual version of a corpus, the probability is high that an allusion exists. Fixed or variable collocational patterns that are short (about five words or fewer) can arise from common literary expressions and may be purely coincidental. Some longer fixed collocational patterns are observed as in the case of hJ do/xa kai« to\ kra¿toß ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn. aÓmh/n in Rev 1:6; Rev 5:13 (lacks aÓmh/n); and 1 Pet 4:11. On this phenomenon and our nomenclature, see D. J. Oakey, “Fixed Collocational Patterns in Isolexical and Isotextual Versions of a Corpus,” in Approaches to Corpus Linguistics (ed. Paul Baker; London: Continuum, 2009), 142-160. 119 Moyise, Revelation, 109; Carmela Perri, “On Alluding,” Poetics 7 (1978): 289-92. Even a one-word allusion can be clear if the allusion is specific enough. Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 21 n. 12, cites the example of “his Delilah” as an example of a clear allusion. In Revelation, “Balaam” (2:14), “Jezebel” (2:20), “Sodom” (11:8), and “Egypt” (11:8) are examples of allusions that consist of a single word. Another example is pantokra¿twr, which occurs nine times in Revelation in its articular form (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22) and is probably a reference to twabx hwhy, which is sometimes translated as ku/rioß pantokra¿twr in the OG and later Jewish literature. Cf. Wilhelm Michaelis, “pantokra¿twr,” TDNT 3:914. 120 Van der Louw, Transformations, 377. Corresponding content words help to avoid the trap of multiple literary connections of poor quality proving literary dependence—a pitfall noted by Penley, Common Tradition, 11. 28 the source text, the two texts will be regarded as almost certainly connected.121 If the lexical parallel is not verbatim, then a collocation of unique words is looked for in the source text and the target text.122 Criterion 2: Contextual Agreement between the Source Text and the Target Text. To avoid parallelomania, specificity rather than abstraction will be used to determine whether a significant parallel may be an allusion.123 If the context of the source text and the target text agree, the origin of the allusion in the target text probably comes from that source text.124 Criterion 3: Clustering of Allusions from the same Source Text. Jan Fekkes points to the generally accepted allusion in Rev 3:14 (Jesus as “the Amen”) as an allusion to Isa 65:16 (“the God of truth”). Its probability of being an allusion is enhanced by the author’s use of Isa 65:16 in its preceding context and in verses elsewhere.125 Criterion 4: Distinctive Grammatical or Linguistic Features. Distinctive grammatical or linguistic features often indicate the presence or the importance of an allusion. In Revelation these features include the anaphoric article and solecisms.126 G. K. Beale and Sean McDonough say that the solecisms of the Apocalypse are probably intentional for indicating 121 M. Hoey, “Signalling in Discourse: A Functional Analysis of a Common Discourse Pattern in Written and Spoken English,” in Advances in Written Text Analysis (ed. M. Coulthard; London: Routledge, 1994), 36-43. 122 The author of Revelation sometimes modifies his sources and then changes them again. Titular formulae are one good example. In his treatment of titular formulae, Parker, “‘Our Lord and God,’” 218-19, concludes that the fluidity of titles in Revelation shows that the proper method is not to insist on an “exact parallel,” but rather an “approximate parallel.” 123 Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” 7, points to “exact parallels, some with and some devoid of significance; seeming parallels which are so only imperfectly; and statements which can be called parallels only by taking them out of context.” 124 For example, both the source text and the target text may agree by describing a theophany. 125 Jan Fekkes III, “Isaiah and the Book of Revelation: John the Prophet as a Fourth Isaiah?” in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL (ed. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull; SBLSymS 27; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 135. 126 An anaphoric article is the use of the article for the first appearance of a substantive for which the discourse provides no antecedent. On the use of the anaphoric article, see Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 45-46. Charles, Revelation, 1:cxix, does not use this term but explains the concept and cites 10:1, 3; 11:3; 12:14; 16:12, 14; 20:8; and 20:19. “Solecism” indicates a grammatical mistake. The so-called solecisms in the Apocalypse are so numerous and occur at so many important places that they cannot be the neglect of the author. A better term is “grammatical anomalies,” “grammatical irregularities,” or “grammatical incongruencies.” For an extended discussion of the solecisms in Revelation, see Beale, John’s Use, 318-55. Cf. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk; 9th-10th ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 75-76; Ugo Vanni, “Liturgical Dialogue as a Literary Form in the Book of Revelation,” NTS 27 (1991): 354. 29 the presence of allusions to the Old Testament, but not all allusions are indicated this way.127 Each solecism must be treated individually. At a minimum, solecisms highlight certain text in Revelation, but solecisms may serve other purposes: indication of deeper meaning, stylistic imitation of Hebrew or Aramaic text, stylistic imitation of the Septuagint, the expression of something novel, subversion of the language of the Roman Empire, revelatory clues, movement and vividness in description of visions, and the presence of an important allusion.128 1.4.3 Scale of Evidence for the Detection of Allusions The comparison of a source text with a target text naturally involves the correlation of one or more words in both texts (i.e., lexical cohesion). Such a comparison lends itself to a more empirical method in ascertaining the probability of the occurrence of allusions, but a mathematical model is beyond the scope of our study.129 In light of the foregoing criteria, we will classify allusions according to the following scale:130 127 Beale and McDonough, “Revelation,” 1087. Concerning Jewish scribal traditions, David Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ 30; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992), 20, notes that “unusual form” (dwjy) is “an unusual spelling or grammatical construction which points to some hidden interpretation.” 128 Scholars are not in agreement on the precise use of such solecisms and propose a variety of reasons for them. C. G. Ozanne, “The Language of the Apocalypse,” TynBul 16 (1965): 5, is probably correct in saying that the author wants “to signify the solidarity of his writings with those of the Old Testament.” However, a purpose beyond solidarity with the Old Testament is in view. In this vein, Callahan, “Language,” 458, argues persuasively that the author has developed “an idiolect, the peculiar language of one author, unattested anywhere else in antiquity.” Callahan (465) further says that the author employs the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, which was employed for political hegemony, and asserts “his own discursive power.” Thus, the language of empire is subverted. Ruiz, Ezekiel, 220, observes, “The idiosyncratic Greek of Revelation often serves precisely this function: it stops the reader in mid-course with a signal that the familiar conventions of ordinary discourse are suspended. It is not simply a matter of inelegant composition or incompetence in Greek on the author’s part, but of conscious and intentional difficulties placed before the reader as obstacles to confound an ordinary reading of the text.” Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, cxxv; Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Apocalyptic Ekphrasis,” in 1900th Anniversary of St. John’s Apocalypse: Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Symposium (Athens – Patmos, 17-26 September 1995) (Athens: Holy Monastery of Saint John the Theologian in Patmos, 1999), 453. 129 We are providing a basic algorithm that reflects greater or lesser correspondence. On the value of the empirical analysis of language, see Michael Stubbs, “Computer-assisted Text and Corpus Analysis: Lexical Cohesion and Communicative Competence,” in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (ed. Deborah Schiffrin et al.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 304-20. 130 Stanley, Paul, 58-59, has established a good scale that uses multiple indicators and the lack of countervailing alternatives. 30 Table 2: Point Scale for the Detection of Allusions Description of the Allusion Virtually Certain or Certain Allusion. Agreement of multiple criteria with no plausible alternatives. At least two content words and two other forms of agreement. Probable Allusion. Agreement of multiple criteria with at least one possible alternative, although weak. The multiple criteria must include at least one content word. Possible Allusion. Agreement of two criteria with one or more strong alternatives. One of the criteria must be a content word. Uncertain Allusion. One or more criteria with one or more strong alternatives. Non-Allusion. Lack of any criteria or merely accidental agreement. Any congruence between the source text and the target text results from commonalities in language, tradition, or broad themes. 1.4.4 Categories of Allusions Scholars have analyzed the use of allusions across a spectrum of ancient literature, including Revelation, and have found some areas of common ground but use different terms.131 In light of these studies and our examination of allusions in Revelation, we propose the following categories as the most important for our study: Category 1: Controlling-text Allusion – Text from a source text embedded in the target text that by means of prominence or grammatical anomaly controls the other allusions in the source text. Category 2: Vorbild Allusion – The use of a context or sequence from the source text as a Vorbild (model) for creative composition in the target text.132 At times the author of the Apocalypse alludes to his source texts verbatim, but sometimes he uses the same conceptual 131 In his earlier work Beale, John’s Use, 75-126, uses eight categories in his taxonomy of the ways in which the Old Testament is used in Revelation: (1) the use of segments of Old Testament Scripture as literary prototypes; (2) thematic use of the Old Testament; (3) analogical use of the Old Testament; (4) universalization of the Old Testament; (5) informal, direct prophetic fulfillment uses of the Old Testament; (6) informal, indirectly (typological) fulfillment uses of the Old Testament; (7) inverted use of the Old Testament; and (8) stylistic use of Old Testament language. In his later work Beale, Revelation, 86-96, eliminates category 5. In his study of Virgil’s Georgics, Richard F. Thomas, “Virgil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference,” HSCP 90 (1986): 171-98, establishes six categories of allusive reference: (1) casual reference, by which language is used to recall a specific antecedent, but only generally; (2) single reference, by which “the context of the model” is applied to the new text; (3) self-reference, by which the author alludes to his or her own work; (4) corrective allusion, by which the allusion opposes the meaning of the source; (5) apparent reference, by which a reference seemingly recalls a model but actually does not; and (6) multiple reference or conflation, which is an allusion that combines and fuses different sources. Miner, “Allusion,” 39-40, lists six kinds of allusion: (1) topical (usually recent events); (2) personal (i.e., from the poet’s life); (3) formal (use of rhymes); (4) metaphorical (incorporated elements as signifiers); (5) imitative (incorporating a verbal string, usually a phrase); and (6) structural (organized like a previous work). 132 Beale, Use of Daniel, 9; idem, John’s Use, 75. We may also speak of this allusion as a prototype. 31 or chronological framework of his source text.133 This kind of allusion is reflected in the prophetic pesharim in the Qumran corpus.134 The presence of a Vorbild allusion is seen by observing (1) a thematic structure that is unique to a particular passage of the Jewish scriptures, or (2) a cluster of clear allusions generated by one passage in the Jewish scriptures.135 In a Vorbild allusion the events in the target text are significantly correlated with the source text. For example, certain passages of the source text of Ezekiel 40–48 provide part of the sequence of plot in Rev 21:9–22:5.136 In passages with a Vorbild allusion, other allusions play a secondary role in providing nuances to the Vorbild.137 Category 3: Composite Allusion – The combination of two or more source texts or sources in one allusion.138 Such a combination reflects the Jewish exegetical technique called amalgamation.139 Cultural synthesis, fusion, or juxtaposition of allusions can make it hard to 133 Cf. Morton, One, 87. Caird, Revelation, 61, is mistaken when he says that the author does not use “sustained metaphor or allegory.” 134 George J. Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries on the Prophetic Scriptures,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (SDSSRL; ed. Matthias Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 134-57. In this category Brooke includes 4QTestimonia, 4QpPsalmsa, 4QpIsab, 4QpIsac, 4Q174, 4Q177, 11QMelchizedek, 4QAges of Creation (4Q180181), 4QCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252), and the Damascus Document. In his analysis of thematic commentaries on prophetic scriptures, Brooke (156) concludes that these thematic commentaries exhibit a set of characteristics, although not in the same degree: organization oriented to the sequence of the scriptural texts; selective construction (e.g., excerpts from different scriptural scrolls and other sources); a focus on unfulfilled blessings, curses, promises, oracles, and visions; variation in forms and a wide range of interpretive formulae; and a focus on eschatological matters that are fulfilled in the audience’s experience or will shortly be fulfilled for them. All of these features are found in varying degrees in Revelation, although our point here is the use of a scriptural text as a kind of Vorbild. 135 Ibid., 75. 136 A few examples are illustrative. Even as Ezekiel was taken to a very high mountain that had a city to its south (Ezek 40:2), so also John is taken to a high mountain to see the holy city Jerusalem (Rev 21:10). Even as Ezekiel saw waters issuing from under the threshold of the temple and trees growing along the banks of the river (Ezek 47:1-12), so also the author sees the water of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb and the tree of life with twelve kinds of fruit (Rev 22:1-2). The audience must supply the necessary linkage between the plot in Ezekiel and the plot in Revelation. 137 David Mathewson, “Isaiah in Revelation,” in Isaiah in the New Testament (ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken; NTSI; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 209. Mathewson (203-4) says that one example is the use of Isa 65:17-20 as a controlling text for Rev 21:1-5b or 21:1-8. Mathewson (204) says that the author builds from this Vorbild and “has integrated other OT texts which provide the semantic values of restoration of the city Jerusalem; marriage of the people to God and the Lamb; new Exodus; the city as the source of life-giving waters.” Cf. Fekkes, Isaiah, 254 n. 75; J. Van Ruiten, “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,17-20 and Revelation 21,1-5b,” EstBib 51 (1993): 501. 138 Bauckham, Theology, 133, does not employ our term but explains the concept. 139 Brewer, Techniques, 22, defines amalgamation as “the construction of a ‘text’ by joining texts, without any indication that more than one text has been used. This is different from Chain quotations which are found commonly in Paul (E. E. Ellis 1957), in Mishnah (Metzger 1968) and in other rabbinic writings.” 32 specify which of two or more aspects (e.g., Jewish scriptures, the literature or traditions of the early Jesus movement, Jewish tradition, mythology, Greco-Roman culture) is exclusively in view or dominates to control the meaning.140 One case in point is Rev 3:20, where according to David Aune, “it appears that the metaphorical character of the saying exhibits a polyvalent ambiguity produced by the author’s combination of imagery from Jewish, Christian, GraecoRoman and Graeco-Egyptian traditions.”141 Category 4: Window Allusion – A close reproduction of a source text that has notable changes for the purpose of pointing to the context of the source text.142 We derive the term “window allusion” from Richard Thomas, who uses the term “window reference” in his discussion of Virgil’s use of allusions and explains: It [the window reference] consists of the very close adaptation of a model, noticeably interrupted in order to allow reference back to the source of that model: the intermediate model thus serves as a sort of window onto the ulti- 140 Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 69, points out that juxtaposition of the literary forms of apocalyptic literary traditions and prophetic literary traditions in the Apocalypse has resulted in synthesis. Revelation 12 serves as an excellent example in which the Jewish scriptures, mythology, Jewish tradition, and Roman culture are blended. An example of the possible fusion of non-biblical allusions is seen in the crown of life in Rev 2:10. Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 70-74, 77, lists seven possibilities for the crown of life but sees three as providing the most relevant background. Humphrey, And I Turned, 154, notes that “the Apocalypse is revealed as a work characterized by cultural syncretism.” She does not elaborate on distinguishing the cultural elements, but she recognizes the composite character of the Apocalypse. Likewise, Aune, “Influence,” 23, points out that “John’s thought world is sufficiently syncretistic that its complexities cannot be understood apart from a consideration of the traditions of the Graeco-Roman world of which he and his communities were part.” Further, Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 62, explains that sometimes one literary device may dictate the form while another literary device may dictate the content, as in the case of Revelation 17, where a particular kind of apocalyptic vision report is combined with the content of ekphrasis based on propagandistic Roman art. An ekphrasis is a literary description of a visual work of art. In their exegesis of Revelation, some scholars divorce allusions to the Jewish scriptures and allusions to the Greco-Roman culture, but such a disjunctive exegesis fails to understand how both elements and forms of rhetoric—Hebrew and classical—can be simultaneously blended. Cf. Humphrey, And I Turned, 12531. A good example of this blending in a Jewish apocalypse is how the eagle symbolizes Rome in 4 Ezra 12:11. As Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem against Rome (trans. Robyn Fréchet; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 472, points out, the writer probably fuses the image of Babylon as a lion with eagle’s wings (Dan 7:4) with the frequent motif of the eagle on Roman coins and as part of Roman ensigns. Cf. Bauckham, Climax, 195. 141 David E. Aune, “The Polyvalent Imagery of Rev 3:20 in Light of Greco-Egyptian Divination Texts,” in Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute (ed. David E. Aune and Frederick E. Brenk; NovTSup 143; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 183. 142 MacDonald, “Introduction,” 2, says, “Ancient authors frequently included unusual details to alert readers to the presence of their models; one might call them intertextual flags.” Paulien, Decoding, 158, uses a similar concept when he says, “The author [of Revelation] may use a phrase or a sentence of the Old Testament as a pointer to the whole Old Testament context in which that phrase or sentence is found.” 33 mate source, whose version is otherwise not visible. In the process the immediate, or chief, model is in some fashion “corrected.”143 In regard to these notable changes, an allusion to the Jewish scriptures may involve omission, modification, or addition of words.144 A modification of words involves the change of one or more words from what is deemed to be the likely original, with even small changes indicating new meanings.145 A window allusion is an especially powerful allusion because of the way it evokes the whole context of the source text and also captures the attention of the audience because of variation.146 A window allusion is line with the practice of some Jews during the Second Temple period who were involved rewriting scripture by expanding, omitting, emphasizing, or de-emphasizing.147 Category 5: Metaleptic Allusion – An allusion in a target text that not only is explicitly connected with a previous allusion in the target text but also is implicitly connected with that previous allusion by means of the author’s subtle appeal to the auditor/reader to perceive the 143 Thomas, “Virgil’s Georgics,” 188. The notable changes in Revelation fit within the Jewish exegetical practice of the author’s contemporaries. According to Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, xxvi, the mainline Jewish exegetical practice in the first century CE involved “adapting, reinterpreting, extending, and so reapplying” the scriptures to the Jews in their current situation. Thomas, “Virgil’s Georgics,” 196 n. 58, posits “reference by omission” as a separate category of reference, but we regard omission, modification, and addition as subsumed within a window allusion. On the reference by omission, see also Richard F. Thomas, Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry: The Ethnographical Traditions (PCPSSup 7; Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1982), 25-26. An excellent example is the omission of the commandment not to covet in Jesus’ response to the rich, young man (Matt 19:18-19). The commandment’s absence is conspicuous. For an example of the expansion of the Jewish scriptures, see Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod m and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 299-306. Cf. Thomas L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 2004), 10. 145 Richard B. Hays and Joel B. Green, “The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (ed. Joel B. Green; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 228. 146 Marilyn Merritt, “Repetition in Situated Discourse–Exploring its Forms and Functions” (vol. 1 of Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives; ed. Barbara Johnstone; ADP 47; Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1994), 28, notes, “In a related way we have all noted that repetition, and perhaps most notably partial repetition, can have tremendous echoic carrying capacity—a capacity to invoke a sense of the whole or the original contextual occurrence. For example, Walker and Adelman (1976) describe a stunning example from a primary classroom in England: Early in the year someone had brought to the class some strawberries to share, and the whole day was then surrounded with an ambience of cooperation and group involvement. Later in the school year, whenever anyone said, ‘Remember the strawberries?’ the class would immediately respond positively, in a kind of echo of the day with strawberries.” Italics original. On this kind of variation, see Merritt, “Repetition,” 31. Merritt (32) calls this kind of repetition “reformation” and says that it “can be thought of as a kind of middle ground between exact repetition and something that is entirely new.” 147 Moshe J. Bernstein, “The Aramaic Targumim: The Many Faces of the Jewish Biblical Experience,” in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible (ed. George J. Brooke; JSSSup 11; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 140-41. 144 34 unstated resonances between the two allusions.148 In essence, four texts are at work: (1) the source text of the first allusion, (2) the context of the source text, (3) the target text for the first allusion, and (4) the metaleptic allusion that follows the first allusion in the target text. In other words, the common ground of the metaleptic allusion and the first allusion is the separate use of a text from the source context of the first allusion. By way of a hypothetical example, let us suppose that a politician gives a speech and alludes to Hamlet’s Soliloquy and says, “To be, or not to be: that is the question.”149 Later in the speech, the politician again alludes to a succeeding part of Hamlet’s Soliloquy when he mentions “the native hue of resolution.” In saying “the native hue of resolution,” the politician evokes the unstated resonances between the two allusions to Hamlet. Because of this phenomenon of unstated resonances, some scholars may regard a metaleptic allusion as “subtext,” but a metaleptic allusion does not function in the way that subtext does.150 Richard Hays, whose work in this area has been generally well received, explains this phenomenon:151 When a literary echo links the text in which it occurs to an earlier text, the figurative effect of the echo can lie in the unstated or suppressed (transumed) points of resonance between the two texts. . . . Allusive echo functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed. This 148 Our definition of “metaleptic allusion” is partly based on the work of Hays, Echoes, 20, and Alexander James Lucas, “Romans 1:18–2:11 and the Substructure of Psalm 106(105): Evocations of the Calf ?” (PhD diss., Loyola University Chicago, 2012), 127. For the complex history of metalepsis, see John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 133-49. 149 Both this quotation and the one below come from Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 (1623 First Folio). 150 Moyise, Revelation, 107, uses “subtext.” In general, subtext is regarded as the underlying content or theme of a text that extends or amplifies the text or is at times distinct from the text. The view of subtext that prohibits our adoption of it is described by Helen Regueiro Elam, “Textuality,” NPEPP 1277: “Later views of t. [textuality], which perceived the text diachronically rather than synchronically, in terms of what is missing or absent rather than merely hidden from view, think of the subtext as a destabilizing element in the play of significations. The subtext is not assimilable to the text; it works against and undermines a text’s potential meaning.” 151 Scholars have critiqued Hays’s book in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup 83; SSEJC 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Craig Evans, “Listening for Echoes of Interpreted Scripture,” 47-48, says concerning the chapter in which the quotation below is taken, “In my judgment Hays’s reasoning in this chapter is sound. What he has identified as ‘correspondences’ is akin to typology, though implicit, not explicit. . . . This is typological thinking, and I think that this is often what lies behind the metalepsis that Hays has rightly observed in Paul’s letters.” Green, “Doing,” 61, is also generally positive in his assessment and says that “the book’s demonstrations of scriptural echo—even when speculative—are responsible, disciplined, well within the range of textual plausibility and imaginative possibility, and presented with artful suggestion.” 35 sort of metaleptic figuration is the antithesis of the metaphysical conceit, in which the poet’s imagination seizes a metaphor and explicitly wrings out of it all manner of unforeseeable significations. Metalepsis, by contrast, places the reader within a field of whispered or unstated correspondences.152 Hays points to Rom 3:20-21 as an example of the function of subtext (i.e., metaleptic text) involving Ps 142 (LXX).153 Thus, metaleptic allusions refer to the broader context of the source text and resonate with the attentive audience.154 The case in Rom 3:20-21 that Hays cites brings an issue to the forefront: the use of a subtextual reference to a source text that is cited explicitly earlier in the target text. For this reason, we will employ three terms to clarify this phenomenon: “controlling-text allusion” and “window allusion” to refer to the explicit reference, and “metaleptic allusion” to refer to the allusion linked to the controlling-text allusion or the window allusion. Despite conflicting views of the function of metalepsis, John Hollander argues that “there is a general sense that it is a kind of meta-trope, or figure of linkage between figures, and that there will be one or more unstated middle terms which are leapt over, or alluded to, by the figure.”155 The presence of metaleptic text is seen when particular words, phrases, tropes, formal modes, or genres of the source text are found in the target text, especially in prominent or repetitive patterns.156 152 Hays, Echoes, 20. Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as an Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 94, states, “This subtext [of Ps 142 OG] provides a metaleptic link between the plight evoked in 3:20 and the solution proclaimed in 3:21. Paul quotes verse 2 of the Psalm to declare that no one will be justified before God, but echoes recollecting God’s righteousness ripple out from the citation and provide the new theme for the following sentence.” Thus, Hays contends that dikaiosu/nh qeouv in Rom 3:21 is a metaleptic allusion that evokes e˙n thvØ dikaiosu/nhØ sou of Ps 142:11 OG. 154 In this vein, Hays, Echoes, 155, states, “If the gospel is hidden in Scripture, Scripture must be understood as richly allusive in character, hinting the kerygma, prefiguring it metaphorically. The biblical text must be read as a vast texture of latent promise, and the promise must be recovered through the interpretive strategies that allow the hidden word to become manifest. . . . Rather, if our analysis is correct, he [Paul] allows Scripture to echo into the text of his letters in such a way that the echoes suggest patterns of meaning wider than his own overt interpretive claims. Paul’s own discourse recapitulates the allusive complexity of his great subtext.” 155 Hollander, Figure of Echo, 114. 156 Admittedly, the use of metaleptic text involves gaps in the target text in which the audience must supply the missing elements. However, this process of audience involvement is not entirely subjective because, as Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 189, has shown, the text provides control as to how the audience fills in the gaps by such literary techniques as explicit information of the text, the text’s language and poetics, the features of the genre, the world of the text, and assumptions of probability and cultural conventions. 153 36 1.5 A Translation of Revelation 1:7-8 We are providing a translation of Rev 1:7-8 below, and our annotated translation of Revelation 1 is found in Appendix 1. The translation below follows in general the typographical layout that both the NA27 and the UBS4 follow in regarding v. 7 as poetry (§2.4): 7 Indeed, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, including those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn for him! Yes! Truly! 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the Being One and the He Was and the Coming One, the Ruler of All.” 1.6 The Date of Composition, Authorship, and Audience of the Apocalypse Having provided a translation of Rev 1:7-8, we will examine the relevant historical context in which the Apocalypse was composed, read aloud, and received. Some scholars date the composition of Revelation sometime during or shortly after Nero’s reign (64–70 CE), but most scholars date it during Domitian’s reign (81–96 CE).157 The cumulative weight of external evidence and internal evidence points to Revelation being composed during Domitian’s reign, probably in about 95 CE.158 The author of the Apocalypse was probably a 157 Scholars adopting the Neronian date include A. A. Bell, “The Date of John’s Apocalypse: The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered,” NTS 25 (1979): 93-102; R. B. Moberly, “When Was Revelation Conceived?” Bib 73 (1992): 376-93; John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 221-53; Christopher C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 403-13; and J. C. Wilson, “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation,” NTS 39 (1993): 587-605. The problems with a Neronian date are the lack of any persecution in Asia that was contemporaneous with Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome, the tenuous link of 666 with Nero, the symbolic nature of the temple in Rev 11:1-2, and the subjective historicizing of the “one who is” in Rev 17:10. Scholars adopting the Domitianic date include Beale, Revelation, 4-27; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 197-208; Boring, Revelation, 8-12; Charles, Revelation, 1:xci-xcvii; Collins, Crisis, 25-83; C. H. Giblin, The Book of Revelation: The Open Book of Prophecy (GNS 34; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical, 1991), 10; Mark L. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006; M. Kiddle and M. K. Ross, The Revelation of St John (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940), xxxvi-xliii; Osborne, Revelation, 6-9; Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John (trans. John E. Alsup; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 8-12; Swete, Apocalypse, civ; and Leonard Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 13-15. 158 In about 180 CE Irenaeus speaks of the author receiving the revelation “towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (Haer. 5.30.3), and Eusebius quotes Irenaeus when discussing Domitian’s persecution of Christians (Hist. eccl. 3.18; 5.8). Eusebius says that the Apocalypse was written in the fourteenth year of Domitian’s reign (Chron., 9.551-52). Victorinus (In Apo. 10:11) and Jerome (Vir. ill. 9) also support the Domitianic date. Internal evidence also points to authorship during Domitian’s reign. First, references to the Nero redivivus legend—almost 37 prophet and was possibly a leader among a group of itinerant prophets.159 Though referred to by name as “John” (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), he was probably not the apostle John.160 He had extensive knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and some of the literature or oral traditions of the early Jesus movement, although he was probably not trained as a scribe.161 The author probably was a Jew who was a native or a long-time resident of Palestine before he moved or fled to Asia, and he was familiar with forms of classical rhetoric.162 Finally, the author had probably been exiled to Patmos by the Roman government.163 Revelation’s immediate audience was almost certainly composed of both Jews and Gentiles in seven assemblies in the province of Asia.164 A reasonable assumption is that a few certainly in view in such passages as Rev 13:3, 12, 14; and 17:8—circulated as early as 69 CE, but the references required time to become widespread in the 80s and 90s. Second, the use of “Babylon” is widely regarded as a cipher for Rome. Because most uses of “Babylon” as a cipher for Rome are dated after 70 CE (4 Ezra 3:1-2, 2831; 11–12; 15:43, 46, 60; 16:1; 2 Bar. 10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7?; Sib. Or. 5.143, 159), the use of “Babylon” in Revelation probably signifies a post-70 CE date. Third, Laodicea needed time to recover from its devastating earthquake in 60 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 14.27.1) for the church there to be struggling with wealth, complacency, and materialism at the time that the author wrote (3:17). Fourth, the dominant image of the New Jerusalem makes the most sense in the wake of Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE and the church’s need to interpret that tragic event in light of God’s purposes. Cf. Richard A. Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 57. 159 The author of the Apocalypse identifies himself as the writer of the prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19) and refers to an angel who mentions “your brothers the prophets” (22:9). As to the author being a leader among itinerant prophets, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, liii-liv. Such a position of authority over other prophets has precedents in the group of prophets in Saul’s day (1 Sam 10:10-11), the sons of the prophets in Elijah’s day (1 Kgs 20:35), Elisha’s school of the prophets (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1-38), and Isaiah’s disciples (Isa 8:16-18). If the Didache reflects early church history in chapters 11–15, as some scholars believe, itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers were a feature of the early Jesus movement. 160 On the basis of external evidence, the possibility of John the apostle as the author of the Apocalypse cannot be precluded. Besides this external evidence, Aune, Revelation 1–5, liii, says that there is little or no real internal evidence to link the Apocalypse with the apostle John. In addition, Charles, Revelation, 1:xliv-l, adduces strong evidence that foretells, implies, or recounts the apostle John’s martyrdom. 161 Charles, Revelation, 1:lxv-lxvi, says that the author had access to Matthew, Luke, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Colossians (or the lost epistle to the Laodiceans), Ephesians, Galatians, 1 Peter, and James. Concerning the author’s knowledge of Synoptic traditions, see Vos, Synoptic Traditions; and Swete, Apocalypse, clvi-clvii. On the author’s non-scribal status, see Bøe, Gog, 36. 162 Charles, Revelation, xliv; Collins, Crisis, 46-49. The author could have been a refugee from Palestine who fled during or after the first Jewish revolt in 66–73 CE. Cf. Aune Revelation 1–5, 1; Charles, Revelation, 1:xxxix. Josephus mentions that Jews left Palestine after the revolt (Ant. 20.256), so a departure of Jews could have been the impetus for the author to leave Palestine and go to Asia Minor. On the likelihood of a man such as the author being exposed to classical rhetoric, see George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (SR; Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 9; James L. Kinneavy, Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith: An Inquiry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 78; and Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 29-31. 163 For a full treatment of the possibilities, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, 78-80. 164 Indications of the ethnically mixed audience are the double Greek and Hebrew affirmation of nai÷, aÓmh/n in 1:7 (Smalley, Revelation, 38), the mixed composition of Jews and Gentiles at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-10), and the large population of Jews in Asia (Philo, Legat. 33; Flacc. 7; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 29, 131). 38 of the believers in the seven assemblies were literate, trained in the Jewish scriptures, and eager to study the Jewish scriptures (Acts 17:11; 18:24).165 The social setting of the audience of the Apocalypse is debated, but the reign of Domitian vis-à-vis the Jesus movement in the province of Asia was probably marked by some social pressure and local persecution, but not universal, systematic persecution.166 1.7 The Structure of the Study We will begin our study in Chapter 2 by locating Rev 1:7-8 within the literary structure of Revelation, providing multiple lines of evidence in favor of viewing Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse. In Chapter 3 we will examine how Rev 1:7-8 is linked with Rev 1:9–3:22 and how the “one like a son of man” vision in Rev 1:9-20 is used throughout the rest of Revelation. In Chapter 4 we will examine Revelation 4–5, which are pivotal chapters in Revelation, and we will show how themes of Rev 1:7-8 unfold in those two chapters by use of a Vorbild allusion to Daniel 7. In Chapter 5 we will see how a network of metaleptic allusions to Daniel 7 and key lexemes from Rev 1:7-8 are used thematically in Revelation. In Chapter 6 we will summarize our study and its conclusions and provide an overview of its implications. 1.8. The Thesis of the Study The thesis of this study may be stated as follows: Revelation 1:7-8 is the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse. The following facts and observations substantiate this 165 William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 22, 272. Osborne, Revelation, 10-12; Beale, Revelation, 5-16. In terms of internal evidence, Rev 2:13 refers to the death of Antipas (2:13), the pressure faced by the church at Smyrna (2:10), and the problems encountered with the “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). External evidence also points to social pressure and local persecution. In 112 CE Pliny mentions the apostasy of Christians during Domitian’s reign (Ep. 10.96-97). Pliny’s letter establishes the following: (1) the apostasy of Christians 25 years earlier during Domitian’s reign, (2) the crime of being a Christian, (3) previous investigations of Christians, and (4) the execution of some Christians at Pliny’s order. Besides those pressures, some of the followers of Jesus in Asia probably faced the difficulties imposed by the ficus Judaicus that Domitian imposed on the Jews, for whom Judaism was a religio licita (“legal religion”). Marius Heemstra, How Rome’s Administration of the Fiscus Judaicus Accelerated the Parting of the Ways between Judaism and Christianity: Rereading 1 Peter, Revelation, the Letter to the Hebrews, and the Gospel of John in their Roman and Jewish Contexts (Veenendaal: Universal Press, 2009), 124-147, provides details of how non-Jewish Christians could face execution and Jewish Christians could face prosecution for not paying the Jewish tax. 166 39 thesis and make it virtually certain. First, it will be demonstrated that the micro-genre of Rev 1:7-8 (prophetic oracles) agrees with the macro-genre of Revelation (an apocalyptic prophecy in an epistolary framework). Second, it will be demonstrated that on a literary level Rev 1:7-8 is linked through chain-link interlock with Rev 1:9–3:22 and other sections of Revelation. Third, it will be demonstrated that Rev 1:7-8 consists of two interlinked prophetic oracles that are highlighted as the thematic statement by various literary devices in Revelation 1. Fourth, it will be demonstrated that the important changes to the source text of Dan 7:13 in the allusion in Rev 1:7 indicate that Dan 7:13 is a window allusion. Fifth, it will be demonstrated that the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 is a controlling-text allusion because of its background material, its word order, its wording repeated in numerous places in Revelation, its use of the particle i˙dou/, its inclusion of the main participant of Revelation (Jesus Christ), and its use of semantic fields. Sixth, it will be demonstrated that Rev 1:9-20, which is linked with Rev 1:7-8, is also thematic and multivalent for the rest of Revelation through the repetition of key words and phrases from the “one like a son of man” vision and therefore unifies the discourse and elaborates aspects of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. Seventh, it will be demonstrated that four major themes in Rev 1:9-20 fall under the rubric of the allusion of the one like a son of man of Rev 1:13, and therefore of Rev 1:7, and that these themes are woven into the discourse of the rest of the Apocalypse. Eighth, it will be demonstrated that Rev 1:7-8 is linked with Revelation 4–5 and that Daniel 7 is a Vorbild allusion for Revelation 4–5. Ninth, it will be demonstrated that Revelation features a network of metaleptic allusions to Daniel 7. Tenth, it will be demonstrated that key words in Rev 1:7-8 are repeated throughout Revelation in lexical cohesion. Chapter 2 Revelation 1:7-8: Its Context, Literary Features, and Allusions 2.1 Introduction Having defined the problems, explained our interdisciplinary method, and proposed our thesis in the last chapter, we will argue in this chapter that Rev 1:7-8 is the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse in light of the context and literary features of Rev 1:7-8. We will first see how the cohesion of genres shows that Rev 1:7-8 functions in this way. We will adduce reasons that Rev 1:1 or 1:1-2 does not function as the thematic statement of Revelation. We will then enlarge the scope of our study by looking at Rev 1:7-8 within the literary structure of Revelation and see how it is connected to Rev 1:9–3:22. We will examine the distinctiveness of Rev 1:7-8 and its concentric double-ring composition. We will then see how the inclusive language and liturgical dialogue of Rev 1:4-8 highlights Rev 1:7-8. For the remainder of the chapter, we will analyze the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 and see how it is prominent. We will finish this chapter by looking at the other allusions in Rev 1:7-8. 2.2 The Genre of Revelation We will identify the genre of Revelation and the genre of Rev 1:7-8 and see how the genre of Rev 1:7-8 allows it to function as the multivalent thematic statement of Revelation.1 We will use the terms “macro-genre” and “micro-genre” in our analysis of the genre of Revelation.2 1 For our study we have adopted the definition of “genre” provided by John J. Collins, “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 1: “a group of written texts marked by distinctive recurring characteristics which constitute a recognizable and coherent type of writing.” 2 In our study “macro-genre” refers to the dominant literary genre(s) of a discourse, and “micro-genre” refers to the literary genre of a specific part of the discourse. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia 14 (1979): 70, frames the matter in this way: “To determine the literary form of the book of Revelation as a whole, one must ask what the dominant literary form is or how all these smaller forms are integrated into a coherent whole.” Cf. Collins, “Morphology,” 8; Osborne, Spiral, 149-51; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 23. 40 41 2.2.1 The Macro-Genre of Revelation Most scholars conclude that the macro-genre of Revelation is an epistle, an apocalypse, or a prophecy.3 Although some scholars argue that the macro-genre of Revelation is epistle, and although the epistolary framework is evident in Revelation 1 and 22, two facts militate against that identification.4 First, Revelation features metatext at its beginning in the form of a superscription (1:1-3).5 Second, Revelation is not epistolary in much of the discourse. Rejecting epistle as Revelation’s macro-genre, the majority of scholars argue that the macro-genre of Revelation is apocalypse, Jewish apocalypse, or prophetic apocalypse.6 The key issue is how to define “apocalypse.”7 Although Revelation possesses many characteristics of an apocalypse according to a spectrum of definitions, the discontinuities between apocalypses and Revelation militate against apocalypse as the macro-genre of Revelation.8 3 Aune, Revelation 1–5, lxxii; Osborne, Revelation, 12. Among the scholars who argue for Revelation’s main genre as epistle are Charles, Revelation, 1:8; Martin Karrer, Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief, Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theoligischen Ort (FRLANT 140; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); Roloff, Revelation, 8; and Wall, Revelation, 39. Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 48, correctly observes, “Despite the fact that the Apocalypse is framed with epistolary conventions, the entire text does not appear to have been affected by epistolary features.” 5 David E. Aune, “Stories of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 293, says that the metatextual introduction of the Apocalypse in 1:1-3 overrides the epistolary features and indicates that the text that follows is a vision narrative. 6 Aune, Revelation 1–5, lxxxii. Apocalypse: Adela Yarbro Collins, “Early Christian Apocalypses,” 61-121; Norman Perrin, “Apocalyptic Christianity,” in Visionaries and Their Apocalypse (ed. Paul D. Hanson; London: SPCK, 1983), 121-45. Jewish apocalypse: Ford, Revelation, 4-7, 26-28, 56. Prophetic apocalypse: Aune, Revelation 1–5, lxxxix-xc. 7 Many scholars have adopted the often cited definition of the genre of “apocalypse” that Collins, “Morphology,” 9, provides for the period of 250 BCE to 250 CE: “‘Apocalypse’ is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.” Italics original. This working definition is broad and flexible, but it is too loose and does not work well to establish the genre of composite works and the interrelationship of the whole and the parts. For a critique of some of Collins’s classifications, see E. P. Sanders, “The Genre of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypses,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979 (ed. David Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1989), 454-55. 8 On the characteristics of an apocalypse in Revelation, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, lxxxii-lxxxviii; and Collins, “Early Christian Apocalypses,” 104. The following facts weigh against Revelation as primarily an apocalypse. First, Revelation lacks any vaticinia ex eventu prophecies. Charles, Revelation, 1:xcvi; Ulrich H. J. Körtner, The End of the World: A Theological Interpretation (trans. Douglas W. Stott; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 26. Second, many Jewish apocalypses feature angels as mediators (1 En. 17–36; Apoc. Abr. 10–18; 4 Ezra 3–14), but Revelation features only one reference to an angel as a mediator of revelation (22:8-16). Third, most Jewish apocalypses (Collins, “Morphology,” 11), if not all (Aune, “Qumran,” 2:629), are pseudonymous, but Revelation repeatedly discloses John as its writer (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). Both the author’s selfdisclosure and the specifics about his situation and his audience are important, not peripheral. Bruce W. Jones, “More about the Apocalypse as Apocalyptic,” JBL 87 (1968): 327, concludes, “We are forced to the conclusion 4 42 Still other scholars argue that the main genre of Revelation is prophecy or prophetic writing.9 As Richard Bauckham notes, the distinguishing characteristics of Revelation as prophecy are the discernment of the situation in the author’s day (explanation), the prediction of things to come, and the proper response of the author’s audience to these two characteristics (parenesis).10 Of these three characteristics noted by Bauckham, predictive prophecy predominates. Eight lines of evidence support this view of Revelation as prophecy: (1) the explicit identification of Revelation as a prophecy of things to come, (2) the author’s use of the verb profhteu/w to describe his task, (3) conformity to major aspects of prophecy in the Jewish that John wants to stress the difference between his book and previous apocalyptic writing.” Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, xxviii-xxx. Fourth, Jewish apocalypses look forward to a central eschatological event (1 En. 91:16; 2 Bar. 29:1-3; 39:7–40:2; 4 Ezra 7:30-35; As. Mos. 9:1–10:10; 1QM 18.1), but the author of Revelation bases his writing on God’s sovereign work of salvation in providing Jesus as the sin bearer in the Christ event consisting of his death, resurrection, and ascension, with eschatological events issuing from that event. In other words, the realized eschatology of the Apocalypse is absent from the Jewish apocalypses. In this regard, Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 7, describes the perspective of Revelation’s author as “a prophetic Heilsgeschichte.” Cf. D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 BC-AD 100 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 280-84; Ulfgard, Feast, 11. Fifth, Revelation possesses literary features that Jewish or Christian apocalypses do not possess: (1) an epistolary framework (1:4-6; 22:10-21): David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 240; (2) liturgical elements: Otto A. Piper, “The Apocalypse of John and the Liturgy of the Ancient Church, CH 20 (1951): 10; (3) the seven proclamations to the churches in Asia: Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 51; (4) the angelic epiphanies (7:1-8; 8:2; 15:1; 20:1-3), with few if any parallels with Jewish or Christian apocalypses: Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 53; (5) parenesis (e.g., 2:4-6, 14-16, 20-22; 3:15-19), which, as Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 48, notes, “is certainly more characteristic of prophecy than of apocalyptic”; and (6) the highly symbolic, otherworldly terms of Revelation (e.g., Revelation 4–5). John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986), 207, notes that most Jewish apocalypses “speak in quite literal, thisworldly terms.” Jubilees 23:26-29 is a good example of this literal, thisworldly perspective when it mentions longevity approaching a thousand years and a life of peace, rejoicing, blessing, and healing on the earth. Sixth, as Pablo Richard, Apocalypse: A People’s Commentary on the Book of Revelation (BLS; Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1995), 16, notes, the apocalypse that the author is concerned about is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and his presence in the community, not merely the parousia. Seventh, as Rowland, Revelation, 603-4, observes, the author merges the language of a heavenly ascent with the language of dream visions in a way that is not characteristic of apocalypses. Eighth, Bauckham, Theology, 9, observes that Revelation features much more visual imagery than in similar apocalypses, which have lengthy conversations and interpretations. Ninth, Revelation does not unequivocally allude to other deuterocanonical Jewish apocalypses. Fekkes, Isaiah, 38; Kiddle and Ross, Revelation, xxviii. See Mazzaferri, Genre, 383, for his reasons for rejecting Revelation as an apocalypse. 9 Bauckham, Theology, 2; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 19-29; Giesen, Offenbarung, 24-34; David Hill, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John,” NTS 18 (1971-72): 406; J. Kallas, “The Apocalypse–an Apocalyptic Book?” JBL 86 (1967): 78; Mazzaferri, Genre, 383; Mounce, Revelation, 1-8; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Justice, 133-56, 170. 10 Bauckham, Theology, 148-49. “Predictive prophecy” is imprecise because “predictive” leaves the impression of human uncertainty, but what is undoubtedly meant is futuristic prophecy (i.e., prophecy that concerns events in the future). 43 scriptures, (4) the author’s place in the continuum of the prophets of Israel, (5) shifts in verb tenses, (6) the use of the prophetic formula ta¿de le÷gei, (7) the high percentage of allusions to the Prophets in the Jewish scriptures, and (8) the high percentage of predictive prophecies.11 11 Explicit identification as prophecy: When the author identifies his writing as profhtei÷a (“prophecy”; 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19), the context features a± dei√ gene÷sqai e˙n ta¿cei (1:1; 22:6) as the way in which this prophecy is to be understood Use of the verb profhteu/w: The author uses a form of the verb profhteu/w (“to prophesy”) to refer to his task (10:11), “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” In addition, 1:1 and 22:6 show that the general subject of Revelation concerns things that must happen soon. Conformity to major aspects of prophecy: O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (abridged ed.; Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2008), 15-37, lists five prominent aspects of prophetism, and these correlate well with Revelation as a prophecy (noted in parentheses): (1) Moses’ priority in biblical prophecy (this aspect is not present in Revelation, but Moses is mentioned in 15:3); (2) God’s exclusive initiative in originating a prophetic word (1:1-2); (3) the prophet’s words as the very word of God (17:7; 21:5); (4) the repudiation of other ways of determining the Lord’s will (2:20; 22:18-19); and (5) Jesus as the consummate prophet (1:1; 2:1–3:22). Continuum of the prophets: As various scholars note, the author places himself in the tradition of the prophets of Israel by his many allusions to their writings: Fekkes, Isaiah, 288-89; Johnson, Revelation, 417-18; Morton, One, 86; Smalley, Revelation, 8; Ben Witherington III, Revelation (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 13. Hill, “Prophecy,” 406, observes that the author views himself as “unique in his community and as standing closer to the tradition of the Old Testament prophets than the function of the New.” Shifts in verb tenses: Shifts in verb tenses in Revelation indicate that the fulfillment of parts of Revelation extend beyond the days of the author and his audience and point to the eschatological future. Revelation 13:8 is a prime example of this eschatology. See discussion in Aune, Revelation 6–16, 746. Use of ta¿de le÷gei: ta¿de le÷gei (“these things says”) occurs in each of the messages of the exalted Christ to the assemblies in Asia (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). This phrase regularly occurs in the OG in the prophecies given by the prophets of Israel (Exod 5:1; 2 Sam 7:5; 1 Kgs 17:14; Amos 5:4; Mic 3:5; Zech 1:17; Isa 57:15; Jer 51:1; Ezek 37:5; passim). Beale, Revelation, 229; R. L. Muse, “Revelation 2–3: A Critical Analysis of Seven Prophetic Messages,” JETS 29 (1986): 147-61; Osborne, Revelation, 111; Smalley, Revelation, 60. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 121, says that ta¿de le÷gei was an intentional archaism (similar to “thus saith” in English) that would generate two associations for readers of the Apocalypse: (1) “a (prophetic) messenger formula” as found in the LXX); and (2) “a proclamation formula characteristic of Persian royal diplomatic letters and edicts.” High percentage of allusions to the Prophets: Revelation contains a high percentage of allusions to the Major Prophets and the Minor Prophets. According to Tenney, Interpreting Revelation, 104, 235 of the 348 Old Testament allusions (67.5%) in Revelation come from the Major Prophets (197) and the Minor Prophets (38), and this heavy reliance on the Prophets comports well with the identification of Revelation as prophecy. High percentage of predictive prophecies: Revelation contains a high percentage of predictive prophecies. Payne, Encyclopedia, 591, identifies 56 separate prophecies composing 256 verses out of 404 verses of Revelation, and this results in 63% of Revelation devoted to prophecies. This percentage in Revelation exceeds Payne’s calculations (674-75) that 28.5% of the verses in the Old Testament have predictions and that 21.5% of the verses in the New Testament have predictions. Payne (591) also notes, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ (1:1) stands without question as the most highly predictive book in the NT.” Beckwith, Apocalypse, 318, says that predictive prophecy is the dominant aspect of the Apocalypse. In a similar vein, David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 207, notes, “In the Apocalypse, predictions of the eschatological future are central and exhortations are marginal. . . .” Revelation’s emphasis on predictive prophecy stands in contrast to Greco-Roman prophecy, for, as David S. Porter, Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius (RAnt 7; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 2, notes about Greco-Roman prophecy, “In antiquity, as now, prophecy was only rarely concerned with the future.” Likewise, Richard Stoneman, The Ancient Oracles: Making the Gods Speak (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 1, 2, 24, observes that ancient oracles were concerned mainly with guidance and generally did not involve prediction. 44 In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Revelation is a prophecy that has elements of an apocalypse and that is embedded in the framework of a circular epistle. More simply, Revelation is an apocalyptic prophecy in an epistolary framework.12 2.2.2 The Micro-Genre of Revelation 1:7-8 Having established the macro-genre of Revelation as prophecy, we will now examine the micro-genre of Rev 1:7-8 and its relationship to the macro-genre.13 A “prophetic oracle” is defined as a revelation concerning the present or the future that is given through a prophet as a result of being inspired by God or the resurrected Jesus.14 In light of this definition and other criteria, Rev 1:7-8 is composed of two interlinked prophetic oracles or prophetic sayings.15 This conclusion may be further affirmed because of the oracles’ supernatural source (God speaking in v. 8), their predictive character (both verses), and the introductory formula i˙dou/ (v. 7).16 Because of the predictive character of these verses, we regard vv. 7-8 as prophetic oracles. As David Aune notes, the interlinking of the two verses is seen in the juxtaposition of two prophetic oracles, with the latter often amplifying the former, as is done 12 Our identification of Revelation’s genre is close to Bauckham’s identification (Theology, 2) of Revelation’s genre as “an apocalyptic prophecy in the form of a circular letter.” Bauckham (2) further states that the author “uses the apocalyptic genre as a vehicle of prophecy.” 13 Concerning the interrelationship between the whole and the parts of a discourse, V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History (FCI 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 46, says, “Genre criticism must resist the temptation to focus exclusively on smaller units of discourse and instead must be alert to the way in which the genre of a larger discourse unit affects every smaller discourse unit within it.” In light of this intra-discourse coherence, Revelation’s macro-genre of prophecy affects every smaller discourse unit, especially 1:7-8. 14 Aune, New Testament, 134; idem, Prophecy, 320-25. 15 Aune, Prophecy, 433 n. 184, equates “oracle” and “prophetic saying.” This equivalence is adopted in our study. Scholars who view Rev 1:7-8 as prophetic oracles or prophetic sayings are Aune, Revelation 1–5, 51-52; Adela Yarbro Collins, “The ‘Son of Man’ Tradition and the Book of Revelation,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 536; Osborne, Revelation, 68; Tavo, Woman, 51; and Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1926), 12-13. 16 Aune, Prophecy, 247-48, lists three criteria for “identifying the presence of oracular material in early Christian literature”: (1) the saying or speech is attributed to a supernatural being (i.e., God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angel, deceased person, Satan, demon, etc.); (2) the saying or speech predicts the course of future events or reflects knowledge of the past or the present that the speaker could not naturally know; and (3) the saying or speech is introduced by a formula that is used in other contexts apparently for introducing prophetic speech. Applying his criteria to Rev 1:7, Aune, 433 n. 184, concludes that it is an oracle because of its predictive character and because of the presence of the demonstrative particle i˙dou/, although this particle “is not an infallible indicator of prophetic speech.” In addition, Aune, 278-81, 433 n. 184, regards the use of the first-person singular language as the best feature for determining whether an oracle has been embedded into Revelation, and thus Rev 1:7 stands as the exception to the general rule. 45 elsewhere in Revelation.17 Beyond this juxtaposition, vv. 7-8 are linked lexically by thirdperson subjects (implied or stated) and third-person verbs, by the important lexeme e¶rcomai with its eschatological meaning, and by the theme of the divinely sovereign consummation of history.18 Thus, these elements in vv. 7-8 provide lexical cohesion. As interlinked prophetic oracles, Rev 1:7-8 functions as the thematic statement of Revelation by its genre cohesion with the macro-genre of Revelation.19 The predictive element of vv. 7-8 is explicit in two ways: (1) the use of the future or future-oriented verbs in v. 7 (e¶rcetai, o¡yetai, e˙xeke÷nthsan, ko/yontai), and (2) God’s self-declaration in v. 8 of being “the Coming One” (oJ e˙rco/menoß).20 This predictive element in 1:7-8 corresponds with such future events as the cosmic parousia (19:11-21).21 More technically, v. 7 is a predictive 17 Rev 13:10; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 21:5-8; 22:12-15, 18-20. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 51-52. The theme of the divinely sovereign consummation of history is seen in the guarantee of Christ’s coming based on the fact that God is sovereign through all history: He is the Being One, the He Was, and the Coming One. The consummation of history is viewed as Christ’s coming with the clouds. As Beale, Revelation, 196, notes, v. 7 contains allusions to the Old Testament that concern God’s eschatological judgment of evil empires or nations. In Dan 7:13 the one like a son of man is enthroned after the four evil empires are judged (7:3-12). Similarly, in Zech 12:10 the house of David and the inhabitants see the one they have pierced after Yhwh defeats the nations that have gathered to destroy Jerusalem (12:2-9). Aune, Revelation 1-5, 51, wrongly says, “Rev 1:78 consists of two discrete units with no intrinsic literary connections, which are linked together only by virtue of the fact that they are sandwiched between two carefully defined textual units. . . .” Similarly, Charles, Revelation, 1:17, wrongly says that that v. 8 “has no obvious links with what precedes or follows.” 19 This cohesion would naturally entail the cohesion of Rev 1:7-8 with other micro-genres of prophecy or prophetic oracles within Revelation. 20 The verb e¶rcetai is present tense, but in this verse it has a future orientation, though not exclusively so, as §5.3.2 will show. The use of oJ e˙rco/menoß in v. 8 is striking because it is used instead of a future participle or a future indicative. 21 Beale and McDonough, “Revelation,” 1085, classify 1:7 as an informal direct-prophetic fulfillment use of the Old Testament. This marks the first instance of the use of “parousia” in our study. The parousia may be defined as the ultimate return of Jesus Christ in glory to the earth. The writers of the Jesus movement literature characterize the parousia as a single event, but they often stress how the parousia affects either the church or the world at large (hence our terms “ecclesial parousia” and “cosmic parousia”). The ecclesial parousia is that aspect of the parousia that affects certain members of the church (e˙kklhsi÷a). In contrast, the cosmic parousia is that aspect of the parousia that affects all aspects of the cosmos, namely, the creation, those living on the earth, and the devil and his angels (Rev 11:15; 11:11-21, esp. v. 15; Zech 14:1-9, esp. v. 9). The ecclesial parousia is particular in scope, whereas the cosmic parousia is universal in scope. Of the 24 occurrences of parousi/a in the New Testament, six are non-eschatological (1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6-7; 2 Cor 10:10; Phil 1:26; 2:12). The remaining 18 uses of the word are eschatological (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8-9; Jas 5:7-8; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28). In some passages an ecclesial focus is evident (e.g., 1 Thess 4:15), whereas in the other passages a cosmic focus is evident (e.g., Matt 24:27). Trevor S. Luke, “The Parousia of Paul at Iconium,” R&T 15 (2008): 230-31, sees a similar bifurcation in the way New Testament writers treat the parousia because at times the focus is on the community of Jesus’ followers and at other times the focus is on the contrast between the parousia of Jesus and the parousia of his eschatological enemies. According to the analysis of Walter Riggans, “The Parousia: Getting Our Terms Right,” Them 21 (1995): 16, the 18 46 prophetic oracle (“Indeed, he is coming with the clouds . . .”), and v. 8 is a confirmatory prophetic oracle with a prophetic element.22 That is, v. 7 predicts future historical events, albeit from an unspecified point in the story of Revelation, and v. 8 serves to confirm the veracity of v. 7. This confirmation comes from God, the highest authority. In this vein, Wilhelm Bousset notes about God’s declaration in v. 8, “Es ist mit grossem Nachdruck Gott selbst in den Mund gelegt.”23 This confirmation by God in v. 8 is similar to the declaration of Israel’s prophets when they declared, “Thus says Yhwh” (Isa 29:22; Jer 2:2; Ezek 11:5; passim). Verse 8 introduces the eschatological coming of the Lord God, which is a central theme in the Jewish scriptures, as related to the coming of Jesus.24 In other words, the linguistic link of e¶rcomai signifies that the coming of Jesus to earth at the cosmic parousia is parousia serves a variety of purposes: (1) the final conquest of the devil and his forces, (2) the final judgment of the world, (3) the redemption of the redeemed, (4) the climax and consummation of history, and (5) the public vindication and glorification of Jesus. These purposes may be subsumed under the two broader categories we have provided, with the redemption of the redeemed (the third purpose) being the ecclesial parousia and the other items composing the cosmic parousia. The complex issue of an interregnum between the ecclesial parousia and the cosmic parousia is beyond the scope of this study. For the technical language of the parousia, see F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), 59-60; Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; 4th ed.; n.p.: 1923; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 368-73; and Helmut Koester, “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997), 160. 22 As Aune, Revelation 1–5, 53, points out, the particle ijdou/ is used in two ways in Revelation: (1) “a marker of strong emphasis indicating the validation of the statement it introduces and can be translated ‘indeed, certainly’” and (2) “a marker to draw attention to that which it introduces and can be translated ‘look, listen, pay attention.’” Here in v. 7 ijdou/ is used in the first sense and should be translated “indeed.” Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 37-38, notes that “indeed” is the preferred translation here and in other places in Revelation where ijdou/ is used in speech. 23 Bousset, Offenbarung, 220. Translation: “It is, with great emphasis, placed in the mouth of God Himself.” 24 The theme of the eschatological coming of God is attested in numerous passages in the Jewish scriptures (Isa 44:6-23; 46:9-13; Joel 2:1-32; passim). Cf. A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (NovTSup 13; Leiden: Brill, 1966), 11. The author’s appropriation of this motif of the coming of Yhwh is in line with the earlier tradition in the Jesus movement: Paul S. Minear, I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse (Washington: Corpus, 1968; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 17-18; Caird, Revelation, 19; Roloff, Revelation, 24. The phrase oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß and variations of it are common in Revelation (11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). This triadic description of God concerns the eschatological coming of God both to judge and to save. Bauckham, Theology, 28-29; Beale, Revelation, 187-89. Sean M. McDonough, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting (WUNT 107; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1999), 217-20, argues that the author is interpreting the name of Yhwh in three different versions: “Alpha and Omega” corresponds to Iao, “the Lord God” corresponds with “Yhwh Elohim,” and “Who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” corresponds to Yhwh Sabaoth. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 57-58, says that the author is issuing a polemical response to the magical practice of using cries and divine names to call on divine power. 47 contemporaneous with the time when God comes to establish His kingdom (11:17) because when Jesus comes, he comes as the empowered representative of God.25 In addition, v. 8 shows God’s dominating role in history.26 Finally, e¶rcomai foreshadows the close association between God and Jesus seen throughout Revelation (e.g., 22:3). 2.2.3 Revelation 1:1 or 1:1-2 as the Subject, the Theme, or the Thematic Statement Having seen that the prophetic oracles of Rev 1:7-8 function as a thematic statement for Revelation vis-à-vis its macro-genre, we turn to address the assertion that Rev 1:1 or 1:1-2 functions as the subject, the theme, or the thematic statement of Revelation.27 The arguments by scholars for its status as a theme or thematic statement fail to convince. First, the extended title of Rev 1:1 or 1:1-2 asserts the subject of Revelation, not the theme or the thematic statement.28 As we mentioned in note 8 of §1.2.1, a subject is general and is therefore often captured by a word or a phrase. "Apoka¿luyiß "Ihsouv Cristouv in Rev 1:1 describes the general contents of the author’s work as a revelation from God that came to him in a prophetic 25 oJ e˙rco/menoß is conspicuously absent as a description of God in 11:17 and 16:5 because at these points in the narrative God has come to establish His eternal kingdom (11:17) and to bring judgment (16:5). Bauckham, Theology, 28-30; Osborne, Revelation, 442-43. 26 Vanni, “Liturgical Dialogue,” 351. 27 Beale, Revelation, 182; Tenney, Interpreting Revelation, 28. 28 Aune, Apocalypticism, 124, says that Rev 1:1-3 “functions as a title, and conforms to the ancient tendency to describe the essential contents of a literary work.” Revelation 1:1 has wording and an allusion that are prophetic, but in a general way. Therefore, Rev 1:1 cannot be regarded as a thematic statement. That is, the subject is general in v. 1: an apocalypse from Jesus Christ and things to come. Boring, Revelation, 276, argues that aÓpoka¿luyiß “is a synonym for profhtei÷a for John.” This conclusion is based on the highly probable allusion to Dan 2:27-28, 45-47 in Rev 1:1. Beale, Revelation, 181-82, convincingly argues that Dan 2:28-30, 45-47 OG and Q serves as a model for Rev 1:1 because of four lexical patterns in the Danielic passage: (1) the appearance of aÓpokalu/ptw; (2) the appearance two times of the phrase a± dei√ gene÷sqai (“things that must happen”), which agrees verbatim with Rev 1:1; (3) the appearance two times of shmai÷nw (“signify”); and (4) the substitution of e˙n ta¿cei (“soon”) in Revelation for e˙p" e˙sca¿twn tw◊n hJmerw◊n (“in the end of the days”) in Dan 2:28. Charles, Revelation, 1:5, sees the same allusion to Daniel but does not elaborate in the same detail that Beale does. Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that “there is a God in heaven who reveals [aÓnakalu/ptwn in OG and Q] mysteries, and he has disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen at the end of days.” Charles, Revelation, 1:5, comments, “In Theodotion’s rendering of Daniel the verb aÓpokalu/pein is used exactly in the sense of the noun aÓpoka¿luyiß in the title [of Revelation]. . . . It signifies a vision and its interpretation.” In a similar vein, Mazzaferri, Genre, 275-76, notes that in vv. 1-2 the cluster of key verbs (dei÷knumi, shmai÷nw, oJra¿w), the phrases to\n lo/gon touv qeouv and th\n marturi÷an "Ihsouv Cristouv, and the clause a± dei√ gene÷sqai “all connote prophetic revelation.” 48 visionary experience.29 However, the specifics, which are the components of a thematic statement, are only said to be “things that must happen soon” (a± dei√ gene÷sqai e˙n ta¿cei). Frederick Mazzaferri observes, “John begins his book with a statement of identity, purpose, and method. . . .”30 Such a statement, however, does not focus on a specific theme. Lacking this quality of specificity, Rev 1:1 functions as a title or a subject in the tradition of certain prophetic writings in the Jewish scriptures and certain Jewish apocalypses and in the broader tradition of ancient authors.31 Second, Rev 22:6-7 modifies and interprets 1:1-3, and in doing so it refers to the coming of Jesus mentioned in 1:7 and therefore to its linked prophetic oracle in v. 8. In other words, Rev 1:7-8 ultimately interprets the general phrases a± dei√ gene÷sqai e˙n ta¿cei (1:1) and o¢sa ei•den (1:2) in light of the coming of Jesus as God’s representative. In this vein, David Aune observes concerning 1:7-8, “Both of these oracles reinforce the propriety of the phrase ‘words of prophecy’ that the author used to characterize his work, although the first appears to be predominantly apocalyptic (focusing as it does on the parousia), while the second has predominantly prophetic associations (i.e., in divine self-predications in Isaiah).”32 In the table below, a comparison of the text of 1:1-3 and 22:6-7 shows verbatim repetitions (underlined) and expansions of text (bold):33 29 Fekkes, Isaiah, 48. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 39-40, draws attention to Paul’s reception of the gospel through “a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12-16). Paul may be referring to his experience on the Damascus Road of seeing the exalted Christ. 30 Mazzaferri, Genre, 275. 31 The closest correspondence is between the title of Revelation and the titles and introductory sentences of Jer 1:1-2; Ezek 1:1-3; Amos 1:1; Hosea 1:1-2a; Joel 1:1; Micah 1:1; and Zeph 1:1. Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 47, specifies Jer 1:1-2; Ezek 1:1-3; and Amos 1:1. Fekkes, Isaiah, 106, specifies Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Zephaniah. In addition, Jewish apocalypses sometimes feature such titles. For example, 1 En. 1:1 is a summary statement of the Book of the Watchers, and 1 En. 93:1-3 and Apoc. Bar. praef 1-2 may also be cited. Cf. Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 47, 49. 32 Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 49. 33 Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 107, makes the comparison between these two passages, and we are highlighting what is relevant to our study. 49 Table 3: Comparison of Revelation 1:1-3 and Revelation 22:6-7 Revelation 1:1-3 Revelation 22:6-7 1:1 "Apoka¿luyiß "Ihsouv Cristouv h§n 22:6 Kai« ei•pe÷n moi: ou∞toi oi˚ lo/goi pistoi« e¶dwken aujtwˆ◊ oJ qeo\ß dei√xai toi√ß dou/loiß aujtouv a± dei√ gene÷sqai e˙n ta¿cei, kai« e˙sh/manen aÓpostei÷laß dia» touv aÓgge÷lou aujtouv twˆ◊ dou/lwˆ aujtouv "Iwa¿nnhØ, kai« aÓlhqinoi÷, kai« oJ ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß tw◊n pneuma¿twn tw◊n profhtw◊n aÓpe÷steilen to\n a‡ggelon aujtouv dei√xai toi√ß dou/loiß aujtouv a± dei√ gene÷sqai e˙n ta¿cei. 1:2 o§ß e˙martu/rhsen to\n lo/gon touv qeouv 22:7a kai« i˙dou\ e¶rcomai tacu/. kai« th\n marturi÷an "Ihsouv Cristouv o¢sa ei•den. 1:3 Maka¿rioß oJ aÓnaginw¿skwn kai« oi˚ 22:7b maka¿rioß oJ thrw◊n tou\ß lo/gouß thvß aÓkou/onteß tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß kai« throuvnteß ta» e˙n aujthØv gegramme÷na, oJ ga»r kairo\ß e˙ggu/ß. profhtei÷aß touv bibli÷ou tou/tou. The table above shows that kai« i˙dou\ e¶rcomai tacu/, the saying of Jesus in 22:7a, stands as the primary aspect of what is entailed by the things that John saw and to which he bore witness in 1:2. Thus, the i˙dou\ e¶rcomai of 22:7 is repetitive text that alludes to the i˙dou\ e¶rcetai of 1:7. 2.3 Revelation 1:7-8 and Its Place in the Literary Structure of Revelation We will now examine the literary structure of Revelation and the ways in which Rev 1:7-8 fits in that structure and functions as the multivalent thematic statement. We will first examine cross-references and chain-link interlock in Revelation and use them to construct an outline of Revelation. After constructing the outline in a table, we will see how Rev 1:7-8 functions as the thematic statement of Revelation according to the literary structure of the discourse. 2.3.1 Cross-References and Chain-Link Interlock in Revelation Cross-references by means of repetitions and common symbols are a feature of the Jewish scriptures and a feature of Revelation.34 This system of cross-references is rooted in 34 For cross-references (interlocking) as a feature of the Jewish scriptures, see Michael Fishbane, “The Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Jan Mulder; CRINT 2/1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 356. Alter, Art, 88-113, investigates the phenomenon of the various techniques of repetition used in narrative in the Hebrew Bible and isolates five: Leitwort (word root), motif, theme, sequence of actions, and type-scene (the repetition of a key event in the life of a character). See also Sternberg, Poetics, 365-440. Vernon K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 53-54, notes, “On the side of biblical and Jewish tradition, verbatim repetitive forms in prophetic documents programmatically remind the reader of the socio-rhetorical pattern of the prophet of the Lord, who is the major actor in the document.” Robbins (56-57) points out that these repetitive forms may occur in a narrative about prophets such as the Elijah-Elisha narrative and in the prophetic literature. In the Elijah-Elisha 50 the Jewish exegetical practice of g§zeœraœh s¥aœwaœh, which is a valuable key for interpreting the allusions in Revelation.35 This Jewish exegetical technique means that an interpreter uses key catchwords (i.e., the same words or phrases) to link scriptures together to interpret one another. In essence, an analogy based on identical or similar words is formed.36 Crossreferences in Revelation (a single word, a phrase, a clause, or a sentence) are literary markers that consist of texts that are linked with other texts in Revelation to form part of a complex network of structure and interpretation of the entire text.37 A cross-reference, which may or may not be an allusion to the Jewish scriptures, may be used to foretell, to foreshadow, to connect themes by summary or expansion, or to function as flashback.38 However, each new cross-reference serves as a hermeneutical precedent that increases in meaning in the text. narrative, examples are “thus says Yhwh (the God of Israel),” “Hear the word of Yhwh,” “As Yhwh (the God of Israel, your God) lives,” “before whom I stand,” “whom I serve,” and “according to the word of Yhwh (which he spoke by Elijah [or Elisha].” In the prophetic literature, examples are “the word of Yhwh came to,” “the word of Yhwh came to me,” “Yhwh (he) said to me,” “thus says Yhwh,” “hear the word of Yhwh,” “says Yhwh (God of hosts),” “in/on that day,” “behold the days are coming says Yhwh,” and “as I live (says Yhwh).” 35 Bauckham, Climax, 29; Fekkes, Isaiah, 285. 36 For the author of the Apocalypse, g§zeœraœh s¥aœwaœh functions on two levels: (1) combining Jewish scriptures by means of these catchwords in Revelation; and (2) writing a work that requires the interpreter to employ this exegetical technique. Other studies have concentrated on the use of this technique in Jewish exegesis and Christian exegesis. Brewer, Techniques, 17-18; Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 12-17. 37 Allusions in Revelation are embedded in a complex literary network that was meant to be studied, not merely heard. Bauckham, Theology, 3-4, 18; idem, Climax, 1-2; Matthias Reinhard Hoffmann, The Destroyer and the Lamb: The Relationship between Angelmorphic and Lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation (WUNT 2/203; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005), 253; Sweet, Revelation, 13. Collins, Crisis, 44, suggests that “more sensitive or learned members” of the churches and teachers could have helped other members understand the Apocalypse. Regarding this complex literary network, J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20 (JSNTSup 70; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 13, observes, “Revelation consists of a system of references that progressively build up hermeneutical precedents in the text, precedents that precondition the meaning of each new passage in highly significant ways.” In varying degrees a number of scholars have recognized this complex system of cross-references in Revelation: Aune, New Testament, 241; David L. Barr, “The Apocalypse of John in the Light of Modern Narrative Theory,” in 1900th Anniversary of St. John’s Apocalypse: Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Symposium (Athens – Patmos, 17-26 September 1995 (Athens, 1999), 264-65; Bauckham, Climax, 20-22; Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (HDR 9; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976), 16-19; Corsini, Apocalypse, 123-24; Farrer, Rebirth, 18; Fekkes, Isaiah, 283; Edith M. Humphrey, “In Search of a Voice: Rhetoric through Sight and Sound in Revelation 11:15–12:17,” in Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse (ed. L. Gregory Bloomquist and Greg Carey; St. Louis: Chalice, 1999), 142; idem, And I Turned, 172; Moyise, Revelation, 105, 105 n. 53, 106; Sweet, Revelation, 13. 38 Foreshadowing: Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext (SNTSMS 72; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 83, says that foreshadowing is subtler than foretelling, and this distinction is useful. Revelation has many examples of foreshadowing. For example, the phrase “New Jerusalem” in 3:12 foreshadows the detailed description of the New Jerusalem in 21:2–22:5. Another example is the first mention of the beast in Rev 11:5, which foreshadows what is said of the beast in Revelation 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 51 As a part of this system of cross-references, chain-link interlock, an ancient rhetorical device, is used in Rev 1:7-8 and other parts of Revelation.39 Many scholars have recognized the phenomenon of cross-references in Revelation, but chain-link interlock is a specific form of cross-reference.40 In addition, scholars working with Revelation and other ancient texts recognize this kind of transitional device or similar ones, but they use different terms.41 For these texts, chain-link interlock is a transitional device that follows the rhetorical pattern that 20. Yet another example is the fall of Babylon, which is mentioned briefly in 14:8 and described in detail in chapters 17 and 18. Cf. Bauckham, Theology, 41; Swete, Apocalypse, 246. Summary or expansion: Fekkes, Isaiah, 283. Flashback: In terms of narrative criticism, foretelling may be regarded as prolepsis while flashback may be regarded as analepsis. In the Jewish scriptures retrospective exposition is employed to refer to an event that occurred before the preceding narrative. An example is Yhwh’s call to Abram to leave Ur (Gen 12:1-3), which is placed after the death of Terah in Haran (Gen 11:32), even though the call to Abram occurs before the death of Terah. 39 Bruce W. Longenecker, Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament Chain-Link Transitions (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005). Longenecker (11-20) mentions two prominent examples in ancient literature on chain-link interlock: Quintilian and Lucian. Longenecker (15) notes that these two rhetoricians’ writings are not isolated examples: “There are strong indicators, then, that Lucian’s transitional technique has precedent within the rhetorical schools of the first century. It is important to note in this regard that neither Lucian nor Quintilian gives any indication that this technique for transitional clarity and artistry is original to himself. In each case, the technique is mentioned without much clarification or elaboration. This suggests that it must have been a recognized practice, and perhaps a common one, in the ancient world.” In 95 CE Quintilian says that a person’s oration should be marked out by “a certain continuity of motion and connection of style. All its members are to be closely linked together, while the fluidity of its style gives it great variety of movement; we may compare its motion to that of people who link hands to steady their steps, and lend each other mutual support” (Inst. 9.4.129). Longenecker’s modified translation of H. E. Butler, Quintilian (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 3:579-81. Lucian of Samosata (c. 125–180 CE) writes concerning how to connect texts (How to Write History 2:133), “[T]hough all parts must be independently perfected, when the first is complete the second will be brought into essential connection with it, and attached like one link of a chain to another; there must be no possibility of separating them; no mere bundle of parallel threads; the first is not simply to be next to the second, but part of it, their extremities intermingling.” H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, The Works of Lucian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905). After his extensive examination of the literary evidence, Longenecker (15) concludes that this evidence “is suggestive of a broad currency for chain-link interlock in the ancient world.” 40 Aune, New Testament, 241, briefly mentions this specific kind of interlock by referring to “the technique of interlocking (the use of transitional texts that conclude one section and introduce another).” 41 Collins, Combat Myth, 16-19, 49 n. 64, refers to the technique of interlocking, and she adapts her term from Allo’s more general term loi de l’emboîtement (“law of nesting”). Collins (16-17) provides the example of how the initial vision and audition in Rev 1:9–3:22 serves the dual function of continuing the epistolary introduction (1:4-6) and pointing forward by means of the author’s being in the spirit in 1:10 to his being in the spirit in Revelation 4. Without using the term “chain-link interlock,” Van Neste, Cohesion, 14-16, describes the same transitional literary device in detail in his study of the pastoral epistles, and he (15) states, “What is common in these transitional devices is the intermingling of prominent words or phrases at the extremities of two units in order to create a connection.” In terms of discourse analysis, Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse Analysis (CTL; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 94-95, expect transition between distinct units of text, stating, “Between two contiguous pieces of discourse which are intuitively considered to have two different ‘topics’, there should be a point at which the shift from one topic to the next is marked.” For narratives, they (97-98) point out that adverbial expressions (e.g., “then,” “after”) can indicate topic shifts. 52 was broadly used in the first and second centuries CE.42 In its simplest form, chain-link interlock is an overlap of text units that often follows the pattern of A-b-a-B.43 In this pattern the major text unit of A is followed by the overlap text of b and a, with b pointing forward to the major text unit of B and with a pointing backward to the major text unit of A. The major text unit of B ends the sequence.44 Chain-link interlock can be represented by this chart: Text Unit a Text Unit A (retrospective) Text Unit b Text Unit B (anticipatory) Chart 1: Chain-Link Interlock Lexical or thematic repetition is central to chain-link interlock. As Ray van Neste notes concerning transitional devices, “it is common in a new unit (or sentence) to repeat, or 42 Longenecker, Rhetoric, 9, triangulates assorted texts to demonstrate of the use of chain-link interlock: (1) Greco-Roman rhetoricians of the first and second century CE; (2) texts that precede or are contemporary with the New Testament (e.g., Old Testament, Philo, Plutarch, Josephus, 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Abraham); and (3) selected passages from the New Testament. He succeeds in showing that some ancient texts have this pattern of chain-link interlock. Although he succeeds in demonstrating his overall thesis, his triangulation of evidence is weak at points. Andrew W. Pitts, “Review: Longenecker Rhetoric at the Boundaries,” JGRChJ 3 (2006): R58-59, explains the weakness of this approach in isolation: “Clearly, in understanding the partitioning of large units of text we need to take into consideration more than just sections of overlapping material. Patterns of semantic continuity (e.g. process and participant patterns), topical and lexical cohesion, discourse markers, prominence, referential continuity, and the rhetorical strategy of the author must all be weighed and given considerable attention in the determination of global- and local-level structural divisions. The contribution of linguistic features to the creation of units in a text is multifactoral and should not be based entirely on one construction.” Nevertheless, Pitts (R59) sees the value of Longenecker’s contribution: “I question whether it is a rhetorical category per se and whether the ancient theoreticians would have been familiar with it as such. I do, however, agree with the essence of Longenecker’s thesis, that at paragraph or unit boundaries there is often an overlap of material that has anticipatory and retrospective elements.” 43 Longenecker, Rhetoric, 18. Longenecker (21-42) says that chain-link interlock has a relationship with other ancient rhetorical devices (inclusio, chiasm, foreshadowing, alternation, climax and catchword associations, anticipatory transitions, retrospective transitions, transitio, the bridge paragraph). However, he (44) says that chain-link interlock differs from these devices in the matter of the use of overlapping text that is composed of anticipatory and retrospective transitions. 44 As noted by Longenecker, Rhetoric, 113-14, Rev 3:21-22 is a simple use of chain-link interlock. In v. 21 the text about the conquering saint (oJ nikw◊n) sitting with the exalted Christ in his throne (met" e˙mouv e˙n twˆ◊ qro/nwˆ mou) points forward to Christ’s conquering in 5:5 (i˙dou\ e˙ni÷khsen oJ le÷wn oJ e˙k thvß fulhvß "Iou/da) and the emphasis on the qro/noß in heaven (4:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10; 5:1, 6, 7, 11, 13). In 3:22 the text points backward to the recurrent exhortation, “The one who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13). 53 in some way to link back to, information from a previous unit (or sentence).”45 In regard to this phenomenon, Bruce Longenecker notes, “It needs to be emphasized that chain-link construction is marked out exclusively by the overlapping of material (via content repetition or a gesture of some kind) at the boundary of two text units, not simply by the crossing of the text-unit boundary by material without an interlock being formed.”46 2.3.2 An Outline of Revelation With this background in cross-references and chain-link interlock, we are ready to construct an outline of Revelation. Scholars differ in their outlines of Revelation and have failed to reach consensus on its entire literary structure, so any outline is a schematic attempt to reflect this complex literary work. Revelation’s literary complexity and density of meaning are probably the result of multiple, coextensive outlines, although some outlines are clearly subordinate to others.47 Despite some level of fluidity among outlines, our outline below has the following strengths: (1) its basis in objective linguistic criteria, not subjective thematic criteria as in the case of chiastic outlines;48 (2) a structure recognizable in oral performance;49 (3) the use of key repetitive linguistic indicators to begin or conclude text units or to indicate 45 Van Neste, Cohesion, 14. Longenecker, Rhetoric, 19. 47 On the various outlines of Revelation, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, xci; Beale, Revelation, 108; Collins, Combat Myth, 8; and Smalley, Revelation, 19. Aune, New Testament, 241, observes that Revelation “is more structurally complex than any other Jewish or Christian apocalypse, and has yet to be satisfactorily analyzed.” On the multiple, coextensive outlines, see Boyd Luter, “Interpreting the Book of Revelation,” in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues (ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 469. Similarly, Beale, Revelation, 108, refers to the outline of Revelation as having “structures within structures or perhaps different ‘levels’ of structure that are not mutually incompatible.” Beale (ibid.) notes the clear subordination of some outlines. 48 One problem concerns the identification of a macro-chiastic structure for Revelation as a whole. David A. deSilva, “X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses of Revelation,” JSNT 30 (2008): 306, 306 n. 35, notes that most commentaries (English, French, and German) in the last 40 years have not sought a macro-chiastic structure for Revelation.” Aune, “Chiasmus,” WDNT, 96, warns, “However, the precarious nature of macro-chiastic analysis, which includes the temptation to manipulate and massage individual textual units to make them fit into a larger structural pattern, makes this enterprise suspect. . . .” Witherington, Revelation, 19, is also critical of macro-chiasm for Revelation and instead speaks of “the book’s use of parallelism and to some degree of recapitulation.” Proposals for macro-chiasm for Revelation in its entirety have failed to convince most scholars. 49 Bauckham, Climax, 1-2. 46 54 transitions;50 (4) the use of multiple key linguistic indicators in contiguous verses or in a short textual unit; (5) the use of chain-link interlock; (6) and agreement with the generally recognized major divisions of Rev 1:1-8, Rev 1:9–3:22, and the epilogue in Revelation 22 (starting with v. 6 or v. 10).51 Our outline of Revelation follows: 50 Paulien, Decoding, 158, states, “The repetitive parallels [in Revelation] also indicate that the structure of the book is more central here than in most books of the New Testament.” Similarly, Osborne, Revelation, 54, refers to framing passages. Here are some of the notable linguistic indicators: (1) The phrase a± dei√ gene÷sqai (1:1; 4:1; 22:6) alludes to Daniel 2:28-29, 45 and divides Revelation into four sections: the prologue and initial vision (1:1-18), the messages to the seven churches in Asia (1:19–3:22), the apocalyptic and eschatological visions (4:1–22:5), and the epilogue and epistolary conclusion (22:6-21). Revelation 1:1 and 22:6 share the common phrase a± dei√ gene÷sqai e˙n ta¿cei, and 1:19 and 4:1 share a nearly verbatim phrase (1:19, a± me÷llei gi÷nesqai meta» tauvta; 4:1, a± dei√ gene÷sqai. meta» tauvta). Cf. Beale, John’s Use, 165-92; W. C. Van Unnik, “A Formula Describing Prophecy,” NTS 9 (1963): 86-94. (2) The only two occurrences of the nearly identical clauses (oJ ga»r kairo\ß e˙ggu/ß, 1:3; oJ kairo\ß ga»r e˙ggu/ß e˙stin, 22:10) mark the prologue and the epilogue. (3) The lexeme aÓnoi÷gw introduces or concludes sections related to the opening of heaven or heavenly realities (door in heaven, 4:1; the temple of God in heaven, 11:19; the temple of the tent of witness, 15:5; heaven, 19:11). (4) The phrase e˙n pneu/mati (“in spirit”) describes the author’s spiritual experiences in 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; and 21:10. Two verses are closely united by the expression e˙geno/mhn e˙n pneu/mati (1:9; 4:2) and the change to the author’s first-person monologue. In 1:9 the author’s monologue follows the words spoken by God in 1:8, and in 4:1 the author’s monologue follows the words of the exalted Christ in 1:17b–3:22. (5) Two sections are closely united by the similar (underlined text) text that uses e˙n pneu/mati in a clause: kai« aÓph/negke÷n me ei˙ß e¶rhmon e˙n pneu/mati (17:3) and kai« aÓph/negke÷n me e˙n pneu/mati e˙pi« o¡roß me÷ga (21:10). (6) The use of to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° is an inclusio in 1:8 and 21:6 that frames the entire discourse. Bauckham, Theology, 27. (7) Conjugations of oJra¿w are used at key places in Revelation: the word ei•don (“I saw”), the phrase kai« ei•don (“and I saw”), and w‡fqh (“appeared”). Although the frequency of kai« ei•don argues against its significance when it occurs alone, use of accompanying indicators points to key uses of kai« ei•don in 4:1; 17:3; and 19:11. The only three uses of w‡fqh occur in 11:19; 12:1; and 12:3, which is a transitional section (11:19 as concluding and 12:1 as beginning). (8) The phrase tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß is used in chain-link interlock and in the marking of a beginning of a text unit (1:3, 22:7, 10, 18). (9) The only two occurrences of the extended phrase to\n lo/gon touv qeouv kai« th\n marturi÷an "Ihsouv mark the beginning of two sections (1:2 [with Cristouv at the end], 9). 51 On Rev 1:9–3:22, see Beckwith, Apocalypse, 255-61; and Osborne, Revelation, 30. The following outlines are in general agreement on Revelation 1–3 and the epilogue of Revelation 22, although the start of the epilogue is debated as to its start (either v. 6 or v. 10): Aune, Revelation 1–5, c-cv; Bauckham, Climax, 21-22; Collins, Combat Myth, 19. 