CRITERIA AND THE ASSESSMENT OF ALLUSIONS

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

Published in Studies in the Book of Revelation, edited by Steve Moyise
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001), 113-129

 

by Jon Paulien

Andrews University

 

The Nature of the Problem

 

            When reading the Book of Revelation one is plunged fully into the atmosphere of the Old Testament. No book of the New Testament is as saturated with the Old as is the Apocalypse. But while it is not difficult to recognize the central place of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, it is difficult to determine exactly how it is being used there.

 

            One major difficulty for analysis of the use of the OT in Revelation has to do with the language and text tradition of the OT used by the author. It is generally recognized that the author of Revelation was a native of Palestine, though living in the vicinity of Asia Minor at the time Revelation was written. Archaeological evidence indicates that first-century Palestine was trilingual. It is by no means certain, therefore, whether John grew up speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. The current consensus seems to be that the primary language of Jesus and his followers was Aramaic. So while Revelation was almost certainly written in Greek, its language was profoundly influenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic thought-patterns of Jesus and his earliest disciples and of its OT sources, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

 

            Scholars of Revelation have also been in dispute with regard to the language and text tradition of the OT that John utilized. Since the work of Charles, many have felt that the author of the Apocalypse drew directly from the Hebrew text of the OT for his allusions. Torrey and Trudinger argue for an Aramaic antecedent. Other scholars, following the lead of H. B. Swete, seem equally certain that John worked directly from the LXX in his use of the OT. Still others, not surprisingly, argue for a multiplex background, or hypothesize that John worked from a Greek version with which we are not familiar. The specialized studies of Trudinger and Vanhoye, while pointing in the general direction of a Semitic text background to Revelation, are not conclusive enough to allow for certainty in regard to the text tradition from which John drew the allusions in the Apocalypse.

 

            The difficulty in working with the OT background of Revelation is compounded by the fact that there are a number of striking irregularities in the Greek grammar of the Apocalypse. This may suggest that the author of Revelation was writing in what for him was a second language. The influence of Semitic syntax overpowers, as it were, the rules of Greek grammar in the Apocalypse. But there is evidence that John can handle the Greek language properly when he wants to. The irregular grammar may, therefore, be intentional rather than the product of inexperience. It has been suggested that John used grammatical irregularities as a pointer to the OT background.

 

            The use of the Old Testament in Revelation would, therefore, be problematic enough if the author clearly signaled the reader when he was alluding to a particular OT context. But a reader acquainted with the OT quickly notices that Revelation never directly quotes the OT, rather it alludes to it with a word here, a phrase there, or a concept in another place. Careful controls focusing on method and criteria, therefore, are necessary if a list of OT allusions in Revelation is to be worth anything.

 

            Although scholars had previously addressed the issue of OT use in Revelation, the earliest attempts to address the issue of criteria for selection appear to be the works of Haugg and Tenney. But these attempts were quite rudimentary. Beginning with Trudinger’s 1963 dissertation, a number of researchers began to turn more seriously to the issue of method and criteria. While Trudinger’s dissertation was actually on the OT text behind the allusions in Revelation, he needed to establish effective criteria in order to select the OT passages that would be the basis for his textual research. Trudinger’s method for isolating allusions began with commentaries and critical margins that offered lists of allusions to the OT in Revelation. He then subjected the passages he collected to two main criteria, “quotations” (sufficient words in a sequence that it is clear the author had a particular antecedent text in mind) and “allusions” (verbal or contextual affinity to an OT text or version). He also mentions parallel criteria such as comparing the contexts of the passages being examined, seeing how many words they have in common and exploring how often the OT book or chapter is used elsewhere in Revelation.

 

            A number of other scholars addressed the issue of criteria in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, usually in passing. But at the time I was researching the topic for my dissertation, the clearest and most comprehensive statement of method was found in the published dissertation by G. K. Beale. Beale classified John’s allusions to Daniel into three categories: clear, probable, and possible. These determinations were made on the basis of four main criteria, similarities of 1) theme, 2) content, 3) specific construction of words, and 4) structure. He also examined whether or not a persuasive basis for authorial motive could be established.

 

            The above criteria added little to the accumulated suggestions of previous writers, but Beale built on work of his predecessors and added a number of practical strategies. He was the first scholar of Revelation to clearly articulate the idea that central to the interpretation of an allusion is the intention of the author. On that basis he brought out four levels of suggested relationship between John and the OT: 1) conscious allusion to the OT text, 2) unconscious reference on the basis of his “learned past,” 3) the use of stock apocalyptic phraseology, and 4) reference to an actual visionary experience that itself alluded to the OT text. Beale further noted that allusions should not be determined on the basis of any single phenomenon, but on the cumulative force of a variety of criteria and evidence.

