Theology Today – Vol 16, No. 1 – April 1959 – BOOK REVIEW – The Book of Revelation & The Revelation of Jesus Christ & The Last Book of the Bible & Interpreting Revelation

The Book of Revelation
By Thomas S. Kepler
232 pp. New York, Oxford University Press, 1957. $4.50;

The Revelation of Jesus Christ
By Donald W. Richardson
Fourth Edition. 195 pp. Richmond, John Knox Press, 1957. Paper, $1.50;

The Last Book of the Bible
By Hanns Lilje
Translated by Olive Wyon
286 pp. Philadelphia, Muhlenberg Press, 1957. $4.50;

Interpreting Revelation
By Merrill C. Tenney
220 pp. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957. $3.50.

Adamsen, Georg Stubkjær. Anmeldelse af [Review of] Revelation, af [by] Robert H. Mounce. Ichthys 25 (1998): 41-5. This review is available at Adamsen’s website.

Revelation Reviews (ISSN 1397-2936) was published in 1997-1998.

It was edited by cand.theol. Georg S. Adamsen (then at the Lutheran School of Theology in Aarhus) and dr. John W. Marshall (then at the Department for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto).

It was an e-journal featuring reviews of scholarly books and major articles on the Book of Revelation.

Revelation Reviews ISSN 1397-2936.
Volume 2.002. Apr 1998 (Publication date: 20 Apr 1998; corredt 25 Aug 2007)

Robert L. Muse: The Book of Revelation. An Annotated Bibliography. Books of the Bible, 2; Garland Reference Library of the Humanities, 1387. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. Pp. xxxvi + 352. ISBN: 0-8240-7394-0. $58.00.

<0.1>
Although e.g. Böcher has published a select bibliography and others have written some survey articles on works on Revelation (cf Muse’s #1-31), no one has attempted to publish a full bibliography on Revelation. The scholarly publications on Revelation are immense. It was therefore with great anticipation that I learned about this annotated bibliography. My hope was that it would provide a systematic and comprehensive bibliography with precise and learned annotations.

<0.2>
In order to evalute whether my hope may be fulfilled, I present the division of the book under review and the author’s preface and introduction in the next three paragraphs (1.1 – 1.3). Section (2) states my positive evaluation of Muse’s work. A number of difficulties have turned up, however, which is presented and discussed in sections 3ff: After an introduction to my criticial sections (3), the review deals with the chronological (4) and language constraints (5) imposed on the bibliography, with classification (6) and with problems with regard to annotation (7), various minor problems (8), omissions (9), relevance (10) and finally spelling mistakes (11). The conclusion presents my overall view of Muse’s bibliography and suggests a second edition (00).

<1.1>
The book provides the usual introductory section with foreword, preface, sources, an 11-page introduction and a list of abbreviations (i-xxxvi) and the annotated bibliography divided into Introductions (pp. 1-47), Historical-Critical Research (pp. 49-97), Compositional Studies (pp. 99-175), Exegetical/Expositional Studies (pp. 177-232), Theological/Thematic Studies (pp. 233-302) and The Revelation in the Life of the Church (pp. 303-332) and finally an Index of Authors and of Scripture and Ancient Texts (pp. 333-343 and 345-352). Each chapter is divided into several paragraphs which are outlined in the Contents, but there is no Index of Subjects.

<1.2>
The author’s preface informs the reader that the bibliography covers roughly the period 1940-1990. The reader should, Muse writes, remember “that this is an annotated bibliography, i.e. it is a listing of sources of information on various aspects and facets of a given subject (in this case, the Book of Revelation) with accompanying descriptive and/or explanatory (occasionaly critical) remarks attached to each of the sources. No attempt is made respecting commentary, comprehensive analysis, or historical-theological discussion” (p. xi). No material commenting only indirectly on Revelation has been included (p. xi). Muse asserts that the bibliography “reflects the author’s original intention to be somewhat comprehensive in his task, i.e., to treat the most important English, German, and French scholarship on the Book of Revelation” (p. xi). On the other hand, “The inclusion of foreign language works is highly selective” (p. xii). Muse proceeds to assert that he has structured the bibliography in order to provide scholars and others with “an idea of the general development of scholarly literature” on Revelation and therefore each section begin with the most recent literature (p. xii). Muse discusses the problem of classification and in doubtful cases decided to “flip the proverbial coin in order to make a decision” (p. xiii).

