¹ Presented to the Apocalypse Seminar at the annual meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas at Cambridge, England on 8–12 August 1988.Google Scholar

² Klaus, Berger, ‘Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: Zum Formular frühchristlicher Briefe’, ZNW 65 (1974) 212–19;Google ScholarMüller, Ulrich B., ‘Literarische und formgeschichtliche Bestimmung der Apokalypse des Johannes als einem Zeugnis frühchristlicher Apokalyptik’, Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. David, Hellholm (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1983) 601, n. 6a.Google Scholar

³ The most detailed form critical analysis of the Rev 2–3 in terms of constituent types of prophetic speech is by Ulrich B. Müller, Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament: Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975).Google Scholar

⁴ Shea, W. H., ‘The Covenantal Form of the Letters to the Seven Churches’, AUSS 21 (1983) 71–84, suggests that the seven proclamations were modelled after the covenant formulary found in the OT and the ancient Near East. Analyzing the seven proclamations from this perspective, he proposes that they exhibit five structural elements: (1) Preamble, (2) Historical Prologue, (3) Stipulations, (4) Witness, (5) Blessing and Curse. Shea has forced the structure of the seven proclamations into a framework (which is essentially alien to them the seven proclamations deal primarily with a temporary situation rather than the legal establishment of a long-term relationship), and his verse-by-verse analysis reveals far too many exceptions to the overall schema. Nevertheless he does divide the οδα-clause into at least two components, the historical prologue and the stipulations (even though the latter category is, in my view, inappropriate).Google ScholarShea's covenant schema has been extended to the whole of Rev by Strand, Kenneth A., ‘A Further Note on the Covenant Form in the Book of Revelation’, AUSS 21 (1983) 251–64.Google Scholar

⁵ Kirby, John T., ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3’, NTS 34 (1988) 197–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarIn this article Kirby proposes to analyze Rev 2–3 in accordance with the method of rhetorical criticism popularized by George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984).Google ScholarHe suggests that the seven proclamations, while they have some judicial elements, are essentially deliberative, like the entire book (p. 200). He finds the fourfold structure of proem, narration, proposition and epilogue in each of the proclamations. While this analysis is somewhat problematic (e.g., his analysis of the function of the proem is problematic; he insists on the inclusion of a narratio section which is rare in the genos sumbouleutikon; he fails to understand the function of the propositio section; he does not explain the absence of the probatio section; he fails to see that the ‘epilogue’ section has no typical rhetorical function at all), he does offer a more satisfactory way of understanding the οδα-clause. Since the seven proclamations contain praise and blame (genos epideiktikon) as well as exhortation to good behaviour and dissuasion from bad behaviour (genos sumbouleutikon), it is difficult to understand how Kirby avoids dealing with the problem of a mixtum compositum.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Alastair, Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google ScholarFowler's distinction between kinds (genres), modes and subgenres makes it possible to understand how the generic features of various literary kinds can be combined into a mixtum compositum. Modes differ from kinds in that the external structure of the latter is absent from the former (pp. 106–111). Thus a ‘comic novel’ is a novel in kind but a comedy in mode. ‘In short’, writes Fowler on p. 107, ‘when a modal term is linked with the name of a kind, it refers to a combined genre, in which the overall form is determined by the kind alone’. The seven proclamations could therefore be designated as ‘prophetic edicts’.Google Scholar

⁷ Aune, David E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 326.Google Scholar

⁸ This is clear from the proclamation formulas with which each proclamation concludes: ‘Let the one who has ears hear what the Spirit declares to the churches [ταîς έκκλησίαις]’ (2. 7, 11,17, 29; 3. 6,13, 22), and by the statement in 2. 23: ‘And all the churches [αί έκκλησίαι] shall know that I am the one who searches both mind and heart.’Google Scholar

⁹ The commission formula, a longer form of the messenger formula, is found in several basic patterns in the OT: (1) ‘Say to X, thus says Y’, (2) ‘Go and say to X, thus says Y’ (Jer 2. 1–2), and (3) [Go and] say to X [messenger formula absent]’ (Isa 6. 9; Jer 8. 4); cf. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 90, 330.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Hermas, Vis. 2.4.3: γράψεις ον δύο βιβλαρίδια και πέμψεις.Google Scholar

