CRITERIA AND THE ASSESSMENT OF ALLUSIONS

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

by Jon Paulien
Andrews University

For a multi-author book on Revelation edited by Steve Moyise

The Nature of the Problem

When reading the Book of Revelation one is plunged fully into the atmosphere of the Old

Testament.1 No book of the New Testament is as saturated with the Old as is the Apocalypse.2

But while it is not difficult to recognize the central place of the Old Testament in the Book of

Revelation, it is difficult to determine exactly how it is being used there.

One major difficulty for analysis of the use of the OT in Revelation has to do with the

language and text tradition of the OT used by the author. It is generally recognized that the

author of Revelation was a native of Palestine, though living in the vicinity of Asia Minor at the

time Revelation was written.3 Archaeological evidence indicates that first-century Palestine was

trilingual.4 It is by no means certain, therefore, whether John grew up speaking Hebrew, Aramaic,

1
To borrow language from Henri Stierlin, La vérité sur L’Apocalypse (Paris: Editions
Buchet/Chastel, 1972), 55.
2
Pierre Lestringant [Essai sur l’unité de la révélation biblique (Paris: Editions “Je Sers,”
1942), 148] suggests that one-seventh of the substance of the Apocalypse is drawn from the
words of the OT.
3
Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1984), 47-49.
4
Robert H. Gundry, “The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 83 (1964):404-408.

1
or Greek. The current consensus seems to be that the primary language of Jesus and his followers

was Aramaic.5 So while Revelation was almost certainly written in Greek, its language was

profoundly influenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic thought-patterns of Jesus and his earliest

disciples and of its OT sources, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.6

Scholars of Revelation have also been in dispute with regard to the language and text

tradition of the OT that John utilized. Since the work of Charles, many have felt that the author

of the Apocalypse drew directly from the Hebrew text of the OT for his allusions.7 Torrey and

Trudinger argue for an Aramaic antecedent.8 Other scholars, following the lead of H. B. Swete,

5
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols., Anchor Bible, vols. 29 and
29a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 1:cxxix; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean:
Collected Aramaic Essays, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 25 (Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 6-8, 38-43; cf. also the early study by Arnold Meyer, Jesu
Muttersprache (Freiburg i. B./Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1896).
6
David Tabachovitz, Die Septuaginta und das Neue Testament, Skrifter Utgivna av
Svenska Institutet I Athen, series 8 vol. 4 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956), 125-126; Brown,
1:cxxix.
7
R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920), 1:lxvi; Charles Brütsch, Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi, 3 vols.,
Zürcher Bibelkommentare (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970), 3:131; Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza,
The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 16; Rudolf
Halver, Der Mythos im Letzten Buch der Bibel, Theologische Forschung, 32 (Hamburg-
Bergstedt: Herbert Reich Evangelischer Verlag, 1964), 11; Ugo Vanni, “L’Apocalypse
johannique. Etat de la question,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et L’Apocalyptique dans le
Nouveau Testament, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Thèologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 53, edited by
J. Lambrecht (Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1980), 31; John T. Willis, “The Old
Testament and the book of Revelation,” in Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack,
edited by James E. Priest (Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press, 1989), 231-232.
8
Charles C. Torrey, The Apocalypse of John (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958),
27-48; [Leonhard] P. Trudinger, “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament
in the Book of Revelation,” Journal of Theological Studies, n. s. 17 (1966):82-88. While
Mussies favors the Hebrew over the Aramaic, he expresses doubt that the differences between
Hebrew and Aramaic are visible in Greek translation. See G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine

2
seem equally certain that John worked directly from the LXX in his use of the OT.9 Still others,

not surprisingly, argue for a multiplex background,10 or hypothesize that John worked from a

Greek version with which we are not familiar.11 The specialized studies of Trudinger and

Vanhoye, while pointing in the general direction of a Semitic text background to Revelation, are

Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of John, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 27 (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1971), 10-11. Melton and Sweet, while favoring a Hebrew origin for the OT
background of Revelation, believe that the author was aware of Greek and Aramaic versions as
well: Loyd Dale Melton, “A Critical Analysis of the Understanding of the Imagery of City in the
book of Revelation” (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978), 73; J. P.
M. Sweet, Revelation, Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1979), 40. Yarbro Collins (Crisis and Catharsis, 47), on the other hand, notes that Semitisms
typical of the LXX are avoided by the author of Revelation.
9
Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: MacMillian and Company, 1906),
cl, clv; Everett F. Harrison, “The Importance of the Septuagint for Biblical Studies,” in Truth for
Today, edited by John F. Walvoord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 151; R. H. Pfeiffer, “Canon
of the OT,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1962), 1:511; Pierre Prigent, Apocalypse et liturgie, Cahiers Théologiques, 52
(Neuchâtel: Editions Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964), 10.
10
James A. Montgomery, “The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 45 (1926)73-74; Louis Arthur Vos, The Synoptic Traditions in the
Apocalypse (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1965), 22; D. Moody Smith, Jr., “The Use of the Old Testament
in the New, in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, edited by James M.
Efird (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), 61; Steve Moyise, “The Language of the Old
Testament in the Apocalypse,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 76 (December,
1999):112-113.
11
Adela Yarbro Collins (Crisis and Catharsis, 48-49) takes up Cross and Barthelélemy’s
proposal that late in the first century there existed a “kaige” recension of the Greek OT, which
occupied the middle ground between the LXX and the Hebrew tradition preserved in the
Masoretic Text. If such a recension did in fact exist it could explain the mixed nature of the
evidence regarding the text tradition from which John was working. For the original discussion
on the possibility of a kaige recension see Frank Moore Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text
in the Light of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” Harvard Theological Review 57
(1964):281-284; Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), 32-143; idem, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de
l’histoire de la Septante,” Revue biblique 60 (1953):18-29.