<1.3>
The author’s introduction asserts that he has undertaken to categorize and identify the history of research and exposition on Revelation (p. xvii). From a broad division of the book into six major units he proceeds to comment on their content and research problems. The bibliography, however, “represent but a small fraction of the scholarly and general interest that has developed through the last fifty-plus years”.

<2>
Muse has undertaken a tremendous work in order to provide an annotated bibliography. Basic bibliographical information is given and an often detailed description is added providing every scholar and student with a good and indispensable tool. 1407 entries are included, but the total number of works are lower because several works have more than one entry. Unpublished dissertations are normally not annotated. Nevertheless, a total of 12-1300 entries with annotations written by one person only are indeed an achievement worthy of praise.

<3>
Unfortunately, although this bibliography is indeed a good and indispensable tool, there are still weaknesses that leave room for a number of improvements. The following points should therefore be considered partly as a rather detailed information on the weaknesses in order to enable the readers to compensate for them, and partly as information probably useful for the next edition which I hope will be published including works which are excluded because of the chronological constraints of this edition.

<4>
The chronological constraint from 1940 to 1990 including however some standard works from before 1940 is surprising. Very important scholarly works have been written not only before 1940 but also before the turn of this century. Some practical reasons might be present, but the constraints of a bibliography should be defined not by somewhat arbitrary criterion, but by the research area under consideration. Some really important studies have been published shortly after 1990 and especially in due time to be included in this bibliography. I cannot really understand why 1990 has been chosen as the terminus ad quem. Perhaps Muse thinks that other works cover the period before 1940, but if so, why not tell the reader?

<5.1>
On the basis of the information provided in the preface, it is difficult to know whether Muse thinks that he has provided a good scholarly tool. On the one hand, I expect a bibliography to be fairly comprehensive and especially systematic, and it seems to me that Muse has set out for a goal like this. When it comes to foreign language works, however, he has been very selective. When he could not easily classify a work, he flipped a coin. Several problems of classification and systematization are involved here.

<5.2>
A bibliography being very selective with foreign language works is not a useful tool for scholars. Scholarship is borderless, and so it is in fact very important and one of the primary reasons to collect a bibliography to be fairly inclusive of foreign works perhaps not easily found within one’s own library. Research on Revelation is international, and so must a bibliography be.

<6.1>
Muse has failed to provide a good classification. Chapters on “Historical-Critical Research” versus “Compositional Studies” do not do justice to the main centres of scholarship on Revelation, and apparently assumes that historical-critical scholarship does not deal with compositional studies while “Literary and Motif Relationships” (p. 125-148) are only studied by non-historical-critical scholars. A section of the Exegetical/Expositional Studies chapter is titled “Studies of Specific Sections” while various sections in the “Theological/Thematic Studies” chapter deal with themes only found in specific sections, in effect creating an overlapping. It is also difficult to see why “Language, Grammar, Style” is found in the “Compositional Studies” chapter. Commentaries should be found in a chapter of their own, and not in the “Exegetical/Expositional Studies” chapter. Are the “Theological/Thematic Studies” considered to be non-exegetical/expositional? Muse has also divided the commentaries into two sections: Series and Individual (4, A, (1) and (2)), but I have difficulty in finding this helpful. Omissions are also significant. Although a section in the first chapter is titled “General Research of Literature and Bibliography” (p. 1-47), there is no section on history-of-interpretation (cf below). Although #19 deals with Caesarius von Arles, Gerhard Maier’s study on the history of interpretation (#1266) is found under “General works” in the last chapter which is definitely a misplacement. R.H. Charles’s commentary (#785) is included although written before 1940, but not his book on the history of interpretation, the Hebrew style and Rev 8-9 to which Charles refers in his Commentary, Vol. I, p. clxxxiiii.[1] Charles, by the way, is missing in the index.

<6.2>
The introductory sections might better have been divided into something like Introduction (isagogics), research history/overviews (dealing with the 20th century), history of interpretation, commentary reviews and hermeneutical approaches. Other bibliographical works may very well be placed in their own section (#15, #29).

