An Aural-Performance Analysis of Revelation 1 and 11 (Studies in Biblical Literature) [New ed.] 9781433130038, 9781453915424, 1433130033

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
Editor’s Preface
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction and Procedure
Chapter One: Literature Review and Methodology
Introduction
Literature Review
Oral-Biblical Criticism and Oral Patterning
Biblical Performance Criticism
Sound Mapping
Auditory NeuroScience
The Auditory Process
Methodology: An Aural-Performance Analysis
Chapter Two: The Authorial Audience and the Culture in John’s World
Introduction
A Brief Introduction to the Hearing Community in Revelation
An Audience-Oriented Approach
Audience Constructs
The Informed Audience
The Minimal Audience
The Competent Audience
Audience Markers
The Communicative Environment: A Rhetorical Culture
The Oral-Auricular Setting
Reader Recognition
Chapter Three: Ancient Performances and the Audience
Introduction
The Signficance of Oral Performance
The Influence of Greek Drama
Revelation’s Liturgical Setting
The Role of the Prophet-Performer
The Role of Gesture
Chapter Four: Aurality in the Ancient Literature
Introduction
The Importance of Hearing and Repetition
Hearing the Gospel of Mark
Hearing in Luke-Acts
Hearing the Gospel of John
Hearing Jewish Apocalyptic Literature
The Apocalypse of Abraham
Sound Map of "Apocalypse Abraham" 20
2 Baruch
Hearing the Book of Revelation
Conclusion
Chapter Five: An Aural-Performance Analysis of Revelation 1:1–21
Introduction
Sound Map of Revelation 1:1–20
Performance Translation
Word and Aural Analysis
Aural-Performance Commentary
To the Seven Churches
Coming with the Clouds
The Prophet-Performer, the Author, Authority and Character
The Day of the Visions
The “One like the Son of Man”
The Resurrected One
The Significance of Numbers
Conclusion
Chapter Six: An Aural-Performance Analysis of Rev. 11:1–19
Introduction
Sound Map of Rev. 11:1–19
Performance Translation
Word and Aural Analysis
Aural-Performance Commentary
The Two Witnesses
The Beast and the City
The Seventh Trumpet
Conclusion
Chapter Seven: Summary and Implications of This Study
Introduction
Summary
Aurality and Collective Identity
Aural-Performance, Narrative and Collective Memory
Performance as a Social Act
Re-hearing Revelation
Notes
Bibliography
Select Index of Authors
Select Subject Index

Citation preview

An AuralPerformance Analysis OF Revelation 1 AND 11

K AY L E B . D E WA A L

Studies in Biblical Literature 163

This book breaks fresh ground in the interpretation of the Apocalypse with an interdisciplinary methodology called aural-performance criticism that assesses how the first-century audience would have heard the Apocalypse. First-century media culture is probed by assessing the dynamics of literacy, orality, aurality, and performance in the Gospels, parts of the Pauline corpus, and also Jewish apocalyptic literature. The audience constructs of informed, minimal, and competent assist the interpreter to apply the methodology. Sound maps and an aural-performance commentary of Revelation 1 and 11 are developed that analyze aural markers, sound style, identity markers, repetition, themes, and the appropriation of the message by the audience. The book concludes by examining the sociological, theological, and communal aspects of aurality and performance and its implications for interpreting the Apocalypse.

KAYLE B. DE WAAL is Head of the Avondale Seminary and Senior Lecturer in New Testament at Avondale College of Higher Education in Cooranbong, Australia. He received his M.A. in theology from the University of Kwazulu-Natal and his Ph.D. in theology from the University of Auckland. He is the author of A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation as well as a number of book chapters and peer-reviewed articles.

ADVANCE PRAISE FOR

An Aural-Performance Analysis OF Revelation 1 AND 11 “This is a pioneering study in the emerging discipline of performance criticism. Kayle de Waal’s explication of Revelation in conflict with the Roman Empire in the context of a predominantly oral society is informed by solid scholarship and generative thinking. The aural-performance commentary of Revelation 1 and 11 is an innovative analysis that demonstrates how the apocalypse reinforces, subverts, and transforms the worldview of audiences in first-century Asia Minor. A fine introduction to orality study of the New Testament.” David Rhoads, Emeritus Professor of New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago “In this stimulating and important work, Kayle de Waal articulates a new methodology for interpreting the Apocalypse of John, focusing not on its abstract meaning but rather on its social implications for group identity and direction. At the heart of this new methodology is a serious consideration of the oral media culture of Roman Asia Minor. Fully conversant with contemporary scholarship, de Waal guides us through a careful analysis of Revelation 1 and 11, exploring the rhetoric, oral patterning, sound mapping, performance theory, and the implications of auditory neuroscience. The discussion is clear, precise, and easily understood. You will not always agree with his interpretation, but you will always benefit from the conversation. Highly recommended.”

David L. Barr, Professor Emeritus, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

An Aural-Performance Analysis OF Revelation 1 AND 11

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 163

This book is a volume in a Peter Lang monograph series. Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Kayle B. de Waal

An Aural-Performance Analysis OF Revelation 1 AND 11

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data De Waal, Kayle B. An aural-performance analysis of Revelation 1 and 11 / Kayle B. de Waal. pages cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; Vol. 163) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bible. Revelation, I—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. Revelation, XI—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Oral tradition. 4. Performance—Religious aspects—Christianity. I. Title. BS2825.52.D445 228’.06—dc23 2015000922 ISBN 978-1-4331-3003-8 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4539-1542-4 (e-book) ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

© 2015 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

My wife, Charmaine, and our children, Kerryn and Chare’

Contents

Editor’s Preface xi Preface xiii Abbreviations xv Introduction and Procedure 1 Chapter One: Literature Review and Methodology 5 Introduction 5 Literature Review 6 Oral-Biblical Criticism and Oral Patterning 6 Biblical Performance Criticism 9 Sound Mapping 14 Auditory NeuroScience 15 The Auditory Process 16 Methodology: An Aural-Performance Analysis 18 Chapter Two: The Authorial Audience and the Culture in John’s World 21 Introduction 21 A Brief Introduction to the Hearing Community in Revelation 21 An Audience-Oriented Approach 24 Audience Constructs 25

viii

  | 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

The Informed Audience The Minimal Audience The Competent Audience Audience Markers The Communicative Environment: A Rhetorical Culture The Oral-Auricular Setting Reader Recognition

11 25 26 27 28 29 31 34

Chapter Three: Ancient Performances and the Audience 37 Introduction 37 The Signficance of Oral Performance 37 The Influence of Greek Drama 39 Revelation’s Liturgical Setting 40 The Role of the Prophet-Performer 43 The Role of Gesture 46 Chapter Four: Aurality in the Ancient Literature 49 Introduction 49 The Importance of Hearing and Repetition 50 Hearing the Gospel of Mark 52 Hearing in Luke-Acts 55 Hearing the Gospel of John 57 Hearing Jewish Apocalyptic Literature 59 The Apocalypse of Abraham 59 Sound Map of Apocalypse Abraham 20 60 2 Baruch 61 Hearing the Book of Revelation 62 Conclusion 65 Chapter Five: An Aural-Performance Analysis of Revelation 1:1–21 67 Introduction 67 Sound Map of Revelation 1:1–20 69 Performance Translation 73 Word and Aural Analysis 76 Aural-Performance Commentary 82 To the Seven Churches 87 Coming with the Clouds 91 The Prophet-Performer, the Author, Authority and Character 93 The Day of the Visions 94

co n t e n ts  | ix

The “One like the Son of Man” 96 The Resurrected One 98 The Significance of Numbers 99 Conclusion 100 Chapter Six: An Aural-Performance Analysis of Rev. 11:1–19 103 Introduction 103 Sound Map of Rev. 11:1–19 104 Performance Translation 107 Word and Aural Analysis 110 Aural-Performance Commentary 113 The Two Witnesses 116 The Beast and the City 119 The Seventh Trumpet 122 Conclusion 124 Chapter Seven: Summary and Implications of This Study 125 Introduction 125 Summary 125 Aurality and Collective Identity 128 Aural-Performance, Narrative and Collective Memory 130 Performance as a Social Act 131 Re-hearing Revelation 132 Notes 135 Bibliography 181 Select Index of Authors 203 Select Subject Index 209

Editor’s Preface

More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Kayle de Waal analyses Revelation 1 and 11 from an aural performance perspective. While there have been an enormous number of scholarly studies done on the various aspects of the book of Revelation, this particular study explores a direction that generates an expanded perspective. The author focuses on ancient media culture and this expands the literary, social and theological trajectories of the book. The book explores the manner in which the message of Revelation would have been heard by the early Christian community for whom it was intended. He notes that “Insights from oral biblical criticism, oral patterning, sound mapping, auditory neuroscience and biblical performance criticism” are all

xii

  | 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

incorporated into an interdisciplinary methodology. The result is a study that is certain to generate ongoing discourse, and will not only further expand the biblical horizon, but will do so in a direction that invites further conversation. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

Preface

This book owes its existence to the generosity of my employer, Avondale College of Higher Education, and the research leave I was granted for the first six months of 2013. I was able to travel to the UK and spend a productive few weeks at Tyndale House in Cambridge. The staff were gracious and helpful and the environment was stimulating for serious writing and reflection. I came home calling Tyndale House “research heaven” for the outstanding facilities, the ability to work late into the night and the Christian spirit present among all the researchers there. For the rest of that time I was either in the Avondale library, the Moore College library in Sydney or at home on the dining room table. I must thank Drs Norman Young and Lindsay Morton for reading my work and making helpful comments to improve its quality. Any deficiencies that remain are solely my fault. I would also like to thank Drs David Barr and David Rhoads for writing endorsements. I must also thank Peter Lang for accepting it for publication. My wife and children were kind enough to put up with piles of books being moved around the dining room and gracious to listen to all of my new ideas on how to understand the book of Revelation. My children spoiled me with neck rubs and asked questions of this novice on life in Asia Minor in the time of the Roman Empire. In fact their questions helped me to become a better teacher. My mum and dad, Allan and Margaret de Waal, showed a keen interest in my research and writing and would listen with intent as I explained my views to them. I will

xiv

  | 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

miss my conversations with my dad, who has now passed on. My wife, as always, supported my research endeavours, believed in me and kept me grounded with the importance of everyday life. I dedicate this work to my wife, Charmaine and our children Kerryn and Chare’. They mean the world to me and continue to bless me with the richness, beauty and wonder of life together.

Abbreviations

General and biblical abbreviations and citation conventions follow the The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Edited by Patrick H. Alexander, et al. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999. AB ABR ABD ANTC Apoc. Abraham ASH ATR AUSDDS AUSS 2 Bar. BECNT BDAG

BBR

Anchor Bible Commentary Australian Biblical Review Abingdon Bible Dictionary Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Apocalypse of Abraham Ancient Society and History Anglican Theological Review Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series Andrews University Seminary Studies Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (in OTP) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 3rd edn., 2000). Bulletin for Biblical Research

xvi

  | 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

Bib BIS BJRL BNTC BR BSac BTB BST CBQ CBQMS CBR CC CTJ CTR CurBS DBI EDNT ETS ExpTim HDR HNT HSM HTA IB IBC ICC Il. Int Inst. Or. ITC IVPNTC JBL JETS JSJ JSJSup JSNT

1

and

11

Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Black’s New Testament Commentary Biblical Research Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Bible Speaks Today Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Currents in Biblical Research Concordia Commentary Calvin Theological Journal Criswell Theological Review Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation Leland Ryken et al. (eds.) (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998). The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Evangelical Theological Society Expository Times Harvard Dissertations in Religion Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Historisch-Theologische Auslegung Interpreter’s Bible Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching International Critical Commentary Homer, Illiad Interpretation Institutio Oratoria (Quintilian) International Theological Commentary InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of Judaism, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament

a b b r e v i at i o n s  | xvii

JSNTSup JSOTSup JTS Jub. J.W. LBS LCL LNTS LXX 1 Macc. 2 Macc. Nat. Nat. quaes. NCBC Neot NIB NIBC NICNT NICOT NIDNTT NIGTC NIV NIVAC NT NTL NTM NTS NovT Od. OT OTP Div. Pss. Sol. RBL RHE Rhet. Rhet. Her. SABH

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Jubilees (in OTP) Josephus, Jewish War Linguistic Biblical Series Loeb Classical Library Library of New Testament Studies Septuagint 1 Maccabbees 2 Maccabees Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historie Seneca, Naturalis Quaestiones New Century Bible Commentary Neotestamentica The New Interpreter’s Bible New International Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version New International Version Application Commentary New Testament New Testament Library New Testament Message New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum Homer, Odyssey Old Testament J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983). Cicero, De divinatione Psalms of Solomon Review of Biblical Literature Review and Herald Expositor Rhetorica Rhetorica as Herennium Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics

xviii

  | 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SNTSMS SPCK TDNT TOTC TNAC UBSMS WBC WTJ Wis. WUNT ZAW ZNW

1

and

11

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Tyndale Old Testament Commentary The New American Commentary United Bible Society Monograph Series Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Wisdom Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Introduction and Procedure

The late twentieth century has seen a deluge of research on the Book of Revelation. Masterly commentaries have been published, new questions have been raised and contemporary methodologies have been championed.1 The current of new methodologies and concepts has continued to run strong and indeed the cracks and crevices of older scholarship have been exposed and found wanting. Shafts of new light have brought fresh vitality to the study of the Apocalypse. The academic debates have focused primarily around the following broad questions: the genre of the book, methodological issues focusing on the unity of the work, the use of the Old Testament in Revelation, the social situation with particular attention to the imperial cults, the interpretation of its symbolism, and the different readings emerging from a reader-response approach.2 This study is an investigation into the aural and performative elements of Revelation that focuses on ancient media culture as these features have been neglected in scholarship on Revelation. It has the potential to open up new perspectives regarding the literary, social and theological understanding of the book. The Book of Revelation was written primarily for hearers in the communities of faith in Asia Minor in the first-century CE. While scholars acknowledge that the vast majority of people in John’s day could not read “and therefore learned aurally,” we often assume that his audience were readers and would have approached and understood the text in a similar fashion to us.3 According to John D. Harvey,

2 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

“most biblical scholars continue to examine the NT documents using presuppositions that apply more to nineteenth and twentieth-century literary/print culture than to the culture in which those documents were originally produced.”4 While these assumptions may be evident in the broader spectrum of New Testament scholarship neither Harvey nor I am denying that there were first-century readers. The early Christians wrote and copied manuscripts and there are indeed thousands of manuscripts that have survived the Roman period with a wide range of documentary evidence that suggests that writing and reading were intrinsic to the first-century world.5 However, first-century culture also had an oral and aural dimension. We will navigate the complexities of the discussion between literacy, orality and aurality as this work unfolds. Adela Yarbro Collins is correct when she states, “it is better to speak of the first ‘hearers’ of Revelation, rather than the ‘readers.’”6 This conclusion is reached when we read Rev 1:3 “Maka,rioj o` avnaginw,skwn kai. oi` avkou,ontej tou.j lo,gouj th/j profhtei,aj kai. throu/ntej ta. evn auvth/| gegramme,na( o` ga.r kairo.j evggu,jÅ” John wrote Revelation so that it could be read by one person to a group of Christians who are largely hearers and on whom he pronounced a blessing. The notion of hearing implies that the message is to transform them, shaping their beliefs, actions and attitudes.7 In recent decades academic research has demonstrated that the Apocalypse cannot be understood apart from sustained interaction with the Old Testament.8 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza writes: “Although the open and multivalent images of Rev. have many overtones derived from Greco-Roman society and religion, the dominant tenor of its symbolic language is the cult of Israel. The symbols of temple, priest, sacrifice … are all derived from Jewish religion.”9 Even though the book breathes the atmosphere of the Old Testament in nearly every verse John does not cite or quote a text from these Scriptures. John engages the Old Testament at the level of allusion.10 The absence of introductory formula in Revelation, like those found in the Gospels, has led scholars to develop criteria for the use of these Old Testament allusions in Revelation. These criteria include constructs like clear allusion, probable allusion and echoes.11 These constructs are designed to assist the interpreter in the task of exegesis. These contemporary heuristic devices all focus on the interpreter’s perspective more than on the perspective of the audience. Moreover, the scholarly conversation around the centrality of the Old Testament in Revelation has focused on either how John himself interacted with these Scriptures or how readers interpret John’s use of the Old Testament.12 The chief concern has been to develop a richer and fuller understanding of either the way John read the Old Testament or how readers engage and understand how the Old

intr od u c t i o n a n d p r oc e d u r e  | 3

Testament interacts and intersects with the text of Revelation. While Revelation scholars acknowledge that we should talk more about hearers than readers the conversation has been largely focused on the contemporary reader and the ancient author. While the Old Testament background is important in the interpretation of Revelation the socio-historical context of first-century Asia Minor is the general backdrop against which the book must be understood.13 The role of the early Christian reader has been neglected in scholarship on Revelation. Scholars are only recently beginning to assess how John’s audience would have heard the text and the rhetorical impact the text would have had on them. Peter Perry uses ancient rhetoric to assess how a first-century audience would have heard and experienced Rev. 7:1–17 and Rev. 10:1–11:13.14 Sean Michael Ryan enlists a model of hearer construct that seeks to uncover how educational levels would have impacted a hearers understanding of Rev. 9.15 The present work will try to continue to advance the discussion of how Revelation would have been heard by the early Christian community by drawing on an integrated methodology. This project seeks to articulate a hermeneutic of hearing for an ancient audience.16 The aim of this study is to demonstrate that the early Christians heard and experienced the message of Revelation through a dynamic reading and that this experiential communal approach to understanding the book has been overlooked by the scholarly community. To further the aims of this study I will therefore pay attention to the aural features and the performative dynamics in the text of Revelation and in so doing seek to elicit fresh meaning potential from this book.

Procedure Chapter 1 outlines the methodological framework within which research for this book will be undertaken. Insights from oral biblical criticism, oral patterning, sound mapping, auditory neuroscience and biblical performance criticism are deployed in an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of Revelation. This chapter also develops aural-performance criticism as a new methodology to interpret Revelation. The methodology is new in the sense that no prior research project has integrated the aforementioned studies the way this project does. Chapter 2 examines reading and performing in the first-century world. In relation to the concept of reading the work of historians like William Harris, Harry Gamble and Catherine Hezser will be brought into dialogue with Revelation scholars. Since it is easy to make broad generalizations about the seven churches of Rev. 2 and 3 as if they were a uniform group this chapter briefly analyses the

4 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

social setting of Revelation to situate the audience and the challenges and issues they face. The concept of the authorial audience is also introduced in this chapter. In chapter 3 the focus is on ancient performances and the role of the audience in the presentation of a message or speech. The performance setting of Revelation is explored as well as the role of the reader. The influence of the Greek theatre is examined. It will be demonstrated that the reader is a fellow prophet of John who is entrusted with reading the message of Revelation to the seven churches. Chapter 4 pays attention to hearing in the ancient world. The concept of hearing is looked at progressively beginning with the Gospel of Mark, Luke-Acts and the Gospel of John. The notion of hearing is also examined in the Jewish apocalyptic literature. This work lays a foundation for the notion of hearing to be studied in Revelation. It is assumed that the hearers are listening to the text of Revelation for the first time. Thereafter an analysis of relevant allusions and symbols in Rev. 1 and 11 is undertaken from an aural-performance perspective in chapter 5 and 6. Sound maps of Rev. 1 and 11 are also introduced in these chapters. The research includes seeking aural patterns and design that would have aided the hearing community to understand John’s message. Word usage and “sound bites” are tabulated in a section of work called sound analysis and the relevant data is analysed. These chapters also develop an aural-performance commentary that seeks to apply the insights articulated from the sound maps and how the audience would have understood the message. Chapter 7 provides a summary of the findings of this study and pays attention to the sociological and theological implications of hearing the text and encountering it in performance. The chapter focuses on performance as a social act and how the act of performance would have impacted the ancient audience. The chapter concludes with insights on what it might mean to re-hear Revelation in a contemporary setting.

chapter one

Literature Review and Methodology

Introduction John wrote and structured the Book of Revelation for the ear rather than the eye.1 John Sweet suggests that “Hebrew imagery appealed to the ear rather than the eye and created a dynamic psychological impression without necessarily evoking a picture in the mind.”2 The early Christians would hear clues to meaning and structure because they had learned to communicate in a rhetorical culture where those clues were essential to meaning-making. The argument that the first-century CE was a rhetorical culture will be made in the next chapter. Recognizable aural patterns and themes were essential for ancient hearers to organize what they heard, to follow the argument of the lector or author, to understand and perhaps even predict what may lay ahead in the narrative landscape and to remember the flow and direction of communication.3 While there is strong evidence to support oral composition in the ancient world,4 it is the contention of this study that Revelation is not an oral composition as John did not dictate his work to an amanuensis. The text states categorically that John was told to write the visions (Rev. 1:11, 19) and we assume therefore that he personally wrote the visions. The message was written for an audience in an oral-aural setting and is a unified composite work.5 The concern of this project is therefore an aural-performance analysis of the text in its final canonical

6 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

form. While Revelation would have been studied and reflected on in the Christian community it would have also made sense to ancient hearers as it was being read. Too often elaborate literary structures are composed by interpreters without due consideration for the hearing community.6 A literature review of relevant academic research is now undertaken.

Literature Review This literature review will examine the work of David Barr, Casey Davis, John Harvey, Jeanette Mathews, Margaret Ellen Lee, Bernard Scott, David Rhoads and the German work of Bernhard Oestreich. Each of these scholars has introduced innovative research to New Testament studies which has opened up new paths to explore the biblical text. There are of course other scholars with whom I shall dialogue but these constitute the main conversation partners in this review. The review proceeds with the sub-headings of relevant methodological approaches rather than scholars names and is not analysing methodologies in terms of their chronological development in the biblical academy. The chapter concludes with the integrated methodological procedure developed for the purposes of this study called aural-performance criticism.

Oral-Biblical Criticism and Oral Patterning The oral dynamics of Revelation were brought to the attention of scholars by the pioneering work of David Barr.7 Barr asserted that “the orality of the Apocalypse is an essential element of its hermeneutic.”8 He demonstrated that there were literary techniques used by the author to assist his audience to recall and remember the message of Revelation. These included numbering, the significance of names and places and the feature of the three scrolls (letter, worship and war). In relation to the seven churches Barr argued that the names of these churches and their unique features and location would have assisted hearers to remember and process the message of Revelation.9 Barr insisted that Revelation was a self-contained story and that it needed to be interpreted on its own terms. While his work advanced the understanding of Revelation as narrative he failed to explore the book meaningfully in its Old Testament setting or to argue for exactly how the message would have been read. Casey Wayne Davis wrote a monograph entitled Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistles to the

liter ature re vi e w a n d m e t h od o lo g y  | 7

Philippians that enlisted the resources of oral biblical criticism to study the letter to the Philippians. While Philippians and Revelation are different genres and are composed under different circumstances, this study will contend that an adapted version of aspects of the methodology is applicable to Revelation as well. Davis suggests the following method for oral biblical criticism. First the author’s rhetorical style must be analysed. For our purposes this includes repetition by taking note of sounds, grammatical constructions, words and topics. Rare words are also identified in this first step because of aural and rhetorical considerations. Themes are also identified. The second step is to identify and analyse individual units. In chapter 3 Davis addresses the second step of identifying and analysing units. He suggests 1) the use of concentric and parallel structure, 2) the use of introductory and concluding formulas, 3) changes in genre, 4) logical relationships, 5) units of grammatical consistency, 6) sound, word and topic grouping, 7) temporal and spatial frames and 8) the use of climax.10 The third step in the method is to analyse the method of progression from unit to unit. Certain aspects of the aforementioned steps will be considered in the development of the methodology for this project.11 Another important contribution to the field of orality studies is the work of John Harvey who published his work in the Evangelical Theological Society study series. His book entitled Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters makes a unique contribution to the field of Pauline studies and was published in 1998. While his work does not use the nomenclature of oral biblical criticism there are similarities in the work of Davis and Harvey. Both scholars recognize the importance of the hearing community of faith in both Philippi and in the cities that Paul wrote to that Harvey refers to, including Rome, Corinth, Galatia and Philippi. They are concerned with how hearers would have understood the text. Harvey is specifically concerned with oral patterning—“compositional devices that provided the listener with clues to the organization of longer discourses.”12 Harvey provides an exhaustive overview of oral patterning from a historical perspective by assessing oral theory, epistolary analysis and rhetorical analysis. The work of giants in the field like Milman Parry and Albert Lloyd are analysed as well as the ancient rhetoricians like Homer. In the second chapter, Harvey analyses orality and literacy in the first-century. He studies the work of Thomas Boomershine, Eric Havelock and Walter Ong. While Harvey provides analysis from around 600 BCE to 2000 CE my concern is with the culture of the first-century CE. Harvey suggests that Havelock understands the first-century to be a script-literate culture; Boomershine argues for a manuscript culture; and Ong contends for a largely oral culture. These conflicting views will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

8 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

In chapter 3 and 4 Harvey provides two thoroughly engaging chapters that examine oral patterning in the Greco-Roman literature and the LXX. He examines eight kinds of techniques found in the literature: chiasmus, inversion, alternation, inclusion, ring composition, word-chain (a pattern from the Old Testament), refrain (a pattern from the Old Testament), and concentric symmetry. Since these categories are well known Harvey rather defines them in such a way as to provide controls for identifying oral patterns. For example, in relation to 1 Cor. 9:20–22 Harvey suggests that the ancient hearer or reader would notice the parallelism, repetition and word-play. The text reads: toi/j VIoudai,oij w`j VIoudai/oj( i[na VIoudai,ouj kerdh,sw\ toi/j u`po. no,mon w`j u`po. no,mon( mh. w'n auvto.j u`po. no,mon( i[na tou.j u`po. no,mon kerdh,sw\ (v. 20) toi/j avno,moij w`j a;nomoj( mh. w'n a;nomoj qeou/ avllV e;nnomoj Cristou/( i[na kerda,nw tou.j avno,mouj\ (v. 21) toi/j avsqene,sin avsqenh,j( i[na tou.j avsqenei/j kerdh,sw\ toi/j pa/sin ge,gona pa,nta( i[na pa,ntwj tina.j sw,swÅ (v. 22) While Harvey’s analysis is helpful he fails to acknowledge the importance of the words toi/j and i[na as introductory markers. Nevertheless the manner in which he has laid out the Corinthian text is similar to the sound maps that will follow in this study. Harvey is able to convincingly demonstrate that the eight identified patterns he found through his analysis of Greco-Roman literature and the LXX can be found with some frequency in Paul’s letters. Certainly then Paul participated in an oral-aural culture and used with skill the oral conventions of communication available to him.13 Of course all human cultures are oral-aural cultures. Even our digital age is not devoid of speech and hearing and in no culture, not even ours, is there a total disjunction between words spoken and written. Key conclusions that are relevant for our purposes from both these works include: 1) one or more words often frame the beginning and end of passages of various length; 2) words cluster together in some passages, emphasizing the subject under discussion; and 3) longer sentences invert the subject under consideration so that it is more easily remembered. The crucial finding of this section of work is

liter ature re vi e w a n d m e t h od o lo g y  | 9

that we need to return to the importance of hearing the text of the New Testament for the original audience. Second, the text provides aural markers that would have assisted the hearers to understand the text.

Biblical Performance Criticism David Rhoads has developed a new methodological framework called biblical performance criticism.14 Biblical performance criticism is eclectic in nature and embraces a large variety of methodologies. It attempts to fill a significant lacuna in the biblical academy in which interpreters so often assume that ancient cultures were literate or where the focus is primarily on the interpretive task from the perspective of the author or contemporary readers. The methodology attempts to reframe the biblical materials in the context of oral/scribal cultures of the first-century. Aspects of the methodology include the performance event, performer, audience, context, and text. Rhoads maintains that “performances were central and an integral part of the early Christian experience of the compositions that have now come down to us in written form in the Second Testament.”15 Rhoads defines “performance in the broadest sense as any oral telling/retelling of a brief or lengthy tradition—from saying to gospel—in a formal or informal context of a gathered community by trained or untrained performers—on the assumption that every telling was a lively recounting of that tradition.”16 As a result of these practises the performance critic reinterprets biblical materials accordingly. Moreover, biblical performance criticism constructs scenarios of ancient performances. James Maxey provides the following definition: Biblical Performance Criticism seeks to understand the performance of Christian traditions in the oral cultures of the early church, aspects of which include the performer, audience, context, and text. … [It] analyzes a biblical text through the translation, preparation, and performance of a text for group discussion of the performance event. Such a methodology seeks to foster the appreciation of performance for the appropriation of the Bible in the modern world.17

While this is a helpful definition this study will not be focusing on the application of the performance of Revelation in contemporary society but in the first-century world of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, while Maxey suggests that the culture of the early church was oral this project will argue that the culture of the early church was rhetorical. The difference and its importance will become clearer as this study proceeds.

10 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

The eclectic nature of performance criticism can be seen in Rhoads addressing historical criticism, narrative criticism and reader-response criticism, among others, in his article. Rhoads suggests that texts “yield clues and suggestions for performance.”18 These clues “may be taken as “stage directions” for the performer to modulate the voice, to act out a gesture, or to express an emotion or to offer “cues” for the audience to respond.”19 The danger of course is that the text is reduced to a screenplay and the authors to script writers. In the next chapter I will examine how ancient communities responded to, enacted and lived the sacred traditions and stories that shaped their culture. Rhoads also makes mention of orality criticism and its importance for performance criticism. He claims that orality critics endeavour to understand the ethos of orality and the relation of writing to culture. Writing often functioned as a tool of power and control and so this project will explore the implications of John writing his visions for the faithful communities in Asia Minor. Further, oral critics examine the dynamics of social memory and the gender dimensions of orality.20 Rhoads’s two articles are most welcome in the field of biblical studies and open up new vistas to be explored and fresh perspectives gained on the early Christian communities in Asia Minor and their reception of the Apocalypse. This project will adapt certain perspectives that relate to performance criticism and hence will not be slavishly following Rhoads.21 A new contribution to the field of biblical performance criticism is the work of Jeanette Mathews entitled Performing Habakkuk: Faithful Re-enactment in the Midst of Crisis. In chapter 1 and 2 Mathews reviews the prophetic phenomena of the Hebrew Bible and provides a brief introduction to the field of performance studies. Mathews states in chapter 3 that the importance of performance emerges in three fundamental ways: first, as a metaphor for the articulation of the presentation of Christian theology; second, through a focus on the phenomena of oral performance of the text both in the ancient world and the present context, and third, by considering the intrinsic performative aspects of a given text and their interpretive significance.22

It is the second point, namely, the phenomena of oral performance that is of interest for this work. Further, in a section entitled performance of biblical material Mathews subdivides performance into studies on “the oral nature of traditions, studies applying speech act theories to Biblical traditions, and studies of ritual— the cultic performances that lie behind texts.”23 Each of these approaches is interested in the performance of the material either in its original setting or in a contemporary setting.

liter ature re vi e w a n d m e t h od o lo g y  | 11

She understands the audience as a participatory group of people that are not bound by time or place. “The performance of Habakkuk expects an audience, deliberately involves an audience and aims for the transformation of its audience.”24 For Mathews the term audience has multiple layers that include the eighth-century audience, another audience for the compilers of the canonical text in the fifth-century as well as for later Jewish and Christian faith communities who understand Habakkuk as Scripture.25 My aim is slightly different to Mathews in that I will only work with how the text may have been understood by the first-century audience. This aim will be met with the development of the sound map of each chapter. Mathew’s work has also opened up new avenues for others to explore. Her focus on the centrality of performance to the study of the Old Testament is most welcome. Another significant contribution to the sub-discipline of performance criticism is that of Bernhard Oestreich who has written Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe.26 The section of work I am most interested in is Oestreich’s development of a methodological framework for using performance criticism. In the opening section entitled “Methodik der Performanzkritik” Oestreich deals with the letter conventions and the practises related to the reception and distribution of letters in the first-century world and the principles he will use in the execution of his methodology. He argues for the following ten points in relation to the letters of Paul and for his performance reading of Paul: 1) “Der Brief wird überbracht. In der Regel waren es von Paulus abgesandte Boten, die siene Briefe transportierten.”27 [The letter will be delivered. In general it was dispatched by Paul’s messengers]. While the letters make it clear that these emissaries where chosen by Paul to distribute his letters we cannot say the same for the Apocalypse. We know about a group of prophets (Rev. 22:9–11) and I assume that one of them performed the book for the churches in Asia Minor but unlike the letters of Paul Revelation does not state who John had chosen. I will examine the role of this reader in chapter 3. 2) “Der Brief wird dem Empfänger oder einem Repräsentanten der Empfängergruppe ausgehändigt”28 [The letter is delivered to the recipient or representative of the addressees]. Furthermore he argues that “diese Handlung scheint Teil des ublichen Protokolls zu sein”29 [This procedure appears to be part of the usual protocol]. While he suggests that the normal protocol was for the letter to be delivered to the representative of the group he only refers to 1 Thess. 5:27 as evidence for his view. This will be elaborated on in the next chapter. 3) “Vom Briefempfänger wird jemand beauftragt, den Brief vorzutragen (vgl. 1 Tim. 4:13)” [The recipient of the letter was appointed to carry the letter

12 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

forward]. 4) This principle states that “Der Beauftragte bereitet sich auf den Vortrag vor, indem er den brief durcharbeitet und einstudiert” [The commissioned prepares for the lecture by working through the letter and rehearsing it]. This is a valid point that will be drawn on in chapter 3. Further, Oestreich maintains that based on the principle of scriptio continua it would be difficult if not impossible to detect the structure of a letter spontaneously hence the need to prepare and rehearse the letter.30 5) In this point Oestreich maintains that “Eine Versammlung wird einberufen. Wie bei offiziellen Briefen üblich, waren die Paulusbriefe an eine Gruppe gerichtet”31 [A meeting is called. As usual in official letters, Paul’s letters were addressed to a group]. This is a fairly obvious point but demonstrates the logical way in which Oestreich is proceeding. 6) Die Teilnehmer der Versammlung nehmen ihre Plätze ein. Die Sitzordnung war häufig sozial organisiert”32 [The participants of the meeting take their places. The seating arrangement was often socially organized.] The seating of contemporary churches with worshipers looking at the back of another worshiper standing or sitting in front of them is not the manner in which the ancients gathered to worship. Worship was a social event in which worshipers engaged with other worshipers in meaningful ways. This point will be elaborated on in my work on the performance setting of Revelation. 7) “Der Bote wird öffentlich begrüßt, der Brief wird präsentiert”33 [The messenger is publicly welcomed, the letter is presented]. This point needs no elaboration. 8) “Der Brief wird vorgetragen. Dieser Vortrag entsprach antiken Redevorträgen” [The letter is presented. This presentation corresponded to ancient speech presentations]. Drawing on the research of Gregory Aldrete, Oestreich argues that “skulpturen von Rednern zeigen den Redner entweder mit dem geöffneten Text oder er hält ihn zusammengerollt in der linken Hand” [Sculptures of speakers show how the speaker either opens the text or he holds it rolled up in his left hand]. While the conventions of ancient speech presentations will impact the present study it is questionable whether we can definitely say that all performers used their left hand solely based on the evidence from sculptures. 9) Der Brief wird in der Versammlung diskutiert. Der Bote beantwortet Fragen oder erklärt des Briefes. Auf diese Wiese warden die mundliche und die schriftliche Botschaft kombiniert. Der Bote hat die Autoritat, im Auftrag des Senders zu sprechen. [The letter is discussed at the meeting. The messenger answered questions and explained the letter]. Oestreich goes on to say that the messenger has the authority to explain the message on behalf of the sender.34 10) In his final point he states “schließlich wird eine Antwort vorbereitet (vgl. 1 Clem 63:3; 65:1) oder der Brief wird weitergeleitet (Kol 4:16) [Finally a response is prepared (cf. 1 Clem 63:3; 65:1) or the letter is forwarded (Col 4:16)].

liter ature re vi e w a n d m e t h od o lo g y  | 13

In our case the scroll is that of Revelation and it would have been forwarded from Ephesus on to Smyrna and continuing along to the other churches. Oestreich’s work is most helpful since biblical performance criticism is still developing methodologically. Each point in his methodology follows logically and is grounded in historical reality. A number of his points will be expanded upon and contextualized for this particular reading of Revelation. Terry Giles and William Doan elicit five core principles that give performance criticism its unique perspective. These principles are: 1) “medium transferability,” which acknowledges that the performance is an event rather than a genre; 2) an “act-scheme” that is a presentational structure of a performance that has a distinctive pattern and is therefore known by performers and the early Christians; 3) “audience formation” that occurs in the relationship between performer and audience as an event is presented; 4) “iconic” and “dialectic” modes of presentation in which certain aspects of the performance can be recognized and re-used for future performances; and 5) “explicit” and “implicit” activities that enhance and enrich the performance of the text and the questions arising from the performance of those texts such as gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and other performance features.35 Stimulating questions have been raised by Holly Hearon on the nature and purpose of performance criticism. She asks: “What movements and gestures are needed to help the audience visualize the setting?”36 This project will therefore pay attention to the gestures embedded in Rev. 1 and 11. Hearon asks, “What is the physical setting in which the storytelling performance will occur? What values and beliefs are reflected in this space?”37 I will argue that the house church is the setting in which the performance was delivered. Her questions on how characters function as part of the physical setting are not relevant in apocalyptic literature but rather fit the Gospels. Further she asks, “How can tone of voice, gestures, posture and facial expressions be used to draw attention to conflict in the story?”38 Again this may be more pertinent in the Gospels but it may help to be aware of the notion of conflict in Revelation. Another important question is “Where are there points of decision in the story? How are these points enacted through gesture, tone of voice, pace, placement and interaction of characters?”39 I assume that the characters in Revelation will not be “live” characters as in the Gospel narratives but rather points of decision will emerge in the interaction between John, the reader and the audience. Finally Hearon asks “Who are the audience? What social customs, roles and setting does the audience share with the story?”40 I will develop a whole section on the setting of the audience for this study. These questions are helpful in further developing performance criticism and will be responded to as this study unfolds.

14 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

The formative work done by Rhoads, the expansion of ideas by Mathews and the principles set forward by Oestreich, Giles and Doan will help to shape the development of the performance criticism of Rev. 1 and 11.

Sound Mapping Another important book for this study is Sound Mapping the New Testament by Margaret Ellen Lee and Bernard Brandon Scott. The opening sentences of their book are “In the Greco-Roman world writing was heard, not read silently…Modern New Testament scholarship is a child of the printing press, [centered] around silent reading.”41 These opening statements set the pace for a fresh and evocative study of sound in the Greco-Roman world, sound analysis of the Greek New Testament, the role of literature in a memorial culture, the centrality of repetition, which the authors call “sound’s structuring device” and a whole range of other fascinating topics.42 Lee and Scott suggest that “sound mapping is an analytical tool, not an interpretative method or exegetical approach. Sound Mapping should precede exegesis and sound analysis should indicate the features that demand attention. Every tool serves a specific purpose and implies practical consideration.”43 Lee and Scott deliver detailed analysis of the theory behind orality;44 provide a thorough analysis of how to prepare a sound map; and analyse the writings of Paul using their methodological approach.45 According to Lee and Scott “sound mapping detects the organic boundaries of a composition’s structure and depicts its acoustic patterns.”46 They describe the process as delineating cola and periodic structures, then attending to the matter of sound quality (euphony and harmony; cacophony and dissonance). Lee and Scott suggest that “Greek grammar analyses discourse progressively at the level of the syllable, colon and period.”47 These basic speech units build on each other: syllables form cola, cola form periods, periods build compositions. They point out that each speech unit controls an aspect of the discourse and that taken “together the syllable, colon and period comprise a composition’s building blocks and account for organizational structure.”48 Lee and Scott develop an argument for understanding the New Testament documents in the colometric form. Bruce Metzger defines colometric transcription: “Colometry is the division of the text into kw/la and ko,mmata that is, sense lines of clauses and phrases so as to assist the reader to make the correct inflection and the proper pauses.”49 The sound map that will be generated for Rev. 1 and 11

liter ature re vi e w a n d m e t h od o lo g y  | 15

is therefore a colometric tool to aid contemporary readers to grasp the sound patterns in the text, but also approximate how the text may have been read. In addition, another older but nonetheless important contribution to the concepts of sound mapping is the work of Thomas McCreesh.50 While his study focuses on poetic literature, namely the Hebrew proverbs, there are principles and methodological contributions he makes that are valuable to further conceptualizing sound mapping. McCreesh suggests the following methodology for studying aurality: 1) analysis basic sound patterns in the text, such as alliteration, assonance, and consonance;51 2) determine linking sound patterns;52 3) investigate the incidence of “correlation;”53 4) study the occurrence of “tagging sound patterns;”54 and 5) detect word repetition and wordplay.55 From the aforementioned discussion, especially looking at the work of Casey, Harvey and McCreesh, there seems to be broad agreement as to what constitute some of the general characteristics of aural patterns. Scholars also assume that the literary construct of chiasm, namely “that of a symmetrical structure involving an inverted order of corresponding lines” would have aided the hearers in understanding the message of Revelation.56 In fact Revelation is widely regarded to have numerous macro and micro chiastic structures.57 However, in my view ancient hearers would not identify chiasms on the first hearing of the Apocalypse but only on subsequent oral deliveries.58 Further, while literary parallel structures are useful for interpretation an ancient hearer would not have made the literary connections on the first reading. These literary techniques will therefore not be engaged with in this study.59

Auditory NeuroScience The difficulty in developing and articulating this aural-performance approach to the text is that I am essentially a reader of the text. Furthermore, I am an English speaker and not a Greek speaker. I am attempting to establish how an ancient audience may have heard the text. Another challenge relates to the fact that “hearing results from the interplay of so many physical, biological and psychological processes” that these need to be taken account of to determine meaning and meaning-making.60 To help achieve a greater level of objectivity and to improve the rigor of this approach the insights and constructs of auditory neuroscience will be enlisted to better comprehend how ancient hearers would have made meaning. The underlying premise is that while ancient hearers lived in another time and culture, both

16 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

ancient hearers and contemporary hearers, because of their humanness, still hear in the same way.61 Some New Testament scholars have recently embraced the discipline of cognitive science in an attempt to further understand how humans make meaning and hence appropriate the New Testament texts.62 Cognitive science is a multi-disciplinary discipline that draws on the constructs and ideas of language, philosophy, neuroscience and behavioural science to study the human mind and its processes. Auditory neuroscience is a sub-discipline of cognitive science that seeks to make sense of sound. It is concerned with the auditory system.63 In particular auditory processing is probed in this project since “auditory information participates in a fundamental way in the development of knowledge.”64 There are processes implied in auditory processing that will be examined to approximate how ancient hearers may have understood the words shared by the lector.65

The Auditory Process The brain recognizes and interprets sound in the ancient environment through a sequence of events called auditory processing or cognition. Reference is made to the ancient environment and ancient hearer to situate this particular approach better. The sound vibrations from the voice of the prophet-performer enter the inner ear of the ancient hearer where they are analysed and transduced into nerve impulses that are directed by way of the auditory nerve to the brain.66 Auditory processing focuses not so much on hearing as a function of the ear but rather on listening as a function of the brain. Auditory processing explains what happens between the ear and the brain and clarifies the manner in which the brain assigns meaning and significance to the sounds in the environment. It follows that ancient listeners would not be able to appropriate what the reader was communicating without good listening which cannot occur in the absence of effective auditory processing. Auditory processing is concerned with information transfer. This transfer of information would occur as the lector was performing the text.67 Ancient hearers would need to have an effective memory, a good attention span, and sensitivity to the many intracacies of sound. The study of the brain, especially in relation to how humans make meaning, has recently generated a deluge of literature on the subject.68 One of the ways in which the brain makes meaning is through what psychological scientists call “patterning.”69 Patterning refers to the organization and categorization of information. The brain has the capacity to integrate information and to streamline and reduce it to familiar patterns. This project will develop a sound map of Rev. 1 and 11 that will demonstrate how patterning works in the Apocalypse. While the sound map

liter ature re vi e w a n d m e t h od o lo g y  | 17

points to patterns developed on a literary and visual basis the notion of patterns referred to by psychological scientists is the connections or common themes one finds in any kind of information. Both kinds of patterning, however, refer to how the brain makes meaning. Let me provide a contemporary example of how the ancient listener may have recalled something on the basis of what the lector said. Benjamin Bergen provides an insightful example of how memory-recall functions physiologically when he discusses how brain activity evidences the brain filling in the blanks in periods of silence when one would otherwise expect external stimuli, be it visual or auditory. Describing brain scans on such periods of silence, Bergen comments: If you’ve ever driven through a tunnel while listening to the radio, you know that when you’re listening to a song you know, as soon as the music cuts out, you spontaneously ‘hear’ the music in your mind’s ear over the crackling of your radio. The brain activity measurements that the experiments took from the periods of silence showed …activation in the brain areas responsible for audition … The exact parts of the auditory system that were active during the periods of silence depended upon how familiar the music was to the participant and whether it had lyrics—just as you use different but closely related brain regions to hear different types of sound, so you use different brain regions to imagine sound.70

Bergen is contending that brain activity does not simply cease with the absence of an external stimulus. It continues on the basis of some sort of activation of memory.71 The brain is able to hear the music in the present based on what it has heard in the past. In a similar fashion then the ancient listener is able to recall certain things based on the reading of Revelation. An argument will be made in the next chapter on the ability of the ancients to memorize vast amounts of information. Ancients would recall the Old Testament stories, texts and passages that had shaped their life experience as Jews or their conversion to Christianity as Gentiles. The Old Testament would have had a much greater evocative impact on ancient hearers.72 Werner Kelber calls this a cultural register.73 This would consist of associated traditions, memories, experiences and images. Meaning-making for this project will take place in the context of the cultural register or what this project terms the ancient listener’s mental lexicon. In the work that unfolds it will be argued that the aforementioned comments about the impact of the Old Testament correspond to the educational and social levels of the competent audience. Their cultural register, to use Kelber’s term, or the audience’s mental lexicon would have enriched the intellectual environment available to help this audience to apprehend the text at hand. The auditory process

18 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

culminates in the mental representation of the structure of the sound environment currently being experienced by the ancient hearer. The brain composes these images or mental representations which gain power through reliable and consistent use. With a good level of consistency, networks of meaning “conjure up” in the minds of hearers other networks that have some relationship to them. This process of relating is a significant associative element in neural networks.74 It is an important element for all communication to happen effortlessly.75 Examples of how this happens for the ancient hearing community will be demonstrated from the text of Revelation. The methodological constructs that will be used in this project will now be introduced.

Methodology: An Aural-Performance Analysis The methodology is a combination of insights from oral-biblical criticism and oral patterning, sound mapping, biblical performance criticism and auditory neuro­ science. An aural-performance analysis examines the final canonical form of the text and seeks to ascertain how ancient hearers would have understood the text during an oral delivery. The methodology claims that Greek grammar has aural patterns at the syllable level that would have assisted ancient hearers to follow the message. Concepts are communicated at the level of colons and periods. The methodology is also concerned with the performance of the text and argues that the verbs in each period assist the lector in articulating the message. The methodology is literary-historical in that ideas from literary theory are articulated and integrated with historical reconstruction in an attempt to develop a fresh hearing of Revelation. It is, of course, impossible to either reproduce the aural experience of the ancient hearers or achieve anywhere near the kind of listening fluency that an ancient audience enjoyed. There are aspects of oral performances that are permanently lost.76 This is not an approach that seeks to recover the original performance, for that is far too speculative. In fact we are millennia away from the performance. This study is attempting to reconstruct how the ancient audience would have heard the text. The ironic question that therefore guides this project is “what sounds can we see?”77 Or “what can we hear based on what is visible?”78 The aim of the methodology is to attend to sound in a systematic way and attempt to uncover the organic structure of Rev. 1 and 11.79 The methodology will proceed in the following way: 1) Develop the sound map of each chapter under consideration. The sound map section will include looking at word usage, sound patterns, repetition, alliteration, the use of kai, and

liter ature re vi e w a n d m e t h od o lo g y  | 19

other important words. The aural-performance critic looks for aural thematic and structural markers and mnemonic hooks which aid in the process of communication.80 Sound quality, which refers to the individual sounds and “to the way sounds are combined, and to the relation between sound and meaning,” will also be examined.81 Typical sound qualities include euphony, cacophony, and onomatopoeia.82 After the sound map is developed of each chapter under consideration a literal translation of the text is provided. The purpose of the translation is to highlight the changes in emphasis for the performer. Many translations omit the recurring kai, at the beginning of clauses but maintaining it in translation gives a greater sense of the movement of the text.83 The translation aims for high iconicity that includes philological constancy to enhance performance features in the text. 2) In the second step an aural-performance commentary of Rev. 1 and 11 is developed. The text will be examined from the perspective of the ancient hearers with appropriate acknowledgment of the role of the lector. Since this is not an exegesis of Revelation but rather an approach that seeks to gauge how listeners would have heard the text, significant words, symbols and Old Testament allusions will be discussed in a progressive “hearing” of the text. A key question that needs to be grappled with is “How does one perform allusions or echoes or draw attention to social customs and roles that are assumed by the text?”84 This is a significant question since even though it is generally acknowledged that the Bible first existed in some type of oral form there is no tradition of how the Bible or specifically the New Testament was originally read aloud.85 This hypothetical reconstruction of how ancient hearers may have heard the text is not ahistorical but, as has been demonstrated to a limited extent thus far and will be clarified and expanded upon in greater detail in the chapters to follow, is grounded in the historicity of first-century media culture. Meaning-making takes place at the intersection of aurality and performance and culminates in the listener processing what is being heard and hence developing understanding. We turn now to examine the historical setting of the audience and the culture of the first-century Mediterranean world.

chapter two

The Authorial Audience and the Culture in John’s World

Introduction This chapter provides an orientation to the phenomena of culture and the kind of culture in which John and the early Asian Christian community lived. A whole range of substantive issues are dealt with in this chapter to lay the groundwork for the aural-performance analysis of Revelation. A brief analysis of the socio-historical situation of the early Christians as depicted in Rev. 2 and 3 is first undertaken so that we may better situate this particular analysis. A discussion of the communicative environment of the first century CE and the neglected feature of the oral-auricular setting of the Apocalypse is also undertaken.

