CRITERIA AND THE ASSESSMENT O F ALLUSIONS

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

 by Jon
Jon Paulien
Andrews University

For a multi-author
multi-author book on Revelation edited by Steve Moyise
Moyise

The Nature of the Problem

When reading the Book of Revelation one is plunged fully into the atmosphere of the Old

Testament.1 No book of the New

New Testament
Testament is as saturated with
with the Old Apocalypse.2
Old as is the Apocalypse.

But while it is not difficult to recognize the central place of the Old Testament in the Book of 

Revelation, it is difficult to determine exactly how it is being used there.

One major difficulty for analysis of the use of the OT in Revelation has to do with the

language and
and text traditi
t radition
on of the OT used by the author. It is generally
generally recognized that the

author of Revelation was a native of Palestine, though living in the vicinity of Asia Minor at the

time Revelation was written.3 Archaeological

time Revelation Archaeological evidence
evidence indicates
indicates that first-century Palestin
Palestinee was

trilingual..4 It is by no means certain,

trilingual certain, therefore, whether John grew up speaking
speaking Hebrew, Aramaic,
Aramaic,

1
To borrow language from Henri Stierlin, La
Stierlin, La vérité sur L’Apocalypse (Paris:
L’Apocalypse (Paris: Editions
Buchet/Chastel,
Buchet/Chastel, 1972), 55.
2
Pierre Lestringant [ Essai sur l’unité de la révélation biblique (Paris:
biblique (Paris: Editions “Je Sers,”
1942), 148]
148 ] suggests that one-seventh of the substance of the Apocalypse
Apocalypse is drawn from the
words of the OT.
3
Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (P
Apocalypse (Phil
hiladelphia:
adelphia:
Westmins
Westminster
ter Press,
P ress, 1984), 47-49.
4
Robert H. Gundry, “The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine,” Journal
Palestine,” Journal of Biblical 
 Literature 83 (1964):404-408.
 Literature 83

1
or Greek.
Greek . The current consensus
co nsensus seems to be that the primary language
language of
o f Jesus and his
his followers
followers

Aramaic.5 So while
was Aramaic. while Revelation
Revelation was almost
almost certainly written in Greek, its language
language was

 profoundly infl
influenced
uenced by the Hebrew and
and Aramaic
Aramaic thought-patt erns of Jesus and
and his earliest
earliest

disciples and of its OT sources, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.6

Scholars of Revelation have also been in dispute with regard to the language and text

tradition
trad ition of the OT that John utilized. Since the work of Charles, many
many have
have felt
felt that the author 
aut hor 

of the Apocalypse
Apocalypse drew directly
directly from
from the Hebrew text of the OT for
for his allusions.7 Torrey and
allusions.

Trudinger argue for Aramaic antecedent.8 Other scholars,

for an Aramaic scholars, following
following the lead
lead of H. B. Swete,

5
Raymond
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, John, 2 vols., Anchor Bible, vols. 29 and
29a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 1:cxxix; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A
Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean:
Essays, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 25 (Missoula,
Collected Aramaic Essays,
MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 6-8, 38-43; cf. also the early study by Arnold Meyer, Jesu
Meyer, Jesu
 Muttersprache (Freiburg i. B./Leipzig:
 Muttersprache (Freiburg B./Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1896).
6
David Tabachovitz, Die
Tabachovitz, Die Septuaginta und das Neue Testament , Skrifter Utgivna av
Svenska Institutet
Institutet I Athen, series 8 vol. 4 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956), 125-126; Brown,
1:cxxix.
7
R. H. Charles,
Charles, The Revelation of St. John,
John, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920), 1:lxvi; Charles Brütsch, Die
Brütsch, Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi,
Christi, 3 vols.,
Zürcher Bibelkommentare (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970), 3:131; Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza,
The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment  (Philadelphia:
 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 16; Rudolf 
Halver, Der
Halver, Der Mythos im Letzten Buch der Bibel , Theologis
T heologische
che Forschung, 32 (Hamburg-
(Hamburg-
Bergstedt: Herbert Reich Evangelischer Verlag, 1964), 11; Ugo Vanni, “L’Apocalypse
 johannique.
 johannique. Etat de la question,” in L’Apocalypse
in L’Apocalypse johannique et L’Apocalyptique
L’A pocalyptique dans le
 Nouveau Testament , Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Thèologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 53, edited by
J. Lambrecht (Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1980), 31; John T. Willis, “The Old
Testament and the boo
bookk of Revelation,” in Johannine
in Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack ,
edited by James E. Priest (Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press, 1989), 231-232.
8
Charles
Charles C. Torrey, The Apocalypse of John (New
John (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958),
27-48; [Leonhard] P. Trudinger, “Some Observations
Observations Concerning the Text o f the Old Testament
in the Book of Revelation,”
Revelation,” Journal Studies, n. s.
 Journal of Theological Studies, s. 17 (1966):82-88. While
While
Mussies favors the Hebrew over the Aramaic, he expresses doubt that the differences between
Hebrew and Aramaic are visible
visible in
in Greek translation. See G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine

2
seem equally certain that John worked directly from the LXX in his use of the OT.9 Still others,

not surprisingly, argue for a multiplex background,10 or hypothesize that John worked from a

Greek version with which we are not familiar.11 The specialized studies of Trudinger and

Vanhoye, while pointing in the general direction of a Semitic text background to Revelation, are

Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of John, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 27 (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1971), 10-11. Melton and Sweet, while favoring a Hebrew origin for the OT
 background of Revelation, believe that the author was aware o f Greek and Aramaic versions as
well: Loyd Dale Melton, “A Critical Analysis of the Understanding of the Imagery of City in the
 book of Revelation” (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978), 73; J. P.
M. Sweet, Revelation, Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1979), 40. Yarbro Collins (Crisis and Catharsis, 47), on the other hand, notes that Semitisms
typical of the LXX are avoided by the author of Revelation.
9
Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: MacMillian and Company, 1906),
cl, clv; Everett F. Harrison, “The Importance of the Septuagint for Biblical Studies,” in Truth for 
Today, edited by John F. Walvoord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 151; R. H. Pfeiffer, “Canon
of the OT,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1962), 1:511; Pierre Prigent, Apocalypse et liturgie, Cahiers Théologiques, 52
(Neuchâtel: Editions Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964), 10.
10
James A. Montgomery, “The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse,” Journal of 
 Biblical Literature 45 (1926)73-74; Louis Arthur Vos, The Synoptic Traditions in the
 Apocalypse (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1965), 22; D. Moody Smith, Jr., “The Use of the Old Testament
in the New, in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, edited by James M.
Efird (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), 61; Steve Moyise, “The Language of the Old
Testament in the Apocalypse,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 76 (December,
1999):112-113.
11
Adela Yarbro Collins (Crisis and Catharsis, 48-49) takes up Cross and Barthelélemy’s
 proposal that late in the first century there existed a “kaige” recension of the Greek OT, which
occupied the middle ground between the LXX and the Hebrew tradition preserved in the
Masoretic Text. If such a recension did in fact exist it could explain the mixed nature of the
evidence regarding the text tradition from which John was working. For the original discussion
on the possibility of a kaige recension see Frank Moore Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text
in the Light of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” Harvard Theological Review 57
(1964):281-284; Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), 32-143; idem, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de
l’histoire de la Septante,” Revue biblique 60 (1953):18-29.

3
not conclusive enough to allow for certainty in regard to the text tradition from which John drew

the allusions in the Apocalypse.12

The difficulty in working with the OT background of Revelation is compounded by the

fact that there are a number of striking irregularities in the Greek grammar of the Apocalypse.

This may suggest that the author of Revelation was writing in what for him was a second

language.13 The influence of Semitic syntax overpowers, as it were, the rules of Greek grammar 

in the Apocalypse.14 But there is evidence that John can handle the Greek language properly

when he wants to.15 The irregular grammar may, therefore, be intentional rather than the product

of inexperience.16 It has been suggested that John used grammatical irregularities as a pointer to

12
Leonhard P. Trudinger, “The Text o f the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation,”
(Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1963), 84-88, 184-189; A. Vanhoye, “L’utilisation du
livre d’Ezékiel dans l’Apocalypse,” Biblica 43 (1962):436-476.
13
R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913), 79-102;
Heinrich Kraft, “Zur Offenbarung des Johannes,” Theologische Rundschau 38 (1973):93; G.
Mussies, “The Greek of the Book of Revelation,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et 
 L’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament , Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Thèologicarum
Lovaniensium, vol. 53, edited by J. Lambrecht (Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1980), 167-
170; idem, The Morphology, 6; Tabachovitz, 125-126; Torrey, 13-58. Martin McNamara (The
 New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica, vol. 27a, second
 printing with supplement [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978], 109-117, 124-125, 189-190),
for example, points to the Aramaic Targums as the explanation for Rev 1:4 and many other 
irregularities.
14
Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series, 52 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 107-108.
15
Jürgen Roloff, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, NT, 18
(Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1984), 20; Torrey, 14.
16
Kraft, “Zur Offenbarung,” 91; William Milligan, The Book of Revelation, The
Expositor’s Bible (Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham, [1889]), 260; Roloff, 20.

