Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the Revelation of St. John"

See other formats

Itttemadthmal Critixal 

"Scarcely higher praise can be afforded to a volume than by the 
statement that it is well worthy of the International Critical 
Commentary Series." Church Quarterly Review. 

For Prices see Messrs. T. & T. Clark s latest Catalogue. 

JUDGES. Prof. G. F. MOORE, D.D. 
SAMUEL I. and II. Prof. H. P. SMITH, D.D. 
ESTHER. Prof. L. B. PATON, Ph.D. 

JOB. Prof. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D. [In the Press. 

PSALMS. Prof. C. A. BRIGGS, D.D. Two Vols. 
PROVERBS. Prof. C. H. TOY, D.D. 

ISAIAH. Vol. i (,Ch. i.-xxvii.). Prof. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., D.Litt. 
AMOS AND HOSEA. President W. R. HARPER, Ph.D. 
Prof. J. A. BEWER. One Vol. 

J. M. P. SMITH ; and JONAH, Prof. J. A. BEWER. 

ST. MATTHEW. Principal W. C. ALLEN, M.A. Third Edition. 

ST. MARK. Prof. E. P. GOULD, D.D. 

ST. LUKE. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D. Fourth Edition. 

ROMANS. Prof. W. SANDAY, D.D., and Principal A. C. HEADLAM, D.D. 



GALATIANS. Prof. E. D. BURTON. [In the Press. 

ST. JAMES. Prof. J. H. ROPES. 








R. H. CHARLES, D.Litt., D.D. 


Also by Archdeacon R. H. CHARLES, D.LItt., D.D. 


Price 7f- net 

"This volume on the Apocalypse, by one whose 
knowledge of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic 
is unrivalled among English scholars, will be wel 
come to all serious students of the New Testament. 
. . . We are grateful for a book which is a real 
contribution towards the scientific study of the 
Apocalypse." Churchman, 




ST. JOHN U| |^ 





R. H. CHARLES, D.Litt., D.D. 










The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved. 








IN 1894 Messrs. T. & T. Clark asked me to undertake 
a Commentary on the Apocalypse. The present Com 
mentary, therefore, is the result of a study extending over 
twenty-five years. During the first fifteen years of the 
twenty-five not to speak of the preceding eight years, 
which were in large measure devoted to kindred subjects 
my time was mainly spent in the study of Jewish and 
Christian Apocalyptic as a whole, and of the contributions 
of individual scholars of all the Christian centuries, but 
especially of the last fifty years, to the interpretation of 
the Apocalypse. The main results of these studies are 
embodied in my article on " Revelation," in the last edition 
of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 

But this work had hardly passed through Press before 
I became convinced that many of the conclusions therein 
set forth were in a high degree unsatisfactory, and that, if 
satisfactory results were to be reached, they could only be 
reached by working first hand from the foundation. From 
that period onwards I began to break with the traditions 
of the elders alike ancient and modern and to rewrite 
and that not once or twice the sections of my Commentary 
already written. Thus I soon came to learn that the Book 
of Revelation, which in earlier years I feared could offer no 
room for fresh light or discovery, presented in reality a 


field of research infinitely richer than any of those to 
which my earlier studies had been devoted. The first 
ground for such a revolution in my attitude to the Book 
was due to an exhaustive study of Jewish Apocalyptic 
The knowledge thereby acquired helped to solve many 
problems, which could only prove to be hopeless enigmas 
to scholars unacquainted with this literature. But the 
second ground was of greater moment still. For the more 
I studied the Greek of the Apocalypse the more conscious 
I became that no scholar could appreciate the essential 
unity of the style of the greater part of the book, or even 
translate it, who had not made a special study of the 
Greek versions of the Old Testament, and combined 
therewith an adequate knowledge of the Greek used by 
Palestinian Jewish writers and of the ordinary Greek of 
our author s time. From the lack of such a study arose 
the multitude of disintegrating theories with which I have 
dealt in my Studies in the Apocalypse. The bulk of these 
were due to their authors ignorance of John s style. They 
failed to recognize the presence in the text of certain 
phrases and passages which conflicted with John s style, 
while with the utmost light-heartedness they excised from 
his text chapters and groups of chapters which are indis 
putably Johannine. 

John s Grammar. In fact, John the Seer used a unique 
style, the true character of which no Grammar of the 
New Testament has as yet recognized. He thought in 
Hebrew, 1 and he frequently reproduces Hebrew idioms 
literally in Greek. But his solecistic style cannot be wholly 
explained from its Hebraistic colouring. The language 

1 I have already in part dealt with this subject in my Studies in the 
Apocalypse*, pp. 79-102. I am glad to learn from the editor of Moulton s 
Grammar of N. T. Greek that Dr. Moulton abandoned his earlier attitude on 
this question after reading these lectures. 


which he adopted in his old age formed for him no rigid 
medium of expression. Hence he remodelled its syntax 
freely, and created a Greek that is absolutely his own. 
This Greek I slowly mastered as I wrote and rewrote my 
Commentary chapter by chapter. The results of this 
study are embodied in the " Short Grammar " which is 
included in the Introduction that follows. 

The Text The necessity of mastering John s style 
and grammar necessitated, further, a first-hand study of 
the chief MSS and Versions, and in reality the publication 
of a new text and a new translation. When once con 
vinced of this necessity, I approached Sir John Clark and 
laid before him the need of such a text and such a trans 
lation. After consultation with Dr. Plummer, the General 
Editor of the Series, Sir John acceded to my request with 
a courtesy and an enthusiasm I have never yet met with 
in any publisher. Sir John s action in this matter recalls 
the best traditions of the great publishers of the past. 

For the order of the text and the readings adopted, 
and for any critical discussion of the text in the Apparatus 
Criticus, I am myself wholly responsible. The readings 
followed in the Commentary do not always agree with 
those in the Greek Text and in the Translation. Where 
they disagree, the Text, Translation, and Introduction 
represent my final conclusions. But these disagreements 
only affect matters of detail as a rule, and not essential 
questions of method. The Text represents only a fuller 
development of the methods applied in the Commentary. 

Apparatus Criticus. In the formation of the Appar. 
Crit. I had to call in the help of other scholars, since 
owing to over twenty years spent largely in the collation 
of MSS and the formation of texts in several languages, I 
felt my eyes were wholly unequal to this fresh strain. 


When seeking such help, I had the good fortune to meet 
the Rev. F. S. Marsh, now Dean of Selwyn College, 
Cambridge. To his splendid services I am deeply in 
debted for the preparation of the Appar. Crit. At his 
disposal I placed the photographs of the Uncials A 
and X, of twenty-two Cursives, and of all the Versions 
save the Ethiopic. One-half of the twenty-two Cursives 
I examined personally in the Vatican Library, in the 
Laurentian Library in Florence, and in St. Mark s in 
Venice, and had them photographed. The rest of the 
photographs I procured through the kind offices of the 
Librarians of the Bodley, the National Library in Paris, 
and of the Escurial. Three or even four of these Cursives 
are equal in many respects to the later Uncials, and in 
certain readings superior. 

Mr. Marsh collated in full the readings of these MSS 
and practically all the readings of the Versions, 1 and 
prepared the Appar. Crit. of chapters i.-v. Readings 
from other Cursives have been adopted from Tischendorf, 
Swete, and Hoskier. Unfortunately, when the work was 
far advanced, Mr. Marsh was called off to the War for 
three years. During his absence, Professor R. M. Gwynn 2 
and Miss Gertrude Bevan most kindly came to my help, 
and verified the Appar. Crit. of i.-v., with the exception of 
the Syriac and Ethiopic Versions. There are three other 
scholars to whom my warm thanks are due. The first is 
the Rev. Cecil Cryer, who verified Mr. Marsh s collations 
of vi.-xiv. and embodied them in the Appar. Crit.^ and 

1 I am myself responsible throughout for the collation of the Ethiopic 
Version. For my own satisfaction also, I have collated and verified hundreds 
in some cases thousands of readings in each of the other Versions, and in 
each of the twenty-two MSS. 

2 Professor Gwynn also read through the proofs of the Commentary, and 
Miss Bevan gave me most ungrudging help in part of the Introduction. 


subsequently carried i.-xiv. through the Press. 1 During 
this process I verified here and there in the proofs 
thousands of readings from the MSS and Versions, but 
this revision was of necessity only partial. Mr. Marsh 
then made a complete revision of the Apparatus Criticus 
and corrected a large number of errata. The other two 
scholars are the Rev. D. Bruce- Walker and the Rev. J. H. 
Roberts. These in conjunction verified Mr. Marsh s col 
lations of xv.-xxii., the former taking the larger share of 
the work. At this juncture Mr. Marsh returned, and 
prepared and carried through Press xv.-xxii. Once again 
I must record my grateful thanks to Mr. Marsh, and 
express the hope that he may find time and opportunity 
for research, and so make the contributions to scholarship 
for which he is so well qualified. Also I would express 
my gratitude to the Rev. George Horner for the targe 
body of readings which -he put at my service from the 
Sahidic Version, and the frequent help he gave in connec 
tion with readings from the Bohairic Version ; and to 
Professor Grenfell for calling my attention to the Papyrus 
Fragments of the Apocalypse (see vol. ii. 447-451). 
Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Plummer 
for his patience and kindness throughout the long years 
in which I was engaged on this Commentary, as well as 
for the many corrections he made in the revision of the 

The Indexes. For the first and fourth Indexes I am 
indebted to the competent services of the Rev. A. LI. 
Davies, Warden of Ruthin, North Wales. 

The Translation. The Translation is based on the 
text. While the text diverges in many passages from 

1 Mr. Cryer further helped me by verifying the references in the Intro 


that accepted in the Commentary, the Translation diverges 
from the text practically only in one (ii. 27). 

In the Translation I have sought to recover the 
poetical form in which the Seer wrote so large a part of 
the Apocalypse. Nearly always, when dealing with his 
greatest themes, the Seer s words assume perhaps un 
consciously at times the forms of parallelism familiar in 
Hebrew poetry. Even the strophe and antistrophe are 
found (see vol. ii. 122, 434-435). To print such passages 
as prose is to rob them of half their force. It is not only 
the form that is thereby lost, but also much of the thought 
that in a variety of ways is reinforced by this parallelism. 

The Apocalypse a Book of Songs. Though our author 
has for his theme the inevitable conflicts and antagonisms 
of good and evil, of God and the powers of darkness, yet 
his book is emphatically a Book of Songs. Dirges there 
are, indeed, and threnodies ; but these are not over the 
martyrs, the faithful that had fallen, but spring from the 
lips of the kings of the earth, its merchant princes, its 
seafolk, overwhelmed by the fall of the empire of this 
world and the destruction of its mighty ones in whom they 
had trusted, or from the lips of sinners in the face of actual 
or impending doom. But over the martyred Church, over 
those that had fallen faithful in the strife, the Seer has no 
song of lesser note to sing than the beatitude pronounced 
by Heaven itself: " Blessed blessed are the dead that die 
in the Lord." A faith immeasurable, an optimism inex 
pugnable, a joy inextinguishable press for utterance and 
take form in anthems of praise and gladness and thanks 
giving, as the Seer follows in vision the varying fortunes 
of the world struggle, till at last he sees evil fully and 
finally destroyed, righteousness established for evermore, 
and all the faithful even the weakest of God s servants 


amongst them enjoying everlasting blessedness in the 
eternal City of God, bearing His name on their foreheads, 
and growing more and more into His likeness. 

The Apocalypse a book for the present day. The 
publication of this Commentary has been delayed in 
manifold ways by the War. But these delays have only 
served to adjourn its publication to the fittest year in 
which it could see the light that is, the year that has 
witnessed the overthrow of the greatest conspiracy of 
might against right that has occurred in the history of the 
world, and at the same time the greatest fulfilment of the 
prophecy of the Apocalypse. But even though the powers 
of darkness have been vanquished in the open field, there 
remains a still more grievous strife to wage, a warfare from 
which there can be no discharge either for individuals or 
States. This, in contradistinction to the rest of the New 
Testament, is emphatically the teaching of our author. 
John the Seer insists not only that the individual follower 
of Christ should fashion his principles and conduct by the 
teaching of Christ, but that all governments should model 
their policies by the same Christian norm. He proclaims 
that there can be no divergence between the moral laws 
binding on the individual and those incumbent on the 
State, or any voluntary society or corporation within the 
State. None can be exempt from these obligations, and 
such as exempt themselves, however well-seeming their 
professions, cannot fail to go over with all their gifts, 
whether great or mean, to the kingdom of outer darkness. 
In any case, no matter how many individuals, societies, 
kingdoms, or races may rebel against such obligations, 
the warfare against sin and darkness must go on, and go 
on inexorably, till the kingdom of this world has become 
the kingdom of God and of His Christ. 


It is at once with feelings of thankfulness and of regret 
that I part with a work that has engaged my thoughts in 
a greater or lesser measure for twenty-five years. On the 
one hand, I am thankful that I have been permitted to 
bring this study of the Apocalypse to a close, though this 
thankfulness is tempered by a keen sense of its many 
shortcomings, of which none can be so conscious as I am 
myself. On the other hand, I cannot help a feeling of 
regret that I am breaking with a study which has been at 
once the toil and the delight of so many years; and in 
parting with it I would repeat, as Professor Swete does 
in his work on the Apocalyse, St. Augustine s prayer : 
Domine Deus . . . quaecumque dixi in hoc libra de tuo, 
agnoscant et tui ; si qua de meo, et Tu ignosce et tui. 1 

R. H. C 

May 1920. 

1 Advice to the reader. Since the present work on the Apocalypse is a 
large one, and in many respects difficult, it would be advisable for the serious as 
well as for the ordinary student to read through the English translation first. 
This will introduce him to the main problems of the book, and help him to 
recognize that the thought of our author is orderly and progressive, and easier 
to follow tfean that of the Epistle to the Hebrews or of St. Paul s Epistle to 
the Romans. After the Translation he should read the Introduction, i, 4, 
and such others as these may suggest to him. The serious student should 
master the chief sections of the Short Grammar (pp. cxvii-clix). So pre 
pared, he can then face the problems discussed in the Commentary, and 
recognize the grounds for the adoption of certain readings and interpreta 
tions and the rejection of those opposed to them. 

Each chapter (or, in two cases, groups of chapters) is preceded by an 
introduction. Such introductions are divided into sections. The first section 
( l) always gives the general thought of the chapter that follows, while the 
remaining sections discuss the diction and idiom of the chapter, its indebted 
ness to the Old Testament and other sources, and many other questions, 
exegetical, critical, and archaeological. 



INTRODUCTION, pp. xxi-cxci. 

I. I. Short account of the Seer and his Book, pp. xxi-xxiii. 2. Plan 
of the Book, pp. xxiii-xxviii. 

II. Authorship of the Johannine Writings. Evidence internal purely 
linguistic. The Apocalypse (J a P) and the Gospel (J) from different 
authors. I . Grammatical differences, p. xxix. 2. Differences in 
diction, p. xxix sq. 3. Different words and forms used by these 
writers to express the same idea, p. xxx sq. 4. Words and phrases 
with one meaning in J a P J and another in J, p. xxxi sq. 5. Authors 
of J a P and J were in some way connected with each other, pp. xxxii- 
xxxiv. 6. J and 1.2. 3 J by the same author, pp. xxxiv-xxxvii. 
7. The importance of these conclusions for Johannine criticism, 
p. xxxvii. 

III. Authorship of the Joharmine Writings. Evidence partly internal, but 
mainly external. I. J a P not pseudonymous, but the work of John 
the Seer, p. xxxviii sq. 2. The author of J a P is distinct from the 
author of J, p. xxxix sq. 3. There were two Johns according to 
Papias, the Apostle and thf Elder, the latter being the author of 
J a P according to Dionysius, p. xl sq. 4. I. 2. 3 J by the author 
of J, p. xli sq. 5. If John the Elder is admitted to be the 
author of 2. 3 J, as is done by many competent scholars, then he is 
the author also of J and i J, pp. xlii-xliii. 6. If John the Elder is 
the author of J and i. 2. 3 J, is John the Apostle the author of J a P ? 
No. Its author claims to be a prophet, not an apostle. He was a 
Palestinian Jew who migrated late in life to Asia Minor, p. xliii sq. 
7. The silence of the writers of the first two centuries as to any 
residence of John the Apostle in Asia tells against his being 
author of J a P, p. xlv. 8. These conclusions confirmed by the 
tradition of John the Apostle s early martyrdom, which, if trust 
worthy, renders his authorship of J a P or J, I. 2. 3 J impossible. 
That John the Apostle died a martyr s death before 70 A.D. is to be 
inferred on the following grounds : (a) Prophecy of Jesus to that 

i Jap = the Apocalypse, J the Gospel, i J the First Epistle, etc. 
b xvii 


effect, p. xlv sq. ; (b] the Papias-tradition, p. xlvi ; (c) the state 
ments of certain ancient writers (145-344 A.D.), pp. xlvi-xlviii ; 
(d) the Syriac Martyrology and certain Church Calendars, pp. 

IV. The Editor of J a P. The present order of 2O 4 -22 could not possibly 
have originated with its author. Hence the necessary hypothesis of 
an editor, whose existence, though suggested occasionally by certain 
intrusions in the earlier chapters, was not demonstrable till 2O 4 -22 
was reached. The interpolations in 1-19, when restudied from the 
standpoint of this hypothesis, appear in a new light, and these com 
bined with those in 20-22 make it an easy task to sketch the main 
lines of this editor s character. He was apparently a Jew of the 
dispersion, a better Grecian than his master, but otherwise a person 
profoundly stupid and ignorant ; a narrow fanatic and celibate, not 
quite loyal to his trust as editor ; an arch-heretic, though, owing to 
his stupidity, probably an unconscious one, pp. 1-lv. 

V. Depravation of the Text through ( i) Interpolations, pp. Ivi-lviii ; ( 2) 
Dislocations, pp. Iviii-lx ; ( 3) Lacunae, p. Ix sq. ; ( 4) Ditto- 
graphs, p. Ixi. 

VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, pp. Ixii-lxv. 

VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our 

author. I. General summary of the facts, p. Ixv sq. 2. John 
translated directly from the O.T., and did not quote any Greek 
version, though often influenced by the LXX (i.e. o ) and another 
later version a revised form of o , which was subsequently revised 
and incorporated by Theodotion in his version (i.e. ), pp. 
Ixvi-lxviii. 3. Passages based directly on the Hebrew of the O.T. 
(or the Aramaic of Daniel) ; these are hardly ever literal quotations, 
pp. Ixviii-lxxvii. 4. Passages based on the Hebrew of the O.T., 
or on the Aramaic of Daniel, but influenced, in some cases certainly, 
in others possibly, by o , p. Ixxviii sq. 5. Passages based on the 
Hebrew of the O.T. or on the Aramaic of Daniel, but influenced, in 
some cases certainly, in others probably, by a later form of o , which 
is preserved in 6 , p. Ixxx sq. 6. Phrases and clauses in our 
author which are echoes of O.T. passages, p. Ixxxi sq. 7. 
Passages dependent on or parallel with passages in the Pseudepi 
grapha, p. Ixxxii sq. 8. Passages in some cases dependent on, 
and in other cases parallel with, earlier books of the N.T., 
pp. Ixxxiii-lxxxvi. 

VIII. Unity of J a P. I. Unity of thought and dramatic development, 

Ixxxvii sq. 2. Unity of style and diction. Examples of unity of 
diction, Ixxxviii sq. 3. The unity in dramatic movement does not 
exclude the use of sources and earlier visions of his own. Some 
earlier visions and writings of his own re-edited. Generally their 
inclusion gives them a new meaning (footnote, p. Ixxxix). Sources 
re-edited and incorporated, pp. Ixxxix-xci. 


IX. Date of J a P. I. External evidence. The Trajanic, Claudian, and 
Neronic dates. The Domitianic date, pp. xci-xciii. 2. Internal 
evidence. (i) Such evidence exists alike for the Neronic, Ves- 
pasianic, and Domitianic dates. (2) Evidence for the Domitianic 
which explains all the rest, (a) Use of earlier N.T. books. (&) The 
present form of the Seven Epistles points to a Domitianic date, though 
originally written under Vespasian, p. xciii sq. (c] The imperial 
cult (though presupposed throughout J a P) not enforced till the reign 
of Domitian, p. xciv sq. (d) The Nero-redivivus myth exhibits 
phases belonging to the reigns of Titus (?), Vespasian, and Domitian. 
Domitian not to be identified with the Antichrist, pp. xcv-xcvii. 

X. Circulation and reception. I. No certain trace of J a P in the Apostolic 
Fathers, p. xcvii sq. 2. In the 2nd cent. J a P was all but uni 
versally accepted in Asia Minor, Western Syria, Africa, Rome, South 
Gaul, pp. xcviii-c. 3. Two protests against its Johannine author 
ship and validity in the 2nd cent, (a) Marcion. (b) The Alogi, 
p. c sq. 4. Question of its authenticity reopened by Dionysius 
of Alexandria, p. ci. 5. Rejected by the Syro-Palestinian Church 
and the Churches of Asia Minor. 6. Ignored or unknown in the 
Eastern-Syrian and Armenian Churches for some centuries, p. ci sq. 
7. Always accepted in the West, gradually came to be acknow 
ledged in the East, p. cii sq. 

Object of the Seer. His Methods Vision and Reflection or Reason. 
i. Object of the Seer, p. ciii sq. 2. Methods of the Seer 
generally psychical experiences and reflection or reason. Psychical 
experiences, (a) Dreams, (b} Dreams combined with translation 
of the spirit of the Seer, (c) Visions, (a) Visions in sleep. (/3) 
Visions in a trance. (7) Visions in which the spirit is translated. 
(5) Waking visions, p. civ sq. 3. Value of such experiences 
depends not on their actuality, but on their source, their moral 
environment and influence on character, p. cv sq. 4. Literal 
descriptions of such experiences hardly ever possible. Language of 
Seer symbolic, p. cvi sq. 5. Highest form of spiritual experience, 
p. cvii. 6. Reason embracing the powers of insight, imagination, 
and judgment. Its use (a} in the arrangement of his own materials, 
(b) in the construction of allegories, (c) in the adaptation of tradi 
tional material, (d) Conventional use of the phrase "I saw," 
pp. cvii-cix. 

Some doctrines of our author. I. Doctrine of God. 2. Jesus 
Christ. (a) The historical Christ. (b) The exalted Christ, (c) 
Unique Son of God. (d) High Priest and Lamb of God. 3. The 
Spirit. 4. Doctrine of Works. 5. First Resurrection ; Mil 
lennium and Second Resurrection ; Judgment, pp. cix-cxvii. 

XIII. Grammar of the Apocalypse, pp. cxvii-clix. For contents, see p. cxvii. 


XIV. i. Relative values of the uncials provisionally arrived at, p. clx-clxii. 
2. Absence of conflation from best uncials confirms result arrived at 
in I, p. clxii sq. 3. Readings of uncials taken singly and also 
in groups of two give further confirmation. Classification of uncials 
on the basis of the above data, pp. clxiii-clxv. 4. Evidence of 
uncials taken in groups of three or more in chaps. 1-4, p. clxv sq. 
5. Character of the Latin and Syriac Versions, and their classifica 
tion, pp. clxvi-clxix. 6. Armenian, Bohairic, and Ethiopic Versions. 
Their classification, pp. clxix-clxxi. 7. Relations of Bohairic, 
Sahidic, and Ethiopic Versions to each other, p. clxxi. 8. Textual 
value of the uncials, pp. clxxi-clxxiii. 9. Cursives collated for this 
edition, and their groupings, pp. clxxiii-clxxvi. 10, Origen s 
so-called text, p. clxxvi sq. n. Some account of the Versions, 
pp. clxxviii-clxxxiii 

XV. Methods of interpretation adopted in this Commentary. I. Con 
temporary-Historical. 2. Eschatological. 3. Chiliastic. 40:. 
Philological in earlier form. 5. Literary-Critical, embracing 
(a) Redactional-Hypothesis, (6) Sources-Hypothesis, (c) Frag 
mentary-Hypothesis. 6. Traditional-Historical. 7. Religious- 
Historical. 8. Philosophical. 9. Psychological. 46. Philo 
logical in later form, pp. clxxxiii-clxxxvii. 

XVI. Bibliography Commentaries, Studies Exegetical and Critical, Texts, 
Abbreviations, pp. clxxxvii-cxci. 

Addenda et Corrigenda, p. cxcii. 

Commentary on Chapters I.-XIII. and XIV. 12-13, I ~373- 


i. Short Account of the Seer and his Work. 

JOHN the Seer, to whom we owe the Apocalypse, was a Jewish 
Christian who had in all probability spent the greater part of his 
life in Galilee before he emigrated to Asia Minor and settled in 
Ephesus, the chief centre of Greek civilization in that province. 
This conclusion is in part to be drawn not only from his 
defective knowledge of Greek and the unparalleled liberties he 
takes with its syntax, but also from the fact that to a certain 
extent he creates a Greek grammar of his own. 1 He had never 
mastered the Greek of his own day. The language of his 
adoption was not for him a normalized and rigid medium of 
utterance : nay rather, it was still for him in a fluid condition, 
and so he used it freely, remodelling its syntactical usages and 
launching forth into unheard of expressions. Hence his style is 
absolutely unique. That he has set at defiance the grammarian 
and the usual rules of syntax is unquestionable, but he did not 
do so deliberately. He had no such intention. His object was 
to drive home his message with all the powers at his command, 
and this he does in some of the sublimest passages in all litera 
ture. With such an object in view he had no thought of con 
sistently committing breaches of Greek syntax. How then is the 
unbridled licence of his Greek constructions to be explained? 
The reason, as the present writer hopes to prove, 2 is that while 
he wrote in Greek he thought in Hebrew and frequently trans 
lated Hebrew idioms literally into Greek. In Galilee he had no 
doubt used Aramaic as the ordinary vehicle of intercourse with 
his fellows, but all his serious studies were rooted in Hebrew. 
He had so profound a knowledge of the O.T. that he constantly 
uses its phraseology not only consciously, but even unconsciously. 
When using it consciously he uses the Hebrew text, and trans 
lates it generally first hand ; but not infrequently his renderings 
are influenced not only by the LXX, but also by a later version, 
1 See pp. cxvii-clix. 2 See pp. cxlii-clii. 


which is now lost in its original form, but which was re-edited by 
Theodotion 100 years later. 1 

John the Seer was quite distinct from the author of the 
Gospel and Epistles. 2 That the Gospel and Epistles were from 
one and the same author, who was probably John the Elder, 
I have shown below. 3 That these two Johns belonged to the 
same religious circle, or that the author of the Gospel was a pupil 
of John the Seer, is not improbable. 4 

We gather from the Apocalypse that John the Seer exercised 
an unquestioned authority over the Churches of the Province of 
Asia. To seven of these, chosen by him to be representatives of 
Christendom as a whole, 5 he wrote his great Apocalypse in the 
form of a letter, about the year 95 A.D. 6 The object 7 of the 
Apocalypse was to encourage the faithful to resist even to death 
the blasphemous claims of the State, and to proclaim the coming 
victory of the cause of God and of His Christ not only in the 
individual Christian, and the corporate body of such individuals, 
but also in the nations as such in their national and international 
life and relations. It lays down the only true basis for national 
ethics and international law. Hence the jeer claims^ not only 
the after-world for God and for His people, but also this world. 
God s work will be carried on without haste, without, rest., till 
^the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom oTj^od 
and of His ChikL" 

The Seer has used freely not only his own visions of various 
dates, 8 but also Jewish and Christian sources of Neronic and 
Vespasianic dates in the presentation of his great theme. 9 

The fact of his having freely used sources might seem to 
militate against the unity of his work. 10 But this is not so. A 
glance at the Plan 1] of the book will show how thoughiL and 
action steadily advance step by step from its very beginning tiil 
they^ reach their consummation and cuhnmaTc at its close. 
, But unhappily the prophet did not live to revise his work, or 
even to put the materials of 20 4 -22 into their legitimate order. 12 
This task fell, to the misfortune of all students of the Apocalypse, 
into the hands of a very unintelligent disciple. This disciple 
was a better Greek scholar than his master, for he corrects his 
Greek occasionally, and was probably a Greek-speaking Jewish 
Christian of Asia Minor. He had not his master s knowledge 
of Hebrew, if he had any knowledge of it, and he was pro 
foundly ignorant of his master s thought. If he had left 

See pp. Ixvi sqq., Ixxx sq. 2 See pp. xxix-xl. 

See pp. xli-xliii. 4 See pp. xxxii-xxxiv. 

See p. Ixxxix sq. note. 6 See p. xxiv. 

See p. ciii sq. 8 See pp. xc, xciv. 

See p. xc sq. 10 See pp. Ixxxvii-xci. 

11 See pp. xxiii-xxviii. 12 See pp. 1-lv. 


his master s work as he found it, its teaching would not 
have been the unintelligible mystery it has been to subsequent 
ages ; but unhappily he intervened repeatedly, rearranging the 
text in some cases, adding to it in others, and every such inter 
vention has made the task of interpretation impossible for all 
students who accepted such rearrangements and additions as 
genuine features of the text. Since, however, his handiwork and 
character are fully dealt with later, we need not waste more time 
here over his misdemeanours. 1 

When once the interpolations of John s editor, which amount 
to little more than twenty-two verses, are removed, and the 
dislocations of the text are set right, 2 most of the difficulties of 
the text disappear and it becomes a comparatively easy task to 
follow the thought of our author as it develops from stage to 
stage, from its opening chapters darkened with the shadow of the 
great tribulation about to fall on entire Christendom, till it 
reaches its triumphant close in the eternal blessedness of all 
the faithful in the new heaven and the new earth. 

The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, i 1 3 , the Apocalypse 
proper, consisting of seven parts a significant number and an 
Epilogue. The events in these seven parts are described in 
visions in strict chronological order^ save in the case of certain 
proleptic visions which are inserted for purposes of encourage 
ment and lie outside the orderly development of the theme of 
the Seer : i.e. y 9 17 io-n 13 14, and 12, which relates to the past, 
but forms a necessary introduction to i3- 3 

Thus there is no need to resort to the theory of Recapitula 
tion which from the time of Victorinus of Pettau (circa 270 A.D.) 
has dominated practically every school of interpretation from 
that date to the present. So far is it from being true that the 
Apocalypse represents more or less fully, under each successive 
series of the seven seals, the seven trumpets and the seven bowls, 
the same series of events, that the interpretation which is com 
pelled to fall back on this device must be pronounced a failure. 
This principle of interpretation, like many other forlorn efforts 
in this field, arose mainly from the non-recognition by scholars 
in the past of the interpolations made in the text by the disciple 
and editor of the Seer. 

2. Plan of the Book. 

The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, i 1 3 , a letter consisting 
of seven distinct parts: (i) i 4 20 , (2) 2-3, (3) 4-5, (4) 6-20 3 , (5) 

2I 9_ 22 2. 14-15. 17 20 4-10 j ( 6 ) 20 11-15 } ( ? ) 2I 5a. 4d. 5b. l-4abc ^S- 
Epilogue, 2 i5c.6b-8 22 6-7. 18a. 16. 13. 12. 10. 8-9. 20-21^ 

1 See pp. 1-lv. a See pp. Ivi-lx. 3 See p. xxv. 


The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, the Apocalygse 
pr oper^^cbnsistinp: of seven distinct parts, amfaB Epilogue. in" 
the Prologue, i 1 8 , the Apocalypse is affirmed to have been given 
by God to Christ and by Christ to John. In the Epilogue the 
truth of the claims made in the Prologue is attested by God, 
2I 5c. 6b-s. Dy Christ, 22 6 - 7 - 18a - 16 - 13 - 10 ; an( } by John himself, 

2 2 8-9. 20-21; 

The seven parts and the Epilogue constitute a letter, i 4 -22 21 , 
which, like the Pauline letters, opens with "John to the Seven 
Churches. . . . Grace unto you, and peace, from Him which is, 
and which was, and which is to come ; and from Jesus Christ " 
(i 4 5a ), and ends with the words, "The grace of the Lord Jesus 
be with all the saints. Amen." 

The Prologue and Epilogue are not mere subsequent 
additions to the book. They are organic parts of it. Not to 
mention other grounds, this is at once obvious from the fact that 
the Prologue contains the first of the seven beatitudes of the 
Apocalypse (i.e. i 3 ), and the Epilogue the seventh (i.e. 22 7 ). 
That there should be exactly seven beatitudes in our book and 
not more and not less, is at once intelligible to all students of the 
Apocalypse. 1 

The Book, apart from the Prologue and Epilogue, falls 
naturally into seven parts again a significant division. In 
Jewish writers the favourite division of a work was a fivefold one. 
Thus the five books of the Pentateuch, of the Psalms, of the 
Megilloth, of the Maccabean history by Jason of Cyrene, of 
i Enoch, of the Pirke Aboth. This fivefold division is clearly 
traceable in Matthew (see Horae Synopticae*, 164 ; Hawkins). 
But the number five does not occur in our author save with evil 
associations (cf. 9 5 - 10 i; 10 ), whereas seven is a most sacred 
number in his regard. 

The seven parts are as follows : (i) i 4 20 . John s letter to the 
Seven Churches, in which he tells how Christ had appeared to 
and bidden him to send to the Churches the visions written in this 
book. (2) 2-3. The problem of the book as reflected in the 
letters to the Churches how to reconcile God s righteousness and 
Christ s redemption with the condition of His servants on earth. 
(3) 4~5- A vision of God and a vision of Christ, who takes 
upon Himself the guidance of the world s destinies and its 
judgments. (4) 6-f. 8 1 - 3 5 - 2 - 6 - ls -g. n 14 -t3. i5~2o 3 . Judg 
ments of the world. (5) 2i 9 -22 2 - 14 15 - 17 so 4 10 . The Millennial 
Kingdom : attack of evil powers on the Beloved City at its 
close: their destruction and the casting of Satan into the 
lake of fire. (6) 20 11 15 . Heaven and earth vanish : final 
judgment by God Himself. (7) 2 1 5a - 4d - 5b - !- 4abc 2 2 3 - 5 . The 
1 See note on i. 3 ; also footnote 1 in vol. ii. 445. 


everlasting Kingdom in the new heaven and earth and the 
New Jerusalem. 

In these seven parts the events described in the visions are 
in strict chronological order, save that the Seer is obliged in 
chap. 12 to consider past events in order to prepare for those in 

13. But there are certain sections of the book lying outside the 
orderly development of the Seer s theme, sc. 7 9 17 io-n 13 and 

14. These three additions, which do not carry on the action of 
the divine drama and are likewise breaches of unity in respect of 
time, are all prole-ptic. After y 1 8 the visionary gaze of the 
Seer leaves for the moment the steady progressive unveiling of 
the events of his future and beholds in 7 9-17 the more distant 
destinies of the martyred faithful triumphant and secure before 
the throne of God in heaven (although these sealed members of 
the Church are not martyred till 13), and of the same host of 
martyrs on Mount Zion (during the period of the Millennial 
Kingdom) in I4 1 5 . These visions are recounted out of their 
due order to encourage and inspire the Church in the face of an 
impending universal martyrdom. In the case of io-n 13 the 
explanation is different. Our Seer sees Rome to be the 
impersonation of sheer might, of wickedness and lawlessness, i.e. 
the Antichrist. But before our Seer s time in Christian circles 
Jerusalem was expected to be the scene of the appearance of 
the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2 4 ) and Rome was regarded as the 
representative of order. This former view of the Antichrist 
is preserved in this proleptic section, but no reference is made 
again to it throughout the remaining chapters. 

In the analysis which follows the three proleptic sections are 
inserted on the right hand of the page : 

Prologue, i 1 8 . I 1 3 . The Revelation given by God 

to Christ and by Christ entrusted to 
John. John s testimony to it as from 
God and Christ. The first beatitude 
on those who keep the things written 

I. John writes to the Seven Churches I 4 " 7 . John begins his letter to the 
to tell them that he has seen Christ Seven Churches with the blessing of 
and been bidden by Him to send grace and peace from the Everlasting 
them the visions written in this God and Jesus Christ, Lord of the 
book i 4 20 . dead and Ruler of the living, the 


i 9 20 . John recounts his vision of 
the Son of Man in Patmos, who bids 
him to write down what he saw in a 
book and to send it to the Seven 



II. Problem of the book set 
forth in the Letters to the Seven 
Churches, which reflect the seeming 
failure of the cause of both God and 
Christ on earth 2-3. 

III. Vision of God, to whom the 
world owes its origin, and of Christ, to 
whom it owes its redemption 4-5. 

IV. Judgments. First Scries 
the first Six Seals. 

Judgments. Second Series, 7-13 
The seventh Seal and the Three 
Woes, bringing into manifestation the 
servants of God and the servants of 
Satan and Satan himself. Before the 
seventh Seal there is a pause on earth, 
during which God marks out His 
servants by a seal on their foreheads ; 
after the seventh Seal there is a pause 
in heaven during which His servants 
prayers are presented before God 
both the sealing of the faithful and 
their prayers being designed to secure 
them against the Three Woes. 

First and Second Woes bring Satan s 
servants into manifestation and affect 
only those who had not been sealed. 

2-3. Letters to the Seven Churches. 
These implicitly set the problem. 
How are God s righteousness and 
Christ s redemption of the world to 
be reconciled with the condition of 
His servants on earth and the domi 
nating power of evil thereon ? Hence 
John s visions, embracing heaven and 
earth, begin in 4-5 with God and 
Christ as the Supreme Powers in the 

4. Scene of John s visions is no 
longer earth with its failures, troubles, 
and outlook darkened with the appre 
hension of universal martyrdom, but 
heaven with its atmosphere of perfect 
assurance and peace and thanksgiving 
and joy. John s vision of God of a 
throne and of Him that sat thereon, 
to whom the Cherubim and Elders 
offered continual praise, and to whose 
will the whole creation owes its being. 

5. Vision of Christ, who, having 
wrought redemption for God s people, 
takes upon Himself the guidance of 
the destinies of the world in a series 
of judgments. 

6. First series of judgments affect 
ing all men alike, good and bad the 
first six Seals. 

7 1 8 . Further judgments stayed till 
the spiritual Israel are made manifest 
through the seal of God affixed on 
their foreheads and are thus secured 
against the Three Woes, against the 
first two absolutely, and against the 
spiritual effects of the third. 

7 9 17 . Proleptic vision of a vast 
multitude of the faithful in heaven, i.e. 
of those who had just been sealed and 
had died as martyrs a vision sub 
sequent in point of time to the visions 
in 13. 

8 i. 3-5. 2. 6. is. The seventh Seal, 
introducing the Three Woes, is fol 
lowed by silence in heaven, during 
which the prayers of the faithful are 
offered before God in heaven for pro 
tection against the Three Woes. 

9~ii 14a . First and second demonic 
woes (heralded by trumpet blasts) 
affecting only those who had not 
been sealed, with torment and death 



Third Woe, followed by two songs 
of triumph in heaven, brings into full 
manifestation Satan, his chief agents 
the two Beasts, and all his servants. 
Evil is now at its climax. All Satan s 
servants are visited with spiritual 
blindness and marked with the mark 
of the Beast. All the faithful are 

Vision of the entire martyr host in 
heaven who had proved themselves 
victorious over the Beast and his 

Judgments. Third Series, I5 5 -2O 3 . \ 
(a) Preliminary judgments the | 

Seven Bowls affecting the heathen who f 

alone survive. 

lO-ii 13 . Proleptic digression on 
the Antichrist in Jerusalem a vision 
contemporaneous in point of time 
with 13. 

ii 141 - 19 . Third and Satanic Wor 
heralded by a trumpet blast. There 
upon two songs of triumph burst forth 
in heaven declaring that God is King, 
and faithful and faithless alike will 
receive their due recompense. 

12-13. Third or Satanic Woe. 
Satan at last fully manifest. Climax 
of his power and his apparent 
triumph on earth. In 12 the vision 
is retrospective : it recounts the birth 
and ascension of Christ and the casting 
down of Satan to earth facts closely 
connected ; also Satan s persecution 
of the Church. In 13 Satan summons 
to his help the first and second Beasts. 
The faithless are spiritually blinded 
and marked by the mark of the Beast. 
All the faithful are martyred. 

I4 1 " 7 . Proleptic vision (a) of the 
Church triumphant on earth in the 
Millennial Kingdom and the conver 
sion of the heathen a vision con 
temporaneous with 2O 4 6 , and (b) in 
I4 8-n. 14. is-20 of judgment of Rome 
and of the heathen nations a vision 
contemporaneous with and summar 
izing 1 8. I9 11 21 20 7 10 . 

I5 2 " 4 - Vision of the martyred host 
(martyred in 13) standing on the sea 
of glass before God, singing praises 
and proclaiming the coming conversion 
of the nations. 

is 5 8 . The Seven Bowls of God s 
wrath entrusted to the Seven Angels. 
1 6. The Seven Bowls. 

(I)} Successive judgments affecting 
the powers of evil in succession. 

(a) Destruction of Rome and the 
Seer s appeal to Heaven to rejoice over 
its doom. 

The response of all the angel and 
martyr hosts in songs of thanksgiving. 

i; 1 6 . Vision of the Great Harlot 
seated on the Beast. 

I7 8 18 . Interpretation of this vision. 

l8 i-iy. 2] -23d vision of her destruc 

l8 20. 23f-24 > The 

Heaven to rejoice. 

I9 1 " 3 . Thanksgiving song of the 

IQ 4 i6 5 k~ 6 . Thanksgiving song of 
the Elders and Cherubim. 

i6 7 . Thanksgiving song of the 
altar beneath the throne. 

I9 5 8 . Thanksgiving song of the 
martyr host in heaven. 



(/3) Destruction of the Parthian Lost (though referred to prole p- 
hosts by Christ and His elect. tically in I7 14 and presupposed in 

I9 13 : possibly displaced by the inter 
polated passage, I9 a 10 ). 

(7) Destruction of the hostile 
nations by Christ and the armies of 
Heaven. The Beast and False Pro 
phet cast into the lake of fire, and 
Satan chained for 1000 years. 

I9 11 21 . The Word of God and 
the armies of Heaven destroy the 
hostile nations. The Beast and False 
Prophet cast into the lake of fire. 

2O 1 3 . As Satan was cast down 
from heaven on the fresh advent of 
Christ, on Christ s second advent he 
is cast into the abyss and chained for 
1000 years. 

2I _ 22 . -. 20 - > 

V, Millennial Kingdom : Jerusalem I the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down 
come down from heaven to be its I from heaven to be the abode of Christ 
Capital. Reign of the martyred Saints 1 and the glorified martyrs who are to 
for 1000 years. I reign with Christ 1000 years and 

| evangelize the nations. 

Final attack of the evil powers 
the Saints in the Beloved City : their 

20 7 10 . Close of the Millennial 
Kingdom. Satan loosed : march of 

he Beloved ^ity : meir j Q and M inst the Beloved 

destruction and the casting of Satan 1 Q{ * . their deduction and the casting 

into the lake of fire. 

VI. Heaven and Earth having 
vanished, a great white throne appears, 
before which the dead come to be 
judged by God Himself. 

of Satan into the lake of fire. 

20 11 16 . Vision of a great white 
throne, and of Him that sat thereon. 
Disappearance of the former heaven 
and earth. Judgment of those risen 
from the dead, both bad and good. 
Death and hell cast into the lake of 

VII. The Everlasting Kingdom C 2 i 5a - 4d> 5b - l - 4abc 22 3 5 . The new 
established in which God and Christ I heaven, the new earth, and the New 
dwell with man. Reign of all the j Jerusalem. The faithful reign as 
saints for ever and ever. v. kings for ever and ever, 

2i 5c - 6b s . God s testimony to John s 
book and His message to mankind 
through John of divine sonship for 
them that overcome. 

22 6-7. 18a. 16. IS. 12. 10. Christ s tCSti- 

Epilogue. < mony to John s book. The seventh 

beatitude. Christ s speedy coming to 

228.9.20-21. j ohn > s own testimony. 
Christ s final words. John s prayer 
and benediction. 





The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel^ from different Authors. 

We shall deal here only with the linguistic evidence on this 
question, which is in itself decisive. We shall, however, dis 
cover later that the two writers were related to each other, either 
as master and pupil, or as pupils of the same master, or as 
members of the same school. 

i. The grammatical differences. These make the as 
sumption of a common authorship of J and, J ap absolutely 
impossible, unless a very long interval intervenes between the 
dates of J ap and J. But such an assumption is made imprac 
ticable by the best modern research. Furthermore, our author s 
style shows no essential change in the interval of from 10 to 20 or 
more years, which elapsed between the writing of the Letters to 
the Seven Churches and the Apocalypse as a whole (see vol. i. 
43-47). The reader will find the grammatical differences between 
J ap and J dealt with in the grammar. The main evidence is given 
under the heading, "The Hebraic Style of the Apocalypse"; but 
throughout the rest of the grammar (see particularly " The Order 
of Words >r ) the evidence is more than adequate to prove diver 
sity of authorship. Observe amongst a host of other differences 
that, whereas J uses /XT} with the participle n times and the 
genitive absolute frequently, our author uses neither. Also that 
whereas in our author the attracted relative never occurs, it often 
occurs in J : see 4 14 7 39 i5 20 i? 5 n " 12 2i 10 and i J 3 24 . Again, 
in J ap aios is followed by inf. ; in J by Iva. 

2. Differences in diction. Lists of words found in J ap 
but not in J could be given here, or vice versa, but such 
divergence in the use of words might in the main be due to 
difference of subject. But it is instructive to touch upon a few 
phenomena of this nature. Thus our author has TriVris 4 times 
and TTI OTOS 8, whereas J has not TTIO-TIS at all, Trtcrros once, but 
TTwrrevetv nearly 100 times. Our author uses VTTO/XOJ/T; 7 times 
and <ro<ia 4, but J, neither. On the other hand, J uses 
dyttTTav 36 times and dyaTny 7 (i. 2. 3} 31 and 21 respectively), 
but our author has dya/Trav only 4 and aydirri only 2 times. 
Again, dA.rj0eia, dX^^ijs, and x a P<* found so frequently in J, are 
wholly absent from our author. J has //,eV ... 8e 6 or more 

1 For convenience sake J will designate the Gospel, I J the first Epistle, 
etc., J a P the Apocalypse, 


times, our author not once : dAAa 100 and ydp 65, and our author 
13 and 1 6 respectively. Again our author has WUTTIOV 34 times 
and Lva 45, whereas J has these once and 150 times respectively. 

3. Different words or forms used by these writers to express the 
same idea. Our author uses d/Wov ( = Lamb of God) 29 times 
where J uses d//,vds 2 : /xov or e/xov T ( " mine ") where J uses 
t/xos 36 times: avros as an emphatic pronoun 3 20 i4 10 ig 12 , 
whereas J uses e*e/os in this sense while he uses OTTO S as an 
unemphatic pronoun : see Abbott, Gr. 236. Again our author 
says ev /xeVo) or di/a /xeVov where J uses /xeVos : lepouo-aXrJ/x where 
J has *lpocn>Av/xa. 2 Our author uses iftov (26), but J tSe 3 : 
lovSatos, 2 9 3 9 ( = a member of the Chosen People of God, nearly 
so in Ro 2 17 - 28 ), where J has lo-pa^Am/?, i 47 . Again, whereas our 
author defines the historic city Jerusalem as T/?S TroAews . . . ^rts 
KaAetrai Trreu/AariKtos 2oSo//,a, II 8 , J names it as le/aoo-uAtyxa, I 19 2 13 

A very interesting divergence is to be observed where the 
Greek equivalent of " called " or " named " occurs. Here our 
author always has /caAeu/ and J Ae yeu/. Thus we have i 9 rfj 
vr)<Tip T. /caXou/xev^ Xlar/xa), 1 2 9 6 Ka\ov[JLvo<s Aia/3oAos, while J 
writes 4 5 TrdAiv . . . Xcyo/xeviyv Sv^dp, 4 25 Meamas ... 6 Aeyo- 
jiiej/os Xpio-rds, II 16 $a>/zas 6 Aeyo/xei/os AtSv/xos (cf. I 38 5 2 9 11 1 1 54 2O 24 
2 1 2 ) : and just as our author says, n 8 ^rts KaXetrat . . . 3oSo//,a, 
so J i9 17 says o Xeyerat . . . ToAyotfa. The divergence comes 
still more into relief when we compare J ap i6 16 TOTTOI/ r. KO.\OV- 
fjicvov . . . *Ap MayeSwv and J I9 13 TOTTOJ/ Aeyo/xet ov 
On this as well as on other grounds 8 lla KCU TO ovo/x,a rov 
A^ycrat C O *Ai{/iv6o<s is to be excised as a gloss. 

Again, our author always uses /caroiKeu/ of living in a certain 
locality ; J sometimes uses fieVeii/ in this sense, but never KO.TOL- 
Ktiv : also oAiyoi/, i; 10 ( = "a little while"), whereas J says piKpov 
in the same sense 9 times ; and ovs 8 times while J uses <OTIOI/ 

A very delicate distinction calls for attention in their equi 
valents of the English "no longer." Thus our author 4 says OVK 
. . . en (14, including chap, xviii.), but J always OVKCTI (12), 
and ws with finite verb by way of illustration (2 27 ), while J uses 
K<x0ws with finite verb (i3 15 i5 12 i; 23 etc.). 

Finally, whereas J frequently uses /catfok (31, and i. 2. 3 J 13 

1 J uses <r6s (6), u/^repos (3), ?3ios (15), and I J ij^repos (2), but our author 
uses the possessive pronouns always in their stead. He has ^/i6s once. 

2 In our author lepovaaXri/j. is used only of the heavenly or the New 
Jerusalem. It is used by Paul always, and nearly always by Luke, of the 
historic city, whereas Mark always (and Matt, always save once) uses Iepo<r6- 


3 J uses idoti 4 times. 

4 Our author has OVK^TI 3 times (2 of these in chap, xviii.). 


times), our author uses always ws in the same sense. Where J says 
K<x0w9 eyw (i5 10 ), our author says o>? K<xyw (2 27 ). 1 Where J ilp uses 
a^pi (n times), J uses ew?. Neither J nor i. 2. 3 J use 
ax/ 31 - Where J ap uses or^oSpa, i6 21 , 2. 3 J, uses Xiav. In this 
last contrast, I assume that 2. 3 J and J are from the same 

4. Words and phrases with one meaning in our author and 
a different one in J : 


01X77 6s = true in word as opposed 
to false ( = d\>?0?7s). 

avr6s used as emphatic pronoun. 

ol dovXoi TOV 0eo0 2 a title of the 

highest honour: cf. i 1 (& *) 7 3 io 7 

ii 18 I9 2 . 

dupedv, 2I 6 22 17 = " freely." 
e6i>os or e^ (23) = Gentiles, 2 26 II 2 

I5 4 etc., or all nations, including the 

lovScuos, 2 9 3 9 used in a good sense. 

/cd<r/xos = the created world, u 15 n 8 

i 7 . 
Xa6$ = Gentiles generally, but = Chris 

tian believers twice. 
A.6yos TOV 6eov, IQ 13 a conception 

developed in Jewish thought. 

oSv (6), always illative, 3 a particle of 

logical appeal. 
Troifj-aiveiv, 2* I2 5 iq l5 = " to destroy" 

(though in ; 17 =" to feed"). 


= " genuine" as opposed to unreal. 

See vol. i. 85 sq. 
Different meaning in J. See Gram. t 

vol. i. p. cxl. 
Used as unemphatic pronoun, ^Keivos 

being used as emphatic. 
I5 15 OVK^TI Xyw v[J, 

1 5 s5 " without a cause." 

cdvos (5) only used of Jewish nation. 

Used over 70 times, and generally 

in a bad sense. 
K6<r/j.os = the world of man (frequently, 

and often in a bad sense). 
Jewish nation (2, excluding 8 2 ). 

A6yos, T i lsqq -. This conception 
is quite different and presupposes, 
while opposing, Philonic specula 

195 times, and generally a narrative 
particle, i.e. of historical transition. 

2i ie "to feed." 

1 J uses o>s in a temporal sense ( = " when ") 20 times : our author never. 
On our author s various uses of ws, see vol. i. 35 sq. 

2 The servant in J I5 15 knows not his Master s will, in J a P he does. 
In our author the word SoOXos means (a) a slave as opposed to eXevdepos : cf. 
6 15 I3 16 IQ 18 , and (b) a willing servant of God, whether prophet or other faith 
ful worshipper : cf. i 1 2 20 7 3 io 7 etc. Thus our author uses SoOXos as the 
equivalent of na^. But in J SoGXos follows the Greek usage as denoting a 
bondman in the literal sense, cf. I5 15 , and in the metaphorical sense 8 34 
5oOXos . . . TTJS afj-aprias. nay is not used in this metaphorical sense. The verb 
13J;, however, is used of idolatrous service. See Abbott, fokanm ne Voc. 212, 
227, 289-292, for the use made by the four Evangelists of this word. 

3 In Homer o$v is non-illative, just as in the majority of passages in J. 
It is noteworthy that in J oftv occurs nearly always in the narrative portions, 
and only 8 times in Christ s words out of the 195, whereas in J ap it occurs only 
in Christ s words, and never in the narrative portions. In the Synoptists 
it occurs mostly in Christ s words. 


irpoffiivveiv, c. dat. = " to worship." These constructions have exactly 

,, c. ace. " to do homage to." opposite meanings in J. See Gr. 

See note on 7 11 : vol. i. 211 sqq. p. cxli, also vol. i. 211-212; 

Abbott, Voc. 1 37 sqq. 
=ti6wp fcDi/, 4 10 7 s8 , which phrase 
includes [he meanings of the two 

S, 222- * 

Again, though 7 15 6 KaOyfJLtvos CTTI f T. Opovov f orKr)vw<Ti CTT avrovs 
is similar to J I 14 6 Adyos crdp eyeVero KOL eo~K^i/(ocrev ei/ T^/XII/, the 
similarity is only an outward one. The same is true of 2 27 dX^a 
Trapa r. Trarpds yu,ov as compared with J IO 18 Tavrrjv T. evro\r]v 
e\a/3ov Trapa r. Trarpds ftov. 

5. The Authors of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel 
were in some way related to each other : 

(a) The following phrases point in this direction : 


2 2 ov SVVQ patrrdaai. l6 2 ov dtivaade 

2O 6 6 2x ( * }V l*pos & I3 8 ^X^is 

22 15 TTOI&V \f/evdos. 3" 1 iroiuv T. dXrjdeiav (i J 3 8 TTOI.CJV 

T. a/Jiaprlav). 
22 17 6 5i\/C)v txtadu. 7 37 ^^^ rts 

(^) The spiritual significance attached to such terms as on;, 
Odvaros, St^av, So^a, Treti/av, vt/cav (16 times, in J (i), in 
1 J ( 6 ))> oo^yetv. 

(c) The occurrence of the following words and phrases 
exclusively in these two writers in the N.T. \a\elv 
{jura, (elsewhere in N.T. the dative or Trpos cum. ace. 
follows AoAetV) : o\f/i<s (i 16 J 1 1 44 ) = Trpoo-coTrov : r^petv 
T. Xoyov or Xdyous (4 times J 8 : see note, vol. i. 369) : 
6Vo/xa avra) 6 ^a^aros, 6 8 ovo/xa avrw Itoawr;?, J I 6 3 1 : 
Kpov, 6 11 J 7 33 : /jiLKpov ^pdvov, 2O 3 J I2 35 : 
once J once : Trop^vpcos 2 times J 2 times : 
, 4 J once : <f>oivi, once J once. 

(</) The agreement of both authors (in i 7 J i9 37 ) in the 
rendering e^eKeVr^crai/ against the LXX. See, however, 
vol. i. 1 8 sq. The use of the suspensive on; see 
Gram. p. cxxxvii. 

(e) The use by both authors of the following phrases and 
words found occasionally in the rest of the N.T. 
TroieiV o-r/yneioi , 4 J 14 (only 4 times in rest of N.T.) : 
rr)pLv T. cVroAa?, 2 J 4 (i J 5 times) : Sewcvvrai (of 
revelation), 8 J 7 : tppaurrij 2 J 5 : /naprupux, 9 J 14 
(i J 6 times, 3 J once): 7rtaeiv, i J 8: o-^/xat 
i J 3 : <iA.eij/, 2 J 13 : <r<f>dw, 8 i J 2 times. 


(/) There is to be no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem the 
Capital of the Messianic Kingdom, 2i 22 . Accord 
ing to J 4 21 the temple will cease to exist as the centre 
of worship. 

(g) The same Jewish and Christian ideas underlie the phrase 
6 d/xvos rov Ocov, J i 2 9- 36 ? and the equivalent phrase TO 
apviov in J ap . 

(h) The number " seven " occurs more frequently in our 
author than in all the rest of the N.T. Though it does 
not occur at all in J, yet J is " permeated structurally 
with the idea of * seven. . . . John records only seven 
signs. . . . The Gospel begins and closes with a 
sacred week . . . the witness to Christ is ... of a 
sevenfold character " (see Abbott, Gr. 463). 

The above facts, when taken together with other resemblances, 
to which attention is drawn in the Grammar, point decidedly to 
some connection between the two authors. The Evangelist was 
apparently at one time a disciple of the Seer, or they were 
members of the same religious circle in Ephesus. We find 
perfect parallels to the latter relationship in earlier days. The 
authors of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs and of the Book 
of Jubilees, who wrote at the close of the 2nd century before 
the Christian era, studied clearly in the same school ; for the 
text of the one has constantly to be interpreted by that of the 
other. Yet these two writers are poles asunder on some of 
the greatest questions of their day. The former hopes for the 
salvation of the Gentiles and sets forth a system of ethics with 
out parallel before the N.T. The author of Jubilees is a legalist 
of the narrowest type : is mainly concerned with the Mosaic law 
and the deductions to be drawn from it, and declares categori 
cally that no Gentile can be saved. The second parallel is to be 
found between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The materials of these 
two works are in certain respects complementary. The former 
is all but hopeless as to the future alike of Judaism and the 
Gentiles, whereas the latter is a thoroughgoing optimistic Jew, 
who looks to Judaism for the conversion of the Gentiles, so far 
as these can be saved. 

In the Seer and the Evangelist we have got just such another 
literary connection. But the literary connection is much less 
close than in the case of the Jewish authors just mentioned, while 
the theological affinities between the Seer and the Evangelist are 
much closer than those existing between the Jewish writers. 
The greater unity in spiritual outlook and theological concept 
is explicable, however, from the fact that the variations 
within the Christianity of the ist century are infinitesimal as 


compared with those that prevailed in contemporary and earlier 

6. J and (i.) 2. 3 J were written by the same Author. 
That J and i J are derived from the same author is 
generally admitted. But from a very early date 2 and 3 J have 
been ascribed to a different writer. 1 But a study of the internal 
evidence leads to the conclusion that all 2. 3 J and most 
probably i J are from one and the same writer, who was also 
the author of the Gospel. The same evidence shows that, 
though 2 or 3 J have a few points in common with J ap , the 
style of these two Epistles is decidedly that of J (or i J) as 
opposed to that of J ap- Their failure to study the linguistic 
relations of 2. 3 J have led Schmiedel, von Soden, and 
Moffatt into the grievous error of attributing 2. 3 J and J ap to the 
same author. The pronouncement of these scholars led me to 
investigate this subject, and therein I am grateful to them, seeing 
that the result of this investigation appears to furnish the key to 
some important Johannine problems. No investigation of this 
nature has, so far as I am aware, ever been made. 

There is one usage in 2 J which it has in common with J ap 
and which is not found in J. In 2 J 10 we have c? TIS (epxerai), 
which occurs occasionally in J ap but never in J or i J, which have 
always ecu/ TIS. But there seems to be a reason for using ei here 
and not lav. The author assumes that the Zpxfo-Oai is not a 
mere possibility but a thing likely to happen. ei>s with the part, 
is found in 2 J 5 oi>x ws ypa^wv, and in J ap i 15 5 i3 3 but not in J. 
But the usage is not really the same in 2 J 5 and J ap . In the 
latter o>s conveys the idea of likeness, whereas in 2 J 5 it implies 
a purpose. The Hebraism in 2 J 2 Sta rr)v dX-jj^etav rrjv /xeVovo-av 
eV fjfjiiv KOLL /x,e$ tyxwi/ carat ( = " which abideth in us and shall be 
with us ") is of frequent occurrence in J ap . But it occurs probably 
in J I 32 T0ea/xai TO 7n/e9yu,a KarajBalvov . . . KOI e/xetvei/ eV* avroV, 
and in Col i 26 . Hence no real weight can be assigned to these 
coincidences in style. 

On the other hand, the body of evidence in favour of a 
common authorship of J and (i.) 2. 3 J carries with it absolute 

i. 2. J J are with one exception (2 f 2 ) free from the solecisms 
and idiosyncrasies of J ap . 

\\. Constructions common to 2. SjandJ, but not found in J af : 

(a) 2 and 3 J use ^ 3 times with the participle : J n 

times : i J 8 times : 3 J has //^SeV once with 

part., while J has it twice. But J ap never 

1 Origen (Eus. vi. 25. 10) writes that questions as to the genuineness of 
these Epistles were rife in certain quarters : Jerome (De Viris Illust. 9) 
distinctly assigns them to different hands. 


uses \M] or fjL-qSev with the participle. In this 
respect J ap diverges from J, i. 2. 3 J, exactly 
as the Iliad does from the Odyssey. 

(b) In 2 J 10 the writer uses prj with the present 

imperative, i.e. ^ Actual/ere (3 J n /zr) /JLL^OV) in 
order to forbid an action not yet begun. Here 
the author of J ap would have used prf with the 
aor. subj. In this respect the author of 2. 3 J 
has the support of J (see below, p. cxxvi). 

(c) In 3 J 3 we have the genitive absolute, which occurs 

often in J but never in J ap (nor i J). 

(d) The unemphatic possessive pronoun avrov (or 

avTrjs) (i.e. the genitive before its noun) occurs in 
3 J 10 i J 2 5 and frequently in J, but never in J ap 
(save in a source 1 8 5 ). 

(e) ovro? is used resumptively in regard to a preceding 

clause (consisting of 6 with part, or os with finite 
verb) in 2 J 9 and 4 times in J but not in J ap . 
(/) fj.aprvpt iv takes the dative 3 times in 3 J and 4 in J, 
but J ap always construes it with the ace. //aprf/oetv 
is followed by 6 in i J and by Trept in J, but 
by neither in J :lp . 

(g) In 3 J 9 the order of the words, 6 ^tAoTrpwrevW 
avrwv Aiorpe </>i79, has several parallels in J but none 
in J ap (or i J). The author of J ap would have 
written 6 Atorpec^s 6 ^tXoTrpwrevwv aurwi/. See 
Gram. p. clvi. TTO\V<S is a prepositive in 2 J 7 i J 4 1 
J 6 5 io 32 ii 47 etc.; but always postpositive 
in J ap , once in i J and in J 3 23 6 2 - 10 ; 12 . 

(ti) epwToo o-e . . . tva, 2 J 5 J 4 47 ly 15 ig 38 * but not 
in J ap . avrr) eVrtv . . . fi/a, 2 J 6 <**> J I5 12 i; 3 
(i J 3 1L23 ) 5 but not in J ilp . /xei^orepai/ TOVTWV 
^X ^X w X a P^ v J * I/a ^ KO ^ W J 3 J 4 
dyctTT^v ouSets e^et, ti^a rts rrjv i(/v^r]v avrov 
J i5 13 . To this construction I know of no real 

iii. Words ; particles, and phrases common to 2. 3 J and J (i J), 
but not found in J af . 

(a) Words. 

(ft) Particles and phrases. dAAa Kat, dXX* ov, 

Kat vw, Trept (cum gen.), TOIOVTOS, v?rep : /cat 

Se, 3 J 12 ~J i5 2ti : ^ Ap^s, 2 J^-J 8^ 4 i 5 27 (i J 

I 1 2 7 - 13< 14 etc.): rots epyots avrov rois irovrjpols 

* The verb "ask " does not occur in J a ? though tpwrav is found in 2 J and 
J, and alrelv in I J and J. J uses also ^erdfU , tTrepwTav, irwddveo-dcu. 


2 J 11 J 7 7 TO. epya avVov Trovrjpd : vTro/JLvrja-ta, 3 J 10 
J I4 26 : TO Ka/coV, 3 J n J i8 23 : TO ayaOov 

3j n -J.S 29 . 

iv. Words frequent in I. 2. 3 J and J t but exceptional in 
J ap . /u,os once in 3 J (in 15 verses), only once in J ap in 
404 verses; thus 3 J using it once in 15 verses 
approximates to J which uses it once in every 22. 
J ap uses no other possessive adjective, but i J 
uses ^/xeTe/aos twice, and J v/xeVepos 3 times and o-os 6. 
7rt does not occur in i. 2. 3 J, but 150 times in J ap 
and 35 in J. If J had it relatively as often as J ap , it 
would occur 225 times instead of 35. Thus i. 2. 3 J 
are strongly marked off here from J ap but approximate 

v. The following parallel expressions are in themselves strong 
evidence of identity of authorship : 

2 J 9 Tras 6 ... ptvtav tv rr) didaxy J ; 16 (cf. l8 19 ) i] tyy didaxr) OVK 

TOV X/M0TOU. tyd]- 

This parallel is full of significance ; for in J Sidax-n is used only of 
Christ s teaching (as derived from God, 7 17 ), whereas in J a P it is 
used only of heretical teaching : cf. 2 14< 15 - 24 . 

J IO 18 ravTtjv ri\v IVTO\^V \a/3ov trapa 

rov 7rarp<5s /JLOV. 

2 J 6 rjKov(raT air dpx^J (i J 3 11 )- J l6 4 ^ dp%^s OVK 

>ii)v crot Kaiv^v (evToXty J I3 34 
J 2 7 ). 

2 J 1 oi yvu)K6Tes Trjv dXr/deiav. J 8 32 yvuffeade TTJV d\rjdei.av. 

2 J 12 (i J I 4 ) Ivo. i] X a P& V/J.&V j 3 29 avrtj ovv 77 %apd 17 t/u.7) Tre 

TerXrjpuftfni $ Cf. 15" I6 24 . 

3 J 10 K T^S tKKX-rjo-las ^/cjSdXXei. J 9 34 ^/SaXov auT^v ^w. 

3 J U ^X eApaKtv TOV deov. J 14" 6 ewpa/ccbs ^ eupaKevTbv iraTtpa. 

3 J 12 ^ fw,pTVpla TIIJL&V a\r)dr/5 GT(.V. J 8 14 d\r]6^s &GTI.V T/ [tapTvpia fj.ov. 

The connection of 2. 3 J with i.J could be shown by such 
examples as 2 J 9 0eov ov/c e^ei i J 5 12 6 . . . l^wi/ TOV vtov TOV Ocov : 
3 J J1 CK TOV $eov ecrrtv I J 4 2 : 2 J 7 6 dvTt)(pto Tos I J 2 18 - 22 . 
The conception of the Antichrist in i. 2 J is quite different from 
that in J ap . 

vi. There are no quotations in i. 2. J J. In this respect they 
show an affinity with J where there are very few, and 
offer a strong contrast to J ap where quotations abound. 
Even in the Epistles to the Seven Churches this feature 
is prominent. 

vii. The Greek of 2. 3 J is far more idiomatic than that of 
J ap . The order of the words exhibits none of the 
monotonous regularity of J ap . 

From the above evidence I conclude without hesitation that 
i. 2. 3 J and J are ultimately from the same author. J has 


undoubtedly undergone revision, and i. 2. 3 J may have 
suffered somewhat in this respect. 1 

7. This conclusion of criticism, completing as it does the 
work of Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, is one of tremendous 
importance. Before his time, from 135 A.D. onward (see 
p. xxxix sq.), Church writers began uncritically to assign J ap to 
the Apostle John. This false conception led necessarily to 
intolerable confusion. No matter how valid the evidence might 
be for the martyrdom of this Apostle before 70 A.D., it could only 
be regarded as purely legendary, seeing that according to the most 
current view John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse and wrote 
it in Domitian s reign. If the Apostle were living about 95 A.D. 
he could not, of course, have been martyred before 70 A.D. This 
misconception has therefore vitiated the evidence of most Early 
Church writers on this question, 2 and has proved an ignis fatuus 
to many distinguished scholars of our own day. Hence it is not 
astonishing that so little evidence of the Apostle John s early 
martyrdom and yet, cumulatively considered, it is not little 
should have survived, but it is astonishing in the extreme that any 
evidence of any sort as to John s early martyrdom has survived at 
all, seeing that the all but universal beliefs of the Church from 
the earliest ages worked for its absolute deletion from the pages 
of history. Happily such evidence has survived in out-of-the- 
way corners of Church history and Church observance, which, 
owing to the prevailing opinions on such subjects, must have 
been a hopeless enigma to those who sought to understand 
them. One Church writer Gregory of Nyssa in his Laudatio 
s. Stephani and De Basilio magno : see below, p. xlvii has 
attempted to do so, and has explained away the evidence of the 
Church calendars for the early martyrdom of John in a way that 
can satisfy only those who share the same groundless hypothesis 
as himself as to John s joint authorship of J and J ap . 

any connection with J a P. For Trpe<rJ3i>Tepos there has a different meaning. 
Even an apostle could designate himself thus : cf. I Pet 5 1 6 W^TT pea fitir epos. 
But Peter has already called himself cbr<5a-ToXos Iij<rov Xpiorou in I 1 . Hence 
there is no risk of confusion. No weight, moreover, attaches to the use of 
e tv for icoivwvlav tx eiv > or ti 16 occurrence of the greeting x^P i 


Justin Martyr believes in the Apostolic authorship of J a P as early as 135 
A.D. or thereabouts. A myth can arise in a very few years. Hence it is 
not strange that such writers as Hegesippus (ob. circ. 1 80) and subsequent 
writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, have lost all knowledge of the early 
martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee. 



It may assist the reader if the conclusions arrived at in this 
chapter are put shortly as follows (a) J ap and J are from 
distinct authors, (b) 2. 3 J are from the author of J and not of 
J ap . The evidence for this fact, which in the present writer s 
opinion furnishes the key to some of the chief Johannine 
problems, is given on p. xxxiv sqq. (c) If John the Elder is the 
author of 2. 3 J, then he is according to all internal evidence the 
author of J and of i J. (d) John the prophet a Palestinian Jew, 
who late in life migrated to Asia Minor, is the author of J ap . 
(e) The above conclusions, which are arrived at on internal 
grounds, and on external evidence mainly of the 2nd century, 
are confirmed by the Papias-tradition, that John the Apostle 
was martyred by the Jews before 70 A.D. 

i. The Apocalypse is not pseudonymous, but the work of a 
John. In Jewish literature practically every apocalyptic book 
was pseudonymous. I have elsewhere T shown the causes which 
forced works of this character to be pseudonymous. In the 
post-Exilic period the idea of an inspired Law adequate, 
infallible, and valid for all time became a dogma of Judaism. 
When this dogma was once established, there was no longer any 
room for the prophet, nor for the religious teacher, except in so 
far as he was a mere exponent of the Law. The second cause 
for the adoption of pseudonymity was the formation of the Canon 
of the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa. After this date 
say about 200 B.C. no book of a prophetic character could 
gain canonization as such, and all real advances to a higher ethics 
or a higher theology could appear only in works of a pseudony 
mous character published under the name of some ancient 
worthy. Accordingly, when a man of God, such as the author 
of Daniel, felt that he had a message to deliver to his people, he 
was obliged to issue it in this form. But with the advent of 
Christianity the Law was thrust into a wholly subordinate place ; 
for the spirit of prophecy had descended afresh on the faith 
ful, belief in inspiration was kindled anew, and for several genera 
tions no exclusive Canon of Christian writings was formed. 
There is, therefore, not a single a priori reason for regarding the 
Apocalypse as pseudonymous. Furthermore, its author distinctly 
claims that the visions are his own, and that they are not for 
some far distant generation, as is universally the case in Jewish 
pseudonymous works, but for his own (22 10 ). In four distinct 

1 See my Eschatology*, 173-205 (especially 198-205), 403 sq. ; Daniel, 
p. xi sq., Religious Development between the 0. and N. Testaments, 41-46. 


passages he gives his name as John ( i 1 - 4 - 9 2 2 8 ). He states that he 
is a servant of Jesus Christ (i 1 ), a brother of the Churches in Asia 
and one who has shared in their tribulations (i 9 ), that he has him 
self seen and heard the things contained in his book (22 8 ), and 
that he was vouchsafed these revelations during his stay (voluntary 
or enforced) * in the island of Patmos for the word of God and 
the testimony of Jesus (i 9 ). To a more intimate study of our 
author we shall return later. So far it is clear that the Apoca 
lypse before us was written by a prophet (22 9 ) who lived in Asia 
Minor, and that his actual name was John. J ap is just as 
assuredly the work of a John as 2 Thess 2 and i Cor 15 are 
apocalypses of St. Paul. 2 Even the later Christian apocalypse of 
the Shepherd of Hermas bears, as is generally acknowledged, 
the name of its real author. 

Finally, if the work were pseudonymous, it would have 
gone forth under the aegis not of a John who was a prophet of 
Asia Minor and otherwise unknown, but of John the Apostle. 
Furthermore he would not have ventured to claim the name and 
authorship of a prophet in the very lifetime of that prophet and 
in the immediate sphere of that prophet s activity. There is not 
a shred of evidence, not even the shadow of a probability, for the 
hypothesis that the Apocalypse is pseudonymous. 

There is manifold early evidence of the Johannine authorship. 
Thus Justin, who lived about 135 A.D. in Ephesus, where one 
of the Seven Churches had its seat, declares that J ap is by "John, 
one of the apostles of Christ" (Dial. 81). Melito, bishop of 
Sardis, another of the Seven Churches, wrote (circ. 165) a lost 
work on J ap (ra Trept . . . TT}S aTTOKaXvij/ews Iwavvov : see Eus. 
iv. 26. 2). Irenaeus (circ. 180) upheld the Johannine authorship 
of all the Johannine writings in the N.T. For J ap , see Haer. 
iii. ii. i, iv. 20. n, v. 35. 2, where John is called Domini dis- 
cipulus (6 TOV Kvpiov fjLaQrjTrjs) (a title, however, which does not 
exclude apostleship; cf. ii. 22. 5). Tertullian cites J ap as the 
work of the Apostle John (c. Marc. iii. 14, 24). So also Origen, 
Hippolytus, and others : also the Muratorian Canon. 

2. John, the author of J ap , is distinct from the author of 
J. Tertullian, 3 Hippolytus, 4 and Origen 6 were assured that 

1 There is no evidence that John was exiled to Patmos before Clement of 
Alexandria, and that evidence is chiefly Western. 

2 Hence the attribution of the Apocalypse to the heretic Cerinthus by Caius 
(200-220 A.D. See Eus. ii. 25, vii. 25) and the Alogi (Epiphanius, Haer. Ii. 
3,4), in ancient times and by certain modern scholars, is an utterly baseless 
and gratuitous hypothesis. 3 C. Marc. iii. 14, 24. 

4 See his Comment, on Daniel, edited by Achelis, 1897, pp. 142, 240, 244, 
etc., and his Ile/x rou Amxpfcrrop, xxxvi., OSrosyap iv Ildr/iy . . . 6p$ airoKa- 
\v\f/iv . . . \ye /not, & fj.aKdpie IwdvvTi, dTroVroAe Kal f^ad^rd TOV Kvplov, rl elSes. 

5 In Joann., torn. i. 14: (f)-r}fflv odv tv ry dtroKaXvif/ei 6 TOV ZefieSaiov 

torn. v. 3 : see also the quotation from Origen in Eus. vi. 25. 9. 


both the Gospel and the Apocalypse proceeded from the son of 
Zebedee. But this view, that both works proceeded from one 
and the same author, was rejected by Dionysius (pb. 265 A.D.), 
bishop of Alexandria, a pupil of Origen. Dionysius (Eus. H.E. 
vii. 25. 7-27) accepts J ap as the work of a John, but declares that 
he could not readily agree that he was the Apostle, the son of 
Zebedee. In the following sections he enumerates a variety of 
grounds, (a) The Evangelist does not prefix his name or 
mention it subsequently either in the Gospel or in his Epistle, 
whereas the writer of the Apocalypse definitely declares himself 
by name at the outset, and subsequently. That it was a John 
who wrote the Apocalypse he admitted, but this John did not 
claim to be the beloved disciple of the Lord, nor the one who 
leaned on His breast, nor the brother of James, (b) There is 
a large body of expressions of the same complexion and char 
acter common to the Gospel and i J, but wholly absent from J ap . 
Indeed, the latter " does not contain a syllable in common " with 
the two former works, (c) The phraseology of the Gospel and 
i J differs from that of J ap . The former are written in irrepre- 
hensible Greek (d^rato-Tos), and it would be difficult to discover 
in them any barbarism or solecism or idiotism (tSiwrto-yotoi/). But 
the dialect and language of J ap is inaccurate Greek (SiaXe/o-ov . . . 
Kal yXwrrav OVK d/cpi/?oos eAA^v/^ouo-av), and is characterized by 
barbarous idioms and solecisms. Such is Dionysius criticism 
of the style of J ap ; and from the standpoint of the Greek scholar 
it is more than justified. But that there was law and order 
underlying the seeming grammatical lawlessness of the Seer 
neither Dionysius nor any purely Greek scholar could ever 
discover a fact that widens immeasurably the breach discovered 
by Dionysius between J and J ap . This will become apparent 
when we come to the grammar and vocabulary of our author 
(see pp. cxvii-clix). A study of these with a knowledge of the 
Hebraic style of our author makes it impossible to attribute J ap 
and J to the same author. Thus the theory of Dionysius as to 
diversity of authorship has passed out of the region of hypothesis 
and may now be safely regarded as an established conclusion. 
There were at all events two Johannine authors. Who were 
these ? 

3. There were, according to Papias, two Johns, one the Apostle 
and the other John the Elder. Dionysius and Eusebius suggest 
that the latter is the author of J ap . Eusebius in his history (iii. 
39. 4) quotes the following fragment of Papias which clearly dis 
tinguishes the Apostle and the Elder, both bearing the name 
John. " And if any one chanced to come who had been also a 
follower of the elder, I used to question (him) closely as to the 
sayings of the elders as to what Andrew or Peter had said 


), or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or 
any other of the disciples of the Lord : also as to what Aristion 
and the Elder John, the Lord s disciples, say (Xeyov<riv)." 
Eusebius then goes on to emphasize the distinction made by 
Papias between these two Johns, and contends that this view is 
confirmed by the statements of those who said that there were 
two Johns in Asia and " there were two tombs in Ephesus, both 
of which bear the name of John even to this day. To which 
things it is needful also that we shall give heed ; for it is probable 
that the second (i.e. the Elder), unless one will have it to be the 
first, saw the Apocalypse bearing the name of John (iii. 39. 6)." 
At an earlier date Dionysius of Alexandria threw out the same 
suggestion. He held that John the Apostle wrote J and i J 
(Eus. vii. 25. 7), but that another John one of the two Johns who 
according to report had been in Asia and both of whose tombs 
were said to be there had written the Apocalypse (vii. 25. 16). 
Jerome testifies to the belief ("Johannis presbyteri . . . cujus 
hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur," De viris 
illus. 9), and also to the fact that in his day the tradition was 
still current that this John the Elder was the author of 2 and 
3 J (ibid. 1 8). 

4. But 2 and j John appear on examination of the language 
and idiom to proceed even more certainly than I J from the author 
off. 1 The traditional view assigns i J and J to the same author 
ship. But in modern days a minority of competent scholars 
have rejected this view. The problem is discussed with great 
fairness by Brooke (Johannine Epistles, pp. i-xix), who comes 
to the conclusion that "there are no adequate reasons for 
setting aside the traditional view which attributes the Epistle and 
Gospel to the same authorship. It remains the most probable 
explanation of the facts known to us (p. xviii)." 2 With this 
conclusion the present writer is in agreement. 

But what as to the authorship of 2. 3 J ? Some notable 
scholars disconnect these two Epistles wholly from J and i J. 
Thus Bousset (Offenbarung, 1906) at the close of a long discussion 
on the authorship of J a ^ (pp. 34-49) concludes that a John of 
Asia Minor, and not John the Apostle, was the author of J ap : 
that this John was probably identical with John the Elder of whom 
Papias tells us, with the Elder of 2. 3 J, with the unnamed disciple 
in J 21, and with the teacher of Polycarp, of whom Irenaeus writes 
in his letter to Florinus. Von Soden (Books of the N.T., pp. 

1 I take J as it stands, since its relation to i. 2. 3 J does not require any 
critical study of its composition. J and i J (?) have been more or less edited, 
but the work of the editors does not affect the question now at issue. 

2 The list of linguistic differentiae in I J, which is given in Moffatt s 
Introd. to N. T* t p. 590 sq., should be noted. They are important. 


444-446, 1907) is also of opinion that John the Elder was the 
author of J ap and 2. 3 J as well as I J. Next, Schmiedel 
{Johannint Writings, pp. 208-209, 216-217, 229-231, 1908) 
attributes J ap and 2. 3 J to an unknown writer who assumed the 
pseudonym of John the Elder, and i J to another author. The 
joint authorship of J ai> and 2. 3 J is also supported by Moffatt 
(Introd. to Lit. of the N.T?, p. 481). 

But the present writer cannot accept this hypothesis. After 
a considerable time spent on the linguistic study l of 2. 3 J in 
comparison with J and J ap , he has been forced to conclude that 
2. 3 J are connected linguistically with J, and that so closely as 
to postulate the same authorship. This study was first under 
taken to discover what connection existed between 2. 3 J and 
J ap , since an early tradition assigned the latter to John the Elder 
and the opening words (6 n>eor/3irrepos) of 2. 3 J received their 
most natural explanation on this hypothesis. In fact, this is 
more or less the view advocated by the scholars mentioned 

Now on p. xxxiv sqq. I have dealt with the characteristic words 
and constructions common to 2. 3 J and J, or 2. 3 J and J ap . 
The facts there set forth admit in the present writer s opinion 
of only one conclusion as regards the relations of 2. 3 J with J 
and J ap , and this is that whereas 2. 3 J have nothing whatever to 
do withj ap , they are more idiomatically connected with J than is 
I Ji and postulate the same authorship. 

5. Jf> then, (l.) 2. 3 J and J are derived from the same author 
and J** from quite a different author ; and John the Elder is admitted 
to be the author of 2. 3 J, it follows further that John the Elder 
is the author not only of 2. 3 J, but also of J and of I J. 
There is no evidence that John the Elder wrote J ap beyond 
the conjectures of Dionysius and Eusebius. But there is some 
external evidence and good internal evidence that the Elder 
wrote 2. 3 J. The external evidence is of the slightest. It is 
found in Jerome (De viris illus. c. 18), "rettulimus traditum 
duas posteriores epistulas Johannis non apostoli esse sed 
presbyteri." But the internal evidence is strong. As Brooke 
writes (Johannine Epp. i66sq.): " The evidence of Papias and 
Irenaeus points to a prevalent Christian usage of the word 
(7rpeo-/3irre/3os), especially in Asia, to denote those who had com- 
panied with Apostles. ... It is natural to suppose that through 
out the fragment of his Introduction, which Eusebius quotes, 
Papias uses the expression TT pea- (3vr epos in the same sense." The 
elders are the men from . . . whom Papias learnt the sayings 

1 No linguistic study of 2. 3 J in relation to J and J a P is known to me. 
But for my previous study of J a P I should have missed most of the points 
that determine the question at issue. 


of the Apostles. "The absolute use of the phrase in Papias 
(KOL TOV# 6 7rpecr/?vrepos eAeye) and in 2 and 3 John makes it the 
distinctive title of some member of the circle to whom the 
words are addressed, or at least of one who is well known to 
them." Hence // is only natural to recognize the Elder, 
mentioned in Papias and in 2. j J, as John the Elder, ivhom 
Papias so carefully distinguishes from John the Apostle. The 
writer of 2. J J cannot have been an apostle}- 

But if John the Elder was the author of 2. J /, then we 
conclude further by means of the results arrived at in II. 6 above 
that he was also the author of J? 

This conclusion does not exclude the possibility that John 
the Elder was, as Harnack suggests, the pupil of John the 
Apostle. In this case J embodies materials which John the 
Elder learnt from John the Apostle, but the form is his 

6. If John the Elder is the author of J and (/.) 2. J J, is 
John the Apostle the author of J ap ? No. John, its author, claims 
to be a prophet, not an apostle. He was a Palestinian Jew who 
migrated to Asia Minor when probably advanced in years. 
John the author of J ap nowhere claims that he is an apostle. 
He appears to look upon the apostles retrospectively and from 
without, 2 1 14 (cf. i8 20 ). In these two passages he enumerates as 
two distinct classes apostles and prophets. He never makes 
any claim to apostleship : he never suggests that he knew Christ 
personally. But he distinctly claims to be a prophet a member 

1 It has, however, been urged that an apostle could designate himself an 
elder. This is true under certain conditions but not in 2. 3 J. That the 
writer is an elder and not an apostle we infer from the fact that he claims 
no higher title in 3 J, where, had he been an apostle, he wotild naturally 
have availed himself of his power as an apostle to suppress Diotrephes 
and others who disowned his jiirisdiction and authority, which they could 
not have done had he been an apostle. Further, in case I Pet 5 
is quoted to prove that an apostle may designate himself as an elder 
(Trpecrfivrtpovs o$v ev v/juv Trapa/caXcD 6 awn-pecr/Si/repos), we have only to observe 
that Peter has at the outset indicated his apostolic authority, so that the 
words in 5 1 form no true parallel to 2. 3 J 1 . 

2 The statement in Irenaeus (ii. 22. 5), that according to the elders in 
Asia, John the disciple declared that Jesus reached the age of 50, is professedly 
second-hand, and is therefore to be estimated accordingly. If this evidence 
were trustworthy, it would be practically impossible to assign J to John the 
Elder. But as we have seen elsewhere, Irenaeus is often quite untrust 
worthy. The extravagant account of the fruitfulness of the vine is also attributed 
by Irenaeus (v. 33 3 ) to the elders, who said that they had heard it from John 
the disciple. Such an expectation, if it was literally accepted and really 
transmitted by John the Elder, would be against his authorship of J. 
But it was obviously to be interpreted in a purely metaphorical sense. 
In these passages Irenaeus believes that the John he is speaking of is the 
Apostle and not the Elder, although he never designates him as dTrdcrroXo?, but 
only as 


of the brotherhood of the Christian prophets, 22 9 , who are God s 
servants in a special sense, i 1 io 7 n 18 22 6 , whereas other 
Christians are God s servants so far as they observe the things 
revealed by the prophets, 22 9 . He is a servant of Jesus Christ, 
i 1 , a brother 1 of the Churches of Asia and a partaker in their 
sufferings, i 9 . He is commanded "to prophesy" to the nations 
of the earth, io 11 . He designates his work as " the words of the 
prophecy," i 3 , or "the words of the prophecy of this book," 
22 7 - 10 - 18 . Hence it may be safely concluded that the author of 
J ap was not an apostle. 

The author of J ap was a Palestinian Jew. He was a great 
spiritual genius, a man of profound insight and the widest 
sympathies. His intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew text 
of the O.T., of which his book contains multitudinous quota 
tions based directly upon it, is best explained by this 
hypothesis. The fact also, that he thought in Hebrew and trans 
lated its idioms literally into Greek, points to Palestine as his 
original home. Though no doubt he used the Aramaic of his 
day, in a real sense Hebrew was his mother s tongue. His Greek 
also, which is unlike any Greek that was ever penned by mortal 
man, calls for the same hypothesis. No Greek document 
exhibits such a vast multitude of solecisms and unparalleled 
idiosyncrasies. Most writers on J ap have been struck with the 
unbridled licence of his Greek constructions. But in reality 
there is no such licence. The Greek, though without a parallel 
elsewhere, proceeds according to certain rules of the author s 
own devising. Now this fact is a proof that our author never 
mastered Greek idiomatically even the Greek of his own day. 

But we may proceed still further. Just as his use of Hebrew 
practically as his mother tongue (for Hebrew was still the. 
language of learned discussions in Palestine) points to his being 
a Palestinian Jew, so his extraordinary use of Greek appears to 
prove not only that he never mastered the ordinary Greek of hjs 
own times, but that he came to acquire whatever knowledge he 
had of this language when somewhat advanced in years. 

Two other characteristics of the man and his work point not 
only to Palestine, but Galilee as his original home. The first is 
that he was a prophet or Seer. Now the writers of apocalypses, 
so far as we are aware, were generally natives of Galilee, not of 
Judaea. In the next place, our author exhibits an intimate 
acquaintance with the entire apocalyptic literature of his time, 
and this literature found most of its readers in Galilee, where the 
Law, which was hostile to it, had less power than in Judaea. 

1 The author describes himself simply as a brother of his readers. In 
2 Pet 3 15 Paul is similarly described (6 dyaTrrjTbs ^uwi> d5eX06s) ; but there one 
apostle is supposed to be referring to another. 


7. The silence of ecclesiastical writers down to 180 A.D. as to 
any residence of John the Apostle in Asia Minor is against his being 
the author of J ap . The conclusion reached in 6 is confirmed by 
external evidence. No sub-apostolic writer betrays any know 
ledge that John the Apostle ever resided in Ephesus. Yet the 
author of J ap was evidently the chief authority in the Ephesian 
Church, or at least one of his chief authorities. Thus Ignatius 
(circ. 1 10 A.D.) in his letter to the Church of Ephesus (i2 2 ) speaks 
only of Paul, but makes no allusion whatever to John the 
Apostle, though according to the later tradition John had exercised 
his apostolic authority in Ephesus long after Paul, and had 
written both J and J ap . The reasonable inference from the above 
silence is that Ignatius was not aware of any residence of John the 
Apostle in Ephesus. That Clemens Romanus (circ. 96 A.D.) was 
silent as to John s residence in Ephesus, may have some bearing 
on this question when taken in connection with that of Ignatius. 
Justin and Hegesippus (150-180 A.D.) in like manner tell 
nothing of John s residence in Ephesus. Yet Justin lived in 
Ephesus about 135 A.D., which city, according to later tradition, 
was the scene of John s apostolic labours. 

8. The above conclusions are confirmed by the tradition of 
John the Apostles martyrdom, which, if trustworthy, renders his 
authorship of J ap as well as of the other Johannine literature 
impossible^- That John the Apostle, like his brother James, died 
a martyr s death, has been inferred from the following evidence : 

(a) The prophecy of Jesus. This is recorded in Mk io 35-40 = 
Mt 2o 20 " 23 , and especially the words : "The cup that I drink shall 
ye drink " (TO Tror^piov o eyu> TrtVeo TriW^e KCU TO /3oL7TTi<rfJia o eyw 
/?a7TTio/x,at /3a7mo-#7yo-eo-$e, Mk IO 39 = TO jjikv TTOTrjpiov JJLOV 7rt eo-0f, 
Mt 2o 23 ). 2 In Mark the above words are followed by a 
parallel clause : " And with the baptism that I am baptized withal 
shall ye be baptized." The meaning is unmistakable. Jesus 
predicts for James and John the same destiny that awaits 
Himself. That this prediction was in part fulfilled when Herod 
Agrippa I. put James to death, we learn from Acts i2 2 , but not 
in the case of John. Now, if John s martyrdom fell within the 
period covered by Acts, we may conclude with Wellhausen and 

1 See Schwartz, Uber den- Tod der Sohne Zebedaei, 1904 ; Wellhausen and 
J. Weiss on Mk io 39 ; Schmiedel, Rncyc. Bib. ii. 2509-2510; Burkitt, 
Gospel History , 250 sq. ; Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the N. T. 3 602 sq., 
613 sq. ; Swete, The Apocalypse, p. clxxix sq. ; Bacon, Fourth Gospel in 
Research, 133, 147 ; Latimer Jackson, Problem of the Fotirth Gospel, 

2 If these words are taken to be a vaticination post eventum, as they are 
by certain scholars, then the evidence for the martyrdom of John is simply a 
fact of history. But the present writer accepts the words as an actual 
prophecy of Christ and one that was fulfilled in actual fact. 


Moffatt that we have here one of the many gaps discoverable in 
Luke s narrative, who fails to record John s death as he does 
that of Peter. But it is not necessary to assume that John 
was martyred before 66 A.D., as we shall see presently. 

(ft) But though Acts 12* fails us here, there is a Papias- 
tradition recounting the martyrdom of John. A MS of Georgius 
Hamartolus (9th cent.) states on the authority of Papias that John 
the son of Zebedee was slain by the Jews (( Icoavv^s) /jLaprvpiov KO.T- 
IlaTrias yap . . . c^cur/cei on VTTO louSaiwv avypeOrj, 
/xera rov dSeA.<cn) rrjv rov Xpicrrov avr&v 
This statement is confirmed by an extract published by De Boor 
(Texte u. Untersuchungen, 1888, v. 2. 170) from an Oxford MS. 
(7th or 8th cent.) of an epitome of the Chronicle of Philip of 
Side (5th cent.). " Papias in the second book says that John the 
Divine and James his brother were slain by the Jews " (ITaTuas 
ev T. Sevrepw Aoyco Xeyet on Icaai/vrys 6 $eoAoyos * KOL Ia/cw/?os 6 
a8eX(/)0? O.VTOV VTTO louSaiW avyptOrjcrav). Swete (Apoc. clxxix. sq.) 
adds here the following pertinent comment : " If Papias made 
it (this statement), the question remains whether he made it 
under some misapprehension, or merely by way of expressing 
his conviction that the prophecy of Mk x. 39 had found a 
literal fulfilment. Neither explanation is very probable in view 
of the early date of Papias. He does not, however, affirm that 
the brothers suffered at the same time : the martyrdom of John 
at the hand of the Jews might have taken place at any date 
before the last days of Jerusalem" 1 * 

This Papias-tradition is rejected by Bernard, Studia Sacra, 
260-284; Harnack, TLZ., 1909, 10-12; Drummond, 227 sq. ; 
Zahn, Forschungen, vi. 147 sq. ; Armitage Robinson, Historical 
Character of John s Gospel, 64 sqq. ; Stanton, Gospels as His 
torical Documents, i. 166 sq. ; but such a rejection is hazardous 
in face of the evidence furnished by subsequent and independent 
authorities, not to speak of the results already arrived at inde 
pendently in this chapter. 3 

(c) Certain ancient writers imply or recount the martyrdom oj 
John the son of Zebedee. The first evidence is that of Heraclcon 
(an early Gnostic commentator on J, about 145 A.D.), preserved 
in Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iv. 9). Heracleon in connec 
tion with Lk T2 11 12 states that "Matthew, Philip, Thomas, 

1 6 #60X6705 is, of course, a late addition. It is found in most cursives of 
the Apocalypse in its title. 

2 The italics are mine. 

8 These results exclude the possibility of John the son of Zebedee being 
the author of J ap , and also of i. 2. 3 J, J, if, as is highly probable, John the 
Elder wrote 2. 3. J. John the Apostle may have been the teacher of John 
the Elder. This Papias-tradition would account perfectly for the absence 
of his writings from the N.T. 


Levi, 1 and many others" had escaped public testimony to 
Christ. The omission of John s name is full of significance. 
He cannot, in view of his prominence both in the N.T. and in 
the 2nd cent, be relegated to the nameless body of the " many 
others." Clement does not call in question this statement of 
Heracleon. Archbishop Bernard weakens this evidence, but his 
(Studia Sacra, 283 sq.) argument proceeds on the hypothesis that 
John the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypse. 

The next evidence is furnished by the Martyrium Andreae 
i. 2 (Bonnet, Ac fa Apost. Apocr. n. i. 46 sq.). Here it is 
recounted how the apostles cast lots as to which people they 
should severally adopt as their sphere of missionary effort. The 
result of the casting of the lots was that the circumcision was 
assigned to Peter, the East to James and John, and the cities of 
Samaria and Asia to Philip (eKAr/pwtfr/ IleVpos rrjv 
IaKO)/?os /cat Ia)dW?7s TT)V avaroXrjv ^iXiTTTro? ras 
5a/xapias KOL rrjv A<riW), and so on. What is significant in this 
legend is that it ignores wholly any residence of John in Asia 
Minor. 2 

Next, in Clement (Strom, vii. 17) it is stated definitely that the 
teaching of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, was 
brought to a close in the reign of Nero 3 (^ Se aTroo-roAwi/ avrov 
(i.e. Xpioroi)) P<XP L 7 6 T ^ s Ilav/Vov Aeirovpyias CTTI Nepwi/os 
TeAeicnmu). These words presuppose the death of all the 
apostles before 70 A.D. In Epiphanius (li. 33), John s activity 
is assigned to the times of the Emperor Claudius : rov ayiov 
Icoai/i/ot) . . . Trpo^r/Tcvo-avro? ei/ ^poj/ois KAavSi ou /cat crapos. 

The same tradition of John s martyrdom is attested in 
Chrysostom (Horn. Ixv. on Mt 20 23 ), though in Horn. Ixxvi. he 
says that John long survived the fall of Jerusalem. 

According to Moffatt (p. 607), even Gregory of Nyssa 
(Laudatio Stephani : De Basilio Magno) mentions Peter, James, 
and John as martyred apostles and places them between Stephen 
and Paul. But Bernard (Studia Sacra, 280 sqq.) has rightly 
objected to Gregory being cited as supporting such a thesis. 
The fact is that Gregory is mystified naturally by this attestation 
of the Church calendar to the martyrdom of John and seeks to 
explain it away. 

1 This reduplication in Matthew . . . Levi is found elsewhere. 

2 As Latimer Jackson observes, "the allusion Gal 2 9 is significant; it 
suggests that John, extending the right hand of fellowship to Paul and 
Barnabas (who had taken the Gentiles as their sphere of work), decides to 
cast in his lot with the circumcision (p. 149)." But we have to remember 
also that Peter went to the West and was martyred in Rome. 

3 It is true that elsewhere Clement (Quis dives salv. 42) tells the story 
of John and the robber, which, were it true, would imply his living to old 


As Clement and Chrysostom reflect the conflicting traditions 
as to the manner of John s death and the age at which he died, 
the Muratorian Canon attests indirectly the survival of the older 
tradition. It states that Paul wrote to seven churches after the 
precedent set by John. This statement cannot be accepted, 
since most (if not all) of the Pauline Epistles were written 
before all the Seven Churches in Asia were founded. Thus 
the Church in Smyrna was not founded till 61-64 A.D. at 
earliest : cf. Polycarp, Ad Phil. ii. But the statement becomes 
intelligible, if John s apostolic activity belonged to the decades 
before 70 A.D. Thus the older tradition discovers the element 
of fact in this statement of the Muratorian Canon. For in 
its enumeration of the works of St. Paul it proceeds : " Ex quibus 
singulis (non) necesse est a nobis disputari, cum ipse beatus 
apostolus Paulus, sequent prodecessoris sui Johannis ordinem, 
nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat. . . ." Here the 
composition of J w is set before that of the Pauline Epistles. 
This fact justifies the assumption that the Muratorian Canon 
represents the composition of J as prior to the dispersion of the 
apostles. " Quartum evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis. (Is) 
cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit : Conjejunate 
mihi hodie triduo, et quid cuique fuerit revelatum, alterutrum 
nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis, 
ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta 
describeret" That the condiscipuli=ti\z rest of the apostles, is 
to be inferred from John himself being called ex discipulis. It may 
be remarked in passing that the revision of J is here plainly stated. 

The North African work De Rebaptismate (arc. 250 A.D.) 
supports the Papias-tradition : " He said to the sons of Zebedee : 
" Are ye able ? " For he knew the men had to be baptized, not 
only in water but also in their own blood." 

Finally, the Syrian Aphraates (De Persecutione (344 A.D.)) 
writes : " Great and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus. . . . 
After Him was the faithful martyr Stephen, whom the Jews 
stoned. Simon also and Paul were perfect martyrs. And 
James and John walked in the footsteps of their Master Christ. . . . 
Also others of the apostles thereafter in diverse places confessed 
and proved themselves true martyrs." Here the actual martyrs 
are mentioned first, including John. Then come the confessors 
to whom the hononary rank of martyrs is accorded. 

(d) The Syriac Marty rology postulates the martyrdom of John 
the son of Zebedee. This martyrology (411 A.D.) was drawn up 
at Edessa for the use of the local church. It contains the 
following festivals : 

Dec. 27. ludvvr/s Kat Ia/ca>/?o5 ot a.7ro<rroA.oi lv 

Dec. 28. Ev Pco/xiy TTJ TroAet IlauAos KCU Sv/xeobv 


Here the martyrdom of James and John in Jerusalem is 
commemorated between that of Stephen on Dec. 26 and that of 
Paul and Peter on Dec. 28. 

Seeing that the statements with regard to James, Paul and 
Peter are trustworthy, there appears no reason for questioning 
that respecting John. In the Calendar of Carthage (circ. 505) 
there is the entry, " Commemoration of St. John Baptist, and of 
James the Apostle, whom Herod slew." Since in the same 
calendar the Baptist is commemorated on June 24, it is clear 
that John the son of Zebedee is here intended. Thus the two 
sons of Zebedee are here conjoined, and evidently on the 
ground of their common martyrdom. According to Moffatt 
(Introd. Lit. N.T. p. 605), the Armenian and Gothico-Gallic 
Calendars agree with the Syriac. 

This considerable body of independent and diverse forms of 
evidence appears to the present writer to remove the Papias : 
tradition from the sphere of hypothesis into that of reasonably 
established facts of history. Finally, the date of John s martyrdom 
can be fixed within certain limits. He was alive when Paul had 
his conference with the " pillar-apostles " in Jerusalem (Gal 2 9 ). 
This was not later than 64 A.D. 1 Since he was martyred by the 
Jews, he must have died before 70 A.D. 

That the later testimony of Irenaeus that John the Apostle 
resided in Asia, as well as the statement that Polycarp was a 
disciple of the Apostle, must be rejected if the Papias-tradition 
is correct, follows as a matter of course. Irenaeus is occasionally 
very inaccurate. His confusion of John the Elder with John 
the Apostle 2 finds (in. 12. 15) an exact parallel in his confusion 
of James the Lord s brother, who in Acts i5 13 takes part in the 
Council of Jerusalem, with James the son of Zebedee, who has 
already been martyred in Acts i2 2 . In iv. 27. i he states that one 
of his authorities is a disciple of the disciples of the apostles ; 
yet in 32. 2 he designates the same man as a disciple of the 
apostles. In H.E. iii. 39. 2, Eusebius charges Irenaeus with 
wrongly representing Papias as a disciple of John the Apostle. 
Irenaeus states on the authority of certain elders, who main 
tained that they had heard it from John, that Jesus did not die 

1 Galatians is variously dated from 53 to 64 A.D. 

2 Though Irenaeus has transferred to John the Apostle the labours of John 
the Elder and the scene of these labours, he still distinguishes the Elder whom 
he frequently quotes alike from the body of the Elders whom he also quotes, and 
from John the disciple of the Lord ; cf. iv. 30. 4 : "Si quis autem diligentius 
intendat his, . . . quaecunque Joannes discipulus Domini vidit in Apocalypsi," 
and 31, I: "Talia quaedam enarrans de antiquis presbyter reficiebat nos"; 
32. I : "Senior apostolorum discipulus" ; also iv. 28. I. It is significant, 
however, that Irenaeus never calls this John, whom he regards as the author 
of the Johannine writings, an apostle, but only a disciple of the Lord. 
This element of truth still survives in his treatment of this question. 



till the reign of Claudius (11. 22. 5). The confusion of Philip 
the Evangelist and Philip the Apostle, whom Luke in the Acts 
distinguishes carefully, is found in several ancient writers, most 
probably in Polycrates of Ephesus (arc. 196 A.D.) and Proclus : 
cf. Eus. iii. 31. 3-4, v. 24. 2 ; in Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
iii. 6. 52), Tertullian and Eusebius. See Encyc. Bib. (2511); 
Moffatt, Introd? 608 sqq. ; otherwise Lightfoot, Colossians, 45 sq. 

The primitive tradition as to the martyrdom of John the 
Apostle was gradually displaced by the later tradition represented 
by Irenaeus ; but even so the primitive tradition maintained itself 
in various places down to the yth cent., as we have shown 

The conclusion to which the above facts and inferences point 
is that John the Apostle was never in Asia Minor, and that he 
died a martyr s death between the visit of St. Paul to the "pillar" 
apostles in Jerusalem, circ. 64 (?) and 70 A.D. 


From the section dealing with the Plan, pp. xxiii-xxviii, we 
have seen that J ap exhibits, except in short passages, and espe 
cially towards the close of chap. 18, a structural unity and a 
steady development of thought from the beginning to 2o 3 . In 
2o 4 -22, on the other hand, the traditional order of the text 
exhibits a hopeless mental confusion and a tissue of irreconcilable 
contradictions. In vol. ii. 144-154 I have gone at length into this 
question, and shown the necessity for the hypothesis that John 
died when he had completed I-2O S of his work, and that the 
materials for its completion^ which were for the most part ready in 
a series of independent documents - , were put together by a faithful 
but unintelligent disciple in the order which he thought right. Such 
was the solution of the problem I arrived at five years ago, and 
all my subsequent study has served to confirm the truth, of this 
hypothesis. In the earlier chapters (i-2o 3 ) I adopted tentatively 
and occasionally the hypothesis of an editor, but generally that 
of an interpolator or interpolators, but it was nothing but one 
hypothesis possible amongst many others, till I came to deal 
with 2o 4 -22. This present section, therefore, represents a brief 
restudy of the interpolations which can with most probability be 
attributed to the editor from the standpoint of the solution of 
the problem discovered in connection with 2o 4 -22. For the 
main grounds for this hypothesis the reader should consult ii. 
144-154 and the commentary that follows. 


On p. Ivii sq. we have given a complete list of the inter 
polations in the text, and marked by an asterisk those which 
appear to proceed from the editor. 

Now, if we wish to learn something about this editor we 
should begin with his editing of 2o 4 -22. We are here first of 
all seeking to learn his grammatical usages, though occasionally 
we shall consider his opinions so far as they have led him to 
change the text. He is a more accurate Greek scholar than 
our author, and, as he shows no sign of really knowing Hebrew, 
he was probably a native of Asia Minor. 

As regards grammar, the construction in 20 11 TOV KaBrj^vov 
tir* f avrov f and 2I 5 6 /ca^r^uevos CTTI f TOV 0/ooVou f, which is not 
that of our author (see p. cxxxii), is probably due to him. This 
construction with the gen. is more usual in classical Greek. 1 
Now in the interpolation which he has made in i4 15-17 we find 
this same construction twice : r<3 /ca^/xeVo) CTTI TT}S K<J>d\rjs and 
6 Ka.QriiJif.vos 7u Trjs i/e^eA.^?; and in g 17 we find the same non- 
Johannine construction r. Ka^/xeVov? lif f avrwv f, which may be 
traced to the editor. In any case, in three passages at least the 
editor appears to have corrected the Johannine construction into 
the more usual Greek one. 2i 5 6 Ka#?j/>ievos rl frw 0poVa> f 
seems to be a primitive corruption for eVt TOV Opovov. 

In 2o 4 -22 there are three other passages where the editor has 
changed the text. In 2o 4 the omves is an insertion of the 
editor to make the text possible Greek. But the construction 
without the ofrivcs, i.e. TOJV TreTreXe/CKr/xei/wv /cat ov 7rpoo~Kvvr)o-av, is 
always elsewhere the Hebraism used by our author. See vol. i. 
14 sq. Again, in 2i 6 TW OHJ/WVTL Swo-<o we should expect, in 
accordance with our author s usage, aurw after Swo-w (which 046 
and certain cursives actually add). Here again the editor was 
improving the author s Greek. In 22 12 the order of the words, 
TO epyov CO-TIV O.VTOV, is the editor s. In any case it is not John s. 
Here 046 and a few cursives restore John s order. 

That the editor was a better Greek scholar than the author 
is apparent also in his interpolations in 22 n - 18b 19 . To these 
passages, which are interpolations (see ii. 221-224), we shall return 

But though a fair Greek scholar, the editor is very unintelligent. 
He has made a chaos of 2o 4 -22, and wherever else he has 
intervened he has introduced confusion and made it impossible 
in many cases for students, who accepted his interpolations as 
part of the text, to understand the author. In i 4 he has sought 

i, c. gen. dat. or ace. , is found in our author as elsewhere after icddrjcrdai. 
But where the idea of resting on is present, the genitive is most natural. 
But the use of the case after KadyvBai lirl in our author is wholly unique. 
See p. cxxxii. 


by his interpolation to make the text enumerate the Persons of 
the Trinity a grotesque conception indeed, but with a parallel 
in Justin Martyr. His interpolation of i 8 is singularly infelicitous 
as well as being impossible. Not understanding that 6 Ocbs 6 
iravTOKpa.Tu)p is a stock rendering of the Hebrew " God of Hosts," 
and that accordingly this title cannot be broken into two parts, 
he actually divides 6 0eos from 6 Travro/cparwp by eight words, and 
next represents the Seer as hearing God speaking this verse, 
although he has not yet fallen into a trance. The intrusion 
37-12 w j t h th e necessary changes in the adjoining context is to 
be traced to him also (see vol. i. 218-223). This fragment is 
of unknown provenance. In order to introduce this inter 
polation the editor has, as already observed, made many changes 
in the adjoining contexts. One of these changes bears clear 
testimony to his ignorance of our author s style. Thus in 8 5 
he represents our author as saying @povTal Kal <on/ai KCU aorpairai. 
But our author knows well that the aa-Tpa-n-aL always precede the 
/3povTcu: cf. 4 5 n 19 i6 18 . But apparently this editor neither 
knew this fact nor his master s usage. This interpolation made 
it impossible for all interpreters of the Apocalypse to understand 
the meaning of the clause eyei/ero o-iyi) ev TW ovpavw us 77/u<6piov. 
Besides, 8 7 12 is a weaker repetition of what is said elsewhere in 
our author, and is frequently at variance with its adjoining 

In Q 11 the clause Kal lv rfj EAA^vi/crj OJ/O/AO, l^t ATroXXvoov 
(which is good Greek) appears to come from the editor s hand. 
Our author would naturally have written Kal EXX^wo-Ti ATroXXiW, 
if he had written the words at all, since the preceding words run, 
wopa avTcu E/fyaurrt A/?aSSojj/, and our author never aims at 
variety of construction in repeating the same simple fact. ovo/u,a 
avrw is frequent in the LXX. See also 6 8 and the note on Q 11 . 

The next interpolation due to this editor is i4 3e - 4ab . If 
these clauses are from his pen they help us to recognize 
another trait in his character. He is a narrow ascetic, and 
introduces into Christianity ideas that had their origin in pagan 
faiths of unquestionable impurity. According to the teaching of 
i4 3e - 4ab , neither St. Peter nor any other married apostle nor any 
woman whatever would be allowed to follow the Lamb on Mt. 
Zion. But it is chastity not celibacy that is a Christian virtue. 
To regard marriage as a pollution is impossible in our author, 
who compares the covenant between Christ and the Church to 
a marriage, 19, and calls the Church the Bride, 2i 2 - 9 22 17 . 

In i4 14 20 , however, the editor reaches the climax of his 
stupidity. Here by his insertion of the impossible verses, i4 15 17 , 
which he found elsewhere, he has first of all divided the 
Messianic judgment into two acts, the first of which added by 


him is called the harvesting of the earth, I4 15 17 and the second 
of which is called the vintaging of the earth, i4 18-2 . The first is 
assigned to the Son of Man ! and the second and greater part 
to an angel. Thus the Son of Man is treated as an angel a 
conception impossible not only in J ap , but in Jewish and 
Christian literature as a whole. But our author never speaks 
of the judgment as a harvesting of the earth, but as a vintaging, 
and this vintaging is described at length in IQ 11 21 and assigned 
to the Word of God (6 Aoyos TOV 6eov), who "treadeth the 
winepress of the fierce anger of God Almighty" (iQ 15 ). The 
fact that our editor, in the face of this clear assignment of the 
entire Messianic judgment described as *a vintaging of the 
earth to the Son of Man, could assign it to an angel, betrays 
a depth of stupidity all but incomprehensible, and brands him 
as an arch heretic of the first century though probably an 
unconscious one. And the irony of it is that, despite his 
abyssmal stupidity and heresies, he has achieved immortality by 
securing a covert in the great work which he has done so much 
to discredit and obscure. 1 

In 15* we have, no doubt, another of his additions. It is 
designed to introduce the Seven Bowls. Now every new 
important section our author begins with the words //.era ravra 
eloov (see note on 4 1 in Commentary). Less important divisions 
are introduced by KOL etSov. Here, however, we find the latter 
words used, which at once provokes our astonishment. But 
that is not all. The vision breaks off, and a new vision that of 
the blessed martyrs in heaven, i5 2-4 is recounted; and then at 
last we come to the real introduction to the Seven Bowls in i5 5 , 
which rightly begins with the words /cat /zero, ravra etSov a fact 
which shows that the Seven Bowls are here mentioned for the 
first time. Such an interference with the text can hardly be 
assigned to any mere scribe (see vol. ii. 30-32). 

Passing over i6 2c , which was most probably interpolated 
by the editor, since it exhibits a wrong construction of Trpo- 
from the standpoint of our author, we come to i6 5a 
TOV dyyeXov TWI/ vSarcov a clause which he added in 
order to introduce some actual sentences of our author, i.e. 
i6 5b " 7 . These verses belong after iQ 4 . The editor may have 
found them detached on a separate piece of papyrus, and owing 
to his inability to recognize their true context inserted them 
after i6 4 . It is true that to the uninstructed mind they present a 

1 History has here in part repeated itself ; for in the Testaments of the 
XII Patriarchs (see my edition, pp. xvi sq., Ivii-lix) the work of a bitter 
assailant of the Maccabean priest-kings has gained a place in the heart of a 
book that was written by an ardent upholder of the earlier members of that 


superficial fitness for the place they occupy in the traditional text, 
but they are in reality wholly unsuited to it, as its technical 
expressions prove. See vol. ii. 120-123. i6 13b " 14a (ws ySarpa^of 
eicriv yap TrvevfAara 8ai/xorto>v Trotovvra (r^/Aeta) was also apparently 
foisted into the text by the editor. It is against our author s 
grammar, which would require u>s (3aTpdxov<s. To adapt the 
context to the interpolation he has changed eK7ropvo//,ei/a into a 
K7ropvovraL. 1 7 9b (oprj etcriv, OTTOV rj yvvrj KaOrjrai CTT avruv 1 /cat 
with eTTTa added after /Sao-iAcis), which gives a second explanation 
of the CTTTOL /Sao-iAeis, 1 appears also to be from his hand. 1 9 9b - 10 
is quite clearly an interpolation (see vol. ii. p. 128 sq.), and owes 
its insertion here very probably to the editor. It has dislodged a 
necessary part of the original text. Was the original undecipher 
able, or was it simply expunged in order to receive the contribu 
tions of the editor ? 

We now return to 2o 4 -22 with which we began. I have 
shown at length in ii. 144-154 the chaos to which the editor has 
reduced the work of his master in 2o 4 -22. Notwithstanding, it 
will be instructive to touch here also on a few of the hopeless 
incongruities he has introduced through his sheer incapacity to 
understand his master s teaching. In 2o 4 -22, as it stood origin 
ally, our author sees in a vision the coming evangelization of 
the world by Christ and the glorified martyrs on the Second 
Advent. This is already foretold in advance in 15* by the 
triumphant martyrs before the throne of God, " All the nations 
shall come and worship before Thee," and in a vision in i4 6 - 7 , 
and again in n 15 where proleptically the angelic song declares 
that " the kingdom of this world hath become the kingdom of 
our Lord and of His Christ." The evangelization of the world is 
thus committed to the glorified martyrs at once as their task and 
the guerdon of their faithfulness in the past. They preach afresh 
the Gospel to the nations of the earth, and all who receive it are 
healed of their diseases, cleansed from their sins, admitted to 
the Heavenly City, and allowed to eat of the bread of life. 
Thus the Millennial Reign is one of arduous spiritual toil, and the 
thrones assigned to these glorified martyrs are simply a symbol 
of faithful service, which vary in glory in the measure of their 

Such is our author s teaching, but through the editor s 
rearrangement of the text the Millennial Reign is emptied of 
all significance. The glorified martyrs return to earth with 
Christ and enjoy a dramatic but rather secular victory, sitting 
on thrones in splendid idleness for full one thousand years 

(20 4 6 ) ! 

1 The editor prefers the genitive always after Kd0ija6ai tirl, as we have 
seen above. 


Nearly all the incongruities in 2o 4 -22 are due to the editor s 
incompetence. But in 2O 13 there is something worse. Dis 
honesty has taken the part of incapacity. The editor has 
tampered with his master s text. In order to make the text 
teach a physical resurrection he has changed some such word 
as "treasuries" or "chambers" (i.e. the abode of righteous souls 
not of the martyrs who went direct to heaven) and inserted 
rj OdXacra-a. But the sea can only give up bodies, not souls. 
Yet the phrase " the dead " (TOI>S ve/c/aovs) implies personalities, 
i.e. souls, just as certainly as it does in the next line, where death 
and Hades give up " the dead " (r. vc/cpov s) in them. Hence it 
follows that fj OdXaa-o-a cannot have stood originally in the text. 
Besides, before the final judgment began the sea had already 
vanished, 2O 11 . On this depravation of his text by the editor, 
see vol. ii. 194-199, where, as well as in the English trans., I 
have restored the text. 

22 11 is written in a form of parallelism unexampled elsewhere 
in our author, while its subject-matter is in conflict with other 
passages in our author. The last interpolation, 1 22 18b 19 , exhibits 
the editor at his worst. Having taken the most unwarrantable 
liberties with his author s text by perverting its teaching in some 
passages and by his interpolations making it wholly unintelligible 
in others, he sets the crown on his misdemeanours by invoking 
an anathema on any person who should in any respect follow 
the method which had the sanction of his own example. 2 By 
this and other like unwarrantable devices this shallow-brained 
fanatic and celibate, whose dogmatism varies directly with the 
narrowness of his understanding, has often stood between John 
and his readers for nearly 2000 years. But such obscurantism 
cannot outlive the limits assigned to it; the reverent and 
patient research of the present age is steadily discovering and 
bringing to light the teaching of this great Christian prophet 
whose work fitly closes the Canon, and closes it with his 
benediction : " The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the 

1 In addition to the arguments advanced in vol. ii. 222-223 against the 
authenticity of 2i 18b 19 , we should observe that in the writer s use of eirLTidtvai 
there is a play on the two meanings of this verb, i.e. "to add" and "to 
inflict." The latter use is found in Luke io 30 , Acts I6 23 , and frequently in 
classical Greek. Such a play on words is not found in our author. 

2 The use of such anathemas by writers of an inferior stamp was quite 
common as I have shown in vol. ii. 223-224. 




i. Interpolations. There are in all some 22 or more 
interpolated verses in our text, if we add together all the inter 
polated verses, clauses, phrases, and words. The grounds for 
regarding these as interpolations are nearly always given in the 
Commentary, in loc., and in footnotes to the English translation 
in vol. ii. in a more popular and less technical form. But in a 
few cases these will be found only in the latter, since they were 
not recognized as interpolations, or else wrongly condemned as 
such when the Commentary was written. 

The interpolations are rejected as such either because they 
are wrong in their subject-matter, that is, against the context, or 
because they are against our author s linguistic usage. But 
generally an interpolated passage betrays its intrusive character 
both by its linguistic form and subject-matter. Where these two 
kinds of evidence combine, they are conclusive. As notable 
interpolations of this kind, the reader should study i 8 i/j. 15 17 . 
First, as regards i 8 we discover that this verse is impossible in its 
present context ; for it represents the Seer as hearing God pro 
nounce these words, although the Seer does not fall into a trance 
until i 10 . Next, we discover that it could not occur in any 
context in our author, since, contrary to his universal usage and 
that of all Palestinian writers, he separates 6 ira.vTOKpa.rwp from 
6 0eos by eight words, whereas it should immediately follow it, as 
it is a rendering of the Hebrew genitive (niNHtf) immediately 
dependent on 6 0eos (Tlta). Next, I4 15 17 is against our author s 
usage in respect to constructions. But it errs still more grievously 
against the context. The interpolator, failing to recognize " one 
like a son of man " (i4 14 ) as Christ, has treated Him merely as an 
angel, and assigned Him only one-half of the Messianic judgment, 
wherein the judgment is compared to a harvesting of the earth 
a figure not used by our author. But this is not all. He has 
assigned to "another angel "the Messianic judgment i.e., the 
vintaging of the earth the duty expressly attributed by our 
author to Christ in iQ 11 21 . 

But interpolation sometimes leads to further depravation of 
the text. This occurs when the interpolated passage obliges the 
interpolator to adapt the immediate context to his additions to 
the text. The classical instance of such tampering with the text 
will be found in connection with the interpolation of 8 7 12 , whereby 
"the three Woes," each preceded by a trumpet blast, have been 


transformed into "the seven Trumpets." This drastic interven 
tion of the interpolator has necessitated slight changes in 8 2 - 6 - 13 
9!- 18 io 7 1 1 15 and the transposition of certain clauses. This addi 
tion is at variance with the entire context : it has destroyed the 
dramatic development of our author s theme, and represents him 
as indulging in vain and inconsistent repetitions. 1 The presence 
of this interpolation in our text has hidden from all interpreters 
up to the present the true meaning of the phrase " there was 
silence in heaven for the space of half an hour," as well as other 
important matters. 

Several interpolations have arisen from marginal glosses ; 
t-8d j^is ^ e^cov e^ovcrtW 7ri r. Trvpos), iy 9b (op*7 ewrtV . . . ITT 
aarwv /cat) a second interpretation of " the seven heads " from 
the hand of the editor or an interpolator. i9 9b -i is mainly a 
doublet of 22 8 9 , and in n 5b iy 17 the additions appear to be 
simply dittographs. 

The complete list of interpolations in and additions to the 
text is as follows. Those which appear to be due to the editor 
are marked with an asterisk. 

*i 4c (/cat a.7ro TCOV 7rra . . . avToC). See vol. i. 11-13. *i 8 

( Eyto et/u TO "A\<f>a ... 6 TravTO/cparwp). See footnote 

on English translation in loc., vol. ii. i 14 (ws X L( *> V )- 

2 5 (lav fjJt] /jiTavorj(Tr]<i). 2 22 (ecu/ /A?) ^ravorjaovaiv e/c TOJV 

epywi/ avrijs). See footnote on Eng. trans, in loc.^ vol. ii. 

4 5 (a cVrtv ra cTrra Tn/ev/xara TOV Oeov) . 4 6 (ev /xeorw rov 

Opovov /cat) : 4 s (/cu/cXo^ev /cal ecrw^ev ye^ovcrtv 6<pOaXfj.C)v). 

5 8(1 (at et(rtv at Trpocrev^at rtov aytan>) : 5 11 (Kat T. a>eoi/ /cat T. 

rrpcr(3vTp(Dv). See vol. i. 145, 148 respectively. 
6 8b (/cat 6 aS^s rjKoXovOei /ACT avrov). See vol. i. 169 sq. 
6 8de (a.7ro/CTu/at . . . VTTO r. ^7/ptW T. y^s). See i. 171. 
*8 2 (ot ei/WTTtov T. Oeov etrTr;/cao-tv). See i. 2 2 1 : also footnote 
on Eng. trans, in loc. 8 7 12 . To adapt this interpolation 
of the first four Trumpets to its new context, changes 
were introduced in 8 2 - 6 - 18 9 1 * 13 io 7 n 15 and 8 2 trans 
posed from its original position after 8 5 . See i. 219-222. 
9 5c (/cat 6 /?acrav(ay/,o9 . . . avflpwTrov? See footnote : Eng. 
trans.). *9H C (/<at ev rrj . . . ATroAXvtoi/). See i. 246. 
*cji6b-i7a (fjKovcra T. apiOpov . . . opdVci). Observe that 
the wrong construction, T. Ka&yptvovv f ITT avruv f, is 
due to editor. See i. 252. 9 19b (/cat lv rats . . . 
/cec^aXa?). See i. 254. 

1 Hence practically every editor who accepts the entire work as from 
John s hand, whether he adopts or not the hypothesis of sources, is obliged to 
resort to the " Recapitulation Theory" in a greater or lesser degree, that is, 
that the Apocalypse does not represent a strict succession of events, but that 
the same events are either wholly or in part dealt ivith tinder each successive 
series of seven Seals, seven Trumpets, and seven Bowls. 


H 5b (KCU ci TIS . . . a7roKTav6r]vai). See i. 284. 

*I4 3 4 (ot riyopa.a-fJif.voL OLTTO r. y>}s . . . to~iv and *at TW ctpvao. 
See ii. 5-10, 422, footnote. *i4 15 - 17 KCU aXXo? dyyeXos 
. . . opeTravov ou). See ii. 1819, 2022. i4 18 (6 t\wv 
IgovfTiav 7ri TOV 7rvpos). I4* 9 (6 ctyycXos). 

*i5 1 . See ii. 30-32. i5 3 (T. wS^v . . . T. #eo{) KCU). See 

ii. 34. 15 (ot CTTTO, dyycXot ot e^oi/Ts . . . TrX^yds 
a deliberate change for ayyeXot CTTTCL owing to interpola 
tion of I5 1 ). See ii. 31-32, 38. 

*l6 2c (TOUS e^oi/ra? . . . etKoVt avrov). See ii. 43. *i6 5a 
(KCU fjKovcra rov dyyeXou TCOI/ vSarcov Xeyovro?) added by 
editor when he wrongly introduced i6 5b 7 , which 
properly belongs after i Q 4 . ii. 44, 120-123. * r 6 13b - 14a 
(o>? pdrpaxoi . . . crry/xeta). See ii. 47-48. i6 19a (/cat 
eyeVero . . . fte/si;). See ii. 5 2 - 

*!7 9b (op>y eicrtV . . . ITT avrwv KCU and eTrrd after /SacrtXct?). 
See ii. 68-69. iy 15 a gloss on ly 1 . See ii. 72. 
I7 17 (Kat TTOi-^crav /xiai/ yvtjyp^v}. See ii. 73- 

l8^ 3 (/(CU tTTTTCOV . . . O"(OjU,CtTO)v). S&6 ii. IO4- 

I9 8b (TO yap PVO-Q-LVOV . . . ecrnV). See vol. i. 127-128. 

i9 9b - 10 , doublet of 22 8 9 , which has dislodged part of the 

original text. See ii. 128-129. i9 12c (e^on/ oi/ojaa . . . 

L fAr) auros). See ii. 132. IQ 16 (CTTI T. t/xaTiov KCU). 

See ii. 137. 
*2O 4 (omves). *2O 5 (ot XOITTOI raiv veKpwi/ OVK Z,r)(ra.v 

372. 2O 12 (Kara TO, tfpya aurcov). *2O 13 (17 6aXa.o-o~a. 
an interpolation which has dislodged the original). 
ii. 194 sqq. 2o 14b (OVTOS 6 0dVaTos . . . Trupo s). See 
ii. 199 sq. 

*2i 6a (KO.\ cLTTtv ftot* Teyovav). See English translation, in 
loc. ii. 443. *2i 25 text changed by editor. See ii. 173, 


*22 n . See ii. 221 sq. *22 12 ws TO epyoi/ f CCTTIV avTovf. 

The order rriv avrov is due to the editor. Our author 

wrote avTov eariV. *22 18b 19 . See ii. 222 sq. 

2. Dislocations in 2o 4 -22. In vol. ii. 144, 1 have emphasized 

the fact that apocalyptic is distinguished from prophecy in its 

structural unity and its orderly development of thought to the 

final consummation. In the pages that follow (145-154) I have 

shown at some length that the text is incoherent and self- 

contradictory as it stands, and that these characteristics of 2o 4 -22, 

which are wholly impossible in apocalyptic (if the work is from 

one and the same author), are due to vast dislocations of the 

text. No mere accident could explain the intolerable confusion 

of the text in 2o 4 -22 (see vol. ii. 144-154). Since this entire 


section, with the exception of two or more verses, comes from the 
hand of our author, the only hypothesis that can account for the 
present condition of the text is that John died when he com 
pleted i-2o 3 of his work, and that the materials forks completion, 
which were for the most part ready in a series of independent 
documents, were put together by an editor who fundamentally 
misunderstood the thought and visions of the Seer. Alike in 
the Commentary, Text, and Translation, the present writer has 
sought to recover the original order of the text (see vol. ii. 153- 
154) and given the grounds which have guided this reconstruc 
tion throughout. Manifold traces of the activity of this un 
intelligent editor are to be found in the earlier chapters, and it is 
more than probable that most of the interpolations are to be 
traced to his hand. 

Dislocations in i-2o 3 . Though there is nothing in the text 
of 1-2 o 3 in the least comparable to the confusion that dominates 
the traditional structure of 2o 4 -22, yet there are some very 
astonishing dislocations of isolated clauses and verses. 

Of the many dislocations of the text in i-2o 3 only one 
appears to have been deliberate, i.e. the transposition of 8 2 from 
its original position after 8 5 in order with other changes to 
adapt the interpolated section 8 7 12 (the first four Trumpets) to 
its new context. 

The remaining dislocations in i-2o 3 are as follows : 

2 27c has been restored after 2 26b . See Eng. trans, in loc. 

3 8bc has been restored before 3 8a . See Eng. trans, in loc. 

7 5c -6 has been restored after y 8 . See vol. i. 207. 

n 18h has been restored after n 18b . See vol. i. 295 sq. 

n 18 s has been restored after n 18c . See vol. ii. 416, foot 
note to Eng. transl. in loc. 

i3 5b has been restored after i3 6b . See vol. ii. 419, foot 
note to Eng. transl. in loc. 

I4 i2-i3 n a s Deen restored after i3 18 . See vol. i. 368 sq. 

i6 5b - 7 has been restored after 19*. See vol. ii. 120-123 

i6 15 has been restored after 3 3b . See vol. i. 80 sq. 

T 714-17 has Deen restored as follows : ry 17 - 16 - H . See vol. ii. 
60 sq. 

i8 14 23 has been restored as follows: i8 15 - 19 - 2] - 14 - 22a-d.28cd. 

22e-h. 23ab. 20. 23^ 

The most startling of the above dislocations of the text is 
that in i8 14 - 23 . How this dislocation arose we cannot determine, 
but that the text is dislocated is beyond question. First, we 
observe that i8 14 comes in wrongly between i8 13 and i8 15 , and that 
both its sense and structure connect it immediately with i8 22 23 
and, as an introduction to these verses, which, combined with it 
express in due gradation the destruction of everything in &ome 


from the greatest luxuries to the barest necessities. Thus 
jgu. 22-23 (four stanzas) compose a special dirge over Rome. 
Next, i8 20 breaks the close sequence between i8 19 and i8 21 by 
introducing an apostrophe to heaven between the descriptive 
passages dealing with the ruin of Rome, i8 19 , and the dramatic 
action of the angel, i8 21 . But, though it cannot stand after i8 19 , 
it comes in with the most perfect fitness at the close of the dirge 
over Rome (i8 14 - 22 23 ), as an appeal to heaven to rejoice over 
the doom of Rome an appeal that is immediately answered by 
choir after choir from heaven of a mighty multitude of angels, of 
the Elders and Cherubim, and of the martyr host in iq 1 4 

l6 5bc-7 I9 5-7. 

The dislocations in 7 5c 8 n 18 i^b-eb I7 i4-i7 cou \d easily have 
arisen. Parallels to such dislocations are to be found in other 
books of the Bible and in other documents. Only three other 
dislocations remain, but two of these are suggestive. As to i6 15 
which is to be restored after 3 3b , it is possible that it was written 
on a separate slip of papyrus which got displaced and was 
subsequently inserted after the sheet of papyrus ending i6 14 . 
However this may be, it cannot possibly have stood originally 
after i6 14 , with which it has no connection of any kind. Its 
natural place is after 3 3b , and nowhere else. 