3
not conclusive enough to allow for certainty in regard to the text tradition from which John drew

the allusions in the Apocalypse.12

The difficulty in working with the OT background of Revelation is compounded by the

fact that there are a number of striking irregularities in the Greek grammar of the Apocalypse.

This may suggest that the author of Revelation was writing in what for him was a second

language.13 The influence of Semitic syntax overpowers, as it were, the rules of Greek grammar

in the Apocalypse.14 But there is evidence that John can handle the Greek language properly

when he wants to.15 The irregular grammar may, therefore, be intentional rather than the product

of inexperience.16 It has been suggested that John used grammatical irregularities as a pointer to

12
Leonhard P. Trudinger, “The Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation,”
(Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1963), 84-88, 184-189; A. Vanhoye, “L’utilisation du
livre d’Ezékiel dans l’Apocalypse,” Biblica 43 (1962):436-476.
13
R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913), 79-102;
Heinrich Kraft, “Zur Offenbarung des Johannes,” Theologische Rundschau 38 (1973):93; G.
Mussies, “The Greek of the Book of Revelation,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et
L’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Thèologicarum
Lovaniensium, vol. 53, edited by J. Lambrecht (Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1980), 167-
170; idem, The Morphology, 6; Tabachovitz, 125-126; Torrey, 13-58. Martin McNamara (The
New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica, vol. 27a, second
printing with supplement [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978], 109-117, 124-125, 189-190),
for example, points to the Aramaic Targums as the explanation for Rev 1:4 and many other
irregularities.
14
Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series, 52 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 107-108.
15
Jürgen Roloff, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, NT, 18
(Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1984), 20; Torrey, 14.
16
Kraft, “Zur Offenbarung,” 91; William Milligan, The Book of Revelation, The
Expositor’s Bible (Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham, [1889]), 260; Roloff, 20.

4
the OT background.17

The use of the Old Testament in Revelation would, therefore, be problematic enough if the

author clearly signaled the reader when he was alluding to a particular OT context. But a reader

acquainted with the OT quickly notices that Revelation never directly quotes the OT, rather it

alludes to it with a word here, a phrase there, or a concept in another place.18 Careful controls

focusing on method and criteria, therefore, are necessary if a list of OT allusions in Revelation is

to be worth anything.19

Although scholars had previously addressed the issue of OT use in Revelation,20 the

earliest attempts to address the issue of criteria for selection appear to be the works of Haugg and

Tenney.21 But these attempts were quite rudimentary. Beginning with Trudinger’s 1963

dissertation, a number of researchers began to turn more seriously to the issue of method and

17
C. G. Ozanne, “The Language of the Apocalypse,” The Tyndale House Bulletin 16
(April, 1965):4, 9; Roloff, 20.
18
While a handful of scholars argue for anywhere from one to eleven “quotations” of the
OT in the book of Revelation, (see, for example, Robert G. Bratcher, ed., Old Testament
Quotations in the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1967), 74-76) the
overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that there are none.
19
John M. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation (London: SPCK, 1979), 18;
Merrill C. Tenney, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1963), 112;
Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 48.
20
Notably Adolf Schlatter, Das Alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse
(Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1912), and critical commentaries such as those by Charles and Swete.
21
Donatus Haugg, Die Zwei Zeugen, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, vol. 17, book 1
(Münster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936), 84-85; Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting
Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), 101-116.

5
criteria.22 While Trudinger’s dissertation was actually on the OT text behind the allusions in

Revelation, he needed to establish effective criteria in order to select the OT passages that would

be the basis for his textual research. Trudinger’s method for isolating allusions began with

commentaries and critical margins that offered lists of allusions to the OT in Revelation. He then

subjected the passages he collected to two main criteria, “quotations” (sufficient words in a

sequence that it is clear the author had a particular antecedent text in mind) and “allusions”

(verbal or contextual affinity to an OT text or version).23 He also mentions parallel criteria such

as comparing the contexts of the passages being examined, seeing how many words they have in

common and exploring how often the OT book or chapter is used elsewhere in Revelation.