55 Table 4: An Outline of Revelation Section Prologue (1:1-8) Linguistic Indicators for Start of Text Unit 52 a± dei√ gene÷sqai (1:1) to\n lo/gon touv qeouv kai« th\n marturi÷an "Ihsouv Cristouv (1:2) tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß (1:3) Chain-Link Interlock A: oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß (v. 4) b: "Idou\ e¶rcetai Linguistic Indicators for End of Text Unit to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° (1:8; inclusio with 21:6) meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n (v. 7) a: oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß (v. The author’s initial vision (1:9–3:22) to\n lo/gon touv qeouv kai« th\n marturi÷an "Ihsouv (1:9) e˙n pneu/mati (1:10) 8) B: o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou (v. 13) A: ÔO e¶cwn ou™ß aÓkousa¿tw ti÷ to\ pneuvma le÷gei tai√ß e˙kklhsi÷aiß (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13) b: ÔO nikw◊n (3:21) ÔO e¶cwn ou™ß aÓkousa¿tw ti÷ to\ pneuvma le÷gei tai√ß e˙kklhsi÷aiß (3:22; the seventh in a series) met" e˙mouv e˙n twˆ◊ qro/nwˆ mou (3:21) a: ÔO e¶cwn ou™ß aÓkousa¿tw ti÷ to\ pneuvma le÷gei tai√ß e˙kklhsi÷aiß (3:22) B: i˙dou\ e˙ni÷khsen oJ le÷wn (5:5) 52 Various forms of qro/noß (4:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10; 5:1, 6, 7, 11, 13) None God’s glory and sovereign plan of salvation and judgment (4:1– 11:19) kai« i˙dou\ qu/ra hjnewˆgme÷nh e˙n twˆ◊ oujranwˆ◊ (4:1, the lexeme aÓnoi÷gw) a± dei√ gene÷sqai (4:1) e˙n pneu/mati (4:2) The lexeme aÓnoi÷gw in 11:19 God’s war with Satan and his forces (12:1– 16:21) Babylon the whore and its destruction (17:1–19:10) New words: shmei√on and w‡fqh (12:1) None ca¿laza mega¿lh in deuvro (17:1) e˙n pneu/mati (17:3) None th\n marturi÷an "Ihsouv in 19:10 16:21 (11:19) (1:2, 9; 12:17) Beale, Revelation, 87, states that allusions to Dan 2:28-29 are used to “punctuate the book at major divisional transitions” (1:1; 1:19; 4:1; 22:6). 56 Section Jesus’ cosmic parousia and the establishment of God’s order (19:11–21:8) The new Jerusalem (21:9– 22:9)53 Linguistic Indicators for Start of Text Unit Chain-Link Interlock Linguistic Indicators for End of Text Unit Kai« ei•don to\n oujrano\n hjnewˆgme÷non None to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° Kai« h™lqen ei–ß e˙k tw◊n e˚pta» aÓgge÷lwn tw◊n e˙co/ntwn ta»ß e˚pta» fia¿laß (21:9, verbatim A: ou∞toi oi˚ lo/goi ou∞toi oi˚ lo/goi pistoi« kai« aÓlhqinoi÷ (21:5; (19:11, the lexeme aÓnoi÷gw) in 17:1) deuvro (21:9, verbatim in 17:1)54 e˙n pneu/mati (21:10) pistoi« kai« aÓlhqinoi (21:5) a: ou∞toi oi˚ lo/goi pistoi« kai« aÓlhqinoi (22:6) b: i˙dou\ e¶rcomai tacu/ (22:7) tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß touv bibli÷ou tou/tou (21:6, inclusio with 1:8) 22:6) dei√xai toi√ß dou/loiß aujtouv a± dei√ gene÷sqai e˙n ta¿cei (1:1; 22:6) (22:7) B: i˙dou\ e¶rcomai tacu/ (22:12) tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß touv bibli÷ou tou/tou (22:10, 18) Epilogue (22:1021) tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß in 22:10 (verbatim in 1:3) oJ kairo\ß ga»r e˙ggu/ß e˙stin (22:10, oJ ga»r kairo\ß e˙ggu/ß in 1:3) Chain-link interlock works with the pattern of A-b-a-B in Rev 1:7-8 to connect it with 1:1-6 and 1:9–3:22. The table below shows that the interlocked text units use the cohesive devices of verbatim repetition of text and repetition of the source text to point to the major text units. In the vertical progression in the table below, text-unit interlocked b of v. 7 is noted first, and then text-unit interlocked a of v. 8 follows: 53 Revelation 22:6-9 does not conform to the normal A-b-a-B pattern and reflects other literary complexities, but it is still an example of chain-link interlock. One indication that 22:6-9 is a pivotal section is the inclusio of KaÓgw» "Iwa¿nhß in 22:8 with its earlier occurrence in 1:9. This inclusio is used to frame the text, but on a secondary level. François Bovon, “John’s Self-presentation in Revelation 1:9-10,” CBQ 62 (2000): 697, notes how the inclusio in 22:8 is used “to reassure the readers of the narrator’s function. . . .” 54 The particle deuvro occurs only twice in Revelation (17:1; 21:9). 57 Table 5: Chain-Link Interlock in Revelation 1:7-8 Text Unit A Interlocked b Interlocked a Rev 1:1-6 Rev 1:7 Rev 1:8 (anticipatory) (retrospective) Text Unit B Rev 1:9-20 oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß (v. 4) "Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n (allusion to Dan 7:13)55 oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou (v. 13; allusion to Dan 7:13) The anticipatory link between "Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n in v. 7 and o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in v. 13 is strong because the two sets of words allude to the same subject, which is the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13. As such, the two allusions to Dan 7:13 form a semantic chain of co-reference.56 In the case of 1:7 and 1:13, the co-reference is to the figure of the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13. Thus, interlocked text b points in anticipation to the author’s initial vision (1:9-20) and to the seven prophetic messages (2:1–3:22). In contrast, interlocked text a points back to the introduction (1:1-6). Examining the rhetoric of Revelation 1–3 but failing to see the connection to 1:9-20, John Kirby says, “1. 7-8 stands as a sort of heading to the narrative portion following (1. 9-20) that describes the circumstances of John’s first vision: that of the resurrected Jesus in glory and power.”57 The chain-link interlock of Rev 1:7 points forward to Rev 1:13 and therefore connects 1:7-8 with 1:9–3:22 and all sections linked with 1:9–3:22. 55 The implied subject of e¶rcetai is “one like a son of man.” In this case, the semantic chain (co-reference) is to the shared allusion to Dan 7:13. This is based on Reed’s definition of semantic chain as “a set of discourse lexemes each of which is related to the others by the semantic relation of co-reference, co-classification and/or co-extension.” J. T. Reed, “The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Towards a Model of Linguistic Criteria for Analyzing New Testament Discourse,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter and J. T. Reed; JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 43. 57 John T. Kirby, “The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3,” NTS 34 (1988): 198. 56 58 The embedding of Rev 1:7-8 at the end of the prologue of Revelation (1:1-8) serves three major functions, as in other ancient prologues.58 First, an ancient prologue establishes the overarching framework for understanding a discourse.59 Revelation 1:7-8 establishes this framework in two ways. First, it provides the dominant theme of the coming of Jesus Christ. Second, it features the inclusio of v. 8 and 21:6 (to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w°). Revelation 1:8 and 21:5-8 are the only places in Revelation that explicitly state that God is speaking. These two instances of God’s speech in Revelation emphasize these text units and closely related text, and in some ways Rev 21:5-8 may be considered the climax of the narrative of Revelation.60 In this vein, David Aune says, “Since elsewhere in the book God speaks only in 1:8, this relatively lengthy divine pronouncement is extremely important.”61 Aune further states that “the speech is a summative pastiche of phrases and motifs found earlier in the book.”62 In addition, the importance of 1:8 is seen in the repetition of to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° in 1:8 and 21:6 as an inclusio that frames Revelation as a whole. The expression to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° is a merism. As a rhetorical device, this merism in 1:8 and 21:6 means that God encompasses all that is between the first letter and the last letter, so the description of God as to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° shows that God, as the first and the last, is sovereign over all the events between 1:8 and 21:8.63 Finally, Richard Bauckham sees the significance of 1:8 when he says, “This strategically placed verse incorporates three of the four most important designations for God in Revelation.”64 58 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 5; Beale, Revelation, 108; Osborne, Revelation, 50; Smalley, Revelation, 21, 26; Swete, Apocalypse, xxxviii. On the relevance of comparing prologues of the Jesus movement literature with Greek drama, see Jo-Ann A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2004), 17-26; and G. G. Bilezikian, The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977). 59 Camery-Hogatt, Irony, 78, notes that prologues help establish the overarching conceptual framework for understanding a story or a play. 60 Aune, Prophecy, 280. 61 Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 66. 62 Ibid., 66. 63 Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 66-67; Beale, Revelation, 1055; Osborne, Revelation, 738. 64 Bauckham, Theology, 71. 59 Second, an ancient prologue mentions in varying detail the primary theme or themes of the discourse.65 Revelation 1:7-8 reflects this thematic function with its inclusive language and liturgical dialogue (see §2.6 below). Third, an ancient prologue seeks to show that of which the author or rhetor is attempting to persuade his audience.66 The author accomplishes this aspect of persuasion by linking v. 7 and v. 13, with the latter verse depicting the appearance of the one like a son of man to John. This appearance of the exalted Christ to John on Patmos guarantees the promise of his coming in v. 7. 2.4 The Distinctiveness of Revelation 1:7-8 In regard to its preceding context, the distinctiveness of Rev 1:7-8 marks it as the multivalent thematic statement of Revelation. One distinctive feature that marks vv. 7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement is the micro-genre of vv. 7-8 as prophetic oracles. As typical of doxologies in the Jesus movement literature, the doxology of 1:5d-6 functions to conclude a unit of text and thus functions as a self-contained unit of text.67 However, epistolary language does not follow this doxology. Instead, two prophetic oracles drive the discourse in a startling new direction and capture the audience’s attention. Indeed, the placement of prophetic oracles following an epistolary 65 Malcolm Heath, “Invention,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.–A.D. 400) (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 103, says, “The prologue’s primary function is to establish the desired relationship with one’s audience; this is generally held to entail rendering them attentive, receptive and well-disposed. To this end the speaker may exploit favourable aspects of the theme, or seek to disarm unfavourable ones.” 66 In regard to ancient narratives, Robbins, Exploring, 21, mentions that ancient rhetoricians believed that not only speeches but also stories contained argumentative devices to persuade its audience. 67 Champion, Benedictions, 91, notes that such benedictions and doxologies appear to be a formulation that is in continuity with both the Old Testament and Judaism, not a new formulation of the early Jesus movement. On 1:5d-6 concluding a unit of text, see Aune, New Testament, 193. Cf. Champion, Benedictions, 36; Peter T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 549; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup 101; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 141. On a self-contained unit of text, see Champion, Benedictions, 36. Given the verbatim agreement of Rev 1:6 and 1 Pet 5:11 (aujtwˆ◊ hJ do/xa kai« to\ kra¿toß ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß [tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn], aÓmh/n.), it is almost certain that the author of Revelation has incorporated material that many followers of Jesus were familiar with in the churches in Asia Minor. Champion, Benedictions, 36, remarks that the Pauline benedictions and doxologies “contain forms of speech which were in general use in the religious vocabulary of Christians and which were not necessarily original with Paul.” 60 opening and a doxology lacks precedent in the literature of the Jesus movement, so Rev 1:7-8 is unique in that respect.68 The abruptness of Rev 1:7-8 marks it as the thematic statement of Revelation. A number of scholars note this abrupt style. For instance, David Aune points out the two verses’ abrupt, distinct, and determinative function, saying, “Their unconventional use at this point abruptly presents the hearers with the two focal concerns of the author: the juridical function of the imminent Parousia (v. 7), and the divine authority of this prophetic book (v. 8). . . .”69 Likewise, Leonard Thompson notes that the “oracular, cryptic style” of the two prophetic sayings stands in contrast with “the matter-of-fact style” of vv. 1-6 and thus prepares the audience for the contents of Revelation.70 Concerning the disruptive and meaningful motto of vv. 7-8, Wilhelm Bousset observes: Die Verse 7–8 durchbrechen den Zusammenhang zwar störend. Aber es ist kein Grund abzusehen, weshalb nicht der Apokalyptiker sich hier unterbrochen haben könnte, um in einem kurzen Motto den Inhalt seiner Schrift zu charakterisieren und auf den hohen Ernst und die Bedeutung des geweissagten hinzuweisen. . . .71 In addition, Michael Shepherd observes, “Seemingly out of nowhere a quote from Dan 7:13 occurs (Rev 1:7). . . . The verses between the salutation and the letter body come across almost as an afterthought. It is as if the author completed the book only to return to the beginning and insert these verses as a fitting, programmatic stamp.”72 Commenting on these verses, Frederick Murphy notes, “From time to time the prophetic spirit overwhelms him so that oracles emerge in the text that seem somewhat out of place.”73 Moreover, as Bruce Longenecker observes, abruptness sometimes characterizes chain-link interlock, which occurs 68 Frederick J. Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation to John (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 77. 69 Aune, New Testament, 241. 70 Thompson, Revelation, ANTC, 47. 71 Bousset, Offenbarung, 222. Translation: “Verses 7-8 interrupt the context in a jarring manner. Still there is no reason to foresee why not the seer could have stopped here to characterize the content of his work through a short catchphrase, and to allude to the high seriousness and importance of the prophecy.” 72 Michael B. Shepherd, “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man,” WTJ 68 (2006): 110. 73 Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon, 77. 61 here (§2.3.1), and serves to arrest the audience’s attention and cause them to think about the literary structure and argument of the text.74 Another literary feature of Rev 1:7-8 that distinguishes it from its immediate context is the poetry of v. 7. In his analysis Stanislav Segert lists v. 7 as a poetic passage, the first of many poetic passages in Revelation.75 In the case of v. 7, part of the poetic structure probably results from the poetic apocalyptic description of Dan 7:13-14.76 Likewise regarding the Greek text of v. 7 as poetry, the scholars of Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland, 27th ed.), and the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 4th ed.) arrange the verse as a four-line stanza that is followed by a concluding affirmation (nai÷, aÓmh/n.): "Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n, kai« o¡yetai aujto\n pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß kai« oiºtineß aujto\n e˙xeke÷nthsan, kai« ko/yontai e˙p" aujto\n pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß. nai÷, aÓmh/n. The features of Greek poetry found in v. 7 serve several important purposes in establishing it as part of the multivalent thematic statement. First, the repetition of sounds and words in the poetry of v. 7 emphasizes the content of this verse and therefore serves as a mnemonic device.77 Second, the poetry of v. 7 signals to the audience that they are entering a richly symbolic world. As poetic language, Rev 1:7 exhibits the perspectival individuality of its 74 Longenecker, Rhetoric, 47. Stanislav Segert, “Semitic Poetic Structures in the New Testament,” ANRW 25.2:1433. By looking at UBS3 and NA26, he has identified the following as poetic passages in Revelation: 1:7; 3:7; 4:8, 11; 5:9-10, 12, 13; 7:5-8, 10, 12, 14-17; 10:5-6; 11:15, 17-18; 12:10-12; 13:9-10; 14:4-5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15; 15:3-4; 16:5-6, 7; 18:2-3, 4-8, 10, 14, 16, 19-20, 21-24; 19:1-2, 3, 5, 6-8; 21:3-4. 76 Ibid., 25.2:1441. 77 On poetry as a mnemonic device, see Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism, 81; and Thomas, Literacy, 113-17. In her treatment of poetry, memory, and performance in Greece, Thomas (114) notes, “Ancient writers are acutely aware of the importance of memory.” Concerning the poetry of Rev 1:7, the diphthong ai is prominent in this stanza. The diphthong αι functions as an epiphora (the repetition of the final sound in two or more words) in three verbs (e¶rcetai, o¡yetai, ko/yontai), in the adjective pa◊sai, in the noun fulai/, and in the particle nai÷. The diphthong ai is also seen in the three uses of kai÷ and in the article ai˚. Repetition of words is also seen in the two occurrences of kai÷ to begin a clause and the three occurrences of aujto\n in v. 7b-d. 75 62 author—something that non-poetic language does not do—and it possesses semantic tension and semantic plenitude, which contribute to multivalence.78 Second, like the prophetic poetry in the Jewish scriptures, the poetry of Rev 1:7 directly and powerfully addresses the audience and emblazons the passage in their memory as the multivalent thematic statement.79 The combined effect of the oral patterns (the repetition of words, topics, and sounds) helps the listeners of Revelation to retain the central theme that unfolds in the rest of the discourse.80 In addition, this repetition fosters the memory of important concepts and inspires the audience for experiential appropriation.81 In fostering memory and inspiring its listeners, Revelation serves a transformational purpose.82 Third, the poetry of v. 7 provides unifying words and themes for the remainder of the document.83 Finally, Kendell Easley recognizes that Rev 1:7 is the “first poetry” of Revelation while also being its “theme verse, or ‘thesis statement.’”84 78 Philip Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 50, 51, 57. Concerning New Testament poetry, James L. Bailey and James L. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 81, say, “Here the purpose is not tight definition but stimulation, getting the reader to wrestle with the images and moods generated by the poetic experience. . . . The numerous metaphors and symbols employed indicate that meaning is open-ended, dependent to a certain extent upon the creativity of the interpreter.” 79 Alter, Art, 155, notes the impact of prophetic poetry: “It is obvious enough why the Prophets should have used poetry, with its resonances, emphases, significant symmetries, and forceful imageries, to convey their vision, for prophetic poetry is a form of direct address which is heightened, made memorable and almost inexorable through the rhetorical resources of formal verse.” More broadly, Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor: MultiDisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (trans. Robert Czerny, Kathleen McLaughlin, and John Costello; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 209, discusses the power of poetic language and mentions the power of a verbal icon to present “an experience that is completely immanent to it.” 80 Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism, 57. 81 Along this line concerning repetition in discourse, Merritt, “Repetition,” 34, says, “In all these ways repetition develops familiarity, even for unusual or abstract items. Familiarity provides a base for experiential reachability.” 82 The oral character of Revelation needs to be stressed in any assessment of Revelation (§1.3.4). Thus, as Callahan, “Language,” 460, points out, “The auditors who came together to hear the Apocalypse were summoned to a transformative experience. Those first ancient auditors of the Apocalypse came together not merely to be informed, but to be transformed, to undergo a collective change in consciousness, an aspiration that makes modern individual and group reading practices trivial by comparison, with the possible exception of the reading of wills. Reading the Apocalypse aloud, and hearing the Apocalypse read aloud, was effectual: through exhortations and exclamations, threat and thunder, the reading of the Apocalypse moved its hearers, affected them; the text did something to them.” Italics original. In terms of orality, Rev 1:3 explicitly mentions the reader of the document. Scholars give varying estimates about the level of literacy in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 5, estimates that about one in ten persons could read. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 25, says that the oral character of the book serves to include the hearers in John’s symbolic world and persuade them of his visions. 83 Eric A. Havelock, “Oral Composition in the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles,” NLH 16 (1984): 183, notes, “The basic method for assisting the memory to retain a series of distinct meanings is to frame the first of them in 63 Another literary feature of Rev 1:7 that indicates its distinctiveness is the startling omission of the expected o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in v. 7. David Aune notes the “striking feature” of no explicit mention of “one like a son of man” from Daniel 7:13.85 This omission, especially in light of the later use of o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in 1:13 and 14:14, makes 1:7 all the more striking. In this respect, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza notes the important omission of o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in 1:7 and sees the omission in relation to its use in 1:13 and 14:14: Die Bezeichnung o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou, die der Christus in Apk 1, 13 und 14, 14 erhält, betont somit wie Dn 7, äth. Hen und 4 Esra seine enge Beziehung zu der eschatologischen Heilsgemeinde, für die sein Gericht das Heil bedeutet. Damit ist deutlich geworden, warum in Apk 1, 7 der Menschensohntitel nicht aufgenommen werden konnte, obwohl er wegen der Anklänge an Dn 7, 13 und der mit Mt 24, 30 gemeinsamen Tradition dem Verfasser bekannt sein dürfte. Wenn nämlich der Menschensohntitel nach dem theologischen Denken der Apk in besonderer Relation zur Gemeinde gebraucht und auf diese beschränkt wird, dann mußte ihn der Verfasser in Apk 1, 7 weglassen, da hier von der universalen, eschatologischen Offenbarung des Christus von den Völkern die Rede ist. Es sprechen also vor allem auch theologische Gründe dafür, daß der Verfasser die Verheißung von Apk 1, 7 aus der unchristlichen Tradition übernommen, den Menschensohtitel aber absichtlich weggelassen hat, weil dieser nach seinem Verständnis eng mit der Gemeinde verbunden ist.86 Schüssler Fiorenza notes that the author is intentional in his omission of one like a son of man in v. 7 and that the author stresses the universal, eschatological revelation in contrast with 1:13 and 14:14. She correctly notes the universal, eschatological revelation of Christ to the a way which will suggest or forecast a later meaning which will recall the first without being identical with it.” For an example of a Greek poem with a thematic statement and a unifying image, see Elizabeth Asmis, “Myth and Philosophy in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus,” GRBS 47 (2007): 414. 84 Easley, Revelation, 15. 85 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 52. 86 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 197. Translation: “The designation o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou, which Christ receives in Apoc 1, 13 and 14, 14, stresses, together with Dan 7, Ethopian Enoch and 4 Ezra, its connection to the eschatological community of salvation, for whom his judgment means salvation. Thus it becomes obvious why the Son of Man title could not be incorporated in Apoc 1, 7, even though it would have been familiar to the author because of the echoes of Dan 7, 13 and the mutual tradition of Matt 24, 30. If the Son of Man title, in the theological mindset of the Apocalypse, is not only used in particular relation to the church, but limited thereto, the author in Apoc 1, 7 would have to omit it, because here the language is of universal, eschatological revelation of the Christ of the nations. There are also, above all, theological reasons why the author has adopted the promise of Apoc 1, 7 from the non-Christian tradition, yet has intentionally omitted the Son of Man title, since this title, in his understanding, is closely bound with the church.” 64 people of the world in 1:7, but this revelation is not restricted to only one event or the nonChristian peoples of the world. The church is included in the prophetic saying of 1:7, as we will see later in our study (§2.6). The omission of o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou, which in classical rhetoric is called an ellipsis or a zeugma, serves at least three purposes.87 First, the omission highlights v. 7 when compared with vv. 1-6 because the first six verses feature an abundance of explicit subjects and objects: God, Jesus Christ, John, the seven churches in Asia, kingdom, priests. Second, the omission results in a cataphoric personal reference that points forward to the rest of the sentence and produces cohesion with an element in another discourse (in this case, Dan 7:13 and its context).88 Third, the omission highlights the source text, as is done in a window allusion (§1.4.4). As Steve Moyise notes, an ellipsis in an allusion can abbreviate the source text, highlight the omitted material, or redirect the emphasis to a less familiar text.89 Here in v. 7 the ellipsis highlights the omitted phrase from Dan 7:13 and prepares the audience for its use in Rev 1:13. 2.5 The Concentric Double-Ring Composition in Revelation 1:4-8 The use of concentric double-ring composition in vv. 4-8 indicates that Rev 1:7-8 is the thematic statement of Revelation and that v. 7 is the dominant verse.90 Ring composition 87 Galen O. Rowe, “Style,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.–A.D. 400) (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 135-36. 88 Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion, 56. Although one may argue that the implied subject of e¶rcetai in v. 7 has an antecedent in aujtwˆ◊ in v. 6 and its ultimate antecedent in "Ihsouv Cristouv in v. 5, the appearance of the particle i˙dou/ and the shift to the micro-genre of prophetic oracle produce a break with the preceding context. On cohesion with an element in another discourse, see Thomas, Lands and Peoples, 25-26. 89 Moyise, Revelation, 93. 90 By “concentric double-ring composition,” we mean that one inclusio is embedded within another inclusio. Aune, New Testament, 241, recognizes the use of “ring composition” in Revelation—a term that some New Testament scholars regard as equivalent to “chiasm.” Indeed, another way of viewing inclusio or ring composition (coterminous, in our view) is as a simple form of chiasm (ABA´). Aune, “Chiasmus,” WDNT, 94, defines chiasm as “the discovery of a focal text around which the author has arranged paired statements in concentric symmetry.” A chiasm may be composed of a single center (ABCB´A´) or a double center (ABCCB´A´). Aune, WDNT, “Ring composition,” 427, defines “ring composition” as “a term for introductory and concluding or summarizing phrases or sentences at the beginning and end of sections of a narrative, i.e., ‘framing sentences’. . . .” Edward George Newing, “A Rhetoric and Theological Analysis of the Hexateuch,” SEAJT 22 (1981): 2, provides a more helpful and detailed definition of inclusio, defining it as “the use of assonance of consonants and / or syllables, words and their pairs, phrases, clauses, sentences, and / or motifs, either singly or more often in multiples to bracket a sentence, set, paragraph, episode or pericope, narrative 65 (inclusio) directs the audience’s attention to the text within the literary framing devices for the purpose of identifying the central message.91 H. Parunak notes that inclusio is very helpful in an oral-aural culture for marking text for an audience.92 The concentric double-ring composition in vv. 4-8 exhibits significant verbatim lexical parallels, divides the passage into natural breaks, and highlights the central text (v. 7).93 The first ring composition is the tripartite title of God (oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß) in vv. 4 and 8 and focuses attention on the medial text.94 The second ring composition is the concluding aÓmh/n of v. 6 and the concluding aÓmh/n of v. 7e and focuses attention on the medial text of 7a-d. Thus, the two occurrences of aÓmh/n form an inclusio that frames v. 7a-d as the central statement. MonicaElena Herghelegiu notes how the prologue reaches a climax with v. 7: “Dieses prophetische Wort stellt den Höhepunkt des Prologs dar und drückt die gesamte Botschaft des Buches konzentriert aus. Es folgt dem ersten wichtigen christologischen Abschnitt des Buches section or cycle, block of laws, book, national epic, or the whole Hebrew or Christian Bibles, in order to define its limits.” 91 In regard to apocalypses, Aune, “Apocalypse of John,” 88, states, “Ring composition and chiasmic structures are also used in apocalypses to direct the attention of the audience to the texts within such frames. Apocalypses use these surface markers to enable the audience to progress from the periphery of the revelatory experience to the ‘innermost’ or highest mystery which the author wishes to communicate.” Aune (90-91) believes that the embedded speech of God in Rev 21:5-8 constitutes the central message of Revelation. Concerning chiasmus, John Breck, “Biblical Chiasmus: Exploring Structure for Meaning,” BTB 17 (1987): 71, states, “Because of this central focus, genuine chiasmus is able to set in relief the central idea or theme the writer tries to express.” Concerning ring composition in Greek poetry, E. Anne Mackay, Deidre Harrison, and Samantha Masters, “The Bystander at the Ringside: Ring-Composition in Early Greek Poetry and Athenian Black-Figure Vase-Painting,” in Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and Its Influence in the Greek and Roman World (ed. E. Anne Mackay; MSup 188; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 115, draw attention to its functions: “It is a contrastive device; an enclosing, framing device, focusing attention on a central element; a dividing device to mark off digressions and the like from the main thrust of the narrative; a device for imposing unity on disparate elements; quot homines, tot sententiae.” 92 H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,” Bib 62 (1981): 153-68. 93 We place the primary stress on verbatim lexical parallels. Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters (JSNTSup 111; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 33, says, “As a general rule, the greater the number of objective balances of vocabulary and syntax in potentially corresponding elements, the more likely there is to be an authentic chiasmus present.” In a similar vein, van Neste, Cohesion, 12, notes concerning chiasm, parallelism, and inclusio: “In each of these devices exact repetition is desired. The repetition of close synonyms or antonyms is also possible.” Likewise, deSilva, “X Marks the Spot?” 362, says, “Chiasmus is primarily a formal device.” The last word of v. 6, aÓmh/n, agrees with the second word of nai÷, aÓmh/n in v. 7, which form a double affirmation. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, 10. DeSilva, “X Marks the Spot?” 344 n. 1, offers three tentative possibilities for the role of the central text: main point, turning point, and summary point. 94 Beale, Revelation, 196; Smalley, Revelation, 38. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Redemption as Liberation: Apoc 1:5f. and 5:9f,” CBQ 36 (1974): 222, does not use the word “inclusio” but says that what God speaks in 1:8 connects back with the titles of God in 1:4. 66 (1,5-6) und wird von einem Gottesspruch (1,8) abgeschlossen.”95 As Ugo Vanni notes, the result of the two occurrences of inclusio is a literary structure that has a double center.96 The lexical parallels of the ring composition are summarized in the table below: Table 6: The Concentric Double-Ring Composition in Revelation 1:4-8 Section Verse Lexical Parallel A 4 oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß B 6 aÓmh/n B´ 7 aÓmh/n 97 A´ 8 oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß Vanni observes the unity that the chiastic structure imposes on vv. 4-8: “Lo schema presenta una struttura chiastica chiara, che abbraccia tutto il brano 1,4-8 e suggerisce una sua unità, che, però, rispetto all’eterogeneità reciproca dei quattro piccoli blocchi letterari, appare come sovrapposta ed estrinseca.”98 The striking thing that the foregoing table reveals is that the concentric double-ring composition isolates Rev 1:7a-d. The concluding aÓmh/n of v. 6 and the concluding aÓmh/n of v. 7 form a tighter framing device than the ring composition of oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß in vv. 4 and 8. The result of this ring composition based on multiple parallels, per Edward Newing’s definition (note 90 above), is to emphasis a central text, in this case v. 7a-d. 2.6 The Inclusive Language and Liturgical Dialogue of Revelation 1:4-8 The inclusive language and the liturgical dialogue of Rev 1:4-8 as part of an orally performed text (1:3; 22:18) indicate that Rev 1:7-8 functions as the multivalent thematic statement for the Apocalypse. In such an orally recited text such as Revelation, the most 95 Herghelegiu, Siehe, er kommt, 87. Translation: “This prophetic word represents the climax of the prologue and expresses the entire message of the book in a concentrated way. It follows the first major Christological section of the book (1:5-6) and is concluded by a divine oracle (1.8).” 96 Ugo Vanni, “Un esempio di dialogo liturgico in Ap 1:4-8,” Bib 57 (1976): 457. Michael Aelred Kavanaugh, Apocalypse 22:6-21 as Concluding Liturgical Dialogue (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1984), 117-18, concurs with Vanni’s assessment. 97 With variation in word order, this triadic description of God occurs elsewhere in Revelation (4:8; 11:17; 16:8), but only 1:4 and 1:8 have the exact phrase oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß. Bauckham, Climax, 32, notes the significance of the variations in word order for the theology of Revelation. 98 Vanni, “Esempio,” 457. Translation: “The scheme has a clear chiastic structure, covering the entire composition 1,4-8 and suggests a unity, which, however, compared to mutual heterogeneity of the four small literary blocks, appears to be superimposed and extrinsic.” 67 natural candidate for a thematic statement would be a text unit that directly addresses the audience and includes them in the performance. Such an inclusive address is clearly seen in 1:4-8. Inclusive pronouns such as “us” and “you” sweep the audience into a writer’s or speaker’s world, and such inclusion is seen in vv. 4-6, when the author uses the pronouns uJmi√n (“to you”) in v. 4, hJma◊ß (twice, “us”) and hJmw◊n (“our”) in v. 5, and hJma◊ß (“us”) in v. 6. 99 This language, especially in a prologue, thrusts the audience as participants into the story and also leads them to identify themselves with John, even to the point where they become John.100 These inclusive pronouns in vv. 4-6 provide a bridge to the inclusive language of universal scope found in the phrase pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß (“every eye”) of v. 7. By use of this universal language, the author moves outside of his textual framework and includes not only his audience but also the entire world in the pronouncement.101 In other words, the universal referent of pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß in Rev 1:7 is both the audience of the Apocalypse and the rest of the world. 99 Humphrey, And I Turned, 130; Brant, Dialogue, 24-25. As Bruce Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 9-13, note, an oral-aural culture is a high-context culture, which means that the performer and the audience share much and assume much concerning the story, so on this level alone the audience of Revelation is included. However, the level of audience inclusion goes deeper than high-context culture. When an audience heard Revelation read, they would tend to identify with characters in the text because the nature of oral performance in an oral culture is participatory for both the performer and the audience. As Ong, Orality, 45, notes, one of the psychodynamics of orality is that orality is “empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced.” Walter J. Ong, Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1977), 282, also observes that “public performance in an oral culture is participatory and essentially integrative. Speaker and audience and subject matter are raveled together in a kind of whole.” Furthermore, Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: FirstCentury Performance of Mark (New York: Trinity Press International, 2003), 171, refers to this phenomenon: “All dialogue performed in orally performed narrative is addressed at one and the same time to a character or group of characters in the story world and to listeners in the social world. This leads to a partial collapse of the distance between the narrative dialogue and the audience.” Similarly, Joanna Dewey, “The Gospel of Mark as an Oral-Aural Event: Implications for Interpretation,” in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (ed. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight; JSNTSup 109; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 154-57, speaks of “associative identification.” In this vein, Ugo Vanni, “The Ecclesial Assembly ‘Interpreting Subject’ of the Apocalypse,” RSB 4 (1984): 81, argues that “the ‘I’ of the author, of the reader, and of John coincide.” Along the same line, Maier, Apocalypse Recalled, 61, 61 n. 40, says that the audience becomes John. 101 See the example of Luke 2:38 cited in Humphrey, And I Turned, 123-24. 100 68 In line with this inclusive language, Rev 1:4-8 exhibits elements of a liturgical dialogue.102 Ugo Vanni proposes that 1:4-8 exhibits a liturgical dialogue, basing his argument on the author’s acknowledgment of the lector (oJ aÓnaginw¿skwn) and the assembly (oi˚ aÓkou/onteß) in v. 3, the sudden change in persons (vv. 4-5a; vv. 5b-6), and double use of 103 aÓmh/n (vv. 6-7). Michael Kavanaugh also sees a liturgical dialogue in 1:4-8, which provides a liturgical context for Revelation that ends with a liturgical dialogue in 22:6-21.104 In terms of Kavanaugh’s criteria, Rev 1:4-8 possesses liturgical character, dialogical character, apportionment of speakers, and functional purposes in the text unit and the rest of Revelation.105 Leonard Thompson also sees liturgical language incorporated into 1:4-8.106 The numerous parallels between the two sections point to liturgical language incorporated in both passages. Both the inclusive language and the liturgical dialogue of Rev 1:4-8 include the audience in the story. As attested by numerous passages in the literature of the early Jesus movement, the followers of Jesus said “Amen” at the end of prayers of thanksgiving, doxologies, and benedictions, and this “Amen” became a way for them to say vicariously the words spoken by the lector.107 As Ugo Vanni notes, the liturgical dialogue of Rev 1:4-8 serves two functions: Intesa nella sua forma dialogica, la pericope 1,4-8 permette de mettere adeguatamente in risalto la comunità ecclesiale come protagonista che interagisce, dialogando, col lettore, con Cristo, con Dio. Il dialogo liturgico, messo in evidenza all’inizio del libro, prepara la comunità ecclesiale a quella purificazione pentienziale che sarà il tema di fondo della Prima Parte 102 By “liturgical dialogue,” we are referring to the interactive declarations by two or more parties (e.g., a lector and the assembly) in a form or formulary for public worship by the early church. 103 Vanni, “Esempio,” 460-61. 104 Kavanaugh, Apocalypse 22:6-21, 117-21, 128. 105 Ibid., 124. 106 Thompson, Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 54-56. 107 Champion, Benedictions, 95. Prayers of thanksgiving: 1 Cor 14:16. Benedictions and doxologies: Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33; 16:27; Gal 1:5; 6:18; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; 1 Pet 4:11; 5:11; Jude 25; Rev 1:6; 5:14; 7:12. Some manuscripts, especially D, add aÓmh/n to certain doxologies: Rom 16:24; 1 Cor 16:24; 2 Cor 13:13; Eph 6:24; Phil 4:33; Col 4:18; 1 Thess 3:13; 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18; 1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22; Tit 3:15; Phlm 25; Heb 13:25; 1 Pet 5:19; 2 Pet 3:18. Cf. Did. 10:6. 69 dell’Apocalisse e al discernimento del ruolo attivo che sarà il tema della Seconda Parte.108 First, the liturgical dialogue helps the church to assume its role in the story as a protagonist who is interacting and conversing with the lector, Christ, and God. Second, it prepares the church for the two upcoming themes of the Apocalypse. Thus, by both the inclusive language and the liturgical dialogue of 1:4-8, the audience is caught up in the drama of the Apocalypse that is about to unfold. 2.7 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 in Revelation 1:7 We have seen that the allusion to Daniel 7:13 in Rev 1:7 is highlighted. We also saw how Rev 1:7-8 includes the audience in Revelation’s drama. We will now isolate this allusion to Dan 7:13. 2.7.1 A Source-Critical Examination of Daniel 7:13 in Revelation 1:7 The initial clause of Rev 1:7, "Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n, is a certain allusion to Dan 7:13.109 Significantly, both texts feature two content words (e¶rcomai, nefe÷lh), the initial particle i˙dou/, verbatim agreement in a prepositional phrase (meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n), and prophetic contexts. Although the exact wording of the Danielic allusion in Rev 1:7 does not correspond with the Masoretic Text, the Old Greek, or Theodotion, the cross-linguistic parallels make the allusion certain because the clause in Rev 1:7 is a collocation of words that are unique to Dan 7:13.110 The table below compares the four texts: 108 Vanni, “Esempio,” 467. Translation: “Understood in its dialogue form, the passage 1.4-8 allows us to adequately put emphasis on the ecclesial community as a protagonist who interacts, through dialogue, with the reader, with Christ, with God. The liturgical dialogue, highlighted at the beginning of the book, prepares the ecclesial community that penitential purification will be the theme of the First Part of the Apocalypse and the discernment of the active role that will be the theme of the Second Part.” 109 No plausible alternate source text can account for the allusion. All the scholars surveyed believe that Rev 1:7 is an allusion to Dan 7:13 (e.g., Aune, Revelation 1–5, 54). See also Alan Hultberg, “Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christology of Revelation” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001), 66. 110 The Dead Sea Scrolls are not relevant to this comparison because a lucuna exists at Dan 7:12-14 in all of the manuscripts of Daniel. Likewise, the targums are not relevant because there are no targums of Daniel. 70 Table 7: Comparison of Revelation 1:7, Daniel 7:13 MT, Daniel 7:13 OG, and Daniel 7:13 Q Rev 1:7 Dan 7:13 MT Dan 7:13 OG Dan 7:13 Q "Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n aD¥yAmVv yEnÎnSo_MIo …wrSaÅw hDwSh hEtDa vDnTa rAbV;k kai« i˙dou\ e˙pi« tw◊n nefelw◊n touv oujranouv wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou h¡rceto kai« i˙dou\ meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n touv oujranouv wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou e˙rco/menoß h™n Despite similarities in these texts, we note some important differences. The initial five-word clause of Rev 1:7 ("Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n) does not correspond with the OG verbatim: kai« i˙dou\ e˙pi« tw◊n nefelw◊n touv oujranouv wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou h¡rceto. The i˙dou/ of the OG and Q is repeated in Rev 1:7, but then the texts diverge. Revelation 1:7 lacks wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou as its subject. Another difference is that Rev 1:7 has e¶rcetai instead of h¡rceto or e˙rco/menoß h™n. The use of the present e¶rcetai ties into a Synoptic oral tradition that uses this verb for the ecclesial parousia (e.g., Matt 24:44). A comparison of Dan 7:13 MT, OG, and Q and Rev 1:7 shows a reversal of word order, with the “clouds” phrase first in the MT, OG, and Q and the “he is coming” phrase first in Rev 1:7. Thus, in the MT, OG, and Q, the emphasis is on the clouds, whereas in Rev 1:7 the emphasis is on the verbal action of coming and the unstated subject of the verb e¶rcetai.111 The differentiated allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 indicates that Dan 7:13 is a window allusion, which points powerfully to the context of the source text.112 2.7.2 The Prominence of the Allusion to Daniel 7:13 Having seen that the allusion to Dan 7:13 is a window allusion, we will now show that Dan 7:13 is marked as prominent among the allusions in Rev 1:7-8. Jeffrey Reed defines “prominence” as “those semantic and grammatical elements of discourse that serve to set aside certain subjects, ideas or motifs of the author as more or less semantically and pragmatically significant than others.”113 111 In particular, Reed isolates three levels of Collins, “‘Son of Man’ Tradition,” 541, states, “The placement of the verb e¶rcetai before the phrase about the clouds tends to emphasize the verbal action.” 112 In §1.4.4 we defined a “window allusion” as a “close reproduction of a source text that has notable changes for the purpose of pointing to the context of the source text.” 113 Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 76. Italics original. Reed (83-90) identifies eight aspects of Greek grammar and discourse that indicate prominence: semantic fields, verbal aspect, verbal voice, verbal mood, noun-verb relations, word order, boundary markers, and formal features of genre. 71 prominence: background, theme, and focus.114 The allusion to Dan 7:13 shows prominence in some of the key elements and levels that Reed specifies. First, the allusion to Dan 7:13 is prominent as to background because it features background material to propel the story forward with “secondary participants and events” (clouds as scenery, 10:1; 11:12; 14:14, 15, 16).115 Second, the allusion to Dan 7:13 ("Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n) is prominent as to word order because it occurs as the initial independent clause in the two paragraphs of Rev 1:7-8. The further left that a linguistic item is in a clause in Greek, as here in Rev 1:7, the more prominent it is in a paragraph or discourse.116 Third, the allusion to Dan 7:13 is prominent as to theme because it contains central thematic elements (major participants and events) that are repeated in various places in Revelation: the repetition of the implied subject of e¶rcetai as o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in the programmatic vision (1:13) and in the passage concerning the harvest of the earth (14:14), and the repetition of the key words i˙dou/, e¶rcomai, and nefe÷lh in many places throughout the discourse. In contrast, the allusions in 1:7-8 to other Jewish scriptures are not used as systematically in Revelation, although some repetition is involved. The word e˙xeke÷nthsan in v. 7 is a hapax legomenon in Revelation, and likewise the phrase pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß occurs only in v. 7. The occurrence of ko/yontai in 18:9 is unrelated to its occurrence in 1:7 except perhaps as an action that is the inverse of the kings of the earth should do. 114 Ibid., 77-80. For narrative, Reed (77) defines “background” as “those linguistic elements in the discourse which . . . serve to carry the story forward supporting the main plot with secondary participants and events (e.g., scenery). . . .” He (ibid.) defines “theme” as “information central to the author’s message. In narrative, thematic elements consist of major participants and events often occurring along some chronological line [+sequential]. . . . Thematic elements are unique types of prominence in that after first appearing in the discourse they are expected to appear again.” In regard to focus, he says that it “refers to those linguistic elements that stand out somewhat unexpectedly. Such elements may not carry much semantic weight (e.g., i˙dou/); instead, they serve a more pragmatic function such as drawing the listener/reader back into the communicative process. . . . At times it is necessary for an author to reintroduce a thematic element, that is focus on it, to ensure that it is at the foreground of the reader’s mind. . . . Focal prominence is likened to a spotlight highlighting particular characters in a stage play. The reader cannot help but be drawn to focal elements. It is as if the speaker/author is slapping the listener/reader across the face and saying, ‘Pay attention. This is important.’” 115 Ibid., 77. 116 Ibid., 88. 72 Fourth, the allusion to Dan 7:13 is prominent as to focus because it uses the particle i˙dou/ to call the listeners and readers to take special note of what follows and also to indicate the introduction of the main character, Jesus Christ.117 In contrast, the two occurrences of the coordinating conjunction kai/ of 1:7b and 1:7d (kai« o¡yetai and kai« ko/yontai) and the asyndeton of 1:8 do not indicate prominence.118 Fifth, the allusion to Dan 7:13 is prominent as to theme because it features the main participant in the narrative of Revelation, the glorified Jesus.119 Sixth, the allusion to Dan 7:13 is prominent as to semantic fields because the allusion features a number of salient items: human (Jesus), animate (the act of coming), proper (Jesus), singular (Jesus alone), concrete (clouds), present-immediate (e¶rcetai), eventive (the event of Jesus’ public coming), actional verb (e¶rcetai), deliberate action (Jesus’ prophesied coming), and the main clause (followed by subordinate clauses).120 The prominence of the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 therefore indicates that it functions as the controlling-text allusion in the multivalent thematic statement. 2.8 The Non-Danielic Allusions in Revelation 1:7 Having looked at the allusion to Dan 7:13 in detail, we now turn to the rest of the allusions in Rev 1:7 that are controlled by the allusion to Dan 7:13. In Rev 1:7b-d allusions to Isa 40:5, Zech 12:10, Gen 12:3, and Gen 28:14 are synthesized into a composite allusion 117 Roger Van Otterloo, “Towards an Understanding of ‘Lo’ and ‘Behold’: Functions of i˙dou/ and i¶de in the Greek New Testament,” OPTAT 2 (1988): 34-35. Van Otterloo (54, 57) identifies Rev 1:7 as an example of those uses of i˙dou/ in which special attention is called for because the statement runs counter to the expectation of the hearer or reader. Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 90, says that i˙dou/, among other particles, is often used to indicate thematic and usually focal prominence. 118 Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 89-90. Reed says that “boundary markers” are used to indicate prominence and normally consist of participles and conjunctions. See also Van Otterloo, “Understanding,” 34-64. 119 Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 77, 80. 120 Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 84. Reed bases his work on Stephen Wallace, who lists salience in linguistic categories, with the more salient category listed first in the following contrasting dyads: (1) human vs. nonhuman, (2) animate vs. inanimate, (3) proper vs. common, (4) singular vs. nonsingular, (5) concrete vs. abstract, (6) definite vs. indefinite, (7) referential vs. nonreferential, (8) count vs. mass, (9) nonthird person vs. third person, (10) perfective vs. nonperfective, (11) present-immediate vs. nonpresent-remote, (12) transitive vs. intransitive, (13) actional verb vs. stative verb, (14) deliberate action vs. accidental action, (15) main clause vs. subordinate clause, and (16) foreground vs. background. Cf. Stephen Wallace, “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,” in Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (TSL 1; ed. Paul J. Hopper; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982), 212. 73 (§1.4.4). We will briefly analyze these allusions and then see how they are used as part of the multivalent thematic statement. 2.8.1 Isaiah 40:5 According to the criteria of §1.4.3, the allusion to Isa 40:5 is rated probable. Many scholars propose that the clause kai« o¡yetai aujto\n pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß in Rev 1:7 is an allusion to one or more parts of Zech 12:10-14 (particularly Zech 12:10).121 A putatively exclusive allusion to a part or parts of Zech 12:10-14, either Greek or Hebrew, has two problems. First, Zech 12:10 OG does not match verbatim with words or word order in Rev 1:7.122 In fact, Zechariah 12:10 OG shares with Rev 1:7 only the conceptual parallel of seeing, but not the same lexeme (e˙pible÷pw, Zech 12:10; oJra¿w, Rev 1:7). Second, in Zech 12:10 OG and MT, those who see the pierced one are limited to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In regard to the universal referent pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß (“every eye”) in Rev 1:7, David Aune says that this phrase is not derived from Zech 12:10-14 but “constitutes a universalistic emphasis that is repeated in the phrase pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß, ‘all the tribes of the earth.’”123 However, Aune provides no reason for the universalization. If a Zecharian allusion is plausible, the more reasonable basis in Zechariah for universalizing the seeing of Zech 12:10 is incorporating pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« in Zech 12:14 as part of the allusion. If Zech 12:14 is the source text of any allusion in Rev 1:7, the most natural correspondence would be with pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß in Rev 1:7. However, as we will show below, this link with Zech 12:14 is not likely. Indeed, no passage in the OG uses the phrase pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß, so the basis for universalization is probably to be found in a passage or a tradition with universal scope. 121 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 55; Beale, Revelation, 196; Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation (SP 16; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1993), 46; Osborne, Revelation, 70; Smalley, Revelation, 37; Swete, Apocalypse, 9. However, Rotherham, Emphasized Bible, The Emphasized New Testament, 252, offers a contrarian view, citing Isa 40:5 as the allusion in question here in Rev 1:7. 122 Zechariah 12:10 reads e˙pible÷yontai pro/ß me aÓnq" w—n katwrch/santo. 123 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 55. 74 Such a passage or a tradition with universal scope that is probably the main source or source text of the allusion is the text or tradition of Isa 40:5 OG, MT, or Tg.124 In its entirety Isaiah 40:5 OG says kai« ojfqh/setai hJ do/xa kuri÷ou kai« o¡yetai pa◊sa sa»rx to\ swth/rion touv qeouv o¢ti ku/rioß e˙la¿lhsen (“And the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh will see the salvation of God because the Lord has spoken”). Three reasons may be adduced in support of the view that Isa 40:5 OG, MT, or Tg is the source for kai« o¡yetai aujto\n pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß. First, Isa 40:5 OG and Rev 1:7 share one content word (oJra¿w), match verbatim in the key words kai« o¡yetai, and share the lexeme pa◊ß. Second, both Isa 40:5 and Rev 1:7 reflect the universal referent of all humanity (rcb 125 ojfqalmo\ß, Rev 1:7). lk / pa◊sa sa»rx in Isa 40:5; pa◊ß The openness inherent in Isa 40:5—the multivalence of the revelation of glory, the open referent of “all flesh,” and the nature of what constitutes seeing—lends itself to various interpretations as to its fulfillment, which are reflected in the Jesus movement literature.126 This change of “all flesh” (rcb lk / pa◊sa sa»rx) to “every eye” (pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß) probably follows an exegetical or targumic tradition of clarifying the meaning of 124 The Isaiah Targum is germane to our study because Isaiah was the object of messianic speculation during the Tannaitic period. According to Bruce D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 95, a messianic portrait in the Isaiah Targum emerged during the period from 70 CE to 135 CE. The use of “messiah” in the Isaiah Targum reflects a messianic exegesis of the Davidic figure as a “victorious messiah” that is congruent with the appropriation of Isaianic source texts in Revelation. “In the days of the messiah of Israel peace will increase in the earth” (lEa∂rcˆy√d aDjyIvmîd) is used in Isa 11:6 Tg. Chilton, Glory, 88, comments on Isa 11:6 Tg and says that “the meturgeman seems not to have embraced the idea which came into vogue at the end of the first century (cf. IV Ezra 12.34; II Baruch 40.4) that the messiah’s reign is merely preparatory to divine intervention.” 125 John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66 (WBC 25; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 81, sees rcb lk as a reference to all humankind. 126 John E. Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary–Theological Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 22, notes this openness in Isa 40:5: “The new event is one with something for all the world to see and recognize, but the form of expression is ambiguous. The prophet announces a theme that will see more development as the chapters unfold (e.g., 41.20; 42.10–12; 45.14–25), though this point will continue to be made with some ambiguity.” Luke 3:6 is the most explicit reference to Isa 40:5 (UBS4 888): kai« o¡yetai pa◊sa sa»rx to\ swth/rion touv qeouv (“And all flesh will see the salvation of God”). Concerning the ministry of John the Baptist as a fulfillment of prophecy, Luke cites parts of Isaiah 40:3-5 in Luke 3:4-6, but this citation by no means exhausts the meaning of Isa 40:3-5 for Luke. First, Luke alludes to Isa 40:5 in Luke 2:30-31 when he mentions that Jesus would be a light for the Gentiles and glory for Israel (UBS4 897 and NA27 791). Second, Luke alludes to Isa 40:5 in Acts 28:28, which features the verbatim agreement with the OG (to\ swth/rion touv qeouv), when he writes of Paul speaking of the salvation of God being sent to the Gentiles. 75 “all flesh.”127 In this vein, Isa 40:5 Tg reads, “And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all the sons of flesh shall see it together, for by the Memra of the LORD it is so decreed.”128 Thus, the Isaiah Targum explains “all flesh” as “all the sons of flesh.” This universalizing of the referent in Rev 1:7 is therefore probably based on the author’s view of Isa 40:5 (a link by means of g§zeœraœh s¥aœwaœh), not an arbitrary expansion of the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Zech 12:10 to all the world.129 Third, the immediate context of Rev 1:7 features a cluster of allusions to Isaiah, and this cluster makes the potential allusion to Isa 40:5 stronger.130 The clause lu/santi hJma◊ß e˙k tw◊n aJmartiw◊n hJmw◊n in 1:6 is probably an allusion to Isa 40:2 OG (le÷lutai aujthvß hJ aJmarti÷a). Furthermore, in 1:8 to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° is probably an allusion to passages in Isaiah (see §2.9.1 below). In addition, kai« e˙k touv sto/matoß aujtouv rJomfai÷a di÷stomoß ojxei√a e˙kporeuome÷nh in 1:16 is an allusion to Isa 11:4 and 49:2, and oJ prw◊toß kai« oJ e¶scatoß in 1:17 is an allusion to Isa 44:6 and related Isaianic passages.131 127 Leonhard P. Trudinger, “The Apocalypse and the Palestinian Targum,” BTB 16 (1966): 78-79, proposes that the author alludes to targums, and although the evidence for this connection cannot be proved with certainty, this connection is plausible. 128 Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (vol. 11 of The Aramaic Bible; Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987), 77. Italics original. Although the dating of the Isaiah targum is not certain, Chilton (xxv-xxviii) notes important intersections of the Isaiah targum and early Judaism and the New Testament. Moreover, Chilton, Glory, 12, argues that an exegetical framework in the Isaiah targum employs certain terms that “evince a coherent, ordering principle.” He (ibid.) then concludes about this framework: “It also suggests—on the strength of Targumic coherences with the Septuagint, Intertestamental literature, the New Testament, and Rabbinica—that the theology of an earlier framework reflects developments from just prior to the destruction of the Temple until the beginning of the Bar Kokhba revolt, while a later meturgeman who helped to shape the framework voices the concerns of the Amoraic period.” 129 The basis for the connection between Isa 40:5 and Zech 12:10 would be the analogy of seeing. In Isa 40:5 all flesh sees the glory of Yhwh as it is revealed, and in Zech 12:10 the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem see the pierced one. 130 This reason is based on criterion 3 of our criteria for determining allusions (§1.4.2), in which we follow Fekkes, “Isaiah,” 135, in using clustering as one means for detecting the presence of an allusion. Fekkes, Isaiah, 280, lists the first “certain/virtually certain” allusion to Isaiah as occurring in Rev 1:16b (= Isa 11:4b), but Fekkes is working from proposed allusions from other scholars. 131 Fekkes, Isaiah, 280. 76 2.8.2 Zechariah 12:10 and the Catena of Genesis 12:3 and 28:14, Psalm 71:17, and Zechariah 14:17 We now turn our attention to kai« ko/yontai e˙p" aujto\n pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß (“all the tribes of the earth will mourn for him”) in Rev 1:7. kai« ko/yontai e˙p" aujto\n agrees verbatim with Zech 12:10 OG and is a certain allusion. This Jewish scripture depicts the repentance of the house of David and the inhabitants of Israel when they look on the one whom they have pierced. By the addition of pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß, the author of the Apocalypse has already universalized the original referent to include all the inhabitants of the earth. Now the author turns to describe all the tribes of the earth mourning for Jesus Christ as they see him coming. The author is probably following a testimonium in which the yla (“to/toward me”) of Zech 12:10 MT has been interpreted to be Jesus, and therefore he has changed the expected pro/ß me to e˙p" aujto\n. 132 Scholars are divided concerning what the wailing of all the tribes of the earth means. The three major views are: (1) grief without repentance, (2) repentance, and (3) ambiguity (embracing views 1 and 2).133 The view that makes the most sense is that the mourning indicates repentance. First, Zech 12:1–13:9, which is the wider context of Zech 12:10, indicates that two-thirds of the Israelites will die, leaving a repentant remnant (13:9). Second, the fact that the people mourn for Jesus (e˙p" aujto\n), not themselves, probably indicates that 132 Zechariah 12:10 has significant textual variants. One variant is yla (“to me”), and the other variant is wylo (“to him”). On balance, the evidence supports yla as the closest approximation to the original text. First, the external evidence favors yla. The following versions support the reading yla: the OG (kai« pro/ß me), the Syriac, the Targums, the Vulgate, and the Arabic. MT says yAlEa (“to me”), with the antecedent of “me” being Yhwh in vv. 8-9). Unfortunately, the DSS do not feature the text because 4QXIIe, which is the only MS of the DSS containing Zech 12:7-12, has a lucuna in the place where either yla or wylo would be. On the other hand, the OG of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus support wylo. Second, the internal evidence also favors yla. An abrupt change in pronouns has precedent in Zechariah. Such an abrupt change of pronouns occurs at least two other times in Zechariah involving Yhwh (7:13; 9:10). Like Rev 1:7, John 19:37 uses a third-person singular pronoun in its reference to the piercing of Jesus (⁄Oyontai ei˙ß o§n e˙xeke÷nthsan / “They will look on him whom they have pierced”). Menken, “Textual Form,” 494-511, shows that the writer of the Gospel of John usually quotes from the LXX but does deviate from it and that he is working from a testimonium that suits his present purpose. It is likely that the author of the Apocalypse is working from a similar testimonium. 133 Grief without repentance: Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation (NTC 20; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 86-87; Ladd, Revelation, 29; Mounce, Revelation, 51. Repentance: Bauckham, Climax, 322; Blount, Revelation, 38; Giblin, Revelation, 42; Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 106. Ambiguity: Osborne, Revelation, 41; Roloff, Revelation, 27; Vos, Synoptic Traditions, 65. 77 repentance is in view.134 Third, the phrase pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß (“all the tribes of the earth”) is a verbatim allusion to a catena of four Old Greek scriptures whose common theme is blessing (Gen 12:3; 28:14; Ps 71:17 [72:17 OG]; Zech 14:17). Moreover, these four verses are the only passages that feature this phrase. Richard Bauckham argues convincingly and at length that one of the major themes of Revelation is the conversion of the nations.135 As part of his argument, Bauckham points to pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß in Rev 1:7 as an allusion to Gen 12:3 and 28:14, and he also cites Ps 71:17 (72:17 OG). We would include Zech 14:17 as a relevant addition to this catena because it concerns worshiping Yhwh, and because many such texts about Yhwh are applied to Jesus in the Jesus movement scriptures. The thrust of this use of pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß in Rev 1:7 is that God is using the suffering and exaltation of Jesus to fulfill His promise to bless the nations through the seed of Abraham.136 Thus, the phrase pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß points to a positive soteriological meaning involving the salvation of those who believe among nations. This soteriological theme involving the salvation of many from among all the tribes of the earth is seen in two key passages in Revelation (5:9; 7:9). The clause in Rev 1:7 concerning those who pierced him (kai« oiºtineß aujto\n e˙xeke÷nthsan) is an allusion to Zech 12:10 MT ( …wr∂q∂;d, “they pierced”).137 This ironic clause identifies those doing the piercing as not only those who crucified Jesus in the first century but also all people who have rejected Jesus and his lordship over all humanity.138 In the 134 Beale, Revelation, 26, 197; Caird, Revelation, 18. Bauckham, Climax, 238-337. Because of the identification of those who mourn as Israelites in Zech 12:10, some scholars conclude that the tribes in Rev 1:7 must be Israelites, but such a conclusion is unwarranted. Cf. K. L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 121-32. In Revelation either the singular form of fulh/ (“tribe”) or its plural form may be used to refer to believers (5:9; 7:9) or unbelievers (11:9; 13:7; 14:6), but pa◊sai ai˚ fulai« thvß ghvß is a unique phrase in Revelation and must therefore be analyzed in light its likely source texts. 136 Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Use of Scripture in the Pastoral and General Epistles and the Book of Revelation,” in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. by Stanley E. Porter; MNTS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 252. 137 It is clear that e˙xeke÷nthsan does not allude to katwrch/santo of Zech 12:10 OG. 138 The ambiguity of Rev 1:7 as to who sees the Jesus is ironic. The victims of the irony, those who pierced Christ, are excluded from the knowledge of his future coming. On this kind of irony, see Camery-Hoggatt, Irony, 86-87. 135 78 phrase kai« oiºtineß aujto\n e˙xeke÷nthsan, the conjunction kai/ is ascensive.139 The question is whether kai/ is used epexegetically to indicate equivalence or whether kai/ indicates a subset.140 Context normally determines the ascensive use of kai/, which according to Daniel Wallace may either indicate “a final addition or point of focus.”141 Two factors favor the ascensive use of kai/ in v. 7 as a point of focus. First, in v. 7 the universal referent pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß (“every eye”) consists of all humanity, and the clause kai« oiºtineß aujto\n e˙xeke÷nthsan (“including those who pierced him”) cannot add to that universal group but must represent a specific class of people within that universal class. Second, the discourse of Revelation shows that believers, not just unbelievers, see Jesus coming.142 This group of those who pierced Jesus is not to be limited temporally to those who crucified Jesus but includes both those who crucified Jesus or who were culpable in his crucifixion and those in every age who have rejected Jesus and his salvific work on the cross.143 Limiting “those who pierced him” only to the first-century participants in Jesus’ crucifixion runs contrary to the prophetic character of Rev 1:7. The people in these two categories of those who have pierced Jesus see him either at the cosmic parousia (an earthly judgment) or at the great white throne (a heavenly final judgment). That Revelation depicts two such judgments is seen in the fact that the only two times that the ones who pierced Jesus see him in any way are at the cosmic parousia (19:11-21) and at the great white throne judgment (20:11-15). The rejection of Christ is clear in the descriptions of those involved in the events. Thus, in 19:19 the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies combine together 139 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 670-71. 140 Mounce, Revelation, 51, asserts that the two groups (those indicated by “every eye” and those identified as the ones who pierced Christ) are identical but offers no support for his conclusion. 141 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 670. Italics original. 142 Two examples suffice. In 1:12-16 the author presents himself as one who sees o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou, which is an allusion to Dan 7:13 and therefore a link with Rev 1:7. In addition, in Revelation 5 the author and those in heaven see Jesus as the Lamb who takes the scroll from the One seated on the throne. 143 Blount, Revelation, 38; Osborne, Revelation, 70; Smalley, Revelation, 37-38; Swete, Apocalypse, 9-10. Blount, Revelation, 38, says that those who pierced Christ includes the Romans who were claiming illegitimately to exercise “cosmic and historical lordship.” 79 to make war against Christ and his army. In 20:13-15 at the great white throne judgment, all those judged by what they had done are cast into the lake of fire. 2.9 The Allusions in Revelation 1:8 Revelation 1:8 features four titles of God that are repeated in the Apocalypse as an elaboration of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. 2.9.1 to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° The title to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° (“the Alpha and the Omega”) occurs two other times in Revelation (21:6; 22:13). to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° is a merism that corresponds with the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet (a and t) and may allude to the Jewish tradition of using these letters to signify totality (Jalkut Rub. f. 17.4; f. 48.4) or to the sense conveyed by Isa 41:4; 44:6; and 48:12.144 This phrase conveys the sense that God is sovereign and is the originator and the consummator of human history. Revelation 21:5-8 climatically reflects the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. The plan of God is seen in His acts of making all things new, giving the water of life, and granting a spiritual inheritance and sonship to the conqueror (21:5-7). In essence, this passage is an elaboration on the soteriological message of Rev 1:7-8. When God, at long last, speaks again in Rev 21:5-8, His words form the climax of the narrative of Revelation.145 The climactic importance of Rev 21:5-8 is seen in three aspects. First, this passage marks only the 144 Beale, Revelation, 199; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 432. to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w° is interpreted epexegetically as hJ aÓrch\ kai« to\ te÷loß in 21:6 and as oJ prw◊toß kai« oJ e¶scatoß in 22:13. David E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic,” NTS 33 (1987): 489-91; and Krodel, Revelation, 88, claim that GrecoRoman magic is the source of to\ a‡lfa kai« to\ w°. Krodel regards Isa 41:4; 44:6; and 48:12 as a secondary influence. Given the dominance of allusions to the Jewish scriptures in Rev 1:7-8, this link is secondary at best. A much more likely possibility is that the author is alluding to the description of God as the first and the last. 145 Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1114, notes that the audition of 21:5-8 is “a very special one” because God speaks and that the audition is “striking” because it is formed of seven sayings, with the number seven being intentional. Osborne, Revelation, 728, notes that 21:1-8 both concludes 19:11–21:8 and introduces 21:1–22:5 but fails to see its function in the discourse as a whole. Roloff, Revelation, 237, says that one could justifiably regard 21:5a as “the central key verse of the entire book.” Central as 21:5a is, this verse does not feature any relational, regnal, or Christological aspects, which are so central to Revelation. David Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (Semeia 36; Decatur, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986), 44, regards Rev 21:5-8 as “the most embedded text” of the Apocalypse. 80 second time that God has spoken, with the first instance being Rev 1:8.146 Second, when God speaks in Rev 21:5-8, God has truly come, breaking into the world and thus fulfilling the prophetic oracle in 1:8 in which He is described as the Coming One (oJ e˙rco/menoß). Third, Rev 21:5-8 reflects the wording and themes of Rev 1:7-8. Richard Bauckham points out that Alpha and Omega, the divine title appearing in 1:8 and 21:6, shows that God begins the vision and finishes His plan for His creation.147 Thus, even as Rev 1:7-8 forms the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse, so also Rev 21:5-8 forms a summary of the Apocalypse. David Aune says that this speech by God in 21:5-8 “effectively summarizes the entire book: how God sovereignly rewards the righteous and judges the wicked. . . .”148 Although Aune places too much emphasis on God’s role in the Apocalypse as opposed to Christ’s role, he notes the vital function that this passage plays. 2.9.2 oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß The tripartite title of God in Rev 1:8 (oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß, “the Being One and the He Was and the Coming One”) occurs seven times in Revelation and is probably an allusion to Exod 3:14-15.149 In this allusion the author expands on Yhwh’s revelation to Moses as hyha rva hyha, which in the OG is e˙gw¿ ei˙mi oJ w‡n. Although Exod 3:14-15 is probably the primary source text of this tripartite title, the allusion may secondarily parody the Hellenistic descriptions of deities.150 However, the author appears to draw upon a liturgical tradition of the first century CE.151 The tripartite title may also incorporate the dyadic and triadic temporal descriptions of Yhwh in Isaiah (41:4; 43:10; 44:6; 48:12).152 However, the 146 Some scholars posit that the loud voice in 16:1, 17 is the voice of God. Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 599; Smalley, Revelation, 400. Against this interpretation is the fact that the loud voice in 16:1 says “the wrath of God,” which means that God speaks of Himself in the third person—a very awkward wording. 147 Bauckham, Theology, 27. 148 Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 66. 149 The title occurs in Rev 1:8; 4:8; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5, 6. Smalley, Revelation, 32. 150 Aune, Prophecy, 281, posits Zeu\ß h™n, Zeu\ß e¡sti, Zeu\ß e¡ssetai (“Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus will be”; Paus. 10.12) as a parallel, but Mounce, Revelation, 52 n. 31, questions whether there is any causal link. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, 5. 151 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 33. 152 Beale, Revelation, 187. Beale (ibid.) further notes that the triadic temporal descriptions of God in Isaiah “may be developed reflections on the divine name in Exod. 3:14.” 81 tripartite title may also reflect later Jewish tradition that expanded the divine name dyadically or triadically.153 God is portrayed as the Coming One (oJ e˙rco/menoß) in Revelation. The author describes God three times as “the Coming One” (oJ e˙rco/menoß; 1:4, 8; 4:8). The significance of this title is seen in its use as an inclusio in the first chapter (1:4, 8). This title gains further eschatological meaning in light of other eschatological uses of e¶rcomai in the Apocalypse that refer to the coming of Jesus (1:7; 2:5, 16; passim).154 Within the broader framework of Revelation, the coming of Jesus is viewed as the coming of Yhwh.155 When the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of God and Christ, God is no longer seen as the Coming One, for God has come. However, in the broader sense, oJ e˙rco/menoß refers to all the times when God intervenes in human history, both before and after the cosmic parousia.156 In both 11:17 and 16:5, the present and the past dimensions of God are represented (oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n) in verbatim agreement with 1:8, but the important omission of oJ e˙rco/menoß in 11:17 and 16:5 shows that the Lord God has come at a climactic point in history.157 This climactic coming of God is especially true of 11:17, which concerns the cosmic parousia.158 Likewise, the coming of Jesus at the cosmic parousia is equated with the coming of God Himself in salvation and 153 Beale, Revelation, 187-88, cites the following: “I am he who is and who will be” (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 3:14); “I am now what I always was and always will be” (Midr. Rab. Exod 3:6; Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba; Midr. Ps 72:1). 154 Smalley, Revelation, 32. 155 Bauckham, Climax, 435; Comblin, Christ, 50-54; Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 74-75. 156 In this vein, Swete, Apocalypse, 5, notes that the use of oJ e˙rco/menoß in 1:8 “adumbrates at the outset the general purpose of the book, which is to exhibit the comings of God in human history; if e¡rcesqai is used elsewhere chiefly of the Son, the Father also may be said to come when He reveals Himself in His workings. . . .” Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 61. This emphasis of God coming into human history resonates well with the theme in the Jewish scriptures of God entering into history. Cf. William L. Holladay, Long Ago God Spoke: How Christians May Hear the Old Testament Today (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 204. 157 Beale, Revelation, 188. 158 Revelation 11:17 carries a lot of rhetorical weight because it follows what amounts to the equivalent of an epistolary thanksgiving. Epistolary thanksgivings in the New Testament serve several rhetorical functions, and among these functions is the introduction of the author’s main theme. The only occurrence of eujcariste÷w is in 11:17, where language from 1:8 is repeated. Revelation 11:15-18 concerns the cosmic parousia of Jesus, so the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8 is manifested here. Evidence of this thematic touchpoint is seen in the reconfiguration of ku/rioß oJ qeo/ß, oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß, oJ pantokra¿twr from 1:8 in 11:17. Cf. Paul Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (BZNW 20; Berlin: Topelmann, 1939), v; O’Brien, Thanksgivings, 262. On Revelation 4 vis-à-vis epistolary thanksgiving, see Wall, Revelation, 89-91. 82 judgment to establish His kingdom on earth.159 In this eschatological sense, God as the Coming One (oJ e˙rco/menoß) is seen ultimately in Jesus, who comes (e¶rcetai) with the clouds. 2.9.3 ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß and oJ pantokra¿twr The title ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß (“the Lord God”) is an allusion to the frequently recurring phrase le÷gei ku/rioß oJ qeo/ß in the OG (Exod 5:1; Josh 7:13; 2 Kgs 20:5; Amos 9:15; Isa 45:1; passim). The title ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß occurs seven times in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5, 6). The title oJ pantokra¿twr (“the Ruler of All”) occurs nine times in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). oJ pantokra¿twr in Rev 1:8 may reflect the ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß oJ pantokra¿twr of Amos 3:13, but this is not the only occurrence of the title.160 oJ pantokra¿twr further recalls one of Yhwh’s title names (twabx hwhy, MT, “Yhwh of hosts”; often ku/rioß pantokra¿twr in OG, as in Zech 13:7, passim). In a secondary sense, oJ pantokra¿twr may be a polemical thrust at both the Roman emperor (known as 161 aujtokra/twr, “self-ruler”) and some Greek gods (known as pantokra¿twr). Therefore, the use of oJ pantokra¿twr probably serves as a play on words for the polemical purpose of showing that God alone is the ruler of all.162 The title oJ pantokra¿twr occurs nine times in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). The two titles ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß and oJ pantokra¿twr are juxtaposed six times in Revelation (4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 19:6; 21:22), as is done sometimes in the OG.163 Most notably, both of these titles are juxtaposed in 4:8, where the two titles are fused with the Dreizeitenformel of 1:8 and occur in the song of the four living ones in the theological center 159 Bauckham, Climax, 435; Comblin, Christ, 50-54. Fekkes, Isaiah, 72; T. Cowden Laughlin, The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (Princeton: Princeton University, 1902), 6-7. Various inflections of pantokra¿twr are found in Hos 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:8, 14, 15, 16, 27; 9:5, 6, 15; Nah 3:5; and Zech 10:3. 161 On the Roman emperor as aujtokra/twr, see Josephus, Ant. 14.199. On Greek gods as pantokra¿twr, see Hermes, Epigr. Graec. 815. 162 John R. Yeatts, Revelation (BCBC; Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2003), 38. 163 The phrase ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß oJ pantokra¿twr is found in Hos 12:5; Amos 4:13; 5:8, 27; 9:6; Nah 3:5; Zech 10:3; Mal 2:16; passim. 160 83 of Revelation (§4.2).164 The other occurrences of ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß and oJ pantokra¿twr punctuate Revelation at key places in the story. For example, the 24 elders give praise to the Lord God, the Ruler of All (ku/rie oJ qeo\ß oJ pantokra¿twr), at the cosmic parousia, when God and Christ begin their reign (11:17). At another key juncture in the story, a voice from heaven announces that strong is the Lord God (ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß) who judges Babylon (18:8). Thus, the author of the Apocalypse extends the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8 in his creative use of these two titles in isolation or in combination. 2.10 Summary and Conclusions As two prophetic oracles at the end of the prologue of Revelation (1:1-8), Rev 1:7-8 functions as the multivalent thematic statement of this discourse. Five arguments support this conclusion: (1) the cohesion of the macro-genre of Revelation (prophecy) and the micro-genre of Rev 1:7-8 (prophetic oracles); (2) the placement of Rev 1:7-8 at the end of the prologue and its links with 1:9–3:22 and other sections of Revelation, as well as the inclusio of Rev 1:8 with 21:6; (3) the distinctiveness of Rev 1:7-8 that highlights it in its immediate context; (4) the concentric double-ring composition that highlights Rev 1:7a-d; and (5) the inclusive language and liturgical dialogue of Rev 1:4-8 by which the audience is included in Revelation’s drama. We focused on the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 and saw that it is the prominent allusion in Rev 1:7-8. We also looked at the other allusions in Rev 1:7-8 and saw how they are used in a multivalent thematic way in the Apocalypse. In the next chapter we will examine the relationship of Rev 1:7-8 to Rev 1:9-20 and see how the “one like a son of man” vision is used in a multivalent thematic way in the Apocalypse. 164 The phrase ku/rioß oJ qeo\ß oJ pantokra¿twr is found in the OG: Hos 12:5; Amos 4:13; 5:8, 27; 9:6; Nah 3:5; Zech 10:3; Mal 2:16; passim. Chapter 3 Revelation 1:7-8 and the “One like a Son of Man” Vision 3.1 Introduction In the last chapter we examined Rev 1:7-8 in light of genre, structure, and various other literary features. We also looked at the allusions in Rev 1:7-8, showing that Dan 7:13 is the prominent allusion and how its allusions are used thematically throughout Revelation. In this chapter we will focus on some of the ways in which the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8 is linked with Rev 1:9-20 and see how Rev 1:9-20 in turn is used thematically in the prophetic messages to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 and rest of the discourse. In addition, we will analyze how four major Christological themes in Revelation are subsumed under the rubric of the allusion to the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13. 3.2 The Structure and Thematic Uses of Revelation 1:9-20 In our outline of Revelation 1:9–3:22, we designated this entire section as the author’s initial vision (§2.3.2). As a distinct part of this initial vision, Rev 1:9-20 is a symbolic vision and may be broadly divided into two parts: (1) introduction to the vision, vv. 9-11, and (2) the vision of the one like a son of man, vv. 12-20.1 The close relationship of 1:9-20 to the seven prophetic messages to the churches is made clear in v. 11 (“What you see write to the seven assemblies”), but we will focus on 1:9-20 first.2 The ring composition (inclusio) of gra¿yon (“write”) in v. 11 and v. 19 signals the importance of this vision of the one like a son of man.3 Both verses mention the exalted Christ’s commission of John to write to the seven churches, 1 In broad terms, Aune, Revelation 1–5, 71, says that the passage’s genre “is closest to that of the symbolic vision.” Italics original. Cf. John J. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL 20; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 118-19. Tavo, Woman, 78, calls vv. 9-11 “vision setting” and vv. 12-20 “vision proper.” 2 On Revelation 2–3 as prophetic messages (oracles), see Muse, “Revelation 2–3,” 147-61. Further, Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 16, calls them “prophetic oracles” in the style of 2 Chron 21:12-15; Jer 29; 2 Bar. 77:17-19; 78–87; Epistle of Jeremiah; and 1 En. 91–108. 3 Robert W. Wall, Revelation (NIBC 18; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991), 61. 84 85 but this commission, though important, does not serve as the primary function of 1:9-20.4 Rather, the material within the inclusio is the focus of vv. 9-20. The text of vv. 9-20, dense with allusions to the Jewish scriptures, provides lexical cohesion with other passages in Revelation.5 For example, certain words and phrases in Rev 1:9-20 are repeated in the prophetic messages to six of the churches and in other key passages of Revelation. This lexical cohesion links all of these passages to this programmatically thematic passage in 1:9-20 and therefore to Rev 1:7-8 via chain-link interlock (§§2.3.1–2). The following table shows how certain words and phrases from Rev 1:9-20 are repeated or paraphrased in the rest of the discourse, sometimes as a counterimage: 6 Table 8: Revelation 1:9-20 and Lexical Cohesion with Revelation 2:1–22:21 Translation or Summary Occurrence(s) in Rev 1:9-20 Content Words Kind of Lexical Cohesion I, John 1:9 !Egw» !Iwa¿nnhß 22:8 KaÓgw» !Iwa¿nnhß 1 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) The word of God 1:9 to\n lo/gon touv 6:9; 19:13; 20:4 to\n lo/gon touv qeouv and variations 2 Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) qeouv 4 Occurrence(s) in Rev 2:1–22:21 Contra Beale, Revelation, 206. Instead of “repetition” as the sole category for describing the range of ways in which a discourse is interconnected, we are adopting the term “lexical cohesion” from discourse analysis. We define “lexical cohesion” as varying forms of repetition and paraphrase. Cf. Guthrie, “Cohesion Shifts,” 38. We are using the principle of three major points of reference between two texts as a basis for establishing lexical cohesion (§1.4.2). Hoffmann, Destroyer, 213-17, points out a number of parallels between the text of Revelation 1 and the text of Revelation 2–3, 4–5, 14, and 19. 6 By the category of “Content Words,” we are referring to nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives, as opposed to pronouns, prepositions, particles, and conjunctions (§1.4.2). For a helpful comparison, see Krisztina Károly, Lexical Repetition in Text: A Study of the Text-Organizing Function of Lexical Repetition in Foreign Language Argumentative Discourse (ML 15; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002), 94. As we noted in §1.3.3, we adopt Hoey’s taxonomy, which divides lexical cohesion into two broad categories: (1) lexical repetition (simple or complex) and (2) paraphrase (simple and complex). Michael Hoey, Patterns of Lexis in Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Joe E. Lunceford, Parody and Counterimaging in the Apocalypse (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009), xi, has identified 30 counterimages in Revelation and defines a counterimage as “the use of a particular word or phrase at some points in the book within the realm of the operation of God and the forces of good, and using that same word or phrase at some other point(s) in the arena of the operation of Satan and the forces of evil. A slight variation of this pattern is simply the positive use of a word or phrase in some passages and the negative use of the same word or phrase in others.” 5 86 Translation or Summary Occurrence(s) in Rev 1:9-20 The word of God 1:9 to\n lo/gon touv 17:17 oi˚ lo/goi touv qeouv qeouv 1:10 fwnh\n A great voice mega¿lhn Occurrence(s) in Rev 2:1–22:21 Content Words Kind of Lexical Cohesion 2 Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) 5:2, 12; 6:10; 7:2, 10; 8:13; 10:3; 11:12, 15; 12:10; 14:7, 9, 15, 18; 16:17; 19:1, 17; 21:3 fwnh\n mega¿lhn and variations 2 Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) 2 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) A great voice like a trumpet 1:10 fwnh\n 4:1 kai« hJ fwnh\ hJ mega¿lhn wJß sa¿lpiggoß prw¿th h§n h¡kousa wJß sa¿lpiggoß lalou/shß met! e˙mouv Write 1:11, 19 gra¿yon 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 gra¿yon 1 Simple lexical repetition (verbatim) Seven golden lampstands 1:12 e˚pta» lucni÷aß 2:1 tw◊n e˚pta» lucniw◊n 3 crusa◊ß tw◊n crusw◊n Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 1 Simple lexical repetition (verbatim) 3 Simple lexical repetition (verbatim) 1:13 tw◊n lucniw◊n In the middle 1:13 e˙n me÷swˆ e˙n me÷swˆ 2:1; 4:6; 5:6; 6:6; 22:2 One like a son of man 1:13 o¢moion ui˚o\n 14:14 o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou aÓnqrw¿pou One like a son of man 1:13 o¢moion ui˚o\n 4:7; 13:18; 14:14; 21:17 wJß aÓnqrw¿pou7 1 Complex paraphrase aÓnqrw¿pou Clothed 1:13 e˙ndedume÷non 15:6 e˙ndedume÷noi 1 Complex paraphrase8 podh/rh li÷non kaqaro\n lampro\n 3 Simple paraphrase (synonymous)9 19:14 e˙ndedume÷noi bu/ssinon leuko\n kaqaro/n Golden belt 7 1:13 periezwsme÷non 15:6 periezwsme÷noi pro\ß toi√ß mastoi√ß zw¿nhn crusa◊n peri« ta» sth/qh zw¿naß crusa◊ß In 4:7 the phrase wJß aÓnqrw¿pou stands out from its surrounding text because of the triple repetition of o¢moion in the verse for the other similes (o¢moion le÷onti, o¢moion mo/scwˆ, o¢moion aÓetwˆ◊ petome÷nwˆ) and the exclusive use of pro/swpon (“face”) for the living one with the face of a man. This anomaly should cause the audience to think of the only prior use of a‡nqrwpoß in the phrase o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in Rev 1:13, so the author seems to connect the living one with the face of a human and therefore the one like a son of man in 1:13. 8 The author’s choice is especially important in instances where a word is used fewer than ten times in the Apocalypse. e˙ndu/w is used only three times (1:13; 15:6; 19:14), and each occurrence concerns those in the kingdom of God (Jesus, the seven angels, and the armies in heaven). 9 ta» sth/qh in 15:6 replaces toi√ß mastoi√ß in 1:13 in this description of the golden belt. 87 Translation or Summary Occurrence(s) in Rev 1:9-20 Occurrence(s) in Rev 2:1–22:21 Content Words Kind of Lexical Cohesion Now 1:14 de/ 19:12 de/ 0 Simple lexical repetition (verbatim) His eyes like a flame of fire 1:14 oi˚ ojfqalmoi« 2:18 tou\ß ojfqalmou\ß 3 aujtouv wJß flo\x puro\ß aujtouv wJß flo/ga puro\ß Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) His eyes like a flame of fire 1:14 oi˚ ojfqalmoi« 19:12 oi˚ de« ojfqalmoi« 3 aujtouv wJß flo\x puro\ß aujtouv [wJß] flo\x 10 puro/ß Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) His feet were like burnished bronze 1:15 oi˚ po/deß 2:18 oi˚ po/deß aujtouv 3 aujtouv o¢moioi calkoliba¿nwˆ o¢moioi calkoliba¿nwˆ Simple repetition (verbatim) His voice like the sound of many waters 1:15 wJß fwnh\ 14:2; 19:6 wJß fwnh\n 3 uJda¿twn pollw◊n uJda¿twn pollw◊n Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) Seven stars in his right hand 1:16 kai« e¶cwn e˙n thØv 2:1 oJ kratw◊n tou\ß 3 dexiaˆ◊ ceiri« aujtouv aÓste÷raß e˚pta» e˚pta» aÓste÷raß e˙n thØv dexiaˆ◊ aujtouv Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 3 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 1 Simple repetition (verbatim) 1:20 tw◊n e˚pta» aÓste÷rwn ou§ß ei•deß e˙pi« thvß dexia◊ß mou Seven stars in his right hand 1:16 kai« e¶cwn e˙n thØv 3:1 oJ e¶cwn ta» e˚pta» dexiaˆ◊ ceiri« aujtouv aÓste÷raß e˚pta» pneu/mata touv qeouv kai« tou\ß e˚pta» aÓste÷raß 1:20 tw◊n e˚pta» aÓste÷rwn ou§ß ei•deß e˙pi« thvß dexia◊ß mou Out of the mouth11 1:16 e˙k touv sto/matoß 3:16; 11:5; 12:15, 16; 16:13 (3); 19:15, 21 e˙k touv sto/matoß 9:17, 18 e˙k tw◊n stoma¿twn 10 The MS evidence is fairly balanced for the two variants in 19:12. Variant 1: wJß ] A 1006911 1841 itar,gig,t vg syrph,h copsa,(bo) Irenaeuslat Origengr,lat Cyprian Jerome Apringius Primasius Beatus Andreas. Variant 2: omit wJß ] a P 025 046 051 16111611,1854,2329  Oecumenius2053,2062 arm Hippolytus Andrew. Overall, wJß appears to be an assimilation to the use of wJß in 1:14 and 2:18. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), 761, says that scribal assimilation to wording in 1:14 may account for the presence of wJß in 19:12. Perhaps the lack of wJß points to the greater intensity conveyed by a metaphor instead of a simile, but this is conjectural. 11 The phrase e˙k touv sto/matoß is used of Christ in a positive sense (1:16; 3:16; 19:15, 21), but the phrase also occurs as a counterimage (9:17, 18; 12:15, 16; 16:13). On e˙k touv sto/matoß as a counterimage, see Lunceford, Parody, 30-38. 88 Translation or Summary Occurrence(s) in Rev 1:9-20 Occurrence(s) in Rev 2:1–22:21 A sharp, two-edged broadsword going forth 1:16 rJomfai÷a 2:12 oJ e¶cwn th\n di÷stomoß ojxei√a e˙kporeuome÷nh rJomfai÷an th\n di÷stomon th\n ojxei√an A sharp, two-edged broadsword going forth 1:16 rJomfai÷a 2:16 thØv rJomfai÷aˆ touv di÷stomoß ojxei√a e˙kporeuome÷nh sto/mato/ß mou A sharp, two-edged broadsword going forth 1:16 rJomfai÷a 19:15 e˙k touv di÷stomoß ojxei√a e˙kporeuome÷nh sto/matoß aujtouv e˙kporeu/etai rJomfai÷a ojxei√a A sharp, two-edged broadsword going forth 1:16 rJomfai÷a 19:21 thØv rJomfai÷aˆ touv di÷stomoß ojxei√a e˙kporeuome÷nh kaqhme÷nou e˙pi« touv iºppou thØv e˙xelqou/shØ e˙k touv sto/matoß aujtouv I fell at his feet as dead 1:17 e¶pesa pro\ß 19:10 e¶pesa tou\ß po/daß aujtouv wJß nekro/ß e¶mprosqen tw◊n podw◊n aujtouv I fell at his feet as dead 1:17 e¶pesa pro\ß 22:8 e¶pesa tou\ß po/daß aujtouv wJß nekro/ß proskunhvsai e¶mprosqen tw◊n podw◊n touv aÓgge÷lou Be fearing not 1:17 mh\ fobouv The first and the last The living one Words Kind of Lexical Cohesion 3 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 2 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 3 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 1 or 212 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 2 Simple paraphrase 2 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) 2:10 mhde«n fobouv 1 Simple paraphrase13 1:17 oJ prw◊toß kai« 2:8; 22:13 oJ prw◊toß 2 oJ e¶scatoß kai« oJ e¶scatoß Simple lexical repetition (verbatim) 1:18 oJ zw◊n 4:9, 10; 10:6; 15:7 twˆ◊ 1 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) zw◊nti ei˙ß tou\ß 14 ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn 12 Content The two passages share the content word rJomfai÷a. If one analyzes di÷stomoß in the vein of its compound formation (du/o + sto/ma), a second content word is seen to agree with sto/matoß in 19:21. 13 This injunction to fear not is repeated in the message to the church of Smyrna, and a similar context of death is seen here in 2:10 and in 1:17-18. 14 twˆ◊ zw◊nti ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn is the text of 4:9, 10; and 10:6. The only change in 15:7 is the case: touv zw◊ntoß ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn. The four living ones, which are sometimes referred to as cherubim (Ezek 9:3; 10:1; passim), are best interpreted as symbolic representatives of the saints who have a greater place of spiritual intimacy with God and Christ than other saints in Revelation. Similarly, the 24 elders are best interpreted as symbolic representatives of the saints who have a lesser place of spiritual intimacy. In a similar vein, Larry W. Hurtado, “Revelation 4–5 in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies,” JSNT 25 (1985): 113, calls them “heavenly reprepresentative of the elect.” The following reasons support these conclusions about the four living ones and the 24 elders and their relationship to Christ, the living one. First, even as Christ is pictured in the midst of the seven lampstands (1:13), so also Christ is pictured in the midst of the four living ones and the 24 elders (5:6). Second, the four living ones and the 24 elders are distinguished from the angels in 5:2, 11, indicating their separateness from the angels. Third, in the linguistic nexus of hermeneutical precedents, the living ones share the same description based on the semantic domain (za¿w, “to live”; zwh/, “life”; L&N 2:261-62) as the exalted Christ and God. Fourth, the counterimage of “they have no rest day and night” is tormented people (cf. 4:8 with 14:11), so both groups are to be seen probably as symbolic of people. That is, even as people who worship the beast and his image and have no rest day and night as they are tormented, so also people, under the symbol of 89 Translation or Summary Occurrence(s) in Rev 1:9-20 Occurrence(s) in Rev 2:1–22:21 Content Words Kind of Lexical Cohesion And I became dead, and, indeed, living am I 1:18 e˙geno/mhn 2:8 o§ß e˙ge÷neto nekro\ß kai« e¶zhsen: 3 nekro\ß kai« i˙dou\ zw◊n ei˙mi Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) The keys belonging to Death and Hades15 1:18 ta»ß klei√ß touv 3:7 th\n klei√n Daui÷d 1 Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) The keys belonging to Death and Hades 1:18 ta»ß klei√ß touv 9:1 hJ klei«ß touv 1 qana¿tou kai« touv aˆ‚dou fre÷atoß thvß aÓbu/ssou Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) The keys belonging to Death and Hades 1:18 ta»ß klei√ß touv 20:1 th\n klei√n thvß 1 qana¿tou kai« touv aˆ‚dou aÓbu/ssou Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) Death and Hades 1:18 touv qana¿tou 6:816; 20:13; 20:14 oJ 2 kai« touv aˆ‚dou qa¿natoß kai« oJ aˆ‚dhß Simple lexical repetition (inflectional variation) After these things 1:19 meta» tauvta 4:1; 7:9; 9:12; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1; 20:3 1 Simple lexical repetition (verbatim) The seven stars in my right hand 1:20 tw◊n e˚pta» 2:1 tou\ß e˚pta» 3 aÓste÷rwn ou§ß ei•deß e˙pi« thvß dexia◊ß mou aÓste÷raß e˙n thØv dexiaˆ◊ aujtouv Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) Messengers of the seven assemblies 1:20 a‡ggeloi tw◊n 2:1, 8, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 2 e˚pta» e˙kklhsiw◊n Twˆ◊ aÓgge÷lwˆ thvß e˙n !Efe÷swˆ [city name] e˙kklhsi÷aß Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) The secret17 1:20 to\ musth/rion 10:7; 17:7 to\ 1 Simple lexical repetition (verbatim) qana¿tou kai« touv aˆ‚dou musth/rion the four living ones, worship the Lord God Almighty day and night. Lunceford, Parody, 84-88, draws attention to this counterimage but wrongly identifies the cherubim as the totality of the creation of God. Fifth, the use of animals as symbols for the people of God has precedents in both the Jewish scriptures and other Jewish literature. Notable among examples in the Jewish scriptures are the four beasts of Dan 7:3-7. In 1 En. 86:1–87:4 humans are depicted as oxen, bulls, elephants, camels, and asses. Judas Maccabeus is said to be “like a lion in his deeds, like a lion’s cub roaring for prey” (1 Macc 3:4, NRSV). In the Jesus movement scriptures, sheep and goats represent people (Matt 25:31-46). Sixth, two of the faces of the four living ones correspond with symbols of Christ in Revelation (Christ as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, 5:5; Christ with the voice like a lion, 10:3; Christ as one like a son of man, 1:13). 