 

            Beale’s contribution, while a positive advance, still left, in my mind, many unanswered questions in terms of practice. So in the course of my dissertation research in the mid-1980s I examined ten major commentaries and critical margins produced over the last 100 years to determine what OT passages they felt were being alluded to in the seven trumpets of Revelation (Rev 8:7-9:21; 11:15-18). I then placed the results in a matrix, which revealed serious irregularities in judgment among the ten sources.

 

            Among the ten scholars a total of 244 different potential allusions to the Old Testament in the seven trumpets are offered. Yet a count of individual scholars yielded a range of 29 to 121. That means that even the researcher with the most extensive list of allusions, Eugen Hühn, mentioned only 50% of the total. Strikingly, UBS 3 has 38 allusions to the OT in the seven trumpets, its sister edition, Nestle 26, has 71!

 

            Some specific anomalies that emerged were particularly startling. While Massyngberde Ford listed only a third of the total, 32 of her 82 citations are not mentioned by any of the other nine. While Dittmar represents a mere 12% of the total (29 out of 244), six of his 29 citations are unique to him! Meanwhile, in spite of the 244 allusions listed by all ten, they agree completely on only one! So it seems clear that none of the ten commentators has systematically examined all the possible allusions to the OT in the seven trumpets.

 

            Since Dittmar lists barely a third as many allusions as Ford does one would assume that he operates on more stringent criteria than she does. In the first four trumpets of Revelation (Rev 8:7-13) she mentions 38 potential allusions to the OT, nearly half her total, Dittmar, on the other hand, has just one citation and lists it as doubtful! Yet in the seventh trumpet (Rev 11:15-18) Ford lists only eight allusions, while Dittmar has sixteen, more than half his total for the trumpets as a whole! For Rev 9:20-21, where the other commentators average eight citations, Dittmar has only three and Ford has none at all!

 

            These irregularities point to the need for a more objective method of determining allusions to the OT in Revelation. While the selected commentators may have used various criteria in developing their conclusions, they rarely spelled them out and seem to have rarely followed them. So in my dissertation I sought to refine the criteria for assessing allusions to the OT in Revelation. I found significant works in the field of English literature that offer helpful observations on the issue. My most significant contribution to the topic, I believe, was the recognition (widely accepted in English literature) that the literary concept of echo was significant for the study of Revelation. I believe that a major reason why earlier scholars produced such widely diverging lists of allusions in Revelation was the failure to recognize the difference between direct or intentional allusions on the part of the author and echoes, in which OT language and themes are utilized, but no intentional reference to any particular text is made. While Beale had hinted at such a distinction in his 1984 monograph, the idea is not clearly stated as an operating principle.

 

            Beale has offered helpful critique of my work in a couple of written responses. While considering my categories and criteria for assessing allusions helpful, he pointed out some weaknesses in my approach which need to be addressed. While my analysis of “echoes” was, in his opinion, an advancement in the study of allusions up to that point, he felt that my usage of echoes in the interpretation of the seven trumpets was confusing at best. It appears, in retrospect, that I was not clear enough in defining the category and in articulating the controls under which I was using it in exegesis. A further valid criticism was my lack of attention to how OT language and themes was developed in subsequent Jewish exegetical tradition, and how that tradition may have impacted on John’s usage of the same language and themes.  

 

            Over the last ten years I have extended my research into the ten previous commentators to the entire book of Revelation. Out of the hundreds of allusions they suggest in Rev 1-5 alone, for example, only three have the unquestioned support of all ten commentators and only twelve are mentioned in one way or another by all ten. Interestingly, among potential allusions listed by nine of the commentators, six different writers turned out to be holdouts in at least one case! So my conclusion that there are serious irregularities in the listings for the the seven trumpets can now be extended to the entire book.

 

            I have, however, noticed a clear correlation between the number of commentators that mention a particular allusion and the relative validity of that allusion when carefully examined. In every case where nine or ten commentators mention an allusion it has proven to be fairly unquestionable, where only 3-5 mention an allusion, the levels of validity are usually much less certain. It is my intention, therefore, to publish a listing based on the weight of citation throughout the book of Revelation. Since these ten commentators covered a period of about 100 years and wrote in three different languages, the listing would offer something of an unspoken consensus regarding the use of the OT in the Apocalypse. Where the weight of citation is 8.5 or above, I plan to designate the allusion “certain.” Where the weight is 5.5 to 8.0, the allusion will be designated “probable.” Where the weight is 2.5 to 5.0 the allusion will be designated “possible.”

