¹ An earlier version of this article was read at the Summer, 1993 annual meeting of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research (NT section) in Cambridge and at the Fall, 1993 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Washington, DC. I am grateful to participants at these meetings for their comments.

² ‘Farewell to O AMHN’, JBL 82 (1963) 213–15Google Scholar, building on an earlier article by Burney, C. F. (‘Christ as the APXH of Creation’, JTS 27 [1926] 160–77)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Trudinger, P. O., ‘Ό Αμήν (Rev.III:14) and the Case for a Semitic Original of the Apocalypse’, NovT [1972] 277–9Google Scholar, agrees with Silberman's analysis. Silberman could also have cited Midr. Tanhuma, Genesis, Parashah 1.5 on Gen l.lff., Pt. 5, which is virtually identical to Midr. Rab. Gen 1.1 in its use of Prov 8.22 and 8.30.

⁴ ‘The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse’, JBL 45 (1926) 73Google Scholar.

⁵ E.g., Hemer, C., The Letters to the Seuen Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (JSNTS 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 186–7Google Scholar.

⁶ Holtz, T., Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes (TU 85; Berlin: Akademie, 1962) 144–7Google Scholar.

⁷ Schlatter, , Das Alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 6; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1912) 43–4Google Scholar. Gill, Likewise J., An Exposition of the New Testament 3: The Revelation of St John the Divine (Phil.: W. W. Woodward, 1811) 723Google Scholar, cites the Zohar, fol. 77.1 on Gen 24.2: ‘this is Metatron (or the Mediator), the servant of God…for he is the beginning of the creation of God, who rules over all that he has’.

⁸ So also Brox, N., Zeuge und Märtyrer, Untersuchungen zur frühchristlichen ZeugnisTerminologie (München: Kösel, 1961) 98Google Scholar.

⁹ So likewise only Burney, , ‘Christ as APXH’, 177Google Scholar, and Gilmour, S. M., ‘The Revelation to John’, in The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (ed. Lammon, C. M.; Nashville and New York, 1971) 952;Google ScholarRist, M., ‘The Revelation of St John the Divine’, in The Interpreter's Bible 12 (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1957) 396Google Scholar, sees both ideas of original and new creation included, as does most recently Krodel, G. A., Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 142Google Scholar, and Mulholland, M. R., Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 133Google Scholar, all of whom appear to have been anticipated by Gill, , Revelation ofSt John, 722Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Note 2 Cor 5.15, 17 where Jesus' resurrection is understood as bringing about a ‘new creation’ (cf. the linking ὥστε); so Eph 1.20–3; 2.5–6,10.

¹¹ Cf. Burney, , ‘APXH’, 176–7Google Scholar, and Holtz, , Christologie, 147Google Scholar, for further evidence that ⋯ρχή can include both ideas of ‘beginning’ and ‘sovereign head’ in Col 1.18, Rev 3.14 and elsewhere.

¹² It is also possible that Christ is presented in this way as a polemic against the idea that the emperor's birthday marked the beginning of a new creation of the Roman empire. The Roman governor of the province of Asia during the reign of Augustus declared that ‘the birthday of the most divine Caesar’ was ‘equivalent to the beginning of all things, and he has restored…every form that had become imperfect and fallen…Therefore people would be right to consider this to have been the beginning of the breath of life for them.’ The assembly of the province of Asia also honoured Augustus because ‘the birthday of the god marked for the world the beginning of good tidings’ (for the translations and fuller contexts of these quotes see Price, S. R. F., Rituals and Power [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984] 55Google Scholar).

¹³ Likewise Milligan, W., The Book of Revelation (New York: Armstrong & Son, 1901) 34Google Scholar, Lohmeyer, E., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953) 38Google Scholar, and Mulholland, , Revelation, 133Google Scholar, who understand 3.14 as referring to new creation.

¹⁴ E.g., Hemer, , The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 185Google Scholar, says ‘Christ is equated with the “God of Amen” of Isa 65.16’, likewise Kiddle, M., The Revelation of St John (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940) 57Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The following see the threefold title of Rev 3.14 as an expanded translation of ‘Amen’ in isa 65.16: Rissi, , The Future of the World. An Exegetical Study of Rev 19:11–22:15 (Studies in Biblical Theology 23; London: SCM, 1972) 21;Google ScholarSchlie, H. ‘άμήν’, TDNT 1.337;Google ScholarBietenhard, H., ‘άμήν’, DNTT 1.99Google Scholar.

