The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-critical Perspective PDF Free Download
1 / 51/51
100%
Frederick David Ma2zaferri
The
Genre
of
the
Book
of
Revelation
from
a
Source-critical
Perspective
W
DE
G
Walter
de
Gruyter
·
Berlin
· New
York
1989
Beiheft
zur
Zeitschrift
für die
neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
und die
Kunde
der
älteren
Kirche
Herausgegeben
von
Erich Gräßer
54
Printed
on
acid
free
paper
(ageing resistent
— pH 7,
neutral)
Library
of
Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication
Data
Mazzaferri,
Frederick
David,
1942—
The
genre
of the
Book
of
Revelation
from
a
source-critical
perspective.
(Beiheft
zur
Zeitschrift
für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
und
die
Kunde
der
älteren Kirche
; 54)
Bibliography:
p.
Includes index.
1.
Bible. N.T.
Revelation
Criticism, interpretation, etc.
I.
Title.
II.
Series:
Beihefte
zur
Zeitschrift
für die
neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
und die
Kunde
der
älteren Kirche
;
Beiheft
54.
BS410.Z7
Heft
54
225.6
s
[228'.066]
88-33437
[BS2825.2]
ISBN 0-89925-460-8
(alk.
paper
:
U.S.)
CIP-Titelaufnähme
der
Deutschen
Bibliothek
Mazzaferri,
Frederick
David:
The
genre
of the
Book
of
Revelation from
a
source-critical perspec-
tive
/
Frederick David
Mazzaferri.
—
Berlin
; New
York
: de
Gruyter, 1989
(Beiheft
zur
Zeitschrift
für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
und
die
Kunde
der
älteren
Kirche
; 54)
Zugl.: Aberdeen,
Scotland,
Univ., Diss., 1986
ISBN
3-11-011518-2
NE:
Zeitschrift
für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
und die
Kunde
der
älteren Kirche
/
Beiheft
ISSN 0171-6441
©
Copyright 1989
by
Walter
de
Gruyter
&
Co., Berlin
30.
Alle
Rechte
des
Nachdrucks,
der
photomechanischen Wiedergabe,
der
Übersetzung,
der
Herstellung
von
Mikrofilmen
und
Photokopien,
auch auszugsweise, vorbehalten.
Printed
in
Germany.
Druck:
Werner Hildebrand, Berlin
65
Bindearbeiten: Lüderitz
&
Bauer, Berlin
61
FOREWORD
I
offer
a
small contribution
to the
current debate regarding
the
genre
of
the
Book
of
Revelation.
My
research
is
motivated
by the
tantalising
obser-
vation that John employs prolific sources uniquely
and at
times generically.
These
offer
invaluable clues
-
arguably
the
best available
- to his own
self-
identity.
The
results
of
several prior source-critical studies demonstrate
the
scope
and
nature
of
John's sources.
My
specific
source-critical
contribution
is
a
detailed analysis
of the
manner
in
which John uses
his
major sources,
especially with
forceful
generic intent. However, this analysis
is
conducted
in
stringent compliance
with
the
dictates
of
cogent generic criticism.
In ch. 1 I
assess
the
basic background debates over Rev, above
all
unity
and
authorship.
This
indicates that
the
unified
book
is the
work
of a
single
author.
Source
criticism
is
therefore confined
to
John's prolific allusions
and
punctiliar quotations alone.
These
are
explored
in ch. 2, and
delineate
the
possible generic homes
of
Rev, with
a
very strong preference.
In ch. 3
I
define genre
and
generic criticism.
On
this
foundation
I
define
the
genres
of
classical prophecy
and
apocalyptic
in
turn,
and
attempt
to
define those
of
neo-apocalyptic
and
Christian prophecy.
Zech
and
Dan, both important
sources
for
John,
are
likewise examined generically.
In ch. 9 I
assess
the
generic claim
of
classical apocalyptic
on
Rev,
and in ch. 10,
that
of
classi-
cal
prophecy.
The
results, summarised
in ch.
11,
leave
no
doubt whatever
regarding John's
forceful
self-identity.
It
is
clear,
accordingly, that
my
study embraces several large, complex
topics which each warrant separate research
in its own
right.
I
have treated
these
as
fully
as
possible
within
the
strict bounds
of the
subject
at
large.
I
can
only
hope
that
any
deficiency
in
specific depth
is
offset
by my
overall
breadth. Another problem arises
from
the
fact
that most
of
these subjects
are
storm-centres
of
current controversy, each generating
its own
swelling
tide
of
literature. This
is
certainly
the
single most daunting barrier
to
tho-
rough research. With
L.
Morris
I
must sadly confess that "The literature...
is
enormous,
and I
make
no
claim
to
have mastered
it
all".1
But I
trust that,
1
Revelation,
9. Cf. G. B.
Caird,
Revelation,
vi, and J.
Lindblom,
quoted below,
86, at
In.
10.
VI
Foreword
despite
my
sins
of
omission,
I
have read wisely enough
to
have covered
the
essential material,
at
least.
In an
effort
to
cope
I
have restricted myself
to
literature
no
earlier than
ca.
1940, apart
from
certain important classics.
The
recent rapid advances
in
several fields
further
justify
this decision.
At
the
other
end of the
scale
my
select bibliography covers works generally
available
to me to the end of
1987.
In
preparing
my
dissertation
for
publication
I
have completely reviewed
it.
Apart from minor details, however,
I
found
no
cause whatever
to
modi-
fy
my
basic
polemic
or
conclusions. Indeed,
I
believe
I
have
strengthened
both.
First,
I
have reordered
my
overall polemic
so
that
it
flows
far
more
smoothly,
and
supplemented many minor points. Secondly,
I
have brought
my
secondary literature
as
fully
up to
date
as
possible
in
view
of my
limi-
ted
local
resources.
In
particular, this supports
my
original decision that
D.
Hellholm
is
today's leading generic scholar.
I
remain
firmly
convinced that
faulty
concepts
of
genre
and
generic criticism
are
directly responsible
for
much confusion
in the
subject
in
hand.
The
revision also
offered
the
oppor-
tunity
to
correct numerous minor errors
in
typing
and
transmission. Some
have
no
doubt eluded
my
scrutiny.
For
these
I
apologise.
Some specific words
of
appreciation
are
also
in
order, even though
I can
by no
means thank
all who
have assisted
me in
this enterprise. First,
I am
grateful
to the
theological
faculty
of
Avondale College, Cooranbong, Aus-
tralia,
who
encouraged
me to
travel
halfway
round
the
world
to
Aberdeen,
Scotland,
in
pursuit
of
higher theological goals. Among these
Dr.
Norman
Young,
my
primary mentor, merits special mention
for
nurturing
my
love
of
God's Word
and
academic excellence. Secondly,
I
value
the
ministerial
employment, mostly under
Pr. Ron
Surridge's
kindly
guidance, which
was
essential
in
meeting
my
doctoral expenses while supporting
a
family.
I
also
wish
to
thank
the
"wee kirk"
in Dee
Place
for
their patient understanding
whenever their minister
was
forced
to
forsake
their
more immediate needs
in
favour
of his
sadly neglected
studies.
Thirdly,
I am
greatly indebted
to
several
of the
faculty
of
Divinity
in the
University
of
Aberdeen. Professors
Robin
Barbour, William Johnstone
and
Howard Marshall each read portion
of my
dissertation,
offering
valuable
advice
and
guidance.
But by far the
greatest burden
was
borne
by Dr.
Ruth
Edwards, despite
the
pressure
of an
overload
of
official
duties.
My
work
is
the
richer
for
such expertise,
although
its
deficiencies remain
my
responsi-
Foreword
VII
bility
alone.
I
also appreciate
the
faculty's patience with
my
many absences
from
study
on
pressing pastoral business.
More
recently
the
University again showed
its
kindness
in
saving
me the
great
expense
of
returning
from
the
Antipodes
for my
verbal examination.
In
accepting Howard Marshall's thoughtful suggestion
of a
telephone hook-
up,
it may
also
have made history.
At the
very
least,
the
link between
my
examiners,
Drs. George
Beasley-Murray
and
Ruth Edwards
at
opposite
ends
of
Britain,
and
myself
a
hemisphere away, surely enjoys some record
for
geographic
scope!
More importantly,
I am
grateful
for
their generous
comments
and
helpful advice,
and for
successfully recommending that
my
dissertation
be
accepted.
This book owes
its
existence
to Dr.
Beasley-Murray,
who
first
encoura-
ged me to
publish. More recently
Dr.
Michael
Lattke,
of the
University
of
Queensland, Australia, suggested that
I
approach Walter
de
Gruyter.
Their
ready acceptance
now
permits
me to
offer
my
research
to the
wider scho-
larly world.
I
thank them
in
anticipation
of
their response, which
I
await
with
great interest,
and
from
which
I
will
no
doubt benefit greatly.
My
vast debt
to
biblical scholarship needs
no
further
acknowledgement
than
my
copious footnotes. However,
I am
especially
grateful
to
Professor
Ugo
Vanni
for his
prompt personal reply
in
clarifying
one of his
referen-
ces,2
and for Dr.
Paul Ellingworth's help
in
locating
two
locally elusive
books.
I
also appreciate
Dr.
Edgar
Conrad's
kind assistance
in
sharpening
my
Semitic skills.
In
another sphere altogether Neil Frick
and
Peter New-
land,
of
Computer City,
willingly
assisted
me
with
my
various problems
in
converting almost
two
megabytes
of
wordprocessor data
to
hard copy.
My
burden
has
also been eased
by
Walter
de
Gruyter's
patience
and
understan-
ding
in
such
unforseen
delays.
Finally,
but
certainly
not
least,
I
wish
to
place
on
record
my
deep debt
to
my
family, without whose support this protracted project would have
been
impossible.
I
will never
be
able repay
their
huge sacrifice.
Fred
Mazzaferri,
Brisbane, Australia, September, 1988.
2See
below,
18, fa
172.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
V
ABBREVIATIONS
XVII
CHAPTER
1:
INTRODUCTION
1
Major
Academic Debates
2
Authorship
2
Date
of
Writing
6
Unity
8
R.
H.
Charles
9
P.
Gaechter
11
M.-E.
Boismard
14
H.
Stierlin
22
F.
Rousseau
23
J. M.
Ford
26
The
Johannine-School
Hypothesis
29
Summary
32
Philosophies
of
Interpretation
33
Preterist
33
Historicist
33
Futurist
33
Idealist
34
Summary
34
CHAPTER
2:
JOHN'S
GENERIC
SIGNPOSTS
35
Source
Criticism
35
John's
Major
Sources
36
Source
Criticism
of Rev 36
Gd
Testament Sources
39
Old
Testament
Text
42
Classical
Apocalyptic
Sources
47
Synoptic
Traditional
Sources
50
X
Table
of
Contents
Pagan
Mythological
Sources
52
Summary
56
Implications
for
Generic
Criticism
58
CHAPTER
3:
GENERIC
CRITICISM
59
The
Concept
of
Genre
in
Biblical
Criticism
60
Current
Concepts
of
Genre
60
T.
Longman
60
D.
Hellholm
62
J. A.
Baird
66
W. G.
Doty
68
L.
Hartman
69
J. J.
Collins
70
D. E.
Aune
71
W. S.
Vorster
71
Definition
73
Proximate
Works
73
Limits
of my
Research
75
Excursus
76
CHAPTER
4:
CLASSICAL
OLD
TESTAMENT PROPHECY
85
The
Prophetic
Call Narrative
88
The
Call Narrative
of
Isaiah
91
The
Divine Confrontation
91
The
Introductory Word
92
The
Commission
92
The
Objection
92
The
Reassurance
93
The
Sign
93
The
Call Narrative
of
Jeremiah
93
The
Divine Confrontation
94
The
Introductory Word
94
The
Commission
94
The
Objection
94
The
Reassurance
94
The
Sign
95
The
Call Narrative
of
Ezekiel
95
The
Divine Confrontation
95
Table
of
Contents
XI
The
Introductory Word
96
The
Commission
96
The
Objection
97
The
Reassurance
98
The
Sign
98
Summary
102
Prophetic
Revelation
103
The
Spirit
of
Yahweh
103
The
Hand
of
Yahweh
106
The
Word
of
Yahweh
108
Vision
and
Dream
111
Summary
118
Prophetic
Proclamation
119
Basic
Formulas
120
Messenger Formula
120
Attention Formula
121
Divine
Oracle
Formula
122
Emphatic
Divine Oracle Formula
123
Oath Formula
123
Recognition Formula
124
Summary
125
Verbal
Communication
126
Threatening Oracle
127
Benevolent Oracle
134
Summary
135
Nonverbal
Communication
136
Action
Language
137
Sign Language
138
Passive Language
139
Summary
139
Summary
140
The
Prophetic
Books
141
Broad
Structure
141
Isaiah
141
Jeremiah
142
Ezekiel
143
XII
Table
of
Contents
Summary
144
Theological
Emphases
145
The
Broken Covenant
145
The
Second
Exodus
147
The New
Covenant
149
Summary
151
Summary
151
The
Genre
of
Classical
Prophecy
152
Common
Characteristics
153
Generic
Definition
154
Form
154
Contents
154
Function
154
Ezekiel,
the
Classical
Prophet
Par
Excellence
155
CHAPTER
5:
CLASSICAL APOCALYPTIC
157
The
Dilemma
of
Definition
160
Major
Modern
Definitions
164
J.J.Collins
164
D. E.
Aune
167
P. D.
Hanson
170
C.Rowland
172
Generic
Definition
174
Primary
Literature
Survey
174
Life
of
Adam
and Eve
175
1
Enoch
176
2
Enoch
176
Apocalypse
of
Abraham
177
Testament
of
Abraham
177
Testament
of
Levi
178
Testament
of
Naphtali
178
Testament
of
Joseph
178
Testament
of
Moses
178
Jubilees
179
2Baruch
179
3
Baruch
179
4
Ezra
180
Table
of
Contents XIII
Sibylline Oracles
180
Common
Characteristics
181
Form
181
Contents
182
Function
183
Definition
184
CHAPTER
6:
ZECHARIAH
AND
DANIEL
185
The
Generic
Status
of
Zech
185
The
Prophetic
Option
185
Prophetic Call
186
Prophetic Revelation
186
Prophetic Proclamation
186
Prophetic Book
187
Summary
188
The
Apocalyptic Option
188
Apocalyptic Form
188
Apocalyptic Contents
188
Apocalyptic Function
189
Summary
189
Summary
189
The
Generic
Status
of Dan 190
The
Prophetic Option
190
Prophetic Call
190
Prophetic Revelation
190
Prophetic Proclamation
190
Prophetic Book
191
Summary
191
The
Apocalyptic Option
191
Apocalyptic Form
192
Apocalyptic Contents
193
Apocalyptic Function
193
Summary
193
John's
Employment
of
Danielic
Sources
194
Summary
195
Summary
196
XIV
Table
of
Contents
CHAPTER
7: NEW
TESTAMENT PROPHECY
197
Prophetic
Persons
199
John
the
Baptist
199
Jesus
200
Paul
201
Barnabas
203
Agabus
203
Community
Prophets
203
Summary
204
Prophetic
Pursuits
204
Revelatory Visions
204
Exposition
of
Scripture
205
Teaching
206
Exhorting,
Comforting,
Strengthening
206
Prediction
208
Symbolic
Acts
208
Summary
209
Prophetic
Pericopes
209
Criteria
for
Isolation
209
Gospels
209
Aune's
General Criteria
211
Formal
Features
212
Formulas
213
Basic
Forms
213
Evaluation
214
Summary
215
Generic
Definition
216
Summary
218
CHAPTER
8:
NEO-APOCALYPTIC
219
CHAPTER
9: THE
CASE
FOR REV AS
CLASSICAL
APOCALYPTIC
223
The
Significance
of
Άποκάλυψι?
