It is my opinion that many of the critical discussions of Revelation as apocalyptic literature do not give adequate recognition to the differences between Revelation and other so-called apocalyptic works. So I was delighted to see the following two paragraphs from C. Marvin Pate.

"In addition to being apocalyptic and prophetic in nature, Revelation is encased by an epistolary framework (1:4-8 and 22:10-21). This convention alone sets it apart from apocalyptic materials. The prescript (1:4-8) contains the typical epistolary components—sender, addressees, greetings, and the added feature of a doxology. The postscript (22:10-21), in good ancient letter form, summarizes the body of the writing, as well as legitimates John as its divinely inspired composer. The combined effect of the prescript and the postscript, not to mention the letters to the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia (chaps. 2-3), is to root Revelation in the real history of its day. How different from other ancient noncanonical apocalypses. Consider, for example, the opening statement in 1 Enoch, that what the author saw was "not for this generation but the distant one that is coming" (1 Enoch 1:2)."
C. Marvin Pate, The Writings of John: A Survey of the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 337-38.
No comments:
Post a Comment