Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research. Paul Elbert

10 what is seen enhances what is heard in order that the readers’ understanding is broadened to include a new perspective.

      Methodology

      The purpose and intention of the present study is first to enumerate and to systematically analyze the uses of “seeing/hearing” through the entire text of the Apocalypse of John (see Table I) and to construct a table of the data (see Table II), which captures relevant details and should be useful for interpretation. In order to do this, we have used the following methodology:

      1. All of the phrases “hearing” and “seeing” are identified in the text. In some cases (so identified), the “hearing” or “seeing” is implicit. Although the activity is clearly indicated, the actual grammatical terms are not used. For example, in Rev 9:1 it is stated that “the fifth angel sounded his trumpet . . . .” This clearly implies that John hears the sound.

      2. Since the relation of the seeing/hearing is of interest here, the phrases in Table II are grouped into analogues to highlight their relation:

      a. The Primary Analogue. This is the first and more basic reference to that which is seen or heard.

      b. The Adjunctive Analogue. This is the second and fuller reference to that which is seen or heard, and thus serves as a modifier

      3. Clearly, from our study, two main patterns dominate: see/hear (36 analogues), and hear/see (8 analogues). There are several additional subpatterns which are clearly variations of these. In the variations of Pattern 1, there is no particular interpretive significance to the variations. However, the variations in Pattern 2 heighten the effect of the prophetic component. We have identified these patterns and their variations in Table II below as follows:

      Pattern 1: see/hear (13 times)

      Variation 1a: see/hear/see (8 times)

      Variation 1b: see/hear/see/hear (2)

      Variation 1c: see/hear/see/comment (1)

      Variation 1d: see/hear/hear (2)

      Variation 1e: see/hear/comment (3)

      Variation 1f: see/hear/see/hear/comment (1)

      Variation 1g: see/see/hear (2)

      Variation 1h: see/see/hear/see (1)

      Variation 1i: see/see/hear/hear (1)

      Variation 1j: see/see/comment (2)

      Total Pattern 1 with Variations = 36 times

      Pattern 2: hear/see (3 times)

      Variation 2a: hear/see/hear (3 times)

      Variation 2b: hear/see/hear/comment (1)

      Variation 2c: hear/hear/see/hear/comment (1)

      Total Pattern 2 with Variations = 8 times

      Total Audio/Visual Patterns = 44 times

4. We have considered the eight hearing/seeing texts in light of rhetorical analysis, in particular Edith Humphrey’s study of argumentation embedded in vision-reports.11

      Rhetorical Analysis

Recently, scholars such as Carey and Bloomquist etal,12 deSilva,13 and Humphrey14 have shown that the application of rhetorical analysis on apocalyptic texts presents a challenge that proves especially enlightening. In regard to these texts, rhetorical analysis is not a “paint-by-number” procedure, but a “perspective” marked by the assumption that “through textual strategies one may discern persuasive designs.”15

According to deSilva,16 there are two levels of argumentation in the Apocalypse of John: (1) on the basic level, in the use of implicit or explicit enthymemes;17 and, (2) more deeply, through the author’s reference to traditions and precedents known to the audience.

Humphrey agrees that these genres differ from other texts. Although classical rhetorical forms have been somewhat useful for understanding the Apocalypse, it is “characterized by cultural syncretism”; she says that rhetorical analysis of apocalyptic texts should be accompanied by “appreciation of aesthetic, dramatic, and structural devices.”18 By means of literary-rhetorical analysis, Humphrey focuses on a unique form of apocalyptic texts — the vision. These have seldom been examined for their palpable rhetorical power. According to her, in the first-century world, the genre of the vision-report was popular. Sometimes it was used as “demonstatio” and on other occasions it functioned within the argument as an authoritative “trump card.”19

DeSilva also sees the value of argumentation within the visions, but notes that its texture is not as dense as in other kinds of texts in Revelation, since the visions tend to be descriptive of scenes, rather than the recording of speech.20 The task of the rhetorical analyst, then, according to deSilva, is not to analyze the argument as valid or invalid, but is rather to “uncover the argumentation as fully as possible.”21

The important point is that vision-reports are used in different ways, both explicitly and implicitly, and in different points of the argument “to achieve different purposes and effects.”22 Often, the vision (what is seen) is combined with the report (what is heard) “so that the revealing mystery is placed in the context of interpretive word or interpretive word is made visual or enhanced by vision . . . [they] serve a higher purpose . . . for where we find vision-reports, we inevitably find argumentation, either explicit or implicit.”23 In fact, Humphrey notes that “where propositional language (‘word’) dominates, the text tends to be more directly polemical, less ‘open’ in possibilities of interpretation; over against such texts stand more allusive passages in which images dominate, though these are given some direction or interpretation by attached or embellished propositions.”24

Humphrey also shows convincingly that polyvalence prevails in the Apocalypse. Rather than a logical presentation of a case (judicial, deliberative, or epideictic argumentation), there is a combination of argumentation and “evocative symbolism” which deepens and complicates the rhetoric. Hence, the visions “compel” rather than “force” the closure of the argument.25

      When considering these eight audio/visual passages throughout Revelation, several questions emerge: what is the best way to uncover the argumentation embedded in the visions? Are the visions themselves part of that argumentation as Humphrey suggests? Are sights or sounds more important? Does the author appear to be using them in different ways? Does it make a difference to the argument if sight or sound dominates the passage? Finally, how should this affect the readers’ understanding?

      This study proposes that indeed there is discernable argumentation in the vision-reports in the Apocalypse. As noted earlier, we have identified two significant patterns of sight and sound which enable the argumentation to emerge. It appears that the domination by sight or sound does make a difference, and that an analysis of this pattern, in particular the eight passages where the vision follows the word, does enhance the understanding of the message