Chapter 8

#John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other

New Testament Texts

Clarissa Breu

The sign # (“hashtag”) was elected word of the year in 2014 in Switzerland, re-
flecting its presence in communication processes (as the Swiss radio station
“sfr 3” listed on its website on December 3, 2014). Recently, #metoo showed the
strong impact hashtags can have. They are tags that help to classify texts and
utterances and to facilitate key word searches on Twitter, Facebook and other
social networks. Different texts that treat the same topic can be linked when
attached with the same hashtag. Hashtags can also be used on a metalevel, for
instance, to comment on a wrong utterance or a mistake (#fail). They can work
in a rhetorical way, stressing a certain aspect of a certain message (#sohappy).
Moreover, hashtags function as campaign-labels in marketing (#uniwienlernt).
All of these possible functions show that they do not mean anything by
themselves but are defined by their functions. Everyone can use them; there
is no simple means to control them. Accordingly, their original author or mes-
senger and his or her intention are irrelevant. Whoever uses a hashtag willingly
gives up control over it. Sometimes, so-called hashtag-hijackers use established
hashtags for their purposes, for instance, the campaign #McDStories, in which
a platform intended for sharing happy moments with Mc Donald’s was in-
stead used to spread critique of the fast food chain. A hashtag does not point
to its origin; the focus lies on its effect and how this effect evolves in different
contexts.
But why write at length about the word of the year from 2014? It does not
seem current, nor does it refer to a practice of writing in antiquity. Nonetheless,
it does help to explain how I approach the name “John” in Revelation. Let us
turn, therefore, to another question: What does the name “John” have to do
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

with a hashtag?

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004379558_010

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 127

1 Theoretical Point of Departure

In order to explain, I must refer to the theories I apply, namely, to Jacques

Derrida’s and Michel Foucault’s notions of authorship. Postmodern theories
question the notion that the author precedes his or her text or exists apart
from and independent of it. Language always exceeds the author and his or her
intentions.1 It is a system that binds him or her to certain laws to which he or
she has to submit. The author has no control over words, comparable to a cam-
paign manager who has no control over the hashtag he or she initiated. This
general assumption is approached differently by Derrida than by Foucault.

1.1 Derrida and Iterability

Iterability (derived from iterum, Latin for “again,” which is derived from itara,
Sanskrit for “different”2) describes the structure of writing, namely, the neces-
sity of any element of language being endlessly repeatable in order to be an
element of language. Every repetition, however, changes the meaning of an ut-
terance because repetition is always repetition within a new context.3 Contexts
play an important part in the proliferation of meaning, and a new context prof-
fers a new meaning. Nonetheless, a context does not define meaning, because
it cannot be circumscribed in a definite way4 nor can anyone define all the
possible contexts of an utterance.5 As a result, a text cannot have one single
message or meaning: Its meaning cannot be defined in a definite way because
it is repeatable in different contexts and thus always contains the possibility of
being understood differently.6

1 See Peter Clar, in this volume, 66: “The author is created by language.”
2 Jacques Derrida, “Signature Event Context,” in Limited Inc. (Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press, 1988), 7.
3 Cf. iterability in Henning Hupe’s contribution to this volume, 213, in which he uses it to de-
scribe repetition in choreographies.
4 Derrida, “Signature Event Context,” 7.
5 Jacques Derrida, “Afterword: Toward an Ethic of Discussion,” in Limited Inc. (Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press, 1988), 136: “[…] there is nothing outside context.”
6 See also Stanley Fish, “Normal Circumstances, Literal Language, Direct Speech Acts, the
Ordinary, the Everyday, the Obvious, What Goes without Saying, and Other Special Cases,” CI
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

4, no. 4 (1978): 640, doi: 10.1086/447959: “This does not mean that any sentence is potentially
a proposal […] or that it doesn’t matter what sentence a speaker utters, but that for any sen-
tence circumstances could be imagined in which it would be understood as a proposal, and
as nothing but a proposal.” Fish also stresses that there are countless possible contexts for a
sentence, and therefore a sentence does not have any inherent meaning. But it usually has
one special meaning in one special context. In contrast to Derrida, Fish states that a certain
context of an utterance can be defined, although there are endless possible contexts.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 128 Breu

The phrase “green is or” is meaningless in an exegetical paper, but it could

be an example of wrong grammar in a grammar book or a verse in an avant-
garde text. The phrase does not necessarily belong to one single context. As a
structure of linguistic signs, it can be repeated in endless contexts. Iterability is
the possible dissociation of an utterance from its context.7
Now, of course one could object that the original context could define its
meaning. But according to Derrida, the so-called original context should not
be prioritized. A word structure is independent and part of a language sys-
tem that cannot be reduced to an original context. To speak intertextually, the
original context is most likely not the first time these words were used. They
can be transported to other contexts and be meaningful to readers even when
they are not aware of their previous context.
Derrida explains that the original context is not the context that defines
meaning with the example of a wedding scene set on the stage. A stage wed-
ding and a legal marriage are connected by the iterability of the words uttered
there (the ritual is repeatable and recognizable – even on stage). Therefore, not
only the original context of “civil registry office” explains the wedding on stage,
but also the new context of “stage” explains the wedding at the civil registry
office: It shows that the possibility that the words are not uttered seriously is
always part of a serious wedding. A wedding can only be “true” or “effective”
in a legal sense because it can be repeated in situations where it has no legal
effect; it can only be serious because it can be repeated in a non-serious way.8
What can be analyzed is not only its meaning in a so-called original context
but its effect in different possible contexts.
To Derrida, there is no original context and no original. We can, for example,
only define what an original writing of Derrida is when there are elements of
his speech that can be distinguished, transferred and imitated. The definition
of his text’s identity implies the destruction of this same identity.9 Let me add
one more example to illustrate this: Charlie Chaplin did not win the contest
of Charlie Chaplin impersonations. The elements that established his identity
(like his hat and shoes) also destroyed it. In the end, he was judged not to re-
semble himself.10 The original has to be accompanied by a copy in order to be
an original.11 Therefore, there is no pure original.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

7 Gerald Posselt et al., Sprachphilosophie: Eine Einführung (Wien: Facultas, 2016), 223.
8 Jacques Derrida, “Limited Inc a b c …,” in Limited Inc. (Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press, 1988), 89.
9 Posselt, Sprachphilosophie, 228.
10 Nijay Gupta, “What Is in a Name? The Hermeneutics of Authorship Analysis Concerning
Colossians,” CurBR 11, no. 2 (2013): 215, doi: 10.1177/1476993X12439885.
11 Posselt, Sprachphilosophie, 228.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 129

Applied to authorship and author-names, iterability shows that the simple

appearance of an author-name does not refer directly to a real author and
his or her original intentions. This can especially be stated for a signature-
like utterance like “I, John” in Revelation. This signature-like name seems
to evoke the presence of an author. But the sign “I, John” or “John” is repeat-
able. Like a hashtag, it can be written by anyone who wants to use it. The
person called “John” does not necessarily have to be present when someone
writes under his name. A proper name is characterized by the fact that it
works even without the presence of the person it refers to, that it is repeat-
able. Accordingly, this person cannot control the use of his or her name. His
or her intention is not relevant to understanding its use in endlessly different
contexts.
To summarize so far, Derrida’s notion of “iterability” enables an author-
name to work independently of the person it originally referred to and its origi-
nal context – like a hashtag.