224
Form
225
Pseudonymity
226
Table
of
Contents
XV
Visionary Revelation
229
Symbolism
229
Angelus
Interpres
230
Written Form
231
Conclusion
233
Contents
233
Eschatology
233
Pseudo-prophecy
235
Imminence
236
Dualism
237
Pessimism
238
Determinism
239
Conclusion
250
Function
250
Rist's Defense
of the
Apocalyptic Option
251
Developing Stream
of
Tradition
252
Common Stock
of
Tradition
253
Apocalyptic Concepts
255
Interpretation
256
Reinterpretation
256
Conclusion
257
Conclusion
257
CHAPTER
10: THE
CASE
FOR REV AS
CLASSICAL
PROPHECY
259
John's
Prophetic
Call
264
The
Heavenly
Confrontation
265
The
Introductory Word
279
The
Commission
289
Summary
295
John's
Prophetic Revelation
296
God 296
Christ
297
The
Spirit
of God 300
The
Angel
303
The
Word
of God 304
The
Testimony
of
Jesus
306
XVI
Table
of
Contents
Visions
313
Summary
317
John's
Prophetic
Proclamation
318
Prophetic
Testimony
318
Prophetic
Formulas
326
Prophetic
Oracles
327
Symbolic
Acts
329
Summary
330
John's
Prophetic
Book
330
Broad
Structure
331
W. R.
Kempson
332
E.
S.
Fiorenza
343
A.
Yarbro Collins
348
J.
Lambrecht
356
Summary
363
Generic Significance
363
Theological
Emphases
365
Summary
374
Conclusion
374
CHAPTER
11:
CONCLUSION
379
APPENDIX
A:
TRUDINGER'S
LIST
OF
JOHN'S
OLD
TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS
AND
ALLUSIONS
385
APPENDIX
B:
GENERIC CLASSICAL PROPHETIC
FORMULAS
387
APPENDIX
C:
BROAD STRUCTURE
OF THE
BOOK
OF
REVELATION
395
PRIMARY
LITERATURE
INDEX
397
AUTHOR
INDEX
425
SUBJECT
INDEX
431
SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
465
ABBREVIATIONS
AF
Attention Formula
AUS
S
Andrews University Seminary Studies
BAG A
Greek-English
Lexicon
of the New
Testament
and
other Early Christian Literature,
by F. W.
Gingrich
and
F. W.
Danker (Chicago
and
London: University
of
Chi-
cago Press,
19792).
BBC,
12 The
Broadman
Bible Commentary,
12,
eds.
C. J.
Allen
etal.
(London: Marshall, Morgan
&
Scott, 1973).
BDF
A
Greek Grammar
of the New
Testament
and
other
Early
Christian
Literature,
by F.
Blass
and A.
Debrun-
ner,
trans,
and
rev.
R. W.
Funk (Chicago: University
of
Chicago Press
and
Cambridge: CUP, 1961).
Bib. Biblica
BJRL
Bulletin
of
the
John Rylands Library
BR
Biblical Research
BT
Bible
Today
BTB
Biblical Theology Bulletin
CBQ
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CN
Call Narrative
DDSR
Duke Divinity School Review
DOF
Divine Oracle Formula
EBC,
12 The
Expositor's Bible Commentary with
the New
Inter-
national Version
of the
Holy
Bible,
12,
eds.
F. E.
Gae-
belein
etal.
(Grand Rapids:
Zondervan,
1981).
EQ
Evangelical Quarterly
ET
Expository Times
ET
L
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
GNTG
A
Grammar
of New
Testament
Greek,
2, by J. H.
Moulton
and W. F.
Howard (Edinburgh:
T. & T.
Clark,
1929).
GTJ
Grace Theological Journal
HPR
Homiletic
and
Pastoral Review
HUCA
Hebrew
University
College Annual
XVIII Abbreviations
IB, 12 The
Interpreter's
Bible,
12,
eds.
G. A.
Buttrick
et
al.
(New
York
and
Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1957).
IBD,
1 The
Illustrated
Bible
Dictionary,
1,
eds.
J. D.
Douglas
etal.
(Leicester:
IVP,
1980).
IBNTG
An
Idiom Book
of New
Testament Greek,
by C. F. D.
Moule
(Cambridge: CUP,
19592).
IBS
Irish Biblical Studies
IDB
The
Interpreter's Dictionary
of the
Bible:
an
Illustrated
Encyclopedia,
eds.
G. A.
Buttrick
et al.
(Nashville:
Abingdon Press,
1962),
4
vols.
IDBS
The
Interpreter's Dictionary
of the
Bible:
an
Illustrated
Encyclopedia: Supplementary Volume, eds.
K.
Crim
et
al.
(Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1976).
Int. Interpretation
ISBE,
1 The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
1,
eds.
G. W.
Bromiley
et al.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
19792).
JBC
The
Jerome Bible Commentary,
2,
eds.
R. E.
Brown
et
al.
(London:
Geoffrey
Chapman,
1968),
2
vols.
in
one.
JBL
Journal
of
Biblical Literature
JETS
Journal
of
the
Evangelical Theological Society
JJS
Journal
of
Jewish Studies
JSJ
Journal
for the
Study
of
Judaism
JSNT
Journal
for the
Study
of
the New
Testament
JSOT
Journal
for the
Study
of
the Old
Testament
JTC
Journal
for
Theology
and the
Church
JTS
Journal
of
Theological Studies
LQHR
London Quarterly
and
Holburn Review
L V
Lumiere
et Vie
MF
Message
Formula
NBD
The New
Bible
Dictionary,
eds.
J. D.
Douglas
et al.
(London: IVP, 1962).
NIDNTT
The New
International Dictionary
of New
Testament
Theology,
ed. C.
Brown (Exeter: Paternoster Press,
19802,
1976, 1978),
3
vols.
Nov.
T.
Novum
Testamentum
NRT
Nouvelle Revue
Theologique
NTG
Novum
Testamentum
Graece,
eds.
K.
Aland
et al.
(Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
198326,
rev. ed.).
NTS New
Testament Studies
OF
Oath Formula
Abbreviations
XIX
OJRS
Ohio Journal
of
Religious Studies
OTP
The Old
Testament
Pseudepigrapha,
ed. J. H.
Charles-
worth (London: Darton, Longman
&
Todd,
1983,
1984),
2
vols.
PCB
Peake's Commentary
on the
Bible,
eds.
M.
Black
and H.
H.
Rowley
(Sunbury-on-Thames:
Nelson,
1962).
QR
Quarterly Review
RB
Revue Biblique
RE
Review
and
Expositor
Rev.
Qum.
Revue
de
Qumran
RF
Recognition Formula
RQ
Restoration Quarterly
RSR
Revue
de
Sciences Religieuses
RTR
Reformed Theological Review
SDB,
8
Supplement
au
Dictionnaire
de la
Bible,
8,
eds.
H.
Gazelles
and A.
Feuillet (Paris: Letouzey
and
Ane,
1972).
SBLSP
Society
of
Biblical Literature Seminary Papers
Sei.
Esp. Science
et
Esprit
Sem.
Semeia
TB
Tyndale
Bulletin
TCGNT
A
Textual Commentary
on the
Greek
New
Testament,
by
B. M.
Metzger (United Bible Societies,
1971).
TDNT,
6
Theological Dictionary
of the New
Testament,
6, ed.
and
trans.
G. W.
Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1968).
Them.
Themelios
TS
Theological Studies
TWOT
Theological Wordbook
of the Old
Testament, eds.
R. L.
Harris
et
al.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1980),
2
vols.
VT
Vetus
Testamentum
VTS
Supplements
to
Vetus Testamentum
WEF
Word Event Formula
WTJ
Westminster Theological Journal
Z
A W
Zeitschrift
für die
Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
ZNW
Zeitschrift
für die
Neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
ZPEB
The
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia
of
the
Bible,
eds.
M.
C.
Tenney
et al.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975),
5
vols.
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
The
august
halls
of NT
scholarship
ring
repeatedly with many
a
chorus
of
common
concern.
But
nothing
incites
so
frequent
a
chorus
as
that "very
neglected
book",1
with
its
"strange,
often
bizarre,
symbols",2
the
Revela-
tion
of
John.
"De
tous
les
ecrits
du
Nouveau Testament,
l'Apocalypse
de
saint
Jean
est
certainement
le
plus
difficile."3
A.
Yarbro
Collins
expresses
the
problem
from
a
pastoral dimension:
Like
the
scroll which
the
Lamb takes
from
the
enthroned
one in
chap-
ter
five,
the
Apocalypse itself might
as
well
be
sealed with seven
seals
for
many
in
the
church today...
For
some
the
book simply does
not
make
sense.
It has no
plot
and
there
is no
apparent logic
in the
order
of
the
episodes. While some
of the
images
are
vaguely familiar
from
the Old
Testament, most
are
opaque
and
originate
in a
strange, foreign
world. Other
people
think
of the
Apocalypse seldom
and
with distaste
because they associate
it
with
the
literal expectation
of a
speedy
end to
the
world held
by
various
millennarian
[sic]
sects...
Still others hold
the
Apocalypse
in low
esteem because
of its
fervent hope that
the
blood
of the
martyrs will
be
avenged
by the
bloody destruction
of
their
enemies.4
However,
the
attentive listener
is
quick
to
discern that this
is
just
a
minor
theme
in the
chorus
of
concern.
Rev may be
"the paradise
of
fanatics
and
1L.
Morris,
The
Book
of
Revelation:
an
Introduction
and
Commentary (Leicester,
19872),
9. Cf. W.
Barclay,
Letters
to the
Seven
Churches
(London,
1957),
11; D.
Guthrie,
New
Testament
Intro-
duction
(Leicester,
19703),
931.
2G.
E.
Ladd,
A
Commentary
on the
Revelation
of
John (Grand Rapids,
1972),
10. Cf. E. S.
Fio-
renza, Invitation
to the
Book
of
Revelation:
a
Commentary
on the
Apocalypse with Complete
Text
from
The
Jerusalem Bible (Garden
City,
1981),
15; R. H.
Mounce,
The
Book
of
Revelation
(London,
1978),
12; J.
Sweet,
Revelation
(London,
1979),
3f.
3A.
Feuillet,
"Les Diverses
Mothodes
d'lnterpretation
de
l'Apocalypse
et les
Commentaires
Recents",
L'Amidu
Clergo,
71
(1961),
257.
Cf.
idem.
The
Apocalypse, trans.
T. E.
Crane (Sta-
ten
Island,
1965),
7;
M.
Ashcraft, "Revelation",
BBC,
12,
240;
A. F.
Johnson,
"Revelation",
EBC,
12,
399;
Ladd,
toe.
cit.
*The
Apocalypse
(Wilmington,
1979),
ix. Cf.
idem, Crisis
and
Catharsis:
the
Power
of
the
Apoca-
lypse
(Philadelphia,
1984),
13f.;
J. J.
Collins,
"The
Apocalypse—Revelation
and
Imagination",
Bible
Today,
19
(1981),
361;
Ftorenza,
op.
cit.,
15f.;
idem,
The
Apocalypse (Chicago,
1976),
7-
11;
idem,
The
Book
of
Revelation: Justice
and
Judgment
(Philadelphia,
1985),
1;
M.
Kiddle,
The
Revelation
of
St.
John (London, 1940),
xvii;
J. J.
Megivern,
"Wrestling
with
Revelation",
BTB,
8
(1978),
147-154;
F.
Stagg,
"Interpreting
the
Book
of
Revelation",
RE, 72
(1975),
331f.;
R.
Summers,
Worthy
is the
Lamb:
an
/n/e/prefaf/on
of
Revelation
(Nashville,
1951),
xiiif.
2
Introduction
sectarians, each using
it to
justify
his own
peculiar doctrine
and so
adding
to the
misgivings
of the
orthodox."5
Far
more
seriously,
the
very
scholars
contribute
to
"that chaotic diversity
of
interpretation
for
which
the
book
is
notorious."6
This "bewildering array
of
interpretations"7
is "so
diverse
as
to
make
the
reader wonder whether they
are
discussing
the
same
book."8
Lilje
even
insists
that
Rev
"has never
been
treated
in a
moderate, objective
way."9
Such
an
extreme claim
is
scarcely moderate
or
objective itself.
But
the
solid
consensus
it
shares with
its
more sober fellows
is
entirely valid.
Accordingly,
the
scholarly chorus
is
largely
one of
mutual self criticism.
This becomes more apparent still when
the
countless academic debates that
rage around
the
book
are
examined. Since many have
no
basic bearing
on
my
study
a
survey
of the
major
disputes will
suffice.
Only relevant pole-
mics
will
be
discussed
in
detail, sometimes
at a
more appropriate point.
Major
Academic
Debates10
Authorship11
Feuillet believes that "this question...
is one of the
most trying
and
most
difficult
of all
biblical
problems."12
He is
close
to the
mark, judging
from
5G.
B.
Caird,
A
Commentary
on the
Revelation
of
St.
John
the
Divine (London,
19842),
2. Cf.
Barclay,
toe.
cit.;
idem,
The
Revelation
of
John
(Edinburgh,
19762),
1,1;
H.
M.
Feret,
The
Apo-
calypse
of
St
John, trans.
E.
Corathiel (London,
1958),
viif.;
Kiddle,
op.
cit.,
xxi;
H.
Lilje,
The
Last
Book
of the
Bible:
the
Meaning
of the
Revelation
of St.
John,
trans.
O.
Wyon (Philadelphia,
1957),
3;
Mounce,
toe.
cit.;
M.
Rist,
"Revelation",
IB, 12,
354;
J. W.
Roberts,
The
Interpretation
of
the
Apocalypse:
the
State
of the
Question",
RO,
8
(1965),
154.
6G.
R.
Beasley-Murray,
The
Book
of
Revelation (London,
I9813),
12.
Cf. D. E.
Aune,
"The Social
Matrix
of the
Apocalypse
of
John",
BR, 26
(1981),
16;
Johnson,
toe.
cit.;
T. S.
Kepler,
The
Book
of
Revelation:
a
Commentary
for
Laymen (New
York,
1957),
23;
Kiddle,
op.
cit,
xvii,
xix;
M.
Rissi,
The
Future
of the
World:
an
Exegetical Study
of
Revelation 19:11-22:15
(London,
1972),
1;
idem, "The
Kerygma
of the
Revelation
to
John", Int.,
22
(1968),
3; U.
Vanni,
La
Struttura
Lette-
raria
dell'Apocalisse
(Brescia,
19802),
2.
7Caird,
foe.
cit.
*lbid.
Cf.
Lilje,
op.
cit.,
vf.,
3.
9lbid.,
v.
10These
include genre,
to
which
my
entire book
is
devoted.
The
subject proper
will
be
taken
up
in
ch. 3. A
major
contribution
is the
topic
of
structure,
the
discussion
of
which
is
taken
up
below,
331-365.
uThe
following
survey excludes
the
associated
subjects
of
date
of
writing
and
unity,
which
are
considered
separately below,
6f.;
8-32
respectively.
120p.
cit.,
95.
Major
Academic Debates
3
the
"maze
of
conflicting arguments
and the
extent
of
scholarly
confusion"13
in
the
literature.14
Attracting most notice
are the
relationship
of Rev to the
whole
Johannine
corpus,15
and the
ancient tradition that John
the
Revelator
was
the
famous
apostle.
While some scholars accept this
tradition,16
most
reject
it,17
or
leave
the
question
open.18
The
only other candidate with
any
serious support
is
John
the
Elder.19
But
this "shadowy
figure
whose very
existence
is
uncertain"20
is no
favourite.21
The
"influential
hypothesis"22
of
a
school
of
authors
is
quite relevant
as
well.
But
since this
also
bears
upon
the
debate over
the
unity
of the
book,
its
discussion
may be
deferred.23
13E.
S.
Fiorenza, "The
Quest
for
the
Johannine
School:
the
Apocalypse
and the
Fourth
Gospel",
NTS,
23
(1977),
403.
She
agrees
with
Kiddle's much
cited
pessimism,
op.
cit.,
xxxiii.
Cf.
Morris,
op.
cit.,
27;
Summers,
op.
cit.,
65.
14Ashcraft,
art.
cit.,
246f.;
Barclay,
Revelation,
1,
11-13;
Beasley-Murray,
op.
cit.,
32-37;
O.
Böcher,
"Johanneisches
in der
Apokalypse
des
Johannes",
NTS,
27
(1981),
310-321;
C.
Brütsch,
La
Clarto
de
I'Apocalypse
(Geneva,
19665),
397-403;
idem.
Die
Offenbarung
Jesu
Christi:
Johannes-Apokalypse
(Zurich,
19702).
3,101-110;
Yarbro
Collins, Crisis,
25-53;
J.-L.
D'Aragon,
"The Apocalypse",
JBC,
468f.;
R.
Dunkerley, "The Five
Johns",
LQHR,
30
(1961),
292-298;
A.
Farrer,
The
Revelation
of
St.
