[1] Russell, D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 161.Google Scholar

[2] Baur, F. C., Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie (Leipzig, 1864) 207Google Scholar; cited in Maier, G.Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981) 482.Google Scholar

[3] Bousset, W., Die Offenbarung Johannis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906) 192: ‘έν πνεύματι ist gleich έν έκστάσει’CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[4] Charles, R. H., The Revelation of St. John the Divine, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 1, 22.Google Scholar Charles sees this ecstatic condition heightened in 4. 2, while 17. 3 and 21. 10 refer to ‘an actual translation of the spirit of the seer’; I, 110–11. Charles rejected Weizsacker's suggestion at the time that John's visions were ‘artificial products’ rather than the results of spiritual experience (Studies in the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913) 77).Google Scholar Yet previous to this Charles had written the remarks quoted above, p. 452.

[5] Zahn, T., Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 1 vols. (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1924 + 1926) 1, 40 ff.Google Scholar

[6] Lohmeyer, E., Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT, ed. Bornkamm, G. (1953) (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1970) 15, 141.Google Scholar

[7] Caird, G. B., The Revelation of St. John the Divine, Black/Harper (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1966)Google Scholar; Lohse, E., Die Offenbarung des Johannes, NTD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971)Google Scholar; Mounce, R. H., The Book of Revelation, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 308Google Scholar; cf. also 75, 378. Reservedly Lohse defines John's ecstasy as a condition in which the seer does not lose consciousness, and in which John ‘in besonderer Weise die Verbundenheit mit der zum Gottesdienst versammelten Gemeinde erfuhr’. Lohse's connection of John's experience with Romans 8. 9 effectively qualifies the seer's condition further.

[8] Kraft, H., Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT 16a (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1974) 24, 95, 213Google Scholar. Ford, J. M., Revelation, Anchor (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975) 70, 382, 384.Google Scholar

[9] A paper in the 1983 S.N.T.S. Seminar on ‘Symbols, Metaphors, and Models in the New Testament’ was given by E. Güttgemanns entitled ‘Die Semiotik des Traums in apokalyptischen Texten am Beispiel von Apokalypse Johannis 1.’

[10] Brütsch, C., Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi, 3 vols., ZB (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1970) 1, 74.Google Scholar

[11] Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, Invitation to the Book of Revelation, Doubleday (Garden City: Image Books, 1977).Google Scholar See, however, ‘Apocalypsis and Propheteia: The Book of Revelation in the Context of Early Christian Prophecy’, in Lambrecht, J., ed., L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (Leuven: U. Press, 1980) 105–28.Google Scholar

[12] Hill, D., New Testament Prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 73Google Scholar. Hill argues correctly that there is no qualitative difference between έγενόμην and άπηνέγκεν. Müller, U. sees no reason to dispute the authenticity of John's ecstatic experience, Prophetic undPredigt im NT (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975) 49.Google Scholar

[13] Bauckham, R. J., ‘The Role of the Spirit in the Apocalypse’, EvQuarRev 52 (1980) 66–83.Google Scholar

[14] Satake, A., Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannesapokalypse (Neukirchen, 1966) 81.Google Scholar

[15] Solutions suggested: the author simply forgot about 1. 10 (Bousset);4. 2 represents a higher degree of spiritual exaltation (De Wette, B.Weiss, Swete, Lohmeyer), a fresh wave of ecstasy (Moffatt, Farrer, cf. Bousset), a new supernatural experience (Ford), a new beginning (Beasley-Murray), simply a continuation (Mounce), a connecting link (Charles), and finally a false reading (έγενόμην in 4. 2 should be άπηνέγκεν as in 17. 3 and 21. 10 - so Torrey, cf. also Charles).

[16] Plato's recognition of such claims (‘No man, when in his wits, attains prophetic truth and inspiration’) is at the same time the basis for his suspicion of prophets' own interpretation of their prophecies; such interpretation is best left up to the philosopher! Timaeus 71–72, Theaetetus 150, cf. Apology 21–23.

Actually it is not until the 1 st century B.C.E. that πνεῦμα becomes a technical term for the force which enables the Pythia's ecstatic rapture. For literature see Kleinknecht, H., TDNT VI, 345–6.Google Scholar

[17] Charles, , Revelation, 2, 392–3Google Scholar. A good example of arbitrary selection of OT passages to indicate ecstatic prophetic activity is in Baumgärtel, F., TDNT 6, 362–3.Google Scholar

[18] For texts see Charles, , 1, civ-vGoogle Scholar. Cf. the examples of oracle-texts and ‘revelation literature’ of the Hellenistic period in Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1, 210 ff.Google Scholar

[19] Wolff, H. W., Dodekapropheten 4: Micha, BKAT (Neukirchen, 1982) 61.Google Scholar

[20] Hillers, D., Micah, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 45.Google Scholar

[21] Kraft, R. A., The Apostolic Fathers, 6 vols. (N.Y.: Nelson, 1965) 3, 171Google Scholar, following Lake, K., Apostolic Fathers (Loeb) 1, 327, suggests that the author has Hosea 1–3 in mind. The use of έν πνεύματι provides better candidacy to Micah 3. 1 ff.Google Scholar

[22] The present writer would therefore disagree with Bauckham's assessment, art. cit., 66, that έν πνεύματι in Did. 11. 7–9 is a ‘theologically neutral term for ecstatic speech’.

