[1] Chapel Hill: UNC Press 1984. Pp. 33–38 of this book outline the method of rhetorical criticism upon which the present essay is basedGoogle Scholar. Cf. also his review, in Rhetorica 4 (1986) 67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, of Robbins, V. K., Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress 1984).Google Scholar

[2] Cf. the bibliography in Kennedy, , Interpretation (162–5)Google Scholar, to which add Wilder, A. N., ‘The Rhetoric of Ancient and Modern Apocalyptic’, Interpretation 25 (1971) 436–53Google Scholar; Hester, J. D., ‘The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11–2:14’, JBL 103 (1984) 223–33Google Scholar; Newman, J. K., ‘Esse Videatur Rhythm in the Greek New Testament Gospels and Acts of the Apostles’, Illinois Classical Studies 10 (1985) 53–66Google Scholar; Forbes, C., ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32 (1986) 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snyman, A. H. & Cronie, J. v. W., ‘Toward a New Classification of the Figures (EXHMATA) in the Greek New Testament’, NTS 32 (1986) 113–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kirby, J. T., ‘The Syntax of Romans 5. 12: A Rhetorical Approach’, NTS 33 (1987) 283–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[3] Kennedy, , Interpretation, 160.Google Scholar

[4] Kennedy, ,Interpretation, 159.Google Scholar

[5] Cf. Bitzer, L., ‘The Rhetorical Situation’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 1–14Google Scholar. For a feminist approach to the rhetorical situation of Rev cf. Fiorenza, E. S., The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress 1985) 192–9.Google Scholar

[6] A recent book by Hemer, C. J., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (Sheffield: JSOT Press 1986)Google Scholar underscores the integral importance of the letters to the rest of the work, and combines a vast compilation of important historical and philological material with sober assessment of it.

[7] Kennedy, G., Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition From Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: UNC Press 1980) 5.Google Scholar

[8] This blessing at the beginning is balanced by a curse at the end of the book (22. 18–19) immnent over anyone who tampers with the text.

[9] In similar fashion Luke, at the beginning of his gospel, assesses the rhetorical situation explicitly, whereas the other synoptic writers do not; John's Gospel assesses it at the end (20. 30–31).

[10] Cf. 2 Cor 1. 3, Ga1 1. 5, Eph. 1. 3, 1 Pet 1. 3. Sometimes the doxology is replaced by a thanksgiving for the addressee (e.g. Rom 1. 8, 1 Cor 1. 4, Col 1. 3, 1 Thess 1. 2, 2 Thess 1. 3, 2 Tim 1. 3, Phlm 4). The thanksgiving may come in addition to the doxology (Eph 1. 3, 16); 1 Timothy has both (1. 12, 17) though here the thanksgiving is not for Timothy but for Christ's strength, so that its rhetorical thrust is different. Galatians, as is well known, omits the thanksgiving and launches ex abrupto into the body of the epistle.

[11] Cf. Cicero De inuentione 1. 20; Quintilien Institutio oratoria 4.1.5.

[12] On this relationship cf. Hemer, , Letters, 14 & n. 40.Google Scholar

[13] This obviously extends beyond the mere writing of the letters in ch. 2–3 (cf. 22. 10).

[14] 1. 13–17; cf. Ezek 1. 26–28. ‘Son of Man’ is also, significantly, God's common vocative for Exekiel himself, and Jesus of course constantly applies the term to himself in the Gospel accounts.

[15] This is the burden of ch. 2–3. Cf. Ezek 2. 3 ff.