John
the
Divine: Commentary
on
the
English Text
(Oxford,
1964),
37-50;
Feuillet,
op.
cit.,
95-108;
Fiorenza, art.
cit.,
passim,
J. J.
Günther,
"The
Elder John, Author
of
Revelation", JSNT,
11
(1981), 3-20;
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
934-949;
E. F.
Har-
rison, Introduction
to
the
New
Testament
(Grand Rapids,
1964),
440-445;
A.
Helmbold,
"A
Note
on the
Authorship
of the
Apocalypse",
NTS,
8
(1961-62),
77-79;
W.
Hendriksen,
More
than Conquerors:
an
Interpretation
of
the
Book
of
Revelation
(London,
1962),
10-14;
John-
son,
art.
cit.,
404f.;
Kiddle,
op.
cit.,
xxxiii-xxxvi;
H.
Kraft,
Die
Offenbarung
des
Johannes
(Tübingen,
1974),
9-11;
W. G.
Kümmel,
Introduction
to the New
Testament,
trans.
A. J.
Mattill
(London, 1966),
329-331;
E.
Lohse,
Die
Offenbarung
des
Johannes:
Übersetzt
und
erklart
(Göttingen,
19713),
4-7;
Morris,
op.
cit.,
27-35;
Mounce,
op.
cit..
25-31;
V. S.
Poythress,
"Johannine Authorship
and the Use of
Intersentence
Conjunctions
in the
Book
of
Revelation",
WTJ,
47
(1985),
329-336;
P.
Prigent,
L'Apocalypse
de
saint
Jean
(Lausanne,
1981),
369-371;
Rist,
art.
cit.,
356-359;
J. N.
Sanders,
"St
John
on
Patmos".
NTS,
9
(1962-63),
75-85;
E. F.
Scott,
The
Book
of
Revelation
(New York, 1940),
30-35;
Summers,
op.
cit.,
53-79;
Sweet,
op.
cit.,
35-41;
M. C.
Tenney,
"Revelation, Book
of
the",
ZPEB,
5,90f.;
A.
Wikenhauser,
New
Tes-
tament
Introduction,
trans.
J.
Cunningham (New York,
1958),
547-553;
idem,
Die
Offenbarung
des
Johannes:
Übersetzt
und
erklärt (Regensburg,
19593),
13-16.
15The
above
authors
are
specialists
in
Rev.
Significantly,
a
somewhat
different
outlook
is
popular
with
non-specialists.
Their opinions must therefore
take
second
place,
and
cannot
be
can-
vassed
here.
See
fn.
278.
16Feuillet,
Helmbold, Hendriksen, Prigent, Summers; Guthrie, Harrison, Mounce,
Poythress
and
Tenney tentatively.
17Ashcraft,
Barclay, Collins, Dunkerley,
Farrer,
Fiorenza, Günther,
Kraft,
Kümmel,
Lohse,
Rist,
Sanders.
18Beasley-Murray,
Brütsch, D'Aragon, Guthrie,
Johnson,
Kiddle, Morris, Mounce,
Scott,
Sweet,
Wikenhauser.
19The
evidence
is
discussed
by
Ashcraft,
Brütsch, Collins, Dunkerley, Farrer, Günther, Guthrie,
Harrison,
Kraft,
Morris, Mounce,
Sanders,
Scott,
Summers,
Sweet,
Wikenhauser.
20Ashcraft,
art.
cit.,
247.
Cf.
Brütsch,
Clarto,
401,
fn.
12;
idem,
Offenbarung,
108,
fn.
15;
Feuillet,
op.
cit.,
107;
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
946f.;
Rist, art.
cit.,
357;
Scott,
op.
cit.,
35;
Summers,
op.
cit.,
67,
69, 78;
Wikenhauser, Introduction,
553;
idem,
Offenbarung,
15.
21Farrer,
Günther
and
Scott,
but
only
by
Günther with real conviction.
Kraft
is
quite
hesitant.
^Yarbro
Collins, Crisis,
33.
below.
29-32.
4
Introduction
Caird astutely
assesses
the
pragmatic import
of the
apostolic
debate:
It
would
be
interesting
to
have
our
curiosity
on
this point satisfied
once
and for
all,
but
nothing more than curiosity
is
involved.
The
apostles were
eyewitnesses
of the
ministry
of
Jesus,
and in
matters
of
historic
fact
their authority
was of
supreme importance.
But the
authority
of a
prophetic vision lies wholly
in its
content.
The
little that
we
know
of the
apostle John would
add
nothing
to our
ability
to
inter-
pret
the
Revelation,
and its
authority would
be
neither increased
if his
authorship
of it
could
be
proved
nor
diminished
if it
were
disproved.24
His
conclusion
is
just
as
true
in
general
as it is in
particular,
so the
precise
identity
of
Ί
ωάννη?25
is
irrelevant
to my
study.
The
only pertinent point
is
whether this
is a
pseudonym.
If so, the
popular opinion that
Rev is
apo-
calyptic26
would gain support.
In
the
quest
for
John's identity some scholars explore
the
pseudonymous
option,
but
rarely
is it
taken
seriously.27
Significantly, even
in the
generic
debate
itself28
the
notion seldom
if
ever survives. This strong consensus
is
scarcely surprising,
for
three
forceful
facts
argue decisively against pseu-
donymity. First,
the
author's simple, casual self-designations,
Ιωάννη?,
1:
4,
and
Εγώ
Ιωάννη?,
9,29
bespeak
a
ready familiarity with
his
pristine
audience.
He
requires
no
such label
as
"the
apostle"
or
"the
elder", which
would
certainly
qualify
any
pseudonym.30
Secondly,
his
extremely detailed
knowledge
of the
seven local churches
is all too
obvious
in his
initial
chap-
ters.31
Thirdly, John speaks with such
authority32
that
his
book
is
worthy
of
canonical status,
22:18f.
24Op.
cit.,
4. Cf.
Barclay,
Revelation,
1,
12;
Beasley-Murray,
op.
cit.,
37;
Kiddle,
op.
cit.,
xxxvi;
K
mmel,
op.
cit.,
331.
^Rev.
1:4,
9;
22:8;
d.
1:1.
26See
ch. 9.
27Dunkerley,
art.
cit.,
298,
accepts
the
option
with
apocalyptic
presuppositions.
But
Aune,
art.
cit.,
18, 24,
26f.;
Beasley-Murray,
op.
cit.,
33;
Yarbro
Collins, Crisis,
27f.;
D'Aragon,
art.
cit.,
469; Farrer,
op.
cit.,
39;
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
936f.,
948;
Johnson,
art.
cit.,
405;
Kiddle,
op.
cit.,
xxxivf.;
Mounce,
op.
cit.,
25f.;
Rist,
art.
cit.,
357;
Scott,
op.
cit.,
30f.;
Summers,
op.
cit.,
54f.,
78;
Sweet,
op.
cit,
37f.,
reject
or at
least
question
the
option.
Cf.
Feuillet,
op.
cit.,
107,
who
like-
wise
rejects
anonymity.
All
other
scholars
who
specifically
identify
John
may be
added
to the
long
list.
28See
ch. 9.
29Cf.
22:8.
30See
Yarbro Collins, Feuillet, Rist,
Sweet
in the
respective
references
in fn. 27.
Only authors
within
the
debate
are
cited
here
and
below.
31Aune,
art.
cit.,
26f.;
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
936;
Kiddle,
op.
cit.,
xxxv;
Sweet,
op.
cit.,
38f.
Sweet's
bibliographical
references
should
have
listed
C. J.
Hefner's
four-part
article,
"Unto
the
Angels
of
the
Churches",
Buried History,
11
(1975),
4-27,
56-83,
110-135,
164-190.
Cf.
idem.
The
Let-
ters
to the
Seven
Churches
of
Asia
in
their Local
Setting
(Sheffield,
1986),
passim.
32Farrer,
op.
cit.,
41;
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
936;
Johnson,
art.
cit.,
405;
Mounce,
op.
cit.,
26;
Sum-
mers,
op.
cit.,
56. Cf. fn. 39.
Major
Academic
Debates
5
Sweet sounds
a
note
of
rare
dissent
from
the
strong consensus
on
John's
authority.33
Yet his
demur
is
rather qualified,
and
mute through dearth
of
argument. This leaves Aune
to
defend
the
stance. Despite
John's
canonical
ambitions,
"we
simply
do not
know
how his
message
was
received."34
In
fact,
Rev's
late inclusion
in the
Syrian canon proves that
not all
Christians
accepted
it.35
Moreover, "John
had not
been
unopposed
in the
past (cf.
2:
14f.,
20-23),
and it is
presumably
for the
purpose
of
overcoming
a
reluc-
tance
to
accept
and act on his
message that
he so
carefully focuses
on the
divine authority
of
that
message."36
This
is not
very persuasive. Aune's opening gambit
is a
typical argument
from
silence which
is
just
as
invalid
as
ever.
We
simply
do not
know
how
Hebrews,
the
catholic epistles
or
most
of the
Pauline corpus were received,
either.
Yet
this raises
no
serious doubts about general
NT
authority. Aune
fares
little better
in
appealing
to
Rev's protracted canonisation.
On the one
hand,
authority never depends upon universal acceptance.
On the
other,
the
historical
morsel Aune
offers
is
irrelevant.
Any
reliable survey
of
canoni-
cal
history37
confirms that
the
Syrian problem arose several generations
after
John's.38
"Perhaps more than
any
other book
in the NT, the
Apoca-
lypse enjoyed wide distribution
and
early
recognition."39
Aune's appeal
to
John's contemporary opponents
is to no
avail, either. Defiance
on
such
a
limited
scale40
scarcely negates
his
authority. Rather,
it is
eloquent
affir-
mation.
Aune
enters
a
more basis line
of
argument with
his
settled surmise that
Rev
is
apocalyptic.
So
deep
is his
conviction
that
John's striking departure
from
expected custom evokes this most revealing comment: "Remarkably,
John
did not
resort
to the
traditional apocalyptic device
of
pseudonymity,
characteristic
of all
other Jewish
and
Christian
apocalypses...41
in
order
to
attract
attention
and
claim authority
for his
composition."42
The
strength
of
Aune's conviction
is
again evident
in
this assessment
of
John:
"the very
33Op.
cit.,
38.
34M.
at.,
22.
35lbid.
36
Ibid.
37Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
931-934;
Kraft,
op.
cit.,
7-9;
Mounce,
op.
cit.,
36-39;
Rist,
art.
cit.,
351-354,
Tenney,
art.
cit.,
93f.;
Wikenhauser,
Offenbarung,
22-25, among scholars
generally
cited
in
this
section.
38Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
934;
Mounce,
op.
cit.,
38;
Rist,
art.
cit.,
353;
Wikenhauser,
Offenbarung,
25.
39Mounce,
op.
cit.,
36. Cf.
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
931-933;
Kraft,
op.
cit.,
7;
Rist,
art.
cit.,
353;
Wiken-
hauser,
Offenbarung,
22f. This
speaks
volumes concerning
John's
authority,
of
course.
^It
is
far
from
universal
in
Pergamum,
2:uf.,
and
Thyatira,
20-24.
The
Ephesians
resist
it
totally,
6.
41Aune
mentions
a
minor,
though
questionable, "exception",
Shep
Herrn.
See ch. 8.
42Art.
cit.,
18.
6
Introduction
fact
that
he
communicates through
the
genre
of the
apocalypse indicates
that
he
either
does
not
have
or
cannot
use
personal authority
as the
basis
for
his
appeal."43
However, this type
of
polemic
is
even
less
persuasive than
the first, for it
hangs precariously upon
Aune's
generic assumption. Here
he
begs
a
highly
debatable question
in
which
no
facile opinion will
suffice.
In
fact,
it may
be
argued cogently that
Rev is by no
means
a
typical apocalypse,
if at
all.44
Be
that
as it
may,
Aune's
very concept
of
genre seems rather inadequate.
He rightly
concludes that
the
quest
for
authority
is one
crucial motive
for
pseudonymity.45
Yet he
does
not
seem
to
realise that this coveted authority
inheres
in the
perceived status
of the
author,
not in the
genre itself. Once
Aune
admits that
Rev
employs
no
pseudonym46
this line
of
polemic collap-
ses, quite apart
from
the
broader generic question.
The
conclusion
is
inescapable. Whoever John
is he
certainly employs
his
own
well-known name,
with
ready
familiarity
and
authority.
Date
of
Writing47
Caird
suggests that this
is "a far
more serious
gap in our
knowledge than
our
ignorance
of the
identity
of the
author."48
Whether
he
overdraws
it or
not49
the
problem
is
major,50
and
scholars address
it
repeatedly.51
The
last
43
Ibid.,
26.
44See
ch. 9.
45See
below,
183f.
46See
fn.
27.
47This
survey
excludes
the
associated
subject
of
unity,
which
is
next
considered
separately.
48Op.
cit.,
5t.
49Rissi,
op.
cit.,
2,
claims conversely that "More precision
is
possible
regarding
the
time
of
com-
position" than about authorship.
50A.
A.
Bell,
"The
Date
of
John's
Apocalypse.
The
Evidence
of
some
Roman Historians
Reconsi-
dered",
NTS,
25
(1979),
93;
Yarbro
Collins, Crisis,
54;
idem,
"Dating
the
Apocalypse
of
John",
BR,
26
(1981),
33;
idem,
"Myth
and
History
in
the
Book
of
Revelation:
the
Problem
of its
Date",
Traditions
in
Transformation: Turning Points
in
Biblical Faith,
eds.
B.
Halpern
and J. D.
Leven-
son
(Winona Lake,
1981),
379;
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
949.
51Ashcraft,
art.
cit.,
251f.;
Barclay,
Revelation,
1,
14-20; Beasley-Murray,
op.
cit.,
37f.,
Bell,
art.
cit.,
93-102;
Brütsch,
Clarte,
403-405;
idem,
Offenbarung,
110-112;
Yarbro Collins, Crisis,
54-
83;
idem,
"Dating",
33-45;
idem,
"Myth",
377-403;
D'Aragon,
art.
cit.,
469;
Farrer,
op.
cit.,
32-
37;
Feuillet,
op.
cit.,
89-94;
Guthrie,
op.
cit.,
949-961;
Harrison,
op.
cit.,
445-448;
A. C.
Isbell,
"The Dating
of
Revelation",
RQ,
9
(1966),
107-117;
Kepler,
op.
cit.,
19-22;
Kiddle,
op.
cit.,
xxxvi-xl;
Kümmel,
op.
cit.,
327-329;
R. P.
Martin,
New
Testament
Foundations:
a
Guide
for
Christian
Students,
2
(Exeter,
1978),
374-377;
Morris,
op.
cit,
35-41;
Mounce,
op.
cit.,
31-36;
Rist,
art.
cit.,
354-356;
J. A. T.
Robinson, Redating
the New
Testament
(London,
1976),
221-
253; Summers,
op.
cit.,
79-85;
Sweet,
op.
cit.,
21-27;
M. C.
Tenney, Interpreting
Revelation
(Grand
Rapids,
1957),
17-20;
idem,
art.
cit.,
91f.;
Wikenhauser,
Introduction,
553-556;
idem,
Offenbarung,
16-18.
Major
Academic Debates
7
years
of the
reigns
of the
emperors Nero (A.D.
54-68)
or
Domitian
(A.D.
81-96)
are the
only serious alternatives.
The
respective external
and
inter-
nal
evidence
is
routinely weighed,
but the
later
date enjoys
almost
outright
favour.52
This
whole question
is so
complex, however, that conviction
is
far
from uniform, even within
the
majority. Summers speaks with confi-
dence:
"We
feel
safe
in
this position since
we
have such strong external
and
internal
evidence supporting
it."53
Sweet
is
almost ambivalent: "the
earlier
date
may be right, but the
internal evidence
is not
sufficient
to
outweigh
the
firm
tradition stemming
from
Irenaeus."54
But
Martin's conviction
is
faint:
"on
balance
it
remains
the
least unsatisfactory amid
a
welter
of
con-
tending
hypotheses."55
Nevertheless,
the
consensus
is
still
so
solid that
Robinson
protests loudly.
Though
the
early date
was
favoured
a
century ago,
he has
"not come across
a
single modern
New
Testament
scholar
who
comes down
in
favour
of it -
apart
from
Torrey,
and now
more recently
and
eccentrically
J.
Massyng-
berde
Ford."56
No
doubt
he is
delighted
to see
Bell's even more recent
but
respectable
dissent
from
the
consensus,57
especially when
his own
rather
perverse
thesis58
has
attracted
little
support.59
The
complex details
of the
debate
do not
concern
my
research, however.