¹⁶ The only exception to this, which came to my notice after completing an initial draft of the present study, is Fekkes, J. III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation (JSNT Suppl. Series 93; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994) 137–8Google Scholar, who offers two brief arguments in support of an Isaiah allusion behind ‘Amen’ (see nn. 29 and 32 below), though he does not see ‘faithful and true’ as based on Isaiah.

¹⁷ See the numerous examples in Hatch, E. and Redpath, H. A., A Concordance to the Septuagint 2 (Graz-Austria: Akademische, 1954) 1138–9Google Scholar; likewise see on πίστος ibid., 1138.

¹⁸ See examples in Hatch, and Redpath, , Concordance to Septuagint 1.54Google Scholar, and in particular note the LXX rendering of ןסא in Isa 65.16 twice by ⋯ληθινός similarly see ibid., 54, on ⋯ληθ⋯ς (especially in Jer 35(28).6, where it renders ןסא) and ibid., 53, on άλήθεια. See also below on the translations of Isa 65.16 by Aquila and Symmachus.

¹⁹ The full translation of Aquila is, ‘by which the one blessing himself in the earth will be blessed faithfully by God’, so that πεπιστωμένως functions adverbially, but still refers to the faithfulness of God. Jerome reflects Aquila's rendering by reading the adverb fideliter and ras. 86 similarly reads πεπιστωμένος for the first ‘Amen’ of Isa 65.16.

²⁰ Symmachus could be rendered in one of two ways, since ⋯μήν is indeclinable: (1) ‘by which the one blessing himself upon the earth will be blessed by the God of Amen’, or (2) ‘by which the one blessing himself will be blessed by God, amen’ (Field's edition of Origen's Hexapla punctuates in the latter way). In the former it is an adjective for God, while in the latter it is a response by God to his prior assertion, which would still refer to his faithfulness in fulfilling his promises. The Vulgate likewise reads amen twice, and Theodotion and ms. 86 read άμήν for the second ‘Amen’ of the Isaiah text (for full data see the Göttingen LXX apparatus edited by J. Ziegler).

²¹ So Swete, H. B., Apocalypse of St John (London: Macmillan, 1911) 58Google Scholar, as well as Silberman, , ‘Farewell to O AMHN’, 213Google Scholar and Prigent, P., L'Apocalypse de Saint Jean (Lausanne and Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1981) 75–6Google Scholar, though they note only the readings of Symmachus and the LXX. Charles, R. H., The Revelation of St John 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 94Google Scholar, cites the LXX, Aquila and Symmachus, but merely concludes that only ⋯μήν in Rev 3.14 is derived from Isa 65.16 and does not comment on ‘faithful and true’.

²² See references at n. 15.

²³ Even different English versions render ןסא in almost identical ways as Rev 3.14 and the Septuagint versions: Douay and NEB = ‘Amen’, NRSV and Moffatt = ‘faithfulness’ or ‘faithful’, KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, JB = ‘true’. Brown, , Driver, and Briggs, , Hebrew Lexicon of the OT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 53Google Scholar, cites the same three possibilities of translation for Isa 65.16.

²⁴ There is consensus that the Septuagint of Isaiah was translated before the first Christian century (e.g. see Swete, H. B., Introduction to the OT in Greek [Cambridge: University, 1902] 24–5Google Scholar; Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and Modern Study [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968] 67Google Scholar). Therefore, at least one of the OT Greek readings of Isa 65.16 was extant before the first century AD (probably ⋯ληθινός of the LXX). The precise dates of Aquila's, Theodotion's and Symmachus’ translations are after the usually accepted 95 AD date of Revelation.

