Intertextuality and the Apocalypse

Introduction

In his magnum opus, Biblical Hermeneutics,[1] Milton S. Terry, comments on the historical standpoint of the Apocalypse[2] and in a footnote[3] summarises the positions of those exegetes who argue for and against either a late or early date for the writing of the Apocalypse. In the footnote, Terry draws attention to the work of James Glasgow DD in his book “The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded,”[4] on which Terry comments as follows:-.

“…Glasgow (The Apoc. Trans. And Expounded, pp 9-38) adduces proof not easy to be set aside that the Revelation was written before any of the Epistles, probably between AD 50 – 54. Is it not supposable that one reason why Paul was forbidden to preach the word in Western Asia (Acts xvi. 6) was that John was either already there, or about to enter? The prevalent opinion that the First Epistle of John was written after the fall of Jerusalem rests on no certain evidence. To assume, from the writer’s use of the term “little children” that he was very far advanced in years is futile. John was probably no older than Paul, but some time before the fall of Jerusalem the latter was wont to speak of himself as ‘Paul the aged’ ( Philem 9).”[5] [My emph.]

We shall look into the work of Glasgow and draw some conclusions about his work and test Terry’s analysis that Glasgow’s work is “not easy to be set aside” with respect to an early date for the writing of the Apocalypse. All quotations from the KJV.

Intertextual Links between the Apocalypse and the Epistles?

Glasgow deploys three main lines of argument to justify his early date conclusion. In making his case for the writing of the Apocalypse (somewhere between 51 and 54 CE), Glasgow quotes extensively from the evidence gleaned from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. He also uses the first century historical record with respect to the movements of the apostles (particularly the Apostle John) and posits dates for the writing of the Apocalypse based on the flight of John from Judea to Rome (following the Herodian persecution which killed his brother James). He further suggests that John moved from Rome to his eventual sojourn in Ephesus and then to Patmos. And at Patmos prior to the arrival of Paul he commenced the writing of the Apocalypse (see quotation above). Finally, his most telling appeal is to the intertextual evidence between the Apocalypse and other NT writings and it is this intertextual evidence that is of interest to us for the purposes of this article.

With respect to the intertextual evidence Glasgow’s central premise is that the epistle writers were all familiar with the content of the Apocalypse prior to penning their epistles. Thus, Paul, Peter, James, and more obviously John, were already versed in the Apocalypse and used the language / idiom of the Apocalypse in their writings – ergo, the Apocalypse was written early, certainly before the writing of the Epistles and possibly before the Gospels.

Clearly, there is a question to be discussed here with respect to scriptural quotations /allusions between the Epistles and the Apocalypse and their correct provenance. Glasgow takes this question head-on and comes down emphatically on the side of the apostles quoting from Jesus rather than the other way around as the following extract makes clear

“..VI And particularly we must keep in view the fact that many parts of the Apocalypse are the express words of Jesus Himself. Especially is this the case with the second and third chapters containing his epistles to the seven churches. Now we cannot think of the Lord as quoting or referring to the words of his own disciples as authorities or illustrations of his meaning. He referred to the Old Testament prophecies when reasoning with those who did not receive Him as Messiah. But to them the testimony of his disciples would have been as nothing. In every coincidence between words of Jesus in the Apocalypse, and of Apostles in the Acts or the Epistles the former are in the very nature of the case the original; the latter the citation or the allusion.”[6]

So, having set out his case, and put forward the intertextual methodology he intends to rely on, Glasgow then proceeds to undertake an exhaustive review of NT documents (commencing with the Epistles) and draws attention to those passages which appear to be quotes from the Apocalypse.

We shall review three samples shortly (see table below). However, before doing this we must make comment on Glasgow’s premise concerning the provenance of clear allusions between the Apocalypse and other works.

On an objective view Glasgow’s intertextual line of reasoning appears plausible. It is more likely that the apostles would quote the words of Christ as the ultimate authority for doctrine and discipline rather than Christ quoting his disciples. As the firstborn of a new creation – this would seem fitting. There is however an obvious challenge to his argument which I set out in the following points.

If for sake of argument we take Glasgow’s position that the apocalypse was written sometime between 51-54 CE then it would predate most if not all of the Epistles, Acts of the Apostles and certain of the Gospels (all possibly save Matthew). If we also accept his argument that the apostles would only quote Jesus and not the other way around then surely there should be copious and irrefutable examples of the apostles clearly quoting from the Apocalypse within the NT record? And yet all we get are rather tantalising glimpses of quotation / allusions (see table below for a sample.

If there is a weakness in Glasgow’s thesis it is surely this i.e. there is no clinching passage or series of passages that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the apostles quote from an early date Apocalypse. However, we could counter this objection. The general point has been made that the sign and symbol idiom of the Apocalypse (whilst in keeping with OT symbology) was useful to obscure and protect an avowedly subversive message in the fevered political atmosphere of a Roman world full of intrigue, suspicion and anti-Semitism. This of course pre-supposes that the Apocalypse has an application to the first century, a view which we follow.

So, did the Apostles in their writings merely hint at the Apocalyptic message, a kind of “sub-textual use” to ensure that Jewish mischief makers and others would be prevented from using the epistles as prima facie evidence of sedition against the Roman state (e.g. citing the coming King and judgement messages as harmful to the Pax Romana)?

It is an interesting speculation to consider that if a copy of the Apocalypse had ever fallen into the hands of a presiding Roman magistrate could it ever have been used to successfully prosecute a prima facie (Christian) seditious plot?

Sample passages

Apocalypse		Epistle
17:11	The beast …and goeth into perdition	2 Thess 2:3	And that man of sin be revealed the Son of perdition
7:3	Till we have sealed the servants of God in their foreheads	2 Cor 1:22	Who hath sealed us
3:20	Behold I Stand at the door…	James 5:9	…behold the judge standeth before the door

Conclusion

The intertextual evidence is one strand of Glasgow’s early date thesis and is intriguing. Viewed as a whole (Glasgow devotes some 16 pages as he covers most of the NT documents), this intertextual evidence is persuasive that the language / idiom used by the Apostles could have an earlier provenance. That the Apocalypse was a “sub-text” to the writings of the Apostles is, I think, a distinct possibility. There is however, no clinching evidence that puts the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the sheer weight of potential Apocalypse allusions across the genre of NT documents is impressive. In this case “the whole” is definitely greater than the “sum of the parts”. Terry says that Glasgow’s work adduces proof “not easy to set aside”. We think Terry is correct in his analysis and in keeping with an open mind. Whilst Glasgow speaks in terms which betray his personal conviction about his thesis, to the objective reader, the full unequivocal proof is tantalisingly absent. Apocalyptic intertextuality deserves an in depth and systematic review.