Revelation

Rev A J P Garrow, A.J.P. Garrow

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781134757367
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Revelation claims to tell the story of 'what must soon take place', and yet, despite centuries of scholarly research, the order and content of this story has remained one of the greatest mysteries of all time.
Arguing that Revelation was designed to be heard in six separate instalments, A.J.P. Garrow's innovative book suggests a new and orderly understanding of the structure of the story. This development makes possible a new and coherent interpretation of 'what must soon take place'.
According to this study, John discerned a close connection between the present and the End. For today's readers, as for the members of the seven churches, this insight has profound implications for the way in which world events, weekly worship and everyday choices are perceived.

Chapter 1

An introduction to this reading of Revelation

If you have ever had to listen to someone who speaks incredibly quickly and equally unintelligibly, then you may have pondered this question: ‘Is my inability to understand this person due to my lack of intelligence, or is it because they are talking complete nonsense?’ Reading Revelation can provoke a similar response. In snatches and passages the text displays an authority and lucidity that makes the reader eager to understand more. At other times it seems to disintegrate into a cacophony of disordered images that appear to defy reason and obscure understanding. The aim of the following reading is to disentangle this confusion and so make it possible to hear with greater clarity what the whole text meant to its original intended audience, and so what it might have to say to us today.

A clarification of the aim

Any examination of a text that claims to deal with the question of that text’s ‘meaning’, must explain in some detail what kind of meaning is being referred to: the author’s intended meaning or the receiver’s perceived meaning. Knowledge of the author’s intended meaning would be of supreme value in the case of Revelation because this would allow the interpreter to understand precisely what the author ‘John’ (whose precise identity will be considered on pp. 53–9) had to say to his audience about the nature of the universe and its future destiny. With the benefit of this knowledge it would also be possible to offer an authoritative evaluation of other interpretations of the text, some of which have been used for the unscrupulous manipulation of the beliefs and wallets of others. However, despite the importance of the author’s intended meaning, it is always inaccessible to anyone reading any text, apart from the author him or herself. This is simply because anyone (who is not the author) who reads a text to perceive its meaning, must, by definition, be creating a receiver’s perceived meaning.

Given that the author’s intended meaning is inaccessible, it is necessary to concentrate on the idea of the receiver’s perceived meaning. In contrast to the author’s intended meaning the receiver’s perceived meaning is not unique, since there can be as many receiver’s perceived meanings as there are receivers. This is possible because of the way in which the perceived meaning of a particular word or group of words is dependent on its context. Context is defined here as the receiver’s total experience of the world prior to interpreting a particular word or group of words. The previous experience of a receiver determines the significance attributed to a word, or group of words, because the interpretation of any communication is dependent on previous experience of similar words in similar contexts (Cotterell and Turner 1989:41). Because the experience of every person is unique every individual will interpret each text in a unique way. To some extent this is the case but this does not mean, as may be inferred, that it is therefore impossible for an author to communicate a particular message with ‘good enough’ accuracy. This is because authors are not helpless; if they know the context in which text will be received, then they can take account of this so that the words in the text are those which, in the context of the receivers, are those which are most likely to be perceived as the author intends. Revelation was written for a particular group of audiences whose contexts were known to the author: the congregations of the seven churches of Asia Minor. It may therefore be expected that John wrote his text so that his words would have been received in contexts that would be most likely to lead his audience towards the perception of his intended meaning.

In summary, the author’s intended meaning is the goal towards which this reading aspires. However, because this meaning is not accessible it is necessary to attempt to establish, as far as possible, the original intended receiver’s perceived meaning, since this is the meaning that is likely to approximate most closely to the author’s intended meaning.

THE METHOD

So far it has been suggested that the meaning of a text is dependent on the context in which it is read, and that the context of the original intended receivers is that which will reveal the closest approximation to the author’s intended meaning. Therefore, the method of approach employed in this reading will be to reproduce the context of the original intended receivers as closely as possible.

One aspect of the receiver’s context which it is possible to ascertain with a high degree of accuracy (perfect accuracy would require access to the autograph manuscript, and fortunately there are remarkably few textual variants in Revelation) is the context created by as much of the text as has already been received (hereafter referred to as the ‘co-text’). This aspect of context can have a profound effect on the receiver’s perceived meaning, as demonstrated by this example from Brown and Yule (1983:139, 140):

1  A Prisoner Plans His Escape

Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being held, especially since the charge against him had been weak. He considered his present situation. The lock that held him was strong, but he thought he could break it.

2  A Wrestler in a Tight Corner

Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being held, especially since the charge against him had been weak. He considered his present situation. The lock that held him was strong, but he thought he could break it.

The fact that (1) and (2) are commonly read as communicating distinctly different meanings suggests that the co-textual context created by the different headings influences the interpretation of the subsequent text. Hence, this reading will seek to pay close attention to how the author uses the text itself to create particular contexts which guide the receivers’ interpretation of subsequent portions of text.

