Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research. Paul Elbert

Gen 31:3, Jacob; Exod 3:12; 4:12, 15, Moses, Aaron; Deut 31:23, Moses to Joshua; Josh 1:5; 3:7, God to Joshua; Judg 6:16, Gideon; 2 Sam 7:9 = I Chron 17:8, David. C. Isbell interprets the verb in Exod 3:12a to be a divine name and sign, “The Divine Name Ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition” HAR (1978): 104, 111. Cf. “I am with you” (Exod 3:12, 14; Ps 50:21; 2 Sam 6:7); “I am not with you” (Hos 1:9).

52. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) describes inner biblical exegesis in which traditions were creatively reworked in later texts (425–26) as “Spiritualization of the tradition.”

53. Cf. Lyle Story, “Zechariah’s Two Sons of Oil: Zechariah 4,” Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 2 (2010): 31–56.

54. The emphatic use of the personal pronoun yn) is kept distinct from the first person singular pronoun in the verb form of hayah for the purpose of indicating that this verb is identical to Exod 3:14 b in which it is a divine name. The nominal function of the verb is exaggerated by capitalization. For other emphatic uses of the pronoun with ’hyh see Jer 11:4: 24:7: 30:22: 32:38: Ezek 11:20: 14:11: 34:24: 36:28: 37:23: and Zech 8:8.

55. Reading the Tetragrammaton with BDB as a self-causing, self-existent form of being, so perhaps an internal hiphil of hyh, allowing that, at least in scripture, the holiness of the name would have excluded use of hiphil in hyh for any other purpose.

56. The play of Hebrew words toggles between the nominal and verbal statement “I Am” as a name, and “I am” as a verb. Because Hebrew ehyeh (I am) is a verb that is a divine name (I Am), when it is used in a speech by Yahweh the verb always sounds like the name of Exod 3:14b, even if it is not a proper name in syntax. The theory of leading words holds that it is the sound of the word that carries its content, which Hebrew does gracefully. But to translate into a target language in a way that makes the associative sounds obvious results in a much more awkward, forced sentence. This was acknowledged in the 1936 German translation by Buber and Rosenzweig as published in their Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung (see now the English translation, Scripture and Translation [n. 48 above]) and is evident in Fox’s Five Books of Moses. However, Fox’s attempt to emphasize theological implications of an elegant but packed Hebrew verse is far too heavy-handed because the English “I am” in the place of Hebrew ehyeh does not sound like “the LORD” which would ordinarily be in the place of Hebrew Yahweh.

57. dbkl literally, to, for or unto glory.

58. Cf. Harold Fisch, “Analogy of Nature, a Note on the Structure of Old Testament Imagery,” ST 6 (1955): 161–73 (162); Christine Downing, “How can we hope and not dream? Exodus as metaphor: A study of the biblical Imagination” JR 48 (1968): 35–53; and Neilsen’s treatment of biblical imagery in her Hope for a Tree, passim.

59. I would like to thank the libraries of the Iliff School of Theology and the Tyndale House for their hospitality during the course of this research.

      Through the Lens of Rhetorical Analysis The Audio/Visual Motif in the Apocalypse of John

      REBECCA SKAGGS and THOMAS DOYLE

      [email protected]

      Patten University

      Oakland, California

      [email protected]

      The Metanoia Ministry

      El Cerrito, California

      Introduction

One of the major characteristics of apocalyptic literature is the multifaceted experiences of the seer — audio/visual effects surround him.1 The Apocalypse of John shares this feature but with notable variations. Even without a systematic analysis of the use of the phrases in the text, it is fairly clear that the experiences of sight and sound are particularly significant in the Apocalypse and that the author is using them in a special way. Several questions emerge — how do the audio/visual experiences relate to one another? Is there a pattern which sheds light on what John is trying to convey? In what way does that which is heard add to or interpret what is seen or vice versa? Is John attempting to emphasize something by these phrases? Is he “correcting” ideas, or is he merely showing multiple perspectives of the events?

Some scholars (e.g., Mounce, Ford, and Fiorenza2) do not note any special significance to these constructions, at least they do not remark on them in any specific way. Others, such as Aune,3 discuss the relation of the phrases within particular passages, but not within the book as a whole, and show how the seeing and hearing highlights the contrast of the lion/Lamb imagery to create a composite picture of Christ as the fulfillment of Jewish expectation, as well as the earthly suffering servant.

A number of scholars follow Caird,4 who notes that the hearing is the “inner reality” of the seeing, but he does not elucidate exactly what that means or whether it should be consistently interpreted as such throughout the rest of the text.5 Bauckham6 agrees, at least generally, with Caird to some extent, but only in relation to specific passages. Moyise7 explains that there is a dialectical relation between what John hears and what he sees and this is important for understanding the message of Revelation, but again, he does not discuss how the reader should distinguish between the various uses of these phrases.8 Beale9 also remarks on the interpretation of some of the uses of seeing/hearing, that what John sees is interpreted by what he hears in some passages and vice versa for other passages, but again, his analysis is not comprehensive.

      The point here is that although many scholars note the special significance of the use of the seeing/hearing motifs, no one so far has systematically analyzed the variations of the uses and the significance of these for understanding the Apocalypse. We suggest that more attention should be paid to the distinctions in the patterns as they appear throughout the text. A close consideration of the use of this motif throughout the Apocalypse indicates that the author is intentionally using more than one pattern; in fact, there are multiple patterns. The question is: do these variations indicate multiple meanings? Are they merely different ways of saying the same thing? Is there one predominant meaning? Our study will consider these various patterns, and suggest some interpretive possibilities for an understanding of the Apocalypse.

In this study, we have found that there are at least two major discernible patterns (with several variations) that shed light in different ways. We have identified 44 analogues in which seeing/hearing appear. In all but eight of these, the vision is first, followed by the audition. What is “heard” clearly adds to or enhances what is “seen” without the meaning of either being changed. In contrast, there are only eight instances of the hearing preceding the vision. In each of these cases, what is seen more than adds to what is heard; what is heard is reinterpreted by what is seen. The classic example of this is the lion/Lamb imagery in Rev 5, where John hears the lion introduced and then turns to see the sacrificed