The book of Revelation shows an unexpected interest in trees, and not only for their symbolic or anthropocentric value. Relevance theory helps compare various interpretive options an audience might consider. An audience’s understanding of the warning to “not harm the trees” will be affected by their awareness of the effects of storms, locust plagues, imperial deforestation, siege tactics, and prophetic use of these topics to expose the effects of human sin against creation. Paratextual aids in the translation of these passages will help modern audiences become more aware of these cognitive effects. Using different words to translate the Greek terms δένδρον (used to refer to earthly trees that other creatures are dependent on) and ξύλον (used for the symbolic “Tree” of Life) further emphasizes the earthly and ecological concern of the Seer’s visions.
AuneDavid E.1997–1998. Revelation. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
2.
BoerRoland. 2012. “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper.” Pages 13–23 in Ideology, Culture, and Translation. Edited by ElliottScott S.BoerRoland. Atlanta: SBL.
3.
CaveTerenceWilsonDeirdre. 2018. Reading beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
CroninMichael. 2016. Eco-Translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. London: Routledge.
5.
“Four Forests Restoration Initiative.”United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. https://www.fs.usda.gov/4fri.
6.
HabelNorman C.TrudingerPeter, eds. 2008. Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
7.
HughesJ. Donald. 2014. Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean. 2nd edition.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
JayachandranSeema, et al. 2017. “Cash for Carbon: A Randomized Trial of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Deforestation.” Science 357.6348: 267–73. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan0568.
9.
KielMicah D.2017. Apocalyptic Ecology: The Book of Revelation, the Earth, and the Future. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical.
10.
KoesterCraig R.2014. Revelation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
11.
LiddellH. G.ScottR.JonesH. S.1996. A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th edition with revised supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LupieriEdmondo F.2006. A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
14.
MaxeyJames A.2016. “Alternative Evaluative Concepts to the Trinity of Bible Translation.” Pages 57–80 in Translating Values: Evaluative Concepts in Translation. Edited by BlumczynskiPiotrGillespieJohn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
MaxeyJames A.2018. “Beyond Print/Oral Translation: A Hospitality Approach to Performance.” Unpublished paper given at Oral Bible Translation Conference, October 1–4, 2018, Rockville, VA.
16.
MeiggsRussell. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
NidaEugene A.TaberCharles R.1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
18.
NordChristiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. New York: Routledge.
19.
PastorJack. 1997. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. London: Routledge.
20.
PattemoreStephen W.2003. Souls under the Altar: Relevance Theory and the Discourse Structure of Revelation. UBS Monograph Series 9. New York: United Bible Societies.
21.
PattemoreStephen W.2008. The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure and Exegesis. SNTS Monograph Series 128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprint; originally published 2004.
22.
PerryPeter S.2010. “‘Things having lives’: Ecology, Allusion, and Performance in Revelation 8:9.” Currents in Theology and Mission37(2): 105–13.
23.
PerryPeter S.2016. Insights from Performance Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress.