(Because the interpretation of a particular group of words may be influenced by text which follows that passage, as well as text which precedes it, it should be noted that the co-textual context includes all the text on either side of a particular word or group of words.)

A second aspect of context is the ‘theatre of reception’. The exact environment in which a text is going to be received is not known by most authors. For example, I don’t know whether you are reading this in a library, in your home, surrounded by people, on your own. Because you could be in any situation I cannot allow the intelligibility of my text to be dependent on a particular ‘theatre of reception’. In contrast it appears that John did expect his text to be received in a particular setting.

Revelation 1.3 indicates that he expected it to be read aloud (Bauckham 1993a: 3; A.Y.Collins 1984:144; Barr 1986: 243). Revelation 1.11 and 2.1–3.22 suggest that it was designed to be read to congregations. If the text were read at a Sunday service then it may have been accompanied by a Eucharist (cf. Acts 20. 7–11), a possibility made more likely by the number of eucharistic references in the text (Barr 1986:253–5). The specificity of this theatre means that the following reading will consider the possible influence of this aspect of context on the original intended receivers’ perceived meaning.

A third aspect of context is the historical context. This includes all the receivers’ experience of the world before encountering the text, e.g. their knowledge of the political history of the region, contemporary and ancient literature, social circumstances, religious practices, etc. Changes in the receiver’s experience of these factors can produce a great variety of different perceived meanings (as illustrated by the range of interpretations of Revelation proposed by non-intended readers through the centuries). An accurate assessment of the receivers’ historical context is therefore of very considerable importance in the interpretative process. In order to reconstruct a picture of the hearers’ historical context, so far as this is possible, it is necessary to establish the date of Revelation (cf. Chapter 4).

There is little new in a method of approach which gives attention to the original context of the text. However, traditional analyses of the context of Revelation have tended to focus on the text’s historical context (e.g. Caird 1984:3–7), while failing to pay sufficient attention to those aspects of context over which John had specific control or particular knowledge: the co-textual context and the context created by the theatre of reception. By studying these neglected aspects of context, in combination with the wider historical context, it should be possible to reproduce with a new degree of accuracy the context in which John’s hearers received Revelation. The consequence of this will be an improved understanding of how John’s intended hearers interpreted his text.

Chapter 2

The problem: Where and what is the story?

In Revelation 1.1 it is claimed that the text will reveal to its intended hearers, ‘what must soon take place’. This title provides a co-textual context for the whole of the rest of the text and is therefore of supreme importance (Brown and Yule 1983:139–40; Traugott and Pratt 1980: 404). That this is the essential cause of confusion is expressed by Sweet:

The purpose of the revelation is to show his servants what must soon take place…. But the scenes and events which John goes on to describe are repetitive and jump back and forth in time; as they stand they cannot be made to fit a linear time-scale.

(Sweet 1990:58)

Fiorenza has sought to deny that the promise of a chronological story exists (1985:46, cf. p.10), but its presence is stubbornly re-stated at three other significant points: in Revelation 1.10b–20 John is commissioned by Christ to prophesy to the churches and the content of this prophecy is stated in 1.19 as: ‘what is and what is to take place after this’. In 4.1 the voice from heaven provides a co-textual context for the main vision cycle by saying: ‘Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.’ The main vision cycle closes at 22.5 and in 22.6 the angel reflects on the vision saying: ‘These words are trustworthy and true, for the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.’ This confirms in retrospect that the story of what must soon take place, which was promised at the start, has indeed been told.

These important indicators of the presence of a story are supported by evidence of the author’s desire to influence his hearers’ behaviour in the light of his prediction of future events. For example, in the seven messages there is consistent association between approved behaviour and final reward (2.7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3.5, 10–12, 21) and between disapproved behaviour and final punishment (2.4–5, 14–16, 20–23; 3.2–3, 15–19). (In the rest of the text there are similar clear references to the consequences of actions (e.g. 7.14–17; 14.4–5; 16.5–6; 20.4–6; 21.7–8)). If the behaviour of the intended hearers were to be modified on this basis, then the proposed future consequences of approved and disapproved behaviour would have to be both intelligible and convincing to them.

Evidence from the title and behavioural goal of the text combine to suggest that the story of ‘what must soon take place’ would have been intelligible to John’s intended hearers. The fact that this information has been hidden from non-intended readers is the central problem for any student who wants to uncover the intended hearers’ perceived meaning. The initial challenge for those who are non-intended readers of Revelation is, therefore, to locate the story or explain why it is absent. This process begins with an assessment of scholarly progress in this area.

