All verses are from the SBLGNT:
1:3: μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.
11:6: οὗτοι ἔχουσιν τὴν
ἐξουσίαν κλεῖσαι τὸν οὐρανόν, ἵνα μὴ ὑετὸς βρέχῃ τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς
προφητείας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων στρέφειν αὐτὰ εἰς
αἷμα καὶ πατάξαι τὴν γῆν ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ ὁσάκις ἐὰν θελήσωσιν.
19:10: καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν
τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ. καὶ λέγει μοι· Ὅρα μή· σύνδουλός σού
εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ· τῷ θεῷ
προσκύνησον· ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας.
22:7: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ· μακάριος ὁ τηρῶν τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου.
22:10: Καὶ λέγει μοι· Μὴ σφραγίσῃς τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, ὁ καιρὸς γὰρ ἐγγύς ἐστιν.
22:18-19: Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, [a]ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ· 19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, [b]ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.
Compare Rev. 1:1.
Revelation is a combination of history and prophecy.
See https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190655433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190655433-e-1
Sunday, August 01, 2021
Occurrences of προφητεία in the Apocalypse (Revelation)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
I take it history and prophesy is a functional descriptor, Not a genre description?
I generally have understood the apocalyptic tradition to be a development of the prophetic tradition (which yet developed into the mystical tradition).
That being said, how one understand "apocalyptic" is still contentious and still confusing.
Only two books in the Bible are often categorized as apocalyptic: Daniel and Revelation. But Daniel is a prophetic book too, and that is how I view Revelation. The term "apocalyptic" usually refers to the genre of literature, but like you say, there is debate over exactly what makes a work apocalyptic.
See https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199856497.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199856497-e-002
"Apocalyptic prophecy"
https://biblehub.com/greek/tachei_5034.htm
One way to look at it: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Revelation/lFWeDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=in+what+sense+do+the+events+of+revelation+1:1+happen+soon%3F&pg=PT63&printsec=frontcover
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G5036&t=ASV&ot=LXX&word=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%B9
First, I think you have to consider how "soon, quickly" is used in contexts like Revelation. Second, some of the events mentioned in the book do happen quickly. For instance, the seven congregations happen in the first century but we believe they occur later too. See Revelation 1:19-20.
As Fanning writes, we're dealing with God's timetable--not a human pov: Revelation draws heavily from Daniel and Ezekiel.
I think this is important, an important hermeneutical principle.
You can analyze a text as a historical document (this is just pure exegesis), i.e. what its original audience would have taken it to mean as well as what its original human author intended it to mean (hopefully the two are the same, but not always), you can use a document as a source for historical reconstruction (what did the early Christians think about this or that), and these are all ways of reading a text that everyone can do, and is necessary to understand a text.
However, if you are reading a text as scripture, you must also apply different hermeneutics, i.e. what is God saying through the text. This might be reducible to a pure historical exegesis (perhaps some historical books are, or some wisdom books), or, perhaps, you need to take a canonical approach, where you apply the whole of scripture whether or not the whole of scripture has historical significance for the text (since we are talking about a God's eye view here, not a historical view). You may use allegorical or typological reasoning where it may be warranted (Paul does this all the time, Origen is known for this, and he is much more rigorous and careful than some people accuse him of being), or you may use a text as data for further theological reasoning (Such as reasoning from the biblical data of creation and texts on God's power/knowledge to divine attributes).
Or, in this case, taking a God's eye view to prophetic texts, so perhaps prophetic texts in their historical context had local applications, however, reading scripture as scripture allows for a God's eye view, which allows us to consider whether or not there are further applications which could be reasoned to from scripture.
Anyway, a good book which has helped me think through biblical hermeneutics is: Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, Edited by D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge, it's a good, wide ranging, essay collection.
https://biblehub.com/greek/meta_3326.htm
Duncan, based on Revelation 1:19, what John saw was not limited to the future. εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα.
Roman, thanks for your contribution and the recommendation. I agree that we need more than historical exegesis when reading and approaching the Bible. I also think the four senses approach has much to recommend it. Why should we be restricted to bare exegesis?
Edgar, my focus is Rev 4:1.
https://np.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/2i075f/why_does_the_lxx_use_the_%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%AC_instead_of_%CF%83%CF%8D%CE%BD_for/
Roman, thanks for the suggestion. I have ordered a copy.
Edgar,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_senses_of_Scripture
Is this what you are referring to?
Duncan, it seems that John employs meta 10 times. See https://www.google.com/books/edition/Biblical_and_Ancient_Greek_Linguistics_V/jlL7DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%84%E1%BD%B0+revelation&pg=PA44&printsec=frontcover
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371677
Daniel 7:13 (LXX): ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ἦν καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν καὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ προσηνέχθη
See Revelation 1:7.
https://dspace.aiias.edu/handle/20.500.12977/440
Duncan, ys, that is what I had in mind. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Exegesis
See Ugaritic “Legend of Danel”
Daniel, “God Is My Judge” in Hebrew; Danel, “God Is My Judge” in Ugaritic
Danel’s god El was known as “Father of Years”; Daniel 7:9-10 refers to Daniel’s God as “Ancient of Days,”
Tons have been written about Daniel and Ugaritic literature:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Angels_Associated_with_Israel_in_the_Dea/ErHDDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ugaritic+daniel+ancient+of+days&pg=PA67&printsec=frontcover
We should exercise caution in drawing parallels.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42611055
Compare "The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7: 13 as a Test Case." CHT Fletcher-Louis. Seminar papers 133 (36), 161-193, 1997.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318725539_A_Contemporary_Defense_of_the_Authenticity_of_Daniel
https://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-in-ezekiel-14-part-2.html
Does any of this contradict the meaning of the names etc.