¹¹ A relatively full survey of the textual evidence is found in Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) II, 244;Google Scholarin Delobel, J., ‘Le texte de l'Apocalypse: Problè;mes de méthode’, L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. Lambrecht, J. (Leuven: The University Press, 1980) 159, n. 34,Google Scholarand in Borger, R., ‘NT²⁶ und die neutestamentliche Textkritik’, TR 52 (1987) 42–5.Google Scholar

¹² Also preferred by UBSGNT³, Tischendorf and Bernhard Weiss, Die Johannes-Apokalypse. Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1891), ad loc. While τς is supported by the majority of MSS in the adscriptiones to all the proclamations, in 2.12; 3. 7,14, it is attested by all the important witnesses. Charles, noting that the textual evidence for an original τ becomes weaker and virtually nonexistent for 3. 1, 7, 14, suggested that the self-confidence of the copyists increased as they wrote (Revelation, II, 244).Google Scholar

¹³ The grammatically appropriate definite article τς, which goes with έκκλησίας, has the strongest supporting textual attestation and is therefore preferred by Nestle-Aland²⁶ and UBSGNT³. Yet in 2. 1 τ replaces τς in A and C (their agreement usually indicates a superior reading) and 1854, and therefore was preferred by Westcott & Hort and Charles, Revelation, I, cxx. In Rev 2. 8,18, τ rather than τς is attested in A, and in 3.1 by 046.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Charles, , Revelation, I, clvii;Google Scholarthe same view is held by Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St. John, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1908) 23,Google Scholarand Ernst, Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 3. Aufl. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1970) 21.Google ScholarWilhelm, Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 6. Aufl. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906) 176, however, cites Rev 2. 1 (representing the other adscriptiones) as an exception to this rule.Google ScholarHe is followed by Josef Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apocalypse-Textes (Munchen: Karl Zink, 1955–1956) II, 197 f. Schmid noted that the article before έκκλησίας is more difficult to dispense with than the repetition of the article modifying τ άγγέλῷ, since the author could have written τ άγγέλῷ τς έν Εφέσ έκκληίας, but probably found it easier to eliminate the τς than the τ (Studien, II, 198).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Exler, F. J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1923) 65–7.Google ScholarMore recently, White, John L., The Form and Structure of the Official Petition (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Even though each of the seven proclamations addresses each angel-church directly as an individual entity using second-person singular pronouns and verb forms, the address occasionally shifts to second-person and third-person plural forms. This occurs when a particular group within a church is addressed (e.g., those έζ ύμν about to be jailed in Smyrna, 2. 10); those in Pergamon who hold (κρατοντας) the teaching of Balaam, 2. 14, and those who hold (κρατοντες) the teaching of the Nicolaitans, 2. 15; those in Thyatira who have not accepted the teaching of Jezebel (many second- and third-person plural forms, 2. 20–22; those who do not hold the teaching of Jezebel are directly addressed in 2. 24 with an explicit shift of address: ύμῑν δέ λέγω. In several instances the author seems to forget his angelic addressee and refers to the entire community using second-person plural forms, i.e., in 2. 10 (ίνα πειρασθτε καί ἔζετε); 2. 13 (πα ύμὑν); cf. 2. 20 (τούς έμούς δούλους).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Exod 17. 14 [LXX καταγράψον]; 34. 27; Isa 8. 1; 30. 8 [verbally similar to Rev 1. 11; cf. also Josh 24. 26] Jer 30. 2 [LXX 37. 2]; 36. 2, 28 [LXX 43. 2, 28]; Hab 2. 2; Tob 12. 20; 4 Ezra 14. 5 f., 22–18.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Plato, , Phaedo 4. 60e–61b;Google ScholarCallimachus, , Aetia 1.1.21–22; Propertius 3.3;Google ScholarCicero, , Academica priora 2.16.51 (quoting Ennius, Annales 5); Pausanias 1.21.2 (Dionysius appeared in a dream to Aeschylus while he was gathering grapes and urged him to write tragedy); Pliny, Ep., 3.5.4 (Nero Claudius Drusus, who had died in 9 B.C., appeared to Pliny the Elder in a dream urging him to write the history of Germany); Aelius Aristides, Or. 48.2; Dio Cassius 73.23.2 (where the author claims that καί μοι καθεύδοντι προσέταζε τόδαιμόνιονίστορίαν γράφειν, ‘and while I was sleeping the god commanded me to write history’); in 79.10.1–2, Dio claims that the deceased Severus appeared to him and ordered him to write about the life of Caracalla; POxy. 1381, col. 8, lines 160–70.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Stearns, J. B., Studies of the Dream as a Technical Device in Latin Epic and Drama (Lancaster: Lancaster Press, 1927) 1–7.Google Scholar