A number of other scholars addressed the issue of criteria in the 60s, 70s and early 80s,

usually in passing.24 But at the time I was researching the topic for my dissertation,25 the clearest

and most comprehensive statement of method was found in the published dissertation by G. K.

Beale.26 Beale classified John’s allusions to Daniel into three categories: clear, probable, and

22
Leonhard Paul Trudinger, “The Text of the Old Testament,” 95-147. Within the
dissertation itself, Trudinger deals only with those allusions which give clues as to the text of the
OT which lies behind them.
23
Ibid., pp. 37-41.
24
Vanhoye, 473-476; Vos, passim; William Kimbro Hedrik, “The Sources and Use of the
Imagery in Apocalypse 12" (Th.D. Dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1971), 16-18;
Jeffrey Marshall Vogelgesang, “The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation,” (Ph.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 1985), 15-16.
25
Jon Paulien, “Allusions, Exegetical Method, and the Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12”
(Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1987).
26
The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984).

6
possible.27 These determinations were made on the basis of four main criteria, similarities of 1)

theme, 2) content, 3) specific construction of words, and 4) structure.28 He also examined

whether or not a persuasive basis for authorial motive could be established.29

The above criteria added little to the accumulated suggestions of previous writers, but

Beale built on work of his predecessors and added a number of practical strategies. He was the

first scholar of Revelation to clearly articulate the idea that central to the interpretation of an

allusion is the intention of the author.30 On that basis he brought out four levels of suggested

relationship between John and the OT: 1) conscious allusion to the OT text, 2) unconscious

reference on the basis of his “learned past,” 3) the use of stock apocalyptic phraseology, and 4)

reference to an actual visionary experience that itself alluded to the OT text.31 Beale further noted

that allusions should not be determined on the basis of any single phenomenon, but on the

cumulative force of a variety of criteria and evidence.32

Beale’s contribution, while a positive advance, still left, in my mind, many unanswered

questions in terms of practice. So in the course of my dissertation research in the mid-1980s I

27
For Beale a “clear allusion” is where the word order is virtually identical and has roughly
the same meaning in both passages, a “probable allusion” is where there is variation in wording or
parallels of ideas instead of identical wording, and a “possible allusion” is where the parallels in
wording and ideas are of a more general nature; ibid, 306-311, and 43, note 62.
28
Ibid., 308.
29
Ibid.
30
Beale cites M. D. Goulder’s Type and History in Acts (London: S.P.C.K.,1964), 8-11,
as his source for this idea.
31
Ibid., 306.
32
Ibid., 308-309.

7
examined ten major commentaries and critical margins produced over the last 100 years to

determine what OT passages they felt were being alluded to in the seven trumpets of Revelation

(Rev 8:7-9:21; 11:15-18).33 I then placed the results in a matrix, which revealed serious

irregularities in judgment among the ten sources.34

Among the ten scholars a total of 244 different potential allusions to the Old Testament in

the seven trumpets are offered.35 Yet a count of individual scholars yielded a range of 29 to

33
The dissertation was published as Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions
and the Interpretation of Rev 8:7-12, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series,
vol. 11 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1988). In selecting ten out of the
hundreds of available works, I was concerned to include examples of both commentaries and
critical margins, works in English, French, and German, and representatives from both major
periods (for a bibliographical essay that documents the ups and downs of scholarly interest in
Revelation see Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation,12-32) of heightened interest in the scholarly
study of the Apocalypse; the turn of the century (from around 1895 to 1920) and the more recent
period of the seventies and the eighties. From the earlier period I selected the works by Westcott
and Hort (The New Testament in the Original Greek [London: MacMillan and Co., 1898]), R. H.
Charles (The Revelation of St. John, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1920]), Eugen Hühn, (Die alttestamentliche Citate und Reminiscenzen im neuen
Testament [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr {Paul Siebeck}, 1900]), and Wilhelm Dittmar (Vetus
Testamentum in Novo [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1903]). From the more recent
period I selected Nestle-Aland 26 (Kurt Aland et al, eds, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th
edition [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979]), UBS 3 (Kurt Aland et al, The Greek New
Testament, 3rd edition [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975]), Josephine Massyngberde Ford
(Revelation, The Anchor Bible, vol. 38 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975]), Robert H. Mounce
(The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the NT, vol. 17, [Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975]), Heinrich Kraft (Die Offenbarung des Johannes,
Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 16a [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr {Paul Siebeck}, 1974]), and
Pierre Prigent, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean, Commentaire de Nouveau Testament, vol. 14
[Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1981]). For further information on the criteria of selection see
Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets, 121-123.
34
Ibid., pp. 121-154.
35
Perceptive readers will notice some differences in the statistics listed here and those in
my published dissertation, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets, 121-129. I have reworked the
listings of the commentaries (and Hühn) in light of what I learned analyzing Aune and Beale. The
goal was as consistent and comparable an analysis as possible.

8
121.36 That means that even the researcher with the most extensive list of allusions, Eugen Hühn,

mentioned only 50% of the total. Strikingly, UBS 3 has 38 allusions to the OT in the seven

trumpets, its sister edition, Nestle 26, has 71!