A Brief Introduction to the Hearing Community in Revelation There have been a number of proposals in the history of scholarship as to the socio-political situation in Asia Minor that necessitated the writing of Revelation.1 Recent scholarship has demonstrated that there was local sporadic persecution but not systematic persecution of Christians by Domitian or the Roman Empire.2 While the historical evidence seems to support this position the threat

22 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

of persecution and even death was still evident as can be seen in the death of Antipas (Rev 2:13). This section provides a brief overview of some of the issues and challenges the early Christian “speech community” were dealing with.3 The Book of Revelation was probably written during the latter stages of the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81–96 CE).4 The Roman Empire dominated the landscape of the early Christians. During the time of the Flavian emperors, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian (69–96 CE), the Roman Empire became more visible through the renovation and development of various buidings. These included the Flavian Sebastoi, the hydrekdochion with columns and statues, a gymnasium, the Embelos and a number of baths.5 The use of coins was another method of propagating imperial values. The coins that were struck under Domitian’s reign emphasized his desire to demonstrate the prerogatives of divinity that rested with and in the Flavian dynasty.6 Janzen contends that it is this “ever-escalating numismatic propoganda of the imperium” that could have been a direct factor in shaping John’s response to the Empire.7 Furthermore, Scott suggests that temples and coins associate Domitian with the divine powers of the gods.8 Strikingly, Carradice observes about two hundred and eleven coin types relating to Domitian’s reign. On the basis of his observations he concludes: Not only does Domitian himself appear on an unprecendented quantity of the designs, but the deities which appear most commonly also had in contemporary legend the most intimate associations with him. Domitian even appears on one reverse type holding a divine attribute (the thunderbolt of Jupiter) and the regular use of the aegis on the obverse portrait adds to the impression that the coinage was being employed to protect an ideological message related to the Emperor’s aspirations to divinity.9

These two examples, namely, that of the dominance of buildings and the circulation of coins, demonstrate the pervasive influence of the emperor and presents an aspect of the negotiation the early Christians would need to undertake as they lived for Christ. In all likelihood John wrote the book during his short period of exile on Patmos or after his release upon the death of Domitian.10 The fact that John was exiled and not executed suggests that his being sent to Patmos could have been a political solution and that he may have been a member of the elite. If this is correct then “John’s willingness to trade his privileged social location in Roman society for life among the struggling ekklesiai represents John’s coming out of the “great city Babylon.”11 While this is a possibility the traditional view that John was a disciple of Christ and part of the non-elite is more plausible.12

the authorial audience and the cu lt u re i n j o h n ’ s w o rl d

 | 23

John was told to write the visions and to send the messages he had received from Jesus to the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea (1:11). The fact that the seven churches are mentioned in a geographical order (1:11) suggests that Revelation was a circular letter.13 The early Christian community would have been widely representative of people living in the first-century CE societal context that would have included women, men and children, masters and slaves, patrons and clients, Gentile and Jew, the powerful and weak and Roman citizens and non-citizens. This audience lived in the seven cities mentioned in the book and hence responds to the cultural context of these urban communities living in first-century Asia Minor, a Roman province.14 It is assumed that the community consists mostly of the labour class but that there are also wealthy members in various churches.15 The early Christians also made no distinction between religion and politics but rather comprehended the overlapping and interpenetration of both of these modern categories. John is addressing a multiplicity of problems in the seven churches as even a cursory reading of Rev. 2 and 3 will indicate. Steven Friesen states that Revelation had several social settings, not one; that these settings were characterized by distinct problems having mostly to do with relations to outsiders; that the assemblies agreed with John about abstention from imperial cults; and that John used their agreement about imperial cults as a rhetorical tool in order to link their settings together within the framework of the rejection of mainstream Roman imperial society.16

Friesen suggests that John brings together various issues and links them into a broader critique of religion, economy and imperialism. Since emperor worship dominated the lives of the people in Asia Minor John creatively links emperor worship with local issues to provide a broader assessment of imperial society. Against the backdrop of pagan worship the Christians in Asia Minor were struggling with embracing a diluted Christianity in which prominent teachers like Jezebel and groups like the Nicolaitans said it was reasonable to accommodate to the dictates of the Roman world. Paul Duff has made the strongest case for prophetic rivalry among the seven churches between John and Jezebel. Duff maintains that John cast Jezebel in the light of Babylon in Rev. 17 especially with the allusions to Babylon in the letter to Thyatira.17 The fact that there was intra-church conflict suggests that people would have responded differently to the message of Revelation. Some would have questioned the authority of the Jewish Scriptures or perhaps John’s interpretation of certain passages and thus would have resisted John’s efforts to reinforce his worldview by alluding to a biblical passage. Since in all likelihood John and Jezebel were prophetic

24 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

rivals, others would have questioned the authority of John and would have therefore been unwilling to listen to what he had to say.18 These would have been supporters of Jezebel, the Nicolaitans and the followers of Balaam. This will be explored futher in the analysis of the three audience constructs this project will develop.

An Audience-Oriented Approach It is impossible to determine exactly the original historical circumstances in which Revelation emerged. Joanna Dewey says the following in relation to literacy and orality: we have only begun to investigate how literates and nonliterates shared the same culture and, at the same time, participated in quite different cultural worlds. We do not yet have an overview of how orality and literacy affected the development of the early churches and the formation of the New Testament canon. We have yet to consider fully how Christianity itself participated in orality and literacy. We are just beginning to develop a sense of the first-century media world and how Christianity fits within it.19

Taking these cautions from Dewey seriously leads this project to enlist the construct of authorial audience to situate better this aural-performance analysis of Revelation 1 and 11. The construct is conscripted to navigate the varied ways in which the Apocalypse would have been heard and to understand ancient media culture better. Ian Boxall states that “the seven congregations were not readers but audiences, and John’s book has made its impact over many centuries as an aural experience.”20 The concept of the authorial audience has been developed primarily by John Paul Heil and Warren Carter in biblical studies and Peter Rabinowitz in literary theory.21 For Rabinowitz the authorial audience is a hypothetical audience which is based on the assumed “beliefs, knowledge and familiarity with conventions” that the author has about his or her readers.22 The authorial audience is “the represented world of the text.”23 The authorial audience refers to the readers and hearers John envisions in creating his text. John assumes that this audience possesses the social, cultural, literary, historical and exegetical ability and knowledge to actualize the text’s meaning and receive its communication. The authorial audience is thus a contextualized “implied reader”24 or for the purposes of this project an implied hearer. The implied reader is assumed by the narrative itself and is separate from the historical reader in the same way that the implied author is distinct from the historical author.25 It is important to remember that the authorial audience does not refer to the original audience but is a heuristic device determined by the relationship between the text and its context.26

the authorial audience and the cu lt u re i n j o h n ’ s w o rl d

 | 25

The concept of the authorial audience shifts the perspective from author to audience, emphasizing the communicative nature of the text and focusing on how the audience would have heard the text. John’s use of the Old Testament not only informs his hearers but also seeks to perform a rhetorical strategy aimed at persuading and transforming them to his apocalyptic viewpoint.27

Audience Constructs It has already been suggested that there would have been a diversity of responses to the message of Revelation.28 In light of this historical reality this project will enlist three audience constructs that will aid in approximating how the audience would have appropriated the message of the Apocalypse. These include the competent audience, the informed audience and the minimal audience.29 These heuristic devices have been created for the sole purpose of testing two significant variables, namely, the impact of differing levels of education and social background with its attendant worldview on an ancient hearer’s response to the text of Revelation.30 The interpretive response of each group is predicated on a range of texts the hearer would have heard and been exposed to and especially on their educational levels and cultural background. The hearing material constitutes the “mental library” or mental lexicon of each group.31 The term mental library or mental lexicon “is a shorthand way of pointing to texts or portions of texts which an ancient hearer retained in his/her memory.”32 As a consequence of hearing the same material on a number of occasions in the synagogue, local house church, trade guild or the theatre, the group may recall this material in their mental library. Three groups have been chosen for the purposes of trying to understand Revelation from the perspective of a hearing audience but certainly there were far more groups and sub-groups that comprise the seven churches, especially in light of the cosmopolitan nature of the cities mentioned.33 The audience was part of a minority community since apocalyptic literature is basically minority literature. Such literature is not always generated in times of crisis or persecution but it is certainly written for those who feel vulnerable in a world that opposes their own worldview. Each audience-construct will now be explained.

The Informed Audience The informed audience is schooled in the Greco-Roman writings, is comprised of elite Greeks, and represents the minority in the wider Christian community that

26 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

comprises the seven churches.34 The informed audience has received an egku,klioj paidei,a or an orbis doctrinae.35 The terms refer to a rounded or circular education.36 It is unlikely that the ancient Christian audience would have comprised the highly literate to any degree. The highly literate, those who had received a tertiary education, were able to read and write with ease. However, this privileged group only constituted about one percent of the total population.37 The informed audience is therefore semi-literate. These are “persons who can write slowly, or not at all, and who can read without being able to read complex or very lengthy texts.”38 While there are some slight differences of opinion ancient educational theorists like Seneca, Philo, Quintilian and Pseudo-Plutarch suggest that education involved: “Reading, writing, grammar, literature, geometry, astronomy and music seem to be basic to it; rhetoric and dialectic usually come in; philosophy more often does not.”39 This audience is aware of a range of texts derived from their study of Greek education: Homer (Iliad), Menander (Misoumenos) and Euripides (Phoenissae).40 The informed audience is also familiar with 1 Enoch as this text was widely used in early Christianity and its prophecies are formally cited by the early church Fathers.41 They are also familiar with the Jesus and Paul traditions. These Greek-speaking hearers understand various narrative conventions since they have heard them so often in the rhetorical schools. This audience is familiar with the original Greco-Roman context of every one of John’s allusions, not so much from reading but moreso from hearing about ancient writers, traditions and ideas in their educational training.42 The responses generated by the informed audience are best viewed as a counterbalance to the way in which the other two constructs will articulate meaning.43

The Minimal Audience The minimal audience currently live in the seven cities that John wrote to but in all likelihood come from an agrarian background and have no formal education. Pliny the Elder states “the reason why more herbs are not familiar is because their use is confined to illiterate country folk, which is the only kind there are.”44 Migration into the cities was common in ancient times particularly in times of war and social unrest.45 As they do today people came looking for opportunity and work. This audience is comprised of poor Gentiles, some slaves and freed slaves and labourers. This audience would have had more knowledge “about Greco-Roman culture, in which they lived, than the Hebrew prophets, whom they may have never read.”46 Because of their large scale illiteracy this audience are unfamiliar with Greco-Roman written traditions. The minimal audience are not biblically savvy and have no understanding of exegetical techniques.

the authorial audience and the cu lt u re i n j o h n ’ s w o rl d

 | 27

A good proportion of the minimal audience are also female since females were not given many educational opportunities. Even though some women received a limited education it must be balanced against the social and economic stratification on the educational upbringing of women. Men were favoured as recipients of education since they were preparing for wider roles in society.47 Women, on the other hand, received education that still functioned according to their social status.48 In spite of the lack of education the minimal audience have a high degree of respect for John and the Scriptures. They would have “therefore been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text.”49

The Competent Audience The competent audience are mostly Jewish but also comprise some God-fearers who acknowledge the hand of God over the affairs of humanity, especially in their knowledge of the typological interpretation of the Scriptures. The typological interpretation of the Old Testament is the most popular way to interpret the Scriptures by the early Christians.50 This audience are not sophisticated exegetes but their worldview is based on their Jewish heritage and possibly for God-fearers their learning about Jewish culture. The competent audience understands that they are living in the time of fulfilment. This audience’s mental library includes a range of scriptural texts heard in the local worship service as well as portions of literary texts that they have heard. This audience’s mental library is not arbitrary but is closely related to the group of texts frequently alluded to in Revelation. While scholars debate the veracity of allusions and echoes to the Old Testament, there is a consensus that John mostly alludes to five Old Testament books: Daniel, Ezekiel, Psalms, Jeremiah and Isaiah.51 In my view this audience would have also appropriated the Exodus tradition. Exodus was a very important book for New Testament writers and hence its themes and ideas dominate a number of New Testament books.52 New Testament writers saw in the Book of Exodus their own story and borrowed much of the symbolism to describe salvation from this tradition. Richard Bauckham states that John uses the Exodus motif more than any other in the development of the theology and ethics of the Apocalypse.53 In this regard John also alludes regularly to the story of the Exodus. Allusions to the Exodus include: I am (Exod. 3:14 = Rev 1:4; 4:8; 21:6; 22:12); the plagues and the trumpets (Exod. 7:14–12:34 = Rev. 15:1–16:21; 8:2–11:19); wilderness theme (Exod. 13:18; 15:22; 16:1 = Rev. 12:6, 14; 17:3); kingdom and priests (Exod. 19:4–6 = Rev. 1:6; 5:10); the temple (Exod. 25:8 = Rev. 11:1–2; 3:12; 7:15; 14:15, 17; 16:17; 21:22).54 Zechariah is another tradition that would have been of

28 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

consequence for this audience since it was held in high regard by the early Christians. In particular early Christians linked Zech. 9–14 with the passion of Jesus.55 This audience would have also been familiar with a host of Jesus and Pauline traditions. The competent audience has limited knowledge of extra-biblical traditions, Greek writers and poets. They would have a better understanding of at least the aforementioned seven Old Testament books and the wider Old Testament in general. This idealized response means we, as contemporary readers, have to bracket out our reading and knowledge of Scripture.56 We cannot project our prior understanding of the Old Testament and its background onto this audience.

Audience Markers To strengthen the applicability of the audience constructs to the text of Revelation this study will use various markers to aid in the appropriation of the text. These are literary devices the interpreter can use in the aural-performance analysis of the biblical text. Four markers will now be introduced. These include the structural marker, social marker, theological marker and ideological marker. A structural marker will begin each period and introduces the content of the period or the predominant focus of a period. Structural markers inform the audience of what lay ahead in the period. The structural marker can be one word or even five or six words. Barr asserts that “whereas our concern is to divide the book, John’s concern is to bind it together.”57 John binds his work at both a micro and macro level with the use of these structural markers. A social marker is embedded in the text of Revelation and has distinctly social features. It is a marker that points specifically to social practice, to happenings or occurrences within society or to positions and rank within the infrastructure of first-century society. These markers constitute the primary means of “hearing” the social and cultural features in the text. Social markers comprise four categories: 1) “social role” (e.g. soldier, slave); 2) “social institution” (e.g. empire, synagogue); 3) “social code” (e.g. honour, hospitality) and 4) “social relationship” (e.g. patron, friend).58 An ideological marker has distinctly ideological elements. While social markers are concerned with the social happenings, social experience and the infrastructure of the first-century world, ideological markers are determined by issues of power, authority and legitimacy. These markers are indicated in the text by referencing positions, places, concepts, things and people which relate to matters of power, sovereignty and authority. In addition, the ideological marker is not concerned

the authorial audience and the cu lt u re i n j o h n ’ s w o rl d

 | 29

with antecedent literature, but rather with the issues and structures that challenge and undermine the belief system and values of the authorial audience.59 The final marker is a theological marker. It is concerned with God, divine history, human redemption, human commitment and religious community. These structural, social, theological and ideological audience markers will guide in the development of the audience responses in the aural-performance commentary in chapter 5 and 6.

The Communicative Environment: A Rhetorical Culture Culture comprises the beliefs, stories, traditions and values a people hold dear. Culture shapes identity, fuels conviction and helps to navigate the complexities and hazards of life. Culture is also a system of symbols relating to and embracing people, things and events and filling them with meaning and purpose.60 Following in the apocalyptic tradition of his day, John invites his reader and hearers to a visual and aural feast in the Apocalypse with its grotesque beasts, trumpets blasts and vexing symbolism. The book may be unique in literature in the nuanced manner in which it highlights the divergent ways of approaching a text, namely, either by reading it or alternately by hearing it (see Rev. 1:3). John may be demonstrating more sophistication than we allow him and seems to be an astute observer of cultural dynamics in his society. John catered for both the reader and hearers in his work since the world in which John and the Asian Christians lived was experiencing the inroads of literacy in their predominantly oral culture. A literate culture was far from development in the first-century CE and even though we make mention of it, it is crucial to remember that this term is used in the context of a pre-print culture and so means something very different to what we mean by the term today.61 Erick Havelock’s research is a good starting point to understand the dynamics between orality and literacy.62 He traces the development of literacy in Greece from around 450 BCE and contends that it was a process that began in the 8th century BCE.63 He addresses the question of literacy using a grid of literacy and proposes a continuum which begins with pre-literate culture and has a trajectory that develops through craft-literacy, recitation-literacy and script literacy to type-literate culture. For our purposes Havelock describes the Palestinian culture at the time of Christ as craft-literate meaning a culture in which writing and reading the alphabet were skills mastered by only few people in the population.64

30 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

On the other hand, Harry Gamble maintains that the culture of the ancient Mediterranean was a traditionally oral culture into which literacy had made a strong advance, and although literacy was mostly concentrated in the social and political elite, society at large was characterized by a lively synergism of the oral and the written. Modern theoretical models of a fundamental disjunction or opposition between the oral and the literate modes (whether social, linguistic, cognitive or hermeneutical) fail to illuminate either their manifest coexistence or their fluid interaction in the Greco-Roman period and offer no adequate account of the ways in which the literate participated in oral culture or the illiterate participated in literate culture.65

Gamble argues for the close interaction of both literacy and orality in the ancient Mediterranean world.66 In recent discussions about the culture of the first-century CE scholars identify three primary categories for consideration. These include manuscript culture, scribal culture and rhetorical culture. The idea of manuscript culture is poor since it does not take into account other features of a very dynamic culture in the late first-century. It focuses on a single literary aspect. Scribal culture is equally limiting. Even though Botha defines it as “culture familiar with writing but in essence still significantly, even predominantly, oral” the very name used to describe it focuses on writing and those that had the education and opportunity to learn how to write.67 What is helpful is that Botha states that in scribal culture reading is largely vocal and illiteracy the norm.68 Vernon Robbins rejects the idea of a shift from oral to manuscript culture, pointing out rather that there was a rhetorical culture between the oral culture and the scribal culture. He identifies four different types of culture, namely, oral culture, rhetorical culture, scribal culture and print culture. Robbins writes: The phrase oral culture should be used for those environments where written literature is not in view. The phrase ‘rhetorical culture’, in contrast, should refer to environments where oral and written speech interacts closely with one another. It would be best to limit ‘scribal culture’ to those environments where a primary goal is to ‘copy’ either oral statements or written texts.”69

The world of the first-century was a rhetorical culture in which “writing…imitates both speech and writing, and speech…imitates both speech and writing.”70 A rhetorical culture refers “to environments where oral and written speech interacts closely with one another.”71 This project contends therefore that the popular culture of the first-century CE was a rhetorical culture that sought to stir readers and hearers emotionally and cognitively.72 It was a culture that included those who were literate, largely

the authorial audience and the cu lt u re i n j o h n ’ s w o rl d

 | 31

the elite, as well as the majority, the illiterate and poor. In this sense a rhetorical culture is a culture that blends aspects of a literate and oral culture and it seems John catered for both groups in his book. While Revelation is set in the context of a rhetorical culture the oral dynamics are often overlooked hence this aspect of rhetorical culture will now be explored.

The Oral-Auricular Setting There is growing resurgence in the centrality of orality and aurality for New Testament studies that has even led one scholar to develop the term “acoustemology.”73 Orality shines the light on standards and conventions found in ancient texts and holds promise for biblical studies in particular by providing a spotlight on the organizational coherence and structure of ancient texts.74 Orality is one aspect of the rhetorical culture that has already been outlined. The broad parameters of oral culture will now be outlined to better situate this particular analysis. Oral culture promotes the development of memory skills.75 Memory is an important element in ancient media culture and is at times overlooked in biblical scholarship, especially so in Revelation.76 In the ancient world memory was crucial for the communication and transmission of tradition. A trained memory was of vital significance and played a crucial role in orality and performance. Ancient rhetoric has “memory” as one of its five divisions. These divisions are Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery.77 Quintilian says that “it is memory which has brought oratory to its present position of glory.”78 In fact an ancient audience could remember thousands of words from memory. The rabbis knew their holy scriptures which contained about three hundred thousand words as well as parts of oral Torah.79 Seneca boasts that when he was young he could repeatedly recite two thousand names in the same order and that he used to memorize more than two hundred lines of poetry in reverse.80 Ancient Greek theoretical treatises on memory and memory recall are useful in attempting to understand how an ancient audience would have responded to and remembered an ancient text. In Aristotle’s On Memory and Recollection every piece of knowledge is received through the five senses and is understood to be absorbed into the memory and stored as a collection of mental images. These mental images are stored on the person’s yuch,, “like a series of impressions on a wax tablet.”81 It is then, obvious, that memory (h. mnh,mn) refers to that part of the soul to which imagination refers; all things which are mental pictures, are in themselves subjects of memory… For it is obvious that one must consider such a thing which occurs in the

32 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

soul by means of the sense perception, and in that part of the body which contains the soul as a kind of painted portrait—an affection, the lasting state of which we describe as memory; for the movement produced implies some impression of sense movement, just as when men seal with signet rings.82

An ancient audience would retrieve aspects or items of memory as a mental picture which required that they “re-see” the same pictures stimulated by the visual senses. Aristotle claims that “recollection is the search for a mental picture in a body.”83 These insights harmonize quite well with the comments about auditory processing in the methodology section of chapter 1. It is claimed that oral culture is oriented toward the present. Bruce Malina says that “since Mediterranean societies of the first-century were examples of classical peasant societies, by and large, the primary preference in temporal orientation at that period and place was the present, with past second and future third.”84 In their work Unveiling Empire, Howard-Brook and Gwyther build on the work of Malina and state while it is difficult to distinguish differences in time perceptions among the ancients between city and rural dwellers or the educated and uneducated, what is clear is that the overwhelmingly future-oriented concerns of educated Americans and Australians stand in sharp contrast to the present or even past orientations of the ancients generally or even of non-Western people today.85

While there may be an element of truth to what they say their work is not based on any exegetical or biblical research but rather on the postulations of Malina. How the ancient audience would have responded to Revelation will be sought by more careful reflection on the text and the audience’s worldview. An oral culture valued the ability of the speaker to communicate. Jesus is depicted as a charismatic speaker who has authority (Mark 1:22, 27). Louise Lawrence points out that “speaking” is among the most important sensory faculties within the Gospel of Mark. Jesus beckons people to follow him primarily through speech commands (1.17) and effects healings, exorcisms and dramatic acts of power over nature through speech (2.9; 4.39). He likewise beckons faith to be demonstrated through speech (11.23). For Mark words have not only dramatic but also bodily force. Mark’s God is envisioned in the citation from the Hebrew Bible as a God whose identity is revealed in voice rather than vision (12.26).86

the authorial audience and the cu lt u re i n j o h n ’ s w o rl d

 | 33

The speeches in Acts convey pathos and the disciples proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus with conviction and great power (Acts 2:14–40; 3:12–26; 5:29–32, 42; 7:2–53; 10:27–43). Whole crowds were moved to compassion. Paul’s admission that he is untrained in speaking leads to the suggestion that there were others who indeed were trained in the skills and style of oratory (2 Cor. 11:6). On the other hand Paul is criticized for his poor speaking skills by the super-apostles (2 Cor. 10:10).87 Apollos is said to be an eloquent and persuasive speaker and since he comes from Alexandria may well have been trained in the rhetorical schools (Acts 18:24–28). David Rhoads maintains that the first-century was largely a collectivistic society. There was no individualism in the first century as we know it today. The identity of individuals came as part of their collective identity. In the collectivist cultures of the first century, there was little opportunity for privacy for most people. People lived together as large nuclear or extended families. Houses were open to neighbors, and marketplaces were centers of social interaction. Life was communal life. The point is that people were with other people virtually all the time, and what one person knew everyone knew. Knowledge was commonly-held social knowledge, because everyone in a village or a network talked with everyone else.88

Since memory was such an important feature of ancient society it is not surprising therefore that memory also played an essential role in the formation of first-century Christianity. In his stimulating book, Jesus Remembered, James Dunn’s main thesis is that since the disciples’ memories of Jesus were touched by faith from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, not just after his resurrection, “there is in fact no gap to be bridged between a Jesus historically conceived and the subsequent tradition which has effected consciousness.”89 Thus Dunn claims, “The Synoptic tradition provides evidence not so much for what Jesus did or said in itself but for what Jesus was remembered as doing or saying by his first disciples, or we might say, for the impact of what he did and said on his disciples.”90 The apostle Paul continually encouraged his churches to call to memory the tradition that he had taught them (1 Cor. 11:2; 15:1–3; 2 Thess. 2:5; 2 Tim. 2:8, 14; Rom. 15:15). Peter also exhorts the churches he writes to remember the teaching of Jesus and other Christian teaching (2 Pet. 1:15; 3:2). The Lord’s Supper also served to help Christians remember the teaching of Jesus as well as his life and death (1 Cor. 11:24; Luke 22:19). The oral-aural dynamic of first-century culture is obviously an essential component of early Christianity.

34 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

Reader Recognition Scholars have neglected the oral-auricular setting of Revelation because of their penchant to continue debating the veracity of contextual or non-contextual uses of the Old Testament by John and their focus on traditional categories like preterism, idealism, futurism and historicism to interpret the Apocalypse.91 Hence in this section of work some of the traditional positions scholars take in interpreting the Apocalypse are reassessed. My chief conversation partner in this section of research is G. K. Beale. Beale argues for John’s contextual use of the Old Testament to disavow those who argue “that his readers were either illiterate or from a pagan Greek background or both and would not have been able to understand the interpretative use of the Old Testament literature.”92 Beale posits that the seven churches had a core of Jewish believers formerly from the synagogue and Gentile god-fearers who were affiliated with the synagogue. He assumes, based on the Jewishness of the audience, that they therefore had knowledge of Old Testament tradition.93 A closely linked argument supported from Acts 17:10–12; 18:24–28; 2 Tim 2:2, 15 and 3:16–17 is that Jewish and Gentile believers were trained in their new faith on the basis of the Old Testament which was “the Bible” of the early Christians.94 A second major argument is that “if John knew these congregations and had a pastoral relationship with them, it is implausible that he would employ on such a vast scale so many Old Testament allusions, especially if he knew that they would not be benefitted by his massive references to the Old Testament.”95 Beale insists that such extensive indebtedness to the Old Testament points to some basic familiarity of the Old Testament on the reader’s part. A number of arguments assuage the views put forward by Beale. First, the idea that John’s first-century audience would have possessed the degree of literacy required to engage with the Old Testament as presupposed by Beale is historically questionable. While we may assume that after two or three years of becoming a Christian we could follow biblical allusions this is an assumption based on our modern literacy levels. William Harris, in his celebrated study of ancient literacy, concluded that no more than 10–20 percent of the populace would have been able to read or write at any level during the classical, Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods.96 Harris points to a number of factors that inhibited the development of literacy in both Greek and Roman societies: there were no extensive networks of schools; books were costly and there were not many public libraries to borrow from; the ready availability of intermediaries (literate slaves and scribes) to carry out chores that required literacy; the strength of ancient memories, which made writing less

the authorial audience and the cu lt u re i n j o h n ’ s w o rl d

 | 35

important to ordinary people; and the general absence of any significant social, economic or religious incentive for societal leaders to commit resources to the promotion of literacy on a large scale.97 Harry Gamble is of a similar opinion when he writes: It cannot be supposed that the extent of literacy in the ancient church was any greater than that in the Greco-Roman society of which Christianity was a part…Not only the writing of Christian literature, but also the ability to read, criticize and interpret it belonged to a small number of Christians in the first several centuries, ordinarily not more than about 10 percent in any given setting, and perhaps fewer in the many small and provincial congregations that were characteristic of early Christianity.98

For this reason Gamble states “we must assume…that the large majority of Christians in the early centuries of the church were illiterate, not because they were unique but because they were in this respect typical.”99 Since the early Christian community was largely illiterate it is presumed that the prophets in Asia Minor were leading out in ministry with John.100 A key prophet no doubt was the reader of Revelation since he or she had the authority that John had or at least had some authority. This prophet also likely had the same biblical worldview as John and could therefore represent John more adequately.101 This argument will be expanded on in the next chapter. Second, to assume that since John’s audience were Jews and God-fearers and hence had Old Testament knowledge from a reader’s perspective is reductionistic.102 Gamble has noted that “the Scriptures of Judaism comprised not a single book but a collection of scrolls, five for the Torah and more of the prophetic books. These books were relatively costly, and their availability even to all synagogues cannot be taken for granted.”103 While John’s congregations did have Old Testament knowledge, most did not receive that knowledge as readers but as hearers, as part of a wider community. Indeed the Old Testament Scriptures were the prime source of Jewish identity, cultural legitimacy and national ethos. However, it is therefore not axiomatic that all those that comprised John’s audience would have had the exegetical skill required to probe and analyse the Scriptural context for allusions as it seems unlikely that they would have had a copy of the LXX or any other extant copy in hand. While the Old Testament context would have been important it would have been recalled only on the basis of memory rather than using a “hard copy” of an ancient text. Third, while teaching and instruction were part of the fabric of early Christianity, Beale assumes a stance of uniformity for the early Christians that does not seriously take into account the sociological factors of that period. The texts from

36 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

2 Timothy do not strengthen his argument in the manner in which he supposes since 2 Tim 2:2 is referring to passing on the teaching of Christianity from one leader to another leader and 2 Tim 2:15 has a paraenetic function with no reference to teaching or the transfer of knowledge. Underlying Beale’s assumptions is that first-century Jewishness equals literacy. Scholars have in fact long assumed that first-century Jewish literacy rates were higher when compared to other segments of the ancient population, the elite, priestly and scribal communities excluded. In her recent comprehensive study of the literary and inscriptional evidence for literacy in Roman Palestine, Catherine Hezser argued that less than 10 percent of the Jewish populace would have been able to read elementary texts and sign their names throughout the imperial era. She uses the image of concentric circles to describe Jewish literacy. At the centre one has to imagine a very small number of highly literate people who could read literary texts in both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Then there was another, slightly broader circle of those who could read literary texts in either Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek only. They were surrounded by people who could not read literary texts but only short letters, lists and accounts. A broader proportion of the population may have been able merely to identify individual letters, names, and labels. They as well as the vast majority of their entirely illiterate contemporaries had access to texts through intermediaries only.104

On the basis of her research then, we need to be cautious in assuming that there was widespread literacy among Jews in antiquity. While we can assume that all Jews were familiar with the stories, themes and key texts of Scripture from their experience in the synagogue and as part of their heritage, it would be precarious to then assume that a large percentage of the Jewish community were capable of reading Scripture on their own.105 We turn now to examine the relevance of performance for an ancient audience.

chapter three

Ancient Performances and the Audience

Introduction This chapter examines the centrality of performance in the ancient world and how ancient texts were performed. It is not claimed that the customs of ancient performances and the practises of orators is what governed the reading of Revelation. Rather, this aural-performance analysis is being situated in its broader ancient context and an attempt is being made to historically reconstruct the ancient performance of the Apocalypse. In the previous chapter I introduced the point that the ability of the speaker to communicate was valued in an oral culture. This point will be explored in greater detail in this chapter. Furthermore, the influence of Greek drama is looked at, the performance setting of Revelation is discussed, and the role of the prophet-performer is introduced.

The Signficance of Oral Performance Oral performance was highly valued in the ancient world. The high regard with which an orator was held is evident in the comments a speaker makes in Tacitus’ Dialogue on Orators. He states that there is no profession “more productive of practical benefits, or that carries with it a sweeter sense of satisfaction, or that

38 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

does more to enhance a man’s personal standing, or that brings more honour and renown here in Rome, or that secures a more brilliant reputation throughout the Empire and in the world at large.”1 There are three styles of delivery that emerged in Greco-Roman oratory: attic, sophistic and grand. These three styles correspond to the three Aristotelian means of persuasion namely, rational argument, character building and emotional appeal. The orator that performed with the attic style did so in a reserved tone, used few metaphors and spoke simply.2 The sophistic style was used more by an orator trying to charm an audience and was lucid and precise.3 The grand style can be identified as “austere,” “contentio” or “impetuous.” Orators who used this style enlisted flowing and flowery language, figures of speech and generally use proper tone and inflection.4 These statements regarding oratory styles point to the sophistication with which ancients understood oratory and the pedantic manner in which it was catergorized. Ancient rhetoricians valued the contribution and involvement of the audience. Aristotle believed that it is the hearer that determines a speech’s end and object.5 Aristotle writes that speeches are composed of three parts: the speaker, the subject and the hearer.6 His categories of speeches are divided according to the nature of the hearers: deliberative is for the hearer who is to judge things to come; forensic is for the hearer who is the judge of things past; and epideictic is for the hearer who is a spectator.7 In the ancient world the audience is part of the process of listening, responding and engaging the performer. According to Philo when a performer or reader engages the ears of an audience the effect is so powerful that “the hearers and the word [come] together without any separation between them.”8 Aristotle taught his students to capitalize on the audience’s malleability and to do so by using exaggeration and circumlocution.9 Cicero taught his charges that they were to seek to secure an audience’s good will by using humour.10 He also emphasized using a rhythmic, periodic style that will please the audience.11 However, Aristotle cautions against using all the rhetorical devices at one’s disposal at the same time: “One ought not to make use of all kinds of correspondence together; for in this manner the hearer is deceived. I mean, for instance, if the language is harsh, the voice, features, and all things connected should not be equally harsh; otherwise what each really is becomes evident.”12 On a number of occasions Aristotle also instructs his students to adjust their rhetoric according to the identity of the audience. He states in Poetics that “the poets follow the wish of the spectators.”13 James Porter understands Aristotle to be saying that the “audience is an important consideration, influencing topic, style, point of view, development and purpose—in other words, the entire discourse.”14

ancient performa n c e s a n d t h e au d i e n c e  | 39

Ann Vasaly argues convincingly that an ancient orator’s ability to persuade his listening audience is to tap into the emotive and pictorial aspects of memory and recollection: the orator first recalled evocative mental images stored in his own memory, before drawing on the same images to create a comparable situation in the mind of his audience.15 This view is similar to the position of Aristotle in relation to memory and its recall that was introduced earlier in the previous chapter. It will be argued later that this would probably occur in subsequent readings or teaching sessions on Revelation.16 This discussion has demonstrated the centrality of performance in the ancient world. It is the first building block in our case for contending that Revelation was performed.

The Influence of Greek Drama John is not only indebted to his Scriptural heritage in presenting the message of Revelation through the prophet-performer but is concerned with representing his work to the Christians living in a world dominated by the influence of the Greco-Roman world. In this section of work it will therefore be argued that John has drawn on the importance of the theatre for his audience in the presentation of his message. Scholars have noted for some time now that Greek theatre had a significant influence in the province of Asia Minor in the first-century CE.17 The prevalence of theatres is attested to by the many archeological discoveries in the cities and towns of the province. These cities included the seven cities that Revelation was addressed to.18 Ephesus had a very large amphi-theatre that seated around twenty-four thousand people. It was a historic building and one of the largest of the Greek theatres. The stage building of the Greek theatre had seven panels for various scenes. While not wanting to be sidetracked by the issue of the structure of Revelation, Smalley has suggested that Revelation can be structured into seven acts with seven scenes.19 It is likely therefore that the early Christians had, prior to their conversion to Christ, seen a Greek play. No doubt they still encountered the Greek theatre in the cities in which they lived and hence the previous associations with the play remained fresh in their minds. Interestingly Deissmann makes mention of an inscription that was found in the theatre in Miletus that refers to the fifth row from the bottom and reads: “place of the Jews that are also called God-fearing.”20 The syncretistic culture of Asia-Minor suggests therefore that people from varied cultural backgrounds were exposed to the theatre. The second building block in our

40 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

evidence for this aural-performance analysis is the fact that the early Christians were accustomed to and had the expectation that a work would be dramatized.21

Revelation’s Liturgical Setting Revelation was read in a worship service. The fact that the language of worship dominates the book corroborates this view. Terms such as euvcaristi,an in 4:9 and 7:12, a;|dousin in 5:9, 14:3 and 15:3, euvcaristou/me,n in 11:17, aivnei/te in 19:5, doxa,sei in 15:4, 18:7 and do,xan in 4:9, 11, 5:12, 11:13, 14:7, 16:9, 19:7 and proskune,w in 14:7 demonstrate the importance of worship. The matter of worship is not simply about the liturgy of the churches in Asia Minor. It is faithful worship as a witness and a refusal to worship false objects of worship. Moreover, not only do the first (1:3) and the last (22:6) chapters evidently imply a liturgical setting but it is also the fact that the experience of the author takes place “on the Lord’s day” (1:10).22 It is therefore understandable when Leonard Thompson contends that “the language of worship plays an important role in unifying the book, that is, in making it a coherent apocalypse in form and content.”23 Furthermore, pagan religions and therefore varied forms of worship pervaded virtually all spheres of civic life. Economic life is often connected with pagan religion, particularly the trade guilds for artisans, whose meetings often involved sacrifices to a god.24 Attending the theatre, dining with a pagan family or friend, participating in a city festival, associating with a guild – all these facets of city life are meaningfully and intricately connected with pagan religiosity. Since worship played such a central role in both the cultural and social life of urban Christianity in Western Asia Minor, Revelation provides a counter-cultural setting in which the worship of the Risen Lamb can take place. Since reading Revelation in our contemporary setting takes about an hour and a half scholars have generally assumed that it took this long to read the book in the first-century context as well.25 Those who take this approach to the timeframe emphasise the cumulative effect of hearing Revelation. However, based on the evidence found in the New Testament and the social dynamics of reading the Apocalypse it is doubtful it would have been completed within an hour and a half. The worship service of the early Christians was far more dynamic and interactive than we have assumed.26 Luke reports that Paul prolonged his speech till midnight then afterwards broke bread and spoke with the church till daybreak (Acts 20:7–12). Furthermore, if the early Christian communities exercised their spiritual gifts in the local church setting with spontaneity and giving full sway to the promptings of the Holy Spirit then, according to Barr, we can rightly assume

ancient performa n c e s a n d t h e au d i e n c e  | 41

a rather lengthy service.27 Barr states, “At one place Paul argued for the unity of the congregation on the basis of what happened in the worship service: “When you come together each [contributes something] one has a psalm, one has a teaching, one has an apocalypse, one has an ecstatic speech, one has an interpretation” (1 Cor. 14:26).28 It also appears that presenting an apocalypse was “a standard expectation.”29 In spite of this diversity in early Christian worship, based at least on what happened at Corinth, Rhoads maintains that the performance of the New Testament compositions would not have been broken up but heard as a whole.30 It is the view of this project, however, that Revelation would have been read in two instalments.31 The first instalment would have been Rev. 1 to 11 and the second instalment from Rev. 12 to 22.32 The natural break and transition between Rev. 11 and 12 reinforces this view.33 The community oriented dynamic involved a reading of the Apocalypse in one of the house churches that comprised each of the seven churches.34 The house church is the reading arena, that is, “the physical space that contains the boundaries of the performance.”35 While related to what was happening in the ministry of Paul the following comments are equally applicable to the late first-century context. The private home was a center of intellectual activity and the customary place for many types of speakers and teachers to do their work. Occasional lectures, declamations and readings of various sorts of philosophical, rhetorical and literary works often took place in homes. Such sessions might be continued for two or three days. The speaker might use his own house or be invited to speak or teach in another home. These were private affairs and audiences came by invitation.36

The aforementioned statement does not fully reflect early Christian worship but it again provides an insight into the cultural practices of the first-century. In all likelihood the worship gathering was in the home of a wealthy member that was spacious enough to facilitate everyone. This communal dynamic to reading Revelation with social interaction means the message would have taken more than an hour and a half to perform. Rhoads comments that “the more concretely we can place biblical writings in performance space, the closer we will get to grasp[ing] their persuasive power.”37 Rhoads maintains that the performance of a New Testament composition suggests that the text is not Scripture. He writes: Another very important factor supporting the primary orality of the New Testament compositions is that they were not originally conceived of as scripture. They were in the mode of storytelling and orations and public letters and wisdom ( James) and

42 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

prophecies (Revelation), genres to be presented orally. The letters were just that, letters orally shared with communities. And it appears as if letters bear the marks of the oral compositions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. Some narrative compositions bear the marks of drama, such as the Gospel of John and Revelation…Hence, until well into the second and even third century, these writings would not have been treated as written documents in the way scribes and rabbis treated some of their written traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint. Hence, when we study the New Testament writings in their original first-century context, we are not studying them as scripture, but as oral compositions of a variety of genres. This insight is critical for the whole enterprise of performance criticism.

The view that the New Testament compositions must not be originally conceived of as Scripture for performance criticism to be credible and applicable to these compositions is unwarranted.38 Surely performance criticism can be applied to the New Testament compositions and they can also be conceived of as Scripture. In fact, it is not our conception of these New Testament texts that is of concern but rather the manner in which the early Christians received them. Rhoads is simply making a judgment without looking at the evidence or even putting forward any evidence to support his claim. On the contrary, the early Christians understood the New Testament compositions or rather texts as inspired and authoritive. In 2 Peter 3:15–17 Peter states: Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

Peter puts Paul’s writings on par with the other Scriptures i.e. the Old Testament. In fact, in Col. 4:16 Paul asks the church to also read the letter from Laodicea and to send the letter to the Colossians to the Laodicea as well. Norman Hillyer suggests therefore that an apostolic writing was added to the tradition of reading a passage from the Pentateuch and the Prophets. He contends that “the first Christians recognized that the same Holy Spirit who inspired the OT prophets was still at work. Indeed, he was carrying forward his earlier revelations of divine purposes now that Jesus the Messiah had come. There was nothing incongruous in setting apostolic words on a level with the Old Testament (1 Cor. 12:8).”39 The evidence presented so far is that performance was an integral part of ancient society and that the Greek drama was well-known in the seven cities. The

ancient performa n c e s a n d t h e au d i e n c e  | 43

third building block of evidence for the performance of Revelation is the fact that it was read in a liturgical setting and that scholars have long recognized the dramatical features of Revelation.40

The Role of the Prophet-Performer The paradigm in which Revelation scholars have done their work to understand this ancient text and make meaning for contemporary persons is that of the interpreter (us) and the author ( John). The role of the ancient reader has been neglected and ignored in scholarship on Revelation. In illuminating comments Michael Wilcock states: Having arrived at one of the Asian churches, it [the letter] was to be read aloud in the hearing of the church members, which is the meaning of 1:3a. What we should try to visualize is a congregation perhaps different in some respects from those to which we belong: much nearer to John’s ways of thinking and speaking, some of them able to hear in their mind’s ear the very lilt of his voice; more used to the apocalyptic style of writing; come more freshly, and therefore more vividly, to the study of the Scriptures which made them wise unto salvation; untrammelled by nineteen centuries of discordant interpretation of John’s letter. Given that sort of congregation, and the tumultuous vividness of the letter itself, and a good reader who could make it come alive to his hearers…given these things, we are half way to understand the structure of Revelation.41

This project identifies the person that reads the message of Revelation as the prophet-performer “who makes it come alive to his hearers.”42 The message was not just read but dramatized with the use of gesture.43 W. D. Stacey illustrates the performance lacuna in relation to the Old Testament when he states, “much time is given to consideration of the prophet’s word, but a page or two is usually sufficient to dispose of the prophet’s actions.”44 This statement can also be made in relation to the prophet in the New Testament. This study will seek to pay attention to the actions of the prophet since “performances are actions.”45 In this brief section the significance and preparation of the prophet-performer for the task of reading the text will be examined. Secondly, the gestures that the prophet-performer would use to facilitate understanding for the audience will be explored. Barr points out that even though Revelation was intended for repeated performances the social setting in which the book emerges highlights a significant element: the absence of the prophet. John “clearly cannot be present in all seven cities at once.”46 On this basis Barr then suggests the communities of faith in Asia Minor are “in danger of either not hearing John’s voice or

44 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

alternately hearing in a distorted fashion.”47 He argues that John meets both these challenges by enlisting the categories of blessings and curses that provide “social control.”48 The feature of blessings and curses is found at the beginning and the end of the book. “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near” (1:3). At the end of the book John states: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (22:18–19). These two verses provide social control in the form of limiting the oral innovation of the prophet-performer and by increasing the prestige and influence of the performance.49 The prophet-performer was entrusted with the message and made the circular route from Ephesus to Laodicea.50 Carrying and delivering the message was not uncommon in the ancient world and in the dissemination of the New Testament documents.51 The performance involves the prophet-performer who has assumed the persona of John and a participatory audience.52 The fact that an important messenger carried the message of Revelation to the seven churches raises issues of how and why John would need to verify and bolster his credibility.53 The sex and social status of the prophet-performer is debatable. Shiell maintains that there was a need for readers of Greek and Latin in the late republic and early in the first-century. This need was filled by slaves or freed slaves. Many of them were educated and so had the ability to read and they in fact played a prominent role in the households of their masters. Literate slaves looked after a whole range of activities for their household including taking notes, copying, teaching the children and reading when required.54 It has already been suggested that the wealthy received an education that would have given them the ability to read so the prophet-performer could have been either a slave or a wealthy person. It is also possible that the prophet-performer could have been a woman since woman played such an important role in the development of early Christianity.55 However, they did not generally have access to education . Since John is opposed to the wealth and opulence of the empire it is more likely that the performer is an educated male freed slave and a prophet.56 This suggests then that the prophet-performer is part of the competent audience.

ancient performa n c e s a n d t h e au d i e n c e  | 45

The prophet-performer would have had to have read through the scroll on a number of occasions to have a “feel” for the contents.57 Reading through the material would have given the prophet-performer opportunity to understand the contents better and prepare for when inflection, changes in tone and gesturing would have been required. Further, reading through the material was of consequence since the scroll from John had large letters and no punctuation (scriptio continua). The first part of verse 1 would read in English: THEREVELATIONOFJESUSCHRISTWHICHGODGAVEHIMTOSHOWTOHISSERVANTS. This highlights how difficult reading Revelation for the first time would have been. Drawing on the work of Cribiore, Hurtado contends, however, that readers would have been able to cope with and fully engage with scriptio continua “since the Roman-era educational process was designed to that end.”58 On the other hand, Rhoads maintains that scrolls were peripheral to performance. Scrolls were weighty and difficult to manage; it was challenging to keep and find one’s place, “especially if the scroll was lengthy.”59 The lighting in a house church would have been poor and thus would make reading all the more difficult.60 Furthermore, podia or desks would have been limited if not totally unavailable. For reading, the scroll may have been held open on the lap or held by two people, one on either side of the reader.61 A counter view put forward by Oestreich and Aldrete, on the basis of sculptures and paintings, is that the performer or reader held the text/scroll/speech in the left hand. Whether early Christian teachers strictly followed this practice is debatable. This study acknowledges that the prophet-performer memorized the message of Revelation and had access to the scroll of Revelation to read it as John instructed.62 Both memorization and reading would have been undertaken by the prophet-performer since memorization was such an intrinsic part of first-century culture. It could not have only been memorized and performed, however, for that would have gone against the specific injunction from John to actually read the message (Rev. 1:3). I assume that the scroll of Revelation would have been held on either side by helpers as the prophet-performer read and dramatized it.63 There is no historical evidence for the role of helpers though and hence this study is not dogmatic on their role. Since language is culturally patterned the performance of Revelation and the reception of the message by the audience is a historical reconstruction as we have no access to how the prophet-performer may use pitch, inflection or gesture and how these examples may or may not have significantly affected the delivery of the text.64 Factors that come into play during the performance include tone of voice,

46 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

body language, display of emotion and delivery style.65 We turn now to the central role of gesture in the performance of Revelation.

The Role of Gesture The study of an orator’s body language offers useful information for conceiving how ancient texts were originally performed.66 Pieter Botha states: “Reading in antiquity was not experienced as a silent scanning, mainly mental activity. It was a performative, vocal, oral-aural event. The reader literally recited, with vocal and bodily gestures, the text which one usually memorised beforehand.”67 One of the most helpful studies on the subject of gestures is the work of Gregory Aldrete.68 Aldrete describes the function of gesturing in this way: Gestures were routinely used by orators to complement the meaning of their words. This was probably the most important function of gesture and usually took the form of adding emotional coloring to an oration. Certain gestures were associated with various emotions so that as an orator spoke, his body offered a separate and continuous commentary on what emotions the words were intended to provoke.69

Gestures were not haphazard or unplanned. Rather gestures were an intricate part of the communication process. Gestures were used to maintain rhythm, mark sections in speeches or narrative, and to alert the audience.70 Rhythm also evoked emotion.71 The face also played an important part in conveying the “feelings of the mind.”72 According to Quintilian the eye, especially a glance, has the greatest influence on an audience. The eyes show flattery, joy, sorrow, pride or submission.73 After careful analysis of the primary sources relating to the literature, education, oratory, art and recitation practises of the ancient world William Shiell stated that “Christian texts were produced, delivered and recited in a manner that followed the same conventions as Greco-Roman and Jewish texts delivered in the late republican and early imperial periods of the Roman Empire.”74 Shiell maintains that the lector’s audience, in our case the early Christians in Asia Minor, “expected to see the same gestures that they observed in sculptures and other artwork from the Greco-Roman world.”75 According to Shiell the conventions that governed gesture were being taught in the schools to slaves and the elite and are well documented in the Greco-Roman writings. He believes the influence of the great writers and the extent of the conventions in the public domain means the influence of these conventions “trickled down into the daily habits for the common slave reader in a Greco-Roman household” and were circulated in the courtrooms and meeting halls of the affluent.76

ancient performa n c e s a n d t h e au d i e n c e  | 47

Besides the rhetoricians referring to gestures, the Book of Acts also mentions several implied and explicit gestures that were performed as part of the conventions of that time. Luke refers to the gesture of “he extended the hand to them” on six occasions in Acts (12:17; 13:16; 19:33; 21:40; 24:10; 26:1).77 These occurences have varying responses and each occurs before a deliberative or judicical speech. A number of scholars have recognized that in the above-mentioned references an orator’s gesture is being used.78 There are also implied gestures in Acts 7:60 where Stephen kneels as a sign of surrender; a town crier hushes the crowd in Ephesus in Acts 19:35; and Paul says farewell to the elders in Ephesus in Acts 20 with clasped hands and kneeling. It is therefore likely that the ancient Christian community were aware of the gestures used in their social and cultural context and would have expected the prophet-performer to engage with them in the delivery of the message of Revelation. Building on the work of Aldrete and Shiell Rev. 1 and 11 will be assessed in the aural-performance section of this project with an eye for how the prophet-performer may or may not have gestured. In concluding this chapter it has been demonstrated that gestures and audience participation were essential elements of the first-century context. Furthermore, it is plausible that the performance of Revelation would have taken more than an hour and a half, especially taking into account the fact that it was performed in two instalments. The concept of hearing in the ancient literature is probed in the next chapter.

chapter four

Aurality in the Ancient Literature

Introduction This chapter focuses on the term akou,w to highlight the oral-aural features of the ancient texts. Introductory comments will be provided that set the stage for the centrality of hearing in the ancient literature and of its general importance for the development of early Christianity. While some of the sources are from much earlier than the first-century CE we can still learn valuable insights about the concept of hearing in the ancient world.1 Attention is paid to the specific notion of akou,w in the Gospel of Mark, LukeActs and the Gospel of John. The research in the Gospels and Acts is certainly not exhaustive but only illustrative of the how an ancient audience may have appropriated the texts. Since Revelation is part and parcel of the first-century milieu and hails from a Jewish matrix the writings of Early Judaism is examined to ascertain if and how the concept of akou,w is enlisted.2 There are no contextual indicators for the use of the term akou,w in the aforementioned texts. However, it does reflect the aural nature of these texts and the use of the term has the potential to reveal the scope and depth of the concept of hearing in the ancient world. The examination of the term akou,w in the previously mentioned texts sets the stage for an analysis of the concept of hearing in the Apocalypse. It is hoped the analysis of reading,

50 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

performing and hearing will cumulatively build our understanding of first-century media culture and its relationship to Revelation.