²⁰ Russell, D. A. and Wilson, N. G. (eds.), Menander Rhetor: Edited with Translation and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 207–9.Google Scholar

²¹ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 7.72.9; Heraclitus frag. 112 (ed. Kahn, ): διόκαί Ήράκλειτος οűτως εἴρηκεν in Rom 10. 6 Paul introduces a quotation from Deut 9. 4 with οűτως λέγει.Google Scholar

²² Detlev, Fehling, ‘Zur Funktion und Formgeschichte des Proömiums in der älteren griechischen Prosa’, ΔΩΡΗΜΑ: Dauer und Überleben des antiken Geistes (Athens: Griechische Humanistische Gesellschaft, 1975) 61–75; this reference was brought to my attention by Prof. David Hellholm.Google Scholar

²³ Adler, A., ed., Suidae, Lexicon (Leipzig; Teubner, 1928–1938) II, s.v. Δωδώνη.Google Scholar

²⁴ Plato, , Alcibiades 2.149b.Google Scholar

²⁵ Palatine Anthology, Garland of Philip 36.2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Gunnar, Rudberg, ‘Zu den Sendschreiben der Johannes-Apokalypse’, Eranos: Acta Philologica Suecana 11 (1911) 175–6.Google Scholar

²⁷ ‘Untersuchung zur Geschichte des griechischen Briefes I’, Philologus 64 (1905) 53.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hout, M. van den, ‘Studies in Early Greek Letter-Writing’, Mnemosyne 4 (1949) 25 ff.;Google ScholarKoskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinnki: Akateeminen Kirjakauppa, 1956) 156.Google ScholarVan den Hout's view is rejected by Detlev Fehling, ‘Zur Funktion und Formgeschichte des Proöium’ 63, n. 5 though he admits that he had no access to the article.Google Scholar

²⁹ Kent, Roland G., Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, 2nd ed. (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1953) 116–34. θah- is a verb meaning ‘declare, say’, while the suffix -ti indicates the third-person singular in the present tense system.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ps.-Hippocrates, Ep. 8; Rudolph, Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci (Paris: Editore Ambrosio Finnin Didot, 1873) 290.Google Scholar

³¹ Hercher, , Epistolographi Graeci, 100.Google Scholar

³² For Rev 2.1, cf. 1.16; 2. 8, cf. 1.17 f.; 2.12, cf. 1.16; 2.18, cf. 1.14; 3.1, cf. 1. 4,16; 3. 7, cf. 1.18; 3.14, cf. 1. 5.Google Scholar

³³ Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988) I, §57.1.Google Scholar

³⁴ Louw, and Nida, , Greek-English Lexicon, I, §18.6.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ferdinand, Hahn, ‘Die Sendschreiben der Johannesapokalypse: Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung prophetischer Redeformer’, Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt, ed. Jeremias, G., Kuhn, H.-W. and Stegemann, H. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971, 370–7, proposes that the ‘οδα-Abschnitt’ consists of six major elements collectively rooted in early Christian prophecy: (1) Recognition and/or censure of the present situation of each community. (2) Criticism often but not always begins with the expression άλλά ἔχω κατά. (3) Demand for repentance, characteristically expressed μνημόνευε ον. (4) The revelatory word, often introduced with ίδού functioning as a proclamation of judgment or a promise of salvation. (5) A motif with three variations, characteristically expressed with the phrase ⋯ρχομαι ταχύ, also functioning as a promise of salvation or an announcement of judgment. (6) An admonition mentioning what each community ‘has’ and should guard against.Google Scholar