1.2 Foucault and Author-Functions

Foucault comes to the same conclusion, but his focus lies on discourse. To him,
a text is not appropriated by an author but attributed to him or her by a dis-
course that exceeds the author and his or her intentions. Foucault does not ask
who the real author was and what he or she meant, but instead why a certain
author is connected to a certain text by a discourse and what effects this con-
nection has within this discourse. Foucault does not define what he means by
“discourse.” It can be understood as a space that establishes and destroys rules
at the same time,12 a place not ruled by subjects but where subjects can speak
from certain positions. Therefore, the discourse produces its subject matter,
not the other way around.13 To define someone as a text’s author is an effect
of a discourse. The discourse uses an author-name to fulfill certain functions.
It can be used to define the source of a text or to ascertain its credibility.14
The author as a concept can solve contradictions in a text, because they can
be explained by his or her subconscious thoughts or biographical develop-
ments. Moreover, the author-name functions as an anchor in reality: Fictional
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

12 Peter Bürger, “Denken als Geste: Versuch über den Philosophen Michel Foucault,” in Spiele
der Wahrheit: Michel Foucaults Denken, ed. François Ewald and Bernhard Waldenfels
(Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1991), 99.
13 Carsten Wolfers, Die Foucaultschen Subjekte (Wien et al.: Lit, 2009), 138.
14 Michel Foucault, “What Is an Author?” in Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, ed. James
D. Faubion, Essential Works by Foucault (New York: The New Press, 1998), 213.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 130 Breu

texts are thus connected with a “real” biography.15 Like a hashtag, the author-
name helps to classify a text (e.g., to assemble all of the Shakespearean texts,
even though they could have been written by someone else). Even if the sen-
tence “the Sonnets were written by Shakespeare” were wrong because Francis
Bacon wrote them, they could still be “Shakespearean,” namely, attributed to
Shakespeare by a certain discourse in order to ascertain a certain effect.16 One
of these effects could be promotion, meaning “any act or process of communi-
cation that serves to stimulate the circulation of something in the context of its
competitive exchange.”17 As I see it, promotion is thus comparable to authority,
in that it can also be described as a means of stimulating the circulation of a
text. The author-name then works like an “identification tag”18 (or hashtag) of
a certain label. And, as we have seen, such tags do not necessarily refer to their
original embedment. The author-name seems to refer to a single person, but
in fact it can contain different levels of authorship: redaction, edition, the act
of writing and re-writing, influence, etc.19 When confronted with hashtags, it
is not interesting to find out who used them first but which ideas are labeled
with the same hashtags and which effects can be derived from that. This is
similar to notions of authorship in antiquity, when scribes, copyists, editors,
etc., all participated in the process of writing. Scriptures were then attributed
to a single name, because that name could guarantee a reliable source and
the text’s transmission and help to situate it in a certain context. Foucault’s
text “What Is an Author?” is embedded within a modern discourse or notion
of authorship, dealing, for example, with questions of copyright. Nonetheless,

15 Michel Foucault, “The Order of Discourse,” in Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader,
ed. Robert Young (Boston et al.: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1981), 58.
16 Peter Lamarque, “The Death of the Author: An Analytical Autopsy,” bja 30, no. 4 (1990):
327, doi: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/30.4.319.
17 Andrew Wernick, “Authorship and the Supplement of Promotion,” in What Is an Author?
ed. Maurice Biriotti and Nicola Miller (Manchester and New York: Manchester University
Press, 1993), 88.
18 Ibid., 87.
19 See also Edward W. Said, Beginnings: Intention and Method (London: Granta Books,
1985), 23, who states that there is no such a thing as “anterior authority”; Jacques Derrida,
“Sauf le nom (Post-Scriptum),” in On the Name, ed. Thomas Dutoit, Meridian: Crossing
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

Aesthetics (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), 35: “[…] it is always necessary
to be more than one in order to speak, several voices are necessary for that …”; see also
A. K. M. Adam, in this volume, 191: “the intentions the securely-identified author might
have had when composing a letter […] have been subjected to editorial processes that in-
evitably inflect the expression of those intentions in the manuscripts,” and Gregory Peter
Fewster, in this volume, 168: “Ancient copyists and editors held great influence on the
shape, contents, look and feel of ancient textual media. But these interact in diverse ways
with ongoing influences of text’s authors, what I want to call the spectral author.”

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 131

it can be stated that notions of authorship in antiquity are not that different
from Foucault’s “author-functions.”20
All in all, we learned from Derrida that an author-name works without the
original author and from Foucault that an author-name helps to label a text
and thus to embed it within a certain discourse.
Now that I have explained my theoretical starting point, I would like to turn
to its application. First, I will look at the name “John” in Revelation, comparing
it with three characteristics of hashtags, and then I will apply the same charac-
teristics to other New Testament texts. My aim is to show that Revelation is one
example of how to read a text with Foucault and Derrida, but that their theo-
ries can also be applied to other New Testament texts; they are not specially
bound to Revelation. The three characteristics of hashtags are the following:
a) Hashtags are part of a non-hierarchic referential system. As such, they
undermine the author’s authority over his or her text’s meaning.
b) Hashtags can be hijacked. An author-name can work without the original
author and his or her intentions.
c) Hashtags work like labels. An author-name helps to classify different
texts and to arrange them around a connective figure.