15 The keys of Death and Hades are for the purpose of opening, not closing, because Jesus refers to himself as the one who was dead but who is alive forever and ever. That is, Jesus exited death by means of these keys. Some kind of relationship exists between “the keys belonging to Death and Hades” and “the key of David,” even if the relationship is one of a counterimage or the metaphor of authority over a realm. Cf. Aune, Revelation 1–5; Hoffmann, Destroyer, 214-15. 16 Most MSS lack the article in front of oJ qa¿natoß (notably, a C). The reading oJ qa¿natoß is attested by Andreas  2351. The reading oJ ajqa¿natoß in A lacks any congruence with the context and is to be rejected. Following Bousset, Aune, Revelation 6–16, 382 n. 8.g, notes that the author’s style is the use of the article with proper names in predicates. Cf. Smalley, Revelation, 144 n. g. Based on internal evidence, we regard oJ qa¿natoß as the better reading. 17 Lunceford, Parody, 47-58, regards the use of to\ musth/rion in these places as an example of a counterimage. 90 Translation or Summary The secret Occurrence(s) in Rev 1:9-20 1:20 to\ musth/rion Occurrence(s) in Rev 2:1–22:21 17:5 musth/rion Content Words 1 Kind of Lexical Cohesion Complex lexical repetition (derivational variation) The table above shows the frequent and significant integration of the “one like a son of man” vision with the seven messages to the churches and with the rest of Revelation.18 Some instances of lexical cohesion may be regarded as proleptic allusions if they foretell or foreshadow certain events in the narrative (§2.3.1). Even viewed by the rigorous criterion of triadic repetition in our verbal agreement model (§1.4.2), 11 of the 30 instances of lexical cohesion (36.6%) are central, not marginal. However, even in the cases of so-called marginal sentences, some sentences, by virtue of their context, contribute to the narrative in an important but secondary way. For example, the monadic repetition of gra¿yon in 1:11, 19; 14:13; 19:9; and 21:5 probably refers to Revelation as a whole.19 In addition, the uses of de/ in 1:14 and 19:12 introduce important descriptions of Christ.20 In essence, the “one like a son of man” vision functions as a prolepsis of the role of the one like a son of man throughout the discourse of Revelation. In light of such lexical cohesion, a number of scholars note the thematic importance or the close relationship that Rev 1:9-20 has vis-à-vis Revelation 2–3 or Revelation 2–22.21 18 Besides literary links between 1:12-20 and 2:1–3:22, the fact that the one like a son of man begins speaking in 1:17 and ends speaking in 3:22 indicates that the two passages constitute a larger textual unit. Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 85. 19 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 85, notes that the occurrences of gra¿yon “are important for the book as a whole, for John presents himself not as the author or originator of his message but rather as a mediator of the message revealed to him.” 20 As Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1054, notes, the word de÷ is used only seven times in Revelation (1:14; 2:5, 16, 24; 10:2; 19:12; 21:8), and its use in 1:14 and 19:12 stresses the beginning of an important description of the exalted Christ. 21 For example, Osborne, Revelation, 88, notes that the eight Christological images of 1:13b-16 are carried through the rest of the discourse. Lenski, Revelation, 78, says, “This first vision of Jesus himself is the basis and in a manner also the key for all the visions that are to follow. For the majesty and the power of the glorified Lord dominate Revelation from beginning to end.” In a similar vein, Slater, Christ, 67, says that Rev 1:13-14 functions as a superscription for Revelation 2–3. Scholars who recognize the link between the “one like a son of man” vision and Revelation 2–3 include Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 169; and Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Justice, 52. Other scholars recognize that the “one like a son of man” vision relates to the letters to the churches and the rest of Revelation: Aune, Revelation 1–5, 70; Beale, John’s Use, 299; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 70; Osborne, Revelation, 78; Smalley, Revelation, 48; Sweet, Revelation, 69. For example, Corsini, Apocalypse, 85, 90, notes that the “son of man” vision returns in the vision of the throne and the Lamb (Revelation 4–5), in the 91 3.3 The One like a Son of Man in Revelation 1:13 Having analyzed the structure of Rev 1:9-20 and having seen the thematic importance of this passage for the rest of the discourse, we will now analyze the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 specifically and this verse’s function in Rev 1:9-20 and the rest of Revelation. In doing so, we will see how Rev 1:7-8 functions as the linked antecedent context of Rev 1:9-20 and therefore serves as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse. 3.3.1 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 The phrase o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou (“one like a son of man”) in Rev 1:13 is a certain allusion to Dan 7:13 and lacks compelling alternative source texts.22 The phrase o¢moion ui˚o\n vision of the seated son of man (Revelation 14), and in the Logos of God on a white horse (Revelation 19). In addition, Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 70, follows Lohmeyer in the assessment that the author’s first vision contains the heart of all of Revelation and says, “The rest of the prophecy unfolds the significance of this vision of Christ and how the destiny of his people finds its fulfillment.” 22 See §1.4.3 for our scale of evidence. Among the scholars surveyed, nearly all believe that Rev 1:13 is or probably is an allusion to Dan 7:13. Allusion to Dan 7:13: Aune, Revelation 1–5, 93; Harrington, Revelation, 51 n. 13; Ladd, Revelation, 32; Lupieri, Apocalypse, 109; Mounce, Revelation, 57; Osborne, Revelation, 87; Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 134; Smalley, Revelation, 53-54; Swete, Apocalypse, 15; Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 98; Witherington, Revelation, 77. Allusion to Dan 7:13-14: Blount, Revelation, 44; Kistemaker, Revelation, 95. Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 143, describes the allusion in Rev 1:7 as a “simple allusion” in the Jesus tradition but says that “the origin of the motif would still be traceable to Daniel 7.” E.-B. Allo, Saint Jean l’Apocalypse (4th ed.; Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1933), 13, wrongly says, “Cette apparition de Jésus en « Fils d’Homme » remet en mémoire la vision de Daniel, du Messie triomphant avec son people; mais l’expression a été sûrement choisie parce que Jésus, dans l’Évangile, s’appelle le « Fils de l’Homme ».” Translation: “This appearance of Jesus as ‘Son of Man’ brings to mind the vision of Daniel, of the triumphant Messiah with his people, but the expression was surely chosen because Jesus in the Gospel, is called ‘Son of Man.’” Allo’s contention that the author relies on the Gospel tradition ignores the close verbal agreement between Rev 1:13 and Dan 7:13, and therefore his argument fails to convince. Likewise, Charles, Revelation, 1:27, wrongly states, “Thus wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou in Apocalyptic is the exact equivalent of oJ ui˚o\ß touv aÓnqrw¿pou in the Gospels and Acts vii. 56.” Swete, Apocalypse, 15, regards Dan 7:13 as the source of the allusion but points out similar wording in Dan 10:16 Q (wJß oJmoi÷wsiß ui˚ouv aÓnqrw¿pou); Ezek 1:26 (oJmoi÷wma wJß ei•doß aÓnqrw¿pou); and Ezek 8:2 (oJmoi÷wma aÓndro/ß). Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 191, offer an alternative allusion in the Hebrew phrase Mda ynb twmdk (“one like the sons of men”) in Dan 10:16. However, the Hebrew ynb is plural in Dan 10:16. Moreover, the authors (194) conclude that the author of the Apocalypse seems to allude in Rev 1:13 to Dan 7:13. Charles A. Gieschen, Angelmorphic Christology (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 249, proposes a second alternative allusion in the Greek phrase oJmoi÷wma wJß ei•doß aÓnqrw¿pou in Ezek 1:26 OG. Neither of these alternatives convince. In both alternatives the OG does not agree (wJß oJmoi÷wsiß ceiro\ß aÓnqrw¿pou). In addition, the preceding and subsequent allusions in Revelation to Dan 7:13 favor the reference to Dan 7:13: !Idou\ e¶rcetai meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n in 1:7 and hJ de« kefalh\ aujtouv kai« ai˚ tri÷ceß leukai« wJß e¶rion leuko/n in 1:14. Christopher Rowland, “The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. 1:13ff.: The Debt of an Early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology,” JTS 31 (1980): 1-11, argues that the Christophany in Rev 1:13ff. has affinities with a certain Jewish angelology in the Old Testament in which the figure in Ezek 8:2 became separated from the throne chariot, but he acknowledges the importance of Daniel 7 for Rev 1:13ff. 92 aÓnqrw¿pou differs from the wording of Dan 7:13 (wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou, OG Q), so the author is not quoting formally or informally from either Greek text. The two texts share two content words (ui˚o/ß, a‡nqrwpoß), an infrequent particle (i˙dou/), and synonyms in introducing the comparison (wJß in Dan 7:13 OG; o¢moion in Rev 1:13). Having determined that this phrase is a certain allusion, we will analyze it in light of the categories of allusions established in §1.4.4. 3.3.2 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 as a Window Allusion The allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 is a window allusion (§1.4.4). Two reasons lead to such a conclusion. First, this allusion is a window allusion because o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou is a close reproduction of a source text with a notable change, which results in this phrase acting as an intentional solecism and an “unusual form” (dwjy) in the Jewish scribal tradition.23 As to the notable change, o¢moion ui˚wˆ◊ aÓnqrw¿pou would be expected in light of wording elsewhere in Revelation. Thus, the author uses o¢moioß 21 times in the Apocalypse, and 19 of these times he uses the dative for the word that follows o¢moioß, with the only two exceptions being 1:13 and 14:14, both of which read o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou.24 Gerard Mussies argues that the accusative case of ui˚o/n indicates that it is attracted to o¢moion to imitate the use of the Semitic preposition k (“like”), but the author’s solecisms primarily signal meaning, not stylistic imitation.25 By use of this solecism in 1:13 and 14:14, the author is intentionally regarding this phrase as a literary unit and is signaling to his audience an important allusion 23 Ancient writers were concerned with precisely treating solecisms. Cf. Michael D. Hyman, “One Word Solecisms and the Limits of Syntax,” in Syntax in Antiquity (OS 23; ed. Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 179-92. An “unusual form” points to a hidden interpretation. See comment by Brewer in note 126 in §1.4.2. 24 Rev 1:15; 2:18; 4:3, 6, 7; 9:10, 19; 11:1; 13:2, 4, 11; 18:18; 21:11, 18. According to James Hope Moulton, Wilbert Francis Howard, and Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906–1976), 4:150, a word in the dative usually follows o¢moion. In note 68 of Appendix 1, we provide reasons for adopting the reading o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in Rev 1:13. Revelation 14:14 features four variants. Variant 1: ui˚o/n ] a A 046* fam 16112329  vgmss Tyc2 Beatus. Variant 2: ui˚wˆ◊ ] ∏47 C 051 fam 1006 fam 16111611 Oecu2053 Andr lat syr. Variant 3: ui˚o/ß ] fam 16111854. Variant 4: ui˚ouv ] 025 cop. Neither variant 3 nor variant 4 is well attested. Variant 2 is well attested, but it appears to be an attempt to correct a solecism. Variant 1 (ui˚o/n) is probably the lectio originalis because it is the lectio difficilior and has the support of A (the best MS in quality for Revelation), a, and 046. 25 Gerard Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 139. In regard to Mussies’ argument, Beale, Revelation, 210, states, “Just as possibly the irregularity may be designed to get the reader’s attention and direct it back to Daniel, as in 1:4-5.” 93 that invokes the context of Dan 7:13.26 Second, this allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 is a window allusion because it omits intervening words and changes word order (§2.7.1). This allusion powerfully invokes the whole context of the source text.27 3.3.3 The Allusion to Daniel 7:13 as a Controlling-Text Allusion Besides being a window allusion, the allusion in Rev 1:13 to Dan 7:13 is prominent and therefore serves as a controlling-text allusion on which all the other allusions in 1:12-20 depend in varying degrees.28 The prominence of the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 is 26 The author probably has two objectives in using a grammatically anomalous allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 and 14:14. First, this grammatical anomaly alerts the hearers/readers that they are to take special note of this phrase and regard it as a heightened allusion to Dan 7:13. Second, o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou is probably to be regarded as a descriptive title that cannot be declined. As a descriptive title, o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou provides an account of an essential characteristic of the exalted Jesus, namely, his status as the one like a son of man and all the attendant implications. We do not regard o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou as a confessional title that was used in the early Jesus movement. Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 293 n. 83, states that o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou is not a confessional title in Rev 1:13 and 14:14 but that the phrase retains a titular sense. On o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou as a title, see Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (SBT 17; London: SCM, 1970), 86 n. 103; and Lupieri, Apocalypse, 109. 27 Merritt, “Repetition,” 28, notes, “In a related way we have all noted that repetition, and perhaps most notably partial repetition, can have tremendous echoic carrying capacity—a capacity to invoke a sense of the whole or the original contextual occurrence.” Italics original. 28 We are devoting some detail to this issue of a controlling-text allusion in Rev 1:13 because a perfunctory reading of Rev 1:9-20 could give the wrong impression that Dan 7:13 plays a minor role as an allusion of only three words (o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou), whereas, in fact, it forms the controlling-text allusion. Although allusions to the Jewish scriptures dominate 1:9-20, allusions to Greco-Roman culture and Jewish culture also play an important part of the literary mosaic, but the subordinate function of these allusions is not the focus of our analysis. Beale, Revelation, 220, concludes, “Because of the heavy concentration of Daniel allusions, especially from Dan. 7 and 10, we conclude that vv 7-20 may be a ‘midrash’ on these two chapters from Daniel (‘midrash’ here is used in its most general sense to refer to an interpretative expansion of one text that draws in other texts to supplement its meaning). John recounts his vision by using Daniel 7 and 10 as a model in describing the ‘Son of man’ and has woven other OT texts into this framework.” We disagree with Beale’s use of “midrash” for two reasons. First, as Aune, Revelation 1–5, 74, notes, sequence of motifs is mainly derived from tradition. Second, the use of “midrash” is both problematic and anachronistic and therefore cannot be properly applied to this passage. The weakness of seeing Rev 1:7-20 as a midrash is that, although vrdm occurs in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is not clear that the term means exegesis of scripture in particular or study in a general sense (1QS 6.24, 8.15, 8.26; 4Q174 1.14; 4Q269 (verso); CD 20.6; 4Q266 5.i.17 (restored), 11.20; 4Q270 7.ii.15. Cf. Steven D. Fraade, “Midrashim,” EDSS 1:550. Furthermore, the word “midrash” is loaded with an anachronistic sense derived from its use vis-à-vis rabbinic literature. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 74, objects to Beale’s identification of this passage as midrash and says that “the term ‘midrash’ should be reserved for oral or written expositions of biblical texts. . . .” Despite the inaccurate use of “midrash,” Beale has drawn attention to the use of Daniel 7 and Daniel 10 as a model for the passage. The use of a phrase as a unifying rubric has a contemporaneous analogue in the Jesus movement scriptures. A helpful parallel for such a phrase is seen in Matthew because this Gospel probably features “the son of man” as a unifying title of Jesus. In this vein, Luz, Matthew, 83-96, points out how Matthew subordinates the titles of Jesus (e.g., son of David, son of man, son of God) to the narrative of Jesus’ life and thereby transforms the traditional semantic range of these titles and defines them in the course of his Gospel. Furthermore, Luz (91) sees “the son of man” as an expression in Matthew that encompasses the entire story of 94 based on nine factors.29 First, the allusion in 1:13 to Dan 7:13 repeats in a reconfigured way the prominent allusion to Dan 7:13 in 1:7 (§2.7.2) and builds hermeneutically on the previous reference by depicting a partial fulfillment of the prophesied coming of Jesus Christ (a personal coming to the author).30 Second, the allusion to Dan 7:13 in 1:13 is connected to the present active infinitive ble÷pein (“to see”) and the imperfect verb e˙la¿lei (“was speaking”), which mark prominence.31 Third, the unspecified subject of v. 7 (o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou) is now introduced by means of two verbs of perception that are in the same semantic field (ble÷pein and ei•don).32 Fourth, o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in v. 13 is non-anaphoric and is the first description of the exalted Christ.33 Fifth, o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou is an intentional grammatical anomaly, which indicates the presence or the importance of an allusion (§1.4.2).34 Jesus. In a similar vein, William L. Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative of His People in Matthew (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1991), 194, points out, “He [Jesus] embodied that righteous, restored Israel which John was to prepare, and he called others to join him in this role. . . . In this study we . . . have suggested that, for Matthew, Jesus not only stands over the church as its Lord but also stands with the church as its representative before God.” Italics original. This same unifying concept is what is at work in Revelation. 29 Beale, Revelation, 208, believes that Daniel 7 and especially Daniel 10 are the main source texts in 1:13-15 and that other texts contribute in secondary way. Similarly, Aune, Revelation 1–5, 72, states that the use of the allusions to Dan 7:9-14 and 10:2-9, 15-17 “suggests that the genre of 1:9-20 might have been derived from these OT models, or at least influenced by them.” 30 In this regard, Beale, Use of Daniel, 158, states, “The Daniel 7 image introduced in v. 7a is the primary factor which causes attention to be focused again on other elements from Daniel 7 in vv. 12-16. Whereas the ‘coming one’ of v. 7a was not described, great pains are now taken to portray this figure according to the descriptions of Daniel 7 and 10, although other O.T. references play a secondary role.” We agree with Beale that the previous use of Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 helps to place the focus on elements from Daniel 7 in vv. 12-16, but it is difficult to isolate the previous reference in v. 7 as the primary factor when we see that it is one of several complementary factors that focus on the elements of Daniel 7 in vv. 12-16. 31 Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 85, notes, “Thematic prominence may be signaled by the present and imperfect tenses (imperfective aspect), as well as sometimes the future tense.” Reed (85) says that “the imperfective aspect suggests that the author is focusing on the particulars of an event.” The use of ble÷pein and e˙la¿lei in 1:13 stands in contrast to the use of three aorist verbs in v. 12: e˙pe÷streya (aorist active indicative); e˙pistre÷yaß (aorist active participle); and ei•don (aorist active indicative). 32 Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 83. On the same semantic domain, see L&N 1:277-78. 33 We are using Reed’s distinction between anaphoric (given) information and non-anaphoric (new) information. Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 88-89, says anaphoric information to the left of a clause indicates discourse prominence and that non-anaphoric information to the right of a clause indicates clause prominence. In this case, o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou is to the right of the clause and indicates clause prominence. 34 Charles, Revelation, 1:clii, does not classify o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in 1:13 and 14:14 as a solecism but as a unique expression of the author. Bousset, Offenbarung, 388, says that the solecism of 1:13 and 14:14 is “einer der besten Beweise für den gleichmässigen Sprachcharakter der Apokalypse” (“one of the best evidences for the uniform character of the language of the Apocalypse”). Commenting on 1:13 and 14:14, Callahan, “Language,” 456, points out that the author is being “quite selective in his commission of solecisms.” On solecisms as grammatical anomalies and incongruencies, see §1.4.3. 95 Sixth, vv. 13-16 are the longest description of Jesus in the Apocalypse, so in terms of length and placement, this passage is unique in the discourse. Seventh, the allusion to the Servant of Yhwh from Isa 11:4 and 49:2 in v. 16 is part of a cluster of texts that were part of the “son of man” tradition in the first century.35 In other words, these Isaianic allusions have special meaning vis-à-vis the tradition associated with the son of man and show that Dan 7:13 draws these texts into a field of meaning. Eighth, in light of its rare use in Revelation, the conjunction de/ in v. 14 marks a new development of thought, further emphasizing the continuity of v. 14 with v. 13.36 Ninth, the allusion to Dan 2:28-29, 45 in v. 19 signals the prominence of the previous allusion to Dan 7:13. This coupling of Daniel 7 and 2 follows theological precedents, so, in essence, Daniel 7 acts like a magnet to draw the Daniel 2 text to it.37 35 The clause e˙k touv sto/matoß aujtouv rJomfai÷a di÷stomoß ojxei√a e˙kporeuome÷nh is a composite allusion to Isa 11:4 and 49:2, with Isa 11:4 being the primary allusion. Beale, Revelation, 211-12; Fekkes, Isaiah, 119-21; Moyise, Revelation, 31; Osborne, Revelation, 92. In Isa 49:2 the Servant of Yhwh declares that Yhwh has made his mouth like a sharp sword. Fekkes and Moyise think that possibly Isa 49:2 was the source for the replacement of “rod” with “sword.” According to George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6:138, the matrix of texts in the Parables of Enoch that concerned the son of man were Daniel 7, Isaiah 11 along with Psalm 2, and Isaiah 42, 49, and 52–53. In regard to Jewish textual traditions about the son of man, Nickelsburg (6:141) says, “The evidence presented here indicates that the idea of a transcendent judge and deliverer was a known element in Jewish eschatology by the latter part of the 1st century C.E. The texts in question attest a common model that was composed of elements from Israelite traditions about the Davidic king, the Deutero-Isaianic servant/chosen one, and the Danielic ‘son of man.’ The model surely existed apart from these texts, and, in order to posit belief in such a transcendent savior figure in any given case, we need not presume that any one of the texts was known and used as a literary source.” 36 The particle de/ occurs only seven times in Revelation (1:14; 2:5, 16, 24; 10:2; 19:12; 21:8), or 0.6 occurrences for every 1,000 words (NA27). By way of comparison, de/ occurs frequently in narrative discourses, according to NA27 (Matthew, 494; Mark, 163; Luke, 542; John, 213; Acts, 554). Concerning the particle de/, K. Callow, “The Disappearing De/ in 1 Corinthians,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation (ed. D. A. Black; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 183, notes, “The speaker uses de/ as a signal, saying, ‘This is the next step.’ It may be a little step or a big one, it may be a step forwards, or sideways, or even backward-looking, but it is always the next step, and with it the speaker or writer is progressing one thought at a time along a purposeful line of development.” Wallace, Greek Grammar, 674, says that in such instances de/ functions as a transitional conjunction. 37 In note 28 in §2.2.3 we mentioned that the phrase a± dei√ gene÷sqai in Rev 1:1, 19; 4:1; and 22:6 alludes to Dan 2:28-29, 45. This use of Dan 2:28-29, 45 is especially appropriate in close proximity to the allusions to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7, 13 because some circles of Jews used these texts together (e.g., 4 Ezra 13:3, 6 with Dan 2:45 and 7:13). William Horbury, “The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man,’” JTS 36 (1985): 42, cites the following examples: NumR 13.14 on Num 7:13 and Tanh! (Buber) Gen, Toledoth 20. With good reason, N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 313-14, infers that some Jews found Daniel 2, 7, and 9 to be interrelated texts. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 223. Beale, Use of Daniel, 137-38, notes that the “man” of Daniel 7 and the “stone mountain” of Daniel 2 act as magnets that attract texts from the Old Testament that are used to supplement them. The motif of four kingdoms is seen in both Daniel 2 and 7. As such, these chapters may be regarded as parallel prophecies. Cf. Beale, Revelation, 182. In addition, Daniel 2:4–7:28 may be regarded as a unit because of the common use of Aramaic and the common themes. 96 With the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 established as prominent, we see that this controlling-text allusion is used in three ways in Rev 1:14-20. First, the allusion to Dan 7:13 in v. 13 provides a background for the allusion to Dan 7:9 in v. 14, where Christ is described as having white hair, which the Ancient of Days has in Dan 7:14. This clustering of allusions serves to unify the passage. Second, the use of the conjunction de÷ serves to direct the focus on the thematic element of the context of the source text.38 Third, the controlling-text allusion provides a framework for the four Christological themes in vv. 13-20 (§3.4 below). 3.4 The Multivalence of the “One like a Son of Man” Vision Having seen that the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 is prominent, we will analyze how the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 (o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou) serves as a unifying description of Jesus in 1:13-20 and connects key passages of Revelation to the one like a son of man in Rev 1:13 and therefore ultimately to Rev 1:7-8. The figure of one like a son of man in Rev 1:13 provides an overarching rubric for four major themes that are seen in Daniel 7: eschatological judge, universal sovereign, vindicated witness, and God’s plenipotentiary.39 The generation of these themes in Rev 1:9-20 through symbols is characteristic of the multivalence of apocalyptic symbolism and exhibits aspects of the multivalence of the thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8.40 For each theme we will briefly look at how it is expressed in Dan 7:13 and its context of Daniel 7. We will then provide a twofold analysis for each theme in Revelation, examining each theme in Rev 1:9-20 and then the theme as it is elaborated in other passages in Revelation. Some scholars recognize the mélange of allusions 38 As we noted in §2.7.2, we are adopting Reed’s taxonomy of the three levels of prominence. Focus, which is one of the three elements, is linguistic elements such as i˙dou/ and de/ that point the audience to the thematic element. Reed, “Identifying Theme,” 80. 39 The term “God’s plenipotentiary” is defined as the extension of the position, the titles, and the attributes of God to a person whom God chooses to represent Him. See Appendix 2 for a detailed discussion of Christological issues involved in our study, including the term “God’s plenipotentiary.” 40 This multivalence of the one like a son of man is line with the apocalyptic symbols of Daniel 7. On the multivalent nature of apocalyptic symbolism, see §1.4.1. 97 and the multivalent portrait of Jesus in Rev 1:12-20, but none stresses the same rubric of the allusion to Dan 7:13 as the controlling-text allusion.41 3.4.1 The “One like a Son of Man” Vision in Its Jewish Historical Context At some point during the Second Temple period, possibly as early as the first century BCE but no later than the second half of the first century CE, different circles of Judaism de- veloped independent exegetical traditions about Dan 7:13 and related passages in Daniel 7.42 Out of necessity, our discussion is selective, but we include it for situating our discussion of the one like a son of man in Rev 1:9-20 in historical context.43 In the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 37–71), which was probably written late in the first century BCE or in the first century CE, the one like a son of man is interpreted as an individual figure with messianic overtones.44 The phrase “son of man” occurs 15 times in the Parables.45 The individual figure known as “that son of man” in the Parables (62:5) is also 41 We will confine our analysis of these four themes to mainly vv. 12-20, but we stress that the previous context of vv. 1-9 has already introduced themes that will be developed in vv. 12-20. The multivalent portrait is similar to what is called the munus triplex of Jesus: his fulfillment of Israel’s offices of prophet, priest, and king. As Beale, Revelation, 205, notes, vv. 1-9 have already established the themes of suffering, kingdom, and priesthood. Furthermore, Beale, Revelation, 205-6, states that in vv. 12-16 Jesus is portrayed in the roles of “the eschatological heavenly priest, end-time ruler, and judge.” Fekkes, Isaiah, 51, 77, sees the establishment of three points: (1) the authority of Revelation as a whole as based on the exalted Christ, (2) legitimation for the circulation of this book among the churches, and (3) prolepsis of the judicial role of Jesus. Osborne, Revelation, 77, sees Jesus portrayed as the cosmic victor, the judge, the sovereign over history, and the risen one. Osborne (89) further notes that this portrait shows the power, the glory, and the authority of Christ. Smalley, Revelation, 53-54 sees the one like a son of man portrayed in vv. 16, 18 as “the eschatological judge.” 42 Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” 6:141, says that “the idea of a transcendent judge and deliverer was a known element in Jewish eschatology by the latter part of the 1st century C.E.” It is impossible to pinpoint the exact beginning of the exegetical tradition about the Danielic son of man, but Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (NovTSup 84; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 108, argues that a reasonable historical reconstruction places the time as concurrent with the expectation of the parousia of Jesus. Holleman (108-11) bases his reconstruction on Sib. Or. 5; 4 Ezra 13; and 1 En. 37–71. 43 For a fuller discussion of the one like a son of man in Revelation in light of Jewish background, see Slater, Christ, 66-85. 44 James H. Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 465, advances five cogent arguments for dating the Parables in the time of Herod the Great’s reign (20-4 BCE). The absence of the Parables from the Qumran corpus has led some scholars to assert that the text is to be dated later than the first century. Cf. Longenecker, Christology, 82-84. Admittedly, a manuscript of 1 Enoch 37–71 has not been found that dates the Parables with certainty before 100 CE, but a number of scholars believe that the work reflects traditions current in some circles of Judaism before the time of Jesus. Cf. Collins, “‘Son of Man’ Tradition,” 564; Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 342. 45 1 En. 46:3 (2); 48:2; 60:10; 62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27; 29 (2); 71:14, 17. 98 called “the Righteous One,” “the Elect One,” “the Righteous and Elect One,” and “the Lord’s Messiah.” He functions as an eschatological agent who brings both salvation and judgment (62:5, 14). Among others, Oscar Cullman contends that Enoch was believed to be a preexistent being who lived in heaven.46 The author of the Parables draws from a variety of Jewish scriptures to portray this figure as a composite eschatological agent, but the main scriptures for his portrait are derived from three sources: the one like a son of man (Daniel 7), the Davidic king (Psalm 2; Isaiah 11), and the Servant of Yhwh (Isaiah 42, 49, 52–53).47 Of note, the writer of the Parables weaves both themes and literary structure from Daniel 7 in 1 Enoch 46.48 The enthronement depicted in 1 En. 62:2-14 is connected with images from Daniel 7: the throne of glory, the rulership of the son of man, and the worship of the son of man. G. K. Beale sees the use of Daniel 7 in 1 En. 69:26–71:17, with the “son of man” figure dominating 1 En. 69:26–70:1.49 Daniel 7:9-12 also plays an important role in 1 En. 90:20-27. Beale finds seven common elements in these passages and shows that Daniel 7 has been used as a structural Vorbild.50 Fourth Ezra, which is usually dated to the last quarter of the first century CE, features aspects of Daniel 7 prominently in chapters 11–13. Michael Stone notes that Daniel 7 serves as the “general inspiration” of this vision.51 In the vision of 11:1–12:3a, an eagle with twelve wings and three heads emerges from the sea (11:1), and this image has parallels in Daniel 7 with the four great beasts coming out of the sea (Dan 7:3). In 4 Ezra 13:3 the narrator sees “something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea” who “flew with the clouds of heaven.”52 This man-like figure, who is described as “my Son” (13:32, 37, 52), is a preexistent, apocalyptic individual who at the end of time defeats the enemies of God and de46 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (rev. ed.; trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 142. 47 Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” 6:138. 48 Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986), 101-4. 49 Beale, Use of Daniel, 108-12. 50 Ibid., 84-85. 51 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 348. 52 The translation comes from Stone, Fourth Ezra, 381. 99 livers the people of God. This image of the man flying with the clouds is derived from Daniel 7:13, and the subsequent vision of the man carving out a mountain and flying upon it is derived from Dan 2:34 and 2:45.53 Portions of 2 Baruch, a post-70 CE apocalypse that is dated to the last part of the first century or early part of the second century, are based on Daniel 7. Although the phrase “son of man” is absent in 2 Baruch, chapters 39 and 40 incorporate thematic elements of the one like a son of man in its references to “my anointed one” as the agent of a cosmic judgment. After four kingdoms have run their course, “the dominion of my anointed one” occurs (39:7, OTP), recalling the dominion given to the Danielic figure. On Mount Zion this anointed one convicts and puts to death the leader of the fourth kingdom, which recalls from Dan 7:14 the fourth beast being slain and its body destroyed and given to be burned. Finally, the dominion of the anointed one will endure forever, and this reflects the kingdom given to the people of the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:27). Although the Dead Sea Scrolls do not explicitly mention Dan 7:13, it is clear that Dan 7:13 and Daniel 7 are incorporated in some fashion in the corpus. The presence of eight manuscripts of Daniel and three manuscripts of Pseudo-Daniel (4QPseudo-Daniela-c) among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the high regard for Daniel as a prophet show that the Qumran community esteemed the text of Daniel and its derivative literature.54 This importance of Daniel is seen both in the Qumran biblical texts and the non-biblical texts.55 Under the rubric of being a key passage in Daniel, Daniel 7 was therefore in some way important to the Qumran community. In this general vein, Eugene Ulrich concludes that the vocabulary, apocalyptic 53 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 384-85. Eight manuscripts of Daniel are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus: 1QDana, 1QDanb, 4QDana, 4QDanb, 4QDanc, 4QDand, 4QDane, and pap6QDan. Peter W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 41, notes that the eight “is a significant number of scrolls, and exceeds the Qumran finds for most books of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament.” The high regard for Daniel is seen in the Florilegium, which quotes Dan 12:10 and says, “As it is written in the Book of Daniel the Prophet” (4Q174 2.3, WAC). Cf. James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 172. 55 Ibid., 41-60. 54 100 thought, angelology, and other aspects of Daniel “strongly impacted the thought and vocabulary” of the Qumranites.56 Daniel 7 was incorporated into the eschatology of the Qumran community. 4Q246 (4QpsDan Aa), officially called an Aramaic Apocryphon of Daniel but sometimes called the Aramaic Apocalypse, is dated to about 25 BCE.57 This Aramaic text is related to Daniel and has verbal parallels with Daniel 7. For instance, John Collins notes two significant verbal parallels: “His sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty” (4Q246 2.9; Dan 7:14) and the use of the word “to trample” (4Q246 2.3; Dan 7:7).58 Similarly, George Brooke sees a clear use of “the language of various Danielic traditions” seen in 4Q246 and Luke 1:32-37.59 Scholars have not reached consensus about the epithets “son of God” and “son of the Most High” in 4Q246 as applied to the son of an unidentified king, but 4Q246 incorporates a Danielic viewpoint.60 Indeed, according to Lawrence Schiffman and Peter Stuhlmacher, 4Q246 is based on Dan 7:13-14.61 Daniel 7 is also incorporated into the eschatology of the War Scroll (1QM), although the connections are subtle. The concept of holy war is portrayed in detail in 1QM, and this parallels well the war against the holy ones in Dan 7:21.62 In particular, Philip Davies says that an allusion to Dan 7:22, 27 is seen in the use of the hlCmm of the true Israel.63 56 Eugene Ulrich, “Daniel, Book of: Hebrew and Aramaic Text,” EDSS 1:173. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Apocalypse,” EDSS 1:51. 58 John J. Collins, “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo-Daniel,” EDSS 1:177. 59 George J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 264. 60 Because the son of God is said to act as a boastful king and to rule over the nations of the earth in an “eternal dominion,” some scholars find it difficult to reconcile these aspects and maintain that they are two individuals. Scholars have posited the following possibilities concerning the identity of “the son of God” in 4Q246: (1) Alexander Balas, the Seleucid ruler; (2) a future Jewish king who is not the Messiah but who will restore the Davidic kingship; (3) an antichrist figure; (4) Michael the archangel, who is known also as Melchizedek, the Prince of Light; (5) the future Davidic Messiah or a historical Seleucid pretender; (6) the last historico-apocalyptic sovereign of the ultimate world empire; and (7) a son of God in a messianic sense. 61 Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 342; Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Messianic Son of Man: Jesus’ Claim to Deity,” in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research (ed. James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 335. 62 John J. Collins, “The Mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transition in Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 25 (1975): 596-612. 63 Philip R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 81. 57 101 Imagery derived from the courtroom scene in Dan 7:9-14 is present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 4Q405 20 ii 21-22, the author writes about the cherubim of Ezekiel 1. The rivulets of fire are probably an allusion to the stream of fire that issues from the presence of the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:10).64 In lines 12-14 of 4Q491c, the author writes of “a throne of strength in the congregation of ‘gods’” and says that “my dwelling-place is in the congregation of holiness.”65 The non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls do not often mention a throne or thrones (22 times), so the mention of a “throne of strength” (zwo ask) in line 12 is noteworthy. Martin Hengel believes the entire scene of 4Q491c and its throne imagery reflects “the college of judges” of Dan 7:9ff.66 Line 7 of 4Q521 f2ii+4 probably echoes the concepts of the court room scene of Daniel 7 when it says, “And He will honor the pious upon the throne of the eternal kingdom.” No passage in the Jewish scriptures mentions the pious being honored upon a throne. Given the prophetic matrix of 4Q521 f2ii+4, the allusion in line 7 is likely to a prophecy involving a throne or thrones that are associated with the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom, and the only scripture that fits that theme is the throne room scene of Daniel 7.67 In addition, line 1 of 4Q521 says that the heaven and the earth listen to His messiah, probably in the sense of those in heaven and earth obeying the messiah. Concerning this messiah, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise note, “He is to a certain extent a supernatural figure in the manner of Dan. 7’s ‘Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven’.”68 Conceptual parallels between 11QMelch (11Q13) and Daniel 7 probably indicate that the writer of 11QMelch has deliberately appropriated Daniel 7 for the eschatological frame64 Moyise, Revelation, 91, says that this wording “probably comes from Dan. 7.9-10.” This manuscript is technically known as 4Q491 Manuscript C Frag. 11 Col. 1. Manuscript 4Q491c was originally believed to be part of the War Scroll (1QM), but it is now generally believed to be a part of the Hodayota or a hymn written in a similar style to the Hodayota. The translation is from Géza Vermès, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997), 185. 66 Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 202. 67 That Daniel 7 concerns the honoring of the pious upon the throne of the eternal kingdom is evident because “the saints [the pious] of the Most High shall receive [be honored] the kingdom [the kingdom], and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever [eternal]” (Dan 7:18, RSV, italics ours). 68 Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years (Rockport, Massachusetts: Element, 1992), 20. 65 102 work of his text.69 Paul Kobelski highlights many conceptual parallels between Daniel 7 and 11QMelch, noting that both texts describe eschatological events in terms of judgment and military conquest (Dan 7:10, 17-18, 26-27; 11QMelch 2.9-13) and present judicial contexts (Dan 7:10, 14, 24, 27; 1QMelch 2.18).70 Both the one like a son of man and Melchizedek are exalted to a position in the heavens, presumably on a throne next to God (Dan 7:9, 13; 11QMelch 2.10-11). The one like a son of man is given “dominion and glory and kingdom” (Dan 7:14), and similarly Melchizedek is portrayed as a king in the final period of history (11QMelch 2.7-8, 16, 23-25). Moreover, Rick van de Water sees parallels between Daniel 7 and 11QMelch in terms of ascent to the heavenly throne and judgment, for even as one like a son of man comes with the clouds to the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13), so also Melchizedek is said to return to the heights (2.9-10).71 Finally, David Flusser notes that the portrayal of Melchizedek as the eschatological judge has significant parallels with the son of man in 1 Enoch and the Gospels.72 We may draw three conclusions from our brief examination of extant evidence on the use of Dan 7:13 and Daniel 7 in Jewish literature. The first conclusion is that Dan 7:13, Daniel 7, and the rest of Daniel occupied an important part of the theological and apocalyptic thinking in some circles of Judaism. N. T. Wright correctly concludes that Daniel 7 was a very popular chapter in the first century CE.73 Similarly, Mireille Hadas-Lebel maintains that Daniel had “considerable influence” on Jewish thought in the first century.74 Wright con- 69 Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries,” 150, notes that 11Q13 is probably “the clearest example of a thematic commentary.” Brooke (151) notes that “the theme controls the commentary throughout.” Even though it is hard to show which scripture controls any particular part of the document, Brooke (150) says that the texts of Leviticus 25 and Isaiah 61 “provide point and counterpoint and then are variously returned to during the course of the exegesis.” A thematic commentary exhibits characteristics that we find in Revelation, so 11Q13 is especially important in our study. 70 Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchires¥a{ (CBQMS 10; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 133-34. 71 Rick van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13,” JSP 16 (2006): 82-83. 72 David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 188. 73 Wright, New Testament, 292. 74 Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Flavius Josephus: Eyewitness to Rome’s First-Century Conquest of Judea (trans. Richard Miller; New York: Macmillan, 1993), 167. For more details on the importance of Daniel at this time, see also Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem against Rome (trans. Robyn Fréchet; Leuven: Peeters, 2006). 103 cludes that “Daniel, the book which not only foretells things but gives a chronology, was being read in the 60s as a prophecy of imminent messianic deliverance, through a combination of its second and ninth chapters.”75 Even if a unified tradition of the son of man of Daniel 7 was not present in the first century CE, as Delbert Burkett contends, the evidence above shows that the Danielic son of man was an object of speculation and various kinds of “son of man” traditions were embedded in Judaism probably before the beginning of the Jesus movement.76 The second conclusion is that the use of Dan 7:13 was multivalent. Based on extant texts, many scholars believe that Jewish messianism during the Second Temple period was characterized by pluriformity, not uniformity.77 In this socio-religious milieu of varying messianic expectations, Dan 7:13 and Daniel 7 must be understood. Norman Perrin states that the imagery of Dan 7:13 was used independently of one another and was mixed with apocalyptic concepts.78 In particular, he regards the common ground between 1 Enoch 37–71 and 4 Ezra 13 as consisting of the reference to Dan 7:13 and the preexistence of both figures, neither document using “the son of man” as a title.79 Perrin argues that there is no unified “son of man concept” and that “it would be better to speak of an ‘image’, and, therefore, of the varied use of ‘Son of man’ imagery in Jewish apocalyptic and midrashic literature.”80 Similarly, Thomas Slater says that both 1 Enoch 37–71 and 4 Ezra 13 refer to the messiah in Dan 7:13, concluding, “In these two books, the Messiah has five common features/functions: (1) he acts as an eschatological judge; (2) he gathers to himself an elect community; (3) he makes war against the enemies of God; (4) he possesses an element of mystery; and (5) he is preexistent.”81 75 Wright, New Testament, 313-14. On the lack of a unified traditon, see Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 120. On the son of man in various traditions, see Alan F. Segal, “The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 322. 77 Hengel, Studies, 40-41. 78 Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 172. 79 Ibid., 165. 80 Ibid., 165-66. 81 Slater, Christ, 83-84. 76 104 The third conclusion is that the wide diversity of “son of man” traditions in the first century suggests a dynamic fluidity of oral tradition and teaching among Jews and Gentiles in Palestine and the Mediterranean world. Admittedly, the evidence does not support a monolithic son of man concept in the first century, but concepts about the son of man figure of Daniel 7 circulated in the Judaisms of this period.82 According to John Collins, the writers of the Parables of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13 believe that the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 refers to an individual, that this figure is the messiah, that this figure is preexistent and is “a transcendent figure of heavenly origin,” and that this figure is more involved in destroying the wicked than what Daniel 7 specifies.83 Adela Yarbro Collins also adds the notion that this figure “acts in God’s stead.”84 Having briefly examined some of the historical context in which the “one like a son of man” vision of Rev 1:9-20 is situated, we are ready to see the ways in which the author of the Apocalypse describes this figure. We can now better understand the multivalent portrait of the one like a son of man in Rev 1:13-20 as a result of the author drawing from a common Jewish exegetical tradition. In other words, the author of the Apocalypse is participating in a rich Jewish tradition, not creating a “son of man” symbol de novo. 3.4.2 The One like a Son of Man as the Eschatological Judge The theme of eschatological judgment is seen in Dan 7:9-10 with the Ancient of Days and His court sitting in judgment (7:10), and then it is seen with the one like a son of man being given “dominion and glory and kingdom” (Dan 7:14, RSV).85 Likewise, judgment is rendered in favor of the holy ones (Dan 7:22, 27), who are his eschatological people and have a solidarity with the one like a son of man. Revelation 1:12-20 portrays the one like a son of 82 Bock, Blasphemy, 222-27. John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992): 464-65. 84 Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” in Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, by John J. Collins (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 90. 85 In Dan 7:10 the Aramaic bty anyd is literally “the judgment sat.” Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 383, interprets this correctly as “The court was seated.” Arthur J. Ferch, The Son of Man in Daniel Seven (AUSDDS 6; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979), 146, comments that Dan 7:9-10 “has much in common with other OT delineations of judgment (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Pss 50; 82; Joel 3).” 83 105 man as the eschatological judge. In this capacity Jesus acts as the eschatological judge by speaking or doing something either in a punitive way or in a salvific way. In Rev 1:12-16 the Greek linguistic equivalents for “judgment” and “dominion and glory and kingdom” found in Daniel 7:14 do not occur, but the description of Christ in this passage matches conceptually what is said of the one like a son of man in Dan 7:14 as well as the Jesus movement literature.86 Significantly, Rev 1:6 and 1:9 mention the kingdom (basilei÷a) in association with the saints, and these two verses serve to provide background from Daniel 7 for vv. 12-16.87 The one like a son of man’s role as the eschatological judge is depicted in v. 14 with the description of him with hair as white as wool and snow. The one like a son of man is not depicted as a judge in Daniel 7:13-14. However, the author of the Apocalypse has described Christ like the Ancient of Days to portray Christ as one closely associated with the Ancient of Days.88 This theme of the Ancient of Days is depicted in the great white throne judgment, which is an allusion to the throne upon which the Ancient of Days sits (Rev 20:11-15). The one like a son of man’s role as the eschatological judge is depicted in v. 16 with the large, broadsword (rJomfai÷a) that extends from his mouth. This image of the broadsword (probably a conflation of the prophecies of Isa 11:4 and 49:2) refers to eschatological judgment in similar Jewish traditions and in the Jesus movement.89 However, in Revelation this 86 This eschatological dimension of the son of man is seen in such texts as Matt 24:29-31; Matt 25:31-46; and Luke 21:34-36. Cullmann, Christology, 157, remarks, “In the New Testament as well as in the Late Jewish texts (especially in the Ethiopic Enoch) the primary eschatological function of the coming Son of Man is that of judgment.” Italics original. 87 As we note in Appendix 3, the lexemes e˙xousi÷a (“authority”) and basilei÷a (“kingdom”) are metaleptic allusions in Revelation to Daniel 7 and are used widely in Revelation. These two words are the key points of parallel with Dan 7:14 OG (underlining), which reads: kai« e˙do/qh aujtw◊ˆ e˙xousi÷a kai« pa¿nta ta» e¶qnh thvß ghvß kata» ge÷nh kai« pa◊sa do/xa aujtw◊ˆ latreu/ousa kai« hJ e˙xousi÷a aujtouv e˙xousi÷a ai˙w¿nioß h¢tiß ouj mh\ aÓrqhvØ kai« hJ basilei÷a aujtouv h¢tiß ouj mh\ fqarhvØ. 88 Bauckham, Climax, 295, notes this lack of ascription of judge to the one like a son of man. Although Isa 11:4 uses the word “rod,” not “sword,” it is the scripture that is the primary focus in v. 16 because Isa 11:4 deals with smiting the earth in judgment, which is a theme that is found in Revelation. Sword imagery abounds in both Jewish literature and the literature of the Jesus movement. For example, the Lord Messiah is pictured as destroying the unlawful nations and striking the earth with “the word of his mouth” (Pss. Sol. 17:24, 35). In regard to the death of the firstborn in Egypt, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon says, “Thy allpowerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword of thy authentic command” (18:15-16, RSV). With the word of his mouth, the Chosen One in the Parables of Enoch slays all the sinners (1 En. 62:2). Similar imagery is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the Root of David judges the people with a sword (4QpIsaa 8-10). The Prince is said to 89 106 sword functions as a counterimage, for Jesus uses it to discipline his church and destroy his enemies.90 The one like a son of man’s role as the eschatological judge is seen elsewhere in Revelation.91 The most direct connection with the “one like a son of man” vision is the repetition of the image of Jesus having a broadsword (rJomfai÷a) proceeding from his mouth. The first repetition of rJomfai÷a occurs when the glorified Christ identifies himself to the church of Pergamon as “the one having the sharp, two-edged broadsword” and threatens to use it against the compromising Nicolaitans (2:12, 16). Christ’s use of the broadsword is not limited to the church. Thus, in one of the narrative highlights of Revelation, the exalted Christ uses the broadsword to strike the unrepentant nations at the cosmic parousia (19:15, 21).92 Finally, the broadsword from the one like a son of man’s mouth serves as a polemic against Roman rule and its power to judge.93 The one like a son of man’s role as the eschatological judge is depicted in vv. 14-15 in the description of him with eyes like a flame of fire and feet like furnace-fired, burnished bronze. This eyes-fire simile points to the penetrating knowledge and judgment of Jesus in regard to anything, but especially in regard to his churches.94 The feet like furnace-fired, bur- smite the peoples with the might of his mouth (1QSb 5.24a), to devastate the earth with his rod (1QSb 5:24b), and to slay the wicked with the breath of his lips (1QSb 5.24-25). Similar imagery is seen in Jewish apocalyptic literature. For example, the man from the sea (the son of the Most High) destroys the nations with fire from his mouth, lips, and tongue (4 Ezra 13:9-11, 37-38). In a judgment-related but non-militaristic image, Enoch is portrayed as a heavenly scribe in Jub. 4:23 (OTP): “And he was taken from among the children of men, and we led him to the garden of Eden for greatness and honor. And behold, he is there writing condemnation and judgment of the world, and all of the evils of the children of men.” As to the Jesus movement literature, we have the example of Paul, who says that the Lord Jesus will slay the lawless one with the breath of his mouth (2 Thess 2:8). 90 For the counterimage of the sword, see Lunceford, Parody, 16-29. 91 Fekkes, Isaiah, 77, regards that portrayal of the “forensic authority” of Christ in Rev 1:10-20 as “an intentional prelude to the strong warnings of Revelation 2–3 and to the Epiphany of the messianic Judge in ch. 19.” 92 The only other occurrence of rJomfai÷a is 6:8, where Death and Hades are given authority over a fourth of the earth’s population to kill with the broadsword, famine, disease, and the wild beasts of the earth. The rJomfai÷a that Jesus wields at the cosmic parousia appears to be in retribution partly for the widespread death inflicted by evil human agents earlier. 93 Caird, Revelation, 37-38, notes, “The senatorial governor of Asia was a proconsul and therefore possessed for the period of his office an almost unlimited imperium, of which the symbol was a sword. . . .” Cf. Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 140. 94 Beale, Revelation, 209; Lenski, Revelation, 66; Osborne, Revelation, 153. In the Greco-Roman world, eyes were sometimes thought to convey divine power. Concerning the Emperor Augustus, Suetonius states, “He had clear, bright eyes, in which he wanted people to think that there was a kind of divine power” (Aug. 79). 107 nished bronze refers to the purity of Jesus, especially as related to judgment.95 This meaning is reflected in 2:18, where Jesus describes himself to the church in Thyatira as the one having eyes like a flame of fire and feet that are like burnished bronze. In his message to this church, the exalted Christ warns that he will judge Jezebel and her followers if they do not repent, even killing her children with death (2:22-23). This description of Christ’s eyes like a flame of fire occurs again in 19:12, which concerns the Christ’s cosmic parousia. This passage marks a major highlight in the narrative and concerns the punitive judgment that the exalted Christ imposes on the wicked nations (v. 15) and on the beast and the false prophet (v. 20).96 The one like a son of man’s face shining like the sun in full strength points to him as the eschatological judge. As G. K. Beale notes, this description of the exalted Christ strengthens the picture of him as an eschatological judge.97 Christ’s radiant face finds its counterpart in the angel’s face that shines like lightning in Dan 10:6, but the wording appears to be based on Judges 5:31 (LXX B).98 Beale comments that “it is possible that Judg. 5:31 has also been applied to Christ because it was seen typological of the ideal messianic warrior and because 95 Beale, Revelation, 209-10. Osborne, Revelation, 91, sees this image as emphasizing “the glory and strength of Christ” but adds that in light of 2:18 it “signifies not only glory and strength but warns of potential judgment.” The view that the phrase refers to the strength and stability of Jesus does not adequately account for the glowing nature of the bronze. Cf. Mounce, Revelation, 79; Smalley, Revelation, 54. Similar imagery is used in ancient Jewish literature to describe angels and a messianic figure. The angel Michael has “hands and feet like iron shining forth from a fire” (Jos. Asen. 14:9, OTP). Likewise, the angel Eremiel has feet “like bronze which is melted in a fire” (Apoc. Zeph. 6:12, OTP). Bronze is associated with judgment elsewhere in Jewish literature. For example, the Prince of the Congregation, a messianic figure who is said to ravage the earth and kill the ungodly, is portrayed with hooves of bronze (1Q28b 5.26), which probably allude to Mic 4:13. 96 According to Resseguie, Revelation, 166, the plot of the Apocalypse follows the usual U-shaped structure of ancient comedy, which means that the plot begins with a stable condition, moves downward due to a series of threatening conditions and instabilities, and at the end moves upward.” Resseguie (190) argues that in Revelation 19 this schema is seen in the Lamb dispatching some of the major antagonists and the final instabilities of the plot being removed. 97 Beale, Revelation, 212. 98 Ibid. Describing those who love the Lord, the LXX B reads wJß e¶xodoß hJli÷ou e˙n duna¿mei aujtou. This has agreement with two content words of 1:16: wJß oJ h¢lioß fai÷nei e˙n thØv duna¿mei aujtouv. Lupieri, Apocalypse, 110, claims that Christ’s face shining like the sun points to Jesus as the only sun, but this is an assertion without any support. The sun may also have other secondary associations. A possible indication of the temple imagery is the description of his face “like the sun shining in full strength” (v. 16). When Moses descended from Mount Sinai after being in the presence of Yhwh, his face was shining (Exod 34:29). After the high priest Simon exited the holy of holies, he looked “like the morning star among the clouds, like the moon when it is full, like the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High” (Sir 50:6-7). 108 John associated the ‘Son of man’ with ‘stars’ in vv 16a, 20b.”99 This image of a sun-radiant face is repeated again in the description of the messenger in Rev 10:1, which probably refers to Jesus.100 Revelation 14:14 continues the theme of Jesus as the eschatological judge, but in a salvific sense. The phrase o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in 1:13 is repeated verbatim in 14:14, which says, “And I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud one like a son of man [o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou], having upon his head a gold crown and in his hand a sharp sickle.” Although some scholars argue that this one like a son of man in 14:14 is an angel, the evidence strongly favors this figure being the exalted Christ.101 99 Beale, Revelation, 212. We will treat Revelation 10 in §5.3.3 and provide reasons that the messenger probably is Jesus. 101 Scholars who argue that the one like a son of man in Rev 14:14 is an angel include Aune, Revelation 6–16, 841; Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (LNTS 343; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 148-49; and J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation (vol. 20 of The IVP New Testament Commentary Series; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 177-78. However, four factors point to this figure in 14:14 representing Jesus. First, the phrase o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou is connected linguistically with its verbatim counterpart in 1:13, where the phrase refers to Jesus. As we showed in §2.3.1, phrases in the Apocalypse gain meaning by means of hermeneutical precedents, and nothing in the text or the context demands a non-Jesuianic referent in 14:14. Second, the equivalence of the Lamb and the one like a son of man in Revelation 4–5 (§4.2.2) is repeated in Revelation 14. Thus, the visions in 14:1-5 (the Lamb on Zion) and 14:14-16 (one like a son of man) are complementary to the vision in Revelation 4–5. Third, the threefold emphasis on the cloud in Revelation 14 (vv. 14, 15, 16) points to the clouds that the one like a son of man comes with (Rev 1:7). Osborne, Revelation, 550, says that in v. 14 nefe÷lh leukh/, a pendant nominative, is emphasized. The whiteness of the cloud symbolizes blessing and purity. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, 188. Fourth, the ste÷fanoß (“crown”) in Revelation is usually associated with the righteous (2:10; 3:11; 4:4, 10; 12:1) and refers twice to agents of evil (6:2; 9:7). The description of this crown as gold points to some common link with the 24 elders (4:4, 10). Scholars who identify the one like a son of man on the cloud as Jesus are Ladd, Revelation, 199; I. H. Marshall, “Martyrdom and the Parousia in the Revelation of John,” SE 4 (1968): 337; Mounce, Revelation, 279; Osborne, Revelation, 550-51; Smalley, Revelation, 371; and Swete, Apocalypse, 188. The objection to the one like a son of man referring to Jesus is mainly based on the angel issuing a command to the one like a son of man to reap (14:15). On the surface, such a command seems to violate the subjection of angels to Jesus in the Apocalypse (5:11-12). However, the angel in 14:15 comes from the temple sanctuary and is conveying what must be the command of God. Scholars who adopt this view include Mounce, Revelation, 277; and Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 450-51. That God is ultimately the One Who gives the command to angels in the Apocalypse is seen in 16:1, 17, where God is most likely the authority giving the command. Thus, the one like a son of man in 14:14 is obeying a command of God to reap the harvest. The reference to angels in the context (vv. 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 19; esp. v. 15, a‡lloß a‡ggeloß) appears to indicate that the one like a son of man is an angel. However, this prima facie argument does not convince because the one like a son of man is not expressly identified as an a‡ggeloß in this passage. Even if the one like a son of man in 14:14 is an angel, the author describes him as one with the characteristics of Christ and therefore links 1:13 and 14:14 by means of the common phrase. Thus, in any interpretive scheme, Rev 14:14 reflects both 1:13 and 1:7 and elaborates the themes of these verses. 100 109 The image of the one like a son of man, who sits on a cloud and reaps, points to the theme of Jesus as the eschatological judge.102 The position of sitting symbolizes victory, and the crown symbolizes rulership. In keeping with these positive symbols, the overall image of the one like a son of man reaping the harvest of the earth (vv. 14-16) depicts his act of salvific judgment.103 The grain harvest is to be regarded as a progressive event whose culmination is at the cosmic parousia.104 As Richard Bauckham points out, the one like a son of man has authority over the churches, and their witness, as lampstands, is extended to the nations.105 Ultimately, by means of the church’s collective witness, the kingdom of Christ is extended from the church to the nations, who are included in the positive harvest of Rev 14:14-16. 102 The singular cloud in 14:14 does not preclude an allusion to Daniel 7:13, which depicts the one like a son of man coming with clouds (ynno = plural) because the author’s emphasis is on the figure’s position of sitting, not on the number of clouds. Moreover, as Lupieri, Apocalypse, 228-29, observes, a single cloud is used in Luke 21:27 to refer to “the son of man coming in a cloud” at the cosmic parousia. 103 Some scholars regard the grain harvest and the grape harvest of Rev 14:14-20 as parallel symbols of judgment: Beale, Revelation, 770-78; Boring, Revelation, 171; Mounce, Revelation, 278; Stuhlmacher, “Messianic Son of Man,” 342. In the source text of Joel 3:13 (4:13 OG), the wheat harvest probably points to the judgment of the wicked. Rabbinic interpretation views this passage as negative judgment (Midr. Ps. 8.1). However, three factors frame this harvest in Rev 14:14-16 in a positive light. First, the overlooked allusion to Lev 23:22 OG shows that the purpose of the grain harvest is salvific. In Rev 14:15 the phrase oJ qerismo\ß thvß ghvß (“the harvest of the earth,” a hapax legomenon in the Jesus movement scriptures) alludes to the harvest of the land in Israel at the time of the Feast of Weeks (to\n qerismo\n thvß ghvß, Lev 23:22 OG; cf. Lev 19:9). Second, the whiteness of the cloud in 14:14 (nefe÷lh leukh/) is a positive image and probably points to the salvific action to follow. On the white cloud as a positive image, see Smalley, Revelation, 371. Third, contextual indicators show that the purpose of this harvest is salvific. Revelation 14 reflects a symmetry of contrastive binaries. That is, dual images of salvation and judgment are repeated in the chapter. As Bauckham, Climax, 291, points out, the image of “the great winepress of the wrath of God” in 14:19 alludes to Isa 63:1-6 and also is linked with “the wine of the wrath of her fornication” in 14:8. Likewise, the “harvest of the earth” in v. 15 has a precedent in the earlier reference in v. 4 to the redemption of the 144,000 as the firstfruits to God and the Lamb. In other words, this harvest in vv. 14-16 is to be viewed in light of Israel’s tradition of reaping the firstfruits and later the full harvest (Lev 23:10-11). This connection between the firstfruits and the harvest of the earth is strengthened by the nexus of the image of the Lamb and allusions to Daniel 7 in Revelation 5 (§4.2.2). Fourth, in the Jesus movement scriptures the image of the grain harvest generally refers to the salvation of the elect (Matt 3:12; 9:37-38; 13:30; Mark 4:29; Luke 10:2; John 4:35). Notably, Mark 4:29 alludes to Joel 3:13 in a positive way. Also of special note is Mark 13:26-27 (RSV): “And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” Both the Jewish scriptures and Jewish literature use harvest as a metaphor for judgment (Jer 51:33; Hos 6:11; 4 Ezra 4:35; 2 Bar. 70:2), but the above arguments are weightier factors in determining the meaning of these harvests. When Rev 14:14-16 is viewed in its context, the picture that emerges is an inverted allusion to Joel 3:13 in which the one like a son of man is engaged with the harvesting of saints through an unspecified period of time, probably from the harvest of the 144,000 as firstfruits until the cosmic parousia. Concerning this atemporality in the harvest of the saints, Swete, Apocalypse, 189, says, “It does not appear how the ingathering is to be effected, or how long the process will last.” 104 The aorist imperatives qe÷rison in v. 15 (“begin to harvest”) and tru/ghson in v. 18 (“begin to gather”) are best viewed as ingressive. 105 Bauckham, Climax, 295-96. 110 Thus, after the 144,000 are redeemed from among humankind as firstfruits to God and the Lamb (14:4), other saints are harvested from that point until the cosmic parousia (e.g., the souls under the altar, 6:9; the two witnesses, 11:12; the kingdom of the world, 11:15). The additions to the controlling-text allusion of “one like a son of man” serve to augment the identity and role of Jesus. Thus, as Eugenio Corsini notes, the elements added to Daniel 7 of the one like a son of man sitting on the white cloud, the gold crown, the sharp sickle, and the reaping serve “to carry further the reinterpretation already begun in ch. 5 when ‘Son of man’ was substituted by the Lamb.”106 More precisely, the role of the one like a son of man is further defined as the Lamb, for the allusions to Daniel 7 are suffused throughout the discourse.107 3.4.3 The One like a Son of Man as the Universal Sovereign The theme of universal sovereignty is seen in two ways in Daniel 7.108 First, the temple setting of Dan 7:9-10, 13-14 casts the one like a son of man into the role of a priest or even a high priest.109 Second, the dominion that the one like a son of man is given (7:14) includes some kind of rule over the earth, which is depicted in the interpretive section (7:27).110 106 Corsini, Apocalypse, 260. As John Ben-Daniel and Gloria Ben-Daniel, The Apocalypse in Light of the Temple: A New Approach to the Book of Revelation (Jerusalem: Beit Yochanan, 2003), 26, point out, both the one like a son of man and the Lamb share certain characteristics. Both are in the center of the throne (3:21; 7:17). In addition, both have the seven spirits (3:1; 5:6). Also, both died and yet are alive (1:18; 2:8; 5:6). 108 For a discussion of the one like a son of man of Daniel 7 as the embodiment of the universal sovereignty of God, see Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 240. 109 The action in Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14 probably occurs in the temple throne room in heaven. André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (trans. David Pellauer; rev. ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 124, argues persuasively that the scene in Daniel 7 “has the Temple as its framework.” Likewise, Beale, Use of Daniel, 81-82, states that the throne room scene is “apparently in heaven.” 110 The one like a son of man probably receives rulership or kingship when he is presented before the Ancient of Days. Ferch, Son of Man, 148; John E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 168. Commenting on Dan 7:14, Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 311, notes, “The indestructibility of the kingdom recalls that of 2:44 but more particularly the sovereignty attributed to God in 3:33; 6:27.” In addition, the earthly character of the one like a son of man’s kingdom is seen in the intratextual connection with the stone that becomes a great mountain that fills all the earth (2:35), for the stone in Daniel 2 corresponds with the one like a son of man in Daniel 7. Concerning Daniel 7, Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation (WUNT 2/142; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001), 69, comments, “The new status of the Son of Man implies . . . that an enthronement must have taken place. The Son of Man explicitly exercises the office of king in the heavenly world.” Enthronement is not explicitly said to occur, but Eskola is right in his assessment. 107 111 The sovereignty of the one like a son of man is delegated because there is no abrogation of the sovereignty of the Ancient of Days. The repeated use of twklm (“kingdom”) solidifies this view of universal sovereignty (7:14 [2], 22, 27). Revelation 1:12-20 also portrays the one like a son of man as the universal sovereign. In the preceding context, Jesus is described in v. 6 as “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (oJ 111 a‡rcwn tw◊n basile÷wn thvß ghvß), a phrase with counterimperial overtones. In addition, the parodic paronomasia of thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷raˆ in v. 10 sets the stage for further parody in vv. 12-20.112 Thus, the theme of Jesus as the universal sovereign is framed in light of a subtle counterimperial polemic, which follows in the tradition of Jewish apocalypses as a counterdiscourse to the dominant discourse of empire.113 The first aspect of the universal sovereignty of the one like a son of man is seen in his clothing in v. 13. Two items of clothing point to 111 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 40, recognizes the political implications of oJ a‡rcwn tw◊n basile÷wn thvß ghvß and states that a‡rcwn in its anarthrous form occurs in the texts of Greek authors who used this word to refer to the Roman princeps (“first citizen”), which was a title of the Roman emperor (Aelius Aristides 19.5; 20.15; 25.56; 26.23, 107; Dio Chrysostom 32.60; 37.34; Marcus Aurelius 3.5.1; and Philostratus Vita Apoll. 7.1). Ethelbert Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches (trans. K. and R. Gregor Smith; London: SCM, 1965), 175-76, states that Christ is “the true princeps regum terrae” (“first citizen of the kings of the earth”). Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 63. In v. 5 Jesus is described as “the ruler of the kings on earth.” In this role Jesus acts as the sovereign ruler of all the kings on earth, from the time of his ascension until the end of earthly time. The phrase rex regum terrae (“king of the kings of the earth”) in T. Mos. 8:1 is a passage that helps provide background for oJ a‡rcwn tw◊n basile÷wn thvß ghvß because rex regum terrae deals with non-Jewish power exercised probably in the first century CE. Most scholars date the Testament of Moses to the first part of the first century CE. Cf. James H. Charlesworth and P. Dykers, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (SCSS 7; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976), 163-64. 112 Paronomasia occurs fairly often in Revelation. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 238-39, cites the following instances of paronomasia: 2:2 (2), 22; 3:10; 11:18; 14:8; 18:6 (3), 20, 21; 22:18, 19. The adjective kuriakhØv in v. 10 is polysemous, referring to the day honoring the lordship of Jesus and parodying the imperial day held in the emperor’s honor. See note 56 in Appendix 1. 113 In general, during the first century CE, with the main exception of the Jewish revolt in 66–70 CE, the Roman Empire experienced a period of military triumphs, economic prosperity, and territorial expansion. In addition, by the time of Domitian, the position of emperor had been solidified as a mainstay of the Roman culture. Ralph Martin Novak Jr., Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2001), 11-12, notes, “While there were political conflicts between the emperors and senators throughout the first century C.E., by the end of the century the senate and the senatorial order no longer constituted a serious challenge to the concepts of one man rule and hereditary succession to the throne.” In this time of the reification of the emperor’s power, the author of the Apocalypse uses counterimages to subvert the emperor and the empire. In the world of Asia Minor, people lived under the dominant discourse of the Roman Empire. For the small bands of believers in the seven churches, the Apocalypse is part of a tradition of a literature of resistance against empire and forms a counterdiscourse. Although we identified the Apocalypse as a prophecy with apocalyptic elements in a epistolary framework, the Apocalypse serves an important function as counterdiscourse. On apocalypses as counterdiscourse, see Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). 112 Jesus’ as a universal sovereign in Rev 1:12-20: the ankle-length robe and the golden belt wrapped around his breasts. The ankle-length robe (podh/rhß) is used to refer to clothing worn by Israel’s high priest, Levitical priests, an angel, or a god, so this robe in 1:13 gives the overall impression of a robe worn by one of high rank.114 A mediating position is almost certainly correct: the one like a son of man is one of high rank such as an eminent person and a high priest.115 In addition, the golden belt (zw¿nhn crusa◊n) points to Jesus as one of high rank because of how belts were associated with Elijah the prophet, a high priest, and a soldier.116 114 The lexeme podh/rhß (“robe”) is a hapax legomenon in the Jesus movement literature (Rev 1:13). Nine of the 12 occurrences of podh/rhß in the OG refer to the robe of the high priest (Exod 25:7; 28:4, 31; 29:5; 35:9; Zech 3:4; Wis 18:24; Sir 27:8; 45:8). In addition, podh/rhß is used in Jewish literature to refer to the robe of the high priest. For example, the writer of Ep. Arist. 96 uses this word to describe the colored robe of the high priest Eleazar, and likewise Philo uses this word to describe the long colored robe that the high priest took off before he entered the holy of holies (All. Int. 2.56; Moses 2.118). Scholars who see a reference to the clothing of the high priest include Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1) (London: T&T Clark, 2000; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2004), 84-85; Caird, Revelation, 25; and Smalley, Revelation, 54. Two points militate against the view that podh/rhß refers only to the high priest’s garment. First, the glorified Christ does not wear the high priest’s turban, the crown, the embroidered tunic, the ephod, or the breastplate, nor does he hold the censer. Second, as Aune, Revelation 1–5, 94, points out, both men and women wore robes and belts in the Mediterranean world, so Jesus’ clothing in Rev 1:13 is not distinctive in that respect. Josephus uses podh/rhß citw/n to refer to the linen garment of the Levitical priests (Ant. 3.7.2). Ezekiel uses podh/rhß to refer to the clothing of a man (angel) who comes to mark those in Jerusalem who mourned over the sins of the city (Ezek 9:2, 3, 11). Finally, podh/rhß is used to describe the attire of the Greek god Dionysus (Paus. 5.19.6). Scholars who see podh/rhß as a word with general reference in Rev 1:13 include Aune, Revelation 1–5, 93-94; Beale, Revelation, 209; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 438; Blount, Revelation, 44; Charles, Revelation, 1:27-28; Corsini, Apocalypse, 92-93; Giblin, Revelation, 47; Lenski, Revelation, 65; Osborne, Revelation, 89; Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 137; Roloff, Revelation, 36; and Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 99-100. This use of podh/rhß may be in line with a tradition among some circles of Jesus’ followers about his appearance in a long scarlet robe as reflected in Barn. 7:9 (Kirsopp Lake translation): “What does this mean? Listen: ‘the first goat is for the altar, but the other is accursed,’ and note that the one that is accursed is crowned, because then ‘they will see him’ on that day with the long scarlet robe ‘down to the feet’ on his body, and they will say, ‘Is not this he whom we once crucified and rejected and pierced and spat upon? Of a truth it was he who then said that he was the Son of God.’” Jay Curry Treat, “Barnabas, Epistle of,” ABD 1:613 says that the “most likely” date for Barnabas is after 70 CE and probably before ca. 135 CE. 115 Given the author’s indebtedness to Zechariah in many passages in Revelation, the author could have merged the offices of king and priest in light of Zech 6:13, which refers to the combined offices of king and priest in the person of Joshua. In this sense, the author stands in discontinuity with the sectarians at Qumran, who appeared to expect both a Davidic messiah and a priestly messiah (CD 12.23-13.1; 14.18-19; 19.10-11; 19.33-20.1; 1QS 9.9-10). However, as Beale, Revelation, 209, points out, the figure of king and priest may be combined to reflect the two individuals of Zech 4:3, 11-14. Beale finds two precedents for such a king-priest combination, first in Jonathan Maccabeus (1 Macc 10:88-89; 14:30) and then in Simon the governor and high priest of Israel (1 Macc 14:32-47). 116 Elijah is described as wearing a leather belt (zw¿nhn dermati÷nhn) in 2 Kgs 1:8 OG. zw¿nh is also used to refer to the belt worn by the high priest (Exod 28:4, 39, 40; 29:9; passim). The word is used to describe the armor that the Moabites put on for war (periezwsme÷nou zw¿nhn, 2 Kgs 3:21 OG). 113 Further solidifying this view of the golden belt pointing to high rank is that this golden belt in v. 13 likely alludes to the golden belt of the man clothed in linen in Dan 10:5.117 This imagery of the ankle-length robe and the golden belt is used thematically elsewhere in Revelation in key passages. Along the lines of the one like a son of man, the seven angels with the seven last plagues are dressed in pure bright linen and have golden belts around their chests (periezwsme÷noi peri« ta» sth/qh zw¿naß crusa◊ß, 15:6). One of these seven angels acts as the angelus interpres for the author in showing him the judgment of Babylon (17:1–18:24).118 In 21:9 probably the same angel acts again as the angelus interpres when he comes to show the bride, the wife of the Lamb, to the author. Revelation 17:1–18:24 and 21:9–22:9 are linked by the appearance of this angel and serve as counterimages (a prostitute in contrast to the bride). The angel’s attire, which is similar to that of the one like a son of man, provides lexical cohesion with the vision of 1:12-20 and indicates the angel’s unity with the one like a son of man.119 Even as the one like a son of man is dressed with an anklelength robe, so also the armies in heaven are dressed in white and pure garments, and this connection is seen in the common lexeme e˙ndu/w in 1:13 and 19:14.120 The second aspect of the universal sovereignty of the one like a son of man is seen in his location in the midst of the seven lampstands on the island of Patmos (1:13).121 The seven golden lampstands (lucni÷a) in vv. 12-13 allude to temple menorahs.122 Therefore, the image 117 On the surface, the golden belt of the glorified Christ may appear to allude to the golden belt of the Jewish high priest, but the belt in Rev 1:13 is pure gold, which is in contrast to the interwoven gold of the high priest’s belt (Exod 28:8). In addition, the use of gold ornaments may point to royalty (1 Macc 10:89; 11:58; 14:44). 118 For an extensive treatment of angelus interpres in Revelation, see Hansgünter Reichelt, Angelus InterpresTexte in der Johannes-Apokalypse: Strukturen, Aussagen und Hintergründe (EH 23:507; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994). 119 Robert Royalty, The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998), 189. 120 For further comments, see Table 8 in §3.2 above. 121 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 71, 88, contends that the menorahs suggest a temple ambience, but he wrongly concludes that 1:9-20 is set in the heavenly throne room on the basis that Jesus’ speaking in 4:1 connects the two passages spatially. Aune’s assessment fails to consider that 1:9-20 lacks any explicit mention of a throne or the John’s translation to heaven, as is the case in 4:1-2. In addition, as we will show in §5.3.2, Jesus’ coming to John on Patmos is the first in a series of comings in Revelation that function as fulfillments of the prophetic oracles in Rev 1:7-8. 122 An allusion to temple menorahs is probably in view in Rev 1:12 and all other places using lucni÷a in Revelation. Contra Lenski, Revelation, 63. First, lucni÷a is the word used in the OG for the seven-branched lampstand 114 of the seven menorahs here shows the historical continuity of Israel as the righteous covenant people of God with the members of the Jesus movement in the seven churches, which form the true Israel.123 Because these menorahs symbolize the seven churches, the position of the one like a son of man in the midst of them symbolizes his present lordship as high priest over the church in both blessing and judgment.124 As a priest or high priest, the one like a son of man is the representative of his people, who are formed from all tribes, language groups, peoples, and nations throughout the earth (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). As Gregory Stevenson notes, the point of the vision of the one like a son of man in the midst of the seven lampstands is that he mediates the presence of God to the churches on earth.125 This temple imagery serves the author’s purpose of showing that Jesus is the true sovereign of earth in contradistinction to the Emperor Domitian (the pontifex maximus), for the audience of the author would have been familiar with various temples and statues of the emperor that were located in their cities.126 In addition, the audience could possibly have been familiar with the (i.e., menorah) and probably would be the term with which the author’s audience would have likely been familiar (Exod 25:31; Lev 24:4; 1 Chron 28:15; 2 Chron 4:7, 20; 13:11; Jer 52:19; passim). Second, a reference to a menorah makes the most sense in light of the preceding sacerdotal context (priests, 1:6) and the remainder of Revelation with its many references to the heavenly temple (3:12; 7:15; 11:19; 14:15, 17; 15:5, 6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22), the altar of sacrifice (6:9), the golden altar of incense (8:3), angels functioning as priests (8:3), trumpets (8:6), the ark of the covenant (11:19), and libation bowls (16:2-17). Third, the menorah was a ubiquitous symbol of Israel in the author’s day in the Mediterranean world and in Asia Minor. For example, using the lampstand as a symbol, the writer of 4 Ezra says that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem was the putting out of “the light of our lampstand” (4 Ezra 10:22). On the menorah as a symbol of Israel, see CIJ 1:8, §4; 1:16, §14; 2:12, §743; 2:32, §771; Edwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols.; New York: Pantheon Books, 1953-65), 2:77-78; 12:77-83. As Aune, Revelation 1–5, 88, suggests, the placement of the seven lampstands with the exalted Christ in the midst may be parallel with the seven lamps before the throne inasmuch as the menorah burned “before Yhwh” (Exod 27:21; Lev 24:2-4; cf. 1 Kgs 11:36). Although the menorah is the image that is the general source of the allusion, the more specific allusion is to Zech 4:2, 10. Beale, Revelation, 206, provides three factors that lead to this conclusion: (1) the seven spirits of Zech 4:6 and Rev 1:4; (2) the duplication of the vision-interpretation pattern of Zech 4:2, 10 in Rev 1:12, 20; and (3) allusions to Zech 4:2, 10 in Rev 4:5 and 5:6 in conjunction with allusions to Daniel. 123 The phrase “true Israel” does not indicate a supersessionist view of a purely Gentile church that replaces Israel. Rather, it indicates that both Jews and Gentiles who placed their faith in Jesus the Messiah constituted the Israel of God. Thus, the heir to the promises of God is the universal church of Jews and Gentiles, who are one in Christ. On this issue, see Smalley, Revelation, 53; and Wall, Revelation, 62. 124 Beale, Revelation, 197. In the literature of merkavah mysticism, certain figures exercise a priestly role (e.g., Levi, T. Levi 8:3; Enoch, Jub. 4:25). 125 Stevenson, Power, 239. 126 Pontifex maximus (lit., “greatest bridgemaker,” i.e., “high priest”) was the title of the chief priest of the Roman religion that in the author’s day was given to the Emperor Domitian. In this life-long office, the emperor administered ius divinum (“divine law”) and oversaw other cultic practices. The author is countering the myth of the imperial cult and showing the identity of the true emperor. This is in line with how Roman culture assimi- 115 use of lampstands for illuminating the Divus Augustus and various deities.127 This image of the seven lampstands (menorahs) is employed in the self-identification of the exalted Jesus to the church in Ephesus (2:1). lated and transformed the myths of the Greek world. As Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 123, observes, the Roman Empire inherited myths from the Hellenistic world. Instead of supplanting these myths, the imperial cults adapted these myths and imbued them with new significance by including members of the Roman ruling class. For example, Augustus was styled as Zeus, while his wife Livia was portrayed as Demeter or Hera. The author of the Apocalypse employs a similar strategy to subvert the cultural symbols of the Roman Empire. Roman art served an ideological purpose. As Jás Elsner, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100–450 (OHA; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 28, observes, “Art could be used to evoke the grandeur of the imperial past, the glorious extent of the empire in the present, the dignity of the great Roman institutions. . . . We cannot understand the official art of the Roman state—its most public monuments and celebrations of the emperor—without due regard to the significance of this art as perhaps the prime factor in creating the aura of an august imperial presence.” Temples and cultic rituals formed a dominant part of the cityscapes of the seven churches of Revelation 2–3. Probably most of the members of these churches had never seen the temple in Jerusalem, which had been destroyed in 70 CE, so their familiarity with temples would have come from seeing temples and from hearing references to the Jewish temple in readings from the Jewish scriptures and the Jesus movement scriptures. With the exception of Thyatira, each of the seven cities of Revelation 2–3 featured a temple dedicated to the emperor. In addition, five cities (Philadelphia and Laodicea excluded) had imperial priests and altars. The first provincial temples were established in Pergamon in 29 BCE. In Ephesus a temple was erected to Roma and Divus Iulius. In Pergamon a temple to Roma and Augustus was erected and had the official title “of the goddess Rome and of Augustus, son of God.” In addition, Pergamon featured temples to Athena, Demeter, Dionysus, Aesclypius, and Zeus. Imperial temples were also established at Smyrna (23 CE), Philadelphia (55 CE), Sardis (56 CE), and Laodicea (87 CE). The temple at Smyrna was dedicated to Tiberius, his mother Livia, and the Senate. In 88/89 CE, the Temple of the Sebastoi was established in Ephesus. Both Ephesus and Laodicea had temples dedicated to Domitian. Inscriptions for the temple at Ephesus were dedicated to “Emperor Domitian Caesar Sebastos Germanicus.” S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 135, notes the ubiquity of imperial temples and sanctuaries in Asia Minor, which had more than 80 such buildings in over 60 cities. He also points to many imperial statues in Ephesus. Domitian had many silver and gold statues made of himself (Dio 68.1). Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation (DRLAR; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 22, says, “Like pagan temples, imperial statues provided a safe haven for fugitives and also marked a space for the manumission of slaves.” For our sources and further background, see Steven J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (RGRW 116; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 7-15; idem, Imperial Cults, 25-26, 44; J. Nelson Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse (JSNTSup 132; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 60-65; Osborne, Revelation, 85; Price, Rituals, 183; Thompson, Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 105; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Pergamon in Early Christian Literature,” in Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development (ed. Helmut Koester; HTS 46; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 163-84. On the ubiquity and rapid spread of the imperial cult, see Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (trans. Alan Shapiro; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988), 297-99. 127 Concerning the mysteries of Divus Augustus, H. W. Pleket, “An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries,” HTR 58 (1965): 343, says that “lu/cnoi served the purpose of showing the image of the Divus Augustus during the mystery celebration suddenly in a glaring lamp-light to the meeting of the initiated.” He (344) further says that there is a link between “mystery cults in general and the rite of showing the image of the god to the worshippers.” He (345) observes, “The Pergamum inscription makes it plausible that the showing of the imperial image under glaring lamplight constituted a part of the mysteries.” Such rituals in Asia at this time places the author’s vision of the one like a son of man into sharper historical focus. 116 The third aspect of the universal sovereignty of the one like a son of man is seen in his holding the seven stars in his right hand (1:16, 20). In the Jewish scriptures the symbol of the right hand represents authority, strength, protection, security, and power, all of which broadly convey the concept of sovereignty.128 In the matrix of allusions in Revelation, the stars of Rev 1:16, 20 are probably derived from a Jewish tradition in which stars usually symbolize the people of God.129 This dazzling image shows Christ’s universal sovereignty over the human messengers (presumably pastors or prophets) of his churches and therefore over the churches themselves.130 In a secondary sense the seven stars may be a counterimperial polemic that targets the pretensions of Domitian.131 In short, this composite allusion to the 128 Gen 48:13-18; Exod 15:6; Pss 16:8; 89:13; 110:1; 118:15-16; Isa 41:10; Dan 12:7; passim. In addition, the metaphor of stars represents people in the Jesus movement literature (Jude 13). 130 Evidence strongly favors the view that the a‡ggeloi in Rev 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; and 3:1, 7, 14 are human messengers, not angelic messengers. First, various parts of Revelation show that the author is in direct communication with the churches or church leaders without any angelic mediation (1:3-4; 22:16, 18), so any command to write to angels in Revelation 2–3 falls outside this transmission chain. Second, human messengers, not angels, have positions of authority over the seven churches. Third, the first occurrence of a‡ggeloß in Revelation refers to Jesus as a messenger in the transmission of revelation (1:1) and establishes the logical hermeneutical precedent for a human referent in 1:20. Fourth, in the Jewish scriptures and Jewish literature, stars usually represent God’s people (Gen 15:5; 22:7; 26:4; 37:9; Deut 1:10; Dan 8:10; 12:3; 1 En. 43:1–44:1; 104:2-6; 2 En. 66:7; 2 Bar. 51:5, 10). In the Jewish scriptures stars sometimes represent angels (Job 38:7), but such occurrences are the exception. On Jesus as the messenger of 1:1, see note 17 in Appendix 1. 131 Given the predominant influence of the Jewish scriptures as a source of allusions in Revelation, the image of the seven stars is probably a composite allusion that uses stars as a symbol for people and that uses the number seven in line with its symbolic meaning in Revelation. As Charles, Revelation, 1:30, points out, the anarthrous phrase aÓste÷raß e˚pta\, instead of the arthrous phrase tou\ß e˚pta» aÓste÷raß, does not refer to any specific set of seven stars. Notwithstanding, the evidence at a minimum shows that the use of seven stars could have been a tensive-symbol allusion for the author’s audience, perhaps as a double entendre. The double entendre depends on the likelihood of the seven stars having a secondary reference to a cultural source. The first proposed source is the Palestinian targum to Exod 40:4. This proposal has not gained much acceptance. Cf. M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), 197-99. The second proposed source is astronomy. Three astronomical possibilities for the seven stars are: (1) the seven stars of the constellation Ursa Major (the Great Bear; Strabo, Geogr. 1.1.21; Ep. 114); (2) the seven “planets” (sun, moon, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Venus, Saturn; Philo, Cher. 22; Leg. 1.8; Astr. 10); and (3) the seven stars of the constellation Pleiades (Job 9:9; 38:31; Amos 5:8). Concerning Ursa Major, a Mithras liturgy says the god Mithras holds in his right hand the seven stars of the Great Bear constellation (PGM IV.700). According to Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries (trans. Richard Gordon; New York: Routledge, 2001), 85, the Roman god Mithras is often portrayed with a cloak with seven stars on it. The third proposed source for the image of the seven stars is Roman coins. Scholars are divided on this source. Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 140, argues that the coins featuring seven stars are rare and postdate Domitian. However, Prigent does not provide evidence for his assertion. On the other hand, stars are associated with public artifacts associated with the reign of Domitian. W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1904; repr; Minneapolis: James Family, 1978), 68, notes that when Domitian built a temple of the imperial Flavian family, the poet Statius, writing in about 95–96 CE, describes Domitian as placing the stars of his family in a new heaven (Silv. 5, 1, 240f). Ramsay (68) says that the parallel is that “the new Temple on earth corresponds to a new heaven framed to contain the new stars. . . .” Thus, as 129 117 Jewish scriptures and Roman culture shows that the one like a son of man, not Domitian or any other ruler, is the sovereign of the earth. The image of Jesus holding the seven stars is repeated in Jesus’ identification of himself to the church in Ephesus and the church in Sardis (2:1; 3:1). The fourth aspect of the universal sovereignty of the one like a son of man is seen in the titles of the exalted Christ in 1:12-20. The subtle subversion of the Roman Emperor is seen in the titles that Jesus bears in 1:9-20: one like a son of man (v. 13), the first and the last (v. 17), and the living one (v. 18). Besides functioning as a window allusion, o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in v. 13 probably serves the secondary purpose of satirizing the language of empire by distorting the lingua franca of koine Greek.132 In aggregate, these titles of Jesus stand in contrast to the emperor’s titles of hubris.133 The identification of Jesus as “the first and the last” recurs in the prophetic message to the church in Smyrna (2:8). This important Ramsay (ibid.) further notes, the divine emperors of the Flavian dynasty and other deified family members dwell on earth in the new temple in the way that stars move in the new heaven. In about 83 CE Domitian’s son died. After his son’s death, Domitian proclaimed that his son was a god and that his mother Domitia was the mother of a god. In a dramatic parallel that shows imperial dominion over the world, an aureus from Domitian’s reign depicts the son of Domitian as a baby sitting on a globe and seven stars in an arc around him, which are symbolic of the seven planets (RIC 2:209; coins 440, 441). Hemer, Letters, 4, 214 n. 8; Stauffer, Christ, 152. Given the wide circulation of coins and their powerful propagandistic purposes, the image of the seven stars probably derives from an image with which the author’s audience was familiar. However, an intentional allusion to coins from Domitian’s reign cannot be proved. 132 The alterity of the language of the Apocalypse simultaneously invites the oppressed and subverts the oppressor. In Rev 1:13 the solecism functions as a window allusion (§3.3.2) to invite the audience deeper into the symbolic world of the Apocalypse. At the same time the solecism subverts the oppressor by contravening the conventions of the koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. 133 The author presents a counterimperial image of Jesus. Like other Roman emperors, Domitian had a number of titles that were accorded him at his accession or that he acquired during his reign. At his accession in 81 CE, he was given the titles Augustus (“venerable” or “majestic”; Greek = Sebasto/ß), tribunicia potestas (“tribunician power”), pontifex maximus (“high priest”), and pater patriae (“father of the fatherland”). As the pontifex maximus, he had authority over the religion of the empire. He also held the title of salvator mundi (“savior of the world”; Martial, Epig. 2.91), the honorific title of invictus (“unconquered,” ajni/khtoß), and imperator (“commander” = the official title of the emperor). Between June 9 and August 28 of 83 CE, Domitian obtained the title of Germanicus (i.e., “Conqueror of Germany”). In late 85 CE Domitian declared himself censor perpetuus (“censor for life”). Scholars are divided over whether Domitian claimed the title dominus et deus. A sestertius from Domitian’s reign, a coin worth one-quarter of a denarius, provides an example of the combination of these titles. The obverse of the coin features Domitian’s titles as P[ontifex] M[aximus] TR[ibunicia] P[otestate] VIII CENS[or] PER[petuus] P[ater] P[atriae]. BMC II, p. 393, no. 424. See Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian (New York: Routledge, 1993), 21, 108-9, 129; and Stefan Weinstock, “Victor and Invictus,” HTR 50 (1957): 214, 241-42. 118 identification turns up again in the epilogue, when Jesus identifies himself as “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (22:13). This theme of Jesus as the universal sovereign is found in other passages in Revelation.134 The priestly elements in 1:12-16 are consistent with Jesus’ role in making saints into priests (1:6; 5:10) and having authority with God over the priesthood of believers (20:6). The regal elements in 1:12-16 are seen in Jesus coming as the King of kings and the Lord of lords (17:14; 19:16). Another implication is that the mission of the church is to extend the temple of God, which was a sacred space that was distinct from earth during Israel’s history. Thus, with the creation of the new heaven and the new earth, the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb constitute the temple (21:22). According to the author’s high Christology, no longer is Jesus Christ merely standing in the midst of seven lampstands on earth, but he is the medium through which God illuminates everything (21:23).135 The clash between the one like a son of man and his kingdom and the beast and his kingdom is seen repeatedly in Revelation.136 Jesus is seen as a king sitting with his Father on his throne (3:21). As the one receiving authority from God, the Lamb forms people into a kingdom and priests (5:10). This emphasis on Jesus as the universal sovereign of earth reaches a high point in Rev 11:15, when “the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and his Messiah, and he will reign unto the ages of the ages.”137 At this point the 134 Eskola, Messiah, 211, perceives the tenor of various passages in Revelation and says, “As the Resurrected one Christ is further a heavenly king, who is the ruler of the whole world.” 135 On the author’s “high Christology,” see Smalley, Revelation, 557. 136 In speaking of the beast, we are speaking of Satan (the animating power of the beast), the beast as an individual, and the beast as a ruling system depicted with seven heads and ten horns (10:11; 13:12; 16:14; 17:14, 18; 19:19). The result of the clash is the defeat of the kings of the earth and those allied with them (6:15-17; 17:14; 18:9-10; 19:18). Revelation 16:10 and 17:12, 17-18 concern the kingdom of the beast and Babylon, but Daniel 7 is also the backdrop in these instances as well inasmuch as this chapter deals with kingdoms that are opposed to God (Dan 7:1-8). Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 80-81. 137 In 11:15 the antecedent of the third-person singular future verb basileu/sei is not clear: the Lord, His Messiah, or both. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 632-33, argues that the final kai/ starts a coordinate clause that functions like a relative clause, and he therefore translates kai/ as “who” (“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and his Messiah, who will reign for ever and ever”). However, a straightforward function of kai/ as a coordinating conjunction is preferred because of the somewhat frequent use of relative pronouns elsewhere. Moreover, in light of the oscillating Christology of the Apocalypse, a joint rulership over the world is more likely in view: both Yhwh and His anointed one share in this rule. Cf. J. Massyngberde Ford, “The Christological Function of the Hymns in the Apocalypse of John,” AUSS 36 (1998): 221; Mounce, Revelation, 226; 119 reign of Yhwh and the Messiah is supreme. In 12:10 the triumphant announcement comes, “Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Messiah.” This cluster of allusions to Psalm 2 in Rev 11:15 and 12:10 probably is rooted in the triadic tradition of the Davidic Messiah, the Servant of Yhwh, and the one like a son of man (§3.3.3). In presenting the exalted Christ in superlative ways as the true Ruler and Savior of all, the author demythologizes the Roman emperor and powerful Roman deities. All these aspects of the exalted Jesus as the universal sovereign are rooted in the rubric of o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in 1:13 and are therefore rooted in Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse. We concur with George Nickelsburg’s assessment: “Much more than any of the other NT texts, Revelation emphasizes Jesus’ functions as ruler (whether in the present, in the millennium, or afterward), and in this sense John returns to Daniel 7.”138 3.4.4 The One like a Son of Man as the Vindicated Witness The theme of the vindicated witness is seen in the legal milieu of Daniel 7, which is evident in the courtroom that the Ancient of Days presides over and the judgment of the fourth beast.139 The aspect of the one like a son of man as a suffering witness is seen in his identification with the saints of the Most High, who suffer from the horn’s war and are worn out by the horn (7:21, 25). As the Most High, the one like a son of man is the leader and companion in that suffering that springs out of the faithful witness of the holy ones.140 Finally, in the trial concerning the rulership of earth, God vindicates the holy ones by giving them “the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven” (Dan 7:27, RSV). Osborne, Revelation, 441; Smalley, Revelation, 289; Swete, Revelation, 142. As Eskola, Messiah, 214, notes, here Cristo/ß “is not a title, but an appellation of an anointed king.” 138 Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” 6:148. 139 In regard to the slaying of the beast in Dan 7:11, Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 303, says, “In the context it is reasonable to assume that the beast was slain by order of the court.” 140 In §3.4.5 we discuss our identification of the Most High as the one like a son of man in Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27. The holy ones are faithful witnesses because they receive a favorable verdict from the Ancient of Days and because they are among examples of people in Daniel of those who are described in various ways as faithful witnesses (1:8-20; 3:8-30; 8:10; 12:3). 120 The theme of the one like a son of man as a vindicated witness in Daniel 7 is the logical extension of the view that the one like a son of man is the eschatological judge (§3.4.2). As a witness, the one like a son of man appears in the courtroom of heaven before the Ancient of Days, who rules in favor of this one who comes with the clouds. The one like a son of man also acts as the inclusive representative of the eschatological people of God (the true and ideal Israel), who form the corporate son of man.141 In this capacity, he is the representative of the eschatological people of God.142 141 Simultaneously, the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 functions in a threefold way: as an individual, as an inclusive representative, and as a symbol of the true and ideal Israel. His identity as an individual is affirmed in the stress placed on third-person singular words in vv. 13-14 (hwh, hfm, yhwbrqh yhwmdqw, hlw, hl, hnflC, htwklmw) and his function as a foil to the little horn, which is couched in the language of an individual man. In terms of being an inclusive representative, the one like a son of man receives the kingdom (7:13), and his reception of the kingdom is interpreted to mean that the saints of the Most High receive the kingdom (7:18). The symbolic aspect is seen in the fact that the four beasts have a dual identity as kings (7:17) and kingdoms (7:23-24). Because both the four beasts and the human figure are described as being “like” (k), they have a symbolic character. Thus, the dual identity of the beasts as representatives and symbols serves as a parallel to the dual identity of the one like a son of man. In this vein, Kim, Origin, 247, observes that “just as the four beasts are symbols and representatives of four empires, so the figure Cna rbk is both the symbol and representative (or leader) of the ‘saints of the Most High’.” A helpful term is Stammvater (“primogenitor”), which describes the relationship of an individual who is the inclusive representative of a people (e.g., Jacob vis-à-vis the nation of Israel). This term is based in the concept of the unity and solidarity between a patriarch, leader, ruler, or representative and his people, kingdom, or nation. See discussion in A. J. M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT 44; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987), 342-56, esp. 352. Seyoon Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 83, applies the term Stammvater to the one like a son of man of Dan 7:13ff. as “the inclusive representative of the ideal Israel, the eschatological people of God.” In essence, the one like son of man is pars pro toto vis-à-vis the people of God. The term “corporate personality,” which is sometimes used to describe this phenomenon, is not accurate. Contra Aubrey R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961); Lacocque, Daniel, 124. The portrayal of Jesus Christ, the one like a son of man, as the Stammvater in Revelation is congruent with many aspects of his portrayal in the Gospels. Thus, as C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 14, points out, “All in all, then, the human figure in Dan. 7 is highly appropriate to the ministry of Jesus. On this showing, it is not a title for Jesus, but a symbol of a vocation to be utterly loyal, even to death, in the confidence of ultimate vindication in the heavenly court.” Italics original. Likewise, T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 227, is essentially correct in his assessment: “. . . [I]t is now suggested that Son of Man in the Gospels is another embodiment of the Remnant idea. In other words, the Son of Man is, like the Servant of Jehovah, an ideal figure and stands for the manifestation of the Kingdom of God on Earth in a people wholly devoted to their heavenly King. . . . His [Jesus’] mission is to create the Son of Man, the Kingdom of the saints of the Most High, to realize in Israel the ideal contained in the term.” Although using “corporate personality” earlier in his analysis of Jesus, Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 136, nevertheless correctly states, “Jesus conceived it to be his mission to create the people of the saints of the Most High, to whom the kingdom should be given (cf. Luke 12.32). Thus, as in the Danielic simile of ‘one like unto a son of man’, a group or remnant of the righteous would be implied. . . . There is, however, as we shall see, a profound New Testament truth embodied in the conception of the corporate Son of Man, and it arises out of the life and teaching of Jesus himself.” Likewise, on the son of man as the in- 121 Revelation 1:9-20 portrays the one like a son of man as the vindicated witness.143 This portrait highlights Jesus in terms of his suffering, his witness, and his vindication through resurrection and exaltation. In regard to witness, the aspect of suffering is seen in his death (v. 18). The theme of Jesus as witness is introduced in v. 9, where the author mentions “the witness borne by Jesus” (th\n marturi÷an !Ihsouv). The theme of vindication is seen in the fact that the identity of the exalted Christ as the one like a son of man is made explicit by the description o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou. Whatever ambiguity that existed in any “son of man” sayings in the Gospels vis-à-vis Daniel’s “one like a son of man” is now stripped away: the exalted Christ is the one described in Dan 7:13 and stands vindicated in his claims while on earth.144 This theme of vindication also surfaces when Jesus triumphantly declares to the John, “I became dead, and, indeed, I am living unto the ages of the ages, and I have the keys belonging to Death and Hades” (v. 18). The witness of Jesus probably concerns the fearless witness that he bore to the truth of who God is, even though Jesus faced the contrary witness of Satan, his angels, and the world. This theme of Jesus Christ as the vindicated witness is made explicit in the description of him as “the faithful witness” (oJ ma¿rtuß, oJ pisto/ß, 1:5; 3:14). Like the one like a son of man in Daniel 7, Jesus Christ is the inclusive representative of the true and ideal Israel in Revelation and is united with his people in witness, suffering, clusive leader or representative, see Dodd, Scriptures, 109, 119; C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament!: !An Inquiry into the Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament! (SBT 2/1; London: SCM, 1967), 90; and Scobie, Ways, 348-49. 142 As noted in §3.3.3 above, Rev 1:16 contains an allusion to Isa 49:2, which is part of a passage on the Servant of Yhwh. The next verse in this passage portrays the servant of Yhwh as the ideal embodiment of Israel: “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified’” (Isa 49:3, RSV). In making this allusion to Isa 49:2, the author of the Apocalypse appears to say is that the one like a son of man is the ideal embodiment of Israel. Beyond that identification, we may also see the one like a son of man as the ideal prototype of humanity when his uniqueness is established vis-à-vis all creatures (5:1-6, 13). On Jesus as the son of man qua “the ideal human being,” see Scobie, Ways, 349-50. 143 In essence, our term “vindicated witness” overlaps Osborne’s term “cosmic victor” (Revelation, 77), but our term is derived from the theology of the courtroom of God in Daniel 7 and Revelation and the associated theme of faithful suffering. Cf. Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 98. 144 In his discussion of son of man sayings, Richard Bauckham, The Jewish World around the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 99, proposes the possibility “that Jesus used bar enash . . . in the indefinite sense (‘a man’, ‘someone’) . . . but used it as a form of deliberately oblique or ambiguous self-reference.” With the clear allusion to Dan 7:13 in Mark 14:62 (= Matt 26:64 = Luke 22:67-68), Jesus is referring to himself, but, as Bauckham (101) notes, “the obliqueness makes his status one which he leaves it to God to vindicate.” 122 and vindication because he and his people are linked in these ways (2:3, 8-11, 13; 7:13-17; 12:11, 17; passim). This inclusiveness is further seen in two other ways. First, the two allusions in Rev 1:7, 13 to Dan 7:13 frame the author and his identification with other believers in 1:9. Second, the author sees himself and his fellow believers as those who are joined in “the tribulation and kingdom and endurance in Jesus” (1:9).145 Such a view is congruent with the portrait of the son of man vis-à-vis his followers elsewhere in the Jesus movement literature. In the Gospels Jesus uses the expression “the son of man” often in connection with his suffering, death, and resurrection, and this usage provides a proper backdrop for the author’s use of “one like a son of man.”146 As Richard Longenecker points out, the expression “son of man” is used in the New Testament for Jesus in solidarity with his suffering people (Acts 7:56; Rev 1:13; 14:14).147 Likewise, C. F. D. Moule points out that “the son of man” provides “a perfect symbol for the conviction that the oppressed and eclipsed martyr (or martyr people) is to be ultimately vindicated and seen ‘coming with clouds’. . . .”148 The theme of the one like a son of man as the vindicated witness is seen in passages in Revelation that portray Jesus and his followers as those whose lives are ultimately vindicated by God. Concerning Jesus, this theme is seen in Jesus’ self-description as “the faithful and true witness” (oJ ma¿rtuß oJ pisto\ß kai« aÓlhqino/ß) to the church in Laodicea (3:14). At a more conceptual level, this theme of vindicated witness is seen in the references to Jesus’ death or resurrection or both (5:6, 9, 12; 13:8). Beyond these references to Jesus, part of this theme of the vindicated witness is reflected in Revelation in the vindication of those who have 145 Beale, Revelation, 201, remarks, “That the ‘Son of man’ figure is applied to Jesus twice in the space of only seven verses (vv 7 and 13) is highly appropriate, since the ‘Son of man’ in Daniel 7 was a corporate representative for the saints with respect to both suffering and ruling, and this title was used in the Gospels only by Jesus to indicate his veiled, inaugurated kingship amidst suffering. . . .” e˙n !Ihsouv is used in an incorporative and inclusive way. Cf. Beale, Revelation, 201; Moule, Origin, 66-67. 146 The use of o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in Rev 1:13 and 14:14 breaks with the nearly exclusive use of oJ ui˚o\ß touv aÓnqrw¿pou in the son of man tradition in the Gospels and therefore emphasizes Jesus’ heavenly activity, but o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou is not entirely divorced from the notion of suffering because its occurrence in 1:13 is embedded in a section with references to Jesus’ earthly suffering (1:9, 18). 147 Longenecker, Christology, 92. 148 C. F. D. Moule, “Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Christological Terms,” JTS 10 (1959): 256. 123 conquered the great dragon “through the blood of the Lamb and through the word of their witness” (12:11). The importance of the witness of believers is also seen in Revelation (6:9; 11:7; 12:11; 19:10). The remnant of the seed of the sun-clothed woman has the witness of Jesus (12:17). Likewise, some saints are beheaded because of their witness of Jesus and the word of God (20:4). The witness of saints who are killed marks various places in the unfolding drama of the Apocalypse. Thus, the exalted Christ extols Antipas, who was killed, as “my faithful witness” (oJ ma¿rtuß mou oJ pisto/ß mou, 2:13). The two witnesses prophesy to the world for 1,260 days (11:3) but later are killed by the beast (11:7). Babylon is drunk with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (17:6). A recurring phrase in Revelation is “the witness of Jesus (Christ)” (1:2, 9; 12:17; 19:10 [2]). The corporate aspect of this witness is seen in various places in Revelation where the author refers to Christ and the saints sharing in ruling.149 Thus, the saints are seen as corporately identified with Jesus, the one like a son of man, in their suffering, triumph, and rulership.150 In particular, as J. P. M. Sweet notes, the image of the one like a son of man in the midst of the lampstands depicts his presence in the churches and therefore reflects the inclusiveness of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7.151 Seeing this theme, Andrew Perriman explains the faithfulness of the elect in terms of the suffering, death, resurrection, and public vindication of the son of man, preeminently as Jesus the man and then as the saints of the Most High as they suffer with and in the son of man.152 3.4.5 The One like a Son of Man as God’s Plenipotentiary The theme of God’s plenipotentiary is seen in two ways in Daniel 7. First, the one like a son of man is described as Nynwylo (“Most High”). 149 vna rbk (“one like a son of man”) oc- Corresponding aspects of Christ and the saints are seen in various places in Revelation. Even as God and Christ rule this world unto the ages of the ages (11:15), so also certain martyrs and those in the first resurrection rule with Christ for a thousand years (20:4, 6). Even as Christ will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:15), so also the conquerors of the church in Thyatira and the male son of the sun-clothed woman will rule the nations with a rod of iron (2:27; 12:5). 150 Beale, Revelation, 201. Andrew Perriman, The Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church (Milton Keynes, Britain: Paternoster, 2005), 183, states that the churches in Asia Minor find that “they have been incorporated into that group of saints represented by the figure of the Son of Man.” 151 Sweet, Revelation, 69. 152 Perriman, Coming, 226. 124 curs in the interpretive section of Daniel 7 as Nynwylo (“Most High”) in the phrase Nynwylo yCydql (“for the holy ones of the Most High,” vv. 18, 22, 25, 27) but is distinguished from aylo (“the Most High”) in v. 25.153 Second, the clouds associated with the coming of the one like a son of man connect him in some way with Deity. In the Jesus movement scriptures clouds are normally used in connection with the glory and presence of God and are often used in theophanies.154 The one like a son of man comes with the clouds (ynno Mo), not upon the clouds—an important distinction. Thus, S. R. Driver notes that the one like a son of man coming with the clouds is an image of “superhuman majesty and state.”155 Seyoon Kim also states that the clouds signify that the one like a son of man functions in some way as a divine figure.156 John Collins argues that the juxtaposition of the two divine figures in Daniel 7 should be understood in light of the Canaanite myth of the high god El and the young fertility god Baal and that the figure of the rider on the clouds is subordinate to the Ancient of Days.157 In light of this divine imagery in Daniel 7, the one like a son of man is portrayed as God’s plenipotentiary. Revelation 1:12-20, carrying forward the theme of Rev 1:7, portrays the one like a son of man as God’s plenipotentiary.158 In this theophanic portrayal the author reconfigures the 153 A close reading of Daniel 7 reveals the use of Nynwylo, which is an Aramaic plural of the Hebrew word Nwylo (“Most High” / Gen 14:18; Ps 7:17; passim) and thus stands in contrast to the one reference that unequivocally refers to God (aylo). In Daniel aylo is used nine times to refer to the Most High God (3:26; 4:2, 17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18, 21). For details of this understanding, see Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986), 74-76, whose work forms the basis for our argument. 154 The use of clouds to indicate the glory and presence of God is seen in Exod 13:21; 19:9, 16; 24:15, 16, 18; 34:5; 40:35, 36; Lev 16:2; Num 11:25; 12:5; Deut 4:11; 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Chron 5:13, 14; Ps 18:10, 12; 97:2; 104:3; Isa 18:4; 19:1; Jer 4:13; and Ezek 1:28; 10:3-4. Lacocque, Daniel, 146, says that 70% of the references to clouds in the Old Testament refer to Sinai, the temple, or eschatological theophanies. In addition, the clouds in Rev 1:7 have connotative power in bringing to mind all of the ways in which God during Israel’s history provided for His people, led them, and manifested His presence. In regard to Christ’s return with the clouds, Minear, I Saw, 285, says, “The symbol of the cloud connotes the coming rendezvous of all those who in every age and place have given their faithful witness to God’s covenant, their rendezvous with Christ and God. As such, it is a symbol of universal judgment and redemption, a symbol of the intrinsic catholicity of the community, and a symbol of the inseparability of earthly happenings and heavenly potencies.” 155 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 88. 156 Kim, “‘Son of Man,’” 15. 157 John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 565. 158 Revelation 1:7-8 is the interpretive base in this development of the theme of God’s plenipotentiary in Rev 1:9-20 and elsewhere in Revelation. First, the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 portrays Jesus Christ coming with the clouds, which are a symbol of the presence and glory of God. Second, the allusion to Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7 125 monotheism of the Judaisms of the first century and establishes a Christological monotheism, but without systematically describing this monotheism.159 The first aspect of the one like a son of man’s role as God’s plenipotentiary is seen in Christ speaking with “a great voice like a trumpet” (fwnh\n mega¿lhn wJß sa¿lpiggoß) in v. 10. This “great voice like a trumpet” probably signifies the voice of Jesus.160 In light of the exodus motif in Revelation, this loud voice like a trumpet probably recalls the blast of the trumpet at Yhwh’s visitation on Mount Sinai during the giving of the Law (th\n fwnh\n thvß sa¿lpiggoß, Exod 20:18 OG).161 Thus, in casts the coming of Jesus as the coming of Yhwh because the one pierced in Zech 12:10 is Yhwh. Concerning the conflated coming of Jesus and Yhwh, Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 143, says that “if John saw the coming of the pierced one, who in Zech 12 is Yahweh, in terms of Jesus’ coming, then this could lead the audience to expect other instances in Revelation where Jesus takes the role that traditionally belongs to Yahweh. This is, of course, precisely what happens in a number of places in Revelation.” Third, Rev 1:8, which is lexically connected with 1:7 (e¶rcetai in v. 7 and oJ e˙rco/menoß in v. 8; cf. §2.2.2), is a prophetic oracle from Yhwh that not only substantiates the veracity of the previous oracle in v. 7 but also fuses the coming of Jesus with the coming of God, Who calls Himself “the Coming One” (oJ e˙rco/menoß, v. 8). The clouds of Rev 1:7 are conspicuously absent in the reference to Jesus as the one like a son of man in Rev 1:12-20, but this absence of clouds in 1:12-20 is because this metaphor is expressed in theophanic language in vv. 12-20. Thus, the clouds find their counterpart fulfillment in the other aspects of the glory and presence of God that are described in this passage (e.g., hair as white as wool, voice like the sound of many waters, face shining like the sun). 159 On Christological monotheism, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Milton Keynes, Britain: Paternoster, 2008; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 25-42. On the difficulty of defining and using the term “monotheism,” see note 37 in Appendix 2. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 591, describes the vision of the glorified Christ in 1:12-20 as “a theophanic event.” Theophanic elements are integrated in such a way that they are subordinated to the Christological and angelmorphic elements in this description of the one like a son of man. In this vein, Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT 207; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007), 169, describes vv. 12-16 as “a Christophany: a vision, that is, of Christ in a manner analogous to that of an angelophany, or indeed a theophany.” Chester (ibid.) further states that the one like a son of man “takes on what are in several respects best understood as divine attributes.” Similarly, Fekkes, Isaiah, 74-77, notes that Rev 1:9-20 transfers divine titles and attributes to Jesus. Furthermore, Perriman, Son of Man, 183, describes Jesus as “adorned with the attributes of deity.” Osborne, Revelation, 94, says that starting with Rev 1:17a, “a major purpose is to establish the deity of Christ.” Lunceford, Parody, 263, notes the “functional equivalency” between Christ and God in Revelation. Cf. Barker, Revelation, 136-43; Gieschen, Angelmorphic Christology, 246; Mounce, Revelation, 78; Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 131-32; Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 135, 142; Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 100-1. 160 Three reasons suggest that the unidentified voice in vv. 10-11 that speaks is probably the voice of the exalted Jesus. First, the repeated command from Jesus to write in v. 19 points to Jesus as the speaker in vv. 10-11. Second, no other referent is mentioned in vv. 9-20 besides Jesus and John. Third, when an angel speaks in a loud voice in Revelation, the word a‡ggeloß is normally mentioned (5:2; 7:2; 14:6-7, 9, 15, 18; 16:17; 19:17). Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 84. 161 On the exodus motif, see J. Casey, “The Exodus Theme in the Book of Revelation Against the Background of the New Testament,” Concilium 189 (1987): 34-43; and S. H. Kio, “The Exodus Symbolism of Liberation in the Apocalypse and its Relevance for Some Aspects of Translation,” BT 40 (1989): 120-35. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 87-88, notes that two Old Testament passages have fwnh/ as an object of seeing: Dan 7:11 and Exod 20:18. Beale, Revelation, 208, argues that in light of the previous allusion to Exod 19:16, 19 in vv. 10-11, an allusion to Exod 20:18 in v. 12 is more probable. In addition, the mention of a trumpet in Exod 20:18 makes this passage 126 Rev 1:10 the author invokes the theophany on Mount Sinai and therefore likens the voice of Jesus to the sound of Yhwh’s visitation. Even as Yhwh made His presence known by the loud blast of the trumpet at Sinai, so also the resurrected Christ speaks with a trumpet-like voice to the author on Patmos. This importance of the phrase “a great voice like a trumpet” vis-à-vis the one like a son of man as God’s plenipotentiary is demonstrated in two ways. First, it is demonstrated in the repetition of fwnh\n mega¿lhn (“great voice”) in numerous places in Revelation, and this repetition serves to punctuate the narrative with urgency, victory, judgment, or the inbreaking of God’s kingdom.162 These narratival intensifications ultimately proceed from the great voice of the one like a son of man, who has been entrusted with this revelation of coming events (1:1, 19), and form one united voice in the proclamation of the kingdom in its varied aspects. Second, the frequent use of the image of a trumpet in Revelation continues the theme of judgment proceeding from God and the Lamb (8:2, 6, 13; 9:14). The second aspect of the one like a son of man’s role as God’s plenipotentiary is seen in v. 14 with the description of Christ’s hair as white as wool and snow. This description may be based on the author’s awareness of a variant in Dan 7:13 OG that associates the one like a son of man with the Ancient of Days, who in Dan 7:9 is depicted with the hair of His head like pure wool.163 Papyrus 967 and Codex 88 diverge from the Aramaic, hfm aymwy qyto the probable basis for the allusion in v. 12. Although the sound of the trumpet probably refers to Exod 20:18, the use of a trumpet probably carries a multivalent metaphorical significance. Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 84. First, the trumpet is associated with various eschatological events in both the Jewish scriptures and the Jesus movement scriptures such as the Day of Yhwh, the cosmic parousia, and the ecclesial parousia (Isa 27:13; Joel 2:15; Zeph 1:16; Zech 9:14; Matt 24:31; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16). Second, the trumpet is associated with theophanies (Ps 47:5; Isa 18:3; Joel 2:1; Zech 9:14). Third, the trumpet is associated with the traditions and rites of Israel: religious festivals (Lev 23:24; 25:9); the coronation of the king (2 Sam 15:10; 1 Kgs 1:34-35); warfare (Num 10:9; Judg 3:37; 6:34); and cultic practices (Num 10:10; 29:1). 162 The symbols and characters associated with fwnh\n mega¿lhn (“great voice”) vary, but two aspects unite them. First, all of the symbols and characters are associated with God and His kingdom. Second, the consistent theme of narratival intensification noted above unites the symbols and characters in intensifying the cosmic drama. The symbols and characters are the throne (16:17; 21:3); heaven (11:12, 15; 12:10); a messenger who symbolizes Christ (10:3; cf. §5.3.3); the four living ones, the 24 elders, and many angels (5:12); the souls under the altar (6:10); a multitude in heaven (7:10); angels (5:2; 7:2; 14:7, 9, 15, 18; 19:1, 17); and an eagle announcing a triple “woe” (8:13). 163 Rowland, Open Heaven, 98, persuasively argues that the writer of Revelation could have known the OG translation of Dan 7:13 (“he came as the Ancient of Days”), and then he (ibid.) states, “This variant suggests that 127 dow (“and [he] came to the Ancient of Days”).164 Instead, these two manuscripts indicate some close association between the one like a son of man and the Ancient of Days by saying that the one like a son of man came as the Ancient of Days (wJß palaio\ß hJmerw◊n). The two texts are placed in the table below for comparison, with the combination of italics and underlining denoting the major differences:165 Table 9: Comparison of the Texts of Papyrus 967 and Codex 88 for Daniel 7:13-14 Verse Papyrus 967 Codex 88 13a e˙qew¿roun e˙n oJra¿mati thvß nukto\ß e˙qew¿roun e˙n oJra¿mati thvß nukto\ß 13b kai« i˙dou\ e˙pi« tw◊n nefelw◊n touv kai« i˙dou\ e˙pi« tw◊n nefelw◊n touv oujranouv h¡rceto wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou, oujranouv wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou h¡rceto, 13c 13d kai« wJß palaio\ß hJmerw◊(n) parhvn, kai« wJß palaio\ß hJmerw◊n parhvn, kai« oi˚ paresthko/teß prosh/gagon aujtw◊ˆ. kai« oi˚ paresthko/teß parhvsan aujtw◊ˆ. 14a 14b kai« e˙do/qh aujtw◊ˆ e˙xousi÷a basilikh/, kai« e˙do/qh aujtw◊ˆ e˙xousi÷a, kai« pa¿nta ta» e¶qnh thvß ghvß kata» ge÷nh kai« pa◊sa do/xa latreu/ousa aujtw◊ˆ: kai« pa¿nta ta» e¶qnh thvß ghvß kata» ge÷nh kai« pa◊sa do/xa aujtw◊ˆ latreu/ousa: 14c kai« hJ e˙xousi÷a aujtouv e˙xousi÷a ai˙w¿nioß, h¢tiß ouj mh\ aÓrqhvØ, kai« hJ e˙xousi÷a aujtouv e˙xousi÷a ai˙w¿nioß, h¢tiß ouj mh\ aÓrqhvØ, 14d kai« hJ basilei÷a aujtouv, h¢tiß ouj mh\ fqarhvØ. kai« hJ basilei÷a aujtouv, h¢tiß ouj mh\ fqarhvØ. Both manuscripts feature the unusual phrase wJß palaio\ß hJmerw◊n (“as the Ancient of Days”) in their mention of the coming of the one like a son of man. Scholars are divided as to whether the Old Greek originally read wJß palaio\ß hJmerw◊n or e¢wß palaio\ß hJmerw◊n.166 The the Son of Man is in fact an embodiment of the person of the Ancient of Days.” Cf. Gieschen, Christology, 249. The same image of God pictured as the Ancient of Days occurs in 1 En. 46:1 and 71:10. However, this characteristic of white hair is not restricted to God. For example, the angel Iaoel has hair like snow (Apoc. Abr. 11:2). In addition, the son of Lamech (Noah) was born with hair white like wool (1 En. 106:2, 10). Furthermore, angels are described as having white hair (1 En. 106:5-6). Finally, the elderly Jacob is described as having hair like snow (Jos. As. 22:7). 164 According to Tim McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (SCSS 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 7, there is no doubt among scholars that Papyrus 967 is a more faithful witness than Codex 88 to the original OG text. 165 For Papyrus 967, see Angelo Geissen, ed., Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. 5—12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther, Kap. 1,1a–2,15 (PTA 5; Bonn: R. Habelt, 1968), 108-10. For Codex 88, see Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 913-14. 166 Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12 (CBQMS 19; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988), 96-99, argues that wJß palaio\ß hJmerw◊n is a corruption of e¢wß palaio\ß hJmerw◊n. Similarly, Collins, “‘Son of Man,’” 555, contends that that the variants resulted from secondary scribal 128 issue of intentional change is in one sense moot because the variant, as either a scribal error or a scribal emendation, results in a view in which the Ancient of Days and the one like a son of man are closely associated.167 B. E. Reynolds sees two implications of the OG readings: (1) the one like a son of man is similar to but not identical to the Ancient of Days; and (2) the presentation of the one like a son of man suggests that he is a messianic figure.168 This hair like pure wool probably symbolizes the wisdom and regality of the Ancient of Days because white hair in the Jewish scriptures is associated with honor (Lev 19:32; Prov 16:31). This description of the one like a son of man with white hair, a feature of the Ancient of Days, does not identify Christ as God.169 Rather, the author closely associates Jesus Christ with God (a Gleichsetzung, not an Identifizierung) and probably takes the side of the Jews who argued against the doctrine of the two powers in heaven and regarded it as heresy.170 The portrayal of Yhwh as the Ancient of Days connotes His power to rule over the errors but that theological meaning was possibly attached to the variants later. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT 2/70; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1995), 213-18, disputes this view of scribal corruption. 167 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 92, notes, “Yet whether or not the identification of the Son of Man with the Ancient of Days reflected in MSS 88 and 967 was intentional, it is clear that it could be understood that way. . . .” Italics original. In this textual issue Aune seems to reflect the most judicious assessment of the evidence. 168 B. E. Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13-14,” Bib 89 (2008): 71. 169 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 92, wrongly concludes that Rev 1:13 clearly shows that the one like a son of man “is identical with the Ancient of Days.” Likewise, Bauckham, Theology, 54-65, is going beyond the evidence when he says that the author is identifying Jesus with God. 170 The description of one like a son of man in language descriptive of the Ancient of Days should be understood in light of the “two powers in heaven” controversy (twywvr ytv = “two powers”). For about a century after Jesus, some Jews argued over the “two powers in heaven” theological issue, as it is now known. In regard to the thrones of Dan 7:9, Akiba said that God placed “One for Himself, one for the Messiah” (b. Sanh. 38.2). The same line of reasoning (one throne for God, one for the Messiah) is seen elsewhere in rabbinic literature (b. Hag. 14a). According to A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 261, in early rabbinic literature (Sifre Deut. 379; Sifre Zuta Shalah 15.30; Tanhuma Kadoshim 4; Gen. R. 1.7; Deut. R. 2.33; Eccles. R. 2.12; Pesikta 20.4), some Jews adopted the phrase “two powers” (twywvr ytv), “two gods,” and “second god” to describe and refute the teaching that Yhwh has a divine mediator who shares his throne. Such a divine mediator is divine in the sense of sharing certain incommunicable attributes and functions that belong to God alone (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, universal sovereignty, eternality, creation, eschatological judgeship). The polemical discussion against the “two powers” doctrine in rabbinic literature does not preclude a much earlier origin for this doctrine because some of Philo’s writings and some apocalyptic literature exhibit some awareness of it. For example, Philo uses the expression deu/teroß qeo/ß (“second god”) to refer to the lo/goß (QG 2.62). With Philo’s reputation as a compiler of traditions rather than a creator of them, it is probable that Philo’s reference to the intermediary of biblical traditions indicates that a number of Jews held such beliefs. Cf. W. L. Knox, “Pharisaism and Hellenism,” in The Contact of Pharisaism with Other Cultures (vol. 2 of Judaism and Christianity; ed. H. Loewe; London: 129 nations and His ability to rule over the ages. Even as white hair indicated great age and therefore wisdom, so also the white hair of the one like a son of man indicates that he is associated with the Ancient of Days in ruling over people. The theme of one like a son of man’s role as God’s plenipotentiary is seen in the unity of God and Christ in many places in Revelation. One of the most notable examples occurs in the author’s throne-room vision in which ascriptions of honor are given to both God and Lamb (5:11-14).171 Another instance of this theme is seen in 11:15, where the author mentions “the kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah” and then fuses the two by saying that “he will reign unto the ages of the ages” (basileu/sei ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn). Similarly, in 22:3-4 the unity of God and the Lamb is accentuated: “And every divinely cursed thing will be no longer, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in it, and his bondservants will serve him, and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.” The occurrences of the singular pronouns (aujtwˆ◊ and three uses of aujtouv) in 22:3-4 refer to both God and the Lamb because God and the Lamb are one in purpose and one as the fused recipient of service. This unity is also seen in the title “Alpha and Omega” that God and the Lamb share (1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Sheldon, 1937; repr; New York: Ktav, 1969), 62; Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh?” 77. In light of this awareness in pre-rabbinic literature, Segal, Two Powers, 260-61, says that viewing the theophanies of the Hebrew Bible in terms of a divine mediator occurred before the second century CE. Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh?” 76-77, marshals further support for this argument by referring to the Magharians, who were a first-century Jewish sect that believed that a heavenly being created the universe, that this being was established as an overseer of all creation, and that this being acted as God’s intermediary in visibly manifesting himself to Israel’s patriarchs and speaking to the prophets. This “two powers” background is probably part of the theological milieu in which the author found himself. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 92, says, “Rev 1:13-14 may reflect an early stage of the later rabbinical polemic against the ‘two powers’ heresy. Proponents of this heresy, often identified with Christians and/or Gnostics, interpreted certain biblical texts in such a way that angelic beings or divine hypostases in heaven were understood as equivalent to God. . . .” Aune (93) further states that texts speculating on the meaning of God’s name and allusions to Dan 7:9-13 “suggest that John is preserving a Jewish polemic against understanding Daniel as referring to the two powers.” Italics original. Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 134-35, also views Rev 1:14 against this background. Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1985), 320, sees that Christians would be open to the charge of the two powers heresy, but he wrongly concludes that they “obviously would not try to reduce the impression that God had a proxy” and that the white hair of Jesus in Rev 1:14 denotes his “divine status.” 171 From his observations of 5:9-10, 12, 13, Morton, One, 164, concludes that Jesus is functioning as God. 130 The third aspect of the one like a son of man’s role as God’s plenipotentiary is seen in v. 15 with its description of Christ’s voice as the sound of many waters (wJß fwnh\ uJda¿twn pollw◊n). 172 The many waters are a composite allusion composed primarily of Dan 10:6 and secondarily of Ezek 1:24 or 43:2.173 The voice of many waters stresses the authority of God given to Jesus. This theme is reflected in the repetition of wJß fwnh\ uJda¿twn pollw◊n elsewhere in Revelation for describing certain followers of Jesus (14:2; 19:6). Thus, the 144,000 sing with a voice like many waters (14:2-3) and are identified with the one like a son of man as the saints to whom are given the kingdom, the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms (Dan 7:27).174 Likewise, the vast throng in heaven have a voice like many waters as they shout to God when the time comes for the marriage banquet of the Lamb (19:6-7). Finally, the author’s use of ta¿de le÷gei (“these things says”) in connection with the exalted Christ’s prophetic messages to the seven churches indicates that Christ is functioning in the role of Yhwh.175 The fourth aspect of the one like a son of man’s role as God’s plenipotentiary is seen in v. 17 with Jesus Christ’s pronouncement to the author, “I am the first and the last” (e˙gw¿ ei˙mi oJ prw◊toß kai« oJ e¶scatoß). The title “the first and the last” is used to describe Yhwh in Isa 41:4; 44:6; and 48:12, which are exclusivist statements concerning the sole deity of Yhwh.176 Thus, the title “the first and the last” is shocking in some regards when applied to the one like a son of man. This phrase is used two other times in Revelation. In the first instance, the glorified Christ identifies his words as those of “the first and the last” in his pro172 The many waters may refer to a waterfall, a cataract, or the sea. In both the Jewish scriptures and Jewish apocalyptic literature, the image of many waters is used to describe the voice of God (Ps 93:4; Ezek 1:24; 43:2; Apoc. Abr. 17:1; 4 Ezra 6:17). 174 Perriman, Coming, 217, observes that the 144,000 “have replicated Christ’s faithfulness and therefore receive the same reward: they have been ‘redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb’ (Rev. 14:4) and will rule with him.” He also identifies them as the saints of Dan 7:27. Cf. idem, Coming, 220. 175 ta¿de le÷gei occurs frequently in the OG as a formula for the prophets. See our discussion about ta¿de le÷gei in §2.2.1. Beale, Revelation, 229, remarks that this formula shows that Christ functions in the role of Yhwh and further notes that this role in other ways was depicted earlier in 1:12-18. 176 Both the OG and the MT vary in their formulation of the exclusivist statement concerning Yhwh, yet a number of scholars are in general agreement that e˙gw¿ ei˙mi oJ prw◊toß kai« oJ e¶scatoß in Rev 1:17 is an allusion to this cluster of texts from Isaiah concerning the self-predication of Yhwh: Aune, Revelation 1–5, 101; Beale, Revelation, 213; Fekkes, Isaiah, 74, 122; Osborne, Revelation, 95. 173 131 phetic message to the church of Smyrna (2:8). In the second instance, in 22:13, where the declaration of God in 1:8 is enlarged, Jesus declares, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” This declaration by Jesus combines two descriptions of God used earlier in Revelation, but this combination does not mean that the author is making Jesus somehow identical with God because these titles applied to God are intrinsic to God.177 Thus, Jesus bears the divine titles of “Alpha and Omega” and “beginning and the end.” The fifth aspect of the one like a son of man’s role as God’s plenipotentiary is seen in the composite polemic in 1:12-20 against pagan deities and the imperial cult. For example, David Aune notes that the author’s description of the glorified Christ in 1:12-20 possesses distinct associations with the imagery of Nero as Apollo-Helios and his enthronement in a Golden House.178 In 2:18, which is linked to 1:14-15 by the two passages’ common description of the exalted Christ, a similar polemic against Apollo is seen.179 The description of Jesus as having the keys of Death and Hades (1:18) probably is in part derived as a polemical thrust at both the Emperor Domitian and the goddess Hekate. As the pontifex maximus, Domitian was in charge of funerals, but Jesus claims authority over the dead. 177 The Alpha and the Omega (1:8; 21:6); the beginning and the end (21:6). Some titles of God in Revelation are not used to describe Jesus. God possesses exclusive titles and attributes in Revelation that prevent any Identifizierung with Jesus. This lack of Identifizierung of God with Jesus in toto permeates the entire discourse. For example, God is called “the Ruler of All” (oJ pantokra¿twr) nine times, but Jesus is never described in this way (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). Indeed, in one instance the Lord God Ruler of All and the Lamb are distinguished (21:22). Similarly, God is described transtemporally with either a triadic title (“the Being One and the He Was and the Coming One”; 1:4, 8; 4:8) or a dyadic title (“the Being One and the He Was”; 11:17; 16:5), whereas Jesus lacks these titles. Finally, God, never Jesus, is said to be the Creator of all things (4:11; 10:6). 178 Aune, “Influence,” 11. For details on the connection between Nero and Apollo, see Edward Champlin, Nero (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 112-44. Champlin (117) notes how Nero was hailed as “Nero Apollo” and the “New Apollo.” 179 In the message to Thyatira (2:18), Jesus declares, “These things says the son of God, the one having his eyes like a flame of fire and his feet like burnished bronze.” This use of the title “the son of God” in 2:18, which is the sole instance in the Apocalypse, is a polemic against Apollo, the son of Zeus, who was an important god in Thyatira. In addition, this title functions as a polemic against the imperial cult because many of the emperors used “son of God” in official correspondence and decrees: Augustus (P. Ryl. 601; PSI 1150; IGR 1:901) and Tiberius (SB 8317). The author describes the son of God in terms of two descriptions of the one like a son of man in 1:14-15: eyes like a flame of fire and feet like burnished bronze. Cf. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 201-2; Osborne, Revelation, 153. 132 Hekate, the goddess of darkness, was said to be linked with sorcery and ghosts, to possess the keys to hades, and to rule over all.180 Similarly, in one Egyptian tradition the god Anubis holds the keys to hades.181 The Greek god Hades is depicted as having a key. Heracles was said to bring some people from the dead.182 In contrast to these deities, Jesus has conquered Death and Hades and thus is victorious over these demonic powers.183 David Aune notes that the image of Jesus’ bare feet has a striking parallel with Roman art that sometimes portrays the emperor as barefoot to indicate his inclusion in the realm of the divine.184 Jesus’ face shining like the sun—a tensive symbol in this passage—shows Jesus in a position as God’s plenipotentiary, as was common in the Jewish scriptures and in Jewish literature.185 The sixth aspect of the one like a son of man’s role as God’s plenipotentiary is seen in v. 18 with Jesus’ self-identification as oJ zw◊n (“the living one”). The application of this title to the one like a son of man indicates that Jesus represents the Living God in not being subject to death.186 This title, which stresses the eternality of God, is ultimately derived from descriptions of God vis-à-vis false gods in the Jewish scriptures.187 This important title is used in key passages of Revelation. For example, in Rev 4:9-10 God is described twice as “the One living unto the ages of the ages.” This title is repeated in Rev 10:6, where a strong messenger 180 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 104; Witherington, Revelation, 82. One description of Hekate (PGM IV.2836-37) says, “Beginning and end are you and you alone rule all. For all things are from you, and in you do all things, Eternal One, come to their end.” 181 SIG 1717. 182 Diodorus Siculus 4.25.4; 4.26.1. 183 On Death and Hades as demonic powers, see Appendix 1 for the note accompanying our translation of Rev 1:18. Witherington, Revelation, 82, notes that one Jewish tradition regards only God as having the power to bring a person back from Hades (Wis 16:13). 184 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 95. 185 Ps 84:11; Isa 60:19. Cf. Chester, Messiah, 169. The association of the sun and God are seen in the description of the Great Glory who is sitting upon throne in 1 En. 14:21 (NVK): “No angel could enter into this house and look at his face because of the splendor and glory, and no human could look at him.” Similarly, the Lord of the sheep is one whose “face was dazzling and glorious and fearful to look at” (1 En. 89:22, NVK). 186 On oJ zw◊n as a a title of God, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, 102; Beale, Revelation, 214; Mounce, Revelation, 61; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 441; Smalley, Revelation, 56; and Swete, Apocalypse, 20. 187 God is called Myyj Myhla in numerous places in the Jewish scriptures (Deut 5:26; 32:40; 1 Sam 17:26; Isa 49:18; Jer 5:2; 10:10; 23:6; Dan 12:7; Hosea 1:10). In addition, God is called yj la (MT: Joshua 3:10; Ps 42:3; 84:3; Hos 2:1). The title “the living God” is also found in Jewish literature (Bel 14:5, 25; 3 Macc 6:28; Jub. 1:25; 21:4) and the Jesus movement scriptures (Matt 16:16; 26:63; John 6:69; Acts 14:15; Rom 9:26; 2 Cor 3:3; 6:16; 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10; 6:17; Heb 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22; Rev 7:2). Cf. Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 142. 133 (Christ; cf. §5.3.3) swears by “the One living unto the ages of the ages.” Again in Rev 15:7, one of the four living ones gives the seven angels the seven bowls that are filled with the wrath of “God, the One living unto the ages of the ages.” 3.5 Summary and Conclusions We showed that various elements in Rev 1:9-20 are connected with the rest of Revelation by means of lexical cohesion. Our analysis shows that Rev 1:9-20 is programmatic for the rest of the discourse because the repetition of key words and phrases from the “one like a son of man” vision unifies the discourse and elaborates aspects of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. We then showed that the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 is prominent and functions as both a window allusion and as a controlling-text allusion. We then explored four Christological themes in Rev 1:12-20 and examined their impact on the discourse of the Apocalypse: the eschatological judge, the universal sovereign, the vindicated witness, and God’s plenipotentiary. We concluded that these four major themes fall under the rubric of the allusion of the one like a son of man. Moreover, these themes are woven into the fabric of the rest of the Apocalypse. In the next chapter we will examine the relationship between Rev 1:7-8, Daniel 7, and Revelation 4–5. Chapter 4 Revelation 1:7-8 and Its Links with Revelation 4–5 4.1 Introduction In the last chapter we showed how Rev 1:9-20, which is connected to Rev 1:7-8 via chain-link interlock (§2.3.2), is thematically programmatic for the rest of the Apocalypse and is multivalent in its themes. We will begin this chapter by looking at the literary structure of Revelation 4–5 and at the ways in which Daniel 7, the context of Dan 7:13, serves as the Vorbild allusion for Revelation 4–5. We will end the chapter by showing that Revelation cannot be regarded as an Ezekiel-based text. 4.2 The Relationship of Revelation 1:7-8 and Daniel 7 to Revelation 4–5 All the events of Revelation 6:1–22:5 flow from Revelation 4–5, so these two chapters constitute the theological center of the discourse.1 In these two central chapters, the author interweaves allusions from a variety of sources such as Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jewish apocalyptic tradition, and Greco-Roman culture. However, as we will show, the main interpretive key for Revelation 4–5 is found in its link with Rev 1:7-8, especially the window allusion to Dan 7:13 that invokes the context of Daniel 7. 4.2.1 The Literary Structure of Revelation 4–5 Revelation 4–5 is best viewed as a unified vision that contains two interlocking episodes.2 As a unified vision, these chapters present the author’s vision of sequential events 1 The explicit connection between Revelation 4–5 and Revelation 6:1–22:5 is opening of the seals (5:9; 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12), which mark the beginning of the unfolding of the eschatological events of Revelation. In calling Revelation 4–5 “the theological center,” we do not imply that these chapters supersede the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. In fact, Rev 1:7-8 and Revelation 4–5 are linked because both passages feature the focus on the tribes of the earth (1:7; 5:9) and the triadic description of God (1:8; 4:8). As central chapters, Revelation 4–5 elaborate certain aspects of Rev 1:7-8, especially the allusion to Dan 7:13, and are foundational to the rest of Revelation. Many scholars acknowledge the importance of Revelation 4–5 for the remainder of the discourse: Aune, Revelation 1–5, 275; Bauckham, Theology, 40; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 108; Boring, Revelation, 102; Krodel, Revelation, 152, 168; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 58. Thompson, Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 59, says, “The presence of the slain Lamb in the heavenly temple is one of the fundamental secrets revealed in the Book of Revelation (cf. 7:17).” 2 Hurtado, “Revelation 4–5,” 110; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 108-29; Mounce, Revelation, 116-38. 134 135 without any substantial break in the text.3 Revelation 4:1 marks the beginning of a new section, as many scholars observe.4 The interlocking of the two chapters is seen in the phrase touv kaqhme÷nou e˙pi« touv qro/nou in 4:10, which is repeated verbatim in 5:1, 7. Furthermore, the repetition of qro/noß as a reference to God’s throne links the two chapters together.5 Beyond this level of linking, Revelation 4–5 is linked with Rev 1:9-20 and ultimately to Rev 1:7-8. First, the author says in 4:1 that the voice that he hears is the same voice that he heard at the beginning of his first vision in 1:10. Second, the author says that the result of this second vision is that he finds himself in spirit (4:2, e˙geno/mhn e˙n pneu/mati), repeating verbatim the phrase he uses to describe his experience of being in spirit on the Lord’s day (1:10).6 In this link with 1:9-20, chapters 4–5 are an elaboration of the themes concerning the one like a son of man begun in 1:10, and these two chapters are therefore an elaboration of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8.7 4.2.2 Daniel 7 and Revelation 4–5 Revelation 4–5 is a throne-vision report and is a complex composite of various elements such liturgy, hymns, Greco-Roman culture and the imperial cult, Jewish apocalyptic tradition, and the Jewish scriptures.8 However, Revelation 4–5 is best viewed as built on 3 In our outline of Revelation (§2.3.2), we argue that 4:1–11:19 forms one major section. In a more detailed outline of Revelation, we would subdivide 4:1–6:17 as a unit because, as Aune, Revelation 1–5, 276, notes, the formulas meta» tauvta in 4:1 and meta» touvto in 7:1 frame the narrative. 4 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 275; Beale, Revelation, 316; Bousset, Offenbarung, 242-43; Charles, Revelation, 1:102; Giesen, Offenbarung, 147; Morton, One, 39; Osborne, Revelation, 218, 220-21. 5 For the 17 occurrences of the throne of God, see note 9 below. In contrast, qro/noß occurs only once in the next chapter (6:16). 6 Corsini, Apocalypse, 124. 7 Ibid., 123-24. 8 Liturgy: Piper, “Apocalypse,” 10-22; Lucetta Mowry, “Revelation 4–5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage,” JBL 71 (1952): 75-84. Hymns: Edwin Yamauchi, Archaeology of the New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 42, notes that hymns were sung to emperors. Greco-Roman culture and the imperial cult: Aune, “Influence,” 5-26; Boring, Revelation, 103; Craig S. Keener, Revelation (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 180, 189; Hanns Lilje, The Last Book of the Bible: The Meaning of the Revelation of St. John (trans. Olive Wyon; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957), 108; Mounce, Revelation, 127; Osborne, Revelation, 225-26. Jewish apocalyptic tradition: The image of a door to heaven (Rev 4:1) is featured the following texts: 1 En. 14:10-11, 15; 104:2; T. Levi 2:6; 5:1. The image of a lamb with seven horns (Rev 5:6) is probably rooted in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition and scriptural tradition. The Maccabees are described as “horned lambs” (1 En. 90:9), and a messianic figure is described as a white bull with large horns (1 En. 90:37). Similarly, a lamb defeats the enemies of Israel (T. Jos. 19:8-9). Horns are used positively to refer to the firstborn of Joseph’s bull (Deut 33:17). 136 Daniel 7 as a Vorbild. The use of extrascriptural allusions as a Vorbild for Revelation 4–5 fails to convince.9 First, the extrascriptural allusions are not interwoven throughout the two chapters in an obvious fashion. Second, none of the extrascriptural allusions forms a linear story, which is the nature of Revelation 4–5. The use of Daniel 7 as a Vorbild allusion in Revelation 4–5 is seen in three ways. The first way is the author’s use of the 17 occurrences of the throne of God in Revelation 4–5 as an allusion to the throne of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9.10 Scholars posit other possibilities for the source of the throne allusion, but these alternatives fail to convince.11 The factors favoring Daniel 7 as the source text of the allusions to the throne are as follows. Both the throne of Revelation 4–5 and the throne of Dan 7:9 are placed, and this placement constitutes an act of dramatic significance.12 In addition, the throne in both texts features God sitting upon it. Further support for seeing Revelation’s throne imagery as connected with Daniel 7 and its depiction of judgment is the forensic rhetoric that dominates Revelation 4–5 and the rest of Revelation through much of its text.13 Finally, the other details of Revelation 9 For example, the author of the Apocalypse engages in a polemical way with the Roman imperial cult, showing that God, not Caesar, occupies the throne and is sovereign in human affairs. However, such a polemic is subsumed within the framework of Daniel 7, where God’s rule over all empires is demonstrated. In addition, allusions arising from the author’s cultural milieu or apocalyptic orality are clearly secondary in nature because he views everything through the lens of the divine viewpoint of the Jewish scriptures and the eschatological coming of the one like a son of man. 10 qro/noß as a reference to the throne of God is mentioned in 4:2 (2), 3, 4, 5 (2), 6 (3), 9, 10 (2); 5:1, 6, 7, 11, 13. In addition, the plural form of qro/noß is used twice in 4:4 to refer to the thrones of the 24 elders. 11 Morton, One, 84-85, states that possible sources of the throne imagery include: (1) Homeric literature, (2) ancient Near East mythology, (3) the Hebrew Bible, and (4) Jewish apocalyptic. The link with Homeric literature and ancient Near East mythology is general at best. In regard to Jewish apocalyptic, its influence is more specific, but such an allusion does not account for the context of the texts that mention the throne. 12 Revelation 4:2 says “and, look, a throne was being set in heaven” (kai« i˙dou\ qro/noß e¶keito e˙n twˆ◊ oujranwˆ)v . The significance of the setting of this throne is seen in the imperfect form e¶keito. This setting of the throne corresponds conceptually, though not lexically, with the setting of the thrones in Dan 7:9: e˙qew¿roun eºwß o¢te qro/noi e˙te÷qhsan, OG; e˙qew¿roun eºwß o¢tou qro/noi e˙te÷qhsan, Q. 13 Witherington, Revelation, 15, points out that “the dominant form of rhetoric in this document [Revelation] is forensic rhetoric.” He (16) goes on to note, “Official documents are at the heart of the revelations in Rev. 4–21, which is only appropriate in a forensic setting, and it is in court they are unsealed and read. The audience is comforted because the divine verdict is a foregone conclusion – the faithful will one day conquer and the wicked will one day be judged – but in the meantime the audience must remain faithful and must repent of their sin and lethargy and cowardice.” Royalty, Streets, 127, contends that “Revelation has clear affinities with epideictic rhetoric,” and to a degree it does, but these affinities are subsumed within the larger scope of forensic rhetoric. 137 4–5 are highly correlated with the context of Daniel 7 (e.g., the presence of other thrones in Dan 7:9 and Rev 4:4).14 The second way that shows the use of Daniel 7 as a Vorbild allusion in Revelation 4–5 is the fact that eschatological judgment is a theme that comports well with both Daniel 7 and Revelation 5. The throne for God in Daniel 7 and His throne in Revelation 4–5 are associated with the eschatological judgment of the kingdoms of this world.15 In Daniel 7 the Ancient of Days is in control of the judgment, and the one like a son of man is in a passive role. The third way that shows the use of Daniel 7 as a Vorbild allusion in Revelation 4–5 is the correspondence of Revelation 4–5 to the general sequence of events and the major symbols of Daniel 7. The table below presents Revelation 4–5 in sequence and notes the parallels between Daniel and Ezekiel:16 Table 10: Allusions in Revelation 4–5 to Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1–2 Event or Wording Daniel Ezekiel Seeing something new after seeing other 7:6-7 1:1 things The opening of heaven 1:1 17 A throne or throne(s) set in heaven 7:9 1:26 18 God sitting on a throne 7:9 1:26-27 God’s awesome appearance 14 7:9 1:26-28 Revelation 4:1 4:1 4:2 4:2-3, 9-10; 5:1, 7, 13 4:3 Daniel 7 does not specify who occupies the thrones of Dan 7:9. A number of scholars regard these thrones as those for the court of v. 10, but there is no consensus. This use of throne imagery based on the thrones and the seating of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9 finds a probable precedent in 4Q491c, where a “throne of strength” (zwo ask) in line 12 is mentioned. Hengel, Christology, 202, believes the entire scene of 4Q491c and its throne imagery reflects “the college of judges” of Dan 7:9-10, and Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, 223, concurs with this assessment. 15 Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 52, notes that throne visions in ancient literature function in one of six or more ways, and he classifies Dan 7:9-12 as a judgment scene and Ezek 1:4–3:11 as a commission scene. In light of Rev 6:1-17, Aune (52-53) says that the throne vision of Revelation 4–5 “constitutes an unusual form of judgment scene.” 16 This table reflects our analysis of the text and includes Ezekiel for comparison, which Beale, Revelation, 314-15, excludes. A number of the parallels agree with Beale’s analysis: Use of Daniel, 181-82; John’s Use, 88; Revelation, 314-15. 17 The allusion to Dan 7:9 is stronger than any putative allusion to Ezek 1:26 because Dan 7:9 refers to the setting of the throne. In contrast, the throne in Ezek 1:26 is not said to be set. 18 Dan 7:9 OG shares the important lexeme ka¿qhmai (“to sit”) with Rev 4:2, 3, 9-10 and 5:1, 7, 13. The wording of Ezek 1:27 does not feature this important lexeme (kai« e˙pi« touv oJmoiw¿matoß touv qro/nou oJmoi÷wma wJß ei•doß aÓnqrw¿pou a‡nwqen). 138 Event or Wording Rainbow surrounding God on the throne Thrones for others near the throne of God Fire associated with the throne19 Lightning associated with the cherubim / living ones A sea Servants surrounding the throne20 The presence of four living ones in relation to the throne of God21 A structure like crystal The eyes of the cherubim God’s reception of glory, honor, and power22 Scroll(s) associated with the throne of God23 Scroll written inside and on the back24 The opening of a scroll or scrolls The shoot of David25 19 Daniel Ezekiel 1:27-28 1:13 Revelation 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:5 1:5-10 4:6 4:4, 6-10; 5:8, 11, 14 4:6-9; 5:6, 8-11 7:9 7:9-10 7:2-3 7:10 7:9 1:22 1:18 7:14 7:10 2:9-10 7:10 7:13 4:6 4:8 4:11 5:1-5 5:1 5:2-5, 9 5:5 Three images of fire are associated with the throne in Dan 7:9-10: the throne of fire of the Ancient of Days, wheels of fire, and a river of fire proceeding from the throne. Daniel 7:9 OG lacks a reference to wheels and says that the throne is like a flame of fire (oJ qro/noß wJsei« flo\x puro/ß). Revelation 4:4 follows the order of Dan 7:9-10, but the image of the seven torches of fire in Rev 4:5 comes from Zech 4:2-3, 10 as to the number of the torches. Beale, Revelation, 326, wrongly says the structural order of both Dan 7:9ff. and Ezek 1:26ff. forms the background because fire precedes the description of the living ones in Revelation. However, Beale fails to note that the description of the living ones precedes the fire in Ezekiel 1. 20 The phrase muria¿deß muria¿dwn in Rev 5:11 shows that the ultimate source text for all these servants around the throne is Dan 7:10 (mu/riai muria¿deß), which is the only place in the OG where this phrase occurs. Cf. Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 170. The reference in Revelation 4–5 to the thrones, the four living ones, the 24 elders, and the angels is also to be seen in light the motif of the divine council found in various passages in the Jewish scriptures (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6; Pss 29:1; 82:1; 89:5-7; Jer 23:16-18). 21 The word “cherubim” is not used in Daniel 7, but the fiery throne chariot in Daniel’s vision has a strong parallel with the fiery throne chariot of Ezekiel. 22 In Dan 7:14 the one like a son of man receives from the Ancient of Days dominion, honor, and kingdom, which may be regarded as a reconfigured allusion (approximate parallel). The source of this bestowal is the Ancient of Days. Parker, “‘Our Lord and God,’” 228, sees an allusion to Dan 7:14 here. 23 Most scholars regard the bibli÷on in 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 as a scroll, not a codex or a book of parchment leaves. We concur with the consensus of scholars on this issue. Cf. Charles, Revelation, 1:136-37. 24 Revelation 5:1 features six variants. Variant 1: e¶swqen kai« o¡pisqen ] A 1 69 1828mg 2057 2059 2081 2329 2344 pc syh; Or1/4 Cyp Epiph Cass Oecu2062. Variant 2: e¶mprosqen kai« o¡pisqen ] a f2031 pc sa; Andr Or2/4. Variant 3: e¶swqen kai« e¶xwqen ]  025 046 1006 1611 1828txt 1854 1859 2020 2042 2065 2344 2351 2432 latt vg syph bo arm eth Hipp Or1/4 Vic Aph Hil Oecu2053 Prim Andra,c,p Ps-Ambr Bea Aret. Variant 4: e¶xwqen kai« bav e¶swqen ] 94. Variant 5: e¶swqen kai« e¶xwqen« kai« o¡pisqen ] Andr . Variant 6: e¶swqen kai« e¶xwqen« kai« e¶mprosqen kai« o¡pisqen ] 2073. Variant 1 (e¶swqen kai« o¡pisqen) is well attested (e.g., MS A) and is the best source for the other variants that would arise with scribes who were more familiar with codices. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 735. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 322 n. 1.e-e, regards variant 1 as the lectio originalis. 25 The phrase “the shoot of David” (hJ rJi÷za Daui÷d) in Rev 5:5 is congruent with the triadic nexus in the Jewish scriptures of the Davidic king, Isaiah’s servant/chosen one, and the one like a son of man of Dan 7:13-14 139 Event or Wording 26 Conquering A messianic figure coming to God’s throne to receive authority for ruling eternally over a kingdom27 Seven horns28 The Lamb29 Daniel 7:1314, 21 7:13-14 7:20 7:9 Ezekiel Revelation 5:5 5:5-7, 9, 12-13 5:6 5:6, 8, 12, 13 (§3.3.3). As such, the phrase “the shoot of David” may be regarded as an allusion to a tradition that incorporates Dan 7:13 as one of its constituent elements. hJ rJi÷za Daui÷d is better translated “the shoot of David” rather than “the root of David” because the point of rJi÷za is genealogical. This genealogical marker is made explicit in 22:5, where Jesus is called “the shoot and the offspring of David.” Depending on context, rJi÷za means “root, shoot or scion growing from the root, or the foot of a mountain or hill,” but in Rev 5:5 and 22:16 the meaning is “shoot.” Cf. BDAG, “rJi÷za,” 906; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 509 (“Branch”); Thompson, Revelation, ANTC, 95. Although not using the word “shoot,” Aune, Revelation 1–5, 351, says that this expression in 5:5 concerns “Davidic descent.” The word used in Isa 11:1, the source text, is rfj, which means “rod, shoot.” 26 The concept of the one like a son of man’s presentation to the Ancient of Days and his reception of dominion, glory, and kingdom presupposes a conquering by that son in some way. This image of conquering becomes more apparent when Daniel is shown that the horn makes war against the saints and prevails over them (Nwhl hlkyw, Dan 7:21). In essence, the one like a son of man is the antithesis of the conquering horn. Beale, Revelation, 350, sees a link between the verb nika¿w and the allusion to Dan 7:10 and 12:4, 9. 27 In Dan 7:13 the one like a son of man is presented to the Ancient of Days, and in like manner the Lamb comes before the One sitting on the throne. The Aramaic word translated “presented” (yhwbrqh) connotes the official presentation of the one like a son of man to the Ancient of Days. 28 Beale, Use of Daniel, 67-95. A horn is a symbol of power in the Jewish scriptures (Num 23:22; Deut 33:17; Ps 89:17; Dan 7:20) and in Jewish apocalyptic literature (1 En. 90:9-13, 16; T. Jos. 19:6-8). The image of the seven horns here, however, probably owes more to Dan 7:20, where a horn refers to an evil ruler who subdues three of ten evil rulers, with seven horns remaining. In contrast to the evil horn, the Lamb exercises power in a way that glorifies God. In addition, the counterimage of the ten horns of the dragon (12:3) and the beast (13:1; 17:3, 7, 12, 16) are derived from the ten horns of Dan 7:7, 20, 24. Morton, One, 158, ascribes the author’s symbol of the seven horns to the Hebrew Bible and seven as a number signifying completeness, but he places emphasis on the multiple occurrences of horn(s) in Daniel 7. 29 The symbol of the lamb in Revelation 5 fits within a hierarchy of symbols related to the one like a son of man. Admittedly, the symbol of the lamb is a dominant symbol in Revelation (Osborne, Revelation, 255), but it is subsumed under the overarching symbol of the one like a son of man. The author’s incorporation of the lamb in Revelation may arise from one of two sources. The first source for lamb symbolism may be a Jewish exegetical tradition. As noted in §3.3.3, Jewish scriptures concerning the Davidic king, Isaiah’s servant/chosen one, and the one like a son of man of Daniel 7 formed a nexus of tradition by the end of the first century CE. Thus, the author likely uses the metaphor of the Servant of Yhwh led as a lamb to the slaughter as the basis for his portrayal of Jesus as the Lamb in Revelation 5. A number of scholars regard e˙sfa¿ghß (“you were slaughtered”) in Rev 5:9 as an allusion to Isa 53:7, which describes the Servant of Yhwh, who is led as a sheep to the slaughter (wJß pro/baton e˙pi« sfagh\n h¡cqh): Friesen, Cults, 200; Kim, “‘Son of Man,’” 70; Kraft, Offenbarung, 112. The second source for the lamb symbolism in Revelation may be the wording of the Aramaic in Dan 7:9. This verse describes the Ancient of Days as having hair like the wool of a lamb (aqn rmok). aqn is a hapax legomenon in the Jewish scriptures. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 301, translates aqn rmok as “his hair like lamb’s wool.” He points to the cognate Syriac usage and the Hermopolis papyri (2:8). Cf. Michael Sokoloff, “aqn rmok, ‘Lamb’s Wool’ (Dan 7:9),” JBL 95 (1976): 277-79; Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 77; Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 641. NET translates “the hair of his head was like lamb’s wool.” By means of synecdoche, the author of Revelation may be extrapolating from the description of the hair of the 140 Event or Wording The universal scope of the kingdom in the earth30 The prophet’s emotional turmoil because of the vision The prophet’s reception, from a heavenly servant, of counsel about the vision The triumph of the saints31 Daniel 7:14 Ezekiel Revelation 5:9 7:15 5:4 7:16 5:5 7:18, 21, 22, 25, 27 The servants worshiping the messianic figure 7:27 Authority given from God to rule over a 7:18, kingdom32 22, 27 A vast multitude ministering to the One on 7:10 the throne33 The Lamb’s reception and God’s reception 7:14 of various doxological ascriptions34 God’s eternal rule35 7:27 5:8 5:8-13 5:9-10 5:11-12 5:12-13 5:13 An analysis of the table above provides three important insights. The first insight is that Daniel 7, not Ezekiel 1–2, is the main source text for allusions in Revelation 4–5.36 Such Ancient of Days as being like the wool of a lamb (Dan 7:9) to form his image of the Lamb. On the connection between the Lamb and Daniel 7, see Morton, One, 156-58. 30 Three content words in Rev 5:9 (fulh/, “tribe”; glw◊ssa, “tongue”; lao/ß, “people”) match the content words in Dan 7:14 Q that are used to describe the three classes of people who serve the one like a son of man. Bauckham, Climax, 329; Beale, Revelation, 45. Charles, Revelation, 1:147-48, sees an ultimate allusion to Dan 3:4, 7, 29; 5:19; 6:25; and 7:14 from a text similar to LXX or an older Aramaic text older than canonical Daniel. 31 In the Jewish scriptures the word a‚gioß is applied broadly to the people of God (Ps 15:3 OG; Ps 29:5 OG; passim). However, in light of the preceding context, another allusion to Daniel 7 is almost certainly in view in Rev 5:8. First, Dan 7:18 mentions that the saints of the Most High have judgment rendered on their behalf and receive the kingdom forever. This triumph of the saints in Daniel 7 forms the broad basis for the prayers of the saints being pivotal in the judgment of the world in Revelation that results in the triumph of the saints (5:8; 8:3-4). Second, a‚gioß is used in Rev 13:7 to refer to the war against the saints (kai« e˙do/qh aujtwˆ◊ poihvsai po/lemon meta» tw◊n aJgi÷wn) in a way that clearly alludes to Dan 7:21 (kai« kateno/oun to\ ke÷raß e˙kei√no po/lemon sunista¿menon pro\ß tou\ß aJgi÷ouß). Beale, Revelation, 357, suggests that “saints” in Rev 5:8 “may well have connotations of the ‘saints’ in Daniel 7” because both texts refer to the saints right after a divine figure approaches a heavenly throne and receives authority. In contrast, a‚gioß is used in a variety of ways in Ezekiel, but the word is never used to refer to people as saints. 32 Dodd, Scriptures, 68. 33 Dan 7:10 OG mentions ci÷liai cilia¿deß as those who serve the Ancient of Days. Charles, Revelation, 1:147; Mounce, Revelation, 137. In 1 En. 40:1 an innumerable multitude stands before the glory of the Lord of spirits. Cf. 1 En. 60:1; 71:8; Apoc. Zeph. 13:8. 34 Parker, “‘Our Lord and God,’” 228. 35 Daniel 7:27 OG expresses God’s eternal rule in the clause law◊ˆ aJgi÷wˆ uJyi÷stou basileuvsai basilei÷an ai˙w¿nion, which essentially corresponds to ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn in Rev 5:13. 36 According to Moyise, Revelation, 61, the apparent consensus of scholars holds that Revelation 4 is based on the model of Ezekiel 1. Cf. Keener, Revelation, 169 n. 2. Moyise (ibid.) shows only the parallels between Revelation 4 and Daniel 7 and does not cover Revelation 5 and Daniel 7, and yet he accuses Beale of “sleight of hand.” Beate Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes (SBB 52; 141 a use of Daniel 7 as a Vorbild allusion finds a parallel in 1 En. 90:20-27.37 With respect to the number of allusions in Revelation 4–5, the author alludes 25 times to Daniel 7 and ten times to Ezekiel 1–2.38 Beyond mere numbers, Ezekiel 1–2 ceases to provide any new allusions after Rev 5:1, whereas Daniel 7 provides allusions through Rev 5:13.39 Another fact against the primacy of Ezekiel 1–2 as a source text is that seven important aspects in Revelation 4–5 are missing in Ezekiel 1–2, including (1) a divine council, (2) a sealed scroll, (3) the opening of a scroll or scrolls, (4) the approach of the messianic figure before God’s throne to receive authority, (5) authority that entails ruling over all the people of the world, (6) the rule of the saints over a kingdom, and (7) God’s eternal reign.40 In addition, the elements of Revelation 4–5 do not compose a commission vision as in the case of Ezekiel 1:1–2:8.41 Moreover, God is not pictured in Revelation 4–5 as a warrior going forth in his chariot on behalf of his people as in Ezekiel 1.42 In addition, allusions to Ezekiel 1–2 are composite allusions and do not point toward prophetic fulfillment.43 In alluding to Ezekiel 1–2, the author blends and transforms his source texts.44 Finally, the universal scope of Revelation 4–5 fits Daniel 7 much Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004), 102-22, 263, claims that Ezekiel provides between 72.72% and 81.81% of the language of Revelation 4 and 21.42% of the language of Revelation 5. Although helpful, Kowalski’s analysis fails to understand the Vorbild of Daniel 7. Using the research of Kowalski, Morton, One, 9, states that the author follows Ezekiel 1–3 in writing Rev 1:9-20 and 4–5. Morton assumes the validity of Kowalski’s analysis but adds nothing to buttress it. In addition, we reject the view concerning Rev 4:1-11 that is expressed by Osborne, Revelation, 222, who claims, “The throne room scene is a kaleidoscope of OT images, with no single one dominant.” 37 Beale, Use of Daniel, 84-85, enumerates seven common elements between 1 En. 90:20-27 and Dan 7:9-13. 38 By way of comparison, in Revelation 4–5 Beale, John’s Use, 90-91, counts 23 allusions to Daniel (half from Daniel 7), at most five verbal allusions to Isaiah 6, and about 15 allusions to Ezekiel 1–2. 39 UBS4 lists only Ezek 1:26-27 among a cluster of throne allusions in Rev 5:1, but, as we showed in earlier in this section, the image of the throne is derived from the throne of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9. 40 Beale, Revelation, 315, notes points 3 through 7. 41 Giblin, Revelation, 73. 42 Ibid. 43 A good example of such a composite allusion is the open door in Rev 4:1 as an allusion to Ezek 1:1, where Ezekiel states that the heavens were opened and he saw visions of God. This allusion in Rev 4:1 to Ezek 1:1 is better regarded as a composite allusion. First, similar openings to heaven are found elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures (Gen 28:11-17; Ps 78:23). Second, the image of an open entrance of some kind is not exclusive to Ezekiel. Thus, an open door, open gates, and open heavens are images found in Jewish literature, especially apocalyptic literature (3 Macc 6:18; 1 En. 14:15; 15:14; 104:2; 2 Bar. 22:1; 23:7; Ascen. Isa. 6:9; T. Levi 2:6; 5:1, 3). Third, this imagery of opened heavens is continued in the Jesus movement scriptures (Matt 3:16; John 1:51; Acts 7:56; 10:11; 2 Cor 12:1-4). 44 The four living ones (ta» zwˆ◊a) of Revelation 4–5 differ in key respects with the four living ones of Ezekiel 1. First, each living one in Revelation has a body filled with eyes and has wings whose underside is filled with eyes 142 better than Ezekiel 1–2. Ezekiel’s prophetic mission was limited to “the house of Israel — not to many peoples of foreign speech and a hard language” (Ezek 3:5-6, RSV). In contrast, Daniel’s vision encompasses people from around the earth (7:14, 22, 27). The second insight from the table above is that Daniel 7 is a Vorbild allusion in Revelation 4–5. The order of events in Revelation 4–5 and the order of events in Daniel 7 have a high degree of sequential parallels. In general, the sequence of Daniel 7 is followed in Revelation 4–5, and the author’s imitation of sequence appears to follow a practice that is seen in the prophetic pesharim of the Qumran corpus.45 The first two insights lead us to conclude that the counterconsensual position is correct in asserting that Daniel 7 is the dominant source of allusions in Revelation 4–5.46 We are not alone in this assessment, for a number of scholars also recognize the importance or even (4:6, 8), whereas each living one in Ezekiel has eyes on the rims of their wheels (Ezek 1:18). Second, each living one in Revelation has one face (the man, 4:7), whereas each living one in Ezekiel has four faces (Ezek 1:10). The most probable reading in Rev 4:7 is a‡nqrwpoß. Manuscript support is P 1 (1611* omit to/) 1854 2020 2050 2053 2073 2081 syrh Andrewa,bav. This grammatically anomalous reading (instead of the genitive aÓnqrw¿pou) suggests that the third living one has not only the face of a human but also the form of a human. Cf. Mounce, Revelation, 124 n. 28. Third, each living one in Revelation has six wings (4:8), whereas each living one in Ezekiel has four wings (Ezek 1:6). In this regard, the six-winged living ones in Revelation are similar to the sixwinged seraphim of Isaiah’s vision (Isa 6:2). In addition, the song of Revelation’s living ones (“Lord God, the Ruler of All, the He Was and the Being One and the Coming One,” 4:8) alludes to what the seraphim said (Isa 6:3). 45 Brooke, “Thematic Commentaries,” 134-57, shows how the prophetic pesharim of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit the selective, thematic use of prophetic scriptures. For example, 4QpPsalmsa (4Q171) moves from Psalm 37 to Psalm 45. 4QpIsab (4Q162) deals only with Isa 5:5, 6, 10-14 and omits Isa 5:15-24. 4QpIsac (4Q163) treats Isa 10:12-13, moves to Isa 10:19, and ends with Isa 10:20-22, but 4QpIsac deals with Isaiah texts in an unusual order and alludes/cites Zechariah and possibly Jeremiah. In commenting on 4QpPsalmsa, 4QpIsab, and 4QpIsac, which he calls “these less than continuous pesharim,” Brooke (141) notes, “The point is that once the continuous sequence of scripture is broken, it is possible to surmise that scripture is no longer the dominant control in the commentary. Rather, scripture has given way to some other thematic control, such as a particular theological concern of the author.” Brooke (142-43) notes further on these three texts, “Whatever the case, it is clear that a process of reducing the amount of prophetic base text has resulted in a theme becoming clear as the matter that controls the abbreviation of the scriptural text. The commentator is concerned to identify the scoffers in Jerusalem as the object of Isaiah’s reproaches; he is not concerned with the exposition of every section of this part of Isaiah.” Commenting on 4Q174, Brooke (145) says, “There is no need in this kind of thematic commentary for every word of a scriptural passage to be cited; citations can be suitably edited so that they fit the comment that follows afterward with all the more clarity, and problematic issues or challenges for the interpretation can be neatly sidestepped.” Like the writers of the prophetic pesharim, the author of Revelation moves through Daniel 7 and deals with only selected parts. 46 This conclusion does not preclude the use of other sources or source texts, but these other sources and source texts are supplementary. Cf. Beale, Use of Daniel, 184. 143 dominance of Daniel 7 for these chapters.47 In his earlier work G. K. Beale contends that Revelation 4–5 is the fulfillment of Daniel 7.48 He also states, “Daniel 7 could have been an underlying ‘hermeneutical magnet’ attracting other parallel O.T. texts. John saw these other O.T. texts through the ‘lens’ of Daniel 7.”49 Finally, Beale is correct in his assessment that “the whole vision [of Revelation 4–5] reflects the dominant framework of Daniel 7.”50 The third insight from the table above is that Revelation 4–5 is an extension of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. The link between Rev 1:7-8 and its allusion to Dan 7:13 is strengthened by the number of parallels between Rev 1:7-8 and Revelation 4–5, creating a powerful cohesion by the linking of two semantic chains that are central tokens.51 These two semantic chains include the interaction of the following: (1) the one like a son of man (1:13) = the Lamb (5:6, 8, 12, 13); and (2) the act of coming with the clouds (1:7) = the act of coming to the One on the throne (5:7). We have already noted the allusions to Daniel 7 in Revelation 4–5, but these allusions interact with the lexical chains of Rev 1:7-8. Thus, the particle i˙dou/ of 1:7 is repeated three times in Revelation 4–5 (4:1, 2; 5:5), most significantly in 5:5, which mentions the Lion of the tribe of Judah in his conquering role. In describing the Lamb’s approach to the One sitting on the throne, the author uses h™lqen in 5:7 to extend the thematic use of the verb e¶rcomai, whose first use in reference to Christ occurs in 1:7 with 47 Luter, “Interpreting,” 478 n. 48, shares Beale’s view that Daniel serves as the literary prototype but has some differences. According to Beale, Revelation, 314, Müller (“Formgeschichtliche”) argues that Daniel 7 is one of the most prominent OT texts but limits its influence to mainly the last half of chapter 5. Parker, “‘Our Lord and God,’” 228, says, “Beale convincingly argues that the primary sources for the author’s throne room vision are Dan 7 and Ezek 1–2. The various details in Dan 7 compare well with Rev 4–5 in terms of both symbolism and chronology. . . .” On the link between Daniel 7 and the Lamb taking the scroll, see Rowland, Open Heaven, 426. See also Corsini, Apocalypse, 120; and Kim, “‘Son of Man,’” 69-71. 48 Beale, Use of Daniel, 227-28. Adela Yarbro Collins, “Review of The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John, by G. K. Beale,” JBL 105 (1986): 734-35, objects to Beale’s analysis of Daniel in Revelation, but she fails to provide defensible arguments in refuting his arguments. 49 Beale, Use of Daniel, 223-24. 50 Beale, Revelation, 316. Cf. idem, Use of Daniel, 185. 51 Beckwith, Apocalypse, 256, 426-27; Hemer, Letters, 31. We will discuss only significant parallels here. In §5.3.1 we discuss the use of i˙dou/ in 1:7 and the rest of Revelation. Reed, “Cohesiveness,” 44, says that central tokens “refer to linguistic items in chains which interact with linguistic items in other chains. For example, in the New Testament, a co-extensional chain of supernatural beings might interact with a co-extensional chain of miracles (e.g., God raised Jesus from the dead). . . . Central tokens, in essence, involve chain interaction.” Italics original. 144 e¶rcetai. 52 In addition, the significant word ojfqalmo/ß is used of the living ones, who are the first ones in the narrative after John on Patmos to see the one like a son of man, who is proclaimed in 1:7 as the one whom every eye (pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß) will see. Furthermore, fulh/ from 1:7 is used one time in a soteriological sense (5:9; cf. §5.2.3), and ghv is used six times (5:3 [2], 6, 10, 13 [2]). The aÓmh/n uttered in 1:7 also finds its first counterpart utterance in the aÓmh/n that the four living ones utter in 5:14. The three divine titles of 1:8 (ku/rioß oJ qeo/ß, oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß, oJ pantokra¿twr) are repeated in a varied form for the first time in 4:8 (§§2.9.2–3). In addition to the lexical repetition of oJ pantokra¿twr, the seven horns of the Lamb, which represent the complete power of God, are the symbolic equivalent of the title oJ pantokra¿twr (“the Ruler of All”) ascribed to the Lord God.53 Revelation 5 carries forward various themes of Rev 1:9-20 and therefore ultimately Rev 1:7-8. The first parallel is death and resurrection.54 The one like a son of man is described as having been dead but is living (1:18), and likewise the Lamb is described as “standing as having been slaughtered” (5:6). The second parallel is authority. The one like a son of man has the keys of Death and Hades (1:18), and in like manner the Lamb is worthy to take the scroll from God and open its seals (5:8) and receives universal acclamation (5:8-12). The third parallel is the comfort that John receives. The one like a son of man places his right hand on John and tells him not to fear (1:17), and later one of the 24 elders tells John to not weep (5:5). The fourth parallel is the commission of John. John is told to write in a scroll (1:11) and then is told to write the things that he saw, “namely, the things that are and the things that are about to be after these things” (1:19). This clause from 1:19 is repeated nearly verbatim in 4:1.55 The fifth parallel is that the identity of Jesus is revealed to the author after 52 Lupieri, Apocalypse, 140, says that the coming of the Lamb in 5:7 probably has theological significance in relationship to oJ e˙rco/menoß. Such a view is plausible, but this coming of the Lamb must be seen primarily in relationship to e¶rcetai in 1:7 because the humanity of Jesus is accentuated in 1:7 and 5:7. The Lamb comes as the one like a son of man to the One sitting on the throne, and after the Lamb receives the scroll, the Lamb’s functional equivalence to oJ e˙rco/menoß is established (5:11-14). 53 Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2001), 107. 54 Morton, One, 70-71, draws our attention to most of the parallels noted here. 55 1:19: a± me÷llei gene÷sqai meta» tauvta. 4:1: a± dei√ gene÷sqai meta» tauvta. 145 the author hears something (1:12-13; 5:5-6).56 The sixth parallel is that the double repetition of the prepositional phrase e˙n me÷swˆ (“in the midst of”) in 5:6 is a significant verbatim repetition of the phrase used to describe the author’s encounter with the one like a son of man (e˙n me÷swˆ tw◊n lucniw◊n) in 1:13.57 In light of these parallels, the portrayal of the Lamb in Revelation 5 points to an eschatological investiture that is parallel with the investiture of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7.58 The eschatological investiture in Revelation 5 is shown by the way in which the events of Revelation 5 are related to other events in the story of Revelation. One way that demonstrates this flow in the narrative is the opening of the scroll of Revelation 5 occurring after the things that are described in Revelation 2–3. Thus, in 4:1 the one like a son of man announces to the author that the seer is to come up to this open door, so that he may be shown “things that must happen after these things” (a± dei√ gene÷sqai meta» tauvta)—the things mentioned in chapters 2 and 3—so the story of Revelation 4–5 follows Revelation 2–3 in time.59 56 Johnson, Triumph, 106. Thompson, Revelation, ANTC, 95. 58 Scholars view the events concerning the Lamb in Revelation 5 as reflecting enthronement (coronation), commission, or investiture. Negatively, the lack of a crown and regal ceremony for the Lamb obviates the view of Revelation 5 as an initial enthronement or coronation. In addition, the text never indicates that Lamb takes a position on the throne. In terms of a commission, Revelation 4–5 lacks any specific commission from God to the Lamb for a mission in a manner seen in the Jewish scriptures (1 Kgs 22:1-38; Isa 6:1-13). Cf. Humphrey, And I Turned, 187. A gap in time between the time of the Lamb’s initial enthronement and his investiture must occur. Caird, Revelation, 71-72, contends that the Lamb conquers and then opens the scroll right away. Nothing in Revelation 5 requires an immediate opening of the scroll after the Lamb has conquered (i.e., soon after the slaughter of the Lamb). Two facts from the text militate against Caird’s position. First, the enthronement of Christ is already portrayed in 3:21, where Christ declares that he has conquered and sat down with his Father on the throne (3:21)—an event preceding the events of Revelation 4–5, as shown above. Second, the author is unaware of the Lamb’s past triumph, but the elder is aware of the Lamb’s triumph at some unspecified point in the past. Third, the use of two perfect participles in 5:6 (e˚sthko\ß wJß e˙sfagme÷non) indicates that the event of the slaughter of the Lamb was not necessarily a recent event vis-à-vis the Lamb’s taking of the scroll. That is, the perfect participles in this passage convey present results from a past event (i.e., an enduring condition). Wallace, Greek Grammar, 614, notes that perfect participles indicate time that is antecedent to the time of the controlling verb. In 5:6 the controlling verb is ei•don (aorist). Antecedent to the author’s act of seeing were the slaughter of the Lamb and his act of standing, but the interval of time is not specified. Cf. Lenski, Revelation, 199-200. Thus, Revelation 5 portrays the eschatological investiture of the Lamb at a point in the future after the enthronement of the Lamb. The emphasis in Revelation 5 is on action—the call for someone to break the sealed scroll and the Lamb’s investiture—not on description, which characterizes some Jewish literature (T. Levi 3:4-9; 3 En. 28:7-10; 35:1-6). 