A REVIEW OF SCHOLARLY APPROACHES TO THE STORY IN REVELATION

While there are many different scholarly approaches to Revelation, two points are held in common by the vast majority of them. First, that the text tells a story and that characters within the text ought to experience the main story events in the following order: (a) persecution of Christians; (b) punishment of persecutors; (c) salvation of the persecuted (A.Y.Collins 1984:112); or some such similarly logical scheme (cf. Farrer 1964:7, 23; Bauckham 1993a: 266–318; Fiorenza 1985:47). Second, that these story events are not presented in a straightforward sequence. Charles is sometimes cited as contradicting this consensus (Mounce 1977:45), but this is not the case. Charles states, ‘[Revelation] exhibits, except in short passages…a structural unity and a steady development of thought from the beginning to 20.3. In 20.4–22, on the other hand, the traditional order of the text exhibits a hopeless mental confusion and a tissue of irreconcilable contradictions’ (Charles 1920: I, VI, 1).

Despite these areas of broad agreement there is a profound lack of consensus as to why the story of ‘what must soon take place’ is not straightforwardly discernible to non-intended readers. The range of proposed reasons for the obscurity of the story-line may be grouped under five headings.

The story has become incoherent in the process of composition

Some scholars have suggested that Revelation lacks consecutive development in its story-line because it has been constructed from various earlier apocalypses (Charles, Gaechter, Boismard, Rousseau and Ford as reviewed in Fiorenza 1985:161 and Mazzaferri 1989:8– 32). However, the weight of evidence in support of the compositional unity of Revelation means that this position is not accepted by the majority of scholars (e.g. Swete, Bousset, Zahn, Beckwith as reviewed in Fiorenza 1985:161). Bauckham goes so far as to say, ‘The more Revelation is studied in detail, the more clear it becomes that it is not simply a literary unity, but actually one of the most unified works in the New Testament’ (1993a: 1). A more sophisticated version of the compositional theory is that an original text was revised or altered in some way (cf. Fiorenza 1985:162 for review). However, for such revisions to have destroyed the coherence of the book it is necessary to posit an incompetent editor (as Charles does (1920: I, IV, 1)), or some such, as the perpetrator of violence to the original, presumably coherent, text. A third view is that Revelation was composed from a collection of fragments of various oral and written traditions (cf. Fiorenza 1985:162 for review). There is certainly evidence for a variety of sources (as there is in any extended text), but for the author to be so ruled by these traditions as to produce an incoherent text himself requires incompetence or an, as yet, unconsidered explanation.

Whether taken individually or in combination all these theories present the final author/redactor as incapable of preserving coherence in the text. This is not an impossible interpretation, but it is one which should be treated with circumspection given the evidence of compositional care provided by the text’s unity of language and by certain elements of its structural development.

The story is incoherent because of the genre of the text

Kiddle (1940: xxvii–xxxiii) describes the book as a poem that follows no logical plan but builds up the impression of inevitable judgment. This view imposes a simple genre on the text without recognizing the self-statements of the text on this matter. Indications within the text of its literary type are by no means transparent, but the fact that it nowhere describes itself as a poem weakens Kiddle’s case.

Sweet sees Revelation as a report of an ecstatic vision. According to him this factor means that: ‘we must reckon with an element of incoherence and with the building up of impressions after the manner of music rather than logical argument’ (1990:43–4). This is not an impossible solution but it is weak in two respects. First, there is the evidence of careful composition; second, the self-description of the text as apocalyptic narrative (1.1), prophecy (1.1, 3), and epistle (1.4). All these, and every other generic indicator in the text, suggest the author’s intention to communicate coherently with his audience.

An alternative to seeing the incoherence of the story as a product of the text’s genre, is to see incoherence as a product of our inability to identify the correct genre. It is widely recognized that genre identification is vital to the interpretative process (Cotterell and Turner 1989: 97– 100). A good deal of work has been undertaken in this field with a particular focus on the question of defining the genre ‘apocalypse’ or the genre of Revelation (J.J.Collins 1979; Aune 1986; Hellholm 1986). This process has been useful insofar as the genre ‘apocalypse’ has been identified as a sub-genre of narrative; however, it has already been noted that this is an insufficiently sophisticated conclusion to account for the complex organization of the story in Revelation. It is therefore necessary to go on to consider how the interrelation of multiple generic characteristics may have contributed to complex story organization in Revelation. Some work has been done on Revelation as liturgy, drama or myth (cf. Fiorenza 1985:164–70 for review), but none of these approaches has so far provided a convincing account of the organization of the story in Revelation.

The story is obscured by its complex structural arrangement

Scholars who see Revelation as a crafted unity suggest various structural arrangements of the text which are said to reveal the correct o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series editor’s preface
• Author’s preface
• Acknowledgement
• 1. An introduction to this reading of Revelation
• 2. The problem: Where and what is the story?
• 3. Finding the story in the text
• 4. Locating the story in history
• 5. Interpreting the story
• 6. Why this story?
• Conclusion
• Appendix. Roman emperors
• Select bibliography
• Index of subjects
• Index of references to biblical and other ancient literature