Some specific anomalies that emerged were particularly startling. While Massyngberde

Ford listed only a third of the total, 32 of her 82 citations are not mentioned by any of the other

nine. While Dittmar represents a mere 12% of the total (29 out of 244), six of his 29 citations are

unique to him! Meanwhile, in spite of the 244 allusions listed by all ten, they agree completely on

only one!37 So it seems clear that none of the ten commentators has systematically examined all

the possible allusions to the OT in the seven trumpets.

Since Dittmar lists barely a third as many allusions as Ford does one would assume that he

operates on more stringent criteria than she does. In the first four trumpets of Revelation (Rev

8:7-13) she mentions 38 potential allusions to the OT, nearly half her total, Dittmar, on the other

hand, has just one citation and lists it as doubtful!38 Yet in the seventh trumpet (Rev 11:15-18)

Ford lists only eight allusions, while Dittmar has sixteen, more than half his total for the trumpets

36
Charles 66
Dittmar 29
Ford 82
Hühn 121
Kraft 49
Mounce 61
Nestle 71
Prigent 74
UBS 38
Westcott 41
37
All ten list an allusion to Job 3:21 for Rev 9:5-6.
38
To be fair, Dittmar acknowledges that his list is not complete. Dittmar, v.

9
as a whole! For Rev 9:20-21, where the other commentators average eight citations, Dittmar has

only three and Ford has none at all!

These irregularities point to the need for a more objective method of determining allusions

to the OT in Revelation.39 While the selected commentators may have used various criteria in

developing their conclusions, they rarely spelled them out and seem to have rarely followed them.

So in my dissertation I sought to refine the criteria for assessing allusions to the OT in Revelation.

I found significant works in the field of English literature that offer helpful observations on the

issue.40 My most significant contribution to the topic, I believe, was the recognition (widely

accepted in English literature) that the literary concept of echo was significant for the study of

Revelation.41 I believe that a major reason why earlier scholars produced such widely diverging

lists of allusions in Revelation was the failure to recognize the difference between direct or

intentional allusions on the part of the author and echoes, in which OT language and themes are

utilized, but no intentional reference to any particular text is made. While Beale had hinted at

39
In an email response Steve Moyise argues that the evident subjectivity in scholarly
assessment of allusions is not so much the result of deficient criteria as it is a witness to the role
the reader has in construing meaning. Steve Moyise to Jon Paulien, August 29, 2000. I address
this issue in an upcoming article in Andrews University Seminary Studies.
40
John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 1981; Claudio Guillén, “The Aesthetics of Literary
Influence,”in Influx: Essays on Literary Influence, edited by Ronald Primeau (Port Washington,
NY: Kennikat Press, 1977), 59-62; Richard T. Altick, The Art of Literary Research (NY: W. W.
Norton, 1975; Ronald Primeau, “Introduction,” in Influx: Essays on Literary Influence, edited by
Ronald Primeau (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1977), 1-13; idem, Beyond Spoon River
(Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981); Carlos Baker, The Echoing Green (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1984).
41
I was particularly indebted to a couple of private conversations with Pauline scholar
Richard Hays and the book by Hollander, which he called to my attention.

10
such a distinction in his 1984 monograph, the idea is not clearly stated as an operating principle.

Beale has offered helpful critique of my work in a couple of written responses.42 While

considering my categories and criteria for assessing allusions helpful, he pointed out some

weaknesses in my approach which need to be addressed. While my analysis of “echoes” was, in

his opinion, an advancement in the study of allusions up to that point, he felt that my usage of

echoes in the interpretation of the seven trumpets was confusing at best.43 It appears, in

retrospect, that I was not clear enough in defining the category and in articulating the controls

under which I was using it in exegesis.44 A further valid criticism was my lack of attention to how

OT language and themes was developed in subsequent Jewish exegetical tradition, and how that

tradition may have impacted on John’s usage of the same language and themes.45

42
G. K. Beale, review of Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets in Journal of Biblical
Literature 111 (1992):358-361; idem, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Journal for
the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998), 19-21. Ian Paul has spoken substantively to a number of the issues addressed in this paper:
Ian Paul, “The Use of the Old Testament in Revelation 12,” in The Use of the Old Testament in
the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, JSNTSup 189, edited by Steve Moyise
(Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000): 256-276. While he offers a vigorous critique of
aspects of my earlier work (259-262), he utilizes the central features of my suggested method in
an effective manner in the essay. Unfortunately, I only became aware of his essay after submitting
this article, so I am unable at this time to address his work in the detail that it deserves.
43
Beale, John’s Use, 19-20.
44
I intend to clarify the definition and usage of “echoes” in a future publication.
45
Ibid., 20. While the subject of criteria for assessing allusions has received little attention
in the last decade of Revelation scholarship, two significant works outside the study of the
Apocalypse contain major contributions to this area (Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the
Letters of Paul [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-33] and Louis Painchaud, “Use of
Scripture in Gnostic Literature,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4:2 [1996]:129-146). Hays
offers seven criteria for testing claims about the presence and meaning of scriptural echoes in
Paul; availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of
interpretation, and satisfaction. Painchaud offers three criteria for identifying allusions. First, a

11
 Over the last ten years I have extended my research into the ten previous commentators to

the entire book of Revelation. Out of the hundreds of allusions they suggest in Rev 1-5 alone, for

example, only three have the unquestioned support of all ten commentators46 and only twelve are

mentioned in one way or another by all ten.47 Interestingly, among potential allusions listed by

nine of the commentators, six different writers turned out to be holdouts in at least one case! So

my conclusion that there are serious irregularities in the listings for the the seven trumpets can

now be extended to the entire book.

I have, however, noticed a clear correlation between the number of commentators that

mention a particular allusion and the relative validity of that allusion when carefully examined. In

every case where nine or ten commentators mention an allusion it has proven to be fairly

unquestionable, where only 3-5 mention an allusion, the levels of validity are usually much less

certain. It is my intention, therefore, to publish a listing based on the weight of citation

throughout the book of Revelation. Since these ten commentators covered a period of about 100

years and wrote in three different languages, the listing would offer something of an unspoken

word or groups of words must exhibit some form of strangeness in their new context. Second,
when the identification of an allusion sheds light on a text, the likelihood of intention is increased.
Third, the presence within the same context of other allusions to the same biblical text is a strong
support for the likelihood of a particular allusion.
46
Allusions to Isa 44:6 and 48:12 in Rev 1:17, and to Isa 22:22 in Rev 3:7. A note
regarding the citation of Isa 6:1 in Rev 4:2-3: In the margin of Nestle-Aland 26 the reader of Rev
4:2 is referred by the exclamation point to consider also the information listed with regard to Rev
5:7, which includes Isa 6:1. The other nine commentators all mention this allusion explicitly.
47
I distinguish between citations that seem certain to the commentator (which receive a full
point in the rating scale) and those that seem valuable but some doubt with regard to validity is
expressed (these receive a half point).

12
consensus regarding the use of the OT in the Apocalypse.48 Where the weight of citation is 8.5 or

above, I plan to designate the allusion “certain.”49 Where the weight is 5.5 to 8.0, the allusion will

be designated “probable.” Where the weight is 2.5 to 5.0 the allusion will be designated

“possible.”

Aune and Beale

To conclude this article I have chosen to examine the two massive commentaries, recently

published by David E. Aune and G. K. Beale, that provide an unprecedented collection of detailed

resources for the study of Revelation.50 Both commentaries will be of major significance, not only

in our generation, but for many generations to come. It will be useful to examine these two

volumes to see if the practice of identifying allusions to the OT in Revelation has benefitted from

the large amount of scholarly attention given to method in the last two decades of the twentieth

century.51 For the purposes of a brief article I have chosen to use three passages, Rev 1:4-8;

48
A recent listing is promising (Bradley H. McLean, Citations and Allusions to Jewish
Scripture in Early Chriain and Jewish Wriitings through 180 C.E. [Lewiton/Queenston/
Lampeter: Mellen, 1992]). But all listings that are the product of an individual or small group
suffer a high degree of subjectivity. A weighted listing of independent researchers provides a
more objective starting point for future assessment of allusions.
49
The reason for half points is where a writer notes an allusion but expresses some doubt
regarding its certainty.
50
David E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., Word Biblical Commentary, vols. 52a-c, edited by
David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and Bruce M. Metzger (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1997,
and Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998); G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A
Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999).
51
I have earlier published an analysis of Aune’s work on the OT allusions in Revelation:
Jon Paulien, “The Book of Revelation and the Old Testament: Thoughts on David Aune’s

13
2:12-17; and 4:8-11, as a test case.52 Among the ten commentators on these passages there are

172 different suggested allusions to the OT. I have compared the combined weight of these

commentators with the conclusions of Beale and Aune, as stated in their commentaries.

An Overview of Aune

With the exception of some introductory comments regarding Semitic influence on the

Greek grammar and syntax of Revelation, Aune does not address the issue of OT allusions in the

introduction to his commentary. To compare his conclusions with those of the earlier

commentators, then, required the drawing of inferences from his occasional remarks about John’s

use of the OT in the text of the commentary itself. I then compared the combined weight of the

ten sources with the various suggestions made by Aune in his comments on the three selected

passages.

Within these test passages the number of OT text citations in the ten earlier commentators

ranged from 20 to 86 and the average was 41.0.53 By way of comparison, Aune mentioned 25

Approach,” Biblical Research 43 [1998], pp. 61-69. The results of that analysis are here
compared with a similar analysis of Beale.
52
The reason all three passages chosen are from the beginning of Revelation is that my
earlier research on Aune occurred while only his first volume (on Rev 1-5) was in circulation. In
this portion of the article I compare Aune’s practice with Beale’s on the same passages. The
three passages selected represent a portion of the prologue (1:4-8), a portion of the seven letters
(2:12-17) and a portion from one of the apocalyptic visions (4:8-11).
53

Charles 44
Dittmar 53
Hühn 86
Kraft 23
Massyngberde Ford 37

14
potential allusions within the same passages. This would place Aune near the conservative end of

judgment, ahead of Mounce and Kraft, but considerably behind such venerable sources as Charles,

UBS 3 and Nestle-Aland 26.

When I tallied the combined weight of the ten commentators in these passages I found 42

total citations: 8 certain allusions, 7 probable allusions, and 27 possible allusions to the OT.

Aune’s total of 25 were comprised of 5 certain allusions, 6 probable allusions and 14 possible

allusions.54 So at least 17 of the allusions widely noted by previous scholars are not mentioned by

Aune as allusions. This initial observation suggests that Aune utilized a fairly minimalist

philosophy of citation in comparison with those who produced the commentaries and margins

with which I have compared him. Even more striking is that there are twelve instances where all

ten commentators agree that an allusion is present. While Aune agrees in seven of twelve cases,

he is less certain in four and does not even mention the remaining case.

In spite of this minimalism, however, one of Aune’s probable allusions and three of his

possible allusions are not mentioned by any of the ten representative commentators. Four others

Mounce 20
Nestle-Aland 26 46
Prigent 36
UBS 3 36
Westcott 29
54
Perceptive readers will notice that this listing is slightly different than the one in the
Biblical Research article cited above. At the time of that article (1998) Beale’s commentary was
not yet available. Now that I have had a chance to work with Beale, I have reread the parts of
Aune’s commentary that are relevant to this research. In order that the way I make these
judgments might be as even-handed as possible, I shifted one reference in Aune that I had earlier
judged to be a “probable allusion” to a “possible allusion.” In the test passages, then, Aune has
11 references that he considers to be either certain or probable and 14 that are possible. Beale, as
we will outline below, sees many more allusions to the OT in these passages than Aune does.

15
of his possible allusions were mentioned but did not merit enough weight to be listed as possible

allusions in the weighting system. So there is more than just minimalism in operation here, Aune

is seeing very differently than earlier commentators did.

There is, unfortunately, no consistent explanation of the basis upon which Aune collected

and evaluated OT allusions. In some cases, as for example the allusions to Dan 7:13 and Zech

12:10-14 in Rev 1:7, copious listings of parallels, charts and arguments are given to support the

assertion of authorial intention. In most cases, however, the relationship between a text in

Revelation and another in the OT is merely asserted; no parallels of word, theme or structure are

offered as evidence. Although Aune seems to diverge widely from earlier commentators on the

Apocalypse, we are not included in the process by which he made his judgments, nor is the

evidence available in most cases.

In conclusion, I believe that this monumental work offers a major contribution to our

available resources with respect to the general environment in which Revelation was written, its

text, grammar, and syntax. Aune’s examination of John’s use of the OT, however, seems to be an

area of relative weakness.

An Overview of Beale

Beale seems much more concerned with how Revelation utilizes the OT than Aune. The

introduction to his commentary includes, in my opinion, the best short discussion of the subject

available.55 And while Aune occasionally offers excurses on the OT background of a particular

55
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 76-99.

16
passage or theme, Beale does so consistently and effectively.56 And as if that were not enough,

Beale has produced two lengthy books on the subject in the years leading up to the publication of

his commentary.57

Has Beale’s systematic focus on the OT allusions in Revelation actually affected his

practice in the commentary? In his introductory remarks about the use of the OT in Revelation he

draws a distinction between “clear allusions,” “probable allusions” and “possible allusions.”58 An

allusion can be judged clear when the wording is virtually identical to the OT source, shares some

common core meaning and could not likely have come from anywhere else. In a probable

allusion the wording is not as close but it still contains wording, an idea, or a structure of ideas

that is uniquely traceable to an OT text. In a possible allusion the language is only generally

similar to the purported source, echoing either its wording or concepts.59 In order for an allusion

to be accepted as clear or probable some explanation of authorial motive should also be given.60

While it would have been helpful if Beale had offered a more detailed statement of the criteria

with which he assesses potential allusions, this initial statement is much more promising than

56
Seven excellent examples of this can be found in one fifty-page stretch 400-450). These
include a discussion of the theological significance of the OT allusions in Rev 6:15-17 (402-404),
the relation of the Abrahamic promise to Rev 7:9 (429-430), the background and nature of the
great tribulation concept (Rev 7:14– 433-435), the OT background of clothing washed white
(Rev 7:14– 436-439), the idea of believers as priests (Rev 7:15– 439-440), the OT background of
the temple concept (Rev 7:16-17– 440-441), and the OT background of “silence” (Rev 8:1– 446-
448).
57
Cite the anthology and the monograph.
58
Beale, TheBook of Revelation, 78.
59
I have tried to use Beale’s own choice of terms in these definitions.
60
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 78.

17
Aune’s total silence on the subject.

Beale candidly notes that although he follows these criteria in the commentary, he does

not consistently utilize the language of these categories in the text of the commentary.61 This is

unfortunate. While Beale seems to be operating with clear and consistent criteria, it is often no

easier to figure out where Beale stands on specific cases than is the case with earlier

commentators who have not given such careful attention to the subject in their introductions.

Beale notes, for example, Fiorenza’s suggestion that “the faithful witness” alludes to Isa

55:4 as well as Psalm 89. He states that he will speak to this possibility in his comments on Rev

3:14.62 Although many Isaiah texts are referred to in that part of the commentary, no further

reference to Isa 55:4 could be detected.63 So Beale’s exact opinion on Fiorenza’s suggestion

remains a mystery to me.

In his interpretation of “the one who lives forever and ever” in Rev 4:9, Beale makes the

cryptic comment that “the closest verbal parallels appear in Dan in Dan 4:34 (Theod) and 12:7.”64

Since the presence of verbal parallels is no guarantee of authorial intention, it was not clear by this

how Beale categorizes these two texts in Daniel. He goes on, however, to say “These phrases

from Daniel form the most probable collective influence on Rev 4:9b.”65 While the use of the

term “probable” here immediately suggests the category “probable allusion,” the unusual language

61
Ibid.
62
Ibid., 192.
63
The comments on Rev 3:14 are found in ibid., 297-303.
64
Ibid., 333.
65
Ibid.

18
(for Beale) of “collective influence” left me wondering if he considered the parallel more of an

echo than an intentional reference. In light of everything Beale had to say about Rev 4:9,

however, I made the educated guess that he would categorize the Daniel texts as probable

allusions. But it would have been much clearer if his terminology had been more consistent.

I then compared the combined weight of the ten sources with the various suggestions

made by Beale in his comments on the three selected passages. As mentioned above, the number

of OT text citations in the ten earlier commentators ranged from 20 to 86 and the average was

41.0.66 In Beale’s work on these passages I found 62 potential allusions. This places Beale on the

high side of judgment, behind only Hühn, who has a tendency to excessive listing. The weighted

list drawn from the ten commentators was 42. So Beale is as far to the generous side, in these

texts at least, as Aune is to the cautious side.

Commentator Certain Allusions Probable Allusions Possible Allusions

Beale 14 26 22
Aune 5 6 14
Weighted List 7 8 27

Not only does Beale have twice as many certain allusions as either Aune or the weighted

list, he has 40 certain and probable allusions, compared to 11 for Aune and 15 for the weighted

list. While Beale might contend that the “possible allusions” listed for him are merely echoes, the

language with which he describes these references is similar to that of Aune and other

commentators, so I believe this numerical comparison portrays an accurate picture, at least for

these test passages. Beale’s careful and systematic attention to the use of the OT in Revelation has

66
See note 53 for list.

19
caused him to notice many more allusions than the average observer.

Beale’s more comprehensive listing is witnessed by a comparison of his language with

Aune’s in the context of the most heavily weighted of the earlier citations:

Passage OT Passage Weight Aune Beale

in Rev

1:4 Exod 3:14 9.5 “ultimately derived” “reflection of”

1:6 Exod 19:4-6 9.5 “John alludes to” “based on”
1:7 Dan 7:13 9.5 clear allusion “citation”
1:7 Zech 12:10-14 9.5 “allusion to” “citation”
1:17 Isa 44:6 10 “probably” “clear reference (lang)”
1:17 Isa 48:12 10 “probably” “clear reference (lang)”
3:7 Isa 22:22 10 “clear” “quotation”
3:19 Prov 3:11-12 9.5 “alludes loosely” “cf.”
4:2 Isa 6:1 8.5 no mention “allusion to Isa 6:1ff.”
4:8 Isa 6:2 9.5 “dependence on” “alluded to”
5:5 Gen 49:9-10 9.5 “an allusion to” “from”
5:5 Isa 11:10 9.5 “an allusion to” “from”

While Beale’s language is as diverse and confusing as Aune’s, he sees clear allusions in nine

of the twelve cases instead of seven. While the phrase “clear reference” would seem to indicate a

“clear allusion,” Beale’s “clear reference” is to the language of Isa 44:6 and 48:12 rather than the

texts themselves. I, therefore, judge these as probable allusions, in Beale’s terms, rather than clear

allusions. Of the twelve above instances, then, Beale judges nine to be clear, two to be probable,

and he expresses doubt regarding the author’s intention with regard to Prov 3 in Rev 3:19. Beale,

therefore, is in substantial agreement with the weighted list of previous opinion.

Is Beale overly generous in his assessments? If you take the evidence from the test

passages (44 clear or probable allusions to the OT in 15 verses– Rev 1:4-8; 2:12-17; 4:8-11) and

project it out over the entire book (404 verses), Beale suggests about 1200 allusions to the OT,

20
considerably higher than the typical projection of 500-600.67 Comparison with the list of ten is

instructive. When it comes to probable allusions, however, Beale does mention two (out of 26)

that are not listed by any of the ten previous commentators!