59 The events of Revelation 4 and 5 occur before the events unleashed by the breaking of the seals. The phrase meta» tauvta ei•don, which begins 4:1, indicates a new phase in the author’s visions and does not indicate chronological succession, and this indication of a new phase is also the case elsewhere in Revelation where this phrase is used (7:1, 9; 15:5; 18:1). Osborne, Revelation, 223, notes that the phrase introduces the audience to a new 57 146 Another way of demonstrating this flow in the narrative is the shift in tenses in Rev 4:1-11, which accentuate the eschatological futurity of the events of Revelation 4–5 and the events that follow these chapters.60 In the description of the author’s sight of the throne (4:1-4), the past tense is used. In the description of the throne and the living ones (4:5-8), the tenses shift abruptly to the present. In the worship given to God by the four living ones and the 24 elders (4:9-11), the future tense is employed. As Charles Hedrick points out, the events of 4:5-8 are apparently occurring as the author is narrating them, and then in 4:9-11, for the first time in chapter 4, events are described with the future tense and point to a future beyond that of the narrator.61 A final way of demonstrating this flow in the narrative is the lack of historical correlation between the seven seals and historical events. Quite simply, the events of the seven seals do not comport entirely with either the events from the inception of the Jesus movement vision. Beale, Revelation, 317-18, argues that Revelation 4–5 does not necessarily follow Revelation 1–3 in time but that Revelation 4–22 can refer to the eschatological past, present, and future. Similar phrases are used as a transition (e.g., 1 En. 89:30; Tob 1:1) and do not indicate any kind of chronological sequence. However, a± dei√ gene÷sqai meta» tauvta at the end of 4:1 is the time period that follows Jesus’ dealings with the churches from the author’s day to the ecclesial parousia. We must distinguish the phrase meta» tauvta from the phrase a± dei√ gene÷sqai meta» tauvta (1:1; 4:1; 22:6). meta» tauvta is used as a literary device to indicate different passages in the Apocalypse. In contrast, a± dei√ gene÷sqai (1:1; 4:1; 22:6) and a± me÷llei gene÷sqai (1:19) are always used to signify the sequential occurrence of events. The most helpful comparison is a± me÷llei gene÷sqai meta» tauvta in 1:19, where the phrase refers to the events that will occur after what the author has seen (a± ei•deß) and what is (a± ei˙si«n). The logical antecedent of the second tauvta in 4:1 (a± dei√ gene÷sqai meta» tauvta) is all of the events that the exalted Christ has spoken of concerning the seven churches. Contra Smalley, Revelation, 114. Scholars who see the events of Revelation 4–5 as subsequent to the events of Revelation 2–3 include Charles, Revelation, 1:109; Kistemaker, Revelation, 183-84; Mounce, Revelation, 118; Swete, Apocalypse, 67; and Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 337. Osborne, Revelation, 224, comments that “in Rev. 4:1 the final stages of the consummation are announced.” Although Blount misunderstands the ultimate eschatological focus of 4:1–5:14, Blount, Revelation, 88, sees chronological progression, noting, “In view of the fact that what will happen after all this must happen, one necessarily assumes that the events of chapters 1–3 in some way trigger everything that follows in the rest of the book. In other words, if believers witness to the lordship that has been revealed to John in chapter 1 in the ways he exhorts in chapters 2–3, tribulation will necessarily result.” Italics original. 60 The present verbs are e˙kporeu/ontai, kaio/menai, and ei˙si÷n in 4:5. The future verbs are dw¿sousin in 4:9 and pesouvntai and balouvsin in 4:10. 61 Charles W. Hedrick, “Narrative Asides in John’s Apocalypse and their significance for reading the text,” in 1900th Anniversary of St. John’s Apocalypse: Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Symposium (Athens – Patmos, 17-26 September 1995) (Athens, 1999), 658. The use of the past, present, and future tenses also shows that in some respects time in Revelation 4–5 is transhistorical, embracing past, present, and future. Cf. Boring, Revelation, 112. The author is transported in spirit to a heavenly scene in which the primordial past of creation is memorialized, in which God is being worshiped and the Lamb is being acclaimed, and in which the eternal future of God’s reign is invoked. In light of this progression of tenses, the breaking of the seals refers to a time in the future when God brings to an end the history of the world under the dominion of evil leaders and their empires. Cf. Mounce, Revelation, 117, 134. 147 to the author’s day, so the events of the seven seals must therefore refer to the eschatological future.62 Having shown that the portrayal of the Lamb in Revelation 5 points to an eschatological investiture, we will further show that this investiture is parallel with the investiture of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7. Even as the Danielic one like a one of son of man receives authority, glory, and sovereignty (Dan 7:14), so also the Lamb receives power, wealth, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Rev 5:12). The Danielic one like a son of man is given authority that is eternal, and likewise the Lamb receives authority to execute judgment and establish the kingdom of God in a penultimate way on the earth and in an ultimate way in the new heavens and the new earth (11:15; 20:4-6; 21:1–22:5). The saints of the Most High are connected with the triumph of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 (vv. 22, 27), and in like manner the Lamb’s victory by means of his death provides the means for the delivery of the kingdom of this world to Christ and the saints, who are the rightful heirs (11:15, 18; 20:4, 6). The investiture of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 finds its counterpart in the eschatological investiture of the Lamb, who receives the scroll with seven seals and breaks the seals. Although scholars propose a variety of identifications of the scroll of Revelation 5, this scroll, an opisthograph, is a composite allusion.63 The scroll incorporates a primary allusion to scrolls in Daniel (Dan 7:10; 12:4, 9) and secondary allusions to Ezek 2:9-10, the kinsman 62 Charles, Revelation, 1:158-61, notes the parallels between the seal judgments and eschatological material in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 and incidental references to events in the author’s day. Notwithstanding, the preterist view does not convince. First, the rider with the bow on the white horse cannot be identified completely with any particular Roman emperor and rather should be seen as a historical allusion to the Parthians or Apollo. Cf. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 394; Ramsay, Letters, 58; Mounce, Revelation, 154; Osborne, Revelation, 277. Second, a widespread martyrdom is presumed to have occurred before the fifth seal, which depicts souls under the altar crying out for judgment and retribution (6:9-11), but martyrdom in the first century was localized (e.g., the martyrdom under the Emperor Nero). Rather, in 6:11 the picture of martyrdom is that of completion after a period of time: plhrwqw◊sin in 6:11 conveys the sense of the reaching the complete number of martyrs. Third, in the first century the population of a fourth part of the earth was not subjected to destruction by the sword, famine, disease, and wild animals (6:8). 63 For the main identifications of the scroll, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, 341-43; and Beale, Revelation, 339-40. An opisthograph is a document such as a scroll or a codex that has writing on both sides. About 100 of the Qumran manuscripts are opisthographs (e.g., the reverse of 4Q509 is 4Q496). Cf. Collins, Combat, 22. 148 redeemer motif, Roman or Jewish legal documents, and a heavenly book of destiny.64 This primary allusion to scrolls in Daniel discloses the scroll as a record and revelation of God’s plan and purposes for the end times as centered in the parousia.65 Our focus is on how the scroll fits within the schema of Daniel 7 in the sense of an allusion that points to prophetic fulfillment.66 First, the opening of the scroll in Rev 5:2 (aÓnoi√xai to\ bibli÷on, “to open the scroll”) corresponds with the act of the opening of the scrolls in Dan 7:10 (OG and Q: kai« 64 The emphasis on the seals, the act of sealing, and the opening of the sealed scroll directs us to look for a source or source text that features a sealed document. This emphasis on sealing is seen in the use of the compound verb katesfragisme÷non in 5:1 and the four occurrences of sfragi÷ß (5:1, 2, 5, 9). Therefore, the emphasis is not on the writing on the front and the back, nor on the location of the scroll. Daniel was instructed to seal up the book until the time of the end, with the clear implication that it would be opened at some later time (Dan 12:4). Cf. 4 Ezra 14:44; 1 En. 1:2. The sealing of Daniel’s prophecies (Dan 12:4, 9) is the only sealing in the Jewish scriptures that is associated with eschatological events. The sealed scroll of Isa 29:11 refers to the inaccessibility of Isaiah’s vision to the people of Jerusalem and is therefore not a fitting source text. In contrast, this sealing in Dan 12:4, 9 provides the most compelling parallel. Daniel’s words were to be sealed “until the time of the end” (Dan 12:4, RSV). The words of Daniel were to be sealed for the last days, and this corresponds well with the scroll with seven seals. In describing the scroll as having been written “on the front and on the back” (gegramme÷non e¶swqen kai« o¡pisqen), the author is following the Hebrew text of Ezek 2:10 (rwjaw Mynp hbwtk), which is reversed in Ezek 2:20 OG (gegramme÷na h™n ta» o¡pisqen kai« ta» e¶mprosqen). Cf. Johnson, Triumph, 103-4 n. 10. The allusion to Ezek 2:9-10 probably indicates that the judgment that ensues upon the opening of the seven seals includes judgment of the church, not just judgment of the world because the context of Ezek 2:9-10 indicates that Ezekiel was to prophesy to the rebellious, hard-hearted, stubborn house of Israel (2:3-8). The language of the kinsman redeemer motif is used in Revelation 4–5 and in other parts of Revelation. For example the four living ones and the 24 elders sing about the Lamb purchasing people for God (hjgo/rasaß). The souls under the altar cry for God to judge and avenge (e˙kdikei√ß) their blood on the earth dwellers (cf. the use of forms of e˙kdike÷w in Lev 26:25; Num 31:3; 1 Sam 24:13 OG; passim). In the Jewish scriptures the lag was the nearest male relative of a family and functioned as a protector of the family by purchasing the forfeited property of relatives or purchasing their freedom if they were sold into slavery (Lev 25:25, 47-49). In cases in which the loss of life occurred, he was the avenger of blood. The scroll with seven seals does not correspond exactly with any passage of the Jewish scriptures. The image of seven seals is probably rooted in legal documents of the ancient world. Stauffer, Christ, 182-83, says, “Roman law required a will to be sealed seven times as illustrated in the wills left by Augustus and Vespasian for their successors.” Cf. W. Sattler, “Das Buch mit sieben Siegeln. II,” ZNW 21 (1922): 51. According to Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Last Jewish Revolt against Imperial Rome (New York: Random House, 1971), 230, in the Bar-Kokhba documents the number of witnesses is normally five or seven. The overall sense of this scroll allusion in Revelation 5 is that the scroll involves inheritance. Beale, Revelation, 340-41, notes that Odes Sol. 23 is evidence of a testament of inheritance. The sealed letter is opened, and its contents are revealed as concerning the kingdom and the providence and the son of truth. If the early date of about 100 CE is accepted for Odes of Solomon, the parallel is highly significant. Heavenly books of destiny are seen in the following: ANET 67b; Dan 10:21; 1 En. 81:1-3; 93:103; 103:2; 106:19–107:1; 108:7. Considering all of the foregoing, the scroll with seven seals unfolds the events related to the parousia and its subsequent expression on earth and in the new heaven and the new earth (5:10; 11:15; 20:6; 22:5). Cf. Charles, Revelation, 1:138. 65 The scroll of Revelation 5 is described primarily in terms of the scrolls of Daniel because these scrolls of Daniel epitomize and encapsulate the plan and purposes of God that are also elaborated in the other prophetic writings of the Jewish scriptures. 66 On allusions that involve prophetic fulfillment, see Beale, Revelation, 93-94. 149 bi÷bloi hjnew¿ˆcqhsan). 67 Only the opening of the sealed scroll allows the judgments of Revela- tion to unfold. Second, the scroll is embedded in a passage that is built from an explicitly Danielic framework and a Daniel 7 Vorbild.68 In light of the foregoing, the meaning of the sealed scroll concerns the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth and in the new heaven and new earth, the vindication of the one like a son of man and the saints, and God’s plan for humanity.69 This vindication is an extension of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8, where Jesus and, by implication, the saints are vindicated publicly at the cosmic parousia.70 4.2.3 Revelation as an Ezekiel-Based or Daniel-Based Text Having analyzed Revelation 4–5, we are now ready to address the issue of whether Ezekiel or Daniel provides the primary source text for Revelation as to its structure or themes. The major objection to Rev 1:7-8 functioning as the thematic statement is the proposal that Ezekiel provides the primary structural or thematic model for Revelation or acts as the main source of allusions in Revelation.71 Indeed, according to Beale, most scholars believe “that Ezekiel exerts greater influence in Revelation than Daniel.”72 67 Smalley, Revelation, 129. The Danielic framework is established in three ways in 4:1. First, the clause “and the first voice I had heard speaking with me like a trumpet” refers back to the vision of the one like a son of man (1:12-20), which has Dan 7:13 as a controlling-text allusion. Second, the phrase a± dei√ gene÷sqai is an allusion to Dan 2:27-28, 45-47 (§2.2.3) and is a verbatim simple repetition of the phrase in 1:1. Third, both Rev 1:1-8 and Rev 4:1–5:14 feature an initial allusion to Dan 2:27-28, 45-47 (1:1; 4:1) and then an allusion to Dan 7:13 (1:7; 5:7). In addition, the influence of Daniel 4 is seen in the loud question of the strong angel in Rev 5:2, “Who is worthy to open the book and break its seals?” This question probably indicates that the angel comes in strength out of heaven on behalf of the divine council to speak of judgment. Beale, Revelation, 338; Smalley, Revelation, 129. 69 Cf. Johnson, Triumph, 105; Smalley, Revelation, 126. 70 Blount, Revelation, 38; Wall, Revelation, 59. By implication, the saints are vindicated publicly at the cosmic parousia because the narrative of Revelation later discloses that the saints, as the armies of heaven, return with Jesus Christ at the cosmic parousia (19:11-16). 71 In other words, some scholars contend that Ezekiel acts the primary Old Testament lens or theological grid for the Apocalypse. Among them are M. E. Boismard, “‘L’Apocalypse’ ou ‘les Apocalypses’ de St Jean,” RB 56 (1949): 507-41; M. D. Goulder, “The Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies” NTS 27 (1981): 343-50; Frederick David Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-critical Perspective (BZNW 54; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989); A. Vanhoye, “L’utilisation du livre d’Ézéchiel dans l’Apocalypse,” Bib 43 (1962): 436-76; and J. M. Vogelgesang, “The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1985). In his study Ruiz, Ezekiel, 532, seeks to demonstrate “the unity of the metaphors presented in Rev 16,17-19,10 depends on a consistent rereading of Ezek 16 & 23, and 26,1-28,19, in combination with other texts.” On allusions to Ezekiel in the structure of Revelation 21–22, see J. Lust, “The Order of the Final Events in Revelation and in Ezekiel,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (ed. J. 68 150 Admittedly, Ezekiel provides numerous allusions in Revelation—the author’s identification with the prophet Ezekiel, allusions from Ezekiel in Rev 16:17–19:10, and the structure of Revelation 21–22—but arguments for the primacy of Ezekiel for the structure and the themes of Revelation fall short because of several facts.73 First, the conspicuous absence Lambrecht; BETL 53; Leuven: University Press, 1980), 179-83. Mazzaferri, Genre, 383, states, “His [the author’s] favourite exemplar by far is Ezekiel. From his call to his eschatology, he models himself here as fully as possible. The fact is significant in itself since Ezekiel is the classical prophet par excellence. John could inherit no mantle more revealing of his self-identity.” In contrast, Ruiz, Ezekiel, 179, states, “The claim that either Daniel or Ezekiel furnishes the structural armature of Revelation is made at the expense of many other structural indications. Revelation is neither the ‘New Testament Daniel’ nor the ‘New Testament Ezekiel.’ Both of these books are keys to the meaning of Revelation, but neither is the key.” Italics original. Ruiz presents us with a false disjunction: Revelation has either one key or many keys to unlock its meaning. More precisely, concerning the Jewish scriptures, Revelation has one main key (the source texts of Dan 7:13 and selected parts of Daniel 7) and many other keys for its interpretation. Although allusions to Ezekiel and many other Jewish scriptures figure prominently throughout the Apocalypse, we should not extrapolate beyond their particular embedded function, whether as individual allusions or as a pastiche of allusions, and propose a more global function as a thematic statement. 72 Beale, Revelation, 77. See also idem, John’s Use, 93. 73 Ian K. Boxall, “Exile, Prophet, Visionary: Ezekiel’s Influence on the Book of Revelation,” in The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence (ed. Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp; Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007), 149-51, provides details concerning some of the problems with seeing Ezekiel providing the dominant Vorbild. However, he (163) concludes, “Yet whether consciously or otherwise, the mould (or mantle) of Ezekiel has left a significant imprint on Revelation’s portrayal of John, as visionary, as prophet, and even ultimately as exile.” The author of the Apocalypse identifies himself with Ezekiel, but his identification with Daniel supersedes his identification with Ezekiel. Boxall is correct in seeing that the author inherits in some fashion the mantle of Ezekiel. Thus, the author says that he “came to be in spirit on the Lord’s day.” The use of this technical phrase e˙n pneu/mati recalls the translations in the Spirit that the Ezekiel experienced (Ezek 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5), and this connection endues the author’s prophecy with the authority of a prophet under the Old Covenant. Cf. Beale, Revelation, 203. Ruiz, Ezekiel, 173, states that e˙n pneu/mati in Rev 1:10 and 4:2 indicates that the author’s condition is described in language from Ezekiel and asserts that the author’s being in spirit on the Lord’s day is based on Ezek 1:1-3; 2:2; and 3:12, 22-24. However, the author’s self-description extends beyond any identification with Ezekiel. Thus, the voice that speaks behind the author recalls the divine voice that Moses heard on Mount Sinai (Exod 19:16, 19-20). In addition, like Old Testament prophets, the author is instructed to write what he sees in a book (OG of Exod 17:14; Isa 30:8; Jer 37:2; 39:44; Tob 12.20). Without a doubt, Ezekiel plays an important role in the development of the themes and structure of the Apocalypse. Strong assertions for Ezekiel as primary notwithstanding, Rev 1:7-8, with its prominent allusion to Dan 7:13, provides the audience with the major key to unlock the mysteries of the Apocalypse. Daniel has priority because of the allusion to Daniel 7:13 in the thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8 and the foundational and extensive use of Daniel as the organizing principle for key passages and themes in the Apocalypse. For example, the author’s self-description appears to be mainly rooted in a role like that of Daniel. Two facts support this view. First, in Rev 1:9-11 the author identifies himself by saying, “I, John” (#Egw» #Iwa¿nhß), a phrase that he later uses in 22:8. The phrases #Egw» #Iwa¿nhß and KaÓgw» #Iwa¿nhß (1:9; 22:8) probably recall the recurrent phrase e˙gw» Danihl in Daniel (Dan 7:15; 8:15, 27; 9:2; 10:2, 7; 12:5) and thus provide a link between the author and Daniel. Cf. Lenski, Revelation, 54. “I, [author’s name]” phrases also occur across a spectrum of literature (Ezra 7:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:2; Eph 3:1; Col 1:23; 1 Thess 2:18; Phlm 19; 1 En. 12:3; 4 Ezra 2:33; 2 Bar. 8:3; 9:1; 10:5; 11:1; 13:1; 32:8; 44:1; Gos. Pet. 14:60). Notwithstanding such occurrences, Daniel is the only discourse in the Prophets of the Jewish scriptures that uses such a phrase and is therefore likely the source text for the allusion in Revelation. Second, like Daniel, the author casts himself in a role of one whose prophecies concern the fall of Babylon. Although the author, like Ezekiel and Daniel, receives this visitation while he is in exile (cf. Christopher C. Rowland, The Book of Revelation [London: Epworth, 1993], 59), the author’s primary affiliation is with Daniel. 151 of explicit references to Ezekiel in Revelation 1, which is the programmatic chapter for the rest of the discourse, shows that Ezekiel is not the primary source text for either the content or the overarching structure of the discourse. For example, UBS4 lists only three allusions to Ezekiel in Revelation 1, and all of them are minor.74 The allusion in Rev 1:10 to Ezek 3:12 establishes the author as one who has been commissioned as a prophet and cannot be extended beyond that meaning.75 Proponents of the primacy of Ezekiel admit this lack. For example, A. Vanhoye does not correlate Revelation 1 with any chapter of Ezekiel.76 In addition, J. M. Vogelgesang admits, “Most of the Ezekiel-traced material in Rev 1 is in the form of very subtle allusions, with some more obvious borrowings from other OT books, such as Isaiah, Daniel, and Zechariah.”77 Second, the influence of Ezekiel in Revelation 4–5 is subordinate to the influence of Daniel 7 in these two chapters. We have already exhaustively supported this argument (§4.2.2). Third, allusions to Ezekiel 40–48 in Rev 21:10–22:2 are based primarily on contrasts, not similarities. The similarities consist of the glory of God and ethnic Israel under Thus, Daniel was a prophetic voice in an empire that was so defiled in the eyes of God that it became the emblem of spiritual and moral corruption in post-exilic Jewish literature. Ezekiel was in Babylon, but his ministry was not characterized by an anti-empire polemic. Furthermore, Ezekiel consistently portrays Babylon as the place or the instrument of Yhwh’s judgment, not the object of His judgment (Ezek 12:13; 17:12, 16, 20; 19:9; 21:19; 21:21; 24:2; 26:7; 29:18, 19; 30:10, 24, 25; 32:11). As the counterpart of Daniel, the author has an interesting precursor, though not in literary dependence, in the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Teacher’s role has parallels with the role of Daniel. As William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction (SBLMS 24; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 112, explains, “In his interpretive role, the Righteous Teacher is like Daniel, who in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was called upon to disclose its meaning, which constituted a raœz. . . . God is the ‘revealer of mysteries’ (2:28f., 47) and has disclosed them to Daniel, so that he can make them known. . . .” 74 UBS4 lists the following allusions. In Rev 1:13 an allusion to Ezek 9:2, 11 OG is proposed. In Rev 1:13 e˙ndedume÷non podh/rh kai« periezwsme÷non pro\ß toi√ß mastoi√ß zw¿nhn crusa◊n is said to be derived from e˙ndedukw»ß podh/rh of Ezek 9:2 and oJ e˙ndedukw»ß to\n podh/rh of Ezek 9:11, and this is likely part of the source text. However, UBS4 also posits Dan 10:5 as the source text. The allusion in Rev 1:15 to Ezek 1:24 and 43:2 is secondary in character and may be classified as an imitative allusion, not an allusion of prophetic fulfillment. As to the main source of the allusion in Rev 1:15, the Greek of Dan 10:6 OG (fwnh\ lalia◊ß aujtouv wJsei« fwnh\ qoru/bou) corresponds to Rev 1:15 (kai« hJ fwnh\ aujtouv wJß fwnh\ uJda¿twn pollw◊n) with its double use of fwnh/, the occurrence of the genitive pronoun aujtouv, and the use of a simile (wJß and wJsei/). In light of the Vorbild from Dan 10:5-21 in Rev 1:13-16 in which the allusion to many waters occurs, the most likely allusion is to Dan 10:6, for otherwise the continuity of the Vorbild allusion is needlessly interrupted. 75 Beale, John’s Use, 19. 76 Vanhoye, “L’utilisation,” 440. 77 Vogelgesang, “Interpretation,” 361. 152 the blessing of Yhwh on the one hand, and the glory of God and spiritual Israel under the blessing of Yhwh on the other hand. Despite these similarities, the contrasts between the two passages are notable.78 For example, Ezekiel 40–48 portrays the temple in minute architectural detail, whereas Rev 21:10–22:2 contains only cursory allusions to this temple. Furthermore, Ezekiel 40–48 speaks of the Zadokite priests, the prince, the feasts and the appointed festivals, and the land divisions among the tribes of Israel. Such key elements are absent in Revelation. Vogelgesang sees these contrasts and says, “John made detailed use of Ezekiel 40–48 in constructing the new Jerusalem vision. Yet a greater contrast with that vision, where seven of nine chapters describe this temple, its ordinances and its priests, and the glory of God dwelling therein, cannot be imagined.”79 Thus, Rev 21:22 says that there is no temple. In addition, a strong case may be made for Isaiah 60 controlling the meaning in Rev 21:22–22:5.80 Because of these problems, arguments for Ezekiel as the primary structural or thematic model have not achieved consensus. For example, M. E. Boismard goes so far as to say, “La parenté entre le texte I de l’Apocalypse et le livre d’Ézéchiel est si complète, elle dénote une imitation, un démarquage si serviles, qu’elle offre une excellente justification de l’hypothèse qui a servi de point de départ aux analyses précédentes.”81 Boismard’s conclusion concerning 78 Beale, John’s Use, 78, cites the lack of a temple in Revelation 21–22 as “partial but clear evidence of John’s method of interpretative distillation.” 79 Vogelgesang, “Interpretation,” 77. 80 In this regard, Fekkes, “Isaiah,” 142, says, “The use of Isa 60 fits well into this scenario, for it also takes up cultic images when it speaks of God’s glory resting on the city, the tribute of kings and nations for the house of God, and pilgrims streaming through the gates of the city. Finally, in light of Ben Sira’s testimony that the priestly blessing of Num 6 was recited at the conclusion of the temple service (Sir 50:19–21), a closing synthesis of Isa 60:1–2, 19 and Num 6:25, 27 in Rev 22:4–5 provides a fitting benediction to John’s vision of the temple city.” 81 Boismard, “‘L’Apocalypse,’” 532. Translation: “The resemblance between text I of the Apocalypse and the book of Ezekiel is so complete, it implies an imitation, a copy so lacking in originality, that it provides an excellent justification for the hypothesis that served as a starting point for the preceding analysis.” Boismard’s reference to “text I” involves his source-critical analysis of the composition of Revelation, but that is not the focus of our attention here. Vanhoye, “L’utilisation,” 440-41, correlates the main sections of Revelation with Ezekiel and contends that Ezekiel has dictated the structure of Revelation. Vogelgesang, “Interpretation,” 394, contends that the author of Revelation used Ezekiel as the main model for the literary structure and that the author intends this structure as “the key to understanding the message of the book altogether.” Vogelgesang (14) further states that “despite the skill that he uses to hide this, the fact that he did not enslave himself to the texts that inspired him makes it possible to speak of the interpretation of Ezekiel by John.” Underlining original. 153 stylistic imitation goes well beyond the evidence, and Steve Moyise notes that few scholars agree with Boismard’s assessment.82 In addition, Ugo Vanni observes the vague methodology and ultimate subjectivism of Boismard: “Quello che ci interessa notare qui è l’impostazione metodologica che ci appare vaga. L’autore infatti ammette, nell’applicazione del criterio letterario, un più e un meno, che, non delimitati oggettivamente, cadono inevitabilmente nel soggettivismo.”83 Likewise, J.-P. Ruiz concurs about “the undue subjectivism of Boismard’s conclusions.”84 Then Ruiz adds further, “The balance of Boismard’s arguments furnishes ample documentation of the use of OT material in Revelation, particularly of Ezekiel.”85 Boismard’s source-critical theory of two primitive texts written and redacted by the same author has not been met with acceptance.86 M. D. Goulder goes even further and proposes that Revelation is based on the weekly readings of Ezekiel during the Jewish Christian year.87 Goulder’s proposal stretches the evidence even more thinly. 4.3 Summary and Conclusions In this chapter we saw how Daniel 7 is the Vorbild allusion for Revelation 4–5. We examined the issue of whether Revelation is an Ezekiel-based text and concluded that Ezekiel, while highly influential in parts of Revelation, cannot be characterized as the main lens through which the audience is invited to look. In the next chapter we will explore the network of metaleptic allusions to Daniel 7 in Revelation, and we will also explore and the network of lexical chains based on certain lexemes in Rev 1:7-8. 82 Moyise, Revelation, 120. Ugo Vanni, La strattura letteraria dell’Apocalisse (2d ed.; Alcisiana 8a; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1980), 77. Translation: “What is interesting to note here is the methodological approach that seems vague. The author admits in fact, in the application of the literary criterion, a plus and a minus, which, not defined objectively, inevitably fall into subjectivism.” 84 Ruiz, Ezekiel, 43. 85 Ibid., 53. 86 Ibid., 38-44. 87 Goulder, “Apocalypse,” 353-54. 83 Chapter 5 Metaleptic Allusions to Daniel 7 and Lexical Chains Based on Revelation 1:7-8 5.1 Introduction In the last chapter we showed how Rev 1:7-8 is connected to Revelation 4–5, and we further showed how Daniel 7 is a Vorbild allusion for these two central chapters. Building on the insight from the last chapter that the throne in Revelation 4–5 is an allusion to the throne of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9, we will delve into the way in which the author creates a network of metaleptic allusions to Daniel 7 in the Apocalypse. In the same vein of a network of allusions, we will also examine how lexemes from the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7 are used thematically in the Apocalypse. 5.2 Metaleptic Allusions to Daniel 7 in the Apocalypse Having established a strong linguistic and structural relationship between Daniel 7 and Revelation 4–5, and having rebutted the view that Revelation is primarily an Ezekiel-based discourse, we will now look at how the author interweaves metaleptic allusions from Daniel 7 as a semantic chain in his writing (§1.3.3). For example, we saw in §4.2.2 that qro/noß refers to the throne of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9. We may now see to which extent the image of this throne and other words, phrases, and concepts form a semantic chain that evokes Dan 7:13 and the broader context of Daniel 7. In other words, these words, phrases, and concepts are related to one another semantically by referring to the one like a son of man and the visions of Daniel 7. In this way these words are thematic in Revelation. Appendix 3 is a table that lists all of the metaleptic allusions that Daniel 7 has generated in Revelation. Although metaleptic allusions can be subtle, they can be powerful in perlocutionary effect. The cumulative effect of these allusions is part of the author’s desire to persuade or convince his audience of particular claims. Further, as John Hollander notes, when a text contains a literary echo or allusion to a precursor text, the power may lie in unstated, suppressed, 154 155 or transumed parts of the text.1 That is, allusions in varying degrees point to a textual substratum, where the true power is. 5.2.1 qro/noß The word qro/noß is thematic for Revelation outside of its key use in Revelation 4–5. The most dominant metaleptic allusion contained in and defined by Revelation 4–5 is the throne of the Ancient of Days and the thrones of the divine council (Dan 7:9).2 As one part of a semantic chain related to Daniel 7, the metaleptic allusion of qro/noß (“throne”) is used often in Revelation. The word qro/noß in singular and plural forms occurs 47 times in Revelation, and 44 of these occurrences comport well with Dan 7:9 and its context because these passages in Revelation deal with God, Jesus Christ, God and the Lamb, the 24 elders, and those who judge.3 The throne that Jesus occupies in Revelation agrees with the throne imagery of Dan 7:13-14 and other traditions associated with this passage. The other occurrences of qro/noß in Revelation are counterimages (§3.2).4 A number of scholars recognize the centrality of the image of the throne in Revelation. For example, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza says that the throne image is “like a keynote symbol throughout the book.”5 Richard Bauckham also sees the divine throne as “the central symbol of the whole book.”6 Likewise, G. K. Beale and Gerhard Krodel also see the image of the throne as central for Revelation.7 In addition, the image of the throne frames the author’s heavenly vision, for 1 Hollander, Figure of Echo, 65. Cf. Allison M. Jack, Texts Reading Texts, Sacred and Secular (JSNTSup 179; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 91. 2 In light of the first-century audience, the recurring image of the throne in Revelation 4–5 indicates that the throne of God, not the throne of Caesar in Rome, is the basis for all true authority. However, this association in the minds of the audience is ultimately derived from the allusion to the throne of the Ancient of Days. 3 Throne of God: 1:4; 3:21; 4:2 (2), 3, 4, 5 (2), 6 (3), 9, 10 (2); 5:1, 6, 7, 11, 13; 6:16; 7:9, 10, 11 (2), 15 (2), 17; 8:3; 12:5; 14:3; 16:17; 19:4, 5; 20:11, 12; 21:3, 5. Throne of Jesus: 3:21. Throne of God and the Lamb: 22:1, 3. Thrones of the 24 elders: 4:4 (2); 11:16. Thrones of those who judge: 20:4. Throne of Satan: 2:13. Throne of the beast: 13:2; 16:10. 4 Satan’s throne is located in Pergamon (2:13). The dragon gives to the beast his power, throne, and great authority (13:2). The fifth bowl judgment is poured out on the throne of the beast (16:10). 5 Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 58. In a similar vein, Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Justice, 24, notes, “Therefore the main symbol of Rev. is the image of the throne and its main motif that of kingship. The apocalyptic question ‘Who is the Lord of the world?’ is the central issue of Rev.” 6 Bauckham, Theology, 141-42. Cf. idem, 31-35. 7 Beale, Revelation, 172; Krodel, Revelation, 56. 156 he mentions the throne in 4:2 at the beginning of his vision and mentions the throne again in 22:3 at the close of his vision. In line with the throne framing the author’s vision, the thrones in Rev 20:4 allude to the thrones of Dan 7:9.8 First, in both Daniel and Revelation the seer of the vision specifies the fact that he is seeing the event unfold (Dan 7:9; Rev 20:4). Second, the theme of judgment is seen in both passages, with God presiding in a scene in which books are opened (Dan 7:10; Rev 20:12). Third, the saints in Daniel 7 receive their vindication, and likewise the saints in Revelation, both the faithful and the martyrs, are vindicated during the millennial period (Dan 7:22, 27; Rev 20:4).9 Fourth, the plural form qro/nouß in Rev 20:4 agrees with the thrones of the Danielic source text. The judgment at the great white throne in Rev 20:11-15 is the most dramatic use of the metaleptic allusion of qro/noß.10 First, like Dan 7:10, Rev 20:12 features the juxtaposition of a plural form of bibli÷on and a passive form of aÓnoi÷gw.11 Second, even as innumerable thousands of servants minister to the Ancient of Days (7:10), so also vast numbers of the dead, both great and small, stand before the throne (Rev 20:12). Third, even as the judgment of the fourth beast involves it being cast into fire (Dan 7:11), and even as a river of fire proceeds from the throne of the Ancient of Days, so also the judgment at the great white throne involves the casting of Death and Hades and unbelievers into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15). At the great white throne, all those who actually or vicariously crucified 8 Various scholars see the connection in Rev 20:4 to Daniel 7 broadly or specifically: Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1085; Bauckham, Theology, 106; Beale, Revelation, 996-99; Corsini, Apocalypse, 381; Lunceford, Parody, 73; Mounce, Revelation, 354-55; Moule, Origin, 21; Osborne, Revelation, 704-5; Smalley, Revelation, 506; Swete, Apocalypse, 261. 9 In Rev 20:4 those who are seated on the thrones are to be distinguished from those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and the word of God, so two groups, the faithful and the martyrs, are probably in view. Smalley, Revelation, 506. 10 Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1102; Beale, Revelation, 1031; Mounce, Revelation, 374; Smalley, Revelation, 515; Sweet, Revelation, 294. 11 Dan 7:10: bi÷bloi hjnew¿ˆcqhsan (“books were opened”). Rev 20:12: kai« bibli÷a hjnewˆ¿cqhsan (“and books were opened”). 157 Jesus will see him, so in that sense Rev 1:7 finds a prophetic fulfillment at that climactic judgment.12 5.2.2 e˙do/qh aujtwˆ◊ and Related Expressions The expression e˙do/qh aujtwˆ◊ (“it was given to him”) and related expressions using e˙do/qh are metaleptic allusions to similar phrases in Daniel 7 and form a semantic chain related to that chapter. The expression e˙do/qh aujtwˆ◊ is used only five times in the Old Greek, twice in Daniel 7 (vv. 6, 14).13 In addition, similar phrases are used in Daniel 7. These phrases refer to a human heart being given to the two-winged lion (e˙do/qh aujthvØ, 7:4), people of various languages being given to the four-winged leopard (e˙do/qh aujtwˆ◊, 7:6), the body of the beast being given to the burning flame (e˙do/qh, 7:11), and authority being given to the rest of the beasts to live for a time and a season (e˙do/qh aujtoi√ß, 7:12). In addition, the active form of di÷dwmi is used to show that God gives judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High (e¶dwke, 7:22). Most significant for our study is the giving of authority to the one like a son of man (e˙do/qh aujtw◊ˆ, 7:14). Finally, God gives the kingdom, the authority, and the greatness of the kingdoms under heaven to the holy people (e¶dwke, 7:27).14 Similar phrases with e˙do/qh aujtwˆ◊, or similar wording, are used often in Revelation as a recurring refrain that testifies of the sovereignty of God in executing His will on the earth.15 As such, these phrases function as divine passives (passivum divinum).16 Specifically, e˙do/qh 12 The One sitting on the great white throne convenes the scene of final judgment in heaven (20:11-15). The identity of the One sitting on the throne is ambiguous, but parallel passages indicate that God is the one primarily pictured (4:2, 9; 5:1, 7, 13; 6:16; 7:10, 15; 19:4; 21:5). However, at this point in Revelation, the author shifts his stress increasingly toward the unity of God and Christ. Especially in view of the unity of the one like a son of man and the Ancient of Days (1:14), the unity of God and Christ at the judgment of the great white throne is probably in view. 13 2 Kgs 25:30; Sir 13:22; 37:21; Dan 7:6, 14. 14 T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (JSOTSup 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 212-13, shows how the interplay of the perfect tense and the imperfect tense in Aramaic signal that the giving of the kingdom, the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms to the people of the saints in Dan 7:27 is linked with the authority given to the son of man in Dan 7:14. In both verses the imperfect tense is used. 15 e˙do/qh aujtw: 6:2, 4 (2); 8:3; 9:1; 13:5 (2), 7 (2), 14, 15; 16:8. e˙do/qh aujthˆ:v 19:8. e˙do/qh aujtoi√ß: 6:8, 11; 7:2; 9:5; 20:4. e˙do/qh aujtai√ß: 9:3. e˙do/qh moi: 11:1. e˙do/qh toi√ß e¶qnesin: 11:2. 16 Various scholars recognize some or all of these passive verbs as being divine passives or indicating divine agency: Boring, Revelation, 124; Smalley, Revelation, 347- 158 aujtwˆ◊ is used to refer to authority being given to the beast (13:5 [2], 7 [2]) and authority being given to the beast that arises from the earth (13:14-15). In 19:8 it was given (e˙do/qh aujthØ)v to the wife of the Lamb to be “clothed in fine linen, pure and bright.” With its allusion to Dan 7:27, Rev 19:8 shows that the saints have been given the kingdom at long last.17 Concerning this usage in 19:8, Henry Swete astutely comments that this kind of expression “is one of the keynotes of this Book. . . .”18 In Rev 20:4 judgment was given (e˙do/qh aujtoi√ß) to a certain group of Jesus’ followers seated on thrones, and, as Stephen Smalley observes, this judgment (kri÷ma) probably indicates a judicial vindication for the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:22).19 5.2.3 fulh/, glw◊ssa, lao/ß, and e¶qnoß The collocation of fulh/ (“tribe”), glw◊ssa (“language”), lao/ß (“people”), and e¶qnoß (“nation”) occurs seven times in Revelation (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15) and is a metaleptic allusion and another part of the semantic chain that refers to Dan 7:14.20 These four words reflect the Aramaic of Dan 7:14 and the universal scope of the kingdom.21 In addition, this tetrad is embedded in passages that have significant allusions to Daniel 7 in the 17 As we will show in §5.2.5, the plural form of a‚gioß is used consistently in Revelation as a metaleptic allusion to the plural form of a‚gioß in Daniel 7. 18 Swete, Apocalypse, 247. 19 Smalley, Revelation, 506. 20 The author appears to allude to the three elements of the Aramaic of Dan 7:14 (aynvlw ayma aymmo lkw; “and all peoples, nations, and tongues”) and to universalize the allusion by adding a fourth element. The addition of one element probably serves to heighten the universal reach of the gospel because the number four signifies universality in Revelation. Cf. Bauckham, Climax, 30-31. Bauckham, Climax, 330, notes that lao/ß, e¶qnoß, and glw◊ssa would be good equivalents of the Aramaic words. Q says pa/nteß oiJ laoi/, fulai/, glw◊ssa, and OG says pa¿nta ta» e¶qnh thvß ghvß kata» ge÷nh. Bauckham, Climax, 329-37, argues that an allusion to Dan 7:14 is seen in Rev 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; and 17:15 but fails to see how Rev 5:9 and 7:9 fit into the eschatological schema of Dan 7:14. 21 The author must have based his fourfold reference to the nations on Dan 3:4 (OG); 7, 4:1; 5:19; 6:25; and 7:14. Cf. Keener, Revelation, 189. Moyise, Revelation, 41, says that this tetradic cluster is alluding to the fiery furnace in Daniel 3, but his conclusion is too restrictive. The reference to Daniel 3 is only one part of a composite allusion. Bauckham, Climax, 327-28, argues that Gen 10:5, 20, 31 is the source text of Rev 5:9 and 7:9, but such a view disregards the framework of Daniel 7 in Revelation 4–5 and the throne in Rev 7:9 that is linked with the throne of Revelation 4–5. Bauckham states that Gen 10:5, 20, 31 is the only place in the Old Testament where the nations of the world are mentioned in a fourfold phrase, but the context is genealogy, not prophecy, and does not support these passages as source texts. 159 text or the context.22 In Rev 5:9 the author sees the redemption of people from around the world as a partial fulfillment of Dan 7:14. Thus, in the process of the kingdom of the world being turned over to God and Christ (11:15), the saints who conquer are a partial fulfillment of all tribes, languages, peoples, and nations serving the one like a son of man. In other words, the group in Rev 5:9 is a forerunner group that points to the ultimate fulfillment of all redeemed humanity serving Christ.23 As Richard Bauckham notes, the tetradic phrase occurs with subtle yet meaningful variations: Table 11: Tetradic Phrases in Revelation as Allusions to Daniel 7:14 Rev Phrase Order of Order of Order of Order of fulh/ glw◊ssa lao/ß e¶qnoß 5:9 e˙k pa¿shß fulhvß kai« glw¿sshß kai« laouv kai« e¶qnouß 1 2 3 4 7:9 e˙k panto\ß e¶qnouß kai« fulw◊n kai« law◊n kai« glwssw◊n 2 4 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 4 10:11 e˙pi« laoi√ß kai« e¶qnesin Replaced by basileu/ß in the fourth position e˙k tw◊n law◊n kai« fulw◊n 2 kai« glw¿ssaiß kai« basileuvsin polloi√ß 11:9 kai« glwssw◊n kai« e˙qnw◊n 13:7 e˙pi« pa◊san fulh\n kai« lao\n kai« glw◊ssan kai« e¶qnoß 1 3 2 4 14:6 e˙pi« pa◊n e¶qnoß kai« fulh\n kai« glw◊ssan kai« lao/n 2 3 4 1 Replaced by o¡cloß in the second position 4 1 3 17:15 laoi« kai« o¡cloi ei˙si«n kai« e¶qnh kai« glw◊ssai 22 The context of Rev 11:9 features allusions to Daniel 7 before and after it. In 11:7 the beast’s war against the two witnesses is an allusion to the horn’s war with the saints in Dan 7:21. In 11:12 the ascent of the two witnesses in a cloud is an allusion to the clouds of Dan 7:14. The tetrad in 13:7 is preceded in the same sentence by an allusion to the horn’s war with the saints in Dan 7:21 and by an allusion in 13:1-2 to the four beasts in Dan 7:3-7. The tetrad in 17:15 is followed by an allusion in 17:16 to the ten horns of Dan 7:7, 20, 24. 23 The preposition e˙k in 5:9 and 7:9 signifies the partial scope seen in redemption: people are redeemed out of the midst of the greater worldwide group. 160 As the table above reveals, these four words never occur in the same sequence in the Apocalypse. In other instances these four words are used as a counterimage. For example, Rev 13:7b-8a is an inverted allusion to Dan 7:14, for the beast has authority over every tribe, people, and nation and is accorded worship in the realm of evil in a way that runs counter to the way in which one like a son of man has authority and is accorded honor (5:9).24 5.2.4 bibli÷on bibli÷on is employed as a metaleptic allusion and semantic chain to Daniel 7 in Revelation. We have already discussed the meaning of the scroll (bibli÷on) in Revelation 5 (§4.2.2). The book of life is a recurring image in Revelation (3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27). Two factors point to an allusion to Dan 7:9-10 and 12:1 in these passages. First, the judicial aspect of the scene in both Daniel and Revelation is evident in these passages.25 Second, the image of the book of life in Revelation draws particularly from Dan 7:9-10 and 12:1 because these two passages feature books opened before God and names written in a book.26 5.2.5 a‚gioi The holy ones (a‚gioi), who are Israelite loyalists, play a central role in the interpretation of Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7 (vv. 8, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27).27 Likewise, in Revelation the word a‚gioi is interwoven 13 times as a metaleptic allusion and part of a semantic chain in the discourse, which makes it the second most frequent description of God’s 24 Osborne, Revelation, 502; Smalley, Revelation, 342. As Dunn, First Christians, 12, 17, 28, 146, observes, the New Testament specifies that God alone is worshiped, although in a qualified sense the Lamb in Revelation is also worshiped. In the main, Dunn is correct. However, since the author of Revelation says that God alone is to be worshiped (proskune÷w in 19:10 and 22:9), and since the Lamb is never said to be worshiped but is rather to be served (latreu/w in 22:3), it is better to say that worship is rendered to God alone but that Jesus is honored as the one like a son of man and the Lamb of God, a man with a unique status among all people of all time. 25 Smalley, Revelation, 85, notes that the judicial aspect is the primary setting and points to Dan 7:9-10 and 1 En. 47:3 and 90:20. 26 Osborne, Revelation, 503. 27 The view that the “holy ones” of Daniel 7 are angels is not likely for three reasons. First, the horn persecutes and defeats the holy ones—an action that cannot conform to the experience of angels, who ultimately triumph (Dan 10:13). Second, the Jewish scriptures use “holy one” to refer to people (Deut 33:3; Pss 16:3; 34:9). Third, the Dead Sea Scrolls use the designation for people (1QM 10.10; 4QpsDana; CD 20.8?). The author of the War Scroll mentions “the people of the saints of the covenant” as those who “see the holy angels” (1QM 10.10-11, WAC). 161 people in Revelation.28 The author’s interweaving of the word a‚gioi from Daniel 7 in Revelation is based on his view that the holy ones in Daniel 7 are humans.29 Revelation’s link with a‚gioi in Daniel 7 is based on three criteria. First, the word’s first plural use in Revelation occurs in Rev 5:8, which is embedded in an extended passage using Daniel 7 as its Vorbild (§4.2.2). Second, the horn in Dan 7:21 makes war against the saints and prevails over them, and in like manner the beast in Rev 13:7 is permitted to make war against the saints and to conquer them. Third, the plural a‚gioi is used normally in both Daniel 7 and Revelation to refer to the people of God.30 Themes involving a‚gioi are expressed in various ways in Revelation. Thus, emphasis is placed on the prayers of the saints (5:8; 8:3-4). In the face of possible martyrdom, the saints are called to endure and have faith (13:10; 14:12). Jesus’ exaltation as the Lamb that has been slaughtered vindicates him as the one like a son of man, who embodies both the suffering and the vindication of the saints of the Most High.31 This vindication is an extension of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8, where Jesus, as well as the saints by implication, receives vindication publicly at the cosmic parousia. In the closest parallel with Daniel 7, the beast is allowed to make war on the saints and conquer them (Dan 7:21; Rev 13:7).32 The saints are rewarded along with the prophets at the cosmic parousia (11:18). Ultimately, the blood of the saints is spilled (16:6; 17:6; 18:24). Along with the apostles and the prophets, the saints are called to rejoice over the judgment of Babylon (18:20). The bride is allowed to be clothed with fine linen, which is 28 The most frequent term for God’s people in Revelation is e˙kklhsi÷a (“assembly”), which occurs 20 times. The plural form of a‚gioß is used 13 times in Revelation to refer to people (5:8; 8:3, 4; 11:18; 13:7, 10; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6; 18:20, 24; 19:8; 20:9). This count excludes the occurrence of a‚gioß in some manuscripts of 22:21. Metzger, Commentary, 767, notes that the majority on the UBS committee favored the shortest reading meta» pa¿ntwn on the basis of the weight of A. Cf. Beale, Revelation, 1157; Osborne, Revelation, 799; Smalley, Revelation, 581. 29 On the interpretation of the “holy ones” of Daniel 7 as humans, see Alexander A. Di Lella, “The One in Human Likeness and the Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel 7,” CBQ 39 (1977): 1-19. 30 Dan 7:8, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27; Rev 5:8; 8:3, 4; 11:18; 13:7, 10; 14:12; 16:6; 18:24; 19:8; 20:9. 31 Wall, Revelation, 101, says that Jesus’ death, especially his obedience unto death, vindicates him as the Messiah of God. A more accurate way of saying this is that Jesus’ death is the vindication of the one like a son of man because the title “Christ” is subordinated to the “one like a son of man.” Moule, Origin, 14, notes that in Daniel 7 God’s loyal people are “vindicated in the heavenly court after tribulation.” 32 Daniel 7:21 and Rev 13:7 share po/lemoß and a‚gioß as two content words (Dan 7:21, po/lemon, pro\ß tou\ß aJgi÷ouß; Rev 13:7, po/lemon, meta» tw◊n aJgi÷wn). 162 defined as the righteous deeds of the saints (19:8). The forces of Gog and Magog surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city (20:9). 5.2.6 qhri÷on The noun qhri÷on (“beast”) from Daniel 7 is used as a metaleptic allusion and a part of a semantic chain in Revelation (see Appendix 3).33 In Daniel 7 the one like a son of man is set in contrast to the four great beasts that come up out of the sea (v. 3), and thus the one like a son of man refers to one who has a position of great authority.34 In Revelation the one like a son of man is contrasted with the beast and the dragon. In 12:18 the dragon stands on the sand of the sea to call together those who will agree with him, whereas the Lamb stands on Mount Zion along with the 144,000 (14:1).35 The vision of the four beasts (lion, bear, leopard, terrible beast) in Daniel 7:4-7, which further expresses the theme of the four pagan empires in Daniel 2, finds its counterpart in Rev 13:1-2, with its depiction of the composite beast with ten horns, seven heads, and features of a leopard, a bear, and a lion.36 In Rev 19:11-21 the exalted Christ comes at the cosmic parousia, and as a result of his triumphant return, the beast and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire. This scene recalls the destruction of the fourth beast in Dan 7:11.37 Furthermore, the beast imagery extends to the structure of Revelation. For example, Pablo Richard demonstrates how the internal structure of Rev 12:1–15:4, with its concentrated references to the beast, resembles the structure of Daniel 7.38 33 Dan 7:3, 5, 6 (2), 7 (2), 11, 17, 19, 23. Goldingay, Daniel, 168. 35 The manuscript evidence favors the reading e˙sta¿qh (“he stood”): ∏47 a A C 1854 2344 2351 pc lat syh. The other reading e˙sta¿qhn (“I stood”), which would be a reference to the author, does not have the same quality in MS attestation: 051  vgmss syph co. 36 On the relationship between Daniel 7:4-7 and Daniel 2, see Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1978), 13. The appropriation by Revelation’s author of this imagery, especially that of the fourth beast in Dan 7:7, is not capricious but fits with the apparently predominant Jewish interpretation of the four beasts. According to Flusser, Judaism, 326-27, in the first century CE this interpretation was as follows: (1) lion with the eagle’s wings = Babylonia; (2) bear = Media; (3) leopard with four wings = Greece; and (4) the terrible, dreadful, and very strong beast = Roman Empire. In line with this view are the following sources: 4 Ezra 11:1; 12:10-30; Josephus, Ant. 10.10.4; 109.11.7; 2 Bar. 39; Barn. 4; Lev. R. 13.5; Gen. R. 44:20; A. Z. 1b; and Tg. Hab. 3.17. 37 Bauckham, Revelation, 106-7. 38 Richard, Apocalypse, 99-100. 34 163 5.2.7 puvr The word puvr (“fire”) is a key word in Daniel 7:9-11 OG, appearing once in each verse. Daniel 7:11 is probably the source text for the image of the lake of fire in Revelation (19:20; 20:10, 14, 15). Although scholars posit other source texts for the image of the lake of fire, Dan 7:11 remains the most likely source text because it shares with Rev 19:20 two content words (qhri÷on, puvr) and the act of giving the beast to fiery judgment (di÷dwmi in Dan 7:11; ba¿llw in Rev 19:20).39 In addition, other Jewish texts base images of fiery punishment on Dan 7:9-11.40 5.3 Lexical Chains from Revelation 1:7 in the Apocalypse In previous chapters we have established that Rev 1:7-8 is linked with Rev 1:9-20 and Revelation 4–5, and we have just analyzed the use of metaleptic allusions to Daniel 7 in Revelation. We will now examine how key words from Rev 1:7 are used in a thematic and multivalent way throughout the rest of the discourse via lexical chains. 5.3.1 i˙dou/ The use of i˙dou/ in Rev 1:7, which is part of the allusion to Dan 7:13 in OG and Q, is used to alert the author’s audience to listen or consider carefully or to perceive a character or some aspect in the text. Brian Blount notes that the particle i˙dou when used in speech here in Rev 1:7 and other places in the discourse “affirms and validates whatever statement it pre- 39 Bøe, Gog, 294-95, provides six possibilities for the source text for the image of the lake of fire: (1) the destruction by sulfur and fire of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19); (2) the throwing of the horse and rider into the Red Sea (Exod 15:1); (3) the earth swallowing Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and fire consuming 250 men (Num 16:31-35); (4) the judgment of Gog by means of torrential rains, hailstones, fire, and sulfur (Ezek 38:22); (5) the giving of the fourth beast to be burned with fire (Dan 7:11); and (6) punishment by fire as found often in extrabiblical Jewish literature (1 En. 54:1; Sib. Or. 3.691). Bøe (295) regards Daniel 7 as “probably more central.” Beale, Revelation, 969-70, sees Ezekiel 38 and especially Dan 7:11, with the latter possibly combined with Dan 7:9b-10a, as the source texts. Beale raises the question of whether there is an intentional solecism in the phrase ei˙ß th\n li÷mnhn touv puro\ß thvß kaiome÷nhß e˙n qei÷wˆ, where thvß kaiome÷nhß does not agree in case with th\n li÷mnhn or in gender with touv puro\ß. Such a view seems likely in view of the concord of thØv li÷mnhØ thØv kaiome÷nhØ puri\ in 21:8. In addition, scribes’ modification of kaiome÷nhß to kaiome÷nhn shows how the solecism jars the reader (051  gig). 40 Along this line, 1 En. 54:1 refers to “a deep valley with burning fire” (NVK). Similarly, 1 En. 90:24-27 refers to an abyss that is full of fire and a fire-filled abyss in the middle of the earth. Second Enoch 10:2 mentions a river of fire. The image of a river of fire occurs in 1 En. 17:5; 2 En. 10:2; 3 En. 33:4-5; and T. Isaac 5:21-32. Osborne, Revelation, 690; Smalley, Revelation, 499. 164 cedes and should be translated ‘indeed.’”41 This particle has the discourse function of highlighting something for the audience’s special attention with the expectation that the audience will arrive at a logical conclusion and undertake a certain action.42 For the author’s audience, the action is to join Jesus Christ and the author in being witnesses in God’s unfolding plan of redemption and the establishment of God’s kingdom.43 In three other occurrences in Revelation (16:15; 22:7, 12), i˙dou/ is associated with the coming of Jesus, so the first instance of i˙dou/ in 1:7 is the initial text in this lexical chain in Revelation. 5.3.2 e¶rcomai The writers of the early Jesus movement did not use Dan 7:13-14 in a univalent way to refer to the cosmic parousia, but they incorporated this source text in their target texts to refer to Jesus’ public ministry, his resurrection and ascension, and the ecclesial-cosmic parousia. Certain scholars are correct in delineating various streams of Daniel 7 traditions in the literature of the Jesus movement.44 Building on their insights, we see three progressive stages 41 Blount, Revelation, 37. Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 62, says that hnh (“behold”) is sometimes used in the Old Testament to indicate “the perception of a character distinct from that of the narrator.” However, that use does not appear to be the thrust of the author’s discourse, for he has already mentioned Jesus Christ in vv. 1, 2, 5, and 6. 43 The immediate context of Rev 1:7 establishes the importance of being a witness and bearing testimony. In v. 5 Jesus is described as “the faithful witness,” and in v. 9 the author says that he was on Patmos in part because of “the witness borne by Jesus.” Elsewhere the saints are said to be witnesses (2:13; 11:3; 17:6) or to bear witness (6:9; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 19:10; 20:4). 44 Perrin, Rediscovering, 183, sees three Christian exegetical traditions using Dan 7:13: (1) a parousia tradition; (2) an ascension tradition based on the resurrection viewed in light of Ps 110:1; and (3) a passion apologetic based on Zech 12:10ff. In a more comprehensive vein, R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971), 145, correctly sees Jesus’ use of Daniel 7:13-14 in “three stages that form a logical progression”: (1) vindication and dominion after his resurrection (Matt 28:18; Mark 14:62); (2) the historical act of judgment, which is probably the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 8:38; Matt 10:23); and (3) the judgment of all nations (Matt 19:28; 25:31). Similarly, D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC 8; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 506, delineates two traditions: (1) Jesus receiving the kingdom through his resurrection and ascension; and (2) Jesus receiving the kingdom at the consummation, which entails a kingdom that is “direct immediate, uncontested, and universal.” Beale, John’s Use, 103, points to the son of man’s coming for the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 CE and at the final parousia. Concerning the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7, Beale (ibid.) states that “the Daniel 7 reference may include the whole course of the church age during which Christ guides the events of history in judgment and blessing, since the son of man allusion in 1.13 has present application. . . .” France, Jesus, 139-48, says that Jesus applies Dan 7:13 to refer to his resurrection and ascension (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 16:27; 26:64; Luke 9:26). Mark 14:62 also speaks of Jesus’ imminent juridical vindication. Cf. David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 65. On the link between Dan 7:13 and the ascension, see J. G. Davies, He 42 165 of Jesus Christ’s sovereignty that are rooted in the exegetical tradition of Dan 7:13: (1) the resurrection, ascension, and exaltation; (2) the parousia; and (3) the eternal kingdom.45 We will now examine how the coming of the one like a son of man is portrayed in serial comings in Revelation in what may be called multiple fulfillments and consummation.46 From the initial vision of 1:9-20 onward, serial comings of Jesus are portrayed in Revelation and often feature the lexeme e¶rcomai. In 1:9-20 the author experiences the coming of the one like a son of man in advance of what all humanity will experience, and thus he experiences an initial fulfillment of the prophetic oracles in 1:7-8 as a fitting capstone for Christ’s past and present ministry.47 In short, the author experiences a personal parousia of the one like a son Ascended into Heaven: A Study in the History of Doctrine (London: Lutterworth, 1958), 26, 36-38. Therefore, Daniel 7 figures into the exegetical work of various writers in the Jesus movement literature. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” 6:137, says that Daniel 7 is “a text almost unequaled for its influence on both Jewish and Christian messianic speculations in the crucial period up to 100 C.E.” In a similar vein, Dodd, Scriptures, 69, summarizes his analysis of the New Testament data vis-à-vis Daniel 7 by saying, “There is amply enough here to show how deeply this chapter of Daniel is embedded in the foundations of New Testament thought.” 45 In our view the first stage entails the sovereignty that Jesus Christ exercises subsequent to his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation. In this stage sovereignty is exercised in such events as the pouring out of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and Christ’s care for his churches. The second stage involves all events that are proximate to the parousia. The third stage concerns the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth under Christ and his ultimate rule in the new heaven and the new earth. Writers in the Jesus movement have used various terms to describe Jesus’ status, sometimes in discrete ways and sometimes in overlapping ways (e.g., Acts 2:33-36; Eph 1:20-22; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:2-3). Thus, one may speak of the various aspects of resurrection, ascension, enthronement, exaltation, and session. On these terms, see Chrisope, Jesus, 43-45. 46 The eschatological framework of multiple fulfillments and consummation means that an author of the literature of the early Jesus movement views certain prophecies from the viewpoint of being fulfilled one or more times before the consummation of the prophecy. The following scholars use fulfillment and consummation as a framework for understanding the prophetic mindset of the writers of the New Testament: France, Jesus, 139-48, 160-62; George Eldon Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (2d ed.; Waco: Word, 1969), 101-17. 47 The first coming of the son of man occurs in the “one like a son of man” vision in 1:9-20. The lack of clouds associated with this coming is not a weighty objection to it being the initial fulfillment of the prophetic oracle of 1:7-8 because the clouds of Dan 7:13 indicate a theophany (§3.4.5) and correspond to the theophanic elements of 1:9-20. In the plotted story time of Revelation, the author experiences the first instance of Jesus as the one like a son of man coming with the clouds. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 93, notes, “The mention of ‘one like a son of man’ in v 13 is within the context of the author’s commission in 1:9-20; the scene depicted in Dan 7:13 is not relegated to the future but is experienced as present.” Similarly, Beale, Revelation, 182, sees 1:13-15 as showing “initial fulfillment of Daniel 7. . . .” Cf. Kistemaker, Revelation, 86; Sweet, Revelation, 69-70. The coming of Jesus to the author on the island of Patmos is proleptic of the other comings of Jesus. The verb e¶rcomai is not used in 1:9-20, but this passage is to be regarded as the first fulfillment of the promise of the coming of Jesus in 1:7. Corsini, Apocalypse, 89-90, notes that Rev 1:7 shows that Jesus “is the Messiah announced by Daniel in his vision” and also states that the author’s vision in Rev 1:9-20 picks up this theme and further explains it. Although the author’s purpose is not primarily apologetic, Corsini is right in seeing the way in which the author’s vision elaborates the Danielic allusion in 1:7. In a similar vein, Johnson, Triumph, 53, says, “Nevertheless, because Jesus lives and rules now, the visible second coming (‘every eye will see him’) will be foreshadowed even now 166 of man that is a vindication of the author’s suffering and endurance because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev 1:9).48 In framing the serial comings of the one like a son of man in this way, the author is incorporating the three streams of exegetical tradition in the Jesus movement concerning the Danielic son of man that we mentioned above in note 44. That is, the author sees multiple comings of Jesus in a stream of tradition that saw Dan 7:13 as fluid in its fulfillments and consummation. With this understanding of the exegetical tradition of Dan 7:13 in mind, we will look at how e¶rcomai is used in Revelation. The lexeme e¶rcomai forms a lexical chain in the network of repetitions in Revelation.49 Various forms of e¶rcomai are used 36 times in the Apocalypse, establishing a leitmotif in the discourse:50 Table 12: Occurrences of the Lexeme e¶rcomai in the Apocalypse Verse Narrator/ Subject Speaker Of Verb 1:4 John God 1:7 Unspecified Jesus 1:8 Lord God God 2:5 Jesus Jesus 2:16 Jesus Jesus 3:10 Jesus The hour of the test Form of e¶rcomai oJ e˙rco/menoß e¶rcetai oJ e˙rco/menoß e¶rcomai e¶rcomai e¶rcesqai by his interventions in his congregations and his imposition of providential judgments in the world at large.” As Minear, I Saw, 17, notes, the future coming of Christ with the clouds in Rev 1:7 is a fitting conclusion to the doxology of vv. 5b-6, which features Christ’s ministry of loosing his people from their sins in the past and loving them in the present. These three temporal dimensions involving Christ parallel the three temporal dimensions involving God in v. 4 (oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß). 48 This personal parousia of the one like a son of man that the author experienced is akin in particulars to what Stephen, the first martyr, experienced, although the author of the Apocalypse did not die. Commenting on Stephen’s death, C. K. Barrett, “Stephen and the Son of Man,” in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebsigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964 (ed. W. Eltester and F. H. Kettler; BZNW 30; Berlin: Alfred Töppelmann, 1964), 35-36, says, “Thus the death of each Christian would be marked by what we may term a private and personal parousia of the Son of man. That which was to happen in a universal sense at the last day, happened in individual terms when a Christian came to the last day of his life.” This view of a personal parousia is also in line with vindication. Also commenting on Stephen’s death, Moule, Phenomenon, 91, remarks that “in the heavenly court, where the books have been opened, this member of the Son of Man community is already being vindicated by the head of that community—the Son of Man par excellence.” Italics original. 49 For the present discussion, we are excluding the use of h¢kw in 2:25 and ei˙seleu/somai in 3:20. They are also part of this matrix of passages that the author uses to portray both the pre-parousia comings and the parousia of Jesus. 50 Jacques Derrida, “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Newly Adopted in Philosophy,” in Derrida and Negative Theology (ed. Harold G. Coward and Toby Foshay; Albany: State University of New York, 1992), 62, observes that “come” resounds in the heart of the Apocalypse. 167 Verse 3:11 4:8 5:7 6:1 6:3 6:5 6:7 6:17 7:13 7:14 8:3 9:12 11:14 11:18 14:7 14:15 16:15 17:1 17:10 Jesus The four living ones John One of the four living ones The second living one The third living one The fourth living one People of high rank and low rank One of the 24 elders One of the 24 elders John John John The 24 elders An angel flying in midheaven An angel who came out of the temple Jesus John 18:10 19:7 21:9 One of the seven angels with the seven bowls One of the seven angels with the seven bowls The kings of the earth A great multitude John 22:7 22:12 Angel52 Jesus 17:10 51 Narrator/ Speaker Subject Of Verb Form of e¶rcomai Jesus God Jesus A rider e¶rcomai A rider A rider A rider The great day of their wrath [God and the Lamb] Those dressed in long white robes Those coming out of the Great Tribulation An angel with a golden censer Two woes The third woe God’s wrath The hour of God’s judgment e¶rcou The hour to reap h™lqen Jesus One of the seven angels with the seven bowls The seventh king e¶rcomai h™lqen The seventh king e¶lqhØ The judgment of Babylon The marriage of the Lamb51 One of the seven angels with the bowls Jesus Jesus h™lqen h™lqen h™lqen oJ e˙rco/menoß h™lqen e¶rcou e¶rcou e¶rcou h™lqen h™lqon oi˚ e˙rco/menoi h™lqen e¶rcetai e¶rcetai h™lqen h™lqen h™lqen e¶rcomai e¶rcomai The marriage of the Lamb in 19:7 is essentially the marriage of the one like a son of man because the Lamb is another figure for the one like a son of man (§4.2.2). A conceptual parallel is seen in the parable that Jesus told about a king giving a marriage banquet for his son (Matt 22:1-14). 52 One issue in 22:7 is whether an angel or Jesus is speaking. The καί at the beginning of 22:7 appears to link this verse with v. 6, which is part of the address of the angel to the author. The angel appears to be speaking as the appointed messenger of Christ. Cf. Smalley, Revelation, 567. 168 Verse 22:17 22:17 22:17 22:20 22:20 Narrator/ Speaker The Spirit and the bride The one who is hearing John Jesus John Subject Of Verb Jesus Jesus The one who is thirsty The one bearing witness (Jesus) Jesus Form of e¶rcomai e¶rcou e¶rcou e˙rce÷sqw e¶rcomai e¶rcou In all of its conjugated forms, e¶rcomai occurs 36 times in Revelation. Of these 36 occurrences, 33 have eschatological meaning and therefore are either associated with the coming of God or Jesus or associated with the coming of a judgment.53 Once again we see counterimages of the coming of Jesus in the coming of the four riders (6:1, 3, 5, 7) and the seventh king (17:10). Thirteen of these occurrences of e¶rcomai have some kind of eschatological or non-eschatological aspect associated with God or Jesus.54 Thus, eleven of the 36 occurrences refer to Jesus coming in either an eschatological sense or a noneschatological sense (1:7; 2:5, 16; 3:11; 5:7; 16:15; 22:7, 12, 20 [2]). In this respect, e¶rcomai may be an example of semantic change because of semantic innovation in which e¶rcomai functions as a metonymy.55 As we see in the table above, forms of e¶rcomai are used throughout Revelation either strictly or loosely.56 The repetition of forms of e¶rcomai is linked to its first occurrence in 1:7 in the lexeme e¶rcetai, which is used strictly of Jesus coming at the cosmic parousia and loosely of his various comings that are seen throughout the Apocalypse as already noted above. This difference in equivalence is seen in classical rhetoric. According to Heinrich Lausberg, in classical rhetoric the relaxation of the inflected form is called polyptoton, and under this category this relaxation in the repetition of the word is known as variatio.57 53 Only Rev 8:3; 17:1; 21:9; and 22:17 appear to lack eschatological meaning. Rev 1:4, 7, 8; 2:5, 16; 3:11; 4:8; 9:12; 11:14; 16:15; 22:7, 12, 20. 55 Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 83-84. 56 In this binary distinction, we are following Lausberg who makes this distinction in the repetition in words. Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study (trans. Matthew T. Bliss, Annemiek Jansen, and David E. Orton; ed. David E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 274. 57 Ibid., 288. 54 169 Lausberg notes that “the contrast between the equivalence of the word and the difference in its syntactic function has an enlivening effect.”58 In terms of the category of style (le/xiß, elocutio), one convention that was used in classical rhetoric was diaphora, which is defined as “the repeated use of the same word, which acquires added or different significance in the repetition.”59 If a different speaker repeats the word, the figure is called anaclasis (ajna/klasiß, reflexio). In vv. 7-8 anaclasis is in view because an unidentified speaker speaks in v. 7 and God speaks in v. 8. The use of e¶rcetai in v. 7 is more elastic in meaning, having both literal denotation and figurative connotations. In light of the foregoing, we now turn to see how e¶rcetai functions in Rev 1:7. Most scholars surveyed regard e¶rcetai in Rev 1:7 as a futuristic present, especially with the use of two future verbs in this verse (o¡yetai, ko/yontai).60 However, four facts militate against the 58 Ibid. Rowe, “Style,” 133. A good example of diaphora occurs in Rev 3:10, where forms of thre÷w (“to keep, to guard”) are used twice, first in the sense of “obey” and the second in the sense of “keep, preserve, protect.” Cf. Aune, Revelation 1–5; Osborne, Revelation, 192. 60 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 50 n. 7a., says that e¶rcetai in v. 7 is “a futuristic use of the present, a usage typically found in oracles. . . .” Aune, Prophecy, 56, observes that various kinds of Greco-Roman oracles (predictive, diagnostic, and prescriptive) use different moods and tenses and that “predictive oracles use future and ‘futuristic present’ tenses of the indicative.” Osborne, Revelation, 69 n. 27, argues that the best view of e¶rcetai is that the verb could be a futuristic present that stresses imminence. Similarly, Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 2002), 67-68, says that the futuristic present here may denote certainty, imminence, and present reality of the Second Coming. Cf. A. T. Robertson, The General Epistles and the Revelation of John (vol. 6 of Word Pictures in the New Testament; 6 vols.; Nashville: Broadman, 1933), 287-88. Scholars appear to be in broad agreement that the general thrust of the futuristic present indicates the certainty of a future event by speaking of it in the present. Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 225, provides a good description of the use of the futuristic present in a prophetic text: “The final kind of futuristic present is the use of the present in prophetic or oracular pronouncements, giving a vision of a future occurrence as if it were occurring already. This is a rhetorical application of the normal meaning of the present indicative (an action occurring at the time of speaking) to describe a future event as though it were present. Here at last one finds examples which reflect vividness and confident assertion about the future occurrence, as many grammars have noted.” Concerning the Greek of the period from post-classical to Neohellenic, Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time (London: Macmillan and Co., 1897; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1987), 434, states, “In animated speech it [the present tense] is often used by anticipation for the future. . . .” G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek (trans. W. F. Moulton; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 331, comments that the present tense is “used for the future in appearance only, when an action still future is to be presented as being as good as already present, either because it is already firmly resolved on, or because it must ensure in virtue of some unalterable law (exactly as in Latin, German, etc.). . . .” James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3d ed.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908), 1:120, states, “In this stage of Greek, as in our own language, we may define the futural present as differing from the future tense mainly in the tone of assurance which is imparted.” Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, 168, note that futuristic present is used in “confident assertions regarding 59 170 view that e¶rcetai is a futuristic present in a univalent, temporally rigid sense in v. 7, thus favoring the view that e¶rcetai is an ingressive futuristic present (i.e., mostly futuristic present).61 First, the view of e¶rcetai as an ingressive futuristic present accounts for the many instances noted above where Jesus comes to individuals and groups before his coming at the cosmic parousia.62 Notably, the one like a son of man appears to John as the first fulfillment of Christ coming with the clouds, reversing the expectations of the audience.63 Second, the view of e¶rcetai as an ingressive futuristic present reflects the suppression of time in Rev 1:7. Daniel Wallace rejects the extreme positions that assert that the indicative always expresses either aspect or time.64 Instead, he cogently argues for a flexible view, stating: In our view, the unaffected meaning of the tenses in the indicative involves both aspect and time. However, either one of these can be suppressed by lexemic, contextual, or grammatical intrusions. Thus, a proper view of language does not attempt to weave a thread of meaning through all the instances of a given form.65 the future. . . .” A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 869, says that the futuristic present “is generally punctiliar or aoristic,” and he classifies e¶rcomai as a verb that the New Testament uses in a punctiliar way (“momentary presents”). However, Robertson is not clear as to whether he regards every usage of e¶rcomai in this way. He (869-70) says that one use of the futuristic present is to refer to the dramatic or the prophetic and that if the present is used to refer to the prophetic, it shows the certainty of what is prophesied. 61 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 537, establishes “mostly futuristic,” which he also tentatively calls “IngressiveFuturistic?”, as a category in his discussion of the futuristic present, although not citing Rev 1:7 in his brief survey. Wallace cites John 4:23 as an example: aÓlla» e¶rcetai w‚ra kai« nuvn e˙stin (“But an hour is coming, and now is”). kai« nuvn e˙stin serves to indicate that the hour that Jesus speaks about has already begun. We think another example is found in 1 John 4:3: “And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard that is coming, and now it is in the world already” (o§aÓkhko/ate o¢ti e¶rcetai, kai« nuvn e˙n twˆ◊ ko/smwˆ e˙sti«n h¡dh). Because of the mostly futuristic present’s use with verbs of coming and going, e¶rcetai should be regarded in that fashion in 1:7. 62 For example, commenting on the use of e¶rcomai in 2:5, Swete, Apocalypse, 27, says that throughout Revelation “this verb is used in a quasi-future sense. . . .” 63 The Apocalypse abounds with reversals of expectation. For example, the author hears that the Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, but he sees a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain (5:5-6). Cf. Morton, One, 27; Slater, Christ, 95. 64 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 504-12. 65 Ibid., 511. Italics original. The polarized views about indicative verbs (radical verbal aspect vs. radical tense time) are to be rejected. In his critique of verbal aspect, Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 316-36, convincingly shows that both time and aspect with respect to verbs are equally important and that this double stress stretches from the time of Dionysios Thrax (170-90 BCE) to the present. 171 Following Wallace’s insight regarding the suppression of aspect or time, we see the occurrence of intrusions in Rev 1:7 with the threefold lack of deixis (spatial, temporal, and personal).66 Probably seeing this lack of deixis, Stanley Porter translates Rev 1:7, “Behold he is in progress coming with the clouds and every eye will see him.”67 Porter says that the speaker “asserts that he [Jesus Christ] is coming, with the expectation that every eye then will see him. There is no need to make both verbs refer temporally to the same sphere where an attitudinal difference seems to be the major difference.”68 That is, the coming and the seeing are not to be relegated exclusively to the future. Third, the view of e¶rcetai as an ingressive futuristic present is congruent with the author’s prophetic telescoping in the tradition of the prophets of Israel.69 The statements in Revelation concerning Christ’s imminent coming have perplexed some scholars, but the mode of thought reflected in the text is ancient Israelite, not modern. The author presents his audience with a tension between an eschatology of imminence and an eschatology of delay.70 George Ladd notes that the Israelite prophets did not stress chronology and viewed the future 66 John Lyons, Semantics (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 2:637, defines deixis as “the location and identification of persons, objects, events, processes and activities being talked about, or referred to, in relation to the spatiotemporal context created and sustained by the act of utterance and the participation in it, typically, of a single speaker and at least one addressee.” For the Greek language, Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 99-102, says that four deictic categories are seen: person, time, discourse, and social. In a similar vein, Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect (SBG 10; New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 55-59, identifies five categories of deixis: personal, social, locational (place/spatial), discourse, and temporal. 67 Porter, Verbal Aspect, 231. 68 Ibid. 69 “Prophetic telescoping,” which is also called “prophetic foreshortening,” is the term that describes the phenomenon of Israelite prophets prophesying of major events without providing specific indications of the chronological interval between the events. The events are collapsed into what is seemingly one event, when, in reality, one or more events are in view. The degree to which the author of the Apocalypse is conscious of this phenomenon is unclear, but he aligns himself with a prophetic tradition in which the prophet’s awareness of his own prophecies was uncertain (1 Pet 1:10-12). Cf. Payne, Encyclopedia, 137-40. The author’s view of God’s work in history is dynamic, not static. Describing this kind of view, Simon J. de Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 325, points out the following concerning the schools of prophetic redactors: “As they studied the sacred text already available to them they learned that God’s purpose could in principle be extended from the past to the present and from the present to an imminent future, a proximate future, and even a remote future. Thus their notion of how Yahweh works within history was anything but static.” 70 Bauckham, Theology, 157-58, says that the logic of imminence involves the necessity of the coming of God’s kingdom and that the logic of delay involves God’s patience and grace. 172 as imminent, and thus biblical prophecy possesses a dynamic tension between the immediate future and the distant future.71 In a similar vein, Robert Mounce notes: One answer to the problem of this as-yet-unfulfilled expectation is to hold that God is more concerned with the fulfillment of his redemptive purposes than he is with satisfying our ideas of appropriate timing. All the issues that find their complete fulfillment in that point in time yet future when history will verge into eternity, are also being fulfilled in the ever advancing present. The end and the beginning are but two perspectives on the same great adventure. The final overthrow of evil was determined from the beginning and has been in force ever since the defeat of Satan by the sacrificial death of Christ and his triumphal resurrection.72 The author writes with the same telescopic framework because he says that the events of Revelation are to occur soon, that is, in the days of the author and the seven churches in Asia, and to an even greater degree in the unknown eschatological future. Fourth, the view of e¶rcetai as an ingressive futuristic present reflects the prologue’s immersion of the audience in the present and the audience’s present-oriented concept of time. In concert with this present orientation is the repeated use of the present tense in v. 8: #Egw¿ 73 ei˙mi (“I am”), le÷gei (“says”), and oJ w·n (“the Being One”). In terms of the preceding context, the position of v. 7 in the prologue of vv. 1-8 immerses the audience of the Apocalypse in the present by its direct address (§2.6). As Jo-Ann Brant discerns concerning the function of a prologue in a dramatic context, “The prologue takes the audience into the perpetual present of the action.”74 In addition, the present-oriented concept of time of the author’s audience favors the view of serial comings of Jesus, not just a remote cosmic parousia. As with the culture of the rest of the Roman world, the followers of Jesus in the seven churches of Asia had a present-oriented concept of time. As Bruce Malina notes, “Since Mediterranean societies of the first century were examples of classical peasant societies, by and large, the primary preference in temporal orientation at that period and place 71 Ladd, Revelation, 22. Mounce, Revelation, 404. 73 oJ w·n functions as the leading edge of the tripartite description of God. 74 Brant, Dialogue, 26. 72 173 was the present, with past second and future third.”75 The present occupies the focus of such a society and is infused with great meaning.76 As a consequence, the present drives the future instead of the future driving the present.77 Such a notion of time suffuses Revelation with a sense of process, not a strict dichotomy between the present and the future.78 In this vein, Rudolph Raber states the importance of the present meaning of Revelation for the audience, although he is too dismissive of the futuristic aspects of the discourse: Despite some grammatical look of futurism and a consequent habit of futuristic interpretation, the action of the Apocalypse is to be understood as being in process. Any notion that God, living and active, might be sitting about waiting for some predestined moment to commence the eschaton would have been unthinkable to the writer and of no consequence whatever to his first century readers.79 In this aspect of the action of Revelation being in process, the author’s prophetic-apocalyptic approach is not focused exclusively on predictive prophecy of the remote future.80 75 Bruce J. Malina, “Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?” CBQ 51 (1989): 5. In a similar vein, Bruce Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 232, note that peasant societies are in general oriented toward the present (i.e., immediacy) and that their concern for the future is increased if they see the future as something that is present (e.g., a child is present in her pregnant mother). Such a concept of time stands in contrast to a modern concept of time. Noting this contrast, Ong, Orality, 74-75, says that modern people use clocks and calendars and thereby falsify the notion of time by spatial reductionism, thinking that they somehow have more control of time. Time, however, cannot be interrupted or segmented. Ong (30) notes that in an oral culture there is a lack of “a sense of difference between past and future.” 76 For example, writers of the early Jesus movement spoke about having eternal life in the present (John 3:36; 17:2; Acts 13:48; 1 Tim 6:12; 1 John 5:13) 77 Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (BLS; Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1999), 124. 78 Michael Gilbertson, God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogues with Pannenberg and Moltmann (SNTSMS 124; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 79-80, remarks, “John seeks to illuminate the present by placing it within the framework of the past and the future.” Indeed, to some degree the past, the present, and the future are fused. In discussing the Lord’s supper and its relationship to Revelation, David L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Santa Rosa, California: Polebridge, 1998), 172, says, “Thus, the Lord’s Supper is at the same time a present experience of the worshipping community, a re-enactment of the past supper of Jesus with the disciples, and a proleptic feasting in the messianic banquet of the end time. In worship, past, present, and future merge. In worship, one reclines at table in Ephesus, stands with John on Patmos, and enters the heavenly throne room to worship God.” 79 Rudolph W. Raber, “Revelation 21:1-8,” Int 40 (1986): 297. 80 Peter Manchester, “The Religious Experience of Time and Eternity,” in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman (ed. A. H. Armstrong; vol. 15 of World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 405, notes, “Apocalyptic speaks out of an experience of the immediate moment, the time of call and decision—in Greek, the kairos. This is the Now not of Presence but of Advent, and it is very much a group experience. . . .” 174 As Table 12 above shows, e¶rcomai is vital not only to the beginning of Revelation but also to the end of Revelation. The four occurrences of e¶rcomai in 22:7, 12, 20—with the explicit eschatological meaning of Jesus’ coming—frame Revelation with the same thematic emphasis that began with 1:7. In the first three occurrences of e¶rcomai in Revelation 22, Jesus speaks, and the rhetorically powerful declarations in vv. 7, 12, and 20 that he is coming soon propel the audience toward the author’s prayer, “Amen, come, Lord Jesus!” The triple repetition of i˙dou/ in these verses recalls the emphatic i˙dou/ of the oracular declaration in 1:7, “Indeed, he is coming with the clouds,” and this lexical chain in Revelation 22 further substantiates Rev 1:7 as the thematic statement of Revelation. The author confirms this truth with the threefold declaration of the exalted Jesus that he is coming soon (22:7, 12, 20). Seven occurrences of e¶rcomai emphasize the ecclesial parousia and extend the thematic statement of the prophetic oracle of Rev 1:7.81 The exalted Christ says seven times in a sentence with e¶rcomai that he is coming, either as a promise or as a threat (2:5, 16; 3:11; 16:15; 22:7, 12, 20). According to the author’s symbolic use of the number seven, this sevenfold use of e¶rcomai emphasizes the complete trustworthiness of the promise of Jesus’ coming.82 The coming of Jesus in 2:5 and 2:16 refers to an imminent pre-parousia coming in judgment and serves as a warning of the potential judgment attendant upon the ecclesial parousia.83 In these comings in judgment to his church, Jesus visits the churches and its 81 In a broader discussion of the use of symbolic numbers in Revelation, Bauckham, Climax, 34, says that these occurrences of e¶rcomai spoken by Christ fit within this schema. 82 Bauckham, Climax, 30, 34, notes the significance that the number seven has in the Apocalypse and further notes that Jesus says seven times that he is coming. Beale, Revelation, 1155, says, “Jesus’ reaffirmation throughout the Apocalypse, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly,’ serves to confirm the validity of his testimony. That is, he assures the churches about the truth of the complete vision by guaranteeing that his final advent, which he promised at his first coming, will soon occur and thus bring to completion what he has revealed throughout the book.” 83 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 147, regards this coming in 2:5 as a judgment of the community. Speaking more broadly, Beale, John’s Use, 153-54, says that Revelation contains pre-parousia comings in judgment for particular churches (2:5-6; 3:3) and a pre-parousia coming for conditional blessing (3:20). Beale (154) says that “Christ’s coming in 2:25 and 3:11 could well refer to the final parousia but they are not in the form of conditional statements.” In the first threat of coming in 2:5, Jesus threatens to come quickly and remove the lampstand of the church of Ephesus from its place unless they repent. Because of the oral environment in which Revelation was heard, the reading of Revelation audibly conveyed the coming of Jesus to each assembly gathered to hear it. In this vein, Barr, “Apocalypse,” 256, comments, “The orality of the Apocalypse is an essential element in its interpretation, for its oral presentation within the liturgy mediates the coming of Jesus to his con- 175 members in a disciplinary fashion. Such disciplinary visitations were necessary because the churches in the province of Asia had begun to lose their light as a gospel witness in their region. The promise in 3:11 of the soon coming of the glorified Christ to the believers at Philadelphia refers to the ecclesial parousia because the church at Philadelphia does not incur the rebuke of Christ and therefore does not merit a pre-parousia coming in remedial judgment. The exalted Christ promises twice to come as a thief (3:3; 16:15). Christ’s promise of coming like a thief to the church in Sardis refers to a spiritual visitation in judgment, which is seen in the conditional aspect of the coming (e˙a»n ou™n mh\ grhgorh/shØß). However, the image of the thief points toward a background of the parousia (Matt 24:42-44; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10). The promise of Christ’s coming in 16:15 concerns the ecclesial parousia and is a parenthetical benediction that occurs after the pouring out of the sixth bowl and just before the mention of the war of Armageddon. The network of lexical chains employing e¶rcomai reaches its double climax in Rev 22:17, 20. This double climax features the joint call in 22:17 of e¶rcou (“come”) by the Spirit and the bride, and then the author’s passionate prayer in 22:20 of #Amh/n: e¶rcou, ku/rie 84 #Ihsouv. (“Truly! Come, Lord Jesus!”). The author’s prayer is a Greek form of an Aramaic prayer and is embedded in a section of Revelation that has a liturgical function or background.85 This prayer for the Lord Jesus’ coming serves as a final expression of the gregation in salvation and judgment enabling them to carry on the divine service, that is, the realization of God’s rule in their midst.” According to Ignatius, the Ephesian church repented and regained its spiritual vigor, so an imminent coming in Rev 2:5 was in the minds of the Ephesian believers (Eph. Prologue; 1.1; 9.1; 11.2). Cf. Beale, John’s Use, 155. As to the ecclesial parousia, the eschatological dimension means that each church’s collective failure to repent would entail judgment at the ecclesial parousia by exclusion from the promises given to the conquering saints. 84 Scholars are divided over whether the Spirit and the bride ask Jesus to come or ask people in the world to come. Three factors strongly favor the Spirit and the bride asking Jesus to come in 22:17. First, the Spirit and the bride appear to be responding to Jesus’ promise in v. 12 to come soon (cf. vv. 7, 20). Second, previous mentions of the bride in Revelation have an eschatological focus: the marriage banquet of the Lamb (19:7-9) and the new heaven and the new earth (21:2). Third, the context of v. 20, where the author prays for Jesus to come, and the singular verb e¶rcou strongly suggest that Jesus is asked to come. Cf. Witherington, Revelation, 283. The last part of v. 17 is an evangelistic address (“and let the thirsty one come, let the one desiring take the water of life freely”). Cf. Bauckham, Climax, 160; Kistemaker, Revelation, 592. 85 Of the scholars consulted, most regard the author’s prayer in Rev 22:20 as a reflection of the Aramaic expression maranatha, which is usually translated “Our Lord, come” and probably represents one of the earliest prayers, appeals, or acclamations of the Aramaic-speaking church in first-century Israel and is eschatological in 176 multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. With the eschatological use of e¶rcomai punctuating the Apocalypse in key passages, the text has been building in rhetorical power with its appeals to the audience. Finally, the author includes the audience in his passionate prayer for the ecclesial parousia. The members of the audience are indeed participants in the coming of the one like a son of man and can speed his coming.86 As some scholars observe, the use of e¶rcou during the first four seals (6:1, 3, 5, 7) foreshadows the use of e¶rcou of the Spirit and the bride in 22:17, 20.87 The cry of the four living ones for eschatological judgment in 6:1, 3, 5, 7 is now inverted in the doubled call for Jesus Christ to return (22:17, 20), with a possible counterimperial tone reflected.88 The prayer was likely used in reference to the its focus. Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1234-35; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 780; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 301 n. 37; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 629-30; Mounce, Revelation, 410; Osborne, Revelation, 797; Rowland, Revelation, 734; Smalley, Revelation, 585; Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), 70. Hurtado, Origins, 76-77, says that the eschatological view is commonly held today. Graydon F. Snyder, Inculturation of the Jesus Tradition: The Impact of Jesus on Jewish and Roman Cultures (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999), 217, says that maranatha possibly was the earliest prayer of the Jesus movement. Scholars who see this prayer embedded in a liturgical passage include Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John (BNTC; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2006), 15-18; Kavanaugh, Apocalypse 22:6-21, 138; and Jean-Pierre Ruiz, “Betwixt and Between on the Lord’s Day: Liturgy and the Apocalypse,” in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation (ed. David L. Barr; SBLSymS 39; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 221-41. Barr, Tales, 172, plausibly argues that the Apocalypse was read at an evening gathering on Sunday to observe the eucharist. Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed,” 68-69, cites the work of Vanni and Kavanaugh as “one suggestive solution” to the epilogue of Rev 22:10-21. In addition, Aune (69) says that “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!” is a “liturgical invocation.” Aune (68) says that this is similar to the introit liturgies found in Did. 10:6 and 1 Cor 16:22. Various eucharistic associations, themes, or allusions may be seen in passages speaking of eating, drinking, wine and blood, and dining. Barr, “Apocalypse,” 254 n. 25, divides the references into explicit and implicit categories. Explicit: Rev 2:7 (contrast 2:14), 17; 3:20, 7:16-17; 11:17; 19:9, 17; 21:6; 22:1, 10-20. Implicit: 5:9; 7:2, 14; 12:11; 14:10, 15, 18, 20; 16:6, 19; 17:2. After surveying the textual evidence, Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 379 n. 1, states, “The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the conception of blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John.” 86 The focus of this coming in 22:20 concerns the ecclesial parousia because the context is a prayer for Jesus to come to the church. The ecclesial parousia sets in motion all other related eschatological events. On the participation of the church in the coming of the kingdom of God, see Bauckham, Theology, 150, 161. 87 Boring, Revelation, 225; Harrington, Revelation, 91. Swete, Apocalypse, 85; and Prigent, Apocalypse of St. John, 264, argue that the e¶rcou of the living ones corresponds to the e¶rcou of the Spirit and the bride. However, the result of each e¶rcou of the living ones is the emergence of a rider, not the coming of Christ. Rather, what is in view with these occurrences of e¶rcou is a counterimage. Thus, the living ones call to the riders to come forth in judgment, whereas the Spirit and the bride call to Jesus to come in victory and salvation. This view is made more plausible because the imperative e¶rcou is used only in 6:1, 3, 5, 7 and then in 22:17 (2), 20. 