SOURCE: Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. “Revelation.” In The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters, edited by Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae, pp. 407-27. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

[In the following essay, Fiorenza presents an overview of Revelation scholarship from the 1960s and 1970s.]

Ernst Lohmeyer summed up the scholarly efforts during the research period 1920 to 1934 with the observation that very few early Christian writings have been so greatly courted by scholars but have so thoroughly eluded their methods of interpretation. The elusive meaning of Revelation might be one of the reasons why serious critical scholarship has largely neglected the book in the research period 1945 to 1980. [See postscript below.] This is obvious if one compares research on Revelation, for example, with the number of publications, commentaries, monographs, and conferences on the Fourth Gospel, the Synoptics, or the Pauline literature. Except for some outstanding dissertations, serious research on Revelation is rather scant and mostly limited to articles. Although a plethora of very popular or semischolarly commentaries have appeared, no scientific commentary has been written that would embody the same research breadth as, for example, the works of W. Bousset, R. H. Charles, I. T. Beckwith, or E. B. Allo. H. Kraft's new commentary replacing that of Lohmeyer in the Handbuch zum Neuen Testament best approximates the format of a scientific commentary, whereas the most recent commentaries of J. M. Ford, R. H. Mounce, and J. P. M. Sweet, although more or less conversant with recent historical scholarship, aim at a more general audience.

Such a negative assessment of scholarly research on Revelation, however, does not imply that the book was neglected or overlooked. Several bibliographical essays indicate that much effort has been exerted to understand Revelation. Rather than duplicate these essays, I shall briefly discuss them and then focus on perspectives and issues in interpretation in order to sketch the paradigm shift that is taking place in the scholarly interpretation of Revelation.

I. RESEARCH ON REVELATION

A. Feuillet's research report (1965) first appeared in 1963 and covers the time between 1920 and 1960 in seven chapters: the general tendencies and methods of interpretation (chap. 1); composition and literary structure (chap. 2); interpretation of Revelation 2-3 and 4-22 (chap. 3); the doctrine of the book (chap. 4); date and place of composition (chap. 5); and the author (chap. 6). Chapter 7 discusses various problems: the woman of Revelation 12, the problem of the millennium, and several other studies of special issues. Each of these chapters reviews first the opinions of the commentators, then discusses special studies, and finally concludes with an evaluation.

Although Feuillet's research report introduces an abundance of studies and problems, its selection and discussion of the literature are marred by its traditional, conservative tendencies. For instance, Feuillet argues that Revelation is written by the apostle John, who used a secretary. The objection that Rev 21:14 refers to the Twelve as the foundations of the New Jerusalem is rejected with the following argument: “But this is, after all, merely a reference to the will of Christ who has assigned a position of preeminence to the members of the apostolic college …”(107-8). In a similar fashion it is argued that the ecclesiological interpretation of Revelation 12 does not exclude the traditional mariological understanding (116-17).

H. Kraft's bibliographical essay (1973) is more like an extended book review than a comprehensive Forschungsbericht (“research report”). Kraft evaluates Feuillet's work positively, discusses the christological studies of T. Holtz and J. Comblin, critically analyzes U. B. Müller's Messias und Menschensohn (1972), and briefly refers to the studies of P. Prigent (1959), K. P. Jörns, and E. Schüssler Fiorenza (1972a). After a somewhat more lengthy review of M. Rissi's books (1966, 1972), he discusses the studies of U. Vanni (1971), A. Lancelotti, and G. Mussies. In his review of the more popular commentaries, he praises that of E. Lohse (1960) because of its combination of scientific accuracy with general intelligibility. The review concludes by treating H. H. Rowley's discussion of apocalyptic literature. Kraft's essay is very selective; it does not aim at a comprehensive discussion of scholarship on Revelation that would adequately reflect the Stand der Forschung (“state of research”).

Otto Böcher's somewhat later bibliographical essay appears in a series entitled Erträge der Forschung (results of research); therefore, one expects a comprehensive review of scholarly methods and interpretations. The small book is divided into two main sections, one reviewing the history of research on Revelation from the eighteenth century until 1974 and the other discussing main problems of interpretation. The first section reviews the interpretations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and discusses the history-of-religions approach of the twentieth century, as well as critical Anglo-Saxon exegesis (Ramsay; Charles), several Roman Catholic interpretations (Allo; Schmid; Olivier; Sickenberger; Ketter), Protestant research after Lohmeyer, and the combination of different interpretative methods in Roman Catholic scholarship.

The second section singles out exegetical problems of Revelation: the author and his historical-religious background, date and contemporary historical background, Christ the Lamb, the apocalyptic riders, the 144,000, the two witnesses, the woman of Revelation 12, the satanic trinity, the number 666, the harlot Babylon, the thousand-year reign, and the heavenly Jerusalem. The book concludes with a bibliography containing five hundred entries of publications that have appeared since 1700. For each of the enumerated exegetical-interpretational problems Böcher consults the commentaries of Bousset, Charles, Lohmeyer, Hadorn, Sickenberger, Wikenhauser, and Kraft, and he concludes with his own evaluative summary.

It is apparent that the small size of the book does not allow for any comprehensive presentation of the status quaestionis (“state of the question”). Not only does Böcher fail to take into account any of the foreign commentaries that have appeared after 1945, but he also neglects to review major articles and essays on Revelation. Only one page of the book is concerned with special studies and monographs, even though Böcher himself observes that the last three decades of research on Revelation are determined by studies of individual problems (23). He singles out the following areas of major scholarly interest: the history-of-religions and tradition-historical analysis, questions of form and redaction history, contemporary historical and political interpretations, and textual criticism and the history of interpretation. He concludes that studies focusing on the theology of Revelation are relatively rare and that research centers on ecclesiological problems. He points out briefly that further research is necessary on the relationship of Revelation to the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, on the interrelationship between Revelation and Jewish apocalypticism and the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as on the prophetic realism and the specific Christian features of the book. Finally, according to him, the political conditions reflected in the language of Revelation and the social and pastoral aspects deserve further exploration.