4
the OT background.17

The use of the Old Testament in Revelation would, therefore, be problematic enough if the

author clearly signaled the reader when he was alluding to a particular OT context. But a reader 

acquainted with the OT quickly notices that Revelation never directly quotes the OT, rather it

alludes to it with a word here, a phrase there, or a concept in another place.18 Careful controls

focusing on method and criteria, therefore, are necessary if a list of OT allusions in Revelation is

to be worth anything.19

Although scholars had previously addressed the issue of OT use in Revelation,20 the

earliest attempts to address the issue of criteria for selection appear to be the works of Haugg and

Tenney.21 But these attempts were quite rudimentary. Beginning with Trudinger’s 1963

dissertation, a number of researchers began to turn more seriously to the issue of method and

17
C. G. Ozanne, “The Language of the Apocalypse,”The Tyndale House Bulletin 16
(April, 1965):4, 9; Roloff, 20.
18
While a handful of scholars argue for anywhere from one to eleven “quotations” of the
OT in the book of Revelation, (see, for example, Robert G. Bratcher, ed., Old Testament 
Quotations in the New Testament  (London: United Bible Societies, 1967), 74-76) the
overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that there are none.
19
John M. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation (London: SPCK, 1979), 18;
Merrill C. Tenney, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1963), 112;
Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 48.
20
 Notably Adolf Schlatter, Das Alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse
(Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1912), and critical commentaries such as those by Charles and Swete.
21
Donatus Haugg, Die Zwei Zeugen, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, vol. 17, book 1
(Münster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936), 84-85; Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting 
 Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), 101-116.

5
121.36 That means that even the researcher with the most extensive list of allusions, Eugen Hühn,

mentioned only 50% of the total. Strikingly, UBS 3 has 38 allusions to the OT in the seven

trumpets, its sister edition, Nestle 26, has 71!

Some specific anomalies that emerged were particularly startling. While Massyngberde

Ford listed only a third of the total, 32 of her 82 citations are not mentioned by any of the other 

nine. While Dittmar represents a mere 12% of the total (29 out of 244), six of his 29 citations are

unique to him! Meanwhile, in spite of the 244 allusions listed by all ten, they agree completely on

only one!37 So it seems clear that none of the ten commentators has systematically examined all

the possible allusions to the OT in the seven trumpets.

Since Dittmar lists barely a third as many allusions as Ford does one would assume that he

operates on more stringent criteria than she does. In the first four trumpets of Revelation (Rev

8:7-13) she mentions 38 potential allusions to the OT, nearly half her total, Dittmar, on the other 

hand, has just one citation and lists it as doubtful!38 Yet in the seventh trumpet (Rev 11:15-18)

Ford lists only eight allusions, while Dittmar has sixteen, more than half his total for the trumpets

36
Charles 66
Dittmar 29
Ford 82
  Hühn 121
Kraft 49
Mounce 61
Nestle 71
Prigent 74
UBS 38
Westcott 41
37
All ten list an allusion to Job 3:21 for Rev 9:5-6.
38
To be fair, Dittmar acknowledges that his list is not complete. Dittmar, v.

9
as a whole! For Rev 9:20-21, where the ot her commentators average eight citations, Dittmar has

only three and Ford has none at all!

These irregularities point to the need for a more objective method of determining allusions

to the OT in Revelation.39 While the selected commentators may have used various criteria in

developing their conclusions, they rarely spelled them out and seem to have rarely followed them.

So in my dissertation I sought to refine the criteria for assessing allusions to the OT in Revelation.

I found significant works in the field of English literature that offer helpful observations on the

issue.40 My most significant contribution to the topic, I believe, was the recognition (widely

accepted in English literature) that the literary concept of echo was significant for the study of 

Revelation.41 I believe that a major reason why earlier scholars produced such widely diverging

lists of allusions in Revelation was the failure to recognize the difference between direct or 

intentional allusions on the part of the author and echoes, in which OT language and themes are

utilized, but no intentional reference to any particular text is made. While Beale had hinted at

39
In an email response Steve Moyise argues that the evident subjectivity in scholarly
assessment of allusions is not so much the result of deficient criteria as it is a witness to the role
the reader has in construing meaning. Steve Moyise to Jon Paulien, August 29, 2000. I address
this issue in an upcoming article in Andrews University Seminary Studies.
40
John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After  (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 1981; Claudio Guillén, “The Aesthetics of Literary
Influence,”in Influx: Essays on Literary Influence, edited by Ronald Primeau (Port Washington,
 NY: Kennikat Press, 1977), 59-62; Richard T. Altick, The Art of Literary Research (NY: W. W.
 Norton, 1975; Ronald Primeau, “Introduction,” in Influx: Essays on Literary Influence, edited by
Ronald Primeau (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1977), 1-13; idem, Beyond Spoon River 
(Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981); Carlos Baker, The Echoing Green (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1984).
41
I was particularly indebted to a couple of private conversations with Pauline scholar 
Richard Hays and the book by Hollander, which he called to my attention.