Aquila's work is typically placed around 130 AD, Theodotion's toward the end of that century and that of Symmachus about 200 AD. Such close chronological proximity to Revelation, especially on Aquila's and Theodotion's part (see below), makes plausible that their readings may have existed earlier in some versional or traditional form. There is also geographical proximity, since ‘Ur-Theodotion’ had been current for a long time in Asia Minor prior to the end of the second century AD (Jellicoe, Septuagint, 89), and possibly Aquila's translation had influence there, since he was from Pontus (Sinope) in Asia Minor (Swete, , Intro, to OT Greek, 31Google Scholar). The three were not independent translators, but were revisers of prior OT Greek translations. Aquila was revising in order to produce a more literal translation of the Hebrew. Interestingly, his work has been seen to reflect ‘the exegetical tradition of the school of Jamnia’ (Swete, , Intro, to OT Greek, 458Google Scholar; cf. pp. 32, 41). Symmachus is generally known as a ‘dynamic equivalent’ translator. Some of his readings pre-date the first century AD (Jellicoe, , Septuagint, 96Google Scholar). Symmachus' translation also shows a knowledge of previous Greek versions (Roberts, B. J., The OT Text and Versions [Cardiff: Univ. of Wales, 1951] 126Google Scholar), a thoroughgoing use of Hebrew and Greek sources ‘as quarries from which he…carefully selects the stones’, and his work reveals ‘extensive knowledge of current Jewish exegesis’ (Jellicoe, , Septuagint, 98–9Google Scholar; likewise Roberts, , The OT Text, 126Google Scholar). Though Theodotion's version is dated toward the end of the second century, it is acknowledged that his work was a recension of a translation made in the early second century BC, usually now referred to as Ur-Theodotion. The primary basis for positing the early existence of Ur-Theodotion is the appearance of Theodotionic readings in the NT (especially Daniel allusions in Revelation and the earliest fathers; see Jellicoe, , Septuagint, 83–94Google Scholar). For a more recent discussion of Theodotion of Daniel and evaluation in favour of a date prior to the first century AD see Collins, J. J., Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 9–11Google Scholar.

²⁵ For the practice in Judaism see Olyan, S., A Thousand Thousands Served Him (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 36; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1993)Google Scholar, who notes that these angelic name formulations were sometimes based on an exegetical expansion of divine attributes from the Hebrew OT, which would seem to have relevance especially for the expansions of the divine name ‘Amen’ in Isa 65.1.6.

²⁶ In addition to ןסא, cf. also ןסא (‘faithfulness’) and ןוסא (‘firmness, faithfulness’); see Jepsen, , ‘āman’, TDOT 1.322Google Scholar and the apparatus of BHS on Isa 65.16.

²⁷ Jepsen, , ‘āman’, 320–2Google Scholar.

²⁸ Cf. Bietenhard, , ‘⋯μήν’, 97–9Google Scholar.

²⁹ After finishing the rough draft of this article, I read Alexander, J. A., Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953 [orig. 1846–1847]) 451Google Scholar, who comes close to making the same point; even more recently my attention has been drawn to the just published work of Fekkes, , Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in Revelation, 137–8Google Scholar, who independently confirms the same point.

³⁰ The allusion to Isaiah 65 in Rev 3.12 is acknowledged by many commentators and probably includes Isa 62.2, where the end-time status of God's people also will be indicated by conferring on them a ‘new name’. Note the same allusion to Isa 62.2 and 65.15 in Rev 2.17.

³¹ The context of Isa 65.15 primarily contrasts God's faithful servants in Israel with Israelites who compromise by dedicating meals and cup offerings to idols and false gods (vv. 3–4, 7, 11). Targ. Isa 65.4 is applied to those who pay homage to a memorial erected in honour of the emperor Tiberias (so Chilton, B. D., The Isaiah Targum [Aramaic Bible 11; Wilmington, Delaware: M. Glazier, 1987] 123Google Scholar). In the eschaton the faithful will be comforted from their former troubles (vv. 13–19) by ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’, whereas the compromisers will be punished because they will ‘prepare a table for the Devil and fill up the drink-offering for Fortune’ (v. 11). Perhaps the context of idolatrous feasts in Isaiah 65 made it even more attractive to appeal to, since emperor worship pervaded all aspects of society and idolatrous trade guild banquets were one of the problematic situations facing the seven churches, including Laodicea (e.g., 2.14, 20; see Hemer, , Seven Churches, 107–23Google Scholar). In this respect, Christ's promise in 3.20 that he will ‘dine’ with the faithful takes on more significance.