The Importance of Hearing and Repetition One of the primary tasks of the ancient audience was to listen well. According to Philo Hardly a day passes but the lecture-halls and theaters are filled with philosophers discoursing at length, stringing together without stopping to take breath their disquisitions on virtue. Yet what profit is there in their talk? For instead of attending, the audience dimisses their minds elsewhither, some occupied with thoughts of voyaging and trading, some with their farming and its returns, others with honours and particular trade and business, others with the vengeance they hope to wreak on their enemies, others with the enjoyments of their amorous passions. Thus, as far as what is being demonstrated is concerned, they are deaf and they are present in the body and absent in the mind, and might as well be images or statues. And any who do attend sit all the time merely hearing, and when they depart they remember nothing that has been said, and in fact their object in coming was to please their sense of hearing rather than to gain any profit; thus their soul is unable to conceive or bring to the birth, but the moment the cause which stirred up pleasure is silent, their attention is extinguished too.3

The purpose of hearing, according to Philo, is to develop morally. Both the notion of conception and birth are hinted at in this statement by Philo to point to that development. Furthermore, an ancient audience had a stronger preference for hearing a text being read or performed than engaging it in silent reading.4 Dio Chrysostom stresses the importance of hearing literary works in his counsel to a statesman interested in advancing his rhetorical abilities. I would counsel you to make it your first priority to converse with Menander of the writers of comedy and Euripides of the writers of tragedy, and to do so, not casually by reading them to yourself, but (by hearing them) through others, preferably those who know how to deliver the lines, pleasurably, but at least so as not to cause pain. For the sense perception is greater when one avoids the trouble of reading.5

He implies that reading to oneself is not regarded as serious enough. Demetrius states that it is an insult to the reader to explain everything; the hearer should be left with a significant role to play in the production of meaning:

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 51

[N]ot everything should be given lengthy treatments with full details but some points should be left for our hearer to grasp and infer for himself. If he infers what you have omitted, he no longer just listens to you but acts as your witness, one too who is predisposed in your favour since he feels he has been intelligent and you are the person who has given him this opportunity to exercise his intelligence. In fact, to tell your hearer everything as if he were a fool is to reveal that you think him one.6

The principle we can pick up from Demetrius is that we need to allow the hearer the opportunity and space to draw out the meaning of a work and in so doing we increase its impact.7 Not only is hearing an important concept in these ancient writings but this concept is also one of the central features of New Testament Christianity.8 The concept of hearing seen in the use of the verb akou,w is used on more than four hundred occasions in the New Testament.9 It is used to denote understanding of the Christian faith (Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:2–3). Jesus’ whole teaching was delivered orally and preserved orally in the first few decades after his death.10 Jesus’ repeated “You heard that it was said to the men of old…(Mt. 5:21, etc.) reflects the actual reality of his day in that Jews heard the Old Testament read to them in the synagogue.11 It has been demonstrated in chapter 3 that literacy rates were low in the ancient world. The recipients of the letters of Paul were therefore largely illiterate.12 In 1 Thess 5:27 Paul states “I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read (avnagnwsqh/nai) to all the brothers.” The fact that this letter is addressed to “the church of the Thessalonians” (1:1) and that the “you” referred to in 1:2, 3, 4, and following is plural, suggests that Paul intended this letter to be read aloud to the entire congregation. In fact, he commands that this happen.13 The letter to the Colossians was also intended by Paul to be read aloud to the “To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae” (1:2), as the plural “you” in 1:3, 4, 5, etc. indicates.14 In Col. 4:16 Paul furthermore commands, “After this letter has been read (avnagnwsqh/|) to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” E. Randolph Richards writes: He [Paul] fully expected his letters to be read publicly. It is even possible he chose carriers who could read his letter effectively. An informed carrier provided additional information and perhaps could also comment on and expound on the letter. It was advantageous for both Paul and his recipients to have an informed carrier read the letter so as to provide the proper inflections and nuances.

Repetition, whether it is of words, ideas or grammatical construction, is a central feature of ancient texts that facilitated hearing and memory recall. In

52 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

De Oratore, Cicero (106–43 B. C.E.) notes that repetition of individual words can produce an effect of force or of grace (9.1.33); in Orator he says that sentences can begin or end with the same word or phrase (9.1.38). Contemporary scholars have also identified the significance of repetition for a hearing audience. David Rhoads has called repetition “the life-blood of oral narration.”15 Margaret Dean suggests that “repetition is the fundamental tool of auditory reception.”16 Janice Capel Anderson provides helpful insights on the literary concept of repetition. She uses the concept of repetition in relation to single words, phrases and concepts. She suggests that repetition functions to highlight or draw attention; to establish or fix in the mind of the reader [hearer]; to emphasize the importance of something; to create expectations, increasing predictability and assent; to cause review and reassessment; to unify disparate elements and to build patterns of association or draw contrast.17

While these comments pertain to the reader they are equally applicable to hearers. We turn now to a brief examination of the notion of hearing in Scripture and Jewish apocalyptic literature.

Hearing the Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Mark has provided fertile soil for interpreters to dig and uncover the oral dynamics of this ancient text.18 An interesting aspect is the use of the literary technique of sandwiching or intercalation.19 Other features include things like repetition; the repeated use of euvqu,j which signals narrative developments within a pericope and links successive events closely with one another; the frequent use of h;rxan as an auxiliary verb while pa,lin occurs twenty-six times “to enable the reader to link a new incident with the previous story.”20 For example, in relation to the concept of repetition Mark uses the word o`do,j in Mark 1:2, 8:7, 9:33–34, 10:17, 32, 52 to alert his hearers to the salvation that Jesus has accomplished in line with the writings of Isaiah.21 Mark 1:2 reads: “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” — “a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’” The ancient hearers would have appropriated the Old Testament context of this Isaianic text.22 Even though Isa. 40:3 is only a slight reference it will be demonstrated that this reference is important to understand the Gospel of Mark.23 One of the themes Isaiah addresses in chapters 40–55 is the Isaianic New Exodus in the context of God’s people in Babylonian bondage.24 Two Isaiah texts will

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 53

be briefly engaged with. Isaiah 40:3 reads: “A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.””25 Further, Isaiah 43:16–19 reads: This is what the LORD says– he who made a way (o`do,j) through the sea, a path through the mighty waters, who drew out the chariots and horses, the army and reinforcements together, and they lay there, never to rise again, extinguished, snuffed out like a wick: “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way (o`do,j) in the desert and streams in the wasteland.

This passage revisits the mighty display of Yahweh’s power at the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. In fact, in Isa. 40:3, the o`do,j is prepared by and for Yahweh while in Isa. 42:16, 43:16–19 and 49:11–12 the o`do,j is prepared by Yahweh for his people. There is no distinction between “the road of Yahweh and the road of Israel, for Yahweh travels with his people, as he did in the Exodus.”26 The ‘way’ signifies the salvific act of God on behalf of his people. This Isaianic New Exodus theme is not drawn on again in the gospel, until, surprisingly, Mark re-introduces the word ‘way’ in Mark 8:27.27 Scholars have generally acknowledged Mark 8:27–10:52 as the theological nerve center of this gospel.28 In these chapters, which are charged with “outbursts of predictive energy,” Jesus will announce three passion predictions and attempt to clarify for his disciples the nature and substance of his mission.29 Mark 8:27 reads: “Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way (o`do,j) he asked them, ‘Who do people say I am?’” Mark’s reference to the word ‘way’ here is intentionally used to lead his hearers back to Mark 1:2, Isa. 40:3 and 43:16, 18. On his first use of this word Jesus asks his disciples his identity which is an important theme in Mark. “God himself had declared Jesus to be his Son (1:11, cf. 9:7), with the demons chiming in with fearful acknowledgment” as well (1:24; 3:11; 5:7).30 The disciples confirm that he is the Messiah after which Jesus declares that the Son of Man must suffer many things, die and be raised again. Interestingly the concept of o`do,j is used while the disciples are in Caesarea Philippi. It was a major Hellenistic city built by Herod Philip in honor of Augustus and boasted a shrine for the emperor cult. In addition, it had also been a place where the god Baal had been worshipped. Therefore, in the midst of a city dedicated to false gods, Jesus’ true identity is revealed. The revelation of the identity of Jesus, here in Caesarea Philippi, counters the claims of past and present pretenders to godhood. Jesus is in fact God in human flesh and has demonstrated his power over nature, demons, sickness and death (cf. Mark 1:22–27; 4:35–41; 5:1–20; 21–43).31

54 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

Markan hearers notice that the word o`do,j is used with increased frequency in Mark 8:27–10:32. Mark 9:33–34 has a reference to the o`do,j in which Jesus explains the nature of the kingdom to the disciples. The next use of the ‘way’ is in Mark 10:17 which reads: “As Jesus started on his way (o`do,j), a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” This incident recounts the story of the rich young ruler who eventually turns away from Jesus. The last reference to the ‘way’ in the section Mark 8:27–10:32 is in verse 32 which reads: “They were on their way (o`do,j) up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way (o`do,j), and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him.” It is at the end of this important section that Mark explicitly identifies where the ‘way’ leads—it leads to Jerusalem, where Jesus will be crucified. While not explicit in the gospel there can be no doubt that o`do,j leads to the cross. By drawing on the Old Testament background use of the o`do,j in Isaiah, Mark’s hearers will conclude that the “way” is in fact a fulfillment of the Isaianic New Exodus. This New Exodus in Mark is not from Babylonian captivity but rather from the captivity of Satan and sin. This New Exodus far exceeds the prophecy of Isa. 43:16–19 which pointed to God already transcending what he did in the Exodus of Israel from Egyptian bondage. Mark’s hearers understand that the cross now becomes the zenith of God’s redemptive activity superseding his redemptive work in the historical Exile and Exodus. The aforementioned examination of the word o`do,j provides an example of how Markan hearers would have appropriated the message of Mark. We turn now to explore how else Mark uses repetion and in particular the notion of akou,w. Louise Lawrence points out that forms of the verb akou,w (hear, heed and understand) occur forty times in Mark’s Gospel. Mark usually states that Jesus’ deeds are frequently ‘heard’ by others (2:1; 3:8, 21; 5:27; 6:14, 55; 7:25; 10:47), Jesus beckons people to ‘listen’ to his teachings (4:3; 6:2; 7:14). God petitions people to ‘Listen’ to his beloved son (9:7) and the most important commandment to Israel, which Jesus reiterated in his teaching, was: Hear Israel…! (Mark 12:29).32 The centrality of hearing is found in its use at the beginning and end of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:9, 23). The parable introduces four kinds of hearers—wayside hearers (Mark 4:15); persecuted hearers (Mark 4:17); worldly hearers (Mark 4:19; and finally obedient hearers (Mark 4:20). Hearing is considered to be the primary means by which people encounter the seed of the word (Mark 4:15). It is only obedient hearers who hear the word and keep it and as a result bear an astounding harvest.33 Klyne Snodgrass suggests that the parable calls for a hermeneutic of hearing that leads to obedience.34

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 55

Mark urges his audience to “hear” for in hearing they will understand that the kingdom of God has broken into history in the person and ministry of Jesus. The phenomenal harvest recorded in the parable (Mark 4:20) alerts hearers to the fact that God is at work—hidden and unobserved—in Jesus. The definitive criteria for understanding the kingdom and all that it entails and of growth in this kingdom is to be an obedient hearer. The organ of the ear functions in Mark as a metaphor for spiritual cognition. Another way in which hearing is highlighted in the first gospel is the way in which the deaf man in Mark 7:31–37 is stigmatized and given no social agency. Eugene Boring states that in an oral-aural culture the inability to hear was more serious and isolating than in “a visually oriented modern culture like our own.”35 Furthermore, “deafness was often understood by the ancients more in terms of intellectual rather than sensory impairment, deaf persons were assumed incapable of bearing legal responsibility and [were as such] politically marginalized.”36 Robert Gundry contends that “the whole man is concentrated in his ears, and to heal a deaf mute is so stupendous that claimed instances are extremely rare in antiquity.”37 Jesus places his fingers in the man’s ears and first spits and then touches his tongue (Mark 7:33). Immediately the man is healed from his deafness and muteness. The crowds exclaim that Jesus does all things well (Mark 7:37). This is an allusion to Isa. 35 were Yahweh heals the blind, the deaf and the lame.38 Jesus now carries out the functions of Yahweh by healing this man. The phrase “he has done all things well” probably also echoes Gen. 1:31 which is a statement about the goodness of God’s work in creation.39 Hearing is a divine gift.40

Hearing in Luke-Acts Luke-Acts is generally acknowledged to be two volumes of one work.41 The ministry of Jesus in Luke is characterized by crowds of people coming out to hear him and the concept of hearing also plays a central role in the proclamation of the gospel and the development of the church in Acts.42 The central concern of the crowds is to hear the Word of God. At the conclusion to the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus contrasts the fate of those who hear and do his words with those who hear and fail to act. Luke 6:46–7:1 reads: Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears (avkou,wn) my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because

56 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

it was well built. But the one who hears (avkou,wn) my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing (avkoa.j) of the people, he entered Capernaum.

Jesus suggests in verse 46 that his Lordship is characterized by obedience. The previous parable outlines the truth that hearing must be followed by obedience. Hearing in this parable requires the disciple to take action, to demonstrate obedience and not simply to be a passive listener.43 Other striking examples of the use of akou,w is in Luke 8:18–21; 10:16; 10:24; 11:31; 10:39; 11:28; 16:31. The repetition of hearing and doing, the positive portrayal of those who hear and the threat of judgment on those who do not, suggests that “hearing” Jesus is covenantal language.44 There are two instances in the book of Acts where specific mention is made of public reading and one instance of personal reading. In Acts 13:15 we find, “After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them [i.e. Paul and his company] saying, “Brethren, if you have word of exhortation for the people, say it.” Now it is evident that “the reading of the law and the prophets” refers here to the public reading aloud of the Scriptures in the synagogue. In Acts 15:31 the text states, “and when they read it [i.e. the letter containing the Jerusalem decree found in verses 23–29] they rejoiced at the exhortation.” It is clear that the passage refers to this letter being read aloud. The centrality of hearing to the advancement of the mission of the church is demonstrated with a whole range of speeches that are made in Acts; Philip’s ministry and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26–40 in which there is clear evidence that even personal reading was done out loud; and the juxtaposition of the notion of hearing and the Word of God. First, Luke seeks to highlight the importance of hearing when he writes in Acts 8:6 “When the crowds heard (avkou,ein) Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said.” The notion of hearing is meant to demonstrate that the miracles made the Word of God attractive.45 Another episode that highlights the importance of hearing is that of Philip and the eunuch. The story is a delightful vignette that serves Luke’s deeper theological purpose, namely, the expansion of the church among the Gentiles. Luke informs us that the angel of the Lord appeared to Philip and told him to go to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.46 After the Spirit led Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch, the meeting is described in Acts 8:30 as follows. “So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’”47 Evidently the

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 57

Ethiopian eunuch was reading to himself out loud. Luke uses this encounter to demonstrate that “outcasts are now included in the restored people of God.”48 Once more the concept of hearing and indeed reading aloud is a significant feature that facilitates the progress of the mission of the church. The notion of hearing is also often associated with the Word of God (Acts 8:4–6, 14, 10:33, 44–46; 13:48–49). When Luke uses the phrase “word of the Lord” (Acts 8:25; 13:49; 15:35; 19:10, 20) and the “Word of God” (Acts 4:31; 6:2; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5; 16:32; 17:13) he is pointing to the divine origin and authority of the gospel. In the Old Testament the Word of God has tremendous power and ability to accomplish the tasks that God sets out for it to accomplish (Ps 33:6–11; Isa. 55:10–11; Jer. 1:9–12).49 The Word of God is therefore central to the evangelistic explosion that takes place in Acts and is the source of power in the ministry of the disciples. Luke repeatedly mentions that people received the word with gladness (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:44). In their sermons the disciples quote, allude or refer to an Old Testament passage nearly two hundred times. Clearly these early Christians had memorized and internalized the Scriptures and preached with deep conviction.50 Preaching is a major factor in the proclamation of the gospel and takes on the form of witnessing in Acts: “We cannot help but speak about what we have seen and heard (hvkou,samen)” (Acts 4:20). Luke emphasizes that the early Christians speak, evangelize and announce the Word of God (Acts 4:31; 8:4; 11:19; 13:5; 16:6; 17:23). Converts are saved by hearing, receiving, glorifying and believing the Word (2:41; 4:4; 8:14; 10:44; 13:44; 19:10).51 The centrality of the “word” in Acts leads French scholar Marguerat to write that the leading theme of Acts is “neither the history of the Church, nor the activity of the Spirit, but the expansion of the Word. The real hero of the Acts of the Apostles is the logos, the Word.”52 Hearing the Word is an integral part of that expansion and is therefore often combined in Acts with faith (see Acts 2:22, 37, 44; 3:22–23; 4:4; 8:6, 12; 10:43–44; 13:7–8, 48; 14:9; 15:7; 18:8; 19:10, 18).

Hearing the Gospel of John The Gospel of John has only recently been examined from the perspective of ancient media culture.53 According to Bobby Loubser, “the Johannine Gospel, like all biblical texts, was written to be performed aloud. It is even more probable that it was an oral performance of the Gospel that had already been formalised and standardised to a high degree.”54 There are literary features like repetition, inclusio and chiasm in this gospel that facilitate a listening audience.55 Despite the fact

58 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

that scholarly attention has not focused on its oral-aural features the word akou,w is found a number of times in this gospel. The first reference to the concept of “hear” is in relation to the calling of the first disciples. John 1:35–39 reads: The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” When the two disciples heard (h;kousan) him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

The disciples respond to what they hear, join Jesus and stay with him.56 Discipleship begins not just with hearing about Jesus but specifically hearing that Jesus is the Lamb of God. The mother of Jesus exhorts the servants at the wedding to listen to her son ( John 2:5). It is in hearing the commands of her son that a miracle takes place. After the Samaritan woman’s encounter with Jesus she invites the townsfolk to come and meet Jesus because “he told me all I ever did” ( John 4:39). John 4:41–42 reads: “And because of his words many more became believers. They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard (avkhko,amen) for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”” Hearing transcends the boundaries of the covenant and is able to even impact Israel’s enemies and bring them the blessings of the covenant. Importantly only Jesus hears the Father’s voice and utters it ( John 8:26, 40). This is concretely highlighted in John 12:29 where God speaks directly but only Jesus hears the voice of his Father while the crowds do not hear correctly. Jesus has unique aural capacity in this gospel. Therefore to hear the words of Jesus is to hear the words of God ( John 14:24). To hear then is a metaphor for faith and the basis of discipleship. To hear is to gain eternal life ( John 5:24) since the final judgment has taken place. Moreover, the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd as he names and calls them ( John 10:3, 27). Hearing here denotes intimacy. Sheep were given nicknames by their shepherds pointing to bonds of familiarity and trust. Shepherds led their sheep, not by driving them out, but rather by leading them with their voices.57 Hearing is also associated with truth: “to hear aright is to recognize the voice of Jesus as the definitive utterance of God and to discover a transformed identity in belonging to the truth ( John 18:37).”58 In summarizing his article on hearing, seeing and believing in the gospel of John, Koester maintains that “genuine faith…is engendered through hearing.”59

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 59

Hearing Jewish Apocalyptic Literature Jewish apocalyptic literature forms an important ancient source to understand and appreciate Revelation. There is a whole range of Jewish apocalyptic literature that emerges from the third century BCE and continues all the way into the second century CE. The apocalypses that are closely situated to the time of the writing of Revelation include 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse of Abraham and 3 Baruch. The aim of this section is to investigate these apocalypses to ascertain if, why and how the term “hear” is enlisted by the writers to further strengthen the use of this term in apocalyptic literature. Scholarly discussion has not focussed to a great degree on how the apocalypses were communicated to their audiences. Perhaps part of the problem is because the apocalypses cover such a vast period of time and have layers of tradition that make it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the exact nature of the audience and their social setting. A helpful comment is made by James Crenshaw. He states in the conclusion to his study that Nowhere in this unit [Sir 6:18–37] does Ben Sira mention the reading of texts of exercising in writing. His students learn by listening to intelligent conversation; Ben Sira still lives in a predominantly oral culture. He himself read torah and writes what he hopes will be viewed as inspired teaching, yet he transmits his instructions to students orally, and he expects them to learn by astute listening.60

James Charlesworth states: “Any thoughts on the comparisons between the Pseudepigrapha documents and the New Testament writings must be prefaced by the attempt to perceive what it would have been like to hear a charismatic person tell historia, not only on the hillside with the multitudes but also around the fire in the evening.”61 In this brief comment Charlesworth acknowledges that the Pseudepigrapha documents were initially communicated in an oral style. Once they were written down he asserts that the initial communicative setting is not preserved and that “the non-transferrable dimensions” like gesture, eye movement and laughter are “left behind.”62

The Apocalypse of Abraham The notion of “hear” in the Apocalypse of Abraham is is found at Ap. Ab. 6:1, 9:1 and 10:1.63 In Ap. Ab. 18:2–3 the notion of hearing and seeing is explicit and, as will be demonstrated, is used in a similar fashion to Revelation. It reads:

60 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

And as I was still reciting the song, the mouth of the fire which was on the firmament was rising up on high. And I heard a voice like the roaring of the sea, and it did not cease from the plenitude of the fire. And as the fire rose up, soaring to the highest point, I saw under the fire a throne of fire and the many-eyed one round about, reciting the song, under the throne four fiery living creatures, singing.

In this one instance the seeing interprets the hearing for the author and the audience. The author sees the throne under the fire presumably the place from where the voice originates as well. This section also closes with Abraham saying: “And I heard the voice of their sanctification like the voice of a single man.” The present manner in which the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha is set out does not do justice to the extensive use of “and” as a structural marker. The following sound map of Ap. Ab. 20–21 confirms this. According to Lee and Scott, “A sound map is a visual display that exhibits a literary composition’s organization by highlighting its acoustic features and in doing so depicts aspects of a composition’s sounded character in preparation for analysis.”64 While the Greek text is not being used in this example if we begin each sentence with “and” we notice a pattern that would have facilitated having this apocalypse read to an ancient community. The intent of this sound map is to demonstrate the aurality of the text.

Sound Map of Apocalypse Abraham 20 And the Eternal Mighty One said to me, “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “here I am!” And he said, “Look from on high at the stars which are beneath you and count them for me and tell me their number!” And I said, “When can I? For I am a man.” And he said to me, “As the number of the stars and their power so shall I place for your seed the nations and men, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel.” And I said, “Eternal Mighty One, Let your servant speak before you and let your fury not rage against your chosen one. Behold, before you led me up, Azazel insulted me. How then, since he is now not before you, did you establish yourself with them?” The sound map highlights the use of “and” as a structuring device.65 The author of the Apocalypse of Abraham also frequently makes use of the word “hear” to emphasize a point. After mentioning the likeness of an idol of jealousy and boys

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 61

being slaughtered on an altar that was opposite this idol, the author asks what the idol is. The angelus interpretus responds “hear Abraham! This temple which you have seen, the altar and the works of art, this is my idea of the priesthood of the name of my glory, where every petition of man will enter and dwell; the ascent of kings and prophets and whatever sacrifice I decree to be made for me among my coming people, even of your tribe.” The most striking example of the use of “hear” to make a point is found at the end of the apocalypse. The author is now back on earth, so to speak, after the vision. The author explains that he does not understand all that his soul desires and he does not understand everything that is in his heart. The use of the word “hear” is also found at Ap. Ab. 26:2, 5; 27:7 (listen) and 29:21. Strikingly the use of the word “hear” is found on three occasions in Ap. Ab. 32. Therefore, hear, Abraham, and see, behold your seventh generation shall go with you. And they shall go out into an alien land. And they will enslave them and oppress them as for one hour of the impious age. But of the nation whom they shall serve I am the judge. And the Lord said this too, “Have you heard, Abraham, what I told you, what your tribe will encounter in the last days?” Abraham, having heard, accepted the words of God in his heart.

The Apocalypse of Abraham uses the concept of “hear” to introduce new sections of revelatory material, to emphasize a point and to encourage Abraham in his appropriation of the message and its delivery to his audience.

2 Baruch The book of 2 Baruch was probably written around 100 CE or perhaps sometime early in the second century.66 The following brief references to 2 Baruch aims to strengthen the case that the concept of “hear” was an integral part of audience engagement.67 2 Baruch 6:8 reads: “And he said to the earth with a loud voice: Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, and receive the things which I commit to you, and guard them until the last times, so that you may restore them when you are ordered, so that strangers may not get possession of them.” The author seems to implore the whole audience with his use of the term earth on three occasions. 2 Baruch 13:1–3 also states that Baruch must stand on his feet and hear the word of the mighty God. In response to the visions that Baruch received he went to the people and said to them: “Assemble to me all our elders and I shall speak words to you. And they all assembled in the valley of Kidron. And I began to speak and said to them: Hear, O Israel, and

62 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

I shall speak to you, and you, O seed of Jacob, pay attention and I shall teach you. Do not forget Zion but remember the distress of Jerusalem” (2 Baruch 31:1–4).68

This text is the strongest indication of the oral-aural nature of the environment and the text. In the interpretation of this apocalypse the angelus interpreter refers to Baruch hearing the apocalypse and everything that has preceded the interpretation. 2 Baruch 55:3b reads: And while I was pondering these and similar things, behold, Ramael, the angel who is set over true visions, was sent to me and said to me: Why does your heart trouble you, Baruch, and why are you disturbed by your thought? For if you are already disturbed, only hearing about the judgment, what about when you see it with your eyes only? And if you already so disturbed by the expectation with which you expect the day of the Mighty One, what about when you arrive at its coming?…And if you have heard the names of the good and evil which will come at that time, and if you are grieved, what about when you will see what the Majesty will reveal, who will convince some and cause others to rejoice?

Baruch receives a vision of bright and dark waters from 2 Baruch 56. The explanation of what these waters are begins in 2 Bar. 70: “Therefore hear the exposition of the last black waters which will come after the black waters.” In similar fashion 2 Baruch 72 reads: “Now hear also about the bright waters which come at the end after these black ones.” The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch ends in 2 Baruch 86: “When you therefore receive the letter read it carefully in your assemblies. And think about it, in particular, on the days of your fasts. And remember me by means of this letter in the same way as I remember you by means of this, and always.” The concept of “hear” is not used as extensively as it is used in the Apocalypse of Abraham. However, once more at explanatory points in the apocalypse the author mentions the concept of “hear.” The final section, 2 Baruch 86, points to the oral-aural setting in which the apocalypse was produced. The fact that it needed to be read to the assemblies indicates the low literacy levels that would have prevailed.

Hearing the Book of Revelation Attention to how hearers would have heard each word and symbol in the Apocalypse is important. According to Richard Bauckham “Revelation has been composed with such meticulous attention to detail of language and structure that scarcely a word can have been chosen without deliberate reflection on its relationship to the work as an integrated, interconnected whole.”69 The book is like a quarry with a never-ending supply of precious jewels waiting to be dug up, uncovered,

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 63

washed, polished and admired. Furthermore, just as repetition is a central feature of ancient texts, so is it significant in any literary analysis of the Apocalypse.70 The verb avkou,w is found on forty six occasions in Revelation (1:3, 10; 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:3, 6, 13, 20, 22; 4:1; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 7:4; 8:13; 9:13, 16, 20; 10:4, 8; 11:12; 12:10; 13:9; 14:2, 13; 16:1, 5, 7; 18:4, 22, 23; 19:1, 6; 21:3; 22:8, 17, 18). These forty six references reinforce the prominent place the concept of hearing has in Revelation.71 John also often hears a loud voice (9:13; 10:4; 12:10; 14:2; 16:1; 18:4; 19:1).72 In fact Maier suggests that Revelation is the noisiest book in the New Testament.73 The first reference in 1:3 sets the tone and pace for all that is to follow. Hearers are exhorted to keep the words of the prophecy. The book ends in 22:8 with a similar appeal but this time invoking judgment on those who do not keep what has been heard. Revelation 1:10 and 4:1 bracket the six references to hearing in the letters to the seven churches (2:7, 11, 17; 3:3, 6, 13, 20, 22). These six references all make special appeals to listen to the Spirit. John has introduced the central idea that drives this literary work and that is that he was in the Spirit (evn pneu,mati) on the Lord’s Day. These are no ordinary visions. He then appeals to that same Spirit in the letters exhorting his audience to obey the Spirit. It is of interest to note that generally avkou,w is only used to end each letter. However, two exceptions occur. The first is in the letter to Sardis (3:3) where John declares that they are to “remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it and repent…” Second, the word avkou,w is used in 3:20 at the climax of the seven letters for a second time to the Laodiceans. The seven letters exhibit an increase in the promises made to them by the Risen Christ from one to six. The church at Laodicea receives one promise, namely, the right to eat from the tree of life (2:7); the church at Smyrna receives two promises, namely, the crown of life (2:10) and they will not be hurt by the second death (2:11); and the church at Pergamum receives three promises, namely, the hidden manna, a white stone and a new name. Since the progression culminates in the letter to the church at Philadelphia we expect that the church at Laodicea will receive seven promises, however they only receive one. The word avkou,w is used in 3:20 to urge and indeed plead with the hearers (Christ is standing, calling and knocking) to accept the final promise, which is the promise to sit with Christ on his throne. The notion of why avkou,w is used twice in the letter to Sardis and in the letter to the Laodiceans will be explored further in the final chapter. Another fascinating literary technique enlisted by John is the juxtaposition of events that are seen with events that are heard. While he places the visual with the auditory it is what he hears that interprets what he sees.74 The feature of seeing is important since Revelation is a visual feast, a book filled with eyes. “It is visual in

64 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

content and triggers visual images more than any other book of the NT.”75 John sees God’s throne and around it “four living creatures, full of eyes in front, all around and behind” (Rev. 4:6). Jesus possesses “eyes…like a flame of fire” (Rev. 1:14; 2:18; 19:12) and also is the lamb with seven eyes “which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth” (5:6). Each of the messages to the seven churches begins with an examination, “I know your works…” (2:2, 9, 19; 3:1, 8, 15). Maier points out that Roman culture has been reflected in an honor-shame capacity from an anthropological perspective in the aforementioned examples. This is attested to in Roman society’s obsession with power, status and etiquette. The latter is evidenced in the ethical instruction of philosophers on appropriate social behavior. “Thus when the Apocalypse threatened its listeners with nakedness (3:17– 18), it of course echoed a favorite biblical metaphor for divine punishment (e.g., Ezek. 16:37–39; Hosea 2:3, 9; Nahum 3:5), but seen from a social-anthropological perspective it was drawing on visibility’s coercive power in Greco-Roman culture.”76 Strikingly, however, when seeing and hearing are juxtaposed it is hearing that is given primacy. This makes sense since seeing was most important in Hellenistic culture while hearing and hence conduct and obedience were significant in Judaism and Christianity from which it was birthed. According to Resseguie, “hearing brings out the inner reality, the spirit and the essence of what he sees. Whereas seeing is influenced by appearances, which may or may not be true, hearing uncovers what is hidden, the inner nature.”77 In chapter 5 John sees a lamb but hears a lion. The Lion of the tribe of Judah interprets what John sees: death on a cross (the Lamb) is not defeat but is the way to power and victory (the Lion).78 The following table presents how the concepts of seeing and hearing are depicted in Revelation: John Hears

John Sees

A loud voice like a trumpet (1:10)

Seven golden lampstands and one like a son of man (1:12, 13) The four colored horses with their riders (6:2, 4, 5, 8) A great multitude (7:9)

The four living creatures call out “come” (6:1, 3, 5, 7) One hundred and forty-four thousand sealed (7:4–8) The number of the calvary (9:16)

The horses with riders (9:17)

aur alit y in t h e a n c i e n t l i t e r at u r e  | 65

The table demonstrates the centrality of seeing and hearing in Revelation and the primacy of hearing.79 Hearing is the foundation from which the image is explained or interpreted. Even though Roman society was dominated by “seeing” John chose to focus on the spiritual needs of the early Christians by pronouncing a blessing on the reader and more importantly the hearers.

Conclusion This chapter has highlighted the significance of the term akou,w in a range of biblical and extra-biblical literature. The term hear in the Gospel of Mark is idealized to refer to those who are obedient hearers while the use of the word o`do,j demonstrates the effectiveness of repetition. The story of the deaf man (Mark 7:31–37) pointed to the social stigma attached to deafness but presented Jesus as the healer of this affliction. The crowd’s acknowledgment of Jesus and the allusions to Isa. 35 and Gen. 1 demonstrated that hearing is a divine gift. The term akou,w in Luke-Acts also pointed to hearing with the idea of obedience but also includes the idea of intimacy seen in the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:39). In Acts Luke juxtaposes hearing and faith with the mission of the church. The term is used in a similar vein in the Gospel of John to what we discovered in Mark and Luke. However, the term also takes on richer meaning with regards to truth and John suggests that hearing is more important than seeing and believing. The use of the notion of akou,w does not have the richness of meaning associated with Mark, John and Luke-Acts as it does in the Pseudipigraphical literature. It is simply part and parcel of the language being used by the writer to describe what is happening in the visionary experience. It does, however, highlight the oral-aural nature of these texts. Besides the fact that the term akou,w was used rather extensively in the Apocalypse a pattern was detected in the way in which John used the term akou,w to conclude each of the letters to the seven churches. The term was also used at significant places in the book (e.g. Rev. 13:18). The significance of the term akou,w has been presented and a case has been made for the oral-aural setting in which Revelation emerged. We now turn to the application of the methodology to further the aims of this study.

chapter five

An Aural-Performance Analysis of Revelation 1:1–21

Introduction This chapter applies the methodological insights developed in chapter 1 and draws on the work completed in the two previous chapters. It also articulates a sound map of Rev. 1. It will be recalled that Lee and Scott suggest that “A sound map is a visual display that exhibits a literary composition’s organization by highlighting its acoustic features and in doing so depicts aspects of a composition’s sounded character in preparation for analysis.”1 A sound map of Rev. 1 is provided and analyzed to ascertain “the features that demand attention.”2 The analysis includes sound patterns, sound quality, the distribution of sounds and vowel patterns. The “analysis proceeds colon by colon, breath by breath, with the sound data indicating” the structure of Rev. 1.3 Thereafter a performance translation is provided that highlights the centrality of performance. The second major feature of this chapter is an aural-performance commentary on Rev. 1. The commentary attempts to reconstruct how the performer would have engaged the audience and how the audience would have responded. The commentary discusses significant symbols, Old Testament allusions and echoes and the context of the text being performed. The rhetorical significance of the text for the hearing community is also investigated. The key question of this chapter is

68 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

“what do members of the community understand and experience when they hear the sounds, symbols and allusions in Rev. 1?”4 To understand a culture we need to understand the language that culture uses to communicate and convey meaning. Malina contends that as a natural phenomenon, language is sounds produced by humans in terms of airwaves that are patterned in a socially appreciable way as the air passes from the lungs through the vocal chords over tongue and teeth and through the mouth cavity. You can sense such human sounds when these airwaves hit the tympanum of your ear and register some impression in your brain. Culture fills these naturally and personally produced air waves with meaning and feeling by patterning them in socially appreciable ways. Thus more than one person shares the same patterns, allowing for communication on a “we” level—the “we” being all of us who share the same patterns of meaning and feeling.5

Malina contends that language is a shared journey of communication in which the patterns of language make social and cultural sense. Paul Achtemeier states “we need to keep in mind the essentially oral communication of the written texts of the NT and shape our examination of those texts, and their interpretation, accordingly.”6 Moreover, it will be recalled that one of the questions that guides this project is “what can we hear based on what is visible?”7 The text of Revelation “came to life in a Greco-Roman context. John chose to write in Greek, idiosyncratic as his may be, because it was the language of the eastern Empire and of the early Christian communities.”8 The introduction of the sound map to the analysis of Revelation means that significant lexical and philological features of the Greek text can be addressed. One such feature is the use of the verb by John. The performative features of the text are guided and directed by the verbs in each period. The word endings with the same letter are underlined once as are those that begin with the same letter. The same word endings with two letters or periods that end with the same word are in bold; and the same words within a period are italized. There will be some overlap of words from similar categories. Words from different lines are also synchronized with the line above or beneath to help us see what the ancient audience could hear. According to Lee and Scott “numbering cola makes reference easier.”9

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 69

Sound Map of Revelation 1:1–20 Part 1 Period 1 1. VApoka,luyij VIhsou/ Cristou/ h]n e;dwken auvtw/| o` qeo.j dei/xai toi/j dou,loij auvtou/ a] dei/ gene,sqai evn ta,cei( 2. kai. evsh,manen avpostei,laj dia. tou/ avgge,lou auvtou/ tw/| dou,lw| auvtou/ VIwa,nnh|( o]j evmartu,rhsen to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/ 3. kai. th.n marturi,an VIhsou/ Cristou/ o[sa ei=denÅ Period 2 1. Maka,rioj o` avnaginw,skwn 2. kai. oi` avkou,ontej tou.j lo,gouj th/j profhtei,aj 3. kai. throu/ntej ta. evn auvth/| gegramme,na( 4. o` ga.r kairo.j evggu,jÅ Period 3 1. VIwa,nnhj 2. tai/j e`pta. evkklhsi,aij 3. tai/j evn th/| VAsi,a|\ 4. ca,rij u`mi/n 5. kai. eivrh,nh avpo. o` w'n 6. 7. kai. o` h=n 8. kai. o` evrco,menoj avpo. tw/n e`pta. pneuma,twn 9. kai. 10. a] evnw,pion tou/ qro,nou auvtou/ Period 4 1. kai. avpo. VIhsou/ Cristou/( o` ma,rtuj( 2. 3. o` pisto,j( o` prwto,tokoj tw/n nekrw/n 4.

70 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

5. kai. o` a;rcwn tw/n basile,wn th/j gh/jÅ 6. Tw/| avgapw/nti h`ma/j 7. kai. lu,santi h`ma/j evk tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n evn tw/| ai[mati auvtou/( Period 5 1. kai. evpoi,hsen h`ma/j basilei,an( 2. i`erei/j tw/| qew/| 3. kai. patri. auvtou/( 4. auvtw/| h` do,xa 5. kai. to. kra,toj eivj tou.j aivw/naj Îtw/n aivw,nwnÐ\

avmh,nÅ

Period 6 1. VIdou. e;rcetai meta. tw/n nefelw/n( auvto.n pa/j ovfqalmo.j 2. kai. o;yetai auvto.n evxeke,nthsan( 3. kai. oi[tinej 4. kai. ko,yontai evpV auvto.n pa/sai ai` fulai. th/j gh/jÅ avmh,nÅ nai,( Period 7 1. VEgw, eivmi to. a;lfa 2. kai. to. w=( le,gei ku,rioj o` qeo,j( o` w'n 3. 4. kai. o` h=n 5. kai. o` evrco,menoj( o` pantokra,twrÅ 6. Period 8 1. VEgw. VIwa,nnhj( o` avdelfo.j u`mw/n 2. kai. sugkoinwno.j evn th/| qli,yei 3. kai. basilei,a| VIhsou/( 4. kai. u`pomonh/| evn 5. evgeno,mhn evn th/| nh,sw| th/| kaloume,nh| Pa,tmw| qeou/ 6. dia. to.n lo,gon tou/ VIhsou/Å 7. kai. th.n marturi,an

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 71

Period 9 1. evgeno,mhn evn pneu,mati evn th/| kuriakh/| h`me,ra| 2. kai. h;kousa ovpi,sw mou fwnh.n mega,lhn w`j sa,lpiggoj Period 10 1. legou,shj\ o] ble,peij gra,yon eivj bibli,on 2. kai. pe,myon tai/j e`pta. evkklhsi,aij( 3. eivj :Efeson Smu,rnan 4. kai. eivj 5. kai. eivj Pe,rgamon 6. kai. eivj Qua,teira 7. kai. eivj Sa,rdeij Filade,lfeian 8. kai. eivj Laodi,keianÅ 9. kai. eivj Period 11 1. kai. evpe,streya ble,pein th.n fwnh.n h[tij evla,lei metV evmou/( 2. kai. evpistre,yaj ei=don e`pta. lucni,aj crusa/j Period 12 1. kai. evn me,sw| tw/n lucniw/n o[moion ui`o.n avnqrw,pou evndedume,non podh,rh 2. kai. periezwsme,non pro.j toi/j mastoi/j zw,nhn crusa/nÅ Period 13 1. h` de. kefalh. auvtou/ 2. kai. ai` tri,cej leukai. 3. w`j e;rion leuko,n 4. w`j ciw.n 5. kai. oi` ovfqalmoi. auvtou/ 6. w`j flo.x puro.j Period 14 1. kai. oi` po,dej auvtou/ o[moioi calkoliba,nw| 2. w`j evn kami,nw| pepurwme,nhj 3. kai. h` fwnh. auvtou/ 4. w`j fwnh. u`da,twn pollw/n(

72 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

Period 15 1. kai. e;cwn evn th/| dexia/| ceiri. auvtou/ avste,raj e`pta. auvtou/ r`omfai,a di,stomoj ovxei/a evkporeuome,nh 2. kai. evk tou/ sto,matoj auvtou/ 3. kai. h` o;yij 4. w`j o` h[lioj fai,nei evn th/| duna,mei auvtou/Å Period 16 1. Kai. o[te ei=don auvto,n( 2. e;pesa pro.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ 3. w`j nekro,j( 4. kai. e;qhken th.n dexia.n auvtou/ evpV evme. le,gwn\ mh. fobou/\ 5. evgw, eivmi o` prw/toj o` e;scatoj 6. kai. Period 17 1. kai. 2. kai. 3. kai. 4. kai. 5. kai.

o` zw/n( evgeno,mhn nekro.j ivdou. zw/n eivmi eivj tou.j aivw/naj tw/n aivw,nwn e;cw ta.j klei/j tou/ qana,tou tou/ a[|douÅ

Period 18 1. gra,yon ou=n a] ei=dej 2. kai. a] eivsi.n 3. kai. a] me,llei gene,sqai meta. tau/taÅ Period 19 1. to. musth,rion tw/n e`pta. avste,rwn ou]j ei=dej evpi. th/j dexia/j mou 2. kai. ta.j e`pta. lucni,aj ta.j crusa/j\ e`pta. avste,rej a;ggeloi tw/n e`pta. evkklhsiw/n eivsin 3. oi` e`pta. evkklhsi,ai eivsi,nÅ 4. kai. ai` lucni,ai ai` e`pta.

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 73

Performance Translation Period 1 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his slaves, the things which must quickly take place; 2. and he sent and signified it by his angel to his slave John, who bore witness to the word of God 3. and to the witness of Jesus Christ, 4. and to all the things that he saw. Period 2 1. Blessed is he who reads 2. and those who hear the words of the prophecy, 3. and take to heart what is written in it; 4. for the moment is near. Period 3 1. John 2. to the seven churches 3. that are in Asia: 4. to you grace and peace, 5. from him 6. who is 7. and who was 8. and who is to come; 9. and from the seven Spirits 10. who are before his throne; Period 4 1. and from Jesus Christ, 2. the faithful 3. the witness, 4. The first-born of the dead, 5. and the ruler of the kings of the earth. 6. To him who loves us, 7. and freed us from our sins by means of his blood,

74 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

Period 5 1. and has made us a kingdom 2. priests of God 3. and his Father; 4. to him be the glory 5. and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. Period 6 1. Look, he is coming with the clouds, 2. and every eye will see him, 3. even those who pierced him; 4. and all the peoples of the earth will strike themselves in mourning over him. Yes, indeed, amen. Period 7 1. “I am the Alpha 2. and the Omega,” says the Lord God, 3. “who is, 4. and who was, 5. and who is to come, 6. the Almighty.” Period 8 1. I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering 2. and kingdom 3. and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, 4. was on the island of Patmos 5. because of the word of God 6. and the testimony of Jesus. Period 9 1. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, 2. and I heard behind me a great voice like the sound of a trumpet,

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 75

Period 10 1. saying, “Write in a scroll what you see, 2. and send it to the seven churches: 3. to Ephesus 4. and to Smyrna 5. and to Pergamum 6. and to Thyatira 7. and to Sardis 8. and to Philadelphia 9. and to Laodicea.” Period 11 1. And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. 2. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; Period 12 1. and in the midst of the lampstands one similar to a son of man, 2. who was wearing a long garment reaching to the feet, 3. and girded across his breast with a golden girdle. Period 13 1. And his head 2. and his hair 3. were white like white wool, 4. like snow; 5. and his eyes 6. were like a flame of fire; Period 14 1. and his feet 2. were like burnished bronze, when it glows in a furnace, 3. and his voice 4. was like the sound of many waters. Period 15 1. And in his right hand he held seven stars; 2. and from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword;

76 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

3. and his face 4. was like the sun shining with its might. Period 16 1. And when I saw him, 2. I fell at his feet 3. as a dead man. 4. And he placed his right hand upon me, saying, “Do not fear; 5. I am the first 6. and the last, Period 17 1. and the living One; 2. and I was dead, 3. and behold, I am alive forevermore, 4. and I have the keys of death 5. and of Hades. Period 18 1. “Write therefore the things that you saw, 2. and the things that are, 3. and the things that shall take place after these things. Period 19 1. This is the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, 2. and the seven golden lampstands: 3. the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, 4. and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.”

Word and Aural Analysis The analysis that follows is designed to take account of significant word usage and sound patterns in Rev. 1. This will be followed by an analysis of the data.

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

Significant Word and Phrase Usage Word/Phrase Kai e`pta logovn tou/ qeou marturi,an VIhsou/ Cristou/ w`j evkklhsi,aij VIhsou/ Cristou

Occurrence 30 11 2 2 7 4 3

Significant Sounds Dominant Sound

Occurrence

ou/

Period 1 (11x)

ou.j

Period 2 (3X)

ai

Period 3 (8X)

o

Period 4 (4x)

w-n

Period 4 (6x)

ai

Period 5 (3x)

w

Period 5 (5x)

ai

Period 6 (10x)

e

Period 6 (3x)

o

Period 7 (5x)

oj

Period 7 (3x)

ai

Period 7 (3x)

ai

Period 8 (4x)

ou/

Period 8 (3x)

hn

Period 9 (3x)

ai

Period 10 (7x)

ei

Period 10 (9x)

e

Period 11 (5x)

on

Period 12 (4x)

wj

Period 13 (3x)

wj

Period 14 (2x)

ai

Period 14 (2x)

ai

Period 14 (2x)

1:1–21 | 77

78 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

Significant Sounds Dominant Sound

Occurrence

ai

Period 15 (3x)

oj

Period 16 (4x)

ai

Period 17 (7x)

ai

Period 18 (3x)

ai

Period 19 (5x)

Period 1 and period 2 have the sound quality of euphony, which “refers to the aesthetic quality of phonemes and syllables,” as there are a number of smooth consonants.10 There are 14 n sounds in period 1, and 6 n sounds and 7 g sounds in period 2.11 It is difficult to establish what sort of style is evident in period 1 to 3 as there is a mixture of sounds with various endings. Period 4 exhibits the elegant style. This style demonstrates strong endings which can be seen in the ou sound ending line 1. The dominant sound in period 1 is ou, while kai, serves as a connecter for important ideas the prophet-performer desires to convey to the early Christians.12 In period 2 point 4 the hearing community notices that in the phrase o` ga.r kairo.j evggu,j the o` provides a transition to period 3 which begins with o` w'n kai.. The phrase kai. avpo. serves as a transition from period 3 to period 4 helping the ancient hearers understand the connections between the two periods. While made in reference to chain-link transitions, and the aforementioned examples are not, Bruce Longenecker’s comments are still helpful as he maintains that “a well-constructed transition oils the machinery of rhetorical persuasion…”13 The ancient hearers notice the strong influence of kai, to introduce a new idea and that it provides for narrative flow. For example in complex period 6 John introduces three new elements with the phrase kai. o;yetai auvto.n pa/j ovfqalmo,j( (and every eye will see him) kai. oi[tinej auvto.n evxeke,nthsan\ (and those pierced him) kai. ko,yontai evpV auvto.n pa/sai ai` fulai. th/j gh/jÅ Nai,( avmh,nÅ (and all people of the earth will mourn because of him) The longest use of kai, is from 1:17 to 1:18 where it occurs on seven occasions (see below). The continual use of the word kai, heightens the shift in 1:19 where the prophet-performer can emphasize the word gra,yon (write). kai. e;qhken th.n dexia.n auvtou/ evpV evme. le,gwn\ mh. fobou/\ evgw, eivmi o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj (1:17)

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

kai. kai. kai. kai. kai.

1:1–21 | 79

o` zw/n( evgeno,mhn nekro.j ivdou. zw/n eivmi eivj tou.j aivw/naj tw/n aivw,nwn e;cw ta.j klei/j tou/ qana,tou tou/ a[|douÅ (1:18)

gra,yon ou=n a] ei=dej (1:19) The prophet-performer would emphasize each kai, beginning in 1:17 and become more emphatic and pronounced in 1:18 and then culminating with gra,yon in 1:19. The notion of gra,yon not only points to the fact that John wrote the visions he received from God but that the concept of writing, emphasized at this point by the prophet-performer, legitimized his writing. Since a clear pattern emerged from Rev. 1:17 with sentences beginning with kai. the sudden shift to gra,yon in 1:19 would have surprised the ancient hearers.14 In the ancient world writing was a means of political hegemony and used by the elite to maintain social cohesion over the populace.15 Writing was also the manner in which the religious were able to maintain power over their adherents.16 It is possible therefore that John desires to maintain his prophetic control over the Christian communities and writing his visions and creatively emphasizing the very notion of writing, as he does in Rev. 1:18–19, allows him to exercise that control. Further, he has been instructed by Jesus to write his visions (Rev. 1:19) and hence is doing so out of obedience to the prophetic call. Another feature of this aural analysis is the importance of the word kai, which is used in Revelation comparatively more than any other work in the New Testament.17 Kermit Titrud maintains commentaries and monographs have not seriously engaged with the use of kai,. He asserts that kai, in its adverbial function serves as a spotlight or an intensifier. Its function is emotive.18 In similar fashion Resseguie states that John uses the word to thicken sentences and lengthen the list of qualities he seeks to highlight. “This paratactic style has the advantage of isolating each member of a list, allowing it to stand out and to be noticed,” he asserts.19 In period 4 line 4 and 5 the wn sound is dominant while the ou sound ends line 1 and likewise ends line 7. The o, sound maintains the performance in line 2, 3 and 4. While the o, sound dominants period 7 where it is heard on more than seven occasions the e, sound is the significant one in period 8. Both performance lines are introduced by kai, in period 8 as well. Just as the wn sound is dominant in period 4 so the on sound is also dominant in period 9. Repetition is used on a whole range of vowels, sounds and opening clauses. Lee points out that “established patterns furnish templates for subsequent sounds

80 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

and shape the listener’s expectations.”20 In period 3 the ancient hearers notice this example of repetition tai/j e`pta. evkklhsi,aij tai/j evn th/| VAsi,a|\ The ai/j sound dominates this period and assists the ancient hearers make the transition from the first line to the second line. Sound also assists the ancient hearers to connect the church and Asia. In period 4 point 6 the ancient hearers notice another example of repetition. h`ma/j evk tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n evn tw/| ai[mati auvtou/( This use of repetition is not as clear as the earlier example which has similar sounds at the beginning and the end of the breath. The slight variation, from h`ma/j to h`mw/n, however, does not disqualify ancient hearers making the connection between these two sentences. From Rev. 1:1–13 kai, and o` provide the links between ideas, however, from 1:14 onward the audience would hear kai, and w`j. Since the word e`pta. is used on eleven occasions and the messages are to be sent to seven churches the ancient hearers notice the structural importance of the number seven.21 The significance of the beginning and the ends of a word for human understanding were first brought to the fore by two Harvard psychologists more than twenty years ago.22 The “bathtub effect” is perhaps the most commonly reported find in the academic literature. According to Jean Aitchison, people remember the beginning and ends of words better than middles, as if the word were a person lying in a bathtub with their head out of the water at one end and their feet out at the other. And, just as in a bathtub the head is further out of the water and more prominent that the feet, so the beginnings of words, are on average, better remembered than the ends.23

Beginnings and ends of words are prominent for memorization.24 The ou sound occurs on nine occasions as a word ending while the n sound ends a word on seven occasions in period 1. The tej ending is used in period 2 line 2 and 3 as well as the word kai, to facilitate memory. The ai/j ending is used in period 3 line 2 and 3 with the word kai, once more. This analysis could continue but essentially each period has words that begin and end to assist in memorization for the prophet-performer and the ancient listeners that coincide with the bath-tub effect. According to Miller and Fellbaum “verbs are arguably the most important lexical category of a language.”25 Verbs usually dominate a sentence and

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 81

dictate its structure. Period 1 has seven aorist verbs (e;dwken, dei/xai,gene,sqai, evsh,manen, avpostei,laj, evmartu,rhsen, ei=den) and a present indicative verb (dei/) that point to a range of important functions and features of this apocalypse that the prophet-performer would have emphasized as will become evident in the aural-performance commentary. Period 2 contains four present participle verbs (avnaginw,skwn, avkou,ontej, throu/ntej, gegramme,na). Period 6 contains one present indicative verb (e;rcetai) and two future verbs (o;yetai, ko,yontai).26 Aune maintains that these future verbs are futurum instans.27 The verbs in each period aid in the provision of the performative features that will be discussed in the aural-performance commentary. As already mentioned period 1 has seven aorist verbs and one indicative present verb.” When a Greek speaker narrated events, the Aorist…formed the basis for carrying the narrative…”28 Even though the prophet-performer is not narrating a story he is beginning to create the symbolic universe that the ancient listeners would inhabit during this first rendition of the message of Revelation. The aorist is the “default tense” that moves the performance event forward.29 The aorist verbs used here in period 1 and throughout Rev. 1 is the backbone of the performance.30 The use of e;rcetai in period 6 is an indicative present verb. The present tense “is used in those places where the author feels that he wishes to draw attention to an event or series of events.”31 Fanning contends that the present tense of the verb, as it used here in period 6, would be “drawing attention to a crucial event or highlighting a new scene…”32 The crucial event that is being highlighted with the verb in its present tense is the parousia of Christ. The notion of Jesus speaking to John (Kai. evpe,streya ble,pein th.n fwnh.n h[tij evla,lei metV evmou/) in period 11 is significant since evla,lei is in the imperfect tense. The imperfect tense points to certain actions in the narrative to focus on, in this case, the speaking of Jesus to John. No doubt the prophet-performer would have emphasized this point and the ancient listeners would have had an appreciation for the fact that just as Jesus spoke to John so now the prophet-performer, as the representative of John, spoke to them. The sound analysis has provided insights into how the ancient audience may have appropriated the message of Rev. 1. The ai sound is used approximately fifty-nine times in Rev. 1 with the ou sound occurring fourteen times. Interesting patterns have emerged and certain emphasis, like that of the word gra,yon in 1:19 with a number of repetitions of kai, beforehand have heightened its significance. The continued use of the repetition of certain sounds; certain sound endings; the ability to assess sound style and quality; and the placement of verbs all demonstrate the usefulness of the sound map.