88 Witherington, Revelation, 282; and A. Boesak, Comfort and Protest: The Apocalypse from a South African Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 137, suggest this possibility because of Martial’s poem for 177 eucharist, which had an eschatological focus for believers (the ecclesial parousia and the marriage banquet of the Lamb). Thus, 22:20 has a eucharistic background.89 By uttering this prayer, the saints who hear the Apocalypse entreat the Lord Jesus to come and move history to its climax.90 The present dimension of this prayer in 22:20 is seen in a continuous coming of Jesus to his people, especially, but not exclusively, in the eucharist.91 This liturgical expression of #Amh/n: e¶rcou, ku/rie #Ihsouv. in 22:20 serves as a fitting end to the liturgical affirmation stated in 1:7.92 The collocation of nai÷ and aÓmh/n in the space of the same verse occurs only here in 22:20 and in 1:7, supplying an inclusio for the Apocalypse. The occurrences of oJ e˙rco/menoß (“the Coming One”) and its conspicuous absence in various passages in Revelation show God’s irruption into His world at the cosmic parousia of Jesus Christ. The title oJ e˙rco/menoß is used only three times (1:4, 8; 4:8), and we have already mentioned its powerful use as a ring composition (§2.5) and its use in 1:8 to signify that the cosmic parousia of Christ marks God’s irruption into His world. That is, a number of Jewish scriptures picture Yhwh coming to His people or to the earth, so the author has appropriated this motif of Yhwh’s coming to show that the cosmic parousia of Christ is the fulfillment of Domitian in which Martial calls for the emperor to come back from the northern part of the Roman Empire: “Thou morning star / Bring on the day! Come and expel our fears, Rome begs that Caesar / may soon appear.” 89 Wainwright, Eucharist, 14-15, 47-57, notes the prevalence of the reductionistic view of the eucharist in theology and practice in many parts of Christianity. In light of the teachings found in various writings of the Jesus movement, the eucharist is the ritualized common meal of the eschatological people of God, who look backward to the last supper and the death of Jesus, have fellowship with the exalted Christ in the present, and offer themselves before God as those who long for the ecclesial parousia, the marriage banquet of the Lamb, and the reign of God and Christ in the new heavens and the new earth. Barr, Tales, 171-75, points to more than 20 parallels between the instructions for observing the eucharist in Didache 9 and Revelation. Cf. Barr, “Apocalypse,” 254-55. Other scholars who see a eucharistic background or see it as a possibility include Beale, Revelation, 1155; Günther Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience (trans. Paul L. Hammer; New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 171-72; Friesen, Cults, 179; Krodel, Revelation, 377-78; Pierre Prigent, Apocalypse et Liturgie (CahT 52; Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964), 37-45; and Sweet, Revelation, 319. 90 Boring, Revelation, 225; Kistemaker, Revelation, 592; W. Hendriksen, More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962), 209; Lenski, Revelation, 670. As we have noted earlier, the audience of the Apocalypse was oriented toward the present, but that orientation does not exclude a fervent desire for the future coming of Christ. Rather, as the audience experiences the presence of the Lord Jesus in their midst mediated by means of the reading of the Apocalypse, their experience is intended to fuel their desire for the ecclesial parousia, when all their spiritual longings will be fulfilled. 91 Corsini, Apocalypse, 422-23. 92 Minear, I Saw, 10, states that 1:5b-6 is a doxology that was probably used liturgically and that 1:7 is “a liturgical expression of confidence in the coming of Christ.” 178 the prophesied coming of Yhwh.93 Further developing this eschatological theme of Yhwh’s coming, the author depicts the four living ones continuously singing, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God, the Ruler of All, the He Was and the Being One and the Coming One” (4:8). The living ones affirm this truth before the Lamb breaks the seals, which marks the beginning of the process for the inbreaking of God and His kingdom in the rebellious world. The eschatological thrust of oJ e˙rco/menoß is made explicit by its conspicuous absence in the twofold titles for Yhwh in 11:17 and 16:5, which are passages that depict the fact that God has indeed come.94 In this vein, Richard Bauckham writes, “This is the biblical God who chooses, as his own future, his coming to his creation, and whose creation will find its future in him (cf. 21:3).”95 Likewise, George Beasley-Murray comments concerning God: “It is of his nature that he ‘comes’ from the future and works his gracious and powerful will.”96 Therefore, the coming of Jesus Christ at the cosmic parousia is the visible, historical coming of Yhwh to earth and marks the turning point in the history of humanity. In light of the foregoing analysis, we see that the uses of e¶rcomai embrace a continuum of meaning. We have seen that e¶rcetai in 1:7 points semantically in more than one direction, with both literal and figurative meanings. Concerning Rev 1:7, Richard Bauckham notes the wider scope to which the allusion to Dan 7:13 points: Daniel 7:13-14 portrays not simply the parousia, but . . . the transfer of sovereignty over the nations of the world to Jesus, the ‘one like a son of man,’ as the one who exercises God’s rule. The conflated quotation suggests that the kingdom of God will come, not so much by the destruction of the nations, as by their repentant acknowledgement of God’s rule over them.97 93 The prophesied coming of Yhwh is seen in such passages as Exod 15:1-21; Judg 5:4-5; Ps 96:13; Isa 26:21; 29:5-6; 30:27; 40:10; Joel 2:1; Mic 1:3; and Zech 14:5. According to McDonough, YHWH, 214, oJ e˙rco/menoß as a designation for God is not attested in the Old Testament, the Septuagint, the texts of early Judaism, or the New Testament. The author’s motif is also congruent with the earlier tradition in the Jesus movement. Cf. Minear, I Saw, 17-18; Caird, Revelation, 19; Roloff, Revelation, 24. 94 McDonough, YHWH, 216. 95 Bauckham, Theology, 30. 96 Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 54. 97 Bauckham, Climax, 322. 179 In regard to such a density of meaning, Philip Wheelwright comments, “But it may also be that the tenor of an image or of a surface statement is not single; the semantic arrow may point in more than one direction. When two such diversely intended meanings are sharply opposed, the result is paradox. But even when the doubleness of meaning is not pushed to the point of contrariety, it may often be the case that more than one meaning is suggested simultaneously by a certain word or phrase or image.”98 Exhibiting this density of meaning expounded by Wheelwright, the elaborate matrix of passages with e¶rcomai confirms the parousia of Jesus Christ in its character, its centrality in God’s plan, and its effects on the church and the world as the major theme of Revelation.99 Taken as a whole, the serial comings of Christ in the Apocalypse point to the progressive story in Daniel 7, implicit and explicit, of the enthronement of the one like a son of man and his ultimate rule over the world.100 The consummation of these comings is ultimately the rule that Christ has in the new heaven and the new earth, where his throne is finally established, never to be successfully contested again (22:3-4). 5.3.3 nefe÷lh Revelation 1:7 specifies that Jesus is coming “with the clouds” (meta» tw◊n nefelw◊n). The word nefe÷lh, which is used in both the Jewish scriptures and the Jesus movement literature in connection with God’s glory, God’s presence, and theophanies, is repeated six times in Revelation as an elaboration of the multivalent thematic statement (10:1; 11:12; 14:14 [2], 15, 16). The strong messenger clothed with a cloud in 10:1-11, who probably represents Christ, provides the author with a little scroll to eat.101 The appearance of this messenger marks the 98 Wheelright, Metaphor, 57. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 118, says, “The future is characterized by his ‘coming’. The nature of that coming, and its consequences for the world, form the subject of the rest of the book.” 100 On the enthronement of the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13-14, see our comments in note 110 of Chapter 3. 101 The identification of the strong messenger as Christ runs contrary to some scholarly opinion, but this identification is based on the repetition of major elements associated with Christ in other places in the discourse: (1) the motif of Christ as messenger: 1:1; 10:1; (2) cloud imagery: 1:7; 10:1; 14:14; (3) a face shining like the sun: 1:16; 10:1; (4) feet described in terms of fire: 1:15; 10:1; (5) the possession of a scroll: 5:7, 8, 9; 10:2, 8, 9, 10; and (6) description in terms of a lion: 5:5; 10:3. If this messenger is not Christ, it is an angel who is endued with the characteristics of Christ and who functions as an emissary or a forerunner of Christ. For arguments on the iden99 180 fulfillment of the prophetic oracle of Rev 1:7: the one like a son of man has come with the clouds.102 Besides that cloud motif, the two witnesses ascend in a cloud that evokes the triumph of one like a son of man coming with a cloud to the Ancient of Days (11:12). Finally, the one like a son of man (Jesus) sits on a cloud and reaps the harvest of the earth (14:14-16), which we have discussed in detail in §3.4.1. 5.3.4 oJra¿w and ojfqalmo/ß In Rev 1:7 the author establishes ocularity (seeing) and visibility (being seen) as important theological concepts in his document by saying in this prophetic oracle that “every eye will see him [kai« o¡yetai aujto\n pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß], including those who pierced him.” In this vein, Harry Maier alerts us to the panopticism of the Apocalypse.103 In the inaugurated eschatology of the author of the Apocalypse, those who see Jesus include both believers and unbelievers. oJra¿w (“to see”) is a key lexeme in Rev 1:7 that is used in lexical chains in Revelation to express the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8.104 oJra¿w is used in a literal sense to refer to those who see Jesus.105 The irony of the prophetic oracle of Rev 1:7 is that most of the characters in Revelation, except for the conquerors, do not see things as they should.106 That is, they are tragically oblivious to God’s purposes, which run counter to their desire to establish their own kingdom, defeat the Lamb, and make war on the saints. As an example of tification of this messenger as Christ, see E. P. Janzen, “The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Clothes,” (SBLSP 1994; ed. E. H. Lovering; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 637-61. 102 Barker, Revelation, 73, concludes that the Jesus, the heavenly high priest, came in the way that the church was anticipating (Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7). 103 Maier, Apocalypse Recalled, 64-86. 104 Menken, “Textual Form,” 494-511. 105 oJra¿w is used often in the Jesus movement Scriptures to refer to seeing God or Jesus at the cosmic parousia. oJra¿w is used broadly as an eschatological term. For example, oJra¿w is used to refer to the ecclesial parousia in Heb 9:28; 12:14; and 1 John 3:2. The word is also used to refer to the cosmic parousia (Matt 24:30). Therefore, oJra¿w is better viewed as an eschatologically significant word. The view of Rev 1:7 in which every person around the world sees the descent of the small human figure of Jesus in clouds to earth is untenable. This view is a biblicist understanding of this verse that does not accord with the meaning of oJra¿w. 106 Maier, Apocalypse Recalled, 170-71, also regards Rev 1:7 as a statement of Revelation’s conclusion and understands its ironic twist. The listeners of Revelation should see themselves implicated to some degree in the messages to the seven churches in Asia. Ironically, the Laodiceans who make claims of self-sufficiency but are actually blind (3:17). 181 the right way of seeing, in the first instance of oJra¿w after the prologue, the author turns to see the voice that is talking with him and sees the one like a son of man (ei•don, 1:12, 17). The author later sees a Lamb that appears to have been slaughtered as it stands between the four living ones and the 24 elders (ei•don, 5:6). A significant highlight in the discourse occurs when the servants of God and the Lamb see his face (o¡yontai, 22:4). This verse marks only the second time that the future indicative of oJra¿w is used. The first occurrence is in Rev 1:7 (o¡yetai), so the second occurrence in 22:4 is an expression of the multivalent thematic statement. The phrase pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß (“every eye”) is polyfocal and signifies both believers and unbelievers, and this polyfocal quality is reflected later in Revelation.107 The act of every eye seeing the one like a son of man is reflected in the occurrences of oJra¿w in which the author, as a representative of the church and the author of the text, sees Jesus (one like a son of man, 1:12, 17 and 14:14; the Lamb, 5:6, 14:1, 22:4; the rider on the white horse, 19:11; the one seated on the throne, 20:11).108 As the narrator, the author also tells the audience of the terrifying sight of the great white throne and the One Who sits upon it (20:11). At this point in the author’s story, every eye of all of unrepentant humanity sees the One on the throne, who may be regarded as the exalted Christ as the expression of God.109 107 Kistemaker, Revelation, 86. In Rev 22:4 God and the Lamb are closely identified, so they share the same throne (v. 3) and the same face (v. 4). Although oJra¿w is not used in Revelation 19 to describe the act of people on earth seeing Jesus Christ come, their sight of the Lamb is presupposed in v. 19, which states that the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies are gathered to make war against the one sitting on the white horse (Jesus Christ) and his army. 109 Revelation 20:11 does not explicitly identify the one who is seated on the throne. In favor of God as the referent are the other passages in which God is said to sit on the throne (4:2, 3, 9, 10; 5:1, 7, 13; 19:4; 21:5). In favor of Christ as the referent are passages in which Christ is said to sit on the throne (3:21; 7:17). However, a third option is most likely. For three reasons the one seated on the throne in 20:11 is Christ in his capacity as God’s plenipotentiary (a term discussed in §3.4 and Appendix 2). First, the inflected form kaqh/menon is used only twice in Revelation (14:14; 20:11). In 14:14 the word refers to the one like a son of man, who, as we have demonstrated, is the exalted Christ (§3.4.2). As we have noted in our discussion of o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou (§3.3.2), the author at times places meaning even on changes in case, so the exact repetition of kaqh/menon may be significant. Second, the preceding context has signaled the author’s emphasis on the unity of God and Christ. In the preceding context God and Christ are mentioned in 20:6, and in that verse the singular pronoun aujtouv (“him”) is used to describe them. Third, the joint occupancy of the throne by God and Christ is seen earlier in 3:21 and later in 22:3. This kind of forensic duality is seen elsewhere in the Jesus movement scriptures (Rom 14:10, “the judgment seat of God”; 2 Cor 5:10, “the judgment seat of Christ”). Cf. Kistemaker, Revelation, 545. 108 182 Besides oJra¿w, ojfqalmo/ß (“eye”) is a key lexeme in Rev 1:7 that is used in semantic chains in Revelation to express the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. The living ones, who are filled with eyes (4:6, 8), are ever watchful and see all who come before the throne of God. As such, the living ones are the first in the narrative after John to see Jesus.110 This passage marks the first use of ojfqalmo/ß in connection with the successful seeing of Jesus and stands in contrast to the blindness of the Laodicean saints, who are exhorted to buy eye salve to anoint their eyes that they may see (3:18). Ocularity is also stressed in the declarations that both the Lamb and God will wipe away every tear from the eyes of the saints (7:17; 21:4). The cosmic parousia of the one like a son of man occurs in Rev 19:11-21 and is an extension of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8.111 This pericope, which is marked by both ocularity and visibility, extends the multivalent thematic statement in four ways. First, the use of oJra¿w in 19:11, 19 matches the use of oJra¿w in 1:7.112 Second, the cosmic parousia unfolds in 19:11-21 and is the major eschatological event to which 1:7 refers. 110 Nothing in the text explicitly states that the four living ones see the Lamb, but their proximity to the Lamb (5:6) and their act of falling down before the Lamb when he takes the scroll (5:8) necessitate their seeing the Lamb. 111 Although the lexeme e¶rcomai and the image of clouds are not used in Rev 19:11-21 as in 1:7, what is described in the former passage is the cosmic parousia because this section marks the first direct encounter that the glorified Christ has with the people of the world. Technically, vv. 11-16 concern the cosmic parousia, and the remaining verses deal with subsequent events. Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 679; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision, 105. The importance of this passage is seen in the fact that whereas in 4:1-2 John sees an open door in heaven, in 19:11 he sees the heavens opened. The partial revelation in Revelation 4–5 becomes the complete revelation in Revelation 19. Cf. Richard, Apocalypse, 65. In a secondary sense the coming depicted in Rev 19:11-21 refers to the coming of Jesus at various times in history to help his people and to work out his judgments in history. The use of present verb forms in vv. 11-16, in contrast to past verb forms in the same passage, indicates that these comings of Jesus in history are proleptic of Jesus’ final cosmic parousia. Verse 11 depicts Christ as the one who is sitting on a white horse (oJ kaqh/menoß) and who judges and makes war (kri÷nei kai« polemei√). In v. 12 Jesus has (e¶cwn) a name written that only he knows. In v. 15 a sharp sword extends (e˙kporeu/etai) from the mouth of Jesus. In v. 15 Jesus tramples the winepress of the fury of the wrath of the Almighty God. In v. 16 Jesus has (e¶cei) the name King of kings and Lord of lords inscribed on his robe and thigh. The following scholars note the importance of the present verb forms: Lunceford, Parody, 103; Edward A. McDowell, The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Broadman, 1951), 185-86. 112 Although oJra¿w is not used to describe the act of people on earth seeing Jesus come, their sight of the Lamb is presupposed in v. 19, which states that the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies are gathered to make war against Jesus and his army. The delimitation of the act of seeing to Jesus indicates that he spiritually perceives what those on earth do not perceive. 183 Third, 19:11-21 features lexical cohesion with terms from the multivalent thematic vision of the one like a son of man: oi˚ de« ojfqalmoi« aujtouv [wJß] flo\x puro/ß in v. 12, th\n kefalh\n aujtouv in v. 12, e˙ndedume÷noi bu/ssinon in v. 14, and thØv rJomfai÷aˆ touv kaqhme÷nou e˙pi« touv iºppou thØv e˙xelqou/shØ e˙k touv sto/matoß aujtouv in v. 21. 113 This description indicates that Jesus Christ is coming as the one like a son of man.114 Fourth, the language of 19:11-21 marks the ultimate triumph of the one like a son of man over his enemies, which is depicted in 1:7. The imagery in this section alludes to a Roman triumphal procession, which occurred with pomp after a military victory.115 However, 19:11-21 reconfigures and subverts the Roman triumphal procession. Moreover, this imagery of a Roman triumphal procession used before the battle indicates that Christ’s victory over all opposing forces is certain.116 The double use of leuko/ß in 19:14, where the white-arrayed armies of heaven follow on white horses, arrests our attention and probably conveys the image of white clouds in the sky, which points us back to the images of Christ seated on a white horse (19:11) and of the one like a 113 In 19:12 the coordinating conjunction de/ connects the audience back to de/ in 1:14, which is the only other place in Revelation where de/ is used in a description of the exalted Christ (§3.3.3). Significantly, 19:12 is one of three places where the head of Jesus is mentioned, and the other two are descriptions of the one like a son of man (1:13; 14:14). In 19:14 e˙ndedume÷noi bu/ssinon is a complex paraphrase of e˙ndedume÷non podh/rh in 1:13, which is a description of the garment of Jesus. The author’s point appears to be that the armies of heaven have been clothed in a manner similar to that of Jesus and therefore shows them as those who have conquered as Jesus had conquered. 114 Beale, Revelation, 951; Wall, Revelation, 230. 115 There are some discontinuities between a Roman triumphal procession and the scene of the cosmic parousia here. Christ is seen riding on a white horse, but a Roman general was seated in a chariot pulled by four horses (a quadriga). Ramsay, Letters, 58. Aune, Revelation 17–21, 1051, points out the following elements from a Roman triumphal procession: the white horse ridden by Christ and the other white horses, the diadems, the name or title written on the rider, the posthumous nature of the rider, the armies with the rider, the military imagery and its connection with decisive victory. To these elements we add the feasting that was associated with triumphs. For example, a lavish banquet accompanied a triumph of Domitian in 89 CE. Heemstra, Rome’s Administration, 26, notes that Domitian spent a lot of money on triumphs. On Domitian’s banquet and triumphal feasts, see Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 257-63. The image of the white horse in 19:11 is a counterimage to the white horse that carries the one who is a conqueror and goes forth to conquer (6:2). The author of the Apocalypse conveys the truth that even as the false Christ goes forth to conquer, so also the true Christ will go forth and conquer the rebellious nations. Mathias Rissi, “The Rider on the White Horse: A Study of Revelation 6:1-8,” Int 18 (1964): 407-18, regards the white horse, the crown, and the conquering of the Antichrist as an imitation of those aspects of Jesus. A comparison of the first four seals of Rev 6:1-8 and the first of the birth pangs of Matt 24:5-7 shows that these two passages overlap, with the first seal of the rider on the white horse corresponding to the false Christs of Matt 24:5. On the Roman triumphal procession following a military victory, see Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1050-51. 116 Osborne, Revelation, 679. 184 son of man sitting on a white cloud (14:14). Therefore, Christ’s coming with the armies of heaven is a coming with the clouds.117 5.3.5 nai÷, aÓmh/n The concluding double affirmation nai÷, aÓmh/n. (“Yes! Truly!”) in Rev 1:7 points not only to certainty but also to a positive soteriological meaning. Every occurrence of aÓmh/n in Revelation is linked with some positive aspect: Jesus’ resurrection (1:18), Jesus’ selfdisclosure (3:14), worship (5:14; 7:12; 19:4), the author’s prayer for Jesus’ return (22:20), and the closing benediction (22:21). This intra-discourse consistency makes the initial use of aÓmh/n almost certainly positive in 1:7. In addition, the words nai÷ and aÓmh/n in 1:7 are repeated in the same sequence in 22:20, although the two words are not contiguous. 5.4 Summary and Conclusions In this chapter we saw how metaleptic allusions to Daniel 7 are used throughout Revelation as an expression of the multivalent thematic statement of Rev 1:7-8. We extended our study to see how key words in Rev 1:7 are repeated throughout the discourse via lexical chains. Our analysis of e¶rcetai in Rev 1:7 shows that this key word and its links to other uses of the lexeme e¶rcomai reflects the “multiple fulfillments and consummation” view of Jesus Christ coming at various times and in various ways in the Apocalypse. This process is prophesied to occur with Christ coming in the clouds, and it finds its fulfillment starting with Christ coming to John on Patmos and ending with the new heaven and new earth, which is the logical and ultimate consequence of Christ’s coming. Having examined multiple aspects of how Rev 1:7-8 is the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse, we will present in the next chapter our summary, conclusions, and survey of implications. 117 The metaphorical use of clouds to represent the saints or to portray an aspect of their destiny is seen elsewhere in the Jesus movement scriptures (Heb 12:1; 1 Thess 4:17). Chapter 6 Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 6.1 Summary and Conclusions We began our study in Chapter 1 by exploring three problems involved in the exegesis of Revelation. First, divergent criteria and terms are used for identifying allusions and echoes in Revelation. Second, not enough attention has been paid to the thematic use of Daniel 7 in Revelation. Third, a detailed exegesis of Rev 1:7-8 has not been done in relation to the rest of the discourse, despite these verses’ apparent use as the thematic statement. We saw that in the last 25 years scholars have devoted significant attention to the definition of allusions and their function in the Apocalypse. Drawing from the many insights in their work, and using the insights of scholars in biblical studies and in other fields, we developed our interdisciplinary method for analyzing the allusions in Rev 1:7-8 and the rest of the Apocalypse. This method consisted of historical criticism, narrative criticism, discourse analysis, and oral criticism. In our thesis statement we contended that Rev 1:7-8 is the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse. In Chapter 2 we treated the issue of the macro-genre of Revelation and the microgenre of Rev 1:7-8. Identifying these two verses as interlinked prophetic oracles at the end of the prologue of Revelation (1:1-8), we then located them within the literary structure of the entire discourse. We adduced five arguments in favor of Rev 1:7-8 being viewed as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse. First, the micro-genre of Rev 1:7-8 (prophetic oracles) agrees with the macro-genre of Revelation (apocalyptic prophecy in an epistolary framework)—prophecy being the common characteristic. Second, on a literary level Rev 1:7-8 is linked through chain-link interlock with 1:9–3:22 and other sections of Revelation. Third, Rev 1:7-8 is distinctive. The abruptness and the poetry of Rev 1:7-8 set this passage apart. In addition, the startling omission of the expected o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou in v. 7 makes this verse stand out. Fourth, concentric double-ring composition highlights Rev 1:7a-d as the central text in the prologue. We discovered that the inclusive language and liturgical 185 186 dialogue of Rev 1:4-8 includes the audience in the drama of the Apocalypse. We then focused on the allusion to Daniel 7:13 in Rev 1:7 and saw that it is marked as prominent and that it functions as the controlling-text allusion in Rev 1:7. Finally, we analyzed the rest of the allusions in 1:7-8 and saw how they are used programmatically in the rest of Revelation. In Chapter 3 we focused on Rev 1:7-8 and the “one like a son of man” vision (1:9-20). We discovered that the allusion to Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:13 functions as both a window allusion and a controlling-text allusion. We then explored the multivalence of the vision of the one like a son of man. Four themes concerning the one like a son of man emerged from the vision that were congruent with major themes of Daniel 7 related to the one like a son of man there: eschatological judgment, universal sovereignty, the vindication of a witness, and a human agent as God’s plenipotentiary. In Chapter 4 we examined the relationship between Rev 1:7-8 and Revelation 4–5, discovering that Daniel 7 is a Vorbild allusion in these chapters, which constitute the theological center of Revelation. We refuted the alleged primacy of Ezekiel for the structure and themes of Revelation, while acknowledging its undeniably important role. We saw that the portrayal of the Lamb in Revelation 5 points to an eschatological investiture that is parallel with the investiture of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7. In Chapter 5 we looked at how a variety of allusions to Daniel 7 forms a network of metaleptic allusions in Revelation. We then examined the use of lexical chains found throughout Revelation that are built upon key lexemes in Rev 1:7-8. In our examination of the use of the lexeme e¶rcomai, we showed that Jesus’ coming begins with his coming to the author on the island of Patmos, continues with various comings to his people before the cosmic parousia, and is punctuated triumphantly at the cosmic parousia. We also saw how Rev 1:7-8 is connected with the great white throne judgment, the new heavens and the new earth, and the epilogue. We concluded that the cosmic parousia of Jesus Christ is the primary, but not exclusive, reference of Rev 1:7-8 because the author in various places in the discourse portrays serial 187 comings of Jesus Christ that ultimately culminate in the cosmic parousia. In essence, the cosmic parousia functions as the axis around which all other parts of the Apocalypse revolve. Therefore, our analysis agrees with the overall assessment of Monica-Elena Herghelegiu, when she says concerning Rev 1:7: “Zum ersten Mal wird in der JohApk im sogenannten prophetischen Wort vom kommenden Christus gesprochen, um dessen Handeln und Sein sich das ganze Buch dreht.”1 More precisely stated, the Apocalypse revolves around the one like a son of man, his character, his acts in history, and his coming that forever changes the world. Finally, Michael Shepherd says that Rev 1:7-8 appears to be “a fitting programmatic stamp” and that “John sets forth the Son of Man from Dan 7:13 as the rubric through which the rest of the Book of Revelation is to be read. . . .”2 This rubric is by no means the only lens for interpretation, but it provides a powerful lens for constructing a coherent narrative and elucidating the dominant themes of the Apocalypse. 6.2 Implications and Further Areas of Study The implications from our study are varied and profound, and further research needs to be done to develop these implications. At various points in this section, we follow in the tradition of other scholars and situate the Apocalypse in our current world to see how an audience today would probably resonate with its symbols and themes. Of necessity, we cast a wide net and do not intend to offer a comprehensive view, relying on some generally acknowledged historical realities and trends and the work of other scholars.3 Our analysis is intended to be synoptic and elementary while seeking to avoid being schematic or reductive. The first implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is that the Danielic matrix of allusions provides the dominant interpretive model of the Apocalypse. Having established Dan 7:13 as both a controlling-text allusion and a window 1 Herghelegiu, Siehe, er kommt, 87. Translation: “It is for the first time in John’s Apocalypse, in the so-called prophetic word, that the coming Christ is mentioned, around whose actions and being the entire book revolves.” 2 Shepherd, “Daniel 7:13,” 110-11. 3 We note well the caution issued by J. M. Roberts, Twentieth Century: The History of the World, 1901 to 2000 (New York: Viking, 1999), 856, when he says, “History will never be fixed. It is best to be cautious of fixed claims about it, and especially of talk about irresistible trends, or of an end to history.” 188 allusion in Rev 1:7, and having seen how metaleptic allusions from Daniel 7 are woven into the fabric of Revelation, scholars should study how Daniel 1–12 is used both particularly and generally in the Apocalypse. In this vein, Grant Osborne says, “The prophecies of Daniel are seen throughout the book as coming to final fulfillment. It is obviously one of the critical framing ideas in the book, demonstrating the centrality of the perspective regarding the divine control of imminent future events.”4 In light of this Danielic framework, the concept of a composite son of man in the Apocalypse, akin to the “body of Christ” image in the Pauline corpus, should be explored more fully in connection with the various designations for the people of God in the Apocalypse.5 The second implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is that it provides an elementary framework for a narrative of Revelation. By means of the window allusion of Dan 7:13 in Rev 1:7, chain-link interlock, and the repetitions based on key lexemes in Rev 1:7-8, the author provides us with elements of the vision narrative found in Daniel 7. Contrary to prevailing scholarly opinion, Revelation is not a hopelessly disjointed narrative (§§1.3.2, 2.3). That is, the meaning of the grand narrative of the Apocalypse can be discerned to some degree, although it is never fully disclosed.6 With his hierarchy of allusions, the author has an overarching purpose in the Apocalypse of progressive revelation, not amorphous evocation. In other words, the author’s lapidary allusions fit within a precise textual dynamic. Admittedly, the author’s allusions span the spectrum from clear and precise to the highly symbolic and evocative, and this spectrum ensures that the audience is held in suspense. They are never sure of what fantastical images may burst forth next and what associations will radiate from a word or phrase. However, Rev 1:7-8, like a 4 Osborne, Revelation, 54. Jenkins, Old Testament, 90, refers to the composite son of man in the Apocalypse but does not elaborate in detail on this concept. 6 Aune, “Stories,” 294, calls the Apocalypse a Master Story or Grand Narrative. He (307, 317) says that the Master Story is never fully articulated but underlies the entire Apocalypse. Although we agree in large part with Aune, we highlight the fact that the dominant features of the grand narrative are discernible and that the overall trajectory of that narrative finds consummation in Revelation 19–22. 5 189 North Star, provides a way for the audience to navigate the troubled waters of the author’s symbol-rich, allusion-dense, multilayered text. With such a full-orbed text, the people of God can once again become a people of a rich, potent, and covenantal text.7 If, as Niall Ferguson suggests, civilization at its core consists of texts that are taught, learned, and remembered during times of tribulation, civilization itself risks decay without the enrichment that the Apocalypse provides.8 The third implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is that the author is making an argument by means of his story.9 Among other things, the author argues that the truth of Jesus Christ coming with the clouds is foundational for the consummation of history, with many proleptic fulfillments and a culmination at the cosmic parousia. Vernon Robbins has noted how “early Christians created a distinctive mode of religious discourse by setting forth a particular ‘argumentative story.’”10 Story is a powerful means for engaging the hearts and minds of all believers.11 Revelation fits into the argumentative story that Robbins identifies. In this vein, Dennis Stamps mentions two problems related to understanding Revelation in terms of Greco-Roman rhetoric, stating, “There have been few rhetorical-critical analyses of Revelation according to traditional Graeco-Roman 7 Although the author of Revelation uses the word diaqh/kh (“covenant”) only once (11:19), he uses it at a high point in the narrative, the cosmic parousia. For the importance of covenants in understanding the Old and New Testaments, see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 39-81. 8 Niall Ferguson, Civilization: The West and the Rest (New York: Penguin, 2011), 324. Among the texts that Ferguson recommends for the heritage of Western civilization is the King James Bible. 9 Part of the way that the author of the Apocalypse achieves this is by means of window allusions and metaleptic allusions. Further study should of allusions in Revelation should be situated within the broad spectrum of techniques and processes of condensing knowledge and texts in the Greco-Roman world (e.g., abbreviation, epitome, excerpt, florilegium, compression, paraphrase), as seen in Marietta Horster and Christiane Reitz, eds., Condensing texts - condensed texts (Palingenesia, Bd 98; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010). 10 Robbins, Invention, 25. 11 In various cultures both ancient and modern, the popular appeal of story is that it has the potential to reach people across various social strata. The faith of the early Jesus movement was an intelligent faith that appealed to the mind (Rom 12:2; 14:5; Phil 4:8; passim), but the faith was not considered primarily sapiential. In this vein, Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (trans. Ephraim Fischoff; Boston: Beacon, 1991), 131, notes that “a considerable portion of the inner history of the early church, including the formulation of dogma, represented the struggle of Christianity against intellectualism in all its forms.” 190 rhetorical practice.”12 He further notes, “More work is needed to evaluate the distinctive aspect of ‘proof’ utilized in this particular form of Christian discourse.”13 Scholars should take up the challenge that Stamps has issued. The fourth implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is that an eschatology of love (aÓga¿ph) must be recovered. That is, the church must have an eschatology that originates in, is energized by, and is consummated in love.14 The essential character of divine love for understanding and developing eschatology is hinted at by the juxtaposition of the doxological phrase twˆ◊ aÓgapw◊nti hJma◊ß in 1:5 with the prophetic oracles of 1:7-8. The present participle aÓgapw◊nti in this phrase indicates that faithful members of the seven churches have an ongoing experience of love from Jesus Christ himself. So pivotal is this love that its abandonment by the church of Ephesus constitutes grounds for Christ’s threat to remove their lampstand (2:4-5). Inasmuch as love is an inbreaking of the age to come, its abandonment is almost tantamount to a rejection of God’s purposes in Christ. Indeed, for the author of the Apocalypse, this abandonment of love is the fountainhead of the sins and heresies that he decries in Revelation 2–3. This experience of love shapes the churches’ eschatology and empowers them to reject the prevailing Roman culture of violence and war. In light of the importance of love in the Apocalypse, we agree with Jeffrey Bloechl when he argues in a broader vein “that in the encounter and identification with Christ there emerges a specific form of eschatology that is determined by an experience of divine love.”15 Beyond the present experience of divine love is the future consummation of divine love that the Apocalypse describes in the nuptial imagery of the new Jerusalem.16 12 Dennis L. Stamps, “The Johannine Writings,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.–A.D. 400) (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 628. 13 Ibid., 630. Stamps is negative in his assessment of the interrelationship between Revelation and Greco-Roman rhetoric. However, at a minimum we may say that the author of the Apocalypse participates in the prevailing rhetorical features of his culture. 14 Although the Apocalypse features only two occurrences of the noun aÓga¿ph (2:4, 19) and only four occurrences of the verb aÓgapa¿w (1:5; 3:9; 12:11; 20:9), several of these occurrences (esp. 1:5; 2:4; 3:9) are pivotal for understanding the ideal people whom the author is addressing. 15 Jeffrey Bloechl, “Being and the Promise,” in Phenomenology and Eschatology: Not Yet in the Now (ed. Neal DeRoo and John Panteleimon Manoussakis; ANCT; Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate, 2009), 129. 16 Batey, Nuptial Imagery, 53-58. 191 The fifth implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is that key points of the theology of Revelation are discernible. However, a caveat presents itself. Because, as we noted, the author of Revelation argues by means of story, this story resists appropriation for a facile systematic theology.17 For example, to some extent we have explored the theme of the close association of Jesus and God in Rev 1:7-8 and its reflection in the rest of the discourse.18 However, our study is only a first step in formulating a more coherent Christology in Revelation and perhaps in the rest of the Jesus movement literature. In particular, scholars should explore more fully how the one like a son of man in Rev 1:13 incorporates all of the most important elements of the titles ascribed to Jesus Christ in Revelation. Further study should locate this Christology in relation to the broader Jewish exegetical tradition, which, for example, includes the close association of the Lord of Spirits and the Name of the Lord of Spirits in the Similitudes of Enoch.19 As to the author’s soteriology, the salvation of people from around the world and their unity in the one like a son of man is seen in Rev 1:7-8 and the rest of the Apocalypse.20 This soteriological aspect needs to be developed much more fully. On both a personal level and a corporate level, the Apocalypse concerns humanity’s ultimate existential struggle: life, death, war, redemption, sin, salvation, community, evil, the reign of God, authority, love, and new creation. In these and other ways, the Apocalypse invites its audience to consider the nature of these realities. As to other points of theology, the counterimages generated from Rev 1:7-8 comport with their usage throughout Revelation and should be explored in greater depth. Al17 The endeavor of systematic theology appears increasingly to be fraught with problems. For example, Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (trans. G. T. Thomson; New York: Harper & Row, 1959), 5, warns of some of the problems: “My lectures at the University of Basel are on ‘Systematic Theology.’ In Basel and elsewhere the juxtaposition of this noun and this adjective is based on a tradition which is quite recent and highly problematic. Is not the term ‘Systematic Theology’ as paradoxical as a ‘wooden iron’? One day this conception will disappear just as suddenly as it has come into being. . . . A ‘system’ is an edifice of thought, constructed on certain fundamental conceptions which are selected in accordance with a certain philosophy by a method which corresponds to these conceptions. Theology cannot be carried on in confinement or under pressure of such a construction.” 18 Bauckham, Theology, 55-57; Lunceford, Parody, 262. 19 In this regard, Steven Scott, “The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes,” JSP 18 (2008): 55-78, argues that Second Temple Judaism exhibits evidence of binitarian beliefs as seen in the Similitudes of Enoch. 20 Bauckham, Theology, 68; Lunceford, Parody, 262. 192 though overstating his case, Joe Lunceford sees a key aspect of Revelation when he says that “the heart of the theology of the book of Revelation is to be found in the passages that make use of the literary devices of counterimaging and parody.”21 In regard to another aspect of theology, the Apocalypse concerns the proper worship of God and concomitant honor of Christ and the gradual establishment of the kingdom of God, Christ, and the saints. The author of the Apocalypse brilliantly captures this overarching theme in Rev 1:7-8. Along the line of the worship of God, these two verses set forth God as the recipient of worship within a context that necessarily entails the proper honor of Christ (Appendix 2). Concerning the gradual establishment of the kingdom of God, the coming of the one like a son of man is seen also as the coming of God, who is called the Coming One. In tandem, God and the one like a son of man intervene in history and establish their kingdom. The sixth implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is the destabilization of the metanarratives and dominant stories of this world system. The Apocalypse is deconstruction. With its alterity in language and its bewildering grammatical anomalies, the Apocalypse calls into question all dominant interpretations of the world (§1.4.2 and Appendix 1). As Jacques Derrida points out, there are competing proposals of things said to be at their end: history, class struggle, philosophy, God (i.e., death of God), religions, Christianity and morals, the subject, man, the West, Oedipus, earth, literature, painting, art, psychoanalysis, phallocentrism, and phallogocentrism.22 Only the Apocalypse can speak of a true end of things, for as the loud voices in heaven proclaim, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev 11:15, RSV). Thus, the Apocalypse is not only deconstruction but also reconstruction. The Apocalypse represents the irruption of God and Christ into a life-denying cul- 21 Lunceford, Parody, 276. Jacques Derrida, “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Newly Adopted in Philosophy,” in Derrida and Negative Theology (ed. Harold Coward and Toby Foshay; Albany: State University of New York, 1992), 48. 22 193 ture of death. That irruption makes Christ’s appearance to John on Patmos, a small island in the midst of the Aegean Sea, a signal event that portends the foundation of a center in the midst of cosmic chaos: if John experiences a personal parousia of the one like a son of man, that precedent provides hope for a world immersed in darkness.23 The seventh implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is that the author of Revelation inaugurates a highly developed polemic against human empire. As we have seen in our study, Rev 1:7-8 features an allusion to Dan 7:13 as its prominent allusion (§2.7.2) and triggers metaleptic allusions in Revelation that match well with the anti-empire polemic of Daniel.24 Thus, repeatedly, the author of the Apocalypse warns his audience against the dangers of acculturation with the Roman Empire, describing resistant witness against the beast and Babylon (6:9-10; 7:14; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 18:4; passim).25 As Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther note, in its oppression of the people of God, the Roman Empire was the current manifestation of hegemonic empire, which had been manifested earlier in the empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece.26 Simi23 Speaking broadly concerning the religious experience of space, Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (trans. Willard R. Trask; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959), 63, says that “the experience of sacred space makes possible the ‘founding of the world’: where the sacred manifests itself in space, the real unveils itself, the world comes into existence. But the irruption of the sacred does not only project a fixed point into the formless fluidity of profane space, a center into chaos; it also effects a break in plane, that is, it opens communication between the cosmic planes (between earth and heaven) and makes possible ontological passage from one mode of being to another.” Italics original. When the one like a son of man appears to John on Patmos, the reality of the exalted Christ and his kingdom is unveiled and provides a new center in the chaotic world dominated by Satan and the beast. A break occurs that allows John to communicate on another plane and move into the mode of being in spirit in the heavenly realm. 24 Seeing Daniel in this light, David Valeta, “The Satirical Nature of the Book of Daniel,” in Apocalyptic in History and Tradition (ed. Christopher Rowland and John Barton; JSPSup 43; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 92, states, “A satirical reading of Dan. 1–6 provides a clear parallel between this section and the apocalyptic section of Dan. 7–12. An attitude of judgment towards kings and empires unifies the entire book. There is also the possibility that humor and satire may also provide a bridge between these seemingly two disparate sections.” 25 Craig Carey, “The Book of Revelation as Counter-Imperial Script,” in In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 170, notes, “The Apocalypse calls for only a few specific actions, often abstentions, yet this choice carries absolute significance. The book exhorts its audience to ‘come out’ from Babylon (18:4), while it invites them to ‘come’ in to the New Jerusalem (22:17). While Revelation does not go into details, it challenges its audience to resist the Empire.” 26 Howard-Brook and Gwyther, Unveiling Empire, 121. Howard-Brook, Come Out, 466, says that Revelation “reveals the deeper truth: the Roman Empire was but one expression over the ages of ‘the great city,’ a biblical phrase referring to the social, political, and economic manifestation of a human system of power apart from the presence and guidance of the Creator God.” 194 larly, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza states, “Against the forces of economic, political, and religious oppression within the Roman Empire, the mythopoeic vision of Revelation shows that God and Christ’s reign and salvation are different.”27 Now that the Roman Empire lies in dust and ruins, to what extent may the Apocalypse be appropriated in resistance to empire? Two facts guide us. First, although “empire” in its strictest sense of the word may not be technically accurate description for the current age, yet elements of empire abound all around us.28 In the world of today, the iterations, ideologies, and machinations of empire are more subtle and diffuse than in the days when the Apocalypse was penned, but those who see as its author sees recognize the ubiquitous presence and power of empire permeating the world.29 That is, the empire of today is more ideological than territorial, more technological than political, more subliminal than overt, more manipulative than coercive.30 Second, the author of the Apocalypse opens up his text for appropriation and application beyond the time of his audience (1:3; 22:17-19).31 27 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Revelation,” 419-20. In a similar vein, Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010), 21, says, “Like other early Christians, John calls Jesus “Lord,” using the exact title that emperors claimed. Revelation summons readers to lifeencompassing worship that is an alternative to worship of emperor and empire.” 28 Brett Bowden, The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 224, speaks of “an ‘empire of civilization’ that is not so much based on values and a way of life that are universal, but a set of Western values, ideals, and institutions that are being inculcated across the globe to slowly but surely realize a degree of political, social, legal, economic, and cultural homogeneity—an empire of civilization that is more uniform than universal.” 29 On the invitation to see as the author of the Apocalypse sees (his rhetorical goals), see David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 65-91. Vinoth Ramachandra, Subverting Global Myths: Theology and Public Issues Shaping Our World (Downers grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 12, alerts us to the function of myths in societies around the world: “Idols are sustained by myths—public, large-scale narratives that engage our imaginations and shape the way we experience the world. Myths are an intrinsic part of human existence.” Ramachandra isolates six global myths: terrorism, religious violence, human rights, multiculturalism, science, and postcolonialism. Another prime example of the ubiquitous presence and power of empire is seen in multinational corporations, whose reach extends to almost every corner of the globe and whose influence is felt in many ways. On the theme of empire and apocalypse in Revelation and the rest of the New Testament, see Stephen D. Moore, Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 97-121. Moore (105) says that “Revelation represents a stunning early instance of an anti-imperial literature of resistance.” 30 Broadly speaking, we live in a postcolonial era, but the vestiges of empire are still with us. Roberts, Twentieth Century, 845-46 speaks of our time as “The First World Civilization” and describes some of its features: “Information and popular entertainment are now increasingly produced for global consumption. . . . Human destinies are now linked around the world not only by such impalpable forces, and by the politics of formal organizations like the UN or the IMF, but by science and technology through their complex networks, by commercial and industrial organization and by material practice.” Ramachandra, Subverting, 225, remarks that, even in the 1930s, European colonial rule extended to 84 percent of the earth’s surface area. Likewise, Clive Ponting, The Twenti- 195 For those who regard the message of the Apocalypse as timeless, Revelation provides a symbolic world for believers to enter and signal their enfleshed resistance to the demands of empire: oppressive power, ostentatious wealth, sexual lust, violence and war, and hedonism.32 To the extent that the followers of Jesus Christ take the Apocalypse seriously, they will find an alternative realm, supernal yet real, in which to resist the dominant powers of the world.33 As those who embrace prophecy in an increasingly postmodern, posthistorical, multicentric, posthuman world, the church, strengthened in the Spirit and empowered to war against Satan, hears the Apocalypse and confronts the ubiquitous manifestations of empire.34 With the eth Century: A World History (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1998), 171, observes, “The first half of the twentieth century was an age of empires, in which about half the world’s population (700 million people) was subject to alien rule. . . .” Echoing this, Roberts, Twentieth Century, 83, says, “Great empires were the most spectacular features of the world’s political landscape in 1901. They divided between themselves most of its land surface.” In the contemporary world, the mechanisms of empire are less overt, but still global in scope, as seen in the policies and rules implemented under the aegis of the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and similar international organizations. 31 The author adroitly juxtaposes the universal benediction in 1:3 and the salutation to the seven churches in Asia in 1:4. By this juxtaposition, the author includes all those who hear the message of the Apocalypse. 32 Maier, Apocalypse Recalled, 35. Various scholars have appropriated the counterimperial rhetoric of Revelation and applied it to modern societies: Carey, “Counter-Imperial Script,” 181-82; Wes Howard-Brook, Come Out My People! God’s Call out of Empire in the Bible and Beyond (New York: Orbis, 2010), 466-71. Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 159, notes that ultimate truth is figural. In a similar vein, Wheelwright, Metaphor, 154, observes, “From this standpoint the principal characteristics of living reality appear to be three: it is presential and tensive; it is coalescent and interpenetrative; and it is perspectival and hence latent, revealing itself only partially, ambiguously, and through symbolic indirection.” 33 If the relevance of the messages of Revelation is relegated to only the first century, the discourse becomes an object only for antiquarian fascination. Cf. Lunceford, Parody, 28. DeSilva, John’s Way, 311-49, provides an excellent examination of how Revelation speaks to the churches of today. Daniel Berrigan, The Nightmare of God (Portland: Sunburst, 1983), uses Revelation creatively as a platform for his diatribe against the militaristic aspects of empire and a call to non-violent resistance to empire. 34 Although it is difficult to capture in a word or phrase the Zeitgeist of any era, especially today’s complex world, some of the dominant elements of the present era appear to be postmodern, posthistorical, multicentric, and posthuman. The characterization of the world as postmodern is well documented. However, modernity as a historical enterprise marches onward as well. For example, Bowden, Empire, 2-3, shows in detail “how significant forces acting within and upon the international states system have a clear-cut vision of the form of international society they envisage for the future and are taking certain steps to see that it is realized. That is to say that the dominant architects of international society continue to be informed and influenced by a faith in the Enlightenment ideal of progress and humankind’s universal linear march toward modernity, a modernity that is universally liberal democratic, market capitalist, and cosmopolitan in appearance.” “Postmodern” and “postmodernity” are widely accepted terms, but a more nuanced and accurate term may be “transmodernity.” See Andrea Mura, “The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity,” LP 1 (2012): 68-87. Concerning the world as posthistorical, Steven Goldsmith, Unbuilding Jerusalem: Apocalypse and Romantic Representation (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1993), 3, notes that “detached from political incentive, apocalypse has become the choice rhetorical term to describe the flattening and emptying of experience. In this sense, postmodernism literally represents a state of unpredictability, meaning not so much a condition of random chance but of the impossibility of prediction, the impossibility of prophecy in a posthistorical 196 unique postmodern window of opportunity, the hearers of the Apocalypse are those among God’s people who choose the plan of God for the church rather than submit to the machinations of empire, wherever they are encountered.35 As Dietrich Bonhoeffer notes: It [the church] has to make itself distinct and to be a community which hears the Apocalypse. It has to testify to its alien nature and to resist the false principle of inner-worldliness. Inner-worldliness is a comfort, but not a principle or a programme. Friendship between church and the world is not normal, but abnormal. The community must suffer like Christ, without wonderment. The cross stands visibly over the community. This is the proclamation of the whole Christ, witness to the whole presentation of the message.36 culture where events no longer occur.” Part of this posthistorical view may have its roots in the embrace of empiricism. As Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 54, notes, in the wake of the wide dissemination of ideas because of the printing press, the Christian/Aristotelian worldview’s “emphasis on teleology or some vague but vital final cause for the whole panorama of human existence was being jettisoned for a mechanical philosophy of empiricism.” The world also appears to be increasingly characterized as multicentric. Thus, Walter Truett Anderson, All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 2001), 251, speaks of a global civilization that is “a multicentric system.” Furthermore, as Charles A. Kupchan, No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 3, argues, “The twenty-first century will not be America’s, China’s, Asia’s, or anyone else’s; it will belong to no one. The emergent international system will be populated by numerous power centers as well as multiple versions of modernity. For the first time in history, an interdependent world will be without a center of gravity or global guardian. A global order, if it emerges, will be an amalgam of diverse political cultures and competing conceptions of domestic and international order.” “Posthuman” is a startling word, but this description is part of the discourse on the direction of contemporary culture. Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (New York: Picador, 2002), argues at length that the accelerating advances in biotechnology and the manipulation of DNA pose a great threat to political stability. 35 Various Christian commentators note the opportunity that postmodernism/postmodernity provide for the church. For example, Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (New York: Free Press, 2012), 278-79, notes that postmodern trends that have dismantled much of institutional Christianity may provide an opportunity for a renewal of Christianity and the recapture of its “original radicalism.” Similarly, James K. A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 117, sees the possibility of a postmodern catalyst for postmodern dogmatics and for the church to be the church. As Pierre Babin, The New Era in Religious Communication (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 150-51, observes, symbolic language is the new form of communication in the postEnlightenment world. Incorporating polysemy, image, music and sound effects, the spoken word, and emotional knowledge (dreams, art), this form of communication is well-suited for the symbolic world of the Apocalypse. On the importance of the church engaging the postmodern world, see Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999). On apocalyptic faith vis-à-vis empire, Howard-Brook and Gwyther, Unveiling Empire, 122, inveigh, noting that “the apocalyptic worldview affirms that the way of God has already prevailed and continues to prevail over the way of empire. Apocalyptic faith envisions both ‘practices of liberation within and divine intervention from outside history.’ That is, it recognizes that both God and human beings are involved in the struggle against empire. Biblical apocalyptic is adamant that both the various empires of history, and more fundamentally empire itself, will not stand forever.” Italics original. 36 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords: Letters, Lectures and Notes 1928-1936 (vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer; trans. Edwin H. Robertson and John Bowden; New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 324. Italics original. 197 The reason for the church’s choice to hear the Apocalypse is clear: the arrows of the author of the Apocalypse are aimed at not only the Roman Empire but also the church (Revelation 2–3), both of which have made claims of certainty.37 In the wake of succumbing to those claims, the small but vibrant Jesus movement of the first century expanded over the centuries and became a politico-religious empire composed of belief systems, a clerical elite, buildings, land, institutions (e.g., churches, schools, hospitals), bureaucracy, nation-states, wealth, denominations, parachurch ministries, and blind adherence to creeds.38 Indeed, as Diarmaid MacCulloch observes, “Most of Christianity’s problems at the beginning of the twenty-first century 37 Jack, Texts, 103. We use the word “empire” in both its technical sense and its looser sense. As to the technical sense, Charles S. Maier, Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 24-25, explains, “An empire in the classic sense is usually believed, first, to expand its control by conquest or coercion, and, second, to control the political loyalty of the territories it subjugates.” In this more technical sense, Christianity, as an expression of Constantinianism, has exhibited characteristics of empire. One example is the pope’s crowning of Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor. A further example is seen in Roman Catholicism and its mission of providing the ideology for the Spanish Empire. As to nation-states, Kupchan, No One’s World, 35-36, observes that many historians view the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which terminated a century of religious conflict in Germany, as providing the basis for the modern state system. A number of scholars trace this trajectory from the first century CE to the latter part of the third century and the early fourth century. For a good overview, see Harvey Cox, The Future of Faith (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 55. Hurtado, Origins, 115, speaks of “imperial Christianity” as having lost its calling as “the provisional witness to the Kingdom of God.” As to the number of believers, Bo I. Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 304, estimates that in about 100 CE there were more than 80,000 Christians in Asia Minor and more than 320,000 Christians in the Roman Empire, the latter figure representing an eightfold increase just a third of a century earlier. By 350 CE, that number had reached 30,000,000. On the rapid expansion of the movement, Tertullian in about 200 CE writes, “We are but of yesterday, and yet we have filled all the places that belong to you — cities, islands, forts, towns, exchanges; the military camps themselves, tribes, town councils, the palace, the senate, the market-place; we have left you nothing but your temples” (Apol. 37). In their relationship with the state and business, denominations face the ever-present danger of compromise and acculturation. According to Ronald L. Johnston, Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion (4th ed.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992), 87, a denomination is characterized by “being on relatively good terms with the state and secular powers.” Seeking to countervail dogma that sees the church as an institution, Emil Brunner, Misunderstanding of the Church (n.p., 1952; repr., Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2002), 5-6, writes, “In the last 50 or 100 years New Testament research has unremittingly and successfully addressed itself to the task of elucidating for us what was known as the Ecclesia in primitive Christianity—so very different from what is to-day called the Church both in the Roman and Protestant camps. It is, however, a well-known fact that dogmatists and Church leaders often pay small attention to the results of New Testament research, and are only too ready to bridge the gulf between then and now by a handy formula such as that of development, or by appealing to the distinction between the visible and invisible Church, and thus to give a false solution to this grave and distressing problem. But while many theologians and Church leaders are able to quieten their consciences by such formulae, others are so much the more painfully aware of the disparity between the Christian fellowship of the apostolic age and our own ‘churches,’ and cannot escape the impression that there may perhaps be something wrong with what we now call the Church.” 38 198 are the problems of success; in 2009 it has more than two billion adherents. . . .”39 In regard to empire, biblical studies fares no better, often being the tool of imperialism, whether with complicity or unwittingness.40 Indicting imperialism and religious empire, the author of the Apocalypse invites his audience down through the centuries to exit the insular world of the self, tribal allegiances, and provincial religious communities and to trek from Babylon to the new Jerusalem. Evidence today of such an exit by a people who resist the culture and religion of the status quo may be seen in the move toward global Christianity that is already underway, although many Christians have not understood the dynamics or the implications of such a move.41 How does the church understand such a move? In an increasingly digital, interconnected postmodern world in which geopolitics is the sine qua non, the church finds itself in need of a global outlook.42 That is, the church must frame itself and its mission in terms of a 39 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (New York: Viking, 2009), 1016. Friesen, Cults, 214-15, raises a number of questions in this regard: “The countries where the discipline of New Testament studies has flourished during the last two centuries are precisely the countries that have claimed large sections of the earth as their empires. Has the discipline of New Testament studies been a tool of imperialism? Or perhaps this line of questioning absolves the churches too readily. Maybe the churches defined both biblical studies and imperialism over a much longer period. In any event, it is inconvenient—to say the least—to explore these issues because the inquiry threatens to undermine fundamental structures of contemporary life in the west. Could the western academy withstand a studious attention to hegemony? Could Christian churches tolerate a thorough accounting of their abuses of power? Could the modern west survive if it attempted to atone for its domination? John would not dodge these questions.” In a similar vein, Ramachandra, Subverting, 256, notes the following irony: “It is strange that, for all its obsession with issues of power/knowledge, postcolonial biblical criticism has not applied its poststructural hermeneutics of suspicion to its own academic context.” 41 As Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 83, points out, religions of the status quo label religions of resistance “heterodox,” and he cites the following as examples of Christian religions of resistance: Huguenots, Lollards, Hussites, Anabaptists, black churches, and Pentecostal groups. Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 2, spotlights the explosion of the church in the Southern Hemisphere while the Northern Hemisphere has been oblivious to this phenomenon. Part of that explosion has been seen in the Pentecostal movement. Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1995), xv, estimates the Pentecostal movement at 410,000,000 believers. Allan Heaton Anderson, To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 248, notes the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism with its 614,000,000 adherents in 2010 but also notes that the recent history of the movement is characterized by “revival” movements that result in schisms. Despite the problem with schisms in its recent history, the Pentecostal movement has been noted for its unifying effect. Thus, Cox, Fire, 100, notes that “the pentecostal wave has an irreducibly communal dimension. . . . Most importantly, for the pentecostals the purpose of the Spirit’s visitation, unlike that of the muse, is not to ravish the soul of the individual but to gather up and knit together the broken human family.” 42 A prime example of the digital, interconnected nature of the world is seen in the Internet and social media. On the global connectivity and impact of the generation known as Millennials, see David D. Burstein, Fast Future: How the Millennial Generation Is Shaping Our World (Boston: Beacon, 2013), 153-81. Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business (New York: Alfred A. 40 199 theology, an ecclesiology, and a missiology that feature global perspectives, global theology, and global praxis.43 The Apocalypse, with is powerful allusions and epic sweep, can prepare a way in the wilderness and answer the hue and cry of people in the world who have been deeply wounded, ostracized, and terrorized.44 The eighth implication of Rev 1:7-8 as the multivalent thematic statement of the Apocalypse is that it reminds us that existence for the new-covenant people of the Way is eschatological and ultimately apocalyptic.45 That is, these people are the eschatological, apocalyptic people of God, recovering the true heart of eschatology and apocalypticism at a time that has witnessed the de-eschatologization of the faith over the centuries.46 Such an exisKnopf, 2013), 255, foresee the power of the Internet for political purposes: “Crowds of virtually courageous people might be sufficient to start a revolution, but the state can still use brutal tactics in crackdowns on the street.” They (256-57) speak of the emergence of two civilizations, one virtual and one physical, that interact with each other and to varying degrees affect and form each other. 43 On the promise and the difficulty of hermeneutics in an increasingly global context, see Knut Holter and Louis C. Jonker, eds., Global Hermeneutics? Reflections and Consequences (IVBS 1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). Similarly, the contributions of Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland, eds., Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), point in helpful directions, as some of the chapters indicate: “The Globalizing Hermeneutic of the Jerusalem Council,” “Creeds, Confessions, and Global Theologizing,” and “Theological Implications of Globalizing Missions.” 44 Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 398, says, “A recent and necessary trend in theology, as in many disciplines, is attention to globalization. A truly global theology must confront global trauma and terror. A pressing question is what kind of resource the ancient apocalypses are and are not for such theology.” She concludes (400), “What each apocalypse says about its own revelation, about knowledge itself, and the limits of human knowing, has ramifications for a global theology that confronts domination, suffering, and death with discourse and vision – apocalyptic or otherwise – of justice, healing, hope, and life.” 45 On the use of “the Way” as a self-description of some circles of believers in the early church, see note 1 in §1.1. As Paul Tillich, The Eternal Now (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963), 125, observes, “The Christian message acknowledges that time runs towards an end, and that we move towards the end of that time which is our time.” The history of the church has been marked at times by an excessive focus on the parousia to the exclusion of other aspects of the faith, but it is undeniable that a central focus in the New Testament is eschatology. Christiaan Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 111-12, observes this tendency of preoccupation with the parousia while also pointing out the eschatological focus of the New Testament. 46 The complex phenomenon of the de-eschatologization of the Jesus movement in doctrine and practice proceeded at times rapidly and at other times gradually. Three points highlight this historical process. First, accommodation to the Roman empire and its eschatology of Roma aeterna is seen in Tertullian’s remark: “We pray for the emperors, their ministers, and those in authority, for the welfare of the world, for peaceful times, and for the delaying of the end” (Apol. 32). Second, the writings of Augustine mark a watershed in the history of the church. Augustine determined that Christ comes throughout the present age in the person of his church and that premillennialism was a doctrine that only the carnal believed (City of God 20.7). His systemization of amillennialism contributed to this view becoming the dominant eschatology of the Medieval and Reformation periods. Augustine’s amillennialism stands in marked contrast to the predominant chiliastic eschatology of the second and third centuries. Cf. Stanley N. Gundry, “Hermeneutics or Zeitgeist as the Determining Factor in the History of Eschatologies,” JETS 20 (1977): 45-55. Third, the frequent failure of millenarian movements in interpreting the Apocalypse as fulfilling contemporaneous events has been a dismal watershed in the history of the church. 200 tence for the eschatological, apocalyptic people is not paranoid, neurotic millenarianism.47 Rather, such an existence is a redemption of history that terminates in the apex of prophecy, while a non-prophetic view generates interminable waiting for the apocalypse in a future that constantly recedes like a mirage.48 In this historical-prophetic intersection, the reality of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus forms not only a salvific paradox but also an apocalyptic trajectory (i.e., first death and then life) that moves toward the ultimate coming of God in history.49 Living in light of that future coming of God, and living in light of the past and present coming of God in Christ in the gospel, these apocalyptic messianic people embody the rational and faithful response by praying, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20).50 “Come” is the watchword this people as they extend the gospel invitation to people around the world, “And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price” (Rev 22:17c, RSV). Many thirsty people from cultures around the world may come to Jesus In sum, both Augustine’s amillennialism and the disjunction of the Apocalypse and history have contributed to engendering widespread ennui and skepticism among many believers. However, the early church councils were not in lockstep with amillennialism. In his analysis, Francis X. Gumerlock, “Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople?” FH 36 (2004): 83-95, concludes that millennialism was not condemned by the early church councils but during the Reformation. 47 For a seminal treatment of millenarianism, see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970). 48 As Beker, Gospel, 50-51, notes, Rudolf Bultmann has an existential eschatology that views God as the One who always comes, but the problem this view poses is that it runs counter to the emphasis on an eschatological sequence of events in the New Testament. A future perceived as constantly enfolding itself in historical recapitulation violates the nature of human story and breeds an antagonism to the true future, which can only unfold in ways thought only impossible. History has proceeded with many unforeseen interruptions. Derrida, “Apocalyptic Tone,” 66 speaks of “an apocalypse without apocalypse.” As Ian Edwards, “Derrida’s (Ir)religion: A Theology of Différance,” JH 6 (2003): 145-46, comments, “In Derrida’s ‘apocalypse without apocalypse’ there is always a call of that which is impossible, as opposed to the postulation of mere possibility. The impossible is the very necessity of deconstruction. . . . Without an end in sight, an apocalypse is not ‘seen’ as coming; therefore, an unseen apocalypse is always ‘an apocalypse without apocalypse.’ There is always a shock when an apocalypse announces itself unexpectedly.” 49 Beker, Gospel, 73, states, “The centrality of the cross, then, not only defines the character of the apocalyptic hope but also must be understood in the context of the apocalyptic hope—a hope directed toward the coming of God, when life’s burdensome contradictions will be ‘swallowed up by life’ (2 Cor 5:4).” The Apocalypse has a an undeniable temporal orientation and movement. As Michael Gilbertson, God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogues with Pannenberg and Moltmann (SNTSM 124; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 53, notes concerning Revelation, “The text assumes an irreducible element of temporality, which is wrongly excluded by interpretations which would seek either to reduce the text to an expression of timeless abstractions about the nature of history, or to read it as an attempt to escape out of history completely.” 50 Beker, Gospel, 120, speaks of the proper response of Christians to Paul’s Gospel as “Our Lord, come!” (1 Cor 16:22). 201 Christ, welcoming an apocalyptic trajectory in some form that is truly revelatory. Many of these people already live in cultures in which the dark reality of the Apocalypse, even if only foreshadowed, is now a visceral experience. As a case in point, the apocalyptic dimensions of the bloody twentieth century are well known.51 Today’s brave new world is a sea change of trends, technologies, and philosophies that are simultaneously and exponentially moving in many directions: the digital revolution, regionalism, the great convergence and global governance, transhumanism and posthumanism, the crisis in secular nationalism, religious terrorism, multiple modernities, big data, globalization, and emergence Christianity.52 In addition to that heady mix are many intractable inter51 For the period of 1900 to 1987, R. J. Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1994), 1-4, lists the staggering total of 169,198,000 murdered from democide, which he defines as genocide and government mass murder. Christopher Simpson, The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century (New York: Grove, 1993), 3-4, remarks, “Genocide has been a basic mechanism of empire and the national state since their inception and remains widely practiced in ‘advanced’ and ‘civilized’ areas. . . . Genocide is still difficult to eradicate because it is usually tolerated, at least by those who benefit by it.” 52 The great convergence and global governance: Kishore Mahbubani, The Great Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of One World (New York: PublicAffairs, 2013), 1, says that “the great convergence” is the creation of “a new global civilization.” He argues at length for the logic of global governance in light of our increasingly interconnected, interdependent world (cf. esp. 223-46), and he (74-81, 247) cites technology as the force that will drive much of this interconnectedness and interdependence. On the European Union as a model for global government and on the inherent problems of such a model, see Gideon Rachman, Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), 215-31. Along this line, Colin Mason, The 2030 Spike: Countdown to Global Catastrophe (London: Earthscan, 2003), 54, states, “Most of those who favour world government tend more towards a federation, allowing regional governments to deal with local matters.” On the transitional, unsustainable state of a world without real leadership and the eventual emergence of a new international order, see Ian Bremmer, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World (New York: Penguin, 2012). Jorgen Randers, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green, 2012), 56, foresees the world characterized by huge regional and class differences, social friction and armed conflict, increased urbanization and virtual reality, and a declining birth rate. He (ibid.) soberly speaks of “an ominous second half of the twenty-first century.” On the hubris and blind optimism of convergence, see Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 182-99. Transhumanism and posthumanism: “Transhumanism” (transitional + human) is the cultural, intellectual, and technological philosophy and movement that affirms the need for transforming the human experience by enhancing the human experience by means of a body-technology interface. On the biologytechnology interface, see Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (New York: Viking, 2005). Kurzweil (20-21) foresees the Singularity as the time of the merger of human technology and human intelligence. This epoch of the human-machine civilization will transcend the human brain’s limitations. He (21) contends that beyond that epoch this new form of intelligence will eventually “saturate the matter and energy in its midst.” He (309) heralds the day when people become cyborgs and become more nonbiological than biological. With a similar view, George Church and Ed Regis, Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves (New York: Basic, 2012), 248, speak of a new species that is “called Homo evolutis, posthuman, transhuman, parahuman, or H+.” Critics of transhumanism abound. Thus, W. Patrick McCray, Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 271, states, “Transhumanism’s shades of technological millenarianism—what one critic called ‘the rapture of the geeks’—are easy to detect regardless of whether 202 national problems that threaten civilization in its present form: weapons of mass destruction, poverty, energy crises, food and water crises, and ecological problems.53 On such a full sea the church finds itself afloat, and the church must take the current, perilous though the voyage be. Furthermore, in a world that lives under the shadow of nuclear war, René Girard speaks of the convergence of history and scripture as well as the readiness of many people in the world to accept a non-sacrificial reading of the Gospels and the logos of love.54 The Apocatechnology assumes a transcendent or apocalyptic guise. As one of today’s bold statements of the technological future, transhumanism seems poised to inspire future visioneering while fostering debates about its feasibility and desirability.” Secular nationalism and religious terrorism: On the contemporaneous crisis in secular nationalism and the rise of religious terrorism, see Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (rev. ed.; CSRS 13; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 224-29. On global terrorism, see Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). Big data: Concerning the era of big data, Juan Enriquez, “Reflections in a Digital Mirror,” in The Human Face of Big Data, by Rick Smolan and Jennifer Erwitt (Sausalito, California: Against All Odds Productions, 2012), 19, remarks, “Other than perhaps the agricultural revolution of 10,000 years ago, no event in human history has ever generated as much wealth and changed as many lives as this transition into a digital world.” He (ibid.) goes on to say that in 2011 the world was awash in 1.8 zettabytes of data (zettabyte = one trillion gigabytes). Globalization: The era of globalization is well under way. “Globalization” is a term that has various definitions and nuances. Taking a broad view, Anderson, All Connected Now, 5, says, “So globalization includes many different processes—such as the development of communications systems, the increase in human mobility, the integration of trade and investment, the spread of democracy and human rights, the increasing role of nongovernmental organizations in international politics, the growing concern about global epidemics and ecological matters such as climate change—that are happening at the same time and in many cases reinforcing one another.” Regarding globalization in a narrower vein, Robert J. Shapiro, Futurecast: How Superpowers, Populations, and Globalization Will Change the Way You Live and Work (New York: St. Martin’s, 2008), 80-81, states that modern globalization “is the largest economic development of our lifetimes and, like it or not, its astonishingly complex and interconnected facets will shape the path and life of every society for the next decade and well beyond.” On the oppressive state of capitalism today, Daniel M. Bell Jr., Liberation Theology after the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering (ROS; London: Routledge, 2001), 31, remarks, “Economic or market rationale controls all conduct. Capitalism has enveloped society, absorbing all the conditions of production and reproduction. It is as if the walls of the factory had come crumbling down and the logics that previously functioned in that enclosure had been generalized across the entire time-space continuum. With the crossing of this threshold, a new era has dawned, as Hinkelammert suggested. It is the golden age of capitalism, a time when capitalism can set aside its ill-fitting human mask.” Emergence Christianity: Phyllis Tickle, Emergence Christianity: Where It Is, Where It Is Going, and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2012), discusses the historic changes that are transforming the world at large and the church in particular. Tickle (139-57) observes that Emergence Christianity is a complex Christian movement that is composed of a number of elements: emerging church, emergent church, neo-monastics, house church, missionals, hyphenateds, deep church, and cyber church. 53 Mason, 2030 Spike, catalogues various drivers that threaten to topple the world and thrust it into a new Dark Age: energy depletion, overpopulation, poverty, global climate change, food and water shortages, and international lawlessness. 54 Girard, Things Hidden, 254-55, 259-60, 270-74. In this vein, Jan-Olav Henriksen, Desire, Gift, and Recognition: Christology and Postmodern Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 264, says, “One of the more interesting and valuable contributions of Girard’s theory is that he makes it possible to affirm consistently that the God whom Jesus gives witness to is a God of life. There is no ambiguity in the picture of God emerging from Girard’s interpretation of the death of Christ.” When this insight is applied to the Apocalypse, a different picture of God emerges. God is typically viewed as a God of violence in the Apocalypse, whereas violence is 203 lypse addresses itself to this people who are made ready for this kind of gospel and logos: a discovery of the God of life and love. In light of the language of coming that resounds throughout the Apocalypse, the illimitable invitation of “come” to an indeterminable audience opens the text of the Apocalypse to personal and collective appropriation in faith.55 The multiple occurrences of “come” disclose an eschatology of both irruption and invitation. Ultimately, this eschatology is an eschatology of hope and triumph. At the parousia God and Christ irrupt into the hermetic world given over the beast, and all the open-hearted among the saints and the earth-dwellers are invited to participate in the unfolding reign of God and the presence of God mediated through the Lord Jesus. This participation in the parousia, which involves a coming to God and Christ, becomes as much the coming of the saints as it is the coming of Jesus, reflecting a transmutability in sacred language that encourages a joint participation of God, Christ, and the saints in sacred time and sacred space. People, whether consciously or unconsciously, form or adopt an eschatology, however inchoate or sophisticated, to interpret human existence. Such was the case in the Roman Empire because a Roman imperial eschatology permeated the society of Asia Minor in which the followers of Jesus in the seven churches found themselves.56 As one example, the Roman poet Vergil writes of Venus, who says of the Romans (Aeneid 1.278-82): For them I will not limit time or space. Their rule will have no end. Even hard Juno, Who terrorizes land and sea and sky, Will change her mind and join me as I foster The Romans in their togas, the world’s masters.57 the cornerstone of the world, namely, “the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified” (Rev 11:8, RSV). Today’s world is still a culture of violence and war, and people who hear or read the Apocalypse engage it against the backdrop of the savage history of the twentieth century and a post9/11 world. 55 In §5.3.2 we examined this language of “coming” that is expressed in the forms of e¶rcomai. This invitation to come is seen in notably in 22:17, 20 (e¶rcou). An invitation to come is also given to the author in 4:1 (aÓna¿ba) and to the two witnesses in 11:12 (aÓna¿bate), but to the extent that the audience of the Apocalypse feels solidarity with the author and the two witnesses, the invitation is illimitable. Derrida, “Apocalyptic Tone,” 66, points out the indeterminable quality of the audience addressed by “Come” in the Apocalypse. 56 Dieter Georgi, “Who is the True Prophet?” HTR 79 (1986): 100-26; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 295. 57 Publius Vergilius Maro, The Aeneid (trans. Sarah Ruden; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). 204 As Steven Friesen observes, “The emperor was certainly the most important figure, but the phenomenon as a whole was directed toward dynasties and the prolongation of the imperialist structures of this world.”58 With prophetic fire and poetic flare, the author of the Apocalypse writes to saints who are “intoxicated with the present,” inviting them to enter the symbolic world of the Apocalypse to become part of those who conquer “by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony” (Rev 12:11).59 At the same time the author provides the saints with a new story, a counterdiscourse, which confounds the dominant stories of the world, and the author also confronts the saints with a fusion of the present and the future that demands that each believer and every church must live in light of “things that must happen soon” (1:1).60 In fact, if the present lordship of Christ supersedes and obscures the coming reign of God, the result is a Christology that distorts both theology proper and eschatology.61 On the other hand, without an eschatology that is rooted in Christ and a corresponding vibrant discipleship, believers who hear the Apocalypse encounter it as dead symbols and dead metaphors. Such a diluted eschatology, amorphous in content and desultory in practice, has left the Jesus movement enervated or, worse yet, dead. To this enervation and deadness, the trenchant, piercing words of the glorified Christ to the assembly in Sardis speak through the centuries, “These things says the one having the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your works, that you have a name that you live, but you are dead” (Rev 3:1). These words and the 58 Friesen, Cults, 130. Friesen (165-66) further notes that the author exposes the “flawed eschatology of the imperial cults” and instead envisions “the end of the times and spaces of this world and the establishment of a new species of existence.” 59 Sweet, Revelation, 49. 60 As Barr, “Apocalypse,” 256, observes, an enacted story serves as a powerful medium for transformation and creation: “As a story the Apocalypse has the power to take us in, to transport us into a new world. As an enacted story the Apocalypse has the power to bring into existence that reality which it portrays, to transform the finite province of meaning into the paramount reality of those who worship. It becomes a charter story that establishes a new world in which God triumphs over evil through the death of Jesus and the suffering of his followers.” Such a story is a counterdiscourse to the dominant discourse of the world, which must be understood as the filter through which unbelievers encounter the faith of the Jesus movement. The mature faith of believers in today’s world must pass through the crucible of critique that religion has undergone, providing an answer to the hermeneutic of suspicion. In this vein, Paul Ricoeur, “Two Essays by Paul Ricoeur: The Critique of Religion and the Language of Faith,” trans. R. B. DeFord, USQR 28 (1973): 209, notes, “A Marxist critique of ideology, a Nietzschean critique of resentment and a Freudian critique of infantile distress, are hereafter the views through which any kind of mediation of faith must pass.” Italics original. 61 Beker, Gospel, 75. 205 other prophetic messages given to the churches in the Apocalypse, if heard and heeded, have the power to unify and synchronize the assemblies of the one like a son of man for such a time as this. Confronted with empires and imperialist power structures, these believers who constitute the corporate son of man will not capitulate to the emperor or empire in any guise— political, economic, or religious. Here they stand and lift up their voice as one man, proclaiming, “Indeed, he is coming with the clouds!” Appendix 1 A Translation of Revelation 1 Revelation 1:7-8 comes at the end of what many scholars call the prologue (1:1-8). We are providing a translation of Revelation 1 because we need to situate Rev 1:7-8 in its immediate context and because Rev 1:9-20 is a focus of our study. Revelation has significant variants, so all text-critical issues for the most important of these variants are discussed in footnotes.1 The thick translation below is based on the text of the 27th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, except in the latter part of v. 6, where we accept tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn and do not 1 The word “significant” is employed in the sense used by Colwell as meaningful readings that make sense grammatically and that present an alternative view. Ernest Cadman Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1969), 104. Textual criticism is essential for our study because at a number of key places in our study, the issue of significant variants must be decided. We adopt NA27 as a starting point for discussion but plan to evaluate each variant on its own merits. In our approach we reject the common labels of radical eclecticism, reasoned eclecticism, reasoned conservatism, and radical conservatism. We regard as problematic the privileging of either the Byzantine tradition or the Alexandrian tradition that has resulted in the academic reconstructions of the Majority Text, NA27, and UBS4. Instead, we seek a centrist position that accords groupings of manuscripts their voice instead of categorically privileging any one text-type over all other traditions. Despite its tendency to smooth and harmonize the text, some manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition at times reflect an early textual tradition. Indeed, as Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 9, notes, the Textus Receptus “merits much greater attention” in Revelation as a textual witness than in other parts of the New Testament. For this reason, we will view Byzantine manuscripts in light of other external evidence and internal evidence. We are therefore not uncritically adopting any form of eclecticism. Eldon Jay Epp, Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004 (NovTSup 116; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 172, notes the problems associated with eclecticism: “It would appear, rather, that the eclectic method—regardless of type—is more certainly a highly visible symptom of those basic problems [of textual criticism]. After all, the most fundamental and longest-standing problem of the entire discipline and one that encompasses virtually all others . . . is the problem of the criteria for originality of readings.” Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (translated by Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 59, note that all of the early manuscripts with the exception of 0212 from Dura Europus have come from Egypt, so they raise the following caution: “From other major centers of the early Christian church nothing has survived. This raises the question whether and to what extent we can generalize from the Egyptian situation. Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism. . . .” They (64) go on to note, “Until the third/fourth century, then, there were many different forms of the New Testament text, including some which anticipated or were more closely akin to the D text, but not until the fourth century, following the decades of peace prior to the Diocletianic persecutions, did the formation of text types begin.” To some extent, we agree with J. K. Elliott, “Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; SD 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 332, in his assessment that the views of the supporters of the Majority Text in their critique of the Westcott-Hort method “pinpoint perceived shortcomings in the text that results from the cult of the ‘best’ MSS, or from the so-called local-genealogical method of textual criticism.” We also recognize, as other scholars do, the value of lectionaries. See Stanley E. Porter, “Textual Criticism in the Light of Diverse Textual Evidence for the Greek New Testament: An Expanded Proposal,” in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (ed. Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas; TENTS 2; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 316. 