The one
relevant question
is
whether John
had
access
to the
synoptic tradi-
tions, with their source-critical import.
The
late date supports
the
case
for
contact. Regardless,
the
evidence
is
strong enough
not to
falter before
the
above
uncertainties.60
52Ashcraft,
Barclay,
Beasley-Murray,
Brütsch,
Collins,
D1
Aragon,
Feuillet,
Guthrie,
Harrison,
Isbell,
Kepler,
Kiddle,
Kümmel,
Martin,
Morris,
Mounce,
Rist,
Summers,
Sweet,
Tenney,
Wikenhau-
ser.
Cf.
Farrer.
53Op.
at..
85. Cf.
Isbell,
art.
oil.,
115.
54Op.
cit.,
27. He
refers
to the
Domitian
tradition.
55Op.
cit.,
377.
He
focuses
on the
internal
evidence, especially
17:7-11
with
its
enigmatic
list
of
kings.
He is
voting
reluctantly
for
Domitian
as the
eighth.
56Op.
cit, 225. Ford's contentious thesis
is
examined
in the
following
review
of the
unity
debate.
51
Art.
cit.,
passim.
58Typical
of
several harsh reviews
are
those
of R. M.
Grant,
JBL,
97
(1978),
294-296;
J. V. M.
Sturdy,
JTS,
30
(1979),
255-262.
The few who
allow
him
ground
in Rev at
least
include
J. A.
Fitzmyer,
"Two
Views
of New
Testament
Interpretation:
Popular
and
Technical", Int.,
32
(1978),
309-313;
D. M.
Smith,
Redatingthe
New
Testament?",
DDSR,
42
(1977),
193-205.
Butcf.
Yar-
bro
Collins,
Crisis,
69ff.
59The
rare positive reviews
include
J. P.
O'Reilly,
"On
Redating
the New
Testament", HPR,
79
(1978),
53-58,
but
this
is
somewhat
superficial,
below.
50f.
8
Introduction
Unity61
Research
on the
unity
of a
book
is a
fundamental facet
of
literary criti-
cism.
It
operates mainly
in the
realm
of
redaction criticism, although
it
overlaps with source
criticism.62
The
latter
is
crucial
to my
study,
but is
best
taken
up
separately.63
Unity
is
basic
to
several other studies, above
all
authorship, date
of
writing
and
structure.
For
if in its
final form
a
book
is
composed largely
of
earlier
texts with diverse authors
and
dates, such pre-
paratory
research
is
rendered
far
more
complex.
I
have
already
anticipated
the
bearings
of the
former
two on
generic criticism.
The
force
of the
latter
will
be
assessed
in due
course.64
The
relevance
of
unity
may
therefore
be
only
indirect,
but it
cannot wisely
be
ignored.
At
first
sight
the
topic seems
to
merit little attention
due to an
overwhel-
ming
consensus
for
unity.
Beasley-Murray's
judgment
is
especially telling,
since
he is
more willing than most modern scholars
to
accept
redaction:65
The
realization that earlier visions were incorporated into
the
Revela-
tion
led
expositors
and
critics
of a
previous generation
to
believe that
the
book must have been composed
of
more than
one
work. Such
views
did not
take into account
the
manifest
unity
of the
Revelation
as
we
have
it, and the
thoroughness with which
all
extraneous elements
have
been
made
to
subserve
the
Christian message.
One
controlling
hand,
one
master mind
has
been
at
work
to
produce
a
vision
of the end
wherein many originally diverse elements have
been
worked into
a
panorama
of
wonderful
symmetry.66
However, various modern dissenters, some quite
influential,
merit atten-
tion.
These
include
the
erudite pioneer Charles, whose shadow still lingers
large
in the
literature.
The
related schools hypotheses will also
be
explored
briefly.
61Only
major redactional
issues
are
within
the
scope
of
this
study.
Cf. fn. 65.
62See
below,
36.
63See
ch. 2.
MSee
ch. 3.
65E.g.
he
accepts
11
:lf.
as a
Zealot prophecy
from
the
time
of
Jerusalem's
fall,
and
3-13
as a
Jew-
ish
prophecy reinterpreted
by
John,
op.
cit.,
176-187.
But I do not
need
to
take
up
this topic.
For
one
thing,
this current relic
of
Charles'
line
of
reasoning, examined below,
has not
shaken
off
the
speculation that hampers
its
objectivity.
For
another, consequently,
no
specific
sources
are
identified.
This minimises
its
relevance
to
this
source-critical
study.
Cf. C. H.
Giblin,
"Revela-
tion
11:1-13:
its
Form, Function,
and
Contextual
Integration",
NTS,
30
(1984),
433.
66Op.
cit.,
18. Cf.
Yarbro
Collins, Apocalypse, xii; idem, Crisis,
31,
54; J.
M.
Court,
Myth
and
His-
tory
in
the
Book
of
Revelation (London, 1979),
13-16;
Farrer,
op.
cit.,
32;
Ftorenza,
Invitation,
22f.;
Guthrie,
op.
cit..
961,
967-969;
Johnson,
art.
cit.,
403;
Kepler,
op.
cit.,
31;
Megivern,
art.
cit.,
151;
Morris,
op.
cit.,
41f.;
Rissi,
art.
cit.,
4;
idem.
Time
and
History:
a
Study
on the
Revela-
tion,
trans.
G. C.
Winsor
(Richmond,
1966),
17.
Major
Academic Debates
9
R. H.
Charles67
Minor
displacements
and
interpolations
apart,68
Charles notes
in Rev "a
structural
unity
and a
steady development
of
thought
from
the
beginning
to
203.
In
204-22,
on the
other hand,
the
traditional order
of the
text exhibits
a
hopeless mental
confusion
and a
tissue
of
irreconcilable
contradictions."69
He
defends
so
strong
a
stand70
in
terms
of an
ordered restoration
of
crea-
tion
from
the
presence
of
evil. Satan
and his
followers
are
destroyed
in 20:
7-10,
the old
creation abolished
in
11-15,
and the new
established
in
21:1-4.
However,
in
22:15
the
evil horde
is
still outside
the New
Jerusalem, freshly
descended
to the new
earth.
To
Charles'
thinking
"A
greater contradiction
in
thought
and
statement
is
hardly
conceivable."71
He is no
happier that
2
speaks
of
healing
the
restored nations,
or
with
the
thought
of
evil outside
the
city
in
21:24-27.
So
three times over
he
insists that these passages
can
only
apply
to the
millennial period, though
he
defers
his
reasons briefly.
Charles suggests that
the
last section
of Rev
must therefore contain much
material
foreign
to
John,
or be
hopelessly disarranged.
He
rejects
the
first
alternative
because
the
rest
of the
book,
in
contrast, exhibits both structural
unity
and
constant development
of
thought. More importantly,
20-22
evinces linguistic coherence internally
as
well
as
with
the
bulk
of the
book.
These chapters must also
be
Johannine, therefore,
but in an
order radically
different
from
the one he
wished.
John's intent,
as
Charles
sees
it, was
this.72
The
heavenly Jerusalem,
21:
9ff.,
should have descended
to
earth before
the
events
of
20:11-15
as the
seat
of
Messiah's millennial kingdom,
as in
apocalyptic.
From
here
the
gospel
is
preached afresh
to the
nations
of
21:24-26;
22:14ff.
The
success implied
in
22:2 accords with
OT and
apocalyptic predictions,
and is
referred
to in
11:
15;
14:6f.;
15:4.
So
20:3 should have been followed
by
21:9ff.
"But there
is
another Heavenly City... quite distinct
from
that just dealt
with."73
That
of
21:1-4;
22:3-5, which descends
to the new
earth,
is
alone designated
καιι/ή.
These
two
scraps
of
text
"form
part
of one and the
same
poem",74
and
thus
belong
together.75
67The
relevant literature
is his A
Critical
and
Exegetical
Commentary
on
the
Revelation
of
St.
John
with
Introduction, Notes,
and
Indices also
the
Greek Text
and
English Translation (Edinburgh,
1920),
2
vols.
70These
two
paragraphs
are
condensed
from
ibid.,
2,
144-147.
7llbid.,
2,
146.
72This
paragraph
is
condensed
from
ibid.,
2,
148-153.
73W?/d.,
2,
151
.
14
Ibid.,
2,
153.
75Charles
summarises
his
reordered text,
ibid.,
2,
153f.
10
Introduction
Charles
explains
why
John's
last literary wishes were
not
fulfilled:
John died either
as a
martyr
or by a
natural death, when
he had
com-
pleted
i.-xx.
3 of
his
work, and...
the
materials
for its
completion,
which were
for the
most
part
ready
in a
series
of
independent docu-
ments, were
put
together
by a
faithful
but
unintelligent disciple
in the
order
which
he
thought
right.16
Indeed,
Charles
labels
this disciple "profoundly stupid
and
ignorant".77
Charles'
redactional
thesis
is
suspect
at
several points
on
different
levels.
But
in
view
of his
general disfavour with modern
exegetes,78
brevity will
suffice.
On a
higher, structural level
he
errs
in
denying regular recapitula-
tion.79
John does traverse
his
ground again,
often
with
a
different
focus,80
and is
quite
in
character
in
twice describing
the
descent
from
heaven
of the
same
New
Jerusalem, especially when
two
separate visions
are
involved.81
In the
first, 21:1-8
is the
climax
of a
relatively linear sequence
of
events
which transforms
the old
order into
the
new.
The
brief sketch
of the
city
characteristically anticipates
the
fuller
portrayal
to
follow.82
In the
second
John draws
a
most deliberate contrast between
the
pure bride-city, Jerusa-
lem,
and the
corrupt prostitute-city, Babylon,
17.83
Even
on a
lower, exegetical level Charles' curious notion
of two
distinct
heavenly Jerusalems simply will
not
wash, quite apart
from
the
dubiety
of
his
apocalyptic
presuppositions.84
For he
suspends
far too
much weight
on
the
slender thread
of the
solitary adjective
καινή,
when
a
whole stream
of
repeated words,
την
πάλιν
την
άγίαν
Ιερουσαλήμ...
καταβαίνουσαν
εκ
του
ουρανού
από
του
θεοΰ,
21:2,85
strongly attests equivalence.
The
simple, repeated
νύμφην,
2, 9, is
also decisive.
There
is
only
one
Babylon,
the
great sordid prostitute
who
shares
her
alluring charms with
all.
She has
but one
perfect
foil,
heavenly
New
Jerusalem,
the
virgin bride
of the
Lamb
who
reserves herself
for him
alone.
The
saints celebrate just
one
marriage,
19:6-9. Christ
has no
second bride
after
the
millennium.
One
must wonder,
too,
why the
most elaborate description,
21:1
Iff.,
is
reserved
for the
tem-
poral city about
to be
superseded
by the
eternal. Accordingly, only
a
single
city
can
survive
the
scrutiny
of
careful
exegesis.
16lbid.,
2,
147.
77/o/d,1,xviii.
Cf.liii.lv.
78Mounce,
op.
at.,
371.
Examples
are
offered
below.
Cf.
Rissi,
Future,
52, and at
fn.
198.
79Op.
c/f.,1,xxiii.
80See
below,
333f.,
342,
351
f.,
355.
81See
below,
302f.,
333,
338f.
82See
below,
355.
83Cf.
below,
342f.p
348, 349.
^Seech.
9.
85Cf.
10.
Major
Academic Debates
11
With this aberration
out of
mind Charles' other concerns
can be
seen
in
clearer
perspective. Recapitulation
is
again evident
on a
minor scale
in two
of
his
disputed passages, 21:5-8
and
22:12-17,
which share several common
features.86
The
same sorry scene
of the
rejected wicked
is
patently
in
view.
In
22:15, therefore, they
are not
only outside
the
city,
but
also
in the
lake
of
fire,
as in
21:8.
This
may
best
be
understood
from
the
greater detail
of
20,
despite
its
problematic
exegesis.
In 9
την
πάλιν
την
ήγαπημένην
can
only mean
the New
Jerusalem,87
after
its
descent. That
the
wicked still
exist
is all too
evident,
7-9.
The
lake
of
fire,
10, is
still
active
as
well.
Even
more relevantly,
the
loathsome lake receives
its
tragic complement
of the
wicked,
15,
after
the
destruction
of the old
order,
11.
So
these concerns
of
Charles
are
quite unfounded.
It
is no
surprise, then, that
he is
largely
out of
favour
with most modern
scholars.88
For
example, Caird rejects
his
"ruthless
surgery,"89
and
chides
him
as
"never reluctant
to
rewrite
the
Apocalypse
if he
thinks
it
capable
of
improvement".90
A.
Yarbro Collins holds that "When such machinations
are
necessary
to
maintain
a
theory,
the
viability
of
that theory
is
highly
questionable."91
Guthrie
concurs: "Editorial theories
of
this sort vitiate
the
argument which depends upon them,
for
whatever does
not
agree with
the
point
of
view maintained
is too
easily
got rid of by
editorial ingenuity
or
stupidity."92
After
his
review
of
Charles' thesis Vanni likewise concludes
that
"i
presupposti,
da qui
Charles
e
partito
per
ammettere
1'esistenza
dell'
editore
finale
si
sono
rivelati
infondati".93
In
short, Charles
may
safely
be
eliminated
from
this specific
discussion.94
P.
Gaechter95
Gaechter claims
to
differ
rather radically
from
Charles.96
Nevertheless,
he can
scarcely disdain
the
label
of
devoted disciple since
his
debt
is
most
86E.g.
Alpha
and
Omega,
Beginning
and
End, thirst,
free
water
of
life,
murderers,
the
immoral,
magicians,
idolaters, liars.
87E.g.
Ashcraft,
Beasley-Murray,
Ladd.
88See
further
below,
22, at
fn.
198.
89Op.
tit..
187.
Cf. xi,
257.
90/i»d.,
208.
91
The
Combat
Myth
in the
Book
of
Revelation
(Missoula,
1976),
11.
Cf.
10.
92Op.
tit.,
961.
93Op.
tit., 24.
94He
will
still
be of
assistance
elsewhere.
See
below,
48f.
95His
relevant
essays
are
"Semitic
Literary
Forms
in the
Apocalypse
and
their
Import",
TS, 8
(1947),
547-573;
"The
Role
of
Memory
in the
Making
of the
Apocalypse",
TS. 9
(1948),
419-
452;
"The
Original
Sequence
of
Apocalypse 20-22",
TS,
10
(1949),
485-521.
96"Memory",
420f.
12
Introduction
apparent.97
Indeed,
like Charles
he
postulates
a
doltish devotee
who
misun-
derstood John's intent
and
confused
his
book.
It is
true, however, that
his
route
differs
fundamentally
from
Charles'.
Gaechter
sees
in
John
"a
mind that likes clean-cut arrangements which
it
is
not
loath
to
express
by
monotonous formulae
and
numbers,
or to
make
in
other ways easily
recognizable."98
So
this disciplined
Semite99
has
filled
Rev
with Semitic literary
forms
like those "used
in the Old
Testament
and
in
Semitic works contemporary with
the
Apocalypse,
but not in
classical
Greek
works."100
Among these
forms
are
heptads such
as the
letters, seals,
trumpets
and
bowls,101
numerical symmetry such
as the
triad
of
angels
on
each side
of the Son of
Man,
14:6-20,102
and the
"great chiastic symmetry
of
the
second half
of the
Apocalypse,"103
in
which
the
mighty foes,
the
dra-
gon,104
the
beast
and his
false
prophet,
and
Babylon,
are
destroyed
in
exact
reverse order
of
their
appearance.105
Gaechter expects
consistency,106
so his
forms
"offer
a
welcome means
by
which
to
judge
omissions"107
and "to
discover intrusions
and
additions."108
Besides several examples
of
each,109
Gaechter notes many other departures
from
John's pristine
intent.110
He
explains these
as
follows. John delivered
the
contents
of his
visions orally,
but by
instalment.111
Furthermore,
"He
not
only recounted,
but to
some extent preached
the
matter, making appli-
cations
to his
listeners".112
On
occasions John also
offered
explanations,113
and
"repeated himself
with
a
supreme disregard
for the way in
which
he
had
previously represented
a
point."114
John's
disciple
was
left
to
produce
the
book
from
memory,115
but
with
no
prior
instructions116
and no
access
to
John.117
He was
hampered
by the
complexity
of the
disjointed
material,118
a
faulty
memory119
and
unsound
counsel
from
a
third
party.120
Nevertheless, when
he
showed
his
mutilated
efforts
to his
master, John approved
the
work.121
97"Sequence",
485,
516f.