2 The Author-Name in Revelation

2.1 #John as Part of a Referential System

Nowadays, books are mostly associated with one author-name that verifies
their origin. In the case of Revelation, there is not just one name that points
to the text’s source, transmission and authority (used in the above-mentioned
sense of “promotion”). Authority is deferred, as it is divided between different
names; the text does not have one single origin.
In Revelation 1:1 the name “John” is mentioned for the first time, but John
is not the only one transmitting the message; God, an angel and John’s fellow
servants, that is, other Christians, are also part of this referential system:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to
his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw – that is, the word of

20 Karen L. King, “‘What Is an Author?’ Ancient Author-Function in the Apocryphon of

John and the Apocalypse of John,” in Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus
Adherents: Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg, ed. William E. Arnal et al., betl 285
(Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 33.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 132 Breu

God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads aloud
the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to
heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
Rev 1:1–3

The first three verses do not primarily enhance John’s authority. The entirety
of the first three verses is actually dedicated to the text of Revelation.21 Verse 1
describes its source and function (“to show his servants what must soon take
place”), and its transmission (through the angel to John). The description of
John in verse 2 can also be seen as a description of the book as a whole. Verse 3,
finally, praises those who read the text, hear it and keep it. The text is described
as the revelation of Jesus Christ, the word of God, the testimony of Jesus and
as containing words of prophecy – four attributes that do not need the name
“John” to enhance them.22 Thus, the author is only part of the text; he does not
have authority over the text. The text is what it is all about, not John. John only
has authority because he seems to be a reliable source. The name “John” is only
one small part of a larger referential system that enhances the text’s authority.
The referential system John is part of traverses the whole text. First of all,
the chain of transmission in verse 1 is not a simple linear chain23 leading from
God to Christ, from Christ to the angel, from the angel to John, from John to the
servants. The chain is not in the expected order:
Christ is mentioned before God,24 the servants before the angel and John.
Using the persons mentioned as structuring entities, I derive the following
concentric structure from the first two verses:

A Christ
B God
C servants
D angel
C’ servant John
B’ God
A’ Christ
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

21 Traugott Holtz, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, ntd 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,

2008), 18.
22 Jens-Wilhelm Taeger, “Offenbarung 1:1–3: Johanneische Autorisierung einer Aufklärungs­
schrift,” nts 49, no. 2 (2003): 181, doi: 10.1017/S0028688503000092.
23 Klaus Wengst, “Wie lange noch?” Schreien nach Recht und Gerechtigkeit – eine Deutung der
Apokalypse des Johannes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 39.
24 Hanna Roose, Das Zeugnis Jesu: Seine Bedeutung für die Christologie, Eschatologie und
Prophetie in der Offenbarung des Johannes, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen
Zeitalter 32 (Tübingen et al.: Francke, 2000), 158–159.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 133

Christ and God appear as the source and goal of the text. They are not clear-
ly separated from each other, as the verb ἐσήμανεν and the pronoun attributed
to the angel and the servants can grammatically belong to both of them.25
As a fellow-servant, John can be paralleled with the other servants; he is one
of them but equipped with a personal name. The only one without a parallel
counterpart is the angel. But he is not the end or center of the transmission
process but rather points to John and to God/Christ. This is underscored by a
reference at the end of the book: In 22:9 John kneels down before the angel,
and the angel stops him by pointing to God as the true reason for adoration.
Thus, the angel who is the middle of the concentric structure in 1:1 points to
God, who is on the margins of the concentric structure. At the same time,
he stands in line with John and the other servants, calling himself a “fellow
servant.” The angel as the middle of the concentric structure thus diminishes
his own authority through a referential system that binds together the whole
book. The different sources of the text point to each other; lines between them
grow hazy. This is what Derrida concludes about Revelation, too:

One does not know […] to whom the apocalyptic dispatch (envoi) re-
turns; it leaps (saute) from one place of emission to the other […] it goes
from one destination, one name, and one tone to the other; it always re-
fers to (renvoie à) the name and to the tone of the other that is there but
as having been there and before yet coming, no longer being or not yet
there in the present of the récit […]. No longer is one sure who loans his
voice and his tone to the other in the Apocalypse; no longer is one very
sure who addresses what to whom […].26

This referential system is simplified by the title ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ,

which was added to the text long after it was composed. John is thus under-
scored as the main transmitting agent. This fact shows the wish to have texts
tagged with a simple author-name fulfilling different author-functions.
All in all, the author-name “John” in Revelation can be compared to a
hashtag, because it does not stand alone. It is pointing to other parties involved
in the transmission process and to the text’s authority. #John is not only a name
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

but a whole referential system.

25 Wengst, Wie lange noch? 39.

26 Jacques Derrida, “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy,” Oxford
Literary Review 6, no. 2 (1984): 27, doi: 10.3366/olr.1984.001.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 134 Breu

2.2 #John Hijacked

Like hashtags, author-names do not necessarily point to the original author,
which can be shown by an example of reception in the Early Church:
Some parties, namely, Gaius and the Alogers, thought that #John was not
really called John but that the chiliastic heretic Cerinth hid behind this in-
nocuous name.27 To them, Cerinth hijacked the name “John” in order to add
a credible name to Revelation, which proclaimed his chiliastic ideas.28 They
thought that the name “John” was no hint of the identity of Revelation’s source
but worked instead as an author-function securing credibility. The Alogers are
said to have rejected Revelation and the Gospel of John because they thought
that Cerinth had been their originator.29
We can draw two conclusions from the attribution to Cerinth: First, an
author-name does not necessarily point to the real origin of a text. Therefore,
some interpreters supposed that the author-name does not work as a determi-
nation of the text’s source and origin but as a means of establishing credibility.
They assumed “John” was a hijacked hashtag used for a heretic’s intentions.
The name itself does not give any evidence for their position or to the contrary
because it works like a hashtag that potentially anyone could use.
Nevertheless and secondly, the author-function of classification is still valid
in the case of the Alogers: They attributed the Gospel of John and Revelation to
Cerinth. The author-name they have in common seems to bind both Scriptures
together in this reception process.
The discussion in the Early Church shows that the effect of the author-name
“John” was not necessarily that everyone believed it to point to Revelation’s
origin. Already in the Early Church, “hashtag hijacking” was taken into
consideration.

2.3 #John as a Label

Hashtags work within a referential system because they can be repeated, they
always look the same, and they can be used by everyone who wants to be part
of the same referential system. Differences are united under this same label.
The exegetical discussion about the Johannine School can be seen as a re-
sult of the author-function of classification. The Johannine School combines
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

unity and difference as it binds together Scriptures under the name “John” that
share certain similarities but still have totally different approaches. It unites
texts that are somehow associated with the name “John” without stating that

27 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7, 25, 2.