Epic of Baal (CAT 1.1.iii.24–25):
ygly ḏd i[l w ybu]
He enters E[l]’s mountain [and comes]
[qrš mlk] ab šnm
[To the tent of the king], the Father of Years.
l [pʿn il yhbr wql]
A[t El’s feet he bows down and falls].
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vrEEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT162&lpg=PT162&dq=Danel+%22god+is+my+judge%22&source=bl&ots=xF5oB6uSan&sig=ACfU3U0UG3aHMG8y1nnDBZ1G8-0i5mppUg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN453Qhp3yAhXNh1wKHYdcBnoQ6AF6BAgNEAM#v=onepage&q=god%20is%20my%20judge&f=false
This is another hotly contested debate between scholars with different presuppositions. The comparisons are anything but straightforward and much reconstruction is done by Ugaritic scholars to draw parallels with Hebrew lit.
I am only interested in these phrases.
I was talking about the name Daniel and the Ancient of Days.
"lingual vocabularies make it possible to reconstruct forms of Ugaritic words with a greater exactness than is possible for Hebrew of the Biblical period."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/601886
A Primer on Ugaritic, page 153:
7.2.2 Vowels
Reconstruction of vowels is a difficult problem in Ugaritic. Such
reconstruction is an exercise in comparative Semitics. It is
important to recognize that vowels reflects speech and dialect,
which can vary widely because of geography and social context.
The evidence from Ugaritic words written with alephs suggests that
the Proto-Semitic vowel system did not undergo change in Ugaritic,
apart from the contraction of dipthongs and triphthongs (see
below). As in Akkadian, there were probably three short and three
long vowels: /a, aœ, i, ˆä, u, uœ/, but it is probable that shadings of these basic vowels also occurred (e.g., e, eœ, o, oœ).
The contracted vowels are posited on the basis of syllabic
transcriptions that appear to have been similar to Hebrew (i.e., *aw
> oœ; *ay > eœ ), as opposed to Babylonian Akkadian (i.e., *aw > uœ
and *ay > ˆä). Following the convention of Akkadian, the macron
(i.e., uœ ˆä aœ) marks the contraction of a consonant (i.e., a diphthong), while the circumflex (i.e., u® ˆî a®) marks the contraction of two syllables (e.g., a triphthong) into one syllable.
This link looks good, but it's not free: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110832389-006/html
On the other hand, see https://www.academia.edu/38210220/Joshua_Blau_Some_Difficulties_in_the_Reconstruction_of_Proto-Hebrew_and_Proto-Canaanite_in_Matthew_Black_and_Georg_Fohrer_eds._In_Memoriam_Paul_Kahle_Berlin_A._T%C3%B6pelmann_1968_29-43
Discussion concerning the father of years and different interpretations of the Ugaritic: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Early_History_of_God/1yM3AuBh4AsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=daniel+7:9-14+ancient+of+days+ugaritic&pg=PA37&printsec=frontcover
So vowels in Ugaritic are just as problematic as Hebrew.
Maybe even more so, since we have even fewer specialists of Ugaritic. Additionally, if you read Mark Smith, he shows there's more than 1 way to interpret the texts.
Another good resource is the OTL Daniel commentary by Carol Newsom. The discussion in her book regarding the Father of years" versus the Ancient of Days gives me reason to doubt seriously any genuine dependence/nexus between Daniel and the Ball myth.
With familiarity of the Hebrew text in general the vowels become superfluous. I wonder if the same will be said about Ugarit?
From a review of Newsom:-
Newsom believes that “the Daniel stories originated in the Eastern
Diaspora in the late Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods” (21), but behind the compositions of the book she sees the hands of multiple authors. The author follows the thesis that the final date for Daniel’s book is the middle of the second century BC, though she admits that “We simply do not know what was going on in Jerusalem between mid-168 and mid-167” because “historical sources are so obscure and contradictory” (26). The situation is further complicated by the fact that “Persecution for religious reasons was basically unknown in Hellenistic culture” (27).
So is her separation from Ugarit based on late dating?....
This caught my eye while searching:-
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1384.2019.4
From what I remember of her discussion, which spans 2-3 pages, she mainly highlights the differences between the Father of Years and Ancients of Days accounts, and seems to cast doubt on how closely linked they are. I would submit that the dating of Daniel is a separate issue.
I didn't read the JSTOR article but saw it while checking out resources for Ugaritic and Daniel. It looks interesting enough. However, I don't have time to read it.
While the idea is popular, I don't buy the late date for Daniel. Maybe I will post some on that topic one day.
Courtesy of archive.org: https://archive.org/details/Eggler2000InfluencesAndTraditionsUnderlyingTheVisionOfDaniel7214
Post a Comment