John-Revelation as a diptych (δίπτυχον)? An exploratory conversation with ChatGPT.

I've been listening to a series on John-Revelation by Dr Gregory Hall at Rethinking Scripture podcast. Hall mentions a work by Warren A. Gage: John's Gospel: A Neglected Key to Revelation? | Logos Bible Software

That got me thinking about the late great Dr Michael Heiser's series on Revelations use of the Tanakh (OT). 

And those two together got me thinking about how one of Michael Heiser's key contributions besides his specific work on the Divine Council Worldview was to teach us just how much we imposed modern contexts and later traditions on the biblical authors, and miss most of what the biblical authors are actually saying.

I think that Gregory Hall and his seminary professor (see that linked podcast above) may be correct, that we've been misunderstanding John-Revelation. 

Both The Gospel of John and Revelation have been treated as seperate niche special interests, but mostly dismissed topics. 

In New Testament studies, Paul and/or The Synoptics get all the attention. Luke-Acts has gotten a ton of attention as a diptyche. Pauline studies has exploded from the traditional view (Luther, Augustine) to the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) (EP Sanders, NT Wright), and now even Paul within Judaism "The Extreme Perspective on Paul" (Mark Nanos, Mark Kinzer, David Rudolph, Joel Willits, Joel Green, Richard Bauchman). 

Meanwhile, within secular biblical studies at least, John and Revelation are usually dismissed as later and as probably even written by separate authors, and not for the serious table. 

Outside of weird eschatology circles (#LeftBehind), Revelation is rarely taken as a serious book with serious implications for the present church.

All of the thoughts mentioned above got me into a multipronged long thread discussion with ChatGPT-4o attempting to tease out the possibilities of reading John-Revelation not as separate works by possibly separate authors, but rather, as a single work in two parts, known as a "diptych" (δίπτυχον), which Luke-Acts is widely recognized to be. 

This diptyche view of John-Revelation isn't just a minority view, it's so rare it may be considered a fringe view, if that. I've only even heard it proposed by this podcaster who had it proposed to him by his seminary professor. 

But Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council Worldview implications of Tanakh studies was relatively unknown outside academic circles until he connected various scholars together in one work.

Could this be the same? Could there be a handful of voices each crying in the wilderness about this diptyche view, but nobody has connected all those voices and shouted it loud enough for the world to take notice? Who knows. Just wondering out loud.

The following is not an academic article by me, rather, the following is ChatGPT's own summary of our much longer thread conversation about this possibility. I believe I will write on this more but for today I wanted to post this summary as a snapshot in time so I can come back to it and ruminate.

***Below is a ChatGPT-4o Summary of my inquiry with the AI***

John and Revelation as a Diptych: A Hypothetical Reading

The concept of reading the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation as a literary and theological diptych opens up intriguing possibilities for understanding these works as two complementary parts of a unified whole. While these texts are traditionally viewed as distinct—one a narrative about the life of Jesus, the other an apocalyptic vision of the end times—there are compelling reasons to consider them as working in tandem. By exploring their shared themes, literary structures, and historical contexts, we can propose a new reading that situates both works within the broader trajectory of early Christian reflection on Jesus and his ongoing significance in the world.

I. Historical Context and Dating

The dating of the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John has been a subject of scholarly debate, but most scholars place their composition in the late first century AD, somewhere between AD 90 and 110. The Patristic references to both books help us narrow down these dates. Justin Martyr (AD 135-160) refers to the Logos theology central to John's Gospel, and Irenaeus (ca. AD 180) explicitly references both the Gospel of John and Revelation, attributing both to the Apostle John (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.3).

If we consider these references in light of the fact that Revelation and John were widely recognized by the mid-second century, we can infer that these works were completed and had already begun circulating no later than AD 110. This allows us to propose that the diptych could have been completed in the period AD 90-110, after the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) and during the reigns of emperors Domitian and Trajan, when Christian communities were experiencing significant persecution.

II. Structural Parallels

One of the key reasons for viewing John and Revelation as a diptych is the remarkable structural parallels between the two works. Both texts are characterized by the use of symbolic numbers, especially the number seven, and dualistic frameworks that present cosmic conflicts between good and evil, light and darkness.