28 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3, 28, 1–2.
29 Epiphanius, Panarion 51, 3, 1.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 135

John was their real author. The name “John” and its classificatory function
seem to suggest that they are somehow related, but with regard to content they
seem different.30 The notion of a Johannine School combines different levels
of unity and difference. It is possible to suppose a close circle (and point out
similarities) or a loose concept (and underline differences). The name “John,”
then, works like a hashtag labeling Johannine Scriptures.
Some even suppose that the prologue and epilogue, the only parts in
Revelation that contain the name “John,” have been added later,31 in order to
authorize the text within a Johannine circle.32 Thus, the name worked like a
label promoting a text in a certain context and thus attributing authority to it.
The fact that the name “John” can be used as a label, however, shows that it is
not connected to its origin. Redactions, influences and intertextual allusions
can be subsumed under the label “John.”
Derrida expresses the same thought when he calls John R. Searle, a phi-
losopher with whom he often argued, Sarl (société à responsabilité limité), a
company.33 He thus states that the name “Searle” contains any person who in-
fluenced him or made his texts possible. The term seems to refer to a single
individual, a certain person, but in fact points to a group of persons who are
united under the label “Searle.”
All in all, the name “John” works as a classificatory label in the exegetical dis-
course because it helps to bind together similarity and difference and to unify
a text possibly derived from different writers. The author-name within a text

30 Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza, “The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse
and the Fourth Gospel,” nts 23, no. 4 (1977): 409, doi: 10.1017/S0028688500012376; Otto
Böcher, “Das Verhältnis der Apokalypse des Johannes zum Evangelium des Johannes,” in
L’Apocalypse Johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. Jan Lambrecht
and George R. Beasley-Murray (Leuven: Duculot, 1980), 294; Richard A. Culpepper, “An
Introduction to the Johannine Writings,” in The Johannine Literature, The Sheffield New
Testament Guides (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 26; Jörg Frey, “Appendix:
Erwägungen zum Verhältnis der Johannesapokalypse zu den übrigen Schriften des
Corpus Johanneum,” in Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch mit einem Beitrag
zur Apokalypse, ed. Martin Hengel, wunt 1/67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 382.417;
Martin Hengel, ed., Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch, wunt 1/67 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 219.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

31 David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, wbc 52A (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1997), cxx; Akira Satake,
Die Offenbarung des Johannes, kek 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2008), 72–73;
Franz Tóth, “Von der Vision zur Redaktion: Untersuchungen zur Komposition, Redaktion
und Intention der Johannesapokalypse,” in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte – Konzepte –
Rezeption, ed. Jörg Frey, James A. Kelhoffer and Franz Tóth, wunt 1/287 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012), 354.
32 Taeger, “Offenbarung 1:1–3.”
33 Derrida, “Limited Inc a b c …,” 36.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 136 Breu

does not only have to serve as a means of historical reconstruction. It can also
lead to a discussion of author-functions and of how an author’s authority is
never actually present through his or her name. Authority that could possibly
control a text’s meaning is not present in the author-name since the name is
affected by iterability and thus not bound to an authoritative origin.
Quite often the question arises whether Revelation is a unique example or if
the above-described theoretical viewpoint could also be applied to other New
Testament texts. This question points to the dialectic between generalization
and specialization, which is always on the table when applying philosophical
theories to a New Testament text. That is why I would like to add some short
reflections on other instances of authorship in the New Testament and how
they could be approached from the viewpoints of Foucault and Derrida. The
three characteristics of hashtags will be repeated and applied to other New
Testament authors to show that Revelation is only an example. Postmodern
theories also offer interesting viewpoints on other New Testament texts and
their authors.

3 Names in Other New Testament Texts

3.1 #beloveddisciple as Part of a Referential System

The insight that an author-name is part of a referential system can be exempli-
fied by the “Beloved Disciple” in the Gospel of John. In John 21:24, at the very
end of the Gospel, the reader gets a hint of the identity of the author: “This is the
disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that
his testimony is true.” But this verse evidently does not reveal anything about
the text’s historical origin; instead, it sends the reader on a journey through
the whole text in search of this unnamed disciple.34 The Beloved Disciple is
mentioned some verses earlier (21:20); the following verses are concerned with
his remaining until the parousia, and this context suggests that the disciple in
21:24 is also the Beloved Disciple. But who is the “we” in “we know that his testi-
mony is true”?35 Is this a hint of the existence of a group of redactors? And who
is the Beloved Disciple? The reader is advised to search for information about
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

him throughout the text. He does not appear explicitly before chapter 13, lying

34 Like Franz Tóth showed in a not yet published paper at the Colloquium Iohanneum in
Münster in 2015.
35 James L. Resseguie, “The Beloved Disciple: The Ideal Point of View,” in Character Studies
in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt et
al., wunt 1/314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 549, interprets the “we” as an authorita-
tive “we” not referring to an actual group.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 137

at Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper. He reappears under the cross (19:26), in com-
petition with Peter running to Jesus’ grave (20:2) and in recognizing Jesus after
his resurrection when he approaches the disciples at the Lake Tiberias (21:7).
The text itself does not tell if the anonymous disciple in 1:35–40, 18:15–16 and
19:35 is to be equated with the Beloved Disciple.36 These passages emphasize
his important role as one of the first disciples (1:35–40), a witness (19:35) and a
friend of the high priest (18:15–16).
Numerous attempts have been made to identify the Beloved Disciple. The
possibilities are never-ending: Wolfgang Fenske argues for John the Zebedee,37
parting from the observation that two disciples are mentioned in 1:35 and
that only one, Andrew, is named in 1:40. Fenske suggests that the reader auto-
matically thinks of John (whose brother is James) when he or she reads about
Andrew (and his brother Simon Peter) in 1:40.38 James H. Charlesworth argues
for Thomas39 because he knows about Jesus’ wound in his side (20:25), but only
one person – the Beloved Disciple – was present at the cross and could have
witnessed that Jesus even had a wound in his side (19:34–35). Martin Hengel ar-
gues for disciples of the presbyter John who wanted to promote a Gospel so dif-
ferent from Mark’s that they had to connect it as closely as possible to Jesus.40
On the other hand, especially Joachim Kügler’s literary approach to the passag-
es about the Beloved Disciple, maintains the disciple’s anonymity and claims
that not even the first readers could have identified the disciple from signals in
the text.41 Kurt Aland also points to the fact that it is impossible to derive the
disciple’s identity from the text.42 Some state that the sons of Zebedee men-
tioned in 21:2 might be a hint,43 but this hint is very weak.

