various uses of these phrases.8 Beale9 also remarks on the interpretation of some of the uses of seeing/hearing, that what John sees is interpreted by what he hears in some passages and vice versa for other passages, but again, his analysis is not comprehensive.
The point here is that although many scholars note the special significance of the use of the seeing/hearing motifs, no one so far has systematically analyzed the variations of the uses and the significance of these for understanding the Apocalypse. We suggest that more attention should be paid to the distinctions in the patterns as they appear throughout the text. A close consideration of the use of this motif throughout the Apocalypse indicates that the author is intentionally using more than one pattern; in fact, there are multiple patterns. The question is: do these variations indicate multiple meanings? Are they merely different ways of saying the same thing? Is there one predominant meaning? Our study will consider these various patterns, and suggest some interpretive possibilities for an understanding of the Apocalypse.
In this study, we have found that there are at least two major discernible patterns (with several variations) that shed light in different ways. We have identified 44 analogues in which seeing/hearing appear. In all but eight of these, the vision is first, followed by the audition. What is “heard” clearly adds to or enhances what is “seen” without the meaning of either being changed. In contrast, there are only eight instances of the hearing preceding the vision. In each of these cases, what is seen more than adds to what is heard; what is heard is reinterpreted by what is seen. The classic example of this is the lion/Lamb imagery in Rev 5, where John hears the lion introduced and then turns to see the sacrificed Lamb. Here, in a passage that we initially explored relative to such audio/visual details,10 what is seen enhances what is heard in order that the readers’ understanding is broadened to include a new perspective.
Methodology
The purpose and intention of the present study is first to enumerate and to systematically analyze the uses of “seeing/hearing” through the entire text of the Apocalypse of John (see Table I) and to construct a table of the data (see Table II), which captures relevant details and should be useful for interpretation. In order to do this, we have used the following methodology:
1. All of the phrases “hearing” and “seeing” are identified in the text. In some cases (so identified), the “hearing” or “seeing” is implicit. Although the activity is clearly indicated, the actual grammatical terms are not used. For example, in Rev 9:1 it is stated that “the fifth angel sounded his trumpet . . . .” This clearly implies that John hears the sound.
2. Since the relation of the seeing/hearing is of interest here, the phrases in Table II are grouped into analogues to highlight their relation:
a. The Primary Analogue. This is the first and more basic reference to that which is seen or heard.
b. The Adjunctive Analogue. This is the second and fuller reference to that which is seen or heard, and thus serves as a modifier
3. Clearly, from our study, two main patterns dominate: see/hear (36 analogues), and hear/see (8 analogues). There are several additional subpatterns which are clearly variations of these. In the variations of Pattern 1, there is no particular interpretive significance to the variations. However, the variations in Pattern 2 heighten the effect of the prophetic component. We have identified these patterns and their variations in Table II below as follows:
Pattern 1: see/hear (13 times)
Variation 1a: see/hear/see (8 times)
Variation 1b: see/hear/see/hear (2)
Variation 1c: see/hear/see/comment (1)
Variation 1d: see/hear/hear (2)
Variation 1e: see/hear/comment (3)
Variation 1f: see/hear/see/hear/comment (1)
Variation 1g: see/see/hear (2)
Variation 1h: see/see/hear/see (1)
Variation 1i: see/see/hear/hear (1)
Variation 1j: see/see/comment (2)
Total Pattern 1 with Variations = 36 times
Pattern 2: hear/see (3 times)
Variation 2a: hear/see/hear (3 times)
Variation 2b: hear/see/hear/comment (1)
Variation 2c: hear/hear/see/hear/comment (1)
Total Pattern 2 with Variations = 8 times
Total Audio/Visual Patterns = 44 times
4. We have considered the eight hearing/seeing texts in light of rhetorical analysis, in particular Edith Humphrey’s study of argumentation embedded in vision-reports.11
Rhetorical Analysis
Recently, scholars such as Carey and Bloomquist etal,12 deSilva,13 and Humphrey14 have shown that the application of rhetorical analysis on apocalyptic texts presents a challenge that proves especially enlightening. In regard to these texts, rhetorical analysis is not a “paint-by-number” procedure, but a “perspective” marked by the assumption that “through textual strategies one may discern persuasive designs.”15
According to deSilva,16 there are two levels of argumentation in the Apocalypse of John: (1) on the basic level, in the use of implicit or explicit enthymemes;17 and, (2) more deeply, through the author’s reference to traditions and precedents known to the audience.
Humphrey agrees that these genres differ from other texts. Although classical rhetorical forms have been somewhat useful for understanding the Apocalypse, it is “characterized by cultural syncretism”; she says that rhetorical analysis of apocalyptic texts should be accompanied by “appreciation of aesthetic, dramatic, and structural devices.”18 By means of literary-rhetorical analysis, Humphrey focuses on a unique form of apocalyptic texts — the vision. These have seldom been examined for their palpable rhetorical power. According to her, in the first-century world, the genre of the vision-report was popular. Sometimes it was used as “demonstatio” and on other occasions it functioned within the argument as an authoritative “trump card.”19
DeSilva also sees the value of argumentation within the visions, but notes that its texture is not as dense as in other kinds of texts in Revelation, since the visions tend to be descriptive of scenes, rather than the recording of speech.20 The task of the rhetorical analyst, then, according to deSilva, is not to analyze the argument as valid or invalid, but is rather to “uncover the argumentation as fully as possible.”21