<6.3>
Several works are placed in the wrong sections in my opinion. Mazzaferri’s study on the Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspectiveis not really a study on “Source and Revision hypothesis”, but on genre viewed on the basis of the many and important OT allusions found in Revelation. Although I do understand why Mazzaferri’s study is included here, it is not the most obvious section. I have already mentioned the gross mistake with regard to Gerhard Maier’s book above. Beagley’s work on The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, Berlin, 1987, (#315) is found in #404 as an unpublished dissertation which is obviously wrong. All the many misplacements – and there are really many of them (e.g. ##53, 72, 95, 107, 109, 112, 187, 199, 201-2, 232a (!), 327, 411, 451, 464, 492, 933, 1044, 1052, 1122, 1383, 1500, 1282, 82, 213, 248, 88, 140, 90, 92, 1176, 481, 795, 804, 865, 982, 568 and 588) – make the bibliography a less useful tool than necessary. Another category might be chronology. I prefer, however, a classified bibliography, but with a more strict and systematized classification.

<7.1>
There are also many instances of the same works in two entries with different annotations ##789 and 738, 11 and 77, 38 and 198, 374 and 578, 331 and 574, 669 and 671 (?), 68 and 858, 706 and 906, 379 and 924 and 969 and 794, and there are probably even more than these examples which I have not noticed. The positive side is that each article is annotated differently emphasising different aspects of the articles. The negative side, however, is that it is really difficult to know what the main argument of an article is. I would prefer a single annnotation and cross-references to this entry from the other relevant sections. The cross-references, however, are not systematical, and sometimes it is not noticed at all that an article is annotated two (or sometimes more) times.

<7.2>
The annotations are sometimes fairly long and to the point. Contrary to his own assertation, however, they provide no good introduction to the history of interpretation and research. Even with some knowledge of these matters, it is often difficult to see why he has classified the way he has done. As mentioned above, Gerhard Maier’s Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche is the most comprehensive study (676 pages) on the history of interpretation available, although Maier attempts to show that the interpretation of Bengel is really the best and historically most reliable interpretation, and so it might be relevant to place a reference in section on premillenialism. Other works should probably have been placed with a main entry in a history of interpretation section: ## 3, 8, 14, 19, 21, 24 (these six may be logically placed, but with an arbitrary header), 53, 72, 95, 107, 109, 112, 122, 123, 135, 187, 839, 918, 933, 1044, perhaps 1047, perhaps 1051, 1052, 1110, perhaps 1201, perhaps 1270, perhaps 1281 and perhaps 1396.

<7.3>
The annotations are not always precise. Especially the use of the term ‘traditional’ is subject to critique. In #758 he terms the division 1:1-20; 2-3; 4:1-8:1; 8:2-14:20; 15:1-22:5 and 22:6-21 “a traditional outline” (Sweet does not divide between 8:1 and 8:2 by the way). As there are more than 100 commentaries on Revelation as well as an immense number of monographs and articles, and several outlines have been proposed without any consensus, it is questionable whether this term is really meaningful. #772 is a 1967 reprint of a 1940 edition, but the only 1940-commentary by Kiddle is co-written with M.K. Ross as far as #782 asserts. This inconsistency should have been explained (or removed if an error in the bibliography). #778 is a “3rd unchanged ed.”, but the annotation says “Revision of 1942 original”. This may be an error, or the term “unchanged” refers to the second edition. #894 treats an article on Rev 2:8-11 by W. Schrage: “Ponders the message directed to the church in Smyrna in her Sitz im Leben, considering the fact that this phrase may have applied to the Jewish community”. Although “this phrase” probably refers to ‘Satan’s synagogue” in 2:9, the annotations fails to inform on the precise reference. #823 is not really a commentary, but a study. Three references to reviews are included in the annotation which is not normally the case in the bibliography. Reviews, however, are often very important if written by competent scholars. I hope Muse will include them in the next edition, but as entries as e.g. in New Testament Abstracts, not in the annotations. In #950 Muse describes Kik’s exposition as “a postmillennial, Augustinian interpretation” which at least to me is a somewhat surprising combination, but it depends on the definition of “postmillennial” which Muse does not define. Section I, C, (2) treats Millennialist hermeneutical positions divided between “General”, “Amillennial”, “Postmillennial” and “Premillennialism and/or Dispensationalism” which also lack precise definitions. In #601 Muse claims that Vanhoye “does not identify the specific text used by John (Hebrew or LXX)”, but this is not correct. Vanhoye concludes: “la solution la plus normale, dans l’état actuel de nos connaissances, semble être d’admettre une utilisation directe du texte hébreu.“.[2]

<7.4>
The annotation to Sweet’s commentary from 1979 (#758) mentions that “this reprint corrects previous views toward the imperial cult in Asia Minor based on the study of S. Price (1984)” which should have been placed under the entry containing the reference to the reprint from 1990 (#739). Caird’s second edition of his commentary is only mentioned in the annotation to the first edition from 1966 (#774), even though this commentary is still in print. Charles’ commentary from 1920 (#785) is reprinted in 1985, but this is not mentioned. These errors may perhaps indicate problems with regard to the basic bibliographical work. The basic cataloging has failed, and a systematized system of cross-references should have been used. This would also have solved the problem of classificational decision, because doubtful instances and works with more than one good place of entry might simply be cross-referenced in all relevant sections. To flip a coin, however, is the last thing I would expect in a bibliography.