 

 

Aune and Beale

 

            To conclude this article I have chosen to examine the two massive commentaries, recently published by David E. Aune and G. K. Beale, that provide an unprecedented collection of detailed resources for the study of Revelation. Both commentaries will be of major significance, not only in our generation, but for many generations to come. It will be useful to examine these two volumes to see if the practice of identifying allusions to the OT in Revelation has benefitted from the large amount of scholarly attention given to method in the last two decades of the twentieth century. For the purposes of a brief article I have chosen to use three passages, Rev 1:4-8; 2:12-17; and 4:8-11, as a test case. Among the ten commentators on these passages there are 172 different suggested allusions to the OT. I have compared the combined weight of these commentators with the conclusions of Beale and Aune, as stated in their commentaries.

 

 

An Overview of Aune

 

            With the exception of some introductory comments regarding Semitic influence on the Greek grammar and syntax of Revelation, Aune does not address the issue of OT allusions in the introduction to his commentary. To compare his conclusions with those of the earlier commentators, then, required the drawing of inferences from his occasional remarks about John’s use of the OT in the text of the commentary itself. I then compared the combined weight of the ten sources with the various suggestions made by Aune in his comments on the three selected passages.

 

            Within these test passages the number of OT text citations in the ten earlier commentators ranged from 20 to 86 and the average was 41.0. By way of comparison, Aune mentioned 25 potential allusions within the same passages. This would place Aune near the conservative end of judgment, ahead of Mounce and Kraft, but considerably behind such venerable sources as Charles, UBS 3 and Nestle-Aland 26.

 

            When I tallied the combined weight of the ten commentators in these passages I found 42 total citations: 8 certain allusions, 7 probable allusions, and 27 possible allusions to the OT. Aune’s total of 25 were comprised of 5 certain allusions, 6 probable allusions and 14 possible allusions. So at least 17 of the allusions widely noted by previous scholars are not mentioned by Aune as allusions. This initial observation suggests that Aune utilized a fairly minimalist philosophy of citation in comparison with those who produced the commentaries and margins with which I have compared him. Even more striking is that there are twelve instances where all ten commentators agree that an allusion is present. While Aune agrees in seven of twelve cases, he is less certain in four and does not even mention the remaining case.

 

            In spite of this minimalism, however, one of Aune’s probable allusions and three of his possible allusions are not mentioned by any of the ten representative commentators. Four others of his possible allusions were mentioned but did not merit enough weight to be listed as possible allusions in the weighting system. So there is more than just minimalism in operation here, Aune is seeing very differently than earlier commentators did.

 

            There is, unfortunately, no consistent explanation of the basis upon which Aune collected and evaluated OT allusions. In some cases, as for example the allusions to Dan 7:13 and Zech 12:10-14 in Rev 1:7, copious listings of parallels, charts and arguments are given to support the assertion of authorial intention. In most cases, however, the relationship between a text in Revelation and another in the OT is merely asserted; no parallels of word, theme or structure are offered as evidence. Although Aune seems to diverge widely from earlier commentators on the Apocalypse, we are not included in the process by which he made his judgments, nor is the evidence available in most cases.

 

            In conclusion, I believe that this monumental work offers a major contribution to our available resources with respect to the general environment in which Revelation was written, its text, grammar, and syntax. Aune’s examination of John’s use of the OT, however, seems to be an area of relative weakness.

 

 

An Overview of Beale 

 

            Beale seems much more concerned with how Revelation utilizes the OT than Aune. The introduction to his commentary includes, in my opinion, the best short discussion of the subject available.

And while Aune occasionally offers excurses on the OT background of a particular passage or theme, Beale does so consistently and effectively. And as if that were not enough, Beale has produced two lengthy books on the subject in the years leading up to the publication of his commentary.

 

            Has Beale’s systematic focus on the OT allusions in Revelation actually affected his practice in the commentary? In his introductory remarks about the use of the OT in Revelation he draws a distinction between “clear allusions,” “probable allusions” and “possible allusions.” An allusion can be judged clear when the wording is virtually identical to the OT source, shares some common core meaning and could not likely have come from anywhere else. In a probable allusion the wording is not as close but it still contains wording, an idea, or a structure of ideas that is uniquely traceable to an OT text. In a possible allusion the language is only generally similar to the purported source, echoing either its wording or concepts. In order for an allusion to be accepted as clear or probable some explanation of authorial motive should also be given. While it would have been helpful if Beale had offered a more detailed statement of the criteria with which he assesses potential allusions, this initial statement is much more promising than Aune’s total silence on the subject.