[23] Aune, D., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 209.Google Scholar

[24] Bousset, , 192Google Scholar; Charles, , 22Google Scholar; Zahn, , 42Google Scholar; Lohse, , 19Google Scholar; Mounce, , 75.Google Scholar

[25] The recounting of Peter's vision in Acts 11. 5 ff. is Peter's apologia in response to criticism from within the Jerusalem church.

[26] Art. cit., 68. This is in particular reference to 4. 2, to offer an explanation for the repetition of έγενόμην έν πνεύματι after its use in 1. 10: 1. 10 indicates John is in a trance and 4. 2 indicates John's rapture to heaven (68–9). So also Bruce, F. F., ‘The Spirit in the Apocalypse’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, FS Moule, C. F. D., ed. Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S. (Cambridge: U. Press, 1973) 339–40.Google Scholar

[27] Such texts most commonly cited are: Ezek. 3. 12, 14; 8. 3; 11. 1, 24; 37. 1;43. 5;1 Enoch 14. 8; 39. 3 f.; 71. 1, 5; 2 Enoch 3. 1;36. 1, 2; Test Abr 7B; 8B;9; 10; Apoc Abr 12; 15; 16; 30; 2 Baruch 6. 4; 3 Bar 1. 3, 4; Vita Adae 25. 3. Cf. Russell, , op. cit. 167, n. 1Google Scholar. Cf. also Collins, J. J., ‘The Jewish Apocalypses’, Semeia 14 (1979) 21–59.Google Scholar

[28] This point has been made by Aune, D., ‘The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John’, BR 26 (1981) 18.Google Scholar

[29] Charles, , 1, cix.Google Scholar

[30] Collins, A. Y., ‘Dating the Apocalypse of John’, BR 26 (1981) 42.Google Scholar

[31] Collins, A. Y., Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 99–104.Google Scholar

[32] Cullmann, O., Early Christian Worship, SET 10 (London: SCM, 1953).Google ScholarCf. also Gager, J., Kingdom and Community (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975) 56Google Scholar; Barr, D. L., ‘The Apocalypse as Symbolic Transformation of the World’, Interpretation 38 (1984) esp. 46–7.Google Scholar

[33] van Gennup, A., The Rites of Passage (Chicago: U. Press, 1960) 20–1Google Scholar; Turner, V., The Ritual Process (Chicago: Aldine, 1969) 106 ff.Google Scholar

[34] Gager, , op. cit. 33.Google Scholar

[35] Turner, , op. cit. 106Google Scholar; Gager, ibid.

[36] Turner, ibid.

[37] ‘The Center Out There: Pilgrim's Goal’, History of Religions 12 (1973) 216.Google Scholar

[38] Ritual Process 129.Google Scholar

[39] ‘Center Out There’, 216.Google Scholar

[40] Koester, H., Introduction to the NT, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 248.Google Scholar

[41] Hill, D., op. cit. 81Google Scholar argues that the witness of Jesus is indistinguishable from the contents of the book. This would seem to take the subjective genitive a bit too far; but I am not sure that John would insist that other prophets bear the witness of Jesus exactly as he has.

[42] This commission is not necessarily to be considered John's inaugural call to be a prophet; I. 9 ff. is simply his call to preach from his present distance to the churches from whose midst he has been exiled.

[43] Cf. Gal 3. 28. J. Gager, ibid. 34.

[44] Bernstein, B., ‘Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their Social Origins and Some Consequences’, in Communication and Culture: Readings in the Codes of Human Interaction, ed. Smith, A. G. (N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966) 427–41.Google Scholar

[45] See Satake, , op. cit. 81Google Scholar; Bauckham, , art. cit. 75.Google Scholar

[46] Bauckham is correct in seeing the identification of the churches with the two witnesses in 11. 3–13, ibid. 80–1.

[47] Various mss., including Sinaiticus substitute βαθη for βαθεα, and 2329 supplements this with adding after it του θεον αλλα.

[48] The phrase in 1 Cor 2. 10 is probably part of a Vorlage, which Paul by means of intrusive comment is attempting to adjust. Cf. Lührmann, D., Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei Paulus und in den paulinischen Gemeinden (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen, 1965) 113–17.Google Scholar

[49] In spite of Aune's objection, I see no reason to question the worship setting of 1. 10. The liturgical details in chapter one seem to merit this opinion. See Aune, , Prophecy, 197.Google Scholar

[50] Cf. Fiorenza, Schüssler, ‘Apokalypsis’, 108–9.Google Scholar