<7.5>
The annotations are not always to the point and sometimes contain problematic statements. On #310, L.L. Thompson: The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. New York, 1990, Muse claims that Thompson “Studies the Sitz im Leben and genre of Revelation in relation to the social life-settings of apocalyptic writing in general” (p. 73). The use of the term “Sitz im Leben” is rather strange because this is a theological term referring to the historical-critical reconstruction of the situation which formed the writings under consideration. I would classify Thompson’s study as a social-historical and perhaps sociological study, but not as a study of the Sitz im Leben and not even a study of genre if this is compared to those studies which really treats the problem of genre (e.g. Collins, Hellholm and Mazzaferri). On #759, Muse remarks that Mounce’s commentary “[o]ffers an eclectic hermeneutic that mediates between a literal and a highly subjective interpretation of each literary unit” (p. 183). Such evaluation is not very helpful.

<7.6>
It should also be noted that now and then Muse refers to a summary in New Testament Abstracts or remarks that he has not seen a work. Such procedure makes the bibliography less useful.

<8.1>
#516 only states the title of the book in which the article can be found. The annotation to #621 refers to a publication by Newsom (1985), but no further information is given. #856 gives “Evangelische Missionsverlag Je Doppelheft” as publisher, but I doubt whether this is true: “Evangelische Missionsverlag” means “Evangelical Publisher of Mission” while “Je Doppelheft” means “pr. double issue” which may better refer to some information about size or price. #879 and #881 are apparently both published in BTS 43 (1962), pp. 2-3 but this can obviously not be true. #39 treats both pp. 209-233 and 433-443 in a journal while #40 treats only pp. 203-223 and #41 treats pp. 65-72, but the three #s have different subtitles. Something seems to be out of order.

<8.2>
#907 is placed under [1959], but the reference says 1952 which is correct. Other examples can be found.

<8.3>
Muse has decided not to include the number of pages of the books included in the bibliography although he provides this information quite often in the annotation.

<9.1>
Some omissions may be unavoidable, but in my opinion too many works have been omitted. I cannot mention all the omissions I have found in this review, but to indicate the extent I mention some works here.

<9.2>
Works before 1940: Schlatter on the OT in Rev [3], and Haugg on the two witnesses [4].

<9.3>
Works after 1990: The published dissertations written by Laws [5] and Paulien [6], the dissertation by Friesen on the Domitianic construction in Ephesus [7] and the related article on its relevance for Revelation [8], the two books by Bauckham [9] and Mealy on the millennium [10].

<9.4>
Books from the period 1940-1990: Cruz on XARAGMA [11], the dissertation by McIlraith on the reciprocal love between Christ and the Church [12], the commentary by Behm [13], Huss on the ecclesiology of Rev [14], Cuss on the honorary terms and the imperial cult [15], Hanson on the wrath of the Lamb [16], Batey on the nuptial imagery [17] as well as some major works on the history and archaeology of Asia Minor written by Jones, Bean and Yamauchi [18] and Bratcher and Hatton’s handbook on translating Revelation [19].

<9.5>
Articles from the period 1940-1990: Dieter Georgi’s articles [20], Hahn on the structure of Revelation [21], Smith on the history of the term APOKALUYIS [22] and the article by Hartman on the form and message of Rev 1-3 and 22 [23] and Hellholm on Rev 1:1-8 [24].

<10>
Although relevance is subjective, I found a number of entries where I have difficulty in seeing why they are included in the bibliography: ## 250, 242-288 (especially 264), 603 but cf 607, 891, 895-7, 926-7 and 929.