82 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

The insights garnered here are in no way definitive but at least lay the groundwork to begin to consider how the text may have been heard. A deeper probe of how the ancient hearers would have responded to the whole performance of Rev. 1 for the first time is now undertaken. The terms ancient listeners/hearers are used to refer to the whole Christian community. On other occasions reference will be made to the various audience constructs of minimal, competent and informed audience. The aural-performance commentary that follows is a historical reconstruction of how the audience would have understood the message of Revelation.

Aural-Performance Commentary The prophet-performer declares that this is an Apoka,luyij VIhsou/ Cristou/ as he begins performing verse 1 (period 1 line 1). The ancient listeners understand apoka,luyij to refer to an unveiling or uncovering as it has wide currency in the traditions of the New Testament.33 The term denotes a disclosure of something that was previously concealed or hidden.34 The term apoka,luyij is a theological marker as this message focuses on Christ and will reveal him in greater detail to the audience.35 The opening phrase alerts hearers to the function and purpose of this apocalypse.36 The whole community would have wondered what aspect of Jesus was hidden or kept secret from them. These early Christians had heard of the power of Jesus to perform miracles in his earthly ministry and the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to their faith and existence. There would have been an immense sense of expectation as they would be learning more about Jesus Christ. This is an Apoka,luyij that has its ultimate source in God and demonstrates “the decisive action of God…in the history of Jesus Christ.”37 The ancient hearers understand that God is the Creator and Father of the Lord Jesus. The prophet-performer, following John who writes about God with great reserve, would have read in somber tones that it is a revelation from God.38 The hearing community would have deep reverence for the message of the Apocalypse since this was a message that came from God.39 The chain of command points to the origin of the message with God. God then gives the message to Jesus, Jesus to an angel, and the angel passes the message on to John.40 The prophet-performer identifies the ancient hearers as dou/loj auvtou/. The term is a social marker. It will be recalled that this marker points specifically to social practice, to happenings or occurrences within society or to positions and rank within the infrastructure of first-century society. Since slavery was a common

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 83

feature of life in the ancient world the ancient hearers identify themselves as slaves rather than servants of God.41 Even though the concept of slavery was considered demeaning for a person who was born free;42 the behavior of a slave was considered shameful for a free person;43 and slaves were often thought of as deceptive, lazy, gossipy and generally virtueless;44 the fact that the ancient hearers were to be slaves of God made all the difference in how they appropriated the term.45 Furthermore, early Christians saw themselves as slaves of Christ and God (1 Cor. 7:22; Eph. 6:6; Rom. 14:18; 16:18; Col. 3:25).46 In this opening line of the performance the prophet-performer is alerting the early Christians that this is a counter-cultural work that challenges the status quo and calls them to a new identity that is not grounded in the hegemonic views of the world in which they lived. It will be recalled that auditory processing is the way in which information is transfered and decoded from what we hear into what we understand. The competent audience would have processed Rev. 1:1 as pointing to Daniel 2 since the Book of Daniel was part of their mental library and it was used widely in the early Christian communities.47 Further, it would have been reinforced by the common vocabulary between Rev. 1:1 and Dan. 2:28, 29 and 45 in their mental lexicon. The phrase a] dei/ gene,sqai is found in each of these verses.48 This view is strengthened when the competent audience hear the same aforementioned phrase in Rev. 1:19 which also contains allusions to Dan. 2:28, 29 and 45 with the emphasis on the word gra,yon at Rev. 1:19. The Danielic allusion is also found at Rev. 4:1 and finally at the end of the narrative at Rev. 22:6. The competent audience would hear and process the following: In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar has a dream that no one, not even his wise men, can interpret. God grants Daniel the same dream that the Babylonian king had and its interpretation. Daniel praises the God of heaven for revealing to him the dream and its meaning. In his prayer of thanks Daniel points out that Yahweh sets up kings and brings down kings pointing to the fact that Yahweh is in control of all that happens. Daniel 2:28 and 45 make specific reference to the mountain that will fill the whole earth. The concept of an animate expanding stone/mountain was commonplace in the Ancient Near East as ancients regarded the world as a living body and pointed to its center as a navel. Ancient societies regarded the navel as the place of nourishment. The whole society was then dependent upon the navel which very often was viewed as the place of worship, specifically the temple. Daniel 2:28 and 45 can be explained in the light of this common notion. The dream of Daniel 2 depicts the navel stone par excellence growing into a living mountain and filling the whole earth. The competent audience understands that the total domination of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world has taken place since the inauguration of the kingdom of God in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.49

84 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

The significant change from Daniel’s “what must take place in the future” to John’s “what must soon take place” provides insight into how the listening community would have appropriated the text. John sees his work as beginning to bring to fulfillment Daniel’s eschatological forecast.50 The competent audience especially acknowledges the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel in their life time and hence recognizes that the Apocalypse has a sense of eschatological urgency.51 Moreover, the competent audience would recall the reference to God in Dan. 2:28, 29 and the reference to God in the opening sentence of Revelation. The God of heaven in Daniel is in control of all that happens in history and overrides foreign powers that seek to oppress and persecute his people. The notion of the God of heaven revealing mysteries is found on six occasions in Daniel 2 alone (20, 23, 27, 28, 29b, 30). Ancient hearers would understand based on their perception and processing of the importance of Dan. 2 that God is sovereign and in control of the affairs of humanity and indeed their lives and circumstances. The repetition of the phrase a] dei/ gene,sqai occurs at Rev 1:19 and on further performance also at 4:1 and 22:6.52 The urgency of the situation the ancient hearers were in especially for the competent audience would have been reinforced by their recollection of the synoptic tradition (Matt. 24:6, Mark 13:7 and Luke 21:9). The use of the word dei/ would highlight for the ancient hearers “the sure fulfillment of the purpose of God revealed by the prophets.”53 The competent audience connects the literary and thematic dots between Dan. 2 and Revelation. They recognize the urgency of their situation while at the same time acknowledge the fulfillment of the Word of God. This background also assures them that God cares about them and is sovereign. From this discussion we can also state that the competent audience is acutely aware that Scripture is the primary key for interpreting Scripture. Lupieri maintains that “ancient biblical exegesis operated by gathering passages that contain the same words and that were thus understood to cast light on each other, with the more transparent passages illuminating the more obscure passages.”54 The competent audience understands that Daniel 2 therefore sheds light on understanding the message of Revelation. The word sh,mainw (signified) means “to indicate clearly” or “make known.”55 The informed audience knows that the word means to show by some sort of sign and is especially used by the gods to show men the future.56 David Aune asserts that in the writings of Plutarch (De Pyth) and the Jewish writings of 1 Enoch 107 and 106 the word evsh,manen points to that which is unclear and hence may lead to ambiguity in appropriating this word and what it meant. However, its currency in the New Testament, especially in relation to the death of Jesus ( John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19; Acts 11:28) and the fact that it was an

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 85

apocalypse suggests that the informed and competent audience understand that Revelation was communicated to John in symbolic fashion.57 The difficulty in the word may also have informed them that the message of the book required further explanation. Since they have no formal education the minimal audience takes longer to grasp the nuances and intricasies of Revelation. The symbolic qualities of the book also become clearer for the minimal audience as the prophet-performer continues performing the Apocalypse. The phrase to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/ kai. th.n marturi,anVIhsou/ Cristou/ is found here and in Rev 1:9.58 The competent audience may remember the testimony borne by Jesus in John 19:1–16 to understand the phrase th.n marturi,an VIhsou/ Cristou/ better. In John 19:1–16 Jesus is being tried before Pilate for treason. Pilate, irritated by the silence of Jesus states, “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” ( John 19:10). Jesus responds in characteristic Johannine fashion declaring that he does not have any more authority than what God has allowed him. Jesus remains loyal in the face of fierce opposition and impending death. His testimony of faithfulness is starkly contrasted with the unfaithfulness of his accusers. This appealing New Testament background would have strengthened the resolve of the competent audience to remain faithful to Jesus.59 To avoid unnecessary speculation the verbs in each period provide guidance as to how the prophet-performer would gesture during the performance of this apocalyptic work. While there is no evidence for the importance of verbs in the performance of ancient texts Aldrete does state that “the most obvious use of gestures was to mirror the words of a speech.”60 Gestures were used therefore to act out the motion of a word. The prophet-performer would have pointed upward in relating the fact that God gave the visions to Jesus and Jesus to an angel and the angel to John. It is likely the prophet-performer demonstrated the chain of command by perhaps motioning to each “invisible” person (God, Jesus, the angel and John) that played a part in the transmission of the apocalypse. Ancient listeners would have clearly seen and heard how the apocalypse began with God and ended with them. It is important to recall that this is not an exegesis of the Apocalypse. Rather the task of the aural-performance critic is to reconstruct what the ancient worship service may have been like. This opening period receives varied responses from the three idealized groups and these varied responses will become standard expectation as this aural-performance commentary unfolds. The different responses are based in part on the varied educational levels, status and worldview of the three idealized groups. Since the informed audience is wealthy there would be reluctance on their part to accept the idea that they are slaves of Christ and God. On the other hand,

86 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

the competent audience and the minimal audience are comfortable to acknowledge this status. Period 2 line 1 presents the first blessing in the book. The term maka,rioj is a theological marker. The fact that the ancient hearers were being pronounced as maka,rioj would have come as a surprise since the term in antiquity was used solely for the gods or for those who had attained a god-like status.61 This blessing would have had special meaning for the minimal audience as they came from a poorer background and would have been astounded that they were being blessed by God as they hear the message of the Apocalypse. Furthermore, it once again reminded them that this is a divine book since only God could pronounce a blessing on them. The informed audience would have also heard these formulaic pronouncements in family or civic gatherings since they appeared in numerous texts.62 Hearers would have received assurance of “their future participation in God’s promised salvation.”63 Revelation 1:3 ends with the pregnant phrase “the time is near” (o` ga.r kairo.j evggu,j). The term kairo.j means the decisive moment and became an established term in the New Testament that refers to salvation history.64 The prophet-performer would have stated these words with clarity and conviction since they refer to the immediate future. According to Beale, “John probably views the death and resurrection of Christ as inaugurating the long-awaited kingdom of the end-times…” and hence the last days of fulfillment are upon this hearing community. In chapter 2 it was stated that an ancient audience was dynamically involved in the event of the performance. Whitney Shiner has identified three characteristics that accompany applause lines in an ancient performance. These qualities reflect ancient applause patterns that relied on the substance of a speech, an engaging verbal style or an extravagant delivery technique to stimulate hearers into action.65 First, since performance establishes community and builds in-group values, applause lines generally refer to the vindication of Jesus or the triumph over his enemies. Second, highly stylized language coupled with creative verbal effects often signal anticipated applause. Third, in order not to upset the flow of the performance, applause often occurs at natural breaks, thus providing ample opportunity for audience participation. These three characteristics provide the contemporary interpreter the opportunity to develop a performative map to assist in reconstructing probable applause lines. While the minimal and informed audience does not make the connection to the Danielic background they understand that the message the prophet-performer is performing comes from God; that John has faithfully communicated that message to them; and that they will receive a blessing for obeying this message. The

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 87

ancient hearers would have applauded after Rev. 1:3 especially since a blessing was being pronounced upon them. The prophet-performer would have pointed to his eyes to demonstrate the fact that John saw the visions which he was now communicating to them. The verbs in period 2 (avnaginw,skwn, avkou,ontej, throu/ntej) would have allowed the prophet-performer to point to the scroll for those that read and to the ears and heart for those that listen with obedience and would have been a vivid description of what was taking place right before their eyes and hears.

To the Seven Churches The prophet-performer performs period 3. The text reads: “John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come (o` w'n kai. o` h=n kai. o` evrco,menoj), and from the seven spirits (e`pta. pneuma,twn) before his throne.” The ai sound connects period 3 lines 2 and 3. The fact that the prophet-performer identifies John as the writer and human source of the revelation would have strengthened its credibility for the ancient audience.66 The name John is a structural marker as this is the author’s name and the content of period 3 relates directly to the message he is sending through the prophet-performer to the seven churches. The term VAsi,a|\ is an ideological marker. It refers to the land that is dominated by the structures of Empire. The performance event gains additional significance now as the prophet-performer assumes the persona of John.67 The prophet-performer may have gestured to the six regions where the letters were to be performed beyond Ephesus. Furthermore, he would have pointed to the early Christians “Grace and peace to you from him” and then pointed to heaven since grace and peace came from God. While scholars suggest that the text is alluding to Isa. 11:2 it is unlikely that the whole community of hearers would make this connection except for the competent audience.68 This Isaianic text was understood to refer to the work of the Spirit in the early Christian community. David Aune and Ian Boxall, following Ugo Vanni, suggest that Rev. 1:4–8 reflects a liturgical dialogue which introduces the message of Revelation and the worship service. The liturgical flavor of the passage is evident in the change of person between 1:4–5a “grace to you” and 1:5b–6 “to the one who loved us.69 However, ancient listeners would not have understood it as a liturgical dialogue on the first oral delivery but on subsequent performance once they had heard the message and knew its contents better. The whole audience notices the Greco-Roman background of Rev. 1:4b (period 3 lines 4 to 6) since they lived in that world and understood its cultural

88 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

implications. Specifically in the auditory process they notice that Revelation 1:4b is in the form of an acclamation which is directed to God. Revelation 1:4 reads: John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne. The English word “acclamation” comes from the Latin word acclamatio. It is defined as any shouted comment of approval, praise, or protest.70 Acclamations were sung by the larger population while Roman soldiers normally shouted them when their commander was hailed as the new emperor.71 Acclamations played a role in both the private life (e.g. at weddings) and the public life (e.g. at adventus ceremonies) of Roman citizens.72 In fact, the notion of acclamation is commonplace in the ancient world. Further, the ancient listeners notice that John is focusing on the theme of God’s eternality and that this is a noteworthy claim in light of the Roman ideology of aeterna. In the first-century this ideology was applied to emperors, cities (urbs aeterna), the Roman people (Aeternitas Populi Romani), and the empire itself (pax aeterna). Roman rulers presented themselves as guarantors of all that was good about Rome.73 Nero, when returning to Rome in 68 CE after his travels, was hailed as “the only one from the beginning of time.”74 Domitian also claimed to embody the ability to maintain this eternal condition.75 Clearly the informed audience would detect here a polemical overtone from John. Only God is eternal and has the prerogatives and right to claim eternality. Furthermore, the informed listeners note the contrast with the Hellenistic formulas of Zeus as he is also defined as “the one who was and who is and who will be.”76 Again they would detect here a combative use of the phrase by John in which he is declaring that God is greater than Zeus.77 At the very introduction to his work, therefore, John is outlining his view of the world and the situation the ancient hearers are in. They perceive that from John’s apocalyptic viewpoint there is a sharp division between them and the world. As the appellation “was, is, and is to come” found in verse 4 and verse 8 is proclaimed by the prophet-performer the authorial audience mental lexicon leads them to appropriate the Exodus story, especially Exod. 3:14.78 While it is a seemingly inconsequential phrase the deep significance of the Exodus for Jewish Christians and its centrality in New Testament teaching suggest that the whole audience would have realised that this phrase is an allusion to the Exodus story.79 The minimal audience would have appropriated it in this way since they had heard Exod. 3:14 on many occasions. The title expresses the idea of divine infinity and sovereignty over history. A whole range of associations emerge on the mental map of the hearing community.

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 89

In the auditory process the minimal and competent audience is led to think of the mighty deliverance that Yahweh wrought on behalf of his oppressed people in Exodus. The Asian Christians are now living under the rule of the Roman Empire and John is pointing out with the use of this Old Testament allusion that the mighty hand of God has been stretched out for his people in the death and resurrection of Jesus (see Rev. 1:5–6) and that they are now a kingdom of priests called to serve God. John is pointing the early Christians to the victory that Christ has achieved for them. Whether or not the informed audience desire to accept and follow this message remains to be seen.80 The prophet-performer mentions the symbol of throne and the seven spirits before the throne at Rev. 1:4 (period 3 lines 7 and 8) which is introduced to point to the royalty and judicial authority of God.81 George B. Caird notes: “From first to last John’s vision is dominated by this symbol [throne] of divine sovereignty.”82 The ancient listeners think of God’s omnipotence, authority and sovereignty. Furthermore, the whole listening community would recall the coins minted by Domitian that use the throne motif to convey a message about his rule and power. The term throne is therefore an ideological marker. The Roman imperial government controlled the activities of the mint and through their wide dissemination it was possible for people in the provinces to become familiar with the titles and image of the emperor through the coins. These coins functioned in a certain sense as broadcasting and propaganda tools.83 On the coins minted by the previous rulers of the empire the throne has usually been related to Zeus, who holds in one hand a sceptre and in another a branch, Nike, eagle, patera or thunderbolt. Domitian continued the practise of minting coins with the image of Zeus enthroned, but he still preferred Jupiter to be the image on the coins.84 The throne motif is also associated on Domitianic mints with other gods such as Tyche, Apolo, Minerva, Pluto, Cybele, Athena or Dyonisus.85 The Asian Christians realise that grace and peace come from God and at this stage in the performance do not perceive any contest in relation to the throne. However, as the performance continues it will become clear to the listening community that God’s throne is symbolically under attack. The threefold description of Jesus mentioned in Rev. 1:5 (period 4 lines 2 to 4) by the prophet-performer corresponds to the three decisive stages of his messianic work. “Faithful witness” points to his entire messianic career, climaxed in his death; “firstborn from the dead” points to his resurrection86 and validates the trustworthiness of his witness about God and “the ruler of the kings of the earth” speaks of his glorification and inauguration as vice-regent of God the Father.87 By juxtapositioning “faithful witness” with “firstborn from the dead,” and “ruler of the

90 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

kings of the earth” John has ingeniously established a relationship between witness, death/ martyrdom and rulership/kingship and here portrays the development of a tradition, particularly between witness and martyrdom that has its roots in the Old Testament and subsequently developed in later Jewish tradition.88 These phrases would have lent themselves to interesting gestures on the part of the prophet-performer to actively portray all that Jesus has achieved for the community. For the idea of “first born from the dead” the prophet-performer would have probably gestured to the ground and then pointed up and perhaps raised his hands to point to the fact that Jesus is “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The ancient hearers would have responded to these powerful words. The competent audience also understand that John is alluding to Ps 89:27, 37 in Rev. 1:5a. Ps 89:27 reads “kavgw. prwto,tokon qh,somai auvto,n u`yhlo.n para. toi/j basileu/sin th/j gh/j” and 89:37 “kai. w`j h` selh,nh kathrtisme,nh eivj to.n aivw/na kai. o` ma,rtuj evn ouvranw/| pisto,j dia,yalma. John has extended and adapted the language of Ps 89 to suit his own intentions and theological purpose. Whereas David is appointed by Yahweh to be the prwto,tokon, Jesus is the prwto,tokoj tw/n nekrw/n; David is the u`yhlo.n para. toi/j basileu/sin th/j gh/j. Jesus is the a;rcwn tw/n basile,wn th/j gh/j and as Yahweh’s promise to sustain David’s lineage is compared to the moon, o` ma,rtuj evn ouvranw/| pisto,j. For John it is Christ who is now the ma,rtuj o` pisto,j. The competent audience, perceiving the Old Testament through the Christ-event, perceives Jesus in Davidic terms—a new David with a new royal line, the church.89 The ancient hearing community would have seen their identity as “witnesses” since John states that he bore witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus and the prophet-performer identifies Jesus as the Faithful Witness. Furthermore, the ancient hearers would understand the term in the context of witnessing in the court of law. The prophet-performer would have pointed to the Asian Christians while performing the notion of “loved us” and “freed us.” These terms are theological markers that underscore all that Christ has achieved. The gestures performed would have reinforced the message the prophet-performer was passing on. The competent and minimal audience would have especially appreciated Rev. 1:6 (period 5 lines 2 and 3) as it exalted their status from tradespeople and craftspeople, working each day for a living, to that of kings and priests. These ideological markers point to notions of power and legitimacy. The emphasis is made for the audience as period 5 lines 2 and 3 do not begin with kai,. Emphasis is seen in i`erei/j tw/| qew/| and auvtw/| h` do,xa. The audience are “priests of God” and this is for “his glory.” The notion of kings points to the ability to rule while that of priests points to direct access to God. The ideological marker of priest would have

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 91

reminded the early Christians that they were not like the priests of the temples of Artemis, Zeus and other local deities but rather priests of God. The mandate of the priest was to lead the people into the presence of God; to be the mediator between God and the people; and indeed to represent the people to God. One of the primary duties of the priest was to lead the people in the worship of God in the Old Testament. Early Christians may not only see the importance of this term as the performance of Revelation unfolds but more importantly they knew first-hand the dangers and challenges they faced in not worshipping the statutes and images of Caesar or any local deity that undermined or jeopardized the worship of the creator God. The prophet-performer would have raised his hands to proclaim period 5 lines 5 and 6. It reads: “to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen” (Rev. 1:6b). At this point in the performance the ancient listeners would have erupted into applause.90 This would be in acknowledgement of what has just been performed and would also be giving praise and worship to God. The applause and acknowledgement is also for the powerful words and gestures that have been shared by the prophet-performer in relation to all that Jesus Christ has done for them. The use of the word avmh,n at the end of the previous period reinforces the idea that the audience would have applauded.

Coming with the Clouds The prophet-performer declares Revelation 1:7: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds (e;rcetai meta. tw/n nefelw/n), and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him (oi[tinej auvto.n evxeke,nthsan); and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen.” The competent audience would have appropriated texts from Daniel and Zechariah. Daniel 7:13 reads: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.” Zechariah 12:10 reads: “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Daniel 7:13 has already been alluded to in Rev. 1:1 and they may have also been familiar with the Markan tradition (Mark 13:26; 14:62) where it is alluded to. Some scholars (Malina, Howard-Brooks and Gwyther) assume that the first-century audience were predominantly focused on the present and had limited conception of the fulfillment of Scripture beyond their own day and time. There are a number of factors that suggest that the ancient listeners would hear and

92 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

understand Rev. 1:7 (period 6) in both a realized and consummated eschatological manner. The first factor to consider in attempting a reconstruction of how the ancient audience would have heard the text is to acknowledge that it is a text that comes ultimately from God. The hearing community understands that God is the Creator and that he is sovereign. The fact that God speaks for the first time in Rev. 1:8 and there points to his eternality points to the fact that the immediate context within which Rev. 1:7 ought to be understood is 1:8. The second point to ponder is found in a comment by David Aune. He writes: “Christian worship functions in such a way that paradigmatic events and conditions of the past, as well as particular anticipated events and conditions of the future, are spoken of as if the temporal boundaries between past and future had become collapsed into an eternal present.”91 While writing in response to his research on the Odes of Solomon, Aune argues that prophetic hymns, like those found the Odes, serve as vehicles to express realized eschatology within a cultic setting. This would be applicable to the Apocalypse. A third consideration is the impact of the wider context of Dan. 7 on the ancient listener’s appropriation of this text. This conclusion is reinforced when we consider that Dan. 7 was a foundational text for early Christians and played a major part in their self-understanding and theological development. Daniel 7 is about the transcendent and eschatological Son of Man who exercises messianic royal powers and receives a kingdom from the Ancient of Days.92 While early Christians made application of this Danielic text to the situation they found themselves in there is a future dimension to the text as well. The competent audience would recall the ability of Jesus to forecast the future since he was the Son of God. They would remember how he forecast the abomination of desolation (Matt. 24:15; Luke 21:20–24).93 Beside the ability of Jesus to forecast the future the parousia was the hope of the early Christians ( John 14:2; Tit. 2:14; Heb. 9:28). Hence a part of the Christian community understand that the prophet-performer is referring to the eschaton in Rev. 1:7 even though it is not explicitly stated and that while it was future from their day could happen shortly.94 While the minimal audience would grasp the eschatological understanding of this text they would not have made any connections in their mental lexicon to the Jesus traditions cited above. Revelation 1:7 has a number of interesting performative features. It reads “Behold, He is coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Shall it be, Amen.” The term VIdou is a structural marker as it begins period 6. The contents of period 6 render the importance of the term VIdou. At the mention of “behold”

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 93

(VIdou.) the prophet-performer would have lifted up his hands as the opening lines were performed. The prophet-performer would have pointed to the eye indicating that “every eye will see him.” This was a reality—the parousia of Christ—that the early Christians longed for. Perhaps the prophet-performer would have made the motion of “stabbing” his hand into the body and had an expression of sadness for the idea that Jesus had been pierced. He would have then moved his hands out wide to indicate “all the peoples of the earth.” It is difficult to assess the kind of gesture or facial expression for the idea of “mourning” as we cannot be sure whether ancient listeners would be happy that unbelievers were mourning and going to receive their due reward or saddened by this reality. The ancient listeners would erupt into applause especially after the double avmh,n at Rev. 1:7c and for the fact that the coming of Jesus was imminent.95 The prophet-performer would reverently declare period 7 lines 1 and 2. It reads: “I am the Alpha and the Omega…” (Rev. 1:8). Since John lived in “a highly stratified society” one of John’s strategies was to use the pagan titles from earthly rulers to depict the dominance of God over them.96 The term is an ideological marker. The ancient listeners are aware that the title of “Alpha and Omega” was used in revelatory magic and that the prophet-performer was pointing to the supremacy of God.97 The ancient listeners would also see the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” as an acclamation. The stature of God is seen in the emphasis of period 7 line 6 which does not begin with kai,. The notion of ku,rioj o` qeo,j would bring to mind for the ancient listener imperial ideology but once again demonstrate the superiorty of the God they worshipped.98 This part of the performance would have been especially challenging to the informed audience as they were drawn to the enticements of the empire. It would have only been the minimal audience and the competent audience that would have applauded after the prophet-performer had performed this verse. The different responses from the various audience constructs highlight the reality of intra-church conflict among the seven churches.

The Prophet-Performer, the Author, Authority and Character In Rev. 1:9 (period 8 line 1) John has the dual focus of highlighting his character and establishing his authority. He refers to his authority with the use of first-person narration. VEgw. VIwa,nnhj (1:9), evgeno,mhn evn pneu,mati evn th/| kuriakh/| h`me,ra| (1:10); Kai. evpe,streya ble,pein th.n fwnh.n h[tij evla,lei metV evmou/( kai. evpistre,yaj ei=don e`pta. lucni,aj crusa/j (1:12); Kai. o[te ei=don auvto,n( e;pesa pro.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ w`j nekro,j( (1:17).

94 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

The signature term “I, John” in fact frames the book, placing a stamp of authentication on the message of the book. “I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (1:9). At the end of the book it states: “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things (22:8).99 The authentification of Rev. 1:9 and 22:8 is important as in the ancient world “mythological innovation” was common.100 Other stories or tales could be introduced to a performance at the disgression of the performer. Poets, orators and lectors would add or delete aspects of a message to suit their own interests. Furthermore, the name John is used as a structural marker in period 3 line 1 and again in period 8 line 1. This reinforces the authority of the prophet-performer. John points to his character by declaring that he is a fellow partaker and sufferer with the early Christians. By stating these words the prophet-performer assumes the persona of John. Character mattered to an ancient audience. Christopher Gill highlights the differences between ancient and modern understandings of character by making a distinction between “a ‘character-viewpoint’ and a ‘personality-viewpoint.’”101 Gill asserts that modern biography and its understanding of character focus on a personality viewpoint, which “does not aim to judge the person as a moral agent but to understand him, or explain him, psychologically in an ethically neutral way.”102 The character viewpoint, by contrast, was the normal perspective in GrecoRoman antiquity. This understanding of character involved “(1) placing people in a determinate ethical framework and (2) treating them as psychological and moral ‘agents’, that is, as the originators of intentional actions . . . which are treated as indexes of goodness or badness of character.”103 These two aspects of Gill’s character perspective point to an essential component of characterization in Greco-Roman antiquity: the relationship between character and moral judgment. Greco-Roman authors did not distinguish between the articulation of a character and the moral evaluation of that character. The prophet-performer assumes the voice of John in the performance of period 8 in a more emphatic manner. The prophet-performer introduces John in words that are suitable to the speaker. Furthermore, the words of v. 9 do indeed have an indisputable application to the suffering and tribulation of the audience. John and the prophet-performer now identify with the audience in a more complete sense.

The Day of the Visions According to Rev. 1:10 (period 9) John received his visions on the Lord’s Day (kuriakh/| h`me,ra|). The phrase is part of the structural marker of period 9 line 1.

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 95

Scholars are divided on the exact meaning of the phrase kuriakh/| h`me,ra|. A number of commentators suggest that the day points to the Resurrection Day or Sunday.104 These two perspectives are built on the view that: 1) the early Christians began to worship on Sunday because Jesus was resurrected on that day; 2) Furthermore, the phrase was used in early second-century Christian writings to point to Sunday as the Christian day of worship.105 With regard to the first point there are other voices, though marginal, who argue that there is no convincing evidence in the New Testament writings that require or mandate that the early Christians worship on Sunday.106 They argue that neither Jesus nor any of the apostles provide statements that the early Christians are to worship on Sunday in honour of the resurrection.107 During his ministry Jesus unequivocally states in each of the synoptic gospels that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:27–28; Luke 6:5) and that the Sabbath is made for humanity.108 In his stimulating study Herold Weiss suggests that “within the early Christian communities Sabbath observance per se was not a matter of dispute. They took for granted the legitimacy of the Sabbath rest.”109 In relation to the second point Kenneth Strand has contended that the phrase kuriakh/| h`me,ra was not used in the Didache or the letter of Ignatius of Antioch.110 Furthermore, the evidence being adduced to argue for the validity of kuriakh/| h`me,ra as Sunday is from the early second-century CE and is questionable since it is from almost a century after Revelation was written.111 Scholars who hold this view readily acknowledge that the phrase does not occur in the New Testament other than here in 1:10.112 Another interpretive option is provided by S. Bacchiocchi and R. Stefanovic. Bacchiocchi asserts that the phrase refers to the eschatological day of the Lord prophesied in the Old Testament. In his view the visions John receives is an explanation of how this latter-day expectation will be realized. He maintains that John has rephrased the term “day of the Lord” into “the Lord’s day” and that John is probably following Paul in his use of the term e.g. “the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10); “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14); “the great day” ( Jude 6) and “the great day of his wrath” (Rev. 6:7).113 Stefanovic asserts that the eschatological understanding of the phrase is significant “since John was taken in vision to that day to witness the events leading toward the eschatological day of the Lord being unfolded before him.”114 Stefanovic also argues that the use of the term kuriakh/| h`me,ra always points to something symbolic that follows its use. In the view of Stefanovic Rev. 1:10 therefore points to both the weekly Sabbath and to something symbolic i.e. the eschatological Day of the Lord.115 To counter the view that the reference in 1:10 is to

96 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

something symbolic Beale states the term kuriakh/| h`me,ra is never used in the LXX, New Testament or the early fathers to point to the eschatological Day of the Lord.116 He also dismisses the view that the day could refer to the weekly Sabbath stating that it is “the least likely alternative.”117 It is clear that scholars are divided on the interpretation of the phrase kuriakh/| h`me,ra. In the conclusion to his study Weiss states “that Christian attitudes toward the Sabbath are as varied as those found among Jews. Christians disagreed to its temporal content, its calendrical limits, its cosmic identity and its eschatological referent.”118 On the other hand, he does not declare the termination of the weekly Sabbath in early Christianity. Rather, Weiss states “that very few Christians dared to dismiss it outright.”119 Therefore, in spite of our difficulty to ascer­ tain whether the day is eschatological, literal or symbolic in nature, we concur with Massyngberde Ford who states that at the time Revelation was written “most probably the Christian would still be keeping the Sabbath, the seventh day.”120

The “One like the Son of Man” The prophet-performer is most passionate in performing Rev. 1:12–18 (period 11–16) as these words continue providing hope and assurance for the audience. The phrase Kai. evpistre,yaj ei=don e`pta. lucni,aj crusa/j (period 11 line 2) would lead the competent audience in the auditory process to reflect on the seven lampstands in its Old Testament background. The feature of lampstands is used in Exod. 37:17–19 and Zech. 4:2, 10. The Zecharian text is important for the author as it will be referred to again in Rev. 5:6 and 11:4.121 The phrase “one like a son of man” is rich in narrative history and would have brought a flood of associations to the hearing community.122 The ancient listeners recall the many sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels (Mark 13:26; 14:62; Matt. 24:30, 37, 39, 44; Luke 19:10) which they have heard on many occasions in their local house churches in which he referred to himself as the Son of Man. The community understand by the use of this phrase that although Jesus is now the exalted Lord of history he still identifies with them. This would have been a re-assurance to the hearers, especially the competent and minimal audience, in the struggles they faced in living and witnessing for him. Daniel 10:5–12 would also be recalled by the competent audience when they heard the prophet-performer referring to the Son of Man.123 The following table outlines the similarities between the heavenly figure in Dan. 10 and the Son of Man in Rev. 1.

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 97

Dan. 10:5–12

Rev. 1:12–18

A certain man

One like a son of man

Clothed in linen

Clothed in a robe reaching to the feet

Girded with a belt of pure gold

Girded with a golden girdle

Eyes like torches of fire

Eyes like a flame of fire

Feet like polished bronze

Feet like burnished bronze

Voice like a roaring multitude

Voice like the sound of many waters

Hand touches Daniel

Hand laid on John

“Fear not!”

“Fear not!”

The competent audience understands that Christ is being portrayed as a KingPriest figure.124 Furthermore, contrary to the viewpoint of Beale, Daniel 10 would emerge as more important for the audience than Dan. 7 in Rev. 1. Beale lists nine points of contact or similarity between Rev. 1 and Dan. 7. These include: 1) God sitting on a throne (Rev. 1:4; Dan. 7:9a); 2) A Plurality of beings surrounding the throne (Rev. 1:4; Dan. 7:10b); 3) The Son of Man’s universal rule (Rev. 1:4; Dan. 7:13–14); 4) The saints given or made a kingdom (Rev. 1:6, 9; Dan. 7:18, 22, 27a); 5) The Coming of a Son of Man on clouds with authority (Rev. 1:7a; Dan. 7:13); 6) The image of a book associated with judgment (Rev. 1:11; Dan. 7:10); 7) Detailed description of a heavenly figure and his environment (Rev. 1:12– 16; Dan. 7:9–10); 8) The seer’s emotional distress because of the vision (Rev. 1:17a; Dan. 7:15); 9) The seer given heavenly counsel consisting of an interpretation of a part of the vision (Rev. 1:17–20; Dan. 7:16–17 ff ). Beale’s judgment in relation to the connections between Daniel and Revelation is usually thorough and while the aforementioned points are not fatal to this section of his commentary they are nonetheless questionable. With regard to point 1 the competent listeners would perceive that God is not sitting on the throne. In relation to point 2 the plurality of heavenly beings is the seven spirits in Rev. 1:4 while it is thousands upon thousands in Dan. 7:10b. The competent audience would not connect the dots between the seven spirits and presumably the angelic host in Dan. 7:10b as there are no verbal or thematic parallels to strengthen the connection.

98 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re velat i o n

1

and

11

It is difficult to see how Beale can claim in point 3 that Rev. 1:4 refers to the sovereign rule of Christ when Christ is not referred to and there is no specific mention of ruling. Rather the phrase “who was, who is and is to come” in Rev. 1:4 points to the eternal nature of God. Another weak link is point 6 where Beale claims that there is a book associated with judgment. In Dan. 7: it is “books” and the context is clearly one of judgment, while in Rev. 1:11 it is a single scroll and the immediate context is not explicitly referring to judgment. Four of Beale’s points are dubious while it has been demonstrated that point 7 refers more to Dan. 10 than Dan. 7. The five remaining points (4, 5, 7, 8, 9) do suggest that there is a literary relationship between Dan. 7 and Rev. 1 but not to the extent that Beale claims. The competent audience would understand the prominence of Dan. 10 rather than Dan. 7 as the Old Testament background passage.125 Beyond the association of the imagery with Daniel 10 the competent audience would associate podh,rh with Exod. 28:4 and 39:29 since Christ is being portrayed in a priestly capacity.126 The term is used in the LXX to refer to the garments of the high priest (Exod. 25:7; 28:4; Zech. 3:4; Sir. 45:8). Another interesting feature of “the one like a son of man” figure is the sword protruding from the mouth. Revelation 1:19b reads: kai. evk tou/ sto,matoj auvtou/ r`omfai,a di,stomoj ovxei/a evkporeuome,nh. The term r`omfai,a refers to a larger sort of sword that could be used for cutting and piercing.127 Swete claims that it may be of Thracian origin.128 The informed audience was aware that to the Roman the sword was a symbol of authority. The phrase ius gladii was normally given to an officer who wielded power over life and death.129 Furthermore, the symbol of sword is used extensively in Jewish writings.130 The sword in the mouth of the Son of Man points to judgement and authority. This symbol would have been felt keenly by the informed audience who are questioning the authority of John.

The Resurrected One John builds a meaningful climax to this first chapter. The audience would have been in awe of the vision of the risen Christ just portrayed by the prophet-performer. After the vision of the glorified Christ the prophet-performer drops to the ground as though dead to depict the phrase e;pesa pro.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ w`j nekro,j (period 16 lines 2 and 3). Smalley says that “falling to the ground under the powerful influence of supernatural disclosures is a typical feature of visionary passages in the Bible (cf. Ezek. 1:8; Dan. 8:17; Matt. 17:6).131 The faith of the fledgling communities is strengthened when the prophetperformer assures them that Jesus has defeated death and hades with the action of rising. The whole audience know and understand the centrality of the resurrection

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 99

to their faith and witness. They understand that “the creator’s covenant plan, to deal with sin and death that has so radically infected this world, has reached its long-awaited and decisive fulfilment.”132 They are living in a new age wherein Christ has triumphed. Since the informed audience have been vacillating in their allegiance between John and Jezebel this would have been a persuasive reminder to them of all that Christ has accomplished for them. The audience would have processed the goddess Hekate when the prophetperformer mentioned the idea of klei/j tou/ qana,tou kai. tou/ ~,|Adou (period 17 lines 4 and 5).133 The ou sound provides continuity between the words for the ancient hearers. Hekate was acknowledged as the keybearer to Hades and was a popular goddess in Asia Minor during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Aune suggests that “the keys were thought to control access to the astrological or planetary gates through which souls descend to embodiment and ascent to salvation.”134 Once again there is a polemical message in this period. Jesus Christ is the true keybearer and not Hekate. The worldview of the audience is being challenged as Jesus Christ is presented as the ruler of life and death. On two occasions Jesus refers to himself as “I am” (evgw, eivmi.) once more claiming equality with Yahweh of the Old Testament in period 16. The competent audience perceive that this saying is alluding to the Isaianic tradition (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12).135 The audience understand that the glorified risen Jesus, who once was and still is human, now has the prerogatives and insignia of Yahweh. In period 17 the performance text reads (1) Write therefore the things that you saw, (2) and the things that are, (3) and the things that shall take place after these things.136 The early Christian audience understand that John has accurately and carefully written down the visions performed by the prophet-performer since these are the words of the Risen Christ. John also writes an accurate account of what is their current reality. Importantly though it is their reality from God’s perspective. Furthermore, he writes of what shall be (kai. a] me,llei gi,nesqai meta. tau/ta) pointing to the future. The audience understand once more the eschatological nature of the message John is conveying to them via the prophet-performer. This is reinforced for the competent audience in that the word musth,rion in all likelihood would lead them in the auditory process to Dan. 2 once more.

The Significance of Numbers The early Christians would notice the use of numbers in Rev. 1. Numbers played an important part in the worldview and theological and psychological processes of an ancient audience. The prophet-performer mentions the number seven on ten ocassions in Rev 1. Ancient listeners would have made the connection to the

100 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

theological significance of the numbers on the first hearing of Revelation.137 The number seven denoted completion and perfection in the ancient world.138 Even though their churches were fraught with division and internal strife it would have been assuring and comforting to know that Christ saw them as complete and that this was only possible through him. Individual members would have also found comfort and hope in knowing that they are complete in Christ. Completion and wholeness are not found in the empire but in Christ and what he has accomplished for the audience.

Conclusion The concern in this summary is with pragmatics, namely, the practical consequences of the message of Rev. 1 for the ancient hearers. The concern is with what the early Christians are expected to do as a result of this message and the major themes that would emerge for them after listening to the prophet-performer.139 There are six main themes that emerge for the audience in their hearing of the text: 1) The ancient hearers recognize the centrality of God in the message from the prophet-performer. This apocalyptic message from John is ultimately from God. He is the source of the vision (see period 1 point 1). A number of statements, especially in Rev. 1:4–8, remind the early Christians that God is greater than Zeus and the emperor. On the other hand, the competent audience understands that he is the God of the exodus and the burning bush. The competence audience understand the prominence of obedience in this first performance of Revelation.140 God is to be given glory and power for ever (1:6b).141 This is a clear indication to the Asian Christians that there is a polemical edge to the visions in which John is contrasting their day-to-day reality with the transcendent reality of God. The book will present a clash of ideologies, two diametrically opposed ways of looking at life and two contrasting pictures of reality. The symbol of throne highlights the power and authority of God. The early Christians, especially the competent audience, understand that even though their circumstances are challenging as they live life in a hostile pagan environment the God they serve is the God of the exodus. This is the paradigmatic event in the history of the people of God where God demonstrated his unrivalled glory and unparalleled might by setting Israel free from Egyptian bondage. The minimal audience would have been encouraged by the message the prophet-performer had shared with them.

an aur al - performance analysis o f r e ve l at i o n

1:1–21 | 101

2) The ancient audience see themselves as either slaves (dou,loj), priests (i`ereuj) or witnesses (ma,rtuj) for Jesus in an intimidating empire. The primary example of a ma,rtuj, a i`ereuj and a dou,loj is Jesus himself. He is “the faithful and true witness” (1:5; 3:14). However, John also “testified to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (1:2) and now finds himself on Patmos “because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (1:9). According to Greg Carey, “the witness motif functions to identify John and his words with Jesus and his words. John receives the revelation from Jesus (1:1); he testifies to all that he sees. Jesus is called the faithful witness; John is a witness who is faithful as well. Without applying to himself the title he reserves for Jesus, John has characterized himself in the same terms.”142 In this regard the prophet-performer is also a witness and hence he is calling on the whole audience to become witnesses for Christ. These central symbols of identity namely slave, witness and priest will continue to be developed in the next chapter. 3) The ancient listeners appropriate the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus in Rev. 1:5–6 and Rev. 1:18. The blessings of salvation are theirs in and through the blood of Jesus. The fact that Jesus has conquered death would be tremendous encouragement to the early Christians since many of them were facing local harassment for standing up for Christ. “Even death, this last enemy of humanity, holds no threat to those who are followers of the risen Christ,” says Reddish.143 It is because of the death and resurrection of Jesus that the Asian Christians have been symbolically transformed from their lowly status to that of kings and priests. They have the privilege of belonging to a kingdom and of participating in the role of priests in their call to be faithful witnesses for Jesus and in the call of God to worship him alone. This would have been especially meaningful for the minimal audience. 4) The Old Testament book of Daniel, especially chapter 2, 7 and 10, has emerged as important for the competent audience. The message of Dan. 2 reassured this audience that God is sovereign even though it appears that the Roman Empire dominates the landscape of their lives. The message of Dan. 7 reminded the hearing community that Jesus came into their world, was crucified and rose again and that he would return as he had promised. The kingdom of God has been established in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the community are experiencing the present blessings of the Holy Spirit in their lives. The message of Dan. 10 would have resonated with them. The audience knew that Hekate was no match for Jesus and that Christ usurped the authority of Hekate and indeed of every other natural or local deity.144 The mixing of features from both Dan. 7 and 10 suggests that John seeks to portray Jesus as divine but also as someone who is equal to and indeed is God.

102 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

5) The audience realize that they are living in a time of fulfilment. On no less than four occasions John refers to matters of eschatology (1:1 “what must soon take place;” 1:3 “the time is near;” 1:7 “look he is coming with the clouds;” 1:19 “what must soon take place”). The message of Rev. 1:19 would have been of particular importance to them. John was not just writing for them but also referring to things that were going to happen in the future. 6) John reveals a heavenly perspective on the trials and tribulations the early Christians are experiencing. The Book of Revelation can be understood as revealing hidden dimensions of the world and transcendent realities of the universe.145 John has drawn on both a heavenly and earthly point of view to communicate his prophetic message to the listening audience. The point of view provides a new perspective that guarantees the victory of God’s people during their present trials. Michael Gilbertson comments on the heavenly perspective as follows: “This heavenly perspective enables him to discern the true nature of earthly events. … The expansion of spatial horizons has the effect of unmasking reality, of revealing the divine hand at work and exposing the nature of evil in its many forms.”146 In a similar fashion Bauckham also suggests that the heavenly perspective answers the question of who the real conquerors are because the heavenly perspective breaks the earth-bound delusion of the evil trinity to be unveiled in Rev. 12 and 13.147 Therefore, the heavenly perspective reveals that the everyday reality of the early Christians is not all that there is and that there is indeed a heavenly perspective John wanted to communicate to his hearers through the prophet-performer.

chapter six

An Aural-Performance Analysis of Rev. 11:1–19

Introduction Thus far an aural-performance analysis of Revelation has revealed that some of the early Christians would see themselves either as slaves (dou,loj), priests (i`ereuj) or witnesses (ma,rtuj) for Jesus in a hostile empire. The term slave points to their relationship to Jesus and the concepts of witness and priest refers to their relationship with the world. Jesus in turn is the epitome of what it means to be a slave, a priest and a witness. He is the role model for the early Christians and he empowers them with his Spirit to fulfil their roles as slaves, priests and witnesses. Furthermore, the audience understand that the death of Jesus Christ has freed them from enslavement to the world and hence they knew that God was in charge of their world. This chapter will pay attention to the aural and performative features of Rev. 11. A sound map of Rev. 11 will be presented with the appropriate analysis. Revelation 11 is recognized as one of the most difficult passages in Revelation.1 The current chapter will seek fresh meaning from Rev. 11 as it is studied from the perspective of the ancient hearers and three audience constructs.2 It will be recalled that one of the questions that guides this project is “what sounds can we see?”3 Margaret Dean has commented that “hearing a text as a patterned arrangement of sound can furnish important clues to its structure and finally to its

104 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

meaning.”4 Meaning-making will be developed in the aural-performance commentary section of this chapter. It will be recalled that the word endings with the same letter are underlined once as are those that begin with the same letter. The same word endings with two letters or periods that end with the same word are in bold; and the same words within a period are italized. There will be some overlap of words from similar categories. Words from different lines are also synchronized with the line above or beneath to help us see what the ancient audience could hear.