Ugo Vanni (1980) has authored the most recent bibliographical essay on Revelation. His work presents a comprehensive listing of international scholarship on the book since 1963, although his strength lies in his familiarity with French, Italian, and Spanish literature. After a short introductory review of the development of scholarship (21) and of bibliography, he discusses the hermeneutics of Revelation, literary aspects, and the historical-religious milieu of the book (23-30). Next (31-43), he mentions studies on the relationship to the OT and on the biblical theology of Revelation, and lists commentaries and studies of various passages. In a final summary (43-46) he points to five different areas for future research: the literary analysis of Revelation, the hermeneutics of the book, its relationship to the OT and NT, its interrelation with Jewish and Christian apocalypticism, and, finally, the need for a new type of commentary that would integrate and profile present scholarly research on Revelation. Since this bibliographical essay includes articles and essays, it reflects more adequately the present state of scholarship on Revelation. The limitations of space as well as the nature of a bibliographical essay allow, however, only for an enumeration of problems, not for an overall integration.

The two most recent English review essays, by J. J. Pilch and J. J. Megivern, address a more general public. Whereas Pilch provides a short introduction rather than a comprehensive review of the literature, Megivern illustrates that the literature on Revelation ranges from “apocalyptic pornography” to dialectical philosophy (Ellul). Although serious scholarly works are rare, popular and fundamentalist writings abound. No wonder that Revelation is still considered to be the most difficult book in the NT (Caird; Ladd). Scholars seem to have arrived at the consensus that the book does not provide us with any details of church or world history or give us a calendar of future events; yet popular interest still focuses on such information. Nevertheless, R. H. Mounce concludes his discussion of the classical approaches to interpretation (the preterist, the historicist, the dispensationalist, and the timeless-symbolic) by insisting that “the predictions of John, while expressed in terms reflecting his own culture, will find their final and complete fulfillment in the last days of history” (44-45). Although most exegetes have replaced the classical approaches to the interpretation of Revelation with the historical-critical approach, they still maintain a combination of the preterist or futurist interpretation or that Revelation reveals the course of salvation history or timeless historical principles (Schüssler Fiorenza, 1968).

II. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL ANALYSES

It is universally acknowledged that Revelation has to be understood in its historical, cultural, and religious contexts. Therefore, historical-critical methods developed in other areas of NT research have also been employed for interpreting Revelation, though they have not achieved generally accepted results. The only exception is the text-critical work of J. Schmid, whose classification of the manuscripts and evaluation of the textual traditions seem to be generally accepted.

GRAMMAR AND STYLE

The grammar and style of Revelation are notoriously difficult because they are full of solecisms and Semitisms, repetitions, and logical breaks. Nevertheless, scholars have not accepted the thesis that Revelation is a rather deficient translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Torrey) or that John's language is a ghetto language due to his inability to write Greek, since the text is neither interspersed with Aramaic expressions nor inconsistent in its linguistic offenses. A. Lancellotti's study of the author's syntax has substantiated Charles's dictum that although John “writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew” (1. cxliii). However, the bilingualism of the author (Mussies) needs to be studied more before a sociolinguistic evaluation can be attempted.

It is interesting, however, that not Aramaisms but Hebraisms (Lancellotti) are typical of the linguistic expression of Revelation. This Hebraic character of Revelation's language is due primarily to numerous allusions to the Hebrew text, which John never quotes explicitly but uses, in apocalyptic fashion, to express his own visions. H. Kraft has therefore proposed that the author deliberately created a hieratic language that was not spoken anywhere but which recreates the sentence melody of the Psalms for its liturgical setting (1974: 16). That the author was capable of writing poetic-hymnic language is substantiated by the research on the hymns in Revelation, which the author composed using traditional liturgical language in order to comment on the apocalyptic actions of the book (Jörns). Even though the attempts to render the text of Revelation in strophic form are not conclusive, they support the assumption that Revelation's style and language are intentionally created.

SOURCE AND REVISION HYPOTHESES

Whereas traditional exegesis attributes the doublets, inconsistencies, and repetitions of the text either to the faulty memory of the author or to the incompetence of a student (Gaechter; Feuillet), historical-critical scholarship, particularly of the nineteenth century, proposes source-critical solutions or postulates various stages of revision, so that in this understanding Revelation manifests the same editorial processes as other Jewish or Christian apocalypses.

Because of the uniform language of Revelation, scholars tend, however, to stress the unity of Revelation and to reject source-critical manipulations. Yet U. B. Müller and J. M. Ford have recently challenged this scholarly consensus. Müller attempts to separate out sources with the help of christological criteria. He classifies those texts which refer to the messianic judgment of the nations as originally Jewish source texts, while those texts are Christian in which Christ relates to the community (1972). A more far reaching source hypothesis was put forward by J. M. Ford, who argues that two Jewish apocalypses which she attributes to John the Baptist and his school were redacted by a Christian disciple of John. Yet these recent source-critical reconstructions have not received much support.

Source hypotheses tend to be replaced by revision hypotheses, since these can accommodate the view that Revelation has a style peculiar to itself and that a final redactor is responsible for the whole work. While M.-É. Boismard assumes that the final redactor combined two different works which were written by himself at different times, H. Stierlin proposes three such apocalypses that were fused together by a different redactor at the beginning of the second century. F. Rousseau, on the other hand, assumes five successive redactions of two Jewish and three Christian strata. Finally, H. Kraft suggests that the same author has revised and expanded an existing Vorlage (“copy”) consisting of the seven-seal cycle. However, according to Kraft the final redactor of Revelation was such a skilled artist that he was able to combine and to integrate into his Grundschrift (“basic document”) disparate traditions and topoi (“rhetorical commonplaces”) in such a way that a unitary composition and optimal configuration of artistic form and theological content were achieved. However, if this is the case, then any reconstruction of the prehistory of Revelation must remain in the sphere of conjecture.