Now we come to the two interesting dislocations, i4 12 " 13 , 
I7 15 . 1 These two passages appear to have been inserted above 
the written columns on the papyrus sheets, the first by the Seer 
himself, the second by the editor. The scribe who copied the 
original MS incorporated these marginal additions in the wrong 
columns. It is noteworthy that i4 12 13 is exactly the same 
number of lines from i3 18 that i; 15 is from ly 1 , of which it is a 

3. Lacunae in the Text. Apart from 2o 4 -22 where it is 
impossible to determine what lacunae exist (save in 2i 22 ; see 
below) owing to the disorder of the text, there do not appear to 
be many in i-2o 3 . There are, however, lacunae, and these are 
important. The first consists of a loss of several clauses in i6 10 
(see vol. ii. 45-46). The second is a still graver loss after i9 9a . 
These lost verses after i9 9a (whose place has been taken by an 

1 That I4 12 " 13 (tS5e r) V-JTO^OV^ T&V aylw KT\.) is wholly out of place in a 
section that deals with the judgments inflicted on the wicked is clear at a 
glance, and that they should be restored at the close of the account of the 
persecution of the second Beast, i.e. I3 18 , is at once manifest, when we com 
pare the closing words of the persecution of the first Beast, I3 10e (tD5^ {env ^ 
vwo/j-ovr] . . . T&V a.yiwv}. These words are added for the encouragement and 
strengthening of the victims of the two persecutions. Next, it is clear that I7 16 
was originally an explanatory marginal gloss on I7 1 . Since it has no connec 
tion whatever with its present context, the explanation given above for its 
position in its present context seems adequate. 


interpolation, i.e. ig0b-io modelled on 22 8-9 ) recounted the 
destruction of the Parthian kings. Their destruction was 
prophesied in ry 14 , and the vision recounting their destruction 
should have been given here. In ly 17 - 16 there is a prophecy 
of the destruction of Rome : in 18 a vision of this destruction. 
In 1414-18-20 ( see a i so j6i3-i4. 16) we have a proleptic vision 
of the judgment of the nations by the Son of Man and a 
vision of their destruction by the Word of God in I9 11 21 
(20 7 10 ). Thus it is clear that a vision dealing with the de 
struction of the Parthian hosts by the Lamb and the Saints 
(see iy 14 ) should have been recorded in our text. That it 
actually did stand in the autograph of the Seer may be reason 
ably concluded from ig 13 , where the Word of God is said to be 
"clothed with a garment dipped in blood." That this is the 
blood of the Parthian hosts follows from any just interpretation 
of the text. See vol. ii. 133. 

A third lacuna occurs after i8 22a . The context makes the 
restoration easy, i.e. ov ^ aKovo-Or} lv <rol In. Again, in 2i 22 , 
where we should have a couplet, but where only the words KCU 
TO apviov survive of the second line, we can with great probability 
restore the missing words by a comparison of n 19 . These are 
rj KL/3(aro<s TTJS 8ia.6r)K-rj<s OLVTTJS. See vol. ii. 170 sq. 

4. Dittographs. There are several dittographs, i.e. (a) 

I 3 3c.8 =l7 8. () I9 9b =2I 5c =22 6a. (^ ^10 = 22 8b. 9 . (^ 2Q 14b 
= 2I 8e . 

(a) Both members of the first, i.e. i3 3c - 8 = 178, belong to our 
text. See vol. i. 337. 

(b) Here practically the same clause (/cat etTrei/ /xot OVTOL ol 
Xoyoi TTia-Tol K. aXrjOwoi) is repeated three times. In 2i 5c 22 6a 
it is a genuine part of the text. On 2i 5c see note 3 on English 
translation, vol. ii. 443, in accordance with which the note in vol. 
ii. 203 (ad fin.) sq. is to be corrected. In i9 9b it is manifestly 
interpolated (see vol. ii. 128, 203 sq.), probably by the 

(<:) Here 22 8b - 9 is original and ig 10 is an interpolation of the 
editor repeated in the main from 22 8 9 but giving to <rw8ovXos 
quite a different meaning. See vol. ii. 1 28 sq. 

(d) 2i 8e o IO-TLV 6 0ai/aros 6 Scvrepos is original. But in 2o 14b , 
where this phrase also occurs, it is quite meaningless. It 
represents the casting of death and Hades (as distinct from their 
inhabitants) into the lake of fire as the second death ! 




Our author has used sources. Nearly one-fifth of his text 
appears to be based on sources, i.e. 7 1 8 n 1 18 12-13 ( I 5 5 " 8 ?)- 
17-18. These sources he has adapted to his own purposes, and 
in the course of such adaptation has, except in certain details, 
transformed their meaning, (a) Sources he found in Hebrew 
or Greek, (b) Sources he found in Greek, (c) Sources in 

(a) Chap. 7 1 8 (before 70 A.D.). That there are two sources 
here is shown in vol. i. 191 sqq. Whether our author found these 
sources already existing in Greek and recast them in his own 
diction or translated them directly from the Hebrew is uncertain. 

Chap. 7 1 3 . Here " the four winds " (so designated though 
not previously mentioned) are not to be let loose till the faithful 
are sealed. A pause is enjoined in the course of judgment for 
this purpose as in i En 66 1 2 , 67, and in 2 Bar 6 48( i ( i-. The four 
winds appear in earlier tradition. See vol. i. 192-193. 

Chap. 7 4 8 . From a Jewish or Jewish-Christian source. See 
vol. i. 193-194. The "sealing" in our text is also derived from 
tradition, but the meaning is wholly transformed from what it 
bears in the O.T. and Pss. Sol i5 6 - 10 13 } which later work appears 
to have been before our author. 

(b) Greek Sources, i.e. sources already existing in Greek, n 1-13 
12.* 17-18. 

Chap, ii 1 13 (before 70 A.D.). This section had originally 
a different meaning and was borrowed by our author from a 
source written before 70 A.D. n 1 13 consists- of two earlier frag 
ments, both of which presuppose Jerusalem to be still standing 
( 1 1 1 - 8 ). The diction, idiom, and order of words differ perceptibly 
from that of our author, and they contain certain phrases which 
bear a different meaning from that which they bear in our author. 
In n 3 13 our author s hand is discernible in the additions n8bc-9a 
and the entire recasting of 1 1 7 , so that what stood there originally 
cannot be known. In our text the temple in n 1 must be inter 
preted not as the actual temple which no longer existed, but as 
the spiritual temple, of which all the faithful are constituent 
members a figure which our author has already used in 3 12 , and 
the words " the measuring of his temple, the altar and those that 
worshipped therein," mean in their new context the securing of 

* In vol. i. 300-305 I took chapter 12 to be a translation by our author 
from a Hebrew source, but subsequent study has obliged me to abandon this 
view. See Introd. p. clviii n. 


the faithful against the spiritual influences of the demonic and 
Satanic powers. But all the ideas in the text do not lend them 
selves to such reinterpretation, and the presence of such inexplic 
able details is prima fade evidence that the sections in which 
they occur are not original creations of our author but are derived 
from traditional material. See vol. i. 269-292. 

Chap. 12 (before 70 A.D.). In vol. i. 298-299 the meaning 
of this chapter in its Christian setting is given. But that this 
was not its original meaning, and that it could not have been 
written originally by a Christian, is shown in vol. i. 299-300. 
A full discussion of the two sources which underlie this chapter 
and were translated from Semitic originals but not by our author, 
is given in vol. i. 305-314. Our author most probably found 
these sources already in a Greek form, and the conclusion 
recorded in i. 303 is here withdrawn. These two sources, so 
far as they survive in our text, consist of I2 1 5 - 13 " 17 and I2 7 10 - 12 . 
These were adapted by our author to their new Christian context 
by the addition of i2 6 - n and by certain additions in i2 3 (?), i2 5 
(os /xeAAet Troi/xatVetv Travra TO. Wvr] v pa/3So> criS?7pa), I2 9 (6 o<ts 
6 updates, 6 KaXov/xevos AcaySoXos. . . . f/SXrjOrj ), I2 10 (KOL f) eoucria 
TOV XpLo-rov avrov and TCOV dSeA<oh/ fj/jiwv dislodging a Jewish 
phrase), I2 13 (ore ctSev and on /3\rj9r) cis TT/V yyv), I2 17 (TOJJ/ 
rrjpovvTwv ras evroXas rov Oeov KGU e^ovrwv rrjv fjiaprvpiav T^o-ov). 
The expectation expressed in i2 14-16 is a survival of an earlier 
time, being found by our author in his source. It referred to or 
prophesied the escape of Jewish Christians before 70 A.D. But 
the idea of such an escape during the entire sway of the Anti 
christ (i2 14 Kaipov /cat /coupons KOL rj/jiLcrv Kaipov) is impossible in 
our text, where our author s expectation is that of a martyrdom 
of the entire Christian Church. No part of the Church escapes. 

Chaps. 17-18 (71-70 A.D.). These chapters, though recast 
by our author to serve his own main purpose, preserve incongruous 
elements and traces of an earlier date. Thus I7 10 - 11 cannot be 
reasonably interpreted of a later time than Vespasian. And yet 
our author s additions in I7 8 - n , which refer to the demonic Nero 
coming up from the abyss, can only be explained by a Domitianic 
date. The sense is confused, but the date is clear. To leave 
this passage unaltered was an oversight on the part of our author. 
Similarity, i8 4 (see vol. ii. 96 sq.) postulates a Vespasianic date. 

These chapters, the greater part of which our author found 
in a Greek form, were derived from two Hebrew sources, which 
for convenience sake we designate A and B. A consisted 
originally of i7 lc - 2 - 3b - 6 - 7 - is. s-io (greater pan) I g2-23 < g ee yoL jj 8 88-89, 
94-95- B consisted of i7 n <e reater P art >- 12-13. IT. w. See vol. ii. 

Our author has adapted these sources to his own purposes, 


by inserting the following clauses: 17* (KCU rjKQev . . . Seto> o-oi), 
3a (/cat a7r?;j/eyKeV /AC ... Trrev/uart), Sc (/cac Kpara SeKa), 6b (Kat CK T. 
af/x,aTOS . . . Irjcroi)), 8 (^v Kat OUK . . . VTrayet), and (on rjv . . . 
Trapeorai), 9 (aiSe 6 vows 6 e^wv o-o<tav), n (o T^I/ Kat OVK eVrtv), and 
(Kat cts dTrwXetav vTrayet), 14 . But the text of ly 11 17 is in disorder. 
i7 15 is a gloss (see vol. ii. 72), ly 17 should precede i7 16 , and 
i7 14 (our author s addition) should follow immediately on ly 16 . 
Hence the right order of the text (see vol. ii. 61) is i; 11 - 13 - *7. ie. i^ 
After ly 14 our author transferred i7 18 , which originally belonged 
to A (see above), to the close of the chapter in order to introduce 
chap. 1 8. 

Chap. iS 2 " 2 ^" 6 . This chapter, as we have already seen, 
belongs to the source A. Our author apparently found it in some 
disorder in a Greek form. He has made few changes in it. He 
has introduced it by prefixing iS 1 , by inserting i8 20 , and closing 
it by i8 23f - 24 . Since i8 20 is an appeal to the heavenly hosts an 
appeal that is immediately answered in iQ 1 " 7 , our author would 
naturally have placed it at the close of 18 and not where it stands 
in the traditional text. i8 20 - 23f - 24 would thus form the close of 
this chapter coming from our author s hand and serving to 
introduce the theme of ig 1 4 i6 5bc 7 iQ 5 7 . 

Since, therefore, i8 20 does not apparently stand where our 
author inserted it, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the 
great disorder that exists in i8 14 23 arose subsequently to our 
author s composition of the work as a whole. 

(c) Hebrew Sources. One chapter, i.e. 13, is mainly composed 
of translations from three Hebrew sources by our author (see 
vol. i. 334-338). To the first source, written by a Pharisaic 
Quietist before 70 A.D., is to be traced i3 labd - 2. 4-7* 10. s ee vo \ j e 
340-342. To the second source, i3 3c - 8 , of which we find a second 
Greek translation from another hand in i7 8 . See vol. i. 337. 
To the third, ^"-i**- is-uab. iead-i7a See vol< i 342-344. The 
date is probably prior to 70 A.D. 

The original meaning of these sources is transformed by their 
incorporation into our author s text. He has adapted them to his 
own purpose by the insertion of the following clauses : i3 lc (Kat 
7rt Ttov .. . . StaS^/xara), 3ab (Kat /xtai/ . . . e^epaTrcu^r/), 6c (TOVS . . . 
(TK^j/ovi/Tas), ^ (Kai 806*7; . . . e^yos), 8b ~ 9 (TOV apviov . . . d/covrmTa>), 
10c (a>8e . . . aytW), 12bc (TO drjpLov TO TrpwTov ov fOepaTrevOr) . . . 
avTov), 14b-15 (cVwTrioi/ . . . aTroKTav&oo-tv), 16 (T. /iiKpovs . . . SovAovs), 

Possibly i5 5 8 is translated from a Hebrew source by our 
author. The grounds for this hypothesis are to be found in the 
two impossible phrases in i5 5 - 6 . It is remarkable that both these 
phrases can be explained by retranslation into Hebrew. See 
vol. ii, 37-38. On this hypothesis we should expect the whole 


narrative of the Bowls to be likewise a translation from the 
Hebrew. But if it is, it is so thoroughly recast that no evidence 
for this hypothesis survives. 

If we reject this hypothesis, we might assume that XCvov is a 
primitive error for Xivovv in 15, and that T^S O-K^V^STOI) /xaprvpiov 
was originally a marginal gloss which was derived from Ex. 4o 29 , 
on which our text is based, and was subsequently incorporated 
in the text against both the sense and grammar. The editor, 
however, was capable of the grossest misconceptions, as we have 
been elsewhere : see pp. 1-lv. 



i. General statement of our author s dependence on the above 
books. Our author makes most use of the prophetical books. 
He constantly uses Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ; also, 
but in a less degree, Zechariah, Joel, Amos, and Hosea ; and in a 
very minor degree Zephaniah and Habakkuk. Next to the pro 
phetical books he is most indebted to the Psalms, slightly to 
Proverbs, and still less to Canticles. He possessed the Penta 
teuch and makes occasional use of all its books, particularly of 
Exodus. Amongst others, that he and his sources probably 
drew upon, are Joshua, i and z Samuel, and 2 Kings. 

The evidence for the above summary of facts will be found 
below in 3-5. 

Of the Pseudepigrapha the evidence that our author used the 
Testament of Levi, i Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses, is 
sufficiently strong; see below, 7. It is not improbable that 
he was acquainted with 2 Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon. 
See below, 7. But the direct evidence is not so convincing as 
the indirect Repeatedly in the commentary that follows it is 
shown that without a knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha it would 
be impossible to understand our author. As a few proofs of this 
fact, see on 4 (the Cherubim), pp. 117-123; 6 3 ("a great 
sword"), p. 165; 6 9 (Martyrs = a sacrifice to God, cf. i4 4 ), p. 
174, vol. ii. 6 ; 6 9 (the one altar in heaven), p. 172 sqq. ; 6 11 (world 
to come to an end when the roll of the martyrs is complete), pp. 
177-79 ; (white robes = spiritual bodies), pp. 184-188 and passim. 

From an examination of the passages given below in 8, 
it follows quite decidedly that our author had the Gospels of 
Matthew and Luke before him, i Thessalonians, i and 2 Corin 
thians, Colossians (or else the lost Ep. to the Laodiceans, which 
presumably was of a kindred character), Ephesians, and possibly 


Galatians, i Peter, and James. Our author shows no acquaint 
ance with St. Mark. 

That our author used Matthew is deducible from the follow 
ing facts. In i 7 he has had Matt 24 30 before him, where our 
author s combination of Dan 7 13 and Zech i2 10 - 12 occurs already. 
Our author derives from Matthew the words Trao-at at <}>v\al r. 
y^s, which are not in the O.T. or Versions. Next, a reference to 
2 7 shows that it is the Matthaean (or Lucan : cf. 8 8 ) form of the 
command, 6 l^wv ovs KT\., Matt u 15 13 etc., that our author was 
familiar with. The dependence of 3 3 , i6 15 on Matt 24 42 - 43 - 46 is 
obvious at the first glance. 3 5 presupposes both Matt io 32 
and the parallel passage in Luke i2 8 . Other passages showing 
dependence on Matthew, though not so conclusively, will be 
found under i 3d i 16 6 4 n 15 below. 

That our author used Luke appears certain, though the 
evidence is less conclusive, from a comparison of i 3 with Luke 
ii 28 , 3 5 with Luke i2 8 , n 6 with Luke 4 25 , and i8 24 with Luke 
ii 50 . Unless we assume our author s acquaintance with the 
Little Apocalypse (embodied in Luke 21, Matt 24, Mark 13), 
then he is indebted to Luke for his fourth plague, i.e. the pesti 
lence, Luke 2 1 11 (Xoiftot). 1 

Possibly I3 8 (T. dpviov r. eo^ay/xevou a,7ro /cara/JoA^s /cooy/.ov) 
implies an acquaintance with i Pet i 19 - 20 . Compare also i6 19 
and i Pet 13 , and i 6 and i Pet 2 9 . 

2. John translated directly from the O.T. text. He did not 
quote from any Greek Version, though he was often influenced in 
his renderings by the LXX and another later Greek Version, a 
revised form of the o (i.e. the LXX], which was subsequently 
revised and incorporated by Theodotion in his version. Our 
author never definitely makes a quotation, though he con 
tinually incorporates phrases and clauses of the O.T. The 
question naturally arises : Do he and his sources (ii 1 18 12-13. 
17-18) derive such phrases and clauses directly from the Hebrew 
(or Aramaic), or from o or from the Hebrew combined with o ? 
(see 3-5). 

An examination of the passages based on the O.T. makes it 
clear that our author draws his materials directly from the 
Hebrew (or Aramaic) text, and apparently never solely from o or 
any other version. 2 And this is no less true of the sources our 

1 If, however, our author used Matthew and Luke only and not the Little 
Apocalypse, how are we to account for his using ddvaros and not Xot/x.6s? 
But if he had the Aramaic document behind the triple tradition in the Synop 
tics this would be explicable, since KniD=" death * or " pestilence." If he 
had the Little Apocalypse in Aramaic, we should have the explanation of this 
and other difficulties. 

2 It is important to recognize the results arrived at in 3-6, seeing that 
several German scholars have definitely declared that certain classes of O.T. 


author incorporated and edited. But this fact does not exclude 
the possibility that our author was acquainted with and at times 
guided by o and some other Greek version. The latter clause 
is added deliberately, "and some other Greek version." 

That our author was influenced in his renderings of O.T. 
passages by o may be taken as proved after an examination of 
the list of passages given in 4. But in the list of passages 
that follow in 5, we discover that our author s renderings 
of the Hebrew are closely related to those which appear in 
& (i.e. Theodotion), where & differs from o . But since Theodo- 
tion lived several decades later than our author, we must assume 
with Gwynn (Diet. Christ. JBiog. iv. 974-978) that side by side 
with o (preserved in a corrupt form in the Chisian MS of Daniel) 
there existed a rival Greek version from pre-Christian times. 1 

But Gwynn s hypothesis, although adequate to a certain extent, 
is inadequate when confronted with fresh facts that have emerged 
in my study of this question. For from 5 we learn that 
in i 17b our text agrees not with o but & in Is 48 12 : similarly 3* 
with 6 of Is 22 22 and 3 9c with & of Is 6o 14 . Again the quotation 
i5 3 4 6 /8ao-iA.ei>s T. e 0va>i/ Tis ov py <f>o(3r)@rj ; agrees word for word 
(though differing in case and tense) with & of Jer io 7 , whereas o 
is here wholly defective. Finally, i 6 (5 10 ) /facrtXctav tepets is found 
in & of Ex ig 6 where o is different. Now one or more of these 
might be coincidences, but it is highly improbable that all five are. 
Hence we have good grounds for concluding that there existed 
either a rival Greek version alongside o from pre-Christian times 
or a revised version of o , which was revised afresh by Theodotion 
and circulated henceforth under his name. How many books 
of the O.T. were so translated afresh cannot be determined. 
The above evidence would imply that Isaiah and Jeremiah were 
so translated. 2 Possibly all the prophetic books were rendered 

passages are directly from the Hebrew and others just as definitely from the 
LXX. The greatest offender in this respect is Von Soden (Books of the NT, 
372 sq.), who states that " quotations from the O.T. in the Johannine portion 
(of Revelation, i.e. I 5 ~7) are constantly made according to the LXX, while 
in the Jewish portion (8-22 5 ) the Hebrew text is taken into account." There 
is no foundation in fact for this statement. 

1 This hypothesis (first suggested by Credner, Beitrage, ii. 261-272) was 
practically accepted by Salmon (Introd. p. 547) and by Swete (Introd. to the 
O. T. in Greek, p. 48). 

Gwynn supports this hypothesis by evidence drawn from I Bar i 15 -2 20 . 
Since the date of I 2 ~3 8 is generally accepted as earlier than 80 A.D., and since 
numerous passages in i 15 -2 20 are clearly based on 6 and not o of Dan 9 7 " 19 , 
Gwynn (op. cit. 976) rightly infers the existence of a version of Daniel differ 
ing from o and of a type closely akin to that which bears. 

2 There is, of course, the possibility that our author was using a collection 
of Testimonia. But this explanation could not be used in the case of the 
passages wherein our author s text shows numerous and very close affinities 
to $ . It is noteworthy that the author of the Fourth Gospel never agrees 


afresh into Greek and this work incorporated and revised by 
Theodotion in his version. But the matter calls for further 

3. Passages based directly on the Hebrew of the O. T. (or the 
Aramaic in Daniet). These are hardly ever literal quotations : 
in any case the words carry with them a developed and often 
different meaning. 

I 7b tfi/ ercu avrbv TTCIS 600aX,udj /rat Zech I2 10 o 6 . eTri^Xetyoi/rcu irpbs 
oiTives avrov ^eKevr-rjffav * /ecu ^, avd &v Kanapx^avTO (& . ets 
K6\f/ovTai TT avrbv Tracrat at 0uXat dv e^eK^vrrjaav) Kal K6\j/ovTcu ^TT 
T. 7775. 2 (>& } avrfo- I2 12 o . /cc^erou i] yrj 

Kara 0i>Xas 0i>Xcls. 

I 10 yevb[jt,T)v v TTvetifJiaTi . . . iJKOvcra Ezek 3 12 dv^Xaficv fj.e 

<Ti<T/ut.ov /j.eyd\ov. 

I 13 (I4 14 ) SfjLoiov vibv avdptbirov. Dan 7 13 (o 6 ) ws w6s dvdpuirov. 

TroSrjprj. Dan IO 5 D"i3 ^n 1 ?. o 6 . ^vdedv 

fivffffLva (9 . paddeiv). Ezek IO 2 
renders the same words, 

r. /^acrrots ^vrjv Dan io 5 

av. Cf. I5 6 where the text ai roO irepLe^dxr^v^ v xpva Kj}. o . 
recalls the present. r. c5<r0iV 7repie"o;o7iej/os /3v<raiv({). 

4a ^ 5^ /ce0aXr/ auroO ffai al T/)t %es Dan 7 ^ . /cat ^ ^pt^ r. KefiaXrjs avrov 

wcrei eptoi/ Ka6ap6v. o . KO.IT. 
r. Ke0aX?7$ ai)roD w 

ji4b (1^12^ O j (500 a X/iot aurou cus 0X6^ Dan io 6 (o ^ ) ot 60XaX/Aoi ai>rou cocret 

7Ti;p6s. Xa/^TrdSes ;ri;p6s. 

ot 7r65es auroG 6 uotot xaX/coXt/Sdi aj. Dan io 6 o ^ quite different. 

exclusively with (see IQ 37 where it agrees in part), and only a few times 
literally with o in 2 l7 =Ps 68 (69) 10 , lO^Ps 81 (82) 6 , i2 13 =Ps 117 (nS) 26 , 
I2 38_ j s c^ 1 , J^-PS 21 (22) 19 . But the author of the Fourth Gospel seldom 
quotes even indirectly from the O.T., whereas our author s text shows its 
influence directly and indirectly, wherever his subject admits of it. 

1 Here our author renders npi as . But this proves nothing ; for 
iKKevretv (airoKevrelv or KaraKevTelv} is its normal rendering in the Versions. 
o , of course, presupposes npn. Cf. John IQ 37 o^o/rat els dv ^fK^vT^av. 

2 The words Ktyovrcu. CTT avrbv Tracrcu al <f>v\ai T. 777? agree exactly 
with Matt 24 30 save that the latter omits tir avrov. Now, since Matt 24 30 
combines Zech I2 10 and Dan 7 18 just as our author does in I 7 , it is highly 
probable that our author was acquainted with Matt 24^, or that our author 
and Matt 24 30 drew here upon an independent source i.e. a collection of 
O.T. passages relating to the Messiah. I have placed I 7a iSov ep^erat ^terd 
r. ve0eXw under 5, but possibly it ought to be under 3, as I 7h) . In Zech 12 
the people mourn for him that is cut off, whereas in our text and in Matt 24 30 
they mourn for themselves. KOTrrecrflcu eTr avr6v= " mourn in regard to 

3 Our author here diverges greatly from 6 , and here alone approximates to o 
against 6 in Dan. , though not necessarily presupposing a knowledge of o . Our 
text and o , however, really point to the same Aramaic npj -nn inyD HPNT "lypi. 
This appears to have been the original text "And the hair of his head 
was spotless as white wool." 


5 (196) i] <j>(t)vt] atfrou ws 
vSarwv TroXXwj . 

(o ) 

. . . <Ja. Cf. 4***19*. 
I 17 j-Trecra irpbs r. ir6da$ avrov a>s 
i>Kp6s Kal f-0r)Kev r. Se^iav avrov 

elfil e/s T. al&vas r. al&vwv. 

Kal iropvevvai. 
2 18 rote 6(j>0a\fJi.ovs /crX. See I 14 

2^ 3 E7c6 efyu 6 epavv&v vecppovs Kal 

Kapdias, Kal Swcro; v/juv efcdary /caret 

TO, Zpya V/JL&V. 
3 i)a ijZovcriv Kal irpoffKvvfjcrovcriv Ivw-rrtov 

3 17 7r\oi5(Tt6s et/it Kal 


But our text is a literal rendering 
of the Hebrew n 31 D D *?ipD iSip. 
Dan io 6 is based on Ezek 43 2 but 
only remotely, and is not followed 
by our author. Jerome remarks 
how Rev I 15 supports the Mass. 

Is 49 2 ZdrjKev r. or6yita JJ.QV ws fj,dxaipav 

Dan io 9 - 10 - 12 Heb. = " Then was I 
fallen into a deep sleep on my face. 
. . . And behold a hand touched 
me. . . . And he said unto me, 
Fear not." (Greek Versions very 
different from our text). 

Dan 4 31 (6 ) I2 7 , I Enoch 5 1 

Num 25 1 " 2 4peJ3T)\wdri 6 Xads 
. . . Kal tyayev. 

Jer I7 10 "Ey& Ktipios trafav Kapdlas 
Kal doKi/u.dfa} t>e<ppoijs, roO dovvat 
(nn 1 ?) e/cd(rr({j /caret r. odotis ai)roG. 2 

Is 6o 14 o . TropefoovTai Trpos (r^. ^ . 
iropevffovTai irpbs <r, Kal TrpoffKvvrj- 
ffovffiv irl T. txvij T&V TroScDy ffov : 

cf. 45 14 - 

Though this construction occurs in 
the LXX it is comparatively rare 
and represents a special Hebrew 
phrase : see vol. i. 289 sq., 336. 

Hos I2 9 . See vol. i. 96. 

Prov 3 11 - 12 fjii] 6\iy<Jbpei. Tratdelas Kvptou 
. . . dv yap dyairy Ktipios 

3 20 ^ffrrjKa irl r. Ovpav Kal Kpovw av Cant 5 2 Kpovei tirl r. dvpav. 

Dan 7 6 birlffu roirrou Ide&povv Kal 
IdoTLi. o . Kal ftera ravra tdeupovv. 

1 Based on the Hebrew of Is 6o 14 . The clause omitted by o is supplied 
by , but as we see in a different form. See on I5 4 below under 4, where a 
closely related text is derived from Ps 85 (86) 9 . 

2 Alone in the O.T. does Jer I7 10 combine the two ideas in our text. 
Hence correct my note in vol. i. 72. Jeremiah also uses jm in the rather 
unusual meaning of "to requite." With the second line cf. also Prov 24 12 
aTroStSwcriv (3 E>n) e/cdtrry Kara T. Zpya avrov : Ps 61 (62) 13 . Moulton and 
Milligan, Voc. of GT, p. 160, try to explain this meaning of 8i86vai by a 
quotation: X/tfy 8tdwKev ry viij} fj,ov (sc. TrX-riyfiv) = " he gave it him with 
a stick." This is not a parallel. Our text involves no ellipse. It is a 
Hebraism. Our author s use of 8i86vai here = "to requite" is due 
wholly to Jer I7 10 ; for in 22 12 he naturally uses &iro8i86vai in this sense 
( = an#n or n^) as in Prov 24 12 , Ps 6i 13 . 

3 See note in vol. i. 99. 3 19 might be classed under 4. 



dffrpatral K 
Kal fipovral. 

K1JK\<p T. 0p6l>OV Te<T(Tpa fad ye/HOVTa 

rd Trptxr&TTOV cos dvdp&irov . . . 
dfj-oiov aery. 
4 8a P /ca# 

4 8c X^yopres "A.yios iiyios dyios tctipios 6 

debs 6 iravTOKparcop. 1 
5 1 eirl T. Se^iav . . . jSt/SXW yeypafj,- 

fdvov evwdev Kal 6irLcr6ev t 

5 6 (5 12 

6<p8a\/j.obs evrd, of ... dTrecrraX- 
/i^i/oi (DBtsiD) et s irda-av T. yijv. 

^s /cal 7Xwo"o"77S /cai Xaou /cai 



6 2 8 IfTTTTOS XcU/f6s . . . tTTTTOS TTVpp6s 

. . . ITTTTOS /x^Xas . . 

6 18 ol d<rr^pes T. ovpavov Zirevav . . 
ws O-U/CT} jSdXXet T. <5X^^ois aurr^s. 

6 15 ?Kpv\l/av eavTofa els T. 
. trerpas T. 6peuv. 


6 16 /cal \eyovfftv T. ope<ru> Kal T. irer- 
pais Heffare e<fi r)/j.ds Kal Kpv\l/are 
fads dirb Trpoa-wTrov r. Kadrjfdvov 
KT\. Contrast Luke 23 80 which is 
drawn from o . 

6 17 1)\6ev 77 r7/A^pa 77 /j.eyd\r) r. 

uiv, Kal rls dtvarai <rTa0Tjvai ; 

ywvlas r. 7775. 

7 1 (2O 8 ) ^?rl r. 

Ex I9 16 kyLvovro 0wi>cu Kal darpairai. 
See vol. i. 116. Cf. Jub2 2 0775X01 
<f)WvS>v fipovT&v Kal dcrrpairuiv. 

Ezek I 5 ev T. [<?< cbs 6ytcoiWjU.a TC<T- 
adpwv ffluv. I 38 
KVK\66ev. See vol. i. 118. 

Ezek i 10 77 o/Aoluffis ... 77 

dvdpUTTOV . . . \toVTOS . . , 

. . . derou. 
Is 6 2 Trrepvyes ry evl Kal If Trrepvyes 

Ty evi (iriK^ D 3JD VV D 3J3 ^^. 

Is 6 3 e\eyov "Ayios dytos dytos 

Ezek 2 9 * 10 ev avrrj (i.e. 

fy ra Zfj,irpoffdev Kal ra 

Is 29 11 TOV /BiftXlov TOV e<r(ppayi<r- 

fjitvov : Dan 8 26 . 
Is 53 7 d>s irpbfiarov tirl <r<payT]v fjx^ 7 ) 

Kal el 1 ? djj.vbs. 
Zech 4 10 evrrd oSroi 6(f)6a\[ioL eifftv ol 

^Trt/SXeTTOvres ^?rt Trao-af r. 7^. 
From an older Aramaic text of 

Daniel than that preserved in the 

Canon. See vol. i. 147 sq. 
Dan 7 10 o 6 

From Zech I 8 6 1 8 . Our author has 
not used the Greek Versions but the 
Hebrew freely for his own purposes. 
See vol. i. 161 sq. 

Is 34 4 o . irdvra T. affrpa Trecremu 
. . . cos TriTrret 0i;XXa d?r6 <TUK^S. 
Our text is independent of the o 
here, but like o and a presuppose 
^IS (ireaeiTai) instead of the Mass. 


Is 2 10 - 19 elff&Oere els r. Ti^rpas /cai 
KpiJTrreffde . . . Kal rd %et/307roi7;ra 
. . . elveveyKavres ds T. airrjKaia. 
See vol. i. 182. 

Hos IO 8 Kal dpovaiv r. ope<riv KaXu^are 
i)fj.ds, Kal T. fiovvol s Il^crare <[> 
T?/ias. Is 2 10 Kpinrrecrde eh r. yijv 
dirb Trpcxrwirov r. (pofiov Kvpiov. 

Joel 2 11 /j.eyd\fj fat pa T. Kvpiov . . . 

Kal ris e<TTai iKavbs avrrj (U7*3*) ; 

2 31b Trptv AtfetV fatpav KvpLov T. 

/j,eyd\7)j>. Nah I 6 dTrd irpoauirov 

6/57175 atfrou T^S UTTocTTTjo-erai (Toy). 
Ezek 7 2 ^?ri r. r^a-<ra/?as irrtpvyas 

(niB33) r. 7775. 

1 On the critical importance of this rendering, 6 0e6s 6 iravTOKpdrtap, see 
vol. ii., English translation, footnote on I 8 . This epithet, 6 TravTOKpdTwp, is 
not found in any version of Isaiah. 

7 3 (9 4 I4 1 22 4 ) a%pi a^payiawfj-ev . . . Ezek 9 4 56s cryfjt.e iov tirl r. 


---/ -r> Q < / L\ 

7 T) (rwTtjpla T. 6eip. Ps 3 "? Kvpiov T) ffUTTjpla (nywn mn 1 ?). 

7 16 - 17 ov ireivdffovffiv en. ovde 8i\j/r]- Is 49 10 . See vol. i. 216. 


7 17 (2 1 4 ) 4^a\et^i . . . irav ddKpvov Is 2$ 8 d<pei\ev . . . irav Sdxpvov dirb 
K T. 6<pda\iJ.(it)v avr&v. iravrbs TrpocrdoTrov nj?DT . . . nno) 

[8 2 tv&iriov r. 0eov eaTTj/caeriy.] [A common Hebrew expression.] 

8 3 effrdd-ri lirl r. 6vffia<rTriptov. Amos 9 1 T. Kvpiov tyeffrwra eirl T. 

Ezek 8 11 TJ dr/xis T. 


[8 7 %dXaf"a ^al irvp fj.e/j,t.y/j^va.] [Ex 9 24 (see i. 233).] 

. . . T. BdvaTOv Kal ov Job 3 21 ot dfteipovTai T. dwdrov Kal 
/AT) evpuffiv avr6v. ov Tvyxdvovcriv. 

9 7 TO, 6fjLotwfJ.aTa T. aKpidcov o/j,oia Joel 2 4 * 5 ws 8pa<ris iiriruv i) 8pa<ris 
/TTTrots ijTOi/ fji.evois els ir6\/j.ov. avrdov . . . iraparao O dfJi.evos els 

iroXefjiov (i. 244). 

9 8 ol 6S6vres avrCbv us \e6vTUV. Joel I 6 (i. 245). 

9 9 d>b}VY) ctpjudrwj Lirirwv ... Tpeydj - Joel 2 4 "^ (i. 245). 


9 20 ovre fiXeireiv . . . of re aKoveiv 1 Ps H3 13 - 15 (H5 5 " 7 ) ou/c fyovrai . . . 
ovre Trepnrareiv (or under 4). Kal OVK dKov<rovTat . . . Kal ov 

IO 1 ol ir68es atirov us <rrv\oi Trvp6s. Dan IO 6 (& . rd GK^Kij. o . ol Tr65es). 

ev T V X ei Pt airrov J3ij3\apldi.oi>. Ezek 2 9 tv airy (i.t 

IO 2 Sxrirep \ewv fivKarai. Hos II 10 u?s \<av 

IO 5 * 6 7?/>e 2 r. xeZ/m ayrou r. dej-Ldv els Dan I2 7 (^ o ) vif/wcrev r. Se^tdv avrov 

r. ovpavbv Kal &fj.ocret> ev T. f&vri els ... (>o )esr. ovpavbv Kal tipocrev 

T. ai&vas. ev T. &vTi (r. ffivra els o ) T. ai&va. 

!O 6b 8s fKTicrev 3 r. ovpavbv Kal r. ev Ex 2O 11 o f \ eiroiyirev (rt vy) Kvptos r. 

avT< Kal T. yrjv Kal r. ev avT-f} Kal r. ovp. Kal T. yijv Kal irdvra rd iv 

6d\a<T(rav Kal r. ev avrfj. See on en/rots : Neh 9 6 . 

i4 7 under II. 

IO 7 rb lAVffTTjpiov T. deov, ws evrjy- Amos 3 7 edv /AT) diroK.aXv ty Q jraidelav 

ye\urev T. eavrov SouXous r. Trpo<prj- ( = 1D1D corrupt for mo=r. /SofXr)^ 

ras. ai^roO and fj.vffr^pi.ov in our text) 

irpbs T. 8ov\ovs avrov T. 

IO 9 rd ptp\ttpldiov Kal \eyet /AOI . . . Ezek 3 1 - 3 (i. 267-268). 

1 But Dan 5 23 was doubtless in the mind of our author : 6 . Beovs . . . ot ot 
P\irovcrij Kal ot O&K aKotiovo iv, seeing that the preceding words in our author, 
rd et SwXa r. xpucra Kal r. dpyvpa, KT\., are based on Dan 5 28 . 

2 Both o and 6 read v\f/wcrei>, but o reads T. faJfra els r. al&va 0e6v instead 
of the last five words in 6 . atpew is the usual rendering of N?J in the phrase 
v NBM, but Daniel has here D in. 

3 Our author uses KT^CLV as a rendering of n tyy, but none of the O.T. 
versions do so. In I4 7 he uses iroieiv the usual rendering. Hence I4 7 is 
given under 4. Observe that o > Kal r. 0dX. 

4 The idea first suggested by Ezekiel is reproduced in the Pss. Solomon 
and the Little Apocalypse in the Synoptics. But in our text the idea is 
wholly transformed : see vol. i. 194 sqq. While the Pss. Solomon use o-rjfj.e iov 
(i.e. in) our author uses vcppayls (i.e. Dnin). See later (p. Ixxxv) on this verse 
in connection with Eph 4 30 , 



II 2 fArjvas Ttffaep&KOVTO. /cat dvo. 
1 I 4 al dvo ACUCU Kal al dvo \vxviai al 
r. Kvplov r. yrjs earOrres. 

II 5 irvp tKiropeverai K r. ffr6/j.aTos 

r. dvafiatvov 

avr&v teal 

II 7 (I3 1 I7 8 ) r. 077, 
CK T. dj3v<rcrov. 

II 7 (I3 7 ) Tronjo-ei /in 
Kal vncfiffd avrovs. 

II 15 T. KVptOV TJH&V Kal T. X/3KTTOU 

avrov, Kal /3a<nXeu<m eis r. at wvas 
r. aiwvwv. 

12 3 ^x a>1 Kepara 6eKa. 

12 4 crt;/>ei r. rpirov T. darepuv T. 
ovpavov Kal ZjBaXev avrovs els r. yijv. 

12 5 erexev vlbv, Aparev. 

I2 8 ovdt r67roj evfdr] ainruv. 

I2 9 6 o0is ... 6 
I3 2 r6 drjpiov . . . 8/j.oiov irapSd\i 
ws &PKOV ...<!>$.. 

TTotTjcrcu ir6\e/Jiov fj.era r. ayLwv Kal 
viKrjeai avrofa. See above under 
1 1 7 . Here our text agrees closely 
with . 

I3 8 r. dpviov r. cr<t>ay/j.vov. 


rts ets aixfJi.a\w<rlai>, | eJs 
* | ef ns ^v 
t | f ai/r^" t ^ 

ip-g dTroKTavdTjvai. Our author 
combines the first two clauses in 
the Hebrew. 

I4 2 (frwvrjv ... (is (puvty vdaruv iro\ 

Xuv. See on I 15 above. 
I4 5 /cai ^ ry <rr6/iari avruv of>x 

I4 8 Ba/SiAwi . . . ^ K r. ofvoy [T. 
^u/ioD] r. iropveias avrijs veirbriKev 
travra r. ttfj/i;. See on i8 3 below. 

Dan 72* I2 7 (i. 279). 

Zech 4 2 Xuxvfa xpvrf 4 3 ^^ Aatat. 

4 14 irapeffT-fjKaffiv Kvpty irda-j/s r. 


2 Sam 22 9 Trvp K r. (rr6/u<rros aiJrou 
Cf. Jer 5 14 dedtoKa r. 
/xou eis r. <yr6/j.a <rov irvp 

. . . /fed /cara^aYerat. 
Dan 7 3 6^ . r^crcre/aa 6^77pta . . . dvtfiaivev 

K r. flaXao o Tjs. 
Dan 7 21 ^ . ^irolei Tr6\efj.ov /ierct T. 

Kal ttrxvffev Tpos auroi/s. o 

cvvLffrdfJifvov irpbs r. a7t ous Kal 

Tpoirov/j.evov avrovs. 
Ps 2 2 Kara r. Kvpiov Kal Kara r. 

XptoToO ayrou. 9 s7 ( io 16 ) @a<rt\ev<rfi 

Kvpios els T. al&va Kal ets r. aluiva r. 


Dan 7 7 ^ K^para d^Ka aury. 
Dan 8 10 (0 ) ^Treo-ej/ (eppdxdrj, o ) tirl T. 
?r6 r. dwd/mecos r. ovpavov Kal 

Is 66 7 ZTCKCV apcrev (Mass. "OT p). 
Dan 2 s5 (0 ) r6iros oi>x evpeQrj avrois. 

This clause is missing in o . 
Gen 3 13 6 o<pis r)TrdTr)<rev fj.f. 
Dan 7 6 o . 6-rjplov u<rel irdpSaXis (o . 

irdpSaXii ) . . . 7 5 8fj.oioi> apK($ (o . 

6not<t)<rii> fyov &PKOV) . . . J 4 uael 

Dan 7 21 . 

Dan I2 1 . 6 yey pap/Afros VT. 
Ps 68 (69 J 29 K /St ^Xou fwi/rwy. 

Is 53 7 <^s irpdftarov eirl (rcpay^v. 

Jer I5 2 Scroi e/s ddvarov, els ddvarov 
Kal 8aoi els fj-dxaipav, els ftdxaipav 
. . . Kal CHTOI els alxf^aXucriav, els 
alxv-aXwlav. Cf. also 50 (43 ) u 
where the same Hebrew words are 
rendered for the most part by 
different Greek words. 

Zeph 3 13 ov Xa\T]<rovffLV /j-drata, Kal 
ov /J.T] evpedrj ev rt^ rr6/x.ari avr&v 
y\C)ffffa So\ta. The Seer s words 
are a compression of the last four 
words of the Hebrew, no mr K^ 

D.TB3 N^D N^l. 

Is 2 1 9 o . TreTTTWKev, TreirruKev (B). 
So also d . 


W irlcTat, K r. otvov rov ffvpov r. 
faov T. KeKepaff/a^vov dicpdrov v r. 
. 6/37175 avTov. 

I4 14 tiri T. ve<p\r]v Ka.d-riiJ.evov. See 

i 7 * in 5 below. 

[14 * Ttp^ov TO 8p&ravov <rov /cat 
, QTI ?i\dev j\ wpo depicrat, OTI 

6 rijs 7*7*.] 
I4 18 v^fitl/ov crov T. Sp^iravov TO 6v, 
Kai TpiryrjG ov r. f36rpvas r. dju.ire\ov 
r. 7175, on iJK/j.acrav a i 

KCLI 0ai//ta<rra r. Ip7a <rov. 

3 Sixaiai icai d\T]0i.vai ai odoi croi 1 
(cL i6 7 I9 2 ). 

ov1: 2 But 
= w, which should here have been 
rendered fiveffwov. See vol. ii. 38. 
vepl T. ar-r]Qt] ^"wvos 
See on I 13 above. 

. . xal 

as KO.TCVOV . 
ovSely 8vra.TO flcreXQeir etj r. 

Is 5 1 17 

Joel 3 


toOera ^ir x L P* 


ronfjpiov v X 1 P* fvp 
Ov irX^pes /ce/)d<r/iOTo? 

(4) 13 

<vpiov T. 

Ps 74 

iov, olvov 

Joel 3 (4) 13 . See preceding passage. 

rms : o 

ff . \rjVOV 

Lam I 15 o. XT/yoy fird-rrjaev 
Ps no (in) 2 ne-yd\a T. 1/370 

138 (I39) 14 &avpdtria T. tpya <rov 
Ps 144 (I45) 17 Siicaioi tiptoe fr 

T. 65ois CLVTOV. 118 (lip) 131 

at 65oi crou a 
Dan io 5 ^ . 


Is 6 4 6 otxos 


ets r. aKijvrjv T. fiaprvpiov 

i So^T/S KVptOV 

l6 2 

TOVTJpbv TTl Ex 9* &y4vfTO lA/fT/ . . . ^F T. 
dvdpUTTOlS. DeUt 28 M f\Kl TOVTJpq. 

1 Just as the interpolation I4 15 refers only to the harvest of judgment- 
idea which is not used metaphorically by our author (see ii. 19, 20 sqq.) so 
I4 18 refers only, and rightly, to the vintage of judgment. 

2 This tracing of 15^ to Dan io 3 rests on the supposition that Xi 0oi is a 
corruption of \tvov. But the use of this word is questionable in itself, and our 
author does not use it, but jSva-cnvos. See vol. ii. 38. 

3 In Ps 75 9 otvov d/cpdrou is a rendering of ten j where the Mass, punctu 
ates differently. Cf. Jer 32 l (25 1S ) where we find r. otvov r. djcpdrou. The two 
terms are brought together in Pss. Sol 8 13 eittpaa-ev . . . OLVOV dxpdTov. By our 
author, o and Pss. Sol icrr is taken as = " unmixed wine," but it is pointed 
Ten and rendered "(which) foams" by modern scholars. 

In i^ib 19 the cup is God s cup of judgment, whereas in i; 4 iS 6 (sources) 
the cup is in the hand of Babylon. The former refers to God s judgments, 
the latter to Babylon s corrupting of the world. 

4 The Mass. Tsp = depicr/jLos, whereas o presupposes TSX These words 
are confused in Jer 48*- where some MSS read one and some the other. 
Possibly Tsp in Is id 9 is also corrupt for -m ( = o ). Thus in our text I4 15 
follows the Mass. Tap. But Vza is only used here in O.T. of the ripening of 
grain, if indeed it is so used. In Gen 4O 10 it is used of vines, and so possibly 
it should be here. Thus Tsp would be corrupt for TSS, and Joel 4 13 would 
rightly relate only to the vintage (so R.V. in marg.), just as in I4 18 of our 


16 3 Ttao-a \J/VXT} ffc^s. Gen I 21 Traaav 

16 4 ^x V T <pt-d\tjv avrov els T. Ex 7 20 ^ara^ev TO VS&p . . . /cat 
7rora/toi)s . . . /cat eytvovTQ afyta. /iere/SaXei (but Mass. ^En?. tytvfTo) 

irav TO v8b)p . . . eis al/Jia. 
i6 7 dXrjdival Kal 5i/caiai at Kplcreis vov. Ps 18 (I9) 20 . See on I9 2 below. 

16 18 otos OVK yvero d<j> 06 avdpwiroi Dan I2 1 # . o t a 01) y^yovev d0 r^s 
tytvovTO wl r. 777$. yeyevrjTai edvos tv Ty 777 (^?ri r. 777$, 

AK). 1 

16 19 dovvai avrr) T. TTOTT^PIOV r. oiVour. Jer 32 1 (25 16 ) AdjSe r. iroTTjpiov T. oivov 
dv/j-ov T. dpytjs avrov. r. d/c/>drou. See on I4 10 above. 

Jer 28 (5l) 13 /caratr/CTjyoOj ras ( = n3DB> 
i, Q) ^0 vdacrc TroXXors. 

7775 TrdVats r. /iiacrtXeiats . . . r. 

^fj.d6ff6rjaav ol KaToiKovvTes T. yijv. Jer 28 (5l) 7 iroT-qpiov . . . RafivXuv 

17 a.ir7]veyK^v /ie . . . tv 

See 2 1 10 below. 
I7 4 7roT77ptov xp vcr v" & T X L pi ai)r77S. Jer 28 (5l) 7 iroTTjpiov xpfcrouf . . . v 

Xetpi Kvpiov. 
I7 8 ytypaiTTai . . . tiri r6 fiifi\iov rys 

fai)s. See I3 8 above. 
a7r6 KaTa(3o\Tjs KOfff^ov. See I3 8 

ri T. trdpvr\v Kal yprjud)- Ezek 23 29 Troi rjcrova iv tv troi ^p ftlffei 
TTOLrjcrova iv avTyv Kal yv/JLvrjv. Kal 

iS 1 77 77^ tfywrlaQ t] in r. 6^775 ai)rou. Ezek 43 2 77 777 

i8 2 gireffeit %Tre<rev, KT\. See I4 8 


<?7eVero KaTOiKyrripiov 8ai[j,ovi<i)v. Is I3 21 Possibly a combination of 

D vyb . . . UDtyi or based on 
I Bar 4 s5 KaToiK.r)dr)<TTai virb Sai- 

l8 3 ^/c r. ofvou r. iropveias avTijs Treirb- Jer 28 (5l) 7 ?ror77/3toy xpucrou* 

Ti/cev Trd^ra r. ^^77. This is with- . . . /j.cdixrKOJ Trdcrav r. 77^^. a7r6 r. 
out doubt the original reading and ofoou ai5T77s tirlovav Wvt\. 32 1 (25 1B ) 
explains the later corruptions. See Xd/3e r. TTOT^PLOV r. otVou . . . Kal 
148 172. iroTtets Trdira r. Zdvi). See note on 

ii. 14. 

1 8 3 ol paviXeis r. yrjs ^ter avrfjs tirbp- 
vevaav. See 1 7 2 above. 

18 4 e&Xdare ft- avrrjs 6 Xa6s /J.QV. Jer 5 1 45 Heb. Dy HDinD IKS. > o . 


18 5 e Ko\\rj6rj<rav afrrrjs al dftapriai Jer 28 (5l) 9 ijyyiKfv (yi3) e/s ovpav6v. 
&xpi T. ovpavov. 

18 6 diroSoTe avrrj us Kal avTT) aTrtduKev. Ps 136 (l37) 8 d^raTroSaxret crot ... 6 

v Ttf 7TOT77pt y y tittpaaev. See above on I4 10 . 

l8 7 _Srt tv r. Kapola avTryi \tyei 6Yt Is 47 7 " 8 elTras Ets r. aftDva 

/SatrtXtcrcra, /cat x~HP a OUK apxovffa . . . TJ \yov<ra v Kapftla 
trtvdos ov firj tdu). airr^s . . . oti KadiCj 


1 Our text and 6 agree in adding the last three words tirl T, 7775 and v r. 
777. I am inclined to infer the existence of p3 in the Hebrew text of 
Dan I2 1 in the first cent. A.D. 

i8 9 ol fiacriXeis r. 7775 ol /*er aur^s See I7 2 i8 3 above. 

i8 13 \f/vxds dvdp&irwv. Ezek 27 13 e* 

l8 18 ri s ouoia r. ir6\ei r. jueydXri. Ezek 27 32 . rts &<nrep Ttpos; 

iS^^/SaXo? "xpvv eirlr. /ce0aXds ai)rcDf , Ezek 27 30 ^TriOrjaovcriv eVi r. 

avr&v yriv. 

Ezek 27 KeKpd^ovrai. 
. . o& //,77 Ezek 26 13 77 (puvrj r. if/aXrTjplui aov ou 

/mr) aKOvvdrj ert. 

ptf/i- Jer 25 10 (puvrjv vviJ,<plov Kai (f>wv}]v 
7) vi5/i077s, *j* 6o~fJL7]v /nijpov "J* /cat 0cDs 
it 0u)s Xi/x^of. (Here <pwvr\ n,ti\ov in 

Apoc. is right = D m ^ip). 
[iS 230 ol f^iropol ffov Tjaav ol /j,eyia- Is 23 8 ot euiropoi avrrjs ev 

raves r. 717?.] T. 7775. 

I9 2 d\f]6Lval Kai 5^/catat al Kplffeis Ps 18 (l9) 10 rd Kpipara KVf. 
avrov. See I5 3 l6 7 above. ediKaiwiJ.eva eirl rb avr6 

nn* ipn^ no*), Ps 118 (ng) 75 - 137 . 
I9 4 A/iTTX AXX77Xowd. Ps 105 (lo6) 48 yevoiro. 

19^ U)S <p(3)VT\V H> )(\OV TToXXoO . . . COS Dan IO^ 6 , (pWVT] 8 Y\OV (o . 0. 

<f)i>)i>T]v uSdrwy TroXXcD//. See I 15 6opv(3ov). 

I9 6 7 efiacriXevaev /ci^ptos . . . x a ^ w A tej/ Ps 96 (97) 1 6 /ci;ptos 

/cat dya\\LWfJiev. dyaXXiafferai 77 77^, 

19 11 elSoi r. obpavbv Tji^etfy/Jievov, Kai Ezek I 1 rjvolxOycrav ol ovpavot, 
t 5oi5. el8ov. 

ef dtKaioffvvr) KpLvei. Is II 4 p^^D tiSJB i. o presupposes a 

different text Kpivelraireiv<f Kpicriv. 

19 12 ol 5 6<j>6aX/jiol atrov, /crX. See I 14 
2 18 above. 

I9 1B ^/c r. o"r6/iaros auroO eKiropeverat 

po/Ji(j>aia 6eia. 1 Cf. I 16 . 
tVa ^v atfrij Trard^Tj rd ^^^77. Is 1 1 4 7rardet 77^* r. X6yy r. (rr6/taros 


oiftave? avTotts ev pdfBSq Ps 2 9 iroiuaveis auroi>s ^/ pdSSw atd-noa. 
Cf. 2 s7 I2 5 . This line 
will be treated under 4. 

irareiT. Xyvbv r. otvov r. 0u/zou . . . r. Is 63 3 . For diction, cf. Lam I 16 , 
^eou. See on I4 20 above. 

Tratrt r. dpveots . . . Ezek 39 4 . See ii. 138. 

els r. Seiirvov . . . 
r. 6eov. 18 Iva 00777x6 <rdpfcas 
/3a<TiX(j)v . . . /cat o*dp/cas Iff^ypCov. 

I9 21 irdvra r. 8pvea exopTdffdycrav eK r. Ezek 39 4 rd 6^77 rd /xerd <rou doOri- 
ffapKwv avr&v. ffovraL etj TrXrjOr) opveuv . . . /cara- 

Ppudrjitai. 39 20 /cai ^fj-irXtjcrdria-effde. 

2O 4 eZSov 6p6i>ovs Kai eKadurav ITT Dan 7 9 ^ . tdeupovv ?ws Srou 6p6voi 
atirovs Kai /cpi /xa d6di) ai/rots. eredfjcrav. 7 2G r6 Kpirr/piov ^Kddicrev, 

7 s2 TO Kptfj,a (r. Kplcnv o } 
(+T. o ) dyiois (+r. o ) vif/larov. 

1 Cf. Heb. 4 12 6 X670S roD 0eoO . . . ro/xwrepos i>7rp iracrav 

2 These ideas of smiting the Gentiles with the word of His mouth (Is n 4 ) 
and of breaking them in pieces like potter s vessels (Ps 2 9 ) have already been 
combined in Pss. Sol I7 26 27 - 39 . 


20 11 eWov 0p6voi> . . . Kal r. Ka0-r)- Dan 7 9 o . e/cd^ro ... 6 0p6vos 
fjtevov. avrov >o . 

20 12 8tB\la -fivolx0Tl(rav. Dan 7 10 o . 8lB\c 
20 12 dXXo BtB\Lov 7)voLx0r), 6 ianv r. Ps 68 (69) 29 BlB\ov 61 

21* i) ffKyvy T. 0eov ftera r. dv0pwTrwv Ezek 37 27 , Lev 26 11 la . See ii. 207. 

Kal <rKT)v<i)<Tt /ter avr&v Kal avrol 

Xads aurou eVovrai. 
2 1 4 ^a\i\l/fi irdv ddKpvov. See 7 17 


2 1 4 " 6 rd irpura airrj\dav . . . LSov Is 43 18 " 19 fJ-T] fivrj/move^ere ra 

Katvd TTOttD. Kal rd dpxata 

idou y& TrotcD /catvd. See ii. 203. 

21 6 ry St^ tDi rt . . . 5to<ra> ^/c . . . r. Is 55 1 ot Sti/ cDi res, iropeveade 4q 
vdaros r. fw^s dwpedv (22 17 ). /cat 6 o*ot ^17; ^X ere dpyvpiov 


2 1 7 ^(ro/xai aury ^eos /fat auros carat 2 Sam 7 14 ^7(b ^(ro/xai aury ei s 
yuot it6s. /cat ai;r6s larat /uu ets uicij . 

2 1 10 dinfiveyK^v /AC ^v TrvetifjtaTi 4iri Ezek 4O 1 " 2 -fjyaytv fj,e v opdaet 0eov 

6pos . . . v\l/Tf]\6v. Cf. I7 3 above. . . . /fat ZdrjKtv p,e tir 8pos v\f/rj\6v 

(naa nn SK jn j 1 ! . . . wan). 

. T. SwdeKa (pv\&v Ezek 48 31 at TruXat r. 7r6Xea>s ^TT 

2I^ 3 aTro dvaroX^s 6v6p.a<rtv (frvKCjv r. lo pa^X* TruXat 

TTuXwi esrpets /cal aTro jSoppa TruXwj es rpets Trpos Boppav. 48 3 -" 34 Kal rd 

rpe?s, /crX. ?r/)6s d^aroXas . . . Tr^Xat rpets /crX. 

2 1 18 T; ^v5c6/tr;o-is T. re%oi>s aurf}s Is 54 12 #770-0; r. 

2 1 19 6 0efj.t\io$ ... 6 Seirrepos o-d7r- Is 54 11 rd 

2 1 23 (22 5 ) T/ 7r6"Xis ou xpeta?/ ex^t T. Is 6o 19 ou/f ^crrat (rot en 6 7^X10$ e/s 
TjXtou ou5 r. o-eX?7i 77S iVa (ftalvwffLv 0ws 77/t^pas ou5^ dfaroXTj o"eX77i 77S 
aurTj, 77 7ap 56^a r. #eou ^(puTLcrev 0wrte? o^ou r. vtiKra, dXX ecrrat . . . 

2 1 24 /cat TreptTrarTjo-ouo ti rd e flj T; 5td r. Is 6o 3 /cat Tropeixrovrat . . . r< 0a>rt 
0wrds aur77S /fat o2 /SaatXets r. 7775 aou . . . etfpT/. 6o u al irtiXat <rou 
<ptpov<nv 1 r. d6av avr&v ... ... 7/yitepas /cal vu/cr6s ou K\et<T0-/j- 

2 1 25 /fat oi TTuXwi es aurTjs ou /*7j /fXeto"- o oj rai, elcrayayeiv Trpds ae duvafuv 
0&(rtv i]/j.tpas . . . dv&v Kal /Sao-tXets aurw^ a70/u^i ous. 1 

2 1 26 /fat ofoovcrtvT. 86av . . . r. Zdvwv 6o 5 t TrXouros . . . IdvCiv Kal 
ei s afirrjv. Kal TJov<nv f. 2 

2 1 27 ou /XT? elatKd-rj . . . Trai Kotvbv. Is 52 1 OVK{TI 7rpoo-re#?7<rerai 

. . . a/fd0apros. See ii. 173 sq. 

et /XT; oi yeypa/j,fj.vot ev r. /3t/3Xia) r. Dan I2 1 # r . oyeypa/A^vos 

;T}S. See 13^ I7 8 above. o . ^yyeypa/bt^vos v r. 

1 In the Mass, as well as the LXX the text is clearly corrupt : i.e. " that 
men may bring unto thee the wealth of the nations and their kings led (by 
them)." As modern scholars recognize, O Jinj ( = " led ") is corrupt for D jrta 
= " leading." Hence instead of "and their kings led (by them)," render : 
"under the leadership of these kings." The kings lead and are not led 
by their people. Now apparently our author anticipated our modern 
scholars ; for he represents the kings as acting on their own initiative : " they 
bring the glory of the nations into it." 

2 Here the LXX is quite corrupt 2i 26 is nearer the Mass. "]V INT D"iJ ^n, 
" the wealth of the nations shall come unto thee." Our author either read 
1x5; instead of o;, or followed the Mass, in 6o u . 


22 1 " 2 irora^bv vdaros far)s . . . eKirop- 
evo/J.evov K T. dpovov r. 0eov. The 
idea is to be found in its developed 
form in I and 2 Enoch. 

22 ev peffy . . . T. irora/ULOV evrevdev 
Kai eneWev v\ov fwrjs TTOIOUV Kapirovs 
5u>5e/ca, /card fJLTJva eKaarov diro- 
didovv T. Kapirbv avrov /cat r. (f>v\\a 
T, v\ov ei s Oepaireiav r. tdv&v. 

22 s * Tfav Karddefia OVK carat eri. 
22 4 8if>ovrai T. irpowirov avrov. 

, KT\. 

22 OVK 

See 2 1 23 above. 
Kvpios 6 debs (parrlffet 1 eir avrovs. 

22 12a t 5oi> epxofJLai raxv, Kal 6 uur66s 

IJLOV uer 4aov. 

22 12b airodovvat ^KaffTcp ws r. epyov 
avrov. 3 

. . vdd)p fwTj 


owpe&v. See 2 1 6 above 

[- 22 l8b-19 r 

<ret . . . Kal ta.v rts 

Ezek 47 1 vdup 
vbrov iri TO 




Kzek 47 12 o . e?ri r. Tror 

Tri T. x e ^ ol/s ayroO evdev Kal 
. . . ov8 /AT] K\iirri 6 Kapirbs avrov 
TI)S KaLvdrrjTos avrov (v^nn)) Trpwro- 
jSoX^tret, 6Vi . . . Icrrcu . . . dvajSacris 
avruiv (inVy) et s vyleiav. Here the 
LXX has missed the sense and 
misrendered several times where 
our author has rightly reproduced 
it. 4 None of the Greek renderings 
is so close to the Mass, as our 
author. See ii. 176-7. 

Zech I4 11 avadepa (D"jn) OVK ecrrcu en. 

Ps 16 (i7) 15 TJS nmx. But o has 
6<j>6ri(ro[ T. TrpotrciTry (rou. Con 
trast Mass, and o in 83 (84) 7 . 

Ps 117 (ll8) 27 6ebs Kvpios 

ijfuv an abbreviated form of the 
Aaronic blessing : see ii. 210-211. 

Is 4O 10 Idov Kupios . . . ep%ercu . . . 
idov 6 fuadbs avrov yuer avrov. 62 11 . 

Prov 24 12 airooiodxnv eKa<rT($ Kara T. 
epya avrov. Cf. Ps 6 1 (62) 12 d7ro5c6- 
(rets CKaffTtj} Kara r. epya avrov. 

Is 55 1 oi Sii/ cDj/res iropeveade. 

Deut 4 2 ov trpoadrjffevde wpbs T. pij/j-a. 
. . . Kal OVK d^eXeZre air avrov 

, just as he 

1 In iS 1 our author renders nVNn of Ezek 43 2 by 
renders ix;, Ps 117 (u8) 27 by 0coriVet. 

2 Clem. Rom. ad Corinth, xxxiv. 3 has a close but independent parallel 
to 22 12ab . t 3oi> 6 Kvpios Kal 6 / avrov (cf. Is 4O 10 ) irpb irpocruirov avrov 
(cf. Is 62 11 ), airooovvai Kao~rq> Kara rb epyov avrov (cf. Pr 24 12 ). Here 
Clement is a mosaic of the o of these three passages, but not so our author. 
The (/ of Is 62 11 is e%a>^ rbv tavrov fjucrdbv, Kal rb epyov avrov irpb Trpocrwirov 
avrov. The order of the words, a>s r. epyov e<rrlv avrov, is not our author s : 
see p. clvii ad Jin. The clause = in^ysD. tus here = * according as " a classical 
meaning not elsewhere found in our author. But in our author s mind ws 
is the regular rendering in our author for ? in Hebrew (see vol. i. 35-36). 
The Hebrew particle has this meaning. Yet we should expect Kara ra epya 
avrov (cf. 22 12 ). 

3 The throne of God in the Apocalypse is in the heavenly temple. But 
since there is no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem, only the throne of God 
is mentioned here. 

4 R.V. of this passage shows how faulty the LXX is here. " By the 
river ... on this side and on that side shall grow every tree . . . neither 
shall the fruit thereof fail : it shall bring forth new fruit every month . . . 
and the leaf thereof for healing." 



4- Passages based on the Hebrew of the O. T. (or the Aramaic 
in Daniel) but influenced (in some cases certainly p , in others possibly] 
by o . 

I 4 aTTo 6 &v. Ex 3 14 6*706 efyu 6 &v. 

I 5a 6 ftdprvs 6 7rt(TT(5s. Ps 88 (89 ) 38 A fidprvs v ovpavqt Trurrds. 3 

I 5b 6 ir/)a?r6ro/cos r. veKp&v Kal 6 ap^uv Ps 88 (Sg) 28 Kay Co TrpwrdroKov Br/cro/jiaL 

T. /Sao iXe toj r. 7175. avrdv, v^rjXbv irapa r. (3a(n\ev(nv T. 


2 26b Scicrw ai/ry ^ovfftav eV2 r. tQv&v. 

2 s7 /cat TTOLfjiavei avTovs i> pdfidy (nSrjpqi, 

(is r. (r/ceify T. /cepa/u/cd 

Ezek 33 s7 tfavdry aTro/crei tD (Mass. 

iniD nma). 
Ps 2 8 " 9 5c6<ro> (roi e^^ r. K\r)povofj,lav 

3 5 otf 

>w r. 6fO/ta auroD K r. 

pf^ets auro^s. See vol. i. 75-77 

and Pss. Sol I7 26 . 
Ex 32 32 33 ^dXen/^p ytte ^/c r. /3t /3Xov 

erou. Ps 68 (69) 29 Qa\eut>8-fiTtoffa.v 

K plp\ov fdvruv See i. 84. 
Is 43 4 y<J) ere rjydTnjcra. 
Is 6 1 r. Kvpiov Kadrj/j.evov ^jrl Bpbvov. 

I Kings 22 19 Oei. 

dirl 6p6vov aurov. 
Ps I4O 2 rj irpotrevx^ 
Ps 143 (I44) 9 tpdfyv Kwr\v go-o/xai <rot. 

Is 42 10 . 
Ezek I4 21 po[j,<f)alav Kal 

6-rjpia irovrjpa. Kal Qdvarov (^). 

6 10 ?ws Tr6re . . . ou Kplvets Kal 2 Kings 9 7 ^/cSt/c^creis r. a^ara r. 
r. aZ/ia ^/*w^ ^/c r. /carot- SotiXwv /u.ov . . . e*/c %et/)6s ] 
^TriT. 7775; cf. I9 2 . 

3 9c 6*70; TjydirTja d (re. 

4 2 (7 10 I9 4 ) ^?rt r. dpbvov 

[5 8 dv/uuajudTuv, a l elviv a! 
5 9 (I4 3 ) d dovtriv y5V Ka.(.vi]v. 

[6 8 aTTOfcreti at ^v po^aLq. Kal tv 

davdrif) Kai virb r. drjpiuv r. 


6 14 6 

f \Krcr6/Jiei>ov f. 
7 14 ^TrXfi ai r. erroXas avr&v 
Cf. 22 14 . 

6 ij\tos. 
1 1 6 7rara,at r. 777^ 


^/ aurots /cai 

Is 34 4 \iy^a-Tdi 

Gen 49 11 TrXwet ^y of^y r. 

avrov Kai iv ai /iart. 
Ex I9 18 dv^fiaLvev 6 /ca?rv6s ws 

Joel 2 10 6 TJXtos Kal 97 

Sam 4 8 ol Oeol oi Trard^avres r. 
v irda-ji irXyyfj ( . . . 


Ezek 37 1 

e/s avTotis rd 
. . . ea-rrjffav eiri r. 


aura> . 

Ps 98 (99) 1 /ci/pios tpoffiXewev dpyt- 

1 Here and in 2O 15 our author appears to use /3t/3Xos owing to o in the first 
passage and in his second. For, when writing independently, he uses 
fiiftXlov, even when using the phrase r6 fiifi\lov r. fw^s, I3 8 2i 27 (cf. I7 8 ). In 
all fiifiXlov occurs 23 times (3 times in an interpolation). 

2 Our author uses ^ffrddrjv (8 3 I2 18 ) as the aorist of iW^/xt. Chapter 1 1 is 
a source, and the use of tvT-r)<rav in it may be due to o". 

8 The ideas in the Apoc. I 5a and Ps 88 (Sg) 38 are wholly dissimilar, but the 
dependence in case of the diction is clear. 


jji8d-g T> SotiXois ffov T irpo(f>r]Tais Kal Amos 3 7 r. dov\ovs avrov r. 

T. dyiois Kal T. (f>oj3ovfj.evoi.s T. 6voud ras. Ps II3 21 (l!5 1S ) r - 

ffov T. uiKpovs Kal T. /m,eyd\ovs. r. Kvpiov r. piKpovs /ierdr. fj,eyd\<av. 

I2 1 - 2 o"j/j.eiov . . . 7W7] . . . ^v Is 7 14 ffyfj-eiov Idov i] irapdevos kv 

~rpl exovffa Kal Kpdfrei J)8ivov<ra yaarpl eei (tfA XiJ/i^erai, B). 26 17 

. reKeiv. 1 ij &5lvov(ra eyylfa reKeiv, eirl rfj 

&olvi avTTJs e/c^/cpaev. 

I2 8b TroifJ-alveiv Trdvra r. edvrj tv See on 2 s7 above. 

pd/SSy cridrjpy. 

I2 12 evippaiveaOe ovpavoi. Is 49 13 ev(f>paive<rde ovpavoi. Cf. 44 s3 . 

I4 7 T. iroirjcravTi r. ovpavbv Kal r. 7 / >7/ Ex 2O 11 (quoted on !O 6b under 3 

/cat flaXac-cra?. Contrast IO 6 under above). Neh I9 6 eTrolcnjas r. ovpavbv 

3 above. On this phrase see . . . r. 7^^ . . . r. 0aXd(r0-as. 
Acts 4 24 I4 15 . 

I4 11 6 Kawvbs . . . els al&vas al&vwv Is 34 10 WKrbs Kal ijutpas . . . Kal . . . 

dvafialvet . . . r]fj.epas Kal VVKTOS. els T. alwva -\_pbvov /cat d^a/STjcrerat 6 

Kairvbs avrijs. 

I5 3 qoovcnv [r. <jj5V Mwi^a^ws r. SotfXou Ex I4 31 MWUO-T? r. depdirovri. avrov. 

T. 0eoO], Ex I5 1 ^(rei Mwua^s . . . r. yi 


I5 4 Sol-da-ei r. o^o/xa <rov. Ps 85 (86) 9 5o^d(rou(r r. 6^o/xd <rou. 

I5 4 Trdvra r. eflvT; ij^ovffiv Kal irpoff- Ps 85 (86) 9 irdvra r. efli^ . . . TJ^OVCTIV 
Kvvrjffovffiv evd!)7ri6v <rov. Kal TrpoffKvvfjcrova i.v 4vd)Trt6v aov. 

trepl T. ffT^dt] favas See on i 13 under 3. 

l6 5 5t /catos el . . . #<rtos. Ps 144 (I45) 17 5t/caios 

6 trtos. 

dl/j.a . . . irelv. Is 49 26 frlovrai . . . rb alfta avr&v. 

I7 16 /caZ r. ffdpKas avrijs (fidyovrai. Is 49 26 (pdyovrai . . r. (rdp/ 

a^rwi . 

19 2 ^edlKrjffev r. af/^a r. SoivXwy auroG 
e/c x l P os UVTTJS. See on 6 10 above. 

19 3 6 Kairvbs avrfjs dvafiaivei els r. 
al&vas. See on I4 11 above. 

I9 5 alvelre r. ^ey ^wJ , Trd^res ol Ps 134 (I35) 1 ^ alveire r. 

dovXot avTov, ol <j>oj3ovfj.evoi avrdv, ol Kvpiov, aivelre SovXoi Kvpiov 2 . . . oi 

fUKpol Kal ol /j.eyd\ot. <f>o(3ov/j.evoi r. Kvpiov. See on II 18 

I9 15 iva ev avTri iraTdt-Tj rd edvrj Kal Is II 4 /cat 7rardei yijv ry X^7y rou 

avrbs Troi/mavel avrovs ev odfidfj) <rr6/>iaros avrov. 

ffiSrjpg,. See 2 >J7 above. 
2O 9 e?ri r. TrXdros r. 7^5. Hab I 6 tvi rd TrXdri; (r6 TrXdros A) 

r. 7775. 
Kare/3?7 TrCp e/c T. ovpavov Kal /care"- 2 Kings I 10 o exactly as in our text. 

(j>ayev. (This could be registered 

under 3, since the Hebrew could 

hardly be rendered differently.) 
2I 1 ovpavbv Katvbv Kal yrjv Kaivfiv. Is 65 17 evrai ydp b ovpavbs Kaivbs Kal 

2I 2 (2l 10 )r. iroXivT. dylav Iepovo-aX-fifj,. Is 52 1 Tepoi^a-aXr;^, 7r<5Xts ^ a7^a. Cf. 

Dan 9* 4 d f . 
2 1 12 Idov e" ra^v, Kal b fj,icr66s Is 4O 10 I8ov Kvpios Kvpios . . . tpxerai 

/jiov u,er 4fj,ov. Already registered . . . /5oi> 6 /ucrdbs avrov per avrov. 

under 3 above. 

1 Possibly this passage should have been given under 3. 

2 Our author rightly follows the Hebrew here, mm nay, against o . 


5. Passages based on the Hebrew of the O.T. (or the Aramaic 
of Daniel\ but influenced (in some cases certainly , in others prob 
ably) by a later form ofo, such as is preserved in Theodotion 6 . 

I 1 a Set yevfoffai. Dan . 2 28 - w - 4fi & Set 

I 6 (5 10 2O 6 ) tiroli]<rfv pita s fia.<n\eiav Ex I9 6 6 . /3a<rtXe/a tepets, which = 

iepeis T. 0e<^. D jra roVoo. But the Mass, has 

"3 nD^DD, and also o . fiaai\eiov 
iepdrev/ma. See vol. i. 16. 
I 7a Sou lpx erat /^rd * ?" ve<f)\G)v. Dan 7 13 t Soi) yuerd r. vf<f>e\u)v . . . 

t Soi) ^?rt r. ve(p\&v . . . tfpxero. 

ji7b ^ 2 8 22 13 ) 716 ei /u 6 TrpcDros /cat 6 Is 48 12 (cf. 44 6 ) fnrw 3N qx jitrxT 3N. 
eVxctTOS. Is 48 12 . E7tb wpcDros /cal ^70; 

^<TXaros. o . 701 et ^tt Trpwros /cal 
^70) etyut e^s r. at cDva. 

I 19 A ytt^XXet yivevdai yiteTot raura. Dan 2 s9 X . r Set yev^adat f^era ravra 

r. /cXe?v ... 6 dvoiyuv Kal Is 22 22 6 
ouSets K\elffi Kal K\etuv Kal ovdels . . . Kal dj/ot^et /cal oi)/c ^arat 6 

6 avoiywv. o f . 5c6a"a; T. 56av AauetS 
. . . /cal #pet, Kal ou/c ^<rrat 6 di Ti- 
, /cal K\dffi Kal OVK carat 6 

3 90 ij!;ov<ru> Kal irpoaKwf)<rovcnv tv&iriov Is 6o 14 . /cal TropevcrovTai . . . 

T. TroSah <rou. See on I5 4 under vavruv . . . /cal irpoaKw^ffovcriv 
4. ^?rl r. tx vr l T - Tro5)v crov. o om. 

last eight words. 

4 1 a Sel yevfodai ytterd raOra. See on 
i 19 above. 

9 30 TO, dai/j.6ifia Kal r. etSwXa 2 r. xP Vff & D an 5 s3 # ( > o ). r. 0eoiys r. 
/cal T. dpyvpd Kal r. x ^*** /ca ^ T Ka ^ dpyvpovs 4 /cal 
\L0iva Kal T. j-v\iva, a ovre [BXtireiv (riSTjpoOs /cal uX/vous /cal 
SiJi aj Tai offre dKOveiv otire irepi- ot ov p\irov<nv Kal ot OVK di 

(o < entire passage). Cf. Ps 113 

. . . OVK dKov<rovTai . . . ov 
IO 6 tifAoo-fv v T. U>VTL et s r. aftD^as. Dan I2 7 . u> / uo<rei ^^ r. fu)? 

1 Our author knows only ny, as does 6 , whereas o f presupposes Vy. In 
I4 14 ^TT! r. ve^Xrjv Kadrj^evov does not presuppose Sy, for Kadrifj.evov requires 
tirl here. Thus ay is presupposed by /xerd in Rev i 7 , Mk I4 62 tpx6/j.evov 
yuerd r. ve(p. : by tv in Mk I3 6 ^px^/^^ov iv ve<p., Lk 2 1 27 : whereas Matt 24 30 
26 s4 px6jj.evov 4irl r. ^60. presuppose o r and *?y. See vol. i. 18. 

2 This combination of demons and idols is first found in i En gg 7 . 

3 o has this phrase also in 3 28> 29 ; but since there is no other passage in 
our author based on Daniel that agrees with o against 6 , and many that agree 
with d f against o , we conclude that where they agree, as here, our author is 
influenced by a version of the character of Q . 

4 The Mass, here trs. xp v <rus Ka * dpyvpovs. But, since and Peshitto 
here, as well as all the authorities for the same list of substances in 5 4 , support 
the order XP- Ka <- &P7 there can be no doubt that the Mass, is wrong here 
and that our author and Q attest the true order in 5 s3 . Our author is follow 
ing S 28 here, as the concluding clauses prove. 


I2 14 Kaipbv Kal Kaipovs icai rjfjuffv Dan I2 7 Q o . Kaipbv Kal Kaipovs 

Kaipov. (AQF) Kal TJ/J.KTV Kaipov. Cf. "j 25 . 

I3 5 ffT6[j.a \a\ovv fji,eyd\a. Dan 7 8 6 o . or. XaX. fiey. 

I3 7 7rot?7<rat ir6\e/j,ov //era r. ayiwv. Dan 7 21 ^ tirolei ir6\efjiov p.era r. 

ayiuv. o . ir6\e[jiov (rvviffTd/nevov 
irpbs T. dyiovs. 
I3 15 8<roi eav ^77 irpoaKVvfjffovffiv T. Dan 3 6 6 o . 5s av ^77 (+7re<rwi o ) 

et /coVa. TTpoaKwrjar] (T. elKOVi). 

I4 8 Ba/SuXcbv 77 /j,eyd\r). Dan 4 27 </. Ba/3. 77 yu.e7. 

I5 3 " 4 6 /3a(ri\evs r. tQv&v ris ov ^ Jer IO 7 Q r (>o r ). Ws ov fj 

00/377077 y aerai, f3aai\ev r. edv&v ; 

2O U rdiros oi/x evpedrj avrois (cf. I2 8 ). Dan 2 35 r . TOTTOS ou% eup 

o x . wcrre 

2O 15 ef TIS ovx evpe9r) ev r. /3t/3Xw a T. Dan I2 1 r . Tras ( + 6 evpedels AQ) 6 
07775 yeypafA/mcvos. yeypa/u./Aevos ev T. ^StjSXy. o . 5s av 

evpedrj tyyeypa/Jiuevos ev r. /3i/3Xaj. 

22 10 ^177 ff<ppayia"r)s T. \oyovs . . . r. Dan I2 4 X . a(f>pdyi<rov r. ^i^>\lov. o . 

T. /3i/3Xioi>. I2 9 . 

>7oi. o . 

6. Phrases and clauses in our Author which are echoes of 
O. T. passages. 

2 20 ryv yvvalKa Iedpe\. I Kings 2O (2l) 25 lefdjSeX 77 71^77 

ai roO. 

5 5 6 X^wv 6 ex T. <j)v\TJs lovda. Gen 49 9 CTKV/JLVOS \4ovros, lovda. 

77 pifa Aaveid (cf. 22 1K ). Is II 1 CK r. pifrs leffffai. 

9 s e^rj\6ov aKpides els r. 7771*. Ex IO 12 dva^rjTdi} aKpls eV! r. 777^. 

X(^T. fj,eyd\($ Eixppdry. Gen I5 18 r. TTOT. r. /ie7. E^0. 

. . . iropveias . . . /cXe/i- Ex 2O 13 (Mass., but different order in 

o ). 
Tropveias. 2 Kings 9 22 al Tropveiai Ied/3eX . . . 

Kal T. <f>dp(j.aKa avTrjs. 
IO 11 5eZ (re Trd\iv irpocpriTevo ai eiri Jer I 10 Idov Kad^araKd ere ... eiri 
Xaots Kal edveffLv . . . Kal /3acrt- ^0^77 Kal /SacnXelas. 

11 1 Kd\afios . . . ^TpTjffov T. vaov. Ezek 4<D 3 ev T. xeipl afiTov fy . . . 

/cdXa/uos perpov. 4 1 13 5ie/xerp?i(rev 
KarevavTi r. OLKOV. 

11 2 43607} T. edveviv Kal r. 7r6\iv r. Zech I2 3 077(ro / u,at r. lepovffdXij/u, \L6ov 

irb\Lv r. dyiav. 

1 1 8 TrvevfjLaTiK&s 265o/xa. Is I 10 Israel addressed as "Sodom." 

II 10 5u)pa ireiityovaiv d\\r)\ois. Esth 9 19 dTrocrrAXoires fiepidas eVcacrros 

e*^. Frequent in the O.T. 

ets r. ovpavbv. 2 Kings 2 11 dve\r)/u.<j)8-r) . . . els r. 


II 13 eSwitav d6av r. 0e< (cf. 14"). Josh 7 19 , Jer I3 16 etc. 

r. 0ey r. ofyxwou (cf. l6 u ). Dan d f . 2 18 - 19 - 37 ; 6 o . 2 44 . 

1 1 15 fiacriXevcrei els T. aluvas r. al&vwv. Ps 9 37 (lo 16 ) j3acriXe^<rei Kvptos els r. 

1 See note on 3 5 under 4. explains our author s use of /3t /3Xos here 
instead of his own word f3ip\loi>. 



I4 7 0oj9i707Tre r. deov. 

I4 10 irvpl Kal delq. 

I5 1 77X7770,5 eirrd. 

I6 1 ^/cx^ere r. 0idXas r. 

l6 10 eyevero 77 /3a<rtXe/a aurou &TKOTO> 

Eccles 1 2 13 . 
Gen I9 24 . 
Lev 26 21 
T. Jer io 25 

i6 12 e&pdvd-ti r. f/5w/> airrov. 

l8 9 

l8 14 crou XT)? TT 1.6 v [lias TTJS 

i8 21 Suggested by 

2O 9 r. 

21* ovre irevdos otfre Kpavyr) otfre 

ou/c lorai rt. 
2 1 10 r. So^ai/ r. 0eou. 
2 1 16 T; ?r6Xts Terpdyuvos Keirat. 

Ex io 21 


Ex I4 21 ^TroLf]<Tfv r. flaXacrtrai %r)pdv. 
2 Sam I 12 tud^avTO . . . xal tK\avcrai>. 
Deut I2 15 - 20 - 21 , Ps 20 (2i) 3 etc. 
Jer 28 (5I) 638 * Xi^oj/ . . . ptyas 

Ps 77 (78) 68 r. fyos T. Setcbi rjydirrjffev. 

86 (87) 2 dya-Trq. /ci^ptos r. Trt-Xas S^y. 

Is 35 10 dirtdpa 68vvi) Kai XI^TTT; /cai 

Is 58 8 . 

Ezek 48 16 where the measures of the 
city show that it was Terpdywvos. 

7. Passages dependent on or parallel with passages in the 
Jewish Pseudepigrapha. 

i 13 8/jLoiov vlbv dvQp&irov. See on I4 14 


2 17 6vo/j.a 

T. T. Lev l8 n 5c6<rei r. cr 

T. i/Xou r. fays. See vol. i. 54. 


I8ov 6upa 

6 n iva dvcnravo oi Tai . . . 
6u)(rt.v . . . oi dde\(f)ol 

avrov o 

6 12 6 77X10? tyevero /teXas 
6 Xr; fytvero ws a 


T. Lev 8 14 

1 En I4 16 /ecu /5oi> 

fitvyv (i.e. in heaven) : T. Lev 5 1 . 

2 En 3 3 "They showed me a great 
sea" (i.e. in the first heaven). Cf. 
T. Lev 2 . 

In i En 47 the end will come when 
the number of the martyrs is com 
plete exactly as in our text. 47 3 " 4 
" I saw the Head of Days when He 
seated Himself upon the throne of 
His glory. . . . And the hearts of 
the holy were filled with joy, 
Because the number of the righteous 
had been offered." 1 

Ass. Mos. io 5 Sol non dabet lumen et 
in tenebras convertent se cornua 
lunae . . . et (luna) tota convertet 
se in sanguinem. 2 

1 Here the martyrs are regarded as an offering to God just as in our text 
I4 4 (d-jrapxTl r. 6e$). See vol. i. 174. 

Ezek. 32 7 (c/. 77 <re\-f]vri ov ducrei rb 0dos avTrjs) and Joel 2 31 (3 4 ) (o . 6 ijXios 

els cr/c6ros Kal i) ffeX^vij els alfj.a) are the sources of Ass. Mos 
io 5 . Hence the latter passage should be read as in my edition, (sol) in tenebras 
convertet se, et luna non dabit lumen et tota convertet se in sanguinem. The 
tota appears in this connection only in this passage and in our text. See 
vol. i. 1 80. 


7 1 r{<r<rapas ayy\ovs . . . tirl r. 
T<T<rapas ywvlas rfjs yfjs, Kparovvras 
T. T&r<rapas avfyovs r. yfjs. 

9 1 avrtpa K T. ovpavov ireTTTUKora ets 
T. yfjv, Kal d66r) avT(f 77 /cXeis r. 

9 20 iva JJ-TJ TrpoffKvvfiffovffLv T. dai/j.6via 

Kal T. efSwXa. 3 
I4 r 

10 /3a<ra/>icr0?7<rercu 


I4 14 Suoiov 

14 (Cf. I9 16 ) 


T. 0T(/idTOS aTOU K7TOpeV6Tai 

po/x0cua o^eta, Ifva ^ a^r^ Trard,^?? 
/cai aur6s iroi/J-avel ai)roi)s fe 


22 2 r. 0p6vov r. 0eoO /cat r. dpviov. 

2O S rbv Tuy Kal 
2O 13 6 Bdvaros Kai 6 

See vol. i. 204, 192 (note), where this 
conception is shown to be in i 

i En i8 13 ws 6pi) fjt,eya\a Kai.6iJ.eva, : 2i 3 
ouolovs 6pe<nv yue^aXois /cat ^y irupl 

i En 86 1 "Behold a star fell from 
heaven and it arose " etc. 

i En 99 7 "Who worship stones . . . 
impure spirits and demons." 

i En 48 9 "As straw in the fire, so 
shall they burn before the face of 
the holy." 

I En 46 1 which first applies to the 
Messiah, this phrase which in Dan 
7 13 =: the saints." 4 Ezra I3 3 
where the Syriac presupposes 6 /*otoj 
uiy avdpdnrov. See vol. ii. 20. 

i En 9 4 (G s 2 ) Ktpios r. nvpluv Kal 

Pss. Sol i y 26 - 27 - 39 quoted in vol. ii. 

136 where already Is n 4 and Ps 2 9 

are applied in the same Ps. to the 

See vol. ii. 188. 
I En 5 1 1 " Sheol also shall give back 

that which it has received, and hell 

shall give back that which it owes." 

See vol. ii. 194 sqq. 
i En 62 3 - 5 . See vol. ii. 175 sq. The 

throne is the throne of God and of 

the Son of Man. 

8. Passages in some cases directly dependent on and in others 
parallel with earlier books of the N. T. Our author appears to 
have used Matthew, Luke, i Thessalonians, i and ^ Corinthians, 
Colossians, Ephesians and possibly Galatians, i Peter and James. 
The possibility of his having had one or more other books of the 
N. T. is not excluded. 

1 The diction is almost identical, but the ideas are quite different. In 
i En the stars are really spirits or angels undergoing punishment. In this 
interpolated passage 8 7 " 12 the "burning mountain" in 8 8 and "the 
burning star " in 8 10 are purely physical things. Contrast our author s 
use in g 1 . 

2 The parallel is good. The star in each case is an angel, and in each case 
falls from heaven. A parallel is found also in Is I4 12 t&Trecrev e/c r. ovpavov 6 

8 Combined worship of demons and idols first mentioned in i En 99 . 

4 The fact that the expression opoios vlbv avdp&irov occurs in 4 Ezra 13 
shows that it may have been more current in certain circles than is generally 
believed. On the other hand, it is simply the apocalyptic form of 6 vlbs T. 




I yua/c 

o yap Kaipbs eyyvs. 
I 4 xd/ns Kal 

I 5 6 wpwTOTOKos r. 

1 5 rig dyair&vTi 77/uas. 

1 6 fiafftXeiav, lepeis r. 

i) px ercu 

8\//Tai avrbv Tras 6<pda\ Kal 
oiTives avrbv ^eK^vrrjaav, Kal 
K6\j/ovTat ^TT ai/roy Trcurcu ai (pvXal 
T. 7775.* 

Matt 24 6 , Luke 2i 9 . 
ol aKovovres T. Luke 1 1 28 yuaffdptoi oi aKovovres T. 

\6yov T. 9eov Kal (pvXdaaovTes.t 
Matt 26 18 6 Kaip6s pov tyyvs ecrriv. 
Col I 2 x<*pis vjjuv Kal dp-fjvrj and eight 

other Pauline epp. Not earlier 

than N.T. apparently. 
Col I 18 TrpwToYoKOS eK T. veKp&v. 
Gal 2 20 TOI) vlov r. ^eoO TOL! 0707777- 

<ravr6s fte. 

I Pet 2 9 fiaff iKeiov lepdrevfM. 
Matt 24 30 ToYe K6\f/ovrai iracrai al 

(pv\al T. 7775 Kal 6\f/ovrai r. vlbv T. 

dvdp&TTOv px6fj,ei>ov eirl T. 

T. otipavov. 

T. ve<j>e\u}v, 

2 Cor I 20 TO j/at ... TO d/mrjv. 

Matt I7 2 e\a/j,\//ev rb irpoauTrov avrov 

ws 6 77X105. 
2 Cor 6 9 

I 16 77 6^is aurou <l)s 6 ij\ios (palvei. 

I 18 vtKpbs Kal ldof> G)v. 

2 7 6 ^x w " ^ s d/coua-dTw 3 (seven times). Matt II 15 I3 9 - **, Luke 8 8 I4 35 6 

2 9 oT5d ffov . . . T. 7TT(t}x e ^ av ) dX\d 

2 10 r. 

Kal (jtayetv elduiXddvra. 


: Mark 4 9 - 23 5s (etVts) 
(4 23 ) ?x ei & Ta dKotieiv d/cou^TW. 
2 Cor 6 10 o>s TTTwxot 7roXXois 5^ TrXovrl- 

OVTS. JaS 2 5 T. TTTW^Ol)? T. 
7TXoU(TlOi;S ^J/ Trl(TTl. 

Jas I 12 T. (TTt<pavov T. fw77s. 
Acts I5 28 ^So^ey . . . 77/ui/ 
v/juv /3dpos 

2 24 r. 

l6 1 

r. 2,arava. 

/tTJ 7^7770/37^0-775, 77^0> 0)5 

cai 01) ^177 yvfs irolav tipav 

ypyyopuv. 6 

I Cor 2 10 T. 
Matt 24 42 yp-rjyopeire odv, on OUK otdare 

Trola if fit pa 6 Kvptos vp&v 


yiv&<TKT6, on el rjdei 6 
s Trola 

1 Peculiar to Paul and our author in this sense. 

2 The combination of Dan 7 13 and Zech I2 10 - 12 is first found in the N.T. 
and is peculiar to Matt, and our author. This combination is not found in 
the parallel passages of Mark I3 26 , Luke 2I 27 , which omit the quotation from 
Zech. Further, the phrase Trdcrai al <pv\al r. 7775 is peculiar to our text and 
Matt 24 30 , and the meaning assigned to Kd^ovrat ("mourn for themselves") 
is peculiar to our author and Matt 24 30 . On the other hand, our author keeps 
to the Hebrew in rendering fj.erd T. v<f>e\&v, whereas Matt 24 30 reads 4irl T. 
ve<p. as o r . Observe that our author has dir avrbv (so Heb. and LXX), but 
not Matt. 

3 Our author s use of this phrase clearly goes back to our Lord, and his 
form of it is closer to that in Matthew and Luke than to that in Mark. 

4 Jas I 12 contains the earliest instance of the phrase. Cf. T. Benj. 4 1 
<TTe<j)dvovs 55^775. 

8 Our author was clearly acquainted with the Apostolic edict, but that he 
also used Acts is doubtful. 

6 The dependence of 3 3 i6 15 on Matt 24 42 - 43 - is obvious. 

7 <pv\d<r<reiv is a Lucan word : cf. Luke i8 21 , Acts 7 53 i6 4 27 24 , whereas our 
author does not use <pv\d<r<rew at all, but uses r^peiv in the same sense. 



aov dvpav 

3 5 6fj,o\oyr](rMT. 8vo/u.a avrov 
irarpos /mov Kal iv&iriov r. 

T - KTtorews r. deov. 

3 17 Tr\ovcri6s etytu . . . Kal OVK oTdas 

6Vi <rv el 6 . . . 7TTw%6s. See on 

2 9 above . 
3 21 Saxru; avTy Kadicrai ywer , e/ioO iv r. 

0p6vt>} ftov, us . . . ^Kadura yuerd T. 

irarpbs fjiov ev r. 6povij} avrov. 

6 4 \afielv r. elprjvrjv IK r. yijs. 

6 2 17 7 1 , Subject-matter of the Seals 
suggested by the Little Apocalypse. 1 

6 10 e ws irbre . . . ov 

iKeis rb 

6 12 " 13 6 7?Atos lytvero /w^Xas ws <rd/c/cos 
rplxwos Kal r/ <T\7]vri 0X77 yvero cos 
al/j.a, Kal ol aartpes r. ovpavov 
ei s r. 7^^. 2 

6 15 " 16 01 /SatrtXeTs r. 7^5 . . . /cat Tras 
SoOXos Kai tXevOepos %Kpv\f/av eavrous 
els r. <nrri\aia Kal els T. irerpas r. 
optuV Kal \eyovaiv T. 6pe(riv /cat 
r. Trtrpais He&are e<f> rifj,as Kal 
Kpfyare 7]/ a7ro Trpo<r&irov, /crX. 3 

6 17 rfs 

epx,erai, e ypyyoprjffev av Kal OVK av 
etacrev Siopvx&Tjvm T. oiKiav avrov. 
46 Ma/cdptos 6 dovXos eKelvos. I Thess 
Kvpiov us K\Trrr)s . . . 

I Cor l6 9 dvpa yap pot dveyyev. 2 Cor 
2 12 Ovpas fjioi dveijiy/ui^vrjs. 

Matt IO 32 6^0X07770-0; /cd7cb ^j aura? 
eiJLirpoadev r. -jrarpbs /J,ov (contrast 
Luke 1 2 s enirpoaOev r. ayyeXw r. 


Col I 

apxf}. I 

TOKOS Trdcrris Kriaews. 
Contrast Col I 27 r. TrXoOros r. 56|7?sr. 
X. ^j U/AIV. 

Col 3 1 rd Ai w ^retre, 08 6 X. 

r. 0eou Kadrj^evos. Eph 2 6 
eirovpavLois ev X. I. 
Luke 7 13 (8 52 ) ^77 /cXate. 
Matt IO 34 firi vo/Jiicrrire ori r}\dov fiaXeiv 

elpr}vr)v eirl r. 7771 OVK 3j\dov jSaXeiv 

elprjvrjv dXXa /maxaipav. 
Matt 2 4 6 - 7 - 9a - 29 and parallels in 

Luke 2i 8 - 12a - 25 26 . See vol. i. 

158 sqq. 
Luke l8 7 - 8 6 5e Oebs ov ^77 iroir}arj rr\v 

fKolKrfffiv r. eK\Kr&v avrov, . . . 

iroir/aei T. eK$lKri<nv avr&v ev rd^et. 
Matt 24^ 6 ^Xtos (TKorio-dri<rerai, Kal 

77 creXr/vr] ov 5c6(7et r. <f>eyyos avrrjs 

Kal ol dffrepes treaovvrai. dirb r. 

ovpavov. So Mark I3 24 25 save that 

for last four words it reads eaovrai 

CK r. ovp. Triirrovres. Luke 2 1 25 

evovrai <rr//j.eia tv rjK up Kal <re\rivrj 

Kal aarpois. 
Luke 23 30 r6re ap^ovrai \eyei.v T. 

opeffiv Il^crare e<f> rumas Kal r. fiovvois 


Luke 2 1 86 dypvirveire . 


r. viov T. dvdpuTrov. 
rovs dov\ovs rov Eph 4 30 efftypayiffOrjre els rnj.epav diro- 
Xirrpaicrews. 4 

1 Our text seems to presuppose the use of Luke and Matthew in the 
enumeration of the seven evils following on the opening of the Seals, or else of 
the Little Apocalypse behind the three Gospels. See vol. i. 158-160. 

2 The parallelism of 6 12 13 with Matt 24 29 is very close, but not with Luke. 
It is not, however, dependent directly on the former. 

3 There is a remote parallelism with Luke, but not with Matthew. 

4 The meaning of <r(f>paylfa, 7 3 " 8 , may be partly due to Eph 4 30 i 13 : cf. 
2 Cor i 22 . In fact, in Eph i 30 the sealing gives the faithful assurance of their 
spiritual preservation to the day of redemption, and this thought is allied to 



7 17 TO apvlov . . . trot-pavel avrovs. I Pet 2 s5 r. iroiptva . . . T. 

9 20 ol \ourol TU>V avdp&wuv (20). Luke i8 n . 

II 8 irpo<pffrVffovaLv ijfj^pas ^tX^as^ Luke 4 25 eK\elcrdtj b ovpavbs 7-77 rpla 

SiaKocrias e^KOvra. I /cat ftyvas e%. ]a.s 5 17 OVK efipegev 

1 1 6 /tXet<rat r. ovpavdv, tva ^ verbs j fTrt r. 7775 evi.avrovs rpels Kal prjvas 

fipexy T- "fjfJ^pas T. irpocpyreLas avr&v. J e%. 

1 1 15 77 fiaviXeLa r. K6cr/j,ov. Matt 4 8 r. jSa<rtXeas r. /c60ytou. 

I2 9 6 Sarai/as . . . e^X^drj els T. yrjv. Luke IO 18 ede&povv r. "Zaravav cos 

darpaTT rjv eK r. ovpavov irecrbvra.. 
I3 8 r. apvlov r. ^(paypAvov dirb Kara- I Pet i 19 20 d/ij/ou . . . irpoeyvuff- 

/SoX^s KdcrjJLOV. fj-evov fjiev irpb /cara^SoX^s KOCT/AOV. 

I3 11 Brjplov (i.e. b \}/vb*oirpo<p f)T r) s, l6 13 Matt 7 15 T - ^evdoTrpo^rjTuJv, oirives 

I9 20 ) . . . elxev Kepara duo ofj.oia epxovrai Trpbs vftas ev evovpaai 

apvlip Kal \d\ei ws dpaKwv. irpo(3drwv effwdev de et<riv \VKOI 

I4 4 ol aKbXovdovvres ry dp^tV OTTOV av Luke 9 57 dKoXovBriau <rot 6 ?rou &/ 

virdyet. aTrepxy. Cf. Mk 2 14 IO 21 . 

I4 7 r. iroL fjffavTL T. oupavbv Kal r. yrjv Acts 4 24 I4 15 6 TrotTjcras (6s eTrolrjffev, 

I4 15 ) r. ovpavbv Kal T. yijv Kal r. 


eariv nal 
I7 14 tfX tyToi /cai eK\eKTol /cat iriarol. 
i6 19 (I4 8 I7 6 etc.) 
l8 4 

I Thess 4 16 oi veKpol ev Xptary. 
I Tim 6 15 6 jSacrtXeus r. 

*cat Kvpios T. Kvpievbvrwv. 
Matt 20 16 22 14 TroXXoi 7dp elaiv 

K\7]Tol, (5Xl 70l 5^ K\KTOI. 

1 Pet 5 13 ^ BajSi/Xtovt ( = Rome as in 

2 Cor 6 17 e&\6are eK nevov avruv. 
Eph 5 11 A 1 ^? wvKOivuveire r. epyoi.s 
. . . T. tr/cdrovs. 

l8 24 afya irpo(pr]TU)v Kal dyiwv evpedrj Luke II 50 iva eK^rjT^drjr. alfia Trdvrwv 
Kal irdvrdiv r. eff(pay/.i.eva}v eirl r. r. irpo<f)T]T&v rb eKKexvftevov dtrb 
77^5. /cara/SoX^s KOCT/AOU. 

I9 7 xaf/jw/iev /cal d7aXXiwAte> . 3 Matt 5 12 X a ^-P re Ka ^ dya\\ia<r6e. 

I9 9 /^a/cdptot ol e/s r. oeltrvov r. yd/Jiov Luke I4 16 eiroiei Seiirvov [j.eya . . . /cat 

aTr^crreiXej . . . TO?S KeKXrjfj.evots. 
airr)\6av loov Kaiva 2 Cor 5 17 ra dpxata TraprjXdev, i8ov 

yeyovev Kaiva. 

irl 6pos Matt 4 8 TrapaXa^dvei avrbv . . . ets 
ne. 6pos v\l/r)\bv \lav, Kal oeiKWinv avraj. 

Some form of this grace is found at 
the close of the Pauline Epp. and 
Hebrews, and in them only in the 
N.T. Cf. Eph 6 24 77 xdpts Aterd 

I. X. , Col 4 18 77 X&P L * /" e # VfJL&V. 

Trotw travra. 
2 1 10 dir7)veyKV fie ev 
fj.eya K 

22 2 



that of our author, according to whom the faithful are secured, not against 
physical evils, but against their spiritual enemies. These latter recognize 
this divine mark on the faithful and cannot injure them. 

1 On the O.T. originals of this passage see io 6b above under 3, and I4 7 
under 4. It will be seen that 14 is closer verbally to Acts 4 24 than to any 
of the O.T. passages. 

2 See list of passages influenced by Pseudepigrapha. 

3 The thought in both passages is not unrelated. The words in Matt, come 
in at the close of the Beatitudes which promise that the righteous shall inherit 
the earth. I9 7 in our author represents in vision the fulfilment of this promise. 




i. Unity of thought and dramatic development. When the 
interpolations of the editor are removed and the dislocations 
of the text set right (see p. Ivii sqq.), the unity of thought 
and development in the Apocalypse is immeasurably greater 
than in any of the great Jewish apocalypses of an earlier 
or contemporary date. In fact, the order of development is at 
once logical and chronological save where our author deliber 
ately, as in 7 9 17 io-n 13 I4 1 11 - 14 - 18 - 20 , breaks with the chronologi 
cal order and in 7 9 17 I4 1 11 - 14 - 18 - 20 adopts the logical, that he 
may show the blessed future in store for those that were faithful 
in the tribulations which are recounted in the text immediately 
preceding these sections. The dramatic movement of the book 
is independent of all these sections. But the superiority of the 
Apocalypse to other apocalypses in this respect is not merely 
relative but absolute, as a short study of the Plan of the 
Apocalypse (see p. xxiii sqq.) will abundantly prove. 

Smaller unities * maintained and developed within the 
Apocalypse might be brought forward, such as : (a) the Seven 
Beatitudes, i 3 i6 15 (which is to be restored after 3 3b ) i4 13 
i9 9a 22 14 2o 6 22 7 . (b) The judgment demanded by the souls 
under the altar is dealt with in various stages of fulfilment in 8 3 4 
9 13 i4 18 i6 7 (which with i6 5b 6 is restored in this edition to its 
original context after iQ 4 ). (c) The promises of the re-evangeliza 
tion of the heathen world in n 15 i4 6-7 i5 4 are fulfilled in 

1 In respect to the angels sent to instruct the Seer with the revelation of 
God, there is no unity observed in the Apocalypse. Our author apparently 
set out with the intention of committing this revelation to one angel. To 
this intention he holds fast (as I now see) in i 1 - 1(M1 4 1 io 4 - 8 . In IO 11 it is 
possible that Xtyowiv is an oversight for X^et, which 025 Tyc Pr gig vg dfv s 
arm bo eth attest. But the adoption of sources (li 1 13 12-13. 17-18), where 
this angelic guide is not mentioned, interfered with his original purpose, and 
hence there is no reference to him till I9 9a 22 9 . But even in i-io various 
other heavenly beings instruct the Seer one of the Elders in 5 5 7 13 " 17 , the 
Cherubim in 6 1 - 3 - 5 - 7 . This fact prepares us for the intervention of one of the 
Seven Angels of the Bowls in I7 1 2i 9 - 10 22 1 . But there is a special fitness in 
this intervention. These angels have to execute judgment on the world now 
subject to the Antichrist, and so it is one and the same angel that shows the 
Seer the destruction of Rome (I7 1 " 10 ), the capital of the Antichrist on earth, 
and that shows the city that is to replace it the Heavenly Jerusalem coming 
down to be the capital of Christ s kingdom on earth for 1000 years 
(2i 9 -22 2 - 14 - 15 - 17 20 4 6 ). 

But the above phenomena are not inconsistent with unity of authorship, 
though on revision the author would, no doubt, have removed some of the 
incongruities. In other apocalypses there are several angelic guides. Thus in 
Dan io 108 ii- one of the holy watchers, S 168 ^- Gabriel, and possibly in io 1 *. 
Many angels act in this capacity in i Enoch 21-36 : two angels in 2 Enoch. 



2i 9 -22 2 - 14 15 17 when restored to their right context immedi 
ately after 2o 3 . 

2. Unity of style and diction. The grammar and the style 
of our author are unique, as the Grammar which I give, pp. cxvii- 
clix, amply proves. This unity is discoverable in every part of the 
Apocalypse save in the sources which our author has taken over 
in a Greek form (such as n 1 13 12. 17. 18; see p. Ixii sqq.), and 
even in these the hand of our author is constantly manifest, as he 
edits them to serve his main purpose. Moreover, in the introduc 
tion to every chapter (save in the case of the sources) its essential 
affinities of diction and idiom with the rest of the book are 
given almost in full. 

This unity, therefore, does not exclude the use of visions of 
his own of an earlier date or of sources. 

A few examples of the essential unity of diction between 
different parts of the Apocalypse may here be added. 

(a) Chaps. 1-3 and 2o 4 -22. 

I 1 5e?ai rots SovXois airrou a Set yevtcr- 22 6 Setcu rots SotfXois at/rou a 5e? 

Bat tv ra%et. yevtcrdai v rci%et. 

I 3 /j,aKapios 6 avayivdxTKWv Kal ol . . . 22 7 /xa/cdptos 6 Tt)pu>v TOVS \6yovs 

TOVS \6yovs TT)S Trpo^Tjreias ... T 

I y<) efj.1 Trpwros 

2 7 TO irvevu-a. X^yet. 

2 11 TOV davdrov TOV 

z 28 TOV darepa TOV trpwivov. 

3 11 fyxofjuu Taxrf. 

3 12 TTJS Kaivijs lepovaaXrjfj., i] /caret - 
/SaiVofcra K TOV ovpavov awo TOV 
deov (J.OV. 

(b) Chaps. 1-3 and 4-20*. 

I 1 5etcu . 

. a 5e? yevecrdat.. 
r//xas /3a<rt\eta^, 


I 10 ^yev6]o.Tf]v tv TT 
I 13 OJAOIOV vibv avdp&wov. 
iJ.vov irpbs 

22 13 ^ycb ... 6 irpwros Kal 

22 17 TO Trvevfj.a Kal i] vvficfir) \yov<Tiv. 

2 1 8 6 ddvaTos b devTepos (cf. 2O fi ). 

22 16 6 d(TTT]p ... 6 7rpwiV6s. 

22 12 i8ov Ta\v. 

2 1 2 lepoucraX^ Kaivyv . . . /cara- 

fialvovaav K TOV ovpavov dirb TOV 


a 5e? 


I 14 ot 6<f)da\iu.ol avTov cos 
2 7 r6 

rots /tta(rro?s 


2 21 fj.Tavorj<rai 4if. 

z 23 tv 0avdT(f) ( " by pestilence "). 
2^ TToi/j-avet ( = " shall break "). 
3 7 6 ^7105 6 d\-r)dci>6s, where 
( = " faithful"). 

Kal jrpoffKVV fia ovcn.v 


4 - ^yfvdjj.Tjv tv T 
I4 14 ofj.oi.ov vibv 

irepl TO. (TT-i]Qt] 

I4 13 X^et Tb irvevfjia. 


9 20. . I I6 ll e 

6 8 6 OdvaTos. 
IQ 15 I2 5 . 

ot/couyu.^j 7/s o Xv/s. 



I2 9 l6 14 . 

avTov cf. I7 14 . 

wrjaovaiv ev& 

3 10 roi -s KaTOiKovvras tirl TTJS yr)$ (in a 6 10 8 13 
teclmical sense). 


The above examples could be increased indefinitely. But 
there is still weightier evidence. The recurrence of idioms in 
many cases idioms unique and peculiar to our author s style 
throughout the Apocalypse, from the earliest chapters to the 
last, presents still stronger proofs of the unity of authorship. 
Since these are recorded in the introduction to each chapter and 
summarized in the Grammar, I shall not dwell further on them 

3. But this unity in the dramatic movement of the Apocalypse 
does not necessitate the assumption that all and every part of the 
Apocalypse is our author s own creation. As a matter of fact 
this is not the case. Our author has, as we have seen elsewhere^ 
used sources. These sources, together with earlier visions of his 
own, he has re-edited and brought in the main into harmony with 
their new contexts. But the work of editing has not been 
thorough. Certain incongruities survive in the incorporated 
sections, which our author would no doubt have removed if he 
had lived to revise his work. Traces of an earlier date and often 
expectations of an earlier generation still survive. Thus in vol. 
i. 43-47 I have shown that our author wrote the Seven Epistles 
under Vespasian, when the Church had no apprehension of a 
universal martyrdom of the faithful, but expected to survive till 
the Second Advent of Christ. By various additions and changes 
this expectation is changed for the expectation that pervades the 
rest of the book, and the letters to the Seven Churches are 
transformed into letters to entire Christendom. 1 But traces of 

1 Their inclusion in this work has given them this new meaning. The 
fact that there are seven letters and only seven, suggests that the Seer is now 
addressing himself not merely to Seven Churches out of the many others to 
which he could have written with authority, nor yet to all the Churches of 
the province of Asia, but through these Seven Churches to all the Churches 
of Christendom. The approaching struggle, as the entire Apocalypse pre 
supposes, is not between the Christian Churches of a single province and the 
Empire, but between Christendom and the Antichrist impersonated in the 
Empire and its head, though the storm is threatening to break first on 
the Churches of Asia. 

This suggestion gains support from the following considerations. Seven 
is a sacred number with our author and is capable of a symbolic meaning. 
That the Seven Churches embrace all the Churches, appears to follow 
from I 12 - 13 combined with i 16 - 20 . In I 12 seven candlesticks and only seven 
are visible, and in I 16 seven stars and only seven stars. Now, since from 
i 20 we learn that the seven candlesticks are the Seven Churches i.e. the 
Churches in their actual condition and that the stars are the angels of the 
Seven Churches i.e. the Churches as they should be ideally, and since in I 13 
the Son of Man stands in the midst of these Churches, and holds in His hands 
the seven stars or the ideals they have to achieve, the natural conclusion is 
that it is all the Churches of Christendom in the midst of which Christ stands, 
and not an insignificant group, and that the stars which He holds in His right 
hand are the ideals which they are summoned through His help to realize. 
As all Christians, according to the rest of the Apocalypse, are to share in the 


earlier date survive. As I have elsewhere shown, these letters 
came from our author and from none other. 

Again in 4 1 8 our author re-edits a vision of his own, 4 2b - 3 - 5-8acde_ 
See vol. i. 104-106 and the commentary in loc. In the course 
of incorporation certain infelicities have been incurred. It is 
said of the Seer in 4 2a eyevo/xyyv ev Tn/ev/xan a phrase which 
denotes the state of trance as in T 10 . But according to 4 1 he 
was already in this state, as the words /zero, ravra elSov show. 
See vol. i. 109-111, 106-107. Again 4 4 is a later addition from 
our author s hand; but the grammar is wrong, and the subject- 
matter does not harmonize well with the context. The 
Apocalypse is clearly a first sketch and needed revision: see 
vol. i. 115-116. 

In y 1 8 our author makes use of traditional material, but the 
language is his own. See vol. i. 191-199. The four angels and 
the four winds, which are here introduced and introduced in 
terms that lead us to expect their subsequent appearance in the 
way of judgment (y 3 prj dSt/ojo-^re ryv yrjv . . . a^pt cnpayiVa>/zei>, 
KT\.), are not directly referred to again. 

In ii 1 13 our author has made use of two sources (n 1 2 n 3 13 ), 
both written before 70 A.D., in which, if the text is taken literally, 
the historic Jerusalem is supposed to be standing (n 2 - 8 ), and the 
Temple to be inviolable (i i 1 ). These references have been taken 
literally by many scholars as determining the date of the whole 
Apocalypse, especially by those who accept its absolute unity and 
its composition by one author. But to construe such statements 
literally implies a complete misconception of our author s 
attitude to the earthly Jerusalem. Our author could not possibly 
have regarded the earthly Jerusalem as rrjv Tro Aiv TTJV dyiai/ (n 2 ). 
Such a definition he reserves for the New Jerusalem, the eternal 
abode of the saints (21^), and the Jerusalem coming down from 
heaven to be the seat of the Messianic kingdom for 1000 years 
(2 1 10 ). This latter he calls also rrjv -n-oXiv TT)V ^yaTr^/xeV^v (2o 9 ). 
But for him the actual city is that ?}TIS KaXetrat 7n/ev/xartKws 2oSo/x,a 
xat AtyuTTTOS OTTOV /ecu 6 Kvpios avraiv ecrravpw^r/ (ll 8 ). But Our 
author has re-edited this section by the addition of 1 1 4 (?) - 8bc< 9a 
and the recasting of n 7 , according to his own thought and in 
his own diction, and thus the inviolable security which the Jews 
attached to the Temple is reinterpreted by our author as 
meaning the spiritual security of the Christian community despite 
the attacks of Satan and the Antichrist. But such spiritual 
security does not exclude martyrdom, as n 3 13 makes clear. See 

coming tribulation, they are all here addressed in these letters. After the first 
chapter the numeral is dropped and our author speaks only in his later 
additions to the letters (2 7 - " 17 - 29 3 6 - 13 - 22 (see vol. i. p. 45) of al 4KK\ri<riai.. 
The larger thought of all the Churches seems to be here before him. 


vol. i. 269-270. ii 1 13 has so far as possible to be reinterpreted 
from the later standpoint of the Apocalypse as a whole. But in 
some cases this is hardly possible. 

12 is a source, or rather a combination of two sources, which 
our author has borrowed in its Greek form and re-edited. Thus 
we find in I2 1 evrl T^S Ke^oA^s where our author would have used 
7rt T. /ce< : in I2 3 iirra StaSr^aara instead of SiaSr^uxTa ITTTOL : 
in i2 7 TOV before the infinitive not elsewhere in J ap : in i2 12 
ovpavot instead of ovpavi : in i2 14 0.71-0 TrpocrwTrou =" because of." 
Contrast 6 16 20 11 . Hence I here withdraw the thesis maintained 
in vol. i. 300 sqq. 3, that our author translated this source 
himself. See also p. clviii n. 

i2 13 15 , though full of significance in their original context and 
at their original date, do not admit of interpretation from the 
standpoint and date of our author s work (see vol. i. 330). 

In 17-18 our author has edited two sources already existing 
in a Greek form (see p. Ixiii sq., vol. ii. 56-58, 88 sqq.). But 
traces of the original date of their composition survive in ij l( >- 11 and 
i8 4 . See vol. ii. 59 sq., 93. Another trace of 18 being a source 
survives in i8 2 , where it is stated that Rome has become KO.TOLKT)- 

TTfjptOV 8aifJ,OVL(l)V KOL ^vXttKT) . . . TTCIVTO? 6pVOV OLKaOdpTOV, whereaS 

our author himself in i<f represents the smoke of her burning as 
ascending age after age to the end of the world. 

Such incongruities as the above do not affect the main 
movement of thought and development in the book. Without 
the sources, in which these incongruities occur, the book would 
suffer irreparably. These sources, with the exception of io-n 13 
which is a proleptic digression, form organic members of the 
whole. The survival, therefore, of such incongruities requires 
the hypothesis that our author not only used sources but also 
did not live to revise his work. 



The date of J ap can be established by external and internal 

i. External evidence. This evidence almost unanimously 
assigns J ap to the last years of Domitian. But some ancient, but 
not the earliest, authorities assign it to the reigns of Claudius, 
Nero, or Trajan. This may be in part due to the survival in 
the sources used by our author of statements and situations pre 
supposing an earlier date than that of Domitian. That these 
survivals explain the great divergence of scholars of the past fifty 


years on the dating of the Apocalypse, we shall see when we 
turn to the internal evidence. 

The Trajan date. To return, however, to the three dates just 
mentioned, />., the reigns of Claudius, Nero, and Trajan, we shall 
treat first of the last. This dating is found only in very late 
authorities. Theophylact on Matt. 2o 22 : IwdVvr/v 8e Tpaiai/os 
/careSt/cacre /AaprvpovVra TW Aoya) rrjs aXrjOeias. Synopsis de vita et 
morte prophetarum (attributed to Dorotheus) : VTTO Se TpaiWov 
ySacriAetos e^wpicr^ eV rfj VT^CTO) Ilarpiu) . . . /xera oe rrjv TfXevrrjv 
Tpaiavov 7raVeio~iv (XTTO TTJS vrjcrov . . . ei<rt oe ot Xeyovcriv fjir) eTrt 
Tpaiavov avrbv iopicr9 ?)vai eV IlaT/xa) dAAa ITTL Ao/AeTtavov. * These 
statements appear, as Swete suggests (Introd. p. c), to have arisen 
mainly from a misunderstanding of such words as those in 
Irenaeus, ii. 22. 5, Trapc/xetve yap avrois (o Icaavvi/s) ^\pl TWV 
Tpaiavov xpoVw, or those cited below from Origen on Matt. torn. 
xvi. 6. 

The Claudian and Neronic dates. n 1 2 and 6 9 of the 
Apocalypse, if taken literally, refer to Jerusalem and the Temple 
as still standing, and the martyrdoms under Nero (64-68 A.D.). 
Other sources, though less clearly, postulate a Neronic date. 
Hence it is not difficult to understand the assignment of the 
banishment of John to the reign of Nero in the title prefixed to 
both the Syriac versions of the Apocalypse and by Theophylact 
(Praef. in loann.). I do not see, however, how we are to explain 
the Claudian date (41-54 A.D.), which is maintained by 
Epiphanius (Haer. li. 12, /tera rrjv avrov OLTTO TT}S Ilar/xov eTravooW, 
TYJV 7rt KXavOtov yevofAevrjv /catVapos : li. 33, avrov oe Trpo 

KA.av8t ov KatVapo? di/wrarw, ore eis rrjv Ilar/xov 

The Domitianic date. The earliest authorities are practically 
unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the last years of 
Domitian. Melito of Sardis (160-190 floruit) may possibly be 
cited as upholding the Domitianic date, as he wrote a commentary 
on J ap and addressed a protest to Marcus Aurelius declaring that 
Nero and Domitian had at the instigation of certain malicious 
persons slanderously assaulted the Church (Eus. iv. 26. 9 : cf. 
Lact. De Mort. Persecutorum, 3). 

Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 180-190). In his account of the 
persecution of Christians by Domitian, Eusebius (iii. 18. 3) 
quotes the following words from Irenaeus : et Se IS avafyavSov 
ev TW vvV Katpw Kr)pvTTt(r6aL rovvo/xa avTfv, oY e/mVov av eppfOrj TOV 
/cat rrjv iaroKaXvtyw ecopaKoros. ovSe yap < ; po TroAXov ^povov ewpa^r;, 
dAA.a <r)(t$ov CTTI r^s -^/xerepa? yei/ea?, Trpos TW TeXet rrj<s Ao/xeriavov 
dp^T}?. This passage is found in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. v. 30. 3, 
almost exactly as quoted in Eusebius. 

1 The above two quotations are drawn from Swete, Introd. p. c. 


Clement of Alexandria. In his Quis Dives, 42, we find : rov 
Tvpdvvov reXevrryo-ai/Tos aTro rfjs HOLT/ADV r^s vrfo-ov [MerrjXOev CTTI TJJV 

Origen (185-253). In Mt. xvi. 6 (Lommatzsch, iv. p. 18;, 
6 Se Poo/AfuW /3acriAeus, ws rj 7rupdSo<ris SiSaovcei, /careSt/catTC TOV 
ItoaWTyj/ fiaprvpovvra Sia TOV T^S dA?7$eias Adyov tts TTar/xov T>)V 
vT/o-oi/. Neither in Clement nor Origen is Domitian s name 
given, but it may be presumed that it was in the mind of these 
writers. Victorinus (circ. 270), Eusebius, and Jerome are quite 
explicit. Victorinus in his In Apoc. lo 11 writes : " Hoc elicit 
propterea quod quando haec loannes vidit, erat in insula Patmos, 
in metallum damnatus a Domitiano Caesare. Ibi ergo vidit 
Apocalypsin. Et cum jam senior putaret se per passionem 
accepturum receptionem, interfecto Domitiano, omnia judicio 
ejus soluta sunt. Et loannes, de metallo dimissus, sic postea 
tradidit hanc eandem quam acceperat a Deo Apocalypsin." Also 
on i7 10 " Unus exstat sub quo scripta est Apocalypsis, Domitianus 
scilicet." Eusebius, H.E. iii. 18. i : Ei/ TOVTV /carpet Adyos rbv 
aTrdoToXoi/ a/jia /cat evayyeAtaT^v Iwai/i/^v en rw /Slip ev8taTpt/?oj/Ta, 
TT/S ets rov Oeiov \oyov ci/exev /xaprvpt a?, IlaT/xoi/ OLKCLV KaraSiKa<r- 
Orjvai rrjv vrjcrov. iii. 20. 9 : Tore orj ow KCU TOV aTrocrroXov Iwawryv 
a7ro T?}S /cara rr/i/ v^crov ^>vy^s r^v CTTI E^eaoi; Siarpt/S^v tt7reiA^</)Vat 
6 T<OV Trap T^/XIV dp^at wi/ TrapaStStucrt Adyo?. iii. 23. I : A-TroaToAos 
6/xov Kat evayycAicrTr/? Icoawiys ras avroQi StetTrcv KKXrj(TLa<s, OLTTO 
TT^S Kara r^v v^(rov ytxera rr)v Aoyu,eriavo{) reAevT^i/ 7raveA^a)k (>vyfj<;. 
Jerome (Deviris illustr. 9) : " Quarto decimo anno post Neronem 
persecutionem movente Domitiano in Patmos insulam relegatus 
scripsit Apocalypsim . . . interfecto autem Domitiano et actis 
ejus ob nimiam crudelitatem a senatu rescissis sub Nerva principe 
redit Ephesum." 

2. Internal evidence. To the cursory reader the internal 
evidence as to the date is hopelessly confusing. But this evidence 
is confusing not only to the cursory reader, but also to the 
earnest student, as the history of the interpretation of J ap clearly 
shows. The students of J ap fall into three groups on this 
question, (i) Those who assign it to the reign of Nero after the 
Neronic persecution, 64-68 A.D., such as Baur, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, 
Lightfoot, Westcott, Selwyn, B. W. Henderson. (2) Those who 
place it under Vespasian, as B. Weiss, Dusterdieck, Bartlett, 
Anderson Scott. (3) Those who maintain the Domitianic date. 

For these three datings internal evidence is undoubtedly forth 
coming. Our author has used sources, and several of these 
were written under Nero, or at all events before the fall of 
Jerusalem, as the reader will see under the section Greek and 
Hebrew Sources and their Dates, p. Ixii sqq. But such a date 
cannot be maintained in the face of i; 10 - 11 (see vol. ii. 59-60, 


69-70) and i8 4 , both of which postulate a Vespasianic date. 
Hence such statements as clearly presuppose a Neronic date 
(i.e., in ii 1 13 i2(?). 131-7.10) are simply survivals in the sources 
used by our author. 

Hence it appears that the Apocalypse was written either 
under Vespasian or under Domitian. The external evidence is, 
as we have already seen, unanimous in favour of the latter as 
against the former. We have now to discuss the bearing of the 
internal evidence on this question. This evidence, which is 
clearly in favour of the Domitianic date, is as follows. 

(a) The use of earlier N. T. Books. See pp. Ixxxiii-lxxxvi. 
There it is shown that our author most probably used Matthew 
and Luke. If this is so, it makes the Vespasianic date 
impossible, unless these Gospels were written before 70 or 75 A.D. 

(b) The present form of the Seven Letters, although in their 
original form of Vespasianic date, point to a Domitianic. The 
Church of Smyrna did not exist in 60-64 A - D - at a time when 
St. Paul was boasting of the Philippians in all the Churches. Cf. 
Polycarp (Ad Phil. xi. " Beatus Paulus . . . gloriatur in omnibus 
ecclesiis, quae solae tune Dominum cognoverant; nos autem 
nondum cognoveramus "). But though Polycarp s letter tells us 
that the Church of Smyrna was not founded in 60-64 A.D., he gives 
no hint as to when it was founded. Hence several years may 
have elapsed after that date before it was founded. When, 
however, we turn to Rev 2 8 11 we find that our text presupposes 
a Church poor in wealth but rich in good works, with a 
development of apparently many years to its credit. This 
letter, then, may have been written in the closing years of 
Vespasian (75-79) but hardly earlier. But if the present writer s 
hypothesis (see vol. i. 43-46) is correct, then the Seven Letters, 
all of which probably belong to the same period, were re-edited ; 
for whereas they speak generally of local persecutions, there is 
not a hint, save in 3 10 , of the universal martyrdom that is taught 
or implied in the rest of the book. Nor again is there a single 
clear reference to the imperial cult of the Caesars, unless possibly 
in 3 10 . (See vol. i. 43-46.) The Letters, therefore, in their 
original form, acquaint us with the experiences and apprehensions 
of the Churches in Vespasian s reign. But what worlds divide 
their original outlook from that of the Book in which they are 
incorporated ! The natural conclusion, therefore, is that though 
our author wrote the Letters in the reign of Vespasian, he re- 
edited them in the closing years of Domitian for incorporation 
in his Book. 

(c) The imperial cult as it appears in J ap was not enforced until 
the reign of Domitian. There is no evidence of any kind to prove 
that the conflict between Christianity and the imperial cult had 


reached the pitch of antagonism that is presupposed in the J ap 
before the closing years of Domitian s reign. In the reign of 
Vespasian the Christians, as Moffatt (Introd? 504) writes, "seem 
to have enjoyed a comparative immunity . . . and our avail 
able knowledge of the period renders it unlikely (cf. Linsenmayer s 
Bekampfung des Christentums durch den romischen Staat, 1905, 
66 f.) that anything occurred either under him or Titus to call 
forth language so intense as that of the Apocalypse." Moreover, 
Vespasian did not take his claims to divinity seriously. But 
Domitian insisted on the public recognition of these claims, and 
in the last year of his reign he began to persecute the Church in 
the capital of the Empire. Thus in Rome he had his own cousin 
Flavius Clemens executed, and his niece Flavia Domitilla 
and others banished for their faith to the island of Pontia. 
Eusebius (H.E. iii. 18. 4) states that there were many others. 1 
Now, if Christians of the highest rank were exposed to martyrdom 
in Rome, what would be expected in Asia Minor, where the cult of 
the Emperor had been received with acclamation as early as the 
reign of Augustus, and had by the time of Domitian become the 
one religion of universal obligation in Asia, whereas the worship 
of the old Greek divinities only took the form of local cults? 
Compliance with the claims of the imperial cult was made the 
test of loyalty to the Empire. In the earlier days, Christians 
had been persecuted for specific crimes, such as anarchy, atheism, 
immorality, etc. But in the latter days of Domitian the con 
fession of the name of Christ (cf. J ap 2 3 - 13 3 8 i2 n 2o 4 ) was 
tantamount to a refusal to accede to the Emperor s claims to 
divinity, and thereby entailed the penalty of death (i3 15 ). Now, 
with the insight of a true prophet John recognized the absolute 
incompatibility of the worship of Christ and the worship of the 
Emperor, even if this worship were conceived merely as a test of 
loyalty to the Empire. Therein he penetrated to the eternal issues 
underlying the conflict of his day, and set forth for all time the 
truth that it is not Caesar but Christ, not the State but the 
Church that should claim the absolute allegiance of the individual. 
Nay more : the prophet maintains that the conflict between the 
claims of Christianity and the absolutism of the State can never 
be relinquished till the State itself, no less than the individual, 
tenders its submission and becomes an organ of the will of the 
Lord and of His Christ (n 15 ). 

(cT) The Nero-redivivus myth appears implicitly and explicitly 
in several forms in our text, the latest of which cannot be earlier 
than the age of Domitian. 

The Jewish source lying behind 1 7 12 - 17 was probably writteni 

1 On the persecution under Domitian, see Lightjfaot, Clem. Rom. I. i, 


in the reign of Titus. It embodies the expectation that the 
living Nero will return from the East at the head of the Parthian 
hosts an expectation to be found in the Sibylline Oracles of 
this period (see vol. ii. 81). Another phase of this myth which 
appears in our text (in n 7 ), but with which we are not here con 
cerned, is dealt with in vol. ii. 83. But the last phase of this 
expectation attested in our text is given in 13 and 17. At this stage 
there is a fusion of the Nero myth with those of the Antichrist and 
Beliar. The expectation of a living Nero returning from the East 
has been abandoned. Nero is now a demon from the abyss, com 
bining in his own person the characteristics of Beliar and the 
Antichrist. This phase of the myth belongs to the last decade 
of the ist century. For this form of the myth, see vol. ii. 84-87. 1 
I do not see how it is possible to assign 13 and 17 in their 
present form to the reign of Vespasian, though the sources behind 
both these chapters were mainly of a Vespasianic date, and in 
part of that of Titus. 

Before we leave this section it will be well to touch again on 
the interpretation of I7 10 11 . Bousset (p. 416) has rightly pro 
tested against the identification of Domitian with the eighth head. 
This is done by some commentators, but can only be done by mis 
interpreting the text or misunderstanding the nature of Christian 
apocalyptic. Some, who accept the Vespasianic date, are guilty 
of the first offence ; others, who accept the Domitianic date, are 
guilty of both. 

Let us consider the latter offence first that which consists 
in misunderstanding Christian apocalyptic. If we accept the 
Domitianic date and assume absolute unity of authorship, we 
must conclude that the writer " transfers himself in thought to 
the time of Vespasian, interpreting past events under the form 
of a prophecy, after the manner of apocalyptic writers " (Swete). 
Such a procedure belongs to Jewish apocalyptic but not to 
Christian, till we advance well into the 2nd century. Those 
who urge the Vespasianic date are not guilty of this misconcep 
tion, but the Apocalypse does not admit of the Vespasianic date. 
Hence, if we accept the Domitianic date, I7 10 - 11 must be regarded 
as a survival from sources belonging to the time of Vespasian 
and Titus. In its present context, therefore, I7 10 - 11 does not 
admit of precise interpretation. For Domitian cannot be iden 
tified with Nero redivivus. This brings us to the first offence. 