36 Derek Tovey, “An Anonymous Disciple: A Type of Discipleship,” in Character Studies in the
Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt et al.,
wunt 1/314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 136, identifies the anonymous disciple with
the beloved one; see also Resseguie, “Beloved Disciple,” 541.
37 Wolfgang Fenske, Der Lieblingsjünger: Das Geheimnis um Johannes, Biblische Gestalten 16
(Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 21.
38 Ibid., 23.
39 James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?
(Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 423.
40 Hengel, Die Johanneische Frage, 209.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

41 Joachim Kügler, Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte: Literarische, theologische und historische
Untersuchungen zu einer Schlüsselgestalt johanneischer Theologie und Geschichte: Mit
einem Exkurs über die Brotrede in Joh 6, sbb 16 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988),
485.
42 Kurt Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the
First Two Centuries,” jts 12, no. 1 (1961): 45, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23957933.
43 Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 5th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2005), 518.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 138 Breu

Approaching this debate about the Beloved Disciple from the viewpoint of
the theories of Foucault and Derrida, I would say that neither the question of
who the author really was nor the question if anonymity was intentionally in-
serted into the text or not can be answered. On the other hand, this theoretical
viewpoint allows seeing the numerous exegetical works on the author in John
as an effect of his anonymity. This approach works without speculating on the
first readers’ impressions and the author’s intentions, yet nonetheless allows
for a statement about the text, namely, that the anonymity of the author leads
to a search for him throughout the text.
Parting from this simple assumption, I would now go further and say that
the author’s anonymity and the search for the Beloved Disciple also defer au-
thorial authority in favor of textual authority. The Beloved Disciple guaran-
tees the text’s integrity and the truthfulness of his testimony (21:24) but not
for his own authority. He is only one part of a system of witnesses, in which
John the Baptist plays an even bigger role than the author (1:6–7, 15, 19, 34;
3:26). The importance of John the Baptist as a witness leads Franz Overbeck
to argue that the Beloved Disciple is an idealized figure based on or inspired
by John the Baptist.44 Then again, Jesus surpasses John’s testimony when he
states that his deeds witness his being sent from the Father (5:36; 10:25). Even
the Father (5:37), the Scriptures (5:39), the Spirit (15:26; 16:12) and the disciples
(15:27) testify for Jesus. 21:24 can be understood as describing the Gospel itself
as a witness. It can be stated that the Beloved Disciple’s authority is not only
deferred in favor of textual authority, but also that the text contains a referen-
tial system of witnesses. Often in the Gospel of John, witnessing for oneself is
discredited (7:18; 8:13, 44; 16:13). Thus, no one witness can gain special impor-
tance, but all of them together contribute to a certain understanding of Jesus
as God’s Son. The Beloved Disciple’s anonymity could fulfill the function of a
non-present author-name, so that the text clearly has an author, but this au-
thor cannot be identified and thus cannot claim full authority. His anonymity
points out that he does not speak on his own, but rather as part of a larger ref-
erential system: “Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory,
but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is
nothing false about him” (7:18). The Beloved Disciple does not point to a simple
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

unified origin but to a collection of testimonies. Even this collection of testi-

monies, the Gospel itself, points away from itself as it states that much more
could have been written (20:30): “Jesus did many other things as well. If every
one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would

44 Franz Overbeck, Das Johannesevangelium: Studien zur Kritik seiner Erforschung (Tübingen:
Mohr, 1911), 417.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 139

not have room for the books that should be written” (21:25). The book opens
itself up to possible narrations that exceed it, and the anonymity of its author
opens up the possibility of other witnesses as well.
The Beloved Disciple’s anonymity defers his authority as it integrates him
into a referential system. First of all, this system consists of references to the
Beloved Disciple, references that could help to identify him and others who
add to his characterization. Secondly, it consists of references to other witness-
es who together try to communicate who Jesus was and what he did. That is
why #beloveddisciple is comparable to #John in Revelation. Neither points to
a simple origin that facilitates a reference to authorial intention, but rather to
a network of origins that work together to approach an unapproachable mes-
sage. Like hashtags, they evoke a whole narrative system, not a single person
and his intentions.

3.2 #Paul Hijacked

When looking for explicitly named author-figures in the New Testament, one
quickly comes to Paul and his letters. Due to the letter format that indicates a
communication process between two parties, Paul’s name appears quite often,
for instance, when he writes “I, Paul” (2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:2; 1 Thess 2:18; Phlm 19).
Sometimes, he adds signature-like statements to his letters, in which he affirms
having written some words in his own hand: “I, Paul, write this greeting in my
own hand” (1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Phlm 19). He thus distinguishes himself from a
possible secretary or writer to whom he might have dictated his letters.45 These
signatures try to establish the letters’ origin.
When explaining iterability, Derrida writes about signatures that they have
to be repeatable in order to work as signatures. But being repeatable, their ori-
gin does not have to be present in order that they can be written down.46 They
suggest a certain linkage with their original author and his or her intention, but
actually this intention does not have to be present. Anyone can use a repeat-
able signature.
Interestingly enough, the exact same process can be shown within the New
Testament. For example, at the end of 2 Thessalonians, a letter whose pseude-
pigraphic character is uncontested among many exegetes, we can read, “I, Paul,
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all

45 Joachim Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, HThKNT 5 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­

gesellschaft, 2002), 247; Marco Frenschkowski, “Pseudepigraphie und Paulusschule:
Gedanken zur Verfasserschaft der Deuteropaulinen, insbesondere der Pastoralbriefe,”
in Das Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte, ed.
Friedrich W. Horn, bznw 106 (Berlin: de Gruyter), 255.
46 Derrida, “Signature Event Context,” 20.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 140 Breu

my letters. This is how I write” (2 Thess 3:17). Also the letter to the Colossians,
which quite possibly is pseudonymous, is furnished with such a statement: “I,
Paul, write this greeting in my own hand” (Col 4:18). “I, Paul” expressions ap-
pear in the pseudonymous letters to the Ephesians and Colossians (cf. Eph 3:1;
Col 1:23).47 What happened? Did someone deliberately deceive his readers by
using Paul’s name to gain authority?
A quote by A. K. M. Adam shows how this pseudo-signature leads to Derrida
and his thoughts on signatures and writing:

Poly [“I will call this writer Poly, for many identities have been ascribed
to this shadow of Paul’s” (39)], knowing the duplicity of signatures, sim-
ply enacts a strikingly Derridean rhetorical ploy. The forger plays on the
ambiguity of the signifying signature to blur the distinction between his
or her identity and Paul’s identity, to exclude Paul from his own proper
name.48

The theories of Derrida and Foucault could lead to a different evaluation of

pseudepigraphy.49 Traditionally, pseudepigraphy was estimated to be full of
flaws and treason.50 With time, this assessment changed, and exegetes tried
to find reasons to see pseudepigraphy as less morally wretched than previ-
ously judged. They stated, for example, that spiritual property was seen dif-
ferent in antiquity,51 or they pointed to the readers who might have easily
noticed pseudepigraphy.52 But the idea that pseudepigraphy was recognized
by readers53 or not rejected54 in antiquity has been especially criticized, based
on sources that show the contrary.