[16] Kennedy, , Rhetoric, 123.Google Scholar

[17] Aristotle, , Rhetoric 1356a. The groundwork for John's ēthos is laid as early as 1. 2.Google Scholar

[18] Cf. Burkitt, F. C., Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (London: H. Milford 1914) 6Google Scholar; Guthrie, D., New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press 1970) 936–7Google Scholar; Hemer, , Letters, 12–13.Google Scholar

[19] Arist, . Rhet. 1356a.Google Scholar

[20] So Ramsay, W. M., The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1904) 183Google Scholar, defended once again by Hemer, , Letters, 14–15.Google Scholar

[21] Guthrie, , Introduction, 962n.Google Scholar; cf. Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Macmillan, 2nd ed. 1907) xcviii.Google Scholar

[22] Arist, . Rhet. 1358b 8 ff.Google Scholar

[23] Arist, . Rhet. 1358b 15–16, 25–26.Google Scholar

[24] Cf. Ziemann, F., De epistolarum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae (Berlin: Haas 1912)Google Scholar; Exler, F. J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography (Diss. Catholic University of America 1923)Google Scholar; Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. (‘Sarja-Ser. B. Nide-Tom.’, 102, 2) Helsinki (1956)Google Scholar; White, J. L., The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter. A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (Missoula: Scholars Press 1972)Google Scholar; Doty, W. G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress 1973); and pp. 1326–63Google Scholar of Berger, K., ‘Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament’, ANR W II.25.2 (1984) 1031–1432. White's analytical framework should be applied to our own letters; his formulaic findings are significant for the NT generally, not just for Pauline corpus.Google Scholar

[25] For texts, translations, and commentaries on these, cf. Welles, C. Bradford, Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy (New Haven: Yale 1934).Google Scholar

[26] The order of warning and promise changes, probably for the sake of stylistic variation. In the first three letters, ‘he who has ears to hear’ comes before the promise; in the next four, after. The dative τ νιτντι is used in the first and third letters; the nominative in the others. In the fourth letter – the central one of the seven – ò νικ⋯ν is rhetorically amplified by the addition of καί ò τηρν χρι τέλους τ⋯ ργα μου. The sense, pervasive to all the letters and in fact to the Revelation as a whole, is that victory over the forces of evil is closely bound up with obedience to Christ.

[27] On this cf. e.g. Quintilian Inst. or. 3.8.6–70Google Scholar; Kennedy, G., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1963) 60–1Google Scholar; Kennedy, , Interpretation, 23–4Google Scholar; Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik (Munich: Beck 1974) 58 & nnGoogle Scholar. A more accurate assessment of ‘proposition’ would be ‘proposition-and-proof’ (πρόθεσις καì πίστις cf. Arist. Rhet. 1414a 30-b 18) – that is, a ‘setting-forth’ of what you want to say, and the reasoning behind it. The διήγησις, if it is included, is ancillary to this section and may sometimes be considered part of it, for it provides information that may figure in the proof (‘X is so because Y, as I have already explained, is so too’). The letter to Philadelphia (cf. esp. 3. 8–11) is an illustration of this. Otherwise, however, the διήγησις is always clearly set off here by a phrase beginning with οῑδα, and usually τῑδα τ⋯ ργα σου.

For communication-oriented form-criticism of the letters cf. Hartman, L., ‘Form and Message: A Preliminary Discussion of “Partial Texts” in Rev 1–3 and 22, 6 ff.’Google Scholarin Lambrecht, J. ed. L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (Leuven: Duculot 1980) 129–49, esp. 142–4Google Scholar. Further application of such a cross-critical approach could perhaps make use of White, Form and Function; of Berger, ‘Gattungen’; and of the typology of eschatological language compiled In Doty, W. G., Contemporary New Testament Interpretation (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall 1972) 129–31.Google Scholar

[28] Rev 1. 12–18, transl. Lattimore, Richmond (NY: Farrar Straus Giroux 1979).Google Scholar

[29] Kennedy, , Persuasion, 91Google Scholar. But the warning/refrain, ‘he who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’, is also important for Jesus' ēthos because it represents the collocation of two elements: [1] the phrase familiarly associated with him in the Gospels, ‘He who has ears to hear’, and [2] the identification of the speaker here in Revelation as the Spirit. This, along with such texts as 2 Cor 3. 17, gives some hint of an early formulation of Trinitarian doctrine. Cf. also Ford, J. Massyngberde, Revelation (Garden City: Doubleday 1975) 380.Google Scholar

