¹ The literary form known as ‘macarism’ (beatitude) occurs seven times in the Revelation (1.3; 14.13; 16.15; 19.9; 20.6; 22.7; 22.14) and confers a particular literary solemnity upon the context. See Bieder, W., ‘Die sieben Seligpreisungen in der Offenbarung des Johannes’, TZBas 10 (1984) 13–30.Google Scholar

² The combination of a lector in the singular and of a group in the plural is typical and the manuscript tradition shows a tendency to simplify these into either singular or plural instances. Primasius and codex c of the Vg puts the lector and the listeners in the singular: ‘legit et audit’; Victorinus, on the other hand, puts all of them in the plural: ‘legunt et audiunt’.

³ The problem of the meaning of the two terms is particularly acute in the case of the first one: ἀναγινώσκων can indicate a private and personal reading or a reading of a public kind, carried out before others. The two possibilities are amply documented in the NT (see Bauer, W., Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th Edition reworked by K., and Aland, B. [Berlin-New York, 1988] col. 100–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar – quoted in what follows as Bauer-Aland) but our immediate context here demands the second possibility, given that the one who reads is being listened to by a certain number of people gathered together, as the plural ὰκοὺοντἐς indicates. The reciprocity at work between ό ὰναγινώσκων and όι ὰκοὺοντἐς is confirmed by the fact that they have a sole object: τοὺς λόγους προφητἐιας.

⁴ In reference to the dialogue which took place in the synagogue's liturgy as an introduction to either the recitation of the shema‘ and the Tefillâ or the proclamation of the readings, see C. Giraudo, Eucaristia per la chiesa (Roma-Brescia: Morcelliana-Gregorian University Press, 1989) 401–2. Concerning the Christian assembly there is an attestation in one of the letters of Pliny the Younger to Trajan [Epist 10,96: cf. Jörns, K.-P., Das hymnische Evangelium (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971) 161–2)Google Scholar. A responsorial dialogue is to be found in the Didache (10.6), and also in Justin (1st Apology 67,5) and it is particularly developed in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (cf. Botte, B., La tradition Apostolique [Paris: Du Cerf, 1946] 30–1Google Scholar; Dix, G., The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus of Rome [London: SPCK, 1937] 7)Google Scholar. For an accurate survey of early Christian liturgy see Cabaniss, A., Pattern in Early Christian Worship (Macon: Mercer University, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵ See Vanni, U., ‘Un esempio di dialogo liturgico in Ap 1,4–8’, Bib 57 (1976) 453–67Google Scholar, reprinted and updated in: Vanni, U., L'Apocalisse: ermeneutica, esegesi, teologia (Bologna: Dehoniane, 1988) 101–14;Google ScholarKavanagh, M. A., Apocalypse 22:6–21 as Concluding Liturgical Dialogue (Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1984)Google Scholar; Ruiz, J. P., Ezechiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17–19,10 (Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York-Paris: Peter Lang, 1989) 482–504Google Scholar (concerning Rev 19.1–8).

⁶ The equivalence, usually taken for granted, between ναί and ὰμἡν – ναί being considered as a Greek translation of ὰμἡν: see for example, Karrer, M., Die Johannes-offenbarung als Brief. Studium zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, 1986) 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Note 7; Bauer-Aland, col. 89 – needs to be re-considered. The LXX's five occurrences of ναί are never a translation of the Hebrew ’amen. On the other hand, ’amen in its 24 occurrences is translated 19 times as γἐνοιτο, twice it presents particular problems (Is 65.16; Jer 35.6) and in the other three cases it is transliterated as Aμην. The basic meaning both terms have in their contexts appears to be different: ναί looks back and is a reply to a word or a deed, which is presented as accomplished; ὰμἡν looks forward and always has a nuance of futurity expressed spontaneously by means of the optative γἐνοιτο and is directed at a duty to be done or an aspiration to be realized. We find a confirmation of this in the Proto-Gospel of James which places γἐνοιτο and ὰμἡν side by side (6.2: γἐνοιτο, ὰμἡν).