47 Helmut Merklein, “Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und

Epheserbriefes,” in Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: Zur Paulusrezeption im
Neuen Testament, ed. Karl Kertelge, QD 89 (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1981), 25–26.
48 A. K. M. Adam, “Deconstruction: On Making a Difference,” in What Is Postmodern Biblical
Criticism? gbs (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 40.
49 As suggested but not extensively developed in David Brakke: “Early Christian Lies and the
Lying Liars Who Wrote Them: Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery,” JR 96 (2016):
378–390, doi: 10.1086/686567.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

50 Nickolaus Walter et al., Die Briefe an die Philipper, Thessalonicher und an Philemon, ntd
8/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1998), 191.
51 Frenschkowski, “Pseudepigraphie,” 251 is against this view.
52 Martina Janßen, Unter falschem Namen: Eine kritische Forschungsbilanz frühchristlicher
Pseudepigraphie, Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums 14 (Frankfurt
et al.: Peter Lang, 2003), 265.
53 Frenschkowski, “Pseudepigraphie,” 243; Armin D. Baum, Pseudepigraphie und literari-
sche Fälschung im Frühen Christentum: Mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher
Übersetzung, wunt 2/138 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 31.
54 Frenschkowski, “Pseudepigraphie,” 249; Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 34.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 141

Another argument is to state that authors really identified with some-

one else or saw themselves as part of a school pointing back to the pseud-
onymous name.55 Some scholars even establish an epoch of New Testament
Pseudepigraphy, in which special rules prevailed and pseudepigraphy was the
only way to confront certain problems at that time.56 Howard Marshall even
proposes changing the wording from “pseudonymity” or “pseudepigraphy”
to the more neutral “allonymity” or “allegraphy” for texts written in another’s
name but without the intent to deceive.57 He lists three ways this would allow
for this type of authorship in the context of antiquity: a secretary writing on
someone else’s behalf, an edition after a person’s death or writing in a certain
person’s style after his or her death.58
Some arguments get close to what Derrida’s and Foucault’s insights offer
for the debate. They state that pseudepigraphy is not about real authorship
and the actual origin of a given text,59 but about taking part in and promot-
ing a certain authoritative tradition – for instance, that of Paul the Apostle.60
Pseudepigraphy could thus express the wish to speak in another’s name and
to promote his or her thoughts instead of one’s owns.61 Moreover, some state
that it helps to actualize a message in a certain situation, to interpret known
traditions in a new light.62
Eckart Reinmuth even points out that pseudonymous texts create fictive au-
thors that are part of the texts, not outside of textual structures. His statement
that pseudonymous texts live their own lives apart from their real authors
comes very close to Derrida’s and Foucault’s theories on authorship.63 Each
of them offers an easy means of making a moral judgment on pseudepigra-
phy impossible by understanding it as a normal effect of language structure.
Derrida’s notion of iterability implies that no authorial claim actually refers to
the text’s real origin. The author writing a text and the author in a text are two

55 Janßen, Namen, 266.

56 Ibid., 267; Karl M. Fischer, “Anmerkungen zur Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament,” nts
23, no. 1 (1977): 81, doi: 10.1017/S0028688500008407.
57 I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, icc, 3rd ed. (London and New York: Bloomsbury
T&T Clark, 2004), 84.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

58 Ibid., 83–84.
59 Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 75; David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation
into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition,
wunt 1/39 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 43; Michael Gese, Das Vermächtnis des
Apostels: Die Rezeption der Paulinischen Theologie im Epheserbrief, wunt 2/99 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 10; Gnilka, Kolosserbrief, 193.
60 Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 75; Meade, Pseudonymity, 103; Gese, Vermächtnis, 249.
61 Gnilka, Epheserbrief, HThKNT 6 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002), 21.
62 Gnilka, Kolosserbrief, 200; Meade, Pseudonymity, 157; Merklein, “Paulinische Theologie,” 35.
63 Walter, Briefe, 193.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 142 Breu

different figures. Anyone who wants to can add a certain author-name to a text;
we do not know if this person was a secretary,64 a comic, the real author or his
or her mother.65 This use of names does not necessarily have to be classified as
misuse, because only a name that can be used by someone other than the so-
called real author is a name. Pseudepigraphic texts show that the real author
does not have to be present in order for someone to write in his or her name,
proclaim his or her message or reinterpret it.
Foucault’s “author-functions” add a second insight to this: Author-names
can work in a classificatory way. They then show that a text can be read within a
certain discourse (or tradition) without referring to its origin. Thus, Colossians
and Ephesians are “Pauline” even if their real author is not Paul (as the above-
mentioned texts are Shakespearean even if Francis Bacon is their real author).
Their being “Pauline” does not mean that they totally agree with Paul’s stand-
points, but rather that they can be read in the light of his writings, compared
to them and measured by them.66 They are part of #Paul. The focus does not lie
on the question of whether this hashtag is hijacked or not, but rather on what
effects follow from its use. The deliberate intention to deceive the audience67
is irrelevant from the viewpoint of Derrida and Foucault.
This idea can even be expanded and applied to classical literary criti-
cism that usually excludes 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35(36)68 from the original
Pauline text because it can be argued that it interrupts the line of thought be-
tween 14:33a and (36)37 and contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:5 or Galatians 3:28.