³² Fairer, , Rebirth of Images, 280–1Google Scholar, sees Isa 65.13–18 as the background for ‘Amen’, and ‘Faithful and True’ in Rev 19.4,11, which he sees being applied to Christ in future fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that God would be called these names in the new world. However, Farrer does not relate this to Rev 3.14.

Recently Fekkes, , Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in Revelation, 138Google Scholar, in arguing for dependence of ‘Amen’ in 3.14 on Isa 65.16 also independently has pointed out a few of the allusions observed above to confirm the point (Isa 65.15, 65.17 and 65.16c respectively in Rev 3.12, 21.1 and 21.4).

³³ In an obscure commentary on Revelation Mauro, P., The Patmos Visions: A Study of the Apocalypse [Boston: Hamilton, 1925] 129–30Google Scholar, comes close to suggesting this conclusion as a possibility, although his discussion is brief.

³⁴ On this see Beale, G. K., ‘The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5–7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Cor 6.14–7.1’, NTS 35 (1989) 550–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ References to Tanna Debe Eliyyahu are from the Braude, and Kapstein, translation (Phil.: Jewish Pub. Society of America, 1981)Google Scholar.

³⁶ For the idea of temporal priority in Jewish and Greek literature cf. Holtz, , Christologie, 145–6Google Scholar.

³⁷ E.g., Ladd, G. E., A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 65Google Scholar.

³⁸ The preferred reading of the Göttingen LXX textual apparatus retains μάρτυς, λέγει but cites the following mss. supporting omission of the phrase: S O L -86^c C 198 393 410 449’ 544 965 (vid.) Syp^{a b} Syl Eus. Tht. Hi. =; mss. in Holmes and Parsons supporting the μάρτυς reading are XII, 26, 49, 86, 106, 239, 306, Alex., 233. Even if μάρτυς were omitted, the text could also be translated ‘you are my witnesses, and I am the Lord God (or, and I the Lord God am a witness) even from the beginning’, but either way there is an implied verb in the second clause.

³⁹ B. Berak. 13a sees both an Exodus and Babylonian exile background for Isa 43.18–19, whereas the majority of Jewish commentators see only the latter setting for Isa 65.16–17 and 66.22 [Midr. Rab. Exod 23.11; Midr. Rab. Deut 10.4; Midr. Rab. Lam 1.2, §23; Pesik. Rab., Piska 29/30B.4; Pirke Rab. Eliezer 51]).

⁴⁰ Cf. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973 [ninth edition]) 703Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Cf. Isa 45.5, 45.6a, 45.6b and 45.18, though these uses could denote comparative degree (‘besides’; see Liddell–Scott, p. 703; cf. BAGD, p.315).

⁴² The first ⋯ληθής of Isa 43.9 (LXX) is read only by mss. 26, 41,106,198, 233, Alexandrinus (so the Holmes and Parsons apparatus) and Sinaiticus² (so Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to Septuagint, in loc).

⁴³ Jewish exegetes interpreted Isa 43.10, 12 to refer to Israel's duty to ‘witness’ to God as Creator of the cosmos (Mekilta de Rab. Ishmael, Tract. Bahodesh 8.87–93, and Tract. Shabbata 1.45–50) or to witness to the Exodus-Sinai revelation, which the first generation failed to do (Midr. Rab. Exod 29.5; Midr. Rab. Lev 6.1 and 6.5; Pesik. de-Rab Kahana, Piska 12.6). Targ. Isa 43.10–13 includes both ideas in the witness. The witness of Isa 43.12 is understood in Judaism as a faithful witness, since it is explicitly contrasted with those who bear ‘false witness’ (Midr. Rab. Lev 6.1 and 21.5). Some even saw Isa 43.10 as having its ultimate reference point in the future resurrection at the end of the age (Midr. Rab. Gen 95.1; Midr. Tanhuma, Genesis, Parashah 11.9 on Gen 46.28ff., Pt. 1). The above references of faithful witnessing to the first creation or to the final resurrection is strikingly parallel to Rev 3.14, where Christ is the faithful witness, not only to God during his earthly ministry, but also of his own resurrection as the beginning of the new creation. It is important to recall at this point that Isa 65.17 and 66.22 are viewed as referring to the final resurrection, which shows further affinities between Judaism's view of these Isaiah passages and that of the use in Rev 3.14 (see Tanna Debe Eliyyahu Rab., p. 86; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu, Pirke Rab. Eliezer, S, p. 31; Midr. Pss. 46.2).

