(1) The history of interpretation either enhances or diminishes the plausibility of a proposed allusion. If text A has reminded commentators of text B, the odds that it was designed to do so are increased. This criterion is fulfilled....cf. Eusebius, Commentarius in Isaiam, 34, who relates the "First and the Last" title of Isaiah 44:6 to both the "First and the Last" title in Revelation and the "Alpha and Omega" title.
In response I would refer you back to the varient reading that was earlier mentioned, where we saw prwtotokos used, which at the very least demonstrates that within the mind of this one copiest, a member of the early church, that it was not such an allusion, but a reference to something else. Most likely, to the same use of prwtotokos found in verse 5, which is a reference to his resurrection.
(2) An allusion is credible only if there is some combination of common vocabulary, word order, themes, structure, etc. Again, this criterion is fulfilled. In Revelation there is a combination of (egó + eimi) + prótos + kai + eskhatos. Between the three uses of the "First and Last" title in Deutero-Isaiah, we have egó + protos in Isaiah 41:4, 44:6 LXX, egó + eimi + prótos in 48:12 LXX, prótos + eskhatos in 44:6 LXX-Hex. and 41:4 Th (as tois eskhatois), and coordination with kai in all examples. The similarity is closer with the Hebrew MT, 'ny r'shwn w-any 'chrwn "I [am] first and I [am] last" (44:6). Note that the similarity isn't simply the title "First and Last" but that it is associated with the first person verb eimi and/or egó "I" (= 'ny and 'ny-hw' in 48:12 MT). In addition to the use of the same vocabulary and order, there is also a thematic link: the title is self-claimed by a divine speaker, and it is associated in its literary context of with a set of divine titles and phrases with divine connotations.
I think you may be unaware that it is common within the New Testament to take Old Testament language and make a completely new application of the language, without ever alluding to what is found in the original context. In such cases, we find "common vocabulary, word order... structure, etc," without actually being an allusion to that original text. This is seen, for example, in Matthew 21:26, Hebrews 1:5, 6; 2:13, etc. The use of these texts must be kept within the new context to properly determined if it is intended as an allusion to the original passage, or if the language is merely being borrowed in a new application. The latter is what we find in Revelation 1:17. This addresses the rest of your numbered points, so I won't bother taking the time to go through them point by point.
What support is there that the latter connotation is excluded in Revelation? You see, your reading admits no import of the original OT connotation of the term, as if the death/resurrection meaning is the only one that matters in the text. But this is hardly the case when the author associates "First and Last" with other divine epithets and doxologies (ho zón, zóneis tous aiónas tón aiónón, autó hé doxa kai to kratos eis tous aiónas, etc.) that otherwise refer to God in liturgy and in earlier literature, and one of which (zóneis tous aiónas tón aiónón) explicitly highlights God's eternity. As I pointed out twice already, the author intentionally links the death/resurrection of Jesus with the original beginning of the cosmos: Jesus is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world (apo katabolés kosmou)" (13:8); cf. 1 Peter 1:18-20: "You were ransomed ... with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish, destined before the foundation of the world (pro katabolés kosmou)". Similarly, the title "First and Last" is recast as "Beginning and End (hé arkhé kai to telos)" in Revelation 22:13, and the use of arkhé here evokes the designation of Christ as hé arkhé tés ktiseós tou theou "the beginning of the creation of God" in 3:14, a title that again is oriented to Christ's original role in the world's beginning. Compare Theophilus of Antioch: "He is called Beginning (arkhé) because he leads and dominates everything fashioned through him" (Ad Autolycum 2.10). These titles have in view BOTH roles of Christ and stress the present authority and deity of Christ in his exaltation.
What support is there that the latter connotation is included? Nothing either. One must assume Trinitarianism, quite frankly. Jesus as the lamb slain before the foundation of the world does nothing to make the connection that exists in your imagination. Revelation 3:14 has nothing to do with the world's beginning, for the world is not the ARCH of God's creation. This text in itself is an allusion to Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom is the ARCH of God's works, as Jesus himself is. If you wish to say "ruler" you would find ARCWN ala 1:5, if you wish to say "originator" you contradict the entire NT witness on Christ's role in creation (Jo. 1:3; 1Co. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). Indeed, as I have already argued, Rev. 22:12 is a reference to the Father, per the speaker change in 22:16 ala 1:9 and 22:8.
