Iwan M. Whiteley, «Cataphora and Lack of Clarity in the Book of Revelation», Vol. 21 (2008) 75-90
This article argues that John adopts a lack of clarity as a strategy for communication in the Book of Revelation. This lack of clarity can be identified in his use of the asyndeton, καί, anarthrous nouns and cataphora. His use of cataphora is investigated in three areas; in Revelation 1, in his use of
ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι and the colours of the horses. The conclusion is that exegetes should not impose readings on passages in Revelation that are, in themselves, inherently unclear. Instead, they should wait until John clarifies his own ambiguity so that the full rhetorical force of the text can be provided.
75
Cataphora and Lack of Clarity
in the Book of Revelation
IWAN M. WHITELEY
This article argues that John adopts a lack of clarity as a strategy for
communication in the Book of Revelation. This lack of clarity can be identi-
fied in his use of the asyndeton, καί, anarthrous nouns and cataphora. His
use of cataphora is investigated in three areas; in Revelation 1, in his use of
ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι and the colours of the horses. The conclusion is that exegetes
should not impose readings on passages in Revelation that are, in themselves,
inherently unclear. Instead, they should wait until John clarifies his own
ambiguity so that the full rhetorical force of the text can be provided.
Introduction
Revelation is a problematic book, Aune comments, ‘Since the author
rarely provides signals anticipating what he will do next, the reader either
had no way to anticipate what would occur next or were in fact as surprised
as we are by new turns in the narrative’1. This article will argue that
John utilizes lack of clarity as a strategy for communication; one aspect
of Revelation that is particularly frustrating for the exegete is its use of
cataphora, that is, when a lexical item refers to some entity later in the
text. The tools that John utilizes to convey a lack of clarity are many and
it will only be possible to undertake a limited evaluation of these tools
here.
Authors can be unclear in communication in a number of ways. They
can be ambiguous, meaning that the reader struggles to isolate the full
referential significance of what is being said. They can also be vague,
meaning that the reader is unable to grasp the full semantic significance
of the text. John likes to write in a manner where there is a lack of
semantic and/or referential clarity. We shall now note certain tools that
he uses to restrict the readers’ understanding of the text.
D. E. Aune, ‘Intertextuality and the Genre of the Apocalypse’ SBL 1991 Seminar
1
Papers 1991, 159.
FilologÃa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XXI - 2008, pp. 75-90
Facultad de FilosofÃa y Letras - Universidad de Córdoba (España)
FOLLOW US