<11>
Some misspellings are unavoidable, but Muse has done a very good job. The first word on p. 84 is Ramsey (in stead of the correct Ramsay), Gerhardsson (rightly #997) is misspelled as Gehardsson in #987 and therefore has two entries in the Index of Authors, even though Muse himself refers to the Swedish article (#997) in his annotation. The German dass is spelled as dans in #147, and manna is spelled as mana in #135. I assume that there is an orthographical error in the Italian title of #1031 (cattoliici), but I’m not sure. The series in which Bousset’s commentary from 1906 (#786) was published should not be given as “Meyer Kommentary [sic], 16″. It is published “in der Reihe Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Begründet von Henrich August Wilhelm Meyer”. The Lutheran Siegbert W. Becker (#792) is misspelled as “Becler, S.W.”. #894 has “Meditatiion” for “Meditation”.

<00.1>
In my view, Muse has included good as well as other articles, some annotated, some not. Very important studies receive very little attention, even though they have initiated important and long discussions. Remarks on their importance with regard to scholarship are rarely (if ever) found. In a way, Muse is not to be blamed because he has not attempted to do that. On the other hand, a bibliography should attempt to provide the information and to be as comprehensive as the subject demands. In my opinion, this is not the case with this book. The bibliography can be used as a tool to find some contributions quickly, but many important works are not found, and so the bibliography is not the final tool with regard to studies on Revelation from 1940 through 1990.

<00.2>
The many omissions, questionable annotations, missing systematization and problematic classifications are severe drawbacks in a bibliography. The price is far too expensive for what is really provided. Although few other books provide as comprehensive a bibliography as this, many provide very good bibliographies, e.g. the books mentioned by Bauckham, Mazzaferri and others. The more devotional and non-scholarly expositional articles, however, may not be found there. For scholars, however, this is no problem.

<00.3>
I would very much urge Muse to work on a second edition and to attempt a much more comprehensive bibliography. The classification must be reworked, and several annotations should be rewritten. If so, this bibliography will provide scholars as well as other Revelation students with a very good tool. Now, it is a useful tool, but not more than that.

Notes:
[1] Charles, R.H.: Studies in the Apocalypse. T & T Clark: Edinburgh 1913; 2nd ed. 1915.
[2] A. Vanhoye: “L’Utilisation du livre d’Ézékiel dans l’Apocalypse” in: Biblica 43 (1962), 461 (my emphasis).
[3] Schlatter, Adolf: Das Alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokaypse. (BFChTh). Gütersloh, 1912.
[4] Haugg, Donatus: Die zwei Zeugen. Eine exegetische Studie über Apok 11,1-3. (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 17,1). Aschendorf: Münster 1936.
[5] Laws, S.: In the Light of the Lamb. Imagery, Parody, and Theology in the Apocalypse of John. (Good News Studies, 31). Wilmington, DE., 1988.
[6] Paulien, Jon: Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretations of Revelation 8:7-12. (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 11). Andrews University Press: Berrien Springs, MI 1988.
[7] Friesen, Steven J.: Twice Neokoros. Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 116). E.J. Brill: Leiden; New York; Köln 1993.
[8] Friesen, S.: “Ephesus: Key to a Vision in Revelation” i: Biblical Archaeological Review, 19, 1993, 24-37.
[9] Bauckham, R.: The Theology of the Book of Revelation. (New Testament Theology). Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. – The Climax of Prophecy. Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993.
[10] Mealy, J. Webb: After the Thousand Years. Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20. (JSNT.SS 70). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.
[11] Cruz, Vigil Ambrose: The Mark of the Beast: A Study of the CARAGMA in the Apocalypse. Amsterdam: Academische Pers N.V., 1973.
[12] McIlraith, Donal A.: The Reciprocal Love between Christ and the Church in the Apocalypse. Rome: Columban Fathers, 1989.
[13] Behm, Johannes: Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Übersetzt und erklärt. (NTD 11). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 1953 6. ed.
[14] Huß, Werner: Die Gemeinde der Apokalypse des Johannes. Diss. München, 1967. Published Eichenried bei München 1968.
[15] Cuss, D.: Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament. (Paradosis 23). Fribourg: The University Press Fribourg, 1974.
[16] Hanson, A.T.: The Wrath of the Lamb. London, 1957.
[17] Batey, R.: New Testament Nuptial Imagery. Brill: Leiden 1971.
[18] Jones, A.H.M.: The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1983. – Bean, G.E.: Aegean Turkey. An Archaeological Guide. London: Ernest Benn, 1966. – Bean, G.E.: Turkey Beyond the Maeander. London, 1971. – Yamauchi, Edwin M.: The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor. London; Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis, 1980.
[19] Bratcher, R.G.; Hatton, H.A.: A Handbook on the Revelation to John. (Helps for Translators, UBS Handbook Series). New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.
[20] Georgi, Dieter: “Who is the True Prophet?” i: G.W.E. Nickelsburg og G.W. MacRae (Eds.): Christians among Jews and Gentiles. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 100-126. (= Harvard Theological Review, 79, 1986, 100-126). – “Die Visionen vom himmlischen Jerusalem in Apk 21 und 22″ i: D. Lührmann & G. Strecker: Kirche. Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag. Tübingen, 1980, pp. 351-372.
[21] Hahn, Ferdinand: “Zum Aufbau der Johannesoffenbarung” i: Kirche und Bibel. Festgabe für Bischof Eduard Schick. Herausgegeben von den Professoren der Phil.-Theol. Hochschule Fulda. Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich, 1979, pp. 145-154.
[22] Smith, M.: “On the History of APOKALYPTO and APOKALYPSIS” i: D. Hellholm (Ed.): Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979. Tübingen, 1983, pp. 9-20.
[23] Hartman, L.: “Form and Message. A Preliminary Discussion of ‘Partial Texts’ in Rev 1-3 and 22,6ff” i: J. Lambrecht (Ed.): L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum, LIII). Leuven, 1980, pp. 129-149.
[24] Hellholm, D.: “The Visions He Saw Or: To Encode the Future in Writing. An Analysis of the Prologue of John’s Apocalyptic Letter” in: Jennings, Theodore W. (ed.): Text and Logos. The Humanistic Interpretation of the New Testament. (Scholars Press homage Series). Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990, 109-146.