10
such a distinction in his 1984 monograph, the idea is not clearly stated as an operating principle.

Beale has offered helpful critique of my work in a couple of written responses.42 While

considering my categories and criteria for assessing allusions helpful, he pointed out some

weaknesses in my approach which need to be addressed. While my analysis of “echoes” was, in

his opinion, an advancement in the study of allusions up to that point, he felt that my usage of 

echoes in the interpretation of the seven trumpets was confusing at best.43 It appears, in

retrospect, that I was not clear enough in defining the category and in articulating the controls

under which I was using it in exegesis.44 A further valid criticism was my lack of attention to how

OT language and themes was developed in subsequent Jewish exegetical tradition, and how that

tradition may have impacted on John’s usage of the same language and themes.45

42
G. K. Beale, review of Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets in Journal of Biblical 
 Literature 111 (1992):358-361; idem, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Journal for 
the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998), 19-21. Ian Paul has spoken substantively to a number of the issues addressed in this paper:
Ian Paul, “The Use of the Old Testament in Revelation 12,” in The Use of the Old Testament in
the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, JSNTSup 189, edited by Steve Moyise
(Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000): 256-276. While he offers a vigorous critique of 
aspects of my earlier work (259-262), he utilizes the central features of my suggested method in
an effective manner in the essay. Unfortunately, I only became aware of his essay after submitting
this article, so I am unable at this time to address his work in the detail that it deserves.
43
Beale, John’s Use, 19-20.
44
I intend to clarify the definition and usage of “echoes” in a future publication.
45
Ibid., 20. While the subject of criteria for assessing allusions has received little attention
in the last decade of Revelation scholarship, two significant works outside the study of the
Apocalypse contain major contributions to this area (Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the
 Letters of Paul   [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-33] and Louis Painchaud, “Use of 
Scripture in Gnostic Literature,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4:2 [1996]:129-146). Hays
offers seven criteria for testing claims about the presence and meaning of scriptural echoes in
Paul; availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of 
interpretation, and satisfaction. Painchaud offers three criteria for identifying allusions. First, a

11
application of allusions that do not exist. As Beale pointed out in his JBL review,71 my own early

work on the subject suffered from a tendency to see more allusions than there actually were. This

can lead to a distortion of the text and its author’s intention.

5) An excellent starting point for work on the use of the OT in Revelation would be a

weighted listing of the best efforts of prior scholarship in this area.72 Proposed allusions could be

listed as certain, probable, or possible based on the extent of usage in earlier scholarly literature.

While such as listing will not prove to be correct in every instance, it will have pruned away a

 plethora of casual or mistaken connections and point students to a relatively “educated” starting

 point for individual work. The enormous massive commentaries by Aune and Beale demonstrate

that reliable assessment of allusions is a massive and time-consuming task that no one could master 

fully alone. The weighted listing would provide a solid starting point for evaluation, not requiring

each interpreter to start over.73

6) When all is said and done in the area of criteria and assessment of allusions, this report

of research suggests that literary critics such as Moyise have a solid point. It is not necessary to

give up on the goal of understanding John’s intention with regard to his use of the OT to recognize

that certainty regarding an author’s intention will remain somewhat elusive. The multivalent and

71
G. K. Beale, Review of Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets, by Jon Paulien, in Journal of 
 Biblical Literature 111 (1992):358-361.
72
This would function along the lines of Richard Hays’ sixth criterion of “history of 
interpretation.” Hays, 31.
73
I hope to publish such a weighted listing sometime in the next few years.

23
ambiguous nature of allusion also invites reader involvement in the process of interpretation.74 It is

almost as if the author of Revelation foresaw the literary developments of our day when he invited

the intelligent reader to interact with his symbolism (Rev 13:18).

74
Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, Journal for the Study of 
the New Testament Supplement Series, 115, edited by Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995), 131-146. Painchaud notes the research of Devorah Dimant who believes
that when Scripture is quoted the aim is to explain the biblical text, but when it is alluded to the
 biblical material is molded into a new and independent context, it is subservient to the independent
aim and structure of the new composition. This insight, if verifiable, has large implications for the
study of Revelation. Devorah Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
 Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988), 381-384.

24