Abstract
D. Litt. et Phil.
While partial preterism has not been a dominant interpretive method among the four
traditional ways of interpreting the Book of Revelation, namely, preterism, historicism,
futurism, and idealism, it seems to be the most convincing interpretation. The problem
concerning this work derives from the two parallel arguments in partial preterism. On
the one hand, the advocates of consistent partial preterism argue that the whole Book of
Revelation including chapters 12-13 concerns God's judgment on the apostate
Jerusalem. On the other hand, according to transitional partial preterism, a significant
turning point comes in these two chapters in that in Rev. 12-13 John introduces God's
judgment on Rome. To solve this problem and to suggest a proposed solution, the
following are respectively investigated: historical survey of the interpretation of the
Book of Revelation; the critical evaluation of the two arguments of partial preterism; a
probe into the socio-historical and literary aspects of Rev. 12-13; intratextuality of Rev.
12-13; intertextuality of John and his Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian audiences;
and a proposed partial preterism of Rev. 14-22. The intertextuality of John's receptive production in terms of the NT, the OT and noncanonical intertexts is relevant to God's judgment of Rome as well as that of Jerusalem. For this reason, the intertextuality of the seven churches' productive reception plays a crucial role in determining the (partial preterist) meaning of Rev. 12-13 in particular, and of Revelation as a whole. This does not of necessity imply that the locus of meaning is in the audience, but that the communicative interaction among the author, the text and the audience decides the meaning. The partial preterist meaning of Revelation is not unlimitedly multiple but determinately controlled in that the intertextuality of John and his audience manifests only two choices: God's judgment on Rome and Jerusalem. With consistent partial preterism, John provides the Jewish Christians with a direct solution, but with transitional partial preterism, he provides a direct solution for the Gentile Christians. Therefore, both solutions function complementarily and not contradictorily. It is reasonable to conclude that, on the one hand, the Jewish Christian audiences, who emigrated to Asia Minor in AD 66 and were converted by Paul's Ephesian mission in AD 52, were persecuted especially by the heretical Jews. Therefore, using the OT and NT knowledge they might have interpreted Rev. 12 onward (and maybe Rev. 4-11 too) in terms of God's judgment on the apostate Jews. The removal of the Jewish temple was absolutely necessary to relieve the stress on the first century Christians of persecution from the Jews. The annihilation of the Jewish system therefore removed the most formidable antagonist of the gospel and brought rest and relief to suffering Christians. On the other hand, the Gentile Christian audiences, who were acquainted with the pagan sources and daily experienced the Roman persecution, were not severely persecuted by the infidelic Jews and interpreted Rev. 12 onward (and maybe Rev. 4-11 too) in the light of God's judgment on Rome. It can be deduced that John's Jewish and Gentile audiences have the same form of locution and the same type of illocution in Rev. 12-13. But the perlocutionary act by which John achieves certain intended effects in his audiences in addition to those achieved by the illocutionary act is different to both the Jewish and Gentile audiences. In short, it is not a matter of 'either ... or' but 'both ... and'. Therefore, the two lines of partial preterism do not exclude each other but should be taken into account conjointly.