Domitian cannot be identified with Nero redivivus. Not a 
single phrase descriptive of the latter can be rightly applied to 
Domitian, if we accept the Domitianic date as the evidence 
requires. Nero redivivus is described in i7 8 as TO OypLov . . . 

1 A critical study of all the forms assumed by the Antichrist myth is given 
in vol. ii. 76-87. 


/cat OVK ZQ-TW Kcu /xcAAct ava/3aiviv IK T^S aj3v<Tcrov, /cat eis 
VTrayet, and again on rjv /cat OVK ecrrtv /cat Trapecrrat. So 
again in ly 11 , where it is further added that he c/c TWV OTTOI eo-rtv. 
See also n 7 . Another description is given in i3 3 /cat /x,tav e/c TWI/ 
/cec^aAcov avrot) ws eo~(j>ay/JLvr]v ets OdvaroVj KCU rj TrAryyr) rov Oavdrov 
avrov cOepaTTtvOr). Cf. i3 14 . Now I have shown in vol. ii. 71 : 
(a) Domitian cannot be described as OVK to-rw, seeing that earn/ 
must be affirmed of him. (/5) Pre-existence cannot be ascribed 
to him, as the clause o rjv would require, (y) It cannot be said of 
him that he is e/c ron/ eVra. (8) It is impossible to connect /xtav 
e/creov /cec/>aAan/ ws eo-c^ay/xeV^v (i3 3 ) with Domitian. (e) It cannot 
be maintained of Domitian, who is already seated on the throne 
of the Beast, that //e AAet dj/a/?aiVetv IK rfjs a(3vcr<rov. (Q There is 
no ground for making Domitian the leader of the Parthian hosts 
against Rome, as Nero redivivus is represented in i y 12-18. 17. w j 
and fighting against the Lamb, ly 14 . (rj) Nor can we conceive 
Domitian in I9 11 19 as mustering the nations to battle against the 
Word of God in the Messianic war that prepares the way for the 
Messianic kingdom. 1 

It is not an actual Roman emperor, but a supernatural 
monster from the abyss that is to play the part of the Nero 
redivivus, and that in the immediate future. 



i. There are most probable but no absolutely certain traces 
of J ap in the Apostolic Fathers. In the Shepherd of Hernias, 
Vis. ii. 2. 7, there is a very probable connection with our author. 2 
Thus fJMKapLOL v/xets o<roi v7TOjU,ei/eT TTJI/ 6Xi\l/LV rrjv ep^o/xev^v TYJV 
/xeyaAryv : iv. 2. 5, ^At^eco? ri}s /xeAAovcny? r-^s /xeyaAr/s, and in IV. 
3. 6, 1-^79 flAu/^ews T>}S epxo/xeVr/s /xcyaA^?, all but certainly recall Rev 
7 14 rfjs OXtytws rfjs /x,eyaAr?s, and 3 10 r^ 

1 If it were possible to ascribe the Apocalypse to the reign of Vespasian 
the objections given in /3, 7, 5 above would be fatal to the identification of 
Domitian with Nero redivivus. f and 77 would also stand in the way. 

2 The fact that Hernias used the same imagery as J a P may be rightly used 
as evidence that he knew it. Thus the Church, Vis. ii. 4, is represented by 
a woman (cf. J a P i2 ls( W-) ; the enemy of the Church by a beast (6rjptov), Vis. 
iv, 6-10, J a P 13 : out of the mouth of the beasts proceed fiery locusts, Vis. 
iv. I, 6, J a P 9 s : whereas the foundation stones of the Heavenly Jerusalem bear 
the names of the Twelve Apostles, J a P 2i 14 , and those who overcome are made 
pillars in the spiritual temple, J a P 3 12 , in Hernias the apostles and other 
teachers of the Church form the stones of the heavenly tower erected by the 
archangels, Vis. iii. 5. i. The faithful in both are clothed in white and are 
given crowns to wear, J ap 6 11 etc., 2 10 3 11 ; Hermas, Sim. viii. 2. i, 3. 


0-779 p^(rOat, i. I. 3, TTj eu/xa . . . dTr^i/ey/ceV /xe Sta dvoSt as, is 
reminiscent of iy 3 aTr^ey/cti/ tie eis epr/tiov ev Trvev/xart. Barn, 
xxi. 3, eyyus 6 /cvptos /cat 6 /xto-$os avVov, seems to suggest 
some dependence on Rev 22 10 - 12 6 /caipos yap eyyvs eo-rtv . . . 
tSov ep^oyoiat Ta^v /cat 6 tuor$os /xou tieT* e/xov. (See, however, 
Is 4-O 10 .) Barn. vii. 9, eVeiS?) oi/^ovrat avrov rore TT; ^epa 
TOV Trappy? e^ovTa . . . Kat ZpovcrLV Ovx OUTOS ecrrtv 6V Trore 
17/xets e o-Tavpajo-a/xev, has affinities with Rev I 7 - 13 oi^erai avroi/ 
Tra? o<f)6a\/jios /cat otrivcs avrov e^eKeVr^o-av . . . evSeSv^tevor 
TToSr/pr;. (See, however, TV^T 7 . / ^ Apostolic Fathers , p. 16.) 
But as for the passages in Ignatius, ^*/ /%//. vi. i (see vol. i. 
92) has nothing to do with Rev 3 12 , nor -<4<^ ^/^. xv. 3, t^a 
w/zev avrov i/aot, /cai avro? 17 ev Ty/xtv ^eos, with Rev 2 1 3 : nor 
does Barn. vi. 13, Xeyei 8e Kvptos iSov TTOIO) ra eo-^ara a>s TO. 
Trpwra, reflect Rev 2i 5 iSou /caiva TTotw TravTa (see vol. ii. 203): 
for the sense is absolutely different. Nor should we connect 
Clem. Rom. Ad Cor. xxxiv. 3 (see p. Ixxvii, footnote) with Rev 

22 12 . 

2. In the 2nd cent. J ap was all but universally accepted in 
Asia Minor, Western Syria, Africa, Rome, South Gaul. 

In Asia Minor. Papias was the first, according to Andreas in 
the prologue to his Commentary on J ap , to attest, not its apostolic 
authorship, but its credibility. (Ilept /xeVroi TOT) 007n/euVrov r^s 
/3ifi\ov TreptTTOv /x/rj/cuVeiv TOV Xoyov ^you/xe^a, rtov /m/capiW Tpry- 
yoptov . . . Kai Kupt AAou, Trpoorert 8e /cat rav dp^atorepcov IlaTrt ov, 
Etpryvatov, Me^oStov /cat lTTTroAirroi; 7rpoo-/xaprupoiWwv TO d^toTrto-rov. ) 
Eusebius, however, never definitely says that J ap was known to 
Papias (H.JE. iii. 39). The statement, however, in iii. 39. 12 
which he attributes to Papias, seems to be an echo of J ap (xAiaSa 
Ttva <f>r)ort.v ercov eo-eo-$ai /xera ryv IK vc^cpoov aWo-rao-ty, o-co/xart/cais 
rr}s Xpio~rov y3ao~tA.tas 67Tt ravr^o-i TT}S -y^? VTroarTrja-ojjitvrjs}. But 
Eusebius proceeds to say that this statement of Papias was due to 
his misunderstanding of certain apostolic statements (dTroo-ToA-t/cas 
. . . SiT/y^o-eis), which he took literally instead of figuratively. 

Melito, bishop of Sardis (160-190 A.D. fl.), wrote a commentary 
(To, Trept TOV Sia/3oA.ou Kat rr)s aTTOKaXui^eaJS loodVvou), Eus. IV. 26. 2 : 
Jerome, De vir. illustr. 9, understands this title to refer to two 
distinct books. This work of Melito is noteworthy, since Sardis 
was one of the Seven Churches. Justin, who lived at Ephesus 
(circ. 135) before he went to Rome, is the first to declare that 
J ap was written by John, one of the apostles of Christ : Dial. 
Ixxxi. 15, Trap avrjp TIS, <S ovo/xa IwdVi ?;?, el? TWV aTrocrroAwv 
TOV Xpio-Tov, eV a7ro/caAv i//i ye^o/xeVi? aura) xi Aia cry 7rotr;o-etv ev 
lepovcraA^tt TOVS T<3 ^/xere pa) Xptorw Trto-Tevo-avTa? Trpoe^ryreuo-e : 
cf. also ApoL i. 28\which refers to Apoc. i2 9 ); Eus. iv. 18. 8. 
Irenaeus maintained the apostolic authorship of all the Johannine 


writings in the N.T., but the evidence for his views has to be 
drawn from the great work which he wrote as bishop of Lyons : 
see below. Apollonius, a writer against the Montanists in 
Phrygia (circ. 210 A.D.), used J ap of John as an authority in his 
controversy (Eus. v. 18. 14). 

In Western Syria. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch in the 
latter half of the 2nd century, cites J ap in a treatise against 
HermOgeneS (Eus. iv. 24), tv u> e* ryj<s aTro/ca/Vv^eoos Icoaj/i ov 

In South Gaul. Irenaeus, who defended the apostolic 
authorship of all the N.T. Johannine writings, carried with him to 
Gaul the views that prevailed in Asia Minor ; and there, as Bishop 
of Lyons (177-202 A.D.), he wrote his great work, Against all 
Heresies. In this work he uses such expressions as loannes in 
Apocalypsi, iv. 14. 2, 17. 6, 18. 6, 21. 3, v. 28. 2, 34. 2. 
loannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi, iv. 20. n, v. 26. ij 
in Apocalypsi videt loannes, v. 35. 2 ; per loannis Apocalypsin, 
i. 26. 3. See Zahn, Gesch. N.T. Kanons, i. 202, note 2. At a 
slightly earlier date, 177, the Churches of Vienne and Lyons 
addressed an epistle to the Churches in Asia and Phrygia (Eus. 
v. i. 10, 45 (where rfj TrapOtvw /x^rpt = the Christian Church), 55, 
58) in which reference is made to Apoc. 14* I2 1 iQ 9 22 11 , the last 
being introduced by the N.T. formula of Canonical Scripture 
Iva f) ypa<f>r) TrXrjpwO fi. 

In Alexandria. Clement follows the general tradition of the 
Church, and cites J ap as scripture, Paed. ii. 119 (TO a-v^oXiKov 
TOJV ypacfriov), and the work of John the apostle, Quis dives, 42, 
Strom, vi. 106-107 (see Zahn, Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons^ i. 205). 
Origen accepts John the Apostle as the author of the J ap , the 
Gospel, and the first Epistle (In loann. torn. v. 3 ; Lommatzsch, 
i. 165; Eus. vi. 25. 9). The upholders of Millenarianism in 
Egypt, against whom Dionysius wrote, appealed to the Apocalypse 
(Eus. vii. 24). 

In Rome. On the very probable use of our author by Hermas 
we have adverted above. Of this work the Muratorian Canon 
writes : " Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe 
Roma Hermas conscripsit." But whether Hermas used our 
author or not, this Canon implies that J ap was universally 
recognized at Rome : " lohannes enim in apocalypsi, licet septem 
ecclesiis scribat, tamen omnibus dicit," while a few lines later, 
according to the most natural restoration of the text, he states 
that the Apocalypse of Peter had not such recognition. 
Hippolytus (190-235 fl.), in his Ilepi rov Ai/Tixpio"rov (ed. Achelis, 
1897), constantly quotes the Apocalypse. He speaks of it as 
f] ypa<f>ri (chap. 5) and its author aTroVroAos /cat fjLaOrjTrjs TOV Kvpiov 
(36). See Zahn, i. 203 (note). 


In Carthage. In this Church, which was the daughter of the 
Roman Church, J ap enjoyed an unquestioned authority at the 
close of the 2nd century. Tertullian cites quotations from 
eighteen out of its twenty-two chapters. He knows of only 
one John, the Apostle, and he is unacquainted with any doubts of 
its canonicity save on the part of Marcion. He names it the in- 
strumentum Joannis (De Resurrectione^ 38) and the instrumentum 
apostolicum (Pud. 12). See Zahn, i. in, 203 sq. The Acts of 
Perpetua and Felicitas show many traces of dependence on our 
author, as 4, "circumstantes candidates milia multa": 12, "intro- 
euntes vestierunt stolas Candidas . . . et audivimus vocem unitam 
dicentium Agios agios agios sine cessatione . . . et vidimus in 
medio loco sedentem quasi hominem canum . . . et in dextra et 
in sinistra seniores viginti quattuor." See Zahn, i. 203 sq. 

Thus throughout the Christian Church during the 2nd cent, 
there is hardly any other book of the N.T. so well attested and 
received as J ap . 

3. There were, how ever , two distinct protests against its 
Johannine authorship and validity in the 2nd century. (a) The 
first of these came from Marcion. He rejected it on the ground 
of its strongly Jewish character (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 5), and 
he refused to recognize John as a canonical writer (iii. 14, 
" Quodsi loannem agnitum non vis, habes communem magistrum 
Paulum ") 

(b) The more important attack came from the Alogi the 
name given to them by Epiphanius (Haer. li. 3). 1 This sect 
(Haer. li. 33) rejected both the Gospel and Apocalypse and 
attributed them to Cerinthus. They objected to the sensuous 
symbolism of the book, and urged that it contained errors in 
matters of fact, seeing that there was no Church at Thyatira. 
Since Epiphanius draws most probably upon Hippolytus (190- 
235) for his information, we have in Epiphanius a nearly con 
temporaneous account of these opponents of J ap . 

With these Alogi, as Zahn urges (i. 223-227, 237-262, ii. 
967-973), the sect mentioned by Irenaeus (iii. u. 9) is to 
be identified. This sect was anti-Montanist. It rejected the 
Johannine books because of the support they gave the Gospel 
through the doctrine of the Spirit and the Apocalypse through 
its prophetic character to this Montanist party. Caius, a 
Roman Churchman, though not one of the Alogi, also rejected 
J ap in a manifesto (circ. 210 A.D.) against Proclus the Montanist 
on the ground of its marvels and its sensuous doctrine of the 
Millennium, and ascribed it to Cerinthus (Eus. H.E. iii. 28. 1-2). 
There is no conclusive evidence that Caius and his school 
rejected the Gospel. 

1 T <j><i<rKQV(ri Toivvf ol "AXoyot : ra^rrjv y&p ai)rois 


The writing of Caius was answered by Hippolytus 1 (215 A.D.) 
in a work entitled Ke^aXaia Kara Fat ou KCU a7roA.oyt a v?rep T. 
a.TroKa\v\l/<i)<s lajai/ov, fragments of which have been preserved in 
a Commentary of Bar-Salibi (Gwynn, Hermathena, vi. 397-418, 
vii. 137-150). From this date forward no Western Churchman 
seriously doubted J ap . In Africa, Cyprian repeatedly makes 
use of it. 

4. The question of the authenticity of J ap reopened by 
Dionysius of Alexandria, bishop of Alexandria, 247-265 A.D. 
Fragments of this scholarly and temperate criticism of the 
Apocalypse (Ilept ETrayyeAton/) are preserved in Eusebius (vii. 
24-25). This book was written as a refutation of a work by 
Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, entitled "EAeyxos AAA^yopto-Tcov, 
which sought to prove that the promises made to the saints in 
the Scriptures were to be taken literally in a Jewish sense and 
particularly with regard to the Millennium (Eus. vii. 24). In 
his refutation of this book Dionysius advances many grounds 
to prove that J ap was not written by the author of the Gospel 
and i John. He admits its claim to have been written by a 
John, but not by the Apostle. Some of the arguments we have 
given elsewhere (see p. xl). 

If modern scholars had followed the lines of criticism laid 
down by Dionysius their labours would have been immeasurably 
more fruitful. 

5- J ap rejected for some time by the Syro- Palestinian Church 
and by the Churches of Asia Minor. The criticism of Dionysius 
in discrediting the apostolic authorship of J ap discredited also its 
canonicity. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) evidently agreed with the 
conclusions of Dionysius. Seeking to carry further the con 
clusions of that scholar, he suggests that J ap was written by John 
the Elder of whom Papias wrote (Eus. iii. 39. 6). He is doubtful 
(iii. 24. 1 8, 25. 4) whether to reckon it among the accepted 
(6/AoAoyou/x-ei/a) or the rejected (v60a). Some years later Cyril 
of Jerusalem (315-386) not only excluded it from the list of 
canonical books, but also forbade its use in public and private. 
After enumerating the books of the N.T. in which the Apocalypse 
is not mentioned, he proceeds to say (Catech. iv. 36, TO, Se AotTm, 
TTOLVTO. e(o KticrOu) tv Setn-epu). KCU o<ra /xev ev eKK\r)(riais pr] avayiv- 
tocTKerai, ravra /x-^Se Kara crcurrov di ayiVwo-/ce). 

The influence of Dionysius criticism spread also to Asia 
Minor. Thus J ap does not appear in Canon 60 of the Synod 
of Laodicea (circ. 360), nor in Canon 85 of the Apost. Constitutions 

1 Another work of Hippolytus in defence of the Johannine writings may be 
inferred from the list of works engraven on the back of the chair on which 
the statue of the bishop wa? seated : vtrkp rov /card, I&dvvrjv evayye\iov Kal 
See Lightfoot, St. Clement , I. ii. 420. 


(Zahn, ii. 177 sqq., 197 sqq.), nor in the list of Gregory of 
Nazianzus (ob. 389). Amphilochius of Iconium (ob. 394) 
states that J ap is rejected by most authorities (ot TrActW Se ye | 
voOov Xeyovcriv). 

The school of Antioch did not look with favour on J ap . 
Chrysostom (ob. 407) represented this school in Constantinople. 
Theodore (350-428) carried with him the views of this school 
to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and Theodoret (386-457) to the east 
to Cyrrhus. None of the three appears to have mentioned it. 

Other lists from which it is excluded are the so-called Synopsis 
of Chrysostom, the List of 60 Books, and the Chronography of 

6. Quite independently of the criticism of Alexandria, J ap was 
either ignored or unknown in the Eastern- Syrian and Armenian 
Churches for some centuries. The Apocalypse formed no part of 
the Peshitto Version of the N.T. which was made by Rabula of 
Edessa, 411 (Burkitt, St. Ephraems Quotations, p. 57). The gap 
was afterwards supplied by a translation in 508 by Polycarpus for 
Philoxenus of Mabug, and by that of Thomas of Harkel, 6 1 6. On 
these the reader should consult Gwynn, The Apocalypse of John in 
Syria, pp. xc-cv, and Bousset s Offenbarung, 26-28. But it took 
centuries for J ap to establish itself in the Syrian Churches. Junilius 
(Departibus divinae legis, i. 4), who reproduces the lectures of Paul 
of Nisibis, writes (551 A.D.), " De loannis apocalypsi apud Orient- 
ales admodum dubitatur." Jacob of Edessa (ob. 708) cites it as 
Scripture, and yet Bar Hebraeus (ob. T2o8) regards it as the work 
of Cerinthus or the other John. In the Armenian Church it 
first appears as a canonical book in the i2th century (Conybeare, 
Armenian Version of Revelation, p. 64). 

this same attitude towards it was gradually adopted by the Eastern 
Churches. In the Church of the West, notwithstanding the 
attacks of Gaius and the rejection of its apostolic authorship by 
Dionysius, writers were unanimous after the elaborate defence by 
Hippolytus of the canonicity of J ap . Only Jerome takes up a 
doubtful attitude towards it; for, while in Ep. ad Dardanum, 
129, he appears inclined to accept it, elsewhere (In Ps. 149) 
he ranks it in a class midway between canonical and apocryphal. 
J ap found a succession of expounders in Victorinus of Pettau 
(ob. 303), Tyconius, Primasius, and is duly recorded in all the 
Western lists of the canonical books. 

In Alexandria, Athanasius (293-373) recognized its Johannine 
authorship and canonicity, and in due course the Greek com 
mentaries of Oecumenius, Andreas, and Arethas. 

Thus throughout the world the full canonicity of the 
Apocalypse was accepted in the i3th century save in the 

8 7. J ap was always accepted as canonical in the West, and 


Nestorian Church. With the views of later times the present 
work is not here concerned. For these, readers may consult 
Bousset, Offenbarung, 19-34; or the present writer s Studies in 
the Apocalypse, 1-78. 



i. The object of the Seer is to proclaim the coming of God s 
kingdom on earth, and to assure the Christian Church of the 
final triumph of goodness, not only in the individual or within 
its own borders, not only throughout the kingdoms of the world 
and in their relations one to another, but also throughout the 
whole universe. Thus its gospel was from the beginning at 
once individualistic and corporate, national and international and 
cosmic. While the Seven Churches represent entire Christendom, 
Rome represents the power of this world. With its claims to 
absolute obedience, Rome stands in complete antagonism to 
Christ. Between these two powers there can be no truce or 
compromise. The strife between them must go on inexorably 
without let or hindrance, till the kingdom of the world has 
become the kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ. This 
triumph is to be realized on earth. There is to be no legislation, 
no government, no statecraft which is not finally to be brought 
into subjection to the will of Christ. J ap is thus the Divine Statute 
Book of International Law, as well as a manual for the guidance 
of the individual Christian. In this spirit of splendid optimism 
the Seer confronts the world-wide power of Rome with its 
blasphemous claims to supremacy over the spirit of man. He 
is as ready as the most throughgoing pessimist to recognize the 
apparently overwhelming might of the enemy, but he does not, 
like the pessimist, fold his hands in helpless apathy, or weaken 
the courage of his brethren by idle jeremiads and tears. 
Gifted with an insight that the pessimist wholly lacks, we can 
recognize the full horror of the evils that are threatening to 
engulf the world, and yet he never yields to one despairing 
thought of the ultimate victory of God s cause on earth. He 
greets each fresh conquest achieved by triumphant wrong, with 
a fresh trumpet call to greater faithfulness, even when that faithful 
ness is called to make the supreme self-sacrifice. The faithful 
are to follow whithersoever the Lamb that was slain leads, and 
for such, whether they live or die, there can be no defeat, and so 
with song and thanksgiving he marks each stage of the world 
strife which is carried on ceaselessly and inexorably till, as in 


i Cor i5 24 27 , every evil power in heaven, or earth, or under the 
earth is overthrown and destroyed for ever. 

2. Methods of the Seers generally psychical experiences 
and reflection or reason. Prophecy and apocalyptic for the most 
part use the same methods for learning and teaching the will of 
God. The knowledge of the prophet as of the Seer came through 
dreams, visions, trances, and through spiritual, and yet not 
unconscious, communion with God wherein every natural faculty 
of man was quickened to its highest power. When we wish to 
distinguish the prophet and the seer, we say that the prophet 
hears and announces the word of God, whereas the seer sees and 
recounts his vision. But this definition only carries us but a 
little way, for these phenomena are common to both. Hence 
we must proceed further, and deal with the means which the 
seer uses in order to set forth his message. These are psychical 
experiences, and reflection or rather reason embracing the powers 
of insight^ imagination, and judgment. 

Psychical experiences. These consist of (a) dreams; (b) dreams 
combined with translation of the spirit ; and (c) visions. 

(a) Dreams. Dreams conveying a revelation. Dreams 
play a great role in Jewish apocalypses. They are found in 
Dan 2 1 4 5 y 1 ; in i Enoch 83-90, 2 Enoch i 2 etc.; Test. 
Naph. 5 1 6 1 7 1 ; 4 Ezra n 1 i2 3 I3 1 - 13 . Such dreams are 
assigned to a divine source and are regarded as conveying 
revelations of God. Now such dreams are in many of these 
passages called visions : cf. Dan 4 5 7 1 S 18 ^- ; i Enoch 83-90, where 
the two dreams 85 1 are called two visions in 83 2 ; Test. Levi, 
where the vision of 8 1 is called a dream in 8 18 ; Test. Naph., 
where what is called dreams in 7 1 is called visions in 5 1 ; 4 Ezra, 
where what is called dreams in n 1 I3 1 is called visions in 
I2 io j.,21. 25 J^IT j n 2 g ar t ne Seer seems to have waking 
visions, except in 36 1 53 1 . 

Now in these apocalypses dreams and visions are equally 
authoritative sources of divine knowledge as well as in the O.T. 
Cf. i Sam 28 6 - 15 , Deut I3 1 3 , Jer 23 25 32 27 9 298, Joel 2 28 . But it 
is remarkable that dreams fall into the background in the ist 
cent. A.D. in Christian literature. 1 Thus the Hebrew Test. 
Naph. (date uncertain) 2 1 4 1 7 L 5 speaks only of visions, and in 
3 13 treats a dream as no true source of divine knowledge. See 
my edition of the Test. XII Patriarchs, pp. 221-223. In the 
N.T. dreams are not divine means of revelation unless in Matt 
T 2o 2 i2-is. 19. 22 2^. Hence it is only visions that are recounted 

1 This is not the case in the Talmud. Belief in dreams was the rule, and 
disbelief the exception. Cf. Berakhoth 55-58, Sanh. 30*, Ber 28 a , Hor I3 b . 
Sirach, on the other hand, declares that dreams are vanity, 31 (34) 1 " 8 . See 
Jewish Encyc. iv. 654 sqq. 


in the Apocalypse. It is not even said that the Seer fell asleep 
and saw a vision. It is simply said, " I saw." In 4 Ezra, on the 
other hand, sleep precedes the visions in n 1 I3 1 and in 2 Bar 
3 61 53 1 ) though in other sections this element of the dream is 
wholly wanting. 

(b) Dreams combined with a translation of the spirit of the 
Seer. Test. Levi 2 5 " 9 5 1 - 7 . This combination reappears in 
Hermas, Vis. i. I. 3, d</>v7ri/wcra *cat irvevpa. /xe ZXafttv KCU aTrrJvey/ceV 
//. oY avoSias TIVOS. 

(c) Visions. In these the ordinary consciousness seems to 
be suspended, and sensible symbols appear to be literally seen 
with another faculty. These visions fall into three classes. 

(a) Visions in sleep. All the dreams mentioned in i. (a} 
above which are called visions by the writers could 
be brought under this head. Cf. Test. Lev 8 L 18 . 

(ft) Visions in a trance. Cf. Ezek i 1 , Test. Jos 19*, 2 Bar 

22 1 55 l-3 7 61 } ActS I0 10 , ApOC jlOaqq. (^y ev 6>>?/ CJ 

Trvet yuari) and passim where /cat etSov is used. Yet 
the latter pay be otherwise explained, as we shall see. 

(y) Visions in which the spirit is translated. Ezek 3 12 - 14 8 3 , 
Dan 8 1 2 , i Enoch yi 1 - 5 , 2 Enoch 3 1 , 2 Bar6 3s <Ki-, 
Asc. Is 6-1 1, Apoc. 4 1 iy 3 2i 10 . St. Paul (2 Cor 
i2 3 ) does not know whether in his vision he has 
experienced an actual translation of the spirit 
or not 1 

(8) Waking visions. Daniel seems to experience a trance 
when awake in io 5 , Stephen in Acts 7 55 , Zacharias 
in Luke i 11 - 20 . The fundamental ideas underlying 
some of the shorter or even of the more elaborate 
visions in our author may belong to this category, 
such as i 10 20 4 1 8 y 9 - 17 8 3 5 1414. 18-20 I5 2-4 20 n-i5 

2 j 5a. 4d. 5b. l-4abc 2 2 3-5 f 

3. Value of such psychical experiences depends not on their being 
actual experiences, but on their source^ their moral environment, and 
their influence on character? Of the reality of such psychical 
experiences no modern psychologist entertains a doubt. The 
value, however, of such experiences is not determined by their 
reality, but by facts of a wholly different nature. Real psychical 
experiences were not confined to Israel. They were familiar 
at the oracular shrines of the ethnic religions. The most 

1 For similar psychical experiences in heathenism, cf. Reitzenstein, 
Poirnandres, 5, 9 sq. etc. ; Dieterich, Eine Mithras -Liturgie. 

2 See on the whole question of this chapter, Joyce, The Inspiration of 
Prophecy, 1910; Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, 1899; Weinel, 
Die Wirkungen des Geistes J" d der Geister, 1899. 


celebrated of these was the ancient world Oracle at Delphi. 
This Oracle exerted generally a good influence on Hellenic life. 
But the hope of continuous progress by such agencies among 
the Greeks was foredoomed from the outset owing to two 
causes the first being their association with polytheism and 
other corrupt forms of religion, and the second being the failure 
of Hellas to respond to the moral claims as it had done to those 
of the intellect. But it was otherwise in Israel, where seers such 
as Samuel prepared the way for the prophet, and moral and 
religious claims received a progressive and ever deepening 
response. Now prophet and seer alike had dreams, visions, 
and trances, and these psychical experiences in Israel were 
distinguished from those of the heathen seers not by their 
greater reality, for they were in the main equally real in both 
cases, but by quite a different standard, i.e. by the source from 
which they sprang, the environment in which they were produced, and 
the influence they exercised on the will and character. In all these 
respects prophecy and apocalyptic were duly authenticated in the 
O.T. as they are in the N.T. 

4. Literal descriptions of such experiences hardly ever pos 
sible. The language of the seer is symbolic. In regard, therefore, 
to the visions recounted by our author and other O.T. and 
N.T. visionaries, the main question is the character of the 
religious faith they express and the religious and moral duties 
they enforce. Whether they are literal descriptions of actual 
experiences is a wholly secondary question. A literal discription 
would only be possible in the case of the simplest visions, in 
which the things seen were already more or less within the range 
of actual human experience, as, for instance, in Amos 8 1 2 
" Thus the Lord God showed me : and behold a basket of 
summer fruit. And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I 
said, A basket of summer fruit." Cf. Jer iiii. issqq.^ B ut j n 
our author the visions are of an elaborate and complicated 
nature, and the more exalted and intense the experience, the 
more incapable it becomes of literal description. Moreover, if 
we believe, as the present writer does, that behind these visions 
there is an actual substratum of reality belonging to the higher 
spiritual world, then the seer could grasp the things seen and 
heard in such visions, only in so far as he was equipped for the 
task by his psychical powers and the spiritual development 
behind him. In other words, he could at the best only partially 
apprehend the significance of the heavenly vision vouchsafed 
him. To the things seen he perforce attached the symbols more 
or less transformed that these naturally evoked in his mind, 
symbols that he owed to his own waking experience or the 
tradition of the past j and the sounds he heard naturally clothed 


themselves in the literary forms with which his memory was 
stored. Thus the seer laboured under a twofold disability. His 
psychical powers were generally unequal to the task of apprehending 
the full meaning of the heavenly vision, and his powers of expression 
were frequently unable to set forth the things he had apprehended. 

In the attempt to describe to his readers what was wholly 
beyond the range of their knowledge and experience, the seer 
had thus constant recourse to the use of symbols. Hence in his 
literary presentment of what he has seen and heard in the 
moments of transcendent rapture, the images he uses are 
symbolic and not literal or pictorial. In fact, symbolism in 
regard to such subjects is the only language that seer and 
layman alike can employ. The appeal of such symbolism is 
made to the religious imagination. In this way it best discloses 
the permanent truth of which it is the vehicle and vesture. 

5. Highest form of spiritual experience. There is a higher 
form of spiritual experience than either that of the prophetic 
audition or the prophetic vision. In this higher experience the 
divine insight is won in a state of intense spiritual exaltation, in 
which the self loses immediate self-consciousness without 
becoming unconscious, and the best faculties of the mind are 
quickened to their highest power. Therein the soul comes into 
direct touch with truth or God Himself. The light, that in such high 
experience visits the wrestling spirit, comes as a grace, an insight 
into reality, which the soul could never have achieved by its own 
unaided powers, and yet can come only to the soul that has 
fitted itself for its reception. In such experience the eye of 
the seer may see no vision, the ear of the seer hear no voice, and 
yet therein is spiritual experience at its highest. Such experiences 
must ever be beyond the range of literal description. They can 
only be suggested by symbols. They cannot be adequately 
expressed by any human combination of words or sounds or 
colours. At the same time such spiritual experiences of the seer 
have their analogies in those of the musician, poet, painter, and 

6. Reason embracing the powers of insight, imagination, and 
judgment. In the manifold experiences enumerated in 2, 4-5, 
the use of the reason is always presupposed, but as the secondary 
and not the primary agent in action, save perhaps in 5. Under 
this heading, however, we deal rather with the normal use of the 
reason, while the seer makes (a] an arrangement of the materials 
so as to construct a divine theodicee or philosophy of religion ; 
(b] in his creation of allegories ; (c) in the adaptation of traditional 
materials to his own purpose and their reinterpretation ; (d) in 
the conventional use of the phrase " I saw." 

(a) Arrangement of materials. Now, whereas the collected 


works of a prophet do not necessarily and in point of fact never 
show strict structural unity and steady development of thought, 
it is otherwise with the seer, and above all other seers with the 
work of our author, which exhibits these characteristics in an 
unparalleled degree. The reader has only to consult the Plan 
of the Book (pp. xxiii-xxviii) to be assured of this fact. The work 
of the artist and thinker is seen not only in the perfectness of the 
form in which many of the visions are recorded, but also in the 
skill with which the individual visions are woven together in 
order to represent the orderly and inevitable character of the 
divine drama. For not a single vision, save the three that are 
proleptic, can be removed from the text without inflicting irre 
parable damage on the whole work. The philosophical and 
dramatic character of J ap is due to the Seer as a religious 
thinker. On the other hand, the individual visions, where these 
are not freely constructed or borrowed from sources, are due to 
his visionary experiences. Apocalyptic, and not prophecy, was 
the first to grasp the great idea that all history, alike human, 
cosmological, and spiritual, is a unity. 

(b] Allegories freely constructed. The seers make use not 
infrequently of allegory. Allegories are generally freely con 
structed and figurative descriptions of real events and persons. 
With this form of literature we might compare Bunyan s Pilgrim! s 
Progress. Their object is to lay bare the eternal issues that are 
at stake in the actual conflicts of the day. Dan n, i Enoch 
85-90, 2 Bar liii-lxxiv, 4 Ezra 11-12, are undoubtedly freely 
invented allegories. 

The work of the seer is not affected injuriously by his 
adoption of this literary form in order to publish his message to 
the world. The question of importance is not the form in which 
it is conveyed, but the nature of the religious conviction which has 
therein found expression. The Seven Seals and the Seven Bowls 
may in part be ranked under this division and in part under the 

(c) Adaptation of traditional material. Our Seer had many 
sources at his disposal, and he has freely laid them under 
contribution, re-editing and adapting them to their new contexts. 
If we admit his right to construct allegories freely to convey his 
message to the Church, he had the same right to use traditional 
material for the same purpose. In fact, all the Jewish writers of 
apocalypses did so. The sealing of the 144,000, y 4 8 , and the 
Heavenly Jerusalem, 2i 9 -22 2 - 14 15 - 17 , are constructed and re 
written largely out of pre-existing material, but their meaning is 
in the main transformed. In not a few cases the sources have 
not been wholly adapted to the contexts into which they have 
been introduced by the Seer. See p. Ixii sqq. 


(<I) Conventional use of the phrase "/ saw" Just as the 
prophet came to use the words "thus saith the Lord," even 
when there was no actual psychical experience in which he 
heard a voice, so he came to use the words "I saw" when there 
was no actual vision. The same conventional use of both these 
phrases belongs to apocalyptic as well as to prophecy. They 
serve simply to express the divine message with which the 
prophet or the seer is entrusted. How far this use prevails in 
J ap would be difficult to determine. We might, however, place 
The Letters to the Seven Churches under this category. These 
letters, if the present writer s hypothesis is correct, were written 
by our author during the reign of Vespasian. They are assigned 
to Christ in our text in the words TO irvwpa Ae yei (2 7 - 1L 17 etc.). 
This is quite in keeping with the usage of the N.T. For the 
words of the prophets practically claim a divine authority. Cf. 
Acts 5 lsqq -, i Cor 5 4 - 5 , i Tim i 20 . Such words are not merely 
men s words; cf. raSe Ae yei TO Tn/cS/x.a, Acts 2i n , as Agabus 
declares, also 7 56 . In i Tim 4 1 the words TO 7n/ev/x,a p^Tws Ae yei 
are equivalent to "a certain prophet has said." In these ex 
pressions the person of the prophet is ignored. Now our author 
claims to belong to the fellowship of the prophets, and he can 
rightly use the phrase TO Tn/ev/xa Ae yei to express his convictions 
as a prophet. 



The chief theme of the Apocalypse is not what God in Christ 
has done for the world, but what He will yet do, and what the 
assured consummation will be. It is therefore the Gospel of 
faith and hope, and seeks to inspire the Churches anew in these 
respects ; for that the end is nigh. As it sets forth its theme, it 
instructs, though incidentally, and its teaching is always fresh 
and in some respects unique. 

i. The doctrine of God. If the doctrine of God were drawn 
only from the direct statements which the Apocalypse makes on 
this subject, though in some respects it would transcend the level 
reached in the O.T. (as in its teaching on God s fatherhood, etc.), 
in many others (such as His infinite mercy and forgiveness) it 
would fall far short of it. Many scholars have emphasized this 
peculiarity of the Apocalypse, and insisted accordingly on the 
Jewish character of its doctrine of God. But to draw such a 
conclusion betrays a total misapprehension of the question at 
issue. The Christian elements are not dwelt upon because they 
can all be inferred from what the Book teaches regarding the 


Son ; for all that the Son has and is is derived from the Father. 
Hence the conception of the Father under this heading must be 
completed from that of the Son in the next. The conception is 
on the whole severely monotheistic. 

(a) First as regards the ethical side, God is holy, righteous, 
and true. He alone is holy (/xovos ocnos, i5 4 i6 5 : cf. 4 8 6 10 ) ; He 
is the True One, 6 10 (a\.r)0u>6s dA^rys in our author), who keepeth 
covenant ; with this truthfulness is associated His righteousness in 
judgment, i5 3 i6 7 ig 1 - 2 . From these spring His wrath against 
sin, 6 17 ii 18 i9 15 ; and His avenging of all the wrongs done on 
the earth, 6 10 iQ 2 . He is the Judge of all the dead, 20 11 15 . 

(b) The gracious attributes of God are not brought forward, 
but are rather to be inferred from the fact that He is called the 
Father of Jesus Christ, i 6 2 27 3 5 - 21 I4 1 , and the Father also 
of all such as conquer, 2i 7 , and will dwell with them and 
be their God for ever, 2i 3 . Herein is the consummation of all 
the world s travail. The divine world is to come into the world 
of history and realize itself there, seeing that all things come from 
God and end in God. But this idea belongs in part to (c). 

(c) God is everlasting and omnipotent. First, as everlasting, He 
is designated as 6 r)V /cat 6 uV /cat 6 ep^o/xei^o?, I 4 4 8 ; 6 aV /cat 6 r)v, 
II 17 l6 5 (see vol. i. 10 sq.) ; 6 GJV ts r. atui/as r. atwi/an/, 4 9 io 6 J 5 7 . 
Next, He is omnipotent. Our author s favourite expression for 
this idea is /cuptos (>l6 14 IQ 15 ) o Oebs 6 Trai/ro/c/oarwp, 4 8 ii 17 i^ 3 
i6 7 - 14 IQ 6 - 15 2 1 22 ; He is also designated 6 Seo-TroVr/s, 6 10 ; o/cuptos 

Lwv, II 15 ), II 15 I4 1 3 i5 4 j Kvptos 6 0eos, 22 5 ; 6 /cvpios /cat 6 
T7/XWI/, 4 11 . But though omnipotent, His omnipotence is 
ethically and not metaphysically conceived. It is not uncon 
ditioned force. That He possesses such absolute power is an 
axiom of the Christian faith, but He will not use it, since such 
use of it would compel the recognition of His sovereignty, not 
win it, would enslave man, not make him free. Hence the 
recognition of this sovereignty advances part passu with the 
advance of Christ s Kingdom on earth, and each fresh advance is 
followed by thanksgivings in heaven ; for the perfect realization 
of God s Kingdom in the world is the one divine event to which 
the whole creation moves, 4" 5 13 7 12 n 15 . 

(d) He is the Creator, 4 11 i4 7 . Yet see 2 (c) on the cre 
ative activity of Christ. 

(e) He is the Judge of all the dead, 20 11 15 . 

2 Jesus Christ. The teaching of our author on this subject 
is very comprehensive. Only the main points of it can be dealt 
with under the following heads, which are not always logically 
distinct (a) The Historical Christ. () The Exalted Christ. 
(c) The Unique Son of God. (d) The Great High Priest. 
(*) The Pre-existent Christ. (/) The Divine Christ, 


(a) The Historical Christ. He is most frequently designated 
by His personal name "Jesus," i 9 i2 17 i4 12 etc., occasionally by 
the originally official name "Christ," u 15 i2 10 2o 4 - 6 , and by the 
combination of the two, i 1 - 2 - 5 22 21 . He is of Israelitish birth, 
being the Root of David, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, 5 5 , and 
born in the midst of the Jewish theocracy, I2 1 3 - 5 , i.e. the yvvij 
Trept/3el3X.-r)fjivr] TOV rjXiov. That there is no reference here to the 
Virgin Birth is clear from the fact that our author is here using 
a Jewish source, which naturally represented the Messiah as one 
born naturally in the midst of the community. Besides, "the 
woman " has other children (i2 17 TWI/ XOLTT&V TOV o-Tre p/xaros avTTjs). 
Thus the faithful are sons of this woman as Jesus is. On the 
other hand, they become sons of God, 2i 7 , which Jesus is originally 
and uniquely (i 6 2 27 3 5 - 21 I4 1 ). He has twelve apostles, 2i 14 ; 
His crucifixion in Jerusalem is referred to, n 8 ; His resurrection, 
i 5 - 18 , and ascension, 3 21 i2 5 . 

(b) The Exalted Christ. Nowhere in the N.T. is the glory of 
the exalted Christ so emphasized. He is said to be " Like a 
Son of Man," i 13 I4 14 an apocalyptic expression first applied to 
the Messiah in i Enoch 46 1 , denoting a supernatural Being in 
dignity above the angels. He is described as the Faithful 
Witness, the Sovereign of the dead, the Ruler of the living, i 5 ; 
as the resurrection and the life, and so the exclusive Mediator 
of salvation (e^cu ras /cXcis TOV OO.VO.TOV KOA. TOV aSov, I 18 ). He 
is the Supreme Head of the Church, the Centre of all its life 
(ev //.e o-o) TWI/ Av^i/taji/, i 13 2 1 ) and the Master of its destinies (<i\^v 
<h/ T-fj oeia x L P^ avrov do-repas eTrra, i 16 ), chastening its individual 
members and judging them from love and in love, 3 19 ; promis 
ing them that conquer in the coming tribulation every blessing 
of the Kingdom of God, 2 7 - 1L 17 - 26 - 28 3 5 - 12 - 21 ; embracing them 
in a perfect fellowship, 3 20 , and glorifying all who depart in this 
fellowship with the beatitude pronounced by God Himself, i4 13 . 
And even over those who are without the borders of the Church, 
He exercises a silent yet real sway, which more and more will 
come into manifestation and break in pieces the hostile peoples, 
2 27 i2 5 iQ 15 ; for He is "King of kings and Lord of lords," 
i; 14 iQ 16 . And to Him is committed the Messianic judgment, 

L 7 j^U. 18-20 I nll-21 2O 7-10 22 12 . 

(c) As Unique Son of God^ Pre-existent and Divine. Whereas 
the faithful become sons of God, 2i 7 , He is Son of God essentially, 
i 6 2 18 - 27 3 5 - 2 i 141. He is "the Word of God," i 9 13 , "the Holy, 
the True," 3 7 , even as God is, 6 10 ; "the First and the Last," i 17 
2 s 22 i3b . K tne Aip na an( j t h e Omega, the Beginning and the End," 
22 i3 titles that are used by God of Himself in 21 as denoting 
the source and goal of all things. In the light of these words we 
can rightly interpret 3 14 17 d/a^ Tijs KTIO-CWS rov Ocov. This does 


not mean the first KTIOTIS of God (as in Prov 8 22 ), but the active 
principle in creation the atrux or cause. The words, " I am He 
that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, 
i 17 18 , recall to some extent the divine name "which is, and which 
was, and which is to come," i 4 4 8 . He sits with God on His 
throne, 3 21 y 17 i2 5 , "the throne of God and the Lamb, 22 1 - 3 . 
The divine worship offered to Christ in 5 12 is described in the 
same terms as that offered to God in 4 10 , and the same hymn of 
praise is sung in honour of both Christ, 5 13 , and God, 7 10 , 1 and 
during the Millennial reign the saints minister to Him as 
to God, 2o 6 . Many designations which belong alone to God in 
the O.T. are freely used of Christ. He is described in i 14 - 15 in 
terms used of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7 9 . He searcheth the 
heart and the reins, 2 23 , as God in Jer ly 10 , Ps 7 10 . His are the 
seven eyes that are sent out into all the earth, 5 6 , as are those of 
Yahweh, Zech 4 10 : as Yahweh s garments in Is 63 L 2 , His are 
sprinkled with blood, i9 13 ; and as Yahweh in Deut io 17 , He also 
is Lord of lords, i; 14 . Our author thus appears to co-ordinate 
God and Christ. Yet the relation is one rather of subordination 
than of equality. He never goes so far as the author of the 
Fourth Gospel. He does not state that God and Christ are one, 
nor does he ever call Him God. And yet He is to all intents 
and purposes God the eternal Son of God, and the impression 
conveyed is that in all that He is, and in all that He does, He 
is one with the Father, and is a true revelation of God in the 
sphere of human history. Only in three definite respects is He 
represented as second to the Father. First, absolute existence 
is not attributed to Him as to the Father the idea conveyed 
by the words, 6 u>i KCU 6 ty KCU 6 epxo/xei/os, i 4 4 8 (n 17 i6 5 ). 
Yet see i 17 2 8 22 13 above. Next, the final Judgment belongs to 
the Father alone, 20 11 15 . Thirdly, though He is the active prin 
ciple in creation, 3 14 , it is the Father who is the Creator, 4 11 i4 7 . 2 

1 Our author is deeply conscious of the impassable gulf that separates the 
creature and the Creator, and the mediating angel sternly refuses such worship 
on the ground that it is due to God alone, 22 9 . 

2 It must not be overlooked that Christ s fitness to undertake the shaping of 
the world s destinies is attributed to His faithfulness unto death. He had 
earned it by His self-sacrifice : 

"Worthy art thou to take the book 
And to open the seals thereof; 
For thou wast slain, 

And hast redeemed unto God with thy blood 
Men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 
And hast made them unto our God a kingdom and priests, 
And they shall reign upon the earth," 5 9 " 10 . 

Again in 2 26 ~ 2S Christ promises to make those that conquer rulers over the 
heathen even as He too had received this power from His Father, and in 3 21 


(ct} As Great High Priest: Lamb of God. It is probable 
that Christ is represented as a priest in i 13 where He is "clothed 
with a garment down to the foot." But this idea is wholly over 
shadowed by another, expressed by the designation "the Lamb," 
where Christ is not the Priest but the Lamb slain. This desig 
nation occurs twenty-eight times in our author in reference to 
Christ. But in this phrase two ideas quite distinct are com 
bined, 1 the most prominent one a Christian development is 
that of the Lamb as a victim apviov . . . ws eo-^ay/xeVov, 5 6 - 12 
i2 n i3 8 and elsewhere. The second idea derived from 
i Enoch and Test. XII Patr. is that of a lamb who is a leader 
either a spiritual leader, as in 7 17 i4 L 4 , cf. i Enoch 8Q 45 where 
Samuel is so symbolized, or a military leader, 5 6 , i.e., a lamb 
" with seven horns and seven eyes," that is, a Being of transcen 
dent power and knowledge : the Messiah is so symbolized in 
i Enoch Qo 38 , Test. Jos iQ 8 . 2 This conception, which is borrowed 
in the main from Jewish Apocalyptic, comes to the front in ly 14 , 
where it is foretold that the ten Parthian kings will war with the 
Lamb and the Lamb will overcome them TO apviov viKTJcm 
avrov s (cf. Test. Jos. i9 8 , in footnote 2 below, for the same words 
applied to the Jewish Messiah). 

But these two ideas are merged together by our author, as we 
see in 5 6 . The Lamb is at once the triumphant Messiah, lead 
ing His people to victory, and the suffering Messiah who lays 
down His life for His people. This latter conception is non- 
Jewish. 8 But after the death of Christ this fact was soon 

to make them share in His throne even as His Father had made Him to 
share in His throne because of His having proved a conqueror. 

1 See Expositor, 1910, vol. x. 173-187, 266-281. Spitta, Streitfragen der 
Gcschichte Jesu : Das Johannes- Evangdium ah Quelle der Geschichte Jesu, 
1910. I have strengthened the evidence adduced by Spitta by further facts 
from I Enoch and the Testaments in the next note. 

2 This usage is well attested in i Enoch, where, 89 45 (i6i B.C.), Samuel as a 
leader is called a lamb, and likewise David and Solomon, Sg 45 - 48 , before they 
were anointed kings. All the faithful in the early Maccabean period are also 
called lambs, 90- 8 , but all these are without horns. In go 9 - 12 , however, there 
arise "horned lambs," and Judas Maccabaeus is such a lamb "with a great 
horn." Thus "the horned lamb" is a symbol for the leader of the Jewish 
Theocracy. But it is also used of the Messiah in i Enoch 9<D 38 and in the 
Test. Joseph I9 8 (109-107 B.C.), where the words, -jrpor)\eev d/uiv6s, /cat ... 
iravTa TO, drjpla 6pfj.wv KO.T ai/roO /cat eviirrjo ev avra 6 d/j.v6s, refer to one of the 
Maccabees, most probably to John Hyrcanus. Now, since the author of the 
Testaments regarded John Hyrcanus as the Messiah (see my edition of Test. 
XII Patr. pp. xcvii-viii, Reub 6 7 12 , Levi 8 14 18, Jud 24 1 3 , Jos I9 5 9 ), it 
follows that the term "lamb," or more particularly "horned lamb," was in 
apocalyptic writings a symbol for the Messiah. In our author the former 
appears in I7 14 , the latter in 5 6 . In I3 11 the second Beast assimilates itself to 
the horned lamb, i.e., to ,he Messiah : see vol. i. 358. 

3 See Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge im 
ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend^ 1888. 



explained, as already foretold under the influence of such a 
passage as Is 53 7 " As the lamb that is led to the slaughter, and 
as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb, yea, he openeth not 
his mouth." In Acts 8 32 83 this passage is interpreted of Christ. 

Under the designation " the Lamb," therefore, there lies the 
ideas of sacrifice and triumphant might. Out of love to man 
and with a view to redeem him, Jesus sacrifices Himself (i 5 
TW dyaTroWt fjfjLas /ecu Xvaravri ^/xas CK raV d/xapTtaV 
CTrooycrev ^as /JcuriAciW, tepee? TU> 0eu> : 5 9 eax^ayrys Kat 
ru> $ew eV TW at/zaTt crov CK Tracr^s ^>vX^s . . . K 
TO) 0ew ^/xaiv /?ao-tAetW Kai tepets). The conquest of sin is only 
to be achieved through self-sacrifice. Nothing but the self- 
sacrifice of holy love can overcome the principle of selfishness 
and sin that dominates the world. The Lamb who conquers 
is the Lamb who has given Himself up as a willing sacrifice. 
But the principle of love going forth in sacrifice is older than 
the world, i3 8 the Lamb was slain from its foundation. And he 
who would follow Christ must conquer in like fashion (3 21 6 VIKWI/ 
8w(7(o aura; Ka$tVat yaer e/xou eV rw $poVo> fjiov, o>s Kayo) evi /oycra 
Kat K(iOi<ra /xcra TOV Trarpos JJLOV cv TW 6povu> avrov). The aim of 
Christ s work is not the cancelling of guilt, but the destruction 
of sin in the sinner, his spiritual deliverance and redemption. 
Only by His life and death can He win man from sin : this is 
the cost incurred. Hence the figure of purchase is used 5 9 i4 3 , 
but there is no suggestion of a ransom paid to God or a lower 

Hence, since the Lamb as the Redeemer stands in the midst 
of the throne of God, 5 6 7 17 , and the throne of God is His throne, 
22 1 - 3 , everything that is affirmed of the Son is to be affirmed of 
the Father. The Son is a revelation of the Father on the stage 
of the world s history. Hence, as the Father is supreme in 
power, He is supreme in love going forth in sacrifice. Thus the 
principle of self-sacrificing love belongs to the essence of the 
Godhead. God s almightiness is not only a moral force, as we 
have already seen (see i (c) ad fin. \ but a redemptive one, 
which can only realize itself in moral and spiritual victory. 
Thus divine omnipotence and divine love and self-sacrifice are 
indissolubly linked together for the world s redemption from 
eternity and for evermore. 

3. The Spirit. There is no definitely conceived doctrine 
of the Spirit in our author. In i 4 the editor sought to introduce 
the doctrine of the Trinity by inserting Kat 0.71-0 ruv CTTTO. 
Tri/ev/xaTwr TWV ei/uJTTiov TOV Opovov avrov : see vol. i. 1113. -^ u ^ 
such a grotesque conception has no place in our author. In the 
words TO 7n/vju,a Ae yet the Spirit of Christ is meant in 2 7< n - 17> 29 
3 6 - 13 - 22 ; for in all the seven Epistles the Speaker is Christ. 


The same is true in i4 ls 22 17 . See vol. ii. 179 ; vol. i. Introd. 
xi. 6 (d). 

4. Doctrine of Works. The necessity of works is strongly 
enforced in our author, since men s works follow with them, and 
men are judged according to their works, 2o 12 22 12 , which are 
recorded in the books, 20 12 . 1 These doctrines imply man s free 
will and self-determination. On the other hand, the term 
"book of life," i3 8 i; 8 , seems to express divine predestination. 
But this is not necessarily so. It need express nothing more 
than God s omniscience from the beginning of the world. The 
words K\rjTOL, K\KTol Kcu TTioTTOL, i y 14 , set forth God s share and 
man s share in man s salvation : the call (K^CTIS) remains 
ineffective without faith (TUO-TIS) a word which in our author 
means faithfulness or fidelity in 2 19 i3 10 , and can also be so in 

2 13 I4 12 . 

But what does our author mean by " works " ? These are 
not observances of the Mosaic Law, since our author never 
mentions it and nowhere admits of any obligation arising from 
it. Nor does it mean isolated fulfilments even of the command 
ments of God or of Christ. They stand for the moral character 
as a whole, and are not in their essence outward at all though 
they lead of necessity to outward acts. But, so far as they 
issue in outward acts, they are regarded by our author simply as 
the manifestation of the inner life and character. That this is 
our author s teaching will be seen from the two following pas 
sages. In 2 2 the " works " of the Church of Ephesus are defined 
as consisting in "labour and endurance." The first of these is 
certainly manifest. In 2 19 we have a very instructive definition, 
oTSa crot) TO. epya K<XI TTJV ayaTnyv KCU rrjv TTICTTIV KCU Tryv StaKOvi av 
Kat Tijv VTTO/XOVTJV. The first /cat is used, of course, epexegetically. 
" Love, faith, service, and endurance " define the epya. See vol. i. 
371 sqq. In 3 2 watchfulness is enjoined, and 2 10 faithfulness 
unto death. The " works of Jesus," 2 26 , are those which originate 
in faithfulness to Jesus. 

The righteous acts of the martyrs not to be identified with their 
white garments. The righteous acts of the saints are thus, 
according to our author, the manifestation of the inner life and 
character the character a man takes with him when he leaves 
this life. From this it follows that the clause TO yap fivc-a-ivov 
TO. SiKaiwjuaTa TWV dyiW earn/, in ig 8 , misrepresents the teaching 
of our author and is an intrusion. For neither the righteous 
acts nor the character of the martyrs form the garment of their 
souls, seeing that the souls of the martyrs in heaven, 6 11 , are 
described as lacking: such garments for a time, though they 

1 In 2 23 the judgment is not eschatological, but that which takes place in 
this world. 


possess righteous acts and righteous character in a supereminent 
degree: see Introd. vol. i. 184-188. Hence the garments cannot 
be identified with the righteousness which they take with them, 
I4 13 , but with the spiritual bodies which are assigned by God to 
them, which in 6 11 (note) and 3 5 (note) are described as white 
garments. Faith has an heroic quality in our author. It 
leads to endurance, 2 19 , to faithfulness in persecution, 2 13 i3 10 , 
even when this ends in death, 2 10 i4 13 . In 2 13 i4 12 Trio-rig is 
followed by an objective genitive, in 2 19 13 by a subjective. 
In the latter case it means "fidelity" or "faithfulness." In 
fact it could be so rendered in all four passages. 

5. The first Resurrection, the Millennium, and the second 
Resurrection. Since these subjects are so fully dealt with in the 
Commentary, I shall content myself with summarizing the results 
arrived at there. 

The first Resurrection. Only the martyrs share in the first 
resurrection, 2o 4 6 . These reign with Christ for 1000 years in 
the Jerusalem that, coming down from heaven, 2 i 9 -22 2 - u - 15 - 17 , 
forms the seat of the Millennial Kingdom (see vol. ii. 184). To 
them is committed the re-evangelization of the world, 2i 24 22 14 - 1T , 
which is promised in n 15 i4 6 7 15*. Into the Holy City pour 
the nations of the earth, and are healed of their spiritual diseases, 
2 1 24 " 27 . Without this city are sorcerers and fornicators and 
murderers, 22 15 . At the close of this kingdom the unrepentant 
nations rebel afresh and are destroyed, and thereon follows the 
final judgment. See vol. ii. 182 sqq. 

The second Resurrection. The former heaven and earth 
vanish before the final judgment. Only the dead arise for 
judgment by God. These are the righteous who had not 
suffered martyrdom, and the wicked. The former come forth 
from the "treasuries" or "chambers," 2o 13a , the latter from 
Hades. From our author s teaching elsewhere we are to infer 
that the righteous are clothed in spiritual bodies but that the 
wicked are disembodied, vol. i. 98. Since this body appears to 
be the main organ by which the soul expresses itself or receives 
impressions in the world of thought and righteousness, the 
wicked have thus involuntarily but inevitably ostracized them 
selves from this world. Selfishness and sin have brought about 
their natural penalty, the isolation of every sinner, and finally his 
destruction in the lake of fire. See vol. i. 184-188, ii. 193-198. 
Judgment. The judgment of all the living on the earth is 
committed to Christ, from the Seven Seals onwards to the 
destruction of Gog and Magog. The Messianic judgment deals 
with the living: God s judgment with all the dead, save the 
martyrs who, having attained to the first resurrection, are not 
subject to the second death, 2o 6 , and such others as during the 


Millennial Reign enter the city and eat of the tree of life, 22 U . 
All the remaining righteous coming forth from the " treasuries " * 
and the wicked from Hades 2 receive their final award. 



i. Noun, adjective, and verb forms, p. cxvii. 2. The article, 
p. orix. 3. Pronouns, p. cxxi. 4. The verb, p. rxxiii. 5. 
Prepositions, p. cxxvii 6. Conjunctions and other particles, 
p. cxxxiv. 7. Case, p. cxxxviii 8. Number, p. cxli. 9. 
Gender, p. cxlii. 10. The Hebraic Style of the Apocalypse, 
p. cxlii. 

i. Greek needs to be translated into Hebrew in order to 
discover its meaning, p. cxliv. (a) Resolution of par 
ticiple into finite verb, p. cxliv. (b) Resolution of 
infinitive into finite verb, p. cxlvi. (c) Hebrew construc 
tions impossible and unintelligible in Greek, p. cxlvi. 
(d. e. f) Further Hebraisms, (g) Secondary meanings 
of Hebrew words attributed to Greek words where 
these words agree in their primary meaning, p. cxlvii. 
(h. i) Other Hebrew idioms literally reproduced, 
p. cxlviii. 

ii. Other commonplace Hebraisms, p. cxlviii. iii. Hebrew 
constructions with occasional parallels in vernacular 
Greek, p, cxlix. iv. Certain passages needing to be 
retranslated in order to discover the corruption or 
mistranslation hi the Hebrew sources used by our 
author, p. cL 

ii. Unique expressions, p. clii. 12. Solecisms due to slips 
on the part of our author, p. clii. 13. Primitive corruptions 
due to accidental or deliberate changes, p. cliv. 14. Con 
structions in the interpolations conflicting with our author s use, 
p. civ. 15. Order of words, p. clvi. 16. Combination of 
words, p. clix. 

1 See the necessary emendation of the text, vol. i. 194-198. 
* Hades means only the abode of unrighteous souls in our author : see 
voL i. 32, voL ii. 197 ad fin. On the " Ahf" see YoL L 239-242. 


i. Noun, Adjective, and Verb forms. 

(i.) Nouns. Words ending in -pa form their gen. and dat. in 
pyS) P2?> as f-a^aipT;?, i3 14 . 1 fjia.xp.ipri, i3 10 (* w ). On the various 
theories as to the origin of this late change, see Thackeray, Gr. 
141, where also he states that in the LXX out of 79 examples 
of pdxaipa in the gen. and dat. the 17 forms are certainly original 
in only 2. -pys forms become practically universal under the 
Early Roman Empire. 

(ii.) Adjectives. XP V(7 ^ AtfC (for x/oucrrp), I i3 j j s formed on 
the analogy of apyvpav. The contracted form xpvo-ovs occurs 
always (15 times) in our author, elsewhere in the N.T. 3 times. 
The best uncials are only at variance in 2 1 . On the other hand, 
/?a0ea (pdOy, N 025), 2 24 , is original. 

(hi.) Verbs. (a) Irregular or unusual forms. Present. oYi/r/, 
2 2 (only once so in LXX) for SiWcrat, presupposes Svi/o/^cu (see 
Thackeray, Gr. 218). It is found in the poets and in prose 
writers from Polybius onward, d^ets, 2 20 , and d<i ovo-6i/, n 9 , 
presuppose d<tco (which is found in Eccles 2 18 ) and not atftfyfu. 
Schmiedel suggests a present d<e a> (Thackeray, 251). 6\Sto, 3, 
and dTroSiSow, 22 2 , presuppose StSow, but SiSoWiv, i7 13 , 8iSo>/u. 
In like manner dTroXA^wv, 9 11 (so also Jer. 23 1 BA, Sir 2o 22 ), 
presupposes dTroAAvo) as 8en<vvovTo<s does Sei/cvvw (cf. Ex 25 8 ; 
Thackeray, 245). All these instances but the first show the 
transition from forms in -/xt to -co forms. 

(b) Imperfect and Aorists with a instead of *. forms, or ending 
in -a or-av. et^ai/, 9 8 - 9 (tfA). aTn/A^a, 2 io 9 (A : -6ov, tfC 025. 046). 
a.7rf)\0av, 2 1 1 (A : -6ov, 046. -0ev, 025): aTr^A^av, 2 1 4 (A : -0ev, K 046). 
d^Kas, 2 4 (AK C - C - 025. 046 : -Kes, N*C). tlSa, i; 6 (AN (tSa): 
025) : ()T8a, 17 s (A : etSov, N 025). Treorarc, 6 16 (A 025) : 
i8 4 (Ax). See Thackeray, Gr. 211-212. 

(f) Perfects with termination -es (2nd sing.) for -as, 
(a) 2 3 (AC) ; TreTTTw/ce?, 2 5 (. -/ca?, AC 046). It is rare in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr. 215) and in the papyri. See Robertson, Gr. 
337. I have generally with A adopted the -a? form, (ft) 
Perfects ending in -av f Tre TrrtoKai/ f, i8 3 (AC. 7re7rra>Kacriv, K 046: 
TreTTW/cav 025 : TreTrwKacrii/, IIO, 175^- Rd. -TTCTrdrtKev) : ciprjKav, ig s 
(AS 025) : [yeyovai/ 2i 6 AN C : ycyova, X 025. 046]. This termina 
tion is found in Asia Minor as early as 246 B.C. and in Egypt in 
162 B.C. It is found in Cretan inscriptions, and Robertson traces 
its origin to Crete (Gr. 336). 

In 8 2 we have e<mJKao-u/. But it occurs in an interpolation. 

1 It is noteworthy that in I3 10 N 025. 046 twice change paxalpri into 

against AC, and that 025. 046 make a corresponding change in I3 14 , 
against MAC. 

2 Cf. KaTtewa Ps. I42 9 (RTtf c - a ). See Thackeray, Gr. 2\l. 


Hence our author did not apparently use the perfect ending in 

(d) Various Aorist forms. avdfia, 4 1 , dvd/?a.T, n 12 : eppeOr), 
6 11 9 4 : o-r?7pio-ov, 3 2 (AC 025) : Tretv, i6 6 . According to Thackeray 
(Gr. 64), Treiv (or TTIV) occurs 21 times, while TTICIV occurs 97 times 
in the LXX (AB). 

(^) Pluperfect form. 7 11 icrr^Keto-ai/ instead of etor^Kco-av. 
This -eto-av is found regularly in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr. 216). 
As regards the beginning of the word, its usual form in the 
LXX is lo-rrj/ceiv (Thackeray, Gr. 201). 

(/) Augment. 3 2 l/xcAAov (AtfC 025) : io 4 rj/xeAAov (AC 046). 
Our author uses eSwaro, 7 9 (AtfC 046), i4 8 (AC), i5 8 (AC : ^Sw. 
X 025. 046). Hence it should be read in 5 3 with 8 against A 
025. 046. In dvoiyw/zi our author augments the preposition in 
fjvoi&v, 6 3 , tyj/otyr;, u 19 i5 5 , ^voi x^o-av, 2o 12 (**), and trebly 
augments the participle in ^vewy/xe i/os, which should perhaps be 
read in 3 8 with K 025 against dvewy/^eVo? (AC 046), seeing that only 
046 supports dvewyjueVos in 4 1 io 2 - 8 iQ 11 against the other chief 

2. The Article. 

(i.) The article introduces conceptions assumed to be familiar 
in apocalyptic, though mentioned in the text for the first time : 
io 1 17 Ipis, io 3 at cTrra PPOVTO.L: cf. also n 3 i2 14 i6 12 . With 
great aptness the art. is used in rov TroAe/xov, i6 14 , eis TOV 7roAe//,ov, 
2o 8 , TOV TroXe/xov, iQ 19 , because the war here is the great Mes 
sianic war at the world s close. On the other hand, compare 
the phrase ets TroXc/Aov, 9 7 - 9 . 

(ii.) The generic art. (Blass, Gr. 147) is regularly found with 
^Xtos (except in 7 2 l6 12 22 5 ), yi}, OdXaa-cra, ovpavo?. 

(iii.) In the case of ordinal numbers, when the ordinal 
precedes the noun it is preceded by the art. ; when the ordinal 
follows the noun, the art. is repeated: cf 4 7 6 3 i3 12 20 2i 8 . 

(iv.) The art. can appear with the predicate when the 
subject and predicate are convertible or identical. 1 Cf. i 17 - 20 

2 23 3 17 I7 18 l8 23 [^8] 2I 6.8 22 13.W After O TOS the pred . has 

the art. on this principle; cf. 7 14 u 4 - 10 14* 19 20 5 - Q4] . 

(v.) (a) When an adjective or participle follows its noun, the 
art. is repeated if the noun has the art. When the adjective 
stands between the art. and the noun, the emphasis lies on the 
adjective ; when it follows with the repeated art, both noun and 
adjective are emphasized, 2o 9 rrjv 7roA.iv r^v ^yaTny/xeV^, 2i 2 - 10 
rrjv 7roA.iv TT/V dyi av the City par excellence and the Holy City in 
contrast to the earthly Jerusalem spiritually called Sodom and 

1 In i 20 the second ^irrd is an interpolation and the al tirrd belongs to the 
predicate. See vol. ii. 389, footnote, 


Egypt, II 8 : cf. 8 6 01 ... ayycAoi 01 e^ovT5, ly 18 rj TroAis 17 

(b) The same rule holds good in the case of prepositional 
phrases coming after an articular noun : 1 i 4 rat? k-rrra eKK/byo-iatg 
rat? tv rrj Acria : 2 24 : 5 5 6 A.eW 6 IK r. <f>v\yjs : II 16 II 19 I4 17 
i6 3 - 12 i9 14 - 21 2o 8 - 13 . Hence in the titles of the Letters to the 
Churches we should always read r<3 dyye Au) r<3 iv . . . e/c/cAryo-ias 
and not TO> dyyeAw TT}S eV . . . cKKXr/cri a?. A is right here three 
times and C once. See also Order of Words, p. clvi sq. 

Again in i5 5 the text 6 vaos T. o-joyv^s T. ^aprvpiov ei> TO) 
ovpavul, which is impossible in other respects, wrongly omits the 
art. before eV T<5 oupai/w. It rightly appears in n 19 6 raos T. 0eov 
6 ei> r. ovpai/u). In our author prepositional phrases and genitives 
never intervene between the art. and its noun, but follow the noun, 
the former always preceded by the repeated art. 1 

(vi.) Phrases which occur for the first time without the art. 
have the art. prefixed on their recurrence. 4 6 " 8 recrarepa <3a . . . 
TO. recro-epa (i)a : 5 6 " 8 apviov . . . TOV apviov : I3 16 17 ^apay/xa . . . 
TO xapay/xa : i^ 2ab OdXcucrarav vaXivrjv . . . T. Oa\. r. va\. etc. 

(a) Hence in n 16 the art. must with X C C 025. 046 (against 
N*A which om.) be read before ctKoo-t reWape?. Hence, 
further, it follows that 22 17 vSwp ^w^? Soopeav must be trans 
posed before 2i 6 TOV VOO.TOS T^? ^w^s Swpeav. The need for 
the rearrangement of 2o 4 -22 has been shown at length in vol. 
ii. 144-154. 

(b) In i7 3 , however, we find ywat/<u KaO^^v^v CTTI O^piov 
although the 0-qpiov has been frequently mentioned previously. 
Similarly in I4 1 the art. is omitted before exarov Teo-trepa/corra recr- 
o-ape? ^iXiaSes although they have already been described in 7 4 8 . 
This omission is due in the former case to our author s use of a 
source, and in the latter to his incorporation of an independent 
vision of his own. If he had had an opportunity of revision, 
we must assume from his careful use of the art. elsewhere that 
he would have inserted the art. in both cases. 

(vii.) Omission of Article. (a) The art. is omitted possibly 
owing to Semitic influences in i 20 ayyeAoi T. e. eK/oVryanon/, 2 9 
o-waya>yr) T. 2arai/a, 6 7 , 6 16 cbro 7rpoo"oWov r. Ka^/xevov, 2 y 2 - * I5 2 

1 TV j3\a<T(j>ri/uiia.v K r&v \ey6vTtav in 2 9 is difficult, tf s 1 - 2 read TTJV K, 
while 025 and several cursives om. ^/c. Either of these readings removes the 
difficulty. But IK T. \ey6vTuv is here to be taken partitively. Hence : " the 
blasphemy of certain of those who say," etc. Thus the art. could not be 
repeated before K r&v XeydvTwv. This is better than the explanation given 
in my notes in vol. i. 56. See, however, under 5. vi. (a) on IK. 

2 In 2O 11 o3 dirb TOV irpoo-ibwov should, according to our author s usage, be 
ov ci7r6 TrpocrwTrou avTov or 08 airb irpoa&irov. This anomaly seems due, like 
others in 2O 4 -22, to the disciple of the Seer who edited these chapters after the 
Seer s death. 


/a0apas rov Oeov, 2 1 12 vtwv Icrpa/^A, 2 1 14 SooSeAca 6vojU,ara T. 8. 
a7rooTdAa>v, 22 2 eis OcpaTrfLav T. eOvwv. 

(b) The art. is frequently omitted in prepositional phrases. 

I2 11 I3 3 : ey Oavdrip, 2 23 : ev Trvpi /cat 0etu>, I4 10 : 

-qv, 2 10 : cf. also 2 22 i3 10 . 

(<:) The art. is omitted before proper names. I-qo-ovs and 
are always anarthrous. We have 6 Xpio-ro s when used 
alone, n 15 i2 10 2o 4 - 6 , but anarthrous in I^o-ovs X., i 1 - 2 - 5 . In TU> 
BaAa/c, 2 14 , the art. is inserted because the name is indeclinable. 
In i6 12 the art. before E^pa-nyi/ may point to the earlier mention 
of this river in g 14 . The text in 2 6 - 15 presents a difficulty. 
Ni/coAatYun/ is first with the art. and then without it. The noun 
in 2 6 may be treated as a description of a certain class, and then 
treated as a proper name in 2 15 . In the predicate the art. is 
found before proper names: cf. 6 8 [8 11 ] i2 9 ig 13 2o 2 . #eds 
always has the art. except in 7 2 and in 2i 7 where it is in the 
pred. Kvptos, when alone, has the art., cf. n*-8.i5 j DU t we find 
ev Kvptw, i4 13 , and Kupios /cvpiW, ly 14 ip 16 . When combined with 
other names, 6 Kvptos 6 $eds, 2i 22 22 6 , 6 K^pios IT/O-OVS, 22 21 , but also 
6 ^eos [i 8 ] 4 8 19 22 5 . In the vocative we find Kvpie, i5 4 , 
6 #eos, ii 17 i5 3 i6 7 , or the Semit. voc. 6 Kv ptos 6 $eo s, 4 11 . 

(viii.) The art. with the infinitive occurs only in i2 7 (rot) 
TroAc/xryo-at), where, however, the construction is a pure Hebraism 
and is equivalent to a finite verb in Greek. See vol. i. 322. In J, 
on the other hand, we have the ordinary Greek construction of 
?rpo rov before the infinitive in i 48 i3 19 i7 5 , and of Sta TO before 
it in 2 24 . 

(ix.) When a noun or participle preceded by the article 
follows a noun (in the gen. dat. or ace.), and should therefore be 
in the gen. dat. or ace., it may in our author, according to 
Hebrew usage, stand in the nom. : cf. i 5 O.TTO I^o-ov Xptcrrov, 6 
/xaprvs 6 Trto-Tos, 2 20 ryv ywat/ca Iea/:?eA, rj Aeyoucra. On this 
Hebraism see below, p. cxlix sq. 

3. Pronouns. 

(i.) Possessive. On vernacular and ordinary possessives see 
notes on 2 2 - 19 and footnote in vol. ii. 208, where it is shown 
that though o-ov may precede or follow its noun, the genitives of 
avTos can only follow. The genitive is found before its noun in 
the best authorities (A vg s 1 - 2 ), in 2i 3 avroiv 0eds; but the text is 
manifestly corrupt, and the wrong order may be due to the 
editor of 2o 4 -22. It is also found in i8 5 , but this is a source. 
See Abbott, Gr. 414 sqq., 60 T sqq. e>ds only once in 2 20 . l 

1 J has it 39 times. In J we find also (ij^repos only in I J I 3 2 2 ) <r(5s, 
tdios (15 times), not one of which occurs in our author. Seeing that 


(ii.) Personal. (a) avros is used as an emphatic personal 
pronoun, 1 cf. 3 20 i4 10 i9 15 ( Wj ) 2i 7 . It is used intensively ( = 
"self") in [i4 17 ] iy n (source) iQ 12 . The phrase Kat auros, "he 
also," " himself also " (in J y 10 ), seems not to belong to our author 
except in the phrase d>s /cat aurot, 6 n , ws Kat avrij, i8 6 (a source) : 
cf. ws K<ly<6, 2 27 3 21 . It occurs, however, in a Greek source, ly 11 , 
and in an interpolation, i4 17 . In i4 10 the Kat before avros is a 
Hebraism and not to be translated. Kat avros in 3 20 iQ 15 ^) 2i 7 
= " and he." avros has lost this meaning in modern Greek and 
becomes a demonstrative. 

(b) tavrov is found twice between the art. and its noun in 
io 8 - 7 . Here the intervening eavrov is very emphatic. See 
Abbott, Gr. 415. 

(hi.) Demonstrative. (a) oSc occurs seven times and refers to 
what follows, but not once in J. (b) oSros refers to what precedes, 
7 14 ii 4 - 6 [i4 4 ] etc. B.ut not always in J, i J. Cf. J 6 29 is 12 : 
i J i 5 5 14 where it refers to an explanatory clause introduced by 
?va, lav, or on. (f) e/ceu/os is used only as an adjectival pronoun 
in our author in temporal phrases, 9 6 n 13 , but in J constantly 
as a substantival pronoun. See Abbott, Gr. 283 sqq. 

(iv.) Indefinite. ets = "a": cf. 8 13 tvbs dcrov, Q 13 <wv^v /itav, 
i9 17 ei/a ayyeAov. Not in J. Both authors, however, use els IK; 
while J uses cts TIS *, n 49 , once in this sense, or simply TIS with 
a noun, 4 46 5 5 , or with a proper name, 1 1 1 i2 20 . ri is found only 
in ci TIS, edV TIS in our author, save in 7 1 (?). 

(v.) Relative. (a) oorts is mostly used of a class of persons 
or things, i 7 2 24 9 4 etc. ; but it is also used of an individual, u 8 
i2 18 i9 2 : cf. i 12 . Similarly in J. I have followed the advice 
given in Abbott s Gr. (218, footnote) and rendered ocrrts generally 
by " that," which " introduces a statement essential to the com 
plete meaning of the antecedent," and os by " who " or " which " 
words which carry no such meaning. 

(3) This relative is never attracted to the case of its ante 
cedent 2 in our author, though this attraction is frequent in J and 
in i J 3 24 . 

^/x<5s and kindred possessive adjectives had all but ousted /u.ou in Asia Minor, 
Moulton (Gr. 40 sq.) infers that our author must have been a recent immi 
grant there. If this is right, J must have been settled there for some time. 
The possessive ^/*6s and <r6s are disappearing in the papyri, and in modern 
Greek no possessive adjective exists. See Robertson, Gr. 684. 

1 J also uses avros in this sense, but it is unemphatic. When he wishes 
to express emphasis he frequently uses tKelvos, which our author does not use 
in this sense. He only uses it twice as a demonstrative in two phrases ex 
pressing time. See Abbott, Gr. 283 sqq. J uses ai/r6s together with the 
personal pronoun or proper name, 2 24 3 28 4 2 - **, but not so our author. 

- It is once found in a source, i.e. i8 6 , 

THE VERB cxxiii 

4. The Verb. 

(i.) Present and future tenses. (a) The text wavers frequently 
between the present and the future. But these changes are not 
arbitrary. 1 The context must be carefully studied in each case. 
Thus in certain contexts the future is rightly used, since the con 
text is obviously prophetic : cf. 7 16 sqq ov 7reii/acrou<nv en ov$ 
Suj/rfo-ovarw en, KT\. These words occur at the close of a vision 
where all the verbs dealing with the actual vision are rightly 
given in the present or past. Similarly in i4 10 i7 14s< i- we have 
pure prophecies. In other cases where we have the pres. 
instead of the future or the past, this may be due to a Hebraism ; 
for the Hebrew imperfect may, according to the context, be 
rendered either as a past, present, or future : cf. 9 8 s< w- 17 " 20 I3 11 ^ 
The translator is often at fault in the LXX, and a writer whose 
thoughts naturally shaped themselves in Hebrew could hardly 
escape rendering the Hebrew imperf. in his thoughts by a Greek 
present : cf. 5 10 paaiXtvova-iv. At times, however, when the 
present takes the place of the past, the change may have been 
made deliberately with a view to dramatic vividness. 

(b) epxo/>H does not come under these considerations. The 
Seer uses the pres. of this verb as a pres. or a future. In fact he 
never uses the future except in compounds, i.e. 3 20 eio-eAcuo-o /x-ai, 
2o 8 c^eAcvoreTcu. He is, therefore, perfectly acquainted with the 
form of the future of the simple verb, but he avoids it. J uses 
it once, i4 23 , and both the above-mentioned compounds in io 9 . 
In i4 8 he connects it with a future 7raA.iv 2p;(o//,ai *<" TrapaA^^o/xat. 

(c) Again the future is used alike in dependent and inde- 

1 Chap. 1 1 seems to be very confused. In the introduction to that 
chapter (vol. i. 269-273) we have seen that it is a source used by our author 
for a special purpose. No unity of time appears to be observed in it. The 
r61e of the prophet is sometimes uppermost, sometimes that of the seer. This 
disorder, which is most probably due to the fact that our author is using 
traditional materials, will be obvious from the following resume. In the 
vision of Jerusalem and the Temple the seer receives a prophecy, n 1 " 8 , that 
Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot (Trar^ffova-iv) for 3! years, and that the 
two witnesses shall prophesy during this period. The scene then shifts appar 
ently to the actual period of the witnesses, II 4 6 ; but the presents tKTropeuerai, 
Kareffdiei, etc. , can be taken as futures. In 1 1 7 " 8 the text uses future verbs 
and foretells the death of the witnesses. In 1 1 9 " 10 it reverts again to the 
present, describing the events that follow on their death save in 7r^fj.\f>ov(riv, 
II 10 (but the presents here also are practically futures). Finally, in n 11 - 13 the 
text changes into the past, and represents the reception of the witnesses into 
heaven as a past event. But herein the pasts can represent vividly the 
prophetic future. [See Driver, Tenses, 14 (7), 81 ; Is 9 1 8 .] Hence n 3 13 
is a prophecy rather than a vision. The past verbs in 2O 9 10a are to be similarly 
explained. Futures occu>- before and after them. But in 2O 9 10 it is only the 
author s familiarity with Hebraic usage that leads to this usage of the perfect, 
whereas ii 1 18 is translated from a source. 


pendent clauses where it has a frequentative sense, and is in such 
case best rendered by the present, as in 4 9 " 10 orav Swo-ovo-iv . . . 
Soav . . . Treo-oiWai. But in this passage the futures on the 
basis of Hebraic idiom could be rendered by a past, and thus 
the text would state what the Seer actually saw in this vision and 
not recount a general practice. 

(ii.) Imperfect (Past). (a) The past imperf. is found only in 
the case of nine verbs : aKoXovOtiv (2 times), SiSacr/ceiv ( i ), Bvvaa-Oai 
(4 never in aor.), eti/eu (17), e^etv (5 etx av > 9 8 9 )> fXaUw (i), 
XaXeii/ (2), Xe yetv (i), cmj/ceu/ (i in a source, i.e. I2 4 ). It is 
therefore of infrequent occurrence. But it is used with special 
force in relative clauses, i 12 2 14 6 9 : also in descriptive sentences, 
5 4 Kat 2/cXcuoi/, 5 14 [6 8 ] i9 14 2 1 15 . In y 11 wmj/ceio-ai/ (pluperf.) is 
used as a past imperf. = " were standing." 

(b) But the place of the past imperf. (or historic present) is 
frequently taken by the (imperfect or perfect) participle : ex* " 
(for etxty, or possibly in one or more cases for ex et )> j16 4 7 8 6 2 5 

IO I2 2 1 : eKTropevo/xej/Ty, I 16 : /ca^r^uevos, 4 2 : 

g 13 . This use of the participle for a finite verb is 
frequent in late Hebrew (very frequent in Aramaic, customary 
in Syriac), and its displacement of the past imperf. in our author 
is no doubt due largely to Hebraic influences. 

(iii.) Past Aorist and Present Perfect. These at first sight 
seem to be used in certain instances interchangeably : cf. 5 7 y 14 
8 5 i9 3 etc. But the following study of these Greek tenses and 
their English equivalents shows that this is not so. 

(iv.) Greek Aorist and its rendering into English. Since the 
Greek and English aorists do not altogether correspond, it is of 
great importance to determine the points wherein they differ. 
Wey mouth (On the Rendering of the Greek aorist and perfect into 
English, 1890) has gone elaborately into the subject. See also 
Moulton, Gr. 135 sqq., whose conclusions I have for the most 
part accepted. On the use of the aor. as a perfect in J, see 
Abbott, Gr. 323 sqq. 

The past aorist * in English does not always correspond to 
the Greek aorist. The Greek aorist has three uses, (a) When 
this aorist is used as the historical tense in pure narrative, the 
English past aor. is the right rendering. (6) The Greek aor. 

The ordinary nomenclature of English tenses is very misleading. 

past perf. (= pluperf.) . had smitten. The Greek has corresponding 
tenses for the most part. Pres. aor. Xito (cf. rapayyfbXu, Acts i6 18 : d<J)io/j.ev, 
Luke 1 1 4 ), pres. impf. Xuu, pres. perf. XlXuira : past aor. Xwa, past impf. 
f\vov, past perf. 


can be timeless or refer to an indefinite time-, cf. 2 4 d^/oxs, J 15 
ZftXrjOrj. Here the Greek must be rendered by the pres. perf. 
in English ; for this perfect, besides connoting the continuance 
of a completed action its usual meaning, can refer, outside 
the pure narrative, to an indefinite past, and be practically time 
less. (c) The Greek aor. can refer to an event that has just 
happened, and must also in this sense be rendered by the English 
pres. perfect, i 19 a etSes "what thou hast seen." 

I will here append a list of the passages where the aor. should 
be rendered by the English pres. perfect. 1 Opinions will, of 
course, differ as to whether certain aorists come under (b) or (c). 
The following passages fall naturally under (b\ where the aor. is 
practically timeless, i 6 KOL tiro^a-tv, " and hath made us " : 2 4 : 2 24 
eyvooo-av = " have recognized " = " know " : 3 4 OVK e/xoXwai/, " have 
not denied " : 3 8 er^p^o-as . . . KCU ov/c fjpvrjo-ay, " hast kept . . . 
and hast not denied " : 3 10 eVi^o-as : 5- 10 ^yopao-as . . . eTrot- 
770-019 : y 14 ZirXwav , . . eAev/cavav : 1 1 18 wpyiV^o-av : I4 4 rjyopdo-- 
Oyo-av: I4 8 l8 2 tTrecrei/ 7recrev . . . c yeVero, "has fallen, has 
fallen . . . has become." But these last three words could be 
explained under (c), though the fact that Rome has become the 
abode of unclean birds shows that the burning of it is far back 
in the past. Similarly iy 2 eiropveva-av . . . e/xe$ixr$^(rai/, iy 12 
OVTTW \a/3ov, ly 17 eScoKei/ : eKoAAr^^crav and e/xr ^yaovevfre in l8 5 , 
l8 6 aTre Sw/cev . . . tKtpacrev, l8 7 loogaaev . . . ecrrpTyvtao-ci/, l8 14 
a.7rfj\0v . . . aTToAero. Under (c) when the aor. refers to events 
that have just happened and must be rendered by the English 
pres. perf., come the following passages : i 19 a etSes, "which thou 
hast (just) seen": 2 21 e8wKa . . . /cat OVK ^eXT/crej/ 2 = " I have 
given . . . but she has refused ": i^e So fl?;: n 15 - 17 eyeVero . . . 
e/foo-t Aeucras : n 18 fjXOev, which recurs in the same sense in i4 7 - 15 
l8 10 i9 7 : !2 10 yeWo . . . e^X^: I2 12 /care ^: [l4 15 l^pdvOrj]: 
I4 18 ^K/xacrav : l6 5 e/cpiva? : i8 16< 19 JJLLO. <Spa r/p^jaco^?; : iS 20 e/cptvev : 
ig 2 e/cpivev . . . e^eSi/oyo-ei/ : IQ 7 - 8 lyroijaacrcj/ . . . eSo^r; : 22 16 

(v.) Greek Perfects and their rendering into English, Blass 
(Gr. 200) and Moulton (Gr. 143, 145) admit the occurrence of 
pres. perfects as aorists in our author. There are only two verbs, 
etXry^a and elpr/Ka, which are so used. The former appears to 
be so used in 5 7 S 5 , though the R.V. takes it as = a present, and 
Robertson (Gr. 899) defends it in both cases as a "dramatic 
colloquial historical perfect." But the context is certainly in 

1 The R.V. h as freely acknowledged this meaning of the aor. in the N.T. 
(in Matthew 65 times), but not so frequently in our author as it should be. 
Nor is it always clear on what principle the Revisers recognize, or refuse to 
recognize, this use. 

3 The failure to recognize this use of the aorist here led to the change of 
rj6t\i]<Tev into 0Aei. 


favour of the aorist sense, 1 and the same perfect (Thackeray, Gr. 
24) occurs in this sense in Dan Ixx. 4 30b . As regards ei/j^Ko, in 
7 14 i9 3 , no doubt as to the aoristic sense can be entertained. 

(vi.) Aorists used by our author and his sources. (a) Of 
itrrTi/xi 2 our author uses la-TaOrjv, 8 3 i2 18 , whereas eWr/v is used in 
his sources, n 11 i8 17 . (b) Again our author uses e#au/xacr#r;i/, i$ 3 
= " I wondered " (as a middle : always passive in </ except in 
one doubtful instance Thackeray, Gr. 240 n.), whereas tOavfjLao-a 
is used with the same meaning in source ly 6 - 7 as in J and 
generally in Greek, (c) Our author uses yvoiyrjv in connection 
with the temple, n 19 i5 5 , and rfvoixOyv in connection with the 
books, 2o 12 ( Wj > (as in Dan 7 10 o ). Since Matthew and Luke 
in Acts use both forms in connection with the same subjects, no 
safe inference is possible here. 

(vii.) Imperative. The aor. imper. occurs about 40 times in 
our author : the present 20 times, nine of these in chaps. 1-3. 
The aor. imper. is sharper and more urgent than the present, 
and while the latter "is used in general precepts (even to individ 
uals) on conduct and action," the former is used "in injunctions 
about action in individual cases" (Blass, Gr. 194). Hence we 
may distinguish 3 11 K/xxrei o e;(is and 2 25 o e^ere K/xxrr/crare in 
connection with their contexts. 

With negatives, /XT; with the pres. forbids an action already 
begun : i 17 2 10 /XT) <o/?o), 5 5 /XT) /cAate, while ^YJ with the aor. 
subj. or imper. forbids an action not yet begun : 3 6 6 rov olvov /XT) 
0*81/070779, y 3 /XT) aBiKTJarrjTe TT)V yvjv, io 4 ox^paytow . . . /cat /XT) avra 
y/oai/fTTs, ii 2 22 10 . Thus our author s usage agrees at once with 
the classical and later usage (cf. Moulton, Gr, 124 sqq. : W. 
Headlam, Class. Review, xvii. 295). But in J this usage is not 
observed. Thus in 3 7 we find /XT) flau/xao-T/s occurs when we 
should expect /XT) #au/xae, as is clear from 3 4 , and in io 37 he uses 
/xr) -mo-revere where the context would lead us to expect /XT) TRO-- 
revo-Tjre. In all other cases //.TJ with the imper. is rightly used in 
J. See Moulton, Gr. 125 sq. 

(viii.) Infinitive. (a) Our author generally uses the aor. inf. 
save in the case of certain verbs. Thus /^AeWv is never found 

1 This use of efXi?0a as an aorist is certainly strange, seeing that our 
author uses e\a[3ov in 5 8 io 10 i; 12 (source) 2O 4 ; aor. subj. 3" i8 4 (source) ; 
aor. imper. io 8 - 9 22 17 ; aor. inf. 4 11 5 9 - 12 6 4 . 

2 The pres. perf. of this verb, tffrijKa ("I have taken my stand "), is used 
as a pres. imperf. (hence="I am standing") in 3 20 , and in like manner 
the past perf. ei<TT^KLv is used by our author as a past imperf. in 7 11 ; but in 
I2 4 (a source) we find ecrT-rjKev from CTTTJ/COJ in the same sense. Some editors, 
however, read &rr7?Ke here (cf. <ri)/>ei in the preceding clause). 

8 This is the general rule; but it needs qualification: cf. Moulton, 125. 
Some scholars maintain that the above distinction is a growth, which 
"beginning in classical times was nearly crystallized in N.T. Greek." Cf. 
Moulton, 247. 


in the aor., even in the indicative. In 22 8 we should read l/ 
with A. In the rest of the N.T. it occurs once in the^aor. 
imper., Acts 3 4 . crrpe^etv occurs in ll 6 (source). Kara/fotWiv, 
i3 13 . After ^e AAeu/ the pres. follows inf. regularly (10 times) 
except in 3 2 - 16 i2 4 . In J the pres. inf. follows without exception. 
The usual construction in classical Greek is /xeXXeiv with the 
fut. inf. 

(b) On the infinitive = a finite verb in a conditional clause 
and also in the principal sentence, see i3 10 n., and below, p. cxlvi. 

(c) On the infin. with the art. = a finite verb, see i2 7 n. and 
also below, p. cxlvi. These three cases are pure Hebraisms. 

(d) The infinitive follows aios, 5 2 - 4 - 9 - 12 , where J i 27 puts Iva. 
cum subj. 

(ix.) Participle. To the use of the participle for a finite verb 
attention has already been drawn : see above, 4, ii. (b\ Present 
and perfect participles occur frequently, but never the future 
part. The last is found once in J 6 64 . 6 e>xV l/0 is, however, 
practically a future participle. It is remarkable that the genitive 
absolute is wholly absent from our text, though it is of frequent 
occurence in J. 

The indeclinable use of Ae ywv or Acyoi/res == "ibfcO as in 4 1 
5 11-12 IT i. 15 I4 6 come s properly under the head of Hebraisms. 

(x.) The omission of the copula in principal or relative 
sentences does not call for consideration here, as it is of constant 
occurrence throughout the N.T. The omission of the copula 
after iSov ( = n3Pl) is encouraged through Hebrew precedent. Cf. 
Blass, Gr. 74 ; Robertson, 395 sq. 

5. Prepositions. 

Moulton (Gr. 98) gives the statistics for the relative frequency 
of prepositions in the N.T. For every 100 times that eV occurs 
he finds the relative frequency of the prepositions with which we 
are here concerned as follows : eis, 64 ; oc, 34 ; rt 32 ; TT/JO?, 25 ; 
Sta, 24; OTTO, 24; Kara, 17; /xera, 17 ; VTTO, 8. Calculating J in the 
same way (though the numbers are to be taken as only approxi 
mately correct) : ev, loo; eis, 83; e/c, 73; TT/OOS, 45; Sia, 26; /texa, 25; 
aTTo, 18; eTrt, 16; /cara, 4. Here we observe that e/c is nearly 
as frequent as eis, that e^t is half as frequent as it is normally 
throughout the N.T. In fact the numbers vary in every case. 
A comparison of the numbers (which are only approximately 
trustworthy) in our author is instructive : eV, 100 ; CTU, 89 ; e /c, 87 ; 
ets, 49; yaerct, 33 ; own), 23 ; Sta, II ; Kara, 5-; Trpog, 5. 1 Here the 
most notable differences are in the case of ri (J ap 89 -J 16), Sia 

1 These numbers refer to the entire text, including sources and interpola 


(jap 1 1 - J 26), xpos (J ap 5 - J 45). Also the order of priority in 
frequency is very different. In the three classical historians 
(Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon), according to Helbing 
(quoted by Moulton, 62 n) cts slightly exceeds iv in frequency, 
whereas in twelve writers of literary Koivrj it occurs nearly twice 
as often. Here our author diverges from the literary KOLV-TJ in 
using ev more than twice as often as ets, while the KOIVTJ uses eis 
nearly twice as often as lv. On the other hand, our author approxi 
mates closely to the Koivrj in his frequent use of ri, and therein 
diverges strongly from the rest of the N.T. See also Robertson, 
Gr. 556 sq. But these differences between J ap and J are not half 
so striking as those that emerge in the individual treatment of 
the prepositions. 

(i.) dm = "apiece," in 4 8 dva Trre/svyas ? Cf. J 2 6 . Found 
also in Matthew and Luke. The phrase ava /xe o-ov, 7 17 , is a 
compound preposition, but avd is an adverb in ava cts IKCUTTOS 
in 2 1 21 . These latter uses not in J. 

(ii.) dinS. 36 times, (a) with /xaxpo^ev, i8 10 - 15 - 17 (source). 
Not in J. 

(<)=" at a distance from," i4 20 CXTTO oraStW, cf. J n 18 2i 8 . 
Not elsewhere in N.T. It is not necessary to explain it as a 
Latinism ; cf. Moulton, Gr. 101 sq. ; Robertson, Gr. 575; 
Abbott, Gr. 227. It is found in Strabo, Diodorus, and Plutarch. 
For an analogous construction with /xera, cf. Test. Reub. i 2 /^era 
<T>7 8vo T^S reAevr^5 : T. Zeb. i 1 //.era ovv Bvo vrr\ rov Oavdrov a 
construction also found in Plutarch. And with Trpo, cf. J I2 1 , 
Amos (o ) i 1 4 7 . 

(c) diro irpoawirow. This phrase occurs three times, 6 16 
i2 14 20 11 . In the last instance, however, it has a strange 
form, (XTTO TOV TrpocrojTrov, to which we shall return pre 
sently. In all three cases the phrase is the equivalent of 
"OSD. In 6 16 20 11 it = " from the presence of." It could be 
taken in this sense also in i2 14 if it is connected with TreV^rat, 
but the fact that sixteen words intervene is against this 
explanation in our author. Hence the phrase, owing to the 
Hebrew it presupposes = " because of." The woman s stay 
of three and a half years in the wilderness is "owing to" or 
" because of the serpent." This is an ordinary meaning of ^DE 
in Hebrew. O.TTO alone is used in this sense in Matt i8 7 . In 
2O 11 the art. in airo TOV TT/SOO-WTTOV is quite exceptional. It 
appears only a few (three or more) times in the o so far as I am 
aware, and in two of these some MSS omit it. In our text also 
046 and many cursives omit. But since As 025. 2040 attest 
it, it goes back to the archetype as edited by the Seer s disciple. 
For two other departures from the Seer s usage in 20 4 11 , see vol. 
ii. 182. This phrase is absent from J. 


(d) Abnormal use of airo before 6 wv. This is deliberate on 
our author s part. 

(e) After passive verbs : aTrc/cTai/^o-ai/, g 18 ; ^roi/xao-fickov, i2 6 . 
This came to be the rule in later writers. 

(f) After a.7rcpxo-6aL and cwroAAvi/ai, i8 14 : d^atpeti/, 22 19 : 
KpviTTtLV, 6 16 (a,7ro 7rpoo-(o7rov, where J I2 36 has simply (XTrd) : <evyeiv, 
Q 6 20 11 (J I0 5 ). 

None of the above usages appear in J save (b) and one 
instance of (/). 

(iii.) S x pi- 2 10 26 I2 11 i4 29 i8 5 (source). 

(iv.) 8tci. (a) with gen. i 1 2i 24 . In J 15 times, (b) With 
ace. 1 6 times and 45 in J. 

(v.) 6ts. eis follows fta.XXf.Lv when the noun after ets is not a 
person, cf. 2 10 - 22 S 5 [7 - 8] i2 4 - 9 - 13 i 4 19 (**> i8 21 2 o 3 - 10 - 14 - 15 , save 
in i4 16 (interpolated) where we have fldXXeiv . . . CTTI T. yrjv. 
Contrast i4 19 . But CTTI when the noun is a person, cf. 2 24 
j3a.\Xu e</> v/xas (cf. i 17 ). Similarly after Kara.fta.tvav we have ets 
TT)I/ yi?!/, i3 13 , but eirt revs avOpwTrovs, i6 21 . Our author uses 
either ei? TT?* y^v, 5 6 6 13 8 7 9 L 3 i2 4 - 9 - 13 i4 19 i6 L2 etc., even 
after Tirm-civ, 6 13 9 1 , though this verb in other phrases is 
followed by ri, 6 16 7 11 [8 10 ] n 16 , or eVt T^S 7775 (see on liri 
below). L<S occurs about 78 times. 

(vi.) IK. This preposition is of very frequent occurrence 
about 135 times. 

(a) Partitive Genitive. As subject, 1 1 9 /JAeVovo-iv e* TWV Xawv : 
cf. J 7 40 i6 17 . As object, 2 10 e u/oi/, 3 9 5 9 (in 2 17 we have 
genitive alone rov /xai/i/a : cf. 2 J 4 IK ran/ TCKi/wv). CK occurs often 
after els in a partitive sense : cf. 5 5 6 1 7 13 etc., but in I7 11 (source) 
IK TWV 7rTa=" one of the seven." For els e/c, cf. J i 41 6 8 - 70 - 71 
7 50 etc. This appears to be the best explanation of 2 9 rrjv 
^Aaor^yatai/ e/c TWV Acyovrcov, 1 "the blasphemy of certain people 
who say " ; or the IK may be simply a sign of the genitive. Hence 
" the blasphemy of," etc. : cf. J 3 1 avOpwiros C K T. 3>apto-cuW : or 
better, Aesch. Eum. 344, v/xvog Epii/wW, "hymn of the Erinyes"; 
Soph. Ant. 95, 77 e e/xoO Suor^SovXia. 

(^) CK . . . aTTo, 3 12 2 1 2 - 10 , where the prepositions may 
signify respectively heavenly origin and divine mission. But 
in J i 44 7 41 - 42 n 1 (Abbott, Gr. 227 sqq.) these mean respectively 
" native of" and "resident in." 

(c) CK follows a variety of. verbs, ye/x^eti/, eKTropevevOai, e/<8t/civ 
(involving a Hebraism),>ii/, ^epx^crOai, Ip^eo-^a 
(i8 20 (a source) involving a Hebraism), X.afMJ3dveLv } Avciv, 

1 This phrase is explained also as "blasphemy arising from" (cf. J 3 25 ) ; 
but in our author we should expect in this case j3\acr<j>r]fj,lav rty K. In 6 4 
the K is rightly omitted by A after ryv elp^v^v [^/c] TTJS yrjs. If the ^K is 
retained it is to be taken with Aa/Set?, as in 5 7 io 10 i8 4 (source). 


7TOTie/, (ayetv, ^opra^co ^ai. It follows dyopaeiv, 
5 9 ; but this verb is followed by Trapd, 3 18 , and airo, i4 3 - 4 . In i8 3 - 19 
TrXovretv is followed by e/c and in i8 15 by a-n-o. 

(d) IK is used after a passive : cf. i3 18 
iS 1 e</>umcr$77 CK T. So^rys aurov. 

(e) K = "by reason of," 8 13 CK T. <wvo>v, i6 n 

. . . K T. 7TOVCOV aVTWV. 

(/) ex is used with the material of which anything is formed : 
cf. i8 12 7rav O-KCVOS K gv\ov. This usage is common to Greek 
and Hebrew : cf. Xen. Symp. 8, o-Tpdrev/xa e epao-rwj/ : Aesch. 
Suppl. 953, e/c KpiO&v fj-eOv. See (#) above ad fin, 

(vii.) ejjnrpoaOei . This twice occurs in a local sense in the 
phrase e/ATrpoo-fov TW 7ro8o>v, i9 10 22 8 , the first of which is an 
intrusion : also as an adverb in 4 6 . In J its meanings are various : 
it denotes superiority in i 15 - 80 , priority in time in 3 28 , and has a 
local sense in io 4 i2 37 . 

(viii.) iv. This preposition occurs nearly 157 times, (a) 
The most noteworthy use of ev in our author is its in 
strumental use. Thus it occurs 33 times, whereas it does not 
occur at all in J (save in a quasi-instrumental sense in the 
phrase h TOVTW : see Abbott, Gr. 256), nor yet in the 
Pauline or Catholic Epp. save once in 2 Pet. It is found 34 
times in the Synoptics (according to Moulton and Geden), 3 
times in Acts, and 3 in Hebrews. Moulton (Gr., pp. 12, 61, 104) 
thinks that the publication of the Tebtunis Papyri (1902) has 
" rescued the instrumental w from the class of Hebraisms " in 
the case of ev fjLaxaLpy, Lk 2 2 49 , and eV pa/SSw, i Cor 4 21 . To this 
claim Abbott (Gr. 256 n.) rejoins effectively. But even though 
the instrumental eV does occur in the papyri sporadically (where 
the influence of Jewish traders may have been at work), this 
fact cannot account in any case for the preponderating use of 
eV in our author. No adequate explanation can be found save 
in its origination in a mind steeped in Semitic. Even Moulton 
(p. 6 1 n.) concedes that this e> " came to be used rather excessively 
... by men whose mother tongue was Aramaic." But this 
concession in the case of our author is quite inadequate, kv 
is used instrumentally after dyopa^etv, 5 9 : dSi/cetv, g 19 : dTro/crctVeiv, 
2 23 6 8 9 20 I3 io<**) I9 2i. fioffartfa*, i4 10 : icaiW, 192; but without 
ev, [8 8 ] 2 1 8 (due to editor ?) : /caraKcuctv, 1 7 16 l8 8 : /cav/xart^eiv, l6 8 : 
2 : /a0apieiv, I4 2 : Aev/catWiv, 7 14 : Avctv, i 5 : /uyvwai, 8 7 : 
II 6 ig 15 : TrXamv, ig 20 l8 23 : 7repi/3aAAecr#eH, 3 5 4 4 
Troi/xau/eiv, 2 27 I2 5 I9 15 : TroXe/aciv, 2 16 (I9 11 ): ^pvcrovv, 
i8 16 . iv is used locally after KaOi&iv in 3 21 (* & ) (but lirl c. ace. 2o 4 ) : 

i Cf- 2 2i [ 22 j 9 2o. 21 ^ii. p T a,voeiv airb is found in Acts 8 22 and Jer 8 s 
(LXX). But fifvavoelv etc does not occur in the LXX. It probably represents 
JD nw in our author s mind. 


after KaToiKeiv, i3 12 (but this is not our author s use. He uses 
eVi c. gen.). 

(b) eV is used temporarily in i 10 2 13 g 6 io 7 ii 13 etc.: see 
temporal phrases without eV in i8 10 - 16 - 19 /ua &pa (source). 

(f) ev is used generally after y/oa</>eiv, i 3 i3 8 2o 12 - 15 2i 27 22 18 - 19 
(but eis is found in i 11 , and eW in i7 8 : see under eVi). 

(d) eV is found in the phrases ev rfj Seia x et P l j l16 : *v i"fi ^ e l j 
2 1 : e v r. x ei pt> 6 5 7 9 Ic>2 tc. ; but eVi ryv 6"eiav, 5 1 . Also in 
ev </>a>v?7 /xeyaX?7, after Xe yeiv, I4 7 9 (but without eV in 5 12 8 13 ). 
eV is never used in this phrase after /cpaeiv, 6 10 7 2 io 3 (see vol. i. 
260 ad fin., ii. 22 ad init.) except in passages from another hand 
or source, i4 15 i8 2 . It is also omitted in this phrase after <<oveiv, 
i4 18 . ev ju,e oro> is always followed by gen. i 13 2 1 4 6 etc. ; hence 2 7 
ev /ue cro) TO) TrapaSeio-u) in N cc 025 is either a conflation of two texts 
or a correction of the later. 

(ix.) eVcomov. Very frequent : 34 times, but only once in J, 
i.e. 2o 30 , and twice in i. 3 J. 

The frequent occurrence of this word, which, it is true, is 
found sporadically in the Koivrj (see Moulton, Gr. 3 pp. 99, 246), is 
best explained as due to Semitic influence. 

(x.) efrQev, i4 20 . 

(xi.) eird^w. Only twice. Really an adverb but used as a 
preposition, 6 8 2o 3 . 

(xii.) em. About 143 times l in all (74 with ace., 13 with 
dat, 56 with gen.). This preposition is used very idiomatically 
by our author, and several of the uses are of his own devising. 
It is therefore of primary importance to be acquainted with 

(a) eTrt in various phrases : 

(a) ri -n}s yf)<>, 5 3 - 10 - 13 7 1 IO 2 - 5 - 8 etc. never eVi T^V yr}v (for 
i4 16 is an interpolation). If our author wishes to use yr?v he 
writes ets rr/i/ y^v, 5 6 6 13 8 5 g 1 etc. See vol. i. 191. (ft) CTT! r^s 
0a\d(ro"f)<s so always. 5 13 * 7 1 io 2 - 5 - 8 except in i5 2 , where the 
eVi T-^V $aAao-o-av seems due to its being preceded by ta-ravai, 
which always in the case of other nouns is followed by evri with 
the ace. See vol. i. 262 ad med., ii. 34 ad init. Our author s use 
comes out forcibly in 7 1 fva //,r) Trve ^ ave/xos CTTI TTJ<S yrjs fJLrJTt CTTI 
rrj<; ^aXacrcr^s /r^re CTTI Trav (X 025 cf. 7^^ o^8e JAY) . . . ?rav 
Kavfjia : g 4 2 1 27 ) 8eV8pov. Observe the eVi with the ace. at the 
close, (y) eVt T^V (ra<s) /ce^aX^v (-as). Only in I2 1 do we find 
eTTt Trjs Kf(^aX.rj<s. See vol. i. 300 Sq., 303. (8) evrt TO /ieVojTrov, or 

1 These numbers are only approximately true. Different texts yield 
different results. 

* The context would suggest here the rendering "in the sea." Such was 
the view of many of the ancients. Thus K reads eV ry daXfoa-g, and is 
supported by Pr gig vg s 1 2 arm bo eth. 


if he uses the pi. eVi rcov /XCTWTTWV. See vol. i. 206 ad med. In 
i4 9 we find t eVt TOV /ACTWTTOV f ; but this verse is corrupt. See 
vol. ii. 15 ad fin. (e) The above forms are rigid. But in 
phrases composed of eVi and x t/ P or ^ 8eta our author uses the 
gen. or ace. : cf. e?rt TYJS ^et/oos avrwv r^s Seias 13 16 , e^ri, T^S Seias 
i 20 , and eTTtr^v x"/ 30 ^ T 4 9 2C)1 4 : 7r * ^^ Scfw^i 5 1 . See vol. i. 335 
ad med. 

(b} cTTt with some case of Opovos (or ve^eX^) determined by 
the case of the preceding participle Ka.OrjiJ.tvos. This is one of 
the most remarkable idiosyncrasies of our author. When the 
part, is in the nom. or ace. it is followed by rl TOV Opovov : when 
the part, is in the gen. it is followed by ri TOV Opovov : when in 
the dat. by eVi TO> 0/odVo). 1 

, N A , fern TOV Qpovov 

(a) o Kaurmei/os I / \ V , /% \ 

v N " a, 4 (or eiri Tiny j/eAeXrif) 

rot/ Ka0Ti|aei o^ ) \_\9\ / 

[(Or TTt TOJ/ ITTTTOl ). 

So in 4 2 - 4 6 2 - 6 ii 16 i4 14 ig 11 . This usage of our author is 
generally not observed in the interpolations or edited portions. 
Thus 9 17 T. Ka6r)/j.vov<s 7r f aurtof f seems due to a reviser of 
the preceding words : i4 16 6 KaOrj^vo^ err! T. ve^eA^? (AN : T. 
vc<f>\r}v, C 025) occurs in the interpolation i4 15 - 17 : 20 11 TOV 
KaOypevov ir avrov (A : eTravw avroi), tf), and 7 15 6 Ka^rj/xei/os CTTI 
t T. Opovov f (Ax : TW Opovu, 025. 046), are due to the editor of 
2O 4 -22. 2 1 5 6 KaO-rjfJLevos 7Tt T. ^poj/w, is a primitive corruption. 
On i4 6 see vol. ii. 12. 

(/?) TW Ka0T]fieV<{> em TW Opoi/w. So 4 5 13 y 10 i9 4 . In 6 4 TO? 
Ka^. CTT* t avrov t is a primitive corruption, while TW KaO. ?rt T. 
ve<^eA^5 occurs in the interpolation, i4 15 17 . 

(y) TOU KaOrjfJieVou em TOU Opo^ou. So 4 10 5 1 - 7 6 16 : cf. zy 1 
(TT}S KaOr)fj,evr)S 7rl vodrtav ig 1 - 21 (TOV KaOrj/jL^vov eVt TOV ITTTTOV 
both times). Hence ip 18 TWV KaOrj^vwv eir f avTots f (A: 
avTov? K) seems to be a primitive corruption. 025. 046 and 
cursives read rightly eV avruv. These MSS may have preserved 
the original reading here, and A may be corrupt. 

(c) era is used after certain verbs, (a) fiaXXeiv eVt with 
ace. 2 24 i8 19 (source) : ((3) -ypafaw ITTL with ace. 2 17 3 12 ly 6 - 8 
(source) ig 16 . In I4 1 the gen. eVt TWI/ /xeTWTrwv after ypdfaw is 
due to our author s predilection for the gen. pi. in this phrase : 
see under (a) above, (y) e*x tv ^ 7rt/ w i tn ace. 1 6 8 - 10 - 12 - 17 . 

1 It is noteworthy that this participle in the nom. and ace. is followed by 
tirl with the ace. in five passages of the six where it occurs in the rest of the 
N.T., Matt 9 9 , Mark 2 14 , Luke S 27 2I 35 , J I2 15 : exception, Acts 8 ; and that 
when it is in the gen. it is followed by 4iri with the gen. in Matt 24 3 27 19 : 
exception, Mark I3 3 . But whereas these may be coincidences, in our author 
the use is a law. In Mark I3 3 we have Kadyntvov followed by efr, whereas 
Matt 24 3 has M T. 6pov$ r. 


(8) lo-TOivai eTrt with acc. 3 20 loriy/ca 7Tt ryv Bvpav (contrast 
J l8 16 cumj/cec TT/JOS rfj Bvpa\ y 1 8 3 II 11 I2 18 I4 1 I5 2 . (e) 
Ka#ieu/ eTrt with acc. 2o 4 . () KOLTOIKZLV ri with gen. See vol. i. 
289, 336, ii. 12 ad fin. This construction is characteristic alike 
as to meaning and form. Two other constructions are found in 
i3 12 172 where they appear due to sources : (17) KoVreo-fleu liri with 
acc. i 7 = "to wail because of" (but in Zech. i2 10 (o ), 2 Sam. 
ii 26 (A) "to wail for"). So far as I am aware this usage is not 
Greek, ffyy 1DD could be rendered " wail over him," as in Zech. 
i2 10 , or "wail because of him," as the text requires here. Has 
our author assigned to eVt a meaning that belongs only to $y ? 
We could also render the Greek "to wail in regard to him." 
In i8 9 this phrase =" to wail over." (6) TTITTTCLV CTTI with acc. 
6 ie 7 n. 16 310 !!. i6 s but with e rt\v yrjv, 6 13 9 1 , since our 
author does not say ITT\ rrjv yrjv (see (a) above), (i) O-K^I/OW en-i 
with acc. 7 15 . (K) nBivu with acc. i 17 , but in io 2 with 
eTrt rr}<s OaXdo-crrjs in conformity with his usage (see (a) above). 
(X) //.aprupetv and 7rpo<f>rjTeviv are followed by rt ( = " con 
cerning") with dat. in 22 16 (N 046) io 11 . ITTL has this meaning in 
J i2 16 CTT avroJ ycypa.fjifjLva. But in 22 16 A vg bo read tv. See 
eTrt with dat. after SeSeo-^at, 9 14 ; opyi&o-Bai, 12 17 ; cv<j>paLV<T0ai, i8 20 . 

(d) After eova-ia evrt there follows sometimes the gen. 2 26 n 6b 
(source) i4 18 2o 6 : sometimes the acc. 6 8 i3 7 i6 9 22 14 . J has 
neither of these constructions, but the gen. without CTTC, ly 2 , 
or the inf. i 12 5 27 io 18 (Wj) etc. A similar usage occurs in i7 18 
/JcuriXciav CTTI ( = " Over ") TW /SacriXewv : cf. Rom. 9 5 . 

(xiii.) icard. (a) with gen. 2 4 - 14 - 20 Kara crov, "against thee." 
Once in J i9 n in the same sense, (b) With acc. (a) = 
"according to," 2 23 i8 6 (source) 20 12 - 13 . (ft) Temporally in 22 2 
Kara ^va. (y) Distributively in 4 8 ev Kaff /: cf. J [8 9 2i 25 ]. 

(xiv.) KUKXoOej as a prep, in 4 3 - 4 : as an adv. in 4 8 . 

(xv.) KU K\W as a prep. 4 5 11 7 11 . 

(xvi.) jierd. 52 times (41 with gen. and IT with acc.). (a) 
/xTa with gen. after aKoXovOcw [6 8 ] i4 13 ( = "to accompany"): 

XaXetv, i 12 io 8 I7 1 2 1 9 - 15 : Motycvciv, 2 22 : [/AoXwecr&u, i4 4 ] : 

16 y?7 T ^4 T *,14 a 

II 7 I2 17 I3 7 I9 19 : 7roXe/A6tv, 2 16 I2 7 13* iy 14 a 
decided Hebraism, only in our author in the N.T. An 
occasional instance of it has been found in the papyri : iropvevciv, 
i7 2 i8 3 - 9 (source). This construction is not classical Greek, 
which requires the ace. So also /aot^evetv. 1 (b) pcrd with ace. is 
only found in the phrase [JLCTCL Tavra, except in II 11 /xera ras rpets 

1 Perhaps we might trace it to such an expression as that in Is. 23 1 
pun niD^DD "?3 n nnjt. iropveteiv perd is found in Ezek. i6 34 , but the 
Hebrew does not explain the per A. Similarly ?jto ( = fj.oL-x.tteu>) is followed 
by DN (=/*Td) in Jer. 29^ ; but not o , which gives /J.OIXWJ>TO ras yvvaiKas. 


^ue/oag. /Acra ravra has two meanings in our author its ordinary 
one, "after these things," i 19 4 2 9 12 2o 3 , and a technical one, 
which, when combined with etSoi/, always introduces a new and 
important vision, 4 1 7 1 - 9 15* iS 1 iQ 1 . On the value of this 
phrase as a canon of criticism, see vol. i. 106, footnote. This 
usage is found in J : (cf. 2 12 3 22 4 43 5 1 6 1 y 1 iQ 38 ) as introducing 
a new section. 

(xvii.) irapd. 3 times (2 with gen. and i with dat). In J 35 
times (26 with gen. and 9 with dat.). 

(xviii.) irpos. 8 times (i with dat. and 7 with ace.). In J, on 
the other hand, xpos with ace. occurs about 100 times, and with 
the dat. 4. Ti-po? c. dat. is found in our author only once, i 13 ; 
elsewhere in N.T., Mark 5", J i8 16 20 11 - 12 ( **>. He uses Trpos 
with ace. after verbs of motion, 3 20 io 9 etc. (6 times). 7rpo? = 
" against," in I3 6 r/i Oi^fev TO oTo/x,a avrov ei9 / Trpos r. 
Oeov. Here ets would be more natural: cf. Mark 3 29 , Luke i2 10 , 
Acts 6 11 . This preposition is much more varied in meaning in J. 

(xix.) UTTO. Only twice, and one of these in an interpola 
tion, 6 8 . 

(xx.) UTTOK<TW. 4 times. Really an adverb but used as a 

6. Conjunctions and other Particles. 

(i.) d\Xd. 13 times, but over 100 times in J and 20 times in 
i. 2. 3 J. 

(ii.) av. (a) As a particle in a relative clause av occurs only 
twice, in 2 25 a^pt ov av ^w, and in 14* OTTOVO.V vTrdyei (A : -y N 025. 
046). J, on the other hand, uses av 5 times in the sense of 
"if" (alone in the N.T.), and 22 times as a mere particle in 
relative or conditional sentences. 

(b) But our author uses ecu/ also as a mere particle after ocrot, 

3 19 i3 15 (source). With the same meaning it recurs in n 6 OOTOLKL^ 
lav (source), but as a conjunction followed by a subjunctive in 

320 [ 2 2 18 - 19 ]. eav fjirj is followed by the subj. 2 5 3 3 , but in 2 22c (an 
interpolation) by the indicative. 1 In J ecu/ is once used as a 

1 Thus 6.v is substituted for &v 3 times (3 19 and u 6 I3 15 sources) out of 4. 
Moulton (Gr. 43) states that in pre-Christian papyri the proportion of Mr to 
&v was 13 to 29, but in the 1st cent. A.D. this proportion was 25 to 7, in 2nd 
A.D. 76 to 9, in 3rd A.D. 9 to 3, in 4th A.D. 4 to 8. av occurs last for &v 
in a 6th cent, papyrus. It will be seen, therefore, that the proportion in our 
author, 3 to I, agrees nearly with that in the papyri of the 1st cent. A.D., 
25 to 7. 

It is significant of the character of tf that it changes di> into &v in 3 19 I3 15 
and thus represents our author as using tav only i out of 4 times. C changes 
it in ii 6 . Notwithstanding the untrustworthy character of 025. 046, they are 
here more trustworthy than X in this respect. 

But Thackeray (Gr. 67), with a large body of papyri at his disposal, gives 


mere particle in i5 7 . Otherwise frequently as a conjunction 
followed by the subjunctive. J uses av 14 times in the apodosis 
of an impossible supposition, but our author does not use this 

(iii.) apri, i2 10 , and O.TT apri, i4 13 . It is hard to decide whether 
apTi = "a.t this moment," as occasionally in J (see Abbott, Gr. 
25 sq., 199), or "at this present time," as contrasted with past or 
future time a later meaning belonging more properly to vw, 
which J uses very frequently but not our author. 

(iv.) axpi. Always followed by subjunctive in our author : 
2 25 (axpi ov) 7 3 I5 8 20 3t 5 . In I7 17 we find a^pt TeAeo-^orovrat. 
But this is a source. 

(v.) Y<*P- drc. 17 times. In J nearly 70. 

(vi.) 8e. 6 times. Very frequent in J and with different 
shades of meaning : see Abbott, Gr. in loc. 

(vii.) el. i is found only in combination (a) with rts: 1 n 5a 
[n 5 ^]**) 148.11 2o 15 (et ns oi>x) a very common com 
bination not once in J : (b) with /^ ( = " except "), 2 17 9* i3 17 i4 3 
i9 12 2 1 27 . This use is found in J 3 13 6 22 etc. : or with Se ^ ( = 
"otherwise"), 2 5 - 16 : also in J i4 2 - u . But J uses the former 
combination in other idioms. 

(viii.) ew0ei/ (as adverb = eo>) n 2 5 1 (some MSS). 

(ix.) en. 1 8 times, including a restoration of ert for eVt in 7 16 . 
22 11 is an interpolation. 

(x.) Ico S . With subjunctive ( = "tiH"), 6 11 . In J with ind. 
9 18 2 1 22 - 23 . In various combinations in J. 

(xi.) i&ou. 26 times. In J 4. J uses tSe (15), but our 
author does not. 

(xii.) IVa. Final clauses introduced by Iva 2 followed by the 
subj. 33 times, and by the ind. 13. (The latter is unclassical : 
Attic uses OTTO;? with ind.) In J Iva is followed by the subj. 
save thrice out of nearly 140 times. Iva ^ is followed by the 
subj. 9 times and by the ind. 2 : in J only by the subj. As our 
author never uses the past subjunctive (or optative) it is interest- 

the statistics as follows. In pre-Christian papyri 5s dv, 16, 8s &v , 78 : in 
i/A.D. 39 and 5 respectively ; in ii/A.D. 79 and 13 ; in iii/A.D. 13 and 5 ; in 
iv/A. D. 12 and 7. These amended numbers show more clearly how the 
scribe of X introduced later forms into his text. 

1 et rts is only found once in the Johannine writings outside the Apoca 
lypse 2 J 10 e? TIS fyxerat. Here the case is put as an actual occurrence, 
and the coming as a real event. Hence this form does not militate against 
Johannine authorship. 

2 In my commentary I have followed Blass in taking iva in I4 13 as almost 
equal to 6rt " in that." But here also it may express purpose. Thus yuctK- 
dpioi ol vfKpol ol ev Kvpiy airodv^ffKOvre^ . . . Iva avaira.-fjffovTai = " Blessed 
are the dead that die ii. the Lord : yea, saith the Spirit, in order to rest," 
etc. Cf. 22 14 and J S 56 9 2 rls ij^aprev . . . Iva. rv0X6s yevv-^efj ; n 15 , and see 
Abbott, Gr. 114-128, who insists that iva expresses purpose in J. 


ing to observe the sequence of tenses adopted by him after Iva 

Or iv a. fjLrj. 

Pres. ind. followed by pres. ind. . . i 

pres. subj. . . 5 

t SLOT. subj. . . 7. 

,, fut. ind. . . 4 

Past. ind. pres. subj. . . 5 

aor. subj. . . 13 

fut. ind. . . 7 

Fut. ind. fut. ind. . . i 


(pres. or aor.) pres. subj. . . i 

aor. subj . . 2 

(xiii.) pi. Never with the participle in our author, but 10 
times in J and n times in i. 2. 3 J. /XT; with pres. imperative, i 17 
2 10 etc. ; with aor. subj. 6 6 7 3 io 4 , the use of these two tenses 
being carefully distinguished; see above, p. cxxvi. /XT; . . . 
//.Tyre . . . /XT;T, 7 1 8 : also /XT; . . . ovSe . . . ovSe in 9 4 , but 
never /XT) . . . /xT;Se, as in J (bis) who never uses /xT/re ; nor /x;8e 
. . . /XT;Se. ovSe /XT; . . . ovSe, 7 16 . 

(xiv.) oiriarQev as prep, i 10 4 6 , as adv. 5 1 . 

(xv.) oirurw as prep. i2 15 i3 3 , and also in i 10 (xC) io 10 in NC 

(xvi.) oirou, 2 13 (**) ii 8 2o 10 . In the latter two passages there 
is the combination oVov KCLL. In sources used by our author 
there is a Hebraism in connection with this word : oVou . . . 
eKL, i2 6 - 14 : OTTOV . . . e7r avTaiv, i7 9 ; but this Hebraism never 
appears to come from his own hand. In 14* we have OTTOU av 
virdyei (AC : corrected into vTrdyr) in X 025. 046). This use 
of <iV here is to be rejected, according to Blass, Gr. 207, 217 ; 
Robertson, Gr. 969. See, however, under OTO.V : also Vocabulary 
of G. T. (Moulton and Milligan) under av. 

(xvii.) oadKis. ii 6 (source). 

(xviii.) OTO.V. This particle takes the aor. subj. 9 5 ii 7 i2 4 
i7 10 2O 7 , or the pres. subj. io 7 iS 9 , 1 or the fut. ind. 4 9 , or even 
the aor. ind. 8 1 . In the last passage the use of orav in orav 
yvoL^cv (corrected into ore in X 025) is quite incorrect according 
to Blass (Gr. 218). Yet it is found in the KOIVIJ : cf. Mark n 19 
orav oi/^e eyeVero e^eTropeuero ea> T. TroXeoog : Ex 1 6 3 : cf. a>s av 
in Gen (Tischendorfs ed.) 27 30 w? av e^A^ev laKw^S, of a single 
definite action in the past. oVav, however, with the indie, generally 
denotes indefinite frequency (an unclassical usage) : cf. Mark 3 11 

1 As Abbott (Gr. 385) points out, Srav with the pres. subj. refers to the 
coincidence of time between the action of the pres. subj. and that of the 
principal verb. 


ii 25 : similarly OTTOV av, Mark 6 56 . On oVav with fut. ind. see 
Robertson, Gr. 972. 

(xix.) ore occurs 13 times and always with aor. ind. In J 
21 times (4 with fut. ind.). 

(xx.) on. 63 times, (a) Abbott, Gr. 154 sq., points out that 
the suspensive use of on " is almost confined to the Johannine 
writings and the Apocalypse." Here <m = "because," and he 
cites as examples outside these writings Gal 4 6 , i Cor i2 15 . 16 , 
Rom 9 7 . In J I 50 (OTL CITTOJ/ <roi . . . 7rrTveis) I4 19 I5 19 i6 6 
2o 29 . In like manner in our author we must render 3 10 
" Because (on) thou hast kept the word of my endurance I also 
will keep thee," 3 16 - 17 iS 7 . 1 

(b) Besides the suspensive use of on, where the on clause 
precedes, the word most frequently introduces a subsequent 
clause giving a ground or reason, and so it is to be rendered 
" because " or " for." Cf. 3 4 4 11 5 4 - 9 6 17 etc. etc. 

(c) Next it means " that " after eTSov, oTSa, yiyvwo-Kw, ex<o Kar - 
Tiros or O/AI/U/U, 2 2 - 4 - 20 - 23 3 1 - 8 - 9 - 15 io 6 etc. 

(d) Finally, it is used before direct discourse (i.e. on " recita 
tive")^! 7 i8 7 . 

(xxi.) ou = " where " [i7 15 ]. Our author as also J uses 6Vou 
and not ou. 

(xxii.) ou. We find ov . . . ouSV, 7 16 9 2( > i2 8 2o 4 2i 23 : ov . . . 
OVTC, 9 21 : ouSei9 . . . ovot . . . ovot . . . oure, 5 3 : ouSeis . . . 
OVTC, 5 4 . 

(xxiii.) ou jjiT). 15 times. Always followed by subj. in our 
author except in i8 14 (source), which may be an interpolation in 
this source, seeing that elsewhere in this source it is followed by 
the subj. See vol. i 59 ad med. In J 3 times with ind. out 
of 17. 

(xxiv.) oucu. This interjection is followed by the dat. in our 
author in 8 13 . In i2 12 (a source) by the ace. In i8 10 - 16 - 19 (a 
source) by the nom. It is a noun in 9 12( **> ni4(**>. 

(xxv.) ouKen. io 6 : in i8 1L14 with neg. (source). 12 times 
in J. 

(xxvi.) oui/. (a) Used of logical appeal 6 times, i 19 2 5 - 16 etc. 

(b) Narrative or continuative ovv does not occur once, and 
only a few times in the Synoptic Gospels. In J ovv occurs nearly 
200 times, and the majority of these apparently in a non-illative 
or purely continuative or narrative sense. Only 8 times does it 
occur in the words of Jesus : all the rest in the narrative portions. 
But Abbott (Gr. 470 sqq.) finds difficulties in many of the Johan 
nine uses of ovv. He pertinently remarks (p. 479, footnote) : " the 

1 On the ground of thib and a few other similarities of style Abbott (Gr. 
I S5) suggests that "the author of the Gospel may have been a disciple or 
younger coadjutor of the author of the Apocalypse." 


absence of narrative ow in Revelation is important, because . . . 
it is largely made up of narrative, so that we might have expected 
narrative ow in abundance if it had been written by the hand 
that wrote the Fourth Gospel." The word occurs only once in 
i. 2. 3 J. 

(xxvii.) OUTTW. 1 7 10. 12 (source). 13 times in J, i J once. 

(xxviii.) cure. We find ovre . . . ovre, 315.16 920 2I 4. ou S e v ts 
. . . ovre, 5 4 . 

(xxix.) Tr\V = " only," 2 25 : cf. Phil. 3 16 for this meaning. 
Blass (Gr. 268) would assign this meaning to irX-^v also in i Cor. 
ii 11 , Eph 588, Phil 4 14 . 

(xxx.) 8e = (a) " hither," 4 1 1 1 12 ; (b) metaphorically ( = " here 
is need for"), 1310. is I4 i2 I7 9. 

(xxxi.) w9. (a) On this important particle, see vol. i. 35 sq., 
where it is shown that it has in our author several uses unknown 
elsewhere in the N.T. but found in the LXX. One use is there 

(b) In a comparison the same case follows w? as that which 
precedes it. This, of course, is the usual construction. Cf. 2 18 
T. 6<$aA/x,ot>s avrov w? <Aoyu Trupo s, 9 8 - 9 I2 15 I3 3 l8 21 2 1 2 22 1 . 
Hence l6 13 eTSov . . . Tn/evjua/ra rpta . . . a>s f f^drpa^oL f is 
either a slip or due to an interpolator. It is due to the latter, 
as we see on other grounds. 

(c) Observe that our author never uses Ka#ws though it 
occurs nearly 180 times in the N.T. In J it occurs 31 times 
and 13 in i. 2. 3 J. J uses o>s in a temporal sense ( = "when") 
about 20 times, but J ap , i. 2. 3 J never. Our author uses o>s as a 
word of comparison about 73 times (only once with a numeral), 
J 13 times (8 times with a numeral). 

(d) In 22 12 u)s = "according as," followed by substantive 
verb a usage not found elsewhere in the Johannine writings. 

(xxxii.) oiairep. io 3 . 

7. Case. 

(i.) (a) The nominative stands in the case of a proper noun 
without regard to the construction, in place of the case normally 
required. 9 11 oi/o/xa ex et ATroXAvwv. This is good Greek (cf. 
Xenoph. Oecon. vi. 14, rovs c^ovras TO o-e/xvov oi/o/xa TOUTO TO /caAos 
T Kaya#ds), but it comes from the hand of the editor and not 
from the author, whose construction will be found in 6 8 . 

(b) Nominativus pendens. Since in our author this usage is 
a Hebraism, it is dealt with under that heading. 