98"Forms",
561.
Cf.
559.
"to«*.,
547, 559, 561.
100Ibid..
547.
mlbid.,
547-551.
W2lbid..
551-555.
103/6/c/.,
559.
104Probably
a
better
rendering
of
δράκων
than
dragon
is
serpent
in
view
of the
synonym
δφι?,
12:9;
20:2.
BAG
allows
the
option.
But I
will
always
preserve
each
author's
choice
of
words.
105"Forms",
555-559.
106Ibid.,
560f.
107/o(tf.,
561.
108/o/d.,
565.
I09lbid.,
561-570.
110"Memory",
426-443.
lu/bfd.,
423.
U2lbid.
n3lbid.
114/0/d
U5lbid.,
4241.
and
passim.
n6lbid.,
429f.,
443.
117/bW.,
424, 443.
inlbid.,
427, 430.
119/bW.,
421,441
and
passim.
nolbid.,
426, 446.
121
"Sequence",
513.
Major
Academic Debates
13
Gaechter's
thesis
is
even
more
dubious than
Charles'.
In
fact,
he
negates
his
paramount premise,
John's
highly methodical mind, when
he has him
present
his
message
in so
distorted
a
style. Gaechter simply cannot have
it
both ways. John
is
either organised
or
not.
The
utter extremes
he
sketches
are
completely incompatible.
The
problem
becomes
far
more acute when
John,
supposedly concerned
for the
precision
of his
message, abandons
it,
totally
unsupervised,
to an
incompetent
and
confused
disciple,
thoroughly
unprepared
for
this cardinal task. Such pervasive lack
of
interest
is
nothing
short
of
irresponsible. These anomalies
are
quite decisive enough.
But the
climactic
inconsistency
is the
most incredible
of
all. John approves
the
final
product
even though
it
strays
so
markedly
from
his
meticulous intent. This
is
surely
the
Achilles' heel
of
Gaechter's
surmise.
For he
employs
an
editor
to
relieve John
of the
blame
for
such
a
marred book.
To
fulfil
his
role
the
editor
must
be
most incompetent.
Yet
John's
final,
personal approval rolls
all
blame
for the
confusion
right
back
on his own
shoulders, obviating
all
need
for a
bungling editor.
At
least Charles' John
was not
still alive
at the
time.
Like
Charles',
Gaechter's
postulate also attracts decisive criticism
at the
structural
level.
For
instance,
he is
quite mistaken
to
insist that "the seventh
trumpet
is
missing like
the
seventh
seal."122
Worse,
he
completely
fails
to
understand
John's
masterly design when
he
dismisses interludes like 7:1-17
and
10:1-11:13
as
intrusive foreign
matter.123
Many more examples could
be
cited,
but
enough
has
already
been
said
to lay
this ingenious
but
errant
notion
to
rest.
It
is
little wonder, then, that Gaechter
has
been
virtually ignored
by the
world
of
responsible scholarship.
For
example,
W.
Michaelis
refutes
him
in
a
single
paragraph.124
Vanni
mentions
him
only
in
passing, without eva-
luation.125
Rissi restricts
him to a
brief critical
footnote.126
And
D'Aragon
dismisses
him
with
the
simple comment: "such attempts
at
reconstruction
have
not
been entirely
convincing".127
This
is
manifestly
a
classic under-
statement.
122"Memory",
428.
See
below,
286-288.
123"Forms",
566.
See
below,
334-338.
124
Einleitung
in das
Neue
Testament:
die
Entstehung, Sammlung
und
Überlieferung
der
Schrif-
ten des
Neuen
Testaments
(Bern,
19542),
307.
125Op.
dt.,
100.
12677me,
17,
fn.
45. Cf.
Guthrie,
op.
dt.,
942,
fn. 2.
127An.
dt.,
492.
14
Introduction
M.-E.
Boismard128
Boismard's
is the
most influential
of all
recent redactional
theories,
and
Vanni
notes
its
import:
Boismard occupa,
nel
quadro
degli
studi
e
degli
sforzi
fatti
in
questi
ultimi
decenni
per
penetrare
i
segreti letterari
della
Apocalisse,
un
posto
di
primissimo piano
: ha
affrontato
in
pieno
il
problema della
struttura
letteraria,
come fatto
a se
stante,
senza
alcuna preoccupazi-
one
; ha
sviscerato tutti
gli
aspetti
del
problema
fino
alle
ultime
con-
seguenze
; ha
presentato
una
soluzione originale.
La
reazioni della
critica
al
lavoro
di
Boismard
ne
hanno
confermato
l'importanza.129
Faithful
to his
assessment that
the
thesis requires
"un
esame
esaustivo",130
Vanni devotes
fully
23
pages, much more than
his
average,
to the
task.
My
own
independent
survey131
must
be
more modest, however.
Boismard
explains John's
"profusion
de
doublets"132
through
the
merger
of
two
parallel series
of
prophetic
visions.133
However,
"l'unite
de
style...
ce
style inimitable
de
l'Apocalypse,"134
demands
one
author,
but not
com-
mon
dates.135
He
reconstructs
his two
texts,
"groupant
les
morceaux
qui se
completent
et
s'appellent
1'un
1'autre,
separant
au
contraire
les
morceaux
qui
se
repetent
inutilement",136
although
he
ignores
1-3137
and
22:16-21.138
To
begin with, Boismard believes
that
4-16
"se
repartissent
d'eux-memes
en une
sorte
de
diptyque dont
les
visions
se
correspondent
en se
reprenant
selon
des
schemes
analogues."139
In 4-9 God
passes power
to the
Lamb
and
the
144,000,
the
celestial choir,
the
heavenly
liturgy
and the
trumpet angels
follow.
In
12-16 Satan passes power
to the
beast
and the
144,000,
the
choir
and
the
plague angels follow.
The
seals
in the
first
part
and the
three mes-
senger angels
in the
second have
no
counterparts,
but
both
are
closely knit
with
their
own
contexts.
So
Boismard labels
4-9
text
I and
12-16
text
II.140
Boismard touches upon
the
"plus
delicat"141
problem
of the
intervening
chapters.
The
peri
cope
of the two
witnesses,
11:1-13,
intrudes
on
that
of the
seven angels
in I. But he is not
willing
to
ascribe
any of it to II.
However,
14-18
belongs with
the
other angels
in I. 10 may be
apportioned between
128His
relevant works
are
'"L'Apocalypse',
ou
'les
Apocalypses'
de s.
Jean",
RB, 56
(1949),
507-
541;
"Notes
sur
l'Apocalypse",
RB, 59
(1952),
172-181;
L'Apocalypse (Paris,
1959a),
9ff.;
"L'Apocalypse
de
Jean",
Introduction Critique
au
Nouveau
Testament,
4,
eds.
A.
George
and
P.
Grelot (Paris,
1977),
24ff.
129Op.
c/f.,
59.
mlbid.,
60.
131But
see
below,
18-21.
132"'les
Apocalypses'",
508.
133/o/d.,
508f.
134/iwtf.,
509.
135Ibid.
136/o/d.,
510.
137/o/c/.,
fn.
1.
138See
ibid..
528.
I39lbid.,
510.
140/f?/d.
141
Ibid.
Major
Academic Debates
15
them.
The
messenger angel,
2b,
5-7, belongs
in I
with
the
trumpet
angels.
Yet
the
action with
the
book,
2a,
8-11,
prefaces
II in
standard apocalyptic
and
prophetic style.
The
introductory
1
belongs
with
I,
while
an
editor
has
suppressed
a
similar opening
to
II.142
Now
Boismard surveys
his
partially completed task:
Des
maintenant, nous pouvons
remarquer
la
profonde
difference
qui
exist entre
les
mises
en
scene respectives
du
premier
et du
second
texte. Dans
le
premier texte, Jean
est
ravi
en
extase
et
transporte
au
ciel
[sic].
Les
scenes
qu'il
contemple
se
deroulent
en
majeure
partie
dans
le
Ciel... Quand
une
communication celeste doit
etre
faite
ä
Jean,
c'est
un des
personnages presents
au
Ciel
qui
lui
parle
directement...
Dans
le
texte
II, les
perspectives sont
tres
differentes
:
Jean
se
trouve
sur
la
terre
et
demeure
sur la
terre;
il
ne
voit
pas le
Ciel,
ni
ceux
qui
s'y
trouvent...
Les
etres
celestes
ne
viennent
plus converser avec Jean,
mais
il
entend seulement
des
voix
qui
partent
du
Ciel...
Des
maintenant
done,
les
deux textes
que
nous avons
separes
apparaissent
comme
net-
tement
differencies,
doues
chacun d'une physionomie
qui lui est
propre.143
Boismard
next apportions
17-19:10,
the
prophecies
of
Babylon's
ruin.
In
17
"Jean
decrit...
le
Monstre comme
s'il
en
parlait pour
la
premiere
fois,
comme
si le
chapitre
XIII
n'existait
pas."144
For
John
the
beast
is
past
in 13;
17:1-9,
but
still
future
in
17:10,
12-14.
The
former therefore belongs
in I
and
the
latter
in II. The
editor's clumsy hand
is
clear
in
11.
Likewise
the
great
prostitute
of 17 is
portrayed
as if
afresh.
The two
accounts
of the ten
horns
also belong
to
different
texts. 12-14 announces
the
great battle
of 19,
to be
ascribed
to II,
while
17:15-17
belongs
in I
with
the
depiction
of
Baby-
lon
and the
beast,
3,
8.145
18:1-3 belongs
in I
since
it
parallels 14:8
in II. But
with
difficulty
- "La
certitude
n'est
toutefois
pas
absolue"146
-
4-8
is
ascribed
to II. The
pair
of
laments 9-19, 22f. must part company
as
well, except that
14
belongs with
the
second.
The first is
tightly bound
to
17:4; 18:3
and
thus belongs
in I. So
the
second belongs
in II.
Most
of the
remaining verses
are
distributed
on
the
basis that 22f. intrudes
on 21, 24.
Since
the
former belongs
in the
lat-
ter
belongs
in I.
Rather half-heartedly
20 is
deemed
to be an
insertion,
and
therefore
from
II.147
The
doxologies
of
19:1-10
are now
assigned
to I. The one in 2 is
appro-
priate
to I. It
also answers
the
martyrs' plea
of
6:9-11
and the
promise
of
U2lbid.,
510-512.
U3lbid.,
512.
144/o/d.,
513.
145/o/d.,
512-516.
I46lbid.,
517.
147/b/d.,
516-519.
16
Introduction
divine
retribution
in
11:18.
The
latter's
blessings
are
fulfilled
in
19:6ff.
Also
the
prostitute
of 2
appears again only
in 17. The
pericope
therefore
belongs
in I as
well,148
and an old
problem
is
solved.
If
les
chapitres
XII XVI ont
etc
inseres
entre
les
chapitres
XI et
XVII-
XIX,
primitivement unis...
le
troisieme
malheur
annonce
en XI, 14,
realise
par la
septieme
trompette,
n'est
autre
que la
chute
de
Babylone,
annoncee
en XI, 18,
decrite
aux
chapitres
XVII
et
XVIII,
et
chantee
par
les
hymnes
triomphales
de
XIX,
1-10.149
Boismard
pauses
to
survey
the
close parallel between
his
texts.
The
sixth
trumpet
in I and the
sixth bowl
in II
mark
the
release
of the
evil host
at the
Euphrates.
The
seventh trumpet
and
bowl announce
the final
battle against
Babylon,
which evokes lament then rejoicing
in
each
text.150
Next
for
distribution
is
19:11-20:10. Boismard asks,
si
les
«
rois
de la
terre
»,
c'est- -dire
les
rois
des
nations paiennes
(XIX,
19),
sont
extermines
par le
Cavalier Blanc (XIX,
21),
comment
le
Dragon
pourra-t-il
proceder
une
nouvelle
mobilisation
des
nations
paiennes, pour
les
faire
exterminer
une
seconde
fois
par le feu du
ciel
(XX,
7-10)?151
He
replies
by
assuming
a
repeated account
of one
eschatological conflict.
The one in 19
belongs
to II
since
the
beast
is
typical
of
this text, while
the
winepress
of
God's wrath
fulfils
14:20.
In
contrast,
the
expressions
in 20 -
descending angel, abyss,
key,
priestly reign,
four
corners
of the
earth
- are
characteristic
of I.
Also
the
dragon152
is
introduced
in
20:2
as if for the
first
time, despite
12:9.
Two
disparities,
the
overcomers
of 4 and the
beast
and
false
prophet
of 10,
which both belong
to II, are
attributed
to the
edi-
tor,
at
least
in
anticipation.153
Boismard
concludes that
in
20:11-15
two
accounts
of the
last judgment
have
been combined
in a
manner
"un
peu
maladroite."154
For the
dead
of
12
cannot appear before
God
prior
to the
events
of 13, and
judgment
by
works
is
mentioned twice. Since
llf.,
quite oblivious
of 4,
introduces God's
throne
as if for the first
time, they must belong
to Π. But
death
and
Hades
in
13f. belong
in I, as in
6:8,
and 15,
repeating
21:8
in II,
also belongs
in I.
Furthermore,
with
the aid of the
major
source
Dan.
7:9ff.
a
displacement
in
20:4
is
restored
to the
pericope.155
The
task
of
distribution
is
achieved when Boismard restores order
to
21-
22:5, with obvious debt
to
Charles.
The
first
portrayal
of the
future
Jeru-
148to«.,
519f.
149to«.,
520.
150to«.,
520f.
151
to«.,
521.
152See
fn.
104
re
δράκων.
153"'les
Apocalypses'",
521f.
154/o«.,
523.
155to/d.,
522-524.
Major
Academic
Debates
17
salem
has a
heavenly perspective
and the
second
an
earthly.
So
they belong
in
different
texts.
21:Iff.
must belong
in II
because
it
repeats
7:15-17
in I.
This positions
9ff.156
in I. In
each description
the
characteristics
of its
par-
ticular
text
are
evident. Similar verses also show that
the
editor
has
worked
over
22:6-15,
but
this still belongs
in
I.157
At
last
Boismard
can
collate
his two
texts158
and
assess
his
achievement:
"on
obtient deux
series
prophetiques
parfaitement
coherentes
et
conformes
au
scheme
traditionnel
des
livres prophetiques
de VA.
Τ."159
One is
singu-
larly
faithful
to Eze
while
the
other
is
inspired more
by
Dan.160
Boismard
is
very excited
by the
former:
"La
parente
entre
le
texte
I de
l'Apocalypse
et
le
livre
d'Ezechiel
est si
complete,
eile
denote
une
imitation,
un
demar-
quage
si
serviles,
qu'elle
offre
une
excellente justification
de
1'hypothese
qui
a
servi
de
point
de
depart
aux
analyses
precedentes."161
Boismard
is not
unmindful
of
certain problems, however, especially
in
11,
which
is
awkwardly inserted
in I. But
while
it has
more
affinity
with
II
than
with
I, it
cannot
be
assigned
to the
former:
"peut-etre
alors
est-il
une
sorte
d'appendice,
ajoute
au
texte
II
qu'il
resume,
et
destine
faire
mention
d'un
evenement
nouveau,
la
morte
des ap
tres
Pierre
et
Paul".162
The
residual problems, patently foreign expressions
in
each text, evince
the
editor's
harmonising hand. Boismard's debt
to
Charles
is
ever apparent
here.
For
example,
the
final
words
of
11:8,
δπου
καΐ
δ
κύριο?
αυτών
έσταυρώθη,
wrongly sketch Rome
as
Jerusalem.
Rev
also reserves
the
title
κύριο?
for
God.
Again, 20:1-10 belongs
in I,
though
the
words
δπου
καΐ
το
θηρίον
καΐ
ό
ψευδοπροφήτη?,
10,
accord with 19:20
in Π, and
John's
normal
style
is
δπου...
έκεΐ
or
δπου...
έπ'
αυτών, 12:6,
14;
17:9.
More-
over,
the
Beings
of
14:3; 15:7
and the
throne
and
elders
of the
first
"sont
absents
de la
mise
en
scene
du
texte
Π."163
Likewise, John cannot know
the
location
of the
choir
in
14:3
since heaven
is
closed
to him in II.
Again,
the
bowl
angel,
17:1; 21:9,
belongs
in Π, not I.
Finally,
in
19:10 John's regular
preposition
ενώπιον
is
replaced
by
έμπροσθεν.