 

            Beale candidly notes that although he follows these criteria in the commentary, he does not consistently utilize the language of these categories in the text of the commentary. This is unfortunate. While Beale seems to be operating with clear and consistent criteria, it is often no easier to figure out where Beale stands on specific cases than is the case with earlier commentators who have not given such careful attention to the subject in their introductions.

 

            Beale notes, for example, Fiorenza’s suggestion that “the faithful witness” alludes to Isa 55:4 as well as Psalm 89. He states that he will speak to this possibility in his comments on Rev 3:14. Although many Isaiah texts are referred to in that part of the commentary, no further reference to Isa 55:4 could be detected. So Beale’s exact opinion on Fiorenza’s suggestion remains a mystery to me.

 

            In his interpretation of “the one who lives forever and ever” in Rev 4:9, Beale makes the cryptic comment that “the closest verbal parallels appear in Dan in Dan 4:34 (Theod) and 12:7.” Since the presence of verbal parallels is no guarantee of authorial intention, it was not clear by this how Beale categorizes these two texts in Daniel. He goes on, however, to say “These phrases from Daniel form the most probable collective influence on Rev 4:9b.” While the use of the term “probable” here immediately suggests the category “probable allusion,” the unusual language (for Beale) of “collective influence” left me wondering if he considered the parallel more of an echo than an intentional reference. In light of everything Beale had to say about Rev 4:9, however, I made the educated guess that he would categorize the Daniel texts as probable allusions. But it would have been much clearer if his terminology had been more consistent.

 

            I then compared the combined weight of the ten sources with the various suggestions made by Beale in his comments on the three selected passages. As mentioned above, the number of OT text citations in the ten earlier commentators ranged from 20 to 86 and the average was 41.0. In Beale’s work on these passages I found 62 potential allusions. This places Beale on the high side of judgment, behind only Hühn, who has a tendency to excessive listing. The weighted list drawn from the ten commentators was 42. So Beale is as far to the generous side, in these texts at least, as Aune is to the cautious side.

 

Commentator	Certain Allusions	Probable Allusions	Possible Allusions
Beale	14	26	22
Aune	5	6	14
Weighted List	7	8	27

 

            Not only does Beale have twice as many certain allusions as either Aune or the weighted list, he has 40 certain and probable allusions, compared to 11 for Aune and 15 for the weighted list. While Beale might contend that the “possible allusions” listed for him are merely echoes, the language with which he describes these references is similar to that of Aune and other commentators, so I believe this numerical comparison portrays an accurate picture, at least for these test passages. Beale’s careful and systematic attention to the use of the OT in Revelation has caused him to notice many more allusions than the average observer.

 

            Beale’s more comprehensive listing is witnessed by a comparison of his language with Aune’s in the context of the most heavily weighted of the earlier citations:

 

Passage in Rev	OT Passage	Weight	Aune	Beale
1:4 1:6 1:7 1:7 1:17 1:17 3:7 3:19 4:2 4:8 5:5 5:5	Exod 3:14 Exod 19:4-6 Dan 7:13 Zech 12:10-14 Isa 44:6 Isa 48:12 Isa 22:22 Prov 3:11-12 Isa 6:1 Isa 6:2 Gen 49:9-10 Isa 11:10	9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 10 10 10 9.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5	“ultimately derived” “John alludes to” clear allusion “allusion to” “probably” “probably” “clear” “alludes loosely” no mention “dependence on” “an allusion to” “an allusion to”	“reflection of” “based on” “citation” “citation” “clear reference (lang)” “clear reference (lang)” “quotation” “cf.” “allusion to Isa 6:1ff.” “alluded to” “from” “from”

 

            While Beale’s language is as diverse and confusing as Aune’s, he sees clear allusions in nine of the twelve cases instead of seven. While the phrase “clear reference” would seem to indicate a “clear allusion,” Beale’s “clear reference” is to the language of Isa 44:6 and 48:12 rather than the texts themselves. I, therefore, judge these as probable allusions, in Beale’s terms, rather than clear allusions. Of the twelve above instances, then, Beale judges nine to be clear, two to be probable, and he expresses doubt regarding the author’s intention with regard to Prov 3 in Rev 3:19. Beale, therefore, is in substantial agreement with the weighted list of previous opinion.

 

            Is Beale overly generous in his assessments? If you take the evidence from the test passages (44 clear or probable allusions to the OT in 15 verses– Rev 1:4-8; 2:12-17; 4:8-11) and project it out over the entire book (404 verses), Beale suggests about 1200 allusions to the OT, considerably higher than the typical projection of 500-600. Comparison with the list of ten is instructive. When it comes to probable allusions, however, Beale does mention two (out of 26) that are not listed by any of the ten previous commentators!