Alan E. Kurschner. <i>A Linguistic Approach to Revelation 19:11–20:6 and the Millennium Binding of Satan</i>

The dissertation of A. E. Kurschner is divided into six chapters. The heavy focus on methodology derives from the dissertation genre (the acknowledgements mention Stanley Porter, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Martin Culy for “constructive criticisms” but do not identify the work as a dissertation, for which, see alankurschner.com). Chapter 1 is a concise introduction to “Approaches to the Millennium Binding of Satan” (pp. 11–31), divided into historical-temporal and non-temporal interpretations and critical approaches. It is unclear why this material needs to be revisited and augmented in Appendix 1 (Historical Shifts in the Millennial Debate, pp. 181–93). The literature consulted and evaluated is nearly exclusively English; the not unimportant monograph by Thomas J. Bauer, Das tausendjährige Messiasreich der Johannesoffenbarung. Eine literarkritische Studie zu Offb 19,11–21,8 (BZNW 148, 2007) has been missed, as well as relevant contributions in the essay collection of J. Frey et al. (WUNT 287, 2012) and the commentaries by H. Giesen, H. Kraft, G. Maier, U. B. Müller, and A. Satake.Chapter 2 (A Model of Koine Greek Discourse Analysis, pp. 32–68) describes the linguistic methodology that is used in the study. Kurschner briefly comments on advances in Greek linguistics and discourse analysis in general (pp. 32–38) before introducing “Systemic Functional Linguistics” (Halliday) and an explanation of the notions of cohesion and coherence and the linguistic tool of “cohesive harmony analysis” (Halliday, Hasan). The chapter seems to reproduce the learning experience of a doctoral student. Kurschner states that SFL “has proven to possess effective explanatory power” in English, Greek, and “many other languages” (p. 38), which, if correct, should have allowed Kurschner to point to explanations of SFL by other scholars rather than restating the SFL methodology including cohesive harmony in some thirty pages. Perhaps the brief explanation of cohesive harmony at the beginning of chapter 3 (pp. 69–70) would be a sufficiently clear introduction to what the author intends to do with the text!Chapter 3 (Cohesive Harmony: Cohesive Ties and Chains, pp. 69–92) intends “to locate and organize the lexical choices in 19:11–20:6 by establishing its componential ties and cohesive chains. The chains will be organized within identity and similarity chains” (p. 70). Kurschner analyzes sixty-two componential ties and cohesive chains, from “Christ,” “judgment,” “armies of heaven,” “they sat,” “to sit,” “movement,” “thousand years,” “birds,” to “testimony.” If the subject is encoded in the verb, Kurschner records a 0.5 TI (token index); 0.5 denotes the value of the verbal lexeme. The first three of twenty-two lines of “Christ (IC)” (identity chain) read as follows: “ὁ καθήμενος ‘the one who sat’ (19:11, TI = 0.5): referential interpretive source. πιστός ‘Faithful’ (19:11): instantiated naming. ἀληθινός ‘True’ (19:11): instantiated naming. κρίνει ‘he judges’ (19:11, TI = 0.5): encoded subject)” (p. 72). This type of analysis continues for fifteen pages. In his conclusion, Kurschner identifies 300 total tokens (value) for Rev 19:11–20:6 and 56 cohesive chains, with 26 threading chains (which establish continuity between 19:11–21 and 20:1–6).Chapter 4 (Cohesive Harmony: Chain Interactions, pp. 92–114) presents seventeen tables of chain interactions. In the first table, “the Christ chain interacts with four chains: To Sit chain, Upon chain, Horse chain, and Sword chain. The interactions include a total of eighteen CT S with a token value of 14.5; i.e. TI = 14.5” (p. 97). In the next table, the “Christ chain” interacts with “Body Parts chain, Judgment chain, and Nations chain” (p. 98); in the next table, the “Christ chain” interacts with “To Have chain, On Upon chain, and To Write chain” (p. 99). This continues, with specific details in each section, for ten pages. Kurschner proceeds to calculate a “cohesive harmony index” (based on Hasan), with sentences like “the ratio is 200.5 CT S and 94 NCT S to the 294.5 RT S” (p. 110). Kurschner concludes that there is continuity between 19:11–21 and 20:1–6, which is important but needs neither SFL nor TCT ratios: J. Webb Mealy has argued for the continuity of the two passages with traditional philological-contextual analysis (After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20, JSNTSup 70, 1992).Chapter 5 (Information Flow: Clauses, Sentences, Paragraphs, and Sections, pp. 115–45) provides “the dimension to cohesion that is concerned with discourse thematization and prominence” for Rev 19:11–20:6 (p. 115). The five main sections of the chapter discuss clause thematization (prime and subsequent), sentence thematization (theme and rheme), semantic boundary markers, topicality (topic and comment), and prominence and the binding of Satan. Kurschner establishes that “the flow of patterns of the elements in the prime position” focuses on “Christ as the main participant,” while the analysis of topicality shows that the topic is “Christ who acts as victor and vindicator” (pp. 144, 145). None of this is surprising, nor is the conclusion that the binding of Satan in 20:1 is “a consequent effect of the Parousia victory of Christ at the battle in ch. 19” (p. 145), although the inference that 20:1 does not establish a new semantic environment (p. 145) is important.Chapter 6 (Information Flow: Discourse of the Book of Revelation, pp. 146–76) considers the three adversaries of God (relating 19:11–20:6 to 20:7–10; 12:1–13:18; 16:12–16), Satan’s progressive banishment (from the “abodes” and from the abyss), and the saints’ vindication (with a discussion of the Overcoming-Rewards tie, Life tie, Souls tie, Priestly tie). Kurschner concludes that the analysis of these threads supports the argument that there is “a continuous progressive message between 19:11–21 and 20:1–6” and that the assumption of a “new semantic environment” beginning at 20:1 is not signaled by the co-text (p. 176).The dissertation ends with a brief conclusion (pp. 177–80), which succinctly reiterates the content of the previous chapters, concluding from “the lexicogrammatical resources that John had available to him in his Koine Greek language” that the visions in 19:11–20:6 “should be read as a continuous, cohesive message” (p. 180). I agree with this conclusion, which is important, and which Mealy has established in a detailed analysis, without SFL. The “lexicogrammatical resources that John had available to him” obviously did not include SFL and “RT and PT to TT” ratios, nor did his readers. It does not take prophetic foresight that few biblical scholars will want to learn SFL in order to understand biblical texts. All too often the method uses linguistic jargon for matters that have long been known to scholars. One wonders whether quantifying occurrences of lexical and grammatical features, while more sophisticated and more jargon-laden than the counting of words (criticized by Reed, cited by Kurschner, p. 180), is really all that different. I have not counted the figures for various types of lexical, grammatical, and linguistic matters that Kurschner provides. Perhaps one of the equations demonstrates what I mean: the equation for the “ratio of RT and PT to TT” on p. 110 reads: 294.5 (98%) RT / 5.5 (2%) PT = 300 (100%) TT. One wonders what John would think of this SFL analysis, given the instruction from the angel not to seal up the words that he writes in his book of prophecy (22:9).