64 See the secretary hypothesis for Colossians; Frenschkowski, “Pseudepigraphie,” 257.

65 Derrida, “Limited Inc a b c …,” 31.
66 Annette Merz, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory
Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy?” in The Intertextuality
of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice, ed. Thomas L. Brodie et al., ntm 16
(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 131, comes to a comparable conclusion by
applying intertextual theory to the pseudonymous Pauline letters. She still points out the
importance of their intention, however, as she states that intertextual allusions reveal
their intention to be read within the framework of the Pauline letters.
67 See the typology of pseudepigraphy in Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 9.
68 33b: “[…] as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people; 34: women should remain silent
in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

says; 35: If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at
home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church; 36: Or did the word of God
originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
 (33b: Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων; 34: αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν·
οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει; 35: εἰ δέ τι
μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν· αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν
ἐκκλησίᾳ; 36: ἢ ἀφ’ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;).
It is not clear whether verse 36 should also be seen as an interpolation.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 143

Moreover, a comparison of manuscripts reveals that some put these verses be-
fore verse 36, others after verse 40. From a historical point of view, these verses’
authority is diminished by stating that they are not originally from Paul. If they
are seen instead as part of #Paul, we have to ask why we would ascribe more
authority to them if they were originally from Paul: What is the difference if
a text is from Paul or from someone who adds to Pauline thought? What can
thus be revealed about our (normative) handling of biblical texts for ethical or
ecclesiastical decisions? What are criteria for the importance or normativity of
texts? All in all, the focus of interest shifts from addressing a normative prohi-
bition (e.g., of female priests or pastors) with another normative assumption
(the verses are not from Paul and therefore not authoritative) to trying to ana-
lyze a discourse and its implications. This example, moreover, shows that his-
torical approaches and postmodern theories do not necessarily exclude each
other. Also from a postmodern point of view, a text’s historical development
can be interesting when seen as part of a changing discourse – in this example
about women and their role in Christian assemblies. The question is not who
the original author really was but why someone could have been interested in
adding to #Paul.

3.3 #Theophilus as a Label

The last example from the New Testament is a short consideration of Luke and
Acts. I showed above that the label “John” binds together different Johannine
Scriptures. Like them, Luke and Acts also have been viewed as coming from
the same author.69 Apart from linguistic and theological conformity, the two
prologues lead to this assumption. In Luke 1:1–4 we read:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have

been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. With
this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from
the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most
excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things
you have been taught.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

And in Acts 1:1–2: “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus
began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving
instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.”

69 Schnelle, Einleitung, 306.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 144 Breu

Interestingly enough, the author only appears in the first person singular,
whereas the name that binds together both books is the name of the intended
reader, Theophilus, who is either a fictional character appealing to anyone who
loves (philus) god (theo) or a real person and patron of Luke.70 Irenaeus (c. 180)
is the first source we have that identifies the author as Luke, a companion of
Paul (haer. 3, 1, 1), but this tradition of attribution might be much older.71 Not
an author-name but rather #Theophilus, the recipient to whom the two works
are dedicated, binds them together like a label. The author’s self-confidence
suggested by a prologue that is unique among the Gospels is thus limited. He
remains anonymous, whereas his reader is named. The classificatory effect of
the author-name is transferred to the reader’s name.

4 Conclusion

The notion of authorship in antiquity was different than it is today. Especially

holy texts were not deemed as having one single author who helps to explain
their meaning by his special biographical context. Different stages of text pro-
duction were an important part of authorship.
The theories of Foucault and Derrida are closer to notions of authorship
in antiquity than the search for one single author and his or her intentions.
To see author-names under the premise of iterability and as fulfilling certain
functions within a certain discourse helps to get rid of moral judgments about
pseudepigraphic texts and their authors, about originality and authenticity.
Moreover, author-names can be described in their manifold functions. They do
much more than open a gate for historical speculation. They proffer authority
and undercut this same authority; they establish credibility and can be used by
someone else besides the real writer and still maintain credibility; they classify
texts bearing the same author-name and underline the differences of these
same texts because they are seen as part of the same discourse. Like a hashtag,
the written use of an author-name entails losing control over that same name,
separation from its origin and placement within a referential system. That is
why I hope that #authorfunctions can prompt an interesting discussion within
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

exegetical discourse.

70 Peter Pilhofer, Das Neue Testament und seine Welt: Eine realgeschichtliche Einführung
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 349.
71 Schnelle, Einleitung, 285.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 145

References

Adam, A. K. M. “Deconstruction: On Making a Difference.” In What Is Postmodern Bibli-

cal Criticism? gbs, 27–43. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.
Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Litera-
ture of the First Two Centuries.” jts 12, no. 1 (1961): 39–49. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/23957933.
Aune, David E. Revelation 1–5. wbc 52A. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1997.
Baum, Armin D. Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im Frühen Christentum:
Mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher Übersetzung. wunt 2/138. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Böcher, Otto. “Das Verhältnis der Apokalypse des Johannes zum Evangelium des
Johannes.” In L’Apocalypse Johannique et L’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament,
edited by Jan Lambrecht and George R. Beasley-Murray, 289–301. Leuven: Duculot,
1980.
Brakke, David. “Early Christian Lies and the Lying Liars Who Wrote Them: Bart
Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery.” JR 96 (2016): 378–390. doi: 10.1086/686567.
Bürger, Peter. “Denken als Geste: Versuch über den Philosophen Michel Foucault.” In
Spiele der Wahrheit: Michel Foucaults Denken, edited by François Ewald and Bern-
hard Waldenfels, 89–105. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1991.
Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of
John? Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Culpepper, Richard A. “An Introduction to the Johannine Writings.” In The Johannine
Literature. The Sheffield New Testament Guides, 9–27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2000.
Derrida, Jacques. “Afterword: Toward an Ethic of Discussion.” In Limited Inc., 111–160.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988.
Derrida, Jacques. “Limited Inc a b c …” In Limited Inc., 29–110. Evanston, IL: Northwest-
ern University Press, 1988.
Derrida, Jacques. “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy.” Oxford
Literary Review 6, no. 2 (1984): 3–37. doi: 10.3366/olr.1984.001.
Derrida, Jacques. “Sauf Le Nom (Post-Scriptum).” In On the Name, edited by Thomas
Dutoit. Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics, 35–88. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

Press, 1995.
Derrida, Jacques. “Signature Event Context.” In Limited Inc., 1–23. Evanston, IL: North-
western University Press, 1988.
Fenske, Wolfgang. Der Lieblingsjünger: Das Geheimnis um Johannes. Biblische Gestal­
ten 16. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007.
Fischer, Karl M. “Anmerkungen zur Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament.” nts 23,
no. 1 (1977): 76–81. doi: 10.1017/S0028688500008407.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 146 Breu