Reviewed by:
Georg S. Adamsen

Revelation Reviews ISSN 1397-2936.
Volume 2.001. Jan 1998 (Publication date: 15 Jan 1998)

Alan J.P. Garrow: Revelation. New Testament Readings. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Pp. 140. ISBN: 0-415-14641-0.

<0.1>
This book is part of the New Testament Readings series which is “designed as a group of individual interpretations or ‘readings’ of the text, offering fresh and stimulating methods of approach” (John M. Court, editor in his preface p. viii). It is based on the authors M Phil thesis presented to Coventry University in 1994. Garrow does indeed offer a fresh and stimulating approach making it possible to solve a number of problems concerning the interpretation of Revelation. For this reason the book is recommended. Garrows offers stimulating insight into the problem of structure, but his overall analysis of the structure cannot explain a number of observations. I will return to that later.

<1.1>
Garrow intends to find the “author’s intended meaning”. The method of approach is “to reproduce the context of the original intended receivers as closely as possible” (p 3). It is possible to ascertain one of the aspects thereof with a high degree of accurracy, viz. the co- textual context defined as “the context created by as much of the text as has already been received” (p 3). A second aspect is the ‘theatre of reception’ which may be described as the particular setting in which John intended Revelation to be received, viz. the particular setting of a Sunday service possibly accompanied by a eucharist (p 4). A third aspect is the historical context. (pp 1-4)

<1.2>
In chapter 2 Garrow recognises that ‘what must soon take place’ (Rev 1,1) and a number of other expressions testify to the presence of a ‘story’, and the challenge is to locate the story (or to explain why it is absent) (p 5f). Garrow then reviews five different solutions to this problem: 1. the text is incoherent because of a compositional process (e.g. Charles) or 2. because of the genre (e.g. Kiddle; Sweet). 3. The story is obscured because of the complex structure, i.e. various forms of the ‘recapitulation’-theory (e.g. Victorinus; Caird; AY Collins). 4. The text is thematically organised (Fiorenza) and 5. the text is told and expanded (Bauckham; Mazzaferri) where Garrow agrees with both Bauckham and Mazzaferri that the crucial issue is to define where the content of the scroll in 5.1 is actually found in Revelation. (pp. 5-13).

<1.3.1>
In chapter 3 Garrow looks for a new approach to help him determine the content of the scroll. He refers to Chatman (Garrow, however, calls this well-known author “Chatham” which is erroneous[1]) and uses the concept ‘foreshadowing’ defined as “an announcement of a future occurrence in the story-line which leaves the audience partially uncertain as to the exact nature or timing of that event” (p 15). This is the most important contribution by Garrow to introduce this concept to Revelation scholarship. He analyses 6:1-17; 7,9-17; 8,2-9.21; 11:14; 10:3-4; (10:1-11) 11:1-13 and shows that the concept of foreshadowing is a useful and indeed – in my opinion – an indispensable concept. This part of the book (pp 14-35) should be required reading for all Revelation scholars.

