^{page 29 note 1} Perrin, Norman, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York, 1967), p. 207.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} Ibid., p. 208.

^{page 30 note 1} See ‘The Poetry of St Mark’ in Gardner, Helen, The Business of Criticism (London, 1959), pp. 101–26.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 2} See ‘Lecture VIII’ in Farrer, Austin, The Glass of Vision (London, 1948), pp. 132–49.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 3} Gardner, , op. cit., p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 4} Ibid., pp. 121–2, 125–6.

^{page 31 note 1} This would seem to be the force of Amos Wilder's treatment of closely related issues in his helpful work, The Language of the Gospel (New York, 1964), especially in the context of Jesus' parables. He writes, for instance, ‘The rhetorical perfection of the parables of Jesus could lead a reader to think of him as essentially a teacher and as a rather dispassionate one at that, as an artist. We do not easily reconcile such fastidious concern with form with eschatological fervour and passion’ (p. 88). Wilder concludes that ‘felicity and sophistication of form is perfectly compatible with prophetic and, indeed, extempore utterance’ (p. 89). See also in Wilder pp. 23, 48 (where he denies the application of ‘artistic’ to ‘the literature of the primitive Church’ because ‘Artistic writing is by definition at a second remove from native speech and has taken on a further degree of conventionality’), 68, 85–92, 135.

^{page 32 note 1} Kierkegaard, Søren, On Authority and Revelation, trans. Lowrie, Walter (New York, 1966), p. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 2} Ibid., p. 108.

^{page 32 note 3} Rissi, Mathias, Time and History (Richmond, Virginia, 1966), p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} Bowman, John Wick, ‘The Revelation to John: Its Dramatic Structure and Message’, Interpretation, IX (1955), p. 450.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} Harvey, Van A., A Handbook of Theological Terms (New York, 1964), p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 3} Bowman, , op. cit., p. 438Google Scholar. See also Caird, George Bradford, A Commentary on the Revelation of St John the Divine (New York, 1966), especially pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 1} See Farrer, Austin, A Rebirth of Images (London, 1949), pp. 22–30Google Scholarand The Revelation of St John the Divine (Oxford, 1964), pp. 37–41. It should be noted that Farrer seems much more hesitant about the identity of the author in this latter work.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 2} writes, Caird: ‘It is — possible to put up a case for common authorship, though the balance of probability is still against it. ‘—op. cit., p. 5. See pp. 3–5. Caird's restraint regarding common authorship is especially interesting because his entire interpretation of Revelation yields point after point evidencing unity in thought between The Gospel According to John and Revelation. The way in which glory and victory are seen in the cross and in martyrdom rather than as a result of or reward for cross and martyrdom is one fundamental unity.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 3} See Caird on ‘punishment’ as ‘simply the crime allowed to take its destructive course.’ ‘—op. cit., p. 224. And on ‘judgment’—pp. 258–60 and especially pp. 183–4.

^{page 34 note 4} See Revelation 2: 5; 2: 16; 2: 21–2; 3: 3; 3: 19; 9: 20–1; 16: 9, 11.

^{page 34 note 5} See Revelation 1: 9; 2: 2; 2: 19; 3: 10; 13: 10; 14: 12.

^{page 34 note 6} The Book of Jonah is a good point of departure for this latter problem because Jonah enacts the opposite extreme from the prophetic ideal: he does not want repentance from Ninevah; he wants the prophecies of doom which he has announced to come and to prove him correct (Jonah 4: 1–2)—as if this were the only way in which he could be established as a ‘true’ prophet. This is a nice dramatic irony in itself. Caird notes that the ‘prophet Jeremiah, though he predicted disaster, protested that he never wanted the fatal day to come (Jer. 17: 16) …’op. cit., p. 1. Caird also remarks on a supposed relationship between the John of Revelation and Jonah. See pp. 139–40.

^{page 34 note 7} See Laughlin, T. Cowden, The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (Princeton, 1902).Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 8} See Caird, , op. cit., p. 5Google Scholarfor a summary of Charles', R. H. view and pp. 216–17 for objections to the ‘secrecy’ argument.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 9} Laughlin, , op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} Bowman, , op. cit., p. 444.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Preston, Ronald H. and Hanson, Anthony T., The Revelation of Saint John the Divine (London, 1949), p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 3} Robertson, David, Discourses Showing the Structure and Unity of the Apocalypse, I–III (Glasgow, 1833), I, p. vi.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 4} Bowman, , op. cit., p. 449.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 5} Ibid., from table between pp. 441–45.

