the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

LOREN L. JOHNS 257
At the outset a second problem is how we define symbolism. If we
focus narrowly on similar signifiers in the texts, we discover at least a few
specific symbols that appear in both the Apocalypse of John and the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Or we might broaden the focus a bit to ask how these
symbols function within the respective literatures: How and to what end
are these symbols employed? Are there similarities in the respective roles
these symbols play in the literatures? Or we might ask if there are patterns
in which these symbols appear or in the ways in which they are
employed. There is, for instance, a greater dependence on the symbolism
of fauna in the Apocalypse and on flora in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Norman Perrin saw a clear similarity between the symbolism
employed in the Apocalypse and that current in Jewish apocalyptic
literature generally—especially when contrasted with the symbolism Jesus
employed in his parables. Perrin 5 painted the symbolism of “Jewish apocalyptic”
in broad strokes as flat, referential “steno-symbols” that “bore a
one-to-one relationship to that which is depicted.” 6 In contrast, the symbolism
in Jesus’ parables—especially that of his central symbol, the
“kingdom of God”—was “tensive.”
But this distinction between steno and tensive symbol is forced, imprecise,
and misleading. It also seems to reflect a rather uncritical assumption
that whatever pertains to Jesus must somehow be superior to
whatever pertains to the early Judaism of which he was a part. In
response to criticism, Perrin later modified his approach. In Jesus and the
Language of the Kingdom, Perrin says:
It now seems to me that I have pressed too hard the distinction between a
“steno-” and a “tensive” symbol in the case of apocalyptic symbols. It is still
a most important distinction, and it is still true that most apocalyptic symbols
are steno-symbols. But it is also true that the distinction is not hard
and fast, and that…some seers no doubt saw the symbols as steno-symbols
while others saw them as tensive. 7
5. For an analysis of Perrin’s treatment of the literature of early Judaism, see James
H. Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus in Light of Writings Contemporaneous with
Him,” ANRW 25.1: 451–76; see also Calvin R. Mercer, Norman Perrin’s Interpretation of
the New Testament: From “Exegetical Method” to “Hermeneutical Process” (StABH 2; Macon,
GA: Mercer University Press, 1986), 83–89; and John J. Collins, “The Symbolism of
Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic,” BR 19 (1974): 5–22.
6. Norman Perrin, “Eschatology and Hermeneutics: Reflections on Method in the
Interpretation of the New Testament,” JBL 93 (March 1974): 11.
7. Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New
Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 31. Perrin clearly saw the
steno/tensive categories as an either/or matter.