FORM-CRITICAL, TRADITION-HISTORICAL, AND HISTORY-OF-RELIGIONS ANALYSES

Form-critical and tradition-historical, as well as history-of-religions analyses, have especially concentrated on the liturgical-hymnic materials and motifs and have explored their Sitz im Leben (“life setting”) in Jewish and early Christian liturgy (Delling; Jörns; von der Osten Sacken; Schüssler Fiorenza, 1976b; Vanni, 1976b). Special attention was given to the judgment doxology (Betz) or vindication formula (Staples; Yarbro Collins, 1977b) in Rev 16:4-7, the worthy acclamation (van Unnik, 1970), the macarisms (Bieder), the heavenly journey (Yarbro Collins, 1979), and to prophetic-parenetic forms, especially in the so-called seven letters (U. B. Müller, 1975: 47-109; Hahn; van Unnik, 1963; and Käsemann). However, most of these form-critical studies are limited and selective. A comprehensive analysis and systematic evaluation of traditional forms and their redaction in Revelation needs still to be written.

The analysis of small formal units and their traditions must be supplemented by a pattern analysis, because the author has modeled whole visions and sections after OT, Jewish apocalyptic, mythological, and early Christian patterns (Harder). This procedure can best be traced with respect to OT texts, since they are still extant as written Vorlagen (“copies”/“patterns”). Such OT patterns are found throughout the book and are derived especially from Exodus, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel (Jenkins; H. P. Müller, 1960; Vanhoye; Cambier). Other patterns are taken over either from Jewish apocalyptic (judgment/salvation, cosmic week, messianic reign), from Hellenistic mythological patterns (divine child, sacred marriage, divine polis), or early Christian traditional patterns (e.g., the synoptic apocalypse or the apostolic letter form). Contemporary scholarship tends to elucidate especially the Jewish apocalyptic and OT matrix of Revelation's forms and patterns, but does not sufficiently acknowledge that the cultural-religious milieu of Revelation and its communities is Hellenistic-Oriental syncretism (Betz). The scholarly attempts to determine the history-of-religions background and influences on Revelation 12 (Prigent, 1959; Gollinger; Yarbro Collins, 1976; Vögtle, 1972) elucidate how complex and inextricable the fusion and interaction of cultural-religious traditions and influences can be. Therefore, instead of trying to isolate different traditions and backgrounds, scholars might consider that the author consciously or not drew on and fused together traditions, motives, and patterns that were at home in very different cultures and mythologies (Halver).

Scholars have also attempted to chart the literary type or model John had in mind when writing his book. It was suggested that his overall pattern was a Jewish or Christian liturgy (Shepherd; Läuchli; Prigent, 1964), a festal calendar (Farrer), or a drama (Bowman; Stauffer). Most often it is assumed that John intended to write a prophetic book or an apocalypse, since Revelation gave the whole literary type or Gattung of apocalyptic literature its name. Yet we do not know whether the author already could have known a literary type “apocalypse.” Scholars have not yet succeeded in delineating between the literary types of prophecy and apocalypse or in identifying essential component elements and stylistic characteristics of an apocalypse. The method in recent attempts to delineate the literary type of apocalypse (Yarbro Collins, 1979) is definitional—composite rather than literary-formal.

THE CULTURAL-POLITICAL MILIEU

It is generally agreed that the contemporary cultural-political milieu of Revelation is that of western Asia Minor and that its setting is early Christianity at the end of the first century, since Revelation is addressed to seven Christian communities in Asia Minor. However, some exegetes suggest that either the communities mentioned in Revelation or the author himself was alien to the church in Asia Minor because Revelation reflects a prophetic community order quite different from that known through the letters of Ignatius. It is suggested that the seven communities were Jewish apocalyptic conventicles within a predominantly Pauline missionary area (Satake) or that the prophet John, who had emigrated from Palestine-Syria, had nothing in common with these communities (U. B. Müller, 1976). However, both studies consider the letters of Ignatius but not Revelation to be descriptive of the ecclesial situation in Asia Minor. The issue can only be resolved, however, if a comprehensive study of the interaction between early Christian prophecy and developing local church leadership is written.

Although John understands himself as an early Christian prophet, who is probably the head of a prophetic circle (Hill; Schüssler Fiorenza, 1977b), scholars nevertheless still hold to the authorship of John, the apostle, or of the presbyter John mentioned by Papias, or they propose that Revelation belongs to the same school or circle as the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. However, the Johannine school hypothesis is based on the a priori assumption that the so-called Johannine writings must somehow be related to each other because the ecclesiastical tradition ascribes them to the same author. John's self-understanding and perception of authority, however, are not apostolic but prophetic. He derives his authority not from his fellowship with Jesus of Nazareth but, as Paul does, from the revelation of the resurrected Lord. It seems necessary, therefore, that Revelation be discussed not just in the context of the Johannine school but also as situated within Pauline and post-Pauline, as well as prophetic-apocalyptic Christian, school traditions (Schüssler Fiorenza, 1977b; Rousseau). Such a discussion of Revelation within the context of early Christian development will shed new light on debated theological issues, as for instance on the Christian character of the book (Ford); its understanding of God (Vögtle), Christ (Holtz; Comblin), or the Spirit (Schweizer; Bruce); the debate on whether Revelation is prophetic or apocalyptic (Kallas); the book's understanding of witness (Trites); or its relationship to synoptic (Vos) or gnostic traditions (Schüssler Fiorenza, 1973; Prigent, 1977).

DATE

H. Kraft dates the final redaction of the book by comparing the situation of the communities in Revelation with that of Ignatius's letters. Since John and Ignatius argue against two very similar groups of opponents, Kraft concludes that the so-called letters of Revelation and those of Ignatius reflect the same theological-ecclesial situation. Whereas Revelation 13 and 17 were written toward the end of Nerva's reign, the epistles and the final redaction must be dated between 110 and 114. Further studies are needed to test Kraft's claim that the comparison of the opponents in Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, and the letter of Polycarp would confirm this conclusion. However, the attempt to situate Revelation within the context of early Christian development seems to be most promising.