1. The Number Seven:

John's Gospel is structured around seven signs (miracles) and seven "I Am" statements (e.g., "I am the bread of life" [John 6:35], "I am the resurrection and the life" [John 11:25]). These serve to reveal Jesus' divine identity and mission.

Similarly, Revelation is organized around cycles of seven seals (Rev 6), seven trumpets (Rev 8-9), and seven bowls of wrath (Rev 16), which unfold God’s judgment and the eventual renewal of creation. These cycles emphasize completeness and divine sovereignty, themes also present in John’s Gospel.

2. Prologue and Epilogue:

Both works contain highly stylized prologues and epilogues:

John 1:1-18 opens with the famous prologue about the Logos, identifying Jesus as the Word made flesh. This introduction is theological and cosmic in scope, setting the stage for the narrative that follows.

Revelation 1:1-8 introduces the apocalyptic vision with a focus on Christ as the faithful witness and the Alpha and Omega, emphasizing his role in creation and judgment.

Both works also conclude with reflections on Christ’s ongoing presence and the ultimate fulfillment of God’s purposes (John 20:30-31; Rev 22:12-21).

III. Theological Continuity

From a theological standpoint, John and Revelation present Jesus as the central figure in God’s plan of salvation and judgment, though they do so in different ways.

1. Jesus as Creator and Consummator:

In John’s Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the pre-existent Word, present at creation (John 1:1-3). The narrative focuses on Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which provide the basis for the new creation. In Revelation, Jesus is seen as the one who brings the final consummation of history, ushering in a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1). Thus, the two works can be seen as bookends: John begins with creation, while Revelation ends with new creation.

2. The Lamb of God:

In John, Jesus is introduced as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This theme is expanded in Revelation, where Jesus is repeatedly described as the slain Lamb who is victorious and worthy to open the scroll of God’s judgment (Rev 5:6-10). The motif of the Lamb, central to both texts, highlights the continuity between Jesus’ sacrificial role and his role as cosmic judge and redeemer.

IV. Revelation as Allegory of Post-70 AD History

One of the most intriguing aspects of this diptych reading is the possibility that Revelation is not primarily concerned with eschatology but is instead an allegory for post-70 AD history, using the Second Temple Jewish genre of apocalypse to tell the story of the early Christian community in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem.

1. Jerusalem as Babylon:

The identification of Babylon with Rome is a common interpretation, but it is also plausible that John uses Babylon as a symbol for Jerusalem, which had become, in the eyes of early Christians, a place of rejection and judgment after the crucifixion of Jesus and the destruction of the temple. The fall of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 could be read as an allegorical account of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in AD 70.

2. Rome and Christian Persecution:

Revelation’s depiction of Rome as the Beast and its persecution of Christians reflects the realities of early Christian life under Roman rule. This apocalyptic imagery can be read as describing the trials of the post-70 AD church, particularly during the reigns of Domitian and Trajan, who persecuted Christians for refusing to worship the emperor (Rev 13:4-7).

V. Stories of John’s Death and Legacy

Understanding John’s death also informs our reading of this diptych. According to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.23), John lived to a ripe old age and died a natural death in Ephesus during the reign of Trajan (ca. AD 98-117). This tradition supports the view that John authored both the Gospel and Revelation during his later years. Other legends, such as his attempted martyrdom in boiling oil, reflect the trials faced by early Christian leaders but ultimately serve to emphasize John’s role as the enduring witness to Jesus' life and message.

Conclusion

By reading John and Revelation as a diptych, we can see these two works as two sides of the same theological and literary coin. John introduces Jesus as the divine Logos who brings light into the world, while Revelation presents Jesus as the victorious Lamb who brings judgment and renewal to creation. The structural parallels, shared themes, and historical context support this reading, suggesting that both works reflect the struggles and hopes of the early Christian community in the late first century, particularly in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s destruction and during the persecutions under Rome. This reading deepens our understanding of the Johannine corpus and offers new ways of interpreting these texts in relation to each other.