206 207 place the words in brackets.2 Our translation method cannot be classified exclusively as either formal (literal) equivalence or functional (dynamic) equivalence, but as synthetic in combining features of both philosophies.3 In this vein, we seek to be as literal as possible and to convey meaning that is too often obscured by transliteration, archaic wording, theological anachronisms, Westernization of the text, and traditional renderings, but not to provide a mechanical isomorphic translation when the Greek idiom or the author’s idiolect does not justify such a wooden translation.4 As such, our translation is not a gloss translation. Rather, we present an analogical form of translation that does not privilege simplicity as the raison d’être of translation, and in keeping with a thick translation we provide paratextual comments.5 2 Unless otherwise noted, we have provided all translations of the Greek text that occur in this study. By “thick translation,” we are speaking along the line of what Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Thick Translation,” in Translation Studies Reader (ed. Lawrence Venuti; London: Taylor & Francis, 2000), 427, has called for in providing an academic translation that locates “the text in a rich cultural and linguistic context.” Appiah (425) notes, “But for literary translation our object is not to produce a text that reproduces the literal intentions of the author – not even the one’s she is cancelling – but to produce something that shares the central literary properties of the object-text; and, as is obvious, these are very much under-determined by its literal meaning, even in the cases where it has one. A literary translation, so it seems to me, aims at producing a text whose relation both to the literary and to the linguistic conventions of the culture of the translation is relevantly like the relations of the object-text to its culture’s conventions. A precise set of parallels is likely to be impossible, just because the chances that metrical and other formal features of a work can be reproduced while preserving the identity of literal and non-literal, direct and indirect, meaning are vanishingly small.” The idea of Urtext or “the original text” is problematic, as various scholars have shown, so we are translating from what we believe to be a close approximation of the original text. Cf. Eldon Jay Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” HTR 92 (1999): 245-81. In this article Epp refers to “predecessor textforms.” When scribes make changes, these text forms become “interpretive textforms.” Finally, if a community of faith grants these textforms authoritative status, they become “canonical textforms.” Epp (286) notes that the better way of viewing this text-critical process is as the recovery of “the most likely original text” or the establishment of “the earliest attainable text” (italics original). Cf. Eldon Jay Epp, “It’s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism,” HTR 100 (2007): 279-81. 3 We do not regard these two categories as mutually exclusive because they share common ground in trying to convey equivalence of some kind. In more straightforward text, we seek to be more formal. In more ambiguous or culturally sensitive text, we seek a more dynamic translation. In this respect our translation reflects the source text as much as possible. Eugene A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 165, states that a formal-equivalent translation “is basically source oriented; that is, it is designed is reveal as much as possible of the form and content of the original message.” 4 Concerning the use of idiolect in the Apocalypse, see note 127 in §1.4.2. On some of the issues involved in explicitness, see A. H. Nichols, “Explicitness in Translation and the Westernization of Scripture,” RTR 47 (1988): 78-88. 5 Maria Tymoczko, Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2007), 288, notes, “For hundreds of years translation in Western contexts has privileged close semantic meaning over larger patterns of formal and functional meaning, thus privileging simpler forms of similarity relations rather than analogical forms of translation.” 208 Thus, we translate with the realization of the existence of anisomorphisms, implicatures, the asymmetry of cultures, poetic elements and the impossibility of translating poetry, languagespecific meaning, paronomasia, paradoxes and aporias in the target text, the phenomena of overdetermination and underdetermination of meaning, the supersaturation of meaning in a source text, and multiple meanings.6 We also seek to convey the foreignness of the Greek text to the English reader and seek to make that as explicit as possible.7 In light of that foreignness, when grammatical anomalies (solecisms) occur (§1.4.2), we indicate their presence by italicizing the text.8 The author has constructed an anti-language as a counterimperial and counterreligious polemic, so the text should reflect the author’s subversion of the language of the empire.9 To indicate emphasis in the Greek, we enclose certain words within double vertical bars ( || || ).10 In addition, following one aspect of William Brownlee’s approach in translating the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab), we are enclosing in the following symbols ( < > ) any words that may have secon- 6 Yves Bonnefoy, “Translating Poetry,” trans. John Alexander and Clive Wilmer, in Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida (ed. Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 186-92; Theo Hermans, “Paradoxes and aporias in translation and translation studies,” in Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline (ed. Alessandra Riccardi; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 10-23; Tymoczko, Enlarging Translation, 265-309. Tymoczko (287) notes that Western translators privilege semantic meaning in their translations, but she (293) also points out that a text may have a variety of meanings: material, conceptual, linguistic, sociolinguistic, cultural and historical, ideological, embodied, emotional, and cosmological. 7 Concerning this problem, Nichols, “Explicitness,” 78, notes, “It has long been recognized in the history of translation that a source text . . . has implicit meaning that may need to be made explicit if its translation is to be understandable in the receptor language.” 8 R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse: Being Lectures Delivered before the University of London (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1913; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1996), 83, points out concerning the Apocalypse that “in the process of translation the bulk of the idiosyncrasies of style, which differentiate this book from all other Jewish and Christian works, and especially from the Fourth Gospel, must inevitably disappear.” To counter this disappearance, we use italics to alert the reader to the presence of such idiosyncrasies. 9 John E. Hurtgen, Anti-Language in the Apocalypse of John (Lewiston, New York: Mellen Biblical Press, 1994). Harry O. Maier, Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 108-10, raises the issue of whether the smoothing of the author’s rough text reflects a politics of translation and notes how the author uses language to provoke his audience to join in resisting the Roman culture. 10 In doing so, we are a borrowing a technique used in Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible (n.p.: 1897; repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994), v, although we do not use additional devices, as he does, to distinguish degrees of stress. 209 dary meanings and that therefore may constitute a double entendre.11 We also reflect the Jewish qualities of the author’s text by using such wording as “Yeshua Messiah” and “Yochanan.”12 To signal the presence of allusions, we use the following symbols ( Ô ∏ ). To signal the presence of an allusion embedded within an allusion, we use the following symbols ( ¡ ⁄ ). Finally, to indicate whether the Greek that is translated “you,” “your,” or “yours” is singular or plural, we have used superscript to specify the number (sg = singular; pl = plural). Translation 1 ÔA revelation∏13 from Yeshua Messiah,14 which God gave to him Ôto show ¡to his bondservants⁄15 things that must happen soon∏,16 and having sent his mes11 William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction (SBLMS 24; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 31-32. For example, see his translation of 1QpHab 7.4 on p. 107. Brownlee uses parentheses, but we use angles (< >) in their place. 12 We prefer the translation “Yeshua” because this word retains the theophoric element (Yhwh) in his name. Furthermore, in some ways “Jesus” is a translation that can reflect power structures and ideology. On how power structures and ideology can affect translation, see Roy E. Ciampa, “The Terms of Translation: Ideological Challenges for Bible Translators,” IJFM 28 (2011): 139-48. On the Hebrew character of some of the text of the Apocalypse, see Matthew Black, “Some Greek Words with Hebrew Meaning in the Epistles and the Apocalypse,” in Biblical Studies in Honour of William Barclay (ed. J. R. McKay and J. F. Miller; London: Collins, 1976), 135-46. 13 Allusion: Dan 12:9. Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (London: T&T Clark, 1993; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2007), 254 n. 20. "Apoka¿luyiß is anarthrous and is best understood in the sense of one of various revelations from God. In this regard, Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), 27, says, “John’s revelation, expressed in this generic form, is being handed on to a particular community at a special moment in history; but it is perhaps understood as part of God’s ongoing self-disclosure: a revelation, one of a number, the origin of which is to be found in God himself, rather than the definitive vision, which is never repeated.” Italics original. Cf. Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (3d ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1908; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1. “A revelation” conveys the unique meaning of aÓpoka¿luyiß here in relationship to its other uses in the Jesus movement scriptures. Beckwith, Apocalypse, 417, notes that this use of aÓpoka¿luyiß in Rev 1:1 is unique in the New Testament and conveys “a present unfolding of these future events to the vision of the Seer.” The translation “a revelation” may be misconstrued as a static and punctiliar concept, whereas aÓpoka¿luyiß in this context conveys a dynamic and linear concept. 14 “From Yeshua Messiah” reflects the understanding that "Ihsouv Cristouv is a subjective genitive, not an objective genitive (“about Yeshua Messiah”). The subjective genitive makes much more sense for several reasons. First, the subjective genitive is in line with the hierarchical chain of revelatory transmission: God, Jesus Christ, John, and bond-servants (with dia» touv aÓgge÷lou referring to Jesus Christ, as we will show later in our study). Second, the phrase h§n e¶dwken aujtwˆ◊ (“which God gave to him”) shows that transmission is the key idea. Third, Revelation concerns more subjects than Jesus Christ (e.g., the condition of the seven assemblies, judgment of the beast’s kingdom). Fourth, the use of h§n (a feminine relative pronoun referring to "Apoka¿luyiß) points to what God gave to Jesus. Scholars who regard that "Ihsouv Cristouv as a subjective genitive include David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5 (WBC 52A; Dallas: Word, 1997), 12; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 183; Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 27; R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 1:6; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation 210 senger,17 Ôhe signified∏18 it to his bondservant Yochanan, 2 who bore witness to as many things as he saw:19 the word of God,20 that is, the witness borne by (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 52; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 40; Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (trans. Wendy Pradels; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001), 106; Smalley, Revelation, 27; and Swete, Revelation, 1. Another way of viewing the phrase is as a plenary genitive (“the revelation about Jesus that is given from/by Jesus”). Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 119-21, regards the plenary genitive as a valid category that reflects the puns and double entendres that writers of the early Jesus movement employed. Even if Rev 1:1 is a plenary genitive as Daniel Wallace asserts, the subjective aspect is probably the dominant aspect being conveyed, as noted by the aforementioned scholars. 15 Allusion: Amos 3:7. 16 Allusion: Dan 2:28-29, 45. On this allusion, see Beale, Revelation, 152-54. Cf. §3.3.3. Within the discourse of Revelation, the noun ta¿coß (1:1; 22:6) and the adverb tacu/ß (2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20) probably denote time (“soon”) rather than speed (“quickly”) because the theme of the imminence of certain events related to the seven assemblies makes “soon” the likely meaning. 17 “Messenger” reflects the meaning of a‡ggeloß, which may refer either to a human or supernatural messenger. Therefore, “messenger” is preferred over the transliteration “angel.” The identification of the a‡ggeloß of 1:1 as Jesus is important not only for this point but also for our treatment of a‡ggeloß in Revelation 10 (§5.3.3). Depictions of Jesus in Revelation often are hermeneutical precedents or keys for depictions of the saints in Revelation (e.g., Jesus as witness, 1:5; John as witness, 1:2; Antipas as a witness, 2:13). Four arguments may be adduced in favor of the view that a‡ggeloß (“messenger”) of 1:1 refers to Jesus. First, 1:1 repeats the first half of the sequence of transmission of the apocalypse (God > Jesus Christ > bondservants) in the second half of the verse (God > messenger > his bondservant John). The second referent in the chain of transmission (“Jesus Christ”) is transmuted into a broader referent (“messenger”) while “bondservants” is transmuted into a narrower referent (“his bondservant John”). Second, Rev 1:12–3:22 shows that the initial and principal form of revelation was from the exalted Jesus to John. Third, the use of an angelus interpres plays an important but subordinate role in Revelation when compared with Christ. The first appearance of an angelus interpres does not occur until Rev 17:1 and 21:9. As noted in §2.2.1, Revelation is primarily a prophecy, so John is not crafting his work as an apocalypse with the appearance of an angelus interpres. Mediation by means of an angel is seen in 22:6, 16, but this angel is under the aegis of God and Jesus. In 22:16 Jesus says that he has sent his angel for the purpose of giving a testimony to the churches, but this statement does not contradict the fact that Jesus has been sent earlier in the Apocalypse. Håkan Ulfgard, “In Quest of the Elevated Jesus: Reflections on the Angelomorphic Christology of the Book of Revelation within its Jewish Setting,” in The New Testament as Reception (ed. Mogens Müller and Henrik Tronier; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 123, concludes that a‡ggeloß of 1:1 refers to Jesus. 18 Allusion: Dan 2:30, 45. The word shmai÷nw may imply the use of signs or symbols. Mounce, Revelation, 42; Osborne, Revelation, 55. 19 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 6 n. 2.b., convincingly argues that o¢sa ei•den is the object of e˙martu/rhsen. Cf. Charles, Revelation, 1:7. 20 “The word of God” is a gloss translation of to\n lo/gon touv Qeouv. However, this gloss does not adequately convey the meaning that the author intends to convey in his discourse. In Revelation lo/goß is used four times in close association with Jesus Christ (1:2, 9; 19:13; 20:4). In 19:13, at the cosmic parousia, Jesus is described as oJ lo/goß touv qeouv, which suggests the culmination of the plan of God as it pertains to Jesus being established as ruler over the earth. Johnson Puthussery, Days of Man and God’s Day: An Exegetico-Theological Study of hJme÷ra in the Book of Revelation (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 2001), 48-49, states, “The phrase lo/goß touv qeouv looks to the divine plan, along with the redemption in Christ, which is presented at the very beginning of the book as «the word of God and the witness of Jesus Christ» (1,2). This combined expression represents both aspects of the revelation — the whole of the divine promises of the Old Testament and their realization in Jesus Christ.” H. Ritt, lo/goß, EDNT 2:359, recognizes the specialized meaning of lo/goß in 19:13. According to “lo/goß,” LSJ, 1058, one of the meanings of lo/goß is “continuous statement, narrative (whether fact or fiction), oration, etc.” Italics original. Under this category and the further subcategory of “tale, story,” LSJ assigns 211 Yeshua.21 3 Blessed are the one who is reading aloud22 and the ones who are hearing the words, || the prophecy, ||23 and are obeying what has been written in it, for Ôthe decisive, appointed time∏24 is near. 4 Yochanan, to the seven assemblies25 in Asia: favor to youpl and peace Ôfrom the Being One26 and the He Was lo/goß in Acts 1:1 in its reference to the Gospel of Luke. Like Luke, Revelation is a story of events that the exalted Christ has shown the author and that features Christ as its chief character. lo/goß in Revelation shares a similar conception with the lo/goß of the Fourth Gospel, but in Revelation it is elaborated visually. Cf. Charles, Revelation, 2:134; Bruce D. Chilton, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles (NovTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 144; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998), 85-113. 21 The genitives touv qeouv and "Ihsouv Cristouv are subjective. Cf. Mounce, Revelation, 65-66. The kai÷ is correlative, not epexegetical. Thus, the witness of Jesus is seen in his life and the life of believers who bear that testimony (1:9; 12:17; 19:10). 22 The word “aloud” is necessary to convey the lector’s oral delivery of the contents of Revelation to those who were listening. RSV and NET have “aloud.” 23 Aune, Revelation 1–5, 7 n. 3.f-f., regards thvß profhtei÷aß as a genitive of apposition that receives the emphasis in the phrase tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß. 24 Allusion: Dan 7:22. Many translations render kairo/ß as “time,” but kairo/ß stands in distinction to cro/noß. G. Delling, “kairo/ß,” TDNT 3:460-61, regards the use of kairo/ß in Rev 1:3 as falling in the category that reflects a theological emphasis: “‘The specific and decisive point, especially as regards its content.’ Here again there is a strong emphasis on the fact that the kairo/ß is divinely ordained, but the original implication of a decision to be made by man is greatly weakened. On the other hand, the thought of God’s fixed and predetermined plan of salvation is very clear. According to a schedule of relative development God lays down in advance the main points in the history of salvation. He gives them their content, and believers may await them with confident assurance.” 25 The translation “church” for e˙kklhsi÷a is problematic for three reasons. First, “church” does not convey the intrinsic meaning of e˙kklhsi÷a (“assembly”) to a modern audience. In fact, “church” is ultimately derived from kuriako/ß, as in “the Lord’s house” (i.e., a building). Second, besides being opaque in meaning, “church” is a potentially hegemonic word that conveys the power of a dominant institution. Third, “church” does not indicate any continuity between Israel as an assembly during the old covenant and the Jesus movement as an assembly during the new covenant. The meaning and significance of e˙kklhsi÷a for the Jesus movement needs to be located in the Jewish scriptures and the Greco-Roman world. In the OG e˙kklhsi÷a is used to refer to the people of Israel (Deut 4:10; Josh 8:35; 1 Sam 17:47; 1 Kgs 8:65; Ps 22:22; passim). Similarly, the Jesus movement writers employ this term to refer to both Israel (Acts 7:38; Heb 12:23) and the Jesus movement (Acts 5:11; Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 1:2; passim). At a minimum, Greek-speaking believers of the Jesus movement would draw connections between e˙kklhsi÷a in the OG and the writings of their movement. In addition, e˙kklhsi÷a would also have a political connotation as seen in the use of the word to speak of assemblies for deliberation. BDAG, “e˙kklhsi÷a,” 303, is probably correct that the word served the twofold purpose of indicating continuity with Israel and to showing that the believers were not a disorderly group. “Assemblies,” our translation in this verse, reflects the fact that e˙kklhsi÷a is employed in continuity with its use in the Jewish scriptures to refer to the assembly of Yhwh (hwhy lhq in Num 16:3; 20:4; passim) and the assembly of Israel (larCy lhq in Lev 16:17; Deut 31:30; passim). In light of this use of e˙kklhsi÷a vis-à-vis lhq in the Jewish scriptures, the author stresses continuity with the hwhy lhq in the history of Israel. Larry W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 54-55, sees the appropriation of e˙kklhsi÷a as a reflection of a sense of official and religious meaning. Cf. K. L. Schmidt, “e˙kklhsi÷a,” TDNT 3:501-36; “e˙kklhsi÷aa,” L&N 1:126; J. Roloff, “e˙kklhsi÷a,” EDNT 1:410-15; J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (WPC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 68. 26 The best MSS (∏18vid A C P 2050 al lat sy cop) lack qeouv after ajpo/ and before oJ w·n. 212 and the Coming One∏27 and Ôfrom the seven spirits∏28 that are in front of his throne29 5 and from Yeshua Messiah, Ôthe || faithful || witness∏,30 Ôthe firstborn of the dead ones31 and the ruler of the kings of the earth∏.32 To Ôthe one loving us and ¡having loosed33 us out of our sins⁄ ∏34 by means of his blood35 6 – and he made us Ôa kingdom,36 priests∏37 to his God and Father38 – to him be the glory and the power to rule39 unto the ages of the ages.40 Truly! 27 Allusion: Exod 3:14. On the nominative as a signal for a quotation from the OG of Exod 3:14, see David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications (2d ed; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 13-14. A strong argument may be made for the Dreizeitenformel, oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß, as an interpretation of the divine name found in Exod 3:14 and as a reflection of Jewish traditions about the divine name in this scripture. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 30; Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 28-29; Beale, Revelation, 187-88. The italics indicate the grammatical anomaly of aÓpo/ followed by the compound nominative phrase oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß instead of the expected genitive phrase. This anomaly is all the more striking because of the two succeeding genitive phrases aÓpo\ tw◊n e˚pta» pneuma¿twn and aÓpo\ "Ihsouv Cristouv in the same verse. Our translation conveys the roughness of the Greek. Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 37; Edmondo F. Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John (trans. Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 102. 28 Allusion: Zech 4:2, 10. 29 The italics indicate two idiosyncratic features of aÓpo\ tw◊n e˚pta» pneuma¿twn a± e˙nw¿pion touv qro/nou aujtouv. First, 1:4 exhibits syntactical roughness with the lack of an equative verb (for variants generated from this lack, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, 24-25, n. 4.e-e). Second, as Aune (ibid.) notes, a± as a neuter plural nominative relative pronoun would normally be attracted to the genitive case of the substantival phrase that it modifies, but this phenomenon recurs elsewhere in Revelation. These grammatical anomalies probably point to an allusion to Zech 4:2, 10. 30 Allusion: Ps 88:38 OG (89:37 MT). 31 The italics indicate the grammatical anomaly of the nominative oJ ma¿rtuß, oJ pisto/ß, oJ prwto/tokoß tw◊n nekrw◊n placed in apposition to the genitive phrase aÓpo\ "Ihsouv Cristouv. Charles, Revelation, 1:13, explains this as a Hebraism and cites Ezek 23:12 and Zeph 1:12 as examples from the LXX. More plausibly, Beale, Revelation, 192 suggests that the nominative phrases are derived from the nominative occurrence of oJ ma¿rtuß . . . pisto/ß in Ps 88:38 OG (89:37 MT). 32 Allusion: Ps 88:28 OG (89:27 MT). 33 Variant 1: lu/santi ] ∏18 a A C 1611 2050 2329 2351 ÂA ith syph, h Prim. Variant 2: lou/santi ] P 1006 1841 1854 2053 2062 ÂK lat bo. Given the strength of external evidence, lu/santi is the better reading. In addition, lu/santi better conveys the sense of the exodus theme of freedom that the author develops in his text. Blount, Revelation, 33 n. e. 34 Allusions: Deut 7:8; Isa 40:2. On the allusion to Deut 7:8, see Alan Hultberg, “Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christology of Revelation” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001), 47-48. The collocation of lu/w and aJmarti÷a is rare in the OG (Job 42:9; Sir 28:2; Isa 40:2). The context of Isa 40:2 makes it the most likely source text. Cf. Beale, Revelation, 192. 35 The phrase e˙n twˆ◊ aiºmati aujtouv is used instrumentally to indicate the means by which the saints are loosed from their sins. Beale, Revelation, 192. 36 The two participles aÓgapw◊nti (“loving”) and lu/santi (“having loosed”) in v. 5 are coordinate with the finite verb e˙poi÷hsen (“[he] made”) in v. 6. Gerard Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek as used in the Apocalypse of St John: A Study in Bilingualism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), 326, thinks that this unusual usage may reflect Semitic influence. Charles, Revelation, 1:15, regards it as “a pure Hebraism.” However, Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: Peter 213 7 ÔIndeed,41 he is coming with the clouds∏,42 Ôand every eye will see him∏,43 including44 Ôthose who pierced him∏,45 and Ôall the tribes of the earth∏46 Ôwill mourn for him∏!47 Lang, 1993), 140, says that it may also reflect Greek idiom that is widely attested from the time of Homer to the time of papyri. 37 Allusion: Exod 19:6. 38 In the phrase twˆ◊ qewˆ◊ kai« patri« aujtouv, the genitive aujtouv modifies both nouns because patri« lacks the article. Charles, Revelation, 1:16; Osborne, Revelation, 66; Swete, Apocalypse, 9. The triple use of touv qeouv mou in 3:12 shows that this is in accordance with the author’s understanding of the relationship of Jesus to God. 39 to\ kra¿toß is rendered “the power to rule” based on the context of the theme of the kingdom of God and Christ in Revelation. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Introduction and Domains (vol. 1 of Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains; 2d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 681. 40 Variant 1: Omit tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn ] ∏18 A P 2050 bo. Variant 2: tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn ] a C 1841 Â. On the basis of the strength of ∏18 and A, and on the basis of the principle of lectio brevior lectio potior, the shorter reading is favored. In terms of transcriptional probabilities, the matter depends on whether the shorter reading arose from scribal oversight. UBS4 includes tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn with a C rating. Both readings contain Quality Category I MSS (i.e., Alexandrian text-type; cf. Beale, Revelation, 70-72). Aune, Revelation 1–5, 43 n. 6.i-i., contends that the longer reading “must be considered a harmonistic interpolation.” However, the matter is not so easily decided, as explained by Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), 732. The longer reading has good manuscript attestation from a variety of sources, and it also agrees stylistically with all the other occurrences of ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn in Revelation (1:18; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5; see also ei˙ß ai˙w◊naß ai˙w¿nwn in 14:11). Moreover, haplography may account for the lack of tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn in 1:5. Finally, as Juan Hernández Jr., Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse (WUNT 2/218; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2006), 193, notes, the consistent tendency of scribal omissions in Revelation “challenges the foundation of the lectio brevior potior text-critical principle.” For the foregoing reasons, we favor the inclusion of the longer reading. Cf. Felise Tavo, Woman, Mother and Bride: An Exegetical Investigation into the “Ecclesial” Notions of the Apocalypse (BTSt 3; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 65-66. Our translation “the ages of the ages” reflects the meaning of ai˙w¿n as “age, eon,” which concerns an indefinite length of time. This expression conveys the meaning of indefinite duration. Cf. EB, New Testament, 268. 41 ijdou/ can also be translated “behold” or “look,” but such a translation is not preferred here. As Aune, Revelation 1–5, 53, points out, this particle is used in two ways in Revelation: (1) “a marker of strong emphasis indicating the validation of the statement it introduces and can be translated ‘indeed, certainly’” and (2) “a marker to draw attention to that which it introduces and can be translated ‘look, listen, pay attention.’” Here in v. 7 ijdou/ is used in the first sense and should be translated “indeed.” Blount, Revelation, 37-38, notes that “indeed” is the preferred translation here and in other places in Revelation where ijdou/ is used in speech. 42 Allusion: Dan 7:13. 43 Allusion: Isa 40:5. 44 Aune, Revelation 1-5, 50, 56 translates “including.” Those who pierced him is best regarded as a subset of all humanity, as indicated by pa◊ß ojfqalmo\ß. 45 Allusion: Zech 12:10. 46 Allusion: Gen 12:3; 28:14. 47 Allusion: Zech 12:10. In regard to rendering ko/yontai e˙p" aujto\n, we diverge from the translations “on account of him” (RSV) and “because of him” (NET), which convey cause and effect. Rather, the word “for” conveys the feelings and actions of those seeing Jesus coming with the clouds. ejpi/ is a “marker of feelings directed toward someone” (BDAG, “ejpi/,” 366). The feelings may be favorable (Luke 23:28) or hostile (Luke 9:5). However, as BDAG, “ko/ptw,” 559, notes, ko/ptw followed by an accusative denotes mourning for someone. 214 Yes! Truly! 8 “|| I || am the Alpha and the Omega,”48 says the Lord God,49 “Ôthe Being One and the He Was and the Coming One∏,50 the Ruler of All.” 9 I, Yochanan, yourpl brother and joint fellowshiper51 in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance52 in Yeshua,53 was in the island that is called Patmos because of the word of God and the witness borne by Yeshua. 10 I came to be54 in spirit55 on < the Lord’s > day,56 and I heard behind me Ôa great voice like a shofar∏,57 11 Cf. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 51 n. 7.f. This phrase departs from the expected dative of cause (“for, because of”), as in the case of 2 Cor 12:21. Cf. Blount, Revelation, 33 n. h. 48 Variant 1: aÓrch\ kai« te÷loß ] a*, 2 205 209 1854 2050 (2329 hJ aÓrch\ and to\ te÷loß) (2344 to\ te÷loß) 2351 itar, gig, t vg copbo Andrew; Apringius Beatus. Variant 2: Omit aÓrch\ kai« te÷loß ] a1 A C 1006 1611 1841 2053 2062  [P 046] it2042 syph, h arm eth Epiph; Ambr Vari Prim. The shorter reading is to be preferred. First, the longer reading appears to be a scribe’s attempt to assimilate Rev 1:8 with Rev 21:6 and 22:13. Second, the better witnesses have the shorter reading. Both NA27 and UBS4 (A rating) have the short reading. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 51 n. 8.b., concurs with this reading. 49 “Lord God” is a translation of ku/rioß oJ qeo/ß, which is widely regarded as a rendering of twabx hwhy. 50 Allusion: Exod 3:14. 51 “Joint fellowshiper” is the translation of sugkoinwno\ß, which conveys the concept of a participation and fellowship in something common and goes deeper in some respects than “brother.” Lenski, Revelation, 54-55. 52 The phrase e˙n thØv qli÷yei kai« basilei÷aˆ kai« uJpomonhØv is to be regarded as a literary unit. Beale, Revelation, 200-1; Osborne, Revelation, 80. 53 Variant 1: e˙n "Ihsouv ] a* C P 1611 2050 2053vid pc gig vg syph bo. Variant 2: e˙n Cristwˆ◊ ] A pc. Variant 3: e˙n 2 K cl A h Cristwˆ◊ "Ihsouv ] (a ) 1006 1841 2351  ar h vg . Variant 4: "Ihsouv Cristouv ] 2329  sy . Variant 1 is the best attested reading. The author appears to write from a standpoint of corporate Christology. Thus, Mounce, Revelation, 54 n. 4 sees e˙n "Ihsouv as equivalent to the e˙n Cristwˆ◊ used by Paul. Likewise, Beale, Revelation, 201 sees that “John views Christians as identified corporately with Jesus. . . .” Further, he (ibid.) states that the references to the “son of man” figure of Daniel 7 in vv. 7 and 13 is “highly appropriate” since this figure was “the corporate representative for the saints with respect to both suffering and ruling. . . .” 54 “I came to be” reflects the abrupt change in the author’s condition as indicated by e˙geno/mhn e˙n pneu/mati, as opposed to being in the Spirit (Rom 8:9). Charles, Revelation, 1:22, says, “These words denote the ecstatic condition into which the Seer has fallen. . . .” 55 Scholars are divided as to whether the author refers to his human spirit or the Spirit of God when he uses the phrase e˙n pneu/mati. One implication of the phrase is that it probably places the author in the category of the Spirit coming upon the prophets of Israel and Judah (Ezek 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 11:1; 43:5). However, several factors point to this phrase referring to an ecstatic experience involving the author’s human spirit. First, e˙n pneu/mati is consistently anarthrous in Revelation (1:10; 4:10; 17:3; 21:10) and stands in contrast to the consistently articular phrase to\ pneuvma, which always refers to the Spirit of God (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 14:13; 19:10; 22:17). The only anarthrous use of pneuvma that may be associated with God occurs in 11:11 (pneuvma zwhvß e˙k touv qeouv), but this phrase is an allusion to Ezek 37:14 and refers to breath, not the Spirit. Second, e˙n pneu/mati appears to be analogous to the ecstatic experience that is mentioned as e˙n e˙ksta¿sei (Acts 11:5; 22:17; cf. 1 En. 71:1, 5). Aune, Revelation 1–5, 83, regards e˙n pneu/mati as a reference to the author falling into a trance. Cf. Lenski, Revelation, 58-59. 56 thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷raˆ generates some ambiguity. Neither the phrase thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷ra in 1:10 nor the context specifies the way in which the day was related to the Lord. The adjective kuriako/ß is used only here and in 1 Cor 11:20, where it is used to refer to what is commonly called the Lord’s supper. Richard Bauckham, “The Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A. 215 saying,58 “What yousg see Ôwrite in a scroll∏59 to the seven assemblies: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamon and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.60 12 And ÔI turned∏61 Ôto see the voice∏62 that Carson; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982; repr., Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 222, demonstrates that, in most instances before the writing of the Apocalypse, kuriako/ß was used to mean “imperial,” usually in the context of administration, especially finance. Scholars understand thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷raˆ in one of four ways: (1) the day of the Yhwh, (2) the Jewish Sabbath, (3) resurrection Sunday, and (4) Sunday. According to view 1 (the day of the Yhwh), thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷ra refers to the eschatological Day of Yhwh. Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), 111-31. The main reason that view 1 is not convincing is that kuriako/ß is never used in the OG, Jewish literature, the Jesus movement literature, or the early church fathers to refer to the Day of Yhwh. Rather, the only way of designating this day in the OG is by using the genitive kuri÷ou in one of the following combinations: hJ hJme÷ra touv kuri÷ou (Ezek 30:3), hJ hJme÷ra kuri÷ou (Isa 13:6), and hJme÷ra kuri÷ou (Isa 13:9). Furthermore, thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷ra as a designation for the Day of Yhwh does not fit the following context of Revelation 2–3, which concerns the glorified Christ’s present relationship with the church. Beckwith, Apocalypse, 435; Swete, Revelation, 13. View 2 (Jewish Sabbath) does not accord with non-sabbatarian comments in the Jesus movement literature (Col 2:16) and lacks support in early patristic writings. View 3 (resurrection Sunday) lacks any second-century documents that use the Greek phrase in this way. Beale, Revelation, 203. View 4 (Sunday) is probably correct. The reasons in favor of view 4 are as follows. First, kuriako/ß was used a short time after the writing of the Apocalypse to refer to a special day associated with Jesus, either Sunday (the day of his resurrection) or the resurrection day. However, the resurrection-day position lacks support. In contrast, the Sunday position has support. For instance, in what must refer to weekly observances, the church father Ignatius wrote to Christians in the province of Asia, “No longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord’s Day [kata\ kuriakh\n zvwvnteß], on which also our life sprang up through him” (Magn. 9:1). In addition, the word kuriako/ß is also used in Did. 14:1 to refer to Christian gatherings. Other texts also support the Lord’s day as a designation for Sunday (Barnabas 15.9; Justin, 1 Apol. 67.3-8; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.26.2). Second, in light of the early tradition of Jesus’ followers gathering on the first day of the week for worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2), Sunday is the likely reference. The testimony of the Jesus movement literature is strengthened by Pliny’s letter to Trajan in which Pliny describes Christians meeting on the first day of the week for worship (Ep. 10.96.8 ff.). Third, the liturgical framework of Revelation fits well with thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷ra referring to Sunday (§§2.6, 4.2.2, 5.3.2). On the Lord’s day as Sunday, see Olutola K. Peters, The Mandate of the Church in the Apocalypse of John (StBL 77; New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 48-49; Puthussery, Days, 30-42; W. Stott, “A Note on the Word KYRIAKH in Revelation i.10,” NTS 12 (1965): 70-75. Although the author of the Apocalypse is probably referring to Sunday, he may also be making a play on words. At this time, people in Egypt and Asia Minor celebrated “Augustus’s Day” (Sebasth/; hence the emperor’s day) on the first day of every month or possibly every week. Thus, the author may be secondarily using thØv kuriakhØv hJme÷raˆ to show in a counterimperial polemic who the true Lord of the world is. Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” 244; Charles, Revelation, 1:23. 57 In v. 10 sa¿lpiggoß is almost always translated “trumpet,” but “trumpet” can refer to a variety of trumpets such as those made of metal and animal horn. This reference to a trumpet in this verse is to Exod 20:18, which refers to a shofar (rpv). 58 Beale, Revelation, 204-5; and Charles, Revelation, 1:24, note that the expected form is the accusative le/gousan, which would agree with the governing antecedent noun fwnh\n. Instead, the genitive legou/shß is assimilated to the dependent genitive sa¿lpiggoß. Beale contends that this grammatical anomaly focuses attention on the background in Exodus 19, which is the source text for the allusion. 59 Allusion: Dan 7:1. Commissions to prophets to write in a scroll are seen in Isa 30:8; Jer 37:2; and 39:44. 60 The repetition of kai/ In this verse is polysyndeton, which emphasizes each item in the list. Contrary to some translations (NET), we have reflected this polysyndeton with the translation of “and” in each instance. 61 This is an allusion to Jewish scriptures that feature both e˙pistre÷fw (“to turn, turn back, return”) and fwnh/ (“voice, sound, speech”) to refer to returning to Yhwh and obeying His voice (Deut 4:30; 30:2, 8). Osborne, Revelation, 86, notes that the double use of e˙pistre÷fw in Rev 1:12 may be metaphorical and means that “this 216 Ôwas speaking∏63 with me, and Ôhaving turned∏64, I saw Ôseven golden menorahs∏65 13 and Ôin the middle66 of the menorahs∏67 Ôone like a son of man∏68 Ôclothed with an ankle-length robe∏69 and Ôwrapping around the breasts a golden belt∏.70 14 || Now71 || Ôhis head, that is, the hairs,72 were white as wool, as white as snow∏,73 and Ôhis eyes were like a flame of fire∏,74 15 and Ôhis feet were like burnished bronze∏,75 as having been fired76 in a furnace, and Ôhis was a ‘turning point’ for the church, namely, that moment when the visions of God’s plan to end world history were to begin.” 62 Allusion: Exod 20:18. 63 Allusion: Dan 7:11. 64 Allusion: See note 61 above. 65 Allusion: Zech 4:2, 10. “Menorahs” conveys the meaning of plural form lucni÷a. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 62, translates the word as “menorahs.” Aune, Revelation 1–5, 89, notes that the allusion to Zech 4:1-14 and the Jewish imagery combine to suggest that menorahs are intended. 66 Scholars and translators often translate e˙n me÷swˆ “in the midst of,” which is archaic and poetic English, but this translation can connote “among.” Osborne, Revelation, 87, argues that e˙n me÷swˆ is not to be taken literally, but e˙n me÷swˆ is better understood as denoting physical location, which is the way it is used elsewhere in Revelation (4:6; 5:6 [2]; 6:6; 22:2). Aune, Revelation 1–5, 89, understands a circle of menorahs around Christ. e˙n me÷swˆ is used technically to denote “in the middle of” (4:1; 5:6). That is, Jesus Christ is in the center of this sacred space that is ringed by seven golden menorahs. 67 Allusion: Dan 3:25 (Q 3:92). Beale, Use of Daniel, 156. 68 Allusion: Dan 7:13. “One like a son of man” or “one like a human being” is an acceptable translation. better reflects the generic quality of both the Greek phrase o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou and the roughly equivalent Aramaic phrase vna rbk (individually, a human; collectively, humanity). Scholars who translate vna rbk as “one like a human being” include John E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 142, 167-68; and John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304. Blount, Revelation, 39, translates “one like a child of humanity,” but this phrase is ambiguous as to whether humanity in its individual or collective sense is intended. Aune is inconsistent in his translation of the same Greek phrase: “one like a son of man” (1:13) and “one like a human being” (14:14). As T. B. Salter, “Homoion Huion Anthroœpou in Rev 1.13 and 14.14,” BT 44 (1993): 349-50, notes, the translation “one like the son of man” (NRSV; italics ours) reads Gospel traditions into the text. Revelation 1:13 features significant variants. Variant 1: ui˚wˆ◊ ] A C 1006 1611 1854 2053 2062 2351 ÂA Irenaeuslat). Variant 2: ui˚o/n ] a 1841 2050 2329 ÂK. Along with NA27 and UBS4, we adopt the reading ui˚o/n. We favor variant 2 (ui˚o/n) as the correct reading. ui˚o/n conforms to a pattern of grammatical anomalies that have been introduced earlier in the context. In contrast, ui˚wˆ◊ appears to be an attempt to incorporate the expected accusative form. Finally, a grammatical anomaly is fitting at this point (§3.3.2). We have placed the entire phrase in italics because o¢moion ui˚o\n aÓnqrw¿pou functions as a unit as wJß ui˚o\ß aÓnqrw¿pou does in Dan 7:13 OG. 69 Allusion: Dan 10:5 and Ezek 9:2-3, 11. 70 Allusion: Dan 10:5. 71 Our translation (“now”) and the emphasis reflect the rare and specialized use of the conjunction de÷ in the Apocalypse (1:14; 2:5, 16, 24; 10:2; 19:12; 21:8). 72 The kai/ is epexegetical. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 95. 73 Allusion: Dan 7:9. 74 Allusion: Dan 10:6. 75 Allusion: Dan 10:6. The etymology of calkoliba¿nwˆ is not certain, so our translation, like that of others, is conjectural. Most likely, this word refers to bronze of some kind. Cf. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 96; Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (JSNTSup 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 111-17. 217 voice like the voice of many waters∏,77 16 and having in his right hand seven Ôstars∏,78 and Ôout of his mouth a sharp, two-edged broadsword going forth∏,79 and his < appearance >80 as when Ôthe sun shines in its power∏.81 17 And when I saw him, ÔI fell at his feet∏82 as a dead man, and Ôhe placed his right hand upon me∏,83 saying, “ÔStop fearing∏.84 Ô|| I || am the first85 and the last∏,86 18 even < the living one, >87 and I became dead,88 and, indeed, || living || am I 76 pepurwme÷nhß is a grammatical anomaly because pepurwme÷nwˆ is expected to modify kami÷nwˆ. Cf. Charles, Revelation, 1:29. Beale, Revelation, 210, suggests two possibilities for this anomaly: (1) pepurwme÷nhß draws attention to the Old Testament allusion in Q of Dan 3:21, 23, 26 (93) [thvß kami/nou touv puro\ß thvß kaiome/nhß]; or (2) pepurwme÷nhß is a genitive absolute. Given the author’s propensity for signaling allusions by means of grammatical anomalies, the first possibility is more likely. 77 Allusion: Dan 10:6; Ezek 1:24; 43:2. 78 Allusion: Dan 12:3. Beale, Revelation, 210-11, points to Dan 12:3 as the source text of this allusion because of the clustered allusions to Daniel 10 in the context and the identification of the “man” in Dan 12:6ff. as the same figure seen in Daniel 10. 79 Allusion: Isa 11:4; 49:2. Cf. §3.3.3. “Two-mouthed” or “double-mouthed” would be a literal translation of di÷stomoß (LSJ 437), and it is normally translated “two-edged” (RSV) or “double-edged” (NET). In light of the author’s penchant for wordplay, possible wordplay between sto/matoß and di÷stomoß may be in view. The Greek word for sword is rJomfai÷a, which is the large broadsword that a Roman soldier would use in battle such as in a cavalry charge. 80 As Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation (NTC 20; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 98, notes, the author uses o¡yiß, which in classical Greek means “appearance” or “face” and which is used only two other times in the Jesus movement literature (John 7:24; 11:44). This choice, instead of pro/swpon, the usual word for “face” that the author uses (4:7; 6:16; passim), probably indicates that the author is describing the overall appearance of the one like a son of man. 81 Allusion: Judg 5:31. 82 Allusion: Dan 8:17; 10:9. The allusion appears to be a composite allusion. However, the combination of the nearness of the angel and Daniel’s reaction of fearing and falling parallels the nearness of Christ and John’s reaction of fearing and falling (1:17). 83 Allusion: Dan 10:10. The allusion to the right hand appears to come from Ps 80:17 (79:18 OG), where the psalmist asks God to let His hand be upon “the man of thy right hand, the son of man whom thou hast made strong for thyself!” (RSV). The author of Revelation pictures himself as corporate son of man, basing this on the equivalence of the son of man and the tribe of Benjamin in Psalm 80. 84 Allusion: Dan 10:12, 19. The translation of Mh\ fobouv as “stop fearing” reflects an understanding of this as a durative command. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 66 n. 17.b. 85 The singular reading of A, which is generally regarded as the best manuscript for Revelation, is prwto/tokoß (“firstborn”), not prw◊toß (“first”). However, this reading of A is to be rejected because, as Hernández, Habits, 127-28 explains, it is a harmonization that agrees with the description of Jesus in 1:5. He also proposes that the scribe was familiar with Pauline passages in which Jesus is called the prwto/tokoß. 86 Allusion: Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. 87 The kai/ is epexegetical. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 95; Mounce, Revelation, 61. David E. Aune, “Stories of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 312-13, suggests that oJ zw◊n is a double entendre. 88 kai« oJ zw◊n, kai« e˙geno/mhn nekro\ß is regarded as a unit. The contrast is between Jesus Christ as the living one and the ignominious death that he suffered. Charles, Revelation, 1:31. oJ zw◊n should be translated as the articular substantive “the living one” (RSV), not as the relative clause “he who lives” (NET). Lenski, Revelation, 73-74. 218 unto the ages of the ages, and I have the keys belonging to Death and Hades.89 19 Therefore, write the things that yousg < have seen, >90 namely, the things that are and Ôthe things that are about to be∏91 after these things:92 20 Ôthe secret∏93 of the seven stars in my right hand and Ôthe seven golden menorahs∏.94 The seven stars are messengers95 of the seven assemblies, and the seven menorahs are seven assemblies. 89 We regard the phrase ta»ß klei√ß touv qana¿tou kai« touv aˆ‚dou as a plenary genitive that has a primarily subjective sense (“the keys belonging to Death and Hades”). As a subjective genitive, death and hades are personified. In 1:18, as Lupieri, Apocalypse, 112, notes, both death and hades are “hypostatized as superhuman and therefore angelic figures.” The other occurrences in Revelation point to personification, for death and hades are depicted as riding and having power (6:8) and being cast into the lake of fire (20:14). A subjective genitive (“the keys to death and hades”) sense means that death and hades are a realm. This view is in keeping with death and hades being a realm in which the dead are said to be (20:13). Lenski, Revelation, 74, says that the phrase depicts the condition of death and the realm of hades. 90 We agree with Aune, Revelation 1–5, 105-6, in his assessment that v. 19 “seems to constitute a kind of double entendre; the tenses conform to the necessity of referring to the past, present, and future in the tripartite prophecy formula, but the author is using ei•deß as an epistolary aorist; i.e., while the visions he was about to record were yet to be seen by him, from the standpoint of the reader they belong to the past.” For further discussion and translations, see Beale, Revelation, 169-70 n. 64. 91 Allusion: Isa 48:6. 92 Swete, Apocalypse, 21; Charles, Revelation, 1:33; and Eduard Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 22, regard Rev 1:19 as a key in a broad way to the macro-structure of Revelation: the past (1:9-20), the present (2:1–3:22), and the future (4:1–22:21). However, the first kai÷ should be regarded as epexegetical. The reasons for this view are as follows. First, the commands to write in vv. 11 and 19 are parallel and establish the main unit of thought. Mounce, Revelation, 81-82. Second, the relative clauses o§ ble÷peiß and o¢sa ei•den are proleptic and refer to the visions that the author is yet to see. Mounce, Revelation, 82. Third, o¢sa ei•den in v. 2 previously establishes the entire Apocalypse as a record of what the author saw. In v. 19 this visual aspect is emphasized. Fourth, Revelation does not follow this triadic formula chronologically. For example, as we show in §3.2, Revelation 2–3 is composed of prophetic messages. Cf. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 105; Beale, Revelation, 152-70. 93 Allusion: Dan 2:28-29. musth/rion is often transliterated here as “mystery,” but this transliteration obscures the meaning of the Greek word because of the contemporary connotations of “mystery” in English. Charles, Revelation, 1:33 calls to\ musth/rion an accusative absolute, which is rare in the Jesus movement literature. 94 Zech 4:2, 10. The first clause in v. 20 (to\ musth/rion . . . ta»ß crusa◊ß) is to be regarded as an apposition to the preceding clause in v. 19. Lenski, Revelation, 80; Rotherham EB. The Greek is irregular. Instead of using the expected genitive phrase, the author uses the accusative (ta»ß e˚pta» lucni÷aß ta»ß crusa◊ß). Beale, Revelation, 219, notes, that this irregularity may be explained as either lucni÷aß functioning as the object of ei•deß or a literary device that points to the allusion to Zech 4:2, 10 or to the first mention of menorahs in v. 12. Given the preceding anomalies pointing to allusions in the Jewish scriptures, this anomaly probably points to the allusion in Zech 4:2, 10. 95 Many scholars regard a‡ggeloi in v. 20 as referring to angels, but this view is problematic. Rather, a‡ggeloi refers to the leaders—perhaps the pastors, the prophets, or the delegated leaders of these assemblies. First, sending a letter to an angel runs counter to the purpose of sending messages to the seven assemblies. Angels do not require letters for information. Second, each messenger is responsible for the spiritual condition of his church, and that is always said in the Jesus movement literature to be a human responsibility (Eph 4:11; 1 Pet 5:1-3). Third, a‡ggeloß is used in the Jewish scriptures to refer to human messengers (1 Sam 16:19; 2 Sam 2:5; Neh 6:3; Prov 25:13), kings (2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:27; Zech 12:8), prophets (2 Chron 36:15-16; Isa 44:26), the prophet Haggai (Hag 1:13), a priest (Mal 2:7), and the messenger of Yhwh (Mal 3:1). Fourth, the use of a‡ggeloß as a 219 human messenger is seen in the Jesus movement scriptures (Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52; James 2:25; passim). Fifth, as Lenski, Revelation, 67-68, notes, a‡ggeloß as a description of a pastor portrays the heavenly reality of this office, so that a pastor must execute his office zealously as do the angels of heaven. Sixth, the anarthrous form a‡ggeloi points to the ministries and responsibilities of the human leaders. Appendix 2 Christological Issues and the Apocalypse In this appendix we will discuss three Christological issues that have a bearing on key aspects of our study. In order, we will discuss Jesus as Lord, Jesus as God’s plenipotentiary, and the oscillation between the unity of God and Jesus and their separateness. Given the complexity of these subjects, our treatment will be selective out of necessity. Jesus as Lord We have two reasons for exploring the issue of Jesus as Lord in the Jesus movement literature. The first reason is the fact that author of the Apocalypse uses ku/rioß to refer to both God and Jesus.1 The second reason is that the textual dynamics of the proclamation of Jesus as Lord will provide a foundation in our next section for understanding Jesus as God’s plenipotentiary in Revelation. The issue of the ways in which the early church regarded Jesus as Lord is complex, and yet some headway may be made if we consider the reasons that Jesus was regarded as Lord, sometimes summarized in the phrase “Jesus is Lord.” The radical, succinct yet comprehensive confession of “Jesus is Lord” and its variant forms was the preeminent, unifying confession of the early church (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 8:5-6; 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:9-11; cf. Acts 2:36; 10:36; Eph 4:5; Col 2:6; 1 Pet 3:15).2 Although Jesus was called !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 God: 1:8; 4:8, 11; 11:4, 15, 17; 15:3, 4; 16:7; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5, 6. Jesus: 11:8; 14:13; 17:14; 19:16; 22:20, 21. 2 This confession is radical inasmuch as it conflicted with the religio-political claims, demands, and propaganda of the Roman Empire. Cf. Larry W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 116-17. For instances of “Jesus is Lord” language in the New Testament, see Ralph P. Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967; repr., Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 291. This confession is comprehensive in the sense that it encapsulates a number of truths about Jesus: (1) God’s vindication of Jesus’ life and ministry by God’s resurrection of him from the dead; (2) Jesus’ position as the exalted Lord; (3) Jesus’ rightful authority over the church; (4) Jesus’ rightful authority over every believer; and (5) Jesus’ life and salvation work as the object of faith. Cf. T. Alan Chrisope, Jesus Is Lord: A Study in the Unity of Confessing Jesus as Lord and Saviour in the New Testament (Welwyn, Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1982), 62-64. Variant forms of the confession include “Jesus [Christ] our Lord” and “our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 1:4; 4:24; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:3; 1 Thess 1:3; passim). According to Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (NTTS 5; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 142, the earliest confession appears to have been “Jesus is the Christ.” As to “Jesus is Lord” as the preeminent confession of the early church, the sheer number of formulations of this basic creed attests to its centrality. On its preeminence and unifying function as a confession, see Chrisope, Jesus, 61-62, 70-71. The composite picture appears to be a dual declaration of Jesus as Lord through the public ritual of water baptism (Rom 10:9) and personal pneumatic experience (1 Cor 12:3). On “Jesus is Lord” as a confession associated with water baptism, see Joseph Crehan, Early 220 ! 221! ku/rioß at various times during his ministry, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as the be- ginning of a complex of redemptive events, is the pivotal moment for his being placed and regarded as Lord in an official, authoritative capacity.3 By means of the resurrection of Christ, God vindicated every dimension of Jesus’ life: his life before ministry, his ministry, his offices, and his suffering on the cross. Beyond that, Jesus’ resurrection has a universal implication. That is, Jesus’ resurrection is an eschatological event that he experienced for all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Christian Baptism and the Creed: A Study in Ante-Nicene Theology (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1950); James D. G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 104; and Martin, Hymn, 292-94. Martin (293) says that baptism entailed a confession of allegiance to a new Lord and a change of lordship. This ascription of lordship to Jesus almost certainly occurred early in the Palestinian church. Our analysis of the literature of the Jesus movement reveals a relatively rapid formation of what scholars commonly call a high Christology. More specifically, the evidence from Paul’s use of the Aramaic word maranatha in 1 Cor 16:22 points to the emergence of a high Christology in the Jesus movement in Palestine before 50 CE, probably the year when Paul’s apostolic ministry in Corinth began. First, Paul’s use of a transliterated Aramaic term shows the Palestinian provenance of the term and therefore its early origin in the Jesus movement (i.e., well before 50 CE). Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP 7; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1999), 614. Second, maranatha points to the cultic honor accorded to Jesus by members of the Jesus movement in Palestine. Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 208-14. Concerning the time from Jesus to Paul, Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in Earliest History of Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 39-40, argues that Paul’s Christology was essentially complete by 48 CE and says, “Thus the christological development from Jesus as far as Paul took place within about eighteen years, a short space of time for such an intellectual process. In essentials more happened in christology within these few years than in the whole subsequent seven hundred years of church history.” In agreement with Hengel, Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 35, states that this devotion to Jesus emerged in the few years between the time of Jesus crucifixion and Paul’s conversion. Cf. A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1926), 106. Likewise, Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 476, says that “within a very compressed period of time, the different christological views emerged alongside each other and partially interrelated with each other. There was no development from a ‘low’ Jewish Christian Christology to a Hellenistic syncretistic ‘high’ Christology.” The arguments for a slow, evolutionary development of a high Christology are not persuasive because they needlessly hypothesize a sharp discontinuity between the doctrine and worship of the Palestinian Christians and the doctrine and worship of the Gentile Christians. 3 For the resurrection as the terminus a quo for Jesus’ lordship, see James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 245. To some degree, there is a continuity between, on the one hand, ku/rioß as a form of address to Jesus or a reference to him during his earthly ministry, and, on the other hand, ku/rioß as a title for Jesus in his post-resurrection state and ministry. The scriptural mandate for doing so during Jesus’ earthly ministry is not developed explicitly. Chrisope, Jesus, 22, sees continuity between these two historical phases. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 55, identifies three positions that scholars have taken to explain the use of ku/rioß in association with Jesus Christ: (1) the terminology and theology of the Septuagint; (2) Hellenistic sources, either as religion or as a protest against the ruler-cults; or (3) the life of Jesus or the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Neufeld (ibid.) comments, “It is particularly the resurrection and ascension of Jesus which brought to the apostles the full realization of the real person of their Master. He was now the ascended Lord, seated at the right hand of the Father.” ! 222! humanity, not merely for himself, as seen in the fact that Jesus is said to be the Lord of all (Rom 10:12).4 This confession of Jesus as Lord must be seen in light of the use of ku/rioß in the Jewish circles, especially the OG and in the Greco-Roman world. Although the historical trajectory from the Jewish use of ku/rioß to the Jesus movement’s use of ku/rioß cannot be delineated with certainty, some major milestones will be surveyed here: (1) the attenuation of the name of Yhwh; (2) the probable use of ku/rioß in the OG as a translation of hwhy; (3) the ap- propriation of ku/rioß from the OG by the Jesus movement as an honorific title for Jesus; and (4) the counterimperial and counterreligious overtones of the statement “Jesus is Lord” or “Lord Jesus (Christ).” The attenuation of the use of the name of Yhwh occurred in some circles of Judaism sometime during the Second Temple period and was an established practice in Palestine by the first century CE. We first see evidence of this attenuation in the Qumran community. For instance, the writer of the Community Rule codified a prohibition among the Yah!ad from using Yhwh in prayer and all forms of speech (1QS 6.27–7.2).5 In addition, some scribes at Qumran avoided the use of Yhwh by substituting four or five dots for the divine name in certain manuscripts (corrector of 1Q1QIsaa; QSamc; 1QS; 1QSa; 4Q170; 4QTest [4Q175]; 4QTanh! [4Q176]). As to the divine name in the OG, a comparison of Lev 24:16 in OG and MT shows that the prohibition extended to naming the name of God. Martin Rösel regards Lev 24:16 as evidence of the avoidance of the pronunciation of Yhwh by the time of the OG translation of Leviticus, possibly by the end of the third century BCE.6 The original text of ku/rioß in the OG as a translation of hwhy is probable. Extant manuscript evidence ostensibly supports the use of paleo-Hebrew or square Hebrew charac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus–God and Man (trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 196. 5 “. . . Anyone who speaks aloud the M[ost] Holy Name of God, [whether in . . . ] or in cursing or as a blurt in time of trial or for any other reason, or while he is reading a book or praying, is to be expelled, never again to return to the society of the Yahad ” (1QS 6.27–7.2, WAC). 6 Martin Rösel, Adonaj – warum Gott “Herr” genannt wird (FAT 29; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2000), 4. ! 223! ters for the Tetragrammaton as the lectio originalis in the OG because ku/rioß first appears in manuscripts of the OG in the 300s CE. The earliest OG manuscripts use either Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew characters for hwhy (e.g., P. Fouad 266 [Rahlfs 848] and 8H•evXII gr).7 In addi- tion, patristic sources indicate the awareness of manuscripts with these Hebrew characters (Origen PG 12 1104[B]; Jerome PL 28 594-95). However, Robert Hanhart shows that a secondary phase of the development of the OG featured the replacement of the Tetragrammaton with ku/rioß.8 Furthermore, as Joseph Fitzmyer documents, manuscript evidence points to a tradition in the last two centuries BCE of Palestinian Jews referring to God as “(the) Lord” in Aramaic (11QtgJob 24:6-7; 1QapGen 20:12-13; 4QEnb 1, iv.5), Hebrew (Ps 114:7; 11QPsa 28:7-8), and Greek (Josephus, Ant. 20.4.90; 13.68; T. Levi 18:2; 1 En. 10:9).9 In addition, Albert Pietersma mounts strong arguments against the thesis of original Hebrew characters in the Septuagint by showing that the manuscripts cited are weak evidence, one manuscript is irrelevant, one manuscript is not Septuagintal in character, and another manuscript hebraizes the text.10 Having rebutted that thesis, Pietersma convincingly shows that Philo’s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 Some Qumran texts written in square script also feature the Tetragrammaton and other divine names in paleoHebrew script (2QExodb, 4QExodj, 4QLevg, 11QLevb, 1QPsb, 4QIsac, 3QLam). 8 Robert Hanhart, introduction to The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon, by Martin Hengel (trans. Mark E. Biddle; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), 7-8. Hanhart’s argument is twofold. First, he argues that the association of ynda with hwhy accounts for the translation of hwhy as ku/rioß. Second, the recognized and widespread use of ku/rioß in 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo must have been based on the LXX. To Hanhart’s argument, we add the probable elimination of the pronunciation of the divine name in the praxis of Israel. As Robert Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1937; repr. New York: Ktav, 1971), 29-30, argues, the avoidance of pronouncing hwhy occurred at a very early period, arising in the post-exilic period before the Jews had difficulties with the Samaritans. Gordis asserts that sometime between the beginning of the reign of Simon the Maccabean in 142 BCE and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, anonymous scholars chose a manuscript known to be both ancient and accurate to be placed in the Temple as the standard text. Like Gordis, James Barr, “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere,” OtSt 21 (1981): 24, argues that the Kethiv-Qere variations predate the time of the Masoretes, whether they were written down or not. Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2008), 123 n. 84, says that probably early in the third century BCE ynda or some other euphemism replaced the pronunciation of hwhy. 9 J. A. Fitzmyer, “ku/rioß,” EDNT 2:330. 10 Albert Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox; Mississauga, Ontario: Benben, 1984), 85-101. ! 224! use of ku/rioß and the Greek Pentateuch’s evidence of the originality of ku/rioß as a translation of the Tetragrammaton are evidence in favor of ku/rioß as the lectio originalis.11 In light of the foregoing, we concur with Larry Hurtado’s assessment that “by all indications, in Jewish circles of the first century kyrios and its Semitic-language equivalents for ‘lord’ were used to refer to the God of the Bible; and in their determinative/emphatic forms (‘the Lord’) these terms functioned as substitutes for the divine name.”12 Members of the Jesus movement in Palestine appropriated ku/rioß from the OG as an honorific title for Jesus in the early stages. Three facts support this conclusion. First, writers of the Jesus movement use a variety of texts about Yhwh and apply them to Jesus.13 For example, Paul applies certain passages about Yhwh to Jesus (1 Cor 1:31; 10:26; 2 Cor 10:17). Moreover, both Paul and Peter apply Joel 2:32 to calling upon Jesus for salvation (Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13). Second, Paul uses “Jesus is Lord” or similar wording without any kind of explanation of his modus operandi to his Gentile audience and seems to have inherited this ascription of Jesus as Lord from the disciples of Jesus in Palestine. Third, Paul spoke highly of his Jewish heritage and against syncretism (e.g., Phil 3:5-6; 2 Cor 6:14-18), so he almost certainly did not use ku/rioß as an accommodation to the pagan culture.14 Christ’s ascension to and his session at the right hand of God is a frequent refrain in the Jesus movement literature, and Ps 110:1 provides the scriptural basis for the meaning that writers in the Jesus movement ascribe to this event.15 Both the prevalence and the preemi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 J. W. Wevers, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint,” BIOSCS 38 (2005): 1-24; and Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” JSOT 31 (2007): 411-28, also regard ku/rioß as the lectio originalis. With an opposing view, Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 132, says, “In 4QpapLXXLevb Lev 3:12, 4:27, Iaw for ˝ ku/rioß ( hwhy) probably reflects the original, pre-Christian rendering of the Tetragrammaton, preceding ku/rioß of ˝.” However, this evidence is scant in comparison. 12 Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 109. 13 For a detailed treatment of this issue, see David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (WUNT 2/47; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992). 14 Capes, Old Testament, 25; A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1926), 99. 15 Acts 2:33-35; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22. Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” BSac 149 (1992): 452, argues that the historical setting for ! 225! nence of Ps 110:1 as a key text in the Jesus movement literature argue in favor of its use as a proof text for the lordship of Jesus. This application of Ps 110:1 to Jesus was a natural extension of the way in which Jesus applied it to himself. At two key junctures Jesus mentions Ps 110:1. On the first occasion Jesus queries the Pharisees about the identity of David’s lord (Matt 22:41-46). On the next occasion, during his interrogation by Caiaphas, Jesus combines Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13 (Matt 26:62-66). As David Hay notes, Psalm 110 was a central text that the writers of the New Testament appropriated and expounded, and he counts 33 quotations of and allusions to Ps 110:1, 4 in the New Testament and seven other references in Christian literature predating the middle of the second century.16 In a similar vein, Oscar Cullman remarks, “Nothing indicates better than the very frequent citation of this very psalm how vital was the present lordship of Christ in early Christian thought.”17 Likewise, James Dunn sees the importance of Ps 110:1 for the first-century believers’ understanding of the resurrected Christ: The affirmation of Jesus’ lordship is one which we trace back at least to the earliest days of Christian reflection on Christ’s resurrection. One of the scriptures which quickly became luminous for the first believers was evidently Ps. 110.1: “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” The first Christians now knew who “my Lord” was who was addressed by the Lord God. It could only be Messiah Jesus. He was now “God’s vice-regent.” The text was clearly in mind in several Pauline passages. In each case the installation to lordship is coincident with or the immediate corollary to Christ’s resurrection.18 In light of the prophecy of Ps 110:1 (“my lord”) and the numerous instances in the Jewish scriptures of the salvation action of Yhwh as ku/rioß on behalf of His people, those in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Psalm 110 indicates that it “refers to Solomon’s second coronation in 971 B.C. when David abdicated his throne to his son Solomon.” He also states that this psalm was applied to Jesus Christ. 16 David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 15, 163-66. See also idem, 122-29, on the centrality of this text. Cf. Chrisope, Jesus, 35, 45-46. For quotations of Psalm 110 and allusions to it in the Jesus movement literature, see Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; Luke 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:33-35; Acts 5:31; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 5:6; 7:17, 21; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; and 1 Pet 3:22. 17 Cullman, Christology, 223. Similarly, Harris, Jesus, 224, sees Ps 110:1; 2 Sam 7:14; and perhaps Ps 2:7 as “christological ‘proof texts’” that the writer of Hebrews inherited from contemporary Jewish exegetes who interpreted the texts messianically. 18 Dunn, Paul the Apostle, 246-47. ! 226! the Jesus movement saw ku/rioß as a prophetic-cum-nominal term. In particular, Ps 110:1, with its emphasis on sovereignty and delegation, was mined for the proclamation of Jesus’ lordship. How was this determined? The Jesus movement writers appear to employ what may be described as syllogistic reasoning (italics). Major premise: Scripture speaks of “my lord” sitting at the right hand of God. Minor premise: Jesus now sits at the right hand of God. Conclusion: Jesus is “my lord” of scripture. This reasoning, no doubt informally embraced, is reflected at the outset of the Jesus movement. Looking at the early kerygma found in Acts 2:32-35, T. Alan Chrisope says that Ps 110:1 provides the connecting link between the exaltation of Jesus and his installation as Lord.19 Once the first-century believers understood that God had vindicated Jesus as the lord of David (as Jesus had spoken of himself), it was a logical step to see Jesus sharing or participating in the lordship of Yhwh.20 In other words, the relationship between “Jesus is Lord” and “my Lord” of Psalm 110:1 is genetic, whereas the relationship between “Jesus is Lord” and other uses of ku/rioß vis-à-vis Yhwh is either circumstantial or analogical. This theme of Jesus as Lord fuels the Pauline acclamation “Jesus is Lord” and other writings attesting Jesus’ lordship (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11; Col 2:6).21 Given the fact that Jesus is both Lord and Christ in virtue of his resurrection and exaltation, he now functions as the agent of Yhwh. As Yhwh’s agent, Jesus Christ is in an unparalleled position of acting on God’s behalf in performing God’s will. To the extent that Christ operates within that sphere of that authority and power, he is acting in a way that God will honor with the performance of His will. As Joseph Fitzmyer notes: For if the evidence . . . supports the contention that the kyrios-title was kerygmatic and was part of the early Palestinian Jewish-Christian proclamation, then it at least implies that early Christians regarded Jesus as sharing in some sense in the transcendence of Yahweh, that he was somehow on a par with him. This, however, is meant in an egalitarian sense, not in an identifying sense, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 Chrisope, Jesus, 35. Such a high view of a man in Israel’s tradition has precedent. For example, James D. G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 86, says that the high view of Moses in the Exagoœgeœ is strikingly similar to that of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7. 21 Ibid., 104. 20 ! 227! since Jesus was never hailed as! aba. It involved a Gleichsetzung, but not an Identifizierung. By ‘transcendence’ here is meant that Jesus was somehow regarded as other than a mere human being; but the otherness is not spelled out in the NT with the clarity that would emerge in the Councils of Nicaea or Chalcedon, when the NT data were not only reformulated, but even reconceived in terms of other modes of philosophical thinking.22 Thus, in Fitzmyer’s view it is wrong to say flatly that Jesus is Yhwh. However, in a manner of speaking, Jesus Christ, as God’s representative, functions as God, but without usurping God’s incommunicable attributes.23 We will now examine the resonance of Jesus as Lord in the Greco-Roman world.!! ku/rioß as a title for Jesus may be described as a notable example of polemical parallelism vis- à-vis the Roman Empire.24 The degree to which “Jesus is Lord” served as a counterimperial polemic is debated. As James Dunn notes, the imperial cult in the days of Paul was still emerging.25 Because of this, ku/rioß had counterimperial and counterreligious overtones for the followers of Jesus in the first century CE. As Oscar Cullman points out, ku/rioß was used to refer to gods in various religions, and ku/ria was used to refer to goddesses.26 More important, ku/rioß was used to refer to the Roman emperor (ku/rioß Kaiœsar), but mainly in a political-legal sense.27 Adolf Deissman provides evidence for the increased use of ku/rioß for the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title,” in idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 130. 23 Here Rudolf Bultmann is helpful. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; 2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951–1955), 1:129, observes, “In describing Christ as ‘God’ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” Italics original. Reaching a similar conclusion is Vincent Taylor, New Testament Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 83-89. Similarly, Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (2d ed.; London: T&T Clark, 1998; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2003), 121, says, “Devotion to Jesus did not involve confusing him with God or making Jesus a second god. The Christian enlargement of monotheistic devotional practice to include the exalted Christ seems to have been motivated by the belief that to have done otherwise would have been to disobey the one God whom they sought to obey.” Cf. Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 95; Håkan Ulfgard, “In Quest of the Elevated Jesus: Reflections on the Angelomorphic Christology of the Book of Revelation within its Jewish Setting,” in The New Testament as Reception (ed. Mogens Müller and Henrik Tronier; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 122. 24 On the term “polemical parallelism,” see Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; 4th ed.; n.p.: 1923; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 346. 25 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 247. 26 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 196-98. 27 For instance, Augustus was called “God and Lord Caesar Emperor” (qeo\ß kai« ku/rioß Kaiœsar Aujtokra/twr, ÄgU 1197.1.15). ! 228! emperor during the reign of Nero. For instance, in 67 CE the marble tablet of Acraephiae in the town of Boeotia describes Nero as “the Lord of all the earth.”28 However, Nero declined divine honors early in his reign, so ku/rioß concerns political sovereignty, not claims of deity.29 At no time did ku/rioß refer to the emperor explicitly as deity. Thus, Mikael Tellbe states that ku/rioß as applied to Jesus implies that Jesus is “an imperial figure with universal authority.”30 Epictetus, the Greek philosopher (c. 55 – c. 135 CE), refers to the Caesar as “Lord of all” (Diatr. 4.1.12). Martin Hengel is correct in his assessment that the terms of the imperial cult were “at best a negative stimulus, not a model” for the their use by Christians.31 Nevertheless, for believers living in a world in which ku/rioß was used in this fashion there would be obvious resonances. As Justin Meggitt points out, “Polemical parallelism seems the most instructive way of characterizing the role of ideas about the Roman emperor in the development of Christology.”32 What is clear is that the title ku/rioß is eschatological and arose from the believers’ understanding of the impact and meaning of Jesus’ resurrection (Rom 14:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 11:26; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 6:14). We now turn to see how this understanding of Jesus as Lord formed the background for the Christology of the Apocalypse and perhaps helped to shape that Christology. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 28 Deissmann, Light, 353-54. R. K. Sherk, ed. and trans., The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (TDGR 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), no. 64. 30 Mikael Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civil Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians (ConBNT 34; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2001), 259. 31 Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish Hellenistic Religion (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 30. However, the evidence is clearer in the second century for the counterimperial appropriation of ku/rioß. Thus, when the Roman authorities demanded that Polycarp, the elder of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155), say ku/rioß Kaiœsar (“Caesar is Lord”), he replied ku/rioß !Ihsouvß each time and was put to death (Mart. Pol. 8.2). 32 Justin Meggitt, “Taking the Emperor’s Clothes Seriously: The New Testament and the Roman Emperor,” in The Quest for Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Philip Budd (ed. C. Joynes; Cambridge: Orchard Academic, 2002), 157-58. Italics original. 29 ! 229! Jesus as God’s Plenipotentiary In describing the exalted Christ as God’s plenipotentiary in the Apocalypse, we are saying that the author of the Apocalypse depicts Christ as occupying a further dimension of his lordship and as functioning in an independent yet subordinate role of agency in ways that are ascribed to Yhwh in the Jewish scriptures.33 That is, some passages ascribe the same function or activity to either God or Jesus and place God and Jesus on par with each other, yet in a way that delineates Christ in a subordinate role and that does not compromise the uniqueness of God.34 For example, Yhwh is described as the judge of all the earth (Gen 18:25), the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 33 Various scholars employ the term “plenipotentiary” to describe Christ’s role vis-à-vis God. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Milton Keynes, Britain: Paternoster, 2008; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 138; and Hurtado, How on Earth, 199, describe Jesus as “God’s plenipotentiary.” Similarly, Dunn, First Christians, 41, speaks of “Jesus Christ as God’s right-hand plenipotentiary.” Hay, Glory, 61, comments on 1 Cor 15:25 and speaks of Christ as “a divine plenipotentiary” who exercises absolute authority for a limited period. Likewise, John A. Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (OBS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 39-40, states, “God’s powers and reign are exercised through Christ as God’s plenipotentiary representative, but Christ is not identical with God. Things traditionally said about God may now be properly said about Christ but not that he is God, for the element of subordination remains.” Italics original. Cf. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 401. Other alternative yet acceptable ways of expressing the same basic concept of “God’s plenipotentiary” are representational deity, functional deity, God’s vice-regent, God’s viceroy, God’s agent, and God’s lieutenant. All of these terms in varying degrees express the basic concept of God’s investiture of the exalted Christ with position, authority, glory, and power as His right-hand representative. As Dunn, Theology of Paul, 252-54, notes, such a view sees God sharing His sovereignty with Jesus, but without relinquishing it. On the monotheism of the Jews, see Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 117-33. The terms “binitarianism” and “binitarian,” which some scholars use to describe the Christology of the writers of the Jesus movement, are problematic. E.g., Hurtado, How on Earth, 48-53; Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 475. “Binitarian” is misleading for two reasons. First, “binitarian” is an anachronistic term that is derived from the creedal developments of the fourth century. The doctrinal precision of later Christological developments should not be retrojected and superimposed in this area of study. Cf. Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (3d ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1908; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), clxiii. Second, the Christological subordinationism of Revelation is evident at many points (1:1; 3:12; 5:6; 21:23; passim). In this respect, Jonathan Knight, “The Enthroned Christ of Revelation 5:6 and the Development of Christian Theology,” in Studies in the Book of Revelation (ed. Steve Moyise; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 49, notes, “Not even John, it must be said, offers the reader an absolute and unmitigated binitarianism.” Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 63, errs when he concludes that the author’s Christology “must amount to a statement of Jesus’ ontic divinity (i.e., his divine being, rather than merely divine function).” Italics original. Donald Macleod, Jesus Is Lord: Christology Yesterday and Today (Geanies House: Mentor, 2000), 51, notes, “On earth, he had a lordship in kenosis. It was restrained and veiled, although still capable of mighty acts (dunameis). Now it is untrammeled and hyper-exalted. The signs of this new phase of his lordship are the binding of Satan (Heb 2:14; Rev 20:2), the mission of the Paraklete (John 16:7), and the fact that his disciples perform greater miracles than he did himself (John 14:12).” 34 Matthias Reinhard Hoffmann, The Destroyer and the Lamb: The Relationship between Angelmorphic and Lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation (WUNT 2/203; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005), 251-52. Hoffman ! 230! one who makes war (Exod 15:3; 17:16), the king of the nations (Jer 10:7), the ruler of the nations while sitting on His throne (Ps 47:8), and a witness (Jer 42:5; Mic 1:2).35 Yet Christ is portrayed in Revelation in similar roles ascribed to Yhwh. Thus, the Lamb is the one who judges and makes war (Rev 19:11). He participates with God in a position of rulership over the nations (11:15). Christ is the King of kings and the Lord of lords (Rev 17:14; 19:16). He also is described as a witness (1:5; 3:14). As to cultic veneration of God and Christ, a clear distinction emerges in Revelation. On the one hand, God is alone is accorded exclusive worship. On the other hand, Christ is not accorded worship but is nevertheless granted high honor.36 A number of scholars view this way of speaking of God and Christ as a reconfiguration of monotheism, not a violation of it.37 In point of fact, this view of Christ’s as God’s plenipotentiary is congruent in many respects with exalted figures in the Jewish scriptures and other Jewish literature. Such figures include Joseph (Gen 41:41-44); Moses (Exod 7:1; Sir 45:2); Israel’s king as Yhwh’s earthly vice-regent (1 Chron 17:14; 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 9:8; 13:8); the son of man of 1 Enoch; the writer of 4Q491c; Ezra and Baruch (4 Ezra 14:9; 2 Bar. 13:3); the anointed one of 4Q521 frag. 2ii+4; the priest of 4QAaron A; Melchizedek of 11Q13; a messianic figure called “the Shoot of David” (4Q174 3.11); “the fallen Branch of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! emphasizes the equal status of God and Christ and regards subordination as a minor part of the author’s Christology, but subordination is a constitutive schema in the Apocalypse (1:1, 6; 3:2, 12; 5:7; 21:23). Chrisope, Jesus, 46, speaks of Jesus in the New Testament as the “mediatorial Lord, under God the Father” in his exercise of authority in the universe. 35 Ferrell Jenkins, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Marion, Indiana: Cogdill Foundation, 1972), 75, reasons along this line of logic. 36 Worship of God alone is seen in Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:1, 16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4, 10; 22:3, 9. The high honor for Jesus Christ is seen in Rev 1:6, 17; 5:9, 12; 7:10; and 15:3. 37 A number of scholars challenge the use of “monotheism,” with its origin in certain conceptions in modernity. By “monotheism,” we are referring to one God in relationship to all other putative deities. Therefore, in a more technical sense this monotheism may be spoken of as henotheism. R. W. L. Moberly, “How Appropriate is ‘Monotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 233, astutely summarizes the issues involved and concludes that “monotheism” can be used when the term is employed with “thick description” that is nuanced and revisable. Cf. Peter Hayman, “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” JJS 42 (1991): 1-15. As to Jesus’ status vis-à-vis Judaism, Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 2, mentions that Jesus’ followers ascribed to him a status far beyond that of a man and that this ascription has roots in Judaism. ! 231! David” that the Lord will raise up to deliver Israel (4Q174 3.12-13); and Jaoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham. In light of such parallels, Rev 1:9-20 does not constitute a violation of the monotheism of either Israel or the early Jesus movement.38 For the author of the Apocalypse, God is to be understood within His historical revelation in and through Jesus Christ, so God no longer is defined apart from Jesus Christ. In this vein, Eugene Boring observes, “John’s monotheism and theocentrism save him from identifying God and Jesus, or making them competitors, so he does not hesitate to use God-language of Jesus. The use of such language is an expression of his conviction that ‘God’ is to be defined as ‘the one who has revealed himself definitively in Jesus.’”39 The language of the author of the Apocalypse is a complex mosaic of allusions and symbols and therefore lacks propositional precision concerning the relationship of God and Jesus. In contrast, propositional precision concerning the relationship of God and Jesus is seen in varying degrees in other passages in the Jesus movement literature and later creedal statements.40 The Unity of God and Jesus and Their Separateness The oscillation between the unity of God and Jesus and their separateness is a tension that is not fully resolved in Revelation. At various points in the discourse, the author isolates, juxtaposes, or fuses references to God and Christ. When the author isolates God and Christ, he does so by focusing on each singly. For example, Christ alone is said to be coming with the clouds (1:7). In juxtaposing God and Christ, the author mentions the two without specifying the specific connection between the two. Thus, the Lamb shepherds and leads the martyrs of the Great Tribulation to springs of living water, and then God is promised to wipe away all their tears (7:17). A further category is fusion. In these cases the author provides some explicit or implicit link between God and Christ. In this manner the author speaks of “the king!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 38 Contra James D. G. Dunn, “Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?” SJT 35 (1982): 326. M. Eugene Boring, Revelation (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989), 83. Cf. Hoffmann, Destroyer, 213; Witherington, Revelation, 77-78. 40 E.g., Acts 2:36; Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 8:4-6; 2 Cor 5:19; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 2:5. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, clxiii-clxiv. 39 ! 232! dom of our Lord and of His Christ” and then shifts the focus by stating that “he will reign for ever and ever” (11:15, our emphasis), implicitly speaking of some level of unity. A more explicit fusion is seen in the opening of the sixth seal, in which God is described as sitting on the throne and the wrath of the Lamb has come. The response of the people of all stations of life is that “the day of their wrath” has come (6:15, our emphasis). The wrath of God and the Lamb are fused as one attribute that both possess. The fact that Jesus and God are clearly distinguished in Revelation negates a facile Identifizierung of Jesus and God (e.g., 1:1; 3:13; 11:15; see note 23 above). David Aune wrongly concludes that Rev 1:13 clearly shows that the son of man “is identical with the Ancient of Days.”41 Likewise, Richard Bauckham is going beyond the evidence when he says that John is identifying Jesus with God.42 On the contrary, the evidence from Rev 1:13 viewed in light of Revelation as a whole suggests that John is presenting a highly nuanced Christological view that at times sees God and Christ in unity or close association and at times quite separately. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 41 42 David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5 (WBC 52A; Dallas: Word, 1997), 92. Bauckham, Theology, 54-65. Appendix 3 The Metaleptic Allusions to Daniel 7 OG in Revelation Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 1 7:1 (2), 7, 13, 15 o¢rama and variations 7:1 ei•de (see discussion under e˙qew¿roun in 7:2 below) 7:1 Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 2 9:17 thØv oJra¿sei o§ ei•den 1:19, 20; 10:5; 13:2; 17:8, 12, 15, 16, 18 a± ei•deß and other forms 7:1 e¶grayen 1:3, 11; 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 10:4; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:19 Forms of gra¿fw4 7:1 Cw¿raß Babulwni÷aß 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21 45 occurrences of Babulw¿n 7:2, 4, e˙qew¿roun6 6, 7, 9, 11, 13 7:2 te÷ssareß a‡nemoi touv oujranouv 3 5 ei•don ei•don 7:1 tou\ß te÷ssaraß aÓne÷mouß 7 thvß ghvß !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 o¢rama (“vision, sight”) occurs only 42 times in the OG and is therefore relatively rare, so it is noteworthy that it occurs five times in Daniel 7 and 20 times in the rest of Daniel. Therefore, o¢rama has almost a distinctively Danielic sense. 2 o¢rama and o¢rasiß are cognate words, being derived from the verb oJra¿w.! 3 The first use of this phrase occurs in 1:19 as gra¿yon ou™n a± ei•deß and appears to be a reconfiguration of the phrase o§ ei•den e¶grayen in Dan 7:1. In the 52 times in the OG that o§ ei•den or a lexically equivalent phrase is used, only Dan 7:1 features the phrase o§ ei•den with the verb gra¿fw. In recording the visions that he saw, the author of the Apocalypse is viewing himself as a latter-day counterpart of Daniel. 4 The parallel is between Daniel’s act of writing and the author’s act of writing, which is commanded, prohibited, and implied. Although other prophets of Israel are commanded to write (Isa 30:8; 36:2; Jer 30:2; 36:2; Ezek 24:2; Hab 2:2), Daniel is the only prophet whose act of writing is associated with prophetic visions. 5 The phrase Babulw»n hJ mega¿lh (“Babylon the great”) in Rev 14:8; 16:9; 17:5; and 18:2, 21 is an allusion to Dan 4:30, where the same Greek phrase occurs in the OG. The occurrence of cw¿raß Babulwni÷aß in Dan 7:1 is congruent with these allusions. On the use of Babylon in Daniel and Revelation, see Blount, Revelation, 16. 6 We have included ei•de of 7:1 (< oJra¿w) and e˙qew¿roun (< qewre÷w) because both are essentially synonyms. See §3.2 for discussion of simple paraphrase as one aspect of lexical cohesion. 7 The phrase te÷ssareß a‡nemoi touv oujranouv is not unique to Dan 7:2 because it occurs four other times in the OG (Zech 2:6; 6:5; Dan 8:8; 11:4). Zechariah 6:5 may be part of the allusion in Rev 7:1. However, only Dan 7:2 features the image of the sea and the fours winds’ agitation of the sea (e˙ne÷peson ei˙ß th\n qa¿lassan th\n mega¿lhn). Similarly, Rev 7:1 features the image of the sea, along with the earth and trees, and a verb indicating agitation (mh\ pne÷hØ). Andrew Perriman, The Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for an 233 ! 234! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 7:2 th\n qa¿lassan th\n mega¿lhn 4:6; 5:13; 7:1, 2, 3; Forms of qa¿lassa8 8:8, 9; 10:2, 5, 6, 8; 13:1; 14:7; 15:2; 16:3; 18:17, 19, 21; 20:8, 13; 21:1 7:2, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20 Forms of me÷gaß 80 occurrences Forms of me÷gaß9 7:3 Forms of qhri÷on 37 occurrences to\ qhri÷on 7:3 kai« te÷ssara qhri÷a aÓne÷bainon e˙k thvß qala¿sshß 11:7; 13:1; 17:8 Articular or anarthrous form of qhri÷on + form of aÓnabai÷nw + followed by e˙k in a genitive phrase11 7:4 to\ prw◊ton wJsei« le÷aina e¶cousa ptera» wJsei« aÓetouv 13:2 to\ sto/ma aujtouv wJß sto/ma le÷ontoß 10 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Emerging Church (Milton Keynes, Britain: Paternoster, 2005), 192, sees Dan 7:2 as the probable source text of Rev 7:1 because of the connection in both passages with a sea, wind, and agents of destruction. 8 The collocation of qa¿lassa and me÷gaß does not occur in Revelation. However, qa¿lassa is used in Revelation in contexts where allusions to Daniel are evident (e.g., Rev 4:6; 5:13; 13:1). Moreover, qa¿lassa does not occur in Ezekiel 1–2, so it is not the source text for Rev 4:6 and 5:13.! 9 The six occurrences of me÷gaß run as a lexical thread in Daniel, and similarly the 80 occurrences of me÷gaß run as a lexical thread in Revelation. 10 Rev 11:7; 13:1, 2, 3, 4 (3), 11, 12 (2), 14 (2), 15 (3), 17, 18; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2, 10, 13; 17:3, 7, 8 (2), 11, 12, 13, 16, 17; 19:19, 20 (2); 20:4, 10. This lexical repetition concerning the beast is an allusion to the beasts found in Daniel 7, especially the fourth beast. In his comments on Rev 11:7, G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 588, says, “John sees this prophecy from Daniel as fulfilled in the world’s persecution of the church at the end of history. The definite article to/ before qhri÷on (‘beast’) is one way of specifying that this is not just any opponent of the saints but the one that Daniel prophesied. And Revelation 12, 13, and 17 will further describe this beast through more allusions to Daniel 7.” Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 425, sees the articular phrase to\ qhri÷on as an allusion to the beast of Dan 7:7-12 LXX and sees his war against the two witnesses as an allusion to Dan 7:21 Q. 11 The dyad of qhri÷on and aÓnabai÷nw occurs with a genitive phrase with e˙k four times in Revelation (11:7; 13:1, 11; 17:8). Threefold correspondence of forms of qhri÷on, aÓnabai÷nw, and qa¿lassa occurs only in Rev 13:1. The position of the genitive phrase is varied. Revelation 11:7 and 17:8 mention the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit (e˙k thvß aÓbu/ssou), and Rev 13:11 mentions the beast ascending out of the earth (e˙k thvß ghvß). Other uses of aÓnabai÷nw do not have any allusion to Daniel 7. Cf. G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1984), 252; idem, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (JSNTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 91 n. 94. ! 235! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 7:4, 6, e˙do/qh alone or in combination 6:2, 4 (2), 8, 11; e˙do/qh followed by forms of aujto/ß 11, 12, with forms of aujto/ß and in 7:2; 8:2, 3; 9:1, 3, 14, 22 the dative 5; 11:1, 2; 13:5 (2), 7 (2), 14, 15; 16:8; 19:8; 20:4 i˙dou/ 7:5, 8 i˙dou/ 25 occurrences12 7:5 oJmoi÷wsin e¶con a‡rkou 13:5 7:5, 19 A beast + form of katesqi÷w + 12:4 object 7:6 meta» tauvta e˙qew¿roun 7:6 wJsei« pa¿rdalin 7:6 te÷ssareß kefalai« 14 kai« oi˚ po/deß aujtouv wJß a‡rkou Dragon + form of katesqi÷w + object13 4:1; 7:1, 9; 15:5; 18:1 meta» tauvta [touvto] ei•don 13:2 12:3; 13:1; 17:3, 7, 9 o¢moion parda¿lei kefala»ß e˚pta» + ai˚ e˚pta» 15 kefalai« !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12 We are excluding from our count the use of i˙dou/ in 1:7, which is an allusion to Dan 7:13. On the importance of “I looked and behold . . .” and “and behold . . .” in Daniel 7, see T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (JSOTSup 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 208-9. 13 Three parallels link Rev 12:4 with Dan 7:5, 19: (1) a malevolent force; (2) the act of consuming with the verbal parallel of some form of katesqi÷w; and (3) an object of that consuming. The beast-dragon connection is based on common tradition. In this vein, Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John: Studies in Introduction, with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (London: Macmillan, 1919; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 623, notes, “The description of the dragon given here conforms in part to common tradition, as seen in extra-biblical representations, and in part is taken from the beasts of Dan. chapt. 7. . . .” The allusion in Rev 12:4 to Dan 8:10 (the hurling down of stars) strengthens the possibility of the earlier allusion to Dan 7:5, 19. On the allusion to Dan 8:10, see Beckwith, Apocalypse, 624. The ten horns are also an allusion to the ten horns of the fourth beast in Dan 7:7. 14 pa¿rdaliß (“leopard”) appears in other passages in the Jewish scriptures and other Jewish literature (Song 4:8; Hos 13:7; Hab 1:8; Isa 11:6; Jer 5:6; 13:23; Sir 28:23), but none of these passages is a compatible source text for Rev 13:2 because all of them lack a description of a beast that symbolizes a world empire. 