<1.3.2>
Garrow continues introducing another concept, that of serialization. According to Garrow, the problem is that it will take approximately two hours to read Revelation alound. He therefore proposes that John has designed Revelation so that it may be read in parts. The modern concept of serialization, i.e. the modern knowledge about ending an episode at a point where the audience feels the need to return to the next episode, and about determining where such breaks must occur, is introduced exemplified on ‘Doctor Who’. The technical terms used to explain the phenomenon is ‘cliffhangers’, ‘suspense’ and ‘instalments’. Through an analysis of 8:1-2 and 11:15-21:1, Garrow find eight common features (suspense, the use of derivatives of ANOIGW, actions derived from heaven, signs of the coming God, closing hymns, pictures of final outcome, eucharistic references and instalment length). With the help of these features, Garrow tries to identify further breaks: 3:22; 15:4 and 19:10. On the basis of these analyses, Garrow concludes that Revelation was designed to be heard in six separate instalments, cf table 1 at pp 50-51 and the summary of functions in Revelation found at pp 62f (pp 35-53).

<1.3.3>
Through an analysis of 1:1-3:22 Garrow argues that the external evidence cannot be disregarded and that the authority of the implied author suggests that ‘John’ must be the apostle John (pp 53-59). Concerning the intended audience, Garrow treats the specificity of it, the consequences for them of listening and not listening and the immediacy of the events expected to take place (p 59). The function of 4:2-5:14 is to describe the “control-room of the universe” and the rest of this chapter (pp 60-65) tries to determine how to locate the story of Revelation. Garrow concludes that 12:1-14:5; 15:6-16:21 and 19:11b-21:8 is the story of Revelation (while 17:1-18 and 21:9-22:5 is classified as “commentary” and consequently cannot function as storyline).

<1.4>
In chapter 4, Garrow argues that the story should be dated to the reign of Titus (c. AD 80) because “Nero is identified as the first head of the beast, so that Titus is the emperor ‘who is’ according to the prophecy of the seven kings (17.10)” (p 78). Moreover, Garrow suggests that the sixth seal vision may allude to the eruption of Vesuvius. In order to argue his thesis, Garrow dismisses Irenaeus’ testimony claiming that it is of dubious reliability because “it was motivated by the need to clinch an argument” (p 78) and because it is in conflict with the internal evidence. C. AD 80, the Nero redivivus myth was current in Asia Minor.

<1.5>
In chapter 5, Garrow interprets the story which he has now found (12:1-14:5; 15:6-16:21; 19:11b-21:8) and dated (c. AD 80). The texts are quoted in full from NRSV and to each paragraph Garrow has a description of characters and action (pp 80-102) and the same story is summarised in big and ugly diagrams (pp 103-117). Garrow has several very good observations and proposals in his analyses. Garrow proposes that it is Michael who defeats the Dragon in 12:7ff “so that the complete destruction of Satan may be accomplished by Christ in the closing stages of the story” (p. 82). With regard to the 144.000 in Rev 14:1-5, Garrow suggests that “the fact that they are described as first fruits (14.4) implies that they are, as yet, an incomplete army” (p. 92). Concerning the term Harmagedon, Garrow thinks that “the function and significance of this location is made plain by the relationship of this mountain to Mount Zion (14.1)” (p. 94).

<1.6>
In chapter 6 (pp 118-123), Garrow proposes why Revelation was written after all. John depicted Nero as the destroyer of Rome who would return after Domitian’s reign. Historically, this failed, but John’s overall purpose did not fail because he intended to “inspire an active response from his hearers”: “to remain faithful to Christ even to the point of death, and in this way to conquer” (p 118). Because there was a number of competing calls, John “had to overturn his opponents’ visions of the future” (p. 118), so John’s story is really a “polemic response” (p 119) directed against supporters of Rome, Nero and traditional Judaism. In his final paragraph, Garrow concludes that John’s basis for his prediction of the future was his “vision of the present, in which Christ is eternally victorious over evil” and that “his opponents’ views would prove to be incomplete” (p 123).

<1.7>
Garrow summarises his work in his conclusion (pp 124-126), and a list of Roman Emperors, a select bibliography and two indices of subjects and references follows (127-140).