⁴⁴ It is surprising that Isaiah 43 apparently has not been recognized heretofore as the background for the ‘witness’ in Rev 3.14. Brox, , Zeuge und Märtyrer, 144–50Google Scholar, discusses the idea of witness in Isaiah 43–4, but does not link it as background for Rev 3.14. My former students B. Lee and S. T. Um brought to my attention that ‘witness’ in Isa 43.10–13 might be related to Rev 3.14, but they had not noticed its close link with new creation in Isa 43.18–19 nor the other relevant Jewish material or Isaiah 65 allusions in Rev 3.14, which confirms their suggestion.

⁴⁵ Likewise Rissi, , Future of the World, 21Google Scholar. That the ‘witness’ is primarily to fulfilment of OT prophecy in Jesus' resurrection is apparent from the use of ‘faithful and true’ in 19.11, 21.5 and 22.6, which respectively refer to an assurance that Christ will fulfil OT prophecy about final judgment and that God will fulfil OT prophecy about the new creation (see above sect. 3.B.lf.). That a witness to the resurrection is, at the least, allowed is apparent from: (1) the consistent use of the μάρτυς word group throughout the book to refer to testimony about Christ in general, which certainly includes his resurrection; (2) since the risen Christ's affirmation of himself as a ‘witness’ in 3.14 is so generally stated, it is probable that the reference includes his role as a witness to God's revelatory work at the resurrection and its subsequent effects.

⁴⁶ The only passages in Isaiah where ‘my servant’ (ירכע) is equated with ‘my chosen’ (יךיחכ) are Isaiah 43.10, 20 and 65.14–15, which may have been catch-words further facilitating an association of the two contexts (though רכע is sg. in the former and plural in the latter).

⁴⁷ Like Rev 3.14, Jewish exegetical tradition sometimes understood Isa 65.17–18, and its parallel in 66.22, as having inaugurated application to the present: Midr. Rab. Gen 1.13; Midr. Rab. Lev 29.12 (‘The Holy One said, “I will consider it as though you have this day [the annual festival day of the New Year] been made before me, as though this day I had created you as a new being”’); Pesik. Rab. Kahana, Piska 23 is virtually identical to the preceding Midr. Rab. Lev reference; Midr. Tanhuma, Genesis, Parashah 1.9 on Gen l.lff., Pt. 9; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu Rab., p. 83 and cf. p. 92.

Isa 43.19, 65.17 and 66.22 are viewed as a prophecy of the future numerous times in early Judaism (see additional references at n. 53 below). The Isaiah texts also are used often to refer to the prophetic future in the later midrashic literature: Midr. Rab. Exod 23.11; Midr. Rab. Num 23.4; Midr. Rab. Deut 10.4; Midr. Rab. Lam 1.2, § 23; Mekilta de Rab. Ishmael 18.111–14; Sifre Deut, Piska 47; Sifre Deut., Piska 306; Pesik. Rab., Piska 29/30B.4 and 44.7; Pirke Rab. Eliezer LI; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu Rabbah, p. 4; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu Rabbah, Eliyyahu Zuta, EZ, p. 178; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu, Pirke Rab. Eliezer, S, p. 31; Midr. Tanhuma, Genesis, Parashah 1.20 on Gen 2.4ff., Pt. 9.

⁴⁸ In addition to Rev 3.7, 9, Rev 15.3,16.7,19.2,19.11,21.5 and 22.6 also generally refer to Jesus or God as ‘true’ because they will fulfil OT prophecy in the future; note ⋯ληθινός in John 1.9; 6.32; 15.1 for ‘true’ in John's Gospel as the contrastive antitype to Israel, also used like 3.7, 9, and 3.14. Cf. also ⋯λήθεια in Jn 1.17; 4.23–4. Hughes, P. E., The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 63–4Google Scholar, notes that ‘Amen’ in 3.14 may well have the same above idea of fulfilling prophetic promises in Christ and hence confirming them, as also in 2 Cor 1.20, especially in the light of the uses of ‘Amen’ elsewhere in the book at the conclusion of segments concerning either inaugurated or future fulfilment of OT prophecy (Rev 1.6–7; 5.14; 7.12; 19.4; 22.20). Likewise Boring, M. E., Revelation (Louisville: John Knox, 1989) 88Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Could ⋯ μάρτυς μου in Rev 2.13 also be an allusion to Isa 43.10,12 ([⋯]μοι μάρτυρες, 2x)?