(ii.) (a) Genitive absolute. This construction does not exist 
in our author, though it is employed often in J and with more 
elasticity of meaning than is found in the Synoptists : see 

CASE cxxxix 

Abbott, Gr. 83 sq. In the ApOC. I7 8 OavpacrO^arovraL 01 
KaroiKowres ... wv ... /8A7roj/T(ov is not a gen. abs. But 
for this intervening wv the text would have read /SAeVovres or 
orav /^AeTTcocriv. 

() Temporal genitive. This genitive denotes the whole 
period of time during which something happened : 4 8 y 15 ^/xe pas 
Kat VVKTOS a phrase that should be restored in 8 12 2i 25 . 

(iii.) Dative, (a) Instrumental dative. This dative is of 
infrequent occurrence. It is found in 4 4 Trepi/SefiXrjfjievovs i/y,cmois, 
[Q 13 ySe/^a/x/xevov cu/zart, i8 21 op/x^/mri jSXrjOrjcreTaL (source), 22 14 
rois irvAaxrtV eicreX^cocrtv, 2 1 8 [8 8 ] Kato/xeV^ Trupt , I5 
5 1 Kareo-^payio /Aevov (T<f>pay L<rLV, 17* l8 

jLuyaAT? is found after Aeyeii/, 5 12 (6 1 ) 8 13 (yet with eV, i4 7 - 9 ) : 
after /<paeiv, 6 10 y 2 io 3 ip 17 (but with ev in passages from another 
hand, i4 15 i8 2 ) : after <u)veu/, i4 18 . This instrumental dat. is 
mostly replaced in our author by lv (see above, p. cxxx, under eV), 
or occasionally after passive verbs by lv or a-n-o. 

(fr) Dative of time, /una <Spa in ig 10 - 16 - 19 (source) is difficult. 
It seems to mean "in the course of an hour." Hence we 
should expect ev />ua cupa, just as in i8 8 we have ev /ata T7/xepa or 
else /x6a? ^epas, "in the course of one day." Yet see Blass, 
Gr. 1 20. 

(c) Hebraic dative. 2i 8 rots Se SetAots ... TO /xepog avrwv. 
See below, p. cxlviii (ti) (6). 

(iv.) Accusative of point of time. 3 3 Troiav wpai/. Cf. J 4 52 
See Abbott, Gr. 75 ; Acts 20 16 r^v rj^pav rrj<s 
This usage (Blass, Gr. 94) occurs in connection 
with wpa in Attic Greek and in the papyri. Moulton, Gr. 63. 

(v.) Vocative. There are nearly 60 examples of the nomina 
tive with the article used as a vocative in the N.T. It has a 
double origin ; for it was well established both in Greek and in 
Hebrew. In Greek l it carried with it a rough peremptory note, 
and in the N.T. this note still survives : cf. Mark 9 25 TO aAaAov /cat 
KCDC^OJ/ 7rve{;/xa : J IQ 3 ^aipe 6 j3acnX.vs r. lovSauov. In the latter 
passage there is a note of derision : /foo-iAev r. lovScuW 2 would 
have conceded the justice of Christ s claims. In the tender ^ 
Trats eyeipe, Luke 8 54 , Moulton (Gr. 70) finds "a survival of the 
decisiveness of the older use." 

But the Hebrew vocative with the art. carries with it a 
different and often a more dignified note. It can be used in the 
most respectful form of address to kings, or in a minatory sense 

1 Blass (Gr. 69) quotes Aristophanes, Frogs, 521, 6 TTCUS d/coAotftfei ( = " you 
there, the lad I mean, follow"). 

2 Moulton (Gr. 71) observes that Mark s use of this phrase in I5 18 "is 
merely a note of his imperfect sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek 


to inferiors: cf. Is 42 18 , Joel i 2 - 13 . But it is never used in 
addressing God in the O.T. (except possibly in Neh i 5 , Dan 9 4 ). 1 
Yet since the LXX generally renders K and DN"6 in the vocative 
by 6 0eo s, the solemn use of this vocative appears to have 
originated with the LXX, being a higher development of the 
usage already found in Hebrew. Our author appears therefore 
to have been influenced in this direction by the LXX : cf. 4 11 
6 Kvpios KCU 6 0eos 77/A(ov, 2 6 10 6 SetTTTOT^s 6 ayios, I2 12 I5 3 i6 5 
jg4. 20 j^ j n contrast with this prevailing usage, we find, 
however, Kt pie 6 tfeos, n 17 I5 3 i6 7 : Kvpie, lya-ov, 22 20 . 
(vi.) Verbs with different cases or constructions. 

(a) <XKOUU>. Our author uses this verb with gen. of person, 
51. 3. 5 313 T 65. 7. an( j acc of thing, i 3 7 3 9 16 22 8 . 3 But d/coveti/ takes 
both the gen. and ace. of the thing, as, for instance, with ^wi/rj. 
Now in J O.K. <a>i>?7s 4 = to hear so as to obey: cf. 5 25 - 28 io s - 16 , 
while tt/<. <f}wrjv = \.o hear without further result: cf. 3 8 5 37 , 
similarly OLKOVW \6yov and Aoywi/. See Abbott, Gr. 435 sq., 
Johannine Voc. 116 (footnotes). This distinction does not 
exist in our author, save apparently accidentally. Thus in 3 20 
ii 12 (&C 025 but not A 046) a*. <f>wf)s="to obey." In 9 13 
I0 4. s ui2 I2 10 i4 2 (Wr) i8 4 ig 1 - 6 the phrase O.K. </>coi/>jv does not 
express obedience to, or regard of, the voice, as in J it would 
connote. Here the phrase means "to hear intelligently," "to 
understand." But d/<. ^wvr/s has exactly the same force in i4 13 
i6 x 2 1 3 . Hence our author does not observe either the usage of 
J nor the well-known one of Acts 9 7 where O.K. ^>wv^s="to hear 
a sound " (without understanding its meaning), and in 9 4 26 14 O.K. 
<j><i>vrjv= " to hear intelligently " 5 

(b) ypd<j>ea6au Always ypcx^etr^at ev TW /3i/3\iii> in our author : 
cf. (i 3 ) 2o 12 2 1 27 and especially i3 8 ; but in source, ypa</>. CTTL TO 
PLJS^LOV, iy 8 . This latter construction is found in quite other 
phrases : 2 17 CTT! r. ij/rjtfiov . . . yeypa/x^ievov, 3 12 I9 16 . 

(c) 8t86i/ai. This verb is followed by the partitive gen. (TOV 
a) in 2 17 ; not so elsewhere in N.T. 

(cC) euayYeXi^en . In io 7 c. ace. of person, and in i4 6 with 
CTTI c. ace. 

The rest of the N.T. uses the middle of this verb and 
frequently c. ace. of person. It does not occur in J in any 

1 This usage, however, was well established in Aramaic, which had three 
different ways of making the noun definite when it was to stand in the 
vocative. See Kautzsch, Gr. des Btblisch. Aramaischen, p. 148 sq. 

2 6 /tfyuos as a vocative is not found except in this passage (Abbott). 

3 In 5 13 we have TTO.V Krlfffia . . . -fJKova-a \tyovras (al. X^yoj/ra), the idea of 
Jhe thing prevails and not that of the person ; hence the ace. 

4 In classical Greek " to hear a sound." 

5 In i. 2. 3 J aKoueiv takes a gen. of the person and an ace. of the thing 
except in 3 J 4 where it is followed by an ace. of the person. 

NUMBER cxli 

form. In Attic this verb takes ace. of thing and dat. of 

(e) irpoaKuyeif. The cases with this verb are dealt with in vol. 
i. 211 sq. Our author clearly uses Tr/ooovcvi/eiv with dat. only of 
the worship of God. When the verb takes the ace. it is homage 
or inferior worship that is designed. Abbott ( Voc. 137) shows 
that " the Synoptists reserve the ace. for the worship due to God 
or God s Son," in contrast with the use in the LXX or that of 
our author. Next (138 sqq.) he discovers in the Samaritan 
Dialogue in J 4 and in the Temptation narratives in the Synop 
tists " a deliberate differentiation of the two Greek constructions " 
\_Trpoa-Kvvfiv, c. ace. ( = worship of), and c. dat. ( = prostration to)] 
in which the Evangelists "appear to use 7rpo<rKwe u> with the ace. 
as meaning such worship as ought to be paid to God alone." 
Thus though Trpoo-KwetV c. dat. occurs in J 4 21 - 23a Q 38 , it has not the 
full meaning of worship which is implied in 4 2bb - 24 . Hence our 
author and J again differ here. 

(/) Trepif3<XXe<r0cu 1 1 times c. ace. ; once c. ei/. 

(g) (jximteiy. In 2 1 23 c. ace: in 22 5 <j>. ZTT avrovs. Here 
there appears to be a Hebraism : see p. cxlviii (h) (i). 

8. Number. 

(i.) When several subjects follow a verb and the first is in 
the sing., the verb is in the sing. : cf. 8 7 g 2 - 17 n 18 i2 10 i8 20 ig 20 
20 11 ; but if they precede, the verb stands in the pi. : cf. 6 14 i8 17 
2o 13s( i-. So also in J :.see Abbott, Gr. 307. 

(ii.) (a) The neuter plural is generally followed by the pi. 
verb : cf. I 19 (a etcrtV), 3 2 4 (a OVK e/x,oXwav), [4 5 ] 5 14 (ra reVerepa 
<3a eXeyov), Q 20 (a ... Swai/rat), II 18 15* i6 20 (opr/ . . . evpeOrjarav), 
20 12 2 1 4 . The pi. verb may precede the neuter pi.: cf. 4 9 
(Soxrovcriv TO, wa), II 13 (aTTCKravOrjcrav . . . oi/o/xara) [i6 14 (elcrlv 
yap Tri/ev/xara)], l8 23 (eTrXavrjOrjcrav Trdvra ra. ZOvrj), 2 1 24 . This 
construction can generally be explained Kara o-vi/taw, the neuter 
nouns being conceived of as masculine or feminine. 

(b] But the sing, verb occasionally follows the neut. pi. : cf. 
I 19 (a/xeXXet), 2 27 [($1/17) . . . <rwrpt)8eTai ?], 4 8 (ra. reoxrepa ^<3a . . . 
e^coi/ 1 ), I3 14 (a eSo^), I4 13 (ra yap epya . . . aKoXov^et), i8 14 
(ra. XtTrapa . . . a.7r<oXero), IQ^- 4 (TO, CTT par . . . -^/coXo^et) } 
less often the sing, verb precedes : cf. 8 3 (eSoOrj . . . 0u//.ia/xaTa), 

(iii.) The plural verb follows certain collective nouns in the 
sing. : o^Xos TroXvs . . . ecrrwres, 7 9 : o^Xov TroXXov . . . Xcyovrcov 
ig 1 - 6 , but generally In J this noun has the sing, verb except in 

1 But it is better to take lx w " h 6 * 6 a s influenced by the tv ra0 tv preceding 



6 24 7 49 i2 12 . In J 7 49 i2 12 oxAos is accompanied by a participle 
in the sing, (in its collective character) and by the verb in the 
pi. (as conveying the idea of separate individual action). See 
Abbott, Gr. 307. Aaos has the pi. verb in i8 14 and 777 in i3 3 - 4 . 

9. Gender. 

(i.) As a rule the concord of gender is observed, but there 
are many exceptions. The greater number of these can be 
explained as constructions Kara o-weo-iv. Thus 4 7 u>oi/ e^wv, 
4 8 ra reWepa a>a . . . Aeyovres, I3 14 rw Orjpiu 05 c^ei, I7 11 
OrjpLov . . . avTOS oySoos ecrrtv, I7 16 TO, Se/ca Kcpara . . . /cat TO 
Orjptov, OVTOL. In i5 12 atos (A) TO apviov is to be similarly 
explained, though in 5 6 I4 1 apviov has the part, in the neuter. 
Similarly 7 4 \L\LOL^ eo-^payior/xeVoi (cf. also I4 3 ), I9 14 TO. 
o-Tpareu evSeSv/xevot, 5 6 Trvf.vfJio.Ta. d7reoraAju,eVoi, 5 13 TTOLV KTicr/xa 
. . . AeyovTas (tf), 9 5 e8o^ auTots (/.. cwcpi Ses). With (J>a>vq there 
are several such wrong concords : 4 1 17 <(m/r) . . . Aeyon/ : cf. 
also 5 1L 12 9 13 - 14 ii 15 . In i2 5 vtoV, apo-ei/ is peculiar. 

(ii.) The gender of vaAos 2i 18 is nearly always fern., but our 
author in making it masc. has the sanction of Theophrastus. 

10. The Hebraic Style of the Apocalypse. 

The Hebraic style of the Apocalypse has been acknowledged 
in a general sense till the present generation, but scholars have 
hitherto done little to establish the fact by actual and detailed evi 
dence. Now, owing on the one hand to this fact that the Hebraic 
character of the Apocalypse had not been established by actual 
proofs, and on the other to the vast mass of fresh knowledge of 
vernacular Greek brought to light by the researches of Grenfell, 
Hunt, Thumb, Moulton, Milligan, and others, a new attitude 
has recently been adopted by certain scholars on this question, 
and some have gone to the extreme length of denying altogether 
the presence of Hebraisms in the Apocalypse except in sections 
that are translated from the Semitic. Thus Professor Moulton 
(Gr. 8-9) affirms that "even the Greek of the Apocalypse itself 
does not seem to owe any of its blunders to Hebraism. The 
author s uncertain use of cases is obvious to the most casual 
reader . . . We find him perpetually indifferent to concord. 
But the less educated papyri give us plentiful parallels from a 
field where Semitism cannot be suspected. . . . Apart from 
places where he may be definitely translating a Semitic document, 
there is no reason to believe his grammar would have been 
materially different had he been a native of Oxyrhynchus, 
assuming the extent of Greek education to be the same." 


This is not only an extravagant, but, as we shall presently 
discover, a wrong statement of the case, and called forth a 
rejoinder from Professor Swete (Apoc? p. cxxiv, note), who 
wrote: "It is precarious to compare a literary document with 
a collection of personal and business letters, accounts, and other 
ephemeral writings ; slips in word-formation or in syntax, which 
are to be expected in the latter, are phenomenal in the former, 
and if they find a place there, can only be attributed to lifelong 
habits of thought. Moreover, it remains to be considered how 
far the quasi-Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves 
due to the influence of the large Greek-speaking Jewish 
population of the Delta." My own studies, which have 
extended from the time of Homer down to the Middle Ages, 
and have concerned themselves specially with Hellenistic Greek, 
so far as this Greek was a vehicle of Hebrew thought, have led 
me to a very different conclusion on this question, and this is, 
that the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely 

Its language differs from that of the LXX and other versions 
of the O.T., from the Greek of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 
and from that of the papyri. Of course it has points in common 
with all these phases of later Greek, but nevertheless it possesses 
a very distinct character of its own. No literary document of 
the Greek world exhibits such a vast multitude of solecisms. 
It would almost seem that the author of the Apocalypse 
deliberately set at defiance the grammarian and the ordinary 
rules of syntax. But such a description would do him the 
grossest injustice. He had no such intention. He is full of 
his subject, and like the great Hebrew prophets of old is a true 
artist. His object is to drive home his message with all the 
powers at his command, and this he does in many of the 
sublimest passages in all literature. Naturally with such an 
object in view he has no thought of consistently breaking any 
rule of syntax. How then are we to explain the unbridled 
licence of his Greek constructions ? The reason clearly is that, 
while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought 
has naturally affected the vehicle of expression. Moreover, he 
has taken over some Greek sources already translated from the 
Hebrew and has himself translated and adapted certain Hebrew 
sources. Besides he has rendered many Hebrew expressions 
literally and not idiomatically constantly in his own original 
work and occasionally in his translations. His translations 

1 In the next edition of Moulton s Prolegomena, the Hebraic style of the 
Apocalypse is accepted, ~s its editor, Mr. Howard, has informed me. Dr. 
Moulton changed his mind owing to the evidence I gave on this subject in. 
my Studies in the Apocalypse, pp. 79-102. 


in a few cases presuppose corruptions in the Hebrew sources. 
But this is not all. He never mastered Greek idiomatically 
even the Greek of his own period. To him very many of its 
particles were apparently unknown, and the multitudinous shades 
of meaning which they expressed in the various combinations 
into which they entered were never grasped at all, or only in 
a very inadequate degree. On the other hand, he is more accurate 
in the use of certain Greek idioms than the Fourth Evangelist. 
Notwithstanding its many unusual and unheard of expressions, 
the Book stands in its own literature without a rival, while in 
the literature of all time it has won for itself a place in the 

I will now give a list of the chief Hebraisms in the Apocalypse 
which are sufficient to prove that it is more Hebraic than the 
LXX itself. 

(i.) The Greek text needs at times to be translated into Hebrew 
in order to discover its meaning and render it correctly in English. 

(a) The resolution of the participle in one of the oblique 
cases (gen. dat. or ace.), or of an infinitive, into a finite verb in 
the following clause, which finite verb should have been rendered 
idiomatically in Greek by a participle or by an infinitive 
respectively. We have here a frequent Hebrew idiom which 
cannot be explained from vernacular Greek and which, not 
having been recognized, has led to mistranslations of the text 
in every version of the Apocalypse down to the present day. 1 

1 This idiom is attested in the N.T. outside the Apocalypse in 2 John 2 
did TT]V dXr/deiav TTJV fdvovcrav v y/juv Kal fjieQ ft/j.u>v ftrrcu = "for the truth s 
sake which abideth in us and shall be with us." So rightly the A.V., but 
wrongly in the R.V. Col I 26 rb /mvarrjptov r6 diroKeKpv/Afj^vov dirb r&v aluvuv 
. . . vvv 5 4(pavep&6r), is another example. 

Long after I had* discovered these Hebraisms and recognized the necessity 
of translating them idiomatically as such, I found that several of the versions 
had recovered the right rendering purely from the consciousness of the 
translators that the Greek text could not be taken literally as it stood. 

Two of the Greek uncials, in fact, and very many of the cursives, have 
actually altered the Greek so that it represents idiomatically the Hebrew 
idiom. Thus X reads, tffT&ras . . . ^%ovras Ki6dpas T. deov Kal a dovras, in 
I5 2 * 3 , and 046 and many cursives read Kal iroL^ffavTi in I 5 instead of Kal 
tTTolyaev and -7) \tyei . . . Kal didd<TKi for T. \tyov<rav . . . Kal diddffKei 
in 2 20 . These are simply emendations, and they are emendations which 
represent idiomatically John s thought in Greek, but do not represent what 
he wrote. The translators of the versions restored the true sense in several 
passages by conjecture from a study of their contexts. Thus in I 5 Pr fl 
gig vg (arm?) s 2 eth render " qui dilexit et fecit" (r dyajruvri 

in 2 2 and 2 9 Pr gig vg s 2 eth render "qui se dicunt . . . 
et non sunt " (T. \tyovras . . . Kal OVK dfflv] : in 2 20 gig s 1 - 2 arm eth = 
qui dicit . . . et docet (T) \tyovffa . . . Kal 5i5d<r/ca)> 2 s3 arm 1 - 2 - 3<x =ego 
sum qui scruto . . . et do (ty& efyu 6 tpavvuiv . . . Kal Sc6<rw) : in 7 14 Pr gig 
vg s 1 arm eth = qui venerunt (or veniunt) . . . et laverunt (ol tpx6fJ-evoi . . . 
; in I4 2 " 3 743. 1075 2 arm b eth = citharizantes et cantantes 


"It is," writes Driver (Hebrew Tenses, 163), "a common 
custom with Hebrew writers, after employing a participle or 
infinitive, to change the construction, and if they wish to subjoin 
other verbs, which logically should be in the participle or 
infinitive as well, to pass to the use of the finite verb." Here 
we have the explanation of a dozen of passages in our author, 
which have been generally mistranslated in all the versions. 
In a few cases they are rightly translated, and then only 
through deliberate emendation of the text. 1 

The idiom of a participle continued by a finite verb is 
rendered literally into Greek in the LXX in Gen 27 33 , Is i4 17 , 
and idiomatically in Is 5 8 - 23 , Ezek 22 3 . But it is rendered liter 
ally comparatively seldom in the LXX, whereas in our text it 
occurs ten times and most probably eleven originally, as we 
shall see presently. In a few cases the Syriac, Latin, Bohairic, 
and A.V. are right, but probably unconsciously. This idiom 
emerges in the first chapter in 5 " 6 and recurs in 18 2 2 - 9 - 20 - 23 3 9 7 14 
14 2 " 3 I5 3 . (a) In I 5 " 6 we have TO> dyaTruJVTi T7/xas /cat Xvaavri ^/xas 
. . . /cat eTj-ofyo-ev ^/xas /focrtXciW, which should therefore be 
rendered, " Unto Him that loveth us ... and hath made us," 
and not as in R.V. " Unto Him that loveth us ... and He made 
us." (/?) The failure to recognize this idiom in i 18 has led most 
scholars to mispunctuate the text, and the rest, like Wellhausen 
and Haussleiter, to excise 6 oh/. The translation of 6 wv KCU 
eyevo /r/p ve/cpds should be i 17c "Fear not: I am the first and 
the last, i 18 And He that liveth and was dead." Thus we 
recover the right sense, (y) Again we have in 2 23 eyw dpi 6 
epawoov . . . /cat Swcrw another example of this idiom = " I am 
He that trieth . . . and giveth." Here the Hebrew in our 
author s mind would be Tin^l jnan or even fritf 1 ! : cf. Dan 1 2 12 , 
and see vol. ii. 392 n. For a further treatment of this idiom the 
reader can consult the note in vol. i. 14 sq. (8) Next, attention 
should be drawn to 2o 4 , where originally I feel assured there was 
another instance of this idiom ; for the otrtves in TWV TreTrcAe/ao-yLtcvwv 
. . . /cat omves ov 7rpo(TCKvv7)(rav is obviously an insertion made 
by John s literary executor, who edited 2o 4 -22 after John s death. 

(Kidapi6i>Twv ... /cat $8ov<riv) : in I5 2 3 # Pr fl vg s 1 arm eth = stantes 
. . . habentes . . . et cantantes (eo-Twras . . . ^xomts . . . /cat $dov<rii>). 

Thus we discover the strange fact that in the above passages many of the 
ancient versions represent idiomatically and accurately the thought of John, 
where all but universally the modern versions do neither. The modern editions 
of these versions frequently punctuate wrongly the above passages, and con 
sequently mislead the student. 

1 These passages are trer f ^d by modern editors as anacoloutha They are, 
however, nothing of the kind : they are normal constructions in the grammar 
of the Apocalypse. Sometimes editors have sought to get over difficulties 
they fail to understand by mispunctuating the text. 


See vol. ii. 182, 183. The insertion of omves is against our 
author s usage. In practically every instance the failure to recog 
nize this idiom has led both to a mistranslation of the text and a 
misrepresentation of the meaning. Since the various instances 
of this idiom are dealt with as they arise, alike in the Com 
mentary and Translation, I will bring forward only two more 
here to show how important it is that it should be accurately 
rendered, (e) In I4 2 3 17 <f>u>vi] rjv rjKovcra ws KiOapipSwv KiGapi^ovTdtv 
eV rats Kt$apats avruv l KOU aSovcrw a>? a>S>)v Kairrjv = " The voice 
which I heard was as the voice of harpers, harping with their 
harps and singing as it were a new song " : () 2 20 r) Ae yovo-a 
eavn/f irpo^rjTiv /cat StSdV/cet = " who calleth herself a prophetess 
and teacheth " (hot "and she teacheth," R.V.). 

(b) In i3 15 we have a resolution of the infinitive into a finite 
verb in the following clause as in Hebrew (see quotation above 
from Driver s Hebrew Tenses}. Thus at l^66t] t o-vrrj f Sowai 
. . . Kcti 77-0117077 = Etyni ... nrp J17 jD^I = " And it was given 
unto him to give . . . and to cause." See vol. ii. 420, footnote. 

(t) Just as in (a, b}, the constructions under this head are quite 
impossible and unintelligible as Greek, but are full of meaning 
as literal reproductions of a Hebrew ididm. (a) The first is i2 7 
6 M.L\arjX KCU ot ayyeXot avrov TOV (> J< 46) TroAejtx^crat. We 
have here a classical Hebrew idiom: see vol. i. .p. 322. The 
words rightly understood are most vivid : " Michael and his 
angels had to fight with the dragon." It is remarkable that the 
MSS allowed this astonishing Greek to survive in any form. 
(ft) The same idiom recurs in i3 10 where only A has preserved 
it in a slightly corrupt form : et TIS . . . a.7roKravOr)vai, f avrov f 
i/ fJ-ax^Pfl aTroKTavOfjvai. (-OV6 ^ n - - 2 ^.^ "K?N) = " if any 
man is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be 
slain." In vol. i. 356, I have shown that the Greek translators 
found great difficulty in rendering this idiom, and resorted to at 
least half a dozen different ways. The same idiom is to be 
found in Ethiopic. In /cavo-wv co-rat (Luke i2 54 ) the carat is 
rendered by the Eth. lamedh before the infinitive. Thus our 
author introduces a new use of the inf. into Greek which none 
of the grammarians has recognized. 

(d) Again an expression may be possible in Greek as regards 
form but wrong in regard to sense. Thus in 2 22 /?a AAo> efc 
K\ivr)v as a piece of Greek is meaningless in its context but full 
of significance if retranslated into Hebrew. See vol. i. 71. 

1 Here all modern editors insert a full stop before KCU $dov<Tii>. Both the 
Syriac versions could be rendered teal q.S6vTb)v. The Bohairic requires this 
rendering here. It is true that s 1 has an internal corruption = 
Kidapl^ovTa tv TOIS Kaddpais avrov s nai $8ovTas. 

2 Cf. Ezek 26 15 for this form of the Niphal infinitive. 


(e) The finite verb in Hebrew is translated literally, when 
idiomatically it should be rendered by a participle. Cf. i 16 ^ 
oi/as avrov a>s 6 r//Uos <au/ei ( = TK 1 ENDED) = " his face was as 
the sun shining" (not "shineth"). See vol. i. 31. 

(/) The Greek phrase Kvpios 6 #eo<j 6 ira.vTOKpa.rwp requires to 
be retranslated in order to punctuate and translate it rightly. It 
should not be punctuated as in WH with a comma after Kvpios 
and another after 0eos. In fact no commas should intervene at 
all. The entire phrase is found in 2 Sam 5, i Kings iQ 10 - 14 , 
Hos i2 5 < 6 ), Amos 3 13 4 13 5 14 etc. ( = niN3Vn TOM m.T), and often 
Kvpios ira.vTOKpa.TiDp, Hab 2 13 , Hag i 2 - 5 , Zech i 3 . Next it is to 
be observed that 6 iravTOKparup in all these cases is a rendering 
of JYlNItt (with or without the art.) following the construct case. 
Hence 6 ira.vTOKpa.Twp is the equivalent of a gen. in Greek 
dependent on the noun that precedes it. Thus nothing not 
even a comma (as in WH) should intervene between 6 0eos and 
6 iravTOKpa.T(Dp. They belong inseparably together, and 6 TTO.VTO- 
KpaT<ap is never separated in the LXX from the noun of which 
it is an attribute, nor does our author ever disjoin 6 0eo s and 
6 Tra.vTOKpa.Twp : cf. 4 8 ii 17 i5 3 i6 7 - 14 iQ 6 - 15 2I 22 . 1 Thus we see 
that on textual grounds i 8 (Kvpt-os 6 0eos, 6 w KCU 6 v /ecu 6 
epxojuevos, 6 TravTo/cparwp) is the interpolation of an ignorant 
scribe, who was unacquainted with the origin of this divine 
title. The context also is against it. See vol. ii. 38, n. 4. 
Furthermore, it follows that it is not to be rendered "the 
Lord God, the Almighty," as in R.V., but as "the Lord God 

(g) When Hebrew and Greek words agree as to their primary 
meanings, the secondary meanings of the Hebrew words are in 
a few cases assigned to the Greek. Here retranslation is 
necessary, (a) In lo 1 we have the extraordinary phrase ot iroocs 
avrov ws oTvXot THUG S. Here, as I have shown in vol. i. 259 sq., 
TrdSes is to be rendered as "legs." (/5) Again Troi/xcuVeu/ is to be 
rendered as "to break" in 2 27 i2 5 ig 15 for the same reason: see 
vol. i. 75 sq. (y) Again in i 5 the primary sense of TT/DWTOTOKOS, 
"firstborn," is eclipsed by the secondary denoting "chief" or 
"sovereign" which secondary sense it derives originally from 

1 Hence it is clear that K 025. 046 Pr gig vg s 2 wrongly insert ^aDv 
between 6 6e6s and 6 TravTOKparup in IQ 6 . A s 1 bo arm eth Cyp rightly omit. 
It is noteworthy that in 4 8 the scribes of some eight cursives and arm 1 sub 
stituted <ra(3aud for 6 6e6s under the influence of the LXX of Is 6 3 , and thus 
arrived at the impossible text ffa.j3a.ud 6 TravroKpariop. Clearly they did not 
know that 6 ira.vTOKp6.Twp was a rendering of aa(3awd. Possibly this latter 
word was originally a marginal gloss explaining the origin of 6 Tra.vTOKpa.Twp. 
It is significant of the independence with which our author deals with O.T. 
phrases that he changes ITUUS m,T ( = /ctf/nos (rafiadd, LXX) in Is 6 3 , on which 
his text is based, into /ctf/nos 6 6ebs 6 ira.vTOKpa.Twp in 4 8 n 17 I5 3 i6 7 19" 2 1 22 , or 
into 6 0ebs 6 iravTOK. in i6 14 I 15 . 


the Hebrew -1123. Cf. Job i8 13 where mo TD3 = " the most 
deadly disease," and Is i4 30 D^T t n i O3="the poorest." See 
note on i 5 in the Commentary. (8) Possibly in i 7 KOTTTCCT&U -m 
we have an instance in which a secondary meaning of f>y is 
assigned by our author to ri. 

(h) Other Hebrew idioms literally reproduced in the Greek 
need to be retranslated in order to appreciate their exact 
meaning, (a) 2 23 8a>o-w="to requite," as fm in Jer. i; 10 on 
which 2 23 is based. (/?) 3 8 SeSoo/ca CVCOTTIOV o-ov 6vpav="I have 
set," etc. See vol. i. 41. (y) 3 9 180^ 8tS = " behold I will make ": 
vol. i. 41. (8) 5 6 eV /xeVo) . . . ev /ieVo) = " between . . . and": 
see vol. i. 140. (e) 6 1 Xeyovro? o>s <f>wr) (AC 046 and most 
curss.) /fyovT/}?. Here o>s <o>v?7 = 7ip3, which our author may 
have had in his mind, and which = ws <j>wr) or d>s ^WVT?. By a 
slip our author wrote the former. The same misrendering is 
found in Is 5 17 etc. : see vol. i. 161. () i2 n IvtKrja-av 8ta TO at/xa 
TOV apvLOv . . . /cat ovK r)-ya7rr)(Tav, KrX., where the /cat is to be 
rendered by "seeing," as vav in Hebrew. The /cat ( = vav) 
introduces a statement of the condition under which the action 
denoted by IviKYja-av took place. See footnote 7, vol. ii. 417. 
The same Hebraism recurs in i8 3 ig 3 . (rj) i2 14 airo 
Trpoo-wTrov TOV o^ew? = iyn3n S 32D "because of the serpent": 
see vol. i. 330. (0) 2I 8 rot5 8e SeiAots ... TO /xe/aos avT(i)V = 
Dp^n 3^ l| 3^ The dative is to be explained as a repro 
duction of the Hebrew idiom where P introduces a new subject : 
see vol. ii. 2l6, footnote, (t) 22 5 6 #eos (am crei CTT O.VTOVS. Our 
author uses <ometv as a transitive verb in iS 1 2i 23 , and naturally 
we expect it to be used as such here. Moreover, the context 
itself is against using it here intransitively ; for " God will shine 
upon them " is not a likely expression. If, however, we under 
stand "His face" as in the Hebrew, Ps n8 27 , we can render 
<amv transitively as in iS 1 2i 23 and give a most excellent 
meaning to the passage : " will cause his face to shine upon 
them " : see vol. ii. 210 sq. 

(ii.) Other Hebraisms. (a) 3 20 /ecu introducing the apo- 
dosis (cf. io 7 i4 10 ). (b) 5 7 (cf. 8 3 17! 2i 9 ) ?X0/ /cat 

L\r)<f)V. (c) 6 8 6 Ktt$T^l/OS CTTai/W ttVTOl! OVO/Xtt ttUTW 6 $dVaTOS = 

"I3"J ID^ V^y 3D"in. Here observe the non-Greek sense assigned 
to <9oWos: cf. 2 23 i8 8 . (d) 6 1 ^lav eK = "the first of." (<?) 8 3 tW 
8wcrt (/.<?. ^v/xta^ara) Tats ?r/3oo-U^at? = " to offer it upon " = nflJTJ 
ni^BH ^y: Cf. Num IQ 17 Or l8 12 . (/) IO 8 vTraye Xa/Se. (^) I2 5 
vtov apo-ei> = "l3T |3. (/^) I3 8 oi/o/xa = ovo/JLara (cf. I7 8 ). 

(f) The future is to be rendered by the pres. in 4 9 10 ; for 
here the future represents the Hebrew imperfect in a frequen 
tative sense. Thus orav 8wo-ovo-tv . . . 8oav . . . Treo-owTai, 
"when they give . . . glory . . . they fall down." This mis- 


translation of the Hebrew imperf. is often met with in Greek 
translations. Its occurrence in our author, who thinks in Hebrew, 
is therefore very natural. See vol. ii. 399, footnote. The future 
in i3 8 Trpoa-KwrjcrovcrLv should be rendered as Tr/ooo-e/cwow ( = 
Hebrew imperf.). 

(k) The present in Q 6 is to be rendered as a future, where 
(fjtvyet represents the Hebrew imperf. in our author s mind : as a 
past imperf. in 7 10 Kpd^ova-w, I2 4 o-vpei, i6 21 KaTa<aryi. 

(iii.) Hebrew constructions are reproduced, parallels to 
which are found occasionally in vernacular Greek. 

(a) Nominativus pendens. This construction is found in 2 26 
3 12. 21 viKcoi/ 8(joo-(o auT<3, 6 8 6 Ka^/xevos eTravw avrov 6Vo/x,a 
avrw. 1 In other passages, however, our author has assimilated 
the construction more to the Greek construction by changing the 
nom. into the dat., 2 7 - 17 (2i 6 ) TU> VI/COH/TI SaVco avr<$, 6 4 TU> 
Ka^^/xeVa) eV f O.VTOV f cBodrj avrol : cf. Matt. 5 40 . This construc 
tion is very frequent in the LXX owing to its frequency in the 

(l>) The oblique forms of the personal pronoun are added to 
relatives. 3 8 rjv ouSeis Swarai /cAeurat avr^v, y 2 ois l860rj avrots, 
7 9 ov . . . avroV, 138- 12 20 8 : cf. also I2 6 - 14 (OTTOV . . . CKCI) ly 9 
(OTTOV . . . eV avrCov). The pronoun is, of course, pleonastic in 
the Greek but not in the Hebrew, where, since the relative is 
uninflected, it supplies the inflection needed. This pleonastic 
use of the pronoun is found also in Mark i 7 ( = Luke 3 16 ), y 25 
9 3 (ota . . . OIITWS), 13, J i 27 , Acts i5 17 . Examples of this idiom 
occur exceptionally in the KOU/TJ. It is found also in Early 
English. But in our text its frequency is due to Semitic 

(<:) (a) A noun or participial phrase, which is dependent on 
or in apposition to a preceding gen. dat. or ace., may stand in 
the nom., if it is preceded by the art., though Greek syntax would 
require it to agree with the oblique case that goes before 
it. This peculiar idiom is derived from the Hebrew, accord 
ing to which the noun or phrase which stands in apposition 
to a noun in an oblique case remains unchanged. Instances 
of this usage occur in the LXX ; but what is a rare phenomenon 
in the Greek version of the O.T. (cf. Ezek. 23 7 - 12 ) 2 is a well- 
established idiom in the Greek text of the Apocalypse. 3 Our 

1 This occurs also elsewhere in the N.T., Matt 4 16 I2 36 , Luke I2 10 , 
Acts 7 40 . 

2 This anomalous construction is concealed by the wrong punctuation in 
Swete s edition in both passages, and in one of them in Tischendorf s. But 
the art. does not occur in the Greek, as it was not in the Hebrew. 

3 This idiom occurs exceptionally in the noivi), and as a blunder in other 
languages. But it is not a blunder in our author. Moulton s attempts to 
explain away this Hebrew idiom are just as idle as his attempt to explain TOV 


author has, in fact, adopted a Hebraism into his Greek, and 
naturalized it there. Thus it has become a marked character 
istic of his style: cf. i 5 2 13 - 20 3 12 [8 9 ] 9 14 i 4 12 20 2 . In these 
passages observe that the nom. is always preceded by the art. 
I 5 SLTTO Ir)(rov XpioTOv 6 /xapTDS 6 TTttTTO?, 2 20 Trjv ywauca Iea/3eX, 
y] Xeyovcra eavrr/v vrpocfrvJTiv, 3 12 T^S KCUVT^S lepoucraX^/x, rj /cara- 
/3atVouo-a, [8 9 Ttov KTio-ftartoi/ . . . ra e^oi/ra j^v^as]. How 
readily a Jew could adopt or fall into such a solecism when 
using an inflected language, is illustrated by Nestle (Textual 
Criticism of the Greek Testament, p. 330), who notes the following 
gem from Salomon Bar in his translation of the Massoretic note 
at the end of the Books of Samuel (Leipzig, 1892, p. 158), "ad 
mortem Davidis rex Israelis." (/3) If the art. is omitted, then 
the word or phrase is put in the same case as the noun that 
precedes it. Contrast 9 14 TW dyyeXw, 6 e^wv T. craXTuyya, and 7 2 
9 17 I3 1 I4 6 I5 2 iS 1 2O 1 ayyeXov . . . l^ovra rrjv K\LV. (y) But 
this rule does not apply to Xe ywv. Thus in i4 6 we have eTSoi> 
aXXoi/, ayycXov Trero/xevov . . . e^ovTa evayye Xiov. . . . Xeytuv. But 
Xeywv (or Xeyovres) stands by itself: it appears almost indeclin 
able. This may be due to the fact that it may reproduce Tfow 
in our author s mind. Cf. 4 1 ^ <jf>wv>) . . . Xe yon/ : 5 11 6 
avTcoi/ . . . Xeyovres, II 1 eSo^ yu,ot KaXa/nos . . . Xeyan/, 
l . . . Xeyovres. This solecism is, of course, found in 
the LXX: cf. Gen 15! 22 20 3 8 13 4 5 16 4 8 20 etc. (3) ^ov follows 
an ace. when not preceded by the art. in 5 6 apviov CO-TT/KOS . . . 
e ^iov, I 4 14 ojjLOiov vlov avOpwirov, ^wv, I7 3 Ovjpiov . . . e^wv. But 
in 5 6 i7 3 it seems corrupt for c^oi/. In i4 14 e^wv is right and 
Ka^/xei/ov o^otov, which precedes, is a slip for nom. 

(iv.) (a) There are passages which need to be retranslated in 
order to discover the corruption or mistranslation in the Hebrew 
sources used by our author. 

We have already seen (see p. Ixii sqq.) that our author made use 
of sources some of which were Greek, though originally written in 
Hebrew ; others which he found in Hebrew and rendered into 
Greek. As it chances, we are only concerned under the present 
heading with the Hebrew sources which our author himself 
translated ; for the passages which presuppose mistranslation or 
a corrupt Hebrew original are i3 3 - n and i5 5 - 6 . (a) As regards 
i3 3 I have shown in vol. i. 337 that lOavfjida-Orj . . . OTTICTW TOV 
OrjpLov is corrupt, and that the corruption did not originate in the 
Greek but in the Hebrew; for since i3 3c - 8 and iy 8 are doublets 
(the latter being an independent rendering of a purer form of the 

in I2 7 Nearly every one of his references to the Apocalypse needs 
to be corrected. Robertson (Gr. 414 sq.) is too much influenced by Moulton, 
and like all other grammarians fails to recognize this Hebraism and most 
others in the Apocalypse. 


Hebrew original), we are enabled to discover the origin of the 
corruption. Thus the clause in i3 3c = iTnn nnNB . . . nonni, 
where the "nriND is corrupt for rn&OD, or rather rn&O3 = fiXe-n-ova-a. 
Thus we have : " the whole earth wondered when it saw the 
beast," which brings it into line with i; 8 "they that dwell on 
the earth shall wonder . . . when they see the beast." But the 
evidence for this restoration cannot be appreciated, unless the 
reader turns to p. 337 of this vol., where the two passages are 
placed side by side, (ft) In i3 n we have the extraordinary 
statement that the second Beast had two horns like a lamb and 
spake like a dragon ! The first idea may be suggested by Matt. 7 15 
" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep s clothing, 
but inwardly are ravening wolves." See, however, vol. ii. 451 sq. 
But what is the explanation of the second idea "he spake like 
a dragon " ? A dragon does not speak. If the text had read 
"like the dragon," it might have recalled the temptation of Eve 
in Eden. But the lack of the article can be explained by the 
translator s reading pjfD as P3H2 instead of pliri| ; and, since 
Kal IA.aA.ei = "mm, the latter is most probably corrupt for TlNm, as 
in 2 Chron. 22 10 (cf. 2 Kings n 1 ). Thus i3 llc should be read: 
" but he was a destroyer like the dragon." This brings our text 
into line with Matt. 7 15 (quoted above) and prepares us for the 
statement in i3 15 that this second Beast put all to death that did 
not worship the first Beast, (y) Again in i5 5 - 6 there are two 
expressions, fjvoiyrj f 6 vao< riys CTKrjvfjs rov fjiaprvpcov f tv TO> 
oupava>, and ev8eSv/Ayoi f XiOov f KaOapov Aa/XTrpoi/, which are 
clearly corrupt. Inferior MSS (025. 046) have corrected the 
second into \ivov. A new vision begins with these verses. It 
is clear that no Jew writing originally in Greek could have used 
either of the obelized phrases. But, as I have shown in vol. ii. 
37 sq., what is most probably the true text can be discovered by 
retranslation into Hebrew. In the first passage, i5 5 6 vaos rr/s 
O-KT/V^S rov paprvpiov ev T<3 ovpavw = D^DKG "WE ?riN PDN1, which 
was corrupt for D^DKG^ DTI^K 73T1 = 6 vabs rov Otov 6 eV TW ovpavu, 
a phrase which we find exactly in ii 19 accompanied by the same 
verb fyoiyri and the repeated article. In i5 6 f XiOov f is to be 
explained by a mistranslation, of W ? which can be rendered 
either by Ai flos, /xap/xapos, or by /3uWivos. Here the latter, of 
course, is the right rendering. 

() These two passages naturally lead to the inquiry : Did 
John translate the Hebrew source himself, or did he adopt an 
independent Greek version of it ? The fact that every phrase 
and construction in i5 5-8 are distinctly our author s, furnishes 
such strong evidence tor the former hypothesis that it seems 
necessary to accept it. If this is right, then we must conclude 


that our author inserted here a translation which, while repro 
ducing exactly the corrupt Hebrew before him in i5 5 and a 
wrong rendering of a Hebrew word in 15, would have been 
corrected later, if he had had the opportunity of revision. 
Repeatedly we find traces of unfinished work in our author, 
which a revision would have removed. Thus i2 14 16 i8 4 (see 
vol. i. 330-332, ii. 96 ad fin.) are meaningless survivals of earlier 
expectations. Unhappily the work was revised by one of his 
disciples who was quite unequal to the task, and to whom we 
owe some of the worst confusions in the Book. See, however, 
p. Ixiv ad fin. 

(c) For other passages which need to be retranslated in 
order to discover their meaning, see i8 22 (/AOVO-IKWI/), i8 19 CK rfjs 

ii. Unique Expressions in our Author. 

(i.) i 4 dTro 6 wi/. Our author knows perfectly the case that 
should follow aTTo, but he refuses to inflect the divine name. 
See vol. i. 10. 

(ii.) i 4 6 o>i/ KCU 6 rjv KOL 6 tpxoptvos : cf. 1 1 17 i6 5 ; see vol. i. 10. 

(iii.) i 13 i4 14 o/xotoi/ vlov dv0/oo)7rov: see vol. i. 27. 

12. Solecisms due to slips on the part of our Author. 

We have now dealt with our author s grammar, first in so far 
as it is normal or abnormal from the standpoint of the Greek 
of his own age, and next in so far as its abnormalities are due to 

We have found that these abnormalities are not instances 
of mere licence nor yet mere blunders, as they have been most 
wrongly described, but are constructions deliberately chosen by 
our author. Some of these belong to the vernacular of his own 
time, some of them do not. Many are obviously to be explained 
as literal reproductions in Greek of Hebrew idioms, and some as 
misrenderings of Hebrew words or phrases in the mind of the 
author or in his Hebrew source, and some half dozen as due to 
corruptions in the Hebrew documents laid under contribution by 
our author either directly or through the medium of Greek 

Thus from a minute study of the text from this standpoint of 
grammar I have found it possible to explain that is, to bring 
within the province of the normal and intelligible all but about 
a score of passages. By our comprehensive study of our author s 
grammar we are the better equipped for recognizing the character 
of the remaining solecisms that cannot be explained from his own 
usages or vernacular Greek or the influences of a Semitic back- 


ground. The bulk of these solecisms, though not all, are simply 
slips of our author which a subsequent revision would have re 
moved, if the opportunity for such a revision had offered itself. 
These are : 

(i.) I 10 JJKovcra. <j>u>vr]v . . . o>s <raA-7rtyyos f Aeyotxr/ys f (for 
\eyovo-av) : cf. 6 6 i4 3 I6 1 where the construction is normal. 

(ii.) I 15 ot TroSes OLVTOV o/xotot ;(aA/coAt/:?dV(p a>s ev /catuVa) f TTCTTV- 
pw/xeVsf (for TreTTvpw/xeVw, a correction rightly introduced in N, 
some cursives, s 1 - 2 etc.). 

(iii.) I 20 TO fjivo-rijpiov TCOJ/ CTTTO, do-repcov . . . /cat f ras CTTTOI 
Av^vta? f (for TWV e. Av^vtcov). 

(iv.) 2 27 o-vt/Tpi/^erat for arvvrpifitjo-ovTai or crwrpt^et (?). 

(v.) 4 4 /cat /cv/cAo^ev TOV Opovov t Opovovs . . . reo-crapay . . . 
7rpeo-/3vTpov<s Ka^^/xevovs Trept/^e/^A^/xcVous . . . o~T(f>dvovs XP V " 
o-ovsf. In place of the accusatives, nominatives should be read. 
I have shown (vol. i. 115) that 4* was introduced subsequently 
by our author to prepare the way for 4 9 11 . He seemingly in 
serted it as the object of eTSoi/. It is obviously a slip. 

(vi.) 6 1 Aeyoi/ros o>s f <f>uvij f, where we should have <on/ij : see 
10. i. (h). (e) above, and vol. i. 161. 

(vii.) 6 14 ws fiifiXiov f eAio-o-o/xcvov f. This is rightly corrected 
in K and some cursives into eAio-o-o/xevos. 

(viii.) y 9 f 7repi/?e/?A>7/xeVotis f aroAas AevKas. This is obviously 
a slip for the nom. In this sentence A Pr vg omitted icat iSov 
and changed, with the exception of earo/res, the following nomina 
tives into accusatives. 

(ix.) I o 8 77 <f>a>vr] r)v rjKOvcra . . . fAaAoikrav . . . /cat Aeyovcrav f 
(for AaAovcra . . . /cat Aeyovcra : see vol. i. 267). 

(x.) n 1 e<So0r7 /xot /caAa/tos . . . Aeywv (source). This may be 
only an abnormal construction to which partial parallels are found 
in the LXX : see vol. i. 274. 

(xi.) 1 1 3 Trpo<f>r)Tvorov(nv . . . f TrcptySeySA^/txevous f. 

(xii.) ii 4 at eVwTrtoi/ rov /cvptov . . . f eo-rcures f. Since Our 
author s sense and usage here require the at lo-rwo-ai, the par 
ticiple in the masc. and without the art. is a slip. 

(xiii.) I3 3 Kat fJLiav K T. Kc/>aAoj^ avTov ws e(rc/)ay/>iev^j/. This 
is a slip exactly like that in 4 4 above. It is an addition of our 
author, and was added seemingly as the object of etSov in I3 1 . 

(xiv.) 14 6 - 7 etSov aAXov ayyeAov Trero/xevov . . . ^ovra . . . 
t Aeytov f. But it is perhaps best to take Aeywv as a Hebraism = 
ibN? : cf. 4 1 . For analogous cases see p. cl ad med. 

(xv.) I4 14 eTSov /cat tSov ve^eAr; AevKif, Kat errt rr]v vec^e Ar/v f 

KO.6TJfJI.tVOV OfJLOLOV f VLOV avOpWITOV, ^O)V. Cf. 4 2 ClSoy Kttt tOOl) 

Opovos . . . Kat 7rt . Opovov Ka^ tici/os, 1 9 11 eloov . . . Kai loov 
tTTTTos ACVKOS, /cat 6 /cafl^cj/os CTT airov, where we have the normal 


(xvi.) I4 19 TTJV Xrjvov . . . f TOI> fjieyav f. 

(xvii.) iQ 20 T7]v \LfjLV7jv TOV Trvpos f T^S Kato/xevtys f. The fact 
that the Hebrew and Aramaic words for " fire " (i.e. $K and K$X) 
are feminine, may have led to our author s forgetting himself for 
the moment and writing T^S Kato/xtV^s. In Rom n 4 we have rf) 
BaaX instead of rw BaaX. This is frequently found in the LXX of 
the prophetical books and occasionally of the historical, because 
it goes back in the mind of the translator to n$3, which mentally 
he substituted for {>jn. The influence of the Hebrew is to be 
traced in Mark i2 n ( = Matt 2i 42 ), where in the quotation from 
the LXX (Ps n8 28 ) the avrrj^nw, though we should expect 
TOTO. Cf. Gen 35 19 - 27 36 1 , Ps io2 19 n 9 50.56 etc . Possibly in 
i3 15 of our text the fern, avrfj in eSo tf?? avrfj may be due to rpn ; 
and the fern. art. in 17 ovat (i 9 12 n 14 ) may be explained by the 
gender of njn. 

(xviii.) 2 I 9 TO)J/ C^OVTWf TOLS 7TTa 0iaA.ttS f Ttol/ ye/AOl/TCOl/ f T<OV 

CTTTO. TrXrjy&v. It is hard to explain how such a slip as TWV yeju,oV 
run/ (AK 025) could have arisen, but if one investigates one s 
own slips, it is often impossible to account for them. Our 
author would no doubt have corrected this phrase into ras y*/*- 
owras as certain cursives have done, rather than into ye^ovVas as 
046 and many cursives. For the participle is used attributively, 
following TOLS . . . <}>Ld\a<s. Contrast i5 7 . 

(xix.) 2 1 14 TO ret^os r^5 TrdXeco? f C^ODV f. 

(xx.) 22 2 v\ov 00175 f Trotojv f . . . aTToSiSow. Here our 
author would no doubt have corrected TTOIOJV into TTOIOW, as is 
done in K 046 and most cursives ; for he knows the gender of 
gv\ov: cf. 22 14 i8 12( ^. If the gender of ^ led to his writing 
he would on revision either have corrected or written 
u s so as to bring it into line with the former participle. 

13. Primitive Corruptions due either to (a) accidental 
or (b) deliberate changes. 

These are due to an early scribe, or in some cases (7 15 2o 4 - llt13 
2 1 25 22 12 ) to the editor. 

(i.) (a) I 20 at Xv^yiai at cTrra [eTrra] eK/cA^cnat eto-iV. This Order 
of the numerals (see below, 15, iv., and vol. i. 224, footnote, vol. ii. 
389, footnote) is in some respects normal in our author ; but as 
WH observe, "it is morally impossible that TUJV k-n-ra IKKX^O-MV 
should be followed by kirra. cKKXrjo-iai without the article "... 
"the second kirra . . . must be an erroneous repetition of the 
first, due to the feeling that the number of the lamps was likely to 
be specified as well as of the stars." Besides, we should expect 


the art. before the second e-rrrd, since the predicate is coexten 
sive with the subject. (See chap. xiii. 2. iv.) 

(ii.) (a) 6 4 TO) KaOifficvtf iir f avrov f. 

(iii.) (b] 7 15 6 Ka^/xej/os CTTI f TOV Opovov f. 

(iv.) (tf) 8 12 f 17 -ty/xepa Kat 17 vv 6^,0005 f for i^aepas Kat o^oi tos 
I/VKTO S (as in Bohairic). 

(v.) (^) 9 17 TOVS KaflrjfAtvovs ITT f avTeov f. Contrast I9 19 - 21 . 

(VI.) (fl) I4 9 7Tt f TOV /X.6TOJ7TOV f. 

(vii.) (a) I9 18 TCOV Ka@7]/jiev<Dv CTT f airrovs f (A). 

(viii.) (3) 2O 4 TWV TreTrcA-eKio-juei/wv . . . Kat [otTires] ov Trpoa-- 
eKvvrja-av. A correction by the editor of John s Greek. 

(ix.) (b) 2O 11 TOV KaOrffjif-vov eV f avrov f. Editor s correction 
of John s Greek as in 7 15 9 17 . 

(x.) (b] 2O 13 eSwKev f ^ ^aXacrcra f r. ve/c/aov? TOIJS ev f avTrj f. 
This was a deliberate change on dogmatic grounds. See note 
in loc. 

(xi.) (a) 2 1 5 6 Ka^ /xevos CTTI f TU> ^/oovw f. 

(xii.) (a) 2 1 9 f TWV ye/xovrcov f AN 025 for ras ye/xovaas. 

(xiii.) ($) 2 1 25 ot TrvAaiFes aur^s ov pr) K\icr6to(riv ^/xepas f vv 
yap OVK eo-rai eKetf. This change was probably due to the 
editor. It originated in a misunderstanding of the text. In 
place of the last five words we should restore /cat WKTO?. See 
note in loc. 

(xiv.) 2 I 27 f TTttV KOLVOV f. Read TTttS KOIVOS. 

(xv.) (ft) 22 12 ws TO tpyov eo-Ttv avrov. This order, which is con 
trary to our author s own usage, is, like other departures from 
our author s usage in 2o 4 -22, to be traced to the editor. See 
below, 15, ii. (b). 

14. Constructions in the interpolations conflicting with 
our author s use. 

i 8 6 $os, 6 wv . . . 6 TravroKpoLTtop. See above, 10. i. (f\ 

2 22 ecu/ /o; iJieTayorjaoucrik. Our author does not use the indica 
tive after eav fjitj. 

8 11 Kat T. ovo/u,a T. curTepos X^yeTai e O Ai/av0os. Our author 
does not use Aeyetv but in this sense: cf. i 9 n 8 i2 9 i6 16 . 
This addition is made in an interpolated section ; whether before 
or after it was interpolated cannot be determined. 

9 17 T. KaOrjfjLvov<s cir auTWK ( the construction John s editor 
prefers, being better Greek : cf. y 15 9 17 20 11 in 13 above, and 
i4 15> 16 in this section). 

14 15 TW Ka0?7yu,va> evrt TT] 

14 16 6 Ka^/xevos t..l Tt]S 

I5 1 is an interpolation, since independently of other grounds 
it misuses Kat eTSov to introduce the Seven Bowls, where we 


should expect /ACTO, ravra. eTSov. Since the latter phrase, which 
is used to introduce new paragraphs or sections, is found in i5 5 , 
we see that the subject of the Bowls is there mentioned for the 
first time. 

l6 2c TOVS Trpoovcwowras TTJ eiK<m avrov. Our author would 
use the ace. here : only the dat. in reference to God. 

l6 13 cISov . . . TrvevfJiara rpia . . . <ws ftarpa^oi. (AN C 046 
min p ) Here our author would have written fiarpdxovs (so cor 
rected text in K* min p ). See on o>s, p. cxxxviii. 

i6 19 ets rpia P- PTJ. Wrong order. Our author would say 
/xepr; rpta. 

1 7 9 orrou rj yvvr] KaOrjraL eir aurwi . Our author does not use 
this construction, but oVov alone: cf. 2 13(Ws) n 8 2o 10 . 

i7 15 ou fj iropvr) KaOyTai. Our author uses oVov, not ov. 

i8 13 KOL ITTTTCOI/ . . . KOI (Tto/AaTwv. An addition conflicting 
alike with the syntax and the sense of the context. 

ig 10 Trpoa-KvvfjcraL aurw (i.e. an angel). See note on i6 2c above. 

15. Order of the Words. 

The Apocalypse is notable for the clearness, simplicity, and 
uniformity of its phrasing. When once our author has adopted 
a certain combination of words he holds fast to it as a general 
rule. This is an essential characteristic of his style. There is 
rarely any variation in the words or in their arrangement. How 
profoundly J differs from our author in this respect the reader 
will see by consulting Abbott s Gr. 401-436, where it is proved 
by hundreds of examples that J shows a subtle discrimination 
in availing himself of the manifold variations of order which are 
possible in Greek expressing various subtle shades of meaning. 
So far as the outward form goes our author s style is essentially 
monotonous when compared with that of J. And yet notwith 
standing this absolute simplicity and apparent monotony, there 
is no sublimer work in the whole Bible. J works like a 
miniature painter, but our author like an impressionist on an 
heroic scale. 

(i.) The Article. (a) A noun in the genitive never stands 
between the article and its noun, but always follows it. This 
rule is without exception. In J, on the other hand, we find i8 10 
TOV TOV dpxtepe ws $ov\ov. If, however, the article is omitted in 
the case of both nouns, then the noun in the genitive case can 
precede the noun that governs it : cf. 7 17 fays Tr^yas v(5arcuv. 

(b) Nor can participial or prepositional phrases stand between 
the art. and its noun. 1 If these stand in an attributive relation, 

1 It is quite otherwise in J 8 18 (and I2 49 ) 6 Tr^^as /me Trarrjp. Contrast i6 5 
rbv Tr^u^cwrd ju,e), 8 31 roi>s 7re7rKrrewc6ras atfry lovdatovs. 


they must follow the noun with the art. repeated : cf. n 19 6 
TOV 6eov 6 cv raj ovpavw. But when the noun is anarthrous, such 
a prepositional phrase can precede the noun, just as an anarthrous 
noun can precede the noun that governs it, as in 7 17 . This 
occurs only in the titles of the letters to the Churches. Thus in 
2 1 we must read with AC Pr TO> dyyeAw rw iv E<eVa> e/c/cA^o-ias, 
and similarly throughout the seven letters, although in the case of 
three all the MSS have been corrected and normalized. Lach- 
mann and WH recognized that this alone was what our author 
wrote, though neither they nor later editors were aware of the 
rule universally observed by him throughout J ap , that a pre 
positional phrase is never inserted between the article and its 
noun. Hence the reading adopted by Tischendorf, Alford, Weiss, 
Von Soden, etc., rrjs lv E<ro> KK\., is without justification. 
Our author could not write so. Besides, since it is his rule to 
repeat the art. before a prepositional phrase following an articular 
noun in an attributive relation, it follows that we should read ro> 
dyyeAw r<3. From the combination of these two usages emerges 
the strange piece of Greek, yet one that is essentially our author s 
TW ev E^ecrw e/cKA^o-tas. 1 

(c) But though a participial or prepositional phrase may not 
intervene between the art. and its noun, it is inserted many 
times between the art. and the participle dependent upon it : 
II 16 01 . . . Trpcor/3vTpoL ot IvwTTiov TOV Qcov KaOrjfjicvot, I4 13 I7 14 
i9 9 ; also n 4 i2 12 i3 6 - 12 i8 9 - 17 etc. 

(ii.) The Pronoun. (a) The genitive of the possessive noun 
does not precede its noun, unless when it is used unemphatically 
(i.e. vernacularly) : see notes in vol. i. 49, 68 sq. ; Abbott, Gr. 
414-422, 601-607. But in our author avrov, cun-^s, avrwv are 
never found in this unemphatic position except in 18 (source), 
though very frequently in J and a few times in i. 3 J. 

(b) Again the genitive of the possessive pronouns (/xov, i?/j,cov, 
o-ov, V/MOV, avrov, avrcov) is never separated from its noun. 2 It 
occurs roughly over 300 times or more. Hence i2 8 ovSc TO TTOS 

1 WH (N.T. in Greek, ii. "Notes on select Readings," p. 137) point 
out that inscriptions in Asia Minor connected with temples dedicated to 
the Emperor always omit the art. before vaov, as in dpxtepeus TTJS A<rias 
vaov TOV tv E0^cry, Ki^i /cy, Ile/rya/^, etc., just as r^s is omitted before 
4KK\fja-ias in our text. But independently of this our author s usage requires 
the reading which even A has only preserved three times. 

In the case of all the seven titles this construction has the support once 
of a cursive and always of one or more versions. See crit. note on 2 1 of the 
Greek text in vol. ii. 244. 

2 When a noun is followed by an attributive adjective, the pronominal 
genitive is generally inse^ ed between them : cf. 2 4 TT/J/ dydirrjv crov ryv irpwTTjv, 
2 i9 ^12 io 2 - 5 i3 16 i4 19 . The genitive of the noun can be separated by an attri 
butive adjective from the noun it depends on : cf. IQ 17 r6 O,TTVOV 7-6 jj^ya TOV 
6eov : also 6 17 i6 14 . Here the emphasis is laid on the gen. 


&v en is against our author s style, 1 also i8 14 o-ov rrjs 
TT)S i/ar^s (on other grounds we have found that 18 is a 
source) : and also 22 12 ws TO epyov eo-rlv avrov, where the wrong 
order is probably due to the editor. 

This is all the more remarkable seeing that in J the genitive 
both of the noun and of the possessive pronoun is very 
frequently separated from the noun that governs it : cf. i 49 
/SacriAevs eT TOV 1(rparj\, 2 15 3 19 98. 6. 28 (**) I2 2.47 I3 6. 14 T gi7 I9 35 
2o 23 . See vol. i. 304, footnote. 

(c) OVTOS always follows its noun. Not so in J, where it both 
precedes and follows its noun. The latter is the emphatic 
position in J : see Abbott, Gr. 409. Often in J the point of a 
passage depends on OVTOS being pre- or post-positive. 

The oblique cases of ovros never appear in the position of an 
attribute any more than the possessive pronouns. 2 Hence even 
in i8 15 (source) we have ol e/xTro/aot TOVTWV, though the attributive 
position would be the more regular: see Blass, Gram. 169. 
Contrast J 5 47 rots CKCLVOV ypa/*,/Aacriv (classical as regards CKCIVOV 
and its position). 

(d) oAXos is always pre- positive, though generally post-positive 
in the LXX as in Hebrew. 

(iii.) The Adjective. The adjective as a rule follows after the 
noun it depends on. But there are certain exceptions. In i 10 
we have lv rrj KVpidKy ^/Aepa, 3 8 fjuKpav Svvafitv, 2O 3 /xiKpov ^povov 
(yet xpovov fjiiKpov in 6 11 ), i3 3 (source) o\rj r) yfj (elsewhere 
always post-positive 3 10 6 12 i2 9 i6 14 ). //.eyas is always post 
positive except in I6 1 /xeyaA^s <^a>n}$ (always elsewhere in our 
author the adj. is post-positive in this phrase i.e. 18 times). 
i8 21 (source) rj /AcyaA.?; TroAis. tcr^vpos is once pre-positive in i8 2 
(source) lv ur\vpq. <pa>vfj. Elsewhere post-positive (5 times, in 
cluding i8 10 ). 

Thus, save in four passages of our author (i 10 3 8 j.6 1 2o 3 ), the 
adjective always follows the noun. The other instances (i3 3 
i8 2 - 21 ) are in sources. 

(iv.) The Numerals. The usage of our author in regard to 

1 When this fact is taken into account together with the five other uses 
that equally conflict with his style (i.e. I2 1 iirl TTJS Ke<f>a\rjs instead of tirl T. 
Ke0aATji>), I2 6- 14 STTOU . . . tKfi (instead of tiwov alone), I2 7 TOV before the inf. 
(whereas inf. is used in the same sense twice without TOV in I3 10 ), I2 12 oi 
ovpavoL (instead of ovpavt), oval TTJV JTJV (instead of ouai TT? 777 : cf. 8 13 ), the 
statement in vol. i. 300 sqq. must be withdrawn. Our author therefore did 
not translate 12 himself, but found it already translated into Greek, and then 
edited it to suit his main purpose : from his hand come 5s fi4\\ei 

in 1 2 5 : I2 6 (modelled on I2 14 ) : 6 #0ts 6 a/3%cuos 6 Ka\ovfjLvos . . . 
(3\ri6-r], I2 9 : TU>I> adeXfiuv rjfJi&v in I2 10 I2 11 : OTI eldev and OTL . . . els TT]I> yTJv 
in I2 13 I2 17 " 18 . See Commentary in loc. 

2 This does not hold of eaurou. In io s< 7 this possessive occurs in the 
attributive position, which is its normal one. See Blass, Gram. 168 sq. 


the order of the numerals and the words they depend on, which 
is on the whole definite and peculiar to himself, is given in vol. 
i. 224, and especially in the footnote. In the footnote in 1. 15 ab 
imo, for " exception, xvi. 19," read " the clause KCU . . . ets 
rpia fjitpr) is an interpolation " : and for the last five lines read : " In 
the case of eTrra, iy 9 (in i 20 the second eTrra is an interpolation; 
8 2b is recast and in part interpolated, and i3 3b belongs to a source), 
Se/ca, I7 12 (in I3 1 KCU 7ri r. KepoLTwv O.VTOV SCKO. SiaS^ara is inter 
polated), SwSeKci, 2 1 21 , when the subject contains any of these 
numerals preceded by the article and is followed by a noun and 
the same numeral in the predicate, the latter numeral without 
the article precedes the noun, unless the subject and predicate 
are coextensive." 

To the above one point needs to be added. When a 
numeral is connected with x l ^ l *Ses it always precedes it. Cf. 
ScoSeKo. in y 4 " 8 2 1 16 and the compound numbers in I4 1 - 3 . Hence 
ii 18 XiAuxSe? cTTTa (source) is against our author s order. The 
numerals are never separated from the nouns they qualify : hence 
iy 13 /x,i ai/ fyovo-Lv yyw/xrjv (046 min m ) is a late change. 

(v.) The Verb. (a] The verb generally precedes its subject 
and almost always its object except in sources such as n 1 13 (see 
vol. i. 272 sq.) and 18. In other sources translations from 
Hebrew such as T 2. 1 7 the order is Semitic. 

(b) Again the verb and its object are rarely separated by pre 
positional or other phrases. This holds absolutely in the case of 
OLKOVCLV (frwvrjv (ffiwvrj^). Hence A, f]Kov<ra. tfrwvrjv /xeyaX^v oiricrOfv 
/AOV, is right in i 10 , and not &C 025, r//c. OTUO-CO /xov <j>. //<. 

(c) The insertion of a relative or conditional clause between 
a conjunction and the verb it introduces is only found in the 
sources ustd by our author, I2 4 <W orav TCKY) TO re/cvov avrrjs 

$ 15 Iva. oaoi . . . Trpoo-Kwryo-cucru . . 

1 6. Combinations of Words. 

Our author always writes dcrrpaTrat KCU <a)vcu KCU 
Cf. 4 5 ii 19 i6 18 . He observed that the do-rpaTreu precede the 
ppovrai and wrote accordingly. But the editor who interpolated 
8 7 ^ 12 and made many changes in the adjoining context to adapt 
it to his interpolation, was apparently unaware of the order of 
these natural phenomena or the usage of his author : see 8 5 
l KO.L <oovat KCU. ao"Tpa.Trai.^ 

1 This non-Johannine order is not mentioned in the list of grounds for 
rejecting 8 7 12 in vol. i. 218-222. 




A complete study of the critical problems of the text is 
quite impossible in the space at our disposal. It is possible, 
however, to arrive at trustworthy results regarding the relative 
values of the uncial and some of the chief cursive MSS. The 
question of the versions is a much more difficult one ; but even 
in respect to these, conclusions approximately true can be 
arrived at. 

i. The relative values ofAttC 025. 046. 051 according to their 
respective attestation of certain Greek and Hebraistic constructions 
in our author, which are in some cases unique in Greek literature 
and in others rare or comparatively rare save in our author. 
(a) The most notable of these constructions which is practically 
unique is one which occurs seven times, once in the title of each 
letter to the Seven Churches. Thus in 2 1 John unquestionably 
wrote TW dyyeAcp ro> ev E^etrw eK/cA^o-ias and not T. dyy. rr}? ev E. 
eKKAr/o-tas, as we find in most texts of J ap . Lachmann in 
Germany recognized this as the original text, and Hort (and to 
a minor degree Souter) in England. These scholars were 
influenced purely by the weighty testimony of A in three of 
the seven passages, and C in one. In addition to this evidence, 
Hort invoked that of Primasius (in all seven passages), 1 and the 
Vulgate (in one passage). To these I am able to add the 
support of two cursives, 2019. 2050, and of four versions, i.e. arm 
for all seven passages, s 1 for four, s 2 for two, and gig (2 1 ) and sa 

1 When I combined the evidence of the MSS and versions for the seven 
passages in vol. ii. p. 244 (Appar. Crit.), I had either not seen or had for 
gotten Hort s note on this question in his Commentary (p. 38 sqq.), where 
he claims that Primasius supported the true text in all seven passages. In 
my table I only claim Primasius as attesting the true text in four, where his 
evidence is incontrovertible. The ground on which Hort claims the support 
of Pr in 2 8 - 12 3 14 is the fact that ecclesiae precedes the name of the Church in 
the cases of Smyrna, Pergamum, and Laodicea. This order is also found in 
vg for Sardis (3*). Now Hort argues that this "transposition ... is 
interpretative of T<" (as in Epiph. 455 B, ry dyyAy T?)S 4KK\r]<rlas rtf tv 
Qvaretpois). Thus, according to Hort, ecclesiae Pergami (Pr) supports the 
original text, whereas Pergami ecclesiae (vg s 2 bo) supports the later 
corrected text. If this argument is right the evidence for the original text 
is considerably greater than might otherwise be supposed, s 1 supports it in 
2 8.7 37-14. arm . j n 2 i2 2", arm/3- y in 2 18 , arm 1 - in 2 8 , fl in 2 1 . In the 
readings of s 2 I have followed Gwynn ; for my three texts of s 2 have been 
normalized and agree in giving the late reading in all seven passages. 


each for one. The evidence is given in a collected form in vol. 
ii. p. 244, save that Pr should perhaps be added, as Hort urges, 
to the evidence given under 2 8 - 12 3 U and vg under 3 1 . I have 
already remarked that Lachmann on the basis of AC, and Hort 
on the basis of these reinforced by Pr vg, accepted the above 
readings on purely documentary authority. This authority, 
when further reinforced as it is in my Appar. Crit., is quite 
sufficient to establish the form ro> dyye Au) rw ev . . . c/c/cA^cn as 
as original in all seven passages. 1 But my study of grammar of 
J ap has thrown further light on the subject, and made it clear 
that John could not, consistently with his usage throughout the 
rest of J ap , have written otherwise. The grounds for this 
statement are given in my Gram. 15. (i.) (b\ vol. i, Introd. 
p. clvi sq. 

In this extraordinary piece of Greek we have a first class 
means of distinguishing between the trustworthiness of our 
various authorities. When we apply this test, the result is very 
significant. Of the uncials, K 025. 046. 051 have corrected TO> 
ayye Aw TW in every passage into the normal construction TW 
dyyeAw rf)<s. On the other hand, A has retained the original 
construction in 2 1 - 8 - 18 and C in 2 1 (preserving a hint of it also 
in 2 18 ). Of the 223 cursives, 2050 directly supports it in 2 12 , 
2019 indirectly in 2 1 , and 2040 indirectly in 2 8 . 

Thus the vast superiority of A (C) to K 025 is at once 
obvious. All the MSS have been corrected or normalized to 
some degree, but this process has been thoroughgoing only in 
K 025. 046. 051 and the cursives. 

When we apply this test to the versions, Pr (though in some 
respects of very mixed value) comes to the front in four passages 
and arm in all seven: s 1 in 2 1 - 12 - 18 3 1 : s 2 in 2 18 3 1 : sa in 2 12 : 
like arm, if Hort s contention is right (see note, p. clx), Pr in the 
remaining three passages, fl in 2 1 , and vg in 3 1 . But Tyc gig 
K 025. 046 and the cursives (with three exceptions) show no 
knowledge of the original text, eth would represent either order 
in the same way. 

(b) The next construction which is of a unique character in J ap is 
that which follows, 6 (TOV) Ka6rjfj.fvo<s (-ov) eVt TOV Opovov, TOV 

KO.6rm.ivOV 7Tt TOV OpOVOV, T(U KaOyfJieVlt) 7Tl TW 0/OWU). For thCSC 

constructions see vol. i. p. cxxxii. These constructions occur 
28 times. Two of these are found in a wrong form in the 
interpolation i4 15 17 , and two in 20 11 2i 5 where the wrong 
construction save in 2 1 5 is to be traced to the editor. 

In the remaining 24 cases A is right in 20 and wrong in 4 

1 Weiss (Textkritische Untersuchungen, 64 sq. note) has wholly failed to 
recognize the next text here. Similarly Bousset and nearly every editor save 
Lachmann, Hort, and Souter. 


(i.e. 6 4 y 15 9 17 ig 18 ) : C (defective) is right in 9 and wrong in 2 
(6 4 9 17 ) : N is right in 17 and wrong in 7 (i.e. 5 13 6 4 - 16 7 15 9 17 14 
i9 18 ) : 025 right in 16 and wrong in 8 (i.e. 4 2 - 9 5 13 6 4 7 15 9 17 14 
i9 4 ): 046 right in 17 and wrong in 7 (4 6 4 - 16 7 10 - 15 9 17 i4 6 ). 
C 025 correct the text rightly in i4 16 and 025. 046 in 20 11 . 
From the above statistics we conclude that K 025. 046 are 
practically of equal value. A stands much above them. 

(c) In the case of certain Hebraisms we find X 025. 046 
correcting the text, but not AC. There is a Hebrew construction 
in which the participle is resolved into a finite verb in the 
succeeding clause, which our author has used at times. See 
vol. i. 14 sq. In i 5-6 our author wrote TO> dyaTroWt . . . /cat 
eTrot^o-ci/. Here the finite verb must be translated as if it were 
TToirjo-avri. 046 min p have actually so corrected the text. Again, 
i5 2 3 X min p correct the Hebraism ex VTas 3/ca ^ aSovo-ii/ 
into e?x OVTas B Ka aSoj/ras. Another Hebraism, i.e. in 2 20 , 
TY)V yvvcuKa . . . fj Aeyovcra . . . /cat SiSacrKei, is corrected by N c 
025 min p into rr)i/ ywauca . . . rrjv Ae yowai/, but by 046 min nm 
into ?) Ae yci. The same Hebraism in 3 12 rrj<; Kcuvfjs lepovo-aXTJ/x, 
^ KaTa/3a.LVOV(ra is corrected by N c into rrjs K. lep. r?7<; KaTa/BaLvova-rjs, 
and by 046 into r) /cara/Saim. Again in i2 7 6 Mi^a^A. Kal ot 
ayyeXot OLVTOV rov 7roXe/x^(rai, X 046 min m omit the TOV. In I3 10 , 
where the same Hebraism occurs twice, every uncial save A and 
all cursives remove the Hebraism by drastic corrections. In 19 
X 025. 046 min pl Tyc Pr gig vg s 2 arm 3a insert ^a<m> between 
6 0eos and 6 -rravroKparwp, against A min 3 Cyp s 1 arm 2 - 4 bo sa eth. 
This insertion is not only against our author s usage, but also 
against the regular translation of the divine name. See Gram. 
10. (i.) (/), p. cxlvii. Such examples show the vast superiority 
of A (C) to K 025. 046 as witnesses to the primitive type of text. 

2. The absence of conflate readings from A (C) and their 
(rare) occurrence in N 025. 046 support the distinction already 
established between these MSS. In i7 4 N (s 2 ) reads avrfjs KOL rfjs 
yfj<s, where avrr/s is the reading of A al m Tyc vg s 1 arm 2 eth, and 
T^S yr}s that of 046 al pm gig arm 3 . Cyp Pr read rfjs y^s oA^s, and 
bo ( = avrr]<s /x,era TT/S y^s) conflates this reading with that of A. 

In 4 T K alone reads u>s o/xoiov avOpuTru. This may be a confla 
tion of W9 avOpuirov (A, etc.), and o/xotov only preserved in 2018. 

In 6 1 - 5 - 7 K 046 min m read epx ov KC " ^ e > an d in 6 3 K min 12 
alone attest this reading. But since the phrase KO.\ iSe is not used 
by our author, but /ecu tSov, this phrase is clearly an early intrusion. 
But 046 min m Pr gig vg f - , which insert Kal tSe (or Kal tSov, Pr 
gig vg f - %), omit KOL eTSov in the words that follow. Since this 
form of the text is as old as the 4th century, the text of K is prob 
ably conflate. 

In 2 15 025 min p read 6/xoiws o /uo-w a conflation, though 


is found as yet only in a few cursives and arm a . Again in 2 7 , where 
AtfC 046 have Iv T. TrapaSeiVw, and I. 35 fv ^eo-w TOV TrapaSeiVov, 
025 reads tv //.eVa) TO> Tra/oaSeib-w, which may be either a conflation of 
the above two or else a correction of the latter. 

In 046 i9 12 we have the conflate reading ovo/xara yeypa/i/xeVa 
Kai ovo/xa yeypayn/xei/oi/. 

3. 7/fo readings 1 <?/ //fo uncials taken singly and also in 
groups of two. The evidence of this section confirms the provisional 
values assigned to these MSS in 1-2. 

Even a cursory study of the statistics on p. clxiv is illuminating. 
It shows that A stands almost alone in the first class, though 
in some respects C belongs to this class. But it is better to put 
C in the second class by itself, seeing that it is so weak when it 
stands alone. But in combination with A it is different. 

In comparing C and the combinations into which it enters 
with other MSS, we have to bear in mind that more than a 
third of it is missing. Hence, when we read in Table I. 
that AC are right in combination 36 times, we have to raise 
this number to 54 (or less). Thus AC in combination are 
nearly twice as often right as AK or A 025, and more than twice 
as many times as A 046. The combinations of C and N with 
either 025 or 046 are very weak. Another point to be borne in 
mind is that 025 is also defective. About one-fourteenth of it is 
missing. Hence, whereas A 025 are right 36 times in combina 
tion (reckoning columns one and two together), in Table I. 
we should raise this number to 38 (more or less). Thus it 
follows that 025 is, when standing alone, right oftener than 
C, X, or 046, and when combined with A it is right oftener than 
Ax or A 046 in combination. In the third class, therefore, to 
which we must relegate K 025 and 046, 025 stands first according 
to this reckoning. As regards N and 046, the former takes 
precedence of the latter, and is in certain respects much superior 
to it. 

1 1 am beholden to Mr. Marsh for the materials on which Tables I.-III. 
are based. They are to be regarded as approximately, not literally, exact. I 
have not taken account of 051 since I possess no complete collation of it, and 
it is very late. It is defective, eleven chapters being missing. Its value is 
not as great as one of the best cursives, as its readings in chaps. 12. 1 6 will 
show. In chap. 12 it agrees with cursives against all the other uncials in 
reading rlKretv, I2 4 , ^/ceZ 2 , I2 6 , in omitting fier avrov, I2 9 . In I2 5 it omits Iv 
(a mere correction) with 025 and cursives, and in I2 6 it omits &cet J with C 
and cursives. In I2 3 it is right with A 025 (ptyas Trvpp6s), and in I2 12 with 
A and cursives in reading ot ovpavol. In i6 4< 10 * 12 ( + (LyyeXos) it agrees 
with cursives against uncials, also in i6 14 (5ai/u.6vwv and els Tr6\e^ov) i6 15 
(fi\irov<riv). In i6 8> 10 - 14 it agrees with X and cursives against all other 
uncials : in i6 3 (fukra) with K 025. 046 and cursives against A, in i6 18 (ol 
&v6pwTroi) with X 046 and cursives, in i6 12 (dvaroXutv) with A. The readings 
of 051 given in this edition are derived from Swete s Commentary. 



Right readings. 


adopted in 
text with 
in margin. 

placed in 


Peculiar to the 
MS or pair of 
MSS named 
among the 
uncials. Ortho 
graphic variants 
in brackets. 

A 1 

55( + tit) 




229 ( + 27) 




6 7 

69 ( + 10) 


4 (2 18 * l8 12 22") 

2(l2 2 l9 20 ) 



425 (+47) 

K c 




12 ( + i) 







4(5 3 i 4 ii i8 11 i9 14 ) 

2 (4 4 5 13 ) 












38 ( + 13) 


30 (tit) 




37( + i6) 

A 025 



3 ( + 1) 


43 (+4) 

A 046 





33 ( + 21) 






C 046 

I (?) 




Cx . 





K 025 





28 ( + 12) 

tfc 025 






N 046 





59( + S) 

025. 046 

4 ( 4 4 6 8 i9 18 2 1 12 ) 





The classification of the uncials from the above data is thus : 


Class i. 


025 N 2 046 

If, further, to the number of times in which each MS stands alone 
in preserving the original text we add the number of times in which 
each of the five MSS, AC 025 K 046, enters respectively into 
combination with one or other of the remaining four (in such 
groups as AC, A 025, AN, A 046, C 025, etc., i.e. groups of two), 
we arrive at the following results, allowance having been made 
for the lost sections of C and 025. 

1 Weiss (Die Johannes- Apokalypse: Textkritische Untersuchungen, p. 147) 
is of opinion that A preserves wholly unsupported upwards of 60 right 
readings, C 4 and K 8. Though I have followed quite different lines of 
investigation, my results do not differ much. They are slightly more in favour 
of A as against K- Gwynn s estimate of the readings peculiar to each MS 
differs alike from those given above and by Weiss. See Apoc. in Syriac, p. 
xliii sq. 

2 The inferior character of the text of N for J ap has been amply proved both 
by Weiss and Gwynn, Apocalypse of St. John in Syriac, p. xl sqq. 









Standing alone . 






In combination . . 











This table confirms the results of Table II. save that K is nearer 
to 046. If we combine the results of these two tables, 025 still 
shows itself to be a better MS than N. 

4. The Uncials in groups of three or more and their evidence. 
Hitherto we have given the evidence of the uncials individually 
or in groups of two. We shall now study them in groups of three 
or four, where they attest the original text. I have only space to 
apply this test in chaps. 1-4. Divergences in orthography are 
not reckoned as variants. 



ANC 023. 

ANC 046. 

AN 025. 

AN 046. 

AC 025. 

AC 046. 

j4. 5. 6 

j4. 9. 12. 16. 18 

j5 2 3. 7. 15 

3 7 4 5. 8. 11 

4 2. 8. 11 

j!3 2 2. 9. 24 

2 10. 16. 17 

2 27 

2 2. 5. 7. 10. 13. 14 (Ms). 24 

3 7 

= 4 

= 3 

3 3.7 

= 3 

= 4 

o2 (bis). 3. 7. 9. 12 

= 5 

= 6 

= 19 

AC 025. 046. 

AC 046. 

A 025. 046. 

NC 023. 

NC 025. 046. 

NC 046. 

C 025. 046. 

j7. 16. 20 

2 10. 17 

j8. 18 -,14 

I92 20 

j<5. 7. 20 

j!2 2 16. 17 

3 7 

2 7. 18. 19. 20 

= 2 

4 1. 4. 9. 10 

= 2 

2 2. 18. 22 

= 3 

^3. 9. 14 

= 7 

= 6 

= 10 

1 According to Weiss (op. cit.), AtfC have preserved the original text only 
2O times over against 025 and 046. This would in all probability nearly 
agree with the results above arrived at. For since this combination is right 
only 4 times according to the above table, the number of times it is right for 
the entire book would apparently lie in the neighbourhood of 20, as Weiss 
states. It is therefore a wrong basis on which Gwynn (op. cit. p. xlviii) 
proceeds when he assumes that " the consent of XAC represents the consent 
of the uncials" and uses it as a "standard by which to compare P and Q." 
AKC 025 represents " the consent of the uncials." 



If we study this table we find that the several MSS enter 
into the above combinations as follows : 




63 times. 

There are two points that call for explanation here, (a) First 
the numbers of C 025 K 046 seem unduly large as compared with 
those of A, seeing that A belongs to the first class, C to the 
second, and 025 X 046 to the third, according to our classifications 
at the close of 3. But there is really no difficulty here. If C 025 
X 046 are to be right at all, they can only be right as members 
of groups of MSS, seeing that they are hardly ever right when they 
stand alone. C and in a less degree 025 represent a good secon 
dary uncial text, while N 046 uphold this text in a considerably 
weakened form, X replacing it to a considerable extent by readings 
often of an early date, and 046 by readings of a later growth. 

(b) Since only i~3 19 of C is preserved in the four chapters 
we are considering, it follows that the number 61 of C must be 
raised proportionately, say to 70 or thereabouts (for the variants 
in chap. 4 are fewer than in 1-3), so that it would stand above A. 
This appears to conflict absolutely with the classification arrived 
at in 3 ad fin. But in (a) this difficulty is in the main sur 
mounted, and when to the explanation there offered, we add the 
fact that C is comparatively free from the obvious foolish slips of 
the scribe of A, 1 it is surmounted wholly. As critics have 
generally recognized, the scribe of C (or of the MS on which C is 
based) either found a more accurately written text than that in A, 
or else he eliminated most such slips, and with them many of the 
original readings which have survived in A. C is far freer from 
obvious slips and obvious corruptions than A. 

Thus this fourth table in the main confirms the first. AC 
stand apart, and but for its almost absolute lack of correct 
singular readings C might be put side by side with A. The 
results arrived at in regard to 025 K 046 agree exactly with those 
of Table II. 

The conclusions arrived at with regard to the absolute pre 
eminence of A is confirmed by the study of the papyrus Frag 
ments of the Apocalypse: see vol. ii. 447-451. 

5. The character of the Versions. The versions differ 

1 Compare in I 1 rou doti\ov (A) for 
i<rr (A) for tv Irjaou : in I 12 XaXe? 

in I 6 A > yfi&v : in I 9 tv 
for AdXei : in I 16 > txw v l2 * v T - 

for M r?}s 5etas. On the other hand, A "alone is characterized by 
singular readings which are to be accepted, not as divergences from a standard 
text, but as survivals of the primitive and authentic text " (Gwynn, p. liv). 


greatly from the Greek MSS in regard to the character of their 
testimony. Each Greek MS of J ap possesses a certain character 
of trustworthiness or untrustworthiness, and this character it 
maintains on the whole throughout. But this is not so in the 
case of most of the versions. In the chief Latin versions we 
find side by side the best and worst readings. The following 
examples drawn from what survives of fl J and the parallel sections 
in the other versions and Greek MSS will suffice to prove this. 
Thus in i 4 drro 6 <5v (AKC 025) is supported by fl gig vg (s 1 - 2 ) 
arm bo eth, while Pr supports 046 O.TTO Oeov 6 &v (and Tyc a 
further development of this reading). In i 5 \vcravri (AtfC) is 
supported by Pr fl gig (s 1 - 2 ) arm, while Tyc vg bo eth support 
025. 046 Xova-avTL. In I 6 /8tt(riXetav iepeis AN*C 046 is supported 
by Tyc (fl) vg d , but the corrected text N c /foo-iAa av KO.L Upets by 
Pr gig vg d arm 1 - 3 - 4 - : 025 arm 2 - 3 - a read /Jao-iAeis KCU Upcis : 046 
/3acriAeioj> lepets, while S L 2 bo = /JacriAet aj/ tepariKr^, and eth = 
/ftcunA. ayviav. In i 8 the addition -fj apx^ K0 ^ ( T ) T ^s N* is 
supported by Tyc gig vg bo against AN C C 025. 046 Pr fl (s 1 - 2 ) 
arm eth. In i 9 fyo-ov Xpicn-oi) N cc 046 is supported by Tyc Pr vg d 
s 1 - 2 arm 2 - 3 - a against Ir/o-oi) AN*C 025 fl gig vg d arm 4 bo eth. 
In i 13 roii/ Xv^vtcov AC 025 is supported by Tyc Cyp Pr fl s 1 - 2 
arm 1 - 2 - 4 - a bo eth against TWV e-n-Ta Xvyy^v K 046 gig vg arm 3 . In 
i 16 ws 6 -^Xtos <f>atvi AC 025. 046 Tyc gig vg S L 2 arm 1 - 2 - 3 - a eth 
against <cuVei ws 6 ^Acos N Pr Cyp fl arm 4 (?) bo. In 2 1 r<3 
dyye Ao) TO> AC Pr [in Comm.] (fl?) s 1 arm 4 against r<p ayy. 
r>}s N 025. 046 Tyc gig vg arm 1 - 2 - 8 -* bo eth. In 8 7 6 Trpwro? 
Ax 025. 046 s 1 2 arm 4 against 6 TT/DCOTOS ayycAo? 2020 al Tyc 
Pr gig V g arm 1 - 2 - 3 -" bo eth. In 8 9 TO rpirov A 025. 046 s 1 - 2 
against T. rptVov /xepos X Tyc Pr fl gig vg arm bo sa eth. 
In 8 12 all the uncials and cursives are wrong. The true sense 
is either preserved or recovered in bo eth and partially in 
Pr fl. In Q 2 /ox/uVov /u-eyaArjs AN 025 Tyc Pr fl vg arm 1 - 2 - a 
bo eth against /ca//,. Kaiojaevrys 046 s 2 and nap. /xey. /caio/xei/^s 
2020 gig s 1 arm 4 (~?). In 9 4 CTTI TWI/ /ACTWTTWJ/ AN 025 gig 
V ga. c. d a g a i ns t ^ L T- ^r^^ avrSv 046 Tyc Pr fl vg f - * v s 1 - 2 
arm (bo) eth. In 9 6 ^evyet A(x) 025 against fav&rai 046 Tyc 
Pr fl gig vg s 1 - 2 arm bo eth. In n 16 jov 6eov AxC 025 Tyc Pr 
fl gig vg s 1 arm 1 - 2 - 4 - a bo eth against T. Qpovov r. Ocov 046 s 2 arm 3 . 
In ii 19 6 ev T. oupavuJ AC gig fl arm bo eth against ei/ r. ovp. N 
025. 046 Tyc Pr vg s 1 - 2 and rfc Siafl^s avrov (> Tyc bo) AC 
025 Tyc gig vg s 1 - 2 arm 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 bo against T. SiaOrjKrjs rov 6eov K fl 
eth : T. Sia^K^s Kvpiov 046. In 1 2 3 /aeyas irvppos A 025 Tyc vg s 1 sa 
eth against Trvppos ^,yas NC 046 Pr fl gig s 2 arm bo. In i2 6 e/cet 

1 There are only 61 verses in fl (Codex Floriacensis), i.e. i l -2 l , 8 7 -9 12 , 
Ii_ 16 -i2 14 , I4 15 -i6 5 . fl does not show such remarkable faithfulness to the 
primitive text in the later sections as in I 1 -2 1 . 



AK 025. 046 s 1 arm 3 - 4 : > C Tyc Pr fl vg s 2 arm 1 - 2 - (bo ?) eth. 
In i4 16 eOepto-Orj ^ 717 all Greek MSS and Versions (-vg f - v fl 
arm 1 - 2 - 3 - a ) against eOepio-ev T. yfjv vg f> v fl arm 1 - 2> s - a : > bo. In 
i4 18 6 ex<ov AC Tyc gig vg s 1 - 2 arm eth against ex wv N 02 5- 
046 Pr fl bo: 4>a*vrj AN 046 Tyc fl gig vg s 1 arm 1 - 2 - 3 -" eth 

against Kpavyfj C 025 s 2 bo: r/K/xcurav at oTa< 

fl gig vg s 1 - 2 against 


046 arm eth : > bo. 

In i5 2 CK T. Orjp. Kal IK T. ci/covos avTov AC 025 s 1 - 2t arm 1 * 2< a 
against K Pr fl, which > c/c 2 . Tyc gig vg bo eth give a different 
construction. In I5 3 aSovcriv AC 025. 046 against aSoi/ras N 
Tyc Pr fl vg bo eth : TWI/ c6vG>v AK C 025. 046 (Pr) fl gig bo 
eth against TWV atwi/wv K*C Tyc vg s 1 - 2 . Here arm 2 - 8 - 4 - a is con 
flate. In i5 4 (f>o(37]6Y) AC 025. 046 Pr fl gig arm bo against <pofi. 
o-e K 051 Tyc vg s 1 - 2 eth. In i5 6 ot exoi/reg AC s 1 - 2 arm bo 
eth against X OVTCS K 02 5 4^ (Tyc Pr fl gig vg) : c/c TOV vaov 
A^C 025 Tyc fl gig vg s< L > 2 arm 4 bo eth against 046 Pr arm 1 - 2 
which omit: fXt^ovf AC vg d against Xivov (-ovv) 025. 046 Tyc 
(Pr) gig vg d and XtvoSs fl bo : > eth. In I6 1 /xeyaAr/s </>wv^s AC 
046 (arm 4 ) bo sa against <j>wf)<s /xey. X 025 Pr fl gig vg s 1 2 
arm 2 - 3 - a : ^wv^s eth. e/< TOV vaov AtfC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig vg s 1 - 2 
arm* against 046 arm 8 which omit : while arm 4 bo sa eth = IK TOV 
ovpavov and arm 1 - 2 - 4 = iv r. m<3 : eTrra 2 AttC 046 Tyc Pr gig vg 
s 1 - 2 arm against 025 fl bo eth which omit. In i6 3 Sew-epos Atf c 
025. Tyc Pr fl gig vg arm 4 eth against oevr. ayyeXos 046 s 1 - 2 
arm 1 2> 8 - a bo. In i6 4 ras Tr^yas A^C 025 Tyc Pr fl gig arm bo 
against eis T. Tr^yas 046 s 1 - 2 eth. 

Now, taking the Latin and Syriac versions in the above thirty- 
three passages (8 12 i4 16 i5 3a not being included) we arrive at the 
following results : 








Right . 








Wrong . . 








We are not to conclude that these numbers indicate the pro 
portion of right to wrong readings throughout J ap , though they 
may be in some cases approximately true. They establish 
the fact, however, that the Latin versions contain an astonishing 
mixture of good and bad readings. Thus in these sections gig is 
the best of the Latin, being right twice as often as it is wrong : 
next come fl Tyc vg, which are oftener right than wrong. Pr 
comes last, being oftener wrong than right, though, as we have 
already seen, it preserves more original readings in chaps. 2-3 



than all the other Latin versions together, s 1 - 2 compare favour 
ably with the Latin, s 1 being right more than twice as many times 
as it is wrong, and s 2 being oftener right than wrong. Unfortun 
ately there is no critical edition of s 2 . 

A further and very important fact emerges from this study of 
the Latin versions, and this is that a text akin to 046 and its 
allies (often tf and less often 025) was well established between 200 
and 350 A.D. and possibly earlier. 

Let us now compare the above results regarding the versions 
and the readings in AtfC 025. 046 for the same sections. We 



N c . 




Right . 







Wrong . . 






These results confirm on the whole the conclusion reached at the 
close of 3. A stands by itself; next comes C as a good second ; 
then 025 ; and closing the list at a long interval N and 046. 

From the above study, therefore, we conclude that all the ver 
sions may in a given case support a reading that is wholly wrong. 

In the order of general trustworthiness they stand as follows : 
s 1 gig s 2 Tyc fl vg Pr. But in the case of certain peculiarly 
difficult readings ( i (a) ad fin. above) the version that is here 
last, i.e. Pr, is equal to the first, s 2 comes next, fl and vg in third 
place, and gig Tyc 2 last. 

We have not as yet taken account of the respective values 
of arm bo sa eth. 

6. The Armenian, Bohairic^ and Ethiopic Versions. The 
Armenian version is difficult to compare with the other versions. 
In Mr. Conybeare s edition five texts are distinguished, arm 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 
and arm*. The last is a recension of the i2th century. The four 
first represent various forms of the Old Armenian. Of these 
arm 4 stands apart from arm 1 - 2 - 8 . Conybeare describes arm 4 as a 
recension of the 8th century, and arm 1 - 2 - 3 as texts of the fifth. 
Conybeare rather throws discredit on arm 4 , but it is in many 
respects the best of the Armenian texts. It frequently stands 
alone against arm 1 - 2 - 3 - in supporting the true text. In the 
sections which we have used for purposes of comparison, i.e. the 
sixty-one verses which alone survive of fl, there are two conflate 

1 C is defective in some of these sections. 

2 It must be borne in mind that there is no critical text of Tyc. Tyc may 
appear in better company when this is published. 



readings in arm. Thus arm 4 (together with 2020 gig s 1 ) reads 
Ka/jitvov /zeycxA.^? KCUO/ACK^S in Q 2 , and arm 2 - 3 - a read TWV aiwvwv 
KCU (3a<ri\v<s TrdyTwv TWV $vu>v in 15^. 

In the next place, an adequate comparison of the Bohairic 
and Ethiopic is difficult. In Horner s edition of the former the 
translation of only one MS is given. The readings of the other 
MSS are given in the Appar. Criticus, but not translated. Mr. 
Horner has, however, translated the variants for me and I append 
the results below. The Ethiopic version which I have used is 
that of Platt. It is wholly uncritical. Hence the results given 
here are to be regarded as only approximately right. Despite 
such disadvantages, bo and eth show clearly that they have a 
character of their own. 

arm 4 (alone 

arm 1 - 2 - 3 - 4. o. 

against one, two, 
or more members 



of arm 1 - 2. 3. a). 

Right . 





Wrong . 





Where arm 4 and one or more of arm L 2> 3 - a agree, their 
evidence is recorded in the first column. Where arm 4 is right 
over against arm L 2 - 3 - a it stands in the second column, arm 4 is 
only twice wrong against combinations of arm 1 - 2> 3 - a . 

It is now possible to arrange the versions in the order of 
their merit in the sections preserved in fl, i.e. i 1 -2 1 , 8 7 -9 12 , n 16 - 
i2 14 , I4 15 -i6 5 . 

In this arrangement, according to the number of the right 
readings which they attest, it must be borne in mind that s 2 eth 
and Tyc are wholly uncritical texts. They may be better or 
worse than they appear here. Furthermore, while it is true that 
s 1 arm are foremost both in regard to the quality and the 
number of their right readings, Pr, which has the fewest right 
readings, has preserved most important readings lost in nearly 
every other Latin authority, and also in bo eth. This holds 
true of bo in 8 12 , which in this passage has alone preserved the 
original or else restored it. 

Versions in order. S 1 .arm gig s 2 eth Tyc fl vg bo Pr. 

If we arrange these versions in classes in relation to each 
other and not to the Greek MSS, we should arrive at the 
following result : 

Class i. arm 4 s 1 gig arm x - 2 - 3 - a . 
ii. eth s 2 Tyc vg. 
iii. bo Pr. 


I have not taken account of sa in the above classification, as 
I do not possess a continuous collation of its text. For some 
hundreds of its readings I am indebted to Rev. George Horner. 
Judging from these, I should be inclined to place it in the second 
class. The reader will observe that in 2 12 it enjoys the honour 
of attesting the original text together with 2050 s 1 arm 4 - a against 
all the uncials and all the remaining versions. 

7. Relations of bo sa eth to each other. These versions form 
one group over against the rest, (a) bo eth continually support 
each other throughout J ap generally in agreement with some 
other authorities, but at times they stand alone. As an instance 
of the former, cf. ig 10 where with Pr they add on before 
(rwSofXo? : of the latter, iS 1 IK + TOV TrpocrwTrov avrov /cat : 2l 4d + 
K(H (>bo) iSoi> Trdvra Troi-rjOrjo-ovrai (tTTOL-rjO-rjarav, eth) Kaivd : 2 1 18 
(crit. note ad fin.) : 22 3 (crit. note ad fin.). 

(b) bo sa agree against eth and all else in 20 11 pfyav 6p6vov 
( r \ J rest): in 2 2 18 -fort before c dV TIS bo sa agree with certain 
authorities against eth and others: ig g KOL Aeyet /xot 2 with Atf 
etc. : > eth N etc. : 20 11 17 yfj KOL 6 ovpavos with Atf etc. 
(instead of 6 ovp. K. rj yfj with 35. 432 Pr eth). 

(c) bo sa eth stand alone in i8 2 rj fjifyaXfj + 17 vroXts : 20 1 in 
transposing order of aXva-w ^ydX-rjv : 2i 5b Tronycrw Trdvra Kaivd. 
bo sa eth agree with some other authorities in I6 1 rov ovpavov 
42. 367 arm (for TOV i/aov) : i6 6 : 19: 2i 3 ovpavov 025. 046 
etc. (for Opovov). 

(d) sa eth agree with certain authorities against bo: i8 19 
owu 2 with AC etc. : > bo with K etc. ig 9 TOV ya/xou with AK C 
etc. : >bo with N* etc. 22 14 TrAwovres T. crroAas avrw with A^ 
etc. against TTOIOWTCS T. ei/roXas avrov bo with gig 046 Cyp etc. 

(e) bo eth agree against sa: ig 19 avruv bo eth K etc. against 
avrov sa A etc. 

(/) bo stands against eth : i8 6 irorypiu eth AC etc. against 
TTOT. avrrjs bo etc. i8 12 v\ov bo NC etc. against Ai 0ov eth 
A etc. 

The above are a few examples from chaps. 16-22. 

8. Character of the uncials as regards their textual 

A, C. These two MSS present the normal uncial text just as 
046 and in some degree 025 present the normal cursive text. 
But whereas C is most carefully written, this is not true of A, 
which is seriously affected by copyists blunders. C exhibits 
fewer singular readings than any other uncial (about 67), and 
these singular readings, moreover, with a single exception, possess 
no special interest. Here it is that it differs in kind from A and 
calls for different classification. A contains over 150 singular 
readings, and of these 56 (if not 63) preserve the original. Thus 


whereas C s singular readings take no particular direction, A s 
are pre-eminent as being certainly right in over 60 passages. 

K. This MS " is of all the five MSS far the least worthy of 
regard as representing a ^defensible form of the text; it is 
aberrant rather than divergent from the rest, to the point of 
eccentricity." So Gwynn (pp. cit. p. xliv) rightly judges. When 
it stands alone, it is only right in four passages. The bulk of its 
variants are unquestionably scribal blunders and corruptions of 
an early date, and call for no further consideration. A consider 
able part of the remainder represents an ancient element foreign 
to the normal uncial text and finds large support in the versions 
and to a less extent in certain cursives. Other variants connect 
K with the normal cursive form of text, but these are not 

025. 046. These MSS are so widely sundered that they 
differ from each other in kind. While 025 represents on the 
whole the uncial type of text, 046 represents the cursive type. 
While slightly over half the variants of 025 from the other uncials 
find support among the cursives, more than four-fifths of the 
variants of 046 find such support. 

But though 046 is largely cursive in character, its record 
compares favourably with K, considering its late date. We have 
already seen (see Table I. p. clxiv) that whereas K alone preserves 
6 right readings (reckoning together columns one and two) 
against the rest of the uncials, 046 preserves 3. Again AK in 
combination are right 33 times, A 046 are right 31 times. 
Once more, from the results arrived at in 4 we learn that, 
whereas K enters into groups of three or more MSS attesting the 
right text 45 times, 045 does so 40. ^ 

025 and 046 are to be further distinguished from each other 
in this respect, that whereas 046 represents the close amongst the 
uncials of a long process of correction which began in the 2nd 
century, 025 represents to a considerable extent a deliberate 
recension of the texts of the 8th cent, or earlier. That 025 is 
the result of a deliberate recension is easy to prove. Nearly 
forty times it differs from the other uncials in correcting or 
improving the Greek text from the standpoint of Greek syntax. 
Thus in I 4 we have Trvev/xarwi/ a+eorii CI/COTTIOV. I 5 TO) 
dyairY]aaim. I 6 /focrtAeis KCU tepets. I 9 crvy/coivcovos lv ry 0\iif/ei 
Ka l ( -f l v TTJ) /3acn,/Wa. 2 9 rrjv /3Aacr<?7/uav /^ ran/ AeyoVrwv. 2 13 
ei/ T. ^jue pais + iv ats. 2 17 SWO-<D avra> + (fxxyeii . 2 20 TT)V ywat/ca 
. . . TY]I> Aeyoucray. 4 1 f) (jiuvr) . . . Aeyoucra. $ 2 Krjpvaro-ovTa 
y^ <toi/f7 jueyaAfl. 5 6 apviov . . . t\ov. 7 9 o^Xos . . . eo-rojres, 
. A . . TTc/x/tySAijfima, 8 13 dyyeXou Trero/xeVov. This change is 
due not to the scribe s idea of syntax, but of the sense of the 
passage. 9 14 (f>a>vr]v . . . A.e yow<xv, lo 1 /cat ^ */HS, corrected 


according to sense of context. The scribe knew no better. 1 1 4 
eAatat - corwaai. The above examples are sufficient to prove the 
fact of a deliberate recension. On the influence of this recension 
on 35. 205 and other cursives, see under 35. 205, p. clxxv sq. 

The following cursives the list is provisional agree with 
046 in giving the latest form of text : 

fi49 i75 3 2 5 ) 

J 8. 35** -{201 617 456 V 337. 632*. 919.920. 1849. 2004. 2040(1-1 1 7 ). 
(386 1934 468*J 

046 contains many readings of so late a date that they are 
not supported by any version. These are of the inferior cursive 
type. A few examples will suffice. Thus in i 12 046 with 
cursives reads icai-ft/cei: i 16 x t P* O.VTOV rfj Seta: 2 25 di/oi ^w (for 
av ?/to) : 3 2 ct7ro/8aXA.iv for aTroOaveiv : 3 4 oAiya e^eis oyo/xara 
(order) : 3 7 ei /XT) 6 ai/oiywv. 

9. Cursives collated for this edition. The list of the 22 
cursives collated for this edition is given in vol. ii. p. 234, 
where attention is drawn to such as are defective. Of these the 
most interesting and valuable are 2020. 2040. 2050. 

2020 is a good cursive and would stand close to 025 N in the 
third class. It agrees with A 2019 in 2 18 and in i 10 save that 
for oTucrflev it reads OTTIO-CO, and with A and certain cursives in i 6 . 
Over against seven agreements with A, it supports K in 18 
passages and 025 in 13. 

920. 2040. 2040 (xi-xii cent.). 920 (x cent.). Though 
2040 is written by the same hand throughout, it exhibits two 
distinct types of text From i-u 7 it is of the late cursive type 
and seems to have been copied from 920 (x cent.). These two 
MSS contain unique readings in the following passages : 3 5 TWV 
t<swT<&v : 3 8 TO, epya (for TOV Xoyov) : 3 12 ra> wo/xari (for rw vaw) : 
4 9 -f Kal Trpoaicun!]o > aKm (-<rou<rii , 920) TO) aW6 and another 
addition in 8 2 . In 4 10 they omit evuiriov r. Opovov and have 
other omissions in 4 4 5 12 y 4 9 9 . They invert the order in 3 8 
and attest the same impossible readings in 5 1 6 14 7 1 9 5 . 

From ii 9 to 20 11 where it ends, the text is largely free from 
corruptions of the later cursives. It often supports A against 
most other authorities (cf. ii 11 flo-fjXOtv ei/ avrots, i2 12 ot ovpavoi) 
and N and less often 025. But its excellence is still more 
clearly shown by the fact that in n 9 -2o n it agrees with the 
majority of uncials against the majority of cursives. The latter 
half, therefore, of 2040 is of so high a character as to entitle it to 
be ranked with 046, and after N. 

2050. This MS, which consists only of 1-5, 20-22, and was 
clearly copied from a defective MS, stands in point of excellence 
alongside the uncials. In about 80 passages it agrees with the 


majority of the uncials against the majority of the cursives. 
Thus in i 4 it reads 0.73-0 6 wv with AtfC 025 al 20 fl gig vg s 1 - 2 bo 
against 046 and most cursives. In i 9 i/ Iryo-ov with NC 025. 
2020 gig vg s 1 bo against the rest ; Irja-ov (without Xpto-Tou) with 
AX* 025 al 5 fl gig vg- d arm a against the rest. In i 12 KO.L (without 
Kt AN 025. 045 al Tyc Pr fl vg s 1 2 bo against the rest. In i 13 
Avxvtwv (without preceding k-rrra) ACP al 10 Tyc Pr fl s 1 - 2 
arm 1 - 2 - 4i a bo against the rest. In 2 13 >ra Zpya a-ov /cat (added 
by 046 al pl s 2 arm 3 -") with AtfC 025. 2020 and versions ( s 2 
arm 3 - ) : 6 TTIO-TOS pov AC 61. 69 Or 8 s 2 against rest. These 
suffice to show the character of this cursive. This cursive shows 
some slight affinities with A, as in i 13 4 4 5 4 22 11 etc., and still 
more with X. Thus with the latter it agrees in i 8 ( + fj ap\r) /o-A.), 
i 15 TrcTTvpco/xeVo) (a correction), i 17 circOyKcv, 2 20 4 20 etc. It agrees 
with 025 in I 15 XC^-KW Ai/?ai/w, al 6 : 2 20 rrjv Aeyovcrav (also N c al 5 ), etc. 

This cursive has a conflate reading in 2 27 /cat a-wrpiif/ci 
avrovs a)? ra crKtvrj TO. /cepa/u/ca (rvvrpifB^rai. Such a conflation is 
not found in any other MS or in any version. But gig arm 4 bo 
eth read o~vvTpi\l/ei O.VTOVS. Is 2050 influenced by gig or some 
ancestor of these versions? In i 16 2050 with 920. 2040 Tyc fl 
gig vg read oeia avTov against all other Greek authorities. Is 
there a trace of Latin influence here ? 

149. 386. 201. Of these 201 was not collated for this 
edition. The first of these cursives, 149 (xv cent.), is a slavish 
copy of 386 (xiv cent). It reproduces it where it is absolutely 
wrong : cf. 2 14 cStSacr/cev T. BdXaa/x, 3 14 -YJ apx*] TVJS Trtcrrcws, I4 19 
i8 4 XdOrjTe. In 13 it reads KaroiKoiWas with 201 against 386. 
2019 otKowras. Where 386 is quoted in the Appar. Crit. it carries 
149 with it, unless 149 is quoted to the contrary. 201 (xiii 
cent.) is a member of this group. It agrees with 149. 386 in 
unique (or almost unique) readings in 3 2 (> TrcTrA^pay 
TJ apxn Trjs TTto-rea)?: IO 2 CTTI rrjv yrjv (also i) : II 4 ot 
I4 18 fiordvas: I5 6 ot 7rra ayy. C K TOV vaov ot IXOVTC 
7r\-rjyd<i (also s 1 bo): i6 17 TOV Opovov + TOV Oeov. This is a con 
flation of TOV Opovov, A 046 al pl , all versions ( - gig) and N TOV 
Oeov, i8 7 elfju Ka^ws, 2o 4 cSoO-r) teptfjMj and others. This group 
gives a late cursive text. 

175. 617. 1934. These cursives form a group, but one much 
less closely connected than the one immediately preceding. In 
2 19 they stand alone in reading x l/ p va v Trpamov, and in iy 15 
a eISes+ KOL rj yvvrj : with 141. 242 in 6 17 in reading o-w^i/ai. In 
the following passages these cursives attest the same text in con 
junction now with one set of authorities now with another not 
consistently with any io 8 if i8 8 - 22 I9 7 -".i3 2 o 12 2i 6 - 27 
22 s. 12. 13. 16. 20. 21 jycj an ^ fij^ several times agree where 1934 
diverges: i8 16 i9 20 2O 5 2i 3 22 5 etc. and generally in conjunction 

3 14 


with the 025 text. This group gives a very late form of the 
cursive text, except in chapters 16-22 where they agree generally 
with 35. 205. 

325. 456. 468. The first two members of this group are 
closely connected. They stand alone in adding in Kara a-ov in 
2 5 and the marginal note lv aXXw B in i4 20 , in omitting KCU 
evMTTiov . . . avrov in 3 5 and \(av . . . rcraprov o>ov in 4 7 , in 
reading (325**) Su> in 4 9 and xpovov for In XP- fu-Kpov in 6 11 , in 
omitting ye/xouo-as in i5 7 . In very many passages these two 
cursives attest the same text in conjunction with a variety of 
others : cf. 6 17 7 5 8 2 9 2 - 9 i4 8 etc. 468 agrees frequently (but 
apparently always in conjunction with others except in 1 5 ol ayy. 
ol eTrra) with 325. 456. See I 6 /cat TronjcravTi rjplv /8ao-iXeiov 
teparev/za and >ets r. cuwvas, 2 22 /?aAa>, 3 2 TIJ/O^CTOV, 7 2 TOV Oeov 
aWos. See also 9 6 - ll i4 14 . 

35. 205. 205 may be directly derived from 35, though other 
links may have come between. They stand alone in 3 2 Kvpiov TOV 
0eov, Q 18 TWV rpiwv TOVTWV TrX^ywi/. In conjunction with a variety 
of uncials, these two cursives agree in over no passages. This 
number would be still greater but that i8 14 -2o 9 ( = one page of 
205) was not photographed through an error of the photographer. 
Hence for the number no we should read 120 or thereabouts. 
But dealing with the passages actually given in the Appar. Crit. 35. 
205 agree 20 times with each of AN 025 and AtfC 025 ; 3 times 
with each of AN and AtfC; 2 times with AC 025; 5 with A; 
i with A 046. All these are first class groups, and nearly all the 
readings so attested are right. Thus so far 33. 205 exhibit a good 
uncial type of text. But 35. 205 show affinities with another 
type of readings, a considerable number of which have origin 
ated with the recension of 025, which they have followed 28 
times, and almost always wrongly. 

The influence of this recension of 025 : is seen clearly in 
i. 35. 67s(?). io4(?). 205. 468**. 62o(?). 632**. 1957. 2015. 
2019 (?). 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067, etc. I add here 
three examples of the influence of 025 on later MSS. 2 5 e/cTreV- 
rw/cas (instead of TreVrwKas) 025. i. 35. 104. 205. 620. 1957. 
2015. 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067. 2 17 + d,7ro before TOU 
jaawa 025 (where the slip vAov in 025 is rightly corrected in 
later MSS). i. 35. 6i m e. 104. 205. 468**. 620. 632. 2015. 2023. 
2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067. 2 9 p\ao-<f>r}fj,iav IK (>O25) rwv 
Aeyoi/Twv. Here this obvious correction is followed by i. 35. 
205. 1957. 2015. 2019. 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067 
Or 8 . 

Of groups of the second or third class 35. 205 follow NC 

1 35, but not 205, adopts the correction of 046 in 3 12 , i.e. ?} 
Some 20 other cursives do likewise. 


025, N 025. 046, K 046 once each: K (or K c ) C 025 3 times: 
X 025. ii : K 6. 

205 presents two conflate readings in i3 14 i4 6 . 

Thus group (35. 205) has quite the value of an uncial 
superior in the main to 046, but falling short of 025. 

10. Origen s so-called text in this edition Or 8 . Whether 
the text which accompanies undoubted scholia of Origen is 
really the text of Origen, Harnack in his edition (Der Scholien- 
kommentar des Origenes zur Apokalypse Johannis, 1911), p. 81, 
leaves undecided. He claims that it is a text of the highest 
character of the loth century, which " though it may not prove 
to be even a rival of C, perhaps even not of A, is at all events 
on an equality with X and 025, while it is certainly superior 
to the text of 046 and Andreas." 

But this text is not deserving of such praise, (a) It has 
nothing to do with the text that Origen used. I will compare 
the texts in a few passages. In 3 7 Or 8 reads : raSe Aeyet 6 
ayyeXos dA^ivos ... 6 dvotywv /cat ovoVis /cXetVet auTYjr /cat /cXet toi/ 
/cat ouSets dvocyet, t jar) 6 dvotywi/ /cat ovSeis dvotei. Here, as the 
Appar. Crit. in loc. shows, the text which Origen used differed 
in two respects (see heavy type) in this verse, and agreed in 
these with the text of this edition. Or s alone is conflate. It 
combines /cat /cAetW . . . dvotyet (the text of A 025) and et ^ 
6 di/otywv . . . dvotet (the text of 046 and most cursives). Again 
Origen > d/covcn; T. c/xoviys /xov /cat always when quoting 3 20 , but not 
so Or 8 . This may be an accident. In 5 1 Origen reads eo-wtfev /c. 
oiricrOev and also ///:rpo<r#ei /c. OTTKT^CJ/, but Or 8 ZcrwOcv K. e<o$ev. 
In 5 5 Origen rightly reads di/otat, but Or 8 6 dvot ywv with 046 and 
cursives. In 7 3 Origen reads /XTJTC T. 6dXao-o-av, but Or s /cat T. 
OdXao-a-av, and a^pt against Or 8 a^/ots ov. In i 6 Origen (c. Celsum, 
viii. 5) has /3ao-iA.etav where Or 8 gives merely a cursive reading. 
A multitude of such divergences will be found in Harnack s 
work (p. 76 sqq.). In the face of such divergences it is 
impossible to identify Or 8 with the text of Origen. 1 

But a more important task awaits us. We have to define 
the relations of Or 8 and determine its position with reference to 
the main texts of J ap . We shall find that this position is not high 
amongst the uncials, as Harnack would have it, but low amongst 
the cursives. It will not be necessary to bring forward the entire 
evidence, but the following will suffice. 

(a) Or 9 is full of corrections like 046, or rather in dependence 
on it. In i 20 it reads dore/awi/ <m/ with 046. But our author 
never uses the attracted relative. After 046 it corrects 2 20 TT)V 

1 Naturally some points of agreement are found. Cf. the addition with 
K alP in I 8 dpx^] Kal r^Xos and others, for any MS of J a P has of necessity many 
points of contact with every other. 


ywat/ca . . . f) Xeyovtra into TTJV yw. . . . r) Xeyet, and 3 12 rrjs 
Kawfjs lep. y KaTafiaivovcra into T. /catv^s lep. /cara/fotVei. With 
cursives only it corrects io 8 XaXovcrav . . . Xeyovo-av into XaXovcra 
. . . Xeyovcra. Now this last correction is most probably the 
correction of an original slip of the author, but the other 
two constructions are Hebraisms in the text and should not 
have been altered. 5 10 /Jao-tXeiav /cat tepees into /?ao-tXets K. tepets. 

(b) It makes additions to the text with 046 : 2 13 + ra Ipya <rov 
/cat : and with K 046 : 2 9 + TO. epya /cat. 

(c) In 8 12 we have a conflation of A and 046 : /cat TO rpirov 
avrrjs pr) <j>dvy fjfjiepa /cat f] T^txepa JJL-TJ <f>dvy TO rptrov avrfjs, where 
046 comes first and A second. Another conflation appears in 
4 8 (see (g) below). 

(d) A few of the passages where it follows 046 and some 
cursives. I 10 <<DVT)V airier (a JJLOV fJLfydXrjv : I 12 /cat + e/cet : 2 10 TraOtlv : 
t 8ov + 8rj. 817 does not belong to our author s vocabulary. 2 14 + 
/cat before c/>ayetv : 4 4 TOVS Opovovs + TOVS : 4 7 > ws before dV0p<6- 
TTOV : 4 11 ^yaaiv + o aytos 5 5 6 ai/otywv (where the text is dvotai) : 
9 2 KdfjLivov /cato/xevry?. 

(^) Directly or indirectly it follows 025 in the following correc 
tions. 2 9 rr)v f3\a.(r<f)r]/jLLcw TOJV XeywTtov : 2 17 Swcrco avrw+^ayetv : 

7 9 0^X05 . . . TrpLp/3\.r)fJiVOl. 

(/) (9r* w #<?/ unfrequently without any support but that of 
cursives. I 16 Seta avrov X a P t/: 2 14 s eStSa^ev TOV BaX. : 3 7 TOV 
before Aauei S : 3 18 tva eyxpiory : 5 13 oo-a <TTtv : 6 9 (rc/>payicr/>ivwv 
(for ccr^ay/Aei/cov !) : io 4 ypa<#>^? with only 205: n 7 >/cat orav 
TX<rco(rtv with 617. 920. 2040 arm 2 3 : I3 7 TroXe/xov Trot^crai. 

(^) Thus every step we have taken proves in an increasing 
degree the secondary, eclectic and cursive character of the text. 
It now remains to define the group of cursives with which it is 
most intimately connected. These are 6 1 (xvi cent.) and 69 (xv 
cent.). With these cursives it agrees against all other authorities 
in the following : 4 6 Kat (for a co-rtv) : 4 8 Kv/cXo0ev ecrw^ev /cat 
ew0ej/, where 61. 69 have /cv/cX. c^ofov K. ZorwOev conflations of 
/cv/cX. K. cra>0ev Ax etc., and /cv/cX. K. Z&Bev 1957. 2050: ii 5 
e/cTTOpevcreTat : I3 6 TroXe/A^o-at (instead of Tronjo-at) : I3 15 aTro/cTai/- 
^vat (instead of ti/a . . . aTroKTavOuxrw). In 3 18 with 69 alone 
Or 8 reads <j>avrj for (f>avcpuOr]. 

Again with 61. 69 al 8 Or 8 agrees against all authorities in i 6 
/JacrtXctov teparcv/xa : with 046 in I2 16 eveySaXev (where 6 1. 69, 
however, have dveXa/Sev) : in 3 9 yvwcrct with N 69 yvway. 

From (g) it follows that Or 8 belongs to a very small and late 
group. So far as is known as yet, Or 8 61. 69 are the only 
members of this group. It could not well have originated earlier 
than the gth or loth century. Hence it should be numbered as 
cursive 2293. 


ii. Some account of the Versions. 

(i.) Latin Versions : (a) Tyconius ; (&) Primasius ; (c) Codex 
Floriacensis ( = fl) ; (d") Codex Gigas ( = gig) ; (e) Vulgate. 

(a) Tyconius. There is no critical edition of this text. Dr. 
Prinz has such a text in preparation. The readings in the 
Appar. Crit. of the present work are taken from Professor Souter s 
"Tyconius Text of the Apocalypse, a partial restoration," J.T.S., 
April 1913. 

(b) Primasius ( = Pr). Haussleiter has published a critical 
edition of Primasius text in his work, Die lateinische Apocalypse, 
1891, pp. 80-175. 

(c) Codex Floriacensis ( = fl). Only fragments of this Latin 
version made in Africa survive. These amount to 61 verses: 
I-2 1 , 8 7 ~9 12 , n 16 -i4 14 , I4 15 -i6 5 . They are preserved in a 
palimpsest in the National Library of Paris No. 6400 G 
(formerly in the library of Fleury). This palimpsest has been 
deciphered and published by Vansittart, Journal of Philology, iv. 
(1872) pp. 219-222; Omont, Bibliotheque de Pecole des chartes, 
xliv. (1883) pp. 445-451, Belsheim in 1887 ; Berger, Le palimpseste 
du Fleury ) 1889; Haussleiter in his edition of Primasius, 1891, 
and a recent collation in i^o6 y J.T.S. p. 96 sqq. 

Pr and fl render mutual service to each other. They make 
the detection of intrusions of vg in one or other of these two 
versions an easy task. The canon of criticism here is that where 
Pr and fl differ, such variants as agree with vg are to be rejected 
and the remainder to be retained as the older text. 

(d) Codex gigas ( = gig). This codex of the xiii cent., formerly 
in Prague, is now in Stockholm. It contains the whole Bible, 
but only Acts and the Apocalypse are Old Latin. This codex 
was edited by Belsheim in 1879, but inaccurately. For the 
collation used in the present work I am indebted to Professor 
White, who has put at my service the fresh collation made by 
Dr. Karlsson in 1891 for John Wordsworth, bishop of Salisbury. 
It appears to have an Italian character (Gregory). 

(e) Vulgate ( = vg). I have used Professor White s Editio 
Minor of the Vulgate Novum Testamentum Latine, Clarendon 
Press, 1911. In this edition the following seven MSS 

vg a. c. d. f. g. h. v) are used . 

a Amiatinus (vii-viii) cent. g Sangermanensis (ix). 

c Cavensis (ix). h Hubertianus (ix-x). 

d Armachanus (812 A.D.). v Valliqellanus (ix). 
f Fuldensis (vi). \ 

ii. Syriac Versions : (a) Philoxenian, (d) Hkrkleian or Syriac 



(a) Philoxenian ( = s 1 ). This version was discovered and 
edited by Professor Gwynn in 1897. He ascribes it on good 
grounds to the 6th century. It is perhaps the most valuable of 
all the versions, its only rival being arm 4 (see p. clxvi sqq.). It is 
remarkable that with the Armenian versions it has many readings 
in common with the Latin versions (see Gwynn, p. cxliii), where 
these differ from all Greek MSS (though the list is not quite 
correct). Thus in 5 4 s 1 arm 1 Pr read XVO-O.L ras cr^paytSas avrov 
for j3X.7Tiv avro : in I3 10 S 1 gig Sa eth read ei/ /xaxatpa aTTOKTavOr)- 
a-erat : in 9 17 s 1 Tyc Pr gig vg arm 1 - 2< 3 a read rov oro/mro? ; but 
this is found in one Greek cursive 35. The presence of a common 
Latin (?) element in s 1 arm sa eth calls for investigation. Most of 
this element, no doubt, goes back to lost Greek MSS, but there 
appears to be a residuum of Latin readings which made their 
way into s 1 arm and other versions. 

s 1 exhibits conflations in 5 10 6 2 n 11 i8 17 6 CTTI ran/ TrXoiW CTTI 

Gwynn puts forward two hypotheses to account for the form 
of the text of s 1 . The translator formed the text for himself, 
taking as basis our main exemplar, but modifying it to the 
extent of about one-third by the introduction of readings from a 
secondary subsidiary exemplar. Otherwise he followed a single 
exemplar in which the primary and secondary factors stood to 
each other in the ratio of two to one. 

(b) The Harkleian ( = s 2 ). This version was made about 
6 1 6. As yet no critical edition of the text has appeared. It 
preserves very ancient readings lost in most of the Latin versions, 
but it is decidedly inferior to s 1 . See above, p. clxviii, and 
Gwynn (op. rit.\ pp. Ixxi-lxxv, Ixxxi-lxxxiv. 

iii. Armenian Versions. The Armenian version was 
admitted into the Armenian canon in the i2th century through 
the agency of Nerses. But the Armenian version was known in 
the earliest years of the 5th century. There are in reality two 
distinct Armenian versions. The first is exhibited in arm 1 , arm 2 , 
arm 3 , arm a , which on the whole form, notwithstanding many 
differences, a homogeneous whole over against arm 4 . Arm 1 - 2 - 3 
represent the sources of the older and unrevised text, and 
arm a the Nersesian i2th century recension, which was based on 
arm 1 - 2 - 3 etc. Arm 4 and arm 1 - 2 - 3 represent, according to Cony- 
beare, "two independent renderings of a common Greek text." 
But this statement needs drastic revision. The Greek source 
of arm 4 differed very much from that of arm 1 2 - 3 . Conybeare 
ascribes arm 1 - 2 - 3 to a 5th century text and arm 4 to a redaction 
of the early 8th. 

As in the case of s 1 , so here the Latin element is evident. 
In iQ 1 arm 2 this influence is undeniable. Thus, where the 


Greek has o^Aou TroAAov, vg a - c> T have tubarum multarum^ and so 
arm 2 . This corruption could only have arisen in Latin, i.e. 
tubarum corrupt for turbarum. The same corruption reappears 
in i9 6 , where o^Xov -rroAAov is rendered by Pr vg*- c d - f - v by 
tubarum (-ae -vg) magnarum (-nae vg). 

Conybeare thinks that the early Armenian version " was made 
from an old Latin copy, or perhaps from a bilingual Greco- 
Latin codex." The latter appears the more probable, but the 
question requires thorough investigation, not only in regard to 
arm, but also in regard to s 1 bo sa and eth. 

It is much to be regretted that Conybeare did not print in 
its entirety arm* alongside arm 1 - 2 - 3 - *, seeing that it represents a 
more ancient type of Greek text than arm 1 - 2 - s - a . Arm 4 is alone 
complete, and yet neither is its text nor even a single variant from 
it given in Armenian. Only English renderings of the variants and 
of i6 17 -i9 18 are supplied. It is rather strange for a scholar, who 
is editing both a text and a translation, to translate two chapters 
(i6 17 -i9 18 )from a text which he does not give, and print a text (arm 2 ) 
of these chapters, which he does not translate save in the case of 
its variants. For the text of arm 4 he refers his readers to Dr. 
F. Murat s edition of it " in the great university libraries of our 
country," or "to the Armenian Convent of St. James in Jerusalem." 

Students of the J ap cannot be other than most grateful to 
Dr. Conybeare for his edition of the Armenian version, but it 
does not bear the character of a final one. 

(d) Bohairic Version ( = bo). The Bohairic (or Memphitic) 
version has been edited with great care by the Rev. G. Horner. 
This editor prints J ap from the Curzon MS 128 with variants from 
other MSS. He has provided an English version of this MS, 
but unfortunately the variants are not translated. The result is 
that the reader who does not know Bohairic cannot get to know 
anything beyond MS Curzon 128. 

(e) Sahidic Version ( = sa). The same scholar is engaged on 
an edition of the Sahidic. He has most generously supplied the 
present editor with some hundreds of readings from this frag 
mentary version. This version appears to agree more with A 
and its allies than do bo eth. 

(/) Ethiopic Version ( = eth). Only two uncritical editions of 
this version exist that of Platt and that contained in Walton s 
Polyglott. I have used the edition of Platt published in 1899, 
and only consulted the other version that is printed in Walton s 

Bo sa and eth form one group as we have already seen, but 
their exact relations cannot be determined till critical editions 
of the three are accessible, and a scholar who has a mastery of 
the three languages takes the task in hand. 


The Archetype of John, completed about 95 A.D. 

Edited soon after 95 by an unknown disciple with many dislocations 
of the text and interpolations 

Correction of text begins in 
the 2nd cent, and goes on 
steadily but sporadically 
towards a normalized form 
of text 

Most primitive forrn\ 
(280-450 A.D.) of 
text, in which cor 
rection has made 
some progress 

F i F 3 F 4 
(3rd to 5th cent.) 

A somewhat normalized and 
very corrupt form of text 
which replaces a whole class 
of the author s constructions 
by more normal Greek 

F 2 ( 4 thcent.) 
K(4th cent.) 


(8th cent, recension) 
many cursives 

2040 no. 2050 
(loth cent.) 

35- 205 

(loth cent. 


8th cent. 

Main body of 

1 Possibly these three versions should be represented rather as 
but the uncritical text of eth does not easily admit of this arrange 




For the meaning of the above symbols and abbreviations of 
MSS and versions, see vol. ii. pp. 227 sqq., 234 sqq. For F 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 
(i.e. Papyri Fragments), see vol. ii. pp. 447-451. 

Though the above table must in many of its features be 
regarded as purely hypothetical, the editor is convinced of its 
general accuracy down to Atf F 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 : also that, though C 
belongs to the family of A, it has been influenced by that 
of X, besides showing signs of frequent correction. 

So far the evidence is on the whole clear. Henceforth the 
relations of the MSS and versions can only be partially and, 
until several important questions are investigated, provisionally 
represented. 025 and 046 are certainly descendants of A 
and K, or of the families of which these are representatives ; 
for 025. 046 preserve primitive readings lost in Atf. Thus in 
4 4 eVi r. Opovovs ( + TOVS 046) ei/coo-t reWapas Trpecr/^irrepovs is 
undoubtedly right where AN are wrong and C is defective ; for 
s 1 - 2 arm 2 - 3 - 4 -" Pr gig vg bo eth here support 025. 046. In 6 8 
6 OavaTos of 025. 046 is right, where A is corrupt and Ctf wrong. 
In 9 10 ovpas 6/xoias (TKop7TLOL<s of 025. 046 is again right against 
the greater uncials, and also in iQ 18 TWI/ /<a^/x,eVwv CTT cumov. 
This fact cannot be represented in the above table. 

Further, a study of 025. 046 shows that these two MSS are 
connected ; for they have 36 (more or less) readings in common 
against AtfC. This connection is accordingly represented in the 
above table. But 025 and 046 are related differently to A and 
K. 025 is more closely associated with the text of A, and 046 
with that of X. Moreover, 025 shows signs of a deliberate recen 
sion, whereas 046 exhibits rather signs of a progressive correction. 
But these MSS have other connections. Thus in i4 18 025 unites 
with C in reading Kpavyfj (a wrong reading) against <j>wf) of 
AS 046 : in i4 13 in reading eV Xpto-rw against kv Kvptw of all other 
MSS. This connection is represented in the above table. 

Certain cursives, i.e. 35. 205. 2040 (ii 8 -2o n only). 2050 
preserve some original readings lost wholly in N 025. 046 
(see clxxiii sqq.). These cursives are in many respects as valuable 
as the later uncials, while in a few they are superior. 

Of the remaining cursives a considerable number follow for 
the most part 025, while the main body appears to follow 046. 
But the exact differentiation of these cursives has not yet been 

Turning from the Greek MSS to the versions, we enter on a 
more difficult task. Of the versions, Tyc sa eth and s 2 have not 
yet been critically edited. All the materials for such a critical 
edition of bo are given in Homer s edition of the Bohairic N.T., 
but they are accessible only to Coptic scholars. The internal 
relations of the Latin versions Tyc Pr fl gig which are still un- 


determined, and likewise the influence of the Latin versions (or of 
the Greek MSS from which a large part of this peculiar (?) Latin 
element may be derived) on arm s 1 bo eth form attractive 
problems for future researchers. 

Since we know that the Latin versions (or their Greek pro 
genitors) exercised some influence on arm and s 1 , I have placed 
these versions in close connection on the above table. But the 
Latin influence on bo eth is not represented, nor is s 2 even men 



In my Studies in the Apocalypse I have given a short history of 
the interpretation of the Apocalypse, dealing with each method 
as it arose, its contribution to the elucidation of our author, its 
developments, or, it may be, its final condemnation and rejection 
at the bar of criticism. Here there is no historical treatment of 
the subject, but merely an enumeration of the methods, which 
have stood the test of experience and been found necessary for 
the interpretation of the Apocalypse. 

i. The Contemporary- Historical Method. This method 
rightly presupposes that the visions of our author relate to con 
temporary events and to future events so far as they arise out of 
them. The real historical horizons of the book were early lost. 
Yet, even so, traces of the Contemporary-Historical Method still 
persist in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus of Pettau. But 
with the rise of the Spiritualizing Method in Alexandria this 
true method was driven from the field and lost to use till it was 
revived by the Roman and non-Roman Christian scholars of 
the i yth century. These scholars established as an assured 
result that the Apocalypse was originally directed against Rome. 
The Apocalypse is not to be treated as an allegory, but to be 
interpreted in reference to definite concrete kingdoms, powers, 
events, and expectations. But, though the visions of our author 
related to contemporary events, they are not limited to these. 
For, as I have said in vol. ii. 86, " no great prophecy receives its 
full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events. 
In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against 
which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer. But if it 
is the expression of T great moral and spiritual truth, it will of a 
surety be fulfilled at sundry times and in divers manners and in 
varying degrees of completeness " in the history of the world. 

2. The Eschatological Method. But the Apocalypse deals 


not only with contemporary events but also with future events. 
So far as these future events arise naturally out of contemporary 
events their elucidation can to a certain extent be brought under 
i. But the last things depicted by our author contain a 
prophetic element. These in a certain sense arise out of the 
past and yet are inexplicable from it. The future events depicted 
in the Apocalypse are not to be treated symbolically or allegori- 
cally (save in exceptional cases), but as definite concrete events. 

3. The Chiliastic Interpretation. Strictly speaking, Chiliasru 
forms a subdivision of Eschatology. But in point of fact there 
are interpreters who, while applying the Eschatological Method 
rightly on the whole, treat everything relating to Chiliasm in 
our author purely symbolically. But the prophecy of the 
Millennium in chap. xx. must be taken literally, as it was by 
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Victorinus of Pettau. These writers 
were acquainted with the original interpretation of this chapter. 
But this interpretation was soon displaced by the spiritualizing 
methods of Alexandria. Tyconius, adopting these methods, 
rejected the literal interpretation of chap, xx., treated the Millen 
nium as the period between the first and second advents of 
Christ. Jerome and Augustine followed in the footsteps of 
Tyconius, and a realistic eschatology was crushed out of existence 
in the Church for full 800 years. The Eschatological Method, 
including Chiliasm, was revived by Joachim of Floris (arc. 
1200 A.D.), but the latter element was again abandoned for some 
centuries and declared heretical by the Augsburg and Helvetic 
Confessions. In England, where these Confessions were without 
authority, Chiliasm was revived by Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, and 

4*. The Philological Method in its earlier form. This 
method was resorted to in the i6th cent, as a counsel of 
despair. The Church and World-Historical Methods which 
originated in the i4th cent, as well as the Recapitulation Method 
of Victorinus had, combined with other more reasonable 
methods, been applied to the Apocalypse by numberless scholars, 
with the result that the best interpreters of the i6th cent, 
confessed that the Apocalypse remained more than ever the 
Seven-sealed Book. 

But the value of the Philological Method was only in part 
recognized. The chief philological problems were either not 
recognized at all or only in part, and so this method failed to 
make the indispensable contribution that could be made by it 
and by it alone, and that could put an end to the wild vagaries 
of the Literary Critical School which had its founder in Grotius. 
To this method I will return after 9 under the heading 4 b . 

5. The Literary- Critical Method. It the methods just 


mentioned were the only valid methods, and if at the same time 
the absolute unity of the Apocalypse were assumed as given or 
proved, then large sections of it would have to be surrendered as 
unsolved and unsolvable. But there is no such impasse. ILI the 
Apocalypse there is no such rigid unity of authorship and con 
sistency of detail as has been constantly assumed. A new 
method of interpretation was initiated by Grotius the Literary- 
Critical. Grotius, observing that there were conflicting elements 
alike in tradition and within the text itself, conjectured that the 
Apocalypse was composed of several visions written down at 
different times and in different places, some before and some after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. This method finally gave birth to 
three different hypotheses, each of the three possessing some 
element of truth, but especially the third. These hypotheses are : 

(a) The Redactional-Hypothesis. 

(t>) The Sources-Hypothesis. 

(c) The Fragmentary-Hypothesis. 

(a) The Redactional-Hypothesis. Many interpreters have 
availed themselves of this hypothesis, but a thorough study of 
John s style and diction makes it impossible to recognize the 
Apocalypse as the result of the work of a series of successive 
editors, such as we recognize in the Ascension of Isaiah. That 
the Apocalypse suffered one such redaction appears to the present 
writer to be a hypothesis necessarily postulated by the facts ; see 
vol. i. pp. 1-lv, vol. ii. pp. 144-154. 

(b) The Sources- Hypothesis. This theory assumes a series of 
independent sources connected more or less loosely together as 
i Enoch. That this theory can be established to a limited 
extent, I have sought to show in 7 1 3 7 4 8 n 1 13 12. 13. 17. 18 
(see pp. Ixii-lxv). Some of these sources are purely Jewish, 
or Jewish-Christian in origin, and one at least of them i.e. 
chap. 12 is derived ultimately from a heathen expectation of 
a World Redeemer (see vol. i. 310-314). But this theory, 
which breaks up the entire book into various sources, cannot 
explain the relative unity of the work as a whole nay more, 
a unity which might be described as absolute in respect to its 
purpose steadily maintained from the beginning to the close, 
its growing thought and dramatic development, its progressive 
crises, and its diction and style, which are unique in all Greek 

(c) Fragmentary- Hypothesis. From the above two forms of 
the Literary-Critical Method we turn to its third and most satis 
factory form the Pigmentary-Hypothesis a most unhappy 
designation. This hypothesis presupposes an undoubted unity 
of authorship, though the author has from time to time drawn 


on foreign sources (as we have pointed out in the preceding 
section), and has not always assimilated these fragmentary 
elements in all their details to their new contexts. 

6. Traditional - Historical Method. This method was 
applied first by Gunkel to the Apocalypse, and subsequently by 
many other scholars in an extravagant degree. Each new 
apocalypse is to some extent a reproduction and reinterpretation 
of traditional material whether in the form of figures, symbols, 
or doctrines. Hence it is necessary to distinguish between the 
original meaning of a borrowed symbol or doctrine and the new 
turn given to it by our author. This is done in the introduction 
to each chapter in this Commentary. In nearly every case our 
author has transformed or glorified the borrowed material. 
.Thus the sealing in 7 1 8 , which in its Jewish source carried with 
it the thought of security from physical evil, is a pledge of God s 
protection from spiritual evil. The doctrine of the Antichrist as 
it appears in our author is unique : see vol. ii. 76-87, where the 
various stages of the development of this idea are given. 
Occasionally details in the borrowed material are inapplicable to 
our author s purpose (see notes on i2 13 16 i8 4 ), or possibly 
unintelligible to him. In these cases he omits all reference to 
such details in his interpretation of the source of which he has 
availed himself. But it is probable that these defects and 
inconsistencies would have been removed by our author if he 
had had the opportunity of revising his book. 

7. Religious- Historical Method. There are certain state 
ments and doctrines in the Apocalypse which could not have 
been written first hand by a Christian. These are in some cases 
of Jewish origin, but others are ultimately derived from Baby 
lonian, Egyptian, or Greek sources; see vol. i. 121-123 on the 
Cherubim, vol. i. 310-314 on the doctrine of a World-Redeemer. 
The order of the twelve precious stones, see vol. ii. 165-169, points 
to our author s knowledge of the heathen conception of the 
City of the Gods and of contemporary astronomy, and his 
deliberate deviation from them. 

8. Philosophical Method. Apocalyptic is a philosophy of 
history and religion. The Seer seeks to get behind the surface 
and penetrate to the essence of events, the spiritual motives and 
purposes that underlay and gave them their real significance. 
Hence apocalyptic takes within its purview not only the present 
and the last things, but all things past, present, and to come. 
Apocalyptic and not Greek philosophy was the first to grasp the 
great idea that all history, alike human, cosmological, and 
spiritual, is a unity a unity following naturally as a corollary of 
the unity of God. And yet serious N.T. scholars of the present day 
have stated that apocalyptic has only to deal with the last things ! 


9. Psychological Method. Are the visions in the Apocalypse 
the genuine results of spiritual experience? That our author 
speaks from actual spiritual experience no serious student of to-day 
has any doubt. The only question that calls for solution is the 
extent to which such experience underlies the visions of the 
Apocalypse. On pp. ciii-cix the present writer has made an 
attempt to discuss this question. 

4 b . The Philological Method in its later form. This method 
has already been dealt with in the order of its historical appear 
ance under 4* above. But its value in determining some of the 
chief questions of the Apocalypse has never yet been appreciated. 
It has therefore been all but wholly neglected, and no writer has 
made a really serious study of the style and diction of our 
author save Bousset, and that only in a minor degree. Hence 
on every hand individual verses and combinations of verses 
have been unjustifiably rejected as non-Johannine, and others 
just as unjustifiably received as Johannine. After working for 
years on the Apocalypse under the guidance of all the above 
methods, I came at last to recognize that no certain conclusion 
could be reached on many of the vexed problems of the book 
till I had made a thorough study of John s grammar. On pp. 
cxvii-clix I have given the results of a study extending over 
many years. In not a few respects it is revolutionary. To give 
a few examples. As regards John s Greek it shows that con 
structions (such as To3 dyye Aw ro> eV E^eW), and so in the other 
six passages), which every modern German scholar has rejected, 
were exactly the constructions which a complete study of John s 
grammar required. Next, this study revolutionizes the translation 
of the Apocalypse. Frequently it is not the Greek but the 
Hebrew in the mind of the writer that has to be translated. 
Thirdly, as regards large sections which have been rejected by 
most modern scholars as non-Johannine, this grammar shows 
that such sections are essentially Johannine and vice versa. 



Editions. Greek Commentaries. The Apocalypse does not 
owe much to Greek expositors. The earliest were probably the 
best. Fragmentary expositions are preserved in Justin and Irenaeus 

1 This bibliography abbreviated as much as possible. For fuller biblio 
graphies in various directions the reader should consult Liicke, Einl. in d. 
O/enbarung*, 518 sqq., 952 sqq. ; Bousset, Offenbarung Johannis, 1906, pp. 
48-118; Holtzmann-Bauer s Hand-Co?nmentar, \v. 380-390; Walch, Bibl. 


which are referred to by Jerome, De vir. illustr. ii. g. The two 
earliest complete Commentaries by Melito (cf. Eus. H.E. iv. 
26. 2) and Hippolytus (Jerome, op. cit. 61) are lost. Clement of 
Alexandria (Eus. H.E vi. 14. i) commented on the Apocalypse, 
and Origen recorded his intention of so doing, In Matt. 49 
(Lommatzsch, iv. 307). That his Scholia on the Apoc. have 
been preserved is highly probable : see p. clxxvi. Commen 
tary by Oecumenius (discovered by Diekampf; see Sitzungs- 
berichte der Kon. preuss. Akad. der Wiss., 1901, 1046 sqq.). 
The Commentary ascribed by Cramer (Catena, viii. p. vi, 497- 
582) to Oecumenius is, according to Diekampf, a compendium 
of Andreas (ed. Sylburg, 1596; Migne, P.G. cvi) and Arethas 
(Cramer s Catena, viii. 171-496; Migne, P.G. cvi). 

Latin Commentaries. Victorinus (iii cent.). This Commen 
tary appears in a shorter and in a longer form. For the latter 
see Migne, P.L. v. Haussleiter is engaged on a critical edition. 
Tyconius (iv-v cent. See Souter in J. T.S. xiv. 338 sqq. A critical 
edition is promised by Haussleiter) ; Primasius (vi cent., ed. by 
Haussleiter, Die Lateinische Apocalypse, 1891); Apringius (vi 
cent. ed. by Fe rotm, Paris, 1900). Bede, Ansbertus, Beatus, 
Hayino, and others carried on the tradition of the Church in 
the West. 

There were some Syriac Commentaries, the most important 
of which is that of Barsalibi (see Gwynn in Hermathena, vi-vii). 

In the mediaeval period the most important commentator 
was Joachim, abbott of Floris, 1195 ( e< ^- Venice, 1519, 1527). 

Commentaries since the Reformation. Since the Reformation 
the number of writers on the Apocalypse is almost beyond count. 
Only a few of the chief names can be given. Erasmus, Annota- 
tiones in N.T., 1516; Bibliander, Comment, in Apoc., 1549; Bui- 
linger, In Apoc. Condones, 1557; Ribeira, In sacram b. loannis 
. . . Apoc. Commentarius, Lyons, 1593; Pereyra, Disputationes 
selectissimae super libro Apocalypsis, Venice, 1607 ; Salmeron, In 
Johannis Apoc. Praeludia, 1614; Alcasar, Vestigatio arcani sensus 
in Apoc., Lyons, 1618 ; Juan Mariana, Scholia in . . . N.T., 1619 ; 
Brightman, Revelation of St. John, 1616; Cornelius a Lapide, 
Comm. in Apoc., 1627; Mede, Clavis Apocalypseos, Cambridge, 
1627; Grotius, Annotationes, 1644; Hammond, Paraphrase and 
Annotations upon the N.T., 1653 ; Coccejus, Cogitationes in Apoc., 
1673; Marckius, In Apoc. . . . Commentarius, Amsterdam, 
1689; Vitringa, AvaKpurts Apocalypsios*, 1719; I. Newton, 

Theol. selecta, iv. 760 sqq. ; Stosch, Catalogus rariorum in Apoc. Joannis 
Commentariorum ; Elliott, Horae Apocalypticac, iv. 275-528. In my 
Lectures on the Apocalypse, pp. 1-78, I have combined a bibliography and a 
history of the interpretation of the Apocalypse, as Bousset and Holtzmann- 
Bauer have done, though on a smaller scale than Bousset. 


Observations upon . . . the Apoc., 1732; Bengal, Offenbarung 
Johannis, 1740; Wetstein, N.T. Graecum, 2 vols., 1751-52, 
Amsterdam; Eichhorn, Commentarius in Apoc., Gottingen, 1791. 
Amongst the Commentaries of the nineteenth century should be 
mentioned : Vogel, Commentationes vii. de Apocalypsi, Erlangen, 
T8n-i6; H. Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. Joannis, 1828, die Johan- 
neischen Schriften, Gottingen, 1862; Liicke, see Studies, below; 
Ziillig, Offenbarung Johannis, Stuttgart, 1834-40; M. Stuart, 
Comm. on the Apoc?, 1845 ; De Wette, Erklarung der Offenbarung, 
1848; Hengstenberg, Die Offenbarung . . . erldutert, Berlin, 
1849-51; Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae*, 4 vols., 1851; Ebrard, 
Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1853; G. Volkmar, Commentar zur 
Offenbarung, Zurich, 1862 ; C. Wordsworth, New Testament, vol. 
ii., London, 1864 ; Kliefoth, Offenbarung des Johannis, Leipzig, 
1874; C. J. Vaughan, Revelation of St. John, London, 1870; 
J. C. A. Hofmann, Offenb. Johannis, 1874 ; A. Bisping, Erklarung 
der Apoc., Miinster, 1876; C. H. A. Burger, Offenb. Johannis, 
J&77; J. P- Lange, BibelwerW, 1878; E. Reuss, Apocalypse, 
Paris, 1878; W. Lee, Revelation of St, John, London, 1881 ; 
Diisterdieck, Offenb. Johannis*, Gottingen, 1887; W. Milligan, 
Book of Revelation, London, 1889; Simcox, Revelation of St. John, 
Cambridge, 1893; Kiibel, Offenbarung Johannis, Munich, 1893; 
Trench, Comm. on the Epistles to the Seven Churches 1 , 1897; 
Bousset, Offenbarung Johannis, Gottingen, 1896; new ed. 1906; 
Benson, The Apocalypse, London. 1900; C. A. Scott, Revelation 
(Century Bible}, Edinburgh, 1902; Crampon, E Apocalypse de S. 
Jean, Tournai, 1904; Th. Calmes, Paris, 1905; H. B. Swete, 
Apocalypse of St. John*, London, 1907 ; H. P. Forbes, New York, 
1907 ; Hort, Apoc. of St. John, i.-iii., London, 1908 ; Holtzmann- 
Bauer, Offenbarung des Johannis* (Hand- Comm.), Tubingen, 1908 ; 
J. M. S. Baljon, Openbaring van Johannes, Utrecht, 1908 ; 
Moffatt, Revelation of St. John (Expositor s Gk. Test.), London, 
1910; E. C. S. Gibson, Revelation of St. John, London, 1910; 
A. Ramsay (Westminster N.T.), 1910; Diobouniotis und 
Harnack, Der Scholien-Kommentar des Origenes zur Apokalypse 
Johannis, Leipzig, 1911 ; J. T. Dean, Edinburgh, 1915. 

Studies, Exegetical and Critical. Liicke, Versuch einer voll- 
stdndigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis 2 , Bonn, 1852; 
F. Bleek, VorUsungen uber d. Apocalypse, Berlin, 1859; F. D. 
Maurice, Lectures on the Apocalypse, Cambridge, 1861 ; Milligan, 
Discussions on the Apocalypse, London, 1893 ; Selwyn, The Chris 
tian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse, London, 1900 ; F. C. 
Porter (Hastings D.B. iv. 239-266), 1902 : Messages of the Apoc 
alyptical Writers (pp. 169-294), London, 1905 ; W. R. Ramsay, 
Letters to the Seven Churches, London, 1904; E. A. Abbott, 
Notes on N.T. Criticism, 1907, pp. 75-114, Johannint Grammar 


1906 valuable also for the student of the Apocalypse; 
Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse*, 1915. 

Studies mainly Critical. These are frequently quoted in my 
Commentary simply under the author s name with page. Volter, 
Enstehung der Apokalypse (designated as " Volter i." in my Com 
mentary), Freiburg, 1885 ; Offenbarung Johannis (as "Volter ii." 
in my Commentary), Tubingen, 1886; Das Problem der Apok 
alypse (as "Volter iii."), Freiburg and Leipzig, 1893 ; Offenbarung 
Johannis (as "Volter iv."), Strassburg, 1904; Vischer, Offen 
barung Johannis , Leipzig, 1886; Weyland, De Apokalypse van 
Johannes, Groningen, 1888; Schoen, UOrigine de V Apocalypse, 
Paris, 1887; Spitta, Offenbarung des Johannes , Halle, 1889; 
Erbes, Offenbarung Johannis , Gotha, 1891; Schmidt, Die Kom- 
position der Offenbarung Johannis -, Freiburg, 1891 ; Bousset, Zur 
Textkritik der Apokalypse, (Textkritische Studien zum N.T.), 
Leipzig, 1894; Rauch, Offenbarung des Johannes, Haarlem, 1894; 
Hirscht, Die Apokalypse und ihre neueste Kritik, Leipzig, 1895; 
J. Weiss, Offenbarung des Johannes, Gottingen, 1904; Well- 
hausen, Analyse der Offenbarung Johannis, Berlin, 1907. 

Texts. B. Weiss, Die Johannes- Apokalypse (Textkritische 
Untersuchungen und Textherstellung), Leipzig, 1891, 2nd ed. 
1902; Souter, N.T. Grace, 1910; Moffatt (Expositors Greek 
Testament), 1910; Von Soden, 1914. Von Soden s is the least 
satisfactory of modern texts so far as the Apocalypse is con 
cerned. Notwithstanding all the work done in recent years on 
the text of the Apocalypse, that of Westcott and Hort remains 
the best, though the text presupposed by Bousset is in some of 
its details superior. Of these scholars, Westcott and Hort alone 
have recognized that the right text in 2 L 8 - 18 3 L 7 - u is TW dyyeAw 
TO), though among the uncials A has preserved it only in three 
passages and C in one. Souter follows A in 2 1 - 8 but not in 2 18 . 
Von Soden has rejected the right reading in the seven passages, 
and branded it (p. 2070) as a " Willkiirlichkeit " on the part 
of the scribe of A. A knowledge of John s grammar would 
have made the adoption of r<3 dyye A.a> T^S ev . . . eK/c 
impossible on the part of any editor. 

Versions. See vol. i. pp. clxvi-clxxi, vol. ii. 234 sq. 


Versions. 1 

Aq. or a .... Version of Aquila or a. 

A.V Authorized Version. 

LXX or o . . . . Septuagint. 

1 For those used in the Greek text see vol. ii. 227-235. 


R.V ....... Revised Version. 

Symm. or a- . . . Symmachus. 
Theod. or . . . Theodotion. 

Abbott, Gram. . . Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 1906. 
,, Voc. ... Johannine Vocabulary, 1905. 

Blass, Gram. . . . Blass, Grammar of N.T. Greek (transl. 

by Thackeray), 1898. 
D.A.C. ..... Hastings Dictionary of the Apostolic 

D.B. ..... Hastings Dictionary of the Bible. 

J ....... The Fourth Gospel. 

1.2.3} ..... Johannine Epistles. 

J ap ...... The Apocalypse. 

K.A.T? .... Schrader s Die Keilinschriften und das 

alte Testament, edited and rewritten by 

H. Zimmern and H. Winckler, 1903. 
M.-W. s Gram. . . Moulton s edition of Winer, 1882. 
Moulton, Gram. . . Moulton s Grammar of N.T. Greek**, 

vol. i., 1906. 
MT ..... . . Massoretic Text. 

N.T ....... New Testament. 

O.T ....... Old Testament. 

Robertson, Gram. . Robertson, Grammar of the Greek of the 

N.T., 1914. 
S.B.E ...... Sacred Books of the East (edited by Max 

Miiller), Oxford. 
Thackeray, Gram. . Thackeray, Grammar of the O.T. in 

Greek, vol. i., 1909. 
T.L.Z. ..... Theologische Literaturzeitung. 

Weber 2 ..... Weber s Judische Theologie, 1897. 

WH ..... Westcott and Hort, The N.T. in Greek. 

Volter i ...... See above under the Section " Studies 

mainly Critical." 

,, ,, 

Z.A.T.W. . . . . Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wis 

Z.f.N. T.W. ... Preuschen s Zeitschrift fiir die Neutesta- 

mentliche Wissenschaft. 
Z.K. W. or Z.K. W.L. Zeitschrift^ fiir Kirchliche Wissenschaft 

und Kirchliches Leben. 
Z.W.T. ..... Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Theologie. 



Page 215, line 22 ab imo. After "unexampled" add "except 
perhaps in Aq. Ex. xxiv. 16." 

Page 224, footnote, line u. After "xvi. 19 " add " (an inter 
polation)," and see the emended form of this note in vol. i. 
Introd. p. clix ad init. 

Page 294. Paragraph beginning " It is noteworthy," etc., was 
written before I recognized that xvi. 5 b -y should be restored after 
xix. 4. 

Page 297, line 8. Delete "A slip for the dative." See also 
text in vol. ii. 306 : 415, 416 footnote. 





i. The Contents and Authorship of this Chapter. 

THE Superscription (i. 1-3) falls into three parts, each part of 
which in turn is formed of three elements. The first sets forth 
the source of the Apocalypse, the second its contents, and the 
third the blessedness of those who receive and fulfil its teachings. 
As regards the source it was God by whom the Apocalypse was 
given to Christ : it was Christ who sent His angel and signified 
it to John : it was John who bare witness to it as from God and 
Christ. As for its contents these were the word of God and 
the truth attested by Christ, which were embodied in the visions 
which John had seen. As for the blessedness that attends on 
its reception this blessedness is to be the portion of those that 
read it in the Churches, of those that hear, and of those that 
observe it. 

After the Superscription follows the Introduction (i. 4-8), 
which is composed of three stanzas of three lines each. In these 
John salutes the Seven Churches, invoking upon them grace and 
peace from God, which is and which was and which is to come, 1 
and from Jesus Christ. Of these two Divine Beings he proceeds 
to speak more definitely of Christ in 5-7 and of God in 8. 
Christ is the faithful witness, the sovereign of the dead, the ruler 
of those that rule the living. To Him is to be ascribed glory 
and power, inasmuch as loving us with an everlasting love He 
hath redeemed us from our sins and endowed us with the offices 
of kingship and priesthood unto God (i. 4-6), and will speedily 
come in the clouds whose advent His crucifiers will witness to 
their cost and the heathen-hearted nations with fear and anguish. 
Of God our author does not speak in the third person, but intro- 

1 The clause that follows relating to the seven spirits is an interpolation 
(see note in loc.). 

VOL. I. I 


duces the Supreme Being as declaring : I am the Alpha and the 
Omega the Lord of the past, the present and the future. 

In i. 9-20 we have the Seer s call by the Son of Man and his 
vision of the Son of Man, standing in the midst of seven golden 
candlesticks and holding seven stars, risen and glorified. By 
Him the Seer is hidden to write what he saw and to send it to 
the Seven Churches. Any paraphrase of this sublime descrip 
tion of the Son of Man would only hopelessly weaken it. It 
may, however, be observed that it contains the attributes of the 
Ancient of Days and of one like a Son of Man in Daniel (vii. 
9, 13) as well as of the nameless angel in Dan. x. 5-6, and that 
nearly every phrase in this description of the Son of Man (13-16) 
and of His words (i7 c -2o) recurs in ii.-iii. to which it forms 
an introduction, just as x. does to xi. 1-13. 

In I7 c -i8 the Son of Man declares who He is (even as God 
does in 8), i.e. the First and the Last, He that liveth and was 
dead and had thereby become the holder of the keys of death. 
As such He bids the Seer afresh to write what he saw, and to 
learn the mystery that the seven candlesticks were the Seven 
Churches and the seven stars the heavenly ideals of the Seven 
Churches, which could only be realized through Him. 

As regards the authorship of this chapter, whilst there is no 
evidence either in point of idiom or diction against its being 
from the hand of John the Seer, there is, as I have shown in the 
summary in 2, the most positive evidence for its derivation 
from him. 

2. Diction and Idiom. 

There can be no question as to the authorship of this chapter. 
Alike in its diction and its idiom it is from the hand of John 
the Seer. 

(a) Diction. This subject is dealt with in detail in the notes. 
But the results can be shortly summarized and some of the chief 
parallelisms in phraseology within the rest of the Book empha 
sized. But first of all it is to be observed that whereas none of 
the diction and phraseology is against our author s use, much of 
it is specifically Johannine and all of it in keeping with his use. 

I. 1. &iai TOIS SouXois auroG, a Set yekeaOcu Iv rdxei. This 
clause recurs as a whole in xxii. 6 and in part in iv. i. fctwu/u 
is characteristic of our author in its apocalyptic sense. 

TW SouXw auroG iwayi/Tji,. Cf. xi. 18, rots SouAots a-ov r. 

2. e>apTupT]aei . Cf. xxii. 16, 18, 20. 

T. \6yov T. OeoG KCU T. fxaprupiai irjaoG. Cf. i. 9, vi. 9, xii. 1 1 
(T. Xoyov T. /xaprvpcas), 17 (T, (taprvpiav Ir/Q-QV only ancl in xix. 10), 
xx. 4, 


3. p-cucdptos . . . T. Xoyous T. Trpo<|>Y)Teias Kal TTjpoGrrcs. Cf. 
xxii. 7, 10. We have here the first of the seven beatitudes in 
this Book : cf. xiv. 13, xvi. 15, xix. 9, xx. 6, xxii. 7, 14. 

6 yap Kcupos eyyus. Cf. xxii. IO. 

5. 6 fxdprus 6 marcs. Cf. ii. 13, iii. 14- 

6. eTrou)(Ti> T^jJids |3a<riXeiaj>, tepeis. Cf. V. IO. 

els TOUS aiwvas [T. aiucooi/J. Cf. i. 1 8, iv. 9, 10, v. 13, vii. 12, 
x. 6, etc. But in Gospel and i and 2 John always ets TOP aioW. 

8. TO A Kal TO Q . . . 6 a>y KCLI 6 rjk Kal 6 epxc/xe^os, 6 irai - 
TOKparup. Cf. i. 8, iv. 8, xi. 17, xvi. 5, xxi. 6, xxii. 13. 

Ku pios 6 6e6s ... 6 irarroKpaTUp. Cf. iv. 8, xi. 17, XV. 3, 
xvi. 7, 14, xix. 6, 15, xxi. 22. naj/To/cparwp occurs eight times 
in the rest of the Apocalypse and not once elsewhere in the N.T. 
except in an O.T. quotation (2 Cor. vi. 18). 

10. eyci/ojxiqi iv ir^eujxaTi. Cf. iv. 2. 

12. jSXe ireii . Our author uses this verb twice in i., once in 
iii. and thirteen times in the rest of the book, and never in the 
aorist ; for in xxii. 8 A is to be followed. 

13. opuoi/ uiw d^pwirou. Only elsewhere in xiv. 14, in this 
form in all literature. 

eySeSujJievov TroSi^pir) Kal TTpiea)<T|j.ei>ov irpos TOIS fxaoTOis j^wi tji 
Xpuaai . Cf. XV. 6. 

14. ot 6(|)0aXjaol aurou a>s 4>X6 irupos. Cf. ii. 1 8, xix. 12. 

15. r\ <j)coi-rj aurou a>s (j)W T) uSdrcui iroXXaii . Cf. xiv. 2, xix. 6. 

16. r\ ovj/is aurou a>s 6 rjXios. Cf. x. i. 

e\<t)v CK TTJ Se^ia x l P* L a " TO J darepas lirrd. Cf. ii. I, iii. I. 
CK TOU (TTOfiaTOS auTou pojji(}>aia SIOTOJAOS o^eia. Cf. ii. 1 3 

17. 6 irpwTos Kal 6 eaxaros. Cf. ii. 8, xxii. 13. 

19. ou^. Here used (probably owing to its fourfold occur 
rence in ii.-iii.) of logical appeal, never of historical transition 
as in the Fourth Gospel: cf. ii. 5, 16, iii. 3, 19. In the later 
chapters our author uses Sia TOVTO instead : cf. vii. 15, xii. 32 
[xviii. 8]. Thus this entire chapter is most closely connected 
by its distinctively Johannine phraseology with ii.-vi., x.-xi., 
xiv. -xvi., xix.-xxii. Let us now turn to the most striking idioms 
in this chapter. 

(b) Idiom. These are dealt with fully in the notes. But we 
shall mention a sufficient number to confirm beyond question 
the conclusion- that this chapter comes from the hand of our 

I. 4. diro 6 &v KCU 6 r\v Kal 6 epxofAeyos. On this wholly 
abnormal construction with (XTTO, which is nevertheless quite 
intelligible in our author and yet not in any other, see note in loc. 
As regards 6 o>v . . . /^ A o/xcvos this title recurs wholly or in part 
in i. 8, iv. 8, xi. 17, xvi. 5. 

0. Irjaou XpioroG, 6 pdpTu? TTIQTOS, This anomalous con* 


struction of the nominative in apposition to an oblique case 
recurs ii. 13, 20, iii. 12, vii. 4, viii. 9, ix. 14, xiv. 12, 14, xx. 2. 
That this solecism is characteristic of our author cannot be 
denied, since it occurs so frequently, whereas it is exceptional in 
the KotvrJ and the LXX, in the latter of which it is clearly, as in 
our author, a Hebraism. 

5-6. TW ayoLTTuvri . . . KCU eiroiTjo-ei . This Hebraism recurs 
frequently in our author: cf. i. 18, ii. 2, 9, 20, iii. 9, vii. 14, xiv. 
2-3, xv. 3. 

10. $v>vf\v . . . ws adXTriyyos Xeyoucnjs. Here we should 
expect Xeyouo-ai/. But cf. iv. i. 

13. OJAOIOI/ uloi> drOpanrou. Cf. xiv. 14 for this otherwise 
unexampled construction. See Additional Note, p. 36. 

16. exwy = etxe or e xet as elsewhere in our author : cf. x. 2, 
xii. 2, XXI. 12, 14. Moreover, e/CTropevo^e^r; is used as e^tTropet ero 
in this same verse. In our author these are Hebraisms, though 
this usage is found occasionally in the Koivrj. Again, the 
Hebraism 17 oi/^s avrov o>? 6 ^/Xios <^aiVct though not found else 
where in this Book, is closely akin to our author s many 
Hebraisms, especially in connection with o>s = 3. See p. 36. 

20. TOLS eirrd Xux^as this is a slip for the genitive. There 
are other analogous slips in our author, which are best explained 
as due to his not having had an opportunity to revise his text. 

Thus this chapter is connected by Johannine idioms with ii.- 
iv., vii.-xii., xiv.-xvi., xx.-xxi. There can be no doubt as to the 
genuineness of the text. 

3. Order of Words. 

The order is Semitic. Thus the verb is before the subject 
and object once, before the subject twice, before the object five 
times. It stands at the beginning of the clause or sentence 
followed by adverbial phrases eleven times. On the other hand, 
the verb follows the subject (9) once, the object (a pronoun) 
once. The participle, where it stands for a finite verb, occurs 
once at the close of a clause (i6 b ). These facts are in keeping 
with our author s style. 

The word cbroKaXv^is is not used as the title of any work 
before the time of our Apocalypse, though it is used by St. Paul 
exactly in the same sense of minor revelations : cf. i Cor. xiv. 
26. So far as the word itself goes it is found in Sir. xi. 27, xxii. 
22 (fjLva-rrjpiov cbroKaXui/ eoos), xlii. I, while aTTOKaXvTrreij/ is found in 
Amos iii, 7, a7roKaAvi//r; TrcuSeiav TT/JOS TOVS SouXovs avrov TOVS 


7rpo</>r/ras, in the sense of a " revealing " of something hidden. 
In the second passage we have an approach to the use of the 
word in our text. In Theodotion s rendering of Daniel the 
verb dTTo/caAmrreiv is used exactly in the sense of the noun 
ciTroKdAui/ris in the title: cf. ii. 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 47, x. i. It 
appears in the title of 2 Baruch " The Book of the Apocalypse 
of Baruch the son of Neriah" the publication of which was 
nearly contemporary with that of our Apocalypse. It signifies a 
vision and its interpretation. Elsewhere in the N.T. it is found 
with the same meaning in the Pauline Epistles (Rom. xvi. 25; 
2 Cor. xii. i ; Gal. i. 12, etc.). In i Pet. i. 7, 13, iv. 13, Luke ii. 
32, etc., this word is not used in quite the same sense, but means 
rather, manifestation, appearance. dTro/ca Aui/as is found also in 
Classical Greek in the sense of to lay bare, to disclose, in Plato, 
Protag. 352 D, Gorg. 460 A; while aTroKaAvt/as is found in Plutarch, 
Paul, Aemil. 14, Cat. Maj. 20, Qiiom. Adul. ab Am. 32 .(OLTTOK. 
ujaaprta?) in the sense of a laying bare. The verb frequently 
bears this meaning in LXX, and the noun once. But the special 
religious meaning of a7roKaAvi/as in Greek and revelatio in Latin 
was unknown to the heathen world. 

cbroKdXuijHs Iwdvcou was the title of our Book in the 2nd 
cent: cf. Murat. i. 71 sq. : "Scripta apocalypse(s) etiam johanis 
et petri tantum recipimus." That the Book was ever known by 
the bare term u7roKaAui/as cannot safely be inferred from Tertullian, 
Adv. Marc. iv. 5, or Irenaeus, v. 30. 3 (TOV KCU ryv ATro/caAv^tv 
eoupaKoTos) ; for in both these passages the context clearly defines 
whose apocalypse is in question. V. 30. 2, " Propter hoc non 
annumeratur tribus haec in Apocalypsi," more relevant 
here ; but even this passage is wholly indecisive, since the author 
ship of the Apocalypse is stated in v. 26. i. 


1-3. The Superscription, which sets forth (i) the source of 
the Apocalypse, (2) its contents, and (3) the blessedness of those 
who receive its teachings, (i) There are three definite stages in 
the transmission of this Apocalypse from its source to its publica 
tion. First it is God Himself who gave it to Christ to make it 
known unto His servants ISw/cev curro> 6 $eos Sci^at T. SovAois 
avrov . . . ei/ ra^et (cf. the declaration of God in xxi. 6 b -8), and 
the statement as to God s sending the angel, in Setai . . . cV 
ra^ei in xxii. 6. Next, Christ sent and signified it through His angel 
to John ecrr^u,ui/v aTrocrTet Aas Sia TOV dyye Aov avrov rw SovAw 
avrov Ia>avn7 (cf. the declaration of Christ in xxii. 6-7, 16, 13, 
12, 10, i8 a ). Thirdly, John bare witness to this Apocalypse 
accorded by Christ to him, i.e., the word of God and the truth 


attested by Christ rov \6yov rov 6cov KOL ryv n-aprvpiav Ir;croi) 
Xpiaroi), oo-o, etSev (cf. the testimony of John in xxii. 8-9, 
20-21). This correspondence between i. 1-2 and xxi. 6 b -8, 
xxii. 6-21, is, therefore, not accidental. But if we desire further 
confirmation of the close connection of 1-3 with the xxi. -xxii., 
we have it in the repetition by Christ in xxii. 7 of the beatitude 
pronounced by John in i. 3. 

(2) Its contents are "the word of God and the testimony of 
Jesus Christ, everything that He saw." Here there are three 
elements corresponding to the three agents mentioned above. 
First, there is the word of God. Secondly, this word is attested 
by Christ. Thirdly, it is seen by John in vision. 

(3) The blessedness of those who receive and observe its 
teachings. Here, again, there is a threefold division : blessed is 
he that reads them in the public assemblies : blessed is he that 
hears these prophecies : blessed is he that observes them. 

1. diroKdXuvJ/is Mrjo-oG Xpiorou. The genitive here is subjective. 
The revelation is given by Jesus Christ to John as God gave it to 
Him. Cf. John vii. 16, rj c/w-^ SiSa^ 1 *) OVK ZCTTLV e/x j) dAAa TOV 
//,e, and iii. 35, v. 20 sqq., 26, xvi. 15, etc. The title 
Xpio-ros is found only here and in verses 2, 5 : I^o-ous 
alone nine times; Kuptos Irjcrovs twice (xxii. 20, 21); Kv ptos 
once only, xiv. 1356 Kvptos avrwv (xi. 8). Xpto-ros, when used 
alone, always has the article (xx. 4, 6, +avrov, xi. 15, xii. 10. In 
the Johannine Epistles Ir/aoiis Xpto-ros occurs nine times, I^o-oCs 
six, 6 Xptoros three times. 

Tjf eSwKey aurw 6 6e6 Sei^ai TOLS 8ou\oig avrou. Cf. Amos 
iii. 7, ov fj.rj iroLrjcreL Kvptos 6 0eo? Trpay/xa eav jjirj airoKa\v\f/r) TraiSeiai 
Trpos TOVS SovAous auroi; TOUS Trpo^ras. In our text the servants, 
who are God s servants (O.VTOV), are the Christian prophets. Cf. 
x. 7, xi. 1 8, xxii. 6. Setcu. This word is characteristic of our 
author when it means to communicate a divine revelation by 
means of visions. 

a Set ye^e crOat Iv rd^i. The Sei denotes not the merely hasty 
consummation of things, but the absolutely sure fulfilment of 
the divine purpose. That this fulfilment would come " soon " 
(ei/ Tct^ei : cf. xxii. 6; Deut. ix. 3; Ezek. xxix. 5 (not in Mass.); 
Luke xviii. 8 ; Rom. xvi. 20), has always been the expectation of 
all living prophecy and apocalyptic, a Set yeveV&u is drawn from 
Dan. ii. 28 (a Set yei^eo-^at eV ecr^arwi/ rail/ ^/xepan/), 29. a ... 
eV ra^et recurs in xxii. 6. 

lcrf]^a.vv a Johannine word : cf. John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 
19. It is Christ that is the subject of the verb here. 

dirooreiXas. Cf. xxii. 16, where Christ sent (eVe/xt/M-) His 
angel, and xxii. 6, where God sent (aWo-retAe) His angel. Once 
again this verb is used in v. 6. dTrocrre AAeu Sta = TH r6t?> Ex. 


IV. 13; Matt. xi. 2, Tre/Ai^as Sia TWV iiaOrjruv O.VTOV : Acts xi. 30, 
a7ro<rTeiXaj/TS . . . Sia ^etpos Ba/3va/?a. 

2. 05 ejj.apTu pTjaej . /xapTvpeu/, which is found four times and 
always with the ace. in our author for this is the best way of 
treating xxii. 18 occurs more frequently in the Johannine 
Gospel and Epistles than elsewhere in the N.T. (i.e., 33 + 10 = 43 
times). The aorist c^aprvp^a-fv ?.s epistolary : the author trans 
ports himself to the standpoint of his readers. 

joy Xoyoy TOO Oeou /ecu TTJI/ jAaprupiay irjaou Xpiorou = the reve 
lation given by God and borne witness to by Christ (subjective 
genitive). It means the Christian revelation as a whole in i. 9, vi. 
9, xx. 4, but in the present passage the expression is limited by the 
words that follow o<ra eW to the revelation made in this Book. 
Kindred expressions occur in xii. 17, ras eVroXa? rov 6cov KO.L . . . 
rrjv (j.aprvpLav Ir/crou, and xix. 10, rrjv /xaprvpiav Irjarov: but in the 
last passage the phrase may have a different meaning in the tradi 
tional text, and Ir/o-ot! be the objective genitive. The Aoyos rov 
0eov is not to be limited in our text to the O.T. It embraces 
the entire revelation of God which now in its fulness is attested 
by Christ. 

oaa elSey. These words limit, as we have said, the scope of 
the two preceding phrases. On the significance of elSev in our 
author, see note on iv. i. We should observe how the ministry 
of angels (i d ) and the visions of the Seer are here closely com 
bined, as also later. 

3. This verse consists of a stanza of four lines. We have here 
the first of the seven beatitudes in the Apocalypse (xiv. 13, xvi. 
15, xix. 9 a , xx. 6, xxii. 7, 14. The last beatitude, which is pro 
nounced by Christ and is given in xxii. 7 b (for the present text of 
xx. 4-xxii. is in disorder),, reaffirms the beatitude here pronounced 
by John. 

6 wayivucTKuv. This is not the private student but the 
public reader, the di/ayi/oxm?? or lector, as the sing. 6 dvaytvw<TKo>v 
as opposed to the plural oi axovovrts shows. At the close of the 
first century A.D., the reader was probably any suitable person 
who was nominated for this purpose by the presbyters or president 
from among the congregation. The reader in time acquired an 
official position and became a member of the clergy, and is first 
m entioned in this capacity in Tertullian (De Praescr. 41). The 
books which were read were originally those of the O.T., as in 
the synagogues, and afterwards the books of the N.T., as well as 
the sub-apostolic epistles : cf. Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 67), ra 
ttTro/xvry/xovev/xaTa ro)V aTrocrroAwv 17 TO. o-uyypayuy>iaTa rtov irpo<f>r]Tuv 
di ayivtoo-KeTcu. This practice of reading at public worship was 
adopted from the Jews : cf. Neh. viii. 2 ; Ex. xxiv. 7 ; Luke iv. 
16; Acts xiii. 15 ; 2 Cor. iii. 15. Amongst the Jews the Scripture 


lessons from the Law and the Prophets could be read by any 
member of the congregation, but if any priests or Levites were 
present they took precedence. The earliest mention of the read 
ing of the Prophets is found in Luke iv. 17, Acts xiii. 15 (comp. 
Megilla iv. 1-5) ; but they were not read on week-days nor on 
Sabbath afternoon services, but only at the chief service by one 
person (Megilla iv. 5) on the morning of the Sabbath. See 
Schiirer 3 , ii. 456. 

01 d/coiWres . . . KCU TYjpoGrres. These two participles are, as 
the Greek shows, to be taken closely together. These two lines 
therefore reproduce the words of Christ in Luke xi. 28, /mctKapioi o! 
aKovovres TOV Xoyov TOV Oeov Kal </>iAcur<rovTeg. Cf. also John xii. 
47, eav TL<S [Aov aKOvcrrj T. p^/xarwi/ KO.I /x>) <f>v\dr). But our author 
does not use <vAa<ro-eiv, and replaces it with the familiar Johannine 
word ryptiv. Ps. i. represents on a large scale this combination 
of faithful reading and faithful living. 

TOUS Xoyous TTJS Trpo<f>Y)Tetag. Here as in xxii. 7, 10, 18 the 
Seer claims for his Book a place in the forefront of prophetic 

6 yap Kaipos YY U S- These words relate to the blessedness 
of those who are faithful in the present evil time; for they will 
not have long to wait; the season of their deliverance is at hand. 
Cf. Rom. xiii. II ; I Cor. vii. 29, 6 Kaipos trwe(rraA./AeVos eortv. 
The beatitude, of course, is true in itself independently of the 
time of consummation (cf. xxii. 7), but the closely impending 
recompense is repeatedly dwelt upon by our author to encourage 
his readers in the face of universal martyrdom. 


4. loxWrjs rcus eirra eKK\T]<7icus. This is the usual form for 
beginning a letter (cf. Gal. i. i, etc.). Indeed the whole Book 
from i. 4 to its close is in fact an Epistle. 

rats eirra 6KK\Tjcriais rats iv TTJ A<na. The article before eTrra 
refers proleptically to ver. n, where these Churches are enumer 
ated. Other Churches existed at the time with which the Seer 
must have been familiar, such as Colossae (Col. i. 2, ii. i), 
Hierapolis (Col. iv. 13), Troas (Acts xx. 5 sqq.), Magnesia 
(Ignatius, Ad Magn. i. i), Tralles (Ignatius, Ad Trail, i.). 
Why the particular seven Churches mentioned in i. ii were 
chosen by our author cannot now be determined (see, however, 
note on i. n) ; but the fact that seven were chosen, and no more 
and no less, can occasion no difficulty. For seven was a sacred 
number not only in Jewish Apocalyptic and Judaism generally, 


but particularly in our Author: cf. i. [4*] 12, 16, iv. 5, v. i, 6 
[viii. 2], x. 3, xi. 13 [xii. 3], xiii. i, xv. 6, 7, 8, xvi. i, xvii. i, 

iv TT( Aaia. According to the usage of the Maccabean Books 
(i Mace. viii. 6, xi. 13, xii. 39, xiii. 32; 2 Mace. Hi. 3, x. 24; 
3 Mace. iii. 14 ; 4 Mace. iii. 20), Asia embraces the empire of the 
Seleucids. In the Sibylline Oracles, iii. 168, 342, 350, 351, 

353-4. 367, 381, 3 88 > 39i> 45> 599> 6ll > iv - i ?i> 7^, 79, J 45> 
148, v. 99, 118, 287, etc., the extension of the term varies at 
times apparently comprehending the entire continent, at others 
restricted to the coast cities and the lower valleys of the Maean- 
der, Cayster, etc. But on the transference of the kingdom of 
Attalus in. to Rome, the Roman province of Asia conterminous 
with the limits of this kingdom was formed in 133-130 B.C., and 
this province was subsequently augmented by the addition of 
Phrygia in 116 B.C. *H A<rta in the N.T. is all but universally 
(contrast Acts ii. 9) identified with Proconsular Asia. 

X<ipiS upr KCU eip^Yj diro 6 &v KCU 6 f\v KCU 6 epj(6p.i>os 

[KCU, diro T&V euro, iryeujxaTwi rwi ivwtriov TOU 6povou aurou]. 

5. Kal diro l-rjaou XpicrTou, 6 jxaprug 6 moros. 

In these three lines the second is beyond question an inter 
polation of a later hand (probably early in the 2nd cent.). 
Since xxii. 8-9, and (possibly) xix. 9-10 are from the hand of our 
author, he cannot have put forward such a grotesque Trinity as 
the above. In the passages just cited the worship of angels (see 
note on xxii. 8) is denounced in most forcible terms, and from 
the class of subordinate beings co-ordinate with the seven arch 
angels we cannot exclude "the seven spirits." The Seer cannot 
therefore have accorded divine honours to these seven spirits at 
the very opening of his Book. Moreover, when this interpolation 
is removed, we have three stanzas of three lines each beginning 
with x^P L<s 4 b j an d ending 7 at <j>vXal rfjs yr)<s. Thus in 4 b ~5 a 
as in 5 c -6 a only God and Christ are mentioned. 

4 b . x^P 1 ? f"" "a! cipTJnrj. These words do not form a mere 
salutation, for this has been given in the preceding words, but 
a benediction from God. Grace and peace cannot be said to 
emanate from angels even from the seven archangels. The 
Xapts here is the favour of God and of Jesus Christ. It is only 
found once again in our author, i.e. in xxii. 21, where this spiritual 
endowment is derived from Jesus Christ. See notes on x^P^ 
and dprjvr) in Sanday s Romans, 10 sq., 15 sq. ; Milligan, i Thess. 
i. i. The dpr)vrj is the harmony restored between God and man 
through Christ. In all the Pauline Epistles these are said to 
proceed from GoJ the Father and from Jesus Christ, just as in 
the original text here. In i and 2 Timothy we have the fuller 
form x^P L ^ cA.os, dprjvrj. Moreover, in nine of the Pauline 


Epistles the phrase is exactly as here, x^P ts vfi v K0 ^ ti-pyvn, 
while in i and 2 Timothy it stands as in the preceding 

diro 6 <ov Kai 6 TJy KCU 6 ep)(6jtiei>os. Cf. i. 8, iv. 8, and 6 on/ K. 6 
5^ in xi. 17, xvi. 5. We have here a title of God conceived in 
the terms of time. The Seer has deliberately violated the rules 
of grammar in order to preserve the divine name inviolate from 
the change which it would necessarily have undergone if de 
clined. Hence the divine name is here in the nominative. It 
could have been preserved in classical Greek, i.e. O.TTO rov 6 wi/. 
But our author shows no knowledge of this construction. But 
there are other irregularities as, for instance, 6 fy. The fy is 
said to have been used because there was no past participle of 
dpi. But this does not really explain ty nor yet 6. Besides he 
could have used 6 yeyovws(cf. xvi. 17, xxi. 6) or 6 yevo/xevos (i. 18). 
I offer, therefore, the following explanation. Our author could 
have written here 6 o>v /cat ^v, in keeping with a Hebraism which 
^frequently avails himself of; for 6 on/ Kai rjv would be an exact 
reproduction of the Hebrew irrn ninn. See note on 5. Herein 
we have a probable explanation of rjv. It is harder to explain 
the 6 which precedes it. The article here may be inserted before 
the ty since it accompanies the other two elements in the divine 
name : 6 o>v . . . /cat 6 ep^o/xevos. 

As for 6 ep^o/xevos, where our author returns to the participial 
construction, it is clear that he uses epxo/x/os, instead of eVo/zevos, 
with a definite reference to the contents of the Book and 
especially to the coming of Christ, i. 7, ii. 5, 16, iii. n, xxii. 7, 
12, etc., in whose coming God Himself comes also. 

Besides, our author does not use the future participle. 

Passing now from the grammar of this clause to its meaning, 
we find that this divine name was common to both Jews and 
Gentiles. Thus the Targ. Jon. on Ex. iii. 14 (iTilK -I^K .TUN, 
where the LXX has e yw efyu 6 u>v, and Aquila and Theod. 
0-o/xat<os>croftai) has Wtb TTljn KJ^rn N1H &O^ = "EgoSUm, 
qui sum et futurus sum," and Deut. xxxii. 39, mm >v nrn Kin &OK 
v inE6 Tnjn wn KJKI = " Ego sum qui sum, et fui, et ego sum qui 
futurus sum." Also Shem. rab. iii. f. io5 b , "Dixit Deus ... ad 
Mosen : Ego fui, et adhuc sum et ero in posterum " (this last from 
Wetstein). In the Greek we find analogous titles of God. Cf. 
Pausanias, x. 12. 5 : for the songs of the doves at Dodona, Zeus 
Tyi/, Zeus eo-ru/, Zeus eWerat : in the inscription at Sais (Plutarch, 
De Iside, 9), eyw et/xi TTOLV TO yeyovos KGLL ov KOU eVo/xei/ov /cat rov e/txov 
TreTrXov ouSets TTOJ BvqTMV aTTK(iX.v{f/v : in the Orphic lines, Zeus 
Trpairos yeVero, Zeus uorraros dp^t/cepaui/os, Zeus /cec^aXr/, Zeus /Aeo-<ra, 
Atos 8 e /c TrdVra reVu/crat. Finally, in reference to Ahurarhazda it 
is stated in the Bundahis, i. 4 (S.B.E. v. 4), " Auharmazd and 


the region, religion and time of Auharmazd were and are and 
ever will be." 

[KCU diro TW^ cirrd nveupxrwi KT\.] 

Although I have without hesitation bracketed these words 
as an early interpolation, we must consider the explanations of 
those who have accepted them as from the hand of our Seer, 
and also deal briefly with the probable origin of this concep 

1. First of all we have the interpretation more or less of 
Victorinus, Primasius, Apringius, Beatus among the earlier 
commentators, and in modern times Alford and Swete which 
regards the seven spirits here as the sevenfold energies of God 
or of the Holy Spirit. In support of this view Swete quotes 
Heb. ii. 4, Trvev/xaros ayiov /xep6oyx,ots : I Cor. xii. IO, Sia/cpureis 
Tri/ev/umov : xiv. 32, TrvVfj.aTa 7rpo(f>r)Twv : Apoc. xxii. 6, 6 $eos TON/ 
Tn/ev/x-aruv r<av irpo<f>r]Tuv. " Here the spirits are seven, because 
the Churches in which they operate are seven " (Swete). This 
reason is less convincing than that adduced by other supporters 
of this view, who trace the conception of the seven spirits to an 
erroneous though not unnatural interpretation of Isa. xi. 2, 3, 
whereby the six spiritual endowments that are to be given to the 
Messiah were transformed into seven : cf. i Enoch ixi. 1 1 ; Targ. 
Jon. on this passage; also the LXX ; Justin, Dial. 87, ITT avrov 
TTvcv/Jia $eo), 77rey/.a (ro<ias KCU <nWo-ews, Tri/eu/xa /3ovXr)<s KOI to^vos, 
7rvi)/x.a yv(juo~a>s KOI euo~e/3eias, KCU e^u.TrA^a et avrov irvtv^a. (frofiov 
OC.QV : also 39 ; Cohort, ad Gentiles, 32, ot tepot Trpo^rat TO ev KCU TO 
auTO Tirev/xa ets CTTTO. irvf.vfjia.Ta. /xept^eo-^at <^a<nv. 

But that we have here to deal, not with impersonal energies 
but with concrete beings, may be inferred from iii. i of our text, 
where the seven spirits and the seven stars are regarded as 
parallel conceptions. Further, the scribe who interpolated 4 
between 4 b and 5 a manifestly regarded these seven spirits as 
much concrete beings as God and Jesus Christ. Hence the 
seven spirits here cannot be interpreted either as abstractions or 
impersonal energies. 

2. The seven spirits are to be identified with the seven 
archangels. Judaism was familiar with seven archangels: cf. 
Ezek. ix. 2; Tob. xii. 15; i Enoch xx. 7, xc. 21 ("the seven 
first white ones ") ; T. Levi viii. 2. This number, it is said 
(cf. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, 294-302 ; Zimmern, in 
Schrader s K.A.T? ii. 620-626; Bousset, O/enbarung, 184-187, 
291 sq.), presupposes a religion of which the worship of 
seven gods was a characteristic. Now we find such a religion 
in the Zend with its seven Amshaspands ( v. row.; 
xxiii. 291; xxxi. Introd. pp. xviii, xxiv, 77, 179 sq.), which in 
their turn were derived from the Babylonish cult of the seven 


star deities. 1 The existence of these astral divinities Judaism 
did not question any more than in earlier times it questioned 
the existence of the tribal deities of the nations that surrounded 
Israel, but in the interests of Monotheism, Judaism degraded 
these foreign deities into angels subject beings in the service 
of Yahweh. In due time the source of these conceptions was 
wholly forgotten as well as the historical development involved. 
Like his contemporaries, the Seer accepted the traditional Jewish 
formula, God and the seven spirits, and to this formula 
appended the specifically Christian element. Thus according 
to Bousset originated one of the most extraordinary Trinities in 
Christianity : cf. Justin, Apol. i. 6, quoted on xxii. 9. As 
furnishing parallel trinities, Luke ix. 26, i Tim. v. 21 have been 
adduced. But in neither passage is there any ground for such a 
view. It might as reasonably be contended that every time God 
and the angels were mentioned together a duality of the Godhead 
was involved. 

Now, if we identify " the seven spirits " and the seven arch 
angels, it is inconceivable that the Seer, who issued so emphatic 
a polemic against angel worship, could have inserted such a 
clause as 4 between 4 b and 5*. 

3. The seven spirits and the seven archangels are not 
identical in the mind of the Seer, according to Bousset (on viii. 2) 
and others. Whether this is so or not does not affect the 
question of the originality of 4. For whatever be the dignity 
possessed by the seven spirits, they were after all merely created 
beings in the opinion of the Seer, and could not therefore be put 
by him on a level with God and Jesus Christ or represented as 
fitting objects for man s worship. 

But, though 4 is due to the hand of an interpolator, the 
phrase TO. 7rra Tn/ev/xara in iii. I, 6 l^v ra ITTTOL Trvev/xara TOV 
Oeov KOL TOVS CTTTOL offTtpws, is a redactional addition of our Seer. 
It is therefore our task to define, if possible, the nature of these 
spirits. Now the conjunction of the TrvevfjLara and the dorrepc? in 
iii. i suggests that they are to some extent kindred conceptions. 
But this does not take us far, unless we can gain some definite 
idea of the meaning of both do-re/aes and Trvev/xara in our author. 
Happily this we can do in part. First, in i. 20 the eTrra acrrepe? 
are definitely stated to be the dyyeAoi TWV ITTTO. tKKX-rjcnuv, and 

1 Jewish tradition seemingly testifies to a certain connection between the 
great golden candlestick with seven arms and the seven planets : cf. Josephus, 
Ant. iii. 6. 7; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5, tvtyaivov 6 of ptv TTT& X^XJ/GI TOVS TrXavrjras : 
Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres (ed. Cohn), 221 sq., TTJS /car ovpavbv r&v 
tirrb. irKavTjTwv ^opetas ^fyiT/yUa, <TTIV i] lepa Xux^fa Kal ol ir avrTJs cirra. \vxvoi. 
Josephus states also that the twelve loaves of the shewbread pointed to the 
twelve signs of the zodiac : Bell Jud. v. 5. 5. Possibly these are merely 
after-thoughts of both Josephus and Philo. 


Christ is said to hold these dcrrepe?, i.e. ayyeAoi, in His right hand 
in i. 1 6 : that is, to have supreme authority over them. Hence 
in iii. i the seven Tn/ev/zara of God and the seven dyyeAoi of the 
Churches are conjoined, as apparently kindred conceptions. We 
might here for a moment turn aside to observe that in 2 Enoch 
xxx. 14 angels are spoken of as stars, in i Enoch xli. 5, 7 the 
stars have a conscious existence, and hence are capable of dis 
obedience, xviii. 13-16, xxi. 1-6, while in Ixxxvi. i, 3 stars are 
used to symbolize angels. 

So much for the doWpes. Now as to Trvev/xara. Over these 
also Christ has supreme authority, iii. i. In v. 6 these Tn/ev/zara 
are identified with the seven eyes which are sent forth unto all 
the earth, and in iv. 5 with the seven fiery lamps that burn before 
the throne of God. In the former passage they are obviously 
conceived as having a personal existence. As the servants of 
the Lamb they are described as His eyes. That the lamps and 
the eyes are identical is clear from our text and from Zech. iv. 10 
where, in the vision which our Seer has in view, it is said " these 
seven (lamps) are the eyes of the Lord, they run to and fro 
through the whole earth." 

From the above examination it may be concluded that the 
Trve^/xara are angelic beings. In Jub. ii. 2 the chief orders of 
spirits are called angels : cf. Heb. i. 7, 14. Whether these seven 
spirits are to be identified with the seven archangels cannot be 
inferred with certainty, but this identification may be regarded 
as highly probable ; since thereby Christ s sovereignty is asserted 
over the highest order of the angels, as it is elsewhere declared 
by the Seer to be paramount over all creation. 

eyuTrioK TOU 0p6i/ou. Cf. iv. 5, 6, 10, vii. 9, etc. 

5. diro ITJO-OU XpioroG. Since 4 is an interpolation, the grace 
and peace proceed from God and Christ as in the Pauline 
Epistles. In 2 John 3 we find Trapd instead of SLTTO in a like 
context. This is the last passage where the title I^croGs Xpio-ros 
occurs. From this onward I?yoro{5s stands alone save in xxii. 20, 
21, where we have /cvpios lyo-ovs. 

6 pxpTus 6 irioTos. Cf. iii. 14; also ii. 13. This anomaly, 
which recurs not infrequently cf. ii. 13, 20, iii. 12, ix. 14, xiv. 
12, 14, xx. 2, is best explained as a Hebraism. Since the 
Hebrew noun in the indirect cases is not inflected, the Seer acts 
at times as if the Greek were similarly uninflected, and simply 
places, as in the present instance, the nominative in apposition 
to the genitive; i.e. o /mprvs in apposition to lyo-ov Xpto-roi). 
We have here a frequent solecism in our author. While it is 
found occasionally in the LXX, as might be expected in a 
translation from Semitic (cf. Ezek. xxiii. 12; Zeph. i. 12), it is 
here almost a characteristic construction: cf. ii. 13, 20, iii. 12, 


vii. 4, viii. 9, ix. 14, xiv. 12, 14, xx. 2. The participle is also put 
in the nominative when the normal construction would be the 
gen. or ace. Cf. ii. 20, iii. 12. 

jxaprus appears only here and in iii. 14 in the N.T. in refer 
ence to Christ. Christ is here conceived not in a limited sense 
in reference to His earthly life or the present Apocalypse, but 
as the true witness of every divine revelation (so Diisterdieck, 
Bousset, and others). Cf. John xviii. 37, ts TOVTO eXr}\v6a ets rov 
KOO-/AOI/ Iva. fj,apTvp-r)(TU) rrj aXrjOeLa. The phrase 6 /zapros 6 TTIOTO?, 
when taken in connection with the words that follow, 6 Trpwro- 
TOKOS . . . TWI/ /3ao-iA.eW TTJS yrjs, furnishes strong evidence that 
our author had Ps. Ixxxix. in his mind ; for the former phrase is 
found in 38, where the moon is said to be JEN: pn$3 IV (LXX, 
6 //.aprvs 1 <-V ovpavw TTIOTOS), and the latter in 28, 

Kaya> TrporoTOKov ("H^S) ^cro/xat avrov, 
vij/rjXjbv Trapa rots /2acriAeii(rii> rfjs yfjs. 

Here our author appears to have had the LXX before him. 
This passage is given a Messianic reference by R. Nathan in 
Shem. rab. 19, fol. n8 4 . As I made Jacob a firstborn, so also 
will I make King Messiah a firstborn (Ps. Ixxxix. 28). Thus 
"the firstborn" became a Messianic title (see Lightfoot, Col. 

i. IS)- 

6 irpwTOTOKos TW^ vcKpuv. See preceding note on Ps. Ixxxix. 
28. In Col. i. 1 8 we have os ecrrti/ dpx^ 7iy>orroTOKo<; CK TWV 

wv, and in I Cor. XV. 20, ey^ye/rrcu, K ve/cptoi/ a-Trap^r] TWI/ 
In these Pauline passages Christ s resurrection is 
undoubtedly referred to, which carries with it His claim to 
headship of the Church, as in Col. i. 15 Trptororo/cos Trao-^s 
KTicrcw? implies His claim to headship over all creation by virtue 
of His primogeniture. But the sense of being first in point of 
time appears in certain passages to be displaced wholly by the 
secondary idea of Sovereignty. Thus in Heb. xii. 23 the phrase 
e/c/cA.T7<rta TrpcoToro/cwv emphasizes wholly this latter idea. Even 
God Himself was called D^iy *?W 1TI33 ( = TrpwroTo/co? TOV KOO-/UOV). 
(See Lightfoot on Col. i. 15.) Our present context appears to 
require the secondary meaning of Trpwroro/cos, and accordingly 
Christ is here said to be " the true witness of God, the sovereign 
of the dead, the ruler of the living " (i.e. the kings of the earth 
and their subjects). See note on iii. 14. 

6 apxwi rail paaiXeW rt]S yrjs. Cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 28 ; also Isa. 

Iv. 4. 

5 c -6. We have here the second of the three stanzas which com 
pose 4 b -y. The second line is to be taken as forming a perfect 
parallelism with the first ; for in the TW dyaTrwi/rt . . . /c 

1 In Ps, Iv, 4, PavjcJ is given as a witness (ijO to the nations. 


we have a pure Hebraism, in which the participle of the first line 
is resolved into a finite verb in the second. This second line is 
therefore no parenthesis, nor from the standpoint of the Seer is 
there the slightest irregularity in the construction. He is simply 
reproducing a common Hebrew idiom literally in Greek. The 
A.V., the Syriac and Latin versions are here, therefore, right, and 
the R.V. is wrong wrong as a translation and bad as a piece of 
English. Hence we are to translate, "To Him that loveth us 
. . . and hath made us." This Hebrew idiom recurs frequently 
in our author (i. 18, ii. 2, 9, 20, iii. 9, vii. 14 (see note), xiv. 2-3, 
xv. 3), and in none of the instances has it been recognized as 
such by any commentator. This Hebrew idiom has become 
so naturalized in our author s style that I cannot but regard the 
in XX. 4, ran/ TreTreAe/cKT/xeywv . . . /cat orrises ov TrpocrtKv- 
, as an addition by John s literary executor in order to make 
the text better Greek. John s words were most probably T. TreTre- 
Ae/ctoyxeva)! . . . /cat ov Trpocre/cw^crav. In i. 1 8 the failure to 
recognize this idiom has led most scholars to mispunctuate the 
text, and the rest, like Wellhausen and Haussleiter, to excise 6 
on/. The eyw ct/xt ... 6 wv is to be taken closely with /cat 
eyevo/xryi/ ve/cpos (cf. Amos vi. 3 for this Hebrew construction) = I 
am . . . He that liveth and was dead." Hence the first two 

no H nt 

TW dya-ircum TjjJids ical Xuaairi. As Swete well remarks, the 
two participles bring out "the contrast between the abiding 
ayd-n-rj and the completed act of redemption." 

\uaravTL T^/JLCI? eic KT\. This is by far the best attested reading. 
With the idea in Avo-avrt we might compare the somewhat kindred 
dyopa^etr in v. 9 ; the Pauline eayopaetv, Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5 ; aTroAv- 
T/OOKTIS, Rom. iii. 24, viii. 23 ; i Cor. i. 30 ; Eph. i. 7, iv. 30 ; Col. 
L 14. The weakly attested reading Xova-avn . . . and is not 
really supported by vii. 14, lirXwav rds oroAas aureov . . . ei/ 
TO) at/xart TOV apvtov, and xxii. 14, though these passages have 
been brought forward in favour of it. For, whereas these two 
passages express man s own action in the working out his own 
salvation, the Xovvavn . . . a-n-o denotes God s part in man s 
salvation, i.e. his deliverance from sin by Christ. At the same 
time it is to be observed that this metaphor is a familiar one in 
the N.T. in this connection : cf. i Cor. vi. 1 1 ; Eph. v. 26 ; Tit. 
iii. 5 ; Heb. x. 22. 

Swete aptly compares Plato, Crat. 405 B, where the two verbs 
are brought together in a similar connection, OVKOVV 6 

os K<U p d?roAiW T* KQ>\ uTroAovW rwv TCHOV TWP /cajcwF (wo? OF 


WH explain the corruption of \varavri into AWcravn as "due 
to failure to understand the Hebraic use of eV to denote a price 
. . . and a natural misapplication of vii. 14." 

iv TW ai jmaTi. Here as in v. 9 eV denotes the price by means 
of which a thing is bought : cf. i Chron. xxi. 24. 

6. KCU TroiT)aK. As we have shown in the note on 5 c -6 
above, this is a Hebraism for KCU Troirja-avri. Christ not only 
delivers men from sin the negative side but also makes them 
a kingdom and priests. 

paaiXeicu/, Upeis. These words go back to Ex. xix. 6, 
D^nb. This the LXX renders /Jao-iAetov te/oaTv//,a (see i Pet. ii. 
9); Aquila, /?ao-iAeta tepeW : Symmachus and Theodotion, ftao-iXeia 
tepees. The last rendering is that of our text and presupposes 
D ona HD^DD. This last reading is in part supported by Jub. 
xvi. 1 8, which gives "a kingdom and priests"; so also the Syriac 
version of Ex. xix. 6. With this last we may compare the Jer. 
Targ. on Ex. xix. 6, "kings . . . and . . . priests," and Onkelos, 
" kings, priests." It is clear that our text presupposes the same 
text as Symmachus and Theodotion. 

Our text then means that Christ has made us a kingdom, 
each member of which is a priest unto God. The kingship here 
involved was to be an everlasting possession (xxii. 5). Of the 
like duration of the priesthood nothing is said in the closing 
chapters. As respects the priesthood, the privileges of ancient 
Israel have passed over to the Christian Church. Even to pre- 
Christian Judaism it was foretold that ,all true Israelites would 
become in a certain sense priests priests as compared with the 
nations that served them. " And strangers shall feed your flocks, 
and aliens shall be your plowmen . . . but ye shall be named 
the priests of the Lord : men shall call you the ministers of our 
God" (Isa. Ixi. 5-6). But that this general priesthood of Israel 
as regards the heathen nations was not to supersede the special 
ministries of priests and Levites in the redeemed Israel is clear 
from Ixvi. 21 : "And of them will I take for priests for Levites, 
saith the Lord." But in the spiritual kingdom of Christ no such 
distinction is recognized : all the faithful are already kings and 
priests to God (i. 6). On the other hand, when the Messianic 
kingdom is established the glorified martyrs will in a special 
sense be kings and priests ; for in that kingdom the priesthood 
and kingship of the glorified martyrs will come into actual 
manifestation relatively to the heathen nations, who will then be 
evangelized by them (xx. 6). eo-ovrat tepets rov Qeov /cat rov Xptarrov 
KOL /3a<TL\v(Tovcriv fj.T avTov TO. ;(iA.ia crrf. But this special and 
limited priesthood and kingship belong only to the Messianic 
kingdom. It should be observed in this connection that, al 
though all the faithful were to become kings and priests, it is 


never implied that they should likewise become prophets. The 
prophetic office may have been conceived by our author in a 
limited sense and as bestowed on a limited class of men for a special 
purpose. When this purpose was once achieved, the prophetic 
gift may in his view be no longer necessary. 

After the final judgment the limited kingship and priesthood 
of the martyrs will be succeeded by an eternal kingship of all 
the faithful: xxii. 5, j3aa-i\ev(rovcrw ets T. attorns T. atwvwv. But the 
special priestly office will no more exist ; and so far as the priestly 
blessing is given, it will be given by God Himself: xxii. 5, Kv/aios 
6 0eos </>omcrei CTT aurovs (see note in loc.}. 

TW 0ew KCU TraTpl aurou. The avrov is to be taken with TW 
Beta as well as with Trarpt. 

auT<3 TJ 86a KCU TO Kpdros, i.e. TW dyairwi/Tt KT\. Similar 
doxologies addressed to Christ are to be found in v. 13, vii. 10, 
2 Pet. iii. 18, and most probably in 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. xiii. 21, 
and possibly in i Pet. iv. n. In 4 Mace, xviii. 24 we have a 
good parallel in diction, as w 77 86d ets rovs aiwva? rwv atwj/wp : in 
the Didache Vlii. 2, X. 5, cm crov eVrtv 17 8vVa/x,ts ical f) Soa ets rov<s 
atwvas, at the conclusion of the Lord s Prayer the doxology in 
Matt. vi. 13 not being original, but adopted, according to Hort, 
into some forms of the text through liturgical use in Syria as 
early as the 2nd century, i Chron. xxix. n, "Thine, O Lord, is 
the greatness and the power and the glory," appears to be the 
original source of most of the doxologies of later times. See 
Chase, Lord s Prayer in the Early Church, 168 sqq. 

7-8. The prophet s thought is carried forward to the Second 
Advent of Christ in glory (7). It must be confessed that 8 has 
no obvious links with what precedes or follows. 

7. Here again we have a stanza of three lines which are a 
reminiscence and an adaptation of Dan. vii. 13 and Zech. xii. 10. 
In both cases, as we shall see, the text presupposed by our author 
is -mainly that presupposed by Theodotion s version ; but their 
combination here is best explained as due to our author s ac 
quaintance with the Jewish Christian Apocalypse, which has 
been worked into the text of Matt. xxiv. ( = Mark xiii. = Luke 
xxi.), and which in Matt. xxiv. 30 represents this combination 
as already achieved (see below). But not only does our text 
agree in combining Zech. xii. 10 and Dan. vii. 13, but also in 
transforming the original meaning of Zech. xii. 10. Thus, where 
as in the O.T. text we have "they shall mourn for him," in 
Matt. xxiv. 30 and in our text " the tribes of the earth shall 
mourn (for themselves) because of Him " (eV avrov omitted in 

The fulfilment of this prophecy of the visible and victorious 
return of Christ with a view to judgment is dealt with in the 
VOL. i. 2 


vision of the Seer in xiv. 14, 18-20, in xix. 11-21, and most 
probably in xx. 7-10. 

iSou epxerai jxera rwv i/e^eXaii . Cf. Dan. vii. 13, ^ajTDJ? VIN1 
Kin NDN tws 123 *> Here Theodotion renders /cat ISov ucra 

T": T T v:. ~ : T - : i 

(LXX, 7TL =oy : cf. xiv. i4sqq.; Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64; Didache 
xvi. 8 (eTrdVw), Justin, Apol. i. 5 1 sq. (e7rdVo>) ; cv = Dy, Mark xiii. 
26 ; Luke xxi. 27 : cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, 242). But the 
7rt in xiv. 14 of our text is due to our author s use of KaO-tj^vov 
in this connection) TOJ/ ve^eXcov rov ovpavov us vtos avOpwTrov tp\o- 
/i-ej/o? (LXX, r/pxero). Cf. Mark xiv. 62, TOJ/ viov rov avOpd)7rov . . . 
tp^o/xev-ov /xero, TUJI/ vec^eAwv TOV ovpavov : 4 Ezra xiii. 3. It does 
not necessarily follow from the above that our author used an 
early translation similar in character to that of the later Theo 
dotion, but that the Semitic text he followed was such as that 
followed by Theodotion. 

epxerat. The idea of the impending Advent is resumed 
in iii. n, xiv. 7, xvi. 15, xxii. 7, 12, 20. 

O\|/T<U ttUTOf . . . KCU l%f.KVT(](Ta.V . . . Kttl KO\|/OJT(H CTT* ttUTOI/ 

iraaai at <J>u\a! rfjs yrj?. These words, with the exception of the 
last four, are based on Zech. xii. 10 and agree for the most part 
with the versions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus against 
the LXX. The LXX reads /cat 7ri/3A,ei^ovTat Trpos /xe, av@* &v 
/carwp^cravTO ( = *np"l) /cai Koif/ovrai ITT O.VTOV. Theod. and 
Aquila, /ecu eTrt^Aei^ovrat Trpos /x,e, eis ov (<rw a>, Aquila) e^e/cei/- 
Trjcrav /cat /coi/^ovrat avrov. Symmachus, eyu-Trpocr^ci/ eTre^eKevr^trav 
KT\. Plere the three latter translators support the Massoretic 
Dpi by e ^e/cei/rr/o-ai/. It is a question whether our author used 
an early Greek version the parent of Theodotion s and others 
or whether he translated directly from the Hebrew. The evi 
dence on the whole is in favour of his translating directly from the 
Hebrew. His use of e^eKeVr^o-av l marks his independence of 
the LXX ; and the fact that e/c/cevretv is the stock rendering in 
the versions of "ip"T, shows that our author s use of this verb cannot 
be advanced as evidence for his dependence on any Greek trans 
lation here. Whilst there is thus no trustworthy evidence of his 
dependence, there is some evidence of his independence of all 
the versions. This we find in oi//erat avrov, where the versions 
have 7n/3\^ovraL Trpos //,e. Our author, it is true, does not use 
7ri/3\7reiv, but he uses /JAermv frequently in the sense required 
here. Moreover, the last words, Trcurai at <vAat -nys yrjs (found 
also in Matt. xxiv. 30), are a free adaptation of the Hebrew in 
Zech. xii. 12, where the LXX gives the literal rendering, fj yrj 
Kara <f>v\as </>uAa5. 

1 In Justin, Apol. i. 52, we find, K6\f/ovrai <f>v\T) -rrpbs 0uX^, /cat r6re 6\f/ovrai 
ei s 8v 4%eKtvT-r)(Tai> : Dial. 14, 32 ; 64, Triyvu(re(r6e et s 5// t%eKevTr]<raTe ; 126, 
The reference in all these passages is eschatological, 


It is noteworthy that in John xix. 37, the passage in Zechariah 
is rendered in a way closely akin to that in our text oi/^ovrat ds or 
e^e/ceVnyo-av. But, whereas our author applies the prophecy to 
the whole world, the Fourth Gospel limits to the four soldiers 
" the looking " to Him whom they had pierced. Abbott (Johan- 
nine Gram., p. 247) writes : " They look to Him now in amaze 
ment; they will look to Him for forgiveness and salvation." In 
the Gospel the main reference is to the crucifixion : whereas in 
our author it is eschatological. 

In Matt. xxiv. 30 we have an analogous combination of the 
passages in Daniel and Zechariah to that in our text, /ecu TOTC 
TO crrj fji^tov TOV viov TOV avOpwTrov ev ovpavw /cat rore 
Tracrat at <f>v\al T^S yr}? /cat oi//ovrat TOV vlov TOV 
p^6/j.vov e7rt T. ve<eXoi>v. Here, as in our text, the 
reference is eschatological. Swete writes that both Gospel and 
Apocalypse " were indebted . . . perhaps to some collection of 
prophetic testimonies." This is a good suggestion, but the ex 
planation is, I believe, to be found elsewhere. A large body of 
scholars are agreed that in Matt. xxiv. (as in the parallel chapters 
in Mark and Luke) there are two distinct apocalypses worked 
together. One of these is from our Lord, xxiv. 4-5, 914, 23-25, 
32 sqq., while the other is a later Jewish Christian Apocalypse 
consisting of xxiv. 6-8, 15-22, 29-31, 34, 35 (see my Eschatology*, 
379-385). Now the close parallelism of our text, i. 7 and Matt. 
xxiv. 30 (observe use of o\l/tcr8ai in both, as well as the phrase 
Tracrai at <f>v\al TYJ<S 777? unique as regards the N.T. and the 
LXX), presupposes some real connection ; and since the Jewish 
Apocalypse just referred to was written before 70 A.D., it is 
reasonable to conclude that the indebtedness lies on the side of 
our author, and that Matt. xxiv. 30 first suggested to him the 
combination of Zech. and Daniel, though the diction is mainly 
his own, and due to his independent translation of the O.T. 
passages ; for he keeps more closely to Daniel and Zechariah 
and reproduces their text more fully. 

vai, djjirji . We have here the Greek and Hebrew forms of 
affirmation side by side a fact which would tempt us to take 
them as synonymous, as in d/3/?a 6 iranj/o in Mark xiv. 36. But 
this does not appear to be so here. And yet it is hard to bring 
out the distinction. In our author d/xrjv is used (a) at the close 
of one s own doxology or prayer: i. 6, vii. 12 (ad fin.), (b) It 
is used for the purpose of adopting as one s own what has just 
been said: v. 14, vii. 12 (adinit.\ xix. 4, xxii. 20. (c) It is used 
at the close of a solemn affirmation : i. 7 (mi, d/^v). (d) It is 
used as a designation of Christ : iii. 14, 6 A/xrV. Here Christ 
is represented as the personalized divine Amen, the guarantor in 
person of the truth declared by Him, f. Isa. Ixv. 16, jOK *r^K < 


"God of the Amen," which, howexer, is by the best critics 
emended into fOK <nta = " God of truth." 

The meaning of vai in this context is difficult to determine- 
It occurs four times in all. In xxii. 20 it denotes a divine 
promise, where the d/xT/V expresses the trustful acceptance of 
this promise (cf. 2 Cor. i. 20). In xiv. 13, xvi. 7, it is used to 
confirm what has just been said of the heavenly voice. But in 
xiv. 13 it could be taken as the affirmation of a promise by the 
Spirit : " Yea in that they shall rest," etc. 

If xiv. 13 is to be taken as just suggested, then, since xvi. 7 is 
not from our author s hand, it would follow that in our author 
va.1 "expresses," as Hort says, "affirmation or reaffirmation 
divine or human," and that they are here purposely combined to 
express the same ideas as in xxii. 20, " It is so, amen." 

8. The Speaker is God. 

TO "A\4>a Kal TO *il. This is a natural symbol for the first 
and last of all things. It was known among the Romans : cf. 
Martial, v. 26. Among the later Jews the whole extent of a 
thing was often denoted by the first and last letters of the 
alphabet, fix. Thus (Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. in loc.) Adam trans 
gressed the whole law from aleph to tau (Jalkut Rub. f. 1 7*) ; 
Abraham observed the whole law from aleph to tau (f. 48*) ; 
when God blesses Israel, He does it from aleph to tau (f. i28 3 ). 
It represented the entirety of things, and thus could fitly express 
the Shekinah, Schoettgen, i. 1086. Hence it is not improbable 
that "Alpha and Omega" is a Greek rendering of a corre 
sponding Hebrew expression. The thought conveyed by this 
title is essentially that of Isa. xliv. 6 : 0eos 2a/?aw0 - eya> TT/XOTOS /cat 
eya> /ATa ravra (ji")nK pKI |^N"1 ^N rrlK3S ni!T : cf. xli. 4, 
xliii. TO). 

Ku pios 6 6e6s ... 6 TrarroicpdTup ( = niKnV TPK mil , Hos. 
xii. 6 ; Amos ix. 5). A favourite title in our author : cf. iv. 8, 
xi. 17, xv. 3 [xvi. 7], xix. 6, xxi. 22. In iv. 8 (cf. xi. 17) we have 
the entire passage, /cvpios 6 $eos 6 wv KCU 6 rjv /ecu 6 ep^o/xcvos 6 
TravTOKparoo/o, save that the 6 TravTo/cpartop precedes the 6 <5v. 
6 TravTo/cpdYwp is not found in the N.T. outside our author save 
in 2 Cor. vi. 18 in a quotation. 

6 wi> Kal 6 r\v KT\. See note on i. 4. ^ 


9. Eyw Iwdmjs. Cf. xxii. 8 ; Dan. vii. 15, 28, viii. i, ix. 2 
AavirjA.) ; 4 Ezra iii. i ; i Enoch xii. 3, etc. The insertion 
of the name is required after 8. 


6 d8e\4>6s ujj.oii Kal (TUVKOIVUVOS iv. The absence of the article 
before the second noun shows that the two nouns are to be 
taken closely together. Cf. vi. n, ol o-wSouAot avroiv KO.I 01 
dSeA(/>ot OLVTWV oi /xeAAovres diroKTej/j/eo-$at cos Kal avrot: xii. IO. 
Here, as in its pagan use, dSeA<ds means a fellow-member in the 
same religious society. With 6 dSeA<6s v^uv cf. 2 Pet. iii. 15, 
6 dyaTT^TOS fjfjiwv dSeA<os ITavAos. With (TVVKOLVWVOS cf. O-WKOIVO)- 
vziv in xviii. 4; and for lv after Kowon/ds cf. Matt, xxiii. 30. 
Fellowship in suffering naturally was an essential mark of early 
Christianity. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 7, KOLVWVOL core TWV Tra^/xdVoov : Phil. 
iii. IO, KOtvcui/t av TcSv Tra^/xdrwv : iv. 14, crwKotvwvrycraj Tes //,ov ry 

K TTJ 6Xu|/i Kal J3aai\eta Kal UTTOJJLOI/T) ev lyjaoG. The 
here is the tribulation of the last time : cf. vii. 14, T^S dAti/rcus TT}S 
p.yd\ir)<s. It is the same as the rfjs (Spas TOV Tretpaor/^ov T^S fjifX- 
Xovcrrfs ep^ecr^at CTTI r^s otKOV/xev?;? oA?;? in iii. 10. This last great 
tribulation necessarily precedes the Millennial Kingdom hence 
Kal ySao-tAeta : but to have part in the kingdom faithful endur 
ance throughout the tribulation is necessary hence Kat vTropovfi - 
cf. ii. 2, 3, 19, iii. 10, xiii. 10, xiv. 12. vn-o/jLovr) being the 
spiritual alchemy, which transmutes those who share in the #Au/as 
into members of the /3acnAei a, can only achieve its end in 
fellowship with Jesus (ei> I^crov) a Pauline conception which 
recurs in xiv^jc^, but is set forth under another figure in iii._2p, .; 
edv rts aKOvcrr) r?}s <^xov^s /xov Kal avoL^y TT]V Ovpav, ci(reAevcro/xat 
Trpo? OLVTOV Kat SetTrv^cra) fier avrov KOL avros /xer e/xov. It is 
a question whether eV I^o-ov should be connected with all three 
nouns or wjth^iuTrp/xov^o^nly. Probably the latter is best : cf. i 
2 Thess. iii. 5, TT)V VTTO^OV^V TOV X/KOTTOV, though the idea here is 
somewhat different. 

eyeyopjK ^="1 found myself in." We might conclude 
from this clause that when he wrote he was no longer in Patmos. 
Patmos was one of the Sporades, a barren rocky island about 
ten miles long and five wide. It is first mentioned by 
Thucydides, iii. 33, and later by Strabo, x. 5. 13, and Pliny, H.N. 
iv. 12. 23, the last of whom states that it was used as a penal 
settlement by the Romans, as were other islands, i.e. Pontia, 
off the coast of Latium, to which Domitian banished Flavia 
Domitilla (Euseb. H.E. iii. 18. 5), and Gyara and Seriphus in 
the Aegean (see Encyc. Bib. iii. 3603). 

8ia roy Xoyoi TOU 0eoG Kal TTJ^ jxapTupiai irjaou. These words 
define the ground for his presence in Patmos, i.e. his preaching 
of the Gospel and his loyalty to it in a time of tribulation. The 
phrase T. Adyov T. 0eov Kat T. fjiaprvpiav I. here give the contents 
of his preaching, whereas in 2 they describe the Apocalypse 
itself: cf. o<ra etSci/. It has been urged by many scholars that 


John had gone to Patmos for the purpose of receiving this 
revelation, i.e. that mentioned in 2. But this interpretation 
appears to be inadmissible on several grounds, i. In our 
author Sta never means "for the sake of" ( = o/e/ca) receiving the 
word of God, etc., but "because of," "in consequence of" the 
word of God which he had preached. In other words, Sta 
denotes the ground and not the purpose in this Book : cf. ii. 3, 
iv. n, vi. 9, vii. 15, xii. n, 12, xiii. 14, etc. 2. In two passages 
our author speaks of death by persecution in connection with 
these very phrases, i.e. vi. 9, eo-<ay/x,eVeov Sia r. A.oyov r. Otov KCU 
3ta T. /xaprvptW, and again in xx. 4. These passages in them 
selves indicate the interpretation to be adopted in the present 
passage. 3. The fact that our author has just described himself 

aS (TVVKOLVWVOS V TYJ BXtytL . . . KCU VTTOfJiOVrj SUggCStS that he 

has in a special and not in any ordinary manner suffered for 
the faith. If he suffered no more than the average Christian, it 
is not in keeping with his reticence as to himself that he should 
lay emphasis on what after all was the common lot of the 
faithful. 4. An early tradition, in itself not uniform nor quite 
credible in its details, testifies to the banishment of John to 
Patmos. Cf. Tert. De Praescript. 36, " Apostolus loannes . . . 
in insulam relegatur " ; Clem. Alex. Quis dives, 42, eVctS^ yap TOV 
Tvpdvvov TcXevTiycravros O.TTO -nys Har/xou rrjs v^crou /zerrJA-^ev CTTL rrjv 
"E<f>o-ov : Origen, In Matt. t. xvi. 6, 6 Se Pco^atwv /3ao-tXevs, a>s fj 
7ra/m8o(ris StSacrKct, /careSi /cacre TOV Itodvvrjv /JLaprvpovvra Sia TOV TTJS 
d\.rjOLa<s Aoyov cts ECar/xoi/ rrjv vrjcrov. If we combine this tradi 
tion with the fact cited above that Patmos was a penal settlement 
(Pliny, H.N. iv. 12. 23), as well as i, 2, and 3, the evidence for 
John s exile is adequate. There is no just ground for the 
suggestion that the tradition arose as an elaboration of the 
present passage. 

1O. eyeyojATji Iv irkeujxaTi. Not merely " I was in," but " I fell 
into." These words denote the ecstatic condition into which 
the Seer has fallen, just as ev lavrw yevo/xei/os (Acts xii. n) 
describe the return to the normal condition. We have equivalent 
phrases in Acts xi. 5, etSov kv eKo-racrei, and xxii. 17, yo/eo-0cu /u, Iv 
/rra<rei. Apart from extraordinary ecstatic experiences, all 
Christians could be said to be eti/ai Iv TTV^V^CLTL (Rom. viii. 9) as 
opposed to the faithless, who were ei/ o-apKL. 

In this passage, then, eyei/o/x^v ei/ Tri/eu/xart denotes nothing 
more than that the Seer fell into a trance. It was not until he 
was in this trance that Christ addressed him. But in iv. 2 (see 
note), where this phrase recurs, if the text is right, it must mean 
something more, since the Seer is already in a trance. 

iv TTJ KuptaKTJ rjfxe pa. This is the first place in Christian 
literature where the Lord s Day is mentioned. Some scholars 


have proposed to take this phrase as meaning "in the day of the 
Lord," i.e. "the day of Yahweh," the day of judgment in the 
LXX, Y) fjjji lpa TOV Kvpiov, and elsewhere in our text, f) fj/jiepa. f) 
jj,eyaA>7, vi. 17, xvi. 14. It is sufficient to mention this inter 
pretation and pass on to the generally accepted and, in the 
opinion of the present writer, the right interpretation, which takes 
these words to mean " on the Lord s day," i.e. the day con 
secrated to the Lord. We might compare an analogous phrase 
in I Cor. xi. 20, OVK coriv xvpiaKOv Beitrvov qfxxyetv. In the 2nd 
cent, we have the following undisputed testimonies to the use of 
this phrase for Sunday : Didache xiv. i, Kara /<vpia/o)v o 
crwa^evres KXdcrare aprov : Evang Petri, 35, e7re<o)(TKv 17 
ib. 50, opOpov Se T7)<s KvpiaKrjs: Ignatius, Ad Magn. ix. i, 
(ra/SjSaTi^ovTfS a\\a Kara KvpuaKrjv ^wvres, kv y /cat 17 fa 
<WreiA.ev : Melito of Sardis the title of one of his writings, 
Kvpia/c?}?, preserved in Euseb. H.E. iv. 26. 2. Here " Lord s 
Day " has become a technical designation of Sunday. Since all 
these writings emanate from Asia Minor, the term may first have 
arisen there, but that it was in general use before the close of the 
2nd cent, may be inferred from the statement of Dionysius of 
Corinth in Euseb. H.E. IV. 23. II, rrjv cn^upov ovv KVpiaKrjv dytav 
fjfjitpav St^yayo^ev : Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 12 ; Tert. De Cor. iii., 
" Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus," etc. 

The reason given by the early Christians for naming the first 
day of the week " the Lord s Day," was that it was the day of His 
resurrection. But how it came to be celebrated weekly and not 
only yearly seems to be first explained by Deissmann (Bible 
Studies, 218 sq. ; Encyc. Bib. iii. 2815 sq.). It appears that the 
first day of each month was called " Emperor s Day " (SejSaor??) 
in Asia Minor and Egypt before the Christian era, Lightfoot, 
Apostolic Fathers^ i. ii. 714 ; nay more, according to two inscrip 
tions from Ephesus and Kabala to which might be added an 
Oxyrhynchus papyrus (circ. 100 A.D.) it is inferred by Buresch 
(Aus Lydien, 1898, pp. 49-50) and Deissmann that Se^cum? was 
a day of the week. If these conclusions are valid we can under 
stand how naturally the term " Lord s Day " arose ; for just as 
the first day of each month, or a certain day of each week, was 
called "Emperor s Day," so it would be natural for Christians 
to name the first day of each week, associated as it was with the 
Lord s resurrection and the custom of Christians to meet together 
for worship on it, as " Lord s Day." It may have first arisen in 
apocalyptic circles when a hostile attitude to the Empire was 
adopted by Christianity. 

rJKoucra $uvj]v peya.\v]v omorOeV JAOU. Our author has probably 
Ezek. iii. 12 in his mind, KCU dveXa/^ev /xe Trvev/xa, /ecu rj/coixra 
ov <J><j>vr)v 0-6107x07} /xeyaXou. Wetstein quotes a good 


parallel from Plutarch, Lycurg. 54 C, oxovo-ai Se <wvr)v 
TWOS eo7ricr$ei/ eTrtrijuaJi/ros a^rw . . . d>s 


jaeydXtji . . . ws o-dXTuyyos. Cf. iv. I note. The 
voice is loud and clear as a trumpet blast. It appears to be that 
of the Son of Man (so Alcasar, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bousset), 
who bids the Seer o /^A-eVeis ypdif/ov eis /3i/3A,ioi/ (i i), and at the 
close of this theophany repeats the command in 19, ypctyov ovv 
a elSes. This is the natural interpretation. Diisterdieck and 
Alford take the voice to be that of an unnamed angel. 

dig crdXmyyos. I n <*> we have to deal with the most difficult 
particle in all our author s vocabulary. See the Additional Note 
at the close of this chapter on ws and o/xotos. 

Xeyouotjs. We should expect Ae youo-av. But this is no 
oversight of our author; for the same construction recurs in 
iv. I, r) <fro)vr) rj Trpwrrj . . . ws trdATriyyos AaAova^s, when we 
should expect XaXovo-a. 

This connection of the participle with the dependent genitive 
instead of with the governing nouns we find also in vi. 7, r/Kovcra 
<wv>)v r. reraproi; wov Xeyovros, though here this construction is 
very intelligible. 

11-16. These verses appear to be composed of four stanzas, 
the first three of four lines each and the fourth of three. 

11. pXeireis. Our author, like most of the N.T. writers 
(including Johannine Gospel and Epistles), uses /JXeVav and not 
6pav in the present tense, except in the case of opa in the im 
perative = "beware." For the future of ^XeVetv he uses 
oi//ecr#eu, and for the passive aorist 6<j>6fjvai. 

ypdtyov els. For other constructions with tV and eVi see i. 3, 
ii. 17, iii. 12, xiv. i, xvii. 5, etc. The Seer is repeatedly bidden to 
write down his visions, except in the case of the Seven Thunders. 

TCUS cirra eidcXTjaiais. According to Ramsay (Letters to the 
Seven Churches , p. 191), "the Seven groups of Churches, into 
which the province had been divided before the Apocalypse was 
composed, were seven postal districts, each having as its centre 
or point of origin one of the Seven Cities, which (as was pointed 
out) lie on a route which forms a sort of inner circle round the 
Province." Ramsay s reason for these Seven Churches in 
cluding two comparatively small towns, Thyatira and Philadelphia, 
and excluding the well-known cities of Colossae, Hierapolis, 
Troas, Tralles, etc. being chosen and none others, is (op. cit. 
p. 183) that "all the Seven Cities stand on the great circular road 
that bound together the most populous, wealthy, and influential 
part of the Province, the west-central region." If delivered at 
these Seven Cities, the Apocalypse would easily spread through 
out the rest of the Province; for "they were the best points on 


that circuit to serve as centres of communication with seven 
districts : Pergamum for the north (Troas, doubtless Adramyt- 
tium, and probably Cyzicus and other cities on the coast con 
tained Churches) ; Thyatira for an inland district on the north 
east and east ; Sardis for the wide middle valley of the Hermus ; 
Philadelphia for Upper Lydia, to which it was the door (iii. 8) ; 
Laodicea for the Lycus Valley and for central Phrygia, of which 
it was the Christian metropolis in later time ; Ephesus for the 
Cayster and Lower Maeander Valleys and coasts ; Smyrna for 
the Lower Hermus Valley and the North Ionian coasts" 
(p. 191 sq.). This is an attractive hypothesis. The fact, 
however, that seven, and just seven, were chosen, is determined 
apparently by the sacredness of this number in the eyes of our 
author. This fact, however, does not exclude the possibility 
that the Seven Churches in our author were selected on the 
ground of their fitness as desirable centres of publication. To 
each of these centres the roll would be carried in turn and then 
copied. Smyrna lay 40 miles north of EphesuSj ^j^aniurn 
40 north ot Smyrna, JQyratira 45 S.E. of Pergamum, Sardis 
30 nearly due S. of Thyatira, Philadelphia 30 E.S.E. of Sardis, 
and J^aodicea 40 S.E. of Philaiiejptn .a (see map in Ramsay). 

12. jBXe-rreii TT\V $wf]v. Cf. Aesch. Theb. 106, KTVTTOV ScSopKO. 
The voice is here used for the person from whom it comes. 

tjrts eXdXei [ACT e|xou. The TJTLS here represents an indirect 
question, and accordingly the construction is classical. On 
cXaXet fjiT /xov, see note on iv. i. 

12 b . eirrdi Xuxyias xp uor <*9. O n the position of eTrra as con 
trasted with its position in 16, see note on viii. 2. These seven 
lampstands recall Zech. iv. 2, where, however, only one lampstand 
appears with seven lamps, which, as the LXX and Vulg. rightly 
testify, were each fed by a pipe from one common reservoir of 
oil. In Ex. xxv. 31 sqq. there is a description of a seven- 
branched candlestick (Xv^yta. = miaip), which was said to stand 
outside the second veil of the Tabernacle. The candlestick or 
lampstand carried seven lamps (Av xvot = nro). In our text the 
lampstands are separate. Their function is to embody and give 
forth the light of God on earth. Should the lamps fail to do so, 
their lampstand is removed (ii. 5). 

Various scholars (Gunk el, Chaos, 294 sqq.; Zimmern, K.A.T* 
624 sqq.) have drawn attention to the original connection between 
the seven-armed candlestick and the seven planets, and quoted 
the passages from Josephus and Philo (see note on p. 12) to this 
effect. But of this our Seer was probably wholly unconscious. 

13-18. If the student studies the titles of the Son of Man 
in these verses, he will see that they recur at the beginning of 
six of the letters, but not in that to the Church of Laodicea. 


Thus it seems to have been the intention of our author to 
connect each of the Seven Letters with a special title. But this 
intention was carried out only partially and in a superficial 
manner in this preliminary sketch of his work. For, as already 
observed, the title at the beginning of the letter to Laodicea is 
not found in i. 13-18; and in the letters to Ephesus and Sardis 
the same title is used twice : cf. ii. i, 6 Kparvv TOVS CTTTOI aoWpas 
w rf} Se& p (cf. i. l6 a ), and iii. I, 6 ex wi/ r vs cirra derrepas. 

Again, that the titles were intended to have some connection 
with the letters in which they respectively appear is ci< j ar in most 
of the cases. Thus in the letter to the Church in Ephesus the 
title, 6 TreptTrarcov ev //.ecra) ra>v ITTTOI Xv^vtwv rail/ ^pvcroij/ (ii. i), is at 
all events related verbally to the words of warning in ii. 5, el Se 
firj . . . jav7J(ra> TTJV Xvxvtav <rov IK TOV TOTTOV avrfjs. In the letter 
to the Church in Smyrna the title, os eyeVcro veicpos KCU c^crev 
(ii. 8), may contain a reference to ii. io d , ytvou TTICTTOS d^pt, 
KOI Swo-o) orot TOV <rT<J>avov rfls WT}S. In the letter to the Church 
in Pergamum 6 l^oav ryv po/x^aiW rrjv SIOTOJUOV (ii. 12) is antici 
patory ot the words in ii. l6 c , TroXe/A^cro) /ACT avrwv tv rf) po/A<aia 
TOV 0-To/x.aros /xov. In the letter to the Church in Thyatira the 
title, 6 e^cov rot s 6<f>0a\fjLov<s ws ^>Xoya Trupds (ii. 1 8), may be 
chosen with reference to the claim in ii. 23, eyw et/u 6 cpavv&v 
v<f>povs KOL KapSias. In the case of the three remaining Churches 
the connection between the introductory title of Christ and the 
contents of the letters is obscure except in the letter to the 
Church in Philadelphia. In the letter to the Church in Sardis 
the title, 6 l^wi/ ra OTTO, in/v//,aTa TOV 6eov (iii. i), may point to the 
need of watchfulness (iii. 2), since the seven spirits are sent forth 
by Christ to witness the doings of men (v. 4). In the letter to 
the Church in Philadelphia the title, 6 \eov T^V KXetv Aavei S, 6 
dvotywv *crX (iii. 7), is introduced to justify Christ s power to fulfil 
His promise that He will cause the Jews after the flesh to bow 
down before the true spiritual Israel (iii. 9), and will make the 
latter pillars in the spiritual community of God (iii. 12). It is 
Christ that shuts out the one from this community and admits 
the other to it. Finally, in the letter to the Church in Laodicea 
the title, 6 /taprws 6 TTIO-TOS KCU a\Trj6w6<s (iii. 14), may have reference 
to the testimony given against the Laodicean Church in iii. 16-19. 

The above facts show that, whereas only in the case of the 
Churches of Philadelphia and Thyatira is there any sort of 
organic connection between the divine title and the contents of 
the letter, in the case of the rest the connection is at the best 
either artificial or doubtful. Thus these titles give the impression 
of being an afterthought on the part of our author inserted by 
him in order to link up chap. i. (whence the titles are drawn) and 
chaps, ii.-iii. This supposition gains confirmation from the fact 


that the Seven Letters were undoubtedly written before the time 
of Domitian, and in fact before our author had any apprehension 
of a world-wide persecution, whereas the rest of the Apocalypse 
is saturated through and through with this conviction. 

13. ofjLOLov viov. Cf. xiv. 14. Here, as I have shown in 
the Additional Note (p. 36) on u>s and 0^,0109, o/xotos is used 
as the equivalent of u>s, not only in meaning but in construc 

OJAOIOK uloi/ dyOpoj-rrou. Cf. xiv. 14. The fact that the articles 
are absent (i.e. TOV vlov TOV 6.vBpu>irov) is so far from being a 
matter of difficulty that in this context they could not be present. 
The Being whom the Seer sees is not " like the Son of Man," 
but is "the Son of Man." But the Seer can rightly describe 
Him as being " like a son of man." This technical phraseology 
in Apocalyptic means that the Being so described is not a man. 
Further, since Ezekiel, and particularly i Enoch xxxvii.-lxxi. 
(also lxxxiii.-xc.), used the term "man" in their visions to 
symbolize an angel, wos avOp&irov would most naturally bear the 
same meaning in this passage. Thus OJJLOIOV vlov avOpw-Trov would 
= " like an angel." Hence the Being so described is a super 
natural Being, like an angel and yet not an angel. Cf. I Enoch 
xlvi. i, where the supernatural Messiah is described as a " being 
whose countenance was as the appearance of a man " ( = ntOEG 
t^UN). Such is the literal rendering of this latter passage. 
Further, there can be no doubt that long before the time of our 
Seer the phrase "like a Son of Man" (t?JK -Q3) in Dan. vii. 13 
was taken as a Messianic designation. Thus <J>s mos avOpuirov 
in Apocalyptic is the exact equivalent of 6 wos TOV avOpuirov in 
the Gospels and Acts vii. 56. 

iro8i]pT]. Cf. Dan. x. 5, /ecu ISov avrfp els 

/3vo-o-iva (LXX : /SaSSetV, Theod.), i.e. D^3 ^ irr? ; Ezek. ix. 2, ets 
dvijp . . . evSeSuKws Troorjprj (also in 3, n) a rendering of the 
same Hebrew phrase. Since in xv. 6 we have cVSeSv/xeVot 
t XiOov f . . . /cat 7rpiea>0yx.eVoi irepl TO. o-TrjOrj used in reference to 
angels, there is not necessarily any reference here to the priestly 
character of Christ. In Ex. xxviii. 4, xxix. 5, iroorjprjs is used 
as a rendering of the high priestly robe (^j&p). Cf. Josephus, 
Ant. iii. 7* 4 5 o 8e dp^tepcvs . . . 7revSvcrayw,ei/os 8" e va.Kw6ov 

TT^TTOLTfJfJieVOV ^tTOJVa, TToS^p^S 8" <TTt KCU OVTOS, fACtlp Ka\LTO.l Tr)V 

^jaere pav yAaxrcrav, ^wvy Trcpto-^tyyerat : iii. 7. 2, where the linen 
vestment of the priests is called TroS^p??? ^mm/. See also Wisd. 
xviii. 24, ri yap TroSiypovs evSv/xarog rjv oAos 6 /co oy/,os. But even 
if TroSrJp^s was in the mind of the Seer a rendering of ^yD, the 
priestly reference is still doubtful; for the ^yv was commonly 
used by men of high rank (cf. i Sam. xviii. 4, xxiv. 5, 12 ; Ezek. 
xxvi. 1 6, etc.). The long robe is used here simply as an Oriental 


mark of dignity, though it may have had originally a very 
different meaning and origin : cf. Gressmann, Eschatologie, 
346 sq. 

irepie^GKTjAeVoi irpos rots paorois \pvt\v \puv6iv. This phrase 
recurs in a slightly different form in xv. 6. Both this and the 
preceding phrase were suggested by Dan. x. 5, eVSeStyzeVos /foSSeiV, 
KOL rj 6<r<us avrov Trepie^oKr/xeV^ ei/ ^pvcrtw Q<a, where there is no 
connection of any kind with the priestly dress. The golden 
clasp or TTO PTTI? was worn by the king and his chosen friends 
(<tAoi), i Mace. x. 89, xi. 58. The high priest also wore a girdle 
(nJ3N), but it was a loosely-woven scarf: cf. Ex. xxviii. 4, 
xxxix. 29 ; Lev. xiii. 7. This priestly girdle was worn on the 
breast a little above the armpits : cf. Josephus, Ant. iii. 7. 2, 
TroS^p?;? ^trcov . . . ov 7rioiWwTat Kara a-rfjOos oAtyov TT/S /xacr^aA^s 
VTrepavto rrjv ^wvrjv Trepiayovres. -rrpos in local sense with dative 
is rare in the N.T. Here only in the Apocalypse: cf. Mark v. n; 
John xviii. 16, xx. n, 12. 

14. -q 8e K<|>aXT] aurou KCU, at rpi)(S Xeuical a>s epiov XeuicoV [cos 
Xtwt ]. Our text presupposes Dan. vii. 9 and i Enoch xlvi. i. 
The former, according to Theod., Vulgate, and most com 
mentators, is to be rendered : " his raiment was white as snow, 
and the hair of his head like pure wool " ; while i Enoch xlvi. i 
= ^ K<J>aX.r) avrov cos eptov \evKrj (or AevKoV). Thus in the first 
place we explain the combination of f) KtfyaXr) and cu rpi^es in 
our text. But our text diverges clearly from Theodotion s 
version and the Massoretic of Dan. vii. 9 ; for the latter read 
" the hair of his head like pure (i.e. cleansed) wool." But unless 
we assume that the wool is white, which, of course, it sometimes 
is, the comparison is not a good one. Since the LXX here has 
TO rpi^co/xa rfjs Ke^aX^s avrov doo-et eptov Aev/cov KaOapov ("spotless 
as white wool"), it is clear that our author had either it or the 
Aramaic text presupposed by it before him. i Enoch xlvi. i 
could be either "his hair was white like wool" or "like white 
wool," the latter being the more likely. Hence our text agrees 
with the LXX and i Enoch here against the Massoretic of Dan. 
vii. 9. It should be observed that the description which in 
Daniel and i Enoch belongs to the Ancient of Days, is here 
transferred to the Son of Man. The term Kc<()a.\rj may refer to 
the hair. 

[o>s X^O This was manifestly a marginal gloss. It is 
extremely awkward in its present context. Moreover, in Dan. 
vii. 9 it is the raiment that is "white as snow," not the hair of 
his head. 

ot 6<j>6aXfjLol auroG tus <f>X6 irupos. Cf. ii. 18, xix. 12, where the 
same description is again applied to Christ. The phrase is 
suggested by Dan. x. 6, " His eyes were as lamps of fire " 


; 2 Enoch i. 5, " Their eyes were like burning lamps." The 
metaphor is a very common one in Latin and Greek, as Wetstein 
has shown on this passage. 

15. ol iroSes aurou OJAOIOI xaXKoXij3di/w. Here again our author 
has drawn upon Daniel. Cf. x. 6, " His feet like in colour to 
burnished brass" (LXX, oxrei ^aX/cos ^aa-TpdTrrwv : Theod. ws 
opao-ts x ^-* o-TiX/?ovro9 (fejj n^m 172): Ezek. i. 4, 27, viii. 2, 
" From the appearance of his loins and downward, fire : and 
from his loins and upward, as the appearance of brightness, as 
the colour of amber"; also i. 7, "they sparkled like the colour 
of burnished brass" (LXX, d>s e^ao-iyxxTrrwv x a ^ K s PW O WJ 
W>p n>ri3). xaX/coXi/3avos (here and ii. 18 only) is as yet an un 
identified metal. Hence, whatever translation we assign it is purely 
provisional. Suidas defines it as eTSos ^Xe/crpou Ti/xiwrepoi/ xpva-ov 
ecrrt ($ TO rjXfKTpov dXXoTUTrov xpvcrtov /me/jnyfjifvov veXoJ KO.I \i@cia 
. . . T/XeKrpov, dXXoiwo-is xpvo-i ov, fte/xty/xevov veXw KCU Ai$iots. 
The word, which is of uncertain derivation, is rendered in Latin 
by aurichalcum. Pliny, H.N. xxxiii, 4, writes : " Omnino auro 
inest argentum vario pondere. Ubicunque quinta argenti portio 
est, electrum vocatur." ix. 41, "Argentum auro confundere, ut 
electra fiant." Servius on Virgil, Aen. viii. 402, " Electrum . . . 
quod fit de tribus partibus auri et una argenti." Eustathius on 
Od. iv. p. 150. 13, rjXe/crpos . . . /xtyyu,a TI xpvcrov /cat apyvpov. 
(These last three quotations are drawn from Wetstein.) 

o>S ev Kajii^w f n-eirupwjj.^^s t- So AC. But, if this is 
original, it can only be a slip for 7re7rvpa>//,eVa> on the part of the 
Seer, which he would have corrected in a revision of his text. 
For the explanation given by Hort and Swete, that TreTrupw/xeVr/s 
is explained by x a ^ KO W? c " / ou understood, is too prosaic and 
intolerable, i.e. "like burnished brass as in a furnace of burnished 
brass." Hence I assume that our author intended to write 
TreTTvpw/xeVo) a correction which was early and rightly introduced 
into the text as the following authorities testify : i.e. X, some 
cursives, s 1 - 2 , vg., Sah., Eth. Viet. Thus we have the vigorous 
and fitting conception : " like burnished brass as when it is 
smelted (or refined ) in the furnace." Trupovv is used only in 
the passive in the N.T. In the present passage and in iii. 18 it 
is used as the equivalent of spv (in Ps. xii. 6, Ixvi. 10 ; Dan. 
xii. 10 ; Zech. xiii. 9), of which it is the stock translation. 

TJ 4>ui/T) aurou a9 <f>wi>T) uSarwi TroXXom The voice of the Son 
of Man is described in exactly the same terms as the voice of 
God in Ezek. xliii. 2, D^i D^O hp3 l^ip (so the Heb. but not the 
LXX). Here our author rejects the corresponding simile in 
Dan. x, 6 pon inp3 " like the voice of a multitude." 

16. Ixwy = etxe, a Semitic idiom, though the participle is used 
in the Koi^ occasionally as a finite verb. The reading of A, KO.L 


eV TT? Seiu xeipl avrov dcrrepeg eTrra, seems to assimilate the text to 
the adjoining clauses, but it may be original. 

Xwy er TTJ Seia Xtipi aurou darepas eirrci. Cf. ii. I (where the 
clause is probably an interpolation), iii. i. This clause is to be 
interpreted purely symbolically and not literally. It means that 
these seven stars were subject to him, and wholly in his power. 
On the other hand the words W^v rrjv Setai/ avrov eV e/Ae in 17 
are to be taken literally. 

In 20 these seven stars are interpreted as symbolizing the 
Seven Churches. That they were originally conceived as forming 
the constellation of the Bear has been suggested by Bousset, 
who quotes Dieterich (Eine Mithrasliturgie, p. 14, line i6sq., 
pp. 72, 76 sq.), where the God Mithras is represented as appearing 
to the mystic . . . Kari^pvra kv Seia X t / /xoa^ov w/xov xpvareov, 
os fomv apKTos ^ Kivovcra . . . TOV ovpai/oV. But, whatever may 
be the original derivation of this conception, it could hardly be 
present to the mind of the Seer in the present passage, else we 
should have TOVS eTrra do-repas and not do-repas tTrra. The 
number seven, in itself sacred, determined the number of the 
Churches (i. 20), and thus by a coincidence the number of the 
stars as seven. See Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, 
24-26. But the seven stars may be the seven planets. 

eic TOU orojAaTOS auToG pofxcjxxia StoTojJios 6ela eKiropeuofxenrj. 
Cf. ii. 12, 1 6. These words go back to Isa. xi. 4, " He shall smite 
the earth with the rod of his mouth " (here the LXX has TW Aoyo> 
row o-To/xaros avrov), xlix. 2 ; "He hath made my mouth like a 
sharp sword" (ws n.a.ya.ipuv 6etai/). See also note on xix. 15, 
where part of the above clause recurs : cf. Heb. iv. 12 ; 2 Thess. 
ii. 9; 4 Ezra xiii. 4. The sword that proceeds from the mouth of 
the Son of Man is simply a symbol of his judicial authority. 
Religious art has been very unhappy in representing this symbol 
literally as a sword proceeding from the mouth of Christ. 

popjxxia SurrojJios. Cf. Ps. cxlix. 6 (po/x<atat oYo-ro/zot = Uin 
ITWB) ; Sir. xxi. 3. 

CK T. orojjiaTOS . . . eKiropeuojxei/T). Cf. ix. 17, xix. 15. 

TJ ovjus auToG, ws 6 rjXios 4>ati>i ei> TYJ Sumfxet auroG. o/as = 
"face"; oi/as is found only here and in John vii. 24, xi. 44 in 
the N.T., but this usage is not infrequent in the LXX. Part 
of the clause 6 ^Xtos and V T. Sw. avrov goes back to Judg. v. 31, 
" Let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in 
his strength" (a>? t^oSos ^At ov ei/ Svr<ftct avrov = ^10^n DSV3 

o -^Xtos. Cf. Matt. xvii. 2, f\o.p^f^v TO Trpoo-toTrov avrov u>? 
6 ^Xios. The faces of the righteous are also to shine like the 
sun, Matt. xiii. 43 ; as do also those of the angels : x, i ; 
2 Enoch i. 5, xix. i. 


ws 6 ijXios <J>aiVei. We have here a Hebrew construction, 
the same as in Deut. xxxii. n; Job vii. 2, ix. 26, xi. 16; Isa. 
Ixi. 10 ; Jer. xxiii. 29. Hence our text = imn:Q TW KW3. The 
clause should be rendered, "And his face was as the sun 
shining in his strength." See Additional Note on ei>s, p. 36. 

17. K.a.1 ore etSoi> aurok KT\. The Seer had in his mind Dan. 
x. 7, 9, (LXX), /cat eTSov eyco Aavr)A rrjv opacnv . . . : 9, /cat . . . 
eyu> rjfjirjv TTCTTTWKIOS CTTI TrpdcrwTroi/ jotov CTTI T^/V y^v. Cf. also Josh. 
v. 14 ; Ezek. i. 28, iii. 23, xliii. 3. 

K.a.1 e0r)K6i TT]^ SeltaK aurou . . . MTJ 4>oj3ou. Cf. Dan. x. 10, 
12, 19. The /AT? c/>o/3ov is found also separately in Isa. xliv. 2; 
Matt. xiv. 27, xvii. 7; Luke i. 13, 30, etc. It is used to give 
comfort (cf. Matt. xiv. 27= John vi. 20; Acts xxvii. 24), and 
to remind the Seer that He that is seen is no unknown one 

From pr} <J>oj3ov to the close of this verse there is a stanza of 
four lines. 

e ycu eiju 6 irpwTos KCU 6 I<rx<XTOs. Cf. ii. 8, xxii. 13. In all 
three cases these words are used as a designation of Christ. 
They are derived from Isa. xliv. 6 } OK rritOV mrp . . . "MD&rnb 
iins ONI jiK &p, and xlviii. 12, where, of course, they are used 
as self-designations by Yahweh. In both instances the LXX 
diverges from the Massoretic : xliv. 6, OVTWS Aeyei . . . 0eos 
a-aftauO Eyw Trpcoros Kat eyw /xera ravra : xlviii. 12, eytu ct/xt 
Trpwros /cat eyco et/xt cts rov ataiva. Cf. also Isa. xli. 4 and xliii. IO. 

18. This verse sets forth the threefold conception of Christ 
in John : the ever abiding life He had independently of the 
world ; His humiliation even unto physical death, and His rising 
to a life not only everlasting in itself but to universal authority 
over life and death. 

K.a.1 6 wv K.a.1 eyi/(5(jit|K yeicpos. These words form the second 
line of the stanza and are to be taken closely together. Here, as 
in i. 5-6, ii. 2, 9, etc., the participle after the Hebrew idiom has 
been resolved into the finite verb. See note on L 5-6, where it 
is shown that the line should be rendered 

" And He that liveth and was dead." 

Most recent commentators connect the /cat 6 wv with the pre 
ceding words. But in every instance, whether in Isaiah or in 
the Apocalypse, the phrase " I am the first and the last " is 
complete in itself, and the phrase /cat 6 an> would simply impair 
the fulness of the claim made in these words. On the other 
hand, when taken with /cat eyevo/xryi/ ve/cpos they are full of signifi 
cance in the contrast between the ever abiding eternal life which 
He possesses and the condition of physical ferth to which Jte 
submitted for the sake of man. 


6 j^wy. This designation is based on the O.T. phrase Ti ta 
#eos cov, in Josh. iii. ro ; Ps. xlii. 3, Ixxxiv. 3, etc. 

wi> eijuu ets TOU cuojyas T&V atcuccjv. These words are used 
of the Father in iv. 9, 10, x. 6. They are found in this con 
nection in Dan. iv. 31, xii. 7 (cAiyn n), and Sir. xviii. i ; i Enoch 
v. i. 

?x&> Tag K\ets TOU Oai/drou ical TOU aSou. Oavdrov and aSov can 
be taken as objective genitives, i.e. the keys that lock or unlock 
Hades ; or as possessive genitives, seeing that they are personified 
in vi. 8, i.e. the keys held by death and Hades. 1 Hades is the 
intermediate abode of only the wicked or non-righteous in our 
author (see xx. 14 note; also vi. 8, xx. 13) as in Luke xvi. 23, 
where it is set over against Paradise. It has the same meaning 
in the Psalms of Solomon xvi. 2: cf. xiv. 6, xv. u. In our 
author Paradise (cf. ii. 7) has no connection with Hades : nor 
yet in Luke xxiii. 43 ; 2 Cor. xii. 4. Hades is not spoken of in 
the NT as containing Paradise except in Acts ii. 27 (31), which 
is a quotation from Ps. xvi. 10. Hades or Sheol, however, bears 
many different meanings in Jewish literature ; see my Eschatology*, 
under " Sheol " in the Index, p. 482 sq. But to return. No soul 
can enter Paradise save through death. So far, therefore, death 
is the avenue alike to Paradise and Hades. But by submitting to 
death Christ has through His death and resurrection won complete 
authority over death. It is not improbable, further, that the text 
implies the same belief that underlies i Pet. iii. 18 sqq. 2 Neither 
death nor Hades can resist the power of the risen Christ. It is 
not only that they cannot withhold from Him the faithful that 
have already died, but that Christ has entered their realm as a 
conqueror and preached there the Gospel of Redemption to 
those that had not as yet heard it. No soul can henceforth be 
a prisoner in Hades, which is there owing to spiritual and other 
disabilities, in the creation of which it had no part. This inter 
pretation of the text is in keeping with the universal proclamation 
of the Gospel to the heathen world, which according to xiv. 6-7, 
xv. 4, was to precede the end. All wherever they were were 
to hear the Gospel before the Final Judgment. 

Again we have here one of the earliest traces in Christian 
literature of the Descent of Christ into Hades, and the conquest 
of its powers. This idea is in certain forms pre-Christian. 
Thus in the Babylonian Religion we have the descent of Ishtar, 
of Hibil Ziwa in the Mandaean Religion, of the primitive man 

1 Sheol and death are personified in Hos. xiii. 14. They are classed 
together in Ps. xviii. 6 ; Prov. v. 5. 

2 Loofs, in E.R.E. iv. 662, accepts this view, and holds that the doctrine 
of the Descensus underlies Matt, xxvii. 51-53, the Epistle to the Hebrews 
(xi. 39 sq., xii. 22, ix. 8). 


in the system of Manes (see Bousset, Offenbarung*, p. 197 sq.; 
Gunkel, Zum . . . Verstandniss d. NTs, p. 72 ; Clemen, Religions- 
gesch. Erkldrung d. JVT, pp. 153-156); but these non-Jewish 
sources do not appear to have given birth to the Christian 
doctrine of the Descensus ad Inferos, as Loofs, in his art. in 
E.R.E. iv. 648-663, has shown. 

K\eis TOU 6amrou KCU TOU a8ou. The power over these keys, 
according to the Targ. Jer. on Gen. xxx. 22 (cf. also on Deut. 
xxviii. 12), belongs to God alone: Sanh. 113% " Elijah asked for 
the key of the raising of the dead. Therefore he was told : 
Three keys are not committed to a messenger : those of birth, 
rain, and of the raising of the dead " : Taan. 2 a . According to 
the Midrash Tehillin on Ps. xciii. the Messiah is called Jinnon 
because he will awake the dead (Weber 2 , 368). 

19. ouV resumes the command given in n, enforced with 
the authority of One who has power over death. This particle 
occurs only here and in ii. 15, 16, iii. 3, 19, in our author, but 
195 times in the Fourth Gospel. 

& ctSeg KCU & eiaiy KCU a u.e\\i yivevQai (JLCTOL raura. These 
words summarize roughly the contents of the Book. The a etSes 
is the vision of the Son of Man just vouchsafed to the Seer : a 
clo-iv refers directly to the present condition of the Church as 
shown in chaps, ii.-iii., and indirectly to that of the world in 
general ; a /AcAAei yiVeo-0ai /xera ravra to the visions from chap, 
iv. onwards, which, with the exception of a few sections refer 
ring to the past and the present, deal with the future. At the 
beginning of iv. the Seer is summoned to heaven, where a voice 
declares : 6Wo> crot a Set yevr0at /nera raOra (iv. i). 

& et&es. Cf. i. 2, iv. i. 

a u.e\\i yiceo-Oai fxera raura. On //.eAAet, which in our author 
is generally followed by the imperfect inf., see x. 7 note; Blass, 
Gram. 197, 202. 

20. This verse is independent grammatically of what precedes. 
The construction of the Greek is highly irregular. In the first 
place, we have an accusative absolute in TO pvo-rrjpiov : in the 
second we have an accusative ras OTTO, Xv^Cas where we should 
expect a genitive dependent on TO /uvorr^piov. These anomalies 
are not explicable either from the standpoint of Greek or Hebrew. 
The second of them is best accounted for by the hypothesis that 
John did not revise his work. There are, it is true, a few in 
stances of the ace. absolute in the N.T. : cf. Acts xxvi. 3, yvwo-T^i/ 
OI/TO. o* : i Tim. ii. 6, TO /zapTvpiov Kcupois loYots : Rom. viii. 3, TO 
dSwaTov TOV i/o/xov. To these we may add the instance in our 
text. This construction is very rare in the papyri as compared 
with earlier Greek. See Robertson, Gram. 490, 1130. 

The verse is to be rendered ; " As for the mystery of the seven 
VOL. I. 3 


stars, which thou sawest in (lit. "upon") my right hand, and of 
the seven golden candlesticks, the seven stars are," etc. TO 
fjiva-rripLov = " the secret meaning." We have analogous interpre 
tations of mysteries in xiii. 18, xvii. 7, 9. 

ol eTTToi dorepes ayyeXoi rwv euro, eKK\T)Grtu>j eicri. See note 
on i. 4. Various explanations of these ayyeXoi have been 
given. Some scholars take them to be the actual messengers 
entrusted with the delivery of the letters to the various Churches, 
or the delegates sent from the Asiatic Churches to Patmos who 
were returning with the Apocalypse. Lightfoot, Schoettgen, 
Bengel connect them with subordinate officials of the synagogue. 
Primasius, Volter (Offenbarungfohannis, iv. 159) and others con 
nect them with some prominent officials of the Churches. Zahn 
(RinL ii. 606) and J. Weiss (Offenbarung Johannis, 49) identify 
them with the bishops of the Seven Churches. But the use of 
ayycXos in Apocalyptic in general and also in our author is wholly 
against making ayyeXos represent a human being. If used at all 
in Apocalyptic, ayyeXos can only represent a superhuman being. 

Hence the only interpretation that can be accepted is one 
which does justice to the term ayyeXos. From this standpoint 
two interpretations are advanced, i. The angels are guardian 
angels of the Seven Churches. This interpretation can be 
supported from Daniel, where the doctrine of the angelic guard 
ians or patrons of the nations is definitely presupposed : cf. x. 13, 
20, 21, xi. i, xii. i. It appears also in Sir. xvii. 17 ; Deut. (LXX) 
xxxii. 8. In the N.T. individuals are supposed to have special 
guardian angels: cf. Matt, xviii. 10; Acts xii. 15; Targ. Jer. on 
Gen. xxxiii. 10, "I have seen thy face, as though I had seen 
the face of thy angel": also on xlviii. 16; Chag. i6 a . But, 
if these angels are conceived of as distinct personalities, this 
interpretation is open to unanswerable objections ; for Christ is 
supposed to send letters to superhuman beings through the 
agency of John, and the letters in question are wholly concerned, 
not with these supposed angels, but directly with the Churches 
themselves and their spiritual condition. Hence the only remain 
ing interpretation is that which takes these angels to be the 
heavenly doubles or counterparts of the Seven Churches, which 
thus come to be identical with the Churches themselves. Even 
this last interpretation is not free from difficulty ; for it in reality 
amounts to explaining one symbol "the stars" by another 
symbol " the angels." Notwithstanding, we must hold fast to the 
latter interpretation in some form. Perhaps the seven stars 
represent in Semitic fashion the heavenly ideal of the Seven 
Churches : while the seven candlesticks are the actual realization 
of those ideals. Even this view is open to criticism. Notwith 
standing, it seems to express best the thought in the mind of our 


author. Christ holds in His hand (i.e. His power) these ideals : 
that is, only through Him can they be realized, at \-vyvla.i at 
e-Trra eTrra eKK^crtat dviv. Here, since the Seven Churches have 
been definitely enumerated in i. n, we should probably with 
WH regard eTrra 7rra as a primitive error for eTrra. We should 
then have "the candlesticks are the Seven Churches." But not 
only have the Churches been previously mentioned, but the 
subject and predicate are here identical. Hence the article 
should be used with the predicate as in i. 8, 17, iii. 17. See 
Robertson, Gram. 768. 


Our author uses o>s in several idiomatic constructions, which 
if considered in relation to the bulk of his work as a whole 
differentiates it from all other writings. 

1. <f><Dvr)v ... a)? o-aATTtyyos = " a voice like the voice of a 
trumpet." The Seer has never in his earthly experience heard 
such a voice. It was a heavenly voice. The nearest earthly 
equivalent he could suggest was the sound of a trumpet. But it 
was not the sound of a trumpet : it was only like it (a>?). The 
construction here is a pregnant one = ")B1b=~iai> blpD as in Isa. 
xxix. 4, Ixiii. 2 ; Jer. 1. 9. This pregnant construction recurs in 
iv. i, 7, us dv^/3c67rou = D"lSD = D"IN ^SD, and in xiii. 2, ot Tro Ses 
avrov us ap/cou : xvi. 3, al/xa ws ve/cpov. The same idea is con 
veyed by (b<m in i Enoch xvii. i, xxiv. 4, xxxii. 4, and by (bs 
in xiv. 10, n, 13, xvii. i ; but in none of these cases have we 
the pregnant construction. In xiv. 18, rpo^os o>s ^Atou, it is a 
pregnant one. 

2. <os is used in a certain sense as the subject or the object 
of the verb as = 3 in Hebrew, and yet it does not affect the case of 
the noun which follows it. It is used as the subject or, if the 
student prefer, in connection with the subject in ix. 7, errt ras 
K< avrcoV a>s <rre<j!>avoi. Here (os (rre^avot = ni"1DV3 = " the 
appearance of crowns was on their heads." In Num. ix. 15 we 
have this idiom : "There was upon the tabernacle the likeness of 
the appearance of fire " (fa etSos Trvpo s) ; also in Dan. x. 18 : " then 
there touched me again, one like the appearance of a man." Here 
D"]K ns"iD3 (rendered by the versions o>s opao-ts avOpw-n-ov) is the 
subject of the verb and = " the likeness of the appearance of a 
man." As the Vulgate has here " quasi visio hominis " we can 
determine the Hebrew behind 4 Ezra xiii. 2, " quasi similitudinem 
hominis " (Eth. and Arab. Verss.) ; but here the o>? is connected 
with the accusative, to which we shall now turn. Thus we have 
in vi. 6, T/Kovo-a ws <j>d>vrjv, and also in xix. i, 6 the heavenly 


equivalent of an earthly voice. In v. 1 1 the o>5 is omitted ; for 
there the voice is definitely said to be that of angels. In xv. 2, 
o>5 Od\ao-o-av "the likeness of a sea "; xviii. 21, Xi&ov u>s 
ov /teyuv "the likeness of a great millstone." 

3. 0)5 is used simply as a particle of comparison in xii. 15, 
xiii. 2, n, xxi. ii. 

4. In vi. i our author has rendered ^IpD, which was in his 
mind, literally and inadvertently by d>? <o>v7; (ACQ) ; but since 
inpj in this context = ^p3D, it should here have been rendered by 
w5 (fxDvfj. Possibly, however, our author wrote <o)v>7, which was 
subsequently corrupted into ^on/rj. 

5. 0)5 is used with the participle as in Hebrew. Cf. Gen. xl. 
10, "It was as though it budded" (nrnsa ton). Cf. in our 
text, 0)5 eo-^ay/xeVov, V. 6, xiii. 3. 

6. Finally, ws is followed by a finite verb where the Greek 
idiom requires the participle: cf. i. i6 c , 17 oi/as avrov o>s 6 ^Aios 
<atWi, where we should expect <<uVan>. But this is distinctively a 
Hebrew idiom ; for in Hebrew frequently relative sentences with 
the relative omitted are attached to substantives which are pre 
ceded by the particle of comparison 3 ( = ws). Cf. Isa. Ixii. i, TB^3 
"ijn 1 * (LXX, 0)5 XafjLTras Kav^rjo-erat), " as a lamp that burneth." See 
also for literal but unidiomatic renderings in the LXX of Isa. liii. 
7 ; Ps. xc. 5. But generally the finite verb is rendered idiomati 
cally by the participle in the LXX : cf. Hos. vi. 3 ; Jer. xxiii. 29, 
yisD YV& KJ tDQD (LXX, o>s TreXeKvs KOTTTWI/ irtTpav) ; Ps. Ixxxiii. 15 ; 
Job vii. 2, ix. 26, xi. 16. 


That our author uses o/xoios as synonymous in meaning with 
o>s we learn from iv. 6, 6/Wa /cpvo-raAAa), as compared with xxii. i, 
a)? KpvcrraXXov, and iv. 3, 0/110105 . . . A.i#o> tao-TTtSi, as compared 
with xxi. n, w5 At^o) tao-TTtSi. In i Enoch also o)5 and o/x,oio5 are 
equivalent in meaning : cf. xviii. 13, tSoi/ eTrra aare/aas o>5 oprj 
a, and xxi. 3, re^ea/xat eTrra ro)f a.<TTf.p(av . . . 6/xotov5 opecrtv 

0/X0105 is used also like o>5 in our text in a pregnant sense (see 
i under 0)5) : cf. ix. 10, ovpo.5 6/x,oi o,5 o-KopTrtW: also xiii. n. 

But there are two passages in our text in which our author 
attached not only the same meaning but also the same construc 
tion to o/aoto5 as to 0)5. These are i. 13, xiv. 14, where we have 
ofjiOLov viov where we should expect o/^oiov w<3. We have seen 
that he regarded o/xoto5 as = 0)5 in respect of meaning^ but these 
two passages exhibit an identification of 0/^0105 with 0)5 not only 
in respect of meaning but also of construction ; and thus as d>5 
does not affect the case that follows it, neither does o/xoto5. That 
pur author knew quite well that O/AOIOS was followed by the dativs 


is shown by his universal usage outside these two passages, which 
stand alone in all literature in making o/xotos as the absolute 
equivalent of o>s alike in construction and meaning. 


i. The Seven Letters their Authorship , their present and 
their original meaning. 

These two chapters, to which the great vision in i. forms an 
introduction, contain the Seven Letters addressed to seven actual 
Churches in Asia Minor, in which their spiritual character and 
environment are distinctly and concretely described. As they 
stand at present, the circumstances of the Seven Churches are 
to be regarded as typical of the Church as a whole. Thus in 
addressing certain specific Churches, our author is addressing all 
Christian Churches. In this representative sense the Seven 
Churches are identified with the seven candlesticks (i. 20). 
That these Letters are from the hand of our author is amply 
proved by their diction and idiom ( 2). 

But a close examination of the Letters shows that they 
contain two expectations which are mutually exclusive ( 4), 
one of which is in harmony with the Book as a whole, while the 
other clearly conflicts with it. The recognition of this fact leads) 
to the hypothesis that our author wrote these Letters at a date 
anterior to that of the Book as a whole, before the all-important 
conflict between the mutually exclusive claims of Christianity 
and Caesarism came to be recognized, and that in the " nineties," 
when he put together all his visions, he re-edited these Letters. 
In re-editing these Letters he made certain changes in the 
beginnings of them which brought them more into harmony with 
i. 13-18, and inserted certain additions which adapted the Letters 
more or less to the expectations underlying the rest of the Book 
( 5). It is not improbable that these Letters were actually sent 
in their original form to the Seven Churches ( 6). 

2. Diction and Idiom, 

These two chapters, alike on the ground of diction and idiom, 
come from the hand of our author. 

(a) Diction. Though a few expressions are found in these 
chapters and not elsewhere in our author, they do not take the 
place of equivalent expressions in our author save in the case of 
ovv (see ii. 5 below), but arise naturally from the nature of the 


II. 1. Td8e Xfyci seven times in ii.-iii. and only once else 
where in N.T., i.e. Acts xxi. n. 

6 ircpnraTWj . Cf. Hi. 4, ix. 20, xvi. 15, xxi. 24. 

2. ot&a. Cf. 9, 17, 19, iii. i, 8, 15, 17, vii. 14, xii. 12, 
xix. 12. 

T&K KoTOf. Cf. xiv. 13. TV u-irofAonii> (not in Fourth 
Gospel). Cf. i. 9, ii. 3, 19, iii. 10, xiii. 10, xiv. 12. \|/eu8eis. 
Cf. xxi. 8. Only once elsewhere in N.T. 

4. dXXd. Cf. ii. 6, 9 (to), 14, 20, iii. 4, 9, ix. 5, x. 7, 9, 
xvii. 12, xx. 6. 

5. ofo. Used of logical appeal. Cf. ii. 16, iii. 3 (to), 9. 
Also in i. 19, probably owing to its occurrence in ii.-iii. 

iroOey. Cf. vii. 13. 13 times in Gospel. Se (also in 16, 24); 
cf. x. 2, xix. 12, xxi. 8. 

Ki^aw. Cf. vi. 14. Here only in our author. 

7. 6 exwy ous dKOuadrw. Cf. II, 17, 29, iii. 6, 13, 22, xiii. 9 
(Matt. xi. 15, xiii. 9, etc.). 

TO TTkeujia Xeyi. Cf. II, 17, 29, iii. 6, 13, 22, xiv. 13, 
xxii. 17. 

TW laicuWi 8(oaa). Cf. 17, iii. 21, xxi. 7, 6 VIK&V 

TOU u Xou TTJS IWTJS, xxii. 2, 14 [19]. 

8. 6 irpaiTos ica! 6 eaxaros. Cf. i. 17, xxii. 13. 

os eyeVero reKpos Kal e^acc. Cf. i. 17 and xiii. 14, xvii. 8 
(to), where the demonic Nero is somewhat similarly described. 

9. 0Xi v|uy. Cf. i. 9, ii. 10, 22, vii. 14. 
|3Xaa<|>T]|jita> . Cf. xiii. i, 5, 6, xvii. 3. 

owaywyr) TOU laram. Here only and in iii. 9. In xi. 8 we 
have the same attitude towards Judaism, though the diction 

10. axpi, cum. gen. Cf. ii. 25, 26, xii. n, xiv. 20 [xviii. 5]. 
Not in Gospel, which uses !<os OTOV (or ov) and os. Iws only 
found in Apoc. vi. 10, ii. 

11. OU JULY) d8lKt]0T) K TOU 6(Xl>dTOU TOU SeUTCpOU. Cf. XX. 6, 67TI 
TOVTCDV 6 Se^TCpOS 6a.VO.TOS OVK ^l f.^OV(TLaV. ObsCrVC that dStKcIv 

is a favourite word with our author, but is not found in Fourth 
Gospel or Epp. 

12. 6 x fc)l/ T< pofx^aiaf T. Sto-TOjULOk T. o^eiaK. Cf. i. 1 6, xix. 
15. pofJL<f>aia is found six times in the Apoc. and only once 
outside it in the N.T. 

13. oirou without complementary eVct. Cf. xi. 8, xx. 10. 

15. OUTWS. Cf. iii. 5, 16, ix. 17, xi. 5, xvi. 18, xviii. 21. 

16. epxojicu aoi Taxu. Cf. iii. n, xxii. 7, 12, 20 ; also ii. 5. 
TroXefirjo-u U.CT auTwy. Cf. xii. 7 b , xiii. 4, xvii. 14. Also 

xii. 7, xix. ii, and Jas. iv. 2 without uera and nowhere else in 


rrj pojj.<J>cua TOU orofxaTos fJiou. Cf. i. 1 6, xix. 15. 

17. ovopa . . . Yypajj,p,eVoi> o ouSels ot8ei> el JJLTJ 6 
Cf. xix. 12, ovo/ma yeypa/xyue vov o ouSeis oTSev ei /xry avros. 

18. TOUS 6<f>9aXjm.ous a>9 <|>X6ya irupos. Cf. i. 14, xix. 12. 
ot iroSes auToG OJJLOIOI \a.\KO\L^a.v(a. Cf. i. 14. 

20. efjiou s. Here only in Apoc. but 37 times in Gospel. 

21. /j-eTayoTJaai eic. This construction is nowhere else found 
in the N.T. nor yet in the LXX (where ITCI or a-n-o follow), yet it 
recurs in our author in ii. 22, ix. 20, 21, xvi. n. 

23. eV 6owlTw = "by pestilence," as in vi. 8. 
Kara TO, epya Cf. XX. 13. 

24. rots XOITTOIS. Cf. iii. 2, ix. 20, xi. 13, xii. 17, xix. 21, 
xx. 5. Not in Gospel. 

26. 6 yucwy . . . Swo-w aura) : see note on ii. 26. 

Saiffw . . . eou(nai . On the meaning of this phrase see note 
on ii. 26 as distinguished from Swa-cu . . . rrjv eou<rt av. 

27. iroipxyet = " will destroy " (see note in loc.}. Cf. xix. 15 
(xii. 5). 

ws Kdyw. Cf. iii. 2 1 and vi. 1 1, o>s KCU atiroi, [xviii. 6] ; Gospel 
uses /ca^ws eyw frequently. 

iXT)<|)a. This perfect recurs in iii. 3, v. 7, viii. 5, xi. 17. 
Thus five times in all. In the rest of the N.T. only three times, 
Matt. xxv. 24 [John viii. 4 in the irtpiKoirri] i Cor. x. 13. 

28. rok dore pa TOI> -npuivov. Cf. XXli. 1 6. 

III. 2. ylvov ypi]yopwv. For this combination of yiyvecr&xi 
with a participle, cf. xvi. 10, eyeVero . . . eo-KorcofieVr;. Gospel 
i. 6 only. 

eu prjKa . . . ire-n-XTjpwfjieVa. For combination of tvpLo-Ktiv with 
part, or adj., cf. ii. 2, v. 4, xxi. 15. For TreTrX^p. alone, cf. vi. ii. 

TOU 0eoG JJLOU. Cf. iii. 1 2, where this phrase occurs four times, 
iii. 12 was added when our author edited the book as a whole 
in the nineties. 

2-4. For the indubitable connections between 2-4 and xvi. 
15 see notes on both these passages, xvi. 15, however, appears 
to have belonged originally to this Letter where it probably 
followed on iii. 3 b . 

4. dXXd. See note on ii. 4 above. 

ara. = " persons." [Cf. xi. 13.] ejxoXuKii/. Cf. xiv. 4. 
io-ouCTU . Cf. xxi. 24. Iv Xeuicots. Cf. vi. II, vii. 9, 13, 
xix. 14. aioi elo-ti/. Cf. [xvi. 6], where the clause recurs. 

5. Tr6pi{3aXeiT(u Iv ifAariois XCUKOIS- Cf. iv. 4, vii. 9. aXeiv|/a>. 
Cf. vii. 17, xxi. 4 (in a different connection). TTJS |3ipXou -rijs 
WT)S. Cf. xxi. 15, xiii. 8, and |3i{3Xu>y T. . in xvii. 8 [xx. 12]. 

7. 6 ayios 6 dXT]0ii>6s. Cf. vi. 10, where the same epithets are 
applied to God. Observe that dA?7$u/os = " faithful," a meaning 
confined to the Apoc. within the N.T. 


8. Oupcu dvwyjjieVT)i>. Cf. iv. I. 

jjuKpcW . . . Sucojui . Cf. xx. 3, jjiiKpov ^povov, for this order, 
and contrast vi. n. 

eTr)pT)cras . . . rok \6yov. Cf. xxii. 7, 9 a frequent phrase 
in the Gospel. 

jxou TOV Xoyoy Kai ... TO ovofid fxou. Cf. x. 9 for the same 
remarkable yet intelligible order of the pronouns. 

9. TJ^ouaik ica! irpoaKun^o-ouorii ivutriov TOW iroSwr <rou. Cf. 
XV. 4, TravTa TO, Wvt] TJovariv /cat TT poo- Kvvrjcr over LV evouTrtW aov : 
xxii. 8. 

10. eTTJpTjaas TOf Xoyoy. Cf. iii. 8, xxii. 7, 9 ; also i. 3, ii. 26, 
xii. 17, xiv. 12. 

TTJS uTrop>i>T]s /JLOU, /.. " the endurance practised by Me." Cf. 
xiii. 10, xiv. 12, TJ uirofxoi^j T. dyiwK, "the endurance practised 
by the saints." 

TT]S oiKoufxeVirjs O\T)S. Cf. xii. 9, xvi. 14, where the nature of 
the trial is described as demonic in connection with this phrase. 

rods KaroiKoui/Tas err! TTJS y^S- Cf. vi. 10, viii. 13, xi. 10 (note). 
This phrase has throughout our author a technical sense. 

11. epxofxai Taxu. Cf. ii. 16, xxii. 7, 12, 20. 

12. 6 yucoik iroirjo-u auToy. See notes on ii. 7, 26. 
e \0fl : in later chapters 13 times. 

Ypdi|/o> eV aurov TO 6i/o^a. Cf. xvii. 5, 8, xix. 1 6. 

r?js Kotlas lpouaaXi]jji, r\ KaTaj3at^ouaa KT\. Cf. xxi. 2. 

TO oVojXCl fJLOU TO KttlkOk. Cf. XIX. 12, l6. 

15. OUT . . . OUT. Cf. ix. 20, 21, xxi. 4. Our author uses 
ovoe . . . ou8e, v. 3, vii. 1 6, ix. 4; also ou . . . ouSe, vii. 16, 
xii. 8, xx. 4, xxi. 23 ; ^ . . . /xrJTe, vii. 1,3; even ovSc /xrj . . . 
ovSe, vii. i6 b , ix. 4, but never /xr/Se . . . p-qBe. 

17. ouSek xp ^ ai/ ^ x 01 *- Cf. xxii. 5. 

18. dyopdcrai (metaphorical sense). Cf. v. 9, xiv. 3, 4. 
tjjidTia XeuKct. See on iii. 5 above. 

20. elo-eXeu o-o/Acu. Cf. [xi. n], xv. 8, xxi. 27, xxii. 14. 

21. Kadiaai. Cf. xx. 4 and note on iii. 21. 
ws Kdyw. See note on ii. 27 above. 

jlCTCl TOU TTttTpOS JULOU Iv TW OpOt O) ttUTOU. Cf. XXH. 3. 

(b) Idiom. Here we have idioms and solecisms which, 
though they may appear abnormally in other writings, are in our 
author a normal means of expressing his thoughts. 

II. 2. TOUS Xe yon-as eauTous dirocrToXous Kal OUK i<nr This 
resolution of the participle into a finite verb is characteristic of 
our author. See note on i. 5 b -6, p. 14 sq. 

3. ex 61 * K " e Pdoraaas . . . Kal KeKOTriaices. For similar 
combinations of tenses cf. iii. 3, etA^a? /cat r/Kotxras: v. 7 sq., 
vii. 13 sq., viii. 5. 

5. epxojjiai = eXeu aojiai. Our author frequently uses the 


present of thie verb as a future : cf. i. 4, 7, 8, ii. 16, iii. n, iv. 8, 
ix. 12, xi. 14, xvi. 15, xxii. 7, 12, 20, but never the future itself 
except in compounds e^eXtvcrerai, XX. 8 : eureA.ev<ro/xai, iii. 20. 
7. TW i/iKwkTt . . . Swcru aurw. See notes on ii. 7, 26. 

9. -TUV \eyorrw louScuous el^ai Kal OUK U7ii>. See above on 
ii. 2 and note on i. 5 b -6. 

10. |3dXXei> e| ufxai^ = " some of you." Cf. iii. 9, St Sw/xi e/c T. 
(Tvi/aycuy-^s : V. 9, fjyopaa-as .../< Tracr^s <f>v\7)S : xi. 9, y8A.7rovcrii> 
CK TCOV Xawv : xxi. 6, S<ocra> K riys Trr/yJ}?. 

13. OTTOU 6 6poVos TOU laram. For this omission of the 
copula in relative or dependent clause, cf. v. 13, xx. 10. 

tv TCUS Tju.e pais ArrtTras, 6 fidprus JJLOU. On this frequent 
solecism in our author, see p. 3 ad fin. 

20. TT)y yumiKa I. rj X^youaa. See preceding note. 

Xeyouaa Kal 8i8daKi. The frequently recurring idiom already 
found in ii. 2, 9 above : see note on i. 5 b -6. 

22. jSdXXeii/ auTTjy els icXi^i/. A phrase unintelligible in 
Greek unless retranslated into Hebrew. See note on ii. 22. 

23. ufxti/ e/cdoTw : cf. vi. ii, avroi s eKao-Tw. Elsewhere only 
once in N.T., Acts ii. 8. 

26. 6 i/iKwy . . . Swaw aurw. See note on ii. 7. 

Swcrw auTw Ifomnar. On the technical sense assigned to this 
phrase by our author, see note in loc. It is here rightly used. 

Thus chap. ii. is connected by the same diction or idioms or 
both with portions of iv.-ix., xi.-xvii., xix.-xxii. We have already 
seen in the Introd. to chap. i. that i. and ii.-iii. and most of the 
remaining chapters are similarly bound together. 

III. 3. iroiaf (Spay. This ace. of a point of time only here in 
our author. 

7. 6 dyotywy Kal ouSels icXeiaci. A Hebrew idiom. See note 
in loc. 

8. Se SwKa ei WTrioi aou Oupai/ fyeuynlv^v, r\v ouSels Su^arat 
KXeurat auri^y. We have here two Hebrew idioms in these 
words : 


For other instances of oblique forms of the personal pronoun 
added pleonastically to relatives (in reproduction of a Hebrew 
idiom), cf. vii. 2, ots c860ij avrots : 9, oi/ apiO ^aai avrov : xii. 6, 14, 
xiii. 8, 12, xx. 8. 

9. I8ou StSu K T. o-umywyTJs. Most probably a Hebraism. 
Jffrn JVD330 |nb ^in, "Behold I will make certain of the 
synagogue," etc. Here StSw anticipates TTOU/O-O). 

TWI/ XeyoMTWj cauTous Kal OUK eicriy. The same Hebrew 
idiom as in ii. 9. 

. . iVa TJ^ouaiv . . . Kal yi/waic. Iva. cum. ind. OCCUTS 


9 times in the Apoc., here (iii. 9) and 8 times in the rest of the 
Book (see note on iii. 9, p. 88) : only once in the rest of the 
Johannine writings, and only 10 times in all in the N.T. outside 
the Apocalypse. Again, Iva /xrj cum. ind. occurs twice in the 
Apoc. and only twice elsewhere in the N.T. Thus Iva. cum. 
ind. is characteristic of our author. Next, Iva cum. subj. occurs 
6 times in ii.-iii. and 17 times in the rest of the Book, and 
Iva ^ cum. subj. once in ii.-iii. and 7 times in the rest of the 

Ivo. TJou<jiv . . . Kal yvGxriv. Cf. xxii. 14 for the same com 
bination of moods. 

12. 6 VLK&V iroiTJoro) auToy. See notes on ii. 7, 26. 

TTJS Kairrjs lepou<ra\i]fJi,, r\ KaTajSaiyouaa. See Introd. to I. 
2 (), p. 3 ad fin. 

16. /xeXXu . . . ep-eo-cu. Cf. iii. 2, xii. 4. Elsewhere in our 
author 10 times with the pres. inf., which is the all but universal 
usage in the N.T. Only 4 times outside our author is it 
followed by the aor. inf. (in Lucan and Pauline writings) and 
twice by fut. inf. in Lucan writing (i.e. Acts). 

17. ouSek xP 6 "* 1 *X W Cf. xxii. 5, e^ovo-tv ^peiav . . . </>a>s 


20. edV TIS aKOucrr] . . . Kal eiaeXeuaojJiai. This Hebraic /cat 
introducing the apodosis recurs in x. 7, xiv. 10. It is found 
also in Luke ii. 21, vii. 12 ; Acts i. 10; 2 Cor. ii. 2 ; Jas. iv. 15. 

21. 6 viK.&\> 8<uaci> aurw. On this Hebraism see note on ii. 7. 
From the above evidence of diction and still more of idiom 

it is clear that ii.-iii. are from the hand of our author. Certain 
words and expressions occur in them which do not recur in the 
remaining chapters, but this is due to the nature of the subject 
(cf. raSe Xe yci) or to the fact that the Letters in some form were 
written by our author long before 95 A.D. the date of the 
completed work: cf. ovv (also in i. 19), 7rA?jv, 6/xos. A com 
parison of the points of agreement in diction and in idiom shows 
that ii.-iii. are connected very closely, and in most cases essen 
tially, with iv.-x., parts of xi., xii.-xvii., xix.-xxii. 

3. Order of Words and omission of Copula in 
relative sentences. 

Though the diction and idioms of ii.-iii. are conclusive as to 
the authorship of the Seven Letters, it is remarkable that the 
order is less Semitic than in the rest of the chapters from the 
same hand. Thus excluding ii. 7, ii, 17, 26, iii. 5, 12, 21, where 
the same phrase TO) VLKUVTL or 6 VIKWI/ recurs and regularly 
precedes the verb for emphasis, and is therefore perfectly justifi 
able in Hebrew on this ground, there are more than the average 


number of passages in ii.-iii. where the object precedes the verb : 
ii. i, raSc Xeyec (and at the beginning of each Letter) : 3, VTTO/AOVT/V 
eXeis: 4, rrjv aydirrjv . . . a<f>r)K<s: 5, TO. irpwra Zpya irofycrov: 6, 
TOVTO e^eis: 23, TO. TCKVO. avTfjs a,7roKTi/u) : 25, o cx T K / 3aT ^ craT: 
iii. 10, o-e Trjprja-w. The subject also precedes the verb more 
frequently than is usual in the remaining chapters, and yet the 
style is profoundly Hebraic and essentially one with the rest of 
the Book. These phenomena may be due to the fact that our 
author is here using a vigorous epistolary style, which, while 
comparable to or even transcending that of the finest passages of 
the rest of the N.T., stands in its freer play of thought, feeling 
and their expression in marked contrast to the unrivalled 
eloquence and sustained sublimity of the rest of the Book. 

Turning from the order of the verb to that of the adjective, 
the adjective almost always follows its substantive with the 
repetition of the article. There are, however, some exceptions, 
which have their parallels in the rest of the Book. Thus we 
find oAXo prepositive in ii. 24 as always in our author and 
generally in the N.T. though it is post positive in Hebrew. In 
iii. 4, oA-tya ovofjLara : cf. xii. 12, oXiyov Kaipov : in iii. 8, /u/cpav 
. . . Swa/xiv : cf. xx. 3, fUKpov xp vov > an d contrast xpovov /u/c/oov, 
vi. ii. 

In ii. 13 we have the omission of the copula in a relative 
sentence: cf. v. 13, xv. 4, xx. 10; but this omission is frequent 
in the N.T. 

4. The Letters were written by our Author at an earlier date and 
re-edited by him for the present work with certain additions. 

Since an examination of the diction and idiom leads to the 
conclusion that the Letters are from the hand of our author, it 
is not necessary to consider the theories of some critics who 
ascribe them to a final reviser, or of others who assign them to 
an original apocalypse which was subsequently edited and 
enlarged by later writers. 

But the question does arise : were these Letters written in the ] 
time of Domitian by our author when he edited the entire work, 
or were they written at an earlier date ? And this question must 
be answered, since conflicting expectations of the end of the 
world find expression in them. First, there is the older expecta 
tion that the Churches will survive till Christ s last Advent : cf. 
ii. 25, o X CT KpaTrja-arc axpi ov av ^a>, and iii. 3, ^o> ws KXeVr^s. 
The Second Advent is here referred to as in i Thess. v. 2, 4, 
where St. Paul himself expects to survive this event. In the mean 
time, however, the individual Churches will undergo persecution 
from time to time, and their members in certain cases be faithful 


unto death l as they have been in the past ; 2 but of a universal 
martyrdom there is not the slightest hint, though this expectation 
is taught or implied in the rest of the Book (see xiii. 15); nor 
is there a single reference to a world-wide persecution save in 
hi. 10, though this is one of the chief themes of the Apocalypse. 

Again, though this world-wide persecution was to arise in 
connection with the imperial cult of the Caesars as the rest of 
the Book clearly states, there is not a single reference to this 
cult in the Letters : at most there may be an allusion to it in 
iii. 10. Moreover, so far as this persecution was conceived as 
involving the martyrdom of all the faithful, as in iv.-xxii., this 
conception is in direct conflict with ii. 25, iii. n, where the 
Churches are represented as witnessing more or less faithfully till 
the Advent. In short, the expectation that the Church would 
survive till the Second Advent cannot be held simultaneously 
with the expectation of a world-wide persecution in which all the 
faithful would suffer martyrdom. These two expectations are 
mutually exclusive ; and since the first is obviously the original 
teaching of our text, it follows that iii. 10 is a subsequent addition. 

Accordingly the present writer is of opinion that the dis 
cordant elements in the text can best be explained by the 
hypothesis that our author wrote these Letters at a much earlier 
date than the Book as a whole, before the fundamental antagon- 
jism of the Church and the State came to be realized, and 
Christians had to choose between the claims of Christ and 
Caesarism, of Christianity and the State. When he put together 
his visions in the reign of Domitian, he re-edited these Letters by 
the insertion of iii. 10 and the addition of new material at the 
close of each Letter, which in some degree brought them into 
harmony with the rest of the Book. 

5. Amongst the additions to the original Letters are the endings 
and in part the beginnings of the Letters in their present form. 

We have already recognized that iii. 10 is a later addition 
made by our author. But we cannot stop here. The endings 

1 Special visitations are threatened (fyxofJ-a-i o"ot, ii. 5, 16) unless the 
Churches of Ephesus and Pergamum forthwith repent, while to the Church 
of Smyrna "a tribulation of ten days," issuing in the martyrdom of 
certain of its members, is foretold, ii. II ; in iii. 19 chastisement but not 
martyrdom is foretold. 

2 The Churches have already suffered persecution in a limited degree. 
Thus the Church of Ephesus is praised for its faithfulness therein : cf. ii. 3, 
Kal vTrofj,ovi]v %eis /ecu ^Sdarao as 5ta r6 8vofj.a fJLOv /ecu ou KeKOTrlaxes. Like 
wise Thyatira: cf. ii. 19, and that of Philadelphia, iii. 8; while that of 
Pergamum has already its proto-martyr Antipas, ii. 13. In Smyrna and 
Philadelphia the Christians had suffered at the hands of the Jews, ii. 9, iii. 9. 


of the Letters are indeed from our author s hand, 1 but they ( 
would in many respects be incomprehensible but for the later 
chapters, to which in thought and diction they are most inti- 
mately related, and apart from which they would be all but 
inscrutable enigmas : cf. ii. 7-xxii. 2, 14 (TO v\ov -nys w>ys) 
ii. ii xxi. 8 (where 6 Odvaros 6 Seinrepos is first explained) ; ii. 17 
xix. 12 (ovofjiCL KOLIVOV . . . o ovSeis oISci/ KrA.) ; ii. 2629, x ^- 5> 
xix. 15 (TTOt/xavet avrovs tv pd/SBio KrA..) ; xxii. 16 (6 da-rrjp ... 6 
7rp<oii/os) ; iii. 5~ v i- * I (^06*77 aurots e/cacrra) <rroX.r) A.ei>K?7) ; xiii. 8, 
xxi. 27 (TU> /3i/3A.ia> r>7s (077?) ; iii. i2-xxi. 22, which shows that 
the term i/aos in iii. 12 is to be taken metaphorically); xxi. 2 (ryv 
7ToA.iv . . . lepovcraXrjfj. KCHI/T/V . . . Karafiatvovarav KT/\..) xix. 12 
(oi/o/xa o ouSeis olSev : cf. ovofia . . . KCUI/OJ/ in iii. 12) ; iii. 21 xx. 4. 

But another characteristic of these Letters is that they all | 
use the phrase 6 vt/cwi/. That this expression designates one who 
has passed victoriously through the martyr s death to the life 
eternal, is clear from xii. ii, avrot bmctftrav . . . KOL OVK rj-ydTryorav 
ryv ^^X^ v a ^ T ^ J/ <*XP l QO.VOLTOV : XV. 2, *6W . . . TOV<S vi/coWas e/c 
TOV Orjpiov . . . eo~TtoTas CTTI rrjv $aAao~o~av Trjv vaXivrjv : xxi. 7. 
Now that 6 vt/coii/ bears the same meaning at the close of the 
Letters is to be inferred from iii. 21, 6 VIK&V 6\oo-o> avrw KaOurat 


Trarpos /xov iv TW 6p6vu> O.VTOV. As Christ witnessed to the truth 
by His death, so should His servants. Now, if 6 I/IKWV is used in 
this sense at the close of all the Letters, as it appears to do, we 
have here an allusion to the world-embracing persecution (and 
martyrdom), which is definitely referred to in iii. 10, though such 
an expectation is quite foreign to the body of the Letters, which 
belong to an earlier date. 

Another later addition of our author common to all the 
Letters is, 6 e^wv ov? d/covo-arto rt TO 7rvev/za Aeyei Tats eK/cA^o-iais : 
ii. 7% n a , 17% 29, iii. 6, 13, 22. By this addition our author 
would teach that the Letters are not merely for their respective 
Churches, but for all the Churches. Thus they are adapted so 
far as the endings are concerned to their new context. 

The later additions at the close of the Letters are accord- J 
ingly : ii. 7, n, 17, 26-29, "i- 5~ 6 , 10, 12-13, 21-22. 

But the divine titles of Christ at the beginnings of the Letters 
can hardly have stood in the original Letters as they now 

1 The choice of these endings on the part of our author may in some cases 
be determined by the diction or thought of the respective letters of which they 
form the close. Thus in the Letter to Smyrna, ov fj.rj ddiK-tjOrj tic TOV 6a.v6.rov 
r. Seurtpov, ii. II, declares the reward of him who is TTIO-TOS a%pt, ii. 10 ; 
in the Letter to Pergamum, dtbaw ai/ry rov fj.dvva, ii. 17, sets forth the true food 
in contrast to the elduXddvra, ii. 14; and in the Letter to Sardis, ov /J.TJ ea\et t/ w 
T. 6vofj.a avrov ticj. /St/SXov TTJS fwTyj, iii. 5, may refer in the way of cpptragt to 
tin ys KCU ver.pbs eZ, iii. I, 


do. Such a conclusion is suggested by the facts that whereas 
they are all, with the exception of those prefacing the Letter to 
the Church of Laodicea, drawn verbally from i. 13-18 (see note 
p. 25 sq.), they have no organic connection, except in the case of the 
Letters to the Churches of Philadelphia and Thyatira, with the 
Letters which they respectively introduce, though in several 
instances an artificial connection can be discovered (see note 
just referred to). What the titles of Christ were in the original 
form of the Letters cannot now be. determined. Some of the 
existing titles may be original, but it is hard to evade the con 
clusion that the original titles were recast by our author, when 
he incorporated the Letters into the complete edition of his 
visions, and were brought into close conformity with the divine 
titles of Christ in i. 13-18. Since they have but slight affinity 
with the contents of the Letters at the head of which they stand, 
their most natural explanation is to be found in i. 13-18. 

6. Were the Letters originally seven distinct Letters addressed 
and sent to the Seven Churches ? 

On various grounds we have concluded that the Seven 
Letters were composed by our author before the time of 
Domitian : also that on their incorporation into the Apocalypse 
they were re-edited by him in order to adapt them to the impend 
ing crisis, by changes made in the beginnings to bring them into 
closer conformity with i. 14-18, and by additions such as iii. 10 
and others at the close of the Letters, as ii. 7, n, 17, 26-29, m - 
5-6, 10, 12-13, 21-22, in order to link them up with the theme 
of the Book as a whole the conflict between Christ and Caesar, 
Christianity and the World Power, and the universal martyrdom 
of the faithful which the Seer apprehended as a result of this 

Now, if the above conclusions are valid, it would not be un 
reasonable to conclude further that these Letters were actual letters 
sent separately to the various Churches, and are, notwithstanding 
their brevity, comparable in this respect to the Pauline Epp. 
In default of independent historical materials we are unable 
to test the accuracy of most of the details relating to the moral 
and religious life in the Seven Churches. But such materials are 
not wholly wanting. Thus we know that the Ignatian Epistles to 
Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia substantiate certain statements 
of our author bearing on the inner life of these Churches (see pp. 
48, 50, 5 2, etc.). In the case of the Church of Laodicea the external 
evidence is fuller. Thus in iii. 17-18 the contrast drawn between 
the deplorable spiritual condition of Laodicea and its material 
and intellectual riches cannot be accidental, since we know from 


external authorities that Laodicea was pre-eminent in these 
latter respects. But the Letter to the Church in Laodicea shows 
that our author is familiar with some of the Christian literature 
circulating within it such as St. Paul s Ep. to the Colossians 
(see note on p. 94 sq.), which, according to St. Paul s directions, 
was to be read in the Church of Laodicea. 

My hypothesis, therefore, that the Seven Letters, which 
originally dealt with the spiritual conditions of these Churches, 
and knew nothing whatever of the impending world conflict 
between Christianity and the Imperial Cultus, were actually sent 
to their respective Churches, has much to recommend it. 


1. TW ayyeKw TW iv E^ecrw eKK\T]oruxs. The city of Ephesus }- 
lay on the left bank of the Cayster. In many inscriptions it is 
designated, ^ irpwrr) KCU /xeyto-Tr? />ir?T/x>7roA,is rfjs Atria?. It was, 
according to Strabo, the greatest emporium in Asia (xiv. 24, 
e/x-TTOpiov ovcra /xeyicrrov TOJV Kara TTJV Atrtav ryv evros TOV Tavpov). 
Ephesus was the centre of Roman administration in Asia. As 
the Province of Asia was senatorial the governor was called pro 
consul (Acts xix. 38, dvtfuVaroi), and it was at Ephesus that he 
was bound to land and to enter on his office. As a free city it - 
had a board of magistrates (o-rpar^yot), a senate (ftov\.rj), and a 
popular Assembly (eK/cA^o-ta). 1 Under the Empire the power of 
the popular Assembly, which in earlier days had really held the 
reins of power, had declined until its chief function was to ap 
prove of the Bills submitted by the Senate. It had its regular 
tirries of meeting, but no extraordinary meeting could be sum 
moned except by the Roman officials. The business of the 
Assembly was apparently managed by the Town Clerk (ypa/x/xa- 
TCVS rfjs TroXews or T. Srj/xov). The Senate, which in pre-Roman 
days had been elected annually by the citizens, came gradually, 
under the Roman sway, to be composed of a body of distinguished 
citizens chosen for life, which tended more and more to become a 
mere tool of the Imperial Government. Ephesus was the Western 
terminus of the great system of Roman roads the great trade 
route from the Euphrates by way of Colossae and Laodicea, a 
second from Galatia via Sardis, while a third came up from the 
south from the Maeander valley. From its devotion to Artemis, 

1 Swete (p. lix) states that there were three assemblies : a council (f3ov\-/i) 
elected from the six tribes into which the population was divided ; a senate 
(yepovcria) charged with the finance of the city and probably of public wor 
ship as well as with the care of the public monuments ; a popular assembly 
(&c/cXi7<rta). Each had 


Ephesus appropriated to itself the title Temple Warden 
pos, Acts xix. 35). But this word took on an additional meaning, 
and came most commonly to be applied to a city as a warden of 
a temple of the imperial cultus. The Ephesian Neocorate is 
first mentioned on coins of Nero. The first temple was probably 
erected to Claudius or Nero, 1 the second to Hadrian, and the 
third to Severus. A 2nd century inscription (Wood, App. 
Inscr. vi. 6, p. 50) speaks of Ephesus as being warden of two 
imperial temples as well as of that of Artemis (Sis veo)/<opos TWV 
2e/?acrrwi/ KOL veu>Kopos TT/S Apre/xiSos). Ephesus was also a hot- 
I bed of every kind of cult and superstition. Its works on magic 
J (*E<eo-ia ypa/z/Aara) were notorious throughout the world. Now 
>it was at this city that Paul founded a Christian Church (50-55), 
whence proceeded a movement that led to the evangelization of 
the province (Acts xix. 10). Though of very secondary import 
ance for a couple of decades, it must after the fall of Jerusalem 
in 70 A.D. have quickly risen into a position of supreme import 
ance and become the chief centre of the Christian Faith in the 
f East. Hence it is rightly named first in i. n, ii. i. It was the 
home of St. John in the latter part of the century; and tradition 
states that not only were Timothy and John, but also the Virgin 
, Mary, buried at Ephesus. Judaizing and Gnostic teachers early 
showed themselves active, as we may infer from i Tim. i. 7 (0Aov- 
T emu yo/Ao8iSao-KaAoi), iv. 1-3, etc., and Ignatius, Ad Ephes. 
vii. I, t(o$a,(nv yap rives SoAa> Trovrypw TO ovojjLa Trepi^epciv, aAAa 
Tiva 7rpa<r<roi/Tes dvaia 0ov" ovs Sci v/xas ws Oypia e/c/cAiWii/* eicrlv 
yap /ewes Avo-o"uWes, Xa.@po$rJKTai, ovs Sci v/xas <vAacrcreo-#ai oWas 
Sva-OeparrevTovs. The presence of such elements testified to the 
danger of schism. See the articles on Ephesus in Hastings* 
D.B., and the Encyc. Bib, with the literature there quoted. 

rd8e Xeyei. This clause occurs eight times in the N.T., seven 
of these being in ii. and iii. of our Book. o8e occurs only twice 
elsewhere in the N.T. This sparing use has been observed 
also in the KOIVTJ. 

6 Kparcjy TOUS euro, dorepas Iv rfj Seia aurou. This clause 
has no organic connection with the letter to the Church in 
Ephesus, and, moreover, it is repeated in iii. i in a slightly 
different form. The use of Kparwv, which here means to hold 
fast, while in i. 16, iii. i we have lyuv^ is strange. In the case 
of the Son of Man l\w expresses all that is needed. His 
character is a guarantee that the lyv> v contains the /cparwi/. If 
it were a man that was in question here, the use of *paTe<V (cf. 

1 The temple dedicated to Augustus some time before 5 B.C. did not en 
title the city to the Neocorate ; for it was not an independent foundation, 
being built within the precincts of the temple of Artemis ; and it was a dedica 
tion by the municipality merely, anc} not by the Synod qf Asia (wvbv 


ii. 13, vii. i, "to lay hold of," xx. 2, and ii. 14, 15, 25, iii. n 
where both words occur) would be intelligible. 

6 TrepnraTWK iv jj-ecrw T. curd Xuxyiwy T. \pucrG>v. Christ s 
vigilance is not localized but coextensive with the entire Church. 
The idea of the Xv^^twv returns in ii. 5, which may have occa 
sioned the choice of the above title. That the former of these 
two divine titles was added by our author when editing his visions 
as a whole, see p. 25 sq., 45 sq. 

2-3. These two verses appear to consist of three couplets. 

2. ot8a rd epya aou, Kal Toy KOTTOV Kal TT)I> UTrojionik o~ou 

Kal on ou 8urj] j3ao-Tao-ai KCIKOU S, 

Kal errcipao-as TOUS Xeyorrag eaurous diroo-ToXous Kal OUK eurtv, 
Kal eupes aurous ij/euSeis. 

3. Kal uirojJiOKT] c tX L< S Kal ejSdoracras Sid TO oyojjiu jxou 

Kal ou KCitoirtaiccs* 

Here the theme is TO, epya trov. These consist of TOV KOTTOV 
KOL rrjv vTro/jiovrji/ crov. These two subordinate themes are then 
rehandled, the KOTTOV in 2 bcd and the VTTO/XOJ^I/ in 3 ab . There 
are two paronomasias which cannot be accidental : rov K.OTTOV and 
ov KfKO7TLa.K<s, B.nd ov Svvr) fia.<TTa.<Tai and J3dcTTa(ra<s. 

2. The phrase oloa TO. epya o-ov recurs, but with the pronoun 
preceding the noun, in ii. 19, iii. i, 8, 15. Abbott (Johannine 
Gram., pp. 414, 422, 601-607) calls the latter the vernacular or 
unemphatic possessive. In ii. 19 we have a combination of 
both. See note. o?Sa. Christ knows everything (John xxi. 17) 
alike the good (2-3, 6) and the bad (4-5) qualities. 

TQV Koiroi Kal -rt\v UTTOJULOI/T]!/ aou. The single pronoun links 
together the two preceding nouns. These two are the works of 
the Church in Ephesus its severe efforts in resisting and over 
coming false teachers (2 bcd ), and its steadfast endurance on behalf 
of the name of Christ (3 ab ). We might compare i Thess. i. 3, 

vfj.a)V rov epyov rs Tmrreco? KOI TOV KOTTOV TT<S 
KOI rrjs v-rrofjiovfjs rr)<s C\TTLOO<S, but here KOTTOS and virofjiovrj are co 
ordinated with and not subordinated to epyov. /coVos with its 
cognate KOTTLOLV is closely associated with Christian work in the 
N.T. alike in our text (cf. also xiv. 13) and in the Pauline 
Epistles. VTTO/XOI/TJ, as Trench (Synon. 191) points out, is used to 
express patience in respect of things, but /xa*po0v/>ua in respect of 
persons. But the patience is of a high ethical character. " In 
this noble word vTro/xovr/ there always appears (in the N.T.) a 
background of di/Speta (cf. Plato, Theaet. 177^, where dvSpiKws 
vTro/xetvat is opposed to dvdVSpcos favytiv) : it does not mark merely 
the endurance . . . but . . . the brave patience with which the 
Christian contends against the various hindrances, persecutions, 
and temptations that befall him in his conflict with the inward 
VOL. i. 4 


and outward world " (Ellicott on i Thess. i. 3, quoted by Trench, 
op. cit., p. 190). 

ou Su nr] {Saordcrai. ovvrj for Swcurai occurs also in Mark ix. 22, 
23 ; Luke xvi. 2. Though not found in Attic prose it is found 
in Attic poetry. The intolerance here commended is of evil 
doers who claimed to be apostles. Clem. Alex. (Strom, ii. 18) 
well defines UTTO/AOV?; as the knowledge of what things are to be 
borne and what are not (eTrioTT^iuy eyuyxevcTewy KCU OVK e/x./xei ereoov). 
The need of testing the claims of itinerant teachers who claimed 
to be prophets and apostles was early felt : cf. i Thess. v. 20 sq.; 
i John iv. i. They were not to be acknowledged unless they 
brought with them "commendatory letters" (2 Cor. iii. i). 

That the Church in Ephesus shunned such false teachers we 
learn from Ignatius, Eph. ix. I, eyi/o>v Se TrctpoSeuo-avras rivas 
eKei$ev, e^ovras KO,K?)V OLOafflv ovs OVK etacrare o-Tmpat els v/xas, 
(3vcrarTs ra OJTO. eis TO /JLTJ 7rapaSeacr$ai TO, cnretpofjieva VTT avTwv. 
In the Didache xi. 8, 10, the ultimate test of such teachers was 
conformity of their lives with that of Christ. In Hermas, Mand. 
xi. 11-15, the two types of teachers are contrasted, and in xi. 16 
the excellent advice is given : So/a/xa^c ovv airo rfjs a>r}5 KOU TWV 
epywv TOV avOptatrov rov Xeyovra eavroi/ Trveu/xaTO^opov eli/at. 

Kal eireipao-as. The verb points to some definite occasion. 
7reipaeu/ may be compared with 8oKt/>ta^tv in i John iv. i. 

TOUS Xyorras eaurous diroaroXous Kal OUK eivlv. The OVK io"tV 
is here a Hebraism for OUK oWas. (See note on i. 5 b -6, p. 14 sq.) 

cnrooroXous. These persons have been identified : (i) with the 
Judaizers sent from Jerusalem (so Spitta) : cf. 2 Cor. xi. 13 sq. ; 
(2) with the disciples of St. Paul or even St. Paul himself 
(Volkmar, Volter, Holtzmann 3 (with reservations)) ; (3) with the 
Nicolaitans in 6 (Bousset). According to this view, 6 resumes 
2. This explanation appears to be the best of the three. It 
also rightly differentiates the cpya in 2 (i.e. the vigorous action 
against the false teacher and the endurance under affliction) from 
the 7rpa>Ta Ipya in 5, which are identical with the dyaTr^i/ . . . 
TT/J/ Trpamyv, or brotherly love, in 4. The Church in Ephesus 
still hates, 6, the evil members, the false apostles which it had 
tried and rejected. 

3. This verse returns to the positive element in the praise 
given in 2 : it explains rrjv viroiwvrjv o-ov, and refers to TOV KOTTOV 
in oil KeKOTriaKes, "thou hast not grown weary." Here we have 

KCU e /3ao-Tao-as just as in the preceding verse, ovvy . . . Kal 
In both cases an ethical characteristic is brought 
forward which had manifested itself in some act of the immediate 

4. But, though the Church in Ephesus has preserved its 
moral and doctrinal purity and maintained an unwavering loyalty 


in trial, it has lost the warm love which it had at the beginning. 
The love here referred to is brotherly love : cf. 19; Matt. xxiv. 
1 2 (Sia TO 7r\r)6vv6f)vaL rrjv dvo/Aiav \j/vyrjcrTa.i f) a.ya.irr) ran/ TroXXcoi/), 
and 2 John 5-6. Some scholars see in our text a reminiscence 
of Jer. ii. 2, "the love of thine espousals," and interpret it of 
the love to God and Christ. The controversies which had raged 
in Ephesus had apparently led to censoriousness, factiousness, 
and divisions (cf. Acts xx. 29-30), and the Church had lost the 
enthusiastic love it had shown in the days of Paul (cf. Acts xx. 


ex<o Kara aou. Cf. 14, 2o. Is this an echo of Matt. v. 23, 
Mark xi. 25 ? 

adieus. A common usage of this verb in John : cf. iv. 3, 
28, 52, x. 12, etc. 

5. The Church in Ephesus is bidden to recognize the spiritual 
declension that has taken place, to repent and do the works 
which characterized its first love. As Swete remarks, " /Avrj/AoVeve, 
/AeTai/oTjo-oi/, TTOIT/CTOI/ answer to three stages in the history of 

jArrjfioVeue ouV. Cf. iii. 3. 

el 8e jj,rj, IpxojJicu croi, Kal Kt^orw TT)I> Xuxyiay o-ou CK TOU TOTTOU 
auTtjs [&v HT) /ATakOTJaT]s]. Since the ct Se /AT) here declares that 
if the Church does not fulfil the triple command given in /Av^/xoVeue 
. . . KOL p.trav6r)(Tov . . . KOL . . . THHT/O-OV, judgment will ensue, 
it is manifest that the clause cav /AT? /AeTavorja-Tys is really a weaker 
repetition of ei Se /A??. This is not in keeping with our author s style. 
After et 8e /xrj we must understand /xvr//x,ovei;ets . . . KOL /xeravoTJo-ets 
Kai Trotr/cret?. Accordingly et 8e /JL-TJ or lav /AT) /Aravor;cr7;s must be 
excised as an intrusion; and clearly it is the latter, as a comparison 
of ii. 5 and ii. 16 shows. The necessity for this excision becomes 
obvious if we compare 16 and 22 in this chapter, where we have 
separately the two constructions occurring in this verse. In the 
first case we have a good parallel to our text here ; for the same 
sequence of ideas, though less full, recurs /xcravo^o-ov ovv et Se /AT;, 
Zpxofjiai o-ot TO-XV , /cat TroXc/Arjcrw. Here there is no otiose repeti 
tion of the idea conveyed in ei Se ^. After d Se /AT? here we 
have only to supply /AeravoTJcreis. In ii. 22 we have the second 
possible Construction, tBov fidXXu avryv eis KXwrjv . . . cav /AT) 

When the interpolated gloss is removed we find that 5 con 
sists of two couplets, the second of which is 

i 8e jrq, e pxojjicu aoi, 

Kal K.ivr\<r<t) Ti]v \v\vla,v aou CK TOU TOTTOU auTrjs. 

Ipxofxat aoi. Cf. ii. 16. The dative here may be the dativus 
incommodi, or an incorrect rendering of ", as in Matt. xxi. 5 (so 
Blass, Gram. 113). epx /-"" aOL refers here as in ii. 16 to a special 


visitation or coming, though reference to the final judgment is 
not excluded. ^px^a-Oai is practically used as equivalent to 
eA.euVeo-0a throughout the Apocalypse. 

Kin^o-w ri]v \\j^vLa.v aou, i.e. thy Church. That the Ephesian 
Church paid heed to this warning for the time being we learn 
from the Prologue to Ignatius Epistle to Ephesus, where he calls 
it dio/xa/<ap{,<rTos : and in i. i, where he declares, /u/x^rat ovre? $eoi>, 
dya^toTruprycravTes ev at^tart Oeov, TO crvyytviKOv Zpyov . . . aTnypricraTe. 
Again in xi. 2 he expresses the wish that he "may be found 
in the company of those Christians of Ephesus who, moreover, 
were ever of one mind with the apostles in the power of Christ." 
That the threat in our text implies not degradation nor removal 
of the Church to another place, but destruction, seems obvious. 
Yet Ramsay (Letters, 243 sqq.) is of opinion that the threat is so 
expressed as to mean only a change in local position, and 
supports this interpretation by the statement that " Ephesus has 
always remained the titular head of the Asian Church, and the 
Bishop of Ephesus still bears that dignity, though he no longer 
resides at Ephesus but at Magnesia ad Sipylum." Nothing now 
remains on the site of Ephesus (i.e. Ayasaluk = aytos 0eoAoyos) 
save a railway station and a few huts. 

6. The Seer modifies the severe criticism in 4-5 by bringing 
forward the redeeming characteristic in the Ephesian Church, 
that they hated the deeds which Christ also hated. 

TO. epya T&V NiKoXa iTam These Nicolaitans have been identi 
fied from the time of Irenaeus (i. 26. 3, iii. n. i) and Hippolytus 
(Philos. vii. 36), who was dependent on Irenaeus, with the 
followers of Nicolaus the proselyte of Antioch (Acts vi. 5). 
Tertullian speaks apparently of a second sect (Praesc. Haer. 33, 
Adv. Marc. i. 29, De Pudicitia, 19), but Epiphanius (Haer. xxv.) 
deals with the Nicolaitans mentioned in our text. In Clem. 
Alex. (ii. 20. 1 1 8, iii. 4. 25), the Constit. Apost. (vi. 8, ot vvv 
i/ftvSwi/v/Aoi Ni/coAaiTcu), and Victorinus an attempt was not un 
naturally made to show that the derivation of this immoral sect 
from one of the seven Deacons was an error. According to 
Clement, Nicolaus taught on Trapaxpfja-OaL ry crap/ci Set, and 
according to Hippolytus (Philos. viii. 36), Nt/coAaos . . . eSi S- 
acr/cev dSiac/>opiav ftiov re /cat /3pwo-w<. A comparison of the text 
here with ii. 15-16 leads to an identification of the Nicolaitans 
and the Balaamites not only on the ground of our text, but also 
from the fact that they are roughly etymological equivalents, 
though Heumann (Act. Erudit.^ 1712, p. 179) urged this as a 
ground for regarding the names as allegorical and not historical. 
That is, Balaam = DJJ y^2-"he hath consumed the people "(a 
derivation found in Sanh. 105% where DJJ n^3 is an alternative 
reading), while NiKoAaos = VLKO. \a6v. Such a play on the etymo- 


logy of words is thoroughly Semitic. There is, it is true, no 
exact equivalent to VLKOV in Hebrew. Hence the above can 
stand. Furthermore a comparison of ii. 14 and ii. 20, which 
shows that the Balaamites and the followers of Jezebel were 
guilty of exactly the same vices, makes it highly probable that 
the latter were a branch of the Nicolaitans. 

The works of the Nicolaitans, then, are those given in 
ii. 14, 20. They transgress the chief commands issued by the 
Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 29). 

7. 6 lyuv ous dKouo-ciTw KT\. Cf. Matt. xi. 15, xiii. 9, 43; 
Mark iv. 9, 23, etc. This formula introduces the promise to 
him that overcomes in the first three messages and closes it on 
the last four. Here the speaker turns from the individual 
Church to the whole Christian community. Since the Book as 
a whole was written to be read in public worship, such a larger 
reference was conceivable in and for itself. 

This clause, which occurs seven times, once in each Letter, 
seems to have been added by the Seer when he incorporated 
the Seven Letters in an edition of his visions. The seven 
eschatological promises, ii. 7 b , n b , i7 b , 26-27, m - 5> I2 > 2I > 
appear to have been added at the same time. Such a phrase as 
Tratrai at eK/cA^ca ai in ii. 23 is no evidence to the contrary. 

TO iri/eujuia. Cf. the closing words of all the Letters ; also 
xiv. 13, xix. 10, xxii. 17. The Spirit here is the Holy Spirit 
which inspires the prophets, but also the Spirit of Christ, since 
in ii. i Christ is the Speaker. The Spirit here has nothing to 
do with the seven spirits in Hi. i [i. 4], iv. 5. 

TW VLK.&VTI . . . TOU 6eoG. Added probably by our author 
when he edited the visions as a whole (see p. 45). 

TW KiKwj Ti OWCTCJ auTw. We have here a well-known Hebraism. 
Cf. LXX of Josh. ix. 12, ovrot ot aprot . . . e^toSiacr^/zei/ O.VTOV<S. It 
is found sporadically in the Kou/rJ, but the Kotvr; usage is wholly 
inadequate to explain the frequency and variety of the Hebraisms 
in our author. For the occurrence of this idiom elsewhere in 
the N.T., see John vi. 39, vii. 38, x. 35 sq., xv. 2-5, xvii. 2 ; 
i John ii. 24, 27 : cf. Abbott, Gram. 32 sq., 309. In ii. 26, 
6 VIKUV . . . Sue-to avTQ> is more Hebraistic than the expression 
in ii. 7. VIKO.V is a word characteristic of our author, and is used 
of the faithful Christian warrior in ii. ii, 17, 26, iii. 5, 12, 2i a , 
xii. IT, xv. 2, xxi. 8 ; of Christ Himself in iii. 2i b , v. 5, xvii. 14. 
In the remaining passages it is without this moral significance, 
vi. 2, xi. 7, xiii. 7. It is found once in the Fourth Gospel and 
six times in i John. Elsewhere in the N.T. only four times. 
Cf. i Enoch 1. 2. The word VIKO.V implies that the Christian 
life is a warfare from which there is no discharge, but it is a 
warfare, our author teaches, in which even the feeblest saint can 


prove victorious. But the word VIKO.V is not used in our author 
of every Christian, but only of the martyr who, though 
apparently overcome in that he had to lay down his life, yet was 
in very truth the one who overcame, "as I also have overcome," 
saith Christ, iii. 21 (cf. John xvi. 33). The participle TO> VLKWTI 
is here, as elsewhere in our author, influenced by the use of the 
Hebrew participle, which can have a perfect sense or imperfect 
as the context requires (see p. 202 n.). In our author 6 VIKWV 
6 veviK^Koos. This warfare which faithfulness entails may be 
illustrated from 4 Ezra vii. 127 sq., "And he answered me and 
said : This is the condition of the contest which every man who 
is born upon earth must wage, that if he be overcome he shall 
suffer as thou hast said ; but, if he be victorious, he shall receive 
what I have said." 

eic TOU uou TTJS 
is a frequent construction in our author, occurring in all eleven 
times. In the Fourth Gospel it is found four times, and in the 
rest of the N.T. twenty times. Personal victory over evil is the 
condition without which none can eat of the tree of life. With 
our text we may compare xxii. 14. Test. Levi xviii. u, KCU 
Scoo-et rots ctyi ois <ayetv CK TOV v\ov rfjs a>r?s : I Enoch xxiv. 4, 
KCU rjv eV auTOis oYi/Spov o ovSeVore oocr<pavp,GU KGU ovSeis ercpos 
avTwv ev^pdvOrj, KOLL ovBev Irepov o/xotov aura). ooyxT/v e*X V ^ w ^ e 
crrepav Trai/rcav ctpw/taTOJV, KCU TO. <vAAa avrov KCU TO av#os KCU TO 

8eV8pOV OV <{>@IVL 15 TOV GUtOVGt I XXV. 4, Kttt TOVTO TO SeVSpOJ/ 

Kat ov8e/ua crap e^ovcrLav e^et onf/acrOai avrov 

Kptcreo)? . . . TOTC StKatot? Kat oo-i ois So^ryo-erat : 5, 6 KapTros avrov 

TOt5 CKXeKTOtS CIS ^W^V tS ySopCXV, Kttt /JLeTO.<f>VTv6li](TTaL Iv TOTTO) 

clyta) Trapa rov OIKOV TOV Oeov. Thus as early as the 2nd 
cent. B.C. it was held that the tree of life would be transferred 
to the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem not apparently the 
Heavenly Jerusalem, but the earthly Jerusalem cleansed from all 
iniquity. That the earthly Jerusalem should give place to the 
Heavenly in this connection was inevitable. But the combina 
tion of the two ideas is of supreme importance as it prepares the 
way for the conception of our Seer, who places the tree of life 
in the street of the Heavenly Jerusalem (xxii. 2). That this 
Heavenly Jerusalem, to which belongs the tree of life (ii. 7, 
xxii. 2), is to be the seat of the Millennial Kingdom on the 
present earth before the Final Judgment, and is not to be con 
founded with the New Jerusalem, which is to descend from the 
new heaven to the new earth after the Final Judgment and 
become the everlasting abode of the blessed, I have shown at 
some length in the Introd. to xx. 4-xxii. 

TOU u\ou TTJS ^coris- Cf. xxii. 2, 14. The tree of life is the 
symbol for immortality in our author. None can eat of it save 


those who have proved victorious in the strife with sin and evil. 
The v\ov TT/S COOT}? is to be carefully distinguished from the $>u>p 
T??9 wT7s. The latter is a free gift (xxii. 17, xxi. 6), given without 
money and without price to every one that thirsteth for it. It 
symbolizes the divine graces of forgiveness and truth and light, 
etc. (cf. vii. 17). If a man is faithful to the obligations entailed 
by these graces he becomes a victor (vt/ccm/) in the battle of life, 
and thus wins the right to eat of the tree of life, that is, he enters 
finally on immortality. In the Fourth Gospel (iv. 10, 13, 14), 
on the other hand, only the one symbol is used "the water of 
life," and this is given a significance that embraces the two 
symbols used by our author. 

TW irapa&eiorw TOU 0eoG. In our author Paradise has become 
equivalent to the Heavenly Jerusalem, which is to descend from 
heaven before the Final Judgment to become the seat of the 
Millennial Kingdom. In Luke xxiii. 43 it is the abode of the 
blessed departed, and in 2 Cor. xii. 4 it is identified with the 
third heaven or with part of it. On some of the other meanings 
assigned to it and the localities identified with it, see my 
Eschatology*> 244, 291 sq., 316-318, 357, 473 sq. 


8. iv Ijxu pnf]. The ancient city of Smyrna was destroyed 
early in the 6th cent. B.C. and refounded on a new site under 
the Diadochoi by Lysimachus (301-281 B.C.). It has continued 
from that date to the present one of the most prosperous cities 
of Asia Minor. Smyrna proved itself a faithful ally of Rome 
from the period that Rome began to intervene in Eastern affairs 
and before it had established its claim to world supremacy. It 
openly supported Rome against Mithridates, Carthage, and the 
Seleucid kings. As early as 195 B.C. (Tac. Ann. iv. 56) it 
dedicated a temple to the goddess of Rome. Lying at the end 
of one of the great roads leading across Lydia from Phrygia and 
the east, and forming the maritime outlet for the whole trade of 
the Hermus valley, it became wealthy and prosperous. It was 
an assize town, and one of the cities bearing the name /x^rpoTroXis. 
With Ephesus and Pergamum it strove for the title wpom; Acrtas 
a strife which continued till it was settled by the Emperor 
Antoninus (Philostr. Op. 231. 24, ed. Kayser); and of all the 
Asiatic cities that in A.D. 26 contended for the right of erecting 
a temple to Tiberius, Livia and the Senate, it alone secured this 
privilege and could henceforth claim the Imperial Neocorate. 
A second Neocorate was accorded to it by Hadrian (see, how 
ever, Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. 467) and a third by Severus. Of the 


power acquired by the Jews in Smyrna notice will be taken. As 
regards the origin of the Church in Smyrna the N.T. gives no 
information. According to Vita Polycarpi, 2, St. Paul visited 
Smyrna on his way to Ephesus. According to Acts xix. 10, 
" All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of God." See 
the Bible Dictionaries on " Smyrna," and Ramsay, Letters, in loc. 

6 TTpwros Kal 6 lo-xaros. Repeated from i. 1 7. 

os eyeVero vtKpos Kal er]o-i>. These words also go back to 
i. 17 sq., Kat eyei/o/xT;!/ i/e^pos, Kat I8ov tov CLJJU ets TOVS aiwi/as TOJV 
ataman . Compare the demonic caricature in the case of the 
Antichrist : xiii. 14, 6s \i TYJV TrA^yr/i/ rr?s /xa^atpr/s Kai l^crev. 
The word er/o-ei/ refers to Christ s resurrection : cf. Rom. xiv. 9, 
Xpttrros OLTriOavev KOI Zfycrev Iva KOLL ve/cpaii/ Kat a>7 rwv Kvpuvarrj. 
This part of the title, os eyeVero veKpos Kat e^o-ev, points forward 
to IO d , ytvov TTIOTOS xpt Oavdrov KOL Swtrco <TOL rov <TT<J>avov T^S 
{o>^s. The divine title, 6 Trpwros Kat 6 ta^arcs, seems to have 
been added by our author when editing his visions as a whole. 
See p. 45 sq. 

9-10. These two verses constitute three stanzas : the first 
verse constituting the first stanza of three lines and the second 
verse two stanzas of three lines and two respectively. 

9. oT8d orou TTJK OXul/ik . . . dXXa irXoucnos et. The un- 
emphatic or vernacular use of the pronoun here throws the 
emphasis on the context, " I know the affliction and poverty thou 
endurest, but thou art not poor but rich." With this we may 
contrast the words addressed to Laodicea, iii. 17, Xeyets on 
nAotxrios . . . Kat OVK ot6as on crv et 6 . . . TTTW^OS. On the 
combination of material poverty and spiritual riches cf. 2 Cor. 

Vi. TO, U>S TTTW^Ol, TToXXo^S O 7rXoUTt^OVTS . JaS. ii. 5) ^X OfO^ 

c^eXe^aro rovs TTTOO^OUS rw KOCT/XW 7rAoi;crtous iv TrtVret : also Luke 
xii. 21 ; i Tim. vi. 18. The poverty of the Christians in 
Smyrna appears to be due at all events in part to the despoiling 
of their goods by the Jewish and pagan mobs : cf. Heb. x. 34, 
TYJV apTrayrjv ro>v inrap^ovTitiv V/LHWV /xcro. ^apas TrpocreSe ^ao ^c. 

TT)k |3Xao-(f>T]fuai> eic T&V Xeyorrwi louSaious flvai eaurous. Here 
K means "proceeding from." Hence John iii. 25 is not a true 
parallel. The bitter hostility of the Jews to the Christians at 
Smyrna is unmistakable from the context. The Jews were 
strong at Smyrna, and had maintained in practice their position 
as a distinct people apart from the rest of the citizens till the 
reign of Hadrian as an inscription (CIG. 3148, ot TTOTC louSatot) 
shows, though they had legally ceased to be so at 70 A.D. 
From other sources we know of their hostility to the Christians. 
Justin (Dial. xvi. n, xlvii. 15, xcvi. 5, etc.) charges the Jews 
generally with cursing in their synagogues those that believed on 
Christ; and Tertullian with instigating the persecution of the 


Christians (Scorp. 10, " Synagogas Judaeorum, fontes perse- 
cutionum ") : cf. Euseb. H.E. v. 16. And this hostility was no 
doubt aggravated by the accession of converts from Judaism to 
Christianity, a fact which is attested in Ignatius (Ad Smyrn. i. 2, 
i rot s- dycovs /cat TTICTTOUS avrov, etrc ey lovScuois tire ev e$vecrii/). 
In the martyrdom of Polycarp this enmity of the Jews was 
exhibited in an almost incredible degree; for they joined (xii. 2) 
with the pagans in accusing Polycarp of hostility to the State 
religion^ crying out " with ungovernable wrath and with a loud 
shout : * This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, 
the puller down of our gods, who teacheth numbers not to 
sacrifice nor to worship " (6 TWV ^/xere pcoi/ 6tu>v /catfcuper^s, 6 
TroAAous SiSao-Kwv fJirj Oveiv /xT/Se Trpoo-Kuveiv). 

These Jews, moreover, joined with the pagans in demanding 
from the Asiarch and chief priest Philip the death of Polycarp, 
and were especially active (although it was the Sabbath day) in 
collecting timber and faggots with a view to burning Polycarp 
alive (/uaAicrra louSaicov 7rpo0v//,a)s, ws e$os aurois, ets rairra vrrovp- 
yovvTw) (pp. tit. xiii. i). Later in the Decian persecution the 
Jews took a prominent part in the martyrdom of Pionius, which, 
too, took place on the Sabbath (Act. Pion. 3). In our text the 
Jews are charged with blaspheming Christ and His followers as 
they had done in the earliest days of Paul s preaching in Asia 
Minor (Acts xiii. 45, 01 louScuot . . . dj/TcAeyov rots VTTO HavXov 
AaAou/xeWs fiXavcfjrj/jiovvTfs). But the Christians are reminded 
that these Jews are Jews in name only after the flesh and not 
after the spirit : cf. Rom. ii. 28, ou -yap 6 ei/ TOJ <ai/ep<3 lovSatos 
ecrriv . . . a AX 6 ei/ r<5 Kpvrrr(a lovSatos, KCU Trfpirofirj KapStas ei/ 
TTi/cv/xart ov ypaya/xart : Gal. vi. 1 5 sq. The true Jews are those 
who have believed in Christ, and thereby won a legitimate claim 
to the name and spiritual privileges belonging to the Jews. The 
fact that our author attaches a spiritual significance of the 
highest character to the name lovSatos shows that he is himself 
a Jewish Christian. In such a connection the Fourth Evangelist 
would have used the term lo-pa^XtV^s (cf. i. 47), whereas he 
represents the louScuot as specifically and essentially the 
opponents of Christianity. See Westcott, John, p. ix sq. 

KCU OUK daiv. On this Hebraism for /cat OVK ovrwv see note 
on i. 5-6. 

aui/aywyt) TOU larai/a. Cf. iii. 9. The Jews were, as their 
actions showed, a Synagogue of Satan though they claimed to be 
a Synagogue of the Lord : 2vi/ayo>yr/ TOV Kvpiov (Num. xvi. 3 
(Sip), xx. 4, ^xxvi. 9 (my), xxxi. 16. Cf. Pss. Sol. xvii. 18, 
(rwaywyas oonW). The nobler word eK/cA^o-ia was chosen by the 
Church as a self-designation, crwaywyrj being used only once in 
the N.T. of a Christian assembly (Jas. ii. 2). o-waywy^ was 


gradually abandoned to the Jews, and thus we find such an 
expression as crwayajy^ TOV ^arai/a in this Book, which was almost 
the latest in the Canon. 

10. The persecution with which the Church is here 
threatened shows that the Jews are acting in concert with the 
heathen authorities. Spitta suggests that the term 8ia/3oA.os (cf. 
xii. 10, 6 /carrjywp raiv dSeX^wv fj/jiuv) is here chosen in order to 
recall the calumnies of the Jews against the Christians. But in 
that case we should, as Diisterdieck observes, expect o-waywy^ TOV 
SiafloXov in 9. 

e UJAWI/. For the partitive genitive used as an object, cf. 
Matt, xxiii. 34; 2 John 4. In Rev. xi. 9; John xvi. 17, we 
have it used as the subject. 

cis 4>u\aio]i LVO, ireipaaOfJTe. This phrase defines the character 
of the trial awaiting the Church in Smyrna, and therefore the 
meaning to be attached to Tret/oao-^re. Tretpa^etv and 7retpacr//,os 
in iii. 10 refer to the demonic attacks which are to befall all the 
unbelievers on the earth, but which cannot affect those who have 
been sealed : see vii. 2-4 (notes) ; for the sealing has secured 
them against such attacks. But in the present verse ireipdfcfw 
is used in the sense of testing by persecution. Against such 
TreipGur/Aos Christ does not shield His own : rather they must face 
it and be faithful under it even unto death (io d ). 

6\i\|/ii> Tjficpwy Se ica. The round number here points to a 
short period: cf. Dan. i. 12, 14. The number is used in this 
sense also in Gen. xxiv. 55; Num. xi. 19. See in Pirke Aboth, 
v. 1-9, on the various things connected with the number 10. 

mon-os axpt flamrou. Here the supreme trial of martyrdom 
is referred to: cf. xii. II, OVK rjyaTrrjarav rrjv tyvxqv CLVTUV a^pi 
Bavdrov : Heb. xii. 4, OVTTCO /xe^pis cu/xaros avTiKareo-r^Te : also 
Phil. ii. 8. 

rbv arl^oivov TTJS WTJS. The figure appears to be borrowed 
from the wreath awarded to the victor in the games. Cf. i Cor. 
ix. 25; Phil. iii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 5; i Pet. v. 4 (rov d/xapaj/rtvoj/ 
-n}? Sor/s <rr(f>avov). Smyrna was, according to Pausanias (vi. 
14. 3, cited by Encyc. Bib. 4662), famous for its games. In the 
Test. Benj. iv. i we have the oldest reference to such crowns in 
Jewish literature: cf. Jas. i. 12; Asc. Isa. vii. 22, viii. 26, ix. 
10-13, e * c< > Herm. Sim. viii. 2, 3; Polycarp, Ad Phil. i. i; 
Martyr. Polyc. xvii. i. But it is possible, as has been suggested 
by Dieterich, Nekyia, 41-45; Volz, 344; Gressmann, Ursprung d. 
israeL jud. Eschat. no, that these symbols are derived from 
heavenly beings. Thus in 2 Enoch xiv. 2 the sun is represented 
as adorned with a crown of glory ; similarly in 3 Bar. vi. i with 
a crown of fire. Dieterich (op. cit.> p. 41) states that in works of 
art the Greek deities were very frequently represented with 


crowns of light or nimbuses from the time of Alexander the 
Great, and that the nimbuses in works of ancient Christian art 
were derived from this source. These crowns are naturally 
associated with the blessed when once these are conceived as 
clothed in light : cf. p. 183 sqq. The genitive Trjs fafjs is there 
fore, as Bousset suggests, probably to be taken not epexegeti- 
cally as "the crown which consists in life," but as "the crown 
which belongs to the eternal life." As the tree of life (cf. ii. 
7 note, xxii. 2, 14) is a symbol of the blessed immortality 
in Christ, so the crown of life appears to symbolize its full 

11. 6 Zxwv . . . eKK\T)oriai9. Cf. 7*. 

ll b . Like 7 b , i7 bcd , 26-28, iii. 5, 12, 21, this, too, is probably 
an editorial addition of our author. Here the addition is 
unhappy, for it comes in the form of an anti-climax after the 
great promise in io e . 

6 VIK>\> ou [AT] d8iKT]0fj. ov fjLrj with the future or aorist con 
stitutes "the most definite form of a negative assertion about 
the future" (Blass, Gram. 209). ov py is always (15 times) 
followed by the aorist subjunctive in our author except in 
xviii. 14, which is not from his hand: in the rest of the N.T. it 
is followed by the indicative once out of every seven or eight 
times ; in classical Greek the present subjunctive is also found. 
This construction is frequent in the N.T. in all about 96 times, 
but rare in non-literary papyri. Moulton (Prol. 190 sqq.) tries 
to show, notwithstanding, that the N.T. and the papyri are here 
in harmony. 

dSiK-nOfj eK. d&Keti/ is always used in the sense of " to hurt " 
in our author: see xxii. n, note. The agent or instrument is 
expressed by e/c after a passive verb. Cf. iii. 18, ix. 2, 18, xviii. i. 
In this promise there may be a reference to 10, ytVov TTIO-TOS a^pt 
<9avarov. He that is ready to submit to physical death for his 
faith will not be affected by the second death. 

TOU TOU Seurepou. Cf. xx. 6 [14], xxi. 8, where this 
expression is explained. This is a Rabbinic expression. Thus, 
in the Jerus. Targum on Deut. xxxiii. 6 we have, " Let Reuben 
live in this age and not die the second death (w:n wmoa) 
whereof the wicked die in the next world." Targ. on Jer. 
li. 39, 57, "Let them die the second death and not live in the 
next world"; on Isa. xxii. 14, "This sin shall not be forgiven 
you till ye die the second death"; also on Isa. Ixv. 6, 15 ; Sota, 
35 a (on Num. xiv. 37), "they died the second (?) death" (nn tt 
rov^ ft). See Wetstein for further examples. The idea is found 
also in Philo, De Praem. et Poen. ii. 419, yap SITTOV eTSos, 
TO /xev /CO/TO, TO TtOvdvai . . . TO Se KO.TO, TO airoOnfjo-KCLr, o 8r) KO.KOV 
Though the expression is not found in i Enoch the 


idea probably is in xcix. n, cviii. 3, where the spirits of the 
wicked are said to be slain in Sheol, though their annihilation is 
not implied thereby. 


12. TTJS iv rkpYctfAw. This city appears as ^ n<f/>ya//,os in 
Xenophon and Pausanias, but as Tlepya/Aoi/ in Strabo, Polybius, 
Appian, and most other writers. The latter is the usual form 
also in the inscriptions. Pergamum was a Mysian city, about 15 
miles from the sea. It commanded the valley of the Caicus, 
and lay between two streams which fell into the Caicus about 
4 miles distant. The earliest city was built on a hill, 1000 feet 
high, which became the site of the Acropolis and many of the 
chief buildings of the later city. Though a city of some import 
ance in the 5th cent. B.C. its greatness dates from the 3rd, when 
it was made the capital of the Attalids, the first of whom to 
assume the title of king was Attalus i. in 241 B.C. The last of 
this dynasty Attalus in. bequeathed his kingdom, with the 
exception of Phrygia Magna, to the Romans. At this date this 
kingdom embraced " all the land on this side the Taurus," and 
was constituted, with the above exception, as the Province of 
Asia by the Romans, with Pergamum as its official capital. 
Pergamum was famed for its great religious foundations in 
honour of Zeus Soter, 1 Athena Nikephoros, whose temple 
crowned the Acropolis, Dionysos Kathegemon, and Asklepios 
Soter. 2 Of these the cult of Asklepios was the most distinctive 
and celebrated. It was the Lourdes of the Province of Asia, 
and the seat of a famous school of medicine. Thus Galen (De 
Compos. Med. ix.) writes : elwOacriv TroAAot . . . / TO> flito Xf.yc.iv 
fjio. TOV ev Depya/xo) Ao-KA^TrioV, /xa TTJV iv E<e<ra> "Apre/xtv, /xa TOV 
fv AcA^oT? ATroXXcova, and Philostratus ( Vita Apollonii, iv. 34), 
o>(T7r/3 fj Acrta et<j TO Ilepya/xoi/, ourca? ets TO itpov TOVTO we<oira 
f) Kprjrr) (both passages quoted by Wetstein) : Mart. ix. 17, 
" Pergameo . . . deo." 

But from the standpoint of our author the most important 
cult was that of the Roman Emperors, which was established in 
Pergamum as the chief city of the province in 29 B.C., where 
a temple was dedicated to Augustus and Rome by the Provincial 

1 Many scholars have sought to explain 6 6p6vos TOV Zarava by the gigantic 
altar erected on a huge platform 800 feet above the city to Zeus Soter in 
commemoration, it is believed, of the victory of Attalus over the Galatai. 

2 Other scholars have found in the phrase in the preceding note a reference 
to the worship of Asklepios, because the serpent (i.e. Satan : cf. xii. 9) was 
universally associated with him. 


Synod (Ko/ov Ao-i as); 1 cf. Tac. Ann. iv. 37, where Tiberius 
refers to the founding of this temple to Augustus and Rome by 
Pergamum. No such foundation was officially recognized in 
Asia unless it was made by the Synod with the concurrence of 
the Roman Senate. Thus Pergamum won the honour of the 
Neocorate before Smyrna, which did not obtain it till 26 B.C., and 
Ephesus, which was not so honoured till the reign of Claudius or 
Nero. A second temple was built in Pergamum in honour of 
Trajan, and a third in honour of Severus. The imperial cult had 
thus its centre at Pergamum ; and as the imperial cult was the 
keystone of the imperial policy, Pergamum summed up in itself 
the intolerable offence and horror that such a cult, the observ 
ance of which was synonymous with loyalty to Empire, provoked 
in the mind of our author. It is here and nowhere else that we 
are to find the explanation of the startling phrase, 6 0poVos rov 
^arava, in 13. Behind the city in the ist cent. A.D. arose a huge 
conical hill, 1000 feet high, covered with heathen temples and 
altars, which in contrast to " the mountain of God," referred to 
in Isa. xiv. 13; Ezek. xxviii. 14, 16, and called "the throne of 
God " in i Enoch xxv. 3, appeared to the Seer as the throne of 
Satan, since it was the home of many idolatrous cults, but above 
all of the imperial cult, which menaced with annihilation the 
very existence of the Church. For refusal to take part in this 
cult constituted high treason to the State. See Ramsay, Letters 
to the Seven Churches \ 281 sqq. 

6 eypv *V popJHxwxK KT\. Cf. i. 1 6. This title is connected 
with 1 6 that follows. See p. 26. 

13. OTTOU 6 0p6k09 TOU larai/a. The reference in these words, 
as has been shown in the preceding verse, is to the primacy of 
Pergamum as the centre of the imperial cult, and as such the 
centre of Satan s kingdom in the East in the West it was 
Rome itself: cf. xiii. 2, xvi. 10. Here stood the first temple 
erected to Augustus and Rome; and here dwelt the powerful 
priesthood devoted to the imperial cult ;^and from Pergamum it 
spread all over Asia Minor. The Asiarch or chief civil authority 
is, as we see from the Martyrdom of Poly carp, likewise the chief 
priest of this cult. 

Kpcn-eis TO oVojxd jAou. Notwithstanding all these difficulties 
thou "holdest fast My name." 

OUK ripsaw Tf)k iriorTtf JJLOU KT\. These words refer to some 
definite persecution of which nothing is at present known. In 
Trio-Tts /xou the /xou is the objective genitive, i.e. " faith in Me " : 
cf. xiv. 12. In ii. 19, xiii. 10, 7rurrts= "faithfulness." 

1 That the temple was actually the seat of the imperial cult in the province 
is proved by an inscription from Mytilene : v <T ry vou$ ry KOLTO, > cr/ceuafo- 
fjL^vtf aura? virb TTJS Acrias eV llepyd/ui.^ (quoted by Bousset). 


v TCUS Tjfxepcus t An-tirast. If with the best MSS we accept 
Aj/r/Tras, we must treat it as indeclinable. But it is perhaps best 
to follow Lachmann (Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 839), WH 
(ii. App. 137), Nestle, Swete, and Zahn in regarding ANTIIIA as 
the original reading, and the final C either as an accidental 
doubling of the following O (Lachmann), or a deliberate change 
of AvriVa into the nom. Avrwras owing to the nominative 6 
/x,aprvs (Zahn). The former explanation is to be preferred. For 
early attempts to emend the text see critical notes in loc. AvrtVas 
is an abbreviated form of ArriTrar/oos, as KAeoTras for KXeoTrarpo?. 
Cf. Hermas for Hermodorus, Lucas for Lucanus. Nothing is 
really known beyond this reference of the martyr Antipas. 
Later martyrs in Pergamum are known, as Carpus, Papylus and 
Agathonike (cf. Euseb. H.E. iv. 15). 

6 jjidpTus JJLOU. On this solecism, which is really a Hebraism, 
see note on i. 5. The R.V. is right essentially in xvii. 6 in 
rendering //.aprvpon/ I^o-ou by " martyrs of Jesus." The word 
should be similarly translated here. For, since the Seer expects 
all the faithful to seal their witness with their blood (xiii. 15), 
the word /zaprus in our text is a witness faithful unto death, and 
therefore a martyr. But outside our author this use was not 
established till later, though the way was prepared for this use 
by Acts xxii. 20, 2re<ai/oi; rov /xaprupos (row, and i Tim. vi. 13; 
Clem. Cor. 5. Though the technical distinction between /x-aprvs 
and ofjLo\oyrjrr]<s ("martyr" and "confessor") was not absolutely 
fixed till the Decian persecution, yet, as Lightfoot (on Clem. 
Cor. 5) observes, " after the middle of the second century at all 
events /zaprvs, /zaprv/oetv, were used absolutely to signify martyr 
dom ; Martyr. Polyc. 19 sq. ; Melito in Euseb. H.E. iv. 26; 
Dionys. Corinth, ib. ii. 25. . . . Still even at this late date they 
continued to be used simultaneously of other testimony to be 
borne to the Gospel, short of death : e.g. by Hegesippus, Euseb. 
H.E. iii. 20, 32." 

cVrreKTcti OT). The passive form of dTroKraVco, which occurs very 
rarely in the LXX and only once outside the Apocalypse in the 
N.T. (i.e. Mark viii. 31 = Matt. xvi. 21 = Luke ix. 22), is fre 
quently used in this Book: cf. ii. 13, vi. ii, ix. 18, 20 [xi. 5, 13, 
xiii. 10, 15], xix. 21 ; whereas a-rroOv^a-Kw is only used strictly as a 
passive in viii. ii, xiv. 13. In the Fourth Gospel, on the other 
hand, whereas the passive of o-Tro/cTctVetv does not occur, we find 
a-n-oOvrjo-Keiv used as its passive, xi. 16, 50, 51, xviii. 14, 32, xix. 7. 

14. ex&> Kara aoG oXiya. Though this Church has withstood 
the dangers besetting it from the imperial cult, it has suffered 
teachers of false doctrine to arise and win a following amongst 
its members. In oAiya only one thing is meant, though the 
writer speaks of that one thing generically : cf. WM 219. 


eKi = Trap up^ in the preceding verse. 

eX l S e*ei KpaToGi/Tag TTJI SiSa^y BaXadjJi, os eSiBaaicei TW 
BaXaK KT\. On the relation of this verse to the next see 15. 

The reference is to Num. xxxi. 16 (cf. xxv. i, 2). Balaam is 
here represented as the prototype of all corrupt teachers. In 
our text these early Gnostics by their false teaching, that as they 
were not under the law but under grace (Rom. vi. 15) and were 
therefore not bound by the law, tempted men to licentiousness, 
even as Balak corrupted Israel in accordance with the advice 
of Balaam. In Num. xxxi. 16 it is not expressly stated that 
Balaam counselled Balak to act so against Israel, but the state 
ment in our text is a not unnatural inference an inference 
already made in Philo, Vita Mays. i. 53-55 ; cf. Joseph. Ant. iv. 
6. 6 ; Origen, In Num. Horn. xx. i. 

The construction eSi Sao-Kei/ TO> BaXa/c is, according to WM, 
p. 279 (note 4 ), found in some late writers. It is unjustifiable to 
explain it as a Hebraism, since this construction in the case of nT 
and *fth is exceptional in the O.T. In ii. 20 SiSao-Keu/ takes 
the ace. 

<J>ayeiy etSwXoOura ica! Tropycuom. Here the order is against 
Num. xxv. 1-2 and ii. 20 (see note) of our text. It is doubtful 
whether the first phrase refers to the eating of food which had 
been bought in the open market and already been consecrated 
to an idol, or to participation in pagan feasts. Probably it refers 
to both. This problem had, as we know, arisen in Corinth many 
years earlier in an acute form : cf. i Cor. viii. 7-13, x. 20-30. 
From this letter we learn that, though St. Paul did not censure 
the conduct of the Corinthians who regarded the eating of dBuX.6- 
Ovra as a matter of moral indifference, because of the decree 
issued by the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (cf. Acts xv. 29, 
a.7r^(r6a.L eiSwAotfuTon/ : cf. XV. 20, aTre^ecr^at TCOV dA.i(ry?7/x,aTcoi> TO>J/ 
iS<oAwi/), yet he condemned their action on the principle that it put 
a stumbling-block in the way of their weaker brethren, and tended 
to bring about their moral downfall ; and that by sharing in the 
heathen feasts which were made in honour of gods, who though 
they were not indeed gods as the heathen conceived them (i Cor. 
viii. 4), were nevertheless demons (x. 20), they made themselves 
spiritually unfit to take part in the Eucharist (x. 21). 

15. This verse and the preceding are difficult, but their ex 
planation does not call for the supposition of mixed constructions. 
The thought and connection of th e verses are as follows : in 14 
our author states that the Pergamene Church has certain corrupt 
teachers, belonging to the following of Balaam, who seduced 
Israel into sin. But since this statement only defines the affinities 
of these corrupt teachers with thepast^ we expect a further defini 
tion of their affinities with the present. This we find in 15, where 


we should render : " Thus in like manner them too (i.e. as well as 
the Ephesian Church : cf. 6) hast some who hold the teaching 
of the Nicolaitans." OUTWS and 6/xoiws are not to be taken as 
referring to one and the same thing. OVTOJ? justifies the state 
ment made in 14, whereas the o/xotco? refers to the Ephesian 
Church. Thus the /cat a-v and the o/xot ws belong together : 
" Thou too (as well as the Ephesian Church) in like manner " 
(with the Ephesian Church). The ex ls m *5 resumes that in 14. 
This explanation does no violence to any part of the text, while 
it explains each member of it in a natural sense from the 
context. The right interpretation of /cat a-v leads to the right 
interpretation of the whole. By failing to recognize this fact 
expositors have erred in the past. Thus Johannes Weiss is 
driven to mistranslate 15 as follows: "So hast du dort auch (?) 
solche, welche die Lehre der Nikolaiten halten gleicherweise." 
The /cat beyond question belongs to the a-v. Bousset represents 
the meaning of 14-15 to be: "So wie Bileam durch Balak die 
Israeliten verfiihrte, so haben die Pergamener die Nicolaiten als 
Verfiihrer." But if any such comparison was intended, we should 
have had something like wo-Trep BaAaa//, eSt Saavcev ra> BaAa/c j3a\elv 

/CpaTOWT9 TT/J StSa^V NlKoAeHTWV j3d\\OV(Tl OTKCtvSaXov 

0-ov. But this interpretation fails, as it leaves wholly out 
of sight the definitive phrase /cat a-v. Besides, if, as some scholars 
suppose, the construction is irregular and the ourus presupposes 
a preceding wo-Trep in this context, then not BoAaa/x, but ot viol 
lo-parjA would be the subject with which /cat a-v would be com 
pared : Gjo-7rep ot wot Io-paT)X ei^oi/ Kparowas TT)V SiSa^i/ BaAaa//, 
/crA., OVTWS x ts KC " ~^ K P a TwTas KrA. This would in itself 
give an excellent sense. As the ancient Israel had corrupt 
teachers, so too now has the Pergamene Church. But then the 
present form of the text does not admit of this interpretation, 
and, moreover, the context is against it. The /cat a-v recalls the 
fact that not only is the Pergamene but also the Ephesian Church 
troubled by corrupt teachers. 

The grammatical study of the text having thus established 
the fact, that in 15 we have at once both an explanation of 14 
and a comparison with ii. 6, serves further to settle the relation 
of the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans. The term Balaamites is 
simply a name given for the nonce by our author to the Nicolai 
tans. The assignment of this name rests on two grounds : the 
first is the identity of results as regards their teaching ; the 
second is the identity in respect of meaning in the view of our 
author as well as of certain Jewish writers of BaAaa/A and Ni/coAaos 
(see note in ii. 16). 

16. fAeTayoTjaoi ou^. The whole Church of Pergamum is called 
upon to repent and purge itself from these Nicolaitans, in the 


hope that they will ultimately come to a better mind and return 
to her (cf. i Cor. v. 4-5), else Christ will visit the Church (^p^o^ai 
o-ot) and deal drastically with these corrupt teachers (/XCT* avrwv). 
The Seer requires the Church of Pergamum to expel them, as the 
Church of Ephesus had already done. It has not identified 
itself with them. 

el 8e JATJ. Here equivalent to d B py //,Tai/o>jo-eis as in ii. 5 b , 
where see note, et Se prf is always elliptical in our author. 

iroXefirjaw per O.UT&V. This construction, which is frequent in 
the LXX, is confined to the Apocalypse (cf. xii. 7, xiii. 4, xvii. 14) 
in the N.T. The verb itself occurs outside the Apocalypse only 
in Jas. iv. 2. In our text it cannot be treated as other than a 
Hebraism, if we take into account the Hebraistic character of 
the text in general. The fact that it occurs sporadically (see 
Moulton, Proleg? 106) twice or more in the Papyri is no 
evidence to the contrary. See Abbott, Gram., p. 267. 

V TT| pO[A<f>(lia TOU OTOfAdTOS fXOU. Cf. 1. 1 6, U. 12, XJX. 15. 

The phrase suggests a forensic condemnation, but in xix. 15 this 
word is conceived as an actual instrument of war. 

17. TU ClKWI Tl S(0<TO> dUTU> TOG |J,cWa. On TO) VlKOJVTl . . . 

CLVTW see 7. TOV (jidvva is the only instance in the N.T. of 
Sowai with the partitive genitive (see iii. 9). According to 2 Bar. 
xxix. 8 the treasury of manna was to descend from heaven 
during the Messianic Kingdom, and the blessed were to eat of it. 
This manna is referred to in Chag. i2 b (Tanchuma; Piqqudi, 6; 
Beresh. rab. 19; Bammid. rab. 13), where it is said that in the 
third heaven (D pn J ) are the mills which grind manna for the 
righteous. This manna was called "bread from heaven," Ex. 
xvi. 4 ; " corn of heaven," Ps. Ixxviii. 24, and likewise " bread of 
the mighty" (i.e. angels, cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 25). It is to this heavenly 
manna, and not to the golden pot of manna which was preserved 
(Ex. xvi. 32-34) in remembrance of the food in the wilderness 
and which was in the ark (Heb. ix. 4), that our text appears to 
refer (cf. Or. Sibyl vii. 148 f. : 

8 OVK ecrrat ouSe a-ra^v?, aAA. a^aa 7rai/TS 

It is quite true that there are several Rabbinic passages 
which speak of the restoration of the pot of manna on the advent 
of the Messiah : cf. Tanchuma, p. 83 b , and other passages cited 
by Wetstein in loc. 

The idea of the manna in this connection was probably 
suggested to our author by the association of ideas evoked by 
14-16. There he was thinking of Israel in the wilderness 
tempted by Balaam, just as the Pergamene Christians are tempted 
by his spiritual successors. As the ancient Israel was fed by 
VOL. i. 5 


a material manna, the true Israelites would in the future life be 
fed by a spiritual manna. Since the material manna could not 
avert death under the old Dispensation, John vi. 49 argues that 
it was not bread of life even in the very sphere to which it 

As the context shows, as well as a comparison of the other six 
promises, the promise here refers to the future. 1 The manna 
that is now hidden will then be given to those who have fought 
the good fight and conquered. Part of this victory on the part 
of the Pergamene Church will consist in their abstinence from 
forbidden meats : contrast the gift of the manna here with the 
eiSwA.o fluTo, eaten by the unfaithful, ii. 14. The " hidden manna " 
probably signifies the direct spiritual gifts that the Church 
triumphant will receive in transcendent measure from intimate 
communion with Christ. This " hidden manna " is practically 
equivalent in some degree to the water of life (see p. 54 sq.), but 
not to the tree of life. 

tl/rj^or \euK-f\v. Stones or pebbles were variously used by the 
ancients, and each usage has been applied to the interpretation 
of the present passage, i. The white stone used by jurors to 
signify acquittal; cf. Ovid, Met. xv. 41 : 

" Mos erat antiquis niveis atrisque lapillis, 
His damnare reos illis absolvere culpa." 

2. The //?7<os which entitled him that received it to free enter 
tainment to royal assemblies. Cf. Xiphilin, Epit. Dion., p. 228, 
where it is said of Titus : ot^cUpia yap v\wa [j,LKpa aj/wflev ets TO 
Biarpov epptVret (rv/JiftoXov e^owa TO IL\V eSw8t)u,ov TIVOS ... a d/07ra- 
Tivag e Sei Trpos TOV<S Sutryjpas avTwv tTreveyKeiv KCU Xafielv TO 
Hence here a ticket of admission to the 
heavenly feast. 3. The precious stones which according to 
Rabbinical tradition fell along with the manna (Joma, 8). 4. The 
precious stones on the breastplate of the high priest bearing 
the names of the Twelve Tribes. 5. The white stone was re 
garded as a mark of felicity: cf. Pliny, Ep. vi. u. 3, "O diem 
laetum notandumque mihi candidissimo calculo." 

But each of these explanations is unsatisfactory ; either the 
/o7<os is not white or it has no inscription upon it. The true 
source of the ideas underlying the expressions in our text is most 
probably to be found in the sphere of popular superstition, which 
attached mysterious powers to the use of secret names (see 
Heitmiiller, 7m Namen Jcsu, 128-265). The new name in such 
a connection would naturally be not that of the person who 
received the t/^<o5, but of some supernatural being. The white 

1 Philo (Quts rerum divin. 39, Leg. allcgor. iii. 59, 61), on the other hand, 
uses manna as signifying " the spiritual food of the soul " in the present life. 


stone was simply an amulet engraved with some magical formula 
or name, such as we find in Makk. n a (cf. Sukka, 53*) : " When 
David dug the cistern (at the south-west corner of the altar) the 
deep surged up and sought to overwhelm the world. Then he 
asked if he might inscribe the divine name on a potsherd and 
cast it into the deep to cause it to sink back into its place," 
The value of such an amulet was enhanced if the holder of it was 
assured that the name was new, and so known only to him ; for 
should any one succeed in learning this name he too would enjoy 
the same powers as its possessor. We have now to ask if our 
author has taken over in their entirety these ideas. Even if 
this is so, we may be certain that they have become spiritually 
transformed. The new name can only be that of Christ or God 
inscribed on a if/rj^os. The man himself may be regarded 
as the i/^<os; and since he is ACUKO S, as his victory in the final 
strife has proved, he is inscribed with the divine name, 1 which 
has a different meaning in character with the soul that receives it, 
and therefore a new meaning to every faithful soul, and which 
none but it knows (cf. Matt. xi. 27). This interpretation brings 
this passage somewhat into line with iij 12, 6 WKOJV . . . ypdif/M 

N \ * n /\ ~ \ \ V / \ / 


This inscription designates him as God s own possession, as the 
o-<f>payi<s in vii. 2 sqq. (see note in loc. and parallels). But the 
1/07^05 with the divine, name inscribed on it maybe differently 
interpreted, and taken to be a symbol of the transcendent 
powers now placed in the hand of him that has been faithful 
unto death. Through such faithfulness the blessed are fitted to 
receive from their divine Master fresh graces (i.e. the hidden 
manna) and powers (the stone inscribed with the divine name) 
of a transcendent character. 

o^ofjia K.O.IVOV. See preceding notes. 

o ou&eis o!8ey et p) 6 Xa|x|3ai><oi/. As we have observed above, 
the knowledge that a faithful heart possesses of God is a thing 
incommunicable, known only to itself. Cf. xix. 12, ZX<M ovo/xa 
ycypa/x/xevov 6 ouSeis oI6W et /AT) auros, where, however, the general 
meaning is different, and the clause is probably an interpolation. 


18. TW ev uareipois- The longest letter is addressed to the 
least important of the Seven Cities. Thyatira lay about 40 

1 Some scholars think that the new name given to the victor means a 
new character (cf. Gen. xxxii. 28; Matt. xvi. 17, 18). But the 6 VIKUV has 
already shown by his faithfulness that he possesses this new character ; he is 
already a Kaivrj 

68 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ll. 18-ld. 

miles to the S.E. of Pergamum almost midway between the 
Caicus in the north and the Hermus in the south. It was a 
Lydian city on the confines of Mysia, to which it was sometimes 
said to belong (Strabo, 625, uareipa . . . fjv Mwwv lo-xdrrjv 
rives </>ao-iV). It was founded by the Seleucidae, its first settlers 
being for the most part old soldiers of Alexander the Great and 
their children. Hence it was called Karot/cta MaKeSoVwv by 
Strabo, 625. About 190 B.C. it fell under the sway of the 
Romans and formed part of the Province of Asia. Thyatira was 
notable for its extensive trading and the number of its guilds of 
craftsmen, and it is with the question, whether Christians were 
justified or not in sharing in the common meals of a sacrificial 
character, that this Letter to the Church in Thyatira is mainly 
concerned: see notes. But Thyatira was undistinguished in 
other respects in later times; for Pliny, H.N. v. 33, writes 
slightingly of this community: "Thyatireni aliaeque inhonorae 
civitates." An important road ran from Pergamum to Thyatira, 
thence to Sardis and through Philadelphia to Laodicea. Thus 
the Seven Churches were naturally linked together from a 
geographical point of view, starting with Ephesus and ending 
with Laodicea. Thyatira had temples dedicated to Apollo 
Tyrimnaios, Artemis, and a shrine of Sambathe (TO Sa/^afleioi/), 
an Oriental Sibyl in the neighbourhood ; but it had no temple 
founded in honour of the Emperors. The Christian Church at 
Thyatira ceased to exist towards the close of the 2nd cent. A.D., 
according to a statement of the Alogi. It early became a centre 
of Montanism (Epiphanius, Haer. li. 33). See Ramsay, Letters^ 
and the Bible Dictionaries in loc. 

b utos TOU OcoG. This title may have been suggested to our 
author by Ps. ii. 7, seeing that later in this letter he quotes Ps. 
ii. 9 in its entirety and a phrase from ii. 8. But the title is 
presupposed in i. 6, ii. 27, iii. 5, 21, xiv. i, where God is 
definitely spoken of as the Father of Christ. Nowhere in our 
author is God described as " Father" in relation to men save in 
xxi. 7 : contrast John xx. 17, etc. This title was claimed by 
Christ (Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22), ascribed to Him by Peter 
(Matt. xvi. 1 6), and formed the ground for the indictment brought 
against Him before the Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 63 ; John xix. 7). 

6 exwy . . . x 01 ^ ^ 1 ^^- From i. 14 sq. The presence of 
the first clause, 6 e^wv TOVS 6fj>@a.Xfjiov<s d>s <A.oya Trupos, appears to 
be explained by 23, 6 cpawwv i>e<povs /cat xapStas KrX., and ot 
iro Scs avrov ofioioL x a ^ KO ^ l P<*-vtt> possibly by 27 b . Here the 
divine title seems to have been added by our author when 
editing his visions as a whole : see p. 45 sq. 

19. oI8d aou TCI epya. Here as in x. 9 the vernacular 
possessive genitive introducing a group of nouns is followed by 


the ordinary possessive, /cat rty dydV^v . . . /cat ryv inro/jLovyv o-ov 
Kal TO. tp-ya <rov. Here Abbott, Gram., p. 606, remarks: "(i) 
The writer could not well have said /cat o-ov, and (2) the twofold 
repetition . . . shows that emphasis is intended the patience 
that you shew and the deeds that you do" For a similar case cf. 
x. 9. " The two passages show that the unemphatic o-ov is not 
likely to be used after an unemphatic word." 

KCU iV dydiTTji KT\. The /cat here introduces an explanatory 
description of the pya. On aydiryv cf. ii. 4, and on VTTO/XOI/^V cf. 
ii. 2. Further, the Seer states that in the fulfilment of such 
works the Church in Thyatira has steadily advanced, whereas 
Ephesus has gone backward (ii. 4). -n-XeiW seems here to be 
used as meaning greater in quality, better : cf. Matt. vi. 25, xii. 
41, 42; Heb. iii. 3, xi. 4, etc. As Swete remarks, "in these 
addresses praise is more liberally given, if it can be given with 
justice, when blame is to follow ; more is said of the good 
deeds of the Ephesians and Thyatirians than of those of the 
Smyrnaeans and Philadelphians, with whom no fault is found." 
In rrjv dyaVtyv /cat TTJV TTI<TTIV we have the two dynamic Christian 
forces which issue in the two Christian activities that follow r^v 
8ta/coviav /cat rrjv vTro/aovi/jv. 

20-23 a . The dangers which threatened Thyatira were in-^j 
ternal rather than external. It was not the cult of the Emperor 
nor the cults of the pagan deities, the condition of membership 
in which was confessedly willingness to take part in the worship v 
prescribed in each case, but the trade guilds that formed the / 
problem in Thyatira. In the former case there could be nori 
doubt as to the wrongness of participation in such cults, but in 
the case of the latter the evidence seemed to the more intel 
lectual class less conclusive. To the morally sound amongst this 
class there could be no divergence of opinion as to the wrong- 
ness of fornication, but different views were honestly maintained 
as to the legitimacy of eating food sacrificed to idols, seeing that 
in the eyes of the enlightened an idol was nothing. Now, since 
membership in trade guilds (e/oyao-u, o-v/A^tworei?, o-we/oyao-iat) 
did not essentially involve anything beyond joining in the 
common meal, which was dedicated no doubt to some pagan 
deity but was exactly in this respect meaningless for the en 
lightened Christian, to avail oneself of such membership was 
held in certain latitudinarian circles to be quite justifiable. And 
this was particularly the case in Thyatira, which, owing to the 
fact that it was .above all things a city of commerce, abounded 
in business guilds, to one or other of which every citizen all but 
necessarily belonged: otherwise he could hardly maintain his 
business or enjoy the social advantages natural to his position. 
Thus it was these trade guilds in Thyatira that made the 


Nicolaitan doctrine so acceptable to the Church in this city, 
and that though the common meals of such guilds too often 
ended in unbridled licentiousness. Against the principles and 
conduct of the Nicolaitans the Church in Ephesus bad openly 
declared itself (ii. 6) ; but no such declaration had as yet 
emanated from the Church in Thyatira. Owing to the business 
and social interests of its members it was too ready to accept 
any principle that would justify their membership in the city 
guilds. Hence it withheld its testimony against an influential 
woman who had long (21) and notoriously (23) advocated the 
principles of the Nicolaitans and yet enjoyed the membership of 
the Church. 

However this person might cloak her activities under the 
noble name of prophetess, or advance her teaching as a more 
enlightened (Gnostic?) Christianity, they were, the Seer de 
clares, simply sheer licentiousness and the negation of the laws 
laid down by the Apostolic Council. She was a modern Jezebel, 
and the Church of Thyatira in tolerating her presence in the 
Church was no better than a modern Ahab. 

20. d(j>ts. Cf. John xii. 7 for this use of a<j>ievai. On the 
form see Blass, Gram. 51 ; Robertson, Gram. 315. 

TTjy yuj/aiKa Med|3eX. Jezebel is here used symbolically of 
some influential woman in the Church in Thyatira, and chosen 
in reference to the wife of Ahab, who was guilty of whoredom 
and witchcraft (i Kings xvi. 3152 Kings ix. 22), and sought to 
displace the worship of the God of Israel by idolatrous cults 
introduced from other lands. There is no question here of the 
Chaldaean Sibyl at Thyatira with whom Schurer (Theol. Abhandl. 
Weizsacker gewidmet, p. 39 sq., 1892) sought to identify her. 
Such a personage could not have been admitted to membership 
of the Church in Thyatira, whereas the Jezebel in our text stands 
admittedly within the jurisdiction of the Church. Zahn (see 
Bousset, 1906, p 217 sq.) accepts the reading TT?V ywou/ca arov and 
takes her to be the wife of the bishop of the Church, while Selwyn 
(p. 123) identifies her with the wife of the Asiarch. 

TJ Xeyoucra eaimjj irpocJnJTiy. On this Hebraism see note on 
i. 5. We might compare Zeph. i. 12, e/cSi/o^rco en-i TOVS avSpas 
rovs /cara^poj/owras . . . ot Xeyovrcs (D s "lEKn). This construc 
tion is found in Mark xii. 38-40 (contrast Luke xx. 46), where it 
is to be explained as due to the Semitic background. But a still 
more pronounced Hebraism follows : see next note. 

Kal 8i8d<7Ki Kal irXam. Here we have, as we have already 
pointed out in i. 5-6 (note), a resolution of the participle into 
a finite verb. Thus our text is a literal rendering of the Hebrew 
idiom : "iD L ni nN" 1 ^ KTT^ JKn. 

l <f>ayeli/. Our author appears here to emphasize 


the fact that, when the Church in Thyatira tolerated this 
Nicolaitan teaching because it justified their membership in the 
city guilds and their sharing in the common meals, it was in 
reality tolerating fornication. See, however, note on ii. 14. It 
will be observed that the order of the words here differs from that 
in ii. 14. Here it is probably intended to mean that the primary 
object of the prophetess was sexual immorality. 

21. This verse implies that a definite warning had been 
addressed to this self-styled prophetess, and that this warning 
had been given sufficiently far back in the past to allow of a full 
reformation of the evil. The warning may have come from the 
Seer himself. But its source cannot be determined. 

Iva |ui6TavoiiiorTj. The tva here has its final force: in ix. 20 
a consecutive. 

fATa>oT]<rai CK. Always so with the noun in our author: 
cf. ii. 22, ix. 20, 21, xvi. ii ; probably a reflection of |Jp 31>; 
for in Symmachus (though only occasionally in the LXX) /xcra- 
voeu> is a more frequent rendering of the Hebrew phrase : cf. Job 
xxxvi. 10; Isa. xxxi. 6, Iv. 7 ; Jer. xviii. 8; Ezek. xxxiii. 12. 

22. I8ou jSttXXu auTTjk eis K\ivr\v. 

Kal TOUS [xoixeuorras juter aurijs cts OXixj/ic fjLeydXTjK. We have 
here a clear instance of Hebrew parallelism, and likewise of 
Hebrew idiom, though, so far as I am aware, not hitherto 
recognized by any scholar. While some scholars have quite 
wrongly taken K\tvrj here to denote a banqueting couch, most 
others have rightly recognized it to be a bed of illness or 
suffering, but have not explained how this interpretation can be 
justified. Now, if we retranslate it literally into Hebrew, we 
discover that we have here a Hebrew idiom, i.e. 33^bi> ^23 = " to 
take to one s bed," "to become ill "(Ex. xxi. 18): hence "to 
cast upon a bed " means " to cast upon a bed of illness." This 
idiom is found in i Mace. i. 5, eTrecre CTTI TTJV KXtvijv, and Jud. 
viii. 3, tTrco-c ori rr)v K\i.vf]v y which books are translated from the 
Hebrew. Thus we should render : 

" Behold I cast her on a bed of suffering, 
And those who commit adultery with her into great 
tribulation " 

Furthermore, it is to be observed that in iSov yScxAXw (late 
MSS PQ /SaXtu) the /SaAXw represents a participle in the 
Hebrew which can refer to the future, the present, or the past, 
according to the context. Since it is parallel here with aTroKrevco 
(23*), it refers, of course, to the future. This idiomatic refer- 


ence to the future in a present verb is to be found also in i. 7 
(1801; IpxeTcu), ii. 10, iii. 9 (where our author has both i8ov 8i8o> 
and tSoi) 7roo}o-w referring to one and the same thing), ix. 12, 
xvi. 15, etc. 

22 b -23. TOUS fJioixeuorras |UIT CXUTTJS . . . 23. K.a.1 rd TZKVO. 
auTTJs- The text (/^oixetWras . . . TCKVOL) suggests that we have 
here the actual paramours of this woman and her children. 
Further, the children may be her legitimate children. Hence 
the punishment is a severe one. There may be also a reference 
to the fate that befell the sons of Ahab (2 Kings x. 7). But the 
punishments are wholly disproportionate to the guilt on this 
interpretation. Moreover, this interpretation, even if it is right, 
is too narrow, and must not be regarded as excluding the possi 
bility of finding a spiritual reference in the text. The entire 
Church in Thyatira, owing to its special circumstances, is en 
dangered by the Nicolaitan doctrine. Hence the poixtvovra.** 
appear to be all those who, owing to the teaching of this woman, 
thought they could combine faithfulness to Christ with the 
concessions to the pagan spirit that their membership of the 
business guilds involved ; and the rcWa to be those who have 
absolutely embraced this woman s teaching even to its fullest 
issues. For the former there is still hope : they are striving to 
reconcile the claims of Christ on the one hand and the claims 
of their business life on the other. Therein they have been 
guilty as idolatrous Israel of old : cf. Hos. ii. 2, 4, where there is 
a similar reference to mother and children. But they may yet 
come to see that they cannot serve two masters : hence for them 
the door of repentance is still open (22). But as regards the 
reVva, the case is different. They have embraced the Nicolaitan 
teaching unreservedly and unconditionally. They are one with 
their spiritual mother in aim and character. P or them, therefore, 
there is nothing but the doom of destruction (23*). In this 
interpretation the difference in the dooms threatened is wholly 

w iv Oai/arw. Cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 27, a 
where #araros = "i:n> "pestilence," as here and in vi. 8 (note). 

miaou at KK\t]criai KT\. The doom of the offenders 
was to be known as widely as the scandal had been. The 
yvuvovrai on is an O.T. form of expression : i.e. know by reason 
of experience, as in the case of the Egyptians, etc. Cf. Ex. 
vii. 5, xvi. 12, xxix. 46, etc. 

6 epauv&v ye<J>pous KCU KapSias. This phrase is from the O.T., 
but it is an independent rendering of Jer. xi. 20, Jy\ rri^D jn 3 
where the LXX has 8o/a/xa(ov ve<f>pov<> KOL KapSias. The LXX 
does not use Ipawav at all as a rendering of jrQ, nor apparently 
does any other Jewish version save Aquila in one instance 


(Ezek. xxi. 18). The same phrase, though the order of the 
words is different, is found in Ps. vii. 10. Cf. other variations in 
Jer. xvii. 10, xx. 12. St. Paul uses the phrase $w T<3 SOKL/JLOLJ^OVTI 
TO,? KapSuxs fj/ji&v (i Thess. ii. 4) and 6 epawon/ ras KapSias in 
Rom. viii. 27. ve<po? is not found elsewhere in the N.T. Cf. 
Wisd. i. 6, where a free rendering is given of the entire phrase. 
The kidneys were regarded by the Hebrews as the seat of the 
emotions and affections (Jer. xii. 2), and the heart of the thoughts. 
Zpawav is, according to Blass (Gr. 21), an Alexandrian form. 

Swcrcu up!/ KaoTU> Kara TO, epya UJULWK. This phrase recurs in 
xxii. 12. Cf. Matt. xvi. 27, 6 wos TOV av&pw-n-ov . . . a/7roS<ocre< 
e/cacrra) Kara rr]v 7rpatv OLVTOV. 

24. OUK Ixouaii . This may mean " are free from " in contrast 
to those who "hold fast" Kparovaw, but a comparison of i. 16 
and ii. i is not in favour of this view, if text of ii. i is right. 

oirii cs is here generic; indicates a class. Its use is therefore 
classical, as in i. 7, ix. 4, xx. 4. Elsewhere our author uses 
OO-TIS as practically the equivalent of os: cf. i. 12, xi. 8, xii. 13, 
xvii. 12, xix. 2. See note on xi. 8. 

oiTiyeg . . . Ta J3a0e a TOU Zaram. Two interpretations are 
here possible, and both are forcible, (i) Since the persons 
referred to in u>s Aeyouo-iv are the libertine section in the Church 
of Thyatira, the above words, omves . . . ^arai/a, are an indignant 
retort on the part of our author, in which he declares that, 
whereas they claim to "know the deep things of God" (cf. 
Iren. Haer. ii. 22. 3) even as St. Paul (cf. i Cor. ii. 10, TO yap 
Tri/cv/xa Travra epavva, KCU TO. /3dOrj TOV Qcov : Rom. xi. 33; Eph. 
iii. 18), it is not the deep things of God but of Satan that they 
have sought after. The later Gnostics, we know, professed alone 
to know TO, fidOy: cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. ii. 22. i, "qui profunda 
Bythi adinvenisse se dicunt"; 22. 3, profunda Dei adinvenisse 
Se dicentes " ; Hippol. Phllos. V. 6, eTre/caAecrav lavrovs yvoooTtKOv?, 
<ao-/covTes fjiovoL TO, /3d6r) yivcoo-Keiv : Tertull. Adv. Valefit, i, 
" Eleusinia Valentiniani fecerunt lenocinia, sancta silentio magno, 
sola taciturnitate caelestia. Si bona fide quaeras, concrete 
vultu, suspense supercilio, Altum esf, aiunt." This phrase (ra 
/?a#ea) was a natural one on the part of men who laid claim to 
an esoteric knowledge a knowledge that in the case of the 
Cainites, Naasenes, Carpocratians, and Ophites was held to 
emancipate its possessors from the claims of morality. This 
last fact leads naturally to the second interpretation. (2) Ac 
cording to this second interpretation the words represent the 
actual claim of this Gnostic element in the Church of Thyatira, 
as Wieseler, Spitta, Zahn, Volter (Offenb. iv. 166), Bousset 
assume. These false teachers held that the spiritual man should 
know the deep things of Satan, that he should take part in the 


heathen life of the community, two of the most prominent 
characteristics of which were its sacrificial feasts and immoral 
practices. Though he outwardly shared in this heathen life, 
nevertheless as a spiritual man (i.e. the Gnostic of later times) 
he remained inwardly unaffected by it and so asserted his 
superiority over it. 

The insistence on the knowledge of intellectual mysteries, 
either as an indispensable addition to or as a substitute for 
simple obedience to the claims of the Christian life, has always 
been a weakness of the Church. 

ou flciXXw l<f> ufids aXXo |3dpos. In themselves these words 
could refer either to burdens of suffering or of the law. But the 
context declares clearly for the latter ; for the term Kparrja-ai in 
the following verse can only refer to the obligations of the moral 
law, and these obligations in particular related to fornication and 
the eating of meat offered to idols. Now these were the two chief 
enactments of the Apostolic decree in Acts xv. 28, e8oev . . . 
^o/Sei TrAeof e7rm $eo-0ai V/MV ySapos TrXrjv rourcov TCOV eTraj/ay/ces, 
a.7r)(6or@ai eiSa)Ao$vT<ov . . . /cat Tropretas. Only these two pro 
hibitions are declared to be obligatory on the members of the 
Church in Thyatira, which were entangled in the libertinism of 
the Nicolaitans. The other two aTre xeo-flat . . . afyiaros /ecu 
TZTIKTCOV are not re-enacted. But this is not all. The use of 
the word aAAo in itself points to the exclusion of the two latter. 
Thus our author had clearly the Apostolic decree in his mind. 

25. Once and for all take a firm hold (Kparrfo-are) on these 
duties incumbent on you, and shun absolutely the sacrificial 
feasts of the heathen and the moral evils that attend on them. 

o X T KpaTY)oraT. Cf. iii. II, K/odret o ex eis - 5 <0 ls to De 
taken as a subjunctive of the aorist I/G> since a^pi in our author 
elsewhere is followed by the subjunctive : cf. vii. 3, xv. 8, xx. 
3, 5. In xvii. 17 it is followed by the indicative; but our 
author is here using a source. 

26. 6 laKuy KOI 6 rqpStv KrX. The victory is to him that keeps 
Christ s works unto the end ; in the present instance the special 
works required from the Church of Thyatira. But the repetition 
of the article equates the two phrases. Hence we might trans 
late : "he that overcometh even he that keepeth." The 
victor is he that keeps Christ s works : he that keeps Christ s 
works is the victor. 

6 iaKUK . . . 8<uau> aurw, the nominative resumed in a subse 
quent pronoun in the dative. 

To this nominativus pendens or accusative we have an exact 
parallel in iii. 12, 21. A more normal construction occurs in 
ii. 7, 17, and the normal in vi. 4, xxi. 6. 

aurw eouaiay eirl Twy IQv&v. A free rendering of Ps, 


ii. 8, ^r6rp D^H H^riSI j LXX, Swo-w 0*01 Wvr) r^v /cATypovo/u av crov. 
The thought of these words as well as the diction of what 
follows are drawn from Ps. ii. 8-9. This Psalm was interpreted 
Messianically as early as the ist cent. B.C. in the Pss. Solomon 
(see note on xix. 15). The nature of the power conferred is 
described in the next verse. 

Our author appears to distinguish carefully the use of eoim a 
with the article and without it. In the Fourth Gospel the 
article is not used at all. With the article full authority in the 
circumstances denned in the context is implied : cf. ix. 19, xiii. 

4, 12, xvi. 9, xvii. 13. When a limited authority is implied, 
eovo-ta stands without the article : cf. ii. 26, vi. 8, ix. 3, xiii. 2, 

5, 7, xiv. 18, xvii. 12, xviii. i, xx. 6. There are three cases 
which do not come under this rule, i.e. in ix. 10, xi. 6, and xxii. 
14. In xi. 6 our author is using a source : hence we have 
here no exception. But ix. 10 and xxii. 14 are abnormal, since 
-fj e ^ovcrta avrwv in these passages appear to be equal simply to 
eXpv&w e^ovcriav. 

27. 27 ab imply the actual destruction of the heathen nations 
as in xix. 15, and apparently in their destruction the triumphant 
martyrs (cf. ii. 26, xvii. 14) are to be active agents as members 
of the heavenly hosts which should follow the word of God, xix. 
13-14. At this moment that I am writing we can witness at 
least a partial fulfilment of this dread forecast, in which England 
and her allies are engaged in mortal strife with the powers of 
godless force and materialism. As Swete aptly writes: "The 
new order must be preceded by the breaking up of the old 
(<rwTpi)8eTai), but the purpose of the Potter is to reconstruct ; 
out of the fragments of the old life there will rise under the hand 
of Christ and of the Church, new and better types of social and 
national organisation." To this we might add: the present 
heathen system of international relations will sooner or later be 
destroyed and replaced by international relations of a Christian 

Kttl ei aurous iv pd/88w aiSrjpa 
a>S TO, 0-K6UT] TO, 

From Ps. ii. 9. Our author here agrees partly with the LXX : 
avrovs ev pa/3Su> crtS?/pa 

Instead of Troi/xavets Symmachus renders crwrpiif/tis (s. cruv- 
#/\ao-ets), and instead of crvvrpfyeis Aquila renders Trpocrp^et?. 
Two important questions arise here. r. Has our author simply 
borrowed his rendering Trot/xavet from the LXX? 2. What 
meaning does our author attach to Trot/Mam? Now as to i, 


since it is our author s usage elsewhere to translate the Hebrew 
text independently, there is no reason to infer that he is here 
simply borrowing from the LXX. The LXX was no doubt 
familiar to him and provided him with a vocabulary. But he 
was in no sense dependent upon it. But it has been urged, and 
no doubt rightly, that the LXX here derived Djnn from njn and 
so vocalized it Djnn and rendered it Trot/xavets, whereas they 
ought to have derived it from yjn and vocalized it DJHfi, "thou 
shalt break " (as Symmachus). We have now to deal with 2 
what meaning did our author attach to Troi/xai/ct ? A comparison 
of xix. 15, where Troi^avfl is parallel to -n-ard^y, and of the present 
text, ii. 27, where it is parallel with o-wr/otySerat (cf. also xii. 5), 
is strong evidence that our author attached two distinct meanings 
to TToi/AatVeti/. 1 The ordinary meaning is found in vii. 17 (7rot//,aj/t 
= " will pasture "), the other and unusual meaning " will de 
vastate, lay waste," in ii. 27, xii. 5, xix. 15. Now, since this 
sense is so far as I am aware not found outside our author and 
the LXX (if indeed it is found in the latter), it is incumbent on 
us to explain how our author came to attach this meaning to the 
Greek verb. The explanation is apparently to be found in the 
fact that TTot/xatVeti/ is the ordinary translation of njn. But 
whereas njn generally means "to shepherd/ it means sometimes 
"to devastate," " destroy," as in Mic. v. 5 ; Jer. vi. 3, ii. 16 (where 
the R.V. renders "break"), xxii. 22; Ps. Ixxx. 14 (see Oxford 
Hebrew Lex., p. 945). Now in the first two passages the LXX 
renders njn by Trot/xatVetv. Hence Troi/xatVav should here mean 
" to lay waste " or " to destroy." But, even if the LXX failed to 
grasp the right rendering of njn in these passages and rendered 
it according to its ordinary sense, it does not follow that our 
author does so also. As clearly as language can indicate, 
TroifjLaiveiv and Trarao-cretv in xix. 15 are parallels, just as potato. 
oeta and /m/2Sw orL$r)pa. in the same clauses are likewise parallels. 
It is noteworthy that in Latin pasco developed this secondary 
meaning also. 

Hence it is highly probable that our author assigned to 
Trot/LuuVeiv a secondary sense that attaches to njn (as he does 
to other words : cf. iroSts, x. i n.), and that we should render here : 

" He shall destroy them with an iron rod, 
As the vessels of the potter shall they be dashed to pieces." 

1 That our author did attach two meanings to IT 01 eiv is the view 
universally adopted by ancient and modern versions. Thus the Vulgate and 
Syriac versions and the A.V. and R.V., etc., render this verb by "rule" in 
ii. 27, xix. 15. This is, of course, a possible meaning and it is also an 
ancient one, but in our author the parallelism and the context are against it. 
The object with which authority is given to them over the apostate nations is 
not that they may " rule " them, but may utterly destroy them. 


us rot o-KeuT] TO, KcpafUKo, ffuiTpi|3eTai. Here we have a free 
rendering of Ps. ii. 9**: cf. also Isa. xxx. 14; Jer. xix. 11. It is 
best to regard o-wrpi/Serai as = 1VBJ1 in the mind of our author, 
and hence take it as a Hebraism and equivalent to a future. 
Later MSS saw, in fact, that a future was required here and read 
o-wTpi/^o-erai. We should not here, with the R.V., take the 
words as follows : " as the vessels of the potter are broken to 
shivers." Such a thought is weak : there is no point in such a 
statement. The writer means to say that the righteous will 
"dash to pieces" the strong and the mighty among the heathen 
as easily as one dashes to pieces a potter s vessels. Primasius 
supports this view: "sicut vas figuli confringentur": also Ticonius: 
"ut vas figuli comminuentur." Besides, the parallelism requires 
o-vvTpCfaTai 1 to be taken as a principal verb, as it is in Ps. ii. 9. 
Even Isa. xxx. 14, Jer. xix. n support this view. 

o>S Kayw eiXY]<f>a irapa TOU Trarpos jxou. These words recall, of 
course, Ps. ii. 7, Kvpios eiTrei/ Trpos ^.e Yto s fjiov e? (TV. Cf. Acts ii. 33, 
rrjv re 7rayyeAiav TOV Tn/eu/Aaros . . . Aa/2<W Trapa. TOU Trarpos, for 
the phraseology. 

28. In this letter to Thyatira only do we find a double 
promise here and in 2y ab . On this and other grounds Selwyn, 
Wellhausen, and others would omit 2y ab as an intrusion. 

No satisfactory explanation has as yet been discovered of 
these words. But in the meantime the best interpretation seems 
to be that of Beatus (quoted by Swete) : " id est, Dominum Jesum 
Christum quern numquam suscepit vesper, sed lux sempiterna 
est, et ipse super in luce est," and of Bede : " Christus est Stella 
matutina qui nocte saeculi transacta lucem vitae sanctis promittit 
et pandet aeternam." In xxii. 16 Christ describes Himself as 
6 do-TT/p 6 Aa/A7rpos 6 TrpoKVos. Hence the words combined with 
27 mean simply: "when thou hast won through the strife I will 
be thine." 


1. iv IdpSeo-ii/. Sardis (see the Bible Dictionaries in loc. : 
also Ramsay, Letters^ 375-382) was situated about 30 miles 
S.E.S. of Thyatira. In Ionic its form was ^apSus, in Attic 
SapSets, while in later Greek it was written ^apSis. Sardis was 
built on the northern confines of Mt. Tmolus, and its acropolis 
on a spur of this mountain. It dominated the rich Hermus 

1 A neuter plural has the verb oftener in the plural in our author. But 
lperai here must agree either with ra aKeirq or, as I take it, with T& 
supplied from 26 b . For other instances of the sing, verb and plural 
noun cf. i. 19, A /uAXet, viii. 3, xiii. 14, xiv. 13, xix. 14, xx. 3, 5, xxi. 12. 


valley, and was the capital of the ancient Lydian kingdom. It 
reached the height of its prosperity under Croesus (circ. 560 
B.C.). On its conquest by Cyrus it became the seat of a Persian 
Satrapy, and its history for the next three centuries is buried in 
obscurity. Under Roman rule it recovered some of its ancient 
importance, and became the centre of a conventus juridicus ; but, 
notwithstanding, no city in Asia presented a more deplorable 
contrast of past splendour and present unresting decline. In 
17 A.D. it was overthrown by a severe earthquake, but through 
the generosity of Tiberius (Tac. Ann. ii. 47), who remitted all its 
taxes for five years and contributed 10,000,000 sesterces towards 
its rebuilding, it rose so rapidly from its ruins that in 26 A.D. it 
was called a TroAts /xeyaXr; by Strabo (625), and it contended, 
though unsuccessfully, with Smyrna for the privilege of raising a 
temple to Tiberius (Tac. Ann. iv. 55). Its chief cult was that 
of Cybele, while its staple industries were connected with woollen 
goods, and it claimed to have been the first community which 
discovered the art of dyeing wool. To these industries there is 
possibly a reference in iii. 4, 5*. Its inhabitants had long been 
notorious for luxury and licentiousness (Herod, i. 55 ; Aesch. 
Pers. 45), and the Christian Church had manifestly a hard task 
in resisting the evil atmosphere that environed it. Like the city 
itself, the Church had belied its early promise. Its religious 
history, like its civil, belonged to the past. And yet, despite its 
moral and spiritual declension, it still possessed a nucleus of 
faithful members: it had "a few names which had not defiled 
their garments." It was not apparently troubled by persecution 
from without, or by intellectual error from within, and yet it 
and the Church of Laodicea were the most blameworthy of the 

6 zytov TO, cirra -nreujJiaTa TOU 0eou KCU TOUS eirrd dorepas. This 
clause is (see p. 26), as the corresponding divine titles of Christ in 
the other six Letters, to be regarded as a redactional addition of 
our Seer when he edited his visions as a whole. The phrase TO. eTrra 
Trt/ev/xara has already occurred in i. 4, but there it is a manifest 
interpolation. Hence it really occurs here for the first time. 
On its probable meaning see i. 4, note. 

otSd o-ou Ta epya. On this vernacular genitive (contrast 
ii. 2) see notes on ii. 9, 19; Abbott, Gram., pp. 605, 607 ; also 
414-25, 60 1. Here as in iii. 8, 15 the emphasis is laid on the 
Ipya "the works thou hast wrought are known tome" they 
give thee a semblance of life, but in reality thou art dead. This 
vernacular genitive recurs at the close of this verse : cf. also x. 9, 
xviii. 4-5, xxi. 3 (A). 

on oi/o/jui exeis on fjs KCU yeitpos ei. For the construction cf. 
Herod, vii. 138, owo/m cl^e, a>s r *A^i/as eAawei, KO.TICTO Se es 


Tracrav r. EAAaSa. Contrast 2 Cor. vi. 9, u>s aTroOvrjo-KovTts, Kal 
I Sov u)/xev, and cf. Jas. ii. 17, fj Trams, lav JJLT) txtl epya, ve/cpa ecrri 
/ca# eavrr/i , and 2 Tim. iii. 5, e^oi/res /zop<jE>u)(riv evcre^etas r^v 8e 
SiW/xiv CUJTI/S rjpvyfjievoi. The condemnation of the Church of 
Sardis is more severe than that of the other six Churches. And 
yet it, too, has a nucleus of faithful members. 

2. yivou ypi]yopG>v. For this construction cf. xvi. 10, cyci/ero . . . 
e o-Korw/xeVry. yp^yopeii/ is a word of our Seer s (cf. xvi. 15), and, 
though found in the three Synoptic Gospels, is not used in the 
Fourth. Our text recalls Matt. xxiv. 42 (Mark xiii. 33), yp^yo- 
pen-e ovv, ort OVK ot Sare TTOLO. ^epa 6 Kvpios V/AO>V ep^erat. There 
are very close affinities in diction between 2-4 here and xvi. 15, 
which show indubitably our author s hand. With yivov 
... 3, KO.I T^pet Kat jaeravoryow ear ovV /AT/ yp^yop^cn/ 
. ... 4, a OVK e/xdAwav ra t/xarta avrajv, /cai 
. . ev AeuKots, cf. xvi. 15, iSov cp^o/xat ws 
6 ypryyoptov Kai rr;pav TO. t/xarta avrov, u/a /XT) yv/jLi>o<s 
. But on the high probability that xvi. 15 originally 
stood between 3 b and 3, see note on this verse and also on 
xvi. 15. 

Ramsay (Letters, 376 sqq.) is of opinion that this admonition 
to be watchful was suggested by two incidents in the past history 
of Sardis, when the acropolis fell into the hands of the enemy 
through the lack of vigilance on the part of its defenders first 
in the time of Croesus in 549 B.C., and next in 218 B.C. when 
Antiochus the Great captured the city, a Cretan mercenary 
having led the way, "climbing up the hill and stealing 
unobserved within the fortifications." 

TCI Xourdt. This word is found eight times in our author, but 
not in the other N.T. Johannine writings. As Swete points out, 
ra AotTra means not merely persons, but "whatever remained at 
Sardis out of the wreck of Christian life, whether persons or 
institutions." The entire community needs to be reconstructed 
on a sound foundation. 

& ejj.e\\oi> airoQavelv. We have here the epistolary imperfect. 
In the plural verb (contrast i. 19) we have a construct ad sensum. 
The idea recalls Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 16. Blass (Gram. 197) seems 
right in maintaining that the aorist is correctly employed here 
and in iii. 16, xii. 4, after /xeXWiv. /Ae AAew is seldom followed by 
the aorist in the N.T. : it is generally followed by the present, as 
also in our author: cf. i. 19, ii. 10, iii. 10, vi. n, viii. 13, x. 4, 7, 
xii. 5, xvii. 8. In classical Greek /xe AAetv is followed most 
frequently by the future inf., but in vulgar Greek this was dis 
placed by the present. 

aou TO, (< AC) epya- Here as at the beginning of the verse 
we have the vernacular possessive. The emphasis is thrown 


strongly on the noun : " The works wrought by thee I have found 
wanting before my God." Cf. Dan. v. 27. Here the o-ov refers 
to the community as a whole. As a centre of spiritual and 
moral power it has failed, though it contains a few that have 
been faithful (4). Hence we read ra Ipya against AC. ov o-ov 
epya = " no works of thine," cannot be maintained in the face 
of 4. 

TrXTjpwjxeVa. Only found once again in our author in vi. u. 
It is a favourite Johannine word in the Fourth Gospel, occurring 
13 times (cf. especially xvi. 24, xvii. 13), and twice in i and 2 
John. Cf. also Col. ii. 10, e(rre ei/ avro) TreTrA^poo/xeVoi. 

fvutriov TOU OeoG fxou. The community has a name before the 
Christian world for its works, but not before God ; for the faith 
fulness of the few (4) cannot redress the balance against the 
Church as a whole. It is a dying Church. On TOV Oeov /JLOV cf. 
iii. 12 ; Rom. xv. 6, TOV Btov /cat Trarepa TOV Kvpiov T^/XOJV I7yo-ov 
XpLo-rov : also Mark xv. 34 ; John xx. 1 7. 

3. |Ai/Y]jj,6i>ue oui> (cf. ii. 5, the advice to the Church of 
Ephesus) irws ei\Y|<J>as KCU TjKouaas. The change of tenses is here 
significant. rj/couo-as points to the time when they heard the 
Gospel: cf. i Thess. i. 5, 6, ii. 13. eiAr/^as concedes that they 
still possess this gift of God. 

TTJpei Kal fAT<xv6T]ow. The Church is to keep fast hold of 
what it has received and heard, and, repenting forthwith, recover 
its former spiritual attitude (aor.). 

cay ouv JULY] YpT)yopY)o-T]s. As a host of critics have pointed out, 
xvi. 15 (see note) undoubtedly breaks up the context in which it 
occurs. Konnecke (followed by Moffatt) would restore it before 
the above words, while Beza transferred it before iii. 18. The 
first suggestion is probably to be preferred. It might, of course, 
be objected that the repetition after ISov epxo/xcu us /cAeW^s of 
5^0) o)< K\7rrr}<; would be jejune. But the latter seems more 
definite. And yet in ii. 5, 16, d Se /XTJ, ep^o/xat. the present 
epxoyuat appears to be used under exactly the same conditions as 
ijci) ws /cXeVT^s here. But it is probable that in the clause tSov 
epxo/xat d)5 KXeTTTr/5 we have a general description of the nature of 
Christ s Advent. It is to be unexpected, whereas in the clause 
ij&o d>s KAcTrrTys there is a definite menace, in which it is implied 
that the Church of Sardis will be caught off their guard by the 
suddenness of Christ s Advent. Hence, though with some 
hesitation, I have restored xvi. 15 before iii. 3. 

XVI. 15. I8ou epxofxai a>s 

jMicdptOf 6 YpTjyopwy Kal rrjpojy rot tfxcma aurou, 

u/a JAY] yujxyos irepnraTT), 

Kal pXeTrwai^ TT]\> aax T ]J JI<o< i Y)i CIUTOU. 


III. 3 C . lav ouv A 

T]w US K\TTTt)S, 

iroiai wpay T]<U em ere. 

edy ouV fXT) YP^YOP 1 ! "!)* *) w "S K\eVn]s KT\. An obvious echo 
of Matt. xxiv. 43 sq. ( = Luke xii. 39 sq., cf. Mark xiii. 35). d pSet 
6 O6Ko8eo-7roTi/s Troia (frvXaKrj 6 KAeTrr^s ep^crat eypryyopr/crev av . . . 
yiV<r@ CTOi/xoi, on ^ ou So/ceiTC (Spa, o utos rot) avOpuTrov ep^tTttt. 
The Second Advent is referred to in our text : it will come as a 
thief in the night, because they are not on the watch ; cf. i Thess. 
v. 2, 4. 

ou JXTJ Y"$S- T ne subjunctive follows ov 7x17 without excep 
tion in our author, and all but universally in the rest of the N.T. 
In WH text ov prj occurs 96 times, according to Moulton 
(Gram. 190). Of these examples 71 are with the aor. subj. and 
8 with the fut. ind. The rest are ambiguous. 

iroi ai &pav. For <Spav in the ace. when apparently referring 
not to the duration but to a point of time, cf. Moulton, Gram. 2 , 
p. 63. Blass, Gram. 94 sq., points out that this usage began in 
classical times where wpav = ei? <Spav ; cf. Robertson, Gram. 
470 sq. Acts xx. 1 6, John iv. 52 are generally cited as parallel 
usages to that in our text. See, however, Abbott, Gram., p. 75. 

4. The case of Sardis is critical, but there is still room for 
hope ; for there is a faithful nucleus that has escaped the general 

ovofxara. Cf xi. 13; Acts i. 15. Deissmann (Bible Studies, 
196 sq) has proved that in the 2nd cent. A.D. 6Vo/>ux was used 
in the sense of "person." Hence it is probable that in our 
author we have the same usage. It is, however, to be re 
membered that oi/o /xara is used in Num. i. 2, 20, iii. 40, 43, as a 
rendering of rriDl^ where this word means " persons " reckoned 
by name. 

d OUK ejAoXway TOL tfJicxTia auTWK. See note on 18. The 
moral stains here referred to especially include Tropvei a (cf. xiv. 4). 
"The language reflects that of the votive inscriptions in Asia 
Minor, where soiled clothes disqualified the worshipper and dis 
honoured the god. Moral purity qualifies for spiritual com 
munion " (Moffatt in loc.). 

Trepnrari^aouo n JACT ejxou iv Xeuicotg. We have here the first 
eschatological promise, which is not preceded by the words 
6 viKoii/. The raiment here spoken of is the heavenly raiment or 
the spiritual bodies awaiting the faithful in the next life. See 
note on next verse. 

<xiot euru>. Contrast the use of this phrase in xvi. 6. 

5. See note on ii. 1 1 b . 

VOL. i. 6 


ev. 7re/oi/:?aAA.e<r#ai takes two constructions in 
our author. It is followed either by ev with the dat. as here and 
in iv. 4, or by the ace. in the remaining passages. 

iv Ifiariois XeuKois. These garments l are the spiritual bodies 
in which the faithful are to be clothed in the resurrection life. 
This thought is clearly expressed in 2 Cor. v. i, 4, " If the earthly 
house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from 
God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. . . . For 
indeed we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened ; 
not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be clothed 
upon." But this idea recurs elsewhere in the N.T., though it is 
not so definitely expressed as here : cf. Matt. xiii. 43, rore ot oY/ccuoi 
e/cAa/Ai/fovarv us 6 ^/Vios, that is, they shall have a body of light 
(cf. Ps. civ. 2, " who coverest thyself with light as with a garment "), 
i Cor. xv. 43, 49, 54, Phil. iii. 21, where it is promised that the 
body of our humiliation will be conformed to the body of His 
glory (TU> trw/mri TT}S SOT;S avrov). We shall find later that 
" body of light " and " body of glory " are used interchangeably. 
But returning again to Phil. iii. 21 we see that the connection 
between the earthly body and the heavenly though they are 
different in essence is of the closest, and that the character of 
the heavenly body is conditioned by that of the earthly body 
(cf. i Cor. vi. 1 8). In the Asc. Isa. iv. 16 (circ. 88-100 A.D.) we 
find further references to these garments or spiritual bodies : 
" But the saints will come with the Lord with their garments 
which are (now) stored up on high in the seventh heaven : with 
the Lord they will come, whose spirits are clothed . . . and be 
present in the world." Cf. vii. 22, viii. 14, "when from the body 
by the will of God thou hast ascended hither, then thou wilt 
receive the garment which thou seest" : also viii. 26, ix. 9, "And 
there I saw Enoch and all who were with him stript of the 
garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the 
upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great 
glory"; ix. 17, "And then many of the righteous will ascend 
with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments till the 
Lord Christ ascend"; also ix. 24-26, xi. 40. In the Apoc. of 
Peter 3 (circ. 110-125 A.D.) the raiment of the blessed is said 
to be light, and 5, all the dwellers in Paradise to be " clad in the 
raiment of angels of light" (ei/SeSu/xe voi ^<rav IvSv/za dyyeAcuv 
<umi/<m>). Next, in Hermas, Sim. viii. 2. 3, the faithful are 
rewarded with white garments : i/xaTto-/x.oi/ 8c TOV avrov iravrts 
\VKOV axret \tovd 01 Tropevo/zevoi eis TOV irvpyov Again, 

1 The idea is not a hard and fixed one in Jewish and Christian literature. 
While generally the garments are symbols of the heavenly bodies of the faithful, 
at times they seem to denote only a sort of heavenly vesture distinct from the 
faithful themselves. 


in the Odes of Solomon we have three references to these 
heavenly bodies: xi. 10, "And the Lord renewed me in His 
raiment (cf. Ps. civ. 2) and possessed (? formed, i.e. eKT^o-aro, 
corrupt for eK-nWro) ... 14, And He carried me to His 
Paradise " ; xxi. 2, " And I put off darkness and clothed myself 
with light. 3, And my soul acquired a body free from sorrow or 
affliction or pains " \ xxv. 8, " And I was clothed with the cover 
ing of Thy Spirit, and Thou didst remove from me my raiment 
of skin." See also Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity p , p. 215; 
Moulton, Journal of TheoL Stud. iii. 514-527. In its present 
form 4 Ezra i.-ii. is Christian, but it is not improbably 
based on Jewish sources. However this may be, we have, 
as in the Asc. Isa., references to this heavenly body of light. 
Cf. ii. 39, "Qui se de umbra saeculi transtulerunt splendidas 
tunicas a domino acceperunt." The nature of these heavenly 
garments is clear from ii. 45, " Hi sunt qui mortalem tunicam 
deposuerunt et immortalem sumpserunt." 

We have now shown that the resurrection body was clearly 
conceived in the first and second centuries A.D. in Christian 
circles as a "body of light." But this conception was also 
pre-Christian. Thus in i Enoch Ixii. 16, where the risen righteous 
are described : 

" And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory, 
And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of 
Spirits " ; 

cviii. 12, "And I will bring forth in shining light those who have 
loved My holy name." See also 2 Enoch xxii. 8, " And the Lord 
said unto Michael : Go and take Enoch from out his earthly 
garments . . . and put him into the garments of My glory." For 
interesting though only partial parallels in Judaism and Zoroas- 
trianism, see Lueken, Michael, 122 sq. ; Boklen, Verwandschaft 
d. jiidisch-christlichen mit d. Parsischcn Eschatologie, 61-65. 

To return now to our author, it is clear that the white garments 
represent the resurrection or heavenly bodies of the faithful in 
iii. 4 C , 5 a , vi. n (see note), vii. 9, 13, 14, xix. 8 a (where 8 b is a 
gloss). In iii. 4 b (note), 18 (note), xvi. 15, the i/xarta are used as 
a symbol of the spiritual life as manifested in righteous character, 
which forms the heavenly vesture of the redeemed. 

The idea may go back to Ps. civ. 2 where God is said to 
clothe Himself with light as with a garment. The garments of the 
angels are white : Mark ix. 3 = Luke ix. 29 ; Mark xvi. 5 = Matt, 
xxviii. 3 ; Acts i. 10. The very bodies of the angels are white, 
composed of light ; cf. 2 Enoch i. 5. This is the older idea, and 
it is preserved in our author. Later these garments came to 
signify heavenly vestures of an accessory nature. 


ea\uJ/<> . . . CK. Cf. vii. 17, xxi. 4. The Sardians had 
a name to live and yet were dead (iii. i); if they awake 
(iii. 2) to righteousness and show themselves victors, then their 
name will be preserved in the book of life. TT)S ftiftXov T??S 00779. 
Cf. xiii. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, 15, xxi. 27. 

" The idea underlying this phrase can be traced to the O.T. 
There the book of life (or its equivalents, Ex. xxxii. 32 sq., God s 
book ; Ps. Ixix. 28, book of the living ) was a register of the 
citizens of the Theocratic community of Israel. To have one s 
name written in the book of life implied the privilege of partici 
pating in the temporal blessings of the Theocracy, Isa. iv. 3, while 
to be blotted out of this book, Ex. xxxii. 32, Ps. Ixix. 28, meant 
exclusion therefrom." He whose name was written in this book 
remained in life but he whose name was not, must die. " In the 
O.T. this expression was originally confined to temporal blessings 
only, save in Dan. xii. i, where it is transformed through the 
influence of the new conception of the kingdom, and distinctly 
refers to an immortality of blessedness. It has the same mean 
ing in i Enoch xlvii. 3. A further reference to it is to be found 
in i Enoch civ. i, cviii. 7. The phrase again appears in the 
Book of Jubilees xxx. 20 sqq. in contrast with the book of those 
that shall be destroyed, but in the O.T. sense. ... In the N.T. 
the phrase is of frequent occurrence, Phil. iv. 3 ; Rev. (see above 
list) ; and the idea in Luke x. 20, Heb. xii. 23, written hi 
heaven, is its practical equivalent." The above is quoted with 
a few changes from my note on i Enoch xlvii. 3. In the same 
note kindred expressions are dealt with at some length such as 
the books of remembrance of good and evil deeds the good in 
Ps. Ivi. 8; Mai. iii. 16; Neh. xiii. 14; Jub. xxx. 22; the evil 
in Isa. Ixv. 6; i Enoch Ixxxi. 4, Ixxxix. 61-64, 68, 70, 71, etc. ; 
2 Bar. xxiv. i ; both the good and the evil in Dan. vii. 10 ; 
2 Enoch Iii. 15, liii. 2 ; Rev. xx. 12 ; Asc. Isa. ix. 22. See Weber, 
Jud. Theol? 242, 282 sqq. ; Dalman, Wortejesu, i. 171 ; K.A.T* 
ii. 405; Bousset, ReL d. Judenthums, 247. 

xal ofioXoyiqo-w TO oVofia aurou KT\ We have a clear reminis 
cence of our Lord s words in Matt. x. 32 (Luke xii. 8), Tras ovv 
OOTIS oytxoXoyrycret ev cfj,oi H/jiTrpocrOei TOJV dv^/atoTrwi/, oynoAoy^crco 
Kayw tv avr<3 /z7rpoo-$ei/ rov Trar/oo? JLOV TOV iv rots ovpavols (TOJV 
d-yye Xwv TOV 0cov, Luke xii. 8). 


7. Tt]s iv <t>iXa8eX<J>ia. This city (see Bible Dictionaries in loc.) 
lies some 28 miles south-east of Sardis. From the words of our 
author it is clear that its Christianity was of a high character, 


standing in point of merit second only to Smyrna among the 
seven Churches. In the time of Ignatius (Ad Phil. 3, 5, 10) 
it enjoyed the same high reputation. Philadelphia was founded 
on the southern side of the valley of the Cogamis a tributary 
of the Hermus by Attalus n. Philadelphus, and named after 
its founder (159-138 B.C.). Under Caracalla it received the title 
of Neocoros or Temple Warden, and thenceforward the Kou/oV 
of Asia met there from time to time to celebrate certain state 
festivals. Like other cities of Asia Minor it too suffered from the 
great earthquake in 17 A.D., and was assisted to rebuild by a 
donation from the imperial purse. 

The chief pagan cult was that of Dionysus, but its main 
difficulties arose from Jewish rather than from pagan opponents 
(iii. 9), as was the case with Smyrna (ii. 9). These Judaizers 
were still a source of trouble in the time of Ignatius (Ad 
Phil. 6). 

In later times Philadelphia was notable for the heroism with 
which it resisted the growing power of the Turks. " It displayed 
all the noble qualities of endurance, truth and steadfastness which 
are attributed to it in the letter of St. John, amid the ever threaten 
ing danger of Turkish attack ; and its story rouses even Gibbon to 
admiration" (Ramsay, Letters, 400). It was not until 1379-90, 
when jealousy divided the Christian powers, that it fell before the 
attack of the united forces of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel n. 
and the Turkish Sultan Bayezid I. Since that time it has been 
known as Ala-Sheher, the reddish city, a designation due to 
the red hills in its rear. 

6 &Y>S o aX^i^s. "The Holy, the True." This asyndetic 
use of two divine designations is to be found in i Enoch 
i. 3, xiv. i (cf. also x. I, xxv. 3, Ixxxiv. i), 6 ayios 6 /xeyas. 
6 ayios was familiar to the Jews as a title of God ; cf. Hab. 
iii. 3; Isa. xl. 25; i Enoch i. 2, xxxvii. 2, xciii. n, etc.; 
Acts iii. 14. The two words ayios and dA^u/ds, which are com 
bined as epithets of God in vi. 10, are in our text applied 
to Christ: cf. iii. 14, 6 THO-TOS KOL dA/^ivds : xix. n, TTICTTOS 
[KaXov/uevos] /cat aX.r)Oiv6s. As regards the meaning of aXyOivos, 
Hort has rightly urged that " it is misleading to think (here) only 
of the classical sense, true as genuine. ..." Not only vi. 10, but 
iii. 14, 6 /xdprvs 6 TTIO-TOS KOL aXyOivos (cf. xix. n), and what is said 
of His ways or judgments (xv. 3, xvi. 7, xix. 2), dA^u/ds 
coupled with Si/caios, show that the Apocalypse retains the O.T. 
conception of truth, expressed, e.g. in cxlvi. 6, which keepeth 
truth for ever, i.e. constancy to a plighted word or purpose, the 
opposite of caprice." Cf. also Isa. xlix. 7, "because of the 
Lord that is faithful, the Holy One of Israel." In the LXX 
is never used of God, but dA^ii/ds is used a few times ; 


cf. Ex. xxxiv. 6; Isa. Ixv. 16; Ps. Ixxxvi. 15, where the Hebrew 
is either nps or }2K. Hence aX-rjOwos implies that God or 
Christ, as true, will fulfil His word. The thoroughly Hebraic 
character of the Apocalypse confirms this view. In the Fourth 
Gospel, on the other hand, aXr)6ivos = "genuine" as opposed to 
unreal rather than to untruthful. Hence in our author Trench s 
( N. T. Synonyms, 29) admirable differentiation of the words aXrjOijs 
(not used in our author, but 14 times in the Fourth Gospel) and 
dA?7#u os does not hold : " We may affirm of the a\r)9r)<s, that he 
fulfils the promise of his lips, but the dA^ivos, the wider promise 
of his name. Whatever that name imports, taken in its highest, 
deepest, widest sense, whatever according to that he ought to be, 
that he is to the full." This distinction is true of the Fourth 
Gospel, where both words occur. 

6 )(<oj/ TT]V K\elv AaueiS, 6 ayoiywy ical ouSels icXeiaci KT\. The 
passage points back to i. 18, but it is based on Isa. xxii. 22, 
where QF with the Mass, read, with reference to Eliakim, 8wcra> 
rrjv /cAetSa ot/cov AaveiS CTTI TOV oo/xov avrov, /cat dvotet /cat ov/c 
carat 6 d7ro/cA.ta>v /cat /cAeiVei /cat OVK etrrai 6 dj/otywv. Since both 
B and A read differently, our author is apparently not using the 
LXX here. In any case, while the LXX reproduces the Mass., 
which here consists of parallel clauses, it is clear that our author 
deals independently with the text. The Hebrew is familiar to 
him, and what appears in Isa. xxii. 22 in the form of direct 
statements and finite verbs is cast by our author into a series of 
dependent clauses, which are introduced by participles that are 
subsequently resolved into finite verbs, i.e. 6 dvoiywi/ Kat ovScis 
/cAeiVet /cat /cAeuov /cat ovSets dvoi yet. This is not Greek, but 
a Hebrew idiom often used by our author, ~UD!Tt "UD fW nnsn 

nna r*a 

The expression T^V /cAetv Aauet S has apparently a Messianic 
significance. Cf. v. 5, xxii. 16, pt a Aavet 8. The words teach 
that to Christ belongs complete authority in respect to admission 
to or exclusion from the city of David, the New Jerusalem. 
The admission referred to may primarily have to do with the 
Gentiles and the exclusion with the unbelieving Jews (see 9). But 
their scope is universal. 

As Eliakim carried the keys of the house of David in 
the court of Hezekiah, so does Christ in the kingdom of 
God: cf. Eph. i. 22. He has the same authority in regard 
to Hades, i. 18, and supreme authority in heaven and earth, 
Matt, xxviii. 18, and is "as a son over his own house," Heb. 
iii. 6. 

8. Ot&ci <TOU TCI Ipya. This clause has by some scholars been 
rejected on the ground that it breaks the connection and is 
harmonistic. But it is better with WH to take the words that 


follow, iSou Sc ScoKo, . . . avTTJv, as a parenthesis, and connect 
oTSa . . . epya directly with on /u/cpav ex l? KT ^- "^ a * s followed 
by cm in iii. i, 15. 

i8ou Se SwKa evwiriov crou dupac dca>Y|xenr]i>. SeScoKa apparently 
is used Hebraistically here, " I have set." In Ovp. dvewy/xeV^v we 
have a Pauline metaphor: cf. i Cor. xvi. 9, 6vpa yap JJLOI aveyytv 
fjLyd\.rj /ecu cvepyrjs : 2 Cor. ii. 12, Ovpas /xot dvewy/xevrys ei/ Kupiu) : 
Col. iv. 3, iva 6 #eo? avoi^y fjfjuv Ovpav rov Aoyou (i.e. an oppor 
tunity for preaching the word). Here the " open door " means 
that a good opportunity is being given for missionary effort, and 
in our text and in the above Pauline passages the door stands 
for the privilege accorded to the Christian teachers; in Acts 
xiv. 27, r^voi^ev rots e#i/ecriv Ovpav TUOTCWS, the metaphor is applied 
conversely, where the door is opened not to the Christian 
teacher, but to the converts to the Christian Church. A 
different explanation has been advanced by Moffatt, who in view 
of a passage written by Ignatius to this same Church of 
Philadelphia (Ad Philad. ix. i, O/UTOS <ov Ovpa TOU Trar/ao?, Si rjs 
etVep^ovrat A/3paa/>i KCU IcraaK KrA.) connects the phrase with 
Christ and compares John x. 7, 9, where Christ describes 
Himself as 17 Ovpa rtov Trpo/Jarwi/. But it would be strange for 
the speaker Christ to say, " Behold I have set before you 
a door opened," and to imply thereby that He Himself was this 
door. The direct form of statement in John x. 7, 9 does not 
support this view. Bousset propounds a third explanation, 
i.e. that the open door is for the entrance 9f the community 
into the Messianic glory. 

r\v ou&els SuVarat icXeurai au-rrjy. On this Hebraism cf. vii. 
2, 9, xiii. 8, r2, xx. 8 : cf. xii. 6, 14, xvii. 9; also ii. 7, 17. 

on fuKpay exeis SuWfui . This clause, as pointed out above, 
depends directly on olSd crou TO, epya, the intervening clause 
being a parenthesis. The Church had little weight in Phila 
delphia so far as concerned its external circumstances. 

KCU TrjpT]crds JULOU joy Xoyok. The KCU has here an adversative 
force ( = " and yet "), as frequently in the Fourth Gospel (Abbott, 
Gram. 135 sqq.), i. 5, iii. 13, 19, iv. 20, vi. 70, ix. 34, etc. The 
usage is Hebraic in character. Cf. also Matt. vi. 26; Jer. xxiii. 
21 (Robertson, Gram. 1183). On er^p^cras . . . Xoyov see note 
on xiv. 12. /cat OVK T7pi/^cra>. Cf. ii. 13. These clauses point to 
some period of faithfulness under trial in the past. 

fiou TOV Xoyok ... TO oi/ofxd JJLOU. With the position of the 
pronoun here cf. x. 9, Tri/cpava crou rr/v KoiAiav aAA. Iv TO) crro/xart 
o-ou ecrrai yXvKv. The first unemphatic (or vernacular possessive) 
IJLOV throws the emphasis on enjpr/cra? and TOV Xoyov : "And yet 
the word I gave you thou didst keep, and didst not deny My 


9. The conversion of the Jewish element in Thyatira 

iSou 8i8w eic TTJS owaywyns TOU laram. In SiSoi (for 
the earlier St Soyu see Robertson, Gram. 311 sq.) we have 
a transition from -/u to -<o forms. Cf. xvii. 13 (8i8ocunv). As 
regards SiSw two interpretations are possible. First, it may be 
rendered literally : " I give men of the synagogue ... as thy 
converts." Otherwise Si&5 is to be taken Hebraically, " I make 
(i.e. I will make) men of the synagogue . . . behold I will make " 
(71-01770-0)). This latter use is frequent in the LXX. It is to be 
found also in Acts x. 40, xiv. 3 (ii. 27, in a quotation from the 
LXX). The combination iSov Si&o is decidedly in favour of the 
latter view; for it is a pure Hebraism, fro "03H, with a future 
sense. With the construction SiSw e*c TT?S o-waywy?}? compare 
ii. 17, 8wo-<o . . . TOV (Jidvva. 

njs cruytiywYTJs TOU laram. In the LXX pn?V ?np is rendered 
17 a-vvaywyrf TOV Kvpiov (Num. xvi. 3, xx. 4 : cf. also xxvi. 9, 
xxvii. 3, where a different Hebrew word is used). Not a 
Synagogue of the Lord, but a Synagogue of Satan, does the 
Seer pronounce these Jews to be. Some twenty years later the 
Church of Philadelphia had greater dangers to encounter from 
the Judaizers than from the Jews, both of whom were active : 
cf. Ignat. Ad Philad. vi. I, eai/ Sc TIS lovSaur/xov kp^vevy vfjuv, /XT) 
a.KOVT avTOv a/xetvov yap eoriv Trapa dvSpos Treptro/x^i/ C^OVTOS 
Xpio"Tiavio-//,6i/ O.KOVCLV 77 Trapa a.Kpo/3v<TTOv iov8ato-yaov. 

r&v Xcyorrwy eaurous louSaious ei^au The raV Aeyovrcov is in 
apposition to -n/s o-waywy^s. On the whole clause cf. ii. 9. In 
classical Greek the usual construction would be TWV Xcyovrwv 
(avrtov) lovSaiW eti/at. But even in classical Greek the ace. with 
inf. is found where the nom. would have been usual. In the 
Koivr) Moulton (Gram. 212 sq.) shows the same usage active. In 
fact, as Robertson writes (Gram. 1039), "the ace. with the inf. 
was normal when the substantive with the inf. was different from 
the subject of the principal verb." Our author claims that the 
Christians alone had the right to the name "Jew." " Faith in 
Christ, not mere nationality, constituted true Judaism. The 
succession had passed to Christianity" (Moffatt in loc.} : cf. Rom. 
ix. 6-9, ii. 28, 29, " He is not a Jew which is one outwardly 
. . . but he is a Jew which is one inwardly." Herein our 
author differs from the Fourth Evangelist, with whom lovSauu is 
by no means an honourable designation. 

ruv \ty6vTw . . . KCU OUK taiV. An unmistakable Hebraism. 
Cf. ii. 9 and i. 5-6, note. 

iroi^aw Ivo. cum fut. or subj. Cf. xiii. 12 (fut.), 16 (subj. ?) ; 
John xi. 37 (subj.); Col. iv. 16 (subj.). The u/a clause is 
one of consequence ; cf. ix, 20, xiii. 13. The fut, ind. after 


Iva is frequent in our author: see Introd. to ii.-iii. 2 (b\ 
p. 41 sq. 

Iva T]ou<ni> KCI! irpOCTKu^aouo-ii eywmoc TU>I> iroSwi/ aou. Cf. 
xv. 4, xxii. 8. The language is based on Isa. Ix. 14, where the 
Gentiles are described as submitting to the Jews : TropeuVovrai 
Trpos <re SeSo6Kores viol TaTreivaxravTtov <re : xlv. 1 4, Sia/^o-ovrai Trpos 
o- KCU Trpoo-Kwrjo-ova-iv o-ot. It will be observed that our author s 
diction is not dependent on the LXX. Moreover, our text more 
nearly renders the Mass, of Isa. Ix. 14 than the LXX, for KCU 
TrpocrKWijorovcriv e-rrl ra ix vr i v TroSwv <rov IS found only in Q mg 
and not in the LXX. The homage that the Jews expected from 
the Gentiles, they were themselves to render to the Christians. 
They should play the role of the heathen and acknowledge the 
Christians to be the true Israel. 

lyw Yiyd-irTjo-d ae. From Isa. xliii. 4. 

irpocrKui T]o-ou<Tii> . . . Kttl yvGxTiv. Cf. xxii. 14, tva corral . . . 

10. This verse is a redactional addition on the part of our 
Seer when he was editing his visions. Its meaning is only 
explicable from a right understanding of vii., where the 144,000 
are sealed. There the faithful are sealed with a view to their 
preservation from the assaults of demons, but are not thereby 
secured against physical death. This persecution is not to be 
a merely local one (cf. ii. 10) : it is to embrace the entire world. 
Elsewhere throughout the original Letters to the Seven Churches 
there is not even an apprehension of a world-wide persecution (see 
5, p. 44 sq.). The continued existence of two of the Churches 
is presupposed till the Second Advent: cf. ii. 25, iii. 3 (?), n. It 
will be observed that the demonic trial spoken of, while world 
wide, was to affect only " those that dwell upon the earth," i.e. 
the non-Christians. 

on er^pTjaas Toy XoyoK . . . Kclyaj ore TTjp^aw. Cf. John xvii. 
6, II, 12, rov Aoyov (rov rerrjprjKav . . . Trarep aytc, T7ypr?<rov 
avroi;? . . . ore fjfjirjv /x-er avrcov eya> er^pow avrovs. As they 
have kept Christ s word, so He will keep them safe from the 
demonic assaults which will affect all who are not His. 

rov \6yov rfjs UTTOJAOIOJS JJLOU, i.e. " the word of my endurance." 
The phrase VTTO/X,OV^ TWV aytW (xiii. 10, xiv. 12), i.e. "the endur 
ance practised by the saints," requires a like interpretation here. 
Hence "the word of my endurance" is "the Gospel of the 
endurance practised by Christ." This is to be, as Hort writes, 
at once as an example and as a power." Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 5, 
TTJV vTTopovrjv TOT) XpioTou : Ignat. Ad Rom. x. 3, eppoxrfle cts reA.09 
zv VTTO/JLOvf} I^rrou Xpifrroi). 

TTjpTJau CK. Only found elsewhere in the N.T. in John 
xvii. 15 (cf. Jas. i. 27, r^petv ciTrd), where the thougl t is quite in 

90 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ill. 10-12. 

keeping with that of our Seer : OVK epwrw Iva apys e/< TOV 
dAA Iva Tr)pr}o~r)<$ OLVTOVS ZK TOV Trovrjpov. Here TOV Trovrjpov is the 
Evil One, or Satan. Hence our Lord s prayer is that His 
disciples may be delivered from the evil sway of Satan, not that 
they may be saved from the physical evils (including death) 
which are inevitably incident to this life. This gives exactly the 
object of the sealing in vii. The sealing provides the spiritual 
help needed against the coming manifestation of Satanic wicked 
ness linked with seemingly supreme power. See III. c. in the 
Introd. to vii., 5, p. 194 sqq. Unreserved loyalty to Christ carries 
with it immunity from spiritual anguish and mental trouble. 

TTJS <Spas TOU -n-eipao-jxou. This tribulation is to affect only the 
faithless and the heathen ; for, as the note on xi. 10 shows, the 
phrase " those that dwell upon the earth " denotes the world of 
unbelievers as distinguished from that of the faithful. Hence 
whilst the word Tmpaoyx-os (cf. 7mpaeiv later) may in some 
degree retain the sense of " trial," since some of the faithless 
might thereby be brought to repent, yet its prevailing sense in 
this passage is affliction and temptation the fitting functions 
of the demons (ix. 1-21). 7reipae.v in ii. 10 means "to afflict," 
but the affliction is limited to "ten days." On 7mpaav as 
meaning to inflict evils upon one in order to test his character, 
cf. i Cor. x. 13 ; Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15. 

TOUS KdToiKoGrras em TT)S y^s- These are the heathens or 
non-Christians. See note on xi. 10 and 4 of the Introd. 
to xiii. Thus the coming Tretpacr/xo?, which is to be world-wide, 
is to afflict only those who have not the seal of God on their 
forehead (ix. 4). See note on vii. 3. 

11. epxojuipit raxu. This refers to the Second Advent and 
presupposes the continuance of the community till that event, 
as in ii. 25, iii. 3. But the main presupposition of the later 
chapters, which represent our author s final view, is that in the 
final persecution all the faithful will suffer martyrdom : cf. xiii. 15, 
xviii. 4 (note), 20, and i of the Introd. to xv., and i of the 
Introd. to xvi. 

Kpdrei o e xeis. Each Church is to preserve its own inherit 
ance. Cf. ii. 25. See note on ii. i on Kpareu/. 

Iva. pi&els Xd|3T] TOV <TTe<J>av6y crou The promise of the crown 
is parallel to that made to the Church of Smyrna, ii. 10 (see 
note). Cf. Col. ii. 18 ; 2 Tit. ii. 5. 

12. See note on ii. i i b . 

6 VLK.WV Troirjorw auToV A Hebraism. Cf. ii. 7, 17, 26, iii. 21. 

oTuXoy iv TW mw TOU 0eou jjiou. With Otov fjiov cf. iii. 2, 5 
Here the phrase occurs four times. The expression errv Aos is 
used metaphorically as elsewhere in the N.T. and in Judaism. 
Cf. I Tim. iii. 15, eK/cAr/crta . . . crruAos KCU e^pat o^a r^s aXrj- 


0eias: also Gal. ii. 9. In Clem. Rom. v. 2, Peter and Paul are 
called 01 /AeyioToi Ko.1 SLKOLLOTCLTOL CTTV\OL. In Judaism, R. Johanan 
ben Sakkai was called wr\ Tiy, " the right pillar," with refer 
ence to i Kings vii. 21 (Ber. 28 b ), and Abraham the pillar of the 
world in Exod. rab. 2 (see Levy s Neuhebraishes Worterbuch, 
iii. 660; also Schoettgen, Hor. i. 728 sq.). The metaphor is 
current in most languages : cf. Pind. Ol. ii. 146 ; Eur. Iph. I. 
57, (TTvAot yap ouctDv etcrc TrcuSes apo~eves : Aesch. Agam. 897 ; Hor. 
Od. i. 35. 13. Since O-TT^OS is thus used metaphorically, it 
follows that vaos has also a metaphorical sense here. Hence the 
text is not inconsistent with xxi. 22, where it is said that there is 
no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem, xxi. lo-xxii. 2, which 
descended from God to be the seat of the Millennial Kingdom. 
In the more spiritual and New Jerusalem, xxi. 2-4, xxii. 3-5, 
which was to descend after the first judgment, there could, of 
course, be no temple. The local heavenly sanctuary existing in 
heaven (see notes on vii. 15, iv. 2) was ultimately to disappear, 
and God Himself to be the temple. 

eo> ou pj e^eXOt) I. The subject is 6 VIKWV. Fixity of 
character is at last achieved. Since God is the temple, and 
the faithful have become pillars in this temple, they have become 
one with Him, and therefore can never be separated from 
Him. Cf. John xvii. 2l a , iva Trai/res ei/ wtrtv : 22, a/a axriv ei/ 
Ka$a)s T^/xets v : 2l b , tva at avrot ei/ ^/uv wtrtv. Isa. xxii. 25, 
which speaks of the removal of "the nail fastened in a sure 
place " (i.e. Eliakim), may have been in the mind of our author, 
inasmuch as in iii. 7 he has quoted Isa. xxii. 22. The nail can 
be removed, but not the pillar. 

ou (or JXTJ) . . . In, frequent in our author but not in Fourth 

KCU ypavj/co eir aur6i> TO 6Vojj,a KT\. So far as the Greek goes 
the words CTT avrov could refer to (i) o-rvAov, or (2) to 6 VLKWV. 
i. In favour of the first it has been urged that inscriptions on 
pillars were not infrequent in Oriental architecture. In order to 
worship a god it was necessary to know his name. Thus in the 
magical prayer of Astrampsychus, quoted by Reitzenstein, 
Poimandres, 20 (see Kenyon, Greek Papyri, i. 116), we find: 
OtSa <re, Epyu/J) . . . oTSa crov KOL TO, /3ap/3aptKa ovo/jLara /cat TO 
a\f)6ivov ovofj.a o~ou TO eyypayu,^aevov rrj tepa (TTijXrj iv TO) dSuTco ev 
Ep/x-ouTroAei. But there is a nearer parallel, as Bousset points out 
(referring to Hirschfeld, 860) ; for it was customary for the 
provincial priest of the imperial cultus at the close of his year of 
office to erect his statue in the confines of the temple, inscribing 
on it his own name and his father s, his place of birth and year of 
office. Possibly the foregoing figure was chosen with reference 
to this custom in order to set forth the dignity of the faithful as 


priests of God in the next world. Ignatius, Ad Philad. vi. i, has 
been thought to refer to the present text when he writes in 
reference to those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ, OVTOL 
o~Tr)\a.L eicrii/ KO.L TOLUOL veKptov, i<f> ots y^ypcnrrai JJLOVOV ovo/Aara 
TiDv. But there is really no idea in common. Ignatius is 
comparing false teachers to sepulchres, whereas our text declares 
that the victors shall be upholders of the spiritual temple of 
God, with the name of their God blazoned on their brows. 
Some think that the idea in our text is a development of Isa, 
Ivi. 5, " Unto them will I give in mine house and within my 
walls a memorial (lit. * hand ) and a name better than of sons 
and daughters," to which there are parallels in the Phoenician 
and Punic stones, which served as memorials within the heathen 
temples. But, as we have already presupposed, the other inter 
pretation is decidedly to be preferred. 2. The victor receives 
the name on his forehead, as in xiv. i, xxii. 4 (cf. vii. 3, note, 
xvii. 5). See also ii. 17, note. 

TO oVojjia TOU 6eoG JJLOU. See note on iii. 2. The name of God 
impressed on the forehead of the victors shows that they are 
God s own possession : see vii. 3, note. 

TO oVofxa TTJS iroXews TOU 0eoG jiou. These words denote that 
to the victor God will give the right of citizenship in the New 
Jerusalem: cf. Gal. iv. 26 ; Phil. iii. 20 ; Heb. xi. 10, xii. 22, xiii. 14. 

TTJS Kaii fjg lepouo-aXi^fx. Cf. xxi. 2. The New Jerusalem is 
the Jerusalem that descends from God after the final judgment 
and the creation of the new heaven and the new earth. It is to 
be distinguished from the heavenly Jerusalem which descends 
from heaven before the final judgment to be the seat of the 
Millennial Kingdom. See 5 in the Introd. to xx. 4-xxii., vol. ii. 
p. 150. Our author uses the form lepovo-aAi?/*, but the Fourth 
Gospel l/jo<roAt)/xa. 

TJ KaTaf3cuyou<ra KT\. Cf. xxi. 2, 10. On this Hebraism see 
note on i. 5. 

TO 6vop& p>u TO K<ui>6V. Cf. xix. 12, 1 6. But the new name 
more probably is one to be revealed at His Second Advent. And 
as Christ was to bear a new name at this Advent, so should also 
His faithful servants, ii. 17. Gressmann (Urspr. d. Israel, jud. 
Eschat. 281) has aptly remarked that "as in the beginning of the 
present world all things received their definite names, so will 
they also be named anew in the future world." 

A partial parallel to the whole verse is to be found in the 
Baba Bathra, 75 b , " Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachmani said in 
the name of Rabbi Johanan that three are named after the name 
of the Holy One blessed be He the righteous (Isa. xliii. 7), 
the Messiah (Jer. xxiii. 6), and Jerusalem (Ezek. xlviii. 35). 



As there were at least six cities, bearing the name Laodicea, 
founded or restored during the later Hellenic period, the 
Laodicea in our text was called AaoSt /ceia fj TT/OOS (or CTTI) TU> 
Av/cw (Strabo, 578). In the N.T. it was written AaoSt/aa, but in 
inscriptions and literature AaoSt/ceia. It was founded on the 
south bank of the Lycus, 6 m. south of Hierapolis and 10 
west of Colossae, by Antiochus n. (261-246 B.C.), and named in 
honour of his wife Laodice. Laodicea was most favourably 
situated as regards the imperial road-system. It formed the 
point on the great eastern highway where three roads converged 
and met: the first from the S.E. from Attaleia and Perga; the 
second from the N.W. from Sardis and Philadelphia (about 40 
miles distant); and the third from the N.E. from Dorylaeum 
and northern Phrygia. Its situation thus fitted it to become a 
great commercial and administrative city. Besides being a seat 
of the Cibyratic conventus^ it was (i) a banking centre (thus 
Cicero proposes to cash there his treasury bills of exchange 
Ad Fam. iii. 5, Ad Att. v. 15), and very opulent; for when it 
was overthrown by the great earthquakes of 60-6 1 A.D. (Tac. 
Ann. xiv. 27) it was not obliged to apply for an imperial subsidy, 
as was usual in the case of other cities of Asia Minor: cf. iii. 17, 
TrAovcrios et/u . . . /cat ouSei/ ^petai e^co : it was also (2) a large 
manufacturer of clothing and carpets of the native black wool, 
and it was likewise (3) the seat of a flourishing medical school, 
amongst its teachers having been Zeuxis and Alexander Phila- 
lethes. Now it can hardly be an accident that in iii. 17 of our 
text there are three epithets which refer to these commercial 
and intellectual activities, TTTW^O? /cat rv^Xos /cat yv/xvos, but in 
the way of total disparagement. And that this is so is still 
clearer from iii. 18, where, in contrast to their material wealth, 
their successful woollen factories and their famous medical 
specifics, the Laodiceans are bidden to buy from Christ the true 
riches, the white garments and the eye salve for their purblind 
vision. The Church of Laodicea was probably founded by 
Epaphras of Colossae, Col. i. 7, iv. 12 sq. The Lycus valley 
had not been visited by St. Paul down to the time of his first 
imprisonment in Rome, Col. ii. i. That he wrote a letter to 
Laodicea is to be inferred from Col. iv. 16 ; but this letter is lost, 
unless it is to be identified with that to the Ephesians (see Ency. 
Bib. i. 866 sq.). The Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans is entirely 
apocryphal (see Lightfoot, Colossians, 279-298). Our author 
appears to have been acquainted with St. Paul s Epistle to the 
Colossians. See note on 14. On this letter cf. Ramsay, Letters^ 


413 sqq., and the articles on Laodicea in Hastings D.B. and 
the Ency. Bib. especially in the latter. 

14. 6 Ap^. The explanation of this phrase is uncertain, 
but it may possibly be found in Isa. Ixv. 16, JDN rftf* = "the God 
of Amen." But, as modern scholars recognize, the LXX (TOV 
6tov TOV aX-YjOivov} implies JK \ji?K = "the God of truth," instead 
of JDK vfes, "the God of "Amen." The idea is thus "the True 
One," "the One who keepeth covenant." Hence the words that 
follow are in part a repetition and in part an expansion of the 
phrase that follows. Symmachus renders r<5 06o>, a^v, and 
Aquila (TU> 0<3) TreTrio-Tw/AeVws. In any case our author, as 
Symmachus, found fK in Isa. Ixv. 16. 

6 jjidpTus mores K<U dXTjOiyos. For the first three words cf. i. 5, 
and for the meaning our author attaches to aXyOivos, see note on 
iii. 7. 

Y) dpx^j TTJS imorews TOU 0eou, i.e. "the origin (or primary 
source ) of the creation of God." It is remarkable that in St. 
Paul s Epistle to the Colossians we have several phrases which 
can hardly be regarded as other than the prototypes of certain 
expressions in our author. Now we know (Col. iv. 16) that St. 
Paul wrote about the same time to the Churches of Colossae 
and Laodicea, and gave directions that the Epistle to the 
Colossians was to be read in the Church of Laodicea and the 
Epistle to the Laodiceans to be read in the Church of Colossae. 
Now it is possible that like phrases to those in the Epistle to the 
Colossians occurred in that to the Laodiceans ; but even pre 
supposing that this was not the case, we know at all events that 
St. Paul s original Epistle to the Colossians was read in the 
Church of Laodicea and that probably copies of it were current 
there. Since, therefore, there are, as we shall show, several 
points in common between our author and the Colossian Epistle, 
it is highly probable that our author was acquainted with it. 
See Lightfoot, Colossians^ 41 sqq. 

1. First of all, with 17 PX^ T ^ s KTMTCCOS TOV Oeov we should 
compare Col. i. 18, os eon-iv dpx 7 ? (where apxn the active 
principle in creation = ama, cause has the same meaning as in 
our text), and i. 15, TT/OCOTOTOKOS Trao-T/s KTUTCOOS ( = " sovereign 
Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture" Lightfoot). 
It is to be observed that TrpwroroKos bears the same meaning 
in our author in i. 5, TTPWTOTO/COS TCOV vtKpw = " sovereign Lord 
of the dead " (i.e. the secondary meaning of 7rpom>TOKos). In 
Col. i. 1 8, TT/awTOTOKos IK Toiv vtKpfov is not quite parallel owing to 
the presence of the e/c, which brings out the primary meaning of 
TTpwToroKos, i.e. priority in time. 

2. With iii. 21, Swcrco avrw Ka$iirrai /ACT e/xov Iv r<3 Opovw /AOV, ws 


Kaycb VLKrj(ra KCU eKa$i<ra /xera rov Trarpos jaov cv TU> Opovta avrov, 
compare Col. iii. I, et ovv o-w^ye p^re rw X., TO, ai/w ^reire, ou 6 
X. eo-riy ev Seia TOV 0eoi; Ka0>7/xevos. (Cf. Eph. ii. 6, cruv^yeipei/ 
KCU crvveK(i6icrV ev rots eTrovpavtois e^ Xptcrra) I^crou.) In our text 
the victors are to be seated on Christ s throne as He is seated 
on God s throne. In Col. iii. i, Christ is seated at the right 
hand of God, and the faithful are to sit with Him in heavenly 
places (Eph. ii. 6). 

3. In iii. 17-19 the self-complacency and self-satisfaction of 
the Laodiceans, arising in part, no doubt, from their great 
material wealth and prosperity as well as their intellectual 
advancement, are denounced, and they are exhorted to seek the 
true riches and the true wisdom which comes from a vision 
purged by the Great Physician. Cf. Col. i. 27, where the apostle 
emphasizes in contrast to their proud but baseless knowledge 
(ii. , 1 8, 23), "the riches of the glory of this mystery which is 
Christ in you," and ii. 2, 3, where he declares that he strives for 
the Colossians and also for the Laodiceans that they may be 
brought unto "all riches of the full assurance of understanding," 
even "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden "in 

It is not unreasonable to conclude from the above evidence 
that our author was acquainted directly or indirectly with St. 
Paul s Epistle to the Colossians. Possibly he was acquainted 
with St. Paul s lost Epistle to the Laodiceans, and was thereby 
influenced in his diction and thought. There are no resem 
blances between the diction and thought of the other six Letters 
and the Pauline Epistles a matter worthy of consideration. 

15. While the Churches of Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, 
and Sardis were guilty of manifest evils, no such evil is laid to 
the charge of the Church of Laodicea. But the evil, if not 
manifest, was still more perilous. The Laodiceans professed 
Christianity and were self-complacent and self-satisfied. They 
were unconscious that they were wholly, or all but wholly, out 
of communion with Christ (iii. 20), at all events they felt no 
need of repentance. Hence the startling declaration that the 
absolute rejection of religion (iii. 15) were preferable to the 
Laodicean profession of it. As a Church and as individuals 
they dwelt with complacency on what they had achieved (17*), 
whilst they were serenely unconscious of what they had left 

o(|>eXoi/ xj/uxpos TJS- o<eA.ov is used with the past ind. in late 
Greek to introduce an impracticable wish, and with the fut. ind. 
(Gal. v. 12) to express a practicable wish. But here as in 
2 Cor. xi. i we have o^eXov with the past ind. to express a 
possibility though in the present still unrealized. Moulton 

96 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ill. 15-17. 

defines these as instances of the " unreal " indicative. See Blass, 
Gram. 206 sq., 220 ; Moulton, Gram. i. 200. 

eor6s. Here only in the LXX or the N.T. Enthusiasm is 
required in the faithful, they were to be "hot to the boiling 
point," fervent in spirit (TU> Tn/cu/xari eovres, Rom. xii. n). 

16. x^ a PSj i- e - " lukewarm " here only in Biblical Greek. 
jiAXw . . . ejAeacu. Our author as a rule uses the pres. inf. 

after /xe AAeu/ : see note on iii. 2. e/xeo-at. This verb is not used 
elsewhere in the N.T. and only once in the LXX. The rejection 
of the Laodicean Church is not announced as final here, and 
the possibility of repentance is admitted in 18-20. The lan 
guage is very forcible though homely. The Laodiceans are not 
only denounced, but denounced with the utmost abhorrence. 
Such a denunciation is without parallel in the other Epistles. 
An immediate and special judgment is not here held in view, 
but the final judgment. 

17. This verse forms the protasis of the sentence; the 
apodosis follows in 18. See note on 14-22 above. There it is 
pointed out that in 17-18 we have references to the material 
and intellectual wealth of Laodicea. On the other hand it is 
urged that the language is metaphorical, and states that the 
Church of Laodicea is rich in spiritual possessions and has need 
of nothing (cf. i Cor. iv. 7-8). This, no doubt, is true, but the 
allusion to the material conditions of the city cannot be ignored. 

irXo<5<n6s etfxi KCU TrcirXouTT) ica, "I am rich, and have gotten 
riches." Our text here is a free and direct rendering of Hos. 
xii. 9, *h JiK TINVD Tnt^y. The LXX renders pN under the 
influence of the kindred Arabic root, TreTrAovrr/Ka, tvprjKa di/a- 
ij/vxyv (di/axA.s, Aquila) e/xavrw, but our author s rendering is 
more correct. Laodicea not only declares that she is rich, but 
maintains that her wealth, material and spiritual, is the result of 
her own exertions. But, as has already been suggested in ii. 9, 
the Church that is rich in spiritual and moral achievements is 
the most conscious of its own spiritual and moral poverty. 

In ovSev xpeuxv *X W tne v$tv is an ace. of limitation or refer 
ence. Blass (Gram. 91, note) thinks it cannot be right. But it 
recurs in xxii. 5 (note). Our author uses \peiav e^av either with 
the gen. (xxi. 23, xxii. 5) or with the ace. (iii. 17, xxii. 5). As 
Swete points out, there is a parallel expression and construction 
in Petr. Ev. 5, u>s ///^So/ TTOVOV t\w. But our author does not 
always keep to the same construction. Thus yc/xw has a gen. in 
iv. 6, 8, v. 8, xv. 7, xvii. 4, xxi. 9, but an ace. in xvii. 3, 4. 

Kal OUK olSas. Contrast this with oTSa o-ov ra Zpya in iii. 15. 

au el 6 TaXaiirwpos KT\. The <rv is emphatic : it is thou who 
art self-satisfied and boastful that art the wretched one par 
excellence. With the emphatic use of the art. before the pre- 


dicate cf. Luke xviii. 13 ; Matt. v. 13, v/xets core TO a\a$ T^S yr)s, 
i.e. the only salt that deserves the name (cf. Blass, Gram. 157). 
TaAcuVwpos occurs only here and in Rom. vii. 24, where it is used 
respectively of the extremes of unconscious and conscious 
wretchedness. eAecivo?, "pitiable," as in Dan. ix. 23; i Cor. 
xv. 19. 

TTTWXOS Kal Tu<f>X6s KOI yupvfa. In these three terms we have 
most probably allusions to local subjects of self-complacency in 
Laodicea and its Church; see note on 14-22, p. 93. On the 
spiritual significance of TTT(DXS see note on ii. 9. 

18. Here at the close of the subordinate clauses comes the 
chief sentence. This sentence is an admonition dealing with the 
spiritual condition of the Laodiceans as set forth in the closing 
words of the preceding verse TTTW^OS Kal TV</>AO? KCU yv/xvo?. 
Since the Laodiceans are all but spiritually destitute (TTTW^OS), 
they are exhorted to buy for themselves a new and disciplined 
spirit (xpvcriov TreTrupw/xcvov CK Trupos). This spirit constitutes the 
true riches, and since it cannot remain fruitless or inoperative, it 
manifests itself in a righteous character. Now this righteous 
character as it advances towards perfectionment weaves a gar 
ment for the spirit the spiritual body the white raiment of the 
blessed in the heavenly world. The Christian character (or its 
derivative the spiritual body) may be regarded from two stand 
points. From the human standpoint such character is a 
personal acquisition of the faithful, and, therefore, so far always 
imperfect: hence it can be soiled by unfaithfulness (iii. 4 b ), or 
cleansed and made white in the blood of the Lamb (vii. 14). 
On the other hand, from the divine standpoint the Christian 
character is a gift of God. Its derivative, the spiritual body, is 
not bestowed till the faithful have attained their perfectionment. 
Since the martyrs were regarded as having already reached this 
stage, they were clothed in heavenly bodies (vi. n), whereas 
from the rest of the faithful this gift was withheld till the end of 
the world, as they were still in a state of imperfection, even 
though redeemed. 

o-ujjLJBouXeuw o-ot. This construction here and in John xviii. 14 
only in N.T. Occasionally in the LXX. 

dyopdaai Trap CJAOU \puaiov. Cf. Isa. lv. I, " Ho, every one 
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money ; 
come ye ... buy (dyopao-are) wine and milk without money 
and without price." For the metaphorical use of this verb cf. 
v. 9, xiv. 3, 4; Matt. xxv. 9, 10. 

The words Trap* e/xov are emphatic. Cf. Matt. vi. 19, 20 for 

the thought. As regards the construction dyopao-at Trapa, cf. 

2 Esdr. xx. 31. In v. 9 of our author this verb is followed by e*, 

and in xiv. 3, 4 by airo : but the sense is different. On the 

VOL. i. 7 


symbolic meaning of ^pwiov here see note at beginning of 

7TirUpa>JJ,l OK K TTUpOS. Cf. I Pet. 1. 7, TO SoKLfJLlOV V^U-OJV TY)<S 

Trio-Tews Tro/VuTi/AoVepov xP vcr ^ ov ^ ta ^upos Se So/a/xa^o/xe vou. 
Other parallels may be found in Ps. xviii. 31, Prov. xxx. 5, 
where the word of the Lord is said to be " tried " (nsilV, in the 
LXX 7T7j-vp(o/x,vot), or in Pss. Sol. xvii. 47, TreTrvpoo/xei/a vrrep 
Xpvcriov. See also Ps. Ixvi. 10. From these parallels it is clear 
that the meaning of TreTrvpwjaeVov e* Trupo s is that this gold has 
been tested and is to be trusted. Further, since in the present 
passage this gold is not a material but a spiritual thing, the idea 
of the text is that Christ gives to the true seeker a spiritual gift, 
which constitutes the only true riches (Col. i. 27). This spiritual 
gift, consisting as it does in a new heart or spirit, becomes in 
fellowship with Christ the fans et origo of the Christian character, 
and this in turn the source and artificer of the spiritual body. 
Another function of this new spirit in man is that it endows him 
with spiritual vision (iii. i8 c ). Interpreted thus, the t/xarta XevKa 
and the xoAAoupiov are not separate and independent gifts, but 
gifts that are subsidiary to or rather springing out of the chief 
gift the ~xpv<riov TreTTvpw/xevov e/c Trupo? i.e. the new heart. 

t/jLctTia XUK<{. See the preceding note; also the note at 
beginning of verse, and on iii. 5. 

jxr) <f>acpo>6rj T) aur)(unr] rfjs Y U I UL>/ T1 1 T S <rou> See xvi. 15, note. 
For the diction, cf. Ezek. xvi. 36, a.7roKaXv<j>0rj(rTai rj alo-xyvi} 
erov ("irvny n^in): also xxiii. 29; Ex. xx. 26. The soul of the 
faithless will appear naked in the next world. Cf. 2 Cor. 
V. 2, 3, TO oiKrjrripiov fj/Jiwv TO e ovpavov lirevSvcracrOaL e7ri7ro#owT9, 
t ye /cat, evSuo-a^iei/oi ov yvfjivol evpe$>7o-o/x$a. According to XX. 
11-13, the dead (the righteous, excluding the martyrs, and the 
wicked) are raised disembodied: see note on xx. 13. The 
righteous then receive their spiritual bodies, but the wicked 
remain disembodied souls and are cast into the lake of fire. 
This is also the teaching of St. Paul, as 2 Cor. v. 2, 3 proves. 

KoXXoupioy eyxpLCTCu TOUS 6<j>0a\fjious icrX. The KoAAovpiov was 
shaped like a KoXXvpa (of which it is a diminutive). It was 
prepared from various ingredients, and was used as an eye salve. 
In our text it is the famous Phrygian powder used by the 
medical school at Laodicea. It appears in the Jerusalem 
Talmud (Shabb. i. 3 d , vii. io b , viii. n b ) (see Levy s Neuhebraishes 
Worterbuch, iv. 293) as JYn^jp and P"v6 N p in the general sense 
of an eye salve, and in Latin as Colly rium : cf. Hor. Sat. i. 5. 30, 
"nigra . . . collyria" : Juv. vi. 579. Celsus, vi. 7, speaks of many 
collyria of every kind: "Ex frequentissimis collyriis": vii. 7. 4. 
See Wetstein for further references, from which may be quoted 
the following : Wajikra R, ?56 a : " Verba legis corona sunt capitis, 


torques collo, collyrium oculis." eyx/aicrat. Here only in the N.T. 
and only four times in the LXX. 

The application of the eye salve in our text results in 
spiritual vision. Thereby the Laodiceans can get rid of then 
self-deception, and so gain true self-knowledge, and therewith a 
knowledge of " the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is 
Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. i. 27), "in whom are all 
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden " (Col. ii. 3). 
In the note on TreTrupoo/zevov e/c Trvpos above I have taken the 
spiritual gift symbolized by KoX.\ovpiov as a gift springing out of 
the chief gift symbolized by XP V(T ^ OV ntTrvp. IK Trvpos, and not as a 
separate and independent gift. On the other hand, the KO\\OV- 
PLOV in our text has been taken by some interpreters to mean 
the word of God (or of prophecy as opposed to the Law), or 
enlightening power or eAey/xos (John xvi. 8 sqq.) of the Holy 
Spirit (so Diisterdieck and Swete). 

19-20. The severity of the rebuke just administered is a sign 
of Christ s love which summons to repentance and abiding ear 
nestness first the Church as a whole (19) and next the individual 
members of it, and promises that if they will open their hearts 
He will enter into the closest communion with them for ever. 

19. eyw Serous lav <{>i\w e\ey)(cu KCU iraiSeuw. Cf. Pss. Sol. X. 2, 
xiv. i ; Heb. xii. 6. The text is remarkable here. It is drawn 
from Prov. iii. 12, ITpV "" 3rw"iE>K DK ^j, which the LXX 
renders, ov yap aya-jra Kvptos eXey^ei, (B ; TrcuSevet, XA). Here 
first of all we observe that our author uses <^iXetv and not aya-n-av 
as in the LXX. This is further remarkable, since in i. 5, iii. 9, 
ayairav and not <J>L\LV is used of Christ s love for man. <<Aeu/ 
is not used in the LXX or the N.T. (except in John xvi. 27) of 
God s love for man, but dyaTrav. Moreover, men are bidden 
dyaTrav rov 0eov but never <iAeiv rov 0eov save in Prov. viii. 17. 
This last passage is instructive ; for here the LXX renders 3HK 
which is twice used by the two words : eyw TOVS //, <iA.ovvras 
dyaTru>. The two Greek words differ in that dyaTrav " expresses 
a more reasoning attachment, . . . while the second ... is 
more of the feelings or natural affections, implies more passion " 
(Trench, Synonyms of the N.T *\ See, however, M. & M. s 
Voc. of Gk. T.j p. 2. In John xi. 3, 36, xx. 2, qfuAetv is used 
of Christ s love for Lazarus and John, but elsewhere in the 
Gospel dyaTrav is universally employed in this connection. 
Hence there is no perfect parallel in the N.T. to the use of 
<f>L\fLiv here. The exceptional use of the emotional word (con 
trast iii. 9) here can only be deliberate. It is a touching and 
unexpected manifestation of love to those who deserve it least 
among the Seven Churches. 

Next, eXey^o) and TraiSevw gall for attention, Herg Swete 

100 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ill. 19-20. 

observes that these two words may be duplicate renderings of 
iTDr, or that TratSev w may have been suggested by the preceding 
verse in Prov. iii. n, /x^ oAtycopet TratSeias Kvptov. The latter 
view is to be preferred, since TmiSevW never appears in the LXX 
as a rendering of ro* except in Prov. iii. 12 (in KA, etc.), but is 
a normal rendering of ID* 1 , whereas the stock translation of ro* is 

Reproof and chastisement are evidence not of Christ s 
rejection of the Laodiceans, but of His love (<tAo>) for them. 
Love is never cruel, but it can be severe. There has hitherto 
been no hint of any persecution of the Laodicean Church. 
Even here the mention of it carries with it not even the faintest 
allusion to the great persecution which was expected by the Seer 
in 95 A.D. and to which there is a definite reference in 21. 

^TJXeue oSk K<U ^Ta.v6r](rov. Here zeal is enjoined as a per 
manent element in the Christian character hence >jAeve and 
not tyXevcrov, while repentance is required as a definite change 
once and for all from their present condition hence peravorjorov. 
They are to begin by one decisive act, the life of Christian 
enthusiasm as opposed to their former life of lukewarmness and 

20. The deep note of affection in the preceding verse 
pervades this also. As a friend He admonishes the Laodicean 
Church to repent in 19 ; as a friend in this verse He does more : 
He comes to each individual and seeks an entrance into his 
heart. Here the words (ecu/ rts aKovay rys <^o>v^s ftov) have a 
personal and individual character not applicable to the Church 
of Laodicea as a whole. If 20 were addressed to the Church we 
should expect eai> cri> aKOvvys r. <j>. p.ov. Cf. ^Aeve Kat /xcravoiycrov 
in 19. Hence with De Wette, Alford, Weiss, and others this 
verse is to be interpreted as referring to repentance in the 

But many scholars Diisterdieck, Bousset, Swete, Holtz- 
mann and Moffatt interpret this verse in conjunction with 21 
eschatologically, and adduce as parallels such unmistakable 
eschatological passages as Mark xiii. 29 ( = Matt. xxiv. 33), 
ytveo(TKeT on cyyus eo-nv lirl 6vpa.L<s : Luke xii. 36, v/xets o/xotot 
dv0po>7rois TrpocrSexo/x.ei ots TOV Kvpiov . . . Iva eX^oi/ros /cat Kpov- 
crai/Tos e$eos di/oi^oocriv avrw : Jas. V. 9, iSov o KPLTTJS Trpo rwv 
Ovpw co-TT/Kev. It is shown further that in Luke xxii. 29 sq., 
Kayo) 8iart^e/xat v/>uv, /<a0a>9 Sie^cro /xot 6 Trarrfp JJLOV /3acriAeiav, Iva 
2(r@r)T KCU Trivrjrf eVi TT}S rpaTre^iy? JJLOV cv rfj /3acrtXeia /xov, Kat 
KaOrjcrOc CTTI Bpovuv ras 8co8eKa (f>vXa<s Kpti/ovre? TOV Icrpa^A., we 
have a combination of the metaphors eating and drinking with 
those of thrones and judging, just as we have a combination of 
the metaphors of eating and sitting on thrones in 20-21 in our 


text. But though the parallels in diction are indisputable, the 
thought differs. For whereas in Mark xiii. 29 ( = Matt. xxiv. 33) 
and Jas. v. 9 we have the final advent of Christ as Judge, in 20 
of our text He comes as a Preacher of repentance an office 
incompatible with that of Judge. Also in Luke xii. 36 the 
reference to the last coming and the giving of an account is 
manifest : He comes there to reward the faithful, not to call the 
careless and indifferent to repentance. Hence the eschatological 
interpretation is to be rejected. As usual our Seer takes his own 
line with tradition, even when the tradition is concerned with our 
Lord s own words; for iii. 20-21 shows, as Bousset recognizes, 
that he was familiar with Luke xxii. 29 sq. 

The diction recalls Cant. v. 2, where the LXX reads <(OI/T) 
<iSeA.<j!>iSov /xov, Kpova rt rrjv Ovpav avoi6v /xot dSeX^r; fjiov. Since 
in 4 Ezra v. 23-26 there is contemporary evidence of the 
allegorical use of Canticles (see Box s ed., p. 52 sq., notes), it is 
more than probable that our author has here come under its 
influence. See also Bacher s Agada der Tannaiten^, i. 94, 186, 
229 sq., 310 sqq., 338, ii. (ist ed.) 47 sq. etc.^ 

i&v TIS dicouo-T] TTJS 4>(u^s fxou . . . Kttl eto-eXeu aofiai. I have 
with some hesitation followed NQ, a considerable body of 
cursives, s 1 and Prim, in retaining the /cat before the apodosis. 

dKOuaT) TTJS 4>wrrjs fAOU. Cf. John X. 3, TO, TrpofidTa </>(ov^5 avrov 
a/covet : xviii. 37, Tras 6 a>v /c TT/S dA^eias OLKOVCI fjiov TT)<S <jm>vfj<s. 
Obedience to Christ leads to fellowship with Him. 

Kal eXeu crojicu irpos aurov ica! Seiirm^ox* jier* aurou. Cf. John 
xiv. 23, ?rpos avrov eA.ev<n>/A$a Kat /xovrjv irap a^rw 7rot7ycrd/xe^a. 
For ciore/a^eo-d at Trpds rtva of entering into a man s house, cf. Mark 
xv. 43. 

Participation in the common meal was for the Oriental a proof 
of confidence and affection. The intimate fellowship of the 
faithful with God and the Messiah in the Coming Age was 
frequently symbolized by such a metaphor. Cf. i Enoch Ixii. 14, 
"And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, And with 
that Son of Man shall they eat, And lie down and rise up for 
ever and ever." Cf. Shabbath, 153*. That this language is 
metaphorical always in the N.T. and generally in Jewish writings 
is shown by such statements as i Cor. vi. 13* and Ber 17% "In 
the world to come there is neither eating nor drinking . . . but 
the righteous . . . find their delight (D^ro) in the glory of the 

21. This verse is wholly eschatological. Christ promises to 
the martyrs to those who shall be victors by being faithful unto 
death that they shall sit on His throne even as He had been 
victorious through being faithful unto death and had sat down 
on His Father s throne. The fulfilment of this promise is seen 

102 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ill. 21-1 V. 1. 

by the Seer in his vision in xx. 4, where the martyrs sit on 
thrones and reign with Christ for 1000 years. 

Like ii. 7, n b , i7 b , 26-27, iii. 5, 12, this verse is a later 
addition of our author when he edited his visions as a whole. 

o VIK.&V . . . aura). See note on this Hebraism on ii. 7 ; also 
on SiSoi/at followed by the inf. 

SGJCTCO . . . icaOurai JJ.6T 1 ejmou Iv r. 6p6i/cp JAOU. The Seer 
witnesses in a vision the fulfilment of this promise in xx. 4, et<W 
upovovs KOLL Ka0tcrav CTT* avrovs /cat Kptua e8o$/7 avroTs . . . Kat 
efycrav KCU e/3acriAev(rai/ /tera TOV Xpto-roC ^tAta ITT;. The promise 
relates to the Millennial Kingdom. To the same period should 
probably be referred Luke xxii. 30, /cdyo> Startfle/xat v/ati/ /<a0w<j 
oieaero fjiot 6 Trarrfp /u,ou y8a.o~6A.etai/ tVa. . . . Ka6rjcrOe evrt Opovw 
r. SwSe/ca (f>v\a<s Kpti/ovres rou Io-pa?jX (cf. Matt. xix. 28), and like 
wise 2 Tim. ii. 1112, etyap crwaTre^dVo/xev, Kat o"Di/^cro/jtev. ct VTTO- 
/xeVo/u,i/, Kat crv/x/Sao-tAe^o-o/xej/, where the thought is certainly akin 
to that in our text. Cf. Mark x. 40. Yet the reign of the saints 
is not limited to the Millennial Kingdom : it will enter at last 
into the fulness of its potentialities in the everlasting kingdom of 
God, when " they shall reign for ever and ever," xxii. 5. 

u>S Kayo) eyiKTjaa. Cf. John xvi. 33, ^apcretre, eyw veviKYjKa TOV 

Kat K<x0ura fierd, TOU irarpos p.ou iv T. 0poi/w aurou. Cf. xxi. 2, 
xxii. 3, notes, and Col. iii. i, ov 6 Xpto-ros eVrtv i/ Se^ta TOV Oeov. 
Our author appears to use KaOi&iv in the finite tenses (cf. xx. 4) 
and the infinitive, but never the participle Ka#t wv, in place of 
which he uses Ka&j/^ei/os. Finite tenses of KaOfja-Oai are found 
in sources used by our author (xvil 9, 15, xviii. 7). 


i. The Contents and Authorship of this Chapter. 

With chap. iv. there is an entire change of scene and subject. 
The dramatic contrast could not be greater. Hitherto the scene 
of the Seer s visions had been earth : now it is heaven. On the 
one hand, in ii.-iii. we have had a vivid description of the 
Christian Churches of Asia Minor, which is to be taken as 
typical of the Church at large, the ideals they cherished, 
their faulty achievements and not infrequent disloyalties, and 
their outlook darkened in every instance with the apprehen 
sion of universal persecution and martyrdom. But the moment 
we leave the restlessness, the troubles, the imperfectness, and 
apprehensions pervading ii.-iii., we pass at once in iv. into an 


atmosphere of perfect assurance and peace. Not even the 
faintest echo is heard here of the alarms and fears of the faithful, 
nor do the unmeasured claims and wrongdoings of the supreme 
and imperial power on earth wake even a moment s misgiving in 
the trust and adoration of the heavenly hosts. An infinite 
harmony of righteousness and power prevails, while the greatest 
angelic orders proclaim before the throne the holiness of Him 
who sits thereon, who is Almighty and from everlasting to ever 
lasting, and to whose sovereign will the world and all that is 
therein owes and has owed its being. 

Such is the general import of this chapter. As regards its 
source, there can be no doubt. It comes wholly from the hand 
of our author (see 2), but it was most probably not written all 
at the same time. Our author appears here to have incorporated 
one of his earlier visions, consisting of four stanzas of four lines 
each, 2 b ~3, 5*, 6-8. In this vision the Seer beheld (as in Isa. vi.) 
a throne in heaven and Him that sat thereon, and the four 
Cherubim that stood round about the throne, who sang unceas 
ingly : 

" Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty, 
Which was and which is and which is to come." 

In the notes on iv. 4 a variety of reasons are given for regarding 
this verse as not originally belonging to this vision; but, as 
inserted by our author when he edited his work as a whole, to 
serve as an introduction iv. 9-11 (see also 3). iv. i, 2 a (in 
prose) was at the same time prefixed to link up the preceding 
visions on earth with the visions that follow in heaven in iv.-ix. 

2. This entire Chapter is indisputably from our Authors 
hand, as the diction and idioms testify. 

(a) Diction. 

1. /Aero, raura etSoy ica! I8ou. See note in loc. Iv TW oupaku. 
So always in the sing, in our author except in xii. 12. 8eiu : cf. 
i. i, xvii. i, xxi. 9, 10, xxii. i, 6, 8. & 8el yei/eadat. Cf. i. i, 
xxii. 6. 

2. eye^ojULY]^ Iv weufxari. Cf. i. TO. 

4. TrepijiJepXTjjaeyous IjJiaTiois Xeuicois. Cf. iii. 5. In vii. 9, 13, 
x. i, xix. 8, 13, the noun follows in the ace. instead of in the 

5. doTpaTral ical <|>a>ml ical fipovrai Cf. xi. 19, xvi. 18, but 
in viii. 5 in a different order. 

6. o>s OdXaaaa uaXinr]. Cf. XV. 2 (bis}, ojjioia KpuordXXw : cf. 
xxii. I, TTora/xov . . . COT}S . . . <us /cpvcrraAA.oi . 

8. aKurauau OUK exouaty icrX. recurs in xiv. II. Kupios o 0eos. 


This divine title occurs 10 times elsewhere in our author (cf. i. 
8, iv. n, xi. 17, xv. 3, xvi. 7, etc.), and only twice in the rest 
of the N.T. (i.e. in St. Luke) except in passages quoted from the 
O.T. Kuptos 6 0e6s, 6 irarroKpctTwp. Cf. i. 8, xi. 17, xv. 3, xvi. 7, 
xix. 6, xxi. 22. 6 irarroicpaTtop 6 r\v KCU 6 &v KCU, 6 epxoji.ei>os. Cf. 
i. 8, xi. 17, xvi. 5. 

9. Swaouaii . . . 86ai>. Cf. xiv. 7, xvi. 9, xix 7 (xi. 13). 
Cf. 4th Gospel ix. 24, xvii. 22. TW ^WVTI els T. aiwyas T. aiwywi/ : 
cf. 10, i. 1 8, x. 6, xv. 7 (cf. vii. 2). 

11. \aj3eik . . . TT]V SuVajuk. Cf. V. 12, xi. 17. 

(ft) Idiom. 

1. f\ 4>UkT) . . . adXTriyyos XaXouarjs . . . \tyuv. See note in 
loc. on this Hebraism, and cf. xvii. i, xxi. 9. 

2. em T. Qpovov icaOrjjxei os. On the three definite yet peculiar 
forms of this phrase in our author see note on iv. 2 ; it 
recurs in 4, 9, 10 in exact harmony with our author s peculiar 

7. ex&H^eTx 61 cf. 8, xii. 2, xix. 12, xxi. 12, 14. 

8. TO, Te oxrapa a>a . . . Xe yoires. A frequent construction 
in our author. 

9. OTO.V cumfut. ind.\ cf. viii. i, where orai/ is followed by aor. 
ind., though elsewhere in our author by the subj. For orav with 
ihefuf. ind. see Robertson, Gram. 972. 

10. n-poo-Kuyrjcrouo-ii TW WJTI. On the technical sense attached 
by our author to this construction see note on vii. n. 

3. One part of this Chapter appears to have been written at an 
earlier date and incorporated subsequently when our author 
edited the complete work. 

2b ~~3 5 6-8 acde appear to have been written by our author 
as an independent vision. The grounds for this conclusion are 
given in the notes in loc., some of which may be stated here. 

\ First of all, iv. i, 2 a is a prose introduction to the chapter, 
which serves to connect the preceding visions on earth with those 
that follow in heaven, iv. 2 a -ix. The rest of 2 b -8 is in verse. 
But iv. 4, according to our author s usage elsewhere, cannot have 

^. stood here originally. The grammar is against it: we should 
have nominatives and not accusatives (Qpovoi not Opovows, etc.). 
Again the functions of the Cherubim are conceived somewhat 
differently in iv. 8 and in iv. 9 (see note). Next, since the 
description proceeds from the throne outwards, the Living 
Creatures ought to have been mentioned before the Elders, 
since they stand nearest to the throne. For the observance of 
this order elsewhere in our author see note on iv. 4. When 
the description begins from without, we naturally find the 


reverse order angels, Elders, Living Creatures, as in vii. n, 
xix. 1-4. 

How then are we to explain iv. 4 ? Two explanations are 
possible, i. Our author has here used one of his earlier visions, 
but in order to adapt it to his present purposes has prefixed to it 
an introduction, iv. i, 2 a , and next, in order to prepare the way 
for iv. 9-11, has inserted iv. 4 possibly in the margin of his 
MS. By an oversight the nouns " thrones . . . elders " were 
put in the ace., owing not improbably to eI8ov in iv. i. * Since, 
according to the present writer s theory, our author had not the 
opportunity of revising his work, this grammatical error was not 
removed. In such a revision the next great objection to iv. 4 
could have been removed by transposing it after iv. 8 b . Thus 
we should have had a description of the throne and of Him that 
sat thereon (2 b ~3), next of the Living Creatures (6-8), and 
finally of the Elders (4). In that case 8 C would have read /ecu ra 
a>a avoLTravo-w OVK ex ovo ~ KT ^ 2 - Our author wrote the entire 
chapter at the same time, but forgot to mention and describe the 
Elders, which omission he forthwith repaired by an insertion on 
the margin of his MS, since some account of these was rendered 
indispensable by iv. 9-11. The former explanation seems prefer 
able. I add here what I take to be the original form of the 
vision in 1-8. The poem consists of four stanzas of four lines 
each, the first beginning with the words KCU t 

IV. 1. Mercl raura 

2. Kal i8ou dpoVos IKCITO Iv TW oupayu), 
Kal em TOP Bpovov caOrjju.ei os, 

3. Kal 6 Ka0Ti|xep 05 ofioios opdaei XiOcu idamSi KCU crapSto), 
Kal tpis KUKXoOey TOU OpoVou OJJLOLOS opdaei ajjiapay- 



5. Kal CK TOO OpoVou eKiropeuocTat dorpa-ira! Kal <J)wml 

Kal J3poi/rat, 
Kal ITTTCI XajjnraSes irupos Kaiojj,pai ev&iriov TOU OpoVou, 

6. Kal e^wTTiov TOU Opoi ou 6? OciXaao-a uaXi^T) ojmoia 


Kal KUKXw TOU Opovou TeWapa 


7. Kal TO ^WOP TO TTpWTOl OU.OIOP Xe oi/Tl, 

Kal TO Seurepov ^wop OJJLOLOV jmoaxw, 

1 If 5 b is a later addition, as it may be, then 6 b would form lines 3 and 
4 of the stanza. 


Kttl TO TplTOK woy ^V TO Trp6aa>TTOJ> O>9 
Kttl TO TCTapTOy ^WOk OjJLOtOJ aTU> TTTOJJiei/(}). 


Ta T&T<rapa wa ev Ka0* IK auTu^ IXCOK &va irrepu- 

YS *> 

OUK c^ouo-iy rjuepas Kal KUKTOS 

ayios ayios ayios Kupios o 6eds 6 irarroKpdiTwp, 

6 r\v Kal 6 UK Kal 6 

1. jxTa TauTa i8oi> Kal LSou. The clause with or without the /cat 
l&ov always introduces a new and important vision in our 
Apocalypse. 1 Compare vii. i (/xeTo, rovro), 9, xv. 5, xviii. i, xix. i 
(fjLCTa Tavra r}/<ovo-a). Sometimes the same note of emphasis and 
unexpectedness is conveyed by the clause /cat elSov KOL iBov : cf. 
vi. 2, 5, 8, xiv. i, 14, or by /cat ctSoi^ /cat r//couora, viii. 13. Gener 
ally similar and closely related sections, paragraphs, and clauses 
are introduced by /cat dSov, as in v. i, 2, 6, n, vi. i, 2, 12, etc., 
and in fact in all the subsequent chapters except xi. and xxii. 
These formulae are characteristic of apocalyptic literature, and 
imply an ecstatic condition. They are not, however, so carefully 
distinguished in other authors as in our Apocalypse. 

Thus jaeTa Tavra et<W, or its linguistic equivalent, is found in 

1 Enoch Ixxxv. i, Ixxxix. 19, 30, 54, 72, xc. 2 ; T. Joseph xix. 5 ; 

2 Bar. xxxvii. i, liii. 8, n. 

Kal et8oi>, or its equivalent in Hebrew, Aramaic, or 
Ethiopic is found in Dan. vii. 4, 9, n, 21, viii. 2, 4, 7; 

1 Enoch xvii. 3, 6, 7, 8, xviii. i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, xix. 3, 
xxi. 2, Ixxxv. 7, Ixxxix. 47, 70, xc. i, 4, 5, 9, etc. ; T. Levi viii. i ; 
T. Joseph xix. i, 3, 7, 8. We find frequently with the same 
connotation the clause, " And again I saw," in i Enoch Ixxxvi. 
i, 3, Ixxxvii. i, Ixxxix. 3, 7, 51. 

But the fuller form in our text frequently appears in this 
literature, pera ravra etSov /cat tSov. See vii. 9, or its linguistic 
equivalent, Dan. vii. 6, 7 (TIKI mn Jim nn "insa) ; i Enoch 
Ixxxvi. 2 ; T. Joseph xix. 5 ; 4 Ezra xi. 22, 33, xiii. 5 (" vidi post 
haec et ecce "), 8, and the somewhat shorter form nani mxi (or 
the like) in Ezek. i. 4, ii. 9, viii. 2, 7, 10, x. i, 9, xliv. 4; Zech. i. 
8, vi. i ; Dan. iv. 10, vii. 2, 13, viii. 3, x. 5 ; i Enoch xiv. 14-15; 

2 Bar. xxxvi. 1-2, 7, liii. i ; 4 Ezra xi. i, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 
xx. 9, etc. 

In all the above passages in Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel, 

1 The occurrence of this clause in xv. 5 shows that a new vision is being 
introduced : hence xv. I, which deals with the same vision, is an interpola 

iv. i.] SEER S VISION OF GOD 107 

i Enoch, Testaments XII Patriarchs, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, the 
ecstatic condition is designed by the expressions just enumerated. 
It is important to note this fact, owing to the presence of the 
clause eycvo^v ev irvevfiart in the next verse. If the Seer is 
already in a spiritual trance, what is to be made of the words 
eycvofjuyv ev TTvev/xart in 2 ? 

Rat i&ou 0upa ^ewyfJieVY] iv TW oupa^w. As we shall see later, 
/ecu tSov Ovpa . . . Iv TrVev/xari is an addition of our author whereby 
he connects the preceding visions on earth, i. io-iii., with those 
that follow in iv.-v., which are in heaven. The phraseology is 
apocalyptic. Cf. I Enoch xiv. 15, KCU I8ov aXXrjv Ovpav dvewy/AcV^v. 
It is possible to explain this expression in two ways. i. The 
Seer may be conceived as being already in heaven. In that case 
the door here mentioned would lead to a holier part of the 
heaven than that in which the Seer had hitherto been. This is 
the view underlying i Enoch xiv. There Enoch is translated into 
heaven, xiv. 8. When Enoch had once entered, he saw a great 
wall built of crystal, and tongues of fire which encircled a great 
house (xiv. 9). Into this house he entered, quaking and tremb 
ling, and then beheld aXXrjv 6vpav dvewy/xeV^v over against him 
leading to a still greater house in which God manifested His 
presence. The idea here would be practically the same as that 
of different divisions of the Temple differing in degrees of 
holiness. 2. The Seer may be conceived as not yet in heaven, 
but as entering by this door. 1 This is the view underlying 
T. Levi V. I, rpoie /x,ot 6 ayyeAos ras TrvXas TOV ovpavov. These 
gates admit Levi from the second to the third heaven. Since, 
however, there is no reason to believe that our Apocalypse 
teaches of more than one heaven (see later), the door referred to 
in the text admits the Seer from earth to heaven. Cf. 3 Mace, 
vi. 1 8, Tore 6 /*eyaAoSoos 0eos . . . rjv^cv ra9 ovpavtovs TrvAas, 
e <oi> SeSo^aoyxei/oi Svo <o/?epoetSets ayyeXot Ka.Te(3r](rav. This 
seems to be the right explanation. That the door, moreover, is 
not on a level with the Seer, as in i Enoch xiv., is clear from 
the words that follow dva/?a wSe. 

With the expression "a door opened in heaven" for the 
admission of the single Seer, we might contrast the words in 
xix. n, "I saw the heaven opened," where the whole heaven is 
opened, as it were, that the armies of heaven might go forth in 
the train of the Son of God. Yet in T. Levi ii. 6 the heavens 
open to admit Levi. 

1 Compare in this sense Gen. xxviii. 17; Ps. Ixxviii. 23; 3 Bar. ii. 2, 
iii. 2; Dieterich, Mithras liturgie, II sqq. 

On the ideas of doors in heaven through which the sun, moon, planets, 
and winds pass, see I Enoch xxxiii.-xxxvi., Ixxii. sqq. See also Schrader 3 , 
A". A. T. 619, for the occurrence of such ideas in Babylonian writings. 


iv TW oupai>w. Throughout the entire Apocalypse 
occurs in the singular except in xii. 12, which is derived from 
an independent Semitic source (see xii., Introd. 7). This fact 
in itself would not suffice to prove that our Seer believed in only 
one heaven; for in the Test. XII Patriarchs, where the doctrine 
of a plurality of the heavens is distinctly enforced, we find some 
times ovpavds, T. Reub. i. 6, v. 7, vi. 9 ; T. Levi xiv. 3 (j3), xviii. 
3, 4 ; T. Jud. xxi. 4 ((3), etc. ; sometimes ovpavoi, T. Levi ii. 6, 
iii. i (a), 9 (/?), v. 4 (/3), xiii. 5 ; T. Jud. xxi. 3, etc. 

Notwithstanding, the entire outlook of our book favours the 
conception of a single heaven. 

On the impossibility of getting a consistent view of the 
scenes portrayed in heaven by our book see note on Opovos . . . 
ev TW ovpavw in 2. 

But the passage, /cat tSov Ovpa ... 17 <f><*)vr) . . . ev Tn/cv/jum, is, 
as we shall see presently, an addition inserted by the writer with 
a view to linking together this vision with that which precedes : 
Kat ff (fxtivrj fj irpwr-q r)V fjKOvcra. cos (raATTiyyos XaXova-rjs yw,er ffJLOV, 
Xeywv. Render, "and the former voice." 17 <CDJ/T} depends on 
I8ov. This voice appears to be that referred to in i. 10, ^Kovcra 
(frwvrjv fMyaX.r)v . . . ws <raA.7riyyos Acyoucnys. Christ, therefore, 
seems to be the speaker. But, as it has been observed by 
Vischer, 77, and Bousset, 243, it is strange that the Being who 
later in the vision is recognized as the Lamb (v. 6), and the object 
of the vision, should here appear as the speaker and guide, the 
angelus interpres, as it were. If we have in iv. 1-8 and in v. 
two visions which the Seer had experienced on different 
occasions and under different circumstances, and in which no 
mention was made of the agent through whom these visions 
were given, then we shall have no difficulty in recognizing the 
phrase % <j><wr] . . . Aeycui/ as an addition on the Seer s part, 
when editing his work as a whole, since this addition represents 
Christ as the revealing subject of iv.-v. as He is of i.-iii. In 
this first edition of his visions the above inconsistency escaped 
him. If, however, we could, with some scholars, take the voice 
in i. 10 to be that of an unknown angel, there would be no such 

f] $uvr] . . . <&s (rdXiriYyos Xa\oucrr]s |AT ejJtou \lyvv. Here ^ 
<a>vrj is dependent on iSov no less than 17 Ovpa. There are two 
explanations possible of Acywv. Either Xey<ov is to be construed 
Kara <rvv<riv with <wvrj and hence to be taken as = A-e youcra, 
for similar constructions cf. xi. 15, xix. 14. Cf. Gen. (LXX) 
xv. i, or the phrase XaXovo-rjs pir ejuov Aeytuv is to be taken as a 
Hebraism ("ib&6 s riK "?"!P), as in xvii. i, xxi. 9. Cf. x. 8. 

dfdpa ( = avd/3r)di : cf. /xcraySa, Matt. xvii. 2O. See Robertson, 
Gram. 328). 

IV. 1-2.] SEER S VISION OF GOD 1 09 

<58e ( = "hither": cf. John vi. 25, x. 27. See Blass, Gram. 
p. 58). Cf. i Enoch xiv. 24. 

In the preceding visions, i. 10 sqq., the Seer was on earth. 
In this verse he is spiritually translated to heaven, and remains 
in heaven till the close of ix. This translation is implied in 
the words, "Come up hither, and I will show thee the things 
which must come to pass hereafter." His continued presence 
in heaven is attested by v. 4, 5, vi. 9, vii. 13, 14, viii. i. 
From heaven he can behold what takes place on earth : cf. vi. 
12, 15 sqq., vii. i, 2. Thence onwards there is a frequent 
shifting of the scene of the Seer s visions. In x. he has again 
returned to earth : cf. x. 4, 8, and remains on earth till the close 
of xi. 13; but in xi. 15-19 the scene of his vision is again in 
heaven. In xii. the scene seems to be again on earth ; for xii. 
14-16 imply it, and the birth of the Messiah is on earth, xii. 5 ; 
for He is thence rapt to heaven. Yet there are difficulties as 
regards the various sections of xii. In xiii.-xiv. 13 the scene of 
his visions is still on the earth, but xiv. 14, 18-20 imply his 
presence in heaven, as well as xv. 2, 5 sqq., xvi. i. Hence 
xv. i (see note in loc.) is an interpolation. In xvii.-xviii. the 
scene is again changed, and the Seer is on earth again : cf. 
xvii. 3, xviii. i, 4, 21. In xix. i-io the Seer is again in heaven. 
From xix. n to the close of the description of the heavenly 
Jerusalem he is again on earth. At the advent of the final 
judgment the former heaven and earth flee away. 

Some of these changes of scene may be explained by the use 
of sources on the part of the writer : others by his incorporation 
into his text of earlier visions of his own, some of which pre 
suppose heaven, others earth, as the scene of their reception. . 

8eiw. This verb has already occurred in the same con 
nection on i. i, where the Hierophant is Christ. 

Here also, in this editorial addition to the original vision, 
Christ is similarly represented, though a certain inconsistency is 
thereby introduced. See note above (p. 108). The word Seio> 
recurs in xvii. i, xxi. 9, 10, xxii. i, 6, 8, where the guide is an 
angel of the vision of the Bowls. 

Setfw o-ot d Set yepcaOai fxera raura. As in i.-iii. the present 
(a i<rtV, i. 19) has been dealt with, in the chapters that follow the 
future destinies of the Church and the world are to be mani 
fested to the Seer. This was promised in i. i, 19. The phrase 
a Set yeveV&u (already in i. i) is found in the LXX and Theo- 
dotion of Dan. ii. 28, 29, while in ii. 29, 45 the entire clause, 
a Set yeveV0ai /tera ravra, occurs in Theodotion s rendering of 

2. euOe ws iyv6[ii]v iv ir^eujAari. These words create a great 
difficulty in the text. According to i. 10, where the expression 


has already occurred, the Seer is in a state of spiritual trance. 
That the Seer is still in the ecstatic state is shown by the intro 
ductory words of iv. i (see note). Many scholars (De Wette, 
Ebrard, Diisterdieck, Hilgenfeld, B. Weiss, Swete) assert that a 
higher degree of spiritual exaltation is here necessary. It has 
been urged by De Wette and others that the same difficulty lies 
in Ezek. xi. i, 5. But the parallel does not hold. For, whereas 
in Ezek. xi. i one office of the Spirit is mentioned when Ezekiel 
is carried off to witness certain evils in Jerusalem (" the Spirit 
lifted me up"), another is mentioned in xi. 5, where the Spirit of 
the Lord is said "to fall on Ezekiel" in order to enable him to 
prophesy against these evils. Now there is no such distinction 
of phrase in i. 10 and iv. 2 in our text. The expression is 
identical in both. Moreover, the power conferred by the state 
therein described embraces at once the power of spiritual vision 
and of utterance or expression. Cf. i. u. J. Weiss (p. 54 n.) has 
therefore rightly urged that there is an inconsistency between 
iv. i and iv. 2, but he goes needlessly far in maintaining that 
whoever introduced the expression in iv. 2 no longer felt that 
elSov in iv. i described the visionary state. The Seer is already 
in the ecstatic state. It was not till he was in this state that 
Christ addressed him in i. 10. That he is still in this state in 
iv. i is proved both by the diction (eTSov) and the fact that he 
hears the heavenly voice which addresses him anew. In i. 10 
the Seer is not addressed by Christ till he has fallen into a 
trance, that is, the words eyevo/x-^v ei/ Tn/ev/xo. precede the 
address of Christ to the Seer, whereas in iv. 2 they follow the 
address of the heavenly voice. The text, therefore, is peculiar. 
But the difficulty can, I think, be adequately explained by the 
hypothesis that the Seer is here combining visions received 
on different occasions. The poetical structure of iv. 1-8 is 
broken up by the insertion of certain prose additions in iv. i, 2, 
4, 5, as we shall see later (see Introd. to Chapter iv. 3), and 
this fact points to iv. 1-8 as recording an independent vision of 
the Seer, which he connects with an earlier vision i.-iii., by four 
clauses, iv. i bcd , 2 a , three of which, i cd , iv. 2 a , have already 
occurred in i.-iii. Some such insertion was necessary; for 
whereas i.-iii. imply that the Seer was on earth, iv.-ix. imply that 
he is in heaven. Hence the two clauses, iv. i b , KCU ISov Ovpa 
f}vew"y[jivr) eV rw ovpavu, and iv. i d , avdpa. d>8e, are indispensable, 
the former clause that the voice may issue from heaven (cf. 
Matt. iii. 17 ; Acts x. n) and the Seer be spiritually translated 
into heaven through this open door, and the latter as giving him 
the command to ascend to heaven. We therefore regard the 
words KOL tSov . . . eV nvev/um as added here by the Seer in 
order to connect i.-iii. and iv.-ix. It must be confessed that the 


expression eyevopyv Iv irvcvpa. is not what we expect here, since 
it expresses nothing more than what is already definitely implied 
in fjLra ravra etSov, i.e. that the Seer was in the ecstatic state : 
cf. i. 10. Since, as in xvii. 3, xxi. 10, there is here an actual 
translation of the spirit of the Seer, we should here expect 
a.Trr)vi\6if]v iv Tzreu/xari, or dbrr/veyKe /u,e tv Trve^/xart (or aveXafitv fie 
KrA., or e^}/3v fie /crX). Cf. xvii. 3, aTnjveyKeV fie ... ey Trvevftart 
and xxi. 10, and Ezek. iii. 12 (nn JNBm), 14 (*:npm ODNBO nn), 
viii. 3, xi. i, 24, xliii. 5. In i Kings xviii. 12, 2 Kings ii. 16, 
the same Hebrew verb is used of an actual bodily translation, and 
d/>7raeiv in Acts viii. 39. For other instances J of bodily translation 
see Hebrew Gospel (Orig. Injoan, torn. ii. 6; Hermas, Vis. i. i. 3, 
ii. i. i ; Sim. ix. i. 4). For the same idea of a translation of the 
spirit see i Enoch xiv. 8, 9, Ixxi. i, 5-6. Whether a bodily or 
only a spiritual translation took place in his case St. Paul knew 
not : 2 Cor. xii. 2-4. 

Kal I8ou Opoyos cKeiTo KT\. Here the original vision of the 
Seer really begins. 

OpoVos. The throne of God in heaven is frequently referred 
to in the O.T. and later Jewish literature : cf. i Kings xxii. 19 ; 
Isa. vi. i ; Ezek. i. 26 ; Ps. xlvii. 8 ; Dan. vii. 9 ; i Enoch 
xiv. 18, 19, (xl.); T. Levi v. i; Ass. Moses iv. 2 ; 2 Enoch 
xxii. 2 (A). See also Weber 2 , Jud. Theol. 164 sq. A throne of 
God on earth is described or mentioned in i Enoch xviii. 8, 
xxiv. 3, xxv. 3, xc. 20. 

In every chapter in our Apocalypse the throne of God is 
referred to except in ii., ix.-x., where there is no occasion for 
its mention, and in xv. 5-8, where the vision is that of the 
Temple in heaven. The phrase OLTTO TOT) 0/ooVov, which is added 
asyndetically in xvi. 17 after 0,71-0 rov mov, has been interpreted 
as an attempt to harmonize the vision of the throne of God and 
that of the Temple. But the two ideas are already combined in 
the T. Levi v. i, xviii. 6, and possibly also in the O.T. 2 

References to the Temple occur, of course, elsewhere in the 
Apocalypse. In iii. 12 there is a reference to the Temple, but in 
a spiritual sense. The ideas of the throne and the Temple are 
combined in vii. 15, where the worship of the martyrs 8 before 

1 Evang. sec, Hcbr., &pn Aa/3^ fte i] ^rfjp p.ov TO &yiov irvevfjia. iv jju$ 
T&V rpi"X.&v (jt.ov, /cat a.TrrjveyKe fte els rb 8pos rb fj.^ya dafi&p. Cf. Bel 36. 

2 Some scholars would discover this combination already in Ps. xi. 4, 
! Yahweh is in His holy palace (or temple, 73*fl) ; Yahweh, His throne is in 
heaven." But the holy palace is here according to the parallel simply heaven 
itself. Others trace its existence already in Isa. vi. I sqq., but elsewhere the 
earthly temple is the scene and subject of prophetic visions : cf. Amos ix. i ; 
Ezek. viii. 3, x. 4sq. ; Acts xxii. 17. The heavenly palace or temple is 
God s abode and referred to in Ps. xviii. 6 ; Mic. i. 2 ; Hab. ii. 20. 

3 vii. 917 was * n ^s original form a description of the worship of the 
blessed faithful after the final judgment, See pp. 200-1, 


the final judgment is mentioned. After the final judgment there 
is to be no Temple in heaven, xxi. 22. The heavenly Temple is 
again referred to in xi. 19. Together with the heavenly Temple 
there is mentioned the altar, TOV Ova-LacrrrjpLov, vi. 9 (see note), 
under which are the souls of the martyrs. This has been taken 
to be the heavenly altar of burnt-offering by all commentators, 
who have, as a rule, also found references to the altar of burnt- 
offering and the altar of incense in viii. 3. But in the note on 
that verse I have sought to prove that both according to Jewish 
and early Christian ideas there was only one altar in heaven 
combining the characteristics of the earthly altar of incense and 
partly those of the altar of burnt-offering. Furthermore, this altar 
is within the heavenly Temple, vii. 15 ; and as the altar is before 
the throne, viii. 3, it follows that the throne surrounded by the 
four Living Creatures is also within the Temple. The heavenly 
throne, therefore, was probably conceived as being in the Holy 
of Holies, where also was the ark of the covenant, xi. 19. Inde 
pendently of this natural conclusion, the throne when conceived 
as the special scene of God s manifestation would naturally be 
held to be within the Holy of Holies. 

But when, with the above representation of the Temple with 
its Holy place and its Holy of Holies, the throne, and the altar, 
we try to combine the conception of the 24 Elders, we are at once 
landed in difficulties. Are these Elders with their 24 thrones 
also within the Holy of Holies ? This element, which is probably 
an addition of our author to the current apocalyptic conceptions 
of the heavenly Temple, cannot be really harmonized with them. 

But the difficulties do not end here ; for the ideas at the base 
of iv.-vii. presuppose a conception of the throne of God which 
cannot easily be conceived as standing within the heavenly 
Temple. On the other hand, the ideas behind viii.-xi. presuppose 
the throne within this Temple an idea as old as Isa. vi. But 
our author may have been quite unconscious of these inconsistent 

KeiTo=" stood." Cf. John xix. 29, ii. 6 (xxi. 9); Jer. xxiv. i. 
See Blass, Gram. 51. 

ir! T. Qpovov KdO^fieKos. He that sitteth on the throne is 
distinguished in vi. 16, vii. 10, from the Lamb. In xix. 12 we 
have TOV KaOrjpevov CTTI T. Opovov. In vii. 10, xix. 4, we have the 
full expression TO) 6tw TW KaO. c-n-l rw Opovot. The variations of 
case following on Ka6rja-0ai Im are noteworthy. Alford was, so 
far as I am aware, the first to attempt an explanation in connec 
tion with the present verse. He gives a complete enumeration 
of the passages where this phrase is followed by the gen. the dat. 
and the ace., and concludes that "the only rule that seems to be 
at all observed was that always at the first mention of the fact of 


the sitting, the ace. seems to be used, iv. 2, 4, vi. 2, 4, 5, xiv. 14, 
xvii. 3, xix. n, xxiv. 4 (xx. n seems hardly a case in point), thus 
bearing a trace of its proper import, that of the motion towards, 
of which the first mention partakes." But xi. 16 does not come 
under this rule, and no rule he admits "seems to prevail as 
regards the gen. and dat." Bousset 2 , 165 sq., does not try to 
explain the variations, but brings them together. From him I 
draw the following classification slightly remodelled. 

Thus TOU KaOrjfxeVou em is followed by the gen., iv. 10, v. i, 7, 
vi. 1 6, xvii. i, xix. 18 (PQ min fere omn. : ace. A 61. 69 : dat. K), 
xix. 19, 21. 

TW K<x0T]fAeV<{> em with dat. iv. 9 (ttA), v. 13 (AQ), vii. 10 
(xACP), xix. 4 (tfACQ). Exception : with ace. vi. 4, eVt avrov. 
In xiv. 15 with gen. eVi TT}S ve<^e Ar;s, but xiv. 15-17 is not from 
the hand of our author. 

6 KaOTJpeyos em and TOV .a.6r]^vov em, with ace. 6 Ka^/xei/os, 
c. acc. in iv. 2 (P An with gen.), vi. 2, 5, xi. 16 (AP), xix. n. 
Exceptions with gen. vii. 15 (dat. Q min pi.), xiv. 16 (Ax 
but not from our author s hand), with dat. xxi. 5 (but this 
is due to editor). TOV (TOVS) /ca0. with acc. in iv. 4, xiv. 14, 
xvii. 3. Exceptions with gen. ix. 17, eV avruv (but due pro 
bably to interpolation of ix. i7 ab ), xiv. 6 (where, however, see 
note), xx. n, but this is due to editor. Thus, in short, the 
participle in the nom. and acc. is followed by eVt and the acc., 
and the participle in the gen. and dat. by the gen. and dat. 

3. KCH 6 KaO^fxeyos OJAOIOS opdo-ei Xi0a> idurmSt K<XI aapSico. As 
Swete remarks, the writer avoids anthropomorphic details . No 
form is visible : only lights of various hues flashing through the 
cloud that encircles the throne. These hues the Seer seeks to 
adumbrate by comparing them to lights reflected by the jasper 
and sardius passing through a nimbus of emerald green. 

With the idea and diction we may compare Ezek. i. 26, which 
appears to have been in the mind of the Seer : rt TOV o/xotoj/xaros 
TOV Opovov o/Wto/Aa a>s etSo? avOpwirov (DIN !"IN"IE3). In apoca- 
lyptic visions, when a being is described as being " like a man," 
we are to infer that it is a supernatural being that the Seer is 
describing. In Dan. vii. 9 we have TraAcuos ^/xepwv ( = "an 
ancient of days ") exa^To, where I cannot help believing that 
pDV pTiy (i.e. TraAaios f](j,puv) is a primitive error for fov PTIJD, 
i.e. o/xotw/ta TraAaiov ^eptuv. pDV pTiy means simply u an old 
man." It is hardly possible to conceive a reverent Jew describ 
ing God in such terms. In the ist cent. B.C. this title appears in 
a slightly different form as " the Head of Days " or " the Sum of 
Days," i.e. the Everlasting, in i Enoch xlvi. i, 2, xlvii. 3, xlviii. 2, 
etc., and thereby the anthropomorphism is avoided. 
VOL. i. 8 


OJJLOIOS opdaei \i6w KT\. Cf. Ezek. i. 4, 27, viii. 2, where it is 
amber to which the glory of God is compared in colour o>s 
opao-ts rj\KTpov, ws ot/av ^Ae/crpou. In i. 28, Ezekiel concludes 
the vision with the words, "This was the appearance of the 
likeness of the glory of God." 

ojjioios . . . IdcnriSi KCX! crapStw. It is difficult to determine 
with certainty what stone is represented by the jasper here 
(taoTTTis = ns&y). There were several varieties of the toton-is : (i) 
a dull opaque stone which is thought by some scholars to be 
referred to here, since it is combined with the sardius : (2) a 
green stone ( = nBB) partially translucent possibly that referred 
to here and in xxi. n, At0o> tao-TnSi /cpvo-raXAt^ovrt : (3) a red 
stone ( = -D*D, Isa. liv. 12, a yellow stone, and an opalescent 
stone). See Encyc, Bib. iv. 4806, whence these facts are derived. 
Of the above varieties the green was very rare and most prized in 
ancient times. This may explain the epithet Ti/uwraTos attached 
to it in xxi. n. But owing to this epithet Ebrard thinks 
that the diamond is meant here. The sardius (*=D1iK, Ex. 
xxviii. 17, xxxix. 10; Ezek. xxviii. 13) is a red stone as the name 
signifies, the opaque blood-red jasper well known in Egypt, 
Babylonia, and Assyria. Cf. Epiphan. De Gemmis, TTV/DWTTOS TO) 
ciSei KCU at/xaroeiS^s (quoted by Vitringa). "The material 
(translucent quartz stained with iron) is quite common, and 
merges in the clearer and lighter-tinted carnelian and red agate " 
(Encyc. Bib. iv. 4803). See also Hastings D.B. iv. 620 sq. 

K<H ipis KUK\o0i TOU Qpovou ofxoios opdffei <T^^ivw. This 
idea of a rainbow round about the throne is derived from Ezek. 
i. 28, o>5 opcuris TOOV, OTQ.V vj Iv TTJ i/ec^eX^ ev -^aepais verov otmos 
rj o-Tcicris (corrupt? for <acris) TOU ^e yyovs KVK\6dev. The rainbow is 
said to be like a smaragdus. o-/xa/3ay8ivos is apparently a O.TT. Aey. 

The smaragdus ( = np~a) has been identified with the rock 
crystal, the beryl, and finally with the emerald. Petrie (Hastings 
D.B. iv. 620) writes: "A colourless stone is the only one that 
can show a rainbow of prismatic colours; and the hexagonal 
prism of rock crystal, if one face is not developed (as is often 
the case), gives a prism of 60", suitable to show a spectrum. The 
confusion with emerald seems to have arisen from both stones 
crystallizing in hexagonal prisms; and as the emerald varies 
through the aquamarine to a colourless state, there is no obvious 
separation between it and quartz crystal." 

Both Petrie here and Myres in the Encyc. Bib. iv. 4809 
attach the meaning of rock crystal to orjtxapaySos in our text. 
But it is difficult to translate the line if this meaning is attached 
to (r/xapayStVo). Perhaps it might be rendered : " And there was 
a rainbow round about the throne like the appearance of rock 


But another view is generally taken of the text. The Tpis is 
interpreted as meaning merely a halo or nimbus shaped like a 
rainbow, and of one colour, an emerald green. In that case the 
writer breaks away from his source, Ezek. i. 28, and opaorei is to 
be taken as a dat. modi. The conception of a nimbus encircling 
supernatural beings or deified men was familiar to the ancient 
world. It was current among the Greeks and Romans see 
Dieterich, Nekyia, 41-43, who quotes largely from the Stephanus 
monograph on the subject, Nimbus und Strahlen-Kranz : 
Me*moires de l acade"mie impe riale des sciences de St. Peters- 
bourg, 6 se*r., torn, ix., 1859. ^ i s claimed to be of Babylonian 
origin by Zimmern, K.A. T. s , p. 353, who cites Ps. civ. 2 (" He 
clothes Himself with light as with a garment ") ; Dan. vii. 9 ; 
i Enoch xiv. 18; Jas. i. 17 ; Apoc. John iv. 3; i Tim. vi.- 16, 

In favour of the above we might cite Encyc. Bib. iv. 4804 : 
"As early as Theophrastus a very large number of stones, all 
brilliant and of all shades of green, from aquamarine to dioptase 
/), were included generally under <r/>tapay8os." 

In any case the object of the bow is to conceal Him that sat 
on the throne. Thus anthropomorphic details are avoided still 
more than in Ezekiel. 

4. KCU KUK\60ek TOU 0pocou 0poVou5 eiKOoi Teoraapes, 1 KCU em TOUS 
reVaapas Opofous irpeajSurepous K<x0T]jjiefous ire pi|3e|3 \YjfjLeVo us 
XeuKOts, Kal em, rots Ke<f>aXas auTwc oT6<f>dyous XP U<7 ^5- 
The occurrence of this verse in its present context creates great 
difficulty. This has already been pointed out by J. Weiss (Die 
Offenbarung, p. 54 sq.). He observes, first, that it interrupts 
a description of the throne, which is resumed in 5 : in the next 
place, that, as the representation proceeds from the throne out 
wards, the narrower circle of the four Living Creatures ought to 
be mentioned before the larger concentric circle of the four and 
twenty Elders. The Living Creatures stand nearer the throne, 
and in iv. 9, 10, the Elders do not fall down and worship till the! 
Living Creatures give the signal. On these grounds, Weiss would 
reject this verse as an addition of the final editor of the 
Apocalypse, who put together two independent apocalypses with 
large additions of his own. Though Weiss s theory as a whole 
is untenable, there are good grounds for regarding iv. 4 as a 
later addition, but not, as Weiss urges, from another hand. The 
evidence points to its being a later addition, but an addition 
from our author s hand, since the diction is wholly his own, and 

1 Elsewhere in our author ef/coai Tt<T<rapes stands before its noun except in 
xix. 4. We should observe that r&raapes is used not unfrequently as an ace. 
Cf. Moulton, Gram. 46 ; Blass, Gram, 20. On the orthography 
in the N.T., MSS, and the KOIV-/I, see Robertson, Gram. 183. 


the verse serves to prepare the way for 9-11. For, since the 
24 Elders are subordinate in rank to the Living Creatures, they 
should not be mentioned before them unless the Seer began 
his description with the outer ranks of heavenly beings that 
surrounded the throne. Now in vii. 9-11 we find such a 
description. First we have a great multitude of the saved which 
no man could number; then the various concentric ranks of 
heavenly beings round about the throne first the angels, then 
the Elders, and finally the four Living Creatures. Probably 
in the same way we are to explain the order in xix. 1-4 first 
the great multitude of the angelic orders in heaven " saying 
Hallelujah" (xix. 1-3), and its repetition by the Elders and 
Living Creatures in xix. 4 (see note in loc.). Elsewhere, where 
these two orders are simply mentioned together, the Living 
Creatures are always mentioned first: cf. iv. 9-10, v. 6, 8, 14, 
xiv. 3. The expression KCU TWI> <3o)v /cat r&v Trpcr/3vTpu>v seems 
to be a gloss in v. n (see note in loc.). A single Elder is men 
tioned in v. 5, vii. 13, and the body of Elders alone in xi. 16. 

But as we examine the text more closely we see why the 
addition was made by our author after 3 and not elsewhere in 
iv. 1-8. For, whereas it would have been natural to make this 
addition immediately after the four Living Creatures in 6 b , we 
discover that the description of the latter and their thanks 
givings are so closely knit together from 6 b to the close of 8 
that the addition of a single phrase alien to the subject of the 
Living Creatures was practically impossible. Hence the in 
sertion was made in the midst of the description of the throne. 
Finally, the syntax is defective in this verse. We have three 
accusatives, Opovovs, Trpecr/^repovs, crre<avoi;s, but no verb to 
govern them. Nor is there any such verb in 3 nor in 2, where 
the verbs are intransitive. To explain these abnormal accusatives, 
we must hark back to i and borrow eTSov. This is wholly 
unsatisfactory. On the possible origin of the conception of the 
twenty-four Elders see 10. 

5. Kal eic TOU Qpovou cKTTOpeuorrcu darpairai Kal (j>a>m! KCU 
Pporrcu. The three nouns recur in the same order in xi. 19, 
xvi. 1 8, but in viii. 5 in a different order, ppovral K. <f><m al K. 
ao-T/oa-Trcu. <awu =rvOlp in Hebrew, and denote the "voices" of 
the thunder; jSpovrai. = D^Dyi, and denote simply " thunderings." 
To us moderns, who identify thunder and the "voice" of the 
thunder, it is difficult to make a distinction between them. In 
Jub. ii. 2, however, we have the very same expression as in 
our text ayye\ot ^XDI/WV, fipovrutv KCU a.(rrp(nr^v. We might also 
compare Ex. xix. 16, eytvoi/ro <wvai Kal do-rpaTrai : Ezek. i. 13, 
CK TOV TTU/DOS e^cTropcvcTo a.(rr pa.TT f]. Both nouns are combined 
in Ps. Ixxvi. (Ixxvii.) 18, <J>uvr) TT}S Ppovrfjs crov ("JDJH ^Ip) ; Job 

IV. 5-6.] A-S IT WERE A SEA OF GLASS 1 1/ 

xxxvii. 4, " He thundereth with the voice of His majesty " (DJTP 
into ittpa). Cf. also xxxvii. 2, 3, 5. 

ica! eTrra XajAirdSes irupos Kcu6|j.i ai tvumiov TOU OpoVou [a lanv 
TO, eirra Tri/eujaara TOU 0eou]. We might compare 2 Bar. xxi. 6, 
" The holy beings ... of flame and fire, which stand around 
Thy throne." Cf. viii. 10 of our text. 

The clause a ... 0eov has been recognized as a gloss by 
Spitta, J. Weiss, and Wellhausen. It is a gloss, however, which 
probably gives a right interpretation: cf. i. 4, 12, ii. i, Hi. i. 
The seven lamps are seven spirits. The seven lamps stand in 
some original relation to the seven planets, of which, however, 
the Seer may have been quite unconscious. See note on i. 4. 
But this clause also, KO.I eTrra Xa/xTraSes . . . 0poVov, may be a later 
addition of our author or of a later hand. Its structure appears 
to be against the former hypothesis. In the description of the 
throne the phrase relating to the throne always begins the verse. 
Thus iv. 5% CK TOV Opovov : 6 a , ivw-mov TOV Op. : 6 b , lv KVK\.U 
TOV Op. This holds also in iv. 2 and in the addition iv. 4*. In 
iv. 3 b there is a slight departure from this structure, but not the 
complete departure we find in iv. 5 b . Here, further, we have the 
awkwardness of Ivu-mov TOV Opovov coming almost at the close of 
one verse and recurring immediately at the beginning of the 
next, and that in a most carefully elaborated stanza. Notwith 
standing I have allowed 5 b , minus the explanatory gloss, to 
remain in the text. See Introd. to Chapter, 3. 

6. Kal ei wirioi TOU 6p6Vou w9 0<xXaao-a uaXinr) ojjioi a KpuaT<XXa>. 
It is to be observed that our author does not say that there was 
"a sea of glass" here, but "as it were (ws) a sea of glass" (cf. 
xv. 2). There is nothing like it on earth or in human experi 
ence, so that all he can do is to use a figure of speech in order 
to suggest in some faint measure what he saw in the vision. 
This is clearly the present meaning of this phrase in our text. 
But having thus suggested the character of the conception, he 
can then drop the apocalyptic character of the phrase and use 
simply the definite -expression rrjv OdXaa-a-av T^V vaAivr/v (xv. 2). 
But this has very little to do with the original form of this idea. 
Before the discovery of 2 Enoch, scholars were at a loss to trace 
its source. In that book (iii. 3) we find : "They showed me (in 
the first heaven) a very great sea, greater than the earthly sea." 
This sea, according to T. Levi ii. 7 (a), was in the first heaven 
"hanging," or according to ii. 7 (ft), "hanging between the first 
and second heaven." The strange word " hanging " = K/>eyu,a/zevoi/ 
= yjfl, which appears to be corrupt for V^ ja therefore "on 
the firmament." Thus this sea is really the waters above the 
firmament referred to in Gen. i. 7 ; Ps. cxlviii. 4. According to 
Jub. ii. 4 these were separated from the waters below the 


firmament (ev Se rrj 8evre/oa . . . e/xepur^?/ ra vSara, TO fjfjuo-v 
avToov avefir] 7rai/co roO crepe oj/xaros the Greek version preserved 
in Epiphan. Haer. Ixv. 4). These waters were masculine, ac 
cording to i Enoch liv. 8, and the waters on the earth were 
feminine. From their union, according to Assyrian myths, the 
gods were produced. Of this myth there seems to be an echo 
in 2 Enoch xxviii. 2, xxix. i, 3, "Out of the waves I created 
rock . . . and from the rock I cut off a great fire, and from the 
fire I created the orders of the incorporeal ten troops of angels." 

But to return to the sea of glass, which ultimately goes back, 
as we have seen, to the waters above the firmament. These 
waters rest on the firmament, and over them apparently God s 
throne was originally conceived as established, Ps. civ. 3, " Who 
layeth in the waters the beams of His chambers." Of this 
heavenly ocean a portion only is visible in the foreground, "as it 
were a sea of glass like unto crystal," in our text. When the 
Apocalypse was written it is more than probable that the 
original meaning of the sea was wholly forgotten. See Bousset 
in loc., and Gunkel, Zum Verstandnis. d. JVT, 44, n. 5. 

Kdl [ec fxecrco TOU Opocou KCU ] KUK\U) rou 0p6rou reorcpa ua 
Y^juioKTa 64>6aXjJiwi ejjnrpoaOek ica! omaOei . 

The Living Creatures are not bearers of the throne (ei> /xe o-u> 
T. Op. cannot mean "under the throne"), as in Ezek. i. 22, 26, 
but they stand round the throne and prostrate themselves in the 
act of worship, v. 8, xix. 4 (in 2 Enoch xxi. i they " overshadow " 
it), and are free to move independently and singly : cf. xv. 7. 
If the text is right, we must suppose, with Ziillig, De Wette, 
Diisterdieck, Bousset, Swete, that the Living Creatures stood 
round about (KVK\&) the throne, one in the middle of each side 
of the throne (eV /ze o-u>). From the Greek words it seems im 
possible to wrest such a meaning. Nor can the passage be 
interpreted with Eichhorn, Ewald, and Gunkel (Zum religions- 
gesch. Verst, 44), who conceive the four Living Creatures as lying 
with the lower part of their body supporting the throne and with 
the upper part of their body projecting beyond it. Eichhorn 
was misled by following Ezekiel and by failing to follow the text 
before him, and also by the passage which he quotes from the 
Midrash Tehillim ciii. 19, to the effect that the Living Creatures 
were placed under the throne that they might " know that the 
kingdom of God ruled over all." In fact, the text is unin 
telligible as it stands. Hence eV /*e o-o> TOV Opovov KO.L is to be 
taken as (i) a gloss, or as (2) a mistranslation of the Hebrew. 
i. It is not impossible that eV /u-eVw TOV Opovov was added here 
from Ezek. i. 5, eV TV /xeVu) d>s 6/Wto/xa Tecro-apooi/ ^wa>v (where ev TW 
/xe o-w refers to the fiery cloud which envelops the throne of God), 
just as some cursives and versions of the LXX add KCU KVKAw 


TOV 6p6vov after ev TO> jue o-w in Ezek. i. 5, probably from the 
Apocalypse. Elsewhere throughout the Apocalypse the Living 
Creatures are said to be " round the throne," but never " in the 
midst of it," as here. That privilege is reserved for the " Son of 
Man" or "the Lamb," i. 13, ii. i, v. 6, vii. 17. Konnecke has 
also proposed the excision of this clause. 2. Bruston (quoted 
by Moffatt) thinks that the clause is a mistranslation of TirD 
KD3!"1, which should have been rendered, " And in the midst was 
the throne " ; but there is no other evidence that the passage is 
a translation, and the sense is hardly satisfactory. 

T&raapa wa. To the writer of the Apocalypse these four 
Living Creatures, which are akin to the living creatures (n"n) in 
Ezek. i., and are called Cherubim in Ezek. x. 2, 20, are simply 
an order of angels, and apparently the highest, or one of the 
highest orders. We find them mentioned with two other orders, 
i.e. the Seraphim and Ophannim, in i Enoch Ixxi. 7 (cf. Ixi. 10). 
And with others still in 2 Enoch xx. i, xxi. i, xxii. 2. In 
2 Enoch xxi. i (cf. xxi. 3) ten orders are mentioned. (See my 
note in loc.} 

These Living Creatures in our text are akin, as we have said, 
to the living creatures in Ezekiel, but they are in certain essential 
aspects different. The Seer does not simply reproduce the 
traditions of the past, but speaks in the terms of his own time. 
In the present instance I hope to show that the conception in 
our text has probably passed through three stages of develop 
ment of which the third is that found in apocalyptic literature, 
200 B.C. to 100 A.D. In this brief study we shall advance 
backwards from Jewish to Babylonian conceptions, from the 
statement of ascertained beliefs to the expression of reasonable 

I. In apocalyptic literature 200 B.C.-IOO A.D. (i^ In our 
text the Cherubim are four in number, it is true, as in Ezekiel, 
but each Cherub has only one face, and not four faces as in the 
O.T. prophet. ^2!) They have each six wings like the Seraphim 
in Isa. vi., and not four as in Ezek. i. 3} They stand imme 
diately round God s throne, Rev. iv. 6, v. 8, xix. 4, and do not 
bear it as in Ezekiel. The throne is set (" Ketro," Rev. iv. 2) on 
the firmament of heaven, and does not rest on them. There is 
no mention of " the wheels," as in the vision of Ezekiel. (4) They 
sing God s praises, Rev. iv. 8, like the Seraphim in Isa. vi., and are 
not silent servants of Deity. Jo They are * full of eyes," but in 
Ezekiel they are " like lamps, i. 13, and it is " the felloes of the 
wheels," i. 18, that are full of eyes. Ezek. x. 12, where the Cheru 
bim are said to be full of eyes, is recognized by critics as corrupt, /b.y 
They move freely about, Rev. xv. 7, and act as intermediaries be 
tween God and otb r orders of angels. In most of these respects 


/the conceptions of the N.T. Apocalypse and of Jewish Apocalyptic 
between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. are at one. As regards i, we 
have no mention of the number of the Cherubim outside our 
Apocalypse nor any description of their form in this period. 
They are regarded simply as one of the highest orders of angels : 
cf. i Enoch Ixi. 10, Ixxi. 7. 2. They have each six wings 
according to Rev. iv. 6, 2 Enoch xxi. i, as the Seraphim in 
Isa. vi. 3. They stand round the throne of God and not under 
it, as Gunkel and others have asserted. They do not bear it, but 
are rather conceived as guardians of it, i Enoch Ixxi. 7. In 

1 Enoch xiv. n they appear to be in the "roof" of heaven. In 

2 Enoch xxi. i they cover the throne like the Seraphim in Isa. vi. 
In the next place the throne is conceived as resting on the firma 
ment of heaven, even where the wheels of Ezekiel s vision are 
mentioned in connection with it. Cf. Dan. vii. 9, "The thrones 
were set. . . . His throne was fiery flames, and the wheels 
thereof burning fire." This meaningless survival appears also in 

1 Enoch xiv. 18, "I saw ... a lofty throne: its appearance 
was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun, and 
there was the vision of Cherubin." In i Enoch xiv. r7, 18, all 
idea of a moving throne has been wholly lost. But other writers 
either omitted the mention of "the wheels" as a meaningless 
survival, as in T. Levi v. i, xviii. 6, where the throne rests on the 
floor of the Temple in the third heaven, and Rev. iv. 2 sqq., or they 
transformed "the wheels " (D 25itf) into one of the highest orders 
of angels, i.e. Ophannim, as in i Enoch Ixi. 10, Ixxi. 7 and later 
Jewish Midrashim. Underneath the throne was not only the 
flaming firmament, but also the sources of the fiery streams, 
which flowed forth from the stationary base of the throne, 
Dan. vii. 10; i Enoch xiv. 19. With this conception we might 
contrast Rev. xxii. i, where it is "a river of water of life" that 
proceeds out of the throne. 

4. Finally, the function of the Cherubim in later apocalyptic 
literature is not to support the throne of God (except in 

2 Bar. li. 1 1 ?), but to guard it, i Enoch Ixxi. 7, or more 
usually to sing the trisagion, as in our text. Thus in i Enoch 
Ixxi. 7, together with the Seraphim and Ophannim they are 
described as "those who sleep not," but " guard the throne of 
God s glory." Now, according to i Enoch xxxix. 12, "those who 
sleep not . . . stand before Thy glory and bless . . . saying : 
Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Spirits"; and again in Ixi. n sq. 
they exclaim, " Blessed is He, and may the name of the Lord of 
Spirits be blessed." These orders are carefully distinguished in 
xl. 2 from the four archangels. Once more in 2 Enoch xix. 6, 
xxi. i, the Cherubim and Seraphim with six wings and many eyes 
are described as standing before the throne, singing : " Holy, 


holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth : heavens and earth are 
full of Thy glory." Thus the conception of the Cherubim in the 
N.T. Apocalypse is essentially the same as that found in Jewish 
apocalyptic literature. Both the conceptions, as we shall see, 
have their root in the O.T. 

II. In the O.T. the Cherubim are referred to, as Bp. Ryle 
points out (Hastings D.B. i. 377 sqq.), (i) "in the Israelite 
version of primitive myth ; (2) in early Hebrew poetry ; (3) in 
apocalyptic vision ; and (4) in the descriptions of the formation 
and adornments of the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple." 
We are mainly concerned here with (3), but we shall refer to 
the passages coming under the other sections as we find 

1. The form of the Cherubim varies in the O.T. In 
Ezek. i. 6, 10 each had four faces the faces of a man, a lion, 
an ox, and an eagle. (In x. 14, where the four faces are given 
slightly differently, the verse is, with Bertholet, to be excised as 
an interpolation, as well as the word " cherub" in 7. These are 
omitted by the LXX.) In Ezek. xli. 18 sq. each had two faces 
those of a man and a lion ; but this may be due to the fact that 
they are here represented on the wall of the Temple. Between 
each pair of Cherubim there was a palm tree. 

According to Gunkel, Genesis*, p. 25, the simpler conception 
of Rev. iv. 6 is older than the very complicated one of Ezek. i. 
10 ; indeed Winckler (Altor. Forsch. ii. 347 sqq.), as Zimmern 
notes, K.A.T., p. 631, seeks to prove that the four living creatures 
in the original text of Ezekiel had only one face each. In any 
case, the form of the Cherubim in our Apocalypse, so far as 
regards their head, differs from every definite description of them 
in the O.T. 

2. In Ezek. i. 6, 10 each Cherub had four wings. In 
Solomon s temple there were two colossal Cherubim, each with 
two wings, i Kings vi. 24 sqq., and standing on their feet, 
2 Chron. in. 13. The walls of his temple were also carved 
with figures of Cherubim, i Kings vi. 29, and palm trees, 
2 Chron. iii. 7, as also on the hanging screen, which separated 
the Holy place from the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle, 
Ex. xxvi. 31. 

Thus the number of wings assigned to the Cherubim in our 
Apocalypse, while agreeing with later apocalyptic literature, 
differs from the number assigned in the O.T. 

3. The Cherubim in Ezek. i. 22, 26, x. i, support a firmament, 
whereon is set the throne of God. The throne is not stationary, 
but is borne in any one of four directions by the Cherubim. 
The description of the base of the throne recalls Ex. xxiv. 10, 
though there ^ no mention there of the Cherubim. In 


Ex. xxv. 1 8-2 1, on the other hand, the figures of the Cherubim 
are represented on the mercy-seat of the ark, facing each other, 
but looking down on the ark. 

Possibly connected with the conception in Ezekiel is that in 
2 Kings xix. 15; Ps. xviii. 10, Ixxx. i, xcix. i ; Isa. xxxvii. 16, 
where the Cherubim are conceived as bearing God. 

In Gen. iii. 24 they guard Paradise. In i Enoch Ixxi. 7 they 
they are said to guard the throne of God. 

Thus the conception in Rev. iv. 6, etc., stands apart in this 
respect also from any in the O.T. 

4. The Cherubim are silent in Ezek. i. 5 sqq., x. 2, and in all 
passages relating to them in the O.T. as opposed to the function 
assigned them in late apocalyptic literature. 

III. Some of the above conceptions in the O.T. can with 
great probability be traced to an earlier stage, a stage with which 
our author was wholly unacquainted, and of which even the O.T. 
writers had barely the faintest idea. For research in this 
direction we are indebted to Zimmern and Gunkel. The 
former (K.A.T. 631 sq.) holds that in all probability the four 
Cherubim in Ezek. i., x. 2, are to be traced to the four chief 
constellations in the zodiac, 1 and go back fundamentally to 
Babylonian ideas, though this has not yet been established. 
The ist, 4th, yth, and loth signs of the zodiac are especially 
significant as corresponding in space to the dividing limits of the 
four quarters of the heavens, and in time to the dividing limits of 
the four seasons. These four constellations are the Ox, the Lion, 
the Scorpion, and Aquarius. Further, the four winds were prob 
ably brought into relation with the four chief signs of the zodiac ; 
for in Babylonian- Assyrian sculpture we find on either side of the 
holy tree two winged forms, generally with a human body and 
an eagle head, and occasionally with a human head and a lion s 
body. Of close affinity with these are the colossal winged ox 
and lion figures at the entrance of Assyrian temples and palaces, 
which have human heads and the bodies of the ox or lion. 
Hence Zimmern infers that the ox, lion, man, and eagle were 
known in Babylon as symbols of the winds, and that in the 
Biblical Cherubim the forms of these four creatures were derived 
from the four constellations in the four quarters, corresponding 
to the four directions of the wind. The relation of the lion and 
the ox to the constellations of the lion and ox is obvious. 
The man corresponds to the scorpion-man, while the eagle is 
taken not from Aquarius, but from the constellation of the 

1 Gunkel assumes this hypothesis as an assured result in Zum religions- 
gesch, Vcrstandniss des NT, p. 47, and suggests that the movement of their 
wings, perceptible by no ordinary earthly ear, is referred to in Ps. xix. and is 
the music of the spheres. 


eagle in its neighbourhood, probably because the former had no 
particularly bright stars. 

Now in confirmation of Zimmern s identification of the four 
winds and the four constellations, it is to be observed that 
originally the throne of God was the heaven itself: Isa. Ixvi. i, 
"The heaven is My throne, the earth is My footstool." In 
Ezek. i. 22 the throne rests on a firmament (]Pp"i, i.e. the heavenly 
vault, which is like crystal), borne, as we have seen, by the four 
Living Creatures. A very probable emendation of i Enoch xviii. 2 
may support Zimmern s identification of "the four winds" and 
the four constellations : this passage reads, " I saw the four winds 
which bear the firmament of heaven. Now these stand between 
earth and heaven." See my edition in loc. 

It is obvious that the idea of the Living Creatures and the 
wheels supporting the throne are syncretistic. It rested 
originally either on the living creatures or on the wheels. Both 
ideas were prevalent in the ancient world (Gunkel, op. at., p. 46). 
For our present purpose we may leave " the wheels " 1 out of 
consideration, especially as they do not appear in the N.T. 

Again, as confirming the identification of the Living Creatures 
and the four constellations, it is to be observed that the former 
are " like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of lamps " 
(Ezek. i. 13). Now, since in apocalyptic language the " lamps " 
signify stars see Zech. iv. 2, 10 and our text, i. 4 (note), 12, iv. 5 
the Living Creatures who are like lamps are reasonably to be 
identified with stars. And this is further confirmed by the fact 
that the wheels which accompany the Living Creatures are " full 
of eyes," i.e. are bodies of stars or constellations. In the Veda 
(S.J3.E. xlii. 212) the sun-god Surya is himself an eye. In the 
next stage Mitra and Varuna have the Sun as an eye (S... 
xxvi. 343, xli. 408). And the seven planets are the seven eyes 
of Yahweh in Zech. iv. 10, and of the Lamb in our Apocalypse : 
see v. 6, also note on i. 12. 

Ye|j.oi/Ta 64>0a\p.a>i> ejurpoaOcy Kal oiriaOei/. These words go 
back to Ezek. i. 18, x. 12. There the expression is applied to 
"the wheels," which are said to be "full of eyes round about" 
(-TrXrJpets 6<0aA/A<ov /cv/<:Ao 0ej/, MD D^y n^p). When, how 
ever, our author transferred the idea from the wheels to the 
Living Creatures themselves, he not unreasonably modified it. 
The eyes were on the felloes of the wheels, and therefore the 
eyes presented the appearance of a circle. Hence they are 

1 In Dan. vii. 9, i Enoch xiv. 13, "the wheels" are merely a literary 
reminiscence or survival. The throne is conceived as stationary in both 
passages certainly in the latter. In the next stage of development " the 
wheels " are transformed into an order of angels (see above, p. 120). 


described as " round about." But such an expression could not 
easily be used of a living creature which had a definite face as a 
man, or ox, or lion, or eagle, with their eyes in front. In such a 
case naturally the expression is modified to " full of eyes before 
and behind," though even here there is some difficulty attaching 
to the conception of a creature with a face like a man and yet 
full of eyes in front. 

The discussion of this question is important, since we shall 
find later that the words KVK\69v /ecu ZwOtv ye/xoucnv 6<pOa\iJLwv 
in 8 are a meaningless interpolation. 

In Ezek. x. 12 the text is recognized by critics as originally 
applying only to the wheels. In its present form, which is very 
corrupt, it runs : " And their whole body, and their backs, and 
their hands, and their wings, and the wheels, were full of eyes round 
about, even the wheels that they four had." See Bertholet in /<?<:., 
who proposes Bn nVm DH^I DnntfrrtOI, "and all their naves, 
and their felloes, and their axle trees . . . were round about full 
of eyes." 


Kal TO SeuTepoy ^wok OJJLOIOC fAotrxw, 

Kttl TO T6T<XpTOy ^WOl/ OfXOlOf ttTW TTTO|A >(). 