Προσκυνησαι
with
dat.
is
equally
uncharacteristic.164
156Note
misprint,
ibid.,
526.
157/iwd.,
524-527.
158/6/d.,
528,
though
a few
details
are
overlooked.
He
outlines
them
529-532.
159/o/d,
529.
160/tod.,
533.
161to/d,
532.
I62lbid.,
534,
after
discussion, 533f.
163/o/d,
537.
lMlbid.,
534-538.
18
Introduction
Boismard concludes
his
first
essay
by
applying
his
results
to the
complex
question
of the
date
of
writing.
The
details
of
this typical discussion
do not
concern
my
study,165
so his
conclusions alone will
suffice.
Text
II was
pro-
duced first,
in
Nero's
day
after
the
deaths
of
Peter
and
Paul.
I was
penned
"apres
70, ä une
date difficile
ä
preciser,"166
but
perhaps during
the
reign
of
Vespasian
or the
early part
of
Domitian's.
The
letters
were written
still
later.167
In his
second essay Boismard both expands
and
modifies
his
thesis.
First,
Gaechter inspires
a
review
of
22:6-21. Noting that
it
reproduces almost
all
the
ideas
of
21:5-8
in
order,
he
decides that,
as the
latter
is the
finale
of II,
the
former
is the
finale
of I, but
with additions.
His
theory
is
confirmed
if
these
are
explicable.
22:6bc-7
precisely parallels
1:1-3.
Like
the
latter
it is
therefore
the
prologue
of a
text. Furthermore,
the
better context
of
22:16
is the
pristine epilogue
of the
letters, along with
12,
17ab, 20f. This leaves
the
epilogue
of as
8f.,
6a,
10f.,
13,17cd,168
14f.,
18f.169
Secondly, Boismard redistributes
12, all of
which
he had
first
placed
in
II.
Because
the
dragon's heavenly battle,
7-12,
bisects
his
assault upon
the
woman,
the
conflicts belong
to
different
texts.
The
first,
a
doublet
of
20:1-
4
in I,
belongs
to II. So the
second
is
home
in I, and is
granted
first
place
in
reminiscence
of
Eve's primordial struggle. Boismard also explains that
John originally equated
the
dragon with
the
beast
of 13, and
destroyed
him
in
in
19:20.
As
usual,
the
numerous anomalies Boismard observes
in his
reconstructed texts
are
attributed
to his
editor.170
Vanni provides
a
conve-
nient
chart
of the
modified results, although
the
additions
are
lacking.171
In
evaluating
Boismard's
hypothesis Vanni allows others
to
take
the
lead.
The
best
of a
dearth
of
worthwhile critics
is H. W.
Brekelmans.172
First
he
addresses
the
contents
of II. In
particular, Babylon
and its
fall
are out of
place.
The
former
is
linked
to
17:10,
12-14,
yet
this
is far
more concerned
with
the
beast.
In
14:8
the
latter cannot
be
torn
from
context
in I.
Further-
more,
from
12
onwards
the
three enemies
of the
Lamb
-
dragon, beast
and
false
prophet
-
appear
in one
context.
But
only
the
latter
two are
defeated.
165See
above,
6f.
166Boismard.
"'les
Apocalypses'",
541.
167Ibid.,
538-541.
I6817b
is a
misprint.
169Boismard,
"Notes",
172-178.
llolbid.,
178-181.
171
Op.
at.,
721.,
though
misprints
are
evident.
172"Een
nieuwe
Theorie
over
de
Apokalyps?",
Studia
Catholica,
26
(1951),
113-119.1
am
indeb-
ted to
Vanni
for
access
to the
Dutch,
and in
personal
correspondence
for
this
corrected
refe-
rence.
Major
Academic Debates
19
The
dragon
is
overthrown
in
I.173
Of
course, Boismard's modified thesis
is
no
longer vulnerable
in
this latter detail.
Brekelmans
next examines Boismard's doublets,
but is
unconvinced that
several should
be
listed. Examples include
17, 18;
20:1-10, 19:11-20;
20:13,
llf.
Thus
"Le
affermazioni
del
Boismard
per
distinguere tali duplicati
non
sono
sufficientemente
fondate."174
Moreover,
Rev
contains more
doublets
than
Boismard permits, including 13:4-8,
13;
14:14-16,
17-20.
His
choice
is
therefore
arbitrary.175
Brekelmans
is no
happier with
the
rigid mise
en
scene claimed
for
each
text.
I has a
heavenly perspective.
Yet
John seems
to be on
earth
in
6:1-8;
8:6-9:21; 10:1; 18:1; 20:1. Conversely
II has an
earthly perspective.
But in
12:1-9,
at
least,
it is
heavenly.176
Because 7-13,
in
particular, remains
in II,
Boismard's revision does
not
shield
him
from
criticism
in
this
case.
Boismard's
appeal
to
rare vocabulary
to
characterise
a
text does
not im-
press Brekelmans
either.
He is
selective again, ignoring counter examples.
For
instance,
στρηνιαν
is
used only thrice
in the NT,
always
in
Rev.
18.
Yet 3, 9
belong
in I and 7 in
Π.177
Πικραίνει!/
appears three
out of
four
times
in
Rev,
but
10:9f. belongs
in II and
8:11
in Ι.
Φάρμακο?
occurs only
in
21:8; 22:15,
yet
these
are
consigned
to
separate texts.
John's
exclusive
μεσουράνημα
occurs
in I,
8:13,
and in II,
14:6;
19:17.178
The
polemic
is
therefore
pointless.179
Vanni
himself
is
pleased
with
Brekelmans'
assessment:
Da
quanto esposto,
lo
studio
di
Brekelmans appare
serio
ed
accurate.
Si
mette
sullo
stesso piano
di
Boismard
e,
applicando
fino
alle
conse-
guenze
estreme
i
principi
implicit!
nel
metodo, mostra
le
conclusion!
alle
quali
tali principi conducono
;
conclusion!
ehe
sono
in
antitesi
con
l'assunto
fundamentale
del
Boismard.
La
critica
serrata
di
Brekelmans
percio
non pu
essere ignorata
o
sottovalutata. Anche
se
il
tono,
con
cui
1'autore
esprime
il suo
giudizio
negative,
appare troppo
rigido e
perentorio,
le sue
osservazioni,
centrate
e
precise, colpiscono
la
teoria
di
Boismard
nei
punti
pi
vitali
e la
rendono
traballante.180
In
his
personal evaluation
of
Boismard's thesis Vanni
first
stresses
the
import
of
methodology. This must
be
defined
carefully
then applied con-
173Vanni,
op.
at.,
73.
174to/d.,
74.
™lbid.,
73f.
I16lbid.,
74.
177Only
twice
in
fact.
The
cognate
noun
is
used
in 3, but the
example
stands
since
Boismard seg-
regates
the
other
two
verses.
178Correcting
the
erroneous allocation
of
19:17,
though
the
argument
is not
weakened.
179Vanni,
op.
at.,
741
mlbid.
75.
20
Introduction
sistently.
Boismard
claims
to lay
aside literary criteria
in
general
in
favour
of
internal affinities both positive
and
negative.
Yet he
often employs lite-
rary criteria
to
separate
his
texts.
But
with
no
adequate definition these
are
subjective.
Vanni
is no
happier with
his
recourse
to
affinities
that
are
inhe-
rently disparate
"in
rapporto
col
genere letterario,
con la
personalita
dell'
autore,
con
I'argomento
trattato,
col
grado
di
perfezione
a cui
1'autore
porta
la sua
opera."181
Therefore, even
at
this fundamental level
of
assess-
ment,182
Timpostazione
metodologica
del
Boismard
presenta,
sia
sul
piano
letterario
sia,
e
soprattutto,
sul
piano contenutistico,
una
forte aliquota
di
ambiguit
. E una
carenza
grave, tale
da
compromettere
tutti
i
risultati
otte-
nuti,
posti
cosi
sotto
il
segno
del
soggettivismo."183
Vanni
next notes that
the
final
editor
is
crucial
to
Boismard's thesis.
So
his
work
and
personality must
be
both credible
and
supported
by
objective
evidence.
As a
rule
he
does
not
eliminate doublets.
Yet the
essential angel
before
10:8
was
removed,
and in 17, 21, as
elsewhere,
his
marked incohe-
rences become characteristic.
Vanni's
criticism
is
most
devastating:184
La
personalita
e
I'attivita
dell'editore
finale appaiono
sconcertanti.
Si
suppone
ehe
egli
abbia
i due
testi completi
e
divisi sotto
mano.
Si
accinge
a
fonderli
in
uno, frazionando
e
scegliendo
:
vuole
insomma
compiere
un'opera
unitaria
:
ma
allora, viene
da
chiedersi,
perche
conserva
tanti duplicati
e
li
dispone
in un
ordine
cosi
sconcertante
?
L'editore
conserva
i
duplicati mentre tende
a
eliminarli, fondendoli
in
un'opera
unitaria.
La
minuziosita
delle
sue
inserzioni suppone
un
lavo-
ro
paziente, accuraro
e
riflesso
;
ma
esso risulta,
nello
stesso tempo,
maldestro,
sistematicamente
incoerente, arbitrario, come
se
1'editore
agisse
a
capriccio.185
Ever generous, however, Vanni allows that
the
editor's existence could
still
be
evinced
by
distortions
in
John's linguistic
style.186
So he
examines
Boismard's
evidence. First,
the
title
κύριο?,
supposedly reserved
for
God,
occurs just
six
times
in Rev
outside standard formulas. Apart
from
7:14,
with
an
elder
in
view, three apply
to
God187
and two to
Jesus.188
Secondly,
οπού
does appear three times with various Semitic additions.
Yet
this
is not
pertinent since
it
also occurs alone
five
times
over.189
Again,
έμπροσθεν
is
rare
in
Rev,190
and
always
in a
Semitic structure.
Ενώπιον
is
comparable
only
in a
similar setting.
The
closest
is 3:9
which shares
των
ποδών
and
77.
lbid,
76-78.
/£»/d.,
78.
mlbid.,
78-80.
185/b/d.,
80.
mlbid.,
80-82.
18711:4,
15;
15:4.
18811:8;
14:13.
1892:13
[bis];
11:8; 14:4; 20:10.
19019:10;
22:8.
Major
Academic Debates
21
προσκυνεΐν,
while 4:10; 5:8; 7:11 share
πίπτειν,
and
15:4 shares
προσκυ-
velv.
So at
best
a
literary characteristic
is
possible.
Finally,
"Quanto
all'uso
di
προσκυνεΐν
col
dativo,
esso
e
cosi
comune
in
tutta
1'Apocalisse,
da
costi-
tuire
piuttosto
una
caratteristica
dello
stile
di
Giovanni,
ehe
viceversa."191
Vanni's
assessment
is
basically sound apart
from
one
detail.
It is
possible
though
not
certain that
κύριο?
is
Jesus
in
14:13, while
11:8
is the
verse
in
question.
But
even
if
this point
is
forfeited
Vanni
is
still
correct
that
"Non
esiste
un
fondamento
letterario
per
documentare
di
fatto
1'esistenza
del
redattore
finale
e la
fisionomia
ehe
il
Boismard
di
fatto
gli
attribuisce
ne
rende
la
figura
e
1'opera
altamente
inverosimili."192
The
fact
that Boismard's thesis
is
indecisive
is
evident again
in the
many
unanswered
questions
the
seven letters pose. Vanni wonders
how and why
this third text
was
added
to the
others,
and if it
began
as two
documents
as
well.
He
also wishes
to
know more about
1,
so
similar
to the
body
of
Rev,
yet
supposedly edited.
Was it a
unit
or yet a
fourth work? "Una
risposta a
queste domande
complicherebbe
inevitabilmente
la
teoria,
rendendola
con
ci
stesso
meno
verisimile.
Ma il
silenzio dell'autore proietta
lo
stesso
un'
ombra
negativa
su
tutto
1'insieme."193
Vanni
is
therefore
fully
justified
in
totally rejecting Boismard's thesis:
Al
termine
del
nostro
lungo
studio analitico,
la
teoria proposta
dal
Boismard
ci
appare insostenibile
: ci per
le
incongruenze
notate
dal
Brekelmans,
per la
personalit
del
redattore finale gratuita
nella
sua
esistenza
e
inverosimile nella
sua
fisionomia,
per le
complicazioni
ehe
incontrerebbe
la
teoria stessa applicata adeguatamente
ai
primi
tre
capitoli dell'Apocalisse.
E
soprattutto
il
metodo
ehe
fa
traboccare
decisamente
la
bilancia
in
senso
negative
: il
metodo, viziato
da
un'
ambiguit
radicale,
non
potr
non
essere sterile
nei
suoi
frutti.194
But
one
further
word
is in
order concerning Boismard's results.
His
tri-
umphant
claim
is
that text
I
exhibits
so
slavish
a
dependence upon
Eze
that
it
justifies
his
thesis remarkably.
It is
therefore most surprising indeed that
with
Eze. 39:17-20
the
patent source,
19:17f.
is in II.
However,
the
ultimate
irony
is
surely this. Boismard's point
of
departure
was the
doublets
of
Rev,
which
he
claims
to
have eliminated.
Yet his
point
of
arrival
is
Eze, famous
for
its
own
doublets.195
He has
come
full
circle.
The
final
word
is of a
different
nature, though
it
also comes
full
circle.
This entire discussion opened
with
the
observation that Boismard's remains
191Vanni,
op.
cit.,
81.
I92lbid..
82.
193/o/d.
I94lbid,
83.
195See
below,
144,
at
fn.
432.
22
Introduction
the
most
influential
of all
modern redactional
theories.
As an
example,
no
less
a
scholar than
Feuillet
declares
his
"profoundest
gratitude"196
to
Bois-
mard
and
Charles
for
clarifying
the
text's prehistory.
W. J.
Harrington
is
content with
the
theory
as
well.197
A
deep dichotomy
of
opinion appears
to
prevail.
Such support owes much
to
confessional loyalty,
in
fact,
and has
limited
objective value. Even
Feuillet's
favour
is
qualified,
for he is
quick
to
add:
True enough there
are
irregularities
in the
present order
of the
Apo-
calypse text.
But
these
do not
seem
to us to be
weighty enough
to
justify
such attempts
at
literary dissection
as
have been undertaken,
and
which derive
no
support
at all
from
the
manuscript tradition.
The
impression
of
disorder
and
confusion
which
the
text often conveys,
can
be due not
only
to the
variety
of the
author's sources,
but
also
to
the
fact
that
he has had
recourse to...
different
literary
forms...198
More
pertinently still, Boismard
is no
longer
as
sure
as he
once
was.199
So
even
his
weighty hypothesis
may be
dismissed
from
my
discussion.
H.
Stierlin200
Stierlin
is a
self-confessed disciple
of
Boismard with whom
he
enjoyed
"une
collaboration
passionnante"201
over
a
long
period.202
So his
thesis
is
similar
though more complex. Hence
it is
even less tenable
and
requires
no
detailed
assessment.2031
offer
a
broad outline
for the
sake
of
completeness.
In
brief, Stierlin detects
five
distinct works behind
the
present
book.204
These
are the
Apocalypse
of Two
Witnesses dated
68-69,205
the
First Apo-
calypse,
70,206
the
Second Apocalypse,
79,207
the
Third Apocalypse,
88-
96,208
and the
Letters
to the
Seven Churches
from
the
outset
of the
second
century.209
The
author
of the
letters merged
all
five
into
our
book.210
It
is no
surprise whatever that Stierlin's point
of
departure
is
similar
to
Boismard's.
However,
he
detects triplets
not
doublets
in
Rev,
and at
least
a
196Op.
at,
32.
197Record
of
the
Fulfillment:
the New
Testament
(London,
1968),
460-462.
198Op.
cit,
33.
Charles
is
equally
in
mind,
of
course.
199See
below,
23.
200His
relevant
work
is La
Väritä
sur
l'Apocalypse:
Essai
de
Reconstitution
des
Textes
Originels
(Paris,
1972).
201
Ibid.,
31,
201.
202lbid.,
50.
203Significantly,
Vanni
does
not
mention
him, even
in
passing.
204Stierlin
tabulates
their
contents,
op.
cit.,
242f.
205lbid.,
105ff.
206lbid.,
110ff.
207lbid.,
123«.
2mlbid.,
141ff.
209lbid.,
170ff.
/d.,
44t.