The three occurrences of ναί in the Revelation and the seven of ἀμήν (leaving aside 1.7)present these different meanings: ναί (14.13; 16.7; 22.20) expresses the acceptance of acompleted statement to be found in the preceding context, while ἀμήν corresponds closelyto γένοιτο of the LXX and is connected, more or less explicitly, with a realization to be actualized in the future (1.6: ἐἰς τοὐς αἰῶνας; in 5.14 ἀμήν expresses the desire that what is stated in 5.9–13 be realized; in 7.12 ἀμήνs of which the second is preceded by ἐἰς τοὐς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, indicate the desire and request for a complete realization of theprophetic section in 7.97–10 and which is taken up again, with all the verbs in the future in7.15–17; in 19. 4 ἀμήν indicates the desire and request that the fall of Babylon, prophetically expressed in 19.1–3, come about; in 22.20 ἀμήν indicates the desire for the coming of the Lord Jesus). In 3.14 ἀμήν is a particular case of personalization which did not fail to create difficulties: see L. H. Silberman, ‘Farewe to ὀ ἀμήν. A Note on Rev 3:14’, JBL 82 (1963)213–15.

All this suggests that we give to ναί ἀμήν of 1.7b the different meaning of the acceptance of the oracle in 1.7a (expressed byναί) and a desire (indicated by ἀμήν) that the future comingof Christ, expressed by the content of the oracle, be realized.

⁷ The peculiarity of this syntactical construction has become well known – and it has not failed to create problems, as the manuscript tradition shows. Beside ὲποίηοἐν attested in N, A, C, P and the majority of the other codices, we find ποιἡσαντι in 046, 1854, 2053 and 2062. The participle ποιἡσαντι in agreement with the other expresses a smoothing simplification imposed upon the text.

⁸ The possibility of such a meaning being attributed to ἔρχἐται, when it is by itself a present, is amply documented in the Greek of the NT (see Blass.A, F.Debrunner, FRehkopf, , Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975, 14th edition])Google Scholar, especially in a prophetic style. Here it is suggested by the other verbs in the future co-ordinated with ἔρχἐται.

⁹ See the examples mentioned by U. Vanni, L'Apocalisse, 19–29 for this typical literary aspect of the author of the Revelation.

¹⁰ This is the meaning constantly recognized for the arithmetical symbol seven in the Revelation (cf. K. H. Rengstorf, ‘ὲπιά’, TWNT, 2 [1935, 1957] 624–5; 628–30). It is also applicable to the seven churches and the fact that there were more than seven churches near Ephesus confirms this; there was, for example, the church of Magnesia and of Tralles to each of which Ignatius of Antioch sent one of his letters.

¹¹ This conclusion does not exclude on the one hand a certain epistolary form which could be attributed to the Revelation. The apostolic letters came to be read in the liturgical assembly, as 1 Thess 5.27 already tells us, and Col 4.16 with a relevant emphasis confirms. On the other hand, deduced as it is from the internal correlations of the text, this conclusion does not do violence to the text. This is the criticism which M. Karrer aims at my position expressed in 1976 (Karrer, M., Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief, 29)Google Scholar, today deepened and amplified.

¹² The general consensus among scholars is that 22.6–21 is to be considered as a pericope unit. But there exist some exceptions: the most relevant is by Ch. Giblin, H., ‘Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16–22’, Bib 55 (1974) 487–504.Google Scholar

Despite the serious literary reasons adduced by Ch. H. Giblin, it seems that this pericope can be considered as one large literary unit. For a discussion of Giblin's position see Vannil, U., La struttura letteraria, 283–8.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Kavanagh, M. A., Apocalypse 22:6–21, 71–96.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The expression of 22.6 καὶ ἐιπἐν μοι, which has the angel as subject, takes us back to 22.1 καὶ ἐδἐιςἐν μοι; the following context of 22.6 onwards is decidedly different from 22.1–5.

¹⁵ The initial καί ( of 22.7 is witnessed by A and most of the codices and versions (Vg syr): it is omitted by 1, 35, 38, 79, 91. “ἐρχονιαι is found in and A; C^c has ἐρχονιαι while 12 has ἐρχἐιαι.