15 Some scholars regard mythology as the source for the author’s seven-headed dragon and seven-headed beast. John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 28889. Such a view does not consider the composite aspect of the dragon and the beast. The image of seven heads does not appear explicitly in Daniel, but the four beasts of Daniel 7 feature a total of seven heads (four heads of the leopard plus the heads of the three other beasts). Beale, Use of Daniel, 231, notes that the application of other features of Daniel’s beasts to the beast of Rev 13:2 shows that the image of the seven heads comes from Daniel as well. In the same vein, Jörg Frey, “The Relevance of the Imperial Cult for the Book of Revelation: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on the Relation between the Seven Letters and the Visionary Main Part of the Book,” in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (ed. John Fotopoulous; NovTSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 237, 237 n. 22, sees the seven heads as an allusion to the seven heads of Dan 7:3-7. See also Hermann Gunkel, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 (trans. K. William Whitney Jr.; BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 239.! ! What seems likely is that Daniel has reconfigured a prevalent myth in the ancient world. The view of G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 229, whom Beale quotes, is probably right when he says that after Daniel “no Jewish or Christian writer could use the lens of this myth except as it had been reground by Daniel.” ! 236! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 16 7:7 ei•ce de« ke÷rata de÷ka 12:3; 13:1; 17:3, 7, 12, 16 ke÷rata de÷ka 7:8 ke÷raß 5:6 ke÷rata e˚pta 5:6 e¶cwn ke÷rata e˚pta» kai« 18 ojfqalmou\ß e˚pta» 13:5 5:8; 8:3, 4; 11:8; 13:7, 10; 14:12; 15:3; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:8; 20:9 sto/ma lalouvn mega¿la 7:8, 20 7:8 kai« i˙dou\ ojfqalmoi« w‚sper ojfqalmoi« aÓnqrw¿pinoi e˙n tw◊ˆ ke÷rati tou/twˆ 7:20 to\ ke÷raß e˙kei√no ei•cen ojfqalmou\ß kai« sto/ma lalouvn mega¿la 7:8 a‚gioi 7:8, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27 17 a‚gioi 20 7:8 e˙poi÷ei po/lemon pro\ß tou\ß 19 aJgi÷ouß 11:7; 12:17; 13:7; 19:19 poie÷w + po/lemoß 7:8 po/lemon 12:7; 17:14; 20:9 Forms of po/lemoß and/or poleme÷w 21 7:9 qro/noi 4:4 (2); 11:16; 20:4 Forms of qro/noi 7:9 e˙te÷qhsan Forms of kei√mai22 7:9 peribolh\n 4:2; 21:16 3:5, 18; 4:4; 7:9, Forms of periba¿llw23 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16 The image of the ten horns occurs in two ways in Revelation: ke÷rata de÷ka (12:3; 13:1; 17:3) and ta» de÷ka ke÷rata (17:7, 12, 16). In addition, tw◊n kera¿twn aujtouv in 13:1 is used to refer to the ten horns. 17 The image of the Lamb with seven horns finds no direct correspondence in the Jewish scriptures. However, it may be an amplified counterimage of the little horn that speaks blasphemies (Dan 7:8). On the horn as a symbol of the Messiah, see Beale, Use of Daniel, 75. 18 Zechariah 3:9 mentions seven eyes and therefore is a source text that the author draws on here, but the image of a horn closely associated with eyes occurs only in Dan 7:8, 20. As the Lamb, Jesus appears to be set in antithesis to the horn that has eyes (i.e., the beast). 19 e˙poi÷ei po/lemon pro\ß tou\ß aJgi÷ouß is text from the OG that is lacking in the MT. 20 Wars or threats of war of various kinds are woven into the text of the Apocalypse. We include only Rev 11:7; 12:17; and 13:7 because these verses include the collocation of poie÷w and po/lemoß and concern a war of the beast or dragon against the people of God or the Lamb. The other verses that use po/lemoß do not have the same linguistic or conceptual parallels (2:16; 9:7, 9; 12:7; 13:4; 16:14; 17:14; 19:11). Cf. Stephen W. Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, and Exegesis (SNTSM 128; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 120. 21 The wars mentioned in these verses concern Michael and his angels (12:7), the Lamb (17:14), and the camp of the saints (20:9), and these wars are set against the backdrop of the wars against the saints in 11:7; 12:17; 13:7; and 19:19. 22 e˙te÷qhsan is derived from ti÷qhmi, so the forms of kei√mai are synonyms. The verb kei√mai is used only in Rev 4:2 and 21:16. In 4:2 God’s throne, which is symbolic of His kingdom, is being set. The imperfect e¶keito draws attention to this image of the throne being set and points to its incipience. In 21:16 the New Jerusalem “is laid out [kei√tai] as a square.” The connection between the two passages appears to be the progressive establishment of the kingdom of God, first by means of judgment and then by means of God’s creative power. ! 237! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 13; 10:1; 11:3; 12:1; 17:4; 18:16; 19:8, 13 kai« palaio\ß hJmerw◊n e˙ka¿qhto ka¿qhmai: 33 7:9 wJsei« cio/na 1:14 leuko\n wJß ciw»n 7:9 to\ tri÷cwma thvß kefalhvß aujtouv wJsei« e¶rion leuko\n kaqaro/n 1:14 hJ de« kefalh\ aujtouv kai« ai˚ tri÷ceß leukai« wJß e¶rion leuko\n wJß ciw»n 7:9, 10, 11 Forms of puvr 26 occurrences of Forms of puvr 7:10 potamo\ß puro/ß 22:1 potamo\n u¢datoß zwhvß 7:10 potamo\ß puro/ß 22:2 touv potamouv 7:10 ci÷liai cilia¿deß 5:11 cilia¿deß cilia¿dwn 7:10 mu/riai muria¿deß 5:11 muria¿deß muria¿dwn 7:9 occurrences24 kaqi÷zw: 3:21 (2) and 20:4 puvr 25 Various forms of ka¿qhmai and kaqi÷zw 26 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23 In Revelation the image of characters being clothed is important. The image of a white garment in the Jewish scriptures is not common outside of Dan 7:9. 24 With the verb ka¿qhmai, the author employs counterimages. The positive image includes God (4:2, 3, 9, 10; 5:1, 7, 13; 6:16; 7:10, 15; 19:4; 20:11; 21:5), Jesus (14:14, 15, 16; 19:11, 19, 21), and the 24 elders (4:4; 11:16). The negative image includes the riders of the first four seals (6:2, 4, 5, 8), the 200 million riders who kill one third of humanity (9:17), Babylon (17:1, 3, 9, 15; 18:7), the ungodly dwelling on earth (14:6), and the riders who gather to fight against the exalted Christ (19:19). Of special note is the triple use of ka¿qhmai to refer to the one like a son of man on the cloud (14:14, 15, 16) and the triple use of ka¿qhmai to refer to Jesus as the one sitting on the white horse at the cosmic parousia (19:11, 19, 21). The judgment begins with the riders of the first four seals and concludes with Jesus riding on a white horse, so the collocation of ka¿qhmai with horses serves as an inclusio. 25 The image of fire in Revelation is probably derived from a number of source texts to form a composite allusion (§1.4.4). However, the image of fire in certain parts of Revelation owes more to Dan 7:9, 10, 11 than to other Jewish scriptures. For example, the image of seven lampstands of fire is used (Rev 4:6). This allusion in Rev 4:6 is derived in part from the seven lampstands of Zech 4:2, 10. However, fire is not mentioned in Zech 4:2, 10. Given the Vorbild of Daniel 7 for Revelation 4–5 (§4.2.2), the image of fire is probably derived as an image of holiness from the throne of fiery flames and its wheels of burning fire in Dan 7:9. Uses of puvr in Revelation: 1:14; 2:18; 3:18; 4:5; 8:5, 7, 8; 9:17, 18; 10:1; 11:5; 13:13; 14:10, 18; 15:2; 16:8; 17:16; 18:8; 19:12, 20; 20:9, 10, 14 (2), 15; 21:8. 26 The image of a river flowing out of the temple is seen in Joel 3:18 (4:18 OG); Ezek 47:1; and Zech 14:8, so the allusion is probably composite. However, Dan 7:9-10 is the only text that links a river with the throne of God. The temple in Revelation 22 is no longer there. In Rev 22:1-2 the author uses! potamo/ß (“river”) in a positive sense to refer to the blessings that the people of God will experience in the New Jerusalem. This is an ironic allusion to the river of fire that issues and flows from the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:10. The allusion is based on the use of three content words (potamo/ß, e˙kporeu/omai, qro/noß) and the river flowing from the throne of God, with Revelation further specifying that the throne belongs to the Lamb. The content words!potamo/ß!and! e˙kporeu/omai! are found in Ezekiel’s vision of the waters coming from under the threshold of the temple (Ezek 47:1, 8, 12), but the key word!qro/noß is not used in Ezekiel 47. ! 238! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 7:10 ci÷liai cilia¿deß . . . mu/riai muria¿deß 7:9 o¡cloß polu/ß, o§n aÓriqmhvsai aujto\n oujdei«ß 27 e˙du/nato 7:10 ci÷liai cilia¿deß . . . mu/riai muria¿deß 19:1 o¡clou pollouv 7:10 krith/rion e˙ka¿qise See 7:9 above on 28 kai« palaio\ß hJmerw◊n e˙ka¿qhto 7:10 bi÷bloi hjnew¿ˆcqhsan 5:2, 3, 4, 5, 9; 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; 8:1; 10:2, 8; 20:12 Forms of aÓnoi÷gw in relation to seals or scrolls 7:11 aÓpetumpani÷sqh to\ qhri÷on 13:3 e˙sfagme÷nhn in close proximity to touv qhri÷ou29 7:11 e˙do/qh ei˙ß kauvsin puro/ß 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15 Forms of puvr with a passive verb or construction indicating punishment 7:11 ei˙ß kauvsin puro/ß 17:16 kai« aujth\n 30 katakau/sousin e˙n puri÷ 7:12 cro/noß zwhvß and cro/nou kai« kairouv 10:6 cro/noß31 7:13 e˙pi« tw◊n nefelw◊n touv oujranouv 1:7; 10:1; 11:12; 14:14 (2), 15, 16 Forms of nefe÷lh 7:13 touv oujranou + movement 12:1; 21:2 Articular form of oujrano/ß + movement32 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 27 Pattemore, People, 120. Multitudes of throne attendants are in view. Ibid. 29 Because the verb in Dan 7:11 and the verb in Rev 13:3 are synonyms, we regard this allusion in Rev 13:3 as a thematic allusion, which consists of a substantial agreement in theme between the source or the source text and the target text. For a partial list of Old Testament themes that are developed in Revelation, see Beale, John’s Use, 93-94. 30 The allusion to Dan 7:11 in Rev 17:16 should be regarded as a thematic allusion (see preceding note) that proleptically refers to the punishment in the lake of fire that others suffer later in Revelation. 31 Commentators often take cro/noß oujke÷ti e¶stai (“time will be no longer”) in Rev 10:6 as indicating that there will be no more delay: Beale, Revelation, 538-39; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 205-6. Although the implication is that there will be no more delay, the end of a certain period of time is in view. That period of time is the period spoken of in Daniel in which the beasts continued to exist after their dominion was taken away. The oath of the mighty angel in Rev 10:5-7 is based on the oath of the man clothed in linen, so the connection with Daniel is evident. Beale, Revelation, 539, points out the parallel wording of e˙tele÷sqh in Rev 10:7 and suntelesqh/setai in Dan 12:7. The composite picture appears to be that the time of two successive periods will end: (1) the dominion of the beasts and the shattering of the holy ones; and (2) an indeterminate post-dominion period of the beasts and the period in the aftermath of the shattering of the holy ones. 32 In Rev 12:1 and 21:2 a woman moves from heaven to another location. Gunkel, Creation, 239, sees a parallel between, on the one hand, the son of man appearing on the clouds and heaven and receiving hegemony, and, on 28 ! 239! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause basilei÷a 7:14, 17, 18 (2), 22, 23, 24, 27 (3) Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 1:9; 5:10; 11:15; 12:10; 16:10; 17:17, 1833 basilei÷a 7:14 pa¿nta ta» e¶qnh thvß ghvß kata» ge÷nh kai« pa◊sa do/xa 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15 Various tetradic combinations of fulh/, glw◊ssa, lao/ß, e¶qnoß, basileu/ß, or o¡cloß 7:14 aujtw◊ˆ latreu/ousa 7:15; 22:3 Forms of latreu/w followed 34 by aujtw◊ˆ 7:14, 27 e˙xousi÷a + basilei÷a 12:10; 17:12 basilei÷a + e˙xousi÷a 7:14, 27 Form of di÷dwmi + e˙xousi÷a + recipient(s) of the authority 2:26; 6:8; 9:3; 13:2, 4, 5, 7; 17:13 Form of di÷dwmi + e˙xousi÷a + recipient(s) of the authority36 7:14 e˙xousi÷a 2:26; 6:8; 9:3 (2), 10, 19; 11:6 (2); 12:10; 13:2, 4, 5, 7, 12; 14:18; 16:9; 17:12, 13; 18:1; 20:6; 22:14 e˙xousi÷a 35 37 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the other hand, the woman of Revelation 12 who comes down from heaven and whose son overthrows the dragon. 33 We exclude the occurrence of basilei÷a in 1:6 because basilei÷an, i˚erei√ß twˆ◊ qewˆ◊ kai« patri« aujtouv is an allusion to Exod 19:6. Contra Pattemore, People, 120. 34 In Dan 7:14 all peoples, nations, and languages serve the one like a son of man. In Rev 7:15 the antecedent of aujtwˆ◊ is God, and in Rev 22:3 a unity of God and the Lamb is seen, so the connection to those serving the one like a son of man in Dan 7:14 is only seen in Rev 22:3. However, the image of the throne in Rev 7:15 and 22:3 evokes the throne of Dan 7:9. 35 The combination of e˙xousi÷a and basilei÷a occurs 12 times in the OG, with nine occurrences found in Daniel. 36 In Rev 2:26 dw¿sw aujtwˆ◊ e˙xousi÷an e˙pi« tw◊n e˙qnw◊n is not an allusion to Ps 2:8, which lacks any form of e˙xousi÷a (dw¿sw soi e¶qnh th\n klhronomi÷an sou). Contra Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (3d ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1908; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 46. 37 The initial occurrence of e˙xousi÷a in the Apocalypse serves as a foundational allusion that relates to the subsequent uses. e˙xousi÷a appears as concept and as counterconcept. On the one hand, God, Christ, the saints, and an angel have authority (2:26; 11:6; 12:10; 14:18; 16:9; 18:1; 22:14). On the other hand, the forces of evil have authority (6:8; 9:3, 10, 19; 13:2, 4, 5, 7; 13:12; 17:12, 13). ! 240! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 7:14, 18, 27 Forms of ai˙w¿nioß + eºwß touv 7:15, 28 Revelation Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause 1:6, 18; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5 ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n 38 ai˙w¿nwn e˙gw» Danihl 1:9; 22:8 e˙gw¿ #Iwa¿nhß and!kaÓgw» #Iwa¿nhß 7:16 le÷gei moi 5:5; 10:9; 17:15; 19:9, 10; 22:9, 10 le÷gei moi 7:16, 22, 26 hJ kri÷siß hJ kri÷siß: 14:7; hJ kri÷siß in various forms and 41 to\ kri÷ma 7:17 ta» qhri÷a ta» mega¿la 11:7; 13:1; 17:8 Articular or anarthrous form of qhri÷on 7:17 te÷ssareß basilei√ai 9:14, 15 tou\ß te÷ssaraß aÓgge÷louß and oi˚ te÷ssareß a‡ggeloi42 7:17 ai≠ aÓpolouvntai aÓpo\ thvß ghvß 13:11 a‡llo qhri÷on aÓnabai√non e˙k thvß ghvß 7:18 eºwß touv ai˙w◊noß tw◊n 43 ai˙w¿nwn 1:6, 18; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5 tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn ai˙w◊noß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn 40 16:7; 18:10; 19:2 to\ kri÷ma: 17:1; 18:20; 20:4 39 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 38 The phrase touv ai˙w◊noß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn in various forms, normally preceded by a prepositional phrase, occurs 30 times in the OG. The link with Daniel 7 seems especially strong in Rev 11:15 because the phrase is coupled with the verb basileu/w. Swete, Revelation, 142, points to Dan 2:44 and 7:14, 28 as possible source texts. 39 le÷gei moi occurs only twice in the Jewish scriptures (Song 2:10; Dan 7:16), so its rarity in the Jewish scriptures makes it notable in Revelation, which is the only place in the Jesus movement literature where the phrase is used. In addition, le÷gei moi is used to refer to the angel speaking to Daniel. Similarly, this phrase is always used of a heavenly being (one of the 24 elders or an angel) speaking with John. The first occurrence of le÷gei moi is in Rev 5:5, where it is preceded by past-tense verbs. 40 kri÷siß is also used in Dan 7:16, but there it is used to mean “interpretation.” 41 Although kri÷ma does not occur in Daniel 7, we include the word as relevant for two reasons. First, both kri÷ma and kri÷siß are derived from the verb kri÷nw. Second, kri÷ma is used in Rev 20:4, which clearly alludes to the image of the thrones of Dan 7:9 and the judgment given to the saints in Dan 7:22. 42 Both the four kings of Dan 7:17 and the four angels of Rev 9:14-15 are evil in character. The four angels may be linked to Daniel 7 in either one of two ways. In the first way the four angels correspond to four powerful angels that have authority over world empires, which are depicted as the four kings (beasts) of Dan 7:17. In the second way the four angels correspond to the four winds of Dan 7:2 and are to be seen as four powerful angels (winds = angels). This latter view seems more likely. Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), 237, points to the Jewish apocalyptic tradition of four destructive powers that come from the four corners of the earth (Dan 7:2; Zech 6:5-8; 2 Bar. 6:4). In contrast, the four angels of Rev 7:1 restrain the four winds of the earth, and this restraint points them being angels of God. Cf. Beale, Revelation, 507. 43 This phrase is used only in the Psalms and in Dan 7:18 and 12:3. ! 241! Daniel Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause Revelation 7:19 kai« i˙dou\ oi˚ ojdo/nteß aujtouv sidhroi 9:8 7:20 tw◊n de÷ka kera¿twn aujtouv tw◊n e˙pi« thvß kefalhvß See 7:7 above on 7:20 sto/ma lalouvn mega¿la 7:21 to\ ke÷raß e˙kei√no po/lemon sunista¿menon pro\ß tou\ß aJgi÷ouß kai« tropou/menon aujtou\ß 13:5 See 7:8 above on Greek Word, Phrase, or Clause kai« oi˚ ojdo/nteß aujtw◊n wJß leo/ntwn h™san ei•ce de« ke÷rata de÷ka sto/ma lalouvn mega¿la e˙poi÷ei po/lemon pro\ß tou\ß aJgi÷ouß 7:22 oJ kairo/ß 1:3; 22:10 oJ kairo/ß 7:22, 27 e¶dwke with God as the subject 1:1; 2:7, 10, 17, 21, 21, 23, 26, 28; 3:8, 9, 21; 8:3; 11:3, 18; 13:2, 4, 15, 16; 15:7; 16:6, 19; 17:17; 18:7; 21:6 Active forms of di÷dwmi with God or Jesus as the subject44 7:24 kai« ta» de÷ka ke÷rata thvß basilei÷aß de÷ka basilei√ß sth/sontai 17:12 kai« ta» de÷ka ke÷rata a± ei•deß de÷ka basilei√ß ei˙sin 7:25 kai« rJh/mata ei˙ß to\n u¢yiston lalh/sei 13:6 kai« h¡noixen to\ sto/ma aujtouv ei˙ß blasfhmi÷aß 45 pro\ß to\n qeo\n 7:25 eºwß kairouv kai« kairw◊n kai« eºwß hJmi÷souß kairouv 11:3; 12:14; 13:5 kairo\n kai« kairou\ß kai« h¢misu kairouv or simple paraphrase46 7:27 basileuvsai basilei÷an ai˙w¿nion 11:15; 22:5 Form of basileu/w followed by ei˙ß tou\ß ai˙w◊naß tw◊n ai˙w¿nwn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 44 All of these uses of di÷dwmi in some way involve the sovereignty of God: (1) God’s exercise of sovereignty, (2) the usurpation and inversion of God’s sovereignty, and (3) the delegation of God’s sovereignty. 45 Although none of the content words of Rev 13:6 match the words of Dan 7:25, the allusion is highly probable because the words of Rev 13:6 are complex paraphrase (§3.2). 46 Pattemore, People, 120. The author uses simple paraphrase (§3.2) in Rev 11:3 and 13:5 to refer to the same period of time. Bibliography Abrams, M. H., and Geoffrey Galt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 10th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, eds. The Greek New Testament. 2d ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1968. ———, eds. The Greek New Testament. 3d ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1975. ———, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998. Allo, E.-B. Saint Jean l’Apocalypse. 4th ed. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1933. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic, 1981. Amidon, Philip R., trans. and ed. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Anderson, Allan Heaton. To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Anderson, Walter Truett. All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization. Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 2001. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Thick Translation.” Pages 417-29 in Translation Studies Reader. Edited by Lawrence Venuti. London: Taylor & Francis, 2000. Asmis, Elizabeth. “Myth and Philosophy in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007): 413-22. Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953. Aune, David E. “The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John.” Biblical Research 18 (1983): 5-26. ———. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ———. “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre.” Pages 65-96 in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Semeia 36. Decatur, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986. ———. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. ———. “The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 481-501. ———. Revelation 1–5. Word Biblical Commentary 52A. Dallas: Word, 1997. 242 243 ———. Revelation 6–16. Word Biblical Commentary 52B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. ———. Revelation 17–22. Word Biblical Commentary 52C. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. ———. “Qumran and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 622-48 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. ———. “Stories of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 292-319 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. “Apocalypse Renewed: An Intertextual Reading of the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 43-70 in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation. Edited by David L. Barr. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 39. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ———. Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in Early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2006. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. ———. “The Polyvalent Imagery of Rev 3:20 in Light of Greco-Egyptian Divination Texts.” Pages 167-183 in Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Edited by David E. Aune and Frederick E. Brenk. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 143. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Babin, Pierre. The New Era in Religious Communication. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Bacchiocchi, Samuele. From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977. Bailey, James L., and James L. Vander Broek. Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Bakker, Stéphanie, and Gerry Wakker, eds. Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 16. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. The Moment of Christian Witness. Translated by Richard Beckley. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Bargad, Warren. “The Poetics of Allusion and the Hebrew Literary Tradition.” Judaism 26 (1977): 481-88. Barker, Margaret. The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1). London: T&T Clark, 2000. Repr., London: T&T Clark, 2004. Barr, David L. “The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment.” Interpretation 40 (1986): 243-56. ———. Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Santa Rosa, California: Polebridge, 1998. ———. “The Apocalypse of John in the Light of Modern Narrative Theory.” Pages 259-71 in 1900th Anniversary of St. John’s Apocalypse: Proceedings of the International and 244 Interdisciplinary Symposium (Athens – Patmos, 17-26 September 1995). Athens: Holy Monastery of Saint John the Theologian in Patmos, 1999. Barr, James. “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 21 (1981): 19-37. Barrett, C. K. “Stephen and the Son of Man.” Pages 32-38 in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebsigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964. Edited by W. Eltester and F. H. Kettler. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 30. Berlin: Alfred Töppelmann, 1964. Barth, Karl. Dogmatics in Outline. Translated by G. T. Thomson. New York: Harper & Row, 1959. Barthes, Roland. “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives.” Pages 109-14 in The Narrative Reader. Edited by Martin McQuillan. London: Routledge, 2000. Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986. Bartsch, Shadia. Decoding the Ancient Novel: The Reader and the Role of Description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Bateman, Herbert W., IV. “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament.” Bibliothacra Sacra 149 (1992): 438-53. Batey, Richard A. New Testament Nuptial Imagery. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Bauckham, Richard. “The Lord’s Day.” Pages 221-50 in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999. ———. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ———. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. London: T&T Clark, 1993. Repr., London: T&T Clark, 2007. ———. The Jewish World around the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Milton Keynes, Britain: Paternoster, 2008. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed., revised and edited by Frederick William Danker; based on Walter Bauer’s Griechish-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th ed., edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Victor Reichmann and on previous English editions by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beale, G. K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1984. ———. “A Reconsideration of the Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse.” Biblica 67 (1986): 539-43. ———. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. ———. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Beale, G. K, and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. 245 Beale, G. K, and Sean M. McDonough. “Revelation.” Pages 1081-1161 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Beardsley, Monroe C. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1981. Beasley-Murray, George R. The Book of Revelation. New Century Bible. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978. Repr., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1983. Beckwith, Isbon T. The Apocalypse of John: Studies in Introduction, with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. London: Macmillan, 1919. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Bell, A. A. “The Date of John’s Apocalypse: The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 93-102. Bell, Daniel M., Jr. Liberation Theology after the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering. Radical Orthodoxy Series. London: Routledge, 2001. Ben-Daniel, John, and Gloria Ben-Daniel. The Apocalypse in Light of the Temple: A New Approach to the Book of Revelation. Jerusalem: Beit Yochanan, 2003. Berding, Kenneth, and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Bernstein, Moshe J. “The Aramaic Targumim: The Many Faces of the Jewish Biblical Experience.” Pages 133-65 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Berrigan, Daniel. The Nightmare of God. Portland: Sunburst, 1983. Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Bilezikian, G. G. The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. Black, David Alan. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Black, Matthew. “Some Greek Words with Hebrew Meaning in the Epistles and the Apocalypse.” Pages 135-46 in Biblical Studies in Honour of William Barclay. Edited by J. R. McKay and J. F. Miller. London: Collins, 1976. Blake, William. Complete Writings: With Variant Readings. Edited by Geoffrey Keynes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. 9th-10th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Bloechl, Jeffrey. “Being and the Promise.” Pages 121-30 in Phenomenology and Eschatology: Not Yet in the Now. Edited by Neal DeRoo and John Panteleimon Manoussakis. Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies Series. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate, 2009. 246 Blount, Brian K. Revelation: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998. Bøe, Sverre. Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17–21 and 20,7– 10. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/135. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001. Boesak, A. Comfort and Protest: The Apocalypse from a South African Perspective. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Boismard, M. E. “‘L’Apocalypse’ ou ‘les Apocalypses’ de St Jean.” Revue Biblique 56 (1949): 507-41. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. No Rusty Swords: Letters, Lectures and Notes, 1928-1936. Vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Translated by Edwin H. Robertson and John Bowden. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Bonnefoy, Yves. “Translating Poetry.” Translated by John Alexander and Clive Wilmer. Pages 186-92 in Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Edited by Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Borg, Marcus J. Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1994. Boring, M. Eugene. Revelation. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989. Bornkamm, Günther. Early Christian Experience. Translated by Paul L. Hammer. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Bousset, Wilhelm. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Kritisch-exegeticscher Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896. Bovon, François. “John’s Self-presentation in Revelation 1:9-10.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 693-700. Bowden, Brett. The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Boxall, Ian. The Revelation of Saint John. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2006. ———. “Exile, Prophet, Visionary: Ezekiel’s Influence on the Book of Revelation.” Pages 147-64 in The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence. Edited by Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. Brant, Jo-Ann A. Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2004. Bratcher, Robert G. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. Rev. ed. London: United Bible Societies, 1961. Breck, John. “Biblical Chiasmus: Exploring Structure for Meaning.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 (1987): 70-74. Bremmer, Ian. Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World. New York: Penguin, 2012. Brewer, David Instone. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 30. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992. Brodie, Thomas L. The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings. Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 2004. 247 Brooke, George J. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. ———. “Reading the Plain Meaning of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 67-90 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. “Thematic Commentaries on the Prophetic Scriptures.” Pages 134-57 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 24. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979. Bruce, F. F. The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1984. Brueggemann, Walter. Like Fire in the Bones: Listening for the Prophetic Word in Jeremiah. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Brunner, Emil. Misunderstanding of the Church. N.p., 1952. Repr., Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2002. Brütsch, Charles. La Clarté de l’Apocalypse. Paris: Labor et Fides, 1966. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951–1955. Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Burstein, David D. Fast Future: How the Millennial Generation Is Shaping Our World. Boston: Beacon, 2013. Butler, H. E. Quintilian. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra pagina 6. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical, 1996. Caird, G. B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. ———. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. London: Duckworth, 1980. Callahan, Allen D. “The Language of Apocalypse.” Harvard Theological Review 88 (1995): 453-470. Callow, K. “The Disappearing De/ in 1 Corinthians.” Pages 183-93 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by D. A. Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Cambier, J. “Les images de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Apocalypse de Saint Jean.” La nouvelle revue théologique 77 (1955): 113-22. Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry. Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Capes, David B. Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/47. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992. 248 Caragounis, Chrys C. The Son of Man. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 38. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986. ———. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Carballosa, Evis L. Apocalipsis: La consumación del plan eterno de Dios. Grand Rapids: Editorial Portavoz, 1997. Carey, Craig. “The Book of Revelation as Counter-Imperial Script.” Pages 157-76 in In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Carson, D. A. Matthew. Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Carson, D. A., and Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson, eds. It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars, S.S.F. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Casey, J. “The Exodus Theme in the Book of Revelation Against the Background of the New Testament.” Concilium 189 (1987): 34-43. Casey, Maurice. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. Library of New Testament Studies 343. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Champion, L. G. Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistles of Paul. Oxford: Kemp Hall, 1934. Champlin, Edward. Nero. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Charles, R. H. Studies in the Apocalypse: Being Lectures Delivered before the University of London. Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1913. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1996. ———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920. Charlesworth, James H. “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” Pages 450-77 in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Charlesworth, James H., and P. Dykers. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 7. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976. Chester, Andrew. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 207. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007. Chilton, Bruce D. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 23. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. ———. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. Vol. 11 of The Aramaic Bible. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987. ———. A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 72. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. Visions of the Apocalypse: Receptions of John’s Revelation in Western Imagination. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2013. Chrisope, T. Alan. Jesus Is Lord: A Study in the Unity of Confessing Jesus as Lord and Saviour in the New Testament. Welwyn, Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1982. Church, George, and Ed Regis. Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves. New York: Basic, 2012. 249 Ciampa, Roy E. “The Terms of Translation: Ideological Challenges for Bible Translators.” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 28 (2011): 139-48. Clauss, Manfred. The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries. Translated by Richard Gordon. New York: Routledge, 2001. Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Collins, Adela Yarbro. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 9. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976. ———. “The Early Christian Apocalypses.” Semeia 14 (1979): 61-121. ———. The Apocalypse. New Testament Message 22. Wilmington, Delaware: Glazier, 1979. ———. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984. ———. “Review of The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John, by G. K. Beale.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 734-35. ———. “Reading the Book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century.” Interpretation 40 (1986): 229-242. ———. “The ‘Son of Man’ Tradition and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 536-68 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament.” Pages 90-112 in Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, by John J. Collins. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. “Pergamon in Early Christian Literature.” Pages 164-84 in Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development. Edited by Helmut Koester. Harvard Theological Studies 46. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998. ———. “The Apocalyptic Ekphrasis.” Pages 449-64 in 1900th Anniversary of St. John’s Apocalypse: Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Symposium (Athens – Patmos, 17-26 September 1995). Athens: Holy Monastery of Saint John the Theologian in Patmos, 1999. Collins, Adela Yarbro, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Collins, John J. “The Mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transition in Jewish Apocalyptic.” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 596-612. ———. “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14 (1979): 1-20. ———. Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 20. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. ———. “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 448-66. ———. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2d ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 250 ———. “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo-Daniel.” Pages 176-78 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. ———. The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Sacra pagina 7. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1999. Colwell, Ernest Cadman. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. New Testament Tools and Studies 9. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Comblin, J. Le Christ dans l’Apocalypse. Bibliothèque de Théologie: Théologie biblique 3.6. Paris: Desclée, 1965. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Corsini, Eugenio. The Apocalypse: The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ. Translated and edited by Francis J. Moloney. Good News Studies 5. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1983. Costa, Dennis. Irenic Apocalypse: Some Uses of Apocalyptic in Dante, Petrarch and Rabelais. Saratoga, California: Anma Libri, 1981. Cox, Harvey. Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1995. ———. The Future of Faith. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Crehan, Joseph. Early Christian Baptism and the Creed: A Study in Ante-Nicene Theology. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1950. Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Davies, J. G. He Ascended into Heaven: A Study in the History of Doctrine. London: Lutterworth, 1958. Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. Biblica et Orientalia 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. Davis, Casey W. Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 172. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Decker, Rodney J. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. Studies in Biblical Greek 10. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. 4th ed. N.p.: 1923. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965. Derrida, Jacques. “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Newly Adopted in Philosophy.” Pages 25-71 in Derrida and Negative Theology. Edited by Harold G. Coward and Toby Foshay. Albany: State University of New York, 1992. DeSilva, David A. “Final Topics: The Rhetorical Functions of Intertexture in Revelation 14:14-16:21.” Pages 215-41 in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament. Edited by Duane F. Watson. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 14. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. 251 ———. “X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses of Revelation.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2008): 343-71. ———. Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. De Vries, Simon J. From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and RedactionCritical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Dewey, Joanna. “The Gospel of Mark as an Oral-Aural Event: Implications for Interpretation.” Pages 145-63 in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Edited by Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 109. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The One in Human Likeness and the Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel 7.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977): 1-19. Dittmar, Wilhelm. Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Die alttestamentlichen Paralleles des Neuen Testaments im Wortlaut der Urtexte und der Septuaginta. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. Draisma, Sipke, ed. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989. Douthat, Ross. Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. New York: Free Press, 2012. Driver, S. R. The Book of Daniel. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901. Dunn, James D. G. “Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 303-36. ———. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary 38B. Dallas: Word, 1988. ———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Easley, Kendell H. Revelation. Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998. Edwards, Ian. “Derrida’s (Ir)religion: A Theology of Différance.” Janus Head 6 (2003): 142-53. Eisenman, Robert, and Michael Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years. Rockport, Massachusetts: Element, 1992. Elam, Helen Regueiro. “Textuality.” Pages 1276-77 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Preminger, Alex, and T. V. F. Brogan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Elliott, J. Keith. “Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Criticism.” Pages 321-35 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. Studies and Documents 46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. 252 Ellul, Jacques. Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation. Translated by George W. Schreiner. New York: Seabury, 1977. Elsner, Jás. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100– 450. Oxford History of Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Enriquez, Juan. “Reflections in a Digital Mirror.” Pages 18-43 in The Human Face of Big Data, by Rick Smolan and Jennifer Erwitt. Sausalito, California: Against All Odds Productions, 2012. Epp, Eldon Jay. “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999): 245-81. ———. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 116. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ———. “It’s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007): 275-308. Eskola, Timo. Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/142. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001. Evans, Craig A., and James A. Sanders, eds. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture and Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ———. “Listening for Echoes of Interpreted Scripture.” Pages 47-51 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture and Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Farrer, Austin. A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St John’s Apocalypse. London: Dacre, 1949. Repr., Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1970. Feaver, William. The Art of John Martin. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975. Fekkes, Jan, III. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 93. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ———. “Isaiah and the Book of Revelation: John the Prophet as a Fourth Isaiah?” Pages 125-43 in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL. Edited by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Ferch, Arthur J. The Son of Man in Daniel Seven. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 6. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979. Ferguson, Niall. Civilization: The West and the Rest. New York: Penguin, 2011. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Repr., Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. ———. “The Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.” Pages 379-419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Jan Mulder. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. 2/1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Fitzmyer, Joseph. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (1961): 297-333. 253 ———. “The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-title.” Pages 115-42 in idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBL Monograph Series 25. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979. ———. “Aramaic Apocalypse.” Pages 51-52 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 41-60 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Flusser, David. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Ford, J. Massyngberde. Revelation. Anchor Bible 38. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1975. ———. “The Christological Function of the Hymns in the Apocalypse of John.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 36 (1998): 207-29. Fossum, Jarl E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 36. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1985. Fraade, Steven. D. “Midrashim.” Pages 549-52 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971. Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Frey, Jörg. “The Relevance of the Imperial Cult for the Book of Revelation: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on the Relation between the Seven Letters and the Visionary Main Part of the Book.” Pages 231-55 in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune. Edited by John Fotopoulous. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Freyne, Seán. “Reading Hebrews and Revelation Intertextually.” Pages 83-93 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989. Friesen, Steven J. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 116. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ———. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ———. “Myth and Symbolic Resistance in Revelation 13.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 281-313. Frilingos, Christopher A. Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. 254 Fukuyama, Francis. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Picador, 2002. Galinsky, Karl. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Gangemi, A. “L’utilizzazione del Deutero-Isaia nell’Apocalisse di Giovanni.” Euntes Docete 27 (1974): 109-44, 311-39. Garrow, A. J. P. Revelation. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1997. Gazov-Ginzberg, A. M. “Double Meaning in a Qumran Work: ‘The Wiles of the Wicked Woman.’” Revue de Qumran 6 (1967): 279-285. Gélin, A. L’Apocalypse. Le sainte Bible 12. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1938. Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980. Gentry, K. L. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989. Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012. Giblin, C. H. The Book of Revelation: The Open Book of Prophecy. Good News Studies 34. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1991. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelmorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 42. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Giesen, H. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1997. Geissen, Angelo, ed. Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. 5–12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther, Kap. 1,1a–2,15. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 5. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1968. Georgi, Dieter. “Who is the True Prophet?” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 100-26. Giet, Stanislas. L’Apocalypse et l’histoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957. Gilbertson, Michael. God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogues with Pannenberg and Moltmann. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Gillingham, Susan E. The Image, the Depths, and the Surface: Multivalent Approaches to Biblical Study. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 354. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Girard, René. Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World. With Jean-Michel Oughourlian and Guy Lefort. Translated by Stephen Bann and Michael Metteer. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989. ———. The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary–Theological Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Goldsmith, Steven. Unbuilding Jerusalem: Apocalypse and Romantic Representation. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1993. 255 Goodenough, Edwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. New York: Pantheon Books, 1953–1965. Gordis, Robert. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1937. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1971. Goulder, M. D. “The Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies.” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 343-50. Green, William Scott. “Doing the Text’s Work for It: Richard Hays on Paul’s Use of Scripture.” Pages 58-63 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83. Studies in Scripture and Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Gumerlock, Francis X. “Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople?” Fides et Historia 36 (2004): 83-95. Gundry, Robert H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Gundry, Stanley N. “Hermeneutics or Zeitgeist as the Determining Factor in the History of Eschatologies.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 45-55. Gunkel, Hermann. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A ReligioHistorical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by K. William Whitney Jr. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Guthrie, George H. “Cohesion Shifts and Stiches in Philippians.” Pages 36-59 in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 113. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———. “Discourse Analysis.” Pages 253-71 in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001. Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. Flavius Josephus: Eyewitness to Rome’s First-Century Conquest of Judea. Translated by Richard Miller. New York: Macmillan, 1993. ———. Jerusalem against Rome. Translated by Robyn Fréchet. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. Cohesion in English. English Language Series 9. London: Longman, 1976. ———. “Text and Context: Aspects of Language in Social-Semiotic Perspective.” Sophia Linguistica 6 (1980): 4-90. Halver, Rudolf von. Der Mythos im letzten Buch der Bibel. Theologische Forschung 32. Hamburg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich Evangelischer Verlag, 1964. Hanhart, Robert. Introduction to The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon, by Martin Hengel. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. Harrington, Wilfrid J. Revelation. Sacra pagina 16. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1993. Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2008. Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges, eds. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1995. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. 256 Hartman, Lars. Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5. Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series 12. Lund: Gleerup, 1979. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1978. Hatina, Thomas R. “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism: Is There a Relationship?” Biblical Interpretation 7 (1999): 28-43. Havelock, Eric A. “Oral Composition in the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles.” New Literary History 16 (1984): 175-97. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Hayman, Peter. “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 1-15. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as an Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hays, Richard B., and Joel B. Green. “The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers.” Pages 222-38 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Heath, Malcolm. “Invention.” Pages 89-119 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.–A.D. 400). Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Hedrick, Charles W. “Narrative Asides in John’s Apocalypse and their significance for reading the text.” Pages 645-61 in 1900th Anniversary of St. John’s Apocalypse: Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Symposium (Athens – Patmos, 17-26 September 1995). Athens: Holy Monastery of Saint John the Theologian in Patmos, 1999. Heemstra, Marius. How Rome’s Administration of the Fiscus Judaicus Accelerated the Parting of the Ways between Judaism and Christianity: Rereading 1 Peter, Revelation, the Letter to the Hebrews, and the Gospel of John in their Roman and Jewish Contexts. Veenendaal: Universal Press, 2009. Heitmüller, Wilhelm. “Im Namen Jesu”: Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Hellholm, David. “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 13-64 in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Semeia 36. Decatur, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986. Helmer, Christine, ed. The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 37. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Helprin, Mark. Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Hendriksen, W. More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962. 257 Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish Hellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. ———. Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in Earliest History of Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. ———. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. ———. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. Henriksen, Jan-Olav. Desire, Gift, and Recognition: Christology and Postmodern Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Herghelegiu, Monica-Elena. Siehe, er kommt mit den Wolken! Studien zur Christologie der Johannesoffenbarung. European University Studies 23:785. Frankfurt: Lang, 2004. Hermans, Theo. “Paradoxes and aporias in translation and translation studies.” Pages 10-23 in Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Edited by Alessandra Riccardi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Hernández, Juan, Jr. Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/218. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2006. Hill, David. “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John.” New Testament Studies 18 (1971-72): 401-18. Hillers, Delbert R. Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984. Hitchcock, Mark L. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006. Hoey, Michael. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. “Signalling in Discourse: A Functional Analysis of a Common Discourse Pattern in Written and Spoken English.” Pages 26-45 in Advances in Written Text Analysis. Edited by M. Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1994. Hoffmann, Matthias Reinhard. The Destroyer and the Lamb: The Relationship between Angelmorphic and Lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/203. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005. Holladay, William L. Long Ago God Spoke: How Christians May Hear the Old Testament Today. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Hollander, John. The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Holleman, Joost. Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 84. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Holter, Knut, and Louis C. Jonker, eds. Global Hermeneutics? Reflections and Consequences. International Voices in Biblical Studies 1. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Horbury, William. “The Messianic Associations of ‘The Son of Man.’” Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1985): 34-55. Horsley, Richard A. Sociology and the Jesus Movement. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Horster, Marietta, and Christiane Reitz. “‘Condensation’ of literature and the pragmatics of literary production.” Pages 3-14 in Condensing texts - condensed texts. Palingenesia, 258 Bd 98. Edited by Marietta Horster and Christiane Reitz. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010. ———, eds. Condensing texts - condensed texts. Palingenesia, Bd 98. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010. Howard-Brook, Wes. Come Out My People! God’s Call out of Empire in the Bible and Beyond. New York: Orbis, 2010. Howard-Brook, Wes, and Anthony Gwyther. Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now. The Bible & Liberation Series. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999. Hühn, E. Die alttestamentlichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1900. Hultberg, Alan. “Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christology of Revelation.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001. Humphrey, Edith M. “In Search of a Voice: Rhetoric through Sight and Sound in Revelation 11:15–12:17.” Pages 141-160 in Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse. Edited by L. Gregory Bloomquist and Gregory Carey. St. Louis: Chalice, 1999. ———. And I Turned to See the Voice: The Rhetoric of Vision in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Hurtado, Larry W. “Revelation 4–5 in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (1985): 105-24. ———. At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 2d ed. London: T&T Clark, 1998. Repr., London: T&T Clark, 2003. ———. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hurtgen, John E. Anti-Language in the Apocalypse of John. Lewiston, New York: Mellen Biblical Press, 1994. Hyman, Michael D. “One Word Solecisms and the Limits of Syntax.” Pages 179-192 in Syntax in Antiquity. Edited by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters. Orbis Supplementa 23. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Jack, Allison M. Texts Reading Texts, Sacred and Secular. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 179. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Jacobs, Mignon R. The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 322. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Jannaris, Antonius N. An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time. London: Macmillan, 1897. Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1987. Janzen, E. P. “The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Clothes.” Pages 637-61 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1994. Edited by E. H. Lovering. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Jauhiainen, Marko. The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/199. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005. 259 Jeansonne, Sharon Pace. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 19. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988. Jenkins, Ferrell. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Marion, Indiana: Cogdill Foundation, 1972. Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Jensen, Robert. We Are All Apocalyptic Now: On the Responsibilities of Teaching, Preaching, Reporting, Writing, and Speaking Out. Austin, Texas: Monkey Wrench, 2013. Jeske, Richard L. Revelation for Today: Images of Hope. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Johnson, Aubrey R. The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961. Johnson, Dennis E. Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2001. Johnstone, Ronald L. Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992. Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian. New York: Routledge, 1993. Jones, Bruce W. “More about the Apocalypse as Apocalyptic.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 325-27. Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Rev. ed. Comparative Studies in Religion and Society 13. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody, 1985. Kallas, J. “The Apocalypse–an Apocalyptic Book?” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 69-80. Károly, Krisztina. Lexical repetition in text: A study of the text-organizing function of lexical repetition in foreign language argumentative discourse. MetaLinguistica 15. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002. Karrer, Martin. Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief, Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theoligischen Ort. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 140. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Kaufman, Stephen A. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Studies 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Kavanaugh, Michael Aelred. Apocalypse 22:6-21 as Concluding Liturgical Dialogue. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1984. Keener, Craig S. Revelation. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Voices in Performance and Text. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Repr., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Studies in Religion. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kenney, E. J., and W. V. Clausen, eds. Latin Literature. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 260 Kiddle, M., and M. K. Ross. The Revelation of St John. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. ———. “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Kinneavy, James L. Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith: An Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Kio, S. H. “The Exodus Symbolism of Liberation in the Apocalypse and its Relevance for Some Aspects of Translation.” The Bible Translator 40 (1989): 120-35. Kirby, John T. “The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 197-207. Kistemaker, Simon J. Revelation. New Testament Commentary 20. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Knight, Jonathan. “The Enthroned Christ of Revelation 5:6 and the Development of Christian Theology.” Pages 43-50 in Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edited by Steve Moyise. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. Knox, W. L. “Pharisaism and Hellenism.” Pages 61-111 in The Contact of Pharisaism with Other Cultures. Vol. 2 of Judaism and Christianity. Edited by H. Loewe. London: Sheldon, 1937. Repr; New York: Ktav, 1969. Kobelski, Paul J. Melchizedek and Melchires¥a{. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 10. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Koester, Helmut. “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 158-66 in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Edited by Richard A. Horsley. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997. Körtner, Ulrich H. J. The End of the World: A Theological Interpretation. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “The Use of Scripture in the Pastoral and General Epistles and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 230-54 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Kowalski, Beate. Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes. Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004. Kraft, H. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 16a. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1974. Kraybill, J. Nelson. Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 132. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. ———. Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010. Krodel, Gerhard A. Revelation. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. New York: Free Press, 2007. Kupchan, Charles A. No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 261 Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Viking, 2005. Kynes, William L. A Christology of Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative of His People in Matthew. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1991. Lacocque, André. The Book of Daniel. Translated by David Pellauer. Rev. ed. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979. Ladd, George Eldon. Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. 2d ed. Waco: Word, 1969. ———. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Lancellotti, H. “L’Antico Testamento nell’Apocalisse.” Rivista biblica italiana 14 (1966): 369-84. Laughlin, T. Cowden. The Solecisms of the Apocalypse. Princeton: Princeton University, 1902. Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Translated by Matthew T. Bliss, Annemiek Jansen, and David E. Orton. Edited by David E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Lawrence, D. H. Apocalypse and the Writings on Revelation. London: Penguin, 1931. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963. Lestringant, Pierre. Esai sur l’unité de la révélation biblique. Paris: Editions ‘Je. Sers,’ 1942. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lilje, Hanns. The Last Book of the Bible: The Meaning of the Revelation of St. John. Translated by Olive Wyon. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957. Lincoln, Bruce. Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Linnemann, Eta. Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical. Translated by Robert Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 16. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1926. Lohse, Eduard. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. ———. “Die alttestamentliche Sprache des Sehers Johannes. Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Apokalypse.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 52 (1961): 122-26. Long, V. Philips. The Art of Biblical History. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse. 2d ed. Topics in Language and Linguistics. New York: Plenum Press, 1996. Longenecker, Bruce W. Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament Chain-Link Transitions. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. Studies in Biblical Theology 17. London: SCM, 1970. ———. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. 2d ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. 262 Louw, Theo A. W. van der. Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 47. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Lucas, Alexander James. “Romans 1:18–2:11 and the Substructure of Psalm 106(105): Evocations of the Calf?” PhD diss., Loyola University Chicago, 2012. Lucian. The Works of Lucian. Translated by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905. Luke, Trevor S. “The Parousia of Paul at Iconium.” Religion and Theology 15 (2008): 225-51. Lunceford, Joe E. Parody and Counterimaging in the Apocalypse. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2009. Lupieri, Edmondo F. A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John. Translated by Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Lust, J. “The Order of the Final Events in Revelation and in Ezekiel.” Pages 179-83 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. Bibliotheca ephermeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 53. Leuven: University Press, 1980. Luter, Boyd. “Interpreting the Book of Revelation.” Pages 457-80 in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001. Luz, Ulrich. Studies in Matthew. Translated by Rosemary Selle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Lyons, John. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation. New York: Viking, 2003. ———. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. New York: Viking, 2009. MacDonald, Dennis R. “Introduction.” Pages 1-9 in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Edited by Dennis R. MacDonald. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2001. Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Mackay, E. Anne, Deidre Harrison, and Samantha Masters. “The Bystander at the Ringside: Ring-Composition in Early Greek Poetry and Athenian Black-Figure Vase-Painting.” Pages 115-42 in Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and Its Influence in the Greek and Roman World. Edited by E. Anne Mackay. Mnemosyne Supplementum 188. Leiden: Brill, 1999. MacKenzie, Robert K. The Author of the Apocalypse: A Review of the Prevailing Hypothesis of Jewish-Christian Authorship. Mellen Biblical Press Series 51. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen, 1997. Macleod, Donald. Jesus Is Lord: Christology Yesterday and Today. Geanies House: Mentor, 2000. Mahbubani, Kishore. The Great Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of One World. New York: PublicAffairs, 2013. Maier, Charles S. Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Maier, Harry O. Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. 263 Malina, Bruce J. “Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 1-31. Malina, Bruce, and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Manchester, Peter. “The Religious Experience of Time and Eternity.” Pages 384-407 in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Edited by A. H. Armstrong. Vol. 15 of World Spirituality: An Encylopedic History of the Religious Quest. New York: Crossroad, 1986. Manson, T. W. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Marconcini, B. “L’utilizzazione del T. M. nelle citazione isaiane dell’Apocalisse.” Revista biblica 24 (1976): 113-36. Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Maro, Publius Vergilius. The Aeneid. Translated by Sarah Ruden. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Marshall, I. H. “Martyrdom and the Parousia in the Revelation of John.” Studia Evangelica 4 (1968): 333-39. Martin, Dale B. Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Martin, Ralph P. A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Repr., Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Mason, Colin. The 2030 Spike: Countdown to Global Catastrophe. London: Earthscan, 2003. Mathewson, David. A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 238. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. ———. “Isaiah in Revelation.” Pages 189-210 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Mazzaferri, Frederick David. The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-critical Perspective. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 54. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. McCray, W. Patrick. Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2007. McDonough, Sean M. YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 107. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1999. McDowell, Edward A. The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation. Nashville: Broadman, 1951. McLay, Tim. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. 264 McNamara, M. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Analecta Biblica 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Meadowcroft, T. J. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 198. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Mealy, J. Webb. After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 70. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Meggitt, Justin. “Taking the Emperor’s Clothes Seriously: The New Testament and the Roman Emperor.” Pages 143-70 in The Quest for Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Philip Budd. Edited by C. Joynes. Cambridge: Orchard Academic, 2002. Menken, Maarten J. J. “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 494-511. Merritt, Marilyn. “Repetition in Situated Discourse–Exploring its Forms and Functions.” Pages 23-36 in vol. 1 of Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Barbara Johnstone. Advances in Discourse Processes 47. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1994. Metaxas, Eric. Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy—A Righteous Gentile vs. the Third Reich. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1975. ———. Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. Michaels, J. Ramsey. Revelation. Vol. 20 in The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Minear, Paul S. I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse. Washington: Corpus, 1968. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2003. Miner, Earl. “Allusion.” Pages 38-40 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Moberly, R. B. “When Was Revelation Conceived?” Biblica 73 (1992): 376-93. Moberly, R. W. L. “How Appropriate is ‘Monotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?” Pages 216-34 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Moore, A. L. The Parousia in the New Testament. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 13. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Moore, Stephen D. Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Morgan, Robert, and John Barton. Biblical Interpretation. Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Morton, Russell S. One upon the Throne and the Lamb: A Tradition Historical/Theological Analysis of Revelation 4–5. Studies in Biblical Literature 110. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Moule, C. F. D. “The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Christological Terms.” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1959): 247-63. ———. !The Phenomenon of the New Testament!: !An Inquiry into the Implications of Certain 265 Features of the New Testament!. Studies in Biblical Theology 2/1. London: SCM, 1967. ———. !The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 3 vols. 3d ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908. Moulton, James Hope, Wilbert Francis Howard, and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906–1976. Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Rev. ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Mowry, Lucetta. “Revelation 4–5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage.” Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 75-84. Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———, ed. The Old Testament in the New Testament. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Mulholland, M. Robert, Jr. Revelation: Holy Living in an Unholy World. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury, 1990. Müller, H.-P. “Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Apc John. 4–5.” PhD diss., Heidelberg University, 1962. Mura, Andrea. “The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity.” Language and Psychoanalysis 1 (2012): 68-87. Murphy, Francesca Aran. “Book of Revelation.” Pages 680-87 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Murphy, Frederick J. Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation to John. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998. Muse, R. L. “Revelation 2–3: A Critical Analysis of Seven Prophetic Messages.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (1986): 147-61. Mussies, Gerard. The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Neste, Ray van. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 280. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Nestle, Eberhard. H KAINH DIAQHKH: Text with Critical Apparatus. 4th ed. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1904. Neufeld, Vernon H. The Earliest Christian Confessions. New Testament Tools and Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Neusner, Jacob. Canon and Connection: Intertextuality in Judaism. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987. Newing, Edward George. “A Rhetoric and Theological Analysis of the Hexateuch.” South East Asia Journal of Theology 22 (1981): 1-15. Nichols, A. H. “Explicitness in Translation and the Westernization of Scripture.” Reformed Theological Review 47 (1988): 78-88. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Son of Man.” Pages 137-50 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. 266 Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill, 1964. Niederwimmer, Kurt. The Didache. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Edited by Harold W. Atytridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Francis Golffing. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1956. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Novak, Ralph Martin, Jr. Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2001. Oakey, D. J. “Fixed Collocational Patterns in Isolexical and Isotextual Versions of a Corpus.” Pages 140-158 in Approaches to Corpus Linguistics. Edited by Paul Baker. London: Continuum, 2009. O’Brien, Peter T. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 49. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Oesterley, W. O. E. II Esdras: The Ezra Apocalypse. London: Methusen, 1933. Ong, Walter J. Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1977. ———. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen, 1982. Repr., London: Routledge, 2002. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991. ———. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Ott, Craig, and Harold A. Netland, eds. Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Otterloo, Roger van. “Towards an Understanding of ‘Lo’ and ‘Behold’: Functions of i˙dou/ and i¶de in the Greek New Testament.” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 2 (1988): 34-64. Ozanne, C. G. “The Influence of the Text and Language of the Old Testament on the Book of Revelation.” PhD diss., University of Manchester, 1964. ———. “The Language of the Apocalypse.” Tyndale House Bulletin 16 (1965): 3-9. Pagels, Elaine. Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation. New York: Viking, 2012. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus–God and Man. Translated by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Parker, Floyd O., Jr. “‘Our Lord and God’ in Rev 4,11: Evidence for the Late Date of Revelation?” Biblica 82 (2001): 207-31. Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure.” Biblica 62 (1981): 153-68. Pattemore, Stephen W. The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, and Exegesis. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Paulien, Jon. Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 11. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1987. 267 ———. “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation.” Biblical Research (1988): 37-53. ———. “Criteria and Assessment of Allusions to the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.” Pages 113-29 in Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edited by Steve Moyise. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. Payne, J. Barton. Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Pelikan, Jaroslav, and Helmut T. Lehmann, eds. Luther’s Works. 55 vols. St. Louis: Concordia, 1958–1986. Penley, Paul T. The Common Tradition behind Synoptic Sayings of Judgment and John’s Apocalypse: An Oral Interpretive Tradition of Old Testament Prophetic Material. Library of New Testament Studies 424. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Perri, Carmela. “On Alluding.” Poetics 7 (1978): 289-307. Perriman, Andrew. The Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church. Milton Keynes, Britain: Paternoster, 2005. Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. ———. “Apocalyptic Christianity.” Pages 121-45 in Visionaries and Their Apocalypses. Edited by Paul D. Hanson. London: SPCK, 1983. Perrine, Laurence. “Echo.” Page 112 in Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Alex Preminger, Frank J. Warnke, and O. B. Hardison Jr. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Peters, Olutola K. The Mandate of the Church in the Apocalypse of John. Studies in Biblical Literature 77. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Petersmann, Hubert. “Environment, Linguistic Situation, and Levels of Style in Petronius’ Satyrica.” Pages 105-23 in Oxford Readings in the Roman Novel. Edited by S. J. Harrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Pietersma, Albert. “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX.” Pages 85-101 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His SixtyFifth Birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox. Mississauga, Ontario: Benben, 1984. Piper, Otto A. “The Apocalypse of John and the Liturgy of the Ancient Church.” Church History 20 (1951): 10-22. Pitts, Andrew, W. “Review: Longenecker Rhetoric at the Boundaries.” Journal of GrecoRoman Christianity and Judaism 3 (2006): R53-59. Pleket, H. W. “An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries.” Harvard Theological Review 58 (1965): 331-47. Ponting, Clive. The Twentieth Century: A World History. New York: Henry Holt, 1998. Porter, David S. Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius. Revealing Antiquity 7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. ———. “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey.” Pages 14-35 in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 113. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. 268 ———. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” Pages 79-96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ———. “Textual Criticism in the Light of Diverse Textual Evidence for the Greek New Testament: An Expanded Proposal.” Pages 305-37 in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World. Edited by Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas. Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 2. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Portier-Young, Anathea E. Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Powell, Mark Allan. What Is Narrative Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Prigent, Pierre. Apocalypse et Liturgie. Cahiers Théologiques 52. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964. ———. Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John. Translated by Wendy Pradels. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001. Puthussery, Johnson. Days of Man and God’s Day: An Exegetico-Theological Study of hJme÷ra in the Book of Revelation. Rome: Gregorian University Press, 2001. Raber, Rudolph W. “Revelation 21:1-8.” Interpretation 40 (1986): 296-301. Rachman, Gideon. Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Ramachandra, Vinoth. Subverting Global Myths: Theology and Public Issues Shaping Our World. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008. Ramsay, W. M. The Letters to the Seven Churches. New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1904. Repr; Minneapolis: James Family, 1978. Randers, Jorgen. 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green, 2012. Rawlinson, A. E. J. The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1926. Reed, Jeffrey T. “Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis.” Pages 75-101 in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Edited by Stanley Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———. “The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Towards a Model of Linguistic Criteria for Analyzing New Testament Discourse.” Pages 28-46 in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and J. T. Reed. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Reichelt, Hansgünter. Angelus Interpres-Texte in der Johannes-Apokalypse: Strukturen, Aussagen und Hintergründe. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23:507. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994. 269 Reicke, Bo I. The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Resseguie, James L. Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse. Biblical Interpretation 32. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Reynolds, B. E. “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13-14.” Biblica 89 (2008): 70-80. Richard, Pablo. Apocalypse: A People’s Commentary on the Book of Revelation. The Bible & Liberation Series. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1995. Richardson, Alan. An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. Ricoeur, Paul. “Two Essays by Paul Ricoeur: The Critique of Religion and the Language of Faith.” Translated by R. B. DeFord. Union Seminary Quarterly Review 28 (1973): 203-24. ———. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. Translated by Robert Czerny, Kathleen McLaughlin, and John Costello. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. Riggans, Walter. “The Parousia: Getting Our Terms Right.” Themelios 21 (1995): 14-16. Rimell, Victoria. “Petronius’ lessons in learning – the hard way.” Pages 108-32 in Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Edited by Jason König and Tim Whitmarsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Rissi, Mathias. “The Rider on the White Horse: A Study of Revelation 6:1-8.” Interpretation 18 (1964): 407-18. Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ———. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. ———. The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology. New York: Routledge, 1996. ———. The Invention of Christian Discourse. Vol. 1. Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity Series 1. Blandford Forum, Dorset: Deo, 2009. Roberts, J. M. Twentieth Century: The History of the World, 1901 to 2000. New York: Viking, 1999. Robertson, A. T. The General Epistles and the Revelation of John. Vol. 6 of Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman, 1933. ———. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Prophets. Abridged ed. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2008. Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Roloff, Jürgen. The Revelation of John. Translated by John E. Alsup. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Rösel, Martin. Adonaj – warum Gott “Herr” genannt wird. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 29. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2000. 270 ———. “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2007): 411-28. Rotherham, Joseph Bryant. The Emphasized Bible. N.p.: 1897. Repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994. Rowe, Galen O. “Style.” Pages 121-57 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.–A.D. 400). Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Rowland, Christopher C. “The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. 1:13ff.: The Debt of an Early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology.” Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980): 1-11. ———. The Book of Revelation. London: Epworth, 1993. ———. “The Book of Revelation.” Vol. 12 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. ———. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Royalty, Robert. The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998. Ruiten, J. van. “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,17-20 and Revelation 21,1-5b.” Estudios biblicos 51 (1993): 473-510. Ruiz, Jean-Pierre. “Betwixt and Between on the Lord’s Day: Liturgy and the Apocalypse.” Pages 221-41 in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation. Edited by David L. Barr. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 39. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ———. Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17 - 19,10. European University Studies 23:376. Frankfurt: Lang, 1989. Rummel, R. J. Death by Government. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1994. Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 BC-AD 100. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964. Salter, T. B. “Homoion Huion Anthroœpou in Rev 1.13 and 14.14.” The Bible Translator 44 (349-50): 1993. Sanders, E. P. “The Genre of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypses.” Pages 447-59 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979. Edited by David Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1989. Sanderson, Judith E. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod m and the Samaritan Tradition. Harvard Semitic Studies 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Sandmel, S. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13. Sattler, W. “Das Buch mit sieben Siegeln. II.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 21 (1922): 43-53. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1994. Schlatter, Adolf von. Das alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 16.6. Güttersloh: Bertelsmann, 1912. Schmidt, Eric, and Jared Cohen. The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. 271 Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Schubert, Paul. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 20. Berlin: Topelmann, 1939. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse. Münster: Aschendorff, 1972. ———. “Redemption as Liberation: Apoc 1:5f. and 5:9f.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 220-32. ———. “Revelation.” Pages 407-27 in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. ———. Revelation: Vision of a Just World. Proclamation Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ———. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998. Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. New York: Macmillan, 1961. Scobie, Charles H. H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Scott, Steven. “The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18 (2008): 55-78. Sedgewick, G. G. Of Irony: Especially in Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948. Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25. Leiden: Brill, 1977. ———. “The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran.” Pages 302-28 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Segert, Stanislav. “Semitic Poetic Structures in the New Testament.” ANRW 25.2:1433-62. Part 2, Principat 25.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1989. Shapiro, Robert J. Futurecast: How Superpowers, Populations, and Globalization Will Change the Way You Live and Work. New York: St. Martin’s, 2008. Shepherd, Michael B. “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man.” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 99-111. Sherk, R. K., ed. and trans. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Shiner, Whitney. Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark. New York: Trinity Press International, 2003. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. Simpson, Christopher. The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. New York: Grove, 1993. Slater, Thomas B. Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the Christology of Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 178. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Smalley, Stephen S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005. 272 Smith, D. E. “Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory.” Semeia 52 (1990): 1-9. Smith, J. B. A Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Edited by J. Otis Yoder. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1961. Smith, James K. A. Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Snyder, Graydon F. Inculturation of the Jesus Tradition: The Impact of Jesus on Jewish and Roman Cultures. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. Sokoloff, Michael. “aqn rmok, ‘Lamb’s Wool’ (Dan 7:9).” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 277-79. Stähelin, Johann. 700 Parallelen: Die Quellgründe der Apokalypse. Bern: M. Hötzendorfer, 1951. Stamps, Dennis L. “The Johannine Writings.” Pages 609-32 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C. –A.D. 400). Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stauffer, Ethelbert. Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches. Translated by K. and R. Gregor Smith. London: SCM, 1965. Stefanovic, Ranko. Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 2002. Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. Translated by O. C. Dean Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stevenson, Gregory. Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 107. New York: de Gruyter, 2001. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Stoneman, Richard. The Ancient Oracles: Making the Gods Speak. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. Stott, W. “A Note on the Word KYRIAKH in Revelation i.10.” New Testament Studies 12 (1965): 70-75. Stubbs, Michael. “Computer-assisted Text and Corpus Analysis: Lexical Cohesion and Communicative Competence.” Pages 304-20 in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Edited by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1995. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Toward a Hermeneutics of Consent. Translated by Roy Harrisville. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. 273 ———. “The Messianic Son of Man: Jesus’ Claim to Deity.” Pages 325-44 in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Sweet, J. P. M. Revelation. Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan, 1908. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Tabor, James D., and Eugene V. Gallagher. Why Waco? Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Talbert, Charles H. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Tavo, Felise. Woman, Mother and Bride: An Exegetical Investigation into the “Ecclesial” Notions of the Apocalypse. Biblical Tools and Studies 3. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Taylor, Vincent. New Testament Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Tellbe, Mikael. Paul between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civil Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians. Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series 34. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2001. Tenney, Merrill C. Interpreting Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Theissen, Gerd. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Thomas, Richard F. Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry: The Ethnographical Traditions. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Supplement 7. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1982. ———. “Virgil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90 (1986): 171-98. Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992. Thomas, Rosalind. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Thompson, Leonard L. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. ———. Revelation. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1998. Thompson, Michael. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Thompson, Steven. The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Thomson, Ian H. Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 111. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Tickle, Phyllis. The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. ———. Emergence Christianity: Where It Is, Where It Is Going, and Why It Matters. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Tillich, Paul. The Eternal Now. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963. 274 Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3d rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Toy, Crawford Howell. Quotations in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884. Tozer, A. W. The Size of the Soul: Principles of Revival and Spiritual Growth. N.p.: Christian Publications, 1992. Treat, Jay Curry. “Barnabas, Epistle of.” Pages 611-14 in vol. 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Trudinger, Leonhard P. “The Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.” ThD diss., Boston University, 1963. ———. “The Apocalypse and the Palestinian Targum.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 16 (1966): 78-79. ———. “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1966): 82-88. Tymoczko, Maria. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2007. Ulfgard, Håkan. Feast and Future: Revelation 7:9-17 and the Feast of Tabernacles. Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 22. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989. ———. “In Quest of the Elevated Jesus: Reflections on the Angelomorphic Christology of the Book of Revelation within its Jewish Setting.” Pages 120-30 in The New Testament as Reception. Edited by Mogens Müller and Henrik Tronier. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Ulrich, Eugene. “Daniel, Book of: Hebrew and Aramaic Text.” Pages 170-74 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Unnik, W. C. van. “A Formula Describing Prophecy.” New Testament Studies 9 (1963): 86-94. Valeta, David. “The Satirical Nature of the Book of Daniel.” Pages 81-93 in Apocalyptic in History and Tradition. Edited by Christopher Rowland and John Barton. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 43. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. VanderKam, James, and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. Vander Stichele, Caroline, and Todd Penner. Her Master’s Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse. Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Vanhoye, A. “L’utilisation du livre d’Ézéchiel dans l’Apocalypse.” Biblica 43 (1962): 436-76. Vanni, Ugo. “Un esempio di dialogo liturgico in Ap 1:4-8.” Biblica 57 (1976): 453-67. ———. La strattura letteraria dell’Apocalisse. 2d ed. Alcisiana 8a. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1980. ———. “The Ecclesial Assembly ‘Interpreting Subject’ of the Apocalypse.” Religious Studies Bulletin 4 (1984): 79-85. 275 ———. “Liturgical Dialogue as a Literary Form in the Book of Revelation.” New Testament Studies 27 (1991): 348-72. Vermès, Géza. “The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in its Historical Setting.” Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 6 (1966-68): 84-97. ———. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin, 1997. Vogelgesang, J. M. “The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1985. Vos, Louis A. The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1965. Waal, C. van der. Openbaring van Jezus Christu: Inleiding en Vertaling. Göttingen: Uitgeverij de Vuurbaak, 1971. Waddell, Robby. The Spirit of the Book of Revelation. Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series 30. Blandford Forum, Dorset: Deo, 2006. Wainwright, Arthur W. Mysterious Apocalypse: Interpreting the Book of Revelation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. Wainwright, Geoffrey. Eucharist and Eschatology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Wall, Robert W. Revelation. New International Biblical Commentary 18. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallace, Stephen. “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories.” Pages 201-23 in Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Edited by Paul J. Hopper. Typological Studies in Language 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982. Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Water, Rick van de. “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13.” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 16 (2006): 75-86. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66. Word Biblical Commentary 25. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987. Webber, Robert. Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Weber, Eugen. Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults, and Millennial Beliefs through the Ages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Weber, Max. The Sociology of Religion. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff. Boston: Beacon, 1991. Wedderburn, A. J. M. Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 44. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 101. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Weinstock, Stefan. “Victor and Invictus.” Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957): 211-47. Westcott, B. F., and F. J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882. Repr., Peabody, Massachusetts: Henrickson, 1988. Wevers, J. W. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005): 1-24. 276 Wheelwright, Philip. Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962. Whitaker, Jim. A Life on the Edge: Memoirs of Everest and Beyond. Seattle: Mountaineers, 1999. Willis, John T. “The Old Testament and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 231-39 in Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack. Edited by James E. Priest. Malibu, California: Pepperdine University Press, 1989. Wilson, B. R. “A Typology of Sects.” Pages 361-83 in Sociology of Religion: Selected Readings. Edited by Roland Robertson. Baltimore: Penguin, 1969. Wilson, J. C. “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 587-605. Wilson, Mark. Charts on the Book of Revelation: Literary, Historical, and Theological Perspectives. Kregel Charts of the Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Winer, G. B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek. Translated by W. F. Moulton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperCollins, 1996. Witherington, Ben, III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ———. Revelation. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Wolde, Ellen van. “Trendy Intertextuality?” Pages 43-49 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Yadin, Yigael. Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Last Jewish Revolt against Imperial Rome. New York: Random House, 1971. Yamauchi, Edwin. Archaeology of the New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Yeatts, John R. Revelation. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2003. Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by Alan Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. Ziesler, John A. Pauline Christianity. Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.