Major
Academic Debates
23
score
at
that.211
He
reconstructs
the
three primary
apocalypses212
"ä
l'aide
d'une critique interne
serree
et
grace
aux
contradictions,
aux
symbolismes
s'excluant
les
uns
les
autres,
aux
incompatibilites
entre
certaines
images,
a
la
presence
ou ä
l'absence
de
certains
protagonistes".213
The
result, Stierlin implies,
is
most impressive.
His
reconstruction
fournit
une
reponse
aux
multiples questions
qui
etaient
restees
jusqu'
ici
en
suspens.
Elle
extirpe
du
texte
les
contradictions,
les
repetitions
et
les
desordres.
Nous
obtenons
ainsi trois versions
de
l'eschatologie
chretienne
comportant
une
grande
rigueur
formelle
et se
doroulant
selon
un
developpement
logique.214
These three apocalypses
with
common
authorship215
are
"synoptic"
in
view
of
their identical plan
and
development.216
But
most importantly,
"il
existe
entre
la
troisieme
Apocalypse...
et
le
livre
d'Ezechiel
un
parallelisme
con-
stant.
Ce
fait
apporte
ä
notre
hypothese
une
confirmation
extremement
importante."217
Naturally, this
is
almost identical with Boismard's
I.218
Despite such sweeping claims
it is
very significant that virtually
the
only
scholar
to
have taken
the
slightest notice
is
Boismard himself. Indeed,
he is
a
convert.
"Je
suis
maintenant
convaincu,
comme
lui,
qu'il
faut
distinguer
non
pas
deux, mais trois Apocalypses primitives, dont
les
materiaux
corre-
spondent,
en
gros,
ä
ceux qu'il
a
separes."219
Such
a
shift
casts even
further
doubt
on his own
thesis. Time will tell whether
his
supporters follow
him
this
far as
well.
But for now he can
only wish
"que
1'etude
si
minutieuse
de
Stierlin re9oive
des
specialistes
toute
I'attention
qu'elle
merite."220
Perhaps
this
has
already
been
granted, though scarcely
as
expected.
For
Stierlin's
thesis seems
far too
artificial
to
warrant serious scholarly support.
F.
Rousseau221
Like Stierlin's, Rousseau's
redactional
thesis
is one of the
latest
and
most
comprehensive, spawning
an
entire book.
It too has
been virtually ignored.
Even brief reviews,
let
alone detailed analyses,
are
rare.
J.
Lambrecht dis-
211
Ibid.,
31.
The
primary
ones
are
tabulated,
232.
For
example,
the
truthfulness
of
God's
words
are
thrice
affirmed,
19:9c;
21:5c;
22:6a.
212Those
he
numbers.
2nlbid.,
31.
2l4lbid.,
32.
215/Wd.,
42ff.
2l6lbid.,
33.
2lllbid.,
32. Cf.
237-239.
2lslbid.,
239.
219
.- .
Boismard,
RB, 82
(1975),
467,
in a
review article.
220lbid.
221
His
relevant
book
is L
'Apocalypse
et le
Milieu
Prophätique
du
Nouveau
Testament:
Structure
et
Prehistoire
du
Texte
(Tournai
and
Montreal,
1971).
24
Introduction
dains
it as
"extremely
hypothetical!"222,
and
Vanni
regrets that
"in
genere,
ci
si
muove
anche
qui
sulla
linea
insidiosa
dell'intuito
ehe
facilmente
scade
nell'arbitrario."223
The
theory warrants only summary attention
here
as
well.
But
this will demonstrate that such reactions
are
justified.
Vital
to
Rousseau's thesis
is his
nexus between poetic structure
and
pre-
history. This structure builds
"une
base
litteraire
solide...
ä une
hypothese
sur la
prohistoire
de
Apocalypse."224
But
Vanni rejects
it as
intuitive
and
arbitrary,225
so it may be
ignored. Since Rousseau's entire thesis
loses
its
very
foundation
in the
process,
a
summary
is
certainly sufficient
here.
Rousseau escorts
us
back through
his
redactional history
to
Rev's source.
The
reverse order simplifies summary.
He
perceives
Rev as the
work
of a
circle
of
prophets under
the
apostle John,
who
left
Jerusalem
for
Ephesus
before
its
fall.
To
their great surprise this
was not the end of the
world,
so
a
long process
of
reflection began.
If
Jerusalem
fell
for her
sins then Rome
must
too.
Yet
even this
was not to be the
end.
So,
through
five
redactional
levels226
they transformed simple prophetic oracles into
the
current book
with
progressively mature Christology
and a
more optimistic theology
of
history.227
The
primary pristine oracle comprised
the
original
five
plagues
of
16.228
A
Jewish
redactor229
reworked
and
added material
on the
Jewish war, par-
ticularly
the woe
trumpets
of 9 and
11,
to
fashion
the
Apocalypse
of
Three
Woes.230
The
second
and
third
are the
most important, portraying
the
ruin
of
Jerusalem
and
Rome
respectively.231
A
second Jewish redactor later added part
of a
block
of
prior material,
the
first
four
trumpets,
8:7-12,
and the
oath sequence
of 10. He
increased
the
plagues
to
seven
for
numerical symmetry with
the
trumpets.
The
latter
were reminiscent
of the
fall
of
Jerusalem while
the
former predicted
the
fall
of
Rome.
The
redactor also composed 8:2-6
to
introduce
the
trumpets.
His
Apocalypse
of
Trumpets
and
Bowls232
was now so
reminiscent
of Eze
with
its
dual stress, oracles condemning Jerusalem then
the
nations, that
he
continued
the
parallel.
He
introduced
his
work
with
the
throne vision
of 4,
222«
A
structuratfon
of
Revelation
4,
1-22,
5",
L'Apocalypse
johannique
et
l'Apocalyptique
dans
le
Nouveau
Testament,
ed. J.
Lambrecht
(Gembloux,
1980),
82,
fn.
19.
223Op.
c/f.,261.
224Rousseau,
op.
cit.,
45.
225Op.
cit.,
259-261.
226Summarised
Rousseau,
op.
cit.,
225f.
221lbid.,
146, 142.
228Ibid.,
117».
229lbid..
122.
Cf.
140.
^Summarised
as a
reconstructed
text
ibid.,
219-223.
231/OW.,
119-122.
ibid.,
148.
for
this
title.
Major
Academic Debates
25
itself
inspired
by the
opening
of
Eze.
He
also
shifted
16:5-7,
the
finale
of
the
bowls,
to
make
way for the
ancient hymn 7:9-12. This reflected
a
belief
that
the
last judgment would follow Rome's
fall
immediately. Last
of all he
added
his
epilogue,
22:10-15.233
A
third redactor, this time
a
Christian, composed
the
Apocalypse
of the
Lamb,234
4-11;
15-22.
He
wished
to
exalt Christ
and to
show that
the
fall
of
Rome
was not the end of
history.
He
composed
5-7 as a
link between
the
earlier apocalypse
and
17:1-20:10,
the
prophecies against
the
nations, some
of
which
existed
as
oracles against Rome.
The
notion
of
delay
was
stressed
with
the
device
of the
open book
and
sealed thunders
of 10. The
prophets
would
speak again
after
Rome
had
fallen.
His two
epilogues,
19:9f.;
22:6-9,
strongly
distinguish
the
fall
of
Rome
from
that
of
later persecuting nations.
He
modelled
his
prologue,
1:1-3,
upon
his final
epilogue.
He
stressed Christ
as
το
άρνίον,
and
introduced
the
idea
of
resurrection,
II.235
A
fourth
redactor, also
a
Christian, shaped
the
highly structured Apoca-
lypse
of
Letters
from
14
prophetic
oracles,
the
legacy
of
various itinerant
prophets.
It
comprises
1-3 in
particular, with
the
assembly 21:1-4; 22:3-5;
21:5-8
as a
conclusion.
Its
Christology
is
mature,
further
replacing Jewish
elements with Christ,
and
more
and
more equating
him
with God.
Its
view
of
religious history
is
also
advanced.236
The
final redactor,
a
Christian again, created
the
current
book.237
Basi-
cally
he
added
12-14
and the
Apocalypse
of
Letters
to the
Apocalypse
of
the
Lamb.
He
used
1:1-3,
the
prologue
of the
latter,
to
introduce
his own
work.
He
shifted
the
original epilogue
of the
Apocalypse
of
Letters
to its
present position.
He
also composed
the
last
of all
epilogues,
22:16-21.238
The
grandeur
of
Rousseau's vision
is
most impressive. Nevertheless,
his
thesis
is
vulnerable
at
several points, especially structural. Although this
is
decisive,
two
others
may be
noted briefly. First,
Rousseau's
literary criti-
cism
is
profoundly influenced
by
Charles
and his
kind.239
But
dependence
upon
such
a
tired
old
technique,
in
almost outright disfavour today, sounds
the
virtual death knell
of
this theory.
Secondly, Rousseau's imagination
is
very fertile
in the field of
historical
interpretation:
233See
ibid.,
1l5ff.
^See
ibid.,
149,
for
this
elusive
title.
235See
ibid.,
93H.,
138«.,
149-151.
236See
ibid.,
61«.,
151-153.
237/btf.,
226,
lists
his
work,
not its
contents.
Cf. 90.
238See
ibid.,
61,
73«.
^'Frequently,
e.g.
ibid.,
68, 74, 80,
81,
83, 84, 87, 88.
26
Introduction
Les
quatre premieres lettres
feraient...
allusion
ä la
ruine
de
Jerusa-
lem,
ä
celles
de
Rome
et des
Nations...
La
demiere
lettre...
peut viser
le
peuple
d'Israel
au
moment
de
1'in-
carnation
du
Christ,
eile
peut aussi
projeter
dans
1'avenir
le
danger
spirituel
toujours vivace pour
une
eglise
intrahistorique...
II
y
aurait
lieu
de se
demander
si la
lettre
ä
Laodicee
n'annoncerait
pas a sa
fa9on,
tout
en
l'expliquant
jusqu'ä
un
certain point,
1'assaut
final
de
Satan
au
terme
de la
piriode
des
mille
ans...
... le
redacteur-compilateur
de
l'apocalypse
des
lettres...
aurait invite
son
lecteur
ä
voir dans
les
finales
des
lettres
une
revue
de
l'histoire
d'Israel.
La
premiere finale nous
ramene
au
paradis...
la
troisieme
au
desert-
la
quatrieme
ä
1'epoque
royale...
la
sixieme
et la
septieme
viseraient
une
periode
plus
recente,
1'avenement
du
christianisme
avec
sa
nou-
veaute
essentielle...
et
l'intimite
qu'il
a
etablie
entre
l'homme
et
Dieu...240
Such
fanciful
thinking requires
no
response
and
inspires little confidence
in
Rousseau's
objectivity.
In the
face
of
such evidence
it is
hardly surprising that Rousseau's com-
plex hypothesis
has
made little impact
on the
world
of
serious scholarship.
Even
Boismard
is
quite
unimpressed.
"Beaucoup
moins
elaboree,
la
posi-
tion
de H.
Kraft
reste plus
prudente".241
J. M.
Ford242
All the
scholars
reviewed thus
far
have
found
an
editor essential
to
their
various
hypotheses.
Yet be it
Charles'
doltish disciple, Gaechter's
forgetful
follower,
or the
mindless melder
of
Boismard
and
Stierlin,
the
material
all
originated with John
in
general. Rousseau took
a
somewhat diverse course,
enlisting
a
school
of
redactors
who
worked sequentially over several long
decades. Ford's hypothesis belongs
in the
same broad category.
Ford suggests three levels
of
composition starting with John
the
Baptist.
He
produced
4-11
before Jesus
was
revealed
to him as the
Messiah.243
One
of
John's disciples
with
a
limited knowledge
of
Jesus authored most
of 12-
22.244
Last
of all
another more
informed
disciple wrote
1-3
together with
some interpolations
and
Christian touches
in the
work
he
inherited.245
240/f>/d,
71f.
^"L'Apocalypse",
32.
Kraft
states
his
stance
in his op.
at.,
111.,
but too
briefly
to
merit attention.
242Her
relevant work
is
Revelation:
Introduction, Translation
and
Commentary
(Garden
City,
1975),
3-57.
243/
/
,
3,
28-37, 50-53.
2A4lbid.,
3,
37,
54f.
™5lbid..
3f.,
39-46, 55f.
Major
Academic Debates
27
Ford
argues that
Revelation
4-22
has
over
four
hundred allusions
to the OT in
contrast
to
significantly fewer ones
to the
NT...
Moreover,
it
shows
a
heavy
influence
from
Jewish apocalyptic works
but
very
little
from
the
Christian apocalypses. Clearly,
Revelation
is
more akin
to
Jewish
apo-
calyptic literature than
to
Christian.246
She
also stresses that
Rev is
notably
prophetic.247
Her
quest
for the
princi-
pal
author
is
therefore simple:
When considering...
who the
author
or
originator
of
Revelation might
have
been,
one
needs
to
look
for
a Jew who was
firmly
grounded
in
the
prophetical tradition
of
Israel,
one who
believed
in the
imminence
of
the
Kingdom which would usher
in "He
that
cometh"
and the
"Day
of
the
Lord"...
The
candidate
who
seems most suitable
is
John
the
Baptist.248
Ford defends
her
thesis
with
several
firm
affinities
between
Rev and the
Baptist's teachings. First
is the
Lamb image
"found
only
in the
Gospel
sec-
tions which
are
associated
with
John
the
Baptist."249
Here
and in Rev
this
is
the
conquering,
not
sacrificial, apocalyptic Lamb
who
removes
sin by
des-
troying
evil.250
Second
is the
title phrase
"He
that cometh".
Her
paramount
argument
is the
similarity
in
judgment imagery between
Mt.
3:12
par.
and
Rev.
l^H-lo,251
although
the
precise phrase appears only
in the
Gospels.
Ford's third
affinity
is
baptism
by
fire,
"a
peculiarly Baptist teaching
but
not
perpetrated
by
Jesus".252
This
is
probably
one of
apocalyptic judgment,
with
its
closest
NT
parallel
in
Rev.253
The
fourth
is
bridegroom imagery.
This
is
implicit
in
Rev. 19:9;
21:9-14,
but "as an
image applied
to
Jesus"
it
"occurs only
in the
sources related
to the
Baptist."254
Ford lists
five
minor
affinities
as
well
-
divine wrath, adultery, corrupt
Jerusalem, tree metaphor
and
priestly
knowledge.255
However,
the
distinc-
tion
between
the
second
and
third, equated
in a
common paragraph, seems
dubious.
Most
are so
minor
that
they merit
no
further
attention.
The
single
exception
is
wrath.
"The
word does
not
appear
in the
teaching
of
Jesus.
It
is
a
theme, however,
of
great importance
in
Revelation,"256
along
with
the
Baptist's
teaching.257
In
fact,
Jesus removed
the
notion
of
vengeance
from
John's eschatological
expectations.258
246lbid.,
27.
247lbid.,
28.
24Slbid.
249lbid.,
30.
250lbid.,
30f.
251/b/d..
31.
252lbid.,
32.
253lbid.,
32f.
254«wd,
33.
255lbid.,
33f.
256lbid.,
34.
251lbid.,
33f.
258
to/d. 36.
28
Introduction
All
this convinces
her
that 4-22 came
from
the
Baptist
and his
followers.
"Because
chs.
12-22 actually contain
the
name
of
Jesus", however, "they
were probably written
by a
disciple
who
knew more than
John."259
But the
text
of the
last
two
chapters
is
suspect,
so she
accepts Gaechter's sequence,
apart
from
the
Christian
additions.260
Ford finally stresses
the
uniqueness
of 1-3 and the
Christian conclusion
22:16a,
20b,
21,261
although
she
wavers
in
identifying
the
latter.262
More
advanced
Christology,263
ecclesiology264
and
linguistic
features265
are
par-
ticularly noteworthy compared with
the
rest
of the
book.
The
first,
above
all, reveals
the
author
of
these portions
as a
mature
Christian.266
Scholarly reaction
to
Ford's novel thesis
can
scarcely have encouraged
her.