⁵⁰ Contra the recent evaluation of Fekkes, , Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in Revelation, 110–12Google Scholar; this conclusion makes more attractive the suggestion of some that standing behind ‘faithful witness’ in Rev 1.5 is either the use of ‘witness’ in Isa 43.9–10 (+ Isa 44.8–9) or in Isa 55.4 (‘I have made him [David] a testimony [μαρτύριον]…a prince [ἄρχοντα] and a commander to the Gentiles’); in support of the former see Kraft, H., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1974) 26Google Scholar, Brownlee, W. H., ‘Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament’, NTS 3 (1956–1957) 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Trites, A. A., The New Testament Concept of Witness (SNTSMS 31; Cambridge: Cambridge University 1977) 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the latter suggesting only the possibility of the Servant's role of witness in Isaiah 40–55 as part of the background both in Rev 1.5, 3.14 and throughout the book; in support of the Isaiah 55.4 influence see Ford, J. M., Revelation (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1975) 380Google Scholar, Swete, , Apocalypse, 7Google Scholar (who includes Prov 14.5), and above all Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, Priester für Gott (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972) 199–200Google Scholar (who includes Psalm 89). This is striking when it is recalled that Rev 3.14 develops 1.5, as argued above and acknowledged by many commentators.

⁵¹ Though not explicitly citing Genesis 1, the following Jewish texts also understand that ‘the name of the Messiah’ existed directly before the creation of the world: Midr. Ps 72.6; 90.12; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu, p. 160; Pirke Rab. Eliezer 3; b. Nedarim 39b; b. Pesahim 54a; cf. also Midr.Ps 93.3.

⁵² Jewish literature generally identified ‘wisdom’ of Prov 8.22, 30 as Torah (Midr. Rab. Gen 85.9; Mekilta de Rab. Ish., Tract. Shirata 9.122–4; Sifr. Deut, Piska 309 and 317; Minor Tracts. Tal, Kallah Rab. 54a; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu Rab., p. 71; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu, Pirke Derek res, S, p. 20; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu Zuta, EZ, p. 171). In particular, Jewish tradition held that Torah-Wisdom of Prov 8.22 was created before the rest of creation, and, hence, was the beginning of the creation (Midr. Rab. Gen 1.1; 1.8; 8.2; Midr. Rab. Exod 30.9; Midr. Rab. Lev 19.1; Midr. Rab. Song of Songs 5.11 § 1; b. Nedarim 39b; b. Pesahim 54a; Minor Tracts. Tal., both de Rab. Nathan 29a; Midr. Tanhuma, Genesis, Parashah 1.5 on Gen l.1ff., Pt. 5; Sifr. Deut Piska 37; Tanna Debe Eliyyahu Rab., p. 112 and p. 160).

However, in Judaism neither Prov 8.22 nor Prov 8.30 are ever identified with the Messiah or the new creation.

⁵³ In contrast to Rev 3.14, but like Rev 21.1, 4–5 (which also alludes to Isa 43.18–19 and 65.16–18), some sectors of Judaism, in reflection on Isaiah 65 (or Isa 43), conceived of the new creation as yet future: Jub 1.29; 4.26; 1 En 45.4–5; 72.1; 91.16; 2 Bar 32.1–6; 44.12; 57.2; 4 Ezra 7.75; Targ. Pal. and Jerus. Deut 32.1; Targ. Hab 3.2; Iren. Contra Haer. 5.36.1; for reference to a like renewal in the future but not necessarily in allusion to Isaiah cf. Targ. Onq. Deut 32.12; Targ. Jer 23.23; Targ. Micah 7.14; b. Sanh. 92b, 97b. Cf. 2 Pet 3.5–13; Matt 19.28. John likely viewed Rev 21.1, 4–5 as the consummation of a process mentioned as beginning in 3.14.