Sound Map of Rev. 11:1–19 Period 1 1. Kai. evdo,qh moi ka,lamoj o[moioj r`a,bdw|( le,gwn\ e;geire me,trhson to.n nao.n tou/ qeou/ 2. kai. 3. kai. to. qusiasth,rion 4. kai. tou.j proskunou/ntaj evn auvtw/|Å Period 2 1. kai. th.n auvlh.n th.n e;xwqen tou/ naou/ e;kbale e;xwqen 2. kai. mh. auvth.n metrh,sh|j( o[ti evdo,qh toi/j e;qnesin( 3. kai. th.n po,lin th.n a`gi,an path,sousin mh/naj tessera,konta Îkai.Ð du,oÅ Period 3 1. Kai. dw,sw toi/j dusi.n ma,rtusi,n mou 2. kai. profhteu,sousin h`me,raj cili,aj diakosi,aj e`xh,konta peribeblhme,noi sa,kkoujÅ 3. ou-toi, eivsin ai` du,o evlai/ai ai` du,o lucni,ai ai` evnw,pion tou/ kuri,ou th/j gh/j e`stw/tejÅ 4. kai. Period 4 1. kai. ei; tij auvtou.j qe,lei avdikh/sai pu/r evkporeu,etai evk tou/ sto,matoj auvtw/n katesqi,ei tou.j evcqrou.j auvtw/n\ 2. kai. 3. kai. ei; tij qelh,sh| auvtou.j avdikh/sai( 4. ou[twj dei/ auvto.n avpoktanqh/naiÅ

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 105

Period 5 1. ou-toi e;cousin th.n evxousi,an klei/sai to.n ouvrano,n( 2. i[na mh. u`eto.j bre,ch| ta.j h`me,raj th/j profhtei,aj auvtw/n( 3. kai. evxousi,an e;cousin evpi. tw/n u`da,twn stre,fein auvta. eivj ai-ma 4. kai. pata,xai th.n gh/n evn pa,sh| plhgh/| o`sa,kij eva.n qelh,swsinÅ Period 6 1. Kai. o[tan tele,swsin th.n marturi,an auvtw/n( 2. to. qhri,on to. avnabai/non evk th/j avbu,ssou poih,sei metV auvtw/n po,lemon 3. kai. nikh,sei auvtou.j 4. kai. avpoktenei/ auvtou,jÅ Period 7 1. kai. to. ptw/ma auvtw/n evpi. th/j platei,aj th/j po,lewj th/j mega,lhj( 2. h[tij kalei/tai pneumatikw/j So,doma kai. Ai;guptoj( 3. o[pou kai. o` ku,rioj auvtw/n evstaurw,qhÅ Period 8 1. kai. 2. kai. 3. kai. 4. kai. 5. kai.

ble,pousin evk tw/n law/n fulw/n glwssw/n evqnw/n to. ptw/ma auvtw/n h`me,raj trei/j h[misu kai. ta. ptw,mata auvtw/n ouvk avfi,ousin teqh/nai eivj mnh/maÅ

Period 9 1. kai. oi` katoikou/ntej evpi. th/j gh/j cai,rousin evpV auvtoi/j 2. kai. euvfrai,nontai 3. kai. dw/ra pe,myousin avllh,loij( o[ti ou-toi oi` du,o profh/tai evbasa,nisan tou.j katoikou/ntaj evpi. th/j gh/jÅ Period 10 1. Kai. meta. ta.j trei/j h`me,raj 2. kai. h[misu pneu/ma zwh/j evk tou/ qeou/ eivsh/lqen evn auvtoi/j( evpi. tou.j po,daj auvtw/n( 3. kai. e;sthsan 4. kai. fo,boj me,gaj evpe,pesen evpi. tou.j qewrou/ntaj auvtou,jÅ

106 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Period 11 1. kai. h;kousan fwnh/j mega,lhj evk tou/ ouvranou/ legou,shj auvtoi/j\ avna,bate w-deÅ to.n ouvrano.n evn th/| nefe,lh|( 2. kai. avne,bhsan eivj 3. kai. evqew,rhsan auvtou.j oi` evcqroi. auvtw/nÅ Period 12 1. Kai. evn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| evge,neto seismo.j me,gaj 2. kai. to. de,katon th/j po,lewj e;pesen 3. kai. avpekta,nqhsan evn tw/| seismw/| ovno,mata avnqrw,pwn cilia,dej e`pta. 4. kai. oi` loipoi. e;mfoboi evge,nonto 5. kai. e;dwkan do,xan tw/| qew/| tou/ ouvranou/Å Period 13 1. ~H ouvai. h` deute,ra avph/lqen\ 2. ivdou. h` ouvai. h` tri,th e;rcetai tacu,Å Period 14 1. Kai. o` e[bdomoj a;ggeloj evsa,lpisen\ 2. kai. evge,nonto fwnai. mega,lai evn tw/| ouvranw/| le,gontej\ 3. evge,neto h` basilei,a tou/ ko,smou tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n tou/ cristou/ auvtou/( 4. kai. basileu,sei eivj tou.j aivw/naj tw/n aivw,nwnÅ 5. kai. Period 15 1. Kai. oi` ei;kosi te,ssarej presbu,teroi 2. Îoi`Ð evnw,pion tou/ qeou/ kaqh,menoi evpi. tou.j qro,nouj 3. auvtw/n e;pesan evpi. ta. pro,swpa auvtw/n 4. kai. proseku,nhsan tw/| qew/| Period 16 1. le,gontej\ euvcaristou/me,n soi( 2. ku,rie o` qeo.j o` pantokra,twr( 3. o` w'n kai. o` h=n( 4. o[ti ei;lhfaj th.n du,nami,n sou th.n mega,lhn 5. kai. evbasi,leusajÅ

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 107

Period 17 1. kai. 2. kai. 3. kai. 4. kai. 5. kai. 6. kai. 7. kai. 8. kai.

ta. e;qnh wvrgi,sqhsan( h=lqen h` ovrgh, sou o` kairo.j tw/n nekrw/n kriqh/nai dou/nai to.n misqo.n toi/j dou,loij sou toi/j profh,taij toi/j a`gi,oij toi/j foboume,noij to. o;noma, sou( tou.j mikrou.j tou.j mega,louj( diafqei/rai tou.j diafqei,rontaj th.n gh/nÅ

Period 18 1. Kai. hvnoi,gh o` nao.j tou/ qeou/ o` evn tw/| ouvranw/| 2. kai. w;fqh h` kibwto.j th/j diaqh,khj auvtou/ evn tw/| naw/| auvtou/( 3. kai. evge,nonto avstrapai. fwnai. 4. kai. brontai. 5. kai. 6. kai. seismo.j 7. kai. ca,laza mega,lhÅ

Performance Translation Period 1 1. And a reed that was similar to a measuring rod was given to me; 2. and said, “Arise and measure the temple of God, 3. and the altar, 4. and those who worship in it. Period 2 1. And the court, the one outside the temple, 2. and do not measure it, because it was given to the nations; 3. and they will trample on the holy city for forty-two months. Period 3 1. And I will give power to my two witnesses, 2. and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, wrapped in sackcloth.”

108 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

3. These are the two olive trees 4. and the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the earth. Period 4 1. And if someone wants to harm them, fire comes from their mouth 2. and devours their enemies; 3. and if someone should wish to harm them, in this manner he must be killed. Period 5 1. These men have the power to close heaven, 2. so that it will not rain during the days of their prophesying; 3. and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, 4. and to smite the land with every plague, as many times as they desire. Period 6 1. And when they have completed their testimony, 2. the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, 3. and defeat them 4. and kill them. Period 7 1. And their corpses will lie in the street of the great city 2. which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, 3. where also their Lord was crucified. Period 8 1. And some of the peoples 2. and tribes 3. and languages 4. and nations will look at their corpses for three and a half days, 5. and will not allow their corpses to be placed in a tomb. Period 9 1. The inhabitants of the earth will rejoice over them 2. and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, 3. because these two prophets tormented those who live on the earth.

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 109

Period 10 1. And after the three and a half days 2. And the spirit of life from God entered into them, 3. and they stood on their feet; 4. and great fear fell on those watching them. Period 11 1. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” 2. And they went up to heaven in the cloud, 3. and their enemies looked at them. Period 12 1. And in that hour there was a great earthquake, 2. and a tenth part of the city fell; 3. and seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, 4. and the rest were frightened 5. and rendered glory to the God of heaven. Period 13 1. The second woe is past; 2. behold, the third woe is coming quickly. Period 14 1. And the seventh angel sounded; 2. and there arose loud voices in heaven, 3. saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, 4. and of His Christ; 5. and He will reign forever and ever.” Period 15 1. And the twenty-four elders, 2. who sit on their thrones before God, 3. fell on their faces 4. and worshiped God,

110 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Period 16 1. saying, “We give Thee thanks, 2. O Lord God, the Almighty, 3. who art and who wast, 4. because Thou hast taken Thy great power 5. and hast begun to reign.” Period 17 1. “And the nations were enraged, 2. and Thy wrath came, 3. and the time came for the dead to be judged, 4. and the time to give their reward to Thy bond-servants the prophets 5. and to the saints 6. and to those who fear Thy name, the small and the great, 7. and to destroy those 8. who destroy the earth.” Period 18 1. And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; 2. and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, 3. and there were flashes of lightning 4. and sounds 5. and peals of thunder 6. and an earthquake 7. and a great hailstorm.

Word and Aural Analysis The analysis that follows is designed to take account of significant word usage and sound patterns in Rev. 11. This will be followed by an analysis of the data. Significant Word and Phrase Usage Word/Phrase

Occurrence

Kai

65

e`pta

2

Qeou/

6

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 111

Significant Word and Phrase Usage Word/Phrase

Occurrence

Du,o

4

w`j

7

evkklhsi,aij

4

VIhsou/ Cristou

3

Significant Sounds Dominant Sound

Occurrence

on

Period 1 (4x)

ai

Period 1 (4x)

hn

Period 2 (4x)

ai

Period 2 (4x)

in

Period 3 (3x)

aj

Period 3 (3x)

ai

Period 3 (6x)

ei

Period 4 (5x)

ai

Period 4 (7x)

aj

Period 5 (3x)

ai

Period 5 (3x)

ai

Period 6 (3x)

on

Period 6 (3x)

ai

Period 7 (4x)

hj

Period 7 (3x)

wn

Period 8 (7x)

ai

Period 8 (3x)

ai

Period 9 (5x)

pi

Period 9 (2x)

ai

Period 10 (4x)

aj

Period 10 (5x)

ouj

Period 10 (3x)

ai

Period 11 (3x)

san

Period 11 (3x)

112 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Significant Sounds Dominant Sound

Occurrence

ai

Period 12 (5x)

oi

Period 12 (3x)

ai

Period 14 (4x)

ou

Period 14 (4x)

oi

Period 15 (4x)

hn

Period 16 (4x)

ai

Period 17 (8x)

oij

Period 17 (4x)

ai

Period 18 (10x)

ou

Period 18 (4x)

Lee and Scott state that “mapping sound requires a reader to attend to a composition one syllable at a time and to organize a composition’s sounds according to the auditory patterns that emerge.”5 The most dominant sound for period 1 line 1 is on while the dominant word is kai. There are four sounds that dominate line 1, namely oj on ou and ai Period 1 has the sound quality of euphony, which “refers to the aesthetic quality of phonemes and syllables,” as there are a number of smooth consonants including seven n sounds.6 The n sound for word endings occurs on ten occasions in period 2 while the hn and e sound occurs on four occasions. Kai. th.n introduces both line 1 and 3 of this period. It is difficult to establish what sort of style is evident in period 1 to 3 as there is a mixture of sounds with various endings. Period 4 exhibits the elegant style. This style demonstrates strong endings which can be seen in the wn sound ending line 1 as well as the ai sound ending line 3. In fact the ai sound is found on seven occasions in period 4. Period 5 has fifteen n sounds that provide the ending to a word. The on sound is dominated by the ou sound in line 1 of period 5 while the aj sound occurs on three occasions in line 2. Three sounds, an, on and ai dominate period 6 while the n sound is found at the end of most of the words in line 1. Period 7 line 1 has three occurrences of the word thj. The ai is found on four occasions and the ma ending is used twice. Period 1 and 4 exhibited the use of kai to introduce every line of those respective periods. Period 8 now develops the same idea with each line introduced by the word kai,. Further, the wn sound ends line 1, 2 and 3 and is used an additional four times in this period. The phrase katoikou/ntej evpi. th/j gh/j opens and closes period 9. The au sound ends each word in period 10 lines 2, 3 and 4 while the san sound

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 113

ends the second word of each line in period 11. Period 12 line 4 has the oi sound occurring three times while line 5 has three words with the same endings each (e;dwkan do,xan tw/| qew/| tou/ ouvranou). The san sound connects line 2 and 3 of period 15. Period 16, like period 5, is the only place in this aural-performance analysis of Rev. 11 where kai, is not used to introduce the period. Period 17 and 18 exhibit the continued use of kai, and the repetition of sounds. The sound map addresses and demonstrates the various sounds that form part of words that would have aided ancient listeners to appropriate the message of the prophet-performer.

Aural-Performance Commentary The prophet-performer continues this final stage of the performance and states Kai. evdo,qh moi ka,lamoj o[moioj r`a,bdw|( le,gwn\ e;geire kai. me,trhson to.n nao.n tou/ qeou/ kai. to. qusiasth,rion kai. tou.j proskunou/ntaj evn auvtw/|Å7 The oi and oj sound dominate the opening statement while the on sound occurs three times in the middle. The four occurrences of the word kai, help to connect the different ideas of the sentence. The word serves as a means of accelerating the semantic and rhythmic pace of the performance. There are five verbs (evdo,qh, le,gwn, e;geire, me,trhson, proskunou/ntaj) in this period. The verb evdo,qh is significant because it points to divine action. Ancient listeners perceive that God gave John the measuring rod and that God is in charge of the events being portrayed by the prophet-performer. It will be recalled that “when a Greek speaker narrated events, the Aorist…formed the basis for carrying the narrative…”8 The two imperative verbs (e;geire and me,trhson) especially carry out this function. The first significant action the ancient hearers notice is that of measuring (me,trhson).9 Since the act of measuring is never actually performed in the narrative the early Christians would consider it a symbolic prophetic action.10 The idea of measuring reveals something fundamental. It is bound up with what is intrinsic to the object being measured.11 Ancient hearers would understand the symbolism of measuring (me,trhson) to convey the divine protection of the temple, the altar and those who worship there.12 This introductory period would have comforted and strengthened them since the prophet-performer spoke of divine protection. The imperative verb me,trhson provides the aural marker for the competent audience to link Ezek 40–42 to this text on the basis of their mental lexicon. Ezekiel had a vision in which a divine figure measures every part of the temple. The temple was measured so that it could be restored (cf. Ezekiel 39:25–29). Even

114 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

though Israel had failed in her covenantal duties God still desired to restore his relationship with her. The symbolic act of measuring and then rebuilding the temple was God’s way of doing this. The competent audience would establish in their mental lexicon that the measuring took place on the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement was the final day on the cultic calendar when Israelites could be made spiritually right with Yahweh. They would comprehend that three things were measured in Ezekiel’s vision: the temple itself (Ezek 40:3–43:12); the altar of sacrifice (Ezek 43:23–27); and the people (Ezek 44–48:35).13 The connection between the temple, the altar of sacrifice and the people/worshippers in both Ezekiel and Revelation lead the competent audience to understand the symbolic act of measuring as an act of judgement. It involves a decision between those in the community of faith who will accept the teaching of John and follow Christ in obedience or those who will give in to the seductive charms of Jezebel and her cohorts. The imperative verb me,trhson also alerts the competent audience to another aural marker, namely that of Zech. 2:1–5. As already stated Zechariah was held in high regard by the early Christians. The competent audience would see the Zecharian context as shaping and informing this passage.14 In Zechariah a young man is told to measure the walls of Jerusalem. He is, however, measuring Jerusalem on the basis of the past. The angel tells him that Jerusalem will be a city without walls. God’s future dream for his people will exceed and indeed transcend anything that he has done in the past hence it will be a city without walls. This prophetic word of Zechariah comes to reality in the New Testament in the people of God, the new Israel (Gal. 6:16).15 The early Christians would understand the term temple (nao.j) symbolically based on its prior use in Revelation.16 This view is corroborated by the fact that the term nao.j is consistently used metaphorically for God’s people, the church, in New Testament tradition (1 Cor. 3.16–17; 2 Cor. 6.16; Eph. 2:21).17 The term is also used symbolically in other ancient literature.18 The temple depicts the Christian believers in Asia Minor from various ethnic backgrounds who have accepted Christ as Lord—a temple without walls demonstrating that the prophetic word of Zech. 2:1–5 has been fulfilled.19 However, even though the ancient hearers understand nao.j symbolically one’s worldview is something powerful and hence nao.j would also evoke the mental image of the Jerusalem temple for the competent audience since this group is largely Jewish.20 The temple was destroyed by the Romans during the Jewish War of 66–70 CE which would have been a mere thirty years or so ago from this performance event. It is historically plausible to assume that there were members of the community who were alive during the sacking of the city and that when the prophet-performer

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 115

performed this text that their minds went back to this climactic event. Furthermore, even those who had more recently become Christian in the minimal audience would have heard about this horrific event and so they too may have associated the term with the Jerusalem temple. It is difficult to articulate what the thinking processes of the informed audience would have been. Since they were educated and knowledgeable of their world they may have made the connection with the Jerusalm temple. On the other hand, antipathy toward Jews from some in this idealized group may have caused them not to associate this symbol with Jerusalem. Since it was charged with such rich history and meaning the prophet-performer would have engaged the words of period 1 with sadness. Ancient hearers would understand that they faced judgment based on the fact that they are worshippers of the true and living God. While scholars normally point to the centrality of worship in the later visions of Revelation (11:18; 14:7; 15:4; 19:10) and to its binary opposition seen in those who worship the dragon and the beast (13:4, 8, 12; 14:9–11) versus the call to worship the creator (14:9–10) for ancient hearers the conflict of loyalty and allegiance was lived reality. There were those in the congregations of the seven churches who were compromising and worshipping the ways of Rome and supporting the seductive claims of Jezebel and others like her in their midst. The minimal audience would perceive that this judgment though would be protective and vindicating and not retributive in any way since they aligned themselves with John and his teaching. The informed audience who were wealthier were still in the valley of decision about following the teaching of John and aligned themselves with the views of Jezebel. This audience would perceive that they could be under judgement if they did not respond to John in the manner in which he desired. The performance is in the house church so it is envisaged that the prophetperformer slightly moved his feet to stand in a different position when performing period 2. The spatial movement of the prophet-performer indicates to the ancient hearers that a different topic is going to be performed. The prophet-performer begins kai. th.n auvlh.n th.n e;xwqen tou/ naou/ e;kbale e;xwqen kai. mh. auvth.n metrh,sh|j( o[ti evdo,qh toi/j e;qnesin( kai. th.n po,lin th.n a`gi,an path,sousin mh/naj tessera,konta Îkai.Ð du,oÅ As pointed out the phrase th.n e;xwqen tou/ naou/ e;kbale e;xwqen would be harsh for an ancient hearer particularly the repeated ideas of e;xwqen and e;kbale. The argument that the Jerusalem temple would come to mind for some of the ancient hearers is reinforced when we understand that this temple had three inner courts—the court of the women, the court of the Israelites and the court of the priests—and a large outer court exclusively for the Gentiles.21 Scholars are normally bogged down with interpretive grids and ideological perspectives that

116 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

are placed on the text to determine what these verses mean.22 Ancient hearers, however, would perceive the outer court as the non-Christian community heard in the phrase tou.j katoikou/ntaj evpi. th/j gh/j (3:10; 6:10 and 8:13) that stood in opposition to the community of faith. The temple, altar and worshippers are to be protected and cared for in the symbolic act of measuring, while the outer court is not to be measured, indicative of its lack of protection and care. The prophet-performer would have performed period 2 and especially the phrase “trample the holy city” (th.n po,lin th.n a`gi,an path,sousin) with vigour and perhaps even the action of “trampling” (path,sousin) by stamping his feet on the ground. The text would have come alive as ancient hearers see the action performed. The phrase th.n po,lin th.n a`gi,an would lead the competent audience to make the connection to the traditions in Luke (21:24) and Daniel (7:7, 19, 23) based on the idea of “trampling” during this performance. The competent audience would understand the notion of trampling in Luke 21:24 and Dan. 7 as referring to the oppression and persecution of God’s people.23

The Two Witnesses The prophet-performer would reposition his body in the performance event as a new topic, namely the two witnesses, begins.24 The notion of two witnesses (dusi.n ma,rtusi,n) would bring a host of associations to mind for ancient hearers. Aune maintains based on the anaphoric definite article that the intended audience would know who these witnesses are.25 He fails to take into account the diversity among the members of the seven churches and that there would have been varied responses to the Apocalypse. The minimal audience may have initially thought of Peter and Paul or Stephen and James the Just who were more recent contemporaries.26 The competent audience may have initially thought of any two Old Testament luminaries who were mighty prophets, perhaps Enoch and Elijah or Moses and Elijah.27 The fact that they will prophesy for 1260 days points the ancient hearers to Rev. 11:2 where the Gentiles trample on the holy city for 42 months. They would understand that the time periods are the same. A host of associations would take place in the minds of the competent audience in the auditory process. The numbers 42, three and a half and 1260 trigger associations of Israel in the wilderness when they experienced 42 encampments; the ministry of Jesus that lasted three and a half years; Elijah’s ministry of three and a half years and the persecution that was mentioned in Daniel (7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11–12).28 The numbers do not have that kind of significance for the minimal and informed audience.

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 117

The three verbs (dw,sw (give), profhteu,sousin (prophesy), peribeblhme,noi (clothe)) point to actions the prophet-performer engages in to allow the text to speak to the early Christians. It has been suggested that the verbs in each period would have guided the prophet-performer in the development of gestures. It will be recalled that an aural-performance critic is dealing in historical reconstruction and is not dogmatizing what took place in early Christian worship. Gestures include hand movements outward for the word dw,sw and hands wrapped around the body for the word peribeblhme,noi. The prophet-performer would change his facial expression to one of remorse and regret at the conclusion of period 3 as the two witnesses are clothed in sackcloth (sa,kkouj). Through the use of repetition John is able to bring the notion of po,lin to the fore. The term is found in Rev. 11:2, 8 and 13 (period 2 line 3; period 7 line 1; period 12 line 2). The prophet-performer uses two different adjectives to point to the po,lin, namely holy city (po,lin th.n a`gi,an) (11:2) and great city (po,lewj th/j mega,lhj) (11:8). The prophet-performer points to the heavens to denote the idea of a`gi,an and expands both hands outward to refer to the notion of mega,lhj. The spatial setting of the po,lin frames the ministry of the two witnesses. Ancient listeners perceive that the ministry of the two witnesses begins in the city with their prophesying (11:3–6). After their death the two witnesses lay dead in the great city for three and a half days (11:7–10). Strikingly the two witnesses are resurrected in the city and ascend to heaven after three and a half days (11:11–12). Their ministry begins and ends in the po,lin.29 The ancient hearers would identify the two witnesses as symbolically pointing to Elijah and Moses based on the performance of Rev. 11:5–6.30 These verses recall the mighty deeds of Elijah who stopped the rain (1 Kings 17:1–7 cf. Jas. 5:17; Lk. 4:25) and destroyed his enemies by fire (2 Kings 1:10–12) as well as those of Moses who turned water into blood (Exod. 7:17–21; Ps 105:29; cf. Rev. 8:9; 16:3–6) and served as Yahweh’s instrument in striking Egypt with plagues (Exod. 7–12).31 The ancient hearers (informed, competent and minimal) understand that what God did for his people in the past he will do for them in the present. At this stage in the performance some of the ancient hearers have recognized the polyvalent nature of the imagery used by John and hence would perceive the two witnesses as symbolically pointing to them—the church—faithfully witnessing for Christ. The minimal and competent audience would have reached this conclusion based on the following considerations. First, the two witnesses are lampstands (11:4) which Revelation explicitly identifies as churches (1:20). Second, the two witnesses prophesy (10:11; 11:3, 6) fulfilling the standard Christian mission of testifying for Christ (cf. 19:10) as well as adopting the world-wide responsibility of witnessing (11:9).32 Third, the church is identified as the source of the testimony

118 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

to Jesus in Rev. 6:9. Fourth, ancient hearers would deduce that the number 1260 is symbolic and hence the two witnesses would need to be symbolic.33 According to de Silva “John assumes the hearers’ familiarity with Zech. 4:1–14, referring to the two witnesses in a way that forces intertextual conversation.”34 “These are the (ai) two olive trees and the (ai) two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.” The prophet-performer would have emphasized the definite articles because he knew that the ancient listeners, especially the competent audience, had heard about these two olive trees and two lampstands from the Book of Zechariah. The hearers would bring associations from Zech 4:14 into their understanding of the two witnesses. After the first hearing of Revelation the listening community would understand that as Joshua and Zerubbabel were the high priest and king respectively seeking the restoration of their holy city so the church as a kingdom and priests (1.6; 5.10) are seeking their New Jerusalem. The informed audience have different views of what constitutes the church and as a result they have distinctive ideas about what witnessesing meant in their society. They saw the role of the church as involvement in society and perhaps drew on the Jesus tradition where the Lord calls his followers to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16). As already stated this audience sided with Jezebel and the followers of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. Second, the witnesses are identified as du,o ma,rtuj mou (my two witnesses). The noun ma,rtuj occurs five times in Revelation. Twice it is applied to Jesus (1:5; 3:14) while on two occasions it is applied to his followers (2:13; 17:6). Asian Christians would hear the word ma,rtuj again in Rev. 11:13 and see the strong connection to Jesus Christ. No doubt the community of hearers would hear Rev. 1:5a again: kai. avpo. VIhsou/ Cristou/( o` ma,rtuj( o` pisto,j( o` prwto,tokoj tw/n nekrw/n kai. o` a;rcwn tw/n basile,wn th/j gh/jÅ The ancient hearers perceive that Christ rules because of his faithful witness and even though it ended in seeming defeat Christ triumphed over death through his resurrection and validated the authenticity of his witness. The two witnesses’ career is mimetic; they reenact the experience of the Lamb. They are slaughtered. They stand and then ascend which is indeed a form of vindication.35 Ancient listeners recognize that the career of the two witnesses is the story of the Lamb, the story of God’s people and indeed their story.36 The early Christians understand that the number “two” probably acknowledges the biblical rules of evidence of two or three witnesses needed to establish the veracity of legal testimony (Deut. 17:6; 19:15).37 They may also perceive in the use of the concept of “two” the other ancient concept of “paired types” demonstrating their functional indivisibility.38 The New Testament tradition of dispatching witnesses in pairs (Mark 6:7) cannot be ruled out from the meaning possibilities of the competent listeners. The notion of two for legal purposes was probably

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 119

well-known in the ancient world and hence the whole audience, competent, informed and minimal, would have understood the terms importance. No explicit reason is given for the death of the two witnesses and the listening audience would surmise that their death took place as a result of their faithful witness for Christ.39

The Beast and the City Ancient listeners undergo interesting event structuring processing when they hear the phrase to. qhri,on to. avnabai/non in period 6 point 2. While commentators normally suggest that to. qhri,on proleptically anticipates the arrival and activities of the beast in Rev 13 and 17 ancient listeners would have other mental associations on this first hearing of the term.40 The term is an ideological marker as it points to aspects of authority and legitimacy. The term to. qhri,on would most likely lead the competent audience in the auditory process to think of Dan 7. Once again the competent audience makes the connection to the wider context of Dan 7. Daniel 7 has already been alluded to in Rev 1 and extensively in Rev 4 and 5 so the competent listeners would have been accustomed to the idea that John often refers to this chapter. In the performance of Rev 1:1 and 1:19 the competent hearers also perceived Dan 2 as the Old Testament background and would recognize the relationship between Dan 2 and 7. Daniel 7 portrays four beasts that arise from the apocalyptic sea to attack and ravage God’s people (7:2–3). This wider context would come into the minds of the competent audience. The fourth beast was terrifying and did not resemble any natural animal. This beast had ten horns and large iron teeth (7:4–7). Daniel then saw a vision of the Son of Man, to whom was given “authority, glory and sovereign power” and “all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him” (7:13–14). His dominion was to be everlasting and his kingdom would never be destroyed. The competent hearers perceive that they were experiencing harassment from local authorities seeking to curry favour with Rome and that John was warning them through the prophet-performer that persecution could be on the horizon in the future just as God’s people had been attacked by hegemonic powers in Dan 7. What would also be interesting for the hearing community is that this beast emerges from evk th/j avbu,ssou. In the Old Testament the abyss is the abode of the enemy of God—the cosmic sea-dragon (Ps 77:16; Job 40:12, 20); is synonymous with the concept of hades ( Job 38:16; Ezek 31:15) and is the realm of suffering (Ps 71:20).41 In the New Testament it refers to a place of suffering for demons (Luke 8:31). The prophet-performer uses his hands to gesture for the beast coming out of the abyss.

120 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

The prophet-performer will lie down on the floor as he states: kai. to. ptw/ ma auvtw/n evpi. th/j platei,aj (Their bodies will lie in the street..). The singular to. ptw/ma is used for the two witnesses to denote that they are “one corporate entity.”42 The action of lying down would have demonstrated the demise of the two witnesses in a very graphic way for the listeners. In fact the performance of this statement would have shocked the audience as a proper burial formed an integral part of Jewish, Greek and Roman life. Jews considered an unburied body an offense and was cause for disrespect and shame (Ps. 79:3; 1 Kings 13:22; Tob., 2:1–7; 1 Macc. 7:17). Ancient Romans believed in “the survival of the soul after death” and “that to therefore leave a corpse unburied had unpleasant repercussions on the fate of the departed soul.”43 The audience would think that if they are indeed symbolically depicted as the two witnesses then this could be their fate. The whole audience would have known of the cities of Sodom and Egypt but they would have especially been known to the competent audience. The competent audience would have been identified these cities as the ancient enemies of God’s people. According to Morris “the two names are proverbial for wickedness and oppression (for Sodom, Isa. 1:9–10; Ezek. 16:46, 55; Egypt is the place where Israel was a slave…).”44 The notion of the place where Christ was crucified may have initially brought back associations of Jerusalem for the whole audience even though the prophet-performer states o[pou kai. o` ku,rioj auvtw/n evstaurw,qh and does not specifically name Jerusalem. It is noteworthy to differentiate between a normal reading of the text and an aural analysis. Commentators generally argue that the literal city of Jerusalem is not in view since the passage is symbolic.45 Wall, for example, states that John “is not moving from symbolism to literalism to speak about the city of Jerusalem. He is rather saying something about the theological significance of the death of the two witnesses (and those they represent).”46 The competent audience would have appropriated the phrase o[pou kai. o` ku,rioj auvtw/n evstaurw,qh as initially referring to Jerusalem in the auditory process. The message the prophet-performer sought to convey is that dying is the ultimate means of faithfulness to God. This would have been too high a request for the informed audience but the minimal and the competent audience would have been willing to pay this price knowing that Christ had defeated death. It would only be after the whole message of Revealation had been presented by the prophet-performer that the ancient listeners would have come across texts like Rev. 16:9,17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21. In all these occurences “the great city” is an epithet for Babylon. If indeed the whole audience initially understood the phrase as referring to Jerusalem but at the end of chapter 18 realized that the phrase actually refers to Babylon there would have been shock and awe. The

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 121

enemy of God had actually crucified Jesus and they were called to minister, to witness, to this very enemy. The prophet-performer would have stretched out both his arms to indicate the crucifixion of Jesus. This act would have pained the ancient audience as the death of Jesus was once more brought to the fore in this performance. The prophet-performer highlights the response of men from every people, tribe and nation as well as the inhabitants of the earth. He emphasizes the idea of “staring” at the two witnesses by dramatizing this action for the audience and then would shift emphasise with “gloating” and finally “celebrating.” The audience understand that the two witnesses are receiving this hostile reception in death because of their ministry in life. Period 12 line 1 is a structural marker (Kai. evn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| evge,neto seismo.j me,gaj). The effects of the lines performed in this period are all a direct result of the seismo.j me,gaj. The city falls, 7000 people are killed and people are afraid. This line also contains the social marker of seismo.j me,gaj. According to Richard Bauckham, the earthquake is not just a conventional apocalyptic image, a “tired apocalyptic cliché,” but rather is intended to evoke a range of conceptual associations due to its strong literary-cultural resonances.47 The audience would have heard the marker of seismo.j at Rev. 8:5. The competent audience understand that the feature of an earthquake is often an instrument of divine judgment (Isa 24:18–20); is apparent before the coming of God to govern the nations (Ps 97:5; 99:1) and is witnessed before the coming of God to pronounce judgment on those who are evil (Isa 13:13; 24:18–20; Jer 51:29; Ezek 38:20).48 Beyond this Old Testament association the whole audience would be aware of the image of an enthroned god emitting lightning and thunder since this was common in the Hellenistic and Roman religions. The cult of Zeus in Greek religion and Jupiter in Roman religion employed this kind of imagery. Zeus is referred to as the one “that hurleth the thunderbolt” and as one “who thunders on high” in Il. .5 and in Od. 5.1–5. According to J. R. Fears the figure of Jupiter is pictured on coins and columns during the reigns of Domitian and Trajan as hurling thunderbolts.49 Interestingly, Domitian popularized the cult of Jupiter even further by assuming the prerogatives of Jupiter in his deportment.50 In addition, the earthquake and its accompanying theophanic manifestation is part of Greek tradition. Callimachus mentions several signs that took place outside Apollo’s temple that revealed the imminent epiphany of a god.51 The audience primarily understand the marker of seismo.j me,gaj as a symbol of judgment since a tenth of the city falls and many are killed.

122 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

The Seventh Trumpet From Rev. 11:15 (period 14 line 1) the prophet-performer would negotiate standing in a slightly different position to indicate to the hearers that he was moving on to address another topic. Revelation 11:15 reads: “The seventh angel sounded his trumpet (Kai. o` e[bdomoj a;ggeloj evsa,lpisen), and there were loud voices (fwnai. mega,lai) in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world (basilei,a tou/ ko,smou) has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever.” The symbol of trumpet has already been heard in the performance from Rev. 8:2. The competent audience understands that this symbol has a rich history and is used in a variety of contexts in the Old Testament. They may perceive that trumpets are used in the context of worship (Lev. 23:24–25); battle ( Judg. 3:27; 6:34; Jer. 51:27); special occasions (2 Sam. 15:10; 1 Kings 1:34; 2 Kings 9:13); judgment and theophany (Exod. 19:6; Ezek. 33:3–6); and eschatological contexts (Zech. 9:14; Isa. 27:13; Joel 2:1). The trumpet symbol is used most often in the New Testament in connection with the eschaton (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:16–17; Matt. 24:31). The audience would not have heard of all of these texts but these are some of the ideas they would have had around the notion of trumpets. An important Old Testament background that involved trumpets and was well-known in Jewish circles was the battle of Jericho and the battle between God and the gods of Egypt in the book of Exodus.52 The story of the exodus of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage is set against a bigger battle between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt that ancient hearers may have been familiar with. The purpose of the Egyptian plagues was to assert the lordship of God over the most powerful ruler of the then known world. Teachers in the community may have subsequently informed the hearing community that the Exodus tradition is used to portray the battle against Satan, sin and death in early Christian writings. The sounding of the seventh trumpet appropriately announces the arrival of God’s kingdom as “trumpets were normally blown at the accession of a king to his throne (1 Kings 1:34–41; 2 Kings 9:13; 11:14).”53 The competent audience would resonate with this notion since the Old Testament promised that the Lord and his Anointed One will become King of the earth (Dan. 2:44; Ps. 2:4–9; Zech. 14:9).54 The whole audience would understand that Christ would be king of their world at a future time and will recall Rev. 1:7 in which the parousia of Christ was promised. A number of scholars have recognized 11.15–18 as an early Christian hymn.55 The place and use of hymns in the first-century world is commonplace.56 Fiorenza comments: “Recent studies in the hymnic material of Revelation have convincingly demonstrated that the hymns comment on and compliment the visions and auditions of the book. They function thus in the same way as the choruses in the

an aur al - performance ana lys i s o f r e v . 11:1–19 | 123

Greek drama preparing and commenting upon the dramatic movements of the plot.”57 However, ancient listeners would not have understood it as a hymn on the first oral delivery but on subsequent performance once they had heard the message and knew its contents better.58 The ancient hearers would then have memorized the hymn and sang it in worship of the Risen Christ at the appropriate time in the performance. Subsequent “hearings” of Revelation would have been different from this first one in which the ancient listeners were still learning the contents of the message. In fact all the hymns would have then been sung at appropriate times in the worship gatherings at subsequent performances (Rev. 4:8–11; 5:11– 14; 11:15–19). The notion of the seventh angel sounding the trumpet would have rather provided a lively opportunity for the prophet-performer to engage the listeners with some sort of gesture and noise to indicate the trumpet. The message of “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever” would have been performed with passion and celebration. The community would have erupted into applause and worship. Period 15 introduces the 24 elders (ei;kosi te,ssarej presbu,teroi). This feature is a structural marker since it introduces the actions the 24 elders will undertake in period 15 lines 2, 3 and 4. The text reads: “the twenty-four elders were seated on the throne before God, fell on their faces and worshipped God saying “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.” The audience would have recalled the symbol of the 24 elders from the performance of Rev. 4:4–8. The informed audience would understand the 24 elders as part of the Roman imperial court ceremony. “Just as the Roman emperor was depicted as surrounded by his friends and advisers when dispensing justice, so is God here seen surrounded by hosts of the exalted angelic order and the representation of the redeemed humanity” states Fiorenza.59 A few verses later (11:18), the 24 elders praise God for his victory, stating that the “nations raged” (e;qnh wvrgi,sqhsan). The idea of the nations raging is a structural marker for period 17. These two ideas, the “rage of the nations” and “the Lord and his Christ” are concepts the competent audience would trace to Ps 2:1–2.60 Psalm 2 has been enlisted by the author already and the psalms form part of their mental lexicon.61 The competent audience would notice the ideas of destruction, rulership and authority that are present in Ps 2:1–2 and Rev. 11:15, 18. When the seventh angel blows the trumpet in 11:15 (period 14 line 1 and 2), the text depicts the victory of the Lord and his anointed and the rage of the nations.62 The unusual expression kai. evbasi,leusaj kai. ta. e;qnh wvrgi,sqhsan (11:17b and

124 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

18a) would lead the competent audience to appropriate Ps 99:1 (o` ku,rioj evbasi,leusen ovrgize,sqwsan laoi,).63 While the Old Testament antecedents are helpful in deepening the understanding of the competent audience it is the whole audience that perceives that the nations will be judged for their disobedience to God. Period 18 line 1 is a structural marker (Kai. hvnoi,gh o` nao.j tou/ qeou/ o` evn tw/| ouvranw/|). Line 2 further develops the ideas from line 1. The theological marker of nao.j opens and closes the performance of Rev. 11. This temple, however, unlike the one in period 1 line 2 is in heaven.The prophet-performer concludes this section by pointing upward toward the temple in heaven. God is sovereign and the kingdom of Christ will come.

Conclusion The concern in this summary is once more with pragmatics, namely, the practical consequences of the message of Rev. 11 for the ancient hearers. This study cannot discuss the implications of hearing Rev. 2 through to Rev. 10 hence the focus is still only on Rev. 1 and 11. The message of Rev. 11 deepens and expands the message the hearers received from their hearing of Rev. 1. The price of being a witness is brought to the fore and points to possible martydom. However, there is also the hope of resurrection (Rev. 11:11). The audience would recall the resurrection of Jesus depicted by the prophet-performer in the rendition of Rev. 1. They would triumph just as Christ had. Furthermore, the Christological connection between the role of witness and Jesus is deepened as well as the eschatological nature of the text in the blowing of the seventh trumpet and the events that follow after 11:15. The notion of judgment also emerges strongly after hearing the performance of Rev. 11. The informed audience would have been challenged with this performance since it demonstrated the consequences of disobedience in Rev. 11:13 and the coming of Christ to judge those who have destroyed the earth (Rev. 11:18).

chapter seven

Summary and Implications of This Study

Introduction This study provides a modest attempt to examine the aural and performative features of Rev. 1 and 11. While articles, significant commentaries and monographs mention the oral-aural features of Revelation no prior study has developed a methodological framework within which to understand these features. This study has sought to bring first-century media culture and the interpretation of Revelation into sharper clarity. This study shifts the focus away from authorial intent toward an audience’s experience of the performance. The main points from each chapter are now summarized and then a discussion of the implications of this aural-performance analysis of Rev. 1 and 11 is undertaken.

Summary The introduction sought to highlight the omission of any serious research that had engaged the oral-aural features of the Apocalypse. The opening chapter investigated new methodological approaches in the field of biblical studies and cognitive science. Oral biblical criticism, sound mapping, oral patterning and features of auditory neuroscience were examined to articulate how ancient hearers may have

126 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

understood the text of Revelation in the process of oral delivery and aural reception. In the methodology section of this project I sought to develop the criteria for a sound map of Rev. 1 and 11. The sound map examined word usage, sound patterns, repetition, alliteration, the use of kai, and various markers. In chapter 2 the role of reading, hearing and performing in the first-century world was examined and it was concluded that Revelation was written in a rhetorical culture that still valued hearing rather than reading a text. It was argued that reading was done by a minority of the audience. This chapter also paid attention to the performance setting of Revelation and it was suggested that it would take more than an hour and a half to perform the book since it was performed in two sessions. The research in chapter 3 paid special attention to the concept of hearing in the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, Luke-Acts and the writings of Jewish apocalyptic. This aspect of research demonstrated that hearing was a central concept in the Gospels, Luke-Acts and the Pauline writings. Hearing that leads to obedience is the kind of hearing that is called for by Jesus and the Gospel writers. This aspect of the research also provided a platform to understand the centrality of hearing in the New Testament and set the stage for further analysis of the concept of hearing in Revelation. This chapter highlighted the juxtaposition of hearing and seeing in Revelation. I pointed out that generally avkou,w is only used to end each letter in Rev. 2 and 3. However, two exceptions occur. The first is in the letter to Sardis (3:3) where John declares that they are to “remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it and repent…” Second, the word avkou,w is used in 3:20 at the climax of the seven letters for a second time in the letter to the Laodiceans. Throughout this study it has been argued that the minimal and competent audience support John and the views he advocates in relation to the Roman Empire. The competent audience has heard more of the Old Testament antecedents as they have processed the text while the minimal audience has heard the text more at “face value.” However, the informed audience, being part of the elite, are wrestling with their allegiance. While they are Christians they have been seduced by the teaching of Jezebel and her companions. They have heard the text in more of its Greco-Roman setting. For example, it will be recalled that the competent audience heard more of Dan. 10 in Rev. 1 while the informed audience would have also processed the image of Hekate in their appropriation of the symbol of key in Rev. 1. The word avkou,w is used in the letter to Sardis and Laodicea as these churches represent in the strongest terms the minimal audience and the informed audience respectively. The church in Sardis is poor and hence aligned with the teaching of John while the Laodicean church is rich and increased with goods and hence very

summary and impl i c at i o n s o f t h i s s t u dy  | 127

much part of the elite. The double use of avkou,w is a rhetorical device of the author to drive home the significance of hearing and the dire need of the Laodiceans to hear correctly and obey. Throughout this study the honour of the informed audience is being questioned. Honour is the public admission of one’s social standing. One could possess either ascribed honour which is inherited from one’s family, or alternately acquired honour which is normally conferred on the basis of virtuous deeds.1 In addition, honour is a claim to worth along with the social acknowledgement of worth. It serves as “social rating that entitles a person to interact in specific ways with his or her equals, superiors, and subordinates, according to the prescribed cultural cues of the society.”2 The prophet-performer is hence calling the audience to forsake flirting with Jezebel and Rome and to follow Christ the Risen Lord. Work in chapter 5 included providing a sound map of Rev. 1 and the analysis of the map by looking at the repetition of words, sound style, quality and patterns. This close analysis of the text highlighted interesting patterns that ancient listeners would have discerned and appropriated. Six key themes emerged from the aural and performance analysis of Rev. 1. These include the centrality of God, the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the markers of slave, witness and priest, the centrality of the book of Daniel, the emphasis on the last days and the time of fulfillment and the heavenly assessment of the day to day realities the audience were encountering. The social and ideological markers of slave, witness and priest take on the additional function of identity markers. They specifically point to how the audience would understand themselves. In relation to the identity markers it was mentioned that the terms slave, witness and priest point the audience to their relationship to Jesus. The concepts of witness and priest also refer to the audience’s relationship with the world. Jesus Christ in turn is the embodiment of what it means to be a slave, a priest and a witness. He is the role model for the early Christians and he empowers them with his Spirit to fulfil these roles. The aural-performance analysis of Rev. 11 strengthened the understanding of the role of the early Christians as witnesses. This was accomplished with the notion of the two witnesses, however, the cost involved in being a witness is brought to the fore in a shocking manner. It would require possible martyrdom (Rev. 11:5–7). The use of the construct of audience marker assisted in the development of theological, ideological, social and structural insights. Ideological markers functioned mostly in a polemical context. For example, the notion of “alpha and omega” was understood by the informed audience to point to revelatory magic whilst John enlisted the term to refer to Christ. The feature of throne also functioned in this combative context of pointing to the throne of the emperor for the informed

128 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

audience while by the same token evoking the notion of God’s throne for the competent audience. Structural markers guided in the development of the various periods. They are content laden. For example, the structural marker of kai. ble,pousin evk tw/n law/n (And some of the peoples) which forms part of period 8 line 1 in the analysis of Rev. 11 governs what unfolds in the following lines of this period. Eventually they “will not allow their corpses to be placed in a tomb” (period 8 line 5). Another example is the marker of seismo.j that occurs in period 12 line 1 and again in line 3. Structural markers inform the audience of what lay ahead in the period. Interestingly, the social marker of slave in Rev. 1 developed deeper theological insights. While some of the aforementioned insights are also drawn by other commentators the manner in which they emerged in this study hopefully sheds fresh light on how a hearing community would have appropriated the text.

Aurality and Collective Identity Ancient hearers were under enormous pressure to conform to the dictates of the empire in their day to day life and to abandon their commitment to Christ. Complacency and spiritual lethargy had penetrated the Christian communities of Ephesus and Sardis while compromise had made serious inroads into the assemblies of Pergamum and Thyatira, threatening to tear them apart. The pursuit of worldly interests dominated the Laodicean church and threatened to engulf their vision of Christ. The very identity of these fledgling communities was at stake as outside pressure and internal conflict ensnared them. The collective identity of the early Christians would have been strengthened by the aural-performance of the Apocalypse. Collective identity constitutes a fundamental feature of human existence. The concept of collective identity refers to people’s sense of belonging to the group. For the individual the identity derived from the group or collective shapes and informs a part of his or her personal identity. It is possible, at times, that this sense of connectedness to a particular group will be so strong that it will trump other aspects of the person’s personal identity. Collective identity is the idea that through participating in social activities individuals can gain a sense of belonging and in essence an “identity” that transcends the individual. In recent decades social theorists have come to understand collective identities as social constructs.3 These identities are dynamic social phenomenon rather than static identities and hence the notion of communal identity must be continually constructed and indeed reconstructed in the face of ever-changing circumstances.

summary and impl i c at i o n s o f t h i s s t u dy  | 129

The aural-performance analysis we have undertaken in this study suggests that hearing and experiencing the Apocalypse functioned as an instrument of communal identity formation. In gathering to hear Revelation ancient listeners are invited into a symbolic universe and are persuaded to locate themselves within it. This aurally constructed world provides the basis for proper attitudes and behaviours called for in Rev. 1 and 11. Even though Maier suggested that the references to “seeing” point to the coercive power of Greco-Roman society it was argued that the notion of hearing was given primacy over the concept of seeing in Revelation. Hearing leads to obedience. Aurality functions therefore as a form of resistance. It provides an alternative to the stories and traditions that pointed to the use of icons, coins, images and vision in communicating and in imposing Roman hegemony. The audio-centric nature of Revelation challenges the visio-centric forms of imperial propaganda in the seven cities of Asia Minor. The prophet-performer challenged and exhorted the early Christians not to insert themselves into the Roman picture being drawn by the emperor and the mechanisms of the empire. Communal identity involves a perception of similarity and difference between one group of people and another. This sense of similarity and difference arises from social relations. Whenever human beings interact in social relations similarities and differences become apparent and generate group identities. Collective identity is therefore “the product of collective internal identity, collective in the sense that the group itself acknowledges this perception of similarity.”4 The prophet-performer identified the Asian Christians as slaves of Christ, as witnesses and as priests. Each of these self-designations pointed to different facets of life that the ancient listeners encountered in the seven cities of Asia Minor. The notion of slaves of Christ identified and contrasted the early Christians with the larger populace; the notion of witnesses of Christ identified and juxtaposed them with the Roman judicial system; and the idea of priests of God connected and distinguished them from the imperial cult. Their collective identity as slaves, witnesses and priests set them in direct opposition to the forces that sought to mold and shape them into conformity to their society. However, this aural-performance analysis is not just about resistance to the empire but also careful engagement within and with it as well. The notion of slaves, witnesses and priests calls for responsible alignment with the Greco-Roman world and its values in a way that demonstrates not just the distinctiveness of Christian faith but also its attractiveness.

130 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Aural-Performance, Narrative and Collective Memory The performance and aural reception of Revelation does not just strengthen and clarify collective identity but also the notion of collective memory.5 In chapter 2 I demonstrated the importance of memory in ancient media culture. In the ancient world memory was pivotal for communities to maintain and strengthen their identities; know their place in the world; and to be able to pass on their values to the next generation. I have also demonstrated that memory is closely allied with both performance and aurality. Scholarly work on the Apocalypse, since it has focused on traditional historical exegesis, has neglected the influence and impact of narrative and memory for understanding the social, cultural and theologial issues and challenges the early Christians were facing in Asia Minor. There is a profound inter-relationship between identity, experience, memory and narrative. “Without the binding force of memory, experience would be splintered into as many fragments as there are moments in life” states Eric Kandel.6 Furthermore, according to Fentress and Wickham, “Memories have their own specific grammar and can (must) be analysed as narratives; but they also have functions, and can (must) also be analysed in a functionalist manner, as guides, whether uniform or contradictory, to social identity.”7 Identity is therefore constructed by remembering narratives from the past. The performance of the Apocalypse would have reinforced the stories and traditions from the Scriptures that had shaped and inspired God’s people for centuries.8 John is therefore a narrative leader who used the Old Testament to create a “story-formed community”—a community that connects to stories that would serve as a vehicle to direct, inform and guide the fledgling Christian communities in Asia Minor.9 According to Larry Goleman, “good narrative work revitalizes tradition by generating practices that re-embody that tradition for a new place and time.”10 He contends that tradition means the scriptural, moral, liturgical and theological norms and customs that are passed down from generation to generation in a self-conscious way. Similarly John does his narrative work by intentionally retrieving, constructing, transforming and engaging with the Old Testament narratives through the prophet-performer.11 Ancient listeners hear the Old Testament background stories like Daniel 2 and 7 in Rev. 1 and the later stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection. On the basis of the performance of Rev. 11 the early Christian listeners would remember the stories of the Day of Atonement in Israel’s history and those of Moses and Elijah. The notion of the trumpet blowing in Rev. 11:15 would have brought to mind the story of the fall of Jericho for the competent audience.

summary and impl i c at i o n s o f t h i s s t u dy  | 131

As the prophet-performer performs the message of Revelation the competent audience are transformed by this collective experience as part of their history is re-enacted. More well known Scriptural passages would have impacted the minimal and informed audience. Not only would these Scriptural allusions bring stories to mind for the competent audience but they served John’s larger purpose, namely, to use the Scriptures to strengthen collective memory and Christian identity. The concept of collective memory is about “how minds work together in society, how their operations are not simply mediated but are structured by social relations.”12 Collective memory is framed in the past and in the present and is thus more variable than constant. It is a social enterprise and it is in the context of social relationships that people acquire, recall, recognize and localize their memories. Collective memory is structured by language, teaching, observation, collectively held ideas and shared experiences with others. The worship setting of Revelation in which the message of Revealation was performed would have hence built the identity and collective memory of the Christian community.

Performance as a Social Act The prophet-performer would have internalized the message of Revelation by reading through it a number of times before it was presented to the house churches. A clear rhetorical gain of this approach to the text is that the voice of John has been submerged beneath the voice of the performer. Further, the performance encounter is strengthened by the fact that there are a range of voices in the Apocalypse. We find the voice of Christ, angels, the Spirit and other supernatural beings who speak through the prophet-performer to the audience. The prophet-performer is therefore the mouthpiece of John. By speaking through the prophet-performer John causes more authoritative figures to confront his audience. As early as Rev. 1:4 the prophet-performer assumes the voice of God by issuing grace and peace to the congregations. The language we hear and how we hear it has a strong effect on the way we understand the world.13 P. Berger and T. Luckmann assert that “language conveys social structure.”14 Performance is a social act that has implications for the early Christians and how we understand their social development and relationship to society. It therefore has sociological consequences. The early Christians are being enticed to succumb to the dictates of John’s opponents in the churches and to the intra-church conflicts that were threatening to destroy these flegling communities. Through the act of performance John is able to guide the emotions as well as the thoughts and will of these Christian communities since these qualites are learned

132 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

in communication.15 Disorder in the Christian communities originates in disorder in communication.16 Not only is John able to guide the inner life of the community but he is also able to oversee their social development. Performance strengthens social order by being personified and dramatized.17 Maintaining social order within the early Christian community and its relationship to the world is of critical importance for John as he believes it is necessary for their survival and indeed growth. According to Duncan, “from a sociological view the drama of community is a drama of authority, a struggle by those in power, or those seeking power, to control symbols that are already powerful, or to create new symbols that will make orderly relationships that cannot be made orderly through the use of traditional or sacred symbols.”18 Both Rome and Jezebel exploit certain symbols and use these to ridicule, manipulate and indeed over-power the Asian Christians. John is not able to neutralize these onslaughts through the prophet-performer but he is able to offer a powerful alternative voice in the midst of all the clanging symbols of Roman hegemony and unorthodox thinking. Further, Duncan states that “social order is also expressed in some kind of hierarchy.”19 Since hiearchy functions through persuasion the act of performance enables John to reach the Christians with his message in a winsome manner and to maintain order in the seven communities. John is given equal status with that of God and Jesus in the performance and so the Christians are being exhorted to listen to John and follow his message through the voice of the prophet-performer.