^{page 36 note 1} The pattern of the structural elements in the letters to the seven churches may be suggested thus:

(a) Christ-attribute

(b) Problem

(c) Response

(d) Promise

Ephesus

holds 7 stars; walks among 7 lampstands

abandoned love

repent and do works

remove lampstand; eat of tree of life

Smyrna first and last; died and came to life

the devil to test you

be faithfuln to death

crown of Life; not hurt by second death

Thyatira

Son of God; eyes like flame; feet like burnished bronze

name of life yet dead

awake; repent

come like thief walk in white; confess name before Father

Philadelphia

holy one; true one; has keys of David; opens and shuts

false Jews

hold fast

pillar in the temple of God; name of God; name of city of God; name of Chirst

Laodicea

Amen; faithful and true witness; begining of God's creation

neither cold nor hot

buy from me; repent

sit on the throne of Chirst

^{page 37 note 1} Caird's analysis of the letters to the churches (op. cit., pp. 27–58) points to the ‘common four-fold plan’ of the letters but does not register their complementary relationships—except at times in terms of their appropriation of and appropriateness to the historical circumstances of the cities. Smyrna (p. 34) is an example as is Sardis (p. 47).

^{page 37 note 2} This observation leads to a concept of self-inflicted judgment which could be employed in dealing with much that is often considered objectionable (as ‘unmerciful’) in Revelation. To some extent, this is the line that Caird takes. See Note 3, page 34 above.

^{page 38 note 1} Caird, , op. cit., p. 251. See also p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} This passage offers one substantiation of Christ's descriptive characterisation in the letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea: ‘the faithful and true witness’ (3: 14). Another instance of such controlled unification may be seen in noting the description of Christ's face as ‘like the sun shining in full strength’ (1: 16). In the presence of such a one, who would need some other source of light? It is no surprise, therefore, to discover that in the new Jerusalem there is no other source: ‘And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb’ (21: 23).

^{page 38 note 3} Bowman, , op. cit., p. 452.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} John employs a kind of pattern of opposites, which is not unique to Revelation among scriptural texts, whereby death is life, poverty wealth, destruction victory and so on. Caird calls attention to one of the most effective of John's opposites: ‘the Lion of the tribe of Judah … has conquered … And … I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain …’ (5: 5–6). See Caird, op. cit., pp. 73–5.

^{page 40 note 1} Bolt, Robert, A Man For All Seasons (New York, 1960), p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} Ibid., p. 92.

^{page 40 note 3} Caird, , op. cit., p. v.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} Ibid., p. 12.

^{page 40 note 5} Ibid., p. 284. See also pp. 16, 18, 33, 41, 54, 113, 115, 188, 190, 194, 210, 283, 289, 291–2, 297, 299–300.

^{page 41 note 1} Ibid., p. 32—on the conditional mode of the threats John records. Caird argues that ‘…even in the apocalyptic visions [John's] immediate concern is with martyrdom rather than the End’ (p. 32). See also pp. 236–7.

^{page 41 note 2} See Funk's, Robert W. study, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York, 1966), regarding the general suggestiveness of ‘the new hermeneutic.’Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} Caird, , op. cit., pp. 127–8, sees such delay as rooted in God's mercy.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} It is perhaps possible to interpret the first two calls to come in this series as also addressed to man rather than to God and Christ. See Caird, , op. cit., pp. 286–7. But the call as addressed to the latter belongs thematically to the book—as in 22: 20.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} Farrer, , Rebirth, op. cit., p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} Caird, , op. cit., p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} Caird handles the ‘sweet-sour’ contrast smoothly in the light of his interpretation of the work as a whole: ‘John is to eat so as to make the scroll a part of his inmost furnishing. The word of grace, which not all the angel trumpeters of heaven can utter, must be spoken by the prophet-martyrs not only with their lips but with their lives. This is why the scroll tasted as sweet as honey but was bitter to swallow. The way of victory is the way of the Cross’ (op. cit., p. 130).

^{page 43 note 3} Farrer, , Revelation, op. cit., p. 125.Google Scholar