<2>
Garrow’s book is very stimulating. It would not be fair to expect a Ph.D.-level argumentation from a M Phil thesis. His methodological approach is interesting and fruitful, and he has many very good observations. The publication of this book is justified because it really offers “fresh and stimulating methods of approach” (cf Court’s preface). Personally, this approach seems to help me to solve a number of problems dealing with the structure and with several occurrences of ‘missing’ information.

<3>
The book has a number of weaknesses, however. The most important weakness has to do with his problem.

<3.1>
Garrow presents two problems. The first is the problem of structure (chapter 2), the other is the length of the text (beginning of chapter 3). He shows that the first problem is a real and well recognised problem, but he does not even attempt to show that his second problem is a problem to current scholarship. Nor does he make any attempts to show why it should be recognised as a problem. Garrow claims that the fact that it takes ca. two hours to read Revelation aloud makes it necessary to find some ‘cliffhangers’ and thereby identify the texts used for the various instalments. I do not think that the length is a problem. How often was (and is) biblical texts read in their entirety? how often were they read during service, and how much were they studied afterwards? Perhaps a more detailed discussion of the relationship between the initial reading (aloud) of all the book in the congregation and later studies of parts may have helped Garrow to clarify whether there is a problem at all. Because Garrow fails to persuade at least me to accept his problem, I reject his six instalment-solution as well. However, even if the problem were accepted, his solution may be questioned on other grounds.

<4.1>
In order to argue for his six instalment-thesis, he claims that two points in Revelation seem to be “designed to accommodate a cliffhanging instalment ending” (p 38), viz. 8:1-2 and 11:15-12:1. After an analysis of the features present, he looks for these features in the rest of the book. This is not really methodologically sound. Cliffhangers should be identified on their own, and with the help of present structural features. Garrow, however, does not even ask how the relationship between his six instalments and the overall structure of Revelation is. It may be helpful to analyse modern film and fiction using the serialisation-theory because modern series are obviously designed or at least redesigned as separate installments. That Revelation is serialised, however, cannot be taken for granted. In fact, the structure of Revelation as analysed e.g. by Richard Bauckham [2] or in the new commentary by J. Ramsey Michaels [3] is not easily harmonised with Garrow’s theory. Rev 17:1-8 and 21:9-22:5 are not in my opinion comments on the preceding stories, and cannot be. One of the main reasons for that is the use of EN PNEUMATI (‘in the Spirit’) in 17:3 and 21:10. Even if the instalment- theory should be considered, I doubt whether 7:17; 11:18; 15:4 and 19:10 is really well- functioning cliffhangers.

<4.2>
Garrow’s dating of Revelation to AD 80 is an example that the evidence may be formed in order to produce the desired conclusion. He dismisses both the Neronic and the Domitianic dating and proposes Titus, but I have not been able to figure out why this is so important. According to Garrow, John was historically mistaken and therefore the historical basis is not really important to John’s overall purpose. Nevertheless, if the historical basis is not important, then I have difficulty to find out why Garrow makes his historical analysis (chapter 4). If it is important, it might be tempting to ask whether this particular historical reconstruction is really helpful, since it forces the interpreter to attribute ‘historical errors’ to John.

<4.3>
Garrow is probably correct when he claims that it is important to identify the content of the scroll in Rev 5:1 and the content of ‘what is going to take place’ in 1:1 as well. However, the Danielic character of at least the latter expression might be helpful for the determination of the content, but Garrow does not analyse that.

<4.4>
Garrow has problems with 21:14 and therefore argues that 21:14 and 21:19-20 are late(r) additions (pp 56-58). This is methodologically unsound and weakens his case for the apostolic authorship.

<00.1>
Despite these critical points, I am grateful that this book has been published. It is very stimulating offering a fresh and eye-opening methodology. The most important contribution is not — in my view — his (erroneous) conclusions about the six instalments and the dating under Titus, but his alternative approach to explain repetitions in the text. This merit stands — even if his structural analyses, his instalment-theory and the dating are not accepted. I hope that he will continue his work and offer new stimulating readings in the future as well.

<00.2>
Notes:
[1] Chatman, S.: Story and Discourse.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1978.
[2] Bauckham, R.: The Climax of Prophecy. Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993.
[3] Michaels, J. Ramsey: Revelation. (IVPNTC, 20). Downers Grove, IL; Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1997.

Reviewed by cand.theol. Georg S. Adamsen, then at The Lutheran School of Theology in Aarhus.