Re-hearing Revelation Scholars have traditionally examined the Apocalypse from a historical-critical, preterist, historicist, idealist or futurist perspective. These approaches, especially the historical-critical approach, have proven beneficial in the interpretation of Revelation and have provided rewarding results. However, meaning-making has been limited to the relationship between the interpreter, the reader and the author. This study has attempted to refocus the scholarly discussion on the prophetperformer and the ancient listeners and the impact of the text on these hearers. By shifting the focus to the ancient hearers and the prophet-performer it is hoped a new paradigm has been created in which fruitful discussion can take place on how the message of Revelation would have been appropriated not just by the ancient hearing community but also how it can be adopted by the contemporary audience. Re-hearing Revelation in the contempory setting means that interpreters have to reposition themselves not as interpreters that read a text but rather as listeners

summary and impl i c at i o n s o f t h i s s t u dy  | 133

that seek to hear afresh the message of Revelation. It means that interpreters need to engage their faith communities in a communal experience that moves the interpretation of the Apocalypse not just to individual responses but also to community responses.20 Re-hearing Revelation also means that hearers are called to action in light of what they hear. It is not passive hearing that Revelation calls its hearers to but rather hearing that leads to obedience.

Notes

Introduction and Procedure 1. Important monographs and commentaries published in the last two decades include the following: Robert L. Thomas, Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, 3 vols. (Chicago: Moody, 1992–95); Heinz Giesen, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1997); David E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., WBC, 52A-C (Dallas: Word, 1997–98); Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002); Gerhard Maier, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 2 vols.; HTA (Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus; Giessen: Brunnen, 2009–11); Akira Satake, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008) and Louis Brighton. Significant recent monographs include Stephen Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure and Exegesis, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Sigve Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmological Narratives of Revelation (London: T&T Clark, 2006); Franz Tóth, Der Himmlische Kult: Wirklichkeitskonstruktion und Sinnbildung iin der Johannesoffenbarung (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006); David Andrew Thomas, Revelation 19 in Historical and Mythological Context, Studies in Biblical Literature 118 (New York: Peter Lang, 2008); David A. de Silva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009); David L. Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse, LBS 4 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010); Alan S. Bandy, The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010); Derek Daschke, City of

136 

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Ruins: Mourning the Destruction of Jerusalem through Jewish Apocalypse (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010); Leif Hongisto, Experiencing the Apocalypse at the Limits of Alterity (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010); Kayle B. de Waal, A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation: The Apocalyptic Challenge to Earthly Empire (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2012); Matthew Streett, Here Comes the Judge: Violent Pacifism in the Book of Revelation, LNTS 462 (London: T&T Clark, 2012). For a thorough review of more recent developments in Revelation studies see, Grant R. Osborne, “Recent Trends in the Study of the Apocalypse” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, (eds.) Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne (Grand Rapids: Baker; Leicester: Apollos, 2004), 473–504. For a review of the major approaches preceding the last two decades, see Adela Yarbro Collins, “Reading the book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century,” Int 40 (1986):229–42 and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Revelation” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, (eds.) Eldon J. Epp and George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 407–27. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT, Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 43. See also Craig S. Keener, Revelation, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 56, who admits that even in urban centres “many people could not read much,” and Pieter J. J. Botha, “Mute Manuscripts: Analysing a Neglected Aspect of Ancient Communication,” Theologia Evangelica 23 (1990):23–47. John D. Harvey, “Orality and Its implications for Biblical Studies: Recapturing an Ancient Paradigm,” JETS 45 (2002): 99. According to Joanna Dewey, “Textualilty in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions,” Semeia 65 (1994): 37–65 (37), “in studying the development of early Christianity, scholars have on the whole assumed that the first-century media world functioned much as our modern print media world does, giving priority to logical linear thinking and to written texts;” and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, “The Social Location of the Markan Audience,” Int (1993):380–95 (381), writes “Among both classicists and New Testament scholars, there has been a longstanding tendency to imagine widespread literacy during the Roman period. It has been claimed that schools were common and that at least elementary education was broadly available.” L. W. Hurtado and C. Keith, “Writing and Book Production in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” The New Cambridge History of the Bible: The Bible, From the Beginnings to 600, eds. J. C. Paget and J. Schaper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 63–80. A. Y. Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 144. An example of others who reach similar conclusions to Collins include: R. H. Charles, Revelation, ICC, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 6; D. Barr, “The Apocalypse as Oral Enactment,” Int 40 (1984): 243–256; David Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1997), 20–21 and S. Pattermore, The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure and Exegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 53. Peter S. Perry, The Rhetoric of Digressions: Revelation 7:1–17 and 10:1–11:13 and Ancient Communication, WUNT 268 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 3. Cf. Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2002), 13.

n ot e s  | 137

8. While the term Old Testament is used here there was obviously no Old Testament in the first-century world but only the Jewish Scriptures. I use the term Old Testament since it is part of the Christian canon. 9. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 2nd Edition (Minnepolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 197. Cf. G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, JSNTSup 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 61. 10. Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (New York: Macmillan Company, 1906; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), cxl–clviii, suggests that of the 404 verses in the book, 278 of them have allusions to the Old Testament. 11. This is a summary of a whole range of ideas scholars have put forward in relation to constructs to interpret allusions in Revelation. Jeffrey Vogelgesang, “The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1987), 15–16, provides five criteria for discovering a direct literary dependence on Old Testament texts (specifically Ezekiel): “patterns of thought, unique material, striking verbal similarities, exegetical detail and structural dependence;” Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), 43, proposed three categories of allusions in determining degrees of dependence between two literary works. These are clear allusion, probable allusion (with more varied wording), and possible allusion or echo; Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets, 171, suggested that Old Testament allusions can be classified into two categories: direct allusion and echo; Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development, JSNTSup 93 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 15, attempts to consider all the allusions from Isaiah in the book of Revelation and categorises them into ‘certain/virtually certain,’ ‘probable/possible’ and ‘unlikely/doubtful.’ 12. See Beale, John’s Use for an author-centred perspective and Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, JSNTSup 115 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), for a reader-centred perspective. Moyise questions any reading of Revelation that attempts to take into account the intention of John. See Steve Moyise, “Does the Author of Revelation Misappropriate the Scriptures?” AUSS 40 (2002): 3–21 and Idem., “Authorial Intention and the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 39 (2001): 35–40. 13. Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 116, comments that “Revelation is to be associated with urban life in the province of Asia…The social and political institutions and arrangments in those cities of Asia are the backdrop for Revelation;” and Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, xii-xiii, in reference to interpreting the book of Revelation states that “the political and economic history of Revelation’s context becomes essential to its adequate interpretation.” 14. Perry, The Rhetoric of Digressions. 15. Sean Michael Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries: Education Informing Cosmology in Revelation 9, LNTS 448 (London: T & T Clark, 2012). 16. The call for a hermeneutic of hearing is not new. Theorists and philosophers have placed hearing as the key to interpretation. See Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1975), 238, 266–67, 419–21; Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons

138 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 297–324; idem, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 24–33, 344–47 and 558–60; Kevin Van Hoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 28–32, 199–228. There have also been advocates in biblical studies for the need to hear the text faithfully. See Ben Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament (Allison Park: Pickwick, 1989), 17–49; Richard Hays, “Salvation by Trust: Reading the Bible Faithfully,” Christian Century 114 (1997): 218–223; and Gordon D. Fee, “Exegesis and Spirituality: Completing the Circle,” in Listening to the Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 3–15. While I endorse all of the aforementioned views on the importance of hearing Scripture this study aims to assess how the ancient listeners would have heard the text so the focus is not on the contemporary person or interpreter who in the aforementioned works are the focus of hearing.

Chapter 1—Literature Review and Methodology 1. Robert Stein, “Is Our Reading the Bible the same as the Original Audience’s Hearing It? A Case Study in the Gospel of Mark,” JETS 46/1 (2003): 63–78 (71), states: “It is my thesis that the NT writers understood their intended audience not so much as individual readers but as a corporate audience of hearers.” Stein bemoans the recently published collection of essays entitled Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation in which “hearing” is understood not in the sense of “hearing something read out loud” but metaphorically for “heeding” or “understanding.” He asserts that the whole volume does not deal at all with “hearing” the New Testament but rather “reading” the New Testament. According to David Rhoads, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies—Part II,” BTB (2006):1–21 (1), “the overwhelming experience of the earliest Christians was oral/aural in the context of a predominantly oral culture.” See also P. J. Achtemeier, “Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 109 (1990):3–27 and Joanna Dewey, “Mark as Aural Narrative: Structures as Clues to Understanding,” STRev 36 (1992): 45–65. 2. John Sweet, Revelation, NTC (London: SCM Press, 1979), 14. While this comment is helpful the notion that there was no picture created in the mind of the ancient hearer will be questioned. 3. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 420, follows Aristotle, On Sense and Sensible Objects 437a, and Metaphysics 980b in granting primacy to hearing and arguing that it is the most important of the senses since by it we can order our world. 4. Dictation was the normal mode used by the ancients to compose any text. Pliny, Natural History 7.25.91b, LCL, trans. H. Rackham (Cambridge: Harvard University Press) states that Julius Caesar used to dictate four letters at once to his secretaries or even seven letters simultaneously. So also Plutarch, Caesar 17.3b, LCL, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919). Dio Chrysostom, Orations 18.18, LCL, trans. J. W. Cohoon (London: Heinemann, 1932) preferred dictation to writing in his own hand. See the comments in William Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: London: Harvard University Press, 1989), 36, and Rosaland Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 91.

n ot e s  | 139

5. Leonard Thompson, “The Mythic Unity of the Apocalypse,” in SBL Seminar Papers, (ed.) Kent Harold Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 13–28; Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 31, 55; James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, SNTSMS 54 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 87; and Frederick Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 8–32, has a discussion on the unity of Revelation and various theories of redaction. He presents arguments for the strong scholarly consensus in favor of the book’s unity. This follows his conclusion that “John was the sole author of the book” and that “major redaction …is quite out of the question” (especially 32). Contra Aune, Revelation 1–5, cxviii-cxxxiv, who divides the writing of Revelation into three stages produced for a variety of reasons over a twenty or thirty year period. The author later combined the separate tracts into a single document. For some interesting propositions in the 19th century on the issue of Revelation’s unity, see the review by Wilhelm Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906), 109–10. 6. See the article by Felise Tavo, “The Structure of the Apocalypse: Re-Examining a Perennial Problem,” NovT 47 (2005):47–68, in which he argues that the views of A. Yarbro Collins, E. S. Fiorenza and Jan Lambrecht are not mutually exclusive. Taking their views into account he also addresses the issue of the structure of the book of Revelation from the perspective of its oral-aural setting. 7. David L. Barr, “The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment,” Int 40 (1986): 243–56. 8. Ibid., 243. 9. Drawing on the seminal work of William Ramsay, Barr, “The Apocalypse as an Oral Enactment,” 245, contends “that anyone familiar with the geography of Asia Minor would have no difficulty keeping these seven in the proper order, for they are presented in the geographical order beginning at Ephesus, the nearest to Patmos, and proceeding in a circle along the Roman postal road.” 10. Casey W. Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, JSNTSup 172 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 98–104. 11. Ibid., 63. 12. John D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters, ETS Studies (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Baker/Apollos, 1998), 301. 13. Interestingly, Harvey detailed four key factors in the writings of the first-century CE. These included (1) the oral development of the message (entailing dictation, rather than silent writing or writing for the eye to read); (2) the writing format establishing the same oral “presence” of the writer to the audience; (3) the thought patterns involved in such writing; and (4) and the fact that the writings would be read aloud in their circulation to the relevant communities. 14. The literature in this field is slowly growing. See for example: Richard Horsley and Jonathan A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999); Pieter J. J. Botha, Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, Vol. 5 (Eugene: Cascade, 2012); James A Maxey and Ernst R. Wendland (eds.), Translating Scripture for Sound and Performance: New Directions in Biblical Studies, Vol. 6 (Eugene: Cascade, 2012); Annekie Joubert, The Power of Performance (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,

140 

15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

2004) and Kelly R. Iverson, “A Centurion’s “Confession”: A Performance-Critical Analysis of Mark 15:39,” JBL (2011): 329–50. Other similar approaches are also evolving in the academic guild. See W. Doan and T. Giles, “Masking God—Application of Drama Theory to Biblical Texts,” in Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bible Societies, Vol. 22, (ed.). B. Fiore (Buffalo: EGLMBS, 2002); Peter Erlenwein, “Bibliodrama: A Modern Body-Mind Hermeneutics,” Asia Journal of Theology 16 (2002):327–40; Annaliese Hect, “Bibliodrama and Exegesis,” Dei Verbum 66/67 (2003):6–10. While Rhoads has developed the methodology and recently brought it to the attention of scholars the idea of performing the text may go back further though to Charlotte I. Lee, Oral Reading of the Scriptures (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974). Rhoads, “Performance Criticism,” 1. Ibid., 2. James Maxey, “Performance Criticism and Its Implications for Bible Translation,” Paper presented in the group Bible in Ancient and Modern Media (San Diego: SBL, November, 2007), 1–36 (6). Rhoads, “Performance Criticism,” 4. Ibid. Ibid., 168. For a critique of performance criticism see Larry W. Hurtado, “Oral Fixation and New Testament Studies? ‘Orality’, ‘Performance’ and Reading Texts in Early Christianity,” NTS 60 (2014):321–340. Hurtado’s critiques point to an oversimplication and indeed an error of rates of literacy, an overemphasis on memorization and the exclusion of non-elites to education and reading. I will continue responding to Hurtado as this study unfolds since his is a fresh critique of performance criticism. Mathews, Performing Habakkuk, 59. Ibid., 65. Ibid., 71. Ibid. Bernhard Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe, WUNT 296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Ibid., 65. Oestreich points to Timothy (1 Cor 4:17), Titus (2 Cor 2:12–13; 8:16–24), Tychicus (Col 4:7–9) and others. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 66. Scriptio continua is the term give to the format of ancient writing since it lacked visual aids such as punctuation and word, sentence and paragraph divisions. See further Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 203–4. Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe, 67. He cites Rev 1:3 to support his claims. Ibid. Ibid., 68. Ibid., 70. Giles and Doan, “Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,” 278–82.

n ot e s  | 141

36. Holly E. Hearon, “From Narrative to Performance: Methodological Considerations and Interpretive Moves,” Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect, (eds.) Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 217. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid. 41. Margaret Ellen Lee and Bernard Brandon Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament (Salem: Polebridge Press, 2009), 1. This approach is developing a profile in biblical scholarship, see Margaret E. Dean, “The Grammar of Sound in Greek Texts: Toward a Method for Mapping the Echoes of Speech in Writing,” ABR 44 (1996): 53–70 and Nina E. Livesey, “Sounding Out the Heirs of Abraham (Rom 4:9–12),” Oral Tradition 27/1 (2012): 273–290. 42. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament, 3. 43. Ibid., 385. 44. Ibid., 11–165. 45. Ibid., 199–384. 46. Ibid., 158. 47. Ibid., 136. 48. Ibid. 49. Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981), 39, quoted in Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 136. 50. Thomas McCreesh, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10–29, JSOTSup 128 (Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). 51. Ibid., 24–50. 52. Ibid., 51–63. 53. Ibid., 64–74. 54. Ibid., 75–118. 55. Ibid., 119–53. 56. Harvey, Listening to the Text, 99. Harvey contends that chiasmus serves to make ideas and concepts memorable. As an aid to memory, it functions in at least three ways: 1) emphasis, 2) comparison and 3) contrast. 57. See Kenneth Strand, “Chiastic Structure and Some Motifs in the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 16 (1978): 401–408 and William Shea, “Chiasm in Theme and by Form in Revelation 18,” AUSS 20 (1982): 249–256. Recently, David A. deSilva, “X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses of Revelation,” JSNT 30 (2008):343–71, asserts that previous attempts to develop chiasmus are problematic because of the selective choices of interpreters, in terms of summary statements, key terms and manipulating formal markers. 58. Stein, “Is Our Reading the Bible the same as the Original Audience’s Hearing It? A Case Study in the Gospel of Mark,” 74, is of the same opinion. John Paul Heil, Phillippians: Let Us Rejoice in Being Conformed to Christ, SBL Early Christianity and Its Literature 3 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 12 writes: “Since chiasms were apparently very common in ancient oral-auricular and rhetorical cultures, the original ancient audience may and need not have

142 

59.

60. 61.

62.

63.

64.

65. 66.

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

been consciously identifying or reflecting upon any of the chiastic structures in themselves as they heard them.” Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 175, suggest that sound mapping in macro units operates in concert with other literary devices. This suggests that chiasmus and literary parallel structures, since they function more effectively at a macro level also require other constructs, for example repetition, to be recognizable for ancient hearers. Jan Schnupp, Israel Nelken, and Andrew King (eds.), Auditory Neuroscience: Making Sense of Sound (London: MIT Press, 2011), ix. I refer here to the physiological attributes that make us all human beings. See the helpful discussion in Anwar S. Dil (ed.), Language, Culture and Education: Essays by Norman A. McQuown (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982), 1–4. Petri Luomanen, Ilkka Pyysiäinen, Risto Uro (eds.), Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science, Biblical Interpretation Series 89 (Leiden, Boston : Brill, 2007); Yoon Man Park, Mark’s Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1–3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010 ); David A. DeSilva, “Seeing things John’s Way: Rhetography and Conceptual Blending in Revelation 14:6– 13,” BBR 18 (2008): 271–298. De Silva develops his ideas on conceptual blending from Vernon Robbins who has introduced the idea in his socio-rhetorical interpretation. He is indebted to the work of Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002). For the application of conceptual blending theory in a sociorhetorical framework, see Robert von Thaden, “Fleeing Porneia: 1 Corinthians 6.12–7.7 and the Reconfiguration of Traditions” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 2007) and Vernon K. Robbins, “Conceptual Blending and Early Christian Imagination,” in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism, 161–95. According to Laurie Lundy-Ekman, Neuroscience: Fundamentals for Rehabilitation (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1998), 300, “the auditory system is concerned with the orientation of the head and eyes toward sound; increases the activity level throughout the central nervous system and provides conscious awareness and recognition of sounds.” Auditory neuroscience covers areas like how the ear functions; the effect of periodicity and pitch perception; how we hear language and speech; the neural basis of sound localization; and auditory scene analysis. For a thorough discussion see David R. Moore (chief editor), The Oxford Handbook of Auditory Science: Hearing, Vol. 3, (ed.) Christopher J. Plack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Stephen McAdams and Emmanuel Bigand, “Introduction to Auditory Cognition,” in Thinking in Sound: The Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition, (eds.) Stephen McAdams and Emmanuel Bigand (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 1. The term lector is used at this stage since I will articulate an argument for the prophet-performer who performs Revelation in chapter 3. For a discussion on how we hear as humans see Jan Schnupp, Israel Nelken, and Andrew King (eds.), Auditory Neuroscience: Making Sense of Sound (London: MIT Press, 2011), 64–65 and Egbert de Boer and Alfred L. Nuttall, “Cochlear Mechanics, Tuning and Non-

n ot e s  | 143

67.

68.

69.

70. 71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82.

83. 84. 85.

Linearities,” in David R. Moore (chief editor), The Oxford Handbook of Auditory Science: The Ear, Vol. 1, (ed.) Paul A. Fuchs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 139–77. In a stimulating article Ugo Vanni, “Liturgical Dialogue in the Book of Revelation,” NTS 37 (1991):348–72 (371), suggests that the audience would have had to “process” the message they heard. Steven Johnson, Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life (New York: Scribner, 2004); Stanley Greenspan and Stuart Shanker, The First Idea: How Symbols, Language, and Intelligence Evolved from Our Primate Ancestors to Modern Humans (Cambridge: De Capo Press, 2004); Benjamin Bergen, Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning (New York: Basic, 2012). Sandra E. Trehub and Laurel J. Trainor, “Listening Strategies in Infancy: The Roots of Music and Language Development” in Thinking in Sound : The Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition, ed. S. McAdams and E. Bigand (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 278–327. Bergen, Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning, 35. Ibid. It is important to recognize that we use the term “allusion” to provide clarity and direction for our understanding and that it is a contemporary literary term but for the ancient hearing community it was just a few words that came out of the mouth of the prophet-performer that triggered a whole range of associations. Werner Kelber, “Orality and Biblical Studies: A Review Essay,” Review of Biblical Literature, (2007): 19. Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), 104–9. Ibid. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament, 167. Jeffrey E. Brickle, Aural Design and Coherence in the Prologue of First John (London: T & T Clark, 2012), 18. Ibid. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament, 167. Casey Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism, 60. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament, 176. According to Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament, 176–78, “Euphony refers to the aesthetic quality of phonemes and syllables and the overall auditory impact of a series of sounds.” On the other hand “cacophony refers to unpleasant sounds or a displeasing overall effect.” Finally they state that “onomatopoeia privileges sounds by imitating sounds of the entity or event being described, thus placing the signifier and the signified in concert.” Kai. implies that there is a Greek word that follows. Since there is not one I use the dexicon form. Hearon, “From Narrative to Performance: Methodological Considerations and Interpretive Moves,” 217. Kenneth J. Thomas, “Seeking a Methodology for Exegetical Checking of Audio Scripture,” Bible Translator 41 (1990):301–311 (302).

144 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Chapter 2—The Authorial Audience and the Culture in John’s World 1. See further: Steven J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Leiden: Brill, 1993); idem., Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); L. L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990); Nelson J. Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse, JSNTSup 132 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Earlier scholars generally assumed that Domitian instituted empire-wide persecution. For examples see: M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St John (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940), xxxix–xl; T. F. Glasson, The Revelation of John (Cambridge: CUP, 1965), 6–9; G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 8. One of the reasons given was that the titles “saviour” and “benefactor” were applied to Domitian. Further ancient sources like Pliny the Younger (60–115), Tacitus (55–120) and Seutonius (75–135) portrayed him as an incompetent ruler who demanded that he be worshipped as “dominus et deus noster” (Our Lord and God). Paul Duff, Who Rides the Beast? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3–16, put forward a number of ideas that have been raised in the history of scholarship in relation to the notion of persecution. He argued that: 1) some suggest that persecution did exist even though there is not enough external evidence to support this; 2) the date of Revelation is more likely early (in the reign of Nero) when there was persecution; 3) the Christians in Asia Minor perceived hostility against themselves; 4) there was no crisis whatsoever and 5) the crisis, if there was one, resulted from intra-church conflict. Duff aligns his work with point 5. 2. As early as 1984 this traditional view of empire-wide persecution was questioned (see Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 54–110). The final nail in the coffin of this view came about with the landmark work of Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) in which he argued for local sporadic harassment of the early Christians in Asia Minor but not systemic empire-wide persecution. His two main points were 1) it is the anti-Flavian writers that sought to curry favour with the new emperor Trajan by disparaging Domitian and painting him in the worst possible light; 2) all the available evidence, namely, epigraphic, biographic and numismatic that is contemporary with Domitian portray him fairly. See further Thompson, Book of Revelation, 97–101; Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 69–73 and Aune, Revelation 1–5, ixvii. 3. According to Leonard Bloomfield, “Speech Communities,” in Lucy Burke, Tony Crowley and Alan Girvin (eds.), The Routledge Language and Cultural Theory Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 261, “a speech community is a group of people who interact by means of speech.” See further Nancy Parrott Hickerson, Linguistic Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980), 81. 4. Two widely accepted dates for Revelation have been accepted among scholars: an early date during or shortly after the reign of Nero 54–68 CE or a late date during the reign of Domitian 81–96 CE. For a full discussion that favours the late date see further Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT 17 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 19–24.

n ot e s  | 145

5. For a discussion about these various buildings see Friesen, Imperial Cults, 43–52; 1Eph 3.621, 633, 661; 1 Eph 2.508; 4.1104. 6. Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse, 63. 7. E.P. Janzen, “The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Clothes,” in SBL Seminar Papers, ed. E.H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 656–657. 8. Scott, Imperial Cult, 126–32, cited in Carter, Toward in Imperial Critical Reading, 306. 9. I. Carradice, Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96, BAR International Series 178 (Oxford: B.A.R., 1983), 170. Other arguments for Domitian seeking divinity can be found in Janzen, “The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Clothes,” 645. 10. There is some debate about whether or not Patmos was a penal colony. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 78 and Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 143, note that Patmos had a gymnasium and a temple of Artemis. Aune further notes that there is no Roman evidence to indicate that Patmos was a prison settlement, disagreeing with Bousset, Die Offenbaring Johannis, 192, H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of John (London: Macmillan and Co., 1906; reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1998), 12; Charles, Revelation, Vol. 1, 21; Caird, Revelation, 21–23; and H. Kraft, Die Offenbaring des Johannes, HNT 16a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974), 40. Beale, Revelation, 200–01, does not discuss whether Patmos was a penal colony or not but from his comments I presume he aligns himself with traditional scholarship on this point. 11. This is a minority view. See Howard-Brook and Gwyther, Unveiling Empire, xxvii; Witherington, The Book of Revelation, 9. 12. Clement, Quis div salv. 42; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.23.5–19. 13. William M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, reprint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 183, states that “all the Seven Cities stand on the great circular road that bound together the most populous, wealthy, and influential part of the Province, the west-central region.” Indeed Ramsay, The Letters, 191, maintains that “they were the best points on the circuit to serve as centres of communication with the seven districts” that were part of the wider geography of these cities. 14. For an excellent discussion of the seven cities in their Greco-Asian context see Roland Worth, Jr. The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture (New York: Paulist Press, 1999). For a thorough discussion on Ephesus see Paul Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, WUNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 15. Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd edition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 29–59 and Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 51–79. Contra Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, 202 who perceives the Christian community comprised of only “the lower ranks of society.” This was the view of earlier scholars like Beckwith. This view was first challenged by E. A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale, 1960), 52–4, 60–1, who studied the names and occupations of the early Christians and asserted that they were a cross-section of society. 16. S. J. Friesen, “Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation,” JSNT 27 (2005): 351–373 (353). 17. Duff, Who Rides the Beast?

146 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

18. Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 66. 19. Joanna Dewey, “Textuality in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions,” 38. 20. Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John (Peabody/London: Hendrickson/Continuum, 2006), 15. 21. John Paul Heil, Hebrews: Chiastic Structures and Audience Response, CBQMS 46 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2010); idem., The Meal Scenes in Luke Acts: An Audience-Oriented Approach, SBLMS (Atlanta: SBL, 1999); W. Carter and J. P. Heil, Matthew’s Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspectives, CBQMS 30 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1998), 9–14; Warren Carter, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 3–4, 9, who states his indebtedness to Rabinowitz, and P. J. Rabinowitz, Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 15–46. 22. Rabinowitz, “Truth in Fiction,” 126; cf. Rabinowitz, “Whirl without End: Audience-Oriented Criticism,” in Contemporary Literary Theory (eds.) G. D. Atkins and L. Morrow (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1989), 85. 23. Robbins, Tapestry, 34, 37. 24. Rabinowitz, “Whirl without End,” 84. 25. Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1990), 19. Significant works and comment on the implied reader include: Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974); idem, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978); R. Alan Culpepper, ‘The Implied Reader,’ in Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 209–210; and Staley, The Print’s First Kiss. 26. See Aune, Revelation 1–5, xlix. 27. John Paul Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians, Studies in Biblical Literature (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 5. 28. The assertion that there is a diversity of responses to any piece of literature in the New Testament documents is nothing novel. On the mixed character of the Markan audience for example see David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 59–60. 29. The idea for varied audience responses to the text of Revelation comes from Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 68–69. 30. See Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries of Vision, 5–6 for similar ideas. He has developed the idea of hearer-constructs. He also posits two hearer-constructs, one educated and the other uneducated. His analysis is thorough and creative. I am, however, extending the constructs used bv Christopher Stanley and applying them to Revelation. 31. The term “mental library” is from Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries, 5. 32. Ibid. 33. Robert M. Royalty Jr., The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 19, says that “the audience would have included a wide variety of educational and social levels, a fair cross section of urban society in Asia at the end of the first century.” Furthermore, there is certainly room for further groupings

n ot e s  | 147

34.

35. 36.

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

even within these three heuristic groups. One example of another sub-set within a group can simply be based on the various capacities people within these groups would have for hearing. See M. Grassi, “The role of auditory abilities in basic mechanisms of cognition in older adults,” Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, October 2014, Vol 5, pp. 59, in which he argued that the auditory abilities (i.e., the ability to discriminate frequency, duration, timbre, and the ability to detect amplitude modulation) explained a significant part of the variance observed in processing the speed with which older adults heard. Tomas Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford; Blackwell, 1983), 90–91, has also argued that most of those from the well-to-do stratum of Greek citizenry working in commerce or administration would have been able to read. He also includes women, which is of course a contentious issue. Hägg regrets that full attention has not been given to the audience of the ancient novel. See Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries, 8–38, for a discussion of Greek encyclical education. Historians generally argue for a three-tiered level of education, namely primary, secondary and tertiary. The Roman educational scene is winsomely articulated by Apuleius: “The first cup of the Muses is given by the master who teaches you to read and redeems you from ignorance; the second is given by the teacher of literature and equips you with learning; the third arms you with the eloquence of the rhetorician. Of these three cups, most men drink. I, however, have drunk yet other cups at Athens—the imaginative draught of poetry, the clear draught of geometry, the sweet draught of music, the more austere draught of dialectic, and the nectar of philosophy, of which no person drinks enough.” He portrays successive levels of education as cups of wine given at a dinner party hosted by Muses, the goddess of music and arts. The first represents the master (ludi magister), the second the grammaticus who teaches grammar and literature and the third is the rhetor, who teaches eloquence (see Moyer V. Hubbard, Christianity in the Greco-Roman World (Peabody: Hendrikson, 2010), 69–75 and Stanley E. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (Berkeley: University of California, 1975), 165–249. Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Comments on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT 84 (2001): 65–84 (74). William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 5. Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 36. Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries, 78. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 82–108, cited in Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries, 78. See the fruitful discussion in de Silva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 153–56. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 68. Quoted in Hubbard, Christianity in the Greco-Roman World, 68. P. A. Brunt, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971), 124. Royalty, The Streets of Heaven, 18–19. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 248, writes, “Within the elites of the established Graeco-Roman world a degree of written culture was a social necessity, and an illiterate male would have been regarded as bizarre.”

148 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

48. Rafaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 75. See also Roger S. Bagnall and Rafaella Cribiore, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt 300 BC—AD 800 (Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press, 2006). 49. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 69. 50. L. Goppelt emphasizes that typology “is the central and distinctive NT way of understanding scripture,” see Typos, antitypos, typikos, hypotypos in G. Friedrich, ed., TDNT, Vol. 8, 255, 256. E. Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament perspective, Biblical Interpretation Series, Vol. 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 115, states that “typological interpretation expresses most clearly the basic approach of earliest Christianity toward the Old Testament.” For the most comprehensive analysis of the typological interpretation of the Old Testament in the New Testament see L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological interpretation of the OT in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). 51. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament, 60–128; Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, Charles, Revelation, ixviii-lxxxiii and Moyise, The Old Testament in Revelation, 14–18. Moyise states that John’s primary interest was not the Torah but the prophetic literature along with the Psalms (15). 52. See for example: David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) and Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 53. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 70. 54. Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Exodus and Apocalypse: Deliverance Then and Now,” in Christ, Salvation and the Eschaton, Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle, (eds.) Daniel Heinz, Jiri Moskala and Peter M. Van Bemmelen (Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Andrews University, 2009), 395. 55. Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 154–64 and D. J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 173–224. 56. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 68. 57. David L. Barr, “The Apocalypse as Symbolical Transformation of the World: A Literary Analysis,” Int 38 (1984):39–50 (43). 58. I have adapted Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 62, who has these categories in social intertexture. 59. See Kayle B. de Waal, A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation: The Apocalyptic Challenge to Earthly Empire (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2012), 62–4. 60. Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 11. 61. James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 249, maintains that “one of the ways in which ancient society most differed from the modern Western world was its static nature. Things changed very slowly. Most people lived virtually the same life their parents had. We

n ot e s  | 149

62.

63.

64.

65. 66.

67. 68. 69.

70.

can make serious mistakes in our understanding of the New Testament world if we expect it to change as quickly as ours does.” Havelock’s work has made a significant and enduring contribution to classical studies. See Eric A. Havelock, The Preface to Plato (Cambridge: Belknap, 1963); The Greek Concept of Justice (Cambridge: n. p., 1978); The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982); and The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986). The Greeks knew writing during the second millennium BCE but for various reasons it fell into disuse so that by 1100 BCE the region was without writing. For the history of Western writing see Eric A. Havelock, Origins of Western Literacy (Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1976), 22–50. Havelock, The Literate Revolution in Greece, 10. Cf. T. E. Boomershine, “Biblical Megatrends: Towards a Paradigm for the Interpretation of the Bible in Electronic Media,” SBLSP (1987):144–57. Harry Y. Gamble, “Literacy and Book Culture,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, (eds.) Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 646. Further, Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, 22, maintains that “long after the invention of script and even of print, distinctively oral forms of thought and expression linger, competing with the forms introduced with script and print. Cultures in which this is the case can be referred to as radically oral, largely oral, residually oral, and so on through various degrees…of orality.” Also, T. J. Farrell, “Early Christian Creeds and Controversies in the Light of the Orality-LiteracyHypothesis,” Oral Tradition 2 (1987): 132–45(135), states: “The point is that literacy and the development of literature thought proceed by degrees…That is, becoming literate involves more than just acquiring the basic rudiments of reading and writing a vowelized form of phonetic alphabetic literacy;” Jack Goody and Ian Watt, “The Consequences of Literary,” in Literacy in Traditional Societies (ed.) Jack Goody (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 27–69 (27), state that the boundary lines between literate and non-literate cultures is difficult to establish. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 59–60, has persuasively argued that “the primary emphasis in the [first-century] culture we are considering is on dyadic personality, on the individual as embedded in the group, on behaviour as determined by significant others.” In relation to the gospels Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel of Mark, 49–52, correctly notes “that the meaning of any oral performance is found only in that communal context as it is presented by the performer and as it is received by the audience…The same is true of most literature in the Hellenistic world. It was published orally. It was read communally. It was inherently a community affair.” Botha, “Mute manuscripts,” 42. Ibid. V. K. Robbins, “Writing as a Rhetorical Act in Plutarch and the Gospels,” in Persuasive Artistry in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, JSNTSup 50, (ed.) D. F. Watson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 145, and see also idem., Oral, Rhetorical, and Literary Cultures: A Response,” Semeia 65 (1995):77–82. Ibid.

150 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

71. Ibid. See also Harvey, Oral Patterning, 55 who writes: “The [first century] culture was no longer a primarily oral culture, yet it was not a fully literate culture either” and Ben Witherington III, What’s In the Word: Rethinking the Socio-Rhetorical Character of the New Testament (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 7–17, who also argues for a rhetorical culture in the first century and Harry Gamble, “Literacy and Book Culture,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, (eds.) Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 644–8 (646). Contra Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament, WUNT 167(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 398. 72. Walter Ong, Interfaces, 214, asserts that “rhetorical culture means culture in which, even after the development of writing, the pristine oral-aural modes of knowledge, storage and retrievel still dominate.” 73. Stephen H. Webb, The Divine Voice: Christian Proclamation and the Theology of Sound (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004), 199. See for example: Thomas E. Boomershine, “Peter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 39 (1987):47–68; Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, Q with a New Introduction by the Author, VPT (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997) and H. Avalos, “Introducing Sensory Criticism in Biblical Studies: Audiocentricity and Visiocentricity,” in H. Avalos, S Melcherand, J. Schipper (eds.), This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 31–46. 74. Joanna Dewey, “The Gospel of John in Its Oral-Written Media World,” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, (eds.) Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 243, states that conventions of orality undergird all composition, performance and reception of ancient texts. 75. The literature on the topic is vast. See for example E. Anne Mackay (ed.), Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece, Vol. 7 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008); D. Rubin, Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-out Rhymes (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); J. P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London and New York: Routledge, 1997). See also the excellent chapter on memory in Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 103–26. 76. April D. DeConick, “Human Memory and the Sayings of Jesus: Contemporary Experimental Exercises in the Transmission of Jesus’ Traditions,” in Jesus, The Voice and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel, (ed.) Tom Thatcher (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008), 137 asserts that “an enormous facet of orality and scribality…has yet to be taken seriously by biblical scholarship: the role that human memory plays in the process of transmission in rhetorical cultures dominated by orality.” 77. Ad Herennium, 3.16.28–3.24.40. 78. Quintilian, Inst. Or. 11.2.7. 79. Frances Yates, The Art of Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 4. 80. Seneca, Declamations preface 2, LCL, trans. M. Winterbottom (Cambridge: Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974). 81. Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries, 80. 82. Aristotle, On Memory, 450a22ff, cited in Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries, 80.

n ot e s  | 151

83. Ibid., 453a13–14, cited in Ryan, Hearing at the Boundaries, 80. 84. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 5. 85. Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Orbis: Maryknoll, 1999), 124. 86. Louise Lawrence, “Exploring the Sense-scape of the Gospel of Mark,” JSNT 33 (2011): 387–97 (391). 87. See Corin Mihaila, The Paul-Appolos Relationship and Paul’s Stance Toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric (London: T&T Clark, 2009). 88. David Rhoads, “Biblical Performance Criticism: Performance as Research,” Oral Tradition 25 (2010):157–98. 89. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 128. 90. Ibid., 130. 91. For example scholars who support idealism in a redemptive-historical framework include Beale, Revelation; and those who suppport historicism with a blend of idealism include Stefanovic, Revelation. 92. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament, 69. 93. Ibid. 94. Ibid., 70. 95. Ibid., 69. 96. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 272, 284, 328–30. Scholars who engaged with Harris’s perspective in a 1991 publication were largely in agreement with his views on literacy rates in the ancient world (see J. H. Humphrey, Literacy in the Roman World, JRASup 3, Journal of Roman Archeology, 1991) and Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (New York: New York University Press, 2000). 97. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 11–35. 98. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 5. 99. Ibid., 6. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 305, 311, 319, 326, also argues that early Christianity did little to encourage ordinary believers to read for themselves and may, in fact, have contributed to a decline in literacy. In all likelihood texts like Mark 13:14; Acts 15:21 and 2 Cor. 3:15 point to the minority, either religious teachers or the elite, who could read. 100. David E. Aune., “The Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Revelation 22.16,” JSNT 37 (1987):103–16. 101. See Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 140–46, David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 189– 231; For a discussion of early Christian prophets and prophecy see Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, 22–58 and Eugene Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Contra Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 46. 102. See Meir Bar-Ilan, “Illiteracy in the Land of Palestine in the First Centurries C.E.,” in Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society (ed. S. Fishbance and S. Schoenfeld with A. Goldschlager (Hoboken: Ktav, 1992), 46–61. 103. Gamble, Books and Readers, 214.

152 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

104. Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 473. Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus, 154–184, argues for higher literacy rates in Palestine, but his primary evidence is the later claims of the rabbis. For a critical evaluation of the rabbinic evidence see Botha, “Schools,” 236–45. Millard also tends to conflate various levels of literacy and thus overestimates the number of literates capable of reading and writing fluently. 105. As Hezser, Jewish Literacy, puts it: “Most Jews will have been aware of the symbolic value of the Torah….but [they] did not study its contents or participate in the intellectual discourse which developed among its experts. They may have occasionally listened to scholarly disputes, attended Torah-readings in synagogues, and memorized some central texts and stories, but they did not actually study the text of Torah for themselves.”

Chapter 3—Ancient Performances and the Audience 1. Tacitus, Dial. 4. 2. Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Literary Composition 23. 3. Cicero Or Brut. 185–188; ad Her. 3.11–3.15. 4. Cicero Or. Brut. 29.10. 5. Aristotle, Rhetorica, trans. John Henry Freese, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939), 1.1.10; 1.3.1. 6. Rhet. 1.3.1. 7. Rhet. 1.3.1–3. 8. Philo QE 2.34. 9. Rhet. 2.24.4 and Rhet. 3.5.4. 10. De. Or. 2.53.216–89. 11. De Or. 3.43.171–72. 12. Rhet. 3.7.10. 13. Aristotle, Poetica, trans W. Hamilton Fyfe, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 8.10. 14. James E. Porter, Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1992), 4. 15. Ann Vasalay, Representations: Images of Oratory in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 88–130 (96–7). 16. Sweet, Revelation, 13, maintains that Revelation was “pored over” by the early Christian community. 17. John Wick Bowman, “The Revelation to John: Its Dramatic Structure and Its Message,” Int 9 (1955):436–53, Smalley, Revelation, 20; Raymond Brewer, “The Influence of Greek Drama on the Apocalypse of John,” ATR 18 (1936): 74–92. James L. Blevins “The Genre of Revelation,” RevExp 77 (1980):393–408, traces the work of Bowman, Brewer and others in the acknowledgment of the influence of Greek drama on the structure of Revelation. He also investigates the work of Martin Hengel and others that argue that the apocalypses were influenced to a strong degree by Hellenistic culture. He quotes Jacques Ellul in which he states that the very nature of apocalyptic requires a dramatic rendition of the message of

n ot e s  | 153

the Apocalypse in both form and content. Blevins posits in this article that Revelation is not only structured along the lines of the Greek drama but that the Greek stage itself and the chorus are ideas that are woven into the fabric of Revelation. 18. John McRay, Archeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 247, 258, 262, 268, 272. For older works see Camden M. Cobern, The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing on the New Testament and upon the Life and Times of the Primitive Church (New York/London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1917), 570; George A. Barton, Archeology and the Bible (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1916), 245. 19. Smalley, Revelation, 21–22. 20. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan, 2nd English edition (New York/London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), 451. 21. Smalley, Revelation, 20. 22. Other liturgical aspects in the book include the baptismal formula (1:5–6), the concluding prayer “Come Lord Jesus” (22:20), the blessing of the final verse (22:21) as well as the numerous hymns, especially from ch. 4 onwards (4:8–11; 5:9–10) and doxologies (1:6; 5:13; 7:12). 23. Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 53. One of the reasons for the extensive use of liturgical elements in the narrative may be attributed to the use of the Psalms in the book. See the helpful contribution by Moyise, “The Psalms in the Book of Revelation,” 231–46. 24. Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce, 110–32. See Lucian III, LCL, With an English translation by A. M. Harmon (London: Harvard University Press, 1969), 155–71, for a discussion of sacrifices to the gods. 25. Sweet, Revelation, 11–14. 26. See the helpful article by Hak Chol Kim, “The Worship of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew,” Bib 93 (2012): 227–41 (237). 27. Barr, “The Apocalypse as an Oral Enactment,” 253. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. Rhoads, “Biblical Performance,”162. 31. Smalley, Revelation, 20, also suggests that Revelation would have been read in two instalments. Alan J. P. Garrow, Revelation, New Testament Readings (London & New York: Routledge, 1997), 3–4, also makes the point that Revelation was designed for episodic reading with several points of suspense as likely breaks. 32. According to Smalley, Revelation, 20–21, Act1 is Creation and Salvation through Judgement (1:9–11:19) and Act 2 is Salvation through Judgement and New Creation (12:1–22:7). 33. Stefanovic, Revelation, 365–66; Brighton, Revelation, 324–25 and Aune, Revelation 6–16, 660–61. 34. Early Christianity was essentially a house church movement. See Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) and Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). 35. Giles and Doan, Prophets, Performance and Power, 171.

154 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

36. Stanley K. Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26 (1982): 59–82. 37. Rhoads, “The Art of Translating for Oral Performance,” in Translating Scripture, 44. According to Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations, 34, Cicero maintained that the physical location in which the performance was shared was of consequence and a “valued rhetorical resource.” 38. See the critique of Hurtado, “Oral Fixation and New Testament Studies? ‘Orality’, ‘Performance’ and Reading Texts in Early Christianity,” 335. 39. Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, NIBC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 223 and also Gene L. Green, Jude & 2 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 340. 40. Frederic Palmer , The Drama of the Apocalypse in Relation to the Literary and Political Circumstances of Its Time (New York/London: The Macmillan Company, 1903); Charles, Revelation, Vol. 1, ixxxvii. 41. Michael Wilcock, The Message of Revelation, BST (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989), 110–11. 42. Ibid. 43. Other scholars prefer the term lector. I have already enlisted the term lector on occasion in this work to set the stage for the research involved. It was my intention to first build a case for the use of the term prophet-performer. See for example William Shiell, Reading Acts: The Lector and the Early Christian Audience, BIS 70 (Boston: Brill, 2004), 2, who notes that “the presence of a lector was not only anticipated but also necessitated by the composition of the average audience in the Greco-Roman world…Because of the relatively low levels of Greek and Latin literacy levels in the ancient world, the churches needed to use lectors so that the congregations could read the documents.” 44. David Stacey, Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament (London: Epworth, 1990), 4. 45. Richard Schechner, Performance Studies: An Introduction, 2nd edition (New York: Routledge, 2006), 1. 46. Barr, “The Apocalypse as an Oral Enactment,” 250. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid., 251. 49. Ibid. 50. Contra Vanni, “Liturgical Dialogue in the Book of Revelation,” 355, who suggests that there will be a different lector in each church who would read the message. 51. David E. Aune, “The Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Revelation 22:16,” JSNT 37 (1989): 103–116 (115). Aune builds his case on the work of David Hill, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John,” NTS 18 (1971–72): 406–11, and argues that Tychicus is an example of a Christian who is presented as an envoy of Paul whose task it was to carry a letter to the Colossians and provide an oral report of Paul’s personal situation (Col. 4:7). Further, Tychicus is not presented as a subordinate, but as a “beloved brother, faithful minister and fellow servant [σύνδουλος]” of Paul. In relation to the example of Tychicus see also the comments of Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, Revised Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 387. Another example that Aune gathers is from Hermas Vis. 2.4.3.Hermas is instructed to send out copies of his book with the envoys and lectors, though not prophets. Further,

n ot e s  | 155

52.

53. 54. 55.

56. 57.

58. 59. 60. 61.

“another close parallel from Greco-Roman paganism, from second-century A.D. Anatolia, involves envoys who are prophets. Lucían reports that the oracular prophet Alexander of Abonuteichos sent χρησμολόγοι (roughly “collectors and interpreters of oracles”) to cities throughout the Roman Empire with predictions of plagues, fires and earthquakes (Alex. 36).” See also Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 23 (1977): 425; and Peter M. Head, “Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material,” in Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (eds.), Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, LSTS 70 (London: T & T Clark, 2009), 203–19. Ronald J. Allen, “Performance and the New Testament in Preaching,” in Performance in Preaching: Bringing the Sermon to Life (eds.) Jana Childers and Clayton J. Schmit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 101, observes “when a document was read publicly, listeners experience authors as present through the reading.” See further Boxall, The Revelation, 29. De Silva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 33. Shiell, Reading Acts, 31. See Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997); Carolyn Osiek, Margaret Y. Macdonald with Janet H. Tulloch, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 12–13; Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992); Carolyn Osiek, and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997); Ute Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies, translated by Linda Maloney (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000). For discussions that demonstrate John’s opposition to wealth see Royalty, The Streets of Heaven. See similar comments in Boxall, The Revelation, 26. Ancient rhetoricians laid heavy stress on training the orator’s memory in preparation for the delivery of a speech. See Ad Herennium 3.16.28–3.24.40; Cicero, De Oratore 2.85.350–88, LCL, trans. E.W. Sutton (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942); Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 11.2.1–51. For divergent examples about the ancient speaker’s recitation from memory see Henri I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. George Lamb (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956), 165–66, 526–27; Yates, The Art of Memory, 1–49; Thomas H. Olbricht, “Delivery and Memory,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.-A.D. 400 (ed.) Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 159–67 and Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 104–09. Barr, “The Apocalypse as an Oral Enactment,” 244, states “that the prophet meant for the auditor to retain the structure of the work in memory seems likely.” Hurtado, “Oral Fixation and New Testament Studies? ‘Orality’, ‘Performance’ and Reading Texts in Early Christianity,” 328–29. David Rhoads, “Biblical Performance Criticism: Performance as Research,” Oral Tradition, 25/1 (2010): 157–198 (160). Ibid. Ibid. The aforementioned ideas are all from Rhoads.

156 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

62. Shiell, Reading Acts, 107, seems to take the same view that either the lector could have held the scroll in the hand or alternately the lector could have also memorized the message on the scroll and not needed to hold it in the hand. 63. Rhoads, “Biblical Performance Criticism: Performance as Research,” 160, is adamant that no reading would have taken place. He writes: “Furthermore, most people struggling to read would not have been able to read with meaningful inflection and certainly not with hands free to act out the stories or express the passions of a composition with gestures or movements. Having a gospel or letter in memory would have greatly enhanced the meaningfulness and power of the presentation. Simply reading the text aloud does not do it; this merely replicates in public the act of reading aloud in private. With reading there is no immediacy, no liveliness, and no interactive relationship with the audience. The whole job of a performer was to keep the audience listening. This is what storytellers and orators in any culture do. Lively engagement was what audiences expected. Audiences may not otherwise have tolerated it. Hence, I would argue that even so-called “readings” would have been more of a performance than a reading. And the one presenting would likely not have depended on the scroll for that performance. A performer may have consulted a scroll in order to do memory work in preparation for a performance; yet even here performers would read it aloud or have someone read it for them. Again, sound was primary and the handwritten scrolls were peripheral.” While this may be true for other parts of the New Testament corpus John’s specific instruction to read his apocalypse disqualifies the views put forward by Rhoads. Immediacy, liveliness and interaction would have still been realized if the prophet-performer both read and dramatized the work as this project suggests. 64. For example, according to H. Leon Abrams, Jr., Inquiry into Anthropology (New York: Globe, 1976), 235, such sounds as “ma” and “mama” are generally acknowledged to mean “mother.” Yet in Chinese the sound “ma” can have four different meanings—mother, hemp, horse or scold—if spoken at different pitches. To our ears there may be no difference but to a Chinese speaker there will be. We cannot therefore be dogmatic about inflection and pitch in our analysis of the Greek text. 65. Shiner, Proclaiming, 79–88. 66. See the older work of Andrea de Jorio, Gestures in Naples and Gesture in Classical Antiquity, translated by Adam Kendon (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000) and Richard Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art (New Haven: The Academy, 1963). 67. Pieter Botha, “New Testament Texts in the Context of reading Practises of the Roman Period: The Role of Memory and Performance,”Scriptura 90 (2005): 621–40 (622). 68. Gregory S. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome, ASH (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). 69. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations, 6. 70. Quint. Inst. 11.3.98. 71. Cicero De Or. 2.188 and Quint. Inst. 6.1.30. 72. Cicero De Or. 3.58.223. 73. Quint. Inst. 11.3.72–73. 74. Shiell, Reading Acts, 137. 75. Ibid., 135.

n ot e s  | 157

76. Ibid., 134. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations, 50–54, is of the same opinion. He contends that the use of formal rhetorical gestures was widespread in society and that even the poorer classes knew about them. The larger populace enjoyed listening to and watching orators arguing cases in the lawcourts and regarded these as forms of entertainment. Other forms of theatrical entertainment provided additional opportunities to acquire knowledge of gestures. 77. See Shiell, Reading Acts, 139–54, for a detailed discussion. 78. See F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, Third revised and enlarged edition (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/Apollos, 1990), 286, 302 and 453; C. K. Barrett, Acts, ICC, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 586 and David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids/Nottingham: Eerdmans/Apollis, 2009), 366.