³⁶ οδα: Dionysius Antiochenus, Ep. 39 (Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci, 266); Isocrates, Ep. 1.2, 2. 1 (Hercher, 319 f.), 9. 1 (Hercher, 333); Ps. -Phalaris Ep. 8 (Hercher, 410); Ps.-Socrates, Ep. 17.1 (Hercher, 622);άκούω: Diogenes, Ep. 15,17, 20 (Hercher, 239 f.);Dionysius Antiochenus, Ep. 65 (Hercher, 271); Isocrates, Ep. 5.2 (Hercher, 327); Ps.-Phalaris, Ep. 45 (Hercher, 419), 92 (Hercher, 435); Ps.-Pythagoras, Ep. 4.1, 5.1 (Hercher, 603 f); Ps.-Socrates, Ep. 12 (Hercher, 618);Google Scholarπυνθάνομαι: Ps.-Heraclitus, Ep. 7 (Hercher, 283; Abraham, J. Malherbe, ed., The Cynic Epistles [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977] 200);Google ScholarPs.-Phalaris, Ep. 56 (Hercher, 422), 109 (Hercher, 440); Ps.-Thales, Ep. 1 (Hercher, 740); ούκ ήγνόουν: Ps.-Phalaris, Ep. 84 (Hercher, 432).Google Scholar

³⁷ Louw, and Nida, , Greek-English Lexicon 1, §27.1–26; 28.1–16.Google Scholar

³⁸ Rev has 302 instances of a possessive pronoun in the genitive following an articular noun, as opposed to just 11 occurrences of a personal pronoun in the genitive preceding an articular noun. Seven of the eleven instances of the latter pattern occur in Rev 2–3: σου τάἔργα (2. 19; 3. 1, 2, 8,15); σου τήν θλίψιν (2. 9); μον τόν λόγον (3. 8). Outside of Rev 2–3 the pattern occurs four times (10. 9; 14. 18; 18. 5,14). In the LXX, the possessive pronoun in the genitive following an articular noun occurs 149 times in the case of τό ἔργον, but just once with the possessive pronoun in the genitive preceding an articular noun (Wis 6:3: ύμν τάἔργα). The possessive pronoun in the genitive occurs just once between the article and the noun it governs (Exod 36. 4: κατά τό αύτο ἔργον). On this problem see A. Wifstrand, ‘A Problem Concerning the Word Order in the New Testament’, ST 3 (1949) 172–84.Google Scholar

³⁹ The term dispositio, was used by Quintilian for the effective and unified arrangement of the various elements of a speech (Jnstitutio oratorio 3.3.1). Here the term is derived from the terminology for parts of documents in medieval diplomatics;Google Scholarcf. Ake, Fridh, Terminologie et formules dans les Variae de Cassiodore (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksel, 1956) 9 f., since the terms fit the peculiar characteristics of edicts; see below. The terms propositio and probatio typically following the exordium of juridical speeches and the exordium and narratio of deliberative speeches are inappropriate categories to describe the central sections of the seven proclamations.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ βάλλω obviously functions as a future since it is parallel to άποκτεν in 2. 23.Google Scholar

⁴¹ This pattern is repeated in the same proclamation in 2. 17–18: őτι λέγεις őτι… συμβουλεύω.Google Scholar

⁴² See the discussion in Traugott, Holtz, Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962) 206–8.Google Scholar