[30] Kennedy, , Persuasion, 93–4.Google Scholar

[31] This is especially true in the instance of images that can also be found elsewhere in the NT: when is John citing another NT author and when are they both referring to a common source? And ‘ … it is remarkable how the Old Testament is never explicitly quoted, but continually echoed and reapplied’ (Hemer, , Letters, 14)Google Scholar. On the special problems connected with the promises to Philadelphia cf. Hemer, , Letters, 164 and n. 44.Google Scholar

[32] Ar. Rhet. 1356a–1358a. For more on the argument from logos, cf. Kennedy, , Persuasion, 95–103.Google Scholar

[33] These all appear in ch. 2–3. Ưτι: 2. 14; 3. 8, 10, 16. γάρ: 3. 2. ον: 2. 5, 16; 3. 19. Here ìδού is also sometimes tantamount to ον (2. 22; 3. 8, 9; but probably not 2. 10 and 3. 20, where it seems merely expletive).

[34] See e.g. Quintilian, Inst. or. 3.3.1. In addition to these three, classical rhetoric included two other parts, the memorization and delivery of a speech.Google Scholar

[35] See, e.g., Charles, R. H., Studies in the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: Clark 1913) 79–102Google Scholar; id., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh: Clark 1920) 1.cxviiclixGoogle Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ² 1959) passimGoogle Scholar; Moulton, J. H. and Turner, N., A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. IV: Style. (Edinburgh: Clark 1976) 145–59Google Scholar; Mussies, G., ‘The Greek of the Book of Revelation’, in Lambrecht, ed., L'Apocalypse, 167–77Google Scholar; and, most recently, Thompson, S., The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[36] Thompson, , Syntax, 1–2, argues that biblical (not later) Hebrew and Aramaic are the stylistic influences here.Google Scholar

[37] Thompson, , Syntax, 108.Google Scholar

[38] And (more generally) of antithesis, which pervades our entire pericope and may be said to constitute a theme of the work as a whole; cf. e.g. 22. 11.

[39] On the symbolism in Rev 1, cf. Charles, , Commentary, 1. 23–26; Ford, Revelation, 381–5. OT metaphor in ch. 2–3 not also derived from ch. 1Google Scholar:

The crown of life (2. 10, 3. 11), the thief (3. 3), and the lukewarm water (3. 16) are not of OT provenance, though for the first, Ford (Revelation, 415) compares Is 35. 10; for more on this metaphor cf. Hemer, , Letters, 70–7Google Scholar, and on lukewarmness, Ibid., 186–91. The white stone (2. 17) and the morning star (2. 28, cf. 22. 16) are obscure, and have been variously interpreted; cf. Hemer, , Letters, 96–102 and 125–6Google Scholar. The metaphor of dining (3. 20) is well-nigh universal. Caird, G. B. (A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine [NY: Harper & Row 1966] 58)Google Scholar rightly suggests that here it ‘has a eucharistic flavour about it’. Ford (Revelation, 421) sees a parallel to Wisdom literature like Prov 9.

[40] Arist, . Rhet. 1405a 8.Google Scholar

[41] Special mention should be made of the sophisticated word-play figuring in Balaam/Nicolaitans/ò νικῶν vuKwv in 2. 6–7, 14–17; on this cf. Charles, , Commentary, 1. 52Google Scholar; Farrer, A., The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford: Clarendon 1964) 71–4Google Scholar; Ford, Revelation, 391. The paronomasia of Νικολαïτῶν/νικῶντι in this context would have not a whimsical but an oracular tone for the ancient ear. That word-play is audial; Νικόλαος/is conceptual.

[42] Bitzer, , ‘Situation’, 13.Google Scholar

[43] I am grateful to Professor Karl Dorfried for his helpful criticism of an earlier draft of this essay.