Chapter 4—Aurality in the Ancient Literature 1. A useful comment is made by Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001) 41, when he writes: “One should not assume that standard practices in Athens of the fourth century B.C.E. mirror those in Ephesus of the first century C.E., but neither should one assume that attitudes and practices of first century Ephesus arose and operated in a vacuum. Setting a broader context allows us to see how certain ideas or practices persisted, ceased or evolved. It also enables us to recognize certain foundational ideas or patterns that remain consistent through differing expressions in distinct places and periods.” 2. For a discussion of the oral features of various Qumran documents see Shiell, Reading Acts, 124–127. 3. Philo Congr. 13.64–66 [Colson and Whittaker, LCL]. 4. Even though we assume that most reading was done aloud in antiquity more thorough research has demonstrated that some did engage in silent reading. See: Frank D. Gilliard, “More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non Omne Verbum Sonabat,” JBL (1993): 689–94; Alexander K. Gavrilov, “Techniques of Reading in Classical Antiquity,” CQ 47 (1997): 56–73; Miles F. Burnyeat, “Postscript on Silent Reading,” CQ 47 (1997):74–6. There is some debate in the field as Paul Saenger, Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading, FRMC (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2000) argues that the advent of silent reading took place during the 7th and 8th centuries when Irish scribes introduced word separation. However, he maintains that this only arrived on the European continent in the late tenth century. Earlier in history frequent reading aloud was a key test of canonicity for Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.6. 5. Dio Chrysostom, Or., 18.6, translated by Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 15. 6. Demetrius, On Style 222. 7. For the oral nature of letters see: Cicero, Fam. 15:21.4; Att. 8:14, 9:10; Seneca, Ep. 75:1–2; and Quintilian, Inst. 9.4.19–20. 8. Richard F. Ward and David J. Trobisch, Bringing the Word to Life: Engaging the New Testament through Performing It (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 24–26, suggest that “several

158 

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

texts in the Hebrew Scriptures reveal the centrality of literature in performance to the formation of the Hebrews’ religious and cultural identity; these performance conventions were one influence on the practise of reading Scripture aloud in Christian communities.” They examine 2 Kings 23:1–3; Jer. 36:21–23; and Neh. 8:1–3. Following Thomas Boomershine, they argue that the reading of the 2 Kings text was part of a strategy to centralize the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem and to forbid the worship of all other gods. For further reflections on performing the Old Testament see William Doan and Terry Giles, Prophets, Performance and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (New York/London: T & T Clark, 2005). Andreas Kostenberger and Raymond Bouchoc (eds.), The Book Study Concordance of the Greek New Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003), 15. See the excellent discussion in Richard J. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eye Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) and Robert K. McIver, Memory, Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels (Atlanta: SBL, 2011). I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Carlisle/Grand Rapids: Paternoster/ Eerdmans, 1978), 181 and J. Nolland, Luke, WBC, Vol. 1 (Dallas: Word, 1989), 192–94. For discussions in Pauline scholarship see Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2004); Harvey, Listening to the Text; Christopher D. Stanley, “Paul’s “Use” of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters,” in As It is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (eds.) Christopher Stanley and Stanley Porter (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 125–56. This is in fact the same word used in Rev. 1:3. E. Randolph, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collections (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 202. Shiell, Reading Acts, 209, states that “Paul’s letters also give examples of the kinds of documents that need tobe discussed in the light of delivery. How were they performed, and what vocal inflection would have been used?”. David Rhoads, Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 195. Dean, “Textured Criticism,” 82. Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 36–45. See Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper and John Miles Foley (eds.), Performing the Gospel: Essays dedicated to Werner Kelber (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006); Joanne Dewey, “Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience,” CBQ 53 (1991): 221–236. In relation to the literary technique of sandwiching see Tom Shepherd, Markan Sandwich Stories: Narration, Definition and Function (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1993). R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 2002), 16. Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 89, also discusses inclusioand the value of chiasmus as important structural features in Mark. See Rikki Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, BSL (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) for a complete discussion.

n ot e s  | 159

22. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London: Collins, 1952), 126–33,first articulated the principle that when a New Testament writer quotes or alludes to an Old Testament text the literary and thematic context of the Old Testament text needs to be taken account. Competent hearers would have done this based on their cultural register. 23. According to Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, 54, “in literary antiquity the role of the prologue was, by convention, to provide an indication of what is to be said so that hearers can know beforehand what the work is about.” Further, Watts suggests that “the gospel of Jesus Christ is that gospel about which Isaiah wrote.” Idem., 56–57. 24. On the Exodus motif see B. W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, eds. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper and Bros., 1962), 177–95. 25. The ideas are developed from Isa 11.16 and 35.8. According to Klyne Snodgrass, “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40.1–5 and Their Adaption in the New Testament,” JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45 (41), states that “the themes of 40.5 that are developed later such as the theme of the effectiveness of the Word of God (55.11) or all flesh being affected by God’s activity (66.23).” 26. John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, Anchor Bible 20 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 17. 27. M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary, The New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 37, suggests that the motif of “way” is used in 2:23; 4:4, 15; 6:8; 8:3; 11:8 and 12:14. I will not dialogue with these verses as they are beyond the scope of this section of work. The references before 8:27 are in fact incidental and add no hermeneutical weight to the motif I am addressing in this section of work. 28. Cf. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8.27–16.20, Word Biblical Commentary 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 3–4. 29. Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 425. 30. Evans, Mark 8.27–16.20, 14. 31. Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 240. 32. Lawrence, “Exploring the Sense-scape of the Gospel of Mark,” 392. 33. R. K. McIver, “One Hundred Fold Yield—Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13:8, 23; Mark 4:8, 20; Luke 8:8,” NTS 40 (1994):606–08, examines all the evidence and concludes that even “a yield of thirty fold…was not only exceptional, it was miraculous in first-century Palestine.” See also the parallel in Luke 8:12–14. 34. Klyne Snodgrass, “A Hermeneutics of Hearing Informed by the Parables with Special Reference to Mark 4,” BBR 14 (2004): 59–79 (79). 35. M. Eugene Boring, Mark, A Commentary, NTL (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 216. 36. Amos Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity (Atlanta: Baylor University Press, 2007), 28. 37. R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 384. 38. France, The Gospel of Mark, 302.

160 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

39. R. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, WBC (Waco: Word, 1989), 397. 40. Boring, Mark, 216. 41. One example that demonstrates the literary and theological continuity between the gospel and Acts is the numerous parallels between Christ in the gospel and his disciples in Acts. Christ begins his ministry full of the Spirit (Luke 4:1) and so do the disciples (Acts 2: 1–4). Christ is continually filled with the Spirit (Luke 4:18) and so are the disciples in Acts (Acts 4:18). Christ is continually in prayer (Luke 5:16, 11:1) and so are the disciples (Acts 1:12, 4:24). John R.W. Stott, The Message of Acts, The Bible Speaks Today (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), 32, suggests therefore that the “contrasting parallels Luke draws between his two volumes was not between Christ and his church, but between two stages of the ministry of the same Christ.” See Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986); Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 2: The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994). Contra Patricia Walker, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, SNTSMS 145 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) and M. Parsons and R. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 42. See Luke 5:1, 15; 6:18; 15:1; 21:38; 7:3, 22; 19:48. 43. David E. Garland, Luke: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 286. 44. See further the stimulating article by Dennis Hamm, “Watch How You Hear,” in Mary F. Foskett and O. Wesley Allen Jr., Between Experience and Interpretation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 147–73. 45. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostle, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 5 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 159. 46. The exact identity of the eunuch is not central to our discussion here. For contrasting views see Wilson, Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, 17, who argues that for the author of Acts “the man was a proselyte rather than a God-fearer, a Jew rather than a Gentile, for Acts 10–11 make it clear that he saw Cornelius as the first Gentile convert.” On the other hand, Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 67, suggests that this passge “was apparently told in Hellenistic circles as the first conversion of a Gentile” and “thus rivals the account of Cornelius’s conversion in chapters 10–11.” 47. See the interesting insights on Philip running in Rick Strelan, “The Running Prophet (Acts 8:30),” NovT 43 (2001): 31–8. 48. David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids; Baker, 2002), 141 and Johnson, The Acts of the Apostle, 159. See F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 136–140, for the literary and narrative connections between this story and that of Jesus and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. 49. Eugene Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 33. 50. R. Coleman, The Master Plan of Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Fleming Revell, 1987), 105. 51. William J. Larkin, Acts, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Illinois: Tyndale, 2009), 372.

n ot e s  | 161

52. D. Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the Acts of the Apostles, SNTSMS 121, translated by K. McKinney, G. J. Laughery and Richard Bauckham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 37. Larkin, Acts, 372, states: “The word of God is a key theological concept in the book of Acts.” Furthermore, the Word moves the narrative of Acts forward and in a new direction of some kind (see Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20) and serves as an editorial marker. Luke makes use of the term “Word of the Lord” to show the progress of the church, especially in the context of human opposition. 53. Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher (eds.), The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture (New York: T & T Clark, 2011). 54. J. A. (Bobby) Loubser, Oral and Manuscript Culture in the Bible: Studies on the Media Texture of the New Testament—Explorative Hermeunetics, 2nd edition (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2013), 166. 55. For the use of the notion of repetition see Hellen Mardaga, “The Repetitive Use of uyo,w in the Fourth Gospel,” CBQ 74 (2012):101–17. 56. Craig Koester, “Hearing, Seeing, and, Believing in the Gospel of John,” Bib (1989):327–48 (330). 57. Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 301. 58. Dorothy Lee, “The Gospel of John and the Five Senses,” JBL 129 (2010): 115–127 (121). 59. Koester, “Hearing, Seeing, and, Believing in the Gospel of John,” 347. 60. J. L. Crenshaw, “The Primacy of Listening in Ben Sira’s Pedagogy,” in Wisdom, You are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. M. L. Barré; CBQMS 29 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997), 18. 61. James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 2. 62. Ibid. 63. Recent research in the Apocalypse of Abraham includes: Robert G. Hall, The Christian Interpolation in the Apocalypse of Abraham, JBL 107 (1988): 107–110; John C. Poirier, The Ouranology of the Apocalypse of Abraham, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 35 (2004): 391–408. 64. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 168. 65. For literary analysis of the OTP see Gwendolyn B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch, SBLDS 72 (Chico: Scholars, 1984). 66. A. F. J. Klijn, “2 [Syriac Apocalypse of ] Baruch,” in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepiugrapha, Vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 615–52 (616–17); Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 36 and Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of Second Temple Judaism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 423. 67. See the discussion in Greg Carey, Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John, Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics 15 (Macon: Mercer Unversity Press, 1999), 87–88. 68. The same thing happens at 2 Baruch 77 where once again Baruch calls on the people to hear what he has to say to them.

162 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

69. Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), x. 70. See the comments on repetition in the commentary by Beale, Revelation, 127–35. 71. According to David A. de Silva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 125, “we hear Christ’s voice commissioning John (1:17–20) and censuring behaviours and personalities in the seven churches (2:1–3:22). We hear angelic and other heavenly voices denouncing “Babylon” (18:1–24). We hear the souls of murdered Christians crying out for vindication (6:9–11) and joining the voices of angels to praise God for enacting judgment against their enemies (16:5–7)…We even hear the voice of God, declaring his identity (1:8), announcing the renewal of creation (21:5a), authenticating the divine message (21:5b), and reiterating promises to those who remain faithful and pronouncing warnings against the unfaithful (21:6–8).” 72. Smalley, Revelation, 113. 73. Harry O. Maier, Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 91. 74. Sweet, Revelation, 125–27 and Caird, Revelation, 73. 75. Ben Witherington III, Revelation, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 85. 76. Maier, Apocalypse Recalled, 64–66. 77. Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed, 33. 78. The complexity of interpreting the juxtaposition of hearing and seeing is evident in the comments of Smalley, Revelation, 131. He argues that John uses what is seen to interpret what is heard. John hears about a lion which is “associated in the Old Testament with military deliverance, but now sees a lamb, who makes deliverance from sin possible through his sacrificial death.” 79. Further examples can be found in Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed, 34–36.

Chapter 5—An Aural-Performance Analysis of Revelation 1:1–21 1. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 168. 2. Ibid., 385. 3. Ibid., 168. 4. I have adapted the question from Perry, The Rhetoric of Digression, 56. 5. Malina, The New Testament World, 12 [emphasis added]. 6. Achtemeier, “Omne Verbum Sonat,” 3–27. 7. Brickle, Aural Design and Coherence in the Prologue of First John, 18. 8. Robert M. Royalty Jr., The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 81. 9. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament, 169. 10. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 176.

n ot e s  | 163

11. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 167, claim “that analysing a composition syllable by syllable makes it possible to discover how sound builds a composition’s structure and guides the meaning-making process.” 12. It will be recalled that kai. implies that there is a Greek word that follows. Since there is not one I use the dexicon form, namely, kai,. 13. Bruce W. Longenecker, Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament Chain-Link Transitions (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005), 2. 14. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 155. 15. See the comments in Claude Lévi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques, translated by John Weightman and Doreen Weightman (New York: Atheneum, 1974), 299; Chris Keith, “In My Own Hand:’ Grapho-literacy and the Apostle Paul,” Bib 89 (2008):39–58 and Helmut Koester “Writings and the Spirit: Authority and Politics in Ancient Christianity,” HTR 84 (1991): 353–72 (355), “In the context of the Roman imperial administration, correspondence was the most important instrument with which the affairs of the vast and often distant provinces could be regulated and adjudicated.”Harvey J. Graff, The Labyrinths of Literacy: Reflections on Literacy Past and Present (London: Falmer, 1987), 12, asserts, in relation to hegemony, indoctrination and the maintenance of society that “for most of literacy’s history, these functions have centered upon elite groups and their cohesion and power. For them, the uses of literacy have been diverse but have included common education, culture, and language; shared interests and activities; control of scarce commodities, such as wealth, power and even literacy; and common symbols and badges, of which literacy could be one.” 16. According to P. J. J. Botha, “Greco-Roman Literacy as Setting for New Testament Writings.” Neot 26 (1992): 195–215 (209), “the written word itself exercised religious power: it was sometimes believed (or simply felt) to have some special and profound quality that caused or allowed people to bring about extraordinary results.” 17. Aune, Revelation 1–5, cxci. Following the Nestle-Aland text, Aune claims that of the 337 sentences in Revelation 245 of these begin with kai,. Aune also provides nine uses of kai, (see pp. cxcii–cxcv). Lupieri, A Commentary on Revelation, 100, maintains that kai, occurs “on average twelve times every hundred words.” 18. Kermit Titrud, “The Function of kai in the Greek New Testament,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation, Essays on Discourse Analysis, (eds.) David Alan Black, with Katharine Barnwell and Stephen Levinsohn (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 243. 19. Resseguie, Revelation, 50, claims that the NRSV does not do justice in its translation of Revelation since it omits the string of “ands” in Rev. 18:12–13 that point to the illicit opulence of Babylon. The NRSV also omits the “ands” that point to the glorious character of God in Rev. 5:12. 20. Lee, Sound Analysis, 66. Edmond F. Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, translated by Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 100, maintains that “the Apocalypse contains somewhat fewer than 900 different terms, which recur about 9800 times altogether.” 21. For the importance of numbers see Roy C. Naden, The Lamb Among the Beasts (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1996). More recently, Steve Moyise, “Word Frequencies in the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 43 (2005): 285–99, dismisses the argument of Richard Bauckham that the numbers in Revelation communicate theological content and hence

164 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

unify the book as a whole. While his arguments in relation to the numbers four, twelve and twenty-eight are reasonably sustainable, the number seven, as Moyise admits, does convey meaning and serves to unify the book. 22. R. Brown and D. McNeill, “The Tip of the Tongue Phenomenon,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 5 (1966): 325–37. Brown and McNeill tried to induce tip of the tongue (TOT) state by reading out definitions of relatively uncommon words to around fifty students. This experiment resulted in over two hundred TOT’s which students, when told later, said was the word they had in mind. Further, the students thought of other similar sounding words that all had a bathtub effect. 23. Jean Aitchison, Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon, 2nd edition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 134. The bathtub effect has been confirmed by subsequent research (see A. Koriat and I. Lieblich, “What does a Person in a TOT state know that a Person in a ‘Don’t Know” state doesn’t know,” Memory and Cognition 2 (1974): 647–55; D.C. Rubin, “Within Word Structure in the Tip-of-the-Tongue Phenomenon,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 14 (1975): 392–7; and A. S. Brown, “A Review of the Tip-of-the-Tongue Experience,” Psychological Bulletin 109 (1991): 204–23. 24. Ibid., 136. 25. G. A. Miller and C. Fellbaum, “Semantic Networks of English,” Cognition 41 (1991): 197– 229 (214). 26. According to Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation, 112, “the main function of the future in John’s visions appears to be to add the notion of certainty and expectation.” 27. Aune, Revelation 1–5, clxxxv. 28. Stanley Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, D. A. Carson (ed.), Studies in Biblical Greek 1 (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 198. 29. Mathewson, Verbal Aspect, 42. 30. Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul and Q (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 140–169, 204, found in Paul’s letters oral prophetic speech patterns such as the use of the verb. The verb is therefore an important part of speech that better assists speech communities to understand the performance. 31. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 196. 32. Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 231. See also Porter, Verbal Aspect, 196. 33. See John R. Kohlenberger III, Edward W. Goodrick and James A. Swanson, The Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 75. The specific word is used seventeen times in the New Testament. 34. Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 28. 35. For important discussions of apocalyptic see Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 226–52 and John J. Collins, “Apocalyptic in Literature,” in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, (eds.) Robert Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 345–70. 36. Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John, 22, suggests that title or superscription in ancient works defined the nature of that work. The ancient hearers, especially the informed and competent audiences, may have been familiar with the apocalypses that were written after

n ot e s  | 165

37. 38. 39.

40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45.

46.

47.

48. 49. 50.

the fall of Jerusalem, i.e. 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch and the Apocalypse of Abraham. They may have been less familiar with others. T. Holtz, Vapoka,luyij, EDNT, Vol. 1, (eds.) Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 132. Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 294. Witherington, What’s in the Word, 16, writes: “sacred texts had an aura, a presence, a palpable character, as the embodiment of the voice of the living God. Ancient peoples would write out their curses on lead foil, roll them up, and place them near or under the altar in a temple, believing that the breath of the deity would animate and act out those words, because the word of a god was a speech-act, an action word that changed things, affected persons, and could serve as either blessing or curse, boon or bane.” Brighton, Revelation, 38; Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, 97. Brighton, Revelation, 34. A. Weiser, dou,loj, EDNT, Vol. 1, 352, contends that the word “always has a religious-figurative meaning.” For a brief summary of the use of the term see Aune, Revelation 1–5, 13. For a review of scholarship on slavery in the ancient world see M. I. Finley, “Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology,” in M. I. Finley (ed.), Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (London: Chatto and Windus, 1980), 11–66; O. Patterson, “Slavery,” Annual Review of Sociology 3 (1977):407–49. Philo, Rewards, 137; Livy, 4.3.7; Dio Cassius, 8.36.3. Joseph, Ant. 4.238. Lucian, [Asin] 5; Hom. Od. 17.320; Apuleius Metam. 10.7, 10. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 13, points out the metaphoric use of the term slave was uncommon in Greek thinking but derived more from the ANE. Knowing they were slaves of God would have made all the difference. Rengstorf, douloj, TDNT, Vol., 2, Edited by Gerhard Friedrich, Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 270–78. See BDAG, 260, for further discussion. A significant study on slavery in the Pauline corpus is the work of Dale B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Cf. John Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT 162.2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). John, like other writers in the New Testament era, recognizes the significance of Daniel 2. David Wenham “The Kingdom of God and Daniel,” Expository Times 98 (1987): 132–134, has asserted that “the book of Daniel may be the primary background to the gospel’s teaching about the kingdom.” Allusions in Luke 20:18 and Matt. 21:44 also identify the “stone” of Daniel 2:34–35 with Christ and so it would appear that New Testament writers see Daniel 2 as having begun realization in Jesus’ earthly ministry. Beale, Revelation, 181–182; Stefanovic, Revelation, 57. See Lloyd Gaston, No Stone on Another (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 225; R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 203. G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), 283, writes: “If it can be concluded that these Daniel 2 allusions in Revelation are intentional and draw with them the contextual idea of Daniel 2, then there is a basis for proposing that this idea provides the frame-

166 

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

58.

59.

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

work of thought for the whole of the Apocalypse, i.e. eschatological judgment of cosmic evil and consequent establishment of the eternal kingdom.” Beale, Revelation, 153. W. Popkes, dei/, EDNT, Vol. 1, 279. See also BDAG, 213–214. Swete, Revelation, 2. According to W. Popkes, dei/, EDNT, Vol. 1, 279, the word is used over one hundred times in the New Testament. It refers to “the divine determination.” Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse, 99. Ibid., 15 and O. Betz, EDNT, Vol. 3, 238. Cleon Rogers Jr. and Cleon Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 610. See Louis Vos, Synoptic Traditions, for eight passages in Revelation that potentially have the sayings of Jesus in the synoptic tradition as their source. These include: Rev. 1:3a = Luke 11:28; Rev. 1:7=Matt. 24:30; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17 = Matt. 11:15; 13:9; Rev. 16:15=Matt. 24:42– 43; Luke 12:39–40; Rev. 3:5c=Matt. 10:32; Luke 12:8; Rev. 3:20=Mark 13:29; Matt. 24:33; Luke 12:35; Rev. 3:21=Luke 22:28–30; Matt. 19:28 and Rev. 13:10b=Matt. 26:52b. These potential connections demonstrate that the audience could have been familiar with the sayings of Jesus and that they would have been more important than Jewish apocalyptic or other contemporaneous literature. The audience will also notice the phrase in 6:9, 12:17 and 20:4. See Aune, Revelation 6–16, 709–10, for further discussion. Some scholars feel the phrase is synonomous with the contents of the book (see Caird, The Revelation of St. John, 11; Ladd, Revelation of John, 23 and Beale, The Book of Revelation, 184). Osborne, Revelation, 56, instructively argues that the phrase “word of God” in particular has the same intent it has in the Book of Acts (see Acts 4:31; 6:2; 8:14; 11:1) where it refers to Christian witness and the preaching of the gospel. He contends therefore that it constitutes “a semitechnical formula for gospel truth and faithful Christian witness to it.” While I assume the wide-spread availability of the gospels this in no way suggests that the ancient listeners had read the Gospel of John or any other Gospel for that matter. The possibility still remains that they may have heard the Gospel being read on numerous occasions. Since the ground-breaking essay and edited work of Richard Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audience (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) the localization of the audience of the gospels has been called into serious question. Essentially Bauckham argued that the idea of gospel communities came about with the older work of B. H. Streeter in 1924 and, according to Klink, in an accident of history German scholars reinforced this position with their work on form criticism and later redaction criticism that contended for each gospel having its own Sitz in Leben. For an overview of the discussion see Edward Klink III, “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question,” CBR 3 (2004):60–85. For critiques of Bauckham’s view see Philip Esler, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospel for all Christians,” SJT 51 (1998):235–48 and David Sim, “The Gospel for All Christians: A Response to Richard Bauckham,” JSNT 84 (2001):3–27. I support the mediating view of Craig Blomberg, “The Gospel for Specific Communities and All Christians,” in The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, (ed.) Edward W. Klink III, LNTS 353 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 111–33, who suggests that

n ot e s  | 167

60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

80.

Mark composed his gospel with a specific audience in mind but that he also intended for it to have a wider readership. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations, 35. See Hom. Od. 5.7; Hom. Il. 1.339; Hom. Od. 10.299 and Hes. Theogn. 33, 101. See further, G. Strecker, maka,rioj, EDNT, Vol. 2, 376. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 11. Wall, Revelation, 53. According to J. Baumgarten, kairo.j, EDNT, Vol. 2, 232, occurs eighty five times in the New Testament. He argues for the eschatological use of the term in the New Testament. J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Vol. 38 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975), 374, states that often in the New Testament it refers to the fateful and decisive point e.g. Jerusalem did not recognize the kairos when Jesus came (Luke 19:44); Jesus kairos is the moment of his death (Matt 26:18). The word is used with reference to the commencement of messianic power over demons (Matt 8:29), the persecution of believers (1 Pet 4:17), the removal of the power of the restrainer (2 Thess 2:6), the final judgment of believers (1 Cor 4:5) and the general judgement of the dead (Rev 11:18). Ford speaks of reader’s thoughts being directed to the aforementioned themes but it may be more accurate to say hearers. Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 154–59. See Francois Bovon, “Names and Numbers in Early Christianity,” NTS 47 (2001): 267–88 (267) in which he highlights the importance of names in early Christianity. Hearon, “From Narrative to Performance Criticism: Methodological Consideration and Interpretive Moves,” 224. Moris, Revelation, 49; Prigent, Revelation, 117. See Smalley, Revelation, 33, for the historical background that traces the understanding of this text to Isa. 11:2. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 28–29; Boxall, The Revelation, 33. They build their case on Vanni, “Liturgical Dialogue in the Book of Revelation,” 348–72. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations, 101. Suet. Aug. 57; Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations, 102. Ernst Badian, “Acclamation,” in OCD, 3rd ed. Howard-Brook and Gwyther, Unveiling Empire, 233. Cass. Dio LXII 20.5. Howard-Brook and Gwyther, Unveiling Empire, 233; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 31. Mounce, Revelation, 46. For further helpful discussion regarding the use of the phrase see Osborne, Revelation, 60–61 and Beale, Revelation, 188. Beale, Revelation, 188. Brighton, Revelation, 40. For the influence of the Exodus tradition on the New Testament wrtings see Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 2–3 and Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 47–49, 119, 136–38, 259, 285–86, 353, 467, 502. Accoring to Resseguie, Revelation, 67, “Like the Israelites, the hearers/readers of this book are on a new exodus to a new promised land. Along the way they encounter other Pharaohs (the dragon and beasts) and are tested with idolatrous distractions in their wilderness sojourn—namely, the temptation to settle down or compromise with Babylon. The plot of

168 

81.

82. 83. 84. 85.

86. 87. 88.

89. 90. 91. 92.

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Revelation is the story of how the Lamb leads his people out of slavery and exile into the new promised land, the new Jerusalem.” As the prophet-performer continues reading it becomes clear that God and his throne are so closely connected that the concept of throne serves as an indirect reference to God. God is named as the one sitting on the throne or less commonly the throne itself is used as a substitute for the term qeoj. See 4:9. 10; 5:1, 7, 13; 6:16; 7:10, 15; 19:4; 21:5. Two doctoral dissertations have recently been written on the theme of the throne of God which are by Ricky L. Williamson, “Thrones in the Book of Revelation” (PhD Dissertation; The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993) and George Koottappillil, “The Symbolism of Kronos and Its Biblical-Theological Implications in the Apocalypse” (PhD Dissertation; Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1996). The seven spirits refer to the Holy Spirit. John uses the number seven to denote completion and perfection. In both Rev. 4:5 and 5:6 the number seven is associated with the Spirit. The dynamic symbol of “seven spirits” points to the active presence and power of the Spirit of God in the world. For the most recent influential commentary on this theme see Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 110–15. Contra Aune, Revelation 1–5, 34–35; Boxall, Revelation, 21–32; Roloff, Revelation, 24, who suggest that the seven spirits are the seven principal angels that stand before God, especially found in Jewish apocalyptic (see Tob. 12:15; 1 En. 20). George Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966), 62. Ernest P. Janzen, “The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Clothes,” in SBL Seminar Papers 33 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), 637–57 (647). See Carol H. V. Sutherland and Robert A. G. Carson, Roman Imperial Coinage, 10 vols (London: Spink and Son, rev. edn, 1984), I, 207, no. 42; 213, no. 127; 269, no. 31. See the following: Andrew Burnett, Michel Amandy and Pere Pau Ripollès, The Roman Provincial Coinage II: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Viellius 44 BC—AD 69 (London: British Museum Press/Paris Bibliothéque Nationale, 1992), 1012, 1057, 1073, 1094, 1095, 1123, 1214, 1262, 1385, 1391, 1393, 406, 464, 985, 1039, 1052, 1294, 1326, 1109, 1113, 867, 1021, 1324, 1343. Ford, Crisis, 243, maintains that Jesus is “the firstborn from the dead in the sense of qualitative, not chronological, priority.” Wall, Revelation, 58. See the helpful discussion regarding the Old Testament development of the concept of witness and its later development in Second Temple Judaism in Mark Bredin, Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace: A Nonviolent Christology in the Book of Revelation (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003), 60–76 and 77–103 respectively. Joseph L. Trafton. Reading Revelation: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament Commentary Series (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 20–21. Schlier, avmh,n, TDNT, Vol. 1, 336, suggests that this is a liturgical acclamation in Christian worship and cites 1 Cor. 14:16. David E. Aune, “The Odes of Solomon and Early Christian Prophecy,” NTS 28 (1982):446. Arthur J. Ferch, The Son of Man in Daniel Seven, AUSDDS (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1979), 174.

n ot e s  | 169

93. See the comments in Craig A. Evans, Luke, NIBC (Hendrickson, 1990), 312; Leon Morris, Luke, Revised Edition, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 325–26. 94. Boxall, The Revelation, 34. 95. Ibid. 96. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 59. 97. The words o` pantokra,twr is common in the LXX (e.g. Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:14–16; 9:5–6, 15; Hos 12:6 [5]; Nah 3:5; Zech 10:3; Mal 2:16). 98. David E. Aune, “The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John,” BR 38 (1983): 5–26(20), states that most of the honorific titles which are applied to God or the Lamb in Revelation are also reflected in imperial terminology to the Caesar. He mentions nine frequently used titles of the imperial terminology that are parallel to Christ‟s portrayal in Revelation: (1) god; (2) son of god; (3) god made manifest; (4) lord; (5) lord of the whole world; (6) lord’s day; (7) saviour of the world; (8) epiphany; and (9) emperor. For an assessment of the political language in Revelation reserved for the praise of emperors, see Dominique Cuss, Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament, Contribution to the History of Early Christian Literature and Theology 23 (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974), 55–88. 99. Resseguie, Revelation, 71. 100. Mark Griffith, “‘Telling the tale’: A Performing Tradition from Homer to Pantomime,” in The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theatre, eds. Marianne McDonald and J. Michael Walton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 13–35 (19). A famous example of mythological innovation is seen in the way Homer, Herodotus, Gorgias, Aeschylus, and Euripides present the Helen and the Trojan War. The writers offer various answers as to whether or not Helen should be blamed for the war. 101. Christopher Gill, “The Question of Character-Development: Plutarch and Tacitus,” Classical Quarterly 33 (1983): 469–87 (470). 102. Ibid., 471. 103. Christopher Gill, “The Character-Personality Distinction,” in Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature, (ed.) Christopher Pelling (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 1–31 (2). 104. Morris, Revelation, 52; Boxall, Revelation, 40; Resseguie, Revelation, 72; Reddish, Revelation, 40; Mounce, Revelation, 76; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 83–84; Beale, Revelation, 203. Beale builds his case on the work of R. J. Bauckham, “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation, (ed.) D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 251–98, who argues that the phrase consistently refers to Sunday from the second half of the second-century onwards. Prigent, Revelation, 129, also suggests the referent is Sunday and claims this because of its frequent use in the second-century. In a recent article S. R. Llewelyn, “Sunday Worship in the Early Church,” NovT 43 (2001):205–23 (221), argues that “the earliest unambigious evidence is in the Gospel of Peter, 35 and 50 (c. AD 150).” 105. R. J. Bauckham, “The Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation, (ed.) D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 227, maintains that “while there can be no a prori assumption that the second century evidence will determine the meaning of Rev. 1:10, that evidence is clearly relevant to the discussion and we begin with it.”

170 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

106. Emanuel Swedenborg, The Apocalypse Explained (London: Swedenborg Society, 1919), 54; C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, Vol. 2 (Boise: Pacific Press, 1985), 82–4 and Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2002), 21; Contra Aune, Rev. 1–5, 84, who claims that “the first day of the week has special significance in early Christianity (1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 20:7).” 107. Dorothy Bass, “Christian Formation in and for Sabbath Rest,” Int 59 (2005): 25–40 (30), argues that later Christians came to believe that in the new creation the day of worship had changed to Sunday in honor of the resurrection. 108. See Sharon H. Ringe, “Holy, as the Lord your God commanded you: Sabbath in the New Testament,” Int 59 (2005): 17–24, in which she confirms the validity of the Sabbath in the New Testament. Cf. Lutz Doering, “Sabbath Laws in the New Testament Gospels,” in New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2010), 207–53. 109. Herold Weiss, A Day of Gladness: The Sabbath among Jews and Christians in Antiquity (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), 96. 110. Kenneth Strand, “The Lord’s Day in the Second Century,” in The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982), 346–351. 111. Norman H. Young, “The Use of Sunday for Meetings of Believers in the New Testament”: A Response,” NovT 45 (2003):111–22 (121–22), quoting Graham Stanton, “Aspects of Early Christian and Jewish Worship: Pliny and the Kerygma Petrou,” in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin, (eds.) M. J. Wilkins, et. al. (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 84–98, contends that an interpreter can enhance her understanding of a New Testament text by reading back from post-apostolic data to the apostolic era. However, even if this was to be done with care it was an exercise frought with risk. 112. See Reddish, Revelation, 40. Bauckham, “The Lord’s Day,” 240, admits that “the story of the origin of the Lord’s Day remains in many respects obscure.” 113. Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), 124–128. 114. Stefanovic, Revelation, 91. 115. Ranko Stefanovic, ““The Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10 in the Current Debate,” AUSS (2011):261–84. 116. Beale, Revelation, 203. 117. Ibid. 118. Weiss, A Day of Gladness, 182. 119. Ibid. 120. Ford, Revelation, 384. 121. Prigent, Revelation, 133. 122. The phrase has a long and interesting history in scholarship. Nathaniel Schmidt, “The ‘Son of Man’ in the Book of Daniel,” JBL 19 (1900): 22–28; J. A. Emerton, “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery,” JTS 9 (1958): 225–42; Julian Morgenstern, “The ‘Son of Man’ of Daniel 7:13f.: A New Interpretation,” JBL 80 (1961): 65–77; J. Goppens, “Le Fils d’Homme danielique et les relectures de Dan 7:13 dans les apocryphes et les écrits du Nouveau Testament,” ETL 37 (1961): 5–51; Edwin D. Freed, “The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 86 (1967): 402–9; J. M. Ford, “The Son of Man — A Euphemism?” JBL 87 (1968): 257–66; Ford points out that Jesus is charged with blasphemy in his use of the title

n ot e s  | 171

(Matt 26:63–65; 27:43); Ziony Zevit, “The Structure and Individual Elements of Daniel 7,” ZAW 80 (1968): 385–96; G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The Interpretation of Daniel 7,” CBQ 45 (1983): 44–58; Edwin A. Abbott, The Message of the Son of Man (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1909); 20; Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979); Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Jens Schröter, “The Son of Man as the Representative of God’s Kingdom: On the Interpretation of Jesus in Mark and Q” in Jesus, Mark, and Q: The Teachings of Jesus and Its Earliest Records, (eds.) M. Labahn and A. Schmidt, JSNTSup 214 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 34–68; Otfried Hofius, “Der Septuaginta-Text von Daniel 7:13–14: Erwägungen zu seiner Gestalt und seiner Aussage,” ZAW 117 (2005): 73–90. 123. Beale, Revelation, 220, concludes that Rev. 1:8–20 may be a “midrash” on Dan. 7 and 10. “John recounts his vision by using Daniel 7 and 10 as a model in describing the “Son of Man” and has woven other OT texts into this framework.” Beale uses the same argument from his The Use of Daniel in the Revelation of St. John and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Washington D. C.: University Press of America, 1984), 154–77. 124. Beale asserts that the Son of Man figure in Rev. 1 points to the role of Christ as endtime judge. On subsequent readings of Revelation by the prophet-performer the audience would come to learn that the phrase “one like a Son of Man” is only used twice by John, here in Rev. 1:13 and Rev. 14:20. The “one like a son of man” in Rev. 14:20 has a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand and functions as the divine King-Judge (Rev. 14:14–20; 19:11–15). Hans LaRondelle, “The Apostolic Gospel: Master Key to Revelation’s Code,” Ministry (2003):22, states that John “distinguishes between two different offices of the heavenly Son of Man. First John sees Jesus in His priestly ministry of intercession and assurance during the church age, and second His concluding work as the Judge of all humankind at His second coming.” He further argues that this twofold application of Daniel’s “Son of Man” to Jesus’ work as Priest and Judge unites the letters and the visions in an indivisible unity. 125. See the critique of Beale in A. Yarbro Collins, “Review of The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John, by G. K. Beale,” JBL 105 (1986): 734–35 and Aune, Revelation 1–5, 73–74. 126. Heinz Giesen, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1997), 87; Mounce, The Book of Revelation 78. 127. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 98. 128. Swete, Apocalypse, 18. 129. Ford, Revelation, 398. 130. Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Development, JSNTSup 93 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 118, mentions Pss. Sol. 17:24; 4QpIsa 8–10; 1 QSb5 24–25 4 Ezra 13.9–11; 1 En. 62.2. 131. Smalley, Revelation, 55. 132. N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Vol. 4 (London: SPCK, 2003), 728. 133. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 104. 134. Ibid. 135. Ibid., 101.

172 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

136. For discussions of Rev. 1:19 which constitutes period 17 see Beale, Revelation, 155–57; 215–16. 137. From subsequent engagement with the Apocalypse the audience would understand that John has used the number seven to refer to the churches (chs. 2–3), the seals (chs. 6–8) and the bowls (chs. 15–16). There are also seven spirits (1:4; 5:6); seven angels of the churches (1:20); seven stars (1:16, 20; 2:1); seven lampstands (1:12; 2:1); the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (5:6); seven thunders (10:3, 4); the seven-headed dragon (12:3); seven mountains (17:9); seven kings (17:10); and the seven-headed beast (13:1). There are also seven macarisms (1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14); seven doxologies that give God power, wealth, wisdom, might, glory and honour to the Lamb (5:12) and to God (7:17). Most commentators assume the importance of the number seven. See Reddish, Revelation, 35; M. H. Pope, “Seven, Seventh, Seventy,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, (ed.) George Arthur Buttrick, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962). 4:294–95; Joran Friberg, “Numbers and Counting,” ABD, (ed.) David Noel Freedmand, 6 vols. (), 4:1139–45. For a discussion about the theological significance of the numbers see Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 30–34. More recently, Steve Moyise, “Word Frequencies in the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 43 (2005): 285–99, dismisses the argument of Richard Bauckham that the numbers in Revelation communicate theological content and hence unify the book as a whole. While his arguments in relation to the numbers four, twelve and twenty-eight are reasonably sustainable, the number seven, as Moyise admits, does convey meaning and serves to unify the book. 138. Adela Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, (eds.) Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), II.21.2:1221–87, argues against the belief that the number seven denotes completeness. She asserts instead that the numbers four, seven and twelve denote cosmic order and that John uses these numbers to indicate the carrying out of God’s purpose. The numbers represent the divine will as the “net in which the Satanic forces are captured, surrounded and confined on all sides” so that the victory of God’s people is assured. 139. Heil, The Meal Scenes in Luke Acts, 4. 140. See Desmond Ford, Crisis: A Commentar y on the Book of Revelation, Vol. 2 (Newcastle: Desmond Ford Publications, 1982), 217, for further comments. 141. Beale, Revelation, 220, asserts that the glory of God is “the major point” of Rev. 1. He argues that the reader’s obedience to the message of the book of Revelation, together with Christ’s redemptive blessings upon the readers forms the basis of God receiving glory. Similarly the sovereignty of the Son and the Father form an additional basis for God’s glory. In this aural-performance analysis the prophet-performer has only began to read the book of Revelation and the theme of God’s glory is only mentioned once in Rev. 1. Furthermore, Beale mentions readers twice in this section of his commentary and isolates them for the blessings of God. I would argue that we need to include hearers in the blessings of God as well as already stated by John (see Rev 1:3). 142. Carey, Elusive Apocalypse, 120–21. 143. Reddish, Revelation, 41–2. 144. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 117.

n ot e s  | 173

145. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 31. 146. Michael Gilbertson, God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogue with Pannenberg and Moltmann, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 84. 147. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 88–94.

Chapter 6—An Aural-Performance Analysis of Rev. 11:1–19 1. Mounce, Revelation, 211; Metzger, Breaking the Code, 68. 2. Like Wall, Revelation, 141, I don’t believe “the question of sources needs to be settled before coherent meanings of this passage can be advanced.” An aural-performance analysis is interested in the final canonical form of the text. Charles, Revelation, 1, 269–73, argued that there were two pre-70 CE Jewish sources behind 11.1–13 borrowed by John and adapted for his purposes. For a refutation of Charles’ views see Joseph S. Considine, “The Two Witnesses: Apoc.11.3–13,” CBQ 8 (1946): 377–92. 3. Brickle, Aural Design and Coherence in the Prologue of First John, 18. 4. Dean, “Grammar of Sound,” 67. 5. Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament, 168. 6. xxx 7. Mark Seaborn Hall, “The Hook Interlocking Structure of Revelation: The Most Important Verses in the Book and How They May Unify Its Structure,” NovT 44 (2002):278–96, argues that Rev 10:11–11:1 functions as the hook interlocking a two-cycle division of the book. It is not likely that hearers would have reached this understanding on their first hearing. For a critique of Hall’s view see Siew, The War Between the Two Beasts and the Two Witnesses, 90. 8. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 198. 9. Scholars take different views of what the “measuring” is. Robinson, Redating, 241, understands this concept as a purification, especially seen in the light of Ezekiel 44:23, “to teach, my people to distinguish the sacred from the profane.” Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 68–69, suggests the measuring is symbolic and that it provides a sense of hope for heavenly vindication. 10. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 603. The symbolic nature of this concept of measuring is strengthened by the consistent use of paradox and reversal. Schüssler Fiorenza, Vision of a Just World, 77, states that 11:1–2 is a “prophetic announcement of reversal. Christians who now suffer the oppressions and persecutions of the nations will be eschatologically protected in the end while the nations will suffer the eschatological plagues and punishments of God’s wrath.” 11. Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 88. 12. Boring, Revelation, 143. 13. Stefanovic, Revelation, 339. 14. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 604; Bauckham, Climax, 269; Caird, Revelation, 130 and Kistemaker, Revelation, 324.

174 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

15. Philip G. Samaan, Portraits of the Messiah in Zechariah (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1989), 33. 16. For various scholarly views see: J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 233–41; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 176–77; and George H. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (London: Paternoster, 1948), 182–84, who advocate a dispensationalist futurist reading and understand the temple as a literal, restored temple during the final period of tribulation in Jerusalem, the worshippers as a remnant of believing Jews, and the outer court as the force that persecutes and destroys Jerusalem for forty-two months. Recently, Matthijs Den Dulk, “Measuring the Temple of God: Revelation 11.1–2 and the Destruction of Jerusalem,” NTS 54 (2008): 436–49, also contends for a similar preterist interpretation, but argues John reinterprets the A. D. 70 event in 11:1–2 in a manner that makes the event more “timeless.” The preterist reading is the most difficult to maintain given the broadly accepted dating of the book after A.D. 70. Another possible and interesting reading of 11:1–2 is that it is an historical flashback, perhaps explaining the Roman assault. See John M. Court, The Book of Revelation and the Johannine Apocalyptic Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 86; I. T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 586–87. Court and Beckwith view the text as future, but take some elements of 11:1–2 figuratively. Believing Jews, imaged by the altar, sanctuary, and worshippers, will be preserved through a forty-two month tribulation, while unbelieving Jews, imaged by the outer court, will not. Charles (Revelation, 1:274–78), Kiddle, Revelation, 189, and David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Ft. Worth: Dominion, 1989), 273–74, link the outer court with the apostate church, and the interior parts of the temple as spiritual Israel. Others take the temple as a reference to the church in the final period of history; see Mounce, Revelation, 212; Aune, Revelation 6–16, 598; Osborne, Revelation, 410; Caird, Revelation, 131–32; Beale, Revelation, 558–59; Prigent, Apocalypse, 160–63; Sweet, Revelation, 183–84. See William Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1944), 154–55, for six supporting arguments for the view that nao.j refers to the Christian church. 17. Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 106. 18. Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 630. See 1QS 5.5–6; 8.4–10; 9.3–6; 4QFlor 1.2–9. 19. Contra M. Juahiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation, WUNT 2/199 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 65, who argues against the Zecharian background. 20. According to Smalley, Revelation, 269, even if the Jerusalem temple is in mind as the setting for these two verses, “its literal existence is less important than its figurative significance.” While this may be the case for the competent audience I am not advocating the stance of Charles, Revelation, Vol. 1, 274, and Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, 586–87, who understood that Rev. 11:1–2 is a separate tradition or oracle written before 70 C.E. by one of the prophets of the Zealot party. Cf. Caird, Revelation, 131, for arguments against the Zealot party. 21. Mitchell, Revelation, 208; Mounce, Revelation, 214. 22. See Beale, Revelation, 557–58 for a summation of the different views. 23. Stefanovic, Revelation, 342 and Brighton, Revelation, 289.

n ot e s  | 175

24. Scholars have struggled to identify who these two witnesses are. Daniel K. K. Wong, “The Two Witnesses in Revelation 11,” BibSac (1997): 344–54 (347), maintains that the two witnesses are two, as yet unknown prophets, who will minister in the power of Moses and Elijah during the tribulation period. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 244; Strauss, 215–216, argue that they are Enoch and Elijah; Sweet, Revelation, 185, hints at the possibilities of James and John; Ford, Revelation, 178, is novel by stating that they refer to the two Christian prophets martyred by Titus. Charles Giblin, “Revelation 11.1–13: Its Form, Function and Contexual Integration,” NTS 30 (1984): 433–59 (442–443), emphasizes the typological dimension of the two witnesses as expressive of “Christian prophetic testimony which accords with Scripture but transcends those foreshadowings;” Paul Minnear, “Ontology and Ecclesiology in the Apocalypse,” NTS 12 (1966): 96–97, argues that they represent the “transcendental model” of all genuine prophecy, the archetype for all true understanding; Kenneth Strand, “The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11,” 134–135; idem., “The Two Olive Trees of Zechariah 4 and Revelation 11,” AUSS 20 (1982): 259–261, interprets the two witnesses primarily as the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ i.e. the Old Testament prophetic message and the New Testament apostolic witness. Secondarily he views the two witnesses as the church who proclaims the message. Antoninus King Wai Siew is the only scholar I know who takes a both/and approach. He suggests that the two witnesses are both individuals and the corporate church. He writes: “By stating that the two witnesses are the two olive trees (individuals) and the two lampstands (the churches), John is already hinting to his readers that the two witnesses must be interpreted in both individual and corporate dimensions. Focusing on either the individual or the corporate aspect is not likely to do justice to John’s portrayal of the two witnesses.” He builds this aspect of his argument on the work of Henry Robinson’s notion of Hebrew corporate solidarity found in the Hebrew Bible and the concepts of Malina and Neyrey regarding dyadic personalities in the first-century Mediterranean world. See Siew, The War, 226–232, for the full argument. M.Oberweis, Das Martyrium der Zebedaiden in Mk.10.35–40 (Matt.20.2–3) und Offb.11.3–13,” NTS 44 (1998): 74–92, supports the view that the two witnesses are James and John. 25. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 599. 26. Ibid., 601. 27. Ibid. Black offers a creative study in which he examines the sources to support Elijah and Enoch as the two witnesses. See Matthew Black, “The Two Witnesses of Rev. 11:3f. in Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Tradition,” in Donum Gentilicium, New Testament Studies in Honor of David Daube, (eds.) E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett and W. D. Davies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978): 227–234. 28. Beale, Revelation, 565. 29. Siew, The War between the Two Beasts and the Two Witnesses, 87–88. 30. This conclusion is reached based on the widespread availability of the Moses and Elijah tradition. It is likely that the informed and minimal audience would have heard about this tradition. 31. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 275, writes: “In 11.5–6 it is clear that the Old Testament models for the two prophets are Elijah and Moses.” Eugene Corsini, Apocalypse, 195, takes a rather unconventional view stating that while the two witnesses refer to Moses and

176 

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45.

46. 47.

48. 49.

50. 51.

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Elijah they in turn point more importantly to the Law and the Prophets. The Law represented by Moses and the Prophets represented by Elijah witnessed to Jesus. “In other words in all the physical and spiritual suffering of the Hebrew people, this witness was active, i.e. throughout the whole story of the Old Testament economy…this means that they are killed because of their witness for Christ.” Keener, Revelation, 291–292. Beale, Revelation, 572–75. De Silva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 154. Witherington, Revelation, 159. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 273. Beale, Revelation, 581. Keener, Revelation, 293. Corsini, The Apocalypse, 195–97. See for example Fiorenza, Vision of a Just World, 78; Giblin, Revelation, 114–15. Beale, Revelation, 493. Krodel, Revelation, 226. See J. M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), 34–43, in which he discusses Roman funary rites, the cult of the dead and tombs. Leon Morris, Revelation, revised edition, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1987), 146. See Morris, Revelation, 146. Beale, Revelation, 592, contends that o[pou “never introduces literal but always symbolic, spiritual geography. The antecedents of o[pou are symbolic places (‘wilderness in 12:6, 14; ‘heads’ and ‘mountains’ in 17:9; ‘lake of fire and brimstone’ in 20:10…). Though o[pou should not be taken as a technical term for ‘spiritual geography,’ its use elsewhere with this meaning and the most natural reading of the syntax of 11:8…point to the likelihood that it has the same meaning here.” Wall, Revelation, 146. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 199, 209. According to Bauckham it also plays a distinguishable role in the structure of the book and points to the Sinai theophany. Contra Aune, Revelation 6–16, 518, while not commenting on the structural value of this symbol marker, but rather, in reference to the Exodus tradition, writes: “….it appears that such language has become so conventional that no direct allusion to the Sinai tradition should be automatically assumed.” Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 199. Cf. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 517–18. J. R. Fears, “The Cult of Jupiter and the Roman Imperial Ideology,” ANRW 2.17, 1, 79. Pliny, Nat. II, XVIII, 227, suggests that thunderbolts are the fires of the three upper planets, particularly those of Jupiter, which is in the middle of Saturn and Mars. These thunderbolts come from the moisture of the upper circle of Saturn and the heat from the circle of Mars below. Pliny claims that this is the origin of the myth of the thunderbolts that are hurled as javelins by Jupiter. Ibid., 74–80. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 518. These include: “the quivering laurel, the shaking of the temple, a palm tree nodding, a swan singing, and the temple doors opening themselves …”

n ot e s  | 177

52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

57. 58.

59. 60. 61.

62.

See Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament, 211, for the literary and theological connections. Keener, Revelation, 304. Brighton, Revelation, 308. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 635; Keener, Revelation, 305; Resseguie, Revelation, 167, identifies it as a “canticle of praise; Witherington, Revelation, 160, calls it a “song of praise.” J. M. Ford, “The Christological Function of the Hymns in the Apocalypse of John,” AUSS 36 (1998): 207–229 (211), maintains that all the major events in Revelation are accompanied by hymns. These hymns occur at key moments in the plot of Revelation. Further, she maintains that the hymns provide a window through which to understand important eschatological figures in the Second Temple period. She suggests that Rev 11:15–19 points to the Lamb, who is Christ, as Co-Regent with God Almighty. According to J. M. Bremer, “Greek Hymns,” in Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, (ed.) H. S. Versnel (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 193, 203, it became normal practise, at least in the Hellenistic and Roman period, for city authorities to manage their religious traditions and their hymnody. In several cities choral societies existed. These societies were trained to sing the hymns correctly and often performed on important festival days in honour of local gods. Bremer states that “hymn-singing in honour of both gods and deified men was a regular feature at religious festivals.” Fiorenza, Revelation, 99–120. Scholars are divided on the origin of the hymns in Revelation. Beale, Revelation, 368, states that “the unique correspondence of the language [of Revelation] at different points to different Greek versions, the MT, and early Jewish traditions points to the probability that he [ John] depicts what he has seen with interpretive glosses from his learned biblical tradition.” A second possibility as to the origin of the hymns in Revelation is that John has inserted existing hymns into his visions that were used in early Christian worship. John O’Rourke, Hymns of the Apocalypse, CBQ 30 (1968): 402, notes that it is highly improbable that the hymn of Rev 5:9 was used in early church worship. O’Rourke’s view is championed on the basis that the acclamation, which proclaims that the lamb is “worthy to take the book,” would have been unfamiliar and it would not have had any significance to the early Christians. David R. Carnegie, “Worthy is the Lamb: The Hymns in Revelation,” in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, (ed.) Harold H. Rowdon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1982), 246, also contends that the praise units must have been written by John because of their close relationship with their immediate context. Fiorenza, Revelation, 59. Keener, Revelation, 305. Cf. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 643, suggests John has used the more common verb ὀργίζω perhaps through the influence of Exod 15.14. See Michael W. Wheeler, An Intertextual Study of Psalm 2 in the Book of Revelation (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2005); Steve Moyise, “The Psalms in the Book of Revelation,” 231–46, in The Psalms in the New Testament, (eds.) Steve Moyise and Maarten Menken (London: T & T Clark, 2004).; Farrer, The Revelation of St John the Divine, 137; Morris, Revelation, 149; Kraft, Offenbarung, 161 and Mounce, Revelation, revised, 226. According to Moyise it would appear that Ps 2 contains the seemingly contradictory themes of (1) the nations being destroyed by the Messiah; and (2) the Messiah ruling over

178 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

them as his inheritance. See Moyise, “The Psalms in the Book of Revelation,” 238 (his emphasis). 63. Thompson, Revelation, 129.