⁴³ The exalted Christ and the Spirit are not identical however (cf. 14. 13; 22. 17), for the Spirit is active in the earthly community as the representative of the exalted Jesus who will come in the near future;Google Scholarcf. Holtz, , Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes, 208–11.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In early Christian literature other examples of the prophetic signature are found only in 1 Cor 14. 37–38 and Odes Sol 3. 10–11;Google Scholarcf. Aune, D. E., ‘The Odes of Solomon and Early Christian Prophecy’, NTS 28 (1982) 438 f. The appeal to ‘Open your ears’ functions as an introductory proclamation formula in Odes Sol 9. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Variations of the formula occur seven times in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 4. 9, 23; Matt 11. 15; 13. 9, 43; Luke 8. 8; 14. 35), and five additional times as variant readings Mark 7. 16; Matt 25. 29; Luke 8. 15; 12. 21; 13. 9; 21. 4). In noncanonical literature the formula occurs six times in Gos Thorn. 8, 21, 24, 63, 65, 96, once as an introductory formula Gos Thorn. 24), the other instances as conclusions to parables. The formula also occurs once in Acts of Thomas 82, twice in the Gospel of Mary (BG 8502, 7. 9–10; 8.10–11), and four times in Soph. Jes. Chr. (CG III, 97.21–23; 98. 22–23; 105.10–12; BG 8502,107:18–108.1).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Adolf, Deissmann regarded the seven messages in Rev 2–3 as epistles rather than letters; Bible Studies (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901) 54;Google Scholarhe was followed by Ramsay, William M., The Letters to the Seven Churches (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904) 38 f.Google ScholarIn fact, they are neither. Kirby, ‘Rhetorical Situations’, 200, claims that the letters ‘owe some of their formal features to the Hellenistic epistolary tradition’. Yet he does not specify just what these formal features are nor do any of the many secondary sources referred to in an extensive footnote support his contention. The prescripts of Hellenistic letters (even when preserved in inscriptions, where abbreviation sometimes occurs) regularly consist of the sender's name in the nominative, the recipient's name in the dative (indirect object), and the salutation χαίρειν they regularly conclude with a stereotypical expression of greeting.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ A fact recently emphasized by several scholars including Lars Hartman, ‘Form and Message: A Preliminary Discussion of “Partial Texts” in Rev 1–3 and 22,6 ff.’, L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. Lambrecht, J. (Leuven: The University Press, 1980) 142,Google Scholarand Martin, Karrer, Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) 159 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Aune, , Prophecy in Early Christianity, 72–3; references to prophetic letters in the ancient Near East, other than those discussed below, are found in M. Dijkstra, ‘Prophecy by Letter (Jeremiah XXIX 24–32)’, VT 33 (1983) 319–22.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Huffmon, H. B., ‘Prophecy in the Mari Letters’, BA 31 (1968) 101–24;Google ScholarEllermeier, F., Prophets in Mari und Israel (Herzberg: Erwin Jungfer, 1968);Google ScholarNoort, E., Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Mari (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977).Google ScholarFor a bibliography and a selection of translations, see Beyerlin, W., Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 122–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Skeat, T. C. and Turner, E. G., ‘An Oracle of Hermes Trismegistos at Saqqara’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 54 (1968) 199–208.Google ScholarThe five texts were published the next year in Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten 10 (1969) 159–60, no. 10574; texts B and E only are translated in this paper.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Klaus, Berger, ‘Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: Zum Formular fruhchristlicher Briefe’, ZNW 65 (1974) 212–19.Google Scholar

⁵² Jer 29. 4–23 [LXX 36. 4–23], 24–28 [LXX 36. 24–28], 30–32 [LXX 36: 30–32] (Dijkstra argues that Jer 29. 24–32 is a single letter); 2 Apoc. Bar. 77.17–19; 78–87; Ep Jer; Par Jer 6. 15–7. 4; 7. 24–35.Google Scholar

⁵³ Dennis, Pardee, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 175–8, 181.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Woude, A. S. van der, ‘The Book of Nahum: A Letter Written in Exile’, OTS 20 (1977) 108–26.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Milik, J. T., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 47–57,Google Scholarthough see Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 283 for appropriate qualifications.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Berger, , ‘Apostelbrief’, 214. More recently, Berger has little to say about the literary form of the seven proclamations;Google Scholarcf. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984) 302 f.;Google Scholar‘Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Vol. 25/2 (New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984), 1361 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Karrer, , Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief, 49–59.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Karrer, , Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief, 66.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Müller, , Prophetie und Predigt, 47–104.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Aune, , Prophecy in Early Christianity, 326.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Aune, , Prophecy in Early Christianity, 274–88.Google Scholar

⁶² Ethelbert, Stauffer, Christus und die Caesaren: Historische Skizzen, 5. Aufl. (Hamburg: Friedrich Wittig, 1960) 198;Google ScholarLähnemann, , ‘Die Sieben Sendschreiben’, 526;Google ScholarHanns, Lilje, Das letzte Buck der Bibel: Eine Einführung in die Offenbarung Johannes, 7. Aufl. (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1961) 82;Google ScholarKirby, , ‘Rhetorical Situations’, 200;Google ScholarJudge, E. A. in Horsley, G.H. R., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (North Ryde: Macquarie University, 1981) 40.Google ScholarJohannes, Lindblom proposed that the Orakelformel ‘thus says the Lord’ could be traced back to both the Proklamationsformel of ancient Near Eastern edicts and to the introduction to the message brought by a messenger (Die Literarische Gattung der prophetischen Literatur [Uppsala: Lundequist, 1924] 103 f.).Google Scholar