In dating Revelation, the so-called letters have always played a major role. Although we have several popular studies of them (e.g., Barclay; Newman), new extensive scholarly investigation has been published recently (cf. Hemer). Sherman Johnson's review article on early Christianity in Asia Minor, however, suggests many promising avenues for further research. Publication of A. T. Kraabel's work on Judaism in western Asia Minor is also long overdue. The archaeological discoveries of the last decades would provide the materials for a sociohistorical profile of cities like Ephesus, Smyrna, or Pergamum. Similarly, Roman presence and especially the imperial cult need to be studied in more depth (see Stauffer's popular account). Further mystery cults, private associations, and philosophical schools need to be discussed with reference to Revelation. In short, a comprehensive work like that of W. M. Ramsay needs to be written.

One of the main points of contention in evaluating Revelation's relationship to the Roman Empire still seems to be the question whether a persecution of Christians took place under Domitian. Although the majority of scholars still accept Irenaeus's dating of Revelation at the end of Domitian's reign, others have challenged this majority opinion (Bell). They propose that the book was written in the sixties when Jerusalem and the Temple were not yet destroyed. J. A. T. Robinson, for instance, argues that internal evidence speaks for a date between 64 and 70. Revelation 11, 17, and 18 link Revelation historically with events in Jerusalem and Rome during these years. Psychologically Revelation reflects the Neronic program, since no such bloody persecution is documented for Domitian's reign. He supports this contention also with a Neronic interpretation of the number 666 and with the Nero redivivus (“Nero restored to life”) legend. However, it is difficult to decide whether a severe persecution is a reality or an impending danger, or whether it is just a part of the experience of the author, who attempts to shatter the complacency of Christians who prosper under Domitian and who forget the persecution of Nero (Sweet: 27). Moreover, scholars debate also whether John was exiled to Patmos or whether he had withdrawn to the island for the sake of prophetic experience (Saffrey).

In Rev 17:9-16 John supposedly points to his own historical standpoint. Yet scholars have not yet succeeded in decoding this information. They do not agree whether or not to begin with Caesar, Augustus, Caligula (Strobel) or Nero (Reicke). Some omit the short-term emperors from their count, whereas others suggest that only those emperors who were deified by the Senate should be counted. Another suggestion is that Rev 17:9-16 was inserted by a later redactor who thereby deliberately predates Revelation (Cerfaux and Cambier; Feuillet). Since these scholarly discussions have not yet arrived at a generally accepted solution, it must be asked whether they have misunderstood the language and intention of the author.

CONCLUSION

The current progress in the historical-critical analysis of Revelation moves in a way parallel to that of other NT writings. Just as in other areas the stress on source and form criticism has been replaced by a stress on redaction criticism, so in scholarship on Revelation the source and compilation theories of the last century have given way to the scholarly consensus that Revelation is the theological work of one author. Since linguistic analyses have established that the so-called seven letters form an integral part of the book, Revelation as a whole is no longer seen as a Jewish writing with superficial Christian additions. Instead, it must be evaluated as an authentic Christian prophetic-apocalyptic work addressed to the situation and problems of the Christian church in western Asia Minor (Schüssler Fiorenza, 1976a; Vanni, 1980).

Nevertheless the judgment of Ernst Lohmeyer applies also to the research period of the last three decades: “When one surveys even cursorily the scholarly literature of the last half-generation, the solutions that have been proposed and the directions that they take are so multifarious and heterogeneous that the inadequacies of the Book of Revelation appear to be almost insurmountable” (1934:271). All scholarly attempts to arrive at a definite interpretation of certain passages or of the whole book seem to have failed. This failure suggests that the historical-critical paradigm has to be complemented by a different approach that can do justice to the multivalent character of Revelation.

III. LITERARY-FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION

While redaction criticism elucidates the nature and extent of the author's activity in collecting, arranging, and editing traditional forms, sources, and patterns, literary analysis focuses on the compositional activity of the author and the aesthetic power of the work. Traditional patterns, sources, or stages of redaction may not be equated with the literary composition and expression of a work. The author's interests and intentions in writing the work are not something that lies behind the text, but they manifest themselves in the form-content configuration and social function of the book. Such literary analysis does not discard the results of historical-critical research but integrates them into the overall understanding of Revelation as a literary work. Revelation's language and overall composition are literary and not descriptive-factual. Small formal units, traditional patterns, and individual passages derive their meaning from the overall composition of the book.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSES

Jacques Ellul claims that all scientific studies written in the last fifty years have erred completely because they applied a method to the interpretation of Revelation that is totally inappropriate to the book. According to him, Revelation must be understood as a whole and not analyzed verse by verse, because each part takes its import in its relation to the whole architecture of the work. Ellul's criticism is justified but overlooks the fact that structural analyses of Revelation have attempted to understand the overall composition of the book. While structuralist analyses of the deep structure of the book are rare (Calloud et al.; Schüssler Fiorenza, 1977a), scholarly analyses of the surface structure abound (see the overviews in Vanni, 1971; and Bowman). Scholars agree that in comparison with other Jewish and Christian apocalypses, Revelation's overall organization reveals a careful composition and definite plan in which the number seven plays a key role.

One can find almost as many different outlines of the composition as there are scholars studying the book. It is debated whether the so-called apocalyptic part (Revelation 4-22) is independent of the so-called letters, or whether the letters are an integral part of the architectonic structure of the book. Other issues of debate are whether the book is totally composed in seven cycles that recapitulate each other (Bornkamm; Yarbro Collins, 1976) or whether only the explicitly numbered visions are intended as seven cycles. It is also discussed whether Revelation consists of two rather even sections (1-11 and 12-22) or whether its architectonic pattern is the concentric ABCDC′B′A′ pattern. (Another issue is whether the narrative is cyclic, linear, or moves in a conic spiral).

Two methodological issues need to be clarified: first, it must be determined whether or not the structuration of the book is to be reconstrued on purely formalistic grounds (Vanni, 1971) or whether a morphological approach is more appropriate, one that elucidates the form-content configuration of Revelation (Schüssler Fiorenza, 1968, 1977a). Second, the following criteria formulated by architecture criticism need also to be applied to the structural analyses of Revelation: One has to show that the proposed architectonic or compositional structuration is not derived from the tradition, that it is also found in smaller units of Revelation, and, finally, that it is present in the art and literature of the time. The greatly differing proposals for the structuration of Revelation indicate that the formulation of such internal and external controls is necessary if structural analyses of the book are not to degenerate further into a purely subjectivistic enterprise.

THE EVOCATIVE POWER OF THE BOOK

Exegetes and theologians have still to discover what artists have long understood: The strength of Revelation's language and composition lies not in its theological argumentation or historical information but in its evocative power, inviting imaginative participation (Beardslee). The language and narrative flow of Revelation elicit emotions, reactions, and convictions that cannot and should not be fully conceptualized and phrased in propositional-logical language. Since the author does not employ discursive language and logical arguments but speaks in the language of symbol and myth, the often somewhat unsophisticated discussion of the imaginative, mythopoeic language of Revelation (see, e.g., Foerster) needs to be replaced by a literary approach and symbol analysis that would bring out the evocative power and “musicality” of Revelation's language, which was written to be read aloud and to be heard.

Such a literary approach would have to integrate literary-aesthetic analysis with historical-traditional research. It could not neglect traditional-historical and form-historical analyses since the author does not freely create his images and myths but reworks traditional materials into a new and unique literary composition. Nevertheless, the meaning of Revelation's mythopoeic language cannot be derived from its traditions but from its literary function in its present historical-literary context. To know the author's original reference points and cultural context helps us to approximate the multivalent meaning and emotive power of Revelation's imaginative language. Such an approximation, however, is possible only when individual passage of Revelation are interpreted within the context of the overall composition and theological perspective of the book.

Already in the eighteenth century scholars had recognized that apocalyptic language is poetic language and that therefore Revelation had to be interpreted as a work of poetry (see Schmidt: 87-97). However, because of the Jewish character of apocalyptic language, they had advocated a sharp distinction between literary form and theological content in order to maintain the genuine Christian character of Revelation. This dichotomy between Jewish apocalyptic language and Christian theological content, which reduces apocalyptic imagery to a mere container or cloak of timeless essences and propositional truth, has ever since marred the discussion of apocalyptic literature. Insofar as exegetes have understood Revelation as a descriptive or predictive account of factual events of the past and the future or of timeless theological statements and principles, they have tended to reduce the imaginative language of Revelation to a one-to-one meaning. They thus have historicized the sequence of images and visions, objectified symbolic-allegoric expressions, and reduced mythopoeic vision to abstract theological or philosophical principles.

Even those scholars who have championed a literary approach have tended to reduce the meaning of Revelation to archetypal (Farrer; Halver) or ontological (Minear; Schlier) concepts. However, such a de-historicization of Revelation neglects the theological interests of the author and the sociotheological function of the book. A purely formalistic literary understanding of Revelation overlooks the fact that John did not write art for art's sake, but that he had a definite purpose in mind when writing the book. It is necessary, therefore, to discuss briefly the communicative situation and literary social function of Revelation.

THEOLOGICAL INTENTION

If the theological intention and the social function of a work are not things that lie behind the texts but manifest themselves in the literary form-content configuration of a work, then it is significant that the apocalyptic visions of John are set within the framework of the apostolic letter-form and that they begin with a series of seven apocalyptic letters. The epistolary framework of Revelation is not an artificial and accidental setting for John's mythopoeic vision. John derived the authority of his work not from pseudonymity and fictional timetables but from the revelation of Jesus Christ. The form and the theological self-understanding of Revelation, therefore, come close to that of the Pauline letters (Schüssler Fiorenza; Kraft 1974). In writing down the “words of prophecy,” John wants to strengthen and encourage Christians in Asia Minor who were persecuted and still had to expect more suffering and harassment. He does so not simply by writing a hortatory treatise and letter but by creating a new “plausibility structure” and “symbolic universe.”

The main concern of the author is not the interpretation of history but the issue of power. The focal point of the “already” and “not yet” of eschatological salvation is not history but the kingdom of God and the rule of Christ. Therefore, the main symbol of Revelation is the image of the throne and its main motif that of kingship (Schüssler Fiorenza, 1972, 1979; Lohse, 1971). The apocalyptic question “Who is Lord over the world?” is the central issue of Revelation. This question is expressed here in mythological and political images and language. Whereas Paul understood the question in terms of the alternative between the lordship of Christ and that of the cosmic powers, Revelation concretizes this alternative in political terms. Christians are the representatives of God's and Christ's eschatological power on earth and at the same time still subject to the political powers of their time. Those rejecting the beast and its cult are excluded from the economic and social life of their time and have to expect captivity and death (13:10-15). Revelation demands unfaltering resistance to the imperial cult because honoring the emperor would mean ratifying Rome's dominion over all people and denying the life-giving power of God and Christ.

The author appears to formulate this theology in opposition to an enthusiastic prophetic theology that seems to have advocated accommodation to the Roman civil religion (see the codewords “idolatry” and “immorality” in the so-called letters and in the central section of Revelation). His harsh rejection of the Nicolaitans and his denunciation of the beast and its cult have the same function. John can reject any accommodation to Roman civil religion and any participation in the imperial cult because he can “show” that the power of God and Christ will prevail over all anti-divine and anti-human forces. Without question, the symbolic universe of Revelation is genuinely Christian (see also Karner; Rissi, 1968; Nikolainen; Pesch). The central function of Revelation is the elaboration of God and the Lamb's power not only over the lives of individuals but over the whole world and its political powers.

Nevertheless, scholars have labeled the author's theological perspective and attempt at “social control” as sub-Christian because of his outcry for vengeance (Lawrence; Minear; Yarbro Collins; Barclay). Resentment and revenge are not compatible with Christian love and forgiveness. However, Revelation's demand for judgment must be understood as an outcry for justice for those who are exploited and killed today. John thus resounds the call of the prophets to repentance and justice. In doing so he continues the call and promise of the prophet, Jesus. Against the forces of economic, political, and religious oppression within the Roman Empire, the mythopoeic vision of Revelation shows that God and Christ's reign and salvation are different. The last chapters of Revelation (Rissi, 1972) picture a world free of evil and suffering in order to give hope to those who are suffering and oppressed now because they do not acknowledge the death-dealing political powers of their time.

In conclusion, this short essay has attempted to review the major approaches to the interpretation of Revelation that have been published before 1980. It seems that the theological-doctrinal and the historical-critical paradigms of interpretation need to be integrated into a new literary paradigm that could do justice to the symbolic-mythopoeic language as well as to the historical communicative situation of the book. Therefore, Revelation could emerge as one of the most interesting and challenging areas for NT scholarly research in the future.

[Postscript: Since the completion of this manuscript in 1980, the Book of Revelation has received lively scholarly attention. For further discussion and literature, see my volume, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). See also the collections of essays edited by David Hellholm, Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983); J. Lambrecht, L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (BETL 53; Paris and Gembloux: Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980); and Adela Yarbro Collins, Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting = Semeia 36 (1986); and the July issue of Interpretation 40 (1986) 227-301, which is devoted to the Book of Revelation.]

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

Bib Biblica

BibLeb Bibel und Leben

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

EBib Études bibliques

EPRO Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain

EvT Evangelische Theologie

HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HNTC Harper's NT Commentaries

ICC International Critical Commentary

Int Interpretation

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JTC Journal for Theology and the Church

LD Lectio divina

MeyerK H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NRT La nouvelle revue théologique

NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch

NTS New Testament Studies

RB Revue biblique

RHPR Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses

RivB Rivista biblica

RNT Regensburger Neues Testament

RSR Recherches de science religieuse

SBM Stuttgarter biblische Monographien

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament

TF Theologische Forschung

THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung

TQ Theologische Quartalschrift

TRu Theologische Rundschau

TS Theological Studies

TU Texte und Untersuchungen

TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

VC Vigiliae christianae

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Bibliography

Allo, E. B.

1933 Saint Jean, L'Apocalypse. 4th ed. rev. EBib. Paris: Gabalda.

Barclay, William

1957 Letters to the Seven Churches: A Study of the Second and Third Chapters of the Book of Revelation. New York: Abingdon.

Bauckham, Richard

1977a “The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John.” NovT 19: 224-33.

1977b “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.” NTS 23: 162-76.

Beardslee, William A.

1971 “New Testament Apocalyptic in Recent Interpretation.” Int 25: 419-35.

Bell, Albert A.

1978 “The Date of John's Apocalypse: The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered.” NTS 25: 93-102.

Betz, Hans Dieter

1969 “On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of Apocalypticism.” JTC 6: 134-56.

Bieder, Werner

1954 “Die sieben Seligpreisungen in der Offenbarung des Johannes.” TZ 10: 13-30.

Bietenhard, Hans

1955 Das tausendjahrige Reich: Eine biblisch-theologische Studie. 2d ed. Zurich: Zwingli.

Böcher, Otto

1975 Die Johannesapokalypse. Erträge der Forschung, 41. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Boismard, Marie-Émile

1949 “‘L'Apocalypse’ ou ‘les Apocalypses’ de S. Jean.” RB 56: 507-41.

Bousset, Wilhelm.

1906 Die Offenbarung Johannis. MeyerK 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bowman, John Wick

1955 “The Revelation to John: Its Dramatic Structure and Message.” Int 9: 436-53.

Bruce, Frederick Fyvie

1973 “The Spirit in the Apocalypse.” Pp. 333-44 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of C. F. D. Moule. Ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: University Press.

Caird, George B.

1966 A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. HNTC [Harper's New Testament Commentaries]. New York: Harper & Row.

Calloud, Jean, Jean Delorme, and Jean-Pierre Duplantier

1977 “L'Apocalypse de Jean: Propositions pour une analyse structurale.” Pp. 351-81 in Apocalypses et Théologie de l'espérance. Ed. L. Monloubou. LD 95. Paris: Cerf.

Cambier, Jules

1955 “Les images de l'Ancien Testament dans l'Apocalypse de Saint Jean.” NRT [La nouvelle revue théologique] 77: 113-22.

Cerfaux, Lucien, and Jules Cambier

1964 L'Apocalypse de Saint Jean lue aux Chrétiens. LD 17. Paris: Cerf.

Charles, Robert Henry

1920 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Comblin, Joseph

1965 Le Christ dans l'Apocalypse. Bibliothèque de Théologie 3:6. Paris: Desclée.

Delling, Gerhard

1959 “Zum gottesdienstlichen Stil der Johannes-Apokalypse.” NovT [Novum Testamentum] 3: 107-37. Reprinted in his Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum, 425-50. Ed. F. Hahn, T. Holtz, and N. Walter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.

Ellul, Jacques

1977 Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation. A Crossroad Book. Trans. G. W. Schreiner. New York: Seabury.

Farrer, Austin

1949 A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John's Apocalypse. London: Dacre. Reprinted, Boston: Beacon, 1963, and Magnolia, MA: Peter Smith, 1970.

Feuillet, André

1965 The Apocalypse. Trans. T. E. Crane. Staten Island, NY: Alba House.

1974, 1975, 1976 “Jelons pour une meilleure intelligence de l'Apocalypse.” Esprit et Vie 84:481-90; 85:65-72, 209-23, 432-43; 86:455-59, 471-79.

Foerster, Werner

1970 “Bemerkungen zur Bildersprache der Offenbarung Johannis.” Pp. 225-36 in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für G. Stählin zu 70. Geburtstag. Ed. O. Böcher and K. Haacker. Wuppertal: Brockhaus.

Ford, Josephine Massyngbaerde

1975 Revelation. AB 38. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Gaechter, P.

1949 “The Original Sequence of Apocalypse 20-22.” TS [Theological Studies] 10: 485-521.

Giblin, Charles H.

1974 “Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16-22.” Bib 55: 487-504.

Gollinger, Hildegard

1971 Das “grosse Zeichen” von Apokalypse 12. SBM [Stuttgarter biblische Monographien] 11. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk; Würzburg: Echter-Verlag.

Hadorn, Wilhelm

1928 Die Offenbarung des Johannes. THKNT [Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament] 18. Leipzig: Deichert.

Hahn, Ferdinand

1971 “Die Sendschreiben der Johannesapokalypse: Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung prophetischer Redeformen.” Pp. 357-94 in Tradition und Glaube: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn. Ed. G. Jeremias, H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Halver, Rudolf

1964 Der Mythos im letzten Buch der Bibel: Eine Untersuchung der Bildersprache der Johannes-Apokalypse. TF [Theologische Forschung] 32. Hamburg and Bergstedt: Reich.

Harder, Günther

1963 “Eschatologische Schemata in der Johannes-Apokalypse.” Theologia Viatorum 9: 70-87.

Hemer, C. J.

1969 “A Study of the Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia with Special Reference to Their Local Background.” Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester.

Hill, David

1971-72 “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St John.” NTS [New Testament Studies] 18: 401-18.

Holtz, Traugott

1971 Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes. 2d ed. TU [Teste und Untersuchungen] 85. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Jenkins, F.

1976 The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Johnson, Sherman E.

1975 “Asia Minor and Early Christianity.” Pp. 77-145 in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, vol. 2. SJLA [Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity]12. Ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill.

Jörns, Klaus Peter

1971 Das hymnische Evangelium: Untersuchungen zu Aufbau, Funktion und Herkunft der hymnischen Stücke in der Johannesoffenbarung. SNT [Studien zum Neuen Testament] 5. Gütersloh: Mohn.

Kallas, James

1967 “The Apocalypse—An Apocalyptic Book?” JBL [Journal of Biblical Literature] 86: 69-80.

Karner, Karoly

1968 “Gegenwart und Endgeschichte in der Offenbarung des Johannes.” TLZ [Theologische Literaturzeitung] 93: 641-52.

Ketter, Peter

1953 Die Apokalypse. 3d unchanged ed. Die Heilige Schrift für das Leben erklärt, Herders Bibelkommentar. Freiburg: Herder. Original 1942.

Klassen, William

1966 “Vengeance in the Apocalypse of John.” CBQ [Catholic Biblical Quarterly] 28: 300-11.

Kraft, Heinrich

1973 “Zur Offenbarung Johannes.” TRu [Theologische Rundschau] n.s. 38: 81-98.

1974 Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT [Handbuch zum Neuen Testament] 16a. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

Kümmel, Werner Georg

1957 “Der Text der Offenbarung des Johannes.” TLZ 82: 249-54.

Ladd, George Eldon

1972 A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Lähnemann, Johannes

1978 “Die sieben Sendschreiben der Johannes-Apokalypse.” Pp. 516-39 in Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag, vol. 2. Ed. S. Sahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner. EPRO [Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain] 66. Leiden: Brill.

Lancellotti, Angelo

1964 Sintassi ebraica nel greco dell'Apocalisse. I, Uso delle forme verbali. Coll. Assisiensis 1. Assisi: Studio Teologico “Portiuncola.”

Läuchli, Samuel

1960 “Eine Gottesdienststruktur in der Johannesoffenbarung.” TZ [Theologische Zeitschrift] 16: 359-78.

Lawrence, D. H.

1976 Apocalypse. New York: Penguin Books and Heinemann. Original, 1931.

Lohmeyer, Ernst

1926 Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. 10th ed., 1971.

1934, 1935 “Die Offenbarung des Johannes 1920-1934.” TRu 6: 269-314; 7: 28-62.

Lohse, Eduard

1960 Die Offenbarung des Johannes. NTD [Das Neue Testament Deutsch] 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2d ed., 1953; 11th ed., 1976.

1971 “Apokalyptik und Christologie.” ZNW [Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft] 62: 48-67.

Megivern, James J.

1978 “Wrestling with Revelation.” BTB [Biblical Theology Bulletin] 8: 147-54.

Minear, Paul

1968 I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse. Washington, DC: Corpus.

Mounce, Robert H.

1977 The Book of Revelation. NICNT [New International Commentary on the New Testament]. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Müller, Hans-Peter

1960 “Die Plagen der Apokalypse: Eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” ZNW 51: 268-78.

1963 “Die himmlische Ratsversammlung: Motivgeschichtliches zu Apc 5,1-5.” ZNW 54: 254-67.

Müller, Ulrich B.

1972 Messias und Menschensohn in den jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung des Johannes. SNT 6. Gütersloh: Mohn.

1975 Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament: Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Prophetie. SNT 10. Gütersloh: Mohn.

1976 Zur frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte: Judenchristentum und Paulinismus in Kleinasien an der Wende vom ersten zum zweiten Jahrhundert n. Chr. Gütersloh: Mohn.

Mussies, Gerard

1971 The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism. NovTSup 27. Leiden: Brill.

Newman, Barclay M., Jr.

1968 Rediscovering the Book of Revelation. Valley Forge, PA: Judson.

Nikolainen, Aimo T.

1968 “Über die theologische Eigenart der Offenbarung des Johannes.” TLZ 93: 161-70.

Olivier, A.

1960 Apocalypse et Evangiles. Cahiers de littérature Sacrée 1. Saint-Maurice: [by the author].

Osten Sacken, P. von der

1967 “‘Christologie, Taufe, Homologie’—Ein Beitrag zu Apc Joh 1,5f.” ZNW 58: 255-66.

Pesch, Rudolf

1970 “Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Eine Auslegung von Apk 1,1-3.” BibLeb [Bibel und Leben] 11: 15-29.

Pilch, John J.

1978 What Are They Saying about the Book of Revelation? New York: Paulist.

Prigent, Pierre

1959 Apocalypse 12: Histoire de l'exégèse. BGBE [Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese] 2. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

1964 Apocalypse et liturgie. Cahiers Théologique 52. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé.

1974, 1975 “Au temps de l'Apocalypse.” RHPR [Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses] 54: 455-83; 55: 215-35, 341-63.

1977 “L'hérésie Asiate et l'église confessante de l'Apocalypse à Ignace.” VC [Vigilae christiane] 31: 1-22.

Ramsay, William M.

1904 The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Reicke, Bo

1972 “Die jüdische Apokalyptik und die johanneische Tiervision.” RSR [Recherches de science religieuse] 60: 173-92.

Rissi, Mathias

1966 Time and History: A Study on the Revelation. Trans. G. Winsor. Richmond: John Knox. Original, 1952.

1968 “The Kerygma of the Revelation to John.” Int 22: 3-17.

1972 The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19.11-22.15. SBT [Studies in Biblical Theology] 2/25. Naperville, IL: Allenson.

Robinson, John Arthur Thomas

1976 Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Rousseau, François

1971 L'Apocalypse et le milieu prophétique du Nouveau Testament: Structure et préhistoire du texte. Recherches 3. Paris and Tournai: Desclée; Montreal: Bellarmin.

Saffrey, H. D.

1975 “Relire l'Apocalypse à Patmos.” RB [Revue biblique] 82: 384-417.

Sanders, J. N.

1962-63 “St. John on Patmos.” NTS 9: 75-85.

Satake, Akira

1966 Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannes-Apokalypse. WMANT [Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament] 21. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Schlier, Heinrich

1956 “Zum Verständnis der Geschichte nach der Offenbarung des Johannis.” Pp. 265-74 in Die Zeit der Kirche: Exegetische Aufsätze und Vorträge. Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder.

Schmid, Josef

1955-56 Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes. Münchener Theologische Studien, Historische Abteilung 1. 2 vols. in 3; Munich: Karl Zink.

Schmidt, J. M.

1969 Die jüdische Apokalyptik: Die Geschichte ihrer Erforschung von den Anfängen bis zu den Textfunden von Qumran. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Schmitt, Eugen

1960 “Die christologische Interpretation als das Grundlegende der Apokalypse.” TQ [Theologische Quartalschrift]140: 257-90.

Schüssler Fiorenza, E.

1968 “The Eschatology and Composition of the Apocalypse.” CBQ 30: 537-69.

1969 “Gericht und Heil: Zum theologischen Verständnis der Apokalypse.” Pp. 330-48 in Gestalt und Anspruch des Neuen Testaments. Ed. J. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag.

1972a Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotive in der Apokalypse. NTAbh [Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen] 7. Münster: Aschendorff.

1972b “Die tausendjährige Herrschaft der Auferstandenen (Apk 20,4-6).” BibLeb 13: 107-24.

1973 “Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revelation and Paul.” JBL 92: 565-81.

1974a “Religion und Politik in der Offenbarung des Johannes.” Pp. 261-71 in Biblische Randbemerkungen: Schülerfestschrift für R. Schnackenburg. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag.

1974b “Redemption as Liberation: Apoc 1:5f. and 5:9f.” CBQ 36: 220-32.

1976a The Apocalypse. Herald Biblical Booklets. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press.

1976b “Cultic Language in Qumran and in the New Testament.” CBQ 38: 159-77.

1977a “Composition and Structure of the Book of Revelation.” CBQ 39: 344-66.

1977b “The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 23: 402-27.

1977c “The Revelation to John.” Pp. 99-120 in Hebrews, James 1 and 2, Peter, Jude, Revelation. Ed. G. Krodel. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Schweizer, Eduard

1951-52 “Die sieben Geister in der Apokalypse.” EvT [Evangelische Theologie] 11: 502-12.

Shepherd, Massey H.

1960 The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse. Richmond: John Knox.

Sickenberger, Joseph

1942 Erklärung der Johannesapokalypse. 2d ed. Bonn: Hanstein. 1st ed., 1940.

Staples, Peter

1972 “Rev. XVI 4-6 and Its Vindication Formula.” NovT 14: 280-93.

Stauffer, Ethelbert

1964 Christus und die Caesaren. 2d ed. Hamburg: Wittig. Eng. trans.: Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches. Trans. K. and R. Gregor Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955.

Stierlin, Henri

1972 La verité sur l'Apocalypse: Essai de reconstitution des textes originel. Paris: Buchet-Castel.

Strobel, August

1964 “Abfassung und Geschichtstheologie der Apokalypse nach Kap. XVII. 9-12.” NTS 10: 433-45.

Sweet, J. P. M.

1979 Revelation. Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Thompson, Leonard

1969 “Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John.” JR [Journal of Religion] 49: 330-50.

Torrey, Charles C.

1959 The Apocalypse of John. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Trites, A. A.

1973 “Mάρτυs and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse: A Semantic Study.” NovT 15: 72-80.

Unnik, W. C. van

1963 “A Formula Describing Prophecy.” NTS 9: 86-94.

1970 “‘Worthy is the Lamb’: The Background of Apoc 5.” Pp. 445-61 in Mélanges bibliques en hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux. Ed. A. Descamps and A. de Halleux. Gembloux: Duculot.

Vanhoye, Albert

1962 “L'utilisation du livre d'Ezéchiel dans l'Apocalypse.” Bib 43: 436-76.

Vanni, Ugo

1971 La struttura letteraria dell'Apocalisse. Aloisiana 8. Rome: Herder.

1976a “Rassegna bibliographica sull'Apocalisse (1970-1975).” RivB [Rivista biblica] 24: 277-301.

1976b “Un esempio di dialogo liturgico in Ap 1,4-8.” Bib [Biblica] 57: 453-67.

1980 “L'Apocalypse johannique: État de la question.” Pp. 21-46 in L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Ed. J. Lambrecht. BETL [Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium] 53. Paris and Gembloux: Duculot; Louvain: Leuven University Press.

Vögtle, Anton

1971 “Mythos und Botschaft in Apokalypse 12.” Pp. 395-415 in Tradition und Glaube: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn. Ed. G. Jeremias, H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

1976 “Der Gott der Apokalypse: Wie redet die christliche Apokalypse von Gott?” Pp. 377-98 in La notion biblique de Dieu. Ed. J. Coppens. BETL 41. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Gembloux: Duculot.

Vos, Louis A.

1965 The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse. Kampen: Kok.

Wikenhauser, A.

1959 Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 3d ed. RNT [Regensburger Neues Testament] 9. Regensburg: Pustet.

Yarbro Collins, A.

1976 The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. HDR [Harvard Dissertations in Religion] 9. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

1977a “The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John.” JBL 96: 241-56.

1977b “The History-of-Religions Approach to Apocalypticism and the ‘Angel of the Waters’ (Rev 16:4-7).” CBQ 39: 367-81.

1979 “The Early Christian Apocalypses.” Pp. 61-121 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Ed. J. J. Collins. Semeia 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.