Chapter 7—Summary and Implications of This Study 1. Halvor Moxnes, “Honor and Shame,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, (ed.) Richard Rohrbaugh (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 20. 2. Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 76. 3. Barry Schwartz, “The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study of Collective Memory,” Social Forces 61 (1982):374–402 and references there. 4. Richard Jenkins, Social Identity, 2nd edition (London: Routledge, 2004), 82 (his emphasis). 5. The concept of collective memory was developed by Maurice Halbwachs, The Social Frameworks of Memory, translated by L. A. Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925). For other contributions to the study of collective memory see Jan Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–33. 6. Eric R. Kandel, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006), 10. 7. James Fentress and Chris Wickham, Social Memory: New Perspectives on the Past (New York: Harper, 1992), 88 (emphasis added). 8. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 1 (London: SPCK, 1992), 38–39, maintains that stories are basic to human life and are a fundamental characteristic of worldviews. Worldview is manifested in three ways: through narrative, rational, and ritual components. See Dennis P. Hollinger, Choosing the Good: Christian Ethics in a Complex World (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 63, and David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 9. Narrative leadership in local congregations has recently been advanced by Larry A. Goleman (ed.), Living Our Story: Narrative Leadership and Congregational Culture (Herndon: The Alban Institute, 2010) and others. Their concern has been with the narrative potential of leaders and congregations and the power of narrative to reframe and recast the vision and direction of local churches. Narrative leaders seek to harness the power of narratives— from biblical tradition and people’s lives—to develop a fresh understanding of ministry and leadership. They especially seek to reframe churches as “story-formed and forming communities” by making narratives central to ministry and leadership. Furthermore, narrative leaders seek to transform the traditions and practices of the churches they serve. 10. Goleman, “The Practice of Narrative Leadership in Ministry,” in Living Our Story: Narrative Leadership and Congregational Culture, 6. 11. Ibid., 5. 12. Olick and Robbins, 109. Halbwachs states: “The greatest number of memories come back to us when our parents, our friends or other persons recall them to us…It is in society that

n ot e s  | 179

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

people normally acquire their memories. It is also in society that they recall, recognize and localize their memories.” Alison Gopnik, “Theories, Language, and Culture: Whorf without Wincing,” in Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, (eds.) Melissa Bowerman and Stephen C. Levinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 45. P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966), 53–6. Hugh Dalziel Duncan, Symbols in Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 47. Ibid., 130. Ibid., 64. Ibid. Ibid., 51. See the example of Charles Teel, Jr., “The Apocalypse as Liturgy,” Spectrum 14 (1983): 33–43; and Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things, 31–5, in which he points out that many mainline churches do not seriously engage the message of Revelation, especially through the Revised Common Lectionary.

Bibliography

Select Primary Literature Aristotle, Rhetorica. Translated by John Henry Freese. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. ———. Poetica. Translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cicero. Brutus, Orator. Translated by G. L. Hendrickson and H. M. Hubbell. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. ———. Rhetorica ad Herennium. Translated by Harry Caplan. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954. ———. De Oratore. LCL. Translated by E.W. Sutton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942. Charlesworth, James. Editor. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 Volumes. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–1985. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Danker, Frederick William. Editor. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third edition. Based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Nueun Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. Sixth edition. Edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichman and on previous English

182 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Dio Cassius. Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. LCL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924. Dio Chrysostom, Orations. LCL. Translated by J. W. Cohoon. London: Heinemann, 1932. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Critical Essays. Translated by Stephen Usher. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by C. F. Cruse. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955. Goldstein, Jonathan A. 1 Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Herodotus. With an English Translation by A. D. Godley. Four Volumes. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by A. T. Murray. Revised by George E. Dimock. 2 vols. 2nd ed. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. LCL. In Nine Volumes. Translated by H. St. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. Köstenberger Andreas and Raymond Bouchoc. The Book Study Concordance of the Greek New Testament. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003. Livy. History of Rome. With an English translation by B. O. Foster. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Lucian. With an English translation by A. M. Harmon. Eight Volumes. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Philo. With An English Translation by F. H. Colson. Ten Volumes. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966–1968. Pliny. Natural History. With an English Translation by H. Rackham. Ten Volumes. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979–1983. Plutarch, Caesar. LCL. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria. With an English Translation by H. E. Butler. Five Volumes. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920–22. Seneca. Naturales Quaestiones. With an Engish Translation by T. H. Corcoran. Ten Volumes. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979–1983.

Secondary Literature Abbott, Edwin A. The Message of the Son of Man. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1909. Abrams, Jr. H. Leon. Inquiry into Anthropology. New York: Globe, 1976. Achtemeier, P. J. “Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 109 (1990):3–27. Aitchison, Jean. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 183

Aldrete, Gregory S. Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome. ASH. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Alexander, Patrick H., et al. Editors. The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999. Allen, Ronald J. “Performance and the New Testament in Preaching.” In Performance in Preaching: Bringing the Sermon to Life. Editors, Jana Childers and Clayton J. Schmit. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Altick, Richard D. and Fenstermaker, John J. The Art of Literary Research. Fourth Revised Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993. Anderson, B. W. “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah.” In Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Editors, B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper and Bros., 1962, 177–95. Anderson, Janice Capel. Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. Arthur J. Ferch, The Son of Man in Daniel Seven. AUSDDS. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1979. Assmann, Jan “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–33. Aune, David. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52A. Dallas: Word, 1997. ———. Revelation 6–16. WBC 52B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. ———. “The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John,” BR 28 (1983): 5–26. ———. Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in Early Christianity. WUNT 199. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ———. “The Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Revelation 22.16,” JSNT 37 (1987):103–16. ———. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. ———. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. “The Odes of Solomon and Early Christian Prophecy,” NTS 28 (1982):435–460. Avalos, H. “Introducing Sensory Criticism in Biblical Studies: Audiocentricity and Visiocentricity.” In H. Avalos, S Melcherand, J. Schipper. Editors. This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 31–46. Bacchiocchi, Samuele. From Sabbath to Sunday. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977. Bagnall Roger S. and Cribiore, Rafaella. Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt 300 BC—AD 800. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Bandy, Alan, S. The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010.

184 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “Illiteracy in the Land of Palestine in the First Centurries C.E.” In Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society (ed. S. Fishbance and S. Schoenfeld with A. Goldschlager. Hoboken: Ktav, 1992, 46–61. Barr, David L. “The Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation of the World: A Literary Analysis,” Int 38 (1984): 39–50. ———. “The Apocalypse as Oral Enactment,” Int 40 (1984): 243–256. ———. Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Santa Rosa: Poleridge Press, 1998. Bass, Dorothy. “Christian Formation in and for Sabbath Rest,” Int 59 (2005): 25–40. Bauckham, R. J. “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church.” In From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation. Editor, D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, 251–98. ———. “The Lord’s Day.” In From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation. Editor, D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Bauckham, Richard. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993. ———. The Theology of the Book of Revelation: New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ———. Editor. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audience. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Baumgarten, J. kairo.j, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, 232. Beale, G. K. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. JSNTSup 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. ———. The Book of Revelation. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984. Beasley-Murray, G. R. “The Interpretation of Daniel 7,” CBQ 45 (1983): 44–58. ———. The Book of Revelation. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1974. Beckwith, Isbon T. The Apocalypse of John. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Bergen, Benjamin. Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic, 2012. Betz, O, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, 238. Blevins, James L. “The Genre of Revelation,” RevExp 77 (1980):393–408. Blomberg, Craig. “The Gospel for Specific Communities and All Christians.” In The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity. Editor, Edward W. Klink III. LNTS 353. London: T&T Clark, 2010, 111–33. Bloomfield, Leonard “Speech Communities.” In Lucy Burke, Tony Crowley and Alan Girvin, Editors. The Routledge Language and Cultural Theory Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2000.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 185

Blount, Brian K. Revelation: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. Bock, Emil. The Apocalypse of Saint John. Revised edition. London: Christian Community Press, 2005. Bonner, Stanley E. Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny. Berkeley: University of California, 1975, 165–249. Boomershine, T. E. “Biblical Megatrends: Towards a Paradign for the Interpretation of the Bible in Electronic Media,” SBLSP (1987):144–57. ———. “Peter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 39 (1987):47–68. Boring, Eugene. Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ———. Revelation. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1989. ———. Mark, A Commentary. NTL. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Botha, P. J. J. “Greco-Roman Literacy as Setting for New Testament Writings.” Neot 26 (1992): 195–215. ———. “New Testament Texts in the Context of Reading Practises of the Roman Period: The Role of Memory and Performance,”Scriptura 90 (2005): 621–40. ———. “Mute Manuscripts: Analysing a Neglected Aspect of Ancient Communication.” Theologia Evangelica 23 (1990): 23–47. ———. Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World. Vol. 5. Eugene: Cascade, 2012. Bousset, Wilhelm. Die Offenbarung Johannis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906. Bovon, Francois. “Names and Numbers in Early Christianity,” NTS 47 (2001): 267–88. Bowman, John Wick. “The Revelation to John: Its Dramatic Structure and Its Message,” Int 9 (1955):436–53. Boxall, Ian. The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006. Bremer, J. M. “Greek Hymns.” In Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by H. S. Versnel. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981, 193–215. Brickle, Jeffrey E. Aural Design and Coherence in the Prologue of First John. London: T & T Clark, 2012. Brighton, Louis. Revelation. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999. Brilliant, Richard. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art. New Haven: The Academy, 1963. Brown R. and McNeill, D. “The Tip of the Tongue Phenomenon,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 5 (1966): 325–37. Brown, A. S. “A Review of the Tip-of-the-Tongue Experience,” Psychological Bulletin 109 (1991): 204–23. Brunt, P. A. Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971. Bullinger. E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968. Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Burnett, Andrew, Michel Amandy and Pere Pau Ripollès, The Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. 1. London: British Museum Press, 1998. Burnyeat, Miles F. “Postscript on Silent Reading,” CQ 47 (1997):74–76.

186 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Byron, John Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity. WUNT 162.2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Caird, G. B. A Commentry on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament. WUNT 167. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Carey, Greg., Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John. SABH 15. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1999. Carnegie, David R. “Worthy is the Lamb: The Hymns in Revelation.” In Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie. Edited by Harold H. Rowdon. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1982, 246. Carradice, I. Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96. BAR International Series 178. Oxford: B.A.R., 1983. Carter W. and Heil, J. P. Matthew’s Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspectives. CBQMS 30. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1998. Carter, Warren. “Toward an Imperial-Critical Reading of Matthew’s Gospel.” SBL Seminar Papers (1998): 296–324. ———. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. Casey W. Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. JSNTSup 172. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Casey, Maurice. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. Charles, R. H. Revelation. ICC. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920. Charlesworth, James.. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. SNTSMS 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Coinage II: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Viellius 44 BC—AD 69. London: British Museum Press/Paris Bibliothéque Nationale, 1992. Collins, A. Yarbro. “Review of The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John, by G. K. Beale.” JBL 105 (1986): 734–35. Collins, Adela Yarbro “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Editors, Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984, II.21.2:1221–87. ———. “Reading the book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century,” Int 40 (1986):229–42. ———. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984. ———. Mark, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Collins, John J. “Apocalyptic in Literature.” In Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. Editors, Robert Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986, 345–70. ———.Collins, John J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997. ———. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 187

Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Corsini, Eugenio. The Apocalypse: The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ. Good News Studies 5. Translated and edited by Francis J. Moloney. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1983. Cribiore, Rafaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Cuss, Dominique. Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament. Contribution to the History of Early Christian Literature and Theology 23. Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974, 55–88. Daschke Derek. City of Ruins: Mourning the Destruction of Jerusalem through Jewish Apocalypse. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. de Boer Egbert and Nuttall, Alfred L. “Cochlear Mechanics, Tuning and Non-Linearities.” In David R. Moore (Chief Editor), The Oxford Handbook of Auditory Science: The Ear. Vol. 1. Editors, Paul A. Fuchs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 139–77. de Jorio, Andrea. Gestures in Naples and Gesture in Classical Antiquity. Translated by Adam Kendon. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. de Silva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000. ———. “X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses of Revelation,” JSNT 30 (2008):343–71. ———. Seeings Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. ———. “Seeing things John’s Way: Rhetography and Conceptual Blending in Revelation 14:6– 13,” BBR 18 (2008): 271–298. ———. “The Social Setting of the Revelation to John: Conflict Within, Fears Without,” WTJ 54 (1992): 273–302. de Waal, Kayle B. A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation: The Apocalyptic Challenge to Earthly Empire. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2012. Dean, Margaret E. “The Grammar of Sound in Greek Texts: Toward a Method for Mapping the Echoes of Speech in Writing,” ABR 44 (1996): 53–70. DeConick, April D. “Human Memory and the Sayings of Jesus: Contemporary Experimental Exercises in the Transmission of Jesus’ Traditions.” In Jesus, The Voice and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel. Editor, Tom Thatcher. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008. Dewey, Joanna. “Mark as Aural Narrative: Structures as Clues to Understanding,” STRev 36 (1992): 45–65. ———. “Textualilty in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions,” Semeia 65 (1994): 37–65. ———. “Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience,” CBQ 53 (1991): 221–236. ———. “The Gospel of John in Its Oral-Written Media World.” In Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Editors, Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

188 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Dil, Anwar S. (Editor.), Language, Culture and Education: Essays by Norman A. McQuown. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. Doan W. and Giles, T. “Masking God—Application of Drama Theory to Biblical Texts.” In Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bible Societies. Volume 22. Editor, B. Fiore, Buffalo: EGLMBS, 2002. Doan, William and Terry Giles, Prophets, Performance and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2005. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology. London: Collins, 1952. Doukhan, Jacques. Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2002. du Rand, Jan. “A Socio-psychological View of the Effect of the Language of the Apocalypse of John,” Neotestamentica 24 (1990): 351–365. Duff, Paul. Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse. New York. Oxford University Press, 2001. Duncan, Hugh Dalziel Symbols in Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. Dunn, J. D.G. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Eisen, Ute. Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies. Translated by Linda Maloney. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000. Elliot, John H. “Patronage and Clientage.” In The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by Richard Rohrbaugh. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, 144–56. Ellis, E. History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 54. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Ely, Talfourd. The Gods of Greece and Rome. New York: Dover Publications, 2003. Emerton, J. A. “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery,” JTS 9 (1958): 225–42. Enns, Peter. Exodus. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Erlenwein, Peter. “Bibliodrama: A Modern Body-Mind Hermeneutics,” Asia Journal of Theology 16 (2002):327–40. Esler, Philip. “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospel for all Christians,” SJT 51 (1998):235–48. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005. ———. Mark 8.27–16.20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001. ———. Luke. NIBC. Peabody: Massachusetts, 1990. Ezell, Douglas. Revelations on Revelation. Waco: Word, 1977. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Farrell, T. J. “Early Christian Creeds and Controversies in the Light of the Orality-Literacy Hypothesis,” Oral Tradition 2 (1987): 132–45. Farrer, Austin. The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 189

Fee, Gordon D. “Exegesis and Spirituality: Completing the Circle.” In Listening to the Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, 3–15. Fekkes, Jan. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development. JSNTSup 93. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Felise Tavo, “The Structure of the Apocalypse: Re-Examining a Perennial Problem,” NovT 47 (2005):47–68. Fentress James and Wickham, Chris. Social Memory: New Perspectives on the Past. New York: Harper, 1992. Finley, M. I. “Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology.” In M. I. Finley. Editor. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto and Windus, 1980, 11–66. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. ———. Revelation: Vision of a Just World. Proclamation Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. ———. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Second Edition. Minnepolis: Fortress Press, 1998. ———. “The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 23 (1977): 402–27. Ford, Desmond. Crisis! A Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Vol. 2. New Castle. Desmond Ford Publications, 1982. Ford, J. M. “The Son of Man—A Euphemism?” JBL 87 (1968): 257–66. Ford, Josephine Massyngberde. Revelation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. AB 38. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1975. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 2002. Freed, Edwin D. “The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 86 (1967): 402–409. Friberg, Joran “Numbers and Counting.” ABD. Editor, David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York, Doubleday, 1992, 4:1139–45. Friesen, Steven J. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ———. “Satan’ s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation,” JSNT 27 (2005): 351–373. Gadamer, Hans-George. Truth and Method. Second edition. Translated by William Glen-Doepel. London: Sheed and Ward, 1979. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Garland, David E. Luke: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. Garrow, Alan J. P. Revelation. New Testament Readings. London & New York: Routledge, 1997. Gaston, Lloyd. No Stone on Another. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Gavrilov, Alexander K.. “Techniques of Reading in Classical Antiquity,” CQ 47 (1997):56–73. Gehring, Roger W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.

190 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Giblin, C. H. “Revelation 11.1–13: Its Form, Function and Contexual Integration,” NTS 30 (1984): 433–59. Giesen, Heinz. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1997. Gilbertson, Michael. God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogue with Pannenberg and Moltmann. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Gill, Christopher “The Character-Personality Distinction.” In Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Editor, Christopher Pelling. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990, 1–30. Gill, Christopher “The Question of Character-Development: Plutarch and Tacitus,” Classical Quarterly 33 (1984): 469–87. Gilliard, Frank D. “More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non Omne Verbum Sonabat,” JBL (1993): 689–94. Glasson, T. F. The Revelation of John. Cambridge: CUP, 1965. Goleman Larry A. Editor. Living Our Story: Narrative Leadership and Congregational Culture. Herndon: The Alban Institute, 2010. Goody, Jack and Ian Watt, “The Consequences of Literary.” In Literacy in Traditional Societies. Editor, Jack Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968, 27–69. Gopnik, Alison “Theories, Language, and Culture: Whorf without Wincing.” In Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Editors, Melissa Bowerman and Stephen C. Levinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Goppelt, L. Typos: The Typological interpretation of the OT in the New. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Goppens, J. “Le Fils d’Homme danielique et les relectures de Dan 7:13 dans les apocryphes et les écrits du Nouveau Testament,” ETL 37 (1961): 5–51. Goulder, Michael. “The Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies,” NTS 27 (1981): 322–341. Graff, Harvey J. The Labyrinths of Literacy: Reflections on Literacy Past and Present. London: Falmer, 1987. Grassi, M. “The Role of auditory abilities in basic mechanisms of cognition in Older Adults,” Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, October 2013, Vol. 5, 59. Green, Gene L. Jude & 2 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Green, Joel. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Greenspan Stanley and Shanker, Stuart. The First Idea: How Symbols, Language, and Intelligence Evolved from Our Primate Ancestors to Modern Humans. Cambridge: De Capo Press, 2004. Griffith, Mark. “‘Telling the tale’: A Performing Tradition from Homer to Pantomime.” In The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theatre, eds. Marianne McDonald and J. Michael Walton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 13–35. Guelich, R. Mark 1–8.26. WBC. Waco: Word, 1989. Gundry, R. H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Halbwachs, Maurice. The Social Frameworks of Memory. Translated by L. A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 191

Hall, Robert G. The Christian Interpolation in the Apocalypse of Abraham, JBL 107 (1988): 107–110. Hamm, Dennis. “Watch How You Hear.” In Mary F. Foskett and O. Wesley Allen Jr., Between Experience and Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2008, 147–73. Harrington, Wilfird. Revelation. Sacra Pagina. Edited by Daniel Harrrington. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1993. Harris, Michael. “The Literary Function of Hymns in the Apocalypse of John.” Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Harvey, John. Listening to the Text. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998. ———. “Orality and Its implications for Biblical Studies: Recapturing an Ancient Paradigm,” JETS 45 (2002): 99–109. Havelock, Eric A. The Preface to Plato.Cambridge: Belknap, 1963. ———. Origins of Western Literacy. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1976. ———.The Greek Concept of Justice. Cambridge: n. p., 1978. ———.The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. ———. The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Hays, Richard. “Salvation by Trust: Reading the Bible Faithfully,” Christian Century 114 (1997): 218–223. Head, Peter M. “Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material.” In Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, Editors. Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. LSTS 70. London: T & T Clark, 2009, 203–19. Hearon, Holly E. “From Narrative to Performance: Methodological Considerations and Interpretive Moves.” In Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect, Editors. Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Hect, Annaliese. “Bibliodrama and Exegesis,” Dei Verbum 66/67 (2003):6–10. Heil, John Paul. Hebrews: Chiastic Structures and Audience Response. CBQMS 46. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2010. ———. The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians. Studies in Biblical Literature. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. ———. The Meal Scenes in Luke Acts: An Audience-Oriented Approach. SBLMS. Atlanta, 1999. ———. Phillipians: Let Us Rejoice in Being Conformed to Christ. SBL Early Christianity and Its Literature 3. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of Second Temple Judaism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Herms, Ronald. An Apocalypse for the Church and the World: The Narrative Function of Universal Language in the Book of Revelation. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Hill David, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John,” NTS 18 (1971–72): 406–11. Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter. NIBC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992.

192 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Hofius, Otfried. “Der Septuaginta-Text von Daniel 7:13–14: Erwägungen zu seiner Gestalt und seiner Aussage,” ZAW 117 (2005): 73–90. Hollinger, Dennis P. Choosing the Good: Christian Ethics in a Complex World. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Holtz, Traugott Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Hongisto Leif. Experiencing the Apocalypse at the Limits of Alterity. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Horsley and Jonathan A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999. Horsley, Richard A. Jonathan A. Draper and John Miles Foley. Editors. Performing the Gospel: Essays dedicated to Werner Kelber. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Howard-Brook, Wes and Gwyther, Anthony. Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now. Maryknoll. Orbis, 1999. Hubbard, Moyer V. Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction. Peabody: Hendrikson, 2010. Hughes, Philip. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Humphrey J. H. Literacy in the Roman World. Journal of Roman Archeology Supplement 3, 1991. Iverson, Kelly R. “A Centurion’s “Confession”: A Performance-Critical Analysis of Mark 15:39,” JBL (2011): 329–50. James A Maxey and Ernst R. Wendland, Editors. Translating Scripture for Sound and Performance: New Directions in Biblical Studies. Vol. 6. Eugene: Cascade, 2012. Janzen, Ernest P. “The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Clothes.” In SBL Seminar Papers. Edited by E.H. Lovering, Jr., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994, 637–61. Jauhiainen, Marko. The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. WUNT 2. Reihe 199. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Jeffers, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Jenkins, Richard. Social Identity. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2004. Johnson, Luke Timothy The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, Revised Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostle, Sacra Pagina Series. Vol. 5. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992. Johnson, Steven. Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life. New York: Scribner, 2004. Joubert, Annekie. The Power of Performance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004. Judge, E. A. The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century. London: Tyndale, 1960. Kandel, Eric R. In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. Keener, Craig S. Revelation. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Keith, Chris. “In My Own Hand:’ Grapho-literacy and the Apostle Paul,” Bib 89 (2008):39–58.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 193

Kelber, Werner “Orality and Biblical Studies: A Review Essay,” Review of Biblical Literature (2007):19. Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Kiddle, M. The Revelation of St John. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940. Kim, Hak Chol. “The Worship of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew,” Bib 93 (2012): 227–41. Kistemaker, Simon. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Klijn, A.F. J. “2 [Syriac Apocalypse of ] Baruch.” In James H. Charlesworth, Editor. The Old Testament Pseudepiugrapha. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983), 615–52. Klink III, Edward. “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question,” CBR 3 (2004):60–85. Koester Helmut “Writings and the Spirit: Authority and Politics in Ancient Christianity,” HTR 84 (1991): 353–72. Koester, Craig. Revelation and the End of All Things. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. “Hearing, Seeing, and, Believing in the Gospel of John,” Bib (1989):327–48. Koottappillil, George. “The Symbolism of Kronos and Its Biblical-Theological Implications in the Apocalypse.” PhD Dissertation; Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1996. Koriat, A. and I. Lieblich. “What does a Person in a TOT state know that a Person in a ‘Don’t Know’ state doesn’t know,” Memory and Cognition 2 (1974): 647–55. Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Kowalski, Beate. Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes. Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004. Kraft, Heinrich . Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 16a. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Paul Siebeck, 1974. Kraybill, J. Nelson. Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse. JSNTSup 132. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Kreitzer, Larry J. Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World. JSNTSup 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Krodel, Gerhard. Revelation. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. Ladd, G. E. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Larkin, William J. Acts. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Illinois: Tyndale, 2009. LaRondelle, Hans. How to Understand the End Time Prophecies of the Bible. Sarasota: First Impressions, 1997. ———. “The Apostolic Gospel: Master Key to Revelation’s Code,” Ministry (2003):22–24. ———. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1983. Lawrence, Louise. “Exploring the Sense-scape of the Gospel of Mark,” JSNT 33 (2011): 387–97. Lee, Charlotte I. Oral Reading of the Scriptures. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974. Lee, Dorothy. “The Gospel of John and the Five Senses,” JBL 129 (2010): 115–127. Lee, Margaret Ellen and Bernard Brandon Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament. Salem: Polebridge Press, 2009. Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1957.

194 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Tristes Tropiques. Translated by John Weightman and Doreen Weightman. New York: Atheneum, 1974. Lichtenwalter, Larry L. “Exodus and Apocalypse: Deliverance Then and Now.” In Christ, Salvation and the Eschaton, Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle. Editors. Daniel Heinz, Jiri Moskala and Peter M. Van Bemmelen. Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Andrews University, 2009. Livesey, Nina E. “Sounding Out the Heirs of Abraham (Rom 4:9–12),” Oral Tradition 27/1 (2012): 273–290. Llewelyn, S. R. “Sunday Worship in the Early Church,” NovT 43 (2001):205–23. Lohse, Eduard. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971. Longenecker, Bruce W. Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament ChainLink Transitions. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. Loubser, J. A. (Bobby) Oral and Manuscript Culture in the Bible: Studies on the Media Texture of the New Testament—Explorative Hermeneutics. 2nd edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2013. Lund, N. Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures. Reprint. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992. Lundy-Ekman, Laurie. Neuroscience: Fundamentals for Rehabilitation. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1998. Luomanen, Petri, Pyysiäinen, Ilkka, Uro Risto. Editors. Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science, Biblical Interpretation Series 89. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2007. Lupieri, Edmondo F. A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, Italian Texts and Studies on Religion and Society. Translated by Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Lupieri. Edmond F. A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, translated by Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Mackay E. Anne. Editor. Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece. Vol. 7. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008. Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Vol. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Maier, Harry O. Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Second edition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Malina, Bruce. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993. Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Mardaga, Hellen. “The Repetitive Use of uyo,w in the Fourth Gospel,” CBQ 74 (2012):101–17. Marguerat, D. The First Christian Historian: Writing the Acts of the Apostles. SNTSMS 121. Translated by K. McKinney, G. J. Laughery and Richard Bauckham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 195

Marrou, Henri I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by George Lamb. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Martin, Dale B. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Mathewson, David L. Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse. LBS 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Mauro, Philip. The Patmos Visions. Boston: Scripture Truth Depot, 1925. Maxey, James. “Performance Criticism and Its Implications for Bible Translation,” Paper presented in the group Bible in Ancient and Modern Media. San Diego: SBL, November, 2007, 1–36. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. God Cares. Vol. 2. Boise: Pacific Press, 1985. Mazzaferri, Frederick. The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. McAdams Stephen and Bigand Emmanuel. “Introduction to Auditory Cognition.” In Thinking in Sound: The Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition. Editors, Stephen McAdams and Emmanuel Bigand. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. McCreesh, Thomas. Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10–29, JSOTSup 128. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. McIver, Robert K. Memory, Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. Anchor Bible 20. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968. Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Michaels, J. Ramsey. Interpreting the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992. McIver, R. K. “One Hundred Fold Yield—Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13:8, 23; Mark 4:8, 20; Luke 8:8,” NTS 40 (1994):606–08. Mihaila, Corin. The Paul-Appolos Relationship and Paul’s Stance Toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Millard, Alan. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Miller, G. A. and C. Fellbaum, “Semantic Networks of English,” Cognition 41 (1991): 197–229. Moo, D. J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Moore David R. (Chief Editor). The Oxford Handbook of Auditory Science: Hearing. Volume 3. Editor, Christopher J. Plack. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Morgan Teresa, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Morgenstern, Julian. “The ‘Son of Man’ of Daniel 7:13f.: A New Interpretation,” JBL 80 (1961): 65–77. Morris, Leon Luke. Revised Edition. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Revised. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

196 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Moxnes, Halvor “Honor and Shame.” In The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by Richard Rohrbaugh, 19–40. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. Moyise, Steve. “Authorial Intention and the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 39 (2001): 35–40. ———. “Word Frequencies in the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 43 (2005): 285–99. ———. “Does the Author of Revelation Misappropriate the Scriptures?” AUSS 40 (2002): 3–21. ———. “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New.” In The Old Testament in the New, Essays in Honor of J. L. North. Edited by Steve Moyise. JSNTSup 89. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———. “The Psalms in the Book of Revelation.” In The Psalms in the New Testament. Editors, Steve Moyise and Maarten Menken. London: T & T Clark, 2004, 231–46. Müller, Ulrich B. Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Okumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 19. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1984. Naden, Roy C. The Lamb Among the Beasts. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1996. Nakhro, Mazie. “The Meaning of Worship According to the Book of Revelation,” Bib Sac 158 (2001):75–85. Nancy Parrott Hickerson. Linguistic Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980. Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch 1, Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Nolland, J. Luke. WBC, Vol. 1. Dallas: Word, 1989. Nolland, John. Luke 9.21–18.34. WBC 35B. Dallas: Word, 1993. O’Callaghan, Casey. “Hearing: Philosophical Perspectives.” In Encyclopedia of the Mind. Editors. H. Pashler, T. Crane. Sage, 2013, 1–4. Oestreich, Bernhard. Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe. WUNT 296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Ogilvie, R. M. The Romans and Their Gods. London: The Hogarth Press, 1986. Olbricht, Thomas H. “Delivery and Memory.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.-A.D. 400. Editors. Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 159–67. Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. 2nd edition. NA. London: Routledge: 2002. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. ———. “Recent Trends in the Study of the Apocalypse.” In The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Editors, Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker; Leicester: Apollos, 2004, 473–504. Osiek Carolyn and Balch, David L. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Osiek, Carolyn, Margaret Y. Macdonald with Janet H. Tulloch, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Osiek, Carolyn, Margaret Y. Macdonald with Janet H. Tulloch, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 197

Park, Yoon Man. Mark’s Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1–3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010. Parsons M. and R. Pervo. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Pattemore, Stephen. The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure and Exegesis. SNTMS 128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Patterson, O. “Slavery,” Annual Review of Sociology 3 (1977):407–49. Perry, Peter S. The Rhetoric of Digressions: Revelation 7:1–17 and 10:1–11:13 and Ancient Communication. WUNT 268. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Peterson, Eugene. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Pinker, Steve. How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997. Piper, O. “The Apocalypse of John and the Liturgy of the Ancient Church,” CH 20 (1951): 10–22. Poirier, John C. The Ouranology of the Apocalypse of Abraham, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 35 (2004): 391–408. Pope, M. H. “Seven, Seventh, Seventy,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Editor, George Arthur Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962, 4:294–95. Popkes, W. dei/, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, 279. Porter, James E. Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1992. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament. Editor. D. A. Carson, Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Prigent, Pierre. Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Rabinowitz, P. J. Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. ———. “Whirl without End: Audience-Oriented Criticism.” In Contemporary Literary Theory. Editors, G. D. Atkins and L. Morrow. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1989. Radl, W. parousi,a. EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Vol. 3, 43–44. Ramsay, William M. The Letters to the Seven Churches. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. Randolph, E. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collections. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Reddish, Mitchell Glenn. Revelation. Macon. Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 2001. Rengstorf, douloj, TDNT. Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Vol., 2, 270–78. Renn, Stephen D. Editor. Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Resseguie, James L. The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Rhoads, David. “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies—Part II,” BTB (2006):1–21.

198 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

———. “Biblical Performance Criticism: Performance as Research,” Oral Tradition 25 (2010):157–98. ———. Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Ringe, Sharon H. “Holy, as the Lord your God commanded you: Sabbath in the New Testament,” Int 59 (2005): 17–24. Ritt, Hubert. Offenbarung des Johannes. Die Neue Echter Bibel. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung. Würburg: Echter Verlag, 1986. Robbins, Vernon K. “Conceptual Blending and Early Christian Imagination.” In Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science. Edited by Petri Luomanen, Ikka Pyysiäinen, and Risto Uro. Biblical Interpretation Series 89. Leiden: Brill, 2007, 161–95. ———.“Writing as a Rhetorical Act in Plutarch and the Gospels.” In Persuasive Artistry in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. JSNTSup 50. Editor, D. F. Watson. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ———. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976. Rogers Jr., Cleon, and Cleon Rogers III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. “The Social Location of the Markan Audience,” Int (1993):380–95. Roland, Jr. Worth The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture (New York: Paulist Press, 1999). Rose, H. J. Religion in Greece and Rome. New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Royalty Jr. Robert M., The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998. Rubin, D. Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-out Rhymes. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Rubin, D. C. “Within Word Structure in the Tip-of-the-Tongue Phenomenon,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 14 (1975): 392–97. Ryan, Sean Michael. Hearing at the Boundaries: Education Informing Cosmology in Revelation 9. LNTS 448. London: T & T Clark, 2012. Saenger, Paul. Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. FRMC. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2000. Satake, Akira. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Sayler, Gwendolyn B. Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch. SBLDS 72. Chico: Scholars, 1984. Schechner, Richard. Performance Studies: An Introduction. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge, 2006. Schmidt, Nathaniel. “The ‘Son of Man’ in the Book of Daniel,” JBL 19 (1900): 22–28. Schnupp, Jan, Nelken Israel, and King Andrew. Editors. Auditory Neuroscience: Making Sense of Sound. London: MIT Press, 2011.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 199

Schröter, Jens. “The Son of Man as the Representative of God’s Kingdom: On the Interpretation of Jesus in Mark and Q.” In Jesus, Mark, and Q: The Teachings of Jesus and Its Earliest Records. Editors, M. Labahn and A. Schmidt. JSNTSup 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 34–68. Seal, David. “Shouting in the Apocalypse: The Influence of First-Century Acclamations on the Praise Utterances in Revelation 4.8 and 11,” JETS 51 (2008): 339–52. Shea, William. “Chiasm in Theme and by Form in Revelation 18,” AUSS 20 (1982): 249–256. ———. “Revelation 5 and 19 as Literary Reciprocals,” AUSS 22 (1984): 249–57. ———. “The Parallel Literary Structure of Revelation 12 and 20,” AUSS 23 (1985): 37–54. Shepherd, Massey. The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse. Ecumenical Studies in Worship 6. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1960. Shepherd, Tom. Markan Sandwich Stories: Narration, Definition and Function. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1993. Shiell, William. Reading Acts: The Lector and the Early Christian Audience. BIS 70. Boston: Brill, 2004. Siew, A.K.W. The War between the Two Beasts and the Two Witnesses: A Chiastic Reading of Revelation. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Sim, David. “The Gospel for All Christians: A Response to Richard Bauckham,” JSNT 84 (2001):3–27. Slater, Thomas B. “On the Social Setting of the Revelation to John,” NTS 44 (1998): 232–56. Small, J. P. Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Smalley, Stephen. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Snodgrass, Klyne. “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40.1–5 and Their Adaption in the New Testament,” JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45. ———. “A Hermeneutics of Hearing Informed by the Parables with Special Reference to Mark 4,” BBR 14 (2004): 59–79. Spencer, F. Scott. The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Stacey, David. Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament. London: Epworth, 1990. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Stanton, Graham. “Aspects of Early Christian and Jewish Worship: Pliny and the Kerygma Petrou.” In Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin. Editors, M. J. Wilkins, et. al. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992, 84–98. Stefanovic, Ranko. Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2002. ———. ““The Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10 in the Current Debate,” AUSS (2011):261–84. Stein, Robert. “Is Our Reading the Bible the same as the Original Audience’s Hearing It? A Case Study in the Gospel of Mark,” JETS 46 (2003): 63–78.

200 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Stevenson, Gregory. Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Stott, John R.W. The Message of Acts. The Bible Speaks Today. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990. Stowers, Stanley K. “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26 (1982): 59–82. Strand Kenneth. Interpreting the Book of Revelation: Hermeneutical Guidelines with Brief Introduction to Literary Analysis. Ohio: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1976. ———. “The Lord’s Day in the Second Century.” In The Sabbath in Scripture and History. Washington D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982, 346–351. Strecker, G. maka,rioj, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, 376. Streett Matthew. Here Comes the Judge: Violent Pacifism in the Book of Revelation. LNTS 462. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Strelan Rick. “The Running Prophet (Acts 8:30),” NovT 43 (2001): 31–8. Sutherland, Carol H. V. and Robert A. G. Carson, Roman Imperial Coinage. 10 vols. London: Spink and Son, rev. edn, 1984. Swedenborg, Emanuel. The Apocalypse Explained. London: Swedenborg Society, 1919. Sweet, John. Revelation. London: SCM Press, 1979. Swete, Henry Barclay. Commentary on Revelation. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977. ———. The Apocalypse of St. John. New York: Macmillan Company, 1906; reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951. Talbert, Charles. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. ———. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 2: The Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994. Teel, Jr. Charles. “The Apocalypse as Liturgy,” Spectrum 14 (1983): 33–43. Tenney, Merrill C. Interpreting Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Theissen, Gerd. “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Comments on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT 84 (2001): 65–84. Thiselton, Anthony C. The Two Horizons. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Thomas, Kenneth J. “Seeking a Methodology for Exegetical Checking of Audio Scripture,” Bible Translator 41 (1990):301–311. Thomas, Robert L. Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary. 3 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1992–95. Thomas, Rosaland. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Thompson, L. L. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Titrud, Kermit “The Function of kai in the Greek New Testament.” In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation, Essays on Discourse Analysis. Editors, David Alan Black, with Katharine Barnwell and Stephen Levinsohn. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 201

Tonstad, Sigve. Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic Narratives of the Apocalypse. LNTS 337. London: T &T Clark, 2007. Tóth Franz, Der Himmlische Kult: Wirklichkeitskonstruktion und Sinnbildung iin der Johannesoffenbarung. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Trafton, Joseph L. Reading Revelation: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament Commentary Series. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Trebilco, Paul. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Trehub Sandra E. and Trainor, Laurel J. “Listening Strategies in Infancy: The Roots of Music and Language Development.” In Thinking in Sound : The Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition. Editors. S. McAdams and E. Bigand. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 278–327. Van Hoozer, Kevin. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Vogelgesang, Jeffrey Marshall. “The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1985. von Thaden, Robert. “Fleeing Porneia: 1 Corinthians 6.12–7.7 and the Reconfiguration of Traditions.” Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 2007. Vos, Louis A. The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse. Kampen: J. H. Kok N.V, 1965. Wall, Robert. Revelation. NIBC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Waltke, Bruce K. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Ward, Richard F. and David J. Trobisch, Bringing the Word to Life: Engaging the New Testament through Performing It. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Watts, Rikki.E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Webb, Stephen H. The Divine Voice: Christian Proclamation and the Theology of Sound. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004. Wenham David “The Kingdom of God and Daniel,” Expository Times 98 (1987): 132–134. Wifstrand, Albert. “Autokrator, Kaisar, Basileus.” DRAGMA. Lund: C. Gleerup, 1939. 529–39, quoted in David E. Aune, Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in Early Christianity, WUNT 199. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Williamson, Ricky L. “Thrones in the Book of Revelation.” PhD Dissertation; The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993. Witherington III Ben, What’s In the Word: Rethinking the Socio-Rhetorical Character of the New Testament. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. ———. Revelation. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ———. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Vol. 1. London: SPCK, 1992. ———. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 4. London: SPCK, 2003. Yates, Frances The Art of Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.

202 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

Yong, Amos. Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity. Atlanta: Baylor University Press, 2007. Young Richard A., Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Young, Norman H. “The Use of Sunday for Meetings of Believers in the New Testament”: A Response,” NovT 45 (2003):111–22. Zevit, Ziony. “The Structure and Individual Elements of Daniel 7,” ZAW 80 (1968): 385–96.

Select Index of Authors

A Abbott, 171, 182 Abrams, 156, 182 Achtemeier, 68, 138, 162, 182 Aitchison, 80, 164, 182 Akira, 135, 198 Aland, 163, 181 Aldrete, 12, 45, 46, 47, 85, 154, 156, 157, 167, 183 Allison, 138, 148, 183 Aristotle, 31, 32, 38, 39, 138, 150, 152, 181 Assmann, 178, 183 Aune, 81, 84, 87, 92, 99, 116, 135, 136, 139, 144, 145, 146, 151, 153, 154, 163, 164, 165, 177, 178, 179, 183

B Bacchiocchi, 95, 170, 183 Bandy, 135, 183

Barr, 6, 28, 40, 41, 43, 136, 139, 148 Barrett, 157, 175 Bauckham, 27, 62, 102, 121, 137, 148, 158, 161, 163, 166, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 184, 188, 194, 199 Bauer, xi, 181, 215 Baumgarten, 167, 184 Beale, 34, 35, 36, 86, 96, 97, 98, 135, 137, 145, 148, 151, 162, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 184, 186 Beasley, 171, 184 Beckwith, 145, 174, 184, 216 Betz, 166, 184 Blevins, 152–153, 184 Blomberg, 166, 184 Bloomfield, 144, 184 Bloomington, 150, 156, 187 Boomershine, 7, 149, 150, 158, 185 Botha, 30, 46, 136, 139, 149, 152, 156, 163, 185 Bouchoc, 158, 182 Bousset, 139, 145, 185

204 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

Bovon, 167, 185 Bowerman, 179, 190 Boxall, 24, 87, 146, 155, 164, 167, 168, 169, 185 Brickle, 143, 162, 173, 185 Brighton, 135, 153, 165, 167, 174, 177, 185 Brook, 32, 145, 151, 167, 192 Bruce, 14, 32, 78, 141, 148, 157, 163, 194 Brunt, 147, 185 Buist, 164, 188 Bullinger, 185 Burkett, 171, 185 Burnyeat, 157, 185

C Caird, 89, 145, 162, 166, 168, 173, 174, 186 Capel, 52, 158, 183 Caragounis, 150, 186 Carey, 101, 161, 172, 186 Carradice, 22, 145, 186 Charlesworth, xiii, 59, 139, 161, 181, 186, 193 Cicero, xiii, 38, 52, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 181 Cleon, 166, 198, 224 Collins, 2, 136, 139, 144, 151, 158, 159, 164, 171, 172, 173, 186, 188 Conzelmann, 160, 187 Cribiore, 45, 148, 183, 187

D Danker, xi, 181, 182 Darton, xiii, 181 Das, 175 Daschke, 135, 187 Daube, 175 Dean, 52, 103, 141, 158, 173, 187 DeConick, 150, 187 Dennis, 160, 178, 19, 192

1

and

11

deSilva, 141, 142 Doukhan, 136, 170, 188 Duff, 23, 144, 145, 188 Duncan, 132, 179, 188

E Ellul, 152 Enns, 167, 188 Euripides, 26, 50, 169 Eusebius, 145, 157, 182 Ezell, 188 Ezra, 59, 171

F Fauconnier, 142, 188 Fee, 138, 189 Fekkes, 137, 148, 151, 171, 189 Fiorenza, 2, 122, 123, 136, 137, 139, 151, 155, 173, 176, 177, 189 Fishbance, 151, 184 Foley, 158, 192

G Gadamer, 137, 138, 189 Garrow, 153, 189 Gehring, 153, 189 Giblin, 175-176, 190 Gilbertson, 102, 173, 190 Gill, 94, 169, 190 Gilles, 142, 188 Gilliard, 157, 190 Goleman, 130, 178, 190 Goppelt, 148, 190 Grassi, 147, 190 Guelich, 160, 190 Gwyther, 32, 91, 145, 151, 167, 192

se le c t i n d e x o f au t h o rs  | 205

H Halbwachs, 178, 190 Halicarnassus, 152, 182 Havelock, 7, 29, 149, 191 Hearon, 13, 141, 143, 167, 191 Heil, 24, 141, 146, 172, 186, 191 Herold, 95, 170 Hezser, 3, 36, 152 Hillyer, 42, 154, 191 Homer, xii–xiii, 7, 26, 169, 182, 190 Hoozer, 138, 201

J Janzen, 22, 145, 168, 192 Jauhiainen, 192 Jeffers, 148, 192 Joubert, 139, 192

K Kelber, 17, 143, 150, 158, 164, 192, 193 Kendon, 156, 187 Kiddle, 144, 174, 193 Kistemaker, 173, 193 Koester, 58, 161, 163, 174, 179, 193 Köstenberger, 158, 161, 182, 193 Kraft, 145, 164, 177, 186, 193 Kraybill, 144–145, 153, 193 Kreitzer, 193 Krodel, 176, 193

L Lambrecht, 139 Larkin, 160, 161, 193

LaRondelle, 148, 171, 193, 194 Lichtenwalter, 148, 194 Loubser, 57, 161, 194 Lupieri, 84, 163, 165, 166, 194

M Maarten, 177, 196 Maier, 63, 64, 129, 135, 162, 194 Malherbe, 145, 194 Malina, 32, 68, 91, 148, 149, 151, 162, 175, 194 Marguerat, 57, 161, 194 Marrou, 155, 195 Mathewson, 135, 164, 195 Mauro, 195 Maxey, 9, 139, 140, 192, 195 Maxwell, 170, 195 Mazzaferri, 139, 195 McAdams, 142, 143, 195 McCreesh, 15, 141, 195 McIver, 158, 159, 195 McKelvey, 165, 195 McKinney, 161, 194 McKnight, 136, 196 McNeill, 164, 185 McQuown, 142, 188 McRay, 153 Menander, 26, 50, 279 Metzger, 14, 141, 173 Meyer, 138 Milman, 7 Moloney, 187 Moltmann, 173, 190 Moskala, 148, 194 Mounce, 136, 144, 167, 169, 171, 173, 174, 177, 195 Moxnes, 178, 196 Moyer, 147, 192 Moyise, 137, 148, 153, 163, 164, 172, 177, 178, 196

206 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

N

S

Naden, 163, 196 Nakhro, 196 Neyrey, 175 Nolland, 158, 196

Samaan, 174 Satake, 135, 198 Shiell, 44, 46, 45, 47, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 199 Shiner, 86, 149, 150, 155, 156, 157, 167 Sim, 166, 199 Snodgrass, 54, 159, 199 Stefanovic, 95, 151, 153, 165, 170, 173, 174, 199 Stein, 138, 141, 199 Stevenson, 157 Stott, 160 Stoughton, 144, 153 Stowers, 154, 200, Strachan, 153, 319 Strand, 95, 141, 170, 175

O Ogilvie, 196 Olbricht, 155, 196 Olick, 178 Oliphants, 184 Ong, 7, 149, 150, 196

P Pao, 148, 160, 196 Pattemore, 135, 136, 197 Paulien, 137 Philo, 26, 38, 50, 152, 157, 165, 182 Pliny, xiii, 26, 138, 144, 147, 170, 176, 182, 185, 199 Popkes, 166, 197 Prigent, 167, 169, 170, 174, 197

Q Quintilian, xii, 26, 31, 46, 150, 155, 157, 182

R Rabinowitz, 24, 146, 197 Reddish, 101, 169, 170, 172, 197 Rhoads, 6, 9, 10, 14, 33, 41, 42, 45, 52, 138, 140, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 197 Robbins, 30, 142, 146, 148, 149, 178, 198 Rohrbaugh, 136, 178, 188, 196, 198

T Tacitus, 37, 144, 152, 169, 190 Talfourd, 188, 321 Tavo, 139, 189 Thackeray, 182 Thaden, 142 Thatcher, 150, 161, 187 Thiselton, 137 Thompson, 40, 137, 139, 144, 145, 153, 173, 178 Tonstad, 135 Tóth, 135 Toynbee, 176 Traugott, 192 Trebilco, 145

V Vanni, 87, 143, 154, 167 Vasaly, 39, 152

se le c t i n d e x o f au t h o rs  | 207

Vogelgesang, 137

W Wenham, 165 Werner, 17, 143, 150, 158, 164, 192, 193

Witherington, 145, 150, 159, 162, 165, 176, 177

Y Yoon, 142, 197

Select Subject Index

A

C

acclamation, 88, 93, 167, 168, 177 aesthetic, 78, 112, 143 allegiance, 99, 126, 155 alliteration, 15, 18, 126 allusion, 2, 55, 83, 88, 89, 137, 143, 176 anthropology, 144, 148, 149, 151, 156, 182, 194, 196 apostle, 33, 95, 145, 160, 163, 192, 195 applause, 86, 91, 93, 123 auditory, ix, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 52, 63, 83, 88, 89, 96, 99, 112, 116, 119, 120, 125, 142, 143, 147, 190, 212

cacophony, 14, 19, 143 categories, 8, 23, 28, 30, 34, 38, 44, 68, 104, 137, 148 chiasm, 15, 57, 141, 199 cognition, 16, 55, 142, 147, 164, 190, 193 coinage, 22, 145, 168, 185, 186, 193 communal, 3, 33, 41, 128-129, 133, 149 communication, 5, 8, 18, 19, 24, 31, 46, 68, 132, 145, 146

D Domitian, 21, 22, 88, 89, 121, 144, 145, 186

B behaviour, 149, 164, 185, 198 bondage, 52, 54, 100, 122

E euphony, 14, 19, 78, 112, 143

210 

| 

an aur al - performance analysis of re vel at i o n

1

and

11

F

P

firstborn, 89, 91, 168

gestures, 13, 43, 46, 47, 85, 90, 91, 117, 154, 156–157, 167, 183, 187

Patmos, 22, 74, 94, 101, 139, 145, 151, 154, 183, 195 plagues, 27, 44, 117, 122, 155, 173 priests, 27, 74, 89, 90, 91, 101, 103, 115, 118, 12 prophecy, 44, 54, 63, 73, 137, 151, 154, 162, 168, 172–173, 175–176, 183, 184, 185, 191

I

R

ideology, 146, 162, 165, 176, 189, 198

reception, 10, 11, 45, 52, 121, 126, 130, 150 rhetoric, 3, 26, 31, 38, 42, 135–137, 146, 149, 151, 152, 155, 158, 162, 163, 187, 188, 194, 195, 196, 199

G

N numismatic, 22, 144, 287

O onomatopoeia, 19, 143 orality, 2, 6, 7, 10, 14, 24, 29, 31, 41, 136, 138–140, 143, 149–150, 154–155, 185–186, 188, 191, 193–194, 196

S speech, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 22, 30, 32, 38, 40, 41, 45, 47, 85, 86, 142, 144, 155, 164, 165

T throne, 60, 63, 64, 73, 87, 89, 97, 100, 122, 123, 127, 128, 145, 168

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department 29 Broadway, 18th floor New York, NY 10006 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM