Zechariah, Reference and the Structure of Revelation 6-8:1 99 interesting explanation for a relationship between “How long?” in Rev 6 and Zech 1.31 Although both phrases are linguistically different,32 he argues that “since the context of Zech 1:8-17 has already been opened and accessed, there is no need to forge another strong link between the marker text and the marked text by means of an exact verbal parallel”33. Jauhiainen’s level of pragmatic sensitivity to the discourse has previously been rare in Revelation studies,34 and his conclusion has implications for the rest of the section. He is effectively saying that by the time of Rev 6:10, John is reducing the intensity of the referential markers in the text to Zechariah because the reader is now aware that the relationship between both texts is established. Consequently, one can continue to identify an implicit conceptual relationship between both passages, possibly even into chapter 7, even though there are no explicit lexical markers. Reference When authors “refer” to something, they are directing the attention of someone to some entity for information, facts etc. The need for establishing a reference was a founding principle of linguistics established by de Saussure in the beginning of the 20th century.35 The study of Revelation appears to be alienated from secular linguistics by one simple fact that when speaking about the relationship between a text and its antecedent, all forms of terminology are adopted apart from “reference”. 31 Others have made this logical leap in assuming an allusion here, notably Beale, The Book, 393; F. Farrer, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford 1964) 101; B. Westcott & F. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek with Notes on Selected Readings (New York 1882; repr. Peabody 1988) 184; S. Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse (Cambridge 2004) 84; Rogers, An Exegetical Analysis, 96-7. 32 ‘ἕως πότε,’ Rev 6:11; ‘ἕως τίνος,’ Zec 1:12 (LXX) 33 Jauhiainen, The Use, 67. 34 In Jauhiainen’s work on the use of Zechariah in Revelation, he questions whether it is appropriate to propose ‘objective, scientific’ criteria for determining OT allusions in Reve- lation, ‘It is now recognized that there is no such thing as an objective observer… the study of ancient texts is more of an art than a science’ (Jauhiainen, The Use, 33). He continues by noting that parallelomania (see S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania”, JBL 81 (1962) 1-13) has been a problem in the study of Revelation. Jauhiainen’s aim is not to argue for irresponsible reasoning, neither scientific analysis, rather he maintains that an interpreter’s main task ‘is to give a satisfying account of the passage containing the allusion… which includes an account of the rhetorical end for which the [allusion] is utilized’ (Jauhiainen, The Use, 33). His reasoning is a development from the earlier work of Beale, Hays and Paulien due to his pragmatic sensitivity. 35 See F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (New York 1974).