⁶³ Gunnar, Rudberg, ‘Zu den Sendschreiben der Johannes-Apokalypse’, Eranos 11 (1911) 170–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Rudberg, , ‘Sendschreiben’, 172 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Rudberg, , ‘Sendschreiben’, 173–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Rudberg, , ‘Sendschreiben’, 179.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Wilhelm, Larfield, Griechische Epigraphik, 3. Aufl., Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 1.5 (Miinchen: C. H. Beck, 1914) 427–32.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Kipp, T., ‘Edictum’, RE 5, cols. 1940–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Adolph, Berger, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953), s.v. Constitutiones principum.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Wolfgang, Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 127 f.Google ScholarFor examples of published decrees see Victor, Ehrenberg and Jones, A. H. M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), nos. 302, 311 (a series of five edicts of Augustus), 314 (Josephus, Ant. 16.162–65), 320;Google ScholarSmallwood, E. Mary, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge: The University Press, 1967) no. 368, 375 (edicts of Claudius), 377 (with the distinctive superscriptio Διάταγμα Καίσαρος), 380 (edict of the proconsul of Asia with έκήρυζεν as the verb of declaration), 381, 382, 383, 391 (edicts of the prefect of Egypt), 392 (edict of the proconsul of Sardinia);Google ScholarSmallwood, E. Mary, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966) 459, 461 (edicts of the prefect of Egypt), 462 (edict of Hadrian).Google ScholarAll of these documents are translated in Johnson, A. C., Coleman-Norton, P. R. and Bourne, F. C., Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary and Index (Austin: University of Texas, 1961).Google Scholar

⁷¹ For a collection and discussion of epistulae, see Sherk, Robert K., Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969) 186–364; a discussion of the form of epistulae is found on 189–97.Google Scholar

⁷² Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny: A Social and Historical Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 651.Google Scholar

⁷³ Terminologie et formules dans les Variae de Cassiodore (Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1956).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style of Edicts of the Early Empire (Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1975;Google Scholarfor a critique see Michael, Winterbottom, Gnomon 49 (1977) 419–20.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ep. ad Verum Imp. 2.1;Google ScholarHaines, C. P., Marcus Cornelius Fronto, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1929) II, 138 f.Google ScholarFor a summary of the rhetorical tasks of the emperor see Fronto, Ep. ad M. Antionium, De eloquentia 1.5 (Haines, II, 59): ‘For it falls to Caesar to carry by persuasion necessary measures in the Senate, to address the people in a harangue on many important matters, to correct the inequities of the law, to despatch rescripts [litteras] throughout the world, to take foreign kings to task, to repress by edicts [edictis] disorders among the allies, to praise their services, to crush the rebellious and to cow the proud.’ Both passages are mentioned in Benner, The Emperor Speaks, 10.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Benner, , The Emperor Speaks, 22 (though she recognizes the problems inherent in attempting to categorize the edicts).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Cf. Mason, Hugh J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis Toronto: Hakkert, 1974) 127;Google ScholarFergus, Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1977) 221 f.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ For an analysis of thirty-seven decrees using this schema, cf. Benner, , The Emperor Speaks, 33–175.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Benner, , The Emperor Speaks, 26.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Kern, O., Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin: W. Spemann, 1900), no. 115;Google Scholarreprinted with brief but informative notes in Dittenberger, W., Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3. Aufl. (Hildesheim: Georg olms, 1960 [*1915–24]) I, no. 22,Google Scholarand conveniently reprinted with bibliography and notes in Russell, Meiggs and David, Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), no. 12.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Smallwood, , Documents of Nerva, no. 462;Google Scholaranalyzed in Benner, , The Emperor Speaks, 161 f.Google Scholar

⁸² In a fictional letter from Amasis to Polycrates preserved in Herodotus 3.40, we find a narratio introduced with the infinitive πυνθάνεσθαι and containing a positive and negative element very similar to the narrationes of the seven proclamations: ‘Amasis to Polycrates says the following [ὠδε λέγει]: It is pleasant to learn [πυνθάνεσθαι] of the well-being of a friend and ally, but [δέ] I do not like these great successes of yours.’ Similarly in Herodotus 3.122, the verb πυνθάνεσθαι again introduces the narratio: ‘Oroetes to Polycrates says thus: “I have learned [πυνθάνομαι] that you are planning ambitious enterprises.”’ Again, at the beginning of the narratio of a late edict of Statian (A.D. 367–70) reads ‘I speak not from hearsay alone… for I have learned… (Johnson, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 316).Google Scholar