The order in Ezek. i. 10 is man, lion, ox, eagle. The text 
in x. 14 is corrupt, as we have already pointed out. Irenaeus 
(iii. ii. 8) seems to have been the earliest writer who identified 
the Four Evangelists with the four Living Creatures Matthew 
with the man, Mark with the eagle, Luke with the ox, and John 
with the lion. Victorinus, on the other hand, understood the 
man as symbolizing Matthew, the lion Mark, the ox Luke, 
the eagle John. St. Augustine (De Cons. Evang. i. 6) attributes 
the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark, the ox to Luke, and the 
eagle to John. Such identifications though popular in the early 
Church, and indeed in later times, are wholly fanciful. See 
Alford and Diisterdieck in loc. ; Swete 2 , St. Mark, p. xxxvi sqq. ; 
Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 257 sqq. /nocr^os is here, as it is over 40 
times in the LXX, the equivalent of "ii> cf. Ezek. i. 10, 
and therefore means an ox. In the LXX it is more frequently 
a rendering of "IB, a bull, and occasionally of "ijJJ an d ty- 

In line 3 e^wv stands here as in 8 for a finite verb in 
accordance with a Hebrew, or a still more frequent Aramaic 
idiom. This idiom is found also in the Koii/ij. See note on 
xii. 2, where it recurs. 

8. Kal Ta Te aaepa wa, ev *a0 tv auTWf x<oi> ava irrepuyas !. 
On the form of the Cherubim in this passage see above, p. 119 sq. 
For eV Ka& Iv and ai/a used distributively see N.T. Grammars. 


[KUK\60ek Kal eawOei/ yejj.ouo-u o^OaXfAom] Wellhausen (Analysed. 
Offenbarung Joh,, p. 9) rightly regards this clause as an interpola 
tion, though I can only in part accept his reasons : " KVK\O$W 
steht bei Ezek. i. 18 fiir !/x7rpoo-0v /cat O7rto-0ev zusammen. Denn 
eo-o>0v bedeutet nach v. i ebenso viel als !/x7rpoo-0ei/ ; innen ist 
vorn und aussen ist hinten." I have already shown (see p. 121 sq.) 
that our author has modified very considerably the character 
istics of the Cherubim as given in Ezekiel, and has transferred to 
his description of the Cherubim the eyes which in Ezekiel s 
account belong only to the wheels. The grounds on which I 
regard this line as an intrusion are : i. The sentence or line begins 
without a copula though it contains a finite verb. This is 
contrary to the writer s custom throughout the preceding verses 
i y 2 3> 5> 6, 7. We should expect KOL Kvi<X60ev. 2. KVK\60ev Kal 
ecruOev is in reality a meaningless phrase. It has proved a 
hopeless crux to interpreters. If in any form it is original, it 
must be corrupt, and we should have to fall back on the text 
presupposed by Primasius : "habebant singula alas senas per 
circuitum. Et erant plena oculis ante se et retro," or still earlier 
Victorinus : " habentes alas senas in circuitu et oculos intus et 
foris" (Hausleiter, Lateinische Apocalypse, p. 94). These render 
ings presuppose, as Bousset points out, the text KVK\60ev Kal 
o>0i/ Kat eoxotfev, which is actually that of Q and a few cursives. 
Thus we should have, "they had each six wings round about, 
and they were full of eyes without and within." Luther was also 
in favour of connecting Kvi<X66ev with what precedes. But this 
text is very badly attested. It is only an attempt to smooth 
away the difficulties of an unintelligible gloss. 3. The words, if 
they had an intelligible meaning, would be a needless repeti 
tion of the last clause of 6. 4. The text of Isa. vi., which our 
author had undoubtedly before him, describes the Seraphim in 
2 as having six wings, and then immediately in 3 their ascrip 
tion of praise, " Holy, holy, holy." This fact is in favour of the 
excision of this clause, especially as it has occurred before. 

But how is the gloss to be explained ? The glosser possibly 
drew the unintelligible phrase Kv/o\.o#ev Kat ea-w^ev from the LXX 
of Ezek. i. 27, opao-iv Trvpos <r(o0ev aurou Kv /cAa), where, however, 
the text refers to a description of God. 

Kal dydirauaii OUK exouaiy -qjmepas Kal I/UKTOS Xyon-s. Here it 
is distinctly implied that the volume of praise is continuous and 
unbroken. This fact does not harmonize with 9-14, as we shall 
see presently. For the phraseology, though the sense differs, 
cf. xiv. ii. 

The widespread conception of praise in heaven is attested 
by such passages as i Enoch xxxix. 12 sq., xl. 3 sq., Ixi. 9 sqq., 
Ixix. 26, Ixxi. 1 1, etc. ; T. Levi iii. 8 ; 2 Enoch xvii. i, xviii. 9, 


xix. 6, xx. 4; Ascension of Isaiah vii. 15, 19, 20, 27, 29, 30, 
36, viii. 3, 16, 17-18, ix. 28-29, 33, 40-42, x. 1-3, 19, xi. 26, 
27, etc.; Chag. i2 b ; Apoc. Zephaniah (Clem. Alex. Strom. 
v. ii. 77). 

With the trisagion in our text we might compare that in 

1 Enoch xxxix. 12, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Spirits : He 
filleth the earth with spirits." Here as in our text (see note 
above) the writer has modified the trisagion to suit the main 
purpose of his Apocalypse. 

We have already shown that the task of the Cherubim 
together with the Seraphim and Ophannim is to sing the praises 
of God (see above, p.\i20 sq.) in later Apocalyptic literature as in 
our text. De Wette, Diisterdieck, B. Weiss, and Alford regard 
the Cherubim as representing the whole animate creation. 
Diisterdieck and Alford quote the Shemoth rabba, 23, fol. 122, 
4 b , as already giving the right point of view : " Quattuor sunt, qui 
principatum in hoc mundo tenent. Inter creaturas homo, inter 
aves aquila, inter pecora bos, inter bestias leo." " Dass diese Vier 
die gesammte lebendige Schopfung reprasentiren sollen, ist durch 
die bedeutungsvolle Vierzahl selbst angezeigt" (Diisterdieck, 
Bengel). Swete (2nd ed., p. 71), following Diisterdieck, writes 
that " the wa represent Creation and the Divine immanence in 
nature," and quotes Andreas to the same effect. And again (p. 
72) : "This ceaseless activity of Nature under the Hand of God is 
a ceaseless tribute of praise." But this meaning of the Cherubim 
cannot, so far as I see, be maintained. In the Book of Jubilees 
the angels are, speaking generally, divided into two classes : 
those which keep the Sabbath with God and Israel, and those 
which do not. The former include only the angels of the 
presence and the angels of sanctification. This latter class are 
those which sing the praises of God (see my notes on ii. 2, 18, 
xv. 27, xxxi. 14), and embrace, no doubt, the Cherubim and 
Seraphim. Now as for the angels who do not keep the Sabbath, 
these are naturally " the angels of service " who are set over the 
works of nature. These are inferior in rank and knowledge not 
only to the two higher orders, but also to righteous men, accord 
ing to the Talmud (see my commentary on Jubilees, p. 12). 
Even a knowledge of the law is withheld from them (op at., p. 
in). Since, therefore, the angels, that were intimately connected 
with nature according to Jewish views, held so subordinate a 
position, it can hardly be right to identify with them the Cheru 
bim, who are immediately round the throne of God and con 
tinually sing His praises, and are the highest order of angels in 
the N.T. Apocalypse. 

The idea of nature as itself praising God is found in Ps. xix. 

2 sqq., ciii. 22, cxlviii. ; but the Cherubim are not regarded as 


vehicles of this praise in our text, but the twenty-four elders (see 
n, p. 133 sq.). 

The trisagion in our text differs from Isa. vi. 3 in that it does 
not voice the praise of creation, but omits the words, " the whole 
earth is full of His glory," and confines itself to the holiness, 
omnipotence, and everlastingness of God. 

On the essential nature of God, our author bases his assur 
ance of the ultimate triumph of righteousness. 

"Aytos ayios 

6 r\v KCU 6 u>v KCU 6 

Cf. i. 8, xi. 17. The trisagion is borrowed here with modifica 
tions from Isa. vi. 3, ayios ayio9 ayios Kvpios o-a/?aa>0. Our author 
has not followed the LXX ; for in every instance niN3 is rendered 
by the translator of the LXX in Isaiah by aaftauO. On the 
other hand, 6 TravroKparwp is the rendering of this Hebrew word 
in the rest of the prophets. Furthermore, our author has inserted 
/cv pios 6 0eos = iW TIN a phrase very frequent in Ezekiel (vi. 3, 
n, vii. 2, 5, viii. i, etc.). For the second line, cf. i. 4, 8, xi. 17. 
For other doxologies, see note on n. 

On 6 rfv Kat 6 o>v KT\. see note on i. 4. 

9. Kal oral Swcroucrii rot wa 86av Kal TijATjy ica! 
TW Ka0K]fAKu> eirl TW 6pof(t>, TW wyTi eis TOUS alums t& 
Commentators are practically agreed that OTOV Swo-ovo-iv 1 is 
here to be translated "whensoever . . . shall give." That is, 
the action in 10-11 is represented as occurring as often as that 
in 8. But since the giving of praise on the part of the Living 
Creatures is continuous and unbroken (8), it is hard to reconcile 
this conception with that conveyed in 10, which implies that the 
praise is not continuous, but bursts forth at intervals, whereupon 
the four and twenty Elders fall down and worship. The latter 
view, moreover, is that which underlies the rest of the Apocalypse. 
The Elders are not always prostrating themselves, but on the 
occasion of great crises in the Apocalypse, which call forth their 
worship and thanksgiving: cf. v. 8, 14, xi. 16, xix. 4. One of the 
Elders also comforts the Seer, v. 5, and tells him who are the great 
white-robed company that are praising God, vii. 13. Nor are 
the Cherubim occupied with unbroken praisegiving throughout 
the rest of the book. Separate acts of praise on their part are 
implied in v. 9 (orav), and different tasks are ascribed to them 
in vi. i, 3, 5, 7, and in xv. 7. Hence we infer that in this 
respect iv. 1-8 stands apart from the rest of the Apocalypse. 

So^ay Kal TIJJ.T]! Kal cuxapioriac. The collocation S6a Kal 
Tiju/j is found in Ps. viii. 6 ("Pirn TQD), but not in the same 

1 For other examples of STO.V with indicative in a frequentative sense see 
Moulton, p. 168. 


connection as in our text. A better parallel is furnished by 
Ps. xxix. I, XCvi. 7, ei/ey/care TO) /cupuo Soav /cat Ti/j,rjv (where, how- 
ever, TL^YI is a rendering of T y. But the best parallels to our text 
are found in i Enoch Ixi. 10, n, where the Cherubim and other 
angels are said to " bless and glorify and extol " ( = evAoyetv /cat 
Soaetv /cat vfyovv) God. For similar statements cf. xxxix. 10, 
12, xlvii. 2, Ixi. 12, etc. ( = So^ao-ovcrtv /cat eu;(apt(mj<rovorii/). We 
might also compare Dan. iv. 34. 

TW <om els TOUS alums. This phrase recurs in 10, x. 6, xv. 7 ; 
see also vii. 2. Cf. Dan. iv. 31 (Theod.), TU> uWt et? rov alwva 
Tl) rji/eo-a /cat eSoa0-a ; also Deut. xxxii. 40 ; Dan. xii. 7 
TI) ; Sir. xviii. 17 ; i Enoch v. i. This phrase repeats the 
idea in the second line of the trisagion. See Bousset, Rel. d. 
Judentums, 293. This divine attribute is applied to our Lord 
in i. 1 8. 

10. ot uco<n T<j<raps irpeajSuTepoi. This conception of a 
heavenly divan composed of four and twenty Elders is not found 
in existing Jewish literature. There are indeed echoes of such a 
conception in i Kings xxii. 19 sqq., Job i. 6, ii. i, which represent 
God as taking counsel with His angels; and in Dan. iv. 17, vii. 
9, where a certain order of angels is regarded as assessors of 
God and issuers of the divine decrees. But a still closer parallel 
is found in Isa. xxiv. 23 : 

/3a<riAeucrei Kvpios e/c Setcoj/ /cat ets 


This passage has been, it is true, assigned by Duhm and 
Marti to the latter half of the 2nd century B.C., and the Trpeo-^v- 
rcpoi (D^pT) are interpreted as the heads of the Jewish com 
munity an interpretation that is already propounded in the 
Targum on Isaiah. But whether this be so or not, the passage 
could easily have assumed a different meaning in the ist century 
of the Christian era, and formed a starting-point for the develop 
ment of the conception in our text. In our text the Elders are 
crowned as kings, and seated on thrones round the throne of 
God : they are thus the heavenly yepowt a. 

\Vho then are these Elders ? that is, whom does the author 
of our book conceive them to be ? for their original meaning 
and their meaning in the text have no necessary connection. 

First let us inquire what we know from our text of these 
Elders, i. They sit on twenty-four thrones round the throne of 
God, iv. 4, xi. 16. ii. They wear crowns of gold, and are clothed 
in white garments, iv. 4. iii. They are called 7rpeo-/3vTepot (D Opf). 
iv. They are four and twenty in number, v. They occupy these 
thrones not at the Final Judgment or the consummation of the 
world, but in the present and apparently in the past (since the 


creation?), vi. The Seer addresses one of them, vii. 13, as 
Kupie. vii. They act as angeli interpretes, vii. 13. viii. They 
discharge a priestly function in presenting the prayers of the 
faithful to God in golden bowls, v. 8. ix. They encourage the 
Seer when in the spirit he beholds the inhabitants of heaven, 
v. 5. x. They discharge the office of praising God by singing 
and playing on the harp, v. 8, 14, xi. 16, xix. 4. 
Now these Elders have been variously taken as 

I. Glorified men. 
II. A College of angels earlier angelic assessors 

originally Babylonian star-gods, 
III*. Angelic representatives of the twenty-four priestly 


II l b . And in their present context Angelic representatives 
of the whole body of the faithful. 

I. Glorified men. Thus (i) Bleek, 198 sq. ; De Wette 3 , 72; 
Weizsacker 2 , 617, take them to be representatives of the Jewish 
and heathen communities. (2) Victorinus, Andreas, Arethas, 
Bousset, Stern, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Diisterdieck, 221 ; B. 
Weiss, 438, hold them to be representatives of the O.T. 
and N.T. communities, twelve of them being the O.T. patriarchs 
from whom the nation of Israel arose, and twelve the N.T. apostles 
by whom the Christian Church was founded. It is true, indeed, 
that the name Trpeo-y^Tepoi suggests in itself representatives of the 
community: cf. Isa. xxiv. 23, quoted above, and Ex. xxiv. n. 
As representatives of the entire community of believers there 
would belong to them the kingly dignity; for since faithful 
believers share the throne of their Lord, and reign, iii. 21, i. 6, 
xx. 4, 6, xxii. 5 (2 Tim. ii. 12), and wear crowns, iii. n, it 
is pre-eminently fitting that their representatives should enjoy 
such kingly privileges. In the Ascension of Isaiah vii. 22, 
viii. 26, ix. 10-13, 18, 24, 25, xi. 40, the idea of crowns (oW^avoi 
not SiaS^/xara) and thrones as the rewards of the righteous is 
repeatedly dwelt upon. Such views, therefore, must have been 
widely current in early Christendom. Moreover, the idea of 
crowns as the reward of righteousness is pre-Christian ; see T. 
Benj. iv. i. Further, it might be urged that there are some 
grounds for the identification of these Elders with the twelve 
Patriarchs and the twelve Apostles ; for they are closely brought 
together in the description of the New Jerusalem. Thus the 
names of the twelve Patriarchs are written on the twelve gates, 
xxi. 12, and those of the twelve Apostles on the twelve founda 
tions of its wall, xxi. 14. Furthermore, the homogeneity of the 
Jewish and Christian Churches emerges from the fact that the 
redeemed sing the song of Moses and the Lamb, xv. 3 (?). 
VOL, i. 9 


But it has been rejoined, there is no true co-ordination of 
Jewish and Christian Churches in xxi. 12, 14, else there would 
be twenty-four gates or twenty-four foundations. Moreover, 
there is not a hint in the text that the Elders refer to definite 
persons such as the Patriarchs and Apostles. 

But the real difficulty does not lie here, but in the fact that 
the Elders cannot be men but must be angels. This follows from 
the characteristics mentioned in v., vi., vii., viii., ix. above. These 
we must now treat more in detail. The Seer addresses one of 
the Elders as /cv pic, vii. 13, a fact which, though not conclusive, 
is in favour of the angelic nature of the Elders. That they act, 
however, as angeli interpretes, vii. 13 (cf. xvii. 3, xxii. 6), is con 
clusive against their being of human origin. Such duties belong 
to angels only; cf. Dan. ix. 22 sqq. ; i Enoch xvii. i, xix. i, 
xxi. 5, xxii. 6, etc. ; 2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Bar. passim. No more 
is the function of offering encouragement to the Seer, v. 5, re 
concilable with their being men : cf. Dan. x. n. 

Furthermore, it is angels and not men that offer the prayers 
of the faithful in golden bowls, T. Levi iii. 7; Chag. i2 b ; 
Sebach, 62*; Menachoth, no*, and so in our text, v. 8; it is 
angels that sing hymns, 2 Enoch xviii. 9, xix. 3, xx. 4, etc., and 
so in our text, v. 9, xiv. 3; but this last point must not be 

And again the fact that the elders sit on thrones prior to the 
consummation of the kingdom or the final judgment is against 
their being conceived as men. Not till this period arrives will 
the faithful wear crowns and sit on thrones. This holds also in 
Judaism, as appears from a passage of Tanchuma, fol. 52, quoted 
by Spitta and others : "Tempore futuro Deus S. B. sedebit et 
angeli dabunt sellas magnatibus Israelis, et illi sedent. Et Deus 
S. B. sedet cum senioribus tanquam |H rTO 3K, princeps senatus, 
et judicabunt gentiles." To the above passage we might add 
Dan. vii., where the thrones are set for the angelic assessors of the 
Most High. Thrones were thus not unfitting for angels, accord 
ing to pre-Christian Judaism. On the above grounds, therefore, 
the Elders are to be taken as angels. Whatever the twenty-four 
Elders may have been originally, in the view of our author, they 
are not men, but an order of angels. 

II. A College of angels earlier angelic assessors originally 
Babylonian star-gods. Gunkel (Schopfung und Chaos, 302-308) 
and Zimmern (K.A.T. Z 633) examine the various interpretations 
adduced, including that given under the next heading, and 
conclude that neither in Judaism nor in Christianity can any 
true interpretation of the twenty-four Elders seated on thrones 
be found. For they urge that the thrones imply that the Elders 
are kings and judges : that these Elders are supernatural beings, 


and that the number twenty-four is no invention of the Seer, but 
that the whole conception has been taken over from apocalyptic 

They are of opinion that the twenty-four Babylonian star- 
gods are the original of the twenty-four Elders, and that these 
gods were transformed by Judaism into angels. They support 
their view with the following citation from Diodorus Siculus, ii. 
31 : fiera Sc rov a>SiaKoi/ KVK\OV CIKOCTIV KO.I Terrapas d<optov(riv 
darepas, wv roiis p\v ^/AiVeis ev roTs /?opeiois /xepeo-t, TOUS 8 ^/tuVeis 
cv rots VOTIOIS Tfrd^Bai <aat, /cat TOVTWV rovs jjikv 6pw/>tevovs TWV 
etvat Karapi^/xoCcri, TOVS o a<f><s rols TeTeAeDT^KOcri Trpocrto- 
vo/xiov(Ttv, ous SiKaoras TW9 oXcov irpocrayopevovo-Lv. With 
the Babylonian star-gods Gunkel (Zww Verstdndniss des N. 
Testaments, 43) thinks the twenty-four Yazata of the Persians 
are related (Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 47). 1 Gunkel admits 
that the Seer has lost consciousness of the original meaning of 
these beings in that he assigns them priestly functions, though 
they were originally kings, senators of the Most High. 

This interpretation has received the support of Bousset, 
J. Weiss, Holtzmann 3 , and is undoubtedly attractive, but the 
evidence of connection between the Babylonian conception and 
that which appears in our text is too slight to build upon. It 
seems to be, in fact, not more than a coincidence ; for the points 
in common between the two can be explained within Judaism. 

There is not a trace of what, according to Gunkel, was the 
original character of these Elders; for the o-re^ai/ot and 
do not necessarily in themselves imply kingship. If 
were used instead of o-Te <cu/oi 2 the matter might be different 
Nor need the possession of OpovoL involve judicial powers, if we 
may reason from the passages cited above from the Ascension of 
Isaiah ; while as regards the number twenty-four, it can be 
satisfactorily accounted for within Judaism. 

Since the Elders are not conceived in any way as kings, 
since they never act as judges and are never consulted by God 
as His assessors, 3 but are described as angels discharging priestly 
(v. 8) and Levitical functions (v. 8), the most reasonable inter 
pretation is that which identifies them with the angelic repre 
sentatives of the twenty-four priestly orders. 

III a . Angelic representatives of the twenty-four priestly orders. 
A great number of scholars in past times derived the number 

1 2 Enoch iv. I might be compared : "And they brought before my face 
the elders and rulers of the stellar orders." 

2 I find, however, that artyavos is used of the crown of the sun in 
3 Bar. vi., viii. 

3 In I Enoch xiv. 22, Sir. xlii. 22, it is expressly stated that God stands 
in no need of counsel though thousands of thousands of angels stand around 


twenty-four from the twenty-four priestly orders, such as Alcasar, 
Vitringa, Eichhorn, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Renan, Erbes ; but it was 
Spitta (275 sqq.) who first recognized in the Elders the heavenly 
representatives of the twenty-four orders (i Chron. xxiv. 7-18). 
The chief priests were designated not only Dnb>, " princes " (so 
angels are designated in Dan. x. 13, 20, 21), and D^fiO, "heads," 
but also "elders of the priesthood," njn3 ^\X (Joma i. 5), and 
3K ITO ^pt, "Elders of a father s house" (Tamid i. i); Middoth 
i. 8. See Schiirer 3 , ii. 236. They are also called DT6sn nfe>, 
"princes of God," in i Chron. xxiv. 5. Spitta quotes the 
passage from Tanchuma, 52 (cited above), to show that angels 
sat on thrones. These angels, then, would be the heavenly 
counterpart of the heads of the twenty-four priestly orders. As 
such they themselves offered sacrifice 1 in heaven, v. 8 they 
presented the prayers of the faithful a bloodless offering : cf. T. 
Levi iii. 6 sq. If, then, this order of angels sat on thrones, it is 
to be expected also that they should wear crowns. Spitta might 
further have added that there were also twenty-four orders of 
Levites, i Chron. xxv. 9-31, whose duty was to "prophesy with 
harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals" (i Chron. xxv. i). 
This duty is discharged by the Elders in our text : cf. v. 8. In 
favour of this interpretation it may be observed that, since the 
archetypes of the temple and its accessories, as the altar and the 
ark, are represented by the Seer as already existing in heaven, it 
is natural to find the archetypes of the twenty-four priestly orders 
there also. 

These angels Spitta identifies with the 0/ooVot mentioned in 
T. Lev. iii. 8, where their duty, as in several passages in our text, 
is to offer praise to God (dei v^vov T<3 0eo) Trpoa-fapovrts). 

That they sat on thrones is clear from the Ascension of 
Isaiah vii. 14, 15, 21, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, xi. 25. 

Finally, this view of the Elders is preserved in the writing, at 
8tarayai at 8ta KXrj/jifVTos (Lagarde,y^m ecclesiastiti antiquissima, 
1856, 74 sqq.) : ct/coo-t yap /cat reo-(rapes etcrt Trpecr/^urcpot, 8<oSe/<a 
c/c Seioh/ /cat Sa>Se/<a t fvwvv/junv . . . ot yaev yap e* &eta>v 8e^o/xti/ot 
OTTO TWV dp^ayyeXwv TO.? <taAa9 7rpocr<epoucrt T<3 Seo~7ror>7, ot 8e e 
dptcrrepajv eTre^ovcrt TW TrX^et TOJV dyye Awv (quoted by Harnack, 
Lehre der 12 Ap> 233). This passage is an early expansion of 
our text. It still preserves the priestly element in the con 

III b . And in their present context the Elders may be the 

1 The priestly character of the Elders may be hinted at in their great 
hymn in v. 9-10, where the Elders dwell on the self-sacrifice of the Lamb as 
manifesting His worthiness to take the Book of Destiny and open its seals. 
However, it is just possible that the Living Creatures also join in that hymn. 

IV. 10-11.] THEIR DOXOLOGY 133 

heavenly representatives of the faithful in their twofold aspect as , 
priests and kings. 

It is, of course, possible that the Jewish character of the 
Elders may persist in our text : but it is not improbable that for 
our author the Elders have become the heavenly representatives 
of the faithful, all of whom are priests, i. 6. The risen martyrs 
are both priests and kings, xx. 6. This conception presents no 
difficulty, seeing that every man had his guardian angel, 
Acts xii. 15 ; Tob. v. ; Targ. Jer. on Gen. xxxiii. 10; Chag. i6 a ; 
Ber. 6o b , and particularly "the little ones," Matt, xviii. 10. 
This phrase has in Matthew a secondary meaning, " the weaker 
brethren in the faith." The Elders, therefore, may be the 
heavenly representatives of the whole body of the faithful. 

10. |3aXoG<nr Toug ore<|>diyous auraij evwirtoj TOU 0p6Vou. For this 
act of homage familiar in the East, Wetstein compares Tacitus, 
Ann. xv. 29, "Placuit Tiridaten ponere apud effigiem Caesaris 
insigne regium ... ad quam(sc. effigiem Neronis) progressus Tirid- 
ates. . . sublatum capitidiademaimaginisubjecit/ and Eichhorn, 
Plutarch, Lucull. p. 522, Tiy/aai/^s TO SiaS^/xa rrjs /ce<aAr)s d^eAo- 
i/os eflr/Kc Trpo roil/ TroSojv : and in the Jalkut Shimoni, i. fol. 55 b , 
" omnes reges orientis et occidentis venerunt ad Pharaonem. 
Cum vero Mosen et Aaronem in coelesti splendore viderent, tremor 
ipsorum in eos incidit et sumserunt coronas de capitibus suis 
eosque adoraverunt." Cicero, Pro P. Sestio, 27: " Hunc Cn. 
Pompeius, quum in suis castris supplicem abjectumque vidisset 
erexit, atque insigne regium, quod ille de suo capiti abjecerat 

11. aiog et, 6 Kupiog KCU 6 0eo<; TQJJUOV, 

Xa|3eii> TTjy 86ai> Kai T^V TIJATJI Kai TTJK Sumjjuy, 

on au eKTicrag TO, irdi Ta, 

Kal 8101 TO 0\T)|ULa aou ^aai [xal KTta0T]aai ]. 

et 6 Kupiog Kal 6 0eog ^jj-aii . The nominative is used 
here as the vocative: see Blass, Gram. p. 87; Moulton 2 , 71. 
It is possible that the Seer has chosen this title in reference to 
God in contrast to Domitian s blasphemous claim to be called 
Dominus et Deus noster (Suet. Domitian, 13). 

The phrase a^tos . . . Aa/3etv recurs in v.xj, 12. In i Enoch 
such doxologies are frequent, and have, as a rule, a close con 
nection with their respective contexts: cf. ix. 4, 5, xxii. 14, 
xxv. 7, xxxvi. 4, xxxix. 9-13, xlviii. 10, Ixxxi. 3, Ixxxiii. u, 
Ixxxiv., xc. 40. The same rule can be traced in the doxologies 
of our text: cf. v. 12, 13, vii. 12. 

As the doxology of the Cherubim in 8 has for its theme 
the holiness, omnipotence, and everlastingness of God, i.e. the 
essential nature of God, so the doxology of the four and twenty 

1 34 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [iV. 11-V. 1. 

Elders has for its theme the glory of God in His works ; for that 
all things were created by Him. 

Tt]i> So^cty KCU Ti]v TijJiT)i> K<xl TT]i> Suyafui/. Cf. I ChrOH. xvi. 


8ia TO 0e\T]jjid aou r\<ra.v [KCU eKTio-0-rjo-ai ]. Cf. Ps. Cxlviii. 5, 
" He commanded, and they were created." i Enoch Ixxxi. 3, 
" I blessed the great Lord, the King of glory for ever, in that He 
hath made all the works of the world." Our text is certainly 
difficult. We should naturally expect cKriarO qa-av KOI rjarav. The 
various corrections in the critical footnotes show how deeply 
this difficulty was felt. But none of them is helpful. If any 
change of the text were admissible, it would be best to read 
eKTia-Orjvav /ecu ^crav, Or to Omit /ecu KT6(r$?7<rav with A as an 
explanatory gloss added by a scribe who misunderstood rja-av, 
Then we should have 

" For Thou didst create all things, 
And because of Thy will they had their being " 

i.e. to Thy will they owed their existence. 

But, if the text is correct, there are two possible interpreta 
tions, i. Because of Thy will they had their being (i.e. existed 
in contrast to their previous non-existence) and were created. 
So Diisterdieck. But this involves an awkward inversion of 
thought. 2. " Because of Thy will they existed (in the world of 
thought) and were (then by one definite act) created." So also 
practically Swete, who writes : " The Divine Will had made the 
universe a fact in the scheme of things before the Divine Power 
gave material expression to the fact." 

But I confess that the text of A seems best, and from it all 
the other variations can be explained. 

With the idea in our text we might contrast contemporary 
Jewish speculation. According to 2 Bar. xiv. 18, Ezra viii. i, 
44, the world was created on account of man ; but this was only 
a loose way of putting the idea which is definitely expressed 
elsewhere, to the effect that the world was created on account of 
Israel, 4 Ezra vi. 55, 59, vii. n; Ass. Mos. i. 12, or rather on 
account of the righteous in Israel, 2 Bar. xiv. 19, xv. 7, xxi. 24. 
Such was the belief of the Rabbis : see Weber, Jud. Theol? 
208 sq. 

i. Contents and Authorship. 

As in iv. we have the vision of Him that sitteth on the 
throne, to whom the world and all that is therein owe their 


being, in v. we have the vision of the Lamb into whose hands 
the destinies of the world and all that is therein are committed. 
By His victory once and for all (evuc^o-ci/, v. 5, and us eo-^ay/xevov, 
v. 6) He has shown Himself equal to this task, for whose 
achievement none else could be found. And as in iv. the 
Living Creatures praise God as the All Holy, the Almighty and 
the Everlasting One, and the Elders fall down and worship Him 
as the Creator of all things, in v. 8 sqq. first the Living Creatures 
and the Elders fall down and worship the Lamb who through His 
redeeming death had won the right to carry God s purposes into 
effect, next (i i sq.) the countless hosts of angels praise the Lamb 
as God, and finally (13) the whole world of created things in 
heaven, in earth and under the earth joins in a universal burst of 
thanksgiving to Him that sitteth upon the throne and to the 
Lamb. Thus as in iv. God the Creator is the centre of worhip, 
in v. it is God the Redeemer, who thereby carries God s pur 
poses into fulfilment, while the chapter closes in the joint adora 
tion of Him that sitteth on the throne and of the Lamb. 

As regards the authorship, every clause of it is from the hand 
of our author except two glosses in 8, i T, which are intended to 
be explanatory and supplementary, but are both in conflict with 
the thought of the writer. Whilst the diction and the idiom 
( 2), which latter is not so pronounced as in the earlier chapters, 
are clearly those of our Seer, there is not an idiom or phrase that 
is not his. 

2. Diction and Idiom. 

There can be no doubt as to this chapter being from the 
hand of our author. 
(a) Diction. 

2. a.yye\ov icryypov I again in X. I, xviii. 21. V (jxoj fj jmeydXT] : 
again in xiv. 7, 9, 15. Without Iv in v. 12, vi. 10, vii. 2, TO, 
viii. 1 3, x. 3, etc. Contrast the non-Johannirie Iv Icrxvpa <j>wrj 
in xviii. 2. 

3. UTTOK<TW. Cf. 13, vi. 9, xii. i. Elsewhere in NT 7 

4. atos eupe 0T]. For eiipetv with part, or adj. cf. ii. 2, iii. 
2, xx. 15. 

6. dpiaov. This word is applied to Christ 29 times in our 
author and not elsewhere in the N.T., where d/xvos is used 
(Fourth Gospel, Acts, i Pet). 

9. aSouaii/ u$>r\v K.a.ivf]v : cf. xiv. 3, xv. 3. eoxJxvyTig : cf. 6, 
12, xiii. 8. T|YP a(ra s : cf. xiv. 3, 4. tv TU> ai[A<m aou : cf. i. 5 
<|>uXT]s K. Y^aaTjs K. Xaou K. eOi/ous : cf. vii. 9, xi. 9, xiii. 7, 
xiv. 6. 

10. jBaaiXeicu KCU lepeis : cf. i. 6. |3a<nXeuou<ni em rtjs yi]S . 


cf. xx. 4, e/SacriAevo-ai . . . ^tXta en? both statements referring 
to the Millennial Kingdom. Contrast xxii. 5. 

12. ai6V OTII> TO apviov . . . XajSeiy T. SuVajxii : cf. xi. 17, 
t\Tf]<pa<s T. Swa/ziv. TTJK SuVajjuy K. irXouTo^ /crA.. For the same 
seven, save in the case of TrXovrov, cf. vii. 1 2. 

13. TW Ka0T]jaeV<i) eirl r. 0p6Va> K. TW dpyia). Cf. VI. 16, vii. IO, 
xiv. 4, xxii. i, 3. 

() Idiom. 

I. TOU Ka0Tju.eVou em T. 0p6Vou. Cf. 7, 13, and the note on 
iv. 2, for the unique use of these phrases in our author. 

4. eKXaioy. The past imperfect is not frequently used in our 
author, and its use is very forcible (except in v. 14): cf. i. 12, 
ii. 14, v. 4, 14, vi. 8, 9, x. 10, xix. 14, xxi. 15. 

5. els CK. Seven times elsewhere in our author : twelve times 
in Fourth Gospel : ten times in rest of NT. 

6 XeW 6 IK TYJS <j>u\T]s. For this use of the art. connecting the 
noun with a following phrase, cf. i. 4, ii. 24, viii. 3, 9, xi. 19, xiv. 
17, xvi. 3, xix. 14, xx. 8, 13. 

6. eV JJUEOTW . . . iv JJUEO-W = p3i . . . p3 = "in the midst of 
. . . and" a Hebraism. 

<&s eo-^ay/j.eVoi : A frequent idiomatic use of ws in our 
author, apviov . . . t^w. This breach of concord in gender 
frequent in our author. Cf. weu jAara . . . direoraXfAeVoi, which 

7. Y]X0ei> Kal eiXir](f>ei/ : cf. viii. 3, xvii. i, xxi. 9 for this 
Semiticism, which does not occur in the Fourth Gospel. Introd. 
to II.-III. 2 (a), p. 39. It has been pointed out that the use 
of the perfect etA^a is characteristic of our Seer. 

II. 6 dpiOjjios . . . Xe yorres. Another instance of this breach 
of concord common in our author occurs in 13, irav KTio-pa . . . 

13. rd tv auToIs iran-a. Tras precedes its noun in our author 
except here and in viii. 3, xiii. 12. 

V. 1. Kal etSoy eiu TTJI 8eiai> TOU Ka9ir]fAei Ou em TOU 0poyou 
f3i|3Xioi> YcypafijAekoy Ko-wOey Kal omaOev, KaTea^payio-jJieVoy ox^paYtaik 
eiTTd. For the construction CTTI rrjv Se^tav compare xx. i, eVt ryv 
X^pa. The book -roll lies on the open palm of the right hand, 
not in the hand. 

Opinions are divided as to i. the form, and ii. the contents 
of the /3t/?Atov. 

i. The form. (a) Grotius (ii. 1160), Zahn (Einleit.\\. 596), 
Nestle (Text. Crit. of NT, 333), take it to be not a roll but a 
codex ; for (i) it is said to be CTTI rty SeiW. Had it been a roll 
it would have been ev rrj Seia. This argument is already 
answered above. (2) "The word used for opening the Book is 
(v. 4) and not, as in the case of rolls, 


or avoLTrTvo-crew." But this is not so. avol^ai is used in Isa. 
xxxvii. 1 4 (rji/oi^ev avro = TO /?t/3A.tW) as a rendering of BHB, the 
word which Ezekiel uses in ii. 10, and which the LXX renders 
there by avtiXrjcrtv. 

avowal is used of unrolling a book also in Luke iv. 17, where 
ND correct the di/otas into avcnrrv^, against ABL and most 
Versions. In Luke iv. 20 7rrv^a<s is used of rolling up the book. 
Nestle further adds : " That it was not written on the outside is 
also shown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals, the 
purpose of which was to make the reading of the book impossible. 
Not till the seventh seal is broken is the book open and its 
contents displayed." But the idea in our text is that with the 
opening of each successive seal a part of the contents of the 
book-roll is disclosed in prophetic symbolism. Hence these 
scholars read ycypaju/xevoy tawOev KOLL OTrtcr^ev Kar(r<j!)payt(r/xei/ov, 
taking the two latter words together. To this it has been 
reasonably rejoined that such a description is superfluous, 
as a roll is never written on the outside and sealed on the 

(b) Spitta, 281, supposes that the ftiftXCov is a book consisting 
of parchment leaves, each pair of which is fastened with a seal. 

(c) But with most scholars we take the fiifiXiov to be a book- 
roll. In Ezek. iii. i, Ezra vi. 2 this is simply called Kc^aXt? 
(rfeio), in Ezek. ii. 9 and Ps. xxxix. 8 K<f>a\ls fitftXtov (r6jD 
"iBD). The roll was 67mr#oypa</>ov, written on the back also as 
in Ezek. ii. 10. In the latter passage it is described as " written 
before and behind" yeypa^uyxeW . . . TO. efj,irpo<j-0v /cat TO. oVi trw 
(TinKl D^B rairo), but in our text as " written within and with 
out" yeypa/x/Aeyov 0xo$ei/ KOU oTncrOev. This may be due, as 
Bousset suggests, to the fact that in Ezekiel the roll is open, but 
that in our text it is closed. On the use of such o-n-LaOoypa^a 
amongst the Greeks and Romans, Wetstein quotes Lucian, Vit. 
Auct. 9, rj Trrjpa Se croi Oepfjiwv lorcu ^crr-r] KCU OTno-Ooypaffxav 
/?i/3A<W; Juvenal, i. 6, "Summi plena jam margine libri scrip- 
tus et in tergo necdum finitus Orestes"; Martial, viii. 62, 
" Scribit in aversa Picens Epigrammata charta" t 

ii. The contents. (a) According to Huschke (Das Buck mit 
den sieben Siege In, 1860), Zahn (pp. at.), and J. Weiss 1 (Die 
Offenb. 57 sqq.) the Book represents a Will or Testament relating 
to the Old and New Testament Covenant. A will, according to 
the Praetorian Testament, in Roman law bore the seven seals of 
the seven witnesses on the threads that secured the tablets or 

1 A colleague of J. Weiss (op. cit. p. 57, n. 3) has shown that it is possible 
to construct a roll in which the seals fastened to the cords can be so fastened 
that with the removal of one a part of the roll can be unrolled, while the rest 
remains secure. 


parchment (see Smith, Diet, of Greek and Roman Ant.> p. 1117). 
Such a Testament could not be carried into execution till all the 
seven seals were loosed. 

The Seal visions are, therefore, on this view only signs of the 
end, the " woes " of the Messiah. But, if this view were right, 
then our author could not have omitted the most significant part 
of the whole procedure the opening of the Book itself after the 
undoing of the seventh seal. 

(b) The roll contains the divine decrees and the destinies of 
the world. It deals with the things a /*eAA ycvecrOat. With the 
loosing of each seal a part of its contents is revealed in symbolic 
representation. In other words, the Book is a prophecy of the 
things that fall out before the end. Owing to the solemnity 
with which it is introduced and the importance attached to it by 
the Seer, it should contain all the future history of the world 
described in the Apocalypse to its close ; and so Nicolas de Lyra, 
Corn, a Lap., Bengel, Diisterdieck, Bousset, etc., explain. This 
appears to be the right view, though it is hard to reconcile this 
view with the rest of the Apocalypse. 

That this Book is sealed with seven seals shows that the 
divine counsels and judgments it contains are a profound secret 
(cf. x. 4, xxii. 10 ; Isa. xxix. n ; Dan. viii. 26, xii. 4, 9), which 
can only be revealed through the mediation of the Lamb. 

In apocalyptic literature we have conceptions closely related 
to that of the Book in our text. It recalls the thought expressed 
by the phrase "the heavenly tablets" (al TrXa/ces TOV ovpavov) 
which is found in the Test. XII Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, 
and in i Enoch. The conception underlying this phrase is to 
be traced, partly to Ps. cxxxix. 16; Ex. xxv. 9, 40, xxvi. 30, 
where we find the idea that heaven contains divine archetypes of 
certain things that exist on earth; partly to Dan. x. 21, where a 
book of God s plans is referred to ; but most of all to the growing 
determinism of thought, for which this phrase stands as a 
concrete expression. The conception is not a hard and fixed 
one: in i Enoch and Test. XII Patr. it wavers between an 
absolute determinism and prediction pure and simple. In the 
following passages as in our text the heavenly tablets deal with 
the future destinies of the world in i Enoch Ixxxi. i sq., xciii. 
I _2, cvi. 19, cvii. i ; and the blessings in store for the righteous 
ciii. 2. They are apparently called the Book of the Angels, 
ciii. 2 (gm, /?), and are designed for the perusal of the angels, cviii. 
7, that they may know the future recompenses of the righteous and 
the wicked. Here there is a divergence between the Book in 
our text and the books in Enoch. The Book in our text is 
closed, and can only be opened by the Lamb. Those in Enoch 
are open to be perused by the angels. Notwithstanding the 


ideas are closely related. See my notes on i Enoch xlvii. 3 and 
Jub. iii. 10. 

2. KCU etSoy ayyeXoi/ i<T\vpbv K-qpuorowTa iv 4>wrfj jxeydXY]. A 
"strong angel" is referred to again in x. i, xviii. 21. The 
strength of the angel is dwelt upon, as his voice penetrates to 
the utmost bounds of heaven and earth and Hades. The 
phrase ev </>(ov^ ^jdXy (see note on x. 3) recurs in xiv. 7, 9, 15 ; 
Kypva-crovra iv is a Hebraism. 

TIS aios dyoiai TO |3i|3Xic> ical XG<rai T&S a^payiSas auTou. 
aios here = iKavos. Matt. viii. 8 : cf. 2 Cor. ii. 16, vrpos ravra rts 
iKavos; In John i. 27 it is combined with u/a. The "worthi 
ness " (d|ioT7/9) is the inner ethical presupposition of the ability 
(tKcu/or^s) to open the Book. In avolai KOL Xvo-ai there is a 
hysteron proteron^ or else we may take A-ucrai as defining more 
nearly the preceding word avoi^ai. 

3. KCU ouSclg eSumTO iv TW oupacu ouSe eiu, TTJS y^S ouSe UTTO- 
icdTW TT]S yf]S ayoL^ai TO |3t3Xto^ ou8e jSXeTreiv auTo. Our author 
uses tSvvaTo, never ZSwijOr]. In the whole sphere of creation 
none was worthy to open the Book. This threefold division 
is found already in Ex. xx. 4 (cf. xx. 1 1 ; Ps. cxlvi. 6), though in 
an earlier and different form : "that is in the heaven above, or 
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the 
earth." This latter agrees exactly with the Babylonian division 
of the world into heaven and earth and water (apsu = water 
under and around the earth : see Zimmern, K.A.T? ii. 350, 615), 
each of which had its own god. In Ex. xx. 4 the Babylonian 
polytheism has of course disappeared, though the cosmic division 
has survived. But, inasmuch as there has been a great eschato- 
logical development between Ex. xx. 4 and the time of our 
Apocalypse, the third division has become synonymous with 
Hades. This appears clearly in Phil. ii. 10. On a fourfold 
division of creation see note on 13. 

4. KCU eKXaiov iroXu, OTI ouSels au>s eupeOrj dcoifai TO j3i|3Xioi 
ouTe pXeireii auTo. The Seer began to weep unrestrainedly 
because no being in creation was found worthy to open the 
Book. Others think that his weeping was due to his fear that 
the hoped for revelation would now be withheld, as it depended 
on the opening of the Book. 

5. Kal els IK TWI/ irpeo-jSuTe pwi/ Xeyci JAOI MTJ KXate* I8ou eraiarjo-ei 
6 Xewv 6 CK TTJS <{>uXT)s louSa, r\ pia AaueiS, ayoiai TO |3i|3XioK ica! 
Tots eiTTa a<f>payi8as auTou. el? CK is found twelve times in the 
Fourth Gospel and eight times in the Apocalypse. One of the 
Elders here, as again in vii. 13, intervenes, as elsewhere do other 
angels, x. 4, 8 sqq., xvii. i, xix. 9, xxi. 9, xxii. 8, in order to inform 
or guide the Seer. ^ ^Ame: cf. John xx. 13. The actual phrase 
is used by Christ in Luke vii. 13, viii. 52. 


I8ou eyiKTjcrei/. The ioov serves to introduce vividly the scene 
represented in the next verse. eViV^crei/ is to be taken here, as 
always in the LXX and the N.T., absolutely. It states that once 
and for all Christ has conquered : cf. iii. 21, o>s Kayo> eVuayo-a, and 
the object of this conquest was to empower Him to open the 
book of destiny and carry the history of the world throughout its 
final stages. Thus the di/ot<u is to be taken as an infinitive of 
purpose. The victory has been won through His death and 
resurrection. The Victor is designated as 6 AeW 6 e/c rfjs <vAr)s 
lovoa in dependence on Gen. xlix. 9, O-KU/XVOS AeWros lovSa . . . 
dvaTrecrwv eKoijjurjOrjs us A.eaii , and as rj pta Aauei S in dependence 
On Isa. XI. I, e^eXevo-crat pa/?Sos e/c T^S /HI?S (W.3K)) lea-am, KOL 
av6o<s K rfjs pi&js (VBHEfo) avaftrjo-eTcu, and xi. IO, KOL eo-rat ev rrj 
rj^pa Kwy fj pta (&"W) rov lecrorcu. The first passage was 
interpreted Messianically in the ist cent. B.C., as we see from 
the Test. Judah xxiv. 5, and the second in Rom. xv. 12. Since 
Isa. xi. 4, "He shall smite the earth with the rod of his 
mouth," is applied to the Messiah in Pss. Sol. xvii. 39, we may 
conclude that Isa. xi. i-io was interpreted Messianically in pre- 
Christian times. In xxii. 16 of our text the author returns 
to these designations of the Messiah : eyo> ei/U ^ pia KOL TO 
yevos Aavet 8. 

6. KCU et8oi> e^ fxeaw TOU Qpovou K.OI TWI> rccro-dpwj wwy Kal e^ 
jjiecrw TWI^ Trpea|3uTe p(>i> apviov l<rrt]Ko<s a>s eo-^ayjAeVov. The position 
of the Lamb, in the scene depicted, depends on the rendering 
assigned to ev ^eVo) . . . eV /xeo-w. i. The text may mean 
" between the throne and the four Living Creatures (on the one 
side) and the Elders (on the other)." In this case the Greek 
would be Hebraistic = pi pa. The LXX constantly translate in 
this way the Hebrew preposition literally, and not idiomatically, 
as in Gen. i. 4, 7, 18, iii. 15, ix. 16, 17, etc. On this view the 
Lamb would stand somewhere between the inner concentric 
circle of the Living Creatures and the outer concentric circle 
of the twenty-four Elders. 2. Or the two phrases eV /xeo-w may 
be parallel and emphasize the fact that the Lamb stood in the 
centre of all the beings above named. In favour of the latter 
view may be cited vii. 17, TO apviov TO ova yuecrov TOV Opovov. 
If this view is correct it would imply that the Lamb is stand 
ing in immediate closeness to the throne. But v. 7, K<U 
rjX.Ov KCU tXr/0i/, is against this. Accordingly the text seems 
to teach that the Lamb, when first seen by the Seer, appeared in 
the space between the circles of the Living Creatures and the 
twenty-four Elders. 

The term apviov as applied to our Lord is peculiar to the 
Apocalypse elsewhere in the N.T. it is d/xi/o? that is used : John 


i. 29, 36; i Pet. i. 19; Acts viii. 32. This last passage is a 
quotation from Isa. liii. 7? <*>s irpofiarov e?rt o-^ayyjv r/x^ 7 ? K0t ^ 
dynvos Ivavriov TOV KfCporros avTov dc/xoros. That this passage was 
interpreted of Christ by the first Christians is shown by Acts 
viii. 34sqq. The prophet applies it to himself in Jer. xi. 19, eyo> 
St w? apviov O.KO.KOV dyo/xevov TOV OvecrOai ov/c eyvoov KT\. The 
word is used twenty-nine times in twelve chapters of the Apoca 
lypse as a designation of the crucified Messiah. Vischer (38-46) 
has tried to show that apviov is an interpolation in the present 
passage as well as throughout the rest of the Apocalypse, but 
unsuccessfully save perhaps in xiii. 8. So far, however, is Vischer 
from being right as to the present passage, that with J. Weiss 
(p. 57) the conceptions of the Book and the Lamb are to be 
regarded as "the kernel of the Vision." d>s lo-^ay^vov, i.e. as 
though slain in sacrifice and still retaining the appearance of 
death wounds on its body. These wounds are tokens that 
the sacrifice has been offered. The Lamb is represented ws 
eV</>ay/x,eVov, because in very truth He is not dead but alive : 
cf. i. 1 8, ii. 8. 

exw^ Kcpara eirrd. The horn first of all symbolizes power in \ 
the O.T. Cf. Num. xxiii. 22; Deut. xxxiii. 17; i Sam. ii. i; 
i Kings xxii. n ; Ps. Ixxv. 4, Ixxxix. 17, etc. Next it marks kingly "i 
dignity, Ps. cxii. 9, cxlviii. 14; Zech. i. 18; Dan. viiT~y, 20, viii. 
3 sqq. ; Apoc. xii. 3, xiii. i, ii, xvii. 3. In i Enoch xc. 9 the 
Maccabees are symbolized by "horned lambs " : " And I saw till 
horns grew upon those lambs " : and in Test. Joseph xix. 8 sq., 
one of this family is designed under the term d/Ws, which 
destroys the enemies of Israel. While the idea underlying apviov 
o)s eo-^ay/xeVov is clearly derived from Isa. liii. 7, it is very 
probable that the conception underlying e^wv Kepara iirra is 
sprung from apocalyptic tradition. It is probable also that it is 
the Jewish Messiah that is designated d/xvds in the above passage 
of the Test. Joseph ; and such is certainly the case in i Enoch 
xc. 37, "And I saw that a white bull was born with large horns." 
"The Lamb," then, "with the seven horns" is the all-powerful 
(observe the perfect number " seven " is used) warrior and king. 
Cf. Matt, xxviii. 18 ; John xvii. i, 2. Over against the Christ so 
represented we have His counterpart in the Beast with the seven 
heads in xiii. i. 

KCU 6<j>0a\p,ous eirrd, 01 eionv TO, [cirra] ir^eufiara TOV 6eou direorT- 
aXfx^oi eis nrdoray ri]v yr\v. Omniscience appears to be here 
attributed to the Lamb. The possession of the seven eyes has 
this import : for these belong to Yahweh in the O.T. : cf. Zech. 
iv. IO, eTTTO. OVTOI 6(f>OaXfJLoi LO~iV Kvpiov ot eTTi/S/VeVovres (D^ppi^ D) 
eTTt, Traa-av rrjv yrjv. The clause ot eto-iv . . . yfjv has been 
rejected by Weyla^d, Spitta (p. 67), Volter, iv. p. 12, Wellhausen 


(p. 9) as an explanatory addition. Its removal would certainly 
make the interpretation of the text easier. But there is no 
objection to this clause as coming from our author s hand : cf. iii. i. 
In iv. 5, on the other hand, we found that alike the verse structure 
of iv. 1-8 and the order of the words were against the originality 
of iv. 5 b (?), but not against its insertion, when he edited his 
visions as a whole. Furthermore, since aTreo-raX/x-eVoi or aTrea-raX.- 
/jitva seems to be a very loose but independent translation of 
Q^DI^D (LXX, eTrt^AeTrovTe?), and since we have already found 
that our author does not depend for his knowledge of the 
Hebrew on the LXX, this forms a presumption in favour of his 
authorship of this clause. Accordingly recognizing its origin 
ality, we should next determine the true text. This, we fear, 
cannot be done with any certainty. The authorities are divided 
between aTrccrraX/zeVoi, aTrecrraX/xeva, and o,7ro(rreXXo/xej/a. This 
word could be used either of the " eyes " or of the " spirits," 
and hence gives us no help, though the original passage in 
Zechariah is in favour of connecting the words 6</>$aXjuW? and 

B. Weiss (p. 442) decides definitely for this view and accord 
ingly reads aTreo-raX/xe i/oi. On the other hand, the context is 
rather in favour of connecting Trvev/xaro, and the participle. In 
this case Bousset thinks we should read dTroo-reXXo/xej/a or 
aTrea-raX/xei/a. But there is no necessity whatever for so doing. 
Such a construction as 7n/ev/u.ara . . . aTreo-raX/xej/ot is quite a 
normal one in our author, however abnormal in itself. The 
seven eyes are here identified with the seven spirits of which the 
Lamb is Lord and Master, iii. i. The conception of spirits 
being sent forth as the agents of Divine Providence is easier of 
comprehension than that in Zech. iv. 10. 

On the probable origin and meaning of the eyes and " spirits " 
in this connection, see note on p. 12 sq. 

It is quite impossible to conceive a figure embodying the 
characteristics of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of 
David, and the seven-horned Lamb with seven eyes. The 
Apocalypse deals with ideas, not with plastic conceptions. The 
terms used have become for the most part purely symbolical and 
metaphorical. They have been derived from various sources. 
Taken by themselves and separately, they are but one-sided and 
partial representatives of the Messiah of our author. Without 
any fear of seeming contradiction he combines apparently in one 
concrete whole these various conceptions, in order to embody 
fitly the Messiah of his faith and visions. If we confine ourselves 
to the ideas, and ignore the conflicting plastic manifestations, we 
shall find no difficulty. The Lion of the tribe of Judah is the 
one strong member par excellence of this tribe; the Root of 


Jesse, 1 is, of course, the plant springing from the root of Jesse (cf. 
Isa. liii. 2; Deut. xxix. 18). 

Thus in xxii. 16 r] pia and TO yei/os are practically synonym 
ous. These two expressions designate in tradition the expected 
Messiah of the tribe of Judah. When we combine with these 
the further one, "the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes," 
we have a being possessing full power and omniscience the 
supreme ruler under God descended from the tribe of Judah. 
Quite another idea underlies the phrase apviov ws eo-^ay/xevoi/. 
As in the former expressions supreme power and omniscience are 
indicated, by this latter it is supreme self-surrender and self- 
sacrifice. But there is no contradiction between the ideas, how 
ever it may be with their symbols ; for this absolute self-sacrifice 
which has already been undergone, as our author indicates, has 
become the avenue to supreme power and omniscience. 

Such appears to have been the meaning attached to the con 
ception of the Lamb by our author. But some of the elements 
in the conception may possibly, as Gunkel (Zum Verstdndniss 
NT, 60 sqq.) and Bousset (259) point out, go back to an 
ancient heathen myth. One such element is the opening of the 
sealed Book. Magical books, magical rings, magical oaths and 
formulas were everywhere current in the East. He who could 
make himself master of such books or oaths 2 became to a great 
degree lord of the universe, and a new deity. By virtue of his 
magical power, however won, he has power to loose the seals of the 
book of destiny, to bring the old world to a close and enter on 
the sovereignty of the new, and thus be enthroned among the 
ancient deities, as Marduk in the Babylonian creation myth. 
Gunkel and Bousset assume the currency of some such heathen 
myth which was subsequently adopted into Judaism and from 
Judaism into Christianity. However this may be, our author 
has no consciousness of the existence of this myth, even if in 
the above form it ever existed. Some elements of the picture, 
however, do appear to go back to a heathen original. 

7. Kal ^XOej/ Kal et\T]<f>ei CK T fjs 8eids TOU KaO^jxeVou ITU TOU 
0p6Vou. In rjXBev /cat eiA^ev we have a Semiticism (cf. viii. 3) 
not found in the Fourth Gospel ; cf. viii. 3, xvii. i, xxi. 9. See 
Dalman s Words of Jesus, p. 21. But the rjXOev may not be a 
mere Semiticism, but may describe the actual advance of the 
Lamb from the place where He appeared between the Living 
Creatures and the Elders to the throne of God. Weiss, followed 

1 In Jer. xix. 19 the expressions "lamb" and "tree" are applied to the 
same subject, i.e. Jeremiah. 

2 Compare the magical oath in I Enoch Ixix. 15 sqq., by virtue of which 
the heavens were made fast, the sea created, the earth founded on the 
waters, and all the planets and stars kept in their courses. Michael the 
greatest of all the angels and the patron of Israel had the charge of this oath v 


by Bousset and Swete, takes the perfect eiAr/^ei/ as pointing to 
the permanent results of the action. " Christ receives the revela 
tion of the secrets of the future as an abiding possession." On 
the other hand, Moulton (Gram. N.T. Greek, i. 145) and 
Blass (p. 200) regard etX^ei/ as a genuinely aoristic perfect, as 
well as the perfect in vii. 14, viii. 5, xix. 3, and probably in iii. 3, 
xi. 17, ii. 27. Other examples are found in 2 Cor. ii. 13, i. 9, 
vii. 5; Rom. v. 2 a ; Mark v. 15. It is characteristic of the 

8-14. Adoration of the Lamb first by the Living Creatures 
and the Elders, 10 ; next, by the countless hosts of angels, 1 1-12 ; 
next, by all creation, 13; whereupon the Living Creatures say 
"amen " and the Elders fall down and worship, 14. 

8. Kal ore HXafJei TO |3ij3Xioi , rA rcaae/aa wa KCU ot eiKocri 
Teacrapes irpeajSurepoi eireo-ar ei/wmoi/ TOU apiaou. Spitta (p. 67) 
removes tTrecrav . . . d/ovi ov as a gloss, (i) because elsewhere not 
the Living Creatures, but only the Elders fall down and worship. 
But this is not so in xix. 4, and there is no reason why the 
Cherubim in our author s view of them should not prostrate 
themselves. (2) As the Elders had harps and censers in their 
hands they could not fall down. But Hirscht (Apocalypse und 
ihre neueste Kritik, p. 47) adduces the Egyptian picture, in 
which Rameses ii. is represented as falling down before the sun- 
god Amen-Ra, holding the offering in his left hand and a crozier 
and a whip in his right (Lepsius, Aegypt. Wandgemdlde d. 
KonigL Museen^, 1882, p. 26). (3) The falling down of the 
Elders first takes place in v. 14. This prostration removes, as 
Bousset points out, the difficulty alleged in (2). Besides, as 
Hirscht states, ii seems to presuppose that the Living Creatures 
are again standing, and the Elders are sitting on their thrones. 
(4) Through the addition of the verb the following participles 
are brought unsuitably into relation with the Living Creatures. 
There is no more cogency in this objection than in the first. 
The Living Creatures, i.e. the Cherubim, were simply angels, and 
no longer bearers of the throne of God. As such there would 
be nothing strange, even if the Cherubim were conceived as 
holding harps and censers in their hands. But the latter belong 
exclusively to the Elders. On the other hand, J. Weiss (p. 55) 
would explain the clauses referring to the Elders as additions of 
the final editor, as in iv. 4, v. 6, and would thus represent the 
Living Creatures as holding the harps and censers. But though 
iv. 4 appears to have been added by our author when re-editing 
an earlier vision, there seem to be no adequate grounds for the 
view of Weiss with regard to the other passages. 

IXOI TCS IKCWJTOS KiOdpay Kal <f>idXas xP U(r <*S yejj.ou<ras Gup.iajj.aTOJi 
[at etaiK al irpoaeuxai TWK dyiwf]. The words e^ovrcs l/caerros 


appear to refer only to the Elders, though, so far as the 
grammar goes, the e^ovTes could refer to the TO. u>a taken 
Kara o-w<ru>. Cf. CXCDI/ in iv. 7. But the office of the 
Cherubim is not of a priestly nature, as we have already seen 
above, whereas that of the Elders is (see note). They have 
harps (cf. xiv. 2, xv. 2) and censers in their hands, and the 
theme of their hymn is the self-sacrifice of the Lamb, by the 
which He has won the salvation of His people chosen from every 
race and tongue. The at refers to tfv/zia/zaVujv and not to < 
Its gender is to be explained by attraction from Trpoo-ev^ai. The 
prayers of the saints^ are symbolized by the incense : Ps. cxl. 2, 
KaTCvOvvOiqTw rj icpovwffl JAOV d>s flu/zta/xa CVCOTTIOV <rov. The aytoi 
are those dedicated to God, i.e. the Christians; for so the 
latter are frequently designated in the Apocalypse : cf. viii. 3, 4, 
xi. 1 8, xiii. 7, 10, xiv. 12, xvi. 6, xviii. 20, xx. 9. Spitta (p. 67) 
and Volter (iv., p. 13) bracketed the clause at ... dytW 
as an explanatory gloss, and a wrong one to boot; for the 
incense and the prayers are not identical. At most they can 
be compared to incense. The gloss is due to a spiritualizing 
of the idea in viii. 3, to the effect that prayer is the true incense 
of heaven. This is no doubt a true idea, but it does not belong 
to the Apocalypse. The true relation of prayer and incense in 
our Book is given in viii. 3. 

The office of presenting the prayers of the faithful before God, 
which the gloss attributes to the Elders, is assigned to Michael 
in Origen, De Prin. i. 8. i, and to the guardian angels in the 
Apoc. Pauli, 7-10. In 3 Bar. xi., Michael descends to the 
fifth heaven to receive the prayers of mankind. According to 
the Apoc. Pauli, 7-10, the doors of heaven were opened 
at a definite hour to receive these prayers. Judaism is the 
source of these views, as we see by going back to an earlier 
work, the Test. Levi iii. 5-6, where it is said that in the highest 
heaven the archangels, of whom Michael is the chief, " minister 
and make propitiation to the Lord for all the sins of the 
righteous, Offering to the Lord ... a reasonable and a bloodless 
offering." Next, in iii. 7, in the fifth heaven, is the order of 
angels who present the prayers of the faithful to the archangels, 
who in turn lay them before God. (See my edition with notes 
in loc.) Cf. Tob. xii. i?, 15. Thus in our text (except in 
viii. 3-5) the four and twenty Elders have definitely taken the 
part assigned in many circles of Judaism to the Archangels, 
if the gloss is a valid interpretation of the text. They present 
before God the prayers of the saints, which they have probably 
received from a lower order of angels. It is a priestly function, 
as that of the Archangels in Test. Levi iii. 5-7 ; Origen, De 
Orat. 1 1 on Tobit. In the O.T. and later Judaism, as I have 
VOL. i. 10 


shown in my notes on Test. Levi iii. 5, the angels acted as 
intercessors for mankind. Bat in the face of viii. 3-5 the role 
of the Elders can hardly be that of presenting the prayers of 
the faithful, to God. They exercise priestly functions, it is true, 
but their chief function is the praise of God and of the Lamb, 
who has redeemed humanity. 

9. Kttl aSoucriy wS^y K.aivr]v XeyovreS This Song is sung 
exclusively by the Elders, who play on their harps to the 
accompaniment of their song. "Heaven is revealed to earth as 
the homeland of music " (C. Rossetti). The w8>) Kauvf) (ssnn "Vt^) 
was originally a song of praise inspired by gratitude for new 
mercies. As such it occurs six times in the Psalter: xxxii. 
(xxxiii.) 3, xxxix. (xl.) 4, xcv. (xcvi.) i, xcvii. (xcviii.) i, cxliii. 
(cxliv.) 9, cxlix. i. But in Isa. xlii. 10 the phrase has a fuller 
content, corresponding to the deeper sense of " new things " in 
xlii. 9. The one cycle of events is fulfilled, the other is about 
to begin. However great the glories of things of old time, they 
shall be dimmed by the splendour of things to come. To this 
new cycle the new song belongs. Suddenly in our text the old 
God-appointed Jewish dispensation, with its animal sacrifices and 
racial exclusiveness, is brought to a close, and the new Christian 
dispensation is initiated, as the "new song" declares, by the self- 
sacrifice made once and for all (eVc/xxy^s) by the Lamb, and the 
universal Church thereby established and drawn from every 
people and nation and language. The continuous song (aSouo-iv) 
is the note of continuous thankfulness and joy. 

The Katvorr/s the newness in character, purity, and perma 
nence of the New Kingdom is a favourite theme in the Apoca 
lypse, and rightly : for from the beginning of and throughout 
apocalyptic literature there had been a promise of a new world 
and a new life. Although in earlier times the expected 
world may have been in most respects merely a glorified repeti 
tion of the world that then was, in later times the expectation 
became transformed and a world was looked for that was new, 
not as regards time (veos), but as regards quality (/catvos). And 
so our Apocalypse, as closing the long development of Apoca 
lyptic in the past, dwells naturally on this theme. The Seer 
beholds in a vision the ovpavov KO.LVOV KOL yrjv Kauvyv and the 
Itpova-aXrjfji Katvrjv the new universe created by God, who in the 
vision declares tSou Katva TTOIW Trai/ra, xxi. 5, 2 (cf. iii. 12). Each 
citizen, moreover, of this New Kingdom is to bear a new name 
OVO/JLO. /catvov, ii. 17, iii. 12, and in praise of this kingdom the 
Elders sins: the new song wS^v Katvrji/, and likewise the angels, xiv. 
3, and the blessed company of the martyrs before the throne, xv. 2. 

Kal di>oiai ras a^payiSas aurou, 


on eo-<f>dyir)9 *al TJyopaaas TW 6ew iv TW aifxart aou 
CK Trdcnrjs 4>uXf)s Kal y\<jL>aar\<s Kal Xaou Kal eO^ous, 
10. Kal eiroirjaas aurous TW 6ew TQJJLWI/ j3aorXeiai> Kal lepels 
Kal {SaaiXeuouaiy eirl rfjs 

o-<>d<r0ai is, as Swete points out, used to describe the death of 
Christ in this Book (6, 9, 12, xiii. 8) in dependence on Isa. liii. 7, 
u>s irpofiaTov 7rt cr(f>ayr)v rjx^j an< ^ tne death of the martyrs in 
vi. 9, xviii. 24. dyopdav expresses the idea of salvation as one 
of purchase. Christ has bought the faithful for God by the 
shedding of His blood (cf. i Pet. i. 19). The power or sphere 
from which the purchase sets free is not mentioned here. In 
(xiv. 3 it is from the earth and its evils, and in a gloss) xiv. 4 
from wicked men that they are withdrawn through the purchase. 
dyopdeu> is a Pauline word, i Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 ; 2 Pet. ii. i. 
B. Weiss (p. 443) holds that the word points back to i. 5, so far 
as the loosing of the bands of sin makes this possible, in order 
that the redeemed may become ayioi. 

Bousset is of opinion that the word suggests release from a 
hostile power. In later ages many Christian theologians held 
that Christ purchased His disciples from the devil by His death. 

Iv TW curort aou. Here as in i. 5 ev = the Hebrew H, denoting 
price : " at the cost of Thy blood." 

CK Trcurrjs <f>u\T]s KT\. This expression does not attribute the 
same universal scope to the redemptive power of Christ s death 
as I John ii. 2, auros tAaoyxos ecrnv . . . o\ov TOV KOCT/AOV. 

<J>U\T)S Kal Y^WCTOTQS Kal Xaou Kal eGi/ous. These four words 
occur, but in different order, in v. 9, vii. 9, xi. 9, xiii. 7, 
xiv. 6. In no two instances is the order the same. They recur 
twice more, but not only in a different order but with ^ao-iAcvo-iv 
instead of <J>vXal<s in x. ii, and o^Xot instead of <^>vXat in xvii. 15. 
But this last occurs in a gloss. There is a similar enumeration 
in 4 Ezra iii. 7, " Gentes et tribus, populi et cognationes " ( = IQvt] 
Kal <f>v\ai, Xaol Kal cruyyeVeiai (?)). Nowthe source of all these is 
ultimately the Book of Daniel, iii. 4, 7, 29, v. 19, vi. 25, vii. 14, 
whether it be the Massoretic, Theodotion, or the LXX. In the 
printed texts of the LXX it is found also in iii. 31, but it is to be 
observed here that iii. 31-32 were borrowed by Origen from 
Theodotion. Now, since the Massoretic has in all the above 
passages KJ3B^1 N*?3X NJ9PV and Theodotion Xaot, <f>v\ai, 
yXwcrcrai, it will become clear as we proceed that the enumera 
tions in our text, which in every case consist of four members 
and one of these members Wvos or #1/17, cannot be derived from 
either the Massoretic text or Theodotion. On the other hand, 
the LXX has ZQvos or Wvrj always as one member of the enumer 
ations, and in iii. 4 there are four members in the enumeration 


, Xaot /ecu yAaicrcrai. In the remaining 
four passages iii. 2, 7, 29, vi. 25, only three are mentioned : in the 
first three of these Wvv\ KOI <f>v\al KOL yAwcrorat (in various cases), 
and in vi. 25, Wveari K. yAcocrtrats /cat ^copais. Here we observe 
that, whereas Xaos is found in all the passages in the Apocalypse 
and in Theodotion, it is found only once in the LXX (iii. 4). 
Thus this list is more nearly related to the LXX than to the 
Massoretic and Theodotion, but diverges also from the former. 
Hence our text presupposes either the existence of a translation 
differing both from the LXX and Theodotion though more akin 
to the former, or the independent use of an older Aramaic text 
of Daniel than that preserved in the Canon. 

10. pootXcior Kul Upels KT\. On the expression ySao-tXeiW 
KOL Upets see note on i. 6. The present /Sao-iAevouo-tv, which is 
the harder reading, is also the right reading. It resumes the 
idea in /ScunAcia and explains it. In the vision the Seer sees 
the saints already reigning. Thus the expression is proleptic^ 
and refers primarily to the Millennial Kingdom in xx. Or 
ftao-iXtvovcriv may, like oruKr/UjScrtu in ii. 27, be a Hebraism for 
pao-iXcva-ovo-iv. Others explain it as preserving its natural sense 
on the ground that the Church even then was reigning on earth, 
and that all things were being put under her feet as under those 
of her Lord: cf. Eph. ii. 6 ; i Cor. xv. 25. Not the Caesars, 
but the persecuted Christians are the true kings of the earth. 
But this sovereignty is not referred to here : it is only potential 
and is not realized till xx. 4. 

11. KCt! etSoy KCU -qKOLKTO, (JXOCT]! OyyfXtoV TToXXfij KUfcXb) TOU 

Opofou [KCU Twy ^wwy KCU rdv Trpea|3uTep<oi/], ica! r\v 6 dpidfxos auTwv 
(jLupidBes jmupiaBojy KCU x i ^ l( *^ S X l ^ lt ^ wi/ - The /cat eiSov intro 
duces a new feature in the vision : see note on iv. i. Round 
about the two smaller concentric circles of the highest angels, 
the Seer sees and hears innumerable angelic hosts acclaiming 
the Lamb with one voice. 

I have bracketed KOI TWV o>on/ K. ran/ Trpeo-^repwt/ as a gloss. 
Their special thanksgiving has already been recorded in 9-10 : 
that of the countless hosts of the angels comes in 12 ; then the 
thanksgiving of all creation. Further, when the various orders 
of heavenly beings are mentioned, they are given in the follow 
ing order : Living Creatures, Elders, angels ; or angels, Elders, 
Living Creatures, according as the Seer s description proceeds 
from the throne outwards, or vice versa. See note on iv. 4. 
The order of the words ^vpiaSes . . . xiAiaSes is surprising, and 
Bousset therefore brackets /xvpiaSes /Avpia&m/ K<U as an addition. 
They are omitted by the Vulgate and Primasius. The com 
bination is already found, but in its natural order, in i Enoch 
xl. I, Ix. I, Ixxi. 8 = ^iXta8e? xiAiaScov Ka fivpiaSes ^ivptaSwv, and 


these passages may have been in the mind of our author. The 
same combination is found also in Dan. vii. 10, though verbs 
intervene : ^tXtat ^tXiaSe? eAemwpyow aura) /cat /xvpiat ^xvptaSes 
Trapio-T^Keto-av avrw (Theodotion). For partial parallels, cf. 
i Enoch xiv. 22; Ps. Ixvii. (Ixviii.) 18 (/x^/atoTrXao-iov, giXtaScs 
fvOyvovvTw), Deut. xxxii. 30; Gen. xxiv. 60, and our text, ix. 16. 
12. aios Ifrriv TO apviov TO eo-^ayjULeVoy Xapeiy Tr^ Suvajui 
Kal irXouToy Kal orocjuai/ Kal lo~xui> 
Kal TijxrjK Kal So^ay Kal euXoyiay. 

The doxology is uttered either in recognition of the power 
already possessed by the Lamb, or on its immediately impending 
assumption by Him. The fact of this assumption is subse 
quently referred to in xi. 17, eiXycfras TTJV Svvafiiv . . . *ai 

In iv. 9, n there are only three predicates over against 
four in v. 13, and seven in v. 12, vii. 12. Next, whereas in 
iv. n, vii. 12 the article precedes each number of the ascrip 
tion, here one article includes them all, as though they formed 
one word. Again, the seven members of the ascription in our 
text recur in vii. 12, though in a different order, except that for 
TrXovros in v. 12 we find euxapio-ri a in vii. 12. The latter 
doxology, moreover, is addressed to God, as also those in iv. 9, 
ii. The septenary number may indicate completeness. Two 
heptads of such titles of honour are found as early as i Chron. 
xxix. n, 12, though each member does not always consist of 
a single word, but in xxix. n of a clause in two instances, and 
in three in xxix. 1 2. In the latter verse four of the members are 
the same as those in our text, TrXovro? . . . 8oa . . . lo-^vs . . . 
Swa/us (mua ... H3 ... TOD . . . "W). These are not the 
renderings of the LXX. If our author made any use of i Chron. 
xxix. n, 12 here, he did not use the LXX version of it. 

Bousset points out that the seven members of the ascription 
fall into two divisions of four and three : the four deal with the 
power and wisdom that the Lamb assumes ; the three with the 
recognition of the Lamb on the part of mankind. In this way 
he accounts for the different order in v. 12 and vii. 12. Spitta 
(285) thinks that the different order in the attributes in iv. n, 
v. 12, vii. 12 is due to the wish of the writer to bring out more 
fully the contrast between TO apviov TO eo-<ay/x/ov and the 
attributes Swa//,is, TrAotrros, o-oqua, lo-^vs. Thereupon follow the 
So ^a, rifjirj, evAoyia, which in the doxologies addressed to God, 
however, are at the beginning. 

13. Kal TTO.V KTiafAa o Iv TW oupayw Kal eirl rfjs y H 5 
Kal iJTroK<XTa> TTJS yr]S Kal iv rfj daXaVar] 
Kal Ta fv auTois Trarra, ^Kouaa Xeyorras. 


Again the circle of the worshippers is extended, and on the 
doxologies and thanksgivings of the Cherubim and Elders, and 
the innumerable hosts of angels, follows the great finale pro 
nounced by all creation. 

Here the writer, who in 3 had given the usual threefold 
division of creation, now gives a fourfold one. Since the inhabit 
ants of heaven have already been fully (?) enumerated, we should 
expect the mention of those in the air (ei/ r<3 ovpavw), on the earth, 
and in the sea (cf. Ps. viii. 7-8) ; and this is actually the text of x, 
some cursives, and two Versions, which omit vTro/caro) TT}S 7^5. 

But the textual evidence strongly supports this clause, which 
is, therefore, to be interpreted of the inhabitants of Hades, as it 
cannot well admit of any other meaning. That the inhabitants 
of Hades join in the doxology, shows the vast progress that 
theology has made from O.T. times, when no praise of God 
was conceived of as possible in Sheol : Ps. vi. 5, xxx. 9, Ixxxviii. 
10-12; Isa. xxxviii. 18. This being the meaning of this clause, 
what meaning are we to attach to o h TO> ov/oai/w? (a) If we follow 
the interpretation suggested above, we have the birds of the air, 
the men and the animals on the earth, the souls in Hades, and 
the fish of the sea. This is a very unsatisfactory list. Other 
explanations of o lv TO> oupai/w have accordingly been offered. 
(b) Thus Corn, a Lap. has suggested that it refers to the sun, 
moon, and stars. This is quite possible, since we know that the 
Jews attributed a conscious existence to these luminaries, 
i Enoch xviii. 13 sqq., and according to 2 Enoch xi. they belong 
to the fourth heaven, (c) Or the clause may be taken as referring 
to all the inhabitants of heaven except the Cherubim and the 
Elders, who pronounce the amen on this doxology. (d) Or, finally, 
the clause is to be taken resumptively as including all that went 
before. In favour of this view it may be observed that at the 
close of the enumeration in 13 we have another resumptive clause 
embracing exhaustively all the creation of God (KCU TO, i/ avrois 
Travra). Thus the universe of created things, the inhabitants of 
heaven, earth, sea, and Hades, join in the grand finale of praise that 
rose to the throne of God. Yet 14 might seem, but not necessarily, 
to exclude from these the Cherubim and the Elders. 

For a parallel resumptive expression cf. Mark xv. i, ol 
dpYfepets fJLTa TU>V TrptcrftvTepwv KOL ypafji/LLarfotv KO.L oXov TO 
<rvvc8piov. The phrase TO, iv avroi? Travra is already found in 
Ex. xx. 1 1 ; Ps. cxlv. (cxlvi.) 6. 

ev TTJ OaXdo-cTY). So N and various Versions. ri, cum gen. impos 
sible here. 

TW Ka0T]fxeVo) eirl TU Oporw ical TW dpvi w 

r\ euXoyta KCU r\ TIJJ.T] ica! f\ 86a 

Kal TO Kparos ets TOUS euwkas T&V 


TW Ka9t][xeVa> em (see note On iv. 2) TW 6po^a> Kal TW dp into. 
This conjunction of God and the Lamb, which recurs in vii. 10, 
attests the advanced Christology of our author. The throne of 
Both is one and the same, xxii. i, 3, iii. 21, and the worship 
offered to Each is also one and the same : cf. vii. 12. 

In this verse we have the climax of chaps, iv. and v. Chap, 
iv. relates to God, and v. 1-12 to the Lamb; v. 13-14 to the 
conjoined glory of God and the Lamb. The two doxologies 
offered respectively by the Cherubim (iv. 9) and the Elders (iv. n) 
dwell on the holiness, almightiness, and everlastingness of God, 
and the manifestation of His glory in creation. The first two 
doxologies in v. which are offered by the Cherubim or Living 
Creatures and the Elders (v. 9-10), and by the innumerable hosts 
of angels (v. 12), dwell on the redemption of the world by the 
Lamb, and pronounce Him as worthy to rule it and to receive 
the sevenfold attributes of God (cf. vii. 12). And now the climax 
of the world s adoration has come, and the worship offered to God 
in iv., and that to the Lamb in v. 1-12, are united in one great 
closing doxology, in which all created things throughout the 
entire universe acclaim together God and the Lamb, with praise 
and honour and glory and power for ever and ever. The 
doxology has four members, consisting of the last three attri 
butes in the doxology in 12 together with one which is elsewhere 
found only in the doxology in i. 6. 

14. Kal T& reVaepa wa e Xeyoj Apji . It is fitting that the 
Cherubim, the highest order of angels, should close the doxology 
of all creation with the solemn d/xrjv of confirmation, as at the 
beginning, iv. 8, they had pronounced the first doxology. Both 
Cherubim and Elders join in this d/^rji/ in xix. 4. Cf. Deut. 
xxvii. 15 sqq. 

Amen is used in the Apocalypse in probably four senses. 
i. The initial amen in which the words of a previous speaker are 
referred to and adopted as one s own : v. 14, vii. 12, xix. 4, xxii. 20. 
The earliest instances of this use are found in i Kings i. 36 ; Jer. 
xxviii. 6, xi. 5. ii. "The detached Amen, the complementary 
sentence being suppressed (Deut. xxvii. 15-26; Neb. v. 13)." 
Such may be the use in v. 14 of our text. This amen was used 
liturgically, in the time of the Chronicler, i Chron. xvi. 36 = Ps. cvi. 
48 though not in the Temple service, when the response was 
different, but in the services of the synagogue (Schiirer, GJ. V. n. 
ii. 453-454, 458), whence the custom passed over to the Christian 
Church (cf. i Cor. xiv. 16). This usage is vouched for by Justin 
Martyr, Afol. i. 65, 6 Trapwi/ Xaos eTreu^/xet Xeycov A/x,7?j/, and later 
by Jerome, iii. The final amen with no change of speaker, i. 
6, 7. This use is frequent from the N.T. onwards, but not found 
in the O.T, save in the subscriptions to the four divisions of the 


Psalter, xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, Ixxxix. 52, cvi. 48. iv. See note on iii. 
14. For other uses of this word see the article in Encyc. Bib. 
i. 136 sq., by Professor Hogg, which I have drawn upon for the 
above notes ; and that in Hastings D.B. JEN is rendered in the 
LXX by yeVotro in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalter, but 
by d/ATp in the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Apocrypha. (See 
note on vac, d/x,?jv, in i. 7.) 

With the doxology in i3 bc and the succeeding amen we should 
compare I Chron. xvi. 36, e^Aoy^/xej/os Kvpios o Oeos IcrparyA. oVo rov 
ataVos /cat ea>s TOV aicovos, /cat epet Tras 6 A.aos Afjirjv. That the 
doxologies in the Psalter were in the mind of our writer will 
become clearer when we come to xix. 4. 

Swete well remarks in loc., " the whole passage is highly 
suggestive of the devotional attitude of the Asiatic Church in the 
time of Domitian towards the person of Christ. It confirms 
Pliny s report: (Christianos) carmen Christo quasi deo dicere 
secum invicem. " This was already remarked by Volter, Das 
Problem d. Apok. p. 512, "Wenn Plinius an Trajan schreibt. 
dass die Christen am Tag ihrer Zusammenkiinfte gewohnt seien, 
carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere, so erinnert man sich dabei 
. . . der Lobpreisung des Lammes in Apok. v. 13." Here the 
Elders prostrate themselves before God and the Lamb, as in iv. 
10 they had done before God. 


Writers have dealt very variously with this chapter. Vischer, 
54 sqq., Schmidt, 35, are obliged from their standpoint of an 
original Jewish Apocalypse to reject v. 9-14, since the glorification 
of the Lamb and His redemption of the Gentiles cannot appear 
in such an Apocalypse. The former rejects also the words apviov 
... 0)5 eo-<f>ayfjicvov in v. 6 and apviov in v. 8. Weyland, 148 sqq., 
from the same standpoint goes farther and assigns v. 6-14 to 
the Christian redactor, and X. (in Z.A.T. W., 1887, No. i) is still 
more drastic and regards v. 2 b , 3-6, 8-14 as derived from a 
Christian redactor. Rauch, 79 sq., 121 sq., is content with 
excising v. 9 b , 10, the explanatory relative sentences in v. 6, 8, 
and the phrase /cat TW apviu in v. 13. 

Even critics who start from the basis of a Christian Apoca 
lypse remove v. 11-14. So Volter 2 , i. 156, ii. 27 sq., iii. 
84-86, iv. 13 sq., 27, mainly on the grounds that the chron 
ology is expressed only in general terms and takes no account 
of the Lamb taking the Book and opening the seals, and that 
He is set on equality with God. This addition he variously 
assigns to a reviser of the year 129 or 114. In iv. 145 he 
finds additions made by a redactor of Trajan s time, in v. 6 b 


because of the exalted view of the Lamb, and in v. 9 b because of 
the contradiction existing between this universalistic conception 
and vii. 1-8, and in v. io b where the final clause is added on the 
basis of xx. 4, xxii. 5. Erbes, 50, 102, regards v. 11-14 as an 
intrusion in their present context, and thinks that it stood 
originally after xv. 2-4. Spitta, 280-287, maintains the integrity 
of the chapter on the whole, but excises as additions of a redactor 
the relative clauses in v. 6, 8, the final clause of v. 10, and i&ov 
. . . avrov in v. 5, and eTrecrov . . . apviov in v. 8. 

But no valid grounds exist for any such mutilations of the text 
of this chapter or the preceding one, seeing that the ideas are so 
closely wrought together and elaborated in a growing crescendo 
(cf. closing note on v. 13), and that the diction and idiom are so 
distinctively characteristic of our author. To the intrusion of 
certain glosses in iv.-v. we have already drawn attention. 


The first six Seals preliminary signs of the End. 

i. Subject of this Section. This section gives an account of 
the six Seals, which in the Gospels and in contemporary and 
earlier Judaism were the Messianic woes or signs of the im 
mediate destruction of the present world. The world in all its 
phases subserves a moral end the training and disciplining of 
the children of God. When this end is attained, i.e. when the 
number of God s children is complete, 9-11, the present order of 
things will be destroyed. 

The approach of this consummation will be heralded by the 
breaking up of political and social order, 1-8, and the partial 
destruction of the present cosmic order, vi. 12-17, w ^l follow. 
Our author thought that the time of the end was at hand ; for 
he expected a universal persecution and a universal martyrdom. 
But that hour had not yet come; for the roll of the martyrs 
was still incomplete. Accordingly the cosmic woes in vi. 12- 
vii. 3 are still future, and even when fulfilled, are partial and not 
universal. 1 History has still some time to run, and the happen 
ings of that time are mainly the theme of the rest of the 

2. The entire chapter is from our author s hand. Inde- 

1 In the Gospels, Mark xiii., Matt, xxiv., Luke xxi., and analogous de 
scriptions of the last times, these woes are to be literally and fully realized, 
and so to be taken as the immediate heralds of the final judgment ; but in 
our author s hands they have ceased to be the immediate heralds of the end, 
and are to be realized nly partially. 


pendently of the fact that it forms an organic part of his work, 
the diction and idiom are obviously his. 
(a). Diction. 

1. Kal elSoy, Seep. 106. r\voiev passim. TO dp^tor : used 
twenty-seven times in our author, but not elsewhere in the N.T. 
of Christ 

2. Kal etSoK Kal i&ou : also in 5, 8 : see p. 106. 

8. OdVaTos = Xoifjios, as in ii. 23. cSodrj aurois e|ouaia : cf. ix. 3, 
xiii. 5, 7, ii. 26. 

9. TWK ecr4>aY|j,eVwi> : cf. v. 6, 9, 12, xiii. 8, xviii. 24. Only 
once in rest of N.T. 8i& T. X6yoi> T. 0eoG : cf. i. 2, note, 9, xii. n, 
xx. 4. 8ia T. [xap-rupiai/ : cf. i. 2, note. 

10. eKpaay <j>aH fj jxeydXY] : cf. vii. 2, 10, x. 3, xix. 17, etc. 
6 ayi<>9 Kal dXrjOii os cf. iii. 7, note. Kpiyei9 K. eicSiKeLS . . . CK : 
cf. xix. 2. 

11. eppe Or] aurois Iva, cum fut : cf. ix. 4. \povov piKpov : cf. 
xx. 3. ol owSouXot aurwK : cf. (xix. 10) xxii. 9. 69 Kal auroi : 
cf. ii. 27, iii. 21. Not in other Johannine books of N.T. 

13. lireo-ay els T. yfJK : cf. ix. I. 

14. iray opos Kal VTJCTOS IK. r. roiruv lK.wr\Qi]<Ta.v : cf. xvi. 20, 
where the same idea and in fact the same words recur. 

15. ot |3cxcriX.eis T. yr)s cf. xix. 18, 19, xxi. 24. paaiXeis 
XiXiapxoi . . . urxupol SouXos Kal eXeu Sepos. These recur 
in xix. 1 8. 

16. f\ fipcpa. fi jULcydXY] (i.e. of judgment). Recurs in xvi. 14, 
and not elsewhere in N.T. save in Acts ii. 20, where it is a 
quotation from Joel. 

(b) Idiom. 

1. JJLUU> IK : cf. tvos K in next clause: frequent in our author. 
&>s fywY] a Hebraism for ws (j>wfj. See note in loc. 

2. 6 KaG^fAeyos eir auroi/ : cf. 5 : also 16, rov KaOrji^evov 7rt rov 
Opovov. In 4 ru> Ka0r)fjicviit CTT fauroi/f, the avrov is corrupt for 
avT<3 ; see p. 1 1 2 sq. 

3. aXXos ITTTTOS Truppos = " another, a red horse." This classical 
idiom recurs in xiv. 8, 9, and John xiv. 16 (yet see Abbott, 
Gram. p. 612 sq.) may be interpreted in the same way. Other 
wise it is not found in the N.T. crepos is used in this sense in 
Luke x. i, xxiii. 32. 

4. Iva . . . o-<f>dou<ru : cf. n. iva, cum inf., nine times in 
our author, fourteen in rest of N.T. 

6. ws $u\ri\v. See note on p 35 sq. 

7. (jwui V T - TerdpTou w ou = " the voice," etc. 

11. aurois cKaarw : cf. ii. 23. Outside our author only once 
in N.T. 

3. Method of interpreting the Seven Seals. A short inquiry as 
to the right method of interpreting the Seven Seals is necessary, 


since the bulk of interpretations proceed on wholly arbitrary 
lines. We can take account only of the most notable inter 
pretations, and then try to arrive at one which is justifiable on 
historical and critical grounds. Our inquiry relates to the first 
five seals, since the sixth is universally taken eschatologically. 
The methods may be given as follows : 

i. Contemporary Historical Method. Volter in all his four 
volumes, Erbes, 37 sqq., Holtzmann, and Swete seek to explain 
the first five seals by the Contemporary Historical Method. 
The first three seals reproduce, Erbes asserts, an ancient eschato- 
logical scheme, but correspond to events of the present, and in 
regard to the fourth and fifth Seals these writers find correspond 
ing historical events. The first Rider is the Parthian King 
Vologases, who in 62 A.D. forced a Roman army to capitulate. 
Erbes explains the second Rider by the great insurrection in 
Britain, 61 A.D., which led to the loss of 150,000 lives and by 
contemporary wars in Germany and troubles in Palestine ; the 
third Rider by a famine in 62 affecting Armenia and Palestine ; the 
fourth by pestilences in Asia and Kpheaus r 61 A.D. : the fifth by 
the Neronic persecution. Erbes has here, on the whole, gone on 
the same lines as his predecessors. Volter, Holtzmann, and Swete 
take the first Rider to represent the Parthian empire, the second 
to represent Rome, the third they explain by the famine in 
Domitian s time (see note on 6). Though in his earlier editions 
Holtzmann seeks to explain the fourth figure as referring to the 
failure of the harvests in 44, the famines in Nero s time and the 
great pestilence throughout the Empire in 65 (Tac. Ann. xvi. 13 ; 
Suet. Nero, 39, 45), in the last he prefers to abandon the 
Contemporary Historical Method, though it is true he refers the 
fifth Seal to the Neronic persecution. 

This method proceeds mainly on the principle that the 
symbols used in the Seals are either devised or at all events 
arranged in their present order with a view to represent certain 
historical events. Now since, as we shall see later, the Apoca- 
lyptist has received from tradition both the materials of this 
vision and almost the very order in which they are cast, it will 
not be possible to acknowledge it as a free composition, as the 
Contemporary Historical Method would in the main require, 
and though a few clear references to historical events are to be 
found, we shall recognize these as reinterpretations of pre-existing 
materials, or as additions to a pre-existing eschatological scheme. 

ii. Contemporary- Historical and Symbolical with Traditional 
Elements. JBousset feels himself obliged to use these two 
methods in this interpretation of the Seals. The first Seal must, 
he holds, be interpreted by the Contemporary-Historical of the 
Parthian empire on two grounds : (a) The meaning of the white 


horse cannot be explained from stereotyped eschatological ideas. 
(b) The white horse is placed first in our text in contradistinction 
to the order in Zech. vi. The latter reason, already advanced 
by Spitta, 291, is not of much weight; for though the horses are 
mentioned three times in Zech. vi., they occur in a different order 
each time. The second and fourth Seals are explained sym 
bolically of war and pestilence, though, of course, individual 
features in the Riders are derived from tradition. In regard to 
the third Seal, Bousset accepts the Contemporary-Historical 
explanation, and interprets this Seal by Domitian s Edict in 92 
(see note on 6 of my text). 

The fifth Seal is likewise interpreted by the same method 
(p. 274). Thus the first, third, and fifth are to be explained by 
this method. Spitta, 287 sqq., explains these three Seals by the 
same method, but arrives at very different results. The first Seal 
refers to Rome, the third to definite famines, and the fifth 
(p. 300) to the persecutions of the Christians by the Jews. 

Although Bousset s exegesis is, of course, good, it has in my 
opinion missed the key to the interpretation of the Seals as a 
whole, and therefore has a show of arbitrariness. 

iii. The Traditional-Historical. This method has been 
applied to the interpretation of the first four Seals by Gunkel 
(Zum religionsgesch. Verst. d. N.T. 53sq.), who is of opinion that 
primitive Oriental materials lie behind this vision and help to 
explain some of its details. The four horsemen, which in the 
Apocalypse are conceived as plague spirits, must originally have 
had a wholly different significance. This, he holds, is quite clear 
in the case of the first victorious and crowned horseman, which 
has ever been a crux interpretum. These four horsemen were 
originally the four world gods, which ruled each over one of the 
four world periods, and are distantly related to the four beasts in 
Dan. vii., each of which represents a world empire. The first 
horseman was originally a sun-god: his horse is white (as in 
vi. 2, ITTTTOS Aev/cos: cf. the white horse of the divine slayer of 
the dragon, xix. 1 1 ; the white horses of Mithras in the Avesta 
Cumont, Mysteres de Mithra, p. 3). He carries a bow (so vi. 2, 
e^wv TOOV) as the sun-god (Zimmern, K.A.T* 368, note 5): he 
wears a crown (so vi. 2, cS6@r) aurw (rre ^avos) as Mithras (Cumont, 
op. cit. 84; Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie, n, 15), and is always 
victorious (so vi. 2, vi/co>v KOL u>a vi/c^Vr?), and hence is called 
dnK^Tos, "invictus" (Cumont, op. cit. 82). The second horse 
man is the god of war, and the third, originally the god of grain, 
is here transformed into a famine god : thence is explained his 
sparing the oil and wine. 

Now, whilst the above theory is ingenious and offers some 
attractive explanations, it is nevertheless unsatisfactory and 


inconsistent. For, first of all, how can the first of the four 
horsemen, who are said to have been originally world gods who 
preside over the four world periods, be afterwards described as 
the sun-god, the war-god and grain-god ! Gunkel makes no 
attempt to find the original (?) equivalent of the fourth horseman, 
Odvaros, in our text. In regard to the first horseman, however, 
his theory is interesting; but that the Seer had any idea of 
the original meaning of this figure cannot be entertained for a 

iv. Contemporary- Historical and Traditional- Historical. Un 
der this heading J. Weiss (59 sqq.) is to be mentioned, though it 
is difficult to characterize his exegesis accurately. The Apoca- 
lyptist, according to Weiss, was using traditional material, and 
the particular form into which he cast this material was due to 
the eschatological ideas in the Parousia discourses of our Lord, 
which he had learnt from the Gospels or from oral tradition. 
The recognition of the connection of the Seals with the Woes in 
the Parousia discourses, which is already to be found in Alford, is 
the chief merit in his exegesis of this passage. And yet he has 
only partially appreciated the permanent importance of this 
fact, as we shall see presently. In the original Johannine 
Apocalypse (circa 60 A.D.) which Weiss assumes, the following 
plagues were enumerated: "pestilence, war, famine, Hades, 
persecution, earthquakes " ; or " war, famine, pestilence, Hades, 
persecution, earthquakes." 1 This Apocalypse the final Apoca- 
lyptist re-edited, and this particular passage he transformed by 
prefixing the victorious Rider on the white horse and displacing 
the mention of mere persecution by an account of actual 
martyrdom (vi. 9-11) already in the past. The victorious Rider 
represents the victorious course of the Gospel, which must be 
preached to all nations before the woes come (so Weiss interprets 
Mark xiii. 10). Thus, while in the completed Apocalypse the 
fifth Seal represents events already in the past, the first represents 
a present process : while in the Johannine Apocalypse the 
second, third, and fourth represent future events, yet it is to 
be presumed that these too in the completed Apocalypse refer 
to past events. This exposition is no more satisfying than those 
which precede. I proceed, therefore, to offer another explanation 
of the Seals, which explains more or less fully all the difficulties 
of this Vision. 

1 Weiss (p. 60) is of opinion that originally the four figures were war, 
famine, pestilence, and Hades, which gathered the victims of the first three, 
and that then the Apocalyptist affixed the first figure, which represents the 
victorious course of the Gospel. But to this we reply that our author had 
before him an eschatological scheme of seven woes which he found in the 
document behind Mark xiii., Matt, xxiv., Luke xxi. 


v. Traditional-Historical Method with incidental references to 
contemporary Events. The more closely we study the Seals in 
connection with Mark xiii., Matt, xxiv., Luke xxi., the more 
strongly we shall be convinced that our author finds his chief 
and controlling authority in the eschatological scheme there set 
forth. By putting these authorities and our text in parallel 
columns we shall make this close connection undeniable. 

MATT. xxiv. 6, 7, 9% 29. MARK xiii. 7-9% 24-25. 

1. Wars. I. Wars. 

2. International strife. 2. International strife. 

3. Famines. 3. Earthquakes. 

4. Earthquakes. 4. Famines. 

5. Persecutions. 5. Persecutions. 

6. Eclipses of the sun and moon; 6. (As in Matt.) 

falling of the stars ; shaking of 
the powers of heaven. 

LUKE xxi. 9-12*, 25-26. REV. vi. 2-17, vii. i. 

1. Wars. Seal I. War. 

2. International strife. 2. International strife. 

3. Earthquakes. 

4. Famines. 

5. Pestilence. 

6. Persecutions. 

3. Famine. 

4. Pestilence. (Death and 


5. Persecutions. 

6. (vi. i2-vii. 3) Earthquakes, 

7. Signs in the sun, moon, and stars ; eclipse of the sun, ensan- 

rnen fainting for fear of the guining of the moon, falling 

things coming on the world ; of the stars, men calling on 

shaking of the powers of heaven. the rocks to fall on them, 

shaking of the powers of 
heaven, four destroying 
winds. 1 

Even a cursory comparison of these lists shows that they 
practically present the same material. 2 

If we accept the Domitian date of the Apocalypse, there can 
be no question as to the dependence of our author on the 
tradition represented in the Gospels. The six Seals embrace 
the seven 8 woes of Luke by combining two woes, i.e. the third 

1 This feature may have its parallel in Luke xxi. 25, where the nations are 
said to be distressed, v airopiq. fa "* 0a.\d<ra"r]s /cai adXov. The winds in our 
text, vii. I, are not to blow upon the sea till the final judgment. The storm 
winds of Yahweh are a well-known eschatological element in O.T. 

2 Other signs preluding the end are given in connection with the predicted 
fall of Jerusalem (cf. Mark xiii. I4sqq. and parallels, Luke. xxi. 20 sq.); but 
since Jerusalem had fallen over twenty years before, our author is not con 
cerned with these. 

8 A scheme of seven plagues was already current in Jewish literature : see 
Sir. xl. 9; Test. Benj. vii. 2; Sayings of the Fathers, v. n. Also Lev. 
xxvi. 21, " I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your 
sins." It is noteworthy that in Parsism we find many of the above signs 
mentioned as precursors of the end of the world, such as the following : wars 


and seventh, under the sixth Seal. It is remarkable that neither 
in Luke on the one hand nor in Matthew or Mark on the other 
can we find the full list of woes that appears in Revelation. In 
this respect they are complementary. On the one hand, our text 
agrees with Luke rather than with Mark and Matthew. Thus 
while pestilence, the fourth plague in Revelation, is omitted in 
the first and second Gospels, it is found in the third ; and, while 
the predictions in Rev. vi. 15-17 are wanting in the first two, 
their equivalent is found in Luke xxi. 25. This shows a greater 
dependence on the Lucan form of the narrative. On the other 
hand, whereas the eclipse of the sun and moon and the falling 
of the stars (Rev. vi. 12-13) are only referred to in the Lucan 
account as " signs in the sun, moon, and stars/ they are described 
in Matt. xxiv. 29 and Mark xiii. 24 in almost the same language 
as in our text. The question naturally arises therefore : Did our 
author make use of two of the Gospels, Luke together with 
Matthew or Mark ; or did he use the document behind the Gospels 
the Little Apocalypse, the existence of which so many scholars 
have felt themselves obliged to assume ; or thirdly, was he simply 
dependent on oral tradition for his material? The first and 
third alternatives are possible, but less likely than the second. 
The second seems highly probable, if we may assume the 
independent existence of the Little Jewish-Christian Apocalypse 
( = Mark xiii. 7-8, 14-20, 24-27, 30-31, and parallels in Matthew 
and Luke). In this Little Jewish Apocalypse, so far as it is 
preserved in the Gospels, there is no reference to the persecution 
of the faithful. But since in the Psalms, Daniel and later 
apocalyptic literature this is a constant subject of complaint to 
God, it cannot have been wanting in the original form of the 
Little Apocalypse. If such an Apocalypse were current, it is but 
natural to assume that such a profound master of this literature 
as our author would be acquainted with it. However this may 
be, the conclusion that our text is dependent on the Gospel accounts, 
or rather on the document behind them, seems irresistible. The 
subject-matter, then, of the Seals is derived from a pre-existing 
eschatological scheme. The number seven in such a connection 
is known to tradition (see note in loc.) ; but independently of this 
fact it is postulated by our author s plan, in which seven plays a 
predominant role Seven Churches, Seven Bowls. 

The dependence of our author on a pre-existing eschatological 
scheme is further shown by his seeming abandonment of it in two 

(Bahman Yasht ii. 24sqq.); social divisions (op. cit. ii. 30); earthquakes, 
famines, and pestilences (op. cit. iii. 4) ; falling of the star Gurzihar on the 
earth (op. cit. ; Bundahish xxx. 18); the sun losing its light (ii. 31). See 
Boklen, Verwandtschaft der Jiidischchristlichen mit der Parsischen Eschato- 
logie, p. 88sqq. 


particulars, i. Although he gives a new character to the seventh 
woe quite distinct from that of the last woe in these Gospels, 
he is careful not to omit the subject-matter of this last woe, and 
accordingly embodies it under the sixth Seal. Thus the sixth 
Seal embraces the two Gospel woes earthquakes and signs in 
the powers of heaven. Our author therefore preferred including 
these two woes under one Seal to omitting these elements of 
tradition. 2. Our author has changed the order of the woes. 
He has relegated the " earthquakes " to the sixth Seal, whereas 
it is third in Mark and Luke and fourth in Matthew. Two valid 
reasons for this change can be given. 

1. In his fresh reproduction of the traditional material, our 
author personifies four x of the woes under forms borrowed from 
Zech. i. 8, vi. 1-8. Now, since "earthquakes" cannot be so 
personified, they are relegated to the sixth Seal, and their place 
is taken by "pestilence." Thus the four Riders represent war, 
international strife, famine, and pestilence. 

2. But there is another and weightier reason. The more 
closely the vision is studied, the more manifest becomes the 
dramatic fulness of the order of the Seals, and the growing 
intensity of the evils they symbolize. These begin with social 
cataclysms (Seals 1-4) and end with cosmic (Seal 6). Human 
society is overthrown by war, revolutions, famines, and pestilences 
(Seals 1-4), which rage without ceasing, till a large proportion of 
the number of the martyrs is accomplished (Seal 5). Social 
catastrophes are followed by cosmic in the sixth Seal. The 
solid crust of the earth breaks, the heaven is rent above, sun 
and moon are darkened or ensanguined, and the stars of heaven 
fall. From the standpoint of our author, therefore, the necessity 
of transposing " earthquakes " from the third or fourth place to 
the sixth is obvious. 

Thus the subject matter of the Seats, which is derived from a 
pre-existing eschatological scheme, is recast under new forms. 

But, further, in this reproduction of the first five woes our 
author so recasts them as to give three or possibly all of them a 
more or less clear historical reference to contemporary events. 
Thus the first Rider with the bow refers to the Parthian empire 
that was to overthrow the hated Rome ; the second may have a 
secondary reference to Rome, as the source of social disorder 
and destruction, though earlier regarded as the upholder of order 
and peace ; the third possibly (?) to the edict of Domitian, and 
the fifth certainly to the martyrdoms under Nero. 

But these references are due to our author, and do not 
belong to the original eschatological scheme. Such contemporary 

1 This number is already suggested by the number of the four Living 
Creatures who severally summon the four Riders. 

VI. 1-2.] THE FIRST SEAL l6l 

historical references are, however, to be looked for, though 
primarily the subject-matter is traditional: cf. i John ii. 18. 

1. Kal elSoy ore r\voiev TO apviov fuay IK TWK eirra cr^pctyiScov. 
The loosing of the Seals is a symbolical action. The visions are 
not read out from the Book, but the contents of the Book are 
forthwith translated into action in the visions of the Seer. On 
Kal tSoi> see note on iv. i. In /uav e/c="the first of," we may 
have a Hebraism = p ^ntf ; but there is the possibility, -of course, 
as Moulton, Gram. i. 95 sq., contends, that els came in Byzantine 
Greek to be used as an ordinal, and that we have such an 
instance here. The partitive use of e/c is frequent in the. 
Apocalypse : cf. Blass, Gram. p. 97. But the fact that in /u av 
IK we have a double Hebraism, and that it occurs in a book 
containing so many Hebraisms, is in favour of the phrase being 
taken as such. We might compare Ezek. x. 14, "the face of the 
first " = TO 7r/oocr&>7rov TOV evds = "in^n "OS, where four are mentioned : 
Job xlii. 14. But the phrase may simply mean "one of." The 
occurrence of the ordinals, however, in v. 3, 5, 7, appears to be 
against this. 

Kal TJKOUora eyos eic Ta>y Teacrdpwi/ axoy Xeyoj Tos a>s (fxuyr] jSpoirfjs 
"Epxou. On evos eK = "the first of," see preceding note. The 
four Cherubim in succession summon the four Riders. This is 
the most natural interpretation, as J. Weiss, 59, Bousset 2 , 264, 
Wellhausen, 10, and Holtzmann 3 , 444, have recognized. Others 
have taken the words as addressed to the Seer ; but elsewhere 
xvii. i, xxi. 9, where the Seer is summoned, Sevpo is used. 
Moreover, as J. Weiss observes, it is inconceivable that the ZPXOV 
should be addressed four times to the Seer. Others Alford 
and Swete again suppose it to be addressed to Christ, and cite 
as parallels xxii. 17, 20. 

ws $wf\. Nearly all the textual evidence is against reading 
c/xov^, which in order to arrive at an intelligible text we must 

But ws <a)vrj is susceptible of explanation. The writer may 
have had SpD in his mind and rendered this as o>s ^vr), whereas 
idiomatically it = <I>s <<DI/$, the 3, being suppressed after 3. Cf. 
Isa. v. 17, ix. 3. 

2. Kal etSoi/ Kal iSou ITTTTOS Xeuicos. On the apocalyptic phrase 
Kal cTSov KOL tSov, which recurs in vi. 5, 8, xiv. i, 14, xix. n, see 
note on iv. i. 

The subject-matter of the first four Seals appears, as we have 
seen (see p. 157 sqq.), derived from the woes mentioned in (the 
Jewish-Christian Apocalypse) Mark xiii. 7 sqq. ; Matt. xxiv. 6 
sqq. ; Luke xxi. 9 sqq., i.e. war, international or civil strife, famine, 
pestilence (i.e. death). 

The form of the Vision in vi. 2-8 is based on the vision of 



the four sets of horses and chariots in Zech. i. 8, vi. 1-8 so far 
as regards the four horses and their colours. But the functions 
and character of the O.T. figures are transformed, and the 
messengers of God to the four quarters of the heaven are 
changed into agents of destruction. 

Next as regards the different colours, these are chosen from 
Zechariah to suit the woes they symbolize. Thus red naturally 
corresponds to the sword, black to famine, and pale yellow to 
death, being a corpse-like colour. The white remains, and this 
naturally belongs to the horse on which triumphant war is seated. 
Thus Xerxes rode on white Nisaean horses (Herod, vii. 40; 
Philostr. Vit. ApolL i. 30), and Mardonius, one of his chief gene 
rals, rode on a white horse (Herod, ix. 63). White was the colour 
of victory : cf. Virg. Aen. iii. 537, " Quattuor hie, primum omen, 
equos in gramine vidi Tondentes campum late candore nivali." 
Here Servius notes: "candore nivali. Hoc ad victoriae omen 
pertinet." According to Dio Cassius, H.R. xliii. 14 (quoted by 
Swete), the four horses which drew the car in Julius Caesar s tri 
umph were white : TO, CTTWIKLO. ra Trpoe^^io /xeva CTT/ re Ae^/can/ LTnrayv. 

Our author was at liberty to arrange the colours in any order 
that suited his purpose ; for in Zech. i. 8, vi. 2-7, they are given 
three times, and in each in a different order : i. 8, red, sorrel (or 
reddish-yellow), white (defective); vi. 2, 3, red, black, white, 
speckled ; vi. 7, 8, black, white, speckled, red. 1 

1 The passages in Zechariah call for treatment since they are manifestly 
corrupt. Zech. i. 8, D :3 l n D pltf D-DIN ; LXX, irvppoi /ecu [\fapol /cat] Trot/a Xoi 
Kal \evKol. Here it is admitted that the text is defective and omits nnnt?, 
which is found in vi. 2, 6. The LXX gives, it is true, four colours, but ^apoL 
and -rroLKiXoL appear to be duplicate renderings ; for, according to Hesychius, 
they have the same meaning. So also Eustathius on the Iliad, xvii. ad Jin., 
\{/apbs ITTTTOS 6 /card rbv \l/apa. Troi/dXos. Next, in vi. 2, 3 we have D DiN 
O SDN DH-Q . . . DM3 1 ? . . . Dnnff . . ., LXX irvppoi . . . [AfXaves . . . XfVKOi 
. . . Troi/dXoi [fapoi]. Here also it is admitted that the text is corrupt. 
0"ycN = " strong," cannot denote a colour. It has possibly been inserted here 
from vi. 7. By its omission we have the needed four colours. Finally, in 
vi. 6, 7 we have D sflDKn . . . Dman . . . own . . . nnhipn ; LXX, oi ^\ai>es 
oi Xeu/cot . . . oi Troi/dXoi . . . ol \papoi (but Aquila has oi irvppoi). 
Here D XDN is rightly taken to be a corruption of D !*<=::" red," a reading 
which is attested by the Peshitto and Aquila. The text is thus restored so 
far as the colours go, but there are evidently two lacunae in vi. 6, 7 ; for 
since the four bodies of horses represent the four winds, vi. 5, the four 
quarters of the world to which they go as God s messengers should be 
mentioned, whereas only the north and the south are. In the next place, 
while the black horses rightly go towards the north, the red should go to the 
south and not the spotted, the white to the east, and the yellow (" spotted" 
in text) to the west ; for the four colours of the horses are said to symbolize 
the four quarters (Zimmern, K.A.T? 339, 616, 633; Marti on Zech. i. 8). 
We can now reconstruct Zech. vi. 6, 7, 0*137(11 psx p ^K D tts DnntJM D DID.T 
p-nn pN ?K D KX Dinxm < anyn p*< VK > n tw on-oni mpn p *? D KJP. 
Here I have with previous scholars emended the unintelligible D.vinx into 


Kttl o KaO^juteyos eir* auToy e)((i)v ro^ov, KCU e860K] aurw 
teal e^XOeK n.K<ui> Kal tra i/iKrjaif]. As has already been pointed 
out, the rider here symbolizes war in the first instance ; for this 
is the first woe in the source from which the woes in the Seals 
are derived (see pp. 157-9); but owing to the rider carrying a 
bow l and riding on a white horse, we can hardly evade the con 
clusion that a secondary reference to the Parthian empire is here 
designed as representing triumphant war. The great victory of 
Vologases in 62 over the Romans gave birth to the idea that 
Rome would be finally overthrown by an Oriental power. This 
idea recurs later in our author (see xvii. 16). The very form of 
the words favours this view. e^A.0ei/ VIK&V would refer to past 
achievements of this empire, and Iva viKrjo-y to its ultimate 
conquest of the west. The gift of the o-re ^avos is equivalent to 
a promise of victory. Furthermore, as regards the crre^avos, 
which, as a symbol of victory, was given to him, it may be 
mentioned, though the fact probably does not concern our text, 
that Seleucus, the Parthian king, who founded Seleucia on the 
Tigris, was named Ni/caTwp. The Parthian leaders, according to 
Wetstein, rode white horses in battle. 

Other interpretations are as follows : 

1. The text points first and solely to the Parthian empire : 
so Holtzmann, Schmidt, n; Ramsay, 58; Swete, Bousset. 

2. Volter in his different works, and Erbes, 37 sqq., interpret 
the first Rider of Vologases. This is a less defensible view than i. 

3. Spitta, 290, interprets the text of Rome; but this view is 
generally rejected. 

cnpn pK, and changed w into QW three times (with Wellhausen). Next I 
have restored the lost myrr p SK, " to the west country," and finally I have 
transposed D N* D D-IKJI before jD nn pN htt from the beginning of 7, where 
they are meaningless. Thus we have, "The black horses go forth to the 
north country, and the white go forth to the east country, and the spotted go 
forth to the west country, and the red go forth to the south country." All 
appears right here except the word Q" 1 )"}?, vi. 2, 8= "spotted." In i. 8 
D ip-i^=" sorrel," a yellowish or reddish brown colour, appears in its stead. 
Since in i. 8 red is already mentioned, we should take this word with 
Bochart, Hierozoicon, i. 50, as meaning "yellow." Thus the " yellow " 
horses go to the quarter of which yellow is the symbol. This may be the 
source of the word %\wp<5s, " pale" or "pale yellow," in our text, vi. 8. As 
regards D va I see no way of explaining it from an archaeological standpoint, 
nor of reconciling it with the apparently right word a pia* in Zech. i. 8. 
Here again our author does not follow the LXX. The above four colours 
are said to be connected with the planets Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and 
Saturn. But among the Babylonians white has never been discovered to be 
the colour of Jupiter or of the other three. The speculations of Jeremias 
(Baby Ionise hes im N. T. 24 sq. , and in Das A. T. im Licht des alien Orients) 
on this question are often merely fantastic. See Miiller, Die Apokal. 
Reiter," Z.N.T.W., 1907, 290-316. 

1 See Herod, v. 49, vii. 61 ; Ovid, Trist. ii. 227 ; Ammianus Marcellinus, 
xxii. 8 ; and Wetstein in loc. 


4. A great number of interpreters Victorinus, Primasius, 
Bede, Bullinger, Paraeus, Grotius, Vitringa, Diisterdieck, B. Weiss, 
445, have identified the first horseman with the Rider on the 
white horse in xix. u sqq., i.e. the Messiah. But the Messiah 
cannot appear before the Messianic woes ; nor can he be at once 
the Lamb who opens the Seals, and the Rider who appears in 
consequence of such opening. Moreover, the details are distinct. 
The former carries a TOOV, the latter a po^aia ; the former wears 
a crre ^aKog, the latter StaS^/xara TroAAa. Not a bow, but the 
sword of the word belongs to Christ. In fact the two Riders have 
nothing in common but the white horse. 

5. Hilgenfeld (Z. W.T., 1890, p. 425), Zahn, ii. 592, Alford, 
Kiibel take this horseman to represent the victorious course of 
the Gospel. J. Weiss, 59 sqq., accepts this interpretation, and 
maintains that it receives support from the Parousia discourses of 
Christ. For although Mark xiii. 9 treats of the beginning of the 
Messianic woes, yet according to xiii. 10 the Gospel must first be 
made known to all nations. The woes, therefore, in both 
passages begin when the victory of the Gospel is decided. 
Despite all tribulations, the victory is once and for all assured. 
This view with modifications was earlier put forward by Andreas, 
Arethas, Lyra, and Ribeira. 

Over against explanations 4 and 5, it is to be maintained 
that there is an essential likeness among the Riders : they clearly 
belong together, and represent the a-pxy ^Sii/cov (Mark xiii. 8). 
All four have to deal with judgments "the beating down of 
earthly powers, breaking up of earthly peace, the exhausting of 
earthly wealth, the destruction of earthly life" (Alford). The 
first horseman like the rest, therefore, is to be interpreted of woe 
denoting first of all war, as it did in its immediate source, and 
in a secondary aspect through its fresh remoulding by our author, 
the Parthian empire. 

3. Kal ore r\voi%ev ri\v a<j>payt8a rty Seurepai/, TJKOuaa TOU 
Seurepou wou Xeyorros "Epxou. 4. Kal c ^XOey aXXos tiriros iruppos, 
Kal TW KaOTjjJLeyw eir f auToy f e860T) [aurw] \aj3elk TYJ^ elpi]kT)i [eK] TTJS 
yfjs Kal iVa dXXrjXous oxfxx^cuaii , Kal eSoOrj aurw |xd)(aipa fxeydXTj. 
This second horseman is a symbol of international and civil 
strife. The immediate source of our author is, as we have seen, 
the document behind the Gospel accounts, Matt. xxiv. 7 ; Mark 
xiii. 8 ; Luke xxi. 10 (see pp. 157-9). But there are other refer 
ences to such civil strife as preluding the Parousia in Jewish 
literature: cf. Jub. xxiii. 19; i Enoch Ivi. 7; 4 Ezra v. 9, vi. 24, 
xiii. 31 ; 2 Bar. xlviii. 32, Ixx. 3, 6. The expectation that civil 
strife would herald the end of the world is found also in 
Babylonian literature. See Zimmern, K.A.T* 393. Since we 
have here to deal with a stereotyped prediction, which exhibits no 


new elements pointing to historical events, there is no occasion 
to enumerate the various historical interpretations that have been 

As in the case of the first Seal the Rider is furnished with a 
bow (which gives the Seal an historical reference), so here the 
second Rider is provided with a sword. This symbol, however, 
belongs to eschatological tradition. This sword is mentioned in 
this eschatological sense in Isa. xxvii. i, xxxiv. 5, xlvi. 10, xlvii. 6; 
Ezek. xxi. 3 sqq., where it is wielded by Yahweh Himself. In 
the next stage of development it is committed to Israel to 
take vengeance on their own and God s enemies. The very 
words e Sd077 . . . /xa^atpa /xeyaAr; are found in i Enoch xc. 19, 
" A great sword was given to the sheep, and the sheep proceeded 
against all the beasts of the field to slay them." This sword is 
again mentioned in xci. 12, xc. 34. The object with which it is 
given in Enoch is that the faithful Israelites may therewith 
destroy their enemies, who are the enemies of God. 

In the third stage of development it is given to the enemies 
of God that they may destroy one another with it. This stage 
is found in i Enoch Ixxxviii. 2, where Gabriel causes the giant 
offspring of the fallen angels and the daughters of men to destroy 
each other by giving them a sword. "And one of them drew 
a sword and gave it to those elephants and camels and asses : 
then they began to smite each other, and the whole earth quaked 
because of them." The command to do so is given in apoca 
lyptic language in x. 9, " Proceed against the bastards . . . and 
destroy the children of fornication, and the children of the 
watchers . . . send them one against another that they may destroy 
each other in battle." In our text, as also in Matt. x. 34, /*^ 
vofj.L<rr)re OTL rjXOov /?oAetv elprjvriv CTTI rr)v yrjv OVK rjXBov fSaXeiv 
dpijvrjv <!A.A.a fta^atpav (cf. Luke xii. 51), the symbol has the 
same eschatological force. Our text, A.a/?iv ryv clp-rjvyv [oc] rrjs 
777? . . . $66r) avru> fj^d^aLpa, looks like a reminiscence of the 
words of our Lord just cited. The Massoretic text of Ezek. 
xxxviii. 2 1 seems to attest the same idea, but it is corrupt, and 
the text of the LXX (B) is to be followed here (see Marti in 

Holtzmann and Moffatt have taken the " sword " as symbol 
izing Rome, just as the " bow " symbolizes the Parthian empire, 
and holds that the two world empires are here designated. But 
this is not so. The " bow " is characteristic of the first Rider ; 
but the sword is not characteristic of this Rider, but is given to 
him, just as the "crown" is given to the first Rider. As the 
" crown " is given to foreshow conquest, the sword is given to 
bring about civil and international strife. There may, how 
ever, be a remote reference to Rome as the destroyer of order 


and life as opposed to the role it was conceived to play by 
St. Paul. 

\aj3eu TTJV f.ipr\vv\v [|K] TTJS yr\<$. The object of this woe is to 
take away the false peace of the earth. Contrast John xiv. 27. 
Thus it seems best here to follow A and some cursives in 
omitting e/c. Cf. the kindred phrase "children of earth," 
T Enoch c. 6, cii. 3, over against "children of heaven," ci. i. 

For Lva with the fut. Ind. see Robertson, Gram. 998 sq. 

5. Kal ore t]i>oiej TY)V ox^payiSa TYJV rpiTTjK, T]KOucra TOU rpirou 
wou Xeyoyros "Epxou. Kal elSov, Kal I8ou ITTTTOS fieXas, Kal 6 KaQi^- 
jxeyos eir aurok e\<i)v uy6y tv rrj X 1 P^ a " T u- Famine is here 
symbolized by the black horse, as we have seen (see p. 161). 
For the more detailed explanation see next verse. The vyos is 
literally the beam of the balance from which the scales are 
suspended. That bread is sold by weight is a token of scarcity. 
Cf. Ezek. iv. 16, (frdyovraL ap-rov ev errata) /cat ev evSei a, and Lev. 
xxvi. 26, aTroScotrovcri TOVS aprovs iy/-(Juv cV (rra^/xw KOL <ayecr$e /cat 
ov fJirj ffJLTrXrjcrOrjre. 

6. Kal T]Kouaa ws (Jxui TjK iv fxeaw r&v Teaaapu)^ ^tow Xeyouo-ai/ 
atrou S-rji apiou, Kal rpeis x^ lK S KpiSwi Sirji/apiou Kal TO 
Kal TOV olvov pj d8iKTJo"T)s. On the peculiar use of ws here 

see note on p. 33 sq. We have the same use on xix. i, 6. 
The voice, as Bousset suggests, may be that of the Lamb. 

The voice states a coming price of the wheat and barley 
almost a famine price ; for a x^ of wheat about two pints 
constituted the daily consumption of a man. So Herodotus 
assumes in estimating the amount of food consumed by Xerxes 
army : vii. 187, cvptV/co) -yap o-u/x/:?aAAo/u.j/os el -^OLVLKO, TrvpoJv 
eKcurros r-^5 fjfJLeprjs eAa/x/Jave /cat /////Sev TrAeov. Thucydides, IV. 1 6, 
mentions as the allowance made for the Spartans in Sphacteria 
crlrov . . . &vo ^on/i/cas eKacrra) Arrt/cas a.A<trooi/ /cat 8vo Kori;Aas 
OLVOV /cat /cpcas, Otpdirovn Se TOVTWV rj/jao-fa. The quantity here 
stated was the ordinary allowance made at the Spartan mess, the 
allowance both of grain and wine being double of that which was 
supposed to be necessary. Similarly in Athenaeus, iii. 20, rrjv Se 
XotWa ^//,epor/ooc/>tSa, and Diog. Laert. Pythag. viii. 18, and 
Suidas under Pythagoras : rj yap XW L ^eprjo-tos Tpo<f>rj. For 
other references see Wetstein. 

The denarius, which was worth about gjd. (see Hastings 
D.B. i 427), was the ordinary daily wage (cf. Matt. xx. 2 sqq.). 
The following passages from Cicero are instructive. Cicero, 
Verr. iii. 81, "Idque frumentum Senatus ita aestimasset, quater- 
nis H.S. tritici modium, binis, hordei. . . . Cum in Sicilia H.S. 
binis tritici modius esset . . . summum H.S. ternis . . . turn iste 
pro tritici modiis singulis ternos ab aratoribus denarios exegit. 84, 
Cum esset H.S. binis aut etiam ternis . . . duodenos sestertios 


exegisti." Here wheat appears to have been twice the price of 
barley in Sicily ; whereas it was three times in our text. In the 
next place the modius of wheat cost 2 or 3 sesterces, or accord 
ing to the estimate of the Senate 4. Now, since a modius 
contains 8 choenices, and a denarius = four sesterces, it follows 
that the price in our text was 16 times the lowest price of 
wheat in Sicily, lof times the highest, and 8 times the estimate 
made by the Senate. 

Thus at the time designed in our text a denarius a man s 
daily wage could purchase only two pints of wheat a quantity 
sufficient merely for his own immediate needs, whereas at other 
times its purchasing power was 8, 12, or 1 6 times as great, if we 
may use the data supplied by Cicero. But since the workman 
would not buy wheat but barley, he could earn enough to 
procure something for his family as well, though the supply 
was inadequate and deaths occurred through starvation (see 8). 
The text, then, speaks of a time of very great dearth, but not of 
absolute famine, that was coming upon the world. It is the XIJJLOL 
predicted in Mark xiii. 8 ; Matt. xxiv. 7. 

But the words that follow, TO eAcuov KOL rov olvov ///) dSi/o^o-^s, 
when taken in conjunction with what precedes, may point to a 
special time when the necessaries of life were scarce and its 
superfluities abundant. 

According to Erbes, 40, the more moderate the scarcity is 
represented, the more manifestly it belongs not to the region of 
fancy but to history, and in his opinion to the year 62 (Tac. Ann. 
xv. 5 ; Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. 2) ; whilst Volter in his various works 
assigns this event to the latter half of Nero s reign (Suet. Nero, 
45 ; Tac. Ann. xv. 18). But a more satisfactory explanation has 
recently been advanced by Harnack (T.L.Z., 1902, col. 591 sq.) 
in a short notice on S. Reinach s "La mevente des vins sous le 
haut-empire remain," Rev. AcheoL, ser. iii. t. xxxix., 1901, pp. 350- 
374. Owing to the lack of cereals and the superabundance of 
wine, Domitian issued an edict (Suet. Dom. 7 : cf. Euseb. Chron., 
on 92 A.D.) that no fresh vineyards should be planted in Italy, 
and that half the vineyards in the provinces should be cut down. 
But, as Suetonius observes, Domitian did not persevere in 
this matter ; for the edict set the Asiatic cities in an uproar, 
and owing to their agitation they prevailed on Domitian not 
only to withdraw his edict, but to impose a punishment on 
those who allowed their old vineyards to go out of cultiva 
tion (cf. rov olvov pr) dSi/ojor^s of our text). 1 Our author 
from his ascetic standpoint had sympathized with Domitian s 
decree, which according to its own claims was directed against 

1 Our author, according to Harnack, added the oil of his own initiative, or 
else found it in a decree unknown to us. 


luxury, and was accordingly the more indignant when it was 
recalled. Accordingly, he predicts an evil time, when men will 
have oil and wine l in abundance, but suffer from lack of bread. 
In favour of this view it may be added that the date of the 
Apocalypse therein implied would agree with that assigned to it 
by Irenaeus and Epiphanius. This explanation is accepted by 
Boirsset and Swete, but is treated as doubtful by Holtzmann 
and rejected by Wellhausen. 

Though Wellhausen suggests no alternative explanation, he is 
right, I think, in rejecting the last mentioned. At all events the 
decree of Domitian, if here operative at all, was not the cause, 
but only the occasion of the statement in our text. The scarcity 
of bread and the plentifulness of the vintage in the last days was 
an old Jewish expectation. Thus we have in Sotah, 49 b , " In the 
times when the Messiah is at hand shamelessness will increase, 
and there will be a dearth : the vine will yield its fruit, but wine 
will be dear ("ipl^ prvi JTnB fnn fBJn Kin 11 ipvi) ; the empire of the 
world will become minaean : there will be no discipline . . . the 
son will despise the father, the daughter resist the mother, the 
daughter-in-law the mother-in-law : a man s foes shall be they of 
his own household (WK nmom nta nK3 nnp ra nx 330 p 
lira HWK B*N)." The last clauses here may have been in the mind 
of our Lord when He uttered Matt. x. 35 sq. ( = Luke xii. 53), 
while the opening words may explain our text. Rabbi Nehe- 
miah (in Hadrian s time) quotes the first part of the above, and 
R. Nehorai and R. Judah, his contemporaries, other portions of 
it in Sanh. c,7 a . It seems, therefore, to have been in an old 
apocalypse. This apocalypse states that there will be a general 
dearth, but not of the vintage, though, owing to the disorder, wine 
would be dear. Domitian s edict may have occasioned the 
mention of this old eschatological expectation. 

7. K<xt ore r\voiev TTJI oxj>payi8a TTJI TerapTTji/, YJKOutra <f>cji r]i TOU 
TerdpTOU <oou Xeyon-os "Epxou. 8. KCU i8o>, ica! i8ou iiriros x^ w PS- 
The fourth horse is described as xX<0p&, "pale yellow," 
"pallid," or " pale." This appears to be an independent render 
ing by our author of D jpj? in Zech. i. 8 (see note on p. 162). 
The LXX has here Troi/a Aos. Now 7rot/a A.os evidently pre 
supposes D^TO, as in Zech. vi. 3, 7, and not D p"!^. But as we 
have seen in the note referred to, we require in Zechariah a word 
signifying " yellow " or " pale yellow." Bochart (Hieronzotcon, 
i. 50) gives good grounds for assuming this to be the meaning of 
P""IB>, and holds that \H& and pi were related colours, since 
in Lev. xi. 18, Deut. xiv. 17, the same bird is called Kpnp"P in 

1 In Jub. xxiii. 18 the first Messianic woe is given thus : " There shall be 
no seed of the vine and no oil." 

VI. 7-8. j THE FOUkTH SEAL 169 

Onkelos and Nplpnt? in Ps. Jon. The Nisaean horses were some 
what of this colour, as Phavorinus attests : Ntcratos (Wos o ecrri 
av@6<s fj yap NcVa Tracra? ra9 ITTTTOVS av$as c^ct (see Bochart, Joe. 
tit.). Now Aristotle (Meteor, 3, 4, 5) defines aj/0osas the colour 
in the rainbow between red and green. " Pale yellow " then is 
the meaning required by our text and most probably by that of 
Zech. i. 8. Possibly our author found a form D^p") 11 or D^plpT 
instead of p~)&? in Zech. i. 8 ; for x\ w Ps ls tne most frequent 
rendering of this word in the LXX. JipT means " paleness," 
" lividness." 

8 b . 6 KaOrjjaeyos eiraVw aurou oVofxa aurw 6 OaVarog 1 
[ital 6 a&Tjg TjKoXouOei JULCT aurou] 
Kal ?>o0Tj auTw eoucria em TO reraprov TTJS yr}s> 
[dTroKTeiyai eV pojuuf>aia Kal iv XIJJLW 
Kal iv Oamrw Kal UTTO r&v Orjpiwi rt]9 Y Hs]- 
Either the above text is corrupt or the writer confused beyond 
all precedent. I have come to the former conclusion, the 
grounds for which are given below. The Rider symbolizes " the 
pestilence" (6 ddvaro^). And the original text is to be trans 
lated as follows : " He that sat upon him was named Pestilence, 
and there was given to him authority over the fourth part of the 

Let us now study the text as it stands. First of all, Death and 
Hades are personified as in i. 18, xx. 13, 14. But how are we 
to conceive them in the present passage ? There is only one 
horse and there are two figures. From the analogy of the pre 
ceding Seals we expect here only one figure. Hence J. Weiss, 
59, thinks that Hades is here "suspiciously" thrust into the 
corner and granted only a shadowy existence, since he scarcely 
appears to be aught else than a double of Death. This writer 
then goes on to conjecture that tfaVaros here was in the original 
conception a personification of pestilence ( = im), and that Hades 
then represented Death in a general sense, whose function was to 
gather the victims of the preceding plagues. Originally, there 
fore, the four were War, Famine, Pestilence, and Hades, and not 
as in our text. These four became in our author s hands five, 
when he prefixed the first Rider, who, according to J. Weiss, 
symbolizes the progress of the Gospel. Death and Hades were 
then of necessity represented as one. This theory is attractive, 
but the evidence, as I have sought to show (p. 157 sqq.), is in favour 
of the vision of the Seals being based on the material given in 
Mark xiii., Matt, xxiv., Luke xxi., by means of which we can 
explain the first six Seals. Besides, we c