¹⁶ ῍Eρχομαι ιαχυ occurs (excluding 22.7) in 2.16; 3.11; 22.12 and 22.20, being explicitly attributed to Jesus. ῍Eρχομαί σοι of 2.5 is also to be attributed to Jesus (ιαχὑ – an addition here in many minuscules and accepted by Bover – seems to be secondary). ῍Eρχομαι ώς κλἐπιης of 16.15 is a different problem altogether.

¹⁷ Aune rightly emphasizes that υ´μῖν and ιαῖς ἐκκλησίαις of Rev 22.16 do not coincide, even if the group indicated by ὑμῖν could be superimposed upon the seven churches. Aune sees in ὑμῖν a reference to the group of prophets. See Aune, D. E., ‘The Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Revelation 22:16’, JSNT 37 (1989) 103–16.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Actually here we have two distinct invocations. The author often combines the ζῷα and the πρἐσβὑτἐροι in a single statement, with a single verbum dicendi including them both: it would seem to be arbitrary if λἐγουσιν is intended to refer separately to πνἐνμα and νὑμφη. It is worthwhile to note further that νὑμφη, although grammatically singular, refers to the church concretely present in the assembly, thus taking a plural value. Cf. Mcllraith, D. A., The Reciprocal Love between Christ and the Church in the Apocalypse (Roma: Columban Fathers, 1989) 156–66.Google Scholar

¹⁹ It has the same connection between the lector and the hearers we have found in 1.3. The singular ο ὰκοὑων, precisely because it takes up again the invocation of the πνἐνμα and of the νὑμφη, cannot refer to a single individual isolated from the group – but to all and each one of the components of the group itself, given the collective meaning of νὑμφη.

²⁰ This movement in the area of the liturgical assembly which makes contact with the ‘water of life’ has been connected with John 7.37b–38 and takes on a particular importance also for the Johannine tradition. See Taeger, J.-W., Johannesapokalypse und johanneischer Kreis (Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter, 1989) 68–87.Google Scholar

²¹ It seems that the simple plural πάντων is preferable rather than the other variant readings – schematically quoted in Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London-New York: United Bible Societies) 768Google Scholar – for the authority of A added to Vg, to Tyconius and Beatus. Although the reading μἐτὰ πάντων ὑμῷν, adopted by the Textus Receptus is attested by only 296, it makes explicit the dialogue relation; the one that replaces, with several further variations, άγιων by πάντων makes this relation more indeterminate.

The lectio πάντων, which is undoubtedly preferable, is a conclusive formula, but addressed to a present audience, as the correspondence with παντὶ τω ὰκοὑοντι in 22.18 suggests.

²² For the position of D. E. Aune see note 17.

²³ The apparent lack of a literary thread has led scholars in two directions: some have tried a re-elaboration of 22.6–21, changing the order of the text to make it intelligible (T. Könnecke, J. Moffatt, R. H. Charles, Gächter, M.-É. Boismard); others, accepting the text in the present order, have tried to grasp its structure (W. Bousset, E.-B. Allo, E. Lohmeyer, N. W. Lund, F. Rousseau, C. H. Giblin, P. Prigent). For a critical exposition of all these positions see Kavanagh, , Apocalypse 22:6–21, 15–43.Google Scholar

²⁴ As regards textual criticism, this passage raises serious problems, which were tackled by Schmid, J., ‘Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse’, ZNW 43 (1950) 112–28Google Scholar. For an outline of the present position, see Metzger, , A Textual Commentary, 749–50.Google Scholar

²⁵ This exhortation resumes the one we find identical in seven recurrences in the Letters (2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22). The requested ‘listening’ involves, now as well as then, an application of the mental faculties (it is the value of ονς connected with ὰκονσάτω: cf. Vanni, U., Apocalisse, 63–5)Google Scholar to the interpretation of a ciphered message, which here is in 13.1–8. This deciphering involves the interpretation of the symbols that recur in 13.1–8 and then involves the application of all that is drawn from the symbol to the concrete situation. Such a deciphering is facilitated by 13.9b (ἐἳ τις ἐὶς αὶχμαλωσίν …). The conclusion the whole procedure reaches is expressed in 13.10.

²⁶ ῟Ωδἐ, that generally means a spatial relation (cf. Rev 4.1), now has a figurative sense, with a double possibility of interpretation: the generic ‘in the present circumstances’ (cf. Aland-Bauer, 1784–5) or a specific reference to the book: ‘Here, at this point of the book.’ This second interpretation is preferable because the author of Revelation presents, as a constant stylistic trait, the use of ἐἶναι with some expressions to interpret the preceding text (cf. 1.20b; 5.6b; 14.4; 17.15, 18; 19.8b, etc.). This suggests that we should interpret ὧδἐ as ‘here’, with this meaning: here, namely in this specific context, when this is fairly understood, the πίστις καὶ ἡ ήπομονὴ τῶνἁγίων are to be looked for.

²⁷ The incentive to use sapiential capacities refers to the symbolic picture of 13.1–8 and 13.11–17. On account of the interpretation of the symbol, wisdom will then be able to find its concretion in the world of men. Here, more clearly than in 13.10, ὧδἐ is an evident reference to the text of the book, to everything which has just been read.

²⁸ The repetition, as regards 13.10, of the same words (ὧδἐ, υπομονὴ τῷν ὰγίων) suggests that the author wants also here to elicit a reaction from the listeners to the content expressed in the book that is read.

²⁹ Other examples of this construction authorize such a view (Acts 19.4; 1 Jn 5.16), thus avoiding the grammatical awkwardness of ἵνα linked directly with ναί.

³⁰ Just this immediate return of the narrative thread drove us to consider preferable that there is here a case of interpolation or dislocation (cf. Vanni, U., Struttura letteraria, 34Google Scholar, n. 41).

³¹ This appears to be the most coherent explanation: on the one hand it saves the heterogeneity of the sentence in its immediate context; on the other, it explains its style, which unequivocally appears as the author of Revelation's own. For a clear and exhaustive explanation of the problem, see Prigent, P., L'Apocalypse de Saint Jean (Lausanne-Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1981) 2487–9.Google Scholar

³² ‘19.1–8 qualifies as liturgical dialogue not only because it involves several speakers addressing each other, but also because this happens in the stylized, quasi antiphonal manner of public worship, and because all that these speakers say is doxological’, Ruiz, Ezechiel, 484.

³³ The four-fold ὰλληλοἳά express God's celebration, that accompanies the text from the outside, constituted as a musical accompaniment. The text, in fact, has its own literary development even if we leave the άλληλονἳά out of consideration. The celebration expressed by them refers to the basic meaning of the text. Cf. Schlier, H., ‘άλληλονἳά’, TWNT 1 (1933)264.Google Scholar

³⁴ The figure of Babylon, typical of Revelation, starts from the strictly biblical one of the OT, turns it into a reference to pagan Rome, contemporary with the author, and tends to repeat itself in the history: see Ruiz, , Ezechiel, 486–7.Google Scholar

³⁵ ‘αμἡν and ὰλληνἳά are not synonyms. ‘αμἡν, according to its usual meaning, corresponds to γἐνοιτο and refers to the future; ὰλληλοἳά refers to the present: see note 6.

³⁶ This expression corresponds, in its meaning, to άλληλονἳά (we find an explicit equivalence in Ps LXX 104.1; 105.1; 106.1). The author of Revelation likes literary variations. One of these variations is αὶνἐῖν, constructed, instead of with the usual accusative, with the dative τῶ θἐῷ ἡμῷν; according to Prigent, this is close to the Hebrew hll l and is an invitation to express ὰλληλονἳά again (L'Apocalypse, 280, n. 14).

³⁷ This invitation has a very wide range (πάντἐς οὶ δοήτοῆ): it involves the protagonists of the early three ὰλληλονïάs on the celestial level, but it extends to the liturgy which is celebrated on earth, as the expressions οὶ ψοβοῆμἐνοι αὴτὸν and οί μικροὶ οί μἐγάλοι show. The presence of καί after πάντἐς οί δοῆτοῆ would make this interpretation more natural, but from the point of view of textual criticism, it is very problematical and questionable (cf. Metzger, , A Textual Commentary, 761–2)Google Scholar.

³⁸ A trend towards a dialogue structure, at least in the sense of a particular pressure exerted on the listening party so as to cause a specific reaction, is recognizable in 17.4, 9–13 (especially interesting for the recurrence of the expression that we find in 17.9:ωδἐόνουςοἐχων σοφίαν: cf. Padilla, F., ‘Aquí está la mente que tiene sabiduría’(Rev 17,9a). Naturaleza y función de la reflexión sapiencial en el Apocalipsis [Roma: Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1982])Google Scholar, and also in the liturgical drama of 18.1–24.

³⁹ See Ulfgard, H., Feast and Future. Revelation 7. 9–17 and the Feast of Tabernacles (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989) 21Google Scholar, n. 93. D. E. Aune shows in a stimulating way points of contact between Revelation and the sociological milieu in which the book originated. See Aune, D. E., ‘The influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Revelation of John’, BibRes 28 (1983) 5–26Google Scholar‘The Social Matrix of the Revelation of John’, BibRes 26 (1981) 16–32Google Scholar; ‘The Revelation of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic’, NTS 33 (1987) 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

It is beyond doubt that the influence of the non-Christian milieu on the author is to be reckoned with. Could this have influenced concretely any aspects of the dialogue form we are dealing with? Some characteristic points of contact – for example, between the chorus function in the Greek tragedy and doxologies, between the drama of chapter 18 and the plays that took place in Ephesus etc.– would suggest an affirmative response. But all these questions require further examination.

⁴⁰ As regards the relation between Revelation and ‘the Lord's Day’, see Vanni, U., Apocalisse, 87–97Google Scholar. But as regards an up-to-date status quaestionis, see Ulfgard, H., Feast and Future, 21, n.93.Google Scholar

⁴¹ ‘In this way they (the children) were trained for the sacred act known as áνáγνωσις, i.e. the reading of the lesson as carried out in public worship and in other, more private situations. We must not forget here the extremely important role played in Antiquity by reading and recitations, among Greeks, Romans and the surrounding peoples, both in cultic and non-cultic contexts. Literary teaching in Hellenistic “primary” and “secondary” schools was intended first and foremost to cultivate beautiful and accurate recitation of the classical works (ὰνάγνωσις ἐντριβὴς κατὰ προσωδίαν); and in the advanced schools, expressive and aesthetic rhetorical delivery was practised intensively’, Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript (Lund: C.v.k. Gleerup, Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1964) 61Google Scholar. It is remarkable that the ὰνάγνωσις confirms the value of public reader that we ascribed to ὰναγινώσκων in 1.3: see note 3.

⁴² See Vanni, U., ‘L'assemblea ecclesiale “soggetto interpretante” dell' Apocalisse’, Ras Teol 23 (1982) 497–513Google Scholar. A search of the strictly linguistic aspects of this dialogical form of Revelation would be interesting.

⁴³ The reading of the apostolic writings in the assembly, especially in those passages in which the text contains elements which are similar in rhythm and style to the liturgy, probably caused an audience to react in a corresponding way. According to Grelot, this is the case in Eph 1.3–14: ἐὺλογητὸς ό θἐὸς πατὴρ τον κυρίου ἡμν ‘ιησον χριστον would be a refrain to be recited strophe after strophe in 1.3–14; see Grelot, P., ‘La structure d'Ephésiens l,3–14’, RevBib 96(1989) 193–209.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See note 4.

⁴⁵ All these correspondences are studied carefully by Kavanagh, A., Apocalypse 22:6–21, 99–113.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Noting the shortness of phrases and starting from the fact that the last invocation with maranatha is peculiar to the assembly, Lietzmann suggested a dialogue structure for the present passage. Langevin, taking again and improving Lietzmann's observations, reaches the proposed structure, see Kavanagh, Apocalypse 22:6–21, 114–17.