Allusion, hey....interesting that here you are not dismissive of allusion as you were with respect to the title "First and Last". Yes, there is a direct link with Jewish-Christian wisdom/memra speculation which reified God's intelligence/mind/utterance/reason/etc. as a hypostasis of God....usually not as an equal or independent being (because of monotheism, and because God inherently has wisdom within himself), but as a hypostasis nevertheless, as "pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty" and "reflection of the eternal light", and "untarnished mirror of God's power" (Wisdom 7:25-26; cf. Hebrews 1:3), or in the qualitative sense of John 1:1, "what Wisdom is, God is" (cf. John 1:5 = Wisdom 7:30; compare also John 1:18, 3:35, 5:19, 21-22, 6:46, 8:19, 10:38, 14:9-11), and in Revelation by God's purpose the exalted Christ is entitled to the titles and privileges and authority that are traditionally ascribed to God: "To the one sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be all praise, honor, glory and power, forever and ever" (5:13). The ascription of omniscience and eternity to Christ is part of the author's offering of praise.
There is debate on whether or not Wisdom was thought of as a distinct person or a mere hypostasis in Jewish speculation, but this matter is resolved by Hebrews 1:3, where the SOFIA/LOGOS is seen as CARAKTHR THS hYPOSTASEWS TOU QEOU. John 1:1's "qualitative sense" is of course garbage, for you want the count noun to magically transform into a mass noun. You have not shown any sense of "omniscience and eternity to Christ," when in facts Wisdom is shown to be nothing less than created, in a most temporal way. The first of God's works... a work of God. Temporal.
pointed out the parallels in Colossians 1:15-20 because they strikingly connect Jesus' exalted status as sovereign of the universe with his original role in creation. He is "before all things" in two ways. "All things were created" in him and through him and for him (v. 15-16), this pertains to the pre-incarnate Christ, and "he holds together all things ... all things are reconciled" through him and for him (v. 17, 20), this pertains to the exalted Christ. This is very similar to the way the title "First and Last" (which is used to refer to "the beginning" in Isaiah 41:4, and which pertains to the "laying of the foundations of the earth and spreading out of the heavens" in Isaiah 48:12-13) is used in Revelation to associate Jesus' death and resurrection with original creation. The sovereignty of Jesus is paramount in Colossians 1:18 ("in everything he has the supremacy") and in Revelation 1-3 ("ruler of the kings of the earth," in 1:5, "to him be glory and power forever and ever" in 1:6, "authority to rule them with an iron sceptre" in 2:27-28, "I became victorious and took my place with my Father on his throne" in 3:21).
I see you mistranslate Colossians 1:17, where it actually reads not that he holds all things together, but "all things are held together
in him." The allusion to Wisdom literature in this text rules out any sense of eternality for the Logos, for Wisdom though "before all things" is expressly said to be "created." Now unless you want to enter in the arena of special pleading, created means created.
Of course, because Colossians is not the text that is allusive of Deutero-Isaiah. It does tho have some weight in interpreting Revelation which has several parallels with the Christ hymn in Colossians. In fact, David Aune among other scholars suspects some influence from Colossians on Revelation because the letter circulated in Asia Minor, including Laodicea (cf. Colossians 4:16; cf. the letter to Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-22), and because of multiple similarities in phrasing, cf. [1] "firstborn of the dead" (prótotokos tón nekrón) in Revelation 1:5 vs. "firstborn from the dead" (prótotokos ek tón nekrón) in Colossians 1:18, [2] "beginning of the creation of God" (hé arkhé tés ktiseós tou theou) in Revelation 3:14 vs. "firstborn of all creation" (prótotokos pasés ktiseós) in Colossians 1:15 and "who is the beginning (hos estin hé arkhé)" in 1:18, etc. This does not necessarily mean that the two writings share the same perspective, but where there is congruence the similarities are noteworthy.
I would agree that Revelation draws from Colossians. Even the NA27 GNT cites Revelation 3:14 and Colossians 1:15 as allusions to each other. Of course, this is particularly interesting, because such a reading also (on top of what I earlier mentioned) the other varient translations of Revelation 3:14, for PRWTOTOKOS in no way parallels "ruler" or "source/originator." But both parallel in first in order, not to eliminate the preeminenent aspect of PRWTOTOKOS, but to say that both are included and compliment eachother.
Mondo