One of the two “problematic allusions” is Beale’s reference to Isa 43:10-12 in Rev 2:12.68

While Beale doesn’t argue the reference at that point in the commentary he does give an extensive

argument for it in his comments on Rev 3:14.69 The quality of his case there suggests that this

potential allusion may have been wrongly overlooked by the others. The other “problematic

allusion” is the reference to Exod 28:9-12 in relation to Rev 2:17. In this case Beale notes the

opinion of “some commentators” that there is an allusion here. Since Beale does not indicate

disagreement with the “some” I have judged that this comment reflects his opinion as well.

The overall impression I take from these observations is that Beale has certainly elevated

the level of attention to the OT in the Book of Revelation. He seems to consistently observe the

evidence and where his assessment is clear his arguments are usually well stated and convincing.

Future commentators would do well to be as attentive. It is unfortunate, however, that Beale did

not choose to be consistent in his language, leaving the reader confused at many points as to

exactly what level of probability Beale judged a given potential allusion to be.

67
Beale lists a number of projections ranging from 195 to 1000 in G. K. Beale,
“Revelation,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M.
Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 318-319, note 1. Check.
68
“Indeed, the other OT text lying behind the idea of ‘faithful witness’ is Isa 43:10-12 (see
on 3:14!), which repeats twice that the Israelites were to be ‘my witnesses’. . .” Beale, The Book
of Revelation, 247.
69
Ibid., 300.

21
 Where To Now? An Agenda for the Future

With regard to the issue of criteria and the assessment of allusions in current scholarship I

would like to make six suggestions. 1) It would be helpful for scholars of Revelation, particularly

in the writing of commentaries, to move toward consistent terminology when they describe their

judgments regarding the author’s allusions to the OT.70 Much confusion could be avoided by the

consistent adoption of terminology such as Probable Allusion, Possible Allusion and Echo. This

would provide readers with a clear and consistent picture of the commentator’s judgments on this

issue. While Beale has done superior work on the OT allusions in Revelation, his commentary

frequently leaves the reader confused as to exactly what level of certainty he ascribes to potential

allusions.

2) Commentators need to demonstrate more awareness of the distinction between allusions

and echoes. Much misinterpretation occurs when echoes are treated as allusions and vice versa.

Further work on the function and significance of echoes is also needed.

3) There needs to be a greater consensus on the criteria for assessing potential allusions and

a more consistent use of such criteria. In spite of decades of exploration and discussion, a major

commentary on Revelation can be published without any discussion of criteria and with little

evidence that anything more than a hit and miss application of criteria has been used.

4) In assessing allusions it seems wise to err on the side of caution, to apply a bias toward

minimalism. Interpretation is harmed less by missing the occasional allusion than by the confident

70
This point is made in a general way by James E. West in his review of G. K. Beale,
John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, in Review of Biblical Literature found at
www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/1850758948.

22
application of allusions that do not exist. As Beale pointed out in his JBL review,71 my own early

work on the subject suffered from a tendency to see more allusions than there actually were. This

can lead to a distortion of the text and its author’s intention.

5) An excellent starting point for work on the use of the OT in Revelation would be a

weighted listing of the best efforts of prior scholarship in this area.72 Proposed allusions could be

listed as certain, probable, or possible based on the extent of usage in earlier scholarly literature.

While such as listing will not prove to be correct in every instance, it will have pruned away a

plethora of casual or mistaken connections and point students to a relatively “educated” starting

point for individual work. The enormous massive commentaries by Aune and Beale demonstrate

that reliable assessment of allusions is a massive and time-consuming task that no one could master

fully alone. The weighted listing would provide a solid starting point for evaluation, not requiring

each interpreter to start over.73

6) When all is said and done in the area of criteria and assessment of allusions, this report

of research suggests that literary critics such as Moyise have a solid point. It is not necessary to

give up on the goal of understanding John’s intention with regard to his use of the OT to recognize

that certainty regarding an author’s intention will remain somewhat elusive. The multivalent and

71
G. K. Beale, Review of Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets, by Jon Paulien, in Journal of
Biblical Literature 111 (1992):358-361.
72
This would function along the lines of Richard Hays’ sixth criterion of “history of
interpretation.” Hays, 31.
73
I hope to publish such a weighted listing sometime in the next few years.

23
ambiguous nature of allusion also invites reader involvement in the process of interpretation.74 It is

almost as if the author of Revelation foresaw the literary developments of our day when he invited

the intelligent reader to interact with his symbolism (Rev 13:18).

74
Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, Journal for the Study of
the New Testament Supplement Series, 115, edited by Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995), 131-146. Painchaud notes the research of Devorah Dimant who believes
that when Scripture is quoted the aim is to explain the biblical text, but when it is alluded to the
biblical material is molded into a new and independent context, it is subservient to the independent
aim and structure of the new composition. This insight, if verifiable, has large implications for the
study of Revelation. Devorah Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988), 381-384.

24