For as
Sweet
rightly if
summarily observes,
it
"has
not
attracted sup-
port."267
Much more pointedly
J. A. T.
Robinson
labels
it
eccentric even
though, like his, hers
is a
rare voice
in
favour
of
early
writing.268
Indeed,
in
his
scathing review
he
rejects
her as "a
most
doubtful
ally."269
Just
as
confidently
Johnson dismisses
the
thesis because
it
"rests
on
conjectural
evidence
and has
little
to
commend
it to
serious scholarly
acceptance".270
Likewise
Megivern
commends
the
reviewers271
for
their consensus that
"her main thesis involves
so
startling
an
assumption
and so
many nagging
questions
that
the
whole work
is
thereby
vitiated."272
Among
the
specific problems Megivem raises
are the
Christology
and
unity
of
Rev,273
which
are
precisely
the
points Yarbro Collins criticises:
This theory
is not
persuasive.
It is
based
on the
assumption that Reve-
lation
is a
compilation
of
sources...
Ford's
theory
is
problematic also
because
it
ignores
the
Christian character
of the
book
as a
whole-
Only
by
arbitrarily eliminating references
to the
Lamb,
its
death,
and
its
redeeming
blood,
or by
interpreting them
in a
strained way,
can
the
Christian character
of
even
chs.
4-11
be
denied. Thus
any
sort
of
attribution
of
Revelation
to
John
the
Baptist
is
incompatible with
the
evidence.274
259Ibid.,
37.
260lbid.,
38f.
26llbkJ.,
39f.
Cf. 3.
262Contrast
ibid.,
28.
263lbid.,
40f.
264lbid.,
41-43.
265lbid.,
43-45.
266lbid.,
40f.
267Op.
at..
36.
fn.
268See
above,
7, at
fn.
56.
269jrS,
27
(1976),
469.
27(W
at,
405.
271E.g.
A.
Yarbro Collins,
CBQ,
38
(1976),
555-557;
J. D. G.
Dunn,
ET, 87
(1975-76),
152;
R. H.
Mounce,
JBL,
95
(1976),
500f.;
M.
Rissi,
Int.,
31
(1977),
436f.,
in
addition
to
Robinson.
212Art.
at,
150.
273
Ibid.,
151.
274Cr/s/s,31.
Major
Academic Debates
29
In
the
face
of
such pervasive
and
unanimous
rejection
little
more need
be
said
before setting this perverse idea aside. None
of
Ford's major premises
is
beyond challenge,
in
either essence
or
application.
To the
many illustra-
tions
above,
at
least
two
more
may be
added. First,
she
should realise that
the
total book,
not
just
4-11,
is
prophetic.275
Secondly,
its
Semitic essence
is
not
only pervasive
but
intentional.276
Even
at the
opposite extreme
her
minor
details
are
often
astray
as
well. Numerous examples
are
offered
in
the
literature,
so one
will
suffice
here.
Despite
her
denial, wrath
is
rather
prominent
in
Jesus'
teaching.277
The
entire thesis should therefore rest.
The
Johannine-School
Hypothesis278
The
"influential
hypothesis"279
of a
school
of
authorship under John
the
Apostle
or the
Elder follows lines broadly similar
to
Ford's
thesis,
but far
more
credibly.
As
Fiorenza explains,
it
owes
its
existence
to the
authorship debate
and
serves clearly apologe-
tic
functions. Because
of the
theological differences between
the
Apoc
and
the 4G
many scholars
no
longer postulate
a
common authorship
of
both
books
but
claim that
a
circle
of
disciples
or a
school
of the
apostle
or of the
presbyter edited
and
promoted
the
Johannine
wri-
tings.
The
school-hypothesis
thus
replaces
the
personal continuity
of
authorship
with
the
social continuity
of a
school
or
circle
without
relinquishing
the
claim
to the
authority
of the
apostle
or
presbyter,
John.280
But
since
it
operates within
the
boundaries
of the
debate,
the
hypothesis
is
"often
the
presupposition
of
historical critical inquiry
and not its result."281
Fiorenza
is
unhappy with these presuppositions,
and
reviews
the
linguis-
tic
and
theological evidence
for
attributing
Rev to the
school. First
are the
purported
linguistic
affinities.
Rev and
John's Gospel share eight exclusive
words,
άρνίον,
Έβραϊστί,
έκκεντεΐν,282
κυκλύειν,
δφι?,
πορφύρεο?,
φοΐ-
νιξ
and
σκηνουν.
But a
common origin
is
possible. Moreover,
the
books
sometimes
vary
the one
word:
άρι/ίον/άμνό?,
Ιερουσαλήμ/Ιεροσόλυμα,
ψευδή5·283/ψ€ύστη5·,
and
Ιδού/ΐδε.
Again, certain basic expressions appear
275See
ch. 10.
276See
below,
44-47.
277E.g.
Mt.
22:13;
24:50f.;
25:41.
278The
relevant
literature
is
extensive,
but
most originates
with
scholars
whose
expertise
lies
out-
side Rev. Such interests
are
well
beyond
the
scope
of
my
study, which
is
adequately
served
by
Fiorenza, art.
cit.,
passim.
She
also
offers
a
basic
bibliography
to the
wider
debate.
279Yarbro
Collins,
Crisis,
33.
280Art.
cit.,
406.
Cf.
409.
281tt>W.,
409.
^She
has
ίξεκέντειν.
283She
has
ψευδή?.
30
Introduction
in
one
book
but not in the
other.
For
example,
άλήθβια,
αληθή?,284
£ωή
αΙώνιο?,
μένειν
εν,
ίδιο?,
σκοτία,
σκότο?285
and
πιστεύειν
occur only
in
the
Gospel.
Conversely,
παντοκράτωρ,
βασιλεΐ?
τη?
γη?,
υπομονή,
θλίψι?,
θρόνο?,
άγιοι,
δούλοι,286
εκκλησία,
οίκουμένη,
άδικβιν,
απαρχή
and
πρωτότοκο?287
appear only
in
Rev.288
More significantly
still,
If
we
compare
the
vocabulary
of the
Apoc with other
NT
writings
the
common linguistic characteristics
of the
Apoc
and the 4G
become
even
more relativized. Whereas
the
Apoc
and the 4G
have only eight words
common
to
them alone,
the
Apoc
and
Paul share
33
such words
and
the
Apoc
and
Luke have almost
the
same number
in
common.
The
closer
affinity
of the
Apoc
to
Pauline vocabulary comes even more
to
the
fore
when
we
compare those words which both authors
use at
least
twice. Whereas
the
Apoc
and the 4G
share
46
such words,
the
Apoc
and
Paul have
157
in
common.
The
same
affinity
of the
Apoc
to
Pau-
line language
can be
observed
in its use of
small particles such
as
prepositions
and
conjunctions
(επί,
ώ?
[sic]t
γαρ,
κατά).289
Fiorenza
also dismisses grammatical arguments
as
far
from
conclusive,
but
declines
to
provide
any
real
details.290
Theological
affinities
fare
as
badly.
The
Christological
titles,
το
άρνίον
of
Rev and
δ
αμνό?
of the
Gospel,
are
quite distinct.
The
first
connotes
conquest,
the
second expiation.
The
title
6
λόγο?
is not
developed
in the
Gospel,
but it
does
refer
to a
pre-existent
figure.
In Rev it is
only
one of
four
titles
for the
parousia-Christ
and
implies
no
pre-existence.
So the two
concepts have
no
nexus, despite
the
common noun.
The
shepherd metaphor
and
the
divine dwelling
are
treated
differently
in
each book.
So
also
is the
"most
striking common
image",291
water
of
life.
In Rev it is
purely escha-
tological while
in the
Gospel
it
connotes present
fulfilment
in
Christ.292
Fiorenza's
second question
is
"whether both books transmit
and
interpret
the
same
traditions."293
First,
the OT
tradition:
Even though
the 4G
uses
and
changes
OT
texts
freely
in
order
to
make
a
theological statement,
the
Evangelist nevertheless
refers
to the OT as
ή
γραφή
and
draws attention
to the
quotation
of OT
texts through
a
great
variety
of
formula
quotations
(πληρουσθαι).
In
distinction
to the
4G
the
Apoc never refers
to the OT as ή
γραφή
and
does
not
once
introduce
its OT
material through
a
formula
citandi.
We
find
only
once
an
explicit reference
to the
OT...
Yet...
the
Apoc does
not
even
284She
has
άληθέ?.
285She
has
σκοτό?.
286She
has
δούλοι.
287She
has
πρωτότοκο?.
288/b/d.,
41
Of.
289/b/d.,
411.
290/o/</.
291/b/d.,
417.
292/b/d..
411-418.
293Ibid.,
419.
Major
Academic Debates
31
once strictly quote
the OT. The
Apoc, moreover, does
not
interpret
the OT but
uses
it in
employing words, images, phrases
and OT
pat-
terns
in
order
to
make
its own
theological
statement.294
If
anything
Rev
employs Scripture
in
apocalyptic style. Although these
two
books alone
refer
to
Zech.
12:10,
, Rev
shows more
affinity
here with
early Christian apocalyptic tradition than with
the
school.295
Rev
does
not
quote
NT
texts either,
but
shapes them
for its own
purposes.
It is
closest
to
eschatological material
and the Q
tradition.296
From this evidence
Fiorenza
draws
a
basic conclusion. "This familiarity
of
the
author with
prophetic-apocalyptic
traditions
and
forms suggests
that
the
Apoc
is the
work
of a
member
of an
early Christian prophetic-apoca-
lyptic
rather than
of the
Johannine
school."297
John
was the
leader
of his
school
in a
unique revelational
role.
While
he had
employed some Johan-
nine
traditions,
he was
more familiar with Pauline
material.298
Böcher covers
the
same basic ground
but
concludes otherwise:
Angesichts
der
Communis opinio
in der
neueren Apokalypse-
forschung,
Sprache
und
Theologie
des
Apokalyptikers seien
von
denjenigen
des
vierten Evangelisten
so
verschieden,
daß an
einen
gemeinsamen Verfasser nicht gedacht werden könne,
muß der
Umfang
der
Übereinstimmungen
und
Parallelen
überraschen.299
This
is
surprising since Böcher concedes
major
distinctions, some iden-
tical with
Fiorenza's.300
Moreover,
his
supportive arguments
are
far
more
fanciful
than
her
counter ones.
As an
example,
the
Gospel's light-darkness
motif
is
paralleled
in Rev in the
antithesis between
the
lamps
and
stars
and
glorified
Christ
on the one
hand
and the
darkening
of the sun and the
moon
and
the
falling
of the
stars
on the
other.301
Significantly, Böcher's criticism
is
mild: "Vor
allem...
erklärt
Fiorenzas
These nicht
die
zahlreichen Spuren
apokalyptischen Denkens
und
Hoffens
im
Johannesevangelium,
es sei
denn,
man
wollte diese
als
spätere Interpolationen
abtun."302
Even then this hangs
upon
a
perilous premise:
offenbar
sind Evangelium
und
Apokalypse
des
Johannes...
genau
zur
gleichen Zeit
-
zwischen
90
und
100 n.
Chr.
-
geschrieben worden,
so
daß die
'Enteschatologisierung'
durch
den
Evangelisten hätte erfolgen
müssen, kaum
daß der
Apokalyptiker sein Opus vollendet gehabt
hätte.303
294lbid.
295lbid.,
419-421.
296lbid.,
421-424.
291
Ibid..
424.
298/b/d.,
425f.
299Art.
dt..
316.
300/b/d.,
317f.
301/ÖW.,
311.
302/Ö/tf.,
319.
303Ibid.,
318f.
32
Introduction
In all
Fiorenza
therefore presents
a far
stronger case, though
its
details
do
not
concern
my
study.
She
also
has
Yarbro
Collins'
total
support.304
The
salient point
is
that, unlike
schools
hypotheses
in
general,
Fiorenza's
thesis
accepts
John's complete authorship, whoever
he
was. Therefore,
despite
its
great influence even
the
Johannine-School
hypothesis must
be
laid
aside here.
The
caveat
of R. A.
Culpepper
is
most illuminating
in
this
regard, since
he is
quite prominent among scholars
of the
broader debate:
"the question
of the
relation
of the
Apocalypse
to the
rest
of the
Johannine
literature will
be
left
open. That
it
comes
from
a
different
author
is
clear;
that
it
came
from
the
same community
is
not."305
Summary
This brief survey covers
the
major
modem theories that generally con-
test
the
unity
of
Rev.
But
without
a
single exception good reason
is
readily
at
hand
to
reject each
in
turn. Charles' dull disciple
is all too
facile
a
solu-
tion
to
difficulties
which
can be
explained amply without him.
Gaechter's
forgetful
editor
is
more
fanciful
still,
as he
works
in a
vacuum created
by
John himself through sheer indiscipline. This quite
belies
the
precision
so
crucial
to the
entire notion.
Boismard's thesis, influential with
his
confessional companions,
is
just
as
untenable.
His
methodology
is
dubious
and his two
texts unconvincing.
In
fact,
he has
since abandoned
his
theory
for
Stierlin's,
though this
is
only
a
more complex version
of the
first,
preserving most
of its
defects. Worse,
the
idea
of
three synoptic apocalypses
by the one
author
has
little
to
com-
mend
it.
Rousseau
is
equally ambitious
but
likewise implausible, depending
heavily
on an
improbable structure. Ford's thesis
of a
Baptist school quite
belies
its
show
of
scholarship.
The
Johannine-School hypothesis
is the
most
influential
of
all. Nevertheless, even
if
most
of its
champions were within
the
circle
of
specialists
in
Rev, Fiorenza's generally decisive rebuttal would
suffice
to
reveal
its
inadequacies.
Culpepper's
caveat
is
also commendable.
This
investigation
began
by
noting
the
strong consensus among experts
for
the
unity
of
Rev. Nothing above challenges that position. Accordingly,
whoever
he may
have
been,
John
was the
sole
author
of the
book
bearing
his
name.
Major
redaction, accordingly,
is
quite
out of the
question.
304Cf/S/S.
33f.
305
The
Johannine
School:
an
Evaluation
of the
Johannine-School
Hypothesis
based
on an
Investigation
of
the
Nature
of
Ancient
Schools
(Missoula,
1975),
263.
Cf. fn.
278.
Major
Academic Debates
33
Philosophies
of
Interpretation
I
have already drawn attention
to the
bewildering array
of
interpreta-
tions
of the
book, even scholarly, which
the
scholars themselves bemoan.
They repeatedly list
the
range
of
options,306
which
may
readily
be
supple-
mented
by
individual
offerings.307
A
survey
of the
four
major alternatives
must
suffice
here, however, along with
the
general consensus
of
scholarly
assessment, since
the
entire subject
is
irrelevant
to my
study. Exegesis will
often
be
required,
but
little
if any
interpretation.308
The
topic
is
included
merely
for
completeness.
Preterist
This
is a
contemporary-historical approach that perceives
Rev as
appli-
cable
to its
original recipients alone.
It
enjoys
consensus support. Although
exegetically sound this leaves much
of the
book
unfulfilled,
which disturbs
some conservative scholars.
Historicist
Advocates
here understand
Rev as
predicting
the
course
of
history
from
John's
day to the
eschaton. This solves
the
problem
of
failure
implicit
in
the
first
approach
but
launches others. First,
John's
message
had
little rele-
vance
in his
era, which
is
most surprising indeed. Secondly, despite
the
passage
of
many long centuries
of
supposed prophetic
fulfilment,
the
gene-
ral
lack
of
consensus among advocates regarding
the
details burdens
the
theory
with
a
heavy
air of
subjectivity.309
Futurist
This philosophy projects almost
the
entire book
to the
future
eschaton
or
its
precursors.
The
preterist
problem
of
unfulfilled
predictions
is
resolved,
306E.g.
Briitsch,
Clarto,
434-440;
idem,
Offenbarung.
179-195;
Court,
op.
eft.,
1-15;
Feuillet,
art.
cit.,
passim.;
Harrison,
op.
cit.,
435-438;
Johnson,
art.
eft.,
408-411;
Kepler,
op.
cit.,
23-27;
Ladd,
op.
cit.,
10-14;
Martin,
op.
cit,
377f.;
Morris,
op.
cit.,
17-24;
Mounce,
op.
cit.,
39-45;
Summers,
op.
cit.,
27-51;
Tenney,
op.
cit.,
135-146;
Wikenhauser,
Introduction,
558-562;
idem,
Offenbarung,
18-22.
307The
extreme
current
example
is
Yarbro
Collins,
Crisis,
84ff.,
who
postulates
a
crisis
in
John's
perception
alone.
308The
distinction
is
that
the
first
determines
what
John
says
and the
second
what
he
means.
The
latter
is not
always
clear
from
the
former.
E.g.
see
above,
7, at
fn.
55.
309I
assess
a
typical
historicist
essay
below,
76-84.