Fish, Stanley. “Normal Circumstances, Literal Language, Direct Speech Acts, the Or-
dinary, the Everyday, the Obvious, What Goes without Saying, and Other Special
Cases.” CI 4, no. 4 (1978): 625–644. doi: 10.1086/447959.
Foucault, Michel. “The Order of Discourse.” In Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist
Reader, edited by Robert Young, 48–78. Boston et al.: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1981.
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” In Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, ed-
ited by James D. Faubion. Essential Works by Foucault, 205–222. New York: The New
Press, 1998.
Frenschkowski, Marco. “Pseudepigraphie und Paulusschule. Gedanken zur Verfas­
serschaft der Deuteropaulinen, insbesondere der Pastoralbriefe.” In Das Ende
des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte, edited by
Friedrich W. Horn. bznw 106, 239–272. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001.
Frey, Jörg. “Appendix: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis der Johannesapokalypse zu den üb-
rigen Schriften des Corpus Johanneum.” In Die Johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsver-
such, edited by Martin Hengel. wunt 1/67, 326–429. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.
Gese, Michael. Das Vermächtnis des Apostels: Die Rezeption der Paulinischen Theologie
im Epheserbrief. wunt 2/99. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Gnilka, Joachim. Der Epheserbrief. HThKNT 6. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 2002.
Gnilka, Joachim. Der Kolosserbrief. HThKNT 5. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 2002.
Gupta, Nijay. “What Is in a Name? The Hermeneutics of Authorship Analysis Concern-
ing Colossians.” CurBR 11, no. 2 (2013): 196–217. doi: 10.1177/1476993X12439885.
Hengel, Martin. Die Johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch. wunt 1/67. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1993.
Holtz, Traugott. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. ntd 11. Göttingen: Vanden­
hoeck&Ruprecht, 2008.
Janßen, Martina. Unter falschem Namen: Eine kritische Forschungsbilanz frühchristli-
cher Pseudepigraphie. Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums 14.
Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang, 2003.
King, Karen L. “‘What Is an Author?’ Ancient Author-Function in the Apocryphon of
John and the Apocalypse of John.” In Scribal Practices and Social Structures among
Jesus Adherents: Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg, edited by William E. Arnal,
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

Richard S. Ascough, Robert A. Derrenbacker and Philip A. Harland. betl 285, 15–42.
Leuven: Peeters, 2016.
Kügler, Joachim. Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte: Literarische, theologische und historische
Untersuchungen zu einer Schlüsselgestalt johanneischer Theologie und Geschichte:
Mit einem Exkurs über die Brotrede in Joh 6. sbb 16. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 1988.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 #John: Author-Names in Revelation and Other NT Texts 147

Lamarque, Peter. “The Death of the Author: An Analytical Autopsy.” bja 30, no. 4 (1990):
319–331. doi: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/30.4.319.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles. 3rd ed. icc. London and New York: Blooms-
bury T&T Clark, 2004.
Meade, David G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Au-
thorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. wunt 1/39. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
Merklein, Helmut. “Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheser-
briefes.” In Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: Zur Paulusrezeption im
Neuen Testament, edited by Karl Kertelge. QD 89, 25–69. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1981.
Merz, Annette. “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory
Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy?” In The Inter-
textuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice, edited by Thomas L.
Brodie, Dennis R. McDonald and Stanley E. Porter. ntm 16, 113–132. Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.
Overbeck, Franz. Das Johannesevangelium: Studien zur Kritik seiner Erforschung.
­Tübingen: Mohr, 1911.
Pilhofer, Peter. Das Neue Testament und seine Welt: Eine realgeschichtliche Einführung.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Posselt, Gerald, Matthias Flatscher and Sergej Seitz. Sprachphilosophie: Eine Einfüh-
rung. Wien: Facultas, 2016.
Resseguie, James L. “The Beloved Disciple: The Ideal Point of View.” In Character Stud-
ies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, edited by
Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie and Ruben Zimmermann. wunt 1/314, 536–549.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Roose, Hanna. Das Zeugnis Jesu: Seine Bedeutung für die Christologie, Eschatologie und
Prophetie in der Offenbarung des Johannes. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestament-
lichen Zeitalter 32. Tübingen et al.: Francke, 2000.
Said, Edward W. Beginnings: Intention and Method. London: Granta Books, 1985.
Satake, Akira. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. kek 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht, 2008.
Schnelle, Udo. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vanden­
hoeck&Ruprecht, 2005.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

Schüssler-Fiorenza, Elisabeth. “The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse
and the Fourth Gospel.” nts 23, no. 4 (1977): 402–427. doi: 10.1017/S0028688500012376.
Taeger, Jens-Wilhelm. “Offenbarung 1:1–3: Johanneische Autorisierung einer Aufklä-
rungsschrift.” nts 49, no. 2 (2003): 176–192. doi: 10.1017/S0028688503000092.
Tóth, Franz. “Von der Vision zur Redaktion: Untersuchungen zur Komposition, Re-
daktion und Intention der Johannesapokalypse.” In Die Johannesapokalypse:

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.
 148 Breu

Kontexte – Konzepte – Rezeption, edited by Jörg Frey, James A. Kelhoffer and Franz
Tóth. wunt 1/287, 319–411. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Tovey, Derek. “An Anonymous Disciple: A Type of Discipleship.” In Character Stud-
ies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, edited by
Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie and Ruben Zimmermann. wunt 1/314, 133–136.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Walter, Nickolaus, Eckart Reinmuth and Peter Lampe. Die Briefe an die Philipper, Thes-
salonicher und an Philemon. ntd 8/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1998.
Wengst, Klaus. Wie lange noch? Schreien nach Recht und Gerechtigkeit – Eine Deutung
der Apokalypse des Johannes. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010.
Wernick, Andrew. “Authorship and the Supplement of Promotion.” In What Is an Au-
thor? edited by Maurice Biriotti and Nicola Miller. Manchester and New York: Man-
chester University Press, 1993.
Wolfers, Carsten. Die Foucaultschen Subjekte. Wien et al.: Lit, 2009.
Copyright © 2019. BRILL. All rights reserved.

Biblical Exegesis Without Authorial Intention? : Interdisciplinary Approaches to Authorship and Meaning, BRILL, 2019. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nlkr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5842351.
Created from nlkr-ebooks on 2025-07-01 11:19:41.